|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri May 14, 2010 8:46 am
Can we ever truly escape from duhkha? After reading Buddhism Plan and Simple by Steve Hagen, it made me wonder. To me it seems as if total escape from duhkha is almost imposable. I believe there will always be duhkha that we will have to face. Like tides on the ocean, duhkha's grasp on an individual will rise and fall. However, no matter how minute the level of duhkha, it is still there. Can one still reach Nirvana with duhkha nipping at them or is Nirvana more like being able to see duhkha and being able to deal with it before it becomes a problem? Also, is wanting to become a Buddha duhkha?
What do my fellow gains think?
I'm sorry if this is a bit choppy. I'm half a sleep and I hope I didn't offend anyone with the way I worded my sentences.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 15, 2010 7:54 am
That's actually the whole point of reaching enlightenment and going paranirvana (total cessation of coming back; the final death) in the first place - cessation of dukkha via the removal of gross greeds and cravings/ignorance, and the (eventual) escape from the cycle of samsara.
Wanting to become a Buddha can bring dukkha, given it'll instill craving in you if you go overboard with the wanting. Wanting, not wanting, liking, not liking, having, not having - all these things will cause you displeasure and distress, eventually. Which is why we're told to generally to recognize we've got that feeling, examine it for why we have it, then let it go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 1:10 pm
The whole samsara thing confuses me. gonk
Since nothing is permanent then that means that enlightenment itself is also impermanent right? Could someone fall back into samsara and duhkha and then find enlightenment once again? That's why I thought that duhkha was imposable to get away from. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 1:16 pm
Personally, I disagree that nothing is permanent. In my opinion, once you are truly enlightened you do not become unenlightened. However, it may be possible to be 'near' enlightenment then fall back into darkness.
The reason I disagree that nothing is permanent is simple science. If "nothing" were permanent that would mean absolutely everything, with absolutely no exceptions, is impermanent. However, science has already proven that the energy of an object exists no matter what. An object can not be entirely destroyed, there will always be something left. By this fact, the energy that makes up an object is permanent. The object itself may be destroyed, but there will always be remains. Those remains may find themselves a part of something else, something new, maybe even something that will last longer, but inevitably those remains will remain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lord Alucard Ere Casanova
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun May 16, 2010 7:02 pm
Nothing is permanent. An object destroyed is reused (energy and all) to create new objects.A lot like that whole 'empty of independent existence' thing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
