[Buddha-l] Enlightenment as dogma

[Stefan Detrez]

I have no idea what proof can be produced for the Buddha's Nirvana. I took
enlightenment as term, as it comes closer to 'awakening', I might as well
have spoken about nirvana. I guess to be awakened or to have attained
nirvana mean the same thing, but again, I'm not a specialist. Maybe being
awakened has a similar meaning to being a streamenterer: one realises that
something needs to be done about suffering.

My intuition however is that the Buddha's state of being awoken is an
important premise for followers to put faith in the fact that following his
Cure will ultimately lead to the end of suffering. In this sense I see his
nirvana as a dogma. It is a necessary prerequisite to become a Buddhist. If
one doesn't accept for a fact that the Buddha's suffering was ended by his
method, than there doesn't seem to be much reason why one would follow it.
But I guess the importance varies in the context of practicing dharmic or
karmic buddhism. Doing good deeds doesn't require faith in the reality of
the Buddha's Nirvana.

I also don't think I'm mixing up dogma in a Buddhist setting with its
Christian connotation. In the portions of the Pali canon I read I've never
encountered an instance (excluding Mara's temptation) that questions his
Nirvana. It seems his Nirvana is taken for granted. I find that suspicious.
One also takes refuge to the Buddha. How do we know he is the right example?
What if ehipassiko leads to not seeing anything, would one be considered as
deluded?

Stefan