sophiaserpentia (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sophiaserpentia) wrote2003-12-01 08:00 am
sophiaserpentia) wrote2003-12-01 08:00 am
Entry tags:
(no subject)
This weekend a question arose for me regarding the concept of ahimsa.
In Buddhist teaching the source of sorrow is seen to be the presence of desire. Sometimes it is even said that existence is sorrow.
As I understand this worldview, suffering and joy are states of mind caused by our being "invested" or entangled in the mundane aspects of material existence. I do not think it is accurate to characterize this teaching according to the common misconception that "material existence is illusion," but rather, that the attachments we have to bodily sensations and material items makes them seem more important than they truly are. It is joy and suffering that are illusory.
Further (still recounting my understanding of this teaching) by cultivating a sense of detachment from the illusory importance of material wealth, pleasure, and pain, we are able to escape the hell of sorrow, addiction, etc.
By way of meditation I have managed to achieve a degree of this kind of detachment myself, in cultivating a well of stillness from which I can draw upon in times of crisis. Instead of "suffering" through moments of crisis or pain, I instead observe, and understand this as a path and practice that helps me to avoid suffering.
Now, this is where my understanding begins to lapse with regard to the idea of ahimsa. Buddhists make a goal of non-injury to all living things in word, act, and deed. But... doesn't this require one to buy into the idea that suffering is real? This counters my understanding of Buddhist teaching with regards to suffering.
Life itself cannot continue unless beings die. Most beings cannot continue to live unless they consume other beings as food. There is nothing inherently "cruel" about this arrangement, except that our nervous systems respond adversely to pain and death. To avoid needless injury to other beings is one thing, but it seems to me that the practice of ahimsa would be in the long run directly counter to the practice of non-attachment.
Crossposting to![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
buddhists
In Buddhist teaching the source of sorrow is seen to be the presence of desire. Sometimes it is even said that existence is sorrow.
As I understand this worldview, suffering and joy are states of mind caused by our being "invested" or entangled in the mundane aspects of material existence. I do not think it is accurate to characterize this teaching according to the common misconception that "material existence is illusion," but rather, that the attachments we have to bodily sensations and material items makes them seem more important than they truly are. It is joy and suffering that are illusory.
Further (still recounting my understanding of this teaching) by cultivating a sense of detachment from the illusory importance of material wealth, pleasure, and pain, we are able to escape the hell of sorrow, addiction, etc.
By way of meditation I have managed to achieve a degree of this kind of detachment myself, in cultivating a well of stillness from which I can draw upon in times of crisis. Instead of "suffering" through moments of crisis or pain, I instead observe, and understand this as a path and practice that helps me to avoid suffering.
Now, this is where my understanding begins to lapse with regard to the idea of ahimsa. Buddhists make a goal of non-injury to all living things in word, act, and deed. But... doesn't this require one to buy into the idea that suffering is real? This counters my understanding of Buddhist teaching with regards to suffering.
Life itself cannot continue unless beings die. Most beings cannot continue to live unless they consume other beings as food. There is nothing inherently "cruel" about this arrangement, except that our nervous systems respond adversely to pain and death. To avoid needless injury to other beings is one thing, but it seems to me that the practice of ahimsa would be in the long run directly counter to the practice of non-attachment.
Crossposting to
buddhists
no subject
In ahimsa the act of non-injury could include avoiding increasing the previously defined suffering as well as more obvious forms of injury, yes? Though I'm far from ironing these thoughts out, looking at it like that diminishes the seeming discrepancy for me.
I can always count on you, Sophia, for heady thoughts before coffee. Thanks.
no subject
I was typing a reply, and decided to make it a post in my journal.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/sophiaserpentia/307019.html