This evening we recited our Bodhisattva Vows as we do every evening after sitting. Our sangha recites the English version of the second vow (Bon No Mu Jin Sei Gan Dan) as ”Delusions are inexhaustible, I vow to put an end to them,” but bon no is really Sino-Japanese for the Sanskrit kleō›as, usually translated as ”defilements” or ”afflictions,” most notably the three so-called ”poisons” of desire, aversion, and ignorance.
It’s a pretty grandiose vow when you come to think of it. The idea that you and I are going to put an end to our desire, aversion, and ignorance is, on the face of it, patently absurd. Let’s just focus on desire, for one thing. As the Sephardic Dutch philosopher, Baruch Spinoza, might have said, desire is an example of ”natura naturans,” nature doing what nature does, and our brains can’t help producing states of desire and aversion regardless of our intentions. It’s the nature of the hypothalamus to make us thirsty when we’re dry and hungry when our energy’s run low. That’s what brains do. That’s how mammalian species survive.
Above and beyond that, we can rightly ask if desire is always something that must carry such a negative connotation. Do we really want to put an end to it? All of it? What about our aspirations to do and be better? What about our aspirations to help others, be more present, be more kind? What about our wish for the aesthetic enjoyment of unspoiled nature or of great music, art, and literature? What about wanting a hug or a cup of hot chocolate? Can there really be a plausible description of human well-being that doesn’t honor these basic human desires?
So how are we to meaningfully understand and make use of the second Bodhisattva Vow? What are we really supposed to do about desire? The Sino-Japanese word dan in the vow literally means ”cut off,” but extirpating desire never seems to work out all that well. Consider how well the celibate priesthood has worked out for the Catholic Church. Or just as an experiment, try counting from one to ten without thinking of a white rabbit. As psychologist Daniel Wegner points out, attempting to suppress psychological processes often ends up only ironically reinforcing them.
The Buddha’s first talk after his Enlightenment was his discourse on the Four Noble Truths at the Deer Park in Sarnath. The Four Noble Truths are like an Aryuvedic prescription, diagnosing the nature of the human dilemma, its etiology, and its treatment. The First Noble Truth is a description of the problematic nature of human existence, namely, that our lives are, in some fundamental way, unsatisfactory. This is sometimes translated as the ”truth of suffering,” but the Pali word dukkha is more nuanced then that, suggesting something out of balance or off-kilter. In any case, the First Truth points to a fundamental dissatisfaction with our lives, and the inability of any relationship, achievement, attainment, experience, or object to plug that gap and make our lives wholly satisfactory.
Why does anyone come to a zendo to sit for long periods (often uncomfortably) in silence and chant in an incomprehensible alien tongue? People only come because their lives are not completely satisfactory as they already are. Maybe they want a little less suffering or a little more inner peace. Maybe they want to be happier. Maybe they are looking for more meaning in their lives, something deeper. Maybe they want to be kinder to others, or to be more present. Maybe they are looking for something beyond the materialism and gospel of success preached by our culture. Maybe they are looking for something to replace their old religion with which they grew disenchanted. Whatever the reason, there is some present dissatisfaction that motivates people to become ”seekers.” It’s that desire for ”something more” that brings us to Buddhism, and there’s more than a little irony in the fact that ”wanting something more” is also part of Buddhism’s definition of the problem, and that often, what people genuinely derive from Buddhist practice is not the ”more” they were initially seeking.
The Buddha identified the source of human dissatisfaction in the never-ending process of desiring itself. We are forever wanting something else, not wanting what we already have. Whoever we are, whatever our circumstances, we are always wanting, wanting, wanting. We want to have a better job, or do a better job. We want more money, better health. We want more loving relationships. We want to be thinner, younger, and more beautiful. We want to be more popular, better appreciated and respected. We want to do something more substantial, more important. Our lists never end. When we get what we want we find it wasn’t what we thought it would be, or that it doesn’t last, or we grow weary of it, or we soon find ourselves wanting something different or something more.
