If you believe there are levels of attainment and a destination it seems you’ve already drank much of the Kool-Aid.

It is a question of - should you 'submit' and accept all these fantastical ideas in order to reach higher levels of attainment or can they be cut out while still getting to the destination. — unimportant

If you're asking 'is Buddhism is a religion', then the answer is definitely 'yes'. But the deeper point is, the cultural background and underlying belief systems are vastly different from the Middle-Eastern religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), to the extent where 'religion' itself means something different to what it is generally taken to mean in a Western culture.

Also, Buddhism is not a single phenomenon, any more than Christianity is. It is a constellation of religious and cultural movements that have developed over millenia in hugely divergent ways. However there are some core principles (I hesitate to say 'beliefs') that are found in all of the schools.

The Buddha believed in reincarnation, and experiencing past lives and such. The text say he could levitate and there is much talk of 'devas' and such which are just like in a literal sense. — unimportant

The term in Buddhism is 'rebirth'. Why the difference? It is said there is no individual person, entity or soul that migrates from one life to another. The customary explanation is that the individual life is more like a process that will give rise to causes that then take form in a future life. That individual is neither the same individual but neither are they completely different.

Of course it is true that 'belief in rebirth' in any sense is culturally taboo in the West. There are two reasons for this. First, belief in reincarnation was declared anathema (forbidden) by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 C.E. (in relation to Origen's idea that souls pre-existed in a spiritual realm before being born.)

The second reason is that it is incompatible with the scientific understanding which doesn't encompass any medium for the transmission of traits, behaviours etc between different lives. (There has been published research, however, on children who appear to recall past lives.)

So rebirth is a stumbling block for many Westerners approaching Buddhism. My advice is, put it aside. It's not necessary to 'believe in reincarnation' in order to engage with Buddhism.

Of course Buddhism was born in ancient India, where beliefs in devas and spirits and other realms of existence were part of the culture. The Secular West has dropped all this, or thinks it has, but I retain an open mind about them. I think 'secular Buddhism' a la Stephen Bachelor et al is a practicable path, but again, I'd keep an open mind about just where the division between sacred and secular is.

Speaking of divide, have a read of Facing the Great Divide, Bhikkhu Bodhi. He is a Buddhist monk of American origin and a scholar and translator of the Pali Buddhist texts. Another is Buddhism Is a Religion, David Brazier. Finally Beyond scientific materialism and religious belief, Weber, published on Bachelor's website. (A lot of reading, I know, but they're big questions!)

Any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

Is it still Buddhism without the extra natural elements? — unimportant

Why not try to have a 'secular approach inspired by Buddhist elements'?

You'll have a lot of difficulty to make sense of 'Buddhism' if you abandon the belief in Samsara. I'll just name a few problems you might encounter:

• You'd have to 'explain away' all these texts that used the belief in a potentially endless cycle of rebirths as a motivator to induce 'samvega' (a sort of healthy anguish) in the practicioner. For instance, all the discourses in the 15th collection of the Samyutta Nikaya. Note that this kind of 'contemplation' inspired renunciation. And renunciation of the world is indeed a BIG component of Buddhism. If one doesn't believe in rebirth, it is indeed strange to convince oneself, for instance, that it is 'good' to abandon one's social roots to live off alms and committ oneself to a hard practice.
• You'd have to confront text like this according to which believing that there is no afterlife actually tends to favour a more relaxed approach or even bad behaviour and the clear affirmation that, according to the Buddha, there is an afterlife.
• Also, I never encountered any Buddhist tradition that doubted the existence of the cycle of rebirths by appealing to cardinal Buddhist doctrines of impermanence ('anitya') and non-self ('anatman'). In fact, they rather held the opposite. It is precisely the lack of a 'static self' that allows such a capacity for change and rebirth.

So, there is no need to try to turn Buddhism into a 'secularized' worldview. It is better, in my opinion, if one doesn't belief in rebirth, to do Buddhist practice for the benefits that one feels it has. For instance, if you find that Buddhist meditation actually helps you to be more serene, content, at peace and so on, I don't believe that you're doing nothing wrong. However, the moment you start to say that belief in 'rebirth' - as well as other 'supernatural' beliefs - was a 'later addition', you need to confront the overwhelming evidence on the contrary. Then, again, I don't think that you can't associate to Buddhists and practice with them if you don't believe in the 'supernatural' ideas as Wayfarer said. You might put it aside for now and see later if it makes more sense for you.

