DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**kictainiSot** · 01-08-2012, 05:19 AM

But my question for you two, or others is, then is what is your personal goal for practicing Buddhism? Let us say that a person is enlightened, and then he dies and then he is no more. Then what? Is there a point for that person to reach enlightenment, whatever your definition of enlightenment is?

Hi Yuan,

The way I see it, the question is hard to answer without a definition of enlightenment, because the answer depends on the definition. For example, there are at least two distinct strands of thought in Theravada. One, which I gather is associated more with the Burmese tradition, defines nibbana strictly in terms of cessation. Parinibbana (complete enlightenment) is equivalent to annihilation/oblivion, i.e death as a physicalist would understand it. It's not a state of perfect serenity -- it's not any kind of state at all, since sensation and cognition have come to an end.

The second, found more often in the Thai Forest Tradition and articulated by teachers such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, doesn't accept this view of nibbana as annihilation and looks instead to sutta passages suggesting there is some sort of serene, luminous state, albeit one which cannot really be articulated in ordinary language.

Then we have Mahayana definitions of enlightenment which involve sunyata and realization of buddha nature, etc. A Buddha not only does not simply "cease"; he/she teaches sentient beings, has Buddha fields and Pure Lands, and so on. Quite a departure from #1 as stated above.

It seems to me #1 is the hardest to reconcile with a belief in one lifetime. It's actually bit risky to combine the two because logically it leads to an argument for suicide. (If parinibbana=annihilation, and annihilation automatically follows physical death, why not skip all that difficult cultivation and get there by the quickest route?) #2 works better because there is something to aspire to -- a perfect serene state, a luminous awareness, clearly better than our afflicted states that we know so well.

Mahayana understanding of nirvana as prajnaparamita seems reconcilable as well. After all the Heart and Diamond Sutras teach us that karma and rebirth are illusory, that in the cognizance of a Buddha (or even a great bodhisattva) there is no self, other or lifespan, and that "reality" properly seen is the ebb and flux of causes and conditions. So in terms of prajna, the question seems ultimately irrelevant. However, the one lifetime model does present other doctrinal problems in Mahayana, particularly as relates to the bodhisattva path and ideas of the True Self put forward in the tathagatagarbha scriptures. Some of these issues are easier to resolve than others.

01-08-2012, 05:19 AM	#22
kictainiSot Join Date Nov 2005 Posts 536 Senior Member	But my question for you two, or others is, then is what is your personal goal for practicing Buddhism? Let us say that a person is enlightened, and then he dies and then he is no more. Then what? Is there a point for that person to reach enlightenment, whatever your definition of enlightenment is? Hi Yuan, The way I see it, the question is hard to answer without a definition of enlightenment, because the answer depends on the definition. For example, there are at least two distinct strands of thought in Theravada. One, which I gather is associated more with the Burmese tradition, defines nibbana strictly in terms of cessation. Parinibbana (complete enlightenment) is equivalent to annihilation/oblivion, i.e death as a physicalist would understand it. It's not a state of perfect serenity -- it's not any kind of state at all, since sensation and cognition have come to an end. The second, found more often in the Thai Forest Tradition and articulated by teachers such as Thanissaro Bhikkhu, doesn't accept this view of nibbana as annihilation and looks instead to sutta passages suggesting there is some sort of serene, luminous state, albeit one which cannot really be articulated in ordinary language. Then we have Mahayana definitions of enlightenment which involve sunyata and realization of buddha nature, etc. A Buddha not only does not simply "cease"; he/she teaches sentient beings, has Buddha fields and Pure Lands, and so on. Quite a departure from #1 as stated above. It seems to me #1 is the hardest to reconcile with a belief in one lifetime. It's actually bit risky to combine the two because logically it leads to an argument for suicide. (If parinibbana=annihilation, and annihilation automatically follows physical death, why not skip all that difficult cultivation and get there by the quickest route?) #2 works better because there is something to aspire to -- a perfect serene state, a luminous awareness, clearly better than our afflicted states that we know so well. Mahayana understanding of nirvana as prajnaparamita seems reconcilable as well. After all the Heart and Diamond Sutras teach us that karma and rebirth are illusory, that in the cognizance of a Buddha (or even a great bodhisattva) there is no self, other or lifespan, and that "reality" properly seen is the ebb and flux of causes and conditions. So in terms of prajna, the question seems ultimately irrelevant. However, the one lifetime model does present other doctrinal problems in Mahayana, particularly as relates to the bodhisattva path and ideas of the True Self put forward in the tathagatagarbha scriptures. Some of these issues are easier to resolve than others.
	Quote