Massa what? Massamanure?

I figure the notion is not bound to various explanations of what might be true but asserts that a particular experience reveals the truth.

The problems surrounding such a proposition are many. But the idea itself seems simple enough. The assertion is that one is presented with the truth, and it is readily misunderstood as such.

So, not an argument against a possibility but a problem with possibility as such.

You’ll have to forgive his American slang.

Of course I strive to have the correct understanding of what the Buddha taught, but, as per Buddhist doctrine, one can only know whether one has the correct understanding once one reaches what is called "stream entry". This can be described as a cognitive event at which one realizes that one has the correct understanding. As I have no such realization yet, I know that I don't know. — baker

This applies to any other system. Which makes your original question a rhetorical one.

Few things are as common as people making claims about what "true identity" is. — baker

People, including Buddha, make many claims about many things. Are you going to place a ban on language? Or do you have a problem with identity as you seem to have with spirituality?

Buddhism concerns itself with suffering. — baker

So do other systems.

This doesn't follow. What is true about Buddhists has no bearing on what is true about Christians, Platonists, and so on. — baker

I didn't say "must". I said "can", as a logical possibility or probability.

Unless you can show that Buddhists are the only people on the planet who can have "right understanding" .... :smile:

The bottomline is that it doesn't seem like a viable religious option. — baker

You keep mentioning religion. This thread is about enlightenment. There is no evidence that enlightenment requires a religion.

And you obviously don’t understand Platonism. Platonism is a fundamentally spiritual system aiming to elevate human consciousness to an experience of unity with Ultimate Reality a.k.a. “the One” (called henosis) - or at any rate to the highest possible level of experience.

This is why Platonism does not depend on any formal religion and can operate within any religious tradition. It was this fact that has enabled many Platonists to attach themselves to Christianity, Islam, and other religions outwardly, whilst inwardly remaining faithful to Platonism.

Similarly, many Christians had the highest regard for Platonism and carefully preserved Plato’s works in monasteries and libraries throughout the Greek-speaking world down to the present.

In the 1400’s the Greek Platonist Gemistus Pletho re-introduced Platonism in Italy. Under his influence, Marsilio Ficino founded a Platonic Academy at Florence.

Gemistus Pletho - Wikipedia

Pletho also founded a center of Platonic scholarship at Mystra in Greece, which was also the seat of the last Byzantine Greek imperial dynasty. This flourished for several centuries, along with other schools of Classical Philosophy across the country that are still in operation today. So there is no question of Platonism “dying out”, certainly not in its country of birth.

Of course, most Platonists today are Christians, especially Greek Orthodox. A Platonist may be officially a Christian, privately a Christian Platonist, and inwardly a Platonist. Some may follow the example of Pletho and openly subscribe to Classical Greek religion. There are many Hellenic groups, in Greece, in any case. Others may follow other traditions, or no tradition at all.

This is entirely consistent with traditional Platonism which prescribes three different, though related, paths to liberation or levels of practice: (1) religious or ritual (theourgia) with emphasis on action, (2) contemplative (theoria) with emphasis on knowledge, and (3) esoteric or initiatory (ta mysteria) with emphasis on will-power.

Moreover, Platonists do not normally call their system "Platonism". The correct designation is "Philosophy in the tradition of Plato" or simply, "Philosophy". "Platonism" has always been taught as "Philosophy" and "Platonist schools" also included other philosophers like Aristotle. When someone studied Philosophy, they studied Plato (and others). In general, Platonism was Philosophy and Philosophy was Platonism.

The same applies even now. There are many philosophy circles or groups all over the world that study the teachings of Plato. But they would typically call it "Classical Philosophy" or just "Philosophy".

In any case, from a Platonic perspective Philosophy transcends religion. If it is religion you are after, then that's what you have to look for ....

