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 beginner's question: Origin of Life.
What is the origin of life from the Buddhistic point of view?
0
Comments
<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="60%"><TBODY><TR><TD width="100%">" The Blessed One was once living at Kosambi in a wood of simsapa trees. He picked up a few leaves in his hand, and he asked the bhikkhus, ‘How do you conceive this, bhikkhus, which is more, the few leaves that I have picked up in my hand or those on the trees in the wood?
‘The leaves that the Blessed One has picked up in his hand are few, Lord; those in the wood are far more.’
‘So too, bhikkhus, the things that I have known by direct knowledge are more; the things that I have told you are only a few. Why have I not told them? Because they bring no benefit, no advancement in the Holy Life, and because they do not lead to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have not told them. And what have I told you? This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering. That is what I have told you. Why have I told it? Because it brings benefit, and advancement in the Holy Life, and because it leads to dispassion, to fading, to ceasing, to stilling, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. So bhikkhus, let your task be this: This is suffering; this is the origin of suffering; this is the cessation of suffering; this is the way leading to the cessation of suffering.’
[Samyutta Nikaya, LVI, 31]
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
On a personal note it is worth looking at the relative nature of all such questions, the infinite regress and circular doubt involved in such questions.
If so, could Buddhism be called a religion? Or a philosophy?
What is dukkha? Is it more than " suffering" ?
"investigating, experiencing and undestanding reality", which incidentally leads to ending all suffering.
About the suffering:
Is death the end of suffering?
But what is it according to you? Religion? Philosophy? Practice? Or more than one of the above?
I probably flunk the zen on this one. But it is my question.
In mainstream Buddhism, no. Then the answer to suffering would be to commit suicide. At least in mainstream Mahayana Buddhism, there is reincarnation until suffering "ceases".
Try this link: http://www.thebigview.com/buddhism/
not physical death but the death of what most non Buddhist call their self (your identity, your personality...).
Or at least to stop identifying with the illusion of the "self".
A common saying in Buddhism is: "To die before death is the best thing that can happen to you"
it is difficult to explain as there is necessary knowledge that you need to grasp in order to understand.
so... read on about Buddhism if you are interested!
There are many excellent books suggestion threads on the forum.
Buddhism will tell you the origin of suffering
I'm OK with religion, because it isn't just about ideas, it is about ideas as means in a practice, a discipline. There is a commitment involved. It means giving up something.
Are you talking about the process of reincarnation? i.e. after reincarnated, you are still you, but you are not you any more?
Is the reincarnation a basic doctrine (process) to all branches of Buddhism?
What is that? I think it is important.
Sorry, if I want to read all the info online, I won't be here.
but not necessarily rebirth after your physical body die.
rebirth is happening at every moments.
as far as i know yes.
but again, probably not the rebirth as you understand it.
read this, it will clear out many questions you have, and some that you may have after learning a bit more.
http://www.what-buddha-taught.net/Books3/Bhikkhu_Buddhadasa_The_Danger_of_I.htm
Buddhism has PLENTY to say about the nature of reality.
What happened to the Three Marks of Existence, Emptiness, Dependent Co-Arising, Non-Self, the 5 Aggregates, 6 sense bases, and many other precepts describing existence.
However, Buddhism does not say there is an origin of the world. It's beginningless as others have said.
.
no.
Reincarnation is a premise held uniquely by Mahayana Buddhism, and specifically by Tibetan Buddhism.
But only the most elevated - some would say enlightened - lamas are party to reincarnation.
An 'enlightened' Lama can decide the location of his reincarnation, and the emanation of his consciousness is born into a new human being.
Not a carbon copy, not a genetically-identical duplicate. Another being, with their own consciousness and identity.
This person is known as a 'Tulku', and is usually located by the deceased Lama's closest followers. He is then brought back to the monastery and brought up, educated and embraced as the reincarnated conciousness of the previous Lama. Upon reaching maturity, he is enthroned as the successive lama.
It's all in the 4 Noble Truths. The very first, original and fundamentally the most important teaching the Buddha ever gave.
There's loads of info on the net about these.
Please feel free to research them. I recommend it.
"There is rebirth of character, but no transmigration of a self. Thy thought-forms reappear, but there is no ego-entity transferred. The stanza uttered by a teacher is reborn in the scholar who repeats the words." - the Buddha
Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg54.htm
.
or was your reply to get back at another member?
He asked what Buddhism says about the origin of life. People gave the misleading answer that Buddhism only teaches about suffering. It is false to say that Buddhism has NOTHING to say about the nature of reality.
No.
.
Since: "What I teach now as before, O monks, is suffering and the cessation of suffering." Since he saw all things were dukkha and sought the unconditioned peace of Nibbana. That was the entire motivation of his path. All of what you just mentioned, is of dukkha, its origin, its cessation. Absolutely all of it. That is the purpose of all of his teachings. If it doesn't have anything to do with dukkha, you won't find him babbling about it.
Sure, maybe that was what he taught as the theme of that discourse. I doubt he said that to summarize his entire teachings. He sought Enlightenment and to be awakened. Awakened to supreme understanding. His name means "Enlightened One" not the "Unsuffering One."
Do you honestly think that Buddha didn't care about understanding the nature of reality and existence at all? Sure, it is true that right view, right understanding is part of the path to cease suffering. But I don't, for one second, think that Buddha only cared about the nature of reality because he wanted to stop suffering.
I would say he had a genuine interest in it, in and of itself as well as realizing that it was necessary to cease suffering.
.
Every single one of his teachings drives back to the 4NT.
The very reason he attained the name of "Awakened one" was because he got it.
Nobody else seemed to.
The moment he became enlightened, he ceased to suffer.
All the remainder, came afterwards.
What other reason can you think of?
You would hypothesise, you mean.... so please explain....What possible interest would anyone have about it, if not to use that knowledge to end suffering?
Once you have realised this interest leads you to end suffering - what other reason do you need?
"What I teach now as before..."...
As he taught, one who sees D.O. sees the Dhamma, and one who sees the Dhamma sees D.O. - which is an illustration of "the entire mass of suffering."
Again, all of the teachings you mentioned go back to the 4NTs, they're all related to the origin/cessation of dukkha.
He chose to call himself the "tathagata" which means "one who has thus come/gone."
"Enlightenment" is not a concept found in the suttas. Some people translate words such as "buddha" and "nibbana" as "enlightened/enlightenment"; this is in error.
"Straight ahead, your majesty, by the foothills of the Himalayas, is a country consummate in energy & wealth, inhabited by Kosalans: Solar by clan, Sakyans by birth. From that lineage I have gone forth, but not in search of sensual pleasures. Seeing the danger in sensual pleasures — and renunciation as rest — I go to strive. That's where my heart delights." -Snp III.1
"Subject to birth, subject to aging, subject to death, run-of-the-mill people are repelled by those who suffer from that to which they are subject. And if I were to be repelled by beings subject to these things, it would not be fitting for me, living as they do.' As I maintained this attitude — knowing the Dhamma without acquisitions — I overcame all intoxication with health, youth, & life as one who sees renunciation as rest. For me, energy arose, Unbinding was clearly seen. There's now no way I could partake of sensual pleasures. Having followed the holy life, I will not return. " -AN 3.38
Awakened to the Dhamma. And "the Dhamma" has been previously defined.
You can think whatever you want. But there's no indication he sought it for shits and giggles.
You're free to back up your theories.
Why of all the facets and characteristics of "reality" pick out Anicca, Dukkha, Anatta? Because they are most really real? or because contemplating them serves the end?
Why have any answer about the nature of anything, even in part, except for the sense of completeness it brings, if only for a moment?
"...one must first discipline and control one's own mind. If a man can control his mind he can find the way to Enlightenment, and all wisdom and virtue will naturally come to him." - Buddha
Source: http://www.zmeditation.com/thoughts-of-the-masters-buddha.html
"The two young Brahmans said: 'If thou knowest the way show it to us.'
And the Buddha said: 'The Tathagata sees the universe face to face and understands its nature.'"
Source: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/btg/btg50.htm
.
But to realise all things are comprised of elements is the same as realising emptiness.
Elements are void of self.
Emptiness = void of self
Elements = Emptiness
Emptiness = Elements
Form = Void
Void = Form
Feeling = Void
Void = Feeling
etc
The Buddha said in MN 115 that a wise person is skilled in the elements, skilled in the sense bases and skilled in dependent origination; that it is impossible for a person with right view to regard any formation as permanent, possessing lasting happiness and as self.
