-4

I try to sit back and look at things more objectively. This is how I see things right now:

  1. we are awareness made flesh. with all the senses and limitations associated with being a human flesh creature.
  2. our bodies are on a 75 year camping trip. We're roughing it with these senses and subject to the ravages of time which normally doesnt affect us.
  3. in our normal forms, as awareness, we only sense vibrations and "warm" events give us resonant vibrations and harmonies. events other than that cause discordant vibrations and we are repulsed by them.
  4. when our bodies die we go back to being awareness. That is our only rebirth or afterlife.
  5. man has the capacity to move beyond rebirth, but it will never happen until the human race is homogenized physically and mentally. this just happens with time.

So I have a definite dispute with the Buddha over the feasibility of working towards an end-goal of Nirvana. Has anyone ascended to date? I believe the true definition is nirvana after death and better lives while alive.

Why is this not a more feasible end result? What is wrong with my reasoning?

  • 2
    If you want to ask about reasoning beyond Buddha Dharma, no need to clutter the question with a lot of arbitrary ideas. And if you want to check how reasonable your ideas are, try to analyze their causes point by point. E.g., start with: "how could awareness be made flesh?" etc. Then some more clarity might develop. – chang zhao Aug 6 '17 at 2:01
  • good point I will do that. I am trying to find the contours. – Kauva Aatma Aug 6 '17 at 5:13
3

Your question comes from the belief of eternalism. Buddhism rejects the view of an eternal soul or awareness.

Rebirth occurs until one uproots craving. Elimination of craving is the end game.

  • ahhh. I knew there had to be some reasoning and argument against this because it was so obvious. thank you for putting me on the right track!! – Kauva Aatma Aug 5 '17 at 1:32
  • after further review I remain unconvinced. Eternalism is denied on purely ontological reasons (he says nothing is eternal therefore there is no eternal ______ ). I dont think this denies my point at all. If the universe is constantly expanding and contracting for 10 to the 160th power years (expend rest contract rest) then it's really not eternal. Only as eternal as the ether within which our awareness exists. His denial of Nihilism was based solely upon his explanation of Karma which I also find somewhat lacking. Can you offer actual reasoning to support it? – Kauva Aatma Aug 5 '17 at 4:42
  • 3
    What do you mean by "awareness exist"? There is no lasting awareness. Awareness is simply an aspect of a momentary experience. – Sankha Kulathantille Aug 5 '17 at 12:32
1

When we create some arbitrary models of reality (ideas), it might be good enough for writing fiction books. But if we want to discuss real situations, we should rely on proper knowledge.

The Dharma of Buddha was derived from experiential observations, it was not just arbitrary construction of ideas. Therefore it is suitable for discussing our human situation.

Arbitrary ideas are not useful, because they are not based on real phenomena. For example: "man has the capacity to move beyond rebirth, but it will never happen until the human race is homogenized physically and mentally".

Unless you prove such ideas, starting from observable phenomena, I see no reason to waste time discussing them.

0

The first four premises (e.g. "we are awareness", and "our bodies", etc.) seem to me to be examples of identity-view and eternalism, and incompatible with Buddhism's anatta doctrine.

I don't recognize where the fifth premise ("homogenized physically and mentally") comes from; and don't understand why it's a premise.

So far as I know, the "end-game" is:

  • End of delusion and of suffering (dukkha) and rebirth (samsara) for "oneself"
  • Developing the mind of a Buddha or Bodhisattva (i.e. enlightened and able to liberate others)

I think these (two) end-games correspond to abandoning "afflictive obscurations" and "knowledge obscurations", e.g. as introduced in this answer to the question "What is Nirvana (mahayana)?"

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.