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.
Stop the world, I wanna hop off.
There really is no reason to be here, incarnate and suffering, is there? In the sense that really, everything is devoid of inherent meaning regardless of how we percieve things to be. 
It's all perception in terms of meaningfulness, so what does it indicate when the perception is that nothing matters since it's all no-meaning?
Jali
It's all perception in terms of meaningfulness, so what does it indicate when the perception is that nothing matters since it's all no-meaning?
Jali
0
Comments
knowing is one thing
living according to the 'knowing' is another thing
by living according to the 'knowing' one can stop re-becoming (rebirth)
when there is no becoming there is no suffering
it is cause and effect, cause and effect
when there is no cause, there is no effect
so stop the cause to stop the effect
Precisely, and that's what I'm having problems with at the moment.
Jali
"Human life has no meaning, no reason and no choice, but we have our practice to help us understand our true self. Then, we can change no meaning to Great Meaning, which means Great Love. We can change no reason to Great Reason, which means Great Compassion. Finally we can change no choice to Great Choice, which means ...Great Vow and Bodhisattva Way." (Zen Master Seung Sahn)
With equanimity - enlightenment, liberation, freedom.
Without equanimity - dukkha.
Why do you feel that? Those things are no more real than the bible and God. Perhaps a little more profound, but still a work of man.
MUDITHA!!!
by dharma I mean the truth of all of reality, and by buddha nature I mean us as we truly are by nature. Neither of those are man made.
As for Buddha nature, as far as I know it means the potential for enlightenment. I am new, so correct me if I am wrong.
Do you mean the nature within us - what we are at our core? I would say at our core, we are potential. In that case I would understand Buddha nature as not something that is there at the core, but something that can be developed. I suppose you can see it as something that isn't developed, but awoken. That's still a human construct though. You could say we all have a foolish nature, because we all have the quite easy path to becoming a fool. That's as real as Buddha nature, as far as I know.
Dharma is a guide and Buddha nature is a construct. I wouldn't want to think of either of those things as real. You jot down your own profound findings, then say that anyone can come to those conclusions and thus have TheJourney nature. Therefore, TheJourney nature is the only thing that's real.
I don't know...
I have two ways of responding to this. One, I believe it is often used to describe the truth that penetrates all of reality, that only enlightenment can bring about a proper understanding of. Two, even using your definition I believe my statement still stands. What else is there besides the mind, human suffering and the path to the cessation thereof? Aren't all things in reality void, and thus simply products of your mind?
I'm new too(not to thinking about these sorts of things, but by associating myself with buddhism), but i'm quite sure buddha nature is more literal than that. You see, there is a difference between being enlightened and being a buddha. Of course a buddha is enlightened, but being a buddha includes more than enlightenment. We all have the potential to be enlightened or be a buddha. In fact, we are all buddhas by nature. Buddha means awoken, or something like that. The only reason we aren't buddha's is because of the illusions.
But see, we aren't potential. Potential is an illusion. We ARE buddha's by nature, we just need to realize it. This could hit us right now potentially. Generally there are steps to be taken before you can be enlightened, but it's our natural state.
TheJourney is an illusion. Even who I am in my "real" life is an illusion. I am not self. Buddhism is not nihilism. When you lose all of the illusions, you are left with truth(dharma) and buddha.
We're on very different ends of the spectrum.
The middle way. that statement is true oh so often.
Why any illusion can't be explained in terms of what is real? To say some thing thing is an illusion without even postulating the reality is really troubling. All I seem to get is seemingly pointed discussions and then some one quotes a sutta or gives a link to another web resource, be it audio video or text. The sheer volumes and the time and brain I need to invest in this is absolutely intimidating.
Look how Physicists dealt with the problem. They needed to see what an atom looks like. But there is no way you can get into an atom like you get into a building. So They postulated, built hyphotheses. Then compared the behavior of atom with the hyphothesis-based predictions. If the predictions do not match then the model is rejected. If it only partially matches, then the model is further improved and then the process is repeated.
Is such a thing done on existential issues?
I took the Vipassana course expecting that my experience will begin to melt the questions. It did not. To a question on what caused my first birth when there was zero kamma and zero sankara, they quoted Buddha's saying, "I am here to remove your arrows and end your suffering. Don't ask me who shot the arrow?"
My anxiety still remains? What if another arrow strikes after this moved? After nibbana I may become a victim of another birth the same way my very first birth happened.
Unless even a hypothetical answer is given, all this is just one more declaration by a man -- just like any other religion.
That only happens with consistent and sustained ardent practice.
who told you that you had zero kamma and zero sankara for your first birth?
if there is a birth (first or last or births in-between) it couldn't be there was zero kamma and zero sankara
in other words,
if there was zero kamma and zero sankara there couldn't be a birth
have you heard about the Teaching of Dependent Origination?
If not, read it, think over it, try to understand it and ask questions about it if it is hard to understand
if you understand Teaching of Dependent Origination, you yourself be able to get the answer to your question and it will not be a hypothetical answer
Then it will not be just one more declaration by a man, but your own understanding
Thanks for the remaining parts of the posting. but again I am referred to another resource and which will lead to a God-knows-how-many-weblinks-and-how-many-forums. Understanding atom models was not this difficult.
Can anyone share HIS/HER OWN understanding with me, a lazy/dull/tired/discouraged/impatient/in-a-hurry/whatever seeker?
Who said that finding the answer would be easy?
I've found that "taking the easy way out" and just having someone tell me the end result doesn't work. You have to go through your own steps necessary for you to understand it, otherwise it won't make sense to you or it won't be properly internalized. That's often a characteristic of people who know the truth, or are at least on the same path. Rather than simply answer the question they will help you form your own question and point you in the right direction to places you can do research to form your own conclusions.
I mean no offense, Tanda. As for your specific question, the buddha said that the first cause was an imponderable, meaning you'll go insane before you'll figure out the answer. But keep searching diligently in general, and you'll be pleased with what you find.(at least in my experience)
Tanda, I think your interlocutor is right about needing to ponder on Depedent Origination (pratityasamutpada). This is not a question of referring you to countless links as rather for you to go to the fundamental teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha rather than from any of us imperfect orators second hand. Puzzle through the original source material on the Four Truths of the Noble Ones and Dependent Origination, understanding how these links are present at any and every moment of consciousness. They are meant to be direct and experiential, not some obscure thought experiment.
According to most schools of Buddhist thought, there is no "first birth". Instead, there is an endless chain of confusion that stretches back from one's current birth. However, one doesn't really have to plumb the depths of hoary antiquity. The illustration of the arrow is not meant to shut down debate per se. It is in fact profoundly in accord with the scientific axiom to avoid unfalsifiable notions. One can speculate endlessly on what happened before and never really arrive at certainty, for the simple reason that these propositions are just thoughts about what happened that have no possibility to be tested.
Buddhist thought instead focuses on our present cognitive process. The onus is on observing and analyzing things for yourself, starting with testing of certain foundational axioms and building from there. It should not be a building up of a body of dogma, though some Buddhists certainly have done this. Instead, one develops some actual meditational experience based on indisputable truths, like suffering, death and the limits of language.
I understand your desire to go to first principles. The quest for a primum movens is an almost universal desire. In my experience however, it isn't very useful to approach Buddhist thought this way. Buddhism is more pragmatic and less cosmological.