Bare Bones Buddhism

Jeongjwa

Hi all,

Would it be too narrow to say the sole goal, aim, and result of buddhadharma practice is the cessation of dukha?

While in the midst of explaining and trying to communicate Buddhism to some friends and colleagues, some of whom are also acquainted with meditation, zen concepts, enlightenment ideals, etc. I've been reminded of how complicated dharma practice can appear.

Specifically, the question of a goal / no-goal in practice was brought up. Personally, I find the idea of practice just for the sake of practice to be quite misleading and potentially harmful. A general heading is necessary; a direction with no attainment to grasp as impermanence is truth.

Anyhow, with all the talk of enlightenment, meditative adsorptions, realizations of all sorts, I find it's quite easy for a new comer to be confused and thus put off by it all.

Would you think it fair to state the cessation of dukha is the general heading of practice, with many paths on the way toward that realization?

Is it too much to say the permanent and lasting cessation of dukha is the essence of enlightenment?

As always, all comments and insights are appreciated.

Thanks!

karasti

I think that's pretty fair to say, but it still gets really confusing when you tell someone who is unfamiliar with the concepts that the point is to end suffering/unsatisfactoriness because we are so stuck on the idea that suffering is physical pain, it's not having enough money, it's being stressed from work. Most people don't include the "smaller" nuances of suffering being too attached to your children, of being tied to that job because you think you need certain things when you don't, of falling victim to all the messages in our media and society that aren't true, and so on. Those are the parts, in my experience, that other people truly don't understand.

When I was at a retreat last spring, the teacher had asked any of us if we had had entirely satisfactory days. One lady said she had. Then she admitted she had had a splinter. And it turned out, after further discussion, that that her day was quite unsatisfactory but she really didn't understand how all those smaller things contributed to her suffering in life. Buddhism can be incredibly simple. But then the questions come, and it becomes much more complex, lol. I went to a short retreat a couple weeks ago on the Heart Sutra and my mom, who is Catholic, wanted to know what I learned. I didn't even know how to begin because while it's very basic it's profundity is pretty much gibberish to anyone who doesn't have any exposure.

genkaku

Rather than getting tangled up in a discussion of "dukkha" or "unsatisfactoriness" or "suffering" -- for each of which multiple people are likely to have multiple understandings -- maybe it's easier to hang a hat on the Dalai Lama's observation that "everyone wants to be happy."

"Happy" is sort of like "love" -- it's socially easy to agree that it means something without really examining or getting snarky or wise about what it actually means.

So, "the sole goal of Buddhism/Buddhadharma is to be happy" is easier. Not that anyone knows what it really means, of course, but everyone knows what it means, so you can close out that discussion and take up a more meaty topic ... the Olympics, maybe, or fishing in the Mississippi River.

taiyaki

It's rather simple.

There is only one thing to do.

You meet this moment in front of you head on with your head and shoulders. Whole heartedly you meet the temporal conditions at hand.

Strictly speaking there is nothing much more to do than that.

federica

When people ask me, why Buddhism, I merely say "because with all the crap everyone has to contend with, the buck stops here."

I have yet to meet an unfavourable or derisive response....

BhikkhuJayasara

For someone to begin to understand the true purpose of this practice, they have to of really developed some sort of dissatisfaction with the world around them, and a small understanding that it can never really give you want you want, an uneasy feeling that urges you on a quest to find a better way.

if you don't have that, then meditating for stress and anxiety is what you're left with. This is why the Buddha taught in the first place, for those who have " little dust in their eyes who would be lost for not hearing the dhamma" and of course even those who have a lot of dust in their eyes will benefit in some small way from the practice.

how

There might be as many distillations of what Buddhism is as there are Buddhist practitioners. Speaking of what it is for you, at this moment, makes sense to me.
New comers who are genuinely interested will find either find the explanation that makes sense to them ...or they won't...and that's just fine.

Jeongjwa

federica said:

When people ask me, why Buddhism, I merely say "because with all the crap everyone has to contend with, the buck stops here."

I have yet to meet an unfavourable or derisive response....

Would you mind elaborating on that a bit? I don't understand what exactly you mean to convey.

Jeongjwa

taiyaki said:

It's rather simple.

There is only one thing to do.

You meet this moment in front of you head on with your head and shoulders. Whole heartedly you meet the temporal conditions at hand.

Strictly speaking there is nothing much more to do than that.

While I feel the zen in that, what about skillful discernment? What about insight derived from practice? With all due respect, I feel this is a fine example of taking "the cessation of dukka" and running with it to a conclusion that obscures the simple direction and thus foundation of buddhadharma practice.

For example, I can meet troublesome situations like an enemy with my head and shoulders in such a way that causes more dukha, rather than less. I feel strictly speaking, there's a bit more to it that that.

federica

Jeongjwa said:

federica said:

When people ask me, why Buddhism, I merely say "because with all the crap everyone has to contend with, the buck stops here."

