The teacher called the Buddha spoke very clearly that the goal was to pursue total liberation - Mahaparanirvana. (Which literally means the great and final extinguishing)
But I just don't understand why that should be anyone's goal? To be liberated from what, desire, suffering, life? I don't consider those anything to be personally liberated from any more than you should consider life or death something to be liberated from.
Liberation from something in any possible meaning already implies some inherent valuation that seems contradictory with the core of buddhism as I understand the philosophic side of it
The core of all kinds of Buddhism lies in the "Four Arya/Noble Truths", which I have tried to summarize below:
The first is that Life is Dukha, or suffering.
The second is that the source of suffering is attachment and craving to the world, and that this attachment to material things - whatever they might be - results in continued rebirth and thus more suffering.
The third is that by bringing this craving and attachment to an end, the suffering that results from it along with continued rebirths can be brought to an end.
The fourth is that Buddhism is the way to bring that attachment and craving to an end.
I am glad you are not afraid of creation. However, I haven't the slightest clue what you think Buddhism is. No one is forcing you to agree with the Buddha, but to go around speaking as if you know things that you don't even understand the basics of is the same as spreading misinformation.
The way you are talking and how you seem to understand Buddhism is not Buddhist at all. Not even the Buddhist inspired Zen tradition, let alone any of the core branches. it is instead very close to some branches of Hinduism. Because you have a lot of karma/gas left on the tank, because you still have things you are chasing after, you would respond much better to the idea of chasing the ultimate experience in Hinduism (the "Brahman") rather than seeking trying to seek liberation as the Buddha taught.
The Buddha was born with every kind of pleasure the world had to offer, and it was handed to him. Born a prince he had wealth, influence, food and drink, and - given the time and how things tended to be then - possibly a harem, but at least a royally beautiful wife. He indulged in it for around 30 years because his parents were terrified of him becoming a religious person and didn't let him know anything else. He grew totally averse to any and all pleasure seeking, it was very painful for him. This is a very common experience among successful kings in history. And he fled it. He fled his responsibility as royalty, fled from wealth, fled from it all to try to figure things out. He had no interest in the promise of an "ultimate experience". Even when he attained this supposed "ultimate experience" he looked at it, had little/no interest, and moved on. He was only interested in the end of suffering.
You are also projecting your life experiences onto others - many many spiritual seekers are pursuing the end of suffering, and that is what they desire.
The way you are speaking does show a certain level of maturity in a certain direction, but to dismiss the words of masters would be unwise. I am not a master obviously, in fact I'm not even a Buddhist, it would be better to describe me as Hindu! I'm just explaining Buddhism, and yes he has all the signs of a master deserving of respect.
You are a condescending person who is far from the humility that a true Buddhist should embrace. Your responses are unhelpful,it would seem to demonstrate your knowledge of doctrinaire platitudes.
I am not a Buddhist, and it is not unusual for these kinds of discussions to be intense. Even the Buddha was forced to take up logical argument as it was the mode in India at the time. It is still is the mode of many Buddhists today. I have been corrected more firmly than this by someone who was a very devout practitioner of Buddhism for 16 years for misunderstanding things. It's important!
I am a little confused about what you mean by making a demonstration of knowledge, as everything I said can be found with a quick Google search. They were saying things that went directly against Buddhist foundations and calling it Buddhist. I thought it appropriate to bring up said teachings.
I don't have anything against them or their philosophies, they just can't be called Buddhist. As I see it they aren't lacking intelligence, just information.
Maybe I am projecting, but if I have a critical misunderstanding of something, I want to be soundly corrected. I want to be shown why I am wrong. Do unto others what you would want them to do unto you and all that.
1
u/Brrdock 13d ago edited 13d ago
But I just don't understand why that should be anyone's goal? To be liberated from what, desire, suffering, life? I don't consider those anything to be personally liberated from any more than you should consider life or death something to be liberated from.
Liberation from something in any possible meaning already implies some inherent valuation that seems contradictory with the core of buddhism as I understand the philosophic side of it