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.
Buddhism revisited: A collaboration of personal thoughts.
Jason
God EmperorArrakis Moderator
What is Buddhism? Is Buddhism merely an outdated superstition? Is Buddhism entirely unscientific and useless in our modern society? Perhaps it is all these things and more, but I believe that there are many different facets to Buddhism. Buddhism is a word that is used to describe a predominately Eastern philosophy, religion, and ethical way of life, but it can also be used as a word to describe a rigorous mental discipline designed for a very specific purpose. In my own understanding, Buddhism is a pragmatic approach to suffering rather than an abstract philosophy, although it can easily be viewed as both.
The Buddha said that he taught only one thing, suffering and the end of suffering (MN 22). The reason that he taught about suffering was to put an end to it. Towards this end, he gave a number of teachings and practices that were designed to lead the practitioner to a direct experience of an unconditioned nature, an experience that would free the mind from its afflictions, or as they are better known, the mental defilement of greed, hatred, and delusion. The Buddha also said that his teachings were like a raft that was to be used to cross a dangerous river, and once that river had been cross, the teachings had served their purpose (MN 22). Moreover, even though concepts such as rebirth are an integral part of the Buddha's teachings, the Buddha left many metaphysical and philosophical questions unanswered. There were some that he simply refused to answer because they were not useful in the quest to free the mind of its defilements (MN 63). To be more specific, the Buddha did not teach anything other than what related to the cessation of suffering based upon what he himself directly exerienced through years of practice. The way I see it, there is nothing to defend. If one experiences suffering, and one wishes to put that suffering to an end, then one should put these teachings and practices to the test to see what results they will bring. If, on the other hand, one is not interested in this goal, then these various teachings and practices will obviously not appeal to such a person and there is no need to go any further.
That being said, Buddhism can also be viewed as a complex religio-philosophical system that does in fact incorporate many seemingly abstract and metaphysical concepts and doctrines, concepts and doctrines that define Buddhism as something more than just an ethical system or philosophy of life, and it is much harder to express it from this standpoint. What is even more difficult than that, however, is to empirical prove to others many of the concepts and ideas presented in Buddhist philosophy because the majority of those things, as of yet, are really only verifiable through personal experience. Therefore, instead of trying to prove the validity of what the Buddha taught, I would like to try and express his teachings in better detail. In doing so, I simply hope to share one Buddhist’s perspective on this topic. So, to begin with, what exactly is philosophy? From one point of view, philosophy is an attempt to understand the truth and meaning behind the internal and external worlds perceived by humankind through a combination of logic, reason, and observation. Moreover, it is a search for truth and meaning that depends a great deal upon the economical, historical, and political contexts of a given time and place. When it comes to certain philosophical systems, however, there are those that claim to point towards a truth that is not subjective or relative in any way—a truth that is “directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, to be personally experienced by the wise” (SN 11.3). The teaching of the Buddha is one such example.
While the vast collection of the Buddha’s teachings that have been preserved in Pali cover a wide range of historical, philosophical, political, social, and spiritual topics, the basic framework on which these teachings were built cover but a single and yet far reaching goal. In the Buddha’s own words to one of his disciples, “Formerly, Anuradha, and also now, I make know just suffering (dukkha) and the cessation of suffering” (SN 22.86). While stated as two distinct ideas, they are to be understood as a complete whole because the Buddha only taught suffering so that it could eventually be put to an end.
Simply stated from a broader perspective, existence within samsara, the continual round of birth and death, is suffering and bondage. Right away, we are made aware that existence itself is somehow tied into suffering. Suffering, the Buddha also pointed out, is something that is deeply personal. Everyone suffers in his or her own way, according to his or her individual circumstances; and as long as the causes for suffering are present, suffering will arise. In the Buddha’s time, this was a radically new view of the world in terms of conditionality, or cause and effect. In its simplest form, the law of this/that conditionality (idappacayata) states, “When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this is not, that is not. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that” (AN 10.92). Suffering is further broken down to its very core—an activity originating in a mind defiled by greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), and delusion (moha). This activity was not only seen by the Buddha to be the direct cause of a being’s (satta) potential for suffering, but it was also seen to be the basis for their sentient existence in one of the three realms posited by Buddhist cosmology, a span of life beginning with conception and ending in death.
As befitting a true contemplative of his time, the Buddha dedicated his entire adult life to finding a solution to suffering. Failing to find an answer under other ascetics and teachers, the Buddha set out to discover them on his own. After spending a considerable amount of time in a deep state of meditative absorption (jhana), the Buddha reflected upon the nature of suffering headed by aging and death with a sense of urgency. Desiring to discern an escape from this process of arising and passing away, he asked, “When what exists does aging and death come to be? By what is aging and death conditioned?” It was through careful attention to this subject that insight arose, and the Buddha had a breakthrough whereby he discerned the process of dependent origination (paticca-samuppada) (SN 12.10). In short, aging and death is conditioned by birth, birth is conditioned by existence, existence is conditioned by clinging, clinging is conditioned by craving, craving is conditioned by feeling, feeling is conditioned by contact, contact is conditioned by the six sense bases, the six sense bases are conditioned by name and form, name and form are conditioned by consciousness, consciousness is conditioned by volitional formations, and volitional formations are conditioned by ignorance. It should be noted here that in the suttas, special attention is paid to the complex relationship between name and form (nama-rupa), otherwise translated as mentality-materiality, and consciousness (vinnana)—with the Buddha detailing the mutual dependency of mental and physical activity and consciousness (DN 15). It is here that the investigation of dependent origination comes to a climax by, "revealing a "hidden vortes" underlying the entire process of samsaric becoming" (Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Great Discourse On Causation: The Mahanidana Sutta and its Commentaries).
While dismissed by materialists of the time and generally misunderstood by other contemporaries such as the Jain founder Nigantha Nataputta (Mahavira), the importance of action (kamma), and in particular mental action (manokamma), was clearly seen by the Buddha—the definition of kamma given by the Buddha being, "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and intellect" (AN 6.63). In a meeting with the householder Upali, for example, the Buddha explained through means of logic and reason how mental actions are more powerful than those of body or speech, and more importantly, how the act of volition (cetana) that precedes any action — whether of body, speech, or mind — is a critical factor (MN 56). The Buddha did not stop there, however. He took great pains to show that our experience of the world is subjective in the sense that we experience the external objects of forms, sounds, odours, tastes, tangibles, and ideas through the internal sense bases of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and ultimately, through the mind. The world (loka) he said, using the word "world" here as a synonym for suffering, originates from a complex process of sensory experience and conditionality. In brief, dependent on the internal sense base and its corresponding external object, consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. From the requisite condition of contact comes feeling, from feeling comes craving, from craving comes becoming, from becoming comes birth, and from birth comes aging, illness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain grief, and despair (SN 12.44). In this way, a connection can be made between the subjective nature of phenomena and its place in the overall question of suffering and its cessation. The reverse of this, or in other words the ending of the world, reveals quite the opposite connection—one between the subjective nature of phenomena and the objective freedom of Nibbana.
A verse from the Samyutta Nikaya states, “sabbe satta atthajata” which is translated by Bkikkhu Bodhi as, “All beings are bent upon a goal” (326). The Saratthappakasini, a commentary to the Samyutta Nikaya ascribed to Acariya Buddhaghosa, explains: “Bent upon a goal means engaged in a task; for there is no being at all — including dogs or jackals — that is not engaged in a task. Even walking to and fro can be called a task” (494). Philosophically speaking, since existence itself is a by-product of volitional action, reason dictates that it is through volitional action itself that the subjective truth and meaning of experience takes shape. Therefore, when volitional action ceases, the need for subjective truth and meaning also ceases. Only with the cessation of volition is there both freedom from suffering and an unimaginable experience of a truth that is unconditional and absolute. Paradoxically, according to the Buddha’s teachings on action, since inaction itself is an action when the inaction is volitional, to reach the ending of action, and consequentially the freedom experienced through this objective truth, one must act in a way that leads to the destruction of the cause of action. The root cause for volitional actions is ignorance (avijja), or more specifically, lack of direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths and the tasks to be done in regards to each truth. The Four Noble Truths are the noble truth of suffering, the noble truth of the origin of suffering, the noble truth of the cessation of suffering, and the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering. The tasks to be done in regards to each truth are as follows: the noble truth of suffering is to be fully understood, the noble truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned, the noble truth of the cessation of suffering is to be realized, and the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering is to be developed (SN 56.11).
The First Noble Truth focuses on suffering. Suffering is defined as birth, aging, illness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain grief, despair, associating with the unloved, separation from the loved, not getting what one wants, and in particular, the five aggregates of clinging (upadanakhandha) which are the result of past actions (SN 35.145). It is because the five aggregates of clinging arise — and according to the Buddha, whatever has the nature of arising has the nature of passing away — that they are subject to illness, aging, and death. It is only due to our lack of understanding their true nature that we inevitably cling to either one or all of these phenomena as ‘me’ or ‘mine’. In other words, the form of the body consisting of the four great elements is unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. The six classes of feeling, feeling born of contact through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. The six classes of perception, perception of form, sounds, odours, tastes, tactiles, and mental phenomena are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. The six classes of volitional formations, volitions regarding forms, sounds, odours, tastes, tactiles, and mental phenomena are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. Finally, the six classes of consciousness, eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind consciousness are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. Hence, the Buddha points out the ultimately unsatisfactory nature of the psycho-physical entity consisting of mind and matter in a variety of ways as well as the insubstantiality of our ego which is built upon these five, fleeting phenomena.
I think that this would be a good place to stop and stress that the Buddha did not say life is nothing but suffering. The Buddha did not deny happiness, and he taught many ways to cultivate various forms of happiness—especially to lay-followers. What the Buddha denied, however, was that the end justifies the means. The Buddha stressed that most of the ways that we seek happiness are unskillful (akusala) in that we often act in ways that harm ourselves as well as others. The basic premise behind this being that, when observed with equanimity (upekkha) and compassion (karuna), the harm we cause will be seen to not be worth the relatively small and fleeting amounts of happiness and pleasure that the results of our unskillful actions produce. In addition, we will also discern that if our happiness is built upon the unhappiness of others, they will do everything in their power to undermine our happiness. That is one of the reasons why the Buddha stressed non-violence (ahimsa) in the form of moral precepts, and taught forms of happiness that are blameless and not dependent upon exploiting others. He also denied that any form of happiness that is dependent upon causes and conditions is permanent, and therefore, truly satisfactory. In essence, the happiness and pleasure that we experience, when it is dependent upon external conditions, will cease when those conditions cease; and furthermore, if we mentally cling to those pleasures and/or conditions, when they cease, suffering will arise due to the presence of that very clinging. It is also true that some people never see the characteristic element of stress and suffering that is inherent to life. Perhaps it is because they have yet to partake of the necessary experiences needed to develop this insight, or perhaps it is because they merely choose not to acknowledge it. Birth, aging, sickness, and death; we are all subject to the laws of conditionality. Whatever has the nature of arising has the nature of ceasing, and that process is inherently stressful. The truth that the Buddha tried to convey regarding life is that we have no real control over the unsatisfactory and impermanent nature of our existence, and this is evident by the fact that we cannot say, "Let my body be thus, Let my body not be thus. Let my feelings be thus. Let my feelings not be thus. Let my perceptions be thus. Let my perceptions not be thus. Let my mental process be thus. Let my mental process not be thus. Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus" (SN 22.59). These things that we cling to as our own, these five phenomena that comprise our experience of the world, they arise from causes and conditions. Whether we may wish to see this aspect of our existence or not, the fact that whatever is suffering and subject to change is not worth clinging to remains true if we understand the First Noble Truth. After all, samsara is not a place, but a process of continual change.
To summarize, these five aggregates of clinging are unsatisfactory and unreliable due to their potential for suffering (dukkha), their impermanency (anicca), and their lack of anything worth clinging to as a self, or in other words, the lack of a permanent, unchanging substance that is perceivable as being ‘me’ or ‘mine’ (anatta). In essence, the five aggregates of clinging are trapped within the subjective realm of experience, and as a result, suffering, because as Piyadassi Thera mentions in The Buddha’s Ancient Path, “A beings and the empirical world are both constantly changing” (43). Being in a continual state of flux, these things by their very nature arise, persist for a period, and then pass away relative to various causes and conditions that sustain them (43).
