The Irrelevance of Quenching
When I was 16, I read Siddhartha by Hesse and I hated it. Siddhartha first lives a life of fasting and pain, then a hedonistic life of pleasure and indulgence, then “finds enlightenment” as a ferryman who hangs out by a river. I found the “happily-ever-after” simple-life ending to be trite. After a couple months, I felt, he would get bored and start searching again for enlightenment.
I still stand by my13-year-old criticism. I felt the book wasn’t true to human nature for the simple reason that desires can never be quenched in the long term. This fact is one of central ideas of Buddhism. Human wants are infinite and the desire to fulfill them leads to pain. Hesse attempts to take the opposite approach- after living life and gaining experience, one will be able to eventually find enlightenment. After experiencing everything, one will be content with not experiencing anything anymore.
Hesse was a German and Western society assumes that oats can be sowed and that one can get something “out of their system.” We allow the young certain indulgences with the assumption that they will “settle down.” Any erratic action after the 20’s is called a “mid-life crisis” and is laughed at. In truth, though, people continue to drink, continue to have sex, continue to seek possessions and continue to want power. Juvenile desires remain into adulthood.
We assume that desires can be fulfilled in the long term because so many can be fulfilled in the short term. After sleeping, the desire of sleep is gone. After eating, the desire to eat is gone. After sex, the desire for sex is gone. But all of these are short-term desires. In the end, there is always another appetite.
Now, I am not saying that all desire is eternal. Many desires do eventually leave us, but they do not leave us from fulfilling them. At one time, I wanted a tattoo. I didn’t get one, but the desire left me anyway. Eventually one’s sex drive will be gone, but it has nothing to do with how much sex one gets.
My buddy, Panama, and I had come up with opposing theories on life and death. Mine, I realize, was Hesse-like and was flawed. I theorized that life was like an amusement park. If one had to leave at 8:30 am, one would be upset because they didn’t get to go on any rides. After a full day of fun, though, one would be exhausted and ready to leave (die). The analogy, though, is flawed as an amusement park is a short-term desire and cannot be applied to life. Real desire is long-term and regenerates.
Panama had the theory that eventually life is like being on a plane. Being on a plane is so boring, painful and unenjoyable, that one wishes the time wasn’t there at all. He theorized that eventually life reaches that level and one is okay with dying.
Panama’s theory, though, rests on the idea that desire and pain will increase in time. As an old person, one will desire all the things one has lost so much that it is overwhelming. In truth, though, many elderly stop caring about various desires and just accept their minds and bladders have gone.
Ironically, the elderly naturally end up in the Buddhist state of non-desire near the end of their life. Oddly, the achieve it not through leading a Spartan existence of denying desire like the Buddhist wants or through fulfilling desires like Hesse and Western society want. They just get there through time, regardless of how they live their lives.
I still stand by my13-year-old criticism. I felt the book wasn’t true to human nature for the simple reason that desires can never be quenched in the long term. This fact is one of central ideas of Buddhism. Human wants are infinite and the desire to fulfill them leads to pain. Hesse attempts to take the opposite approach- after living life and gaining experience, one will be able to eventually find enlightenment. After experiencing everything, one will be content with not experiencing anything anymore.
Hesse was a German and Western society assumes that oats can be sowed and that one can get something “out of their system.” We allow the young certain indulgences with the assumption that they will “settle down.” Any erratic action after the 20’s is called a “mid-life crisis” and is laughed at. In truth, though, people continue to drink, continue to have sex, continue to seek possessions and continue to want power. Juvenile desires remain into adulthood.
We assume that desires can be fulfilled in the long term because so many can be fulfilled in the short term. After sleeping, the desire of sleep is gone. After eating, the desire to eat is gone. After sex, the desire for sex is gone. But all of these are short-term desires. In the end, there is always another appetite.
Now, I am not saying that all desire is eternal. Many desires do eventually leave us, but they do not leave us from fulfilling them. At one time, I wanted a tattoo. I didn’t get one, but the desire left me anyway. Eventually one’s sex drive will be gone, but it has nothing to do with how much sex one gets.
My buddy, Panama, and I had come up with opposing theories on life and death. Mine, I realize, was Hesse-like and was flawed. I theorized that life was like an amusement park. If one had to leave at 8:30 am, one would be upset because they didn’t get to go on any rides. After a full day of fun, though, one would be exhausted and ready to leave (die). The analogy, though, is flawed as an amusement park is a short-term desire and cannot be applied to life. Real desire is long-term and regenerates.
Panama had the theory that eventually life is like being on a plane. Being on a plane is so boring, painful and unenjoyable, that one wishes the time wasn’t there at all. He theorized that eventually life reaches that level and one is okay with dying.
Panama’s theory, though, rests on the idea that desire and pain will increase in time. As an old person, one will desire all the things one has lost so much that it is overwhelming. In truth, though, many elderly stop caring about various desires and just accept their minds and bladders have gone.
Ironically, the elderly naturally end up in the Buddhist state of non-desire near the end of their life. Oddly, the achieve it not through leading a Spartan existence of denying desire like the Buddhist wants or through fulfilling desires like Hesse and Western society want. They just get there through time, regardless of how they live their lives.
posted by American Dilettante at
4:10 PM
2 Comments:
Desire can get so strong that the ability to live ones life is seriously damaged. In their obsession, the person may ignore their spiritual or physical requirements. Or they may actively pursue a path of action that is harmful in some way. I have argued that, in such circumstances, it would be better to lose desire than to obtain that which is desired. As you point out, after some period of time it no longer matters whether or not you have obtained the object or situation that was obsessed over for so long - either the desire returns, or abates on its own, but desire is not "quenched".
However, life without desire has serious drawbacks. Why accomplish anything? Why strive to better yourself? Why get out of bed in the morning? Without any dangling carrot of reward, what is the motivation for hard work and pushing your limits? Yes, hard work is its own reward - how nice if that works for you.
One could pursue every hedonistic impulse with no inhibitions, or one could do the opposite and repress all desires. But how about this: "everything in moderation"?
By
mizerock, at 1:45 PM
I don't read the Buddha's sermons as calling for "denying desire". Quite the opposite, in fact. The argument seems to be that desire will only cease when it is accepted and recognized as the force animating the illusion of self.
To the degree that Buddhism is an ascetic philosophy, it is in the effort to minimize the opportunity for desire to arise, which may be what you were getting at.
By
Alyosha, at 2:05 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home