Oh, I didn't think she was a Murican. And I thought the expression was Thai...:wink:

Besides in traditional Buddhism there are voluminous descriptions of hell realms, in fact in Buddhism there are a number of them. — Wayfarer

Very voluminous. And very detailed. (As can also be found in the Hindu Puranas.) Which could be interpreted by some to mean that Buddha threatens people with hell if they don't do as he says ....

Of course, most Platonists today are Christians, especially Greek Orthodox. A Platonist may be officially a Christian, privately a Christian Platonist, and inwardly a Platonist. Some may follow the example of Pletho and openly subscribe to Classical Greek religion. There are many Hellenic groups, in Greece, in any case. Others may follow other traditions, or no tradition at all.

This is entirely consistent with traditional Platonism which prescribes three different, though related, paths to liberation or levels of practice: (1) religious or ritual (theourgia) with emphasis on action, (2) contemplative (theoria) with emphasis on knowledge, and (3) esoteric or initiatory (ta mysteria) with emphasis on will-power.

Moreover, Platonists do not normally call their system "Platonism". The correct designation is "Philosophy in the tradition of Plato" or simply, "Philosophy". "Platonism" has always been taught as "Philosophy" and "Platonist schools" also included other philosophers like Aristotle. When someone studied Philosophy, they studied Plato (and others). In general, Platonism was Philosophy and Philosophy was Platonism.

The same applies even now. There are many philosophy circles or groups all over the world that study the teachings of Plato. But they would typically call it "Classical Philosophy" or just "Philosophy".

In any case, from a Platonic perspective Philosophy transcends religion. If it is religion you are after, then that's what you have to look for .... — Apollodorus

Nicely succinct clarification.

For my two drachmas, gnosticism is platonism-as-theodicy. :fire: :eyes:

That reality is intelligible is the presupposition of all scientific endeavours: that the intelligibility science proposes is always subject to empirical verification means that science never actually explains existence itself but must submit itself to a reality check against the empirical data. This existential gap between scientific hypotheses and empirical verified judgment points to, in philosophical terms, the contingency of existence. There is no automatic leap from hypothesis to reality that can bypass a "reality check." — Neil Ormerod, The Metaphysical Muddle of Lawrence Krauss

This is an important point. Some modern metaphysics will remove this necessity, that reality is intelligible, to posit a fundamentally unintelligible "chaos" as the first principle. This is the consequence of materialism. Under Aristotelian principles, form is intelligible, matter is not. Giving priority to matter renders reality as fundamentally unintelligible.

The importance is not the question of which perspective is true. It could very well be true that reality is fundamentally unintelligible. However, since we are in a position so as not to know which is true, we must posit that reality is fundamentally intelligible, in order to support the scientific endeavours required to determine which is true. If we take the materialist perspective, and posit that reality is fundamentally unintelligible, there will be no motivation toward determining the true nature of reality, this being designated as impossible. So this perspective, that reality is fundamentally unintelligible, is demonstrably the wrong position to take, regardless of whether or not it is true.

You were asking as to what criteria to judge a spiritual teacher. I said the criteria are not objective, because what is objective is contingent, and the 'true good' is not contingent. — Wayfarer

You said:

There are worthy people and unworthy people inside and outside all those traditions. — Wayfarer

Now assuming you meant something with those words and that they aren't just a routine phrasing, how do _you_ know who is who, namely, who is worthy and who isn't?

If you say there are "worthy people" and "unworthy people", how do _you_ distinguish them? For you must be able to recognize each category and distinguish it from the other, before you can write a sentence like

There are worthy people and unworthy people inside and outside all those traditions. — Wayfarer

Massa what? Massamanure? — Janus

Obviously, "Yes, massa" is the only appropriate reply to being patronized.

"Massa" is black slave speak for "master".

