Atheists: What is Buddhist Enlightenment?

[by-tor]

I apologize if this is in the wrong forum but it seemed a little heavy for IMHO. In short I would like to hear from Atheists as to what they think Buddhist Enlightenment (and other forms/traditions of Enlightenment, Kundalini ect.) are and are not. As an Atheist myself, I think that it could be a state where you have tricked your brain into releasing more feel good chemicals on a permanent basis along with other perception changing chemicals/reactions. Have they ever done an MRI on a genuine “enlightened” monk or yogi? I would like to know what is really happening and how they (the enlightened) do it. For that matter, are there any current “enlightened” people living that one could test? As an Atheist, what do you think this phenomena is and what do you think of the claims of it’s proponents?
I am aware that Buddhist do not believe in god, however they seem to have various spiritual/metaphysical systems and that is why I would rather here Atheists' views on the subject as opposed to the converted.

[by-tor]

Please make that here=hear in the last sentence.

[SentientMeat]

V.S Ramachandran, in his book "Phantoms in the Brain", describes how activity in the temporal lobes of the brain's limbic system are strongly correlated with "spiritual" experiences, and can be stimulated by simple psychotropic substances as well as meditation and the like.

However, he is keen to point out that this explanation does not disprove the hypothesis that these experiences are supernatural. Read this fascinating interview.

[Aeschines]

I certainly respect the sophistication of the ideas in the Buddhist canon, but Buddhism simply doesn't produce enlightened people--its ostensible goal.

[jovan]

Originally Posted by SentientMeat

V.S Ramachandran, in his book "Phantoms in the Brain", describes how activity in the temporal lobes of the brain's limbic system are strongly correlated with "spiritual" experiences, and can be stimulated by simple psychotropic substances as well as meditation and the like.

However, he is keen to point out that this explanation does not disprove the hypothesis that these experiences are supernatural. Read this fascinating interview.

Another interesting (and lenghty!) read is Zen and the Brain. It was written by a neurologist and approaches meditation from a very scientific perspective. He stresses the similar point that understanding and describing the neurological processes behind meditation and enlightenment does not take away from their spiritual value.

To use a simile: Imagine a mother holding her newborn child, filled with all sorts of emotions, one of which we would call "love". Now, we can describe in detail all the activity that goes in her brain. Would you say that's all there is to it? Would that mother say so, at that moment?

[rjung]

I was never under the impression that enlightenment was a biological/physiological issue -- I had always taken "achieved enlightenment" to mean that one has developed a certain philosophy that gave the person a view of the world that was aligned with Buddhist principles.

[Apos]

The appealing thing about Buddhism is that it in many aspects has developed away from (and in some respects was always fertile grounds for this) the idea that one needs to believe this or that spiritual reality or ontology, or whatever. It instead can have a focus almost exclusively on practice: hey do this stuff, it seems to help people be more calm and compassionate and overcome suffering to help others. In that sense, Buddhism need not necessarily care whether the action its tapping into is biological or part of some mystical reality: it's main concern is really whether the practice works to achieve its goals.

But then maybe I'm biased: Buddhist funerals I've been to have been infinately more uplifting and than funerals in other religious traditions. Instead of flogging the dead to sell a used car full of metaphysics, the ceremonies really seemed to care about the concepts of loss, love, and celebration of life and death.

However, he is keen to point out that this explanation does not disprove the hypothesis that these experiences are supernatural.

I always have to point out here that, while he's correct, he underplays the fact that while the research doesn't all supernatural explanations, it certianly cuts the legs out from underneath most of them when they argue that a supernatural interpretation is the necessary or only explanation for an experience. Now that there is a perfectly reasonable biological line of explanation for those experiences, supernatural explanations are essentially superflous, and require actual evidence to back up their story outside of the mere experience itself.

And it's certainly a radically different picture if, instead of god touching some supernatural part of ourselves to evoke a connection, he's installed a switch in our brains that he simply flicks when he wants us to feel that effect.

[js_africanus]

Originally Posted by jovan

To use a simile: Imagine a mother holding her newborn child, filled with all sorts of emotions, one of which we would call "love". Now, we can describe in detail all the activity that goes in her brain. Would you say that's all there is to it? Would that mother say so, at that moment?

I think your analogy fails because there is a key difference: The mother's love is a strictly internal affair, no matter how she perceives it; however, those who claim enlightment are claiming to posess knowledge or understanding of the outside universe beyond what the unenlightened can grasp.

For the enlightened, or for the out-of-body traveller, the problem remains the interaction of the spiritual with the brain structure that has been around at least since it was hypothesized that the soul affects the body through the pineal gland. That is simply not analogous to the mother since her percieved emotion can simply be an epiphenomenal manifestation of her hard wiring. It's all in her head, so to speak. The enlightened doesn't enjoy that same position and is left having to verify claims of greater understanding, etc.

On the plus side: Wasn't it the 5^th Dalai Lama who remained undiscovered until his teens and, after he was recognized, spend most his time practicing archery and chasing girls? It is certainly an object lesson in the message of enlightment freed from the shackles of midieval theocrats! Not to mention a compelling statement on the meaning of life.

[jovan]

Originally Posted by js_africanus

I think your analogy fails because there is a key difference: The mother's love is a strictly internal affair, no matter how she perceives it; however, those who claim enlightment are claiming to posess knowledge or understanding of the outside universe beyond what the unenlightened can grasp.

I think you misunderstand what Buddhists mean by enlightenmnet. In a way, it is knowledge that others cannot grasp. However, not in the sense of supernatural revelations and such.

You need to remember that Buddhism came about as an answer to a very concrete question: how can we free ourselves of suffering (or more accurately dukkha)? In this context, enlightenment denotes a state of consciousness in which there is no dukkha. Meditation consists of conditioning your brain in such a way as to make this state of mind possible.

I'll use another analogy: I play the violin. I have spent hours and hours practicing and now, naturally my fingers fall exactly where they should for the music to sound in tune. I possess knowledge of the instrument that is entirely personnal and cannot be imparted to someone else. No matter how much you study the mechanics, acoustics, history etc. of the violin, you will not know violin playing until you figure it out for yourself. In other words, until you train your brain to control your fingers in a very specific way. Although I cannot give you my knowlege, I can show you how I got it and coach you into aquiring it. Buddhist enlightenment is no different.

To bring out an old cliché: have you ever tried explaining the colour red to someone who is blind from birth?

[eponymous]

Originally Posted by jovan

I think you misunderstand what Buddhists mean by enlightenmnet. In a way, it is knowledge that others cannot grasp. However, not in the sense of supernatural revelations and such.

You need to remember that Buddhism came about as an answer to a very concrete question: how can we free ourselves of suffering (or more accurately dukkha)? In this context, enlightenment denotes a state of consciousness in which there is no dukkha. Meditation consists of conditioning your brain in such a way as to make this state of mind possible.

jovan,

Thanks for dispelling the misconception regarding enlightenment; I saw this thread and was thinking of responding. Your comments succinctly coveyed what I wanted to say.

[Aeschines]

Jovan,

That's one way to spin it, but many Buddhists still make "extraordinary claims" for their founder and others.

I realize that there are also many (well, not many) Buddhists who are in essence atheists, who make no claim that Buddhism can really do something supernatural. But I think they are ignoring the texts.

Looks like we're back to our old argument.

[Apos]

Yeah, I'm not sure "enlightenment" is a good word for Western translation, because it implies some sort of attainment of gnosis/knowledge. From what I know of many practioners, this is exactly the opposite of what they are trying to achieve: not knowledge but effortless being and the eradication of the clinging ego.

[Lobsang]

I am an atheist.

I believe it is probably true that there is a 'wall' of egotistical manipulation of sensory input that severely alters our view of the world compared to the reality of the world. A wall that can be broken via buddhist methods, specifically meditation.


I am not so sure about nirvana, and nor about the idea of re-incarnation into a lower or higher life form based on karmic debt, but it's a nice thought.

I believe I benefited and have took a permanent change from a time when I was very interested in buddhism and read about it. The reasoning seemed to 'enlighten' me without the aid of meditation (which I tried but could never get the hang of, with the exception of a few 'interesting' side effects)

Or something.

[kelly5078]

I don't think that wiring up an enlightened person would show anything. When psychologists and neurologists monitor brain function in a meditating monk, the monk is, I believe, in a concentrated state. Concentration can do interesting things to brain function, but it is not considered a pathway to enlightenment. In fact, it can be quite the opposite. A person can become attached to pleasant states (jhanas), so that they become dukkha.

I'm a Buddhist, but also an atheist. I have no belief in anything supernatural. I also cannot buy the idea of samsara, in the sense of rebirth (samsara arising from moment to moment being another matter, as it's a very useful model).

I believe that some can become enlightened, i.e., released from suffering through cessation of craving (lousy word, but...), clinging, aversion, etc., although I doubt that I will be so fortunate. But Buddhism and meditation are definitely helpful, even if, in me, they work slowly. I am a much happier person than I was before I started practicing. So I don't care if I become enlightened, which is as it should be. Enlightenment should not be looked at as a goal, or a finish line, or something like getting to heaven. As was mentioned earlier, it's more of a process of realigning the way one's mind works. It's all synapses and neural pathways and all that good stuff. There's not god, no soul, just the mind. More specifically, the brain, or at most the central nervous system.

[jovan]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

I realize that there are also many (well, not many) Buddhists who are in essence atheists, who make no claim that Buddhism can really do something supernatural. But I think they are ignoring the texts.

And what texts might those be? Let's look at a few selections from the Tipitaka (the oldest collection of Buddhist texts). Those are taken from the Sutta Pitaka, which contains sermons by the Buddha.

First, we look at the Dhammacakkapavattana Sutta which is chronologically the first sermon Gautama gave and highlights the fundamental pillars of Buddhist thought: the four Noble Truths.

You will notice that until the very last paragraphs nothing can be construed as purely supernatural. The Buddha claims to have achieved great insight, but how did he do it?

The way leading to cessation of suffering, as a noble truth, is this: It is simply the noble eightfold path, that is to say, right view, right intention; right speech, right action, right livelihood; right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

Nothing supernatural there. As a matter of fact, the very down-to-earth nature of the Eightfold Path is what I think makes Buddhism attractive to many non-theists. In its inception, Buddhism was much closer to a philosophy than religion, as it proposed an outlook on nature and a way of life rather than a revelation. (Here I mean philosophy in the ancient Greek sense, in the sense that stoicism or epicurianism are philosophies.)

In the last paragraphs, though, we see the appearance of gods and other supernatural beings.

When the Wheel of Truth had thus been set rolling by the Blessed One the earthgods raised the cry: "At Benares, in the Deer Park at Isipatana, the matchless Wheel of truth has been set rolling by the Blessed One, not to be stopped by monk or divine or god or death-angel or high divinity or anyone in the world."

On hearing the earth-gods' cry, all the gods in turn in the six paradises of the sensual sphere took up the cry till it reached beyond the Retinue of High Divinity in the sphere of pure form. And so indeed in that hour, at that moment, the cry soared up to the World of High Divinity, and this ten-thousandfold world-element shook and rocked and quaked, and a great measureless radiance surpassing the very nature of the gods was displayed in the world.

Notice, though, that these divinities bring no revelation. On the contrary, here, and elsewhere in the Tipitaka, they are presented as recipients of the Buddha's teachings. Should we take this paragraph literally? Did gods really sign the Tathagata's praise? Or is this a metaphor? Did the author of this text mean to show that (then nascent) Buddhism offered something that religion, in this case Brahmanism, couldn't? "(...)a great measureless radiance surpassing the very nature of the gods was displayed in the world". Knowledge gained through your own effort (enlightenment) eclipses belief in gods (superstition).

