# Atheists: What is Buddhist Enlightenment?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-what-is-buddhist-enlightenment/237709>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [April 1, 2004, 12:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-what-is-buddhist-enlightenment/237709 "2004-04-01T12:01:54Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jovan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/0ea827/32.png) [@jovan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jovan)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-what-is-buddhist-enlightenment/237709/21 "2004-04-03T12:24:31Z")

</div>

> [@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.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Aeschines](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aeschines/32/16251_2.png) [@Aeschines](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aeschines)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2004, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-what-is-buddhist-enlightenment/237709/22 "2004-04-03T12:40:53Z")

</div>

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.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/atheists-what-is-buddhist-enlightenment/237709.md?page=1)