nibbana

A forum for beginners and members of other Buddhist traditions to ask questions about Theravāda (The Way of the Elders). Responses require moderator approval before they are visible.

nibbana

Postby jajas » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:40 pm

what do you think what happens when you are enlightend and die.
Do we became whole with evereything there is or do we just cease to excist.
I know some buddhists think the latter but it feels disappointing to me.
I know that the dissapoinment comes partly from ego clinging, but beside that it seems so empty if it is true.
User avatar
jajas
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: amsterdam

Re: nibbana

Postby Anicca » Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:59 pm

Howdy jajas!
jajas wrote:Do we became whole with evereything there is or do we just cease to excist.


The Buddha says it is beyond words to describe it. "Exist" or "not exist" does not apply.

Our ability to even ask the proper questions come out the same as asking "Does the number 5 live forever or cease to exist?"

Metta
Anicca
 
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:11 am
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma

Re: nibbana

Postby Tex » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:12 pm

"The serene and peaceful mind is the true epitome of human achievement."-- Ajahn Chah, Living Dhamma

"To reach beyond fear and danger we must sharpen and widen our vision. We have to pierce through the deceptions that lull us into a comfortable complacency, to take a straight look down into the depths of our existence, without turning away uneasily or running after distractions." -- Bhikkhu Bodhi
User avatar
Tex
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:46 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: nibbana

Postby Anicca » Fri Jul 23, 2010 3:17 pm

Thanks Tex! I was in a hurry - logged back on to do what you did!

Here some more:

SN 44.1 Khema Sutta
Mind Like Fire Unbound

Metta
Anicca
 
Posts: 393
Joined: Thu Apr 29, 2010 4:11 am
Location: Edmond, Oklahoma

Re: nibbana

Postby IanAnd » Fri Jul 23, 2010 5:49 pm

jajas wrote:what do you think what happens when you are enlightened and die.
Do we became whole with everything there is or do we just cease to exist.

Neither response ("become whole" nor "cease to exist") applies. The mind of an enlightened person would never ask such questions. He would KNOW that the fire has simply gone out, not having any sustenance causing it to continue to burn.

From the preface to Mind Like Fire Unbound: "This book has been many years in preparation. It began from a casual remark made one evening by my meditation teacher — Phra Ajaan Fuang Jotiko — to the effect that the mind released is like fire that has gone out: The fire is not annihilated, he said, but is still there, diffused in the air; it simply no longer latches on to any fuel.

jajas wrote:I know some buddhists think the latter but it feels disappointing to me.
I know that the disapointment comes partly from ego clinging, but beside that it seems so empty if it is true.

From the links already given: "Such a position is based on attachment to and misunderstanding of the aggregates and sense media. When one sees these things for what they are, as they're actually present, the idea of forming them into any of these positions simply does not occur to one."

The reason it "feels disappointing" to "you" is that you have formed a "you" (sankhara or mental formation) against which disappointment may be laid and take affect. If there were no sankhara, there would be no "you" there which would become "affected."

The reason it "seems empty if it is true" is because it is empty. Anatta.
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
IanAnd
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: nibbana

Postby Jason » Fri Jul 23, 2010 8:05 pm

jajas wrote:what do you think what happens when you are enlightend and die.
Do we became whole with evereything there is or do we just cease to excist.
I know some buddhists think the latter but it feels disappointing to me.
I know that the dissapoinment comes partly from ego clinging, but beside that it seems so empty if it is true.


If you were to ask the Buddha whether the Tathagata [a synonym for 'arahant' and an epithet for the Buddha] exists after death, doesn't exist after death, both exists and doesn't exist after death or neither exists nor doesn't exist after death, the Buddha would answer, "That has not been declared by me."

When pressed further, the Buddha would counter by asking you whether form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications and consciousness are constant or inconstant. If you were to answer constant to any of these, he'd probably proceed to give you a discourse on the aggregates and dependent co-arising. If you were to answer inconstant, then he'd ask you whether it's proper to regard what's inconstant, stressful and subject to change as: "This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am."

If you were to answer yes, he'd probably proceed to give you a discourse on the not-self characteristic. If you were to answer no, then he would ask whether you regard form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications or consciousness as the Tathagata.

If you were to answer yes to any of these, he'd remind you that all these phenomena are inconstant and not fit to be called 'me' or 'mine.' If you were to answer no, then he'd ask whether you regard the Tathagata as being in form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications and consciousness, or elsewhere than form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications or consciousness.

If you were to answer yes to any of these, he'd remind you that all these phenomena are inconstant and not fit to be called 'me' or 'mine.' If you were to answer no, then he'd ask whether you regard the Tathagata as form-feeling-perception-fabrications-consciousness [i.e., taken together], or as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness [i.e., without any relation to the aggregates, and by consequence, the sense bases].

If you were to answer yes to the former, he'd remind you that these phenomena are inconstant and not fit to be called 'me' or 'mine.' If you were to answer yes to the latter, he'd probably ask you on what basis you'd make such an assertion since the description of such a self lies beyond the range of explanation. If you were to answer no, then he'd say, "So, my friend — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'The Tathagata exists after death', 'The Tathagata does not exist after death', 'The Tathagata both exists and does not exist after death' or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death'," and proceed to give a discourse such as this:

    "In the same way, an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

    "He assumes feeling to be the self...

    "He assumes perception to be the self...

    "He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...

    "He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

    "He does not discern inconstant form, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant form.' He does not discern inconstant feeling, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant feeling.' He does not discern inconstant perception... He does not discern inconstant fabrications... He does not discern inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant consciousness.'

    "He does not discern stressful form, as it actually is present, as 'stressful form.' He does not discern stressful feeling... He does not discern stressful perception... He does not discern stressful fabrications... He does not discern stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'stressful consciousness.'

    "He does not discern not-self form, as it actually is present, as 'not-self form.' He does not discern not-self feeling... He does not discern not-self perception... He does not discern not-self fabrications... He does not discern not-self consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'not-self consciousness.'

    "He does not discern fabricated form, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated form.' He does not discern fabricated feeling... He does not discern fabricated perception... He does not discern fabricated fabrications... He does not discern fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated consciousness.'

    "He does not discern murderous form, as it actually is present, as 'murderous form.' He does not discern murderous feeling... He does not discern murderous perception... He does not discern murderous fabrications... He does not discern murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'murderous consciousness.'

    "He gets attached to form, clings to form, & determines it to be 'my self.' He gets attached to feeling... He gets attached to perception... He gets attached to fabrications... He gets attached to consciousness, clings to consciousness, & determines it to be 'my self.' These five clinging-aggregates — attached to, clung to — lead to his long-term loss & suffering.

    "Now, the well-instructed, disciple of the noble ones — who has regard for noble ones, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma; who has regard for men of integrity, is well-versed & disciplined in their Dhamma — does not assume form to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.

    "He does not assume feeling to be the self...

    "He does not assume perception to be the self...

    "He does not assume fabrications to be the self...

    "He does not assume consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness.

    "He discerns inconstant form, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant form.' He discerns inconstant feeling... He discerns inconstant perception... He discerns inconstant fabrications... He discerns inconstant consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'inconstant consciousness.'

    "He discerns stressful form, as it actually is present, as 'stressful form.' He discerns stressful feeling... He discerns stressful perception... He discerns stressful fabrications... He discerns stressful consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'stressful consciousness.'

    "He discerns not-self form, as it actually is present, as 'not-self form.' He discerns not-self feeling... He discerns not-self perception... He discerns not-self fabrications... He discerns not-self consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'not-self consciousness.'

    "He discerns fabricated form, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated form.' He discerns fabricated feeling... He discerns fabricated perception... He discerns fabricated fabrications... He discerns fabricated consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'fabricated consciousness.'

    "He discerns murderous form, as it actually is present, as 'murderous form.' He discerns murderous feeling... He discerns murderous perception... He discerns murderous fabrications... He discerns murderous consciousness, as it actually is present, as 'murderous consciousness.'

    "He does not get attached to form, does not cling to form, does not determine it to be 'my self.' He does not get attached to feeling... He does not get attached to perception... He does not get attached to fabrications... He does not get attached to consciousness, does not cling to consciousness, does not determine it to be 'my self.' These five clinging-aggregates — not attached to, not clung to — lead to his long-term happiness & well-being."
"Sabbe dhamma nalam abhinivesaya" (AN 7.58).

leaves in the hand (Buddhist-related blog)
leaves in the forest (non-Buddhist related blog)
User avatar
Jason
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 1:09 am
Location: Earth

Re: nibbana

Postby Kenshou » Fri Jul 23, 2010 11:42 pm

That's a nice post. I hope the Op can appreciate it's significance. :meditate:
Kenshou
 
Posts: 1027
Joined: Sun Nov 15, 2009 12:03 am
Location: Minneapolis, MN

Re: nibbana

Postby jajas » Sat Jul 24, 2010 5:25 am

thank you for all your usefull reply`s.

The puzzle for me seems to be in the understanding of the "noself".
I regard myself as a streem of things, not absolute. one state follows the other.
so i suppose i think the self is the streem. so i think i havn`t said goodbey to the self.
it is not easy to grasp.
User avatar
jajas
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: amsterdam

Re: nibbana

Postby Reductor » Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:12 am

jajas wrote:thank you for all your usefull reply`s.

The puzzle for me seems to be in the understanding of the "noself".
I regard myself as a streem of things, not absolute. one state follows the other.
so i suppose i think the self is the streem. so i think i havn`t said goodbey to the self.
it is not easy to grasp.


From whence does that stream flow, and to where does it then go?

In the end it is best not to think of Nibbana, as that's a bad place to start. Lol. Sorry, I'm just playing.

Instead of getting anxious over what Nibbana is, it is best to turn your attention to what you see here and now. Many people have bent their minds over Nibbana, which is a shame as there shouldn't be anything there to bend a mind over. :lol:

From whence you came, so you return - just like a toy at walmart. If you had that toy for a day, then returned it, was it ever really yours? If you had it a day, then it broke, was it something that you would continue to love and cherish?

God, I've gotta stop taking goofballs. :tongue:
Michael

The thoughts I've expressed in the above post are carefully considered and offered in good faith.

And friendliness towards the world is happiness for him who is forbearing with living beings. -- Ud. 2:1
To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness. -- Dhp 72

User avatar
Reductor
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: nibbana

Postby jajas » Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:31 am

at there ductor,

off course you are right!
still i am curious to see whether i can understand the dhamma. :shrug:
Last edited by jajas on Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
jajas
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: amsterdam

Re: nibbana

Postby Reductor » Sat Jul 24, 2010 6:51 am

jajas wrote:at there ductor,

off course you are right.
still i am curious to see whether i can understand the dhamma. :shrug:


It all starts simply enough, jajas. Really. 5 precepts, 20 minutes on the seat and a gradual study of the teachings. Gradual, I say. Always the teachings should supplement your practice, not the other way around.

In the same way it is the Dhamma that leads to Nibbana, not the other way around. If you start by trying to understand all the ins and outs of the final goal, which the Buddha called the 'the inexpressible', then you are going to fall flat on your face. If you turn around, however, and start at the other end, with the trainings of virtue and concentration, then you will get to the inexpressible in due course.

Any person can understand if they are intent and persistent. I assure you. No one here is special in that regard. :heart:

As an aside, I would say that the best rendering of anatta is not "no self" but "not self". After all, there seems to be a jajas. People are writing to such a person, right. Just as there is a thereductor, yeah? The point of "not self" is that all things that we experience as our self are dependent on other things, which are themselves dependent on other things, and not on some secret unchanging thing which might be called a 'true' self. Because all things that we experience change, it is not healthy for us to invest in them some importance greater than their character warrants. For when the object that a feeling depends on changes or is removed, the feeling too goes with it. The feeling was not a self to be loved and cherished, and neither was the object. In the final calculation both were fleeting and unreliable.

It would be like marrying a tree. Sure, it seems to be a lovely tree, but it isn't going to get a job and support three kids now is it! No, because its a tree, not a husband. In the same way all things we experience are just what they are: a feeling here, a perception there, a decision there again. They are just what they are, but they don't satisfy the requirements of a lasting and 'true' self. They are, however, parts of what we call jajas or thereductor.

Whether there is anything in that explanation that is useful, I don't know. However, I am certain you will understand at some later date, if you keep at it.
Last edited by Reductor on Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:02 am, edited 1 time in total.
Michael

The thoughts I've expressed in the above post are carefully considered and offered in good faith.

And friendliness towards the world is happiness for him who is forbearing with living beings. -- Ud. 2:1
To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness. -- Dhp 72

User avatar
Reductor
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: nibbana

Postby jajas » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:01 am

at thereductor,

by meditating I do understand a lot about where my dukha comes from and I experience a lot less of it.
because off the contact with the teachings I am wondering how I stand in relation to them. I am not a fully convinced buddhist. I suppose I am trying to discovere wether I can be convinced. I think I feel the need to have a conviction.
User avatar
jajas
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: amsterdam

Re: nibbana

Postby retrofuturist » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:04 am

Greetings jajas,

jajas wrote:The puzzle for me seems to be in the understanding of the "noself".

You don't need to understand "noself".

You only need to understand that anything experienced, as classifiable by the five aggregates is not self, because it is impermanent, and because it is a basis for suffering when clung to.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14522
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: nibbana

Postby jajas » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:07 am

at retro,

would that not leave room for a self in something other then the skandha`s?
User avatar
jajas
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: amsterdam

Re: nibbana

Postby Reductor » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:12 am

jajas wrote:at thereductor,

by meditating I do understand a lot about where my dukha comes from and I experience a lot less of it.
because off the contact with the teachings I am wondering how I stand in relation to them. I am not a fully convinced buddhist. I suppose I am trying to discovere wether I can be convinced. I think I feel the need teo have a conviction. :shrug:


At the start you have to muster together as much conviction as you can, then go for it. But this conviction is not inexhaustible. It has a limit. If practicing the teachings don't yield results, don't yield an increase in conviction, then the little conviction you had mustered at the beginning will wane and disappear, leaving you as you were before. So then go and try something else. Maybe Tiachi or something :tongue:

This is the right attitude for the start. After all, the Buddha instructed people to come and see the results for themselves. He instructed a person to adhere to practices only so long as they result in wholesomeness. If the results were harmful or lacking in wholesome qualities, it was best to stop and leave those results behind. He instructed people coming to his Dhamma to apply just these standards in assessing whether what he taught was good or not.

But you have to muster that little you can, in the beginning, and you have to give the teachings a real try and not merely talk about them.
Michael

The thoughts I've expressed in the above post are carefully considered and offered in good faith.

And friendliness towards the world is happiness for him who is forbearing with living beings. -- Ud. 2:1
To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness. -- Dhp 72

User avatar
Reductor
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: nibbana

Postby Reductor » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:16 am

jajas wrote:at retro,

would that not leave room for a self in something other then the skandha`s?


If you only experience the aggregates, then what does it matter if you say 'this thing outside the aggregates, that is my true self'? If it has no baring on your suffering, on your experience, then what good is it to call 'self'?

"Self is not form, form is not in self, self does not posses form, form does not possess self. "

He's negating all the various ways you might relate a self to the form aggregate, or the form aggregate to the self. This pattern is repeated for each aggregate.
Michael

The thoughts I've expressed in the above post are carefully considered and offered in good faith.

And friendliness towards the world is happiness for him who is forbearing with living beings. -- Ud. 2:1
To his own ruin the fool gains knowledge, for it cleaves his head and destroys his innate goodness. -- Dhp 72

User avatar
Reductor
 
Posts: 1242
Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 6:52 am
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: nibbana

Postby jajas » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:28 am

at thereductor,

trying to understand more than will help me in decreasing my duhka will increase my duhka. ;)

( I am not sure my english is correct)
User avatar
jajas
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: amsterdam

Re: nibbana

Postby jajas » Sat Jul 24, 2010 7:39 am

I am logging out.
my children need attention. :smile:
User avatar
jajas
 
Posts: 22
Joined: Fri Jul 23, 2010 2:19 pm
Location: amsterdam

Re: nibbana

Postby IanAnd » Sat Jul 24, 2010 3:11 pm

jajas wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:You don't need to understand "noself".

You only need to understand that anything experienced, as classifiable by the five aggregates is not self, because it is impermanent, and because it is a basis for suffering when clung to.

at retro,

would that not leave room for a self in something other then the skandha`s?

Hi jajas,

At the risk of adding more confusion on account of the language difference and individual interpretation, what retro is saying here is that if you fully see and understand how the aggregates work within your experience of them, you will see that there is nothing "other" than the experience of them that is beyond them.

In other words, it would eliminate the premise for the question you posed. Thus bringing you back to the primary ignorance to be faced: that form, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness are all impermanent, unsatisfactory, and (most importantly here for you) without self-nature. They do not constitute a self, except in how you yourself relate to them within your own thinking patterns. When seen for what they actually are, whatever self-nature you have been investing in your experience of the five aggregates has vanished with the ending of the ignorance about their true nature, which is, once again: impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and without self.

Best wishes,
Ian
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
IanAnd
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Re: nibbana

Postby IanAnd » Sat Jul 24, 2010 4:26 pm

jajas wrote:by meditating I do understand a lot about where my dukkha comes from and I experience a lot less of it.
because of the contact with the teachings I am wondering how I stand in relation to them. I am not a fully convinced buddhist. I suppose I am trying to discover whether I can be convinced. I think I feel the need to have a conviction.

Pardon my intrusion in your conversation. But, I understand what you are endeavoring to communicate here. And it is a common issue for many people coming to the study and practice of the Dhamma for the first time. It is important to understand that the profound nature of what the Buddha had to teach is based upon simple, direct observations into the nature of one's own first-hand cognitive experiences of the world and life. These are observations that any one of us can make, in that they become self-evident, if one is given the correct instruction and encouragement along the way.

Those who end up benefiting the most from the practice are those who enter it with an inner conviction that this is where they need to be in order to find peace and contentment within their lives. That necessarily implies that they have full faith and confidence in what the Buddha has to teach. Such faith and confidence comes only in time, as one begins to truly understand the truths that he (or she) is being exposed to. At full fruition, faith (and whatever doubt there was in the beginning) is replaced by confidence and conviction in what the Buddha had to teach.

One way to obtain such an overview of the teachings such that one's faith and confidence in the teachings is increased is to explore the Path which is being taught. If you haven't read it already, Bhikkhu Bodhi has an excellent book out on this Noble Eightfold Path, The Way to The Ending of Suffering that can be read or downloaded from online. In it, he explains the Path to wisdom and contentment that the Buddha taught, showing step by step what needs to be accomplished and how it leads to the end goal.

Another way to begin growing more confident in the teachings is to read the discourses of the Buddha yourself, to get the teachings directly from the "horse's mouth" so to speak (to repeat an American idiom) rather than from what others have written about the teachings. Such direct contact with the discourses of the Buddha can have life-changing effects. One of the first suttas which might help strengthen one's conviction in what the Buddha has to offer (and the one that got me to begin looking again more seriously into the teachings several years ago) is the discourse to the Kalamas in the Kalama Sutta. In this discourse, the Buddha exposes his intention and basic down-to-earth approach advice to people who are searching for answers to the questions of life and the suffering they endure.
Then the Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta went to where the Blessed One was. On arriving there some paid homage to him and sat down on one side; some exchanged greetings with him and after the ending of cordial memorable talk, sat down on one side; some saluted him raising their joined palms and sat down on one side; some announced their name and family and sat down on one side; some without speaking, sat down on one side.
The Kalamas of Kesaputta ask for guidance from the Buddha

The Kalamas who were inhabitants of Kesaputta sitting on one side said to the Blessed One: "There are some monks and brahmans, venerable sir, who visit Kesaputta. They expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Some other monks and brahmans too, venerable sir, come to Kesaputta. They also expound and explain only their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they despise, revile, and pull to pieces. Venerable sir, there is doubt, there is uncertainty in us concerning them. Which of these reverend monks and brahmans spoke the truth and which falsehood?"

"It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias toward a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are bad; these things are blamable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,' abandon them. . . .

"Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias toward a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you yourselves know: 'These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,' enter on and abide in them."

Once your conviction for the teachings is increased, you will begin to see how they are meant to work and how important they can be within your own striving for peace and contentment in the world.
"The gift of truth exceeds all other gifts" — Dhammapada, v. 354 Craving XXIV
User avatar
IanAnd
 
Posts: 395
Joined: Mon Oct 19, 2009 5:19 am
Location: the deserts of Arizona

Next

Return to Discovering Theravāda

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests