[Buddha-l] Re: The Buddha, an 'emotional weakling'? What are the "joys of living"?

[Stefan Detrez]

2006/6/21, Benito Carral <bcarral at kungzhi.org>:


   Yesterday  I  was  talking  with  a young woman from
> Cincinnati who asked me if I dance salsa. I replied her
> that  I  don't  dance  salsa because that is against my
> principles, and she asked me why. I told her that salsa
> is conceived in order to promote lust, that lust is one
> of the unwholesome roots taught by the Buddha, and that
> I prefer to live a peaceful life for myself and others.
> She said in a funny way, "I'm not against lust, so it's
> a good reason for not becoming a Buddhist." I explained
> her  that  there are a lot of more good reasons for her
> not  becoming  a  Buddhist and just mention her some of
> the  basic  precepts. I was about to depart when I said
> her, "Do you remember when you told me how bad you feel
> about  your grandpa's three divorces and your dad's two
> ones?  Do  you  remember  when you told me how much you
> would  like to break that chain? Be aware of where your
> lust  is carrying you." Her face became serious at once
> and  said  in  a  no funny way, "I get your point and I
> appreciate it."


Hi Benito,

what you said to that girl comes pretty close to what I understood of
(early) Buddhism die hard style, but then again I'm left with the impression
that you find that anything causing, sustaining and/or being fun should be
barred from absorption into the experience of life. In your view, I see an
anxious attempt to escape life's anesthetic little and greater joys. Could
this be, as I think you understand it, that some experience has rendered you
fearful for the possibly negative consequences of a joyful act?
Would you tell your kid - if you had one -, when it says it wants an ice
cream, that 'it better beware of the afflictions rising as a consequence of
a to be rooted out lust, when yearning for an ice cream?' Nobody's served
with fun killing sourfaced remarks. You actually told the girl a fallacy,
namely, the argumentum ad consequentiam, like a substantial part of Buddhist
epistemology, states that something is false, because its consequences are
bad. You are also claiming one thing, and proving something else: 'Stop
doing that bad salsa, because see how bad you felt about your grandpa's
etc.'
Plus, there are different kinds of lust, which on a qualitative scale, are
very different. I don't think you can get the same 'quality' of suffering as
a consequence of salsa dancing (so far, I've never known anyone having
plunged into emotional distress from doing salsa, merengue, samba OR limbo),
as you get from tragedies in your family. If your local video rental doesn't
carry the movie you liked to see, that's a different kind of dissappointment
then when a doctor says you won't be able to talk in two months for the rest
of your life. I think this is where the Buddha is generalizing too easily
that ANY lust is conducive to suffering. Maybe it's there also that the idea
of citing Hospers' book popped up, comparing (christian readings of ) the
Stoics with the Buddha. Maybe the wisest thing is to learn to live with
one's own temper and enjoy life, even if you don't always get the movie you
like to see.

Stefan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/private/buddha-l/attachments/20060623/f0d5ae25/attachment.html