Can enlightenment be achieved without appeal to any supernatural elements?

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;

enlightenment in Eastern religions, particularly within the Indian context of Buddhism and Hinduism, refers to a profound shift in consciousness, the cessation of suffering (dukkha), and the realization of the true nature of reality. It is generally understood as an awakening from the ignorance (avidya) that binds beings to the cycle of rebirth, rather than just an intellectual achievement.

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.

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? — unimportant

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:

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. — 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:

Can enlightenment be achieved without appeal to any supernatural elements? — unimportant

The only possible way is, as you yourself say:

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. — unimportant

i.e. try and see if it is indeed possible for yourself. Apologies if I came across as asserting this kind of view:

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. — unimportant

It certainly wasn't my intention.

Have a read of the suttas contained in SN 15. Belief in literal rebirth was indeed seen as a motivator. — boundless

You haven’t read the chapters and can’t point out where it says that? — 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).

“Good, good, mendicants! It’s good that you understand my teaching like this. The flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating is indeed more than the water in the four oceans. For a long time you’ve undergone the death of a mother … father … brother … sister … son … daughter … loss of relatives … loss of wealth … or loss through illness. From being coupled with the unloved and separated from the loved, the flow of tears you’ve shed while roaming and transmigrating is indeed more than the water in the four oceans.

Why is that? This transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.” — SN 15.3, bhikkhu Sujato translation

At one time the Buddha was staying near Sāvatthī.

“Mendicants, this transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving. When you see someone in a sorry state, in distress, you should conclude: ‘In all this long time, we too have undergone the same thing.’ Why is that? This transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.” — SN 15.11, bhikkhu Sujato translation

The Buddha said this:

“Mendicants, this transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving.

What do you think? Which is more: the flow of blood you’ve shed when your head was chopped off while roaming and transmigrating for such a very long time, or the water in the four oceans?”

“As we understand the Buddha’s teaching, the flow of blood we’ve shed when our head was chopped off while roaming and transmigrating is more than the water in the four oceans.”

“Good, good, mendicants! It’s good that you understand my teaching like this. The flow of blood you’ve shed when your head was chopped off while roaming and transmigrating is indeed more than the water in the four oceans. For a long time you’ve been cows, and the flow of blood you’ve shed when your head was chopped off as a cow is more than the water in the four oceans. For a long time you’ve been buffalo … sheep … goats … deer … chickens … pigs … For a long time you’ve been bandits, arrested for raiding villages, highway robbery, or adultery. And the flow of blood you’ve shed when your head was chopped off as a bandit is more than the water in the four oceans.

Why is that? This transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.”

That is what the Buddha said. Satisfied, the mendicants approved what the Buddha said. And while this discourse was being spoken, the minds of the thirty mendicants from Pāvā were freed from defilements by not grasping. — SN 15.13, bhikkhu Sujato translation

At Sāvatthī.

“Mendicants, this transmigration has no known beginning. … It’s not easy to find a sentient being who in all this long time has not previously been your mother.

Why is that? This transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.” — SN 15.14, bhikkhu Sujato translation

That said, all of this doesn't disqualify bhikkhu Analayo's quote in this post:

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. — Tom Storm

To an outsider, this makes sense. To an insider or a prospective insider, it doesn't.

You pick an unlikely one. But a Pope who doubts aspects of doctrine and practice is natural.

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?

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. — 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?

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. — unimportant

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.

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.

People keep saying this. You'll need to provide an actual quote from the Canon for this.

Also didn't he become enlightened by refuting all the myriad systems he tried before and looking for his own way?

That's your Western take on it.
He didn't "refute them", he later realized where they went wrong.

How far would he have gotten if he followed these 'total faith in one school or nothing' folks?

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.

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.
— baker

Making the post, and studying religions and the common threads does not count as a step? — unimportant

No. It's procrastination.
You clearly say you want "enlightenment", but all you do is putter around, spinning your wheels.

Not sure why baker has derailed the thread into some back and forth about how leaders should act in positions of power? I don't see how it is related to the OP, which is asking how a lay seeker should find their own path. If so please 'enlighten' me. — 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.

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. — Joshs

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.

The 'framework of understanding' is that of 'depedendent origination' (Pratītyasamutpāda) - the sequence of stages which culminate in birth (and hence sickness, old age and death). — Wayfarer

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.

The aim of Theravada Buddhism is cessation tout courte, with no mind to the suffering of others. — 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.

Hence the centrality of compassion in Mahāyāna Buddhism.

Oddly enough, religions that focus heavily on compassion also like to balance this out with cruelty otherwise...

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!

Yes.

To an outsider, this makes sense. To an insider or a prospective insider, it doesn't. — baker

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.

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? — 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.

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? — 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.

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. — 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."

