No Desire for No Desire

December 11, 2008
By Meagan
in life

I can’t speak intelligently about the precepts of Buddhism because my knowledge is pretty shallow. After 17 years of Catholic school I feel like I have a slightly better grounding in Christianity. When I was a teenager I read The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis and I still remember parts of it. One section in particular sticks in my mind.

whirlwindIn the Great Divorce the narrator finds himself in either hell or purgatory. The place isn’t particularly unpleasant but an undercurrent of misery is present because of the distance from God. The characters take a bus tour to heaven, and we are faced with a woman who can’t stay in heaven because of her deep attachment.

The woman is missing her son. Lewis implies that she is kept from heaven, not by some rule placed down by God, but by the woman’s self inflicted blindness. She loves her son more than anything, including God, therefor she can’t make it to heaven.

Something similar is seen in Dante’s Inferno when we meet a pair of lovers pressed together in a constant whirlwind. I think they were technically being punished for adultery, but we are told that they are in hell because they are so wrapped up in each other that there is no room for God. Personally I thought that was kinda romantic, but I’m pretty sure that was not the correct reaction.

It always seemed unfair to me that it could be a sin to love someone too much. I get how the love of money or riches can be immoral, that kind of detachment makes sense to me. Total detachment though includes people and self as well as things. Christianity is tricky, it tries to balance a vengeful, jealous Old Testament God with the loving father Jesus presents. A god that punishes his followers for loving their children more than Him strikes me as more Old Testament, and just as I can’t believe in a god that condemns good people who happen to be the wrong religion, I won’t believe in a god that punishes love.  **

dragonMaterial detachment is further complicated by the ways Christianity has historically been used by oppressors. Non-attachment, along with obedience, are qualities typically stressed by upper classes trying to keep slaves or the poor under control. The meek will inherit the earth, just wait it out. Heaven, like America, is paved with gold (unlike hell which is paved with good intentions). Modern day Christianity is less underhanded and the themes seem to at least be supported by those who chose the simple pastoral life. Still, I am automatically suspicious of the Christian tenets of non materialism.

The avoidance of desire in Buddhism seems less dubious, possibly because the history of Buddhism is more benign. At least as far as I know. I tell people I’m a militant Buddhist, just to see if they get the joke.

Even so, the no desire concept in Buddhism likewise extends to people as well as things. For the last few years I’ve been happy, even joyful, because of people. Ironically this makes it easier for me to abandon desire: I want for very little. I am however, inextricably attached.

People talk about the paradox of no desire: how can you stop desire without desiring to stop desire? I’ve always seen this less as a true paradox than a paradox of language. I think I understand the answer, even if English cannot describe it. What I can’t answer though is how I can detach from that which allows me to detach. I hate that stupid saying about how if you truly love something, you have to set it free. Neither I nor my husband is a bird.

I guess for me the dilemma of Buddhism is the concept of afterlife. Attachment keeps us tied to this world, in long cycles of reincarnation. When we gain nirvana we rise to… what? To a drop of water in an endless sea. I don’t see the appeal. Perhaps my greatest problem with Buddhism, and the thing keeping me from enlightenment is that I just don’t desire it.

*Photos from Wikimedia and Flickr user Fabi Dorighello

** Excerpt removed.  See comments for explanation.

About Author

Meagan

Meagan is an artist, writer, and whatever else suits her at any given moment. She lives in the Cleveland area with her husband, son and too many cats. Meagan blogs at https://hadesarrow.com/blog and cartoons at http://dragondown.com

8 Replies to “No Desire for No Desire”

  1. JohnSherck

    Well said.

    These religions of abnegation have historically served to prop up the inequalities of the status quo on the one hand and make life in some way bearable for people whose lives were miserable–filled with poverty, suffering, and death. Now, there’s still plenty of inequality and oppression in the world, especially outside of First World countries, but for those of us in the wealthiest nations on earth, life is pretty good by comparison. No wonder these religions don’t have quite the same appeal… and no wonder that Christianity at least has placed far less of an emphasis on self-denial.

    Thanks for a thoughtful post.

  2. Shmuel

    “At any rate, if the material desire is a sin from Old Testament times, why is Judaism so obsessed with the body?”

    Umm… it is? News to me. (Both parts of this are, actually; Judaism doesn’t have a problem with material desire, only with it being misused.)

    “The Jews are extremely material, holding that their bodies are the ones they’ll be stuck with for all eternity.”

    …where did you get that from? Doesn’t really seem consistent with our burial practices, which aim for decomposition and the return of the body to the earth… there is indeed a belief in the resurrection, body and soul, but exactly how that’ll work out is pretty much beyond our ken, especially once you add reincarnation into the mix. (And what do dragon tattoos have to do with anything?)

  3. Meagan

    John – Well the strength of the Evangelical movement suggests that the religions do still have a great deal of appeal for many people, but as you say, how much the material is de-emphasized seems to depend on who they are talking to. By the way, judging by your comments, you might be interested in the most recent This American Life… it’s about a modern heretic of the Pentecostal church and it’s pretty fascinating.

  4. Meagan

    ** Shmuel – I removed that section because I probably don’t know what I’m talking about, and it was sort of a random tangent anyway.

    The assertion was a reaction to a friend whose mother freaked out when he got a tattoo because he wouldn’t be allowed to be buried in a Jewish Cemetery. As I understand it, tattoos are against Jewish law (at least in some groups) because… not exactly sure here. I thought it was because the bodies would eventually be resurrected, but the more I think about it the more I’m sure that’s Christian theology. My point anyway, was not to make a negative comment on Judaism, and I apologize if that’s how it sounded. In this post I’m talking about materialism in a fairly neutral tone: I was trying to show that Judaism gives an importance to the body that seems to be at odds with Judeo Christian themes that stress the unimportance of the physical body. (Not true with all Christian churches anyway btw) I know we were not allowed to scatter the ashes of my Jewish grandfather on his parents graves, and I THINK it was because he was cremated at all. Again, I’m fuzzy on the why of everything, and any illumination you can shed is welcome.

    (For the curious, deleted section read: “At any rate, if the material desire is a sin from Old Testament times, why is Judaism so obsessed with the body? The Jews are extremely material, holding that their bodies are the ones they’ll be stuck with for all eternity. If the material is so insignificant, why would that dragon tattoo be such a travesty?”)

    Of course, now the image doesn’t make any sense at all, but oh well.

  5. Shmuel

    Fair enough, and thanks. 🙂

    While it’s true that getting a tattoo is against traditional Jewish law, having one is not — and has never been — a barrier to being buried in a Jewish cemetery. (If only those who’d never sinned were allowed a proper burial, all graveyards would be empty.) On the other hand, you’re right about cremation being forbidden; burial is considered the only respectful option.

    Judaism does require respect for God’s creations, including one’s body and the material world in general. And while a framework is provided for those individuals naturally drawn to asceticism, that path is highly discouraged in general as being out of balance. Judaism doesn’t see the material world as a trap or illusion to be rejected, but as a land of opportunity that can be used for a higher purpose and enjoyed, or misused and wasted.

    In short, Judaism does indeed reject “themes that stress the unimportance of the physical body” and any claim that “material desire is a sin” per se, regardless of what Christianity may have to say about it. (There are themes that the physical body does not have primary importance, but that doesn’t strike me as the same thing. It’s all about balance…) I’d stop short of characterizing that as an obsession or putting it as “the Jews are extremely material,” but I now understand that you didn’t mean that the way I took it. 🙂

  6. Meagan

    And I think that’s the kind of materialism that both John and I are seeing as a positive thing, not only in terms of the body, but in terms of the world. The trend in some sects of Christianity has been for too long that this world is irrelevant, it’s only a testing ground for the afterlife or something. I am actually quite encouraged by the newest Pope’s declaration that pollution is a sin, and the more pro-environmental stance of some of the younger Evangelicals.

    As for the word obsession… that’s the downside to blogging I think. The editing process is somewhat truncated. You weren’t misreading, I just chose my words poorly.

  7. Tab Calhoun

    The way I understand the non-attachment to people idea is that we are selfish when we love one person over others. The love we have, and the compassion feel should extend to EVERYONE, not just our own family, friends, and lovers. Our compassion should include ourselves, all people, all living things, all creation (and I extend “creation” to the creative spirit).

    After rejecting the idea of an afterlife for a long time, I now am comfortable with it. I see life – ALL life, not just human life – as energy. Energy doesn’t disappear – it has to go somewhere, even if it changes form. I’m okay being another creature in another life because I’ll still be part of the energy of the world. And the life of all creatures is only temporary – change WILL happen again, and the only result of fighting change is suffering. By seeing all living things as part of the same energy, it’s easier to feel compassion.

    Or something like that. I get confused.

    And, I don’t see Christianity (and by this I mean simply the words of Christ) as in conflict with eastern religions.

    Fantastic posts!

  8. Meagan

    I agree that Christianity doesn’t necessarily need to be in conflict with eastern religions, that’s all down to the followers. That’s one of the reasons I’m a fan of the Unitarian Universalists, it’s more of a community together in celebration than it is a religion by the standard definition. (Unitarians, please no angry retorts: I mean that as a compliment.)

    I think you’re probably right about the idea behind personal non-attachment, I just don’t necessarily feel motivated to strive for it. I do have compassion, if not for all people than most people, but my intense LOVE belongs to those I’m close to, not to the masses. And certainly not to any god. If there is a god, I’m very grateful, and maybe that’s good enough to be a form of love. I can understand how that can be seen as selfish, but to me it doesn’t feel like a negative thing.

Comments are closed.