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.
why?
genkaku
Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
An internet friend of mine, a fellow who studies Tibetan Buddhism, once wrote on an internet bulletin board, "There are no answers to 'why' questions." You can imagine the cat-calls that that statement elicited. 'Why' is just too popular and just too important and just too common to be brought up short that way: There are no answers to why questions. Saying so makes fools of us all because if there are no answers to 'why' questions, what the hell are we doing running around like two-year-olds asking a new and improved version of "Mommy, why is the sky blue?"
I don't think we need to scorn 'why' questions, but I do think we might want to examine them. Doesn't 'why' call for a 'because?' And doesn't every 'because' nourish a new 'why?' Among the outraged cat-calls, of course, is the fact that human beings are curious and long for control ... it's just human nature...I'll forgive you if you'll forgive me and we'll all get along much better. Something like that?
Why is there so much greed, anger and ignorance in the world? Why did so-and-so treat me so badly? Why aren't more people vegetarians? Why is sex sometimes frowned upon but babies are not? Why, why, why?
As an experiment, I suggest this: Instead of using the word 'why' just substitute the word 'that' or the phrase 'it is true that.' It is true that there is greed, anger and ignorance in the world. It is true that people are kind and nasty. It is true that the sky is blue ... except when it's not. Just try it out. 'That' things happen is every bit as undeniable as knowing 'why' they happen is iffy at best. If you knew the answer to 'why,' what precisely would you know and for exactly how long would it be true?
As a matter of Buddhist practice, I think all this is pretty important. Sure, let us learn what we can from the answers to our 'why' questions, but let's not get stuck in that mud.
None of this means that I think we should all wander around, dumb as a box of rocks. Let's learn as much of we can where we can. Let's collate information and try to determine what makes sense. Let's weep when we're sad and laugh when we're happy. But let's keep an eye on things. Or, as the old Zen teacher Rinzai once put it, "Grasp and use, but never name."
Why? Because the sky really is blue.
Just some noodling.
I don't think we need to scorn 'why' questions, but I do think we might want to examine them. Doesn't 'why' call for a 'because?' And doesn't every 'because' nourish a new 'why?' Among the outraged cat-calls, of course, is the fact that human beings are curious and long for control ... it's just human nature...I'll forgive you if you'll forgive me and we'll all get along much better. Something like that?
Why is there so much greed, anger and ignorance in the world? Why did so-and-so treat me so badly? Why aren't more people vegetarians? Why is sex sometimes frowned upon but babies are not? Why, why, why?
As an experiment, I suggest this: Instead of using the word 'why' just substitute the word 'that' or the phrase 'it is true that.' It is true that there is greed, anger and ignorance in the world. It is true that people are kind and nasty. It is true that the sky is blue ... except when it's not. Just try it out. 'That' things happen is every bit as undeniable as knowing 'why' they happen is iffy at best. If you knew the answer to 'why,' what precisely would you know and for exactly how long would it be true?
As a matter of Buddhist practice, I think all this is pretty important. Sure, let us learn what we can from the answers to our 'why' questions, but let's not get stuck in that mud.
None of this means that I think we should all wander around, dumb as a box of rocks. Let's learn as much of we can where we can. Let's collate information and try to determine what makes sense. Let's weep when we're sad and laugh when we're happy. But let's keep an eye on things. Or, as the old Zen teacher Rinzai once put it, "Grasp and use, but never name."
Why? Because the sky really is blue.
Just some noodling.
0
Comments
so the father of philosophy destroys philosophy, thus they make him drink the hemlock.
and all of philosophy is built upon this not knowing.
you can build a house in your mind, but sooner or later you're going to be cold.
buddhism offers no metaphysical claims. the buddha points with methods. test them. do they work? okay, if they do, then you know what the hell i am talking about. if you don't then drop it and move on.
why is for philosophers. the how is for scientists.
it isn't a philosophy nor a set of guidelines. it's how the buddha actually saw the world.
so he gave the eight fold path. notice how right view is the first on the eight fold path.
he gives a method. he asks you to try it out. and you test it out. okay, i'll try right view. ah four noble truths. this is how the buddha say reality. do i see reality like this? oh, i sometimes do and sometimes don't. okay, what else does he say to do. oh focus on breath. simple as that.
he makes no philosophic claim, nor does he care about "whys". he only cares about "how". methods. because he wants to save us from our "grasping". you cannot save anyone by giving them a "doctrine" or "philosophic framework".
yet the mind will always wonder why. why. why. why. why. why. it will never be satisfied because there is no answer to why. the question is invalid. the question stems from mind trying to access reality. how can the mind understand reality. there is nothing to understand. reality is as it is.
