↪unimportant
Well as you started the thread with your mind already made up it’s not surprising that it end where it started. — Wayfarer

It is not that my mind couldn't be changed but rather no one said anything convincing to sway my viewpoint.

I think part of the problem is that we ourselves bring 'metaphysical beliefs' to the practice. We have ideas about what Buddhism means - often formed from our own cultural atttitudes to religion. — Wayfarer

I don't doubt it but that is besides the point to the question which is about being able to practice without the cruft added by the religious doctrines themselves.

I do know that zen traiditions do believe in reincarnation, having listened to Gudo Nishijima talk, being a notable scholar of the Zen tradition, and him stating 'there is no death'. I actually think that is what he said right when he died as well.

The question is whether that is required by them to achieve enlightenment. Anyway it seems a bit like circling a hole now rather than trying to step in one's self. We can circle it all we like but it doesn't help at a point. I would say very little has been achieved in this thread. No offence to participants. It has felt like each person talking at one another with their own entrenched belief about the subject matter.

It can still be entertaining for sure but certainly hasn't done much to resolve the OP.

A couple of other thoughts:

What about zazen which emphases that meditation is 'just sitting' and that this is all that is required to achieve it which would imply that no metaphysical beliefs are necessary? Of course you could say 'they assume that the practitioner would already have those beliefs in place' but it is how literally you choose to take their claim that just sitting is all that is required. It is not just meditation as whole school emphasises this sudden enlightenment approach.

Also Taoism I read in the past has the similar idea of meditation being purely the act of sitting, nothing more.

Yes I was actually thinking of Death Note when I wrote that about some newer ones being good.

I was about to write Cowboy Bebop as another good newer one but just checked and see that was also late 90s. :)

I mean you can't really recreate those past series, well maybe if someone tried really hard, because they were 'of their time' which has now passed, just like music and whatever else of those heady days.

I used to have little patience for the even older ones of the 80s as they looked laughable sometimes with the dated animation but I got over that now and after a few episodes I forget about that. I watched through the whole Hokuto No Ken recently which is hilarious and great for its over the top MANLINESS. MANime I see it is called for this genre online. I had watched the movie a long time ago and thought I would give the show a look as I saw comments that the movie was just a compressed version of the first half of the show. Was not disappointed in that case. Also I have read so many mentions about how influential to anime that went after it I wanted to see just for its historical significance.

Have you watched Shinjeki no Kyojin? — AmadeusD

I watched an episode or two. Nothing against it particularly and might get through it sometime but for me pre-2000s stuff is where it is at. The 90s being my formative years but even 80s stuff two I am diving into now.

Post 2000s when it become computer generated it lost its charm but I know there are still good series of the more contemporary stuff, but do not have the artistic aesthetic of the older stuff.

↪unimportant
it is possible you have been duped. — AmadeusD

By who? The developers or my then friend? :)

I actually did read around after watching it to see wtf happened there but I read, on the contrary, to him not being satisfied, he said in an interview he was completely satisfied with it and the subsequent films were not 'fixing a problem' but rather 'alternatives'. The article stated he wanted to get it clear that he was happy with it and not trying to make up for some mistake.

Also I was reading reviews on myanimelist to see if the films did a better job but I read one that said if you hated the original ending not to waste your time as the film (maybe EofE) or all, can't recall, are just the same fare as the tv series - starting off normal enough through the first half but descending into self indulgent instrospective stuff again just like the original ending.

Tons of other anime out there. It is not like I particularly liked the rest of the series and the ending was a letdown. I found all of it below average. I love sci-fi and mecha but that was childish and absolutely hated the designs - like power rangers as I mentioned - of the mechs and the enemies were even worse. Lol the least amount of imagination went into the 'Angels' - ok let's make a big cube, a ring, one that looks just like a mech but with more spindly legs, then some dumb floaty random shape with an eye and so on.

So it was not rewarding to start so seems little point wasting more time on that. Tons of other anime which look way more up my street! I only watched that one to see what all the fuss was about, which was a huge anticlimax. I put that on par with the Game of Thrones season 8 level of atrocious but the difference is GoT was amazing to start then nosedived while this one I was not impressed from the outset.

