Transhumanism

[culaavuso]

Let us look at the second and third kind of suffering that has been mentioned in the Sutta you provided. Although the Buddha classified them in this particular instance as two, i personally fail to see the difference. Conditionality and change in my mind are the same thing. If you believe that they are different, i kindly request you to explain how? can there be a change without conditionality?

Bodhipaksa has an interesting interpretation:

I wasn’t sure at first what was bothering me about this teaching, but eventually I realized that it was repetitive. The third category of suffering encompasses the other two. Impermanence or change (this isn’t change as such but change in the sense of “reversal of fortune”) is just an example of “conditioned states.” So is ordinary suffering.

I dislike this untidiness.
...
In the scriptures the order is always dukkha-dukkhatā (oridinary pain), sankhāra-dukkhatā (“conditioned states”), and then vipariṇāma-dukkhatā (the pain of reversal of fortune).
...
So it seems to me that we have here three forms of suffering.

1. We have initial pain, the first arrow, which is dukkha-dukkhatā. This can be physical or mental. In the teaching of the two arrows, the first pain is physical, of course, but much of our pain is mental. For example when we have “hurt feelings” we feel physical pain, but it’s mediated by the mind. In other words we need to have interpreted some experience as being harmful to us before we can feel this hurt.

2. Then we have constructed pain — the second arrow. This would be sankhāra-dukkhatā. Sankhāra can certainly mean “conditioned” but the most basic meaning of sankhāra is “that which has been put together.” Hence it can mean “fabricated” or “constructed.” So this is the suffering that we construct through our reactions to physical or mental pain. As the Buddha puts it, “When touched with a feeling of pain, the uninstructed run-of-the-mill person sorrows, grieves, and laments, beats his breast, becomes distraught.”

3. Then we have a third form of pain, which is delayed. Someone experiences something painful, and then, “Touched by that painful feeling, he delights in sensual pleasure.” So we avoid pain by pursuing pleasure, but there’s a “but” … the “but” being that the pleasure arising from clinging must come to an end. That in itself is painful, but we will almost certainly have to deal with the pain that we were initially running from. This is the pain of reversal — vipariṇāma-dukkhatā.

[Bundokji]

nanotech has a relative advantage which is the end of physical pain, so i would personally go for nanotech.

You lost me. Your argument sounded at first like you were going to say Nibbana because it's the end of mental suffering and because "Nano-Tech" can't be a cure for mental suffering, but you go with Nano-tech which would only be the end of pain...? I know you said relative advantage, (not that I agree with it, but I do understand) but all in all it is impossible to end mental suffering with physical means (as we can so clearly see even today) Science can't even tell the difference between Nama and Rupa let alone discern the cause of grief.

I did not say that nanotech cannot be a cure for mental suffering. What I was trying to say is that if nanotech to find a permanent cure for mental stress (suffering) it has to be through the removal of clinging and ignorance and I explained why there cant be other way.

Although there cant be other way, but there can be other methods! Science might be able to invent some kind of drug that calms the activities of the "thinking mind" enough to enable us to see where thoughts come from, or how self view gets constructed in our minds (an insight)! As you know, many use psychedelics to achieve the same results . That would be much easier than the difficult traditional methods such as meditation, eating one meal a day, shaving head and eyebrows, begging for food and spending hours reading and memorizing "Thus have I heard" ...etc!

In my mind, if one is really genuine in his intentions to renounce his/her "suffering" (which in my mind means mental stress) and if they are not attached to the traditional methods and rituals, then I don't see why would not they choose nanotech taking into consideration what I explained above.

Peace

[Bundokji]

Let us look at the second and third kind of suffering that has been mentioned in the Sutta you provided. Although the Buddha classified them in this particular instance as two, i personally fail to see the difference. Conditionality and change in my mind are the same thing. If you believe that they are different, i kindly request you to explain how? can there be a change without conditionality?

Is change or conditionality are suffering in themselves? or our non acceptance of them "clinging" is what causing us suffering?

To sum up my point, if you can follow my thoughts you will see that i am trying to boil things down:

1- Nibbana is "the end of mental stress"
2-clinging is what causes mental stress
3- Ignorance (the inability to see the three marks of existence including sankhara-dukkhata) is what causes clinging

To get back to the OP, if science is to provide an end to "mental stress" , the only possible way is to end clinging, which can only be done by eliminating ignorance, the same thing the Buddha have done 2500 years ago! There cant be another way. So the question: "So, nibbāna er nānotech, which one shall you? " is a misleading one because both have to be the same in relation to mental stress , except that nanotech has a relative advantage which is the end of physical pain, so i would personally go for nanotech.

Peace

Some people do treat viparinama-dukkhata and sankhara-dukkhata as the same phenomenon, but this is to treat "dukkha" merely as a form of pain or a cause of pain, rather than a wider sense of something being wrong with our existence. It also skates over the distinction that is pointed to in the sutta.

I think it makes more sense to see viparinama-dukkhata as the "declinability" of pleasurable and desired things. Not painful in itself (they could fade to neutral, or even something better) but one aspect of the wrongness of the world; what makes it hard to bear. Similarly, conditionality is not necessarily painful, but is an affront to the desired aseity or self-existence of what we take ourselves to be. Neither are the same as the "wrongness" of pain, whether that pain is experienced as being in the mind or in the body. I think the Buddha had a wider agenda than simply "what hurts", and this is why some translators rightly chose "unsatisfactoriness", "dis-ease", "stress", etc. over "suffering".

I remember listening or reading one of Ajahn Chah's talks and he said:

"There is nothing wrong with the world, its our wrong views about the world that causes us suffering"

. Do you agree with this statement?

I am trying not to misinterpret your response, but you seems to agree with those who accuse Buddhism to have a pessimistic view of the world especially when you said:

"Not painful in itself (they could fade to neutral, or even something better) but one aspect of the wrongness of the world; what makes it hard to bear."

so it seems to me that you are implying that there is something intrinsically wrong with the world as it is!

I think this whole discussion is vey related to how we understand the four noble truths and what we are trying to achieve. I also think that if we use the same terminology differently that will inevitably lead to unnecessary confusion.

What did you mean by the word "existence" when you said:

rather than a wider sense of something being wrong with our existence

?

If your use of the word "existence" means "self view" then I totally agree with you, but if your use of word "existence" means "being in the world" then I kindly request you to explain how?

What is Nibbana?

Is it the end of physical pain? My answer is no
Is it the end of change? My answer is no
Is it the end of conditionality? my answer is no

If your answer is "yes" to any of the above three questions, then please explain how?

Through negation of what is not, the positive exist. If Nibbana does not end physical pain, change and conditionality, that leads us to the conclusion that it ends the "mental stress" caused by not understanding physical pain, change and conditionality (the end of identification with physical pain, conditionality and change).

Peace

[Bundokji]

Thanks for sharing the link culaavuso

[Sam Vara]

I remember listening or reading one of Ajahn Chah's talks and he said:

"There is nothing wrong with the world, its our wrong views about the world that causes us suffering"

. Do you agree with this statement?

?

I'm not sure how fruitful this type of cross-examination is going to be, but here goes....

It might well be the case that what makes the world hard to bear is wrong view. I sometimes experience the world as being "wrong", and this might very well be due to me seeing it wrongly, or it might not. Conversely, when I think the world is OK, that might be due to a temporary suspension of wrong view. I don't know the extent to which my experience of the world is separable from my views about it.

so it seems to me that you are implying that there is something intrinsically wrong with the world as it is!

I'm not sure what you mean by "intrinsically", but presumably any "wrongness" would be dependently arisen.

I also think that if we use the same terminology differently that will inevitably lead to unnecessary confusion.

Only if we feel a need to ensure that we are all using the same terminology in the same way. My thoughts seem to serve me reasonably well, and beyond being open to different and better interpretations I'm not too bothered if other people think differently.

What did you mean by the word "existence" when you said:
rather than a wider sense of something being wrong with our existence
?

If your use of the word "existence" means "self view" then I totally agree with you, but if your use of word "existence" means "being in the world" then I kindly request you to explain how?

The difference between the two options you give is not clear to me. I meant something like "the way things are". This would include "self-view", but you might need to define more closely what you mean by that. "Being in the world" has a specialist Heideggerian sense as well as a simple everyday meaning which does not exclude self view.

Through negation of what is not, the positive exist. If Nibbana does not end physical pain, change and conditionality, that leads us to the conclusion that it ends the "mental stress" caused by not understanding physical pain, change and conditionality

This is only valid if you have the unstated assumption that Nibbana must end one or more of pain, change, conditionality, and mental stress. Who knows for sure what it ends? If I think it ends more than it actually does, then the worst that can happen is that I will be disappointed by it - Nibbana is not all that it's cracked up to be - and I might need to make a late conversion to Christianity or Islam...

[Bundokji]

Hello Sam,

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

I'm not sure how fruitful this type of cross-examination is going to be, but here goes....

If done with the intention to find the truth rather than for the sake of arguing, i cant be sure if its going to be fruitful, but i can be almost certain that it wont be harmful.

It might well be the case that what makes the world hard to bear is wrong view. I sometimes experience the world as being "wrong", and this might very well be due to me seeing it wrongly, or it might not. Conversely, when I think the world is OK, that might be due to a temporary suspension of wrong view. I don't know the extent to which my experience of the world is separable from my views about it.

