Is Buddhism logical?

[cholland]

"The Buddha described Nirvana as the perfect peace of the state of mind that is free from craving, anger and other afflictive states (kilesas)." -Wikipedia

Wouldn't Nirvana in itself be a craving?

[cnorman18]

I think you are conflating Hindu ideas about reincarnation with Buddhist ideas. With no self, there is no entity to be punished or rewarded in subsequent reincarnations as with Hindu rebirth. So, the concept of karma becomes more a manifestation of interconnectedness and oneness than a mechanism for individual cultivation. I do think this mixing of Hindu and Buddhist thought is widespread in Asia, though.

Point taken; you are quite right. That is a failing more of Asian culture than of the Buddhist religion. I withdraw my remarks in that regard.

I agree about the impracticality of abandoning the sense of self. I doubt true nirvana is attainable. But, the the awareness if the illusory nature of the self can be a source of peace. It allows you to see that whatever mental pain you are subjecting yourself to in a given moment is your own doing.

I quite agree with that; in fact, I endorse it passionately. I, like my father before me, suffered from chronic depression for my entire life, but was permanently cured by "Cognitive Therapy," which is a secular version of that same insight.

Anyway, to return to the OP -- I think Buddhism is quite "logical," and in spite of the flaws I see in its fundamental insight (which I admit may well be more about my misunderstanding of it), I consider it WAY ahead of most religious traditions. It's no accident that there are a considerable number of Jews who are deeply involved in Buddhism; the term "Juddhist" is not a particularly new one. Many, including myself, see no conflict between the two approaches in a philosophical sense.

[flitzerbiest]

It's no accident that there are a considerable number of Jews who are deeply involved in Buddhism; the term "Juddhist" is not a particularly new one. Many, including myself, see no conflict between the two approaches in a philosophical sense.

I have a friend who refers to himself as a Jew-bu or a BuJu. I always get a kick out of that.

[Jacob Simonsky]

"The Buddha described Nirvana as the perfect peace of the state of mind that is free from craving, anger and other afflictive states (kilesas)." -Wikipedia

Wouldn't Nirvana in itself be a craving?

Yes. Buddhism is logical. Now regarding "desire for nirvana" or for anything else for that matter including enlightenment we come to find out about our dualism of mind and this is key.

There are two kinds of mind that we have access to. If a human being did not have a soul then the mind would be limited to that produced solely by brain consciousness. We all do have souls however. The human soul does not reside in the body but is only attached to it. It has a entirely separate life of it's own.

So, the two aspects of mind are the lower, brain mind and the higher, soul awareness. Examples of the higher include "intuition" and the "capability for abstract thought". Primitive man did not have these capabilities. We do. That is to say we do potentially. The higher mind of the soul is perceived by the physical brain when, using our lower minds, we strive properly and for a long enough period of time.

Desire and wanting are of the lower mind whereas aspiration in a manner free of these two will bring us to the portal, the beginning, of understanding. Now consider our motives. Are we free of the idea of personal gain? Do we have thoughts only of helping others? Are these true and without blemish? Here we cannot be false.

Most of us are stopped here because of the difficulty of the work of training required to get to this point. Some of us make the connection with ease and advance from there. Some of us are born to it. Within these categories we must understand that "enlightenment" is not necessarily present.

Enlightenment is easy to describe, to quantify but most difficult to achieve. Supposing that, after tens of years of work with the right motives, we arrive at a point of understanding. Have we yet actually achieved? Are we enlightened? Maybe. During all our study did we strive to live as though we were integrated soul/personalities or did we continue as average people thinking that study alone would result in achievement? This is most important. This is the reason that Buddhists, for one, are largely retiring folk who live quiet lives wherein perhaps the only possession is a food bowl that they carry with them under their robes. Can a westerner become enlightened without having to become a Buddhist? Yes. The key element, the most important idea, is motive. Do we aspire because we look forward to enlightenment or do we aspire only with the thought of serving others?

In the ordinary course of learning in the world a student attends school for a time, is tested often and graduates. Now this person is ready to achieve what he/she has prepared for. In lower spiritual matters it is the same. The un-evolved approaches enlightenment in this manner and fails. The only method that works is as follows: The student, the aspirant, learns what is required and knows the importance of proper motives. He or she actually lives the ideal that they seek all throughout the period of study. In this he or she is quite different from the ordinary student. Spiritual initiation is not a result of study. Spiritual initiation is only a result of being that which is sought. Study and meditation, even with giving and other demonstrations will not result in the door opening. Only living the ideal will prove the worth of the student and open the door.