So we sit down to do zazen, hoping for a respite, but as soon as we sit, we notice the inexorable desire for things to be different than they are as it manifests in the present moment. Nothing has changed just because we are sitting down to do zazen. We want the room to be warmer or cooler. We want it to be quieter. We want our thoughts to slow down. We want our mind to be more focused and concentrated. We want our meditation to be the way it was yesterday when it was so pleasant and peaceful. We want to be more alert and awake. We wish the pain in our back or leg would go away, the itch on our nose to cease. We want our stomach to stop gurgling. We wish our posture were better. We wish the bell would ring. We want to be better at this meditation thing. We want to be Enlightened. And so it goes.
If you attempt squelching these wishes and try making them disappear, you soon discover that you are setting yourself up for a battle with the impossible. It’s like struggling with quick sand — you just sink deeper. The trick is to simply notice the desire and allow it to be as it is, but at the same time, in the very act of recognition and noticing, we are in a very real way unhooking from the desire. It’s there, but we’re no longer driven by it. We can step back and watch the urge grow and intensify, and then wane and pass, only to return again later. We can surf the desire like a wave that ebbs and flows. The trick to desire is mindfulness and non-attachment. Once we can step back and watch desire, we can use discerning wisdom to analyze its pros and cons, to decide whether pursuing it is something in our own and others’ best interest — or whether it’s just another one of those endless desires to open our hands to and let go of.
The problem with desire isn’t that it exists, but that it drives us — that it controls us whether it’s good for us or not. Desires have an inherent velcro-like stickiness to them, but mindfulness, to pursue the metaphor beyond the boundaries of good taste, Teflon coats them. In Zen we say that while ordinary people are pushed by their desires, Bodhisattvas are pulled by their vows. The real intention behind the second vow is to remind us to deal skillfully with desire, to live guided by the North Star of our aspirations rather than being tossed hither and yon by the passing currents of our whims.
So we sit zazen and watch desire come and go. And the golden rule is: Don’t live driven by desire. If you want to move, don’t move. If you have an itch, don’t scratch. Just sit. See what happens.
Gesshin Greenwood explored this ”don’t move” policy in a recent post in That’s So Zen. She was about to undergo the traditional trial period in Japanese Zen monasteries when newly ordained clerics must sit still for a week, excepting bathroom breaks and meals. Dreading this, Gesshin asked her teacher:
”What do I do if I have to move?” A week seemed like a really long time, and I had heard horror stories about people digging their nails into their palms and drawing blood in order to keep on enduring the zazen posture.
“You can’t move,” he said.
“But what if I really have to move?”
“Don’t move,” he reiterated.
“But what if I really, really have to move?”
“Well, then you move.”
It sounds so simply when it’s laid out like that, doesn’t it? We take up the posture of not moving, and we don’t move, and don’t move, despite the pain and itchiness and restlessness, until we simply must move, and then we do. This is true with most things, too. With any sort of commitment– a friendship, a romantic relationship, a marriage, a monastery, a period of academic study, a job, a diet, an exercise regime, a forty minute zazen period. We try our best to stay in one place, where we promised to stay, until we can’t anymore, and then we move.
Sometimes staying in one place and being patient is right, and sometimes moving is right, too, when it’s the only thing left to do.”
The end of zen training is learning how to be with each moment as it is — letting go of the desires and aversions that interfere with just being present. All of these desires only reinforce the network of me-ness, our narrative of identity. They are all about ”me:” what I want, what I want to have. The universe is supposed to go the way I want it to. When we loosen our attachment to desire, we are also loosening our attachment to ”I,” learning to get our ”selves” out of the universe’s way. We’re learning to see reality from outside the confines of our necessarily limited point of view and see it, as Spinoza would say, sub specie aeternatatis — from the vantage point of eternity.
6 Replies to “On Desire”
Many thanks for your thoughtful, clear and insightful writing. Your efforts to bring clarity to the teachings is much appreciated.
Thank you, Pamela!
