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 ignoble onefold path
why did buddha not offer an alternative path?
1. What is the Noble Truth of Suffering? Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering: in short the five categories affected by clinging are suffering.
2. What is the Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering? It is craving which renews being and is accompanied by relish and lust, relishing this and that: in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for non-being. But whereon does this craving arise and flourish? Wherever there is what seems lovable and gratifying, thereon it arises and flourishes.
3. What is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering? It is the remainderless fading and cessation of that same craving; the rejecting, relinquishing, leaving and renouncing of it. But whereon is this craving abandoned and made to cease? Wherever there is what seems lovable and gratifying, thereon it is abandoned and made to cease.
4. What is the Ignoble Truth of the Way Leading to the Cessation of Suffering? It is the Ignoble Onefold Path, that is to say: SUICIDE!!!!!
what makes the noble eightfold path noble, and the onefold path ignoble? this may be a ridiculously stupid thread, but maybe not.
1. What is the Noble Truth of Suffering? Birth is suffering, aging is suffering, sickness is suffering, dissociation from the loved is suffering, not to get what one wants is suffering: in short the five categories affected by clinging are suffering.
2. What is the Noble Truth of the Origin of Suffering? It is craving which renews being and is accompanied by relish and lust, relishing this and that: in other words, craving for sensual desires, craving for being, craving for non-being. But whereon does this craving arise and flourish? Wherever there is what seems lovable and gratifying, thereon it arises and flourishes.
3. What is the Noble Truth of the Cessation of Suffering? It is the remainderless fading and cessation of that same craving; the rejecting, relinquishing, leaving and renouncing of it. But whereon is this craving abandoned and made to cease? Wherever there is what seems lovable and gratifying, thereon it is abandoned and made to cease.
4. What is the Ignoble Truth of the Way Leading to the Cessation of Suffering? It is the Ignoble Onefold Path, that is to say: SUICIDE!!!!!
what makes the noble eightfold path noble, and the onefold path ignoble? this may be a ridiculously stupid thread, but maybe not.
0
Comments
Buddhe preached one thing:
How to live a suffer free life.
Key word live.
If you plan on killing your self, there isnt much spiritual guidance required.
Nothing. You said it is. That doesn't make it so.
If reincarnation is true, then it is imperative that one follows the path.
If it was just some weird woogy-boogy business in the buddha's imagination, then it is not imperative that one follows the path, and the option of papering over suffering with plentiful pleasure is the smart choice. we have a lot of technology now, it is possible to have plenty of pleasure with significant confidence in its sustainability.
damnit!
i think this is wrong. he taught how to end the cycle of birth and death.
Yes, but the end of suffering and the end of that cycle could be the same thing, couldn't they?
One may say that dukkha is not exactly suffering. But the Buddha literally included death, aging, bla bla bla on his list of the first noble truth.
All schools of Buddhism have practices related to previous lives, and previous lives stories, and explanations on rebirth. Dive in.
he he he, ok, silly joke, but hey what if that were true? what happens to rebirth when all life and the conditions of life are incinerated? RIDICULOUSLY STUPID!!! ha ha ha. sorry, i am an idiot but i can't help it.
terrence mcKenna's "timewave zero" theory predicted some sort of infinity-related event in 2012
scientists are planning on doing the first particle collision that MIGHT (it's debated) create a black hole in 2012. i think it's called the large hedron collider or something.
oh shit!
It's an interesting and very difficult question. If we're honest with ourselves, we can only admit to those parts of the Buddha's teachings that we can corroborate by observation, understand and then internalise. I don't think there's any human being past or present who could show and prove to us what happens (if anything) after we die and the brain has completely stopped functioning. It seems to be a realm of great uncertainty, but as long as Mind searches for the answer we encounter suffering because of this Nameless Fear of the great unknown. Another poster recently mentioned a kind of discomfort after facing the emptiness. I think the Buddhist practice could possibly help us to face this uncertainty, by severing attachments and being unmoved by thoughts. So to my mind, the path is not about faith in reincarnation but mental training that could be useful to relieve suffering or prevent us from making ourselves suffer.
the worry about the matter is not the problem. the problem is, there is a very significant choice that depends on that matter.
If the matter is unclarifiable, then the problem becomes, what to do taking into account that it is impossible to know whether reincarnation is true or not.
i'll think about this more later, i have things to do and I feel horribly unprepared to answer these questions.
No idea. Extremes to be avoided?
That is ok. You can accept from your own experience that your life changes based on your mind. Addicted people have a kind of body, anorexic people another, obese people another. The people and places we go to differ based on what we have on our mind, what could have been and what will be as well, depression can even cut your life short. So mind really has a place in the kind of reality we experience. We don't need faith to perceive that.
Or you can accept you don't know how it works, but you have an idea. You don't know the whole truth about rebirth, but you do know that it can be an impulse to your practice. What is motivation if not a belief, sometimes not based on logic, on the end result, and how far do people with a firm conviction go, even against all odds? How far do we go when we face a hard goal that we feel is not urgent or not important or not doable?
the thread is ridiculously stupid because there is no understanding of the dhamma here.
the translations are all wrong.
the dhamma is "in short clinging to the five aggregates is suffering".
if one is thinking about suicide, that is clinging to the five aggregates.
<FONT
By suicide one is not taking the path of liberation but acknowledging the worldly concerns and taking the nontranscendent path to end suffering.
The transcendent path is to accept another reality that there is pain but suffering is optional.
he taught how to end 'self view'
About intellectualising about the Dhamma, the Buddha said:
But when death comes to our life, our mother, father, son, daughter, friend or beloved possession, our mind suffers.
Why? It suffers because we regard the object of death as "I" or "mine".
All schools do not. Some schools do or most schools do but all schools do not.
The first noble truth literally states "in short", "in summary", suffering is attachment to the five aggregates.
In other words, the first noble truth does not emphasise birth, death, etc,...
Buddhas are not required to tell the world birth, sickness, aging & death are dukkha. Ask any woman after child birth or any sick person or any widow. They will all say these things are dukkha.
Buddha are required to inform humanity that attachment to the five aggregates is dukkha.
if one is alive, craving for non-being is the wish to die (such in suicidal thoughts)
these cravings apply to anything
like wishing a mosquito would stop biting one
this is craving not-to-be
or wishing to be rich & famous
this is craving to be
We inevitably have to endure physical suffering such as pain, sickness, injury, tiredness, old age, and eventually death.
You understand the Dharma as a means to end psychological suffering. I am speaking in broader terms. This goes back to the issue of rebirth. We both have different views, so we both understand "free of suffering" in different terms.
Indeed he taught the end of self views, we both see the effects of that a bit differently though.
Agreed. Wasn't there a sutta where he stated that questions such as if there is a self or not don't even arise in the mind of an Arhat?
yes
but suffering is optional
if one cannot differentiate here, one has not comprehended the dhamma
there is no broader issue
the topic of rebirth is not related to the four noble truths
indeed we do. but your view cannot fulfil the purpose & goal of buddha dhamma and you actually have not understood what it means to be "free of suffering"
your "understanding" here is intellectual rather than experiential
No. There is a sutta where the Buddha did not answer these questions to one incapable of understanding because this would lead to trouble & confusion for that person
That person would probably have wrong grasp of the teachings and spend their time misrepresenting the dhamma and confusing themselves & others
What you describe is really just a spiritual journey to suicide.
The Buddha summarized the First Noble Truth not as "birth, aging, death, blah blah blah is suffering" but as "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." SN 35.28 makes the definition of dukkha quite clear: dukkha arises when clinging arises; clinging arises (but does not have to if we follow the 8FP) at each instance consciousness arises. Anything we cling to which is conditioned is subject to birth, aging, sickness and death and even the suttas state this. [MN 26] All of this has to be taken into consideration when understanding the statement that is often summarized as the First Noble Truth.
Physical pain is physical pain. It does not result from clinging. It just is. Some people see this as suffering... some people find it bliss. :eek::):D No matter how you view it, it is dukkha if there is clinging. Likewise with aging, birth, death, etc. "Suffering" is not an adequate translation of dukkha whether it refers to the mental or the physical.
Indeed some have done just that but that is not the Buddhist path.
If there is a broader issue, that is, the need to escape from cycles of rebirth, what is the method of escape?
It was asserted previous the 8FP cannot guarrentee liberation.
Also, if non-attachment is only psychological, what is the method to escape from cycles of rebirth?
My point, that I probably didn't put well in words, is that it isn't minute rice. Changing old habits is painful. Go talk to some AA people, some still have drunken dreams after a decade of being sober. So in that sense it is not like everything magically falls into place, that is all. The Noble Eightfold Path might guarantee liberation, but it is not a walk in the park, so it doesn't guarantee a life free of suffering. If it takes 10 years to reach liberation they might as well be 10 very hard years.