The Second Noble Truth focuses on the cause or origination of suffering. The origination of suffering is craving (tahna), which literally means thirst in Pali. More specifically, it is the craving that “leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and craving for annihilation” that is the underlying cause for suffering (SN 56.11). Craving is likened to an arrow that pierces the heart, and ignorance is likened to a poison that spreads its toxins through desire, passion and ill will (MN 105). As with most Eastern philosophies and religions, Buddhism does not view death as the final end of phenomena. In Buddhism, only Nibbana is said to be the final end of phenomena in regards to the arising and passing away of beings (AN 10.58). As previously mentioned, according to the teachings on dependent origination, if there are sufficient conditions present, those conditions with inevitably result in future births (SN 12.35). Along with consciousness, craving plays a vital role in the renewal of beings and the production of future births.
To illustrate how craving could result in future births, the Buddha used a simile in which he compared the sustenance of a flame to that of a being at the time of death. Essentially, a flame burns in dependence on its fuel, and that fuel sustains it. When a flame burns in dependence on wood, for example, the wood sustains that flame. However, when a flame is swept up and carried away by the wind, the fuel of wind sustains that flame until it lands upon a new source of fuel. In the same way, a being at the time of death has the fuel of craving as its sustenance (SN 44.9). The last consciousness of a being at the time of death, with the presence of craving, is the cause for the arising of a new consciousness. In the human realm, this would be in combination with the union of a healthy sperm and egg, although the Buddha often mentioned various other forms of birth in other realms of existence—none of which are free from suffering. Nevertheless, the Buddha states, “Wherever there is a basis for consciousness, there is support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of renewed existence” (SN 12.38). Thus, whatever the means of birth, whatever the realm of existence, all beings are fettered by craving to a subjective and conditional existence within a state of continuous change. The reality of the five aggregates is like that of a lump of foam; it is both empty and fleeting (SN 22.95).
The Third Noble Truth focuses on the cessation of suffering. The cessation of suffering is Nibbana. According to Nyanatiloka Thera’s Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, Nibbana literally means “extinction, to cease blowing, to become extinguished.” Nibbana is the state of final deliverance, the extinction of craving (AN 10.60), the extinguishing of lust, the extinguishing of hatred, and the extinguishing of delusion (SN 38.1). Even more importantly, however, Nibbana is the only true reality for it is the only reality that is truly objective, permanent, and absolute. Nibbana alone is without a cause, unborn, unmade, and therefore, it is unconditional. It lies outside of the world as we know it, outside of conditioned existence, outside of space and time, and as such, it lies beyond cause and effect. Furthermore, as Piyadassi Thera echoes in The Buddha’s Ancient Path, all things conventional or subjective are relative, however, Nibbana being neither conventional nor subjective has no relativities, and thus in a sense, absolute (73). The Buddha himself makes clear that the deliverance found within this truth is unshakable, and while from the conventional viewpoint of subjective reality, that which is unstable, impermanent, and not-self (i.e. the aggregates) appears to be real, from the ultimate viewpoint of objective reality, these things are merely illusions with no more substance than a dream (MN 140).
In one instance, the Buddha gives an almost unbelievable and yet incredible description of Nibbana, clearly describing it as being beyond the world of common experience. The Buddha declares that, “Nibbana is that base where there is neither earth, nor water, nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness, nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another; neither sun nor moon. Here there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support. Just this is the end of suffering” (Ud 8.1). In addition, the Buddha described two elements of Nibbana. The Nibbana element with residue remaining is the destruction of lust, hatred, and delusion attained by a Noble One (arahant) while still alive, with the residue itself being a reference to the five aggregates. The Nibbana element without residue remaining is the final passing away of a Noble One in which “all that is felt, not being delighted, will become cool right here” (Iti 44). As for the fate of a Noble One after death, the Buddha refused to answer in terms of existence, nonexistence, both, or neither. While reason might suggest that since the five aggregates are the constituents of subjective experience that cease with the full attainment of Nibbana, Nibbana must be a state of nonexistence, a state of nothingness. Bhikkhu Bodhi, however, points out that, “… no text in the Nikayas ever states this. To the contrary, the Nikayas consistently refer to Nibbana by terms that refer to actualities. It is an element (dhatu), a base (ayatana), a reality (dhamma), a state (pada), and so on” (In the Buddha’s Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon 319).
The Forth Noble Truth focuses on the way leading to the cessation of suffering. The way leading to the cessation of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path, which consists of right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. Right view is defined as, "knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress" (DN 22). Right intention is defined as, "being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness" (SN 45.8). Right speech is defined as, "abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter" (SN 45.8). Right action is defined as, "abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity" (SN 45.8). Right livelihood is defined as, "having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood" (SN 45.8). Right effort is defined as, " [when the meditator] (i) generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen, (ii) generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen, (iii) generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen, and (iv) generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, and culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen" (SN 45.8). Right mindfulness is defined as, " [when the meditator] (i) remains focused on the body in and of itself... (ii) remains focused on feelings in and of themselves... (iii) the mind in and of itself... (iv) mental qualities in and of themselves — ardent, alert, and mindful — putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world" (DN 22). Right concentration is defined as, "(i) [where the meditator] quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana... (ii) with the stilling of directed thought and evaluation, he enters and remains in the second jhana... (iii) with the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful, and fully alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure, he enters and remains in the third jhana... (iv) with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, he enters and remains in the fourth jhana... " (SN 45.8).
