The ultimate purpose of Buddhist-style meditation practices

[VincentRJ]

Buddhism is often described as being nihilistic, at least from a Western perspective. The concept of Nihilism has many variations, but using the broadest definition of Nihilism as 'life without objective meaning, purpose or intrinsic value', it seems to me that traditional Buddhism doesn't fit into this category because of its belief in Karma and Rebirth.

There is a clearly defined purpose in Buddhism, which is basically to escape from the 'wheel of life' and to end all suffering as a result of that escape. The 'theistic' concepts of a permanent state of heaven when one dies, depending on one's actions during one single life, has been replaced in Buddhism with a more gradual process of reaching 'heaven' or 'nirvana' through one's actions during many life-times.

The theistic concept of 'hell' has been replaced in Buddhism with a gradual regression, due to bad behaviour, towards more primitive life-forms, such as as a cow or a cockroach, in subsequent rebirths.

I find these Buddhists concepts more sophisticated and rational than the 'either/or' concept of everlasting hell or heaven. However, when Westerners adapt these Buddhist teachings to fit in with their scientific conditioning, and view the concepts of karma and rebirth as a process that only applies to our single, one-chance life on earth, then the issue of nihilism raises its ugly head again.

If one accepts that the surest way of achieving a state of Nirvana in this life is to abstain from all sexual activity, avoid killing all forms of life, and to spend most of one's time sitting down meditating, and spending little time attending to practical worldly matters because it's all an illusion, then the spread and success of Buddhist ideals would surely lead to the extinction of the human race. Is that not a form of nihilism?

Nevertheless, one could also argue that the overpopulation of the world is an indication of the miserable failure of the Buddhist ideal. Therefore, the extinction of the human race due to the strict adherence by everyone to Buddhist principles, perhaps should not be any cause for concern. It's not going to happen.

[JoeBats]

You're using your thinking mind in ways that are antithetical to Buddhist practice. Calm down. Breathe. That's it.

[trd]

You assume that the only Buddhism is the monastic form. There is nothing preventing the householder Buddhist with a family from becoming enlightened.

[VincentRJ]

You're using your thinking mind in ways that are antithetical to Buddhist practice. Calm down. Breathe. That's it.

Wow! Is it that simple?

I breathe all the time. Doesn't everyone? And I consider myself to be calmer than most. If that's all there is to it, Buddhist practice would be dead easy.

From reading comments on this forum and elsewhere, I get a sense that achieving enlightenment takes a lot of time and dedicated application 'to doing nothing'. Some people even feel the need to take the extreme measures of isolating themselves from society, living alone in a cave, or becoming a monk living on hand-outs, and not even lifting a finger to grow their own food, in case they accidentally kill a worm.

The Western concept of Buddhism, without a literal belief in Karma and Rebirth, creates a sense of urgency about achieving enlightenment, because you have only one crack at it, so to speak, in this life.

The traditional Buddhist attitude allows one to 'take it easy' if one thinks one can't control one's sexual desires or completely abstain from alcohol, and so on. Just try to behave reasonably well, which involves supporting the monks, and one will get a second, and third, and fourth chance, and so on, hopefully in better or more conducive conditions so that one might eventually reach that goal of escape from all suffering.

It's difficult to imagine a religion based upon Buddhism without the belief in karma and rebirth. The sense of urgency to reach 'heaven' or 'enlightenment' in this life would be unsustainable.

[VincentRJ]

You assume that the only Buddhism is the monastic form. There is nothing preventing the householder Buddhist with a family from becoming enlightened.

That sounds too optimistic, to the point of being unrealistic, Trd. If there really is 'nothing preventing the householder Buddhist with a family from becoming enlightened', then that raises the question as to why there is a monastic order in the first instance. Is it only for infertile men and women, for example?

My general impression is that 'normal' life with a family to support creates too many obstacles for most people to achieve full enlightenment. I'm not saying it's impossible, just unnecessarily difficult, and certainly not appealing if you don't believe you're going to get a second and third chance in a future life. Didn't the Buddha feel the need to leave his wife and 2-year-old son in order to achieve enlightenment?

[JoeBats]

Well, since your intellect is piqued, why not just practice some of the Buddhist precepts, meditate and see what arises? The intellect tends to overreact at the expense of the other sankharas when reading about Buddhism. It is a practice, after all. So, try practice and see where it leads. That is what the Buddha taught.

[trd]

You assume that the only Buddhism is the monastic form. There is nothing preventing the householder Buddhist with a family from becoming enlightened.