I watched Neon Genesis Evangelion again the other day. Hadn't seen it in about 20 years and forgotten it but a friend some time ago spoke of the 'controversial ending' but did not give spoilers.

I watched through the whole pretty uninteresting series to get to the end which was not the kind of controversial I was expecting. I was pretty much watching through the generally boring rest of the series expecting some grand finale that was some kind of messed up or pushing the boundaries in terms of perhaps obscenity and got the most avante garde rubbish. It really was a struggle to get through and I was thinking 'maybe this controversial thing that is spoken about will come soon, I will sit through this utter nonsense' but no, the utter nonsense was the controversial thing everyone goes on about.

Most overrated anime I have ever watched.

I love mecha and sci-fi but that was just boring and the mecha are stupid like power rangers. I much prefer the 'real robot' type stuff more based on actual science than that organic crap.

You know when someone believes it, when they believe it to their bones. That's their truth. Why are people so afraid of declaring their truth? Why are people so afraid of others declaring theirs?

We need more conviction, not less. — Questioner

@AmadeusD now this is being sneaky. :) To say we are 'afraid' because we point out a logical fallacy.

I see the asking of the question was not in good faith and it is more of a propaganda effort to get us to buy into this way of thinking.

I am in complete agreement — Joshs

I don't think so. You have quite sneakily appropriated what I wrote to be that science is its own relativism just like 'my truth' so they are 'equal'.

Just because it is not 100% truth that doesn't make it the same as someone saying their own opinion, as the good sir @AmadeusD is patiently explaining to you.

Would you agree that none of us will ever experience truth with a capital ‘T’, — Joshs

Well it seems you are implying science is 'useless' because it can't find truth 100% capital T.

I don't think science claims 100% certainty but it is very useful as the best guess. It has provided lots of things, like the machine you are typing with now, so it isn't all a case of total relativism, where "I am a little teapot short and stout" has as much truth value as Newtons laws of gravity, like you are implying.

I am not interested if it tells the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth, if it allows us to manipulate the world to our own ends better then it serves its purpose.

You, on the other hand, seem to be making the 'all or nothing' argument.

I man that they "fit" in the sense that Buddhism is similar to a kind of Hindu monotheism but without the theistic references (and all concepts adjusted accordingly). It very much fits the idea that God incarnated himself as the Buddha. Where Hindu theism is explicitly theistic, Buddhism is silent. It seems the two don't contradict eachother. (Practitioners of both like to claim otherwise, of course. But if you look at just the Pali Canon, there doesn't seem to be anything that contradicts Hindu ideas.) — baker

I just see it as an evolutionary continuum, that Buddhism is a refined version of Hinduism. They are certainly of the same school, compared to say, Buddhism and Christianity.

We can disagree here. Too many people are lazy, stupid or both when it comes to basic critical thinking. — I like sushi

You will hear no argument from me as to the laziness and stupidity of society at large. I just feel that that accusation would be misplaced in this particular instance.

It is not that they don't understand 'my truth' is logically wrong; it is that they don't feel it is relevant but more that the sentiment is what is relevant.

"My truth" is more about some narcissistic thing of saying what I say is important and you must hear it and believe it. I think that is what it is about, the 'me me me' mentality. If someone says "I am speaking the truth" then it does not give them an ego boost like 'my'.

Incidentally I had a discussion about this exact same thing a couple of years ago with someone. He was saying how "that's your truth" used to be used pejoratively to basically say "you're full of shit" but it now has the opposite meaning of "hear me and take me seriously".

Most people do not understand the difference between anecdotal and empirical evidence. This is the basic issue. A lack of critical thinking is nothing new. — I like sushi

I don't think they don't know, it is just that they don't care in the context of informal communication. I am sure they would be able to tell you the difference if pressed on the matter.

It is about saying something to fit in to the group. Being logical doesn't usually factor into that unless you are in some hard science circle or whatnot. It is like slang language, I don't think people who use colloquialisms are policing each other for the rational substance of what they are saying to one another.

The broader ideal being promoted is that of tolerance of diversity as this phrase is born out of the Leftist soup so to say it is 'your truth' it is (virtue) signalling your support for diversity. Whether it is 'true' or not is not relevant, but rather that you show you are the type of person who promotes tolerance and diversity.

