seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
There might be.
It all goes back to the root, desire. My own observations suggest that dukkha makes up a large component of desires. {Although I admit that this might be incorrect.}
The Buddha teaches release from life?
- Thread starter Ahanu
- Start date
It all goes back to the root, desire. My own observations suggest that dukkha makes up a large component of desires. {Although I admit that this might be incorrect.}
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Vaj pointed out that ignorance is the root. It makes sense. Irrational desires are a byproduct of misconceptions.There might be.
Certainly if dukkha is misunderstood, it can reinforce error and create misguided efforts to offset the prior distress, thereby compounding the original disappointment and sorrow, leading to more unhappy rebirths or extended stays in some grievous Buddhist hell. Btw, there is a separate Buddhist hell for people who are attached to their mental fabrications and use them for personal entertainment.
Anyways, you can see why Buddhist scholars say to study dukkha in depth.
Francis king
Well-Known Member
Ahanu... it is not life that is to be escaped from... it is suffering, the duhkha, the misery and misfortunes of life, not life itself... this is what Buddha teaches...
There is an old western model of thinking that sees buddhism as something nihilistic, something fatalistic, something where there is no immortality and an end of all existence, but this belief was usually put about by christians who could not see that really, buddhism and chirtianity are not that different...
Buddha, like Jesus, came to assist people, not harm them...
the story goes...
Buddha was a posh prince, well off, cossetted, didn't suffer much. He knew he one day had to be a chief, and a warrior, but it was a long way off, and he spent his time enjoying himself. One day, he went out into the town, with a servant, to see some real life. While he was there, in the town, he saw... a crippled beggar, a really old man close to death, and a corpse...
seeing these things, he asked himself a few questions. He asked himself- what is suffering, and what can I do to end it? He asked himself- how can I stop old age, sickness and death?
He asked his servant about this- what can I do to stop this misery and misfortune of old age, sickness and death? and his servant told him...
Siddhartha, you silly ass. You can't stop old age and withering and decay and death. Even though you're young and handsome and rich, these things are coming your way too. There's nothing you can do about it. That's just the way it is...
Siddhartha then, was a wee bit scared. He didn't want to be old, and blind, and crippled. He didn't want to be a corpse, dragged onto a vehicle without much ceremony and dumped somewhere after a nice ceremony.
At that moment, he saw a sadhu, a holy man. He thought... ahhh.... maybe the holy man has the answer- I can escape sickness old age and death as a holyman!
Off he went to become an aranyaka, a forest dweller, a hermit in the woods, talking and thinking about God. He did what the others did- he got into Siva, and performed the rites of tapas, and tried to develop his yogi powers, thinking this would somehow grant him the immortality he wanted.
Unfortunately... that wasn't what he got. Yes, he became enlightened, sitting there under his tree, but he didn't find immortality. He found something else. He realised that honestly, everything withered, decayed, died, ended. Like believing in Jesus, believing in the Buddha won't make you immortal. Your body will die, like everything else. Instead, there was something else, something that went beyond description, something called sunyata... which, if you break it down, reads... the end of one's own giving to self...
this end of self is not extinction... this end of self is... expansion... gnosis... the real knowledge, the knowledge that there is something eternal, something much bigger than just you, something special...
there is... nirvana... not extinction, but the end of forests, the forest being a metaphor for delusion, a state where everything is clear, and real, and true...
In the meantime... people suffer... this was Buddha's message... like Jesus, Buddha wanted to end suffering, for people to be good to each other and enjoy life here, in our paradise...
as you eloquently put it, Ahanu...
"...As the Buddha began his mision, he concentrated on two important questions about existence: How can we minimize suffering--both our own and that of others? And how can we attain inner peace? The Buddha concluded that to live means inescapably to experience sorrow and dissatisfaction. But he analyzed the nature and causes of suffering much like a doctor would diagnose an illness--in order to understand and overcome them...
First the Buddha asks, "What are the symptoms of the world disease?" And his answer was, "Sorrow!" The First Noble Truth: "Suffering exists." Birth is attended with pain, decay is painful, disease is painful, death is painful. The Second Noble Truth: "It has a cause." The Buddha's next question was, "Can such a cure be achieved?" And his answer was, "Yes!" The Third Noble Truth: "It has an end." The Fourth Noble Truth: "There is a way to attain release from suffering." To reach nirvana, followers must follow the Buddha's prescribed remedy, which is the Noble Eightfold Path.
Therefore, "there is release from sorrow" cannot have meant "release from life" (life-renunciation, suicide, or anything of that sort), since that would hardly have been a return of the patient to health. Therefore, I have concluded that the Buddha's question's question was of release not from life, but from sorrow.
So, with Jesus, the Buddha can say, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."..."
As for staying in the forest...
the story I have heard says that Buddha didn't stay in the forest...
Buddha found some other pals in the forest, and told them about his great ideas, and they laughed at him, so he went home and told his family, and the servants, and his friends, and he got a little movement going. After that, he stayed in various deer parks and lodges of the elite and the nobles, and they helped pay for his campaigning as well as accomodated him...
sunyata is often translated as emptiness... but this is not what it is... nirvana is not peace, or the end, either...
you can remain thoughout ages that cannot be counted for the sake of a single creature's happiness and welfare, should you choose that...
but the quest is never about immortality- the quest is about something else entirely...
There is an old western model of thinking that sees buddhism as something nihilistic, something fatalistic, something where there is no immortality and an end of all existence, but this belief was usually put about by christians who could not see that really, buddhism and chirtianity are not that different...
Buddha, like Jesus, came to assist people, not harm them...
the story goes...
Buddha was a posh prince, well off, cossetted, didn't suffer much. He knew he one day had to be a chief, and a warrior, but it was a long way off, and he spent his time enjoying himself. One day, he went out into the town, with a servant, to see some real life. While he was there, in the town, he saw... a crippled beggar, a really old man close to death, and a corpse...
seeing these things, he asked himself a few questions. He asked himself- what is suffering, and what can I do to end it? He asked himself- how can I stop old age, sickness and death?
He asked his servant about this- what can I do to stop this misery and misfortune of old age, sickness and death? and his servant told him...
Siddhartha, you silly ass. You can't stop old age and withering and decay and death. Even though you're young and handsome and rich, these things are coming your way too. There's nothing you can do about it. That's just the way it is...
Siddhartha then, was a wee bit scared. He didn't want to be old, and blind, and crippled. He didn't want to be a corpse, dragged onto a vehicle without much ceremony and dumped somewhere after a nice ceremony.
At that moment, he saw a sadhu, a holy man. He thought... ahhh.... maybe the holy man has the answer- I can escape sickness old age and death as a holyman!
Off he went to become an aranyaka, a forest dweller, a hermit in the woods, talking and thinking about God. He did what the others did- he got into Siva, and performed the rites of tapas, and tried to develop his yogi powers, thinking this would somehow grant him the immortality he wanted.
Unfortunately... that wasn't what he got. Yes, he became enlightened, sitting there under his tree, but he didn't find immortality. He found something else. He realised that honestly, everything withered, decayed, died, ended. Like believing in Jesus, believing in the Buddha won't make you immortal. Your body will die, like everything else. Instead, there was something else, something that went beyond description, something called sunyata... which, if you break it down, reads... the end of one's own giving to self...
this end of self is not extinction... this end of self is... expansion... gnosis... the real knowledge, the knowledge that there is something eternal, something much bigger than just you, something special...
there is... nirvana... not extinction, but the end of forests, the forest being a metaphor for delusion, a state where everything is clear, and real, and true...
In the meantime... people suffer... this was Buddha's message... like Jesus, Buddha wanted to end suffering, for people to be good to each other and enjoy life here, in our paradise...
as you eloquently put it, Ahanu...
"...As the Buddha began his mision, he concentrated on two important questions about existence: How can we minimize suffering--both our own and that of others? And how can we attain inner peace? The Buddha concluded that to live means inescapably to experience sorrow and dissatisfaction. But he analyzed the nature and causes of suffering much like a doctor would diagnose an illness--in order to understand and overcome them...
First the Buddha asks, "What are the symptoms of the world disease?" And his answer was, "Sorrow!" The First Noble Truth: "Suffering exists." Birth is attended with pain, decay is painful, disease is painful, death is painful. The Second Noble Truth: "It has a cause." The Buddha's next question was, "Can such a cure be achieved?" And his answer was, "Yes!" The Third Noble Truth: "It has an end." The Fourth Noble Truth: "There is a way to attain release from suffering." To reach nirvana, followers must follow the Buddha's prescribed remedy, which is the Noble Eightfold Path.
Therefore, "there is release from sorrow" cannot have meant "release from life" (life-renunciation, suicide, or anything of that sort), since that would hardly have been a return of the patient to health. Therefore, I have concluded that the Buddha's question's question was of release not from life, but from sorrow.
So, with Jesus, the Buddha can say, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."..."
As for staying in the forest...
the story I have heard says that Buddha didn't stay in the forest...
Buddha found some other pals in the forest, and told them about his great ideas, and they laughed at him, so he went home and told his family, and the servants, and his friends, and he got a little movement going. After that, he stayed in various deer parks and lodges of the elite and the nobles, and they helped pay for his campaigning as well as accomodated him...
sunyata is often translated as emptiness... but this is not what it is... nirvana is not peace, or the end, either...
you can remain thoughout ages that cannot be counted for the sake of a single creature's happiness and welfare, should you choose that...
but the quest is never about immortality- the quest is about something else entirely...
