Desire and Acceptance

My friend Neil asked me the following question:

Hi Alex,

I've had a number of conversations with my roommate recently about desire vs. acceptance. Desire is what leads people to create things in life, but also leads to un-wholesome choices and actions rooted in attachment to self. Acceptance is sort of the flip side of this, where instead of choosing based on interpretations of good and bad, we accept. My understanding of the dharma is that desires are to be extinguished and we should strive to accept. But if that were the case, and we obeyed none of our desires, nothing would get created in the world. Bodhisattvas would not seek to free others, we would never take the time to learn the dharma, no one would paint beautiful portraits, create a more efficient medical system etc.

Do we distinguish between good and bad desires in Buddhism and if so what is the rationale?

OK, that's a very fundamental question, and I think it deserves careful examination.

Like you've already mentioned above, "Desire is what leads people to create things in life, but also leads to un-wholesome choices and actions rooted in attachment to self". It is this erroneous conviction -- that there is such a thing as myself that is somehow separate from everything else -- that leads us to attach to it and to consequently generate all kinds of desires aimed at protecting and furthering the hallucinatory 'self'.

So it should be fairly easy to see that in Buddhism we can clearly identify bad desires. Any desires that spring from the erroneous concepts, such as the concept of a separate self, cannot be deemed good. The rationale behind this distinction lies in the fact that erroneous concepts inevitably lead to suffering.

As you already know, Buddhism is only concerned with human condition. According to the Buddha's teaching, the prevalent factor underlying human condition is suffering. It is impossible to conceive of any arrangement whatsoever that could possibly eliminate this condition. One can place all one's hope in concepts such as heaven, nothingness, etc., but upon closer inspection all these concepts turn out to be unsatisfactory.

Nevertheless, Buddhist teaching insists that having a desire to extinguish suffering is not a bad desire. As a matter of fact, being a Buddhist practitioner myself, I would argue that all those things you've enumerated above (painting beautiful portraits, building more efficient medical systems, learning the Dharma etc.) are the direct manifestation of the desire to extinguish suffering.

But therein lies the rub -- suffering is a direct outcome of attachment which leads to desires. Yet here we have a strong desire to abolish suffering. Isn't that also an attachment that will inevitably lead to suffering? The situation seems paradoxical: in order to dissolve suffering, we need to have a desire to do so, which implies further suffering!

How to find a way out of this conundrum? Buddhist teaching and practice is all about exactly this problem. The Buddha showed us the way out of this sticky predicament 2,500 years ago.

I'd like you to think about the Buddhist way out of this for a while. Let me know your findings, and then we can look into it a bit deeper.

Be well,

Alex

Old Comments

michael said,

on January 6th, 2006 at 3:26 am

Off of the top of my head, it seems that the Buddha taugh that the ultimate goal is to alleviate suffering, thus making that the only desire that is allowable.

Alex said,

on January 6th, 2006 at 8:48 pm

michael wrote:

Off of the top of my head, it seems that the Buddha taught that the ultimate goal is to alleviate suffering, thus making that the only desire that is allowable.

Yes, that is correct. However, this is stuff that pertains to the entry-level Buddhism. What Neil was asking is more advanced questions. Like, if the ultimate goal is not to have any goals, then it doesn’t make much sense, does it?

Buddhist practice focuses on resolving exactly such kinds of questions.

michael said,

on January 13th, 2006 at 5:02 am

Well, I’m curious. What is the proper answer?

Alex said,

on January 16th, 2006 at 5:33 am

michael said:

Well, I’m curious. What is the proper answer?

Luckily, and at the same time unfortunately, the answer boils down one word — shunyata. I say luckily, because having a crystal clear single word supplied as an answer is much better than a long winded narrative explaining the finer points of an answer. But the word itself is very recondite, and that’s why I’ve said that it’s also unfortunate that we can offer a single word as a proper answer.

Michael, if you don’t know what shunyata is, then we’ve got to talk:-)

Let me know if you’d need more detailed explanation of this answer.

Thanks.

Alex

lynda said,

on January 19th, 2006 at 1:09 pm

My understanding of the question is as follows. I believe that grasping is responsible for our suffering. Desire itself is not the problem, it is how it is manifested in our thoughts and behaviours. So desire to understand the dharma for example is fine as long as we dont let it turn into grasping for something we want to have and to hold on to. If we strive to get rid of desires then we have lost the plot and we will create suffering for ourselves.

Alex said,

on January 21st, 2006 at 12:22 am

lynda wrote:

My understanding of the question is as follows. I believe that grasping is responsible for our suffering. Desire itself is not the problem, it is how it is manifested in our thoughts and behaviours. So desire to understand the dharma for example is fine as long as we dont let it turn into grasping for something we want to have and to hold on to. If we strive to get rid of desires then we have lost the plot and we will create suffering for ourselves.

This is a very astute observation. It is indeed very important to nail the correct dianosis before attempting the cure (as all of you who are watching the TV show “House” know quite well).

But the real issue in the Buddhist practice is how do we deal with the diagnosis? If we conclude that grasping is actually at the root of our suffering, we would naturally be very keen on eradicating the root cause. But right there the problem arises — by wanting to get rid of grasping, are we not grasping at non-grasping? Are we not simply amplifying the grasping itself?

lynda said,

on January 23rd, 2006 at 8:09 pm

Grasping to get something and trying to rid yourself of something are two sides of the same coin, both are forms of attachment. I believe that attachment is the cause of suffering and that is what the practice of mindfulness is helping me to learn more about. My attachment to this and that is still there but in time I may be able to learn how to stay fully aware. But maybe not, I travel in hope with good companions also on the same journey, thank you for your comments and travel well