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.
Sooo happy to know that birth, illness and death are all figments of my imagination!!
I'll stop the craving right now so I won't die.
I've been saved!!! You've made my day!!!
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
@SpinyNorman said:
So dukkha is how we usually react to these experiences, not the experiences in and of themselves.
I hope I didn't detect some sarcasm in your last post, there is really no need for it.
It's what I've been saying all along. So we finally agree on one thing! Or maybe we always have??
Don't worry, Sheldon: no sarcasm intended
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@SpinyNorman said:OK, a dog with a bone, but it's a very important bone and the source of much misunderstanding.
To you maybe.
Simply because you think it's important, doesn't mean everyone views it with the same opinion.
If it's important to you, you keep mulling as much as you want.
But I personally find such circular argument not conducive to my continued practice.
It is what it is.
What it is, I will either find out, or not.
Until then, I'll just keep Taking Refuge and plod on.
I think perhaps there is another dimension to this.
In The Dukhata Sutta the Buddha talks about more than one kind of Dukkha.
There is the Dukkha of birth and death, sickness, discomfort of various kinds.
Then there is Viparanama Dukhata..which is the emotional pain and stress that comes from clinging or aversion in a world of change.
But, there is also Samskara Dukhata which is not subjective, and does not depend on our response to it. It is part and parcel of conditioned existence.
It comes with the territory just as long as the skandhas continue to arise.
There has always been debate within Dhamma circles concerning how a Buddha experiences Samskara Dukhata, and to resort to cliche, there is only one sure way to find out.
I have just noticed my double " the "..is there an edit function ?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Yes. Hit the cog in the top right hand corner of your post. But there is a time-limit, if you're relatively new.... as a 'veteran' you have 4 hours....! I have done it for you.... .
@SpinyNorman said:
I don't think it's helpful to take cheap shots like this in order to score points.
It's not a cheap shot at all. It's asking those who are so absolutely positive that their path is going to reach 100% cessation of suffering whether they have reached that plateau or whether they ACTUALLY, PERSONALLY know anyone who has reached that plateau. All too often on forums such as this (and I do it, too) we get wrapped up in the conceptual aspects of Buddhist concepts to the extent that we forget that in much of life we never reach our hoped for destinations, but that we still learn and grow and mature and develop ourselves on the journey.
Cheap shots don't cause dukkha to reasonably able practitioners I take it? Cheap shot?
My karma is already pre-paid by my future puja as an anaesthetised Buddha (theoretically) . . .
. . . and now back to . . . we will leave that open . . . ? :om: .
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I've reached my goal and/or destination. Dukkha still gets me now and then but that's being for you.
"> If the first truth really was "dukkha is inevitable" then we'd be stuck with it, no escape from it, so no point in doing Buddhist practice."
My understanding is that dukkha is one of the package that we have to deal with for being born in Samsara. But we can eradicate it completely if we follow the Noble Eight Fold Path. That's why I said it is not inevitable. But without the Noble Eight Fold Path, it is inevitable.
Any way, now I understand why fellow sanghas are saying that dukkha is inevitable.
Could please explain to us what this paragraph means to you and the connection it bears with the other truths? Thank you so much.
The paragraph is first of three phases of cessation of suffering from Four Noble Truths. It means that cessation of suffering eradicates dukkhas completely. There won't be anymore dukkhas left to cope/deal with after the cessation. This paragraph is the third truth of Four Noble Truths.
@Meatball said:
The paragraph is first of three phases of cessation of suffering from Four Noble Truths. It means that cessation of suffering eradicates dukkhas completely. There won't be anymore dukkhas left to cope/deal with after the cessation. This paragraph is the third truth of Four Noble Truths.
So the Buddha did not get ill and did not die, and you won't either when you find the magic formula to cessation?
And you said my statement made the Third Truth meaningless, @Meatball?
1
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
Buddha got I'll and he died. I doubt the death was painless but was he bothered by it?
I think it is possible to feel some kinds of pain without it creating the kind of suffering we usually classify as dukkha.
I think that has nothing to do with cessation from suffering. Buddha's mind was enlightened, not his body. His body was made out of compounded things so it is subject to deterioration. I am sure he might have felt pain, but not mental suffer.
Sorry, @Meatball, your exact words were "It means that cessation of suffering eradicates dukkhas completely. There won't be any more dukkhas left to cope/deal with after the cessation."
Which is utter BowlingShot, mind my French.
At least, I'll be respectful enough not to press the LOL buttons where they're due as you do, because I think you're entitled to your opinion, misinformed as it seems to me to be.
Buddha was born in Samsara because of his past negative karmic action. And since his body was compounded thing, it deteriorates like any other compounded things. That is the result of his past action , he had no control over it.
What the cessation of suffering means is that , after the cessation, you won't be reborn again. After the enlightenment one can't create karma to be reborn. If no ignorance, no karma. If no karma, no rebirth.
