Can the supernatural and religious elements of Buddhism be extricated?
To expand on the title, can those fantastical elements be abandoned while still maintaining a full practice?
Is it still Buddhism without the extra natural elements?
The Buddha believed in reincarnation, and experiencing past lives and such. The text say he could levitate and there is much talk of 'devas' and such which are just like in a literal sense.
I tried to study Buddhism in earnest several times but as an atheist have come upon this stumbling block each time that sooner or later the supernatural elements become pervasive and I got deeper into the reading and it 'ruined immersion' as they say for films and made me not be able to really get behind the practice any more making me put it down again.
So I have not been able to reconcile these issues.
There is one book I know of dedicated to the issue, Buddhism without Beliefs but I found it did a woeful job at the premise. Far from tackling the issue all the writer appeared to have done is repackage and rename common terms like "suffering" becomes "anguish" which I don't think actually does anything except confuse more as that has not really solved anything.
Sam Harris makes a few good comments on the subject in Waking Up but is not a thorough attempt and was not the main focus of the book.
It is a question of - should you 'submit' and accept all these fantastical ideas in order to reach higher levels of attainment or can they be cut out while still getting to the destination.
Is it still Buddhism without the extra natural elements?
The Buddha believed in reincarnation, and experiencing past lives and such. The text say he could levitate and there is much talk of 'devas' and such which are just like in a literal sense.
I tried to study Buddhism in earnest several times but as an atheist have come upon this stumbling block each time that sooner or later the supernatural elements become pervasive and I got deeper into the reading and it 'ruined immersion' as they say for films and made me not be able to really get behind the practice any more making me put it down again.
So I have not been able to reconcile these issues.
There is one book I know of dedicated to the issue, Buddhism without Beliefs but I found it did a woeful job at the premise. Far from tackling the issue all the writer appeared to have done is repackage and rename common terms like "suffering" becomes "anguish" which I don't think actually does anything except confuse more as that has not really solved anything.
Sam Harris makes a few good comments on the subject in Waking Up but is not a thorough attempt and was not the main focus of the book.
It is a question of - should you 'submit' and accept all these fantastical ideas in order to reach higher levels of attainment or can they be cut out while still getting to the destination.
Comments (265)
If you're asking 'is Buddhism is a religion', then the answer is definitely 'yes'. But the deeper point is, the cultural background and underlying belief systems are vastly different from the Middle-Eastern religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), to the extent where 'religion' itself means something different to what it is generally taken to mean in a Western culture.
Also, Buddhism is not a single phenomenon, any more than Christianity is. It is a constellation of religious and cultural movements that have developed over millenia in hugely divergent ways. However there are some core principles (I hesitate to say 'beliefs') that are found in all of the schools.
Quoting unimportant
The term in Buddhism is 'rebirth'. Why the difference? It is said there is no individual person, entity or soul that migrates from one life to another. The customary explanation is that the individual life is more like a process that will give rise to causes that then take form in a future life. That individual is neither the same individual but neither are they completely different.
Of course it is true that 'belief in rebirth' in any sense is culturally taboo in the West. There are two reasons for this. First, belief in reincarnation was declared anathema (forbidden) by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 C.E. (in relation to Origen's idea that souls pre-existed in a spiritual realm before being born.)
The second reason is that it is incompatible with the scientific understanding which doesn't encompass any medium for the transmission of traits, behaviours etc between different lives. (There has been published research, however, on children who appear to recall past lives.)
So rebirth is a stumbling block for many Westerners approaching Buddhism. My advice is, put it aside. It's not necessary to 'believe in reincarnation' in order to engage with Buddhism.
Of course Buddhism was born in ancient India, where beliefs in devas and spirits and other realms of existence were part of the culture. The Secular West has dropped all this, or thinks it has, but I retain an open mind about them. I think 'secular Buddhism' a la Stephen Bachelor et al is a practicable path, but again, I'd keep an open mind about just where the division between sacred and secular is.
Speaking of divide, have a read of Facing the Great Divide, Bhikkhu Bodhi. He is a Buddhist monk of American origin and a scholar and translator of the Pali Buddhist texts. Another is Buddhism Is a Religion, David Brazier. Finally Beyond scientific materialism and religious belief, Weber, published on Bachelor's website. (A lot of reading, I know, but they're big questions!)
Any questions, don't hesitate to ask.
Why not try to have a 'secular approach inspired by Buddhist elements'?
You'll have a lot of difficulty to make sense of 'Buddhism' if you abandon the belief in Samsara. I'll just name a few problems you might encounter:
So, there is no need to try to turn Buddhism into a 'secularized' worldview. It is better, in my opinion, if one doesn't belief in rebirth, to do Buddhist practice for the benefits that one feels it has. For instance, if you find that Buddhist meditation actually helps you to be more serene, content, at peace and so on, I don't believe that you're doing nothing wrong. However, the moment you start to say that belief in 'rebirth' - as well as other 'supernatural' beliefs - was a 'later addition', you need to confront the overwhelming evidence on the contrary. Then, again, I don't think that you can't associate to Buddhists and practice with them if you don't believe in the 'supernatural' ideas as Wayfarer said. You might put it aside for now and see later if it makes more sense for you.
As an aside, in Christianity there are also theological/philosophical reasons to reject rebirth. First, if there was a 'pre-existence' of souls then our life in this world becomes a sort of punishment for sins we allegedly did before our coming into this life. However, there is no trace of that belief in earliest Christian scriptures and, indeed, the dogma of Incarnation tells you that Christ became associated with 'human nature' when he became human in this world. Second, belief in personhood is very strong in Christianity and the Christian life, arguably, is founded upon the idea of a personal relation between one and God. Clearly, if one believe that 'Alice' or 'Bob' can become 'Joseph' or 'Mary' or even non-human animals in a future life, it seems that such a belief would weaken the importance of the personal relation between 'Alice' and 'Bob' with God.
Quoting Wayfarer
Note that, however, even if one believes in those evidence, they still can't be considered evidence for the traditional Buddhist model of rebirth. By this I mean that according to the traditional Buddhist model one can be reborn into the animal, 'hellish', 'celestial' etc realms. I also read people claiming that NDEs 'prove' rebirth. Again, however, if one takes literally the content of NDEs - reported say in the book After by Dr. Greyson - one in fact finds that there is very little support for the afterlife belief of any religion. So, while I try to keep an open mind on these things, I wouldn't use them as 'evidence' for a particular religion (This is not a criticism of your points or your views on these issues. I'm just saying that one should be 'wary' to mix, say, 'Buddhism' or 'Christianity' or whatever with modern research on these matters).
Quoting Wayfarer
:up:
See this book by a Buddhist monk of German origin, which reviews both the traditional beliefs on re-birth and also current research.
Quoting boundless
As I said - the background culture and beliefs of Buddhism are vastly different to Semitic (Middle Eastern) religious culture.
Thanks!
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, I know. I wanted to just make an additional remark on the possible theological reasons of the condemnation of the belief in reincarnation in Christianity.
In any case, I believe that such a point is important. If rebirth is true, it weakens the 'reality' of personhood and it is a BIG reason to weak one's attachments in this life. On this point, Buddhists are completely right IMO.
Why?
There are physical feats that you can clearly see that Buddhists can do far above the normal human and nothing to do with the previous mumbo jumbo anecdotes mentioned. A prime example would be the self-immolation of Vietnamese Buddhists in protest during the Vietnam war.
That is evidence of some pretty amazing levels of emotional control to not even be visually disturbed when their whole body is set alight.
I would call that a higher level of attainment than the average human. It doesn't have to have anything to do with some unseen realm, it is there in plain sight for the cool rational western mind to observe empirically.
Likewise some Buddhist traditions would self-mumify at a certain age, for whatever spiritual reason they aimed to achieve. The reason might not hold water scientifically but their ability to control the body to remain perfectly passive and at ease while they know it is going to be destroyed is quite the feat.
Another slightly less drastic example would be those Buddhists who are able to go into trance state to have operations without any anaesthesia.
So their rationalisations for being able to do it might be fallacious but clearly they can control the mind to a far greater degree than the average none practitioner.
I suppose that is answering my own question that we can separate the two and visually see the results but I am wondering how a none woo woo person might achieve the same result.
Joseph Campbell studied the religions of the world and saw common themes of the spiritual experience among them all. It is how to manufacture, from a secular perspective, that common experience.
A lot of mention so far about reincarnation and I think that a lot of the time the practitioners couch their sufferings in this life against the idea of reincarnation or that they are going to a better place. It is just a variation of the Christian idea of going to heaven if you are good boys and girls.
I am wondering if one who practices and doesn't believe in any of that could attain similar earthly results to the above knowing this life is their one and only shot.
I don't see how you could garner that interpretation from what you quoted. I of course know it is a religion. What I am asking is whether the none religious person can go as far along the path as the religious 'believer' when they do not accept a large part of the 'canon', seeing it as fallacious dogma.
Ok, I see. Consider the points I raised here:
Quoting boundless
The question becomes this: can one attain the same meditative status if one doesn't believe in rebirth? The traditional answer seems like 'no' for the following reasons:
Can one practice in such a way to achieve the same attainments that are reportedly attained by traditional Buddhist practitioners without believing in the 'supernatural' beliefs of the religion?
I'm not sure that it is possible for the reasons I said above. The convinctions we have before engaging in a serious practice might condition the achievements we can reach.
I don't think the things you mention are necessarily contingent on rebirth though. Why does becoming a mendicant have to have anything to do with rebirth? I think that is one thing which doesn't while others would be more tricky to explain away.
Even the explanations of the benefits from the Buddhist perspective, from what I recall, do not appeal to the supernatural. It is simply living humbly and I do remember now specifically the text stated the Buddha insisted on it in order to highlight the intertwined nature of the bikkhu and the lay people where one hand washes the other. The bikkhu gives insight for the lay person when the latter asks for guidance and the lay person gives the bikkhu food to survive. Nothing of that has to have anyhthing to do with supernatural explanations.
I agree that the traditional answer is going to be 'no' on all counts but of course they are biased and not able to give an uncoloured opinion.
As to the 'no selfness' being contingent upon rebirth I again don't think it is necessary. Lots of neuroscience, and this is a point Sam Harris makes when discussing the topic, has confirmed there is no 'I' to be found and it is just a social or cultural construct. So it can easily be explained from an empirical standpoint. To actually have some huge insight just from that data is another matter.
As mentioned earlier though, the same spiritual experiences have been documented from vastly different cultures and through the lens of their own religions and worldviews. This means that like the idea of God there is no one right answer. This then means that all the talk of reincarnation is not necessary to have such spiritual awakenings as the Christian mystics managed just the same and do not hold those same beliefs.
What should be done is to read through the different mystical experiences from each culture and religion and look for the common threads. Joseph Campbell apparently has done this in his work Masks of God. I have started reading it but not gotten very far in it and put it down after not many pages as I had another one of my downswings in motivation for the stuff again but seems I might be on an upswing again now, so maybe time to take another look.
Like with the Jungian archetypes, of which I know Campbell was also inspired by quite a bit, the spiritual experience is a human experiences, and not exclusive to one particular religion. The shallow or pop analysis of Buddhism states it is to have these experience without the religious dogma of the orthodox western religions, but when you scratch the surface you see Buddhism is steeped in its equivalent dogmas. It may just be a little more palatable for some as there is no solid "God" in their doctrines but all the devas and their antics and rebirth as just more of the same.
I would hazard a guess that it is the rituals of whatever religion not the actual content of the mythologies that allow the transcendent experiences. The question then is how to recreate that roadmap of the path to attainment as one who does not believe in any particular one? Can the same states still be achieved if one only takes them as allegories rather than realities?
You seem to have some familiarity with Buddhist texts. A great number of them speak about why Buddhists historically saw 'liberation from samsara' as their goal.
Of course, one can become a 'mendicant' without believing in rebirth. For instance, there are Hindu, Christian, Jain etc ascetics who clearly believed that such a life had a different purpose than Buddhists. You can find perhaps many analogies, but one can't overlook the differences.
So, you should ask yourself: why should I become a monk/mendincant or whatever? What is the purpose of such a choice?
For instance, one needs a very strong motivator and a very strong convinction to make a radical choice and remain committed to it. And, for instance, becoming a Buddhist monk is clearly a radical choice.
To be honest, I can't see why a secular materialist would make such a choice. Something like Epicureanism (as 180 says) seems more apt for a secular materialist. You are of course free to incorporate other practices but honestly I do not get why one would want to devote oneself to the life of a Buddhist ascetic without being a Buddhist.
Anyway...
Quoting unimportant
Guidance for what?Only for the 'here and now'? Also it should be noted that most Buddhist traditions have believed that Nirvana isn't just a 'mere absence' of negative mental factors and/or experience (like the ancient Sautrantika school apparently believed and appararenly as various modern Buddhist teachers believe). Just to make an example, for a 'traditional' Theravadin perspective on this ('traditional' because it quotes ancient commentaries that are highly regarded in the Theravada tradition), read: Anatta and Nibbana by Ven Nyanaponika. Clearly, if one thinks that Nirvana isn't a 'mere absence' then the goal itself becomes incompatible with a materialist worldview. This is a problem of course. If the goal isn't something that is conceivable in materialistic terms, then a 'secularized Buddhist practice' becomes incoherent (it would be like practising Christianity without believing in God).
Quoting unimportant
While I disagree that Neuroscience gave us a definite answer on the existence of a self, even if it did, the bolded part is crucial. If I believe that 'there is only this life' there is a high risk to never be able to shake off the deep-rooted convinction that we are an unique, distinct entity with defining characteristics. On the other hand, if I believed in rebirth the 'features' of this life would seem much less 'central' to me.
So, again, while you might be right that 'non-self' might be compatible with materialism, the belief that there are no future and past life actually increases the 'impression' that this life is lived by a 'real' self.
If 'Bob' can become a snake, a celestial being and then 'Alice' none of the things that defined these 'states' seem essential to 'the person'. It is quite easier if one believes in rebirth to become less attached to one's current identity, relationships and so on.
Quoting unimportant
Why you think that they reached the same experiences. What makes you so certain that the experience were literally the same (and not, say, 'similar')? Is comparing brain activity really enough to estabish that they are exactly the same?
Quoting unimportant
This is an interesting question. Interestingly, while, for instance, in Christian history it is easier to find examples of 'allegorical/non-literal interpretatons' even in ancient times, I do not know anything like that in Buddhist history. In fact, 'literalism' about the content of the suttas/sutras seems quite important to Buddhists in antiquity. Again, I may be wrong about this, but I do not recall of any 'allegorical method' of interpreting Buddhist scriptures in historical Buddhist traditions.
Anyway, to answer your question, I don't know. The only way of knowing that, perhaps, is to personally 'walk through the path' and see where it leads.
What is the roadmap a roadmap to? What is the goal? In Buddhism it is nibbana (in the Pali) - the cessation of suffering and the ending of repeated birth in the cycle of sa?s?ra (understood to be beginningless. ) So - what 'benefits' are to be sought outside that framework? What draws you to Buddhism if you don't believe it to be true?
This doesn’t make any sense to me. Can you explain? You believe that there are no unique entities? If that were true we couldn’t distinguish individual things or entities.
There is an ontological structure that integrates 3 parts: 1) you hear the teaching and know what it says; 2) you analyse what is said and understand it intellectually; 3) You investigate for yourself to find out the way in which it is true.
Nirvana is 'the final goal', so one must at least entertain the possibility of an ultimate truth, and the lesser reality of universal truth. The latter is easy. Death is universally true. The inevitable implies universality.
One aspect of practice is the contemplation of age, death and decay. When we see a dead body, a rotting body, be it human or animal, we know empirically that is the nature of all bodies, including mine. That's an example of universal truth - it's nature's way (dhamma)
Proir to practice there are two commitments: a vow to morality and refuge in the three jewels (triple gem). Superficially, morality entails 5 precepts. Don't steal, kill, get intoxicated. lie - pretty standard stuff. At a more profound level, morality pertains to will and ones ability to discern between good and ill-will. At first, obedience to rote assists without discerning, but through the third ontological principle, you grow to understand the nature of your own will.
The first refuge is refuge in the Buddha (the enlightenment within ones self). The second refuge is in dhamma (universal truth/nature's way) and the third is in the sangha (your teachers or spiritual community). The first two refuges are easy, though the first may entail a leap of faith, but the third is personal trust and it is prudent to be extremely discerning in that regard.
By committing to morality, one is motivated by what is 'right' rather than what is desired.
By taking refuge, one is surrendering to inevitable natural processes, having faith in one's own 'enlightened being', and enabling affection and giving and receiving service with regard to others.
The philosophy is not understood in the same way as Western philosophy is. The first two elements, hearing and understanding it intellectually are the same, but the third element of insight is that lightbulb moment of insight when one realises something irrefutable and goes, 'Ah, I see" (the way in which it is true).
This brings us to the 4 pillars: Body, sensation, mind, thought. Body and mind categorise empirical knowledge about a body such as bodies age, die and decay, for example. Sensation and thought categorise subjective knowledge such as 'this is a long breath' or 'this is what it's like'.
With the above theoretical basis, preliminary practice can be undertaken by feeling the sensation of your breathing. The process of meditation will reveal 4 basic truths 'This is suffering', 'This is how I cause suffering', 'Suffering is not inevitable' and 'This is the way to end suffering'. At first you will notice frustration, boredom, aversion to discomfort and other reactive tendencies and know, 'This is suffering'. Next you will realise that adverse and craven reactivity directly causes suffering, and it follows that ceasing to react thus brings about its cessation.
It becomes intricately involved with the moral dimension as you see how reactivity incites will and positions 'me' as the affected who thereby exerts volition to effect the world. That cause and effect is the cycle of karma. Karma is the incitement of volition and volition is the cause of outcomes. Since we react to outcomes, there becomes a perpetual cycle of 'rebirth' as 'I' am perpetuated from one moment to the next. The 'weak link' in that chain is reactivity/volition. Cessation of the cause releases one from the karmic cycle of 'rebirth' (Rebirth is explained in the link below).
The underlying reason we react, incite volition or generate karma is our understanding of nature is wrong. We are ignorant and deluded and misapprehend the underlying nature of mind and matter. Hence we investigate the body, which is the same in nature as all matter, and the mind, which is is the same in nature as all other minds.
At the bottom is self. The concept not-self or no-self (anatta) - and I have an interesting article about that here which contextualises rebirth. https://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09/
(I am not Buddhist BTW - If anything, I'm Anglican)
It's a bit contorted argument, so I'll try. Basically, the point is that while a person might intellectually accept the idea that "the self is an illusion", if such a person also believes that this is the only life, at a deeper level they IMO have more difficulty to develop non-attachment to this life. If this life is unique it seems to me that it is more likely that one might regard it as 'special' and if it is regarded as 'special' it is clear to me that this involves a concept of 'mine'. So, at a deeper level, the person still engages with the world with a convinction that there is a self and the the experience is 'theirs'.
At the end of the day, it must be something more than a mere intellectual convinction. If it was just that, then, all people who believe that the "self is an illusion" would have some kind of 'enlightenment' in the Buddhist sense. It should be noted, also, that apparently the Buddha didn't go around and tell everyone that "there is no self" because such an assertion was at danger of being misunderstood by beginners (SN 44.10) and it seems that the Buddha when speaking from an ethical point of view didn't have any problem to speak about the 'self'.
Interestingly, there was an early Buddhist school, who at one time was quite popular, the Pudgalavada who affirmed the existence of a 'person' ('pudgala') while denying it to be like the 'self' (atman) rejected by the Buddha, perhaps because they saw the 'person' as something 'indeterminate' (and perhaps influenced some strands of the Mahayana - not all).
Quoting praxis
I wasn't presenting my views. I'm not a Buddhist and I reject the 'non-self' doctrine, precisely because IMO it seems to me that there are individual entities. However, I am still fascinated by Buddhist traditions and I admire it.
I wanted to add this. Contrast the above situation to the scenario that is true if rebirth happens.
If one's 'succession of lives' spans so many different 'states of being' and one truly believes that, it is easier to think that one becomes less attached to the contingent circumstances he or she finds themselves in. There is nothing 'special' about any of them and it becomes easier to lose attachment to them. However, if one is convinced that there is only 'this life', then 'this life' becomes much, much more important. It isn't just an instance of an incredibly long succession of successive lives none of which is more 'important' than the other because, in samsara, none of those state is blissful and unending and none of them defines your identity more than any other. Rather it is the only life one thinks he or she has. Being the only life one has such a lifetime tends to be regarded very important for the person and much more apt to define one's identity.
In summary, it seems to me that it is much easier to let go of attachment to one's life if one is convinced that it is just an instance of a very, very long of succession of lives, none of which is of particular importance. Instead, if this lifetime is unique, it is clearly more likely to see it as 'special' and 'importan' and develop attachment to it.
This part makes sense. :up:
There are scientific studies that indicate meditation practices help with pain management. I don’t think this is controversial.
I don’t think self-immolation is a sanctioned Buddhist destination, btw.
:up:
This is IMO central. If it isn't just an intellectual understanding, motivations behind why one practices become relevant. Indeed, the goal we set to ourselves when we do something conditions the way we do a determinate action.
While I believe that nothing prevents a practitioner to practice even if they don't believe in rebirth, Nirvana and so on, it is still relevant that you have an immense amount of witnesses in the Buddhist traditions that tells you, instead, that believing in rebirth is something central. So, perhaps, they are right. Maybe don't, but you should have good arguments to show that someone that doesn't have the same motivations can get to the same state.
For me, "practice" is too broad a brush to be meaningful here. Religious practice has many facets/goals – I think more than most people realize. For instance, it may be fair to say that people have a desire for meaning in their lives and religious practice may help fulfill that need. Religious practice can help attain that state of fulfillment. They achieve that goal regardless of their state of *enlightenment*... and regardless of their ability to endure pain with composure.
This might be true but the original question was something like "is it possible to attain the same 'achievements' even if I do not believe in what Buddhists have always believed?".
IMO there are good arguments that the answer is 'no'. It is possible that the 'worldview' we have conditions our motivations while we 'practice' and perhaps even the idea we have about the goal we seek conditions the way we 'practice'. Do these factors have no importance when we seek to attain some kind of goals? Is the motivation behind our own practice irrelevant for our ability to reach the goal?
For instance, consider this Pali sutta:
Quoting SN 56.34, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation
If one doesn't believe in rebirth, can one reach the same level of motivation? Or is the above sutta wrong and such motivation isn't necessary?
The 'traditionalist' answer would be 'no' to both questions. Clearly, one is free to try to reach the same level of, say, 'equanimity' that is generally abscribed to arhats or 'enlightened bodhisattvas'. So, either one has convincing arguments to show that the traditional answer is wrong or, indeed, one has to see for oneself.
You are ignoring again that evidence I have highlighted that many other religious disciplines reach similar levels of transcendence of the physical world yet don't believe in rebirth.
They have their own cultural analogies and explanations but I would hazard the spiritual experience is the same. Just like feeling love would be a human experience which would be explained in many difference ways across different cultures but the actual experience of love is the same for all.
Your sticking on rebirth being necessary to achieve a spiritual experience is very narrow if you are dismissing all other groups that don't believe in it and their own cultural versions of mystical awakening.
Meister Eckhart is apparently one who reached a high level but in the western tradition.
Eckhart Tolle has written quite a bit about the universal nature of the spiritual experience in his books and apparently was well read and refers to many different traditions in his writings drawing on the similarities.
Many other spiritual gurus which do not hold to a particular discipline who do the same.
Alright, we'll set aside my suggestion that religions function and fulfill various needs in ways that most people don't realize and focus on the ultimate promise of Buddhism which is, as you point out, the cessation of suffering. If that's the goal then the practice would essentially be to condition, or rather de-condition, ourselves in such a way that we don't suffer.
Is Buddhism actually particularly good at achieving this goal? I'm skeptical. And, I'll regurgitate the old saying that it's easy to be a holy man on the top of a mountain.
Rebirth has to do with the supposed structure or metaphysics of suffering. I don't understand why that would be motivational. If nirvana is the carrot, suffering itself is the stick.
Yes. Despite background cultural differences, I've found Epicureanism to be analogous with 'Buddhism Naturalized' (or vice versa).
https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=17831&sid=25743865bd752a2196f4ce119be34de6#p17831
I didn't ignore those evidence.I simply do not see them as convincing evidence that those experience are the same, not just similar.
Anyway, it seems that you have already made up your mind about these things. So, fair enough, I guess.
Ok, yes, a famous 'definition' of Nirvana is the 'cessation of suffering'. An early Buddhist school, the Sautrantika, apparently believed that it was just that, nothing 'more'. Assuming that they were right and that 'Nirvana without remaineder' de facto coincides with oblivion, there is no 'transcendent' goal there.
So, if the above conception of Nirvana is right (and this is a big 'if'), you need to show that one achieve the same results of 'traditional Buddhists' with "escaping the suffering of this present life" as a sufficient motivator. Given the textual evidence that apparently no Buddhist tradition (with the exception perhaps of 'secular Buddhism' started in the 20th century) endorsed such an idea, it is indeed a big claim.
So, how can we test such a hypothesis. The OP apparently thinks that "scientific evidence" + "some comparative religion studies" showed once for all that it is indeed possible to achieve the same states of 'enlightenment' of the Buddhist traditions without agreeing with their belief. Fine. However, are we sure about that?
There is a Mah?y?na sutra that explicitly rejects that idea. It would be a form of nihilism.
Yeah.
Such an idea is also rejected in the traditional Theravada. In one of my earlier posts, I referenced to the paper "Anatta and Nibbana" by Nyanaponika Thera which quotes post-canonical sources that explicitly rejected the idea. Here some escerpts from the commentary to the Visuddhimagga:
It is significant that these authoratitive post-canonical texts took the pain to reject the "Nirvana as mere non-existence/absence" idea.
Also, even in the Theravada canonical Abhidhamma there is one text that describes the 'permanence' of Nirvana in the same way as the permanence of the 'self' of non-Buddhists.
Quoting Kathavatthu 1.6, Shwe Zan Aung, C.A.F. Rhys Davids translation
(The context of this excerpt is a debate between the precursor school of the modern Theravada and the 'Sarvastivada' school, a school that endorsed the idea that in some sense the 'psycho-physical' aggregates existed in all times and they are said to be impermanent because their activity is transitory. Note that the Theravada rejects such kind of view of the permanence of the 'aggregates' but at the same time accepts the idea that Nibbbana/Nirvana is indeed 'permanent, eternal' erc.)
It is difficult, in my opinion, to read the above description of Nirvana as a 'mere absence'.
But anyway, the OP here is convinced that one's own views about reality do not matter for achievements. So, these points are irrelevant to them like those about rebirth.
I am not the one who came up with this and I think the subjectivity of religious experiences has been hotly debated for hundreds, maybe thousands of years.
In this general case I am not out to prove anything to the world, it is simply finding what will be satisfactory for my own journey. Likewise anyone who might be on a similar quest they may or may not resonate with what I am suggesting. Isn't that generally how it works?
People on the path try out different teachings and teachers until they find something that works for them.
Even the Buddha himself went around all different disciplines until he rejected them all and found his own way.
It should be noted that even early Buddhists debated about the nature of Nirvana, the exact meaning of 'not-self' and so on. However this is no textual evidence that I am aware of that any Buddhist school (prior to 'secular Buddhism' of the 20th century) that rejected rebirth. This tells IMO something of how 'central' the belief in samsara/rebirth was to Buddhist from ancient times to nowadays.
To me this is evidence that Buddhists in history regarded belief in the 'supernatural' as somehow essential to their faith.
Quoting unimportant
Fine. But it seemed to me that you claimed that these kinds of beliefs are irrelevant. According to the bulk of tradition, it seems that Buddhist themselves disagreed on this.
Quoting unimportant
And IIRC, it is also often taught to test Buddhist teachings as one tests the purity of gold, i.e. critically. However, IMHO it is quite interesting that despite the disagreements you find about other topics (e.g. the correct interpretation of 'not-self', Nirvana, how to conceive the reality of 'aggregates' and so on), it seems that the various schools agreed on samsara and rebirth. This doesn't necessarily mean that they are right but I believe that one should reflect on this agreement without trying to accept easy answers like "they simply wanted to impose a belief on others to get power" or something.
Unexpectedly, we seem to be in complete agreement that the cessation of suffering is not the point of Buddhism.
I would say I agree if 'suffering' is interpreted as 'suffering as we mean it in our culture' or something like that. Clearly, cessation of 'dukkha' is the aim of Buddhist practice. This is true whether Nirvana is merely the end of dukkha or 'something more'.
Once again I can’t make sense of what you’re saying. I made it explicitly clear that I was referring to what you posted. This:
Quoting SN 56.34, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation
That can’t be “suffering as we mean it in our culture” because our culture didn’t yet exist. Are you trying to say that it’s a bad translation? If so, wasn’t it a mistake to post it, at least without making a note of the bad translation?
Perhaps you mean that the meaning of suffering has been entirely lost?
May I be free of suffering and the roots of suffering
May I be free of fear.
May I be free of anger.
May I be free of craving and aversion.
I've just recite this as a way to reset and enjoy the associated buzz of having a mind and body at peace.
I wouldn't want everyone to be that way all the time because humanity would disappear. I love this world. :smile:
I have got the feeling this user likes to be contrarian rather than agree with points we are saying, perhaps thinking it some kind of losing ground, and will throw a spanner in the works even on things that don't seem contentious just to keep the adversarial dynamic.
If Buddhism is a religion, then without the supernatural and religious elements, it wouldn't be a religion.
The supernaturals and religious elements can be taken in as symbolic phenomenon for beliefs and interpretations. Sufferings too, can be symbolic.
For a billionaire, not having another 100 billions could be felt as suffering. Some folks believe they are reincarnating every morning when they wake up from sleep.
And if we accept that there are many things which has no explanation, for example, your own birth (how were you born as you, not Socrates?), then we could accept we don't know anything about death and reincarnation, and all the supernatural stories?
I wasn't trying to be confrontational or obscure but I can admit that the post you quoted was unclear. So, let me just start by saying that, no, the problem is not the translation. Other scholars used different English words for the Pali word 'dukkha' but that's not the point. Indeed, however, the quote you gave is of pivotal importance. As Nyanaponika Thera wrote in the same essay I already quoted:
Quoting Nyanaponika Thera, Anatta and Nibbana, p.14-5
Clearly, the 'cessation of suffering' is a 'negative description' of Nirvana. What Nyanaponika wrote above seems cogent. It is hard to understand the 'origination and cessation' of 'suffering' if we do not know what 'suffering' is. And, perhaps, we should understand what 'suffering' is in order to reach the 'cessation of suffering'.
Remarkably, the Pali sutta themselves had a rich understanding of the word 'dukkha' that included 'things' that aren't so evident to be 'suffering' for me. I'll quote a few examples:
Quoting SN 56.11, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation, emphasis mine
While arguably the other things that are named are easily seen as suffering except for the 'five aggregates subject to clinging' that clearly is a technical expression, the declaration that 'birth is suffering' can sound strange. How we should understand it?
Another example:
Quoting SN 45.165, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation
Now, "suffering due to pain" seems clear. But what about the other two? What does even mean "suffering due to formations"?
And even another example, where the Buddha is reported as saying:
Quoting SN 36.11, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation, my emphasis
It is not obvious to me that "whatever is felt" should be included under the heading of 'suffering'.
The translator, Bhikku Bodhi, wrote an essay about 'dukkha'. However, it should be noted that there are different interpretation even of what 'dukkha' is among Buddhists. For instance: do arhats and Buddhas suffer while alive? Does the "whatever is felt is included in suffering" apply to those who are without attachments? If you seek online, you find different answers (I have no time right now to point to sources, but I think it is easy to find them).
So, clearly, just appealing to the fact that "suffering" is said to be the problem and "cessation of suffering" the goal doesn't really help to understand "what the Buddha meant". One should be open to the possibility that, perhaps, one might have a different notion of "what is included in suffering" than, say, the Buddha had.
And, if we come back to the problem of 'rebirth'. Is it totally unrelated to what the Buddha (or a specific Buddhist tradition) mean by 'suffering'? Perhaps, yes. But maybe no.
And, I should add that curiously I never found an instance of a pre-20th century Buddhist who denied rebirth. No 'early Buddhist school' (either inside the Mahayana or the 'non-Mahayana') I am aware of denied it. Conversely, you find many discourses attributed to the Buddha in which he explicitly refers to it and even discourses (as the 15th collection of the Samyutta Nikaya I qouted in my earlier posts) in which the Buddha seems pretty clear in using the belief in samsara as a motivator for practice.
Does the above necessarily mean that one can't, for instance, 'become an arhat' without believing in rebirth and samsara? Of course, not. However, one can't help but notice that before the 20th century the belief in rebirth was never (to my knowledge - happy to be proven wrong) a matter of dispute among Buddhists (and some Indian thinkers did deny rebirth even at the time of the Buddha, see the 'Carvaka/Lokiya' school)?
You can find, of course, many examples of disputes among Buddhists. They disagreed on, say, the status of the Mahayana sutras. They disagreed on the interpretation of Nirvana. They disagreed on the nature of the Buddha. They disagreed even on the interpretation of "what is felt is included in suffering". They even disagreed on how to interpret the doctrine of 'not-self' that arguably distinguishes more than anything else Buddhism from other religions. They disagreed on what 'emptiness' means and what are the true 'implication of dependent origination' (just to make an example not all agreed with verse 18 of Sixty Stanzas of Reasoning of Nagarjuna and among Nagarjuna's supporters the precise understanding of such a statement is disputed). The Kathavatthu, a commentarial book included in the Pali Canon (I quoted a brief excerpt of one of its sections before) is a good example of intra-Buddhist controversies and debates.
And despite all of these disagreements among Buddhists, I am not aware of any single pre-20th century disagreement among Buddhists about the belief in samsara.
So what? Does this mean that rebirth happens? Of course, not. Those Buddhist might be wrong. However, it is hard to deny that if something like 'arhatship' or 'Buddhahood' exist those who 'reached' such states endorsed the belief in rebirth. Of course, they might be wrong. But one can wonder if, indeed, to reach such states (even if, say, the Sautrantika were right in their 'negativistic' view of NIrvana that is attributed to them - i.e. Nirvana is just a mere absence) is necessary to believe in those things.
I hope I clarified what I meant and I also hope that I clarified that I am not writing these posts just for the sake of being a 'contrarian' or being obscure for the sake of being obscure or whatever.
Yes thank you and I apologise for the accusation as I think I was a little uncharitable there. You are clearly making honest efforts to explain your position.
I suppose our forking in the road is that you are saying the attainments of Buddhism are explicitly dependant upon the belief in rebirth and that these achievements are exclusive to the religious study of Buddhism and so without walking the path and all it entails then one cannot achieve them while I am saying it is a more general religious experience universal to any good religious practice.
So bad religious practice will not produce results in any schools while good practice of the respective religion will produce results. It may be true though that difference religions are more likely to produce awakened ones as the different religions will have different priorities about these outcomes.
I suppose what I am proposing is, to make an analogy, that there are many different martial arts and they are all capable of causing serious injury in the right hands. The injuries to the unfortunate person on the receiving end will be the same so it doesn't matter which martial art it is, even though the techniques to cause injury might be different.
While what you are saying seems to be the only Buddhism is the effective martial art or maybe the only one to cause a certain kind of damage? while the others might cause different and unique damage but not the same damage as Buddhism?
It seems clear to me that you're simply trying to faithfully support your religious beliefs.
It's curious that in your last post you're largely arguing against yourself. For instance, here you write:
Quoting boundless
You say the Buddha is clear about belief in samsara (not particularly rebirth) as a motivator for practice, and make other references to direct experience, such as this:
Quoting SN 36.11, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation, my emphasis
No one is denying that rebirth is considered Right View in Buddhism. Views change, however, indeed all things change, right?
A classic example of changing views and those revised views not effecting practice is a compass. Some ancient peoples had rather superstitious views about how a compass worked, yet the practice of using one is essentially the same as it is today. The modern 'right view' of how a compass works doesn't make a compass less effective, and it is no less, uh, motivational.
No worries and thanks for the apology. Misunderstanding can happen. I guess that I should also apologize for the tone of some of my comments.
Quoting unimportant
Yes, I think you nailed the point I was making with your analogy.
In other words, I do not believe that we have shown 'beyond reasonable doubts' that beliefs do not influence the practice in such a way that the status one can reach can be different (albeit similar). That said, this is not to say that one can't reach significant mental 'achievements' even from a Buddhist point of view while not believing in Buddhist doctrines. Indeed, it seems that this is accepted even the earliest Buddhist discourses. For instance the Bahiya sutta seems to imply that a serious non-Buddhist meditative practice can make enlightenment easier when one learns about the Dharma. This is quite impressively 'ecumenical' for the time (however, it is undeniable that ancient Buddhists believed that true liberation was to be found only in the Buddha's dispensation, i.e. they were exclusivists. However, they accepted some validity for the practices of other religions/philosophies).
It is interesting that I am again read as seemingly having an 'agenda' behind my posts. In fact, I am not even a Buddhist and I reject the traditional Buddhist/Hindu etc doctrine of samsara/rebirth. It is indeed evident that I am very interested in Buddhism and I concede that some of the Buddhist schools had a considerable metaphysical sophistication.
However, I am not here making an 'apology' to traditional Buddhism(s). To be fair, however, I genuinely find curious the efforts of trying to 'purify' Buddhism of its 'supernatural' elements and still call what remains 'Buddhism'. I don't think that you are doing this but in this thread I was mostly bringing textual evidence of how pervasive among historical Buddhists was the belief in rebirth and while Buddhists had a long history of debates about other important tenets rebirth was never really questioned (again, I am happy to be proven wrong). Personally, I find evidence that Buddhists believed that 'belief in rebirth' was extremely important, perhaps even essential for their spiritual practice. Were they right? Maybe yes, maybe not. However, the 'consensus' one finds is quite interesting.
Quoting praxis
I'm not sure how "And I have also said: ‘Whatever is felt is included in suffering.’ That has been stated by me with reference to the impermanence of formations." is a statement about 'direct experience'. For one, I do not see as 'self-evident' that the impermanence of 'formations' is a cause of suffering. Indeed, one can say that by 'direct experience' one sees that experiences are impermanent. However, it isn't obvious that impermanence must be something negative. It seems to me that many people also enjoy the 'variety' that life offers. For them it isn't obvious that change is a negative factor.
To be fair, one of the earliest accounts of the Buddha's own enlightnment is something like this:
Quoting MN 36, bhikkhu Bodhi translation
Indeed, the Buddha here is reported to say that it is the 'third knowledge' that was essential for 'liberation'. However, he didn't saw it as contradictory to the first two and indeed somehow felt it was important to share them too.
Quoting praxis
Have a read of the suttas contained in SN 15. Belief in literal rebirth was indeed seen as a motivator.
Quoting praxis
this might be an over-semplification of the Buddhist view of impermanence. While not perhaps 'things', according to the Pali Buddhist texts, for instance, the truths of dependent origination and the three marks do not change. If they did change, liberation could become unattainable. While these might not be 'things', Buddhist emphasis on impermanence hardly justifies a view where all is in a 'chaotic flux' in which the 'laws' can change. This is however an important point. If the 'laws' that 'rule' the origination and cessation of suffering do not change, arguably the practice for liberation doesn't change. And this perhaps means that the beliefs on which one bases his or her practice shouldn't change.
Quoting praxis
While this might be true and I have no particular arguments against the principle you are following here, I wouldn't be so sure that we have sufficient evidence to say that belief in literal rebirth isn't essential to achieve the 'states of mind' that Buddhist historically attributed to arhats, Buddhas and so on. In other words, I am not saying that you're automatically wrong in saying this nor I am saying that I am certain that, say, different religious traditions can't reach the same state.
I'm just saying, however, it is best to be aware of what Buddhists have said about these topics in the history of their traditions. Indeed, if one truly believes that, say, the Buddha and other people that followed his teachings were truly 'enlightened' (whatever that means) it seems to me that the best strategy to follow to reach their 'goal' is to take seriously their reported words. And to me the fact that nobody in the Buddhist traditions seems to have questioned the belief in literal rebirths (and, in fact, they generally taught it as true and as a basis for motivation for practice) should be taken more seriously.
Of course, at the end of the day it might be irrelevant for reaching 'enlightenment'. For all I know, someday a human being who will reach the same 'achievements' of the Buddha might tell us that the previous Buddhists were just wrong about that.
Lol, while they have stated they definitely are not Buddhist or believe their beliefs they do seem to have an extreme interest in supporting them beyond an interested layperson.
I don't think it matters if they are believers or not, and I take them at their word they are not.
@boundless whether you believe or not it seems you were earlier stating that my subjective belief that the same attainment can be achieved from any religious school was incorrect and implied I had no place stating that based on textual evidence, yet you have countered it as being incorrect only with Buddhist textual evidence that rebirth is essential and such so why is your text better than mine? You were also quite condescending about my suppositions earlier which implies you think your beliefs are better and 'right'. It seems odd you defend Buddhism so doggedly if you are not invested in it. I took the more pantheistic view that neither one is more right, so long as it gets to the destination, which you were also dismissive of. This, rather that what I apologised for above, is what I took issue with.
Incidentally, I studied Buddhism for years and at times I considered the idea even of ordaining (however I never formally joined any tradition). So, I see Buddhist traditions as relevant and it still happens that I enjoy a lot studying, learning and discussing about them. Incidentally, I also lean towards some form panentheism now.
But anyway, apparently I am also coming across as arrogant or something like that even if I have no intention of being that. I take this as an occasion for reflection on how I am engaging these kinds of debate. For this reason, I step down from this discussion and this is my last post on this thread.
You haven’t read the chapters and can’t point out where it says that?
We’ve been preaching to the choir the whole time and didn’t realize it. Silly us. :lol:
Wrong. It's absolutely central. Buddhism stands and falls with kamma and rebirth.
The order of understanding is crucial: Kamma, therefore, rebirth.
If one understands kamma, one will understand rebirth. In that order.
So it's not about starting out with "believing in rebirth".
Perhaps what makes the most difference in comparison to the way Westerners are used to approach religion/spirituality (as typified by Christianity) is that in terms of Dhammic culture, one is expected to be willing to devote decades to studying kamma (or any other Dhammic topic). This doesn't mean that it will or should take that long; but it's about the willingness to think in the long term -- really long term. Typically, Westerners aren't used to think in such long-term time-frames.
Why do you call them "supernatural"? Can you explain?
That's a strange formulation. It's a bit like asking, "Do I need to do something that I find repugnant in order to live a good life?"
Quoting unimportant
Why on earth would anyone want that??
Do you want to be like these guys? Why?
Engaging in some kind of religious or spiritual practice in order to become (better) able to endure physical hardship is still a form of "spiritual materialism," as well as pride.
Secondly, wanting to do it all on one's own terms points at possible trust issues.
I think your approach to "spiritual development" is backwards. You're basically asking, "How can I get the promised results without giving what I'm told to give?"
Why would you want the results that someone else is promising, but you don't want to do what they're telling you to do in order to get those results?
Same here.
Absolutely. This puzzles me the most as well. Why do some people go to such great lengths to invent their own paths and practices, and then still call them "Buddhist"??
Quoting boundless
I hope you'll be back, in this thread or another one. I've been involved with Buddhism for over twenty years, but have since distanced myself and am still trying to make sense of it all.
I understand that perfectly well. It’s more like, ‘don’t let ideas about reincarnation stop you from understanding Buddhism better’. As regards ‘supernatural’, I often point out that one of the traditional epithets of the Buddha is ‘lokuttara’ meaning ‘above the world’. The core of Buddhism is world-transcending, although again it means something different in Buddhist cultures, because the battle lines between ‘natural’ and ‘supernatural’ aren’t drawn in the same way (or never were drawn.)
And how exactly would a person go about doing that -- ie. not letting "ideas about reincarnation stop you from understanding Buddhism better"?
Can you actually sketch out the thought processes involved in this, along with the practical steps?
Perhaps you're just being nice. I've been around Buddhism for quite some time. I've seen many people who "didn't let ideas about reincarnation stop them from understanding Buddhism". They were involved in Buddhism for five, ten, twenty, thirty, even forty years. And even after all that time, they didn't move one bit, they had the same doubts and questions after all that time as they had when they first got involved. They didn't "believe in rebirth" when they were new to Buddhism, and they didn't "believe in rebirth" forty years later -- even though some have even attained positions of much power and prestige in their respective Buddhist organizations.
So I'm skeptical it's even possible to "understand Buddhism better" without looking into the issue of (kamma and) rebirth, if this is something that one finds particularly stumbling.
There are things in religion that no one knows and there are no answers to.
I’ve always thought that modern Western readers supplement ancient Eastern wisdom with ideas that are strictly modern, and in so doing are taking what I call a nostalgic position.
The nostalgic position asserts that some individual or culture in our distant past ‘got it right' by arriving at a way of understanding the nature of things that we drifted away from for many centuries and are just now coming back to. So the latest and most advanced philosophical thinking of the West today is just a belated return to what was already discovered long ago. I dont buy the nostalgic position. I think it is only when we interpret ancient thought in a superficial way that it appears their ideas were consonant with modern phenomenology and related approaches. Why are we so prone to misreading the ancients this way? I believe this comes from emphasizing only the aspect of their thought which appears familiar to we postmoderns (recursive becoming) and ignoring the crucial hidden dimension (a pre-Platonic , pre-Christian universalism).
Western philosophy after Hegel shifted its attention away from unchanging foundations and towards a discourse of evolution, revolution and becoming in which foundations become relative, contingent and impermanent. The primacy of the self-knowing ego and the purposefulness of the grasping will were put into question. Some of these philosophers took note of the fact that Buddhist scholars also talked about egolessness and non-willing.
But I want to argue that the most valuable consequence of the modern turn toward becoming was that it represented a further step in the evolution of Western thinking toward ways of understanding the world in terms of intricate relationships, harmonies, interconnections and correlations. This process necessarily had to start out with the belief in fixed objects and universal laws as a ground for seeing consistencies and stabilities in the world, before it could go on to deconstruct thes foundations. My contention is that ancient buddhist thought is not post-Western but pre-Western. The metaphysics behind Indra's web, the Tao Te Ching and related teachings as they were intended two thousand years ago are so profoundly alien to contemporary Western philosophical thinking that they run the risk of being mistaken as profoundly similar and compatible.
Whereas Postmodern views of change and becoming originate from a radically self-subverting groundless ground, Buddhist becoming rests on a cosmology of universalistic , sovereign normative grounds (what it is that unifies the infinite relational changes within Indra's web). Unlike Platonic and Christian metaphysics, this sovereign ground is not made explicit. The ancients were not able to articulate this ground in the universalistic language of a philosophy. But it authorizes and justifies conformist, repressive social ethics and political practices which have persisted for two millennia in Buddhist cultures. Postmodernism emerges from a self-undermining, groundless critique of Western metaphysics, whereas Buddhism often presupposes a cosmic order (e.g., karma, Dharma, Indra's net) that is anything but contingent. Many ancient philosophies, including Buddhism, Taoism, and Vedic thought, operate within a framework of normative cosmology: an ordered, purposeful universe with implicit or explicit ethical imperatives. This is starkly different from postmodernism's rejection of fixed foundations.
Buddhist metaphysics (e.g., dependent origination, Indra's net) was not a proto-deconstruction but a cosmological model of interdependence, often tied to hierarchical, tradition-bound societies. The ethical and political dimensions of Buddhism (e.g., monastic conformity, merit-based hierarchies) reflect this embedded universalism, which contrasts sharply with postmodernism's anti-foundationalism. The Taoist wu-wei or Buddhist anatta (no-self) are not mere parallels to postmodern fluidity but are situated within teleological or soteriological frameworks that postmodernism explicitly rejects. Buddhist societies, like all traditional cultures, have often enforced conformity, hierarchy, and static social orders, precisely because their metaphysics assumes a normative cosmic blueprint. This is a far cry from the emancipatory aims of much postmodern thought, even if both might critique the "ego" or "fixed identity.
It is not about inventing your own path and still calling it Buddhist; it is about having grown up in a time of modern science which refutes central tenets of Buddhism and thus seeing fundamental problems with following that path in earnest without sloughing those parts away.
I don't care what it is called if it was a fruitful path. This isn't about gutting Buddhism and still calling it Buddhism. It is about asking the question, can one have a fruitful practice, whatever you call it, without those supernatural elements.
Nothing to do with revisionism. It is an open question as to whether one can have a good practice without supernatural elements - again - whether it is called Buddhism or not is not the subject of this post. Good practice would be the attainment of what is loosely called enlightenment as the ultimate goal but there are many positive checkpoints on the way before that too which could be called worthwhile goals in themselves.
I am reading Joseph Campbell's Masks of God, the volume on Oriental Mythology and he makes a distinction between the eastern traditions of India and the Far Eastern traditions of China an Japan.
Indian would be Buddhist and Hindu and China, so far he is discussing Taoism - I am not far into the book so will go over much more I am sure.
An important point though so far is that he states that enlightenment in the East is generally seen as going beyond the world of forms and achieving stillness in the nothingness beyond while in the Taoist, and he implies other far eastern traditions too, the idea of enlightenment rests in seeing the arising of things and just accepting it and engaging with it in none attached play - wu wei.
Now of course there was heavy intermingling between the two once Buddhism reached the Far East but the point is there was an idea and practice of what may be called Enlightenment before the dominant Eastern idea, with all its other baggage of rebirth would have come with it in the form of the Buddhist package.
So ideas of enlightenment are out there, and have been for thousands of years, even predating Buddhism, without this dogged clinging to rebirth as a necessary part of it that most the Buddhist advocates here are advocating unwaveringly.
Now I imagine Taoism would have its own holdover dogmas from the time which could also be seen as parochial today but if rebirth is not one of them, maybe they also believed in it I don't know too much, but certainly have not read about it front and centre like it was in Buddhism when I used to study Taoism quite a bit years ago, we can assume it is not essential for attainment of what one might call enlightenment.
Ok, just a quick search which turns up this, which seems to state that Taoism is more focused on life than life after death (rebirth) which is what I do loosely remember it as being: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism_and_death
Now reading that it reminds me of their own supernatural elements such as immortality through storing up semen or suchlike. Ghenghis Khan was supposed to have consulted a Taoist before dying to try to attain immortality but of course failed.
I suppose a definition of enlightenment in the current discussion would be appropriate. I would just put it as finding inner peace in this life to get rid of the usual gnawing existential anxiety of 'birth, old age, sickness and death'. Nothing more or less.
This is also what Buddhism defines as enlightenment, to be free of mental suffering of the cognisance of those causes. People here are saying that one must necessarily believe in rebirth to achieve that goal where as I am proposing it can be achieved in different ways. That is not contingent upon believing in rebirth, though it certainly might help some if they do believe in it, it is not contingent upon it. To simply fully accept the comings and goings of life, as seems to be the Taoist way, seems also to be another way to achieve this peace. There are many other ways too probably which don't rely on rebirth as a central tenet.
Lol, ok looking at my own thread title I see the focus on Buddhism is largely my own fault, but my thoughts developed as a product of the discussion so far. It would probably be better to revise the question to: Can enlightenment be achieved without appeal to any supernatural elements?
It also began as a renunciate movement outside the social structures of Vedic religion and the caste system. It has of course subsequently become intertwined with cultural and social structures but that was not its original rationale.
Or they promise limitations and deliver salvation. Depends on your point of view. :wink:
If that's your point of view then you must be saved. Congrats! :party:
Perhaps. But when people make a point of considering themselves members and representatives of a religion and even attain positions of power in said religion's organizations, and yet openly declare their doubts about the basic tenets of said religion -- then one has to wonder what is going on and what kind of people they are.
Yes, to the first part, but it's not clear what you mean by the second part.
Yes.
Yes.
Agreed.
I'm not sure they were "unable"; in terms of the Pali Canon, the operating concept is "an inconceivable beginning, "a beginning point is not discernible".
A standard formulation goes like this:
“From an inconceivable beginning comes the wandering-on. A beginning point is not discernible, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating & wandering on."
E.g. here in SN 15:13.
I have heard several explanations as to why the teachings don't say explicitly "why and where did it all start", and some of those explanations amount to "it's not necessary to know this in order to practice".
They are "conformist, repressive" only from a particular modern perspective. The Asians themselves traditionally don't think those ethics and practices are repressive or conformist; on the contrary, they believe that people are just "getting what they deserve".
There are, for example, ethics and practices in traditionally Buddhist cultures that a Westerner would call misogynistic, but the Asians don't think so.
So what do you make of that?
To get back to the beginning of your post and my reply to it: I have found that the most radical thing one can do, as far as Buddhism is concerned, is to be a Westerner and explicitly approach (or at least attempt to approach it) the Asian way. Show up in some Buddhist venue, whether a Western or Asian one, and show that you take for granted that the Buddhist tradition is correct, and, if you're lucky, you'll be ridiculed. If not so lucky, you'll be considered disrespectful, "spreading lies about Buddhism" and such.
It's bizarre, really. In my experience, the most rebellious, radical thing you can do is to openly have no qualms about kamma and rebirth -- and Buddhists East and West will at least dislike you.
This is what I would call the nostalgic position: to take the Buddhist tradition at face value, along with all the things that are utterly unpalatable to modern Western consumers (!) of Buddhism, but, oddly enough, to Easterners too.
You said "modern Western readers supplement ancient Eastern wisdom with ideas that are strictly modern". Next to the ones you mentioned already, I'll add democratic and liberal ideas. Which are just not there in the tradition, yet esp. Western Buddhists tend to read them into the teachings, and get offended if you point this out. In so doing, they are actually enacting that very authoritarian, hierarchial mentality that they nominally so vehemently oppose.
They sound like honest people to me.
To me, they sound like people who are not serious about their religion.
@Joshs What do you have to say to this?
Do you agree with Wayfarer's assessment of your stance?
Well then, whatcha waiting for?!
People who promise to know the way to enlightenment are a dime a dozen, including those who believe one doesn't need the "supernatural elements". It's on you to take the next step, though, which is actually what seems to be at issue here.
I don’t see how hiding their doubts would indicate a greater seriousness. If they’re serious about preserving the religion then yeah, I suppose hiding one’s doubts about it could show a serious effort to towards the conservation of it. For a serious spiritual seeker, on the other hand, questioning and doubt may come with the territory.
I actually don't doubt that Buddhist practice (as defined and described in traditional Buddhism) leads to the complete cessation of suffering. It's just that nobody in their right mind could want that. For all practical intents and purposes, Buddhism is basically saying, "No man, no problem," ie. "conceptually annihilate yourself and you will not suffer, for there will be no one to suffer". One cannot, in one's currently unenlightened position, intelligibly and consistently want such a thing.
Who said anything about "hiding" one's doubts?
An honorable person will simply not take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt.
Remember, we're talking here not about an ordinary seeker, but about people who attain positions of power within religious organizations.
Why not, or what makes it dishonorable?
I’m essentially with you on this. A lack of doubt is a red flag for me. People without doubt tend toward fundamentalism or zealotry. Certainty, and deference to power, are seductive for certain people: acolytes and followers, most notably. Certainty is also the perfect mindset if you wish to practice a little mass murder.
That’s obviously your strong opinion. But I don’t think doubt is the same thing as dishonesty or bad faith. Nor do I think it can be shown that certainty is a prerequisite for integrity. Many religious traditions have been shaped by doubters, dissenters, and people who challenged prevailing beliefs. You may prefer to divide the world into exceptional figures who doubt and challenge, like Jesus or the Buddha, and everyone else who should kneel in deference, but that strikes me more as the posture of an arch-conservative, rather than a fact. I don't know where you are coming from in this maybe you can say soem more.
Like I said: Remember, we're talking here not about an ordinary seeker, but about people who attain positions of power within religious organizations.
We're talking here about people who go up to the pulpit, who sit in front of others, and who tell others that the teachings of their religion are true, and who hold it against others and judge them and even expell them for not professing such belief. And yet these same people in positions of power, in other situations, go ahead and admit to having doubts.
In other words, it's a case of double standards: Those in positions of power don't have to take the religion seriously, but those lower in the hierarchy do.
You don't have a problem with that?
Really? You believe than an honorable person will take on positions of power in a religious organization whose tenets they doubt?
Quoting Tom Storm
You like a pope who doubts God exists, for example?
Of course. But you overstate this. They might take issue with some or several things, not all things. I would have serious concerns with someone who is 100% accepting of any philosophy or religion.
Quoting baker
You pick an unlikely one. But a Pope who doubts aspects of doctrine and practice is natural.
And that said, a Pope who doubts particular accounts of God (theistic personalism or a vengeful God) yes, absolutely.
This matter doesn't seem to be an either/or situation.
I’m at somewhat of a loss here—if you’re pearl clutching over that, all I can think is you haven’t been around much in Buddhist circles.
Maybe in part but you cannot really be claiming that is all that is entailed in becoming enlightened? You know another huge institution which has those qualities you state? The military. Not seen many Buddhas come out of their ranks. :D
To give you a liferaft so to speak I would say the ritual is a part but only one. I think what kind of rituals must be examined, not just any old ritual. Many professions have mechanical rituals and again we cannot say they have anything to do with the subject of enlightenment.
This seems a very idiosyncratic view to you. Never heard anything like that and I doubt most people in Buddhism would agree to that either. More likely they will not say anything and welcome you with open arms. What kind of Buddhists would they be if they did the passive aggressive stuff you mentioned there? Sounds more like something in a housewives cooking class.
Making the post, and studying religions and the common threads does not count as a step? It might not to you, as you seem to been pushing orthodoxy to whatever school, but it does to me.
This is exactly what the 'you must completely adhere to the teachings or you are going to get nowhere' folks in the thread, and the usual mindset I see when I have asked similar questions elsewhere in the past, are like imo. Fundamental uncritical faith or you are not practising at all.
I just realised this is actually really ironic and the opposite of what the Buddha himself suggested. In his sutras he would talk about how you should not believe him, but practice and see for yourself through experience. Also didn't he become enlightened by refuting all the myriad systems he tried before and looking for his own way?
How far would he have gotten if he followed these 'total faith in one school or nothing' folks? There would be no Buddhism. :)
Which seems to imply that the rituals (and other aspects of religion?) are superfluous to enlightenment :starstruck: . If that's the case then what purpose does religion serve?
I am confident Buddhism is exactly what it takes itself to be, a way to end suffering. The issue for me is what framework of understanding it uses to define suffering and its alleviation. There are those who see suffering through a very different lens, such that ending it is not only not desirable but also an incoherent notion.
The 'framework of understanding' is that of 'depedendent origination' (Prat?tyasamutp?da) - the sequence of stages which culminate in birth (and hence sickness, old age and death). In religious studies, it is called 'soteriological', meaning concerned with salvation, although the word 'salvation' is more typically associated with Christianity. The Buddhist term is Nirv??a (nibanna) which refers to the complete cessation of re-birth and therefore of suffering.
Plainly, Buddhism, like the Vedic tradition from which it broke away, is embedded in a very different conception of the nature of existence, than is the Judeo-Christian tradition. The way Christianity developed in Western history was was shaped by the belief in the Eschaton, the culmination of history, which arguably gave rise to the ideology of progress which still holds sway, even if it has abandoned its original, religious rationale. (I entertain the idea that the belief in the possibility of interstellar exploration represents the sublimated longing for heaven.)
The underlying intuition of both Hinduism and Buddhism is that of cycles of existence, or creation and destruction, birth and death, from the individual to the cosmic scale, taking place over 'vast aeons of kalpas'. The Buddha, then, is said to show 'the way' (Marga) of liberation from the cycle of birth and death. (I don't think there is a direct equivalent of the Hindu and Buddhist terms 'mok?a' or 'Nirv??a' in the English lexicon, so they are usually equated, incorrectly, with the Christian idea of salvation.)
However here the distinction between Mah?y?na and Theravada (Pali) Buddhism is significant. H H The Dalai Lama expressed it like this:
[quote=H H The Dalal Lama, Statement on the Issue of HIs Reincarnation; https://www.dalailama.com/news/2011/statement-of-his-holiness-the-fourteenth-dalai-lama-tenzin-gyatso-on-the-issue-of-his-reincarnation]There are two ways in which someone can take rebirth after death: rebirth under the sway of karma and destructive emotions and rebirth through the power of compassion and prayer. Regarding the first, due to ignorance negative and positive karma are created and their imprints remain on the consciousness. These are reactivated through craving and grasping, propelling us into the next life. We then take rebirth involuntarily in higher or lower realms. This is the way ordinary beings circle incessantly through existence like the turning of a wheel. Even under such circumstances ordinary beings can engage diligently with a positive aspiration in virtuous practices in their day-to-day lives. They familiarise themselves with virtue that at the time of death can be reactivated providing the means for them to take rebirth in a higher realm of existence. On the other hand, superior Bodhisattvas, who have attained the path of seeing, are not reborn through the force of their karma and destructive emotions, but due to the power of their compassion for sentient beings and based on their prayers to benefit others. They are able to choose their place and time of birth as well as their future parents. Such a rebirth, which is solely for the benefit of others, is rebirth through the force of compassion and prayer.[/quote]
This plainly introduces a very different conception of suffering in that it provides for the possibility of voluntary re-birth, and therefore voluntary suffering in the Christian sense. The aim of Theravada Buddhism is cessation tout courte, with no mind to the suffering of others. Hence the centrality of compassion in Mah?y?na Buddhism.
The intention of 'secular Buddhism' aims to retain the therapeutic and emotionally remedial aspects of Buddhism, without the soteriological framework within which it was originally posed. Which is all well and good, as far as it goes, but from the Buddhist perspective, that is not necessarily very far!
One can be ‘very different’ in a number of respects. One
can be so by arising independently of Western trajectories of thought, such that Westerners must access them by abandoning their own assumptions or evolving towards them. Or one can do so by being more ancient, such that it takes skilled investigation to recognize how forms of thought not unlike Buddhism and Hinduism hide deep within the foundations of judeo-christian traditions.
Quoting Analayo Bhikkhu, Rebirth in Early Buddhism and Current Research (pp. 47-48), Kindle Edition
I think there are many people in religion and politics for whom rigid categories and binary thinking make sense. It’s how they see the world. For them, it’s all or nothing; you’re either for me or against me, that kind of thing. They tend to think in absolutes, with little room for nuance or ambiguity.
Quoting unimportant
Yes, I think that’s right, and that’s why I labelled him a doubter earlier. From what little I know, he seems to have doubted (perhaps eschewed is a better term) rigid categories, established authorities, hierarchies, rituals, and inherited structures. But when someone establishes a new system, it is generally predicated on rejecting the "sacred truths" of other systems.
Quoting unimportant
I have a minor knowledge of the history or development of Buddhism, but that's an interesting line of inquiry. Religions tend to have a scattered period of formation followed by ossification and rigidity. I have a mild curiosity about Buddhism, but it’s been many years since I read about it. To me, in my culture it often seems to be the religion some Westerners embrace when they fail to find Christianity satisfying and simultaneously find themselves unable to be secular humanists. It’s been the counterculture faith.:razz:
Well the problem with this is that enlightenment as an idea and a goal was introduced in a system which took the supernatural for granted*. Although, what was meant by the supernatural was very different to what is meant now. Indeed everything was so different then in every way. So in reality in the modern world, we have to reinvent it in a modern context. This may be where the root of the conflict of ideas about the supernatural and modern practice arises.
If by enlightenment you mean the awakening of your true being, or what Google describes as;
Then this can be done absent any religion, ideology, or teaching. It is a natural process which can be done in isolation. But religious teachings and practice provide a system that helps, or directs people in achieving this goal**.
My advice to you would be to view the supernatural teachings in Buddhism as symbolic, or allegorical. They provide a narrative which provides a framework, or intellectual structure that the individual can use to build a personal narrative which enables them to undertake that natural process. From what I’ve experienced from my brief foray into Buddhism, a few years ago now, is that it is the meditation based practice itself which is important here, not the religious teachings.
*I don’t want to get into discussions of religious teachings and ideology here, as I’m no expert and focus more on practice myself than studying religion.
**It is important to mention here, that to undergo this process, there are a number of stumbling blocks, which most people fail to navigate at some point along their journey and to go all the way, would require guidance of some sort. Although I think there are “naturals” who emerge from time to time in societies who get there on their own. Also, I don’t think anyone can be a candidate for enlightenment, but only those who are at a suitable point of natural development. Which in their nature would cause them to seek out a suitable school, or route to undergo the process.
Given your clarification, I think I might return to this thread. To be honest, I don't think you'll find a satisfying answer to your question here. Unless somebody is actually 'enlightened', how could one answer with certainty to your answer?
In my posts where I presented evidence of the presence of the belief rebirth in Buddhism and the apparent universal acceptance of that belief in Buddhist traditions, my point was to make an argument that a traditionalist Buddhist would make to answer your question in the negative.
So, certainly my point wasn't to tell you this:
Quoting unimportant
It was just the traditionalists apparently believed that the belief of rebirth was a strong motivator for practising and that it was taught by people who they deemed to be enlightened.
However, I believe that it is impossible to give a philosophical argument to answer either in the positive or in the negative to your question:
Quoting unimportant
The only possible way is, as you yourself say:
Quoting unimportant
i.e. try and see if it is indeed possible for yourself. Apologies if I came across as asserting this kind of view:
Quoting unimportant
It certainly wasn't my intention.
Quoting praxis
Ok, I'll quote some of those suttas. I leave the judgment for the reader. It seems to me evident that these suttas treat the belief of literal rebirth in samsara as a strong motivator for practice but I'll let the reader to judge for himself/herself (again, in order to avoid misunderstanding, I don't think that this proves that rebirth is logically necessary to get enlightnened).
Quoting SN 15.3, bhikkhu Sujato translation
Quoting SN 15.11, bhikkhu Sujato translation
Quoting SN 15.13, bhikkhu Sujato translation
Quoting SN 15.14, bhikkhu Sujato translation
That said, all of this doesn't disqualify bhikkhu Analayo's quote in this post:
To an outsider, this makes sense. To an insider or a prospective insider, it doesn't.
Really? And you don't mind submitting to such a doubting pope? You don't mind if such a pope, being the Grand Inquisitor, orders people like you (including you) to be burnt at the stakes for heresy?
Quoting Tom Storm
You (and @praxis) keep taking this in the direction I don't want it to go, and you keep ignoring my direction.
What I want is to put yourself in the shoes of a seeker, an outsider even, or at most a beginner, who shows up in a religious organization and witnesses there are double standards: those higher up in the hierarchy don't have to act in line with the tenets of the religious organization, but those lower in the hierarchy do, and are punished if they don't. Now what do you make of it?
This is the kind of dynamics that tends to crop up in various human communities, not just religious ones. It happens in society in general where aristocrats can routinely get away with murder (somehow, noblesse doesn't oblige, it absolves). In big businesses, the higher-ups can do all kinds of shit and get away with it, while the ordinary employees pay the price. Parents get to do things that children are punished for -- such as lying or using physical force.
How is it that morality is so amoebic, so status-dependent? How does one make sense of it? Specifically in the context of a spiritual search?
You misunderstand.
It's a case of simple causality: In order to get A, you need to do B.
You, on the other hand, seem like someone who, say, wants to make an egg omelette, but refuses to use eggs. Or like someone who claims he wants to know the taste of an apple, but refuses to actually taste an apple.
Nobody is telling you you must do B, this isn't Christianity or Islam.
You are perfectly free not to do B.
All they are saying is that if you want to get to A, you need to do B.
People keep saying this. You'll need to provide an actual quote from the Canon for this.
That's your Western take on it.
He didn't "refute them", he later realized where they went wrong.
By following the other teachers, he got to the doorstep of nibbana.
The problem is that you refer to the Buddha as some kind of authority or a worthy role model -- when it pleases you. But other times, and regarding other traditional aspects of the Buddha, you dismiss.
This Humpty Dumpty attitude is tiresome, at the very least.
Quoting unimportant
No. It's procrastination.
You clearly say you want "enlightenment", but all you do is putter around, spinning your wheels.
Quoting unimportant
See my reply to Tom Storm above. My posts are not about how leaders should act, but about how a seeker can understand the actions of those leaders when they preach one thing and expect it from the lowly others, but they themselves don't adhere to what they preach. Which is exactly about the problem of how a seeker can find their own path.
Yes. And?
It's not clear what you want in all this.
Are you just doing research for your writing work?
Do you actually, personally, want to relieve your suffering?
Do you want to "know how things really are"?
If you want the traditional Buddhist framework of understanding it uses to define suffering and its alleviation, then I can tell you that as beings who are not Buddhas (not "rightfully self-enlightened") we cannot know that for ourselves. The traditional image is that of a handful of leaves; ie. what the Buddha teaches is like a mere handful of leaves, compared to all the leaves that are in the forest, which is the image of the extent of the Buddha's full knowledge. As we are born within a current Buddha's dispensation, we are bound to have limited knowledge and we are bound to have to follow in the Buddha's footsteps, in the sense that we cannot blaze our own trail to enlightenment. We are unable to know and do what a "rightfully self-enlightened" being is able to know and do. -- Thus says the tradition.
For a modern Westerner, a basic assumption is that knowledge is in some essential way liberal and democratic and that everyone can potentially attain to it, regardless of socio-economic status. But traditional cultures don't make this assumption, and ordinary people are actually expected not to wonder why and not to make reply (and just give money and do favors and die, to be a bit cynical). The metaphysical framework in which understanding in traditional cultures works has hierarchy and authoritarianism as essential components.
Also, for a framework of understanding Buddhism uses to define suffering and its alleviation you could look to the grand Buddhist meta-text, the Abhidhamma, which goes into details about such things in a systematic way.
But, again, I sense that this is not what you're looking for. You seem to be looking for some kind of neutral, objective, impersonal, depersonalized, suprareligious account of things. I'll contend that no such account exists.
But this holds only within Buddhism and in regard to Buddhism. Of course, Buddhists will possibly say it applies to everyone, but outsiders to Buddhism aren't likely to think so.
I'm sensing @Joshs is looking for something that requires neither insider knowledge nor insider status
in order to make sense.
Quoting Wayfarer
Mahayanis and their fans keep saying that. It's not true, though. It's that Theravada doesn't believe that one can save another, and this goes back to the workings of kamma. Not some kind of "selfishness" or "small-mindedness" or some such as Mahayana likes to accuse Theravada of.
Oddly enough, religions that focus heavily on compassion also like to balance this out with cruelty otherwise...
Yes.
That sounds like a kind of argument from authority. The authority in this instance is the insider, whose world the outsider could not possibly understand. I'm not convinced.
Quoting baker
How did we suddenly arrive at stake burning? Whether a given pope had doubts or not, in history he could make whatever decision he wanted, which shows the abuse of power is inherent in the authority, not the doubting. Of course, no pope has ordered this in centuries, nor could one today. So I’m not sure what this point is doing here.
Quoting baker
Well, this doesn’t really address the issue of whether holding doubts within a belief system is good or bad. What you describe just seems to be common human behavior. But what do you mean by a 'double standard'? Are you referencing a hypocrisy, or a bifurcated belief system with different practices for each stream? An elitist stream and an ordinary or folk stream?
Who is punished for not holding a particular belief today, except by faiths with narrow, intolerant, and fundamentalist belief systems? Apostates are hanged in some Islamic countries. Do we consider this an authentic expression of God’s will? Perhaps some robust doubt might be reasonable here.
As an aside, isn't it the case that in hierarchies there is often a large gulf between the top and lower levels in terms of belief? Sometimes this is simply a question of education and sophistication. Beliefs about the nature of God, built from classical theism and held by an educated Jesuit, will be completely different from the God beliefs built from the theistic personalism of a common believer.
Quoting baker
I'm sure there are a range of interpretations possible. For one thing, a leader may say, "I don’t need to do this because I am further along than you, but you do."
Or just read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's The Truth of Rebirth And Why It Matters for Buddhist Practice.
He conveniently compiled a great number of arguments and sources.
One thing I would point out, if we're talking about taking belief in rebirth as a motivator for practice is this: The practice to make an end to suffering as worked out in the Nible Eightfold Path is something that requires a lot of work, a lot of time; and as such, for many people, probably more than one lifetime. It's a multi-lifetime project.
If, however, one limits oneself to just this one current lifetime, then enlightenment is an extremely uncertain possibility, since death can happen at any time and all of one's efforts can be cut short without coming to fruition. The belief that there is only this one lifetime is actually demotivating as far as practice for enlightenment goes.
So what tends to happen in Western Buddhist circles where people believe there is only this one lifetime is this:
1. People believe nibbana (a complete cessation of suffering) is impossible.
2. People believe nibbana is a matter of luck.
3. People believe nibbana requires very little work and can be attained easily.
4. People believe they are already enlightened.
5. People believe they will certainly become enlightened, at the very least at the moment of death.
None of this is, of course, in line with the traditional Buddhist teachings, nor is it motivating for practice.
Well, I don't deny that I am "overly sensitive" and a "weakling" ...
Although my main issue is that the kind of group dynamics sketched out above and which I witnessed in various religious/spiritual settings are a waste of time, at the very least. It's like willingly entering a dysfunctional relationship.
I believe that @Wayfarer meant that the end goal for Theravada is a state in which the 'enlightened' can't help other sentient beings. Buddhas and arhats can help sentient beings while alive but they can't keep help after 'Nirvana without reminder'.
Personally, I consider Mahayana and Theravada separate religions. They of course share a lot in common but they have radically different beliefs.
Quoting baker
Yes, that's a good source. However, I don't see how a disagreement about rebirth would disqualify one to try and see for himself or herself.
Personally, I think that if rebirth isn't real, then also the Buddhist (of all schools) conceptions of Nibbana/Nirvana, anatta/anatman and so on become incoherent. In my previous posts in this thread I explained why I think so and why I can't make sense of these doctrines (in all their 'variations' among historical Buddhist schools I know of) without the belief in traditional rebirth.
However, I can understand why someone who can't accept the traditional belief of rebirth might still want to achieve 'the mind at peace' that Buddhist traditions promise (a mind that is freed from all hatred, anxiety etc is certainly a desirable goal not just for Buddhist). At the end of the day, despite what I have said before, I do believe that the 'only way to know' is actually try to practice and see for oneself. Philosophical and exegetical arguments can get us up to a point.
Quoting baker
Yes, I tend to agree with you that without the belief in rebirth long-term practice is difficult to maintain and one might become convinced of one or all these things. However, since we are in a philosophical forum, I would point out that this outcome is not logically necessary. It is arguable that without a strong motivator, one can't sustain the practice (such was my case, just to make an example) but that doesn't imply it is the necessary outcome.
Again, I'm interested in looking at things from the perspective of a (prospective) insider, and specifically, "What would it be like and what would it take to become a practitioner and to obtain the promised results?"
You seem to be interested in some objective, external analysis of the situation and people. It's not clear why.
A seeker has to know the history and the formal power that the leaders have in the religion he's approaching, even if there are at first unpalatable aspects to this.
Were the Inquisition and the Crusades an abuse of power, or a mere use of power? What if the popes in the past did what they did because they were "further along than you"?
A seeker needs to come to terms with such things if he wants to explore a religion, or else he's up for some very rude awakenings.
For me, this has never been the issue in this discussion. I think it's inevitable at least for a seeker or a beginner to have doubts. The question is what to do about them, how to make sense of them and of one's prospective membership in a religion.
Yes.
The punishment doesn't have to be in the form of whipping or hanging. The more common form of punishment is to slowly push the doubting person out of the group, without this ever being made explicit and instead made to look like the person's own choice and fault.
Of course. The thing is that if you're a person of a particular category, then in a religion, a level of the spiritual attaiment possible for you will be ascribed to you and you will be treated accordingly, regardless of what you want or know or do. For example, if you're poor and female and new to the religion, you'll be considered as something of a spiritual retard and treated like this (at least metaphorically, but possibly physically, too). And this is by people you are supposed to depend on for your spiritual guidance. So what do you do? Do you accept that they are "further along than you" and that you need to accept their treatment (however abusive you find it)?
Surely @Wayfarer will answer for himself. But this was about a pretty standard theme: According to Theravada, one person cannot save another, ever, one person cannot do the work for another, ever. And this goes back to intention being kamma, and kamma being what matters; and one person cannot intend for another, instead of another.
Absolutely.
Not disqualify, but certainly demotivate. From what I've seen, people who believe this one lifetime is all there is just don't explore much Buddhism; they just don't. Apparently they're so put off by any mention of rebirth that they lose their ability to pay attention or something.
I've seen some Buddhists who hold a view that rebirth applies on a moment-to-moment basis (and not to multiple, serial births); and the proponents of the "momentariness" view have put in considerable effort to interpret all teachings in line with that (recasting some of those that don't seem to fit as "metaphorical", others as "later additions", and yet others as "corruptions").
Exactly, as I've been trying to tell the OP.
Of course. There are also those who just stick around, go through the motions with the "practice", and who don't seem to be all that concerned about the doctrinal stuff one way or another.
Or else, one may realize that motivation is not enough and that one also needs the right external conditions. In my case, I realized there was a limit as to what I can attain, spiritually/religiously, given my current physical, social, and economic status, and that persisting longer and trying to push further would just be a case of diminishing returns.
It is pretty standard but it should be noted that there are differences in how Mahayanists see the Theravadins. Indeed, it seems that the earliest times, the ancestors of modern Mahayanists and Theravadins were less polemical than in later times.
Anyway, sectarianism has always been a problem both in Buddhism and other religions.
Interestingly, I think that the Mahayana notion that Buddhas can in some way still 'help' explains better why Buddhas are said to arise cyclically. In the Theravada, it is never explained why Buddhas keep re-occurring. That said, the Pali suttas can't be read as asserting that past Buddhas can actively help. So, of course, Mahayana and Theravada are indeed different religions.
Quoting baker
Yes, I agree. Buddhist practice in Buddhist monasteries is indeed taxing. It demands a degree of renunciation, 'spiritual struggle' and so on that many outsiders might underestimate (incidentally, I think the same is true for other religions).
Quoting baker
I find odd that a surprising number of people would think that rebirth is a later addition when it is the less disputed belief among Buddhist schools. As I said, you find disagreements on how to interpret Nirvana, anatman etc but I never found historical evidence of historical Buddhists that questioned rebirth. Indeed, you even find in quite early texts like the Kathavatthu, a debate about the reality of the wardens of the terryfing Buddhist 'purgatories' (naraka) , which is an insanely precise detail to debate on that would surprise people who think that rebirth is marginal (incidentally, the 'orthodox Theravada' view is that the guard are real; the idea that they are projection was later adopted by the Yogacara school...).
Nevertheless, I believe that one can doubt rebirth and yet believe that 'enlightenment' is possible (altough, I believe that the Buddhist descriptions of enlightenment are only coherent with a belief in literal rebirth).
IIRC, momentariness, moment-to moment rebirth and literal rebirth are all affirmed in the 'Theravada commentaries' (I'm going with memory however).
Quoting baker
:up:
Quoting baker
Yes.
Quoting baker
That's also true, unfortunately. When I was considering joining Buddhist traditions, I certainly had to confront certain 'ordinary life' circumastances that discouraged it. And one should take these circumstances seriously.
Sorry, but I don't understand your point here. Are you claiming that if a behaviour that is blatantly in contradiction with a religion's 'code of conduct' is done by a large number of those who hold a authority position in that religion it is evidence that the religion in question is false (or it is at least a reason to be skeptical of it)?
A very dishonest conclusion you have drawn there and shows you do not have a serious interest in exploring this topic.
I am glad someone else is highlighting what I have been trying to get at throughout the thread and have been a lone voice so far and what Joseph Campbell devoted much of his works to, among others.
The religious dogma has been ripe in this discussion.
Exactly but the dogmatists will say even changing it 1% is bastardising it beyond recognition.
Here is a good real world example I thought of which avoids the whole reincarnation issue.
I recalled a concrete example from a video I watched where a traditional Buddhist was asked about the theory of karma. The questioner asked if it was bad karma to be a medic who does abortions since life is sacred and should not be terminated according to Buddhist doctrines. The Buddhist's* answer was 'yes it slightly bad karma each time the surgeon performs an abortion' and then he said something like he should even out the bad karma by doing other stuff to make up for it.
So nothing metaphysical to argue about whether it exists or not (well karma could also classify as that but it is behavoiur that is is question here) and the Buddhist recommendation is something that would be considered inappropriate by most rational people today in cases where an abortion would be appropriate for the individual. Now of course there could be a forum thread about the topic of abortion and whether it is right but the point it in modern society, at least in the West, it is accepted and normal now.
Perhaps modernising Buddhism would be to accept abortion as 'ok' but the fundamentalists will say no and that it destroys the core teachings.
*As a related aside this was a long time white Western practitioner who had been learning a traditional school, by the book, it seems, of the Thai Forest tradition for many decades so seems he was not deviating and adding his Western revisionism.
This is my view too but the majority voice in this thread has been the usual pushback I expected from 'devouts' that any attempt to question the teachings or go outside the box will be met with failure, and maybe derision.
I guess they will say neither of us are enlightened so we have no place to try and change the tried and true method of the prophets. I have had the same arguments from most things I have learned in life, which have nothing to do with Buddhism. Most often ridiculed for 'going against the grain' and outside of the box but I have found it easy to separate the wheat from the chaff of what is good information vs. bad and irrational stuff in other areas and the proof is in the pudding when I achieve my goals in whatever thing I set out, so I don't see this as being any different.
Thanks for your clarification and not going on the defensive.
It seems we are largely in agreement from that last post. Of course I agree that one cannot rationalise their way to enlightenment but still, just like there are routines they follow in Buddhism to act as breadcrumbs to get there, I would just be looking at how one would do it as a secularist.
Especially for those who equate all religion with dogma, which is, of course, a dogma in its own right. And it’s understandable, considering the dynamics of religious history in Western culture. It gives rise to this often-unstated sense of there being a barrier or fault-line, generally between what is acceptable in naturalist terms, or potentially intelligible to science, and the rest. (Not for nothing was Alan Watts’ last book called The Book: On the Taboo against Knowing Who You Are.)
It needs to be acknowledged that Buddhism is a supernatural religion. ‘Supernatural’ is of course a boo-word, something which nobody wants to be associated with in polite company. But one of the traditional epithets of the Buddha is that he is ‘lokuttara’, which is translated as ‘world-transcending’ ‘trans-mundane’ and so on - all of which are euphemisms for ‘supernatural’ (definition.) And the reason is that the Buddha is not subject to rebirth (except, in Mah?y?na Buddhism, there is the implicit understanding that the Tathagatha may elect to be born for the wellbeing of others, which, perhaps incongruously, has deep resonances with the Christian mythos.)
But again, this ‘natural v supernatural’ distinction is also very much an historically conditioned one. Its outlines are not hard to discern in European history. The Trial of Galileo and the Scientific Revolution are central to it, the subsequent division between religion and secular culture, the ‘culture wars’, atheism old and ‘new’, and the rest of it. The original charter of the Royal Society, the first institution dedicated to modern science, explicitly forbade discussion of ‘metaphysik’ which was deemed the ‘province of Churchmen’. And, at the time, trespassing into that province could have dire consequences!
But the boundaries, so-called, keep shifting, as they were never very clearly drawn in the first place, except for in respect of ‘dogma’ which has created the sense of the division between secular and sacred.
Years ago, before I even started posting on forums, I read an interesting editorial by conservative writer David Brooks (who incidentally has just announced his retirement) in the New York Times called The Neural Buddhists.
[quote=David Brooks] In their arguments with Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, the faithful have been defending the existence of God. That was the easy debate. The real challenge is going to come from people who feel the existence of the sacred, but who think that particular religions are just cultural artifacts built on top of universal human traits. It’s going to come from scientists whose beliefs overlap a bit with Buddhism.
In unexpected ways, science and mysticism are joining hands and reinforcing each other. That’s bound to lead to new movements that emphasize self-transcendence but put little stock in divine law or revelation. Orthodox believers are going to have to defend particular doctrines and particular biblical teachings. They’re going to have to defend the idea of a personal God, and explain why specific theologies are true guides for behavior day to day. I’m not qualified to take sides, believe me. I’m just trying to anticipate which way the debate is headed. We’re in the middle of a scientific revolution. It’s going to have big cultural effects.[/quote]
Amen to that ;-)
Sorry. If you’re willing to indulge me I’ll try again, and try very hard to be honest this time.
Quoting unimportant
I’m suggesting that salvation may not be all that, uh, mystical or grand, and that religion helps to fulfill basic needs such as meaning, purpose, and connection, for those who have difficulty fulfilling such needs on their own.
Quoting unimportant
An institution like the military may share some of the same basic aspects of religion, like rituals for instance, but obviously other aspects differ. We seem to agree on this point, judging by the rest of what you say in the post.
I’m interested in the same thing. I don’t think it’s correct for you to suggest that because I disagree, I’m interested in a wrong aspect of this discussion, or in some ‘objective’ and erroneous analysis. We’re just having a conversation, and what I said would apply to both an insider and an outsider. I simply resisted the idea you put forward that my argument would not be understood by an insider. But let's move on since this is a minor part of the overall discussion.
Quoting baker
The point I made was that it would be okay for a pope to have doubts, and that this would not make him a bad pope. You took us to stake burning for reasons that are still unclear to me. You introduced the notion of an abuse of power, but to my knowledge the discussion was not about this. It was about whether a follower of a religion, or a pope, can have doubts about their faith and still be a productive member of that faith. I say yes. You seem to say no. I have heard no good reason why.
Quoting baker
Yes, this happens especially in fundamentalist groups. But so what? Humans often shun people they disagree with or do not understand. This seems to occur when there is dogma and a kind of certainty that brooks no diversity. It would be nice, wouldn’t it, to expect religious followers or theists more specifically to behave in superior ways to the rest of the community, but they don’t. It seems we can’t expect people in a religion to behave differently from people in a family, a sporting club, or a corporate management group. Does this tell us that religions are just ordinary beliefs in fancy dress, or does it say we strive imperfectly to reach God?
Quoting baker
This may well be the case if the religion is misogynist, classist, and elitist. In such cases, it seems we have a religion where more followers need to doubt those doctrines and work to reform beliefs. This is, of course, how religions around the world have modified some of the practices such as those you describe above and have become, often owing to secular influences, more inclusive and generous. I’m not aware of a religion that doesn’t acquire its attitudes and behaviors from mainstream secular life, it’s just that some source those beliefs from earlier times, or from more radical or conservative values.
It seems obvious to me?it means suffering due to negative thought complexes or patterns.
Quoting SN 15.11, bhikkhu Sujato translation
This notion of transmigration could be consistent with the idea that Atman is Brahman. That it is Brahman who is endlessly transmigrating and suffering in many different forms, without retaining the idea that Atman (in the sense of a personal soul or even karmic accumulations) is in any kind of (even illusory) personal sense reincarnating.
Quoting boundless
Why should belief in rebirth be motivating in a context that denies personal rebirth? Or even in the Vedantic context where reincarnation of the personal soul (which however is seen as ultimately an illusion) and where it is in any case exceedingly uncommon to remember past lives, and hence establish any continuity of self? Why would attaining peace of mind, acceptance of death and the ability to die a good death not be more motivating?
Ever heard of Parkinson’s Law?
That is just orthodoxy, it works for some and not for others.
Very much so, as I say, a strict approach will work better for some than others and a pick and mix approach for people like you and me.
I would say though about strict adherence, I found it important once or twice to go through the process of humility and obedience etc, in a controlled setting. So even for less strict adherents, it is necessary at some point.
A stronger point though, that I want to make is that our thinking mind, our sense of self, emotions, our daily being, or person is not really the one doing the [I]work[/I], so to speak, but a deeper watcher, or seer (we could use the word soul perhaps) within us is doing it and our surface day to day personality is only really a bystander, or like a childlike expression of our true nature. So in a very real sense, what we, as a personality, think and believe is not important. Our thinking mind is not where we are doing what is required, although it can and does play some role in the use and development of intuition.
Perhaps the best way to do you in your case it to take seriously those teachings you find 'unbelievable' at least as good allegories that say something true about the human condition (as @Punshhh suggests). Also, in order to sustain the practice you can still contemplate the numerous forms of suffering that are present in this world and one can see without any spiritual attainment (illnesses, wars, loss of loved ones, the fact that our life is uncertain and death can happen anytime and so on)* and see other humans and other sentient beings as 'being in the same boat', so to speak, to develop compassion.
Nowadays, I am no longer a 'Buddhist' in any good sense of the word but I see the above approach to it as a good way to give it value. As much as I would like to have the compassionate, calm, patient etc mind that Buddhists promise, I find it exceedingly hard to sustain a serious practice however. It would certainly help if I could believe also what I find 'unbelievable' in it. Nonetheless, as a 'sympathetic outsider' of (both Mahayana and Theravada) Buddhism, I still find their doctrine and practice useful.
*Incidentally, I believe that if one truly believes that there is no afterlife and still gives so much relevance to 'suffering' as Buddhists do, the only coherent conclusion one would get is to become an antinatalist. I mean: given how much suffering can happen during anyone's life and that no matter what we all die and we do not even know when and how, if there is no afterlife would it be worth the risk to bring other human beings in this world?
Interestingly, Buddhism and other Indian religions see the human realm as positive and 'being born as a human' as a very good thing precisely because it is the one that give you the highest chance to escape samsara.
And yet, you find different interpretations of it. The third type of dukkha is most often interpreted as a form of suffering/unsatisfactoriness/ill-being that permeates all conditioned states. I believe that one of the late-canonical commentarial books in the Pali Canon clearly say that even arhats and Buddhas experience dukkha while alive in the forms of physical pain and this third 'mysterious' type.
The Mahayana schools would generally agree with that but they have a different 'twist'. For instance, in the Madhyamaka school, given that all conditioned (and unconditioned) phenomena are unestablished, that is illusion-like, dukkha is too illusion-like. Hence the doctrine of 'emptiness' is central to the idea that Buddhas can take rebirth 'out of compassion' while being enlghtened and having transcended suffering. The Theravadins would generally reply that this is wrong and the final cessation of suffering is 'Nirvana without remainder' (with endless discussions about what this state entails. Another non-Mahayana school, the ancient Sautrantika even claimed that 'Nirvana without remainder' is basically eternal oblivions, a mere absence (this view is IMO increasingly popular among the Theravadins today). The Theravadins traditionally rejected this 'negativistic' view but nevertheless maintained that there is no consciousness in Nirvana).
(Sorry if I'm going with memory, I am pretty confident that what I said above is right and I said above I have already mentioned various things I have said in this thread with links...)
Quoting Janus
It is also consistent with the 'self is an illusion' position you find in most forms of Buddhism and the 'indeterminate self' of the Pudgalavadins. After all, if you keep having rebirth no quality associated with any of these 'lives' defines 'what you really are'. So, indeed, rebirth actually, when you think about it, weakens the sense of personal self and attachment.
Quoting Janus
The first thing you have to note is that they asserted that the very same 'continuity' you have between 'you as an infant' and 'you as an adult' is the same as when you consider 'you as John Smith' and 'you as a Deva'.
Secondly, traditionalists would tell you that while you aren't enlightened you exprerience this 'succession of lives' as truly 'something you yourself are experiencing'. It's like, say, when in the same night you continue to have nightmares and you can't control them or awake from them. You might have the suspicion that they are dreams but you still experience a lot of anguish. In order to cease anguish, you have to 'wake up'. But until you do, you have to take seriously your nightmares.
Quoting boundless
Ok, I found the source:
(Nettipakara?a 12; bolded mine, source: https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=6539#p6539 )
Or What is the spiritual outcome in practicing Buddhism?
Can we find a taxonomy that fills the gap between,
the knowledge that a desire has been grounded in
illusions?
A summary, gleaned from bot scraping web sources, informs what Buddhism claims as
its grounds.
Quote:
Practicing Buddhism leads to profound spiritual transformation, ultimately aiming for enlightenment and liberation from suffering.
Core Goal
Buddhism's ultimate spiritual outcome is attaining Nirvana, a state of complete awakening where the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth (Samsara) ends, extinguishing greed, hatred, and delusion. This liberation arises from realizing the Four Noble Truths—suffering's existence, its cause in craving, its cessation, and the path to end it via the Noble Eightfold Path. Practitioners cultivate wisdom, ethical conduct, and mental discipline to transcend ego and dukkha (unsatisfactoriness).
Key Spiritual Benefits
Mindfulness and Clarity: Regular meditation fosters deep self-awareness, revealing impermanence and reducing mental clutter for inner peace.
Compassion and Oneness: Practices build empathy (karuna), dissolving self-centered boundaries and promoting interconnectedness with all beings.
Five Spiritual Powers: Faith, energy, mindfulness, concentration, and wisdom strengthen, cleansing perception and diminishing confusion.
?
Long-Term Transformation
Consistent practice shifts one's worldview toward non-attachment and equanimity, yielding serenity, fearlessness toward death, and purposeful living. While Nirvana is the pinnacle, interim outcomes include emotional resilience and ethical harmony, supported by both tradition and modern studies on meditation.
End Quote.
Thank you for the second attempt.
I think to be clear you should give your version of what enlightenment is because it seems different to the general notion of it. I am getting the sense you are just seeing enlightenment as some kind of self help style self-actualisation akin to ticking all the boxes on Maslow's hierarchy of needs?
I would say it would extinguish those existential issues by coming to the realisation they don't matter, as in the removal of the needs (loss of attachment/desire).
For those interested on this peculiar view of Nirvana, I compiled some textual evidence on this post: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/02/on-nature-of-nibbana-nirvana-in.html
The realization or actual experience of emptiness or the true nature of being. More mundanely, it's an experience or brain state.
Quoting unimportant
Not at all, in fact the Buddhist project is rather uninterested in self-overcoming because such a project embraces life and suffering in order to grow and reach for full potential.
Quoting unimportant
That sounds like nihilism to me. I would like to think that people and things still matter to enlightened Buddhists.
I had a look, but got stuck on the meaning here;
(The second paragraph in the Stephen Collins section)
Is it suggesting that ultimate meaning (paramattha) is the intensification of not-self? I can’t work it out, can you shed any light on it?
My hypothesis is that the text means that you can know Nirvana only when you have an insight on not-self. Indeed, in one sutta the Buddha is reporter to have said that notions of self can only arise when the aggregate of feeling is present:
Quoting DN 15, Ven Bodhi translation
So since in Nirvana without remainder all aggregates stop, Nirvana can't be regarded as a 'self' in any meaningful terms.
In that list I also forgot to mention in the post that there is a post-canonical text that explicitly refutes the idea that Nirvana is some form of consciousness while commenting a sutta that seems to say the opposite. So, Nirvana is not just a 'mere absence', it is an unconditioned ultimate (i.e. non illusory) 'entity' (for a lack of a better word) but neither a form of consciousness according to the 'commentarialTheravada'. Certainly a peculiar view.
Yes, I think I’m getting the feeling for it now. My first thought is a reference to a transfiguration of the aspect of the self which is constituted of/in the aggregate. Also if there is a reference to ultimate meaning (paramattha), the self and not-self may lose their distinction, while in a sense remain, reconciled.
This brings me to a thought I have often had regarding Buddhist conceptions of nirvana. If the self etc is annihilated in the realisation of nirvana. Whom is experiencing the exalted state?
I know this might sound like a simplistic question, but there is a deeper issue in it. Or rather if there is total annihilation, such that all is left is a state of non-existence, whom, is, present, in it? Who, or what remains?
I’m not expecting an answer to it, particularly. Just expressing the question that immediately occurred to me on learning the Buddhist conception of nirvana.
Furthermore, the Buddhist teaching on rebirth does not say that you — understood as a persisting personal subject, ego, or bearer of identity — will be reborn. That is precisely what the doctrine of non-self (anatt?) rules out from the start. If there were a “you” in that sense, rebirth would amount to reincarnation - a single self which is born again and again, and which Buddhism explicitly rejects. That is the ‘eternalist’ view. But the idea that actions in this life have no consequence beyond physical death is the opposite mistake, the ‘nihilist’ view. (An implication being that modern thought is basically nihilist in orientation.)
What continues is the causal process that underlies and gives rise to living beings. There is continuity without strict identity. And that stands to reason, because all of us are both the same as, and different to, the person we were in the past. Self is a dynamic stream of consciousness, ‘cittasantana’ but without an unchanging kernel or eternal existent.
The aggregates arise, function, and cease. If ignorance and craving persist, the causal conditions for further arising persist. This is why the Buddha consistently avoids answering questions like “Is it the same person who is reborn?” or “Is it a different one?” Or for that matter “who experiences Nirv??a?”Such questions are posed on the basis of a false conception of the nature of self, which is why they are left unanswered.
I can't retrace how you arrived at this ...
I'm plainly asking what I'm asking.
You can see a lot of this in various religious and esp. "spiritual" traditions where it's sometimes called "crazy wisdom" and where actions, if done by an ordinary person, are deemed inappropriate, but when done by a "spiritually advanced person", are deemed appropriate and "above the understanding of ordinary people". So, for example, if a sadhu gets drunk or high, that's exalted and spiritual somehow, but if an ordinary person gets drunk or high, it's just ordinary intoxication which is frowned upon.
Then in Mahayana, with the Secondary Bodhisattva vows, they've even found a way to excuse killing, raping, and pillaging, all in the name of "compassion" and "spiritual advancement".
Then there is the issue of "skillful means". Again, doing things that are ordinarily considered immoral or wrong, but when done for some "higher purpose" and/or by a "spiritually advanced person", considered perfectly right.
So in the light of this, I'm wondering whether the Crusades and the Holy Inquisition (with the stake burnings and all that) were actually examples of such "spiritual advancement" that we ordinary folks simply cannot even begin to comprehend.
Lol.
It would help the discussion if you'd stop shooting from the hip like that.
Quoting unimportant
For someone so critical of "dogma", you know remarkably little of it.
For someone who is supposedly interested in "enlightenment", you sure spend an awful lot of time _not_ pursuing it.
It's hard to know what that text meant for 'paramattha'. In the developed abhidharmic/abhidhammic thought, 'paramattha sacca' was the 'ultimate truth' as opposed to the 'conventional truth', i.e. 'how reality truly is' vs 'what is provisionally true but ultimately illusory'. I know that various scholars have suggested that this distinction wasn't made at the time of the earliest commentary but of course traditionalist Theravadins I would say that think there is a continuity between 'early' and 'later' commentaries.
Anyways, the developed Theravadin tradition suggested that there are 'ultimately real dhammas' ('cognizable objects'): 81 types of conditioned (both mental and 'material') and only 1 unconditioned dhamma (i.e. Nibbana). All these 'objects' are irriducible, have no components. Indeed, all 'composite objects', like tables, chairs, trees and so on were seen as ultimately illusory, but conventionally/provosionally real. This was also the case for the 'selves'. Other 'abhidharmic' systems developed their lists of conditioned and unconditioned dhammas but the idea was essentially the same (the Sautrantika denied the 'reality' of unconditioned dhammas, including Nibbana, and believed that they are just absence of conditioned dhammas).
So, indeed, in these systems the 'self' was simply a wrong (albeit useful) idea. No ultimate reconciliation.
Interestingly, in the Madhyamaka thought, if I understand it correctly, this 'ultimate/provisional' distinction collapses in the sense that there are no 'ultimate dhammas'. All 'dhammas' are provisional and, therefore, not more real than the 'selves'. So, in a sense, here you find a 'reconciliation': at the end of the day, while the 'abhidharmic views' were reductionistic ('ultimate irreducible objects' are real, 'composites' aren't), Madhyamaka doesn't posit an 'ultimate' set of 'real dhammas'.
Not sure if this helps (also, don't trust what I'm saying too much).
Quoting Punshhh
For most Buddhist traditions is regarded as wrong-posited. Consider this excerpt:
Quoting SN 12.12, Ven Bodhi translation
Indeed, ultimately, both the 'enligthened' and 'unenlightened' experience is self-less. It would be interesting to see how the ancient 'personalist' (Pudgalavada) Buddhist school, which posited a sort of 'indeterminate self', would read that passage but unfortunately, their literature is lost (and the same goes for many other ancient Buddhist schools).
Quoting Punshhh
I believe that the 'commentarial Theravada' would answer, 'the Nibbana element' remains. Given that it isn't understood as anything material or mental, I have no idea of what would mean. But no, based on the quotes I found it isn't simply 'non-existence' or an 'absence'.
I think that the Madhyamaka instead would answer you that even asking this question is premised on wrong presuppositions about reality.
Note that even the Sautrantika wouldn't say that 'Nibbana without remainder' is annihilation because they would tell you that since there is no self, there is nothing to annihilate. But, yeah, their view of 'Nibbana without remainder' is well 'non-existence' IIRC (I think that some scholars questioned that this was true for all Sautrantikas but I can't recall their arguments).
Quoting Punshhh
Me too. I gradually found the 'abhidharmic' (the Sautrantika included) views less and less convincing over time. However, interestingly, I would say that the Madhyamaka perhaps would be right if there is no metaphysical Absolute that 'grounds' the reality of the conditioned - if there is no 'Absolute', then neither the conditioned nor the unconditioned are ultimately real.
I see. Sorry for the misinterpretation. However, this presupposes a very strong 'discontinuity' between the 'perfected state' and the 'imperfect state' that is IMO indeed a problem.
For instance, if a 'perfectly good person' can make clearly bad acts from an 'imperfect' perspective, then arguably 'good' loses its meaning. In many ancient philosophies and traditions, the 'perfected realization of virtue' is the ultimate realization of something that is 'already present' in those are still in an imperfect state and everytime that vritue is exercised, it is a manifestation of such a 'potential to perfection'.
All of this to say that if 'love of your neighbour' for 'ordinary folks' means that one should care for the other, treat him or her with respect and so on, it is reasonable to expect that if one is 'perfect in virtue' then he or she would treat the 'neighbour' in an analogous way but better than the 'ordinary folks'.
If, however, one accepts that there is strong discontinuity between the 'perfected' and the 'imperfect' states, then yeah I can see how one might end up justifying what is unjutifiable, calling 'an expression of goodness' what would generally regarded as the opposite and so on. The problem with these kinds of views is that the language they use can't be trusted.
Not understood by, but relevant to. Things that are relevant to outsiders might not be the same as the things relevant to insiders, and vice versa.
I think that to you, as to an outsider, it makes perfect sense to think relatively highly of doubters. But to an insider, it doesn't.
And many times, for insiders, the reasons are entirely practical. From an insider's perspective, a doubter (who attends a religious venue along with the insiders and tries to participate in their community) is simply "high maintenance", more work than they are worth. It's tedious for the insiders to deal with a doubter, to try to accomodate the doubter, to explain things over and over again. I've seen this all too often myself: People just got tired of me, the doubter. Sometimes, quite aggressively tired. Some things I've been told:
"Lead, follow, or get out of the way."
"By now you should have figured out what you want and what to do next."
"If you don't like something, leave."
"I've offered you a finger but you want the whole arm."
Perhaps from your perspective as an outsider.
You introduced the concept of "abuse of power". I'm saying it still needs to be established whether the Crusades etc. were an abuse of power, or actually proper use of power. (See also my reply to Boundless above, about "skillful means".)
As for stake burnings: The RCC still considers itself entitled to rule over all the people on this planet, just like it did five hundred years ago. How it goes about ruling or attempting to rule the planet is changing with the times, but its belief that it has the right to rule over everyone has not. If circumstances change sufficiently, we could be faced with more crusades and inquisitions -- and stake burnings. (Notice how when popes apologized for things done by the RCC in the past, they apologized for the methods, but not for the motivations.)
When you formulate it that way --
If a nominally religious person has doubts about their religion, then the motivation for their actions will be problematic, even if their actions externally match the expectations for said religion. Because of their doubts, their actions cannot be properly motivated in accordance with the religion. Eventually, this lack of proper motivatedness shows up somewhere, usually in the form of inconsistently performing the expected actions. Due to this inconsistency, they cannot be a productive member of that faith.
So what? A lot of time and resources get wasted, a lot of grief is caused, for many of the involved. Some even commit suicide.
This could have been prevented, simply by people being more straightforward about things, and sooner, both the insiders as well as the doubter.
See my point earlier about doubters being more work than they are worth.
Actually, my basic thesis is that a religion is supposed to be practiced exactly the way the people who claim to be its members practice it. I'm now in my "Take things at face value" phase. I'm done helping religious/spiritual people look for excuses and keeping up pretenses. I'm done with "Oh, but they didn't mean it" and "They are just imperfect followers of God." No. They've had more than enough time to get their act together.
But why should they reform themselves??
Their religion is what it is; anyone who doesn't like it should stay away from it.
It's not clear whence this desire to reform a religion.
It's not about annihilation, that would be wrong view.
I find Thanissaro Bhikkhu's approach here the easiest to understand: not-self(ing) is a strategy. We already use it anyway every day when we disidentify with things we don't want or don't like. He explains it that the Buddhist practice takes this strategy further, though.
He writes and talks about this a lot, see here, for example.
Lol.
A similar view is sometimes held by some Buddhists who believe that belief in rebirth makes people lazy and complacent, thinking, "If I don't make it this time around, there's always the next, so I can just relax".
But this takes a dim view of human nature, assuming that unless people are pushed by external constraints and rewards, they are lazy and unmotivated. And while this is certanly true for some people, it's not true for everyone.
But back to Parkinson's Law and Buddhist practice: Buddhist practice rests on the premise that there first must be causes and conditions in place before any next rung on the scale of progress can be reached. Without the right causes and conditions, progress can't be made. Causes and conditions, however, take time, for some people a little time, for others, more, depending on how much work one was able to do up to that point in a previous life (!).
It claims cyclical existence without beginning. A circular ladder doesn’t progress, it goes round and round without beginning or ending.
So, according to the passage quoted, the first kind of suffering is due to pain?no problem interpreting that?suffering can even be defined as pain. The second kind of suffering is said to be due to "formations",and I said I would interpret "formations" as negative mental tendencies. If we are at all self-aware and aware of others, I think we know that negative (suffering inducing) mental tendencies or thought complexes come in many forms. The third type of suffering is due to "change"?which is also easy to understand. We are creatures of habit (some more than others obviously) and we desire security (again some more than others). The more we desire security and predictability the more change will cause us to suffer. Change might cause either mental or physical suffering or both.
So, I would say there are really only two kinds of suffering?physical and mental (in the latter category of which I would include emotional and existential suffering). That said, perhaps it could be argued that if human life in general has somehow gone off the rails spiritually, then existential suffering (angst) would not be merely due to personal mental (conceptual and emotional) complexes.
That's my take on it.
PS. After writing this response I read your next post which quotes Gautama as saying much the same as I have said above.
The Theravadin commentary I quoted however says that the true end of suffering happens when all conditioned phenomena cease. So, perfect insight itself doesn't extinguish suffering the moment it occurs but it leads to the eventual end of arising conditioned phenomena.
IMO you can find support of both views in the suttas.
Edit: "The Theravadin commentary I quoted however says that the true end of suffering happens when all conditioned phenomena cease" - of course not literally all the conditioned phenomena. I meant all conditioned phenomena of the series relative to an individual. Of course, Theravadins do not claim that when one arhat 'reaches' Nirvana without remainder, conditioned phenomena stop for everyone
BTW, you find both views espoused by supporters of both traditions. So perhaps calling Theravadin and Mahayanist is incorrect.
In the Theravada, there is the idea that while Buddhas and arhats stop helping when they reach Nirvana without reminder, but also the idea that cyclically the Dharma will be rediscovered and taught and there will be more occasions of liberation.
Interestingly, there is a sutta in the Pali Canon in which the Buddha is asked on how many will be liberated and the Buddha replied that one shouldn't ask about that, basically. He just put the question aside.
So, imo generally in both traditions you'll find the idea to act for the benefit of all (within one's limit) but there is no guarantee that such an 'universalist' ending will come to fruition. Perhaps you cam say that the Mahayana is more hopeful but even there you generally find emphasized of how rare is reaching liberation.
BTW, last post for today, here in my timezone is quite late!
That said, acting for the benefit of all rather than the self would seem to be liberating for the self (or from the self).
Personally I like to think of death as being liberation for all?either in eternity or oblivion?the idea of rebirth makes little sense to me. It seems to be, if anything, to be motivated by attachment to the self.
Ditto.
Quoting Janus
Indeed. Can it be demonstrated that a single person has achieved this end? How would we even do that? How do we even know it is a plausible possibility?
I agree. I think the idea of the enlightened one is just a case of the usual human myth-making. In any case no one but the actual enlightened would know, and is it even credible that any human being could not be mistaken in thinking they were enlightened?
Also, rebirth is quite consistent with anatman. If the male human John Smith can become in the future a female ant, then there is little in John Smith that can be considered an underlying essence.
Thanks, that chimes with how I see it and where I was heading in this line of questioning. I just wasn’t quite sure what Buddhism has to say on it.
For me the “whom” I was asking about is both (I need a word for both that is about three not two, which is why I keep mentioning the trinity*) the self, the not self and the absolute, while not actually those at all, but somewhere in the middle. That we know that “whom” intimately, but could not say who, or what we know.
So the whom is, isn’t, could not be, could not not be, the self, the not self, the universal self, the absolute. Or if you could fathom the central point between them, you would know what you know.
*I really do think in threes, not two’s.
Thankyou, that is an interesting read and I do relate to the idea of strategy here.
(I noticed the reference to a Buddhist centre in the south of France, I am familiar with one near one of my favourite villages in the South of France, Saint Leon Sur Vezere)
On the contrary, I see little point in there only being one life for each being. It would be like introducing a whole lot of interesting threads and by the time of introducing one’s self to them, one is told, time is up now, before one has even begun.
That is a misinterpretation I think, Not that I believe those views, back to the rebirth thing, which I reject, but the whole idea of enlightenment is that you break free from the ladder/wheel of reincarnation due to extinguishing your karma. I guess they are saying you become the wheel in all things, seeing you are not separate from it. Not an expert but clearly the whole exercise of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of life and death and rebirth.
Well isn't it going to be a case of gradual divergence like most things, which change and morph over time? At some point they would have been one, when closer to the Buddha's original teachings temporally, then over time, and maybe distance, with less communication, they would split away from each other.
Like any other cultural thing like language or whatever.
That does beg the question which is 'right' if any to try and bring it back to some semblance of my OP which seems to have long been abandoned in the debate in the last few pages. Lol. Not complaining (much) about that though. If others are getting something from the current threads then have at it.
I can peck at any points that come up of interest, but it seems it has little to do with what I originally asked, regarding the necessity of supernatural elements, that has fallen by the wayside it seems. So I am not heavily invested in the recent posts as they have become more about discussion of the nuances of different schools of Buddhism on one single teaching.
Think about it for a second, if the wheel has no beginning then it has been spinning for eternity.
If for example you were the wheel then it would not be the same as being a spoke in it.
Well, I don't :sweat: indeed, given the variety of opinions Buddhists seem to have hold about the 'ontology' of Nirvana, it is difficult to say that they had the same 'state' in mind.
But perhaps you meant something different.
I agree... of course each school claims to teach the 'true version' of Buddhism and see others as detective or corruptions. Over time, differences have been more and more remarked. As you say, this seems a common phenomenon in religious traditions and not only in religions.
Quoting unimportant
I can see that. But to be fair, these 'deviations' can help to understand what might count as 'supernatural' elements in Buddhism and see if the belief in them is relevant or not in order to reach the state of enlightenment as promised by Buddhist traditions.
The fact that there are differences in the doctrinal contents among schools might suggest that 'what one believes' might be important to reach the goal. For instance, before stopping the participation in this thread I argued that:
1) the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth was regarded as an important motivator for practice. Can one achieve the same goal without this motivator? How?
2) the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth perhaps influnced the understanding of what counts as suffering (e.g. 'birth is suffering') and what is the cessation of suffering. Notice that Buddhist believed that insight in the nature of suffering and its cause was a condition for enlightenment. So, how can we be certain to achieve the same goal if our understanding of suffering differ?
3) the Buddhist doctrine of rebirth coheres pretty well with anatman. Can one really achieve an insight in 'not self' if one holds the view of 'one life only as this or that person'?
Note that all these questions make sense even if the traditional Buddhist doctrine of rebirth is false. I was wondering about what role might the belief in it might have in practicing and achieving the goal. They are IMO legitimate questions one can ask if one claims that belief in rebirth (or any other 'supernatural' doctrine) isn't needed to achieve the goal.
I was probably continuing the thought in my head following my reply to Wayfarer. Namely that we don’t know whom experiences nirvana, but in a sense, we do, as it is within us. But we don’t know that, or what we know.
It follows on perhaps from the idea that we are already in nirvana if we could but see it. We are blind to it.
In many religions/philosophies there is the idea that we have an innermost desire/implicit knowledge of the 'highest good'.
Now that's a creative interpretation I haven't heard before ...
In terms of making progress on the path, I'm referring to the stages to nibbana, namely, stream-entry, once-returner, non-returner, and arahant.
If rebirth is true then there are no ‘causeless’ births, and given that there is no beginning to the wheel of life and death, that means we have always existed. We have existed for eternity.
I mean, if we're going to delve into the supernatural and metaphysical (the otherwise traditionally non-logical), it's theoretically possible it wasn't that way at first but later became that way through some way or means. If I'm not mistaken that's essentially a major tenet of Christianity.
Yes but here we are specifically discussing Buddhism and what they believe, not general thought experiments of the other possible options. As such I recall reading the Buddha explicitly believed the universe to be eternal. I don't have the breadth of knowledge of the scriptures to be able to pull references though some other posters so maybe they can step in to do that.
Not "forever", but cyclically. In Buddhist cosmology, a universe comes into existence, exists, and then disappers. And then another one appears, exists, disappears, and so on.
By understanding paticcasamuppada, dependent co-arising.
Quoting Janus
Hence the characteristic distinction between reincarnation (as in Hinduism, where an eternal soul transmigrates between different bodies), and rebirth (where a conglomerate, a stream of aggregates goes on and on (externally appearing as different lifeforms, such as humans, cows, dogs, ghosts)).
Quoting Tom Storm
In Dhammic religions, the context of spiritual efforts is different than what we are used to in the West (under the influence of Christianity).
Namely, in Dhammic religions, they basically don't care whether anyone believes them or not.
This isn't like in Christianity where people are expected to believe things and where religious/spiritual teachings are shoved down people's throats. In Dhammic religions, if you don't believe something they claim, they consider that your problem (and that you just have "too much dust in your eyes"). It's not something they feel responsible for fixing.
Quoting Janus
I don't think so.
Enlightenment the Buddhist way is not something many people would or even could want. I find it odd that the idea has such prominence in culture at large, when it's such a highly specific niche interest.
Indeed, the phrase colloquially used is "It takes an arahant to know an arahant". Other than that, there are in traditional teachings some pointers as to how even non-arahants might recognize one.
It happens all the time in Buddhist venues. It's actually not a problem there.
Yes, or that there is an inner most part of* us which is in some way present in nirvana. Perhaps like a seed.
Going back to what I was saying about the idea that we are already in nirvana, but are blind to it. Is there an idea like this in Buddhism? as it’s an important idea for me. I can’t really remember where it came from.
* I’m thinking of the idea of a part of our being, which is not physical, or mental, but an aspect of a living being.
You're talking about reincarnation, not rebirth.
You seem to be referring to the idea of "Buddha nature"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha-nature
You’re claiming that according to Buddhist doctrine there are births that are not rebirths? That some births are not part of the cycle of life and death?
This ventures into some concepts more native to some schools of Hinduism, with the veil being the "veil of Maya".
The problem with assuming defaults, innate essences (such as "all beings have Buddha nature") is that they bog one down.
If you have Buddha nature, then why are you here, suffering, instead of being happy and enlightened?
If you suffer now, despite having/being Buddha nature, and later become enlightened, then where's the guarantee that you won't lose your enligtenment and suffer again?
If you are now covered by the veil of Maya, how can you possibly trust your choice of spiritual guidance?
Thus assuming some kind of innate natrure, an essence, implies, among other things, that you are ultimately helpless against that veil of Maya, helpless against suffering.
It's how the outlook of innate nature is demoralizing, unless, of course, one has a grand enough ego to compensate for it.
That would be "spontaneously arisen beings", yes.
Some births are last births, yes, and as such, are not part of the cycle of life and death anymore.
I actually find both rebirth and reincarnation entirely plausible.
I also find the Hindu explanation plausible according to which Vishnu/Krishna incarnates himself as a buddha/the Buddha.
Having studied a bit of both Buddhism and Hindusim, I find there is a peculiar fit between the two.
Why would it be peculiar when they both were born in the same place and the Buddha grew up in the Hindu tradition?
Sure; that’s a much better way to deal with skepticism and/or the real world, for that matter. You could almost be describing Scientology. But the question remains even if they ignore it.
Opap?tika means only not born through parents or biological reproduction. It is still rebirth and causally conditioned.
I'm thinking that this, if nothing else, is the reason rebirth is not claimed to be a motivator for practice. We've have literally been practicing forever without end.
Not claimed by whom? Names?
People are motivated by different things. Some are motivated by the notion of rebirth, some are not.
Who is "we"?
A person has questions, or doesn't have them. Questions don't somehow exist and matter on their own.
It's on the person to pursue a question, or not; and why they choose to do so, or not.
As @baker remarked, the idea is quite explicit in some strands of Mahayana with the concept of 'Buddha nature'. However, it can be said that it is implied by the fact that the Buddhist practice is seen as a way to purify the mind, i.e. removing all the 'impurities'. So, rather than a transformation into something 'alien', the Buddhist path actually seems to have been presented as a way to bring the mind-stream to its 'purity'.
This idea is IMO recurrent in ancient religious and philosophical traditions. You can find analogous idea in Christianity, for instance, when sins are depicted as an impurity or an illness that 'stain' the purity (yes, there is original sin but as you probably know the interpretation of that concept wasn't the same among all Christian traditions... and, anyway, there is the idea that all God's creations are originally good and, therefore, evil is a corruption that came about later).
Quoting Outlander
I believe that most Buddhist traditions accept the idea of a beginningless samsara. I recall to have read that some Tibetan schools allowed the belief of a beginning of samsara but I can't recall where I read it.
Interestingly, I believe that some scholars have noted that the Pali texts actually do not explicitly say that samsara is beginningless. Consider this excerpt of an already quoted sutta:
Quoting SN 15.3, bhikkhu Sujato translation
Also, speculating about the question of the world being eternal or not was discouraged:
Quoting MN 63, I.B. Horner translation
I don't know how the traditionalists explain this.
Quoting praxis
Yes, it is still a form of rebirth and, as you say, it is still causally conditioned. Rebirth is a process that follows precise 'rules'.
Quoting praxis
Even if samsara is beginningless, it doesn't follow that you have practised since beginningless times and you have already practised with diligence infinite times and you somehow always failed.
Indeed, in Buddhist traditions you find a lot of emphasis on how rare a human birth is and how rare is a human birth in which you are exposed to the teaching of the Dhamma and can practice it. There are many, many more activities you can do in your 'journey'. You can't even exclude the chance that you never encountered the Dhamma previously.
On the other hand, if you believe in the Buddhist traditional account of rebirth, you can get a lot of motivation by contemplating the vastness of the sufferings of the 'lower realms' (purgatories (naraka), hungry shades and animal) as well as the fact that no 'realm' is without suffering and death. And, again, if you believed in the traditional account you also would believe that you shed more tears than the waters of the ocean for the losses of your loved ones like it is written in the sutta I quoted above. As the quoted sutta says, all of this is 'enough' to become disillusioned and actively try to 'go out'.
Yes, I’m aware that they don’t care. But I don’t care that they don’t care. On this Western forum where we encourage quesions, I am simply asking one. I am not a Buddhist. I am not even convinced that a Westerner who attempts to escape Judeo?Christianity to find refuge in Buddhism can achieve authenticity there. But that’s a personal bias I am happy to admit to.
You’re claiming that teaching may be false?
If a cycle of rebirth and death is beginingless then there will always be a previous cause or rebirth and this would go back infinitely. If there’s no beginning then there’s no end.
BTW, this problem was one of the reason why I ultimately ceased to try to become a Buddhist. If the cycle is beginningless, then the very existence of the 'cycle' is unintelligible. As youb remarked, each instance of rebirth is intelligible in principle, it is a regulate phenomenon. It would be weird if the very existence of the cycle is an unintelligible 'brute fact'.
If, however, the cycle began, this means that if other traditional Buddhist claims are true it must end:
Quoting SN 56.11, bhikkhu Bodhi translation
However the traditional Buddhist view is that it doesn't necessarily end. Rather it ends if ignorance is removed.
'Sa?s?ra has no beginning, but it has an end. Nirv??a has a beginning, but it has no end' ~ Buddhist Aphorism (quoted on Dharmawheel.)
But we’re not looking forward, we’re looking infinitely backwards, and in the past ignorance has necessarily never been removed because we are here in ignorance.
Yes, my position is more on the Hinduism side of the issue (via Theosophy)
Assumed for the purpose of discursive discussion.
One is going through a process, there may be many other things going on (behind the veil), or of which we are a small part. Which entail what is going on here. One of the first things that occur to us as individuals as a young child is the realisation of our individuality and therefore questions arise about our circumstances, what is going on here, where is this, why am I here? I remember this realisation in my life, I must have been about 3yrs old. These questions have not been answered, even though I have searched long and hard for an answer. As such there cannot be an answer for your question, because the circumstances relating to it have not been established.
Again this can’t be answered, as above. However, presumably, one would have sufficient agency to prevent the onset of suffering. Although I would suggest that there is likely an exalted state equivalent to suffering within that exalted realm. On the cosmic scale, there may be imperfect gods, or greater processes beyond our understanding going on.
Through humility and faith. This would necessarily require living a relatively simple and stress free life.
I’m not quite sure where the implication lies here. But never the less, when one thinks about our circumstances, we are as individuals helpless. We rely entirely on our community for almost everything. When it comes to salvation, we might think that we personally somehow achieve something, but what is more likely is that circumstances bestow it upon us. As we are playing a small part in a greater process. A process which given we are talking about “supernatural” states like nirvana, will likely entail transcendent realities beyond our comprehension.
Or perhaps it is an acceptance in humility of a reality. Presumably, by this point one would have deflated and reconciled one’s ego.
Likewise.
Yes, so my intuition is actually an acceptance (or realisation) of a deeper understanding underlying these religions. That they are playing a role in a process of purification of the self. That the self is not required, to go anywhere, to do anything, achieve anything in reconciling (becoming liberated from) their incarnation. But rather to relinquish, to lay down the trappings of our incarnate selves.
That's a good way to summarize things, altough I believe that if one really wants to be 'pedantic', one would say: "Samsara has no beginning but it can end. Nirvana is unconditioned, but conventionally has a beginning" or something like that.
Quoting praxis
I understood that. But, again, my point is that the mere infinite succession of lifetimes doesn't guarantee that either of us has already practise seriously the Dharma. Indeed, as I said, it is generally emphasized that being born as a human is a rare event and being born a human and live in a time when it is possible to practise the Dharma is even rarer. But even in the best conditions, at the end of the day one has still to choose to practice.
So even if samsara is beginningless, it doesn't follow that you have already practised the Dhamma in a serious way.
Yes, I think I can more or less agree.
If 'evil' is a corruption of the good, we are at the deepest level good. Hence, the 'spiritual life' doesn't 'transform' us in something that is 'alien to us' but, rather, it aims at the ultimate fulfillment of our nature.
You’re saying that in an eternity, and across all space and time, innumerable sentient beings never had the insight that one dude on earth—the Buddha—had?
That is laughable, isn’t it? I would say the basic insight is profound, sure, but really. And the religion is fundamentally the same as any other.
So, merely saying that the cycle of rebirth is beginningless gives us no guarantee that one has already practised 'well enough'.
Personally, one of the reasons I'm not convinced by the traditonalist Buddhist account of a beginningless cycle of samsara is because Buddhist doctrine says that ignorance, the root cause of rebirth, isn't an essential property of the mind. At the same time, however, we are told that, despite this, our minds (or 'mind-streams') have always be tainted by 'ignorance' and other 'defilements'.
However, no explanation is given on why the mind-streams of sentient beings have been always 'defiled' when, in fact, according to the same Buddhist traditions, the mind can be freed from one's defilments shows that they aren't an essential feature of the mind (i.e. minds can exist without defilments).
I've been thinking along the same lines. In fact yesterday I was recalling a time when I was part of a Zen temple in LA. The temple was founded by Maezumi Roshi, who incidentally was an infamous alcoholic and womanizer. The Roshi I practiced with occasionally gave 'the big talk' to the sangha where he sort of laid out a condense version of Buddhism. Zen folks usually just do a lot of sitting. I couldn't for the life of me remember any of what he said except for the beginning where he started with, "through no fault of our own..." and something to the effect 'we are ignorant'.
He's right of course, if we've always—literally alway and for all time—been ignorant then it can't be our fault that we're ignorant. Original sin? That similarity is the sort of thing I mean when I say Buddhism is fundamentally the same as other religions.
Yeah, I agree. Despite their vast doctrinal differences, most forms of Christianity and most forms of Buddhism agree on two points:
(1) The 'ordinary' state of human beings* is a state in which our nature is, in some sense, 'wounded', we are born in a condition of weakness, tendency to do what is actually harmful to us and so on (we might use the expression 'original sin' for this feature).
(2) This 'wounded state', however, isn't an essential state for human beings. Both religions, indeed, proclaim the possibility that we can reach a state of 'being healed' by these wounds (we might call this feature 'essential goodness').
Note that, in both cases, ontologically the 'essential goodness' is more fundamental than the 'original sin'. If it wasn't, liberation would be impossible for both religions.
*after the 'original fall' in Christianity.
I man that they "fit" in the sense that Buddhism is similar to a kind of Hindu monotheism but without the theistic references (and all concepts adjusted accordingly). It very much fits the idea that God incarnated himself as the Buddha. Where Hindu theism is explicitly theistic, Buddhism is silent. It seems the two don't contradict eachother. (Practitioners of both like to claim otherwise, of course. But if you look at just the Pali Canon, there doesn't seem to be anything that contradicts Hindu ideas.)
Which is why laundry and dishes are excellent candidates for being Nirvana. They, too, have no end.
That's still thinking in terms of reincarnation, not rebirth.
Or perhaps you're referring to humanity as a whole??
Quoting praxis
In the grand scheme of things, roughly, yes. In Buddhist cosmology, universes keep coming in and out of existence (in contrast to Christianity, where it's a one-off deal).
And as universes keep coming into existence, so do living beings. And the way for them to exit existence is to follow the path of a buddha, who also appears each time around.
Quoting praxis
See above.
"Buddha" is actually a title, a function, not the identity of a person. Brahma, Shiva, Buddha -- these are all functions, roles; we can actually write them in lower case.
Quoting praxis
I'm thinking of it in terms of "the same kinds of things are happening over and over again".
Not the identic, same thing.
It's like in a theatre play where in different performances of the play different actors can play the same role. The role is the same, the words are the same, the actions are the same, but the actors differ.
Nibbana is like when an actor decides not to play the role anymore.
But with a caveat. The concept of Buddha nature can be taken to mean that all one needs to do is get to some primeval, pure state, and that's that. But we have this:
In other words, cultivation is required, not just some regression to a primal, "innocent" state. In Buddhist cosmology, there is no such thing as a primal, "innocent" state the way there is in Christianity.
Quoting baker
I don't see how that helps the case unless universal liberation were achieved at the end of the life of each universe. By the way, do you have a citation from the scriptures to support that cosmological view?
Quoting baker
That might be the theory, but where is the practice?
Quoting baker
But how do you, presumably a self-acknowledged unenlightened one, know all this? Or, on the basis of what do you believe it?
Quoting boundless
If there is little (nothing?) in John Smith that can be considered to be an underlying essence, then the idea of him becoming a future female ant seems unintelligible. I've heard the "candle flame" analogy, but it seems simplistically linear and naive in the context of a vastly interconnected world.
———
The Buddhist teaching on rebirth does not say that you — understood as a persisting personal subject, ego, or bearer of identity — will be reborn. That is precisely what the doctrine of non-self (anatt?) rules out from the start. If there were a “you” in that sense, rebirth would amount to reincarnation - a single self which is born again and again, and which Buddhism explicitly rejects. That is the ‘eternalist’ view. But the idea that actions in this life have no consequence beyond physical death is the opposite mistake, the ‘nihilist’ view. (An implication being that modern thought is basically nihilist in orientation.)
What continues is the causal process that underlies and gives rise to living beings. There is continuity without strict identity. And that stands to reason, because all of us are both the same as, and different to, the person we were in the past. Self is a dynamic stream of consciousness, called in Sanskrit ‘cittasantana’ — but without an unchanging kernel or eternally existent core.
The aggregates arise, function, and cease. If ignorance and craving persist, the causal conditions for further arising persist. This is why the Buddha avoids answering questions like “Is it the same person who is reborn?” or “Is it a different one?” Or for that matter “who experiences Nirv??a?” Such questions are posed on the basis of a false conception of the nature of self, which is why they are left unanswered.
How do I ‘know this is true’? I don’t ’know that it’s true.’ But to me, it makes considerably more sense than the idea that all the righteous dead will be resurrected at the End Times and bodily ascend in the Rapture.
Regarding the continuity of the threads, there is a memory in the being, not the mind. Perhaps in a similar way that karma would be [I]remembered[/I].
Fwiw to the thread, the reason I stopped is because asking simple questions of Buddhists generally results in incoherent platitudes, despite Buddhists being some of the sweetest, lightest people I have ever met (besides generally well-adjusted children). It was extremely unattractive in practice.
I can't fathom how you arrive at that conclusion from the one sentence I wrote.
Quoting baker
Are you saying that you don't believe sentient beings are reborn and there's just reoccurring archetypes? Sort of a Joseph Campbell/Buddha fusion thang.
Yes, the birth of independent, or transcendent agency*. Quite a responsibility, hence the requirement for us to act responsibly. Indeed religions might well have sprung up as a way to corral our new found agency. To head off our new found powers inevitably being used destructively.
*The fall is a mystery, about what happens when new powers are given to a being. Some characteristics of that being, which were useful in the life of the being prior to the fall. When exercised with the new powers become destructive for a period, while the being is learning to adapt and use the new powers wisely. The powers provided by eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge are great and so the destructive potential is great.
Yes, I was not implying this when I introduced the idea that brought up Buddha nature. I was simply pointing out that the nature is within us.
I would suggest though that the process of achieving enlightenment may well be an entirely natural process and that a participant would naturally go through the mental struggles, or adaptation in a form concomitant with their circumstances. For example a shaman in a community of forest dwellers. Or a Stone Age person.
To be clear, I wasn't saying that 'essential goodness' is an initial state and spiritual practice aims to 'go back to that' but rather to an intrinsic potential present and that the aim of spiritual practice is the fulfillment of one's nature.
I was simply saying that in both (groups of) traditions:
(1) 'evil' (either framed as sin, defilments etc) is seen as an extraneous addition to the mind, i.e. something that is parasitic to it.
(2) given the former point, one can reasonably interpret that the aim of spiritual practice is, in fact, to fulfill one's nature and this fulfillment entails the purification from these extranous 'additions'.
Notice that while in Christianity there is, of course, much emphasis to a return to a state of original purity, there is also the idea that the 'blessed' in Heaven will reach a state that admits no further fall. So, it isn't like the state of humans before the fall (however interpreted) but a better state in which human nature is perfectly fulfilled. I'm not saying that you find the same idea in Buddhist traditions but I see a similarity here.
Quoting MN 4, bhikkhu Sujato translation
Quoting Janus
I see your point. I think that a more 'modern' analogy would be something like a movie. There is 'nothing' that passes from a snapshot to another but there is continuity.
Of course, you can still say that snapshot have a material frame and follow a plot that characterizes the movie. But IMO you can say that nothing is truly 'going to' the following snapshot.
At the same time, however, I believe that when we try to describe it conceptually we inevitably posit an essence. That's why 'enlightenment' is not seen as merely intellectual.
Notice, however, that an 'essence' limits the changeability of something (edit: because an essence would imply a defining characteristic that cannot be changed without annihilating the entity that bears the essence).
I think the best way to see 'moral teachings' of religions is to try to see them as a way to cultivate our own nature. While a 'legalistic' way of seeing them has perhaps its purpose, the deepest way to see them is IMO to see them as aiming to our education and assist our (spiritual) growth.
Right, but it seems undeniable that each entity is unique and that there will never be another the same. In our thinking about the one, I think we should not dis-value or deny the reality of the many.
No matter how we might want to diminish its importance by intellectualizing it, it is undeniable that each biological entity's deepest instinct is to survive. I think that is the unconscious motivation for concerns with rebirth and afterlife. It is really a motivation deriving from, a concern that finds its genesis in, the very sense of self these various religious teachings are advocating liberating ourselves from in one way, by means of faith, meditation or practice, or the other.
So, I don't see it as being a help, but rather as a hindrance, to effective practice leading to liberation from the fear of death.
I have never been able to make sense of how one can build a coherent moral philosophy about this (Disclaimer: I'm not saying that one cannot live a virtuous life!).
I mean, any concept of 'moral responsibility' that I find coherent assumes that the agent of an action and the bearer of moral responsibility of that action is the same person. If, for instance, a man is caught because he stole something, if there is no 'real moral agent' that is the same as the agent that did the theft, it would simply be unjust to punish the thief.
Quoting Janus
I personally agree with this. At the end of the day, even Buddhists would say, for instance, that Buddha and Ananda were, in some sense, different individuals and when the Buddha reached enlightenment it was an event that had an effect on him and not on others. Simply saying that their individuality is merely a product of different 'causes and conditions' seems too reductive to me. If selves are ultimately illusory, why are all the 'fruits' of practice experienced 'individually'?
The very fact that we can distinguish between individuals IMO implies that, as you say, each being is unique and this points to an underlying essence that is, ultimately, what distinguishes that being from other beings.
(I stop posting for today...)
Very much so. Presumably that is why we are here, to educate us in our spiritual growth?
This is where my thinking differs from Buddhist theology and I move back to the Hindu tradition. I find the dissolution of the individual upon death as incoherent in the way it is generally presented. I am aware of the explanation for it, but see it as part of an apology for the wholesale rejection of atman and a presence of the divine world in our world.
I am unsure about the identity of the Bodhisattvas and enlightened beings. Also there does seem to be some equivocation around this point. There is a universal consciousness, but each individual is one drop of water in an ocean of water drops. There is a denial of a permanent self, or identity, but a permanent self, a universal self is smuggled in and plays the same role.
Hinduism is saying the same thing, but in atman the individual retains some individuation ( not the Jungian definition) while similarly being a drop of atman in the sea of atman.
There seems to be equivocation around Karma too, that it shapes one’s next life, while denying that the individual remains after death. And how can the karmic debt be repaid, when the agent who took out the karmic debt does not any more exist. Again, I understand there is a explanation given, but it comes across as apologetics again.
In Hinduism, the divine world is here with us, walking alongside, interacting with us and the theology delineates it’s presence.
Yes, I hope and tend to think this is the case.
Interestingly, I believe that it is a somewhat classical teaching in Christianity that the 'spiritual life' is a process of growth and the state of the 'blessed' in Heaven is the ultimate realization of human nature. IIRC, Gregory of Nyssa in his book 'On the Making of Man' distinguishes three types of aspects of the 'soul': vegetative, animal (perceptive) and rational and saw the process of physical growth both in the womb and in the physical growth process as a gradual fulfillment of the first two aspects. The third is cultivated through virtue. However, this process is completed in the afterlife.
Also, in Christianity, in a similar way to Buddhism and Hinduism, you find reference that the fulfillment of spiritual life entails some kind of 'death' (even in the New Testament passages like: John 12:24, Galatians 2:20, Ephesians 4:22-24; also the metaphor of the 'sown seed' is used to describe the relation between the earthly body and the 'spiritual' body in 1 Corinthians 15:42-44). This to me makes sense even from a purely 'religious neutral' point of view: when we, say, grow from childhood to adolescense and then adulthood we might conceptualize the process of growth as a succession of metaphorical 'deaths' and 'rebirths' and resisting to these 'deaths' is actually detrimental to our spiritual health even if they can be quite scary. I'm not surprised therefore that 'dying to oneself' or similar expressions are used as a positive sign for spiritual development.
Quoting Punshhh
Buddhists would argue that the termination of a particular lifetime is just a more evident instance of change that also happens during a lifetime. They would argue that if there is an atman, change would be impossible. I can see why they say that but IMO their rejection of atman assumes that their opponents think that selves like concepts are changeless. I don't know how one can 'remain the same' while also 'changing' but to be honest it's not that the rejecton of atman isn't free of conceptual difficulties like that of moral responsability.
Quoting Punshhh
I believe that generally Buddhists would assert that all the enlightened minds share the same nature of mind but not the same mind. Just like, say, all fires are instance of 'fire' doesn't imply that all fires are manifestation of a cosmic fire.
Quoting Punshhh
Or even something like a wave (a mode of existence) in the sea. I don't think the part-whole language should be taken too literally.
Quoting Punshhh
Perhaps a traditional Buddhist answer would frame the problem in the distinction between the 'provisional/conventional' and the 'ultimate' truth. In the ultimate truth, there is no karmic continuity even in the same lifetime. In the provosional truth, individuals persist from life to life. However the provisional is ultimately illusory. So, again, the problem perhaps even worsens: not only there is a problem to explain how karma works from life to life. But there is a problem of how to explain it even within a lifetime once one questions the existence of the atman.
So, to be honest, I was never convinced of Buddhist defenses that I read.
Interestingly there was an ancient Buddhist school (the Pudgalavada) that affirmed the existence of 'indeterminate selves' perhaps to explain karma and compassion.
Quoting Punshhh
Yes, this makes sense to me, that it is a living development, or growth. The plant cannot flower until the plant has grown, the bud formed and the right season has arrived. Then it flowers in tune with nature, the ecosystem which sustains it. The religious, of spiritual life is about tending to the plant that it grows healthy and straight, is not blighted. The culmination of this process is the transfiguration of the being, the flower representing the thousand petalled lotus of the crown chakra. This transfigured being would walk in another world, having sloughed off, discarded, the physical world.
Yes, growing pains, or initiations, represented by the stations of the cross, or the trials and tribulations, the four sights of the Buddha, before he found the middle way. These are also important of stages of development of the person, or being, towards a life of selfless service to fellow beings and the ecosystem, rather than dwelling on the animal passions. Likewise for the follower on the path, there are a series of initiations in which they see, or step forward into, the world (for them) to come. These crises shatter, or break the casing of the bud, that it can open, so to speak.
Yes, I will not dwell on this, because if it works for Buddhists, then that’s fine and any differences between different traditions, are part of how the tradition developed and are not important.
If enlightenment is somehow a part of our nature, then this means that it's inevitable that we will somehow become enlightened and that no effort is required of us in this direction.
Which would be nice enough, but then one has to wonder why it hasn't happened already.
Quoting boundless
But what is "spiritual growth"? @Wayfarer likes to call me cynical, but I think I'm merely, at long last, being realistic, when I think "spiritual growth" looks an awful lot like Social Darwinism.
Quoting boundless
And they are, for thousands of rebirths-- just not forever and not absolutely.
Because such is the nature of experience.
There's even a semi-formal modern school of Buddhism, called "Buddhist phenomenology", precisely to account for this.
Even ordinary worldy psychology doesn't grant people such uniqueness.
We are unique for various legal and taxation purposes, but otherwise, systemization, categorization, depersonalization are the norm.
Quoting boundless
I'm not a Buddhist either.
I don't specifically take any issue with any of the teachings, but on the whole, from my dealings with Buddhists and with religious/spiritual people in general, I can't escape the impression that religious/spiritual teachings somehow aren't supposed to be taken all that seriously.
- - -
Quoting AmadeusD
Is there a place where it's not like that?
Even at a philosophy discussion forum, people will not simply answer one's questions, and when they do, it's often with platitudes.
Justice is another strong motivator. If someone wrongs you, and you're unable to revenge yourself or they die before you have the chance, then what?
In order to effectively maintain that a system of ethics is worthwhile, one has to believe that justice will prevail, if not in this life, then in the next.
A particular person's fear of death will be shaped in accordance with the beliefs they have internalized in their prerational phase, ie. as children too young to understand what it is they are internalizing. There are, for example, people who were born and raised Christian; such people have no fear of death per se, but they have the fear of displeasing God, fear of God's judgment, and other times, none of these, because (like some Protestants), they are confident that their eternity is with God, in eternal happiness.
Quoting Janus
In traditional Buddhism, there is no notion of universal liberation.
Didn't think this would ever be necessary ...
See here, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology#Temporal_cosmology
The Noble Eightfold Path.
I don't believe it per se, but I know it's standard Theravada doctrine and I'm familiar with it.
I'm not posting here in order to convince anyone of the "truth of Buddhism"; I'm just trying to make sense of my experience with Buddhism and Buddhists and it seems to help me to talk about it in this setting (such discussion is pretty much impossible in a Buddhist setting).
The pertinent question is, "What is a living being?"
And also, "What is the self?"
Most problems that people have with the notions of kamma and rebirth stem from a lack of clarity on these two questions.
What dissolution of the individual upon death??
The body and what is related to it is said to dissolve upon death, yes, but that's it. The "immaterial" components persist.
For a plethora of scriptural references in various contexts, search https://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html
by the keywords
reappears
and
dissolution
Buddhism doesn't reject divinity; it just doesn't think much of it.
In Buddhism? What you say sounds like Hinduism.
A permanent self in Buddhism? Where did you hear that?
What is your source for Buddhist doctrine??
Well, as long as one isn't an outcast!
Quoting Punshhh
The first thing to ask is, "What is the self?"
Also, "What is a living being?"
I presume that if you had a definitive answer to this question, you wouldn't be here. Secondly, the Buddha goes into great lengths to define what the self is not or what is not fit to be regarded as the self.
Quoting Punshhh
Do you mean this in a sense that enlightenment is inevitable, a given, just a matter of time?
Quoting Punshhh
The Hare Krishnas call those trappings "the false ego".
Quoting Punshhh
Then what's the use of assuming you have Buddha nature"?
Sure. But currently, we suffer, our molars rot, and dishes and laundry pile up.
Really? How do humility and faith help you find the right spiritual teacher? And how do you know he's the right one, given that you're still under the veil of ignorance?
See my earlier points.
See also Thanissaro Bhikkhu: Freedom from Buddha nature
It's in line with what you have said so far.
I'm saying the pertinent question is, "What is a living being?"
And also, "What is the self?"
Most problems that people have with the notions of kamma and rebirth stem from a lack of clarity on these two questions.
See also my other replies to other posters here.
I’ll rephrase that, I can't fathom how you arrive at that conclusion from what I’ve said so far.
This.
His silence on these matters strikes me as a case of, "*sigh* Didn't you listen to anything of what I've said so far?"
In my experience, Buddhists can be very harsh in the treatment of this topic. If you're a newcomer and start asking questions about the self, chances are you'll get shot down with a "You're only asking this because you want a permanent self! Now STFU!"
Oddly enough, both Buddhists as well as non-Buddhists are reluctant to discuss matters of selfhood.
Because I distinguish between rebirth and reincarnation.
Now tell me: What is the self? What is a living being?
Just to clarify, you're claiming that, judging from what I've posted so far in this topic, I'm thinking in terms of reincarnation, not rebirth. I asked how you arrived at that conclusion from what I've written in this topic so far and your answer is that you "distinguish between rebirth and reincarnation."
Just wanted to comment on this. I think this is wrong. Consider for instance the potency of an infant to grow up in an adult or the potency of a person to learn a skill or a subject. You can say that such a potency is intrinsic to the infant but can't be actualized without the agent efforts and also the aid of others. Likewise for the second example.
So I can totally see how even if the potency for 'enlightnment' is essential to a person's nature, the person still needs a lot of effort and arguably the aid of others is needed (hearing the Dharma, joining the Sangha and so on).
In mos Christian traditions too, to be 'saved' you still need personal effort not just the necessary help of Grace (except for those who think that salvation is due to purely God's actions).
However, if 'potency for enlightnment' isn't an essential property of a being, then arguably 'enlightnment' would be like transforming a rabbit to a volcano, i.e. doing a transformation that completely lacks any intelligible continuity. And to be honest I can't say how you can avoid the possibility that these transformations might happen without positing an essence, an atman... this is another reason why I can't accept the Buddhist denial of atman. If there are no essences how can regularities be present?
I would say that a similar thing IMO happens with moral responsibility. It doesn't seem possible to me to consistently believe that 'provisionally' you remain tbe same person and hence responsible for past actioms and also believe that ultimately this is illusory. Others might disagree but I just can't.
I hope to address the rest of your points in the weekend. I'll be busy in the coming days.
I’m no Buddhist scholar, but it seems to me from what I’ve heard and read over the years that Buddhism does include pretty much all the cosmogony of Hinduism, but behaves as though it doesn’t exist. Is silent on the issue and assumes a spiritual, or divine ground, while sometimes denying there is one, or refusing to discuss it.
In a nutshell the self is an embodied, individuated expression of divinity.
A living being in a biological entity, as a part of a biosphere, or ecosystem. Although, this is not the whole story as it embodies a self as just defined.
Well I read, that some people upon enlightenment remain at the doorway, or portal to nirvana. Or return into the world, as enlightened beings, refusing to go through the door until the last person has reached that point and would go through behind them.
I go back to the analogy of the plant, the plant naturally grows with the aim of flowering. Some seed lands on poor ground and die, or fail to mature into a plant that can produce a flower. Most will produce a flower.
I didn’t, I don’t assume anything (not entirely everything), these are just hypothesis.
Yes, we are in a world, embodied. It’s a bit like a contract, I suppose you pay a fee, some suffering and in return have the opportunity to experience being in a world, embodied. Personally I think, I’ve got a good deal. I am aware though, that some have a poor deal and how human behaviour has resulted in that, or exacerbated it. This awareness and helplessness is part of the suffering too.
Im not talking about an external spiritual teacher, but a development within one’s self. Remember Buddha nature, there is an inviolable bit of one’s self. That is the teacher, or intuition*.A school in the external world and a life in the world are necessary and for most a mentor is required. It is a dance, a journey, with many roots in the path to trip up on.
*I’m aware of the guidance around Buddha nature in the link you provided.
I just see it as an evolutionary continuum, that Buddhism is a refined version of Hinduism. They are certainly of the same school, compared to say, Buddhism and Christianity.
There is no denial of moral agency in the Buddhist teaching. This is made completely clear in the Attak?r? Sutta:
Here “self-doer” and “other-doer” simply mean oneself (self-doer) or some other agent (other doer). The Buddha’s point is that if there is initiation of action, then agents are discernible, and once agents are discernible, responsibility follows.
What Buddhism denies is an underlying, separate identity that persists unchanged through all changes. Agency is not denied. Moral responsibility requires causal continuity but that doesn't imply an eternal unchanging self, some element that is above and beyond all change.
You clearly missed the point. I was responding to the underlined, not making a comparison between humans and animals, except insofar as it seems more normal to impute, whether rightly or wrongly, moral responsibility to the latter.
I just assume that in religious discourse a moral agent is confined to contemplation of human individuals. Although if there is talk of people reincarnating as ants, or rabbits, I’ve never been quite sure how that is supposed to work.
I don't equate justice with revenge, but I get that the idea that wrondgdoers can get away with their wrongdoing and escape justice by dying is not palatable.
Quoting baker
I don't believe that, because I think the idea of justice is rightly based on compassion. A psychopath may be incapable of genuinely ethical behavior, since for me it comes down to intention. We generally think that animals are incapable of ethical behavior, a view which indeed may be incorrect, but assuming that it is correct, why should we expect more of a psychopath than we do of animals?
Out of time now...
How so? Couldn't, in theory, an all-powerful being choose to end itself? That line of suggestion seems more like a quasi-profound, grade-school-level mental trick masquerading as something deep in order to stave off existential dread or fear of death. Arguably that's what all religions are. Up until the point of reminding one's self there's always more to know, and the current collective knowledge of man is far from all there is to know, even if it may be at present, all that can be. That's true religion.
Personally, I'm fascinated with the lesser or primitive religions. It shows how the earliest minds worked, their greatest fears, and how they overcame them. It's like a perfectly preserved and incredibly detailed history of human development. If you know how to read and unpack it, of course.
I agree that humans being reborn as animals, even insects, makes little sense even within the doctrine of karma. Buddhism altogether lacks any metaphysical force insofar as it lacks any capacity to explain the world we experience in common.
Who said reality has to make sense? That is to say, conforms to every single standard and belief (or most pertinently: capacity of such) we hold? :chin:
There’ll always be a previous cause or rebirth going back infinitely.
All this means is anything one can understand has to be understandable per the limitations of one's current knowledge. Sure, a dozen centuries or so ago human beings flying and taking to the skies wasn't "real" and "didn't make sense." Yet people dreamed and drew pictures of it as if it were real and made sense. This means it was plausible. Imaginable. A then-fantasy. That soon became an actuality and a now-boring staple of what we call "reality." I don't see how that has anything to do with the point I was trying to make.
Quoting praxis
Logically, I can't think of any argument to the contrary. Hypothetically however. And pardon me for taking your time to peruse the library of what nearly all rational men would consider an experiment in insanity, an unwanted diagram of the ridiculous. But just per chance, say what if, reality is greater than any man knows. The things we think as possible are merely "what is" or what happens to be, and what we think we know as impossible, is simply a realm yet to discover. What then? What if, as some religions state, "all things happen for a reason" and that determinism is in fact real in a say mythological sense. Our future is known and perhaps even woven by "the Fates", per Greek mythos. What then? It's possible to change the past, this is even true in modern fiction movies such as oh I forget the name, the time travel movie with the Dolorean car. Take that as philosophical thought experiment. What then? Sure, this is a discussion about mainstream Buddhism. But surely there are those who deviate. And deviation from the norm is in fact the cause of all human progress and innovation. In fact, it's the cause of mainstream Buddhism itself dare I say. So again I ask. What if? :chin:
You said."who says reality has to make sense?". I was pointing out that anything that would count as a reality for us must make sense. The point was clear.
So, subjectivity over objectivity, then. Sure. That's certainly a valid frame of mind to hold in philosophy.
However, I feel it should be noted I don't happen to have a roadmap or atlas of your mind and philosophical convictions, nor does any other person outside of your head. And yes, I understand. It's "common sense" or to some "only a fool would think otherwise (something other than myself)", etc. But that's not why we're here, now is it? Certainly not why you are, I'd wager. :smile:
Quoting Outlander
I don't know why I'm here.
I wasn't denying that Buddhism accepts moral agency and moral responsibility. I was questioning how the latter concept can be consistent with a denial of unchanging (either temporary or eternal) identity. If there is such unchanging identity I can't see how one can attribute accountability. TBH, all the arguments that I have encountered from Buddhists have failed to persuade me. I have found them as more like attempts to rationalize the denial of an unchanging self by trying to explain moral responsibility in terms of mere continuity. For instance, if I do a 'bad action' I leave a damage in the successive instances of my mind-streams which might ripen in a future lifetime. However, if I at the same time hold that "it is incorrect to say that it will be me that suffer from these consequences because there is no fixed identity" I would be correct to say that if there is no unchanging self, it would be not 'just' for the 'future being' to experience the results of 'my' actions.
The Pudgalavada posited an indeterminate self to explain these issues. However, I think that my other argument also applies to them.
If there are no essences that constraint the ways in which a sentient being might exist, why are there regularities at all? If there are no essences, why does an acorn give rise to an oak tree rather than an apple tree? In other words: if anatman is interpreted as denying essences or even essences with determinate defining characteristics, why do we observe regularities?
@Janus and @Punshhh, in Buddhism animals are subject to karma and their intentional actions can have good or bad fruits like human's. So, while I can agree that 'moral responsibility' is a too loaded term for animals, Buddhism accepts that they can do things that are relevant for karma.
This is an extremely interesting question. I think that it is something like 'maturity'. The aim of education IMO should be the perfecting of character, i.e. the establishment of virtue and the avoidance of vice. It seems that most ancient cultures (in both the East and West) accepted this kind of idea but, of course, disagreed about what 'perfect character' would be and how we should reach such goal. However, I believe that there are similarities between some important ethical teacings of the said traditions and also how in the descriptions of how the 'perfected' are said to behave and so on.
At the same time, I also share your perplexity about the efficacy of the 'traditional teachings' when we observe the behaviours of supposedly trained practicioners or even revered figures. This perhaps means that the 'visible' demarcations between 'official' traditions (both within the same religions and between different religions) do not reflect the exclusivist readings of the teachings contained in those traditions. At the same time, it seems that all religious traditions contain seemingly explicit statements that the 'goal' is to be found only if one follows the 'right' path and if one adheres to the 'right' tradition.
"Selflessness" (in a practical sense, not the Buddhist doctrine of 'anatman') and "non-attachment" for instance are said to be a sign of 'spiritual maturity' in many traditions. This to me suggest that one becomes more 'spiritually mature' if one becomes less concerned with, say, one's social status, possessions etc.
At the same time, I don't claim to have a 'proof' that 'spiritual growth' is indeed real. However, I see enough evidence of it being real even if the evidence itself is ambiguous.
Quoting baker
If there is no unchanging identity, how can one be held accountable? Mere continuity isn't enough (see the above reply I made to @Wayfarer for this point and the point I made about essences).
Quoting baker
OK. I know that. I stil however have to see a fully convincing explanation of this.
Quoting baker
I can see that but indeed we are 'unique', right? Individual differences are undeniable even among animals, let alone humans. This does suggest that there is 'something' that distinguishes individuals.
And to be honest, if there isn't anything essential to individuals, how differentiations in separate 'mind-streams' is even possible?
Quoting baker
I do respect Buddhism and find it fascinating - both Theravada and Mahayana. However, I have intellectual and practical doubts and concerns that keep me outside.
Regarding the last sentence, I see it more as evidence that people hardly take some teachings seriously rather than they shouldn't be taken seriously even if those people belong to a tradition and perhaps are even 'intellectualy' convinced that these teachings should be taken seriously. In other words, cognitive dissonance seems to be very widespread.
Yes, when they develop agency. Lightening doesn’t have agency, although it was depicted as an act of God, a Divine agency.This is because it appeared to have great power and urgency. But that power is only the emergence of energies in a forum of interacting energies and particles. Animals and plant’s do have agency because they act as an entity, an agent. Although that agency is largely defined by the group (species) in how it adapts to the environment and the responses and karmic actions of the individual entity is largely dictated by instinct, or biologically programmed behaviour.
Right. I can even attribute them some kinds of rudimental responsibility/accountability but not to the type of enough mature human beings.
Quoting Punshhh
I can see what you mean.
For reasons that I don't know, Buddhism doesn't attribute the status of sentient beings to living beings different from animals, humans (and other realms). Plants for them aren't sentient beings. To be honest, I don't think I can agree with that. It seems to me that a rudimental sentience is present even in plants and perhaps even in fungi and single-celled organisms.
Quoting Punshhh
:up: Interestingly, spiritual traditions link virtue to 'freedom' and vice to 'enslavement'. Vice makes humans 'brutish', animal-like because it corrupts rationality. So a 'brutish' behaviour is normal for animals but a corruption (and a result of a corruption) for humans. That's the reason why, in my opinion, 'moral responsibility' or 'accountability' in their proper sense is too loaded for animals. At the same time, however, animals IMO have the ability to choose among options and perhaps even have something that 'approximates' rationality.
So, true freedom in this view isn't merely an ability to choose among options but rather an ability to choose in a truly free, i.e. rational way. 'Spiritual growth', then, might be seen as a way to become 'more free' (I'm reminded of some passages of John's Gospels "the truth will set you free" (Jn 8:32) and "everyone who sins is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34) as well as a passage in a Buddhist discourse that states: "Just as the great ocean has one taste, the taste of salt, so also this Dhamma and Discipline has one taste, the taste of liberation." (Udana 5.5)).
In fact, that's where the idea comes from to begin with, and this is where it does make sense.
According to traditional Buddhism, the Buddha taught only one thing: suffering and the end of suffering. That's all. Whatever worldly (or supernatural) benefits one might obtain through practicing the Path are incidental to the Path, not integral to it. Traditional Buddhism isn't interested in explaining "the world we experience in common", that has never been its scope, even though especially later, some have tried to make it part of its scope.
According to traditional Buddhism, you're either interested in making an end to suffering, or you aren't. And if you aren't, then what are you doing around someone who clearly states that suffering and the end of suffering is all he teaches?
Earlier, you said that "we" keep getting reborn. I asked you who is "we", and you won't tell me. You also won't define what you believe is the self and what a living being.
Do I have to ask you three times ...
If people would only study primary religious texts as a primary source, many problems they proclaim to have with said religion would go away. Instead they tend to rely on hearsay, or tertiary sources at best, and then, quite predictably, there is confusion and frustration and ill will and dismissal ...
Granted, unlike the Bible or the Kuran, the Pali Canon hasn't been around in readily available translation for that long. But it is now, and there is no reason not to reference to it.
Denial of self, denial of atman, denial, denial, denial. Where do you get this? What is your source for learning about Buddhism?
In the Pali suttas, the Buddha never says "there is no self", even when asked directly, he is silent (as has already been quoted in this thread). But he goes to great lengths to list what is _not fit_ to be regarded as the self.
Have you thought about this concept of something not being fit to be regarded as the self?
Kamma is what makes you.
It looks like you're trying to fit Buddhism into the metaphysical categories you're already familiar with.
Quoting boundless
Held accountable by whom? A Jehovah-like judge god? A galactic court of law? Whom?
If you're asking how come there is a legal system, complete with the punishment system, in traditionally Buddhist countries, then that's another question.
If you're waiting to be convinced, then you're possibly in for a very long wait.
Of course. But are those things fit to be regarded as your self? Is, say, the amount of melanin in your skin somehow definitive of who you are?
In about the same way as you can make differently shaped biscuits out of the same dough.
Once I've seen Buddhist Trumpistas, it made me doubt how well I understood Buddhism. I mean, I know Buddhists who understand Pali, who can quote the suttas and all kinds of Buddhist texts far better than I, and yet they are Trumpistas. Things like that make me think there is something about the big picture of Buddhism that I don't understand, even though I'm quite confident that I have a measure of understanding of the teachings from the Pali Canon.
Sure. But the true-nature theory would have us believe that we don't have to make any big, life-changing decisions, that it's somehow enough if we just "follow our hearts", and that if we "do our best", this will somehow suffice and we are sure to become enlightened.
Again, sure. But the true-nature theory is overstating the case. Namely, that if you have the potential to become enlightened, it's somehow guaranteed that you'll become enlightened.