First, belief in reincarnation was declared anathema (forbidden) by the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 C.E. (in relation to Origen's idea that souls pre-existed in a spiritual realm before being born.) — Wayfarer

As an aside, in Christianity there are also theological/philosophical reasons to reject rebirth. First, if there was a 'pre-existence' of souls then our life in this world becomes a sort of punishment for sins we allegedly did before our coming into this life. However, there is no trace of that belief in earliest Christian scriptures and, indeed, the dogma of Incarnation tells you that Christ became associated with 'human nature' when he became human in this world. Second, belief in personhood is very strong in Christianity and the Christian life, arguably, is founded upon the idea of a personal relation between one and God. Clearly, if one believe that 'Alice' or 'Bob' can become 'Joseph' or 'Mary' or even non-human animals in a future life, it seems that such a belief would weaken the importance of the personal relation between 'Alice' and 'Bob' with God.

The second reason is that it is incompatible with the scientific understanding which doesn't encompass any medium for the transmission of traits, behaviours etc between different lives. (There has been published research, however, on children who appear to recall past lives.) — Wayfarer

Note that, however, even if one believes in those evidence, they still can't be considered evidence for the traditional Buddhist model of rebirth. By this I mean that according to the traditional Buddhist model one can be reborn into the animal, 'hellish', 'celestial' etc realms. I also read people claiming that NDEs 'prove' rebirth. Again, however, if one takes literally the content of NDEs - reported say in the book After by Dr. Greyson - one in fact finds that there is very little support for the afterlife belief of any religion. So, while I try to keep an open mind on these things, I wouldn't use them as 'evidence' for a particular religion (This is not a criticism of your points or your views on these issues. I'm just saying that one should be 'wary' to mix, say, 'Buddhism' or 'Christianity' or whatever with modern research on these matters).

Speaking of divide, have a read of Facing the Great Divide, Bhikkhu Bodhi. He is a Buddhist monk of American origin and a scholar and translator of the Pali Buddhist texts. Another is Buddhism Is a Religion, David Brazier. Finally Beyond scientific materialism and religious belief, Weber, published on Bachelor's website. (A lot of reading, I know, but they're big questions!) — Wayfarer

:up:

Note that, however, even if one believes in those evidence, they still can't be considered evidence for the traditional Buddhist model of rebirth. — boundless

See this book by a Buddhist monk of German origin, which reviews both the traditional beliefs on re-birth and also current research.

Clearly, if one believe that 'Alice' or 'Bob' can become 'Joseph' or 'Mary' or even non-human animals in a future life, it seems that such a belief would weaken the importance of the personal relation between 'Alice' and 'Bob' with God. — boundless

As I said - the background culture and beliefs of Buddhism are vastly different to Semitic (Middle Eastern) religious culture.

See this book by a Buddhist monk of German origin, which reviews both the traditional beliefs on re-birth and also current research. — Wayfarer

Thanks!

As I said - the background culture and beliefs of Buddhism are vastly different to Semitic (Middle Eastern) religious culture. — Wayfarer

Yes, I know. I wanted to just make an additional remark on the possible theological reasons of the condemnation of the belief in reincarnation in Christianity.

In any case, I believe that such a point is important. If rebirth is true, it weakens the 'reality' of personhood and it is a BIG reason to weak one's attachments in this life. On this point, Buddhists are completely right IMO.

If you believe there are levels of attainment and a destination it seems you’ve already drank much of the Kool-Aid. — praxis

Why?

There are physical feats that you can clearly see that Buddhists can do far above the normal human and nothing to do with the previous mumbo jumbo anecdotes mentioned. A prime example would be the self-immolation of Vietnamese Buddhists in protest during the Vietnam war.

That is evidence of some pretty amazing levels of emotional control to not even be visually disturbed when their whole body is set alight.

I would call that a higher level of attainment than the average human. It doesn't have to have anything to do with some unseen realm, it is there in plain sight for the cool rational western mind to observe empirically.

Likewise some Buddhist traditions would self-mumify at a certain age, for whatever spiritual reason they aimed to achieve. The reason might not hold water scientifically but their ability to control the body to remain perfectly passive and at ease while they know it is going to be destroyed is quite the feat.

Another slightly less drastic example would be those Buddhists who are able to go into trance state to have operations without any anaesthesia.

So their rationalisations for being able to do it might be fallacious but clearly they can control the mind to a far greater degree than the average none practitioner.

I suppose that is answering my own question that we can separate the two and visually see the results but I am wondering how a none woo woo person might achieve the same result.

