But wouldn’t you say that the effort required in the path is an effort in letting go, and so the opposite of a heroic effort? Or think of it this way: I read Ajahn Brahm’s description of Buddhists as being losers and the Buddha being the greatest loser of all many years ago, but only now it hit me that he really means that and it is no joke. If you really live as if nothing in the world has any worth, if it all stinks, then you can’t have anything positive ‘going for you’, and one corollary seems to be that you are a loser in the real sense of the word. Very tired as it’s late so I am not very articulate at this hour, but that idea really hit me today.
He who, having cast off likes and dislikes, has become tranquil, is rid of the substrata of existence and like a hero has conquered all the worlds—him do I call a holy man.
~ Dhp 418
The effort to let go is heroic!
Think, for example, of the famous Mark Twain quip that he can resist anything except temptation. The courage and willpower required to overcome just one addiction is truly heroic, let alone all of them!!
This is why the Buddha said:
Though one may conquer a thousand times a thousand men in battle, yet he indeed is the noblest victor who conquers himself.
~ Dhp 103
4 Likes
He still experienced suffering
Life and everything in it is dukkha
Ok I have just thought of this other simile to illustrate my point. But first of all I would like to say that these kind of doubts or what may sound like criticisms are really about me trying to come to terms with my own understanding about the existential questions I mentioned initially and the answers EBT offer.
So a simile I would use to state my point is that of the Buddha as a doctor (as we know people often use the analogy of medical treatment to explain the 4 Nobles truths, the Buddha made the simile of the arrow etc so a medical simile seems appropriate). So in this simile it seems to me that pratctising Buddhism would be like going to the doctor and then undergoing a medical treatment to heal from disease (like a medical doctor treats physical disease, the Buddha treats mental suffering). However, in life one usually goes to the doctor so that he can then be healthy and thus work, enjoy family life etc. In other words healing (stopping suffering) is not the ultimate meaning of life, it is something important and necessary but only a means to live a meaningful life whose meaning is something other than just healing. It would seem to me that in this analogy practising Buddhism seriously would be like spending one’s whole life undergoing a medical treatment, without any meaning outside of that. You are not undergoing a cure so that you can then be useful for some meaning that is larger than you (say for example in the West there’s the idea of history with its progress which in some sense gives a meaning to human life beyond that life itself - but in Buddhism the circular idea of time negates that idea and makes it all pointless) the undergoing of the cure is the whole meaning of life, and when you are cured then poof, you attain nothingness, parinibbana.
lol, good quote 
Yes I guess I have perhaps a one sided understanding of things(?) For the teacher who has inspired me willpower seems to be a total mistake, he distinguishes between second Noble Truth meditation which applies willpower and which is wrong and Third Noble Truth meditation which abandons all willpower and leads you to peace. Perhaps I have a one sided understanding in these terms then, the passage you quote does indeed speak of victory, which indeed is the opposite of the metaphor of the loser. I guess it’s like other things I don’t understand, say on the one hand the aim of the path seems to become totally harmless like say a friendly grandfather in whose presence you feel totally safe and at peace; on the other hand people like Luang Por Maha Bua have been described as very ‘fierce’ and I read in Ajahn Chah’s biography that people were sometimes scared of him, so yes I guess I have a one sided and limited understanding of this 
1 Like
Human birth is actually very rare and precious in Buddhism. This is the best birth there is, because humans can practice Dhamma with more ease, then even gods. So the fact, that you are a human now, and that you have access to Dhamma shows that you are very, very lucky! And you also had earned it. This is a good thing. 
Thanissaro Bhikku says that Buddha was a warrior, and I actually like his version much better. It sounds proactive, not reactive.
Wow, yes I guess it’s like I wrote in my previous message above, I must have developed a onesided view of things, Luang Por Maha Bua was indeed considered a fierce person so this seems more in agreement with the warrior metaphor 
1 Like
Yes I guess that what I was driving at is that in the West we have this idea that human life has intrinsic value; even that of the worse criminal say. It seems to come from the Bible (one can understand the saying that man was created in the image of God as a metaphor for that) and is ingrained in say the American constitution as as ‘self-evident’ truth, When Kant says that human beings are to considered ends and not means he means (sorry about the word play ) the same thing. I guess in Buddhism what is really valuable is Nibbana and so human life is meaningful as a way of attaining it. But if you understand nibbana as extinguishment then you are in the awkward position of affirming that human life has meaning precisely insofar as it has the opportunity to extinguish itself 
I mean it sounds nearly like a joke, right? Except that these questions are really dead serious
3 Likes
Yeah, Kant and the Romantics, who used his ideas, really promoted this worldview: that the humans are a part of something greater, some Grand Design, that has a profound meaning and will be finally revealed at some point.
But there are other worldviews and they are not that bad and sad, if you look at them closely.
Yep. In some sense our life is a joke, isn’t it?.. But when you finally get that joke, you will be the one laughing.
2 Likes
Thanks for sharing.
Some reflections are offered:
You’re right, in a conventional sense, that being treated for an illness is aimed at living life in a healthy way, so one can pursue all sorts of the usual activities, including philosophical speculations. Quite understandable.
The issue is that, from the standpoint of the Buddha’s teachings, all beings are utterly enmeshed in a matrix of dukkha. So there’s no conventional “cure this and then finally it’s all better.” Rather, the conditions of illness, being treated, the physician, the medicines, and the conventional cures are all still impermanent and fundamentally, dukkha.
