Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Core Buddhist Ideas
I would love to hear what you think are the five most important ideas in Buddhism? I wonder if people posting will agree or not with each other on what the five most important ideas are.
0
Comments
Four Noble Truths
Eightfold Path
Three Dharma Seals
Dependent Origination
Five Precepts
Skilful karma
Four noble truths/dependent origination
Three characteristics/emptiness
Elements (dhatu)
Self-illumination (Kalama Sutra, be your own light etc)
Newcommers should be aware that they all fit within the four noble truths. For example, the three seals and dependent origination show why the noble truths are true. The path is the fourth truth, the five precepts are right action....
All things are:
Empty and interconnected
Changing and impermanent
Objective Dukka - All changes are:
Causally interdependent
Inevitably negative
Subjective Dukka - All experiences are:
Causally interdependent
Inevitably negative
Then the four noble truths specified:
1)Subjective Dukka
2)Cause
3)Solution
4)Method
Then under method, the path, comes all the rest.
What do you think?
namaste
1. Don't rely on an all powerfull, all knowing, all loving God to watch over you and keep you safe and happy.
2. Instead, rely on your own rightly-directed mind, a mind that has been cultivated by the practice of loving-kindness, compassion, sympathetic joy and equanimity.
3. By reflecting on the Four Noble Truths, you come to understand that life is subject to dukkha (suffering) because of your clinging to phenomena that are impermanent and constantly changing from one thing/state to another; and that there is a way to liberate yourself from suffering.
4. Rid yourself of the five hindrances which are major obstacles to spiritual progress and successfull meditation: (i) obsession for sensory pleasures, (ii) ill-will, anger and hatred, (iii) sloth and torpor, (iv) restlessness and worry, and (v) sceptical doubt.
5. Be fully committed (24/7) to walking the Noble Eightfold Path; a path that involves morality, mental dicipline, and wisdom.
So, yes the three marks and dependent origination are very fundamental parts of Buddhist teaching...but they are only half of it.
in your view, why are the 4NT's true?
Ethics
Patience
Perseverance
Renunciation
Insight
All together. For example in giving or letting go there is Insight and ethics. No self giving no object or no self letting go of no idea. Magic illusion. Appearance - Emptiness.
Appearance because when this is not analyzed. It does appear an object is given to someone or an idea is let go of. And this is fine. Its the hooking and grasping that cause suffering. No birth, No death. No wisdom. Nothing obstructing. (No = no self nature to grasp to... holding onto a bubble in a stream)
Ethics of non-harming by using your clear open and sensitive awareness.
Of course we don't start off at this level so there is also ordinary humbling and analysis of what to do is right and wrong. There is always some insight because the mind ultimately mirrors what is seen when it is not distorted by wrong views.
Eightfold Path
and three dharma seals.
Also, "Hinayana" is an unnecessary word. The Mahayana also includes perceived "Hinayana" teachings. There is nothing "lesser" about seeking liberation, for either oneself or others.
But I also see their truth from a bottom up approach, ie, from the three foundational truths that show why there is Dukka, objective dukka and subjective dukka.
Do you think the three marks would have been true of all things if there was never any sentiment beings, just an empty universe?
I think it depends what you mean by dukkha. If you define it differently than I do you could get a different answer.
Personally I don't care about dukkha that has nothing to do with a beings suffering. I have no reason to worry about such dukkha. So for me the only dukkha I am concerned with is a beings.
In other words without sentient beings I am unconcerned with the dharma. It would be like a winter coat in tahiti
It's truth is objective, grounded in anataman and annica and from this we can see dependent origination emerges the truth within the utterly subjective, as found in The Four Noble Truths.
my statement was that the only dukkha that matters to me is of a beings. A rock's dukkha is meaningless.
I disagree absolutely. Objective, by definition, is not to do with mental constructs. We must use the same language to speak well.
>>>>Buddhism has no metaphysics imagining a consciousness observing a universse without beings.
Why would you say this?
>>>>Buddhism is about experience of a being. Not metaphysics.
I disagree. the three foundations and dependent origination are wholly metaphysical, in the sense that they pertain to ontology(being) and eitiology (causation).
>>>A rock's dukkha is meaningless.
So is a man's;) Aint that the point?
[I declare on the truth of dharma and that the aforementioned wink smiley was a genuine cheeky kinda wink and not in any sense a sarcastic or negative wink]
Buddha never specifically said "I don't have metaphysics". But I consider that you have an attachment to a way of thinking. Sure you can think of 'subject' and 'object'. But that is a view of a being. Show me a rock that views that. Or do you imagine God looking at the world and establishing a veneer of western cartesian philosophy onto the world?
Methinks you are attached to metaphysics.
its about as far from the mystical as you can get:)
None of those things can be established a priori.
Not self applies to ideas too. So aristotles ideas are shifty. They are not absolute truths. If we grasp onto ideas? Guess what we get? Dukkha. Ding ding ding.
By shifty I mean they are relative truths. Composed of parts (built up), Impermanent, and mentally labled. The only ultimate truths is that all truths are that way. This is the three marks. There are other presentations of this in the mahayana. The skandhas empty is a shravaka view of emptiness. Many other views such as cittamatra, prasangika, sautantrika, and shentong have been studied.
Based on studying experience rather than texts.
I was defining metaphysics not arguing for Aristotle's metaphysics, and this was simply to contrast it with the mistaken mystical definition often used.
>>>The only ultimate truths is that all truths are that way. This is the three marks.
I agree pretty much that bthre three marks are ultimate truths. they are metaphysical truths. I think there are other ultimate truths, though not many. The Law of non Contradiction and the Law of Identity, for example.
>>>Based on studying experience rather than texts.
Is not thinking about something an experience?
Studying texts is thinking about concepts as if they are reality. Sometimes. In my experience buddhism has meaning (to me) only as it relates to my experience. For example if some random buddhist says in meditation he gets a lot of pleasure and he doesn't have depression or anxiety. Then that is not what I find in my own experience.
Your own experience is the foundation of your dharma learning. If you learn something in the dharma that does not agree with your own experience then you have to wonder. Not in a heavy handed rejection, rolling up your mat, and quitting buddhism, but just wonder in a light way.
This is what buddha meant as be a light unto yourself.
A luminous clarity of mind arising from groundless light.
I find this notion nonsensical, in the literal rather than insulting sense.
I am also curious as to how you can know there are no ultimate truths.
>>>All stamped with the three marks. Impermanence, non-self, and dukkha when grasped too.
But these are ultimate eternal truths. That's the whole issue, isnt it?
>>>Your own experience is the foundation of your dharma learning. If you learn something in the dharma that does not agree with your own experience then you have to wonder.
Exactly, this is what the Kalama Suttra says. But my own experience includes contemplation, meditation and reflection upon these things, as I am sure does most people's.
And in these reflections and contemplations I can see no possible world where the three marks are not eternally true, that to me is why they are ultimate truths.
>>>This is what buddha meant as be a light unto yourself.
We agree 100% on this.
Well from texts, but it is corroborated in my experience. Thoughts are just thinking is what I find. Like when you look out your window. That is reality. But over that is a lot of thinking "my neighbor bob is not shoveling he must be in bed (thats my actual neighbors name).. My mom just woke up I wonder how she slept? She is worried about her parents. Sad. Worried. What can I do?"
That is all thinking and it is passing, comes from nowhere and goes to nowhere (or you can say that due to emptiness it comes from the background where it always lies to the focus), and it need not be listened to. I can say PATB and just drop the worry about my mom and breath out cool wishes of healing to her.
No these are just a raft. Your luminous consciousness is all you got. If you were a dog you could not conceptualize ultimate truth but you would still have luminous consciousness. Rember experience appears based on our thinking (first chapter of dhamapada). Appearance only. Not truth.
A dog cannot reach nirvana not because it is stupid exactly and cannot know ultimate truths. The problem with a dog is that they cannot reflect on their experience and understand what is happening. They cannot have lasting peace because they cannot remove all the fetters. For example they disempower themselves just as humans do but they have no capacity to reflect on teachings for spiral learning.
Still there are wiser happier dogs and less happy angrier (or whatever) dogs.
Someone said, "reality is not as it appears. Nor is it otherwise" Meaning the reality we see is just thinking. But there is no true way how it is other than our thinking (experience).
Unbinding from dukkha is to let go of the grasping to sense pleasures, beliefs, and states of mind. Rising above the worldly.
And in these reflections and contemplations I can see no possible world where the three marks are not eternally true, that to me is why they are ultimate truths."
Yes but from that you cannot conclude X is true. You can only conclude I see/believe/thought X as true. This is what I meant by thinking is thinking. For example you might say "Jeffrey is X". But then I surprise you tomorrow.
Well, as I often say, the buddhs doesnt provide absolute certainty but he dpoes provide absolute clairty, and that is the very best we can hope for.
So when I say, "Anica is an ultimate truth" I am saying that I can conceive of no possible truth of ,more primacy than this truth (in a world with change). And relatedly, I am saying that I can conceive of no possible world where Annica is not the case.
>>>You can only conclude I see/believe/thought X as true.
Actually, no. I agree with most of my beliefs I can only conclude/see/believe/think that truth is true. However, with Anica, the negation of that is false: I cannot conceive of a world in which Annica is false.
Do you see the difference?
I can image a world where tomatoes are square or rebirth is false, but I cannot imagine a world without constant change.
>>>>For example you might say "Jeffrey is X". But then I surprise you tomorrow.
I can imagine a world in which Jeffy is not X. (With the one exception where X="imperminent or empty")
>>>Anyhow I like talking about this.
Me too:)
>>>Its very intriguing to hear how you are approaching things.
I know I come over a "know it all" sometimes in text, but I would say I have changed more in my understanding and practice of Dharma from this forum than from 7 years before (Though from rebirth discussions I think I have only learnt it is small or big dukka to engage in them!)
>>>>I do believe your mind also is luminous. And you are a fellow being
For sure on the latter, not on the former. I guess the only thing that might be unusual about my dharma understanding is that it is the product of a rigorous and total application of the doubt>question>clarity process that I believe is clearly stated in the Kalama Suttra.
To me this is the biggest distinction between Buddhists, bigger than rebirth/nonrebirth, drink/no drink, jasmin/sandlewood, socks+sandles/sandles:
Doubt everything and be your own light.
Or
Do not doubt everything and be lit by others.
My biggest mystery in dharma is what the Buddha said to the young man in the potting shed (The story I first heard about in WTBT but have read the sutta a few times since.)
What facinmates me about it is one night they were together, just one, and the young man emerges enlightened (And gets killed in a drive-by cow attack.)
What was said that to him. What turned dull glow or no glow, to blinding light, I wonder?
Moved.
Wood
Carry
Water