It's just another nonsense trendy phrase that those that use it only do so because it is trendy isn't it?

There are plenty of American phrases which make no logical sense at all.

One primary example being: "I could care less" which of course is just a contraction of "I couldn't care less". I have heard other variants of this like "I give a shit" which I have deduced in the context is that they don't give a shit.

Those are just variations of the older double negative of "I didn't do nothing" aren't they? As in it isn't about the content but the sentiment and the way it is said rather than the logical consistency of the words.

I am not sure how "my truth" came about but it seems to be on the back of the #metoo movement and wokeism and the idea that one must not discredit a statement and it is true for them so must be respected. I guess in the same vein that anyone's gender must be respected? Seems to come from the same camp. If someone is none binary or trans or whatefer that is 'their truth' that one must not do the violence of not acknowledging.

What are you suggesting with this thread? It seems like its a bit of a conspiracy, which I have no problem with - but let's say its all legit - what then? — AmadeusD

Hehe, although we are often at odds your counterpoints do draw out my own views better.

Not conspiracy as in hidden hands are pulling the strings like the Smoking Man from X-files. More that, as another mentioned, the inner machinations of capitalism are far more sinister than most average people take them to be. Ok that sounds conspiratorial but it is that of the outcome being so futile rather than a commentary on how it is done. I don't think it is by intent but more that politicians are desperate to keep the status quo even if it will lead to destruction down the road, so long as they get elected next term and capitalism is just a train running down the tracks that they don't want to stop. Similar to the current AI race.

Also it has been discussed at length in most communist literature so I am just aping what they have written at much greater length - that the average lay person is doomed for a vacuous and unfulfilling life if following capitalist ideals. The 'conspiracy' if you wish to go with that, is that all the propaganda of the media is designed so that the average jo does not question this and just keeps on the mindless treadmill. Any problem they might have is said to be they didn't try hard enough or some mental disease that just manifested magically without known cause when the root cause is rotten capitalism.

This would be the same as cults, where any questioning of their ideology is put down to the evil 'other' out there, with their beliefs and actions never being brought into question.

There are a few common themes to cults that I think you're missing. — Philosophim

Yes good points and you do highlight some nuts and bolts differences but as per the reply above, and LuckyR's good summation, I was not proposing an exact match, just drawing attention to the malevolent side of capitalism which shares similarities to cults.

I think the more sinister element of capitalism is the banality of most people’s ambition which they don’t seem to mind; forget Gecko and supermodels. For most people it involves ceaseless spending to participate in the conventions - a house, children, vacations, transportation, healthcare, always having to spend and spend more just to have the basics. Often treading water to stay afloat. And they may even consider themselves fortunate.

I don’t think it’s a cult. It’s a dominant worldview that operates differently. A cult functions through exclusion and authoritarian control over behaviour and member's interactions. Capitalism is open, even if constraining, and it doesn’t seek to limit people’s choices directly. It does so indirectly as a by-product, through the blunt mechanism of a user-pays society. — Tom Storm

Yes good explanation of the average experience of the capitalist wage slave. It isn't that the top 1% are what everyone is expecting to achieve but when the cultural cues are fed to you that these things are the highest good in society then even those far lower down on the totem pole are going to feel that social pressure to confirm. Also if they fail at this rigged game, like a lot of society will, then depression and other mental issues manifest.

Most people don't expect to be buying $100+k cars but it is that this causes an indoctrination to aspire for more and more and more. So for them it might be replacing their 1 year old car for a new one just because the adverts tell you it has x,y,z new feature and Bill next door has recent bought a new one so they now feel pressure to 'fit in' as per the saying 'keeping up with the Jones's' (don't know if that is a common term where y'all are from but it is where I am).

Your OP reads as if we are experiencing absolute capitalism. Far from it. — L'éléphant

Covered in my other replies, above and below. Also, to add, it may not be the authoritarianism of cults but the insidiousness is in the subtlety that they have duped the masses into thinking they are actually bettering themselves when actually the game is rigged to make them worse off and better only the top 1%.

The brainwashing methods through propaganda to create conformity are what I was highlighting as similar.

