Buddhism: just another "truth"?

[lostitude]

...

Doubt is a temporary state of mind, fabricated and not self.

No one in the world, Dhotaka,
can I release from doubting.
But knowing the most excellent Dhamma,
you will cross over the flood.

Dhotakamāṇavapucchā

Sweeping the problem under the rug?
Thanks for the reference anyway.

[Ceisiwr]

...

Doubt is a temporary state of mind, fabricated and not self.

No one in the world, Dhotaka,
can I release from doubting.
But knowing the most excellent Dhamma,
you will cross over the flood.

Dhotakamāṇavapucchā

Sweeping the problem under the rug?
Thanks for the reference anyway.

More looking at doubt for what it is. A temporary state that has nothing to do with anyone.

[SteRo]

Even having access to "another truth" or "another reality" is not exclusive to Buddhism.

That is correct. Especially because "having access 'to another truth'" actually is "having access to a particular filter bubble".

[lostitude]

Supermundane Right View doesn't replace Mundane Right View, it builds on top of it. Before you can have Supermundane Right View, you need to perfect Mundane Right View.

But you said yourself that your lifestyle was a happy one. I assume you believe you hold mundane right view at least. The Buddha says your lifestyle is worth less than a piece of poop. I wouldn’t exactly say this view builds on that view. It flat out detroys it.

Suoermudane Right View is what is unique to Buddhism compared to other religions. Now, for you to decide whether Supermundane Right View is true, you need to get your chin over that bar for at least a brief moment. That means, at some point in your life, you're going to have to execute the noble eightfold path to the point of first jhana and confirm dependent origination first hand, while in first jhana.

Yes, that’s the mental conditioning I was talking about in my OP. Potentially psychosis-inducing conditioning. Like the Christian monks who hear the Virgin talking to them.

[coconut]

Supermundane Right View doesn't replace Mundane Right View, it builds on top of it. Before you can have Supermundane Right View, you need to perfect Mundane Right View.

But you said yourself that your lifestyle was a happy one. I assume you believe you hold mundane right view at least. The Buddha says your lifestyle is worth less than a piece of poop. I wouldn’t exactly say this view builds on that view. It flat out detroys it.

Suoermudane Right View is what is unique to Buddhism compared to other religions. Now, for you to decide whether Supermundane Right View is true, you need to get your chin over that bar for at least a brief moment. That means, at some point in your life, you're going to have to execute the noble eightfold path to the point of first jhana and confirm dependent origination first hand, while in first jhana.

Yes, that’s the mental conditioning I was talking about in my OP. Potentially psychosis-inducing conditioning. Like the Christian monks who hear the Virgin talking to them.

Why would the Buddha say that my life is a piece of poop when he said the human life is extremely rare as rare as a blind turtle sticking its head through a hole in a log in a wide ocean?

It sounds like to me you don't even have a proper understanding of the true dhamma.

Now you can fall back on your previous argument that "you haven't practiced good enough" but well, if someone fails the medical school, and says "medicine isn't true, they just keep saying you're not smart enough to be a doctor, there's no such thing as a doctor, it's just conditioning" then they'd be a fool, do you agree?

The truth is, your theoretical understanding is incomplete, and you need to work on that by properly investigating the suttas.

[lostitude]

Sweeping the problem under the rug?
Thanks for the reference anyway.

More looking at doubt for what it is. A temporary state that has nothing to do with anyone.

Yet some good old explaining often does the trick. That’s what I’m hoping for here

[Sam Vara]

Hello,

I’ve been having doubts lately about buddhist teachings, whether in written form or in talks given by monks. I feel that as soon as the topic discussed goes beyond the limits of "mundane" comprehension and goes on to describe things that mere mortals can only accept on faith, the dissonance between my perception of life and this Buddhist’s perception of life begs the question of whether I’m the one who’s deluded, or if he’s the one who’s gone crazy.

I can’t help but imagine the case of someone being presented with a square drawn on a piece of paper. He is told by someone trustworthy that no, this is not a square, this is actually a circle. If this person trains himself diligently for years and years and years to try and see the circle where all he can see at first is a square, will there not come a time when he will be sufficiently messed up to see a circle instead of a square?