But don't worry. There are so many conventional ways to deal with dukkha. They are not permanent solution (like third truth), but they can still help ease the suffering while one is still in Samsara.
Spoiler alert! Spoiler alert! Dukkha has infiltrated this thread! Repeat Dukkha has infiltrated this thread! in the form of a ‘spanner in the works’ …and can be quite 'unsettling' at times...
Please keep an "I" eye out for it, it’s sneaky and can turn up when least expected…
Damn Uncanny Keeps Knowledge Hidden Away
Metta Shoshin . ..
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
I'm not sure my question has been answered so please forgive me for trying to reword it. If anyone knows then my curious nature will be ever so grateful.
If pain is felt but one is not bothered by it, is it still considered dukkha?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Some people are convinced a type of, like the single arrow. Others are convinced that pain on its own cannot be called dukkha for an enlightened being, but it can be called dukkha for an unenlightened being.
This is due to different interpretations of the teachings, and different PoVs.
@ourself said:
If pain is felt but one is not bothered by it, is it still considered dukkha?
No.
Do I believe the Buddha had the yogic mind training to overcome physical pain. Yep. Important and possible for most of us? No. Most of us do not practice all waking times. I have done this. I have also practiced forms of overcoming physical dukkha and experienced physical changes through mind training etc. Do I feel physical pain? Yes. Emotional pain? Yes.
Iz I in samsara? Yes. Is part of me in Nirvana? Yes. Am I a stream entrant . . . yeah . . . so what . .
@dharmamom said:
So the Buddha did not get ill and did not die, and you won't either when you find the magic formula to cessation?
According to "anatta", yes!
MN 140 wrote:
"Furthermore, a sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die, is unagitated, and is free from longing. He has nothing whereby he would be born. Not being born, will he age? Not aging, will he die? Not dying, will he be agitated? Not being agitated, for what will he long? It was in reference to this that it was said, 'He has been stilled where the currents of construing do not flow. And when the currents of construing do not flow, he is said to be a sage at peace.'
MN 140 says this because when a person becomes a Buddha, they stop being a "being" that is subject to old age and death.
"Even so, great king, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, great king, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the ocean.
SN 44.1
When a Buddha becomes a Buddha, they stop being classified by the 5 aggregates. The thing that got old and died was not the Buddha, it was simply a combination of the elements that has the form of human being. But since a Buddha is "Freed from the classification of form" a Buddha cannot age, cannot die, etc. AKA a Buddha's body dies, but a Buddha does not.
I thought this was interesting if not totally matching the thread
I thought of this because I remembered the diamond sutra talked about how a disciple entering the stream does not think of themselves as having entered the stream,
Chapter 9.
Buddha then asked, "What do you think, Subhuti, does one who has entered the stream which flows to Enlightenment, say 'I have entered the stream'?"
"No, Buddha", Subhuti replied. "A true disciple entering the stream would not think of themselves as a separate person that could be entering anything. Only that disciple who does not differentiate themselves from others, who has no regard for name, shape, sound, odor, taste, touch or for any quality can truly be called a disciple who has entered the stream."
Buddha continued, "Does a disciple who is subject to only one more rebirth say to himself, 'I am entitled to the honors and rewards of a Once-to-be-reborn.'?"
"No, Lord. 'Once-to-be-reborn' is only a name. There is no passing away, or coming into, existence. Only one who realizes this can really be called a disciple."
"Subhuti, does a venerable One who will never more be reborn as a mortal say to himself, 'I am entitled to the honor and rewards of a Non-returner.'?"
"No, Perfectly Enlightened One. A 'Non-returner' is merely a name. There is actually no one returning and no one not-returning."
"Tell me, Subhuti. Does a Buddha say to himself, 'I have obtained Perfect Enlightenment.'?"
"No, lord. There is no such thing as Perfect Enlightenment to obtain. If a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha were to say to himself, 'I am enlightened' he would be admitting there is an individual person, a separate self and personality, and would therefore not be a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha."
And an earlier passage is about practicing compassion one should not be attached. I'm still not sure what this means probably because detached is used in many other places in the teachings and I am not sure what it means in the diamond sutra.
Chapter 4.
"Furthermore, Subhuti, in the practice of compassion and charity a disciple should be detached. That is to say, he should practice compassion and charity without regard to appearances, without regard to form, without regard to sound, smell, taste, touch, or any quality of any kind. Subhuti, this is how the disciple should practice compassion and charity. Why? Because practicing compassion and charity without attachment is the way to reaching the Highest Perfect Wisdom, it is the way to becoming a living Buddha."
"Subhuti, do you think that you can measure all of the space in the Eastern Heavens?"
"No, Most Honored One. One cannot possibly measure all of the space in the Eastern Heavens."
"Subhuti, can space in all the Western, Southern, and Northern Heavens, both above and below, be measured?"
