Suffering as a gateway to the truth

[Bundokji]

What I wanted to say is that 5 khandhas and 6 sense doors it's a big burden, and while one can experience the absence of this burden, he can understand how much is actually a burden and how dukkha all experiences are, pleasant or unpleasant, bodily or mentaly.
No body wants to live with constantly 100 kilos on his shoulders, in the same way there is no any wise man who wants to continue experiencing 5 khandhas an 6 senses...

When there is form, feeling, perception, formation, sense consciousness - there is burden, when there is burden -there is dukkha, unless you a powerlifter and you enjoy to not be able to breath because of the weight on your shoulders. The breath of the freedom from burden is the foremost among beathings.

Personally, i try to distinguish between paying attention to what we tend to overlook, and between being overly negative about what i came to be. We come to the Buddha with enough problems, and if his teachings become one more problem to deal with, then i would forget about it.

Peace

[SDC]

Even if the teleological nature is a result of self view, the teachings seem to encourage acknowledging it rather than denying it through formulating the end of suffering as a "goal".

There is no choice but to start there in the wrong view, but through the nature of desire, through the wrong view - literally at the expense of the wrong view - will be the direction towards the right view.

Bhikkhus, there are these four right strivings. What four? (1) Here, a bhikkhu generates desire for the non-arising of unarisen bad unwholesome states; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. (2) He generates desire for the abandoning of arisen bad unwholesome states; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. (3) He generates desire for the arising of unarisen wholesome states; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. (4) He generates desire for the persistence of arisen wholesome states, for their non-decline, increase, expansion, and fulfillment by development; he makes an effort, arouses energy, applies his mind, and strives. These are the four right strivings.”
...

This wholesome desire is still teleological in nature, but the key difference here is that the fulfillment means the abandonment of the nature of purpose. Things would still arise, but without the significance of being "mine".

Or to put it differently, the aimless nature of things would give rise to "cessation" as an ultimate goal for a purposive being living in an aimless world.

Are you saying that bringing the aimlessness to an end would be the goal for a purposive being? Well, of course it would. If that person had a vested interest in their own existence, and it was the aimless nature that made them suffer, then of course by removing that complication of an aimless world, it would release that being from suffering. In fact, their own death would be a release from suffering even if they were subject to rebirth. But we both know the Buddha didn't teach that.

Take this into consideration:

Thought and lust are a man’s sensuality,
Not the various things in the world;
Thought and lust are a man’s sensuality,
The various things just stand there in the world;
But the wise get rid of desire therein.

The five-holding-aggregates, friend Visākha, are not just holding; but neither is there holding apart from the five-holding-aggregates. That, friend Visākha, in the five-holding-aggregates which is desire-&-lust, that holding is therein.

If a person is not free from suffering there is no possibility whatsoever that they would not have purpose. Why? Because craving is present, and even the most distorted denial of purpose is still a purposeful act. My point is that a puthujjana can't even fathom a world without purpose because even their desire for "cessation of things in the world" is a wrong understanding of freedom from suffering. They have to see that it is wrongly understanding the arrangement of any one of the aggregates juxtaposed to the others that leads to regarding any one of them as Self (SN 22.47). Things do not have to cease in order for that distortion to be discerned.

Nevertheless, the Buddha was clear about the nature of things, and it does not change even with the removal of the nature of ownership:

If, Ānanda, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Ānanda, what are the things of which an arising is manifest, a ceasing is manifest, a persisting-while-changing is discerned?’—being asked thus, Ānanda, how would you answer?”

His answer: the five aggregates.

So things are never aimless. They have the nature to manifest in those three ways even for the arahant.

Please let me know if I misunderstood your example of aimlessness.

[chownah]

If you want to think that stones are better than humans that's ok with me.....where does it get you?....where do you go with this as a starting point?....but....don't try to make believe that this is what the buddha taught or the message he intended you to receive.
chownah

Where did i say that stones are better than humans?

Thanks

Why this rhetorical posturing? You know exactly what and where you posted that which prompted my reply...why pretend like you don't?.....???
chownah

[chownah]

....a conditional statement ......which was designed to show what is potentially wrong with reducing the goal to ending suffering. It is not a reflection of what i believe! I am surprised that you read it as such!

Here you go spinning things to a misrepresentation....having the view that the buddha only taught the end of suffering is not a "reduction" of the goal which the buddha taught...it IS the goal which the buddha taught....you are trying to spin things so that YOUR goal is the goal that the buddha taught and that by taking that ending suffering as the only thing the buddha taught that it is a reduction of the goal he taught....which it is not.

What do you think about the buddha declaring that the end of suffering/stress is all that he taught?....was he joking?....was he lying?....if he actually did convey a "higher truth" and did not expound on it directly was he holding something back....is there an occult side of the buddha's teachings with the "higher truth" being its message?

[Alīno]

Personally, i try to distinguish between paying attention to what we tend to overlook, and between being overly negative about what i came to be. We come to the Buddha with enough problems, and if his teachings become one more problem to deal with, then i would forget about it.

Peace

Don't conceptualize it, just practice Sila (morality) Samadhi (cultivation of wholesome qualities of mind) and Panna (discernment) in way to see it as not me not mine not myself.
Your suffering comes from concepts and thinking, don't think - but feel. ObserveThis world is not the world of knowledge but the world of experience.

[Bundokji]

Here you go spinning things to a misrepresentation....having the view that the buddha only taught the end of suffering is not a "reduction" of the goal which the buddha taught...it IS the goal which the buddha taught....you are trying to spin things so that YOUR goal is the goal that the buddha taught and that by taking that ending suffering as the only thing the buddha taught that it is a reduction of the goal he taught....which it is not.

What do you think about the buddha declaring that the end of suffering/stress is all that he taught?....was he joking?....was he lying?....if he actually did convey a "higher truth" and did not expound on it directly was he holding something back....is there an occult side of the buddha's teachings with the "higher truth" being its message?

In the Loka sutta, the Buddha reduced the world to whatever is experienced through the six senses. Does that mean he was teaching solipsism?

Your position is similar to those who conclude solipsism based on the Loka sutta. If you can't see it, there is nothing i can do about it.

And when you try to argue with those who read solipsism in the Loka sutta, they can do the same as you are doing now. They would ask: was he joking, was he lying ...etc

[chownah]

Here you go spinning things to a misrepresentation....having the view that the buddha only taught the end of suffering is not a "reduction" of the goal which the buddha taught...it IS the goal which the buddha taught....you are trying to spin things so that YOUR goal is the goal that the buddha taught and that by taking that ending suffering as the only thing the buddha taught that it is a reduction of the goal he taught....which it is not.

What do you think about the buddha declaring that the end of suffering/stress is all that he taught?....was he joking?....was he lying?....if he actually did convey a "higher truth" and did not expound on it directly was he holding something back....is there an occult side of the buddha's teachings with the "higher truth" being its message?

In the Loka sutta, the Buddha reduced the world to whatever is experienced through the six senses. Does that mean he was teaching solipsism?

Your position is similar to those who conclude solipsism based on the Loka sutta. If you can't see it, there is nothing i can do about it.

And when you try to argue with those who read solipsism in the Loka sutta, they can do the same as you are doing now. They would ask: was he joking, was he lying ...etc

You have not replied to anything I said. You have changed to another subect and it really looks like you have done so to avoid replying to anything I have said and yet to give the impression that you have.....

chownah

[Bundokji]

You have not replied to anything I said. You have changed to another subect and it really looks like you have done so to avoid replying to anything I have said and yet to give the impression that you have.....

"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."

I answered you in accordance with the two underlined methods.

[Bundokji]

This wholesome desire is still teleological in nature, but the key difference here is that the fulfillment means the abandonment of the nature of purpose. Things would still arise, but without the significance of being "mine".

I am not sure if the nature of purpose is abandoned in the case of the Arahant because they are still capable of using intention. My interpretation is that assuming a purpose at the macro level can be the result of the fallacy of composition where it is assumed that what is applicable at the level of individual action (purpose) is true for the whole (life which is the sum of individual actions) and which has to do with our sense of self continuity.

Are you saying that bringing the aimlessness to an end would be the goal for a purposive being? Well, of course it would. If that person had a vested interest in their own existence, and it was the aimless nature that made them suffer, then of course by removing that complication of an aimless world, it would release that being from suffering. In fact, their own death would be a release from suffering even if they were subject to rebirth. But we both know the Buddha didn't teach that.

Carl Jung said that a man cannot stand a meaningless life, which i tend to agree with. I don't think nature is either aimless or purposive, but that aimlessness is the shadow of our purposive nature. One cannot exist without the other.

Please let me know if I misunderstood your example of aimlessness.

You did not, and i am very grateful for your insightful contribution

[alfa]

If, Ānanda, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Ānanda, what are the things of which an arising is manifest, a ceasing is manifest, a persisting-while-changing is discerned?’—being asked thus, Ānanda, how would you answer?”

Can u explain the bolded part?

[binocular]

Who is "we"?

Human beings in general and Buddhists in particular.

You don't get to speak for everyone.
I am certainly not included in your "we", nor are millions of cradle Asian Buddhists, for example.

Please note that i am not saying that we don't care about ending suffering, surely we do. However, reducing the goal only to that (by disassociating it from knowledge) is absurd in my opinion.

Who is doing that reduction, other than you?

The goal of what? Some particular notion of what spiritual practice/wisdom should be like?

The Buddha said that he only taught suffering and the end of suffering; and he said that all the other things that he knows are irrelevant to the problem of suffering.

If you're coming from the perspective of some particular non-Buddhist notion of what spiritual practice/wisdom should be like, then, sure, then cessation of suffering is a reduction. But it's not a reduction from a Buddhist perspective.

If you start off with that, then you're in a deadlock position. Similar to the person who is contemplating to be baptized into a Christian church, but who acknowledges that he is fallen and sinful and therefore incapable of recognizing which Christian church is the right one and thus to be baptized into.

If it is a position, then your description would be correct. In Buddhism as i understand it, we are not encouraged to take "positions" but to investigate.

"A 'position,' Vaccha, is something that a Tathagata has done away with.

You're putting the cart before the horse.
You're taking, for example, the three characteristics for granted, even before you have committed to the Buddha as your teacher.

There is an order to doing things, there is a graduality of the practice. Not for some formal, bureocratic purpose, but because things are possible, can happen, can take place only in that order. While not in some other order.

[binocular]

Even if the teleological nature is a result of self view, the teachings seem to encourage acknowledging it rather than denying it through formulating the end of suffering as a "goal".

There is no choice but to start there in the wrong view, but through the nature of desire, through the wrong view - literally at the expense of the wrong view - will be the direction towards the right view.

"And what is right view? Right view, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions [of becoming]; there is right view that is noble, without effluents, transcendent, a factor of the path.

"And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .than.html

Right view with effluents requires self-identification view.
One with self-identification view builds on it by cultivating right view with effluents.
Right view with effluents is implied in the practice of generosity (a typical Buddhist focus), in the practice of the four brahmaviharas, in the practice of gratitude, and more. It's, basically, what ordinary lay native Asian Buddhists in traditionally Buddhist countries are taught and do under the heading of "Buddhism".


It is my conclusion that since by default, people typically have self-identification view, they need to start off with cultivating right view with effluents; which then, when cultivated, leads to right view without effluents. I suppose it is possible for a person to start off with right view without effluents, because their self-identification view has somehow already been eliminated*. But I suppose those people don't post much on internet forums.

*Which is not to be confused with having a dysfunctional personality/ego.

[chownah]

Indeed. If the only criteria as to why the Buddha's teachings are superior is ending suffering, then stones would be superior to the average human being by virtue of what you mentioned: they don't suffer and can't suffer.

Here is where you talked about stones being better than humans....is your memory so short?....
chownah

The above is not evidence of my short memory, but possibly your inability to understand what a conditional statement means (beginning with "if") and which was designed to show what is potentially wrong with reducing the goal to ending suffering. It is not a reflection of what i believe! I am surprised that you read it as such!

In case you have forgotten, here is what you are replying to:

If you want to think that stones are better than humans that's ok with me....

I am surprise that you think that I am offering a reflection of what you believe! I think this misconception is evidence of your possible inability to undestand what a conditional statement means (beginning with if).
chownah

[chownah]

You have not replied to anything I said. You have changed to another subect and it really looks like you have done so to avoid replying to anything I have said and yet to give the impression that you have.....

"There are these four ways of answering questions. Which four? There are questions that should be answered categorically [straightforwardly yes, no, this, that]. There are questions that should be answered with an analytical (qualified) answer [defining or redefining the terms]. There are questions that should be answered with a counter-question. There are questions that should be put aside. These are the four ways of answering questions."

I answered you in accordance with the two underlined methods.

I doubt it. I can't see that you have done either of these things....you have simply found a way to dodge giving an explanation of why you keep trying to spin the concept of the goal towards your conception of goal and using that show inadequacy on the buddha's teachings with respect to the goal he declared which was that he only taught the end of suffering.....and to dodge giving your explanation of why the buddha declared that he only taught the end of suffering if in your view he actually taught some "higher" truth....why didn't he declare that he taught that "higher" truth?
chownah

[SDC]

If, Ānanda, they were to ask you: ‘Friend Ānanda...what are the things of which an arising is manifest, a ceasing is manifest, a persisting-while-changing is discerned?’—being asked thus, Ānanda, how would you answer?”

Can u explain the bolded part?

The phrase is ṭhitassa aññathattaṃ paññāyatī’ti and has been rendered several different ways over the years:

persisting-while-changing is manifest
change-while-standing...
alteration of that which stands...
change-while-persisting...
Invariance under transformation...

Think of your body for instance. It continues to be that same body in the sense that it is persisting through change. Persisting through growth, alteration. In different particular ways your body has changed, but what hasn't changed is that it is the fact that it stands for same thing until it breaks up. It is an enduring phenomenon, despite its particular alterations.

If you look at the sutta, all three of those states (arising, ceasing, persist-while-changing) share the nature to manifest, which could be interpreted as: the five aggregates have the nature to manifest as arising, manifest as ceasing and manifest as enduring.