Comments on: Dialectical Way to Truth

By: A dude

A dude — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 21:35:24 +0000

I, for one, have accepted the maxim that desire is the cause of all sorrow. Desire has nothing to do with hurting the soul. From common experience one knows that however many desires have been fulfilled and however many we have failed to find fulfillment, there remain an untold number still craving fulfillment. The search for fulfillment is itself sorrow.

Knowledge is not going to help us at all. We know so much and what of it? Won’t the unknown ever be greater than the known no matter how much we know? There’s this idea of progress which I suppose means the degree of estrangement between man and nature increases and we , in the words of Francis Bacon, make nature our slave. And yet are we not products of nature?

Am not sure how one comes closer to the truth. Is truth a static thing that can be captured and caged for all to admire?

By: KarmaDude

KarmaDude — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 18:58:13 +0000

A Dude, I am with you on questioning, “desire is the cause of all suffering”. The part that troubles me about it is the word, “ALL”, and that has to be debated. Now, I have a feeling Buddha was talking in terms of the soul, but even then, does every desire we have really hurt the soul? But then what is really the truth about ones soul? Does it even exist?

As for progress, a good indicator, I feel, is the amount of knowledge about things. The more we know, the more fuel we have for thought, the closer we are to the truth, and the more we have progressed.

In the case of wrong views, I think truth is the only measure. But we still have to bear the karma of wrong views.

Socrates claims that man is the measure of all things

I would like to add to that, “Man is the measure of all things within the bounds of his perceptions”.

What about the measure of other living things? How different can that measure be? What is desire to a bird or a bee? Do all their desires cause suffering?

By: A Dude

A Dude — Sat, 04 Mar 2006 03:09:16 +0000

The Buddha held that desire is the cause of all suffering. And yet how come we never question this: what’s the cause of desire? what is suffering? how do cause and effect relationships come into being and where indeed are they held?

And is there such a thing as progress? Or wrong views? What measure can one use?

Socrates claims that man is the measure of all things. What does all this mean, then, sirs?

By: KarmaDude

KarmaDude — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 07:32:25 +0000

I feel desires are necessary for the progress of human beings, now if that is a good thing or not is debatable, but I don’t feel all desires cause pain and suffering, and hence elimination of all desires is the solution. However, our views of things are the reference for those desires, and if we have the wrong view, then the desires that result could cause pain and suffering.

What would a world be like if we had no desires?

By: Tarun

Tarun — Sat, 25 Feb 2006 04:50:28 +0000

Without desires, (including the desire not to have any more desires), our view of things won’t cause more suffering because none of it will matter (there won’t be a frame of reference).

By: the little endian

the little endian — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 20:54:22 +0000

I find myself doing a lot of this at work. It is very hard to dissect through the many impressions, prejudgements and overloaded impressions that people have about the truth. Systematically (or dialectically, I guess) seeking the truth during a meeting is like trying to stop beach sand from slipping through your fingers. You really have to sort out why someone describes something in a certain way.

Going back to Blake, I guess, the discussion here is digressing into materialism vs. non-materialism. To keep dialectical, I would ask, does Blake’s Joy have to be associated with material pleasure?

IMO, Blake’s really illustrating the ephemeral nature of things (objects, feelings, desires, needs), and the happiness derived from acceptance of that truth.

By: KarmaDude

KarmaDude — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 06:15:36 +0000

Thanks Thame, still got a few things to adjust. On the topic, Blake could be right for one who has no strong desires. But, Buddha defies that, because he had everything, and then gave it all up. So do Hindus who enter the sannyasin stage. Attachment could be powerful, but can the karma of attachment change from being powerful to being destructive?

By: Thame

Thame — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:36:35 +0000

I like the new look, by the way.

By: Thame

Thame — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 03:36:19 +0000

Attachement can be powerful.

“Those who restrain desire, do so because theirs is weak enough to be restrained.” - William Blake

By: ij

ij — Thu, 23 Feb 2006 02:02:17 +0000

“Things are in the saddle and ride mankind.” says Emerson.

Does this lead us to a materialistic view of suffering?