Samsara Confusion

[MrKoala]

Hello all,

I have spent some time reading the Great Rebirth Debate thread.
I'm currently on page 58 and I'm finding it to be a fascinating read.

I have, however come across a series of posts (below) that have confused me and I would like to address my concerns before reading any further:

But it seems to me that rebirth is an important issue, because if it is indeed true, then if we are not able to get enlightened in this very life, we've got more suffering ahead of us, don't we?

The problem I have with this view of rebirth as necessary is that it accepts the Vedic view that life is so full of suffering that I'd want to work on a path to end it. *If* rebirth were proven to be true, I would *not* want to follow the dhamma to its conclusion because it would mean I would not get another chance to live this wonderful life I do live. I love the struggle, I love the challenges, I love the complexity; I don't want to end up in Heaven or the Endless Bliss of Nibbana. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe I'm the only one who actually treasures this life I'm leading as being worth paying full attention to just because it is what I have, and it's amazing.

Buddhism is not intended for those who love samsara.

-M

Buddhism is not intended for those who love samsara.

How true; but my intent is not to live in samsara, but to live on this planet free of samsara. Still want to kick me out?

Thats called cloud cuckoo land and is not an option. Unless you are a Buddha. And that does not happen until you have seen that the nature of things is Dukkha Anatta And Anicca.

Thats called cloud cuckoo land and is not an option. Unless you are a Buddha. And that does not happen until you have seen that the nature of things is Dukkha Anatta And Anicca.

I'm sorry, what's the Pali for "cloud cuckoo land"?

moha

Surely, I can live in samsara, and practice the Buddhist path, recognizing that all the moments I have free of suffering are worth living for?

All conditioned existence is anicca, anatta, dukkha. Until you reach the unconditioned state (enlightenment) there are no moments that are completely free of dukkha.

Surely one can be a Buddhist and strive to be totally free of suffering in this life, and want to remain grounded in this world? Isn't that what the Buddha did with his life, the one that's described in the suttas?

You're only referring to the Buddha's final life, when he attained liberation. He strived for countless aeons before reaching that goal, and he certainly didn't do it by just having a good time.

-M

moha

Thanks for the link.

You're only referring to the Buddha's final life, when he attained liberation. He strived for countless aeons before reaching that goal, and he certainly didn't do it by just having a good time.

Mostly I am asking about your actual experience of life, so please allow me to ask you the question I asked of Peter, above. In that thought experiment I asked if you would off yourself if it were proved to you this were the only life you got. Is your suffering so great that you'd choose to simply end your life?

No.

-M

From the context above, it seems like everything that happens within Samara is dukkha (including happiness etc.) Could someone please help me to understand how I, as a householder, may be able to cherish happiness (without clinging to it) in this existence without misguidedly loving Samsara.

Hopefully in time, I will look back and ever wonder why I asked such a foolish question but for now it's a little difficult to grasp.

Regards,
MK

[Manopubbangama]

Hi Mr. Koala,

According to fundamental Dhamma Theory there are four kinds of Dhamma: citta, cetasika, rupa and nibanna. If you were to take all of the dhammas comprised of citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana you would have a final summation of the totality of everything. If you aggregated all of the dhammas that are citta, cetasika and rupa you would have a final summnation of samsara.

All dhammas that are anicca are dukkha; ie, all dhammas that are not nibanna are subject to decay and suffering, therefore all dhammas ourside of nibanna are samsara.

If you achieve nibanna in this lifetime, your body is still subject to decay, so we can say that the Buddha still suffered even until his Parinibbana.

Under the bodhi tree, the Buddha attained sopadhishesa-nibbana. When he died he attained anupadhishesa-nibbana, and his body was annhilated.

Anything that is conditioned by something else (is a sankhata) is a part of samsara.

Until we achieve the maga and phala of sotapanna, we have to take the existence of Nibanna on faith alone, which is why Buddhism is a "religion" and not just a "philosophy."

[justindesilva]

Hello all,

I have spent some time reading the Great Rebirth Debate thread.
I'm currently on page 58 and I'm finding it to be a fascinating read.

I have, however come across a series of posts (below) that have confused me and I would like to address my concerns before reading any further:

The problem I have with this view of rebirth as necessary is that it accepts the Vedic view that life is so full of suffering that I'd want to work on a path to end it. *If* rebirth were proven to be true, I would *not* want to follow the dhamma to its conclusion because it would mean I would not get another chance to live this wonderful life I do live. I love the struggle, I love the challenges, I love the complexity; I don't want to end up in Heaven or the Endless Bliss of Nibbana. Maybe I'm crazy, maybe I'm the only one who actually treasures this life I'm leading as being worth paying full attention to just because it is what I have, and it's amazing.

