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.
Does the escape from Samsara follow the 80% Rule?
Hiya
I think the evidence seems to suggest that whatever enlightenment is it is a path, a progress. Whether you think enlightenment is mundane or mystical, it would seem it isn't a binary thing.
In which case it would seem reasonable that whatever enlightenment is it would follow the 80% rule?
If it wouldn't I guess the next question is, why not?
Fun stuff to philosophise on! (thought not worth getting one's dukka in a twist over;) )
Peace,
Mat
I think the evidence seems to suggest that whatever enlightenment is it is a path, a progress. Whether you think enlightenment is mundane or mystical, it would seem it isn't a binary thing.
In which case it would seem reasonable that whatever enlightenment is it would follow the 80% rule?
If it wouldn't I guess the next question is, why not?
Fun stuff to philosophise on! (thought not worth getting one's dukka in a twist over;) )
Peace,
Mat
0
Comments
On the pea pod model I there is something wrong to comparing a buddha to a sizable pea and a non-buddha to a tiny pea. Seems a little bit emphasizing "my buddha fu is stronger than your buddha fu" rather than emphasizing love and compassion.
Me nether!:)
"There is no peapod, only peas?":p
I jest...
Could 80% of the Dharma path's journey be made with the first 20% of Dharma understanding?
Maybe that's a nonsense question!
It really IS a nonsense question. If you can travel 80% of the path, by doing 20% of the practice, then it naturally follows that you have to do the last 80% practice to fullfil the last 20% of the path. Which means that no matter how you look at it, you still have to do 100% to acheive 100%.
The way I see it, you cant apply this theory in any kind of dharma practice, and further speculation is an utter waste of time
Much love
Allan
The question may be a nonsense, but I don't see that if it is it is for the reason above:)
Why does enligtenment have to be this singularity that either is met or is not? Could it not be more of a process?
Was the Buddha more enlightened when he died than when he first discovered dharma?
>>>The way I see it, you cant apply this theory in any kind of dharma practice, and further speculation is an utter waste of time
Well in dharmic terms, I imagine all use of the internet is a waste of time!;)
Can you please tell me the way you see it that shows why it would be an "utter way of time" in any specific sense? or is it just a hunch?
Curious things!:)
Mat
Because enlightenment = nibbana = the fires of greed/aversion/delusion quenched. The path to enlightenment... Is the /path/ to enlightenment. Not sure why you want to redefine the word so bad. O_o
Maybe. Or maybe that would just be dividing the question into ten more version of it?
Maybe a question that is less nonsense is no about the path as a journey but a path as an increase truth, peace and happiness?
In which case we could ask, would a 20% understanding and practice of the Middle Way lead to a significant increase in the persons peace and happiness?
Isn't that is what is important? It seems such questions boil down to whether the path to enlightenment is absolute or linear?
Maybe enlightenment was originally the start of the path and over the millennia its been pushed back and back (by the observable masculiniastion conditionings) until now it is somewhere near the top of Mount Unobtainium?
All food for thought!
Mat
As I see it, that is the "practical" purpose of it, but with that are the deep considerations of mind, reality, morality.... that to me are profound and fascinating. If you're all about "suffering reduction" that's fine by me, but I like the "science, wisdom, knowledge" enquiries the Buddha invites us to make:)
>>The path to enlightenment... Is the /path/ to enlightenment.
Is that a koan?
>>Not sure why you want to redefine the word so bad. O_o
1) We don't know what any word means in dharma, there simply is no way to know, at best we have to individually fit the pieces together. That is an individual task and there is no blueprint as to how to do this.
2) Nibbana is a term that has a wide variety of menaings in buddhism, from the litteral to the metaphsyiocal to the mystical. It invites investigation. why would a buddhist not investiagte it?
3) We can be sure that there have been many redefinitions of terms over the millennia, as someone who is interested in what the buddha discovered and taught I would like to get as close to his meanings as possible rather than later semantic stipulations. Why would not?