As briefly alluded to earlier, the Noble Eightfold Path is the “action that leads to the ending of action” (AN 4.237). The Noble Eightfold Path is the “middle way, awakened to by the Tathagata, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, and leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana” (SN 56.11). While the mind is said to be intrinsically pure and luminous, it is obscured by defilements, and the Noble Eightfold Path is, in effect, the only way of purifying the mind of these obscurations (AN 1.49-52). The implication here being that it is not only due to the presence of these obscurations that the objective truth of reality is hidden from us, but that it is due to the presence of these obscurations that beings actively produce the necessary conditions for the continuation of their subjective existence. In short, this means that beings consciously fabricate their experience of subjective reality through the mechanisms of causality. Descartes’ statement “I think, therefore I am” might be more correctly phrased to say something along the lines of “’I’ act, therefore ‘I’ exist.”
When the entire path is put into practice, it culminates in the cessation of suffering by removing ignorance, which is itself the cause of action. This event, as Thanissaro Bhikkhu describes in Wings to Awakening, takes place in a particular state of non-fashioning (atammayata) where one becomes so dispassionate towards even the most subtle forms of fabricated experience — experience made up of causal conditions and influences — that one “neither fabricates nor wills for the sake of becoming or un-becoming” (263). As a result, at the precise moment of realization, that is, with the arising of the knowledge of cessation culminating in a state of non-action or non-fabrication, the process of fabrication ceases, and with it, the experience of subjective reality (44). Due to this extraordinary experience of unbinding, the process of conditionality is disrupted because the process requires input from both past as well as present actions to sustain it. Thus without the additional input of present action, the entire process effectively breaks down leaving only the experience of Nibbana. It should be reiterated that the experience of subjective reality will reoccur as long as the lifespan of the aggregates is not completely exhausted, which itself depends upon the amount of input remaining from past actions; but, with the destruction of ignorance the Noble One’s relationship towards the subjective experience of reality will never be the same (263).
Hence, when one reaches the goal of Nibbana, the end of volitional actions of body, speech, and mind ripening in rebirth, there is a direct experience of objective truth and meaning that is indescribable—a truth that does not fall under the relative sphere of subjectivity. Moreover, the basis for the establishment of consciousness is destroyed. When no basis or support for the establishment of consciousness exists, there is no basis or support for production of renewed existence. Therefore, with the final passing away of a Noble One, the conscious fabrication of subjective reality that is samsara ceases, leaving only the immediacy of absolute truth, and as a result, freedom from suffering.
I imagine that all of this will sound extraordinary to the modern skeptic, and that most will naturally assume that the burden of proof lies solely on the person making these claims; nevertheless, while I agree that much of what is presented in Buddhism appears to be extraordinary, the nature of these claims makes that difficult, if not impossible, given that these claims arise out of direct personal experience. Therefore, these individuals can only impart their experiences and knowledge to others in two forms; namely, (i) in the form of lingustical terms that describe what they have experienced, and (ii) in the form of practices that will lead an individual to the same experiences. What this means is that, while these experiences are difficult, if not impossible, for one person to prove to another, they are not impossible to verfiy for oneself if one is willing to follow the same practices, thereby attempting to duplicate the same results. I also do not think that concepts such as rebirth can ever be scientifically proven or disproven until science can at least find a way to rule out the possibility that consciousness can exist outside the body; because as Alan Wallace points out in an interview with Steve Paulson in Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowships in Science & Religion, "This very notion that the mind must simply be an emergent property of the brain — consisting only of physical phenomena and nothing more — is not a testable hypothesis... Can you test the statement that there is nothing else going on apart from physical phenomena and their emergent properties? The answer is no."
Perhaps consciousness is simply a by-product of electrochemical processes in the brain, but perhaps there is another dimension to consciousness that science has yet to discover. Either way, another important point that is touched upon by Alan Wallace in the same interview is that, “If your sole access to the mind is by way of physical phenomena, then you have no way of testing whether all dimensions of the mind are necessarily contingent upon the brain.” Therefore, while it is true that science can show a direct connection between the physical brain and how an organism experiences consciousness, as well as identify the parts and functions of the brain that are necessary to generate specific mental states, science cannot as of yet provide a conclusive answer to philosopher David Chalmer’s "hard problem" regarding the relationship between the physical brain and consciousness—i.e what it is about the brain that enables it to generate any state of subjective experience. Until science figures out a way to answer questions such as these, I am able to admit that I take certain concepts such as rebirth on faith—faith in the possibility that they are true. I am also able to admit, however, that there is the possibility that science will one day be able to prove that these concepts are false.
In conclusion, I do not think that it is necessarily unscientific to explore these possibilities, even if one of the means of exploration currently available to us is a combination of ethical living, meditation, and empirical methods for investigating various mental states in order to comprehend them and how they relate to our subjective experience of the world. I believe that this is especially true even if such a contemplative practice fails to provide anything to the practitioner besides an inner sense of well-being, compassion for other living beings, and less suffering overall—because that is their real purpose.
The Buddha said that he taught only one thing, suffering and the end of suffering (MN 22). The reason that he taught about suffering was to put an end to it. Towards this end, he gave a number of teachings and practices that were designed to lead the practitioner to a direct experience of an unconditioned nature, an experience that would free the mind from its afflictions, or as they are better known, the mental defilement of greed, hatred, and delusion. The Buddha also said that his teachings were like a raft that was to be used to cross a dangerous river, and once that river had been cross, the teachings had served their purpose (MN 22). Moreover, even though concepts such as rebirth are an integral part of the Buddha's teachings, the Buddha left many metaphysical and philosophical questions unanswered. There were some that he simply refused to answer because they were not useful in the quest to free the mind of its defilements (MN 63). To be more specific, the Buddha did not teach anything other than what related to the cessation of suffering based upon what he himself directly exerienced through years of practice. The way I see it, there is nothing to defend. If one experiences suffering, and one wishes to put that suffering to an end, then one should put these teachings and practices to the test to see what results they will bring. If, on the other hand, one is not interested in this goal, then these various teachings and practices will obviously not appeal to such a person and there is no need to go any further.
