-Geothe
From the above quote it is pretty clear what the speaker is trying to say. Basically if we look at ourselves there's a very good chance we would not like what we see. Certain aspects of who we were that we wished were different, heck we might not even agree with it. If we did "know ourselves" there's a good chance we would "run away" to re-define ourselves. Prove that definition wrong.
Another thing we might want to consider is whether we can find our "self" at all. David Hume had the idea that trying to look at your self is like chasing your tail because all you ever see is abstract past emotions, experiences, etc. Never the true "now" of self. John Locke on the other hand believed in the "tabula rosu" or "blank slate" view of self that we fill in with our own personal experiences, creating self. Buddhism offers a unique view into the idea of the self. It doesn't exist. Plain and simple.
 |
| Yeah you. You don't exist. |
I'm not an expert on Buddhism by any means, but here's a shot at a very brief summary. Believing in samsara (wheel of time, cycle of life and death, reincarnation), Buddha essentially believes that everything in the world is suffering. A more optimistic view of this is that everything is always decay in the world (dying). That said, the second you establish a self, thus attachment, you open yourself to potential suffering. Here are the four noble truths of Buddhism.
Four Noble Truths of Buddhism
1) Life means suffering
2) The origin of suffering is attachment
3) The cessation of suffering is obtainable
4) We should follow the path of suffering's cessation
No self or "anatta" is the idea that by accepting the now (always in a state of arrival and departure) one will free themselves from all suffering. Basically, the whole point of this state of mind is to one day break free of the cycle and into Nirvana.
 |
| Not to be confused with the band. |
A lot of Buddhism seems logical. I mean focusing on the "now" to avoid worrying about the past or future makes a ton of sense. On the one hand though, as Steph and I pointed out, a life of no attachments is kinda iffy. Side-stepping the issue that if there is no reincarnation you could very well have screwed over your one and only life, it goes against our traditional definition of "living". A huge part of how we live our life is by setting goals to try and obtain. What does this say about friendships we make? Relationships we have? I mean they do have the potential to create suffering, but does that mean we should avoid them altogether? In a never ending cycle of life and death, yes I suppose.
I see where this belief is coming from, but since I don't share the idea of reincarnation I choose not to throw away some of the very things that make life so interesting. A purpose gives us something to strive for, something to achieve and most importantly a reason to wake up in the morning. Could you potentially never get what you want? Suffering does and will occur if you don't because it was something you truly desired to have. That desire and drive however, so long as it keeps burning is what gives us hope and meaning. It's true that friends and relationships can and likely will blow up in our faces at times, but the time prior to that far outweighs that loss.
The idea behind letting go of material possessions and truly living in the now are fantastic concepts, however I see them as a way to better appreciate the life we do lead. It is our desires and friendships that make life worth living, despite the chance that it might not work out. After all, " 'Tis better to have loved and lost / Than never to have loved at all." (Lord Alfred Tennyson)
Never stop questioning.
No comments:
Post a Comment