Why Nirvana (nibbana)?

[fabianfred]

By phetaroi on a recent thread...

"Rocky, let me make a few things clear.

The Four Noble Truths --

1. There is suffering (dukkha). I am in complete agreement with this. I have tested it for myself. I have found it to be true.

2. There is a cause of suffering (craving). I am in complete agreement with this. I have tested it for myself. I have found it to be true.

3. There is the cessation of suffering (nirvana). I cannot test this at this time. I can believe it is possible. I am not sure it is desirable; a.k.a., I am not convinced that all suffering is bad and should be eliminated.

4. There is the eightfold path leading to the cessation of suffering. See my comment on number 3."

********************************************************************************

****************

Before we seek to follow the path leading to nibbana we need to understand why it is necessary. What is it we are hoping to escape from?

If we do not believe in karma and how it leads us to take rebirth in the different realms..........it is not possible to go any further.

If we are having a nice comfortable life right now and do not understand when it is said that all life leads to suffering (First Noble Truth)........ perhaps one needs to wait until one's life meets with suffering....and all will meet it eventually, when sickness, old age, and death come near. Often young men in their teens or early twenties come to my classes and say..."I don't see that life is suffering....I have a nice car...nice girlfriend....good mates...etc." and I say..well you may be still studying and living at home, being taken care of by your parents, but when you leave education and start work or start a family then you will surely begin to get some suffering.

The First Noble Truth does not say that all life is suffering.... but that existence in Samsara, being caught up in the cycle of birth and death....leads to suffering. We might have a reasonably comfortable life and so we overlook the small sufferings which come along, because we enjoy the good times. For those who are less fortunate than ourselves, those whose lives are a continual struggle against poverty or abuse or war and oppression, it is quite another matter.

First we have to realise that as long as we are stuck in the prison of Samsara, we are being reborn wherever our karma takes us....sometimes into states of suffering....sometimes into states where there is virtually no suffering....... but the chances to be reborn into states of suffering far exceed those others.

If we do not know about the laws of karma, or believe in them, then it will be easy for us to unknowingly break them, thus causing suffering to other beings and creating karma which will have to be paid for.......... usually by rebirth into the realms of suffering......escape from which is extremely difficult.

Since Buddhism sees the past and future as infinite and since there is no beginning we have all been stuck in samsara since beginningless time...we have been to everyone of the realms.... been every kind of animal....been every type of human and deva and in every hel_l...... been there, done that, got the T-shirt, but are still making the same mistakes......ignorant of how it all works.

It is not possible that there should be a steady gradual progress.....getting better and more pure until we eventually get to Nibbana....otherwise we would have all got there already in the infinite past. ....No being gets to nibbana by accident....only by personal effort. The trouble is....that in all that infinite past stuck in the prison of Samsara......only rarely are Buddhas to be found. Until a Buddha appears nobody knows that they are stuck in a prison.....and that there is a way to escape....and the path to take.

If we realise how extremely fortunate we are right now...in this very life.... to have met the Dhamma....... when a Buddha's teaching is still available..... and with yet another Buddha to come before the end of this aeon..... we should be wise enough not to waste such a prescious chance to escape the prison and avoid all future suffering.

Even though a very long life in one of the heavens with virtually no suffering seems to be nice....when that life ends and we take rebirth elsewhere....... where?.....will we meet the dhamma?..... will the next Buddha have come and gone already?....... how many aeons before the appearance of another buddha?...how much suffering in samsara will we have to experience before we get another chance like now?

Life stuck in the prison of samsara is subject to constant change....like a pendulum swinging to and fro....one side is pleasure....the other side is suffering....we can no more hold the pendulum on the side of pleasure than on the side of suffering (although we try to do the former). The natural position of the pendulum is stopped in the middle....nibbana....neither extremes of pain or pleasure...peace...perfect peace. As we get a deeper understanding of the dhamma and start to practice it...the pendulum starts to swing less in each direction.....the suffering doesn't distrub us so much.... we are less attached to the pleasure and our craving for it diminishes....and it swings less and less until it stops....we are at peace and are unaffected by pain or pleasure in the normal way.

[fabianfred]

It is not necessary for us to know what nibbana is like...what kind of existence Buddhas and Arahants who have attained to Parinibbana have........ only how to get there.

If we want to travel to London....looking at postcards of the houses of Parliament or Big Ben...whilst interesting...have no relevance to our journey. We shall know them soon enough when we get there.

[phetaroi]

It is not necessary for us to know what nibbana is like...what kind of existence Buddhas and Arahants who have attained to Parinibbana have........ only how to get there.

If we want to travel to London....looking at postcards of the houses of Parliament or Big Ben...whilst interesting...have no relevance to our journey. We shall know them soon enough when we get there.

Fred, I don't think that's a valid comparison. We all KNOW London is there. We don't KNOW for a fact that there is a such a thing as Nibanna. It's just that someone we trust said there is. That's called faith. As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong with faith. But Buddhism is supposed to be beyond mere faith.

[rockyysdt]

It is not necessary for us to know what nibbana is like...what kind of existence Buddhas and Arahants who have attained to Parinibbana have........ only how to get there.

If we want to travel to London....looking at postcards of the houses of Parliament or Big Ben...whilst interesting...have no relevance to our journey. We shall know them soon enough when we get there.

