Do you think it's wrong for people to create a religion?

[HansKecht]

I can't find a religion that makes sense to me, or that has enough proof to get me into it. Would it be wrong of me to make my own?

[Hector Barbosa]

I can't find a religion that makes sense to me, or that has enough proof to get me into it. Would it be wrong of me to make my own?

No! I don't think so. The religions which exists created their own. Most of them came from one or few, who like you could not make sense of what was currently there.

All religions are created by man as a organization to help people become something more than they are.

I'm with you on this one. I can not make sense of the current religions, but I can make sense of the argument that there is a God, so for me to become religious, I would probably need a new religion.

I have studied: Catholicsm, Buddhism, Lutherism, Jehovas Witnesses, LDS (Mormon), Baptist, Seven Day atventists, Methodists, Hinduism, Islam and the ancient hellenistic, egyptian and Asatru and others which I found interesting.

But I believe I have found contradictions in all of them, and so I can't see a reason to be with them other than that many have friendly people who believe in morals and make good food

[Divine Insight]

I have studied: Catholicsm, Buddhism, Lutherism, Jehovas Witnesses, LDS (Mormon), Baptist, Seven Day atventists, Methodists, Hinduism, Islam and the ancient hellenistic, egyptian and Asatru and others which I found interesting.

But I believe I have found contradictions in all of them, and so I can't see a reason to be with them other than that many have friendly people who believe in morals and make good food

I'm curious concerning the contradictions you found in Buddhism? The reason I ask is because I haven't been able to find any myself. Although, I guess that can depend greatly on precisely what a person considers Buddhism to actually be saying. When I learned Buddhism I was taught that Siddhartha Gautama actually taught that we are to only embrace what makes sense to us and not believe others just because they make claim, including himself.

Because of this my views on Buddhism may be extremely abstract and flexible. Still, it would be interesting to hear what others might see as a contradiction in Buddhism.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 31 by Divine Insight]

First of all there are many different kinds of Buddhism which disagree with each other about ways to get enlightenment, nirvana avoiding samsara, the religious practices and rituals etc.

But Buddhism has a lot of contradictions really.
Such as about the Ultimate transcendental reality as nirvana, and a prerequisite of achieving it is the complete abolition of the self, but the question is not answered why there are beings in existence which are not in this perfect state, nor why there in Buddhism is a false reality at all.

The purpose and reason for existence and samsara is totally missing, and so is the point of loosing one's self or ego, to a state of enlightenment by subduing passion, desire and even thought.

Buddhist do not really believe in a state of happiness, as it is seen as an attachment. But what is the point of enlightenment if you loose self, happiness and all attachment?

Meditation is used by many as a way to empty the mind and gain enlightenment.
But how can a empty mind be enlightened?
That is almost like arguing that being nothing is above being something. That makes no sense.

Why even have emotions in the first place? Where do they come from if not evolution or a specific God? The whole point and purpose is missing with Buddhism.

There are far more descriptions of all the rituals to do to get enlightenment, than there is of what enlightenment actually is.

Yes it is described in part as acknowledging that life is suffering and enjoyment of senses leads to attachment and suffering, but if you just conclude that you should avoid all "good feeling" senses to avoid all "bad feeling" senses, then what is the point to feel in the first place, and what can be left to experience if all senses are gone?

To me Buddhism sounds like a religion which is actually trying to destroy human existence, with no greater aim to move toward.

Islam and Christianity makes far more sense to me, for their contradictions is in doctrine and rules, not in lack of purpose aim and achievement like Buddhism.

I could go more into specifics, but it would be tough without making this a very long post, since there are so many different Buddhist religions, and all are very vague about it's description of the ultimate goal you should give up everything for: Nirvana. Its enlightenment, but a enlightenment which has no purpose without a self, senses, thought or a God.

[Divine Insight]

First of all there are many different kinds of Buddhism which disagree with each other about ways to get enlightenment, nirvana avoiding samsara, the religious practices and rituals etc.

This is true, and because of this it really is about as useless to speak of Buddhism as it is to speak of Christianity without further inquiring which sect or denomination we're talking about. In fact, many Christians avoid this problem by refusing to associate their own personal views of Christianity with any specific sect or denomination of Christianity.

I have to confess that I have taken much the same view of Buddhism and because of this I tend to think of Buddhism in ways that many Buddhist sect may not even agree with.