Last edited:
When we start to pick over words with...words...I begin to lose faith in ...words...and go to just be...sometimes...
My conceptual understanding of the term "the deathless" (and therefore fundamentally incorrect!) derives from the notion that ultimately there is nothing that is born so there is nothing that can die...all is the deathless.
I would not equate this with any mis-conceived notion of Buddhism as being about "release from life."
s.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
I would agree with you that the Mahayana would definitely not interpret it as "release from life."
Paladin
Purchased Bewilderment
It's a shame I can't give you any more rep points
I got a PayPal account.
How many people does one have to rep before you can rep em again? Anyone know?
s.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
I'll rep him for you!It's a shame I can't give you any more rep points
Arghh! I can't, so I'll rep Paladin, instead.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
It would seem that the things that are born (transient created forms) are dependent for their temporary existence on the deathless. Referred to as nirmanakaya, these forms can be seen as dependently originated and, as such, differentiated from the deathless as phenomena that lack an essence of their own. They are not the deathless. Therefore, all is not the deathless.
Here we see a distinction between noumena and phenomena. Noumena are underlying reality. Phenomena are dependent appearances and arguably not real. Note that the distinction between noumena and phenomena is metaphysical - not epistemological.
Buddhist emptiness doctrine (sunyata) deals with the lack of ultimacy of mental structures. It's not dealing with existential ultimacy. The various manifestations of nirmanakaya that we see in the time-space order of things are metaphysically distinct from the underlying reality by which the world of forms is manifested. They can be seen as dependent, unreal things. The Really Real is thought to be dharmakaya. That's a different doctrine from sunyata.
There's a very good chance you'll need this for a NY Times crossword puzzle, so keep it for future reference or commit it to memory.
It would seem that the things that are born (transient created forms) are dependent for their temporary existence on the deathless. Referred to as nirmanakaya, these forms can be seen as dependently originated and, as such, differentiated from the deathless as phenomena that lack an essence of their own. They are not the deathless. Therefore, all is not the deathless.
Here we see a distinction between noumena and phenomena. Noumena are underlying reality. Phenomena are dependent appearances and arguably not real. Note that the distinction between noumena and phenomena is metaphysical - not epistemological.
Buddhist emptiness doctrine (sunyata) deals with the lack of ultimacy of mental structures. It's not dealing with existential ultimacy. The various manifestations of nirmanakaya that we see in the time-space order of things are metaphysically distinct from the underlying reality by which the world of forms is manifested. They can be seen as dependent, unreal things. The Really Real is thought to be dharmakaya. That's a different doctrine from sunyata.
There's a very good chance you'll need this for a NY Times crossword puzzle, so keep it for future reference or commit it to memory.
Well, I don’t live in the US so I probably won’t be doing that crossword, N-N.
Should it be required for a crossword over here, I am aware of the Mahayana trikaya or three body doctrine:
the nirmanakaya - the physical body of buddha, in the world as Shakyamuni
the sambhogakaya – the bliss body, in the celestial realm
the dharmakaya – the dharma body, the eternal principle of enlightenment
Shunyata is ultimate truth, empty of concepts and duality, only to be realised through meditation. Relative truth is the truth of the senses, it is empirical truth. I have read (by Thich Nhat Hanh) what I think is a good analogy:
Viewed as relative truth there is birth and death, a wave is born, exists and then dies as it returns to the ocean.
Viewed as ultimate truth, there is no birth and no death, there is just water. Waves are made of water, so in ultimate truth there is no birth or death. In ultimate truth all is shunyata: the deathless, that which is beyond all concepts (of birth/death, wave/no wave, person/no person).
There is of course no separation between these two truths.
But this analogy is just yet more words, admittedly handy for crosswords, but do all our words make the water clearer or muddier?
s.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
Possibilities...observed and unobserved...
Have you ever noticed how a photon will pass through two slits at the same time (as long as you are not measuring which slit it will pass through) and will interfere with itself in the process? However, if you observe the slits to detect which one it will pass through, it will only go through one slit.
Double-slit experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Hmm, I'll have to go interfere with myself like the photon and consider this some more. (Does this mean if I try to test it, then I will see what I'm looking for, like when you set up detectors on the slits to see which way they go?) What implications does this have on meditation, or observing oneself?
I think I'll just go eat some dark chocolate, instead.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
Hard to say. My sense it that these issues has been debated at length. I'm not a religious scholar and basically react from the standpoint of my own personal experiences. My reaction to your views here is less about language and more about imagery and concepts. Basically all I'm doing is looking for Buddhist doctrie to justify my own views and am likely to reject that which is not compatible. I'll be the first to admit it.