What if Bhuddism actually had the same effect? Years of self-imposed conditioning until your perceptions finally align with the texts? And if you’re sane enough that your perceptions don’t really change, then you are told that "you’re not a very good Bhuddist or that your practice is flawed, or that you just have too much karma to gain any fruit from your practice?"

Thanks for your thoughts.

This is very similar to the view put forward by binocular, late of this forum. All spiritual progress is a self-confirming hypothesis, the result of people convincing themselves to see things in line with the teachings. Those that dissent because they can't see it are suppressed, patronised, sidelined, or ignored by those who have convinced themselves.

My advice, for what it's worth, is to stick with the bits that you are happy with, and can sustain trust in. There probably is no dissonance between your aspiration to be free of suffering (or maybe just a little bit calmer!) and the aspiration of those who claim or imply attainments. So just follow what seems to free you from suffering, or make you calmer. It's an intellectually interesting question as to whether those guys really see a circle, pretend they do in order to maintain the illusion, or whether it really is a circle and with a breakthrough you will see it too. But if you see a square, be true to yourself in a quiet way. "To the best of my knowledge, it's this way, rather than that way..."

Ajahn Chah used to ask his followers to just practice, not worrying about what was going on in other kutis, or inside the heads of other meditators. He just asked people to be mindful, and to note their own defilements. You could do the same. Embrace your doubts. If there is dissonance, so be it. Just practice for happiness through relinquishment.

[Ceisiwr]

Sweeping the problem under the rug?
Thanks for the reference anyway.

More looking at doubt for what it is. A temporary state that has nothing to do with anyone.

Yet some good old explaining often does the trick. That’s what I’m hoping for here

Well, what did you find unclear about what I said?

[SteRo]

More looking at doubt for what it is. A temporary state that has nothing to do with anyone.

Yet some good old explaining often does the trick. That’s what I’m hoping for here

Well, what did you find unclear about what I said?

Although I am not sure whether Ceisiwr actually implicitly opposes doubt and knowing which I would not follow because I am opposing doubt and perfect emptiness.

[lostitude]

Why would the Buddha say that my life is a piece of poop

Wait, didn’t he say so? I was convinced I had read this somewhere. Doesn’t this ring a bell?

[coconut]

Why would the Buddha say that my life is a piece of poop

Wait, didn’t he say so? I was convinced I had read this somewhere. Doesn’t this ring a bell?

If you're convinced that's not good enough, I for example have studied the suttas thoroughly every day for 20 years that I even remember the names of several monks and laypeople within the suttas and many of the events in the suttas, that's my level of dhamma familiarity, that's how many times I've read the same suttas, in one year I've probably read each of the four nikayas completely at least 4-5 times. I also had your doubts many years ago, but I worked through them.

However, I have found an even better way to solve your doubt.

Actually this whole thread and debate can be ended simply:

Why do anything? Because it feels good.

- Sensual desires feel good.
- Jhanas feel better than sensual desires
- Ariya fruits feel better than jhanas
- Nibbana feels better than previous ariya fruits

Now you may say that there is no feelings in Nibbana, but the cessation of stress is a type of pleasantry, and the Buddha said it is a pleasantry/happiness.

Furthermore you would agree that it's better to have no pain and no pleasure over having lots of pain and lots of pleasure, as pain cancels pleasure out. Now if there is no pain to cancel anything out, then there is simply bliss.

So why follow Buddhism? Because it is the ultimate happiness.

The end.

[lostitude]

This is very similar to the view put forward by binocular, late of this forum. All spiritual progress is a self-confirming hypothesis, the result of people convincing themselves to see things in line with the teachings. Those that dissent because they can't see it are suppressed, patronised, sidelined, or ignored by those who have convinced themselves.

My advice, for what it's worth, is to stick with the bits that you are happy with, and can sustain trust in. There probably is no dissonance between your aspiration to be free of suffering (or maybe just a little bit calmer!) and the aspiration of those who claim or imply attainments. So just follow what seems to free you from suffering, or make you calmer. It's an intellectually interesting question as to whether those guys really see a circle, pretend they do in order to maintain the illusion, or whether it really is a circle and with a breakthrough you will see it too. But if you see a square, be true to yourself in a quiet way. "To the best of my knowledge, it's this way, rather than that way..."

Ajahn Chah used to ask his followers to just practice, not worrying about what was going on in other kutis, or inside the heads of other meditators. He just asked people to be mindful, and to note their own defilements. You could do the same. Embrace your doubts. If there is dissonance, so be it. Just practice for happiness through relinquishment.

