[erepsysoulpfbs]

Consciousness arises when the six senses are in contact with its object of consiousness. Eye consiousness for colors... and mind consiousness for ideas being mind just another sense organ. With out contact consiousness ceases.

We can not avoid sense contact but we can be mindful of craving, clinging and self identification when contact happens along each khandha.

Cessation in this terms should be understood as quenching or extinguishing of the fire of craving and self identification. The Pail term is Nirodha.



Yes, he was an Arahat and outstanding teacher.



I am not a psychologist but many schools are grounded in the idea of a "Self". Non self doctrine threatens them very much.




Again, cessation is about quenching or extinguishing self identification, craving, clinging with such function; for each khanda.



Please quote that... I still haven't gone through that statement in any of the few suttas I have read.



No problem tijampel. Indeed I know I am not the best one making this things clear. Hope other members with more experience with the early teachings of Buddha can be of more help.

Again, Buddha explains it much more clearly, here:





Kind wishes tj

I guess we just need to work towards that same goal...together I hope; then we will fully understand. I try here understand from materialist POV because I see you as materialist, and, I am nominally materialist because that's my mind is stuck right now. To truly let material existence go....does that really let the brain go too? Material existence for me IS samsara; relying on "randomness of nature" is accepting materialism. I am stuck with that belief from early childhood. It's not what I wish to perpetuate. I need to have deeper realizations.

Take care

tj

[kictainiSot]

But my question for you two, or others is, then is what is your personal goal for practicing Buddhism? Let us say that a person is enlightened, and then he dies and then he is no more. Then what? Is there a point for that person to reach enlightenment, whatever your definition of enlightenment is?

Hi Yuan,

The way I see it, the question is hard to answer without a definition of enlightenment, because the answer depends on the definition. For example, there are at least two distinct strands of thought in Theravada. One, which I gather is associated more with the Burmese tradition, defines nibbana strictly in terms of cessation. Parinibbana (complete enlightenment) is equivalent to annihilation/oblivion, i.e death as a physicalist would understand it. It's not a state of perfect serenity -- it's not any kind of state at all, since sensation and cognition have come to an end.

The second, found more often in the Thai Forest Tradition and articulated by teachers such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, doesn't accept this view of nibbana as annihilation and looks instead to sutta passages suggesting there is some sort of serene, luminous state, albeit one which cannot really be articulated in ordinary language.

Then we have Mahayana definitions of enlightenment which involve sunyata and realization of buddha nature, etc. A Buddha not only does not simply "cease"; he/she teaches sentient beings, has Buddha fields and Pure Lands, and so on. Quite a departure from #1 as stated above.

It seems to me #1 is the hardest to reconcile with a belief in one lifetime. It's actually bit risky to combine the two because logically it leads to an argument for suicide. (If parinibbana=annihilation, and annihilation automatically follows physical death, why not skip all that difficult cultivation and get there by the quickest route?) #2 works better because there is something to aspire to -- a perfect serene state, a luminous awareness, clearly better than our afflicted states that we know so well.

Mahayana understanding of nirvana as prajnaparamita seems reconcilable as well. After all the Heart and Diamond Sutras teach us that karma and rebirth are illusory, that in the cognizance of a Buddha (or even a great bodhisattva) there is no self, other or lifespan, and that "reality" properly seen is the ebb and flux of causes and conditions. So in terms of prajna, the question seems ultimately irrelevant. However, the one lifetime model does present other doctrinal problems in Mahayana, particularly as relates to the bodhisattva path and ideas of the True Self put forward in the tathagatagarbha scriptures. Some of these issues are easier to resolve than others.

[CaseyFan]

The second, found more often in the Thai Forest Tradition and articulated by teachers such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, doesn't accept this view of nibbana as annihilation and looks instead to sutta passages suggesting there is some sort of serene, luminous state, albeit one which cannot really be articulated in ordinary language.

A book called ''The Island : Teachings on Nibbana'' by Ajahn Passano and Ajahn Amaro is available free from Forest Sangha Publications

http://forestsanghapublications.org/...?id=10&ref=vec

From the introduction by Ajahn Sumedho:

A difficulty with the word nibbana is that its meaning is beyond the power of words to describe. It is, essentially, undefinable.

Another difficulty is that many Buddhists see nibbana (Sanskrit: nirvana) as something unobtainable—as so high and so remote that we’re not worthy enough to try for it. Or we see nibbana as a goal, as an unknown, undefined something that we should somehow try to attain.

Most of us are conditioned in this way. We want to achieve or attain something that we don’t have. So nibbana is looked at as something that if you work hard, keep the sila (moral precepts), meditate diligently, become a monastic, devote your life to practice, then your reward might be that eventually you attain nibbana—even though you’re not sure what it is.

Ajahn Chah would use the words “the reality of non-grasping” as the definition for nibbana: realizing the reality of nongrasping. That helps to put it in a context, because the emphasis is on awakening to how we grasp and hold on even to words like “nibbana” or “Buddhism” or “practice” or “sila” or whatever.

It’s often said that the Buddhist way is not to grasp. But that can become just another statement that we grasp and hold on to. It’s a Catch-22: no matter how hard you try to make sense out of it, you end up in total confusion because of the limitation of language and perception.

You have to go beyond language and perception. And the only way to go beyond thinking and emotional habit is through awareness—awareness of thought and awareness of emotion. “The island that you cannot go beyond” is the metaphor for this state of being awake and aware, as opposed to the concept of becoming awake and aware.

Continued :

http://www.abhayagiri.org/main/article_print/2147/

[teridbruse]

Material existence for me IS samsara

I understand sankhara as mental proliferation. Also, sankhara happens when we do not "see" or acknowledge that all conditioned things leads to Dukkha, because of its impermanent nature.

tjampel, I suggest to have a look to a series of different threads at the Theravada Buddhism Forum related to some fundamental issues about the teachings of Buddha and commented by Element in a very accessible way, here.

relying on "randomness of nature" is accepting materialism. I am stuck with that belief from early childhood. It's not what I wish to perpetuate. I don't know why "randomness of nature" is so hard to see. Humans can control some aspects of nature but a huge proportion of it can't be under absolute control.

Anyway, the issue of randomness can fit better in the tea room, tj.

What really matters is that Buddha taught about how to cope with life happenings. Things happen, things like: gain, loss, etc.,

Reasons are many but what is important is the mental state toward such happenings:

"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
I need to have deeper realizations. Isn't the given quote a deeper realization?

Take care

tj Kind Wishes,

[JesikaFclq]

tjampel, I didn't follow your discussion completely (posts are too long) but according to your last post, are you suggesting that a person can function normally while his consciousness/cognition has ceased?

No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm trying to understand what cessation of consciousness and the other heaps mean.

[mirex]

I'm trying to understand what cessation of consciousness and the other heaps mean.

cessation of consciousness is unconsciousness.

[Kokomoxcvcv]

The direct cause of suffering for each and every instance of suffering is entirely produced by the mind. I have no problem with that statement.

The material cause of suffering is the thing that "stuff" which turns into that mind (the actual physical material that becomes brain, which produces mind or, if you don't believe mind is an emergent property of the brain's activities, then, the mental stuff that turns into current mind).
So, this refers to egg and sperm, generally (for most sentient beings). These are produced externally; they are not at all influenced by mental fabrications. No mind has been formed yet so no such fabrications can even exist….

Well, this is all good. I agree with you that the physical body influences the mind. Mind exists based on the physical body. Brain chemicals and hormones naturally affect a person’s state of mind.

Physical pain is termed as dukkha in suttas. It is worthwhile noting that the pali word dukkha has many flavors. Pain is dukkha too. But pain is not necessarily suffering. Overall in the entire thripitaka, suffering is explained as mental concocting. Even in the same suttas where the Buddha indicates that physical pain is dukkha, he goes on to explain that to eliminate dukkha (suffering) one has to eliminate the mind's inclinations to grasp as 'I be.' Check MN 9.

So what is the conclusion we can draw from this? IMO the conclusion is that, Buddha Dhamma is for curing mental suffering. At lease this is what we can verify without speculation. Arahaths continue to feel pain. Excruciating physical pain cannot be cured by enlightenment.

[gZAhTyWY]

mosquito

Dhamma is not a cure for all. Buddha has said that animals are not capable of listening to and understanding dhamma. If a person is born mentally impaired he is not capable of eliminating mental suffering.

Average mental ability – mandatory

it makes no sense at all not to then look to the causes for such birth…

It makes perfect sense. The Buddha did not advise his disciples to try liberating all beings. I am interested in seeing a quote if he has.

What do you say the cause of such birth is? Kamma? If that is so, then you have to accept rebirth. If you say rebirth is true then you have to explain how it happens so others can verify. Otherwise all your theories fall in the realm of speculation – a mere belief. You are free to take up beliefs if you like but it makes perfect sense not to if you don't.

[Obebtetibre]

hello Bothi

yes...it may seem that way to you

in Buddhism, a fully enlightened being is at complete peace

where as a partially enlightened being still suffers and is not at complete peace

in the scriptures, it is reported the Buddha said the suffering of a partially enlightened being is like a fingertip of soil compared to the whole earth

kind regards

Oh my dear Element,

You still think that fully enlightened being has a self... You do not consider that fully enligtened being has no-self at all. That is, if around there are many miserable people and you think in this state there may be a fully enlihtened being, this might be a fully day dream, not fully enlightened being.

Fully enlightened being shall still feel the suffering of the people around...So impossible to be free of suffering.

Lets be free of attachments...

[tickerinet]

Hi Lazy,

Thank you for a nice overview of different schools and their ideas.

I was interested on how people who 1. are Buddhists, and 2. believe in a single lifetime (or at least find multiple ones unnecessary), resolve this question personally.

[LICraig]

Hi Kaarine,

Thank you so much for answering my questions with such patience.

My only observation is that I do not think that I understand what this final statement meant. And I suspect that until I achieve final liberation, or close to it, I will never know what it means.
I mean, I know what I think it means. But I don't know what "They" meant.

Many suttas that adress in a definitive way the complete quenching of Dukkha, thus, the final liberation or awakening is taught in the suttas, with this final closing statement:

"He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world."

[Unrersvar]

I understand sankhara as mental proliferation. Also, sankhara happens when we do not "see" or acknowledge that all conditioned things leads to Dukkha, because of its impermanent nature.

tjampel, I suggest to have a look to a series of different threads at the Theravada Buddhism Forum related to some fundamental issues about the teachings of Buddha and commented by Element in a very accessible way, here.



I don't know why "randomness of nature" is so hard to see. Humans can control some aspects of nature but a huge proportion of it can't be under absolute control.

Anyway, the issue of randomness can fit better in the tea room, tj.

What really matters is that Buddha taught about how to cope with life happenings. Things happen, things like: gain, loss, etc.,

Reasons are many but what is important is the mental state toward such happenings:





Isn't the given quote a deeper realization?



Kind Wishes,

I argue that randomness of nature, the way it's presented by you (not me) is the material and substantial cause of suffering for sentient beings and not something that belongs in the tea room (as the cause of suffering is clearly an important topic).

Randomness of nature, producing beings who will either suffer all their lives (having no prospect to improve) or, for a minute number of very fortunate beings (for whom the Buddha taught) suffer less than all of their lives, is as much the cause of beings suffering as is the bullet from a gun the cause of a murder victim's death where the bullet severs a major artery; the inability to get oxygen to organs and the brain is what kills that person. Still I say that the bullet killed that person, and, it seems, only those people who post here might take issue with that analysis.

It is not circumstances of birth that cause suffering; it's mental proliferations arising from ignorance. Randomness of nature, as you've propounded it, at least, insures such circumstances of birth that virtually all sentient beings will live out their lives utterly unable to remove the slightest part of that ignorance. Why? Not because of their failure to implement some schema taught by the buddha (which is the technical reason they remain in a state of suffering); but because of their lack of capacity, lack of exposure, lack of opportunity, etc. The sea turtle and the yoke....you referenced that. And, it's correct. Randomness of nature insures that the % of sentient beings that are destined to suffer for their entire lives is about the same as the chances of that turtle emerging into the yoke from the depths of the sea (once every 100 years).


And...

While all my training argues for randomness of nature I recognize that my training is part of my problem. It's training in reification of what appears as truly existence and permanent. And I think the same must be applied to the notion of random nature, biology, etc. It's a system devised by suffering beings which elevates various phenomena to truly existent status...it exists like that. Well, ignorance, as a mental state (in terms of an individual occurrence of such a state) may be defined as misunderstanding the nature of self or phenomena and then holding to that misunderstanding/cognitive error.

I think that only a fool ignores science and only a foolish Buddhist deifies and/or reifies the materialist aspects of science; in the end science consists of stories created by very smart people which explain quite impressively and correctly (in a functional sense) what they see. But they still see things as suffering beings see them, and, despite the rational approach, it's still a product of cognitive error in the way it understands self and object.

[carletoxtrs]

for a minute number of very fortunate beings (for whom the Buddha taught)

If we leave mosquitoes (and other animals) out since animals are not capable of grasping dhamma, I think the portion of the human population who can understand dhamma is greater than those who cannot so it is definitely not minute.

