One can also say that birth, decay, death are only valid designations within a perspective of a self and of a living being, but not within the perspective of mere processes. Processes do not get born, do not decay and do not die.
But, in general it makes no sense to speak of suffering if there is no experience possible of not suffering.
It is just, again, not rational to makes such decisions that all is suffering.
so, i choice to believe a Buddha really knows the end of suffering, not as some prospect of a vanishing at a last death, but as something directly known…and Nibbana can be directly known (MN1)
To encourage common agreement I’ll repeat that the real proof in the pudding is whether our beliefs help us make an end to desire and greed or not. That’s the crucible we all must face and I think only individuals can decide based on their own personal experience. I think we all agree on this?
But…always a but…if a christian, with his/her belief and devotion in God also makes an end to his/her personal desires…full trust that only Gods will prevaels and only God knows what is good for me,
does that also count as proof in the pudding?
If by so believing they give up and get rid of desire and greed for these five grasping aggregates, then why not? Lots of debate can be had about whether such beliefs can accomplish full ending of desire, but that isn’t the question you’re asking. There are trillions (more) of different minds and only the Teacher was said to be able to know what precise part/presentation of dhamma was most useful for any of them in any given moment?
It seems rather you wish to ask, “If a christian can make an end to his/her personal desires”, but I don’t think it is wise to pursue this question on this forum. I can say that I’ve met some self-identified christians who I dare say have made more of an end than some self-identified buddhists
No, i only question your proof in the pudding. You say…the proof in the pudding is that we make an end to desires. Oke…but does also count how we do this, based upon what? That was the context of my question.
No, then I don’t think it matters so much how, but that it is done. One could make arguments that this method is faster or that method doesn’t work and so on, but in the end only the Teacher could tell for any given individual what the fastest method would be. Only the Doctor could correctly diagnose the exact dosage and composition of the medicine that would most effectively and efficiently accomplish the task.
Do you believe it is possible that a Buddha in a religious christian or muslim culture teaches the existence of God as skillful means to realise liberation?
That is a famous simile/analogy in the Lotus Sutra. I read this long ago. I liked it.
But when i started reading the Pali sutta’s, and came to understand that the belief in a Creator, Maker, Father was considered by the Buddha as a wrong view, i started to doubt this idea of…whatever helps…
Sure is…things do not have to be true to have great effects. Also very positive ones. Certaintly on short term. I think never on long term.
At the same time, i do not believe that the supra mundane Path is buddhist. It just refers to the purity that is always there. This natural state of mind is birthright, There is not really a buddhist path, in this sense, only a Path connected to purity, dispassion.
And i also believe the mystics write about this.
Still i also think mundane views are very important.
If people, for example, see sickness as the will of God that has real consequences. They may not vaccinate, infect others etc. Maybe they do not even feel inclined to seek causes for illnesses?
View is important.
I wasn’t trying to suggest otherwise. However, it remains the case that many self-declared Buddhists have over the centuries purported to believe all of those right views; and yet have engaged in war, violence, jealousy, killing, unimaginable horrors and so on.
One might believe they have the so-called “right view” of rebirth and khamma and believe that everyone who suffers hardship brings it on themselves and is not deserving of compassion and so on. It can and has been used to harden hearts.
That’s why it is so important to check: what are the results of personal views? Do they actually seem effective in lessening personal desire and greed? Are they hardening the heart? Are they causing righteous anger or indignation when they are challenged by others? Are desire/greed and the other defilements masquerading as so-called “right view” justification?
Yes, i have seen for myself that such things all rely on becoming impersonal. All evil, all avijja, all that unwholesomeness comes down to alienation. Alienation from one own heart, from others, from the world. Any seperation, any boundary in the mind arising, and there is failure.
In fact it is not that difficult to see, i feel, that starting to conceiving and being lost in that cinematic world, is the main failure. Yes, i believe it is true All what is going on in the head…my God…
What is going on there Yeshe? Is there any wisdom in the head?
The mind without conceiving is not divided, has no seperation, no boundaries, cannot be traced, is not seen coming and going. Where are the problems in this mind? But start conceiving and the problems are endless.
Do conceive the Buddha as dispassionate person and you immediately have a huge problem. Conceive a Buddha without Me and Mine making and you have 2 problems. Conceive the Buddha with tanha and you have 3 problems. Conceive the Buddha without asava and you have 4 problems. Conceive the Buddha without anusaya and you have 7 problems. Conceive the Buddha without fetters and you have 10 problems. Conceive the Buddha without 14 asobhana cetasika and you have 14 problems, …
Oh, oh…what a problems i have. Oh no…challenges, goals, something to do.
Do you think that teaching is categorical? A mendicant with defilements ended stuck inside a burning building with an obstinate child - who only budges for the promise of ice cream - wouldn’t tell them ice cream was outside?
I think that’s just wishful thinking, trying to tie up Buddha’s message with some sort of an eternalism without daring to call it one (the undefiled mind, the asakhanta heart, etc).
Buddha was repeatedly mistaken as an annihilationist and never once an eternalist, for the obvious reason. If he believed otherwise, if his message had some sort of an “undefiled mind” that doesn’t cease or whatever, there would be no such confusion, he would be even more popular, people would flock in even greater numbers.
Yes, I think this teaching is categorical. There are other ways to make the child budge by not lying to them. One way is to take them by force, another is to tell the truth about the burning building.
It is just a hypothetical used to explore whether the sutta in question should be understood categorically. It doesn’t have anything to do with any particular Mahayana doctrine other than that similar parable/simile is used in the Lotus Sutra.
Not according to the rules of this hypothetical. The child cannot be moved by force and cannot be budged by persuasion other than telling promising them ice cream. You believe it is not possible for a mendicant with defilements ended to deliberately tell the child that ice cream is outside even if the alternative is the child will be burned alive?
All what is going on in the head…my God…