Why is it so difficult to reach Nibbana?

[trd]

>In terms of faith it is true that we need a measure of it, but shouldn't an initial modest level of faith unfold and grow of its own accord through experience?<

Absolutely, but let me say something about faith. Although this is a Buddhist forum, I will need to move to my more familiar terrritory of advaita vedanta and yoga. Having said that, ultimate truth is beyond the classifications of Buddhism or Vedanta. I don't have a problem with dipping into both as they are both vehicles for realising truth.

In the yoga tradition there are two main paths. Jnana yoga and Bhakti yoga. Jnana is the path of knowledge and involves the direct investigation of one's true nature by turning the attention inwards and developing discrimination of thinking and perception. Zen would be close to this. Bhakti yoga is a devotional path and involves devotion to God or Guru. The Hare Krishna sect would fall into this category as would the Judaeo-Christian religions. The tantric practices of certain parts of Tibetan Mahayana with their elaborate visualisation techniques involving deities might also qualify.

The point I want to make is that although they seem to be different paths, they are ultimately the same because both involve surrender of the ego. Some people are just more suited to one path than another. Some say that Japanese Zen is very dry and without heart. Some find anything devotional or evangelical a major turn off. Personally, I am of the Jnana persuasion.

I've raised this not to challenge Buddhist teachings, but to show how faith can play its part as long as there is the dropping of ego and all concepts as its end result. The vedic tradition demonstrates that quite well. Devotion happens to be a legitimate way of doing this. It's just unfortunate that in a religion such as Christianity, the experiential goal of devotion has been lost. You can blame the early Romans for destroying the spiritual aspects when they subordinated the religion to the elevation of their emperors as Gods. When the Bible says, the kingdom of heaven is within you, I really think that a Buddhist or Hindu has a clearer understanding of what it means than a Christian.

>Unfortunately the Buddha died 2,500 years ago and is not present to speak for himself<

Do you really have to go that far back. Buddha was someone who attained realisation. There have been many since, such as Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ajahn Chah, Luangta Maha Boowa and countless others. Don't make the mistake of putting the historical Buddha in a special category all by himself. It is just the weight of history that has created something of a superman out of him. He was a great teacher and those teachings have endured, but how many Buddhas have come and gone who have not been teachers. How many have spent their lives in Himalayan caves without widespread recognition. Buddha was not superman, he was just a man who awakened.

>Shouldn't I honor him by limiting my faith with healthy skepticism as he taught, until my wisdom & knowledge grows from practice and experience?

Perhaps anything else could have me practicing for years something which might be the opposite of what he had intended or taught<

You should not worry about making a mistake. As long as your practice turns you towards silence, you cannot go wrong. Take that on faith.

>NB: It is a little puzzling for me that you have deep faith in terms of re birth & multiple lives, but are cool on realms?<

You are making too much of this. Fred posted some very detailed and intricate stuff about realms and cycles of Buddhas etc. I was just making the point (the very same point you are making) that you should practice with what you can directly experience. I am not critical of interest in these mythologies as long as they aren't substituted for practice.

[IMA_FARANG]

Just one more time and then I'll let this topic go on it's merry way.

The only reason I'll even bother to repeat my previous answer is because it's so important.

The original question was why is it so hard to reach Nibanna (or whatever name you choose to call it by).

My answer is simple.

It is YOU, and your acquired illusions and delusions in your "normal" life that blocks you from entering the gate.

You were born pure, a blank slate, but then as you lived you taught yourself to believe that these illusions and delusions were the one and only reality.

Those illusions and delusions keep you from entering that gate.

Wake up and see clearly.

All your paths and practices are merely guides to that clear awakening.

As I said before in my other post,

Wake up! See clearly that gate in front of you.

The gate is wide open.

No one (but you) blocks your entrance.

Enter

Just understand that this is NOT easy..... it took me 65 years of study and practice (it's called Life) to even see that gate open in front of me.

Enough words, just do.

[trd]

I totally agree with you ima_farang, but to just tell someone to wake up is not going to do the trick in most cases as the illusion is so deeply ingrained in most people.

You say your answer is simple, but then you say it is not easy. You say, wake up, just do, but you have spent many years practising Zen. I also had many years of practice. You refer to practice as just a guide. I agree with that. Practice ripens the fruit, but when the fruit falls, it is beyond practice.

It is easy to see what is obvious and what was always there when you see it for yourself, but with that knowledge comes a responsibility to help others in a way that is appropriate. Trying to pull the cow out of the cowshed will only encounter resistance, but coaxing it out gently with a handfull of grass may be far more effective.

