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.
My problems with certain aspects of Buddhism
First of all, Hello! I'm new!:)
I've been into the idea of Buddhist philosophy for a long time now and some of its ideas have really changed me and helped make me into the person I am today. Much of what I have learned has been from various sources and so is probably somewhat patchy or perhaps in parts plain wrong, please feel free to tell me where i'm misunderstanding something!
Specifically the areas that have helped me have been -realising the inherent emptiness of consciousness, the interconnectedness of all things, the fact we are all essentially one thing, the new levels of happiness available through letting go of alot of luxuries and indulgences, and of course the great benifits gleaned from calming the mind and attaining a kind of 'non-thought' through meditation.
All these areas have helped improve my life and knowledge of the nature of reality greatly, but some areas of Buddhist though I have a hard time getting along with. This one in particular -
The idea of Samsara seems to say that after we die some element of our being is forever stuck in a cycle of birth and rebirth until we achieve nirvana and are 'let out' of the chain so to speak. I have a few problems with this -
Doesn't Buddhism teach that essentially we are all part of this big eternal 'machine' that is 'all the same thing' in the sense it is not divided or split into sections? Is this then, not at odds with the idea that we are continually reborn until we find nirvana and then 'magically transported' to a new 'zone' free from rebirth? Surely this implies some sort of division, layers, or distinct form within the nature of reality?
My personal view is that we are apart of (and essentially are) a sort of eternal field of forever dancing energy of which life happens to be a part. We are the universe percieving itself so to speak. So that means we have been the universe forever and we will continue to be the universe forever more. I've always though that was essentially what Buddhism was also saying, but all this talk of eventually being 'released' from the cycle of birth and death seems to assume a level of personal goals.
Am i just horribly misunderstanding something? Could some one more well versed in these topics 'enlighten' me, so to speak?:p
I've been into the idea of Buddhist philosophy for a long time now and some of its ideas have really changed me and helped make me into the person I am today. Much of what I have learned has been from various sources and so is probably somewhat patchy or perhaps in parts plain wrong, please feel free to tell me where i'm misunderstanding something!
Specifically the areas that have helped me have been -realising the inherent emptiness of consciousness, the interconnectedness of all things, the fact we are all essentially one thing, the new levels of happiness available through letting go of alot of luxuries and indulgences, and of course the great benifits gleaned from calming the mind and attaining a kind of 'non-thought' through meditation.
All these areas have helped improve my life and knowledge of the nature of reality greatly, but some areas of Buddhist though I have a hard time getting along with. This one in particular -
The idea of Samsara seems to say that after we die some element of our being is forever stuck in a cycle of birth and rebirth until we achieve nirvana and are 'let out' of the chain so to speak. I have a few problems with this -
Doesn't Buddhism teach that essentially we are all part of this big eternal 'machine' that is 'all the same thing' in the sense it is not divided or split into sections? Is this then, not at odds with the idea that we are continually reborn until we find nirvana and then 'magically transported' to a new 'zone' free from rebirth? Surely this implies some sort of division, layers, or distinct form within the nature of reality?
My personal view is that we are apart of (and essentially are) a sort of eternal field of forever dancing energy of which life happens to be a part. We are the universe percieving itself so to speak. So that means we have been the universe forever and we will continue to be the universe forever more. I've always though that was essentially what Buddhism was also saying, but all this talk of eventually being 'released' from the cycle of birth and death seems to assume a level of personal goals.
Am i just horribly misunderstanding something? Could some one more well versed in these topics 'enlighten' me, so to speak?:p
0
Comments
Here are some reading suggestions from three most common streams of Buddhism.
Theravada.. Anything by Ajahn Sumedho.
Zen.. Anything by Seung Sahn
Vajrayana.. Anything by Chogyam Trungpa
Then if you can, seek out a mature Sangha. and practice, practice, practice.
For the Vajrayana reading, I would suggest Yongey Mingyur Rinpoche who has written two excellent books.
http://tergar.org/booksvideo/
.
In what way are they not? Obviously its very hard to construe specific meaning when dealing with such abstract terms as ultimate essence and so forth, but if you could try I would be greatful. I have always thought that Buddhism sat quite well with the notion of an all encompassing, eternal reality (although perhaps we are misunderstanding eachother)
Concerning seeking out a Sangha, this is definitly invaluable advice and I will be attending my local Buddhist centre for one of their begginers meditation classes. And also thaks for the book recommendations, I will look at those.
