mikeyboi20 ([info]mikeyboi20) wrote,
@ 2006-06-07 12:09:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Becomeing
Lately I feel a lot freer in everyday life. I have begun to realize that I can only be rather then become. Buddhism teaches that desire can be broken down into three sections; the desire to be happy, the desire to not be unhappy and the desire to become. At first I focused on the first two desires. I thought to myself how impractical it is to want to be happy all the time and equally impractical is the desire to avoid pain. However, the importance of the third desire confused me. After all isn’t the whole point of Buddhist practice to "Become" enlightened. How can I become an individual who doesn't desire to become. Becoming for me was described as a desire to gain a permanent state of joy. This sounded remarkable similar to the first desire to always be happy. Yet, when I thought on it some more I realized just how complex and massive a delusion the desire to become is. It is not just the desire for joy it is a desire for a change that will remain permanent and give the first two desire exactly what they seek. In this way the desire to become is an illusion. Ironically, Buddhism teaches that nothing is permanent. All is subject to change. In this way we are always in the process of becoming. Whether or not we are becoming what we want to is another story.

Anyways, I find this philosophy so refreshing because it frees me from thinking I should be something else. For instance, I think that in the past I would fail at my attempts to quit smoking because I believed that I should become an individual who no longer desires to smoke. The promise of becoming had let me down after weeks of going without a cigarette I still would at times desire one. I believe now that it wasn’t the desire that led me to smoke rather it was the belief that I shouldn't desire that led me to smoke. Smoking is just my small simple example but I believe that the desire to become affects much of our everyday life. A key distinction is the difference between being and becoming. I had become so stunted in life my desire for a boyfriend a great job a nice apartment all became part of the story of becoming. Nothing really meant anything to me it was all a stage of preparation for the becoming. Now I see that the only way to become is to be and to let go of the desire to become. For instance, I am often a slob I don't clean my room, I don't clean my families house, I don't apply for jobs that I want etc... I didn't want to just be a person who did these tasks despite the lack of motivation I wanted to become someone who was motivated and glad to do it. Sometimes I do the tasks and their is more enjoyment then aversion sometimes the opposite is true. Another step I'm taking is to try to gossip less. I love to gossip and will likely never become an individual who is completely adverse to gossip. But it no longer matters to me that this love of gossip may remain because I now value being more then becomeing



(2 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]cimmerian
2006-06-07 01:48 pm UTC (link)
That was very nice to read. Thank you.

(Reply to this)


[info]irigon
2006-06-07 03:40 pm UTC (link)
I like what Buddhism tries to get across, but still I'm put off by the other forms of Buddhism that are exclusivist. The reason why I'm agnostic is that I feel that all exclusivist religions should shove their close mindedness (but not their ideas) up their asses, twirl it around, and then shit on their trousers.

I'm frustrated how (astonishingly enough) it seems (to me, this does not apply to you or anybody else) like many of the world's religions/philosophies share this trait. I know there are many more who don't, but then I start thinking to myself that it would be hypocritical of me to completely adore one religion (or religious belief/philosophy) and then disregard others (since that is what put me off Catholicism and pissed me off about exclusivist religions in the first place).

I'll probably forever remain one of those people that'll always have a critical eye on most (if not all) philosophies... it's a futile attempt at trying to not be a hypocrite. I call it, the futile-attempt-at-a-non-hypocritical-approach-with-philosophies.

Sometimes talking about this kinda irritates me... since it usually involves a lot of name dropping and less on what the person actually thinks (or it could just be the company I usually discuss these kinds of things with). It's all about Hegel, Kant, Spinoza blah blah... So it's refreshing to read something like this [entry] for a change.

(Reply to this)


(2 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…