[Buddha-l] Have more fun: deny nirvana, not rebirth [was Batchelor]

[Richard Hayes]

On May 26, 2010, at 11:29 AM, Jamie Hubbard wrote:

> I mean, you and 
> Jay Garfield in the same room don't even mix it up, and that is sheer 
> impossibility!

You have to remember, Jamie, that Jay and I have walked each other's (or is it others'?) dogs. Men who have bonded with other men's dogs can never fight with them. It would be unnatural.

> Isn't denying nirvana another one of the big no-no's that'll get ya to 
> hell?

I'll let you know where I end up after I die. Wait, no I won't. I'm a humanistic materialist, so I don't believe in rebirth. So I won't be letting you know. Still, let's play like there is such a thing as rebirth. I don't think denying nirvana necessarily results in being reborn in hell. I think it just results in being reborn somewhere in samsara (which is, I admit, pretty much like hell almost everywhere one goes these days).

> Of course, I do declare that I am a nirvana denier. But for me the 
> reason isn't a dismissal of rebirth (tho I cannot accept that either), 
> it is simply that although the final goal of the Buddhist path comes in 
> many flavors, most if not all of them have some sort of ultimacy 
> ("maximal greatness," in Griffiths' terms) about their taste that simply 
> renders them unbelievable in today's world, other than as an upaya 
> (kamra = stick and nirvana = carrot). Without denying the power and 
> magic and poetry of the idea, there came a time when I simply had to ask 
> myself what I actually thought might be possible-- and I have yet to 
> come up with anything that smells remotely like nirvana that also seems 
> a possibility for humans.

Jamie! Go wash your keyboard off with soap! There might be children reading buddha-l. (At least, there is very good evidence there are no adults who read it.) But I am in complete agreement with you. I think nirvana is a hopelessly outdated idea. I think promising it as a possibility can do nothing much magnify duḥkha, for all the reasons you have stated.

Sangharakshita has allegedly said that Jack Kornfield should stop calling himself a Buddhist, because Kornfield has said that nirvana as traditionally understood is impossible. (By the way, the Nyāya school held the same view. Andy Fort, I believe can tell us more about jivanmukti and its deniers in classical India. But will he?)

> Simply put, humanistic 
> psychotherapy makes more sense.

I agree completely. But did you really think I had the courage to say something like that at Smith College in front of Bhikkhu Bodhi. I may not believe in nirvana, and I am completely rational in every way and therefore have no false beliefs or superstitions, but I do know that being frowned on by a Jewish bhikkhu causes one's daffodils to wilt. I just can't risk such consequences. Surely you understand.

> As an eminent Japanese scholar once put it to me after a long conference 
> and an even longer evening, "At the end of the day, we are all Pure 
> Landers."

If Sarah Palin gets her way, BP will be given drilling rights in the Pure Land. So at the end of the day, there may not be any pure lands left.

> It is too easy to be a Buddhist atheist. Be a Buddhist heretic: deny 
> nirvana.

It is one thing to deny nirvana, but to encourage others do deny it is quite another. Be seeing you in hell, buddy!

Richard