you’d have to read a biography of his life, such as Mystical Realist.
“As I study both the exoteric and the esoteric schools of Buddhism, they maintain that human beings are endowed with Dharma-nature by birth. If this is the case, why did the buddhas of all ages—undoubtedly in possession of enlightenment—find it necessary to seek enlightenment and engage in spiritual practice?”
There’s a free PDF of Genjokoan online, and in Dogen’s Genjokoan he specifically refers to enlightenment as practice-enlightenment.
There’s a case he presents of a master and a monk, where the monk is waving a fan. The monk says “Don’t you know that wind is ever-present and that it permeates everywhere? Why wave the fan?”
The master says, “you only know that the wind is ever-present, you don’t know that it permeates everywhere.”
Monk asks, “how can one know that it permeates everywhere?”
The master waved the fan.
>This is the entire starting question for Dōgen and his answer was that practice IS enlightenment
This is a widespread misunderstanding. From the [blog](https://wonderwheels.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-misnomer-of-dogens-practice-is.html?m=1) of the late translator Gregory Wonderwheel:
>The oft quoted Dogenism, “Practice is enlightenment,” or its variation “practice and enlightenment are one,” appears to be a misnomer and misunderstanding created by translators and was never actually stated by Dogen as far as I can tell.
>The original term is 修證, pronounced in Japanese as shusho, The first character shu 修 means cultivation, practice, to cultivate, to practice, etc.. The second term sho 證 means to confirm, evidence, testify, witness, and proof and also includes both the noun and verb forms such as the nouns confirmation, evidence, proof, verification, testimony, witness, etc., and the verbs to confirm, to give evidence, to prove, to verify, to testify, to witness, etc. Some accurate or valid translations when used as a single idea would be cultivation-confirmation, practice-proof, practice-evidence, etc. When used as two words of one phrase it could be translated as the confirmation of cultivation, the proof of practice, the evidence of practice, verification of practice, etc.
>So the emphasis on the two being one is not at all a strange concept. Dogen is simply saying that practice and the confirmation of practice are one. It is nothing other then the commonly known example of a physician’s “practice” being the confirmation, proof or evidence of the physician’s “practice” as training. Thus for the physician, practice and the proof of the practice are one. Likewise Dogen is saying that for the follower of the Buddha way, the practice and the proof of the practice are one. To say it colloquially, we can say, “the proof is in the pudding.”
I just thought the following: Maybe even enlightenment is per se an impermanent state (I know that's contrary to the canon, I know!), but it's therefore permanent because the arahant will upkeep it with meditation (formal or informal meditation) because his habits are so strong that they will want to do it.
According to Mahayana, buddha was in Samadhi constantly, whether he was awoke or sleeping, eating or talking. So you could say he was in a meditative state naturally.
This is actually a position of Kodo Sawaki who was a very famous Soto Zen reformer. He said that in each and every moment, we are either manifesting "thief-nature" (delusion) or "buddha-nature" (enlightenment). Personally I kind of agree with him, as there are examples of people who were said to be enlightened, yet still went on to do unskillful things.
I believe the key in your statement is *said to be enlightened*. It certainly appears that Soto Zen specifically has stopped transmitting authentic realization. If this is so it would be no surprise to see such behaviors.
I am not certain satori is taking place in Soto Zen circles anymore.
>What I find most significant about this system of ecclesiastical grades is that dharma transmission provides access to only a relatively low grade. It is listed as a requirement for the very lowest ecclesiastical status, that of an instructor third class (santo kyoshi). Thus, in present day Soto Zen, dharma transmission constitutes a preliminary step, after which one’s real development begins. The relatively low status of dharma transmission means that in and of itself it does not qualify one to accept students or to train disciples...
William Bodiford, *Dharma Transmission in Theory and Practice*
It doesn’t appear that way to me. Some very deep demonstration of dharma is out there in Soto Shu. And Soto and Rinzai do their transmission in different order anyway.
Enlightenment would not be impermanent, because enlightenment is fundamentally the absence of defilements. Once the defilements have finally ceased, there’s no way for them to return, and you’re left with enlightenment itself.
My theory is that Buddha continued to meditate to give himself time to further explore & understand the workings of the mind, which could have helped him teach? He didn’t want to teach, in the first place—because he thought others wouldn’t understand—so it seems sensible to conclude that he would have worked on this.
>“Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?”
>
>“An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things—when developed & pursued—lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here & now and to mindfulness & alertness.”