Have a read of the suttas contained in SN 15. Belief in literal rebirth was indeed seen as a motivator.
— boundless

You haven’t read the chapters and can’t point out where it says that?
— 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). — boundless

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.

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.
— baker

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. — praxis

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.

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. — baker

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.

Or just read Thanissaro Bhikkhu's The Truth of Rebirth And Why It Matters for Buddhist Practice. — 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.

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. — 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.

To an outsider, this makes sense. To an insider or a prospective insider, it doesn't.
— baker
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. — Tom Storm

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.

How did we suddenly arrive at stake burning?

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.

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.

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.

Well, this doesn’t really address the issue of whether holding doubts within a belief system is good or bad.

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.

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?

Yes.

Who is punished for not holding a particular belief today, except by faiths with narrow, intolerant, and fundamentalist belief systems?

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.

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.

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)?

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.
— baker

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'. — boundless

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.

Personally, I consider Mahayana and Theravada separate religions. They of course share a lot in common but they have radically different beliefs.

Absolutely.

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.

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.

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.

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").

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.

Exactly, as I've been trying to tell the OP.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. — baker

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.

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. — 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).

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"). — 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).

Exactly, as I've been trying to tell the OP. — baker

:up:

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. — baker

Yes.

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. — 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.

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"? — baker

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)?

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? — praxis

A very dishonest conclusion you have drawn there and shows you do not have a serious interest in exploring this topic.

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. — Joshs

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.

we have to reinvent it in a modern context. — Punshhh

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.

Oh and good to see some lively discussion in this thread now a few others on different sides have joined into the fray. :)

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. — Punshhh

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.

Apologies if I came across as asserting this kind of view — boundless

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.

The religious dogma has been ripe in this discussion. — unimportant

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 Mahāyāna 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.

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. — David Brooks

Amen to that ;-)

A very dishonest conclusion you have drawn there and shows you do not have a serious interest in exploring this topic. — unimportant

Sorry. If you’re willing to indulge me I’ll try again, and try very hard to be honest this time.

Honestly I think the salvation is found in the limitations or order that religion provides. The grand narratives and moral codes offer a sense security and meaning. And of course comfort is found in a unified community.
— praxis

Maybe in part but you cannot really be claiming that is all that is entailed in becoming enlightened? — 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.

You know another huge institution which has those qualities you state? The military. Not seen many Buddhas come out of their ranks. :D — 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.

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. — baker

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.

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.

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.
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"? — 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.

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. — 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?

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)? — 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.

Now, "suffering due to pain" seems clear. But what about the other two? What does even mean "suffering due to formations"? — boundless

It seems obvious to me―it means suffering due to negative thought complexes or patterns.

“Mendicants, this transmigration has no known beginning. No first point is found of sentient beings roaming and transmigrating, shrouded by ignorance and fettered by craving. When you see someone in a sorry state, in distress, you should conclude: ‘In all this long time, we too have undergone the same thing.’ Why is that? This transmigration has no known beginning. … This is quite enough for you to become disillusioned, dispassionate, and freed regarding all conditions.” — 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.

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. — 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?

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. — baker

Ever heard of Parkinson’s Law?

Exactly but the dogmatists will say even changing it 1% is bastardising it beyond recognition.

That is just orthodoxy, it works for some and not for others.

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.

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 work, 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.

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. — unimportant

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.

It seems obvious to me―it means suffering due to negative thought complexes or patterns. — Janus

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...)

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. — 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.

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? — 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.

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 Theravadins would generally reply that this is wrong and the final cessation of suffering is 'Nirvana without remainder' — boundless

Ok, I found the source:

"Dukkha is [the world's] greatest fear."
(Ajita Sutta, Sn. 1033)

"Dukkha is [the world's] greatest fear" is the Blessed One's reply to [Ajita's question] "and what will be its greatest fear?"

Dukkha is of two kinds: bodily and mental. The bodily kind is pain, while the mental kind is grief. All beings are sensitive to dukkha. Since there is no fear that is even equal to dukkha, how could there be one that is greater?

There are three kinds of unsatisfactoriness (dukkhatā): unsatisfactoriness consisting in [bodily] pain (dukkha-dukkhatā), unsatisfactoriness consisting in change (vipariṇāma-dukkhatā), and the unsatisfactoriness of formations (saṅkhāra-dukkhatā).

Herein, the world enjoys limited freedom from unsatisfactoriness consisting in [bodily] pain, and likewise from unsatisfactoriness consisting in change. Why is that? Because there are those in the world who have little sickness and are long-lived.

However, in the case of the unsatisfactoriness of formations, the world is freed only by the Nibbāna element without remainder (anupādisesa nibbānadhātu).

That is why "Dukkha is [the world's] greatest fear", taking it that the unsatisfactoriness of formations is the world's inherent liability to dukkha.

(Nettipakaraṇa 12; bolded mine, source: https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=6539#p6539 )