Find the cause of suffering

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Gem

Buddhism isn't a philosophy about self, and the examples in the suttas don't lay claim to an atman styled self as a true self or a nihilistic perspective of your non-existence. It's common people want a definite answer to the existential question, but insight into this does not provide an answer... but even the Brahman discourse is a finger pointing rather than an answer given. Buddhism doesn't give the answer because Buddha didn't answer these questions, but he did outline the reasons why he doesn't answer these in a couple of the suttas, which I'm too lazy to dig up again.

There is a presumptive philosophy pertaining to the 'nature' of 'self' as well as its 'relation' to THAT Which IS in Buddhism, I think, which leads to people having various takes on the notion of the possibility and desirability of its extinction.

In something I read someone suggested that The Bhagavad Gita (or parts of it) was written in response to 'the challenge' Guatama's philosophy posed to Vedic conceptions of the self-Self 'relationship' and the possibility of 'self'-chosen 'evolution' in said regard. Given the 'timing' involved - the Bhagavad Gita is generally thought to have been composed around or later than than the time Gautama live (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha) - this makes sense to me as a reasonable hypothesis. There was a 'debate' going on about this, IOW.

Here what the Gita said in an attempt to 'clarify' the subject, i.e. to refine (and presumably reassert) the Vedic world-view in regard the 'lower' (sense of) self (from Ch.6):

"Let him seek liberation by the help of his Highest Self, and let him never disgrace his own Self. For that Self is his only friend; yet it may also be his enemy.
To him who has conquered his lower nature by Its help, the Self is a friend, but to him who has not done so, It is an enemy.
The Self of him who is self-controlled, and has attained peace is equally unmoved by heat or cold, pleasure or pain, honour or dishonour.
He who desires nothing but wisdom and spiritual insight, who has conquered his senses and who looks with the same eye upon a lump of earth, a stone or fine gold, is a real saint.
He looks impartially on all – lover, friend or foe; indifferent or hostile; alien or relative; virtuous or sinful."

[Gem]

Originally Posted by davidsun

There is a presumptive philosophy pertaining to the 'nature' of 'self' as well as its 'relation' to THAT Which IS in Buddhism, I think, which leads to people having various takes on the notion of the possibility and desirability of its extinction.

In Buddhism they generally revolve around impermanence, which rules out the existence of an enduring self such as a soul according to Hinduism or Christianity, or a God, but there's still re-birth, reincarnation and what is called 'nirvana', so my guess is they're onto the same thing, basically, and the rest is semantics.

In something I read someone suggested that The Bhagavad Gita (or parts of it) was written in response to 'the challenge' Guatama's philosophy posed to Vedic conceptions of the self-Self 'relationship' and the possibility of 'self'-chosen 'evolution' in said regard. Given the 'timing' involved - the Bhagavad Gita is generally thought to have been composed around or later than than the time Gautama live (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha) - this makes sense to me as a reasonable hypothesis. There was a 'debate' going on about this, IOW.

Here what the Gita said in an attempt to 'clarify' the subject, i.e. to refine (and presumably reassert) the Vedic world-view in regard the 'lower' (sense of) self (from Ch.6):

"Let him seek liberation by the help of his Highest Self, and let him never disgrace his own Self. For that Self is his only friend; yet it may also be his enemy.
To him who has conquered his lower nature by Its help, the Self is a friend, but to him who has not done so, It is an enemy.
The Self of him who is self-controlled, and has attained peace is equally unmoved by heat or cold, pleasure or pain, honour or dishonour.
He who desires nothing but wisdom and spiritual insight, who has conquered his senses and who looks with the same eye upon a lump of earth, a stone or fine gold, is a real saint.
He looks impartially on all – lover, friend or foe; indifferent or hostile; alien or relative; virtuous or sinful."

Yes it sounds sort of the same as Buddhist philosophy in ways, but in alternative terms, though the Hindu lineage is more concerned with questions of self than the Buddhist. The Gita's allusions to equanimity and the way of insight are consistent with Buddhism's, though.

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Gem

In Buddhism they generally revolve around impermanence, which rules out the existence of an enduring self such as a soul according to Hinduism or Christianity, or a God,...

I agree with your perceptions/characterizations, Gem.

IMO, this 'leads' people to prefer/choose different kinds (purposes?) of activity, however. Those who are 'into' impermanence as a base-ic truth about Life are much less likely to 'care' about what Life 'becomes' in 'the future', IMO. - like, "its all going down the drain, anyway!" so 'nothing' is a BIG deal to them. I think that those who 'care' about what Life becomes (not just that 'suffering' ends) are more likely to engage in devotionally serving to improve the Quality of Life, believing that even if, when and as 'they' or 'their group' (civilization, culture, etc) 'ends' (i.e. goes POOF! ) The Spirit of their 'soul' and said group/civilization/culture's 'being' will go on to seed 'future' beingnesses, civilizations, etc., possibly in 'Universes' other that our present one - IOW, they operate on the model that LIFE is and always, stemming from 'the present', will be 'permanently' ongoing/ongrowing.

Hence my guess/hypothesis/belief that 'future' civilizations therefore will be 'offshoots' of Hindu and Christian belief-axioms, not Buddhist ones.

I suppose, we will only find out if that's correct for sure when we get 'there' (as Paul believingly asserted in: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.")

Of course, a 'strict' Buddhist would believe that gestalts of everything/everyone (soul-spirit being 'impermanent') 'he' or 'she' won't be 'there' (as a coherent gestalt, that is) to 'know' whether my guess/hypothesis/belief has any relation to the truth about LIFE. Or at least so I imagine.