So, back to enlightenment. Desire is transmuted to humble aspiration to serve humanity. Can we become this? Yes or no. In matters of spirit we cannot fool anyone. When we decide to move in the right direction we attract the attention of a guide which is in the group of a master soul. This guide then watches us and offers assistance. As I said before however we cannot fake humility. We cannot fake desire to serve humanity. We must not want anything for ourselves. This, too, cannot be faked.

Nirvana? A place of "knowing" and peacefulness. It is entirely worthless if we think of it in this manner because here is a very selfish image. We want to be in that high place. Selfish? Consider why we want to be there. Is to begin a life of service to others, always giving, never taking? That is the correct reason. The correct result of Nirvana is the achieving of it followed by the rejecting of it. We will reject it because that is the only way we can put it to proper use for other people who are in such need. This is the part that is not talked about much. It is OK for us to know this because only the true seekers will get to that plateau.

Blessings to us all....

[Wood-Man]

Hi James,

Thanks for opening this topic up again. I agree with much of what you have said, but my understanding of Buddhist ideas is a little different in some respects. I also have a little different personal perspective, I think. One thing I've noticed is that many people interested in Buddhist philosophy imbue it with some personal outlooks, and I'm no different on that! I am no expert, but I've done a fair amount of reading on Buddhism, attended several Buddhist retreats, and do practice mindfulness meditation. What follows is simply my current understanding; I am certainly open to expanding/revising it.

One of the central tenets of Buddhism of all stripes is the idea of Anatta or "no self." This is often described as part of the three marks of existence: no self, impermanence, and suffering. In this way, Buddhism was a departure from Hinduism, in that the Atta (self) is an important part of Hinduism. The Buddha asserted that we are really a collection of skandhas ("heaps") that are fluid and ever-changing. The five skandhas are: form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. I point this out because these philosophical perspectives really don't include a "soul". Buddhist views of rebirth are more like the effect of a wave in changing the state of things in the future. There is nothing permanent and separate, as is suggested by the concept of a soul. In Buddhist philosophy, all things are transient, interconnected and dynamically interdependent.

The Buddha taught that we generate suffering for ourselves and others because we are innately driven to deny these facts and to construct an artificial sense of self. To be released from this suffering, we must at a deep level come to understand this situation and see beyond it. So, the goal of Buddhist practice is to overcome this suffering. According to the Buddha, to do this we must follow the 8-fold path, which does indeed include many of the things you listed. However, I think selfless compassion is a byproduct of this practice rather than the goal of the practice. In fact, I think the Buddha would say it is impossible to experience truly selfless compassion without first achieving personal liberation from the tyranny of the ego. Admittedly, there is a bit of the chicken-and-egg dilemma here, because much of the 8-fold path is wrapped around cultivating empathy and compassion. Ultimately, though, the 4 noble truths define the problem and the goal, and it is about liberation.

I do realize that the reformation of Buddhism embodied in the Mahayana tradition tried to broaden the goal from an individual endeavor to one that encompassed all people, but still the goal is liberation from ego-driven suffering. It's just that by it's nature, this includes universal compassion. In a way, compassion is simply the other face of liberation.

[Jacob Simonsky]

Hi James,

Thanks for opening this topic up again. I agree with much of what you have said, but my understanding of Buddhist ideas is a little different in some respects. I also have a little different personal perspective, I think. One thing I've noticed is that many people interested in Buddhist philosophy imbue it with some personal outlooks, and I'm no different on that! I am no expert, but I've done a fair amount of reading on Buddhism, attended several Buddhist retreats, and do practice mindfulness meditation. What follows is simply my current understanding; I am certainly open to expanding/revising it.

One of the central tenets of Buddhism of all stripes is the idea of Anatta or "no self." This is often described as part of the three marks of existence: no self, impermanence, and suffering. In this way, Buddhism was a departure from Hinduism, in that the Atta (self) is an important part of Hinduism. The Buddha asserted that we are really a collection of skandhas ("heaps") that are fluid and ever-changing. The five skandhas are: form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. I point this out because these philosophical perspectives really don't include a "soul". Buddhist views of rebirth are more like the effect of a wave in changing the state of things in the future. There is nothing permanent and separate, as is suggested by the concept of a soul. In Buddhist philosophy, all things are transient, interconnected and dynamically interdependent.