"No, Most Honored One. One cannot possibly measure all the space in the Western, Southern, and Northern Heavens."
"Well, Subhuti, the same is true of the merit of the disciple who practices compassion and charity without any attachment to appearances, without cherishing any idea of form. It is impossible to measure the merit they will accrue. Subhuti, my disciples should let their minds absorb and dwell in the teachings I have just given."
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@federica said:
Some people are convinced a type of, like the single arrow. Others are convinced that pain on its own cannot be called dukkha for an enlightened being, but it can be called dukkha for an unenlightened being.
This is due to different interpretations of the teachings, and different PoVs.
In a nutshell.
Does that answer your question?
Subjectively, yes.
Ultimately, no.
It's always nice to hear other perspectives at least.
Happiness is dukkha...Sadness is dukkha....That's life....
Don't Underestimate Karma Keep Highly Aware
What's your personal understanding of dukkha ? (How you are experiencing it)
I'm under the impression most members here have developed a fair understanding of dukkha as they go about their daily lives, so please try not to quote from the suttas, but if you must, you must (you won't lose any brownie points if you do) . ..
In a nutshell...What is dukkha ?
Metta Shoshin . ..
I'm a sixteen year old high school student, and this is my first post on this website.
I learned about Buddhism in the seventh grade. The textbook said that Buddhism is about suffering and that the Buddha said that the Eight Fold Middle Path is the way to overcome suffering.
Until recently, I equated suffering with pain, discomfort, anxiety, hunger, loneliness and so on.
I have learned recently, that suffering is related to pain, etc, but pain and suffering are not equivalent.
My present understanding is that suffering is like in the movie, the Pirates of the Caribbean in which somebody tells Jack Sparrow about a problem, and he tells them that the problem is not the problem. The attitude about the problem is the problem.
Suffering is like the problem in the movie. Suffering is a result of some kind of discomfort and my attitude about the discomfort.
Also, I think that discomfort is often a good thing. It motivates me to live life, to do something to minimize the discomfort, which will minimize the related suffering. And I can adjust my attitude about the discomfort, which will also minimize the suffering.
When I think about these things, my peripatetic, Christian (my family is Irish Italian Catholic) bias often clouds the issue, so if any of this is inappropriate, I apologize in advance.
@seeker242 said:
But since a Buddha is "Freed from the classification of form" a Buddha cannot age, cannot die, etc. AKA a Buddha's body dies, but a Buddha does not.
LOL
Fantasy dharma anyone? Does she go to heaven, para nirvana, de Void? Buddhas who are non existent (empty of form) become Nothing. Funny thing, so do dead people, unless you are a non soul rebirther . . . which you are perhaps . . . Too wikid? Ah well, consider it a form of dharma debate
A good attitude is like making good karma, @Ghid. It doesn't actually make dukkha stop until the good attitude is stabilized unto all we lose and even gain. A good attitude is similar, and can even be, equanimity.
The Buddha's discovery should not be watered down.
There are people who seems to have realized the cessation of "birth and death"!
I think that the discovery that we do not die is the most valuable and important discovery made in the history of the human race. Is there any other discovery that can match it? Even to call it the most valuable and important world heritage is insufficient. However, unfortunately, most of the great number of people living in the world do not know of this great discovery.
Discussing 'Transcendental Dependent Arising' (suffering --> faith --> gladness --> rapture --> calmness --> happiness --> concentration --> knowing and seeing things as they are --> disenchantment --> dispassion --> liberation --> destruction of the effluents): It begins with positive states like 'gladness' and 'happiness', so you would expect it to get better and better, but then it goes to ... disenchantment, or nibbida. It's like when you see some children playing on the sand, with buckets and spades, building sand castles and roads and bridges. I used to play like that when I was young! But then as you get older and you see small children playing in this way, you are no longer interested in it, you become disenchanted with it. And then dispassion arises, you can no longer get involved in the quarrelling and disputes among the children on the playground. You see society, people around you, getting upset and obsessed by such unimportant, trivial things.... That's how the arahant sees the world. And that's liberation. You are no longer fascinated by rebirth. "The holy life has been lived, what had to be done has been done, there is nothing more beyond this." You see the dukkha of all conditions, that your desires cannot be satisfied in this conditioned world. But it's not like rejecting the world, either. You still love the children playing with the sand, and you want to help them. Maybe you ask yourself: "So what happens after I die?" But you don't die. What dies? The body dies, but there is no attachment to it. ... Somebody said to me: "There are no arahants in the world anymore." I asked him: "How do you know? Are you omniscient? Maybe there are more arahants in the world than you think."
Thank you....I don't know about others but I've found the comments in this thread quite interesting and educational and I'm glad that it didn't dukkha people out... For the most part, posters sort out the 'middle way' when responding to one another, which is a good sign...
Metta Shoshin . ..
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@Ghid, welcome, and thank you for a good first post!! Nice to meet you.
Don't worry about your provenance being Irish Italian Christian. Mine is Italian Catholic, so I get where you're literally coming from!
@seeker242 said:
When a Buddha becomes a Buddha, they stop being classified by the 5 aggregates. The thing that got old and died was not the Buddha, it was simply a combination of the elements that has the form of human being. But since a Buddha is "Freed from the classification of form" a Buddha cannot age, cannot die, etc. AKA a Buddha's body dies, but a Buddha does not.
This does not accord to Theravada teaching at a number of points.. Whether it accords to Mahayana teaching I am unsure. But I don't think so.
It is a kind of Buddhist doceticism. An inversed reification.
According to the Buddha and according to most early commentators including Buddhaghosa, A Buddha's physical form continues to arise dependently on the skandhas. Its just that that the sense of identification with that process is broken. If we take a concrete example , a Buddha eats and digests and defecates. What a Buddha doesn't do, unlike us to some degree, is derive a sense of self from that process.
And there is no Buddha apart from the physical form before Parinibbana. On becoming Enlightened a Buddha does not somehow acquire an atman which stands separately .
After Parinibbana we can only speculate. And this the Buddha discouraged.
When asked about the nature of a Buddha after Parinibbana he said
Such a one neither exists nor not exists
neither does such a one both exist and not exist.
see Majjhima Nikaya for the full quote.
In other words, what happens after Parinibbana cannot be reduced to a verbal formula.
A Buddha certainly does not become some kind of spirit existing as a phantom that resembles a person.
@ourself said:
If pain is felt but one is not bothered by it, is it still considered dukkha?
As our new member @mettanando has very well described, there are different kinds of dukkha.
Problem is when we add psychological suffering to external affliction which is outside the sphere of our control.
Dukkha there is. When the Buddha spoke of cessation of suffering he meant that we can learn to develop the means by which dukkha won't affect us so much, not that dukkha will end.
It is more about how you face dukkha rather than dukkha being there or not.
You give up ignorance, you accept reality as it is (impermanence, dukkha and interrelatedness of things), you relinquish your attachment and craving for reality to be what it is not, and dukkha as self-inflicted affliction ceases to be what it originally was.
@mettanando said:
This does not accord to Theravada teaching at a number of points.. Whether it accords to Mahayana teaching I am unsure. But I don't think so.
It is a kind of Buddhist doceticism. An inversed reification.
According to the Buddha and according to most early commentators including Buddhaghosa, A Buddha's physical form continues to arise dependently on the skandhas.
That is correct. But it does accord with Theravada teaching because a Buddha's physical form is not regarded as "me, mine, myself". To regard it as "he, him, himself" is equally incorrect. It's a mistake to regard a Buddha's physical form as being equal to Tathagata because Tathagata is "Freed from the classification of form"
And there is no Buddha apart from the physical form before Parinibbana. On becoming Enlightened a Buddha does not somehow acquire an atman which stands separately .
Yes I agree. However, just because Tathagata is no longer classified by any form, does not mean there is now some other classification like atman or spirit, etc. A Tathagata is unclassified, even if there is still "residue remaining".
The Buddha himself says he is not a human being in AN 4.36.
Then the Blessed One, leaving the road, went to sit at the root of a certain tree — his legs crossed, his body erect, with mindfulness established to the fore. Then Dona, following the Blessed One's footprints, saw him sitting at the root of the tree: confident, inspiring confidence, his senses calmed, his mind calmed, having attained the utmost control & tranquility, tamed, guarded, his senses restrained, a naga. On seeing him, he went to him and said, "Master, are you a deva?"[2]
"No, brahman, I am not a deva."
"Are you a gandhabba?"
"No..."
"... a yakkha?"
"No..."
"... a human being?"
"No, brahman, I am not a human being."
"When asked, 'Are you a deva?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a deva.' When asked, 'Are you a gandhabba?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a gandhabba.' When asked, 'Are you a yakkha?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a yakkha.' When asked, 'Are you a human being?' you answer, 'No, brahman, I am not a human being.' Then what sort of being are you?"
"Brahman, the fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a deva: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising. The fermentations by which — if they were not abandoned — I would be a gandhabba... a yakkha... a human being: Those are abandoned by me, their root destroyed, made like a palmyra stump, deprived of the conditions of development, not destined for future arising.
"Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I — born in the world, grown in the world, having overcome the world — live unsmeared by the world. Remember me, brahman, as 'awakened [buddha].' AN 4.36 PTS: A ii 37
[2]The Buddha's refusal to identify himself as a human being relates to a point made throughout the Canon, that an awakened person cannot be defined in any way at all. On this point, see MN 72, SN 22.85, SN 22.86, and the article, "A Verb for Nirvana." Because a mind with clinging is "located" by its clinging, an awakened person takes no place in any world: this is why he/she is unsmeared by the world (loka), like the lotus unsmeared by water.
.
In other words, what happens after Parinibbana cannot be reduced to a verbal formula.
Likewise, what a Buddha is, even with "residue remaining", cannot be reduced to "human being".
A Buddha certainly does not become some kind of spirit existing as a phantom that resembles a person.
I agree, A Buddha has stopped becoming altogether.
@lobster said:
Fantasy dharma anyone? Does she go to heaven, para nirvana, de Void? Buddhas who are non existent (empty of form) become Nothing. Funny thing, so do dead people, unless you are a non soul rebirther . . . which you are perhaps . . . Too wikid? Ah well, consider it a form of dharma debate
She goes to the same place that a campfire goes when a campfire goes out. Reminds me of something Ajahn Chah once said. Someone asked him "Who is Ajahn Chah?" He said "Ajahn Chah? There is no Ajahn Chah."
If there is no Ajahn Chah, then the whole question of where Ajahn Chah goes becomes not applicable.
The ' going out ' metaphor is just that..a metaphor.
To treat it as a statement of literal truth is to risk falling into the error of annihilationism.
Likewise there certainly was an Ajahn Chah. Lets not push the language of paradox further than it will go.
The debate has echoes down the centuries since the time of The Buddha.
Bhikkhu Bodhi says;
" Almost any conclusion that we can draw about the nature of the Buddha, about his ontological status, takes us beyond the safe limits of language. It takes us in fact firmly into the territory of the " imponderables ". Our attitude should be that of respectful silence. An acknowledgement that there are areas where our wish for certainty and clarity has to yield to that which transcends that wish. "
As to the Buddhas physical form " not regarded as I me mine "
That is no less true of you and me. The difference is not one of ontological reality according to the Theravada. Although in some Mahayana schools the concepts of the Three Kayas may modify that statement.
The difference is that a Buddha knows and has experienced the fact that his physical form is in fact a process of change. A puthujjana either identifies totally with his/her physical form, or knows annica only theoretically.
@mettanando said:
The existence of an entity called a " human being " is a convention. Tathagata or otherwise.
A Tathagata has realised the truth of that
I'm sorry I'm still not following you! Are you saying the Buddha was wrong when he said "I am not a human being". Are you saying its both true and false? I'm not following you!
" Monks there is one person whose birth into this world is for the welfare and happiness of many, out of compassion for the world, for the gain and happiness of devas and humanity.
Who is this one person ? It is the Tathagata who is a Consumate One ( Arhat ). A Supremely Enlightened One ( Samyaksambuddha ) One person born into this life is an Extraordinary Man . ( Accariya Manussa )...manussa is the Pali for human being.
He described himself as a man, a human being ( manussa ) without defilements.
In the famous exchange with
I think you may be thinking of the exchange with Dona where Dona asks him if he "will be" best described as a God or an angel or a demon or a man. To which he replies that he is best described as One Who Is Awake...he then goes on to describe himself as a Accariya Manussa ..an EXTRAORDINARY Man.
He is not affirming or denying his biological status. He is saying gently " You are asking the wrong question Dona. The point is not that I am this or that category of being. The point is, I Am Awake ."
As Thannisaro Bhikkhu states..his refusal of all labels serves to underline the fact that a Buddha is beyond all definitions, including the negative, what he is not.
As Thannisaro Bhikkhu states..his refusal of all labels serves to underline the fact that a Buddha is beyond all definitions, including the negative, what he is not.
If the Buddha is beyond all definitions, then he can't be defined as a human being. If he can be defined as a human being, then he's not beyond all definitions. Defining him as a human being is just that, a definition.
I think perhaps time to reflect on things is in order.
I find online discussions can become combatative, which I am sure you agree would rather defeat the object.
@mettanando said:
As is defining him as a non human being.
I think perhaps time to reflect on things is in order.
I find online discussions can become combatative, which I am sure you agree would rather defeat the object.
Many bows.
Agree! Although, I don't think not defining him as a human being is the same as defining him as a non human being. Personally, I see those as two different things entirely.
Thanks for the wonderful debate, fellow sanghas. I enjoyed following it. I still can't imagine how can one express pain when concept of "I"I is completely gone after the enlightenment. I think body doesn't feel pain , only mind feel it, then mind express it through 'I'. If the 'I' is gone I guess body is only aware of it or something.
Comments
Sooo happy to know that birth, illness and death are all figments of my imagination!!
I'll stop the craving right now so I won't die.
I've been saved!!! You've made my day!!!
Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Like I just said...obviously a Buddha still experiences bodily pain, ageing and death, but for a Buddha they are no longer experienced as dukkha.
So dukkha is how we usually react to these experiences, not the experiences in and of themselves.
I hope I didn't detect some sarcasm in your last post, there is really no need for it.
It's what I've been saying all along. So we finally agree on one thing! Or maybe we always have??
Don't worry, Sheldon: no sarcasm intended
To you maybe.
Simply because you think it's important, doesn't mean everyone views it with the same opinion.
If it's important to you, you keep mulling as much as you want.
But I personally find such circular argument not conducive to my continued practice.
It is what it is.
What it is, I will either find out, or not.
Until then, I'll just keep Taking Refuge and plod on.
Undoing my boot-laces.....
I think perhaps there is another dimension to this.
In The Dukhata Sutta the Buddha talks about more than one kind of Dukkha.
There is the Dukkha of birth and death, sickness, discomfort of various kinds.
Then there is Viparanama Dukhata..which is the emotional pain and stress that comes from clinging or aversion in a world of change.
But, there is also Samskara Dukhata which is not subjective, and does not depend on our response to it. It is part and parcel of conditioned existence.
It comes with the territory just as long as the skandhas continue to arise.
There has always been debate within Dhamma circles concerning how a Buddha experiences Samskara Dukhata, and to resort to cliche, there is only one sure way to find out.
Mettanando.
I have just noticed my double " the "..is there an edit function ?
Yes. Hit the cog in the top right hand corner of your post. But there is a time-limit, if you're relatively new.... as a 'veteran' you have 4 hours....! I have done it for you....
.
Most kind...
Thank you.
It's not a cheap shot at all. It's asking those who are so absolutely positive that their path is going to reach 100% cessation of suffering whether they have reached that plateau or whether they ACTUALLY, PERSONALLY know anyone who has reached that plateau. All too often on forums such as this (and I do it, too) we get wrapped up in the conceptual aspects of Buddhist concepts to the extent that we forget that in much of life we never reach our hoped for destinations, but that we still learn and grow and mature and develop ourselves on the journey.
Cheap shots don't cause dukkha to reasonably able practitioners I take it? Cheap shot?
My karma is already pre-paid by my future puja as an anaesthetised Buddha (theoretically) . . .
. . . and now back to . . . we will leave that open . . . ? :om: .
I've reached my goal and/or destination. Dukkha still gets me now and then but that's being for you.
"> If the first truth really was "dukkha is inevitable" then we'd be stuck with it, no escape from it, so no point in doing Buddhist practice."
My understanding is that dukkha is one of the package that we have to deal with for being born in Samsara. But we can eradicate it completely if we follow the Noble Eight Fold Path. That's why I said it is not inevitable. But without the Noble Eight Fold Path, it is inevitable.
Any way, now I understand why fellow sanghas are saying that dukkha is inevitable.
Could please explain to us what this paragraph means to you and the connection it bears with the other truths? Thank you so much.
The paragraph is first of three phases of cessation of suffering from Four Noble Truths. It means that cessation of suffering eradicates dukkhas completely. There won't be anymore dukkhas left to cope/deal with after the cessation. This paragraph is the third truth of Four Noble Truths.
So the Buddha did not get ill and did not die, and you won't either when you find the magic formula to cessation?
And you said my statement made the Third Truth meaningless, @Meatball?
Buddha got I'll and he died. I doubt the death was painless but was he bothered by it?
I think it is possible to feel some kinds of pain without it creating the kind of suffering we usually classify as dukkha.
>
I think that has nothing to do with cessation from suffering. Buddha's mind was enlightened, not his body. His body was made out of compounded things so it is subject to deterioration. I am sure he might have felt pain, but not mental suffer.
Sorry, @Meatball, your exact words were "It means that cessation of suffering eradicates dukkhas completely. There won't be any more dukkhas left to cope/deal with after the cessation."
Which is utter BowlingShot, mind my French.
At least, I'll be respectful enough not to press the LOL buttons where they're due as you do, because I think you're entitled to your opinion, misinformed as it seems to me to be.
Buddha was born in Samsara because of his past negative karmic action. And since his body was compounded thing, it deteriorates like any other compounded things. That is the result of his past action , he had no control over it.
What the cessation of suffering means is that , after the cessation, you won't be reborn again. After the enlightenment one can't create karma to be reborn. If no ignorance, no karma. If no karma, no rebirth.
Where is @Citta and his "papanca" when you need him???
I'm sooo bowing out of here before my skandhas turn me back into cinderella...
But don't worry. There are so many conventional ways to deal with dukkha. They are not permanent solution (like third truth), but they can still help ease the suffering while one is still in Samsara.
Kia Ora,
Spoiler alert! Spoiler alert! Dukkha has infiltrated this thread! Repeat Dukkha has infiltrated this thread! in the form of a ‘spanner in the works’ …and can be quite 'unsettling' at times...
Please keep an
"I"eye out for it, it’s sneaky and can turn up when least expected…Damn Uncanny Keeps Knowledge Hidden Away
Metta Shoshin .
..
I'm not sure my question has been answered so please forgive me for trying to reword it. If anyone knows then my curious nature will be ever so grateful.
If pain is felt but one is not bothered by it, is it still considered dukkha?
