Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
NMRK32
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:47 am

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by NMRK32 »

It boils down to which plane of truth one is able to experience
.

But doesn't that presuppose an experiencer? A underlying knower? An inquisitor? The conflict I have had with Theravada is that the illusionary, self is doing both the knowing and the liberating...
"Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for the sake of this world"
So what tells us that after we detach ourselves from everything in this world somehow this ends the circle of rebirth? Isn't that in itself lending buddhism to whatever metaphysical debate about reincarnation and what continues on which is what it's supposedly trying to avoid? If we're not really ultimately there we don't get reborn anyway, right? Which brings me to my other question in my OP. Should then Buddhism be viewed as a strategy of detachment for the termination of stress and nothing more or noble? Is then Thanissaro Bhikku's often disputed term 'the no-self STRATEGY' a more accurate description? Because if we don't want to concern ourselves with metaphysics at all and we still want to terminate dukkha here and now then we can simply, strictly say that Buddhism is not really an '-ism' at all. It's a simple yet difficult (oxymoron I know) 'trick' of the mind. Kind of like 'if I don't really mind about myself, passions, fun stuff, bitter stuff, good stuff, bad stuff' then nothing affects me. A sort of apathy....?? A stoicism taken to the extreme??
NMRK32
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:47 am

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by NMRK32 »

Bakmoon wrote:
NMRK32 wrote:
David N. Snyder wrote:If you cling to the self, it is not an illusion to you; it is very real and so is the dukkha.
But if I'm a conventional reference with no substantial svabhava then any perception of dukkha is also just an illusion ultimately. To me right now for instance everything is real because I see them through the prism of my normal daily self as a reference point and a prism. But if I'm not really anything more than a collection of bits and bats that will dissolve upon death anyway then dukkha isn't really happening to nobody. Nobody is really experiencing it as nobody was ever born really. I was never here.
That doesn't actually follow. Just because there is no self, that does not mean that dukkha is unreal. The dukkha is conditioned, impermanent, and without substance, but that is very different than saying that the dukkha is just an illusion, as the experience of dukkha is in fact still there, and as long as dukkha still arises, there is a problem, and the answer to the problem is the Noble Eightfold Path.
So if there is no ultimate experiencer, who's experiencing the dukkha? And how come the answer is the eightfold path? Don't the really devout Christians and Muslims who place all their faith in their respective Gods and transcend themselves overcome dukkha? They won't be continuing on after death anyway, so while they're here their religions too offer the same type of transcedence and detachment from worldly and selfish affairs if followed to the letter, no?
NMRK32
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:47 am

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by NMRK32 »

NMRK32 wrote:Or being the great accomplished teacher that he is he could just draw pictures on the blackboard and still get the kid to understand without the complex equations.
I don't think so. Some things simply are so complex or so specific that a person without sufficient knowledge and experience already present simply cannot understand them or relate to them.
I must insist that when the teacher is good enough the student will follow. Like in a class, you will have the genuises who will catch it all the moment you say it, others will need a few repetitions. But a good teacher aims to leave nobody behind. We cannot be elitists and split people into the worthy and the unworthy ones or the capable and incapable ones. Not very noble...
santa100
Posts: 6831
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by santa100 »

NMRK32 wrote:But doesn't that presuppose an experiencer? A underlying knower? An inquisitor? The conflict I have had with Theravada is that the illusionary, self is doing both the knowing and the liberating...
As already mentioned, depends on which perspective do you ask the question, a worldling or an enlightened being? For a worldling, yes, there's still an experienCER, but for an enlightened being, there's just experience, for how can there be an experienCER if there's no "I", "mine", nor "myself"?
NMRK32 wrote:So what tells us that after we detach ourselves from everything in this world somehow this ends the circle of rebirth? Isn't that in itself lending buddhism to whatever metaphysical debate about reincarnation and what continues on which is what it's supposedly trying to avoid? If we're not really ultimately there we don't get reborn anyway, right? Which brings me to my other question in my OP. Should then Buddhism be viewed as a strategy of detachment for the termination of stress and nothing more or noble? Is then Thanissaro Bhikku's often disputed term 'the no-self STRATEGY' a more accurate description? Because if we don't want to concern ourselves with metaphysics at all and we still want to terminate dukkha here and now then we can simply, strictly say that Buddhism is not really an '-ism' at all. It's a simple yet difficult (oxymoron I know) 'trick' of the mind. Kind of like 'if I don't really mind about myself, passions, fun stuff, bitter stuff, good stuff, bad stuff' then nothing affects me. A sort of apathy....?? A stoicism taken to the extreme??