Of course I strive to have the correct understanding of what the Buddha taught, but, as per Buddhist doctrine, one can only know whether one has the correct understanding once one reaches what is called "stream entry". This can be described as a cognitive event at which one realizes that one has the correct understanding. As I have no such realization yet, I know that I don't know.
— baker

This applies to any other system. — Apollodorus

Do provide some reference for this, because I've never seen anything like that anywhere outside of Buddhism.

Normally, religions/philosophies/ideologies present claims. The relative epistemic status that those claims have in one's mind remains the same from the time one first heard the claim to the end of one's life.

Few things are as common as people making claims about what "true identity" is.
— baker

People, including Buddha, make many claims about many things. Are you going to place a ban on language? Or do you have a problem with identity as you seem to have with spirituality?

Pretending to be obtuse does not suit you.

A Christian tells me that my true identity is A.
A Hindu tells me that my true identity is B.
A Muslim tells me that my true identity is C.
A Platonist tells me that my true identity is D.
A psychologist tells me that my true identity is E.
Tom tells me that my true identity is F.
Janus tells you that you're deluded about what you think your true identity is.

And so on. You see no problem with that?

Having all these numerous claims as to what one's "true identity" is is like having a thousand different answers to "How much is 2 + 2 ?"

Buddhism concerns itself with suffering.
— baker
So do other systems.

I see no reason to think that they can actually facilitate the end of suffering. On the contrary, they're very good at causing more of it.

You keep mentioning religion. This thread is about enlightenment. There is no evidence that enlightenment requires a religion.

Now you're being pedantic.

And you obviously don’t understand Platonism. Platonism is a fundamentally spiritual system aiming to elevate human consciousness to an experience of unity with Ultimate Reality a.k.a. “the One” (called henosis) - or at any rate to the highest possible level of experience.

I know a Hare Krishna brahmacari who utters sentences like
"Krishna Consciousness is a fundamentally spiritual system aiming to elevate human consciousness to an experience of Ultimate Reality"
and he also uses terms like "henosis" and "henology".
(Except that the Hare Krishnas believe that desiring to serve God is actually higher than desiring to be one with him.)

Further, many "spiritual" and other systems claim to "elevate human consciousness to the highest possible level of experience". Having heard it so often, from so many different sources, and so many things being claimed as that "highest possible level of experience", I can't really take it seriously anymore.
You folks should get together and decide which one of you really has the keys to the "highest possible level of experience".

Of course, most Platonists today are Christians, especially Greek Orthodox. A Platonist may be officially a Christian, privately a Christian Platonist, and inwardly a Platonist.

Why would a Platonist do such a thing? It's subversive, to say the least.

In any case, from a Platonic perspective Philosophy transcends religion.

Another thing common among religious/spiritual people: to claim that theirs is not a religion, but a philosophy, the Truth, the "how things really are" and so on.

Such social memberships are based on shared understandings underlying shared practices. — Joshs

Of course. But they are not just social memberships, they are epistemic memberships, being a member of an epistemic community.

In order to know what members know, one has to become a member oneself.
There are knowledges that outsiders, even if they study the insider accounts of insiders, cannot have. Unless they themselves become insiders, members of the specific epistemic community.

I might generalize from this and suggest that enlightenment is nothing other than the endless progression in which one moves being encased within a worldview to seeing it as a mere step ion the path to a richer perspective.

The "endless progression"? Do you believe in rebirth/reincarnation?
— baker

No more so than the scientist who supports Popper’s view of scientific inquiry as oriented teleologically toward an asymptotic approach of truth.

Two parallels intersect in infinity ...

There are knowledges that outsiders, even if they study the insider accounts of insiders, cannot have. Unless they themselves become insiders, members of the specific epistemic community. — baker

Does it help to know the secret handshake?

And I gave you my answer. But let me put it slightly differently, though the gist of it is the same.

