Do Atheists favour Buddism over the other faiths?

@able2ask,

able2ask wrote:

Again many good points. I am aware of how the answer should be tailored to the audience and this type of exchange can prevent that tailoring.

I'm also trying to avoid repeating themes.

able2ask wrote:

So, does this mean you don't agree that the path is about unlearning not learning?

It's both actually. But really it's just change. It is changing a mindset really. Some of that involves learning and some of it involves discarding a behavior. It shouldn't be forced though. It should be a natural result from exposure. When you realize the result will bring about a natural state or it should. So there is no need to force the issue.

able2ask wrote:

Or perhaps you do mean this but you are saying that you need to learn how to unlearn? Isn't the way reality actually is, revealed rather than learnt? Isn't the problem our 'learned' misunderstandings?

Yeah essentially, learning is just making connections from aspects of reality or concepts. First you learn the concepts and then they become your tools for deconstructing the barriers that prevent you from realizing.

able2ask wrote:

Note: what I'm saying (the questions I'm asking) is not connected with practical learning that's fine e.g. science, everyday activity, etc...

All things are useful in their own way. Nothing is off the table really. The things you understand about every day things are helpful and can be used as tools. It's just discovering how to implement them in a useful way.

able2ask wrote:

To make myself clear are we going to learn or unlearn if we follow the Buddha's teachings... is the goal to give up learning or accumulate learning in order to achieve progress on the Buddha's path, conventionally speaking?

You learn what the tools are, and how they are used first. Then once you have an understanding of how they are used, you don't need to learn anything else, you have what is necessary to carry out the task of deconstructing all the hindrances that prevent realization.

The thing is, the buddha has supplied all the possible tools but the problem is, you don't need them all. There are specific tools, that you specifically need for yourself that will only work for you specifically. It is finding the right ones which is the difficult part. This is where a good teacher comes in who can point them out so you don't have to waste your time trying to use trial and error to find them yourself.

This is what self enlightening buddhas do. They systematically collect all the tools and try them out and discard them when they fail until the ultimately succeed. It requires a huge amount of ambition and patience plus endeavor to exhaust all possibilities. It is much easier to just find someone who can point out what you specifically need. This is what the buddha did. He could provide the necessary tools for each person he encountered for what they needed at that moment.

When you have too many or you are overwhelmed with the tools that don't work for you then it is difficult to make any progress. A lot of people give up at this point because there is no work actually being done. They are doing a lot of gathering but nothing is being used. Or they don't know how to use what they have gathered. Or they are missing one crucial tool necessary to start.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

प्रज्ञापारमिताहृदय is the Sanskrit for 'The Blessed Sutra of the Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom' this is not in the Pāli Canon would you include this as an unmissable source for your studies? If you do think that it is a worthwhile text then some Sanskrit texts would also be useful. Is this correct?

2 Replies

@able2ask,

able2ask wrote:

प्रज्ञापारमिताहृदय is the Sanskrit for 'The Blessed Sutra of the Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom' this is not in the Pāli Canon would you include this as an unmissable source for your studies? If you do think that it is a worthwhile text then some Sanskrit texts would also be useful. Is this correct?

Any thing that comes from a buddha is essentially a sutra. It doesn't have to be in the pali canon to count. It is up to you really. Does the sutra give you any insight? Does it do anything for you? Is there anything useful about it? If not then it might as well be a grocery list.

I wouldn't look for what qualifies for everyone else or what other's think qualifies. I would look what works for you. The dharma doesn't necessarily have to originate from a sutra. You could study a sutra and then while you are off going about your daily activities something might click and fall into place. Essentially the dharma came from the activity you were doing which became the spark that revealed the sutra's meaning to you.

So rather than get boring and cliched. Just look for a sutra that peaks your interest. If you have doubt that it is authentic then it will linger in your mind like a thief. Better to just find one you are comfortable with where there is minimal doubt over it's authenticity that way it won't haunt you or become a hindrance.

0 Replies

@able2ask,

able2ask wrote:

प्रज्ञापारमिताहृदय is the Sanskrit for 'The Blessed Sutra of the Heart of the Perfection of Wisdom' this is not in the Pāli Canon would you include this as an unmissable source for your studies? If you do think that it is a worthwhile text then some Sanskrit texts would also be useful. Is this correct?

But I would hate to leave it like that. The ending line of the heart sutra is a great one.

Gone gone, gone beyond, gone completely beyond, awaken.

It doesn't get any nicer than that.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

So we shouldn't exclusively study the Pali texts then (as you have just stated of course)? Thanks for the clarification of how you would proceed.

