Samsara, Nirvana

Is it possible to escape the dream-filled night of samsara and awaken into the enlightened day of nirvana? Or is enlightenment a myth? If not, what would an enlightened person be like?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... fCiiojsuDM

This basically sums up my view: it's just another myth to pacify the general populace.

TCoS wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=cfCiiojsuDM

This basically sums up my view: it's just another myth to pacify the general populace.

Wow, haven't seen TAA in awhile... turns out it's just as poorly researched as it always was. At least he didn't try to traumatize a rape victim and tell her how much he hopes she gets raped again, so it could definitely have been worse.

Anyway, to really discuss Buddhism you kind of have to argue in hypotheticals or just assume Buddhism's right. If you don't believe in Buddhism, than it's a myth and there's no Samsara, Nirvana, or enlightenment.

If you do, even hypothetically, then enlightenment is not a myth and it is possible to achieve Nirvana. How you go about that depends incredibly upon which school you follow. Hinayana allows you to reach enlightenment through many means and many forms such as as an Arhat, a Bodhisattva who teaches others, or a Buddha who doesn't teach others. Mahayana, on the other hand, says that the Bodhisattva path is the only true path and that no one reaches enlightenment (except the rare, once every few eons Buddha) until everyone reaches enlightenment.

As for what an enlightened person would be like, I'd imagine that would depend on your knowledge of the Dharma and Buddhism; it's said that when the Buddha tried to teach at first, no one understood what he was saying and many just left, after which he began teaching to his listeners' knowledge level.

If you don't understand Buddhism, or base your opinions on internet personalities, you'd likely only hear what amounts to another preacher making claims about the world and possibly making a few good arguments for their case, which would probably just make them an annoying nuisance.

If you do understand Buddhism, or at least don't hiss at every religious thing you see, you'd be met by someone who made reasonable arguments that explained certain phenomenon that you might not understand. Based on parables we've read, the actual people can be vastly different, going from coercing and entire pantheon of gods into conversion, to hitting their students with sticks, to transforming misogynists into women, to being hypercritical of everyone else, so you can't really generalize what they'd be like beyond that.

Wow, haven't seen TAA in awhile... turns out it's just as poorly researched as it always was.

Really? Where'd you get that from? Nothing seemed factually inaccurate to me.

At least he didn't try to traumatize a rape victim and tell her how much he hopes she gets raped again, so it could definitely have been worse.

What a nice strawman you've set up here! Anything to back up your boisterous insult, or just hypocritical hate?

Anyway, to really discuss Buddhism you kind of have to argue in hypotheticals or just assume Buddhism's right.

Ah, so you're telling me I have to beg the question to understand Buddhism? You know what that's called buddy? A logical fallacy.

If you don't believe in Buddhism, than it's a myth and there's no Samsara, Nirvana, or enlightenment.

Well this seems redundant.

If you do, even hypothetically, then enlightenment is not a myth and it is possible to achieve Nirvana.

... Da heck?! If you believe something, it's true? I mean, what? Seriously, just what?

How you go about that depends incredibly upon which school you follow. Hinayana allows you to reach enlightenment through many means and many forms such as as an Arhat, a Bodhisattva who teaches others, or a Buddha who doesn't teach others. Mahayana, on the other hand, says that the Bodhisattva path is the only true path and that no one reaches enlightenment (except the rare, once every few eons Buddha) until everyone reaches enlightenment.

Again, this is all assuming this is true.

As for what an enlightened person would be like, I'd imagine that would depend on your knowledge of the Dharma and Buddhism; it's said that when the Buddha tried to teach at first, no one understood what he was saying and many just left, after which he began teaching to his listeners' knowledge level.

How freaking convenient. He spouts a bunch of mumbo jumbo and just because "we're too ignorant to understand" it must mean that it's enlightened word? Ooooookay.

If you don't understand Buddhism, or base your opinions on internet personalities,

So passive aggressive!

you'd likely only hear what amounts to another preacher making claims about the world and possibly making a few good arguments for their case, which would probably just make them an annoying nuisance.

Well how'd you know?

If you do understand Buddhism, or at least don't hiss at every religious thing you see, you'd be met by someone who made reasonable arguments that explained certain phenomenon that you might not understand. Based on parables we've read, the actual people can be vastly different, going from coercing and entire pantheon of gods into conversion, to hitting their students with sticks, to transforming misogynists into women, to being hypercritical of everyone else, so you can't really generalize what they'd be like beyond that.

How wonderful. None of which seems to be anything metaphysically granted.

