Buddhist "Tanha / Trishna" and Orthodoxy

[TheLostCoin]

I've been taking a course on Asian philosophy - of course, this amounts to mainly an overview and explanation of various Asian religions and philosophical movements (the lines can be blurred between the two in terms of some forms of Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.), and out of the three covered thus far (Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism), Buddhism in terms of its philosophical approach to live strikes me as closer to Orthodox Christianity than the goals of Jainism or Hinduism. Of course, obviously Buddhism is still glaringly different, as it denies a God and individual souls, and it's goal is finding inner peace / bliss rather than Theosis, as well as breaking the cycle of "Samsara" rather than avoiding eternal fire.

I'm not suggesting that Buddhism in its "spirituality" or meditation, or its practices, are anywhere compatible with Orthodoxy, and that they can be saught within the context of Orthodoxy or we should try to seek "reconciliation" between the two, but there are some concepts that is taught in Buddhism which seems "more true" than what Hinduism or Jainism provides in its goals or philosophies, which seems to be familiar, such that I wonder if perhaps we can even use the language of Buddhism to help Asian audiences understand Orthodox Christianity, in much the same way that Greek Pagan philosophy was used to help understand Orthodox Christianity.

So, one of these concepts is the idea of "Trishna" or "Tanha" - or "desire" in Buddhism. In his dialogue on "The Four Noble Truths," the Buddha argues that the cause of all suffering in the world is this "desire" - "desire" primarily to material / worldly goods and pleasure, but also family, emotional desires, etc, which always lead to suffering, because we form attachments to these finite things, which when deprived, lead to a negative reaction which leads to suffering - they never provide lasting fulfillment. The way to eliminate this suffering is by means of eliminating these attachments to "Trishna" or "Tanha." We can never change what is external and out of our control, but how we react to them is what causes us suffering.

The goal of eliminating Trishna is not to deny external positive things that can happen to us - mainly the denial of internal things that we are in control of - but rather to accept whatever happens with us and not form attachments to whatever positive things happen to us. By doing this we can eliminate suffering, and find peace.

The Four Noble Truths | ZEN BUDDHISM

How do we eliminate this "Trishna" or "Tanha?" The Buddha offers the "Noble 8-Fold Path" (the wheel), which he offers as a solution - but it involves living a balanced life, etc.

Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia


Of course, there are some contrasting features to the Orthodox idea of "denying the flesh in favor of the Spirit", as Buddhism holds the desire for immortality is a Trishna in of itself - but in terms of how the Buddha describes attachment and desire, how do these concepts compare and contrast to the Orthodox ideas of "restraining your passions" and "resisting the flesh for the Spirit" and "abandoning the world", in terms of the ascetic goals of Orthodoxy?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

In high school I fell in love with Buddhism. For about 4-5 years I considered myself Buddhist. DT Suzuki, John Blofeld, Christmas Humphreys, Walpola Rahula, these were my “Fathers” whom I followed.

Personally I think Doaism has more in common with Orthodoxy than Buddhism, but honestly Theosis and Nirvana are such polar opposites that I see little common ground there. The karma, dharma, and even meditation aspects are light years apart.

Hieromonk Damascene, a Well-respected monk, author, and student of Father Seraphim Rose, wrote a book on Christ as being the Mystical Dao. Very cool book. You might like it.

 

[HTacianas]

I've been taking a course on Asian philosophy - of course, this amounts to mainly an overview and explanation of various Asian religions and philosophical movements (the lines can be blurred between the two in terms of some forms of Hinduism, Buddhism, Confucianism, etc.), and out of the three covered thus far (Hinduism, Jainism, and Buddhism), Buddhism in terms of its philosophical approach to live strikes me as closer to Orthodox Christianity than the goals of Jainism or Hinduism. Of course, obviously Buddhism is still glaringly different, as it denies a God and individual souls, and it's goal is finding inner peace / bliss rather than Theosis, as well as breaking the cycle of "Samsara" rather than avoiding eternal fire.

I'm not suggesting that Buddhism in its "spirituality" or meditation, or its practices, are anywhere compatible with Orthodoxy, and that they can be saught within the context of Orthodoxy or we should try to seek "reconciliation" between the two, but there are some concepts that is taught in Buddhism which seems "more true" than what Hinduism or Jainism provides in its goals or philosophies, which seems to be familiar, such that I wonder if perhaps we can even use the language of Buddhism to help Asian audiences understand Orthodox Christianity, in much the same way that Greek Pagan philosophy was used to help understand Orthodox Christianity.

