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.
How does Buddhism explain the source of suffering?
Planets last longer than mountains, both arise and die. Same with suns, galaxies and even gods. A lot of sentients may be dependent for their life, being and cessation. It is this time and place dependent duality that gives rise to independent origination and therefore dependent destruction.
Planets last longer than mountains, both arise and die. Same with suns, galaxies and even gods. A lot of sentients may be dependent for their life, being and cessation. It is this time and place dependent duality that gives rise to independent origination and therefore dependent destruction.
:scratch:
Can you say that in another way? I can't tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing.
It seems she's at a point where she knows what the question is, but only she can answer it for herself. She still relies on others to tell her what to do and think, and mabye its time to let the bird test her wings. :om:
I'll rephrase- Suffering is inherent in anything impermanent that thinks it isn't.
I think you is reading many book and book you is reading have the no meaning. Like is the internet scripture of the Westerner scholarly monk cannot understand the Dhamma of Buddha by intellectual Pali language translation in wrong way. For meditation person insight vipassana nana come from the meditation and not from book. Impermanent thing is not attractive, is the ugly, it cannot satisfy. In story one women she have sexual love for Buddha. Buddha make magic trick make his body get old for woman. Women lose sexual love for Buddha because she see him old, wrinkle, ugly. She not love Buddha because women see the dukkhata of impermanent thing. Women see the impermanent thing cannot give her the love, the satisfy happiness.
Sometime the man see the impermanent thing bring happiness. Like the man thinking he have sexual intercourse with many woman. One woman, change to another woman, another woman, another woman. Man thinking changing from woman to woman is the happiness. This man not see the dukkhata of impermanent thing.
The Western monk not understanding the Dhamma. Sri Lanka monk understanding the Dhamma better than Western monk. Western monk have attachment to word. Western monk not see the dukkhata reality.
Western monk
When you see with discernment, 'All fabrications are stressful' — you grow disenchanted with stress. This is the path to purity.
Sri Lanka monk
"All conditioned things are unsatisfactory" — when one sees this with wisdom, one turns away from suffering. This is the path to purification.
Western monk like the crazy man. Western monk thinking the conditioned thing like tree rock sand water is stressful. Buddha drink the water use the rock cave use the tree for meditation. Water rock and tree is not the stressful for Buddha.
Dukkhata of impermanence is cannot satisfy. Like drinking the water. Drinking the water satisfy temporary. Must drink the water again. The water is the dukkhata because the water cannot satisfy. Object of the water is impermanent. Feeling of happiness from the water is impermanent. Water is the dukkhata because the water cannot satisfy. If drink too much water can get sickness painful.
Buddha drinking water but Buddha not use the water for happiness. Buddha use Nibbana for happiness because the Nibbana not dukkhata not impermanence. Nibbana real not deceiving happiness.
Can you say that in another way? I can't tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing.
. . . as if I would want to . . . :clap: Of any two options, choose the third.
Before I had studied Chan (Zen) for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as rivers. Qingyuan Weixin
@BeeHurts You're neglecting that while satisfaction is impermanent, it does exist as a conditioned thing also. I think the Western and Sri Lanka monk you quote are saying the same thing in different ways.
@BeeHurts You're neglecting that while satisfaction is impermanent, it does exist as a conditioned thing also.
The permanent satisfaction is the permanent Nibbana. You idea not Buddha idea. Buddha he saying Nibbanama Paraman Sukkham. Nibbana satisfaction is highest. Sukkham is the satisfaction in language of Pali. Nibbana is uncondition thing not condition thing. You find word asankhata. Asankhata not the sankhata.
I think the Western and Sri Lanka monk you quote are saying the same thing in different ways.
Not say the same. You please read again with wisdom mind. Western bhikku say condition thing computer is stressful. Computer not is stressful. Stressful like having the headache so take the medicine. Computer not take the medicine. Computer is plastic machine. Sir Lanka monk say computer cannot satisfy. This true because computer maybe having for three four five year before it broken. New computer is fast. Old computer is slow. Computer is cannot satisfy because it getting slow and broken sooner or later.
For Buddhism, I think it would be correct to say, suffering would be thinking that suffering and the person who suffers is real. It would be caused by forgetting who we are.
One gnostic story tells of a vast and infinte choir of celestial beings singing in perfect harmony. Sort of like an ideal condensate. Then one singer sings a wrong note, and before long this causes a neighbour to sing a wrong note, and soon the harmony has turned to cacophony and the extended universe is born. So suffering would be separation from the whole, or from perfection and truth.
@BeeHurts You're neglecting that while satisfaction is impermanent, it does exist as a conditioned thing also.
The permanent satisfaction is the permanent Nibbana. You idea not Buddha idea. Buddha he saying Nibbanama Paraman Sukkham. Nibbana satisfaction is highest. Sukkham is the satisfaction in language of Pali. Nibbana is uncondition thing not condition thing. You find word asankhata. Asankhata not the sankhata.
I have to tell you, I find no enlightenment in people who simply regurgitate Pali terms and proclaim they know what Buddha said and meant and they have the only valid practice and take on the Dharma. I am glad you found a teaching and practice you feel is authentic and makes sense to you. It doesn't sound like you and I, at least have much to discuss, but the Dharma needs all types I guess.
After hearing her insistence of "I know that, but that's not what I'm talking about," I begin to suspect a fault in language and the nuances of english or, possibly, lack of ability on the speaker's part to articulate her thoughts.
I think its unfair to lay the onus of understanding upon the hearer in this case, though, I feel for her frustration.
@BeeHurst I have to say that I am not sure you are understanding what the Western Monk is trying to say, because it does not appear you are western. To a non-Western person they are going to read that phrase differently and understand the words differently than a Western person is. I, too, think they were saying the same thing. We just understand the word "stress" differently. Stress is not a headache. Headaches can be caused by stress. Stress is unsatisfactory conditions. Western Buddhism is, I'm sure, different from Buddhism in other parts of the world. Because Buddhism takes on the culture of the place it is being taught in. Buddhism in America is not going to have the same flavor of Buddhism in Sri Lanka...because we are not Sri Lankan and bring our own culture and words and definitions to the table. But Buddhism in the West came from traditions in the East, it's had to evolve though due to culture, and due to the problem of translating words that do not exist in our language.
I'm not sure I understand though why the need for the comparison of the 2 monks anyhow? I'll go back and re-read, perhaps I missed something.
I will be at the retreat with Lama Tony this weekend, and I will remember to ask my group leader what the answer to the woman's question was. I am not convinced she will be satisfied with the answer, because as others pointed out, Buddhism just doesn't focus on where everything began like Christianity did. But I do think there was a communication problem, too, because she's a very smart lady who I don't think would have taken Buddhist refuge vows without knowing what she was studying. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm interested to hear what answers come.
Suffering starts with the mind. Mind is the forerunner of all states. Mind is consciousness in individuality. Consciousness arises when awareness touches on objects. Awareness is a ground condition that supports consciousness. The nature of awareness is effulgence and it is in a not-knowing state before the appearance of object.
Without mind, without consciousness, without awareness, there can be no suffering.
BeeHurst I have to say that I am not sure you are understanding what the Western Monk is trying to say, because it does not appear you are western.
I'm not sure I understand though why the need for the comparison
Yes. You not sure about many thing but you saying I am not sure. You please thinking with wisdom. You please answer my question with wisdom from experience.
If you buy motor car is motor car satisfactory? Can motor car satisfy you permanent? If you buy eat the ice-cream is ice-cream satisfactory? Can ice-cream bring you the permanent happiness?
Suffering starts with the mind. Without mind, without consciousness, without awareness, there can be no suffering.