Now, to show a debunking Buddhism:

The supposed method of achieving enlightenment is meditation, said to calm and help us understand our minds. The trouble is, many years of research have shown meditation's effects to be highly unreliable, as James Austin, a neurologist and Zen Buddhist, points out in Zen and Brain. Yes, it can reduce stress, but, as it turns out, no more so than simply sitting still does. Meditation can even exacerbate depression, anxiety, and other negative emotions in certain people.

The insights imputed to meditation are questionable, too. In fact, all that cognitive science has revealed is that the mind is an emergent phenomenon, which is difficult to explain or predict in terms of its parts; few scientists would equate the property of emergence with nonexistence, as "anatta" does.

Much more dubious is Buddhism's claim that perceiving yourself as in some sense unreal will make you happier and more compassionate. Ideally, as the British psychologist Susan Blackmore writes in The Meme Machine, when you embrace your essential selflessness, "guilt, shame, embarrassment, self-doubt, and fear of failure ebb away and you become, contrary to expectation, a better neighbor." But most people are distressed by sensations of unreality, which are quite common and can be induced by drugs, fatigue, trauma, and mental illness as well as by meditation.

What's worse, Buddhism holds that enlightenment makes you morally infallible - like the pope, but more so. Even the otherwise sensible James Austin perpetuates this insidious notion. " 'Wrong' actions won't arise," he writes, "when a brain continues truly to express the self-nature intrinsic to its [transcendent] experiences." Buddhists infected with this belief can easily excuse their teachers' abusive acts as hallmarks of a "crazy wisdom" that the unenlightened cannot fathom.

Although Buddhism seems so different from religions like Christianity and Islam that it doesn't look like it should be in the same category, it still shares with other religions a very basic element: a belief that the universe is in some fashion set up for our sake -- or at least set up in a manner conducive to our needs. In Christianity this is more obvious with the belief in a a god that supposedly created the universe for our benefit. In Buddhism, it is expressed in the belief that there are cosmic laws that exist solely to process our "karma" and make it possible for us to "advance" in some fashion.

This is one of the most fundamental problems with religions -- pretty much all religions. Although it's more of a problem in some and less of a problem in others, it's still a fairly consistent problem that people are falsely taught that there is something in or above the universe that has picked them out for special protection and consideration. Our existence is a product of chance, not divine intervention, and any improvements we achieve will be due to our own hard work, not cosmic process or karma.

Really? Where'd you get that from? Nothing seemed factually inaccurate to me.

Well, it's probably very easy for nothing to seem inaccurate to people who don't actually know anything about Buddhism.

What a nice strawman you've set up here! Anything to back up your boisterous insult, or just hypocritical hate?

Here you go. Though, I do have to say that I don't really see a strawman in my statement even if I was lying; I didn't misrepresent his argument to make it easier to attack, at worst I would be committing an ad hominem.

Ah, so you're telling me I have to beg the question to understand Buddhism? You know what that's called buddy? A logical fallacy.

No, to discuss Buddhism further than "It's a myth, we're done." you have to accept Buddhism as true or argue in hypotheticals, either or. Never said anything about udnerstanding.

How freaking convenient. He spouts a bunch of mumbo jumbo and just because "we're too ignorant to understand" it must mean that it's enlightened word? Ooooookay.

Well, if I talked about quantum physics to people who didn't understand anything even related to quantum physics, then you would call them too ignorant to understand, wouldn't you? It's not inherently enlightened words because they can't understand it, it's just that his words were radically different to what there was previously and people didn't understand what he was saying. There's an actual term for it, but when he taught to their actual level, they started to understand and he could advance his teachings from there.

Now, to debunk Buddhism:

Why the hell do you think I care about proving or debunking Buddhism? This thread isn't about how good and true a religion or lack of religion is, it's about discussing particular elements of a religion. If you don't understand the elements of the religion, and wanted to answer the original question with "Nope, it's a myth," you've done that and have nothing more to contribute. I don't want to debate the validity of this faith over another so if you want to duke it out with some zealot just as defensive as you, there's other places for it.

Also good job copy/pasting articles from John Horgan and Austin Cline. It's probably for the better that you didn't come up with your own arguments.

Lifecharacter wrote:Why the hell do you think I care about proving or debunking Buddhism? This thread isn't about how good and true a religion or lack of religion is

dealing with it wrote:Is it possible to escape the dream-filled night of samsara and awaken into the enlightened day of nirvana? Or is enlightenment a myth?

Well geez, I wonder what that means right there?

And you'll excuse me for not completing an already extended post with my own work when I'm literally juggling seven things right now.

TCoS wrote:

Lifecharacter wrote:Why the hell do you think I care about proving or debunking Buddhism? This thread isn't about how good and true a religion or lack of religion is

dealing with it wrote:Is it possible to escape the dream-filled night of samsara and awaken into the enlightened day of nirvana? Or is enlightenment a myth?

Well geez, I wonder what that means right there?

And you'll excuse me for not completing an already extended post with my own work when I'm literally juggling seven things right now.

And you know, no one was disputing your first post where you said that it was a myth, so going to great lengths to prove to the nonexistent dissenters that parts of Buddhism are incorrect isn't something someone juggling seven things should be doing. If you want to have a discussion on the other parts of the OP and won't be taking your information on Buddhism from disgusting youtube personalities, we can do that, or we can derail the thread some more with pointless bickering.

Lifecharacter wrote:

TCoS wrote:

Lifecharacter wrote:Why the hell do you think I care about proving or debunking Buddhism? This thread isn't about how good and true a religion or lack of religion is

dealing with it wrote:Is it possible to escape the dream-filled night of samsara and awaken into the enlightened day of nirvana? Or is enlightenment a myth?

Well geez, I wonder what that means right there?

And you'll excuse me for not completing an already extended post with my own work when I'm literally juggling seven things right now.

And you know, no one was disputing your first post where you said that it was a myth, so going to great lengths to prove to the nonexistent dissenters that parts of Buddhism are incorrect isn't something someone juggling seven things should be doing. If you want to have a discussion on the other parts of the OP and won't be taking your information on Buddhism from disgusting youtube personalities, we can do that, or we can derail the thread some more with pointless bickering.

There is really no point for me to discuss anything more when I've already stated I believe the whole faith is a sham. The OP asked if enlightenment was false, I said yes, and I've got nothing more to say. And no, I don't wish to pointlessly bicker. We had a simple miscommunication; it happens.

Sorry if I snapped at you, again we weren't on the same page.

I'm out.

I'll explain my understanding of Buddhist theory, so as to avoid just beating the hornet's nest. Both sides have presented themselves, so there's not much more to be said based on the OP alone.

This is, as Lifecharacter suggested, hypothetical. (I'll avoid talking about reincarnation because that's a contemporary Hindu belief. It was likely adopted by Gautama, just as Christianity borrowed from pagan religions, to explain the principle of causality to a primarily Hindu audience. I can't in good conscience attribute it to that Buddha. My esoteric understanding of reincarnation is that it functions like a parable, and is not to be taken literally.)

And so:

Life is suffering. Suffering arises from attachment. Attachments arise from delusion.

The most common delusion is that things (such as the world, the ego, and all manner of material goods) exist in themselves. That is to say, I am deluded when I say that I exist, or that the world exists, or that my computer exists.

The contraposition to this delusion is that all things are parts of a web of a singular Existence, and no parts exist outside of the whole. Just as a shadow on the ground cannot appear without a light source, nothing is self-subsisting. We are all One with the Universe and everything in it.

The result of delusions like the above is that most beings are trapped in ignorance -- a dreamworld of false notions -- called samsara. The theory is that suffering ceases once we do away with ignorance. There are various methods that have been passed down to awaken us from samsara.

Some use logical proofs. My own first experience with polyvalent logical systems was Buddhism, which uses a little thing called a "tetralemma" , where every proposition has four values: true, false, both, and neither. (In other words, something can exist, not exist, exist and not exist, or neither exist nor not exist.)

Others use puzzling riddles and stories called "koans" to awaken our understanding. An example of a famous koan is "if a tree falls in the forest with no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Most koans use quite a bit of effort to learn the lesson.

Karma is the force that keeps us in samsara. One thing leads to another and another and another, ad infinitum. To transcend samsara, we have to understand the nature of karma.

Karma is the action of things in the world, of one cause leading to another. But, since things only appear to have causes, as everything is One, karma is ultimately a foolish notion, and must be abandoned: and, along with it, samsara.

dealing with it wrote:Is it possible to escape the dream-filled night of samsara and awaken into the enlightened day of nirvana? Or is enlightenment a myth? If not, what would an enlightened person be like?

I don’t have a direct answer to your question, but...

I don’t believe a lack of dreams implies being awake. Nirvana could be dreamless sleep instead, a step down from the semi-awareness one has in dreams.

Desire can lead to suffering, but aren’t we too fast to assume suffering is a bad thing?

Also, when we desire to stop desiring, we expose ourself to suffering (from emptiness). And we can’t achieve no-desire without desiring to, and at the same time as long as there is the requiered desire to stop desiring, there is that desiring, making achievement of Nirvana a logical impossibility. It looks like a trap to me.