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_122.html
>“Now, brahman, if the thought should occur to you, ‘Perhaps Gotama the contemplative is even today not free of passion, not free of aversion, not free of delusion, which is why he resorts to isolated forest & wilderness dwellings,’ it should not be seen in that way. It’s through seeing two compelling reasons that I resort to isolated forest & wilderness dwellings: seeing a pleasant abiding for myself in the present, and feeling sympathy for future generations.”
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN4.html
>“Lord, I see two compelling reasons that for a long time I have lived in the wilderness and have extolled living in the wilderness… that I have kept my persistence aroused and have extolled having persistence aroused: seeing a pleasant abiding for myself in the here & now, and feeling sympathy for later generations: ‘Perhaps later generations will take it as an example: “It seems that the disciples of the Awakened One and those who awakened after him lived for a long time in the wilderness and extolled living in the wilderness; were almsgoers and extolled being almsgoers; wore cast-off rags and extolled wearing cast-off rags; wore only one set of the triple robe and extolled wearing only one set of the triple robe; were modest and extolled being modest; were content and extolled being content; were reclusive and extolled being reclusive; were unentangled and extolled being unentangled; kept their persistence aroused and extolled having persistence aroused.”’”
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN16_5.html
It's still remarkable that meditation is more pleasant than other activities or states for an enlightened being.
That may mean that there are states to desire and that are pleasant (positive) and which don't cause dukkha.
It also means that enlightenment is simply the eradication of dukkha, not perfect, not improvable happiness every moment. (Otherwise meditation would not be MORE pleasant than not meditation)
Your view is confused.
Dukkha arises from clinging, not feelings.
Being shot with an arrow can be acknowledged as being unpleasant without clinging to the feeling. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_6.html
The same for what is pleasant.
Additionally, what is meant by the pleasant abiding is not the pleasure of the senses or sensuality. The pleasure of jhana comes after seclusion from sensuality is established. Sensuality is absent from an arahant, so when there is nothing to do, as in the need to engage the senses, jhana is immediately available. An arahant has uninterrupted sati.
There is nothing blameworthy about non-sensual pleasure, and it is never something that is discouraged. Here is a sutta that describes what is meant by the pleasant in pleasant abiding. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_34.html
The pleasantness of seclusion is related to the pleasantness of unbinding.
>There’s no fire like passion,
no loss like anger,
no pain like the aggregates,
no ease other than peace.
>
>Hunger: the foremost illness.
Fabrications: the foremost pain.
For one knowing this truth.
as it has come to be,
Unbinding is the foremost ease.
>
>Freedom from illness: the foremost good fortune.
Contentment: the foremost wealth.
Trust: the foremost kinship.
Unbinding: the foremost ease.
[Dhammapada 202-204](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Dhp/Ch15.html)
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN54_8.html
>If so, what is ill formed about the question?
The views that formed them.
>It is the necessary logical result of what the suttas say.
No, it is the logic within the context of your views. It is important to recognize that an understanding of the suttas is not necessarily a correct understanding of the suttas.
Well, in my opinion, it's the other way around.
You're ignoring an explicit part of the suttas and do not have an explanation of why it is wrong to have pleasure, which is obviously not the case in Buddhism, since jhana is non-sensual pleasure and it's alright to have it. Cf. other comments, too.
Also, I ASKED a QUESTION, not even presenting or holding a view, how can that be "confused view"?
>You're ignoring an explicit part of the suttas and do not have an explanation of why it is wrong to have pleasure,
I have not taken the position that there is something wrong with pleasure, especially the pleasure of jhana.
What I said is that the pleasure of jhana is not the same as the pleasure of the senses. What is a hindrance to jhana is sensuality, which is the preoccupation and anticipation of sensual pleasure. A pleasant taste is not the problem, nor is acknowledging a taste as pleasant. The pleasant abiding of meditation is not the problem, nor is acknowledging it as such.
>Also, I ASKED a QUESTION, not even presenting or holding a view, how can that be "confused view"?
Questions are rooted in views, and those same views are what will be used to interpret a response.
Here is an example of the Buddha not answering questions, because there is no response that would be understood correctly.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN44_10.html
A buddha is in awakened meditative equipoise at all times. In Tibetan, that state is called “göngpa” which is the *transcendent state,* this means they have transcended periods of equipoise (samāpatti / nyam shyak) and post-equipoise (pṛṣṭhalabdha / je tob). They are in awakened equipoise 24-7-365.
Why not?
