The Search for Nirvana

[gregk0543]

On 8/29/2016 at 7:06 PM, rockyysdt said:

 

Isn't it about the extinction of Dukkha?

 

When dead there is no longer body. Mind and Body are inseparable. Without one the other cannot be.

 

Your statement maybe correct (Without rebirth we all attain Nirvana at death).

 

As there is no consciousness upon death then isn't it better to attain this state of Awakening in this life in order to be conscious of your achievment?

 

 

The only issue about Sotapanna is that "confidence or faith" is a common feature of all Religions.

 

Without faith all Religions would be adrift.

 

What makes Buddhism unique, after all, trying it for oneself to confirm its validity may take your entire lifes resources, often without result.

 

A key ingredient of a Religion is "currently unproven", where as when a Religion is proven correct then word Religion can be replaced with the word "Truth".

 

Yes it is about the extinction (cessation) of Dukkha which is defined as birth and rebirth amongst other things.

And the rounds of rebirth will never end without removing the cause which is the extinction of craving.

And craving is not a physical thing but some aspect of our mind.

So I am pretty sure that the Buddha's teaching about this were not a simple one life system.

He wasnt even describing something easy to do.

 

But assuming that there is rebirth caused by craving resulting in the Dukkha of birth ageing death etc. then it seems quite logical that if craving is removed in stages then there would be a slowing of the momentum driving the Dukkha. There would need to be a tipping point at which you may not be completely free from craving but you are going to be. At that point you have entered the stream that is leading to the end of suffering.

 

And there must be a point at which your faith, conviction or confidence is not based on anothers words but on your own experience. At that point what would we call it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Moo du]

I salute your interest in spiritual growth. Your post actualy questions 1) if the human beeing is devine and 2) if a man can 

connect and experience his devine existance in his mortal life.

(Supposing man IS devine)

 

The spiritual path -if you choose to follow it- is THE most difficult path to follow, especialy nowdays.

I do not recomend seeking answers in the internet. People tend to explain their own truth, which will mislead you

from conquering the one and only truth, which lies deep whitin your heart.

 

In order to progress in spiritual awarness you will need to 1) follow basic common knowlege through the mind

(eg. gravity exists and pulls everything to the ground) and 2) a pure heart free of discrimination and any negative

feeling. Its true that the truth lies away from the ego. As soon as you kill the ego, you can see the truth that lies

beyond matter.(and creates it).

 

The spiritual path and the conquering of truth is THE most challenging event on one s life.

You have my honest, and  best wishes in your path.

 

[rockyysdt]

On 02/09/2016 at 2:48 AM, gregk0543 said:

 

But assuming that there is rebirth caused by craving resulting in the Dukkha of birth ageing death etc. then it seems quite logical that if craving is removed in stages then there would be a slowing of the momentum driving the Dukkha. There would need to be a tipping point at which you may not be completely free from craving but you are going to be. At that point you have entered the stream that is leading to the end of suffering.

 

And there must be a point at which your faith, conviction or confidence is not based on anothers words but on your own experience. At that point what would we call it?

 

Your faith must be very strong in order to overcome your habits and your ingrained conditioning.

 

The world is awash with attractions for our Greed, Aversion & Delusion.

 

Where can one obtain the depth of faith in order for the arduous practice required?

 

And nearing the pinnacle, this experience which supersedes our faith, how do know it's not another level of Ego?

 

What do we call it?  

 

"Sotāpanna".

[AYJAYDEE]

On 9/1/2016 at 9:48 AM, gregk0543 said:

 

Yes it is about the extinction (cessation) of Dukkha which is defined as birth and rebirth amongst other things.

And the rounds of rebirth will never end without removing the cause which is the extinction of craving.

And craving is not a physical thing but some aspect of our mind.

So I am pretty sure that the Buddha's teaching about this were not a simple one life system.

He wasnt even describing something easy to do.

 

But assuming that there is rebirth caused by craving resulting in the Dukkha of birth ageing death etc. then it seems quite logical that if craving is removed in stages then there would be a slowing of the momentum driving the Dukkha. There would need to be a tipping point at which you may not be completely free from craving but you are going to be. At that point you have entered the stream that is leading to the end of suffering.

 

And there must be a point at which your faith, conviction or confidence is not based on anothers words but on your own experience. At that point what would we call it?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6

7

 

[AYJAYDEE]

many people suggest there is dying and rebirth in every moment

[gregk0543]

On Monday, October 10, 2016 at 3:55 AM, AYJAYDEE said:

many people suggest there is dying and rebirth in every moment

Yes there is a way of looking at it like that but ask yourself whether that is what the buddha meant?  When the the buddha describes aging sickness death and rebirth he was not using those modern styles. He was using common language and meaning. He taught a cyclic existence of never ending birth and death. And all of that cycle is casually impermanent from moment to moment.