Fred, I don't think that's a valid comparison. We all KNOW London is there. We don't KNOW for a fact that there is a such a thing as Nibanna. It's just that someone we trust said there is. That's called faith. As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong with faith. But Buddhism is supposed to be beyond mere faith.

People say that Buddhism gives us the tools, which if implemented, can lead us to a point where we can experience Nibanna for ourselves, if it exists.

The only problem is that we may have to travel on this path for eons & countless re births before attaining personal experience.

The fallback position is that by adopting the Dhamma we can improve our current lives somewhat & may place us on a path which may reduce future suffering & shorten our journey to Nibbana.

[fabianfred]

It is not necessary for us to know what nibbana is like...what kind of existence Buddhas and Arahants who have attained to Parinibbana have........ only how to get there.

If we want to travel to London....looking at postcards of the houses of Parliament or Big Ben...whilst interesting...have no relevance to our journey. We shall know them soon enough when we get there.

Fred, I don't think that's a valid comparison. We all KNOW London is there. We don't KNOW for a fact that there is a such a thing as Nibanna. It's just that someone we trust said there is. That's called faith. As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong with faith. But Buddhism is supposed to be beyond mere faith.

If we have confidence in our teacher...the Buddha...then we will assume he knows what he is talking about and not telling us lies...so we can confidently follow his path to reach Nibbana.

It does not need to be a long distant goal.... reaching the safety of stream-entry is possible in this very life.

Doubt is a hinderance.

[rockyysdt]

It does not need to be a long distant goal.... reaching the safety of stream-entry is possible in this very life.

What is required & how do you know stream entry has been reached?

[phetaroi]

It is not necessary for us to know what nibbana is like...what kind of existence Buddhas and Arahants who have attained to Parinibbana have........ only how to get there.

If we want to travel to London....looking at postcards of the houses of Parliament or Big Ben...whilst interesting...have no relevance to our journey. We shall know them soon enough when we get there.

Fred, I don't think that's a valid comparison. We all KNOW London is there. We don't KNOW for a fact that there is a such a thing as Nibanna. It's just that someone we trust said there is. That's called faith. As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong with faith. But Buddhism is supposed to be beyond mere faith.

People say that Buddhism gives us the tools, which if implemented, can lead us to a point where we can experience Nibanna for ourselves, if it exists.

The only problem is that we may have to travel on this path for eons & countless re births before attaining personal experience.

The fallback position is that by adopting the Dhamma we can improve our current lives somewhat & may place us on a path which may reduce future suffering & shorten our journey to Nibbana.

I certainly can support your latter statement, where there is Nibanna or not.

[fabianfred]

It does not need to be a long distant goal.... reaching the safety of stream-entry is possible in this very life.

What is required & how do you know stream entry has been reached?

We have to remove the first three fetters...... belief in a self....belief in rites and rituals....lack of confidence in the Triple gem.

So we need to have an unshakable belief in the Buddha and his teachings...... a confidence in the laws of karma and rebirth....these can be acquired by the practice of vipassana meditation and daily mindfulness which gives us insight knowledge of the truth about suffering, impermanence and non-self.

Some teachers say that a definate breakthrough, a definate change is felt when one becomes Sotapanna....and some teachers say that it is possible to be Sotapanna or even Sadagami and not know it.

[IMA_FARANG]

May I throw in a unsolicited comment here?

I am a Buddhist. I consider myself a "student" of Buddhism not a "practitioner" of Buddhism. As such the question of whether Nirvana (Nibbana) does exist or if I will ever "get there" doesn't enter into my thinking/practice as a Buddhist.

Personally my study of Buddhism has contributed much to improving my life, how I conduct it now, and my attitude toward life now. So, for that reason alone, I am quite happy I found Buddhism.

And just in my personal value system as a Buddhist, I feel that longing or working toward any "entry into Nirvana/Nibbana" that I might attempt is something I am uneasy about. It is like getting a "reward" for being what I should be anyhow. I don't need or want the "reward". I just want the knowledge involved. To me, in my personal value system, striving for Nirvana/Nibbana is "grasping" or in Zen terms "attachment to form". (Yes, I'm a follower of Zen). And all such "attachments to form" are hinderences to understanding.

But, each to his/her own. I don't criticise others path, I have enough to criticise in my own conduct.

However, personally, in my own way I do find it amusing...and irrelevant anyhow, in my personal value system.

Peace, happiness, and enlightenment to all.

Metta

[phetaroi]

May I throw in a unsolicited comment here?

I am a Buddhist. I consider myself a "student" of Buddhism not a "practitioner" of Buddhism. As such the question of whether Nirvana (Nibbana) does exist or if I will ever "get there" doesn't enter into my thinking/practice as a Buddhist.

Personally my study of Buddhism has contributed much to improving my life, how I conduct it now, and my attitude toward life now. So, for that reason alone, I am quite happy I found Buddhism.

And just in my personal value system as a Buddhist, I feel that longing or working toward any "entry into Nirvana/Nibbana" that I might attempt is something I am uneasy about. It is like getting a "reward" for being what I should be anyhow. I don't need or want the "reward". I just want the knowledge involved. To me, in my personal value system, striving for Nirvana/Nibbana is "grasping" or in Zen terms "attachment to form". (Yes, I'm a follower of Zen). And all such "attachments to form" are hinderences to understanding.

But, each to his/her own. I don't criticise others path, I have enough to criticise in my own conduct.

However, personally, in my own way I do find it amusing...and irrelevant anyhow, in my personal value system.

Peace, happiness, and enlightenment to all.

Metta

A wonderful and thoughtful post. I appreciate not being lectured to, but instead hearing phrases such as: "may I", "Personally", "in my personal value system", "I feel that", "To me", "But, each to his/her own".

Personally , I tired of stating the Nicene Creed when I was a Catholic ("We believe in..."), and refuse to accept that a similar statement of beliefs is required of me as a Buddhist. Quite a few years ago, when I decided to move toward Buddhism, I sought out an English-speaking monk here in Bangkok, and as best I can reconstruct it, the conversation (in part) went something like this:

"I want to become a Buddhist. What do I have to do?"

"What do you mean?"

"Well, when I became a Catholic I had to take lessons and then participate in a ceremony called confirmation."

"Oh no. We don't really do that. Different if you want to become a monk. If you think like a Buddhist and act like a Buddhist, then you are a Buddhist."

"But aren't there things I am required to believe in? And don't I have to say so?"

"No, not really. In Buddhism you need to have a mind that is open to learning and accepting the Dhamma."

"Do I have to believe in everything in the Dhamma?"

"No, you have to learn about it, think about it, and be open to it. It's up to you to decide what you believe. Just be open."

"But I live in America. It's difficult to learn about Buddhism there."

"Buy a book."

A look of disappointment on my face.

"Buy a book. Easy to learn about Buddhism." Touched my chest above my heart. "Difficult to learn about yourself."

Thanks again for your post.

[Svenn]

I feel that longing or working toward any "entry into Nirvana/Nibbana" that I might attempt is something I am uneasy about.

...striving for Nirvana/Nibbana is "grasping" or in Zen terms "attachment to form". (Yes, I'm a follower of Zen). And all such "attachments to form" are hinderences to understanding.

Well now hold on , from what I've read nearly every Zen master has claimed that an 'unshakable will' to reach the goal is supreme to any other virtue in the practice... meaning that one should see no purpose in continuing on living should satori not be achieved. This is in nearly all the personal autobiographies from Rinzai to Bankei to DT Suzuki... all of whom claim satori is and must be achieved in this lifetime. Your statements seem more Theravadan to me, since while it is true that a Zen monk should not 'attach to form', he does need to vigoursously pursue this nonattachment. This is my understanding, correct me if I misinterpreted what you meant

As I've said many times, there's nothing wrong with faith. But Buddhism is supposed to be beyond mere faith.

If we have confidence in our teacher...the Buddha...then we will assume he knows what he is talking about and not telling us lies...so we can confidently follow his path to reach Nibbana.

As you said to IMA, phetaroi, you indeed should not be lectured to, nor should anyone tell you or themselves to have 'faith' in the Buddha or the existence of Nibbanna. The Buddha said do not believe anything unless you have found it to be true for yourself, and this is the supreme tenent not only of his teaching but of universal logic. Many Buddhists, contrastingly, speak of their 'faith and confidence' in their teacher the Buddha... this is, as Bodhidharma once said, blind religious fanaticism unfounded in logic. One should 'doubt' with all one's heart. I personally believe in the existence of Nibbana, the third noble truth, because though enough meditation I can directly and immediately see for myself that my consciousness can operate on a different, higher level... and all the descriptions of satori I've seen strike intuitive cords that such a reality is not only possible but immeninent.

[phetaroi]

As you said to IMA, phetaroi, you indeed should not be lectured to, nor should anyone tell you or themselves to have 'faith' in the Buddha or the existence of Nibbanna. The Buddha said do not believe anything unless you have found it to be true for yourself, and this is the supreme tenent not only of his teaching but of universal logic. Many Buddhists, contrastingly, speak of their 'faith and confidence' in their teacher the Buddha... this is, as Bodhidharma once said, blind religious fanaticism unfounded in logic. One should 'doubt' with all one's heart. I personally believe in the existence of Nibbana, the third noble truth, because though enough meditation I can directly and immediately see for myself that my consciousness can operate on a different, higher level... and all the descriptions of satori I've seen strike intuitive cords that such a reality is not only possible but immeninent.

Thank you for the post, Svenn.

Your logic (or is it belief?) in how to believe in Buddhism appears to be almost identical to my own. And for me, it came with the very first book I read about Buddhism, which in the preface said something along the lines of -- as you read this book, you don't have to agree with everything; read, consider, adopt what seems logical and true to you, perhaps the rest may come later.

Specifically with karma (as one good example), I agree with the principle...I have seen the principle work personally and with others. Cause and effect.

It's when one gets down to many of what I'll call the inner workings of karma that I do not yet accept the entire concept; although that is not saying it is not true, just that I have not yet come to accept it. For example, that karma can come back to haunt one over many lifetimes. For me to believe that, then I must believe that a Buddhist principle is unjust. By way of explanation, a child who is born retarded. He has no concept of why he was born retarded, that in some other life -- of which he can never be aware -- he committed a negative karmic act. Unjust.

That doesn't mean that I don't believe in karma. Or that karma within a lifetime is not logical and true. Or that at some point I may find evidence for more of the common beliefs about karma. Where I have a distinct problem with karma is the idea that it just happens with no higher power/judge involved. At some point I may change that view...I am still open.

