Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Dhamma can be stressful to learn. So take it easy guys and gradually comprehend the truth so that you can become at least a Sotapanna and be free from the harsh suffering of the apaya.
2 users thanked author for this post.
Here is another example of built-in saññā. Iguana hatchlings running for life as soon as they’re born:
A human baby can’t even move after birth. It is crazy to think that these animals face horror as soon as they come out of the egg. This is the actual Noble Truth of Suffering (Dukkha Sacca).
2 users thanked author for this post.
This is one of the reasons I cringe when people say “God is good”. Look at the suffering of animals in the wild. If organizations like National Geographic didn’t exist, most humans wouldn’t even be aware of how brutal this world is. What is “right” and what is “wrong” here? It seems like more external discoveries we make, more we know that Buddha is right.
2 users thanked author for this post.
May I add, baby turtles running for life as soon as they’re born:
1 user thanked author for this post.
Hello Lagrade,
I am sorry to see that you’re confused about this topic. While I don’t consider myself a Dhamma expert, I will try to help you with my 2 cents:
You wrote: “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?”
Saññā (perception) is one of the mental aggregates and is a kamma vipaka, i.e. a result of past action (kamma). According to Tipitaka, the precise details of how a kammic energy can ripen into its corresponding vipaka is only discernible to a Sammasambuddha. What we can do is get the general idea. A sentient being can’t recognize anything without having perception. A human has “manussa saññā“, deva has “deva saññā”, dog has “dog saññā” and so on. We have all experienced uncountable perceptions in the beginless samsara. The first saññā can not be traced back according to Buddha. But our perceptions don’t give us the “absolute truth” as our sense organs provide us a fabricated version of reality. A good example is provided by Yash above. What we conveniently call a “person” is an assemblage of parts, specifically the 5 aggregates.
Now to the other point regarding the “conscious ability to think and do bodily actions”. Our awareness arises due to 2 processes: sensory input and the processing of sensory input. A sentient being is an everchanging entity that behaves according to the existence resulted by the law of Paticca Samuppada. This is true for even a single life as demonstrated by Dr. Lal above. There is no enduring entity that you can can attribute as your “self”.
But then you may ask why it is wrong to identify with the aggregates even if they are impermanent. You asked: “there is a sense of me so one could argue that there is a dynamic self.”
Buddha said you can’t say something is truly “yours” under the following conditions:
- It is not under your complete control
- It can’t be maintained to your satisfaction
- It leads to suffering in the long run
You are correct in pointing out that we have conscious abilities. A healthy human has a pretty sharp mind capable of performing complex tasks, BUT the question is how long will that last? As we get older, our bodies age and eventually our brains will start to decay. Our “conscious abilities” will continue to worsen as we enter old age. It will get even worse when the kammic energy sustaining the human existence is exhausted and an apaya existence is grasped after death. An animal’s conscious abilities are much more limited than that of a human, for example and of course its suffering is far worse. So if something is inconstant, subject to unexpected and unwanted changes, and ultimately leads to suffering, would it be appropriate to say this is ‘me’ or this is my ‘self’?
When you study Abhidhamma in detail, this will get even more clear. Our awareness is a result of several units of cognitions knows as “citta”. There is only one citta at a time. Identifying with it would be like saying “I arise and disappear” which wouldn’t make sense.
And as for Nibbana, Buddha said it exists but there are no words in this word that can be used to describe what it is. So the status of an arahant is the wrong point to start. This is why Buddha said it is incorrect to make the following statements about an arahant:
“They exist after death”
“They don’t exist after death”
“They neither exist nor don’t exist after death.”
“They both exist and don’t exist after death.”
But to get to the arahant level and the end of suffering, intentional efforts are needed. So yes, “individuality” is there because we are responsible for our own future. Buddha always encouraged his followers to train like a horse trained for battle!
Did Buddha dicuss any comprehensive aspect of how dreams work? What I know so far is that when we sleep, the 5 indriyas become inactive but the mana indriya can still be active and detect dhammā signals. But are they random?
Thank you! Do you plan to write part 2 of Aggañña Sutta? The English translations online are so basic and shallow.
1 user thanked author for this post.
I was born into a Hindu family and became agnostic at the age of 8 (after I saw someone die in front of me, which is a depressing story). I eventually became an Atheist as I started to study Science in detail. The more I learnt about the Universe, the less convinced I became that there is a “God” like so many people think.
