Why is samsara bad?

[ToHoldNothing]

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!

It's not as if Buddhism denies that one can still enjoy one's sensual life, but it's the attachment to it as an end that is viewed as problematic. Samsara as nirvana meansyou don't have to choose between one or the other, it's, like I said, a change in perspective between the samsaric attachment and the nirvanic liberation.

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.

As do I. That's where the sacrifice comes in. People have to accept it instead of running away from it or trying to cover it up with more happiness in a sense of excess not unlike what Aristotle critiques in advocating a Golden Mean

 

[Eudaimonist]

Samsara as nirvana means you don't have to choose between one or the other, it's, like I said, a change in perspective between the samsaric attachment and the nirvanic liberation.

I have no objection to the enjoyment of both. It's the intent to have nirvana without samsara that I find questionable as a goal.

As do I. That's where the sacrifice comes in. People have to accept it instead of running away from it or trying to cover it up with more happiness in a sense of excess not unlike what Aristotle critiques in advocating a Golden Mean

I find it difficult to see accepting the negatives of life as a sacrifice, or happiness as a mere balm, but I'll agree that just about anything good can be pursued either to excess or in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons, and so I think that you are right that there are Golden Mean issues.

I guess that by covering up the negatives with happiness, you mean something like a hedonist's or materialist's way of dealing with the negatives, which is really a partial blindness to the full reality of one's existence. Any such effort is doomed to failure, of course, since blinding oneself to some aspect of reality does not erase that reality, and it will come back to bite you. But I think that a rational and wise pursuit of happiness can generate a firmer foundation for that happiness, and this is worthwhile.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ToHoldNothing]

I have no objection to the enjoyment of both. It's the intent to have nirvana without samsara that I find questionable as a goal.

As a Buddhist myself, I'm not trying to have nirvana without samsara for the same reason I don't have light without darkness. In a sense, nirvana is identical to samsara in one sense and yet of course there is a distinction of sorts between them. Not unlike how we distinguish light and shadow and yet they are intertwined and virtually the same in that they need each other to exist. The parallel to the nirvana/samsara relationship is fuzzy though, I admit.

I find it difficult to see accepting the negatives of life as a sacrifice, or happiness as a mere balm, but I'll agree that just about anything good can be pursued either to excess or in the wrong way and for the wrong reasons, and so I think that you are right that there are Golden Mean issues.

One can be too attached to good things or too aversive (?) towards bad things. Accepting things as they are is the tricky part to manage. There are times when intervention is necessary, but there are times when you let karma mature and flourish in its own way.

I guess that by covering up the negatives with happiness, you mean something like a hedonist's or materialist's way of dealing with the negatives, which is really a partial blindness to the full reality of one's existence. Any such effort is doomed to failure, of course, since blinding oneself to some aspect of reality does not erase that reality, and it will come back to bite you. But I think that a rational and wise pursuit of happiness can generate a firmer foundation for that happiness, and this is worthwhile.

Buddhism is hardly anti rational, but if D.T. Suzuki is any indication, parts of Buddhism are purely experiential and thus a-rational in the sense that you cannot genuinely explicate them in logical or rational terms. But it's not as if one can't write with an enlightened perspective and yet also communicate in a common/conventional sense to people in order to communicate the ideas.

It's why Zen koans and Buddhist parables are still useful, such as the story of the two monks and the beautiful woman stuck at a crossing of a river(if I remember the story right). The younger monk questions the older monk as to why he touched the woman and helped her across the river when monks are supposedly forbidden from even touching women in stricter monasticism I imagine. The old monk responds that he left the woman behind after he helped her, that the younger monk is still carrying her.

 

[Eudaimonist]

One can be too attached to good things or too aversive (?) towards bad things. Accepting things as they are is the tricky part to manage. There are times when intervention is necessary, but there are times when you let karma mature and flourish in its own way.

Oh, I agree entirely.

I suppose it might be a bit like tending a garden. One does what one reasonably can to see that one's plants get a healthy amount of sunlight, water, nutrition, temperature, and whatever else. It is pointless to fume and fuss if they don't grow as big and lovely as you have imagined they would. One simply has to accept that nature will take its course. If you have done your job right, you'll have gotten the best results you could have under the circumstances. Be thankful and serene.

Buddhism is hardly anti rational, but if D.T. Suzuki is any indication, parts of Buddhism are purely experiential and thus a-rational in the sense that you cannot genuinely explicate them in logical or rational terms.

I've read his Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, and I find it difficult to see him as anything other than anti-rational with all of his bashing of "small mind" in favor of "big mind". And then there is his bizarre writing style which seems designed to defy any rational understanding of his message. But I'll grant that Buddhism is not in general opposed to rationality.

But it's not as if one can't write with an enlightened perspective and yet also communicate in a common/conventional sense to people in order to communicate the ideas.

It's why Zen koans and Buddhist parables are still useful, such as the story of the two monks and the beautiful woman stuck at a crossing of a river(if I remember the story right). The younger monk questions the older monk as to why he touched the woman and helped her across the river when monks are supposedly forbidden from even touching women in stricter monasticism I imagine. The old monk responds that he left the woman behind after he helped her, that the younger monk is still carrying her.

Yes, I like that koan.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Oh, I agree entirely.

I suppose it might be a bit like tending a garden. One does what one reasonably can to see that one's plants get a healthy amount of sunlight, water, nutrition, temperature, and whatever else. It is pointless to fume and fuss if they don't grow as big and lovely as you have imagined they would. One simply has to accept that nature will take its course. If you have done your job right, you'll have gotten the best results you could have under the circumstances. Be thankful and serene.

The garden metaphor works well with how gardening metaphors of sorts are used with respect to karma and vipaka, the seeds and the fruits of your actions.

I've read his Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, and I find it difficult to see him as anything other than anti-rational with all of his bashing of "small mind" in favor of "big mind". And then there is his bizarre writing style which seems designed to defy any rational understanding of his message. But I'll grant that Buddhism is not in general opposed to rationality.

That's Shunryu Suzuki, if I'm not mistaken, and I can't speak much for him, but he is younger and possibly in a different sect of Zen, so he might be in some disagreement with D.T. (Daisetsu Teitaro) Suzuki. Small mind might not be bashing rationality as opposed to a seeking of pure rationality, ala Immanuel Kant. And he probably uses the style in an effort to really get to the core of the paradoxical nature of Zen experience and the koan style, but I've only read a bit of him for a Philosophy of Religion class I believe. I have Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, though in my library somewhere, so I might get to reading it soon. Unfortunately,both of the Suzukis have been dead for over 40 years or so, so there's little chance of communicating with them directly.

Yes, I like that koan.

I wouldn't call it a koan, unless you think of them in very extended ways. Koans are more paradoxical, like a novice asking if a dog has Buddha nature and the head monk/elder monk responds "Mu/Wu" (Japanese/Chinese for nothing, roughly translated)

 

[Eudaimonist]

That's Shunryu Suzuki

Oh, whoops! I got those two confused. Thanks for the correction.

Wikipedia says I'm not the only one.

Suzuki was occasionally mistaken for the Zen scholar D.T. Suzuki, to which Shunryu would reply, "No, he's the big Suzuki, I'm the little Suzuki."

Geez, next you'll be telling me that D.T. Suzuki doesn't make a line of motorcycles and other motor vehicles.

if I'm not mistaken, and I can't speak much for him, but he is younger and possibly in a different sect of Zen, so he might be in some disagreement with D.T. (Daisetsu Teitaro) Suzuki.

I see. I'll keep this in mind.

I wouldn't call it a koan, unless you think of them in very extended ways. Koans are more paradoxical, like a novice asking if a dog has Buddha nature and the head monk/elder monk responds "Mu/Wu" (Japanese/Chinese for nothing, roughly translated)

Ah, yes. A good distinction, for small mind anyway.

Anyway, here is the Wikipedia link for anyone who is interested in the little Suzuki.

Shunryu Suzuki - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Livindesert]

I wouldn't call it a koan, unless you think of them in very extended ways. Koans are more paradoxical, like a novice asking if a dog has Buddha nature and the head monk/elder monk responds "Mu/Wu" (Japanese/Chinese for nothing, roughly translated)

 

[Eudaimonist]

Iä... Iä... Iä... Cthulhu fhtagn...


Mark

 

[razeontherock]

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.


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

This is no different from Christianity. I think US Christianity as a whole would improve from looking at these similarities.

 

[ToHoldNothing]

There are strong differences as you could point out raze. A human doesn't do the snuffing out of craving and such by their own will and effort and practice so much as by the grace of God, if I understand it even relatively right. There is of course some element of consent on the part of the will of the human and assent in their intellect, to use Thomistic expressions. But the beginning of the sequence, to use more technical terms, doesn't have any origin in the human will so much as God's sovereign will affecting the human will to perform good acts out of love of God, not fear of the law, to use somewhat common parlance.