I am at a somewhat similar place with respect to my belief in nibanna. "The whole world is in flames. By what fire is it kindled? By the fire of lust, hatred and ignorance, by the fire of birth, old age, death, pain, lamentation, sorrow, grief and despair it is kindled." I have no problem with that passage by the Buddha. Although, if I want to go to the movie theater, I have to pay the price of admission. I accept that the price of admission to life is old age, pain, death, and sorrow. I wish those negative things didn't occur, but, as they say, that's life. And I remain unconvinced -- at this point in time -- that we should want to avoid those things. If there is to be a judgment day for each person (to tiptoe into another belief system) and I were to be asked, "What was your finest hour?", I know what my answer would be, and it would be a sacrifice I made that had only deep sorrow for me, but transformed the life of another person. I accepted -- practically invited -- sorrow, but I did the morally right thing. Thank god (?) I didn't avoid sorrow in that case.

On Buddhanet it offers that: "From a metaphysical standpoint Nibbana is deliverance from suffering. From a psychological standpoint Nibbana is the eradication of egoism. From an ethical standpoint Nibbana is the destruction of lust, hatred and ignorance." Okay. I can buy into all of that. And, I'll continue to be open.

Then there is the problem (for me) of believing in the Buddhist heavens and hells. Sorry, not there. Not closed to it. But not there. Yet.

Christian concept of heaven and hel_l. Don't know. Yet.

Belief in God -- yes, based on my own logic. Belief in God as described by others -- not there yet.

Belief in "Christian" angels (or Buddhist devas?) -- yes, based on my own experience, although not fully understood.

I could go down the list.

The point is that in the vast majority of cases, I am at least open-minded. Still thinking. Still reading. Still listening. Still playing the role of the healthy skeptic.

[rockyysdt]

As you said to IMA, phetaroi, you indeed should not be lectured to, nor should anyone tell you or themselves to have 'faith' in the Buddha or the existence of Nibbanna. The Buddha said do not believe anything unless you have found it to be true for yourself, and this is the supreme tenent not only of his teaching but of universal logic. Many Buddhists, contrastingly, speak of their 'faith and confidence' in their teacher the Buddha... this is, as Bodhidharma once said, blind religious fanaticism unfounded in logic. One should 'doubt' with all one's heart.

That's why emphasis should be on an unshakable drive to practice.

As personal experience is the only way.

I personally believe in the existence of Nibbana, the third noble truth, because though enough meditation I can directly and immediately see for myself that my consciousness can operate on a different, higher level... and all the descriptions of satori I've seen strike intuitive cords that such a reality is not only possible but immeninent.

Does your intuition tell you that you are close to reaching Nibbana?

[camerata]

The Buddha said do not believe anything unless you have found it to be true for yourself, and this is the supreme tenent not only of his teaching but of universal logic.

But this is not the full story. Wiki has a very good commentary on the Kalama Sutta:

---

Instead, he [the Buddha] says, only when one personally knows that a certain teaching is skillful, blameless, praiseworthy, and conducive to happiness, and that it is praised by the wise, should one then accept it as true and practice it.

In view of many misrepresentations of this statement of the Buddha's (to the effect that one can just "follow one's own feelings and views or reason things out for oneself", independently of Dharmic advice), it needs to be stressed again that the Buddha instructed the Kalamas to pay attention to the teachings of the wise; nowhere in the Pali suttas does the Buddha encourage people NOT to trust in his word. He did not advocate that individuals can or should decide truth purely by and for themselves:

“On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of context, the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker's kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes.”

The Buddha emphasized faith or saddhā throughout the pali canons, this theme in the Kalama Sutta never reoccurs in the pali canons, but the theme of having faith or conviction does reoccur in the pali canons. It is important to note that the Kalamas were not The Buddha's disciples, but skeptics.

---

I think it's easier to stop using the loaded word "faith," because it implies gullibility. The Pali word saddha, I've read, is closer to "confidence." Better to say that we have "provisional acceptance" in the Buddha's teachings until they meet the above criteria in our own experience.

[camerata]

Belief in God -- yes, based on my own logic.

I don't get it. You believe in God, based on logic, but you can't believe in nibbana based on logic. You don't (i assume) have experience of God but you insist on experience of nibbana before accepting it.

The god idea was implanted into our brains when we were gullible kids by parents, teachers and society, and remains embedded deep in our subconscious. It wasn't our choice. It finds fertile ground there because it is our ticket to immortality, so we can't let go of it and will jump through hoops to justify it. Even a deist believes that a hands-off god who set up life on earth may well have set up a system of life after death. Doesn't it bother you that you have this virus, this irrational belief implanted by others embedded in your mind?

The god idea is a part of self-view. I think one could probably "believe" in God and get the benefits of Buddhism up until sotapanna level, but not beyond. Since you are supposed to be "a light unto yourself" I don't see how God can help anyway.

As for explanations about the origin of the universe etc, this only brings dukkha, which is why the Buddha avoided it. The answers can never be known. There a lots of theories that make more sense than "life has a pattern so it must have had a designer." We already know that the longer we do something the more likely it is that a significant event will occur. If you toss a coin all day you are unlikely to get a sequence of 6 heads in a row, but if you toss the coin every day of your life you probably will.

One of the current theories about the universe, is that during each Big Bang, due to some unknown random(?) process the physical laws of that universe are created. But for billions and billions of universes, the laws are unstable and matter/energy chaotic. Then, eventually, by statistical chance, we get a universe like ours where matter/energy are stable and the physical laws allow life to exist. In other words, we live in an anomalous universe - a throw of the cosmic dice that came up double six. This is much easier for me to accept than an "unbegat" God creating everything and sitting back to watch.

