Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I agree with you guys. We have all been instinctively programmed to value our lives above anything else. No one wants to die. No one wants to stop existing. That fact that most religious people believe in an eternal afterlife teaches us about this very nature. It indeed requires a great deal of effort with a good balance of open-mindedness and skepticism to walk the Noble path and make progress.
I am glad I found this community where I can interact with wise folks. I hope you guys stay healthy and continue making valuable progress towards Nibbana!
2 users thanked author for this post.
I have a habit of summarizing stuff after going through much information. Didn’t mean to be derogatory but wanted to sum up how the Buddhist view on NDE differs from that of general public’s into that little post lol
2 users thanked author for this post.
Many NDE researchers say, “Majority of the NDE cases are positive with descriptions of heaven and other worldly beings (angels) which suggest that the after life is peaceful and shouldn’t be feared.”
4 users thanked author for this post.
As we are working hard to understand these concepts, it can feel stressful sometimes. So here’s a beautiful art of Lord Buddha that will hopefully provide encouragement:
4 users thanked author for this post.
Even sankhara and vinnanana does not evolve according to one’s wishes! Then if we say that we have the “free will” in some aspects, does that not mean there we are seeing some things as “atta” nature, to our control? Is it not the same as saying ” Let my sankhara be the way I like; let it not be the way I don’t like.” Will there be any exceptions? The verse said that it is true for saṅkhārakkhandha, or any sankhara that will ever exist! If we say that we have a small amount of free will, then it also means that there is a small amount of sankhara that we can control.
The statement regarding these aggregates not being under one’s complete control are made in the context of the rebirth process. When the kammic energy for human bhava ends, the next existence is not determined according to one’s wish but according to Paticca Samuppada process. One may wish “may I not be reborn as an animal or a hell being or a peta”, but if the kammic seed suitable for an apaya bhava ripens at the cuti patisandhi moment, there is nothing one can do at that point. Thus, the 5 aggregates evolve according to natural causes and not according to one’s desires in this regard. But after comprehending Buddha’s teachings, one does have control over the 5 aggregates, not in the sense that you can have eternal life in the heavens but you can gradually and eventually stop them from arising.
Billions of cittas (and associated cetasikas) collectively form the mind that can think, feel and perceive. The process of Paticca Sampudda includes intentional thoughts. By that, a sentient being capable of making its own decisions exists and in case of a human, it can train itself to the point that the suffering filled existence can be stopped i.e. cittas stop arising. It is true that there are many factors that can influence one’s actions, but a human does have the ability to perform intentional actions which will create causes that can bear their results, some earlier than others. To remove the instinctive (built in) desires for the 5 aggregates, one needs to make intentional efforts.
In a mundane sense, we can say that the human who attained the Arahanthood attained “Nibbana.”
What about the ultimate sense? Is it not discernible to us?
(ii) Even after getting rid of the wrong view, there is still a “wrong sanna (perception)” of a “me” or “I” left. That is also called “asmi māna” or simply “māna.” That goes away only at the Arahant stage. Everyone, even those who don’t believe in a soul (like materialistic scientists), has “asmi māna.” Furthermore, even an Anagami has asmi māna.
From an arahan’ts pov, “who” experiences samsara and “who” attains Nibbana? I do have a general understanding of this but something feels unclear to me.
I’m not sure it’s safe to say that. While reading this sutta, Arahant Khema Theri said that it is wrong to say this. Of course, she said this in the context of parinibbānna but it can apply during the lifetime of an arahant. Arahants do not see an I anywhere.
You are right. I just wanted to explore my understanding of why both self and no-self and incorrect approaches. For an arahant, the idea of “self” is not relevant but they are obviously not talking corpses, are they? An unenlightened mind has the perception of self and when one tries to negate that, they can get depressed. So we should think that there is a dynamic self and gradually comprehend why the 5 aggregates are not beneficial to be taken as one’s own.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Pathfinder’s construction of Laplace’s Demon is what many would consider “God”. If such a divine deity who knows everything existed then the idea of free will would be objectively false and we would all be predestined. But like cubibobi explained, Quantum Mechanics in a way proves that such a being can’t exist. But of course there is always the thought of “what if ?” Buddha taught us that indulging in such philosophical banter is a waste of time. So instead of trying to break everything down to fundamental cittas, it would be more beneficial to look at the mind on a higher level. This is why I brought up the idea of sankhara.
In the Accinteyya Sutta, Buddha declared, “There are these four things that one should not conjecture about and would bring anxiety and madness to anyone who speculates. Which four? (i) capabilities of a Buddha, (ii) subject of jhānā, (iii) detailed knowledge of kamma/kamma vipāka, and (iv) origins of the world.”
2 users thanked author for this post.
