The First Noble Truth

[arcticwolf]

The very core of Buddhism is The Four Noble Truths.

This thread is about the first one, it simply states all existence is suffering.

Suffering in Buddhidm is very important to understand. First off the Pali word is dukha, it's meaning is much broader than in English. Dukha is everything from a faint feeling that happiness will end when one is happy all the way to extreme physical, and mental pain like torture or heart break respectively.

This can be seen directly when one knows how to observe. For instane, you will see resistance of the mind any time you have to do something, or occurs something you consider unpleasant.

Before going too deep, let's see what you all think.

Discuss.

[Selurong]

The very core of Buddhism is The Four Noble Truths.

This thread is about the first one, it simply states all existence is suffering.

Suffering in Buddhidm is very important to understand. First off the Pali word is dukha, it's meaning is much broader than in English. Dukha is everything from a faint feeling that happiness will end when one is happy all the way to extreme physical, and mental pain like torture or heart break respectively.

This can be seen directly when one knows how to observe. For instane, you will see resistance of the mind any time you have to do something, or occurs something you consider unpleasant.

Before going too deep, let's see what you all think.

Discuss.

We were formerly Buddhist and Hindu and we use the word Dukkha to mean pain in Tagalog or other languages.

I have a very psychological understanding of Hinduism and Buddhism since we use Sanskrit terms in everyday speech although the understanding has been reduced to a underlying substrate with a Christian super-strate

I find it funny that when we worship Christ. In our native language I.E: By saying:

Glory be to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...
We say; Luwalhati sa Ama, sa Anak at sa Espirtu Santo

We combine a smattering of Sanskrit, Semitic and Spanish words.

Luwalhati - From the Sanskrit Luar + hati meaning Glory.
Anak - From the Hebrew word Anak = "neck" which doubles to mean the proginator of a family.
Espiritu Santo - We'll this is obvious, it's from Spanish, which also has it's origins in Latin.

Anyway, I have a lot of criticisms of Buddhism.

Firstly, the mentality of escapism from pain. Pain is taught to be escaped at all costs by the process of enlightenment; which is in direct contra-distinction to the notion in Christianity wherein pain must be embraced as Christ embraced the Cross. Pain, rather than being an impediment to salvation is precisely the path to salvation.

We'll I am a realist and I know that in order to achieve something, one must be willing to experience frustration, sadness and loss. Although there are some facets in Buddhism which I like: the meditation, the mindfulness and the critical thinking...

I disagree with it's treatment of pain as something to be escaped rather than embraced. Back when I was into Buddhism as a New-Ager that sort of mentality, escaping pain and etc. Detracted from alot of my responsibilities which made my IRL situation only worse instead of better.

There is also another facet with Buddhism I disagree with, the goal of substance-annihilation and their quote and quote "reality of non-self". Hello. There is a self. That is proven by the existence of free-will and that everything is unique. Even if you place twins side by side with one another they would still develop vastly different personalities. Likewise, nature is so constructed that not even two snow-flakes are the same, how then could one come to the conclusion that there is no unique self? When even two atoms are totally unique from one another, how much more the self?

I could imagine the Spanish and Latino missionaries who went here who converted Rajah Humabon (Hindu) or Sri Bata Shaja (Buddhist) having the same sort of mentality and reasoning as I am discussing with you right now.

I also dislike what occurred in Buddhist-dom historically. My ethnic group's origins come from Buddhists who defended the strait of Malacca for 450 years. When the Tamil Hindus laid waste our kingdom, the elites escaped here in the island of Panay...

Anyway, ever since then, we have sent overtures to Buddhist China to help us retake Sumatra and the strait of Malacca from the Hindus and then when the Muslims invaded India and destroyed sites sacred to both Hinduism and Buddhism as well as completely overrun the silk-route (which was then part of the Tantrist world, being the red land-part of the route traveled by Faxian before using the maritime route...)



We asked the Buddhist Chinese to expel them. THEY DID NOT! Is there no sense of loyalty in Buddha-dom?

Instead they even send a Muslim. Zeng-He to invade Malacca which was then the center of Islamic expansion into Southeast Asia and then those wretched coalition of Islamized Chinese, Islamized Indians and Islamized Malays clung on to Sumatra [Our ancestor's homeland] ever since until today.

