Given that we're human, desire makes sense as one of the most potent emotions to contemplate. Nagarjuna takes a look at desire from the perspective of the desirous one and the desire itself. As seems to be his way, he looks at the order of occurrence to finally conclude that these are indeed not independent and therefore not real. In a sense, it's taking out two birds with one stone, or two concepts with one argument. Could one have desire without the desirous one? No, that doesn't make sense. What about the desirous one without desire? No, because then the desirous one wouldn't be desirous. How about desire and the desirous one arising at the same time yet being independent? (Remember that independence is one of the ways we take things to be real in a naive way.) If they were independent, then they would have no relationship which is clearly not the case. So, desire and the desirous one are dependent and therefore not real in the way we think they are.
How does this change our perspective on objects of desire? Tomorrow's post meditation practice will be to stay with desire when it arises long enough to reflect on the dreamlike quality of it. Desire tends to solidify our belief in the reality of the objects of desire. If the desire is dreamlike, then can we see the objects in that way too? Does this apply to carrot cake?
No comments:
Post a Comment