[Ground]

Summary and Conclusion

Originally Posted by Ground

Here I would like to investigate into the question what may be valid reasons for one being interested in buddhism today.

There are many religious beliefs cultivated in the context of buddhism by followes of buddhism which do not comply with what one can validly know.
E.g. Religious believers of buddhism claim that buddhism leads to the cessation of suffering through cessation of the cycle of rebirths. But since rebirth cannot be validly understood non-metaphorically what might it be that ceases to be 'reborn' metaphorically?

Also, is 'suffering' a valid translation of dukkha? If it were then according to buddhism everything in life would be suffering. But based on direct perception and inference one can validly know that suffering is only a potential aspect of life.

So what is dukkha that can be ended according to buddhism really?

A possible way to investigate into 'dukkha' would be to look up what is to be eliminated by the buddhist path according to authentic budddhist texts.


What is to be eliminated by the buddhist path?

Here are the categories and their elements indicating what has to be eliminated on the path to liberation. Of course these categories are partially overlapping:

1. Asava (fermentations, effluents, outflows, taints):
fermentation of sensuality
fermentation of becoming
fermentation of ignorance

2. Kilesa (defilements — in their various forms):
passion (lobha)
aversion (dosa)
delusion (moha)

3. Nivarana (hindrances):
sensual desire (kamacchanda)
ill-will (vyapada)
sloth and drowsiness (thina-middha)
restlessness and worry (uddhacca-kukkucca)
doubt (vicikiccha)

4. Fetters (sanyojana, samyojana):
Self-identity views
uncertainty
grasping at precepts & practices
sensual desire
ill will
passion for form
passion for what is formless
conceit
restlessness
ignorance


So one may conclude that the presence of all these elements is what characterises dukkha and the absence of all these elements is what characterises cessation of dukkha.


But then, why should one be interested in getting rid of these elements?

There is really no valid reason based on valid direct perception and inference why one should decide 'I want to get rid of all these aspects of dukkha'.

If one wants to get rid of something or - positively expressed - if one wants to achieve something then that 'something' must be a directly perceptible phenomenon acccessible to one's direct perception without having to undergo the brain-washing of a philosophy or ideology before.


So it turns out that is really a matter of asking oneself: what do I expect from life? And: Is there something about buddhism that can be useful to achieve what I want to achieve in life or what I want to get rid of to make life more comfortable?

The basic question of what dukkha can stand for would seem to be: Is there persistent unease in my life? Is there a persistent unease that spoils too many aspects of life?

What might be the cause of that unease? Discontent, hatred and aversion, depression, fear of death, timidity, general fearfulness, insatiable greed, frustration because of never getting exactly what one wants, unsatisfied sexual desires, unsatisfied material desires, unsatisfied aesthetic desires, desire in general ... ?


I think that unease is perhaps the best translation of dukkha. It leaves open what may cause this unease in a specific individual and is empty of the exaggeraton 'suffering'.

So it is up to investigate for every individual whether there is a persistent, maybe only subliminal unease in its life that spoils too much. If present, this unease could be directly perceived by means of introspection and thus could be validly known in contrast to all these phenomena that do appear quite technical and contrived due to buddhist nomenclature.

If there is no unease at all then buddhism is of no use. If there is no unease then actually one should neither be interested in buddhism nor interested in any kind of irrational religious belief.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...44&postcount=1

Originally Posted by Ground

What are aims that are worthwhile to pursue?

They must be directly perceptible in order to be existents.

There must be an immediate benefit realizing these aims which must be directly perceptible too.

Their realization must neither cause unease nor add to pre-existent unease but must either reduce or eliminate pre-existent unease.

If there is the slightest uncertainty whether the realization of an aim may be beneficial then it is not worthwhile to pursue because it is not based on valid knowledge.

Therefore only an aim which is the cessation of what is already validly known and which is validly known to be or to cause or to add to unease can be based on valid knowledge of the benefit of its realization. Why? Because it is the current presence of that which is or causes or adds to unease so that the cessation of its presence and the resulting reduction or cessation of unease necessarily is beneficial.

In contrast to these aims that are worthwhile to pursue aims that are the realization of what is not validly known necessarily are a case of doubt because the realization strived for is based on speculative thought and belief in benefits which are merely objects of hope. Such aims are not worthwhile to pursue.

This shows that the buddhist approach to strive for the realization of cessations (negative phenomena) necessarily is a valid approach provided unease and its causes are validly known.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...43&postcount=4

Originally Posted by Ground

From that it follows that enlightenment and buddhahood are not aims that are worthwhile to pursue. Why? Because both cannot be directly perceived and thus there is no basis that would support their existence.

So again, only cessations are aims that are worthwile to pursue because that which shall cease can be directly perceived, i.e. validly known, and thus its cessation, i.e. its absence, can be validly known too.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...6&postcount=49

Originally Posted by Ground

That of course does not answer the question what does make one validly know that a specific cessation is possible.

One can know that temporal cessation is possible because that what one wants to get rid of is not continually present. E.g. if one's aim is to get rid of fear of death one validly knows that fear but one can also validly know times when that fear is absent.

But how does one validly know that permanent cessation is possible?

Through investigating 'to the very heart of things' as the buddha recommended: Validly knowing the cause of that what one wants to get rid of one can validly know that if the cause is absent then the effect necessarily is absent too.

However this actually amounts to cessation of the cause and we end up in an infinite regress because the cause is the effect of another cause.

OR ...

... regardless of what it is that one wants to get rid of one arrrives at dependent origination which has the obscure 'not knowing' or 'ignorance' as its source.

However one still does not validly know the correctness of this dependent origination! And one still does not know whether permanent cessation is possible.


The only way out is either to investigate into the infinite regress ...

OR ...

... to take dependent origination as a hypothesis that has to be validated by means of experiments: any member of the chain is a potential point of interruption.

And since one still does not know whether permanent cessation is possible one has to take a pragmatic approach: Does that what one wants to get rid of occur less often and with less intensity as an outcome of one's experiments? If yes that would be a beneficial result and the approach is at least valid in terms of attenuation, if no then the approach is not valid at all.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...3&postcount=73



Conclusion:


'Why buddhism?

1. Because buddhism can be rationally applied based on valid knowledge just like a science.

2. Because buddhism can be applied if a persistent unease is observed that spoils too much in life (which actually is the condition for being interested in buddhism at all).

3. Because buddhism can focus on cessation of unease exclusively and therefore can be based on valid knowledge through direct perception and does not have to rely on speculative belief.

4. Because buddhism can follow the scientific approach: logical hypothesis -> experiment -> valid theory that can be applied to modify reality.