Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Sort of... The point is less about pleasures being impermanent (which they are) and more about attachment to pleasures all of which could never be fulfilled which causes the suffering. Yes, the concept of abandoning attachments is simple but in practice is very difficult for most people. The nature of many attachments is not rational to begin with, so attempting to focus on cause and effect itself in a rational manner to overcome suffering does not necessarily work. This where the concept of self comes in, where understanding of the self is used to guide practice that can help guide practice that leads to overcoming attachment.

Also the 2nd sentence of the 4th point is essentially a giant point of contention between the Therevada and Mahayana traditions as Buddhism does indeed make a distinction between attaining nirvana and dedicating your life to helping others attain it too. Theoretically you can follow the path to its conclusion without necessarily supporting other people on their own journey. "So which path should you take?" became a big source of debate, as well as the question of which texts and commentaries deserved to be part of the Buddhist cannon.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

I tried to specifically word my last sentence in a way so that it was something both sides would agree on :marseysad: I suppose I should have made which comes first more ambiguous.

This where the concept of self comes in, where understanding of the self is used to guide practice that can help guide practice that leads to overcoming attachment.

Exactly. It's not "Does the self exist or not" but rather "What is useful/edifying to view as self? What is useful/edifying to view as not-self?" It turns out that a lot of what we view as "Who we are" is causing us unnecessary suffering.

Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Link copied to clipboard
Action successful!
Error, please refresh the page and try again.