How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

The best place for discussion of current events. News about Buddhists and Buddhism is particularly welcome.
User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by dzogchungpa » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:27 am

Dan74 wrote:We might have an admin post coming up, maybe you'd like to fill it?
I'm available. :smile:
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

User avatar
Dan74
Former staff member
Posts: 2656
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 3:59 pm

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by Dan74 » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:44 am

Hmmm... I'll pitch the idea of creating a Hahayana forum to David. There you'd be the natural choice, Dzogchunpa

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:58 am

Dan74 wrote:
If I were to say something about the subject, I'd say that people DO teach all manner of things and call it Buddhadharma. The largest number of centres we have right now in Melbourne is probably of the organisation we don't talk about here, which apart from the issue of the harmfulness of their practice, is generally staffed by very inexperienced people in teacher's robes. What is the answer? Complain about it on the Forum? Or offer a better alternative? Be more proactive, imaginative, capture the zeitgeist?? To me, it's all about skilful means, not soapboxes, no matter how justified.

I agree with the bolded part fully, I also think it's worth the time refuting 'secular Buddhists' though, we'd have to get into a whole other conversation about secular Buddhism itself...the question is how it's done, and certainly attacking a certain philosophy as "the enemy" is counterproductive. Soapboxes tend to alienate people, and for sure the best approach is sticking to one guns, while being as open and respectful of others as possible.
smcj wrote:I advocate for flexibility and tolerance. But I also object to someone like Batchelor that actually changes the teachings to conform to his own limitations. There is a big difference between "I can't buy into that" and "the Buddha didn't mean it." There's a reason I have the ChNN quote as my signature at the bottom of all my posts.
This is basically what I was talking about Dan, I agree with the above statement by SMCJ, where secular BUddhism deserves refuting is with things like the part of the article where he actually says something like "The Buddha said you could take or leave Karma and Rebirth" - this is fundamentally incorrect, is not honest, and should be refuted on the basis of it's being incorrect, and dishonest. I don't think that sort of view should be accepted as Buddhadharma, as they are simply inconsistent with pretty much any honest reading of the teachings that i'm aware of. However, I can certainly acknowledge that people who do not hold a Buddhist worldview can (and should) benefit from it's practices, and I also know from my own personal experience that "belief" is relatively fluid, and people that are warm, welcoming, and make valid arguments are more convincing than those who simply default to repeating statements of orthodoxy etc.
His welcoming
& rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
Knowing the dustless, sorrowless state,
he discerns rightly,
has gone, beyond becoming,
to the Further Shore.

-Lokavipatti Sutta

smcj
Posts: 6389
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by smcj » Mon Apr 13, 2015 6:56 am

By digging our heels in and defending the orthodoxy, we just write ourselves off as irrelevant in the eyes of the 99.99% of the population
What if the first generations of the Sangha, the ones that memorized the teachings word-for-word, felt the same way and changed the teachings to be more palatable to their kinsman? Would you think that a good move?

But again, the distinction I make is between someone that is not able to accept a tenet (yet) and someone that changes the tenet to be compatible with their unawareness. The first is fine, the second is not. But they can look much the same and so care must be taken.
and I also know from my own personal experience that "belief" is relatively fluid...
Along the same line of thought, one of the signs of successful ngondro practice is that your belief system changes. Obviously saying that you need to accept the belief system first is putting the cart before the horse.
Last edited by smcj on Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:06 am, edited 2 times in total.
1. No traditional Buddhist sect, Tibetan or otherwise, considers deities to be fictional. (DW post/Seeker242)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
4. Shentong] is the completely pure system that, through mainly teaching the luminous aspect of the mind, holds that the fruitions--kayas and wisdoms--exist on their own accord. (Karmapa XIII)

Alvaro
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2014 10:34 am

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by Alvaro » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:03 am

Who cares, seriously? :shrug:

User avatar
Anders
Posts: 1190
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by Anders » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:16 am

Motova wrote:Someone has to tell them.
If this were true, teachers would be taking the same approach as you, yet they don't.
Last edited by Anders on Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra

User avatar
Wayfarer
Former staff member
Posts: 4849
Joined: Sun May 27, 2012 8:31 am
Location: Sydney AU

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by Wayfarer » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:20 am

I liked the story about the anchorman a lot, I think he's had a genuine awakening. How it develops hereafter is another matter but it's heart-warming to read the story so far. I first got initiated into meditation by a kind of new-age and fairly 'secular' teaching center, and then found Buddhism through research into meditation practices.