That being said, Buddhism can also be viewed as a complex religio-philosophical system that does in fact incorporate many seemingly abstract and metaphysical concepts and doctrines, concepts and doctrines that define Buddhism as something more than just an ethical system or philosophy of life, and it is much harder to express it from this standpoint. What is even more difficult than that, however, is to empirical prove to others many of the concepts and ideas presented in Buddhist philosophy because the majority of those things, as of yet, are really only verifiable through personal experience. Therefore, instead of trying to prove the validity of what the Buddha taught, I would like to try and express his teachings in better detail. In doing so, I simply hope to share one Buddhist’s perspective on this topic. So, to begin with, what exactly is philosophy? From one point of view, philosophy is an attempt to understand the truth and meaning behind the internal and external worlds perceived by humankind through a combination of logic, reason, and observation. Moreover, it is a search for truth and meaning that depends a great deal upon the economical, historical, and political contexts of a given time and place. When it comes to certain philosophical systems, however, there are those that claim to point towards a truth that is not subjective or relative in any way—a truth that is “directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, to be personally experienced by the wise” (SN 11.3). The teaching of the Buddha is one such example.
While the vast collection of the Buddha’s teachings that have been preserved in Pali cover a wide range of historical, philosophical, political, social, and spiritual topics, the basic framework on which these teachings were built cover but a single and yet far reaching goal. In the Buddha’s own words to one of his disciples, “Formerly, Anuradha, and also now, I make know just suffering (dukkha) and the cessation of suffering” (SN 22.86). While stated as two distinct ideas, they are to be understood as a complete whole because the Buddha only taught suffering so that it could eventually be put to an end.
Simply stated from a broader perspective, existence within samsara, the continual round of birth and death, is suffering and bondage. Right away, we are made aware that existence itself is somehow tied into suffering. Suffering, the Buddha also pointed out, is something that is deeply personal. Everyone suffers in his or her own way, according to his or her individual circumstances; and as long as the causes for suffering are present, suffering will arise. In the Buddha’s time, this was a radically new view of the world in terms of conditionality, or cause and effect. In its simplest form, the law of this/that conditionality (idappacayata) states, “When this is, that is. From the arising of this comes the arising of that. When this is not, that is not. From the cessation of this comes the cessation of that” (AN 10.92). Suffering is further broken down to its very core—an activity originating in a mind defiled by greed (lobha), hatred (dosa), and delusion (moha). This activity was not only seen by the Buddha to be the direct cause of a being’s (satta) potential for suffering, but it was also seen to be the basis for their sentient existence in one of the three realms posited by Buddhist cosmology, a span of life beginning with conception and ending in death.
As befitting a true contemplative of his time, the Buddha dedicated his entire adult life to finding a solution to suffering. Failing to find an answer under other ascetics and teachers, the Buddha set out to discover them on his own. After spending a considerable amount of time in a deep state of meditative absorption (jhana), the Buddha reflected upon the nature of suffering headed by aging and death with a sense of urgency. Desiring to discern an escape from this process of arising and passing away, he asked, “When what exists does aging and death come to be? By what is aging and death conditioned?” It was through careful attention to this subject that insight arose, and the Buddha had a breakthrough whereby he discerned the process of dependent origination (paticca-samuppada) (SN 12.10). In short, aging and death is conditioned by birth, birth is conditioned by existence, existence is conditioned by clinging, clinging is conditioned by craving, craving is conditioned by feeling, feeling is conditioned by contact, contact is conditioned by the six sense bases, the six sense bases are conditioned by name and form, name and form are conditioned by consciousness, consciousness is conditioned by volitional formations, and volitional formations are conditioned by ignorance. It should be noted here that in the suttas, special attention is paid to the complex relationship between name and form (nama-rupa), otherwise translated as mentality-materiality, and consciousness (vinnana)—with the Buddha detailing the mutual dependency of mental and physical activity and consciousness (DN 15). It is here that the investigation of dependent origination comes to a climax by, "revealing a "hidden vortes" underlying the entire process of samsaric becoming" (Bhikkhu Bodhi, The Great Discourse On Causation: The Mahanidana Sutta and its Commentaries).
While dismissed by materialists of the time and generally misunderstood by other contemporaries such as the Jain founder Nigantha Nataputta (Mahavira), the importance of action (kamma), and in particular mental action (manokamma), was clearly seen by the Buddha—the definition of kamma given by the Buddha being, "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, and intellect" (AN 6.63). In a meeting with the householder Upali, for example, the Buddha explained through means of logic and reason how mental actions are more powerful than those of body or speech, and more importantly, how the act of volition (cetana) that precedes any action — whether of body, speech, or mind — is a critical factor (MN 56). The Buddha did not stop there, however. He took great pains to show that our experience of the world is subjective in the sense that we experience the external objects of forms, sounds, odours, tastes, tangibles, and ideas through the internal sense bases of eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body, and ultimately, through the mind. The world (loka) he said, using the word "world" here as a synonym for suffering, originates from a complex process of sensory experience and conditionality. In brief, dependent on the internal sense base and its corresponding external object, consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. From the requisite condition of contact comes feeling, from feeling comes craving, from craving comes becoming, from becoming comes birth, and from birth comes aging, illness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain grief, and despair (SN 12.44). In this way, a connection can be made between the subjective nature of phenomena and its place in the overall question of suffering and its cessation. The reverse of this, or in other words the ending of the world, reveals quite the opposite connection—one between the subjective nature of phenomena and the objective freedom of Nibbana.
A verse from the Samyutta Nikaya states, “sabbe satta atthajata” which is translated by Bkikkhu Bodhi as, “All beings are bent upon a goal” (326). The Saratthappakasini, a commentary to the Samyutta Nikaya ascribed to Acariya Buddhaghosa, explains: “Bent upon a goal means engaged in a task; for there is no being at all — including dogs or jackals — that is not engaged in a task. Even walking to and fro can be called a task” (494). Philosophically speaking, since existence itself is a by-product of volitional action, reason dictates that it is through volitional action itself that the subjective truth and meaning of experience takes shape. Therefore, when volitional action ceases, the need for subjective truth and meaning also ceases. Only with the cessation of volition is there both freedom from suffering and an unimaginable experience of a truth that is unconditional and absolute. Paradoxically, according to the Buddha’s teachings on action, since inaction itself is an action when the inaction is volitional, to reach the ending of action, and consequentially the freedom experienced through this objective truth, one must act in a way that leads to the destruction of the cause of action. The root cause for volitional actions is ignorance (avijja), or more specifically, lack of direct knowledge of the Four Noble Truths and the tasks to be done in regards to each truth. The Four Noble Truths are the noble truth of suffering, the noble truth of the origin of suffering, the noble truth of the cessation of suffering, and the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering. The tasks to be done in regards to each truth are as follows: the noble truth of suffering is to be fully understood, the noble truth of the origin of suffering is to be abandoned, the noble truth of the cessation of suffering is to be realized, and the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering is to be developed (SN 56.11).
