What is the purpose of the Buddha's teachings?

Let’s get down to basics! We discuss subjects that are certainly very interesting, the meaning of this or that sutta, the relevance of this or that practice, in endless discussions in which everyone tries to show off their erudition, but all too rarely, in my opinion, do we try to get to the heart of the matter. We are, for the most part, like people who have boarded a ship without knowing its destination. We have no sense of urgency. But the question of the profound meaning of the Buddha’s teaching is literally a matter of life and death! I’m convinced that the Dhamma is comprehensible - even if its fulfillment probably lies beyond any concept. And I return to the basic question: what is the purpose of the Buddha’s teaching? Where are we going if we follow him? Is it an art of living, or an art of dying out? Does the miracle of the appearance of life on this tiny planet in the immense cosmos make sense? And even if it doesn’t, what should our relationship with life be? Shouldn’t a healthy philosophy be on the side of life? Or, to put it in Nietzschean terms, isn’t a wisdom that aims to put an end to life the symptom of a tired mind and civilization, incapable of facing up to the challenges of existence, a philosophy of self-denial and escape? Is this really the message the Buddha left us?

2 Likes

I think the Buddha answered your questions here:

4 Likes

Nobility can only be based upon deeply respecting and honouring life, i feel. It does not mean that one honours the suffering in the different realms of existences, but one honours something that underlies all this and is unmade, uncreated, not produced, not liable to arise, cease and change. It is unworldy, unlike the existences.

In my opinion it is impossible that being hostile towards life can be a noble path and based upon purity.

The reason why Buddha awakened was, i believe, because of his deep love and honour of life. That always led him. Oke, he was troubled by what he saw. Sickness, death, decay, violence, misery of all sorts. Who is not? But he was led by a deep love for life. To come to life and restore his broken heart. Restore his lack of faith in life, seeing the misery.

While he sought the end of rebirth, he did not seek the end of life. But the end of pain, illness, decay, death. So what he really sought was Life. That what is beyond all these existences with their specific suffering.

In the end, the Noble Buddha, great of heart, did not accept that his heart was broken and his faith in life challenged. That is why he awakened. Because he never gave up on life. Never. It is not in the nature of the pure heart to do that. It is in the nature of defilement to give up life. A pure heart cannot not honour life. The purpose of Dhamma is seeking Life, and restore broken hearts.

2 Likes

Thank you for your reply. 1. I think we cannot base our understanding of the Dhamma on only one sutta; 2. Every sutta need to be interpreted in relation with the context. To not desire an other world could also signifie that we are perfecty happy here and now.

I agree with you. And, as I said, not desiring an other world could also signifie being perfecty happy here and now.

Hello. The complete uprooting of the causes of suffering, achievable in this very life.

1 Like

Hi Alain,

If you are referring to this forum, such discussion seems to be exactly the stated purpose

The Main Theme of this Site is Early Buddhism

We are interested in discussing early Buddhist texts, their meaning and historical context, how these teachings evolve and relate to later traditions, and how they may be applied in the present day. If you’re interested in more general Buddhist discussion, there are plenty of other great forums out there.

Who is this we, you are referring to?

The purpose of leading the spiritual life under the Buddha is to completely understand suffering
sn38.4

We don’t have to make sense of it to practice: MN63

suppose someone was to say: ‘I will not lead the spiritual life under the Buddha until the Buddha declares to me that the cosmos is eternal, or that the cosmos is not eternal … or that after death a realized one neither still exists nor no longer exists.’ That would still remain undeclared by the Realized One

This is a very loaded sentence, so lets break it down a bit?

wisdom that aims to put an end to life

I would say that the aim of wisdom is seeing things how they really are. Life, be it in general or in any specific case, will end by itself when the causes and conditions for it run out and no amount of Nietzschean or otherwise philosophy can really stop that fact from happening :smile:

symptom of a tired mind

I would describe Buddhist practice as a cure for the tired mind, by no means a symptom of it

a philosophy of self-denial and escape

Firstly, to be pedantic, not self-denial, but no-self. I cannot deny something that can’t even find or locate.

I also have a problem with calling Buddhism a philosophy. It always feels like an attempt to hide the fact that it is first and foremost a religion, which for some reason makes westerners uncomfortable.

Regarding escape, then yes, escape is exactly what the Buddha taught. For example, in an3.103

‘What’s the gratification in the world? What’s the drawback? What’s the escape?’
Then it occurred to me: ‘The pleasure and happiness that arise from the world: this is its gratification.
That the world is impermanent, suffering, and perishable: this is its drawback.
Removing and giving up desire and greed for the world: this is its escape.’

I hope you find my message useful and wish you the best in your practice :pray:

1 Like

Kalamasutta AN 3.65:

  • Metaphysical Skepticism
  • Pessimistic cosmology (delusion) with the middle way prohibiting hedonism (greed) as well as destructive asceticism (hate) under these circumstances
  • A simple set of ethical rules to prevent own negative addition to conditions.

For what it’s worth :wink:

Non-regressive highest and complete Supreme Perfect Enlightenment.

Thank you for the difficult but important question. It’s like asking someone, “What is the purpose of life?” Each person will give a slightly different answer. And the same person will give different answers at different times. I gave it some thought, let some ideas go, and can’t think of anything better than our responsibilities vis-a-vis the Four Noble Truths:

Fully understanding dukkha, abandoning its cause, realizing its cessation, and developing the way to its cessation.

-SN 56.11, paraphrased excerpt

1 Like

:pray:
The teachings are based on meditating in seclusion and the purpose is to transcend and go beyond all the conclusions, views and types of immersions/planes of existence that is found among all other non-buddhist meditators.

There will always be ethical and wise people who meditate and thanks to this recollects previous lives, develops supernatural abilities or encounter higher non-human beings like devas/brahmas in the various planes of existence.

Some meditators even transcend such beings and aim for indescribable states like those of the formless realms.

These meditators then get a following of disciples set on the goal of the practice and the lay people usually strive for a heavenly rebirth.

There are myriads of views/conclusions regarding what is deemed the highest goal of the respective spiritual teachings among eternalists, semi-eternalists & annihilationists.

Their conclusions and views are valid, since these conclusions are based on actual experiences and all three of them (eternalists, semi-eternalists & annihilationists) can end up in the very same plane of existence after death, despite having totally different approaches and views.

The Buddha on the other hand teaches by the middle, from this unique perspective those following his teachings do not adhere to any views/conclusions that other meditators might come to, no matter how valid.

Anicca, dukkha & anatta are not evident in the grand scheme of things.

The goal of other spiritual paths, be it the sensual heavens (that even the Buddha calls pleasant) or the luminous form or formless realms are not dukkha.

The fact that they will eventually come to an end (impermanent) is what makes them dukkha but the actual duration while they last are pleasant/blissful/sorrowless.

That is why even a disciple of The Buddha can stay for the entire duration in such a plane of existence:

But a disciple of the Buddha stays there until the lifespan of those gods is spent, then they’re extinguished in that very life. This is the difference between a learned noble disciple and an unlearned ordinary person, that is, when there is a place of rebirth. - AN 4.123

Depending on the spiritual teaching one follows and based on what one prefers one can have exquisite sights, sounds, touch etc., a vastly expanded mind of luminosity or be boundless.

Only a Buddha teaches, via meditation and development, to go totally beyond all such things mentioned above by addressing the fires of lust/greed, hatred and delusion. Craving & clinging.

Dependent Orignation is a vastly deep teaching.

Seeing anicca, dukkha & anatta is something that has to be developed while on the path, therefore it is unwise to see it as some sort of “fact” unless it has actually been developed fully.

Experiencing change, loss, sorrow & pain based on only this current very short single earthly life and somehow imagining that one has a good grasp of The Buddha’s teachings really doesn’t cut it in the grand scheme of things.

One has to meditate and fully understand, and this is only possible in complete seclusion.

One should neither affirm a Self nor completely deny a Self altogether, both are wrong views in The Buddha’s teaching, as found in MN2, AN 6.38 & MN 38.

Only the goal of the practice, Nibbāna, truly uproots the conceit “I am” and what this goal of the path actually entails is beyond the scope of logic (atakkāvacaro).

“This principle I have discovered is deep, hard to see, hard to understand, peaceful, sublime, beyond the scope of logic, subtle, comprehensible to the astute.”

:dharmawheel:

There are these two elements:
the conditioned element and the unconditioned element.
When a mendicant knows and sees these two elements,
they’re qualified to be called ‘skilled in the elements’.”