Buddhism is not intended for those who love samsara.

-M

Buddhism is not intended for those who love samsara.

How true; but my intent is not to live in samsara, but to live on this planet free of samsara. Still want to kick me out?

Thats called cloud cuckoo land and is not an option. Unless you are a Buddha. And that does not happen until you have seen that the nature of things is Dukkha Anatta And Anicca.

I'm sorry, what's the Pali for "cloud cuckoo land"?

moha

Surely, I can live in samsara, and practice the Buddhist path, recognizing that all the moments I have free of suffering are worth living for?

All conditioned existence is anicca, anatta, dukkha. Until you reach the unconditioned state (enlightenment) there are no moments that are completely free of dukkha.

Surely one can be a Buddhist and strive to be totally free of suffering in this life, and want to remain grounded in this world? Isn't that what the Buddha did with his life, the one that's described in the suttas?

You're only referring to the Buddha's final life, when he attained liberation. He strived for countless aeons before reaching that goal, and he certainly didn't do it by just having a good time.

-M

Thanks for the link.


Mostly I am asking about your actual experience of life, so please allow me to ask you the question I asked of Peter, above. In that thought experiment I asked if you would off yourself if it were proved to you this were the only life you got. Is your suffering so great that you'd choose to simply end your life?

No.

-M

From the context above, it seems like everything that happens within Samara is dukkha (including happiness etc.) Could someone please help me to understand how I, as a householder, may be able to cherish happiness (without clinging to it) in this existence without misguidedly loving Samsara.

Hopefully in time, I will look back and ever wonder why I asked such a foolish question but for now it's a little difficult to grasp.

Regards,un
MK

Samsara is often is confused or misunderstood by most.
If we are to understand samsara we have to start with from here and now.
I am here now because of my past kamma. I am what I am now is because of my past kamma. I and only I am responsible for what I am and what status of me today.
Let us assume that in the past I was ignorant of Dukka
( or four noble truths ). But here and now we can make and effort to make the future better with such realisation.
The question of the future in samsara remains here and now. But lord budda taugt us that the path to shorten or end samsara is the arya adhtanga margaya. Once we know the four noble truths we are within the first step. The next steps being right resolve right speech right conduct right livelyhood right efforts right mindfulness and right concentration will carry us through dana seela bhavana to a stage of ending suffering.
Samsara in fact is again explained as paticca samuppada , a non ending process of life, unless ceased by arya ashtanga marga. Non clinging to sensual desires
is the way to end samsara in other words.

[cappuccino]

the happiness of Samsara, is basically in food

merely a taste, a flavor, etc.

Buddh ism is actual happiness, in the form of peace & purpose

[JohnK]

Hello all,
...please help me to understand how I, as a householder, may be able to cherish happiness (without clinging to it) in this existence without misguidedly loving Samsara...
Regards,
MK

My take on it:
I'm not sure one can "cherish" happiness without "clinging" to it -- but I guess it depends on what one means by "cherish."
As a householder, I suppose one can cherish loved ones, but still recognize that the happiness that derives from them is not an "ultimately satisfying happiness." And, if one is not dependent on them for ultimate happiness, one does not have to "feed on them" ignorantly for that (Upadana means both clinging and taking sustenance -- hence "feeding").
One can experience pleasantness w/o craving and clinging -- in fact that's one of the ways to break the causal chain that results in suffering (dependent origination).
The happiness to seek is the more refined happiness of progress on the path (for example the happiness of concentration or the happiness of relinquishing the futile strategy of trying to find ultimately satisfying happiness in that which is impermanent -- samsara. The path can be seen as a progression to more and more refined happiness as one lets go of attachment to sources of grosser levels of happiness.
Deeply recognizing impermanence can actually highlight the poignancy of samsara -- a way of having compassion for all beings while still recognizing that attachment is not the path.
I believe the Buddha said that the Dhamma is subtle.
I hope this is helpful.

[2600htz]

Hello:

Actually the meaning of Samsara is "wandering on", its not a place where we live, its a process ("the tendency to keep creating worlds and then moving into them.). (You can read Thanissaro Bhikkhu article called "Samsara").

The next part of your question is about -what is suffering and what is not suffering- (first noble truth).

"Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha."

The five aggregates are not dukkha, they are dukkha only when affected by clinging. Without the clinging property there is no birth,aging,death,sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief & despair, etc. THERE IS NO "WANDERING ON", and without craving there is no clinging. So if you have a pure mind without craving at the moment (like in jhana, or giving something, etc) you are actually experiencing sukha (happiness), not dukkha.

Regards.

[Bliss]

Hello.

From the context above, it seems like everything that happens within Samara is dukkha (including happiness etc.) Could someone please help me to understand how I, as a householder, may be able to cherish happiness (without clinging to it) in this existence without misguidedly loving Samsara.

Happiness is sukha when arises but every conditioned thing is subject to perish so its true nature is dukkha as it passes.
For your question, i don't think you can cherish happiness without attaching to it because the factors craving and clinging arise conditioned by feeling (happiness) according to dependent origination.
But you can stay without attaching to Samsara by developing the right view through practising vipassana meditation. When one practises vipassana meditation, one can see the feelings (aggregate) arising and passing. The moment one sees the passing of a feeling, his wisdom rejects the view of eternalism at that moment. When another feeling arises, the view of annihilism is rejected. Seeing the arises and passes, one can understand there is no eternal self (anicca). This right view is the middle path between the extreme views of eternalism and annihilism. And the people who love and cling to samsara are mostly the ones with the view of eternalism. Developing right view through meditation will reject eternalism so you cannot get attached to samsara while you also do not suffer from life depressions as people with the view of annihilism do.

[MrKoala]

Hello JohnK,

I'm not sure one can "cherish" happiness without "clinging" to it -- but I guess it depends on what one means by "cherish."

Cherish
protect and care for (someone or something) lovingly
synonym: adore

Adore
love and respect (someone or something) deeply

Some examples:
- Watching my child play.
- Admiring the beauty and serenity of nature.
- Making love to my wife.
- Helping someone in need.

I hold that these are all good things derived out of love and kindness.

As a householder, if we're taught not to cling to or crave the happiness arising from these things, then how can we truly enjoy them?

As a householder, I suppose one can cherish loved ones, but still recognize that the happiness that derives from them is not an "ultimately satisfying happiness."

I can see this.

And, if one is not dependent on them for ultimate happiness, one does not have to "feed on them" ignorantly for that (Upadana means both clinging and taking sustenance -- hence "feeding").
One can experience pleasantness w/o craving and clinging -- in fact that's one of the ways to break the causal chain that results in suffering (dependent origination).

As a householder, this is much easier to understand than to put into practice.

If then, knowing that I will struggle (indefinitely) with practicing this understanding in relation to craving for and clinging to the happiness that arises from experiencing these good things derived out of love and kindness, should I let go of my desire to learn Theravada Buddhism as a householder?

MK

[JohnK]

If then, knowing that I will struggle (indefinitely) with practicing this understanding (in relation to craving for and clinging to happiness), should I let go of my desire to learn Theravada Buddhism?

MK

How do you know that you will struggle indefinitely with this?
(The promise of the practice is that craving and clinging can be overcome.)

[MrKoala]

How do you know that you will struggle indefinitely with this?
(The promise of the practice is that craving and clinging can be overcome.)

Only because I have doubt that I will be able to dedicate the time required to achieve this.

[JohnK]

As a householder, if we're taught not to cling to or crave the happiness arising from these things, then how can we truly enjoy them?

I would suggest that we CAN enjoy w/o craving/clinging -- in fact, probably more "truly" enjoy w/o the drawbacks of craving/clinging/feeding/fear/uncertainty/dukkha.
I would also suggest that ware not "taught not to cling" -- we are taught to comprehend dukkha. Through comprehending dukkha, we see that it is the craving and clinging that causes our dukkha (not the "mere" enjoying). Undertanding/knowing/seeing/discernment leads to not clinging -- seems to me, you can't just "not cling" as a matter of will, as a matter of "doing what I am taught," as a matter of "acting like I am awake" (vs. practicing for awakening). The path is not to act like one has reached to goal.

[JohnK]

How do you know that you will struggle indefinitely with this?
(The promise of the practice is that craving and clinging can be overcome.)

Only because I have doubt that I will be able to dedicate the time required to achieve this.

How do you know how long it will take?
Seems like it's just an adjustment to your understanding of what it means to "truly" enjoy? Is it really so hard to imagine "not craving" and still experiencing pleasant contact with loved ones, nature, etc.?
(I don't mean to be hounding you -- just encouraging.)

[DooDoot]

all dhammas ourside of nibanna are samsara.

The suttas appear to correlate samsara with ignorance, craving & attachment, as follows:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "Monks, from an inconstruable beginning comes samsara. A beginning point is not evident, although beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are roaming around & wandering on.

Just as a dog, tied by a leash to a post or stake, keeps running around and circling around that very post or stake; in the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for people of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

He assumes feeling to be the self...

He assumes perception to be the self...

He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

He keeps running around and circling around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that very consciousness. He is not set loose from form, not set loose from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... not set loose from consciousness. He is not set loose from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is not set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

SN 22.99

aIf you achieve nibanna in this lifetime

The suttas appear to say the mind achieves Nibbana rather than a "you".

a your body is still subject to decay, so we can say that the Buddha still suffered even until his Parinibbana.

The suttas appear to say the Buddha did not suffer. For example:

But when the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.

DN 16

Under the bodhi tree, the Buddha attained sopadhishesa-nibbana. When he died he attained anupadhishesa-nibbana, and his body was annhilated.

SN 22.85 appears to say the word "annhilated" does not apply to a Buddha. Possibly you can check out SN 22.85.

Anything that is conditioned by something else (is a sankhata) is a part of samsara.

Do the suttas provide any support for the above idea?

Until we achieve the maga and phala of sotapanna, we have to take the existence of Nibanna on faith alone, which is why Buddhism is a "religion" and not just a "philosophy."

Again, do the suttas provide any support for the above ideas?

[Manopubbangama]

How do you know that you will struggle indefinitely with this?
(The promise of the practice is that craving and clinging can be overcome.)

Only because I have doubt that I will be able to dedicate the time required to achieve this.

Some individuals attain Nibanna just by hearing the Buddha's word alone. You never know with your accumulated paramis.

[DooDoot]

From the context above, it seems like everything that happens within Samara is dukkha (including happiness etc.)

'Samsara' means to cycle in the same habits of ignorance, craving & attachment. As a householder, the mind is generally attached to family.

Could someone please help me to understand how I, as a householder, may be able to cherish happiness (without clinging to it) in this existence without misguidedly loving Samsara.

The above question might be impossible to answer. I am not sure. I am not aware of any teachings about samsara that apply to householders because the life of a householder is based on craving for spouse, children, family, security, etc. For example:

A man companioned by craving
Wanders on this long journey;
He cannot go beyond saṃsāra
In this state of being or another.

https://suttacentral.net/iti15/en/ireland

Another example of samsara; where having grief about the loss of loved ones is samsara:

At Savatthi. There the Blessed One said: "From an inconstruable beginning comes samsara. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are roaming around & wandering on.

Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a mother. The tears you have shed over the death of a mother while roaming around & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

"Long have you (repeatedly) experienced the death of a father... the death of a brother... the death of a sister... the death of a son... the death of a daughter... loss with regard to relatives... loss with regard to wealth... loss with regard to disease. The tears you have shed over loss with regard to disease while roaming around & wandering this long, long time — crying & weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — are greater than the water in the four great oceans.

SN 15.3

It appears the way to end samsara is to stop attaching to things as "self" (per the teaching below) and this is difficult to do for a householder.

"But a well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for people of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — doesn't assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

"He doesn't assume feeling to be the self...

"He doesn't assume perception to be the self...

"He doesn't assume fabrications to be the self...

"He doesn't assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

"He doesn't run around or circle around that very form... that very feeling... that very perception... those very fabrications... that very consciousness. He is set loose from form, set loose from feeling... from perception... from fabrications... set loose from consciousness. He is set loose from birth, aging, & death; from sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs. He is set loose, I tell you, from suffering & stress.

SN 22.99

I have spent some time reading the Great Rebirth Debate thread.

For me, a problem with regarding 'samsara' as 'billions of reincarnations' is what samsara is might be over-estimated.

Could someone please help me to understand how I, as a householder, may be able to cherish happiness (without clinging to it) in this existence without misguidedly loving Samsara.

Ending samsara requires ending clinging to things as 'self', as quoted above. You can take steps to reflect upon impermanence and to not be overly possessive & controlling of your children & family but, ultimately, your mind will still be attached to them. Personally, i would take care to not allow teachings about 'samsara' to diminish your role as a father & husband.



The following is a famous non-Buddhist poem about non-attachment towards children. Being an idealistic poem, it might be difficult to fully practise:

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts,
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/The_Prophet#On_Children