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 Sangha continued to grow and spread the Dhamma throughout Asia and the Middle East. Also there is speculation that it may have been brought to Egypt. Buddhism has survived for over 2500 years helping many beings live more skilfully and even overcome Suffering. In the last 200 years it has spread even further, now many of the 6 billion human beings living on this planet have heard of Buddhism thanks to Gautama Buddha. It is the reason that we are talking on this forum today.
That's briefly what has happened so far after the Maha-Pari-Nibbana of the Buddha.
But I don't understand. The idea of just ceasing to exist doesn't sound pleasent. It's no different than what the typical atheist believes happens upon death. There must be more to it than just not being born again. Maybe you become one with the universe? That's what i've always speculated. Pure speculation, but I have to assume that there's more to nirvana than just ceasing to exist or else I would avoid enlightenment.
It is not easy to understand. But I will try to explain my understanding to the best of my ability.
The idea of just ceasing to exist doesn't sound pleasent.
There are a couple of things which are not easy to comprehend which are fundamental to understanding Dhamma:
1) The five aggregates are not a self. There is no self, soul, "ground of all being", etc. to be found anywhere.
2) The five aggregates are suffering.
Now, if you put these two together you will see that: At pari-nibbana it is only the five aggregates which fall apart, not a self. There never was a self to begin with, so it is not possible for a self to cease. The reason it doesn't sound pleasant for "you" to cease is because you believe two things:
1) The five aggregates either are a self, or contain a self, or are contained within a self or depend in some way on a self.
2) The five aggregates are happiness.
I can't remember the source now, but there is a quote that says "What the Enlightened Ones say is suffering, the ordinary worldlings say is happiness. What the Enlightened Ones say is happiness, the ordinary worldlings say is suffering." So delusion makes us see things the wrong way around.
It's no different than what the typical atheist believes happens upon death.
It is different in that materialists believe that the body is the self (or that the body is dependent on the self or the self depends on the body or the self is contained within the body or the body is contained within the self, etc). Whereas Buddhists believe that there is no self to be found in any of the five aggregates.
There must be more to it than just not being born again.
That's what i've always speculated. Pure speculation, but I have to assume that there's more to nirvana than just ceasing to exist or else I would avoid enlightenment.
Many of us are probably not ready. I believe that we are probably all capable of attaining Nibbana, but not necessarily willing. This is why Ajahn Chah would often ask people who wanted to ordain "have you come here to die?"
Is it possible that there's a self that's not one of the 5 aggregates? Cuz that's what makes sense to me. Cuz nirvana is said to be the ultimate happiness, and I have a hard time believing that it's something that would be undesirable to 99% of people, at least compared to a positive rebirth.
Even a favorable rebirth, according to Buddhism, is impermanent. So it cannot be an ultimate goal.
If there is a self that has nothing to do with the five aggregates, how could we possibly comprehend it? All consciousness is part of the five aggregates so therefore we could not be aware of any such self. All feeling is part of the five aggregates so if there is a self it cannot be considered pleasant or unpleasant. All volition is part of the five aggregates, therefore if there is a self it cannot express any will.
If there is such a self that cannot be known, is unconscious, has no feelings, no will...then it is as useful as a dead log in a forest. So for all intents and purposes all Dhammas are not-self.
So all buddhists(well, who know what they're talking about) believe that enlightenment is just being gone? And if the world was enlightened than the universe would cease to exist? I just can't believe that the ultimate goal is to be gone. Not saying you're wrong, I just can't believe it. To me if that's what enlightenment is than suffering is meaningless and just a word. I think that enlightenment is something that is somehow, even if it's not understandable to me, incredible. I understand that no matter how great of a birth you have it's still suffering, but in comparison to being gone it's great. There would be nothing except for suffering if you were just gone after being enlightened.
So all buddhists(well, who know what they're talking about) believe that enlightenment is just being gone? And if the world was enlightened than the universe would cease to exist? I just can't believe that the ultimate goal is to be gone. Not saying you're wrong, I just can't believe it.
The ultimate goal is not "to be gone". This implies that there was something there to begin with which will go. Only suffering goes. The ultimate goal is for suffering "to be gone". Hopefully this passage from the Visuddhi Magga helps to clarify:
"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there.
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it.
The path is, but no traveller on it is seen,"
"No doer of the deeds is found,
No being that may reap their fruits.