Also:

If I study a Sutra for the first time on my own it can't be as effective as studying with someone who has realized the meaning of that Sutra (to a degree greater than myself) because I can't question a Sutra nor would it be beneficial to question someone who has not realized to some degree the meaning of the Sutra. If this is correct then it must be wiser to have a teacher who holds the lineage of that teaching because his teacher believes he has to some extent realized the meaning (and then apply it to meditation and everyday life). Don't you think?

1 Reply

@able2ask,

able2ask wrote:

So we shouldn't exclusively study the Pali texts then (as you have just stated of course)? Thanks for the clarification of how you would proceed.

If you have no other source for the dharma then sure, study the entire thing if you are up to it.

Also:

able2ask wrote:

If I study a Sutra for the first time on my own it can't be as effective as studying with someone who has realized the meaning of that Sutra (to a degree greater than myself) because I can't question a Sutra nor would it be beneficial to question someone who has not realized to some degree the meaning of the Sutra. If this is correct then it must be wiser to have a teacher who holds the lineage of that teaching because his teacher believes he has to some extent realized the meaning (and then apply it to meditation and everyday life). Don't you think?

I agree that a teacher who understands the sutra who can point out key parts or explain aspects of it, is a value to have. If you don't have such a person then studying the sutra on your own will still result in something beneficial.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

Thanks for your reply; that makes sense.

Take as long as you'd like if you want to reply, I'd like to ask this question:

In the first of the Four Noble Truths how would you translate the meaning and can you summarize your understanding of it and its relevance to a western practitioner?

1 Reply

@able2ask,

able2ask wrote:

In the first of the Four Noble Truths how would you translate the meaning and can you summarize your understanding of it and its relevance to a western practitioner?

The first noble truth deals with the establishment of dukkha which is loosely translated to be suffering. I think one of the major problems for westerners is that dukkha tends to become too focused on the word "suffering" when it encompasses much more than that. It really needs to be broadened because many see the first noble truth to be a nihilistic attitude for buddhism.

As soon as you say, "All things are suffering" people will immediately object and say no, not everything is suffering. Once they approach the first noble truth like this then they will abandon buddhism. The fault is because there is no good english word that fully encompasses what the buddha meant by using the word dukkha. It really means unsatisfactory or inconsistent.

It also includes the inconsistency of happiness which means that happiness doesn't always last which can be an unfavorable result. It is common sense, no one would argue that you can't always experience happiness and many people accept that fact. But still it is unsatisfactory because happiness does not last. If the method does not achieve lasting happiness then the buddha would consider it unsatisfactory or dukkha.

So the first noble truth is that all conditioned things are dukkha. I would much rather use a word like unsatisfactory or inconsistent than just the word suffering alone. Because not all experiences are initially negative in the beginning. The problem arises when we enjoy something or love something and lose it. When we lose what brings us joy or happiness, this turns into an unsatisfactory condition for us. We morn the loss of what made us happy which is also dukkha.

The Buddha wants us to explore this and examine it for our selves and test it to see if it is true. Are all things unfavorable? Remember the buddha is attempting to reduce or completely avoid unnecessary unfavorable experiences if we can do something about it. There are however; conditions that we can not change, such as sickness, aging and dying which are also included in the meaning of dukkha. But there are conditions that we can control to prevent unnecessary suffering.

When you fully and completely examine the first noble truth, that all conditioned things are dukkha. Then you will see and understand the full scope of the human condition. We strive almost entirely to obtain contentment or happiness for ourselves. Some people use their careers to obtain it. Some people use their families to obtain it. Other people use drugs or entertainment to obtain it. There are many dozens of ways we go about trying to make ourselves happy or content but they rarely last. Even the need to keep chasing the contentment or happiness is another form of dukkha.

Of course there are times when we chase the things that we believe will bring us contentment or happiness. This too can fail or not bring us the happiness we expected, which is also dukkha. Not getting what we desire, or dream for is also another form. When we get what we don't want or dread, is also another form. But the Buddha says there is a better way to obtain happiness or contentment that actually lasts.

Essentially the easiest way to put it, is that happiness and contentment do not last, they are inconsistent. We want or need something that is consistent but first you have to recognize all of the conditions and things that do not bring consistent happiness before you can find and discover what actually does bring lasting endless contentment and happiness.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

I'm still studying your reply (it seems to be a good summary but I'll have to read it some more and may (surprise, surprise) have to ask a few more questions.