So, one of these concepts is the idea of "Trishna" or "Tanha" - or "desire" in Buddhism. In his dialogue on "The Four Noble Truths," the Buddha argues that the cause of all suffering in the world is this "desire" - "desire" primarily to material / worldly goods and pleasure, but also family, emotional desires, etc, which always lead to suffering, because we form attachments to these finite things, which when deprived, lead to a negative reaction which leads to suffering - they never provide lasting fulfillment. The way to eliminate this suffering is by means of eliminating these attachments to "Trishna" or "Tanha." We can never change what is external and out of our control, but how we react to them is what causes us suffering.

The goal of eliminating Trishna is not to deny external positive things that can happen to us - mainly the denial of internal things that we are in control of - but rather to accept whatever happens with us and not form attachments to whatever positive things happen to us. By doing this we can eliminate suffering, and find peace.

The Four Noble Truths | ZEN BUDDHISM

How do we eliminate this "Trishna" or "Tanha?" The Buddha offers the "Noble 8-Fold Path" (the wheel), which he offers as a solution - but it involves living a balanced life, etc.

Noble Eightfold Path - Wikipedia


Of course, there are some contrasting features to the Orthodox idea of "denying the flesh in favor of the Spirit", as Buddhism holds the desire for immortality is a Trishna in of itself - but in terms of how the Buddha describes attachment and desire, how do these concepts compare and contrast to the Orthodox ideas of "restraining your passions" and "resisting the flesh for the Spirit" and "abandoning the world", in terms of the ascetic goals of Orthodoxy?

You are on the right track in your analysis of the similarities between the two. Those philosophies come from the examination of the conscience. The conscience, when people listen to it, teaches right from wrong. By listening to it, practitioners of those philosophies certainly learn right from wrong. So there is nothing wrong with using the familiar terms to explain Christianity.

But please keep in mind that while those are legitimate philosophies, they are imperfect forms of worship.

 

[Barney2.0]

I Never understood Bhuddism and I still don’t understand its philosophy, to me I always had to believe in a faith with everything organized, growing up Muslim in the Islamic faith where everything is legalized has a bearing effect on you. I never thought much of the Eastern faiths such as Hinduism, Bhuddism, Jainism, and etc. Although I should do more to read about them.

 

[TheLostCoin]

In high school I fell in love with Buddhism. For about 4-5 years I considered myself Buddhist. DT Suzuki, John Blofeld, Christmas Humphreys, Walpola Rahula, these were my “Fathers” whom I followed.

Personally I think Daoism has more in common with Orthodoxy than Buddhism, but honestly Theosis and Nirvana are such polar opposites that I see little common ground there. The karma, dharma, and even meditation aspects are light years apart.

Hieromonk Damascene, a Well-respected monk, author, and student of Father Seraphim Rose, wrote a book on Christ as being the Mystical Dao. Very cool book. You might like it.

We haven't covered Daoism yet, but that's coming up soon.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Obviously there are parallels. Truth is truth, and it shouldn't be surprising that people find aspects of it. (I know you aren't saying this.) And with caution, there are Apostolic and further Church prescedents for using what truths people possess to talk to them in a way they will understand about the further truths we can offer.

I'm not expert enough to answer your question. But I think it's an honorable one.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

For me, the end goals of religions are what matters more than the means to attain those goals. With Hinduism, moksha is carving away attachment to be united to the Holy Trimurti of Shiva-Brahma-Vishnu. Bit with Buddhism there is the goal of the extinction of the false notion of self. For Siddhartha Gautama, the problem with each of us is this dilluded and misguided illusion that we have a self, an atman, a unique “me.” Nirvana is self-extinction and is devoid of the love of God. So, despite the fact Hinduism is polytheistic, I think a dialogue between a Hindu and an Orthodox Christian would be easier than one with a Buddhist.

I will say, though, that Siddhartha had parallels to Jesus in that both of them formed new religions from out of old ones. Likewise they were rule-breakers of sorts. Jesus was willing to engage the lepers and Romans and Samaritans, gentiles, etc. Siddhartha was willing to engage the Dalit, untouchables, women, and people of any caste.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I agree that Daoism is closer, but I am sure one can find truth in Buddhism, and use it to missionize Buddhists.

 

[archer75]

I agree that Daoism is closer, but I am sure one can find truth in Buddhism, and use it to missionize Buddhists.

Doesn't Hieromonk Damascene have a book about the Daoism stuff? Have you read that?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Read post #2. A very venerable, wise man already mentioned it!

Doesn't Hieromonk Damascene have a book about the Daoism stuff? Have you read that?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Doesn't Hieromonk Damascene have a book about the Daoism stuff? Have you read that?

yes indeedsy, but no I haven't read it yet. there is a seed of truth in every other faith and philosophy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Yes indeedsy? Easy there, Sméagol

yes indeedsy, but no I haven't read it yet. there is a seed of truth in every other faith and philosophy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Yes indeedsy? Easy there, Sméagol

why does it talks to usss?

