Unitarians?

[GKB_Protasius]

Greetings! I wanted to respond to something Ahisma said awhile back…

I see the same thing in Christianity. I would say Catholics are similar to the Theravadins and Pentecostals are similar to Pure Land Buddhists and Baptists are similar to Mahayana Buddhists. Whether Catholic or Baptist or Methodist - all have the same founder and leader in the person of Jesus Christ. All use teachings from the Bible. Each one focuses on a different part, though. Unfortunately, in Christianity there is not the ecumenism among groups as there appears to be in Buddhism.

First, I’m not sure if such a comparision can be made. There are lots of similarities and differences so I think it would take a lot of research to even see if such comparisions can be made. For example, Catholicisms emphasis on the saints who pray for the living seems to me to take it out of the realm of Theravada. I could be off on this one, as I’m far from an expert on Buddhist doctrine.

Second, I think it is difficult to compare ecumensism in Buddhism to ecumensism in Christianity. For one, I think Buddhism tends to focus on practice, so if a practice seems to work, it’s good and acceptable, so it can avoid the decisiveness which comes from having hard doctrine. However, there are still plenty of disputes within Buddhism. I also get the feeling that a lot of the unity over doctrine comes from a basic world view that we really can’t know the nature of things so doctrine isn’t that important. When Buddhists philosophers do believe that we can know, then they seem to get as arguementative and divisive Christians. I could be WAY off base on that one, so please correct me if I am. It’s just a feeling I get.

I should also point out that I think many of the people in those Christian traditions would not say that they focus on a part, but have the whole thing. As a Catholic, I don’t think we have a part of what Jesus taught, I think we have the whole “Deposit of Faith.”

However, there is plenty of disagreement in Buddhism. For example, I study Buddhist history in East Asia, especially Korea, and there have been major disputes, sometimes even violent ones over doctrine. Armed thugs were hired to drive married monks out of temples in the 1950’s in Korea. The kyo (doctrine) and son (zen/chan) sects had a running battle (not phyiscally violent to my knowledge) over doctrine for a long time. Of course money and property and power are often considerations here, but they also affect Christian ecumenicism.

Of course it’s difficult in a forum to outline all our arguements, so I might be misunderstanding you. Basically I’m just trying to point out that I think such comparisions are rather difficult to make.

Peace in Christ,
Frank Rausch

 

[Ahimsa]

GKB Protasius:

Greetings! I wanted to respond to something Ahisma said awhile back…

Greetings,

I think you mean ‘Ahimsaman72’, not ‘Ahimsa’ (me).

 

[GKB_Protasius]

Wow! I’m really out of it! Sorry Ahisma and Ahisma72 for
confusing you two! I like your signature file Ahisma!

To add to my mistakes, there were two I made in this section of my email:

Second, I think it is difficult to compare ecumensism in Buddhism to ecumensism in Christianity. For one, I think Buddhism tends to focus on practice, so if a practice seems to work, it’s good and acceptable, so it can avoid the decisiveness which comes from having hard doctrine. However, there are still plenty of disputes within Buddhism. I also get the feeling that a lot of the unity over doctrine comes from a basic world view that we really can’t know the nature of things so doctrine isn’t that important. When Buddhists philosophers do believe that we can know, then they seem to get as arguementative and divisive Christians. I could be WAY off base on that one, so please correct me if I am. It’s just a feeling I get.

First, I meant divisiveness (spelling?) not decisiveness. Second, I should have said was "Some Buddhists and people inspired by Buddhist philosophy who I have spoken to have given me the impression that either we can’t know truth or truth doesn’t matter. This would lead to them being more open to ecumenicism I think. Could you tell me, does such thinking represent an authentic stream in Buddhist thought?

Thanks!

 

[ahimsaman72]

GKB Protasius:

Greetings! I wanted to respond to something Ahisma said awhile back…

I see the same thing in Christianity. I would say Catholics are similar to the Theravadins and Pentecostals are similar to Pure Land Buddhists and Baptists are similar to Mahayana Buddhists. Whether Catholic or Baptist or Methodist - all have the same founder and leader in the person of Jesus Christ. All use teachings from the Bible. Each one focuses on a different part, though. Unfortunately, in Christianity there is not the ecumenism among groups as there appears to be in Buddhism.

First, I’m not sure if such a comparision can be made. There are lots of similarities and differences so I think it would take a lot of research to even see if such comparisions can be made. For example, Catholicisms emphasis on the saints who pray for the living seems to me to take it out of the realm of Theravada. I could be off on this one, as I’m far from an expert on Buddhist doctrine.

Second, I think it is difficult to compare ecumensism in Buddhism to ecumensism in Christianity. For one, I think Buddhism tends to focus on practice, so if a practice seems to work, it’s good and acceptable, so it can avoid the decisiveness which comes from having hard doctrine. However, there are still plenty of disputes within Buddhism. I also get the feeling that a lot of the unity over doctrine comes from a basic world view that we really can’t know the nature of things so doctrine isn’t that important. When Buddhists philosophers do believe that we can know, then they seem to get as arguementative and divisive Christians. I could be WAY off base on that one, so please correct me if I am. It’s just a feeling I get.

I should also point out that I think many of the people in those Christian traditions would not say that they focus on a part, but have the whole thing. As a Catholic, I don’t think we have a part of what Jesus taught, I think we have the whole “Deposit of Faith.”

However, there is plenty of disagreement in Buddhism. For example, I study Buddhist history in East Asia, especially Korea, and there have been major disputes, sometimes even violent ones over doctrine. Armed thugs were hired to drive married monks out of temples in the 1950’s in Korea. The kyo (doctrine) and son (zen/chan) sects had a running battle (not phyiscally violent to my knowledge) over doctrine for a long time. Of course money and property and power are often considerations here, but they also affect Christian ecumenicism.

Of course it’s difficult in a forum to outline all our arguements, so I might be misunderstanding you. Basically I’m just trying to point out that I think such comparisions are rather difficult to make.

Peace in Christ,
Frank Rausch

Greetings to you!!!

Your points are valid. My intent was to give someone who doesn’t have any understanding of Buddhism a general idea of the different sects in Buddhism as it relates to Christianity and Christian sects. Yes, the Baptists think they have the whole truth, Catholics the whole truth, etc. Yes, I agree with that assessment.

I wouldn’t want to paint the picture that all schools of Buddhism and their followers agree all the time or that they think highly of each other’s practices. But, from what I have seen they generally honor each other and don’t “bash” each other like so many of us Christians do. That’s the outside looking in - so to speak. That’s what I see when going to various websites and reading the different books I have.

Yes, a main component of Buddhism is on practice - personal experience. The Buddha encouraged all to not take what they heard or were taught or what was written down as truth. He encouraged them to verify for themselves what was true or not true - what was helpful and what was harmful. They still agree on basic doctrine - the four noble truths and the eightfold path. Essentials are held by all.

The comparison I was making between Theravada Buddhism and Catholicism is based on the fact that in the Theravada tradition their texts are the oldest and closest to the Buddha’s teachings and their monastic rules and lifestyle are closer to the Catholic ideal as opposed to the protestant ideal. The Theravada tradition is the oldest traceable in Buddhism and is a mirror of the Catholic and Orthodox tradition being the oldest traceable Christian tradition. The Theravadins also still use the Pali language in chanting and reading and Pali is the oldest language of their texts. Which reminds of the Catholic tradition of using Latin for liturgical usage and chanting, etc.

Peace and blessings to you!!!

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ahimsaman72,

In my experience, the Univeralist Unitarian will read from the Bible, from Thomas Jefferson, and from the books of Shirley Mclain all in one service.

When I met with the young adult group after the services, one gentleman recounted his experience in a native american ceremony where a bunch of them got naked, smoked wacky tobaccy, and meditated in a big native american lodge together in order to find their true “divinity” within. … Just so you know what you might expect from the UU Church. Not my cup of tea.

The UU taught me one thing: Belief in everything is the same thing as believing in nothing.

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

ahimsaman72,

In my experience, the Univeralist Unitarian will read from the Bible, from Thomas Jefferson, and from the books of Shirley Mclain all in one service.

When I met with the young adult group after the services, one gentleman recounted his experience in a native american ceremony where a bunch of them got naked, smoked wacky tobaccy, and meditated in a big native american lodge together in order to find their true “divinity” within. … Just so you know what you might expect from the UU Church. Not my cup of tea.

The UU taught me one thing: Belief in everything is the same thing as believing in nothing.

Thanks Dave! I certainly was curious. Seems rather strange - I must admit. It would seem that you couldn’t really speak doctrine unless it was universal - such as loving your neighbor, etc. And really that wouldn’t make sense if there were Satanists who followed Anton Lavey’s Satanic principles.

 

[ahimsaman72]

GKB Protasius:

Wow! I’m really out of it! Sorry Ahisma and Ahisma72 for
confusing you two! I like your signature file Ahisma!

To add to my mistakes, there were two I made in this section of my email:

Second, I think it is difficult to compare ecumensism in Buddhism to ecumensism in Christianity. For one, I think Buddhism tends to focus on practice, so if a practice seems to work, it’s good and acceptable, so it can avoid the decisiveness which comes from having hard doctrine. However, there are still plenty of disputes within Buddhism. I also get the feeling that a lot of the unity over doctrine comes from a basic world view that we really can’t know the nature of things so doctrine isn’t that important. When Buddhists philosophers do believe that we can know, then they seem to get as arguementative and divisive Christians. I could be WAY off base on that one, so please correct me if I am. It’s just a feeling I get.

First, I meant divisiveness (spelling?) not decisiveness. Second, I should have said was "Some Buddhists and people inspired by Buddhist philosophy who I have spoken to have given me the impression that either we can’t know truth or truth doesn’t matter. This would lead to them being more open to ecumenicism I think. Could you tell me, does such thinking represent an authentic stream in Buddhist thought?

Thanks!

No problem about the names, friend .

The core principles of the four noble truths and eightfold path are espoused by all schools as far as I am aware. That’s their “hard doctrine” that all can agree on.

Although far from being an authority, I would say that truth is what you experience. For example, greed, anger, craving all are harmful to the mind. You can experience that. On the other hand, love, compassion and giving are helpful. Those things cause happiness. Greed, anger and craving cause unhappiness - suffering. That is truth.

The basic teaching of the Buddha is on the four noble truths. So, the Buddha himself believed in truths.

"I will teach you the Truth and the Path leading to the Truth. (Buddha)"

He seemed to not get caught up in origins - absolute truth and whatever was un-verifiable. He gave a teaching about a man wounded by an arrow. The man wanted to know who shot the arrow, what wood was used to make the arrow, etc. Such a man will die from his wound because he wants to know all the answers to his questions. He will die before he knows these answers. So, speculation on what is unknown is worthless.

He espoused the truth as he experienced it and encourages all who want to be relieved from suffering to listen to his teachings on the four noble truths and eightfold path before seeking answers to all our questions.

I’m far from an expert, so take this as my understanding of it at this point. Ahimsa may be more knowledgeable and better equipped to answer better. I would encourage anyone to at least read some of the Buddha’s writings. It’s very insightful, especially considering the age of the teachings. The Dhammapada is the most well known and read of his teachings and I recommend anyone to start there. You can get a copy of it many places on the net.

www.buddhanet.net

The above is a great site - the best I’ve seen to date. There you can download many ebooks or learn online.

Peace and blessings to you…

 

[chrisb]

ahimsaman72:

No problem about the names, friend .

The core principles of the four noble truths and eightfold path are espoused by all schools as far as I am aware. That’s their “hard doctrine” that all can agree on.

Although far from being an authority, I would say that truth is what you experience. For example, greed, anger, craving all are harmful to the mind. You can experience that. On the other hand, love, compassion and giving are helpful. Those things cause happiness. Greed, anger and craving cause unhappiness - suffering. That is truth.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace Ahimsaman72,

But let us be clear that all things “good” or “bad” is Dukka as taught by the Buddha. In Dukka is also found our “being-hood” and in our “being-hood” the “way” to cessation of Dukka or “being-hood”. So you see Buddhism is after the cessation of “being-hood” not after being good or nice to other although in seeking cessation of Dukka, one desires nothing and so can look toward others without personal desire. So one could seek the “good” of others without a personal agenda. This is a good thing but very different from Christian cultivation of virtue through Charity.

The basic teaching of the Buddha is on the four noble truths. So, the Buddha himself believed in truths.

“I will teach you the Truth and the Path leading to the Truth. (Buddha)”

He seemed to not get caught up in origins - absolute truth and whatever was un-verifiable. He gave a teaching about a man wounded by an arrow. The man wanted to know who shot the arrow, what wood was used to make the arrow, etc. Such a man will die from his wound because he wants to know all the answers to his questions. He will die before he knows these answers. So, speculation on what is unknown is worthless.

He espoused the truth as he experienced it and encourages all who want to be relieved from suffering to listen to his teachings on the four noble truths and eightfold path before seeking answers to all our questions.

I have studied Buddhism but I guess, as a Contemplative Catholic Christian I share more in common with the Hindu/Yogic practice of seeking “Samadi” than the Buddhist practice of seeking “Nirvana”.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

PS: Great chatting with you.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

A JOKE (don’t read it if you don’t want to) told me by my boss, a Unitarian:

If the local Catholic church caught fire, the devout Catholic would run in and rescue the Blessed Sacrament.

If the local Unitarican church caught fire, the devout Unitarian would run in and rescue the coffee pot.

 

[ahimsaman72]

chrisb:

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace Ahimsaman72,

But let us be clear that all things “good” or “bad” is Dukka as taught by the Buddha. In Dukka is also found our “being-hood” and in our “being-hood” the “way” to cessation of Dukka or “being-hood”. So you see Buddhism is after the cessation of “being-hood” not after being good or nice to other although in seeking cessation of Dukka, one desires nothing and so can look toward others without personal desire. So one could seek the “good” of others without a personal agenda. This is a good thing but very different from Christian cultivation of virtue through Charity.

I have studied Buddhism but I guess, as a Contemplative Catholic Christian I share more in common with the Hindu/Yogic practice of seeking “Samadi” than the Buddhist practice of seeking “Nirvana”.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

PS: Great chatting with you.

I’m not sure I followed your first paragraph well, so I will elaborate on my understanding of dukkha and the four noble truths.

Truth 1) Suffering (unsatisfactoriness) exists
Truth 2) Suffering has a cause - it is craving, attachment or clinging
Truth 3) There is a path that leads to the end of suffering (nirvana)
Truth 4) That path is the noble eight-fold path

Dukka (suffering or unsatisfactoriness) in inherent in all things. It is the same for animals, humans, etc. It exists in the world. The cause is clinging, attachment - whether to good things or bad things - sensual pleasures or pain. The Buddha found a way out of suffering - a way to extinguish the suffering. That way is the noble eightfold path which consists of 8 individual characteristics; that will end suffering so that one may attain nirvana (the extinguishing of suffering). It doesn’t mean annihilation.

Buddha taught the concept of “no-self” - that is, no permanent entity exists independently - you, me, animals, rocks, trees. All things are dependent on all other things to live - to be. We are human - made up of water, bones, flesh (dust). We depend on the eating of food (provided by our environment), water to drink (again, provided by our environment), air to breathe (you get the picture). So, all things depend on something else to live.

He also taught the concept of impermanence - everything changes. You were once 2 years old, you grew up - you became 10 years old, then 20, then 30, so on. Your body changed, your thinking changed, your understanding changed, etc. So, he taught there can be no permanent self, because all things are transitory - changing. You can’t point to yourself and say “this is me” or “this is who I am”, because then the next minute your thoughts change in your mind - your body changes positions, etc. By the way, Adventists and JW’s share the some of the same thoughts on this (basically). There is no “immortal soul” that exists independent on one’s body. Mind, body, soul consist of one unit. They can’t be seperated.

This is a really simplistic explanation that hopefully cleared up some misunderstandings and gives you an idea of where I was coming from. I am not a Buddhist. I am a Christian, but find Buddhism to hold many invaluable and profitable truths.

Peace to you…

And it has been a pleasure sharing with you…

 

[chrisb]

ahimsaman72:

I’m not sure I followed your first paragraph well, so I will elaborate on my understanding of dukkha and the four noble truths.

Truth 1) Suffering (unsatisfactoriness) exists

Truth 2) Suffering has a cause - it is craving, attachment or clinging

Truth 3) There is a path that leads to the end of suffering (nirvana)

Truth 4) That path is the noble eight-fold path

Dukka (suffering or unsatisfactoriness) in inherent in all things. It is the same for animals, humans, etc. It exists in the world. The cause is clinging, attachment - whether to good things or bad things - sensual pleasures or pain. The Buddha found a way out of suffering - a way to extinguish the suffering. That way is the noble eightfold path which consists of 8 individual characteristics; that will end suffering so that one may attain nirvana (the extinguishing of suffering). It doesn’t mean annihilation.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace,

I studied the Pali Suttas of Buddha and found them incredibly illuminating Buddha’s Teachings.

I guess we need to look at the three levels of Dukka (pali spelling).

You appear to be identifying a couple of them. Dukka is suffering. How does one suffer? By clinging. What is the ultimate thing we cling to? Life. Dukka is suffering, ultimately because we cling to a state of “being-hood” which we think is our selves but is actually only a state of being (consciousness) derived through the 5-Aggregates. Liberating oneself from this “being-hood” is enlightenment.

Buddha taught the concept of “no-self” - that is, no permanent entity exists independently - you, me, animals, rocks, trees. All things are dependent on all other things to live - to be. We are human - made up of water, bones, flesh (dust). We depend on the eating of food (provided by our environment), water to drink (again, provided by our environment), air to breathe (you get the picture). So, all things depend on something else to live.

I don’t know if I would end “no-self” there. This is not complete. Suffering “Dukka” stems from the desire of self-hood. This includes an independent self or being-hood. Ultimately, their is no annihilation because ultimately there was no “self” to begin with. The “idea” of being-hood is an illusion in the first place.

He also taught the concept of impermanence - everything changes. You were once 2 years old, you grew up - you became 10 years old, then 20, then 30, so on. Your body changed, your thinking changed, your understanding changed, etc. So, he taught there can be no permanent self, because all things are transitory - changing. You can’t point to yourself and say “this is me” or “this is who I am”, because then the next minute your thoughts change in your mind - your body changes positions, etc. By the way, Adventists and JW’s share the some of the same thoughts on this (basically). There is no “immortal soul” that exists independent on one’s body. Mind, body, soul consist of one unit. They can’t be seperated.

Again, I would suggest that the Buddha’s Teaching didn’t “stop” there. You were once “something without consciousness” before you manifested into "something which had consciousness”, which caused Suffering (Dukka). The Buddha Taught that “there is no soul” period. What we think of as a soul, the Buddha Taught was “consciousness” or Being-hood which is an error of right perception and the very cause of our suffering.

This is a really simplistic explanation that hopefully cleared up some misunderstandings and gives you an idea of where I was coming from. I am not a Buddhist. I am a Christian, but find Buddhism to hold many invaluable and profitable truths…

Yeah, typing out these kinds of “deep” thoughts is a real pain.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[Ahimsa]

chrisb:

But let us be clear that all things “good” or “bad” is Dukka as taught by the Buddha. In Dukka is also found our “being-hood” and in our “being-hood” the “way” to cessation of Dukka or “being-hood”. So you see Buddhism is after the cessation of “being-hood” not after being good or nice to other although in seeking cessation of Dukka, one desires nothing and so can look toward others without personal desire. So one could seek the “good” of others without a personal agenda. This is a good thing but very different from Christian cultivation of virtue through Charity.

Chris,

Buddhism is relatively new to the English-speaking world, and, in my opinion, English speakers have not yet really been able to capture what the Buddha was trying to say. Take, for instance, the first noble truth, the truth of dukkha, where the Buddha says not that “things” (the five aggregates) in and of themselves are dukkha, but rather that the process-of-clinging-to-things is dukkha:

The five aggregates, on their own, do not constitute suffering or stress. They are stressful only when functioning as objects of clinging/sustenance. This hybrid word – clinging/sustenance – is a translation of the Pali term upadana.

 

[chrisb]

Ahimsa:

Chris,

Buddhism is relatively new to the English-speaking world, and, in my opinion, English speakers have not yet really been able to capture what the Buddha was trying to say.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace Ahimsa,

I don’t know if I would suggest that Buddha’s teaching is beyond the reach of English-Speakers. Clearly it is beyond of the reach of many, for few achieve enlightenment but I think his teachings are universal enough to be universally understood if not universally practiced.

Take, for instance, the first noble truth, the truth of dukkha, where the Buddha says not that “things” (the five aggregates) in and of themselves are dukkha, but rather that the process-of-clinging-to-things is dukkha:

The five aggregates, on their own, do not constitute suffering or stress. They are stressful only when functioning as objects of clinging/sustenance. This hybrid word – clinging/sustenance – is a translation of the Pali term upadana.

Let me say that I have not suggested that the five-aggregates “constitute suffer” but that “through” them we encounter self-hood falsely. I believe dukka stems from the false notion of self, which is the product of the five-aggregates on those who are ignorant or cease to see beyond ourselves. All are born into this ignorance and must raise the consciousness above it. to suggest that self-hood and dukka are not a shared state is denying one’s own experience.

Do you disagree that dukka and self-hood are integral? Is there dukka without self-hood? Is there self-hood without dukka?

PS: I am much more interesting in your thoughts on this than debating it with you but clearly there is much to clarify here.

Peace, Love Blessings,

 

[ahimsaman72]

chrisb:

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace,

I studied the Pali Suttas of Buddha and found them incredibly illuminating Buddha’s Teachings.

I guess we need to look at the three levels of Dukka (pali spelling).

You appear to be identifying a couple of them. Dukka is suffering. How does one suffer? By clinging. What is the ultimate thing we cling to? Life. Dukka is suffering, ultimately because we cling to a state of “being-hood” which we think is our selves but is actually only a state of being (consciousness) derived through the 5-Aggregates. Liberating oneself from this “being-hood” is enlightenment.

I don’t know if I would end “no-self” there. This is not complete. Suffering “Dukka” stems from the desire of self-hood. This includes an independent self or being-hood. Ultimately, their is no annihilation because ultimately there was no “self” to begin with. The “idea” of being-hood is an illusion in the first place.

Again, I would suggest that the Buddha’s Teaching didn’t “stop” there. You were once “something without consciousness” before you manifested into "something which had consciousness”, which caused Suffering (Dukka). The Buddha Taught that “there is no soul” period. What we think of as a soul, the Buddha Taught was “consciousness” or Being-hood which is an error of right perception and the very cause of our suffering.

Yeah, typing out these kinds of “deep” thoughts is a real pain.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

To date, I’ve not seen it said that the ultimate thing we cling to is life. Yes, dependent origination and impermanence are crucial to the Buddha’s teachings. To understand dukka, we must come to realize the truths of dependent origination and impermananence. Yes, as Thich Nhat Hahn has said, “birth and death are not real”. They are illusions (according to Buddhist thought). I suppose you could say that “life” is what we ultimately cling to - the idea of a permanent self - immortal, eternal soul.

One suffers by clinging - by attachment to things pleasurable or painful. I believe in our society our materialism has caused us much suffering and harm. We have clung to ideals of money and having things - which in the end do not make us happy.

And again, I would say that “enlightenment” as I have learned is all-encompassing. Shakyamuni Buddha attained enlightenment and shared the path with others. If we also follow that same path, we will be enlightened also.

As I stated - my explanation is very simplistic and intended for those not extremely familiar with Buddhist teachings. One could go in-depth for a while explaining the Buddha’s teachings. We are merely scratching the surface here - which was my intent.

I agree with your statements on Buddha’s teachings of “no-self” - no self exists independently of everything else. That’s what I’ve taken away from his teachings - no eternal soul or personhood. The translations of writings I have seen explain this concept as “no-self”.

I continue to learn more and more personally. It seems you have learned much already.

Peace…

 

[Ahimsa]

chrisb:

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace Ahimsa,

I don’t know if I would suggest that Buddha’s teaching is beyond the reach of English-Speakers. Clearly it is beyond of the reach of many, for few achieve enlightenment but I think his teachings are universal enough to be universally understood if not universally practiced.

Let me say that I have not suggested that the five-aggregates “constitute suffer” but that “through” them we encounter self-hood falsely. I believe dukka stems from the false notion of self, which is the product of the five-aggregates on those who are ignorant or cease to see beyond ourselves. All are born into this ignorance and must raise the consciousness above it. to suggest that self-hood and dukka are not a shared state is denying one’s own experience.

Do you disagree that dukka and self-hood are integral? Is there dukka without self-hood? Is there self-hood without dukka?

PS: I am much more interesting in your thoughts on this than debating it with you but clearly there is much to clarify here.

Peace, Love Blessings,

The Buddha’s teachings aren’t beyond the reach of English, but it’ll take some time, in my opinion, to develop a language that incorporates the nuances of the Buddha’s teachings.

If by “self-hood” you mean the process of clinging-to-aggregates, then yes, dukkha is not only related to self-hood, dukkha is self-hood.

My point is that one can still live as a body-mind, a human being, a person, a “self” (defined as a body-mind, not defined as clinging-to-aggregates), while living free of dukkha. The use of the term “self-hood” implies that nibbana necessarily involves a loss of “self”, a word in English that carries so many conno- and denotations, including “a sense of wholness”, “a sense of dignity,” etc, which is definitely not the case.

 

[Lisa_N]

JKirkLVNV:

A JOKE (don’t read it if you don’t want to) told me by my boss, a Unitarian:

If the local Catholic church caught fire, the devout Catholic would run in and rescue the Blessed Sacrament.

If the local Unitarican church caught fire, the devout Unitarian would run in and rescue the coffee pot.

Hey I thought that was funny. Thanks…

In the UU church I attended I think the Bongo Drums would have been right there with the coffee pot for first on the list

Lisa N!

 

[GKB_Protasius]

Thanks for the reply Ahisma72! I’ll be sure to check out the link! I’m enjoying the discussion…I"ll be lurking Have a great day all!

peace in Christ,
Frank

 

[ahimsaman72]

GKB Protasius:

Thanks for the reply Ahisma72! I’ll be sure to check out the link! I’m enjoying the discussion…I"ll be lurking Have a great day all!

peace in Christ,
Frank

Blessings and peace to you GKB…I have enjoyed the discussion as well. Have a great day yourself!

 

[chrisb]

Ahimsa:

The Buddha’s teachings aren’t beyond the reach of English, but it’ll take some time, in my opinion, to develop a language that incorporates the nuances of the Buddha’s teachings.

If by “self-hood” you mean the process of clinging-to-aggregates, then yes, dukkha is not only related to self-hood, dukkha is self-hood.

My point is that one can still live as a body-mind, a human being, a person, a “self” (defined as a body-mind, not defined as clinging-to-aggregates), while living free of dukkha. The use of the term “self-hood” implies that nibbana necessarily involves a loss of “self”, a word in English that carries so many conno- and denotations, including “a sense of wholness”, “a sense of dignity,” etc, which is definitely not the case.

