Why seek out enlightenment.
awasis666
New
A childish person becomes anxious,
Thinking, “Sons are mine! Wealth is mine!”
Not even a self is there to call one's own.
Whence sons? Whence wealth?
So if there is no self to call one's own, then why seek enlightenment? After all, the "thing" (ego) that seeks enlightenment does not exist. So why practice meditation? Why study the middle path, if there is nothing to accomplish, nothing to enlighten? If no one sought enlightenment, would it change reality as described by the Buddha? If everyone sought enlightenment, would that change anything in regards to the ultimate nature of reality? If there is "nothing to do", and "nothing to accomplish", why practice? Why does it matter if we attain enlightenment or not? Who's suffering are we alleviating anyway, if there is no self?
Comments
Enlightenment isn't something you seek. It is something you already are, you just don't know it just yet.
There is a difference between relative and absolute/ultimate truth within all the questions you are asking. I'm not the right person to explain that though.
It is not that there is nothing, at all. It is that what we think there is, is not real, is not inherently existent. It is your true nature that is liberated from suffering. But that has nothing to do with your personality, your memories, your feelings and so on.
Good question. First, the actual issue is called 'not-self' rather than 'no self'. The Buddha, if you are going by his teachings, never denied the actuality of a self. What he taught was a concept of 'not self', as in realizing the manifestations around you are 'not self', not you, not personal.
That makes for a different question then. It makes seeking enlightenment make perfect sense cuz now there IS a formation that desperately needs it
The problem with reading and taking in the stuff causing you to question the way you are is that the folks who SAY these things are saying them from deep experiential levels that you have yet to experience yourself. They are speaking English (or whatever language) but the use of the words is subtly or grossly different. It is very confusing, and I think we need a whole lot more caveats to explain to those new to the Dharma that most if not all the statements made about reality are being made from much deeper and more subtle levels of human experience than the one we all run around in normally.
Also, we run around understanding our lives from a very specific part of our mind, the rational-reasoning part if you grow up in the west. This is very simplified but bear with me. There are a plethora of 'other' mind states with which to experience life, and these are taught and cultivated in Buddhism and other contemplative traditions. To a purely rational mindset, 'there is nothing to do' is an absurd statement. My advice to you is don't go there, don't worry about these questions right now.
Enter the teachings of whatever tradition you choose from the beginning teachings. Start at the beginning
The rest will take care of itself.
I never sought Enlightenment...
I am convinced it sits behind a large rock, lurking, a huge wooden club in its hand, with which it will beat me soundly round the head in an unexpected and sudden moment of inattentive wandering, on my part.
Boy, it will smart, but I daresay I will feel better for it afterwards.
A good pounding round the head with a teak club never did anyone any harm, when enlightenment wields the weapon.
A lot of 'ifs,' many of which don't hold true, in my opinion.
From the Theravadin point of view, for example, when we suffer, we tend to become bewildered as to why we are suffering because the causes are so complex and/or obscured, and then when we look for a way out, we end up looking in all the wrong places because we're confused about what suffering is and how it's caused, as well as what true happiness is, often looking outside rather than in. That's why the Buddha taught the four noble truths, to help us more clearly comprehend suffering, abandon its cause, realize its cessation, and develop the path to that cessation.
So from this perspective, there is something to do, and something to achieve if we accept that suffering is ultimately a process that can be stopped, self or not, when the appropriate conditions are met.
And after working hard with the teachings and meditation, you no longer have to seek enlightenment -- it will come after YOU, display itself to you, and chase you down until how you fold your toilet paper comes into awareness.
If the alleviation of your and others suffering does not matter, then we continue sleeping.
Buddhism is waking up from the causes and conditions of suffering. That matters to me. Why does it not to others? Maybe they are caught up in the dream world . . .
The situation is much like a sleep walker asking why waking up is required when in danger. Most people are partly aware and sensitive to the benefits of practices that do not lead them into suffering/dukkha.
Don't you want to stop asking why?
There is suffering and stress in life.
Enlightenment is the end of suffering and stress.
I don't care about self or no-self, I just want an end to suffering.
For me it's quite simple like that.
That's why I aim for enlightenment.
>
There's nothing to explain @karasti
It's rather simple.
It's because we don't see the world correctly and we suffer.
No amount of holding onto the belief that this is already the case is going to help.
And so we must seek and practice and realize this ourselves.
@awasis666 You don't seek out enlightenment, you seek to be free of suffering. You seek to escape the incessant frustrating rollercoaster ride of happiness fading to unhappiness fading to happiness (over and over). You seek true contentment, true equilibrium, a place where the mind is steady in the face of all of life's ups-and-downs. That is a joyful state of being that is unshakable and clear; that is enlightenment; that is Nirvana. It's not something special, it's just the absence of a delusional, confused way of interacting with reality.
This is a lot like the question Dogen had when he went to China to see a different master.
Why if I have Buddha Nature do I need to follow the path? (Dogen's question IIRC)
How many miles will it take to see the sun?
to end this cycle of birth and death forever - in other words, to end sufferring completely.
remember buddha taught what we are not, but he did not taught what we are - this has to be found inside ourself.
This should clear your misunderstanding.
"a scholar learns something new every day and a buddhist unlearns something every day"
When the budha was asked about what he gained through his experience he said "nothing" than he proceeded to say "but i have lost desire and suffering and anxiety"
Do you understand now? You must do nothing , this means that in this moment you are doing too much.
@awasis666 -- I always understood that Gautama did not teach "no self." Rather, he taught "no ABIDING self."
As for the rest of it, I'll take my cue from Ikkyu who was once said to have observed, "I am not a Buddha. I am just an ordinary fellow who understands things."
Since not understanding things is frequently confusing and unsatisfactory, perhaps understanding things makes some sense in terms of effort.
Because we are currently seeking out something within the 5 skandhas, this is what we're "doing" right now. And because, on one level, we can see this doing can only cause disappointment, we aim to stop this "doing" and instead "do nothing". Why? Because there is actually nothing to do, like you said.
No!
To stop the "doing" that we are currently doing and be at peace with nothing left to do.
The thing is right now, we have a self or at least , thought we have.
In your case - yours. In my case, mine.
'no self’ comes later . . . as @footiam mentions . . .
There is no Peter Parker aka Spiderman. I know; I asked Tobey McGuire. During filming, he would lose himself in the role but when the director called, "Cut!" he reverted back to his normal, everyday personality. Can you imagine playing a role in which you got stuck in that role? I can.
So if Tobey got stuck thinking he was, in fact, Peter Parker... where would the impetus come to lose the illusion? Who would go looking for poor Tobey? Peter? Probably not immediately, after all he's got all these cool super powers. How about after Spiderman 2? No? How about after Spiderman 3? Eventually he's going to get tired of playing a role and seek to remember his true nature.
He gets no extra points for seeking his true nature after one movie... nor does he lose points by waiting until after the release of Spiderman 7,297. He's ready when he's ready, as I shall be.
Is it a misconception to think that Buddhism teaches that we should destroy the ego, or furthermore that there is no ego? I was under the assumption that the ego is just part of the human mind and that we should be aware of it?
About enlightenment though, @karasti put it into words really quite well. It is not something we seek, at first maybe yes it is something we seek and it could be a reason why we have came to Buddhism in the first place. However we should not look that far ahead and strive for things in this way, we should in my opinion try to be the wisest we can be in our actions, thoughts and speech from moment to moment reducing the chances of suffering. Enlightenment is a bi-product of peeling back the layers of delusion, enlightenment is and always has been there, yet we have masked and tainted it with our ignorance and delusion. We just need to wake up!
Like with the rebirth thing, if you are not reborn and the whole idea that we are re-born is not something that is not actually true, so what? If you live in accordance to the dharma then you will have had a fruitful and good life, if you are re-born it is just a bonus IMO. The same goes for enlightenment, if you don't happen to fully liberate yourself, at least you have reduced the suffering and ignorance within your lifetime if you have lived a virtuous life, this is how I see it anyway. Putting it all into practice is not as easy as it is to think / write it though.
As you can see from the diversity of answers, it doesn't matter much what we believe, as long as we believe something, or rather get some essential meaning out of it.
Man! You are like a broken record. Or should I say CD. No matter, the essential meaning is the same.
there is nothing apriori so it doesn't matter if we find meaning either. Just empty phenomena. Might as well put meaning on something but hold it lightly.
If simply choosing something, anything, worked then people wouldn't struggle like they do within their faiths. I tried to believe what I grew up with. Life would have been so much easier to simply believe what the people around me did. Alas, it didn't happen that way. We believe what we believe for reasons far more complex than "as long as you get something out of it, believe whatever you want." It has far more to do with causes and conditions and the very unique ways we each perceive even the most mundane things in life. @Nevermind, you should give Buddhism a try!
well, initially we have to believe something to start with - no matter how much we say it can be tried and tested out, agreed few things can be tried and tested out, but for the big things there should be faith to start with, otherwise the desire to practice will not generate, which will imply that the practice itself will not start. so believing is beneficial, but practice needs to be done to actually see if the the results coming is in line with what is being believed.
i think the problem is not with faith or religion - the problem is people take some part of their religion with which they are convenient with, and leave the remaining things which are difficult. the point is the whole religion comes with a package - working on an easy part and leaving the difficult part shall not work. an example is morality is asked to be practiced in every religion, but since it is difficult to practice, it is usually left aside, and then people complain the religion is itself at fault as it does not give returns it promised at start, but what is missed is that all things that religion is asking to work at is not being worked at with full commitment and determination and in line with how it is being asked to be worked at as per that religion.
Those who choose probably choose whatever they find meaningful, it seems to me.
How many people truly choose? How many people simply stick with the religion they were raised with out of ideas like respecting their parents and staying with tradition? I tried to choose Christianity. Because I wanted to belong, I wanted the comfort I saw that it brought to other people. It didn't work for me, but even knowing that when I was young, growing up in a very small town I had no idea what to even consider. I tried to force something to work for me that didn't, which is where the cherrypicking came in. because I wanted something to work, even if it didn't all work. I didn't get exposed to other religions until I was in college, and then I started to get an idea of what might work for me. Rather than stuff myself into something that didn't really work, I was able to choose. I think a lot of people do not feel free to do so.
Even people who choose a religion, like Buddhism, and achieve high status in it, in some cases don't seem to derive much of a deeper meaning from it. Everyone has purpose, really.
But how can you or anyone else judge what someone is feeling/seeing/thinking/whatever on that deeper level? Pretty much all of us know things on one level but have problems putting it into action. Even people who have been Buddhists for a long time. And if the judging of that matter is done entirely online, I think it's a pretty invalid way to judge the deeper meaning of a practice that a person does. Things don't get much more superficial than they are on the internet.
@karasti there is a soap opera on the BBC called East Enders , the male characters are permanently in a rage or sullen and the female characters at some point always say;
" leave it..he aint worth it "...
The alignment or disparity between word and action tells what something actually means, both online and offline.
No, it doesn't.
Not necessarily. Typing things out online aren't really actions. You don't know what my body language is, my tone of voice, whether I am speaking out of amusement, or with furrowed brows. How you perceive it can be completely opposite from what I am experiencing and then you judge the deeper meaning of my practice based on that. That effect is not gone, but is lessened a lot when you are interacting in person.
Buddhism (and other things) have to be experienced, and one cannot easily, or well, put those experiences into words. The disparity is much more often a reflection of that dilemma than it is a reflection of "you talk the talk but don't walk the walk". And like I also said, just because someone understands the logic of something doesn't mean they can yet apply it in word or action.
I think you mean,
"Leev i'h.....he ain' werf i'h!!"
Sorry @federica I meant to click the lol button..we are a bunch today..
And of course we mustn't forget the scene with the rain falling in sheets through the darkness and a female character shouting at the back of a departing taxi " Bu' oy LAHV yah ! " "
It's desperately depressing, isn't it?
(and that's just the grammar!)
I don't follow. Isn't it possible, for instance, to type out a lie or a threat?
Using the signals you mention, it could be easier to fool someone in person.
I see no dilemma. If for example, most Buddhist behave in a way that's not significantly different than those who practice other religions, that means something. That meaning is real.
If a core tenant of ______ism is selflessness, but no one in the tradition of ____ism particularly values or acts selflessly, is ____ism actually a selfless tradition?
I doubt anyone can say "no one of that tradition values X" because most _isms have millions of followers and you can't really assume what any of them truly value based on judgements from afar (and sometimes, not even judgements of those you know well). Anyhow, I have zero desire to argue with you, and take yet another thread far, far away from what the OP asked about just because you enjoy arguing semantics enough though I'm fairly certain you know what was meant.
I know what you meant and I think you're wrong, simply.
In my ____ism example, there can be as many or as few practitioners as we like, as long as "no one in the tradition" values or acts selflessly.
why seek out enlightenment...
why not? seems to me a more grand and worthy goal in life then wife, kids, house, job, die,(and maybe repeat :P)
You sir, are then clinging to a notion, a concept, a self. And I am quite sure you know where these sorts of thought processes lead you... (nearly gave you 3 x's as I am emailing my mum too, unlucky you)!
we all have to cling somewhere before we fully let go
. I'd like to think I'm at least clinging in the right direction for me lol.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/refuge.html#lif
So we start the path to the end of suffering, not by trying to drop our clingings immediately, but by learning to cling more strategically. In other words, we start where we are and make the best use of the habits we've already got. We progress along the path by finding better and better things to cling to, and more skillful ways to cling, in the same way you climb a ladder to the top of a roof: grab hold of a higher rung so that you can let go of a lower rung, and then grab onto a rung still higher. As the rungs get further off the ground, you find that the mind grows clearer and can see precisely where its clingings are. It gets a sharper sense of which parts of experience belong to which noble truth and what should be done with them: the parts that are suffering should be comprehended, the parts that cause of suffering — craving and ignorance — should be abandoned; the parts that form the path to the end of suffering should be developed; and the parts that belong to the end of suffering should be verified. This helps you get higher and higher on the ladder until you find yourself securely on the roof. That's when you can finally let go of the ladder and be totally free.
From what I gather talking to monks and reading monks writings, there will be plenty of clinging and attachment for me even as a monk, young monks attach to robes, to concepts of being the "ideal" monk and stuff like that. The only ones among us free from clinging are the arahants.
Exactly so. Not clinging to popularity, mundane v 'hen lightened' or other preferences. First we have to replace (have to tell you) one set of conditioning with a potentially liberating set of conditioning.
Yeah not ideal but hey this is samsara . . .