Why is samsara bad?

[Nooj]

Samsara, the cycle of rebirth. Why is this something to escape from? Many people seek eternal life, what would you say to them?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

As a Buddhist, I would say that the seeking of eternal life is still binding you to samsara. Just because you might appear to have eternal life doesn't mean you actually do. The gods in the heavenly realm have immense lifespans, but they still eventually pass away and are reborn into another realm in basic Buddhist cosmology.

I wouldn't say samsara is bad perse, since that's more the Hindu notion that you must attani moksha, liberation and freedom from the cycle because you must become one with the Brahman, world soul. Not to say that the world isn't good even to Hindus, but like Buddhism, it's our attachment to the world that is a bad thing. Buddhism, of course, takes it a step further and says even our attachment to our selves as permanent essences that survive our deaths binds us to samsara. Samsara itself isn't bad, it's simply the basic state we are born into, because of our psychological dispositions of sorts.

Samsara is said by Buddhists to be identical to nirvana in a sense, since they are the same world, merely seen through different eyes. In one, you are bound by fatalism or some determinism of sorts or are purely indeterminate in your behavior, both equally dangerous in a sense. The other is an awakened perspective, which is what bodhi means in sanskrit and pali, I believe, awakening of sorts. Nirvana is said to be like extinguishing a candle or blowing it out. That is not to say annihilationism perse, but simply extinguishing our cravings, our attachments. Nirvana is going with the flow in a sense of samsara, translated somewhat to flowing. In that sense, it resonates with the Taoist idea of wuwei, action in non action.

But I'm rambling on from my main point; which is, that samsara isn't evil in itself, since that would be placing the primary blame on something outside ourselves. Samsara is only evil as we approach it in such a way. If we approach it as something natural that we can confront in varied ways with our minds, then it is neutral and neither good nor evil in a sense.

 

[Yu_Jin]

Once you achieve nirvana, do you fade into non existence or something?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

If Buddha's any indication, you can achieve nirvana while still physically existing, but then there's the more mysterious experience of nirvana after your physical death.

From my understanding, it's almost best not to actually answer that question, since it just muddies the waters more. Technically I could answer in this way, more Zen like. When one goes through rebirth, isn't it like you ceased to exist anyway, even if your karmic elements and skandha survive into the next rebirth? The Buddha might've ceased to exist when he attained nirvana, but he might just have reasonably been said to have become one with everything, even if it wasn't really Siddartha himself becoming one with the universe. But like I said, that could muddy things up more than they already are.

 

[sanjaya1984]

Well one of the primary messages of the Bhagavad Gita is that attachment can detract one from his duty, and will thus lead to adharma (unrighteousness). Doing one's dharma, on the other hand, will ultimately lead to heaven and union with God. Being caught in the cycle of births and deaths is portrayed as a bad thing, since Sri Krishna says that this is what he does to the demons.

Moving into the real world though, it can be a hard pill to swallow. Life doesn't always seem so bad, and one can wonder if union with God is truly that much better. I recall a story from the Mahabharatha where the warrior king Arjuna is taken to heaven briefly to see one of his slain kinsmen (a son, I think), and this person doesn't even care to recognize him. The idea here is that when one finally does go to heaven to be united with God, his former mortal life seems utterly insignificant compared to the bliss he currently experiences.

Of course most of us probably don't understand that union with God is better than this life, and perhaps that points to spiritual immaturity on our parts. Hence the necessity of the cycle of reincarnation for maturing of the soul.

 

[Nooj]

But I'm rambling on from my main point; which is, that samsara isn't evil in itself, since that would be placing the primary blame on something outside ourselves. Samsara is only evil as we approach it in such a way. If we approach it as something natural that we can confront in varied ways with our minds, then it is neutral and neither good nor evil in a sense.

Do you think an enlightened being would want to be reborn? And is that why rebirth doesn't take place, because they simply don't want to do it?

Once you achieve nirvana, do you fade into non existence or something?

Well the Buddha was said to have achieved nirvana in his thirties and he kept on teaching for decades until he died.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

An enlightened being would be beyond the attachments that keep one in samsara, the flow and cycle of rebirth.

It's not about will so much as a lack of willfulness on the part of the buddha, except the proper will to aid others, as a bodhisattva would have. But if we take Siddhartha for an example of one who achieved enlightenment, it wasn't that he didn't want to be reborn, it was that he had extinguished his attachments and cravings and had become awakened, bodhi. Any will he has is a will that would aid even a non arhat (proto Buddha of sorts, I believe, though I could be wrong). Buddha willed to teach others, to aid those who suffered, to spread his Dharma across India.

 

[Nooj]

Well one of the primary messages of the Bhagavad Gita is that attachment can detract one from his duty, and will thus lead to adharma (unrighteousness). Doing one's dharma, on the other hand, will ultimately lead to heaven and union with God. Being caught in the cycle of births and deaths is portrayed as a bad thing, since Sri Krishna says that this is what he does to the demons.

What do you think about people who crave communion with God? Isn't this an attachment also?

An enlightened being would be beyond the attachments that keep one in samsara, the flow and cycle of rebirth.

It seems to me that Buddhism says it describes the world as it really is. There's nothing like the Christian or Islamic requirement of belief and faith to be saved. It's simply "do this, do that, lose this and that and you're done". Very mechanistic and functional. Correct me if I'm wrong, the Buddha never explained why the karmic system existed or whether someone created it, just that it did and what to do about it.

Still, do you have any thoughts on why attachments keep one in samsara? I hope you'll keep answering my silly questions ToHoldNothing, I'm learning a lot.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

It seems to me that Buddhism says it describes the world as it really is.

From what I've read from D.T. Suzuki, it's more along the lines of a path to experiencing the world as it is. It's not like I or any other Buddhist anywhere could just explain it to you. Otherwise it would be less misunderstood by Christians, as I've observed.

There's nothing like the Christian or Islamic requirement of belief and faith to be saved. It's simply "do this, do that, lose this and that and you're done". Very mechanistic and functional.

The practice of meditation in any form is not just for any ritualistic sense so much as it is a practice of mindfulness and becoming more aware of things. There are various kinds, each of which confronts a different aspect of the world that is perplexing and otherwise brings unease to us unless we change our perspective on it.

And you're never really done if the bodhisattvas are any indication. They are either reborn again by their own will or it might be that they never die in more rare cases, but I'm probably just thinking more fantastically as a writer in that sense. It seems that with the existence of bodhisattva there isn't a genuine end to a Buddhist's quest of enlightenment, because even if they reach it, it is just as compelling upon them as compassionate awakened ones to aid others in reaching enlightenment, through dialogue and teaching.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the Buddha never explained why the karmic system existed or whether someone created it, just that it did and what to do about it.

He certainly didn't concern himself with the huge metaphysical hows and whys, he simply posited a basic system that he found would work for virtually anyone. It was just a matter of putting it into practice and approaching it with an open and yet skeptical mind. There is the median of skepticism between outright doubt and outright gullibility.

The karmic system as I understand it is much more internal and psychological than it is your willed actions actually cause natural events to occur. I believe Buddhist philosophy makes distinctions between these varied chains of causality. Me behaving in a bad way towards someone doesn't mean I'll be punished by some naturally occuring accidental event. That might be closer to a Hindu concept of karma, though not necessarily all Hindus, though it is closer in the idea, from what I understand. My behaving negatively towards a person may just mean that I cause bad fruits to result from my negative actions, that is, that I either feel remorse or guilt in some sense, or I simply continue in that habit until otherwise changed.

The imagery used many times in speaking of karma is in terms of gardening or plant husbandry of sorts. Your actions are seeds and the results are the fruits. They can take varied amounts of time to mature and blossom, but the basic rule of karma is that whatever action you do through your volition and motivation/intent thereof will bear fruit and mature when met with the right conditions or simply left to grow over time.

Still, do you have any thoughts on why attachments keep one in samsara?

A similar reason why one gravitates towards things until you reach escape velocity, for an off the cuff analogy. It's a poor one though. My understanding is that you are trapped in samsara because you are attached to things in varied ways, such as craving for them in some addiction or clinging to it as permanent, recoiling from them in fear or anger, or trying to sublimate it in another sense. The main two attachments are therefore, what I might tentatively say are, attachment to the thing in itself as you believe it to be permanent and attachment to your feelings about the thing, whether you believe it to be permanent or not.

I hope you'll keep answering my silly questions ToHoldNothing, I'm learning a lot.

1) They're not silly questions if you genuinely are seeking to learn. Honestly, the silliest questions are those that are never asked, seems to me.
2)I'm happy to answer them, but I caution you to not take me as an authority, as I'm still very much an initiate into Buddhism, though I do strive for further knowledge and wisdom of it. I have a text on my bed that I keep pressing myself to read: What the Buddha Taught, by Walpola Rahula, that I highly recommend for a starting understanding of Buddhism, though by no means perfect.

 

[razeontherock]

Samsara, the cycle of rebirth. Why is this something to escape from? Many people seek eternal life, what would you say to them?

Studying the hell concept, it's possible that this cycle you speak of may just be what G-d is telling us. Except each re-birth would be untold ages apart.

