3

Apart from right view of stress , origination of stress, cessation of stress and path to cessation of stress, I hold the view that humanity,which is under stress, must be saved.

My question is :Am I holding the right view that humanity must be saved from stress?

2

Mankind should be introduced to the Dhamma and taught the Dhamma. But it is up to the individual to choose whether he or she wants to become free of suffering, or not. Not everyone wants to be liberated from suffering.

From MN75:

"Now suppose that there was a leper covered with sores & infections, devoured by worms, picking the scabs off the openings of his wounds with his nails, cauterizing his body over a pit of glowing embers. The more he cauterized his body over the pit of glowing embers, the more disgusting, foul-smelling, & putrid the openings of his wounds would become, and yet he would feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction because of the itchiness of his wounds. In the same way, beings not free from passion for sensual pleasures — devoured by sensual craving, burning with sensual fever — indulge in sensual pleasures. The more they indulge in sensual pleasures, the more their sensual craving increases and the more they burn with sensual fever, and yet they feel a modicum of enjoyment & satisfaction dependent on the five strings of sensuality.

From MN26:

"Then the thought occurred to me, 'This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality & dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me.'

1

Dheeraj Verma

I hold the view that humanity,which is under stress, must be saved.

If this view, and it's not easy different, causes you stress, how could it be right view? What should that be humanity? Such is really strong attachment, strong wrong view, especially because it conains "must". Who and why says?

And what about ants? What if you are part of them, identify with them? So what if the two trouble each other? Whom to help?

No no, that's all far from right view and so, one still is able to make strong wrong things, even kill ones mother or an Arahat is possible, not to speak about precepts: to help and save....

Let's rebeat them:

Pañcavaggiyakathā - The Discussion of the Group of Five

“Now this, monks, is the noble truth of stress: Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with the unbeloved is stressful, separation from the loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.

(Mv.I.6.20) “And this, monks, is the noble truth of the origination of stress: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion & delight, relishing now here & now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.

(Mv.I.6.21) “And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.

(Mv.I.6.22) “And this, monks, is the noble truth of the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: precisely this Noble Eightfold Path — right view, … right concentration.

[Note: This is a gift of Dhamma and not meant for commercial purpose or other low wordily gains by means of trade and exchange.]

  • Kind of curious and please excuse my ignorance, but did the Buddha really use the word “stress”? Who translated the word? – C Smith Nov 10 '17 at 0:07
  • "Meaning" of words depent on common use. There is no problem in translating dukkha with stress, e.g. "not at ease", Mr. Smith. If prevering another word, that at least would just fit to own preferences. So one is free and wise to translate any word best to his understanding mentally. What it means the Buddha described. Now coming to a phenomena that is stressful, it importand to know that. Does giving phenomenas inherent names cause stress? Is remebering, perception stressful (one of the five aggregates)? Is what is stressful worthy to grasp, to take it as real? Nyom @CSmith ? – Samana Johann Nov 10 '17 at 0:15
  • @CSmith Over the years, many translations of the word have been used ("stress," "unsatisfactoriness," "suffering," etc.). (reference). To avoid (unsatisfactory) translations, some people just use the word dukkha instead. – ChrisW Nov 10 '17 at 1:16
  • @SamanaJohann "Who and why says?" - Dheeraj says so because Dheeraj wishes to hold the right views. Right views will lead Dheeraj to better understanding of morality. – Dheeraj Verma Nov 10 '17 at 1:38
  • Then focus just on helping your self, those wishing to help humanity sooner or later become Hitlers or other confused "Bodhisattvas". The only way to be secure is nibbana. Suffering in the world is unavidable. Are you free of desires for your self? Do you know your self how to escape from suffering? @DheerajVerma ? Just right view. Yes, one holding right view is one who can nothing but act according to highest moral. How does one help? – Samana Johann Nov 10 '17 at 5:47
0

THERE ARE 2 KINDS OF RIGHT VIEW.

The 1st is "conceptual" right view and it's about:

-understanding the teaching, the Dhamma

-knowing what is right practice

-knowing a method that will enable one to experience the 2nd right view.

The 2nd is "ultimate" right view and it's about:

-Knowing one's own experience as it arises and as it is without modifying it with our own assumptions, concepts and judgments.

-Knowing the difference between the 1st right view and the 2nd right view, the scaffolding and the finished product, the finger pointing at the moon and the moon.

(The 1st kind of right view is like like scaffolding for the 2nd kind of right view that is like the building.)

When we clearly understand the 2nd right view we see how futile it is to hold any view or opinion.

Ghandi said, "Be the change you would like to see in the world".

We can't necessarily hold ourselves apart from anyone else that might be causing suffering in the world, so we might as well search for our own soul over searching for somebody else's soul.

Practicing the Buddha's Teaching is an effective way to save humanity in my opinion.

I hope this helps :)

  • The world is suffering because of the wrong view. If we take the right view then automatically everything falls into its place. The right view is the view of Dhamma. But 2nd right view is not any 'view' or 'philosophy' or and dhamma. The 2nd right view attempts to portray self as a witness with no participation. But you are not the Witness because the witness becomes the participant. 2nd right view is wrong view in my opinion. – Dheeraj Verma Nov 10 '17 at 12:20
  • 2nd view doesn't attempt to do anything except seeing directly, it's a way of seeing directly and if we identify as a self during it and notice it directly that's just seeing anatta, that we as a self is not in control of anything. Are you saying you don't practice to see in the 2nd viiew. What other way do you think that we can know our mind and body as it is? – Lowbrow Nov 10 '17 at 14:30
  • Where did you get that idea? There is no witness. There is no Atman to find with seeing directly the experience of the mind and body and when we are seeing like this it might seem like there is a witness at first but just intellectually, we know that that is wrong because how can the witness be witnessed? This practice is how we break delusions like that witness down. We can see an opinion in this way of seeing but it's just a formation like everything else...it is a reaction... – Lowbrow Nov 10 '17 at 14:57
  • This is how we see mind and body and break all formations down to see at a more and more subtle levels until Nibbana but it's not as though old habits and defilements don't make it hard. – Lowbrow Nov 10 '17 at 14:57
0

I don't think you'll find that view expressed in the Pali canon (and so, to that extent, it's not "right view"). The Buddha was persuaded to teach Dhamma [only] for the sake of those (few) who had "little dust in their eyes".

I'm not sure that it's possible to "save humanity" -- so, saying that they must be saved might be an example of not seeings things rightly, as they are, and might be an unsatisfiable desire or craving or attachment. It could also be a conceit (e.g. "I am better than other people, I must save them").

On the other hand, as far as I understand it, some (other) forms of Buddhism (see e.g. this answer and this answer) teach that humanity has already been saved (by the Buddha).

Furthermore the sila (virtue) part of the doctrine (e.g. the precepts) help to save humanity from, at least, unnecessary external harm.

If there is a Buddhist doctrine about saving humanity, you might find it not in the Pali canon but in the Mahayana. I'm not sure but maybe the "eightfold path" (which you tagged this question with) is associated with the "first turning of the wheel".

  • Humanity can be saved. Buddha taught Dhamma to the people to save them from suffering. Saving people is same as saving humanity. Off course entire humanity can not be saved at the same time. Slowly we will be able to save the humanity if we believe in Sangha I guess. My desire is not misplaced or impractical. It is the right desire. Question is : is it the right desire? If it is the right desire originating out of right view then it will lead to Nibbana. – Dheeraj Verma Nov 10 '17 at 14:19
-1

There are many types of suffering and stress, anxiety, fear etc are mental sufferings. Thus wanting to be free from suffering is natural and knowing the path is the right view.

  • I not only want the cessation of my own suffering but also the cessation of suffering of the masses. – Dheeraj Verma Nov 9 '17 at 23:53
  • We are never sure of appearances. It is possible that there are no suffering of the masses except ourselves. – tutu Nov 10 '17 at 3:44
  • It is not possible that there are no suffering of the masses except ourselves because it will mean that those selfs which have conquered suffering are the true ones and rest are false. Buddha says sabbe dhamma anatta which means all beings are without that notion of self which is beyond suffering. We are all suffering. – Dheeraj Verma Nov 10 '17 at 13:08
  • @tutu There is no ourselves to be found. The self appears the same as others appear, "empty of self". – Lowbrow Nov 10 '17 at 15:08
  • Avalokiteshvara did vow that if his practice cannot enlighten all sentient beings and free them from sufferings, he will not enter Buddhahood.. However, Avalokiteshvara attained Buddhood a long time ago. – tutu Nov 12 '17 at 13:46

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.