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.
How did the elements make life? Was I an element or elements?
HH the current Dalai Lama is an avid student of science, even to the point at which he has stated that if anything in science disproves anything of vital importance to Buddhism then he can no longer be a Buddhist (I guess he could still do the lecture circuit as a motivational speaker). So I would guess that the best modern Buddhist minds would go with the best modern science to answer questions like the origin of life.
So yes, you are composed of elements.
I don't know if any Buddhist is clear as to where consciousness comes from. From a Tibetan Mahayana point of view, it seems like everything takes place within the "clear light" or "open space" of consciousness. I have just always had the impression that for Buddhism, consciousness "always has been". But the reason I posted the Heart Sutra was to show that we're getting out into the area where verbal and conceptual tools are like fingers pointing at the moon.
Somebody could talk about reductionism here, or the example of the warrior struck by the arrow.
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, is abiogenesis acceptable to Buddhism?
Or does Buddhism (all sutras and modern elaborations) ignore such idea.
What is the origin of life from the Buddhistic point of view?
There really isn't one. In DN 27, the Buddha does give what can be interpreted as a rough theory of evolution to a pair of brahmins in that the physical characteristics of the mythological beings in question change due to environmental changes and interactions. That being said, I agree with Prof. Gombrich that, taking the context of DN 27 into account, this sutta is a lively and ingenious parody that was actually meant to make fun of the very need for a cosmology as a foundation for religious development.
Personally, I think you'd be better off asking an evolutionary biologist about this. Buddhism deals exclusively with mental stress and its cessation (i.e., psychology), not biology, or physics, etc.
"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."
HH the current Dalai Lama is an avid student of science, even to the point at which he has stated that if anything in science disproves anything of vital importance to Buddhism then he can no longer be a Buddhist (I guess he could still do the lecture circuit as a motivational speaker). So I would guess that the best modern Buddhist minds would go with the best modern science to answer questions like the origin of life.
So yes, you are composed of elements.
I don't know if any Buddhist is clear as to where consciousness comes from. From a Tibetan Mahayana point of view, it seems like everything takes place within the "clear light" or "open space" of consciousness. I have just always had the impression that for Buddhism, consciousness "always has been". But the reason I posted the Heart Sutra was to show that we're getting out into the area where verbal and conceptual tools are like fingers pointing at the moon.
Somebody could talk about reductionism here, or the example of the warrior struck by the arrow.
This is a great answer. Thanks. I have some homework to do.
Of course I abhor torrent downloading as stealing, but the NOVA series The Elegant Universe with (?) (Brian?) (Patrick?) Greene fills in this line of scientific inquiry, well, elegantly. The visuals in the first episode are a truly beautiful example of Buddhist reductionism.
There really isn't one. In DN 27, the Buddha does give what can be interpreted as a rough theory of evolution to a pair of brahmins in that the physical characteristics of the mythological beings in question change due to environmental changes and interactions. That being said, I agree with Prof. Gombrich that, taking the context of DN 27 into account, this sutta is a lively and ingenious parody that was actually meant to make fun of the very need for a cosmology as a foundation for religious development.
Personally, I think you'd be better off asking an evolutionary biologist about this. Buddhism deals exclusively with mental stress and its cessation (i.e., psychology), not biology, or physics, etc.
I heard this a few times. Is this acceptable to everything who replied to me?
Of course I abhor torrent downloading as stealing, but the NOVA series The Elegant Universe with (?) (Brian?) (Patrick?) Greene fills in this line of scientific inquiry, well, elegantly. The visuals in the first episode are a truly beautiful example of Buddhist reductionism.
Would you give me a quote in any sutra about this?
I heard this a few times. Is this acceptable to everything who replied to me?
Is to me. The best evidence-based science is what Buddhists would do in this age. I think evolutionary biology is fascinating, and I'd be willing to bet old Tendzin Gyatso likes it too.
The Buddha said that "the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging'" (SN 12.12).
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.
The Buddha said that "the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging'" (SN 12.12).
I asked: why do we crave.
Why is this question wrong?
Buddhism "assumes" that craving is a nature comes with every birth. Does this apply to animals? If yes, what else does an animal crave except food and repopulation? If a being is born as a human, then he would have more things to crave about. So, there must be a reason for human who craves more than just food and sex-for-repopulation. It probably is not a good idea to overlook the reason, but only to seek the cure.
