shannon - 19 December 2010 11:53 AM

I love it when people use Wikipedia to explain my religion to me. 

I love it when folks who have no defense cast stones at the source text is taken from, rather than addressing the information it contains.  I could have easily taken the same information from any Nichiren website.    If you find any errors in what I posted, then feel free to point them out. 

Like Wikipedia is going to explain my own religion better than I understand it.

Nichirenists aren’t allowed to contribute to the Wiki entry on Nichiren?  You claim to be Buddhist, but you have already admitted that there is much that you do not know, and do not care to know.  And yes, it is quite possible for a Wiki article to explain your own religion better than you understand it.

The other day a guy told me in what was an undoubtedly angry tone that I will NOT be reincarnated again and again until I attain Nirvana.  My thought was “Yeah, I didn’t really think I was, but thanks for pointing that out.”

irrelevant.

I may not know much about Theravada, but I know Nichiren inside and out.

That remains to be seen.

The word “enlightenment” may have a secular meaning that is not connected in any way with what Mahayana Buddhists mean by the word, but it does have a meaning. 

The word “Nibbana”, which mahayanists tend to replace with their own version of “Enlightenment(TM)”, also has a meaning in the Buddha’s liberative teachings.

I’m afraid that there are no words in English that lend itself well to what it means.

You are hiding behind vagueness.  The Buddha had a very specific meaning for what he called “Nibbana”, which he himself described using words..  Calling yourself a “Buddhist”, one might think that its definition might have been of interest to you.  Obviously your indescribable “Enlightenment(TM)” is something quite different from what the Buddha was perfectly able to easily describe using words.  But we knew that already.

And since most people haven’t experienced it even once in their lives, even if there were such a word, it would have not meaning for them.

Ah, the Emperor’s new Clothes….yada yada yada…

But there is no way on Earth you could ever convince me that the Buddhist meaning of enlightenment doesn’t exist in real life, so I’m afraid you’re barking up the wrong tree. 

I have this bottle of Enlightement(TM) to sell you.  You can’t describe it, see it, smell it or touch it, but there is no way in hell you could ever convince me that it’s not there. 

To me it would be as ludicrous at this point in my life to not believe in enlightenment as any other reality I experience.

To me it would be as ludicrous to not believe in this nice Enlightenment(TM) I have in this bottle.

Like saying cars don’t exist or anger doesn’t exist.  It’s something you have to experience to believe in, I admit, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  And if you think it doesn’t exist, you’re just telling me you have never experienced it, which is the same as telling me that your practice of Buddhism, whatever it is, is completely ineffective.

If you tell me that The Emperor has No Clothes, you are just telling me that you can’t see them, which is the same as telling me that you are stupid and incompetent, because only those who are wise and noble can see The Emperor’s New Clothes.

There is nothing I could explain about Nichiren that would mean anything to you if you don’t believe in enlightenment.

If the Buddha didn’t believe in enlightenment, then I am in fact not a Buddhist, because the entire purpose of my religious practice is to achieve and maintain the highest state of enlightenment as I can as often as I can.  My understanding of the word “Buddha” is in fact a person who has discovered a method to achieve this state of being.  “Buddha” to me doesn’t even refer to a particular person.  It refers to any person in a particular state of mind.

We claim we’ve discovered a state of life, an emotion, a way of feeling and thinking.  Whatever you want to call it.  All of us who practice what is required to attain this state of life consistently experience it and describe it in similar ways.  We can freely speak between ourselves about it and know exactly what each other is talking about.  Furthermore, neuroscientific studies have verified that something is indeed happening within our brains and bodies when we claim to be having this common experience.  You can’t take pictures of a subjective experience, but that doesn’t make it any less real.  We all know that subjective experiences are real.  If they’re not, then all human beings are delusional.  Now if I were to claim to have discovered a new species of animal, nothing about that claim would be abnormal, since we know animals exist and we haven’t discovered every species.  If I then tell you that I know exactly where you can find it, that all you would have to do is go there and look and you’ll see for yourself, and that millions of other people have seen this animal already, you can adamantly claim that there aren’t any new species of animals to be found and that my new species is no exception, but until you go and look for yourself, you’re doing nothing but being extremely closed-minded.

shannon - 19 December 2010 01:37 PM

There is nothing I could explain about Nichiren that would mean anything to you if you don’t believe in enlightenment.