Reasonably speaking, consciousness arises not at conception but at a time when the mind has developed far enough along that it has the capacity for thought in addition to its more basic function as body-control. Upon death, as the mind loses energy and ceases to function, so too would consciousness cease.
"Rebirth" as an individual consciousness moving from one body to the next at the end of one life is hard to swallow. If all things arise and cease dependent upon conditions, so too consciousness. The Dhamma of the Buddha is very explicit in its causal chain reasoning, but science employs a similar methodology that has led to many theories, also with their own causal chains and reasoning, that have seemed correct but have ultimately proven to be either flawed or completely invalid.
The validity of the Buddha's teachings on dukkha and the attainment of Nibbana are not in question. If Nibbana was not possible, Buddhism would not be around to guide us. However, that does not mean that it is perfect or that the Buddha was perfect, contrary to popular belief. If this were so, no one would have foreseen a future Buddha (Metteyya or Maitreya) that would surpass Siddhattha Gotama and be able to expound the Dhamma in such a way as to bring the entire (human) world into congruity with the true nature of life.
This is all just my opinion, of course, but I didn't realize awakening without having a strong desire to understand the truth to begin with. That desire, though not to me of as much importance now, still remains. What is most important is the cultivation of compassion and good-will towards all life, and to speak and act for the future that stands upon our shoulders.
Makes me think of Taoism, for some reason.
it is said that hoping for eternal life is a clinging to life. that makes me wonder, what is then hoping for nirvana? is that a clinging too? or is it the clinging which is non-clinging?
As for rebirth, I still do not know. I see how it is logically structured in the Dhamma, but logic is only the beginning of wisdom. I do not see how it is necessary in reality, having attained personal realization of impermanence, selflessness and dependent arising.
The 2 view however converges upon realisation of non self or soullessness, impermanence and suffering at which point it becomes irrelevant.
I have to disagree. There is no fear to be had from not attaining Nibbana, but only fear to be had from not at least understanding the true nature of life, which frees you from the need to have future existence. If you do well for the good of others by speech and actions, then indeed will you live on through your actions. There is no necessity for a stream of consciousness to leave one body and enter another.
I have great respect for the Buddha, but as he would ask any who studied his Dhamma, believe nothing unless it agrees with your own experience and your own common sense. This is even more relevant if you have achieved stream-entry or beyond...
There is no where in the Buddha's teaching where rebirth is rejected or denied.
There are two methods of instruction in Buddha's teachings, namely, the ultimate teaching and the mundane teaching. The former being concerned with abstract knowledge while the latter with ordinary or conventional knowledge appealing to perception by which objects are known by their names. When we discuss about impermanence, suffering, truth, establishment of mindfulness, and sense-spheres, we are concerned with ultimate subjects. When we talk about men, women, devas, brahmins, etc., we are concerned with everyday subjects that one mentions by name.
There are people who can see the light of the dhamma by mundane means of instruction as well as those who get enlightened by ultimate means.All mundane teaching is in conventional language. When we say that one is an individual, a being, a woman, or a man, we are being realistic, for all mankind has accepted the descriptions given. Truth ordained by general consensus of opinion is samutisacca. In other words it is truth accepted by conventional language of mankind, and so it is no falsehood.
Mahasi Sayadaw
http://www.yellowrobe.com/teachings/the-five-aggregates/206-the-burden-of-the-five-aggregates.html?start=5
http://www.yellowrobe.com/teachings/rebirth/209-how-does-rebirth-occur.html
http://www.tricycle.com/feature/3857-1.html
without study, contemplation, and meditation our practice is incomplete.
If we dont understand how to approach and practice the path correctly we might as well beat our heads against the wall and call it dharma.
If the ultimate goal of life is the cessation of suffering, what then, is the point of worldy pursuits such as creation? Apparently creative pursuits are forms of temporary happiness and so not to be sought after. This seems absurd as to me it seems creativity; music, literature, architecture, are very worthwhile pursuits if not the most ultimately meaningful of pursuits. We are natural creators after all.
If we all eventually attain Nirvana would that mean no sentient life is left in existence? Is this not a detrimental notion? Is this not going backwards to the time before life existed in the universe? I'm amazingly confused right now. I want to create, I think its what we are supposed to do.
Shugs!