The only really small point I would make would be to re-word it as 'How a skeptical anchorman became Buddhist' - adjective not noun.
'Only practice with no gaining idea' ~ Suzuki Roshi

smcj
Posts: 6389
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by smcj » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:42 am

Lazy_eye wrote:
smcj wrote: While we're on the subject, the 1st Noble Truth says that samsara is nothing but dukha. In this context "samsara" is all of life, and "duhka" means unsatisfactory rather than "suffering". So the most basic premiss of all Buddha Dharma is that samsara cannot provide lasting satisfaction, which seems to be the goal of secular Buddhism.
Is it, though? What secular Buddhist teachers or writers did you have in mind?
Basically all of them.
Many of the teachers whose talks I listen to are "secular" in their approach/orientation and I've never heard them suggest such a thing.
That's because they don't know what they are talking about. According to the 1st Noble Truth you can't make samsara satisfactory. In the Shravakayana that is all of life, simply incarnating at all is "being in samsara". Oblivion is preferable to being reborn. No further elaboration of the goal is given so that people cannot think that a change in attitude or a certain meditation practice will make this life comfortable.

In the Mahayana "samsara" become more a case of our own unawareness, which of course is still the linchpin to being reborn. But it is our unawareness that wants Dharma on my terms, done my way, according to my criteria and my understanding. That's secular Buddhism. It's still trying to use Dharma to make samsara comfortable--and it just won't work!
1. No traditional Buddhist sect, Tibetan or otherwise, considers deities to be fictional. (DW post/Seeker242)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
4. Shentong] is the completely pure system that, through mainly teaching the luminous aspect of the mind, holds that the fruitions--kayas and wisdoms--exist on their own accord. (Karmapa XIII)

User avatar
Anders
Posts: 1190
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by Anders » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:43 am

Motova wrote:Ultimately, secular "Buddhism" is of no benefit.
Of course it is. This is a radical position that does not align with what the Buddha taught.

To be virtuous is of benefit. To be mindful is of benefit, to meditate is of benefit. This is simple cause and effect.
There is no such thing as orthodoxy or fundamentalism in Buddhadharma, it just is.

Secular "Buddhism" (not secular "Buddhists") is the enemy. It has been stated that the degradation of Buddhism will come from within.

Secular "Buddhists" will degrade Buddhism to the point of only temporary benefit. Then it will cease to be Buddhism.

When dwelling on views
as "supreme,"
a person makes them
the utmost thing
in the world,
&, from that, calls
all others inferior
and so he's not free
from disputes.
When he sees his advantage
in what's seen, heard, sensed,
or in precepts & practices,
seizing it there
he sees all else
as inferior.

That, too, say the skilled,
is a binding knot: that
in dependence on which
you regard another
as inferior.

======

"Only here is there purity"
— that's what they say —
"No other doctrines are pure"
— so they say.
Insisting that what they depend on is good,
they are deeply entrenched in their personal truths.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra

User avatar
dharmagoat
Posts: 2154
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 8:39 pm

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by dharmagoat » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:47 am

smcj wrote:What if the first generations of the Sangha, the ones that memorized the teachings word-for-word, felt the same way and changed the teachings to be more palatable to their kinsman? Would you think that a good move?
It would have not been necessary, as their kinsmen would have shared a very similar cultural background to those of the Buddha, one vastly different from that of modern Westerners.
Last edited by dharmagoat on Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Anders
Posts: 1190
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by Anders » Mon Apr 13, 2015 7:58 am

smcj wrote:That's because they don't know what they are talking about. According to the 1st Noble Truth you can't make samsara satisfactory. In the Shravakayana that is all of life, simply incarnating at all is "being in samsara". Oblivion is preferable to being reborn. No further elaboration of the goal is given so that people cannot think that a change in attitude or a certain meditation practice will make this life comfortable.

