Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lal, I tried to read the article that you linked to but the message “sorry, you are not allowed to preview drafts” appeared.
In my opinion, the best way that you can benefit your family is by commiting yourself to progressing as much as possible. In the early stages of the path, your progress won’t be very noticeable (if at all) to others. However, as you continue to progress, people who know you well will start to pick up on the fact that you are calmer and have fewer desires. They can subsequently be more inclined to listen to what you have to say. No guarantees though.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I thought it was funny! It seems to me that the average person is inclined to distract themselves with a constant stream of content and activity because they know that, in its absence, a gnawing sense of existential dread will emerge. This existential dread reveals that, fundamentally, they have no idea what is going on in life. Suffice it to say, that uncertainty is terrifying. As a result, the average person is very busy constructing and protecting their worldview and the beliefs that it is made up of. Honestly acknowledging to oneself that you don’t know what is happening in life requires a great deal of courage.
That is why, as far as I can tell, getting onto the path requires equal measures of open-mindedness and skepticism. Open-mindedness is essential because there may well be more to life than what meets the eye, and skepticism is necessary to begin appreciating the ways in which you may be deluding yourself.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Nope. Sorry but I disagree. You can’t rationalise your way to Nibbana in that way. It will more than likely just result in cognitive dissonance.
A mistake that a lot of people make is to try to perceive reality according to what they believe is true.
If someone were to tell themselves, “there is no doer, it’s all just causes and effects”, that will contradict how things appear within their immediate experience.
What is necessary is to instead investigate your experience and see whether any given premise passes the sniff test. If it does, then you investigate further. It’s an iterative process.
That description, as well as the extent of the emphasis, sounds similar to how a Mahayana Buddhist might describe sunnata and impress that principle upon a person.
If someone had only a couple of minutes to live and their dying wish was to learn about what the Buddha taught, I believe that an ariya would, without hesitation, explain the three characteristics of nature.
If instead they were to explain the principle of separation, I think it’s highly unlikely that the dying person would have a ‘jump out of the bathtub’ eureka moment.
I’m always wary when someone implies that “this is what the Buddha really taught.”
From their point of view, they are correct and have your best interests and heart. They likely think that you are misguided and want to point you in the right direction. Seeing things from other people’s perspectives can be challenging but goes a long way.
The best thing to do in those kinds of situations is to shrug your shoulders and agree to disagree before things turn sour.
1 user thanked author for this post.
My thoughts: If it were in the nature of things to change for the better, it wouldn’t matter if they were impermanent; a temporary existence in the deva loka would be succeeded by one in the rupa loka.
Before I discovered Buddha Dhamma, I smoked a pack of cigarettes a day. It didn’t matter to me that the value I derived from that experience was temporary, as I could simply light up another cigarette.
If someone were to claim that Anicca means impermanence, I would ask them what the significance of things being impermanent is. If you need to ask follow-up questions when a person describes Anicca, then that isn’t a definition they are describing; at best, it’s an attribute. I see this happen a lot when people explain Pali terms.
I could add more, but I need to go to work! I appreciate the thoughtful discussion, though.
2 users thanked author for this post.
No, because someone would feel ‘God’s love’ on account of taking the pancakkhanda as being of nicca, sukha, and atta nature. As such, they would also have micca ditthi. Therefore, expressing ‘God’s love’ to other beings, while moral in a conventional sense, would be lacking an understanding of the four ariya truths. A person could encourage others to live morally on the basis of thinking that doing so would result in salvation, and conduct themselves according to that principle. However, The Buddha taught that morality alone isn’t sufficient enough to address the fundamental issue with the world (i.e., sansara). So then, that wouldn’t constitute metta. By understanding that reality is characterised by anicca, dukkha, and anatta, that will inform how a person perceives others and subsequently engages with them.
To learn more about metta, you can read this article: https://puredhamma.net/bhavana-meditation/ariya-metta-bhavana/
3 users thanked author for this post.
I watched the portions of the videos that you provided. To preface my response, I’ve learned a lot from Jethavanarama’s videos over the years. In fact, they were instrumental in getting things to click into place for me. Having said that, these definitions that Amadassana Thero provides for the three characteristics of nature don’t grok for me.
One issue (among others) with translating anicca as impermanence is that it becomes necessary to ask a follow-up question; “What is the significance of things being impermanent?” or put more bluntly, “Okay, so what?”.
In a similar way, I can’t help but feel that the significance of the proposed definitions is buried.
To illustrate my point, suppose that you are drinking a liquid due to being thirsty. I then inform you that there is an issue with the liquid – it doesn’t have the capacity to quench your thirst. You would then think to yourself, “Huh. Well if that’s true, drinking this liquid is a complete waste of time”. This is to say that the relevance of that statement would be self-explanatory. Now, you might not believe my claim, but that would be a separate issue.
I’m willing to concede that I’m missing something and that I simply need to ruminate on it more. But this is how I see the matter currently.
Thanks for sharing that, Gad. One point that occurred to me, though, is that the body isn’t inherently repulsive. One’s perception of a thing is what determines whether or not they will be repulsed by it.
Excellent work, Jorg! In my experience, this will not only be useful for those reading your articles, but for yourself too. As I’m sure Lal can attest to, being able to clearly explain a topic (without regurgitating what you’ve heard someone else say) requires a thorough understanding of the subject. As such, you are able to identify areas that need to be reflected upon further. I just started reading your first post and am impressed by your thoughtful phrasing and choice of analogies. I look forward to reading more.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I don’t think normal people can recall the taste of ice cream as taste is a very difficult thing to recall. The same is true of smells and tactile sensations, which is why we value having physical bodies to the degree that we do; so we can make contact with those things. By contrast, you can recall sights and sounds, although, they will of course be distorted.
