The Truth of the First Noble Truth

General forum on the teachings of all schools of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Topics specific to one school are best posted in the appropriate sub-forum.
User avatar
odysseus
Posts: 1051
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2012 11:50 pm
Contact:

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by odysseus » Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:47 am

brendan wrote:Buddhas are said to also be beyond doctors.
A funny comparison. Yes they are, but they don´t talk about a disease. They talk about existence and happiness within it.

:focus:
Let a man not seek for the respect of his peers, but let him seek wisdom.

-- Dhammapada

User avatar
lorem
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:27 pm
Location: Fresno, California

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by lorem » Fri Nov 14, 2014 1:24 am

Transcendental Wisdom ... Through the power of the Buddha, the venerable Shariputra approached the ...

EDIT Need to spin this off into second thread for the Second Turning of The Wheel

:focus:
I should be meditating.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25401
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by Malcolm » Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:29 am

brendan wrote:
Malcolm wrote:
brendan wrote:
Malcolm, this is your quote "All benefit that comes to us is the blessings of the Buddhas".
Yes, because the buddhas only wish the best for sentient beings, it is therefore any benefit that befalls them is a blessing of the buddhas.
This is also a quote, "Yes, and there is nothing Buddhas can do about that"...So how can there even be a cognition of a wish?
There may be nothing Buddhas can do to intervene when sentient beings are blindly acting out of affliction and cause themselves needless injury, nevertheless, even though samsara is a terrible place, it is still possible to generate roots of virtue. All positive things that sentient beings do generate such roots, and the Buddhas teach only virtue, therefore, all positive things that happen to sentient beings are a blessing of the Buddhas because the Buddhas bless all roots of virtue as such. Every teaching, every word, which encourages sentient beings to generate virtue is the word of the Buddha, and it does not matter in which religion or secular philosophy it is found — all of them are the teaching of the Buddha, the ultimate root of such teachings come out of the very basis which gives rise to Buddhahood itself, cultivating the root of virtue and generating compassion for sentient beings. Buddhas have limitless compassion so of course they automatically "wish" the benefit of sentient beings.

M
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

brendan
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:25 am

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by brendan » Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:46 am

@Malcolm

The claim is that Buddha's are omniscient....so there for they are aware of _any illness_ for _any_ sentient being (Buddhist or non- Buddhist)......and they have the medication for any of these illnesses....?

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 15153
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by Grigoris » Fri Nov 14, 2014 8:58 am

brendan wrote:@Malcolm

The claim is that Buddha's are omniscient....so there for they are aware of _any illness_ for _any_ sentient being (Buddhist or non- Buddhist)......and they have the medication for any of these illnesses....?
This has already been answered. Go back and contemplate the answers rather than just reacting to them.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

brendan
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:25 am

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by brendan » Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:35 am

Sherab Dorje wrote:
brendan wrote:@Malcolm

The claim is that Buddha's are omniscient....so there for they are aware of _any illness_ for _any_ sentient being (Buddhist or non- Buddhist)......and they have the medication for any of these illnesses....?
This has already been answered. Go back and contemplate the answers rather than just reacting to them.

Yer I know...the medication is only enjoyed by the sentient being if the requirements are meet.

User avatar
Sönam
Posts: 1999
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France
Contact:

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by Sönam » Fri Nov 14, 2014 9:41 am

brendan wrote:
Sherab Dorje wrote:
brendan wrote:@Malcolm

The claim is that Buddha's are omniscient....so there for they are aware of _any illness_ for _any_ sentient being (Buddhist or non- Buddhist)......and they have the medication for any of these illnesses....?
This has already been answered. Go back and contemplate the answers rather than just reacting to them.

Yer I know...the medication is only enjoyed by the sentient being if the requirements are meet.
Definitely you do not contemplate the words used ... it's just that you know.

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 15153
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by Grigoris » Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:06 am

brendan wrote:Yer I know...the medication is only enjoyed by the sentient being if the requirements are meet.
So why you asking the same question repeatedly?
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

brendan
Posts: 101
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2011 11:25 am

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by brendan » Fri Nov 14, 2014 10:16 am

Sherab Dorje wrote:
brendan wrote:Yer I know...the medication is only enjoyed by the sentient being if the requirements are meet.
So why you asking the same question repeatedly?

Question hiding in statement?

User avatar
Grigoris
Global Moderator
Posts: 15153
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 9:27 pm
Location: Greece

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by Grigoris » Fri Nov 14, 2014 12:45 pm

brendan wrote:
Sherab Dorje wrote:
brendan wrote:Yer I know...the medication is only enjoyed by the sentient being if the requirements are meet.
So why you asking the same question repeatedly?

Question hiding in statement?
Cryptic nonsense doesn't really count as an intelligent reply.
"My religion is not deceiving myself."
Jetsun Milarepa 1052-1135 CE

"Butchers, prostitutes, those guilty of the five most heinous crimes, outcasts, the underprivileged: all are utterly the substance of existence and nothing other than total bliss."
The Supreme Source - The Kunjed Gyalpo
The Fundamental Tantra of Dzogchen Semde

User avatar
lorem
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:27 pm
Location: Fresno, California

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by lorem » Fri Nov 14, 2014 2:06 pm

Think Sherab's got a point here.
I should be meditating.

