The ultimate purpose of Buddhist-style meditation practices

[Brucenkhamen]

If birth is suffering, why would any person attempting to achieve enlightenment or the cessation of suffering, want to introduce yet more suffering by having children? Isn't this a form of nihilism?

If your child comes home from school and says maths is boring why would you want to introduce more suffering by sending them back to school?

Because this is how life works, you dont solve the problem of Dukkha by avoiding it you solve it by facing up to it, understanding it and letting go of it.

I dont see any connection with Nihilism.

Note that giving up sexual activity is an implied requirement.

Seems reasonable, though there is no indication at what point in the path this may need to take place, some people do it after their children have left the nest for example.

[VincentRJ]

That's an interesting distinction; is Nirvana the goal or merely the result or byproduct of the cessation of suffering?

Cessation of suffering is one of the characteristics of Nibbana, I'd say the most important one to the degree that they are virtually synonymous.

Given the above this doesn't make sense.

What fanciful descriptions are these? I think you are relying too much on folk Buddhism. Here are some examples of how the Buddha is recorded as having described it...

When, brahmin, one experiences the remainderless destruction of lust, the remainderless destruction of hatred, and the remainderless destruction of delusion, it is in this way, too, that nibbāna is directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise. - AN 3.55

There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned. - Ud 8.3

All foolish individuals, O king, take pleasure in The senses and in the objects of sense, find delight in them, continue to cleave to them. Hence are they carried down by that flood (of human passions), they are not set free from birth, old age, and death, from grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despairthey are not set free, I say, from suffering. But the wise, O king, the disciple of the noble ones, neither takes pleasure in those things, nor finds delight in them, nor continues cleaving to them. And inasmuch as he does not, in him craving ceases, and by the cessation of craving grasping ceases, and by the cessation of grasping becoming ceases, and when becoming has ceased birth ceases, and with its cessation birth, old age, and death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despair cease to exist. Thus is the cessation brought about, the end of all that aggregation of pain. Thus is it that cessation is Nirvāṇa. - Mil 3.4 8

Bruce,

I'm getting a strong sense of duality in your reply, that is, the concept that one is either suffering or one is not suffering.

Surely there are countless degrees of suffering ranging from unbearable suffering, which results in one passing out, to very mild discomfort or anxiety which might be considered as insignificant in relation to even the very moderate pleasures of life. (The Middle Way).

I would consider my own suffering to be in that category of very mild.

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm getting a strong sense of duality in your reply, that is, the concept that one is either suffering or one is not suffering.

Surely there are countless degrees of suffering ranging from unbearable suffering, which results in one passing out, to very mild discomfort or anxiety which might be considered as insignificant in relation to even the very moderate pleasures of life. (The Middle Way).

I would consider my own suffering to be in that category of very mild.

All forms of Dukkha are Dukkha, it doesn't matter whether they are intense or mild as the point is that Dukkha is a human condition and there is a solution.

I don't see what duality has to do with it, every concept when defined excludes everything outside of that definition, can you give an example of a non-dual definition of thing/concept?

[VincentRJ]

If birth is suffering, why would any person attempting to achieve enlightenment or the cessation of suffering, want to introduce yet more suffering by having children? Isn't this a form of nihilism?

If your child comes home from school and says maths is boring why would you want to introduce more suffering by sending them back to school?

Because this is how life works, you dont solve the problem of Dukkha by avoiding it you solve it by facing up to it, understanding it and letting go of it.

I dont see any connection with Nihilism.

That's a puzzling statement, '"you don't solve the problem of Dukkha by avoiding it. You solve it by facing up to it, understanding it and letting go of it."

Surely trying to avoid suffering in the first instance is the best strategy. Of course, if you have failed to avoid suffering, for whatever reason, then you have to face up to it, try to understand it and let go of it.

It's frequently stated in Buddhism that 'birth' is suffering. You can avoid introducing that suffering by not having children. There's where the nihilism comes into play.

However, having decided to have children, then obviously it's too late to avoid all future suffering for your children. One strategy is to face up to it, understand it and let go of it. In your example of the child who is bored with maths, there could have been another strategy of 'anticipation of future suffering'. If you suspected that your child could be bored with maths, then you could have tried at home to encourage an interest in maths, prior to school, through mathematical games, rewards of a chocolate for the right answer, whatever.

