New answers tagged

0

'Going to hell' in Buddhism is not like in Christianity, it is not a judgement. Ksitigharba went to hell, and is a bodhisattva. You should read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_sexual_orientation Stigma, and denying or silencing issues around sexuality, cause huge amounts of suffering, prevent reporting and accountability, and make many people's ...


1

Buddhism deals with suffering and how to become permanently free from it. Superficial and conceptual things like sexuality are useless in that regard, hence the focus merely on ultimate reality.


0

It is also possible to flip a coin heads up a billion times for a streak, it's not impossible. Should you because it is possible bet on it happening anytime reasonably soon? Probably no


-1

Yes. But all schools of Buddhism say it is possible for any being to become a Buddha, but given their rarity unlikely - and a Buddha is specifically an originator of the teaching in a realm without one, so as long as Buddhism exists, there can't be a new Buddha only arhats and bodhisattvas. There is a long tradition not only in Chinese Buddhism, of ...


1

Buddhism holds that any being can become enlightened if they follow the Buddha's teachings. Different sects of Buddhism envision it on different timescales, and different sects have different relationships to the ideal, but no Buddhist would ever say: "This person (or these people) can never achieve enlightenment". It's a more open question whether ...


1

Do they believe that only the minds of Buddhists can come to enlightenment? In the Maha-Parinibbana Sutta: The Great Discourse on the Total Unbinding, the Buddha teaches that "in any doctrine or discipline" that does not contain the Noble Eightfold Path, enlightened beings cannot be found: Then Subhadda went to the Blessed One and exchanged ...


0

It is more that we are lost in an inner vortex of feeling/perception which forms a kind of virtual and personal inner world. In Yogacara, this is called the seventh consciousness - mānas-vijñāna or the surface-level of mind: the superficiality of the mundane faculties of perception of which its counterparts are the previous six, but the actions derived from ...


0

Didn't you already ask this? "Or does he pretend to communicate with other minds, but in fact he knows that only his mind exists, and all other minds are just imaginations created by his mind" Who's conceptual framework would that be done with? What do you think minds are, things with an unchanging essence? As I see it, key to understanding the '...


0

Absolutely: DN34:1.2.11: What one thing should be given up? DN34:1.2.12: The conceit ‘I am’. Having given up on identity, the second Buddhist might well respond by brewing a cup of tea with honey, saying, "here is some tea for that headache."


0

The first thing to resolving your confusion is to understand what Madhyamakas mean when they start talking about "absolute truth" vs regular ordinary truth. And in these contexts Madhyamakas regard "absolute truth" as that which is arrived at when you go looking for the absolute i.e., when you start analyzing with logic and reason what is ...


0

People might discuss what exists based on the agreement that something exists. Then Decarte said "i think therefore i am". This is an ambiguous statement because the existence of thinking does not necessarily mean that the object of thought is as real as the thinking itself and repudiates thinking. It can be said that the ideation of 'i am' there ...


0

I think "Empty" here refers to, there is not an impermanent, unchanging essence, core, object or self that can independently (not depending on any conditions) exist. All existences (as oppose to "Empty") of object/self subjected to changes and impermanent nature, thus no one can hold on to the object/self, and decide by their wish "...


0

The Pali suttas are almost the same as Mahayana agamas in Sanskrit, and so would be on-topic as Mahayana-relevant content. From Dona Sutta, the Buddha calls himself "awakened": "Just like a red, blue, or white lotus — born in the water, grown in the water, rising up above the water — stands unsmeared by the water, in the same way I — born in ...


1

The point is that when we look out into the world and we see (say) a tree, a dog, a car, a white cloud, or whatever you like, what we're actually perceiving is color, shading, texture, apparent movement... We receive this great wash of ambiguous sensation, and in our heads we establish boundaries, conjure up structures and patterns, intuit relationships, and ...


1

It might be possible for you to gain the understanding you need from these two powerful excerpts. The first is from the Phena Sutta; the second is from chapter 32 of the Diamond Sutra. The Phena Sutta Form is like a glob of foam; feeling, a bubble; perception, a mirage; fabrications, a banana tree; consciousness, a magic trick — this has been taught by the ...


0

Fwiw Buddha compared sensuality to a dream as well. I don't think this tenet of the Dhamma is central to it because it is still open to be interpreted in favor of an eternal & underlying consciousness doing the dreaming. As i see it, the latter point not being thus interpreted is the central tenet and what separates the Dhamma from eternalism.


0

But dreams are real—when you are dreaming, you are really dreaming. But their contents are not (always) true. They are like a movie, which is something you can watch, but the movie’s contents—the actors, and the action, and even often the setting—are not true. This comparison just like is not saying two things are identical, it’s comparing one thing—our life ...


-1

"Does reality exist?" Ultimately no, it doesn't. This question and the answers it has provoked have predictably stirred some uncomfortable feelings and thoughts. If one looks really hard at why this question makes people squirm (even Buddhists trained in the dhamma and the dharma who've literally been reading sutta after sutra giving myriad ...


1

Quoted below is Candrakīrti's Lucid Words - A Commentary on Nāgārjuna’s Wisdom. Perhaps Mr. Rovelli is misrepresenting Nāgārjuna’s teaching. True dharma is the middle way. Those who see existence or non-existence don't see peace. 5 Analysis of the Elements (dhātus) 5.1. The space-element does not at all exist prior to its defining characteristic; if it ...


0

You're mistaken if you think that Zeno's paradox is in contradiction, or as you said in the comment section, disprove the zooming-in method of teaching you noted. Read Shantideva quoted below and you will see clearly where the method ends. It is not about zooming into to subatomic level to deny the inherent existence of a flower. It is also not about ...


0

Ideation creates views. Ideation belongs to the domain of thought, which in Buddhism is defined to be one of the six senses, all prone to grasping and therefore suffering. The Buddha discusses the net of ideation/views in DN1. The Prime Net, which emphasizes how ideation/views can trap us. When a mendicant truly understands the six fields of contacts’ ...


1

the idea that the physical world does not exist apart from an observer's frame of reference This is agreeable for expression. As i understand it, the Theravadin texts posit this iow. as in everything exists only in the mind as imagination This is dodgy. Which is closer to what you are asking? That which imagines is imagined. That which imagines isn't ...


2

A "prediction" is a statement made by an enlightened person, originally a previous Buddha, or, in Mahayana tradition, an enlightened master, that guarantees its object eventual attainment of enlightenment in a subsequent existence.


0

The reality is real in every right perspective, but it is exist only when it arising only. The reality arises and vanish immediately more than trillions time (10¹²) in a second. It isn't exist before and after that, but it is real, if the thinker can think of it by the right perspective, causes and effects. Similitude: you are not sleeping now because you ...


1

He says reality doesn’t exist Does he, or is that a paraphrase by the reviewer? And if he does, is he simplifying for the reader? Or trolling a bit, maybe trying to challenge the reader by saying something edgy? The reason physicists have been led astray by bonkers theories in the 100 years since Helgoland is because they can’t bear the thought of not being ...


15

Your confusion is clear as day to me. :) As is the true meaning of "emptiness". The challenge is how to explain it to you in a way you can understand. :) You are stuck on this idea of "object" being something that exists ontologically. Whether it's made of parts, whether it's a transient aggregate that will eventually fall apart, right ...


-1

I'll try to answer based on the Pali Canon and then connect it back to Madhyamaka. Using MN 1 below, the Buddha describes how an untaught ordinary person sees reality. From MN 1: “Here, bhikkhus, an untaught ordinary person, who has no regard for noble ones and is unskilled and undisciplined in their Dhamma, who has no regard for true men and is unskilled ...


0

The reason physicists have been led astray by bonkers theories in the 100 years since Helgoland is because they can’t bear the thought of not being real. This is cute because it can and probably should be interpreted as an inability to accept the truth due to being yoked to the doctrine of self which is at odds with the Buddha's dharma. This ideation about ...


2

Richard Feynman, who definitely lived in the post-calculus world, once pondered flowers down to the atomic level and beyond. Feynman would also gladly point out the vast emptiness between those very atoms. Importantly, Feynman continuously pokes at conventional perceptions of a flower as being "real" and notes that the perception of an aggregate is ...


-1

"First, it feels "outdated" to me, in a post-calculus world, that it denies the validity of an aggregate object, by pointing towards an infinitesimally small part of it. Zeno paradox?" Notwithstanding, that this is incorrect... have a look at this for a very modern interpretation of Emptiness that is actually rooted in some of the most ...


1

That's because there is no logic to it. Emptiness isn't apprehended by the discursive mind. It is perceived directly. One could roughly equate it to smelling. How could you logically describe the sense of smell to someone who hasn't had that perception? Any explanation you could offer would ultimately fall short. Buddhist philosophy isn't a philosophy ...


3

Usually,it goes like this - the flower before you seems real. Now get closer, you no longer see flower, but just leaves, stem. Even closer, you "see" atoms, electrons, etc. See? the flower is "empty" of inherent existence. The same goes for "self". Try search for the "self" in your thoughts, arm, leg, etc. and you ...


5

I'll try to explain this from the Theravada perspective, which I think is more or less the same as Madhyamaka emptiness, once you analyze it deeply. In addition to this answer, please also see "Linking Madhyamaka emptiness to Theravada emptiness through papanca". From Sutta Nipata 4.14, we read: "I ask the kinsman of the Sun, the great seer, ...


3

Part of the "philosophy of science" (as it was taught me in Physics class in school) is that there are different ways of looking at things, different levels of details -- e.g. sub-atomic physics, then chemistry, biology, maybe ecology after that, astro-physics -- not to even mention sociology, psychology, maths, and so on. So these are different &...


1

Can anyone think about train differently ? It is a means to commute. Someone can take liberty for example a kid and think of it as a means of entertainment. Some people can think of it as a means to earn money. Some people can think of it as a means to fill their stomach. Some people can think of it as a means to meet their lover or relatives... Train is ...


Top 50 recent answers are included