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.
But I also can sense your calm, and I wonder if it's right, just because you feel cam about it? Should we really be rejecting life?
So, if you don't mind me asking, did you find it hard to accept? And, given that it's not what most people want, what led you into wanting to cease living?
And what do you think about the Mahayana opinions expressed on the thread, which seem more nuanced.
This is maybe not the ideal topic to discuss on an internet board, because words can be misinterpreted more easily. Anyway, I'm glad you feel my calm.
It's not about rejecting life. Not wanting to live is just as much a sort of craving as wanting to live is. Can you see that? They are both based on the delusion that I am actually the one living. But that's not the way it is. There are the five aggregates that make up a person, nothing more, nothing less. No ´experiencer´ who can claim anything. See it like that and you might start to see that cessation is not that big of a deal.
I have a lot of respect for the Mahayana traditions and regularly practice in one, but don't agree with the nirvana idea of some traditions. Sometimes it seems a bit like eternalism, which the Buddha neglected. But that´s ok. To each his own.
Thich Nhat Hanh, No Death, No Fear, Part 2 Becoming Nothing
Our greatest fear is that when we die we will become nothing. Many of us believe that our entire existence is only a life span beginning the moment we are born or conceived and ending the moment we die. We believe that we are born from nothing and when we die we become nothing. And so we are filled with fear of annihilation.
The Buddha has a very different understanding of our existence. It is the understanding that birth and death are notions. They are not real. The fact that we think they are true makes a powerful illusion that causes our suffering. The Buddha taught that there is no birth; there is no death; there is no coming; there is no going; there is no same; there is no different; there is no permanent self; there is no annihilation. We only think there is. When we understand that we cannot be destroyed, we are liberated from fear. It is a great relief. We can enjoy life and appreciate it in a new way.
Finding a Lost Loved One
The same thing happens when we lost any of our beloved ones. When conditions are not right to support life, they withdraw. When I lost my mother I suffered a lot. When we are only seven or eight years old it is difficult to think that one day we will lose our mother. Eventually we grow up and we all lose our mothers, but if you know how to practice, when the time comes for the separation you will not suffer too much. You will very quickly realize that your mother is always alive within you.
The day my mother died, I wrote in my journal, "A serious misfortune of my life has arrived." I suffered for more than one year after the passing away of my mother. But one night, in the highlands of Vietnam, I was sleeping in the hut in my hermitage. I dreamed of my mother. I saw myself sitting with her, and we were having a wonderful talk. She looked young and beautiful, her hair flowing down. It was so pleasant to sit there and talk to her as if she had never died. When I woke up it was about two in the morning, and I felt very strongly that I had never lost my mother. The impression that my mother was still with me was very clear. I understood then that the idea of having lost my mother was just an idea. It was obvious in that moment that my mother is always alive in me.
Thich Nhat Hanh, No Death, No Fear, Part 3 I opened the door and went outside. The entire hillside was bathed in moonlight. It was a hill covered with tea plants, and my hut was set behind the temple halfway up. Walking slowly in the moonlight through the rows of tea plants, I noticed my mother was still with me. She was the moonlight caressing me as she had done so often, very tenderly, very sweet... wonderful! Each time my feet touched the earth I knew my mother was there with me. I knew this body was not mine along but a living continuation of my mother and father and my grandparents and great-grandparents. Of all my ancestors. These feet that I saw as "my" feet were actually "our" feet. Together my mother and I were leaving footprints in the damp soil.
From that moment on the idea that I had lost my mother no longer existed. All I had to do was look at the palm of my hand, feel the breeze on my face or the earth under my feet to remember that my mother is always with me, available at any time.
When you lost a loved one, you suffer. but if you know how to look deeply, you have a chance to realize that his or her nature is truly the nature of no birth, no death. There is manifestation and there is the cessation of manifestation in order to have another manifestation. You have to be very keen and very alert in order to recognize the new manifestation of just one person. But with practice and with effort you can do it.
So, taking the hand of someone who knows the practice, together do walking meditation. Pay attention to all the leaves, the flowers, the birds and the dewdrops. If you can stop and look deeply, you will be able to recognize your beloved one manifesting again and again in different forms. You will again embrace the joy of life.
Thich Nhat Hanh, No Death, No Fear, Part 4 Nothing Is Born, Nothing Dies
A French scientist, whose name is Lavosier, declared, "Rien ne se cree, rien ne se perd." "Nothing is born, nothing dies." Although he did not practice as a Buddhist but as a scientist, he found the same truth the Buddha discovered.
Our true nature is the nature of no birth and no death. Only when we touch our true nature can we transcend the fear of non-being, the fear of annihilation.
The Buddha said that when conditions are sufficient something manifests and we say it exists. When one or two conditions fail and the thing does not manifest in the same way, we then say it does not exist. According to the Buddha, to qualify something as existing or not existing is wrong. In reality, there is no such thing as totally existing or totally not existing.
We can see this very easily with television and radio. We may be in a room that has no television or radio. And while we are in that room, we may think that television programs and radio programs do not exist in that room. But all of us know that the space in the room is full of signals. The signals of these programs are filling the air everywhere. We need only one more condition, a radio or television set, and may forms, colors and sounds will appear.
It would have been wrong to say that the signals do not exist because we did not have a radio or television to receive and manifest them. They only seemed not to exist because the causes and conditions were not enough to make the television program manifest. So at that moment, in that room, they do not exist. Just because we do not perceive something, it is not correct to say it doesn’t exist. It is only our notion of being and non-being that makes us think something exists or doesn’t exist. Notions of being and non-being cannot be applied to reality.
Sabre, but don't you agree that the Buddha said the tagatha after death was deep boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea? That there was no limit by which he could be described? Which sounds a lot like the Mahayana view. And that he refused to speculate on an Arahant after death, whereas it seems your cessation view is a speculation?
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
If you haven't read this about the Gandharan scriptures, it may help some in understanding the origins of the different traditions.
Basically the roots of Buddhism aren't like a tree branching out from a single doctrine but more like a tangled bush.
When we understand that we cannot be destroyed, we are liberated from fear.
Yes, I experienced this before back as a constant knowledge, but lost the experience temporarily through drinking. I am on the edge of it again. But was it just a meditational delusion? Theravadans, not all but many, seem very certain about oblivion, and their logic is pretty good. Bhikku Thannisaro has a different view, however, as does Bhikku Bhodi
Sabre, but don't you agree that the Buddha said the tagatha after death was deep boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea?
These words are rather vague to me. I don't know the pali translation of this, nor am I very knowledged in it, so I can't say whether I agree or disagree. But you should always take any quote in context of the entire teachings and therein the neglection of eternalism is quite clear to me.
And that he refused to speculate on an Arahant after death, whereas it seems your cessation view is a speculation?
An arahant does not exist. So it is not possible to say what happens to 'him' after death. Therefore the Buddha said "'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply.". This is not the same as not speculating. This is making a statement that makes people think. What's the only solution to the above statements? That there is nothing to reappear..
So, as Taiyaki quoted TNH: death (as most people see it) does not exist in this sense either. And 'we' can not be destroyed. Therefore annihilation is a wrong term indeed and cessation (though still easily misunderstood) is a bit better, but still wrong.
“The earlier stages of the Mahayana go far back. The Mahayana has longer roots and older roots than we thought before.” (Not roots all the way back to the Buddha, though — Harrison agrees with the general scholarly consensus that the Mahayana developed after the Buddha.
person, it doesn't change the fact that they came later... I project, in my mind, the Buddha coming along and teaching a doctrine that is very difficult to accept, because he's teaching for all practical purposes, the death of the soul. Now, there is no soul in Buddhism, just processes, but again, for practical purposes, we have passed from life to life for an eternity, sometimes happy, sometimes suffering, usually a combination of the two. And we always hoped, when we were beings who could think and hope, for a resolution, for a way to live happily, without causing harm or being harmed. This is the goal of all the religions. Except that the Buddha said no, you can't have that, it's not possible. The only way to end suffering is to end life.
And I project the Mahayana chaps coming later on, and, as I am doing now, finding it difficult to accept, and thus putting the soul back in, putting the possibility of a happy life back into the religion.
Or, the other projection of mine, is that Buddha's silence about parinibbana was just that, silence, a soteriological strategy that if followed will lead one directly into the realisations of the Mahayana. That's what I always thought, but now I am having doubts.
What's the only solution to the above statements? That there is nothing to reappear..
The other solution is that there is nothing to reappear and life goes on.
But if there is only oblivion, shouldn't the Buddha have made that clear? And shouldn't modern Buddhists make it clear to newcomers? No one wants that, and no one is told that that's what we're practicing for. But if we did publicise the goal, I suspect there would be a lot fewer Buddhists within a short time.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
Idk, I guess I accept the Mahayana version of events. That Buddha had three turnings of the wheel. That he taught in different ways to different people based upon their understanding and disposition. I don't think that the pali version is wrong just that it only goes so far as to talk about compounded reality and not ultimate reality since ultimate reality can't be expressed in words only pointed to.
Honestly I can't say. I just know that mahayana doctrine makes sense to me.
person, me too. But so does Advaita and Taoism, and Christianity, and Judaism and Islam, when expressed skillfully. I can look at the moon and not the words, when I am looking skillfully. But Theravadans say that the above all subscribe to eternalism, that the realisations of the Mahayana will lead to aeons of happiness followed by a descent into suffering. They say, and The Buddha seems to say that there is no permanent happiness, no salvation, just cessation. Which is sad.
What's the only solution to the above statements? That there is nothing to reappear..
The other solution is that there is nothing to reappear and life goes on.
But if there is only oblivion, shouldn't the Buddha have made that clear? And shouldn't modern Buddhists make it clear to newcomers? No one wants that, and no one is told that that's what we're practicing for. But if we did publicise the goal, I suspect there would be a lot fewer Buddhists within a short time.
You can't say nirvana is oblivion.
The idea of cessation is quite open already, as I said, for me it was quite clear immediately. It's right there in the 4NT and dependent origination. But a lot people will not accept it, even if it is right in front of their eyes. This is understandable of course. I did see it but not accept it either at the start. As said, you can't just accept it without some insight. But still it seemed somehow logical to me.
Anyway, the fact that it is not often discussed is, I think, that it is easily misunderstood. Also, Buddhism is mainly about where we are now. The path is more important than the goal, one might say. You can't enforce insight by discussion. Only by following the path will we progress.
So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html
Still some theravadin teachers are quite clear about it, which I think is a good thing actually. People seek the highest happiness, nirvana is the highest happiness. Naturally people will always tend towards this and find the teachings.
Well there never was a self in the sense Buddha meant, self is just a word co-dependent on physical and mental stuff, e.g. you hear your name and your pulse quickens and so on.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
person, me too. But so does Advaita and Taoism, and Christianity, and Judaism and Islam, when expressed skillfully. I can look at the moon and not the words, when I am looking skillfully. But Theravadans say that the above all subscribe to eternalism, that the realisations of the Mahayana will lead to aeons of happiness followed by a descent into suffering. They say, and The Buddha seems to say that there is no permanent happiness, no salvation, just cessation. Which is sad.
Idk, maybe the Therevadins do say that, Mahayana rejects that on the basis of emptiness of emptiness. Buddha nature and shentong doctrine sound alot like a reification of the experience of emptiness but they say its not. I'm not well versed enough to give a detailed explanation though.
Sabre, you say the highest happiness, but impermanent happiness is not really happiness, it's Dukkha. I often look forward to the weekend, then the weekend is over. Is Nibbana just a weekend in paradise?
Yes, I perceive emptiness to be empty. My solution to the cessation of consciousness is that what is experienced is in fact not consciousness, nor are the aggregates aggregates.
person, no, the Pali (I only read translations, I'm not much for languages) doesn't say oblivion, but certain readings suggest it, and it is a popular view amongst internet Theravadans, though not for instance, in the Forest Tradition.
Sabre, you say the highest happiness, but impermanent happiness is not really happiness, it's Dukkha. I often look forward to the weekend, then the weekend is over. Is Nibbana just a weekend in paradise?
Nirvana is not impermanent.
There is a difference between happiness that is a fabrication (for example [the result of] deep meditation states) and happiness that is through the absence of attachments. The former is still a very subtle form of dukkha and the latter is nirvana.
Anyway, the fact that it is not often discussed is, I think, that it is easily misunderstood. Also, Buddhism is mainly about where we are now. The path is more important than the goal, one might say. You can't enforce insight by discussion. Only by following the path will we progress.
Misunderstood? But Sabre, it's dying. I agree, not in an ultimate sense, because this is just a process, but that's linguistic sleight of hand. It means no happiness or sadness, no love or hate, no smiles or sighs. Nothing.
There is a difference between happiness that is a fabrication (for example [the result of] deep meditation states) and happiness that is through the absence of attachments. The former is still a very subtle form of dukkha and the latter is nirvana.
Yes, and I only want it if it's forever. Otherwise, I'll take it, because I don't want greed and hatred, suffering, but it's still sad that there was no way we could make life work.
As Buddha said, anything impermanent is Dukkha, so Nibbana may be permanent, but it's happiness is Dukkha, because it will end.
Misunderstood? But Sabre, it's dying. I agree, not in an ultimate sense, because this is just a process, but that's linguistic sleight of hand. It means no happiness or sadness, no love or hate, no smiles or sighs. Nothing. </blockquote. Accept that everything is just a process, and it will not be so bad. If one sees more clearly that everything you do and experience is conditioned, is not-self, it all becomes rather repelling. (not in a negative way, but still) Even love, it is not yours. Sublime meditation experience, not yours.. nothing to keep. This process of disenchantment is called nibbida by Buddha.
I suggest you read Mindfulness Bliss and Beyond by Ajahn Brahm. He goes into the subject of nirvana and explains it much better than I can.
But that's the thing, the great salvation comes down to,
Accept that everything is just a process, and it will not be so bad.
Also, I never understood Buddha saying that impermanence is unsatisfactory. Impermanence is the only way that things can be satisfactory. Now clinging to objects that are impermanent is unsatisfactory, but isn't the examination of, leading to the acceptance of leading to the eternal unconditional love of impermanence itself the end of fear and suffering?
There is a difference between happiness that is a fabrication (for example [the result of] deep meditation states) and happiness that is through the absence of attachments. The former is still a very subtle form of dukkha and the latter is nirvana.
Yes, and I only want it if it's forever. Otherwise, I'll take it, because I don't want greed and hatred, suffering, but it's still sad that there was no way we could make life work.
As Buddha said, anything impermanent is Dukkha, so Nibbana may be permanent, but it's happiness is Dukkha, because it will end.
Greed is what causes life in the first place It causes rebirth. So in a way you could say life without greed is not possible.
But don't break your head over this. It's more important to practice the path than endlessly trying to grab it with reason. As long as you aren't sure what nirvana is, leave it be. You maybe have noticed that the path has already brought you some peace and happiness. It will bring more. Whatever nirvana will be, it will be more peace.
How could a sunset be beautiful unless the sun set? Impermanence is perfectly satisfactory, it's just our delusion that makes it seem less so, because we were born running in a gale and seeking shelter from the elements. So I can accept this body crumbling, I can die and journey onwards, I can watch trees wither and trees grow. But impermanence of impermanence? That I find difficult to accept.
But that's the thing, the great salvation comes down to,
Accept that everything is just a process, and it will not be so bad.
Also, I never understood Buddha saying that impermanence is unsatisfactory. Impermanence is the only way that things can be satisfactory. Now clinging to objects that are impermanent is unsatisfactory, but isn't the examination of, leading to the acceptance of leading to the eternal unconditional love of impermanence itself the end of fear and suffering?
I'm sorry, what's the thing here? Also the rest of the post I do not fully understand, my apologies
I thought that Buddha's teaching was that life is suffering until we learn to accept life, to say yes to it, to pain and joy alike. And then it is not Dukkha, it goes on endlessly in the dance of harmony and contrast.
It's an English expression, means that's the crux of the argument/discussion/point.
What I mean is, I cannot believe that life is the problem. Surely it's our ignorance of what life is that is the problem? I always believed that the Zen view of Buddhism is 'you are in heaven already, you just don't realise it'.
Than don't. Acknoledge this. Fine too. Maybe you will find out later why it is difficult to accept. There may be a wrong perception.
Or maybe for you it is still open for this idea of nirvana to be wrong, or for the Buddha to be wrong. Don't believe him just because he's your teacher. Don't believe me just because I say. Investigate it.
Don't think I'm getting into the usual internet board oneupmanship, or being rude, I am grateful for your help here, but I am also passionate, and not a complete beginner.
I don't think the Buddha was wrong, but I think Ajahn Bram's interpretations are wrong.