Paṭiccasamuppāda or pratītyasamutpāda refers to the Buddhist Theory of Origination (or Cause and Effect). Basically, it states that ignorance (avijjā) results in craving (taṇhā), craving results in attachment (upādāna), attachment in “being” (bhava), and “being” in decay and death (jarāmaraṇa). — Apollodorus

The standard list is the one with twelve items. I brought up dependent co-arising because you kept talking about consciousness and how after enlightenment, there must exist some other consciousness.
But it looks like you didn't read the list with the twelve items.

In other words, a chain of cause and effect arising from ignorance and resulting in suffering, that can be broken through knowledge.

No, early Buddhism doesn't think that chain can be broken through merely with knowledge.

In fact, you can collapse it even further and say that ignorance leads to wrong action or “sin” (in the form of wrong acts of volition, cognition, etc.), and wrong action leads to suffering.

Sure, but this is extremely general.

Not much different from what other systems teach.

Does any of them teach that "from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications"; and that "from the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness"?

In Platonism, the root ignorance is ignorance of one’s true identity as pure, unconditioned and free intelligence.

If we are "pure, unconditioned and free intelligence", then why are we here in an embodied state, suffering, and not being sure who we are?

If, as a result of ignorance, you self-identify with the body-mind compound, you generate mental states and a whole inner world that limits and conditions your intelligence, leading you further and further away from your true self.

But whence ignorance?

However, if we are serious about philosophy in the original Greek sense of "love of, and quest after, truth", then I think we will get there in the end, with or without Buddhism.

Do you mean that enlightenment is inevitable and that everyone is destined for it?

Does it help to know the secret handshake? — Joshs

If you yourself don't taste a mango, you'll never have the first-hand knowledge that the epistemic community of mango tasters have.

Obviously, "Yes, massa" is the only appropriate reply to being patronized.

"Massa" is black slave speak for "master". — baker

Yes, I know and was being ironic. I was not patronizing you I was questioning the validity of your statements and asking for arguments to back them up.

Now assuming you meant something with those words and that they aren't just a routine phrasing, how do _you_ know who is who, namely, who is worthy and who isn't?

If you say there are "worthy people" and "unworthy people", how do _you_ distinguish them? — baker

They're not easy questions. Some of the teachers I had admired were later caught up in scandals. There's a saying that 'all power corrupts', and that happens inside spiritual movements. The first experience I ever had on an ashram, in my late teens - years later, but not that long after I left, the resident Swami became a perpertrator of horrific sexual abuse against young girls.

Obviously you have to use common sense, observe and do your homework, if there's any question of a 1:1 relationship with a spiritual mentor or guide, as per the Kalama Sutta that you already mentioned.

Giving priority to matter renders reality as fundamentally unintelligible. — Metaphysician Undercover

:up:

If you yourself don't taste a mango, you'll never have the first-hand knowledge that the epistemic community of mango tasters have. — baker

Hey, leave qualia out of this... :razz:

Yes, I know and was being ironic. I was not patronizing you I was questioning the validity of your statements and asking for arguments to back them up. — Janus

This

That you believe the small subset you are familiar with must be the only authentic one says more about you than anything else. — Janus

is your projection, entirely of your doing.
I'm not going to defend things you merely imagine I said.

We are not talking about some body of codified knowledge, but about transforming ourselves. The fact that there are a few traditions of transformative practice does not entail that there are not (perhaps very many) other possibilities. The possibilities are not limited to what Baker can imagine. — Janus

Jesus. This is why I hate spirituality. These power games, the accusing of another of stances they don't hold and expecting them to defend them, the misrepresentation, always acting in bad faith, this assuming that the other is an idiot.

You make some bold accusation against me, and then what am I to do? Defend myself? If I explain myself and show where you've misrepresented me, then you've won, you got away with not reading. It's right-winger tactics.

If you don't hold the beliefs I attributed to you and hence don't disagree with what I've been saying (even though to me your responses made it look as though you were disagreeing) all you have to say is that you don't disagree.

If you do disagree I would like to know precisely what you are disagreeing with and why, otherwise discussion is pointless. All this talk about me feeling this or that, and me projecting this and that is pointless. I'm not interested in that.