I have yet to meet an unfavourable or derisive response....

Would you mind elaborating on that a bit? I don't understand what exactly you mean to convey.

Every single other religion has a godhead.
Every single other religion encourages putting faith in this unseen godhead, and putting everything in your heart and mind, 'out there'.
In other words, it encourages a level of detachment from what ails us, and thus, with a certain intention in some cases, we can abdicate responsibility for the outcome.
(There's even a christian song that goes "I surrender all...." meaning that whatever the consequences and outcome, it's all in God's hands, his will be done....")

Buddhism encourages the reverse.
It teaches us that whatever the situation, the perception is Mind-wrought, and we are encouraged to deal with it all 'in here'.

When I say that I have yet to meet an unfavourable or derisive response, it's chiefly from those interested in Buddhism, with open minds. I was answering the OP's question....

Christians obviously have different PoV's.....

Hamsaka

I've wondered what few words I could possibly say to 'why Buddhism?' or 'what is Buddhism about?'

Like the OP, my answer has been that Buddhism is 'about' the end of suffering. There is suffering, a path toward it's end, and an existence to be had without suffering.

As for 'why Buddhism' I really love HHDL's "everyone wants to be happy" and his other lovely sound byte about Buddhism as "the religion of kindness".

taiyaki

Jeongjwa said:

taiyaki said:

It's rather simple.

There is only one thing to do.

You meet this moment in front of you head on with your head and shoulders. Whole heartedly you meet the temporal conditions at hand.

Strictly speaking there is nothing much more to do than that.

While I feel the zen in that, what about skillful discernment? What about insight derived from practice? With all due respect, I feel this is a fine example of taking "the cessation of dukka" and running with it to a conclusion that obscures the simple direction and thus foundation of buddhadharma practice.

For example, I can meet troublesome situations like an enemy with my head and shoulders in such a way that causes more dukha, rather than less. I feel strictly speaking, there's a bit more to it that that.

That's all a part of it when you are going towards life wholeheartedly.

This is why its important to sit and actually face our life wholeheartedly.

Suffering is caused by conceptuality and hesitation. Thinking, thinking. This and that, what ifs, etc. Linking, becoming the whole chain of Dependent Co-Arising.

If we face the temporal condition unconditionally/wholeheartedly then we will realize we are indra's net and what needs to be done in the moment is obvious.

This in zen is touching the world directly, holding it and responding accordingly.

Or you can try every other way. Suit yourself =].

tikaL2o6

Hi, @Jeongjwa
I've read your post and I think I agree with you.
If nirvana did not exist, then the Buddha would not have taught the way leading to it.
But we can see that the Buddha did teach the way leading to nirvana, so it most likely does exist.

anataman

tikaL2o6 said:

Hi, @Jeongjwa
I've read your post and I think I agree with you.
If nirvana did not exist, then the Buddha would not have taught the way leading to it.
But we can see that the Buddha did teach the way leading to nirvana, so it most likely does exist.

To be true to the OP (title)

Yes it exists...

me, myself and mine

No it doesn't....

Mettha

seeker242

Jeongjwa said:

Hi all,

Would it be too narrow to say the sole goal, aim, and result of buddhadharma practice is the cessation of dukha?

From a Mahayana view I would simply add "for all beings" to the end and then it would be perfect!

Bunks

Just give 'em the Four Noble Truths.

1. There is dukha (in it's many forms)
2. Dukha is caused through attachment / clinging
3. Dukha can be ended
4. The 8F path is the path to the end of dukha

lobster

I've been reminded of how complicated dharma practice can appear.

We remove stress/dukkha, for happiness to shine.

We haz ways . . .

matthewmartin

Jeongjwa said:

Would it be too narrow to say the sole goal, aim, and result of buddhadharma practice is the cessation of dukha?
Would you think it fair to state the cessation of dukha is the general heading of practice, with many paths on the way toward that realization?
Is it too much to say the permanent and lasting cessation of dukha is the essence of enlightenment?

Two broad understandings of enlightenment-- end suffering by realizing desire and aversion involve desiring things that can't last and that what we're adverse to passes, too. That is a fortune cookie summary of Therevada enlightenment. The consequence is to live simply, be at peace with things. The Mahayana enlightenment is a metaphysical realization that we aren't so distinct everything around us, materially the boundaries are arbitrary, and in zen the abstract things are all undifferentiated conceptual goo. The consequence for this monism is that we reframe the problem of ourself to include others.

Now that I think about it, the Mahayana enlightenment actually aggravates the problem of misery-- now one has to solve the problem of dukkha for everyone, where as before one didn't need to give the suffering of the 3rd world much thought. The consequence is that now everyone needs to live simply, be at peace with things, do good works and follow an altruistic program of ethics.

