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 Buddhas words aren't meant to be reified into a system i.e. pain equals suffering. He was speaking to an audience that did experience pain as suffering.
I recently had a very angry tooth, then a root canal... I was not happy and hope to never have to go through that again... I would love to be able to view that experience as something other than pain and suffering.
The Buddhas words aren't meant to be reified into a system i.e. pain equals suffering. He was speaking to an audience that did experience pain as suffering.
Just want to say that -according to the scriptures- this first sermon was adressed to the five first monks that became arahants quickly afterwards. He obviously adjusted his way of talking to his audience, but this sermon was apparently not adressed to lay people, initially.
Anyway, back to the original topic? How did we get here anyway?
EDIT:
Very related though. If life is necessarily suffering, then oblivion is the only answer. If not, then not necessarily.
Ok now I remember. Ok, still very related, but let's be mindful of the original topic.
As you may have noticed in my replies, it's getting late here. I'm getting a bit tired. I will meditate and sleep now.
This is something I have experienced, pain not being suffering. If ones mindfulness is sufficient, there is no aversion to pain. The Buddhas words aren't meant to be reified into a system i.e. pain equals suffering. He was speaking to an audience that did experience pain as suffering.
i actually agree with this. as i've also experienced this.
Recognizing that my knowledge of Buddhist scripture is completely inadequate for a discussion like this, I think there is something I can add, drawing on my knowledge in other areas. To my knowledge, within Buddhism the examination of things with a clear and logical process of thought is encouraged. To that end, I could never accept any teaching that is in direct conflict with scientific knowledge. If acceptance of something of that nature is required, then to be frank I'll not be able to continue on believing that Buddhism is credible. For example, if it was an accepted teaching that 2+2=5.
So then, I ask you to examine the laws of thermodynamics. Facts about the universe we "exist" in that have been observed by countless minds to be true.
"The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant." (http://www.physicsplanet.com/articles/three-laws-of-thermodynamics) In other words, non-existence has n
Recognizing that my knowledge of Buddhist scripture is completely inadequate for a discussion like this, I think there is something I can add, drawing on my knowledge in other areas. To my knowledge, within Buddhism the examination of things with a clear and logical process of thought is encouraged. To that end, I could never accept any teaching that is in direct conflict with scientific knowledge. For example, a teaching that states 2+2=5.
So then, I ask you to examine the laws of thermodynamics. Facts about the universe we "exist" in that have been observed by countless minds to be true.
"The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant." (http://www.physicsplanet.com/articles/three-laws-of-thermodynamics) In other words, moving from "existence" to "non-existence" has no place in reality. The concept is not applicable to the real world. Everyone and everything will always exist, albeit in forever changing forms.
You might want to point out the third law, which states that upon reaching absolute zero (the cessation of kinetic energy) all processes cease. While it does hold true, we also know from science that absolute zero is unattainable. The natural forces at work in the universe will never allow for it. Therefore, if one believes that we are processes, it must also be accepted that we will always exist, moving through different "forms", or processes. (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99194.htm)
Take what you will from the second law. There is much talk on this forum of "conditioned" existence, and freeing oneself from it.
"The second law is based on human experience. It doesn’t come from complicated theory and equations. So, think of these experiences that you have had: A rock will fall if you lift it up and then let go. Hot frying pans cool down when taken off the stove. Iron rusts (oxidizes) in the air. Air in a high-pressure tire shoots out from even a small hole in its side to the lower pressure atmosphere. Ice cubes melt in a warm room. What’s happening in each of those processes? Energy of some kind is changing from being localized ("concentrated" in the rock or the pan, etc.) to becoming more spread out. Look at those examples again to see how that statement fits them all."
The second law simply states that all processes have a net gain of entropy. "Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered from doing so." So then, energy always move towards a less conditioned state. http://entropysite.oxy.edu/students_approach.html
It seems to me that some concepts in Buddhism harmonize beautifully with science.
taiyaki... yes... but if consciousness is dependently originated, there are no sentient beings to save, no net, no world, no glittering jewels. Just an impersonal process of varying degrees of suffering which can be ended from within, though in reality no one ended it and and no one was within it.
Of course your link is much more inspiring, and I feel the truth should be inspiring, not drab, but on the other hand thought is easily led.
Ok between my meditation and sleep I'm back here for a short while.
Hi student,
I've also studied thermodynamics (analogy: it was a lot of suffering for me :P ) and tried to see Buddhism in it, but to me it didn't make sense in the end. Thermodynamics is about the physical world. Buddhism is about the inner world of the mind. These are fundamentally different. To the world of the mind, physical laws do not apply.
Sure, you can make analogies. But you can't derive Buddhism from physics. So you also can't derive from a thermodynamic law that the conscious processes of a certain person will forever exist. That's what we call here comparing apples with pears.
Yes no suffering and no end to suffering. Thus infinite capacity for compassion.
Everything is an inputation and even the inputation is an inputation.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@PrarieGhost I wonder if what you aren't really concerned about is renunciation? Several times you've talked about wanting the ups and downs of life. This has been a good thread about nirvana so maybe if discussion went in this direction a new thread should be started. Just an observation.
These are fundamentally different. To the world of the mind, physical laws do not apply.
Fire unbound, sparks from an anvil, rivers meeting the sea three metaphors Buddha used for nibbana after death, each implying diffusion into the infinite. I agree with you in part, but the Buddha's choice of words is interesting.
What I notice is that the world does reflect itself in different processes, different spheres... until you take it as given that it does. As soon as you make that reflective quality a rule rather than a tendency, it stops helping one's insights.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited February 2012
person, thankyou for the observation but renunciation is something that is happening in my life naturally, at a good pace and in my own time.
person, in fact, this thread is part of my renunciation. I only hope it's useful to others as well.
So I guess what you are asking is if the alternative to samsara is worth it? I'm in much the same boat. All I can say is that I've tried samsara and had some bad results. I've tried some of both but that has problems too. I haven't tried giving it all up... yet.
Ok between my meditation and sleep I'm back here for a short while.
I've also studied thermodynamics (analogy: it was a lot of suffering for me :P ) and tried to see Buddhism in it, but to me it didn't make sense in the end. Thermodynamics is about the physical world. Buddhism is about the inner world of the mind. These are fundamentally different. To the world of the mind, physical laws do not apply.
Disclaimer: I am not intending with this to "preach", only to posit my opinion.
This concept is used frequently to disqualify science from having influence on religious matters. I ask you to explore what the "mind" truly is, and more importantly where it is. If your arm is severed, you still have your mind. But if your brain is damaged, your mind is damaged also. Thus, we can conclude that the mind exists within, or because of, the brain. Popular belief seems to be that there is some sort of disconnect between the two, but in reality they are one. You are your brain. Any discrepancy between the two is a result of the fact that perceptions often differ from reality. Since we understand that the brain is physical, and the mind is the brain, we can conclude that the mind does operate under the physical laws of the natural world. I am not claiming that science has attained complete understanding, only attempting to dispel the belief that science cannot make statements about "spirituality."
person, no, I have already chosen, or rather, life has chosen and my posting here is just the wall of a wave that is already cresting. I, or thought, is not involved in that decision.
Ok between my meditation and sleep I'm back here for a short while.
I've also studied thermodynamics (analogy: it was a lot of suffering for me :P ) and tried to see Buddhism in it, but to me it didn't make sense in the end. Thermodynamics is about the physical world. Buddhism is about the inner world of the mind. These are fundamentally different. To the world of the mind, physical laws do not apply.
Disclaimer: I am not intending with this to "preach", only to posit my opinion.
This concept is used frequently to disqualify science from having influence on religious matters. I ask you to explore what the "mind" truly is, and more importantly where it is. If your arm is severed, you still have your mind. But if your brain is damaged, your mind is damaged also. Thus, we can conclude that the mind exists within, or because of, the brain. Popular belief seems to be that there is some sort of disconnect between the two, but in reality they are one. You are your brain. Any discrepancy between the two is a result of the fact that perceptions often differ from reality. Since we understand that the brain is physical, and the mind is the brain, we can conclude that the mind does operate under the physical laws of the natural world. I am not claiming that science has attained complete understanding, only attempting to dispel the belief that science cannot make statements about "spirituality."
I do not agree that the mind equals the brain. However, this is really a totally different topic that undoubtedly has been discussed on this board before and so I will not go into it here. Let's keep things tidy However, if you want to discuss this, feel free to bump an old topic or open a new one.
person, the alternative to samsara is worth it. You can't experience even a little of the result without knowing that love is better than hate, peace better than war. Even if it is cessation, I trust that it is for the best. I don't feel it is though, and that's why I am here, trying to refine that feeling into continuation on the path. Debate isn't futile, in that sense.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
person, the alternative to samsara is worth it. You can't experience even a little of the result without knowing that love is better than hate, peace better than war. Even if it is cessation, I trust that it is for the best. I don't feel it is though, and that's why I am here, trying to refine that feeling into continuation on the path. Debate isn't futile, in that sense.
Ok good you're aware of that fact then. I didn't know so I thought maybe clarifying your intent might help. Nevermind, move along.
I do not agree that the mind equals the brain. However, this is really a totally different topic that undoubtedly has been discussed on this board before and so I will not go into it here. Let's keep things tidy
You are correct. I apologize, I have a tendency to become overzealous when I start thinking about topics that interest me.
I do not agree that the mind equals the brain. However, this is really a totally different topic that undoubtedly has been discussed on this board before and so I will not go into it here. Let's keep things tidy
You are correct. I apologize, I have a tendency to become overzealous when I start thinking about topics that interest me.
No need to apologize. It is an interesting topic. Feel free to open a new discussion about it.
Back on topic... I can relate, PrairieGhost. I am terrified of oblivion. I realize this is clinging... but my grip is strong, and I am unwilling to let go. I hope that as I mature and learn, I'll be able to loosen my grip.
Now I must say goodnight, thanks for all your help. I haven't answered my questions, but it's nice, Sabre, to know that if it's death, we at least won't die alone.
It might help to explain that I'm coming from a position of having always been interested in mysticism, always believed in life after death, or rather taken it for granted, and never given a one life and that's it position a moment's glance, so the idea of cessation isn't as easy for me as it might be for many modern people. In my mind, I have immortality to lose, not to gain.
And I'm also coming from a place where my practice is making life more and more beautiful, and it feels as if this has a purpose, is an unfolding which is leading to the true state of things. It doesn't feel like the last chapter of a story, or a graceful exit. It feels like the beginning of eternity, not the end.
As long as you have the idea that 'you' will disappear, or that 'you' own your happiness, the idea of nirvana as cessation will be unacceptable. But that's ok. Have faith in the Buddha. He calls it the most peaceful, the supreme goal.
Whatever there is there of form, feeling, perception, determinations, or consciousness, such ideas he sees as impermanent, as subject to pain, as a sickness, as a tumor, as a barb, as a calamity, as an affliction, as an alienation, as a disintegration, as a void, as not-self. He averts his heart from those ideas, and for the most peaceful, the supreme goal, he turns his heart to the deathless element, that is to say, the stilling of all determinations, the relinquishment of all substance, the exhaustion of craving, the fading of passion, cessation, extinction.
"If one doesn't stay obsessed with consciousness, that's not what one is measured by. Whatever one isn't measured by, that's not how one is classified."
— SN 22.36
So Buddha did not mean the arahant was immeasurable and freed from classification because he or she was unconscious.
Do you believe one must understand Nibbana as cessation?
Faith... what about faith that it's not extinction, and take the Buddha's 'fetter of views' speech at face value, rather than as a riddle?
one 'must' not anything. Also, the idea is easy to misinterpret.
Which speech do you mean? Perhaps this one.
"This is how he attends inappropriately: 'Was I in the past? Was I not in the past? What was I in the past? How was I in the past? Having been what, what was I in the past? Shall I be in the future? Shall I not be in the future? What shall I be in the future? How shall I be in the future? Having been what, what shall I be in the future?' Or else he is inwardly perplexed about the immediate present: 'Am I? Am I not? What am I? How am I? Where has this being come from? Where is it bound?'
"As he attends inappropriately in this way, one of six kinds of view arises in him: The view I have a self arises in him as true & established, or the view I have no self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive self... or the view It is precisely by means of self that I perceive not-self... or the view It is precisely by means of not-self that I perceive self arises in him as true & established, or else he has a view like this: This very self of mine — the knower that is sensitive here & there to the ripening of good & bad actions — is the self of mine that is constant, everlasting, eternal, not subject to change, and will stay just as it is for eternity. This is called a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. Bound by a fetter of views, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person is not freed from birth, aging, & death, from sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is not freed, I tell you, from suffering & stress. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.002.than.html
I'm happy to say I don't know what happens at death. I am however disturbed by the certainty with which some, though a minority, of Buddhists assert that the Buddha taught a way to oblivion. And thus I wanted to investigate what basis they have for asserting this.
I tend to see death as just another moment in the stream of things. Not to be differentiated with going to sleep or blinking. And thus never feared it and don't see why it would be the time when the stream ceases. I tend to see craving as perpetuating self view, not reality. Because I don't see reality as something I create.
Taiyaki, yes, oblivion is a speculative view, so I am not sure why it would be something the Buddha would teach.
Sariputa was asked 'is it the case that after the cessation of perception and feeling there is nothing else', and he responded 'don't say that, friend'. You see, the cessation of perception and feeling could be interpreted as the realisation that perception and feeling are in fact not perception and feeling at all.
The Buddha did not teach oblivion. With oblivion you may still think someone obliviates. Maybe as a sudden transformation of being to not being. But nirvana is first of all the cessation of suffering, not the cessation of a permanent being.
Sabre, Oblivion is nothing to do with being or non being, it describes an absence of experience, which I am using a noun to point to, however obviously oblivion is not a thing, and doesn't mean 'absence for a person' which would be a contradiction.
Practically, cessation is death, rather than deathless. I really don't mind if one sees it as a process or a self, they're both just words.
Comments
Anyway, back to the original topic? How did we get here anyway?
EDIT: Ok now I remember. Ok, still very related, but let's be mindful of the original topic.
As you may have noticed in my replies, it's getting late here. I'm getting a bit tired. I will meditate and sleep now.
I will probably post here again tomorrow.
Bye!
With loving kindness,
Sabre
as i've also experienced this.
and i also believe this is the position of ajahn brahm
http://innerself.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5317
To my knowledge, within Buddhism the examination of things with a clear and logical process of thought is encouraged. To that end, I could never accept any teaching that is in direct conflict with scientific knowledge. If acceptance of something of that nature is required, then to be frank I'll not be able to continue on believing that Buddhism is credible. For example, if it was an accepted teaching that 2+2=5.
So then, I ask you to examine the laws of thermodynamics. Facts about the universe we "exist" in that have been observed by countless minds to be true.
"The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant." (http://www.physicsplanet.com/articles/three-laws-of-thermodynamics)
In other words, non-existence has n
To my knowledge, within Buddhism the examination of things with a clear and logical process of thought is encouraged. To that end, I could never accept any teaching that is in direct conflict with scientific knowledge. For example, a teaching that states 2+2=5.
So then, I ask you to examine the laws of thermodynamics. Facts about the universe we "exist" in that have been observed by countless minds to be true.
"The first law of thermodynamics is often called the Law of Conservation of Energy. This law suggests that energy can be transferred from one system to another in many forms. Also, it can not be created or destroyed. Thus, the total amount of energy available in the Universe is constant." (http://www.physicsplanet.com/articles/three-laws-of-thermodynamics)
In other words, moving from "existence" to "non-existence" has no place in reality. The concept is not applicable to the real world. Everyone and everything will always exist, albeit in forever changing forms.
You might want to point out the third law, which states that upon reaching absolute zero (the cessation of kinetic energy) all processes cease. While it does hold true, we also know from science that absolute zero is unattainable. The natural forces at work in the universe will never allow for it. Therefore, if one believes that we are processes, it must also be accepted that we will always exist, moving through different "forms", or processes. (http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/phy99/phy99194.htm)
Take what you will from the second law. There is much talk on this forum of "conditioned" existence, and freeing oneself from it.
"The second law is based on human experience. It doesn’t come from complicated theory and equations. So, think of these experiences that you have had: A rock will fall if you lift it up and then let go. Hot frying pans cool down when taken off the stove. Iron rusts (oxidizes) in the air. Air in a high-pressure tire shoots out from even a small hole in its side to the lower pressure atmosphere. Ice cubes melt in a warm room.
What’s happening in each of those processes? Energy of some kind is changing from being localized ("concentrated" in the rock or the pan, etc.) to becoming more spread out. Look at those examples again to see how that statement fits them all."
The second law simply states that all processes have a net gain of entropy.
"Energy spontaneously disperses from being localized to becoming spread out if it is not hindered from doing so."
So then, energy always move towards a less conditioned state.
http://entropysite.oxy.edu/students_approach.html
It seems to me that some concepts in Buddhism harmonize beautifully with science.
http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/04/net-of-indra.html?m=0
Indras net
Of course your link is much more inspiring, and I feel the truth should be inspiring, not drab, but on the other hand thought is easily led.
Hi student,
I've also studied thermodynamics (analogy: it was a lot of suffering for me :P ) and tried to see Buddhism in it, but to me it didn't make sense in the end. Thermodynamics is about the physical world. Buddhism is about the inner world of the mind. These are fundamentally different. To the world of the mind, physical laws do not apply.
Sure, you can make analogies. But you can't derive Buddhism from physics. So you also can't derive from a thermodynamic law that the conscious processes of a certain person will forever exist. That's what we call here comparing apples with pears.
But I like your post
Everything is an inputation and even the inputation is an inputation.
Fire unbound, sparks from an anvil, rivers meeting the sea three metaphors Buddha used for nibbana after death, each implying diffusion into the infinite. I agree with you in part, but the Buddha's choice of words is interesting.
What I notice is that the world does reflect itself in different processes, different spheres... until you take it as given that it does. As soon as you make that reflective quality a rule rather than a tendency, it stops helping one's insights.
I ask you to explore what the "mind" truly is, and more importantly where it is. If your arm is severed, you still have your mind. But if your brain is damaged, your mind is damaged also.
Thus, we can conclude that the mind exists within, or because of, the brain.
Popular belief seems to be that there is some sort of disconnect between the two, but in reality they are one. You are your brain. Any discrepancy between the two is a result of the fact that perceptions often differ from reality. Since we understand that the brain is physical, and the mind is the brain, we can conclude that the mind does operate under the physical laws of the natural world.
I am not claiming that science has attained complete understanding, only attempting to dispel the belief that science cannot make statements about "spirituality."
It might help to explain that I'm coming from a position of having always been interested in mysticism, always believed in life after death, or rather taken it for granted, and never given a one life and that's it position a moment's glance, so the idea of cessation isn't as easy for me as it might be for many modern people. In my mind, I have immortality to lose, not to gain.
Sabre
Faith... what about faith that it's not extinction, and take the Buddha's 'fetter of views' speech at face value, rather than as a riddle?
This is the quote that I feel is deeper than we may see it as of yet.
— SN 22.36
So Buddha did not mean the arahant was immeasurable and freed from classification because he or she was unconscious.
Which speech do you mean? Perhaps this one.
dependently originated = non-arisen, non-ceasing. neither coming or going.
there is no such thing as nothing. and if there was then it would be something.
just my casual ramblings.
Taiyaki, yes, oblivion is a speculative view, so I am not sure why it would be something the Buddha would teach.
Sariputa was asked 'is it the case that after the cessation of perception and feeling there is nothing else', and he responded 'don't say that, friend'. You see, the cessation of perception and feeling could be interpreted as the realisation that perception and feeling are in fact not perception and feeling at all.
Practically, cessation is death, rather than deathless. I really don't mind if one sees it as a process or a self, they're both just words.