[Buddha-l] Enlightenment as dogma

[Federico Andino]

Thanks! There´s a low probability to get something coherent from me, so it´s
doubly appreciated!

Best regards

Federico

On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 3:43 PM, JKirkpatrick <jkirk at spro.net> wrote:

> Good thinking, Federico...........makes a lot of sense.
>
> Joanna
> ____________________________
>
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>