My Analysis of Leo's Defense on Zizek's Buddhism Critique

[ardacigin]

This is my opinions on Leo's defense on Slavoj Zizek's Buddhism critiques. This is for fun. Nothing too serious but there are some important things I'd like to say.

I'm not a Buddhist but I use Buddhist techniques as a primary investigation towards what is true. I definitely understand Leo's arguments but Slavoj Zizek doesn't appear to have a sophisticated understanding of Buddhism. This seems evident not only from his arguments but also from his non-experiential and academic demeanor.

Here are some of the key points I'd like to talk about.

Zizek's argument: Life is suffering but not all of us wants to escape suffering. Falling in love (knowing that it will eventually lead to suffering) is given as an example to support this claim.

Leo's Defense: Suffering is only problematic from ego's perspective. God wants to experience all modalities of suffering and non-suffering as it is infinite. The reason there is so much love is that there is a lot of suffering. And that contrast of duality is the paradox of this work. 

Suffering is a negative motivation and pursuit of what is true is more authentic and less egoic motivation. Suffering is delusional so once you become conscious of what is true, non-suffering comes as a part of the package. Suffering is there for survival purposes. It is there so that you don't put your hand on a stove. 

My analysis: Both Leo and Zizek fail to make the distinction of pain and suffering to a clear degree for this argument.

Zizek doesn't seem to understand that from the ego's perspective, even the most pleasurable moment is tainted by suffering due to craving and aversion. This idea that not everyone wants to escape suffering comes from lack of experience. Lıfe, as known from ego's perspective, IS suffering both the pleasure and pain.

Ego wants to fall in life mostly because of the perceived pleasure it will bring. And it does that with a lot of craving and aversion. In this context, the ego is primarily dissatisfied without a relationship partner. It, then, realizes that falling in love comes with less suffering as a part of the package and accepts it without knowing a better alternative. Boredom and loneliness results in WAAAY more suffering compared to romantic relationships. So you are still running away from pain. The ego is just choosing the route that will result in less suffering. This is true for all egos. 

Leo is correct for the most part. I'd personally also view the pursuit of truth as a less egoic and more authentic positive motivation. But that doesn't mean people who want to eliminate suffering is shooting themselves in the foot. Leo also suffers as an ego and it gets in the way of non-dual consciousness. Once the suffering goes away, the truth is revealed. So separating these as radically different motivation is splitting hairs as both forms of motivation leads in the same non-dual consciousness. You can't know which motivation will actually get you to awakening more effectively as both are different perspectives on the path considering that awakening is a multi-faceted jewel. That motivation difference is more to the do with personality types, value systems, past experiences and conditioning.

If you were a torture victim for the past 10 years, your primary motivation for awakening would be to escape from suffering by penetrating the experience of physical pain, not realizing what is true. On the contrary, if you were to spent the last 10 years discussing and thinking about philosophy, truth and science in relative comfort, your view of the spiritual path would be about realizing what is true. And non-suffering would come as a part of that pursuit. 

Leo's motivation is more holistic and deeper but that doesn't devalue suffering as a motivation in the beginning of the path. In fact, I'd argue that suffering was at least a part of the reason why Leo started the path even as a truth seeker. As you go deeper, your motivations and value systems will change and become more holistic and deep.

Suffering is there for survival purposes is half-true. Pain is there for survival purposes. Suffering is how pain feels like from the ego's perspective. And ultimately suffering is an illusion because there is no self that can suffer.

Also about Leo's example: The non-dual consciousness would also not result in you putting your hand in a stove. You don't become stupid when you get awake.

You still experience pain as a raw sensation but there is no suffering anymore. You CAN turn this raw burning pain sensation into a pleasurable experience but when you are on that level of non-duality, would you even do such an act? You can do the same more effectively sitting on a chair and breathing. You might argue that on such levels of consciousness the distinction between breathing and putting your hand on a stove disappears but I'd say this as a counter-argument:

 Deep Awakening not only results in compassion for others but also yourself as the distinction between 'self' and 'other' is transcended on a deep level. Deep Awakening doesn't turn you into a masochist for this reason. I know Leo is aware of this but his example gave the impression that awakening would result in such behaviors. 

I agree with Leo's defense for the rest of the points. 

[Leo Gura]

Fair enough. I could have been a bit more technical in my discussion of suffering. Suffering is a deep topic.

There will be a video on suffering in the future, as it's an important topic.

[ardacigin]

6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Fair enough. I could have been a bit more technical in my discussion of suffering. Suffering is a deep topic.

There will be a video on suffering in the future, as it's an important topic.

I'm looking forward to it