Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
The cessation of suffering and the end of mankind
A trickier question than rebirth, in my mind, is as follows. This has caused much debate at family gatherings!
From the Mahapadana Sutta: Sutta 14 (p211-212 in Maurice Walshe's translation):
Mind and body [leads to]
Consciousness
Mind and body (looping around with consciousness and then onto)
Our senses
Contact
Feeling
Craving
Clinging
Becoming (conception?)
Birth
Ageing (and between Birth and Death we have sorrow, lamentation and pain)
Death
So, in order to cease suffering we must start at the beginning with the cessation of mind and body [by realising mind and body are empty?] and from that all other parts of the chain would cease in turn. In so doing therefore we no longer crave contact, denying our bodily desires and therefore do not breed; without conception there can be no birth, sorrow or death.
This maybe isn't the best Sutta to quote, but it seems as though the Buddha is saying that suffering is inherent in mankind and by realising this and understanding our own emptiness (we are just patterns or illusions within a much greater complex system) we can cease craving the need to breed, thereby ending mankind and thereby ending suffering. I'm assuming monks who pursue this life don't usually have children for example?
Personally I think understanding we are nothing is just part of the journey, and that although 'we' may be patterns of matter and behaviour, and although we realise that is all we are, to stop breeding is to deny our true nature as evolving organisms. Just because there is no 'point' in breeding doesn't change the fact we 'want' to. In other words by denying our nature we have failed to understand it.
Or am I just refusing to accept part of the chain of cessation (craving) and thereby prolonging my own suffering (and that of my descendants)?
From the Mahapadana Sutta: Sutta 14 (p211-212 in Maurice Walshe's translation):
Mind and body [leads to]
Consciousness
Mind and body (looping around with consciousness and then onto)
Our senses
Contact
Feeling
Craving
Clinging
Becoming (conception?)
Birth
Ageing (and between Birth and Death we have sorrow, lamentation and pain)
Death
So, in order to cease suffering we must start at the beginning with the cessation of mind and body [by realising mind and body are empty?] and from that all other parts of the chain would cease in turn. In so doing therefore we no longer crave contact, denying our bodily desires and therefore do not breed; without conception there can be no birth, sorrow or death.
This maybe isn't the best Sutta to quote, but it seems as though the Buddha is saying that suffering is inherent in mankind and by realising this and understanding our own emptiness (we are just patterns or illusions within a much greater complex system) we can cease craving the need to breed, thereby ending mankind and thereby ending suffering. I'm assuming monks who pursue this life don't usually have children for example?
Personally I think understanding we are nothing is just part of the journey, and that although 'we' may be patterns of matter and behaviour, and although we realise that is all we are, to stop breeding is to deny our true nature as evolving organisms. Just because there is no 'point' in breeding doesn't change the fact we 'want' to. In other words by denying our nature we have failed to understand it.
Or am I just refusing to accept part of the chain of cessation (craving) and thereby prolonging my own suffering (and that of my descendants)?
0
Comments
I don't think the Buddha taught that humans should stop breeding and therefore end the human race. I think you got lost somewhere on your analysis.
It's quite possible I've missed the plot somewhere, but if contact and craving begets birth and death then by learning to cease contact and craving we bring about the cessation of birth and death (and by extension suffering). At least that's my interpretation of the Sutta. So what does he mean by birth and death in that context?
Looking at the Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, no. 143 - Seven Bonds of Sexuality, I can perhaps paraphrase it as:
Buddha declares himself to be celibate, and lists ways in which if the mind wanders (to enjoying being washed by women, looking at them, listening to them etc, and thereby longing for them) that person is not 'truly' celibate.
"He is called one who leads an impure celibate life, one who is fettered by the bond of sexuality. He is not freed from birth, ageing and death, nor from sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair; he is not freed from suffering I declare." He then explains that only by losing all these bonds to sexual longing could he declare himself as awakened to enlightenment.
It's probable the cessation of sexuality is only part of the path to enlightenment, just one aspect to be understood and discarded, but it means to achieve enlightenment we must lose those desires that cause us to breed. Or at least that's my reading of it - please say if I have it wrong.
Well, if this is the case, have fun trying to stop people from breeding. Society can't keep teenagers from doing that, let alone the whole human race.
Welcome.