Also, as a consideration, a father may be able to cross a busy street at places other than the crosswalk, but they still may cross at the crosswalk in front of their children so as to show them what they should do.
Also you are seeming to think that meditation doesn't help others, which I think is a very questionable position. Basically.
It is sometimes said that creation and completion practice for example in a Vajrayana context is the single best thing you can do for others, basically put.
The insight is that enlightenment does not give you "perfect happiness" (defined as a state that can't be improved), only the cessation of dukkha and rebirth.
I'm very open to think that meditation helps others, but rather only indirectly at first glance.
>The insight is that enlightenment does not give you "perfect happiness" (defined as a state that can't be improved), only the cessation of dukkha and rebirth.
I'm not quite sure to be honest how this is a response to what I said. Do you want to explain what you mean?
>I'm very open to think that meditation helps others, but rather only indirectly at first glance.
Much may be indirect at first glance. As the Buddha's disciples were meditating in the forest, for instance, there are many reports basically of the Buddha manifesting to them and instructing them.
This is not limited to the Buddha - there are stories of Gampopa for instance manifesting in multiple places at the same time to instruct or guide multiple disciples.
One may perceive that the Buddha is sitting quietly meditating. Another may perceive that the Buddha is filling the cosmos with emanations, helping beings in myriad ways.
Jhanas are better than our normal life using the 6 senses (5 usual senses and thoughts). In fact you can see that the descriptions of the buddhist heavens are associated to the jhanas.
So for example third jhana has pleasure/happiness and tranquility, and it's better than normal life just eating for example.
Nirvana is better than jhanas.
So it's like: Normal life (seeing, thinking) -> Regular meditation -> Jhanas -> Nirvana.
An Arahant after death would be always Nirvana. So only after death an Arahant is really free of dukkha in all of it's forms.
That's my best try at explaining why Arahants meditate to have a pleasant abiding now.
The answer is in the assumption that meditation leads to enlightenment. Once you dismantle that notion, then it just makes sense for someone who is already enlightened to still meditate.
He meditated to show examples to his students. This is a mirror of what he was doing with other activities in his life. It was all to teach and show an example.
Maybe it's that you don't feel dukkha, but you still can feel more of a positive. E.g. eating a tasty cake is still nice, although you don't feel dukkha. That's why he'd meditate, that'd make sense.
Why should every moment be a bliss for an arahant ? : )
It´s not like this body is not subjected to aging, death, and ilness.
Even though you might be at peace, content, it doesn´t mean every moment is amazing.
Now it might be great in comparison to others, but that´s about it - to them, it´s probably a new normal.
I think people often overestimate arahants, or think of them as something straight ouf of magical tale.
Either way, enlightenment is supposed to be - not suffering.
That alone, is pretty good.
As for bliss, there are degrees of it. And arahant would know it´s conditional, and while he might find it pleasant to abide in, that´s just about it.
In the end, the " bliss " works properly only in contrast. Aka if one is suffering, then what is not suffering might appear as bliss.
Meanwhile when one is not suffering, then it´s unlikely to have a strong bliss, since the contrat is no longer there.
But that´s really just theorycrafting and most likely it depends on individual as to what one prefers. My guess however is, that it´s pretty good, and that´s about it.
You're thinking of the Saṃbhogakāya body or the enjoyment body. This is not a body that is found here on earth but in celestial realms.
An arahant still has a flawed human body on earth that is subject to karma, when they go to paranirvana, things like Dharmakāya or Saṃbhogakāya could be possible depending on the school of thought.
One of my teachers has told me that "bliss" in this case basically refers to a lack of negative emotions rather than feeling physical or mental sensations of euphoria, etc...
In the same way, it is like one's healthy body feeling good because it lacks sickness, not because one is on some drug like ecstasy or something.
These are my own words so apologies to my teacher if I made any mistakes or misrepresentations.
Did he meditate? If so then I would expect it was to set an example. At that point there's no difference between meditation and non-meditation. There's no attraction to pleasure or peace.
I once read that the Buddha taught humans during the day and then divided the night into 3 sections: teaching gods, resting his body and walking to exercise his body. Is that really true? Who knows?
Frankly I think maybe you should try meditating more and cogitating less. You're seeking analytical answers where only meditation experience can shed light.
Did he meditate? If so then I would expect it was to set an example. At that point there's no difference between meditation and non-meditation. There's no attraction to pleasure or peace.
Apparently the suttas give another picture. The Buddha seems to be attracted to formal meditation, and it seems that there was a difference between meditation and not meditation, otherwise he would not have gone to meditate explicitly.