Chaz

matthewmartin said:

Now that I think about it, the Mahayana enlightenment actually aggravates the problem of misery-- now one has to solve the problem of dukkha for everyone, where as before one didn't need to give the suffering of the 3rd world much thought. The consequence is that now everyone needs to live simply, be at peace with things, do good works and follow an altruistic program of ethics.

Wow! Pretty insightful, well, sort of, ahhhh on second thought really not all that insightful, but it's about as close to being Mahayana as a Fungo.

DairyLama

Jeongjwa said:

Would it be too narrow to say the sole goal, aim, and result of buddhadharma practice is the cessation of dukha?

That's what the 4 Noble Truths seem to say. Though I sometimes think cessation of dukkha is like a "by-product" of nibbana, only part of the equation.

anataman

@mathewmartin said...

Now that I think about it, the Mahayana enlightenment actually aggravates the problem of misery-- now one has to solve the problem of dukkha for everyone, where as before one didn't need to give the suffering of the 3rd world much thought.

...

I disagree with this view as we are interdependently co-arising in a broader sense, than what is arising in the individual mind, it is important to consider the dukkha of others, simply because it impacts and conditions your mind and actions as well. That is the subtler insight of mahayana, and knowing others are practicing it for everyone, generates a more wholesome view of the world. You can't achieve your goal without others achieving theirs. So you work for them and yourself.

Mettha

DairyLama

anataman said:

That is the subtler insight of mahayana, and knowing others are practicing it for everyone, generates a more wholesome view of the world.

I don't disagree, but note that the Mahayana didn't invent compassion.
See here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html

anataman

SpinyNorman said:

anataman said:

That is the subtler insight of mahayana, and knowing others are practicing it for everyone, generates a more wholesome view of the world.

I don't disagree, but note that the Mahayana didn't invent compassion.
See here: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.1.08.amar.html

By others, I meant anyone who can practice compassion, it's in everyones nature of every race and denomination. If you can see the world in this more enlightened way, it's not such a hard thing to achieve, is it? Just got deal with the hindrances to practicing it though!

seeker242

matthewmartin said:

Now that I think about it, the Mahayana enlightenment actually aggravates the problem of misery-- now one has to solve the problem of dukkha for everyone, where as before one didn't need to give the suffering of the 3rd world much thought. The consequence is that now everyone needs to live simply, be at peace with things, do good works and follow an altruistic program of ethics.

How does that reconcile with the diamond sutra?

Chapter 3.

"All living beings, whether born from eggs, from the womb, from moisture, or spontaneously; whether they have form or do not have form; whether they are aware or unaware, whether they are not aware or not unaware, all living beings will eventually be led by me to the final Nirvana, the final ending of the cycle of birth and death. And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated."

"Why Subhuti? Because if a disciple still clings to the arbitrary illusions of form or phenomena such as an ego, a personality, a self, a separate person, or a universal self existing eternally, then that person is not an authentic disciple."

Chapter 25.

"Subhuti, do not say that the Buddha has the idea, 'I will lead all sentient beings to Nirvana.' Do not think that way, Subhuti. Why? In truth there is not one single being for the Buddha to lead to Enlightenment. If the Buddha were to think there was, he would be caught in the idea of a self, a person, a living being, or a universal self. Subhuti, what the Buddha calls a self essentially has no self in the way that ordinary persons think there is a self. Subhuti, the Buddha does not regard anyone as an ordinary person. That is why he can speak of them as ordinary persons."

What need is there to save others if there really are no others?

Jeongjwa

lobster said:

I've been reminded of how complicated dharma practice can appear.

We remove stress/dukkha, for happiness to shine.

We haz ways . . .

Wonderful!

zsc

@seeker242 I'm not being snarky when I say that the sutras cannot be treated like books of the Bible, where all teachings must be reconciled with everything all the sutras say. Not only would that be impossible, but different sutras have different purposes, the dialogs are with people of different backgrounds, and therefore are usually instructional in certain situations about certain topics. This usually depends on the school you follow.

Sorry for the non-answer, and sorry if that's not clear, but it's hard for me to explain. Let's just say the concept of "84000 dharma doors" is not really an exaggeration...

seeker242

zsc said:

@seeker242 I'm not being snarky when I say that the sutras cannot be treated like books of the Bible, where all teachings must be reconciled with everything all the sutras say. Not only would that be impossible, but different sutras have different purposes, the dialogs are with people of different backgrounds, and therefore are usually instructional in certain situations about certain topics. This usually depends on the school you follow.

Sorry for the non-answer, and sorry if that's not clear, but it's hard for me to explain. Let's just say the concept of "84000 dharma doors" is not really an exaggeration...