If I say "edible-paint" it means that is a paint that one eats; if I say clinging-aggregates, it means that is an aggregate that one clings to. If I say "eating the paint" do you agree it is different than "edible-paint"?
You might say they only hurt if you cling to them, like Dhamma Dhatu, but that just refers to Viparinama-dukkha (I am not good with pali words okay? :P), things change and we suffer, mostly because we cling to them (not exclusively though). What about Dukkha Dhukka (or is it dukkha-dukkhata), which includes physical pain? So when the Buddha talked about Dukkha in the four noble truths he was nit-picking parts or the three types of suffering?
Why would he talk about clinging in the first noble truth if the second one is the cause. It makes no sense to state: "This is suffering: clinging", and then say "This is the cause of suffering: clinging".
I don't understand.
1. When I have suffering.
2. It's cuz I'm stuck - on stupid.
3. I don't have to be stuck ... cuz there's a way to get unstuck!!
4. It's training to know the eight ways of getting unstuck!!
'To know and not to do is, in fact, not to know' (some ole oriental guy)
I'm reminded of a quote from Rumi:
"Behead yourself!"
Birth, aging, illness & death are vipariṇāmadukkhatā. It is dukkha influenced by change rather than the dukkha of change. Change in itself is not dukkha.
Sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair are dukkhadukkhatā. It is dukkha influenced by pain rather than the dukkha of pain. Pain in itself is not dukkha.
Wanting and attachment is saṅkhāradukkhatā. This is real dukkha.
The cause suffering is craving. Craving is not attachment.
Did the Buddha suffer below?
:smilec:
Is the following suffering or liberation?
The scholars define this as dukkha of conditioned formations. A block of concrete is a conditioned formation. Does a block of concrete experience suffering or cause suffering?
The word sankhara can mean things (formations), forming (conditioning), formers (conditioners) and mental concocting (performed by sankhara khanda).
So saṅkhāradukkhatā here actually means the dukkha of concocting, namely, the dukkha of attachment.
:smilec:
The Second Truth is "eating the paint" to use your expression. You cannot isolate the Four Noble Truths and try to read them independently, they have to be read as a whole: this is dukkha; and it is dukkha because; if the cause is eliminated, then these things are not dukkha.
Thus, naturally, I do not agree with you. The Buddha said:
:smilec:
Will you please tell me how you know these things through your own practice?
Will you please put all this into your own words so I can have some indication that you understand what then heck you're talking about beyond some head food?
What does it mean to you and how do you actually apply this to your daily life?
:scratch:
Is seeing the arising of dukkha from moment-to-moment not a natural consequence of practice? Have you not seen how clinging to things as self/mine leads to dukkha? To me this is like asking how one knows through their own experience that 1+1=2.
Could you tell me how you know the common Buddhist rebirth doctrine and realms of existence are true through your own experience?
I am more interested in how someone explains birth, aging, and death as dukkha without clinging and/or without a mind to cling.
The subject became what the Buddha/suttas state on the subject so I see no problem with quoting the suttas. I see no issue with it to begin with as why would someone need to reword what is already expressed so clearly? DDhatu posted mostly in his own words-the sutta citations are there to show they coincide with the buddha's teachings as requested.
"Suffering, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for suffering? 'Birth' should be the reply.
"And what is the supporting condition for birth?. 'Existence' should be the reply.
"What is the supporting condition for existence? 'Clinging' should be the reply.
"What is the supporting condition for clinging? 'Craving' should be the reply.
You are equating suffering with craving in your reason and that makes no sense. It is like saying an orange is a seed or a mother is her baby.
If you are born you will suffer. The causes of Buddha's birth come from his previous life, when he was not enlightened and still clung to things. I told you this would boil down to rebirth, didn't I? :^P
"And what are the five clinging-aggregates?
"Whatever form — past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near — is clingable, offers sustenance, and is accompanied with mental fermentation: that is called form as a clinging-aggregate".
One aspect of emancipation is the emancipation from ignorance and defilements that was experienced by the Buddha during his lifetime (called sa upadiesa nibannadhatu, with residue remaining), the other is the emancipation from repeated existence attained with his passing away (anupadiesa nibbanadhatu).
(Iti 2.17; Iti 38)
Whether my examination of the suttas is wise or not I don't know. It probably isn't, but if it wasn't for you I wouldn't have come across a lot of them, so thank you :^)
It clearly states that he felt physical pain, but did not experience dukkha. If he was "unperturbed," how can you say that he was suffering?
Your analogies are inaccurate. There is an orange because of a seed. There is dukkha because of clinging. You know, coffee? Nothin' wrong with wanting a cup of coffee. But if you crave and cling, and don't get your coffee, then dukkha arises. Life is not inherently dukkha, and this is what the whole of the 4NTs tells us.
The cause of the Buddha's birth was that his parents got horny one rainy day and decided to get it on.
Once again:
I am sincerely asking you: if there were undeniable proof that there is no such thing as rebirth as you view it, would you view suicide as equal, if not superior to, the N8FP?
I wouldn't be bothered with The Noble Eightfold path because I already live by today's society ethical standards, and one can be perfectly content without worrying about religion. Sounds even tempting. OMG Mundus! You are un-converting me! Noooooooo.... (starts melting) lol
Maybe, on another approach, when I felt bad, I would just a read few things about Buddhism, you know. "Oh the cause of my suffering is such and such and I have complete control over it. I got canned: not suffering; I got dumped: not suffering; I got abused: not suffering; I got yelled at: not suffering; I screwed up and fell sorry: no suffering; I am dying: not suffering; I am poor: not suffering; I am ridiculed: not suffering; I hate my job: not suffering". That would make me feel a bit better, and I would start doing it over and over, like everything else that pleases the mind. In truth, all I would be doing is pleasing my senses (or my mind) with colorful ideas of heaven on earth, and carrying the same burden and doing the same things, this time with a smile on my face, because now I would have a carrot in front of me called enlightenment. Who was it that said religion is the opium of the people? :^P
Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. [K. Marx]
He then went on to a story about a dog that lives in his temple and how it was injured and found lying very still - just breathing - and how he imagined this as an animal's instinctual response to such things as injury or illness; just being very still and breathing and that humans, especially modern day folks appear to have lost this instinct - we tend to push ourselves beyond what is healthy for us.
Then he started talking about simply sitting or lying down and paying attention to the breath entering and leaving the body and attending to how the body feels - a pain here or there etc, but also how the body feels good!
He emphasized that we too often focus attention on the negative stuff happening and not enough on the positive stuff. So when we practice we too often focus on the pain in the leg, as an example and not the comfort of the leg.
To shorten this post, he went through all the teachings in the Satipatthana Sutta in this same way - using common language and examples from his own experience - not once quoting the sutta or any other 'what Buddha said' quote.
This is my point. I imagine that those who can express the teachings from their own experience, from their own heart have made the teachings the Buddhadharma, thier own through a lot of practice in contemplation and application of the teachings in their own lives. These are the people who truly know the Buddha's teachings.
I, for one, imagine simply quoting and speaking of the intellectual meaning of the teachings (book learned knowledge) as the most superficial of understanding/knowing accomplished by those who are generally untrained - they haven't put in the time and correct practice to truly understand and know the teachings. They can't express the teachings from their own direct experience, yet!
It's also very interesting that some folks on this forum assume a critical position toward other's based on this apparent superficial understanding/knowledge, when it's also apparent they cannot express what their saying from the depth of their own experience. Hum? so of course I think to myself, 'young-in, you really don't know enough to be critical of anybody!'
So, I ask, Will you please tell me how you experience what your talking about from your own direct awareness and application of the teachings in regular day to day life? So I may see that you really have some true insight into what your expressing here.
If you cannot??? I wish new folks to understand that you don't do that, cuz you can't, and what you say in criticism of others is not based on any true understanding. Just a lot of blah, blah, blah, you got from a book and have intellectualized with discursive thinking, which, I imagine, does not accord with what the Buddha taught on any level.
It's kinda like holding up a skeleton or a lifeless corpse and stating, 'This is the Buddhadharma!'. It's an old dried-up dead example, which was never the intention or practice of the 'Thus Gone One' or his disciples.
So to be free of suffering cannot be something in this lifetime, because being a human being suck balls. Even if we sit still and do nothing in like 3 days we die of thirst, but we go to great pains to get the water. So either Nirvana is not the cessation of suffering, or there is Rebirth.
Let's assume there is no such thing as a Nirvana concept. Can I say, from personal experience, we can be completely free of suffering? No. Can I say, from personal experience, there is no such thing as suffering-free in this lifetime? Yes. Do I believe we can be free of craving? Absolutely. Will that improve my life? Yes.
Do I believe the rest of what the Buddha said based on reason? No. Do I still believe it? Yes. Why? It serves a purpose of making life meaningful. So are you high on people's opium? Yes. OMG! You Junkie!