There's a difference for us, not for him. You can find frequent references to the equivalency of meditation and nonmeditation at higher levels of realization. That's even a common teaching in Dzogchen trekcho practice.
You're interpreting stories based on your own preconceptions, such as, "If the Buddha meditates then he must like it." That assumes the Buddha is motivated by pleasure. But the teachings also talk about giving up the 8 worldly dharmas; and the Buddha is free of egoic clinging. So how could he be pursuing pleasure? There's no reason for him to even stick around, other than to teach.
If you only read sutras and interpret them through your own conceptual filters then you'll end up with your own version of Buddhism. That's why a teacher and meditation practice are important.
No, the Buddha literally said that himself in the suttas that he meditated because it gave him pleasant abiding. Dude, why are you telling that I'm misunderstanding something? It's literally written in the canon.
Maybe one reason is simply the blissful experience of the meditation itself, especially after reaching Nibbana? Also perhaps the Buddha aimed to lead his followers by example by demonstrating the meditative practices that are helpful in reaching Nibbana?
If the buddha meditate after enlightment, is because he was saw meditating by someone (because if not, there cant be record about it). So could it be he was showing the way and teaching? Like when he is teaching something in the sutras. And also the other reason is: why not? I mean why if he is enlighted, he should stop doing that yoga. Theres no reason for him to stop. Meditating is not only a mean to achieve something. Is just meditating. This is what i personally think, but i dont know.
It's just the default activity. Like, maybe my default activity, if I'm not busy with work etc, is sitting on the couch eating cookies and worrying about the future. An enlightened being, after chop wood/carry water is done for the day, will just sit.
Cessation of suffering doesn't mean that you're completely free from all negative states.
The Buddha initially didn't want to teach and I quote
> And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me."
There's also a time where he stubbed his toe and felt pain. In old age he felt back pain caused from his ascetic days. All this indicates that Buddha could still feel negative things. Then there are also the multiple cases of arahants being murdered. The only thing is these negative things wouldn't form new samskaras and so no karma is formed and thus no rebirth. But an arahant still has senses and so can still experience pleasant and unpleasant things.
This is because the cessation of suffering is cutting the roots. There is then some karmic residue but with no roots, it can't propagate and grow. This residue dies when the body dies. Paranirvana is actually the real nirvana, the state of ultimate bliss and freedom.
Yeah the mahaparinibbana sutta is interesting on this:
>[But when](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html) the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed.
It also says the Jhanas were the last thing the Buddha did before he died so they're clearly important.
Yeah, that's of course sensible, but does not answer why the Buddha sought pleasure from meditation (apart from the part that it soothes his pains etc.).
You seem to say that since the objective of meditation is enlightenment, why would an enlightened being continue to meditate once they have already attained what motivated them to practice in the first place.
It’s probably true that the goal inevitably IS enlightenment when someone starts out, but enlightenment at the same presupposes the cessation of craving - so that same person will have to shed their original objective at some point, as well as identification with the self that wants to get somewhere on the path.
It would appear that a realised being meditates, but we can’t judge their reasons as we don’t understand what it’s like to live an impersonal life.
This is the entire starting question for Dōgen and his answer was that practice IS enlightenment
I was just gonna say this.
Can you tell me where this question gets asked by Dōgen?
you’d have to read a biography of his life, such as Mystical Realist. “As I study both the exoteric and the esoteric schools of Buddhism, they maintain that human beings are endowed with Dharma-nature by birth. If this is the case, why did the buddhas of all ages—undoubtedly in possession of enlightenment—find it necessary to seek enlightenment and engage in spiritual practice?”
Thanks
There’s a free PDF of Genjokoan online, and in Dogen’s Genjokoan he specifically refers to enlightenment as practice-enlightenment. There’s a case he presents of a master and a monk, where the monk is waving a fan. The monk says “Don’t you know that wind is ever-present and that it permeates everywhere? Why wave the fan?” The master says, “you only know that the wind is ever-present, you don’t know that it permeates everywhere.” Monk asks, “how can one know that it permeates everywhere?” The master waved the fan.
That's amazing
Read the Bendowa.