Islamic invasion, Hindu back-stabbing and Sinic betrayal was so bitingly bad for us that we went to war with the Philippine kingdoms that acculturated to such disgusting civilizations.

And according to Kekai Manansala, we repelled many attacks sent by Zeng-He from supposedly "Buddhist" China who want to devour the last sons of Pannai who did not succumb to their totalitarianism, meanwhile, Buddhist China, Korea and Japan simply sat and did nothing when the Tantric silk route was islamized, islamic hordes destroyed Nalanda and Islamic greed, unsatisfied with just monopolizing the land-silk route; took over the sea spice-route and set about to islamizing Nusantara [Malaysia-Indonesia] which they succeeded by the way, thus islamizing the only rival to the land trade route controlled by Mecca; the sea-borne route the Malays had with the commerce between Java and Madagascar.

Politically, Buddhadom failed us. Even though some of our ancestors repelled the hordes of invading Arabs, pirate-Chinese and raiding Indians when we occupied the straits, it's impossible to maintain it, much less to take it back when a coalition of Islamized Chinese-Indians-Arabs grabbed it and now posses my ethnic group's forefathers' land, to this very day.

There are alot of things I disagree with in Buddhism, both philosophically and politically but in respectful difference to the past, study their philosophy and point out some mistakes in the hope of general improvement. As a Christian, I will not only tolerate Buddhist philosophy but actively seek the study of it, the old Christians in Rome didn't consider the study of Greek philosophy which predated Christianity as something evil or bad, in-fact they refined it and reconfigured it to suit the current Christian world-view. So I take that same position with our Buddhist past albeit, now we are guided by the discernment of the Christian's eyes.

[arcticwolf]

We were formerly Buddhist and Hindu and we use the word Dukkha to mean pain in Tagalog or other languages.

I have a very psychological understanding of Hinduism and Buddhism since we use Sanskrit terms in everyday speech although the understanding has been reduced to a underlying substrate with a Christian super-strate

I find it funny that when we worship Christ. In our native language I.E: By saying:

Glory be to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...
We say; Luwalhati sa Ama, sa Anak at sa Espirtu Santo

We combine a smattering of Sanskrit, Semitic and Spanish words.

Luwalhati - From the Sanskrit Luar + hati meaning Glory.
Anak - From the Hebrew word Anak = "neck" which doubles to mean the proginator of a family.
Espiritu Santo - We'll this is obvious, it's from Spanish, which also has it's origins in Latin.

Anyway, I have a lot of criticisms of Buddhism.

Firstly, the mentality of escapism from pain. Pain is taught to be escaped at all costs by the process of enlightenment; which is in direct contra-distinction to the notion in Christianity wherein pain must be embraced as Christ embraced the Cross. Pain, rather than being an impediment to salvation is precisely the path to salvation.

We'll I am a realist and I know that in order to achieve something, one must be willing to experience frustration, sadness and loss. Although there are some facets in Buddhism which I like: the meditation, the mindfulness and the critical thinking...

I disagree with it's treatment of pain as something to be escaped rather than embraced. Back when I was into Buddhism as a New-Ager that sort of mentality, escaping pain and etc. Detracted from alot of my responsibilities which made my IRL situation only worse instead of better.

There is also another facet with Buddhism I disagree with, the goal of substance-annihilation and their quote and quote "reality of non-self". Hello. There is a self. That is proven by the existence of free-will and that everything is unique. Even if you place twins side by side with one another they would still develop vastly different personalities. Likewise, nature is so constructed that not even two snow-flakes are the same, how then could one come to the conclusion that there is no unique self? When even two atoms are totally unique from one another, how much more the self?

I could imagine the Spanish and Latino missionaries who went here who converted Rajah Humabon (Hindu) or Sri Bata Shaja (Buddhist) having the same sort of mentality and reasoning as I am discussing with you right now.

I also dislike what occurred in Buddhist-dom historically. My ethnic group's origins come from Buddhists who defended the strait of Malacca for 450 years. When the Tamil Hindus laid waste our kingdom, the elites escaped here in the island of Panay...

Anyway, ever since then, we have sent overtures to Buddhist China to help us retake Sumatra and the strait of Malacca from the Hindus and then when the Muslims invaded India and destroyed sites sacred to both Hinduism and Buddhism as well as completely overrun the silk-route (which was then part of the Tantrist world, being the red land-part of the route traveled by Faxian before using the maritime route...)



We asked the Buddhist Chinese to expel them. THEY DID NOT! Is there no sense of loyalty in Buddha-dom?

Instead they even send a Muslim. Zeng-He to invade Malacca which was then the center of Islamic expansion into Southeast Asia and then those wretched coalition of Islamized Chinese, Islamized Indians and Islamized Malays clung on to Sumatra [Our ancestor's homeland] ever since until today.

Islamic invasion, Hindu back-stabbing and Sinic betrayal was so bitingly bad for us that we went to war with the Philippine kingdoms that acculturated to such disgusting civilizations.

And according to Kekai Manansala, we repelled many attacks sent by Zeng-He from supposedly "Buddhist" China who want to devour the last sons of Pannai who did not succumb to their totalitarianism, meanwhile, Buddhist China, Korea and Japan simply sat and did nothing when the Tantric silk route was islamized, islamic hordes destroyed Nalanda and Islamic greed, unsatisfied with just monopolizing the land-silk route; took over the sea spice-route and set about to islamizing Nusantara [Malaysia-Indonesia] which they succeeded by the way, thus islamizing the only rival to the land trade route controlled by Mecca; the sea-borne route the Malays had with the commerce between Java and Madagascar.

Politically, Buddhadom failed us. Even though some of our ancestors repelled the hordes of invading Arabs, pirate-Chinese and raiding Indians when we occupied the straits, it's impossible to maintain it, much less to take it back when a coalition of Islamized Chinese-Indians-Arabs grabbed it and now posses my ethnic group's forefathers' land, to this very day.

There are alot of things I disagree with in Buddhism, both philosophically and politically but in respectful difference to the past, study their philosophy and point out some mistakes in the hope of general improvement. As a Christian, I will not only tolerate Buddhist philosophy but actively seek the study of it, the old Christians in Rome didn't consider the study of Greek philosophy which predated Christianity as something evil or bad, in-fact they refined it and reconfigured it to suit the current Christian world-view. So I take that same position with our Buddhist past albeit, now we are guided by the discernment of the Christian's eyes.

Not sure the New Age movement is the best place to learn about Buddhism.

The notion you have about avoiding pain, is 100% incorrect. It's the opposite, Buddhist does not run away from suffering, he faces it head on. Suffering is a great teacher. Buddhist seeks to understand phenomena, running is not an option. Not sure how you got this impression, but it's totally wrong.

The self, soul, ego however you call it, is awareness. Just because you are aware of reality does not mean you are an entity in the ultimate sense. During the practice of meditation one seeks for the self, ego. You may dislike it but reality seems to be impersonal/selfless in the ultimate sense.

Nothing is what it appears, that is really true.

[Selurong]

Not sure the New Age movement is the best place to learn about Buddhism.

The notion you have about avoiding pain, is 100% incorrect. It's the opposite, Buddhist does not run away from suffering, he faces it head on. Suffering is a great teacher. Buddhist seeks to understand phenomena, running is not an option. Not sure how you got this impression, but it's totally wrong.

The self, soul, ego however you call it, is awareness. Just because you are aware of reality does not mean you are an entity in the ultimate sense. During the practice of meditation one seeks for the self, ego. You may dislike it but reality seems to be impersonal/selfless in the ultimate sense.

Nothing is what it appears, that is really true.

The self or soul cannot be simply be reduced to mere awareness. Otherwise, how come human beings possess the thing called volition?

I have read a book surveying Buddhist schools of thought...

One school reduced everything to the law of cause and effect and from that premise, reasoned that there is no self because the self is just a flowing inter-point in an interlinking web of cause and effect which we supposedly don't control, thus, no such thing as a self.

We'll I do agree that we are creatures controlled by the law of cause and effect, but this law is mitigated and moderated by this thing we call will and volition which is a end and means for uniqueness.

Even in nature, even two atoms projected from the same point of origin and possessing the same energy end up in completely different scenarios.

See these two Lorenz-orbits? They possess the same energy and starting position but their total shaped are vastly different.



There is a unique self. There is uniqueness in sub-atomic particles, in the meaning of each and every word, how much more for an individual?

The individual is uniquely so, intrinsically, when focused on at a particular level however this individualness is blurred when you go at another level. Just like how a pattern of black and white plaid...