It seems more awake, enlightened, wise to me to desire the greatest achievable thing, and to go on and achieve it. There may be suffering before achievement, but that is worth it to have purpose. (But of course, what is “great”?)

That said, I don’t claim to understand Buddhism. I know the Buddha said some very smart things (or that those were attributed to him), but that’s as far as my knowledge goes.

cucumbersome wrote:Desire can lead to suffering, but aren’t we too fast to assume suffering is a bad thing?

How could suffering be a good thing?

cucumbersome wrote:And we can’t achieve no-desire without desiring to, and at the same time as long as there is the requiered desire to stop desiring, there is that desiring, making achievement of Nirvana a logical impossibility. It looks like a trap to me.

When we eliminate desire, it could be simple momentum from habit that keeps us going.

cucumbersome wrote:It seems more awake, enlightened, wise to me to desire the greatest achievable thing, and to go on and achieve it. There may be suffering before achievement, but that is worth it to have purpose. (But of course, what is “great”?)

Enlightenment, to a Buddhist, is the greatest goal. What do you suggest that is better?

cucumbersome wrote:That said, I don’t claim to understand Buddhism. I know the Buddha said some very smart things (or that those were attributed to him), but that’s as far as my knowledge goes.

http://www.diamond-sutra.com/diamond_sutra_translation.html

DWI, you probably know what I am going to say.

Due to my denial of a knowable truth, I view enlightenment as unachievable. What would you consider enlightenment? Knowledge? Wisdom? Observation?

Personally and through all the observation I do in my life, I have the impression that most others are often ignorant, dependent or cannot think for themselves. People seem to think that they are able to form their own opinion, but then why does it perfectly blend in with the broad mass? It seems that anyone will believe what they are told or what they see in media but then get defensive when you confront them about it. It seems they live in the dream of being unaware of how they act and how dependent they seem.

If that is what Samsara is all about and Nirvana being its opposite. Then I acknowledge the former but not the latter. This statement does not prove anything I feel about myself. I neither believe I am in a dream anymore nor that I am anywhere near "enlightenment". I would rather see myself as the neutral observant, amused by what there is to observe. Who needs the so called enlightenment anyways? Does it not count just to be satisfied with yourself? Why does anyone believe to give up worldly desires such a want, love, sorrow etc. just to follow a hopeless path to seek enlightenment? Coming to this: Isn't seeking enlightenment a desire too? See where that will lead to? To give up greed and desire means to not seek enlightenment while to seek it is a desire.

dealing with it wrote:

cucumbersome wrote:Desire can lead to suffering, but aren’t we too fast to assume suffering is a bad thing?

How could suffering be a good thing?

It builds character.

But seriously, imagine someone is born into Nirvana. Does this person have any chance of achieving anything that can be called enlightenment? At the very least there is value in the ending of suffering. Putting it in different words: how can there be learning without suffering, that is without motivation?

cucumbersome wrote:And we can’t achieve no-desire without desiring to, and at the same time as long as there is the requiered desire to stop desiring, there is that desiring, making achievement of Nirvana a logical impossibility. It looks like a trap to me.

In different words:

Aniihya wrote:Isn't seeking enlightenment a desire too? See where that will lead to? To give up greed and desire means to not seek enlightenment while to seek it is a desire.

dealing with it wrote:When we eliminate desire, it could be simple momentum from habit that keeps us going.

So when the desire to stop desiring is the only desire left, we can win by giving up? Weird.

dealing with it wrote:

cucumbersome wrote:It seems more awake, enlightened, wise to me to desire the greatest achievable thing, and to go on and achieve it. There may be suffering before achievement, but that is worth it to have purpose. (But of course, what is “great”?)

Enlightenment, to a Buddhist, is the greatest goal. What do you suggest that is better?

What is enlightenment? I suggested that purpose is better than detachment, and in the current post I also suggest that learning is better than inaction. It follows that I consider the pursuit of purpose, knowledge and wisdom as leading to enlightenment, which appears to be opposite to what Buddhists believe.

It’s true that when enough people find purpose, their purposes will conflict in unreconcilable ways. But such conflict does not have to lead to unending suffering, it won’t if people don’t take themselves so seriously. I prefer a playful mind over an empty one.

Of course, playfulness can be categorized as a type of detachment, one that is active rather than inactive. Maybe a desire isn’t truly a desire if one is having it playfully (which is different from playing that one has it, because pretending invalidates purpose and the kind of playfulness I mean does not).

