14

I feel like I was born in the wrong place and I'm surrounded by wrong people, ideals etc. I'm very much into buddhism, but with all the things I learned until now, that I'm 23 in Germany, I feel like this life I have right now is not right for me. Look a bit deeper and you'll see it's quite the opposite. The fact that you were born in Germany, not Syria, ...


8

OP: Is it right from a Buddhist point of view to say that you and me are the same because there is only one consciousness playing different minds (egos, personalities, psychologies, etc) and bodies of all sentient creatures at the same time. Eg. "the same driver driving all the cars at the same time in present, past and future" No. That's a classic ...


5

The teachings of the Buddha are not metaphysics. They do not describe the ontology or nature of things. The teachings of the Buddha serve one purpose only - freedom from suffering. It's purpose is soteriological, not ontological. In "Anicca Vata Sankhara", Ven. Bodhi comments: The most important fact to understand about sankharas, as conditioned ...


5

why would nature be so cruel "Cruel" sounds like dukkha -- as if nature were ill-willed and unkind, and we were averse to that. So I guess that's among the many kinds of view or perception that we should overcome (in order to do away with dukkha), craving things to be other than they are -- though maybe also acknowledge whatever truth there is in it to ...


4

OP: I feel like I was born in the wrong place and I'm surrounded by wrong people, ideals etc. I'm very much into buddhism, but with all the things I learned until now, that I'm 23 in Germany, I feel like this life I have right now is not right for me. I'm not German, but I've stayed in Germany before, and worked for German employers for many ...


4

No, that's not the theravāda point of view. That's a fallacy or wrong view called, "He assumes consciousness to be the self", in twenty self-indentification-views. Each arising aggregate is different from the other aggregates, different from e.g. other people's aggregates, past aggregates, far aggregates. They all are the aggregates, but no one is the same....


4

In my understanding, everything Nagarjuna talks about endlessly revolves around one theme - that is of imputation and reification of abstractions, which leads to confusion of the phenomenological with the ontological, which leads to conflicts, and suffering. As was customary in the ancient times he goes over endless examples of the same kind of argument over ...


3

From Mahayana perspective: "We are all one" is a simplified step in the right direction - but ultimately is not true. It can be used as a stepping stone from the mainstream primitive materialism, but must be transcended eventually. In Mahayana we recognize that things are interconnected and interrelated. In this sense, yes, every thing (implicitly) has (...


2

maybe my English is not good enough, but I think your question is possibly based on a misconception. "Rebirth" – not re-incarnation as Brian Diaz Flores clarified – ist not a kind of "reset", so that you start as a blank paper again so that you step on the same stones again? Which would make Buddhism indeed very sadistic. Due to applying buddhist ...


2

You can look at your work as being for the purpose of getting you the nutriment, which in turn is for sustaining your development, which is for the benefit of all beings. It's difficult to detach from the company one keeps and the general happy go lucky attitude. For me it usually takes an extraordinary event, a crossing of a line of sorts. One can live a ...


2

From the explanations I've seen/heard in Mahayana context, and also etymologically, the word "bhava" means "a state of (personal) existence", "being something or someone", "being in a certain configuration or position", "having a specific form/manner of existence" - something like this. The connotation is not just "being", it is a particular manner or ...


2

It is the usual dialogues between the buddha and the monks “Monks, is bodily form permanent or impermanent?” The monks said to the Buddha: “It is impermanent, Blessed One.” The Buddha said: “Monks, what is impermanent, is it dukkha?” The monks said to the Buddha: “It is dukkha, Blessed One.” The Buddha said: “Monks, what is impermanent, dukkha, of a nature ...


2

All feelings, perceptions & existence are dukkha because they are an expression of the conditioned element. There are two elements to be known; conditioned and the unconditioned. Not knowing the unconditioned which comes to be known through it's realization as the 'nibbananirodhadhatu' [extinguishment-cessation-principle] of the conditioned [dukkha]. The ...


2

A tree cannot choose where it is planted. If its seed falls on bare land it doesn't have the luxury of travel. But instead it raises its branches, drops its leaves on the soil, breates air into the world. In time that tree and all the other trees around it will be a forest and the land will be beautiful. You are not in the wrong place. What you see lacking ...


2

First, I'd be a bit careful about ascribing a causal relationship between dukkha and tanhā ('discontentment' and 'craving'). If I remember correctly there is a long-running debate among scholars about which causes the other, and in any case it strikes me the two represent different dimensions of analysis: a passive state and an active attitude. "I am ...


2

I’d start with what the Buddha said was the goal of life: it is, simply, “dwelling, here and now, beyond appetites, consummate, unfevered, in bliss, in (wholesomeness).” (Further Dialogues of the Buddha, Vol. I, p. 247, Tr. Lord Chalmers, Oxford University, London 1926) So that: “... to whatever place you go, you shall go in comfort; wherever you stand, you ...


2

Who is that "we" which is trapped? It seems to me that these questions are based on the assumption of an "I" who can be found separated from the conditions that made the perception of "I" or the constituents of beings possible. There seems to be a differenciation between the "we" and the "trap". If the ...


2

In the conventional truth, mirages exist and are real as a mirage but not real as water. Dreams exist and are real as dream but not as a play in a theater. So there is nothing which can be said conventionally existing but unreal because it is real in that way it is called to exist. Conventionally existent Buddhas alleviate the conventionally existing ...


2

There are 2 objects of knowing... Reality (yathabhūta) - the existent without imagination. Imagination (sammati,smaññā) - the conception which appearing only while imagining. We are knowing both switching rapidly. Trillion times of mind moment in a second, there are many moment knowing realities and many moment imagining imaginations switching rapidly. ...


1

Perception is interpretation. Interpretation is inference. When we perceive the chariot we infer it from its signs, then project that inference back on the basis (the parts and the context). This projection is the source of trouble (dukkha) because we ignorantly tend to attribute our own, often incorrect, interpretations, biases, and assumptions to the basis ...


1

We do not need to see the whole to recognise what it is. Perception of parts of car or chariot is sufficient to establish it is car or chariot. Similarly parts of face features are enough for us to conclude who is. We do not necessarily perceive the whole. Yes we can hold perception of things which were but are no more.


1

It might be worth mentioning that in English they're called "the three marks of existence" -- but in Pali the word tilakkhaṇa literally means the "three marks" or "three characteristics" (not "of existence"), or signata -- and the "things" which have (or which are ascribed) the dukkha characteristic are ...


1

Being a developer is a huge blessing because it will one day allow you to practice for enlightenment. You need to eat too, so those skills are valuable for your meditation practice as they support you. Think long term, make a life-plan. Don't try to rush things during the pandemic. Be patient. Think what the life you want is, then make a list of the steps ...


1

in Madhyamika,the effect depends on the cause,wich one can say IS the effect because arising and Cessation do not occur.in Theravadan Kshanabhanga however,the effect is independant of the cause and the effect arises only when the cause has ceased.


1

No effects can arise without multiple causes. The causes can still be in state just possible to arise or may vanished long time ago. The causes can be unreality as well, knowing person, car, etc. But it is impossible for every effect to arise without causes. Although the aggregates, which called cancer, can arise without smoking, but that aggregates must ...


1

Why do you worry about things over which you have no control? You should be thankful for what you have. I once saw a beggar with no limbs!! At least you are better off. Under the circumstances no one is living an ideal life. In fact there is no ideal life. You have to make compromises unless you are a true monk. You should rejoice. Rejoice for having found ...


1

According to Buddhist teaching "being" means the attachment, aversion, and ignorance. There is a Sutta to support this but I can't locate it right now.


1

Above should be revised as: Everything that is conditioned is impermanent (anicca), thus we get distraught (dukkha), and thus we are not in control (anatta).


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible