I have seen a lot of nonsence get argued back and forth over the years - "Is it Nam or Namu", "Is the Dai-Gohonzon for real or what?", "Is xyz real or not?", and who inherits or "Who has inherited the true whatsis that will make us all happy forever and ever world without end amen" and so on...
But when I read the teachings of the Buddha, he would not get dragged into such theoretical things. He always brought things back to what we can realistically know and deal with here and now.
Here is the Buddha's challenge to us:
Do you understand suffering, it's full extent and implications?
Have you uprooted (or perhaps transformed) the sources of suffering within our life?
Have you realized for yourself what it is like when suffering (our emotional reactivity to painful circumstances and the subtle discomfort of constant change) is overcome?
Are you following the path that enables us to overcome suffering?
I think that the bravado, egotism, sharpness, belligerence, sarcasm, cynicism, and general unpleasantness of many who go on and on about various things that seem to matter so much but really are of very little consequence shows that they have not met this challenge, and they don't even seem like they are ever going to get around to seriously engaging them. It's too bad. I include myself in this. But I do think it is worth deeply considering what the Buddha felt was really the most important issue and most important challenge to meet in this living moment.
Though this seems to deal with suffering, it is not for the sake of wallowing in misery. Rather, it is to confront reality and through that engagement learn what it is to be truly happy. In my own small way - I feel that the path has proven itself to me over and over again.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
A couple things:
The point of all Buddhist discussion should be to relieve suffering {duhhha}; but I am not sure there is a consensus on a satisfactory translation of dukkha. It seems like attempts to define suffering are unsatisfactory.
We recently discussed Bonno soku Bodai at e-sangha. I brought up the Three Unhealthy Roots -
those being hatred/anger, greed/lust, and bewilderment/ignorance. The Buddha said these should be treated by cultivating the Three Healthy Roots.
In that sutta, the healthy roots are defined simply as opposites of the unhealthy a-dosa, a-lobha, and a-moha. Some {moi} took that to mean one should cultivate metta/karuna, generosity/restraint, and wisdom-insight. Others looked at this as more as seeing that the true natures OF afflictions are empty; to simply observe them and be free from their influence.
I found it interesting that Theravadin sources such as Bikkhu Bodhi tended to take it the way I did. I think most western Mahayanists take it the emptiness way; more as a simple negation.
This reminded of a discussion on the nature of Nirvana. At the beginning of the Pari-Nibbana Sutta, the Buddha talks about the unconditioned, unbecome, unborn, and unmade. These could be taken as the Purity, Joy, Eternity and True Self of the Mahayana Nirvana Sutra. Or as simply pointing to Emptiness; or an extinction of the conditioned,
dukkha, transience, & self-hood.
These discussions got fairly heated, but there were no flames, just different takes. Though I guess I can see why DG's and transfer docs might be important to people. I find such discussions interesting in an academic sense, I love studying history. But there are other controversies that seem more relevant to daily life.
When we talk about the path to overcome suffering, or to find satisfaction in life, that means different things to different people. Is it to fulfill one's materialistic goals {lobha}; and to indulge one's sensual desires {raga}? The extinction or annihilation of greed and lust? The cultivation of generosity and restraint? To realize that lobha/raga and also their satiation are both empty of real substance and enduring existence?
People who see overcoming suffering as nothing else but the satisfaction of material needs; whether immediate or long term, will, most likely, see the rest of the discussion as pointless; as mere theory. I suspect such persons might be more interested in which Mandala is the most powerful, or which lineage is the true heir.
Meanwhile, those who tend toward the Emptiness view might see the same discussion as pointless; as more egotistical craving and grasping, leading only to more confusion. So let go? But then what?
As you see, your blog got me thinking, sorry about that if I am off the intended topic.
robin
Posted by: robek at May 28, 2007 10:18 PM[quote] "I think that the bravado, egotism, sharpness, belligerence, sarcasm, cynicism, and general unpleasantness of many who go on and on about various things that seem to matter so much but really are of very little consequence shows that they have not met this challenge, and they don't even seem like they are ever going to get around to seriously engaging them. It's too bad. I include myself in this. But I do think it is worth deeply considering what the Buddha felt was really the most important issue and most important challenge to meet in this living moment."
I must speak for myself about this (lol). I also include myself in these impurities as well. I have learned, however, to more effectively challenge situations in my life. There are real life situations that sometimes seem to come back in spades, even when I thought I had conquered them for good. I would then go into the "old behavior mode, and then discouragement over my own behavior would set in, and I would have a momentary thought that "this isn't working, etc." However, some little omen would encourage me to go right back "into the arena" and really challenge the situation with a renewal in my faith and practice in Buddhism. Something just won't let me quit any more.
Posted by: Neal at June 1, 2007 04:06 PM