Why buddhism?

[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.

[Jeremy Bong]

I ask some questions on your conclusions wrote by you.

1) How can the vision and doing by Buddha after he's enlightened be explained by science?

2) How can metaphysics dharma and dharma energy be explained by science?

3) Buddhism is a lifestyle of practicing metaphysics but it doesn't apply to all truths.

4) Valid knowledge is limited knowledge, that's a lot other knowledge unseen or invalid are the truth of Buddhism, so your statement is not the universal truth.

5) How to prove by using scientific approach that nirvana and enlightened be true and not to follow the Samara?

I hope you can answer it for all who view your thread and all written in your posts.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong

I ask some questions on your conclusions wrote by you.

1) How can the vision and doing by Buddha after he's enlightened be explained by science?

2) How can metaphysics dharma and dharma energy be explained by science?

3) Buddhism is a lifestyle of practicing metaphysics but it doesn't apply to all truths.

4) Valid knowledge is limited knowledge, that's a lot other knowledge unseen or invalid are the truth of Buddhism, so your statement is not the universal truth.

5) How to prove by using scientific approach that nirvana and enlightened be true and not to follow the Samara?

I hope you can answer it for all who view your thread and all written in your posts.

All your questions are based on the circular assumption that your irrational private beliefs that manifest in these questions would be true and therefore these questions are rejected as inappropriate.

[Jeremy Bong]

Originally Posted by Ground

All your questions are based on the circular assumption that your irrational private beliefs that manifest in these questions would be true and therefore these questions are rejected as inappropriate.

These are general questions not my belief . It's because everyone see your posts doubt about you karma explanation. You have two choices, one is to avoid to explain that means you don't know the true meaning of your saying. Or your answer can never right. Yes, choose one of the two. Or you've a third choice, have you?

So how can questions be my belief?

[Jeremy Bong]

The following are the happening in Buddha's dharma or things happen in his seven weeks after he enlightened. (I can create anything in the spiritual realm...)




(Part One) 18. Seven Weeks After Enlightenment
Under the Bodhi Tree

During the first week after enlightenment, the Buddha sat under the bodhi tree experiencing the happiness of freedom and peace. He was free from disturbing thoughts, calm and blissful.

Gazing at the Tree

During the second week, in thanks and gratitude to the tree that had sheltered him during his struggle for Buddhahood, the Buddha stood without moving his eyes as he meditated on the bodhi tree.

Following this example, it is the custom of Buddhists to pay respect to not only the original bodhi tree, but also to the descendants of the bodhi tree that still thrive today.

The Golden Bridge

In the third week, the Buddha saw through his mind’s eye that the devas in the heavens were not sure whether he had attained enlightenment or not. To prove his enlightenment the Buddha created a golden bridge in the air and walked up and down it for a whole week.

The Jewelled Chamber

In the fourth week, he created a beautiful jewelled chamber and sitting inside it meditated on what was later known as the "Detailed Teaching" (Abhidhamma). His mind and body were so purified that six coloured rays came out of his body — blue, yellow, red, white, orange and a mixture of these five. Today these six colours make up the Buddhist flag. Each colour represented one noble quality of the Buddha: yellow for holiness, white for purity, blue for confidence, red for wisdom and orange for desirelessness. The mixed colour represented all these noble qualities.

Three Girls

During the fifth week, while meditating under a banyan tree, three most charming girls called Tanha, Rati and Raga came to disturb his meditation. They danced in a most seductive and charming manner and did everything to tempt the Buddha to watch their dance. Yet he continued to meditate unperturbed, and soon they tired and left him alone.

The Mucalinda Tree

The Buddha then went and meditated at the foot of a mucalinda tree. It began to rain heavily and a huge king cobra came out and coiled his body seven times around the Buddha to keep him warm and placed his hood over the Buddha’s head to protect him from the rain. After seven days the rain stopped and the snake changed into a young man who paid his respects to the Buddha. The Buddha then said:

"Happy are they who are contented. Happiness is for those who hear and know the truth. Happy are they who have good will in this world towards all sentient beings. Happy are they who have no attachments and have passed beyond sense-desires. The disappearance of the word "I AM " is indeed the highest happiness."

