The other side of the Mobius Strip

For the longest time I have been convinced of the depressing, pressimistic nature of the first Noble Truth in Buddhism. Everything in life is suffering, even the good times because they are transient and must eventually succumb and dissipate. This exact notion has caused me to wake up feeling hopeless for the last two weeks, but what if the we flipped the script? Maybe misery is not the default state that all other emotions must submit to. What if it is suffering that is transient and that must always go back to joy. Joy would be the eternal constant every other emotion harks back to, and suffering is just a phase that must eventually be transcended to reach joy again. Suddenly, Buddhism doesn't appear so gloomy and grim anymore. Life is exactly what we make it out to be – what we create it as – and nothing more. It is the dialectic that we must keep in mind, otherwise we will fall victim to it without knowing it.

Paradox

It makes sense that in the four Noble Truths, the Buddha meant craving instead of desire as the term and its connotations are more applicable to the purpose for which it was selected. However, I am having a hard time grasping the concept that craving Enlightenment is not actually craving, but just a process of assuming the practices condusive to reaching such an end. As Williams states: "A Buddhist wants enlightenment in the sense that wanting something is a condition of freely and intentionally engaging in practices to bring it about" (44). Concordantly, it would go against Buddhist doctine for Buddhists to want enlightenment, yet is it not the object of their ideals? The logic follows in a sort of paradox, but it is there. Since the Buddhist path is designed to cease all cravings, to desire enlightenment is to desire the practices that will put an end to cravings after enlightenment. Put simply, to want enlightenment is to want the practices that will cease craving after enlightenment is reached. So in effect, normatively, enlightenment is not the object of desire, but it is the path to it that one ardently seeks. Enlightenment then is just what following the desired practices should yield if done correctly, and so it should eliminate craving thereafter. When reformatted as a syllogism, one desires an end to desire. But because it is a syllogism, the middle step prevents the ending of desire from being the object of desire. Somehow, in a twisted Buddhist way, it all makes sense.

A droplet of inspiration...

I am God. I am in control. I create this world and I can destroy it if I so choose. The knowledge is empowering, but deeply frightening. Everyone is a god once they gain this knowledge. In a world full of gods, is this Heaven on Earth? What do gods do other than create and destroy? We forge meaning, material objects, relationships, and anything our mind can conceive. We are omnipotent to the extent of our imaginations and the laws that govern the earthly vessel we occupy. The only real question, then, is how do we wield this knowledge – this power – in a mature way? How do we make use of it beyond puerile tendencies for instant gratification, attention, and other trifles? That is the question I will attempt to answer through reflecting on more questions as they arise.