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.
The antecedent to a car accident in which someone gets injured (duhkha) is drinking alcohol (among other things).
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2006
In both cases, not always. Reasons are many and varied.
Suffering, Dukkha, as defined by the Buddha, is always due to our craving and attachment, our clinging through ignorance or lack of knowledge of the cyclic existence of samsara....
"Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin B]antecedent[/B of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." -- S.v.421
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Well, I use the Oxford English Dictionary. As far as "antecdent" is concerned they define it:
A thing or circumstance which goes before or precedes in time or order; often also implying causal relation with its consequent.
Citing form the O.E.D. here are some definitions of "origin":
More generally: the act or fact of beginning, or of springing from something; beginning of existence with reference to source or cause; rise or first manifestation
And,
That from which anything originates, or is derived; source of being or existence; starting-point. Now freq. in pl.
You may which to quibble, and I will defend your right to quibble, but in terms of causation—and Buddhism—both are pretty much fungible.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Mujaku, surely you can do better than this. This is sad, even for you.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited January 2006
* Mujaku, this thread was started with the intention of assisting New and Curious members to learn something constructive about Buddhism.
If you can't comply with that, then you're off-topic, confusing and generally difficult to follow.
Please contribute something constructively, which everybody would be able to understand. *
If it's not O.K. to respond, then delete away. This response is not really off topic, though.
Lets stick to the topic. Again what suffers is not the self. The cause of suffering is not about self.
There is only suffering. The 'sufferer' IS the suffering.
"Suffering alone exists, none that suffer.
The deed there is, but no doer thereof.
Nirvana is, but no one to seek it.
The path there is, but no one to walk it."
buddhagosa
..........................
"But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?"
"This question is not proper," said the Exalted One.
I do not teach that there is one who feels.
If, however, the question is put thus:
'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]."
--SN II 13
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited February 2006
I found this site, which might also help those interested to learn from different angles.....
It seems that the doctrine of anatta is almost always the culprit when it comes to our difficulties in regards to the understanding of Dhamma. People will always seem to find a way to assert what there is not [just listen to No Self, The Hollow Core], and hence continue renewing their cravings and attachments behind clever disguises. There is no quick and easy answer for learning this profound teaching. It is one of the distinct teachings that is only taught by a fully awakened Buddha. Is it really any surprise that so many people simply cannot grasp it right away? For one to truly awaken to this realization, it will take a lot of time, study, and practice. If you believe otherwise, you will most likely be sorely disappointed. However, we all must begin somewhere, so perhaps this talk by Sayadaw U Silananda will be of some use. Sayadaw U Silananda is a very well respected Burmese monk who is proficient in Pali, as well as Sanskrit.
It seems that the doctrine of anatta is almost always the culprit when it comes to our difficulties in regards to the understanding of Dhamma.
......
However, we all must begin somewhere, so perhaps this talk by Sayadaw U Silananda will be of some use. Sayadaw U Silananda is a very well respected Burmese monk who is proficient in Pali, as well as Sanskrit.
Jason
Very interesting. A bit confusing, however. Silananda argues that only a Buddha can understand the anatta doctrine (I agree), then proceeds anyway.
Then one section directly contradicts another, and the contradiction goes un noted. An area to be sorted out by the diligent student I suppose.
Good subject, though. I would agree with the premise expressed that a Buddhist student who does not really get a hold on this idea will have some difficulty. No, make that a lot of difficulty. :winkc:
It's not something that can be understood purely intellectually.
Absolutely. So often we see attempts to turn it into a philosophical/intellectual matter. I've found, in my own rummaging about, the anatta doctrine has almost become the rallying intellectual cry of western Buddhism. A "litmus test" of sorts.
And yet, as you point out, one cannot understand the matter with an intellectual approach. To gain an understanding, it seems one has to achieve release, at least in part, from attachment to the aggregates of which the Buddha spoke. Such release provides one of those "aha" moments in which the teaching becomes clear. Have you found that to be true?
The contradictions that exist within the excellent link provided give one a few strings to pull, intellectually, but my instincts tell me pulling those strings fails where practice and experience succeed.
We can truly say that with regard to truth; there is no such thing as 'intellectual understanding', because the psychological or mind phenomenon is the conditioned state and necessarily must be absent when (the state of) truth is manifest. Explanation is not understanding.
Well, perhaps your personal understanding of the Buddha's doctrine of anatta far exceeds that of the Venerable Silananda's. If that happens to be the case, you are always free to begin your own thread in which to expound upon how you would go about explaining such teachings to beginners. I would be quite interested in seeing that myself.
Silananda argues that only a Buddha can understand the anatta doctrine (I agree), then proceeds anyway.
UnderTree,
I would also just like to point out that you may have misread the Venerable Silananda. For clarification, the Venerable Silananda states that anatta can only be understood when there is a Buddha or a Buddha's teaching in the world; he does not state that only a Buddha can understand the anatta doctrine. If that were the case, there would be no arahants. What he does say is that it is only a fully Awakened Buddha that can penetrate into the anatta nature of things and teach that to others [due to his specific methods of meditation], which is why Buddhas are so important. Until they arise, avijja will simply keep sentient beings in the dark when it comes to the complete understanding of the three characteristics of existence [i.e. dukkha, anicca, and anatta].
Well, perhaps your personal understanding of the Buddha's doctrine of anatta far exceeds that of the Venerable Silananda's. If that happens to be the case, you are always free to begin your own thread in which to expound upon how you would go about explaining such teachings to beginners. I would be quite interested in seeing that myself.
Jason
Thank you for your interest. It is appreciated.
The subject is very important, not only for beginners, but for all who wish to truly understand Buddhism.
Diligent work in parsing out the passages may set the direction in which one heads with the practice. A parsing of the anatta doctrine and the linked article could not help but be beneficial to those who take the subject seriously.
I would be very happy to present such explanations for anyone who wished to partake of in-depth exploration (and respectful dialogue), however, the "tone" of this site/message board prohibits such in-depth exploration and analysis of the work of the Buddha.
This site is apparently for lighter fare, so I will not be posting, as my interests lie in a more intense pursuit of the subject.
(As for Silananda, I do not know the man, so have no opinion regarding his understanding except for the linked article.)
Well, if you ever change your mind, feel free to present your explanations in a new thread. Regardless of whether or not anybody agrees with them, as long as they are presented in a respectful manner, I see no problem with you posting them. I, for one, rather enjoy in-depth explorations and discussions [as long as I've had enough sleep].
Hi
I am new to the Buddhism thing but find myself drawn deep within me and I have an urge to learn more. Please tell me how I can about learning mmore about it.
Hi there Looking. Good to see you here. I'm sure that being here and asking whichever questions come up for you is a good start, and others here have many good links that can be helpful. In the meantime, this is a good place to start:
I have a question. Makes a change - I normally only have opinions!
This may have been asked before and if it has I apologise but it is a bit important to me at this very moment.
Does enlightenment come in one big bang or is it a series of realisations? Or is each realisation another stop on the railroad towards enlightenment? Is there such a thing as a "mini-enlightenment?" Or is it different for every person who starts looking at the Buddha's teachings?
Perhaps one way of looking at it is if you imagine lighting a candle in a huge and very dark cave, or even a few candles. The first one or two enlightenment experiences, though they are often earth shattering and transformative, are generally like that. They do come both as a 'big bang' and as a series of experiences. A 'big' Enlightenment experience is having a lot more lights on if you will. The cave is so big though that having one or two glimpses won't show you it properly and deeply. So there are levels of enlightenment and degrees of realization. And this realization really isn't something that happens in the head. It involves the whole body mind.
Continuing with this analogy, Sakyamuni Buddha was someone who saw the whole cave, so whilst the substance of that seeing is the same for each person and what is seen is the same, the depth does vary from individiual to individual and how that seeing is manifested varies for each person. Also, and this is even more important, real practice doesn't end with Enlightenment, in fact Enlightenment is in many ways a new beginning. There is no end to practice, no end to Enlightenment and no end to the ability of human beings to grow and akaken. That's why in Zen there's the saying, "Sakyamuni's still only half way there." What's important is how one then integrates awakening into daily life so that it informs everything you do, from making tea to how you walk. This is why, in contrast to other ways which stress getting to the top of the mountain, in Buddhism that's only half of it. There is also coming back down from the top of the mountain and, as the Ten Oxherding Pictures, (which detail some of the different experiences and stages along the way), puts it, "Entering the Market Place with Bliss Bestowing Hands."
Just a note, when it comes to understanding that one has had some kind of enlightening experience....don't expect others to validate it for you. It's natural to want to bring 'it' to someone, asking 'what is this'...but I have found it is up to you to answer that question.
I have a question. Makes a change - I normally only have opinions!
This may have been asked before and if it has I apologise but it is a bit important to me at this very moment.
Does enlightenment come in one big bang or is it a series of realisations? Or is each realisation another stop on the railroad towards enlightenment? Is there such a thing as a "mini-enlightenment?" Or is it different for every person who starts looking at the Buddha's teachings?
Rev - thank you - very clear and understandable. Bless you.
Harlan - many thanks for your advice too. I have no need to discuss any actual realisation in detail, as you say, they are for me to interpret and act upon.
Things are happening here and I am trying to assimilate them all .... may well be back with more questions soon.
Just a note, when it comes to understanding that one has had some kind of enlightening experience....don't expect others to validate it for you. It's natural to want to bring 'it' to someone, asking 'what is this'...but I have found it is up to you to answer that question.
Whilst that's true, it's easy to think that one has had an awakening when it's in fact something else altogether. For this reason, Buddhist traditions do have systems of validation. Usually the student will present their understanding to the teacher, often non verbally and the teacher will then test them.
Sorry...didn't mean to say that it wasn't possible to get validation. Awakening isn't limited to folks that are in a practice with access to a teacher...so the 'wildcards' out there may get discouraged if there is no one to go to.
Sorry...didn't mean to say that it wasn't possible to get validation. Awakening isn't limited to folks that are in a practice with access to a teacher...so the 'wildcards' out there may get discouraged if there is no one to go to.
No no no no Harlan - absolutely NO need to apologise - my reply wasn't meant to sound snippy either.
Only I am in my situation and only I know what the revelations might mean or how I can adapt my life to accommodate them. And if I ever do have revelations I don't understand, this is the first place I'll come with them, because as you noticed - I am without a temple or teacher, although I do have a very good friend who is helping my studies no end!
I do thank you most sincerely for your help and apologise if I sounded snotty or ungrateful.
And yes, the Ox Herding pictures are brilliant - may spend a lot of time on those.
Simon, I'm not sure if you've come across this before but Daido Roshi has a very lucid exposition of the Oxherding Pictures in his book, 'The Path of Enlightenment', and also in 'The Eight Gates of Zen'.
Sorry...didn't mean to say that it wasn't possible to get validation. Awakening isn't limited to folks that are in a practice with access to a teacher...so the 'wildcards' out there may get discouraged if there is no one to go to.
Harlan, that's a very good point. If one can get to a teacher, they will confirm (or not) such an experience, whether or not someone is their student. There is in fact a long tradition, that you may well be aware of, of Buddhists travelling to see different teachers to deepen or to test their degree of awakening.
Yes I was wondering what buddhist believe regarding the afterlife, also my wife bought a couple of books online and I was wondering if they were ok for a beginner like myself? The first one called How to Practice The way to a Meaningful Life By His Holiness The Dalai Lama, and the other book is called Buddhism for Bginners by Thubten Chodron.
Comments
Suffering, Dukkha, as defined by the Buddha, is always due to our craving and attachment, our clinging through ignorance or lack of knowledge of the cyclic existence of samsara....
I have worked for a dentist. I worked for a dentist for five years, and I'm telling you, it's not the only reason.
For those who wouild like to have " a quick education on Buddhism, you could do much worse than this site.....
Origin in this case means the base, the font, the source... from whence suffering "orignates".... it has nothing to do with antecedent.
Citing form the O.E.D. here are some definitions of "origin":
And,
You may which to quibble, and I will defend your right to quibble, but in terms of causation—and Buddhism—both are pretty much fungible.
