As I understand it, the central tenet of Buddhism is that the world does not actually exist. I am not sitting in my chair and typing on my computer, because there is no chair to sit in and no computer to type on. My chair does not exist, my computer does not exist, and the world does not exist. Does that mean that I do not exist? If all is illusion, does that include the one who is perceiving the illusion?
I know this isn’t really much of an issue in Buddhism. I’m pretty sure that if one had asked the Sakkyamuni Buddha whether one actually existed, he would have said to stop wasting time on inconsequential matters and get back to the business of achieving enlightenment for oneself.
Still, I must ask: what exactly is it that is achieving this enlightenment? If I am an illusion too, why should I bother to extinguish myself? Who cares whether a fictional character lives or dies, or stays in the grip of falshehood or achieves nirvana?
I’m guessing there are probably differences in answer, if there is one, between Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, as well as whatever variants I might be unaware of. I am curious, though. So what’s the lowdown, peeps?
You do exist. So does the chair and the PC. Just calm down now.
It is just that the chair is made up of parts or, thinkof it this way- there is no part of the chair that is “chair” that is just what we call it. There is no “chairness”. If you want to get into the study of emptiness do so, it takes a awhile. I am just begining.
There is conventional reality and the truth in Buddhist philosophy. Life is not an illusion like a magic trick. It is not as if you are stuck in a movie. We are here, we do have joy and sorrow. Our life is precious and we would do well to use it to reach enlightenment. Even if we can’t do that in this lifetime we could better our next life by acting in a moral manner and creating good karma.
AS to the self. Lord Buddha nid not teach that you are unreal but that we are deluded in what we think of as “I” I will quote Walpola Rahula-
Buddhism stands unique in the history of human thought in denying the existence of … a Soul, Self, or Atman. According to the teaching of the Buddha, the idea of self is an imaginary, false belief which has no corresponding reality, and it produces harmful thoughts of “me” and “mine”, selfish desire, craving, attachement, hatred, ill-will, conceit, pride, egoism and other defilements, impurities and problems. It is the source of all the troubles in the world form personal conflicts to wars between nations. In short, to this false view canbe traced all the evil in the world.
Okay, so I’m imposing a dichotomy between existence and non-existence which does not exist in Buddhist thought? This kind of reminds me of negative theology in Catholicism and the assertion that strictly speaking, God does not exist, because existence and non-existence only apply to things in the universe, and God, having created the universe, of necessity does not “exist” inside it.
Stellablue, I think I’m getting what you’re saying. Do you mean that the idea of individual existence is false, or at least the idea of individual ego? That there is no self and nonself, but simply, umm . . . Damn, I can’t quite find the right words to express my idea. This always happens in theological discussions–I always feel like I’m trying to describe the colour red to a blind person, that I’m trying to explicate what is essentially inexplicable.
Anyway, I’m curious about this other thing you said, Stellablue:
Do you mean that a person can postpone enlightenment for his next life? I know about Bodhisattvas, but I thought they had already achieved nirvana, but had decided to return to teach more people about enlightenment. So is it possible to achieve enlightenment in stages or something?
I’m also curious about your background in Buddhism. Are you a recent convert?
I can’t address the issue of what someone else meant. I will just point out that the answer to this question is a point of doctrinal difference between Theravada and Mahayana branches of Buddhism.
Sinungaling: It appears as though you are looking to Buddhism to provide you with answers. But, Grasshopper, you already have the answers! Buddhism provides you with the questions.
No, it’s just a continual process that takes lifetimes for different people.
I’m not sure a Buddhist would look at it that way exactly - makes it too much like stages in Masonry. But roughly, perhaps. As I say, it’s part of a process, and you learn to do it gradually. But it’s not quite right to say “I’m 55% enlightened, Sally is only 35% enlightened.”
I am a recent convert, I have been studying for about 4 years. So I am no master. But I will try to answer your questions.
The idea of “no self or Anatta” is not quickly learned. There is more than I can tell you. But first you must know that Lord Buddha taught that all things are conditioned, relative and interdependant. people too. There is nothing that can be indentified as an eternal, unchanging Sinungaling. But as has been pointed out by others it is false to view “I have a self” as it is to view “I have no self” you must go beyond duality. (When I get there I will let you know:))
As to enlightenment it is difficult to achieve. I may take many lifetimes or I may reach it in this one. But I do not know how many lifetimes I have been working towards this. I don’t care. All I can do is follow that path of dharma and learn from my guru and sit on my cushion. It does not seem to me that it is a thing you can hold and reject. It just merly is.
What others have said here is true. But you must find what is true according to your own experience. The dharma is the right way for me to find that truth. (of course that is “me” in the conventional sense) as there is no Stellablue. Now I really got you confussed!
Just look into what the teachings are and find a dharma center or temple or whatever they call it where you live.
Enjoy
It appears I’ve given people here the impression that I want to become a Buddhist. Really now, I’m fine and dandy being Catholic. However, my curiosity on Buddhism was piqued in Catholic school, when we studied Buddhist thought in Philosophy class and Buddhism in general in World Religions. I’d just always wondered what Buddhists thought about the self.
And Peanuthead, yes, I realize Buddhism fundamentally rejects dogmatic teachings, and indeed enlightenment is thought to be a personal journey. But I was wondering what Buddhist thinkers had said before.
Anyway, thank you all for your, ahem, enlightening answers. Lobsang, yes, I know there is a spoon. It makes a dull clang when I hit it against a rock. “I refute existentialism thus!”