If it does not say, then you should not say it is "beginningless". Beginningless IS an idea of origin.
What I implied by that statement is that there is no origin and there is no beginning.
.
Could you name them? Hope it does not take many words. You do not have to explain them. (reminder: these 4 truths explain the origin of suffering)
I suggest having a look at MN 28:
<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> The Short Teaching Regarding the Heart of Perfect Wisdom
The sincere practitioner Avalokitesvara
while intently practicing the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation
perceived that all of the five phenomenal aggregates are empty of inherent existence
and was thereby saved from all suffering and distress.
He told Shariputra:
Form does not differ from emptiness,
emptiness does not differ from form.
That which is form is emptiness,
that which is emptiness is form.
The same is true of feelings,
perceptions, impulses, and consciousness.
Shariputra,
all perceived phenomena are marked with emptiness.
They do not appear or disappear,
they are neither tainted nor pure,
nor do they increase or decrease.
Therefore, in emptiness there is no form, no feeling,
no perception, no impulse, and no consciousness.
There is no eye, no ear, no nose, no tongue, no body, no mind;
no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch,
no object of mind,
no mind to perceive,
and so forth
until it is clear that there is no realm of mental consciousness.
There is no ignorance nor extinction of ignorance,
and so forth until no old age and death
and also no extinction of these phenomena.
There is no suffering, no origination,
no stopping, no path, no cognition,
nor is there attainment, because there is nothing to attain.
If the sincere practitioner depends on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation,
and the mind is not a hindrance,
without any hindrance no fears exist.
Far apart from every incorrect view one dwells in the final state of seeing clearly.
In the innumerable worlds and dimensions
all sincere practitioners depend on the Perfection of Wisdom Meditation
and thereby attain the final state of seeing clearly.
Therefore know that the Mantra of the Perfection of Wisdom
is the great transcendent mantra,
the great clarifying mantra,
the ultimate mantra,
the supreme mantra
which is able to relieve all suffering,
is perfectly clear,
and is beyond any mistaken perception.
So proclaim the Mantra of the Perfection of Wisdom.
Proclaim the mantra which says:
gate gate paragate parasamgate bodhi svaha.
“Gone Beyond, gone beyond, gone completely beyond, gone to the other shore.
Clarity.
So it is.”
So, what kind of "nature of reality" are you referring to? How does any reality indicate the origin of a person?
Very nice. I always refer back to the Heart Sutra when contemplating the true nature of reality.
.
How did the elements make life? Was I an element or elements?
Very well then. I misinterpreted "origin of life" as "origin of the world."
.
The commentaries define dukkha as "that which is hard to bear."
I know this wasn't directed at me, but as far as I'm aware, Buddhism accepts what science has to say about scientific matters. Currently, science (which doesn't necessarily have to refer to the mainstream science, there's alternative scientists as well), says that life originated from a process called abiogenesis. The process of life spawning from matter by way of the first self-replicating molecule that became increasingly complex.
.
So you are saying that life (and human) comes from emptiness.
Is there any substance (atom or basic particles) in that emptiness?
Anywhere in any Buddhism book said that?
When I asked you to back up your theory that the Buddha held a pointless interest in the nature of the universe and taught about it outside the context of suffering, I was asking for actual sutta references. Attributing words to the Buddha without providing an actual source and putting the word TRANSLATION "enlightenment" in bold when it could have been translated from the pali for "dog shit" or just pulled entirely out of thin air doesn't impress me much.
From Buddhanet.net (http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/qanda03.htm):
"What does the Buddha say about the origin of the universe?
It is interesting that the Buddha's explanation of the origin of the universe corresponds very closely to the scientific view. In the Aganna Sutta, the Buddha describes the universe being destroyed and then re-evolving into its present form over a period of countless millions of years. The first life formed on the surface of the water and again, over countless millions of years, evolved from simple into complex organisms. All these processes are without beginning or end and are set in motion by natural causes."
Here's the Sutta which is referred to: http://www.urbandharma.org/pdf/AggannaSutta.pdf
.
So, what is the origin of stress?