What a provocative subject to start with!
My own opinion is that you are at risk of falling into a 'nihilistic' interpretation and, more seriously, of setting an unattainable target. Gotama himself tried the ascetic way until he nearly died of it but did not find in it the way out of suffering, old age and death.
Both the Buddha and Jesus point out (as you note in your quotation) that celibacy is a matter of the mind before being of the body. It is, however, a stretch too far to suggest that sexuality is the insuperable barrier to awakening. It may be that this or that individual's sexuality needs to be tamed and transformed, just as another's greed for food or pride in achievement or fears may chain them in samsara.
As I see it, and I accept that I see "as in glass, darkly", an unexamined and unfettered sexuality is only a striking and obvious example of the many ways in which we divert ourselves from the Fourth Noble Truth and, thereby, prove the Second.
It should be borne in mind also that many of the Buddha's discourses are addressed to the Sangha, a community devoted to poverty and obedience as much as to celibacy. It is as pertinent to state that possessions and the pursuit of 'worldly' success, prosperity and comfort are just as dangerous as our biology. Indeed, I would suggest that they are even more dangerous because we can invent far more justifications for them.
Well, indeed!
My comment was really that if we seek enlightenment (and we believe that the optimum state of affairs is for everyone to be enlightened) then if celibacy is a prerequisite of that achievement you can work out what happens next...
Of course others on the board may disagree that everyone should aim for enlightenment, I've not really thought about it. I've noticed there is a distinction between the [celibate] monks and the villagers in the teachings, although I've not focused on that aspect until now. I must look into it further.
It's also possible that enlightenment is most common after child rearing (with Wisdom brought on by old age perhaps) and hence doesn't actually slow the birth rate down. Although I guess trends in having children later in life, as we're experiencing in the West, could be an issue?
I don't think it is.
Understanding Thing as they Really Are, the Cessation of Attachment and Rising above Suffering are what is required for Enlightenment, but where does that equate with celibacy?
If we're talking about understanding who we really are, I don't believe there's anything subjective (or nihilistic*) in the answers themselves - the answers are what they are, so far as we can tell. It's how we use those answers to inform our lives that's important. Is 'enlightenment' really the end of the journey or just a stop along the way? If we realise we are 'nothing' and that there is no self, should we then attempt to deny our own existence by living the ascetic life? Or should we accept our existence for what it is, and instead of rejecting the causes of suffering, maybe use our understanding to temper them instead? Who was it who said "It is better to have loved and lost, than to have never loved at all"?
It probably depends on what we believe enlightenment is...
Note: I'm coming at this question as a determinist, so these are deterministic questions really. Its just that the parallels with Buddhism are very strong indeed, assuming we use a non-supernatural interpretation of rebirth. I'm currently undecided if Buddha was talking about determinism, but I'm curious to find out (I'm inclined to think he was at this point).
The only 'way out' of old age and death that I can see is to have never considered myself as 'living' in the first place, but instead to see myself as just an aggregate of parts; pieces of a complex dynamic system that happen to have taken on human form, for an insignificant moment (compared to geological time). In other words the word 'death' only makes sense in the context of the word 'life'.
Your comment on Gotama not finding the answers in asceticism is interesting. I know he talks of the middle way, and I recently read a Sutta where he explains why asceticism won't work, but (iirc) he was talking more about things like self-flagellation rather than just denial. I need to take better notes. :-)
He still seems to be teaching celibacy though, with cessation being the route to eliminating suffering. (I'm only picking on celibacy because it's a simple concept and the impact is significant). If any of Gotama's teachings indicate a move away from cessation and to tolerance instead then I'd be very interested to know where to find them.
Agreed completely. Unfortunately the "New! Shiny!" gets me every time I walk past the shop window...
*I used nihilism here in the sense of 'despair' or 'devoid of meaning'. Looking the word up in a dictionary, I am indeed rejecting current religious beliefs (I classify Buddhism as a philosophy instead), but I don't deny our existence, as both the components that make our forms and the patterns of components that we attribute self to both clearly exist. Interestingly, and paraphrasing slightly, if "the patient believes the self has ceased to exist" they're classified as delusional in this book (SOED). I wonder what they mean by 'self'!?