Put another way, it all doesn’t last. Does it?
That doesn’t mean there aren’t pleasurable and beautiful aspects of life or that we don’t cultivate, manifest, and enjoy metta and compassion.
The point is, none of this is permanent so no aspect of the conditional can permanently end suffering, and hence, the only way to end all suffering is by becoming free of the whole net of conditionality…
It depends on our premise. If conditional existence is viewed as an end in itself, as a place to enjoy and then die, that’s how we’ll orient our lives. Just saying, not judging.
If, as the Buddha taught, we look deeply into the 1st Noble Truth (and, of course the others), our premise begins to change. The mind naturally seeks and orients toward an unshakeable refuge, peace, happiness, and safety that is not dependent on anything conditional.
Practicing the Dhamma for this liberation is filled with wisdom, joy, love, and deep meaning – all the way to full liberation from all suffering and stress.
Now, that is a real cure. 
Your link takes us to AN1.329 but the Sutta you’re referring to is on SC as AN1.328
I was looking for the 
in your linked sutta but could only find piss, spit, pus and blood. Which is still enough to become dissatisfied with worldly existence…
Lol thanks for pointing this out. So another sutta going in the same sense Amazing the contrast between how good one can sometimes feel after meditation and how negative the message of some of tthese suttas is
You know, I have just had an interesting thought about these suttas: Buddha says, that TO HIM existence is like a pile of feces. To him. To Buddha. He is Enlightened, He knows the supreme bliss, the supreme equanimity, he knows the freedom from Samsara.
He experienced something SO good, that all existence is shitty in comparison.
This is so cool. Imagine that! The Nibbana is so blissfull, that in comparison the whole Samsara looks like a kaka.
2 Likes
Thank you for sharing. I see what you mean that things are unsatisfactory because impermanent, and in this all makes sense. However according to some interpretations I read, all existence is actually dhukkha also in the sense that whatever we believe is pleasure is actually pain. This is related to the simile of energy levels of electrons in an atom I offered above: if nibbana and the experience of nothingness are taken as the reference point (which I compare to zero at the Fermi level) then all experiences are below that value so to speak, because relative to that they are painful. Therefore once you attain nibbana you understand that everthing in your actual experience is suffering. So, if we follow this interpretation this knowledge in a way is not very helpful, because if you take it seriously you feel that all that you are doing is actually a mockery and in was takes all the motivation out of doing things, as you are in a way being mocked by life. Don’t know if it makes sense.
Ah ok, that sounds cool, so you mean that you can take this as something to look forward to, and thus a positive message, as opposed to a message telling me how my life is. Indeed I remember that when I had started meditating I was often feeling like that, looking forward to exploring a new world with lots of hope. 
1 Like
But you need to get there first.
Imagine: you have eaten a nice simple vanilla ice-cream. It was good. Really good, rich and creamy.
But! Then you’ve tried a chocolate fudge ice-cream with nuts and honey. And it is amazing, it is godly, it is a blessing, you want to kiss a guy who invented it.
…does this mean that simple vanilla is disgusting?..
No. It just isn’t THAT good. And it’s useful to remember that you don’t have to eat vanilla for all eternity, you can try and get yourself a chocolate fudge.
2 Likes
Yep! I’m really glad if it helps you to look at the bright side even for a bit.
Lots of metta. 
1 Like
I don’t know how this squares with:
It’s not that there’s no pleasure or conventional meaningfulness in conditional experiences.
But when the mind feeds on them, grasping them, craving them, it perpetuates the problem of dukkha.
So we don’t have to enter into despondency contemplating the 1stNT. Nor do we, if we take the lesson seriously, settle into complacency.
We can practice and find our way, with guidance from teachers. It’s a happy, challenging, incredible endeavor!
The decision is up to us.
As mentioned before, we can decide whether we want to continue to invest our attention and energy enjoying the food, chandeliers, and conversations on the repetitively sinking boat – or to liberate ourselves from the sinking ship altogether.
Is there no meaning, motivation, benefit, and purpose in that?
Anyway, those are some reflections I’ll share here.
Thanks for the convo.
Wishing you happiness and all the best!
1 Like
The first sutta merely says that any phenomena is subject to suffering (impermanence, etc), not that anybphenomena IS suffering, that makes no sense and is nonsense.
The second sutta merely repeats a standard brhaminical hieronomy first presented in MN1 and for the same purpose; to point out how clinging to any of the stages in the hieronomy makes the subject aubject to suffering, because they are attached to an object, and objects, even very abstract and refined ones (like the attainment of niether perception nor non perception) is subject to impermanence, dissolution, change and decay.
All of this is in no way an endorsment of nihilism, rather it merely endorses that we can be freed, even from things that are pretty much perfectly happy except for the fact thay they are impermanent.
Ealry buddhists obviously thought rhat being alive was better than being dead, that being kind was better than being mean, and being happy was better than being sad.
They just thought that there was more to life than that, that above the realm of sadness and happiness was the “realm” of freedom from sadness (and happiness).
The buddha achieved this complete and irevocable freedom from sadness (and happiness) and then taught others the path to same for 40 years.
The idea that the buddha wasnt “really” awakened until they died is bunkum.
The idea that the buddha completely ceased after thier body died is just a confusion of the buddha with thier body, the buddha completely cut off thier attachment to that body the very second they awakend.
1 Like