Nihilistic view: ‘I’ don’t exist
Eternal view: ‘I’ exist
Ultimate view: ‘I’ neither exist nor don’t exist
Without exposure to Buddha’s teachings, sentient beings can only come up with the first two views of existence. The ultimate view transcends both these views and that is the view perfected by an Arahant/Buddha. It would not be possible to develop that view by starting with “there is no self, just causes and conditions”. A sentient being (satta) is an everchanging lifestream that has the eternal view, i.e. the view of an unchanging essence (self). Of course this is a wrong view that is not beneficial to have but it is not beneficial to adapt to the other extreme view of no self either. A sotapanna removes the wrong view of a self (sakkaya ditthi) but the perception of a self will only be removed at the arahant stage. So till the arahant stage is attained, one can say that there is a dynamic self.
Of course in the ultimate reality, the idea of “self” is not relevant. But to an unenlightened mind that hasn’t transcended the views of “existence” and “non-existence”, it would be unfruitful to declare “there is no self, therefore I’m a zombie”. I like to use concepts from Science, sorta like an analogy to intuitively visualize this issue. In classical mechanics, it is assumed that Gravity exists. The equations developed based on this assumption work brilliantly for daily objects like cars, projectile, planets, etc. But when we are dealing with really fast particles like photons, this model no longer works. We need to transcend this and enter the realm of Theory of Relativity which is much more real in the ultimate sense. Einstein proved that the concept of “gravity” here is no longer relevant. So even though we know that Gravity does not exist in the ultimate sense, it works for daily objects so we use them. It would not be beneficial to say “there is no Gravity in the ultimate sense so therefore Classical Mechanics is fake”.
I think the issue with pathfinder’s analysis is that firstly, he doesn’t quite realize that there is a third way of looking at existence (which is different from both “I exist” and “I don’t exist”). He understands that the former view is wrong but is erroneously leaning to the latter. This happens when one tries to look at the world from an arahant’s perspective without actually being an arahant. We must say that there is a dynamic self till we get to that level even if that isn’t fully accurate in the ultimate reality. Secondly, he is equating mental entities (citta) with matter (suddhathaka). Material phenomena are indeed deterministic which is why they are relatively easy to study. Scientists are able to conduct experiments involving inert matter to produce repeatable results. But mental phenomena are not reproducible. Why do you think scientists struggle so much to explain the mystery of consciousness? A human mind is extremely complex and even the best that a Buddha can do is predict not determine.
I asked a similar question a couple weeks ago and Dr. Lal told me that it is wrong to say there is “no doer”. It is true that there is no “real doer” here but as long as the root causes of greed, hate and delusion exist in mind, a “doer” exists as the Paticca Samuppada process sustains the lifestream. Regarding your concerns of determinism, I think it is helpful to analyze the sankhara of a human. Mental volition of a human is composed of mano sankhara, vaci sankhara and kaya sankhara. Mano sankhara generates thoughts that one can’t directly control. It is according to a person’s gati. Vaci and kaya sankhara involve conscious thoughts, speech and bodily actions. It is true that one’s gati can influence these conscious sankharas (and perhaps does to an untrained mind) but they are not necessarily deterministic and a human can use them to significantly change their gati. This will further change their mano sankhara and ultimately their destiny. I wrote a post about how one can use this knowledge to be free from the trap of maladaptive dreaming here. The goal is to remove the impulsive tendencies towards the subconscious thoughts generated via mano sankhara.
Of course beings in the apayas don’t have this ability. An animal, for example, is generally enslaved to its instinctive desires. A hell being is likely always raging. There is little that they can do to change their mindset, sadly. So I think your idea of determinism could apply to such beings and to a certain extent, might also apply to untrained humans. But humans do have the ability to change their destiny. This is why Buddha rejected both the extremes of an immortal soul and denial of existence.
I missed an important aspect of the cure. Removing the negative gati pertaining to maladaptive dreaming becomes easier when one ponders its anicca nature. Day dreams in this context are like cheap thrills that provide temporary (mind-made) pleasure. Becoming addicted to them isn’t much different from being addicted to drugs and alcohol. It will have negative consequences in the current life and of course in the samsara itself. So it is quite obvious that such habit can’t be maintained to one’s satisfaction in the long run.
The ultimate happiness can be experienced when our minds are no longer attached to the cheap temporary thrills.
Would you mind elaborating why they are wrong? Most of these symptoms occur to me within a few minutes, sometimes even seconds after I begin meditating. My body used to mildly shake many years ago when I went to bed and closed my eyes even when I wasn’t trying to meditate. Having formally meditated seems to have simply intensified what I was already experiencing.
I believe most Westerners can grasp Buddha’s teachings if explained methodically and will be able to see the “depth” of Buddha’s teachings.
I love the methodical approach. I think the people in the East can also comprehend Buddha’s teachings when explained properly. The biggest hurdle for most people, in my view, is the tendency to cling to preconceived wrong views. I have spoken to many materialists and eternalists and many of them are quite reluctant to consider possibilities different from their beliefs.