Edited May 20, 2014 by trd

[dutchguest]

Osho makes a distinction between faith and trust.

Faith is of the mind and keeps you in a conceptional, argumentative, logical, scientific and rationalizing modus in which you can ask yourself if something, e.g. rebirth or karma, are true or not true, if some miracles can have happened or not etc. Faith can be lost and turn into its opposite. This is generally the first (and often only) approach of people when they meet a teaching, a theory, some religious dogma. It is on this superficial level where you can find most church- (or wat-) goers, ritual-performers, the people who on the outside look like religious people (and also the non-believers, atheists). This kind of religiousness or irreligiousness is nothing but a social conditioning, just like the mind is only a conditioned phenomenon. In itself mind and argumentation cannot bring you closer to your own realization. To come closer to you your own nature mind (and outer forms) has to be dropped, at least your attachment to it, identification with it.

Trust is functioning on a deeper level, it is an intuition, a feeling of the heart, just like love. It is beyond the dualism and doubts of the mind. It is not a product of social conditioning but something everybody has by nature.

On this video Osho can shed in his own words some more light on these questions:

http://www.salto.nl/streamplayer/salto2_ondemand.asp?y=14&m=05&d=18&t=1900&s=0

[VincentRJ]

You were born pure, a blank slate, but then as you lived you taught yourself to believe that these illusions and delusions were the one and only reality.

I don't think it is true to claim that a person is born pure, and like a blank slate. In recent years, there's been a lot of scientific observation of the behaviour of the unborn baby in the womb. It now seems quite clear that babies in the womb experience and are influenced by external stimuli, the sound of music, pleasant sounds and unpleasant sounds, and are influenced indirectly by their mother's feelings and emotions which trigger the release of certain chemicals into the bloodstream.

For example, if the mother has a liking for particular pieces of music, say Mozart symphonies, and listens to and enjoys such music during her pregnancy, it has been observed that the new born baby, during the first few years of life, will react with interest and pleasure whenever it hears that same music, but not necessarily other types of music.

According to Dr Thomas Verny, one of the world's leading authorities on the effects of prenatal environment on personality development, “Everything the pregnant mother feels and thinks is communicated through neurohormones to her unborn child, just as surely as are alcohol and nicotine.”

Just thought I'd point this out because, as you probably know by now, I'm interested in the truth.

[beautifulthailand99]

Osho makes a distinction between faith and trust.

Faith is of the mind and keeps you in a conceptional, argumentative, logical, scientific and rationalizing modus in which you can ask yourself if something, e.g. rebirth or karma, are true or not true, if some miracles can have happened or not etc. Faith can be lost and turn into its opposite. This is generally the first (and often only) approach of people when they meet a teaching, a theory, some religious dogma. It is on this superficial level where you can find most church- (or wat-) goers, ritual-performers, the people who on the outside look like religious people (and also the non-believers, atheists). This kind of religiousness or irreligiousness is nothing but a social conditioning, just like the mind is only a conditioned phenomenon. In itself mind and argumentation cannot bring you closer to your own realization. To come closer to you your own nature mind (and outer forms) has to be dropped, at least your attachment to it, identification with it.

Trust is functioning on a deeper level, it is an intuition, a feeling of the heart, just like love. It is beyond the dualism and doubts of the mind. It is not a product of social conditioning but something everybody has by nature.

On this video Osho can shed in his own words some more light on these questions:

http://www.salto.nl/streamplayer/salto2_ondemand.asp?y=14&m=05&d=18&t=1900&s=0

dutchguest you are referencing Osho - or the Bhagwan Shree Rajnesh to those of us who remember the eighties and one of the most corrupt religious leaders of the 20th century. If Osho is the path to being awakened I would rather remain in my delusional sleep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho_%28Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh%29

Edited May 20, 2014 by beautifulthailand99

[fabianfred]

Being born pure and in a blank state is impossible. The very reason we are born, or reborn, is because of past karma. We are all unique because of our countless existences in the infinite past and the karma we have created... even identical twins differ by their karma .. unless they are one of the rare cases of a single jitta with two bodies.

[rockyysdt]

Would you accept, "You are conceived pure."?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[camerata]

It is YOU, and your acquired illusions and delusions in your "normal" life that blocks you from entering the gate.

You were born pure, a blank slate, but then as you lived you taught yourself to believe that these illusions and delusions were the one and only reality.

Those illusions and delusions keep you from entering that gate.

Wake up and see clearly.

Just understand that this is NOT easy..... it took me 65 years of study and practice (it's called Life) to even see that gate open in front of me.

Although the Theravada view on attaining nibbana is a little different, Ajahn Chah said something quite similar to this. When a student asked how long it would take, he answered something like: "If you are 20 years old you have 20 years of 'defilements', so it might take 20 years to awaken."

[dutchguest]

Osho makes a distinction between faith and trust.

Faith is of the mind and keeps you in a conceptional, argumentative, logical, scientific and rationalizing modus in which you can ask yourself if something, e.g. rebirth or karma, are true or not true, if some miracles can have happened or not etc. Faith can be lost and turn into its opposite. This is generally the first (and often only) approach of people when they meet a teaching, a theory, some religious dogma. It is on this superficial level where you can find most church- (or wat-) goers, ritual-performers, the people who on the outside look like religious people (and also the non-believers, atheists). This kind of religiousness or irreligiousness is nothing but a social conditioning, just like the mind is only a conditioned phenomenon. In itself mind and argumentation cannot bring you closer to your own realization. To come closer to you your own nature mind (and outer forms) has to be dropped, at least your attachment to it, identification with it.

Trust is functioning on a deeper level, it is an intuition, a feeling of the heart, just like love. It is beyond the dualism and doubts of the mind. It is not a product of social conditioning but something everybody has by nature.

On this video Osho can shed in his own words some more light on these questions:

http://www.salto.nl/streamplayer/salto2_ondemand.asp?y=14&m=05&d=18&t=1900&s=0

dutchguest you are referencing Osho - or the Bhagwan Shree Rajnesh to those of us who remember the eighties and one of the most corrupt religious leaders of the 20th century. If Osho is the path to being awakened I would rather remain in my delusional sleep.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osho_%28Bhagwan_Shree_Rajneesh%29

We are going a little bit off-topic here but ...

It is clear that I (and many others) don't agree with you. I like to hear one concrete example of his corruptness.

Fact is that enlightened people are controversial and misunderstood by the masses.

Jezus and Socrates were killed, not because they did something wrong but because they spoke the truth, which can be painful.

One more remark about the emptiness at the birth of people:

it is clear that people when born bring a lot of the past, as well through the natural laws of heredety, natural evolution of life on earth, may be environmental impressions during pregnancy. The point is when talking about emptiness we are talking about empty of an “ego”, that is separated from nature. This is something that evolves later, during the first years and this is what has to be dropped (according to the Buddhist teachings as I interprete them).

[trd]

You cannot be empty "of" an ego because that implies there is a separateness of emptiness from ego. Emptiness stands on its own and is unconnected with and untainted by anything relative or phenomenological. Emptiness exists prior to birth. For one who identifies with mind and body, there is birth and death. When there is no such identification, there never was any birth.

If you see a snake, but on closer inspection it is revealed to be a rope you can make two statements that are both true.

You saw a snake

There never was any snake.

Edited May 21, 2014 by trd

[dutchguest]

You cannot be empty "of" an ego because that implies there is a separateness of emptiness from ego. Emptiness stands on its own and is unconnected with and untainted by anything relative or phenomenological. Emptiness exists prior to birth. For one who identifies with mind and body, there is birth and death. When there is no such identification, there never was any birth.

If you see a snake, but on closer inspection it is revealed to be a rope you can make two statements that are both true.

You saw a snake

There never was any snake.

May be in an absolute sense you are right.

We can go back further then the evolution of life on earth, further then life and death, to the question of the existence or non-existence of anything uberhaupt. And that by a long chain of causes and effects, karma, we come into existence. But we are relative, conditioned beings so about absolute truths everything remains a bit speculative.

I think emptiness can be explained, and is essentially the same, on all levels, whether taken in an absolute or in a relative sense.

[trd]

You are only a conditioned being until you turn the attention back to awareness and become established in the silence that is your true nature.

The absolute and emptiness which are without conditioning are one and the same. If the absolute is all that can be, then it must also include the relative. The absolute is not dependent on the relative, but the relative is dependent on the absolute just as a ring is dependent on gold and a pot is dependent on clay.

That dependency can be seen as an experience going from the gross to the subtle. The senses see the mind as knower. The mind sees individual consciousness as the knower, and individual consciousness sees unbounded awareness as the primary witness of all. All that is in the relative is like the moon borrowing its luminescence from the sun. But the sun is self illuminating, self referring, not dependent on anything else. That is the absolute that can be known in this lifetime.

[fabianfred]

The three laws of conditioned existence (ie. as we know and understand it... not Nibbana) according to the Buddhas.

1. All life leads to suffering.

2. All things are impermanent.

3. All things are not self.

[VincentRJ]

The three laws of conditioned existence (ie. as we know and understand it... not Nibbana) according to the Buddhas.

1. All life leads to suffering.

2. All things are impermanent.

3. All things are not self.

It seems to me that this view, that all life leads to suffering, is itself a conditioned and personal response to the sights and experiences of an unbelievably awful life that would probably have been the norm during the times of the Buddha when people did not have the benefits of modern medicine, hospital care, painkillers, psychiatric help, and free housing that some of the poorest people are sometimes given in Australia where I live.

Just as the Buddha realized that fasting to extreme levels was not a sensible solution to anything, and advocated The Middle Way, I think that this emphasis on complete cessation of all thought and complete elimination of all suffering, is also taking matters to the extreme, similar in principle to extreme fasting.

For example, whilst extreme fasting will be injurious to one's health and eventually lead to death, fasting in moderation can be extremely beneficial to one's health, well-being and longevity. Recent studies have shown that a restricted diet, the sort of diet that a well-behaved monk might have, can prolong one's life. (Provided one attempts to avoid eating too much of that very decadent form of food known as white (or polished) rice).

Regular fasting in moderation, say 2 or 3 or 4 days at a time, can reduce the risk of cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, and so on. In fact, certain scientific studies have shown that fasting by itself can be as effective in treating cancer as chemotherapy is, but without the side effects of chemotherapy, of course.

The view that all life leads to suffering is too pessimistic, in my view. Suffering can serve a very useful, and even necessary purpose for our health and well-being. Any pain that we experience, whether physical or psychological, is a vital message to us (to our consciousness and awareness) that something is wrong and needs to be fixed.

If the pain and discomfort caused by illnesses didn't exist, you might leave it too late before seeing a doctor, as a result of not being aware that you were ill, and might die as a consequence. If a young child, fascinated by the dazzling colors of a fire or flame, were able to stick his hand in the fire without feeling pain, he might lose his hand.

However, prevention is always better than cure. Understanding how extreme attachment to things, situations, possessions, and even people, can eventually lead to suffering, is a very worthwhile lesson that the Buddha has attempted to teach.

[camerata]

The English word "suffering" is a traditional but inadequate translation of the Pali word dukkha. To understand the Buddha's teaching, one has to understand the true meaning of dukkha. One of the best terms IMO is "dis-ease," i.e. not being at ease.

There is an article about this on Access to Insight:

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."

— SN 56.11

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/dukkha.html

[VincentRJ]

The English word "suffering" is a traditional but inadequate translation of the Pali word dukkha. To understand the Buddha's teaching, one has to understand the true meaning of dukkha. One of the best terms IMO is "dis-ease," i.e. not being at ease.

There is an article about this on Access to Insight:

"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."

— SN 56.11

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca1/dukkha.html

That's a good point. However, I suspect that a single, precise and true meaning of the word dukkha is not possible, just as there is no precise meaning of the word hot.

What is hot, and what is not hot? Surely it depends entirely on the context. If you have an unusually cold spell in Northern Thailand during winter, the local Thais will probably complain about the cold weather and feel a bit miserable. However, a tourist who has recently flown in from Northern Alaska, will likely be overjoyed at the pleasantly hot weather.

And, of course, the same word hot can be used to describe the temperature of boiling water, the temperature of the surface of the sun, and the temperature of molten metal.

To translate dukkha as discomfort, dis-ease (or being ill at ease), unsatisfactoriness, stressfulness, frustration etc, are all correct according to the context. In my opinion, there is a wide range of degrees of suffering which should all come under the general heading of dukkha. Using different words to describe such suffering is simply an attempt to describe more accurately the degree and the quality of any particular instance of suffering.

[camerata]

Sure, there is no perfect translation for dukkha - hence the confusion among non-Buddhists and those new to Buddhism. But my point was that it is pointless to discuss statements the Buddha made about dukkha without knowing exactly what he meant by it. Sometimes we have to get back to basics.

[A1Str8]

Who that Nibbana?

Sent from my GT-I9500 using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[VincentRJ]

Sure, there is no perfect translation for dukkha - hence the confusion among non-Buddhists and those new to Buddhism. But my point was that it is pointless to discuss statements the Buddha made about dukkha without knowing exactly what he meant by it. Sometimes we have to get back to basics.