 

[TheLostCoin]

For me, the end goals of religions are what matters more than the means to attain those goals. With Hinduism, moksha is carving away attachment to be united to the Holy Trimurti of Shiva-Brahma-Vishnu. Bit with Buddhism there is the goal of the extinction of the false notion of self. For Siddhartha Gautama, the problem with each of us is this dilluded and misguided illusion that we have a self, an atman, a unique “me.” Nirvana is self-extinction and is devoid of the love of God. So, despite the fact Hinduism is polytheistic, I think a dialogue between a Hindu and an Orthodox Christian would be easier than one with a Buddhist.

I will say, though, that Siddhartha had parallels to Jesus in that both of them formed new religions from out of old ones. Likewise they were rule-breakers of sorts. Jesus was willing to engage the lepers and Romans and Samaritans, gentiles, etc. Siddhartha was willing to engage the Dalit, untouchables, women, and people of any caste.

I would disagree, because the concept of what a “soul” (atman) in Hinduism is, and what you see as “God” (Brahman) is greatly different than Orthodoxy.

Although of course I am generalizing, because Hinduism is not really a specific organized sect, but generally speaking, the idea of Moksha is simply the mystical recognition that you - your soul / self being distinguished from other souls is illusionary, and that you are the same as every human, animal, and god - your soul, atman, is the underlying, persistent reality, Brahman. You are underlying reality itself - you are “God.” Even the three gods are one insofar as they are one with all of reality, and they are different insofar as we are different from each other.

Your idea of “Moksha” being union with god makes me hestitate because although you are right, your union is union with not something external, but something internal, and your union with the three gods is merely a union with all of reality - something that technically already exists, but needs to be realized through Moksha, which allows you to break Samsara.

Perhaps even then the end goals are similar in comparison to Buddhism, but I value the ascetic discipline, said discipline which I see as more similar in Buddhism (not a denial of pleasure completely or deprived, but attachment to pleasure), mainly because different deities or heavenly beings already lead to irreconciciability.

I agree though there are quite a bit of parallels between Jesus and Buddha, in that they were both ascetic rulebreakers.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Well, obviously the soul as seen through Orthodoxy is quite different than the atman in Hinduism. I wouldn’t seek to make them parallel equals. With Hinduism though, at least there is some sort of Trinitarian notion even if it is flawed and part of a pantheon of false gods. In Hinduism, not only is it it polytheistic, but each god possesses a dualism. The wife/consort of the god is a part of his essence like Shiva is one with Parvati/Durga/Kali. He is both destroyer and bringer of fertility. So, to compare gods....no, I’m not. But I would point out that in Christianity there is a divine spark in all of us. Though fallen, we have a built-in desire to know God and seek truth. The Law is written in our hearts. And we are linked to all Mankind as well as animals, plants, insects, and nature. The hunger pains for God permeate creation itself. A Hindu might grab onto that. And though the Trimurti isn’t obviously an exact corollation to the Holy Trinity, it is a starting place.

But with Buddhism, the whole rejection of Self is more profound and atheism is much deeper. The emphasis is more on suffering, dukkha, than in Hinduism, if you ask me.

One area of Buddhism I think that does offer some sort of connection is the Mahayana concept of bodhisattvas, and the merit and empathy they have. But still, quite different.

IMHO, the karmaic understandings paired with dharma, emphasis on suffering, rebirth, meditation, self-help, it’s all too foreign to the Judeo-Christian religions to help too much for either religion.

I would disagree, because the concept of what a “soul” (atman) in Hinduism is, and what you see as “God” (Brahman) is greatly different than Orthodoxy.

Although of course I am generalizing, because Hinduism is not really a specific organized sect, but generally speaking, the idea of Moksha is simply the mystical recognition that you - your soul / self being distinguished from other souls is illusionary, and that you are the same as every human, animal, and god - your soul, atman, is the underlying, persistent reality, Brahman. You are underlying reality itself - you are “God.” Even the three gods are one insofar as they are one with all of reality, and they are different insofar as we are different from each other.

Your idea of “Moksha” being union with god makes me hestitate because although you are right, your union is union with not something external, but something internal, and your union with the three gods is merely a union with all of reality - something that technically already exists, but needs to be realized through Moksha, which allows you to break Samsara.

Perhaps even then the end goals are similar in comparison to Buddhism, but I value the ascetic discipline, said discipline which I see as more similar in Buddhism (not a denial of pleasure completely or deprived, but attachment to pleasure), mainly because different deities or heavenly beings already lead to irreconciciability.

I agree though there are quite a bit of parallels between Jesus and Buddha, in that they were both ascetic rulebreakers.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Filthy Father Mattses, he doesn’t like baseball, precious! Perhaps.....SHE could convince him to watch baseballs?? Yes, SHE could do it...

why does it talks to usss?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Filthy Father Mattses, he doesn’t like baseball, precious! Perhaps.....SHE could convince him to watch baseballs?? Yes, SHE could do it...

nah, football is my Phial of Galadriel against such silliness.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Football is for Uruk-Hai rabble!! A brute sport for gigantic drooling Uruk covered in filth eating one another and starting fights on a whim. Football is a violent sport worthy of orc gangs, Gothmog or Grishnak!!