[Brucenkhamen]

Surely trying to avoid suffering in the first instance is the best strategy. Of course, if you have failed to avoid suffering, for whatever reason, then you have to face up to it, try to understand it and let go of it.

That would be true if Dukkha were the cause, but its the symptom, we need a cure not painkillers.

Just like cancer Dukkha and its causes left to its own devices will continue to snowball and multiply so one needs to eradicate the tumor rather than just minimise it.

It's frequently stated in Buddhism that 'birth' is suffering. You can avoid introducing that suffering by not having children. There's where the nihilism comes into play.

What you call Nihilism Id call birth control, a lot of people choose not to have children because they know it is hard work, that doesnt make them Nihilists as most go on to live productive lives.

I think Nihilism would be not acknowledging your children as being relevant or worthy of your care or attention.

[trd]

If birth is suffering, why would any person attempting to achieve enlightenment or the cessation of suffering, want to introduce yet more suffering by having children? Isn't this a form of nihilism?

If your child comes home from school and says maths is boring why would you want to introduce more suffering by sending them back to school?

Because this is how life works, you dont solve the problem of Dukkha by avoiding it you solve it by facing up to it, understanding it and letting go of it.

I dont see any connection with Nihilism.

That's a puzzling statement, '"you don't solve the problem of Dukkha by avoiding it. You solve it by facing up to it, understanding it and letting go of it."

Surely trying to avoid suffering in the first instance is the best strategy. Of course, if you have failed to avoid suffering, for whatever reason, then you have to face up to it, try to understand it and let go of it.

It's frequently stated in Buddhism that 'birth' is suffering. You can avoid introducing that suffering by not having children. There's where the nihilism comes into play.

However, having decided to have children, then obviously it's too late to avoid all future suffering for your children. One strategy is to face up to it, understand it and let go of it. In your example of the child who is bored with maths, there could have been another strategy of 'anticipation of future suffering'. If you suspected that your child could be bored with maths, then you could have tried at home to encourage an interest in maths, prior to school, through mathematical games, rewards of a chocolate for the right answer, whatever.

You can't eliminate suffering by replacing one set of conditioning with another in a purely psychological way as you suggest. This is not what Buddha meant by cessation of suffering. It goes beyond mental activity.

[JoeBats]

Sceptical doubt is considered one of five hindrances to Buddhist practice. True, the Kalama Sutta shows that one should question and examine any sort of doctrine- really get in there and see it for what it is and if it will be of value for one's own practice (see http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html ); however, unless one practices, it remains a theory. It's up to the individual to practice to see for oneself. Reading about practice and thinking about it is not practice.

[nongai]

Attachment to sensual pleasures are abandoned at the Anagami stage so sex has no attraction.

"long sessions of meditation" are only necessary until one passes the nama/Rupa stage after which the mindfulness becomes almost automatic and continual in all postures and moments.

[VincentRJ]

That would be true if Dukkha were the cause, but its the symptom, we need a cure not painkillers.

You don't need painkillers or a cure if you have avoided suffering in the first instance. Surely that's clear. Having failed to avoid the suffering, painkillers can be a part of the cure if they reduce inflammation, which Ibuprofen is claimed to do, for example, although I admit I tend to favour natural remedies for any ailment, including quieting the mind through meditation.

Just like cancer Dukkha and its causes left to its own devices will continue to snowball and multiply so one needs to eradicate the tumor rather than just minimise it.

Perhaps I'm being too literal here in my response to your comments. I would prefer to treat any cancer by 'doing nothing', that is, completely relax and not even bother to eat. There's a lot of scientific evidence that shows that serious fasting for long periods can kill cancer.

Our body knows how to deal with a shortage of food. Cancer cells don't. They'll starve to death before you do. Unfortunately, only those on the Buddhist path, or similar, are likely to have the will-power to refrain from eating for a significant period.

What you call Nihilism Id call birth control, a lot of people choose not to have children because they know it is hard work, that doesnt make them Nihilists as most go on to live productive lives. I think Nihilism would be not acknowledging your children as being relevant or worthy of your care or attention.

