Looking to better understand nirvana and karma

michael_dorfman · 2年前

why is pursuing nirvana, specifically, preferable to leading a good life?

Because of the First Noble Truth.

Even a rebirth in the Tushita heaven involves suffering amidst the joy, and nirvana is the cessation of all suffering (hence superior.)

michael_dorfman · 2年前

It was very different from any other buddhist teachings I've heard before,

That's because it is not Buddhist. It is a nice piece of German Romanticism, and that's the philosophy it espouses.

It's a great work of fiction, and serves to get some people interested in Buddhism, but it is not a Buddhist work in any sense, and does not represent Buddhist philosophy (except incidentally).

If you like Hesse, Narcissus & Goldmund, Journey to the East, and the Glass Bead Game all have similar themes. (Well, come to think of it, so do Demian and Steppenwolf and the rest of his works, but the three I mentioned first are the ones I would most recommend.)

michael_dorfman · 2年前

I didn't say that. I said that Buddhist doctrine holds that he was omniscient. That's part of the definition of "enlightened", having removed all ignorance, becoming all-knowing.

What I personally believe is neither here nor there, and generally not something I discuss here.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

Without the concept of total interconnectedness, I don't think this idea that there can only be 1 Buddha makes sense at all. With this concept in mind, I can kind of seeing it making sense but I am not quite there.

I'm not sure it is supposed to make sense. Much of the universe doesn't make sense, and although the Buddha was omniscient, he only explained what was necessary for the cessation of suffering.

So, whether or not it makes sense, it is the way it is, and understanding why isn't important to the path.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

The answer to OP's question you have given is "because a bloke who lived thousands of years ago said so". That is remarkably unscientific for an Academic no?

Nope. I answered his question, precisely. He wants to know why Buddhists eat plants, and I told him what Buddhist doctrine holds. Buddhists eat plants precisely because "a bloke who lived thousands of years ago said so." That's the only academic answer.

I thought Gotama was all about questioning belief not assuming it to be so because a guru said so.

That's largely misunderstood. He said that non-Buddhists should question beliefs; however, one becomes a Buddhist by going for refuge in the three jewels, putting one's full faith and confidence in the Buddha, the dharma, and the sangha. In other words, Buddhists believe the Buddha is fully enlightened (i.e., omniscient.)

I have no idea what he understood or not... just what a bunch of acolytes wrote down.

Yes, but we can trace that oral tradition back to within 100 years of the Buddha's death, and the point we are discussing is not controversial in the slightest. In other words: if the Buddha held something other than this position, we have absolutely no evidence of it.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

I'm not taking it personally, because it's not my argument.

I'm just telling you what Buddhist doctrine holds, and I'm not wrong about that.

Buddhist doctrine may be wrong, but that's another story altogether.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

The Buddha didn't emphasis practicing jhana; his path consists of three equally important parts: śila, prajñā, and samadhi.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

But can they appear sequentially, even if the dharma of the previous one is not completely forgotten at the time?

The doctrine says no. Each dharma age is forgotten before the next begins.

How does faith (or more faith) participate in the nirvana process?

Faith is an essential part of the path, for us hearers of the dharma.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

Is this interpretation correct?

Yep.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

That's the weakest one.

How is that weak? His claims are in direct contradiction of the canon.

Would you mind posting another strong case, perhaps his behavior or teachings?

His behavior and teachings are in contradiction with the canon on this, and many other points.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

What does that even mean, 'householdership'?

It means living as a layperson (i.e., not as a monk, having taken Vinaya vows.) Having a job, a family, living in the world, etc.

Couldn't you argue that there is no 'householder' or even a state of householdership given anatta/sunyata?

That's just wordplay.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

The answer OP is seeking is because Buddhism does not recognise either the sentience or suffering of plants.

Isn't that what I said?

We don't even understand how our own mind is 'sentient' yet you claim we know as a fact that all plants are not.

The Buddha, who is held by doctrine to be omniscient, said that plants weren't sentient. (He also understood how our own mind is sentient.)

michael_dorfman · 2年前

Very briefly: look up "Hindutva."

There is a Hindu nationalistic movement which wants to (a) integrate all ancient Indian traditions into one grand tradition, and (b) portray this as incredibly ancient.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

Well, for one, he is a layperson.

According to the Pali canon, it is impossible for an arahant to live as a layperson.

The key text is MN71:

[Vacchagotta asks:] "Master Gotama, is there any householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of suffering?" [The Buddha replies:]"Vaccha, there is no householder who, without abandoning the fetter of householdership, on the dissolution of the body has made an end of suffering."

michael_dorfman · 2年前

Plants are not sentient beings.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

The Buddha was a Samyaksambuddha. The next Samyaksambuddha in this world system will be Maitreya.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

Well, let's put it this way: he fails to meet many of the canonical descriptions of an arahant, and directly conflicts with several. The only evidence of his attainment is his claim (which by itself conflicts with the Vinaya. Yes, I know he is not a monk, and has not taken Vinaya vows.)

michael_dorfman · 2年前

Is there a Sutra that specifically says that? If so, it would be interesting to read.

There are some, but I don't have the citations handy; I'll have to see if I can dig them out.

Master Hsuan Hua seems to think that they can appear whether or not a Buddha is in the world.

Actually, he says that when there is a Buddha in the world, they arise "enlightened to conditions" (i.e., dependent upon the Buddha) and that Pratyekabuddhas only arise when "there is no Buddha in the world."

I assume he is speaking loosely here, and means "the Buddhadharma", and not the Buddha as an individual.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

But: Pratyekabuddhas only arise when the dharma has been forgotten.

So, according to doctrine, there haven't been any since Śakyamuni turned the wheel of dharma, and won't be any until after all memory of his teachings have disappeared from the human realm.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

Certainly in the ancient Hindu sutras you can read meditation instructions that predate the time of the Buddha, but whether you would consider this to be Vipassana is perhaps debatable.

It's not debatable at all. The jhanas were known to other teachers prior to the Buddha, but Vipassana was a Buddhist innovation, and we don't see anything like it in any of the Vedic or (pre-Buddhist) Upansadic texts.

Focusing on the breath is not Vipassana.

And remember: the earliest written record of anything in India are the Aśokan pillars mentioning Buddhism. All Hindu texts were written down much later, and very few of those represent an oral tradition older than Buddhism.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

Vipassana predates Buddhism after all.

There is zero evidence of this. It's politically-motivated wishful thinking.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

Nāgārjuna claims that ultimate reality has no nature. There is no nature to ultimate reality; the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth. The only ultimate nature is naturelessness, which is itself not a nature (but natureless).

michael_dorfman · 2年前

The essay by Garfield and Priest is an excellent one. (I was fortunate to study with Jay Garfield as an undergrad, decades ago.)

There is a connection to what we have been speaking about, but it is a bit indirect.

It's worth pointing out that the sutta I quoted from earlier (stating that neither "exists" not "not exists" apply) is the only sūtra that Nāgārjuna quotes by name-- he is expressly tying himself back to the word of the Buddha on this point, in order to make clear that he views himself as being more in line with the Buddha's thinking than the Abhidharmists (who posited that dharmas had inherent existence.)

Now, the two paradoxes that Garfield and Priest identify brush up against this. The first is a paradox regarding expressibility of truth; the second is a paradox regarding the ultimate nature of all things. Neither of these are identical to his arguments about existence/non-existence, but at the same time, all three arguments are based upon a similar reliance on dependent origination as a refutation of all foundations.

michael_dorfman · 2年前

I'll take them at their word that the Dalai Lama said what they say he said. I'm personally ambivalent about this one, and I'm not sure there's a consistent Buddhist orthodoxy on the matter.

The Dalai Lama did say what they say he did, and there is a consistent Buddhist orthodoxy on the matter. The fact that this makes the author uncomfortable is besides the point.

(As an aside: I'm constantly amazed by folks who write about Buddhist doctrine without bothering to find out what it actually says. The information is readily available; there's really no reason for the author's ignorance except lack of effort.)

michael_dorfman

トロフィーケース

本日のreddit gold目標額達成率