Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by binocular »

NMRK32 wrote:/.../
We are not really here in the absolute sense, right? My cherished little self is an illusion. There is no eternal John in this body.
/.../
First of all, I really do make a point of not calling myself Buddhist, so take my input with this caveat.

I think you do not accurately present the teachings from the suttas, and that this is part (or most) of the problem you have with Buddhism.

A mistake on the level of theory leads to a mistake on the level of practice and that then leads to a mistake in realization.

I think it would take many many pages to explain where your interpretation differs from the suttas. Such discussions make up the majority of Buddhist forums anyway. So you're not alone. :)
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by binocular »

Jetavan wrote:I don't see how you got from the idea the world is conditioned and dependently arising, to the idea that the world is an "illusion".
It looks like a popular Mahayana influence.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
beeblebrox
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2009 10:41 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by beeblebrox »

Jetavan wrote:I don't see how you got from the idea the world is conditioned and dependently arising, to the idea that the world is an "illusion".
Hi Jetavan,

There is a discussion about that in the thread here: SN 22.95: Phena Sutta — Foam

I think it is good and worth reading.

:anjali:
NMRK32
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:47 am

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by NMRK32 »

David N. Snyder wrote:If you cling to the self, it is not an illusion to you; it is very real and so is the dukkha.
But if I'm a conventional reference with no substantial svabhava then any perception of dukkha is also just an illusion ultimately. To me right now for instance everything is real because I see them through the prism of my normal daily self as a reference point and a prism. But if I'm not really anything more than a collection of bits and bats that will dissolve upon death anyway then dukkha isn't really happening to nobody. Nobody is really experiencing it as nobody was ever born really. I was never here.
NMRK32
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:47 am

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by NMRK32 »

beeblebrox wrote:
NMRK32 wrote: As Buddhists, there are certain premises that are fundamental to the practice of all of us. For the sake of a clearer exegesis leading to the points I'm about to make and the blasphemous questions I'm about to ask, please bear with me while I recount the basics of our practice.
1. Anatta: There is no self in any conditioned, dependently originated thing. Only a conventional, facilitating name tied to a form with its ever changing constituent parts that are also devoid of any absolute substantial self.
2. Clinging to this self as something substantial and real, whether enduring after death or perishing along with the body breeds stress.
3. Life is fraught with stress because we are trapped in this illusory world where we think we exist and we are caught up in a process of trying to satisfy it, protect it and perpetuate it.
4. There is a way out. The Eightfold Path. Destination: Nirvana.
5. Nirvana: A liberated state (?) of mind. Described as light, free, joyous, wholesome, ultimately so true that any description we attempt to asign to it will not do it justice and derail us from the path. Our ultimate goal. Why? Because it ensures we are no longer going to return to the world of becoming. When the body dies, our karma will not attach to another being, nobody else will savour the bitter fruits of our actions.
So far so good? Any objections on a fundamental, general level? I am not dumbing the dharma down, I'm trying to condence it for the sake of convenience. I swear down....
Hi NMRK,

The above seem more or less OK, but:
We are not really here in the absolute sense, right? My cherished little self is an illusion. There is no eternal John in this body. He's the sum total of his parts but even those are in flux. So he will not be here tomorrow, in ten years, in 50 years. Then one day this body will die, the skandhas will scatter, gone is John not only as a mental subjective illusion, but also in actual, biological terms. The brain will stop firing, the perception of the world by John will cease, the perception of John as John will cease, the body will be cremated, John's consciousness and its film reel will vanish. Yah?
Now depending on the sutra, the teaching or your own experience, whether it's relevant to you or not, we have three options. John's karmic stream will attach itself to another being, John's karmic stream will cease to flow as really there couldnot have been any stream without a source, or John having attained Nirvana in life, will enter his Parinirvana, not as John but as a liberated something/someone/nothing/no one all rolled into one. He will be unreachable and inaccessible, beyond words, truly liberated. But we can't say that John will be or that he won't be. Confusing stuff, but I guess I'll take Siddh's word for it.
At this point and afterwards, it seems like you began to try write through the lens of self:

"We are not really here;" "My cherished little self is an illusion;" "There is no eternal John in this body;"

"He will not be here tomorrow;"

"Gone is John not only as a mental subjective illusion, but also in actual, biological terms;"

"The perception of John as John will cease;" "John's consciousness and its film reel will vanish;"

"John's karmic stream will attach itself to another being;" "John's karmic stream will cease to flow;" "John having attained Nirvana . . . not as John but as a liberated something;" "He will be unreachable and inaccessible;"

"But we can't say that John will be or he won't be."

And so on...

All of these seem to be constructed from the viewpoint of self. It seemed like you got yourself ensnared in them, creating confusion. (One of the three poisons in a practice.) This affirms the point #2 in the first quote above, doesn't it?

:anjali:
Of course it's all constructed from the point of self. Its myself that I'm trying to logically convince, train and exercise in the dharma. If the dharma makes no sense to my conventional self then how does it differ from biblical religions where what is said is taken on faith?
NMRK32
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:47 am

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by NMRK32 »

binocular wrote:
Jetavan wrote:I don't see how you got from the idea the world is conditioned and dependently arising, to the idea that the world is an "illusion".
It looks like a popular Mahayana influence.
Actually I meant it as in devoid of svabhava. Conditioned, transitory, in flux. Perhaps I should have been more detailed and precise. I didn't want my post to drag on. I assumed that as Buddhists we all kinda know the basics of the dharma and that I could crack on with my argumentation that lead to my point. This is not aimed at anyone in particular as a dig but I seem to be getting a lot of fine tuning of dogma instead of an answer of opinion on my overall original question.
NMRK32
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:47 am

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by NMRK32 »

binocular wrote:
NMRK32 wrote:/.../
We are not really here in the absolute sense, right? My cherished little self is an illusion. There is no eternal John in this body.
/.../
First of all, I really do make a point of not calling myself Buddhist, so take my input with this caveat.

I think you do not accurately present the teachings from the suttas, and that this is part (or most) of the problem you have with Buddhism.

A mistake on the level of theory leads to a mistake on the level of practice and that then leads to a mistake in realization.

I think it would take many many pages to explain where your interpretation differs from the suttas. Such discussions make up the majority of Buddhist forums anyway. So you're not alone. :)
I must respectfully reject the claim that I have a problem with Buddhism. I don't. Or that I don't present the sutras correctly. At the same time I do not claim omniscience either. I did not go into fine details because I just wanted to crack on with my argumentation instead of consuming another wall of text with a careful analysis of the dharma that would find everyone in absolute agreement. I don't think that would be possible. I offered a simple overview how ever rushed so I could finally get to my questions. I seem to be getting a lot of fine tubing on theory that ultimately doesn't answer any of the questions I posted or the argumentation I provided how ever crude. The sutras are always confusing anyway and not always clear judging from the various contesting translations and interpretations they receive. I have read countless posts where people sieve through tons of grammar trying to understand how things are meant and they still can't agree as to what or how it's being said. Another reason why I attempted to keep it basic and argue on the basis of the general overview of our tenets instead of pedantically fretting over which precise term t and structure to use. As for the amount of pages that it would take to correct me I guess it would be the same as a nuclear physicist would need to explain a 5th grader his science in complex mathematics. Or being the great accomplished teacher that he is he could just draw pictures on the blackboard and still get the kid to understand without the complex equations. This is where I believe we Buddhists actually lose the plot, pardon my french. We carry on and on with the Pali and the endless quoting of Scripture instead of cracking on with teaching each other and helping with the essential understanding on the dharma. We get lost in our own texts.
santa100
Posts: 6815
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by santa100 »

NMRK32 wrote:But if I'm a conventional reference with no substantial svabhava then any perception of dukkha is also just an illusion ultimately. To me right now for instance everything is real because I see them through the prism of my normal daily self as a reference point and a prism. But if I'm not really anything more than a collection of bits and bats that will dissolve upon death anyway then dukkha isn't really happening to nobody. Nobody is really experiencing it as nobody was ever born really. I was never here.
I think you've already answered your questions yourself based on the above. It boils down to which plane of truth one is able to experience. Buddhas and arahants can say that dukkha doesn't affect them for they have completely transcended all notion of "I", "mine", and "myself". And if there's no "I", "mine", and "myself", who is there to experience dukkha? Only they have earned the right to proclaim "Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world". For us worldlings, although we can "say" that there's no "self" to experience dukkha, but are we able to put the money where the mouth is? Does lust still arise at the sight of a young voluptuous woman? Does greed still arise at the sight of huge wealth or fame? Does aversion and fear still arise when your nose and hands are being chopped off by somesone in war torn regions? Until one's mind remains perfectly calm and serene in front of any situation, there is still a very real and concrete "self" that s/he still needs to work with, and there's still the Triple Gem that one will need to go to to solve that issue. The wonderful Zen story below says it all:
A Zen student shows off his deep understanding to his master:
Student: "I'm just a wave in the ocean. Self is a delusional concept. There's no one to experience suffering, etc.."
Master gave him a heavy smack on the head.
Student cried out in pain: "What the heck was that for?"
Master: "Who is experiencing suffering?"
Bakmoon
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by Bakmoon »

NMRK32 wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:If you cling to the self, it is not an illusion to you; it is very real and so is the dukkha.
But if I'm a conventional reference with no substantial svabhava then any perception of dukkha is also just an illusion ultimately. To me right now for instance everything is real because I see them through the prism of my normal daily self as a reference point and a prism. But if I'm not really anything more than a collection of bits and bats that will dissolve upon death anyway then dukkha isn't really happening to nobody. Nobody is really experiencing it as nobody was ever born really. I was never here.
That doesn't actually follow. Just because there is no self, that does not mean that dukkha is unreal. The dukkha is conditioned, impermanent, and without substance, but that is very different than saying that the dukkha is just an illusion, as the experience of dukkha is in fact still there, and as long as dukkha still arises, there is a problem, and the answer to the problem is the Noble Eightfold Path.
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by culaavuso »

NMRK32 wrote: But if I'm a conventional reference with no substantial svabhava then any perception of dukkha is also just an illusion ultimately. To me right now for instance everything is real because I see them through the prism of my normal daily self as a reference point and a prism. But if I'm not really anything more than a collection of bits and bats that will dissolve upon death anyway then dukkha isn't really happening to nobody. Nobody is really experiencing it as nobody was ever born really. I was never here.
Dukkha is experienced. The concept of a "self" is also experienced. It is not the concept of self that experiences dukkha. This seems to be the misunderstanding. A "self" is not a requirement for experience. Whether suffering is "real" or "illusion" is a distraction. A hallucination of pain and fear is just as unpleasant as "real" pain and fear. Seeing things as "just an illusion" is a technique that can be used to reduce dukkha, but it can also be misused to create dukkha.
NMRK32 wrote: Of course it's all constructed from the point of self. Its myself that I'm trying to logically convince, train and exercise in the dharma. If the dharma makes no sense to my conventional self then how does it differ from biblical religions where what is said is taken on faith?
The emphasis on direct experience and understanding cause and effect rather than believing things based solely on faith is one difference. To work towards the cessation of dukkha there is a path of practice available. If the cessation of dukkha isn't perceived as a sufficient goal then the path may not seem worthwhile.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by binocular »

NMRK32 wrote: Of course it's all constructed from the point of self. Its myself that I'm trying to logically convince, train and exercise in the dharma. If the dharma makes no sense to my conventional self then how does it differ from biblical religions where what is said is taken on faith?
Then we're back to basic meta-religious issues, such as conversion and justification for conversion. There can be quite a bit to clear up in this, depending on the individual person.

On the whole, I think that the seeming availability of world's religions to Westerners can easily leave one with the impression that one is able and welcome to take up any religion that may happen to be on offer or seem on offer.
But just because preachers and other members of religions advertise their religions and invite people to join or at least to "come and see," and just because one is able to physically attend a religious establishment and follow through with a daily regimen of religio-spiritual practice, that doesn't really mean much in terms of actual availability of a particular religious path for a person.

Some years back, the Dalai Lama spoke out against people converting to Buddhism. He was met with quite a bit of criticism from Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike. I tend to agree with him, though. I think many Westerners have the tendency to take religious conversion too lightly and too easily, and as a result, end up with a lot of trouble for themselves (and for others too).
NMRK32 wrote:/.../
This is where I believe we Buddhists actually lose the plot,
Who are "we Buddhists"?
I think actual Buddhists never feel like they have lost the plot when explaining the Dhamma to others (or to themselves).
If someone indeed "loses the plot" like this, then why call themselves a "Buddhist"?
NMRK32 wrote:Or being the great accomplished teacher that he is he could just draw pictures on the blackboard and still get the kid to understand without the complex equations.
I don't think so. Some things simply are so complex or so specific that a person without sufficient knowledge and experience already present simply cannot understand them or relate to them.
pardon my french. We carry on and on with the Pali and the endless quoting of Scripture instead of cracking on with teaching each other and helping with the essential understanding on the dharma. We get lost in our own texts.
In short, I think you're either asking for something that nobody can give you, or have not established the interpersonal relationship in which that which you're asking for could be given and received.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by binocular »

culaavuso wrote:To work towards the cessation of dukkha there is a path of practice available.
That such a path is in fact available has to be taken on faith, though!

If the cessation of dukkha isn't perceived as a sufficient goal then the path may not seem worthwhile.
The desire to make an end to suffering does not automatically reveal which supposed path is the right one.
There are numerous paths on offer, all promising to end one's suffering.
Just the fact that there are so many paths promising that makes one pause and rethink.
And after one has gotten burnt a few times, one tends to become more skeptical and reserved about it all as well.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by culaavuso »

binocular wrote:
culaavuso wrote:To work towards the cessation of dukkha there is a path of practice available.
That such a path is in fact available has to be taken on faith, though!
It can be helpful to keep in mind the difference between a working hypothesis and blind faith. A working hypothesis provides a means to test and reach an understanding that is not a matter of faith.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by binocular »

culaavuso wrote:It can be helpful to keep in mind the difference between a working hypothesis and blind faith. A working hypothesis provides a means to test and reach an understanding that is not a matter of faith.
Teachers from several major religions like to emphasize testing and experimenting, working with working hypotheses. This sounds very scientific, and seems to require minimum faith and to minimize error.

But it is not clear how it is possible to actually perform an experiment in the domain of religion/spirituality, given that there are no constants, only variables in such an experiment (so it's not actually an experiment).

An experiment can only be performed when there are constants and variables that we can observe. But in the domain of religion/spirituality, there are no constants that a seeker could work with, because _everything_ is under scrutiny. Ie. in attempting an experiment in the domain of religion/spirituality, every definition, every concept, every experience is under scrutiny.

Moreover, in the domain of religion/spirituality, there is a keen consideration that there is likely a number of causes at work, wherefore it is impossible to discover what the exact cause and effect relationships are.


I am inclined to think that a mostly intuitive, emotional, vague, and even dogmatic approach (!) to religion may be more effective in terms of reaching the goals of a religion, than to try to understand and analyze what it teaches and then practice based on that.
I realize this sounds irrational and counterproductive, especially in regard to Buddhism. But this has been my conclusion so far, after many years of trying to understand religion analytically.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by culaavuso »

binocular wrote: An experiment can only be performed when there are constants and variables that we can observe.
When there is observation of stress and suffering, there can be experimentation to reduce the intensity, duration, and frequency of such observation. If there is no observation of stress and suffering, there would seem to be no purpose in motivation to pursue a path to end it.
Post Reply