Joseph Campbell studied the religions of the world and saw common themes of the spiritual experience among them all. It is how to manufacture, from a secular perspective, that common experience.

A lot of mention so far about reincarnation and I think that a lot of the time the practitioners couch their sufferings in this life against the idea of reincarnation or that they are going to a better place. It is just a variation of the Christian idea of going to heaven if you are good boys and girls.

I am wondering if one who practices and doesn't believe in any of that could attain similar earthly results to the above knowing this life is their one and only shot.

If you're asking 'is Buddhism is a religion', then the answer is definitely 'yes'. But the deeper point is, the cultural background and underlying belief systems are vastly different from the Middle-Eastern religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam), to the extent where 'religion' itself means something different to what it is generally taken to mean in a Western culture — Wayfarer

I don't see how you could garner that interpretation from what you quoted. I of course know it is a religion. What I am asking is whether the none religious person can go as far along the path as the religious 'believer' when they do not accept a large part of the 'canon', seeing it as fallacious dogma.

What I am asking is whether the none religious person can go as far along the path as the religious 'believer' when they do not accept a large part of the 'canon', seeing it as fallacious dogma. — unimportant

Ok, I see. Consider the points I raised here:

You'd have to 'explain away' all these texts that used the belief in a potentially endless cycle of rebirths as a motivator to induce 'samvega' (a sort of healthy anguish) in the practicioner. For instance, all the discourses in the 15th collection of the Samyutta Nikaya. Note that this kind of 'contemplation' inspired renunciation. And renunciation of the world is indeed a BIG component of Buddhism. If one doesn't believe in rebirth, it is indeed strange to convince oneself, for instance, that it is 'good' to abandon one's social roots to live off alms and committ oneself to a hard practice.
You'd have to confront text like this according to which believing that there is no afterlife actually tends to favour a more relaxed approach or even bad behaviour and the clear affirmation that, according to the Buddha, there is an afterlife.
Also, I never encountered any Buddhist tradition that doubted the existence of the cycle of rebirths by appealing to cardinal Buddhist doctrines of impermanence ('anitya') and non-self ('anatman'). In fact, they rather held the opposite. It is precisely the lack of a 'static self' that allows such a capacity for change and rebirth. — boundless

The question becomes this: can one attain the same meditative status if one doesn't believe in rebirth? The traditional answer seems like 'no' for the following reasons:

• Believing in rebirth seems to have been traditionally considered a BIG motivator for renunciation and non-attachment.
• Believing in rebirth seems to have been traditionally considered a BIG motivator for also having compassion towards all sentient beings. For instance consider the Mata Sutta in which it is said that it is difficult to find a being which has not been your mother, your father etc in a previous life. Clearly, this kind of contemplation motivates you to be more compassionate to other sentient beings.
• If you believe that you only live once, can you really believe in the doctrine of 'non-self'? I mean, if you believe that you live only once, you perhaps tend to think that you are an 'unique' entity. So, I'm not sure that you can be convinced (not just intellectually but in a deeper level) of that doctrine if you do not believe in rebirth.

Can one practice in such a way to achieve the same attainments that are reportedly attained by traditional Buddhist practitioners without believing in the 'supernatural' beliefs of the religion?
I'm not sure that it is possible for the reasons I said above. The convinctions we have before engaging in a serious practice might condition the achievements we can reach.

Do your own research and draw your conclusions.

Some good points.

I don't think the things you mention are necessarily contingent on rebirth though. Why does becoming a mendicant have to have anything to do with rebirth? I think that is one thing which doesn't while others would be more tricky to explain away.

Even the explanations of the benefits from the Buddhist perspective, from what I recall, do not appeal to the supernatural. It is simply living humbly and I do remember now specifically the text stated the Buddha insisted on it in order to highlight the intertwined nature of the bikkhu and the lay people where one hand washes the other. The bikkhu gives insight for the lay person when the latter asks for guidance and the lay person gives the bikkhu food to survive. Nothing of that has to have anyhthing to do with supernatural explanations.

I agree that the traditional answer is going to be 'no' on all counts but of course they are biased and not able to give an uncoloured opinion.

As to the 'no selfness' being contingent upon rebirth I again don't think it is necessary. Lots of neuroscience, and this is a point Sam Harris makes when discussing the topic, has confirmed there is no 'I' to be found and it is just a social or cultural construct. So it can easily be explained from an empirical standpoint. To actually have some huge insight just from that data is another matter.