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25401
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by Malcolm » Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:37 pm

brendan wrote:@Malcolm

The claim is that Buddha's are omniscient....so there for they are aware of _any illness_ for _any_ sentient being (Buddhist or non- Buddhist)......and they have the medication for any of these illnesses....?

Right. What is your question?
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

Pringle
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:48 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by Pringle » Fri Nov 14, 2014 3:55 pm

So just to clarify my own thinking with regards to the three types of Dukkha

1) Dukkha Dukkha - This would be the suffering cuased by pain, such as 'ouch i just stubbed my toe'

2) Viparinama Dukkha - This is the suffering of change due to all things being impermenant, as such even if something is giving us pleasure now, such as being in a relationship, then this will ultimatly end up as suffering like when the relationship ends

3) Sankhara Dukkha - The suffering all condition phenomona. This is due to the very nature of 'things' as being part of conditioined phonmena. So even though this really tasty food gives me pleasure now, becuase of the impermenane inherent in the food, it is not a lasting pleasure, and as such wil only result in suffering once the taste goes due to my craving the food.

so how far of the mark am I? I get the feeling im possibly getting Viparinama and Sankhara dukkha slightly confused, but not sure where the confusion lies. They both seem very similer to me, in the sense that its due to the impermenane of things that cuase the suffering (due to the attachment/craving to things).

User avatar
Malcolm
Posts: 25401
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by Malcolm » Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:08 pm

Pringle wrote:So just to clarify my own thinking with regards to the three types of Dukkha

1) Dukkha Dukkha - This would be the suffering cuased by pain, such as 'ouch i just stubbed my toe'

2) Viparinama Dukkha - This is the suffering of change due to all things being impermenant, as such even if something is giving us pleasure now, such as being in a relationship, then this will ultimatly end up as suffering like when the relationship ends

3) Sankhara Dukkha - The suffering all condition phenomona. This is due to the very nature of 'things' as being part of conditioined phonmena. So even though this really tasty food gives me pleasure now, becuase of the impermenane inherent in the food, it is not a lasting pleasure, and as such wil only result in suffering once the taste goes due to my craving the food.

so how far of the mark am I? I get the feeling im possibly getting Viparinama and Sankhara dukkha slightly confused, but not sure where the confusion lies. They both seem very similer to me, in the sense that its due to the impermenane of things that cuase the suffering (due to the attachment/craving to things).
Yes, you are getting these two confused. The third is the fact that things just fall apart and so therefore cannot be considered a source of happiness.
Atikosha
Tibetan Medicine Blog
Sudarsana Mandala, Tibetan Medicine and Herbs
Buddhahood in This Life
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔


The knowledge imparted through the guru’s instructions that formerly was unknown (avidyā) is vidyā.


—Treasury of the Supreme Vehicle, Longchenpa.

Pringle
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:48 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by Pringle » Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:16 pm

Malcolm wrote:
Pringle wrote:So just to clarify my own thinking with regards to the three types of Dukkha

1) Dukkha Dukkha - This would be the suffering cuased by pain, such as 'ouch i just stubbed my toe'

2) Viparinama Dukkha - This is the suffering of change due to all things being impermenant, as such even if something is giving us pleasure now, such as being in a relationship, then this will ultimatly end up as suffering like when the relationship ends

3) Sankhara Dukkha - The suffering all condition phenomona. This is due to the very nature of 'things' as being part of conditioined phonmena. So even though this really tasty food gives me pleasure now, becuase of the impermenane inherent in the food, it is not a lasting pleasure, and as such wil only result in suffering once the taste goes due to my craving the food.

so how far of the mark am I? I get the feeling im possibly getting Viparinama and Sankhara dukkha slightly confused, but not sure where the confusion lies. They both seem very similer to me, in the sense that its due to the impermenane of things that cuase the suffering (due to the attachment/craving to things).
Yes, you are getting these two confused. The third is the fact that things just fall apart and so therefore cannot be considered a source of happiness.
So it's the fact that becuase all things are just as set of conditions, their is nothing inherent in them that can gives us any true satisfaction? Like saying 'paying a rubix Cube want give real satisfaction but there is no actual inherent rubix cue within it, it's just a set of conditions that give a suchness of a rubix cube'..............That any better or still of the mark?

Bakmoon
Posts: 746
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 12:31 am

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by Bakmoon » Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:26 pm

Pringle wrote:So just to clarify my own thinking with regards to the three types of Dukkha

1) Dukkha Dukkha - This would be the suffering cuased by pain, such as 'ouch i just stubbed my toe'

2) Viparinama Dukkha - This is the suffering of change due to all things being impermenant, as such even if something is giving us pleasure now, such as being in a relationship, then this will ultimatly end up as suffering like when the relationship ends

3) Sankhara Dukkha - The suffering all condition phenomona. This is due to the very nature of 'things' as being part of conditioined phonmena. So even though this really tasty food gives me pleasure now, becuase of the impermenane inherent in the food, it is not a lasting pleasure, and as such wil only result in suffering once the taste goes due to my craving the food.

so how far of the mark am I? I get the feeling im possibly getting Viparinama and Sankhara dukkha slightly confused, but not sure where the confusion lies. They both seem very similer to me, in the sense that its due to the impermenane of things that cuase the suffering (due to the attachment/craving to things).
They can be hard to distinguish for sure. Sankhara dukkha is a tricky term to understand partly just because the word dukkha doesn't even really mean suffering in this context but something more like unsatisfying. Sankhara dukkha means that because something is formed from causes and conditions, it cannot bring a true satisfaction even in the present. Conditioned things can bring a type of satisfaction, but such a satisfaction is bound to be somewhat superficial. To use the example of food, the sankhara dukkha of the food is that even when you are eating and enjoying it, it doesn't give a full satisfaction for your desire to be happy, but only a partial one. Even if you could make your experience of eating that food last forever it still couldn't bring you to a full happiness.

The only thing free of Sankhara Dukkha is Nirvana itself, because it is unconditioned. Nirvana alone gives a happiness that is complete.

User avatar
lorem
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:27 pm
Location: Fresno, California

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by lorem » Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:33 pm

Bakmoon wrote:
Pringle wrote:Nirvana alone gives a happiness that is complete.
Yes but remember the Mahayana.

10
If all your mothers, who love you,
Suffer for time without beginning, how can you be happy?
To free limitless sentient beings,
Give rise to awakening mind — this is the practice of a bodhisattva.

37 Practices of a Bodhisattva
I should be meditating.

Pringle
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:48 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by Pringle » Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:36 pm

I thing i'm starting to get the picture, but these two Articles I have read have also made me a little confused, as they both seem to state sankhara Dukkha as something more to do with our violitional tendecies and our mental formations when we encounter suffering.

http://www.lionsroar.com/deep-dukkha-pa ... suffering/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-practi ... -suffering" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As said these seem to relate more to the stories we make in our head about something being painful, rather then an expiereience or thing itself just being a cuase of pain.

"Returning to the examples I used earlier, I broke my ankle and it hurt. When I could mindfully acknowledge the unpleasantness of the pain, dukkha dukkha did not arise. It arose only when I reacted with aversion to this circumstance of my life (craving for the pain to stop). And then, sankhara dukkha was not far behind. “It’s not fair that I broke my ankle.” “What if it doesn’t heal correctly?” “I can’t bear being sick and injured at the same time.” Sankhara dukkha was in the anxiety-filled stories I would spin about my ankle." (quote form one of the articles)

In the above example it makes Sankhara seem more more of a mental type of suffering we induce on ourselves, rather than this all pervading Dukkha all all conditioned things that others seems to be sayign as a definition.

And so now I feel even more confused than i did to begin with. Is it that the 2 articles wrong in the explanation of Snahara, or does Sankhara Dukkha jsut mean more than what a one line definition can give?

User avatar
lorem
Posts: 674
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2014 10:27 pm
Location: Fresno, California

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by lorem » Fri Nov 14, 2014 4:38 pm

Pringle wrote:I thing i'm starting to get the picture, but these two Articles I have read have also made me a little confused, as they both seem to state sankhara Dukkha as something more to do with our violitional tendecies and our mental formations when we encounter suffering.

http://www.lionsroar.com/deep-dukkha-pa ... suffering/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.wildmind.org/blogs/on-practi ... -suffering" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As said these seem to relate more to the stories we make in our head about something being painful, rather then an expiereience or thing itself just being a cuase of pain.

"Returning to the examples I used earlier, I broke my ankle and it hurt. When I could mindfully acknowledge the unpleasantness of the pain, dukkha dukkha did not arise. It arose only when I reacted with aversion to this circumstance of my life (craving for the pain to stop). And then, sankhara dukkha was not far behind. “It’s not fair that I broke my ankle.” “What if it doesn’t heal correctly?” “I can’t bear being sick and injured at the same time.” Sankhara dukkha was in the anxiety-filled stories I would spin about my ankle." (quote form one of the articles)

In the above example it makes Sankhara seem more more of a mental type of suffering we induce on ourselves, rather than this all pervading Dukkha all all conditioned things that others seems to be sayign as a definition.

And so now I feel even more confused than i did to begin with. Is it that the 2 articles wrong in the explanation of Snahara, or does Sankhara Dukkha jsut mean more than what a one line definition can give?
Attitude.

EDIT One word antidote you could ponder.
I should be meditating.

Pringle
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2014 2:48 pm
Location: Birmingham, UK

Re: The Truth of the First Noble Truth

Post by Pringle » Fri Nov 14, 2014 5:06 pm

lorem wrote: Attitude.

EDIT One word antidote you could ponder.
erm.....sorry butI don't get it.

Do you mean it comes down to the Attitude the person translating the meaning takes, as such it is something that could have quite a lot of meaning depending on who you ask or that my attitude in looking at it is wrong?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yanako and 39 guests