The Buddha teaches release from life?

[Ahanu]

While Christianity teaches that life is to be lived abundantly, does Buddhism contradict this teaching of Jesus by saying life is something to be escaped from? Jesus said:

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly (John 10:10)"
​

"Buddhism is wrongly taught when interpreted as a release from life," says Joseph Campbell. I am going to have alot of plagarism here, but I will be mainly quoting Joseph Campbell, with a few of my own modifications, and my textbook on world religions to make the argument that the Buddha did not teach an escape from life. Well, here are a few of my notes.

As the Buddha began his mision, he concentrated on two important questions about existence: How can we minimize suffering--both our own and that of others? And how can we attain inner peace? The Buddha concluded that to live means inescapably to experience sorrow and dissatisfaction. But he analyzed the nature and causes of suffering much like a doctor would diagnose an illness--in order to understand and overcome them. What is the state of the Buddha's patient? As a Baha'i, religion is thought of as school, so here the Buddha's looking to educate us about the disease of suffering. Also, I am thinking of how this could fit in with progressive revelation.

First the Buddha asks, "What are the symptoms of the world disease?" And his answer was, "Sorrow!" The First Noble Truth: "Suffering exists." Birth is attended with pain, decay is painful, disease is painful, death is painful. The Second Noble Truth: "It has a cause." The Buddha's next question was, "Can such a cure be achieved?" And his answer was, "Yes!" The Third Noble Truth: "It has an end." The Fourth Noble Truth: "There is a way to attain release from suffering." To reach nirvana, followers must follow the Buddha's prescribed remedy, which is the Noble Eightfold Path.

Therefore, "there is release from sorrow" cannot have meant "release from life" (life-renunciation, suicide, or anything of that sort), since that would hardly have been a return of the patient to health. Therefore, I have concluded that the Buddha's question's question was of release not from life, but from sorrow.

So, with Jesus, the Buddha can say, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

Or am I completely wrong?

 

[Netti-Netti]

I have concluded that the Buddha's question's question was of release not from life, but from sorrow.

Release from life or release from unhappy/afflicted rebirths?

 

[Nick_A]

While Christianity teaches that life is to be lived abundantly, does Buddhism contradict this teaching of Jesus by saying life is something to be escaped from? Jesus said:

"I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly (John 10:10)"
​

"Buddhism is wrongly taught when interpreted as a release from life," says Joseph Campbell. I am going to have alot of plagarism here, but I will be mainly quoting Joseph Campbell, with a few of my own modifications, and my textbook on world religions to make the argument that the Buddha did not teach an escape from life. Well, here are a few of my notes.

As the Buddha began his mision, he concentrated on two important questions about existence: How can we minimize suffering--both our own and that of others? And how can we attain inner peace? The Buddha concluded that to live means inescapably to experience sorrow and dissatisfaction. But he analyzed the nature and causes of suffering much like a doctor would diagnose an illness--in order to understand and overcome them. What is the state of the Buddha's patient? As a Baha'i, religion is thought of as school, so here the Buddha's looking to educate us about the disease of suffering. Also, I am thinking of how this could fit in with progressive revelation.

First the Buddha asks, "What are the symptoms of the world disease?" And his answer was, "Sorrow!" The First Noble Truth: "Suffering exists." Birth is attended with pain, decay is painful, disease is painful, death is painful. The Second Noble Truth: "It has a cause." The Buddha's next question was, "Can such a cure be achieved?" And his answer was, "Yes!" The Third Noble Truth: "It has an end." The Fourth Noble Truth: "There is a way to attain release from suffering." To reach nirvana, followers must follow the Buddha's prescribed remedy, which is the Noble Eightfold Path.

Therefore, "there is release from sorrow" cannot have meant "release from life" (life-renunciation, suicide, or anything of that sort), since that would hardly have been a return of the patient to health. Therefore, I have concluded that the Buddha's question's question was of release not from life, but from sorrow.

So, with Jesus, the Buddha can say, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

Or am I completely wrong?

I agree Ahanu. Western Buddhism has devolved into a form of escapism but I don't believe it is its intent. Simone Weil describes Christianity well but I know it is Buddhism as well.

"The tremendous greatness of Christianity", writes Simone Weil, "comes from the fact that it does not seek a supernatural remedy against suffering but a supernatural use of suffering."

I see Buddhism as the same. It isn't about hiding under the bed but to experience life with conscious attention and detachment and no one IMO did that better than Simone.

 

[Paladin]

I think it might be pertinent here to bring up the old saying "pain is inevitable, suffering is optional" It was to this the Buddha focused his mindfulness.
But I do agree that Buddhism is not to be equated with nihilism.

 

[seattlegal]

Nibbana as Living Experience
(From accesstoinsight.org)

 

[Paladin]

Thanks SG. I wonder if it isn't statements like this:

An arahant has full control over his thoughts;17 therefore he must have full control over his feelings/sensations too.

That give rise to the arguments of nihilism.
Steven Batchelor writes often about the unattainable aspect of this state and substitutes a more existential approach.
Personally, I wonder about the mythological aspect of Buddhism, the religiosity that creeps into any idea distorting the original value of the teachers intent. This seems rampant in any teaching going back to the Upanishads.

 

[Ahanu]

Release from life or release from unhappy/afflicted rebirths?

For example, I was in my literature class and the class was reviewing Siddhartha, so we talked about the Buddha. Somebody said that the Budhha basically taught a release from life. Well, they did not say, "release from life," but that was what was implied; the Buddha basically led a lot of his followers into the forrest away from ordinary life like other people. Yeah, release from life.

 

[~estrella~]

Just another aspect about misunderstandings of Buddhist teachings- the idea that one would have to negate all: life, love and existence, as well as Divinity. P. 280-282 "I Reality & Subjectivity", David R. Hawkins.

However, [ego] has one trick still remaining, a great trap into which even famous spiritual adepts have fallen. this ist he great confrontation with the supposed reality of the abyss of the "Void". That this is merely a product of the ego rather than Reality is already known to students of these presentations. they will remember that there is no opposite to the Allness of God.
...
The groundwork for the acceptance of this error has been laid by misunderstanding the teachings of the Buddha. The correct translation of the Illumined State as "void" actually means "devoid of content, not containing any thing or form". It was misconstrued as meaning "nothingness" as the supposed opposite of Allness. Using reason as a tool, it can be seen that nothingness cannot exist, or be, or represent a valid option.
The paradox of the void of nothingness versus the reality of Allness is the last great positionality to be transcended. Were it not for the presumed authority of certain misinterpretations of the Buddhist teachings, it would have fallen away as an error that is resolvable just by reason. If the nothingess of the Void were the absolute reality, then there would be neither a seeker nor a void to be found. To be truly woid, even voidness would not be a realizable option as there iwould be nothing to realize and no one to realize it.
The void is not to be feraed but refused. The Void is a trap for the aspirant who follows the pathway of negation. It does not present itself as an option to the pathway of affirmation, for to such a pathway, voidness would present itself as total non-love.
...
When one follows the strict pathway of negation, the state of Void as such does indeed present itself. This results from the error of avoiding love due to the misunderstanding fo love. The attachment to love is really the trap and the barrier to enlightenment. In Reality, love is freedom, but attachment to love is a limitation.
Another error of the pathway of negation is the teaching that one should release all beauty, perfection, and joy. Here again, the attachment to these is the barrier. In actuality, these are the attributes of God. To negate the attributes of God is to facilitate the arrival of the options of the Void.
The Void is indeed very, very impressive. One is beyond karma and all programs. This state appears to be infinite, endless... It is so profound that it precludes any thought. It is a nonlinearity, devoid of any content. Importantly, however, there is something missing, and that is the presence of Love. This state presents itself as "beyond Love", and therefore believable to the pathway of negation.

 

[Snoopy]

While Christianity teaches that life is to be lived abundantly, does Buddhism contradict this teaching of Jesus by saying life is something to be escaped from?

Indeed not, Ahanu

"Buddhism is wrongly taught when interpreted as a release from life," says Joseph Campbell.

He is right. But who teaches this, in ignorance?

First the Buddha asks, "What are the symptoms of the world disease?" And his answer was, "Sorrow!" The First Noble Truth: "Suffering exists." Birth is attended with pain, decay is painful, disease is painful, death is painful. The Second Noble Truth: "It has a cause." The Buddha's next question was, "Can such a cure be achieved?" And his answer was, "Yes!" The Third Noble Truth: "It has an end." The Fourth Noble Truth: "There is a way to attain release from suffering." To reach nirvana, followers must follow the Buddha's prescribed remedy, which is the Noble Eightfold Path.

Symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, prescription.

Therefore, "there is release from sorrow" cannot have meant "release from life" (life-renunciation, suicide, or anything of that sort), since that would hardly have been a return of the patient to health. Therefore, I have concluded that the Buddha's question's question was of release not from life, but from sorrow.

...and a jolly good conclusion too.

So, with Jesus, the Buddha can say, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly."

What does the "abundantly" bit mean would you say?

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Somebody said that the Budhha basically taught a release from life. Well, they did not say, "release from life," but that was what was implied; the Buddha basically led a lot of his followers into the forrest away from ordinary life like other people. Yeah, release from life.

Depends what exactly you mean by "release from life". If a being lives in a forest are you saying they are released from life in some way?

As the Buddha lived 2500 years ago even the most basic details of his life cannot be 100% stated with certainty. That said, it is I think generally accepted that he travelled across much of northern India for about 45 years, only staying put in the rainy season. The life of a wandering renunciant was fairly commonplace at that time (as still happens today in India) so in this respect the Buddha was perhaps influenced by the culture he grew up in. He taught and "garnered" many followers in his lifetime from all social strata. I don't think this would have happened if he'd in some way simply "disappeared into the forest." In the Buddha's time cities were beginning to develop and he must have been in urban areas for alms and to make contact with all the different types of people that he did.

What the Buddha and his followers did renounce was the man made human society in order to focus on the most profound questions of birth, death and how we might best live our fleeting lives between the two.

s.

 

[Snoopy]

Just another aspect about misunderstandings of Buddhist teachings- the idea that one would have to negate all: life, love and existence, as well as Divinity. P. 280-282 "I Reality & Subjectivity", David R. Hawkins.

Hi ~estrella~ and welcome to IO

(love the squiggles)

Your quote possibly suggests why the word "Void" is not really used in English books any more I don't think. No doubt its early use was down to poor translation and understanding. Nowadays I think the term/s are empty/emptiness; empty of inherent substance and empty of concepts.

Snoopy.

 

[Netti-Netti]

... the Buddha basically led a lot of his followers into the forrest away from ordinary life like other people. Yeah, release from life.

I would say most of the major world religions have an element of renunciation. The Buddha's recommendations as far as demanding forms of renunciation would seem to have been intended mainly for monastics who want to facilitate their progress through more ascetic practices.

The Mahayana text by Kunzang Pelden encourages rather ascetic attitudes and approaches. I was surprised by some of it, which seemed quite harsh as far as discounting the meaning of affection between people and the importance of relationships for our sense of rootedness in the world.

However, some of this would be part of preparing the mind - i.e., to avoid distractions in order to get in touch with the purity of mind rather than a permanent lifestyle.

 

[~estrella~]

Hi ~estrella~ and welcome to IO
(love the squiggles)
Your quote possibly suggests why the word "Void" is not really used in English books any more I don't think. No doubt its early use was down to poor translation and understanding. Nowadays I think the term/s are empty/emptiness; empty of inherent substance and empty of concepts.
Snoopy.

well I just wanted to point out that in that text you may as well replace "Love" by "Life",

I would say most of the major world religions have an element of renunciation.

it is in fact renunciation of ego's control (attachments are desire to control) over all. "Be in the world but not being of the world" is a key-word. Ascetic life is just a (simple) means (among other means) to overcome Ego's positionalities and surrendering all control to Divinity. So, ascetic life, escaping life is not a goal, but a means.
And as D.Hawkins says: raising your own Level of Consciousness raises the world's Level of Consciousness. Wherever you might be.

 

[Ahanu]

Hey.

He is right. But who teaches this, in ignorance?

After reading Dr. Kennedy's book entitled Skeptics Answered, I decided to look into it.

=)

Depends what exactly you mean by "release from life". If a being lives in a forest are you saying they are released from life in some way?

Yes, right now I would say so. Because a person is a Buddhist, he or she must live in the forest, or any other isolated location, away from society in order to follow his teachings? Also, I have in my mind what Netti-Netti posted. Netti-Netti said:

The Mahayana text by Kunzang Pelden encourages rather ascetic attitudes and approaches. I was surprised by some of it, which seemed quite harsh as far as discounting the meaning of affection between people and the importance of relationships for our sense of rootedness in the world.

To an oberver, it seems that the Buddha is leading his followers into a life of seclusion away from everyday relationships with people. Besides, the Noble Eightfold Path includes Right Speech and Right Livelihood. That means I would have to interact with other people. So if I wanted to follow the Buddha, why in the world would I have to isolate myself from society? No, I remember reading that the Buddha taught his followers to engage in society. Moreover, even if I had the robe and lived in the forest, my bad desires could still follow me there.

What does the "abundantly" bit mean would you say?