As mentioned earlier though, the same spiritual experiences have been documented from vastly different cultures and through the lens of their own religions and worldviews. This means that like the idea of God there is no one right answer. This then means that all the talk of reincarnation is not necessary to have such spiritual awakenings as the Christian mystics managed just the same and do not hold those same beliefs.

What should be done is to read through the different mystical experiences from each culture and religion and look for the common threads. Joseph Campbell apparently has done this in his work Masks of God. I have started reading it but not gotten very far in it and put it down after not many pages as I had another one of my downswings in motivation for the stuff again but seems I might be on an upswing again now, so maybe time to take another look.

Like with the Jungian archetypes, of which I know Campbell was also inspired by quite a bit, the spiritual experience is a human experiences, and not exclusive to one particular religion. The shallow or pop analysis of Buddhism states it is to have these experience without the religious dogma of the orthodox western religions, but when you scratch the surface you see Buddhism is steeped in its equivalent dogmas. It may just be a little more palatable for some as there is no solid "God" in their doctrines but all the devas and their antics and rebirth as just more of the same.

I would hazard a guess that it is the rituals of whatever religion not the actual content of the mythologies that allow the transcendent experiences. The question then is how to recreate that roadmap of the path to attainment as one who does not believe in any particular one? Can the same states still be achieved if one only takes them as allegories rather than realities?

[moksha'd]

Why does becoming a mendicant have to have anything to do with rebirth? — unimportant

You seem to have some familiarity with Buddhist texts. A great number of them speak about why Buddhists historically saw 'liberation from samsara' as their goal.

Of course, one can become a 'mendicant' without believing in rebirth. For instance, there are Hindu, Christian, Jain etc ascetics who clearly believed that such a life had a different purpose than Buddhists. You can find perhaps many analogies, but one can't overlook the differences.

So, you should ask yourself: why should I become a monk/mendincant or whatever? What is the purpose of such a choice?
For instance, one needs a very strong motivator and a very strong convinction to make a radical choice and remain committed to it. And, for instance, becoming a Buddhist monk is clearly a radical choice.

To be honest, I can't see why a secular materialist would make such a choice. Something like Epicureanism (as 180 says) seems more apt for a secular materialist. You are of course free to incorporate other practices but honestly I do not get why one would want to devote oneself to the life of a Buddhist ascetic without being a Buddhist.

Anyway...

The bikkhu gives insight for the lay person when the latter asks for guidance and the lay person gives the bikkhu food to survive. Nothing of that has to have anyhthing to do with supernatural explanations. — unimportant

Guidance for what?Only for the 'here and now'? Also it should be noted that most Buddhist traditions have believed that Nirvana isn't just a 'mere absence' of negative mental factors and/or experience (like the ancient Sautrantika school apparently believed and appararenly as various modern Buddhist teachers believe). Just to make an example, for a 'traditional' Theravadin perspective on this ('traditional' because it quotes ancient commentaries that are highly regarded in the Theravada tradition), read: Anatta and Nibbana by Ven Nyanaponika. Clearly, if one thinks that Nirvana isn't a 'mere absence' then the goal itself becomes incompatible with a materialist worldview. This is a problem of course. If the goal isn't something that is conceivable in materialistic terms, then a 'secularized Buddhist practice' becomes incoherent (it would be like practising Christianity without believing in God).

As to the 'no selfness' being contingent upon rebirth I again don't think it is necessary. Lots of neuroscience, and this is a point Sam Harris makes when discussing the topic, has confirmed there is no 'I' to be found and it is just a social or cultural construct. So it can easily be explained from an empirical standpoint. To actually have some huge insight just from that data is another matter. — unimportant

While I disagree that Neuroscience gave us a definite answer on the existence of a self, even if it did, the bolded part is crucial. If I believe that 'there is only this life' there is a high risk to never be able to shake off the deep-rooted convinction that we are an unique, distinct entity with defining characteristics. On the other hand, if I believed in rebirth the 'features' of this life would seem much less 'central' to me.
So, again, while you might be right that 'non-self' might be compatible with materialism, the belief that there are no future and past life actually increases the 'impression' that this life is lived by a 'real' self.
If 'Bob' can become a snake, a celestial being and then 'Alice' none of the things that defined these 'states' seem essential to 'the person'. It is quite easier if one believes in rebirth to become less attached to one's current identity, relationships and so on.

This then means that all the talk of reincarnation is not necessary to have such spiritual awakenings as the Christian mystics managed just the same and do not hold those same beliefs.

What should be done is to read through the different mystical experiences from each culture and religion and look for the common threads. — unimportant

Why you think that they reached the same experiences. What makes you so certain that the experience were literally the same (and not, say, 'similar')? Is comparing brain activity really enough to estabish that they are exactly the same?

Can the same states still be achieved if one only takes them as allegories rather than realities? — unimportant

This is an interesting question. Interestingly, while, for instance, in Christian history it is easier to find examples of 'allegorical/non-literal interpretatons' even in ancient times, I do not know anything like that in Buddhist history. In fact, 'literalism' about the content of the suttas/sutras seems quite important to Buddhists in antiquity. Again, I may be wrong about this, but I do not recall of any 'allegorical method' of interpreting Buddhist scriptures in historical Buddhist traditions.

Anyway, to answer your question, I don't know. The only way of knowing that, perhaps, is to personally 'walk through the path' and see where it leads.

The question then is how to recreate that roadmap of the path to attainment as one who does not believe in any particular one? Can the same states still be achieved if one only takes them as allegories rather than realities? — unimportant

What is the roadmap a roadmap to? What is the goal? In Buddhism it is nibbana (in the Pali) - the cessation of suffering and the ending of repeated birth in the cycle of saṃsāra (understood to be beginningless. ) So - what 'benefits' are to be sought outside that framework? What draws you to Buddhism if you don't believe it to be true?

If you believe that you only live once, can you really believe in the doctrine of 'non-self'? I mean, if you believe that you live only once, you perhaps tend to think that you are an 'unique' entity. So, I'm not sure that you can be convinced (not just intellectually but in a deeper level) of that doctrine if you do not believe in rebirth. — boundless

This doesn’t make any sense to me. Can you explain? You believe that there are no unique entities? If that were true we couldn’t distinguish individual things or entities.

It is not necessary to believe anything. Personal identity, religion, class or lack thereof is irrelevant. A Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist or any human being can practice in accordance with Buddhist methodology. The principle of 'dhamma' applies equally because nature's way is the same for everyone.

There is an ontological structure that integrates 3 parts: 1) you hear the teaching and know what it says; 2) you analyse what is said and understand it intellectually; 3) You investigate for yourself to find out the way in which it is true.

Nirvana is 'the final goal', so one must at least entertain the possibility of an ultimate truth, and the lesser reality of universal truth. The latter is easy. Death is universally true. The inevitable implies universality.

One aspect of practice is the contemplation of age, death and decay. When we see a dead body, a rotting body, be it human or animal, we know empirically that is the nature of all bodies, including mine. That's an example of universal truth - it's nature's way (dhamma)

Proir to practice there are two commitments: a vow to morality and refuge in the three jewels (triple gem). Superficially, morality entails 5 precepts. Don't steal, kill, get intoxicated. lie - pretty standard stuff. At a more profound level, morality pertains to will and ones ability to discern between good and ill-will. At first, obedience to rote assists without discerning, but through the third ontological principle, you grow to understand the nature of your own will.

The first refuge is refuge in the Buddha (the enlightenment within ones self). The second refuge is in dhamma (universal truth/nature's way) and the third is in the sangha (your teachers or spiritual community). The first two refuges are easy, though the first may entail a leap of faith, but the third is personal trust and it is prudent to be extremely discerning in that regard.

By committing to morality, one is motivated by what is 'right' rather than what is desired.

By taking refuge, one is surrendering to inevitable natural processes, having faith in one's own 'enlightened being', and enabling affection and giving and receiving service with regard to others.

The philosophy is not understood in the same way as Western philosophy is. The first two elements, hearing and understanding it intellectually are the same, but the third element of insight is that lightbulb moment of insight when one realises something irrefutable and goes, 'Ah, I see" (the way in which it is true).

This brings us to the 4 pillars: Body, sensation, mind, thought. Body and mind categorise empirical knowledge about a body such as bodies age, die and decay, for example. Sensation and thought categorise subjective knowledge such as 'this is a long breath' or 'this is what it's like'.

With the above theoretical basis, preliminary practice can be undertaken by feeling the sensation of your breathing. The process of meditation will reveal 4 basic truths 'This is suffering', 'This is how I cause suffering', 'Suffering is not inevitable' and 'This is the way to end suffering'. At first you will notice frustration, boredom, aversion to discomfort and other reactive tendencies and know, 'This is suffering'. Next you will realise that adverse and craven reactivity directly causes suffering, and it follows that ceasing to react thus brings about its cessation.