The Rajayatana Tree

During the seventh week, the Buddha meditated under the rajayatana tree. On the fiftieth morning, after seven weeks of fasting, two merchants came into his presence. They were called Tapussa and Bhallika. They offered the Buddha rice cakes and honey to break his fast and the Buddha told them some of what he had found in his enlightenment.

These two merchants, by taking refuge in the Buddha and his Dharma (translated as "teachings of the Buddha"), became the first lay followers. There was no Sangha (order of monks and nuns) then. They asked the Buddha for something sacred to keep with them. The Buddha wiped his head with his right hand and pulled out some hair to give to them. These hair relics, called Kesa Datu, were later reputed to be enshrined by the merchants on their return home to what is now known as Burma, in the Shwedagon Pagoda in Rangoon.

[Jyotir]

Originally Posted by Ground

'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.

Hello Ground,

Ha! Why Buddhism indeed!

Adding another veneer of reason onto the spiritual furniture…

All of those criteria could also be satisfied by any legitimate form of Yoga, which would have to include Buddhism.

However, another criterion that is curiously absent in that list - and might subsume all of them - is the one whereby:

5) The spiritual aspiration arises spontaneously out of ignorance as a conscious deliberate consecration of life energy and purpose, and seeks Enlightenment for its own sake by exclusively utilizing a wholly irrational faith.

And I’ve known Buddhists who fulfill that criterion.

In any case, this recently released book:
“Why Buddhism is True”, by Robert Wright, (published in the US by Simon & Schuster), might provide more rational justification for those who need it.


~ J

[sky]

Robert created a very good online Course ' Buddhism & Modern Psychology ' at Princeton, It was very interesting and well presented.

[Ground]

Originally Posted by Jyotir

All of those criteria could also be satisfied by any legitimate form of Yoga, ...

Only if yoga is rational reasoning.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

...
However, another criterion that is curiously absent in that list - and might subsume all of them - is the one whereby:

5) The spiritual aspiration arises spontaneously out of ignorance as a conscious deliberate consecration of life energy and purpose, and seeks Enlightenment for its own sake by exclusively utilizing a wholly irrational faith.

Obviously you have missed the part of this thread where it has been explained that seeking enlightenment can never be based on valid knowledge and thus cannot be a valid reason for buddhism.

It seems you have completely missed the thrust of this thread which is valid knowledge not some irrational 'spiritual aspiration'.

Originally Posted by Jyotir

In any case, this recently released book:
“Why Buddhism is True”, by Robert Wright, (published in the US by Simon & Schuster), might provide more rational justification for those who need it.

That can only be satire. Buddhism as truth
Or another ignoramus' book ...

[Ground]

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.

Here an important remark is to be made:


'Cessation of a cause' does not necessarily mean that the phenomenon which in general is a cause does cease.
Why?
Because a phenomenon is only a cause if it actually causes. I.e. every potential cause may be obstructed.

Therefore if a phenomenon which has been a cause of a specific unease does not continue to cause this unease although it is still present then this also is a case of a cause having ceased.

This is clearly illustrated by emptiness. Direct perception of the emptiness of phenomena does not make these phenomena disappear but removes any possibility of being emotionally affected by these phenomena.
So what actually has to cease is the direct cause not potentially indirect causes and the direct cause of being emotionally affected in this illustration is 'contact' (phassa) which is a member of the causal chain of dependent origination.


Another remark:

It has to be clear that the buddhist model of 'dependent origination' is just a conceptual aid to block the infinite regress that necessarily arises when investigating into causality.
From that one may conclude that causation is only a conceptual construct that has no support in a subject-independent reality but may apply in a pragmatic sense to the sphere of the subject nevertheless.