There is a sutta that deals specifically with the supernatural, the Kevatta Sutta. The text starts out with:

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Nalanda in Pavarika's mango grove. Then Kevatta the householder approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, this Nalanda is powerful, both prosperous and populous, filled with people who have faith in the Blessed One. It would be good if the Blessed One were to direct a monk to display a miracle of psychic power from his superior human state so that Nalanda would to an even greater extent have faith in the Blessed One."

To this, the Buddha answers that he has mastered three miracles: psychic powers, telepathy and instruction. Psychic powers and telepathy are ultimately worthless because they can be explained away rationally:

"Then someone who has faith and conviction in him sees him reading the minds... of other beings... He reports this to someone who has no faith and no conviction, telling him, 'Isn't it awesome. Isn't it astounding, how great the power, how great the prowess of this contemplative. Just now I saw him reading the minds... of other beings...'

"Then the person without faith, without conviction, would say to the person with faith and with conviction: 'Sir, there is a charm called the Manika charm by which the monk read the minds... of other beings...' What do you think, Kevatta -- isn't that what the man without faith, without conviction, would say to the man with faith and with conviction?"

"Yes, lord, that's just what he would say."

"Seeing this drawback to the miracle of telepathy, Kevatta, I feel horrified, humiliated, and disgusted with the miracle of telepathy.

The conclusion is that the most miraculous of all actions is teaching. Early Buddhism did not deny the existence or possibility of the supernatural but it placed no importance whatsoever in it. Supernatural forces are irrelevant to the Buddha's message. Buddhism, from the start, seeks to reach out to everyone, believer and un-believer alike. If Buddhist monks started to claim knowledge of the supernatural, they would turn off people of "no faith and conviction" (atheists) which is something they should feel " horrified, humiliated, and disgusted" about.

At the very end of this sutta, there is a rather funny anecdote where a monk flies to heaven and asks several gods a tough question. No one knows and they keep on referring him to someone higher up, until he gets to Brahma, the greatest of them.

(...) the monk said to the Great Brahma, 'Friend, I didn't ask you if you were Brahma, the Great Brahma, the Conqueror, the Unconquered, the All-Seeing, All-Powerful, the Sovereign Lord, the Maker, Creator, Chief, Appointer and Ruler, Father of All That Have Been and Shall Be. I asked you where these four great elements -- the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, and the wind property -- cease without remainder.'

"Then the Great Brahma, taking the monk by the arm and leading him off to one side, said to him, 'These gods of the retinue of Brahma believe, "There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not know. There is nothing that the Great Brahma does not see. There is nothing of which the Great Brahma is unaware. There is nothing that the Great Brahma has not realized." That is why I did not say in their presence that I, too, don't know where the four great elements... cease without remainder. So you have acted wrongly, acted incorrectly, in bypassing the Blessed One in search of an answer to this question elsewhere. Go right back to the Blessed One and, on arrival, ask him this question. However he answers it, you should take it to heart.

Again, like above, the lesson is that you should not ask of religion what it cannot answer.

[jovan]

Of course, though, you are in Japan and you say: "hey! that's nothing like the Buddhism that I know!"

For sure, belief that Amitabha will take you to the Pure Land if you repeat "namu amida butsu" over and over again seems pretty supersticious and supernatural. And, it is.

Since, from the start, Buddhism placed itself as something either above or outside of belief in gods it has always seeked to accomodate itself with the local superstition during its expansion. Bon in Tibet, Taoism in China, Shinto in Japan... The result is that it ended up absorbing a lot of beliefs that are not germane to the original problem of dukha. In most cases, though, this endless and multi-cultural pantheon of divinities still does not play a central role in the teachings of the various Buddhist schools.

Another important factor is a phenomenon scholars call the deification of Buddha. D.T. Suzuki wrote a very good essay on the subject. After Siddhartha's death, he became more and more a larger-than-life figure. That's not uncommon, just look at what happened to Elvis, Marylin or Diana since their deaths. Eventually, though, the myth of Buddha started to eclipse the person of Siddhartha Gautama. While Buddha was transformed into a divinity by people's attraction to the supernatural, his basic doctrine remained independant of religious beliefs.

As time passed, the style of Buddhist scriptures became more and more exhuberant. Compare the dry and very repetitive style of the Tipitaka suttas with the later Lotus Sutta:

And at that moment there issued a ray from within the circle of hair between the eyebrows of the Lord. It extended over eighteen hundred thousand Buddha-fields in the eastern quarter, so that all those Buddha-fields appeared wholly illuminated by its radiance, down to the great hell Avîki and up to the limit of existence. And the beings in any of the six states of existence became visible, all without exception.

You should not make the mistake that Biblical literalists make, everything above is exhuberant figure of speech. There are Buddhist literalists but, as far as schools and sects are concerned, they are in minority.

Japanese Buddhist schools are somewhat odd in that some of them (like Nichiren) are so completely removed from the original message that, in a way, they're hardly Buddhist anymore. If you look at the greater picture, though, you'll find that in Theravada, Tibetan schools, Zen, Shingon, etc. the central message is still independant of supernatural belief, though they may have more (Tibetan/Shingon) or less (Zen/Theravada) superstitious baggage.

[Aeschines]

As always, an edifying post, but I don't think it contradicts my original points, namely, that Buddhists make supernatural claims for their founder and their religious practice.

Nowadays, it seems that Buddhists that really take their religion/practice seriously (and these are probably not even 1% of self-labeled Buddhists in the world!) can be divided into two types:

1. Buddhism is a good/practical way to deal with suffering/life. It has wisdom and value. It can tone your mind and emotions. But it cannot enlighten you in any supernatural/transcendental sense. Reincarnation is not true. That is, these folks are atheists.

2. Buddha found the way to escape the cycle of life and death, and he was truly englightened. We too can hope to become enlightened by following the Noble Eightfold Path. Reincarnation is real.

Note that the second type is not necessarily literalist. At any rate, my original point is that Buddhism does NOT create enlightened persons. Neither type of Buddhism suits me. I am not an atheist and do believe in the afterlife, so type 1 is out. And I actively disbelieve the "extraordinary claims" of type 2, so that's out too.

BTW, it's time to cough up 500 yen to keep posting here on SMDB--I'd hate to see you drift off into Nirvana (snicker).

[jovan]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

Buddhists make supernatural claims for their founder and their religious practice.

Some of them do, but again don't let the pecularities of Buddhism in Japan warp your perception. In Japanese, you can talk about a jiriki or a tariki approach to Buddhism. Zen and Shingon fall in the former and argue that enlightenment can only be achieved through your own effort which is in line with the early texts. The Jodo sects belong to the later and claim that to ordinary people, outside intervention is necessary. In many cases this intervention is supernatural. The tariki view, however popular in Japan, isn't all that common in the rest of the world. The fact is, overall, a majority of Buddhist who are knowledgeable about the doctrine do not believe that supernatural claims are central to Buddhism.

Nowadays, it seems that Buddhists that really take their religion/practice seriously (and these are probably not even 1% of self-labeled Buddhists in the world!) can be divided into two types:

1. Buddhism is a good/practical way to deal with suffering/life. It has wisdom and value. It can tone your mind and emotions. But it cannot enlighten you in any supernatural/transcendental sense. Reincarnation is not true. That is, these folks are atheists.

2. Buddha found the way to escape the cycle of life and death, and he was truly englightened. We too can hope to become enlightened by following the Noble Eightfold Path. Reincarnation is real.

Note that the second type is not necessarily literalist. At any rate, my original point is that Buddhism does NOT create enlightened persons.

This is merely a semantic confusion. I am not sure what you mean by "enlightenment" but it is not what Buddhism is promising. Buddhist enlightenment is not freedom from the cycle of life and death, but freedom from the cycle of passion and suffering. If you condition your mind so that it is free of dukkha you are enlightened.

BTW, it's time to cough up 500 yen to keep posting here on SMDB--I'd hate to see you drift off into Nirvana (snicker).

I started working on Thursday and I don't know if I'll have the time to keep on posting here. Right now, I really should be doing something else. I'm still pondering whether it would be wiser to cut down on the dope...

[Aeschines]

Originally Posted by jovan

Some of them do, but again don't let the pecularities of Buddhism in Japan warp your perception.

No, I was thinking that the texts you posted right here fit my point just fine. Japanese Buddhism is a whole other kettle of sushi.

This is merely a semantic confusion. I am not sure what you mean by "enlightenment" but it is not what Buddhism is promising. Buddhist enlightenment is not freedom from the cycle of life and death, but freedom from the cycle of passion and suffering. If you condition your mind so that it is free of dukkha you are enlightened.

Come now. Once you become englighted like Buddha you will no longer be reincarnated (or you won't be forced to; you will have control over it; you will be in Nibbana). That's a pretty fundamental aspect of enlightenment.

I started working on Thursday and I don't know if I'll have the time to keep on posting here. Right now, I really should be doing something else. I'm still pondering whether it would be wiser to cut down on the dope...

What's your job?

[Mr. Svinlesha]

jovan:

Notice, though, that these divinities bring no revelation. On the contrary, here, and elsewhere in the Tipitaka, they are presented as recipients of the Buddha's teachings. Should we take this paragraph literally? Did gods really sign the Tathagata's praise? Or is this a metaphor?

If I was to take a WAG, I’d wager that the passage was meant to be taken literally. After all, “earth gods,” “gods in the six paradises of the sensual sphere,” and so on, were almost certainly basic elements of the author’s belief system.

Did the author of this text mean to show that (then nascent) Buddhism offered something that religion, in this case Brahmanism, couldn't?

Absolutely. It offered a way off the Wheel of Karma – not so?

Knowledge gained through your own effort (enlightenment) eclipses belief in gods (superstition).

My basic problem with this view is that you seem to be projecting modern concepts – such as “natural” vs. “supernatural,” or enlightenment vs. “superstition,” and so on – onto these very old texts. For example, I doubt there was a strong differentiation between the concepts of “natural” and “supernatural” in India 2500 years ago. Gods, spheres of heaven, and so forth, were a part of the natural world – what else could they be?

Some other forms of Hindu mysticism, such as Jainism, also offered techniques for escaping the Wheel of Karma. (Standard Hindu dogma, if I’m not misinformed, considered the Wheel to be inescapable.) Buddha claimed to have found the escape hatch with the Eight-fold Path.

The conclusion is that the most miraculous of all actions is teaching. Early Buddhism did not deny the existence or possibility of the supernatural but it placed no importance whatsoever in it.

Well, again, I doubt anyone at the time doubted the existence of what you call “the supernatural.” I also agree with you that enlightenment was dependent upon personal achievement rather than divine intervention. But the Buddhist texts (including the old texts) I have read are liberally sprinkled with stories in which the Buddha displays “supernatural” powers of one kind or another. I suspect these stories serve functionally to legitimate the Buddhist message in various ways, by showing that the Buddha had a achieved a higher state of being. I don’t have any texts handy anymore, so I’m sorry that I have to provide examples from memory, but here goes:

• various “miracle stories” in which an audience, after hearing a single sermon from the Buddha, becomes “immediately enlightened.” There must be at least 50 examples of this occurrence in the Tipitaka, no?
  
• Buddha and his entire entourage teleport from one side of a river to another.
  
  
• Buddha encounters an old, enraged “tusker” (elephant) on the road, and successfully calms him.
  
  
• A famous mystic receives a vision in which certain physical characteristics of the “enlightened one” are revealed to him, and sends an apprentice to the Buddha to see if he possess those characteristics. They include elongated earlobes, an ability to touch the forehead with the tongue, and a special “sheath” around the “enlightened one’s” manhood, among others. The Buddha does have elongated earlobes, nimbly touches his tongue to his forehead, and telepathically projects an image of his member into the mind of the apprentice, who sees the sheath quite clearly. Satisfied that the Buddha has met his stringent standards, the mystic declares him an “enlightened one.”
  
  
• Shortly before his death, Buddha informs one of his followers that an enlightened one such as himself can reverse the process of aging and continue living indefinitely, should he so choose. When his apprentice entreats him to do so, the Buddha spitefully refuses, blaming his apprentice for failing to ask him on the three previous occasions when he had mentioned his ability to avoid death. (I confess, I find this last story somewhat bewildering and completely out of character with the basic message of Buddhism as I understand it. There’s probably a point to the parable, but it evades me.)

These are all examples of supernatural acts performed by the Buddha taken from the original Pali texts, but please to don’t ask me to run around trying to locate cites, as I don’t have the texts available to me anymore.

Since, from the start, Buddhism placed itself as something either above or outside of belief in gods it has always seeked to accomodate itself with the local superstition during its expansion. Bon in Tibet, Taoism in China, Shinto in Japan... The result is that it ended up absorbing a lot of beliefs that are not germane to the original problem of dukha. In most cases, though, this endless and multi-cultural pantheon of divinities still does not play a central role in the teachings of the various Buddhist schools.

I completely agree with this, but I also agree with Aeschines that it doesn’t contradict his earlier claim, namely that the Buddha was also said to possess “supernatural” powers, even in the original texts.

[jovan]

Originally Posted by Aeschines

No, I was thinking that the texts you posted right here fit my point just fine. Japanese Buddhism is a whole other kettle of sushi.Come now. Once you become englighted like Buddha you will no longer be reincarnated (or you won't be forced to; you will have control over it; you will be in Nibbana). That's a pretty fundamental aspect of enlightenment.

It's more of a consequence than a fundamental aspect. You need to see it in the following context, though:

When Buddhism started, the main religion in India was Brahmanism. It argued that when people died, their souls would seek a new body. Your actions in one life determines in what form, in what caste, you are reborn. The highest possible castes were that of clerics (brahmin) and nobles. In mainstream Brahmanism, you could not escape this cycle and effectively, the highest you could aspire to was to be reborn as a prince or a priest.

There were, parallel to this, ascetic sects that argued that by strenghtening your soul, to the great detriment of your body, it would become more independent and you could actually avoid being reborn, thus living a purely spiritual and eternal life.

Gautama was born a prince and he thought life sucked. Mainstream religion, however was telling him: "this is as good as it gets." He tried ascetism, but, among other things there was the problem that there was no assurance that freeing yourself from the cycle of rebirth would free you from dukha.

Where freedom from suffering reaches freedom from rebirth is in the fact that in order to achieve the first, you must come to realise your true nature. That nature is that the ego, the soul, the atta is illusion. This view is called anatta. Once you fully realise the truth of anatta, freedom from reincarnation is logically inevitable as there is no soul to be reincarnated.

What's your job?

Lecturer. I'm teaching music technology and sound design.

[Aeschines]

Good points, but I think the thing that is bugging me here is this: You're stating this interpretation of Buddhism as if every Buddhist shares these views.

I agree that your interpretation is a good, type 1 version. I would disagree that this version has been typical in the past, nor would I agree that most "serious" Buddhists today share it (although a good percentage may).

I studied Buddhism pretty heavily in the 80s, and it was obvious that many people (including that numbskull Phillip Kapleau) took various tenets quite literally, such as reincarnation.