Again, depends on what exactly do you mean by "detach ourselves from everything in this world"?? And again, I repeat, from what perspective, worldling or enlightened being do you ask your questions? Even if "ultimately" there's nothing get reborn, and assuming Buddhism is nothing more than just a strategy, all the deal with apathy, or a stoicism taken to the extreme... how do they help you in your practice right in the here and now?
NMRK32
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:47 am

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by NMRK32 »

santa100 wrote:
NMRK32 wrote:But doesn't that presuppose an experiencer? A underlying knower? An inquisitor? The conflict I have had with Theravada is that the illusionary, self is doing both the knowing and the liberating...
As already mentioned, depends on which perspective do you ask the question, a worldling or an enlightened being? For a worldling, yes, there's still an experienCER, but for an enlightened being, there's just experience, for how can there be an experienCER if there's no "I", "mine", nor "myself"?
NMRK32 wrote:So what tells us that after we detach ourselves from everything in this world somehow this ends the circle of rebirth? Isn't that in itself lending buddhism to whatever metaphysical debate about reincarnation and what continues on which is what it's supposedly trying to avoid? If we're not really ultimately there we don't get reborn anyway, right? Which brings me to my other question in my OP. Should then Buddhism be viewed as a strategy of detachment for the termination of stress and nothing more or noble? Is then Thanissaro Bhikku's often disputed term 'the no-self STRATEGY' a more accurate description? Because if we don't want to concern ourselves with metaphysics at all and we still want to terminate dukkha here and now then we can simply, strictly say that Buddhism is not really an '-ism' at all. It's a simple yet difficult (oxymoron I know) 'trick' of the mind. Kind of like 'if I don't really mind about myself, passions, fun stuff, bitter stuff, good stuff, bad stuff' then nothing affects me. A sort of apathy....?? A stoicism taken to the extreme??

Again, depends on what exactly do you mean by "detach ourselves from everything in this world"?? And again, I repeat, from what perspective, worldling or enlightened being do you ask your questions? Even if "ultimately" there's nothing get reborn, and assuming Buddhism is nothing more than just a strategy, all the deal with apathy, or a stoicism taken to the extreme... how do they help you in your practice right in the here and now?

I would say that I ask my questions as a worldling on the path. If I was fully enlightened I wouldn't need to be arguing on a forum about what makes sense and what doesn't. And quite possibly you wouldn't be replying. To get back to what you said earlier about there being nothing but experience without experiencer for an enlightened being...isn't that kinda like a fire without flames? Or wetness without a liquid?

As for the second question you posed, how do other strategies help me in the here and now, well they don't help ME but they seem to be working for others. Ultimately though when you compare religions, strategies, arguments for and against, lines of logic, traditions questions do arise. As a buddhist I find it difficult to accept a practice, including buddhism without doubt, scepticism, interrogation and research. Which is why I am here playing devil's advocate. It's the perceived or actual holes in the theory that drive me to inquire and possibly learn from the experience of others. I'm hoping that one or some of you would have had similar questions at some point in your practice. Ten years ago I was more accepting of what I read in the Sutras, as I grow older my questions grow more persistent. I guess it's part of my growing up process and a stage through which I must tread.
santa100
Posts: 6831
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by santa100 »

NMRK32 wrote:I would say that I ask my questions as a worldling on the path. If I was fully enlightened I wouldn't need to be arguing on a forum about what makes sense and what doesn't. And quite possibly you wouldn't be replying. To get back to what you said earlier about there being nothing but experience without experiencer for an enlightened being...isn't that kinda like a fire without flames? Or wetness without a liquid?
But don't you think it's exactly because on the level of an un-enlightened being, we always see that kinda like a fire without flames or wetness without liquid? We have not penetrated the no "I", "mine", nor "myself", so how do we expect to see it in the same light as the enlightened one? The reason for my second question, it's because regardless of what kind of answers you get for all your deep questions, at the end of the day you have to be bloody honest with yourself and ask this question: "Do my lust, greed, hatred, fear, etc.. actually decrease? or does "business" still go on as usual after all these deep philosophical talks about this illusory self?" Addressing this question is to directly address the question in your OP: "Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?".
NMRK32
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:47 am

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by NMRK32 »

santa100 wrote:
NMRK32 wrote:I would say that I ask my questions as a worldling on the path. If I was fully enlightened I wouldn't need to be arguing on a forum about what makes sense and what doesn't. And quite possibly you wouldn't be replying. To get back to what you said earlier about there being nothing but experience without experiencer for an enlightened being...isn't that kinda like a fire without flames? Or wetness without a liquid?
But don't you think it's exactly because on the level of an un-enlightened being, we always see that kinda like a fire without flames or wetness without liquid? We have not penetrated the no "I", "mine", nor "myself", so how do we expect to see it in the same light as the enlightened one? The reason for my second question, it's because regardless of what kind of answers you get for all your deep questions, at the end of the day you have to be bloody honest with yourself and ask this question: "Do my lust, greed, hatred, fear, etc.. actually decrease? or does "business" still go on as usual after all these deep philosophical talks about this illusory self?"
Although I acknowledge that as unenlightened beings we cannot see things from the 'enlightened' being's point of view we see from the sutras that the Buddha is appealing to our empirical knowledge and sense of logic to expound his dogma. Our logical faculties as unenlightened beings are utilised and appealed to for us to 'see sense' and decide to terminate our suffering. So to me it follows that whatever questions I have there should be a logical answer. When we arrive at the point where buddhism or any kind of '-ism' tells me illogical stuff and I have to take that 'leap of faith' it's then that my problems begin.

I also acknowledge your questions on what is my point for asking all these deep questions if they don't help me decrease my hate, anger, lust and other defilements. Indeed the questions do not really help much if at all, kinda like the parabole of the man and the poisoned arrow. However, as Buddhism is often taught and often times expressed in the sutras and the commentaries with all its metaphysical projections it inadvertedly lends itself to those questions. In other words theory is tied too deeply with tradition, religious formalities and forms and other 'woo-woo'. I guess my problem lies in how I should approach Buddhism. Should I treat it as a religion? Are the sutras religious texts? Or should I treat it as a strategy of detachment that doesn't really concern itself with whether I have a soul or not whether it be in the conventional or another sense altogether? Do I treat it as a stress release method or as something more? Is it really a soteriological method of deliverance or just a meditational exercise into apathy?

I just think that Buddhism has left itself purposely or accidentally open to such discussion and speculation, hence all the different schools of thought in it. Again, all these questions do not seem to matter much as to what I feel whilst meditating for instance but on a theoretical mundane level I think buddhism is a very nebulous system of thought. One moment it's a holy path, the next it's a strategy, it gets into metaphysical grounds but quickly runs away before anyone notices. It's neither here nor there. I would advocate for a clear streamlining and reinterpretation perhaps of what it really is....
Last edited by NMRK32 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
santa100
Posts: 6831
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by santa100 »

NMRK32 wrote:I also acknowledge your questions on what is my point for asking all these deep questions if they don't help me decrease my hate, anger, lust and other defilements. Indeed the questions do not really help much if at all, kinda like the parabole of the man and the poisoned arrow. However, as Buddhism is often taught and often times expressed in the sutras and the commentaries with all its metaphysical projections it inadvertedly lends itself to those questions. In other words theory is tied too deeply with tradition, religious formalities and forms and other 'woo-woo'. I guess my problem lays in how I should approach Buddhism. Should I treat it as a religion? Are the sutras religious texts? Or should I treat it as a strategy of detachment that doesn't really concern itself with whether I have a soul or not whether it be in the conventional or another sense altogether? Do I treat it as a stress release method or as something more? Is it really a soteriological method of deliverance or just a meditational exercise into apathy?
It's important to note that the reason the Buddha Dhamma covers such a wide spectrum of topics from very basic to very advanced precisely is because His audience WERE a spectrum of basic and advanced practitioners. That's why there's the term the "Gradual" training, starting with Virtues, then Meditation, and finally culminate in Wisdom. Interestingly, as one advances along the path, one's view about what the Teaching really is will change. If one still has a lot of issues with their lust, greed, aversion, etc.. then the Dhamma would be seen as a strategy to counter those afflictions. As one's gained a solid foundation on Virtues and making progress on Meditation, then the Dhamma would be seen as some meditational system, not just a mere ethical system. So on and so forth with one's developed Wisdom..so and so with metaphsical concepts, etc..
NMRK32
Posts: 15
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 2:47 am

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by NMRK32 »

santa100 wrote:
NMRK32 wrote:I also acknowledge your questions on what is my point for asking all these deep questions if they don't help me decrease my hate, anger, lust and other defilements. Indeed the questions do not really help much if at all, kinda like the parabole of the man and the poisoned arrow. However, as Buddhism is often taught and often times expressed in the sutras and the commentaries with all its metaphysical projections it inadvertedly lends itself to those questions. In other words theory is tied too deeply with tradition, religious formalities and forms and other 'woo-woo'. I guess my problem lays in how I should approach Buddhism. Should I treat it as a religion? Are the sutras religious texts? Or should I treat it as a strategy of detachment that doesn't really concern itself with whether I have a soul or not whether it be in the conventional or another sense altogether? Do I treat it as a stress release method or as something more? Is it really a soteriological method of deliverance or just a meditational exercise into apathy?
It's important to note that the reason the Buddha Dhamma covers such a wide spectrum of topics from very basic to very advanced precisely is because His audience WERE a spectrum of basic and advanced practitioners. That's why there's the term the "Gradual" training, starting with Virtues, then Meditation, and finally culminate in Wisdom. Interestingly, as one advances along the path, one's view about what the Teaching really is will change. If one still has a lot of issues with their lust, greed, aversion, etc.. then the Dhamma would be seen as a strategy to counter those afflictions. As one's gained a solid foundation on Virtues and making progress on Meditation, then the Dhamma would be seen as some meditational system, not just a mere ethical system. So on and so forth with one's developed Wisdom..so and so with metaphsical concepts, etc..

So in your own personal opinion and experience, what is Buddhism?
santa100
Posts: 6831
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by santa100 »

Exactly what I just told you. It's a system in which scale and scope will continue to open as one progresses along the path. To put it poetically, it's a secret garden where the beauty continues to amaze the visitor as long as s/he's willing to continue to step forward and open the subsequent gates!
Last edited by santa100 on Thu Apr 03, 2014 4:39 am, edited 1 time in total.
culaavuso
Posts: 1363
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 8:27 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by culaavuso »

NMRK32 wrote:isn't that kinda like a fire without flames?
It seems more like the other way around: It's like flames without fire. If you look at what we call a "fire", there are flames and there are embers and there is fuel and there is heat and there is air, but there isn't really any "fire" to be found. The name "fire" is just what we call this combination of flames and embers and fuel. Much like how "fire" can not be found apart from flames, embers, fuel, heat, and air, there is no "self" that can be found apart from form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. It's just the name that's given to this combination.
NMRK32 wrote: However, as Buddhism is often taught and often times expressed in the sutras and the commentaries with all its metaphysical projections it inadvertedly lends itself to those questions.
It can be useful to take a step back from this and ask what metaphysical projections accomplish. Any idea is a tool for understanding experiences and shaping behavior in relation to those experiences. Any idea that can't be tested through personal experience has an influence on choices and behavior. So the useful question then is: when holding this belief, do greed, hatred, and delusion increase or decrease? Do the actions shaped by this belief lead to affliction or not?
NMRK32 wrote: Do I treat it as a stress release method or as something more? Is it really a soteriological method of deliverance or just a meditational exercise into apathy?
Developing apathy leads to affliction through unskillful behavior and leads to delusion as a result of lacking effort and awareness. The seven factors of enlightenment include "energy" and "investigation", and the ten perfections include "resolute determination". These are not compatible with apathy. Similarly the practices of good-will, compassion, and sympathetic joy are in direct contradiction to developing apathy.

It can help to release stress, but while there is some overlap "dukkha" is not exactly the same thing as what English means by "stress". It is a method to completely eliminate dukkha. Thus it is something more than just a way to release stress.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by binocular »

NMRK32 wrote:I must insist that when the teacher is good enough the student will follow.
Which may take a few years for the student.
Like in a class, you will have the genuises who will catch it all the moment you say it, others will need a few repetitions. But a good teacher aims to leave nobody behind. We cannot be elitists and split people into the worthy and the unworthy ones or the capable and incapable ones. Not very noble...
/.../
"Kesi, I train a tamable person [sometimes] with gentleness, [sometimes] with harshness, [sometimes] with both gentleness & harshness.

"In using gentleness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such are the devas. Such are human beings.'

"In using harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is bodily misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such is hell. Such is the animal womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'

"In using gentleness & harshness, [I teach:] 'Such is good bodily conduct. Such is the result of good bodily conduct. Such is bodily misconduct. Such is the result of bodily misconduct. Such is good verbal conduct. Such is the result of good verbal conduct. Such is verbal misconduct. Such is the result of verbal misconduct. Such is good mental conduct. Such is the result of good mental conduct. Such is mental misconduct. Such is the result of mental misconduct. Such are the devas. Such are human beings. Such is hell. Such is the animal womb. Such the realm of the hungry shades.'"

"And if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, what do you do?"

"If a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then I kill him, Kesi."

"But it's not proper for our Blessed One to take life! And yet the Blessed One just said, 'I kill him, Kesi.'"

"It is true, Kesi, that it's not proper for a Tathagata to take life. But if a tamable person doesn't submit either to a mild training or to a harsh training or to a mild & harsh training, then the Tathagata doesn't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. His knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard him as being worth speaking to or admonishing. This is what it means to be totally destroyed in the Doctrine & Discipline, when the Tathagata doesn't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing."

"Yes, lord, wouldn't one be totally destroyed if the Tathagata doesn't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing, and one's knowledgeable fellows in the holy life don't regard one as being worth speaking to or admonishing!

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

If one doesn't want to be left behind, then one just has to make an effort to catch up.

I've heard this analogy once from someone from another religion:
People who are new to religion/spirituality tend to take one of two extreme approaches to spiritual life: Some are like the babies of kangaroos, being used to and expecting to be fully taken care of, nurtured and protected by others all the time. Some are like the babies of monkeys, left to themselves much of the time, clinging to the fur of the back of their mother for dear life, while she runs and jumps from tree to tree.
Neither is a viable option in the long run. Being like a kangaroo baby makes one too dependent on others. Being like a monkey baby one tries to be independent before one is really able to.
Fortunately, we're human, so we have some more options available.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by binocular »

NMRK32 wrote:But doesn't that presuppose an experiencer? A underlying knower? An inquisitor? The conflict I have had with Theravada is that the illusionary, self is doing both the knowing and the liberating...
It's not Theravada to have a conflict with. Theravada efforts to keep in line with the Pali Canon, and the Pali Canon says:
Dwelling at Savatthi... Then a certain brahman went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What now, Master Gotama: Is the one who acts the same one who experiences [the results of the act]?"

[The Buddha:] "[To say,] 'The one who acts is the same one who experiences,' is one extreme."

[The brahman:] "Then, Master Gotama, is the one who acts someone other than the one who experiences?"

[The Buddha:] "[To say,] 'The one who acts is someone other than the one who experiences,' is the second extreme. Avoiding both of these extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma by means of the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.
/.../

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
NMRK32 wrote:As a buddhist I
Why do you consider yourself a Buddhist?

I have found that the majority of my problems related to Buddhism disappeared once I have made an effort to be more reserved and conscientious about calling myself a Buddhist.
"Being a Buddhist" is after all not the same kind of category as "being an African-American" - ie. it doesn't automatically apply 24/7 regardless of one's choices.

I just think that Buddhism has left itself purposely or accidentally open to such discussion and speculation, hence all the different schools of thought in it. Again, all these questions do not seem to matter much as to what I feel whilst meditating for instance but on a theoretical mundane level I think buddhism is a very nebulous system of thought. One moment it's a holy path, the next it's a strategy, it gets into metaphysical grounds but quickly runs away before anyone notices. It's neither here nor there.
I don't know of any religion where what you describe above could not apply.

I would advocate for a clear streamlining and reinterpretation perhaps of what it really is....
And have someone else do your homework?
:)
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Bakmoon
Posts: 637
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2012 3:14 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by Bakmoon »

NMRK32 wrote: So if there is no ultimate experiencer, who's experiencing the dukkha? And how come the answer is the eightfold path? Don't the really devout Christians and Muslims who place all their faith in their respective Gods and transcend themselves overcome dukkha? They won't be continuing on after death anyway, so while they're here their religions too offer the same type of transcedence and detachment from worldly and selfish affairs if followed to the letter, no?
There is no who, ultimately. Ultimately speaking, dukkha simply arises.

And I can't give an upfront proof that the Noble Eightfold Path is the answer, and neither is it reasonable to expect one. Allow me to illustrate by an analogy. Suppose Alice and Bob bump into each other one day and Alice tells Bob that she found a treasure map that shows a path through the woods scattered with bits of various precious goods until finally the path ends in a cave filled with gold. Alice says that she wants to find the treasure and offers to let Bob come with. Bob says that he refuses to even take one step along the path until Alice can give him a logical proof that the treasure at the end of the path is real. Alice says that neither of them can know one way or another until they actually set out on the trail, but she is curious and thinks at least it is worth a shot but Bob is still uninterested and leaves.

Afterwards Alice gets all her gear together and sets out with her treasure map into the woods. After walking for a while she finds a small gold coin under a large rock just like the map says. She gets excited and thinks to herself that her map has something to it after all. She goes further and finds more treasure along the path and she becomes even more confident in the map until finally, she comes to a cave and enters to find it full of gold coins, upon which she is absolutely convinced that the map is true.

That's what the spiritual journey is like. The Buddha's teachings are like the treasure map, the trail is like the Noble Eightfold Path, the gold coins along the way are like the happiness we gain initially from developing our character and through meditative practice, and Nibbana is like the cave full of gold at the end. The only way you can find out for sure if the path leads somewhere is to walk it.

As for how this is different than what the devout Christians believe, well that's an easy one. They say that God himself cannot be directly experienced or known in this life and that the final goal is in the afterlife. Nibbana can be realized in the here and now.
The non-doing of any evil,
The performance of what's skillful,
The cleansing of one's own mind:
This is the Buddhas' teaching.
Ananda26
Posts: 171
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 2:41 pm

Re: Is there really a point in practicing Buddhism?

Post by Ananda26 »

Freedom from suffering is very worthwhile goal and found in Buddha's teaching is how to get it.
Post Reply