Your description is accurate, but as it pertains to the OP's question, I see it more a difference of degree/intensity rather than a fundamental difference in goal. — LuckyR

Yea this is pretty much it. I was not seriously asserting the likeness was 1:1 the same. The mere fact that the mainstream is the dominant view it would have to have differences I would imagine, in the general workings of how it operates and disseminates information to the masses on such a large scale, compared to cults which by their name assumes they must be small and divergent from the main view of society at large.

The title was mainly to draw attention to the likenesses that neither are interested in aligning with reality and capitalism has just as many neurotic and destructive ideologies as so called cults.

I don't quite see what you do. — AmadeusD

That goes without saying. :)

Having studied a bit of both Buddhism and Hindusim, I find there is a peculiar fit between the two. — baker

Why would it be peculiar when they both were born in the same place and the Buddha grew up in the Hindu tradition?

I mean, if we're going to delve into the supernatural and metaphysical (the otherwise traditionally non-logical), it's theoretically possible it wasn't that way at first but later became that way through some way or means. If I'm not mistaken that's essentially a major tenet of Christianity. — Outlander

Yes but here we are specifically discussing Buddhism and what they believe, not general thought experiments of the other possible options. As such I recall reading the Buddha explicitly believed the universe to be eternal. I don't have the breadth of knowledge of the scriptures to be able to pull references though some other posters so maybe they can step in to do that.

I am not saying the wheel is not eternal, it is that you go outside of it.

If for example you were the wheel then it would not be the same as being a spoke in it.

BTW, you find both views espoused by supporters of both traditions. So perhaps calling Theravadin and Mahayanist is incorrect. — boundless

Well isn't it going to be a case of gradual divergence like most things, which change and morph over time? At some point they would have been one, when closer to the Buddha's original teachings temporally, then over time, and maybe distance, with less communication, they would split away from each other.

Like any other cultural thing like language or whatever.

That does beg the question which is 'right' if any to try and bring it back to some semblance of my OP which seems to have long been abandoned in the debate in the last few pages. Lol. Not complaining (much) about that though. If others are getting something from the current threads then have at it.

I can peck at any points that come up of interest, but it seems it has little to do with what I originally asked, regarding the necessity of supernatural elements, that has fallen by the wayside it seems. So I am not heavily invested in the recent posts as they have become more about discussion of the nuances of different schools of Buddhism on one single teaching.

It claims cyclical existence without beginning. A circular ladder doesn’t progress, it goes round and round without beginning or ending. — praxis

That is a misinterpretation I think, Not that I believe those views, back to the rebirth thing, which I reject, but the whole idea of enlightenment is that you break free from the ladder/wheel of reincarnation due to extinguishing your karma. I guess they are saying you become the wheel in all things, seeing you are not separate from it. Not an expert but clearly the whole exercise of Buddhism is to escape the cycle of life and death and rebirth.

I’m suggesting that salvation may not be all that, uh, mystical or grand, and that religion helps to fulfill basic needs such as meaning, purpose, and connection, for those who have difficulty fulfilling such needs on their own. — praxis

Thank you for the second attempt.

I think to be clear you should give your version of what enlightenment is because it seems different to the general notion of it. I am getting the sense you are just seeing enlightenment as some kind of self help style self-actualisation akin to ticking all the boxes on Maslow's hierarchy of needs?

I would say it would extinguish those existential issues by coming to the realisation they don't matter, as in the removal of the needs (loss of attachment/desire).

Have you read any of my thread: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/16333/can-the-supernatural-and-religious-elements-of-buddhism-be-extricated?

There is quite some overlap.

There was a book called 'flow' by a guy with a really long eastern name which said that essentially ALL flow activities are the same, be it meditation, playing in the pocket, whatever. I don't think I would agree with that, but an interesting concept to explore. Just being 'in the zone' is not the same as being enlightened although they might share some similarities. I know this is not what you are asking but it is related in comparing 'flow states' with one another.

In my thread I have discussed many times that both eastern and western religious people have reached what might be called a state of enlightenment. A notable figure of the west is Meister Eckhart. He would not have meditated I doubt, probably doing traditional prayer, but still achieved some higher state of consciousness. I don't know much about him but noticed him mentioned several times as an awakened one of the western tradition by contemporary voices.

Apologies if I came across as asserting this kind of view — boundless

Thanks for your clarification and not going on the defensive.