:lotus: :thaibuddha: :lotus:

1 Like

:pray:

Thank you for you reply. I agree with you for all except this point. Nibbāna only is not dukkha because one of the profond meaning of dukkha is conditionality. And these realms are included in samsāra. So they are dukkha even if pleasurable.

I think we should make a distnction between the teaching of anatta and the grasping or attachement to the idea of non-self. I thing the Buddha completely deny a Self, but it is the result of his awakening not a mere concept or point of view. So I agree with you on the point that we should go beyond all points of you.

I notice that you yourself confess being pedantic, which is the beginning of wisdom.

1 Like

The purpose of the Buddha’s teachings is: Seek nothing.

1 Like

Reflecting further on your question, I think we can distill it down to one concept: Freedom. Or its synonyms: liberation, release, emancipation. It’s another way of describing the 3rd Noble Truth, so another synonym could be nibbāna.

Just as the great ocean has but one taste, the taste of salt, so too, this Dhamma and discipline has but one taste, the taste of liberation (vimuttiraso).

AN 8.19

In the same way, reverend, purification of ethics is only for the sake of purification of mind. Purification of mind is only for the sake of purification of view. Purification of view is only for the sake of purification by traversing doubt. Purification by traversing doubt is only for the sake of purification of knowledge and vision of what is the path and what is not the path. Purification of knowledge and vision of what is the path and what is not the path is only for the sake of purification of knowledge and vision of the practice. Purification of knowledge and vision of the practice is only for the sake of purification of knowledge and vision. Purification of knowledge and vision is only for the sake of extinguishment by not grasping. The spiritual life is lived under the Buddha for the sake of extinguishment by not grasping (anupādāparinibbānatthaṁ).

MN 24

2 Likes

Hello @Alain, :pray: :grinning:

I was rather pointing out that the impermanence of certain higher planes of existence (that have durations and life spans of billions of years) is not even evident to its inhabibtants unless a Buddha points it out.

These realms also happen to involve only pleasant contacts.

Imagining that one fully and truly understands the teachings regarding anicca, dukkha & anatta, Dependent Origination and death/rebirth when it comes to all the three worlds in Samsāra, shows that maybe humility in the practice is lacking.

  • Lust for the luminous form and formless realms is still two of the five higher fetters while on the path.

One can’t just bypass this with no interest of what these states and planes of existence are actually are like.

Rather one has to meditate and explore all worlds to fully understand the whole context of what is being taught.

So while these teachings are very easy to read about and grasp in an intellectual way (”Nibbāna only is not dukkha”) the reality of what is being taught by The Buddha is still very hard to know and see.

If beings who are vastly superior to humans in wisdom and ethics can’t see it, and if only a Buddha out of billions of beings teaches this, I find it unrealistic that humans who only rely on their current earthly short existence in their practice somehow do see it. :wink:

The point in my post was that one still has to be skilled in seeing and knowing both conditionality and unconditionality.

I have no clue how anyone can think the unique teachings/insights by The Buddha are very evident and obvious when the path requires a great deal of meditation in seclusion.

These things (the conditioned element and the unconditioned element) are still very hard to know and see, Dependent Origination is easy on the surface but a vastly deep teaching.

Yet even after The Buddha’s awakening he could still refer to his past lives, but this does not imply that The Buddha was somehow an eternalist like in MN 38.

One should still stick to the middle and say it is neither the same nor another that takes rebirth.

But there are still nuances to this.

Annihilationists can’t be said to be wrong in such a sense that if a annihilationist who is into self-mortification and who does very painful ascetic practices (which do indeed lead to deep states of concentration) and who knows the body full of pain will eventually die and that one will end up wherever those deep states of concentration took one, that this complete discarding of the body (annihilation) is somehow a 100% wrong view.

Yes wrong from a superior buddhist perspective but totally valid for the annihilationist practioner who obviously want nothing to do with the body in the first place and would be glad to discard it and never have anything to do with ever again. :wink:

But better to stick in the middle by neither completely affirming a self, nor completely denying a self.

To totally deny a self, is a wrong view, as found in MN 2 and which leads one astray on the buddhist path. AN 6.38 further elucidates this.

One should stick in the middle to all the eternalist, semi-eternalist and annihilationist views.