The reason I discarded other religions is quite straightforward: the people who claim to know the creator know nothing about the creator. For example, you know that many Christians insist that the Bible is the “Word of God”. If that is true, then it should contain the most authentic description of reality possible. All the scientific discoveries made to this day should be trivial to an all knowing deity. But when you analyze the Biblical claims, you don’t see any Science but simply a collection of stories that any ignorant humans could come up with. Hinduism also has the same issues as the scriptures contain so many inconsistencies and garbage rituals that you’re expected to blindly believe in.
I am still a big enthusiast of Science and had been a Materialist for many years before studying Buddha Dhamma. Even though Science has made some solid discoveries about the material world, there hasn’t been a lot of progress in understanding the mental phenomena. About 8 months ago, I was on quest to research more about the conscious experience and what I was not expecting was that many scientists that study this topic like Donald Hoffman, Bruce Greyson, etc. suggested a non-materialistic approach. The irony is that Buddha Dhamma is literally all about the mind. 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.
I have learnt a lot but I still got a long way to go. They say until one reaches the Anagami stage of awakening, they can’t truly be content. I hope you get value from learning Dhamma as well!
4 users thanked author for this post.
Dr. Lal, I would love to hear your critique of a related video that presents a perspective different from most:
This is sounding a lot like those Young Earth Creationism propaganda BS. Uneducated people who read some ancient text like the Bible and see the pseudoscientific usage of Geocentric Model, claim that Earth was created 6000 years ago, etc. and go on to create conspiracies about how all the hardworking scientists are lying. Professor Dave Explains has debunked it multiple times:
Response to Globebusters – The Earth Still Isn’t Flat
10 Challenges For Flat Earthers
The Definitive Guide to Debunking Creationists Part 1: Cosmology/Planetary Science
The Definitive Guide to Debunking Creationists Part 2: Abiogenesis
Of course, time is real (not an illusion). But it is likely that the “perception of how fast time goes by” may be relative. For example, a day in a specific Deva realm corresponds to many years in the human realm. See “Visākhā Sutta (AN 8.43).”
Regarding the discussion of Time, I was thinking about the incentive of ending the rebirth process while pondering the length of a mahakappa (4 kappa). Apayas exist for only 1 kappa which means for 75% of time beings are in the Abhassara Brahma realm where suffering is minimal. Of course 1 kappa is utterly long and suffering in the apaya for billions of years would be insane. But it seems like even though the lifetimes of higher realms are long from our perspective, it isn’t as long from the perspective of beings that live there. So it is safe to say that the majority of “time” is spent in the apayas in the rebirth process.
2 users thanked author for this post.
“So, A cannot worry about B because B will be in the future.”
I meant to say why A would worry about future suffering if there’s no self in ultimate reality.
1 user thanked author for this post.
This reminds me of a quote by Buddha in Kakacūpama sutta:
Even if low-down bandits were to sever you limb from limb with a two-handed saw, anyone who had a malevolent thought on that account would not be following my instructions. This is often depicted as one of the torments of hell. If that happens, you should train like this: ‘Our minds will not degenerate. We will blurt out no bad words. We will remain full of sympathy, with a heart of love and no secret hate. We will meditate spreading a heart of love to that person. And with them as a basis, we will meditate spreading a heart full of love to everyone in the world—abundant, expansive, limitless, free of enmity and ill will.’ That’s how you should train.
Buddha was very serious about removing Hate, such that even if someone were to physically (or verbally) attack us or even our family members, we will still not generate any hateful feelings. This doesn’t mean tolerating abuse but a necessary means to purify our minds.
A and B are not the same, but they are “connected” via causes (hetu) and results (phala.)
One could ask why A should worry about B’s suffering if they’re not the same. My understanding is that the “momentary perception” of me/mine will still remain. In a way, the same thing happens in a single lifetime too, right? Each citta arises and passes away but the “momentary perception” of self is always there. When a toddler grows into an adult human, it becomes a totally different person but there is a continuity (since it is the same life stream) which is why when a human thinks about their past, there is the perception that it is the same person.
Yash wrote, “I dont know how some humans can be full of such a mindset to cause such a harm to another human”
There used to be a time where whenever I hear about a tragic incident, I would be mentally agitated with anger and sadness. I still remember being utterly traumatized at the age of 8 when a woman poisoned herself to death in front of me. These days when I hear such news like rape case in India, mass shooting in USA, etc., I just say “Well, that’s sad. Let’s move on.” Is there a better way of reacting?
y not wrote, “Another person is another mind; another mind is another world.”
Each mind is deluded with Greed and Hatred. But some are conditioned so badly that they can’t help but act out of those defilements with no consideration of others. If my desires are unbearable and I can’t see any (kammic) consequence, why should I be afraid?