It seems we are largely in agreement from that last post. Of course I agree that one cannot rationalise their way to enlightenment but still, just like there are routines they follow in Buddhism to act as breadcrumbs to get there, I would just be looking at how one would do it as a secularist.

Then this can be done absent any religion, ideology, or teaching. It is a natural process which can be done in isolation. But religious teachings and practice provide a system that helps, or directs people in achieving this goal**.

My advice to you would be to view the supernatural teachings in Buddhism as symbolic, or allegorical. They provide a narrative which provides a framework, or intellectual structure that the individual can use to build a personal narrative which enables them to undertake that natural process. From what I’ve experienced from my brief foray into Buddhism, a few years ago now, is that it is the meditation based practice itself which is important here, not the religious teachings. — Punshhh

This is my view too but the majority voice in this thread has been the usual pushback I expected from 'devouts' that any attempt to question the teachings or go outside the box will be met with failure, and maybe derision.

I guess they will say neither of us are enlightened so we have no place to try and change the tried and true method of the prophets. I have had the same arguments from most things I have learned in life, which have nothing to do with Buddhism. Most often ridiculed for 'going against the grain' and outside of the box but I have found it easy to separate the wheat from the chaff of what is good information vs. bad and irrational stuff in other areas and the proof is in the pudding when I achieve my goals in whatever thing I set out, so I don't see this as being any different.

Oh and good to see some lively discussion in this thread now a few others on different sides have joined into the fray. :)

we have to reinvent it in a modern context. — Punshhh

Exactly but the dogmatists will say even changing it 1% is bastardising it beyond recognition.

Here is a good real world example I thought of which avoids the whole reincarnation issue.

I recalled a concrete example from a video I watched where a traditional Buddhist was asked about the theory of karma. The questioner asked if it was bad karma to be a medic who does abortions since life is sacred and should not be terminated according to Buddhist doctrines. The Buddhist's* answer was 'yes it slightly bad karma each time the surgeon performs an abortion' and then he said something like he should even out the bad karma by doing other stuff to make up for it.

So nothing metaphysical to argue about whether it exists or not (well karma could also classify as that but it is behavoiur that is is question here) and the Buddhist recommendation is something that would be considered inappropriate by most rational people today in cases where an abortion would be appropriate for the individual. Now of course there could be a forum thread about the topic of abortion and whether it is right but the point it in modern society, at least in the West, it is accepted and normal now.

Perhaps modernising Buddhism would be to accept abortion as 'ok' but the fundamentalists will say no and that it destroys the core teachings.

*As a related aside this was a long time white Western practitioner who had been learning a traditional school, by the book, it seems, of the Thai Forest tradition for many decades so seems he was not deviating and adding his Western revisionism.

such that it takes skilled investigation to recognize how forms of thought not unlike Buddhism and Hinduism hide deep within the foundations of judeo-christian traditions. — Joshs

I am glad someone else is highlighting what I have been trying to get at throughout the thread and have been a lone voice so far and what Joseph Campbell devoted much of his works to, among others.

The religious dogma has been ripe in this discussion.

Which seems to imply that the rituals (and other aspects of religion?) are superfluous to enlightenment :starstruck: . If that's the case then what purpose does religion serve? — praxis

A very dishonest conclusion you have drawn there and shows you do not have a serious interest in exploring this topic.

Not sure why @baker has derailed the thread into some back and forth about how leaders should act in positions of power? I don't see how it is related to the OP, which is asking how a lay seeker should find their own path. If so please 'enlighten' me.

People without doubt tend toward fundamentalism or zealotry. — Tom Storm

This is exactly what the 'you must completely adhere to the teachings or you are going to get nowhere' folks in the thread, and the usual mindset I see when I have asked similar questions elsewhere in the past, are like imo. Fundamental uncritical faith or you are not practising at all.

I just realised this is actually really ironic and the opposite of what the Buddha himself suggested. In his sutras he would talk about how you should not believe him, but practice and see for yourself through experience. Also didn't he become enlightened by refuting all the myriad systems he tried before and looking for his own way?

How far would he have gotten if he followed these 'total faith in one school or nothing' folks? There would be no Buddhism. :)

Well then, whatcha waiting for?!

People who promise to know the way to enlightenment are a dime a dozen, including those who believe one doesn't need the "supernatural elements". It's on you to take the next step, though, which is actually what seems to be at issue here. — baker

Making the post, and studying religions and the common threads does not count as a step? It might not to you, as you seem to been pushing orthodoxy to whatever school, but it does to me.

the most radical thing one can do, as far as Buddhism is concerned, is to be a Westerner and explicitly approach (or at least attempt to approach it) the Asian way. Show up in some Buddhist venue, whether a Western or Asian one, and show that you take for granted that the Buddhist tradition is correct, and, if you're lucky, you'll be ridiculed. If not so lucky, you'll be considered disrespectful, "spreading lies about Buddhism" and such.

It's bizarre, really. In my experience, the most rebellious, radical thing you can do is to openly have no qualms about kamma and rebirth — baker

This seems a very idiosyncratic view to you. Never heard anything like that and I doubt most people in Buddhism would agree to that either. More likely they will not say anything and welcome you with open arms. What kind of Buddhists would they be if they did the passive aggressive stuff you mentioned there? Sounds more like something in a housewives cooking class.

Honestly I think the salvation is found in the limitations or order that religion provides. The grand narratives and moral codes offer a sense security and meaning. And of course comfort is found in a unified community. — praxis

Maybe in part but you cannot really be claiming that is all that is entailed in becoming enlightened? You know another huge institution which has those qualities you state? The military. Not seen many Buddhas come out of their ranks. :D

To give you a liferaft so to speak I would say the ritual is a part but only one. I think what kind of rituals must be examined, not just any old ritual. Many professions have mechanical rituals and again we cannot say they have anything to do with the subject of enlightenment.

Why do some people go to such great lengths to invent their own paths and practices, and then stilal call them "Buddhist"?? — baker

It is not about inventing your own path and still calling it Buddhist; it is about having grown up in a time of modern science which refutes central tenets of Buddhism and thus seeing fundamental problems with following that path in earnest without sloughing those parts away.

I don't care what it is called if it was a fruitful path. This isn't about gutting Buddhism and still calling it Buddhism. It is about asking the question, can one have a fruitful practice, whatever you call it, without those supernatural elements.

Nothing to do with revisionism. It is an open question as to whether one can have a good practice without supernatural elements - again - whether it is called Buddhism or not is not the subject of this post. Good practice would be the attainment of what is loosely called enlightenment as the ultimate goal but there are many positive checkpoints on the way before that too which could be called worthwhile goals in themselves.

I am reading Joseph Campbell's Masks of God, the volume on Oriental Mythology and he makes a distinction between the eastern traditions of India and the Far Eastern traditions of China an Japan.

Indian would be Buddhist and Hindu and China, so far he is discussing Taoism - I am not far into the book so will go over much more I am sure.

An important point though so far is that he states that enlightenment in the East is generally seen as going beyond the world of forms and achieving stillness in the nothingness beyond while in the Taoist, and he implies other far eastern traditions too, the idea of enlightenment rests in seeing the arising of things and just accepting it and engaging with it in none attached play - wu wei.

Now of course there was heavy intermingling between the two once Buddhism reached the Far East but the point is there was an idea and practice of what may be called Enlightenment before the dominant Eastern idea, with all its other baggage of rebirth would have come with it in the form of the Buddhist package.

So ideas of enlightenment are out there, and have been for thousands of years, even predating Buddhism, without this dogged clinging to rebirth as a necessary part of it that most the Buddhist advocates here are advocating unwaveringly.

Now I imagine Taoism would have its own holdover dogmas from the time which could also be seen as parochial today but if rebirth is not one of them, maybe they also believed in it I don't know too much, but certainly have not read about it front and centre like it was in Buddhism when I used to study Taoism quite a bit years ago, we can assume it is not essential for attainment of what one might call enlightenment.

Ok, just a quick search which turns up this, which seems to state that Taoism is more focused on life than life after death (rebirth) which is what I do loosely remember it as being: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taoism_and_death

Now reading that it reminds me of their own supernatural elements such as immortality through storing up semen or suchlike. Ghenghis Khan was supposed to have consulted a Taoist before dying to try to attain immortality but of course failed.

I suppose a definition of enlightenment in the current discussion would be appropriate. I would just put it as finding inner peace in this life to get rid of the usual gnawing existential anxiety of 'birth, old age, sickness and death'. Nothing more or less.

This is also what Buddhism defines as enlightenment, to be free of mental suffering of the cognisance of those causes. People here are saying that one must necessarily believe in rebirth to achieve that goal where as I am proposing it can be achieved in different ways. That is not contingent upon believing in rebirth, though it certainly might help some if they do believe in it, it is not contingent upon it. To simply fully accept the comings and goings of life, as seems to be the Taoist way, seems also to be another way to achieve this peace. There are many other ways too probably which don't rely on rebirth as a central tenet.

Lol, ok looking at my own thread title I see the focus on Buddhism is largely my own fault, but my thoughts developed as a product of the discussion so far. It would probably be better to revise the question to: Can enlightenment be achieved without appeal to any supernatural elements?

It seems clear to me that you're simply trying to faithfully support your religious beliefs. — praxis

Lol, while they have stated they definitely are not Buddhist or believe their beliefs they do seem to have an extreme interest in supporting them beyond an interested layperson.

I don't think it matters if they are believers or not, and I take them at their word they are not.

@boundless whether you believe or not it seems you were earlier stating that my subjective belief that the same attainment can be achieved from any religious school was incorrect and implied I had no place stating that based on textual evidence, yet you have countered it as being incorrect only with Buddhist textual evidence that rebirth is essential and such so why is your text better than mine? You were also quite condescending about my suppositions earlier which implies you think your beliefs are better and 'right'. It seems odd you defend Buddhism so doggedly if you are not invested in it. I took the more pantheistic view that neither one is more right, so long as it gets to the destination, which you were also dismissive of. This, rather that what I apologised for above, is what I took issue with.

-edit-

Actually I have had a change of heart and agree now with earlier comments about shying away from discussion which could possibly enable someone.

Plenty of other interesting philosophy topics to discuss which do not have such a weight of responsibility.

(2) Conscious choice cuts both ways
Niki wants consciousness to do two incompatible jobs. On the one hand, consciousness is dismissed as a post-hoc rationalizer ("cope"). On the other hand, consciousness is elevated as the faculty that allows us to override biology and choose death. — Esse Quam Videri

A lot of distilled information in the post so I won't try and respond to all in one go but will pick this one up.

I am not saying I agree 100% with all the assertions, but rather I approved of the general thrust that all human motivations and rationalisations for the specialness of life can be reduced to survival instinct.

You can't have it both ways. If reflective agency is real enough to negate survival instinct, then it is also real enough to generate reasons, commitments, and meanings that are not reducible to instinct.

That is a very good and sneaky point lol.

I did not make that argument so I don't have to defend it hehe. Your counter does indeed make me re-evaluate what can and cannot be attribute to, or is in the service of, instinct though.

Gonna have to think about that some more, perhaps reading their original post again as well for context.

I hope I clarified what I meant and I also hope that I clarified that I am not writing these posts just for the sake of being a 'contrarian' or being obscure for the sake of being obscure or whatever. — boundless

Yes thank you and I apologise for the accusation as I think I was a little uncharitable there. You are clearly making honest efforts to explain your position.

I suppose our forking in the road is that you are saying the attainments of Buddhism are explicitly dependant upon the belief in rebirth and that these achievements are exclusive to the religious study of Buddhism and so without walking the path and all it entails then one cannot achieve them while I am saying it is a more general religious experience universal to any good religious practice.

So bad religious practice will not produce results in any schools while good practice of the respective religion will produce results. It may be true though that difference religions are more likely to produce awakened ones as the different religions will have different priorities about these outcomes.

I suppose what I am proposing is, to make an analogy, that there are many different martial arts and they are all capable of causing serious injury in the right hands. The injuries to the unfortunate person on the receiving end will be the same so it doesn't matter which martial art it is, even though the techniques to cause injury might be different.

While what you are saying seems to be the only Buddhism is the effective martial art or maybe the only one to cause a certain kind of damage? while the others might cause different and unique damage but not the same damage as Buddhism?

I already mentioned that in my reply.

I am not saying it won't. It might. It is open for discussion.