[AYJAYDEE]

10 hours ago, gregk0543 said:

Yes there is a way of looking at it like that but ask yourself whether that is what the buddha meant?  When the the buddha describes aging sickness death and rebirth he was not using those modern styles. He was using common language and meaning. He taught a cyclic existence of never ending birth and death. And all of that cycle is casually impermanent from moment to moment.

 

I cannot ask myself what he meant because he wrote nothing down. and the people that finally did write down what they THOUGHT he said were influenced by the times they lived in.

[VincentRJ]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 10:53 AM, AYJAYDEE said:

I cannot ask myself what he meant because he wrote nothing down. and the people that finally did write down what they THOUGHT he said were influenced by the times they lived in.

 

That's a very reasonable position to take. As I see it, there's a strong and natural tendency for everyone, when interpreting anything that is encountered through the senses, including the reading of historical texts and even the recall of personal memories, to always interpret what they sense (see, hear, taste, smell and touch) in accordance with their own individual experiences, knowledge, understanding, biases, prejudices, and general conditioning. How could it be otherwise?

 

The lure of these Buddhist concepts of Nirvana and Enlightenment, at least for me, is the interesting possibility of being able to attain an experience, resulting from a stillness of mind, which is uncontaminated, or at least relatively uncontaminated by the usual conditioned prejudices, biases, fears and suppressed attitudes that are a normal state of affairs for most of us.

 

Whether or not there exists in reality some sort of spiritual essense that is transmitted from past lives to future lives seems to me to fall into the same category as the impractical, unproductive speculation on the existence of a Creator God, which Buddhist teachings avoid addressing.

 

However, the Buddhist concept of the rebirth of a 'spiritual essence' which comprises certain tendencies and attitudes only, which are continuously subject to change, rather than a permanent soul or personality, is an interesting distinction which is more in line with modern evolutionary science and genetics.

[AYJAYDEE]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 

That's a very reasonable position to take. As I see it, there's a strong and natural tendency for everyone, when interpreting anything that is encountered through the senses, including the reading of historical texts and even the recall of personal memories, to always interpret what they sense (see, hear, taste, smell and touch) in accordance with their own individual experiences, knowledge, understanding, biases, prejudices, and general conditioning. How could it be otherwise?

 

The lure of these Buddhist concepts of Nirvana and Enlightenment, at least for me, is the interesting possibility of being able to attain an experience, resulting from a stillness of mind, which is uncontaminated, or at least relatively uncontaminated by the usual conditioned prejudices, biases, fears and suppressed attitudes that are a normal state of affairs for most of us.

 

Whether or not there exists in reality some sort of spiritual essense that is transmitted from past lives to future lives seems to me to fall into the same category as the impractical, unproductive speculation on the existence of a Creator God, which Buddhist teachings avoid addressing.

 

However, the Buddhist concept of the rebirth of a 'spiritual essence' which comprises certain tendencies and attitudes only, which are continuously subject to change, rather than a permanent soul or personality, is an interesting distinction which is more in line with modern evolutionary science and genetics.

 

I tend to follow Buddhadassa's ideas ie: concentrate on what I CAN observe and know, the moment to moment birth and dying of  everyday life and IF actual rebirth takes place later, so be it, I lived this life skillfully and  If not, I lived this life skillfully.

[VincentRJ]

19 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

I tend to follow Buddhadassa's ideas ie: concentrate on what I CAN observe and know, the moment to moment birth and dying of  everyday life and IF actual rebirth takes place later, so be it, I lived this life skillfully and  If not, I lived this life skillfully.

 

Ah! Skillfully! That's a very broad term, often associated with tradesmen, such as bricklayers, or musicians, such as pianists.

 

Whatever one does, being skilful at it tends to ensure success, even if one is burgling a house or robbing a bank, or killing one's enemy.

 

I've often been a pit puzzled by the use of skilful in Buddhist translations, because it has no moral connotations for me.

[AYJAYDEE]

12 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 

Ah! Skillfully! That's a very broad term, often associated with tradesmen, such as bricklayers, or musicians, such as pianists.

 

Whatever one does, being skilful at it tends to ensure success, even if one is burgling a house or robbing a bank, or killing one's enemy.

 

I've often been a pit puzzled by the use of skilful in Buddhist translations, because it has no moral connotations for me.

 

perhaps because it wasn't an accurate translation. But if Buddhist Masters tell me that , in the usage being discussed, the word has moral connotations, then why would I not believe them? The fact that a word translates into YOUR language in a way that brings tradesmen to mind is hardly the fault of the original word.

[VincentRJ]

22 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

perhaps because it wasn't an accurate translation. But if Buddhist Masters tell me that , in the usage being discussed, the word has moral connotations, then why would I not believe them? The fact that a word translates into YOUR language in a way that brings tradesmen to mind is hardly the fault of the original word.

 

I think this is yet another example of the Pali word (in this case 'kusala') not have a precise English equivalent. It's no-one's fault. It's just how things are, and is something we should be aware of.

It seems I'm not the only one who found the use of the word 'skilful' a bit odd in certain Buddhist texts. Searching the internet I came across the following, relevant comment from http://www.buddhivihara.org/kusala-and-akusala-as-criteria-of-buddhist-ethics/

 

To quote:

"There is a problem with using ‘skilful’ as a translation of kusala . That is, the English word ‘skilful’ does not extend in English to both moral and technical commendation as the word kusala does in its Pali.

As Keown has rightly pointed out, ‘Skilful’ denotes approval in the technical sense only and does not figure at all in the vocabulary of moral discourse in English.

 

No-one describes a simple act of generosity as a ‘skilful deed’, and who has ever heard of a boy scout doing his ‘skilful deed for the day?’ Instead, one naturally speaks of ‘good’ or ‘virtuous’ deeds.

While ‘skilful’ may be a perfectly correct translation of kusala when the term appears in a technical context (for instance, a skilful artisan), it is forced and awkward in a moral one. In English the natural way of describing the moral state of an Arahat is as ‘endowed with virtues’ (sampannakusala) and of the ‘highest virtue’ or of the ‘highest skill'. On the other hand, skilful is an attribute of a master-craftsman, not a saint."

 

At least I have now learned what the original Pali word is, that is often translated as skilful.

[AYJAYDEE]

1 minute ago, VincentRJ said:

 

I think this is yet another example of the Pali word (in this case 'kusala') not have a precise English equivalent. It's no-one's fault. It's just how things are, and is something we should be aware of.

It seems I'm not the only one who found the use of the word 'skilful' a bit odd in certain Buddhist texts. Searching the internet I came across the following, relevant comment from http://www.buddhivihara.org/kusala-and-akusala-as-criteria-of-buddhist-ethics/

 

To quote:

"There is a problem with using ‘skilful’ as a translation of kusala . That is, the English word ‘skilful’ does not extend in English to both moral and technical commendation as the word kusala does in its Pali.

As Keown has rightly pointed out, ‘Skilful’ denotes approval in the technical sense only and does not figure at all in the vocabulary of moral discourse in English.

 

No-one describes a simple act of generosity as a ‘skilful deed’, and who has ever heard of a boy scout doing his ‘skilful deed for the day?’ Instead, one naturally speaks of ‘good’ or ‘virtuous’ deeds.

While ‘skilful’ may be a perfectly correct translation of kusala when the term appears in a technical context (for instance, a skilful artisan), it is forced and awkward in a moral one. In English the natural way of describing the moral state of an Arahat is as ‘endowed with virtues’ (sampannakusala) and of the ‘highest virtue’ or of the ‘highest skill'. On the other hand, skilful is an attribute of a master-craftsman, not a saint."

 

At least I have now learned what the original Pali word is, that is often translated as skilful.

 

He shouldn't say no one. I know at least three, Rod Bucknell, Santikaro and me.

[VincentRJ]

17 hours ago, AYJAYDEE said:

He shouldn't say no one. I know at least three, Rod Bucknell, Santikaro and me.

 

Good point, which illustrates the ever-pervasive problem of interpretation, whether one is reading one's own language, or attempting to translate a foreign or extinct language into one's own language.

 

I proof-read the extract I quoted because I saw that the grammar was a bit off, and some sentences were a bit confusing. Perhaps I should have mentioned that.

 

The quote in question, as it appeared on the website, is as follows:

'No-one word describe a simple act of generosity as a ‘skilful deed,’ and who has ever heard of a boy scout doing his ‘skilful deed for the day?’

 

Is the intended meaning, 'No single word describes a simple act of generosity as a 'skilful deed'? That didn't make sense to me because 'skilful deed' is two words. So I made a rational interpretation that the intended meaning was, 'No-one describes...'

Was I right or wrong? I'm always willing to admit my errors.