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.
What is the real problem behind "clinging on"? and other qns
I was wondering about this a week ago after meditation.
I do know that the reincarnation wheel states 6 different realms, and each realm is likely to fall into a common theme of "clinging on to artificiality and impermanence".
The realms of desire:
Naraka-gati (Beings in hell) - the crave for wrecking pain/revenge
Preta-gati (Hungry Ghosts) - the crave for food
Tiryagyoni-gati (Animals) - the crave to serve/follow
Manusya-gati (Humans) - the crave for more, and more, and more...
Asura-gati (Demi-gods) - the crave for power, the crave for wanting what someone else has
Deva-gati (Deva) - the crave of pride
I do realise all of them are craving for some form, and the mindset they have will hinder them from achieving nirvana.
So what is this "craving" that hinders people from achieving nirvana? Why exactly is this craving so harmful to the path of enlightenment?
Some other questions apart the main question above (:
Qns 2!
I was wondering, since humans are thought to be a mammal, and according to Evolutionist theory we are derived as a part of animals anyway. Dolphins are mammals and are extremely intelligent, communicate via high pitched sounds, but are still classified under animals.
So why is the human and animal realm separate?
Shouldn't both of the realms be in a single realm?
Chimpanzees can crave for more territory, hungry animals crave for more food. Even servitude is seen in humans, where people follow charisma and leadership.
Qns 3!
If craving is negative and bad, isn't craving for enlightenment a contradictory statement?
If that is true, do we have to have a mindset that reminds us that enlightenment is not a selfish gain?
I asked this, because some Buddhists I know seem to be concerned solely about their own enlightenment and suffering and forget a crucial portion of giving and teaching.
Qns 4!
I have heard of astral travelling, and had a similar experience once during meditation.
I have seen as well as heard of more realms than the 6, probably up to even 20+ existences...
Does anyone know what they are?
I'm so sorry that I am long-winded, please forgive me.
But if you could answer these questions, it would lift this off my chest, and I can confidently pass on advice to others about sensitive sections like this. (:
I do know that the reincarnation wheel states 6 different realms, and each realm is likely to fall into a common theme of "clinging on to artificiality and impermanence".
The realms of desire:
Naraka-gati (Beings in hell) - the crave for wrecking pain/revenge
Preta-gati (Hungry Ghosts) - the crave for food
Tiryagyoni-gati (Animals) - the crave to serve/follow
Manusya-gati (Humans) - the crave for more, and more, and more...
Asura-gati (Demi-gods) - the crave for power, the crave for wanting what someone else has
Deva-gati (Deva) - the crave of pride
I do realise all of them are craving for some form, and the mindset they have will hinder them from achieving nirvana.
So what is this "craving" that hinders people from achieving nirvana? Why exactly is this craving so harmful to the path of enlightenment?
Some other questions apart the main question above (:
Qns 2!
I was wondering, since humans are thought to be a mammal, and according to Evolutionist theory we are derived as a part of animals anyway. Dolphins are mammals and are extremely intelligent, communicate via high pitched sounds, but are still classified under animals.
So why is the human and animal realm separate?
Shouldn't both of the realms be in a single realm?
Chimpanzees can crave for more territory, hungry animals crave for more food. Even servitude is seen in humans, where people follow charisma and leadership.
Qns 3!
If craving is negative and bad, isn't craving for enlightenment a contradictory statement?
If that is true, do we have to have a mindset that reminds us that enlightenment is not a selfish gain?
I asked this, because some Buddhists I know seem to be concerned solely about their own enlightenment and suffering and forget a crucial portion of giving and teaching.
Qns 4!
I have heard of astral travelling, and had a similar experience once during meditation.
I have seen as well as heard of more realms than the 6, probably up to even 20+ existences...
Does anyone know what they are?
I'm so sorry that I am long-winded, please forgive me.
But if you could answer these questions, it would lift this off my chest, and I can confidently pass on advice to others about sensitive sections like this. (:
0
Comments
Craving for an unchanging conception of a "self". This is harmful to practice because it is the strongest and most tightly held delusion people have.
Ah, this is a brilliant question! Now literally, animals as a whole are incapable of recursion, segmentation, and a full depth of language. This makes them rather disorganized and incapable of understanding concepts, and also incapable of dismantling any ideas they might have. Buddhistically, I'll explain something very important. The Buddhist realms of existence is formost "states" of the human mind
Nope. We don't crave for enlightenment, we cease to be unenlightened.
Enlightenment is the most selfless state that any sentient being can achieve. There is no self left to indulge! Heh heh heh heh!
Astral traveling is gaining an understanding of the supramundane through meditation.
1, The craving that hinders enlightenment is the craving for an inherent self.
2, Humans are animals, but not the same, just ask an animal and it will be more clear.
3, Craving enlightenment is straying from the middle way. The path is narrow and people do wander off and get lost.
4, If I ever get to any of those places I will bring you back a tee shirt.