Does anyone know exactly what the Buddha meant in any of the sayings that have been attributed to him? The first written account of anything he might have said occurred about 450 years after his death, and that account was written in Pali, a language which most scholars believe was not the language that Buddha spoke, although he might have spoken a similar dialect, as English and German are similar, or perhaps a dialect as close to Pali as Medieval English is close to modern English.

In such a situation, where translation difficulties and interpretation difficulties abound, one should be aware of the context (within which a word has been used) as much as possible, and use one's common sense.

I don't claim to be an expert on Buddhism, or to be privy to great insights on the meaning of certain words as a result of extensive meditation practices. If there's a problem in the understanding and translation of certain key words, then let's discuss it.

If you stress the point that suffering in all its forms, including extreme suffering and extensive sorrow etc, is a mistranslation of Dukkha, and when the equivalent term was used by the Buddha, he was really referring to a sense of uneasiness, discomfort, dissatisfaction and/or the things that cause such uneasiness, then I would claim that such modest discomforts are not things that worry me particularly, but things that I accept as part of the trade-off, or balance, between enjoying life and the occasional disappointments and frustrations that we all experience to some degree.

Perhaps I'm unusual in this respect, but I suspect not particularly unusual.

Edited May 22, 2014 by VincentRJ

[camerata]

If you stress the point that suffering in all its forms, including extreme suffering and extensive sorrow etc, is a mistranslation of Dukkha, and when the equivalent term was used by the Buddha, he was really referring to a sense of uneasiness, discomfort, dissatisfaction and/or the things that cause such uneasiness, then I would claim that such modest discomforts are not things that worry me particularly

That wasn't what I said. The common misunderstanding is that dukkha has the narrow meaning of the English word "suffering," which has quite a strong - almost biblical - connotation. The real meaning of dukkha, as can be seen in the above article, is very broad, covering everything from minor mental stress to major physical suffering. As such, no one can claim they don't experience dukkha. This is important because the Buddha said:

"One thing only does the Buddha teach, namely, dukkha and the cessation of dukkha."

This sums up what the Buddha's teachings were about. To assess the Buddha's teachings we have to test whether it does in fact result in the reduction and ultimate cessation of dukkha. His methodology was a system of mental training or mental cultivation. Whether one wants to try this is up to whether the individual feels it will be of benefit or not. The Buddha certainly never said everyone had to do it. You could say it's a "lifestyle choice" rather than a religion.

[VincentRJ]

If you stress the point that suffering in all its forms, including extreme suffering and extensive sorrow etc, is a mistranslation of Dukkha, and when the equivalent term was used by the Buddha, he was really referring to a sense of uneasiness, discomfort, dissatisfaction and/or the things that cause such uneasiness, then I would claim that such modest discomforts are not things that worry me particularly

That wasn't what I said. The common misunderstanding is that dukkha has the narrow meaning of the English word "suffering," which has quite a strong - almost biblical - connotation. The real meaning of dukkha, as can be seen in the above article, is very broad, covering everything from minor mental stress to major physical suffering. As such, no one can claim they don't experience dukkha.

Then we are in agreement. As I mentioned previously, the word hot is a good analogy. In reality everything has heat. Even ice at -5 degrees Centigrade has a degree of heat, although most of us wouldn't describe such temperatures as hot. But perhaps an Eskimo who is used to temperatures of -20 or even -30 degrees C, would describe -5 degrees as hot.

Commonly used words are rarely precise, whereas scientific terms have to be precise. Whether -5 degrees is experienced or described as being hot or cold can vary depending on opinion, circumstances and context. However, regardless of opinion and context, a temperature of -5 degrees is precisely that. Minus 5 degrees is always minus 5 degrees until it changes, and it doesn't change according to religious belief, or opinion, or the state of one's ego.

Unfortunately, at some point most analogies break down. There is no temperature equivalent for suffering. It cannot be precisely measured on a scale, which is why the meaning of dukkha must be broad. Whether one chooses to translate the word dukkha as suffering or discomfort, or dis-ease, is partly a matter of literary style, but I would say that suffering is a better choice if one is to use just one word.

For example, an experience of discomfort or uneasiness can also be described as a minor suffering, or a slight suffering, or an insignificant suffering. But how do you describe the experience of intense pain in terms of discomfort? Very, very, very uncomfortable? Extremely and unbearably uncomfortable? That's a but clumsy, don't you think?