Kinda like the scene from Indiana Jones - - choose wisely!

 

[ToHoldNothing]

The very notion of rebirth in any sense of transmigration of karmic elements or an atman seems decidedly foreign to the Abrahamic faith, though one does hear of arguments to the contrary. How do you defend the notion of any sort of reincarnation or transmigration in a system that is quoted as saying "Man is made to die once and then will wait until the resurrection," or something to that effect?

 

[razeontherock]

I don't defend it, I just pointed out one rendering that would harmonize both.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

In a syncretic sense or in the sense that Buddhists are somehow going through a purgatory in the Naraka/Hell realm of rebirth? It's not as if the soul is being punished, so even if I took the rendering seriously, it would only apply to Jainism or Hinduism, since Buddhism doesn't posit anything like a soul that survives our existence

 

[Livindesert]

In a syncretic sense or in the sense that Buddhists are somehow going through a purgatory in the Naraka/Hell realm of rebirth? It's not as if the soul is being punished, so even if I took the rendering seriously, it would only apply to Jainism or Hinduism, since Buddhism doesn't posit anything like a soul that survives our existence

In my understanding from when I was Buddhist was that consciousness dose survive mixed in with whatever karma baggage you have.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I wouldn't say that's completely out of the question, but it seems contrary to the notion in Buddhism that everything is essentially devoid of atman, self, soul even. To say anything that represents you or I as an individual in the eyes of the samsaric world (of sorts) survives our death is just clinging to that notion of possession and a need to survive when it would be more practical to simply accept that "you" will not exist after your death except in the memories of others. Not as anything disembodied and certainly not as anything reincarnated in the strict sense of the term.

 

[Livindesert]

I wouldn't say that's completely out of the question, but it seems contrary to the notion in Buddhism that everything is essentially devoid of atman, self, soul even. To say anything that represents you or I as an individual in the eyes of the samsaric world (of sorts) survives our death is just clinging to that notion of possession and a need to survive when it would be more practical to simply accept that "you" will not exist after your death except in the memories of others. Not as anything disembodied and certainly not as anything reincarnated in the strict sense of the term.

One thing that seemed interesting to me was that while in Korea the Korean Seon(Zen) I knew generally agreed conciousness survives as a part of Karma after death where as the Buddhist I know in America generally don't believe it dose. From my days of posting on E-Sangha back when it was up their seemed to be this dissconect between the old world/New world views of Buddhism.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Part of this depends on what they meant by consciousness, as it might've just meant karmic elements of our consciousness that were by no means part of us as individual selves in any permanent sense. And it might reflect something of the Mahayana understanding of the self as both empirical and as reflective of one's Buddha nature and potential.

 

[Livindesert]

Some people I talked to believed in literal hell and heaven realms etc... It seemed these people thought(from what I knew of thier beliefs) that if the consciousness did not continue then thier would be nothing to "snuff out" and therefore they would achieve Nibbana at death no matter how thery lived.

While others I met viewed the whole karma thing as metaphorical and view Nibanna as peace within oneself instead of a snuffing out all Karma.

Unfortunately the head monk at the temple I went to spoke only a little english and I spoke even less Korean so all of our conversations were not very deep as I had to rely on lay people who could translate for us. Although we did get to know each other enough that I was invited to a party where we all got drunk together in the temple annex one night but thats another story LoL.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Some people I talked to believed in literal hell and heaven realms etc... It seemed these people thought(from what I knew of thier beliefs) that if the consciousness did not continue then thier would be nothing to "snuff out" and therefore they would achieve Nibbana at death no matter how thery lived.

As if that is necessarily a bad thing.

But I wonder why Nibbana is so desirable in the first place. Sure, it might feel "blissful", but I'd rather live a human life. Samsara sounds awesome to me!

I'll grant that life has its unease, and even extreme suffering, but I tend to see great potential for life to be positive on balance. I hope that the human species exists (in some form) for millions of years to come.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Some people I talked to believed in literal hell and heaven realms etc... It seemed these people thought(from what I knew of thier beliefs) that if the consciousness did not continue then thier would be nothing to "snuff out" and therefore they would achieve Nibbana at death no matter how thery lived.

Nibbana's snuffing out as the etymology implies doesn't necessarily mean snuffing out the self, since there isn't a self to snuff out to begin with. The snufing out is of one's cravings and attachments. In a sense, that happens before bodhi, awakening. You snuff out those flames of craving and such and then you truly begin to be awakened in a sense.

While others I met viewed the whole karma thing as metaphorical and view Nibanna as peace within oneself instead of a snuffing out all Karma.

I am more in that camp. It's psychological, like many things in Buddhist thought as I've progressed in understanding them.