I also experience the world as being wrong, but i thought you was talking about what the Buddha taught, not from your subjective experience. I apologize for
this misunderstanding

I'm not sure what you mean by "intrinsically", but presumably any "wrongness" would be dependently arisen.

What i meant by "intrinsically" is "objectively" or in a mind-independent way.

Only if we feel a need to ensure that we are all using the same terminology in the same way. My thoughts seem to serve me reasonably well, and beyond being open to different and better interpretations I'm not too bothered if other people think differently.

In this particular instance, we are not using these terminologies as internal thoughts, but to communicate in a public forum, hence i thought that having "meaning analysis" would enable us to communicate precisely and to avoid misunderstanding.

The difference between the two options you give is not clear to me. I meant something like "the way things are". This would include "self-view", but you might need to define more closely what you mean by that. "Being in the world" has a specialist Heideggerian sense as well as a simple everyday meaning which does not exclude self view.

In my mind, existence implies self view,, while "being" is more of an activity. What i meant by "being in the world" is the world as "one unity movement".

This is only valid if you have the unstated assumption that Nibbana must end one or more of pain, change, conditionality, and mental stress. Who knows for sure what it ends? If I think it ends more than it actually does, then the worst that can happen is that I will be disappointed by it - Nibbana is not all that it's cracked up to be - and I might need to make a late conversion to Christianity or Islam...

If you mean by:

who knows for sure what it ends

that the only possible way to know for sure is to be enlightened, then what is the point of having any discussion in this forum?

I stated that Nibbana ends only mental stress and i gave good reasons why i believe so. On other hand, you seem to be using "uncertainty" as an excuse to avoid providing a logically coherent argument.

Peace

[daverupa]

I stated that Nibbana ends only mental stress...

Well, some inflows are yet to be endured - flies, the cold & heat, body aches - but these are of an altogether different order for an arahant. And, the final cessation of those is also brought about with the final breakup of the aggregates. So both are ended, though not necessarily all at once.

[Bundokji]

I stated that Nibbana ends only mental stress...

Well, some inflows are yet to be endured - flies, the cold & heat, body aches - but these are of an altogether different order for an arahant. And, the final cessation of those is also brought about with the final breakup of the aggregates. So both are ended, though not necessarily all at once.

Thanks Dave,

I have heard once that the natural state "enlightenment" is a state of not knowing, which implies that pleasure and pain, cold and heat ...etc are experienced, yet not recognized in the same way most of us do. Is that what you meant?

Cheers

[daverupa]

I have heard once that the natural state "enlightenment" is a state of not knowing, which implies that pleasure and pain, cold and heat ...etc are experienced, yet not recognized in the same way most of us do. Is that what you meant?

I mean:

If he feels a pleasant feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a painful feeling, he feels it detached; if he feels a neither-painful-nor-pleasant feeling, he feels it detached.

Sisters, suppose a skilled butcher or his apprentice were to kill a cow and carve it up with a sharp butcher’s knife. Without damaging the inner mass of flesh and without damaging the outer hide, he would cut, sever, and carve away the inner tendons, sinews, and ligaments with the sharp butcher’s knife. Then having cut, severed, and carved all this away, he would remove the outer hide and cover the cow again with that same hide. Would he be speaking rightly if he were to say: ‘This cow is joined to this hide just as it was before’?”

“No, venerable sir. Why is that? Because if that skilled butcher or his apprentice were to kill a cow…and cut, sever, and carve all that away, even though he covers the cow again with that same hide and says: ‘This cow is joined to this hide just as it was before,’ that cow would still be disjoined from that hide.”

“Sisters, I have given this simile in order to convey a meaning. This is the meaning: ‘The inner mass of flesh’ is a term for the six internal bases. ‘The outer hide’ is a term for the six external bases. ‘The inner tendons, sinews, and ligaments’ is a term for delight and lust. ‘The sharp butcher’s knife’ is a term for noble wisdom—the noble wisdom that cuts, severs, and carves away the inner defilements, fetters, and bonds.

Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Rajagaha in the Maddakucchi Deer Park. Now on that occasion the Blessed One’s foot had been cut by a stone splinter. Severe pains assailed the Blessed One—bodily feelings that were painful, racking, sharp, piercing, harrowing, disagreeable. But the Blessed One endured them, mindful and clearly comprehending, without becoming distressed. Then the Blessed One had his outer robe folded in four, and he lay down on his right side in the lion posture with one leg overlapping the other, mindful and clearly comprehending.

[Bundokji]

Thanks for the explanation Dave, and sorry for asking too many questions, but what you meant by "the final break up of the aggregates" is death?

[daverupa]

Thanks for the explanation Dave, and sorry for asking too many questions, but what you meant by "the final break up of the aggregates" is death?

The falling-over-of-the body sort of death, yes, though saying an "arahant died" is problematic.

[Sam Vara]

I'm not sure what you mean by "intrinsically", but presumably any "wrongness" would be dependently arisen.

What i meant by "intrinsically" is "objectively" or in a mind-independent way.

Yes, I agree, in that it is a judgement about something, which can only arise once there is a mind which can judge.

In this particular instance, we are not using these terminologies as internal thoughts, but to communicate in a public forum, hence i thought that having "meaning analysis" would enable us to communicate precisely and to avoid misunderstanding.
The difference between the two options you give is not clear to me. I meant something like "the way things are". This would include "self-view", but you might need to define more closely what you mean by that. "Being in the world" has a specialist Heideggerian sense as well as a simple everyday meaning which does not exclude self view.


In my mind, existence implies self view,, while "being" is more of an activity. What i meant by "being in the world" is the world as "one unity movement".

This illustrates why I have modest expectations of communication to avoid misunderstanding on a public forum. In ordinary English, "existence" does not imply self-view. Inanimate insensible objects can exist and have no view or self. You might mean something more specialised here. Similarly, "being" could be construed as a noun, although even if treated as a verb most people would say that it is synonymous with existence. "One unity movement" is also an apparently idiosyncratic expression. I've never heard it before, I'm afraid, and Googling even "Unity Movement" gives little beyond some sort of American Christian denomination.

If you mean by:
who knows for sure what it ends
that the only possible way to know for sure is to be enlightened, then what is the point of having any discussion in this forum?

I think that discussions here are useful to explore the means to the end. We don't need to know for sure what gold medals are like in order to train for the Olympics. My contributions here (and I suspect most contributors') are based on faith, personal approval, reasoning, tradition, and reflective acceptance, rather than direct understanding of the truth.

I stated that Nibbana ends only mental stress and i gave good reasons why i believe so. On other hand, you seem to be using "uncertainty" as an excuse to avoid providing a logically coherent argument.

That's fine. I don't agree with your point about what nibbana ends, on the grounds that the sutta that I quoted (among others) appears to suggest that it ends more. I have pointed out that your conclusion may well be true, but that it is not based on sound reasoning in that the conclusion you give does not derive from the premises you give. I'm not particularly interested in providing a "logically coherent argument", but merely point to the quoted sutta as an indication that the Buddha's conception of dukkha might be wider than mere "mental stress".

[Bundokji]

Hello Sam,

That's fine. I don't agree with your point about what nibbana ends, on the grounds that the sutta that I quoted (among others) appears to suggest that it ends more. I have pointed out that your conclusion may well be true, but that it is not based on sound reasoning in that the conclusion you give does not derive from the premises you give. I'm not particularly interested in providing a "logically coherent argument", but merely point to the quoted sutta as an indication that the Buddha's conception of dukkha might be wider than mere "mental stress".

I totally agree that the Buddha's conception of dukkha is wider than mere mental stress, but what I have been trying to point out is that all of them will be experienced as mental stress sooner or later!

In the second noble truth, the Buddha did not mention physical pain, conditionality and change as the causes of suffering, but he talked about clinging, craving and delusion. In other words, pain, conditionality and change are suffering only for unenlightened beings, but for arahants, they cease to be suffering, not by the removal of them, but by the removal of clinging, craving and delusion.

Conditionality and change are the laws of nature, and no one can control or eliminate the laws of nature, not even the Buddha! What the Buddha taught is how to live in harmony with the laws of nature, all in my opinion.

It has been a pleasure having this discussion with you

[Sam Vara]

In the second noble truth, the Buddha did not mention physical pain, conditionality and change as the causes of suffering, but he talked about clinging, craving and delusion. In other words, pain, conditionality and change are suffering only for unenlightened beings, but for arahants, they cease to be suffering, not by the removal of them, but by the removal of clinging, craving and delusion.

I don't think the Dukkhata Sutta is saying that these three things are the causes of suffering. More that they are what constitutes suffering, that Dukkha comprises these three things. This is of course compatible with the view that they cease entirely as a result of abandoning clinging, and I favour this interpretation because it is compatible with other things that are said about nibbana, for example herehttp://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 06#p321004.

Conditionality and change are the laws of nature, and no one can control or eliminate the laws of nature, not even the Buddha!

Agreed, but given the reality of a deathless thing, realm, state, or element, they are not universal laws. Indeed I don't think they could be, because any ability to live free from suffering would then be conditional upon other factors, and impermanent.

It has been a pleasure having this discussion with you

Likewise, Bundokji. It has helped me think, and I am sincerely grateful.