Can you help me understand the Buddhist view of reality?

Can you help me understand the Buddhist view of reality?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=yxloUBCYuFM
pastebin.com/UpP9QBZJ
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It is suffering and impermanence.

Look up the Four Noble Truths; also you can read Buddha by Armstrong.

Why 8?

Because I 8 your mom last nite.

top bantz

By reality, do you mean their worldview in general, or the world as in epistemology & metaphysics?

In general I would recommend Siddhartha by Herman Hesse. Covers the departure from both hedonism and asceticism, and prevalence of a sort of existential, all-encompassing awareness of the world. Very transcendent. Made it easier to grasp their view of enlightenment.

>view
>reality

Basically this reality sucks, you gotta do some shit in order to escape it, and that's no guarantee.

Samsara and Nirvana

life is suffering, but reincarnation exists, therefore you can't just commit suicide to escape it. therefore you need to follow the teachings of the buddha to achieve enlightenment and escape the cycle of reincarnation and suffering

Imagine the most despairing R9K member you can think of. Then multiply his despair times a million. Buddhists believe that existence is suffering, they'd want to kill themselves, except that doesn't free them from this hellish reality because of reincarnation. So they have to achieve enlightenment. Once a person has ascended, then they cease to exist. This is called nirvana.

Honestly I don't see why people like Buddhism at all and I don't see why people say that Buddhism is similar to Christianity, they are about as different as two religions can be. One advocates denial of self and pleasures because it believes that wanting things is bad and it hopes that it can become one with nothingness. The other advocates denial of self and pleasures because it believes that selfishness and hedonism are sinful and that it separates you from god and it hopes to become closer to god, who is the greatest good.

It's true that they both belief that the material world is not the ultimate reality, but Buddhism claims that the material world doesn't exist while Christianity claims that it's temporary.

That explains Theravada pretty well.
The point of Theravada is to escape the suffering and ascend to Nirvana. To get to Nirvana, you need to follow the Noble Eightfold Path.
The other main branch is Mahayana. This teaching sees the cycle of rebirth as "inescapable." This branch teaches that you should strive for enlightenment in this life so that you can teach others.

We are all flowing down the stream of Samsara.

I disagree with the premise that life is suffering

I feel like in all of my reading of Buddhist literature, there is never a strong case made for all of life to be suffering.

They will talk about attachment leading to a never ending cycle of desire and unfulfillment, and a lack of mindfulness leading to a frozen state of boredom, but this is not built as a case for life as suffering.

Life as suffering is almost ignored. I think that's why I find Buddhism to be a bit shit. "Life is suffering" is a very trite premise for what is a fairly convincing ideological catalogue, but it means that a lot of good work has been done on a very poor foundation

The only two posts worth reading.

"Dukkha" does not mean suffering, so much as "frustration" and "unsatisfying"

Dukkha is the doctrine that all experiences are ultimately insufficient for making someone truly and eternally happy.

Not that guy, so the Buddha was advocating getting off the hedonic treadmill?

The Buddha's beliefs were complex as shit, but basically yes. He had a couple of ideas

1. That there was no permament inner self, only a temporary ever-changing one.

2. The self changes in accordance with our chasing our desires, leading to 'becoming'. Simply put its the application of the principle 'you are what you repeatedly do'.

3. Becoming continues even after death. What is left of our temporary ever-changing self eventually gives rise to a new self that is also ever-changing in the same way.

Buddhist doctrine is about reversing this process, and putting an end to this constant becoming, by realizing one's true nature as unconditioned consciousness. This is Nirvana.

Sidenote: I am not a Buddhist.

>3. Becoming continues even after death. What is left of our temporary ever-changing self eventually gives rise to a new self that is also ever-changing in the same way.

To believe this, do I need to believe that the enlightened can see souls or something? How would they possibly have evidence for this?

Faith. It is still a religion after all.

Buddhism is a supernatural religion, with supernatural elements that are believed on faith. The current popularity of secular Buddhism in the west does not undermine this.

As I said, I myself am not a Buddhist, I simply find many of their doctrines fascinating, so I'm not going to argue in favor of the religion, only clear up misunderstandings, answer questions, and explain dogma.

I was going to say

"That seems counter to:

> Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense"

But apparently that is a mistranslation of:

> Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.

Which may as well be "Just believe the monks you stupid fucking peasant"

Eight-fold Noble path

>buddhist view of reality
There's three marks of existence that all sentient beings share. The impermanence of a being., the suffering of a being, and the not-self of a being.

Impermanence is very apparent, things change regularly from young to old, living to dying, healthy to sick, etc. No one remains a pure static immortal force. The suffering follows those impermanence, those changes that occur that we don't like. We grow sick, we grow old/frail, we see loved ones die, we lose things we grow fond of and so on. Not-self is the last of the three marks of existence. It describes our false narration, our false view that we have a self-existence. People view themselves as what they own, what they believe, what they love, what they remember, what their body is, what their name is, etc. Lets say "I am what I call myself, my name", if everything else change except the name, is this really the same you? We go on one by one on the list, and see nothing that really sticks as the "core" of what we identify as a our "self". Then we move on to say, "we are all those things combined." This is to say, we are nothing individually but overall, we all those things make us who we are. There are some good counters against this, one argument is, lets say you have a house and its "a house is what the components are, the components themselves aren't house". Then in one way, you get the same bricks the house is made of and remake it into a different house, on another way, we make a wooden car from components. The problem is, components are not you either. This requires a certain orientation in certain time, in certain place recognized by certain people with certain concept of house to make it a house. The same is said of your "self." This is the not-self of the buddhist.

Cont.

The nature of reality in Buddhist is often seen as being obscured by everyday life. We do not have the capacity to fully pay attention to what is happening around our lives. Distractions rule the mind and pull us towards no particular direction. This should be pretty evident in our modern culture. TV advertisement are designed around that. the TV shows competing with one another for attention, the internet, etc. Our attention span is almost never focused on what we do, how we do, and why we do. Socrates is said to have said, "an unexamined life is worth not living." The greek philosophers were much closer to the Buddha's understanding of reality than we, of the west, are of today.

As to why the nature of reality is related to nature of human beings is simple. Nature of reality is viewed through our eyes and our minds. To understand reality, we have to understand ourselves first. We have to understand how we understand what we understand and why we understand what we understand.

The buddhists view humans/sentient beings in general as clouded. Clouded minds cant see reality. To see reality, we have to develop s series of exercise necessary to uncloud our mind first. This is the "Noble Eight-fold Path" that Buddha is talking about.

what is the buddha nature, i hear you ask?

just listen to sensei seagal

youtube.com/watch?v=yxloUBCYuFM

Cont..

Once people are working towards removing the cloud that obscures the nature of reality, all sorts of stuff are supposed to be "seen" that would under normal circumstances be seen as weird/impossible. However Buddha was focused on one main goal for his teachings. The goal of lifting human suffering, although reality could be unclouded with some mind training, this doesn't necessarily resolve the problem of suffering. The problem of suffering is a general human problem that needs to be scoped out and understood in general human perspective. In short, the problem of human suffering can be linked to falsely identifying our selves with objects, habits, behaviours, patterns, memories, bodies, concepts, names etc. If there is a false way, then is there a correct way to identity our selves? The famous zen koans work with this sort of question. Sound of 1 hand clapping, tree falls in wood and no one is there to hear it etc. There is no real self involved. The only self we normally refer is the not-self that we is understood. Once we get past the not-self, no self is apparent.

So with the understanding of the notself/noself, the Buddha says that by focusing on not being pulled towards the not-self (by being self-less in intention and acts), this furthers the process of reducing suffering for the actor. This ethics/moral serves a dual purpose too. The act of selflessness also serves to reduce suffering for others.

Eventually with these, there is a barrier where the person becomes the enlightened due to complete control/understanding and is freed from the suffering, that is nirvana. There is no ascending to nirvana "heaven" or going to nirvana "place", nirvana is the final extinguishing of the suffering.

cont..

Further more, Mahayana expands on the notself -> selfless acts -> helping others. They mostly change the formula a bit, that act of helping others necessitates the path of enlightenment. More indepth nature of reality is explored by both theravada and mahayana, but more so in mahayana. In earlier, there is two states of "reality" that we know, the clouded and unclouded mind. Enlightenment is is reached with unclouded mind and nirvana with unclouded mind + ending of suffering. With years passing, people took nirvana as heaven/different place to be. Mahayana straightens that out and says "Nirvana is same as the real world, there is no difference".

There are more discussion on whether its possible to achieve nirvana/enlightenment, this is where buddha-nature comes into play. Etc, but thats not necessary, its merely specifics that will get in the way more so than not.

...

>Honestly I don't see why people like Buddhism at all

Simply ignorance. Most people dont even know what buddhism really is.

Siddhartha actually doesn't have much to do with Buddhism

This is a common misunderstanding of Buddhism. People assume that the "point" of Buddhism is to end the cycle of rebirth and thats what motivates people to follow it while in actuality the notion of rebirth is relatively unimportant and the reason why people follow Buddhism is because it allows them to live blissful lives free from troubles. Ending the cycle of rebirths is just the natural side-effect of freeing yourself from fetters and waking up from the illusion but its not why people do it, people do it because it allows them to be at peace and feel bliss all the time in this life.

We are all put on earth to suffer.
Be respectful to others cause you know that the end could be just around the corner...
however life is cyclical....

if you're an American and serious about your post, then read this book by Steve Hagen

>book cover for ants

So you're saying that Buddhism is motivated by hedonism?

indulging in hedonistic desires and trying to satisfy cravings ≠ freeing yourself from desire/cravings and naturally feeling blissful as a result

-you are born an hedonist
-if you wonder whether you are an hedonist, you are one
-you will be an hedonist until you awaken
-the dhamma is the opposite of hedonism
-there are two hedonism, equally mistaken from the dhamma, but one is better than the other, from the perspective of hedonism and the dhamma
-in order to be awake, you turn your hedonism of the body towards your hedonism of the mind, in being what the hedonist of the body calls being ascetic; this makes you understand that you are not your five/six senses and whatever stems from them; then you destroy your hedonism of the mind, just like your destroy your hedonism of the five/six senses, in seeing that your mind/consciousness is a drag

Pastebin about the dhamma posted here a few weeks ago.
pastebin.com/UpP9QBZJ

...

You meditate to discipline the mind because when you die you will undergo a series of tests to see if you're ready to return to nirvana (universal oneness) or be reborn again again climbing a sort of ladder until you're able to reach the top. It borrows heavily from the ancient religions such as Vedic and European paganism, in that the universe is divinity itself in a separated form. You yourself are a separated part of "God" yet your consciousness can return to that higher state.

It's a symbol representing the separation of the singularity, essentially a model of the universe. Look up tbe chaos star for a better understanding.

If you're ungrateful of life and die you'll be reborn as a lower lifeform. Have fun reaching nirvana as a slug or dung beetle... well you probably wouldn't go that low for suicide, maybe you'll be reborn as a nigger but that's still pretty low.

Read the bardo thodal. Even a synopsis will give you a good grasp. Whatever emotions you feel in death have an impact on your rebirth or ascension. That's why meditation, spiritual knowledge, and discipline are so important.

Don't even need to read bardo thodal to understand that. The basic buddhist principle is causal chain called dependency arising. The thing with intention/action and results/habits (generally cause/effect) is referred to as karma system.

However I wouldn't put any more faith into what type of rebirth the next life will be. No prediction about whether its ghost/demons/gods/beetle/etc. Those are not valuable and doubtful.

Well as much as i know, buddhism is not one single religion. Just like islam, christianity or any other big religion it has different versions.

But if we are talking generally, it seems like a lifestyle more than a religion.
If happiness is achieveing goals(sort of), buddhism wants you to achieve that by lowering your goals, not by working too much with lots of ambition.
Also they believe that living is kind of lame, frustration as stated above so if you succeed at lowering your goals and shit you also break the cycle and reach nirvana.

Pic related sums it up pretty well.

...

...

i'll tell you that sitting through a budhist prayer is suffering.

At Savatthi. "Monks, any brahmans or contemplatives who recollect their manifold past lives all recollect the five clinging-aggregates, or one among them. Which five? When recollecting, 'I was one with such a form in the past,' one is recollecting just form. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a feeling in the past,' one is recollecting just feeling. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a perception in the past,' one is recollecting just perception. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such mental fabrications in the past,' one is recollecting just mental fabrications. Or when recollecting, 'I was one with such a consciousness in the past,' one is recollecting just consciousness.

"And why do you call it 'form'?[1] Because it is afflicted,[2] thus it is called 'form.' Afflicted with what? With cold & heat & hunger & thirst, with the touch of flies, mosquitoes, wind, sun, & reptiles. Because it is afflicted, it is called form.

"And why do you call it 'feeling'? Because it feels, thus it is called 'feeling.' What does it feel? It feels pleasure, it feels pain, it feels neither-pleasure-nor-pain. Because it feels, it is called feeling.

"And why do you call it 'perception'? Because it perceives, thus it is called 'perception.' What does it perceive? It perceives blue, it perceives yellow, it perceives red, it perceives white. Because it perceives, it is called perception.

"And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate as a fabricated thing? For the sake of form-ness, they fabricate form as a fabricated thing. For the sake of feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling as a fabricated thing. For the sake of perception-hood... For the sake of fabrication-hood... For the sake of consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness as a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications. [3]

"And why do you call it 'consciousness'? Because it cognizes, thus it is called consciousness. What does it cognize? It cognizes what is sour, bitter, pungent, sweet, alkaline, non-alkaline, salty, & unsalty. Because it cognizes, it is called consciousness.

"Thus an instructed disciple of the noble ones reflects in this way: 'I am now being chewed up by form. But in the past I was also chewed up by form in the same way I am now being chewed up by present form. And if I delight in future form, then in the future I will be chewed up by form in the same way I am now being chewed up by present form.' Having reflected in this way, he becomes indifferent to past form, does not delight in future form, and is practicing for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, and cessation with regard to present form.

"[He reflects:] ''I am now being chewed up by feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness. But in the past I was also chewed up by consciousness in the same way I am now being chewed up by present consciousness. And if I delight in future consciousness, then in the future I will be chewed up by consciousness in the same way I am now being chewed up by present consciousness.' Having reflected in this way, he becomes indifferent to past consciousness, does not delight in future consciousness, and is practicing for the sake of disenchantment, dispassion, and cessation with regard to present consciousness.

"What do you think, monks — Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."

"... Is feeling constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Is perception constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"... Are fabrications constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord."...

"What do you think, monks — Is consciousness constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?"

"No, lord."


"Thus, monks, any form whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every form is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"Any feeling whatsoever...

"Any perception whatsoever...

"Any fabrications whatsoever...

"Any consciousness whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every consciousness is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: 'This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am.'

"This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble ones who tears down and does not build up; who abandons and does not cling; who discards and does not pull in; who scatters and does not pile up.

"And what does he tear down and not build up? He tears down form and does not build it up. He tears down feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not build it up.

"And what does he abandon and not cling to? He abandons form and does not cling to it. He abandons feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not cling to it.

"And what does he discard and not pull in? He discards form and does not pull it in. He discards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not pull it in.

"And what does he scatter and not pile up? He scatters form and does not pile it up. He scatters feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness and does not pile it up.

"Seeing thus, the instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with form, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'

"This, monks, is called a disciple of the noble ones who neither builds up nor tears down, but who stands having torn down; who neither clings nor abandons, but who stands having abandoned; who neither pulls in nor discards, but who stands having discarded; who neither piles up nor scatters, but who stands having scattered.

"And what is it that he neither builds up nor tears down, but stands having torn it down? He neither builds up nor tears down form, but stands having torn it down. He neither builds up nor tears down feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, but stands having torn it down.

"And what is it that he neither clings to nor abandons, but stands having abandoned it? He neither clings to nor abandons form, but stands having abandoned it. He neither clings to nor abandons feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, but stands having abandoned it.

"And what is it that he neither pulls in nor discards, but stands having discarded it? He neither pulls in nor discards form, but stands having discarded it. He neither pulls in nor discards feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, but stands having discarded it.

"And what is it that he neither piles up nor scatters, but stands having scattered it? He neither piles up nor scatters form, but stands having scattered it. He neither piles up nor scatters feeling... perception... fabrications... consciousness, but stands having scattered it.

"And to the monk whose mind is thus released, the devas, together with Indra, the Brahmas, & Pajapati, pay homage even from afar:
'Homage to you, O thoroughbred man. Homage to you, O superlative man — you of whom we don't know even what dependent on which you're absorbed.'"

It depends on which school you follow, buddhist doctrines can vary quite a bit. I'm a Soto Zen buddhist since 7 years back. I recognize life being unstable, and unreal due to its instability, but other than that, I don't cultivate a specific view of reality.