[Kliopeion]

First, I am new to Buddhism. Second, I apologize if I seem frank. I am not trying to be rude. Rather, this is the best way I know on how to phrase discussion and get back results.

The first part of the Noble Eightfold Path says that we must have right (correct) understanding.

I have been trying to understand Buddhism and have arrived at two possible conclusions.

Buddhism seems, most logically, to be a methodology of detachment. The world is suffering. Thus, to alive our suffering, we must detach from it as suffering arises from our cravings.

However, I am perplexed. Why then do some people define Buddhism as non-attachment rather than detachment? And, are not the two different goals, two different methodologies, with different destinations?

Detachment would declare this world illusion. Thus, ultimate Nirvana would be to 'rise above' this world. We must let go of both forms of craving, aversion and attachment. Only then do we no longer bind ourselves to the realms of time and space.

However, others seem to say that Buddhism is a journey to the present. That our goal is not to deny ourselves this world. But rather that we are to find 'enlightenment in the moment.' To more or less love the world and accept the world as it is, including its faults.

That a glass that in the future shows its impermanence by falling of the table and breaking. One still appreciates the glass in the moment even though we know it is not permanent.

To me, these ideas seem contradictory in both their destination and their practices. As such, what is Buddhism?

Option A:
We are to neither attach ourselves to or avert ourselves from the universe of time and space (the illusion.) Instead, we are to let it melt away and then we move on to a state of being that is beyond desire and its illusory worlds. It is when we become supremely indifferent to everything of the illusion that we truly unhook ourselves from this wheel of suffering.

Option B:
Enlightenment is in the moment and we are to learn to love things as they are where we are. Everything else is the illusion as it is just us projecting our goals (desires) onto the future.

Option A says Option B is incorrect as Option B is falling in love with the illusion.
Option B says Option A is incorrect as Option A is attaching oneself to the desire of achieving enlightenment. It is averting the world as it is and longing instead for a state of being it hopes to achieve in the future.

Which Buddhism is the real Buddhism? As many documentaries and articles I have been reading have been, in more or less words, promoting Option A and Option B separately. It seems to me one of the two perspectives has a misguided idea of Buddhism.

It seems some also phrase this as detachment vs compassion. This is still very confusing to me. As if the goal is to detach, how then do we have compassion?

Some say that the goal is not total detachment, but only detaching from desire.

Yet, this still confuses me. As the goal clearly seems to me to be the breaking of the reincarnation cycle. This is the goal because this world is seen as suffering and we must break our attachments to it so that we are not born here again after we die.

How then do we care for the world, if our goal is to leave it and never come back to it again?

Buddhavistas are those who pretty much reach enlightenment but do not go all the way. They stay back to help others find the way. Perhaps this is the perfect balance of detachment and compassion. Yet, it bars them from their own reward until all have found it too. And that could take thousands of years. Many in this world aren't even looking for Nirvana. Are we expected to wait for all of them?

This is seen as noble in some Buddhist traditions. However, is this necessary? The Buddha himself, as far as I can tell, did not do this.

The Buddha saw formalizing a teaching, a path to enlightenment, as well enough. He spent the remainder of his life teaching his teaching and creating his monastery. His disciples then continue teaching his teaching after his death. After his death, the Buddha went on to Nirvana and did not stay behind to help others get there.

I think he was wise to not deny himself his reward, and rather realize that those who also want it are those who care to learn from his teachings and fallow the path he created.

If the goal is really to detach from the world, as it appears to be; then how can compassion (beyond teaching Buddha's teaching in the time we have left in this life) really be seen as a good thing? It appears to me to be exactly what Buddhism is trying to unhook, not promote. For, if we love this world and those in it, how then are we to leave it and them?

Another way of looking at this, I was raised Christian. I had to have a gut-check recently that I won't be going to the same place my family will be after death. They will either reincarnate on Earth or on some 'heavenly' realm that is still part of time and space, still part of the illusion and of the suffering; of desire and of craving.

Many talk about freedom to fallow our own desires. Others talk about freedom to fallow the will (the desire) of the Christian God. Buddhism is different because it teaches us to have true freedom; freedom from desire.

In seeking freedom from desire, my goal is a place (state of being) without desire and without suffering. That is not where my family is trying to go. I will, if I succeed in my goal, go somewhere different than they.

How is it that I am to wait for them? Wait for them and a large chunk of the world that isn't even seeking Nirvana? Rather, they are seeking the exact opposite.

Better that I find my way to Nirvana and leave the teaching to them should they seek to find it also. I am not my brother's keeper. It is not my duty to make sure everyone fallows the path; only that I fallow it and that it is open to those who also desire the same goal.

Compassion beyond caring to keep Buddha's path open seems trivial, pointless, and contradictory to Buddha's teachings.

But what of war? What of abortion? What of death and theft?

What of it?

This world, and all within it, are impermanent. Suffering binds those who are causing it to stay here. Better they understand that sooner than later so that they can eventually turn from their cruel ways and abandon this world as well.

My interfering in the world's suffering, as far as I can tell, only achieves two things.

1: It attaches me to the world that it is my goal to detach from.
2: It shields those causing suffering from the natural karmic reaction to their own actions.

Thus

1: I am acting counterproductive and getting in the way of my own enlightenment.
2: I am enabling suffering in the world.

If I am completely off the mark, please tell me. For I would honestly like to know.

Thank you.

[PNCarl]

Hello and welcome f13ticket !

There seem to be about 15 questions in your post which seems rather a lot for anyone to answer all at once! I'm wondering if they could be broken up into more manageable units ?

with kind wishes,

A-D

[ropinirole]

Hello and welcome f13ticket !

There seem to be about 15 questions in your post which seems rather a lot for anyone to answer all at once! I'm wondering if they could be broken up into more manageable units ?

with kind wishes,

A-D

Thank you. I did not realize that I had made so many questions at once.

My knowledge of Buddhism so far is limited.

I have read the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and the Dhammapada.

I have also watched the fallowing presentations and found them interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kW5x3...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZQ9O...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLMZN...eature=related

I will try to list my questions.

1: How do Buddhists reconcile detachment and compassion?

2: Is the goal of Buddhism to reach a state of being beyond the illusion (world of time, space, and suffering) or is it to find contentment within the illusion that comes from realizing that the illusion is an illusion?

3: If the goal is to detach and go to a state of being beyond this world and its suffering, doesn't having compassion for the world fetter us to it? The Buddha himself left his wife and son to seek enlightenment. Does this not indicate that enlightenment is the priority and everything else second if counted at all?

4: Some seem to see Bodhisatta, if I am understanding the term correctly, as an idea to aspire to as they deny themselves from breaking the reincarnation cycle to stay back and help others reach enlightenment. But the Buddha himself goes on to Nirvana. If the station of Bodhisatta is necessary, why then did the Buddha not exemplify it?

5: Or is it not necessary but rather something some Buddhists still feel compelled to do out of compassion? If so, is this not compassion holding them back from their goal? The very goal that the Buddha achieved.

6: It seems that reaching Nirvana, achieving enlightenment, is an individual goal. Buddha achieved it, then created the formalized teaching so that others could fallow and achieve it also. It seems that the Buddha demonstrated compassion by teaching the teaching. It is the teaching that leads to salvation from suffering as it allows us all to detach from the world that is suffering. Does not compassion beyond teaching the teaching only attach us to this world? Why should we wait for everyone to fallow when the path is open if they want to fallow?

7: Does not compassion enable suffering? If someone is about to hurt themselves, they are about to learn that there is a reaction to what they do. By interfering; it seems I am doing two things. One, shielding the person from the lesson they are about to teach themselves. Two, acting out of attachment by caring for them and their suffering. This further binds myself to them, their suffering, and thus this world. Is it not wiser to let them teach themselves and detach myself while I continue on my journey?

8: Is compassion in Buddhism really something the Buddha teaches? Or is this a misunderstanding of his teachings that were added in long after his death? In all fairness I have only read the Dhammapada once. But almost all of it is about how foolish it is to have cravings, desires, and attachments. I don't remember reading anything about compassion for others outside of teaching the teaching. Perhaps I should read the book again.

9: Many Buddhists write about compassion. Does the Buddha? I don't dispute the four noble truths or the eightfold path. Rather, I have yet to read any work from Buddha that would suggest that compassion is a teaching of his. It seems he wrote a lot. Should I look outside the Dhammapada for this answer?

10: If so, which text of the Buddha teaches compassion and logically integrates it with the goals of detachment? They seem such polar and apposite ideas and goals. I don't know how to reconcile them.

Thank you.

[Mimsykzr]

hi f13ticket

my quick & direct response to your post is:

The world is not suffering. Suffering is mental torment, affliction or disturbance. We do not "detach" from suffering. We end suffering. And yes, suffering arises from our cravings.

Some people define Buddhism as non-attachment because the world is not suffering. The world is impermanent, the world is unsatisfactory (cannot bring true happiness), the world is imperfect. So we practise non-attachment because we must live in the world and have certain relationships to the world.

This world is not 100% illusion. It has its tangible realities, such as having to eat physical food to live. Ultimate Nirvana is to 'rise above' the world. We must let go of both forms of craving, aversion and attachment. We must practise "non-attachment" in relation to our interactions with the world.

So we practise both Option A and Option B because the path is three-fold, namely, morality, concentration & insight.

Loving things = morality. Loving things without attachment and delusions = insight.

Not detachment vs compassion but wisdom (non-attachment; emptiness) and compassion, together.

The goal is forsaking/giving up [ignorant] desires.

The goal is not the breaking of the reincarnation cycle. This is Hinduism. The goal is to break the greed, hatred, delusion & ego cycle.

After his death, the Buddha did not went on to Nirvana. Buddha went on to Nirvana when he was 35 years old.

The Buddha taught alot about going to heaven. You might be going to the same place as your family.

Yes, Buddhism is different because it teaches us to have true freedom; freedom from desire.

In seeking freedom from desire, our goal is a state of mind without desire and without suffering. This is found here, now, today.

For serious Buddhist, they do not practise war; do not have heedless sex requiring abortion; they do not theft; and understand death is inevitable and cannot be any other way, therefore by fully understanding & accepting it, do not suffer about death.

But other people who war, theft and have abortion, the serious Buddhist practises forgiveness & compassion.

Yes, this world, and all within it, are impermanent. Suffering binds those who are attached to it, who miscomprehend it.

Nirvana is to be free from "I", "me" and "mine". The views of "my interfering" and "attaches me" and "my goal" and "I am" and "my own enlightenment" are what are actually counterproductive.

You are not completely off the mark but often or mostly off the mark.

Nirvana is the mind free from ignorant cravings and "self" views. Nirvana is the mind without "I", "me", "my", "mine", etc

The world is not suffering. "I", "me", "my", "mine", etc, are suffering.

With selfless (empty) compassion

[OnlineViagraCheapestFREE]

hi f13ticket

my quick & direct response to your post is:

The world is not suffering. Suffering is mental torment, affliction or disturbance. We do not "detach" from suffering. We end suffering. And yes, suffering arises from our cravings.

Some people define Buddhism as non-attachment because the world is not suffering. The world is impermanent, the world is unsatisfactory (cannot bring true happiness), the world is imperfect. So we practise non-attachment because we must live in the world and have certain relationships to the world.

Thank you. This has been helpful. I do hope more respond as the more responses I get the better I usually do with comprehension.

[ErnestTU]

Thank you. This has been helpful. I do hope more respond as the more responses I get the better I usually do with comprehension.

Hi f13ticket,

Our members are normally used to receiving one question at a time for discussion in the Beginners forum, so some of them might find 10 all at once to be quite daunting !

[JewJoleSole]

Yeah, pretty daunting! ^^

My 2p on compassion without attachment: If you can give a beggar a smile, a few kind words and a dollar, and then walk away, you can have compassion without attachment. It's just a matter of developing the insight and the habit of seeing everything you do in that light.

Welcome to the forum, f13ticket!

[Agitoligflise]

The following link talking about three aspects of the path of Buddhism says that the Buddhist path to enlightenment has three aspects - bodhicitta, or the wish to be enlightened for the sake of all sentient beings, renunciation of samsara in favour of nirvana and wisdom, which means the realization that all phenomena including the self is empty of inherent existence.

http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=399

[oxinsnepe]

I personally believe the enlightened mind of the Buddha has two aspects - wisdom and compassion - the wisdom of knowing what to adopt and what to disregard based on a full understanding of the emptiness of all phenomena and the compassion to wish to share enlightenment with others.

The compassion aspect of enlightenment was proved by Buddha taking the time to teach in different ways to many different people instead of just ascending into paranirvana as soon as he became enlightened under the tree.

[Edifsdubs]

instead of just ascending into paranirvana as soon as he became enlightened under the tree.

Hi LA,

I am a little puzzled about this - could you explain how one 'ascends into paranirvana' after becoming enlightened (instead of continuing to sit under a tree)?

Thanks,

A-D

[wepoiyub]

By ascending into paranirvana, I am talking about leaving the cycle of samsaric existence not to be reborn again. This the Buddha did after he died - after he gave his teachings - not immediately after his enlightenment. Out of compassion he did not leave the world physically until after giving thousands of teachings.

[BoBoMasterDesign]

By ascending into paranirvana, I am talking about leaving the cycle of samsaric existence not to be reborn again. This the Buddha did after he died - after he gave his teachings - not immediately after his enlightenment. Out of compassion he did not leave the world physically until after giving thousands of teachings.

So by this definition you mean death of the body after enlightenment? Where is the paranirvana place someone 'ascends' into - and how is that done?

Can you give an example of anyone who has died straight after enlightenment?

I think for the benefit of beginners there is a need for some clarity and understandable explanations. I don't even understand this myself !

[Attaniuri]

The Tibetans talk about people attaining to rainbow bodies after becoming enlightened. But of course in nirvana there is not really any birth or death. Like a cloud turns to rain - it doesn't die - the cloud still exists in the rain - in a different form. So too the Buddha didn't die - he was beyond death - he simply exists in another form (or should I say formless) body, which is said to be in paranirvana.

In order to understand the impermanence or emptiness of ourselves and all compounded phenomena it is necessary to meditate on death and dying but when we do we shall come to an understanding that in reality there is no death or dying, just a transformation.

[casinobonusfrees]

I have been trying to understand Buddhism and have arrived at two possible conclusions.

Hi f13t,
Welcome to BWB. That's a mighty wall of text for just two possible conclusions. You ask Which Buddhism is the Correct Buddhism? The answer is that yours is, but first you will need to locate it. It can only exist within your body/mind and it's not the churning, discursive thought process, so that cuts it down massively to start with.
Namaste
Kris

[sydramySweame]

The Tibetans talk about people attaining to rainbow bodies after becoming enlightened

Sure - but 'rainbow body' is something which was said to happen sometimes to practitioners in Tibet (the body dissolving into light). However we ourselves haven't seen evidence of that, have we? - so it just becomes belief rather than something we can understand on a practical level. ....and its not mentioned in Theravada (or possibly other traditions such as Zen either)

So too the Buddha didn't die - he was beyond death - he simply exists in another form (or should I say formless) body, which is said to be in paranirvana.
Well that's not something one can verify for oneself though. 'Beliefs' don't help us overcome dukkha (unsatisfactoriness, discontent, conflict, suffering) on a practical day-to -day level.

Returning to dialogue with f13ticket again, here's an excerpt from "Looking at Buddhism" by Ajahn Buddhadasa which you might find helpful:



To attain liberation, we first have to examine things closely in order to come to know and understand their true nature. Then we have to behave in a way appropriate to that true nature. This is the Buddhist teaching; this we must know and bear in mind.

Buddhism has nothing to do with prostrating oneself and deferring to awesome things. It sets no store by rites and ceremonies such as making libations of holy water, or any externals whatsoever, spirits and celestial being included. On the contrary, it depends on reason and insight. Buddhism does not demand conjecture or supposition; it demands that we act in accordance with what our own insight reveals and not take anyone else's word for anything.

If someone comes and tells us something, we must not believe him without question. We must listen to his statement and examine it. Then if we find it reasonable, we may accept it provisionally and set about trying to verify it for ourselves. This is a key feature of Buddhism, which distinguishes it sharply from other world religions.


http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa4.htm

[priceyicey]

....and its not mentioned in Theravada (or possibly other traditions such as Zen either)

In some Soto schools after life realms is not a teaching that leads to liberation. So it is not part of what has to be done. Zen has a big enphasis in the here and now.