Do you equally accept that you may be wrong?
What I was trying to point out is, why do you think the Buddha was not wrong? Why do you think Brahm is wrong? The Buddha said we should practice so we can be our own teacher, our own refuge. We should base our views on wisdom. But as long as we don't know something, we don't know. It's that simple.
Ajahn Chah used to say not everything is impermanent, but "everything is uncertain". He said things like: "You think you are enlightened? Uncertain!" Comes down to the Zen beginners mind. Even if you think you know something for sure, let it be for what it is. You may be right, you may be wrong. It makes everything much more easy.
patbb, because I have read some of his writings on nibbana and the jhanas, and he seems to see nibbana as being complete cessation of experience, in this life, and he also says that all life is suffering i.e. even happiness is just the absence of most suffering and relative. I see things the other way round, that suffering is the absence of happiness, its denial, and thus that happiness should be seen as the positive value rather than suffering.
That is heaven too. I don't think you understand pain.
Well, pain is suffering. The Buddha also said it.
"Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering — in short, suffering is the five categories of clinging objects." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.nymo.html
But one arrow is still an arrow. Wouldn't call it a heaven.
Don't think I'm getting into the usual internet board oneupmanship, or being rude, I am grateful for your help here, but I am also passionate, and not a complete beginner.
No problem. I like my views challenged. This way I can test them too . And also please try to piss me off, lol (joking)
Sabre, pain is not suffering. When Bear Gryls jumps into arctic waters as part of his survival show, he is obviously in severe pain, and loving it. A zen practitioner, dying of cancer, was telling his friend of his bodily pains, constant and unrelenting, and was asked, but how are you? And he answered 'an embarrassment of riches'.
Comments
It's not about rejecting life. Not wanting to live is just as much a sort of craving as wanting to live is. Can you see that? They are both based on the delusion that I am actually the one living. But that's not the way it is. There are the five aggregates that make up a person, nothing more, nothing less. No ´experiencer´ who can claim anything. See it like that and you might start to see that cessation is not that big of a deal.
I have a lot of respect for the Mahayana traditions and regularly practice in one, but don't agree with the nirvana idea of some traditions. Sometimes it seems a bit like eternalism, which the Buddha neglected. But that´s ok. To each his own.
With metta,
Sabre
Thich Nhat Hanh, No Death, No Fear, Part 2
Becoming Nothing
Our greatest fear is that when we die we will become nothing. Many of us believe that our entire existence is only a life span beginning the moment we are born or conceived and ending the moment we die. We believe that we are born from nothing and when we die we become nothing. And so we are filled with fear of annihilation.
The Buddha has a very different understanding of our existence. It is the understanding that birth and death are notions. They are not real. The fact that we think they are true makes a powerful illusion that causes our suffering. The Buddha taught that there is no birth; there is no death; there is no coming; there is no going; there is no same; there is no different; there is no permanent self; there is no annihilation. We only think there is. When we understand that we cannot be destroyed, we are liberated from fear. It is a great relief. We can enjoy life and appreciate it in a new way.
Finding a Lost Loved One
The same thing happens when we lost any of our beloved ones. When conditions are not right to support life, they withdraw. When I lost my mother I suffered a lot. When we are only seven or eight years old it is difficult to think that one day we will lose our mother. Eventually we grow up and we all lose our mothers, but if you know how to practice, when the time comes for the separation you will not suffer too much. You will very quickly realize that your mother is always alive within you.
The day my mother died, I wrote in my journal, "A serious misfortune of my life has arrived." I suffered for more than one year after the passing away of my mother. But one night, in the highlands of Vietnam, I was sleeping in the hut in my hermitage. I dreamed of my mother. I saw myself sitting with her, and we were having a wonderful talk. She looked young and beautiful, her hair flowing down. It was so pleasant to sit there and talk to her as if she had never died. When I woke up it was about two in the morning, and I felt very strongly that I had never lost my mother. The impression that my mother was still with me was very clear. I understood then that the idea of having lost my mother was just an idea. It was obvious in that moment that my mother is always alive in me.
Thich Nhat Hanh, No Death, No Fear, Part 3
I opened the door and went outside. The entire hillside was bathed in moonlight. It was a hill covered with tea plants, and my hut was set behind the temple halfway up. Walking slowly in the moonlight through the rows of tea plants, I noticed my mother was still with me. She was the moonlight caressing me as she had done so often, very tenderly, very sweet... wonderful! Each time my feet touched the earth I knew my mother was there with me. I knew this body was not mine along but a living continuation of my mother and father and my grandparents and great-grandparents. Of all my ancestors. These feet that I saw as "my" feet were actually "our" feet. Together my mother and I were leaving footprints in the damp soil.
From that moment on the idea that I had lost my mother no longer existed. All I had to do was look at the palm of my hand, feel the breeze on my face or the earth under my feet to remember that my mother is always with me, available at any time.
When you lost a loved one, you suffer. but if you know how to look deeply, you have a chance to realize that his or her nature is truly the nature of no birth, no death. There is manifestation and there is the cessation of manifestation in order to have another manifestation. You have to be very keen and very alert in order to recognize the new manifestation of just one person. But with practice and with effort you can do it.
So, taking the hand of someone who knows the practice, together do walking meditation. Pay attention to all the leaves, the flowers, the birds and the dewdrops. If you can stop and look deeply, you will be able to recognize your beloved one manifesting again and again in different forms. You will again embrace the joy of life.
Thich Nhat Hanh, No Death, No Fear, Part 4
Nothing Is Born, Nothing Dies
A French scientist, whose name is Lavosier, declared, "Rien ne se cree, rien ne se perd." "Nothing is born, nothing dies." Although he did not practice as a Buddhist but as a scientist, he found the same truth the Buddha discovered.
Our true nature is the nature of no birth and no death. Only when we touch our true nature can we transcend the fear of non-being, the fear of annihilation.
The Buddha said that when conditions are sufficient something manifests and we say it exists. When one or two conditions fail and the thing does not manifest in the same way, we then say it does not exist. According to the Buddha, to qualify something as existing or not existing is wrong. In reality, there is no such thing as totally existing or totally not existing.
We can see this very easily with television and radio. We may be in a room that has no television or radio. And while we are in that room, we may think that television programs and radio programs do not exist in that room. But all of us know that the space in the room is full of signals. The signals of these programs are filling the air everywhere. We need only one more condition, a radio or television set, and may forms, colors and sounds will appear.
It would have been wrong to say that the signals do not exist because we did not have a radio or television to receive and manifest them. They only seemed not to exist because the causes and conditions were not enough to make the television program manifest. So at that moment, in that room, they do not exist. Just because we do not perceive something, it is not correct to say it doesn’t exist. It is only our notion of being and non-being that makes us think something exists or doesn’t exist. Notions of being and non-being cannot be applied to reality.
Basically the roots of Buddhism aren't like a tree branching out from a single doctrine but more like a tangled bush.
Yes, I experienced this before back as a constant knowledge, but lost the experience temporarily through drinking. I am on the edge of it again. But was it just a meditational delusion? Theravadans, not all but many, seem very certain about oblivion, and their logic is pretty good. Bhikku Thannisaro has a different view, however, as does Bhikku Bhodi
So, as Taiyaki quoted TNH: death (as most people see it) does not exist in this sense either. And 'we' can not be destroyed. Therefore annihilation is a wrong term indeed and cessation (though still easily misunderstood) is a bit better, but still wrong.
With metta,
Sabre
far
back. The
Mahayana has longer roots and older roots than we thought before.” (Not roots all the
way back to the Buddha, though
—
Harrison agrees with the general scholarly consensus
that the Mahayana developed after the Buddha.
person, it doesn't change the fact that they came later... I project, in my mind, the Buddha coming along and teaching a doctrine that is very difficult to accept, because he's teaching for all practical purposes, the death of the soul. Now, there is no soul in Buddhism, just processes, but again, for practical purposes, we have passed from life to life for an eternity, sometimes happy, sometimes suffering, usually a combination of the two. And we always hoped, when we were beings who could think and hope, for a resolution, for a way to live happily, without causing harm or being harmed. This is the goal of all the religions. Except that the Buddha said no, you can't have that, it's not possible. The only way to end suffering is to end life.
And I project the Mahayana chaps coming later on, and, as I am doing now, finding it difficult to accept, and thus putting the soul back in, putting the possibility of a happy life back into the religion.