Perhaps my use of the word Nihilism is not the best choice of words. I'm using it because of its etymological meaning of "nothing at all". I'm associating it with a philosophical or religious outlook that promotes an ideal model of behaviour requiring a complete abstinence from sexual activity for the best chance of success, and perhaps the only chance of success, according to Theravada Buddhist tradition..

In other words, if everyone were to strive to behave in that ideal way according to this philosophy, and were successful, the human race would become extinct. Furthermore, such a philosophy implies that the only reason we continue to survive and proliferate is because of 'unenlightened' or bad behaviour in previous lives. What word would you use to describe this state of affairs?

Of course, I understand if it becomes possible in modern societies to achieve full enlightenment whilst continuing to lead a normal life which includes sexual relationships and having children, and to achieve that enlightenment with no more difficulty than a monk experiences, then my criticism doesn't apply.

[VincentRJ]

You can't eliminate suffering by replacing one set of conditioning with another in a purely psychological way as you suggest. This is not what Buddha meant by cessation of suffering. It goes beyond mental activity.

I was referring to one specific example of suffering, raised by Bruce, not the whole gamut of suffering.

By the way, aren't the many rules of behaviour required of people who become Bhikkhus, a form of conditioning? Don't such rules represent a different kind of conditioning to the conditioning of the lay person prior to his becoming ordained?

[trd]

You can't eliminate suffering by replacing one set of conditioning with another in a purely psychological way as you suggest. This is not what Buddha meant by cessation of suffering. It goes beyond mental activity.

I was referring to one specific example of suffering, raised by Bruce, not the whole gamut of suffering.

By the way, aren't the many rules of behaviour required of people who become Bhikkhus, a form of conditioning? Don't such rules represent a different kind of conditioning to the conditioning of the lay person prior to his becoming ordained?

I agree. Those rules are a nonsense and can be an impediment to awakening. Vincent, you cannot avoid suffering as long as you identify yourself as an ego and are attached to objects. That identification is suffering itself. A better translation of dukkha is unsatisfactoriness.

[VincentRJ]

You can't eliminate suffering by replacing one set of conditioning with another in a purely psychological way as you suggest. This is not what Buddha meant by cessation of suffering. It goes beyond mental activity.

I was referring to one specific example of suffering, raised by Bruce, not the whole gamut of suffering.

By the way, aren't the many rules of behaviour required of people who become Bhikkhus, a form of conditioning? Don't such rules represent a different kind of conditioning to the conditioning of the lay person prior to his becoming ordained?

I agree. Those rules are a nonsense and can be an impediment to awakening. Vincent, you cannot avoid suffering as long as you identify yourself as an ego and are attached to objects. That identification is suffering itself. A better translation of dukkha is unsatisfactoriness.

Trd,

I can't really complain about any type of suffering, especially not something as mild as the occasional unsatisfactoriness.

Perhaps I'm just lucky, living in a well-developed and secure country such as Australia where there are excellent social services for the elderly, should I ever need them.

Perhaps I'm also lucky because I have no health problems, despite my age, although luck (or karma ) is perhaps only a part of that. I believe I'm able to avoid the suffering of ill-health through regular exercise and by paying attention to my diet.

I don't feel particularly attached to any object. When I occasionally ruin my expensive camera by falling in the water whilst crossing a river (it's happened a couple of times), I don't feel any great sense of loss or suffering. In fact, I have considered it a wonderful opportunity for me to justify the purchase of a new and improved model of camera.

I spend a lot of my time in the quiet countryside and enjoy the peace of nature, which is perhaps another reason for my relative lack of suffering.

I sometimes wonder how I would feel if my house were to burn down in a bush fire. Would I suffer? I don't believe so, (assuming that I wasn't also burned). Just as with the camera, I would consider it an opportunity to buy or rent a new house, perhaps a better house, in a new location, and perhaps a better location, and enjoy different experiences.

[Brucenkhamen]

You don't need painkillers or a cure if you have avoided suffering in the first instance. Surely that's clear. Having failed to avoid the suffering, painkillers can be a part of the cure if they reduce inflammation, which Ibuprofen is claimed to do, for example, although I admit I tend to favour natural remedies for any ailment, including quieting the mind through meditation.

But the point is you cant avoid suffering, just like you cant avoid gravity. You can avoid specific instances of suffering, you can minimise suffering on an ongoing basis but you cant avoid it as a characteristic of being alive.

Perhaps I'm being too literal here in my response to your comments. I would prefer to treat any cancer by 'doing nothing', that is, completely relax and not even bother to eat. There's a lot of scientific evidence that shows that serious fasting for long periods can kill cancer.

Our body knows how to deal with a shortage of food. Cancer cells don't. They'll starve to death before you do. Unfortunately, only those on the Buddhist path, or similar, are likely to have the will-power to refrain from eating for a significant period.

If you are ever in the position to prove your theory that would be quite the medical breakthrough.

Perhaps my use of the word Nihilism is not the best choice of words. I'm using it because of its etymological meaning of "nothing at all". I'm associating it with a philosophical or religious outlook that promotes an ideal model of behaviour requiring a complete abstinence from sexual activity for the best chance of success, and perhaps the only chance of success, according to Theravada Buddhist tradition..

If someone has dedicated their life to the path than I think the lack of sexual activity is a very small price to pay. The lack of family and children is a much bigger price to pay but the simplification of your life releases an incredible amount of time and energy.

The same is true if you dedicate your life to something else, like saving the whales for example, its the dedicating your life that counts. The thing is that its a choice.

In other words, if everyone were to strive to behave in that ideal way according to this philosophy, and were successful, the human race would become extinct.

Furthermore, such a philosophy implies that the only reason we continue to survive and proliferate is because of 'unenlightened' or bad behaviour in previous lives. What word would you use to describe this state of affairs?

And if pigs could fly the airlines would become extinct. Its never going to happen and the Buddha never expected it to happen which is why he setup a symbiotic relationship between the sangha and the laity.

The word I'd use for this state of affairs is nature or instinct.

[VincentRJ]

In other words, if everyone were to strive to behave in that ideal way according to this philosophy, and were successful, the human race would become extinct.

Furthermore, such a philosophy implies that the only reason we continue to survive and proliferate is because of 'unenlightened' or bad behaviour in previous lives. What word would you use to describe this state of affairs?

And if pigs could fly the airlines would become extinct. Its never going to happen and the Buddha never expected it to happen which is why he setup a symbiotic relationship between the sangha and the laity.

The word I'd use for this state of affairs is nature or instinct.

Surely no-one would prefer to fly through the air sitting on the back of a pig.

I have no fears or worries that the human race could become extinct through the widespread and diligent practice of the most profound of Buddhist teachings, which includes sexual abstinence. You're right that it's not going to happen because natural instincts will prevail.

I'm just trying to get my head around this apparent irrationality of a teaching that claims to show how to reach an ideal state of affairs, or most joyous state of mind, at a widespread religious level that (I imagine) is intended to apply to everyone, yet is reliant upon the reality that most members of the religion are not going to strive to achieve that ideal state of affairs.

Perhaps this is just the difficulty that Westerners face, who don't accept the reality of Karma and Rebirth. In my original post I raised this issue that Buddhism, without the belief in Karma and Rebirth, seems to lend itself to descriptions of nihilism, whereas traditional Buddhism doesn't seem to fit into this category because Karma and Rebirth will ensure that there is a constant supply of lower forms of life which are reborn as humans.

Hey! I think I might have answered my own question.

Can we assume that the trillions upon trillions of lower life-forms, including microbes in the soil as well as cockroaches, birds and cows, are all instinctively striving to be reborn as a higher form of life? Is this ancient concept of Karma perhaps equivalent (very roughly) to the Darwinian theory of Evolution?

Anyway, regardless of the reality of the processes of Karma, it is at least an explanation which seems necessary for Buddhism to make sense, as a religion or as an all-embracing philosophy.

Without that explanation of Karma and Rebirth, I think the term 'nihilistic' would be appropriate.

[Brucenkhamen]

I'm just trying to get my head around this apparent irrationality of a teaching that claims to show how to reach an ideal state of affairs, or most joyous state of mind, at a widespread religious level that (I imagine) is intended to apply to everyone, yet is reliant upon the reality that most members of the religion are not going to strive to achieve that ideal state of affairs.

I think you are taking an idealist position and Im taking a pragmatist position.

If you look at the Buddha portrayed in the Pali Canon I think he is very much a pragmatist whereas if you look at Mahayana Buddhism there is a lot more idealism, for example you can delay your enlightenment until youve saved everybody else... you can get more idealistic than that.

Perhaps this is just the difficulty that Westerners face, who don't accept the reality of Karma and Rebirth. In my original post I raised this issue that Buddhism, without the belief in Karma and Rebirth, seems to lend itself to descriptions of nihilism, whereas traditional Buddhism doesn't seem to fit into this category because Karma and Rebirth will ensure that there is a constant supply of lower forms of life which are reborn as humans.

These teachings can be really problematic if you interpret them in a subjective individualistic kind of way, especially in light of the teachings of Anatta. However the way I see it is that its not personal rather its that the underlying principle of life is cyclical and a constantly changing array of causes and conditions We are all in this together and everything I do has an affect however little if not on me then on the people around me or those in the future. The important point is to put care and attention into my current actions rather than speculate about the future or high minded ideals.

Can we assume that the trillions upon trillions of lower life-forms, including microbes in the soil as well as cockroaches, birds and cows, are all instinctively striving to be reborn as a higher form of life? Is this ancient concept of Karma perhaps equivalent (very roughly) to the Darwinian theory of Evolution?

You can assume all you like but if these assumptions dont indicate or affect how I should live my life and practice here and now I cant use them so I dont care.

[VincentRJ]

I'm just trying to get my head around this apparent irrationality of a teaching that claims to show how to reach an ideal state of affairs, or most joyous state of mind, at a widespread religious level that (I imagine) is intended to apply to everyone, yet is reliant upon the reality that most members of the religion are not going to strive to achieve that ideal state of affairs.

I think you are taking an idealist position and Im taking a pragmatist position.

If you look at the Buddha portrayed in the Pali Canon I think he is very much a pragmatist whereas if you look at Mahayana Buddhism there is a lot more idealism, for example you can delay your enlightenment until youve saved everybody else... you can get more idealistic than that.

I consider myself to be both a pragmatist and an idealist.

My interest in Buddhism was renewed a few years ago when I came across the Kalama Sutta for the first time. If Karma and Rebirth are real then I guess I'm probably a reincarnation of one of those skeptical villagers from Kesaputta.

As I understand, the discourse in the Kalama Sutta uses basic moral issues as examples, such as freeing the mind from hatred, malice, greed and delusion, and advises acceptance of the words of wise men, only after applying a process of examination, or critical thought, in order to work out for oneself whether such advice is beneficial to oneself and others.

I'm simply applying those same principles of thoughtful inquiry to the highest level of complete freedom from all types of suffering, resulting in Nirvana or full enlightenment.

There's no doubt that freeing the mind from hatred, greed and delusion, is beneficial for oneself and others. However, when one applies that same standard of critical thought to the issues of complete abstinence from sex and even the accidental killing of worms in the soil should one attempt to till the earth, then it's difficult to understand how that could be good for oneself and others, the emphasis being on 'others' with an assumption that 'others' means 'all others', rather than select groups of 'others'.

It might be good for oneself if one decides to live the life of a monk, and it might be good for other select groups leading a life-style similar to that of a Buddhist monk, but it cannot be good for everyone, because, as you've pointed out, lots of people have to continue having sex, killing worms and having children in order to support that select group that is trying to achieve the highest goal of 'escape from the wheel of life'.

Am I making sense?

[JoeBats]

Not making sense, no. You are caught in papancha - a proliferation of concepts, which is just confusing to yourself. With your renewed interest in Buddhism, go take a seat in a quiet place and practice meditation to calm down. Perhaps once calm insights will arise.

From your continued dialog it's not clear what you want- to critique Buddhism in general, find fault in the teachings and the practice, wondering if you should bother with it given you are somewhat content, living mildly stress- free, or what possible value it has for humankind.

So sit down, calm yourself down and dig in to find the path best for you. No one is forcing this stuff on you. If curious- by all means explore. But this dialog has run its course for being of use to you.

Be well.

[Brucenkhamen]

There's no doubt that freeing the mind from hatred, greed and delusion, is beneficial for oneself and others. However, when one applies that same standard of critical thought to the issues of complete abstinence from sex and even the accidental killing of worms in the soil should one attempt to till the earth, then it's difficult to understand how that could be good for oneself and others, the emphasis being on 'others' with an assumption that 'others' means 'all others', rather than select groups of 'others'.

It might be good for oneself if one decides to live the life of a monk, and it might be good for other select groups leading a life-style similar to that of a Buddhist monk, but it cannot be good for everyone, because, as you've pointed out, lots of people have to continue having sex, killing worms and having children in order to support that select group that is trying to achieve the highest goal of 'escape from the wheel of life'.

Why is someone else's choice not to have sex any business of yours? or mine? People are free to choose that lifestyle or not, it's their business. Sure in traditional Asian cultures young men are coerced to ordain for cultural reasons (usually temporarily), but I don't think there is the evidence the Buddha encouraged such a practice.

If someone is serious about their practice and wants to simplify their life all power to them I say, and if they find they don't like it they are free to return to householder life so I don't see the problem here.

Nobody ever died due to lack of sexual intercourse or from lack of killing worms.

[VincentRJ]

There's no doubt that freeing the mind from hatred, greed and delusion, is beneficial for oneself and others. However, when one applies that same standard of critical thought to the issues of complete abstinence from sex and even the accidental killing of worms in the soil should one attempt to till the earth, then it's difficult to understand how that could be good for oneself and others, the emphasis being on 'others' with an assumption that 'others' means 'all others', rather than select groups of 'others'.

It might be good for oneself if one decides to live the life of a monk, and it might be good for other select groups leading a life-style similar to that of a Buddhist monk, but it cannot be good for everyone, because, as you've pointed out, lots of people have to continue having sex, killing worms and having children in order to support that select group that is trying to achieve the highest goal of 'escape from the wheel of life'.

Why is someone else's choice not to have sex any business of yours? or mine? People are free to choose that lifestyle or not, it's their business.

I think you have misunderstood my point in this respect. I assure you I have no objection to anyone choosing to refrain from sexual activity, or to engage in any activity of their choice, provided it does no harm to themselves or others.

What I'm questioning is the fairness of a system or philosophy that promotes a way of life as being the only method of achieving the most prized goal in life (escape from the wheel of life), when such a way of life, to effectively escape from life, has to exclude for practical reasons the majority of the population who are required to feed and house those who choose to strive to achieve that ultimate goal of enlightenment.

When I recently read an article about the Santi Asoke Buddhist group, describing its practices of sustainability, producing and selling its own organically grown food, its refusal to accept donations, its willingness to fully ordain women, and so on, I was very impressed.

This sounds like the sort of Buddhist group that makes more sense to me. The nuns and monks live a simple life, but they also do voluntary work, which means they are not a burden on society. Of course, they do not work in the garden in case they inadvertently kill insects or worms. This work is left to the lay farmers who also live in the community. However, the monks and nuns do other forms of work such as office work, printing, editing, translating, typing, teaching in schools, and so on.

[Brucenkhamen]

What I'm questioning is the fairness of a system or philosophy that promotes a way of life as being the only method of achieving the most prized goal in life (escape from the wheel of life), when such a way of life, to effectively escape from life, has to exclude for practical reasons the majority of the population who are required to feed and house those who choose to strive to achieve that ultimate goal of enlightenment.

Life isn't fair, if one sees the Dukkha pervasive in life I don't think one would expect life to be fair.

Do you think it unfair that everyone can't be a doctor or everyone can't be a lawyer? Only if someone is prepared to make the sacrifices in terms of time, money, effort, and giving up the other things one could be doing is it possible.

The path to awakening is no different, you get out of it what you are prepared to put into it.

[VincentRJ]

What I'm questioning is the fairness of a system or philosophy that promotes a way of life as being the only method of achieving the most prized goal in life (escape from the wheel of life), when such a way of life, to effectively escape from life, has to exclude for practical reasons the majority of the population who are required to feed and house those who choose to strive to achieve that ultimate goal of enlightenment.

The path to awakening is no different, you get out of it what you are prepared to put into it.

That seems a fair statement. Oops! I see you've previously claimed that life isn't fair, so I guess it can't be a fair statement.

Life isn't fair, if one sees the Dukkha pervasive in life I don't think one would expect life to be fair.

To be aware that some condition, or state of affairs, is not fair, one has to be aware of what fairness is. Something that is 'not fair' is 'not fair' only in relation to something that is fair.

I'm alive. You're alive. We are both part of life. If we are aware of what fairness and unfairness means, then we have to conclude that life is both fair and unfair.

However, having become aware that certain conditions are unfair, is it not reasonable and rational to strive to change them and make them less unfair. I'm sure those Kalamas from the village of Kesaputta would have agreed with me.

Do you think it unfair that everyone can't be a doctor or everyone can't be a lawyer?

I would think it unfair if being a doctor or a lawyer were promoted as being the only profession which allowed a human being to achieve some ultimate goal of the cessation of all suffering. That would be very unfair.

The Santi Asoke movement has offered a solution to this problem by creating sustainable communities that don't rely upon donations of money and food, and don't spend resources building elaborate temples and huge Buddha statues, which I'm sure Gautama would not have approved of. However, I still see a flaw in a system that excludes nuns and monks from engaging in the activity of growing food, in order that they can avoid accidentally killing a worm. I think the Santi Asoke movement should try to find a solution to this problem.

I can think of at least a partial solution, which would be to engage in no-till farming, whereby the soil is not disturbed.

[Brucenkhamen]

To be aware that some condition, or state of affairs, is not fair, one has to be aware of what fairness is. Something that is 'not fair' is 'not fair' only in relation to something that is fair.

Fairness is an ideal and a concept, you're measuring reality against that ideal, measuring how it is against how it should be is Dukkha.

I'm alive. You're alive. We are both part of life. If we are aware of what fairness and unfairness means, then we have to conclude that life is both fair and unfair.

However, having become aware that certain conditions are unfair, is it not reasonable and rational to strive to change them and make them less unfair. I'm sure those Kalamas from the village of Kesaputta would have agreed with me.

Yes we can reduce unfairness in how structure our society and live our lives, western democracies have reduced unfairness in many areas compared with the monarchies and dictatorships of the past for example but many areas are still as unfair as they always have been. We can't eliminate unfairness as it's an underlying principle, we can't replace reality with an ideal, the mature thing is to play the hand you've been dealt to the best of your ability.

[VincentRJ]

To be aware that some condition, or state of affairs, is not fair, one has to be aware of what fairness is. Something that is 'not fair' is 'not fair' only in relation to something that is fair.

Fairness is an ideal and a concept, you're measuring reality against that ideal, measuring how it is against how it should be is Dukkha.

All measurements exist in relation to some form of an ideal, sometimes referred to as a standard. A temperature of 40 degrees Centigrade has meaning only in relation to a particular standard, that the temperature of water is 0 degrees and the temperature of boiling water is 100 degrees, for example.

Without such references to a specific standard or ideal, a description that something has a temperature of 40 degrees would be meaningless unless we had experienced the sensation of a 40 degrees temperature.

Likewise, any experience of suffering, or unsatisfactoriness, is meaningful only in relation to a known and previously experienced state of a 'relative' lack of suffering. If we had an equivalent temperature scale for degrees of suffering, then 0 degrees would be no suffering at all, and no life, because life always contains at least some degree of suffering, by definition, as you seem to agree.

The occurrence of any degree of suffering, psychological or physical, is a message from our innately intelligent organism (ie. body and brain) that something is wrong. Fix it.

To fix it by effectively trying to escape from life (or the wheel of life), on the grounds that there will always be some degree of suffering, however mild, seems a bit extreme, doesn't it!

How does this complete escape from the cycle of life fit in with the Buddha's teaching of the Middle Way, that is, everything in moderation?

Yes we can reduce unfairness in how we structure our society and live our lives, western democracies have reduced unfairness in many areas compared with the monarchies and dictatorships of the past for example but many areas are still as unfair as they always have been.

Can you give me some examples of modern situations in modern, developed societies being as unfair as they have always been? Are you referring to the horrors of wars?

If so, I think you'll find that when Alexander the Great marched eastward towards Buddhist territories, impressing the Buddhists of those times with the magnificent examples of Greek sculpture, and inspiring them to create equally magnificent statues of Gautama Shahkyamuni, which the Buddha would probably not have approved of if he were still alive, the continual slaughter and decimation by Alexander the Great of whole villages of women and children as he advanced eastward, would have been common place, and more devastating than the worst tragedies of modern times.

In our modern context of greater fairness, Alexander the Great would have found himself in the criminal court in the Hague, on charges of war crimes, genocide and murder. We've progressed since them, creating a more 'fair' society. The exceptions do occur, but they are less extreme, at least in terms of the percentages of our populations that are affected.

Thus speaks the rationalist and the sensible one, who pays attention to the Kalama Sutta.

[Brucenkhamen]

Without such references to a specific standard or ideal, a description that something has a temperature of 40 degrees would be meaningless unless we had experienced the sensation of a 40 degrees temperature.

Just as the ideal of a world without unfairness is meaningless unless one has experienced it.

To fix it by effectively trying to escape from life (or the wheel of life), on the grounds that there will always be some degree of suffering, however mild, seems a bit extreme, doesn't it!

How does this complete escape from the cycle of life fit in with the Buddha's teaching of the Middle Way, that is, everything in moderation?

The escape from samsara/life world view that the Buddha integrated from the Jain teachings doesn't seem so meaningful to people who haven't grown up with it I think. I don't know about other people but I'm more interested in experiencing freedom from suffering in the lifetime that I am familiar with.

Can you give me some examples of modern situations in modern, developed societies being as unfair as they have always been? Are you referring to the horrors of wars?

Surely it's a no brainer... Some people are rich, others are poor. Some are beautiful, others are ugly. Some live a long life, others die before their time... need I go on?

[IMA_FARANG]

{t is impediments......illusions and delusions created by your mind snd it's Ego nature.

When those impediments are cleared and your mind is clrar to see without illusion or delusions then you can truley see your true Buddha nature

For each person the process proceeds at it's own pace.

As the saying goes.....when the student is ready. the teacher will arrive.

[VincentRJ]

Just as the ideal of a world without unfairness is meaningless unless one has experienced it.

One can't experience the whole world. One can only experience one's immediate surroundings and, through a process of empathy, some highly selected snippets of news from around the world presented on TV and radio etc, representing a very tiny fragment of what's going on, and usually consisting of bad news involving great suffering, which seems to be more attention-grabbing than good news.

Surely it's a no brainer... Some people are rich, others are poor.

Not in Australia. There are no poor people in Australia. That's why we have to treat refugees so badly, and not allow them into the country. If we didn't do that, the country would soon be swamped with refugees from all over the world, including economic refugees.

What we have in Australia are certain groups of people who have sufficient for their real needs, but might imagine they are poor because they can't afford unnecessary luxuries to boost their illusory ego, as so-called rich people can.

Some are beautiful, others are ugly.

Beauty is in the mind of the beholder. You don't even need to be a Buddhist to understand that.

Some live a long life, others die before their time...

That's why it's advisable to live in the present and savour the moment. No-one knows when they are going to die, although those who are old, sick and frail can make a reasonable assumption that they haven't got much time left.

Comparing the situation in modern, developed societies, with situations in the past, I think you'll find that we are living much longer, on average, than people did during the times of the Buddha.

I don't think you've made a strong case, Bruce, so far.

[Brucenkhamen]

I don't think you've made a strong case, Bruce, so far.

I don't think you are even on topic, I don't have the patience to try and work out if you still have point worth responding to.

[nongai]

I consider the law of karma, which causes people to be ugly, beautiful, rich, poor etc., to be completely fair and just.

To escape all future suffering by achieving Nibbana requires one to accept suffering now. The practice required to achieve it is not easy and needs one to give up many normal pleasures and especially time which could be spent on lesser pursuits.

[nongai]

This thread, and many similar in the Buddhism section, seem to have become a personal philosophical battle between vincent and bruce.....

[VincentRJ]

I don't think you've made a strong case, Bruce, so far.

I don't think you are even on topic, I don't have the patience to try and work out if you still have point worth responding to.

Ah! Yes! Patience! You do need patience in order to reach the Buddhist goal.

But thanks anyway, Bruce, for responding to my posts. I actually enjoy thinking about such matters.