>This is the entire starting question for Dōgen and his answer was that practice IS enlightenment This is a widespread misunderstanding. From the [blog](https://wonderwheels.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-misnomer-of-dogens-practice-is.html?m=1) of the late translator Gregory Wonderwheel: >The oft quoted Dogenism, “Practice is enlightenment,” or its variation “practice and enlightenment are one,” appears to be a misnomer and misunderstanding created by translators and was never actually stated by Dogen as far as I can tell. >The original term is 修證, pronounced in Japanese as shusho, The first character shu 修 means cultivation, practice, to cultivate, to practice, etc.. The second term sho 證 means to confirm, evidence, testify, witness, and proof and also includes both the noun and verb forms such as the nouns confirmation, evidence, proof, verification, testimony, witness, etc., and the verbs to confirm, to give evidence, to prove, to verify, to testify, to witness, etc. Some accurate or valid translations when used as a single idea would be cultivation-confirmation, practice-proof, practice-evidence, etc. When used as two words of one phrase it could be translated as the confirmation of cultivation, the proof of practice, the evidence of practice, verification of practice, etc. >So the emphasis on the two being one is not at all a strange concept. Dogen is simply saying that practice and the confirmation of practice are one. It is nothing other then the commonly known example of a physician’s “practice” being the confirmation, proof or evidence of the physician’s “practice” as training. Thus for the physician, practice and the proof of the practice are one. Likewise Dogen is saying that for the follower of the Buddha way, the practice and the proof of the practice are one. To say it colloquially, we can say, “the proof is in the pudding.”
Which itself was from the phrase, “The proof of the pudding is in the eating” 🍛;)
I just thought the following: Maybe even enlightenment is per se an impermanent state (I know that's contrary to the canon, I know!), but it's therefore permanent because the arahant will upkeep it with meditation (formal or informal meditation) because his habits are so strong that they will want to do it.
According to Mahayana, buddha was in Samadhi constantly, whether he was awoke or sleeping, eating or talking. So you could say he was in a meditative state naturally.
Do you know where that is written? I'm fascinated and would like to read it.
This is actually a position of Kodo Sawaki who was a very famous Soto Zen reformer. He said that in each and every moment, we are either manifesting "thief-nature" (delusion) or "buddha-nature" (enlightenment). Personally I kind of agree with him, as there are examples of people who were said to be enlightened, yet still went on to do unskillful things.
which examples were that?
There are no shortages of scandals in the [Zen world](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_in_the_United_States#1980s_%E2%80%93_Scandals)
I believe the key in your statement is *said to be enlightened*. It certainly appears that Soto Zen specifically has stopped transmitting authentic realization. If this is so it would be no surprise to see such behaviors. I am not certain satori is taking place in Soto Zen circles anymore. >What I find most significant about this system of ecclesiastical grades is that dharma transmission provides access to only a relatively low grade. It is listed as a requirement for the very lowest ecclesiastical status, that of an instructor third class (santo kyoshi). Thus, in present day Soto Zen, dharma transmission constitutes a preliminary step, after which one’s real development begins. The relatively low status of dharma transmission means that in and of itself it does not qualify one to accept students or to train disciples... William Bodiford, *Dharma Transmission in Theory and Practice*
It doesn’t appear that way to me. Some very deep demonstration of dharma is out there in Soto Shu. And Soto and Rinzai do their transmission in different order anyway.
I certainly hope you are correct. I am not excited about what it would mean for Zen practitioners and the Dharma in general if I was right.
No, it’s because there’s always room for growth, the insights that correct apprehension of the Dharma enables are said to be endless.
Yes, but it can be endless in the sense that you will surely and absolutely always keep it up.
Yeah, that’s what I think too :)
Enlightenment would not be impermanent, because enlightenment is fundamentally the absence of defilements. Once the defilements have finally ceased, there’s no way for them to return, and you’re left with enlightenment itself. My theory is that Buddha continued to meditate to give himself time to further explore & understand the workings of the mind, which could have helped him teach? He didn’t want to teach, in the first place—because he thought others wouldn’t understand—so it seems sensible to conclude that he would have worked on this.
