[Buddha-l] Enlightenment as dogma

[Federico Andino]

Here´s the thing about this kind of skepticism: if you don´t really know how
the Buddha (well, any buddhist) can could show conclusively that there´s a
Nirvana (Anuttara Samyaksambodhi/´ja lus/etc) to be gained, you will always
doubt it can be achieved. And if you require that proof is shown, well, it
can´t be proven conclusively. And therefore, you will be bound by that
belief, and you won´t make the try. But it´s just a belief. Now, Nirvana its
also a mental concept (even the ultimate truth of Candrakirti is a relative
truth, after all) but its necessary to make us loosen up a bit and to be
able to let go some of our categories of belief. It´s not Dharma as in
"reality" but rather Dharma as in a way to make us be in an intimate
relationship with reality.

In my experience, most truly devoted buddhist have something that, quite
frankly, I don´t. Call it serenity and equanimity, call it enlightment, call
it whatever; I would like to be as good as them dealing with life and
reality, that´s all. That´s why I´m a buddhist; not because someone told me
to belive there´s a Nirvana, but rather because somewhere along the line I
though "dear chap, to be as compassionate and peaceful as that must be
grand; to what are they attributing their state?".

Best regards

Federico

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 11:15 AM, Stefan Detrez <stefan.detrez at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>