Thanks for another balanced, thoughtful reflection, Seth. Two questions occur to me.
1) The Zen Studies Society’s translation of the Second Vow, which I learned at Dai Bosatsu Zendo, also renders bon as “delusions.” And as I’m sure you know, the third of the kleshas is sometimes translated as “delusion” rather than “ignorance.” The kleshas may be the chief source of delusions (hence the translation), but I’m not sure it’s accurate to make the two terms synonymous, “delusions” being only a sub-category of the term kleshas. Too fine a point, perhaps, but I’d be interested in your thoughts on these distinctions.
2) In reading your inventory of desires, I have the impression that you are viewing desires as discrete entities–an unending train of impulses rather than a sustained “mental formation” or state of mind. In my own practice, as desires arise, mature, and subside, I tend to experience them as a bundle rather than as individual sticks–as symptoms of an underlying state of craving for “something more,” rather than a chain of events. Again, I’d be interested in your thoughts on this distinction.
On quite another note, I enjoyed that Facebook “throwback” photo of a young Seth with his guitar. At the same time, I had the impulse to advise him to lower his left thumb and rest it lightly on the back of the neck, so as to have a more efficient purchase on the strings.
Welcome, Ben, and thank you for your kind words! I always look forward to your comments.
1) The kanji ç…©æ‚© is definitely Sino-Japanese for the kleō›has as a collective noun, rather than a translation of the Sanskrit words for either delusion or ignorance. A number of Zen Centers including ZSS use the word “delusion” in their translations. Maybe they worry that cutting off desire sounds less appealing to modern Westerners than cutting off delusion? We all can get behind cutting off delusion!
2) You’re right that I thought of desires as arising individually, one damn thing after another. I can also imagine a vague state of inner lack in which one envisions a succession of desired objects as a way of plugging an as yet unclearly identified hole. In that way they could all be linked together to one underlying state. For example, some undefined loneliness, but the imagined solutions might be a series of entertainments, diversions, and caloric delights.
3) Spoken like a classical guitarist, but we folk and blues guitarists often use our left thumbs to fret the top E string — so I expect mine is there waiting and ready to go. The guitar is a small necked parlor guitar, so it’s easy to wrap my thumb around to implement a kind of partial barre.
In the Nichiren tradition ”bonno” is translated as ”earthly desires”. Elsewhere I have often seen ”passions.” Jeffrey’s JapaneseEnglish Dictionary Server defines bonnou as ”klesha (polluting thoughts such as greed, hatred and delusion, which result in suffering).”
You may find the definition in the Sooothill Buddhist Dictionary interesting:
ç…©æƒ± kleō›a, ‘pain, affliction, distress,’ ‘care, trouble’ (M.W.). The Chinese tr. is similar, distress, worry, trouble, and whatever causes them. Keith interprets kleō›a by ‘infection’, ‘contamination’, ‘defilement’. The Chinese intp. is the delusions, trials, or temptations of the passions and of ignorance which disturb and distress the mind; also in brief as the three poisons è²ªçž‹ç—´ desire, detestation, and delusion. There is a division into the six fundamental ç…©æƒ±, or afflictions, v. below, and the twenty which result or follow them and there are other dual divisions. The six are: è²ªçž‹ç—´æ…¢ç–‘ and æƒ¡è¦‹ desire, detestation, delusion, pride, doubt, and evil views, which last are the false views of a permanent ego, etc. The ten ç…©æƒ± are the first five, and the sixth subdivided into five. ç…©æƒ±, like kleō›a, implies moral affliction or distress, trial, temptation, tempting, sin. Cf. ä½¿.
Thanks, David, for your research here! It’s interesting to note the historical expansion of the category of the kleō›as beyond the original three poisons in the Pali canon. Some of that is of Sarvastivada origin (e.g., heedlessness, sloth, lack of faith, restlessness, lassitude) and some is a Yogacara (e.g., stupidity, pride, skepticism, and the five wrong views) innovation. The Chinese then added their own spin.