seeds wrote: ↑Sat Sep 11, 2021 5:25 pm The Wiki quote on Nagarjuna also goes on to say (again, note the bolded part)...How in the world can something that does not exist, get caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths?Wiki wrote: Nagarjuna denied there is anything called a self-nature as well as other-nature, emphasizing true knowledge to be comprehending emptiness. Anyone who has not dissociated from his belief in personality in himself or others, through the concept of self, is in a state of Avidya (ignorance) and caught in the cycle of rebirths and redeaths.
I'm not sure I can put into words how much your reply trivializes Buddhism, but I'll give it a shot.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Sep 13, 2021 6:12 am If you take that literally then the whole paragraph is contradictory, i.e. claiming no permanent self and yet talk of rebirths and redeaths.
However, the above cannot be taken literally in relating to physical death of a person but rather to the cycle of sufferings, i.e. the birth, death, rebirth and 'redeath' of sufferings.
You will no doubt find a way of weaseling out of this, but what your reply suggests is that the entire reason for why one should take-on Buddhism's rigorous methods for attaining "enlightenment" is so that one can avoid the general range of sufferings that one might incur during a single human lifetime.
Your reply implies that Buddhism's concept of "nirvana" is nothing more than the achieving of a state of mind that not only helps one to be less clinging (less attached) to what you insist is a false hope that there is more to life (more to one's own being) than meets the eye,...
...but also allows one to "dodge the dukkha" in such a way where one is no longer overwhelmed or incapacitated by the negative feelings and emotions that come from such things as...
- 1. Breaking up with one's girlfriend/boyfriend/husband/wife.
2. Getting fired from a job.
3. Being bullied at school or work.
4. Having no friends.
5. Being concerned or embarrassed because of one's looks.
6. Being concerned or embarrassed because one accidently farts in public.
7. Etc.
8. Etc.
9. Etc.
However, after enlightenment: chop wood, carry water (but suffer no embarrassment from the abovementioned incident because you have achieved "moksha" from the "dukkha" that comes from such occurrences).
So congratulations, you have managed to reduce all of the mysterious-sounding metaphysics of Buddhism...
(samsara, dukkha, moksha, and nirvana, etc.)
...to being nothing more than an ancient form of secular psychology designed to relieve the stress and tensions of everyday life.
Good grief, man, if a human lifetime is limited to, at most, perhaps a hundred years,...
(and way less in most cases)
...then any form of dukkha (suffering) that one might incur during that time, will be over with (finished/kaput) in the blink of an eye compared to the eternal oblivion that follows your exit from this world.
Indeed, if there is no such cosmic system in play that forces someone to be caught-up in endless cycles of literal births, deaths, and rebirths (samsara) due to unresolved karmic issues, and that a person experiences only one lifetime on earth,...
...then the need for going through the complicated (time-consuming) rigors of attaining enlightenment via Buddhism is not only an overkill approach to the problem, but is, itself, a form of (self-imposed) dukkha.
So why even bother if, indeed, the length of a human lifetime...
(which could be as short as one day)
...puts an implicit (guaranteed) limit on the problem of suffering?
Again, you have trivialized Buddhism to the point of rendering Buddha's own alleged claim of having lived approximately 554 past lives as being nothing more than him remembering 554 random events in the one (and only) lifetime that he did experience.
I mean, how much of an idiot do you have to be to refer to your recollection of the exciting lunch you had two weeks ago as being a remembrance of one of your past lifetimes?
Yet, that is what you are basically saying about the Buddha.
(Disclaimer: I have no stake in the defense of Buddha's honor or reincarnational claims, for I personally think that reincarnation is a false doctrine, and that Buddhism is founded upon a mix of mythological nonsense with that of some possible truths [just like all of the other world religions].
I am simply holding a mirror up to what V.A.'s assertions imply [especially the implication of Buddhism's inherent nihilism], while coming to the conclusion that whenever V.A. adds the word "proper" after something [such as "Buddhism-proper" or "Science-proper"], the "proper" part simply means whatever it is that V.A. personally believes to be true [though it is oftentimes glaringly false].)
_______