@Apollodorus - a Platonist challenge to Buddhist philosophy that I once put on a Buddhist forum, although it didn't attract much interest.

There's a well-known Buddhist text call The Questions of King Milinda (Milinda Pañha). It originated within the Greco-Bactrian culture of Alexander the Great - King Milinda is thought to be Menander, an historical figure, although the monk is not known outside this dialogue. It comprises a long question and answer session between the King and a Buddhist monk, Ven. Nāgasena.

Part of the text contains the well-known 'analogy of the chariot'. The gist is that the King asks Ven. Nāgasena about the Buddhist teaching of anatta (non-self). Addressing the assembly, he says:

Milinda: This Nāgasena says there is no permanent individuality (no soul) implied in his name. Is it now even possible to approve him in that?

The dialogue then proceeds through the physical form of Nāgasena and also the list of skandhas (five aggregates), asking of each, is this Nāgasena? to which the answer is invariably negative.

This is where the analogy of the chariot is brought in. Nāgasena asks the King, did you come here by chariot?

Nagasena: Then if you came, Sire, in a carriage, explain to me what that is. Is it the pole that is the chariot?

Milinda: I did not say that.

Nagasena: Is it the axle that is the chariot?

Milinda: Certainly not.

Nagasena: Is it the wheels, or the framework, or the ropes, or the yoke, or the spokes of the wheels, or the goad, that are the chariot?

And to all these he still answered no.

Nagasena: Then is it all these parts of it that are the chariot?

Milinda: No, Sir.

Nagasena: But is there anything outside them that is the chariot?

And still he answered no.

Nagasena: Then thus, ask as I may, I can discover no chariot. Chariot is a mere empty sound.

Now, it occurs to me that this interchange, which is taken as conclusive proof of the doctrine on anatta, overlooks something important. At that time in history, a few centuries either side of C.E., the invention of the chariot was a deciding factor in the rise and fall of empires.

The introduction of the horse as a draft animal in about 2000 BC was the final step in the development of the chariot into a military arm that revolutionized warfare in the ancient world by providing armies with unprecedented mobility. Chariotry contributed to the victories, in the 2nd millennium BC, of the Hyksos in Egypt, the Hittites in Anatolia, the Aryans in northern India, and the Mycenaeans in Greece. — Encyc. Brittanica

So, whilst it is trivially true to observe that none of the component parts of a chariot are actually a chariot in themselves, nevertheless the 'idea of a chariot' is something real, and its construction and possession is a real good from the perspective of nation-building. So, 'the idea of a chariot' is what really constitutes 'the chariot', not this or that particular piece of the chariot. Furthermore, even if the particular chariot on which the King arrived was to be destroyed or stolen, then another could be constructed, but only by those who had knowledge of the principles of chariot building.

It seems to me a lot of early Buddhist polemics about non-self are likewise undermined by a naive understanding of what constitutes agency and identity, although I think this is one of the shortcomings that was later overcome by a more sophisticated understanding of śūnyatā.

So, 'the idea of a chariot' is what really constitutes 'the chariot', not this or that particular piece of the chariot. — Wayfarer

I think it is the function of the chariot that is constitutive, not merely the idea, but the actuality.

The point is simply that the argument that just because a chariot cannot be reduced to its parts, doesn't mean that there is no chariot. It's a mereological fallacy in my opinion.

I agree that it is a fallacy. I came across "The questions of King Milinda" long ago and I always thought is is a spurious argument.

Do provide some reference for this, because I've never seen anything like that anywhere outside of Buddhism. — baker

No need for reference. It is part of any learning process. You start by not being sure and then comes a point where you feel you got it right ....

Pretending to be obtuse does not suit you. — baker

I don't think I am any more obtuse than yourself.