It becomes intricately involved with the moral dimension as you see how reactivity incites will and positions 'me' as the affected who thereby exerts volition to effect the world. That cause and effect is the cycle of karma. Karma is the incitement of volition and volition is the cause of outcomes. Since we react to outcomes, there becomes a perpetual cycle of 'rebirth' as 'I' am perpetuated from one moment to the next. The 'weak link' in that chain is reactivity/volition. Cessation of the cause releases one from the karmic cycle of 'rebirth' (Rebirth is explained in the link below).

The underlying reason we react, incite volition or generate karma is our understanding of nature is wrong. We are ignorant and deluded and misapprehend the underlying nature of mind and matter. Hence we investigate the body, which is the same in nature as all matter, and the mind, which is is the same in nature as all other minds.

At the bottom is self. The concept not-self or no-self (anatta) - and I have an interesting article about that here which contextualises rebirth. https://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09/

(I am not Buddhist BTW - If anything, I'm Anglican)

This doesn’t make any sense to me. Can you explain? — praxis

It's a bit contorted argument, so I'll try. Basically, the point is that while a person might intellectually accept the idea that "the self is an illusion", if such a person also believes that this is the only life, at a deeper level they IMO have more difficulty to develop non-attachment to this life. If this life is unique it seems to me that it is more likely that one might regard it as 'special' and if it is regarded as 'special' it is clear to me that this involves a concept of 'mine'. So, at a deeper level, the person still engages with the world with a convinction that there is a self and the the experience is 'theirs'.

At the end of the day, it must be something more than a mere intellectual convinction. If it was just that, then, all people who believe that the "self is an illusion" would have some kind of 'enlightenment' in the Buddhist sense. It should be noted, also, that apparently the Buddha didn't go around and tell everyone that "there is no self" because such an assertion was at danger of being misunderstood by beginners (SN 44.10) and it seems that the Buddha when speaking from an ethical point of view didn't have any problem to speak about the 'self'.

Interestingly, there was an early Buddhist school, who at one time was quite popular, the Pudgalavada who affirmed the existence of a 'person' ('pudgala') while denying it to be like the 'self' (atman) rejected by the Buddha, perhaps because they saw the 'person' as something 'indeterminate' (and perhaps influenced some strands of the Mahayana - not all).

You believe that there are no unique entities? — praxis

I wasn't presenting my views. I'm not a Buddhist and I reject the 'non-self' doctrine, precisely because IMO it seems to me that there are individual entities. However, I am still fascinated by Buddhist traditions and I admire it.

It's a bit contorted argument, so I'll try. Basically, the point is that while a person might intellectually accept the idea that "the self is an illusion", if such a person also believes that this is the only life, at a deeper level they IMO have more difficulty to develop non-attachment to this life. If this life is unique it seems to me that it is more likely that one might regard it as 'special' and if it is regarded as 'special' it is clear to me that this involves a concept of 'mine'. So, at a deeper level, the person still engages with the world with a convinction that there is a self and the the experience is 'theirs'. — boundless

I wanted to add this. Contrast the above situation to the scenario that is true if rebirth happens.

If one's 'succession of lives' spans so many different 'states of being' and one truly believes that, it is easier to think that one becomes less attached to the contingent circumstances he or she finds themselves in. There is nothing 'special' about any of them and it becomes easier to lose attachment to them. However, if one is convinced that there is only 'this life', then 'this life' becomes much, much more important. It isn't just an instance of an incredibly long succession of successive lives none of which is more 'important' than the other because, in samsara, none of those state is blissful and unending and none of them defines your identity more than any other. Rather it is the only life one thinks he or she has. Being the only life one has such a lifetime tends to be regarded very important for the person and much more apt to define one's identity.

In summary, it seems to me that it is much easier to let go of attachment to one's life if one is convinced that it is just an instance of a very, very long of succession of lives, none of which is of particular importance. Instead, if this lifetime is unique, it is clearly more likely to see it as 'special' and 'importan' and develop attachment to it.

At the end of the day, it must be something more than a mere intellectual convinction. If it was just that, then, all people who believe that the "self is an illusion" would have some kind of 'enlightenment' in the Buddhist sense. — boundless

This part makes sense. :up:

I am wondering if one who practices and doesn't believe in any of that could attain similar earthly results to the above knowing this life is their one and only shot. — unimportant

There are scientific studies that indicate meditation practices help with pain management. I don’t think this is controversial.

I don’t think self-immolation is a sanctioned Buddhist destination, btw.

This part makes sense. :up: — praxis

:up:

This is IMO central. If it isn't just an intellectual understanding, motivations behind why one practices become relevant. Indeed, the goal we set to ourselves when we do something conditions the way we do a determinate action.

While I believe that nothing prevents a practitioner to practice even if they don't believe in rebirth, Nirvana and so on, it is still relevant that you have an immense amount of witnesses in the Buddhist traditions that tells you, instead, that believing in rebirth is something central. So, perhaps, they are right. Maybe don't, but you should have good arguments to show that someone that doesn't have the same motivations can get to the same state.

For me, "practice" is too broad a brush to be meaningful here. Religious practice has many facets/goals – I think more than most people realize. For instance, it may be fair to say that people have a desire for meaning in their lives and religious practice may help fulfill that need. Religious practice can help attain that state of fulfillment. They achieve that goal regardless of their state of *enlightenment*... and regardless of their ability to endure pain with composure.

For me, "practice" is too broad a brush to be meaningful here. Religious practice has many facets/goals – I think more than most people realize. For instance, it may be fair to say that people have a desire for meaning in their lives and religious practice may help fulfill that need. Religious practice can help attain that state of fulfillment. They achieve that goal regardless of their state of *enlightenment*... and regardless of their ability to endure pain with composure. — praxis

This might be true but the original question was something like "is it possible to attain the same 'achievements' even if I do not believe in what Buddhists have always believed?".

IMO there are good arguments that the answer is 'no'. It is possible that the 'worldview' we have conditions our motivations while we 'practice' and perhaps even the idea we have about the goal we seek conditions the way we 'practice'. Do these factors have no importance when we seek to attain some kind of goals? Is the motivation behind our own practice irrelevant for our ability to reach the goal?

For instance, consider this Pali sutta:

“Venerable sir, if one’s clothes or head were ablaze, to extinguish one’s blazing clothes or head one should arouse extraordinary desire, make an extraordinary effort, stir up zeal and enthusiasm, be unremitting, and exercise mindfulness and clear comprehension.”

“Bhikkhus, one might look on equanimously at one’s blazing clothes or head, paying no attention to them, but so long as one has not made the breakthrough to the Four Noble Truths as they really are, in order to make the breakthrough one should arouse extraordinary desire, make an extraordinary effort, stir up zeal and enthusiasm, be unremitting, and exercise mindfulness and clear comprehension. What four? The noble truth of suffering … the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering. — SN 56.34, Bhikkhu Bodhi translation

If one doesn't believe in rebirth, can one reach the same level of motivation? Or is the above sutta wrong and such motivation isn't necessary?

The 'traditionalist' answer would be 'no' to both questions. Clearly, one is free to try to reach the same level of, say, 'equanimity' that is generally abscribed to arhats or 'enlightened bodhisattvas'. So, either one has convincing arguments to show that the traditional answer is wrong or, indeed, one has to see for oneself.

This might be true but the original question was something like "is it possible to attain the same 'achievements' even if I do not believe in what Buddhists have always believed?".

IMO there are good arguments that the answer is 'no'. — boundless

You are ignoring again that evidence I have highlighted that many other religious disciplines reach similar levels of transcendence of the physical world yet don't believe in rebirth.

They have their own cultural analogies and explanations but I would hazard the spiritual experience is the same. Just like feeling love would be a human experience which would be explained in many difference ways across different cultures but the actual experience of love is the same for all.

Your sticking on rebirth being necessary to achieve a spiritual experience is very narrow if you are dismissing all other groups that don't believe in it and their own cultural versions of mystical awakening.

Meister Eckhart is apparently one who reached a high level but in the western tradition.

Eckhart Tolle has written quite a bit about the universal nature of the spiritual experience in his books and apparently was well read and refers to many different traditions in his writings drawing on the similarities.

Many other spiritual gurus which do not hold to a particular discipline who do the same.

Alright, we'll set aside my suggestion that religions function and fulfill various needs in ways that most people don't realize and focus on the ultimate promise of Buddhism which is, as you point out, the cessation of suffering. If that's the goal then the practice would essentially be to condition, or rather de-condition, ourselves in such a way that we don't suffer.

Is Buddhism actually particularly good at achieving this goal? I'm skeptical. And, I'll regurgitate the old saying that it's easy to be a holy man on the top of a mountain.

Rebirth has to do with the supposed structure or metaphysics of suffering. I don't understand why that would be motivational. If nirvana is the carrot, suffering itself is the stick.

Can the supernatural and religious elements of Buddhism be extricated? — unimportant

Yes. Despite background cultural differences, I've found Epicureanism to be analogous with 'Buddhism Naturalized' (or vice versa).

https://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=17831&sid=25743865bd752a2196f4ce119be34de6#p17831

You are ignoring again that evidence I have highlighted that many other religious disciplines reach similar levels of transcendence of the physical world yet don't believe in rebirth. — unimportant

I didn't ignore those evidence.I simply do not see them as convincing evidence that those experience are the same, not just similar.

Anyway, it seems that you have already made up your mind about these things. So, fair enough, I guess.

Rebirth has to do with the supposed structure or metaphysics of suffering. I don't understand why that would be motivational. If nirvana is the carrot, suffering itself is the stick. — praxis

Ok, yes, a famous 'definition' of Nirvana is the 'cessation of suffering'. An early Buddhist school, the Sautrantika, apparently believed that it was just that, nothing 'more'. Assuming that they were right and that 'Nirvana without remaineder' de facto coincides with oblivion, there is no 'transcendent' goal there.

So, if the above conception of Nirvana is right (and this is a big 'if'), you need to show that one achieve the same results of 'traditional Buddhists' with "escaping the suffering of this present life" as a sufficient motivator. Given the textual evidence that apparently no Buddhist tradition (with the exception perhaps of 'secular Buddhism' started in the 20th century) endorsed such an idea, it is indeed a big claim.

So, how can we test such a hypothesis. The OP apparently thinks that "scientific evidence" + "some comparative religion studies" showed once for all that it is indeed possible to achieve the same states of 'enlightenment' of the Buddhist traditions without agreeing with their belief. Fine. However, are we sure about that?

Assuming that they were right and that 'Nirvana without remaineder' de facto coincides with oblivion, there is no 'transcendent' goal there. — boundless

There is a Mahāyāna sutra that explicitly rejects that idea. It would be a form of nihilism.

There is a Mahāyāna sutra that explicitly rejects that idea. — Wayfarer

Yeah.

Such an idea is also rejected in the traditional Theravada. In one of my earlier posts, I referenced to the paper "Anatta and Nibbana" by Nyanaponika Thera which quotes post-canonical sources that explicitly rejected the idea. Here some escerpts from the commentary to the Visuddhimagga:

Now, in the ultimate sense the existingness of the Nibbāna-element has been demonstrated by the Fully Enlightened One, compassionate for the whole world, by many sutta passages, such as “Dhammas without condition,” “Unformed dhammas” (see Dhammasaṅgaṇī, Abhidhamma Piṭaka); “Bhikkhus, there is that sphere (āyatana) where neither earth•” (Udāna 71); “This state is very hard to see, that is to say, the stilling of all formations, the relinquishing of all substance of becoming” (DN 14; MN 26); “Bhikkhus, I shall teach you the unformed and the way leading to the unformed” (SN 43:12) and so on; and in this sutta, “Bhikkhus, there, is an unborn • “ (Udāna 73) •

...
If Nibbāna were mere non-existence, it could not be described by terms such as “profound,” etc.; [5] or as “the unformed, etc; or as “kammically neutral, without condition, unincluded,” — commentary to the Visuddhimagga, Dhammapala, translated by Ven Nyanamoli and Nyanaponika

It is significant that these authoratitive post-canonical texts took the pain to reject the "Nirvana as mere non-existence/absence" idea.

Also, even in the Theravada canonical Abhidhamma there is one text that describes the 'permanence' of Nirvana in the same way as the permanence of the 'self' of non-Buddhists.

If you assert that the material-aggregate retains its materiality, you must admit that the material-aggregate is permanent, persistent, eternal, not subject to change. You know that the opposite is true; hence it should not be said that materiality is retained.

Nibbāna does not abandon its state as Nibbāna—by this we mean Nibbāna is permanent, persistent, eternal, not subject to change. And you ought to mean this, too, in the case of material-aggregate, if you say that the latter does not abandon its materiality. — Kathavatthu 1.6, Shwe Zan Aung, C.A.F. Rhys Davids translation

(The context of this excerpt is a debate between the precursor school of the modern Theravada and the 'Sarvastivada' school, a school that endorsed the idea that in some sense the 'psycho-physical' aggregates existed in all times and they are said to be impermanent because their activity is transitory. Note that the Theravada rejects such kind of view of the permanence of the 'aggregates' but at the same time accepts the idea that Nibbbana/Nirvana is indeed 'permanent, eternal' erc.)

It is difficult, in my opinion, to read the above description of Nirvana as a 'mere absence'.

But anyway, the OP here is convinced that one's own views about reality do not matter for achievements. So, these points are irrelevant to them like those about rebirth.