I asked: why do we crave.
Why is this question wrong?
The question isn't wrong so much as it's wrongly put. For example, when asked who experiences things such as craving, etc., the Buddha re-frames these questions in a way that's conducive to liberation, i.e., in terms of dependent co-arising.
In other words, when answering the question of "who" or "what" craves, etc., the Buddha speaks only in terms of conditionality—that which conditions the origination of suffering, and that which conditions its cessation (SN 12.12). There's no mention of an "experiencer," only the complex process by which suffering arises and ceases. Essentially, it's up to the meditator to use these teachings as a guideline for observing their experience of the present moment in terms of the four noble truths and to perform the tasks associated with each, i.e., comprehend suffering, abandon its cause, realize its cessation, and develop the path to that cessation.
Furthermore, the question as it's phrased will inevitably lead to one of the two extreme forms of wrong view, eternalism and annihilationism. For example, in SN 12.17 the Buddha explains:
"Now, when asked, 'Is stress self-made?' you say, 'Don't say that, Kassapa.' When asked, 'Then is it other-made?' you say, 'Don't say that, Kassapa.' When asked, 'Then is it both self-made and other-made?' you say, 'Don't say that, Kassapa.' When asked, 'Then is it the case that stress, being neither self-made nor other-made, arises spontaneously?' you say, 'Don't say that, Kassapa.' When asked, 'Then does stress not exist?' you say, 'It's not the case, Kassapa, that stress does not exist. Stress does exist.' When asked, 'Well, in that case, does Master Gotama not know or see stress?' you say, 'Kassapa, it's not the case that I don't know or see stress. I know stress. I see stress.' Then explain stress to me, lord Blessed One. Teach me about stress, lord Blessed One!"
"'The one who acts is the one who experiences [the result of the act]' amounts to the eternalist statement, 'Existing from the very beginning, stress is self-made.' 'The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences' amounts to the annihilationist statement, 'For one existing harassed by feeling, stress is other-made.' Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:
From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.
Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
Buddhism "assumes" that craving is a nature comes with every birth. Does this apply to animals? If yes, what else does an animal crave except food and repopulation? If a being is born as a human, then he would have more things to crave about. So, there must be a reason for human who craves more than just food and sex-for-repopulation. It probably is not a good idea to overlook the reason, but only to seek the cure.
The Buddha didn't teach animals, he taught human being; so I think it's kind of a moot point. Nevertheless, I think you're misunderstanding what craving is referring to here.
In Buddhist psychology, desire and craving are two different things: desire (chanda) is a neutral term, and one generally has to have the desire to achieve a goal in order to achieve it (e.g., to acquire food in order to relieve hunger); whereas the Pali word for craving, tahna (literally "thirst"), is something that's directly tied to stress and suffering. It's a very subtle but powerful aspect of our psychology that's latent in the mind, waiting to exert its influence through mental fashionings (sankharas).
I heard this a few times. Is this acceptable to everything who replied to me?
Much of the DN was designed to convert Hindus into Buddhists so, as expressions of ultimate truth, many writings in the DN are not acceptable to some Buddhists.
Some Buddhists would say this is just a story or parable, quite similar to the Book of Genesis in the Bible.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
edited May 2010
Kindly maintain the thread topic and don't fly off into personal tangential discussions of your own.
There is a PM facility for that.
The question isn't wrong so much as it's wrongly put. For example, when asked who experiences things such as craving, etc., the Buddha re-frames these questions in a way that's conducive to liberation, i.e., in terms of dependent co-arising.
In other words, when answering the question of "who" or "what" craves, etc., the Buddha speaks only in terms of conditionality—that which conditions the origination of suffering, and that which conditions its cessation (SN 12.12). There's no mention of an "experiencer," only the complex process by which suffering arises and ceases. Essentially, it's up to the meditator to use these teachings as a guideline for observing their experience of the present moment in terms of the four noble truths and to perform the tasks associated with each, i.e., comprehend suffering, abandon its cause, realize its cessation, and develop the path to that cessation.
Furthermore, the question as it's phrased will inevitably lead to one of the two extreme forms of wrong view, eternalism and annihilationism. For example, in SN 12.17 the Buddha explains:
"Now, when asked, 'Is stress self-made?' you say, 'Don't say that, Kassapa.' When asked, 'Then is it other-made?' you say, 'Don't say that, Kassapa.' When asked, 'Then is it both self-made and other-made?' you say, 'Don't say that, Kassapa.' When asked, 'Then is it the case that stress, being neither self-made nor other-made, arises spontaneously?' you say, 'Don't say that, Kassapa.' When asked, 'Then does stress not exist?' you say, 'It's not the case, Kassapa, that stress does not exist. Stress does exist.' When asked, 'Well, in that case, does Master Gotama not know or see stress?' you say, 'Kassapa, it's not the case that I don't know or see stress. I know stress. I see stress.' Then explain stress to me, lord Blessed One. Teach me about stress, lord Blessed One!"
"'The one who acts is the one who experiences [the result of the act]' amounts to the eternalist statement, 'Existing from the very beginning, stress is self-made.' 'The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences' amounts to the annihilationist statement, 'For one existing harassed by feeling, stress is other-made.' Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:
From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.
Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
The Buddha didn't teach animals, he taught human being; so I think it's kind of a moot point. Nevertheless, I think you're misunderstanding what craving is referring to here.
In Buddhist psychology, desire and craving are two different things: desire (chanda) is a neutral term, and one generally has to have the desire to achieve a goal in order to achieve it (e.g., to acquire food in order to relieve hunger); whereas the Pali word for craving, tahna (literally "thirst"), is something that's directly tied to stress and suffering. It's a very subtle but powerful aspect of our psychology that's latent in the mind, waiting to exert its influence through mental fashionings (sankharas).
Thanks for the long reply. But, (hey, how do I put a smily face here?)
First, what is SN?
Second, now we have a better word: desire.
So animal desire. But human desire AND crave.
Then the question is still there: why is human different from animal?
Thanks for the long reply. But, (hey, how do I put a smily face here?)
First, what is SN?
Abbreviation for the Samyutta Nikaya.
Second, now we have a better word: desire.
So animal desire. But human desire AND crave.
Then the question is still there: why is human different from animal?
I don't really understand what you're trying to get at here. Nobody has said they're the same or different, so it's still a moot point. Besides, Buddhism is concerned with human mental suffering, how it arises and how it ceases—nothing more, nothing less.
I don't really understand what you're trying to get at here. Nobody has said they're the same or different, so it's still a moot point. Besides, Buddhism is concerned with human mental suffering, how it arises and how it ceases—nothing more, nothing less.
Someone told me that Buddhism is a religion. If so, it would be more than just a philosophy, which is what you said.
If Buddhism is a religion, then it "has to" include the role of animal.
So is my question: why is human different from animal?
Someone told me that Buddhism is a religion. If so, it would be more than just a philosophy, which is what you said.
I've said nothing about religion or philosophy; although out of the two I'd say it's closer to a philosophy than a religion.
If Buddhism is a religion, then it "has to" include the role of animal.
So is my question: why is human different from animal?
A. Buddhism doesn't have a "role" for animals. As I've repeatedly said, Buddhism deals exclusively with mental stress and its cessation (i.e., psychology), nothing more, nothing less. Ahimsa, or the principle of non-harming, is part of the practice, and is directed towards to all sentient beings, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
B. Humans are animals, but the animal kingdom is extremely variegated. Humans differ from other animals in a variety of ways, one of them being our ability to produce things, especially our means of subsistence. And, of course, there's our levels of culture and communication, which is another difference.
I've said nothing about religion or philosophy; although out of the two I'd say it's closer to a philosophy than a religion.
A. Buddhism doesn't have a "role" for animals. As I've repeatedly said, Buddhism deals exclusively with mental stress and its cessation (i.e., psychology), nothing more, nothing less. Ahimsa, or the principle of non-harming, directed towards to all sentient beings, is part of the practice, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
B. Humans are animals, but the animal kingdom is extremely variegated. Humans differ from other animals in a variety of ways, one of them being our ability to produce things, especially our means of subsistence. And, of course, there's our levels of culture and communication, which is another difference.
"Humans are animals" (it seems the text color does not work)
Is this a Buddhistic teaching? Or is it a biological teaching?