Well to give up isn't going to let you win because if you do not have it as a goal or desire enlightenment would be one way or the other unachievable. In my opinion it is generally unachievable, I would go as far as saying that there is no such thing as enlightenment. Those who claim to be enlightened cannot be, as for the mortal traits the claim of enlightenment is a tool for deception and anyone who believes in a specific dogma, nor matter if Buddhism, Christianity or any religion or ideology, may be subject to irresponsibility over their own thought, allowing only a collective opinion. To be honest, there are enough atheists who claim enlightenment as they feel that they are free of religion, yet they still adhere to an ideology, if these actively proclaim they atheism and make a big act about it. As to atheists, there are those who are morelike antireligious, then there are the rude critical ones, the just critical ones and then those who just do not care about belief. The latter of all are probably most social and reasonable, yet some for example here in Germany can be pretty dumb. So atheism is not a ticket to wisdom or intellect.

For a simple question: Who can people know they can tell illusion from reality?

cucumbersome wrote:how can there be learning without suffering, that is without motivation?

Youi seem to be implying that the only way people learn is through pain. Is this accurate?

cucumbersome wrote:What is enlightenment?

Ask ten people and get ten different answers. According to the goal of the Diamond Sutra, enlightenment is the Perfection of Wisdom.

cucumbersome wrote:So when the desire to stop desiring is the only desire left, we can win by giving up? Weird.

Habits are difficult to break. The amount of good habits a person has to build to be considered enlightened is great: right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, rightr effort, right mindfulness, and right concentration. (Wiki: Noble Eightfold Path)

Without developing a different motivation, breaking these habits, once built, is difficult. When "giving up", a Buddhist tends to remain a Buddhist.

Aniihya wrote:In my opinion it is generally unachievable, I would go as far as saying that there is no such thing as enlightenment.

If we consider enlightenment to be the perfection of wisdom, can we perfect wisdom? What is wisdom?

Aniihya wrote:For a simple question: Who can people know they can tell illusion from reality?

At some point, we can look back on ourselves and say "that was foolish; I was clearly in samsara". Whether we can tell when we are no longer in samsara is a curious question.

DWI: I wouldnt say we can perfect wisdom. I would say wisdom is being experienced/knowledgeable with reality.

dealing with it wrote:

cucumbersome wrote:how can there be learning without suffering, that is without motivation?

Youi seem to be implying that the only way people learn is through pain. Is this accurate?

One could find motivation to learn by wanting to avoid repeating the experience of pain. One could also find that motivation by imagining the pain happening to a hypothetical person and not wanting to become that person.

One could also be motivated to learn by wanting to achieve something positive. In some sense there is no pain involved in that, in another sense there is because wanting before or without achievement is considered a type of suffering by some (including Buddhists).

A possible third category of motivation to learn is the enjoyment of learning itself, but I would group that with wanting to achieve something positive.

Aniihya,

Aniihya wrote: I wouldnt say we can perfect wisdom.

For a different reason, the Buddha insisted that nobody could claim perfect enlightenment.

"Tell me, Subhuti. Does a Buddha say to himself, 'I have obtained Perfect Enlightenment.'?"

"No, lord. There is no such thing as Perfect Enlightenment to obtain. If a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha were to say to himself, 'I am enlightened' he would be admitting there is an individual person, a separate self and personality, and would therefore not be a Perfectly Enlightened Buddha."
Diamond Sutra, Chapter 9

Aniihya wrote:I would say wisdom is being experienced/knowledgeable with reality

I agree that one is wise precisely to the extent that s/he knows Reality. I don't see why perfect wisdom has to be impossible, though. When there is nothing else that can be known about Reality, when one has mastered the subject matter, therein lies perfection.


cucumbersome,

cucumbersome wrote:

dealing with it wrote:

cucumbersome wrote:how can there be learning without suffering, that is without motivation?

Youi seem to be implying that the only way people learn is through pain. Is this accurate?

One could find motivation to learn by wanting to avoid repeating the experience of pain. One could also find that motivation by imagining the pain happening to a hypothetical person and not wanting to become that person.

One could also be motivated to learn by wanting to achieve something positive. In some sense there is no pain involved in that, in another sense there is because wanting before or without achievement is considered a type of suffering by some (including Buddhists).

A possible third category of motivation to learn is the enjoyment of learning itself, but I would group that with wanting to achieve something positive.

At what point does learning stop? When there is no more pain, attachment, and desire?

My point is, the human is unable to understand reality to its fullest. Thats why it isnt possible.

What's possible and what isn't possible has not been fully defined yet.