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 first 2 questions
newtech
Veteran
Hello,
Lately iv been reading about buddhism (and meditating), so obviously im having some doubts:
1) according to this sentence:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
Siddharta Gautama
Question: Why so many buddhist believe in transmigration (rebirth) ?. I mean without observation or analysis.
2) Q: If enlightment means stop any form of suffering, what about physical pain ? can be stopped?
Thanks a lot!
Lately iv been reading about buddhism (and meditating), so obviously im having some doubts:
1) according to this sentence:
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.”
Siddharta Gautama
Question: Why so many buddhist believe in transmigration (rebirth) ?. I mean without observation or analysis.
2) Q: If enlightment means stop any form of suffering, what about physical pain ? can be stopped?
Thanks a lot!
0
Comments
Oh, and re-birth is NOT transmigration.
I think here, you misunderstand the notion of re-birth.
There is no transmigration....
No. You just deal with it as you would any form of suffering. It's impermanent, and at one point, it will stop, in one way or another.
Pain happens.
Whether it's caused by hammering your thumb whilst trying to hit a nail, or by a deep and spreading cancerous growth.
They're both degrees of pain, and both felt. And both come, and both go.
No big deal.....
A pleasure.
Welcome!
[Iti 38]
From http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/iti/iti.2.028-049.than.html#n-044.1
2) Physical pain never ceases. The goal of Buddhism is the end of all mental suffering/defilements. Physical pain is there for a reason, to let us know that there is something wrong with the body. One who has abandoned all illusion of self, such as the Buddha, can merely acknowledge the existence of the pain without reacting to it. In other words, there is no emotional attachment to the sensation. An Arahant can be itchy yet not scratch, etc.
In MN 117, the Buddha advised rebirth view sides with merit (encourages morality) but also sides with attachment and defilement (asava).
In MN 117, the Buddha advised rebirth view is not a factor of the path.
Best to get it right rather than turn wise people away from genuine Buddha-Dhamma.
:smilec:
To answer your question, you must examine & learn for yourself what suffering is.
The Buddha taught suffering comes from craving & attachment, from wanting & self-clinging.
If your mind accepts physical pain rather than resists it, does your mind suffer?
Investigate this.
Kind regards
DDhatu
:smilec:
Letting go of pointless debates that can not end in a consensus (for they never do, on this subject) is a mark of wisdom. Let's do that.
This is from the Kalama Sutta, where the Buddha states:
(1) If there is another world...and (2) if there is not another world.
The Buddha was democratic, offering teachings and considerations to those who believed in rebirth and also teachings for those who did not.
Rebirth is definitely not part of the package and never was.
In the Buddha's first three sermons that produced many enlightened beings, rebirth was not even mentioned.
The Buddha generally taught rebirth to those (Hindus) who already believed in it and who asked the Buddha about how they could gain a favourable rebirth.
There is very little evidence the Buddha taught meta-physical rebirth.
The evidence merely points to the Buddha teaching karmic or moral rebirth.
Your views about jhana are superstitious.
I quoted already wisdom is not connected to rebirth. Rebirth is for morality (sila).
The debates are not pointless because the Buddha said rebirth view is not a factor of the path.
How can a practitioner take full reliance on the dispassion & letting go rooted in the view of impermanence, unsatisfactoriness & not-self if they believe in rebirth.
Even the Buddha himself called rebirth belief "a safe bet". It is sitting on the fence.
The Buddha taught lokiya (mundane) dhamma and lokuttara (supramundane) dhamma.
These are two distinct things that have no relationship to eachother whatsoever.
To both believe in rebirth and to gain enlightenment is impossible because there is no complete relinquishment.
This is a beginners forum and those with beginners mind ask relevent intelligent questions.
Well DD, if the teaching of rebirth is not take as truth as you mentioned , then there are certainly no fruits of enlightenment the Nikayan practitioners need to seek,
The four fruits of Nikayan enlightenment are i) stream winner ( Skt. srota-apanna ), once-returner ( Skt. sakridaamin ) , non-returner ( Skt. agnagamin ) and the stage of Arhat.
All the above mentioned - those fruits of Nikayan enlightenment do required the practitioners to obtain at lease few successful lifetimes, if there are no vehicle of the rebirth , what and who are transfer about for the accumulation of spirtual cultivation ? ( who or what to do the once return and non-return, etc ?? )
Moreover , the lay practitioners of Nikayan are mostly still a distance to the above four Nikayan fruits , so without the concept of rebirth - if this implied that there are likely no hope for their practice at all?
Good idea.
I second the motion.:mad: :rolleyes:
Carry on.....
I haven't come across that translation before? Where did it come from? Seems to me that the last bit... ... was added to. A good translation can be found here; http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/soma/wheel008.html
But anyway, the kalama sutta actually gives you a helping hand in what to do when faced with concepts like rebirth...
It's just a shame that everyone focuses on the first part of the sutta and ignores the rest. :nonono:
Nios.
For starters, I haven't seen my previous lives or anything like that and I didn't read a lot about these stories where people talk about theirs (although I find Tenzin Palmo's story very inspiring).
From my personal experience, I would say people usually believe in many things without observation or analysis. The proof of this fact lies, for example, in gossip. You hear someone saying how John is such a horrible person and, when you meet him, your idea will be tainted by what you have been told, even though you have NO idea of "John" coming from direct observation or analysis.
I do believe in rebirth, but I didn't use to. In my personal experience nothing changed much, except when I have a very close experience of death, like when a car almost ran me over the other day. The idea that came in my mind is that I had to practice because "look what almost happened, where would I end up after that?".
So I would say that, in my personal observation, afterlife ideas in general only come into full effect when you have a clear consciousness of death, which most of us don't. Believe me when say knowing that "you will die someday" and knowing "you WILL die any of these days" is very different.
When the experience fades, so does the motivation to practice coming from the idea of rebirth. It becomes one of those reasons we have to fix something that doesn't really bother us, and can wait indefinitely. "Oh I will fix one of the basement lights", and it never gets fixed.
So I guess the real question is how we can find motivation to practice, and not whether or not rebirth is real. We know enlightenment is supposed to be juicy, but how seriously do we take it? Are we meditating? Are we behaving in an ethical manner? Are we studying or trying to know more about it? In a wider perspective, how our motivation works?
Do we only do things when we are hit by craving or aversion? It seems to be the case. When we feel the fear of death in our gut, when we say "I don't want this to happen, not now" and truly mean it, it is when we start worrying because we are afraid. Rebirth aside, all of us know we will die someday, all of us know something can happen that can reduce our ability to practice or stop it altogether in this very lifetime. Also, we know, we can see how strongly we are dragged through life by aversion and craving, we feel these two in our bones everyday, but how seriously do we take the idea of uprooting it?
Nios.
The Buddha said Nibbana is the highest happiness. The Buddha said the spiritual life has only one goal, namely, the unshakeable liberation of mind.
Enlightenment comes from right view. A layperson can develop liberation from suffering via right view. But the views you hold are defeatist.
the Buddha taught the Kalama with intelligence and reasonableness...
the Buddha did not teach his close disciples about rebirth...
please find me an account where the Buddha taught rebirth the the five disciples, Sariputta, Mogallana or Maha Kassapa?
because Ananda was unenlightened, Buddha sometimes taught him rebirth...
but Ananda was the Buddha's attendant rather than a "close disciple"...
if you wish to learn what the close disciples talked about with eachother, start with MN 32...
Belief is attachment; disbelief is attachment. If you get to the point where you think other people are clearly wrong and you must defend that attachment, the result is dukkha. There can be no release without Right Effort to abandon these wrong views.
As with many other things, the middle path is the most direct road to take.
What kind of motivation and practice are you actually referring to?
When the Buddha-To-Be had clear consciousness of death he sought Nibbana, which was found via wisdom of impermanence, unsatifactoriness & not-self.
One practises anatta, abandoning the "I" and "mine" to be free from the dukkha of birth, aging, illness and death.
So again, what kind of motivation and practice are you actually referring to?
Having sex with a volumptuous woman or hunky man is supposed to be juicy.
Enlightenment is not juicy. Enlightenment is like going to a hospital, asking for medicine and taking the medicine.
What does aversion and craving have to do with anything? Enlightenment does not come from having a moral ideal.
The Buddha taught motivation or faith comes from the experience of suffering.
Who do you know that can say for sure that rebirth either does or does not occur? I'm not speaking of whether the Buddha taught it or not. As much as there may be a schism between people over the issue, the fact is that it is unprovable in our scientifically-minded world. Those of us who weren't religious before Buddhism, and who never believed in anything that science couldn't test, must face the concept of rebirth and deal with it in a skillful way; not in these pointless debates, as I've already seen from many other threads.
Does this not make sense? Is there any way I can make it more clear? I ask myself this every time I submit a reply but it seems the message isn't making any real impression.
You posted the wrong view that rebirth is part of the package.
Be thankful I made the compassionate effort to remove your wrong views.
I am interested in the Buddha's middle way rather than your middle way.
Since lay practitioners seem could attain this fruits enlightenment relatively easy , which similiar to those Arhats - many have reach the same enlightened stage as the historical Buddha himself - so the doctrine of a single Buddha per Buddha period for the Sthaviravada branch is no longer hold ? ( the the Mahasamghika branch of the earlier school that there are many Buddhas per period is than correct ? )
it seems there no longer point to seek for the ordained cultivation ?
wow - it seems similiar to the Mahayana esoteric teaching of attaining Buddhahood in the present moment / existence - if this is due to cross-influence ?
I smiled when you attampted to limit the term for the Buddha 'close disciples"
all the 10 discples are the Buddha's direct and close disciples , further more Nuns such as Maha Pajaapati Gotami , Khema, Uppalavanna are close disciples -
the best yardsticks would be those attained Arahant
Arahant in Nikayan is defined as one reach the goal of Nibbana without residue remaining. - But with your new definition - it seems everyone could reach this 'enlightenment' so they are Arahants achieving Nibbana without residue remaining ?