It seems you do not believe in reincarnation either. Right?
Is this a Buddhistic teaching? Or is it a biological teaching?
Can't it be both? Look, I really don't understand what your point is, but I'll say it one more time, Buddhism deals exclusively with human mental suffering (i.e., psychology), nothing more, nothing less. Is that really so hard to understand?
It seems you do not believe in reincarnation either. Right?
What does it matter what I believe in? And why would you make such an assumption in the first place?
What is the origin of life from the Buddhistic point of view?
Withut beginning nor ending, as a result of causality under conditions.
For example, the seed of an apple would grow into an apple tree and bear the fruit of apple. In between, it requires water, oxygen, fertile soil and sunlight etc as conditions
Humans are animals, but the animal kingdom is extremely variegated. Humans differ from other animals in a variety of ways, one of them being our ability to produce things, especially our means of subsistence.
This is actually what Marx thought set us apart from other animals, so it's neither a Buddhist teaching nor a biological one, but a Marxist one.
Can't it be both? Look, I really don't understand what your point is, but I'll say it one more time, Buddhism deals exclusively with human mental suffering (i.e., psychology), nothing more, nothing less. Is that really so hard to understand?
What does it matter what I believe in? And why would you make such an assumption in the first place?
It is perfectly understandable. But it is not enough to me. And I am not trying to argue with you. I am simply asking questions.
It matters because if you do not believe in reincarnaton, then the question stops. Otherwise, wouldn't you have to deal with the animal problem?
Are you saying that humans are not animals according to Buddhism?
The Buddha never said as he wasn't a biologist. What in Buddhism are called the human realm and animal realm are separated, but whether these realms are taken literally or metaphorically, they aren't meant to be taken as biological categories.
The Buddha never said as he wasn't a biologist. What in Buddhism are called the human realm and animal realm are separated, but whether these realms are taken literally or metaphorically, they aren't meant to be taken as biological categories.
They are separated in what sense? Is there communication between them?
Or do you think human will always incarnate to another human?
Assuming that a human were to be reborn as a chicken, then they'd be a chicken. In Theravada, it's held by those who take the teachings on rebirth literally that animals aren't capable of the same level of intention (cetana), and survive mostly on instinct. As such, they're unable to practice the Dhamma and therefore they must wait until they take rebirth as a more mentally evolved being (e.g., human, deva, etc.).
They are separated in what sense? Is there communication between them?
By behaviour/mental states. If taken literally, then there isn't much communication between people and most animals. I mean, have you every tried to have a discussion with a goldfish? They're not much for conversation.
The origin of life in a biological sense isn't a question addressed in Buddhism. Hence, it is better look at science for answers. The story in short is prebiotic synthesis -> amino acids -> macro molecules -> polymer generation -> ribonucleic acids -> membrane formation -> unicellular evoution -> multicellular evolution. A little condensed, I know. Buddhism would probably just see it as the proliferation of nama-rupa. There is no contradiction between the Buddhist view and the scientific view.
"I tell you, friend, that it is not possible by traveling to know or see or reach a far end of the cosmos where one does not take birth, age, die, pass away, or reappear. But at the same time, I tell you that there is no making an end of suffering & stress without reaching the end of the cosmos. Yet it is just within this fathom-long body, with its perception & intellect, that I declare that there is the cosmos, the origination of the cosmos, the cessation of the cosmos, and the path of practice leading to the cessation of the cosmos."
Comments
HH the current Dalai Lama is an avid student of science, even to the point at which he has stated that if anything in science disproves anything of vital importance to Buddhism then he can no longer be a Buddhist (I guess he could still do the lecture circuit as a motivational speaker). So I would guess that the best modern Buddhist minds would go with the best modern science to answer questions like the origin of life.
So yes, you are composed of elements.
I don't know if any Buddhist is clear as to where consciousness comes from. From a Tibetan Mahayana point of view, it seems like everything takes place within the "clear light" or "open space" of consciousness. I have just always had the impression that for Buddhism, consciousness "always has been". But the reason I posted the Heart Sutra was to show that we're getting out into the area where verbal and conceptual tools are like fingers pointing at the moon.
Somebody could talk about reductionism here, or the example of the warrior struck by the arrow.