Whilst I'm doing this it would be helpful if you could say whether a 'conditioned thing' is identical to a 'thing' or is it a special type of thing? If the two terms are synonymous could you explain why the word 'conditioned' is appended to a thing in this context?

Krumple wrote:

So the first noble truth is that all conditioned things are dukkha.

The definition for 'conditioned' I've chosen is: a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state; situation with respect to circumstances.

1 Reply

@able2ask,

able2ask wrote:

I'm still studying your reply (it seems to be a good summary but I'll have to read it some more and may (surprise, surprise) have to ask a few more questions.

Yes that is quite fine. I welcome them all so no need to hold back and I'll do what I can to answer them.

able2ask wrote:

Whilst I'm doing this it would be helpful if you could say whether a 'conditioned thing' is identical to a 'thing' or is it a special type of thing? If the two terms are synonymous could you explain why the word 'conditioned' is appended to a thing in this context?

Krumple wrote:
So the first noble truth is that all conditioned things are dukkha.

The definition for 'conditioned' I've chosen is: a particular mode of being of a person or thing; existing state; situation with respect to circumstances.

Conditioned things are anything that arise due to a condition or a cause. Pretty much everything is conditioned however; there is one thing that is not conditioned. This is why I didn't just say everything is dukkha, because it isn't completely true. I didn't state the one thing that is not conditioned for a reason. I would like to leave it out for now as to avoid confusion. So if it helps you could just say that all things are dukkha and it would be fine but there is one exception.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

So you've defined your own understanding of the 'First Noble Truth' without complicating matters by introducing to much detail, in your last two posts, for which I'm grateful. Also, you've excluded explaining:

Krumple wrote:

I didn't state the one thing that is not conditioned for a reason. I would like to leave it out for now as to avoid confusion.

Which you'll be coming back to.

I might have some questions later but I'd like you to explain the second of the 'Four Noble Truths' in a similar way for a Western audience, if you'd like to. This may answer some of those questions without the need to ask beforehand.

1 Reply

@able2ask,

able2ask wrote:

I might have some questions later but I'd like you to explain the second of the 'Four Noble Truths' in a similar way for a Western audience, if you'd like to. This may answer some of those questions without the need to ask beforehand.

The second noble truth deals with the cause or the arising of dukkha. Once we have established that all conditioned things are unfavorable we then ask, what is the cause for it? You can notice now that dukkha itself is conditional and that means it can be removed or got rid of but first you have to determine how it arises.

Similar to the definition problem of dukkha the second noble truth's cause is often just simply stated to be desire. But once again it is more than just desire. Not only that but many people don't see desire as a negative thing so they are hesitant in agreeing with the Buddha on this. It should really have two aspects to it's definitions.

The cause of dukkha is due to clinging or grasping of desire or it can be aversion or attempting to avoid some aspect of reality. It is usually one of these two aspects and sometimes both at the same time.

There are a few problems that people first run into when they are learning about this noble truth. They become too extreme with it. They reason that grasping of desire is the root cause to all their problems then how can they do anything at all. After all isn't eating food a type of grasping or aversion?

We feel hunger pains and then eat to get rid of them. Or we have some craving for a flavor or texture and seek out foods that will fulfill those cravings. When they see it in this way they can't grasp how this can be healthy or effective and so abandon the second noble truth not fully understanding it.

We have a lot of attachments in our lives and many of them we are not ready to abandon or give up. They bring us short term happiness and joy, so what's so wrong about that? Nothing really but the over all point is these things are not perfect. They don't bring us to the point of lasting happiness. We get worried we might lose them or someone might steal them from us.

Or they might break or a whole laundry list of possible ways to lose the things that make us happy. This is because we attach to the object because it is a source of happiness. This is the only reason we cling to objects, people, places ect. If they are a source of short term happiness we want to gather them and hold onto them so they can continue to bring us joy.

At the same time aversion or avoiding something is also the root cause. It is like desire but in the opposite direction. Rather than trying to collect these things we are attempting to rid ourselves of them. If there is a person that you don't like, you try to push them out of your life because you have considered them a source of unhappiness and robbing you of joy. Just like clinging to your desires, aversion is just as bad and it can be with anything, people, places, objects, ect.

When you understand these two key aspects to the root cause of dukkha you can begin to take steps at reducing the amount of dukkha you experience in your life. It is not easy at first because we have a lot of attachments, some subtle and others very gross. But we have more than we realize or recognize. So the important part of the second noble truth is to verify if it is true.

Investigate it and explore these two aspects of clinging and aversion but the key is not to make them a new source of clinging or aversion. This sneaks up on you once you realize the root cause, you might like it or hate it and that too becomes a source of dukkha.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

So, I’m now studying all of your replies to date.

I have a question to help with this: If I injure myself by cutting my finger I feel pain. Would you agree that the pain itself is not dukkha because it tells me that I am injured whether I’ve seen that injury or not and it also prompts me to attempt to take corrective measures which may alleviate the injury. On the other hand, dukkha is the aversion I have to that pain and injury and the desire to experience something that brings me happiness not suffering. Is this correct?

In other words is physical pain dukkha or can that be excluded from what dukkha is?

1 Reply

@able2ask,

able2ask wrote:

In other words is physical pain dukkha or can that be excluded from what dukkha is?

Yes pain of all types can be considered dukkha. Even hunger. But not everyone experiences or reacts to certain pains in the same way. So aversion is a key aspect to it. However; you can actually get to a point where there is pain but it does not result in dukkha. The problem is the attachment we have to the comfort of the body. When this comfort is disrupted it is what we consider suffering.

If there is no attachment, no aversion, neutral acceptance of the sensation then it does not result in suffering. This is not something that is strive to achieve, it is a natural result when the realization of non-self has fully been experienced. Until that happens there will be either some type of aversion or even clinging for the sensation of pain. I want to include clinging to pain because there are some people who do actually enjoy the sensation of pain. As bizarre as that might sound it is true.

Even though like you point out that some types of pain are necessary to indicate there is a problem with the body and this sensation gives you a chance to correct the cause of the pain. By ignoring this pain, further damage could result or worse. However; dukkha isn't about the pain itself, the pain itself is not the problem, it is how we respond or react to these sensations of the body where and how dukkha then arises.

There is a short story I would like to share that is in line with this discussion. It deals with one of the Buddha's disciples named Sariputra. For give me though because I don't remember the details perfectly and am not bothered by looking it up for refrence because only the minor details are important. The way I remember the story, Saiputra was walking down the road one day after his alms rounds and was hit on the head by a rock but it did not faze him at all. He was questioned by the Buddha later probably because he had a gash on his head where the rock hit him.

The reason he did not react to the rock was because he was detached from the sensations of the body. Now some people might suggest that this is foolish and idiotic mindset to get into. But really he was truly free from the attachments of the body at this point. Most people would have tried to avoid getting hit by the rock because they have previously experienced the pain and injury from rocks hitting them so they take efforts to avoid it. The only reason we avoid it is because of this conditioning of aversion to pain. We simply do not like the experience and thus try to push it away and avoid it at all costs.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

My provisional understanding of what you’ve said is:

Our lives are not perfectly satisfying but we’d like them to be, and this gives rise to perpetual dissatisfaction with our life. The cause is clinging to conditioned things with desire but those conditioned things are impermanent so they can never deliver the satisfaction we seek. This state of affairs that we constantly come across is dissatisfying and we have aversion towards it. The result of this type of desire and aversion is dukkha. This dukkha seems an inescapable fact of life but the Buddha said that he’d found a solution and taught that solution to others. He found that dukkha has a root cause: clinging to desire. Which can be seen as clinging to the two sides of the same coin: on one side desire and on the other aversion and it’s that clinging that’s the problem and is the root cause of dukkha. Is this correct?

So, now could you continue to explain the first teaching the Buddha gave after his Enlightenment, ‘The Four Noble Truths’. Having previously explained in summary form your understanding of the first two can you also explain your take on the ‘Third Noble Truth’?

1 Reply

@able2ask,

able2ask wrote:

My provisional understanding of what you’ve said is:

Our lives are not perfectly satisfying but we’d like them to be,

As the most simplistic premise, yes.

able2ask wrote:

and this gives rise to perpetual dissatisfaction with our life.

Yes, this is where our motivation to seek for contentment or avoid the things that make us dissatisfied.

able2ask wrote:

The cause is clinging to conditioned things with desire but those conditioned things are impermanent so they can never deliver the satisfaction we seek.

Yeah, our attempts to find contentment or happiness does not result in lasting satisfaction. You correctly point out the reason it does not last.

able2ask wrote:

This state of affairs that we constantly come across is dissatisfying and we have aversion towards it.

Yes, this is the motivation to seek for contentment and happiness and avoid or push away those things that disrupt or prevent us from having joy.

able2ask wrote:

The result of this type of desire and aversion is dukkha. This dukkha seems an inescapable fact of life but the Buddha said that he’d found a solution and taught that solution to others.

Correct. There is a solution. Which actually becomes the third noble truth which you later are requesting and I'll get to.

able2ask wrote:

He found that dukkha has a root cause: clinging to desire. Which can be seen as clinging to the two sides of the same coin: on one side desire and on the other aversion and it’s that clinging that’s the problem and is the root cause of dukkha. Is this correct?

Yes. The clinging is the seed of the problem that eventually fruits into dukkha.

able2ask wrote:

So, now could you continue to explain the first teaching the Buddha gave after his Enlightenment, ‘The Four Noble Truths’. Having previously explained in summary form your understanding of the first two can you also explain your take on the ‘Third Noble Truth’?

Sure.

The third noble truth is the establishment that there is a solution or way to reduce or completely prevent the arising of dukkha. Essentially what the noble truths are doing is using logic arguments to guide the reader into understanding the mindset of the Buddha.

premise one there is dukkha.
premise two there is a cause for dukkha.
premise three there is a solution for dukkha.

In many explanations they use the word cessation of dukkha but I don't look at it that way. I look at it as uprooting the seed cause that results in dukkha instead. If you don't sow the seed that results in the plant of dukkha then no dukkha can occur from it. However; there are a lot of ways we plant the seed and all of them must be addressed to completely diminish or prevent the arising of dukkha all together.

Here is where some teachers will say, there will always be a certain level or amount of dukkha in every being because our very existence is based on the basic seeds of dukkha. I don't fully agree with this assessment, but their motivation for explaining it does have value.

It prevents frustration and future anxieties from arising to remind yourself that you won't be able to uproot all the seeds right away. Some root causes of dukkha are very strong and ingrained into us through our conditioning. These seeds are very challenging to deal with and so ultimately there will be sources of dukkha that linger.

You can basically say the goal of buddhism is to completely uproot all of the seed causes for dukkha. It shouldn't be a struggle though. If you make it into a struggle all you are doing is planting another seed unknowingly and this will ultimately at some point result in dukkha.

The third noble truth is probably one of the easiest to understand but most difficult to achieve. The reason it is difficult is because the uprooting has to be done in a natural way where the result of the uprooting comes without effort. The only way this can happen is if the mindset is changed into certain ways which allow for the uprooting to occur. If the mindset is not changed in the correct way then the uprooting can't take place and then there is a struggle which results in dukkha.

But we will probably get into that since you have asked about the first three truths, I can only assume you will ask about the fourth which is the method or tools that are used to uproot the clinging or aversion.

1 Reply

@Krumple,

So, from what you’ve said about the first three of the Four Noble Truths, I’d summarize how I’d view them (again provisionally), (and the details of which have been explained in the posts above)as:

All conditioned things are Dukkha.

Dukkha has a root cause which is clinging to desire.

If the root cause is removed then Dukkha comes to a complete end. If our clinging to desire is lessened to some degree then even though Dukkha is not removed its negative effect is lessened and so even attempting to practice the Buddha’s teaching (free from major errors) can deliver a worthwhile benefit. Is this correct?

Could you now explain your summary understanding of the ‘Noble Eightfold Path’ which is the Fourth and last of the Nobel Truths by first explaining only the first path of the eightfold path and how it connects with the second path? You could if you think it will add clarity also explain the purpose of the Fourth Noble Truth in context with the others without going into detail; if you think it would help?

0 Replies

@Merry Andrew,

IMO,Buddhism is a belief system whether Buddhists accept it or not.Its a sit on the fence nihilistic/agnostic religion narrowed down to a neutralistic view point.It is possible to still the dualistic mind by uniting the split consciousness state yes......but empty as hell if your belief is that you are alone within this experience.

1 Reply

Quote:

Do Atheists favour Buddism over the other faiths?

I don't think of Buddhism as a "faith", but rather a system of mental hygiene which addresses the consequences of human suffering in a practical manner.

1 Reply

@Jasper10,

IMO,DUALISM is only related to the awareness/experience the individual has if he/she transitions from the in synch to the out of synch consciousness states. The interpretation of DUALISM relates to the out of synch DUAL conscious state and has nothing at all to do with the INDIVIDUAL who transitions in/out of this state and the united (in synch) consciousness state. The individual can become aware of both the in synch and out of synch consciousness states. The individual is neither of these consciousness states however. We are NOT conscious states,We just become AWARE of them as we transition backwards and forwards between them.

1 Reply

Do Atheists favour Buddism over the other faiths?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know