Or, the other projection of mine, is that Buddha's silence about parinibbana was just that, silence, a soteriological strategy that if followed will lead one directly into the realisations of the Mahayana. That's what I always thought, but now I am having doubts.
What's the only solution to the above statements? That there is nothing to reappear..
The other solution is that there is nothing to reappear and life goes on.
But if there is only oblivion, shouldn't the Buddha have made that clear? And shouldn't modern Buddhists make it clear to newcomers? No one wants that, and no one is told that that's what we're practicing for. But if we did publicise the goal, I suspect there would be a lot fewer Buddhists within a short time.
Honestly I can't say. I just know that mahayana doctrine makes sense to me.
You can't say nirvana is oblivion.
The idea of cessation is quite open already, as I said, for me it was quite clear immediately. It's right there in the 4NT and dependent origination. But a lot people will not accept it, even if it is right in front of their eyes.
Anyway, the fact that it is not often discussed is, I think, that it is easily misunderstood. Also, Buddhism is mainly about where we are now. The path is more important than the goal, one might say. You can't enforce insight by discussion. Only by following the path will we progress.
So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.'
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html
Still some theravadin teachers are quite clear about it, which I think is a good thing actually. People seek the highest happiness, nirvana is the highest happiness. Naturally people will always tend towards this and find the teachings.
Sabre
There is a difference between happiness that is a fabrication (for example [the result of] deep meditation states) and happiness that is through the absence of attachments. The former is still a very subtle form of dukkha and the latter is nirvana.
Anyway, the fact that it is not often discussed is, I think, that it is easily misunderstood. Also, Buddhism is mainly about where we are now. The path is more important than the goal, one might say. You can't enforce insight by discussion. Only by following the path will we progress.
Misunderstood? But Sabre, it's dying. I agree, not in an ultimate sense, because this is just a process, but that's linguistic sleight of hand. It means no happiness or sadness, no love or hate, no smiles or sighs. Nothing.
There is a difference between happiness that is a fabrication (for example [the result of] deep meditation states) and happiness that is through the absence of attachments. The former is still a very subtle form of dukkha and the latter is nirvana.
Yes, and I only want it if it's forever. Otherwise, I'll take it, because I don't want greed and hatred, suffering, but it's still sad that there was no way we could make life work.
As Buddha said, anything impermanent is Dukkha, so Nibbana may be permanent, but it's happiness is Dukkha, because it will end.
Accept that everything is just a process, and it will not be so bad.
Also, I never understood Buddha saying that impermanence is unsatisfactory. Impermanence is the only way that things can be satisfactory. Now clinging to objects that are impermanent is unsatisfactory, but isn't the examination of, leading to the acceptance of leading to the eternal unconditional love of impermanence itself the end of fear and suffering?
But don't break your head over this. It's more important to practice the path than endlessly trying to grab it with reason. As long as you aren't sure what nirvana is, leave it be. You maybe have noticed that the path has already brought you some peace and happiness. It will bring more. Whatever nirvana will be, it will be more peace.
Sabre
What I mean is, I cannot believe that life is the problem. Surely it's our ignorance of what life is that is the problem? I always believed that the Zen view of Buddhism is 'you are in heaven already, you just don't realise it'.
Or maybe for you it is still open for this idea of nirvana to be wrong, or for the Buddha to be wrong. Don't believe him just because he's your teacher. Don't believe me just because I say. Investigate it.
Do you equally accept that you may be wrong?
Ajahn Chah used to say not everything is impermanent, but "everything is uncertain". He said things like: "You think you are enlightened? Uncertain!" Comes down to the Zen beginners mind. Even if you think you know something for sure, let it be for what it is. You may be right, you may be wrong. It makes everything much more easy.
Live the pardox
Sabre, that is good advice.
"Suffering, as a noble truth, is this: Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, death is suffering, sorrow and lamentation, pain, grief and despair are suffering; association with the loathed is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering — in short, suffering is the five categories of clinging objects."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.nymo.html
Sure, you can accept pain 100% in the mind, but the body still feels it. The Buddha compared this to being shot by one arrow instead of two.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.006.than.html
But one arrow is still an arrow. Wouldn't call it a heaven. No problem. I like my views challenged. This way I can test them too
With metta,
Sabre
The dharma is of one taste. Freedom of mind and heart.
Its rather stupid simple.