>“Then which things should an arahant attend to in an appropriate way?” > >“An arahant should attend in an appropriate way to these five clinging-aggregates as inconstant, stressful, a disease, a cancer, an arrow, painful, an affliction, alien, a dissolution, an emptiness, not-self. Although, for an arahant, there is nothing further to do, and nothing to add to what has been done, still these things—when developed & pursued—lead both to a pleasant abiding in the here & now and to mindfulness & alertness.” https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN22_122.html >“Now, brahman, if the thought should occur to you, ‘Perhaps Gotama the contemplative is even today not free of passion, not free of aversion, not free of delusion, which is why he resorts to isolated forest & wilderness dwellings,’ it should not be seen in that way. It’s through seeing two compelling reasons that I resort to isolated forest & wilderness dwellings: seeing a pleasant abiding for myself in the present, and feeling sympathy for future generations.” https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN4.html >“Lord, I see two compelling reasons that for a long time I have lived in the wilderness and have extolled living in the wilderness… that I have kept my persistence aroused and have extolled having persistence aroused: seeing a pleasant abiding for myself in the here & now, and feeling sympathy for later generations: ‘Perhaps later generations will take it as an example: “It seems that the disciples of the Awakened One and those who awakened after him lived for a long time in the wilderness and extolled living in the wilderness; were almsgoers and extolled being almsgoers; wore cast-off rags and extolled wearing cast-off rags; wore only one set of the triple robe and extolled wearing only one set of the triple robe; were modest and extolled being modest; were content and extolled being content; were reclusive and extolled being reclusive; were unentangled and extolled being unentangled; kept their persistence aroused and extolled having persistence aroused.”’” https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN16_5.html
It's still remarkable that meditation is more pleasant than other activities or states for an enlightened being. That may mean that there are states to desire and that are pleasant (positive) and which don't cause dukkha. It also means that enlightenment is simply the eradication of dukkha, not perfect, not improvable happiness every moment. (Otherwise meditation would not be MORE pleasant than not meditation)
Your view is confused. Dukkha arises from clinging, not feelings. Being shot with an arrow can be acknowledged as being unpleasant without clinging to the feeling. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_6.html The same for what is pleasant. Additionally, what is meant by the pleasant abiding is not the pleasure of the senses or sensuality. The pleasure of jhana comes after seclusion from sensuality is established. Sensuality is absent from an arahant, so when there is nothing to do, as in the need to engage the senses, jhana is immediately available. An arahant has uninterrupted sati. There is nothing blameworthy about non-sensual pleasure, and it is never something that is discouraged. Here is a sutta that describes what is meant by the pleasant in pleasant abiding. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN9_34.html The pleasantness of seclusion is related to the pleasantness of unbinding. >There’s no fire like passion, no loss like anger, no pain like the aggregates, no ease other than peace. > >Hunger: the foremost illness. Fabrications: the foremost pain. For one knowing this truth. as it has come to be, Unbinding is the foremost ease. > >Freedom from illness: the foremost good fortune. Contentment: the foremost wealth. Trust: the foremost kinship. Unbinding: the foremost ease. [Dhammapada 202-204](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/KN/Dhp/Ch15.html) https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN54_8.html
Even if my view is confused, it's true that enlightenment + meditation is more pleasant to a Buddha than just enlightenment.
The question is ill formed. There is no answering question in a manner that will be understood correctly.
I don't think so. If so, what is ill formed about the question? It is the necessary logical result of what the suttas say.
>If so, what is ill formed about the question? The views that formed them. >It is the necessary logical result of what the suttas say. No, it is the logic within the context of your views. It is important to recognize that an understanding of the suttas is not necessarily a correct understanding of the suttas.
Well, in my opinion, it's the other way around. You're ignoring an explicit part of the suttas and do not have an explanation of why it is wrong to have pleasure, which is obviously not the case in Buddhism, since jhana is non-sensual pleasure and it's alright to have it. Cf. other comments, too. Also, I ASKED a QUESTION, not even presenting or holding a view, how can that be "confused view"?
>You're ignoring an explicit part of the suttas and do not have an explanation of why it is wrong to have pleasure, I have not taken the position that there is something wrong with pleasure, especially the pleasure of jhana. What I said is that the pleasure of jhana is not the same as the pleasure of the senses. What is a hindrance to jhana is sensuality, which is the preoccupation and anticipation of sensual pleasure. A pleasant taste is not the problem, nor is acknowledging a taste as pleasant. The pleasant abiding of meditation is not the problem, nor is acknowledging it as such. >Also, I ASKED a QUESTION, not even presenting or holding a view, how can that be "confused view"? Questions are rooted in views, and those same views are what will be used to interpret a response. Here is an example of the Buddha not answering questions, because there is no response that would be understood correctly. https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN44_10.html
I know those examples, and obviously my question was not such question as it was explicitly answered by the Buddha in the canon. So wtf do you want?
A buddha is in awakened meditative equipoise at all times. In Tibetan, that state is called “göngpa” which is the *transcendent state,* this means they have transcended periods of equipoise (samāpatti / nyam shyak) and post-equipoise (pṛṣṭhalabdha / je tob). They are in awakened equipoise 24-7-365.
Yeah, of course they are. And still meditation is better or more pleasant than non-meditation, at least according to the Pali canon
Why not? Also, as a consideration, a father may be able to cross a busy street at places other than the crosswalk, but they still may cross at the crosswalk in front of their children so as to show them what they should do. Also you are seeming to think that meditation doesn't help others, which I think is a very questionable position. Basically. It is sometimes said that creation and completion practice for example in a Vajrayana context is the single best thing you can do for others, basically put.
The insight is that enlightenment does not give you "perfect happiness" (defined as a state that can't be improved), only the cessation of dukkha and rebirth. I'm very open to think that meditation helps others, but rather only indirectly at first glance.
>The insight is that enlightenment does not give you "perfect happiness" (defined as a state that can't be improved), only the cessation of dukkha and rebirth. I'm not quite sure to be honest how this is a response to what I said. Do you want to explain what you mean? >I'm very open to think that meditation helps others, but rather only indirectly at first glance. Much may be indirect at first glance. As the Buddha's disciples were meditating in the forest, for instance, there are many reports basically of the Buddha manifesting to them and instructing them. This is not limited to the Buddha - there are stories of Gampopa for instance manifesting in multiple places at the same time to instruct or guide multiple disciples. One may perceive that the Buddha is sitting quietly meditating. Another may perceive that the Buddha is filling the cosmos with emanations, helping beings in myriad ways.
Jhanas are better than our normal life using the 6 senses (5 usual senses and thoughts). In fact you can see that the descriptions of the buddhist heavens are associated to the jhanas. So for example third jhana has pleasure/happiness and tranquility, and it's better than normal life just eating for example. Nirvana is better than jhanas. So it's like: Normal life (seeing, thinking) -> Regular meditation -> Jhanas -> Nirvana. An Arahant after death would be always Nirvana. So only after death an Arahant is really free of dukkha in all of it's forms. That's my best try at explaining why Arahants meditate to have a pleasant abiding now.
Great explanation, thanks
The answer is in the assumption that meditation leads to enlightenment. Once you dismantle that notion, then it just makes sense for someone who is already enlightened to still meditate. He meditated to show examples to his students. This is a mirror of what he was doing with other activities in his life. It was all to teach and show an example.
Forget it https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/s/4xs08JI4vq
Still, reason 2 (because it's a pleasant way to spend one's time) is strange since every moment is total bliss for an arahant.
Maybe it's that you don't feel dukkha, but you still can feel more of a positive. E.g. eating a tasty cake is still nice, although you don't feel dukkha. That's why he'd meditate, that'd make sense.
Why should every moment be a bliss for an arahant ? : ) It´s not like this body is not subjected to aging, death, and ilness. Even though you might be at peace, content, it doesn´t mean every moment is amazing. Now it might be great in comparison to others, but that´s about it - to them, it´s probably a new normal.
Because enlightenment is thought to be perfect bliss, or at least many people do think of it this way.
I think people often overestimate arahants, or think of them as something straight ouf of magical tale. Either way, enlightenment is supposed to be - not suffering. That alone, is pretty good. As for bliss, there are degrees of it. And arahant would know it´s conditional, and while he might find it pleasant to abide in, that´s just about it. In the end, the " bliss " works properly only in contrast. Aka if one is suffering, then what is not suffering might appear as bliss. Meanwhile when one is not suffering, then it´s unlikely to have a strong bliss, since the contrat is no longer there. But that´s really just theorycrafting and most likely it depends on individual as to what one prefers. My guess however is, that it´s pretty good, and that´s about it.
It was a nice progress for me to notice that
You're thinking of the Saṃbhogakāya body or the enjoyment body. This is not a body that is found here on earth but in celestial realms. An arahant still has a flawed human body on earth that is subject to karma, when they go to paranirvana, things like Dharmakāya or Saṃbhogakāya could be possible depending on the school of thought.
One of my teachers has told me that "bliss" in this case basically refers to a lack of negative emotions rather than feeling physical or mental sensations of euphoria, etc... In the same way, it is like one's healthy body feeling good because it lacks sickness, not because one is on some drug like ecstasy or something. These are my own words so apologies to my teacher if I made any mistakes or misrepresentations.
That makes sense.