Meanwhile baseball is the sport of Rivendell, Tom Bombadill, and Galdalf the White, classy, precise, strategic, timeless!

nah, football is my Phial of Galadriel against such silliness.

 

[fat wee robin]

For me, the end goals of religions are what matters more than the means to attain those goals. With Hinduism, moksha is carving away attachment to be united to the Holy Trimurti of Shiva-Brahma-Vishnu. Bit with Buddhism there is the goal of the extinction of the false notion of self. For Siddhartha Gautama, the problem with each of us is this dilluded and misguided illusion that we have a self, an atman, a unique “me.” Nirvana is self-extinction and is devoid of the love of God. So, despite the fact Hinduism is polytheistic, I think a dialogue between a Hindu and an Orthodox Christian would be easier than one with a Buddhist.

I will say, though, that Siddhartha had parallels to Jesus in that both of them formed new religions from out of old ones. Likewise they were rule-breakers of sorts. Jesus was willing to engage the lepers and Romans and Samaritans, gentiles, etc. Siddhartha was willing to engage the Dalit, untouchables, women, and people of any caste.

For me, the end goals of religions are what matters more than the means to attain those goals. With Hinduism, moksha is carving away attachment to be united to the Holy Trimurti of Shiva-Brahma-Vishnu. Bit with Buddhism there is the goal of the extinction of the false notion of self. For Siddhartha Gautama, the problem with each of us is this dilluded and misguided illusion that we have a self, an atman, a unique “me.” Nirvana is self-extinction and is devoid of the love of God. So, despite the fact Hinduism is polytheistic, I think a dialogue between a Hindu and an Orthodox Christian would be easier than one with a Buddhist.

I will say, though, that Siddhartha had parallels to Jesus in that both of them formed new religions from out of old ones. Likewise they were rule-breakers of sorts. Jesus was willing to engage the lepers and Romans and Samaritans, gentiles, etc. Siddhartha was willing to engage the Dalit, untouchables, women, and people of any caste.

I am very impressed that you know so much about other religions ,and have grasped the closer similarity between Hinduism(Vedic ) and Christianity .

Since it seems Buddhism comes out of, and is a simplification of the more complicated Hinduism, the latter is original , and some sage ,I cannot remember who, considered that God had sent Buddha to give rules of good conduct for those who did not believe in Him ,to prevent them from causing trouble .

There is so much precise knowledge in hinduism of the universe and the sky as well as other ancient knowledge which has been hidden , that it is clear that the God of the bible is the same original Creator in whom early Vedic religion believed .
The multitude of gods in Hinduism are really just the many faces of saints, like Mary who have grown and multiplied over a long time as the people lost sight of God himself .
Having lived beside, and taught with Indians, both Seikh and Hindu ,I found myself very close to them, as their souls are very developed ,much more so than most christians .They had an inner wisdom which is being lost ,as India becomes part of the globalised system, and lose contact with their spiritual selves .
But of course there is the caste system ,which is the main reason for poverty and stagnation and if it goes that is a positive .

 

[TheLostCoin]

Well, obviously the soul as seen through Orthodoxy is quite different than the atman in Hinduism. I wouldn’t seek to make them parallel equals. With Hinduism though, at least there is some sort of Trinitarian notion even if it is flawed and part of a pantheon of false gods. In Hinduism, not only is it it polytheistic, but each god possesses a dualism. The wife/consort of the god is a part of his essence like Shiva is one with Parvati/Durga/Kali. He is both destroyer and bringer of fertility. So, to compare gods....no, I’m not. But I would point out that in Christianity there is a divine spark in all of us. Though fallen, we have a built-in desire to know God and seek truth. The Law is written in our hearts. And we are linked to all Mankind as well as animals, plants, insects, and nature. The hunger pains for God permeate creation itself. A Hindu might grab onto that. And though the Trimurti isn’t obviously an exact corollation to the Holy Trinity, it is a starting place.

But with Buddhism, the whole rejection of Self is more profound and atheism is much deeper. The emphasis is more on suffering, dukkha, than in Hinduism, if you ask me.

One area of Buddhism I think that does offer some sort of connection is the Mahayana concept of bodhisattvas, and the merit and empathy they have. But still, quite different.

IMHO, the karmaic understandings paired with dharma, emphasis on suffering, rebirth, meditation, self-help, it’s all too foreign to the Judeo-Christian religions to help too much for either religion.

How would you compare the "enlightened ones" in Jainism to Sainthood?