With that said, as someone who most closely is aligned with Stoicism and Cynicism, due to their influence on Christianity and such, I do find the asceticism to be difficult to incorporate into the life on an average Western adult, that I am. Even in our consumer-based economy that is the United States, it's a matter of personal preference and ultimately individualism to embrace Buddhism, or so I thought. Namely, that Buddhism is not an individual based 'taste' or 'liking', as far as I'm aware, nor is it a philosophy that embraces individualism in any regard. Is this something anyone would agree with? — Wallows

I am not sure, if I can agree with you here, but then I am not even sure at this stage, whether or not I clearly see your argument.

As far as I can see your argument, you seem to be in favour of Buddhism, but not with asceticism it entails. Perhaps you could say more precisely what you like about Buddhism, or with which Buddhist teachings you agree, and then also why you dislike asceticism.

I am inclined to believe that it is not necessary to be an ascetic in the sense that you refuse food and any personal pleasure in order to be religious. What is needed much more, in my view, is a respect for the teachings of the religion and a sincere attempt to live according to its moral standards.

2) Another misgiving that I have towards Buddhism is the fact that it's a philosophy that is at once very elegant in its simplicity, yet very hard to master or achieve. By which I mean to make the claim, that Buddhism is a philosophy that is too stringent on such a basic urge that is desire. Think about it this way, if everyone in the world mastered their desires and practiced Buddhist asceticism, then we wouldn't have made it very far as a species. The entire economy would fall apart and we would figuratively live as if we were still in the stone age. I mean no disrespect here in comparing a world full of Buddhists to cavemen with some fire; but, I hope I got the point across here. Is this something anyone would agree with? — Wallows

This is, in my view, indeed an important point.
On the other hand, of course, I don't think Buddhism tells you to stop working.
It just means to tell people not to be guided by personal greed and the desire to influence others and exercise power over them.
Buddhism, I tend to believe, is not a religion/philosophy for young people, though. In your youth, you can and should have desires, such as the desire to earn a living and to find a partner.
Wisdom, including the wisdom that all achievements in life are questionable, is something that comes later.

3) Finally, and perhaps most abstractly in scope is my dread with the concept of reincarnation. It's almost scary to think that I will be reborn as a centipede or let alone as another human being, in the future. The only reassuring thing about death is the fact that it is final and permanent or certain. I find the desire to live an after-life in some magical place in the sky or as a pig in some field, like some cruel and sadistic joke. I mean, would you want to live in perpetuity in a world with so much suffering? I would not. The people that do come off to me as insane or lacking in sensibility with regards to this matter. — Wallows

As far as I know, there is no empirical basis for reincarnation.
Reincarnation, however, if someone believes in it, does not necessarily mean you are reborn as the same person with the same qualities, traits and characteristics. It is not even sure you are reborn on this planet.
An immortal soul reaching the heights of God and a state of eternal love and light need not be such a bad thing, I think. But as I said before, we don't and can't know, if this is what we will be.

There was a well-known academic by the name of Paul Williams who after having written some textbooks on Buddhism, announced that he was converting to Catholicism due to his dread of the idea of being reborn as a cockroach. At the time I used to post on DharmaWheel forum, and the general response to this was that it was a pretty offbeat interpretation of the meaning of rebirth. I have read quite a bit about Buddhism and I've never heard it said that this could happen. It is said in a general sense that beings may be reborn in the lower states or realms, including that of animals. However I don't think it's necessary to believe in rebirth to benefit from practicing Buddhist principles. You can bracket out such beliefs. Not that I think there's nothing in them, but they're culturally alien in some ways.

Generally, I would advise getting in contact with a Buddhist centre - going to a talk or public event. There are many Buddhist centres around now, unlike a few generations ago.

I think overall the most beneficial aspect of Buddhism is their approach to meditation or mindfulness as it is called nowadays. Interestingly, it doesn't really figure in many traditionally Buddhist cultures, where meditation is 'something monks do', but there have been some influential popular movements coming out of Western Buddhism, and some Thai and Tibetan traditions, encouraging meditation practice for lay people.

As far as I can see your argument, you seem to be in favour of Buddhism, but not with asceticism it entails. — Andreas Greifenberger

I just don't see any point to it, honestly. Is it some prerequisite towards enlightenment?

Perhaps you could say more precisely what you like about Buddhism, or with which Buddhist teachings you agree, and then also why you dislike asceticism. — Andreas Greifenberger

I am out of my element here, so I'll just play it by ear. Isn't it doubly difficult for a person from the West, who was raised to become a good working citizen, is made aware of human capital attained through the laborious efforts of 'stepping on the shoulders of giants' of the past, is also aware of the comfort and luxury that technology and progress entail through competition and the invisible hand of the markets... Well, you get my point here, I suppose? If I were to put this mildly, a profound disillusionment with our current socio-economic system would have to occur in the mind of a would-be Western Buddhist. It also strikes me as profoundly selfish to want to abandon the good that can be promoted through being such a "cog".

I am inclined to believe that it is not necessary to be an ascetic in the sense that you refuse food and any personal pleasure in order to be religious. — Andreas Greifenberger

But, then is it still Buddhism we are talking about or a convenient aberration of Buddha's philosophy or way of living?

There was a well-known academic by the name of Paul Williams who after having written some textbooks on Buddhism, announced that he was converting to Catholicism due to his dread of the idea of being reborn as a cockroach. — Wayfarer

As far as I am aware, samsara will continue until nirvana or enlightenment is attained by each and every individual. Is that correct?

There's a lot of metaphysics to Buddhist philosophy that I am only vaguely aware of.

You can bracket out such beliefs. Not that I think there's nothing in them, but they're culturally alien in some ways. — Wayfarer

Yes, but usually when I buy into a philosophy I take it as a whole and not selectively pick out parts that I like or don't like. The current Dalai Lama is thought to be the 14'th reincarnation, so I think it's pretty important, yes?

Maybe I'm confusing the whole philosophy of Buddhism here and treating it like a religion, is that accurate?

Maybe I'm confusing the whole philosophy of Buddhism here and treating it like a religion, is that accurate? — Wallows

Yes. Try reading the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha) himself. Nothing in his teachings merits taking reincarnation literally. Also, SG was born a prince, a kind of a playboy. He became disillusioned when he finally left his palace as a young man and saw people suffering in the streets for the first time. After some soul-searching, he decided to renounce that life and became an ascetic. He became disillusioned again this time about asceticism. He finally settled on “the middle way” or what we would call moderation.

So no need for asceticism or belief in literal reincarnation!

Hope this helps.

Nothing in his teachings merits taking reincarnation literally — Noah Te Stroete

I’m afraid that is not true at all, but I can’t respond further until much later as I’m on duty.

I don’t believe I’m wrong, but the metaphysics of BCE India was different than now. I’m trying to help Wallows. Anyway, the Buddha would have reached Nirvana, so the Dalai Lama’s incarnation doesn’t need to be believed. In fact, the cycle of death and rebirth can be seen as metaphorical, and there is no way of knowing what the Buddha meant by this cycle. He was rebelling against Hinduism, so it’s not impossible that when he was talking about an escape from that cycle he was just speaking about renouncing Hinduism. That’s my belief. It's an original idea as far as I know. It’s certainly not falsifiable.

Anyway, @Wallows, any religion should only be a guide to a better life. When we start taking things literally or buying it whole cloth, then we become fundamentalists and it loses its utility.

Doing some self-reflection, and recalling a distant dream in my past, I do recall having a dream of being a dolphin in my youth. That was the only instance in my life when I dreamed of being an animal. It was a blissful dream in many regards, as I felt no thought, just swimming and jumping up on the crests of waves. I suspect that my empathy circuits were in overdrive during this dream, as I was wholly able to emulate the POV of a dolphin within a dream. Somewhat reminiscent about Zhuangzi's Butterfly Dream.

And here I would like to bring up my fourth 'misgiving' with Buddhism. Namely, the concept of suffering or dukkha. Now, I have no reason to suffer if I was a dolphin. I would simply adhere to what Nature dictates that I do. But... people, on the other hand, complain and moan and beat their chests with how much suffering they have gone through or expect to encounter. Why is that? It's somewhat perplexing that anyone should complain about their suffering.

What I mean here, is the natural aspect of the human condition being in a world with limited resources and scarcity, forcing us humans to migrate in our earlier years to other lands, undergo adaptive changes that allowed us to survive in distant hot or cold lands, etc. But, at the heart of all this is an aspect of being human that one is either forced to accept by adhering to Nature, which is that suffering is natural and unavoidable.

What I do not see as just is saying that we suffer because we are human; but, rather we suffer because it is natural. And, if one wants to live in a world with less suffering, then they must accept this fundamental aspect of being.

we suffer because it is natural. — Wallows

To me, “we suffer because it is natural,” is a brute fact, not a suggestion that you can’t do anything about it. Isn’t that a point of meditation? To separate one’s mind from the ego, the part that suffers? @Wayfarer, is that right?

Asceticism - Buddhism is traditionally said to be a 'middle way' between the extremes of 'sensory indulgence' and 'asceticism'. The Buddha is said to have undergone extreme asceticism during his six-year quest, to the point of near-starvation, which is depicted iconographically with the figure of the Buddha with his ribs protruding. He was saved from actual starvation by a milk-maiden who gave him a meal of curds, after which he pronounced asceticism profitless. Buddhist monastic rules are quite abstemious by modern standards (for example, not eating after midday) but then house-holder practitioners are not bound by them. Nevertheless Buddhists are traditionally expected to observe the five precepts (from experience, 3 and 5 are often challenging.)

Metaphysics - Buddhism rejects metaphysics, in the Aristotelian sense. There is nothing in Buddhism corresponding to the notion of the Aristotelian 'ouisia' (translated as 'substance'.) Buddhism teaches Śūnyatā (usually translated as 'emptiness'), which is notoriously difficult to either define or understand; a good brief introductory article can be found here.

Practically speaking, Buddhist 'metaphysics' is based around the 'twelve-fold chain of dependent origination' which couldn't really be summarised in a forum post (although there's a good article on it on Wikipedia).

Re-birth - obviously a very controversial aspect of Buddhism in the West, where 'belief in reincarnation' is culturally taboo (on two grounds, one religious, one scientific).

But two important points have to be made - unlike what Noah suggests, the fact of rebirth is fundamental to all forms of Buddhism. You can interpret it to say that it means the constant birth and death of our feelings and emotions, moment to moment - and that's true. But Buddhism really plays out on a much larger canvas than that. It is a sore point for 'secular Buddhism', in particular, which is generally averse to the idea that re-birth is something that really happens. So, it's a stumbling block for many people - that's why I said to 'bracket' it, which doesn't mean rejecting it, or believing it, but just suspending judgement about it.

The second point is that Buddhism *does not* teach that there is a 'soul that migrates from life to life'. Big no-no. It's much more like a process view - that one life gives rise to the next like the 'passing of a torch' or even the transmission of a fax (a modern metaphor that has been used). There is a lovely word in Mahayana Buddhism, the 'citta-santana' meaning '"mindstream", used in Buddhist philosophy. Citta may be translated as “that which is conscious,” “ordinary consciousness” or “the act of mental apprehension”; and santana may be translated as “a series of events” or “continuum.”

This is defined as the moment-by-moment continuum of mental thoughts, impressions and occurrences. It is the stream of successive moments of awareness, or movement of the mind. What it provides is a continual and enduring personality in the absence of an individual self, or atman. But it is not (unlike Aristotelian metaphysics) understood in terms of substance and attribute. Quite why not, is another deep study.

we suffer because it is natural — Wallows

To separate one’s mind from the ego, the part that suffers? — Noah Te Stroete

Well - here is where 'faith' comes in. Ultimately what the Buddha points to is indeed a state beyond all suffering - that is what makes it a religion. But Buddhism recognises that we obviously don't know that state - if we did know it, then we too would be Buddhas! In the absence of that direct knowledge (jñāna), then we have to 'take it on faith'. Here is a snippet of dialog with one of the Buddha's principle disciples:

Those who have not known, seen, penetrated, realized, or attained [the Deathless] by means of discernment would have to take it on conviction that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation; whereas those who have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment would have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation. And as for me, I have known, seen, penetrated, realized, & attained it by means of discernment. I have no doubt or uncertainty that the faculty of conviction... persistence... mindfulness... concentration... discernment, when developed & pursued, gains a footing in the Deathless, has the Deathless as its goal & consummation.

Pubbakotthaka Sutta: Eastern Gatehouse

Maybe I'm confusing the whole philosophy of Buddhism here and treating it like a religion, is that accurate? — Wallows

It's another difficult question, and (unfortunately) one to which the only answer is 'yes and no'! Buddhism is most definitely a religion (or group of religions.) But because it originated in an entirely different cultural sphere to the Semitic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) then it understands the meaning of religion in a very different way. In fact, 'dharma' and 'religion' are not exact synonyms; like many Buddhist terms, there is no exact counterpart for 'dharma' (or 'bodhi' or 'samsara' or many other fundamental terms.) That is why it is often said that Buddhism is 'more like a philosophy or way of life' than a religion, and in a way that's also true. (Hence, the 'no' part.)

For myself, what drew me to Buddhism was the strength of the basic argument; but also one particular book, Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind by Shunryu Suzuki, published about 1970. That is actually the founding text and teacher of the San Francisco Zen Centre. One of the central ideas in this book, which is basically a series of dharma talks (=Buddhist sermons), is to 'practice meditation with no gaining idea'. This is based on the Soto Zen principles of Master Dogen (one of the two main sects of Japanese Zen.) The idea is, to sit in zazen (meditation) every day, but not to expect anything from it. Hence, 'no gaining idea'. That, in my mind, is what makes it a religious practice. (See my brief guide to Zazen.)

Some articles for the philosophically inclined:

Beyond scientific materialism and religious belief, Akincano M. Weber.

What is and isn't Yogācāra Buddhism, Dan Lusthaus.

Re-birth - obviously a very controversial aspect of Buddhism in the West, where 'belief in reincarnation' is culturally taboo (on two grounds, one religious, one scientific). — Wayfarer

That’s a silly way to phrase it, as though Westerners reject the notion because it’s “culturally taboo,” :razz: rather than it simply being inconsistent with popular Western religious beliefs, science, or plain reason. I guess it could be taboo in some underdeveloped subcultures, but then Buddhism would be rejected in its entirety in such a place, I imagine.

I don't think it's necessary to believe in rebirth to benefit from practicing Buddhist principles. You can bracket out such beliefs. Not that I think there's nothing in them, but they're culturally alien in some ways. — Wayfarer

There are many aspects of Buddhism that is culturally alien, but are nevertheless consistent with our reality.

The curious fact is that everyone must “bracket out” rebirth because no one can explain it. We can only believe in [it].

But two important points have to be made - unlike what Noah suggests, the fact of rebirth is fundamental to all forms of Buddhism. You can interpret it to say that it means the constant birth and death of our feelings and emotions, moment to moment - and that's true. But Buddhism really plays out on a much larger canvas than that. It is a sore point for 'secular Buddhism', in particular, which is generally averse to the idea that re-birth is something that really happens. — Wayfarer

Exactly. I question why secular Buddhism even exists, when under a 'one life and done' model, the path leading to the cessation of Dukkha is mere bodily death.

Would you be surprised to learn that reincarnation is not a Buddhist teaching?

"Reincarnation" normally is understood to be the transmigration of a soul to another body after death. There is no such teaching in Buddhism--a fact that surprises many people, even some Buddhists One of the most fundamental doctrines of Buddhism is anatta, or anatman--no soul or no self. There is no permanent essence of an individual self that survives death, and thus Buddhism does not believe in reincarnation in the traditional sense, such as the way it is understood in Hinduism.

- https://www.learnreligions.com/reincarnation-in-buddhism-449994

What Reincarnation is Not

Reincarnation is not a simple physical birth of a person; for instance, John being reborn as a cat in the next life. In this case John possesses an immortal soul which transforms to the form of a cat after his death. This cycle is repeated over and over again. Or if he is lucky, he will be reborn as a human being. This notion of the transmigration of the soul definitely does not exist in Buddhism.

- https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm

I question why secular Buddhism even exists, when under a 'one life and done' model, the path leading to the cessation of Dukkha is mere bodily death. — Inyenzi

There is a lot of debate amongst Western adherents of Buddhism about whether, or in what sense, ‘the wheel of rebirth’ is real. Sometimes it is said that rebirth is part of Indian culture and not necessary for practicing and benefiting from Buddhism; other times, that it is an analogy for the moment-to-moment process of daily life. However I am not so sure about that. I think the meaning of 'rebirth' is that 'so long as we identify with those things that are subject to birth and death, then we too are subject to birth and death'. When seen this way, rebirth seems a lot less like participating in an endless series of dramas that many people seem to understand 'rebirth' to mean. It is more that through our attachments and cravings, we are bound to all the sufferings of creatures driven by instincts to keep struggling for survival, and that being bound to this, is bondage indeed.

According to Buddhism, it is not as if we can simply step out of existence, or get off the hamster wheel, even at the time of death, because the latent tendencies that drove this life will always re-form another existence - which is also bound to the same wheel, by the same forces. It is not a voluntary process. Buddhism seeks to show you how to be free of these drives. But that understanding is not a simple matter, it is not like 'having a relaxing time' or 'being free from stress' in the way that modern culture generally understands. If it were like that, then simply being materially well-off and not having emotional problems would be the same as spiritual liberation. But Buddhism says that, even though we might be lucky enough to be free of adverse material conditions, we are still subject to change and decay, and so still bound to the wheel of birth and death, and that whatever favourable circumstances we have now will one day be lost.

So I think according to Buddhism, understanding 'freedom from rebirth' is not actually a matter of whether you believe in reincarnation or not. It has a deeper meaning. It is about whether you are of this world, part of the whole cycle of birth-and-death, change-and-decay, rising-and-falling, that everything in nature is subject to; one of the designations of a Buddha is ‘lokuttara’ meaning ‘above the world’. Nowadays we seem to think that 'natural' is good and wholesome, yet it is the case that everything in nature is subject to decay and death, even if it is beautiful when it is young and vital. (Hence culture’s fascination with youth, youth fashion and ‘staying young’.)

The Buddha teaches that there is something that is beyond change and decay, that is not subject to the constant cycle of birth and death. That is what the Buddha found and points to. Living in the light of that, realizing what that is and making oneself open to it, is the aim of the Buddhist teaching, as I interpret it.

I question why secular Buddhism even exists, when under a 'one life and done' model, the path leading to the cessation of Dukkha is mere bodily death. — Inyenzi

All sorts of teleological narratives could replace rebirth. Can you explain why a different narrative would be any less effective?

There are a lot of Buddhisms, they believe all sorts of things.

And here I would like to bring up my fourth 'misgiving' with Buddhism. Namely, the concept of suffering or dukkha. Now, I have no reason to suffer if I was a dolphin. I would simply adhere to what Nature dictates that I do. But... people, on the other hand, complain and moan and beat their chests with how much suffering they have gone through or expect to encounter. Why is that? It's somewhat perplexing that anyone should complain about their suffering. — Wallows

The idea of suffering is at the heart of Buddhism. The first of the Four Noble Truths in Tibetan Buddhism is the truth of suffering. There's no way around it. From what you say, I don't think you understand what it means in this context.

And no, I'm not a Buddhist, but I know what suffering is as discussed here. I have felt that suffering.

I think we all know, Mr. Wallows, WHICH animal you will be reincarnated as.

So, why stop with Buddhism? Why not try a whole smorgasbord of ancient and oriental religions?

I see no problem with people investigating, trying-on-for-size, sampling, playing with, becoming novices in, and dithering over other religions suitably distant from the wicked western wasteland of materialism, consumerism, industry, etc. Go for it, but you still have to work out your personal salvation (whatever that may be) where you are, in the cultural milieu in which you exist, using the too familiar materials at hand. Just like every Buddhist, Christian, Hindu, Jew, Moslem, Jain, Zoroastrian, Shinto, atheist, etc. has to do.

Your best bet will, in the long run, will be to "grow where you are planted". For you, Western heritage, no less / no more than the Eastern, is a mixed bag and has depths that are difficult to fully plumb. You have a long head start in the Western traditions. "Your people" are westerners. You are a westerner. You may think that westerners are uniquely monstrous colonial, imperialist, materialistic, polluting... blah, blah, blah but we are not. There is no escape, this side of the grave, from human folly. We are all (7 billion+ of us) bozos on the bus, messing things up as we go along.

Finding your personal salvation (whatever that is) will be no easier here, there, or anywhere else.

Finding your personal salvation (whatever that is) will be no easier here, there, or anywhere else. — Bitter Crank

If you buy the idea that philosophy can help guide us on the path to salvation, which I do, then which philosophy you pick can be important. I find that eastern philosophies are much more in tune with the way I understand the world than western ones are. This has nothing to do with any moral problems with the western way of seeing things. Also, I don't deny that my outlook is a western one. I started out intellectually with science, math, and engineering. That led me straight to Taoism, although it would be silly to call myself anything other than a dabbler. It has had a big effect on my intellectual and psychological development

Also, there's an advantage to trying out approaches that are different from those you grew up in - it's easier to see and avoid the philosophical and religious pitfalls and illusions. You get to choose what you follow and what you don't. Of course that means that Buddhism in Asia is different, maybe even more, than Buddhism in America. So be it.

Edit - sorry. , changed "less" to "more."

First, thank's Wayfarer for taking the time to reply to my "misgivings".

Practically speaking, Buddhist 'metaphysics' is based around the 'twelve-fold chain of dependent origination' which couldn't really be summarised in a forum post (although there's a good article on it on Wikipedia). — Wayfarer

What about karma? I don't even know how to describe the concept of karmic rebirth or how it is 'accumulated' during one's life, and then in a figurative sense evaluated to influence samsara.

According to Buddhism, it is not as if we can simply step out of existence, or get off the hamster wheel, even at the time of death, because the latent tendencies that drove this life will always re-form another existence - which is also bound to the same wheel, by the same forces. — Wayfarer

Yeah, can you elaborate on these "forces" that dictate rebirth?

The Buddha teaches that there is something that is beyond change and decay, that is not subject to the constant cycle of birth and death. That is what the Buddha found and points to. Living in the light of that, realizing what that is and making oneself open to it, is the aim of the Buddhist teaching, as I interpret it. — Wayfarer

I'm not familiar with this notion of Buddhism as being above and beyond the world when enlightenment occurs.

From what you say, I don't think you understand what it means in this context. — T Clark

What do you mean?

And no, I'm not a Buddhist, but I know what suffering is as discussed here. I have felt that suffering. — T Clark

You have felt the suffering in terms of what, desire or what?

What about karma? I don't even know how to describe the concept of karmic rebirth or how it is 'accumulated' during one's life, and then in a figurative sense evaluated to influence samsara. — Wallows

In the Vedic religion, 'karma' was something regulated through rituals and the correct performance of sacrifice. The Buddha adapted the term and broadened its scope to mean 'intentional action' generally. (Likewise, the Buddha adapted the term 'brahmin' to mean 'one of noble conduct' instead of simply 'one born into the priestly class'.) So in this way, karma is central to Buddhism as the main principle of action. In principle it's not complicated: what you do now gives rise to future states of being; hellish actions produce hellish consequences. (People nowadays seem not to believe in hell, so they seem to think if they die then there's no further consequences; I'm not so sure of that although I can't say that I know.)

can you elaborate on these "forces" that dictate rebirth? — Wallows

I can't summarise it. The principle is simple enough, but the details are not. All I can do is link to some resources such as this article.

The 'round of rebirth' has been depicted as the 'bhavachakra', which encompasses the six realms (hell realms, ghost realms, animal realms, human realms, titan realms, heavenly realms). Beings are reborn in these realms endlessly because of karma; the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas are symbolically depicted as outside the wheel, although in some versions, they also appear in minute form in each of the realms, symbolising the Buddha's compassion to teach all suffering beings. Plainly this is a mythological iconography but it conveys the gist of the idea - that what we do now gives rise to rebirth in higher or lower states of being in future (although again in our sensate culture we have great difficulty accepting the reality of such ideas).

I'm not familiar with this notion of Buddhism as being above and beyond the world when enlightenment occurs — Wallows

In early Buddhism (represented today by the Theravada Buddhism of S E Asia) there was an absolute distinction between Nirvana and Samsara. One of the innovations of the Mahayana was to say that these are ultimately not distinct, that they are the same domain, viewed from different perspectives. That is the basis of Buddhist non-dualism (advaya). This was and is a radical teaching from the viewpoint of many Buddhist schools - the Theravada have never accepted that. To really grasp it takes some study of the MMK of Nagarjuna, which is quite an arcane piece of philosophy ( 1).

But the Buddha is 'lokuttara' (above the world) (and also 'lokuvidu' (i.e. 'knower of worlds')) in all schools of Buddhism; these are traditional epiphets. Ultimately, the Buddha is pointing to 'the unborn, unconditioned, unfabricated'.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Sāvatthī at Jeta's Grove, Anāthapiṇḍika's monastery. And on that occasion the Blessed One was instructing, urging, rousing, & encouraging the monks with Dhamma-talk concerned with unbinding. The monks — receptive, attentive, focusing their entire awareness, lending ear — listened to the Dhamma.

Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed:

There is, monks, an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated. If there were not that unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, there would not be the case that escape from the born — become — made — fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn — unbecome — unmade — unfabricated, escape from the born — become — made — fabricated is discerned.(2)

(This verse is often compared by scholars to sayings concerning the 'wisdom uncreate' in other religious traditions; there are some resemblances, but also considerable differences.)

On Wallow's concern number three: As far as I understand it, reincarnation is not a teaching of the Buddha, it being grafted on to what is called Buddhism from surrounding cultures. However, I am sure the more studious can fill us in.

My qualms with Buddhism relate more to the caste system. I can't quite get past that whole thing is just designed to get you to accept your lot in life. The rah get to live it up since they acted virtuously in another life and everyone else just has to learn to cope with that the human experience primarily entails suffering. It's all kind of a lot of good advice, but I do wonder if that isn't just simply there in the same way that being burned at the stake is kind of what is meant by an eternity in hell is just sort of there in Christianity. Like, I'm not quite sure that the religion isn't just simply the pretext for whatever it was that the Indian rah had done to warrant what could be understood as the set of excuses which comprised an ideology.

Religion is an aristocratic excuse disguised as Philosophy. The invocation of the divine is a condescending means to explain inequality to the general populace. It could be indicitave of a certain kind of Western arrogance to be so dismissive of other faiths, but I kind of think that it's all just sort of the same across the board.

My qualms with Buddhism relate more to the caste system. — thewonder

Buddhism rejects the caste system. It is one of the main reasons Buddhism died out in India.

The second point is that Buddhism *does not* teach that there is a 'soul that migrates from life to life'. Big no-no. It's much more like a process view - that one life gives rise to the next like the 'passing of a torch' or even the transmission of a fax (a modern metaphor that has been used). There is a lovely word in Mahayana Buddhism, the 'citta-santana' meaning '"mindstream", used in Buddhist philosophy. Citta may be translated as “that which is conscious,” “ordinary consciousness” or “the act of mental apprehension”; and santana may be translated as “a series of events” or “continuum.”

This is defined as the moment-by-moment continuum of mental thoughts, impressions and occurrences. It is the stream of successive moments of awareness, or movement of the mind. What it provides is a continual and enduring personality in the absence of an individual self, or atman. — Wayfarer

The notion is that there is a continual and enduring individual "mindstream" across different incarnations, which pretty much amounts to the same thing as saying that there is an individual self or atman, except that it is conceived as being dynamic, and not static and changeless.

The Buddhist conception of rebirth is incoherent; that's why no one can understand it. The secular Buddhist movement is right to discard this groundless idea. It is arguable that the idea only arises because of the tendency of all organisms to cling to life at all costs, and that psychological fact coupled with reflective awareness of our unacceptable impending fate generates the ideas of reincarnation or resurrection; and the general idea of an afterlife. If the aim of Buddhism is to relinquish attachment, then clinging to the idea of rebirth should be the first thing to go.

There is no "larger canvas" than this life (that we could all non-prejudicially agree upon at least) ; anything like that is a contingent artifact of cultural and individual imagination. The usefulness of Buddhism stands or falls on its ability to help deliver relinquishment of attachment here and now, and the fulfilling mortal life of equanimity that this might help bring about.

Of course I predict that you will not attempt to answer this.

What it provides is a continual and enduring personality in the absence of an individual self, or atman. — Wayfarer

And that makes sense to you?

And that makes sense to you? — praxis

Sure, in the context. There is not a single thing that exists independently or in isolation from everything else.

I don't know that all Buddhists reject the caste system or that it is a tenet of the faith to do so. Perhaps that critique could be better applied to Hinduism, but what I am moreso suggesting is that repressive elements of whatever ruling orders there were that were there have probably found their way into the faith, and that it may have been integral to the faith to include them. I'm kind of skeptical of the starry-eyed Western attitude towards Buddhism. I assume for it to have been like any other faith. Buddhism seems to be, and kind of is, preferable to other faiths because the form of repression is pacification. That there is not an overt form of oppression provides for better grounds with which to make an argument. I just kind of doubt that it turns out to be the one exemplary faith and not some sort of patriarchical cult or another.