My biggest issue with buddhism is that the whole 'stop desiring to stop suffering' strikes me as very much blaming the victim. It has similarities with 'thou shalt not covet' - and in the limited sense of learning contentment actually has merit. But my understanding is that buddhism takes it to the logical extreme - eliminate all desire and you eliminate all suffering.
Suffering, then, in buddhist understanding must be a matter of perception. Eliminating the desire for food would not stop starvation - but it might make one mind it less. Seems to be 'suffering is a state of mind' thing.
I find it a very, very poor answer to suffering. Sure, the individual can, presumably, learn to disregard desire and therefore the suffering, I suppose - but it still ends up telling the starving child 'Sweetie, the problem isn't that you don't have food - it's that you desire food'. Blaming the victim for their suffering while trying to take control of one's own suffering.
What I really don't get is what makes this so attractive?
Suffering, then, in buddhist understanding must be a matter of perception. Eliminating the desire for food would not stop starvation - but it might make one mind it less. Seems to be 'suffering is a state of mind' thing.
I find it a very, very poor answer to suffering. Sure, the individual can, presumably, learn to disregard desire and therefore the suffering, I suppose - but it still ends up telling the starving child 'Sweetie, the problem isn't that you don't have food - it's that you desire food'. Blaming the victim for their suffering while trying to take control of one's own suffering.
What I really don't get is what makes this so attractive?
Comment