[camerata]

I think it's mainly a problem for Buddhist authors addressing non-Buddhists. In books I've read, the author will typically explain dukkha early on and then settle on an English word to represent it. "Suffering" seems too heavy to me, "stress" seems too trivial, "unsatisfactoriness" seems too clumsy. But a choice has to be made. Some authors just stick with the Pali word.

In fact, the "Three Marks of Existence" that Fred mentioned (dukkha, anicca, anatta) are all difficult to represent with a single English word. The Pali-English Dictionary of Buddhist terms is good for checking on these words.

Getting back to Fred's original question, having spent a lot of time on Buddhist web boards it seems to me that many Western Buddhists can only sustain their enthusiasm for 3-4 years before they start thinking that their dukkha isn't heavy enough to warrant all the effort. It's a pity, because I think that the practice prepares one for the inevitable heavy dukkha that comes along later in life.

[VincentRJ]

I think it's mainly a problem for Buddhist authors addressing non-Buddhists. In books I've read, the author will typically explain dukkha early on and then settle on an English word to represent it. "Suffering" seems too heavy to me, "stress" seems too trivial, "unsatisfactoriness" seems too clumsy. But a choice has to be made. Some authors just stick with the Pali word.

In fact, the "Three Marks of Existence" that Fred mentioned (dukkha, anicca, anatta) are all difficult to represent with a single English word. The Pali-English Dictionary of Buddhist terms is good for checking on these words.

Getting back to Fred's original question, having spent a lot of time on Buddhist web boards it seems to me that many Western Buddhists can only sustain their enthusiasm for 3-4 years before they start thinking that their dukkha isn't heavy enough to warrant all the effort. It's a pity, because I think that the practice prepares one for the inevitable heavy dukkha that comes along later in life.

Camerata,

I'm not aware of any sociological studies on this issue of how long Western Buddhist tend to sustain their enthusiasm, but you may well be right. I imagine that the aspects of Buddhism that appeal to most Westerners who show an interest in the subject, are Buddhism's philosophical nature of enquiry and its emphasis on practical procedures to achieve a calmness of mind.

These aspects certainly appeal to me. I'm fascinated in Buddhism because it seems to relates, at least in some broad manner, to certain modern theories of both Physics and Psychology. The Kalama Sutta seems to me like a broad statement of instructions and advice that tends to read like a description of some fundamental principles of the scientific method.

The Buddhist concept that one of the (eventual) causes of suffering is attachment to things, such as our house, our car, our job, our jewelery, tasty food, cigarettes and alcohol, and so on, is just one example of a truth that becomes very apparent after a bit of thought.

One doesn't need any sort of belief in mythological Gods and miracles to understand this, surely! We can observe it happening all around us. People actually become obese because they can't stand the suffering (or discomfort) of abstaining from tasty (sugary and fatty) foods. Such obesity will eventually cause greater suffering than any minor discomfort due to the mere abstention from eating the tastiest of foods. The result of such obesity will likely be prolonged ill-health and frequent hospitalisation in later life.

The same applies to smoking and drinking, and attachment to great material wealth. An extreme example of the effects of such attachments would be the case of someone who suffers so much after losing all his wealth in a stock market crash, that he ends his life. How sad!

I suppose the question for many Westerners practicing some form of Buddhism (or at least those who select the aspects and practices of Buddhism that make sense to them, as I do) is the reality of these concepts of Karma, Reincarnation and Nirvana. How are they to be interpreted? Could any individual attain a state of Nirvana and still continue to live? Could such a person, whilst in a state of Nirvana, offer himself to the services of science and undergo an fMRI scan, please?

[camerata]

Well, this is the problem with many (mostly younger people) in the West. They think the Buddha arrived with some kind of grand scientific theory and if they can find a crack in the theory the entire teaching is useless. So they ask for proof of "reincarnation" and then give up when they don't get it. Needless to say, they expect this to be handed to them by someone on a website rather than by actually reading any Dhamma themselves.

Firstly, there is no "reincarnation" - at least not in Theravada Buddhism. There is no soul and no transmigration of souls. The Canon talks about rebirth, not reincarnation.

Anyone looking for a scientific proof of rebirth or kamma will never find one. Many Western monks point out that the principle of rebirth can be seen in the way our body is constantly regenerating and that we are obviously not the same person we were 10 years ago. It's the same with kamma. We can see the principle of it in the fact that good deeds generally have good consequences and bad deeds generally have bad consequences. Even good deeds that have unintended bad consequences leave us feeling better than bad deeds. For the sceptic, remaining agnostic about future lives is more logical than speculation or blind faith. Having an "I don't know" stance means you don't get caught up in an attachment to either a "true" or "false" position. For me, this doesn't diminish the core teaching about dukkha in any way.

Nibbana is a bit different because we can at least prove it to ourselves in this life. We may not know the nature of it but we know the Buddha, his monks, and monks down through the ages attained it. When the Buddha spoke to his monks, he spoke mostly of attaining nibbana in this life. Even when he spoke to them about rebirth in other realms, it was after talking about nibbana in this life. So his emphasis was very clear.

When the Buddha and his monks attained nibbana (i.e. became arahants) they did not become helpless or die. They continued to live normal, healthy lives, mostly teaching the Dhamma. An arahant probably wouldn't be motivated to do much other than teach. But that makes sense to me. Over decades they became experts in attaining nibbana, so they should teach it. I suspect a before and after MRI of an arahant would show that the areas of the brain that light up after metta meditation would be permanently lit up, but not much more than that. In any case it wouldn't convey the experience of nibbana. I think a sceptic would want to have that subjective experience recorded and transplanted into his brain before he would believe it.

[VincentRJ]

Well, this is the problem with many (mostly younger people) in the West. They think the Buddha arrived with some kind of grand scientific theory and if they can find a crack in the theory the entire teaching is useless. So they ask for proof of "reincarnation" and then give up when they don't get it. Needless to say, they expect this to be handed to them by someone on a website rather than by actually reading any Dhamma themselves.

Strange! I can't remember ever thinking like that myself when I was young. I would say that such people have little understanding of the scientific method and its processes.

All scientific theories on very complex and illusive subjects are always subject to doubt, and frequently have to be modified when so-called cracks are found. In fact, deliberately searching for 'cracks' in the theory is what pure research is often about.

There are many complex situations in science where proof is currently impracticable because the variables are so great and the time involved in any predicted change is also so great that no theory can be verified. An example would be Anthropogenic Climate Change. Another example would be whether any particular individual will get lung cancer if he continues smoking. Some people get lung cancer without ever smoking. Others can smoke for most of their life without contracting lung cancer, and sometimes live to a grand old age, eventually dying in their nineties of something completely unrelated to lung cancer.

Even the phenomenon of 'consciousness' is currently beyond any sound scientific understanding. All we have are speculative hypotheses.

Here's one such theory about consciousness: "Cognitive scientists Stanislas Dehaene and Bernard Baars have suggested that memories, sensory perceptions, judgments and other inputs are stored in a type of short-term memory called the global workspace. This buffer gives rise to consciousness when the collected information is broadcast throughout the brain to stimulate cognitive processes that then engage the motor system, spurring the body to action."

Firstly, there is no "reincarnation" - at least not in Theravada Buddhism. There is no soul and no transmigration of souls. The Canon talks about rebirth, not reincarnation.

I can appreciate that there may be a linguistic distinction between the Hindu concept of reincarnation and the slightly different, but still related, Buddhist concept of rebirth. However, without reference to some objective evidence for the existence of either, any discussion on the subject is likely to be as fruitless as discussing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

Just as the Buddha is reported to have advised his Indian audience not to speculate on the existence of unknowable entities such as an Almighty Creator God, perhaps some of us who are very skeptical about such issues should apply that advice to the possibility of the existence of rebirth.

Anyone looking for a scientific proof of rebirth or kamma will never find one.

That's a very dogmatic statement, Camerata. How could you possibly arrive at such a conclusion? I'm reminded of the account in the Pali Canon of Buddha's enlightenment during a single evening of meditation beneath the Bodhi tree.

The translation I have is as follows: "I directed my mind to the knowledge and recollection of former habitations. I remembered a variety of former habitations.......such a one was I by name, having such and such a clan, such and such a color, so was I nourished, such and such pleasant and painful experiences were mine, so did the span of life end. Passing from this, I came to be in another state where such a one was I by name....Thus I remember diverse former habitations in all their modes and detail."

In other words, the Buddha's recollection of former lives was so detailed that he even remembered, his name, his clan, what sort of food he ate, and (presumably) specific events that were pleasant or painful.

Now, of course, during the time of the Buddha it would have been very difficult for anyone to confirm with any degree of scientific certainty that any of those former lives recalled by the Buddha were of real people who once existed, historically. That ancient society wasn't even able to record the life of Gautama Buddha himself.