3: Two paths to the same goal, though the common way it is explained gives the Bodhisattva ideal higher importance (unfortunate sense of superiority can develop) over the earlier teachings of the Buddha. It doesn't matter which path you choose, because one prioritizes compassion and the other wisdom, yet a Buddha of either path has all-encompassing compassion and full right view as their nature. Either path can be practiced with the same intent and acts of compassion by the practitioner. Know that a Buddha, of either system, is the perfection of compassion and right view; choose as your heart and temperament, and other conditions, guide you.
2/4: No clue.
Thank you for the replies! (:
I guess I feel a little more enlightened now (hehe)
I guess I'd just discover more realms through astral travelling and report what I found then! (though it's so rare...)
I'd love hearing anyone else with an opinion as well (:
Awareness collapses down to the object of craving, leading to ignorance of other aspects of experience. Identification with the object of craving leads to a self-concept, another trigger for collapse of awareness. One productive way to interpret these realms is as states of mind rather than taxonomic classifications of the body you've been reborn into. The typical psychological state of a human is pretty clearly different from that of a chimp, at least much of the time.
Buddhist practice brings an end to craving. Coming from an abrahamic religious tradition, it's easy form the impression that there's some sort of contract where you agree not to crave, and then you get enlightened in return. Buddhist practice does not work that way. It is a technique, not a negotiation.
Well, aren't you a good boy!
I have been a Buddhist practitioner since my birth in an Asian culture, so I guess that wouldn't be applicable much.
But I do see your point, thank you for the enlightenment (:
Hmm, so if i'm not wrong from what I gather...
a "want" is different from a "crave"?
"I want to pursue the path of enlightenment"
is not the same as
"I crave pursuing the path of enlightenment"?
If you practice a technique, you do develop a sort of "want" to motivate yourself to continue practicing it. So what really differentiates the "want" from a "crave"?
That's what I really wish to know.
Is it truly the intensity?
Or is it something much more fundamental?
Should enlightenment not be forced?
Just letting everything go, letting desires, wants even that of enlightenment to disappear, so that ironically, enlightenment itself can be reached, in a state of no wants at all?
Setting up a noble goal to reach is not bad at all. In fact, it is necessary to first strive toward a goal before you can reach it. You aren't going to just stumble into enlightenment. Well, at least that would be extremely rare.
Let me ask you this, would you rather someone deluded about the nature of reality instruct you on the nature of reality, or would you rather someone who has completely cleared away their delusions instruct you?
IOW, you cannot guide someone to safety if you, yourself, have not a clue where refuge is to be found.
Hi, thanks for the reply.
I made a reply to the previous poster as well, it's just on top, please read it because I rephrased the question to make it sound more comprehensible.
I understand where you are coming from. What I actually meant from the "teaching and giving of others" is like helping the poor, the needy, the sick (all of which I have done on a weekly basis out of concern and part of voluntary work), telling them about how to alleviate their sufferings through the teachings of the Buddha. (:
Unless you are terribly lucky, you can't hit the target if you don't aim for it.
Bodhichitta is different from craving, but both are intentions to obtain a certain goal. The difference is that craving is an intention guided by delusion. If you crave chocolate, for example, you do so completely unaware (or at least in complete disregard) of the fleeting and ultimately unsatisfactory nature of the happiness resulting from obtaining that goal.
One monk achieves enlightenment after performing a million prostrations.
One monk achieves enlightenment when the bucket he is carrying breaks.
I see!!!!!
Impermanence of objects/situations that we "crave" for?
If i'm not wrong, "craving" itself has no wrong, but rather the temporary nature of whatever we "want"?
Eg. We can lust for the opposite sex, but they age and die, and is not eternal. Lust itself is a transient emotion.
Eg. We can crave for food and more food, but ultimately we become hungry again.
Eg. We can be poor and crave for more and more money, and ultimately, money is spent, or that the state of desire is only temporarily satisfied...
Hence, the middle way?
To truly understand the nature of that which we desire is most important. Intending to obtain something that is impermanent is not inherently wrong; it is the misunderstanding (thinking that the object is lasting and not fleeting, for example) that guides the intention that results in dissatisfaction. So, really it is the attempt to "grasp bubbles" that is unsatisfactory.
If we realize that the objects we seek to obtain are "bubbles" then we will not despair when they "pop". We can enjoy them for what they truly are.
Some things, however, like enlightenment and voidness are not bubbles. Perhaps our conceptions of them are, though.
After learning this, I think I can approach life in a more fulfilling way!
I have learnt that while material charity/kindness may be somewhat of transient, they still do provide a medium for the less able to be able to pursue enlightenment.
I have learnt that things in life come and fade away, so we must not attach ourselves to them.
Thank you so much for clarifying.
Wrong!
Lexically identical. The problem comes from thinking "I am not enlightened". I cannot be enlightened until I must meet certain expectations to be enlightened.
Another brilliant question, and it starts off sounding simple but the answer is not as complex as you might think. The problem is coming from a way of thinking called "conceptualization".
This means that you organize concepts in a way (generalization) and this makes it so you take something that cannot be conceptualized (Nirvana) in order to make it make sense. Nirvana is something that is beyond all states of perception and non-perception, but yet is achievable by contemplation and meditation. This is why it seems sometimes that you are working to achieve something when really what you are doing is letting go of things.
Fundamental. Think about the 3 marks of existence: Impermanence, dissatisfaction, and interdependent identity (dependent origination).
Never forced. It should come easier once you use meditation to de-condition your conditioned mind into letting go of what damages yourself and others.
While I am not Mahayana Buddhist, pay close attention to the Heart Sutra:
What this means is that through what I think is good metaphor, you see that it is not attaining enlightenment, but rather realizing it.
You will probably find this essay helpful. (That's just a short section. I highly recommend the whole thing, but it's long.)
The second noble truth states that the origination of suffering is "the craving [tahna, literally 'thirst'] that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion &; delight, relishing now here &; now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming" (SN 56.11). As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Wings to Awakening:
Craving is a very subtle but powerful aspect of our psychology. It's there, latent in the mind, waiting to exert its influence through mental fabrications by directing or at the very least encouraging the mind to feed upon sensory experiences via the five clinging-aggregates in an unhealthy way. Hence, in Buddhism, suffering is a psychological phenomena that can be transcended via the "remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving" (SN 56.11). This is why I tend to think of Buddhism as a type of 'transcendent psychology.'
First, it should pointed out that while the human realm and animal realm are separated, they aren't meant to be taken as biological categories. That said, 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 not really a Buddhist teaching). And, of course, there's our levels of culture and communication, which is another difference.
Psychologically speaking, however, humans aren't as constrained by instinct as animals appear to be, which is one of the reasons I think the animal realm is often associated with lower levels of intelligence (i.e., stupidity), as well as rudimentary faculties of volition that aren't as open to being developed as ours seem to be.
In Theravada, for example, it's held by those who take the teachings on rebirth literally that animals aren't capable of the same level of intention (cetana); 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.). Taken metaphorically (which many Buddhists do), they illustrates mind states that are base and ignoble, lacking heedfulness and blindly (instinctively) searching for, and acquiring, sensual pleasures.
Part of the problem is that you're conflating desire (chanda) and craving (tahna), but desire and craving are actually two different but closely related aspects of our psychology. Desires is a neutral term, and one generally has to have the desire to achieve a goal in order to achieve it, even nibbana (SN 51.15); whereas the Pali word for craving, tahna (literally 'thirst'), is something that's directly tied to suffering.
The second noble truth states that the origination of suffering is "the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming" (SN 56.11). As Thanissaro Bhikkhu explains in Wings to Awakening:
Desire, on the other hand, can be skillful (kusala) or unskillful (akusala) depending on the context. The desire for happiness, especially long-term welfare and happiness, is actually an important part of the Buddhist path. Moreover, desire is listed as one of the four bases of power (iddhipada), which themselves are included in the seven sets of qualities that lead to the end of suffering (MN 103). The four qualities listed in the bases of power are desire, persistence, intent and discrimination. In Wings to Awakening, Thanissaro Bhikkhu points to this passage:
He goes on to explain that, "This passage shows that the problem lies not in the desire, effort, intent or discrimination, but in the fact that these qualities can be unskillfully applied or improperly tuned to their task."
If we take a look at the exchange between Ananda and the brahmin Unnabha in SN 51.15, for example, we can see that the attainment of the goal is indeed achieved through desire, even though paradoxically, the goal is said to be the abandoning of desire. That's because at the end of the path desire, as well as the other three bases of power, subside on their own. As Ananda explains at the end of SN 51.15:
As for the idea that desiring to end suffering is a 'selfish' desire, it can certainly start out that way, but a selfish desire can ultimately lead to unselfish actions. Here I agree with the Buddha that, besides some rare and special cases, there's no one that's as dear to us as ourselves, that all beings essentially want to be happy in their own way (according to their specific capacities), and that it's a fairly decent and logical reason to desire their happiness as well as our own (SN 3.8).
The reason is simple. If our happiness comes at the expense of their happiness, they'll do everything in their power to upset that happiness. Conversely, if they were to infringe upon ours, wouldn't it follow that we'd do everything in our power to upset theirs? It seems like a vicious circle to me, and one of the ways to break this circle is a spiritual practice that takes the happiness of others into consideration. This can eventually lead to the development of things like compassion and generosity, among others (such as the wings to awakening), which takes what was once a selfish or self-centred desire for happiness and transforms it into a selfless desire/achievement.
Sorry, can't help you there.
Today I tried to speak to a maintenance worker in my complex about one topic, and he interrupted me and proceeded to yell at me about another topic. I was able to walk away from him, so at least I didn't make the situation worse. But I was very upset. I have complex PTSD acquired from being beaten by both my father and ex husband. In my mind, yelling proceeds being hurt.
Later I complained in writing to the management about this incident. That certainly isn't going to increase his happiness. But then I meditated and was able to reclaim my emotional equilibrium. That's a big accomplishment for me.
I'm sorry to hear about your past abuse, but I'm happy that you were able to meditate and reclaim your emotional equilibrium. That's a really big accomplishment!