The Buddha taught that we generate suffering for ourselves and others because we are innately driven to deny these facts and to construct an artificial sense of self. To be released from this suffering, we must at a deep level come to understand this situation and see beyond it. So, the goal of Buddhist practice is to overcome this suffering. According to the Buddha, to do this we must follow the 8-fold path, which does indeed include many of the things you listed. However, I think selfless compassion is a byproduct of this practice rather than the goal of the practice. In fact, I think the Buddha would say it is impossible to experience truly selfless compassion without first achieving personal liberation from the tyranny of the ego. Admittedly, there is a bit of the chicken-and-egg dilemma here, because much of the 8-fold path is wrapped around cultivating empathy and compassion. Ultimately, though, the 4 noble truths define the problem and the goal, and it is about liberation.

I do realize that the reformation of Buddhism embodied in the Mahayana tradition tried to broaden the goal from an individual endeavor to one that encompassed all people, but still the goal is liberation from ego-driven suffering. It's just that by it's nature, this includes universal compassion. In a way, compassion is simply the other face of liberation.

Sure. I agree entirely. I use the term "soul" as a convenience for the many Christians who inhabit this site. While we are here on earth we also have an aspect, I say in the high mental plane, that stays behind. The "no self" is a perfect way of denoting that personality is to be considered only a reflection, or a false copy, of our true natures. The overcoming and control of self using mind is what meditation is all about.

Language always hampers understanding. Everything on earth is inadequate and this is certainly true of the puny little brain consciousnesses that we so love to use.

Humans can be very entertaining. Whether "God" or "source" doesn't matter to me in the slightest. From where we are now there is no way we can know. That can wait as there are more important issues like how we treat each other.

[Wood-Man]

Yes, I agree... language often fails us.

[rreppy]

The Buddha would sometimes purposefully tie a student's arguments into logical knots, so the student would be forced to leap beyond the internal contradictions and see something new. It would depend on where the student was on his spiritual path. If logic was called for, Buddha would use it preferentially, but when deliberately NOT using it would suit his purposes, then he would do that.
That said, in my experience (and I have studied all the world's major religions), Buddhism is THE most logical of all the majors. It is the least chained by dogma and the most ready to adjust its views to new facts. The Buddha even said, "don't do something just because I say so. Check it out yourself and adopt only what makes sense to you". Buddhism, by at least trying to make sense, puts it far out ahead of Islam and Christianity and other "Faith-based" religions as far as consistent logic goes. The Faith religions basically just say, "Believe this because we tell you to!"
Or even worse, "Believe this or die!!!"

[rreppy]

Hi James,

Thanks for opening this topic up again. I agree with much of what you have said, but my understanding of Buddhist ideas is a little different in some respects. I also have a little different personal perspective, I think. One thing I've noticed is that many people interested in Buddhist philosophy imbue it with some personal outlooks, and I'm no different on that! I am no expert, but I've done a fair amount of reading on Buddhism, attended several Buddhist retreats, and do practice mindfulness meditation. What follows is simply my current understanding; I am certainly open to expanding/revising it.

One of the central tenets of Buddhism of all stripes is the idea of Anatta or "no self." This is often described as part of the three marks of existence: no self, impermanence, and suffering. In this way, Buddhism was a departure from Hinduism, in that the Atta (self) is an important part of Hinduism. The Buddha asserted that we are really a collection of skandhas ("heaps") that are fluid and ever-changing. The five skandhas are: form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. I point this out because these philosophical perspectives really don't include a "soul". Buddhist views of rebirth are more like the effect of a wave in changing the state of things in the future. There is nothing permanent and separate, as is suggested by the concept of a soul. In Buddhist philosophy, all things are transient, interconnected and dynamically interdependent.

The Buddha taught that we generate suffering for ourselves and others because we are innately driven to deny these facts and to construct an artificial sense of self. To be released from this suffering, we must at a deep level come to understand this situation and see beyond it. So, the goal of Buddhist practice is to overcome this suffering. According to the Buddha, to do this we must follow the 8-fold path, which does indeed include many of the things you listed. However, I think selfless compassion is a byproduct of this practice rather than the goal of the practice. In fact, I think the Buddha would say it is impossible to experience truly selfless compassion without first achieving personal liberation from the tyranny of the ego. Admittedly, there is a bit of the chicken-and-egg dilemma here, because much of the 8-fold path is wrapped around cultivating empathy and compassion. Ultimately, though, the 4 noble truths define the problem and the goal, and it is about liberation.

I do realize that the reformation of Buddhism embodied in the Mahayana tradition tried to broaden the goal from an individual endeavor to one that encompassed all people, but still the goal is liberation from ego-driven suffering. It's just that by it's nature, this includes universal compassion. In a way, compassion is simply the other face of liberation.

I want to congratulate Wood-man for as elegant and succinct explanation of the core goal of Buddhism as I have ever read. I think you have an excellent grasp of it. Keep meditating! It's working.

[Burninglight]

Hi James,

Thanks for opening this topic up again. I agree with much of what you have said, but my understanding of Buddhist ideas is a little different in some respects. I also have a little different personal perspective, I think. One thing I've noticed is that many people interested in Buddhist philosophy imbue it with some personal outlooks, and I'm no different on that! I am no expert, but I've done a fair amount of reading on Buddhism, attended several Buddhist retreats, and do practice mindfulness meditation. What follows is simply my current understanding; I am certainly open to expanding/revising it.

One of the central tenets of Buddhism of all stripes is the idea of Anatta or "no self." This is often described as part of the three marks of existence: no self, impermanence, and suffering. In this way, Buddhism was a departure from Hinduism, in that the Atta (self) is an important part of Hinduism. The Buddha asserted that we are really a collection of skandhas ("heaps") that are fluid and ever-changing. The five skandhas are: form, sensation, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. I point this out because these philosophical perspectives really don't include a "soul". Buddhist views of rebirth are more like the effect of a wave in changing the state of things in the future. There is nothing permanent and separate, as is suggested by the concept of a soul. In Buddhist philosophy, all things are transient, interconnected and dynamically interdependent.

The Buddha taught that we generate suffering for ourselves and others because we are innately driven to deny these facts and to construct an artificial sense of self. To be released from this suffering, we must at a deep level come to understand this situation and see beyond it. So, the goal of Buddhist practice is to overcome this suffering. According to the Buddha, to do this we must follow the 8-fold path, which does indeed include many of the things you listed. However, I think selfless compassion is a byproduct of this practice rather than the goal of the practice. In fact, I think the Buddha would say it is impossible to experience truly selfless compassion without first achieving personal liberation from the tyranny of the ego. Admittedly, there is a bit of the chicken-and-egg dilemma here, because much of the 8-fold path is wrapped around cultivating empathy and compassion. Ultimately, though, the 4 noble truths define the problem and the goal, and it is about liberation.

I do realize that the reformation of Buddhism embodied in the Mahayana tradition tried to broaden the goal from an individual endeavor to one that encompassed all people, but still the goal is liberation from ego-driven suffering. It's just that by it's nature, this includes universal compassion. In a way, compassion is simply the other face of liberation.

Sure. I agree entirely. I use the term "soul" as a convenience for the many Christians who inhabit this site. While we are here on earth we also have an aspect, I say in the high mental plane, that stays behind. The "no self" is a perfect way of denoting that personality is to be considered only a reflection, or a false copy, of our true natures. The overcoming and control of self using mind is what meditation is all about.

Language always hampers understanding. Everything on earth is inadequate and this is certainly true of the puny little brain consciousnesses that we so love to use.

Humans can be very entertaining. Whether "God" or "source" doesn't matter to me in the slightest. From where we are now there is no way we can know. That can wait as there are more important issues like how we treat each other.

Yes, there is a way to know. There just isn't a way to prove you know to someone else. I know God exists. He teaches me that the most important things in life is to know Him, love Him with all our heart, soul and mind, and our neighbor as ourself. This completes all the law and the prophets!

[Burninglight]

The Buddha would sometimes purposefully tie a student's arguments into logical knots, so the student would be forced to leap beyond the internal contradictions and see something new. It would depend on where the student was on his spiritual path. If logic was called for, Buddha would use it preferentially, but when deliberately NOT using it would suit his purposes, then he would do that.
That said, in my experience (and I have studied all the world's major religions), Buddhism is THE most logical of all the majors. It is the least chained by dogma and the most ready to adjust its views to new facts. The Buddha even said, "don't do something just because I say so. Check it out yourself and adopt only what makes sense to you". Buddhism, by at least trying to make sense, puts it far out ahead of Islam and Christianity and other "Faith-based" religions as far as consistent logic goes. The Faith religions basically just say, "Believe this because we tell you to!"
Or even worse, "Believe this or die!!!"

Christianity and Islam are mutually exclusive. Buddhism has benefits while on earth, but there is no other name given whereby we might be saved for eternity but the name of Jesus Christ. Jesus said, "{I am the way the truth and the life...no one comes to the father but by me... you will die in your sin if you don't believe I am He" There are many people who are forever learning but never come to the knowledge of truth. Jesus is acknowledged as a great prophet by more 80% of the world's population!!! If I had to choose bwt Buddah, Muhammad or Jesus, it would be Jesus hands down. Greater love has no man than he lay down his life for a friend. I believe Satan is bringing all kinds of clever philosphies that take us further from truth