Empty phenomena roll on!
This is the only right view."
The ultimate goal is not "to be gone". This implies that there was something there to begin with which will go. Only suffering goes. The ultimate goal is for suffering "to be gone". Hopefully this passage from the Visuddhi Magga helps to clarify:
"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there.
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it.
The path is, but no traveller on it is seen,"
"No doer of the deeds is found,
No being that may reap their fruits.
Empty phenomena roll on!
This is the only right view."
Hmm. I guess that makes sense. I think it's something that you have to be enlightened to truly understand, though.
Agreed, but such verses can at least get us looking in the right direction.
The main thing i'm confused about is....does nirvana exist? Like...is it something?
Cuz now i'm thinking that there is only suffering and nirvana, no self, but nirvana does exist. Like...enlightenment/nirvana is simply a state of being. Like, if "I" were to get enlightened it would just be "me" experiencing nirvana, but really there is no "me" it's just the experience.. Like, nirvana is the experience of there being no suffering, therefore the less we suffer the closer we are to nirvana. Another way of putting what i'm saying/asking is this. If I enter nirvana and cease to exist, is there still nirvana or is there simply slightly less suffering? Idk, i'll look at those links.
Woah. I need to finish up what i'm doing so I can watch that stuff, cuz i'm not 100% sure what i'm thinking is right(how could you be? unless you had experienced it), but I belieeve I am starting to understand what it means that everything is empty and devoid of self, and it's implications. I feel like it has changed my entire outlook, just this one understanding. Well I really appreciate the talk, it seemingly has helped me out!
(woah, that "high" feeling is really strong right now.)
The mahayana believes buddha still helps us directly in the world. But as my teacher says "it is outside of time and space". The same dimension how karma works. We are not hopping from life to life with a backpack of karma on. It is more mysterious than that and the karmic connections operate outside of time and space. Or thats what my teacher said to me. What do I know? But it makes sense that the actual cause and effect cannot span from ancient rome to modern days to create a rebirth of 'me'.
The mahayana believes buddha still helps us directly in the world. But as my teacher says "it is outside of time and space". The same dimension how karma works. We are not hopping from life to life with a backpack of karma on. It is more mysterious than that and the karmic connections operate outside of time and space. Or thats what my teacher said to me. What do I know? But it makes sense that the actual cause and effect cannot span from ancient rome to modern days to create a rebirth of 'me'.
That makes sense to me. I've been doing a little bit of research and the mahayana concept of nirvana etc. resonates with me. Who knows, maybe it's because my mind isn't able to wrap around the true nature of this stuff, but the buddha helping people directly in this world seems to be true to me.
It's like what I said in my other thread, about how everything happens for a reason. Couldn't that reason be the buddha nature? Since buddha transcends time and space, couldn't everything be buddha? Therefore the path to enlightenment is a very specific path that buddha has led us on, and when we attain enlightenment we know that it was the "right" way to enlightenment as it was buddha that brought us there. that makes a lot of sense to me. idk. just thinkin out loud(er...text ) here.
In Mahāyāna Buddhism, Nirvana and Samsara are said to be not-different when viewed from the ultimate nature of the Dharmakaya. An individual can attain Nirvana by following the Buddhist path. If they were ultimately different this would be impossible. Thus, the duality between Nirvana and Samsara is only accurate on the conventional level. Another way to arrive at this conclusion is through the analysis that all phenomena are empty of an essential identity, and therefore suffering is never inherent in any situation. Thus liberation from suffering and its causes is not a metaphysical shift of any kind. For better explication of this thinking see two-truths doctrine.
The Theravāda school makes the antithesis of Samsara and Nibbāna the starting point of the entire quest for deliverance. Even more, it treats this antithesis as determinative of the final goal, which is precisely the transcendence of Samsara and the attainment of liberation in Nibbāna. Where Theravada differs significantly from the Mahāyāna schools, which also start with the duality of Samsara and Nirvana, is in not regarding this polarity as a mere preparatory lesson tailored for those with blunt faculties, to be eventually superseded by some higher realization of non-duality<sup class="Template-Fact" title="This claim needs references to reliable sources from June 2009" style="white-space: nowrap;"></sup>. From the standpoint of the Pāli Suttas, even for the Buddha and the Arahants suffering and its cessation, Samsara and Nibbāna, remain distinct
The mahayana schools teaching on this makes more sense to me. It seems to me that mahayana and theravada are both just different paths to the same goal, and ultimately have the same destination.
To put it very simply, because, in the context of this thread, mind tries to understand "true nature" via mental constructions and fabrications (thoughts, ideas, concepts, theories, etc.) but these are the very things that obscure true nature to begin with. It's almost like trying to put out a fire with a flamethrower. True nature arises when these things are left behind. Mind can help you understand how to leave them behind, but understanding how to leave them behind and actually leaving them behind, are 2 very different things.
To put it very simply, because, in the context of this thread, mind tries to understand "true nature" via mental constructions and fabrications (thoughts, ideas, concepts, theories, etc.) but these are the very things that obscure true nature to begin with. It's almost like trying to put out a fire with a flamethrower. True nature arises when these things are left behind. Mind can help you understand how to leave them behind, but understanding how to leave them behind and actually leaving them behind, are 2 very different things.
I think I see what you mean. Leaving them behind is something one must do, something one must experience. Yes?
seeker242 is quite right. We can't possibly understand these things. Think about everyday life and everything you come in contact with every hour. The fact is that just to function, we need to ignore 99% of everything around us and only focus on what we feel is relevant. Then we go ahead and generalise... we put everything into categories so that we can quickly decide it's purpose and how we feel about it. We form dichotomies for everything... we invented numbers to keep things tidy... we made up relationships between those numbers and quantities and made up units of measurement like Newtons, meters, Farads, grams, litres and so on. We came up with constants to link these units together somehow and we gave numerical values to everything to make sure we can use formulas. We then make devices to measure those values so that they feel more real.
Then when you're brought up in that environment, everything fits somewhere and if it doesn't, we argue about where it should fit. We feel like these units are real, we feel that everything has certain properties by nature and so on. In reality, we made it all up... we can't see the true nature of anything without making one up. We just don't have the brain power or senses to see how things are.
Perhaps my beliefs on the nature of self is a wrong view only in theravada? because i'm reading stuff on buddhanet and it says that what i've always thought is true.
When that level is attained, the mind comprehends the universe as the Self, and the Self, as the universe
The universe cannot be known outside of the five khandhas. If the five khandhas are not-self, then surely the universe is also not-self.
when i say universe I don't mean the physical universe. I mean the sum of all that exists. That's what I, in my true buddha nature, am. There is no truth that my true self is not. The universe, as it really is, is simply dharmakaya, the ultimate truth, and that's who I, and you, and everyone else, really is. There is no separation, that is just an illusion.
when i say universe I don't mean the physical universe. I mean the sum of all that exists. That's what I, in my true buddha nature, am. There is no truth that my true self is not. The universe, as it really is, is simply dharmakaya, the ultimate truth, and that's who I, and you, and everyone else, really is. There is no separation, that is just an illusion.
Sounds like a subtle form of conceit (asmi-mana) to me. The view that "I am better" is an obvious form of conceit. Also "I am worse" is another less obvious form of conceit. The one a lot of people forget about is "I am the same". To suggest that "we are all the same" is still conceit.
Sounds like a subtle form of conceit (asmi-mana) to me. The view that "I am better" is an obvious form of conceit. Also "I am worse" is another less obvious form of conceit. The one a lot of people forget about is "I am the same". To suggest that "we are all the same" is still conceit.
conceit=excessive pride. pride=SELF-worth. If we're all one and the same, by using the definitions it cannot be conceit. Besides, better, worse, and same are the only options.
What it comes down to is whether you believe in the buddha nature or not. To me it makes sense, but of course you are free to believe as you wish.
They are the only options to the thinking/judging mind. They are all measurements. What about when there are no measurements? Can there be a measurer?
We are all one. I'm not equal to you, we are both the same self when you strip away all of the illusions. literally. A buddha is a physical manifestation of that self.
We are all one. I'm not equal to you, we are both the same self when you strip away all of the illusions. literally. A buddha is a physical manifestation of that self.
I'm going to have to disagree. It seems to go against the Teachings to suggest that there is some kind of ultimate self/atta/soul. In fact this is one of the things that seperated The Buddha from a lot of other spiritual teachers.
The Buddha's Teachings can be summed up as:
Sabbe sankhara anicca. (all conditioned phenomena are impermanent)
Sabbe sankhara dukkha. (all conditioned phenomena are suffering) Sabbe dhamma anatta. (all dhammas are not-self)
I'm going to have to disagree. It seems to go against the Teachings to suggest that there is some kind of ultimate self/atta/soul. In fact this is one of the things that seperated The Buddha from a lot of other spiritual teachers.
The Buddha's Teachings can be summed up as:
Sabbe sankhara anicca. (all conditioned phenomena are impermanent)
Sabbe sankhara dukkha. (all conditioned phenomena are suffering) Sabbe dhamma anatta. (all dhammas are not-self)
Like I said you are 100% free to your beliefs. Mine aren't any less buddhist than yours, though.
The Dharmakāya is a central idea in Mahayana Buddhism forming part of the Trikaya doctrine that was possibly first expounded in the Aṣṭasāhasrikā prajñā-pāramitā (The Perfection of Insight In Eight Thousand Verses), composed in the 1st century BCE. It constitutes the unmanifested, "inconceivable" aspect of a Buddha, out of which Buddhas – and indeed all "phenomena" (Sanskrit: dharmas) – arise, and to which they return after their dissolution. Critical Buddhism argues that this concept is dhatu-vada (essentialist) and hence not Buddhist, because it posits that all things arise and return to an all encompassing one
...the ultimate nature or essence of the enlightened mind I]byang-chub sems[/I, which is uncreated (skye-med), free from the limits of conceptual elaboration (spros-pa'i mtha'-bral), empty of inherent existence (rang-bzhin-gyis stong-pa), naturally radiant, beyond duality and spacious like the sky. The intermediate state of the time of death ('chi-kha'i bar-do) is considered to be an optimum time for the realisation of the Buddha-body of Reality.
Comments
He wasn't reborn anymore, which is the main objective of this game
The Sangha continued to grow and spread the Dhamma throughout Asia and the Middle East. Also there is speculation that it may have been brought to Egypt. Buddhism has survived for over 2500 years helping many beings live more skilfully and even overcome Suffering. In the last 200 years it has spread even further, now many of the 6 billion human beings living on this planet have heard of Buddhism thanks to Gautama Buddha. It is the reason that we are talking on this forum today.
That's briefly what has happened so far after the Maha-Pari-Nibbana of the Buddha.
It is not easy to understand. But I will try to explain my understanding to the best of my ability.
There are a couple of things which are not easy to comprehend which are fundamental to understanding Dhamma:
1) The five aggregates are not a self. There is no self, soul, "ground of all being", etc. to be found anywhere.
2) The five aggregates are suffering.
Now, if you put these two together you will see that: At pari-nibbana it is only the five aggregates which fall apart, not a self. There never was a self to begin with, so it is not possible for a self to cease. The reason it doesn't sound pleasant for "you" to cease is because you believe two things:
1) The five aggregates either are a self, or contain a self, or are contained within a self or depend in some way on a self.
2) The five aggregates are happiness.
I can't remember the source now, but there is a quote that says "What the Enlightened Ones say is suffering, the ordinary worldlings say is happiness. What the Enlightened Ones say is happiness, the ordinary worldlings say is suffering." So delusion makes us see things the wrong way around.
It is different in that materialists believe that the body is the self (or that the body is dependent on the self or the self depends on the body or the self is contained within the body or the body is contained within the self, etc). Whereas Buddhists believe that there is no self to be found in any of the five aggregates.
Why must there be?
No, this is one of the 62 wrong views.
Many of us are probably not ready. I believe that we are probably all capable of attaining Nibbana, but not necessarily willing. This is why Ajahn Chah would often ask people who wanted to ordain "have you come here to die?"
If there is a self that has nothing to do with the five aggregates, how could we possibly comprehend it? All consciousness is part of the five aggregates so therefore we could not be aware of any such self. All feeling is part of the five aggregates so if there is a self it cannot be considered pleasant or unpleasant. All volition is part of the five aggregates, therefore if there is a self it cannot express any will.
If there is such a self that cannot be known, is unconscious, has no feelings, no will...then it is as useful as a dead log in a forest. So for all intents and purposes all Dhammas are not-self.
The ultimate goal is not "to be gone". This implies that there was something there to begin with which will go. Only suffering goes. The ultimate goal is for suffering "to be gone". Hopefully this passage from the Visuddhi Magga helps to clarify:
"Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.
The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there.
Nibbana is, but not the man that enters it.
The path is, but no traveller on it is seen,"
"No doer of the deeds is found,
No being that may reap their fruits.
Empty phenomena roll on!
This is the only right view."
Hmm. I guess that makes sense. I think it's something that you have to be enlightened to truly understand, though.
Agreed, but such verses can at least get us looking in the right direction.
The main thing i'm confused about is....does nirvana exist? Like...is it something?
Cuz now i'm thinking that there is only suffering and nirvana, no self, but nirvana does exist. Like...enlightenment/nirvana is simply a state of being. Like, if "I" were to get enlightened it would just be "me" experiencing nirvana, but really there is no "me" it's just the experience.. Like, nirvana is the experience of there being no suffering, therefore the less we suffer the closer we are to nirvana. Another way of putting what i'm saying/asking is this. If I enter nirvana and cease to exist, is there still nirvana or is there simply slightly less suffering? Idk, i'll look at those links.
(woah, that "high" feeling is really strong right now.)
That makes sense to me. I've been doing a little bit of research and the mahayana concept of nirvana etc. resonates with me. Who knows, maybe it's because my mind isn't able to wrap around the true nature of this stuff, but the buddha helping people directly in this world seems to be true to me.
It's like what I said in my other thread, about how everything happens for a reason. Couldn't that reason be the buddha nature? Since buddha transcends time and space, couldn't everything be buddha? Therefore the path to enlightenment is a very specific path that buddha has led us on, and when we attain enlightenment we know that it was the "right" way to enlightenment as it was buddha that brought us there. that makes a lot of sense to me. idk. just thinkin out loud(er...text
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmakaya
This makes a lot of sense to me.
The mahayana schools teaching on this makes more sense to me. It seems to me that mahayana and theravada are both just different paths to the same goal, and ultimately have the same destination.
Using your mind to try and understand the true nature of this stuff will always result in failure.
To put it very simply, because, in the context of this thread, mind tries to understand "true nature" via mental constructions and fabrications (thoughts, ideas, concepts, theories, etc.) but these are the very things that obscure true nature to begin with. It's almost like trying to put out a fire with a flamethrower. True nature arises when these things are left behind. Mind can help you understand how to leave them behind, but understanding how to leave them behind and actually leaving them behind, are 2 very different things.
Yes, and that experience is brought about by doing the practices that the Buddha himself practiced.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JWqut2W2Wg0
Then when you're brought up in that environment, everything fits somewhere and if it doesn't, we argue about where it should fit. We feel like these units are real, we feel that everything has certain properties by nature and so on. In reality, we made it all up... we can't see the true nature of anything without making one up. We just don't have the brain power or senses to see how things are.
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/heartl03.htm
when i say universe I don't mean the physical universe. I mean the sum of all that exists. That's what I, in my true buddha nature, am. There is no truth that my true self is not. The universe, as it really is, is simply dharmakaya, the ultimate truth, and that's who I, and you, and everyone else, really is. There is no separation, that is just an illusion.
Sounds like a subtle form of conceit (asmi-mana) to me. The view that "I am better" is an obvious form of conceit. Also "I am worse" is another less obvious form of conceit. The one a lot of people forget about is "I am the same". To suggest that "we are all the same" is still conceit.
conceit=excessive pride. pride=SELF-worth. If we're all one and the same, by using the definitions it cannot be conceit. Besides, better, worse, and same are the only options.
What it comes down to is whether you believe in the buddha nature or not. To me it makes sense, but of course you are free to believe as you wish.
They are the only options to the thinking/judging mind. They are all measurements. What about when there are no measurements? Can there be a measurer?
We are all one. I'm not equal to you, we are both the same self when you strip away all of the illusions. literally. A buddha is a physical manifestation of that self.
I'm going to have to disagree. It seems to go against the Teachings to suggest that there is some kind of ultimate self/atta/soul. In fact this is one of the things that seperated The Buddha from a lot of other spiritual teachers.
The Buddha's Teachings can be summed up as:
Sabbe sankhara anicca. (all conditioned phenomena are impermanent)
Sabbe sankhara dukkha. (all conditioned phenomena are suffering)
Sabbe dhamma anatta. (all dhammas are not-self)
Like I said you are 100% free to your beliefs. Mine aren't any less buddhist than yours, though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharmak%C4%81ya
same to you