Some people are convinced a type of, like the single arrow. Others are convinced that pain on its own cannot be called dukkha for an enlightened being, but it can be called dukkha for an unenlightened being.
This is due to different interpretations of the teachings, and different PoVs.
In a nutshell.
Does that answer your question?
No.
Do I believe the Buddha had the yogic mind training to overcome physical pain. Yep. Important and possible for most of us? No. Most of us do not practice all waking times. I have done this. I have also practiced forms of overcoming physical dukkha and experienced physical changes through mind training etc. Do I feel physical pain? Yes. Emotional pain? Yes.
Iz I in samsara? Yes. Is part of me in Nirvana? Yes. Am I a stream entrant . . . yeah . . . so what . .
Onward and upward . . .
According to "anatta", yes!
MN 140 says this because when a person becomes a Buddha, they stop being a "being" that is subject to old age and death.
When a Buddha becomes a Buddha, they stop being classified by the 5 aggregates. The thing that got old and died was not the Buddha, it was simply a combination of the elements that has the form of human being. But since a Buddha is "Freed from the classification of form" a Buddha cannot age, cannot die, etc. AKA a Buddha's body dies, but a Buddha does not.
I thought this was interesting if not totally matching the thread
I thought of this because I remembered the diamond sutra talked about how a disciple entering the stream does not think of themselves as having entered the stream,
And an earlier passage is about practicing compassion one should not be attached. I'm still not sure what this means probably because detached is used in many other places in the teachings and I am not sure what it means in the diamond sutra.
Here is the site. http://www.diamond-sutra.com/diamond_sutra_text/page9.html
Subjectively, yes.
Ultimately, no.
It's always nice to hear other perspectives at least.
I'm a sixteen year old high school student, and this is my first post on this website.
I learned about Buddhism in the seventh grade. The textbook said that Buddhism is about suffering and that the Buddha said that the Eight Fold Middle Path is the way to overcome suffering.
Until recently, I equated suffering with pain, discomfort, anxiety, hunger, loneliness and so on.
I have learned recently, that suffering is related to pain, etc, but pain and suffering are not equivalent.
My present understanding is that suffering is like in the movie, the Pirates of the Caribbean in which somebody tells Jack Sparrow about a problem, and he tells them that the problem is not the problem. The attitude about the problem is the problem.
Suffering is like the problem in the movie. Suffering is a result of some kind of discomfort and my attitude about the discomfort.
Also, I think that discomfort is often a good thing. It motivates me to live life, to do something to minimize the discomfort, which will minimize the related suffering. And I can adjust my attitude about the discomfort, which will also minimize the suffering.
When I think about these things, my peripatetic, Christian (my family is Irish Italian Catholic) bias often clouds the issue, so if any of this is inappropriate, I apologize in advance.
Ghid
LOL
Fantasy dharma anyone? Does she go to heaven, para nirvana, de Void? Buddhas who are non existent (empty of form) become Nothing. Funny thing, so do dead people, unless you are a non soul rebirther . . . which you are perhaps . . . Too wikid? Ah well, consider it a form of dharma debate
A good attitude is like making good karma, @Ghid. It doesn't actually make dukkha stop until the good attitude is stabilized unto all we lose and even gain. A good attitude is similar, and can even be, equanimity.
The Buddha's discovery should not be watered down.
There are people who seems to have realized the cessation of "birth and death"!
Kia Ora,
Thank you....I don't know about others but I've found the comments in this thread quite interesting and educational and I'm glad that it didn't dukkha people out... For the most part, posters sort out the 'middle way' when responding to one another, which is a good sign...
Metta Shoshin .
..
@Ghid, welcome, and thank you for a good first post!! Nice to meet you.
Don't worry about your provenance being Irish Italian Christian. Mine is Italian Catholic, so I get where you're literally coming from!
This does not accord to Theravada teaching at a number of points.. Whether it accords to Mahayana teaching I am unsure. But I don't think so.
It is a kind of Buddhist doceticism. An inversed reification.
According to the Buddha and according to most early commentators including Buddhaghosa, A Buddha's physical form continues to arise dependently on the skandhas. Its just that that the sense of identification with that process is broken. If we take a concrete example , a Buddha eats and digests and defecates. What a Buddha doesn't do, unlike us to some degree, is derive a sense of self from that process.
And there is no Buddha apart from the physical form before Parinibbana. On becoming Enlightened a Buddha does not somehow acquire an atman which stands separately .
After Parinibbana we can only speculate. And this the Buddha discouraged.
When asked about the nature of a Buddha after Parinibbana he said
Such a one neither exists nor not exists
neither does such a one both exist and not exist.
see Majjhima Nikaya for the full quote.
In other words, what happens after Parinibbana cannot be reduced to a verbal formula.
A Buddha certainly does not become some kind of spirit existing as a phantom that resembles a person.
As our new member @mettanando has very well described, there are different kinds of dukkha.
Problem is when we add psychological suffering to external affliction which is outside the sphere of our control.
Dukkha there is. When the Buddha spoke of cessation of suffering he meant that we can learn to develop the means by which dukkha won't affect us so much, not that dukkha will end.
It is more about how you face dukkha rather than dukkha being there or not.
You give up ignorance, you accept reality as it is (impermanence, dukkha and interrelatedness of things), you relinquish your attachment and craving for reality to be what it is not, and dukkha as self-inflicted affliction ceases to be what it originally was.
It is a kind of Buddhist doceticism. An inversed reification.
That is correct. But it does accord with Theravada teaching because a Buddha's physical form is not regarded as "me, mine, myself". To regard it as "he, him, himself" is equally incorrect. It's a mistake to regard a Buddha's physical form as being equal to Tathagata because Tathagata is "Freed from the classification of form"
Yes I agree. However, just because Tathagata is no longer classified by any form, does not mean there is now some other classification like atman or spirit, etc. A Tathagata is unclassified, even if there is still "residue remaining".
The Buddha himself says he is not a human being in AN 4.36.
.
Likewise, what a Buddha is, even with "residue remaining", cannot be reduced to "human being".
I agree, A Buddha has stopped becoming altogether.
She goes to the same place that a campfire goes when a campfire goes out.
Reminds me of something Ajahn Chah once said. Someone asked him "Who is Ajahn Chah?" He said "Ajahn Chah? There is no Ajahn Chah."
If there is no Ajahn Chah, then the whole question of where Ajahn Chah goes becomes not applicable.
The ' going out ' metaphor is just that..a metaphor.
To treat it as a statement of literal truth is to risk falling into the error of annihilationism.
Likewise there certainly was an Ajahn Chah. Lets not push the language of paradox further than it will go.
The debate has echoes down the centuries since the time of The Buddha.
Bhikkhu Bodhi says;
" Almost any conclusion that we can draw about the nature of the Buddha, about his ontological status, takes us beyond the safe limits of language. It takes us in fact firmly into the territory of the " imponderables ". Our attitude should be that of respectful silence. An acknowledgement that there are areas where our wish for certainty and clarity has to yield to that which transcends that wish. "
As to the Buddhas physical form " not regarded as I me mine "
That is no less true of you and me. The difference is not one of ontological reality according to the Theravada. Although in some Mahayana schools the concepts of the Three Kayas may modify that statement.
The difference is that a Buddha knows and has experienced the fact that his physical form is in fact a process of change. A puthujjana either identifies totally with his/her physical form, or knows annica only theoretically.
So a Tathagata is classified as a human being?
The existence of an entity called a " human being " is a convention. Tathagata or otherwise.
A Tathagata has realised the truth of that.
I'm sorry I'm still not following you! Are you saying the Buddha was wrong when he said "I am not a human being". Are you saying its both true and false? I'm not following you!
Anugutarra Sutta. 1.22
" Monks there is one person whose birth into this world is for the welfare and happiness of many, out of compassion for the world, for the gain and happiness of devas and humanity.
Who is this one person ? It is the Tathagata who is a Consumate One ( Arhat ). A Supremely Enlightened One ( Samyaksambuddha ) One person born into this life is an Extraordinary Man . ( Accariya Manussa )...manussa is the Pali for human being.
He described himself as a man, a human being ( manussa ) without defilements.
In the famous exchange with
Yes, and in another sutta, he says he is not a man. So which one is correct?
I think you may be thinking of the exchange with Dona where Dona asks him if he "will be" best described as a God or an angel or a demon or a man. To which he replies that he is best described as One Who Is Awake...he then goes on to describe himself as a Accariya Manussa ..an EXTRAORDINARY Man.
He is not affirming or denying his biological status. He is saying gently " You are asking the wrong question Dona. The point is not that I am this or that category of being. The point is, I Am Awake ."
As Thannisaro Bhikkhu states..his refusal of all labels serves to underline the fact that a Buddha is beyond all definitions, including the negative, what he is not.
If the Buddha is beyond all definitions, then he can't be defined as a human being. If he can be defined as a human being, then he's not beyond all definitions. Defining him as a human being is just that, a definition.
As is defining him as a non human being.
I think perhaps time to reflect on things is in order.
I find online discussions can become combatative, which I am sure you agree would rather defeat the object.
Many bows.
Agree! Although, I don't think not defining him as a human being is the same as defining him as a non human being. Personally, I see those as two different things entirely.
Bows
No. That's the whole point of the Arrow Sutta.
No, all 3 levels of dukkha are subjective.
Thanks for the wonderful debate, fellow sanghas. I enjoyed following it. I still can't imagine how can one express pain when concept of "I"I is completely gone after the enlightenment. I think body doesn't feel pain , only mind feel it, then mind express it through 'I'. If the 'I' is gone I guess body is only aware of it or something.