That sounds too optimistic, to the point of being unrealistic, Trd. If there really is 'nothing preventing the householder Buddhist with a family from becoming enlightened', then that raises the question as to why there is a monastic order in the first instance. Is it only for infertile men and women, for example?

My general impression is that 'normal' life with a family to support creates too many obstacles for most people to achieve full enlightenment. I'm not saying it's impossible, just unnecessarily difficult, and certainly not appealing if you don't believe you're going to get a second and third chance in a future life. Didn't the Buddha feel the need to leave his wife and 2-year-old son in order to achieve enlightenment?

If you really think that's the case, then you understand nothing. Buddha never said you had to remove yourself from society. I don't know about Buddhism, but in the Vedic tradition there are many examples of sages I can think of who had a family life. It is a matter of personal preference. Some prefer isolation, others want to be active within society. Neither is a barrier to awakening.

[VincentRJ]

You assume that the only Buddhism is the monastic form. There is nothing preventing the householder Buddhist with a family from becoming enlightened.

That sounds too optimistic, to the point of being unrealistic, Trd. If there really is 'nothing preventing the householder Buddhist with a family from becoming enlightened', then that raises the question as to why there is a monastic order in the first instance. Is it only for infertile men and women, for example?

My general impression is that 'normal' life with a family to support creates too many obstacles for most people to achieve full enlightenment. I'm not saying it's impossible, just unnecessarily difficult, and certainly not appealing if you don't believe you're going to get a second and third chance in a future life. Didn't the Buddha feel the need to leave his wife and 2-year-old son in order to achieve enlightenment?

If you really think that's the case, then you understand nothing. Buddha never said you had to remove yourself from society. I don't know about Buddhism, but in the Vedic tradition there are many examples of sages I can think of who had a family life. It is a matter of personal preference. Some prefer isolation, others want to be active within society. Neither is a barrier to awakening.

Maybe I do understand nothing. However, this is a Buddhist forum and you have just stated above, "I don't know about Buddhism".

[VincentRJ]

Well, since your intellect is piqued, why not just practice some of the Buddhist precepts, meditate and see what arises? The intellect tends to overreact at the expense of the other sankharas when reading about Buddhism. It is a practice, after all. So, try practice and see where it leads. That is what the Buddha taught.

I do practice Buddhist precepts, to the extent that I understand them. It's a subject that greatly interests me. That's why I contribute to this forum. I have a great sense of compassion.

Recently I noticed the tell-tale signs of mice in my house. If knew if I didn't get rid of them quickly, they would multiply, so I caught them using a piece of cheese on a mouse trap.

When I saw the mouse strangled by the spring-loaded trap, it's head almost severed, I actually felt quite sad and experienced a degree of guilt. I removed the mouse from the trap, holding it by its tail, and flung it onto an area of gravel in the garden, as food for any natural predator of mice.

The next day I noticed that the dead mouse had disappeared. It had presumably been taken by some predator. I was thus able to justify my killing of the mouse on the grounds that a very sudden death by mouse-trap would have been more humane than a more prolonged death by a Hawk, Kookaburra, Owl, Lizard or Snake.

I try to get the best of both worlds, the Western scientific world and the Buddhist philosophical world.

I would describe myself as a rationalist. I need things to make some sort of sense in order for me to be motivated.

I can understand that the ability to 'still' the mind through meditation practices has practical advantages. That make complete sense. Being in control of one's thoughts, and being free of anger, worry and various types of suffering must be of benefit. How could it not be?

What I find a bit puzzling from a Western perspective, and also a source of skepticism, is the reality of this ultimate goal of Buddhist practice referred to as Nirvana, or Enlightenment, or an 'escape from the wheel of life'.

Is it perhaps just a fictional creation designed to give hope to those people who have sacrificed the usual pleasures of life in the hope of eventually experiencing something more joyful and wonderful than sex, fame and wealth etc?

Is it also perhaps an attempt to control the poor and give them the hope that, despite being born into poverty in an unequal and unfair society, with little prospect of ever rising above the limitations of their social background, they can at least achieve the great rewards of Samadhi and even Nirvana, which are described as being much more satisfying than the pleasures of wealth and fame?

Just some thoughts for discussion.

[trd]

You assume that the only Buddhism is the monastic form. There is nothing preventing the householder Buddhist with a family from becoming enlightened.

That sounds too optimistic, to the point of being unrealistic, Trd. If there really is 'nothing preventing the householder Buddhist with a family from becoming enlightened', then that raises the question as to why there is a monastic order in the first instance. Is it only for infertile men and women, for example?

My general impression is that 'normal' life with a family to support creates too many obstacles for most people to achieve full enlightenment. I'm not saying it's impossible, just unnecessarily difficult, and certainly not appealing if you don't believe you're going to get a second and third chance in a future life. Didn't the Buddha feel the need to leave his wife and 2-year-old son in order to achieve enlightenment?

If you really think that's the case, then you understand nothing. Buddha never said you had to remove yourself from society. I don't know about Buddhism, but in the Vedic tradition there are many examples of sages I can think of who had a family life. It is a matter of personal preference. Some prefer isolation, others want to be active within society. Neither is a barrier to awakening.

Maybe I do understand nothing. However, this is a Buddhist forum and you have just stated above, "I don't know about Buddhism".

Oh please Vincent, do you know what context means? In the context of living masters "I don't know about Buddhism". But it does raise a question. Perhaps you think the ultimate truth is different for Buddhism than let's say Vedanta.

[trd]

Well, since your intellect is piqued, why not just practice some of the Buddhist precepts, meditate and see what arises? The intellect tends to overreact at the expense of the other sankharas when reading about Buddhism. It is a practice, after all. So, try practice and see where it leads. That is what the Buddha taught.

I do practice Buddhist precepts, to the extent that I understand them. It's a subject that greatly interests me. That's why I contribute to this forum. I have a great sense of compassion.

Recently I noticed the tell-tale signs of mice in my house. If knew if I didn't get rid of them quickly, they would multiply, so I caught them using a piece of cheese on a mouse trap.

When I saw the mouse strangled by the spring-loaded trap, it's head almost severed, I actually felt quite sad and experienced a degree of guilt. I removed the mouse from the trap, holding it by its tail, and flung it onto an area of gravel in the garden, as food for any natural predator of mice.

The next day I noticed that the dead mouse had disappeared. It had presumably been taken by some predator. I was thus able to justify my killing of the mouse on the grounds that a very sudden death by mouse-trap would have been more humane than a more prolonged death by a Hawk, Kookaburra, Owl, Lizard or Snake.

I try to get the best of both worlds, the Western scientific world and the Buddhist philosophical world.

I would describe myself as a rationalist. I need things to make some sort of sense in order for me to be motivated.

I can understand that the ability to 'still' the mind through meditation practices has practical advantages. That make complete sense. Being in control of one's thoughts, and being free of anger, worry and various types of suffering must be of benefit. How could it not be?

What I find a bit puzzling from a Western perspective, and also a source of skepticism, is the reality of this ultimate goal of Buddhist practice referred to as Nirvana, or Enlightenment, or an 'escape from the wheel of life'.

Is it perhaps just a fictional creation designed to give hope to those people who have sacrificed the usual pleasures of life in the hope of eventually experiencing something more joyful and wonderful than sex, fame and wealth etc?

Is it also perhaps an attempt to control the poor and give them the hope that, despite being born into poverty in an unequal and unfair society, with little prospect of ever rising above the limitations of their social background, they can at least achieve the great rewards of Samadhi and even Nirvana, which are described as being much more satisfying than the pleasures of wealth and fame?

Just some thoughts for discussion.

From what you say I really have to wonder what you see in it. Does it satisfy some hope within yourself. Are you one of the poor people you refer to?

[VincentRJ]

If you really think that's the case, then you understand nothing. Buddha never said you had to remove yourself from society. I don't know about Buddhism, but in the Vedic tradition there are many examples of sages I can think of who had a family life. It is a matter of personal preference. Some prefer isolation, others want to be active within society. Neither is a barrier to awakening.

Maybe I do understand nothing. However, this is a Buddhist forum and you have just stated above, "I don't know about Buddhism".

Oh please Vincent, do you know what context means? In the context of living masters "I don't know about Buddhism". But it does raise a question. Perhaps you think the ultimate truth is different for Buddhism than let's say Vedanta.

Please tell me in what context you know about Buddhism.

[VincentRJ]

Well, since your intellect is piqued, why not just practice some of the Buddhist precepts, meditate and see what arises? The intellect tends to overreact at the expense of the other sankharas when reading about Buddhism. It is a practice, after all. So, try practice and see where it leads. That is what the Buddha taught.

I do practice Buddhist precepts, to the extent that I understand them. It's a subject that greatly interests me. That's why I contribute to this forum. I have a great sense of compassion.

Recently I noticed the tell-tale signs of mice in my house. If knew if I didn't get rid of them quickly, they would multiply, so I caught them using a piece of cheese on a mouse trap.

When I saw the mouse strangled by the spring-loaded trap, it's head almost severed, I actually felt quite sad and experienced a degree of guilt. I removed the mouse from the trap, holding it by its tail, and flung it onto an area of gravel in the garden, as food for any natural predator of mice.

The next day I noticed that the dead mouse had disappeared. It had presumably been taken by some predator. I was thus able to justify my killing of the mouse on the grounds that a very sudden death by mouse-trap would have been more humane than a more prolonged death by a Hawk, Kookaburra, Owl, Lizard or Snake.

I try to get the best of both worlds, the Western scientific world and the Buddhist philosophical world.

I would describe myself as a rationalist. I need things to make some sort of sense in order for me to be motivated.

I can understand that the ability to 'still' the mind through meditation practices has practical advantages. That make complete sense. Being in control of one's thoughts, and being free of anger, worry and various types of suffering must be of benefit. How could it not be?

What I find a bit puzzling from a Western perspective, and also a source of skepticism, is the reality of this ultimate goal of Buddhist practice referred to as Nirvana, or Enlightenment, or an 'escape from the wheel of life'.

Is it perhaps just a fictional creation designed to give hope to those people who have sacrificed the usual pleasures of life in the hope of eventually experiencing something more joyful and wonderful than sex, fame and wealth etc?

Is it also perhaps an attempt to control the poor and give them the hope that, despite being born into poverty in an unequal and unfair society, with little prospect of ever rising above the limitations of their social background, they can at least achieve the great rewards of Samadhi and even Nirvana, which are described as being much more satisfying than the pleasures of wealth and fame?

Just some thoughts for discussion.

From what you say I really have to wonder what you see in it. Does it satisfy some hope within yourself. Are you one of the poor people you refer to?

Truth. I'm interested in truth, Trd, and I'm somewhat amazed that certain thinkers in India about 2,500 years ago understood that what we perceive as reality, through our senses, is mostly an imaginative reconstruction in accordance with the characteristics of our species, and in accordance with individual genetic variation within the species, and in accordance with individual conditioning.

[trd]

If you really think that's the case, then you understand nothing. Buddha never said you had to remove yourself from society. I don't know about Buddhism, but in the Vedic tradition there are many examples of sages I can think of who had a family life. It is a matter of personal preference. Some prefer isolation, others want to be active within society. Neither is a barrier to awakening.

Maybe I do understand nothing. However, this is a Buddhist forum and you have just stated above, "I don't know about Buddhism".

Oh please Vincent, do you know what context means? In the context of living masters "I don't know about Buddhism". But it does raise a question. Perhaps you think the ultimate truth is different for Buddhism than let's say Vedanta.

Please tell me in what context you know about Buddhism.

In whatever context the context happens to be when it is being discussed from this point on until the end of time.

[trd]

Well, since your intellect is piqued, why not just practice some of the Buddhist precepts, meditate and see what arises? The intellect tends to overreact at the expense of the other sankharas when reading about Buddhism. It is a practice, after all. So, try practice and see where it leads. That is what the Buddha taught.

I do practice Buddhist precepts, to the extent that I understand them. It's a subject that greatly interests me. That's why I contribute to this forum. I have a great sense of compassion.

Recently I noticed the tell-tale signs of mice in my house. If knew if I didn't get rid of them quickly, they would multiply, so I caught them using a piece of cheese on a mouse trap.

When I saw the mouse strangled by the spring-loaded trap, it's head almost severed, I actually felt quite sad and experienced a degree of guilt. I removed the mouse from the trap, holding it by its tail, and flung it onto an area of gravel in the garden, as food for any natural predator of mice.

The next day I noticed that the dead mouse had disappeared. It had presumably been taken by some predator. I was thus able to justify my killing of the mouse on the grounds that a very sudden death by mouse-trap would have been more humane than a more prolonged death by a Hawk, Kookaburra, Owl, Lizard or Snake.

I try to get the best of both worlds, the Western scientific world and the Buddhist philosophical world.

I would describe myself as a rationalist. I need things to make some sort of sense in order for me to be motivated.

I can understand that the ability to 'still' the mind through meditation practices has practical advantages. That make complete sense. Being in control of one's thoughts, and being free of anger, worry and various types of suffering must be of benefit. How could it not be?

What I find a bit puzzling from a Western perspective, and also a source of skepticism, is the reality of this ultimate goal of Buddhist practice referred to as Nirvana, or Enlightenment, or an 'escape from the wheel of life'.

Is it perhaps just a fictional creation designed to give hope to those people who have sacrificed the usual pleasures of life in the hope of eventually experiencing something more joyful and wonderful than sex, fame and wealth etc?

Is it also perhaps an attempt to control the poor and give them the hope that, despite being born into poverty in an unequal and unfair society, with little prospect of ever rising above the limitations of their social background, they can at least achieve the great rewards of Samadhi and even Nirvana, which are described as being much more satisfying than the pleasures of wealth and fame?

Just some thoughts for discussion.

From what you say I really have to wonder what you see in it. Does it satisfy some hope within yourself. Are you one of the poor people you refer to?

Truth. I'm interested in truth, Trd, and I'm somewhat amazed that certain thinkers in India about 2,500 years ago understood that what we perceive as reality, through our senses, is mostly an imaginative reconstruction in accordance with the characteristics of our species, and in accordance with individual genetic variation within the species, and in accordance with individual conditioning.

By saying that you are amazed that these thinkers state that what appears as phenomenon has no no intrinsic reality, does that mean you are keen to understand why it's true.

[willyumiii]

"Nevertheless, one could also argue that the overpopulation of the world is an indication of the miserable failure of the Buddhist ideal. Therefore, the extinction of the human race due to the strict adherence by everyone to Buddhist principles, perhaps should not be any cause for concern. It's not going to happen."

​An interesting statement, but I have been told that Buddhist do not consider existence to be only confined to this planet.

It's a huge universe with lots of room.

[nongai]

1..... I can understand that the ability to 'still' the mind through meditation practices has practical advantages. That make complete sense. Being in control of one's thoughts, and being free of anger, worry and various types of suffering must be of benefit. How could it not be?

2.... What I find a bit puzzling from a Western perspective, and also a source of skepticism, is the reality of this ultimate goal of Buddhist practice referred to as Nirvana, or Enlightenment, or an 'escape from the wheel of life'.

Is it perhaps just a fictional creation designed to give hope to those people who have sacrificed the usual pleasures of life in the hope of eventually experiencing something more joyful and wonderful than sex, fame and wealth etc?

3..... Is it also perhaps an attempt to control the poor and give them the hope that, despite being born into poverty in an unequal and unfair society, with little prospect of ever rising above the limitations of their social background, they can at least achieve the great rewards of Samadhi and even Nirvana, which are described as being much more satisfying than the pleasures of wealth and fame?

1... The Buddha's goal from meditation is to realise the truth and thus put oneself upon the path to Nibbana. This can only be achieved by practicing the Four Foundations of Mindfulness until one reaches the first step which is Nama Rupa. The experience and knowledge, by experiential knowledge not study, of seperation of the observing mind and the thoughts. Stillness of mind and blissful states are the goal of Samatha or concentration techniques which is not the path to Nibanna.

2... Nibbana is the result rather than the goal. The goal is to stop suffering. Since suffering inevitably follows rebirth in any realm the only way to stop rebirth is to prevent the karma which causes rebirth. The only way to stop creating karma is to understand and practice the 4NT & 8FP.

3... The rich or poor should understand that their present situation is the result of past karma. All must appreciate the extreme difficulty of human rebirth and how fortunte to be reborn whilst this Buddha's teachings are still available. Those lucky enough to meet them and be able to study and practice them are indeed fortunate, and if they realise their extremely difficult to achieve present circumstances they should not waste the opportunity to at least achieve the safety of stream entry.

Those monks or teachers who do not practice or understand the truth and teach only to make merit by donations and achieve rebirth in heavenly realms are creating much bad karma for themselves.

[Brucenkhamen]

If one accepts that the surest way of achieving a state of Nirvana in this life is to abstain from all sexual activity, avoid killing all forms of life, and to spend most of one's time sitting down meditating, and spending little time attending to practical worldly matters because it's all an illusion, then the spread and success of Buddhist ideals would surely lead to the extinction of the human race. Is that not a form of nihilism?

I dont see what this view has to do with Nihilism, and the Buddha never taught that practical worldly matters are all an illusion, if that were the case then there would be no need to renounce them as illusions can just be ignored.

Buddhism also doesnt teach that achieving Nibbana is not possible for householders. In India at the Buddhas time there was already a culture of spiritual seekers giving up the householder life and living off the generosity of others. The Buddha just leveraged this tradition when he setup the monastic sangha as he knew for most people living a subsitance life in those days they would have little spare time to devote to the practice. Nowadays we have annual leave and generally only work a 40 hour week so it is more possible to have a householder life and a spiritual life as well, though its pretty hard to get a good balance.

There was never any indication that everybody should become monks and nuns, obviously it would never work as who would be left to support them, so as you say It's not going to happen, so its irrelevant.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Brucenkhamen

[JoeBats]

Hmm... maybe in a way of analogy to unclutter the views exposed on the topic of "ultimate Purpose" (holding views is just confusing):

You look up at a tree and see a fruit which you've never experienced before. You look at it trying to figure out what it is. You speculate and wonder what it is, doing mental gymnastics in trying to make sense out of it. You've never touched it, tasted it, smelled it... all you've done is look at it way up there in the branches and come to some mental ideas about it. You have some knowledge of it via your mental imaging and build some story around it, fabricated out of your reasoning mind.

Along comes someone who says they've actually held the fruit, smelled it, tasted it. You ask them what it tastes like. The person has no way to describe it in words, because the taste is really all about tasting it, not talking about it. The person offers the fruit to you, but you don't want to really touch it, smell it or taste it. You rather just talk about it.

And that then is the problem in discussions of this nature.

We'd rather do mental gymnastics about something rather than experiencing it firsthand.

It's an endless cycle that leads nowhere.

[VincentRJ]

By saying that you are amazed that these thinkers state that what appears as phenomenon has no no intrinsic reality, does that mean you are keen to understand why it's true.

Probably more 'how it is true' than 'why it is true'. Questions of 'why' are often imponderable, such as 'why is there something rather than nothing?' Why does matter exist?

[VincentRJ]

"Nevertheless, one could also argue that the overpopulation of the world is an indication of the miserable failure of the Buddhist ideal. Therefore, the extinction of the human race due to the strict adherence by everyone to Buddhist principles, perhaps should not be any cause for concern. It's not going to happen."

​An interesting statement, but I have been told that Buddhist do not consider existence to be only confined to this planet.

It's a huge universe with lots of room.

Nor does modern science consider life to be confined to this planet, but it's not something that anyone has any knowledge about. It's pure speculation, and that's something which should be avoided in Buddhism.

[VincentRJ]

2.... What I find a bit puzzling from a Western perspective, and also a source of skepticism, is the reality of this ultimate goal of Buddhist practice referred to as Nirvana, or Enlightenment, or an 'escape from the wheel of life'.

Is it perhaps just a fictional creation designed to give hope to those people who have sacrificed the usual pleasures of life in the hope of eventually experiencing something more joyful and wonderful than sex, fame and wealth etc?

2... Nibbana is the result rather than the goal. The goal is to stop suffering. Since suffering inevitably follows rebirth in any realm the only way to stop rebirth is to prevent the karma which causes rebirth. The only way to stop creating karma is to understand and practice the 4NT & 8FP.

That's an interesting distinction; is Nirvana the goal or merely the result or byproduct of the cessation of suffering?

I wonder if the two go hand in hand, like carrot and stick, suffering being the stick and the carrot being the claimed and fanciful descriptions of the joys of enlightenment or Nirvana.

If the goal is only to escape suffering, then surely long before one has reached those very heightened states of full enlightenment or Nirvana, most of one's suffering will have dissipated and therefore the incentive to continue long sessions of meditation will be reduced.

I imagine this would be more of a problem for Westerners who don't believe in Rebirth. As you probably know, one can interpret the concept of rebirth as applying to the arising of new thoughts rather than new life-forms.

One might argue that someone who doesn't believe in rebirth could have a greater sense of urgency in reaching 'Nirvana' because he has only one opportunity in this life. On the other hand, if there is no rebirth and one feels one is running out of time, why should it matter? There will be no consequences after physical death if one fails to achieve nirvana and one doesn't believe in Karma and Rebirth.

[andrew55]

I do practice Buddhist precepts, to the extent that I understand them. It's a subject that greatly interests me. That's why I contribute to this forum. I have a great sense of compassion.

Recently I noticed the tell-tale signs of mice in my house. If knew if I didn't get rid of them quickly, they would multiply, so I caught them using a piece of cheese on a mouse trap.

When I saw the mouse strangled by the spring-loaded trap, it's head almost severed, I actually felt quite sad and experienced a degree of guilt. I removed the mouse from the trap, holding it by its tail, and flung it onto an area of gravel in the garden, as food for any natural predator of mice.

The next day I noticed that the dead mouse had disappeared. It had presumably been taken by some predator. I was thus able to justify my killing of the mouse on the grounds that a very sudden death by mouse-trap would have been more humane than a more prolonged death by a Hawk, Kookaburra, Owl, Lizard or Snake.

I try to get the best of both worlds, the Western scientific world and the Buddhist philosophical world.

I would describe myself as a rationalist. I need things to make some sort of sense in order for me to be motivated.

I can understand that the ability to 'still' the mind through meditation practices has practical advantages. That make complete sense. Being in control of one's thoughts, and being free of anger, worry and various types of suffering must be of benefit. How could it not be?

What I find a bit puzzling from a Western perspective, and also a source of skepticism, is the reality of this ultimate goal of Buddhist practice referred to as Nirvana, or Enlightenment, or an 'escape from the wheel of life'.

Is it perhaps just a fictional creation designed to give hope to those people who have sacrificed the usual pleasures of life in the hope of eventually experiencing something more joyful and wonderful than sex, fame and wealth etc?

Is it also perhaps an attempt to control the poor and give them the hope that, despite being born into poverty in an unequal and unfair society, with little prospect of ever rising above the limitations of their social background, they can at least achieve the great rewards of Samadhi and even Nirvana, which are described as being much more satisfying than the pleasures of wealth and fame?

Just some thoughts for discussion.

I have enjoyed reading your thoughts VincentRJ. Thank you.

Dilemmas.

At the end of of the karmic day it's up to you I do believe. And that thought is up to me. You're responsible for good doings and bad ('doing' is my favorite translation of 'karma'). If you're on the good side of 50/50 that's ok. Keep trying if you choose.

With all respect to this being a buddhist forum (I've offended before) I have a feeling that we are rewarded or bitten on the a$%e in this lifetime. I hope so as I fear I'm due 10,000 lifetimes as a tick in a dog's a$%ehole for the muck I've caused in only 50 and a bit years if this 'wheel thingy' does in fact carry over. Good thing is ticks in dog's a$%eholes have short lifetimes. Bad news - not much opportunity to earn merit.

Edited May 4, 2016 by andrew55

[VincentRJ]

If one accepts that the surest way of achieving a state of Nirvana in this life is to abstain from all sexual activity, avoid killing all forms of life, and to spend most of one's time sitting down meditating, and spending little time attending to practical worldly matters because it's all an illusion, then the spread and success of Buddhist ideals would surely lead to the extinction of the human race. Is that not a form of nihilism?

I dont see what this view has to do with Nihilism, and the Buddha never taught that practical worldly matters are all an illusion, if that were the case then there would be no need to renounce them as illusions can just be ignored.

I don't see why you 'don't see what this view has to do with Nihilism'. The Western goals tend to be continuous economic development with the purposes of increased wealth, security and health for everyone. Life is generally viewed as a gift to be enjoyed and explored, rather than a consequence of some lack of enlightenment in a previous life and something one should try to avoid repeating.

If birth is suffering, why would any person attempting to achieve enlightenment or the cessation of suffering, want to introduce yet more suffering by having children? Isn't this a form of nihilism?

Buddhism also doesn't teach that achieving Nibbana is not possible for householders. In India at the Buddhas time there was already a culture of spiritual seekers giving up the householder life and living off the generosity of others. The Buddha just leveraged this tradition when he setup the monastic sangha as he knew for most people living a subsistence life in those days they would have little spare time to devote to the practice. Nowadays we have annual leave and generally only work a 40 hour week so it is more possible to have a householder life and a spiritual life as well, though its pretty hard to get a good balance.

Note that I never claimed that achieving Nirvana is impossible for householders, just unnecessarily difficult, and by implication very unlikely.

I'm sure there are many scholars who would argue this point. The following quote from Richard Gombrich's 'Theravada Buddhism' addresses this issue.

"Did the Buddha think it possible for a lay person to attain Enlightenment? Probably not. He measured spiritual progress in four stages. In the first, called “stream entry”, one was guaranteed that one would have at most seven more lives and would never be reborn in a station lower than human. (At first, most people who accepted his view of kamma were held to have attained this.) At the second stage, the “once-returner” faced only one more life on earth. The “non-returners” would not be reborn in this world but in a high heaven, from which their attainment of nibbāna was guaranteed. Enlightenment was the fourth and final stage.

When asked about the spiritual attainments of his followers, the Buddha said that many hundreds of lay followers, both male and female, had become “non-returners.” They had given up sexual activity. He did not explicitly say that no lay follower attained nirvana in this life, but that is the implication."

Note that giving up sexual activity is an implied requirement.

[JoeBats]

Sexual misconduct is the issue, not so much sexual activity. There is a difference.

[JoeBats]

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.010.than.html

[Brucenkhamen]

That's an interesting distinction; is Nirvana the goal or merely the result or byproduct of the cessation of suffering?

Cessation of suffering is one of the characteristics of Nibbana, I'd say the most important one to the degree that they are virtually synonymous.

If the goal is only to escape suffering, then surely long before one has reached those very heightened states of full enlightenment or Nirvana, most of one's suffering will have dissipated and therefore the incentive to continue long sessions of meditation will be reduced.

Given the above this doesn't make sense.

I wonder if the two go hand in hand, like carrot and stick, suffering being the stick and the carrot being the claimed and fanciful descriptions of the joys of enlightenment or Nirvana.

What fanciful descriptions are these? I think you are relying too much on folk Buddhism. Here are some examples of how the Buddha is recorded as having described it...

When, brahmin, one experiences the remainderless destruction of lust, the remainderless destruction of hatred, and the remainderless destruction of delusion, it is in this way, too, that nibbāna is directly visible, immediate, inviting one to come and see, applicable, to be personally experienced by the wise. - AN 3.55

There is, monks, an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned. If, monks there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, you could not know an escape here from the born, become, made, and conditioned. But because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, therefore you do know an escape from the born, become, made, and conditioned. - Ud 8.3

All foolish individuals, O king, take pleasure in The senses and in the objects of sense, find delight in them, continue to cleave to them. Hence are they carried down by that flood (of human passions), they are not set free from birth, old age, and death, from grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despairthey are not set free, I say, from suffering. But the wise, O king, the disciple of the noble ones, neither takes pleasure in those things, nor finds delight in them, nor continues cleaving to them. And inasmuch as he does not, in him craving ceases, and by the cessation of craving grasping ceases, and by the cessation of grasping becoming ceases, and when becoming has ceased birth ceases, and with its cessation birth, old age, and death, grief, lamentation, pain, sorrow, and despair cease to exist. Thus is the cessation brought about, the end of all that aggregation of pain. Thus is it that cessation is Nirvāṇa. - Mil 3.4 8

Edited May 4, 2016 by Brucenkhamen

[VincentRJ]

Hmm... maybe in a way of analogy to unclutter the views exposed on the topic of "ultimate Purpose" (holding views is just confusing):

You look up at a tree and see a fruit which you've never experienced before. You look at it trying to figure out what it is. You speculate and wonder what it is, doing mental gymnastics in trying to make sense out of it. You've never touched it, tasted it, smelled it... all you've done is look at it way up there in the branches and come to some mental ideas about it. You have some knowledge of it via your mental imaging and build some story around it, fabricated out of your reasoning mind.

Along comes someone who says they've actually held the fruit, smelled it, tasted it. You ask them what it tastes like. The person has no way to describe it in words, because the taste is really all about tasting it, not talking about it. The person offers the fruit to you, but you don't want to really touch it, smell it or taste it. You rather just talk about it.

And that then is the problem in discussions of this nature.

We'd rather do mental gymnastics about something rather than experiencing it firsthand.

It's an endless cycle that leads nowhere.

That's a flawed analogy, but allow me to extend and modify the analogy. It's a tall tree and harvesting the fruit is going to be difficult and time-consuming. You meet someone who has tasted the fruit but he doesn't have one to offer to you.

You want to know what the fruit tastes like so you can determine whether or not it might be worthwhile climbing the tree.

Unfortunately, the person who has tasted the fruit is unable to describe the taste. Well, he is a bit useless, isn't he?

Surely the taste of any types of food can be described by association with other types of food, such as 'sweeter than an apple but with a touch of spice', or 'like a mango but with a slight flavour of ginger', and so on.

I can't imagine anyone who wants to know what the fruit tastes like being so silly as to refuse an offer of the fruit to taste, unless he is suspicious that someone is trying poison him.

Edited May 4, 2016 by VincentRJ

[JoeBats]

Well, start tasting...

[VincentRJ]

Well, start tasting...

I can't imagine anyone who wants to know what the fruit tastes like being so silly as to refuse an offer of the fruit to taste, unless he is suspicious that someone is trying poison him, or if he has already embarked upon the Buddhist path of avoiding the pleasures of the senses.