Um, not sure where to start really.
Nirvana, for all buddhists, is the goal. Whether you believe it's something to gain over time (like the theravadan) or whether it's something to realise (like zen) is down to personal choice. It's "meaning" is the end of suffering. Not sure how that can be seen as "mystical". I suppose, if you believe things like "rebirth" is mystical, and to enter nirvana is to be free from samsara (birth, death, birth cycle), but it still doesn't make nirvana mystical. It is what it is.
In terms of this 80% thing, it seems as you believe enlightenment is a path? Is that right? Like o0Mundus said, dharma is the path. Enlightenment is the goal. If enlightenment is the path, then what is the goal? In buddhism we are told not to cling to the path (dharma) otherwise enlightenment will be unnattainable.
With regards to the meaning of words, this is why we have long standing lineages of buddhism, that have tried their best to keep the correct meaning of the words. Scholars have spent their lives reading the original texts and studying the languages to give us the best meaning. The different lineages have done the same.
You are a very philisophical person and it seems you are adament about going it alone. Why not broaden your horrizons by reading the texts by buddhist scholars, reading their translations of sutras/suttas and even (shock horror) go on retreats at various buddhist centres and listen to what they have to say.
As with your last point, I think you have taken on a big challenge. Good luck
Nios.
Sure, but it could be mundane, mystical or something in between:) Also let us not forget the other "benefits" that come from the path.
>>Not sure how that can be seen as "mystical". I suppose, if you believe things like "rebirth" is mystical, and to enter nirvana is to be free from samsara (birth, death, birth cycle), but it still doesn't make nirvana mystical. It is what it is.
If rebirth is to do with some literal next life, its mystcial. That is what it means:)
>>>In terms of this 80% thing, it seems as you believe enlightenment is a path? Is that right?
I am not sure. It might even be the start of the path. is it so ridiculous to think that enlightenment is the realisation of the Dharmic truths, and the rest is living and proacticing in accordance with these realisation?
In fact, that seems to be what the buddha did:) He became enlightened, and then lived and taught what he discovered. Nothing profound happened after that to him it seems. And many otehrs becasme enlightened after him and also, got on with their lives.
That does make sense. Whereas the idea of unobtainable enlightenment doesn't really fit with this story:)
>>Like o0Mundus said, dharma is the path.
They have much more certainty in their knowledge of Buddhism than I do, so I cant argue with that:)
>>>Enlightenment is the goal. If enlightenment is the path, then what is the goal?
To lead a life free from illusion and suffering and to show this path to others?
Not that enligtenment can be either:
The End of the path.
The Path
The start of the Path.
I would love someone to show me which it is! Its quite important!
>>In buddhism we are told not to cling to the path (dharma) otherwise enlightenment will be unnattainable.
In buddhism we are told many things;)
>>>With regards to the meaning of words, this is why we have long standing lineages of buddhism, that have tried their best to keep the correct meaning of the words.
Those lineages started at least hundreds of years after the death of the buddha:) Maybe thousands in some cases. So forgive me not accepting them as authentic "just because."
>>>Scholars have spent their lives reading the original texts and studying the languages to give us the best meaning. The different lineages have done the same.
You are assuming that a) They had a sure starting point, which historically you are simply not entitled to assume and b) that other factors (politcal and cultural) haven't had any influence, which again, seems an unjustified assumption:)
>>>You are a very philisophical person and it seems you are adament about going it alone.
What! I thought I was going it with you guys!:p
>>>Why not broaden your horrizons by reading the texts by buddhist scholars
I have read a fair few of the kind of books, none of them answer the questions I ask and the later they are the more mystical they seem. For example I have just opened my copy of The Tibetan book of Living and Dying at a random page and it is about the "bardos"- I just don't get that. I just dont get where that comes from?
Do you see my concern with such enquiries?
>>>reading their translations of sutras/suttas and even (shock horror) go on retreats at various buddhist centres and listen to what they have to say.
I have done this in various senses:) Been to buddhism clases, had very long talks with scholars and monks and lay Buddhists - and a nun!:) But it all boils down to the mystical/rebirth issue. Nobody can answer that!
Nobody knows. Its the big assumption. And then people say it isn't important.... ummm... it might not be to them but it is to me.
>>As with your last point, I think you have taken on a big challenge. Good luck
Sometimes it does a bit like seem like I am up against twenty five centuries of dominating Buddhist masculine hegemony!:) So thanks for the good luck wishes;)
Mat
I never said we don't benefit from the path. All I'm saying is the path is not the destination. It'd be like going to London and saying "we're here" before the coach has even left!
We are talking nirvana here, lets keep rebirth in the other (dozens) threads
:eek:
No not at all. Some buddhist schools believe this, however their truths are different to yours
Yes, but he went on a journey of self discovery before enlightenment. Ergo, his jounrey led him to enlightenment, not the other way round.
This reminds me of the zen saying (I think it's something like this) "before enlightenment, wash your cloths, eat your food, go to the toilet. After enlightenmnet, wash your cloths, eat your food, go to the toilet" (or something like that)
Woh, wait, back up, who ever said enlightenment is unobtainable? :eek: Who, where, we must name and shame them. :mad:
Then what do you believe nirvana is? If not to be free from illusion and suffering
I'm not sure where you're getting half these ideas from.
No one said that enlightenment is the end of the path, but rather, the goal. There is a difference.
Sure, the third and fourth noble truths.
3) There is an end to suffering (ie nirvana)
4) There is a path leading to the end of suffering (ie 8 fold path)
Those lineages that you so often poo poo, did exactly as you are doing now. They re-evaluated what they believed "true" dharma and then taught it. However, what puts them in a whole new ball game is that those who started these branches were fully ordained members of sangha from an older lineage. Ie, they got their grounding in an extablished school and moved forward from there.
You seem to assume that all buddhist scholars are buddhists?
You need to find someone who knows the history of ancient india, and the history and spread of buddhism, the cultures and also someone who has studied the earliest texts up close.
Otherwise all you have are assumptions and "show me I'm wrong"!
The tibetan book of the dead was not the kind of scholistic book I was refering to. let me see if I can dig some up on the net....
You seem to be focusing on it. Could that be the root of the problem?
Ok, back to rebirth... :rolleyes:
Ok, put it this way. Must people on this thread (maybe 90%). Follow
either the suttas or sutras, but will interpret them slightly differntly from one another. On the other hand, you pretty much reject the suttas, so it's a bit hard to explain these things when the tool we use to explain it has been removed....
The suttas are littered with references to rebirth. Read the Lohicca sutta for example.
Well, it is your belief that rebirth is masculine hegemony. I think you are just swimming against the tide
Nios.
>>Woh, wait, back up, who ever said enlightenment is unobtainable? :eek:
It is the tacit notion of all Buddhist schools gf that enlighytement is the result, if at all, of a lifetimes dedication to the path, and thus, in my book and I imagine most peoples, pretty unobtainable.
Interestingly different from the enlightments alluded to in the suttras which took, it would seem, not much more than a big chat:) (this is the ease and abundance point I have mentioned before.)
>>>Then what do you believe nirvana is?
I really don't consider it to be a key part of my buddhist practice:) To me ist a mystical notion that has connotations to rebirth.
At most I would say it is the kind of happiness I could get after a lifetimes disattahemnt in a monastery - i can see clearly how greater dissatachment etc is possible than I have now. . But thats not very compatible with my life choices. I am not aiming for Nibbana, I am praticcing dharma:) And frankly, its a wonderful gift, with or without getting to be a 70th Level Buddha:)
>>Those lineages that you so often poo poo, did exactly as you are doing now.