For me, the way to deal with the implanted God idea is just to ignore it - to let it go. That seems to be the Buddhist way. I enjoy following the science, but since scientists can never go back before the Big Bang I don't worry about where matter and energy came from in the first place.

I think it was Ajahn Sumedho who said: "You only know one thing for sure in this life, that you will die." Dealing with that ultimate dukkha seems to be the most important task for us.

[Svenn]

^Phetaroi is being subject to a lot of lectures today

nowhere in the Pali suttas does the Buddha encourage people NOT to trust in his word. He did not advocate that individuals can or should decide truth purely by and for themselves:

Thank you for posting that interesting excerpt camerata, it certainly got me thinking. To me, this seems like a bit of sophistry by 'teachers' or abbots strenuously reinterpreting an unambiguous quote, to discourage students from thinking on their own.... especially this excerpt (from the same): "this theme in the Kalama Sutta never reoccurs in the pali canons" ...odd how that statements stresses "never reoccurs," perhaps someone is trying to hide an inconvenient truth .

Respectfully, the Pali Canon is a collection of scraps written down hundreds of years after the Buddha's death, by monks that for since time immemorial have had their own agendas. If you seriously think the "Pali Canon" is the undoubtable word of Siddhatha Gautama, word for word, you not only dismiss basic logic, but you would be considered by many a religious fanatic (by the way, by 'you', I'm not directing this to anyone particular on this forum, I deplore ad hominem ). Even if it was, it is not rational to believe only one man ever attained nibbana, that the psychological makeup of men would be so disparate. Countless solitary monks, yes many of them Zen, have set out on their own often with no suttas at all, because they intuitively grasped the practice of samadhi and could work independently of teachers to attain the goal. Consider even Gautama himself, do you think he had "faith" in Nibbana or what he was doing? No, he had no idea what the hel_l he was doing and had only vague hints from the Vedas about a thing called moksha. The teacher some practicioners claim we need to blindly follow, citing a Canon he clearly did not compile, "decided the truth purely by and for himself" !!!

I do not believe that any imaginative or thoughtful person who has practiced medition for a few years would not be able to see that there mind is capable of a radical change. You might not be able to put your finger on it, but the intuition that some sort of nibbana exists is there. It is that sense perhaps when you're done sitting and you feel yourself returning to the 'unreal' avidya mind. That is what should drive one along the path, not some fancy religious oath you took in a temple proclaiming your blind, submissive faith in the Dhamma. Perhaps this is an anti-Theravada thing to say, I don't know.

-Svenn

[fabianfred]

Respectfully, the Pali Canon is a collection of scraps written down hundreds of years after the Buddha's death, by monks that for since time immemorial have had their own agendas. If you seriously think the "Pali Canon" is the undoubtable word of Siddhatha Gautama, word for word, you not only dismiss basic logic, but you would be considered by many a religious fanatic (by the way, by 'you', I'm not directing this to anyone particular on this forum, I deplore ad hominem ). Even if it was, it is not rational to believe only one man ever attained nibbana, that the psychological makeup of men would be so disparate. Countless solitary monks, yes many of them Zen, have set out on their own often with no suttas at all, because they intuitively grasped the practice of samadhi and could work independently of teachers to attain the goal. Consider even Gautama himself, do you think he had "faith" in Nibbana or what he was doing? No, he had no idea what the hel_l he was doing and had only vague hints from the Vedas about a thing called moksha. The teacher some practicioners claim we need to blindly follow, citing a Canon he clearly did not compile, "decided the truth purely by and for himself" !!!

-Svenn

You seem to bash the Theravada a lot....must be to defend your zen inclinations...

On what basis do you disparage the Pali texts as being "scraps written by monks with their own agendas..."

and the Mahayana texts which came later are what...?

These monks who memorised and passed on the teachings until they were written down were Arahants....far from having egos or agendas...apart from the accuracy of their writings.

I suppose being mahayana you write off the Arahants as insignificant?

The buddha never decided the truth by himself.

The Dhamma taught by the Buddha....by every Buddha....is the Ultimate truth...and since there can only be one Ultimate truth then every single Buddha must teach exactly the same Dhamma...the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path.

They do not imagine this for themselves or construct it, but when they attain Nirvana and Enlightenment this knowledge of the Truth comes to them.....anything they turn their minds to they can know.

If they wished to know how to build a Harley-Davidson motorcycle they could know that too. remember that Buddhas only teach what is needed to attain Nirvana...the 'Handful of Leaves'

[fabianfred]

Who claimed that only one man ever attained Nirvana?

Every Buddha attained it...and many monks ordained by every Buddha attained it.

The Buddha Guatama is only the most recent in an uncountable number of Buddhas.

Since the past is infinite, despite their rarity, there must have been an infinite number of Buddhas.

A Boddhisattva whilst perfecting himself over countless aeons has some knowledge of the workings of karma and of the many realms. They are not working totally in the dark and just happen to bump into the truth by chance. Buddhas are not made in a single lifetime.

[camerata]

"this theme in the Kalama Sutta never reoccurs in the pali canons" ...odd how that statements stresses "never reoccurs," perhaps someone is trying to hide an inconvenient truth

I think you've missed the point. All the way through the Pali Canon, when the Buddha talks to his followers, he praises saddha. It is clearly an advantage in mental cultivation. On only one occasion, when speaking to non-followers (the Kalamas), he doesn't emphasize saddha. It wouldn't make any sense to do so in the context of his talk.

Respectfully, the Pali Canon is a collection of scraps written down hundreds of years after the Buddha's death, by monks that for since time immemorial have had their own agendas.

Not at all. The historians and linguists who have studied it believe the core teaching is consistent and came from one individual. Sure, lots of stuff has been added and much was created after the Buddha's death, but saddha and nibbana have never been seriously disputed.

Countless solitary monks, yes many of them Zen, have set out on their own often with no suttas at all, because they intuitively grasped the practice of samadhi and could work independently of teachers to attain the goal.

Oh, come on. Chan and Zen may have been anti-scripture but having a teacher and "mind-transmission" was all-important.

The Buddha knew he was searching for "enlightenment" but he didn't know what it was. He obviously had confidence that he would find it or he wouldn't have tried for so long. The fact that he discovered it by himself is what made him a buddha rather than an arahant, according to Theravada tradition

That is what should drive one along the path, not some fancy religious oath you took in a temple proclaiming your blind, submissive faith in the Dhamma. Perhaps this is an anti-Theravada thing to say, I don't know.

Who said anything about oaths? It's simple: it's better if you have an idea of the goal before you start on the path. We can't flick a switch and suddenly "believe in nibbana." It's more like we accept it as a worthy goal that others have already attained.

[phetaroi]

...it needs to be stressed again that the Buddha instructed the Kalamas to pay attention to the teachings of the wise;

...

I think it's easier to stop using the loaded word "faith," because it implies gullibility. ...

Define "the wise".

Don't redefine "faith". Doing so makes the discussion more confusing...although I'm sure I'm hypocritical in saying so.

[phetaroi]

I don't get it. You believe in God, based on logic, but you can't believe in nibbana based on logic. You don't (i assume) have experience of God but you insist on experience of nibbana before accepting it.

The god idea was implanted into our brains when we were gullible kids by parents, teachers and society, and remains embedded deep in our subconscious. It wasn't our choice. It finds fertile ground there because it is our ticket to immortality, so we can't let go of it and will jump through hoops to justify it. Even a deist believes that a hands-off god who set up life on earth may well have set up a system of life after death. Doesn't it bother you that you have this virus, this irrational belief implanted by others embedded in your mind?

The god idea is a part of self-view. I think one could probably "believe" in God and get the benefits of Buddhism up until sotapanna level, but not beyond. Since you are supposed to be "a light unto yourself" I don't see how God can help anyway.

As for explanations about the origin of the universe etc, this only brings dukkha, which is why the Buddha avoided it. The answers can never be known. There a lots of theories that make more sense than "life has a pattern so it must have had a designer." We already know that the longer we do something the more likely it is that a significant event will occur. If you toss a coin all day you are unlikely to get a sequence of 6 heads in a row, but if you toss the coin every day of your life you probably will.

One of the current theories about the universe, is that during each Big Bang, due to some unknown random(?) process the physical laws of that universe are created. But for billions and billions of universes, the laws are unstable and matter/energy chaotic. Then, eventually, by statistical chance, we get a universe like ours where matter/energy are stable and the physical laws allow life to exist. In other words, we live in an anomalous universe - a throw of the cosmic dice that came up double six. This is much easier for me to accept than an "unbegat" God creating everything and sitting back to watch.

For me, the way to deal with the implanted God idea is just to ignore it - to let it go. That seems to be the Buddhist way. I enjoy following the science, but since scientists can never go back before the Big Bang I don't worry about where matter and energy came from in the first place.

I think it was Ajahn Sumedho who said: "You only know one thing for sure in this life, that you will die." Dealing with that ultimate dukkha seems to be the most important task for us.

Am I about to be excommunicated because I don't agree? After all, you say I have a "virus". Don't you think that's a bit of hyperbole?

I'm sort of joking when I say that, but you see, I think you have fallen into the very human trap of you must believe what I believe or you are wrong. What do you say yourself?: "which is why the Buddha avoided it. The answers can never be known."

I'm sorry, but I have personally talked with monks who have told me that there is no problem with a Buddhist believing in God.

I never said that I did not believe in nibanna. In fact I believe I said I was open to it and believed in much of the concept, but that I did not believe desiring nibanna was the only path a man might choose.

[phetaroi]

You seem to bash the Theravada a lot....must be to defend your zen inclinations...

On what basis do you disparage the Pali texts as being "scraps written by monks with their own agendas..."

and the Mahayana texts which came later are what...?

These monks who memorised and passed on the teachings until they were written down were Arahants....far from having egos or agendas...apart from the accuracy of their writings.

I suppose being mahayana you write off the Arahants as insignificant?

The buddha never decided the truth by himself.

The Dhamma taught by the Buddha....by every Buddha....is the Ultimate truth...and since there can only be one Ultimate truth then every single Buddha must teach exactly the same Dhamma...the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path.

They do not imagine this for themselves or construct it, but when they attain Nirvana and Enlightenment this knowledge of the Truth comes to them.....anything they turn their minds to they can know.

If they wished to know how to build a Harley-Davidson motorcycle they could know that too. remember that Buddhas only teach what is needed to attain Nirvana...the 'Handful of Leaves'

Not surprisingly, I have to stick up for Svenn here. I have not seen him "bash" anything. I have seen him question some things. I particularly haven't seen him bash anything Theravada, anymore than others on this forum bash Mahayana.

What is your evidence that the teachings that were written down, were written down by Arahants?

What is your evidence that there was more than one Buddha?

In your posts you often refer to or imply this "ultimate truth". That's what fervent Christians do with the Bible. That's what fervent Muslims do with the Koran. At least two-thirds of you -- and perhaps 100% of you -- are wrong.

What gives you the right to demand -- which is what you are doing -- that everyone believe every word of the Dhamma or he or she is not Buddhist?

Why is a person not allowed to say: here is where I am now, I am open to learning more.

I simply do not believe that if a person had talked with Siddhartha Gautama and said that he didn't quite agree with everything that he said, that Siddhartha would condemn him and say, "Go away boy, you bother me." Siddhartha's life was dedicated to freedom of thought. If he had not practiced that freedom of thought, he wouldn't even be a footnote in history.

[phetaroi]

...The historians and linguists who have studied it believe the core teaching is consistent and came from one individual.

Earlier you questioned my logic...and that's fine...after all, we're having an interesting discussion.

But now I want to question your logic.

May I begin by assuming that you believe that there were other Buddhas -- such as Dīpankara -- before Siddhartha?

If so, I find a flaw in your logic that you are willing to rest your case for the authenticity of the Dhamma on "historians", but yet cannot point to a single historian who can provide any evidence of earlier Buddhas.

[camerata]

Define "the wise".

Arahants.

[camerata]

Am I about to be excommunicated because I don't agree? After all, you say I have a "virus". Don't you think that's a bit of hyperbole?

Where did I say you have to agree? I'm just pointing out that you apply different standards to belief in God and belief in nibbana. A virus is a very good metaphor in computer terms. Your mind is the operating system. Your childhood beliefs and ego are planted there without your explicit approval and are not under your control - and the ego has its own agenda, just like a computer virus.

I'm sort of joking when I say that, but you see, I think you have fallen into the very human trap of you must believe what I believe or you are wrong.

I didn't say anything like that at all. Just pointing out errors in your logic regarding the existence of nibbana, which you've avoided answering. You demand proof that nibbana exists yet you "know" that London (or wherever) exists simply because it's common knowledge or someone told you. You don't demand proof. I would say your only real proof London exists is to go there. The same with nibbana. If you don't go there it's just provisional acceptance.

I'm sorry, but I have personally talked with monks who have told me that there is no problem with a Buddhist believing in God.

And you believe them? Isn't that faith? Can you be sure you didn't believe them just because it fits with your cherished view of a God? "No problem with" is extremely vague. I'd like to hear a monk explain from the suttas where belief in God fits with anicca and anatta or helps us move toward nibbana. The thing is, Buddhism really has "no problem" with anything. But that doesn't mean belief in animism or God or any other external help isn't a hindrance. That we have to find our own liberation is the very essence of Theravada Buddhism and what makes it different from other major religions.

[camerata]

May I begin by assuming that you believe that there were other Buddhas -- such as Dīpankara -- before Siddhartha?

No, I don't. Why would I? It can't be proven any more than celestial realms can be proven and it doesn't seem related in any way to my finding a way out of suffering. In any case, the fact that the number of previous buddhas is not consistent throughout the Canon is suspicious.

[Svenn]

What gives you the right to demand -- which is what you are doing -- that everyone believe every word of the Dhamma or he or she is not Buddhist?

Well that's the point, and actually it's not the 'Dhamma', but rather the Pali Canon, and more specifically, the modern interpretations of it that they've read on Buddhanet, Wat Pah Pong sermons, or any other limited source such as wikipedia. This is in fact the reason I don't spend much time on this subforum... most of the posters are clearly deeply religious Theravadans that have lost any sense of rationality and basic logic. No sane person using basic scientific reason can claim to know exactly what 'the Buddha said' by citing to a dubious 2000 year old Iron Age document "written down by arahants", and then proceed to preach it as unfallible to other members of this forum.

With an open mind, I read from all the Buddhist texts available- from Tibet to Thailand to Kamakura... and I try to deduce from them what I can the bare, bare, essentials of the teaching of this mysterious figure known as Buddha. I do not nor ever did cling to any 'school.' This may be against the Vinaya, or perhaps un-Theravada, but it is certainly not un-Buddhist if you belive various Zen Masters such as Bankei, teacherless and basically scriptureless, were followers of the Way. (For those of you wondering, I am not a diehard mahayanist or Zen follower, I despise the mechanistic Japanese Rinzai monasticism most of all!). Even if it was un-Buddhist, I don't really care

Phetaroi, this whole debate arose when you questioned the 4 Noble Truths much to the irriation of other members. I might remind you that I recall very few references to the '4 Noble Truths and the 8-fold path' in the 4 bookshelves I have of Zen texts. Sure, it's proper Vinaya to tell others that the 4 truths are the fundamental core of Buddhism, but most Zen authorities would find that comical, and there's a reason they burned the Vinaya and other texts to keep the monastery warm one night. In sum, I might suggest that you believe only what you have found for yourself to be true, including the 4 truths ...and don't do it because I'm or some sutta is telling you to do that, but rather because it is ultimately the only thing we CAN or ever COULD do as conscious hominids with limited brains!

Respectfully,

-Svenn

[phetaroi]

Where did I say you have to agree? I'm just pointing out that you apply different standards to belief in God and belief in nibbana...

Just pointing out errors in your logic regarding the existence of nibbana, which you've avoided answering. You demand proof that nibbana exists yet you "know" that London (or wherever) exists simply because it's common knowledge or someone told you. You don't demand proof. I would say your only real proof London exists is to go there. The same with nibbana. If you don't go there it's just provisional acceptance.

I'm sorry, but I have personally talked with monks who have told me that there is no problem with a Buddhist believing in God.

And you believe them? Isn't that faith? Can you be sure you didn't believe them just because it fits with your cherished view of a God? "No problem with" is extremely vague. I'd like to hear a monk explain from the suttas where belief in God fits with anicca and anatta or helps us move toward nibbana. The thing is, Buddhism really has "no problem" with anything. But that doesn't mean belief in animism or God or any other external help isn't a hindrance. That we have to find our own liberation is the very essence of Theravada Buddhism and what makes it different from other major religions.

Interesting points.

In terms of applying different standards to different beliefs. Yes. I fully admit that. And anyone in this forum who thinks they don't vary the standards is kidding themselves. And I have no problem with the application of different standards, providing the person realizes it. Part of it relates to "freedom of thought". Each of us has a right to think what we think and believe what we want to (unless, of course, you belong to a faith where you're not allowed opinions). There are times I might say, "I can believe this because there is some evidence and it is logical to me." There are times I might say, "This is not logical to me so -- at this point -- I don't believe it." There are times I might say, "I'll believe it when you prove it to me." One of the only things that really bothers me in this forum is when I hear someone say they know the ultimate truth. Now, don't get me wrong...they have the right to believe and to say it. But, it is so devoid of any real thought.

In terms of belief. There are certain standards each person has about when they will believe something. This is a difficult issue. The historical record proves to me that London is there and that Siddhartha Gautama existed; neither appear to be seriously disputable facts. On the other hand, the fact that Suwannaphum was in Thailand or included Thailand is a highly debatable theory (e.g., "The location of Suwannaphum has been the subject of much debate, both scholarly and nationalistic. It remains one of the most mythified and contentious toponyms in the history of Asia. Asian history scholars have identified two regions as possible locations for the ancient Suwannaphum : Insular Southeast Asia or Southern India").

So do I believe there was a Siddhartha Gautama? Yes. Do I believe in the basic thrust of his teachings? Yes. Do I believe he was infallible? No. Do I believe the published Dhamma is the exact words of Sihhartha? No. Do I believe much (maybe most) of what is in the Dhamma is wise? Yes. And worth following? Yes. Do I accept every part of it without thinking? No. Am I open to believing even more of it? Yes.

What bothers me is when a person basically says, "If you don't believe 'X', then you're not a ____." Fill in the blank with Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, etc. Who made them the decider? Or are they George Bush?

One day a dear friend is a born-again Christian started asking me what I thought about Mormonism, because they knew I was from Palmyra, NY -- the birthplace of Mormonism. In fact, the family home was within walking distance of Joseph Smith's farm. Let me hasten to say we were not Mormons. So I stated my skepticism of many Mormon beliefs (for example the ancient culture in the Americas for which there is no generally accepted historical record) and Christ in North America, and so forth. My friend said, "Right. And if there really were Golden Plates, let them prove it and show them." To which I responded, "I didn't say that. Not everything can be proven." "Well, what's their evidence?" "Do you believe in the 10 Commandments?" "Of course." "Fine. Prove it to me. Show them to me." "Oh, that's different."

If you want me to believe in the general concepts of karma and nibanna, no problem. I accept the general concepts. If you want me to believe in every working detail about karma or nibanna. No. Sorry. You'll have to prove it. But that's just me. I'm still open to learning more. But unquestioning belief...not there...yet.

You mentioned that I didn't answer something. If so, that was not intentional.

You said, "That we have to find our own liberation is the very essence of Theravada Buddhism and what makes it different from other major religions." I agree. We each have to find our own path. You cannot logically demand that I take the same path you accept...particularly since Buddha did not take the same path that was generally accepted in his time.

[phetaroi]

May I begin by assuming that you believe that there were other Buddhas -- such as Dīpankara -- before Siddhartha?

No, I don't. Why would I? It can't be proven any more than celestial realms can be proven and it doesn't seem related in any way to my finding a way out of suffering. In any case, the fact that the number of previous buddhas is not consistent throughout the Canon is suspicious.

Good.

Of course, there is at least one poster here who would say or imply that you're not fully accepting of the Dhamma.

[camerata]

May I begin by assuming that you believe that there were other Buddhas -- such as Dīpankara -- before Siddhartha?

No, I don't. Why would I? It can't be proven any more than celestial realms can be proven and it doesn't seem related in any way to my finding a way out of suffering. In any case, the fact that the number of previous buddhas is not consistent throughout the Canon is suspicious.

Good.

Of course, there is at least one poster here who would say or imply that you're not fully accepting of the Dhamma.

Well, why would that bother you? If you read Ajahn Jagaro's essay Am I a Buddhist? you'll see that the Buddha defined a disciple (i.e. a "Buddhist") as one who takes refuge in the Triple Gem. But it's a volitional choice. No one can make you a Buddhist or stop you being a Buddhist.