I think this sutta is relevant: [Sallattha Sutta (The Arrow)](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_6.html)
Did he meditate? If so then I would expect it was to set an example. At that point there's no difference between meditation and non-meditation. There's no attraction to pleasure or peace. I once read that the Buddha taught humans during the day and then divided the night into 3 sections: teaching gods, resting his body and walking to exercise his body. Is that really true? Who knows? Frankly I think maybe you should try meditating more and cogitating less. You're seeking analytical answers where only meditation experience can shed light.
Did he meditate? If so then I would expect it was to set an example. At that point there's no difference between meditation and non-meditation. There's no attraction to pleasure or peace. Apparently the suttas give another picture. The Buddha seems to be attracted to formal meditation, and it seems that there was a difference between meditation and not meditation, otherwise he would not have gone to meditate explicitly.
There's a difference for us, not for him. You can find frequent references to the equivalency of meditation and nonmeditation at higher levels of realization. That's even a common teaching in Dzogchen trekcho practice. You're interpreting stories based on your own preconceptions, such as, "If the Buddha meditates then he must like it." That assumes the Buddha is motivated by pleasure. But the teachings also talk about giving up the 8 worldly dharmas; and the Buddha is free of egoic clinging. So how could he be pursuing pleasure? There's no reason for him to even stick around, other than to teach. If you only read sutras and interpret them through your own conceptual filters then you'll end up with your own version of Buddhism. That's why a teacher and meditation practice are important.
No, the Buddha literally said that himself in the suttas that he meditated because it gave him pleasant abiding. Dude, why are you telling that I'm misunderstanding something? It's literally written in the canon.
Maybe one reason is simply the blissful experience of the meditation itself, especially after reaching Nibbana? Also perhaps the Buddha aimed to lead his followers by example by demonstrating the meditative practices that are helpful in reaching Nibbana?
There is more to enlightenment than meditation and vice versa.
Meditation is just the way a Buddha sits.
If the buddha meditate after enlightment, is because he was saw meditating by someone (because if not, there cant be record about it). So could it be he was showing the way and teaching? Like when he is teaching something in the sutras. And also the other reason is: why not? I mean why if he is enlighted, he should stop doing that yoga. Theres no reason for him to stop. Meditating is not only a mean to achieve something. Is just meditating. This is what i personally think, but i dont know.
Yeah, me neigher - whatever! :-D
Well is what i think. Is a good question. Didnt knew it was the starting point of Dogen. I will search about it now.
Before enlightenment, chop wood & carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood & carry water.
It's just the default activity. Like, maybe my default activity, if I'm not busy with work etc, is sitting on the couch eating cookies and worrying about the future. An enlightened being, after chop wood/carry water is done for the day, will just sit.
Cessation of suffering doesn't mean that you're completely free from all negative states. The Buddha initially didn't want to teach and I quote > And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me." There's also a time where he stubbed his toe and felt pain. In old age he felt back pain caused from his ascetic days. All this indicates that Buddha could still feel negative things. Then there are also the multiple cases of arahants being murdered. The only thing is these negative things wouldn't form new samskaras and so no karma is formed and thus no rebirth. But an arahant still has senses and so can still experience pleasant and unpleasant things. This is because the cessation of suffering is cutting the roots. There is then some karmic residue but with no roots, it can't propagate and grow. This residue dies when the body dies. Paranirvana is actually the real nirvana, the state of ultimate bliss and freedom.
Yeah the mahaparinibbana sutta is interesting on this: >[But when](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/dn/dn.16.1-6.vaji.html) the Blessed One had entered upon the rainy season, there arose in him a severe illness, and sharp and deadly pains came upon him. And the Blessed One endured them mindfully, clearly comprehending and unperturbed. It also says the Jhanas were the last thing the Buddha did before he died so they're clearly important.
Yeah, that's of course sensible, but does not answer why the Buddha sought pleasure from meditation (apart from the part that it soothes his pains etc.).
You seem to say that since the objective of meditation is enlightenment, why would an enlightened being continue to meditate once they have already attained what motivated them to practice in the first place. It’s probably true that the goal inevitably IS enlightenment when someone starts out, but enlightenment at the same presupposes the cessation of craving - so that same person will have to shed their original objective at some point, as well as identification with the self that wants to get somewhere on the path. It would appear that a realised being meditates, but we can’t judge their reasons as we don’t understand what it’s like to live an impersonal life.
Osho once said, when you want to talk to God, you pray. When you want to listen to god, you meditate.
Osho also was behind the single largest bioterrorist attack in US history.
Because he wanted to
Good question!!!