Great, and seing as I dont know if i am right but i do knopw there is no way i can know i am right i would ask them the same:)
>>>However, what puts them in a whole new ball game is that those who started these branches were fully ordained members of sangha from an older lineage. Ie, they got their grounding in an extablished school and moved forward from there.
Those schools simply had no direct connection to the buddha.
Do you believe otherwise, if so what is the mechinsim please?
>>You need to find someone who knows the history of ancient india, and the history and spread of buddhism, the cultures and also someone who has studied the earliest texts up close.
I know somone, I have tried to get him on here:) He tells me the first written texts we have now are 1000 years after the time of the Buddha:) But please do not belive him or me on that:)
Mind you, 1 year is enough to show that there is dislocation:)
In fact even that is irrelevant perhaps, the fact that so many suttras start" Thus I have heard.." contains within the suttra that it is an example of hearsay:)
.
>>Ok, put it this way. Must people on this thread (maybe 90%). Follow
either the suttas or sutras, but will interpret them slightly differntly from one another. On the other hand, you pretty much reject the suttas, so it's a bit hard to explain these things when the tool we use to explain it has been removed....
The suttas are littered with references to rebirth. Read the Lohicca sutta for example.
As said, read the first 2 suttras:) And the last:) These support my view as much as the other:)
Mat
Wow, then you really don't understand many buddhist schools. It's a shame. If I had heard this when I first started I probably have never taken up buddhism. Shame.
It's a student teacher relationship. To be able to teach Buddhism, the teachings must be transfered to you. This is sometimes called "transmission of the light". I have not recieved it, this is why I don't teach buddhism.
The Gandhara texts are roundhly 2000 years old. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/s_scripts.htm
Then again I say that what you believe to be "added" is based on assumption.
Please, don't assume I have not read those suttas, come on
Nios.
I certainly don't understand those schools that purport Buddha was a Mystic and there is more to life than this.
>>>It's a student teacher relationship. To be able to teach Buddhism, the teachings must be transfered to you. This is sometimes called "transmission of the light".
Meh... I thought it was about The Four Noble Truths?
So its not, its about the teachings of something else? I am confused.
>>>The Gandhara texts are roundhly 2000 years old. http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/history/s_scripts.htm
Yes, I know of these:) And as I undersatand it there are more in Asia that remain untranslated. i heart that they will take 300 years to translate!
Ask yourself, why was no suttra written down for 50 years on the time of the Budda?
Ask yourself why did the buddha, in all of his last days, not give and instructions on his how his teachings should be passed on?
Ask yourself how can it be from these two absences we end up with ten thousands suttras?
These are not trifiles, they are serious questions about "what did the buddha teach" and "why have we got what we have now."
I think there is something amiss in this history that, for some reason, Buddhist refuse to acknowlege or seriously question.
>>Then again I say that what you believe to be "added" is based on assumption.
Of course:) I assume one thing, you assume the other:) I think my assumptions are justified based on history and philosophy whereas yours seem justified based on the doctrine, which is what is being questioned in the first place.
Why is your position different from:
"I know the Bible is the word of God because it says so in the Bible"
?
>>Please, don't assume I have not read those suttas, come on
Gosh no! You have cleary read many more suttras than me and I am sure the cardinal suttras more times than me:)
But if you do so from the assumption you start with, that will of course, change the way you read them. Have a go at reading them with the assumption that "The Buddha taught that renouncingmystical/rebirth ideas was the start of enlightenment"
Try it:) I think you will see it doesn't become clear cut, especially in the cardinal suttras.
>>>I have read those suttas many times. I have listened to dharma talks about the suttas, and had discussions about those suttas. I do not agree that they, somehow, deny rebirth.
Some quickly cherry picked passages:
"“I have set forth the Dhamma without making any distinction of esoteric and exoteric doctrine; there is nothing, Ananda, with regard to the teachings that the Tathagata holds to the last with the closed fist of a teacher who keeps some things back.” "
"When liberated, there is knowledge that he is liberated. He understands: 'Birth is exhausted, the holy life has been lived out, what can be done is done, of this there is no more beyond."