The First Noble Truth focuses on suffering. Suffering is defined as birth, aging, illness, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain grief, despair, associating with the unloved, separation from the loved, not getting what one wants, and in particular, the five aggregates of clinging (upadanakhandha) which are the result of past actions (SN 35.145). It is because the five aggregates of clinging arise — and according to the Buddha, whatever has the nature of arising has the nature of passing away — that they are subject to illness, aging, and death. It is only due to our lack of understanding their true nature that we inevitably cling to either one or all of these phenomena as ‘me’ or ‘mine’. In other words, the form of the body consisting of the four great elements is unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. The six classes of feeling, feeling born of contact through the eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and mind are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. The six classes of perception, perception of form, sounds, odours, tastes, tactiles, and mental phenomena are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. The six classes of volitional formations, volitions regarding forms, sounds, odours, tastes, tactiles, and mental phenomena are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. Finally, the six classes of consciousness, eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciousness, and mind consciousness are unsatisfactory, impermanent, and not pertaining to or related to a self in any way. Hence, the Buddha points out the ultimately unsatisfactory nature of the psycho-physical entity consisting of mind and matter in a variety of ways as well as the insubstantiality of our ego which is built upon these five, fleeting phenomena.
I think that this would be a good place to stop and stress that the Buddha did not say life is nothing but suffering. The Buddha did not deny happiness, and he taught many ways to cultivate various forms of happiness—especially to lay-followers. What the Buddha denied, however, was that the end justifies the means. The Buddha stressed that most of the ways that we seek happiness are unskillful (akusala) in that we often act in ways that harm ourselves as well as others. The basic premise behind this being that, when observed with equanimity (upekkha) and compassion (karuna), the harm we cause will be seen to not be worth the relatively small and fleeting amounts of happiness and pleasure that the results of our unskillful actions produce. In addition, we will also discern that if our happiness is built upon the unhappiness of others, they will do everything in their power to undermine our happiness. That is one of the reasons why the Buddha stressed non-violence (ahimsa) in the form of moral precepts, and taught forms of happiness that are blameless and not dependent upon exploiting others. He also denied that any form of happiness that is dependent upon causes and conditions is permanent, and therefore, truly satisfactory. In essence, the happiness and pleasure that we experience, when it is dependent upon external conditions, will cease when those conditions cease; and furthermore, if we mentally cling to those pleasures and/or conditions, when they cease, suffering will arise due to the presence of that very clinging. It is also true that some people never see the characteristic element of stress and suffering that is inherent to life. Perhaps it is because they have yet to partake of the necessary experiences needed to develop this insight, or perhaps it is because they merely choose not to acknowledge it. Birth, aging, sickness, and death; we are all subject to the laws of conditionality. Whatever has the nature of arising has the nature of ceasing, and that process is inherently stressful. The truth that the Buddha tried to convey regarding life is that we have no real control over the unsatisfactory and impermanent nature of our existence, and this is evident by the fact that we cannot say, "Let my body be thus, Let my body not be thus. Let my feelings be thus. Let my feelings not be thus. Let my perceptions be thus. Let my perceptions not be thus. Let my mental process be thus. Let my mental process not be thus. Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus" (SN 22.59). These things that we cling to as our own, these five phenomena that comprise our experience of the world, they arise from causes and conditions. Whether we may wish to see this aspect of our existence or not, the fact that whatever is suffering and subject to change is not worth clinging to remains true if we understand the First Noble Truth. After all, samsara is not a place, but a process of continual change.
To summarize, these five aggregates of clinging are unsatisfactory and unreliable due to their potential for suffering (dukkha), their impermanency (anicca), and their lack of anything worth clinging to as a self, or in other words, the lack of a permanent, unchanging substance that is perceivable as being ‘me’ or ‘mine’ (anatta). In essence, the five aggregates of clinging are trapped within the subjective realm of experience, and as a result, suffering, because as Piyadassi Thera mentions in The Buddha’s Ancient Path, “A beings and the empirical world are both constantly changing” (43). Being in a continual state of flux, these things by their very nature arise, persist for a period, and then pass away relative to various causes and conditions that sustain them (43).
The Second Noble Truth focuses on the cause or origination of suffering. The origination of suffering is craving (tahna), which literally means thirst in Pali. More specifically, it is the craving that “leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, and craving for annihilation” that is the underlying cause for suffering (SN 56.11). Craving is likened to an arrow that pierces the heart, and ignorance is likened to a poison that spreads its toxins through desire, passion and ill will (MN 105). As with most Eastern philosophies and religions, Buddhism does not view death as the final end of phenomena. In Buddhism, only Nibbana is said to be the final end of phenomena in regards to the arising and passing away of beings (AN 10.58). As previously mentioned, according to the teachings on dependent origination, if there are sufficient conditions present, those conditions with inevitably result in future births (SN 12.35). Along with consciousness, craving plays a vital role in the renewal of beings and the production of future births.
To illustrate how craving could result in future births, the Buddha used a simile in which he compared the sustenance of a flame to that of a being at the time of death. Essentially, a flame burns in dependence on its fuel, and that fuel sustains it. When a flame burns in dependence on wood, for example, the wood sustains that flame. However, when a flame is swept up and carried away by the wind, the fuel of wind sustains that flame until it lands upon a new source of fuel. In the same way, a being at the time of death has the fuel of craving as its sustenance (SN 44.9). The last consciousness of a being at the time of death, with the presence of craving, is the cause for the arising of a new consciousness. In the human realm, this would be in combination with the union of a healthy sperm and egg, although the Buddha often mentioned various other forms of birth in other realms of existence—none of which are free from suffering. Nevertheless, the Buddha states, “Wherever there is a basis for consciousness, there is support for the establishing of consciousness. When consciousness is established and has come to growth, there is the production of renewed existence” (SN 12.38). Thus, whatever the means of birth, whatever the realm of existence, all beings are fettered by craving to a subjective and conditional existence within a state of continuous change. The reality of the five aggregates is like that of a lump of foam; it is both empty and fleeting (SN 22.95).
