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.
Isn't the first of the four noble truths just obvious?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I just popped back to see if there had been any "fallout" from my final post on this forum before finally departing, and saw this.
Just a friendly word. I have no confusion over this, I was indeed from the very beginning of these exchanges speaking of "direct experience". Lets face it, we have only to dip virtually at random into any worthwhile book on "Buddhism" to meet with such as......."If you understand by thinking and know by pondering you are a thousand miles away" (Wu-chien)
The problem seems to lie with certain "western" converts who identify the dharma with some pristine purity of scientific expression, and when others use other words of expression, come out with such awful statements (as met with here) like...."You do not argue with me, you argue with the Dharma" Really!! The last time I met with such as this I was on a Christian Forum, when I found myself "arguing" with God, not with the poster themselves.
It does seem the case that while many who have been born and bred in the Buddhist heartlands - those such as D T Suzuki, Thich Nhat Hanh and even the Dalai Lama himself - are perfectly happy to express themselves with "western" expressions, and even compare many "Buddhist" concepts with those in different "western" traditions, these ardent converts see any such attempt as soiled, as smearing the "pure" dharma - i.e. how THEY see it, comprehend it, know it, express it - with nasty impure words.
Thich Nhat Hanh has himself said that for the Dharma to be expressed NOW exactly as it was THEN (at the time of the buddha) then the words need to change. Such is real life. And of course Hanh walks the talk.
So we probably disagree. Fine.
You can continue to claim I am "confused". Fine again.
All the best
It's simpler and more consistent to say that a Buddha is still subject to birth, ageing, death, pain, impermanence etc but does not experience these as dukkha.
I think it's highly relevant because the interpretation you're putting forward isn't internally consistent.
P
P
P
P
P
My interpretation I have been putting forward has been perfectly consistent.
I advised you Thanissaro was an unreliable translator. It is acknowledge Bhikkhu Bodhi is the best we have (but still not perfect).
I have just found Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation. Although I have never studied this sutta in detail, Bhikkhu Bodhi has somewhat agreed with me in his translation, but certainly disagreed with Thanissaro, where he has said:
"Suffering due to pain, suffering due to formations and suffering due to change."
But I prefer my translation of "suffering about pain", etc
Kind regards
c
G1
:banghead:
That's not to say there are no people who would react like that, but I've never met any of them.
Life is suffering.
Objects fall to the ground.
Sex feels good.
Two things equal to a third are equal to each other.
All obvious.
c
To speak of "certain people" IS NOT to stereotype, and seems your way of deflecting that it is in fact yourself who is hung up on words, apparently determined to assume your own "discernment"/"wisdom"/"insight" is of some quality unknown to others who would have the temerity to express themselves differently.
I seek to learn from others, and often do so. I have often seen in the words of others that which I need to take account of. I have judged my own understanding many times. Yet I have seen nothing in your posts, nor that of dhamma dhatu, that makes me think I am seeing the words of those who have any particular understanding that I can learn from. Perhaps if you could both stop presuming your own "wisdom" for just one moment, and actually consider that another had some of their own, you may well make progress yourselves, at least in being a human being if not an Arhant.
Your constant refusal to actually read and comprehend what is said to you........i.e. ejecting "claim" (the operative word) from the above quote, then saying confusion is not "fine", insinuating that I AM confused without actually stating why or how (except that you disagree with whatever I have said and presume your own "correctness"........)
Good grief!
The scientific view of Buddhism is not Western.
When East and West met last century, the more enlightened Asian Buddhists saw the scienfific west as an ideal place to nurture the higher (scientific) Buddhist teachings.
Even the Dalai Lama was orignally like this.
But then, later, the gurus realised many Westerners were not interested in this pure approach.
The obsession with rebirth & reincarnation from studying & practising Buddhists is Western and not Eastern.
In Asia, rebirth & reincarnation are taught to the average man in the street but often not to serious students & practitioners.
Monks in monasteries in Asia chant everyday and, at least in Theravada countries, the chants which guide practise are not about rebirth & reincarnation.
The Buddha defined his pure core dhamma as scientific, that is, verifiable.
All the best
Best to bow your head to the Buddha-Dhamma, rather than bang your head with confusion & frustration about what Buddha-Dhamma is.
:bowdown:
I'd be..........
The scientific view of Buddhism is not Western.
When East and West met last century, the more enlightened Asian Buddhists saw the scienfific west as an ideal place to nurture the higher (scientific) Buddhist teachings.
Even the Dalai Lama was orignally like this.
But then, later, the gurus realised many Westerners were not interested in this pure approach.
The obsession with rebirth & reincarnation from studying & practising Buddhists is Western and not Eastern.
In Asia, rebirth & reincarnation are taught to the average man in the street but often not to serious students & practitioners.
Monks in monasteries in Asia chant everyday and, at least in Theravada countries, the chants which guide practise are not about rebirth & reincarnation.
The Buddha defined his pure core dhamma as scientific, that is, verifiable.
Tariki responds......( careful not to say "I respond"....;) so as not to provide thecap with further ammunition!)
Dhamma Dhatu, regarding "western converts", by own "view" is based upon 10 years on Buddhist Forums and the comments and opinions passed by many, who appear to reject ANY expression of the Dharma not expressed in their own idioms. I spoke of CERTAIN people.
Obviously, just who are "more enlightened", what is "higher", who is or is not a true "guru", is again for each to determine. Personally I have no "obsession" with rebirth, but would not judge anyone who "believed" in such as not being a "serious practictioner", as you seem to imply.
I agree, the Buddha claimed his teaching as verifiable.
The Lord speaks with but one voice, but all beings, each according to his kind, gain understanding, each thinking that the Lord speaks his own language. This is a special quality of the Buddha. The Lord speaks with but one voice,but all beings, each according to his own ability, act upon it, and each derives his appropriate benefit. This is a special quality of the Buddha. (Vimalakirti Sutra)
Just as the nature of the earth is one
While beings each live separately,
And the earth has no thought of oneness or difference,
So is the truth of all Buddhas.
Just as the ocean is one
With millions of different waves,
Yet the water is no different:
So is the truth of all buddhas.
Just as the element earth, while one,
Can produce various sprouts,
yet it's not that the earth is diverse:
So is the truth of all Buddhas. (Hua-Yen Sutra)
I bring fullness and satisfaction to the world,
like rain that spreads its moisture everywhere.
Eminent and lowly, superior and inferior,
observers of precepts, violators of precepts,
those fully endowed with proper demeanor,
those not fully endowed,
those of correct views, of erroneous views,
of keen capacity, of dull capacity -
I cause the Dharma rain to rain on all equally,
never lax or neglectful.
When all the various living beings
hear my Law,
they receive it according to their power,
dwelling in their different environments.....
..The Law of the Buddhas
is constantly of a single flavour,
causing the many worlds
to attainfull satisfaction everywhere;
by practicing gradually and stage by stage,
all beings can gain the fruits of the way. (The Lotus Sutra, Parable of the Dharma Rain)
So each according to their own.
Impermanence is Anicca, which is taught alongside Anatta/Not-Self and Dukkha/Suffering. They are three separate teachings, but are all facets of the human existence to be fully and directly understood.
Dukkha is any and all dissatisfaction with life, that which disturbs the mind because the mind clings to conditions or to the aggregates. So it can be pain, because you take the pain to be affecting "your body"; or it could be the loss of a loved one, because you were attached to having them around (a condition for your happiness was their presence); or it could be fearing death because you imagine this means annihilation of who you are (a core essence or self/soul).
There's finally the dukkha of conditioned states, such as the mind constantly changing due to skillful and unskillful karma... until finally all fetters are dropped (Nirvana) and this conditioning ceases, karma doesn't cause any more change, and the "unconditioned" becomes the state of peace without requirement.
"Only sankhara-dukkhata is real dukkha".
Anyway I think we're agreeing with each other, which is rather nice. ;-)
P
P
when i said the above, i took sankhara-dukkhata to mean "attachment" and "dukkhata dukkha" to mean "pain" and the other one to mean "change"
i have been entirely consistent because, not been concerned about the meaning of Pali words, only SANKHARA is real dukkha, i.e., mental concocting
but is was you who were not consistent, when asserting Thanissaro's dodgy translation
if you ever accuse me of being inconsistent, then they will always be false
with metta
Where are you getting these odd ideas from? I can't see any support for them in the sutttas.
P
To be short, whole life is full of Dhukkha. Everything is not you, but you are clinging onto it as if it is. This causes mental suffering and that's why all debate about what is Dhukkha and what is not can be summarized: LIFE is dhukkha. This is what the Buddha said and this is what it means.
Now in theory this sounds easy, but those who fully faced it are enlightened and those who didn't are not. It's that simple, really.
How this process comes to an end, I don't know but at least it is obvious what the Buddha ment: All life is Dukkha, even enjoying life is Dukkha. All other views of Dhukkha also imply nirvana to be some kind of heaven, which it isn't. Nirvana means literally to die out like the flame of a candle. This already says it better than other descriptions could. A seemingly endless cycle of lives has come to an end, the end of samsara at last.
So, no the first truth isn't that obvious. In fact it will be totally unobvious at first, but will be more obvious as right view develops.
Sabre :vimp:
You're in good hands, old friend.
Sorry about the forums but there are other people to which conversation can be had.
Fundamentalist beliefs are a dime a dozen unfortunately.
Hope you're well wherever you are and whatever you are doing.
Abu
Sounds like you dropped in to pass judgement on the world
Best to open our mind to learning rather than believe we know.
In Zen, this is called "our tea cup being full".
Gassho
:wave:
People drink alcohol, do drugs, have sex and chase after money, all in order to find happiness. I would say it's definitely not obvious.
Good explanation.
P
If anyone has anything of substance or importance to add, regarding to the OP, be sure to let us know and we'll consider re-opening.