[ANCETPYNCTEXT]

Moderation note

Off topic posts from "Why sex is not a right action for sangha members? " have been moved to this new topic "Born with a birth defect"

.................................................. .................................................. ........................

If you consider a person born with a birth defect, who is responsible for the cause of this suffering?

For the case of a birth defect, it is randomness of nature. For the most part, the suffering around the birth defect is the responsibility of the person, unless - as there are cases - that the birth defect, having an organic basis, impairs completely the faculty of reasoning and insightful penetration. If a person is born with a birth defect that produces discomfort, but does not impair their mental functioning at all (say it's a heart problem) and the person dies at age 3, as a result of that defect, I don't understand how it may be said that, "for the most part, the suffering around the birth defect is the responsibility of the person". In fact, given the scenario you provide I don't see how the slightest bit of suffering experienced by this infant is caused by them. Physical suffering is caused by the birth defect. The birth defect, according to you, is caused
by "randomness of nature". So that rules out any responsibility for the condition on the part of the infant. If nature produces an infant with a birth defect then nature also produces an infant that is biologically unable to understand any of the concepts of suffering, ignorance, and the like, nor does the infant have the slightest ability to see phenomena in accord with how they actually exist (as lacking self-existence). A 2–year old sees everything they encounter as self-existent. They have no choice at all, due to not having achieved a suitable stage of development where they can engage in concrete operations/logic/introspection/analysis. We do have a choice. We can change how our mind reacts to sensory data; we are not compelled to accept it as an indicia of self-existence.

Perhaps this is a translation issue? To me, the phrase "is the responsibility of the person" implies some locus of control by that person. Clearly, with a 1-3 year old infant, given the stage of development they are in when they die, there is absolutely no locus of control. There is no ability to understand a thing the Buddha taught, there is no ability to practice any of the instructions of the Buddha, and there is no ability to do any more than simply process sensory stimuli in the manner that their sensory organs and corresponding consciousnesses in the brain permit. Therefore, given my understanding of the phrase, there is no responsibility, except in the sense that the infant is stuck with the consequences. Is that what you were trying to say? That, the infant is blameless and just suffers due to his or her bad luck. The same is true for a malnourished infant born during severe drought, or an infant born in a war zone, or an infant that dies at age 3 due to disease, for example. I simply see no contributing cause by the infant.

Given that you already stated that infants get birth defects through bad luck (randomness of nature denies cause through other factors), then I would think that ALL the suffering that follows is also the result of bad luck as well, since there's absolutely no opportunity for that infant to improve its situation when so young.

If this is so then some people are screwed and some (educated, born in a place where they can hear the dharma, born in a place where they can freely practice it, of suitable intelligence to practice, and having the leisure time to practice) are fortunate. Based upon the statistical data regarding how many practice the dharma, at least in name only, and adding in my own conjecture regarding the % that practice at a level that might lead to liberation in their lives (a tiny fraction of the total number of people who call themselves Buddhists---those who are able to enter jhana or are working towards it diligently), there are a tiny number of very fortunate beings and a very large number of beings that won't have any chance to be free of suffering.

[molaunterbizone]

[...] and the person dies at age 3, [...]

At age 3 there is no person developed.

[...]there are a tiny number of very fortunate beings [...] Yes.

Also many others that can reach the Buddha Dhamma and are capable for its understanding, do not take refuge in it.

Why is this? I don't know.

[freflellalafe]

At age 3 there is no person developed.



Yes.

Also many others that can reach the Buddha Dhamma and are capable for its understanding, do not take refuge in it.

Why is this? I don't know.

Hi Kaarine;

Sadly you are correct about the last statement.

You can't reach something when you don't know about it or when what you do know isn't correct, or who are unsuitable to practice in that moment. Many beings who don't practice can benefit from the dhamma; they will never ever hear of it, or they'll only hear brief "sound bites" about it and they won't know what it's actually about, or their conceptions of it will be biased, based on previous inculcation in other traditions or due to a distaste for religion, generally, or they will hear it and they will have no reason to be attracted to it in that moment because they won't perceive that they are suffering, or, being within a different tradition they will hear it and think that their own tradition is better.

Because of the above situations, all the people who won't reach the dhamma in this life, because the vast majority of those who do hear the dharma won't practice like their "heads are on fire" because they don't feel a sense of urgency, because of all those people who will suffer as small children due to "bad luck" and who will die young, or be developmentally disabled or suffering horrible physical pain all their lives, or have their legs blown off at age 8....because of all this mass of suffering that the overwhelming majority of humans (let alone other types of sentient beings) must endure now and until their deaths for which ...FOR THEM...there is no hope, I have great difficulty accepting the random universe theory of birth with its "good luck for you, born into a noble family with all of your faculties, leisure, dhamma teachers, etc and... bad luck for you over there in Darfour, all being attributed to the randomness of nature.

The Suttas place responsibility for suffering on ignorance, mental states arising from ignorance, and subsequent intention/action, and they don't distinguish in terms of age or circumstances of birth...not at all. Can you point me to a Sutta that does point out that those who are very young have no responsibility for their suffering? yet I can't see it that way if the universe is random in terms of A having a genius–level IQ, and is born into a family of rich devout Buddhists, and B is hydrocephalic and will hardly even achieve awareness of her/his situation during a painful and short life, and is also born into a family of faith healers. "A" has great shot at liberation; B is doomed to a horrific fate; no chance of it being otherwise. I simply can't see how suffering of B arises from ignorance. It arises from biology, one would think....if this model were correct.

If that's so, then those who are sons and daughters of good families and happen to be endowed with superior fortunes and leisures, and who meet a qualified teacher as well, and who are very motivated and diligent...those beings have a shot. The rest...not so much, most...not at all, sadly. I'm not happy with that scenario, though, it it be true then nothing I can do except work towards salvation and reach out to all those able to benefit.

Just a few more thoughts.

Does the Buddha state that nature is random? Would he make that statement that you made (which sounds perfectly reasonable in this world in 2012, mind you; my background is in the sciences too)? This would seem to validate true existence of nature. Does nature have true independent existence---it's something "out there" that just happens irrespective of mind? Is giving a definite "yes" to that proposition speculating in a way that that Buddha advised against?


take care

tj

[chelviweeme]

Perhaps this is a translation issue?

Hi tjampel,

I think its worth you taking into consideration the fact that English is not Kaarine's first language.

Thanks.


Aloka

[exeftWabreava]

Hi tijampel,

I have read several times my statement and I don't see where is the trouble there. Maybe it was not clear.

Lets go by parts:

Randomness is a core feature for natural events. Random events have two main characteristics: Possibility of a happening and the probability of such happening.

For example: the Possibility of a hurricane in the arctic North Sea is null but not for the Caribbean Sea. In the Caribbean Sea the random probability to hit the City of Mérida is higher than that of hitting the City of Campeche for the case of México.

To have been born in a wealthy family is a random event. Because there are much more non wealthy families the probability of having been born in them is low. That is, too, a random event.

The probability of being born with a birth defect is higher from a non healthy mother or a mother that smokes or drinks or is under nourished.

The probability of being born in a underdeveloped country is a random event as it is the probability of being born in a country that is through a war or a civil revolution.

Being born under difficult conditions is a random event. The newborn did not ask for that.

Being born with a birth defect is under the laws of randomness; possibility and probability.

I do not believe there is a God that rules it, neither a past kammic fate of a past life that has ripen kammic deeds in this present life nor a stream of consciousness that goes from the past into the future, nor an alaya-vijñana.

Infants, newborns, children, babies are not persons in accordance with the field of Developmental Psychology and also for the school of Jean Piaget.

Also grown ups -in accordance to Carl Rogers school, Jack Mezirow, Knud Illeris and others that work Adult Education- are in the process of becoming a "person" through maturing reasoning and insightful penetration skills. Some other schools call this "individuation".

Bad luck and good luck are just concepts but bad luck and good luck are part of randomness of life. There are people with good and bad luck in life. I can't see where is the problem with that.

Buddha has talk about the fortunate event for some people to hear the Dhamma, to understand it and to take refuge in it:

Then, just as a strong man might extend his flexed arm or flex his extended arm, Brahma Sahampati disappeared from the Brahma-world and reappeared in front of me. Arranging his upper robe over one shoulder, he knelt down with his right knee on the ground, saluted me with his hands before his heart, and said to me: 'Lord, let the Blessed One teach the Dhamma! Let the One-Well-Gone teach the Dhamma! There are beings with little dust in their eyes who are falling away because they do not hear the Dhamma. There will be those who will understand the Dhamma.'

MN 26
I also remember vaguely a simile about a turtle diving in the ocean and while showing its head out of it, it gets through the hole of a yoke floating in the sea..., as a metaphor of "good luck"; but I have not found this sutta, so hope I am not mistaken.

The Buddha also has taught -in the Two Arrows Sutta- that there is bodily pain and mental pain.

Bodily pain is unavoidable as is the case of a birth defect, too. What is avoidable is the mental proliferation around that event that leads to mental suffering.

"Now, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones, when touched with a feeling of pain, does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. So he feels one pain: physical, but not mental. Just as if they were to shoot a man with an arrow and, right afterward, did not shoot him with another one, so that he would feel the pain of only one arrow. In the same way, when touched with a feeling of pain, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, does not beat his breast or become distraught. He feels one pain: physical, but not mental.

Sallatha Sutta
This sutta is teaching us about the mental/emotional disposition to an unavoidable event that is bodily pain or can be a physical birth defect, too.

But for this mental understanding it is needed some level of cognition, reasoning and insight penetration that are still not developed in newborns, babies, infants, children and some grown ups.

If the reasoning ability is impaired because a birth defect, the understanding of the Dhamma will not happen. And this event is a random one, too.

[topbonuscasino]

My dear friends, dear Srivijava, and others,

If one repeats Buddha's four noble truths, the following can be summarised:

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

Now, if the origin of the suffering is attachment, this always is not correct. Because people born with a birth defect shall suffer forever. Say he, or she is a deaf person, or a blind person, or having no legs or no hands etc.

This person did not have any attachment to cause this sort of a suffering. This is what I am trying to indicate. Buddha was a humanbeing and he must have been mistaken too. No one is perfect. If you believe that Sakyamuni Buddha was a perfect person. That might be your belief but, it can't be factual.

[markbila]

H Kaarine;

In your response you said:

Infants, newborns, children, babies are not persons in accordance with the field of Developmental Psychology and also for the school of Jean Piaget. Piaget never said anything like this, nor did he ever suggest this. Based on all definition of persons I've found and based on Piaget's work, this can't possibly be so. The same is true with other psychologists but I will only reference Piaget here.

The dictionary definition in biologyonline.org states that "person" defines it as:
"self-conscious being, as distinct from an animal or a thing; a moral agent; a human being; a man, woman, or child". Person means one with self concept. In Piaget's stages of development even two year olds (and under) have the ability to conceptualize and learn. For example they are able to learn and understand that, when an object is removed from their sense that it doesn't cease to exist. They are capable of modifying their behavior intentionally in order to reach specific goals (for example, to use a stick to move an object). They have a strong self-concept. They engage in behaviors which provide pleasure or satisfaction; they learn what produces pleasure and what doesn't.

In university level courses on Piaget's stages of development the educators creating the syllabus at one large US university state this:

"Child psychologist Jean Piaget described the mechanism by which the mind processes new information. He said that a person understands whatever information fits into his established view of the world. When information does not fit, the person must reexamine and adjust his thinking to accommodate the new information. Piaget described four stages of cognitive development and relates them to a person's ability to understand and assimilate new information.

Sensorimotor: (birth to about age 2)

During this stage, the child learns about himself and his environment through motor and reflex actions. Thought derives from sensation and movement. The child learns that he is separate from his environment and that aspects of his environment -- his parents or favorite toy -- continue to exist even though they may be outside the reach of his senses. Teaching for a child in this stage should be geared to the sensorimotor system. You can modify behavior by using the senses: a frown, a stern or soothing voice -- all serve as appropriate techniques. (and it goes on to list the other 3 stages, all of which involve far more complex types of mentation,

Here also from Wikipedia
; * Sensorimotor stage: from birth to age 2. Children experience the world through movement and senses (use five senses to explore the world). During the sensorimotor stage children are extremely egocentric, meaning they cannot perceive the world from others' viewpoints. The sensorimotor stage is divided into six substages: "(1) simple reflexes; (2) first habits and primary circular reactions; (3) secondary circular reactions; (4) coordination of secondary circular reactions; (5) tertiary circular reactions, novelty, and curiosity; and (6) internalization of schemes." [13].... And here, describing the last stage at 18-24 months:

uring the last stage they are 18 to 24 months old. During this stage they shift to symbolic thinking.

So, on this point I can't agree with you. I think it's a major point too. If we are going to discuss suffering we must include children. It's absurd to say "they are not persons and so we don't need to include them in any discussion". We are trying to understand where suffering comes from. This is a critical are of study for any Buddhist. So it's important to have common ground. Babies whose entire lives are a mass of suffering (from severe birth defects, war, and the like) are suffering for a reason, and I want to know what it is. If it's 100% ignorance, and the mental states that arise from ignorance then fine, but we should examine how ignorance causes this suffering. It seems that some of that suffering comes from the birth defects themselves, which, according to you, are not caused by ignorance; they are caused by nature/randomness.

[FelikTen]

Hi Kaarine,

I have some questions in response to your post that I am curious about, if you don't mind...

I do not believe there is a God that rules it, neither a past kammic fate of a past life that has ripen kammic deeds in this present life nor a stream of consciousness that goes from the past into the future, nor an alaya-vijñana.

I can understand that you would not believe in an omnipotent God as a Buddhist. However, I cannot help but wonder why you do not accept the concept of kammic fate.

[Tij84ye]

So, on this point I can't agree with you.

It's Ok. Seems you are the expert in children cognitive development, not me.

I think it's a major point too. If we are going to discuss suffering we must include children. Yes, we can include them.

It's absurd to say "they are not persons and so we don't need to include them in any discussion". I was not accurate. Sorry. They are persons under cognitive development.

We are trying to understand where suffering comes from. That has been well understood by the Buddha.

Babies whose entire lives are a mass of suffering (from severe birth defects, war, and the like) are suffering for a reason, and I want to know what it is. It is just suffering. A birth defect is a birth defect and we can found many reasons or no reason.

The important thing is not the reason of a birth defect, but the suffering fabricated around that event.

Even under the best possible conditions, a birth defect happens. Things happen. The entire universe can't be under our absolute control. The only thing that is under our control is our mental response to live happenings.

And also a baby do not endures an entire live nor suffering should.

If it's 100% ignorance, and the mental states that arise from ignorance then fine Yes.

but we should examine how ignorance causes this suffering. It has been clearly examined. To ignore that craving, clinging to the aggregates and the idea of self leads to suffering due a lack of insight and knowledge about the true nature of things.

It seems that some of that suffering comes from the birth defects themselves, Again, suffering comes from mental fabrications, craving, clinging, self hood... not from birth defects or unfortunate conditions by themselves. The mental fabrication from this events leads to suffering.

which, according to you, are not caused by ignorance; they are caused by nature/randomness. I don't think I say that. But if it is the case I say a wrong thing...

What I am trying to say is that randomness is not the cause of suffering but the mental proliferations, fabrications around such events because ignorance, lack of understanding and insight about impermanence, the idea of self hood, craving, etc...

The sutta explains it better than me:

Two kinds of persons:

"For an uninstructed run-of-the-mill person there arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. For a well-instructed disciple of the noble ones there also arise gain, loss, status, disgrace, censure, praise, pleasure, & pain. So what difference, what distinction, what distinguishing factor is there between the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones and the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person?" Run of the mil person:

"His mind remains consumed with the gain. His mind remains consumed with the loss... with the status... the disgrace... the censure... the praise... the pleasure. His mind remains consumed with the pain.

"He welcomes the arisen gain and rebels against the arisen loss. He welcomes the arisen status and rebels against the arisen disgrace. He welcomes the arisen praise and rebels against the arisen censure. He welcomes the arisen pleasure and rebels against the arisen pain. As he is thus engaged in welcoming & rebelling, he is not released from birth, aging, or death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, or despairs. He is not released, I tell you, from suffering & stress.
The Noble One:

"His mind does not remain consumed with the gain. His mind does not remain consumed with the loss... with the status... the disgrace... the censure... the praise... the pleasure. His mind does not remain consumed with the pain.

"He does not welcome the arisen gain, or rebel against the arisen loss. He does not welcome the arisen status, or rebel against the arisen disgrace. He does not welcome the arisen praise, or rebel against the arisen censure. He does not welcome the arisen pleasure, or rebel against the arisen pain. As he thus abandons welcoming & rebelling, he is released from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is released, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

Lokavipatti Sutta
IMO, it is very clear. Misfortune events happen... our mental disposition toward them is what matters.

[niemamczasu]

Hi Kaarine,

I have some questions in response to your post that I am curious about, if you don't mind...

No problem Yuan...

I can understand that you would not believe in an omnipotent God as a Buddhist. However, I cannot help but wonder why you do not accept the concept of kammic fate. Not as a consequence of a literal past life, stream of consiousness or other metaphysical concept, maybe because they are under the realm of speculation. I have to believe in that and I do not practice Dhamma from believes. Maybe, not believing, it is a kind of shortcoming I have had since childhood.

Also, it seems that the core teachings of Buddha are not supported by literal past lives, kammic fate, stream of consiousness or alaya-vijñana; seems that are ways to state literal past existence of a present being.

I understand Kammic fate as a consequence of Right View v.s Wrong View. Right View as it is taught in the Sammadhitti Sutta (MN 9). That is the only fate I can understand. Right View leads, in terms of fate, to the quenching of Dukkha.

[PVaQlNaP]

Guys... its very late here... need to sleep and rest...

[dicemets]

Now, if the origin of the suffering is attachment, this always is not correct. Because people born with a birth defect shall suffer forever. Say he, or she is a deaf person, or a blind person, or having no legs or no hands etc.

This person did not have any attachment to cause this sort of a suffering. This is what I am trying to indicate. Buddha was a humanbeing and he must have been mistaken too. No one is perfect. If you believe that Sakyamuni Buddha was a perfect person. That might be your belief but, it can't be factual.

Hi Bothi,
The conclusions you have drawn are based on a superficial understanding of the teachings and on an assumption that Buddhist practice is based on 'belief'. Please give yourself the opportunity to look into this in more detail and with an open mind. There is much to be discussed on the topics you mention but I have never figured out a means to pour more into an already full cup.

[Searmoreibe]

If we are going to discuss suffering we must include children.

Hi tjampel,
And any other sentient being too. If we look around at nature (which includes ourselves) it is a process of consumption. All creatures feed, in order to survive and all are subject to aging, sickness and death.

To say some suffer and others do not is to impose a value judgement, which is unnecessary. To say some perhaps bring suffering upon themselves (or have earned it in some manner) and others do not is to impose a moral framework, which is also unnecessary.

Buddha didn't impose these judgments, rather he discovered the cause and the means to bring cessation to it.

[Bounce]

Hi Kaarine,

I have some questions in response to your post that I am curious about, if you don't mind...

I can understand that you would not believe in an omnipotent God as a Buddhist. However, I cannot help but wonder why you do not accept the concept of kammic fate.

Hi Yuan,

Kaarine is in a different time zone and has gone to bed.

Kamma isn't some kind of cosmic punishment system and it certainly doesn't mean that people are born disabled because they did something bad in a past life.

The Buddha said kamma is intention. Obviously if someone does something unskilful with a negative intention then they might have a lot of mental suffering later - and also other results may vary and be negative too. The Buddha, however, said that the results of kamma were unconjecturable and that speculation about them would bring "madness and vexation"(AN4.77: Acintita Sutta):

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipit....077.than.html

Ken McLeods articles on Karma may be of interest to Mayahana practitioners :


What Is Karma?


The Karma Series: What Is Karma? | Karma and Growth | Karma Doesn’t Explain Anything

"Karma is one of the most misunderstood concepts in Buddhism. The misunderstandings are unfortunate because the principle of karma is crucially important for our understanding of why we practice and what happens when we practice. In this series, I will try to correct a number of these misconceptions. The first misconception on my list is the notion that karma means cause and effect.

Karma isn’t cause and effect

The confusion of karma with the law of cause and effect has two sources, cultural differences and translation difficulties."

continued :


http://www.unfetteredmind.org/karma-genesis-conditions

Finally, from Ajahn Sumedho of the Theravada Forest tradition :



"So is kamma something you have to believe in to be a Buddhist ? I've heard Buddhists say that to be a Buddhist you have to believe in the law of kamma and rebirth. But I've never felt that that was ever an expectation.

The thing that attracted me to Buddhism was that you didn't have to believe in anything. You didn't need to take positions. But these are terms that are used.

So what is kamma now, rebirth now? Always bringing attention to the here and now rather than deciding whether you believe in the concepts or not. The concepts are just conditions, words."

(The Sound of Silence)

[expabsPapsgag]

Off topic posts have been move to 'Enlightened, then death, then what?'

[xtrslots]

Hi Bothi,
The conclusions you have drawn are based on a superficial understanding of the teachings and on an assumption that Buddhist practice is based on 'belief'. Please give yourself the opportunity to look into this in more detail and with an open mind. There is much to be discussed on the topics you mention but I have never figured out a means to pour more into an already full cup.

Dear Srivijava,

I think the teachings of Buddha are precise. But I learn from Buddhist fellows as yourselve that, all the teachings of Buddha have two different meanings, one superficial part, and also a very deep part. If a cup was fully closed, there wouldn't be any place within to take more inside.

Please kindly note that all the attachments are beliefs anyway. That is why Tathagata introduced the attachment issue.

With compassion,

[acneman]

Please kindly note that all the attachments are beliefs anyway. That is why Tathagata introduced the attachment issue.

Attachment is not "belief" and belief is not "attachment"

Attachment is to regard things as "I", "me" and "mine"

To believe "the sky is blue in colour" is not attachment

Kind regards

[soyclocky]

Hi tjampel,
And any other sentient being too. If we look around at nature (which includes ourselves) it is a process of consumption. All creatures feed, in order to survive and all are subject to aging, sickness and death.

To say some suffer and others do not is to impose a value judgement, which is unnecessary. To say some perhaps bring suffering upon themselves (or have earned it in some manner) and others do not is to impose a moral framework, which is also unnecessary.

Buddha didn't impose these judgments, rather he discovered the cause and the means to bring cessation to it.

And how did the Buddha help to end the suffering of mosquitos; that's really what I'm ultimately trying to get to but...I need to start with babies with birth defects who will die at an early age after experiencing terrible suffering.

I think many believe that the Buddha didn't do anything that can help them (the above examples). His teachings are available to a those, fortunate to have been exposed to the dharma, with good dharma resources (such as a qualified teacher), able to practice at a high level, human, intelligent, with leisure time to practice, physically intact, for the most part, and not tied down to time-consuming activities (e.g. caring for an old sick parent (and younger is best, as well, of course. Practicing well enough to achieve liberation in this life probably involves hours of study and practice each day....maybe 5-6 per day? I've heard it compared to training to become a concert level violinist by one teacher.

And maybe that's OK? It's just the randomness of nature, the natural (unmediated by ignorance and the mental states that are outflows from it) order of things. This is a materialist view and, as one who studied in the sciences for quite a while, it makes sense on a certain level. Of course, this is not the view that I nurture nor the view that I favor. That doesn't mean it's incorrect. It means that I need to practice a lot harder and achieve insight myself to understand these issues in greater depth. Then I'll have more than just an opinion.

I totally agree with you of course. I'm trying to keep the discussion within parameters that we can all agree on. If we leave children out of the mix there's really nothing more that can be said. If kids aren't persons and therefore are not subject to suffering of a person, then it's pointless to argue. So...need to find some common ground.

My own teacher says that if you don't have "fierce" compassion (that's his word for it) for a mosquito that just bit you because of how that sentient being has to live its life, then you should not practice in the Vajrayana, because you haven't shown sufficient urgency to gain immediate enlightenment. I don't bring this line of thinking to "Beyond Belief". because, for me at least, "Beyond Belief" (the forum, rather than the actual concept, of course) means "Within the realm of possibility---for those who practice Theravada". I learned that early and often.

Take care

tj

[Doctorpills]

What I am trying to say is that randomness is not the cause of suffering but the mental proliferations, fabrications around such events because ignorance, lack of understanding and insight about impermanence, the idea of self hood, craving, etc...

A newborn baby is born in a state of suffering. The Buddha speaks of the suffering of birth and suffering of death. So, the suffering of birth comes from ...where? Mental proliferations; when did they occur---in the womb? A newborn baby that is experiencing physical pain can't be having mental fabrications that lead to behaviors that result in that pain (suffering of suffering). The pain, especially if the baby is born with a birth defect that's excruciatingly painful, is simply there, and it persists until death, for many...for far too many. It does bother me that nothing at all can be done for these babies and for most other beings as well. If being a Buddhist who actually believes liberation in one life is possible and lots of practice, resources, and leisure time is necessary, means that I'm a member of a very tiny select club of privileged people then it does bother me. I am more interested in alleviating the suffering of others than in achieving personal knowledge that can free myself from all suffering. If, by achieving that knowledge I can help all beings then it is certainly worth doing.

So I simply can't agree that the pain from birth defects in an infant is caused by mental proliferation. I'd say that the pain causes mental proliferation mediated by ignorance as, surely, a newborn is ignorant in terms of understanding self nature.

[Vezazvqw]

If one repeats Buddha's four noble truths, the following can be summarised:

1. Life means suffering.

2. The origin of suffering is attachment.

3. The cessation of suffering is attainable.

4. The path to the cessation of suffering.

Now, if the origin of the suffering is attachment, this always is not correct. Because people born with a birth defect shall suffer forever. Say he, or she is a deaf person, or a blind person, or having no legs or no hands etc.

This person did not have any attachment to cause this sort of a suffering. This is what I am trying to indicate. Buddha was a humanbeing and he must have been mistaken too. No one is perfect. If you believe that Sakyamuni Buddha was a perfect person. That might be your belief but, it can't be factual.

the Four Noble Truths are as follows:

1. Attachment to the five aggregates is suffering

2. The origin of suffering is the arising of craving

3. The cessation of suffering is the cessation of craving

4. The Noble Eightfold Path is the way to the cessation of craving

If people with a birth defect can realise the Four Noble Truths, they will cease to suffer

Physical sickness, injury or deformity is not suffering

When the Buddha was dying his body had great pain & sickness but his mind did not suffer

If we are interested in learning about Buddhism, the following scripture is a clear explanation of suffering & its cessation

Kind regards



The householder Nakulapita went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, I am a feeble old man, aged, advanced in years, having come to the last stage of life. I am afflicted in body & ailing with every moment. May the Blessed One teach me, may the Blessed One instruct me, for my long-term benefit & happiness."

So it is, householder. So it is. The body is afflicted, weak & encumbered. For who, looking after this body, would claim even a moment of true health, except through sheer foolishness? So you should train yourself: 'Even though I may be afflicted in body, my mind will be unafflicted.' That is how you should train yourself.

..... more, at the link

And how is one afflicted in body but unafflicted in mind?

He does not assume the body to be the self or the self as possessing body or the body as in the self or the self as in the body. He is not seized with the idea that 'I am the body' or 'The body is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, when the body changes & alters, he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair over its change & alteration.

He does not assume feeling to be the self or the self as possessing feeling or feeling as in the self or the self as in feeling . He is not seized with the idea that 'I am feeling' or 'feeling is mine.' As he is not seized with these ideas, when feeling changes & alters, he does not fall into sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress or despair over its change & alteration.