[bushomeworkk]

Tjampel,

The teachings of Buddha are about the development of a mind free from suffering, free from craving and free from attachments. This is the further my understanding goes due to my actual stage of comprehension.

[Jasonstawnosaa]

If we leave mosquitoes (and other animals) out since animals are not capable of grasping dhamma, I think the portion of the human population who can understand dhamma is greater than those who cannot so it is definitely not minute.

1. What does equanimity mean to you with regard to sentient beings? Why leave 99.9999% of them out of the mix? Because they are less less equal than humans?

2. I respectfully disagree with you regarding humans. Again it's based on the "randomness of nature" argument, which is not my theory. Based on this theory, virtually all humans will never have the opportunity to practice the teachings of the Buddha at the level needed for actual liberation and most will never hear the dharma taught, period. I provided many reasons why not. You can say that a child born in Afghanistan to Islamic fundamentalist parents or virtually all non-asian kids born in my country, can practice the dharma just like the one whose parents are rich dharma practitioner. Yes they can. No they won't, because of causes and conditions having nothing to do with their own efforts. It's all that "randomness of nature"; they simply won't hear the dharma, for the most part, and a small number of other will hear it; and that small number will contain a tiny fraction of practitioners who actually are able to obtain high realizations---because it takes tremendous effort and you need to have faith in the result (you have to believe it will work) for you to spend 4-6 or more hours per day doing it.

There are diamonds located in the earth so everyone can have a diamond too. Those who find them are precious few. Those who actually practice the dharma to the end, to release, are extremely rare and worthy of great praise. The rest of us are projected into this universe in a trajectory that probably won't encounter the dharma at all and, if we do, we probably can't achieve all the results in this life. Just ask 99.9% of the people in Thailand. Randomness of nature insures that they won't achieve arahant status in this lifetime.

[weluvjessicaalba]

Again, randomness is a core caracteristic of nature and it is about the posible out come of a happening and its statistical probability. This is how things happen. I don't see where is the problem with this.

Now, things happen, as told by Buddha like gain and loss... so what really matters is our mental disposition toward such events as it is taught in the sutta I quoted at # 24.

Kind wishes,

So you believe that nature is random, definitely. We have a disagreement there.

And we disagree as to what constitutes a logical cause. I say this random nature you posit as creator of circumstance of birth is material and substantial cause of the suffering for any sentient being, period. This is not what the Buddha said; but the Buddha did not posit random nature in the manner you are positing so I have to use different criteria here. I agree with what the Buddha stated and am certainly not going against his teachings here; that's not my intention at all.

And I respect your view. After all, it's been my view too for a long time.

None of my arguments have anything to do with how we should practice. We have no disagreement regarding how to practice or the urgency of practicing.

Take care;

tj

[XIMHOTEP-X]

No problem with disagreeing. You point of view has been taken into consideration, tjampel. We are all learning and evolving in our spiritual path.

It's OK to share our different points of view.

[Flankrene]

No problem with disagreeing. You point of view has been taken into consideration, tjampel. We are all learning and evolving in our spiritual path.

It's OK to share our different points of view.

What is a spiritual path if there is only death?

[LillyPlay]

What is a spiritual path if there is only death?

A spiritual path is followed when one is alive. To think about ''me'' following a path beyond death is pointless speculation and contradicts anatta.

If there is not a ''self'' or anything belonging to a ''self' where is ''my path" after death ?

[CefGemYAffews]

A spiritual path is followed when one is alive. To think about ''me'' following a path beyond death is pointless speculation and contradicts anatta.

If there is not a ''self'' or anything belonging to a ''self' where is ''my path" after death ?

Yes, but what is this spiritual? I believe most people define spiritual as that which is not material.


Also if it is only this life and happiness of this life is what matter most it would seem strange that the Buddha would leave a life of luxury and become a wandering hermit... Once he was realized why not go back to the life of luxury all while maintaining supreme enlightenment?

just curious questions.

I guess I should have made a proper introduction as this is only my second post.

Hello! Thank you all for hosting such a lovely forum. I am relatively new to the actual study of buddhism. I have however been a long term meditator via the yogic path. I have just recently finished studying "In the Buddha's words: An anthology of Discourses from the Pali Canon. by Bhikkhu Bodhi. I'm looking forward to seeking recommendations from the community about which direction to take my studying next.

Peace.