Is Buddhism logical?

[cholland]

"The Buddha described Nirvana as the perfect peace of the state of mind that is free from craving, anger and other afflictive states (kilesas)." -Wikipedia

Wouldn't Nirvana in itself be a craving?

[Wood-Man]

Here is my understanding of nirvana. All that exists is in continuous flux, continuous change (including us). Our very selves, which may seem at first to be constant presences, are on closer examination being continually destroyed and recreated on a moment-to-moment basis. Buddhists use the term "impermanence" to describe this reality, but that may be too weak a word. Another way to describe this situation is to say there is really no self as we typically think of it - the self is an illusion. However, at any moment there is nevertheless a consciousness and a state of mind. (We are not illusions, only the usual notion of the "self".) If, during any given moment of consciousness, I view my existence as being constant and unchanging, this will give rise to a desire to protect and preserve my "self" and to protect and hold close all those things that support or give sustenance to this self. I am now lost in illusion. These efforts are contrary to the true nature of my own existence and that of everything around me, so I will fail - but only after experiencing great frustration and distress. This is what Buddhists call "suffering." In my efforts to preserve everything, I may cause physical pain and suffering as well as emotional anguish to others around me. Buddhists see the "acting out" of individuals who do "bad things" as simply manifestations of this suffering.

Now, if I could find a way to see the true character of things, adopt a posture in harmony with the truth, and let go of my clinging, I would not experience this suffering. I could enjoy things that give pleasure, but not cling to them and suffer when they disappear. I could work for the future, but not be surprised or let down if it doesn't happen. I could enjoy the moment-to-moment experiences of my existence. With my new clarity of vision, I would inevitably feel love and compassion for others who I see are caught in the illusory cycle. This is my understanding of nirvana.

I see this as a goal that may actually be unreachable. But, it seems to be a good idea to get closer to it. I think it may be unreachable (and hence I suppose I am skeptical about the real existence of nirvana) because evolution has given us a strong in-built sense of self, which would certainly have a survival advantage. I am skeptical that we can completely overcome the innate tendency to get caught up in the illusory sense of self.

[Wood-Man]

Maybe someone would say I didn't really address the question. To be more exactly on-point I'd say that since craving is clinging to things that are impermanent, working toward nirvana is not craving. Buddhism teaches that once you really reach Nirvana you would no longer have any tendency toward clinging because you've seen the true nature of things clearly (sort of like Neo, in The Matrix). So, you would continue in a state of non-clinging indefinitely (until you die, and even then you won't be clinging!) So nirvana is the one thing that is not impermanent and hence wanting it doesn't qualify as craving.

[Baron von Gailhard]

Maybe someone would say I didn't really address the question. To be more exactly on-point I'd say that since craving is clinging to things that are impermanent, working toward nirvana is not craving. Buddhism teaches that once you really reach Nirvana you would no longer have any tendency toward clinging because you've seen the true nature of things clearly (sort of like Neo, in The Matrix). So, you would continue in a state of non-clinging indefinitely (until you die, and even then you won't be clinging!) So nirvana is the one thing that is not impermanent and hence wanting it doesn't qualify as craving.

In other words, Buddha allows craving for permanence to substitute for the craving for impermanence.

[Wood-Man]

I suppose that's true if you want to use "crave" in that way. Typically, when we use the word "crave" we are talking about something that you have had before and is impermanent. If I crave chocolate, maybe I'll find a way to get some, but then it will be gone and I will later crave it again later. Generally, you wouldn't say "I crave world peace." You might say "I am working toward world peace." This word (crave) carries with it a number of meanings from common usage beyond those in the dictionary, which is why it might seem humorous or unworthy to "crave" nirvana. On the other hand, I still wonder if reaching nirvana would be about as easy as stating the exact value of Pi in decimal form!

[Baron von Gailhard]

On the other hand, I still wonder if reaching nirvana would be about as easy as stating the exact value of Pi in decimal form!

Yes, and no, for the same reasons as Christianity, assuming that are comparable in that they both aiming for the same end.

No. because Christ says

Mat 11:30 For my yoke [is] easy, and my burden is light.

Yes, because God says:

Deu 6:5 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength.

Paradoxical.

[proxious]

the term logical is a relative one

[cnorman18]

Coming in a bit late on this one, but here's my 2 cents:

I always thought that the central insight of Buddhism was "logical" enough, but fatuous and a bit sophomoric. I mean that literally; it's an idea worthy of a high-school sophomore.

"Hmmm, all unhappiness is caused by WANTING things and not HAVING them. Ooo! Ooo! I've got it! Just don't WANT anything! Then everything will be wonderful!"

This was obviously conceived by someone who never heard of Abraham Maslow. "Not wanting anything" is about as practical an idea for humans as not breathing. There are some wonderful things about Buddhism -- I have studied it in some depth, including a course in it taught by a Buddhist professor when I was in seminary -- but the core idea isn't one of them. In my humble opinion, of course.

[Wood-Man]

That's not what I understand as its central insight. To me, it is the concept of anata, or non-self. Or, you could say it is the three marks of existence: non-self, non-permanence and universal suffering.

[cnorman18]

That's not what I understand as its central insight. To me, it is the concept of anata, or non-self. Or, you could say it is the three marks of existence: non-self, non-permanence and universal suffering.

Okay, I can dig that; but it still seems to me that trying to approach existence from a point of view that negates the existence of the self -- don't misunderstand me, I believe that myself; that which we call the "self" or the "ego" is, in my own experience, the intersection of memory and perception and does not exist per se -- is about as practical as approaching day-to-day existence with the conviction that one does not need to breathe. Philosophical acceptance of universal suffering is one thing, but practical acceptance of it is quite another, and it is in that precise area that Buddhism as an institution seems to me to have failed enormously in the civilizations where it has been dominant. As has been noted by better minds than mine, if one believes that people suffer because of sins committed in past lives or because they are destined to suffer, one is not particularly motivated to do anything ABOUT it.... and in Eastern societies, not much is done. Poverty in the US can still entail owning a car, a color TV, and a Twitter account; poverty in Calcutta entails living on a sidewalk with a rag to cover one's genitals. Placid acceptance can be great for the one who meditates, but doesn't do much in the area of community.

[Wood-Man]

I think you are conflating Hindu ideas about reincarnation with Buddhist ideas. With no self, there is no entity to be punished or rewarded in subsequent reincarnations as with Hindu rebirth. So, the concept of karma becomes more a manifestation of interconnectedness and oneness than a mechanism for individual cultivation. I do think this mixing of Hindu and Buddhist thought is widespread in Asia, though.

I agree about the impracticality of abandoning the sense of self. I doubt true nirvana is attainable. But, the the awareness if the illusory nature of the self can be a source of peace. It allows you to see that whatever mental pain you are subjecting yourself to in a given moment is your own doing.