What did the Buddah actually achieve?

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Elysium

Why would Buddha want to escape heaven?

He never came back to this earth. It's not heaven.

We don't really know what he wanted and we don't know that he wanted to escape this.
Besides, it's not heaven, it's heaven for me. Heaven and hell is how you see things and how you see things is what you will see.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

Yes it is..
Dhukka means a broken axle
It makes for a bumpy ride..

With Love
Eelco.

One of the first misconceptions I learnt was that dukkha does not actually equal (strictly) to suffering, although it is commonly translated as "life as suffering", Buddha actually never said that.

He simply taught: "There is dukkha" (And there is the path leading to the cessation of dukkha).

Dukkha certainly does not equate to pain.

"The root meaning of dukkha is simply a wheel with an off-center axle hole."

Ultimately then, I believe Buddha may have been indicating that conditional things are not satisfying, and at times may lead to unhappiness and therefore not feeling completely at peace or on balance.

BT

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

Buddhism to me sets the bar in reference to relationships to be such that my grandson or wife or daughters or even my dog should come across as not being individuals or special and let's face it if "I" was to disappear then so would "you".
..

In all honesty I have a powerful brain and an open heart and mind and this is what Buddhism is pointing to...no me....no you....and I just don't want that.
I hope I'm wrong in my accesment but if it was otherwise, I feel that I would know and so would everyone else.

Hi Bluesky

I hope you don't mind if I interject here:

Buddha never ever taught that a person would become extinct and relationships would thus somehow be gone - when he was directly asked if there is a self or not, he chose not to answer this question.* If you hear this claimed, it is often people conflating the Absolute with the Relative, or overlaying conceptual interpretations on top of spiritual truths - a common perhaps but highly misguided (and dangerous) mis-belief.

I've seen it said on this forum in fact, and the poster didn't care to correct this misconception despite what the Buddha taught.

However, you can test this theory on a Buddhist forum to get a more rounded and reliable perspective.

Or go to the Buddha's teachings, or Buddhist Masters' teachings (i.e. don't take forumers or the internet as your guide - go to source or go to genuine, established teachers - believe it or not there is authenticity to this art - this is my firm belief )

If anything, a deepening of actual Buddhist practice (if successful in the Buddha's guidance) will lead one to cherish and love others more, and that includes those who live in your heart now - this is both my understanding and experience of Buddhism.

By the way, if you are happy, at peace, love and am loved, Buddhism is not required, in my opinion. There are many ways to peace, and each person has their Light and path

BT

*I will post the teaching below, as I think it is a good reference point to this common misconception.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

That does not mean you will die

If anything dies, it is the false, the suffering self, the ignorance, delusion.

BT

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

One last thing.
The Buddha does not teach there is NO Self.

Thanks, Eelco. It's nice to see accurate teachings here on this forum.

BT

[blossomingtree]

No-self or Not-self?

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life?

Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all.

In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside.

...the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu

No-Self or Not-Self

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by sky123

Another last thing ,

Dukkha - unsatisfactoriness also.

Yes. An axle out of balance just doesn't lead to a permanent happiness or peace of mind, even when things "feel OK". It's an interesting examination of the human condition actually

BT

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

That's my point, I'm not saying there is or isn't enlightenment or there is or isn't purpose, I'm saying from experience that if you are sincere in such things you will not find them. If you are not sincere or subconsciously needing to see such things as truth, for whatever reason, then you will find whatever you are looking for.
The foundation is empty, unimaginable and Godlike. From it comes this and me, a real sense of me. This me doesn't question the sense of itself nor does it write it off as an idea (whose idea would it be anyway lol). This me lives life and notices traits that are loving, compassionate and selfless without any reason to be so other than a sense that we are all connected and an awe for life and living.
Anyways thanks for your response. I appreciate and enjoy the dialogue

You might find more affinity in some Mahayana traditions, but certainly, as you say, if you are content, not questioning anymore, are at peace, love and am compassionate, loving, genuinely happy, Buddhism is not required.

What you mention many have experienced in a Buddhist practice sense. There are words for this in Mahayana Buddhism, but really, does it really even matter then? I would think not.

Reading your ideas about Buddhism, about the robins etc. I am curious how you developed these ideas about Buddhist practice and Buddhism. In over a decade and a half in online Buddhist communities or real life centers, I have not seen these ideas you see as applicable. Not that I mind at all, it's good to have dialogue regardless

By the way, I have not traditionally regarded this forum as a Buddhist forum, mainly because the cross section of posts and posters has often led to a lot of misconception and inaccuracy in representing Buddhist teachings. Why does it matter? Because it's an art form developed to help all suffering beings, and the Buddha (as a realized and genuine Master/teacher) was precise and skilful for good reason.

Be well, BlueSky

BT

[sky]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

No-self or Not-self?

One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life?

Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all.

In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible. Thus the question should be put aside.

...the anatta teaching is not a doctrine of no-self, but a not-self strategy for shedding suffering by letting go of its cause, leading to the highest, undying happiness. At that point, questions of self, no-self, and not-self fall aside. Once there's the experience of such total freedom, where would there be any concern about what's experiencing it, or whether or not it's a self?

~ Thanissaro Bhikkhu

No-Self or Not-Self

Thanks BT, I needed reminding about this teaching

[Gem]

Originally Posted by BlueSky

See I certainly understand that everything is in flux and in a sense being reborn or different from moment to moment but that does not necessarily mean that the sense I have of me and you is an idea. It's an idea that it's an idea.

Well, the sense of being isn't really an idea.

With that said I don't cling to any sense of me but nor do I write me off as an idea. I simply don't think about it and I just be me naturally.
I have certainly experienced amazing things that suggest that there is so much that I can't know but yet I seem to know that it's unknowable and yet even that I don't think about.
To me not knowing is my way of expressing the realization that there is no me and there is no no me. There could simply be a changing me and there could be simply be a changing whole of which I am conscious of as me. I don't know.

Indeed, there is no no me and no one knows teehee,

People who say there is no me IMO may be looking to grasp onto something even if it is nothing.

It just means people aren't who they, or we, think they are.

People who desire to be Enlightened or a Buddha or to see reality or truth as they imagine it is IMO may be looking for a purpose for life, again something to grasp onto.

Good point!

That's my point, I'm not saying there is or isn't enlightenment or there is or isn't purpose, I'm saying from experience that if you are sincere in such things you will not find them. If you are not sincere or subconsciously needing to see such things as truth, for whatever reason, then you will find whatever you are looking for.
The foundation is empty, unimaginable and Godlike. From it comes this and me, a real sense of me. This me doesn't question the sense of itself nor does it write it off as an idea (whose idea would it be anyway lol). This me lives life and notices traits that are loving, compassionate and selfless without any reason to be so other than a sense that we are all connected and an awe for life and living.

Indeed. That sounds most reasonable.

Anyways thanks for your response. I appreciate and enjoy the dialogue

Ditto.