My real problem with your views is that they make Buddhism very hard to reconcile to monotheism. Why? Because your views would seem to lead to pantheism, which I personally consider to be a religious shipwreck that should be avoided (by me).
shunyata is an experiential/phenomenological construct. I don't think it's used to describe ontological/metaphysical organization. The deathless would appear to be a metaphysical Ground of Being that transcends time and space. It is thus distinct from any transient manifested forms within the changing evolutionary realm. Hence my conclusion that all is not the deathless.
I think the crux is is whether we are prepared to accept later Buddhism, which was prepared to deal with transcendental dharmakaya .
Are you kidding? With my eyesight?
I do know of the experiment though.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "viewed", it wasn't meant to be taken literally. But then I wouldn't put it past you to take it literally, deliberately. If you see what I mean. See what I mean about words and losing faith in them
s.
Can I ask why? (if you do not think of yourself as a Buddhist, correct me if I’m wrong).
Eminently sensible.
I'll be the first to admit it.
I wasn’t looking to coerce you into some sort of confession!
Well that’s to be expected isn’t it? Buddhism is not monotheistic. Why are you trying to? Is it because your views are basically monotheistic? (Aren’t I nosey and ignorant??!!)
That might depend on the definition of the term that one was using, would it not. Or what about nontheism?
Please do!
After much thought I’m afraid I’m just going to cop out on this one; I think we could go around in circles forever on this; piling up words that don’t in the end get us (or at least me!) anywhere. I would for instance immediately have doubt about the “distinct from” bit. This is where I see more mud than clear water.
If by later I assume you mean Mahayana then as the dharmakaya body is a part of a strictly Mahayana doctrine I’m not sure I understand you here.
s.
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
What happens to antimatter when it collides with matter?
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
It becomes a bunch of high-energy photons. (Gamma radiation.)
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
One might also conclude that the changing evolutionary realm is distinct from the deathless. (I know the difference is subtle. However this subtle difference in classification would fit nicely into the seventh and eighth consciousnesses, with the seventh believing itself to be distinct from the eighth, and the 'passiveness' of the eighth consciousness, as described here.)
Would that acceptance or rejection be based upon the principles drawn out in the Kalama Sutta?
It was an analogy, a finger pointing at the moon. Reality cannot be described with words.
s.
seattlegal
Mercuræn Buddhist
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/tao-te-ching-part-1-a-422-2.html#post170746
The Tao that can be tao'ed is not the true Tao.
The name that can be named is not the eternal name. (the deathless?)
Netti-Netti
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 0
I'm not trying to describe reality - just trying to sort out some basic Buddhist ideas. If there is no value in talking, maybe we should all quit the forum.
Anyway, from the Tathagatagarbha Sutra:
It is like a store of treasure
Inside the house of an impoverished man.
The owner is not aware of it,
Nor can the treasure speak.
For a very long time it is buried in darkness,
As there is no one who can tell of its presence.
When you have treasure but do not know of it,
This causes poverty and suffering.
When the buddha eye observes sentient beings,
It sees that, although they transmigrate
Through the five realms of reincarnation,
There is a great treasure in their bodies
That is eternal and unchanging.
Tathagatagarbha Buddhism (3)Inside the house of an impoverished man.
The owner is not aware of it,
Nor can the treasure speak.
For a very long time it is buried in darkness,
As there is no one who can tell of its presence.
When you have treasure but do not know of it,
This causes poverty and suffering.
When the buddha eye observes sentient beings,
It sees that, although they transmigrate
Through the five realms of reincarnation,
There is a great treasure in their bodies
That is eternal and unchanging.
By virtue of being eternal and unchanging, the Buddha essence would have to be separate from transient and changing phenomenal world of forms.
This discussion is also of interest in ight iof whqt we were saing about dharmakaya:
The Buddha links the tathagatagarbha to the spotless immaculacy of the "dharmakaya" (the ultimate true nature of the Buddha) and "dharmadhatu" (the all-pervading realm of dharma) and states: "First, the tathagatagarbha is intrinsically conjoined with pure qualities from time without beginning; secondly, the tathagatagarbha is intrinsically not conjoined with impure qualities from time without beginning; and thirdly, the tathagatagarbha is unchanging sameness throughout the future ... it is veridical and not delusive, a pure reality that is without separation and exclusion from jnana [knowingness, awareness], an inconceivable 'dharma' [entity] that is the dharmadhatu".
Anunatva-Apurnatva-Nirdesa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Intrinsically not conjoined" to me means "separate from."