2. The origin of suffering is attachment. why?
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. why?
4. The path to the cessation of suffering. why?
or
1. Life means suffering. how?
2. The origin of suffering is attachment. how?
3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. how?
4. The path to the cessation of suffering. how?
maybe it is semantics. hmmmm.
you have to explore through meditation. thus it is existential.
philosophy is nice. but it's a minds game. i'll stick with "hows" and with "science".
no matter what someone tells me, i take it with a grain of salt, unless it lines up with my own experience.
i am sure the buddha taught the same thing. he wanted us to examine all these things for ourselves. not follow some "philosophic framework" like drones.
we're probably both right. considering that is the middle way.
Any field, where you can’t come with ‘’objective’’ answer should stop using the word.
However, to deprive humanity of the word ‘’why’’ - will remove us from advancing in the more practical issues when it comes to this world.
Buddhism really doesn't work that way. For example, if we were talking about karma, and I went up and started punching people in the face, there are many different reactions that might occur. One person might punch me back. Another might call the police. Another might try to counsel me. And on and on. So, as a result, while karma may be true, it's not exactly scientific, either.
Yes, I think there's both, and possibly there's a different among the traditions in this regard. TB is full of very complex philosophical texts. It's big on that, so reading does facilitate the path to enlightenment, because it provided a foundation. Also big on answering "why" questions. Why are there some countries that are rich and some are poor? Because there need to be a great variety of conditions in which reborn consciousnesses work out their karma. Why are some people prosperous in this life? Because they were generous in their past lives. Etc. Whether or not "why" should be asked in religion, Tibetan Buddhism's forefathers have gone ahead and elaborated texts that address that very question. It's human to ask "why" and to try to understand circumstances. Vajrayana, or perhaps Mahayana in general, is geared in part to address this fundamental human need.
Forgive a little bla bla from a complete novice of Buddhism.
In my opinion, Karma is more general then this and working more slowly.
You can be a total shit this life and have very prosperous life. /plenty examples in a human history/
Hopefully, in the end all your wrongdoings will catch you up.
So next time, when you throw the punch remember you might be back as a cow facing electrocution and never seeing a green posture.
Note, I don’t believe in the reincarnation except our DNA.
:crazy:
But DNA might work in mysterious ways if you take into the account the whole universe and different realms.
the buddha called not-knowing 'avicca'; 'a' = 'not'; 'vicca' = 'knowing'
the buddha regarded 'vicca' as 'true knowledge' or the mind of enlightenment
the word 'buddha' itself means 'the one who knows' rather than 'the one of unknowing'
but enlightenment is not the mind of unknowing
enlightenment is the direct experience of what is written in the books
Books?
when one learns personal counselling, generally, one is instructed to never to use the word or ask the question "why?"
the buddha himself generally asked the questions: "what is the condition for this?"; "what is the cause of this?"
the buddha, generally, did not ask: "why?"
"why?" is the plea or cry of ignorance
when the mind is grounded in buddhist principles, it asks the question: "what is the cause, what is the condition?"
it does not ask "why?"
Few proteins and molecules caring all those information for millions of years.
In the moment we know that atoms, electrons, quarks etc - exist. The rest is down to theoretical assumptions. / I totally agree with them. /
However, there is a huge field of ‘’ reality’’ which we can’t even touch with what we call: ''advanced science''.
What is there? Nobody knows.
I give it to Buddha.
He had wisdom or a gut feeling. Whatever it was, he has my full respect.
This is just my own interpretation of what I read and I don't know if I agree with it, have not looked into it that much (smiles)
When we ask "why", our speculative answers could be myriad, such as "God", "past life", "fate", "destiny", "no cause/good luck/bad luck", etc,...
As a Buddhist, one asks: "What is the tangible, here & now, identifiable causes & conditions".
Asking "why" does not fall within the sphere of Buddhism.
Best wishes
:wow:
"Why not."
TL;DR - I speak what I think and feel, nothing more, nothing less.
"Why is there suffering?" has the exact same answer as "What causes suffering?". There is no impetus external to the process. Attachment/craving is why suffering exists. "Why is there attachment/craving?" Has the same answer as "What is attachment/craving?" Ignorance. We notice that there is no external drive to the cycle. Like children learning to write, we mess up, we learn, we become skillful and then we transcend the ignorance. There's no mysterious "why does it happen" where there is knowledge of "what is happening". Its all there.