I'm really disappointed. As much as I still love the fairytales I learned in parochial school, I can no longer call myself a Catholic by any stretch of the imagination (though I do feel very guilty about saying that and am scared that Purgatory awaits if I don't change my mind, and then I'll have to spend eternity with a bunch of wishy-washy people, which is its own kind of hell; maybe I do have a little Catholic left in me).
Anyway, Buddhism was beginning to make a lot of sense to me. I've been fascinated with it for many years. It is pragmatic, bare-bones, organized, and logical. There is no fluff, no bullshit, no shame, no guilt, no wishful thinking. It is full of cause-and-effect relationships, and has lots of cool words associated with it, like "karma" and "dharma." It's also really well organized, with cool numbered premises and passages like "The Four Noble Truths" and "The Noble Eightfold Path" and "The Three Marks of Existence." As an ADD person whose mind resembles a scrambled cable signal and who is in dire need of organization, I see these numbered tenets as a real bonus.
There's just one problem. It's a silly little thing called Dukkha. Dukkha, one of the Three Marks of Existence, is difficult to translate. Some say it means "suffering," but some Buddhists dispute that definition. It is more complex than that--actually, it means "the world," the whole of our human experiences--but for the sake of this little blog entry, I'll say that it means, more or less, suffering or uneasiness, particularly the suffering and uneasiness that results from our attachments to that which is earthly and transitory--which is, let's face it, pretty much everything. These attachments include attachments to love, to life, to health, to joy, and to people. When we are attached, we are bound to suffer when that to which we are attached is gone--which it inevitably will be.
See, one of the basic premises--rather, goals--of Buddhism is to become free, free of worldly attachments. To recognize that everything is transitory, everything is in flux--love ends, life ends, joy ends. Therefore, being attached results in pain, in longing. The ultimate goal of Buddhism is to achieve a state of Nirvana, in which the mind is clear, and lucid--a liberated mind that no longer clings.
Sounds good, but I'm clingy! My husband's clingy, my son is clingy, my dog is clingy. I am a person who is deeply attached to those I love, who has suffered because of attachment when I've lost loved ones I've been attached to, and who would still rather suffer the longing than to never have experienced the profound attachment. I'm attached to my loves who are here; and I'm attached to my loves who have gone beyond.
As Van wonders aloud in one of my favorite songs ever: "How can we not be attached--after all we're only human." I agree. Attachment is the very essence of what it is to be human. At least in my life. Sorry Buddha. I really tried!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
Interesting post. Dukkha is the first of the Four Noble Truths and yes, it could be translated as suffering.
The truth of dukkha or suffering is expressed in the simple claim that All is Suffering. Everything is suffering in one or more of three ways.
The first of these types of suffering is called Dukkha-dukkha. The obvious suffering in situations where things cause you physical or mental pain.
The second kind of suffering is called Viparinama-dukkha. Suffering due to transformation or change. This means that even the most pleasurable things can cause you suffering when they begin to change and pass away.
The third kind of suffering is Sankhara-dukkha. Suffering due to conditioned states. This is the concept that is the most difficult to understand. I try to explain it in my blog, if you are interested in taking a look.
Pablo--wow, thank you! I really appreciate the clarification. I just clicked onto your site--have not yet read it in depth, but I will--and it looks really interesting and informative.
The suffering part is a given, but the "letting go of attachments" part is a really tough one to comprehend, let alone practice. But every time I learn something new about Buddhism, I am intrigued all over again. Thanks again for your comments.
I came upon a little book when taking a "Human Development" (education course)over 25 yrs ago - it was the 'textbook' for the class. "Handbook to Higher Consciousness" it was called. It combined wisdom from Christianity and Buddhism - and it became my bible. I used to take the book to Mass with me when the kids were little and I felt the need to take them to church - since they did go to Catholic school - you know? Anyway, I brought my little Handbook to Higher Consciousness with me to mass and hid it inside of the church missel (missal? missle!?!) and would read it during mass. My husband thought I was pretty flakey, but -to each his own. It was my little church within a church. I've got loads of books on Buddhism and have even read some of them - though I'd say it was much more like 'skimming' rather than reading. But my Handbook was just so much easier for my western world brain to grasp. But I will certainly give Pablo's blog a read. Perhaps he's dummied it down to my level - which is really not a bad thing to do - Buddhism for dummies could do a lot of people some good.
And I agree with you, Carol -- the world would be a cold and sterile place w/out clinging. My handbook preached about the clinging as well. I studied the bible, never perfected it.
Post a Comment