How do we know attaining complete liberation from dukkha is possible?

Hi! Thanks for answering.

I think the question in the OP points precisely to this notion.

How are we suppose to know that the teachings are an accurate description of human nature, when in order to prove it, one has to experiment or seen others experiment (with little or no room for doubt) in its enterely (i.e. one has to have attained Nibbana)?

Kind regards!

I prefer to use the term “human condition” than “human nature”.

From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play.

An approach to “human nature” in my opinion is driven by avoiding seeing the human condition. The endless debates about “nature vs nurturer” come to mind. Debates often utilizes justifications of which a winner emerges as if above the human condition.

Could you please expand on these two statements? That the only authority is direct personal experience and that we can know something because it is stated in the Four Noble Truths seem to be in conflict. Thank you.

EDIT: I think my post may come across as pointing out a potential contradiction as one might in a debate. I actually think there is a way to understand these statements together that I haven’t understood. I’m asking what that understanding is.

I’ll also point out MN 27 which surprisingly hasn’t been mentioned yet.

6 Likes

…you will know…when you know!

Clarifying the problem is half the answer. One such way,

And what is the burden?
Katamo ca, bhikkhave, bhāro?

The five grasping aggregates, it should be said.
Pañcupādānakkhandhā tissa vacanīyaṃ.
SN22.22

The question is, does this nature of bearing, tottering, trembling even have a nature of being able to be given up, for it to be reasonable to set out on such a endeavour. Thankfully this nature of bearing has the nature of being due to cause.

PS: may be its better to say clarifying the problem is one fourth the answer.

In Buddhism there is a way of thinking unknown in the west in that two realities or truths can exist simultaneously, and there is a middle way between them which varies with circumstances, so cannot be specified prematurely or formulated as a rule. This is the case with faith and direct experience which are two polarities, where in practitioners there is always a degree of faith and one of direct experience, and the balance between the two depends on the level of practice. The same dynamic exists with conventional and ultimate reality, the two realities exist simultaneously but the degree of influence one has over the other with a particular practitioner varies with understanding and experience. The practical message from this is that two realities must be accepted, and mentally categorized. There is a lot of fear about doing this with western Buddhists, but it has to be done to progress.

The Buddha saw the suffering in the world for the first time, and that had a profound psychological impact, causing him personal suffering although that is left to the imagination for pedagogic reasons whereby the image of the Buddha must be maintained. From that experience of suffering he was driven to find the path. The same applies to all practitioners, the degree of suffering they are aware of determines the depth of practice. There is a duty appropriate to each of the four noble truths:

‘This noble truth of stress is to be comprehended.’ —SN 56.11

3 Likes

Thank you for taking the time to walk me through that, @paul1. :heart:

A wonderful sutta Bhante! It describes the method of enquiry to be adopted perfectly!
:slightly_smiling_face:

Hi!

If one is skeptical, three questions could arise from this:

  1. Do we know for sure (before entering the path and habing walking it to the very end) that grasping and dukkha have causes and conditions?
    There are some pessimistic (although with sometimes understandable reasons to think like that) individuals who claim that suffering is unavoidable as long a one lives.

  2. Do we know for sure such conditions?
    Pessimistic individuals identify life as the problem, which could lead the to take their lives. Or one could put into question the true extent of the Buddha’s knowledge: maybe he understood some conditions that give rise to grasping and dukkha, but maybe he didn’t see the full picture (maybe there are biological or spiritual factors beyond one’s understanding or influence).

  3. How do we know for sure that we (as beings with understanding) can effectively and completely remove such conditions?
    Maybe we can diminish a great amount of the presence or influence of grasping and dukkha, but uprooting it completely could be something impossible.

  4. How do we know if the Buddha just found something that could only apply for himself or for some very specific kind of individuals (which could give the illusion that everyone can attain enlightenment, when in reality only those “destined” or “biologically prepared” to do so did attain the goal)?


I want to make clear that these are not doubts I have, but this sort of question came to my mind every once in a while some time ago. This are questions that I made to others (but directed to the claims of their respective religions, doctrines or practices) when I was looking for some path.

After having read the wonderful, enlightening answers already given, now I have more tools in my box to confront these situations, and to inform my own beliefs and ideas to improve my practice.

I wholeheartedly appreaciate the wisdom and knowledge you bring here.

:pray:

7 Likes

Personally I am less hesitant with such questions and find it fruitful to ask them. Not in order to spiral into doubt but to be more grounded in truth.

How do I know that there is Nibbana? I don’t. This ‘knowledge’ is based on faith, either in texts and tradition, or in people (I heard about or directly perceived). (We have also to keep in mind that ‘Nirvana’ is not just an informed Buddhist concept but also a very vague one in pop-culture)

What keeps people going? Again faith. Either in the above, or as a result of having directly experienced some of the consequences that are more or less precisely described in the texts (or by teachers). Seeing that some unhappiness is reduced through practice might give me the confidence that eventually all unhappiness can be eradicated.

Beyond that there are many possibilities. Obviously in this lifetime the end goal is only for few people. What lies beyond this life is again a matter of faith. It doesn’t help btw that many practitioners after an enthusiastic beginning see next to inspiring examples also fakeness behind the facade: ‘Teachers’ having sexual affairs, insincere monastics (mostly in Asia I assume) treating Buddhism as a job, hypocrisy and superficiality of some practitioners. Why shouldn’t this lead some people to believe “so it’s basically like every other religion”? They do and can be hardly convinced of the opposite.

I don’t think that much more can be said with certainty. To a critic (I think) I have to concede: “Look, Buddhism is just what I do now. If you ask me in a year I might give you a different answer, maybe I’ll not describe myself as a Buddhist anymore, or maybe I’ll present you a different interpretation of Buddhism. But at least this uncertainty is an integral part of the Buddhist teaching as well.”

9 Likes

How do we know attaining complete liberation from dukkha is possible?

The Dhamma hasn’t changed since the Buddha taught it.

1 Like

Hi!

Although that could be true (and I think it is), how do we know that?
We haven’t been in that far past, so we cannot be sure if something relevant has changed in our biology or in the general processes which cause our interpretations about the world to arise.

And even if we prove those things (laws and regularities of nature/mind) haven’t changed in the last 3.000 years, we’d still have to tackle the point about how we are certain the Buddhadhamma is true in its propositions about the nature of dukkha (a thing that has already been discussed above).

A little off-topic-ish point I’d like to make:
There’s this physicist/programmer Stephen Wolfram who believes there can be a fundamental, but very simple set of rules from which a complex universe like ours can arise. I his view (as far as I’ve understood), from those few simple rules, many possible outcomes can result, and our universe with our specific set of complex rules is only one of those outcomes.

What if the Dhamma seems fundamental, but in reality, there’s something even more basic and fundamental; what if the Dhamma is just a temporal state of things, which would entail that some processes or properties could be different in a distant future or in the far past?

I know such ideas are leaning each time closer to proliferation, but I think it could be useful to keep in mind that maybe some things seem clear to us just because we haven’t picked the nuances or because we haven’t reflected on it deep enough.
However, I think there’s a limit on the usefulness of this kind of analysis, and that line is thin and almost invisible (or so it seems to people like me who are inclined to thinking like this such for the sake of thinking, even when this habit becomes counterproductive and leads to vexation). The limit, I think, gets more evident when we ask “why am I thinking this?”, or, in more familiar terms, when we recognize the intention of the act of thinking.

Kind regards!

2 Likes

Malunkyaputta got there first!

:wink:

3 Likes

All doubting ceases in that first experience of overcoming cause and putting down the burden (ie Stream Entry). That seems like reasonable motivation to practice.

4 Likes

I know that liberation is possible because I pass through Nirvana on my way to Samsara all the time. So, before I reach Samsara there is Nirvana. It’s just so close that I’m a million miles away before I can catch my breath, remembering: What was before moving, stretching, and grasping?. Then I’m also on fire, and with hair on fire I regard cooling down to be as far away as the immensity of the pain I’m feeling being consumed by heat. But how can anybody slow down when one is on fire? No, it’s safer to pick up speed because one get’s a little bit on cooling that way. So there I am, now a person with a big problem and imagining Nirvana is so far far away, that it’s not reachable in this lifetime. And that’s true, but instead of letting go and die, I find myself another launch ramp and leap some more with blazing hair and a sincere “please help me!” in my wild eyes.

7 Likes

Greetings friend @awarewolf !

Your post really touched me… these last 2 days I’ve been feeling something similar. In fact, I was considering starting a topic in the lounge along the lines of how hard it is to balance samvega, effort and desire for spiritual progress… :fire: :fire: :fire:… That insidious ‘self’, master of disguise, hiding in all kinds of unexpected places, and even occasionally - merciless spiritual task master. :sweat_smile:
If only it were so simple :fire_extinguisher: :fire_extinguisher: :fire_extinguisher:

I want the solution! Stamping foot :foot: - now please!! … :rofl: :sweat_smile: :joy: :rofl: :crazy_face:

Reading your post, these words stuck out

This reminded me, that back when I was young and fit, and hiking in the mountains, often a peak would seem so very far away… walk walk, trudge trudge, groan groan… coming out above the tree line - that peak still so far in the distance… groan… walk walk, trudge trudge, and then some time later, there it is, looming up ahead. Still a little way off, but in the home stretch and unless something really goes wrong, just keeping on the walking and trudging a little bit longer should surmount that peak. (Like the treee inclining and leaning, will eventually fall in that direction) It is the delusion when it disappears from view every now and then, that plays such havoc…

Standing back and surveying the journey thus far is a great thing to do. Even though in progress, the view back down to the start is quite amazing, and it pulls the perspective back in a wholesome direction…

Maybe we should do a deal… take some time out to admire the view from this mountainside, and to have a picnic :telescope: :national_park: :smiley:

Its not that bad you know… each of those thousands upon thousands of steps have been worth it, even if it is just to get to ‘here’… better than sitting down in the swamp :smiley:

I don’t know if this reply is of any benefit to you, but it has certainly cheered me up!! So thank you for voicing what I’ve been feeling :slightly_smiling_face: :upside_down_face: :sun_behind_small_cloud:

10 Likes

Slightly off topic but it’s a story that came to mind reading this thread, which, interestingly, oscillates from scepticism to dogmatic blind faith and everything in between!

So this story was told to me Ajahn Brahm who heard it from someone else when he was in Thailand. I don’t vouch for it’s veracity at all. :laughing:

Ajahn Chah used to have a prominent lay disciple who was a very sincere practitioner. One day, all of a sudden she converted to Christianity. And, of course everyone was appalled and horrified at this turn of events, not to mention how badly this must reflect upon the great teacher, Ajahn Chah—if even his closest disciples can’t be brought securely to the doubtless Dhamma!

Perturbed, some people approached Ajahn Chah looking for some understanding, some insight— hoping to allay their own doubts, perhaps… They criticised her and lamented her conversion to Ajahn Chah. Instead of condemning her outright, he just looked directly at them and said: “But what if she’s right?!”

I’m sure Ajahn Chah would have been chuckling merrily on the inside at the time. Ajahn Brahm thought it was hilarious too.

Sure, doubt can be destructive if it leads us away from the path, but sometimes faith can be obstructive if it is not supported by experiential knowledge. And sometimes doubt can play a role just as powerful as faith, if it pushes us to investigate to find out the truth for ourselves!

18 Likes

The Buddha didn’t think his way to awakening, at least not in our conventional definition. Being a brilliant man, he brushed aside many matters as inconsequential. He developed the highest levels of samadhi and, using his powers of reason, investigated, tested by trial and refinement to separate what led to dukkha and what led towards nibbana. As a smith does with silver, he gradually, bit by bit, moment by moment removed impurities from himself and saw for himself what stood in the way of complete liberation. I think that’s the essence of the Buddhadhamma and that hasn’t changed.

4 Likes

Would that sort of inquisitive curiosity be what falls under the base of psychic power of vīma as found in SN51.2 ?

https://suttacentral.net/sn51.2/en/sujato

4 Likes