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.
A Very Basic Doubt
Well, I've been wondering about the Skandhas for some time now... And yesterday, it all came to a sudden end - it din't seem as though it was a cycle, but things seemed to terminate...
Starting with form, feeling arises, then, in turn, perception does, and then, of course, the consciousness does... From consciousness, craving arises, thus leading to volition or intention, hence mental formations are made... From here, I can't link this to the arisal of form...
But what actually troubles me is that, when a person dies, the form ceases to be and hence does all the other skandhas too... So where is the need for any enlightenment if everything's going to end at death irrespective of whether you are good or not????
Thanks, in advance for your answers...
Metta,
Nidish
Starting with form, feeling arises, then, in turn, perception does, and then, of course, the consciousness does... From consciousness, craving arises, thus leading to volition or intention, hence mental formations are made... From here, I can't link this to the arisal of form...
But what actually troubles me is that, when a person dies, the form ceases to be and hence does all the other skandhas too... So where is the need for any enlightenment if everything's going to end at death irrespective of whether you are good or not????
Thanks, in advance for your answers...
Metta,
Nidish
0
Comments
1. That (existential) nihilism is necessarily wrong view.
Consciousness terminating with death is only a problem if you cling to your existence. I just don't see that my consciousness terminating eternally has any effect on my present. One can only experience in the present moment. The future only matters if you choose that you want it to. Even were your consciousness to exist forever your memory would not be carried between rebirths and so it may as well have terminated after each life.
2. That ethical subjectivism is opposed by Buddhist meta, normative, or applied ethics.
For ethical subjectivism to be opposed there must be some objective ethical system. Buddhism doesn't carry such a view. Precepts aren't commandments, good and evil are subject to situation, even in Buddhism. Would a buddhist not steal to feed a dying man?
3. That buddhism necessitates a non-deterministic metaphysical description of reality.
It seems buddhists would be the first to disagree with the common non-compatibilist mantra. Those arguments all stem from a belief in some form of homunculus, or soul. Buddhism teaches that there is no inner-self that we are a series of processes, a river of being, verbs not nouns. We still have free will despite determinism. The idea that we don't have free will implies that there is something deeper than our minds, our consciousnesses, our bodies, which is being controlled by our more mundane selves. Of course we have free will, raise your arm in the air, do you have free will? but also of course given the same circumstances we would make the same decision. There is nothing within us restrained or coerced to take certain actions, we are our processes. Free will implies something within us is controlled.
Moral responsibility is certainly not untenable. The idea that it is not again assumes some deeper soul, we are judged based on the decisions coming from the processes of our physical selves, those physical selves we have control over with our brains. There is no part of us deeper, nothing is constrained there is no self that is not in control of our actions.
Also in general defense of nihilism, it is not as bleak a philosophy as is often perceived. There is still happiness, i choose buddhism as the best path to that happiness.
if you really need something to hold onto, and can't imagine acting with an eternal oblivion awaiting you, check this video series out, here is the first video.
First, the skandhas are empty. Even form is empty. The self as you perceive it now will not continue, of course. But, that is true no matter what your belief in any afterlife. You are clinging to a concept of self that is illusion in the first place. The fact that death exists does not rob life of meaning. In fact, it give life value, as a prescious moment that must be appreciated while it lasts.
Second, the Buddha did not say that the problem was people had to live a certain way so they could qualify for some God's Heavenly reward or a happy reincarnation. He said the problem is that you and I are suffering in this life. That is and has always been the problem. If you want to stop suffering, follow the prescription laid out by the Noble Truths, the 8-fold path.
Third, it is up to you, to decide what gives your life meaning. You have to decide that. A belief in an afterlife or reincarnation does not give anyone a purpose. So why do I get out of bed this morning, if it's all going to end someday? Because I'm not dead yet. Because I have a life to live.
Hope this helps.
All i can say (imo) your mind has not had a clear perception of death.
If it did, your mind would develop a certain sadness or tenderness.
In this compassion, naturally, your mind would not harm & only do good.
Kind regards
DD
Given all the mystery complexity interconnectedness and nuances of existence in this life it's very shaky ground to claim it all comes to an end.
IOW, "Nothing" is highly unlikely!
Put another way: There's only one 0 (zero) and it's accompanied by an infinite number of integers. That means the percent of nothing (zero) is nearly infinitely small in the world of numbers. BTW, The world of numbers is just one little world!