Hot answers tagged

13

I too had this question for a long time. Then I read Gil Fronsdal's translation of the Dhammapada, which begins (emphasis mine): All experience is preceded by mind, Led by mind, Made by mind. This use of the word experience, where phenomena is often used, is much more accessible. Remember, the Buddha did not say "all phenomena is made by mind"; he ...


10

This sounds like an issue best analyzed according to the Buddha's teachings on right speech. The Buddha famously expounded how he personally determined how to decide on what to say in the Abhaya Sutta, saying: [1] In the case of words that the Tathagata knows to be unfactual, untrue, unbeneficial (or: not connected with the goal), unendearing & ...


9

Citta, Cetasika, Rupa, Nibbana are the four ultimate realities. Everything else is just conventional or conceptual truths. When you see the moon, it's basically the eyes sensing the secondary rupa called Vanna. There's no moon in the ultimate reality. Moon is just what the mind fabricates when rupa meets the eyes. There's consistency because human senses ...


8

I encourage you to read the following: Bhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali. The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts. In this work, their project is to investigate the question of authencity systematically. In that, the approach is quiet academic and might be to your liking. Page 7, they state a feature of the early Buddhist texts: The Buddha’s ...


8

I like this question (I've cleaned it up a bit for clarity). Basically, what it's asking is whether Buddhist practice should be considered more or less scientific than the scientific method. I've tried to make this argument before - most recently in a talk at the University of South Florida. The concepts are still a bit vague, but I think the argument is ...


7

Sarcasm isn't a deliberate lie, because the intention isn't to lie or mislead, but it is wrong speech, because it has the capacity to hurt people. Per Buddhism, unless a statement is true and beneficial, it is not right speech. And joy derived from the suffering of others isn't wholesome. Ironically saying "You lied" to someone who is being obviously ...


5

Basically, the Buddhist approach to understanding reality is for each one of us to aim our attention at our individual present moment experience. This is "experiencial reality", meaning we need to experience it to understand it. We really don't need to even read books to understand the Buddhist approach because practicing experiencing present moment ...


5

The word, as spelled in english, is "gak-cha," and it refers to the object whose existence we deny. The idea is that things, including our selves, do not exist "out there, independently," or "from their own side." Such a thing, according to Mahayana buddhism, could never exist. When we catch our mind falling prey to relating to some thing (including our ...


5

Any teaching that has one or more of the following elements is not the authentic Dhamma: eternalism (god or self or soul or world is eternal) annihilationism (there is no self and nothing after death) an independent, standalone and eternal entity or agent at the core of all experience (the self or the soul) extreme asceticism extreme sensual indulgence does ...


4

The spirit of the Buddha's Teaching has always been: "To come, practice, and experience it for yourself". He had long abandoned the ego to prove anything to anyone: "Gotami, the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to passion, not to dispassion; to being fettered, not to being unfettered; to accumulating, not to shedding; to self-...


4

I once read, I don't recall where, that Buddha stated that spiritual enlightenment is not suffering. This is wrong. Enlightenment is wisdom. The result of wisdom is no suffering. Therefore, wisdom itself & no suffering are not exactly the same thing (although the former leads to the later). That he put it in a negation on purpose. Ok, I get that, ...


4

I have never read 'anatta' is 'pure bliss'. 'Bliss' is a feeling where as 'anatta' is a characteristic of things that is realised by wisdom. As for 'Atman', this appears to be a concept that changed & evolved throughout the history of Brahmanism & Hinduism. At the time of the Buddha, it appears 'Atman' did not mean bliss or a transcendent state. ...


3

I’d just like to add some general comments to your - excellent - question. First of all, your question is not specifically Buddhist. If you take a look at the history of philosophy of science, this is a major problem and has been answered in many different ways. And the greatest philosophers of all times all more or less agree that we cannot have absolute ...


3

what is the Buddhist explanation? You're reading the Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra. I'd like to mention just in case you don't know already that there are different schools of Buddhism, spread over centuries and continents. They have much in common and later schools evolve from earlier schools. To the extent that they're similar, it makes sense to ask about "the" ...


3

Any phenomena we know about the world is what we have sensed through our sense faculties. If we cannot sense any phenomena there will be no way we can know about it. The definition of mind is the process to experience and object or phenomena, or to know what is felt through contact. So when you experience something many of what you see is pieced together ...


3

The problem is not new. Several disputes on the subject of rebirth are recorded in traditional texts. In Pāḷi we have the Katthāvatthu - a record of various intellectual disputes with other Buddhists by the Theravādins. In Sanskrit there is Nāgārjuna's Mūlamadhyamakārikā (MMK) which disputes the Mainstream Buddhist view of karma and rebirth. Vasubandhu's ...


3

If it is difficult to comprehend the explanation given in Aggañña Sutta; how about focusing your energy to understand Loka Sutta, SN 12.44? If you can realize this explanation, there will not be any doubt about Aggañña Sutta. Loka Sutta, SN 12.44 Dwelling at Savatthi. There the Blessed One addressed the monks: "I will teach you the origination of the ...


3

Which explanation is true? Buddha's or Scientists'? Did Buddha lie When explaining the creation of the world... No enlightened being lies for any purpose. Scientific knowledge is based on hypothesis. The Dhamma is what the Buddha understood through direct knowledge. It is said that the humans evolved from monkeys. It's evident that Dinosaurs ...


3

So the question is, what is the essence of spiritual enlightenment? The essence of Enlightenment, in short, is to be stress free. This is by understanding the 4 Noble Truths and attaining Nirvana, which is realised through the Noble 8 Fold Path organised into the 3 Fold Training, which essentially is the path out of stress and misery, or the path to ...


3

The essence of enlightenment is awakening to the truth and getting rid of delusion.


3

Thanissaro Bhikkhu explained this very well in one of his works, can't find the link at the moment. He said, Liberation is more like a hands-on skill than a pure sterile insight. As with any skill, the understanding and the dexterity grow in lock-step supporting each other. You learn through trial and error, and as you watch the results of your attempts, you ...


2

Pron.: gakja Wil.: dgag bya Unicode: དགག་བྱ། Usually translated by Jeffrey Hopkins as 'object of negation'. Although the object of negation is twofold: (1) the objective aspect (true existence) and (2) the subjective aspect (ignorance), 'object of negation' usually refers to true existence. It is explained at length in the 'Special Insight' chapter of the ...


2

Political correctness is obviously false speech. False speech is defined as follows: If he doesn't know, he says, 'I know.' If he does know, he says, 'I don't know.' If he hasn't seen, he says, 'I have seen.' If he has seen, he says, 'I haven't seen.' Thus he consciously tells lies for his own sake, for the sake of another, or for the sake of a ...


2

There is a potential false dichotomy here in distinguishing between the two types of knowledge. There has always been a respectable line of thinking -- not universally accepted, but respectable nonetheless -- that all knowledge is subjective. The rise of Quantum Mechanics in the early 20th century merely gave us some experiments that made that possibility ...


2

Sarcasm is a type of humor and humor can be very unwholesome. What people are often trying to achieve with humor is to bring attention to themselves and make themselves look superior while making someone else look inferior. (There are other situations where someone is just trying to diffuse stress or lighten the mood; maybe by being self deprecating; which ...


2

In Theravada, the criteria for accepting any teaching as authentic is based on Mahapadesa sutta, also found in Mahaparinibbana sutta and Nettipakarana. Accordingly, any Dhamma that's heard as a Buddha's statement must be verified with the suttas and the vinaya. This also indicates that the authority increases from a single monk to a group of monks, and ...


2

Traditionally, the criteria for teaching authenticity are: it must not contradict the observable facts and laws of nature, it must not contradict commonly recognized moral rules, it should lead to letting go, cooling down, emancipation, liberation, it should be traceable to a remark made in the suttas, preferably in multiple places.


2

It is likely that the quote you are referring to is all conditioned dharma are like dreams, illusions, bubbles, shadows, Like dew drops (in the morning sun), or a lightening flash, contemplate them thus. All sentient beings have Buddha Nature. Wisdom realizing the holy state of Emptiness and Compassion for all sentient beings uniting. The above gatha is ...


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