The problem of secularised Buddhism

[DooDoot]

Firstly let me clarify that I'm not at all suicidal, concern is appreciated but unwarranted.

great

To be clear

Unlikely. For the sake of Nibbana, it appears the teachings say impermanence & destruction is to be fully comprehended. also, mindfulness of death leads to the Deathless, per the suttas, it cannot mean rebirth after death, otherwise this would not be the Deathless

But it does raise the question.

'mischief'

In the rebirth model suicide does not solve the problem of suffering, as one will be reborn thus it is no legitimate escape.

the above idea of rebirth is merely a speculative view

Without it, the result is the same we end up dead, and this is the release of suffering for the ignorant

the above has no relevance to the teachings of the Buddha. the Buddha taught a path to end suffering in the here & now

malevolent fool

sounds harsh

as for the one who devotes their life to meditation etc.

no. the successful meditation devotee lives a life of peace

So the question becomes why put in the effort?

it is obvious you are not practising the Path. if you were, you would not disparage the Path, as you are doing above

If you are desperate for the cessation of suffering why not commit suicide?

because of no interest in suicide. the buddha taught to practise like your head/hair is on fire. this is desparate practice, for the sake of here & now peace

If you don't do it because you enjoy being alive

what are you talking about? you are repeating yourself. you are not reading what others have already posted in reply to you

, why engage in any renunciation and just fully enjoy what is here to enjoy whilst you can?

because the is nothing in the sensual realm to enjoy here.

One can say that Buddhist practises can improve the quality of life for a secular person and this might be true. But so far as I understand it, this is never put forth as a path in traditional Buddhism. no. the path of Buddhism is It seems to be either go the route of hardcore renunciate and try to attain liberation in this life, or lead a good life in the hopes that your subsequent births prove fortunate for attaining arahantship or at least to avoid hell, and aim for heaven etc. I don't recall the Buddha teaching in terms of making this life more pleasant as an end in itself.

in many places, he said the Dhamma was for a pleasant abiding in this life

I think taking out rebirth creates a big problem.

Rebirth creates a problem because it means self-view does not end. Self-view must end for Nibbana

The motivation in Buddhism is to escape the cycle of suffering, that cycle has to continue beyond this life, otherwise Nibbana becomes one of two options for escape, and thus the question becomes, why aim at Nibbana? Why not just either end your own life, if the suffering is unbearable, or if it is bearable just indulge yourself and enjoy life?

The above post is self-view. Only eliminating self-view can reach Nibbana. It does matter how much you post about Nibbana. Nibbana will never ever be reached when self-view and rebirth view remain. The Buddha was clear about this.

[Ceisiwr]

Rebirth creates a problem because it means self-view does not end. Self-view must end for Nibbana

The view of "I will be born as X" is an engagement with self view. Paṭiccasamuppāda, when properly understood, removes the eternalist view and the annihilationist view. Arising removes the annihilationist view whilst ceasing removes the eternalist view.

[cappuccino]

Right view provides the perspective for practice.

Right view is the forerunner of the entire path, the guide for all the other factors.

It enables us to understand our starting point, our destination, and the successive landmarks to pass as practice advances.

To attempt to engage in the practice without a foundation of right view is to risk getting lost …

by
Bhikkhu Bodhi

[cappuccino]

Arising removes the annihilationist view whilst ceasing removes the eternalist view.

I think you missed the point

& misapplied it

[Ceisiwr]

Arising removes the annihilationist view whilst ceasing removes the eternalist view.

I think you missed the point

& misapplied it

What is it that I have missed?

[cappuccino]

What is it that I have missed?

arising & ceasing is merely a process


craving arises, or craving ceases


then other things arise, or cease

[Ceisiwr]

What is it that I have missed?

arising & ceasing is merely a process


craving arises, or craving ceases


then other things arise, or cease

Ok, and you think my post doesn't align with that? How?

[Laurens]

DootDoot forgive me for not quoting, as I am on my phone and my fingers are too fat to do the formatting.

Perhaps my point would best be surmised in the following question. Suppose you encounter someone about to commit suicide. Using a secular Buddhist worldview how do you convince them that being a Buddhist is better than ending their life?

Given you've stated that 'there is nothing in the sensual realm to enjoy'. Perhaps you tell them that meditation leads to peace to which they say 'as does death'. What do you say to entice them back from the brink of suicide?

You have to at least admit that removing rebirth puts Buddhism on equal footing to hedonism, or nihilism, as a response to suffering. With rebirth there is a clear reason why you should be a Buddhist. Without it becomes one of many other worldviews on pretty much equal footing to each other.

[cappuccino]

Ok, and you think my post doesn't align with that? How?

"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"

"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the Dhamma."

"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"

"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."

Yamaka Sutta

[Ceisiwr]

Ok, and you think my post doesn't align with that? How?

"And so, my friend Yamaka — when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life — is it proper for you to declare, 'As I understand the Teaching explained by the Blessed One, a monk with no more effluents, on the break-up of the body, is annihilated, perishes, & does not exist after death'?"

"Previously, my friend Sariputta, I did foolishly hold that evil supposition. But now, having heard your explanation of the Dhamma, I have abandoned that evil supposition, and have broken through to the Dhamma."

"Then, friend Yamaka, how would you answer if you are thus asked: A monk, a worthy one, with no more mental effluents: what is he on the break-up of the body, after death?"

"Thus asked, I would answer, 'Form is inconstant... Feeling... Perception... Fabrications... Consciousness is inconstant. That which is inconstant is stressful. That which is stressful has ceased and gone to its end."

Yamaka Sutta

So you didn't understand what I said.

[cappuccino]

So you didn't understand what I said.

you think of annihilation


but "not annihilation because no-self"

[Ceisiwr]

So you didn't understand what I said.

you think of annihilation


but "not annihilation because no-self"

I don't think of annihilation.

[cappuccino]

I don't think of annihilation.

then Nirvana is a realm, everlasting

[Ceisiwr]

I don't think of annihilation.

then Nirvana is a realm, everlasting

It is an unconditioned and permanent timeless dhamma that is absolutely endless, being also totally empty of self or what belongs to a self.

[cappuccino]