Traditional Buddhism is in this somewhat similar to Roman Catholicism; in RC, the person cannot be sure until the end whether they are in fact saved or not; in contrast, there are Protestant churches where a person is considered saved from the moment they are baptized. In RC, you're regarded as having the potential for salvation, but you won't know until the end, there are no guarantees; in some Protestantisms, you're sure of your salvation from the onset.
The issue at hand is this personal conviction of one's salvation or enlightenment. The true-nature theory and the Protestantisms are keeping one confident and thus comparably lazy, in comparison to traditional Buddhism and Roman Catholicism, where one is always on one's toes until the end.
To give a mundane example: Suppose you killed someone when you were 20 years old. Somehow, the police didn't catch you then; you escaped, moved to a different town, changed your name. Now you're 80 years old, and the police come knocking on your door.
Are you the same person at the age of 80 as you were when you were 20? Only provisionally.
Quoting baker
If we restrict ourselves only to the Theravada, what about the very long first chapter of the Kathavatthu, a commentarial text included in the Pali Canon (TBH, I haven't read the whole thing but it is a lengthy denial of the existence of the 'person')?
The fifth century Visuddhimagga also has this impressively reductionist view about this topic and quotes an equally reductionist earlier commentary (now lost):
(Visuddhimagga, Part 3, ch.28, 31; bold mine)
(As a side note, this is different from modern reductionism that deny the reality of consciousness. Here it is denying the existence of the self. But still, when I read it I was surprised on how reductionist Buddhist texts can be)
And what about this passage from an early sutta: "Bhikkhus, since a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established" (from MN 22)? Isn't this after all a denial of atman?
Of course, you can go on with a Pudgalavada view or perhaps bikkhu Thanissaro's practical view of anatta but telling that Buddhism hasn't usually deny the existence of the self is weird.
Quoting baker
If so, then, when kamma ceases, I am annihilated. Provisionally, this is might true for Buddhists. But ultimately, most would deny it.
Quoting baker
I disagree. I can't exclude it but to be honest Buddhist themselves seem to have debated in similar terms.
Quoting baker
I'm not necessarily positing it in legalistic terms. But any kind of moral theory seems to posit persistent (either temporal or everlasting) agents.
Quoting baker
Perhaps not. However, TBH, I think that Buddhist critiques of the self assume that their opponents accept a static self of some sorts. What about thinking the self as a river, i.e. something that stays the same precisely because in some respects it is always changing in some ways?
Quoting baker
I see, but then one might ask why there is a multiplicity in the first place. This is not an objection to what you have said here and it tells more about me than anything else. But one is left wondering about how differentiation originated in the first place.
Quoting baker
Same goes for me and not only about Buddhism but also about other religions. I am impressed on how certain people are so familiar with their religious texts and hold views in other topics that seem to me in open contradiction with what the texts say.
Quoting baker
Well, yes, perhaps this is a danger for the 'true-nature' views. But what about the opposite view? If I believe that the 'final' state is something 'alien' to my own nature, how can I not conclude that the 'final state' entails a replacement of 'me' with 'something else'? To me this other view would completely render spiritual life meaningless because, at the end of the day, the 'realized' would be a different 'entity' from me.
Regarding what you say about Protestants and Roman Catholics, it is arguably the reverse. I believe that even someone like Thomas Aquinas would say that the 'visio beatifica' is the ultimate fulfillment of human nature, whereas many protestants would retort and say that there is a greater discontinuity between our fallen nature and the state of the blessed, in a way to imply a sort of complete and discontinuous transformations. But to be honest, I think that you can't make such a kind of general statement for both traditions (in the same way that one can't say that, for instance, all Theravadins nowadays agree on how to interpret Nibbana, anatta etc).
Quoting baker
I personally think I am truly the same person. If not, holding the 80 years old me accountable wouldn't make sense.
And where is there denial?
It says that the controverted point is "That the “person” is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact."
It's about how a person can be known and whether it can be known as a real and ultimate fact. And even the puggalavadin says it can't.
That's not denial of person or soul, that's saying it cannot be known as a real and ultimate fact. This is neither pedantry nor avoidance, although some claim it is. It just says what it says, and one shouldn't make unwarranted inferences.
Perhaps one of the crucial points in Eastern philosophy in general is its use of the ex negativo approach: defining something by what it is not, or otherwise using negation. (Hence also all the terms beginning with a(n)- (such as ahimsa, alobha, adosa, amoha), which often make for strange sounding translations into English and other Western languages.)
Mahayana texts can be even more reductionist, to say nothing of the reductionism of pop Buddhism.
No, it's says just that: that a self and what belongs to a self are not apprehended as true and established. Which I agree with. For the life of me, I can't apprehend as true and established a self and what belongs to a self. What I see is the body of a person, I'm aware there is a concept that this is a person, I'm aware that there is a popular consensus that this is a person. But can those things properly be regarded as the self? I don't see how.
Who am I? What am I? Whatever I can think of as answers to these questions, I can't think of anything that I would find satisfying. Whatever answer I can think of, or whatever answer some other people want to impose on me, is something that I feel miserable about, a disappointment. I imagine that "my true self" would be something I feel happy and confident about, and not a source of misery. And if it's a source of misery, why insist on it??
A contextual point here is that traditional Buddhism (as per the suttas), is only really appealing to those who have become considerably fed up with life as it is usually lived. It's not clear that one will stick around Buddhism for long if one is only curious about it. One has to have some sense of samvega for traditional Buddhism to be appealing. (It's actually very strange that Buddhism grew into a religion at all.)
No, it's just accurate, as far as the Pali Canon goes. And of course, in practice, Buddhists of all varieties often claim "there is no self", but they can't provide a canonical scriptural reference for that claim if their life depended on it. It's an ongoing dispute in Buddhist circles, too.
In roundabout, yes.
Who would deny it? Most people in general, or most Buddhists?
We could look into those in detail ... but time is of the essence.
So does the theory of kamma.
Well, because that's just what they often do, the same as 80-year old you below.
Like the ship of Theseus analogy?
This is actually in line with the Buddhist notion of self as a process, an activity, changing throughout rebirths, but somehow staying the same.
A pithy saying says that differentiation is an illusion, and that for things to exist separately, it is only necessary to name them.
This is still assuming a "true nature" throughout it all. How can you not conclude that the 'final state' entails a replacement of 'you' with 'something else'? Because you believe that you have your own nature. It's how any belief about "true nature" hinders you in one way or another, by making you complacent or despondent. It doesn't really matter what in particular one believes that one's "true nature" is; as long as one believes on "has a true nature", this will be hindersome in some way.
Like I said, the issue at hand is the personal conviction of one's salvation or enlightenment. If one believes that one's salvation or enlightenment is guaranteed, one will not be motivated to practice toward salvation or enlightenment. (Upthread, we were discussing motivation for practice.)
In a legal, worldly way, of course it makes sense. But beyond that? Should we take worldly standards as the ultimate standards? Why?
If "who I really I am" is what worldly standards claim that I am, then that puts me into a hopeless situation. Now why would I freely resign myself to that??
I can't answer for them.
Yes.
Because divinity, in Buddhism, is nothing particularly special or worth aspiring to (even the devas are not enlightened). As for "assuming a divine ground" -- are you thereby refering to creation by Brahma?
Mhm.
This doesn't sound promising.
I agree that Buddhism offers only a soteriology and not any coherent, consistent or explanatory metaphysics, and the idea that it does offer the latter is all I've been arguing against.
The denial is apparent when you consider that the text clearly asserts that the aggregates, sense bases etc and Nirvana are 'known' whereas the 'self' isn't. Just to make an example from the Kathavatthu:
If the Theravadins (or rather, their 'ancestors') believed that a third option was possible, it was good time to make it clear but they didn't. Either the self is knowable and can be described as permanent or impermanent or it is unknowable precisely because it doesn't exist (except as an illusion). And I don't believe it is a chance that the very first chapter of the book is devoted on this topic. They clearly believed that this topic was particularly important to have it in the very first chapter of a quite ancient text that is devoted to 'controverted points' among Buddhist schools. If your point is that provisionally the self can be said to exist then OK. I mean I never disputed that this is true for all Buddhists. However, provisional/conventional truth is generally regarded as ultimately illusory.
BTW, here is another excerpt from the later commentarial text Visuddhimagga:
(same chapter quoted in the previous post of mine, par. 28)
It is evident to me that this is saying that the 'self' is illusory because it is a composite entity and all the composite entities are illusory. Only what is irriducible is regarded as ultimately real. I can't see how this is saying anything different.
Quoting baker
Yes, but I wasn't arguing from the Mahayana simply for time reasons. Yes, reductionism is also prevalent in the Mahayana. However, in Madhyamaka you'll get to the view that 'reductionism' is used to show that the 'self' (and other composites) is illusory but at the same time this branch of Mahayana doesn't posit a set of 'ultimate dhammas'. So, in some sense, Madhyamaka isn't reductionist because there aren't dhammas that are 'more real' than the composites.
Quoting baker
I agree with you that the suttas are less 'clear' on how to interpret anatman than the commentarial texts and a pragmatic view that you seem to endorse is perhaps compatible with them. And yes, I agree with all you're saying that the point of the teaching of anatman/anatta is to dis-identify with what normally we identify without however identifying with something else. This is compatible with a 'pragmatic view' of anatman, a denial of it and perhaps even the Pudgalavada's indeterminate self view. I believe that it is not a chance that even Buddhists disagree on how to interpret the suttas. They aren't clear as one would think them to be. However, the explicit denial of the self is a time honoured interpretation, not just a bad 'Western reading' that introduces extraneous metaphysical categories.
Quoting baker
That's my point. Kamma simply breaks down if you don't assume persisting agents. So one can have reasonable doubts about the consistency of Buddhism. Rather than 'rebirth', the thing that is IMO at odds with anatta is kamma itself. If one takes kamma very seriously then and also accepts that Nibbana is the end of kamma, one automatically thinks of Nibbana in annihilationist terms. This is a bit of a problem because annihilationism is one of the extremes to be avoided. So, how can one truly arrive to a state that supposedly is freed from thinking in 'personal' terms if one takes kamma seriously?
Quoting baker
I meant most Buddhists.
Quoting baker
I disagree because in order to have a persisting identity something must remain the same. However, this doesn't imply that an object of experience that remains the same.
Think of a river. It remains a river only if its material contents change but, at the same time, some of its properties remain the same (like the starting and the ending points, the number of its affluents, and other physical properties).
Quoting baker
This is very good for a monistic view where all differentiations collapses in one real entity (like Advaita Vedanta) or even a Madhyamaka view where all differentiations ultimately are negated without however an 'ultimate entity' that remains. I'm not sure that this can be accepted by a 'traditional' Theravadin that follows the 'Abhidhammic' tradition.
Quoting baker
Yes, I see three options:
1) there is a 'true nature' that is real and spiritual practice aims at perfecting it
2) there is a 'true nature' that is real and spiritual practice aims at replacing it with something else
3) there is no 'true nature' and the aim of the spiritual practice aims at recognizing it
Alternative (2) would imply an annihilation, so I'm not sure how it can be motivating unless one wants to annihilate oneself. (3) seems to be closer to the Buddhist view. However, I believe that conceptually has its problems (how to explain regularities, responsibility/karma) and so on. (1) has the big advantage that sees spiritual life as a sort of 'perfecting' oneself even it that means to 'die to oneself' in some sense.
To be honest, I see (1) as the most motivating here because it explicitly says that there is a continuity between 'me' and the 'final state'. I still can't see why you think that it automatically leads to 'laziness'. I mean, you can still have to make much effort to reach the 'final state' even if it is somehow the fulfillment of the 'true nature'.
(1) also has the advantage to make more sense of daily life. I can refer to 'myself', 'me', 'you', 'he', 'she' etc without also believing that in some sense these terms are incorrect. If I help someone I'm not just 'reducing' an 'impersonal' suffering but I'm truly helping someone who is perhaps like me in some important sense. One should remember that asserting (3) also implies (3) for all others.
I honestly see in Buddhists texts a lot of tensions between (1) - which seems to be implied by Buddhist ethical teachings both at the individual and the communal level - and (3) which is more doctrinal. However, if (3) is accepted, (1) is false.
Edited for clarity
What about zazen which emphases that meditation is 'just sitting' and that this is all that is required to achieve it which would imply that no metaphysical beliefs are necessary? Of course you could say 'they assume that the practitioner would already have those beliefs in place' but it is how literally you choose to take their claim that just sitting is all that is required. It is not just meditation as whole school emphasises this sudden enlightenment approach.
Also Taoism I read in the past has the similar idea of meditation being purely the act of sitting, nothing more.
Whatcha waiting for?! The zafu's waiting!
Never underestimate the Zen folks. That's a whole other kind.
This seems to be part of the problem: Thinking that it's about becoming convinced through an explanation. You know how it goes: Don't go by reports, traditions, logical conjecture ...
Quoting boundless
There's absence of evidence. That's not yet evidence of absence.
There is still the possibility of a placeholder self, for example. A placeholder that can be filled later on, insight permitting.
Well, what would it do to you to consider yourself in those ways, and to base those considerations solely on reports, traditions, logical conjecture, deference to authority?
With an emphasis on the Visuddhimagga being a later text.
Yes, of course, I'm aware that the mainstream Buddhist party line is "there is no self."
How?
The fact that there is an agent at all is due to kamma. The agent and kamma are not somehow separate, there can't be one without the other.
Or perhaps that currently being unenlightened one might not fully understand it yet ...
And yet one can also stop oneself from thinking that way.
By focusing on the present moment ...
Look, I'm not being glib here. I think a major problem that many people, esp. Westerners have with Buddhism is that they think too far ahead, try to commit to too much at once. I think a crucial part of "spiritual work" is to fight for one's "breathing space", literally, instead of trying to force oneself into some preexisting box of "how I'm supposed to think, feel, speak, and do as an aspiring Buddhist."
Many people who have an interest in Buddhism are inadvertedly shaping their involvement with Buddhism in line with the expectations they have picked up from Western culture in general, or from Christianity in specific. Ie. "You have to figure it all out within a foreseeable time, and then you have to commit to it for the rest of your life."
The scary thing is not to do it that way, but to take one's time, and space. I've seen all too many people who are into Buddhism, who go all in early on, and then they spend decades playing catch up to their commitment. My personal experience has been that giving myself time and space has a marvelous effect on my ability to think things through. And not just a weekend here and there, but months, years, too. Of course, this cost me all my Buddhist "friends".
I don't know what else to say to your question ...
If you currently don't know what exactly your true nature is, this means you have to go by what someone else told you or what you concluded through reasoning. Meaning that at the core of your spiritual practice you're placing something that is uncertain. Sure, it may look nice and worthwhile, but is it true? You don't know that yet. It is my thesis that this has a demotivating effect, and that according to the suttas, there is a way around that.
But is ‘identity’ being challenged? A Sanskrit term that you will know is ‘svabhava’ meaning ‘self-existent’ or ‘self-originated’. Something 'self-existent' would exist 'in its own right' - not being dependent on anything else. What can be said to conform to that description?
It's also important to understand what the Buddha dismissed as 'eternalism'. This was the belief that the self could be indefinitely reborn ad infinitum in favourable circumstances due to right discipline and ritual actions. Literally to 'live forever'. But that doesn't undercut the principle of identity or agency.
Remember Alan Watts' book The Supreme Identity? That was one formative book in my journey. I don't know how well it reads now, but I recall that the whole idea was the idea of seeing through the conditioned identity of ego, and how this is expressed in the different spiritual traditions.
Quoting boundless
I don’t think this was what Buddhism is really about. Western metaphysics and Buddhism are orthogonal to each other in this respect. The Aristotelian 'essence' arose in a very different cultural context and against the backdrop of a very different question.
Quoting unimportant
I think part of the problem is that we ourselves bring 'metaphysical beliefs' to the practice. We have ideas about what Buddhism means - often formed from our own cultural atttitudes to religion.
I was very much influenced by the well-known book Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, which was published late 60's by Shunryu Suzuki, who founded the San Francisco Zen Centre. It's a book that is well worth owning. But here's the thing: that commitment to 'just sitting without any idea of gain' (he says this constantly) requires a religious discipline! Sitting zazen is physically demanding, and maintaining that practice commitment day to day even more so.
So I realised after not very long that this idea many Westerners had (including myself) of a kind of 'instant enlightenment' which appears to come out of popular Zen books is misleading. Zen in its cultural context is a real discipline,
Yes, in order to be absolutely sure one should 'walk through' the path in a very serious way and see for oneself. However, our lifetime is limited and we can't practice all spiritual traditions. We have to make our own judgments about which tradition (if any) seems more reasonable and choose accordingly. I do envy sometimes those who are absolutely convinced of the validity of their tradition. If one become very convinced, i.e. truly believes in the validity of a tradition one has to wrestle to far less mental impediments. However, I can't be like that, so I'm still in the process of questioning, exploring, studying...
Quoting baker
Yes, but IIRC even in the suttas I believe that there is a statement that compared those who seek an unknowable 'self' as those who sought something impossible to find. So, a total absence of evidence is a very strong argument of an evidence of absence.
Quoting baker
No. In fact, I do believe that a 'self' exists. However, I do accept that it cannot be a 'static' entity. But it somehow persists as the same entity (like the river example I made), i.e. something that remains identically the same through changing. After all, when a child becomes a teenager the 'child' dies and the teenager 'is born', when the teenager becomes an adult, the teenager 'dies' and the adult 'is born' etc. Without positing a persisting identity, the process of growth becomes unintelligible to me. So, I also have emprical evidence for my position (I don't consider such an evidence logically compelling however).
Quoting baker
Sure. It is about the 5th century CE. However, the Theras who considered the Visuddhimagga authoritative also preserved the Pali Canon and decided which works were canonical and which weren't. Also, the Visuddhimagga quotes earlier commentaries a lot.
Furthermore, I can't make sense of the early canonical Abhidhamma if they weren't positing an ontology similar to the later. Why even try to find a set of 'more fundamental' dhammas if one is convinced that such an enterprise doesn't lead to you to a set of ultimate dhammas?
Anyways, whether we like it or not, these 'post-canonical' commentaries have more or less been the official interpretation within the Theravada for much time. So, I'll guess that their opinions should be taken seriously.
Quoting baker
I never understood Thanissaro's position to be honest. This to me seems like an agnosticism, i.e. that the self might exist but you have to put aside the question. Insight will clarify. So thank you for this perspective that seems to explain his position. However, if insight causes one to cease to think in terms of 'I', 'me' and 'mine', isn't this a very strong argument for the 'no self view'? I mean the 'no self' view primarily denies that there is something that can be taken as 'I', 'me' and 'mine'. If this claim is true, the assumption that there is an 'I' is illusory. So the self is the content of an incorrect assumption.
So, again, I don't think I find a practical difference between the Thannissaro's position and the standard one unless one takes an agnostic position and allows the possibility of the existence of the self.
Quoting baker
Perhaps, yes. I do not claim spiritual achievements.
Quoting baker
However, and this is a problem, if there is a self and I stop thinking in terms of a self, I would be wrong. So, unless I'm sure that there isn't a self, why should I stop thinking in terms of it? Yes, you can say that those 'enlightened' said that suffering stops if I stop thinking in terms of self/'I'/'me' etc. However, can I be sure that they are right?
Quoting baker
Thanks for your perspective and, indeed, I believe that you made good advices on how to engage Buddhism for those who were raised outside it (and perhaps even to Buddhists themselves). I think I agree. Sometimes I ask myself if my later 'distancing' from Buddhism was due also to my own improper earlier attempt to accept it at a stage when I wasn't ready to do that. I'm trying to mantain an open mind about religions (not just Buddhism) and try a 'slower' approach.
Quoting baker
No problem. I was trying to reach the conclusions that a belief in the lack of differentiation might lead. Anyway, I do incidentally believe that, if there is no unconditioned ontological support for the conditioned, Madhyamaka is perhaps the best model of reality.
Quoting baker
Yes, I admit that. I can't claim to have a true understanding of what my 'true nature' is. Neither I do claim to know that it exists. However, I do believe that the belief in a 'true nature' fits better to my own experience.
P.S. This is my last reply to you in this thread. Hope to see you around the new forum!
If only 'self-existence' was seen as a problem, why would the Buddha say that one shouldn't think in terms of 'I', 'mine' and 'myself'? To me it means that the very belief in the 'self' is what was being questioned, not just a way to conceive it.
The two 'practical' tension I was pointing to are:
(1) how can I believe that I will be the owner of my actions if I don't believe that, ultimately, it is correct to think in terms of self, 'me', 'mine' etc?
(2) how can I have truly have compassion to other beings if, at the same time, I also believe that their 'selves' are not ultimately real?
Perhaps an enlightened Buddhist can, but I can't.
Quoting Wayfarer
I don't think that this covers the entire spectrum of eternalist views criticized by the Buddha. Consider this passage:
Quoting MN 22, bhikkhu Bodhi translation
Here there is no mention of being continually reborn. Rather, the belief being questioned is a belief in the possibility of reaching a peaceful forever persistent state after death.
Quoting Wayfarer
Yes, I can see that but at the same time you have Buddhists text that distinguish conventional/ultimate dharmas, discuss the former being an illusion and so on. And, indeed, those texts who seem to uphold the belief in an existence of ultimate dharmas explain the latter as being 'real' and bearing defining characteristics. I don't think that this is too far from 'Western' talk of substances and essences.
Quoting unimportant
I believe that @Wayfarer made a good reply about zen. Regarding Taoism, unfortunately, I don't know much of it. I did read the Tao Te Ching and parts of the Zhuangzi, but at the same time the historical development of 'Taoism' is far less clear than that of Buddhism and I don't know how Taoists relate their practice with the statements in the texts.
The part you quote is certainly interesting:
Quoting Zhuanghzi, chapter 6
I do believe that the metaphysics of Taoism is the closest to Buddhism (especially texts like this or chapter 2 of the Zhaungzi as well as some portions of the Tao Te Ching). However, I can't say much about the practices.
BTW, this is my last post in the forum. Hope to see you all around in the future forum.
I don't doubt it but that is besides the point to the question which is about being able to practice without the cruft added by the religious doctrines themselves.
I do know that zen traiditions do believe in reincarnation, having listened to Gudo Nishijima talk, being a notable scholar of the Zen tradition, and him stating 'there is no death'. I actually think that is what he said right when he died as well.
The question is whether that is required by them to achieve enlightenment. Anyway it seems a bit like circling a hole now rather than trying to step in one's self. We can circle it all we like but it doesn't help at a point. I would say very little has been achieved in this thread. No offence to participants. It has felt like each person talking at one another with their own entrenched belief about the subject matter.
It can still be entertaining for sure but certainly hasn't done much to resolve the OP.
Well, I suppose that I can’t speak for you and I apologize for presuming. I am myself a sentient being, or at least I was the last time I checked.
Your apparent belief that Buddhists don’t use the word “we” is odd, I will add.
It is not that my mind couldn't be changed but rather no one said anything convincing to sway my viewpoint.