Kevin's Weblog

In class today Tiffany made a comment about how some philosophies view desire as a bad thing, but in Anusara desire is a key trait. However, I’m not sure that the word is being used to mean the same thing.

Disclaimer: I’m not at all an expert in either of the philosophies I’m about to discuss.

As I understand it, when a Buddhist claims that “desire is suffering”, what is being talked about is desire for things to be other than they are, or desire for thing to change (or to stay the same) simply to conform to the expectations or prejudices of the individual. So, a Buddhist must accept the imperfection of the world, and of himself, but he also strives to follow the Eightfold Path as a way to improve himself and alleviate this suffering.

In Anusara, I feel like the specific desire that is sought is to be and to express the greatness inherent in each of us, through the practice of yoga. So, what we desire is to find the core of who we are, and bring it out and make it shine. The yogi might seek to express a particular aspect, but this shouldn’t manifest in either violence or suffering, whether it be physical, from exceeding the limits of her body, or mental or emotional, from not accepting her current limitations.

Looking at things this way, it seems to me that the philosophies actually have a lot of similarity, even though the particular language expressions used seem to be contrary to one another.

I recently got pointed to the essay One Less Act of Violence by Cheri Huber. I found myself really agreeing with the philosophy espoused there, although not with the particular context. (I’m not sure why no moral vegetarion ever seems to acknowledge or address the question of why plants are less worthy than animals, but that is beside the current point.) In short, the idea is that if you adopt a philosophy of non-violence, you shouldn’t beat yourself, or anyone else, up over your, or their, shortcomings. This isn’t to advocate complete non-action; on the contrary, awareness and education are stressed with the belief that these will, over time, inexorably lead to personal change.

I find this idea quite appealing, and it’s in line with how I’d ideally like to interact with people. On the other hand, it’s a pretty tough philosophy for an INTJ to actually implement, given our tendency to put high expectations on others, and even higher expectations on ourselves. Even “leading by example” connotes a desire to change others, which can lead to this sense of violence: pummelling the led with examples, and distressing the leader when it doesn’t acheive the desired effect.

I guess that there is a big question of whether this sort of philosophy can any hope of being useful in a typical corporate culture. I’ll need to give that some more though.