The Third Noble Truth focuses on the cessation of suffering. The cessation of suffering is Nibbana. According to Nyanatiloka Thera’s Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines, Nibbana literally means “extinction, to cease blowing, to become extinguished.” Nibbana is the state of final deliverance, the extinction of craving (AN 10.60), the extinguishing of lust, the extinguishing of hatred, and the extinguishing of delusion (SN 38.1). Even more importantly, however, Nibbana is the only true reality for it is the only reality that is truly objective, permanent, and absolute. Nibbana alone is without a cause, unborn, unmade, and therefore, it is unconditional. It lies outside of the world as we know it, outside of conditioned existence, outside of space and time, and as such, it lies beyond cause and effect. Furthermore, as Piyadassi Thera echoes in The Buddha’s Ancient Path, all things conventional or subjective are relative, however, Nibbana being neither conventional nor subjective has no relativities, and thus in a sense, absolute (73). The Buddha himself makes clear that the deliverance found within this truth is unshakable, and while from the conventional viewpoint of subjective reality, that which is unstable, impermanent, and not-self (i.e. the aggregates) appears to be real, from the ultimate viewpoint of objective reality, these things are merely illusions with no more substance than a dream (MN 140).
In one instance, the Buddha gives an almost unbelievable and yet incredible description of Nibbana, clearly describing it as being beyond the world of common experience. The Buddha declares that, “Nibbana is that base where there is neither earth, nor water, nor heat, nor air; neither the base of the infinity of space, nor the base of the infinity of consciousness, nor the base of nothingness, nor the base of neither-perception-nor-non-perception; neither this world nor another; neither sun nor moon. Here there is no coming, no going, no standing still; no passing away and no being reborn. It is not established, not moving, without support. Just this is the end of suffering” (Ud 8.1). In addition, the Buddha described two elements of Nibbana. The Nibbana element with residue remaining is the destruction of lust, hatred, and delusion attained by a Noble One (arahant) while still alive, with the residue itself being a reference to the five aggregates. The Nibbana element without residue remaining is the final passing away of a Noble One in which “all that is felt, not being delighted, will become cool right here” (Iti 44). As for the fate of a Noble One after death, the Buddha refused to answer in terms of existence, nonexistence, both, or neither. While reason might suggest that since the five aggregates are the constituents of subjective experience that cease with the full attainment of Nibbana, Nibbana must be a state of nonexistence, a state of nothingness. Bhikkhu Bodhi, however, points out that, “… no text in the Nikayas ever states this. To the contrary, the Nikayas consistently refer to Nibbana by terms that refer to actualities. It is an element (dhatu), a base (ayatana), a reality (dhamma), a state (pada), and so on” (In the Buddha’s Words: An Anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon 319).
The Forth Noble Truth focuses on the way leading to the cessation of suffering. The way leading to the cessation of suffering is the Noble Eightfold Path, which consists of right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. Right view is defined as, "knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress" (DN 22). Right intention is defined as, "being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness" (SN 45.8). Right speech is defined as, "abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, and from idle chatter" (SN 45.8). Right action is defined as, "abstaining from taking life, abstaining from stealing, abstaining from unchastity" (SN 45.8). Right livelihood is defined as, "having abandoned dishonest livelihood, keeps his life going with right livelihood" (SN 45.8). Right effort is defined as, " [when the meditator] (i) generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen, (ii) generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen, (iii) generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen, and (iv) generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds and exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, and culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen" (SN 45.8). Right mindfulness is defined as, " [when the meditator] (i) remains focused on the body in and of itself... (ii) remains focused on feelings in and of themselves... (iii) the mind in and of itself... (iv) mental qualities in and of themselves — ardent, alert, and mindful — putting aside greed and distress with reference to the world" (DN 22). Right concentration is defined as, "(i) [where the meditator] quite withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful (mental) qualities — enters and remains in the first jhana... (ii) with the stilling of directed thought and evaluation, he enters and remains in the second jhana... (iii) with the fading of rapture he remains in equanimity, mindful, and fully alert, and physically sensitive of pleasure, he enters and remains in the third jhana... (iv) with the abandoning of pleasure and pain, he enters and remains in the fourth jhana... " (SN 45.8).
As briefly alluded to earlier, the Noble Eightfold Path is the “action that leads to the ending of action” (AN 4.237). The Noble Eightfold Path is the “middle way, awakened to by the Tathagata, which gives rise to vision, which gives rise to knowledge, and leads to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana” (SN 56.11). While the mind is said to be intrinsically pure and luminous, it is obscured by defilements, and the Noble Eightfold Path is, in effect, the only way of purifying the mind of these obscurations (AN 1.49-52). The implication here being that it is not only due to the presence of these obscurations that the objective truth of reality is hidden from us, but that it is due to the presence of these obscurations that beings actively produce the necessary conditions for the continuation of their subjective existence. In short, this means that beings consciously fabricate their experience of subjective reality through the mechanisms of causality. Descartes’ statement “I think, therefore I am” might be more correctly phrased to say something along the lines of “’I’ act, therefore ‘I’ exist.”
When the entire path is put into practice, it culminates in the cessation of suffering by removing ignorance, which is itself the cause of action. This event, as Thanissaro Bhikkhu describes in Wings to Awakening, takes place in a particular state of non-fashioning (atammayata) where one becomes so dispassionate towards even the most subtle forms of fabricated experience — experience made up of causal conditions and influences — that one “neither fabricates nor wills for the sake of becoming or un-becoming” (263). As a result, at the precise moment of realization, that is, with the arising of the knowledge of cessation culminating in a state of non-action or non-fabrication, the process of fabrication ceases, and with it, the experience of subjective reality (44). Due to this extraordinary experience of unbinding, the process of conditionality is disrupted because the process requires input from both past as well as present actions to sustain it. Thus without the additional input of present action, the entire process effectively breaks down leaving only the experience of Nibbana. It should be reiterated that the experience of subjective reality will reoccur as long as the lifespan of the aggregates is not completely exhausted, which itself depends upon the amount of input remaining from past actions; but, with the destruction of ignorance the Noble One’s relationship towards the subjective experience of reality will never be the same (263).
Hence, when one reaches the goal of Nibbana, the end of volitional actions of body, speech, and mind ripening in rebirth, there is a direct experience of objective truth and meaning that is indescribable—a truth that does not fall under the relative sphere of subjectivity. Moreover, the basis for the establishment of consciousness is destroyed. When no basis or support for the establishment of consciousness exists, there is no basis or support for production of renewed existence. Therefore, with the final passing away of a Noble One, the conscious fabrication of subjective reality that is samsara ceases, leaving only the immediacy of absolute truth, and as a result, freedom from suffering.
I imagine that all of this will sound extraordinary to the modern skeptic, and that most will naturally assume that the burden of proof lies solely on the person making these claims; nevertheless, while I agree that much of what is presented in Buddhism appears to be extraordinary, the nature of these claims makes that difficult, if not impossible, given that these claims arise out of direct personal experience. Therefore, these individuals can only impart their experiences and knowledge to others in two forms; namely, (i) in the form of lingustical terms that describe what they have experienced, and (ii) in the form of practices that will lead an individual to the same experiences. What this means is that, while these experiences are difficult, if not impossible, for one person to prove to another, they are not impossible to verfiy for oneself if one is willing to follow the same practices, thereby attempting to duplicate the same results. I also do not think that concepts such as rebirth can ever be scientifically proven or disproven until science can at least find a way to rule out the possibility that consciousness can exist outside the body; because as Alan Wallace points out in an interview with Steve Paulson in Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowships in Science & Religion, "This very notion that the mind must simply be an emergent property of the brain — consisting only of physical phenomena and nothing more — is not a testable hypothesis... Can you test the statement that there is nothing else going on apart from physical phenomena and their emergent properties? The answer is no."
Perhaps consciousness is simply a by-product of electrochemical processes in the brain, but perhaps there is another dimension to consciousness that science has yet to discover. Either way, another important point that is touched upon by Alan Wallace in the same interview is that, “If your sole access to the mind is by way of physical phenomena, then you have no way of testing whether all dimensions of the mind are necessarily contingent upon the brain.” Therefore, while it is true that science can show a direct connection between the physical brain and how an organism experiences consciousness, as well as identify the parts and functions of the brain that are necessary to generate specific mental states, science cannot as of yet provide a conclusive answer to philosopher David Chalmer’s "hard problem" regarding the relationship between the physical brain and consciousness—i.e what it is about the brain that enables it to generate any state of subjective experience. Until science figures out a way to answer questions such as these, I am able to admit that I take certain concepts such as rebirth on faith—faith in the possibility that they are true. I am also able to admit, however, that there is the possibility that science will one day be able to prove that these concepts are false.
In conclusion, I do not think that it is necessarily unscientific to explore these possibilities, even if one of the means of exploration currently available to us is a combination of ethical living, meditation, and empirical methods for investigating various mental states in order to comprehend them and how they relate to our subjective experience of the world. I believe that this is especially true even if such a contemplative practice fails to provide anything to the practitioner besides an inner sense of well-being, compassion for other living beings, and less suffering overall—because that is their real purpose.
0
Comments
Good Day ...
thanks,
Jason
metta
_/\_
The subjects that are covered in it are sometimes, like all pieces of writing on Buddhism and anything that we are new to learning and studying, difficult to grasp on a first reading. With continued study and application of what one has read and learned, understanding does come.
Walking on the path that the Buddha discovered, formulated and provided for us is a long one with new insights and realizations happening on a day to day basis.
These realizations provide us with joy, energy, wisdom and a more mindful and concentrated existence.
The effort to walk and work that path is well worth it.
Thanks you. I completely agree that this path is a long one with new insights and realizations happening on a day to day basis. As I read over this again, there are a few things here and there that I think, "Oh wait, that's not quite right," and I have the desire to rewrite it by adding all of these new insights. To me, that sense of discovery is one of the main reasons I fell in love with these teachings and this path.
Jason
Impermanence has been cheated, at least, for a while....!
Thanks all....!
But an Arahant, one who achieved Nibbana obviously acts still, although reduced. I read that an arahants activities are not called kamma but kiriya (activity), the "fruits" of his activity patikiriya. Why are his acts, like breathing and eating considered not to produce new kamma? Forgive me if you answered it in your essay and i did not read it.
I believe that we have covered this subject before, and while I do not have the time to write a detailed explanation or dig up the relevent conversation, I will say that not all thought formations (sankhara) are kamma producing. This, of course, depends upon the specific type of consciousness that they are associated with. As Dhammanando Bhikkhu explains:
When an arahant acts, the actions proceed from a special type of consciousness called "ahetuka kiriyacitta". Ahetuka means rootless or motivationless; it means that none of the six roots mentioned above are present in it. Kiriyacitta is usually translated as "functional consciousness" or "inoperative consciousness". What it means is that the consciousness that prompts an arahant to act is neither kamma-creating nor the ripening of any former kamma.
There are some, however, who prefer to leave kiriyacitta untranslated:
"As the term applies most frequently to the state of the arahant, it should not be translated by such words as functional or inoperative, which have inappropriate connotations. The kiriya mind is not mechanical, effete, or unfeelingly robotic. Rather it is intended to designate the spiritual sensitivity of a man of developed wisdom, who responds to each situation with appropriate activity, without partiality of any kind."
(Lance Cousins, The Patthana and the Development of the Theravadin Abhidhamma, JPTS 1981)
As for abhisankh?ra, this refers to those consciousnesses of non-arahants that are accompanied by wholesome or unwholesome volitions, and which are therefore kamma-creating.
Jason
Thanks for reminding we discussed it already, it can be found here I was not able to absorb and understand it, that is why I asked again.