That is merely wishful thinking.  The Courtier’s Reply: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Courtier’s_reply

If the Buddha didn’t believe in enlightenment, then I am in fact not a Buddhist, because the entire purpose of my religious practice is to achieve and maintain the highest state of enlightenment as I can as often as I can.

The Buddha never spoke of “Enlightenment(TM); he spoke of Nibbana, liberation of mind.  “Enlightenment” was a later contrivance.  So you claim you are “Enlightened(TM)?”

My understanding of the word “Buddha” is in fact a person who has discovered a method to achieve this state of being.  “Buddha” to me doesn’t even refer to a particular person.  It refers to any person in a particular state of mind.

As a mahayanist, you are free to make up whatever you want. The man we know as “Buddha” didn’t call himself “the Buddha”, either.

We claim we’ve discovered a state of life, an emotion, a way of feeling and thinking.  Whatever you want to call it. 

So you claim to be “Enlightened(TM).

All of us who practice what is required to attain this state of life consistently experience it and describe it in similar ways.  We can freely speak between ourselves about it and know exactly what each other is talking about.

You said earlier that it couldn’t be described.  Now you say that only those who are Enlightened(TM) can see the Emperor’s New Clothes.  And describe them.

Furthermore, neuroscientific studies have verified that something is indeed happening within our brains and bodies when we claim to be having this common experience. 

Which neuroscientific studies?  Please cite specific studies, and point to their results.  Also, please note whether these studies were performed specifically on Nichiren “EnlightenedBuddhas(TM)” such as yourself, while you were having your common experience of “Enlightenment(TM)”.  And be prepared to show that these changes are due to attainment of your Nichiren “Enlightenment(TM)”, rather than simply common samadhi.

You can’t take pictures of a subjective experience, but that doesn’t make it any less real.  We all know that subjective experiences are real.

That doesn’t mean you can’t have delusions about them, and make delusional assumptions about them: “This samadhi is ‘Enlightenment(TM)’!  I am Buddha!”.

If they’re not, then all human beings are delusional.  Now if I were to claim to have discovered a new species of animal, nothing about that claim would be abnormal, since we know animals exist and we haven’t discovered every species.

And you would be able to describe that animal, and demonstrate how that animal is different from other animals, and what sets it apart as a new species.

If I then tell you that I know exactly where you can find it, that all you would have to do is go there and look and you’ll see for yourself,

...but you have already claimed that your “Enlightenment(TM)” cannot be described.  Though you have waffled on that a bit as well.  Are you making up as you go along?

...and that millions of other people have seen this animal already,....

Then you haven’t discovered a new species, have you?

you can adamantly claim that there aren’t any new species of animals to be found and that my new species is no exception, but until you go and look for yourself, you’re doing nothing but being extremely closed-minded.

I never claimed that “there aren’t any new species of animals to be found”.  In fact, I saw a Crumple-Horned Snorkack the other day. If you adamantly claim that Crumple-Horned Snorkacks do not exist, you are doing nothing but being extremely closed-minded.  You really need to watch this video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T69TOuqaqXI

shannon - 19 December 2010 11:53 AM

To me it would be as ludicrous at this point in my life to not believe in enlightenment as any other reality I experience.  Like saying cars don’t exist or anger doesn’t exist.  It’s something you have to experience to believe in, I admit, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  And if you think it doesn’t exist, you’re just telling me you have never experienced it, which is the same as telling me that your practice of Buddhism, whatever it is, is completely ineffective.

Couldn’t this also be said about the Christian experience of the Holy Spirit? Just plug in the substitutions.

Ecurb Noselrub - 24 December 2010 02:40 PM

shannon - 19 December 2010 11:53 AM

To me it would be as ludicrous at this point in my life to not believe in enlightenment as any other reality I experience.  Like saying cars don’t exist or anger doesn’t exist.  It’s something you have to experience to believe in, I admit, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.  And if you think it doesn’t exist, you’re just telling me you have never experienced it, which is the same as telling me that your practice of Buddhism, whatever it is, is completely ineffective.

Couldn’t this also be said about the Christian experience of the Holy Spirit? Just plug in the substitutions.

Exactly.  Emperor’s. New. Clothes.