But these various non-buddhist views still have certain advantages and disadvantages even while on the buddhist path.

  • Annihilationists for instance have a far easier way of rejecting everything and not clinging, contrary to eternalists.

  • But as The Buddha points out in a sutta I can’t find right now, the annihilationists also have a tendency to overemphasize on such things as keeping the precepts and being way too strict in their practice.

  • So the fetter of ”misapprehension of precepts and observances” sīlabbataparāmāso is what they would cling to instead.

Therefore one should just stick to the middle and everything will turn out fine. :smiling_face:
:pray:

Freedom, truth, happiness, peace.

Both.

No.

I think life is beautiful even though it is suffering and moving towards cessation. I think Buddha understood this despite everything. And this is what makes his person even more charming. Learn to see this dialectic and connect these opposites.

A healthy philosophy should be, Dhamma on this side too. It is on the side of life, but without absolutizing…

This is true in the case of philosophy, which is a sum of assumptions and thoughts about the unknown, which are not intended to reflect reality and make the best choice based on this reality, but to form a way of thinking that will give the greatest benefit and harmony here and now. That is, philosophy does not reflect reality, but forms it for a person. But Buddha saw reality, he did not invent a way of thinking that is somehow better or worse. Buddha saw the reality of samsara. And showed the best choice in the conditions of this reality. He is not a philosopher, but a seer. Nothing will change from your desires or attitude. Creatures will simply end up in hell, in the animal world, every now and then. Until they escape the chain of reincarnations and the snares of thirst and ignorance.

Buddha’s message is to make life better in the temporal sense and to leave samsara in the eternal sense.

Hello, Have you tried practicing the Vipassana (in the tradition of Sahyaji U Ba Khin,as taught by Sahyaji U S N Goenka)? Try it if you have not gone through this wonderful invaluable practical technique in only 10 days.

Bookkeeper’s joke:

Client goes to a CPA, and asks, “what is 2 + 2?”

CPA says, “what did you want it to be?”

For me, Gautama’s teaching is a way to reconcile the experience of action of the body in the absence of volition with daily living. That kind of experience results in a perception like this:

… there are no latent conceits that ‘I am the doer, mine is the doer’ in regard to this consciousness-informed body.

(MN 109, tr. Pali Text Society III p 68)

For me, the reconciliation is in the way of living that Gautama offered, a way of living that:

… if cultivated and made much of, is something peaceful and choice, something perfect in itself, and a pleasant way of living too.

(SN 54.9, tr. PTS SN vol. V p 285)

By Gautama’s own admission, enlightenment is not required to enjoy that “pleasant way of living”:

Formerly… before I myself was enlightened with the perfect wisdom, and was yet a Bodhisattva, I used generally to spend my time in this way of living.

(SN 54.8; tr. PTS vol. V p 280: also 54.11 PTS “the Tathagatha’s way of life”, p 289)

What was Gautama’s purpose, in teaching a way of living that did not require enlightenment?

I’d say mercy, as this is taught in a chapter that documents the suicides of scores of monks a day, as a result of Gautama teaching “the meditation on the unlovely (aspects of the body)”.

That’s where I am, with Gautama’s teaching–not looking to see former habitations, or the arising and passing hence of beings, which may well be prerequisites to realizing the complete destruction of the cankers (MN 4).

If you want to see affirming life as the purpose of Gautama’s teaching, then I wonder how you regard the second of the cankers? Here’s my summary of the three asavas:

The three “cankers” were said to be three cravings: “craving for the life of sense”, “craving for becoming”, and “craving for not-becoming” (DN 22; PTS vol. ii p 340). When the cankers are “destroyed”, the roots of the craving for sense-pleasures, the roots of the craving “to continue, to survive, to be ” (tr. “bhava”, Bhikkyu Sujato), and the roots of the craving not “to be ” (the craving for the ignorance of being ) are destroyed.

(One Way or Another)

“To continue, to survive, to be”–seems like any affirmation of life comes out of exactly such a craving.

If a person wants to discover Gautama’s purpose in teaching, must they not first discover a particular need in themselves?

Case 17

A monk asked Hsiang Lin, “What is the meaning of the Patriarch’s coming from the West?

Hsiang Lin said, “Sitting for a long time becomes tiresome.”

(Blue Cliff Record, tr. Cleary & Cleary)

1 Like