But Buddhism has a lot of contradictions really.
Such as about the Ultimate transcendental reality as nirvana, and a prerequisite of achieving it is the complete abolition of the self, but the question is not answered why there are beings in existence which are not in this perfect state, nor why there in Buddhism is a false reality at all.

I have no problem with this one for two reasons:

1. I believe there are enlightened individuals in this world, and many of them aren't even Buddhists, but they are still enlightened for the reasons I believe Siddhartha spoke to.

2. I fully understand the "false reality" and why it exists. At least in terms of the primary beliefs of Buddhism.

The purpose and reason for existence and samsara is totally missing, and so is the point of loosing one's self or ego, to a state of enlightenment by subduing passion, desire and even thought.

I disagree that the path to enlightenment is obtained by subduing passion, desire, and thought. So I consider every sect of Buddhism that teaches this to be misguided. This is not, IMHO, what Siddhartha Gautama was saying. He did suggest that to recognize these things will lead to enlightenment, but trying to remove them entirely or abandon them after reaching enlightenment, IMHO is a misunderstanding of what Siddhartha was suggesting.

Buddhist do not really believe in a state of happiness, as it is seen as an attachment. But what is the point of enlightenment if you loose self, happiness and all attachment?

Because you regain the first two after enlightenment. The only thing you ultimately lose is "attachment".

Meditation is used by many as a way to empty the mind and gain enlightenment.
But how can a empty mind be enlightened?

An empty mind is not enlightenment. But it can be a pathway to enlightenment.

Why even have emotions in the first place? Where do they come from if not evolution or a specific God? The whole point and purpose is missing with Buddhism.

It is my understanding that in Buddhism our emotions do indeed come from evolution and the physical world. Understanding how to appreciate these experiences instead of allowing them to rule over us is obtained through enlightenment. Thinking of it this way you can view us as being "dust in the wind", or a slave to our emotions and thoughts, until we have become enlightened. Once enlightened instead of being "dust in the wind" we become the captain of a wind-blown ship that we can actually control and navigate.

There are far more descriptions of all the rituals to do to get enlightenment, than there is of what enlightenment actually is.

I agree. I also hold that many Buddhist sects treat enlightenment like Christianity treats salvation. They act like you will never actually achieve it, but instead you need to just continue to work toward it for the rest of your life. I hold that this is actually wrong in both of these religions.

Don't forget also that once these religions have become "institutions" it's in their interest to enslave their students for eternity. How long is a religious institution going to last if tells their students they have "graduated" and no longer need the institution?

Yes it is described in part as acknowledging that life is suffering and enjoyment of senses leads to attachment and suffering, but if you just conclude that you should avoid all "good feeling" senses to avoid all "bad feeling" senses, then what is the point to feel in the first place, and what can be left to experience if all senses are gone?

I agree, and I would suggest that this is the unfortunate misunderstanding that many people get from Buddhism including many Buddhists themselves. They get so totally absorbed in the techniques to obtain enlightenment that they never become enlightened and end up spending their entire lives focusing on what they have been taught will "lead" them to enlightenment.

Buddhism may have a great underlying philosophy, but as a religious institution it seems to be failing in many ways. In other words, your observations are perfectly correct and legitimate. This is what many Budddhist sects teach. But they are missing the point of enlightenment themselves.

To me Buddhism sounds like a religion which is actually trying to destroy human existence, with no greater aim to move toward.

As a "religion" it probably is. If the idea is to stop thinking, stop experiencing, and stop becoming involved in everyday life, then it has indeed lost its way.

This would then become a religion that is not unlike Christianity and has totally focused on some imagined "afterlife" instead of actually becoming enlightened about this life.

Islam and Christianity makes far more sense to me, for their contradictions is in doctrine and rules, not in lack of purpose aim and achievement like Buddhism.

I agree, if we allow that there is a creator God who demands that we behave certain ways and he will either grant us eternal life or death, that in and of itself seems to have some purpose.

But then again, even if you believe that there exists a "nirvana" after this life in Buddhism you could see that as being the purpose in Buddhism too.

I don't personally see the afterlife as being the purpose of Buddhism. For me the purpose of Buddhism is to become enlightened within this life. And I hold that this is not only possible, but it's actually quite easy to do. Although it may not be easy to explain to someone else how to do it. That's when you end up getting bogged down in all the "techniques" to try to achieve enlightenment.

I could go more into specifics, but it would be tough without making this a very long post, since there are so many different Buddhist religions, and all are very vague about it's description of the ultimate goal you should give up everything for: Nirvana. Its enlightenment, but a enlightenment which has no purpose without a self, senses, thought or a God.

Well, you're right about there being so many different perspectives on what Buddhism is even supposed to be about.

But here are some of my thoughts about core principles of Buddhism as I understand them.

Not everyone need to "become" enlightened.

By this I mean that many people are actually naturally 'enlightened' from early childhood. For these people to try to "become enlightened" through Buddhism would be extremely frustrating for them because they would be trying to do something they don't need to do. Moreover, they would be expecting unrealistic results. They would be thinking things like, "Just exactly what am I supposed to be experiencing here? Is this supposed to be some sort of profound supernatural experience or what?'

If that's what you're expecting then you'll never obtain it. That's an unrealistic expectation.

Also, a person needs to ask themselves "Why am I trying to achieve enlightenment?"

The answer to this question SHOULD BE: "Because I'm very unhappy with life and I can't seem to be in control of anything, not even my own emotions or thoughts".

If the above isn't true, then you're barking up a tree you don't need to climb.

If you are already happy in life and feel that you are in complete control of your emotions and thoughts then you're already enlightened!

Also ask yourself the question, "Are you afraid of death?"

I'm not talking about the natural instinct to try to stay alive if at all possible. That's not a fear of death, that's just a love of life.

You need to ask yourself if you actually FEAR death to the point where the very thought of death has you trembling in fear. And if you don't fear death, then chances are you are already "enlightened" even if you never heard of Buddhism.

1. If you don't fear death
2. If you are generally happy with yourself.
3. If you feel that you have control over your emotions and thoughts.
4. If you aren't intentionally harming others.
5. If you have a natural compassion for others.

Then changes are you are already "enlightened".

If you now turn to Buddhism to try to "become enlightened" you would be totally wasting your time. You already have the things that enlightenment brings. Therefore if you expect to become "enlightened' in Buddhism you must be expecting something ELSE to happen. Something unrealistic that is never going to happen. That can only lead to a complete misunderstanding of Buddhism and enlightenment, and you will NEVER achieve your unrealistic idea of "enlightenment". Because you're looking for something else.

You already had enlightenment before you even came to Buddhism!

You were already in control of your emotions, thoughts, and life. And you were already happy with yourself and compassionate toward others. There's nothing more to become "enlightened" about.

And here's the problem with institutionalized religion:

Let's say you go to a Buddhism monastery. You go in and say, "I would like to learn how to become enlightened".

To begin with they would most likely just take you in and start putting your through their "Mediation Boot Camp". Especially if you show any promise of financially supporting their institution. In fact, just having a lot of students can help them qualify for donations, etc. So just joining their religious institution helps them grow.

Let's even take this further. Let's supposed they sit down with you and interview you asking you the following questions: (Let me also give make-pretend answers)

Monk: "Do you fear death?"

You: "No."

Monk: "Do you feel that you are in control of your emotions?".

You: "Yes"

Monk: "Do you feel that you are in control of your thoughts?"

You: "Yes"

Monk: "Do you desire to harm people without cause or justification?"

You: "No."

Monk: "Do you have compassion for all other people?"

You: "Yes"

At this point the Monk should simply say to you, "You are already enlightened child. You have no need to join this monastery unless you are applying for the job of Master Buddha"

But instead they would probably take you in as beginning student and send you off to Meditation Boot Camp.

Religious institutions aren't going to tell you that you don't need them.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 33 by Divine Insight]

Yeah sure there is many "enlightened" individuals who are not necessarily Buddhist. But how do we define "enlightened"? What is the ultimate goal of "enlightenment"?

You say you understand why the false reality exist in terms of Buddhist belief, but do you understand it in terms which connects to a real world you can touch, feel or prove?

I would also disagree with the path to enlightenment which teach to subdue passion, desire and thought. Recognizing of cause makes more sense, but to what end?


You write:

Because you regain the first two after enlightenment. The only thing you ultimately lose is "attachment".

How is this regained?

And yes I agree a empty mind CAN be the path to enlightenment, if what you have on your mind isn't. But then it should not be the goal to empty ones mind, for someone who has a better mindset.

You write:

It is my understanding that in Buddhism our emotions do indeed come from evolution and the physical world

Ok, I have not heard that before, so I appreciate the insight, but how does these emotions appear in the physical world then? Through God or evolution?

I agree. I also hold that many Buddhist sects treat enlightenment like Christianity treats salvation. They act like you will never actually achieve it, but instead you need to just continue to work toward it for the rest of your life. I hold that this is actually wrong in both of these religions.

Don't forget also that once these religions have become "institutions" it's in their interest to enslave their students for eternity. How long is a religious institution going to last if tells their students they have "graduated" and no longer need the institution?

True, I agree with that and good question. But that does give reason to question religion doesn't it? This in part is why I think every religion has some contractions which doesn't work for me. They do not make ME feel enlightened

And yes I agree with your other points about religion and comparing Buddhism to Christianity, this is why that though I think there are great truths found in both religions, there are also contradictions and things taught which are not good for progress.

It would be tough to answer the question "why am I trying to achieve enlightenment" if there is a failure answering the question what enlightenment IS.

If the answer as you say is because you are unhappy with life, then yes I guess not feeling anything, feels better than feeling unhappy, but if there is no hope to be happy why live or have feelings in the first place?

Personally I am not afraid of death. So I would not worry about meeting Davy Jones

You make some excellent comments, points and explanations better than mine. I am impressed. You obviously know your stuff. This is exactly why I wanted to come to a place like this. Thanks for your thorough commentary!

hehe...and no you are right religions are not going to tell you that you don't need them, just like business and government wont tell you that you don't need them either

[Divine Insight]

Yeah sure there is many "enlightened" individuals who are not necessarily Buddhist. But how do we define "enlightened"? What is the ultimate goal of "enlightenment"?

Well that's a very good question. And obviously even various Buddhist sects disagree on what the answer should be. I suggest that we look at the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism for a possible answer:

1. The Truth of Suffering
2. The Truth of the Cause of Suffering
3. The Truth of the End of Suffering
4. The Truth of the Path leading to the End of Suffering

I hold that if you already understand 1 through 3 then you are already "enlightened".

Number 4 offers a path to become enlightened about number 3 if you aren't already there.

So there's your test for "enlightenment".

If you don't already understand #3 then your a candidate for #4. Apparently you aren't yet enlightened.

Obviously this is a gross over-simplification since we debate for eternity over precisely what Truths 1 through 3 actually mean. But that could be a "workshop" in and of itself. Also there would be no point in moving on to Truth #4 until you agree on the meaning of Truths 1 through 3.

So you could look at this as an opportunity to "define" this philosophy for yourself. And I would like to add here that Siddhartha Gautama proposed that you do precisely that. And that you do this in a way that is meaningful to you.

From there we could move on to the "Eight-fold Way" which is a more detailed explanation of how to recognize Truths 1 through 3.

If you don't recognize them to be true already supposedly this path will help you to recognize their truth. If you already recognize these truth, then the Eight-fold path can potentially help to verify and clarify what you already know to be true.

You say you understand why the false reality exist in terms of Buddhist belief, but do you understand it in terms which connects to a real world you can touch, feel or prove?

Well, here we can once again go back to the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism. The "False Reality" is to simply think that Truths 1-3 are not true. That's a false reality. It's just an "illusion" because it doesn't represent the truth of reality.

So the "False Reality" is just a misunderstanding of the "True Reality".

I would also disagree with the path to enlightenment which teach to subdue passion, desire and thought. Recognizing of cause makes more sense, but to what end?

Well, that would require a detailed look at the Eight-Fold path.

And I will be the first to agree that there will be many different views and opinions on that as well. I can only offer my perspective on it. I don't claim that my perspective represents any absolute truth. It simply represents what the Eight-fold path means to me and why it makes sense to me.

That's all I can offer. I'm certainly not a representative of Buddhism.

You write:

Because you regain the first two after enlightenment. The only thing you ultimately lose is "attachment".

How is this regained?

And yes I agree a empty mind CAN be the path to enlightenment, if what you have on your mind isn't. But then it should not be the goal to empty ones mind, for someone who has a better mindset.

My view on this is that the idea of transcendental meditation is to simply help you clear your thoughts and get a hand on them. Once you are able to fully control your thoughts there is no longer any need for transcendental meditation. Unless you feel like you are "back-sliding" into losing control of your thoughts again.

By the way, I'm very pragmatic about this. I accept that not all human brains are capable of thinking clearly. I accept that human brains are physical biological computers. Therefore I accept that there may be people who could never gain full control over their "defective" brains. Fortunately I don't feel that I have that particular problem. I'm also guessing that the vast majority of people don't have defective brains. But I still have to allow that some people do have defective brains. In those cases, even the method of Buddhism may not help.

You write:

It is my understanding that in Buddhism our emotions do indeed come from evolution and the physical world

Ok, I have not heard that before, so I appreciate the insight, but how does these emotions appear in the physical world then? Through God or evolution?

Through are very own conscious awareness. Keep in mind that Buddhism is based on Pantheism. So there is no separation between our conscious awareness and "God".

Personally I am not afraid of death. So I would not worry about meeting Davy Jones

In that case you most likely are "enlightened" to a very large degree. But you may still benefit from understanding why Nobel Truths 1 - 3 are true (unless you already understand why that is so)

You make some excellent comments, points and explanations better than mine. I am impressed. You obviously know your stuff. This is exactly why I wanted to come to a place like this. Thanks for your thorough commentary!

I've been studying Buddhism for over 5 decades. It took me a very long time to finally understand what Siddhartha was trying to get at. But in hindsight I've come to realize that I must have always been "Naturally Enlightened" basically from my earliest childhood days.

But I confess that I spent many days in transcendental meditation hoping for something supernatural to occur.

But now I realize how silly that was.

[shnarkle]

[Replying to post 4 by Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 31 by Divine Insight]

First of all there are many different kinds of Buddhism which disagree with each other about ways to get enlightenment, nirvana avoiding samsara, the religious practices and rituals etc.

But Buddhism has a lot of contradictions really.
Such as about the Ultimate transcendental reality as nirvana, and a prerequisite of achieving it is the complete abolition of the self, but the question is not answered why there are beings in existence which are not in this perfect state, nor why there in Buddhism is a false reality at all.

I'm no expert on the subject, but the way I read it, it isn't that there are beings that are in some imperfect state. They are perfect, but they just don't know it; at least not yet. The Hindu's would say that they had some work to do; they needed to work off their karmic spare tire, but the Buddha rejected that idea.

The purpose and reason for existence and samsara is totally missing, and so is the point of loosing one's self or ego, to a state of enlightenment by subduing passion, desire and even thought.

Purpose and reason are intelligible; they're confined to the realm of thought. It's interesting how we talk of losing the self or ego. We seem to really cherish our identities so much, but our identities are never satisfied, at least not for long and the whole idea of nirvana or heaven or whatever ultimate goal we choose requires that we're there to enjoy it. These things are all in the future; future goals. Thoughts, desires, etc. are all mediators for these goals. When these things are no longer pertinent, we become aware that we're already "there". Enlightenment is the mediator; the "way", the Tao etc. Deep down we all know this already, but we forget. You seem like you're one to take notes so you'll remember to stop at the store after work or to pay attention to the man behind the curtain, the one who keeps telling you to ignore the man behind the curtain; a "seeker'

Buddhist do not really believe in a state of happiness, as it is seen as an attachment. But what is the point of enlightenment if you loose self, happiness and all attachment?

The point is that the self or ego or "satan" isn't real in the first place. It's just this complete waste of time and energy that "we" identify with. There really is no "you" or "me". There really is no true or false self; it's all false. I shouldn't say that's it's a waste even though it is, it still serves this purpose of either driving the self to greater and greater lengths to strive for perfection, or it can gently or violently thrash us awake.

Meditation is used by many as a way to empty the mind and gain enlightenment.
But how can a empty mind be enlightened?
That is almost like arguing that being nothing is above being something. That makes no sense.

Enlightenment doesn't require a mediator; it is the mediator to ultimate reality. The intellect is a mediator; an unnecessary one. When the mind is calm, awareness is able to "see", and seeing is infinitely easier than thinking. When you see the path, you walk on it; pretty simple.

Being nothing is an oxymoron, so you're right it makes no sense, but emptiness and nothingness are two completely different animals. Nothingness is negation, while emptiness requires a container. The mind must be empty to receive enlightenment. Enlightenment isn't necessary to fill the mind with the vast and wonderful enchanting treasures of this world. Here again, the self can't be satisfied with any of this because in the end the self doesn't exist. When who you really are becomes identified with the self, the self takes over and there is no room for reality.

Meditation isn't really any different than things like worrying, or stressing out over deadlines, bumper to bumper traffic, the price of gas or food, or ammo, or divorce court etc. Meditation is simply becoming aware of it all. It's about observing; sorta like being a scientist, but with an acute awareness of an overinflated self image of oneself.

Why even have emotions in the first place? Where do they come from if not evolution or a specific God? The whole point and purpose is missing with Buddhism.

Emotions are Energy in motion.

There are far more descriptions of all the rituals to do to get enlightenment, than there is of what enlightenment actually is.

Some people need that stuff. The mind of some is quite fragile. Meditation isn't enough sometimes. All of those emotions can give people a bad case of psychic constipation. The rituals are like an emotional laxative, allowing the emotions to drain out without causing a lot of regretful drama.

Yes it is described in part as acknowledging that life is suffering and enjoyment of senses leads to attachment and suffering, but if you just conclude that you should avoid all "good feeling" senses to avoid all "bad feeling" senses, then what is the point to feel in the first place, and what can be left to experience if all senses are gone?

it isn't that the senses are gone, it's that there is no attachment to any of it. When you're in traffic and you spy that guy who's looking for the pole position at the next light, and you can see that he's cutting in and out of traffic causing people to slam on their brakes and flip him off and you're heart rate starts to go up, and you start to put a little more pressure on the gas peddle, that's the self running your life. When you observe what you're doing, and this is an almost absolute impossibility for 98.9% of the population who have this problem; you automatically become aware of the fact that this whole scene is overwhelming you. If you've gotten to a point in your life where you've had enough of this kind of behavior then you either go completely berserk and pull your revolver from the glove compartment and blow that turd to Tartarus, or you continue to observe how you're feeling. You might even intentionally intervene with some deep breaths, more focus on what's in front of you, etc. Eventually, what happens is that you yourself stop looking for the pole position because, as they say; it's not the destination, it's about the journey. So it stops even being about a journey anymore because you're already "there". What was that old corny saying? Wherever you go, there you are.

When you're getting up from your recliner to grab the remote off of the television, you become fully immersed in the journey from the recliner to the tv and back again. It's the first time you've taken that walk; it's the proverbial "untrodden path".

To me Buddhism sounds like a religion which is actually trying to destroy human existence, with no greater aim to move toward.

Well, there is the religion of any system. Religion always pops up around those who go on that journey. However, you're right on target when you say that there is no greater aim to move forward. Here's probably a situation where you're already starting to see the truth, but it just doesn't look all that appealing at first. There is no point to move forward once you've attained enlightenment. This isn't the same thing as saying that one doesn't move forward.

Islam and Christianity makes far more sense to me, for their contradictions is in doctrine and rules, not in lack of purpose aim and achievement like Buddhism.

Perhaps on some level, although Jesus does talk about denying yourself, and how his burden is light, his yoke is easy. Paul talks about how it isn't he that is doing God's will, but Christ in him. They say a lot of the same kind of things. Paul says to "reckon" it as if you're already in the kingdom. He says that your "will and effort" aren't what determine the outcome. He talks about living intentionally which is sorta like being aware of what you're really thinking, and knowing what you really need to be doing. If someone could sell that , they'd make billions. Would you pay to know what you really think? Those who know they're clueless would.

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 35 by Divine Insight]

Yes the 4 noble Truths, 8-fold path, understanding of 5 Skandhas, the self-illusion etc. may be the answer to Buddhist definition of enlightenment, and if that's the case then you are right there is many non-Buddhist who are enlightened, in fact we are likely to be two of them, but it is not much of a criteria really is it?

I mean if that is all it takes to be enlightened, this should easily be achievable in a lifetime without the need of samsara. But what is so great about having achieved that enlightenment?

I think you are right about the idea of transcending meditation, your explanation is the only one which makes sense to me, but I would tend to look for a more pragmatic approach about this too, for I am not sure I buy this idea of Nirvana as much of a goal really. It's tough to see how it is so much better than remaining in samsara.

Yes you make a good point about Buddhism being based on Pantheism and there being no separation between conscious awareness and "God" I did not think about that, but even then it still seems clear that there is a lot of contradictions and holes in the Buddhist teachings.

I can tell you have studied Buddhism a long time. I have studied it for 3 years and you seem to have a better understanding, so you must have studied it awhile.

But you are not a Buddhist are you? You say you now realize how silly it was.
Then have you have concluded the same, that there is a lack of point, purpose, answer, reward and truth without contradiction in Buddhism?

I have done Buddhist meditation too, but likely nowhere near as much as you have

Technically I belong to more than 7 religions, but at least now I can say that I have evidence of why they are silly, since I sincerely tried to give their teachings a chance

[Hector Barbosa]

[Replying to post 36 by shnarkle]

I think you are right about being in a imperfect state needing to work of their karmic spare tire to get out of samsara, it seems consistent with the Buddhist teachings but does not logically explain existence, the ultimate goal or consistent truth as I see it.

Buddhism is fascinating to me, but it does not make sense to me, or in other words I don't believe it is true.

Yes the purpose is enlightenment, nirvana, to loose the ego, self or identity etc...but I am looking a little deeper for a reason or purpose. What I am asking is why should I or anyone else really desire this or believe it consistent with reality?

Yes I get that the self is a "illusion", but not why it makes sense to have nirvana as a practical goal.

You clearly understand Buddhism well, but do you believe Buddhism is true? Do you desire nirvana?

You say

Some people need that stuff. The mind of some is quite fragile.

Yeah I agree. I take it you are not a Buddhist either then?

And yes Jesus talks about denying yourself, but for a goal of personal progress to be one with "Godliness" in a heaven of never-ending happiness. That sounds a bit better to me than a enlightened non-self who feels nothing because emotions are attachments or just energy in motion.

I mean as I see it Jesus here had a much bigger carrot than Buddha

[Divine Insight]

I mean if that is all it takes to be enlightened, this should easily be achievable in a lifetime without the need of samsara. But what is so great about having achieved that enlightenment?

The enlightenment that Siddhartha was talking about is easily achievable for people like you and me, and many others. In fact, we might even ask, "Who thinks they are their ego? That's ridiculous". But then again, if we are honest, we can not only understand how it's possible, but we also need to confess that we've fallen into that trap many times ourselves. Fortunately, we come to our sense and realize what we've done before things get to absurd.

What my be helpful to understand is there are many people out there who have totally fallen into the trap of the ego to the point where they no longer have any real control over themselves at all. When you're not in that situation it doesn't seem so important to need to find a way out of it.

But someone who was caught in that trap and found their way out screams "Eureaka!". For them this is a life-changing spiritual experience. They start singing things like, "I once was blind but now I see". Or "I once was lost but now I'm found", etc.

And if they attribute this experience to a deity then the deity seems as real as the enlightenment.

In fact, giving yourself over to an imaginary savior in your mind can free you from the ego. You have basically swapped out the ego for this new "savior" character, and this allows you to build a "new ego" based upon this swapped out ego template.

This is why a religion like Christianity can work. Jesus becomes the new template to be used to swap out for the old undesirable ego. This strategy also helps to serve to keep the person from becoming the "Jesus ego" because they view this is something other from who they are. Unfortunately what often happens is that they then continue on to create yet another "ego" that they do assign as their own self. But often times that ego will then be constructed with an effort to keep the "Jesus ego" happy.

Still, it's not a "True Enlightenment". It's just swapping out of egos based on a "savior character".

I think you are right about the idea of transcending meditation, your explanation is the only one which makes sense to me, but I would tend to look for a more pragmatic approach about this too, for I am not sure I buy this idea of Nirvana as much of a goal really. It's tough to see how it is so much better than remaining in samsara.

I agree completely. In fact, if you are trying to use meditation to reach "Nirvana" that most likely will be a futile endeavor.

Keep in mind that the concept of Nirvana was not the invention of Siddhartha Gautama. This is a cultural belief he brought with him. It came from his cultue that accepted the following concepts:

1. Pantheism
2. Reincarnation
3. Karma that can actually follow a "soul" through reincarnation
4. And ultimately a belief in Samsara and Nirvana.

You need to understand that Samsara and Nirvana are merely "beliefs" that Siddhartha was raised to believe in his culture.

Enlightenment has nothing at all to do with coming to a realization that Samsara or Nirvana are true.

So if you are meditating in the hope that this will bring you into the knowledge of the truth of Samsara and Nirvana then forget it. You're wasting your time. That's never going to happen, even though some people claim that it has happened to them. Don't forget some people claim that they converse with Jesus too!

The fact of the matter is that Samsara and Nirvana are religious beliefs that may or may not be true.

The core value of Buddhism is in the Four Noble Truths which have nothing at all to do with whether Samsara or Nirvana are true or not.

The Four Nobel Truths of Buddhism can, and most likely are, true even in a Secular Naturalistic worldview. The illusion of the "ego" as the "self" is still true.

In fact, this actually brings up Naturalistic questions about the true nature of the "self", because according to many fans of Secular Naturalism, they suggest that the "ego" we create in our brains is indeed the true essence of what we are.

But according to Siddhartha's observations that clearly can't be true. Why can't it be true? Because we can consciously become aware of that ego, and CHANGE IT to our liking. So clearly the ego that the brain constructs cannot be our "True Self".

If it was our true self, then we couldn't stand back, look at it, and change it.

So, in a way, Buddhism seems to be proving "Pantheism" in some way.

Of course, proving pantheism does not imply either Samsara or Nirvana.

Although, based on what we know about the conservation laws of energy and physics, Samsara is most likely true. But perhaps not Nirvana.

Also, Samsara may not be exactly how we would like to think of it either (especially if we are in love with our current human condition).

Samsara may simply mean that the "one" who is having a conscious experience will continue on forever via "reincarnation" due to the conservation laws of the physical universe. Perhaps conscious awareness is itself conserved.

However there may be complete amnesia between cycles of Samsara and no karma transferred through either.

In other words, when you die in this life as a human, your conscious self reawakens being born into yet another state of being. One that has no memory or connection back to this life.

That may seem kind of useless. But like a patient who has had extreme amnesia, it would still be YOU who is having this new experience.

And that entity of consciousness would be the "True You".

~~~~~

Ok, I'm taking this to the fringes of philosophy, but hopeful you get the idea.

In other words Siddhartha could be perfectly correct in his observation that we aren't the character we have created in our brains. Instead, we are the conscious entity that ultimately has total control over this creation. At least to some degree.

And this obviously fits in perfectly with Siddhartha's previous cultural views on Pantheism, and Samsara. But there doesn't appear to be any grounds for a concept like Nirvana. This latter concept seems to have been totally fabricated with no really good reason to postulate it. It was probably invented in an attempt to give some "purpose" to life beyond just an endless stream of Samsara. Humans seem to always need to inject their own idea of "purpose".

Yes you make a good point about Buddhism being based on Pantheism and there being no separation between conscious awareness and "God" I did not think about that, but even then it still seems clear that there is a lot of contradictions and holes in the Buddhist teachings.

When it comes to something like Nirvana I agree that there is no evidence to support Nirvana. I wouldn't call that a "contradiction" though. Just a concept that has no evidence.

Pantheism could be said to be "self-evident" only because there is no reason to imagine anything more.

To imagine more would be like introducing Nirvana.

Samsara seems to have evidence in the conservation laws of physics. Even in Secular Naturalism we must then necessarily be this universe. What else is there to be? And if that's the case then our conscious awareness must also belong to the universe. What else could it belong to?

So if the conservation laws apply to everything in the universe, then it probably applies to conspicuousness as well. At least in terms of the "thing" that is having this conscious experience. For if the universe is not having this experience, then what is?

Just my thoughts.

But you are not a Buddhist are you? You say you now realize how silly it was.
Then have you have concluded the same, that there is a lack of point, purpose, answer, reward and truth without contradiction in Buddhism?

I have done Buddhist meditation too, but likely nowhere near as much as you have

Well, I can't say that meditation cannot ultimately lead to an experience of Nirvana. I have meditated to where I have actually escaped ALL THOUGHT. The river of thoughts disappears entirely and I find myself in a mental state of pure white light. It is a state of total bliss. You physical body even disappears in that state of mind. Some people might call this the experience of "Nirvana". I don't go that far. I just see it as a "state of pure consciousness" devoid of any thought or sensory input. Clearly the even the white light isn't coming from any "sensors". It's not actual light (i.e. photos). It's just an state of pure conscious awareness. Where it comes from is anyone's guess. It could be coming from the brain, or somewhere else.

It doesn't serve as proof of anything to me other than this state of consciousness scan be achieved. But beyond that it doesn't prove anything.

Technically I belong to more than 7 religions, but at least now I can say that I have evidence of why they are silly, since I sincerely tried to give their teachings a chance

I'm a Solitary Eclectic Witch based on my own construction of "Modern day Wicca". My version has nothing at all to do with Gerald Gardner. This brings up many debates since there are those who claim that there is no such thing as non-Gardenarian Wicca since he's the one who made the term famous as a recognized religion. But at the same time there are thousands, if not millions of "Wiccans" to reject Gardenarian Wicca and have created their own versions. So I embrace this latter view. Wicca has grown to take on a life of it's own leaving Gerald Gardner in the dust.

Anyway I consider my "religion" to be a hobby. And I would most likely continue to practice it even if the world could be proven to be secular. It's still fun to practice. I also feel that it has practical secular value as well. It doesn't really matter whether the Gods and Goddesses within it are real or just figments of my imagination. They still serve a practical purpose.

In short, I support the uses of fantasy if it can prove to be have positive results. Of course, if fantasy is being used to support destructive results then I don't support that.

But fantasy for productive and constructive fun? Sure, why not?