Well, the definition of abundantly means "present in great quality; more than adequate; oversufficient; well supplied; abounding." In other words, life is well supplied and abounding. For me, life more abundantly would mean not to live life in extremes, but more of a middle way. For example, I would not want to live in my house if it is full of excessive amounts of trash. Clean it out and you may have a more abundant life in your house, which I am simply using here as a metaphor for the mind. Anger, dispute, jealousy, covetousness, and cruelty, for example, is trash in the mind. Perhaps we could live life more abundantly by regularly taking out the trash.

 

[Snoopy]

Yes, right now I would say so. Because a person is a Buddhist, he or she must live in the forest, or any other isolated location, away from society in order to follow his teachings?

Hi Ahanu,

About 5% of the world population (6-8 billion) is "officially" Buddhist so that would make the forests pretty over-crowded I think

How many did you spot the last time you were in a forest??!!

To an oberver, it seems that the Buddha is leading his followers into a life of seclusion away from everyday relationships with people. Besides, the Noble Eightfold Path includes Right Speech and Right Livelihood. That means I would have to interact with other people. So if I wanted to follow the Buddha, why in the world would I have to isolate myself from society? No, I remember reading that the Buddha taught his followers to engage in society. Moreover, even if I had the robe and lived in the forest, my bad desires could still follow me there.

Exactly, Buddhism is concerned with your mind.

Well, the definition of abundantly means "present in great quality; more than adequate; oversufficient; well supplied; abounding." In other words, life is well supplied and abounding. For me, life more abundantly would mean not to live life in extremes, but more of a middle way. For example, I would not want to live in my house if it is full of excessive amounts of trash. Clean it out and you may have a more abundant life in your house, which I am simply using here as a metaphor for the mind. Anger, dispute, jealousy, covetousness, and cruelty, for example, is trash in the mind. Perhaps we could live life more abundantly by regularly taking out the trash.

Well the teaching of the Buddha is described as "the middle way", and meditation might be described as the dealing with the trash.

s.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Well the teaching of the Buddha is described as "the middle way", and meditation might be described as the dealing with the trash.

Emptying the trash is different from recycling!!

The issue of how desires can be purified can be viewed from the perspective of path. The old Theravada/Mahayana approach is associated with the Path of Renunciation. The idea is to let go of attachments and aversions. It's the old cleansing, dump-the-trash method. The renunciatory ascetic practices recommended by the Buddha for monastics would be an aspect of this approach. The Buddha's rejection of politics is an an example of the otherwordly attitude.

Vajrayana teachings pertain to the Tantra path, which is the Path of Transformation. Here the idea is not so much to get rid of attachments and aversions; it's more to work with them and transform them into something creative and spiritually effective. The method of feeding one's demons would be an example of Tibetan approach. Tsultrim Allione has written a very good book on this called "Feeding your Demons."

In real life they can work together, but it would appear that the Path of Renunciation and the Path of Transformation are rather different in emphasis, if not specific goals and methods. One of the obvious differences is that the Path of Renunciation would tend to be more focused on the individual's practitioner's mind and emotions. By contrast, the Tibetan emphasis on sacred space brings into focus the importance of collective karma and the matrix of energies that comprise our world, which includes regional spirits that influence us interactively.

Tibetan Buddhism has a Mahayana intent of compassion. It's about discovering resources and understanding how to turn life's challenges into beneficial circumstances. It's about transforming oneself and one's daily life. But it's also about transforming one's social/cultural realm, making it more of a spiritual environment to enhance our own karmic destiny as well as the collective.

 

[~estrella~]

Nibbana as Living Experience
(From accesstoinsight.org)

Once Saariputta was asked what happiness there can be when there is no feeling/sensation.12 He explained that the absence of feeling/sensation itself is happiness.13 It is relevant to note here that the Buddha says that he does not speak of happiness only with reference to pleasant feelings/sensations. Wherever there is happiness or pleasure, that he recognizes as happiness or pleasure.

well I see I define "feeling" differently...
I would have defined this supreme happiness as a feeling. As much as all intuitional experiences I would define as "feeling". What word if not this would one imply then? There are no thoughts involved, no emotions, no change or movement, so I would have said "feeling".

 

[Snoopy]

Emptying the trash is different from recycling!!

It is, thankfully then I used the word "dealing"

s.

 

[Netti-Netti]

It is, thankfully then I used the word "dealing"

Clever. Ambiguous terms have some value.

There are no thoughts involved, no emotions, no change or movement, so I would have said "feeling".

Maybe "feeling/sensation" is referring to feelings associated with conditioned experiences... "He explained that the absence of feeling/sensation itself is happiness."13

 

[seattlegal]

Clever. Ambiguous terms have some value.

Yes, they bring out the state of the person's mind who is interpreting them.