Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Namo Buddhaya
Dear brother Waisaka in the precious Dhamma.
Much gratitude for your wonderful attempts to help another understand what is what. Also I would just like to share that your English is much better than most other second language speakers. 😊
I only recently became a follower of Buddhism. My understanding is limited. But I will of course share the little that I have to share.
If it perhaps has relevance, I started to follow the Dhamma after reading ‘Handbook for Mankind’ by Buddhadasa from Thailand which affected me greatly.
Quote, ”see the world in themselves.” I know nothing of this.
Quote, ”Where is the suffering and non-self in this water?” According to my limited understanding, if I am reborn as a puddle of water, I will identify with the puddle (anatta) because it gives me pleasure when someone steps in me (an example of feeling) and therefore due to evaporation (anicca), I will experience suffering (dukkha) because my death is close.
Quote, ”if we do not see them in internal form.” But is seeing an internal form not just grasping? Internal, external, tall, short, fat, thin… These are concepts based on desire which lead to suffering. If there is a real internal form, it must be permanent, satisfying and a self-identity.
These humble replies are mostly just repeating what I read in Handbook for Mankind.
Thank you for your time and love.
Namo Buddhaya
Namo Buddhaya
Dear brother in Dhamma. There is much appreciation for your quick, kind and detailed responses. From where I am sitting, it says that you wrote that last reply at one o’clock in the morning. You certainly did not have to lose sleep on this humble beginner’s behalf. Thank you. 🙏
Question 4: Due to my ignorance, I find the article on the wrong interpretations of anicca, dukkha and anatta difficult to follow. You share that anicca is not impermanence but ”Nothing in this world can be maintained to one’s satisfaction (anicca).” What is the difference between that quote and impermanence? All beings want satisfaction. No being can maintain the world to his satisfaction. Thus, in one word, ”impermanence”.
Question 5: From the same article, translating ”anatta” to ”no-self” is a poor translation, yes, and people who have only heard of the Buddhist concept are confused thereby, but dedicated practitioners, for the most part, understand perfectly well that it means the same as explained in the article. To use a comparison: peanuts are not nuts. All biologists know this. Some average people may perhaps not know it but that is not a problem. We do not have to rename ”peanuts”.
Question 6: Same article, ”Thus if a headache becomes impermanent (i.e., if it goes away,) that will lead to happiness. Thus, impermanence does not necessarily lead to suffering.” But happiness is suffering, is it not?
Question 7: Would you please share your opinion about following situation. I recently went to the hospital where they took blood. I was very scared of the needle, and as it entered my flesh, I prayed that the Buddha would have mercy on me. I sweated a lot and felt nauseous. What does this say about my mental state?
Once again, A thousand thanks to all who turn the wheel of the Dhamma with patience, understanding and kindness. May all reach the other shore. ☸️
Namo Buddhaya