In the Mahayana "samsara" become more a case of our own unawareness, which of course is still the linchpin to being reborn. But it is our unawareness that wants Dharma on my terms, done my way, according to my criteria and my understanding. That's secular Buddhism. It's still trying to use Dharma to make samsara comfortable--and it just won't work!
Buddhism has always had a majority of its community that is not terribly interested in liberation in this lifetime.

Its manifestation is different here in the west, because they do not appear as laity supporting a more dedicated sangha, but more typically as independents or groups springing up without lineage. A fault of the modern communication age, I suppose. But, though there are some dangers in how they manifest in terms of what gets propagated as Buddhism, I think it's worth recognising that they nevertheless stand for virtues of common Buddhist laypeople that are not any less praiseworthy than they used to be - To be practising kindness, to be harmless, to appreciate stillness, to aspire for wisdom. These are all amazing qualities that should be praised. Too often, this gets overlooked by 'serious' Buddhists in the name of pronouncing them not quite correct.

I know if I saw a monk with the same looking down one's nose towards the laity as western Buddhists have towards other less than serious Buddhists, I would probably consider such a monk a bit too haughty for his own good.

I think there is something incorrect in doing so, in that you are holding them to a standard that it is not quite appropriate to hold common laypeople to. It's not like this guy, for example, is setting up shop as a teacher. Looks like he is just sharing his experience.

I think the answer to secularised Buddhism is less about defeating them as they come up, but rather a stronger presence of lineage Buddhism. I think a lot of independent and secular Buddhists would not be so, if there were plenty of good kalyanamitras for them to associate with.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra

User avatar
Johnny Dangerous
Global Moderator
Posts: 9779
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 10:58 pm
Location: Olympia WA
Contact:

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by Johnny Dangerous » Mon Apr 13, 2015 8:40 am

:good:
His welcoming
& rebelling are scattered,
gone to their end,
do not exist.
Knowing the dustless, sorrowless state,
he discerns rightly,
has gone, beyond becoming,
to the Further Shore.

-Lokavipatti Sutta

WeiHan
Posts: 567
Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 5:50 pm

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by WeiHan » Mon Apr 13, 2015 12:35 pm

I have a small little point.

Since he associated these goodness in practices with Buddha's teaching, then I suppose he has a good feeling about the Buddha and that is a good start. Arguably, anybody who has the greatest respect for Buddha than any other religion has the greatest potential to become a Buddhist, or may already be a Buddhist.

User avatar
Lazy_eye
Posts: 496
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 4:32 am
Location: Laurel, MD
Contact:

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by Lazy_eye » Mon Apr 13, 2015 1:34 pm

smcj wrote:Basically all of them.
Many of the teachers whose talks I listen to are "secular" in their approach/orientation and I've never heard them suggest such a thing.
That's because they don't know what they are talking about. According to the 1st Noble Truth you can't make samsara satisfactory. In the Shravakayana that is all of life, simply incarnating at all is "being in samsara". Oblivion is preferable to being reborn. No further elaboration of the goal is given so that people cannot think that a change in attitude or a certain meditation practice will make this life comfortable.
There may be teachers out there who claim that the purpose of Dharma is to "make this life comfortable", but I doubt that this viewpoint is characteristic of secular Dharma teachers in general. I think you are making an unsupported generalization in order to prop up a straw man argument.

The best-known secular teachers stress that nibbana is the goal of the path. Here is Gil Fronsdal, for instance:
NIBBANA is the ultimate good news of Theravada Buddhism: it means complete liberation. Naturally, people want to know about the nature of nibbana, but from the Theravada standpoint, knowing how a person is transformed in attaining nibbana is more important than understanding what it is.

When a person is thirsty, what’s important about water is not its chemical properties, but that it quenches thirst. Similarly, for someone who is suffering, what’s important about nibbana is not so much its nature but that its attainment extinguishes suffering. Nirvana (Sanskrit) and Nibbana (Pali, the language of the earliest Buddhist texts) literally mean “to go out”—like a fire—and “to cool.” Applied to the mind, it refers to extinguishing the fevers of greed, hate, and delusion, the three roots of suffering. The Buddha’s choice of this term was intimately tied to the imagery of his famous Fire Sermon. Here he said: “Everything is on fire; the eyes are on fire; sights are on fire; visual perception is on fire. . . ; the ears are on fire. . . ; the nose is on fire. . . ; the tongue is on fire. . . ; the body is on fire. . . ; the mind is on fire. . . . They are on fire with greed, hate, and delusion” (from the Mahavagga of the Theravada Vinaya).

In the language of the Buddha, the word for fuel and for clinging is the same: upadana. The Buddha understood that suffering arises from and is fueled by clinging. When the fuel is removed, suffering is extinguished. By understanding how deep-rooted and subtle clinging is in our own unliberated minds, we come to appreciate the mind of nibbana as refreshingly cool and peaceful.

Nibbana is the end of samsara. Contrary to a popular misunderstanding, neither nibbana nor samsara is a place. In attaining nibbana we don’t escape from one location to another. For the Buddha, samsara is the process by which clinging gives rise to suffering which, in turn, gives rise to further clinging. He understood that this self-perpetuating process continues over lifetimes as the “fuel” for rebirth, just as the fire from one burning house is carried to a neighboring house by the wind. Nibbana is what is realized when the clinging of greed, hate, and delusion is brought to an end. Some later Buddhist traditions equate nirvana and samsara. However, they likely attribute very different meanings to these words than those understood by the earliest Buddhist tradition. In Theravada teachings, samsara cannot be nibbana any more than a clenched fist can be an open hand, any more than burning ember in your fist can be the same as letting it go. For the Buddha, nibbana had quite positive associations—after all, it is a simile for ultimate freedom and awakening. At times he used other similes to describe this state: “the blissful, the secure, the pure, the island, the shelter, the harbor, the refuge, the ultimate.”

Other, more perplexing, synonyms include “the unconstructed, the ageless, the deathless, the featureless.” These refer to the idea that nibbana does not exist as something that can be made, shaped, or willed. It is not a “ground of being” from which anything subject to death can arise. Although there is a consciousness, “featureless, infinite, and luminous all around,” that is associated with nibbana, it is not dependent on the conditioned world. Nor does it produce the conditioned world. Rather, it is a dimension of consciousness totally independent of circumstances in the world or in one’s personal life. Because nibbana is independent, people who fully realize it are said to be “unestablished”—in other words, free from any clinging that would confine their consciousness to any point in space or time.

Experiencing nibbana is like taking a dip in a refreshing pond. A quick dip and we are slightly refreshed. With a long soak we are thoroughly refreshed. Even the first, brief dip into nibbana is a powerful lesson in the possibility of a great happiness, freedom, and peace not dependent on the conditions of the world. As long as someone believes happiness can only be found through the right conditions, it makes sense to cling to those conditions—even when knowing full well that all conditioned phenomena are subject to change. But when there is a direct, visceral experience of an alternative, the enchantment that fuels this clinging lessens dramatically. The function of attaining nibbana is to reduce and finally end all clinging. In Theravada Buddhism, the desire to walk the path to nibbana has an honored place. Once that desire is fulfilled, it naturally subsides and the mind clings to nothing, not even to nibbana itself.

Walking the path toward the complete ending of clinging and suffering is the noblest thing a person can do. It opens the fist of the mind, and allows a person to walk in the world with gift-bestowing hands.
I could provide any number of additional examples. Meanwhile, looking around for teachers who present Dharma as a way to live a happier present life, one who comes to mind is Thich Nhat Hanh:
Practicing Buddhism is a clever way to enjoy life. Happiness is available. Please help yourself to it. All of us have the capacity of transforming neutral feelings into pleasant feelings, very pleasant feelings that can last a long time.This is what we practice during sitting and walking meditation. If you are happy, all of us will profit from it. Society will profit from it. All living beings will profit from it.
Such statements are reflective of a certain strand of East Asian Buddhism, as I'm sure you must know. However, he does not speak of permanent happiness, but rather of "feelings that can last a long time." Impermanence applies here also.

smcj
Posts: 6389
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by smcj » Mon Apr 13, 2015 3:26 pm

secular:
1.denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis.
"secular buildings"
synonyms: nonreligious, areligious, lay, temporal, worldly, earthly, profane;

"Secular Buddhism" is an oxymoron.
The best-known secular teachers stress that nibbana is the goal of the path. Here is Gil Fronsdal, for instance:
NIBBANA is the ultimate good news of Theravada Buddhism: it means complete liberation.
"Nibbana", liberation, is freedom from the cycle of rebirth, especially in Therevada. Full stop. This idea is desirable because true Theravadans have adequately contemplated the 1st Noble Truth and understand that simply reincarnating at all is dukha/unsatisfactory.
the language of the earliest Buddhist texts) literally mean “to go out”—like a fire—
Yes. At death there is extinction, like a candle going out. Nothing else happens afterwards; the cycle of reincarnation ends. Shakyamuni said of himself, "I have ceased the outflows that made me human."

*****

That being said, obviously it is important for people to be able to connect to Dharma. That of course is a different and important issue. And as I've said all along it is not necessary to force a tenet system on someone when they are starting.

I personally was initially attracted to Dharma by Chime R. (Kagyu/U.K.) who is a humanist. He encourages people to have happy productive lives with families and careers, and if they have the financial and personal opportunity they can then later go on to retreats and formal practice. He understands well that we need to have Dharma brought to the level where we live in order to connect. But for his students, once the connection is made, then the Path leads us out of our secular slumber. His students are quite lucky to have him.
1. No traditional Buddhist sect, Tibetan or otherwise, considers deities to be fictional. (DW post/Seeker242)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
4. Shentong] is the completely pure system that, through mainly teaching the luminous aspect of the mind, holds that the fruitions--kayas and wisdoms--exist on their own accord. (Karmapa XIII)

User avatar
Anders
Posts: 1190
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by Anders » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:39 pm

smcj wrote:
The best-known secular teachers stress that nibbana is the goal of the path. Here is Gil Fronsdal, for instance:
NIBBANA is the ultimate good news of Theravada Buddhism: it means complete liberation.
"Nibbana", liberation, is freedom from the cycle of rebirth, especially in Therevada. Full stop. This idea is desirable because true Theravadans have adequately contemplated the 1st Noble Truth and understand that simply reincarnating at all is dukha/unsatisfactory.


Nibbana is freedom from suffering, full stop. The freedom from birth is 'just' an implication of this goal. An notable one, sure, but you are putting the cart before the horse to skew the debate in favour of making the materialist's motivation appear nonsensical when the wish for complete liberation in this life is a more than legitimate wish and expectation from Buddhism.

The Buddha taught freedom from suffering, full stop. In many ways and for both short and long term gain. Some for this life, some for later lives and some for the ultimate end. I understand the wish to represent the full range of his teachings according to the logic he presented in, but doing so by undermining other parts of his teaching doesn't seem like the right way to go about it to me.

In general, I've never really understood the desire to invalidate people's reasons for coming to Buddhism. To be free from suffering is such a universal impulse - that people with all kinds of worldviews are nevertheless attracted to the medicine the Buddha offers for it can only be a good thing.

Sometimes. I get the sense that there are some who think it would be better if these people would continue to suffer in unbuddhist ways until they are ready to practise for the right singularly buddhist reasons (ie you should practise to end suffering by ending rebirth. Not just for ending suffering).
the language of the earliest Buddhist texts) literally mean “to go out”—like a fire—
Yes. At death there is extinction, like a candle going out. Nothing else happens afterwards; the cycle of reincarnation ends. Shakyamuni said of himself, "I have ceased the outflows that made me human."
That process happens before death. When the Buddha ran down the arguments of why he didn't speak of what happens to the tathagata after death, he actually used the undefineable nature of the tathagata in the here and now as the example from which it can then be extrapolated 'how much more so at the death of his body'.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra

smcj
Posts: 6389
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by smcj » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:46 pm

Nibbana is freedom from suffering, full stop.
Yes. And the 1st Noble Truth says that all of life is dukha. There is the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change, and the suffering of conditioned existence. If you can hypothetically posit some sort of secular scenario that is not subject to the 1st Noble Truth, then please do so. Otherwise we should proceed with the understanding that the Shravakayana Nibbana is freedom from rebirth.
1. No traditional Buddhist sect, Tibetan or otherwise, considers deities to be fictional. (DW post/Seeker242)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
4. Shentong] is the completely pure system that, through mainly teaching the luminous aspect of the mind, holds that the fruitions--kayas and wisdoms--exist on their own accord. (Karmapa XIII)

User avatar
Anders
Posts: 1190
Joined: Tue Apr 07, 2009 12:39 pm

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by Anders » Mon Apr 13, 2015 4:53 pm

smcj wrote:
Nibbana is freedom from suffering, full stop.
Yes. And the 1st Noble Truth says that all of life is dukha. There is the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change, and the suffering of conditioned existence. If you can hypothetically posit some sort of secular scenario that is not subject to the 1st Noble Truth, then please do so. Otherwise we should proceed with the understanding that the Shravakayana Nibbana is freedom from rebirth.
I cannot proceed with that understanding since that logically implies that an arhat suffers prior to parinirvana.
"Even if my body should be burnt to death in the fires of hell
I would endure it for myriad lifetimes
As your companion in practice"

--- Gandavyuha Sutra

smcj
Posts: 6389
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:13 am

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by smcj » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:04 pm

Anders wrote:
smcj wrote:
Nibbana is freedom from suffering, full stop.
Yes. And the 1st Noble Truth says that all of life is dukha. There is the suffering of suffering, the suffering of change, and the suffering of conditioned existence. If you can hypothetically posit some sort of secular scenario that is not subject to the 1st Noble Truth, then please do so. Otherwise we should proceed with the understanding that the Shravakayana Nibbana is freedom from rebirth.
I cannot proceed with that understanding since that logically implies that an arhat suffers prior to parinirvana.
Arhats are not subject to birth, sickness, aging and death? My understanding is that the candle going out analogy for the Shravakayana Nibbana is at the moment of death, not prior to it.

Of course the Mahayana sees that Nibbana as a temporary quiescence, and the bodhisattvas rouse the Arhats out of their slumber with their blessings. But the important factor for us that practice the Mahayana is that at the outset of the Path nothing is given to a Shravakayana practitioner that will allow them to do what ChNN talks about in my signature, which is reducing the ocean of Dharma into the teacup of our unawareness. It defeats the impulse to make the Dharma secular. Although we are Mahayana practitioners, that is a lesson we need to keep in mind. The Buddha saw that inclination in us and checkmated that impulse by teaching the 1st Noble Truth making Nibbana seem like oblivion. After practicing like that for a couple dozen lifetimes the Mahayana can start, but the lesson to not diminish Dharma into some sort of samsaric salve should not be forgotten.
Last edited by smcj on Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:17 pm, edited 3 times in total.
1. No traditional Buddhist sect, Tibetan or otherwise, considers deities to be fictional. (DW post/Seeker242)
2. I support Mingyur R and HHDL in their positions against Lama abuse.
3. Student: Lama, I thought I might die but then I realized that the 3 Jewels would protect me.
Lama: Even If you had died the 3 Jewels would still have protected you. (DW post by Fortyeightvows)
4. Shentong] is the completely pure system that, through mainly teaching the luminous aspect of the mind, holds that the fruitions--kayas and wisdoms--exist on their own accord. (Karmapa XIII)

User avatar
dzogchungpa
Posts: 6333
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: How a skeptical anchorman became a Buddhist

Post by dzogchungpa » Mon Apr 13, 2015 5:11 pm

IIRC, Arhats may experience physical pain, but not mental suffering.
There is not only nothingness because there is always, and always can manifest. - Thinley Norbu Rinpoche

Post Reply

Return to “News & Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 39 guests