From the Numerical Discourses of the Buddha, no. 143 - Seven Bonds of Sexuality:
"So long, brahmin, as I saw that one or another of these seven bonds of sexuality had not been abandoned in myself, for so long I did not claim that I had awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment ... But when I did not see even one of these seven bonds of sexuality that had not been abandoned in myself, then I claimed that I had awakened to the unsurpassed perfect enlightenment in this world."
Too many double negatives by half!
The seven bonds are listed as watching women undress and longing for them, for example.
It may be this teaching is not considered canon, or is refuted elsewhere, I don't know, but the other teachings I mentioned regarding the cessation of contact and craving tend to support it IMHO.
from here
And from your quotation, it would seem that he is addressing a Monk, as opposed to a Lay person. I believe it does say somewhere that enlightenment for a lay person is much more difficult to achieve, due to the many distractions we are subject to, but that on the other hand, Compassion is more difficult to practise, for a monk, due to the cloistered sheltering and detachment form everyday life. Easy in theory, but enormously difficult in practise, in both cases.....
So whilst it seems that Celibacy may be advisable for enlightenment to be 'swifter'. it may not be compulsory.
Just my 2 bits....
This planet is not the only place where sentient beings exist. The Buddha taught that there were many realms of existence with an infinite number of beings and that Samsara has no beginning and no end.
So there's no need to think about the end of the human race if we all achieve enlightenment through celibacy. It's impossible to exhaust the number of sentient beings in Samsara.
He did the asceticism “thing”, then dropped it. His former pals were disgusted and thought he’d bottled it. Though I've never read anything about self-flagellation in the suttas.
Well, that’s were tantra comes in - but that’s a whole new can of worms. I think it’s fair enough for a monk or nun to be celibate - they’ve given up the householders path to concentrate on spiritual matters. Householders do not have to be celibate. Celibacy is not a prerequisite of Jhana, so don’t worry - you can have your cake and eat it.;)
In MN 36, the Buddha details the events leading to his awakening, and in particular, that he abandoned his extreme ascetic practices (i.e. self-mortification). That was why his five original followers left him. They assumed that since they saw him eat solid food he had forsaken the holy life. In truth, he simply realized that to attain awakening he must have the energy to devote to practicing in the appropriate way, or in other words, the middle way between self-indulgence and self-mortification. In the Buddha's own words, "And I ate some solid food—some boiled rice and bread. Now at that time the five monks were waiting upon me thinking: 'If our recluse Gotama achieves some higher state, he will inform us.' But when I ate the boiled rice and bread, the five monks were disgusted and left me, thinking: 'The recluse Gotama now lives luxuriously; he has given up his striving and reverted to luxury.'" If you are interested in the specifics of the Buddha's prior ascetic practices, the Buddha mentions a variety of his former ascetic practices in MN 12 and MN 36.
Jason
The Pali literature basically states that there are obstructions or impedments (antarayika dhamma) to obtaining liberation—sexual intercourse being one of them. In AN 4.159, for example, Ananda explains to a bhikkhuni, who is apparently sick, that sexual intercourse is to be abandoned in the practice of the holy life. Incidentally, the background to this story details that the bhikkhuni in question was faking her illness so that Ananda would come to see her. She was very infatuated with him, and when he realized this, he gave her this particular discourse. Another example can be found at the beginning of MN 22. Here, the Buddha rebukes a monk for his views regarding sex. While not explicitly stated in the sutta itself, the commentary to the sutta mentions that the wrong view of the offending monk, Arittha, dealt specifically with the first parajika training rule against sexual intercourse. The note given to this section of the sutta concerning "obstructions" by Nyanaponika Thera explains this in more detail. Simply put, for a monastic who is dedicated fully to the holy life, it is a serious hindrance to their practice. After all, the duty of the noble disciple is to discern the allures and drawbacks of, and escape from, sensuality, physical form, and feeling (MN 13).