The term Samsara in Tripitika already explains - it Because of our ignorance ( avidja ) of these Noble Truths, because of our inexperience in framing the world in their terms, we remain bound to Samsara, the wearisome cycle of birth, aging, illness, death, and rebirth.
Thro' many a birth in Sansara wandered I,
Seeking but not finding, the builder of this house. Sorrowful is repeated birth.
O House-builder! you are seen. You shall build no house again.
All your rafters are broken, your ridge-pole is shattered.
To dissolution (Nibbana) goes my mind.
The End of Craving have I attained.
Dhammapada (154)
<DL><DT>Middle Way ( Skt. Madhyama-pratipad ) <DD>(1) In the Nikaya teachings, it is the rejection of the two extremes of self-indulgence and self-mortification. While still a prince, Shakyamuni lived in luxury in his father's palace, but after renouncing the secular world, he abandoned worldly diversions and for years practiced as an ascetic, leading a life of deprivation and austerity. Eventually he rejected asceticism as well, and after attaining enlightenment he preached a way of life that avoids the extremes of indulgence and denial. The Medium-Length Agama Sutra, one of the four Chinese Agama sutras, terms this path the Middle Way. It is exemplified by the doctrine of the eightfold path.
(2) In the Mahayana, as according to Nagarjuna's Treatise on the Middle Way, the true nature of all things is that they are neither born nor die, and cannot be defined by either of the two extremes of existence or nonexistence. This true nature of things is emptiness, also referred to as the Middle Way.The Treatise on the Middle Way begins: "Neither birth nor extinction, neither cessation nor permanence, neither uniformity nor diversity, neither coming nor going...." This passage is termed the eight negations, or the middle path of the eight negations, and is intended to clarify the concept of the Middle Way.
(3) In terms of higher Mahayana, such as T'ient'ai's doctrine of the three truths, the truth of the Middle Way means that the true nature of all things is neither emptiness nor temporary existence, but exhibits the characteristics of both.
</DD></DL>
Brother. You are way off the mark in your three points above.
I would suggest you become a bhikkhu to learn making personal declarations about jhana and such, which are not even the goal of the Buddhist path, which remained unverified, is a big naughty.
"I" have experienced jhana. What a non-sensical statement! There is no "I" that experiences jhana.
The Buddha's path is for abandoning the "I" rather than building it up.
When your mind is ready, the teacher will come to you. When it is not, it will continue to resist.
Try again.
Birth & death come from self-view.
When the Buddha ended craving, attachment, becoming and self-view ended.
The Buddha taught birth & death occur "when the eye sees a form, when the ear hears a sound...etc..."
Try again.
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">"What, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant, one whose taints are destroyed, the holy life fulfilled, who has done what had to be done, laid down the burden, attained the goal, destroyed the fetters of being, completely released through final knowledge. However, his five sense faculties remain unimpaired, by which he still experiences what is agreeable and disagreeable and feels pleasure and pain. It is the extinction of attachment, hate, and delusion in him that is called the Nibbana-element with residue left.
"Now what, bhikkhus, is the Nibbana-element with no residue left? Here a bhikkhu is an arahant... completely released through final knowledge. For him, here in this very life, all that is experienced, not being delighted in, will be extinguished. That, bhikkhus, is called the Nibbana-element with no residue left.
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
As said , the Nikayan teaching for Nirvana with remainder - also known as incomplete nirvana. it refers to those Arhats ( take note they are unlikely much chances for the laypersons to attain this level ) who had eliminated all illusions and will no longer be reborn in the six paths, but who still bound to the world of suffering as he possesses a physical body.
And, the ultimate goal of Nikayan teaching is Nirvana without remainder - at this is only could achieved at death, known as " reducing the body to ashes and annihilating consciousness"
Please name who are those in the history of Nikayan teaching that has achieved this ' Nibbana-element with no residue left' ?
The Nikayan actually usually refers to historical Buddha after his para-nirvana ( both his phyiscal body and spirtual body ) no longer return to the existence
Whatever label you assign to it (and this includes your aversion to its usage, it's not only a verbal thing), it only exists as meaning "me" by being merely labeled by mind.
That is (partly) what emptiness stands for. I don't think emptiness is a concept to be taken lightly. I also don't think it is necessary for most people (including myself) to be delving into it. I just make that thread to avoid the "I don't exist" idea.
I would also like to add that avoiding certain words is mere repression. We have labels for all sorts of things. If it wasn't for that we wouldn't have a way to communicate our ideas. What we have to be conscious of is the limitation of the labels, not their inutility.
I take my leave of this thread now.
An arahant is an arahant. There is no such thing as "incomplete Nibbana" for an arahant. An arahant has done what needs to be done.
One mode of Nibbana still has what is agreeable and disagreeable, feeling pleasure and pain and the other mode of Nibbana does not.
The Buddha is simply saying, contrary to what most people think, there is a Nibbana with feeling. As for the Nibbana without feeling, this is what most people would regard it to be. All that is being said is:
Now what are evil, unskillful mental qualities?
Not realising impermanence, not realising not-self, not-realising the noble truths.
The suttas describe such laypeople as thus: