No Buddha Now

M. Steingass —  24.10.11

The overarching goal of all Buddhism is to end all suffering. A being knowing all causes and all effects is therefore, per Buddhist definition, obliged to act in a way that will bring enlightenment, i.e. the end of suffering, to another being. The latter then must act in the same way. What ensues is an exponential increasing number of beings causing the end of suffering of the unenlightened. As the latter is a finite quantity, there will be no more suffering being at some point in time. Therefore we can prove the theory of existence of an enlightened being wrong if there is no enlightenment in a finite amount of time. As an enlightened being knows all effects it should know how to cause enlightenment in an unenlightened being in the shortest possible amount of time, because there should no unnecessary suffering.  Therefore the remaining time to the extinction of all suffering will tend to be near zero. From this follows the enlightenment of all beings should have already occurred or should occur in the next moment. If it does not, the existence of an enlightened being is refuted.

5 Antworten zu No Buddha Now

  1. 

    Very nice! Your essay shows that
    (a) common sense notion of enlightenment among the devote is highly mistaken
    (b) enlightenment does not involve what you say
    (c) enlightenment never occured
    (d) you have misread scripture

    Or some combination of those!

  2. 

    Or e) not enlightened enough to understand enlightenment

  3. 

    Damn, wouldn’t you know that I wouldn’t see that possibility! :-)

  4. 

    Or several of your premises are mistaken.

    You say that enlightenment is ending ALL suffering, but unless you define „suffering“ I’ll have to take the broad definition, and then disagree with you; that’s not an accurate definition of enlightenment.

    You also seem to be saying that an enlightened being is obligated to end all suffering for other beings, but there is no obligation to do anything; there might be the will to do what one can, but no obligation (the Buddha debated whether he should or not — why would he debate this if there is no option to just go off and be free of dukkha alone?).

    You also incorrectly assume that an enlightened being knows everything (a point I’d disagree with, but even if it was true) and that knowing everything means an enlightened person can DO everything. Maybe an enlightened person KNOWS it is not possible to enlighten everyone.

    All that you have succeeded in doing is refuting your own definition of enlightenment.

  5. 

    Hello Linda, thanks a lot for taking your time to proof me wrong.

    Actually the whole thing was a joke. I don’t have a clue what all those buddhist terms mean, „enlightenment“, „suffering“, „the end of suffering“. There are a lot of people around who know them or at least say so. Personally I doubt that there is some meaning in the buddhist word enlightenment beyond a finger pointing to mere mirage. But I think you are enlightened enough to know this.

    Sorry for stealing your time.