When the distance is increased from it and the magnification reduced, will look like just one mass of grey.



It's like the pixels in your computer, depending on your view-point they may look like a seamless whole , without individuation...

Upon examining it in your normal level of viewing, but if you focus on it enough, you would find that every pixel there is a unit, that is uniquely placed, possessing a unique circumstance. So it is with the soul. Depending on your level of closeness or distance it may appear to have no-self, merely a inter-point between the superstrate but the closer you are to a person you know that he has a unique soul. BUT if you take the superstral view, he has no soul and individuation but is merely the extension of his circumstances.

[Hexachordia]

We were formerly Buddhist and Hindu and we use the word Dukkha to mean pain in Tagalog or other languages.

I have a very psychological understanding of Hinduism and Buddhism since we use Sanskrit terms in everyday speech although the understanding has been reduced to a underlying substrate with a Christian super-strate

I find it funny that when we worship Christ. In our native language I.E: By saying:

Glory be to the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit...
We say; Luwalhati sa Ama, sa Anak at sa Espirtu Santo

We combine a smattering of Sanskrit, Semitic and Spanish words.

Luwalhati - From the Sanskrit Luar + hati meaning Glory.
Anak - From the Hebrew word Anak = "neck" which doubles to mean the proginator of a family.
Espiritu Santo - We'll this is obvious, it's from Spanish, which also has it's origins in Latin.

Anyway, I have a lot of criticisms of Buddhism.

Firstly, the mentality of escapism from pain. Pain is taught to be escaped at all costs by the process of enlightenment; which is in direct contra-distinction to the notion in Christianity wherein pain must be embraced as Christ embraced the Cross. Pain, rather than being an impediment to salvation is precisely the path to salvation.

We'll I am a realist and I know that in order to achieve something, one must be willing to experience frustration, sadness and loss. Although there are some facets in Buddhism which I like: the meditation, the mindfulness and the critical thinking...

I disagree with it's treatment of pain as something to be escaped rather than embraced. Back when I was into Buddhism as a New-Ager that sort of mentality, escaping pain and etc. Detracted from alot of my responsibilities which made my IRL situation only worse instead of better.

There is also another facet with Buddhism I disagree with, the goal of substance-annihilation and their quote and quote "reality of non-self". Hello. There is a self. That is proven by the existence of free-will and that everything is unique. Even if you place twins side by side with one another they would still develop vastly different personalities. Likewise, nature is so constructed that not even two snow-flakes are the same, how then could one come to the conclusion that there is no unique self? When even two atoms are totally unique from one another, how much more the self?

I could imagine the Spanish and Latino missionaries who went here who converted Rajah Humabon (Hindu) or Sri Bata Shaja (Buddhist) having the same sort of mentality and reasoning as I am discussing with you right now.

I also dislike what occurred in Buddhist-dom historically. My ethnic group's origins come from Buddhists who defended the strait of Malacca for 450 years. When the Tamil Hindus laid waste our kingdom, the elites escaped here in the island of Panay...

Anyway, ever since then, we have sent overtures to Buddhist China to help us retake Sumatra and the strait of Malacca from the Hindus and then when the Muslims invaded India and destroyed sites sacred to both Hinduism and Buddhism as well as completely overrun the silk-route (which was then part of the Tantrist world, being the red land-part of the route traveled by Faxian before using the maritime route...)



We asked the Buddhist Chinese to expel them. THEY DID NOT! Is there no sense of loyalty in Buddha-dom?

Instead they even send a Muslim. Zeng-He to invade Malacca which was then the center of Islamic expansion into Southeast Asia and then those wretched coalition of Islamized Chinese, Islamized Indians and Islamized Malays clung on to Sumatra [Our ancestor's homeland] ever since until today.

Islamic invasion, Hindu back-stabbing and Sinic betrayal was so bitingly bad for us that we went to war with the Philippine kingdoms that acculturated to such disgusting civilizations.

And according to Kekai Manansala, we repelled many attacks sent by Zeng-He from supposedly "Buddhist" China who want to devour the last sons of Pannai who did not succumb to their totalitarianism, meanwhile, Buddhist China, Korea and Japan simply sat and did nothing when the Tantric silk route was islamized, islamic hordes destroyed Nalanda and Islamic greed, unsatisfied with just monopolizing the land-silk route; took over the sea spice-route and set about to islamizing Nusantara [Malaysia-Indonesia] which they succeeded by the way, thus islamizing the only rival to the land trade route controlled by Mecca; the sea-borne route the Malays had with the commerce between Java and Madagascar.

Politically, Buddhadom failed us. Even though some of our ancestors repelled the hordes of invading Arabs, pirate-Chinese and raiding Indians when we occupied the straits, it's impossible to maintain it, much less to take it back when a coalition of Islamized Chinese-Indians-Arabs grabbed it and now posses my ethnic group's forefathers' land, to this very day.

There are alot of things I disagree with in Buddhism, both philosophically and politically but in respectful difference to the past, study their philosophy and point out some mistakes in the hope of general improvement. As a Christian, I will not only tolerate Buddhist philosophy but actively seek the study of it, the old Christians in Rome didn't consider the study of Greek philosophy which predated Christianity as something evil or bad, in-fact they refined it and reconfigured it to suit the current Christian world-view. So I take that same position with our Buddhist past albeit, now we are guided by the discernment of the Christian's eyes.

Lengthy nonsense. Tang dynasty fought with arabian kingdoms and left central Asia around 750AD dued to defeat.

Shortly after the battle of Talas, the domestic rebellion of An Lushan (755–63) and subsequent warlordism gave the Arabs the opportunity to further expand into Central Asia as Tang influence in the region retreated.[15] The local Tang tributaries then switched to the authority of the Abbasids, Tibetans, or Uighurs and the introduction of Islam was thus facilitated among the Turkic peoples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Talas

Since the defeat in Tang dynasty, China had retreated from resisting islamization of the Central Asia. There was nothing China can do to help christians or buddhists against islamization. Also, do not compare chinese Buddhism with Vatican papal rule in sense of theocracy, China was not theocratic there is no way we could launch a buddhist crusade like christians did in 1000AD. You need to grow some sense of comparability according to proper contexts.

[Hexachordia]

This thread is about the first one, it simply states all existence is suffering.

The core philosophy of Buddhism is universal objectivism, not judge anything according to artificial/sensual values, therefore even sufferings can be either good or bad, just it.

[arcticwolf]

The core philosophy of Buddhism is universal objectivism, not judge anything according to artificial/sensual values, therefore even sufferings can be either good or bad, just it.

Dude, you can disagree all you want, I'm just stating what The First Noble Thuth states. There is no room in the definition for interpretation, it states clearly "all existence is suffering", no ifs, or buts. You can disagree, interpret, and state it any way your mind feels comfortable with.
Now, is this pessimistic? Hardly, to tackle an issue you have to understand it fully.

Existence is suffering regardless of any ones opinion about it. Reality don't care about opinions, both pessimism and optimism are dostortion of reality. Being realistic about reality is the right way to look at it, no emotions attached to opinions are necessary.

Once you understand suffering you can learn a great deal from it. The whole point of mastering the mind is overcoming the effects suffering has on an untrained mind.

Dude, here is reality, impermanence is an occasion for suffering to arise, and this is an impermanent universe.

[Dictator]

Dude, you can disagree all you want, I'm just stating what The First Noble Thuth states. There is no room in the definition for interpretation, it states clearly "all existence is suffering", no ifs, or buts. You can disagree, interpret, and state it any way your mind feels comfortable with.
Now, is this pessimistic? Hardly, to tackle an issue you have to understand it fully.

Existence is suffering regardless of any ones opinion about it. Reality don't care about opinions, both pessimism and optimism are dostortion of reality. Being realistic about reality is the right way to look at it, no emotions attached to opinions are necessary.

Once you understand suffering you can learn a great deal from it. The whole point of mastering the mind is overcoming the effects suffering has on an untrained mind.

Dude, here is reality, impermanence is an occasion for suffering to arise, and this is an impermanent universe.

Why is the first truth noble? Why is it a truth? Why is it the first?

[arcticwolf]

Why is the first truth noble? Why is it a truth? Why is it the first?

Because it is! Any other brilliant questions?

[Dictator]

Because it is! Any other brilliant questions?

Only if you can come out with more brilliant answers, my good sir.

Btw, why is there only 4 noble truths? Why not 5? or 10?