Why would a Platonist do such a thing? It's subversive, to say the least. — baker

"Subversive" of what? Platonism and Greek Orthodox Christianity have always been very close to one another. Many Church Fathers were Platonists. Platonism is part of Greek culture and is widely accepted by philosophically-minded Christians.

I see no reason to think that they can actually facilitate the end of suffering. On the contrary, they're very good at causing more of it. — baker

That is your personal opinion.

But it looks like you didn't read the list with the twelve items. — baker

Who's being pedantic now? I said "basically". Or "my abbreviation", if you prefer. But you never pay attention.

Does any of them teach that "from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications"; and that "from the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness"? — baker

They do teach the first. Obviously not the second because "cessation of consciousness" is just nonsense.

If we are "pure, unconditioned and free intelligence", then why are we here in an embodied state, suffering, and not being sure who we are? — baker

I am not suffering, and not being unsure. Maybe you are. The rest I have already explained.

Do you mean that enlightenment is inevitable and that everyone is destined for it? — baker

Why not? What makes you think that only you can find enlightenment? If souls keep getting reincarnated, it is perfectly possible for each of them eventually to become enlightened.

Another thing common among religious/spiritual people: to claim that theirs is not a religion, but a philosophy, the Truth, the "how things really are" and so on. — baker

If you can't see the difference between philosophy and religion, there is nothing I can do about it.

Having all these numerous claims as to what one's "true identity" is is like having a thousand different answers to "How much is 2 + 2 ?" — baker

That's why I'm saying that you seem to have an identity issue, as you admittedly have with spirituality.

I know a Hare Krishna brahmacari who utters sentences like
"Krishna Consciousness is a fundamentally spiritual system aiming to elevate human consciousness to an experience of Ultimate Reality"and he also uses terms like "henosis" and "henology". — baker

So what? I know New Agers who think that everything Western is evil ....

Incidentally, the historical origins of the New Age movement can be tracked back to the Theosophical Society and the Fabian Society.

The Theosophical Society was formed in 1875 in New York by Helena (Madame) Blavatsky, a Russian who claimed that she received “secret messages” from “spiritual masters” living in Tibet, in the form of handwritten letters.

The Theosophists’ agenda was to create a new religion based on elements of Platonism, Hinduism, and Buddhism and pass it off as “the true spirituality of mankind”.

The Fabian Society was formed in 1884 in London by members of the Fellowship of the New Life, a group of liberal intellectuals influenced by socialism and Tolstoy.

The Fabian agenda was to “remould” and “reconstruct” Western society by “modifying” culture, for which purpose they used various movements like Theosophy, Freemasonry, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

Annie Besant joined the London Fabian Society in 1885. In 1891 she joined the Theosophists and took over their Indian section. She also became president of the Fabian Society of Madras, India. As a leading Theosophist and Fabian, Besant was involved with India’s Nationalist Movement and its anti-European agenda.

In 1907, the London Fabians set up the Fabian Arts Group with the aim of using arts and philosophy for the advancement of Fabianism and bought the influential left-wing magazine The New Age to promote their agenda.

The magazine was bought with cash provided by G B Shaw, a leading member of the Fabian Society and a radical, whose idea of good statesmanship was “to blow every cathedral in the world to pieces with dynamite”. (Shaw was Irish and dynamite was used by the Irish Nationalists, whose movement the Fabians supported, in attacks on the British.)

In 1950, the CIA convened a large gathering of American and European intellectuals in Allied-occupied Berlin, and formed the Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) to combat communism through culture.

Though the CCF was ultimately controlled by the CIA and funded by Rockefeller and Ford foundations, it was largely run by European operatives of the Fabian Society and their associates, many of whom had been involved in political and psychological war operations during the war.

Though the main CCF objective was directed against communism, the Americans and their left-wing European collaborators also viewed traditional European (and Western) culture as “reactionary” and “resistant to change”. When Stalin died in 1953, the focus shifted to “liberalizing” Western culture itself.

It was this mixture of African American (and later Caribbean) music, anti-imperialism and nationalism (Indian and African), Fabian “New Age”, Theosophy, and Mysticism (Hindu, Buddhist, and Islamic), that was used by the CIA’s Congress for Cultural Freedom (CCF) and associated organizations to wage its culture wars on the West. As the CIA also liked to experiment with psychoactive substances, large quantities of cannabis and LSD became an inevitable part of it.

The result was that, whatever may have been its impact on the spread of communism, its main impact was on Western culture. Over time, this snowballed into the current anti-Western culture wars.

‘Rockers and spies’ – how the CIA used culture to shred the iron curtain – The Guardian

When people today use the Crusades as a stick to bash Christianity and Western culture, it is most likely a result of the post-war counterculture movement and has little to do with history. This doesn’t mean that the Crusades never took place. Only that it is not the whole truth and that the popular narrative is a highly politicized and distorted version of events.

True philosophy revolves on examining our beliefs and this includes examining beliefs about historical events. These are just as important as religious beliefs are because they form an important part of who we are, of our sense of self-identity.

Nothing can exist without identity. Buddhism may affirm that there is no self, but even if there is no self in the sense of a conscious soul, there is still a living entity with a personality and a physical and mental identity.

As regards religion, there is no doubt that it answers real psychological and spiritual needs. But this doesn’t mean that it is absolutely necessary, especially in the attainment of enlightenment.

Platonism has a hierarchy of realities and of divine beings, ranging from demi-gods and spirits to the Olympian Gods of traditional Greek tradition, Cosmic Gods, Creator-God, and the Ineffable One.

Accordingly, religion in the Platonic tradition has several levels involving (1) worship and rituals, (2) meditation and contemplation, and (3) direct experience of divinity or reality.

Plato doesn’t say that he attained enlightenment. He studied the various philosophical systems of his time and synthesized what he thought to be the best into one system that enables philosophers to discover the source of all knowledge and all truth by means of mental training, philosophical inquiry, contemplation, and insight.

Platonic philosophers may start at any level of religion or metaphysics or begin at the bottom and work their way up to the highest level.

This means that religion in the conventional sense is not necessary for higher spiritual realization.

The Buddha’s case is an interesting one. According to tradition, he is supposed to have died of food poisoning and to have had a vision of Mara (the Demon of Death) who used his beautiful daughters in an attempt to tempt him away from enlightenment.

Maha-parinibbana Sutta: Last Days of the Buddha

The situation is not entirely clear. What is the source of this story? Did Buddha himself relate this to his followers? Do enlightened people have visions of beautiful women trying to seduce them? Are beautiful women (or women in general) a problem?

An enlightened or “awakened” person is described as one who has “woken up to the true nature of reality and sees the world as it is”. Buddha is also said to have attained the “triple knowledge” consisting of knowledge of past lives, divine vision, and extinction of mental tendencies that bind one to the world.

So Nirvana does not appear to be “complete extinction”. In fact, it seems hard to tell exactly what Buddha ultimately attained, given that the only witness to a person’s liberation is the liberated himself/herself.

In any case, whatever it is that Buddha attained, he seems to have attained it by means of meditation, not by religious practices.

This being the case, perhaps you don't understand Buddhism, after all? :smile:

It seems to me a lot of early Buddhist polemics about non-self are likewise undermined by a simplistic notion of what constitutes agency and identity, although I think this is one of the shortcomings that was later overcome by a more sophisticated understanding of śūnyatā. — Wayfarer

Correct. This is why, as noted by McEvilley, Vasubandhu introduced the concept of alayavijñana ("store-consciousness"). And if you admit a "store-consciousness" for memory, you might as well admit a Universal Consciousness as Advaita Vedanta and Platonism do.

In other words, consciousness cannot be quite as easily dismissed as some Buddhists would like to think.

Thanks, that's an interesting account!