Thanks Sam Vara, it’s silly but it feels good to see that you have actually understood my point before proceeding to discuss/dispute it. I think it’s called validation in psychology? From now on I will try and apply it too

Actually, while posting on this thread, I’m starting to ask myself if really I should be concerned about a supposed clash between "this version of reality" vs "that version of reality", since reality is inherently subjective, and after all maybe it doesn’t matter if the Buddha’s description of reality was more or less accurate as any other, provided that it made him happy. What’s wrong with living in a lie if this lie makes you happy, and if you don’t need to know the truth to live your life in happiness?

[rhinoceroshorn]

I should know someone who advocates Budagousa's Wiçudimaga jhānas would be too hard on other things to mere laymen.
You guys don't know what moderation is.
Be well.

I don't follow Buddhaghosa jhanas? I follow the suttas. Regardless, you obviously aren't prepared to become a monk if you don't even know about Uposotha and all the laymen in the suttas that emulated the monk restrictions like Celibacy, such as Hatthaka of Alavi, Citta the householder, Isidatta the householder, etc..

I read some of your posts on jhānas and you sounded as dogmatic as a commentary-lover. Maybe it's just your inclination being too assertive in everything: "you must do such and such." I don't think this is very healthy.
Sāriputta and Moggallāna were the model monks of the Buddha's time. How many monks do you know who look like them? Sometimes it's just impractical, and that's my point. It's not because it's practical for you that is practical for everyone. Like you, I also used to recommend celibacy, but I ended up recognizing how it's mostly impractical for most people. Celibacy mostly helps with meditation and most people don't meditate or don't have a solid meditation. So, why bothering?

[coconut]

I should know someone who advocates Budagousa's Wiçudimaga jhānas would be too hard on other things to mere laymen.
You guys don't know what moderation is.
Be well.

I don't follow Buddhaghosa jhanas? I follow the suttas. Regardless, you obviously aren't prepared to become a monk if you don't even know about Uposotha and all the laymen in the suttas that emulated the monk restrictions like Celibacy, such as Hatthaka of Alavi, Citta the householder, Isidatta the householder, etc..

I read some of your posts on jhānas and you sounded as dogmatic as a commentary-lover. Maybe it's just your inclination being too assertive in everything: "you must do such and such." I don't think this is very healthy.
Sāriputta and Moggallāna were the model monks of the Buddha's time. How many monks do you know who look like them? Sometimes it's just impractical, and that's my point. It's not because it's practical for you that is practical for everyone. Like you, I also used to recommend celibacy, but I ended up recognizing how it's mostly impractical for most people. Celibacy mostly helps with meditation and most people don't meditate or don't have a solid meditation. So, why bothering?

That's nice and dandy, but your opinion is irrelevant to what the suttas say. If you have a problem with what the suttas say, take it up with the Buddha.

[lostitude]

Why would the Buddha say that my life is a piece of poop

Wait, didn’t he say so? I was convinced I had read this somewhere. Doesn’t this ring a bell?

If you're convinced that's not good enough, I for example have studied the suttas thoroughly every day for 20 years that I even remember the names of several monks and laypeople within the suttas and many of the events in the suttas, that's my level of dhamma familiarity, that's how many times I've read the same suttas, in one year I've probably read each of the four nikayas completely at least 4-5 times. I also had your doubts many years ago, but I worked through them.

I’m a bit mystified about the sequence of replies I’m quoting above. If you felt I implied that you lack familiarity with the suttas, it really wasn’t the idea. I was simply surprised that you didn’t seem to recognize this statement which I was quite sure was attributed to the Buddha.

Actually this whole thread and debate can be ended simply:

Why do anything? Because it feels good.

- Sensual desires feel good.
- Jhanas feel better than sensual desires
- Ariya fruits feel better than jhanas
- Nibbana feels better than previous ariya fruits

Indeed this is actually what I’m starting to think.

Furthermore you would agree that it's better to have no pain and no pleasure over having lots of pain and lots of pleasure, as pain cancels pleasure out. Now if there is no pain to cancel anything out, then there is simply bliss.

So why follow Buddhism? Because it is the ultimate happiness.

This is slightly more open to debate, but you’ve made your point. Thanks for your patience.