No, they come from the "sexual union of a mother and father" (MN 38).
The second noble truth states that the origination of dukkha is the "craving (tahna, literally "thirst") that makes for further becoming" (SN 56.11).
So, is abiogenesis acceptable to Buddhism?
Or does Buddhism (all sutras and modern elaborations) ignore such idea.
There really isn't one. In DN 27, the Buddha does give what can be interpreted as a rough theory of evolution to a pair of brahmins in that the physical characteristics of the mythological beings in question change due to environmental changes and interactions. That being said, I agree with Prof. Gombrich that, taking the context of DN 27 into account, this sutta is a lively and ingenious parody that was actually meant to make fun of the very need for a cosmology as a foundation for religious development.
Personally, I think you'd be better off asking an evolutionary biologist about this. Buddhism deals exclusively with mental stress and its cessation (i.e., psychology), not biology, or physics, etc.
This is a great answer. Thanks. I have some homework to do.
OK, thanks.
What is MN?
Of course I abhor torrent downloading as stealing, but the NOVA series The Elegant Universe with (?) (Brian?) (Patrick?) Greene fills in this line of scientific inquiry, well, elegantly. The visuals in the first episode are a truly beautiful example of Buddhist reductionism.
Why do we crave?
MN stands for the Majjhima Nikaya, which often translated as "The Middle Length Discourse." 38 is the sutta or discourse number.
I heard this a few times. Is this acceptable to everything who replied to me?
I don't know, you'd have to ask them now, wouldn't you?
Would you give me a quote in any sutra about this?
Is to me. The best evidence-based science is what Buddhists would do in this age. I think evolutionary biology is fascinating, and I'd be willing to bet old Tendzin Gyatso likes it too.
The Buddha said that "the correct way to ask the question will be 'What is the condition of craving?' And to that the correct reply is: 'Feeling is the condition of craving, and craving is the condition of clinging'" (SN 12.12).
Thank you.
I asked: why do we crave.
Why is this question wrong?
Buddhism "assumes" that craving is a nature comes with every birth. Does this apply to animals? If yes, what else does an animal crave except food and repopulation? If a being is born as a human, then he would have more things to crave about. So, there must be a reason for human who craves more than just food and sex-for-repopulation. It probably is not a good idea to overlook the reason, but only to seek the cure.
The question isn't wrong so much as it's wrongly put. For example, when asked who experiences things such as craving, etc., the Buddha re-frames these questions in a way that's conducive to liberation, i.e., in terms of dependent co-arising.
In other words, when answering the question of "who" or "what" craves, etc., the Buddha speaks only in terms of conditionality—that which conditions the origination of suffering, and that which conditions its cessation (SN 12.12). There's no mention of an "experiencer," only the complex process by which suffering arises and ceases. Essentially, it's up to the meditator to use these teachings as a guideline for observing their experience of the present moment in terms of the four noble truths and to perform the tasks associated with each, i.e., comprehend suffering, abandon its cause, realize its cessation, and develop the path to that cessation.
Furthermore, the question as it's phrased will inevitably lead to one of the two extreme forms of wrong view, eternalism and annihilationism. For example, in SN 12.17 the Buddha explains:
"'The one who acts is the one who experiences [the result of the act]' amounts to the eternalist statement, 'Existing from the very beginning, stress is self-made.' 'The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences' amounts to the annihilationist statement, 'For one existing harassed by feeling, stress is other-made.' Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle:
From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications.
From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness.
From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form.
From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media.
From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact.
From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling.
From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving.
From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance.
From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming.
From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth.
From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.
Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/ sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."
The Buddha didn't teach animals, he taught human being; so I think it's kind of a moot point. Nevertheless, I think you're misunderstanding what craving is referring to here.
In Buddhist psychology, desire and craving are two different things: desire (chanda) is a neutral term, and one generally has to have the desire to achieve a goal in order to achieve it (e.g., to acquire food in order to relieve hunger); whereas the Pali word for craving, tahna (literally "thirst"), is something that's directly tied to stress and suffering. It's a very subtle but powerful aspect of our psychology that's latent in the mind, waiting to exert its influence through mental fashionings (sankharas).
If life comes from 'God' then 'God' is a 'self' and life is a 'self'.
When where life comes from nature, life is just that, namely, nature.
Nature is empty of self. Nature is just nature.
Rupa-dhamma (physical things) & nama-dhamma (mental things) just sabhava dhamma (natural things).
In your father was sperm and in your mother ovum.
Two simple cells formed your life.
Then because your mother was nourished by food and then because as a child you were nourished by food, your life from a fetus and then child grew.
Some small children in places like Africa die because there is no food.
But because you had food, your life now exists.
In your father's & mother's eggs, there were certain DNA & genes, that allowed mental factors to develop.
In some eggs, these elements are not complete, so a child is born with a mental disability.
Life comes from the elements. This is not difficult to understand.
Kind regards
Some Buddhists would say this is just a story or parable, quite similar to the Book of Genesis in the Bible.
There is a PM facility for that.
This one is still relevant to the OP. And we are not talking in Zen's way. So, we can do explanation.
What is "empty of self"? You put self with everything, so what is "self"?
How does a life originated from "self"?
Thanks for the long reply. But, (hey, how do I put a smily face here?)
First, what is SN?
Second, now we have a better word: desire.
So animal desire. But human desire AND crave.
Then the question is still there: why is human different from animal?
Abbreviation for the Samyutta Nikaya.
I don't really understand what you're trying to get at here. Nobody has said they're the same or different, so it's still a moot point. Besides, Buddhism is concerned with human mental suffering, how it arises and how it ceases—nothing more, nothing less.
Someone told me that Buddhism is a religion. If so, it would be more than just a philosophy, which is what you said.
If Buddhism is a religion, then it "has to" include the role of animal.
So is my question: why is human different from animal?
I've said nothing about religion or philosophy; although out of the two I'd say it's closer to a philosophy than a religion.
A. Buddhism doesn't have a "role" for animals. As I've repeatedly said, Buddhism deals exclusively with mental stress and its cessation (i.e., psychology), nothing more, nothing less. Ahimsa, or the principle of non-harming, is part of the practice, and is directed towards to all sentient beings, but I don't think that's what you're talking about.
B. Humans are animals, but the animal kingdom is extremely variegated. Humans differ from other animals in a variety of ways, one of them being our ability to produce things, especially our means of subsistence. And, of course, there's our levels of culture and communication, which is another difference.
"Humans are animals" (it seems the text color does not work)
Is this a Buddhistic teaching? Or is it a biological teaching?
It seems you do not believe in reincarnation either. Right?
Can't it be both? Look, I really don't understand what your point is, but I'll say it one more time, Buddhism deals exclusively with human mental suffering (i.e., psychology), nothing more, nothing less. Is that really so hard to understand?
What does it matter what I believe in? And why would you make such an assumption in the first place?
For example, the seed of an apple would grow into an apple tree and bear the fruit of apple. In between, it requires water, oxygen, fertile soil and sunlight etc as conditions
This is actually what Marx thought set us apart from other animals, so it's neither a Buddhist teaching nor a biological one, but a Marxist one.
It is perfectly understandable. But it is not enough to me. And I am not trying to argue with you. I am simply asking questions.
It matters because if you do not believe in reincarnaton, then the question stops. Otherwise, wouldn't you have to deal with the animal problem?
Are you saying that humans are not animals according to Buddhism?
What animal problem?
For example: a human may incarnate to a chicken?
Or do you think human will always incarnate to another human?
The Buddha never said as he wasn't a biologist. What in Buddhism are called the human realm and animal realm are separated, but whether these realms are taken literally or metaphorically, they aren't meant to be taken as biological categories.
They are separated in what sense? Is there communication between them?
Assuming that a human were to be reborn as a chicken, then they'd be a chicken. In Theravada, it's held by those who take the teachings on rebirth literally that animals aren't capable of the same level of intention (cetana), and survive mostly on instinct. As such, they're unable to practice the Dhamma and therefore they must wait until they take rebirth as a more mentally evolved being (e.g., human, deva, etc.).
By behaviour/mental states. If taken literally, then there isn't much communication between people and most animals. I mean, have you every tried to have a discussion with a goldfish? They're not much for conversation.
Cheers, Thomas
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an04/an04.045.than.html
Excellent post DD. Thanks