Essentially, if you look to the Buddha's teachings, there is nothing skillful in giving in to sensual desires—including sexual ones. As lay-followers, we are not required to remain celibate; however, sex and masturbation do nothing for spiritual awakening. While it might be true that acting on these desires temporarily relieves the symptoms associated with them (lust, agitation, et cetera), and that they are natural to the human condition, Buddhism does not encourage the casual fulfillment of our sensual desires—it encourages their eventual abandonment. This is especially true in regard to sexual lust because it is one of the ten fetters (samyojana), i.e., one of the bonds that keep beings trapped in the endless round of rebirth. If you are interested in a slightly more detailed look at the link between craving and sexuality, and what the Buddha had to say concerning sexual practices in relation to awakening, please read Buddhist Sexual Ethics - A Rejoinder. I would just like to add that this should not be taken as an absolute rejection of sex as it mainly pertains to monastics who have gone forth; nevertheless, it does go to show that sexual practices are ultimately a hindrance to awakening for those of us that are interested in pursuing the path the very end of suffering.
Jason
The accompanying commentary (perhaps unsurprisingly) provides a very “monastic” slant on the above quotes. Rather than issuing a blanket command to “give it up”, as some teachers do, Buddha demonstrated the means by which this attachment will fade of itself - the bliss of Jhana.
That bliss and renunciation are the same thing, indicates that this is no miserable, cold-shower-style repression, rather something quite different and unique. So how can renunciation of something we enjoy be blissful? It can only be blissful when we see the nature of the agitation of the mind (insight) from within the calm of Jhana (samatha). This is entirely unlike any kind of wordly bliss and is termed a pleasure not-of-the-flesh.
A blissful process is also utilised in the inner fire teachings of highest yoga tantra but as a means to an end - not an end in itself.
Just “giving it up” won’t work for most people and could be the first step on the path of self-mortification. It involves denial and what help is that when one dies? The desire, the volition, is still latent within the stream (although repressed). Only when true relinquishment occurs, through meditation, can it be deemed worthwhile and I feel that Buddha’s Middle Way must be interpreted in this way.
Kris
Yes, that is an important distinction to be made. When one attains deep states of meditative absorption, not only are these types of desires subdued, but one also gains a pleasure that is more refined and blissful than any orgasm. Until then, it is extremely difficult to deal with sexual thoughts and desires.
Jason
Hi Jason,
I guess it depends how one views “sexual thoughts and desires”. They can be seen as a ‘problem’ to be dealt with, or as an honest measure of progress. This is why some spiritual practitioners can get upset when they occur. All that meditation and good work and still...
Of course (along with everything else) they fall within the ‘four foundations’ and are thus valid objects. I guess sex, like anger, is a good indication of the extent to which ‘we’ are within the event. Desire and aversion are extreme samsaric states, as they are the ones we can’t easily ‘gloss over’ with a spiritual mood - they show us how much (or how little) investment we still have with our egos.
Kris
I, still in a state of Religio-Spiritual evolution, and at the very embryonic learning stage, was full of admiration for her, but then she added -
"....Or maybe, I think I might just be frigid!"....
I wonder if she made it.
or whether she is still frigid....!
Palzang
The correct start would be to stop craving (tanha). The Second Noble Truth states that tanha or thirst is the cause of suffering. The thirst has to be ended, not minds or bodies eliminated. There are three types of tanha:
kama-tanha Thirst for sensual pleasures
bhava-tanha Thirst for being or becoming
vibhava-tanha Thirst for non-being, e.g. thirst for suicide
Sex would fall under kama-tanha and as others have mentioned, Buddhism encourages to abandon sensual desires. So if everyone would eliminate kama-tanha completely, yes then mankind would come to an end
I think I'll stick to Aldous Huxley's philosophy....
It would be wrong to think that the 12 nidanas (which is what you're quoting from the Mahapadana Sutta) refers only to the course of one's life. Actually every moment of every day we are going through the 12 nidanas over and over and over. Every time we have a thought or a reaction to something we go through the whole cycle. It is a conditioned response that our minds go through. It's how we deal with our dualistic conception of reality and keep the gig going.
The objective of Buddhism is not to eliminate the human race, believe it or not, but to realize one's true nature. To cause beings to be born as a human where they can hear the Dharma and potentially achieve liberation is the greatest gift we can give to that being. So why would you wish to withhold such a gift?
Palzang
Was that event more scary than the thought of "abandoning" the sexual desires that later beset your mind? ;-)
More fun to keep on 'digging the cemetery' I guess? :tonguec:
Just kidding around there. Don't take any of the above seriously.
I'm just in a naughty mood.
:woowoo: