What Buddha Taught, was [NDS] Feelings

[Guest guest]

Hi Michael,

>snip<

>did the Buddha teach that after enlightenment normal

>human feelings

>would not be felt or that they could be observed dispassionately while

>being felt?

 

Gautama said that human life is full of suffering.

 

And he said the cause of our suffering is desire - wanting things, having

expectations. When we don't get what we want, we are unhappy, we suffer.

If we get what we want, we are happy, but it is only temporary, because we

are sure to lose it and then be unhappy again.

 

And he said the way to end suffering is to end desire and expectations, to

give up wanting what you don't have and expecting people to do this or

that, to give up attachments, to live in such balance that you enjoy what

is at the moment and don't live in expectation of this and that.

 

And he said the way to arrive at a condition where you have no desire and

no suffering is to follow the Eightfold Path: Right Ideas, Right

Resolution, Right Speech, Right Behavior, Right Vocation, Right Effort,

Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.

 

These four teachings are called the Four Noble Truths:

1) the Truth of Suffering

2) the Truth of the Cause of Suffering

3) the Truth of the Ending of Suffering, and

4) the Truth of the Noble Path to the Ending of Desire.

 

And I have given a verrry sketchy and inadequate description of it. I

open my books, and I see chapters on each one of the Noble Truths.

Analysis of the exact words he used, and so on. For instance, Rahula says

that "the term _dukkha_ in the First Noble Truth contains, quite obviously,

the ordinary meaning of 'suffering', but in addition it also includes

deeper ideas such as 'imperfection', impermanence', emptiness',

'insubstantiality'." If you want to know more, there are many good books

on it.

 

Here's a story I love, about a student who tried to get Gautama into a long

discussion of philosophical and metaphysical issues. He usually refused to

be side-tracked into discussing such matters.

 

[Just a note on one word used here: "_Tathagata_ lit. means 'One who has

come to Truth', i.e., 'One who has discovered Truth'. This is the term

usually used by the Buddha referring to himself and to the Buddhas in

general." Rahula, p. 1n.]

> One day Malunkyaputta got up from his afternoon meditation, went to the

>Buddha, saluted him, sat on one side and said:

> 'Sir, when I was all alone meditating, this thought occurred to me:

>There are these problems unexplained, put aside and rejected by the

>Blessed One. Namely, (I) is the universe eternal or (2) is it not eternal,

>(3) is the universe finite or (4) is it infinite, (5) is soul the same as

>body or (6) is soul one thing and body another thing, (7) does the

>Tathagata exist after death, or (8) does he not exist after death, or (9)

>does he both (at the same time) exist and not exist after death, or (10)

>does he both (at the same time) not exist and not not-exist. These

>problems the Blessed One does not explain to me. This (attitude) does not

>please me, I do not appreciate it. I will go to the Blessed One and ask

>him about this matter. If the Blessed One explains them to me, then I will

>continue to follow the holy life under him. If he does not explain them, I

>will leave the Order and go away. If the Blessed One knows that the

>universe is eternal, let him explain it to me so. If the Blessed One knows

>that the universe is not eternal, let him say so. If the Blessed One does

>not know whether the universe is eternal or not, etc., then for a person

>who does not know, it is straight-forward to say "I do not know, I do not

>see".'

> The Buddha's reply to Malunkyaputta should do good to many millions in

>the world today who are wasting valuable time on such metaphysical

>questions and unnecessarily disturbing their peace of mind:

> 'Did I ever tell you, Malunkyaputta, "Come, Malunkyaputta, lead the

>holy life under me, I will explain these questions to you?"'

> 'No, Sir.'

> 'Then, Malunkyaputta, even you, did you tell me: "Sir, I will lead the

>holy life under the Blessed One, and the Blessed One will explain these

>questions to me"?'

> 'No, Sir.'

> 'Even now, Malunkyaputta, I do not tell you: "Come and lead the holy

>life under me, I will explain these questions to you". And you do not tell

>me either: "Sir, I will lead the holy life under the Blessed One, and he

>will explain these questions to me". Under these circumstances, you

>foolish one, who refuses whom?

> 'Malunkyaputta, if anyone says: "I will not lead the holy life under

>the Blessed One until he explains these questions," he may die with these

>questions unanswered by the Tathagata. Suppose Malunkyaputta, a man is

>wounded by a poisoned arrow, and his friends and relatives bring him to a

>surgeon. Suppose the man should then say: "I will not let this arrow be

>taken out until I know who shot me; whether he is a Ksatriya (of the

>warrior caste) or a Brahmana (of the priestly caste) or a Vaisya (of the

>trading and agricultural caste) or a Sudra (of the low caste); what his

>name and family may be; whether he is tall, short, or of medium stature;

>whether his complexion is black, brown, or golden; from which village,

>town or city he comes. I will not let this arrow be taken out until I know

>the kind of bow with which I was shot; the kind of bowstring used; the

>type of arrow; what sort of feather was used on the arrow and with what

>kind of material the point of the arrow was made." Malunkyaputta, that man

>would die without knowing any of these things. Even so, Malunkyaputta, if

>anyone says: "I will not follow the holy life under the Blessed One until

>he answers these questions such as whether the universe is eternal or not,

>etc.," he would die with these questions unanswered by the Tathagata.'

> Then the Buddha explains to Malunkyaputta that the holy life does not

>depend on these views. Whatever opinion one may have about these problems,

>there is birth, old age, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief,

>distress, "the Cessation of which (i.e. Nirvana) I declare in this very

>life."

> 'Therefore, Malunkyaputta, bear in mind what I have explained as

>explained, and what I have not explained as unexplained. What are the

>things that I have not explained? Whether the universe is eternal or not,

>etc., (those 10 opinions) I have not explained. Why, Malunkyaputta, have I

>not explained them? Because it is not useful, it is not fundamentally

>connected with the spiritual holy life, is not conducive to aversion,

>detachment, cessation, tranquillity, deep penetration, full realization,

>Nirvana. That is why I have not told you about them.

> 'Then, what, Malunkyaputta, have I explained? I have explained

>_dukkha_, the arising of _dukkha_, the cessation of _dukkha_, and the way

>leading to the cessation of _dukkha_.' Why, Malunkyaputta, have I

>explained them? Because it is useful, is fundamentally connected with the

>spiritual holy life, is conducive to aversion, detachment, cessation,

>tranquillity, deep penetration, full realization, Nirvana. Therefore I

>have explained them.'

- Walpola Rahula, _What the Buddha Taught_, pp. 13-15.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Dear Dharma:

 

Thanks for taking the time to post this

wonderful treatise.

 

Michael

 

At 05:53 AM 8/15/2001, you wrote:

>Hi Michael,

>

> >snip<

> >did the Buddha teach that after enlightenment normal

> >human feelings

> >would not be felt or that they could be observed dispassionately while

> >being felt?

>

>Gautama said that human life is full of suffering.

>

>And he said the cause of our suffering is desire - wanting things, having

>expectations. When we don't get what we want, we are unhappy, we suffer.

>If we get what we want, we are happy, but it is only temporary, because we

>are sure to lose it and then be unhappy again.

>

>And he said the way to end suffering is to end desire and expectations, to

>give up wanting what you don't have and expecting people to do this or

>that, to give up attachments, to live in such balance that you enjoy what

>is at the moment and don't live in expectation of this and that.

>

>And he said the way to arrive at a condition where you have no desire and

>no suffering is to follow the Eightfold Path: Right Ideas, Right

>Resolution, Right Speech, Right Behavior, Right Vocation, Right Effort,

>Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration.

>

>These four teachings are called the Four Noble Truths:

> 1) the Truth of Suffering

> 2) the Truth of the Cause of Suffering

> 3) the Truth of the Ending of Suffering, and

> 4) the Truth of the Noble Path to the Ending of Desire.

>

>And I have given a verrry sketchy and inadequate description of it. I

>open my books, and I see chapters on each one of the Noble Truths.

>Analysis of the exact words he used, and so on. For instance, Rahula says

>that "the term _dukkha_ in the First Noble Truth contains, quite obviously,

>the ordinary meaning of 'suffering', but in addition it also includes

>deeper ideas such as 'imperfection', impermanence', emptiness',

>'insubstantiality'." If you want to know more, there are many good books

>on it.

>

>Here's a story I love, about a student who tried to get Gautama into a long

>discussion of philosophical and metaphysical issues. He usually refused to

>be side-tracked into discussing such matters.

>

>[Just a note on one word used here: "_Tathagata_ lit. means 'One who has

>come to Truth', i.e., 'One who has discovered Truth'. This is the term

>usually used by the Buddha referring to himself and to the Buddhas in

>general." Rahula, p. 1n.]

>

> > One day Malunkyaputta got up from his afternoon meditation, went to the

> >Buddha, saluted him, sat on one side and said:

> > 'Sir, when I was all alone meditating, this thought occurred to me:

> >There are these problems unexplained, put aside and rejected by the

> >Blessed One. Namely, (I) is the universe eternal or (2) is it not eternal,

> >(3) is the universe finite or (4) is it infinite, (5) is soul the same as

> >body or (6) is soul one thing and body another thing, (7) does the

> >Tathagata exist after death, or (8) does he not exist after death, or (9)

> >does he both (at the same time) exist and not exist after death, or (10)

> >does he both (at the same time) not exist and not not-exist. These

> >problems the Blessed One does not explain to me. This (attitude) does not

> >please me, I do not appreciate it. I will go to the Blessed One and ask

> >him about this matter. If the Blessed One explains them to me, then I will

> >continue to follow the holy life under him. If he does not explain them, I

> >will leave the Order and go away. If the Blessed One knows that the

> >universe is eternal, let him explain it to me so. If the Blessed One knows

> >that the universe is not eternal, let him say so. If the Blessed One does

> >not know whether the universe is eternal or not, etc., then for a person

> >who does not know, it is straight-forward to say "I do not know, I do not

> >see".'

> > The Buddha's reply to Malunkyaputta should do good to many millions in

> >the world today who are wasting valuable time on such metaphysical

> >questions and unnecessarily disturbing their peace of mind:

> > 'Did I ever tell you, Malunkyaputta, "Come, Malunkyaputta, lead the

> >holy life under me, I will explain these questions to you?"'

> > 'No, Sir.'

> > 'Then, Malunkyaputta, even you, did you tell me: "Sir, I will lead the

> >holy life under the Blessed One, and the Blessed One will explain these

> >questions to me"?'

> > 'No, Sir.'

> > 'Even now, Malunkyaputta, I do not tell you: "Come and lead the holy

> >life under me, I will explain these questions to you". And you do not tell

> >me either: "Sir, I will lead the holy life under the Blessed One, and he

> >will explain these questions to me". Under these circumstances, you

> >foolish one, who refuses whom?

> > 'Malunkyaputta, if anyone says: "I will not lead the holy life under

> >the Blessed One until he explains these questions," he may die with these

> >questions unanswered by the Tathagata. Suppose Malunkyaputta, a man is

> >wounded by a poisoned arrow, and his friends and relatives bring him to a

> >surgeon. Suppose the man should then say: "I will not let this arrow be

> >taken out until I know who shot me; whether he is a Ksatriya (of the

> >warrior caste) or a Brahmana (of the priestly caste) or a Vaisya (of the

> >trading and agricultural caste) or a Sudra (of the low caste); what his

> >name and family may be; whether he is tall, short, or of medium stature;

> >whether his complexion is black, brown, or golden; from which village,

> >town or city he comes. I will not let this arrow be taken out until I know

> >the kind of bow with which I was shot; the kind of bowstring used; the

> >type of arrow; what sort of feather was used on the arrow and with what

> >kind of material the point of the arrow was made." Malunkyaputta, that man

> >would die without knowing any of these things. Even so, Malunkyaputta, if

> >anyone says: "I will not follow the holy life under the Blessed One until

> >he answers these questions such as whether the universe is eternal or not,

> >etc.," he would die with these questions unanswered by the Tathagata.'

> > Then the Buddha explains to Malunkyaputta that the holy life does not

> >depend on these views. Whatever opinion one may have about these problems,

> >there is birth, old age, decay, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief,

> >distress, "the Cessation of which (i.e. Nirvana) I declare in this very

> >life."

> > 'Therefore, Malunkyaputta, bear in mind what I have explained as

> >explained, and what I have not explained as unexplained. What are the

> >things that I have not explained? Whether the universe is eternal or not,

> >etc., (those 10 opinions) I have not explained. Why, Malunkyaputta, have I

> >not explained them? Because it is not useful, it is not fundamentally

> >connected with the spiritual holy life, is not conducive to aversion,

> >detachment, cessation, tranquillity, deep penetration, full realization,

> >Nirvana. That is why I have not told you about them.

> > 'Then, what, Malunkyaputta, have I explained? I have explained

> >_dukkha_, the arising of _dukkha_, the cessation of _dukkha_, and the way

> >leading to the cessation of _dukkha_.' Why, Malunkyaputta, have I

> >explained them? Because it is useful, is fundamentally connected with the

> >spiritual holy life, is conducive to aversion, detachment, cessation,

> >tranquillity, deep penetration, full realization, Nirvana. Therefore I

> >have explained them.'

> - Walpola Rahula, _What the Buddha Taught_, pp. 13-15.

>

>Love,

>Dharma

>

>

>

>/join

>

>

>

>

>

>All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

>perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and

>subside back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not

>different than the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the

>nature of Awareness. Awareness does not come and go but is always Present.

>It is Home. Home is where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the

>Finality of Eternal Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of

>Self-Knowledge, spontaneously arising from within into It Self. Welcome

>all to a.

>

>

>

>Your use of is subject to

>

>

>

>

>---

>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

>Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release 7/18/2001

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.265 / Virus Database: 137 - Release 7/18/2001

[Guest guest]

Dear Dharma,

 

That Walpola Rahula's book, "What The Buddha Taught" (1957) gets reprinted

again and again, is quite astounding. The Buddha photographs are so

beautiful. They still teach from it here at the University in Victoria.

 

Thank you for retelling this story.

When I was 13/14, it was the gist of this story that had me stand up in

"Religion Class," (at a Jesuit College, I sat in the far back left corner of

the room), and tell the teacher after his expose on "good and evil, god and

satan," that he used the wrong philosophy, which was no philosophy at all,

"You cannot put "god" and "evil" together, they are not at par."

"You cannot put them, (evil under the name of satan), together as equals

or... opposites of equal value."

"Opposites such as good and evil do not exist in the real world."

"Life is full of suffering, but life per se is not suffering."

Etc.

 

I did get applauded by the class, which the teacher tried to stop by

screaming "The Devil makes you say that! The Devil makes you say that!"

He did not last long, the teacher that is, as "theDevilnever"

"was."

I did get a special award that year. Yes, it was a Jesuit College... but in

Holland that is possible of course...

 

Interesting that you use the same words as I did (in Dutch of course)

> Gautama said that human life is *full of* suffering.

Most books on Buddhism say that Gautama Sakyamuni said that "Life is

suffering" meaning "all of it."

Life is THE miracle...not being the miracle is for sure suffering.

 

Love, Dharma... your name fits.

Wim

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.268 / Virus Database: 140 - Release 8/7/2001

[Guest guest]

> Then the Buddha explains to Malunkyaputta that the holy life

does not>depend on these views. Whatever opinion one may have about

these problems,>there is birth, old age, decay, death, sorrow,

lamentation, pain, grief,>distress, "the Cessation of which (i.e.

Nirvana) I declare in this very>life."> 'Therefore,

Malunkyaputta, bear in mind what I have explained as>explained, and

what I have not explained as unexplained. What are the>things that I

have not explained? Whether the universe is eternal or not,>etc.,

(those 10 opinions) I have not explained. Why, Malunkyaputta, have

I>not explained them? Because it is not useful, it is not

fundamentally>connected with the spiritual holy life, is not

conducive to aversion,>detachment, cessation, tranquillity, deep

penetration, full realization,>Nirvana. That is why I have not told

you about them.> 'Then, what, Malunkyaputta, have I explained? I

have explained>_dukkha_, the arising of _dukkha_, the cessation of

_dukkha_, and the way>leading to the cessation of _dukkha_.' Why,

Malunkyaputta, have I>explained them? Because it is useful, is

fundamentally connected with the>spiritual holy life, is conducive to

aversion, detachment, cessation,>tranquillity, deep penetration, full

realization, Nirvana. Therefore I>have explained them.' -

Walpola Rahula, _What the Buddha Taught_, pp. 13-15.Love,DharmaThank

you Dharma,

 

Here is a short post elaborating on the meaning of "right" in the eightfold path.

 

"yick keng hang"

The 4th Noble Truth of the Dharma is also known as the EightfoldPath

(marga). It offers us a realization and a practice to end

dukkha(suffering), and thus Nirvana.The peculiar nature of the Noble

Eightfold Path (i.e. the 4th NT) isthat the moment we step on it, we

will realize that it works. Andwith each step we take, we deepen our

understanding of the Dharma.The 8 aspects are:Right

View/Understanding, Rt Thought/Intention, Rt Speech,Rt Action, Rt

Livelihood, Rt Effort, Rt Mindfulness, andRt

Meditation/Concentration.But what is "RIGHT" in the context of the

Noble Eightfold Path?The word the Buddha actually used was "SAMMA."

Samma is nowconventionally translated as "Right" in all the Buddhist

texts - butnot the "Right" as opposed to "Wrong", or "Bad"

connotation. It isnot to be implied as the dualism of Right & Left,

Right & Wrong.This is not what the Buddha meant by "samma.""Right,"

on the 8-fold Path, does not mean right versus wrong. Theterm "samma"

suggests something subtle. Perhaps a better substitute of"Right" is

"Appropriate". "This is appropriate,this works," or"this is in

sync with Reality." Reality as opposed to being "deluded"by our own

prejudices, thoughts and beliefs."Samma" refers to "Wholeness" rather

than fragmentation.Thus the use of the word "Right" in the Noble

Eight-fold Path refersto what is "conducive to awakening," rather

than something that canbe compared against something "wrong."

[Guest guest]

Hi Glo,

>Here is a short post elaborating on the meaning of "right" in

>the eightfold path.

>

> "yick keng hang"

>

>snip<

>But what is "RIGHT" in the context of the Noble Eightfold Path?The word

>the Buddha actually used was "SAMMA." Samma is now conventionally

>translated as "Right" in all the Buddhist texts - but not the "Right" as

>opposed to "Wrong", or "Bad" connotation. It is not to be implied as the

>dualism of Right & Left, Right & Wrong.

>

>This is not what the Buddha meant by "samma.""Right," on the 8-fold Path,

>does not mean right versus wrong. The term "samma" suggests something

>subtle. Perhaps a better substitute of "Right" is "Appropriate".

"This is

>appropriate,this works," or "this is in sync with

Reality." Reality as opposed to being "deluded" by our own prejudices,

thoughts and beliefs. "Samma" refers to "Wholeness" rather than

fragmentation. Thus the use of the word "Right" in the Noble Eight-fold

Path refers to what is "conducive to awakening," rather than something that

can be compared against something "wrong."

 

Thanks so much!! I'm always interested in the original words... it helps

so much when we have to read something in translation. Maybe some day I'll

find the time to study Sanskrit.

 

Love,

Dharma

[Guest guest]

Hi Wim,

>snip<

>When I was 13/14, it was the gist of this story that had me stand up in

>"Religion Class," (at a Jesuit College, I sat in the far back left corner of

>the room), and tell the teacher after his expose on "good and evil, god and

>satan," that he used the wrong philosophy, which was no philosophy at all,

>"You cannot put "god" and "evil" together, they are not at par."

>"You cannot put them, (evil under the name of satan), together as equals

>or... opposites of equal value."

>"Opposites such as good and evil do not exist in the real world."

>"Life is full of suffering, but life per se is not suffering."

>Etc.

>

>I did get applauded by the class, which the teacher tried to stop by

>screaming "The Devil makes you say that! The Devil makes you say that!"

 

Good grief!!

>He did not last long,

 

Not surprising... I'm kind of surprised that this happened at a Jesuit

school, but perhaps the teacher wasn't a Jesuit himself?

 

Maybe he was having his own problems at the time. Reminds me of my one

and only economics professor. I kept trying to get him to explain the

stock market so I could understand it. He kept talking about buying and

selling wheat, and I wanted to know how that ends - who gets the wheat. He

said nobody wants the wheat, they buy and sell. I said well, the wheat is

out there growing, and sooner or later, somebody must get the wheat.

 

He started yelling. "NOBODY gets the wheat! Nobody WANTS the wheat!"

 

I asked him if it's like "musical chairs" - you keep passing this piece of

paper around, and when the wheat is ready to ship, the person who has the

paper gets stuck with the wheat?

 

"NOBODY gets the wheat! Nobody WANTS the wheat!"

 

Poor man, he didn't come back the next semester... we heard he was in a

mental institution. I always felt bad about that, wondered if maybe I had

something to do with putting him there.

 

(Jerry B. and Harsha, there has to be _somebody_ who gets the wheat,

doesn't there?)

>snip<

>Interesting that you use the same words as I did (in Dutch of course)

>> Gautama said that human life is *full of* suffering.

>Most books on Buddhism say that Gautama Sakyamuni said that "Life is

>suffering" meaning "all of it."

>snip<

 

I was very interested to learn that _dukkha_ means not only "suffering,"

but also "impermanence." So we could say, "Human life is full of

impermanence." Or "Everything in human life is impermanent."

 

And we could read "the Ending of Suffering" as "the Ending of

Impermanence." Which is union with the Heart, the Godhead, Brahman, the

All, the ground of being...

 

(Jerry B., is that what Ain Soph means? The All, the ground of being? Can

you tell me what those two words mean?)

>Love, Dharma... your name fits.

>Wim

 

Thanks, honey. I love you too.

 

Love,

Dharma