If you can't comply with that, then you're off-topic, confusing and generally difficult to follow.
Please contribute something constructively, which everybody would be able to understand. *
There is only suffering. The 'sufferer' IS the suffering.
"Suffering alone exists, none that suffer.
The deed there is, but no doer thereof.
Nirvana is, but no one to seek it.
The path there is, but no one to walk it."
buddhagosa
..........................
"But who, Venerable One, is it that feels?"
"This question is not proper," said the Exalted One.
I do not teach that there is one who feels.
If, however, the question is put thus:
'Conditioned through what does feeling arise?' then the answer will be 'Through sense impressions as a condition feeling [arises]; with feeling as a condition, craving [arises]."
--SN II 13
some people will split hairs and argue all day about absolute rubbish if you let them.
Welcome CalgaryGuy! believe me, we are all NOT like that.
It seems that the doctrine of anatta is almost always the culprit when it comes to our difficulties in regards to the understanding of Dhamma. People will always seem to find a way to assert what there is not [just listen to No Self, The Hollow Core], and hence continue renewing their cravings and attachments behind clever disguises. There is no quick and easy answer for learning this profound teaching. It is one of the distinct teachings that is only taught by a fully awakened Buddha. Is it really any surprise that so many people simply cannot grasp it right away? For one to truly awaken to this realization, it will take a lot of time, study, and practice. If you believe otherwise, you will most likely be sorely disappointed. However, we all must begin somewhere, so perhaps this talk by Sayadaw U Silananda will be of some use. Sayadaw U Silananda is a very well respected Burmese monk who is proficient in Pali, as well as Sanskrit.
Jason
:wavey:
You're welcome.
Jason
Very interesting. A bit confusing, however. Silananda argues that only a Buddha can understand the anatta doctrine (I agree), then proceeds anyway.
Then one section directly contradicts another, and the contradiction goes un noted. An area to be sorted out by the diligent student I suppose.
Good subject, though. I would agree with the premise expressed that a Buddhist student who does not really get a hold on this idea will have some difficulty. No, make that a lot of difficulty. :winkc:
Absolutely. So often we see attempts to turn it into a philosophical/intellectual matter. I've found, in my own rummaging about, the anatta doctrine has almost become the rallying intellectual cry of western Buddhism. A "litmus test" of sorts.
And yet, as you point out, one cannot understand the matter with an intellectual approach. To gain an understanding, it seems one has to achieve release, at least in part, from attachment to the aggregates of which the Buddha spoke. Such release provides one of those "aha" moments in which the teaching becomes clear. Have you found that to be true?
The contradictions that exist within the excellent link provided give one a few strings to pull, intellectually, but my instincts tell me pulling those strings fails where practice and experience succeed.
Well, perhaps your personal understanding of the Buddha's doctrine of anatta far exceeds that of the Venerable Silananda's. If that happens to be the case, you are always free to begin your own thread in which to expound upon how you would go about explaining such teachings to beginners. I would be quite interested in seeing that myself.
Jason
UnderTree,
I would also just like to point out that you may have misread the Venerable Silananda. For clarification, the Venerable Silananda states that anatta can only be understood when there is a Buddha or a Buddha's teaching in the world; he does not state that only a Buddha can understand the anatta doctrine. If that were the case, there would be no arahants. What he does say is that it is only a fully Awakened Buddha that can penetrate into the anatta nature of things and teach that to others [due to his specific methods of meditation], which is why Buddhas are so important. Until they arise, avijja will simply keep sentient beings in the dark when it comes to the complete understanding of the three characteristics of existence [i.e. dukkha, anicca, and anatta].
Jason
The web address is www.buddhanet.net/dhammapada/d_twin.htm.
It gives the verse and a short explantion underneath.:vimp:
Is it sang-a (...s is past tense of sing
or
sanga...as is sah (open wide for the doctor)- ga
pornounciation of sangha.
regards,
X
Thank you for your interest. It is appreciated.
The subject is very important, not only for beginners, but for all who wish to truly understand Buddhism.