Suffering of mind start with mind. Unsatisfactory of conditioned thing not start with mind. Please investigate with wisdom for seeing difference. Is one drop of the water satisfy thirst? is 1,000 wife satisfy lust? Is 1 billion dollar satisfy greed? Have Zen Buddhism mind answer koan questions.
Stress is not a headache. Stress is unsatisfactory conditions.
Stress is like the headache because stress is the mental unhappiness. Stress is not the unsatisfactory conditions. If India have famine of no food this no food famine is the unsatisfactory conditions. Buddha look for the alm food but Buddha cannot find the alm food. So Buddha have hunger starvation and Buddha die death. Mind of Buddha will not have the stress of unhappiness if Buddha cannot find the alm food to eat. You please understand with the wisdom. Buddha mind have Nibbana when India have the unsatisfactory condition of no food. Famine. Drought. No rain. No food. No water. The people is starving and dying. Most people is having the stress unhappiness but mind of Buddha have not stress from the unsatisfactory condition. Try to understand. Buddhism not Western not Asian. Buddhism is the truthfulness of the nature.
Why Buddha mind have no stress. Why? Not have knowledge of good & evil. Buddha not thinking food is good. Buddha not thinking no food is evil. Buddha not thinking living is good. Buddha not thinking die is evil. For Buddha everything is the Suchness Thusness Tathata. Tathagata is name of Buddha. Tathata is no good no evil. Such. Thus. Please learn the natural Buddhism.
HOW DOES BUDDHISM EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUFFERING.
On earth I hear tell it might of started during the Hadeon eon, between two proteins in a small pool, but you know how blurry these story's get over time.
The Buddha said that although he wasn't gonna be the one to tell who started suffering, he was darn sure no self was gonna be the one to finish it.
I think If the Four Noble Truths don't answer your question then what you seek lies outside of Buddhism's interests. (which means off the path to suffering's cessation).
It is not really important to know the source of all suffering than it would be to know the causes in which we suffer. Lack of faith or beliefs would be one of the causes in my opinion. One who is without faith or beliefs has worry, fear, and stress to deal with. One who has faith has less weight to carry. I think there is a difference between "lack of faith" and "not believing" in something. Not believing in something means a choice was made to not believe. Lack of faith is just not having enough confidence. We suffer because we don't have enough confidence in ourselves. We suffer because we don't feel that we can escape it. We just need to make ourselves believe that we can escape it, and make it possible to make our lives happier. Yes we can.
Today at my Sangha meeting, one of our members posed a question none of us knew the answer to. She got really frustrated to the point of interrupting people and repeating her question over and over again. People would add their thoughts and she'd stop them and say "I KNOW that but that doesn't explain where suffering comes from."
She talked about the story of Adam and Eve taking the fruit from the tree of knowledge and how that is the source of pain and suffering. If you ask a Christian leader why humans suffer, that is generally something that is brought up. That we suffer because Adam and Eve ate from the tree when they were told not to.
The lady wanted to know if there is a comparable explanation, myth, story or whatever in Buddhism. She wants to know how Buddhism explains why we suffer. She seems to believe that primitive cultures were more pure, closer to the earth, they didn't have the addictions and delusions we have now, and she wants to know how we lost that to become so deep in Samsara doo-doo. It seemed to me that renunciation is what she was going for, but she seems to feel it's not possible in our world. It kind of seems to me like she is asking a question that doesn't have an answer, and she got really frustrated with that as an answer. We discussed it for an hour, and every response from her was "no, I know that, that is not what I'm asking." Finally our group leader said he would pose the question to our teacher, and to the lama who is visiting next weekend and see what they say.
It got to be a rather confusing go around, but I thought I'd ask if anyone here has insight. How does Buddhism explain, if it does, where suffering initially arose and how we got torn away from our purer ways (in her opinion) to live in the world we do now with as much suffering and delusion? Does Buddhism have anything in it's texts that explains whether people had some sort of downfall as Christianity does?
That should be a Buddhist explanation but it is not a story. It is more about what is inside us. Suffering comes from the desires we have , for anything , good or bad included. If we desire for something and could not get it, we suffer. If we desire something and get it, we suffer especially when we have this fear of losing what we have gained.
For me, the answer to why we suffer is just that it is part of human nature. Most lower-thinking animals don't appear to suffer the way we do, because they are not as intelligent and therefore do not think about the past and the future and all the things they wish they could change and control in their lives and in everyone else's lives. They just live in the moment, and they are happy in the moment. This is what meditation brings to us-- not thinking (or resisting getting carried away on the thought), not controlling, not grasping.
For me, the answer of Adam and Eve does NOT satisfy me. Why would a loving god punish me for something someone else did 6,000 years ago? I know there are lots of answers that people will give for that, but I don't buy them.
The Buddha told us to use our logic and reason to test things out for ourselves. That is why Buddhism is a practice, not just a belief in a story/myth. I think your sangha member is not using her logic and reason, but is overthinking the question, and in terms that she has already attached herself to: belief in a story or myth. Buddhism is concerned with the now, not with myths of the past. The purpose of myths, generally, is to explain how something came to be, not how to change something that already is. If we clung to myths of the past, how would we be able to change anything now?
Of course, we have the story of the Buddha, but that really has little to do with Buddhist practice, other than the direct teachings which someone could argue are stories. Even if they are technically stories, the teachings are not written in mythological format, but instead are direct, pragmatic teachings.
The story of what has caused our suffering is our own individual stories, not someone else's myth. To find your own story, you have to meditate.
From my reading of the Pali Canon, it seems to me that the Buddha's teachings generally tend to avoid metaphysics, including ontology, in favour of a pragmatic approach to understanding mental stress and suffering (dukkha) and removing its causes (e.g., see MN 63). If anything, I'd say Buddhism is closer to something like process philosophy in Western philosophical terminology, where the focus is on processes or becoming rather than unchanging being or essence, e.g., Heraclitus vs. Plato; anicca + anatta vs. atman; or anything else that looks at change vs. essence.
Essentially (for those less familiar with these concepts), if something is impermanent, it means that it's subject to change, whereas that which has a permanent being or essence isn't. In other words, becoming (or any process of change) is only possible within the context of impermanence. In the examples I gave above, the former are examples of things dealing with processes or becoming, while the latter are things dealing with unchanging being or essence.
For example, Heraclitus, if we're to believe Plato, is famous for his idea that "everything flows," whereas Plato is famous for his idea of eternal forms. In the second example, the Buddha taught that what we mistakenly cling to as 'self' is really only impermanent phenomena subject to arising, changing, and passing away, whereas the Vedas and Upanishads are general understood to teach that our self is something real and eternal, something that is.
So strict ontology deals more with what inherently is or exists from its own side (i.e., being or essence), whereas the basic idea behind process philosophy is that what 'exists' is best understood in terms of processes rather than things or substances, and that change — whether physical, organic, or psychological — "is the pervasive and predominant feature of the real." As such, it's sometimes called 'ontology of becoming.'
Of course, in Buddhism, becoming (bhava) refers more to the sense of identity that arises when there's clinging to one or more of the aggregates, but the basic idea is that our sense of self is a process of 'I-making' and 'my-making,' which I think can be classified as a type of process philosophy. The only area of metaphysics the Buddha does engage in is causality; but even here, he doesn't offer proofs so much as suggests that adopting these views in a pragmatic, common sense manner is empirically useful in the quest to end suffering. Hence, Buddhism avoids many of the metaphysical quandaries, including questions of ontology, that seem to plague other philosophical/religious traditions.