No, it's isn't! But all the 84,000 doors all enter the same house and therefore can ultimately be reconciled.

But that's not really the point of the question. The point of the question is in asking it, not in answering it.

zsc

seeker242 said:

zsc said:

@seeker242 I'm not being snarky when I say that the sutras cannot be treated like books of the Bible, where all teachings must be reconciled with everything all the sutras say. Not only would that be impossible, but different sutras have different purposes, the dialogs are with people of different backgrounds, and therefore are usually instructional in certain situations about certain topics. This usually depends on the school you follow.

Sorry for the non-answer, and sorry if that's not clear, but it's hard for me to explain. Let's just say the concept of "84000 dharma doors" is not really an exaggeration...

No, it's isn't! But all the 84,000 doors all enter the same house and therefore can ultimately be reconciled.

Yes and no. But that's a totally different discussion

Gui

What is really here besides "just this"? Everything else is in my mind. Dukkha is in my mind. Enlightenment is in my mind. They are the same. Keep a don't know mind I've heard said.

matthewmartin

seeker242 said:

How does that reconcile with the diamond sutra?

And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated."

What need is there to save others if there really are no others?


It doesn't reconcile.

That's hongaku shiso/tathāgatagarbha (2) that goes beyond the optimism that everyone can be liberated to saying everyone already is liberated. I think the "Critical Buddhists"(1) who see this essentially as antinomian heresy. Different strokes for different folks, 84000 gates to the Dharma. People who believe in hongaku shiso/tathāgatagarbha still practice recognizable Buddhism, but it's nothing that I personally believe in. I believe in the much weaker statement that everyone can be enlightened. I think "you-are-already-enlightened" turns a beautiful system in to nonsense and has dangerous consequences for ones views on ethics and practice. And as for converting me to the Zen view, I'm content to just not get it-- there is enough going on elsewhere in the system of Buddhism to keep me busy.

(1) This is a really lousy name for this line of thought and the people behind it-- they aren't "critical as in 'saying Buddhism is bad.' They are saying that there are critical differences to be made (name that there is a difference between enlightened and unenlightened, a difference that is rendered meaningless in a hongaku/strong tathāgatagarbha system.)
(2) Shoot, I can't find a good short description on Critical Buddhism (and the non-Buddhist critique) most docs that exist are in a barely readable post-modern academic style.

Bunks

taiyaki said:

Jeongjwa said:

taiyaki said:

Suffering is caused by conceptuality and hesitation. Thinking, thinking. This and that, what ifs, etc.

I like that comment.

seeker242

matthewmartin said:

seeker242 said:

How does that reconcile with the diamond sutra?

And when this unfathomable, infinite number of living beings have all been liberated, in truth not even a single being has actually been liberated."

What need is there to save others if there really are no others?

It doesn't reconcile.



So the diamond sutra is wrong? How could that be?

matthewmartin

seeker242 said:

No, it's isn't! But all the 84,000 doors all enter the same house and therefore can ultimately be reconciled.
...
So the diamond sutra is wrong? How could that be?

Good luck on that project. Really though, the Buddhist way to reconcile the reconcilable is to :

appeal to expedient means (one reading is the pedagogical version, the other version is more true). This is actually very plausible and can explain away all sort of inconvenient assertions.
two levels of truth. Sometimes works, not always. Depends on if the assertion lends itself to a 2 levels of truth reading.
esoteric readings (one of the contradictions can be read in a highly symbolic manner to make it compatible with it's opposite)-- I often have a hard time believing that the original writer hid a secret message like that.
pig-headedly ignored the contradictions. I can't say I like this option. Sorry.
apply nonduality to contradictions. Doesn't appeal to me, but seeing the many as one sometimes is useful in other contexts.

Oh, and one more, orthodoxy. Pick one and say that one is right and the other one is heterodox and then either burn them at the stake or as is more common, try to politely say the other view is valid and respected, but not ones own, which still will annoy those who want each side of the contradiction to be held as equally true.

wangchuey

Jeongjwa said:

Would it be too narrow to say the sole goal, aim, and result of buddhadharma practice is the cessation of dukha?

Depends on who is measuring "narrow".

There's more to Buddhism than just finding happiness.

And also...

Life isn't just suffering

anataman

I agree @wangchuey, but the tendency is to repeatedly forget a very simple thing, and that is what is happening to each and every one of us here and now.

That is meditation...

What is illusion?

Bare bones!

robot

wangchuey said:

Jeongjwa said:

Would it be too narrow to say the sole goal, aim, and result of buddhadharma practice is the cessation of dukha?

Depends on who is measuring "narrow".

There's more to Buddhism than just finding happiness.

And also...

Life isn't just suffering

That's a pretty good essay that you linked. It explains a lot.