Buddhism: just another "truth"?

[coconut]

I was not the one who formulated five precepts without celibacy and entertainment.
Yes, those are conventions, and this is a hint that the Dhamma has some degree of relativism, contrary to what you suggest.

All I suggested was what the suttas say, that one who practices more develops the faculties more, and one who practices less develops the faculties less. That's why I said if someone can maintain perfect virtue for just a single day, that's still a great achievement. You're the one that has a problem with that and called me dogmatic.

Just reread what you posted. You are basically charging perfection. That's why I said it's not healthy practicing that way. You are stimulating a very deleterious sense of self.

Then you obviously lack the ability to understand context. My post was aimed at lostitude, the context is what he/she needs to overcome doubt, i.e. to attain first jhana and confirm dependent origination, and celibacy is a requirement for that, therefore my post was the list of requirements intended for him and in his situation of doubt, i.e. what it takes to attain the fruit of stream entry.

For someone talking about relativism, you sure do take people's posts out of context, and out of the threads they're related to.

[rhinoceroshorn]

Don't be too hard on yourself or others. And this is for monks too.
Lets recall Bhikkhu Pamutto who loved dhutanga and ended up disrobing some time later. I think he pushed too hard. This is what happens in the end. You end up giving up because you don't achieve your illusory standards.
Go slow and enjoy the path.

[coconut]

Don't be too hard on yourself or others. And this is for monks too.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the requirements that are written in the suttas for first jhana. Whether or not he/she wants to take it easy or not with meeting those requirements is a totally different matter, which doesn't change the requirements. Furthermore lostitude even clarified their problem/doubt, which doesn't even have to do with what I originally wrote which lead to a more calibrated discussion about feelings which better helped them think about their problem. So you're just derailing the thread into irrelevant non-sense.

I'm suspecting now you're just trolling or have bad faith, or you're just inept. So my discussion with you is over.

[SteRo]

So finally it's about belief, isn't it? This one believes that and that one believes this.

[Sabbe_Dhamma_Anatta]

It's another truths.

But, not just any run-of-the-mill truths.

It's four truths of the Nobles.

So, it can be safely said that the other truths held by others are the truths of the non-nobles.

[Pondera]

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?

He spits on old age

[cappuccino]

But Maha Moggallana, when training pupils in the same way, did not give up concern for them until they had attained Arahatship. This was because he felt, as was said by the Master: 'As even a little excrement is of evil smell, I do not praise even the shortest spell of existence, be it no longer than a snap of the fingers.'

The Life of Sariputta

[Bundokji]

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.

In order to doubt, you have to rely on a reference point that appears to be stable, beyond doubt. The argument of self imposed conditioning can go both ways: you can argue that Buddhist practitioners align their perceptions with the text through a self imposed conditioning, but in a way you are excluding yourself by implying that your perception of the process is not the result of years of self imposed conditioning, otherwise, they won't be real and reliable observations of what Buddhist practitioners do.

By definition, from a doctrinal POV, the first three fetters to be abandoned are doubt, identity view and attachments to rituals. To begin by acknowledging your own conditioning, and that the learning process itself inevitably includes conditioning would be an honest observation.

One of the main obstacles to accepting the Buddhist truths is that their utility is not obvious in the world. In general, worldly truths are often associated with utility or purpose, and purpose is dependent on a construct (design or order) that functions and exists in time and experiences pleasure and pain, and therefore any appeal to embracing a truth that does not translate into some kind of mental and physical security wont be appealing. The doubt presented in your post is relevant to this. If the Buddha's teachings are a results of a self imposed conditioning to align perception with the text, then there is no inherent security in them and therefore cannot be ultimately true, and therefore just another "truth".

From that context, the practice does not add to your doubts, but reveals your state of affairs all along. Seeing the lack of security, reliability or certainty in the conditioned is a cause for dispassion, and dispassion is a cause for tranquility which is conducive to more dispassion. This kind of dispassion is not self imposed, but is an outcome of seeing what is already taking place and one habitually ignores.

[User1249x]

I think that if a person has faith in there being a truth to be attained and takes on faith that a person can not be pinned as a truth or reality; or another who sort of starts to understand why existence of a person as a truth & reality can not be established; i think these two people can sometime have a mode of practice which is painful as in without much jhana but either way they both attain fruition of sotapanna by the end of their life.

Not having a pleasant practice is of course worse and having a pleasant practice is the foremost. If one trains neglecting hana then things drag out a lot and even until the moment of death. If one doesn't neglect jhana then one faster attains culmination of knowing & seeing.

Of course if one doesn't push then nothing happens until perception of death is very keenly established. The Sutta basically have Buddha say ' laypeople don't be content with doing dana; do jhana'. Doing jhana one has to be quite monastic/ascetic/contemplative in one's conduct.

[Mr. Seek]

OP, check out the Kālāma Sutta (AN 3:66).

“So, as I said, Kālāmas: ‘Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, “This contemplative is our teacher.” When you know for yourselves that, “These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the observant; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering”—then you should abandon them.’ Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

“Now, Kālāmas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the observant; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’—then you should enter & remain in them.

Buddhism isn't about accepting a cookie-cutter doctrine willy-nilly and believing in it without questioning it. It's about investigating and searching for the truth, in seeking out salvation from stress, suffering, etc., whatever you're fighting with.

So just explore life and see where it leads you. No need to believe in something or brainwash yourself into believing. Just live life the way you feel is most appropriate. If realizations come, well and good. If they don't, oh well.

The Buddha said that those who simply believe others are not truly wise. A wise person practices until he is one with the Dhamma, until he can have confidence in himself, independent of others.

On one occasion, while Venerable Sāriputta was sitting, listening respectfully at his feet as the Buddha expounded the Dhamma, the Buddha turned to him and asked,

''Sāriputta, do you believe this teaching?''

Venerable Sāriputta replied, ''No, I don't yet believe it.''

Now this is a good illustration. Venerable Sāriputta listened, and he took note. When he said he didn't yet believe he wasn't being careless, he was speaking the truth. He simply took note of that teaching, because he had not yet developed his own understanding of it, so he told the Buddha that he didn't yet believe - because he really didn't believe. These words almost sound as if Venerable Sāriputta was being rude, but actually he wasn't. He spoke the truth, and the Buddha praised him for it.

''Good, good, Sāriputta. A wise person doesn't readily believe, he should consider first before believing.''

[salayatananirodha]

you're not doing enough to challenge your doubts. dhamma is to be inspected. not taken for granted. even with things that are true on their face, there can be contextual untruth to them. looking at the dhamma, lord buddha said, is like looking at the sharp end of a sharpened razor; you'll see no flaws. i've had trouble myself finding people to trust. ask lots of questions, even if you don't think they're valuable. don't take anyone on faith alone. as for the claims you have to take on faith only, i assume you're talking about supernatural elements and things, take into consideration that materialists take materialist doctrine on faith, valuing it as science. i recommend digha nikaya 1. even right view is to be abandoned eventually. read majjhima nikaya 72 on thicket of views. read ven. ñāṇananda from https://seeingthroughthenet.net/books
make lots of merit otherwise too, it helps be more confident. i understand what you're saying and i'm wary of conforming my views to what i think are buddhist, which might be wrong views under a subtle guise. lastly, the way i think about this is, none of the other thinkers in the world who claim to know are reliable. they only speak partial truths. hope this helps.

[BlackMagic]

Dependent origination is the thing to consider in such cases ...

For someone that knows truth there is no need in them at all for faith; other than at some point others will come to see the truth... The Buddha Shakyamuni even carried such a doubt for several days in contemplating if the path could even be taught.

People called Buddhist or accept the label of such; have both truth and faith...

I have read sutra and then spent time in unexpected jhana seeing the exact story at time and place when it occurred... such comes from a boon of non harming living beings not just those seen also unseen one's crawling around biting, laying eggs in and on etc, one buddha is all buddhas past present and future.

The earth touching gesture; is to establish the real/now; from real/jhana which is a real but transcendent state. Dressed or adorned appropriately; one does not have to be hidden in suchness and return to the so called "now" but can remain when and where ever that is adopt a householder's life and even speak to the Buddha...

I'm a holdholder covered in tattoos so if someone has the divine eye and sees me; I'm typically seen as a oni or demon in their not knowing and get beaten, killed, burned and sometimes eaten smelling and feeling oneself getting cooked... is the kind of meditation no one really speaks about; as there's no way to really prepare for such a thing occurring.

Sorry but I think I gave you the exact same thing you were speaking of... that other than dependent origination is why there are two truths as a doctrine. Absolute truth and relative truth... In speech... as relative (English truth) a rock is a rock is a rock, however it is not a rock at all ever in absolute truth, and yet also in the relative truth of other languages.... what is rock?

When I go sit at a temple and hear the native language; the divine ear will open and just know what is being said as if was the language of my ancestors...

The weird thing is; I think medical "science" calls such a thing as jhana: Dementia not really being in proper understanding of the true nature of mind in the face of the two truths. That's kinda why meditation etc. is considered dangerous and people say that one should have a proper teacher or guru... as the jhana of Western medicine is like sitting in a snuff film with hungry ghost after hungry ghost sticking in needles cutting off limbs etc. it's as horrible as being killed and eaten but hey ...those slow learners really think they know what they are doing.

[form]

Faith follower is the type that just believe?

[Spiny Norman]

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.

I think most religions operate like this. Certain beliefs or assumptions are presented, and you're supposed to "realise" them yourself.
So explore other religions, and see if they make more sense to you. You might conclude that it's all nonsense, but that's OK too.

[justindesilva]

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.

I think most religions operate like this. Certain beliefs or assumptions are presented, and you're supposed to "realise" them yourself.
So explore other religions, and see if they make more sense to you. You might conclude that it's all nonsense, but that's OK too.

There is only one truth in the world to be realised. Lord Budda has proved that this only truth to be realised can only be reached by following the Noble eight fold path or Arya ashtanga magga. It is also the one and only path to follow anicca,. Dukka , anatta . Anicca ( impermanence) dukka or suffering , anatta ( that we exist as part of a universal process) are perfectly true, where as Arya ashtanga magga is the only means to escape suffering.