In nomine Jesu I offer you peace Ahimsa,

Let me say that The First Noble Truth (Dukkha-ariyasacca) is generally translated by almost all Western Scholars as ‘The Noble Truth of Suffering’, and it is interpreted to mean that life according to Buddhism is nothing but suffering and pain. Both translation and interpretation are highly unsatisfactory and misleading in my oppinion.

It is true that the Pali word dukkha (or Sanskrit Duhkha) in ordinary usage means ‘suffering’, ‘pain’, ‘sorrow’ or ‘misery’, as opposed to the word sukha meaning ‘happiness’, ‘comfort’, or ‘ease’. But the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, which represents the Buddha’s view of life and the world, has a deeper philosophical meaning and connotes enormously wider senses. It is admitted that the term dukkha in the First Noble Truth contains, quite obviously, the ordinary meaning of ‘suffering’, but in addition it also includes deeper ideas such as ‘imperfection’, ‘impermanence’, ‘emptiness’, i’nsubstantiality’. It is difficult therefore to find one word to embrace the whole conception of the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, and so it is better to leave it untarnslated, than to give an inadequate and wrong idea of it by conveniently translating it as ‘suffering’ or ‘pain’.

The conception of dukkha may be viewed from three aspects:

1.) dukkha as ordinary suffering (dukkha-dukkha)

2.) dukkha as produced by change (viparinama-dukkha)

3.) dukkha as conditional states (samkhara-dukkha)

All kinds of suffering in life like birth, old age, sickness, death, association with unpleasant persons and conditions, separation from beloved ones and pleasant conditions, not getting what one desires, grief, lamentation, distress - all such forms of physical and mental suffering, which are universally accepted as suffering or pain, are included in dukkha as ordinary suffering (dukkha-dukkha).

A happy feeling, a happy condition in life, is not permanent, not everlasting. It changes sooner or later. When it changes, it produces pain, suffering, unhappiness. This vicissitude is included in dukkha as suffering produced by change (viparinama-dukkha).

It is easy to understand the two forms of suffering (dukkha) mentioned above and both you and Ahimsaman72 have voiced them very well but you are missing the conditional state which is being-hood (i.e. self-hood). No one will dispute them. This aspect of the First Noble Truth is popularly known because it is easy to understand. It is common experience in our daily life.

The third form of dukkha as conditional states (samkhara-dukkha) is the most important philosophical aspect of the First Noble Truth, and it requires some analytical explanation of what we consider as a ‘being’, or an ‘individual’, or ‘I’.

What we call a ‘being’, or an ‘individual’, or ‘I’, according to Buddhist philosophy, is only a combination of ever-changing physical and mental forces or energies, which may be divided into five groups or aggregates (pancakkhandha). The Buddha says: “in short these five aggregates of attachment are dukkha.” (Samkhittena pncupadanakkhandha dukkha p. 421). Elsewhere he distinctly defines dukkha as the five aggregates: "O bhikkhus, what is dukkha? It should be said that it is the five aggregates of attachment (p. 158). Here it should be clearly understood tht dukkha and the five aggregates are not two different things; the five aggregates themselves are dukkha. We will understand this point better when we have some notion of the five aggregates which constitute the so-called ‘being’. Now, we can get into that by I think if we do we should create a whole new thread.

Peace, Love and Blessings,

 

[chrisb]

Ahimsa:

The Buddha’s teachings aren’t beyond the reach of English, but it’ll take some time, in my opinion, to develop a language that incorporates the nuances of the Buddha’s teachings.

If by “self-hood” you mean the process of clinging-to-aggregates, then yes, dukkha is not only related to self-hood, dukkha is self-hood.

My point is that one can still live as a body-mind, a human being, a person, a “self” (defined as a body-mind, not defined as clinging-to-aggregates), while living free of dukkha. The use of the term “self-hood” implies that nibbana necessarily involves a loss of “self”, a word in English that carries so many conno- and denotations, including “a sense of wholness”, “a sense of dignity,” etc, which is definitely not the case.