However, in our modern society, with detailed records sometimes going back centuries, and the existence of 'births and deaths registers' and so on, it should sometimes be possible (although still difficult) to confirm whether someone's recollection of a former life is real or imagined.

[camerata]

But a reported memory is not scientific proof. For one thing, we don't know that the memory didn't come from a book, the radio, an overheard conversation, etc. There's interesting anecdotal evidence, but no empirical evidence. The anecdotal evidence or "experiential evidence" (if we ourselves have memories of former lives or see them while attaining states of meditative absorption) may well be enough to convince some - and that's fine - but it isn't scientific. Also, memories of past lives doesn't tell us anything about future lives or the fruit of kamma in future lives. On the old bswa.org web forum the kids just weren't buying it, despite the organisation having been set up by Ajahn Brahm, who said, "Past lives are so real you have to believe it."

[VincentRJ]

But a reported memory is not scientific proof. For one thing, we don't know that the memory didn't come from a book, the radio, an overheard conversation, etc. There's interesting anecdotal evidence, but no empirical evidence. The anecdotal evidence or "experiential evidence" (if we ourselves have memories of former lives or see them while attaining states of meditative absorption) may well be enough to convince some - and that's fine - but it isn't scientific. Also, memories of past lives doesn't tell us anything about future lives or the fruit of kamma in future lives. On the old bswa.org web forum the kids just weren't buying it, despite the organisation having been set up by Ajahn Brahm, who said, "Past lives are so real you have to believe it."

Of course, a reported memory in itself is not scientific proof. The matter has to be thoroughly investigated before any degree of certainty can be established. Furthermore, in science there is never any absolute certainty with complex matters. Theories are under constant review as new evidence comes to light.

Doing a search on the internet, I find that there have been very few serious scientific studies on such matters, no doubt because determining the reality of rebirth is not considered a priority and serious research usually costs lots of money.

The name that comes up most frequently is Dr Ian Stevenson. http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm http://uvamagazine.org/articles/the_science_of_reincarnation

Quote: "Dr. Stevenson has devoted the last forty years to the scientific documentation of past life memories of children from all over the world. He has over 3000 cases in his files. Many people, including skeptics and scholars, agree that these cases offer the best evidence yet for reincarnation."

The reason for researching very young children's memories of past lives, is because they will have had fewer opportunities to have unconscious memories from characters in books they've read, TV programs they've watched, or conversations they've had with others who might have talked about some interesting character they'd met or heard about.

Nevertheless, even with a 3-year-old child, the difficulties in ruling out all possible external sources of information, regarding the claimed memory of a previous life, is considerable.

For example, the parents and relatives might claim that the character whom the child describes is completely unknown to them. But what about TV or Radio? Is it possible even that the child might have had a conversation with an older kid outside the house, one day, and this older kid related some story about his great grandfather, that he'd heard from his parents.

In order to exclude such possibilities, the child with the memory of a previous life would have to have lived those first few years in a secluded environment, with no access to TV or Radio, and no contact with outside people or relatives who might have implanted a memory of some character with whom the child identified.

Even if the child had lived in such an environment, with a single parent, one cannot assume that the mother has not imparted the knowledge of such a recalled character into the child's mind, perhaps even during a dream in the middle of the night. The mother might assert that she has no knowledge of the character described by her child, but perhaps her subconscious does. Science can be very difficult at times.

[Amavel]

Oh, not another "my Buddhism is better than your Buddhism? Board. I feel one should assay the teachings and find their own value from them. One should not practice someone else's interpretation.

The doors can be opened by others but one must take their own steps through them in discovering true nature of reality, self and existence.

[VincentRJ]

Oh, not another "my Buddhism is better than your Buddhism? Board. I feel one should assay the teachings and find their own value from them. One should not practice someone else's interpretation.

The doors can be opened by others but one must take their own steps through them in discovering true nature of reality, self and existence.

Of course! That's understood. Every intelligent person attempts to work thing out for himself/herself. That's one of the definitions of being intelligent.

Unfortunately, many people are conditioned through their upbringing to accept a particular religion, to think in a particular way, and to conform to a type of 'herd' instinct.

I'm not one of them. I wasn't brought up as a Buddhist, yet I recognise a certain wisdom in the 'reported' teachings of the Buddha, which I'd like to explore. Some of the teachings make profound sense; some not so much sense; and some seem like pure fairy tales, or pure mythology.