Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So what you’re basically saying is that Nibbana is not “nothing” but also unlike anything we can comprehend?
That was awesome. Thanks a lot, Taryal. I feel like you understand my problem. My doubts have cleared a lot, just need some more pondering. Sending you much love from crazy New England!
@Lal:
“The innate sense of a “me” will be there (at different levels) until one attains the Arahant stage.”
Yes, how is that possible? There shouldn’t be any sense of ‘me’ if there is no ‘me’ in the first place.
“Future lives are not that different from present lives. Were you the “exact same person” when you were five, ten, or twenty years old? Did you look the same at those stages, have the same ambitions/goals or outlook on life, etc., as now”
Thank you. This presents a strong argument that there seems to be no unchanging entity that defines the essence of an individual. But like you said, there is a sense of me so one could argue that there is a dynamic self. How would that be incorrect?
@Jittananto:
“If you want, I can put you in contact with monks who can give you private sermons adapted to your understanding. To begin on the path to the end of suffering, a person who has reached at least the first level of the path (Sotāpanna) must explain it to us.”
That would be great, thank you.
@Lal:
Thank you for responding. You don’t have to be cocky about your knowledge.
I did read your comments and the essays you referenced. You make the same conclusion in most of your posts, summarized as, “A sentient being is an everchanging lifestream that evolves according to the law of Paticca Samuppada. There is no self in reality but beings below the arahant stage have the perception of self.”
My issue with that idea is that how can there be perception of anything along with conscious ability to think and do bodily actions if there is no self in reality? Furthermore, when an arahant realizes that there is no “me”, do they suddenly become talking corpses?
By “goal”, I wasn’t referring to the ultimate goal of ending rebirth process but the understanding one needs to have in this context. If each existence represents different “person”, why should one worry about future suffering?
Note: I started this thread with the intent of learning. If I say anything wrong, I want to be corrected. It is okay if ya’ll don’t have answers, lmk and I’ll stop posting.
Sorry, but I am confused. I understood this point: “Paticca Samuppada explains that the idea of an “everlasting self” (a “soul-type” entity) is an illusion. Each “existence” is created by the mind in previous lives. That is how the rebirth process continues.”
So what is the goal?
Thank you for correcting me with your compassionate responses!
@Dhammañāṇa Bhikkhu:
“It’s good and very needed to see one’s actions as own, make them important, look for it’s beauty and purity, to practice and to abound all of what’s no refuge, including, after having abond objects of identification in the sensual-word, also such as perception, even ideas of Nibbana.
But for now just much care about what’s a useful island, goodness, metta, virtue, purification of Sila, to gain the required Brahma-joy, to be able of refined purification and beyond.”
I see, the goal is to build the right perspective to see things the way they are, i.e. why conditions are impermanent, unstable and unreliable. Of course that will take intentional efforts encompassing the traits you mentioned: “goodness, metta, virtue, purification of Sila, to gain the required Brahma-joy, to be able of refined purification and beyond.”
@Lal:
“Nibbana means total dissociation from this world. Nibbana cannot be described in terms of the vocabulary “of this world.
The “ever-changing personality” terminates with becoming an Arahant.”
Got it, that would mean the idea of “self” is not relevant to Nibbana. But it is the specific mind of an arahant that dissociates from this world and merges with Nibbana, right? So I would think there is individuality, at least till death.
I loved reading all the warm responses. I am really glad that this thread gave an opportunity for practitioners to present their reflections.
@Yash RS:
“Then in 2022 I came across this website and realised the truth. That childhood curiosity was a KEY factor for coming across this truth. Since then I have been progressing significantly.”
The human mind is naturally curious. But few are curious towards finding the “truth”, especially since a young age. I applaud you for that!
“I have not seen any other religion, philosophy or even modern science that discusses the conscious experience to the depth that Dhamma does. This was one of the most compelling aspects for me as it requires you to think critically and the concepts are full of logic, as discussed above.”
The mind is without a doubt the most complex entity in the universe. All beings experience the world through their consciousness, which I believe is the least understood thing in Modern Science and Philosophy. So it is indeed utterly remarkable that Buddha’s teachings primarily focus on (and explain in detail) the sensory experiences!