"That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the 1,000 monks, through no clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentation/effluents."
"Through not seeing the Four Noble Truths,
Long was the weary path from birth to birth.
When these are known, removed is rebirth's cause,
The root of sorrow plucked; then ends rebirth."
"This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'"
These to me suggest that the Buddha was a skeptic not a mystic and that the idea of rebirth was itself a part of the problem.
I guess in a nutshell, try reading the suttras replacing "rebirth" with "the idea of rebirth".
Mat
The Four Noble Truths were the start. The first page, if you will, to lead you on from there. This is how I understand them. It's an explanation.
I can see three reasons;
1) The buddhas teaching was for the literate and iliterate. We can see, from christianity and buddhism, that both religions started off as open to all, but then, after being written down, they became fashionable to the richer people of society and less fashionable to the poor, who couldn't read the "holy" texts.
2) All religions from that time were transmitted verbally. Why should buddhism be any different.
3) In those days texts were unreliable as they'd be on flimsy "paper" and would rot. Memory lasted a lot longer and was able to pass down generation to generation, especially to those who were iliterate, which would have been the vast majority.
I'm sure other people can add to this.
I thought he did. Hmm, I'll have to check that one.
Sorry, absences of what?... And, buddha taught everyday for over 40 years... That's a LOT of suttas
After all the long hours that we've talked both privately and on here I would have thought you'd know that my views are not based on doctrine alone.
Then I'm pretty sure we'd all agree with you. However, many of us do not believe this.:)
As I had said in our private talks, calling them the "cardinal" suttas, doesn't make them so.
This is why I stated in a previous post that it is important to understand the context of the sutta and I'd like to add, that it's also important to read it whole, rather in part.
Anyway, as I have said in our PM's I won't be replying anymore as you feel that I am somehow picking on you. It is a shame this was misunderstood from the begining and I wish you luck on your journey.
Nios. :cool:
But the Buddha says they are everything:) What else is tehre to buddhism than what is contained in Dukka to Magga?
And on a philosophical note, I belive they are not the start of teh Dharmic system, the start of that is The three Marks. I think I explain this fairly well in this video, but would gladly be shown my errors:)
>>>
Those are very comfortable reasons for your assumptions!:) But I think they are not accuratly matched by prebuddhist history in india:)
I think the reason it was passed verbally was because dharma is so simple:)
That seems very much wishful thinking!:)
>>>Sorry, absences of what?... And, buddha taught everyday for over 40 years... That's a LOT of suttas
Sure, more than any human could possibly remember or transmit! But thats another issue alltogether:)
hey, the issue boils down to this:
I think we cannot be certain the Buddha taught rebirth you and most others seem certain he did, but at the end of the day, that boils down to dogma, because we can never know either way:)
>>>As I had said in our private talks, calling them the "cardinal" suttas, doesn't make them so.
as I said, thats not my term:) but i am happy to use it:) I mean the suttras most of us know and that most of us and other buddhists quote here from the suttra Pittaka:) Do we really need to flesh this out?
>>>This is why I stated in a previous post that it is important to understand the context of the sutta and I'd like to add, that it's also important to read it whole, rather in part.
I have re read many suttras in this last fortnight, found many new things and remeberances:) But my belives has been strengthened so far. that may change:)
>>>Anyway, as I have said in our PM's I won't be replying anymore as you feel that I am somehow picking on you. It is a shame this was misunderstood from the begining and I wish you luck on your journey.
Thanks, and as said, im not ehre about me:) Im an easy target!
I have questions about the fundamental nature of Buddhism, Dharma and Dogma that I would like to discuss and I have my own often fumbling answers to those questions.
To stick ones head in the sand is fine, i have zero problem with that, but then to pull it out and say "you are wrong" and then refusing to debate doesnt seem very buddhist.
Unless, of course, you believe the Buddha was against investigative thinking;)
mat