Am I getting somewhere with this unique opportunity for dialogue, raze? There are similarities, but one can't deny that there are at least ontological disagreements.

 

[razeontherock]

Yeah, I think this topic is a unique opportunity to get somewhere, across a LOT of differing systems of thought. Anything practical will have a tendency to do that, IMHO.

All across CF we can see believers arguing the finer points you raise in your last post, but not once do I ever see Jesus discussing those things. Do we "do the snuffing out of craving and such" by our own effort, or by the Grace of G-d? Well, how would you know the difference? From a practical standpoint it comes down to "deny yourself, take up your Cross and follow" ... not me, but Jesus. Aka the difference between light and darkness that we've all been exposed to.

G-d isn't fooled, nor mocked. He knows sincerity and honest effort!

 

[razeontherock]

Looking at the hands, does this mean Cthulhu rocks?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Looking at the hands, does this mean Cthulhu rocks?

Yes, as Neil Gaiman has said: "Cthulhu is Rock 'n Roll."


Iä! Iä!

Mark

 

[Livindesert]

Happy Holidays!

 

[razeontherock]

Caption for above pic: in the Mission Impossible voice, this tree will self-destruct in 60 seconds

 

[Nooj]

What does meditation consist of? What is its purpose in Buddhism?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Offhand without significant research or recall, I can say that there are at least 2 kinds that are primary. The first might be called internal meditation, concentrating on contemplation of things introspectively and concentrating your mind. The second might be termed external meditation, becoming mindful of the world around you and understanding its properties in a deeper fashion, though a lot of this depends on your own practice and experience more than anything I could formulate logically or rationally.


The two things one might tentatively say meditation in Buddhism seeks are first, serenity or tranquility internally and then insight or discernment externally. You see yourself first and then you see everything else.

 

[Nooj]

Dukkha exists.
The causes of dukkha.
Nibbana is the cessation of the causes.
How to end the causes of dukkha.

Buddhism seems to work from the basis that dukkha is bad. Self-evidently, every living thing that can feel pain shies away from it for some reason.

But what would you say if I said that dukkha exists, I know the causes of dukkha, I know that nibbana is the cessation of dukkha, I acknowledge that these are the ways to end dukkha, but I'm not going to do them? What if I said that I didn't want to end dukkha? For a religion whose aim is to demolish disatisfaction and suffering, does it ever explain why disastisfaction and suffering should be demolished?

 

[ToHoldNothing]

Dukkha isn't best translated as suffering though. Suffering is perfectly natural to a Buddhist: it's improper responses to that suffering, such as clinging or aversion that are bad. Unease or unsatisfactoriness are better translations.

If you said what you did, you'd be either clinging to something you don't want to let go of or you're averse to the notion of what nirvana and bodhi might result in. The difficulty here is if you don't admit your fears and confront them. The first step to courage is admitting you're afraid, if you will.

Buddhism doesn't necessarily say the world itself is inherently bad, so much as our responses to it. Dukkha could be better understood not as a state of the world itself, but a negative or misguided state of our minds. Shying away from pain is not a bad thing when the pain threatens death or the like. It's when you are completely averse to pain or completely addicted that Buddhists would see it as a problem. As a Buddhist, I, for instance, don't have explicit objections to S&M when done responsibly. Like many things in life, they can show us a deeper truth of things, particularly the impermanence of life.

 

[Nooj]

Dukkha isn't best translated as suffering though. Suffering is perfectly natural to a Buddhist: it's improper responses to that suffering, such as clinging or aversion that are bad. Unease or unsatisfactoriness are better translations.

Why is clinging bad? As I understand it, because it leads to dukkha. Why is dukkha bad?

If you said what you did, you'd be either clinging to something you don't want to let go of or you're averse to the notion of what nirvana and bodhi might result in. The difficulty here is if you don't admit your fears and confront them. The first step to courage is admitting you're afraid, if you will.

I don't think I've been clear enough in my question, so you might have gotten the wrong impression.

I admit that clinging is a futile and harmful endeavour. I'm not saying that I disagree with the first or second truth. I just want to know why I should follow them. There's no deontological drive (it seems to me), no God saying 'do it because I say to do it' or moral imperative. There's just a couple of observations about life and a method to get rid of it, if you want. But for a person who doesn't see the point in clinging or not clinging, what then?

I've got to go right now, but I'll be shortly back. Sorry for the hurried response.