“I believe that truth doesn’t need a lawyer to defend it. So, try experiencing it for yourself!”
Thank you! I am excited to proceed further!
@pathfinder:
“Even though the mechanism of the above processes are described (Paticca Samuppada), they are still theories for me which I take as working hypothesis.”
One can’t be fully sure about anything unless they have understood and experienced it themselves. It looks like you are doing exactly what the Buddha asked you to do. So I would suggest keeping your inquiring mindset the way it is!
I started this thread asking “Why Buddhism?” because I wanted to understand the perspectives of practitioners in this community and from the responses, it looks like you guys know what you are doing. Thanks again to everyone who participated in this thread! Please feel free to write more if you wish!
3 users thanked author for this post.
Thanks a lot for your responses, Lal, Jittananto, Waisaka and Christian.
@Jittananto:
“You know that as Christians we seek the eternal life promised by Jesus. Just accept Jesus as our savior and all our sins will be forgiven. If we refuse we will not have the right to eternal life, but to hell. When I saw that Lord Buddha said that even the pleasures of heaven and the sufferings of hell are not eternal it was a shock. I had also learned that we are our own saviours.”
I think that is a great perspective. We all know that this world is very unstable and uncountable beings in the Biosphere have gone through insane suffering (and still do) in the process of Evolution. Furthermore, the outer space is really violent too as nothing lasts forever in the entire universe. The idea of “eternal life” is really incompatible with these observations. I’m really impressed that Buddha spoke about this unstable nature of the world and encouraged people to put in the work to save themselves!
“This website uses advanced Dhamma terms. I share these sermons because they are excellent for beginners. Of course, you can jump straight to this website and learn.”
Thank you for your sharing those sermons! One of the reasons I asked that question was because the Dhamma presented in this website indeed seems very advanced. So I was worried if it might be a little too technical for many people.
“For me, the way to build our belief is first we have to think objectively (why we were born in different religions, families, statuses, social) and think neutrally, see the truth universally and then match it with the teachings.”
I think that is an excellent approach. One needs to have an open mind with a healthy amount of skepticism. There’s a lot we don’t know and a lot there is to learn.
“After realizing Buddhism is not a religion but more like Mathematics but about our existential dilemma and personal meditative experiences that Buddhism explained.”
I really like that analogy. To be fully honest, I really was not expected this religion (Tipitaka) to be so technical and full of logic. A religion is not supposed to make you think as hard as this seems to do.
“Dhamma is something you realize – imagine you are an adult who still believes Santa exists, once you realize it doesn’t you will see what is true and what is not, it’s pretty much the same with real Dhamma, non-Dhamma “Buddhism” lives in different preassumptions about “Santa” but because Santa does not exist they can not be true.”
Thank you! I have believed in Santa before and realized that initially, it is quite comforting to believe that there is some imaginary sugar daddy who guarantees salvation for you. But with deeper thought and examination of the world like Waisaka mentioned, I found myself really inconvenienced with that premise. I noticed that there are schools of Buddhism that rely on such ideas like “Pure Land Buddhism”, for example, which states that chanting some Buddha’s name will cause rebirth in the Pure Land and guarantee enlightenment. This sounded a lot like “Worshipping Jesus will guarantee eternal life in the Heaven” type of idea which I chose to discard.
5 users thanked author for this post.
It is difficult for a puthujjana to see the drawbacks of sensual pleasures, let alone those of jhanic and samapatti pleasures. That is why the Buddha realized it would not be easy to teach his Dhamma to humans.
This is very interesting. I would like to ask you how a “puthujjana” could start seeing the drawbacks of sensual pleasures and thus remove the cravings? Our bodies are naturally built in such a way that we NEED certain amounts of sensory interactions. There is a loneliness epidemic going on in countries like USA and Japan for some years now and many people are suffering from touch deprivation which can lead to depression and PTSD. This underscores the importance of getting a balanced amount of sensory pleasures. Becoming addicted is a bad thing of course but depriving oneself of it also doesn’t seem like a good idea.
Touch Starvation: What to Know
1 user thanked author for this post.