So as with everything else, suffering (dukkha), particularly the experience of suffering, is viewed in terms of a dependently originated phenomenon — a process — that has its own requisite conditions, the primary one being ignorance. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it in his essay, "Ignorance":
Avijja, the Pali word for ignorance, is the opposite of vijja, which means not only "knowledge" but also "skill" — as in the skills of a doctor or animal-trainer. So when the Buddha focuses on the ignorance that causes stress and suffering, saying that people suffer from not knowing the four noble truths, he's not simply saying that they lack information or direct knowledge of those truths. He's also saying that they lack skill in handling them. They suffer because they don't know what they're doing.
Looking back, whether through our own memories or our history, it's nigh impossible to find a time when suffering wasn't present in some shape or form (SN 15.3); and speculating about a beginning point to our mental wanderings-on (samsara), or a beginning point to ignorance and suffering, is essentially a waste of our time. Even worse, spending one's time doing so can lead to vexation rather than knowledge or peace (AN 4.77). From the Buddhist point of view, then, what's important is that suffering is present now and we have the power to do something about it if we so choose.
Comments
yes thank you
:scratch:
:scratch:
Can you say that in another way?
I can't tell if you were agreeing or disagreeing.
Sometime the man see the impermanent thing bring happiness. Like the man thinking he have sexual intercourse with many woman. One woman, change to another woman, another woman, another woman. Man thinking changing from woman to woman is the happiness. This man not see the dukkhata of impermanent thing.
The Western monk not understanding the Dhamma. Sri Lanka monk understanding the Dhamma better than Western monk. Western monk have attachment to word. Western monk not see the dukkhata reality. Western monk like the crazy man. Western monk thinking the conditioned thing like tree rock sand water is stressful. Buddha drink the water use the rock cave use the tree for meditation. Water rock and tree is not the stressful for Buddha.
Dukkhata of impermanence is cannot satisfy. Like drinking the water. Drinking the water satisfy temporary. Must drink the water again. The water is the dukkhata because the water cannot satisfy. Object of the water is impermanent. Feeling of happiness from the water is impermanent. Water is the dukkhata because the water cannot satisfy. If drink too much water can get sickness painful.
Buddha drinking water but Buddha not use the water for happiness. Buddha use Nibbana for happiness because the Nibbana not dukkhata not impermanence. Nibbana real not deceiving happiness.
:clap:
Of any two options, choose the third.
Before I had studied Chan (Zen) for thirty years, I saw mountains as mountains, and rivers as rivers. When I arrived at a more intimate knowledge, I came to the point where I saw that mountains are not mountains, and rivers are not rivers. But now that I have got its very substance I am at rest. For it's just that I see mountains once again as mountains, and rivers once again as rivers.
Qingyuan Weixin
One gnostic story tells of a vast and infinte choir of celestial beings singing in perfect harmony. Sort of like an ideal condensate. Then one singer sings a wrong note, and before long this causes a neighbour to sing a wrong note, and soon the harmony has turned to cacophony and the extended universe is born. So suffering would be separation from the whole, or from perfection and truth.
Something like that.
After hearing her insistence of "I know that, but that's not what I'm talking about," I begin to suspect a fault in language and the nuances of english or, possibly, lack of ability on the speaker's part to articulate her thoughts.
I think its unfair to lay the onus of understanding upon the hearer in this case, though, I feel for her frustration.
I'm not sure I understand though why the need for the comparison of the 2 monks anyhow? I'll go back and re-read, perhaps I missed something.
I will be at the retreat with Lama Tony this weekend, and I will remember to ask my group leader what the answer to the woman's question was. I am not convinced she will be satisfied with the answer, because as others pointed out, Buddhism just doesn't focus on where everything began like Christianity did. But I do think there was a communication problem, too, because she's a very smart lady who I don't think would have taken Buddhist refuge vows without knowing what she was studying. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. I'm interested to hear what answers come.
Without mind, without consciousness, without awareness, there can be no suffering.
If you buy motor car is motor car satisfactory? Can motor car satisfy you permanent? If you buy eat the ice-cream is ice-cream satisfactory? Can ice-cream bring you the permanent happiness?