Buddhism revolves around a lot more than impermanence and ceasing to exist.

The ever disrespectful Dave in his analysis passes by all the care many if not all Buddhists display in their lives.

But then what does a dark and impermanent insignificant old sod as I know.
If we were to discuss the Gita and or the Mahabharata in the Hindu or even general religion thread I'd be going there.

In here though it's shows very very bad form.

With Love
Eelco

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

You can't really figure out anything, like from the simplest level you can't figure out what your breath feels like.

If you can't figure out what your breath feels like then your in trouble

[Gem]

Originally Posted by davidsun

I agree with your perceptions/characterizations, Gem.

IMO, this 'leads' people to prefer/choose different kinds (purposes?) of activity, however. Those who are 'into' impermanence as a base-ic truth about Life are much less likely to 'care' about what Life 'becomes' in 'the future', IMO. - like, "its all going down the drain, anyway!" so 'nothing' is a BIG deal to them. I think that those who 'care' about what Life becomes (not just that 'suffering' ends) are more likely to engage in devotionally serving to improve the Quality of Life, believing that even if, when and as 'they' or 'their group' (civilization, culture, etc) 'ends' (i.e. goes POOF! ) The Spirit of their 'soul' and said group/civilization/culture's 'being' will go on to seed 'future' beingnesses, civilizations, etc., possibly in 'Universes' other that our present one - IOW, they operate on the model that LIFE is and always, stemming from 'the present', will be 'permanently' ongoing/ongrowing.

The basis of impermanence sees that all that arises passes, and there is no self to be recognised in any of it, so what we call 'anatta' means no experience has enduring substance - it's essentially selfless - and it also means nothing in experience is me my mine or I. That doesn't imply a nihilistic or care less attitude, though. There is still kamma and you still reap what you sow, but as Rain posted earlier, kamma is thought of as the volition, and that's a very nuanced aspect of the philosohy as well, but in the most basic terms, this is divided into good will and ill will, and they produce good out comes or bad respectively.

Hence my guess/hypothesis/belief that 'future' civilizations therefore will be 'offshoots' of Hindu and Christian belief-axioms, not Buddhist ones.

I suppose, we will only find out if that's correct for sure when we get 'there'

I reckon we'll get there and find out it doesn't answer anything, teehee.

(as Paul believingly asserted in: "For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.")

Of course, a 'strict' Buddhist would believe that gestalts of everything/everyone (soul-spirit being 'impermanent') 'he' or 'she' won't be 'there' (as a coherent gestalt, that is) to 'know' whether my guess/hypothesis/belief has any relation to the truth about LIFE. Or at least so I imagine.

Well, questions of self aren't really a Buddhist thing as much as they are in other religions, and the Buddhist philosophy is really intricate, and not something that gives us definite answers or anything in particular to believe in. Many of the sects have their idols and icons, but they've strayed from the universal dhamma which applies universally, and essentially it makes no difference what religious preference a person has, because everyone breathes, right?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sky123

If you can't figure out what your breath feels like then your in trouble

You have to perceive it directly to know what it's like. That's not the same as figuring it out.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Gem

You have to perceive it directly to know what it's like. That's not the same as figuring it out.

I don't care as long as I breathe...

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Gem

The basis of impermanence sees that all that arises passes, and there is no self to be recognised in any of it, so what we call 'anatta' means no experience has enduring substance - it's essentially selfless - and it also means nothing in experience is me my mine or I. That doesn't imply a nihilistic or care less attitude, though. There is still kamma and you still reap what you sow, but as Rain posted earlier, kamma is thought of as the volition, and that's a very nuanced aspect of the philosohy as well, but in the most basic terms, this is divided into good will and ill will, and they produce good out comes or bad respectively.

Yes, BUT ... The 'caring' I spoke about being or not being presently active was specifically related to the Quality of THE Spirit of Life in the (hypothetical) 'future' which Hindus and Christians envision as going on 'permanently', i.e. 'immortally', 'eternally' 'forever'. As expressed in: "That which is not, shall never be; that which is, shall never cease to be. To the wise, these truths are self-evident." (from Ch.2 of the BG)

Originally Posted by Gem

I reckon we'll get there and find out it doesn't answer anything, teehee.

Your denials in the regard notwithstanding, this exemplifies the kind of attitude/expectation which I regard as essentially being 'nihilistic' - nihilistic in the sense that it assumes that questions (hypotheses) such as the one I presented can never be meaningfully 'answered' (evaluated)

Originally Posted by Gem

Well, questions of self aren't really a Buddhist thing as much as they are in other religions, and the Buddhist philosophy is really intricate, and not something that gives us definite answers or anything in particular to believe in.

This statement dovetails with the 'point' I was making and (implicitly) supports my concluding suppositions, I think.

Originally Posted by Gem

Many of the sects have their idols and icons, but they've strayed from the universal dhamma which applies universally, and essentially it makes NO difference what religious preference a person has, because everyone breathes, right?

Another 'nihilistic' (kind of) statement - in my considered opinion, Gem. You (your words, really) perfectly illustrate my 'point'.

"NO difference" suggests that all (apparent) 'differences' are (essentially) meaningless. From https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...term=Nihilism: "Epistemological nihilism ... denies the possibility of knowledge of truth."

Originally Posted by Gem

They've strayed from the universal dhamma which applies universally.

Those ('you' being a case in point) who believe that their 'path' is the 'best' one (in terms of 'truly' fulfilling Life's universal 'destiny') regard everyone who is on a different 'path' as having 'strayed' from the 'best', in the sense of being the 'truest', one, aye what, Bro?