Diligent work in parsing out the passages may set the direction in which one heads with the practice. A parsing of the anatta doctrine and the linked article could not help but be beneficial to those who take the subject seriously.
I would be very happy to present such explanations for anyone who wished to partake of in-depth exploration (and respectful dialogue), however, the "tone" of this site/message board prohibits such in-depth exploration and analysis of the work of the Buddha.
This site is apparently for lighter fare, so I will not be posting, as my interests lie in a more intense pursuit of the subject.
(As for Silananda, I do not know the man, so have no opinion regarding his understanding except for the linked article.)
Well, if you ever change your mind, feel free to present your explanations in a new thread. Regardless of whether or not anybody agrees with them, as long as they are presented in a respectful manner, I see no problem with you posting them. I, for one, rather enjoy in-depth explorations and discussions [as long as I've had enough sleep].
Jason
I am interested in Buddhism and I currently a member of the Mormon faith but have found myself drawn to Buddhism and want to learn more.
You are very welcome here and we are more than happy to have you with us.
You are free to come and go as you wish, post questions, browse through the posts and join in to any discussion that tickles your interest.
Thanks for joining us!
(Ps: Don't be surprised if we shorten your name to LFE or something.... people do that with the names of friends, don't they?
I am new to the Buddhism thing but find myself drawn deep within me and I have an urge to learn more. Please tell me how I can about learning mmore about it.
Meditation - The Seat of Enlightenment
This may have been asked before and if it has I apologise but it is a bit important to me at this very moment.
Does enlightenment come in one big bang or is it a series of realisations? Or is each realisation another stop on the railroad towards enlightenment? Is there such a thing as a "mini-enlightenment?" Or is it different for every person who starts looking at the Buddha's teachings?
Continuing with this analogy, Sakyamuni Buddha was someone who saw the whole cave, so whilst the substance of that seeing is the same for each person and what is seen is the same, the depth does vary from individiual to individual and how that seeing is manifested varies for each person. Also, and this is even more important, real practice doesn't end with Enlightenment, in fact Enlightenment is in many ways a new beginning. There is no end to practice, no end to Enlightenment and no end to the ability of human beings to grow and akaken. That's why in Zen there's the saying, "Sakyamuni's still only half way there." What's important is how one then integrates awakening into daily life so that it informs everything you do, from making tea to how you walk. This is why, in contrast to other ways which stress getting to the top of the mountain, in Buddhism that's only half of it. There is also coming back down from the top of the mountain and, as the Ten Oxherding Pictures, (which detail some of the different experiences and stages along the way), puts it, "Entering the Market Place with Bliss Bestowing Hands."
The Ten Oxherding Pictures
Harlan - many thanks for your advice too. I have no need to discuss any actual realisation in detail, as you say, they are for me to interpret and act upon.
Things are happening here and I am trying to assimilate them all .... may well be back with more questions soon.
Thank you again.
Whilst that's true, it's easy to think that one has had an awakening when it's in fact something else altogether. For this reason, Buddhist traditions do have systems of validation. Usually the student will present their understanding to the teacher, often non verbally and the teacher will then test them.
I have been waiting for someone to mention the Ox-Herding Pictures.
They have become my main focus of study, reflection and meditation. Contemplation/sitting continues to be 'looking at the wall'!
No no no no Harlan - absolutely NO need to apologise - my reply wasn't meant to sound snippy either.
Only I am in my situation and only I know what the revelations might mean or how I can adapt my life to accommodate them. And if I ever do have revelations I don't understand, this is the first place I'll come with them, because as you noticed - I am without a temple or teacher, although I do have a very good friend who is helping my studies no end!
I do thank you most sincerely for your help and apologise if I sounded snotty or ungrateful.
And yes, the Ox Herding pictures are brilliant - may spend a lot of time on those.
Harlan, that's a very good point. If one can get to a teacher, they will confirm (or not) such an experience, whether or not someone is their student. There is in fact a long tradition, that you may well be aware of, of Buddhists travelling to see different teachers to deepen or to test their degree of awakening.
I hope that everyone is doing well and So what are the basic beliefs as of buddhism as far as when some dies? Being new and all.