Thank you
Why Buddha mind have no stress. Why? Not have knowledge of good & evil. Buddha not thinking food is good. Buddha not thinking no food is evil. Buddha not thinking living is good. Buddha not thinking die is evil. For Buddha everything is the Suchness Thusness Tathata. Tathagata is name of Buddha. Tathata is no good no evil. Such. Thus. Please learn the natural Buddhism.
On earth I hear tell it might of started during the Hadeon eon, between two proteins in a small pool, but you know how blurry these story's get over time.
The Buddha said that although he wasn't gonna be the one to tell who started suffering, he was darn sure no self was gonna be the one to finish it.
I think If the Four Noble Truths don't answer your question then what you seek lies outside of Buddhism's interests. (which means off the path to suffering's cessation).
For me, the answer of Adam and Eve does NOT satisfy me. Why would a loving god punish me for something someone else did 6,000 years ago? I know there are lots of answers that people will give for that, but I don't buy them.
The Buddha told us to use our logic and reason to test things out for ourselves. That is why Buddhism is a practice, not just a belief in a story/myth. I think your sangha member is not using her logic and reason, but is overthinking the question, and in terms that she has already attached herself to: belief in a story or myth. Buddhism is concerned with the now, not with myths of the past. The purpose of myths, generally, is to explain how something came to be, not how to change something that already is. If we clung to myths of the past, how would we be able to change anything now?
Of course, we have the story of the Buddha, but that really has little to do with Buddhist practice, other than the direct teachings which someone could argue are stories. Even if they are technically stories, the teachings are not written in mythological format, but instead are direct, pragmatic teachings.
The story of what has caused our suffering is our own individual stories, not someone else's myth. To find your own story, you have to meditate.
Essentially (for those less familiar with these concepts), if something is impermanent, it means that it's subject to change, whereas that which has a permanent being or essence isn't. In other words, becoming (or any process of change) is only possible within the context of impermanence. In the examples I gave above, the former are examples of things dealing with processes or becoming, while the latter are things dealing with unchanging being or essence.
For example, Heraclitus, if we're to believe Plato, is famous for his idea that "everything flows," whereas Plato is famous for his idea of eternal forms. In the second example, the Buddha taught that what we mistakenly cling to as 'self' is really only impermanent phenomena subject to arising, changing, and passing away, whereas the Vedas and Upanishads are general understood to teach that our self is something real and eternal, something that is.
So strict ontology deals more with what inherently is or exists from its own side (i.e., being or essence), whereas the basic idea behind process philosophy is that what 'exists' is best understood in terms of processes rather than things or substances, and that change — whether physical, organic, or psychological — "is the pervasive and predominant feature of the real." As such, it's sometimes called 'ontology of becoming.'
Of course, in Buddhism, becoming (bhava) refers more to the sense of identity that arises when there's clinging to one or more of the aggregates, but the basic idea is that our sense of self is a process of 'I-making' and 'my-making,' which I think can be classified as a type of process philosophy. The only area of metaphysics the Buddha does engage in is causality; but even here, he doesn't offer proofs so much as suggests that adopting these views in a pragmatic, common sense manner is empirically useful in the quest to end suffering. Hence, Buddhism avoids many of the metaphysical quandaries, including questions of ontology, that seem to plague other philosophical/religious traditions.
So as with everything else, suffering (dukkha), particularly the experience of suffering, is viewed in terms of a dependently originated phenomenon — a process — that has its own requisite conditions, the primary one being ignorance. As Thanissaro Bhikkhu puts it in his essay, "Ignorance": Looking back, whether through our own memories or our history, it's nigh impossible to find a time when suffering wasn't present in some shape or form (SN 15.3); and speculating about a beginning point to our mental wanderings-on (samsara), or a beginning point to ignorance and suffering, is essentially a waste of our time. Even worse, spending one's time doing so can lead to vexation rather than knowledge or peace (AN 4.77). From the Buddhist point of view, then, what's important is that suffering is present now and we have the power to do something about it if we so choose.