I'm trying to understand Buddhism and I'm still unclear on a few things.If there is no god,no self,no spirit world,and no reincarnation what is the ultimate point of Buddhism? It sounds to me as it's materialistic atheism clothed in elaborate eastern garb.Is the goal just to live this life as pain free and as peaceful as possible? Does it fit into a more grand scheme or is that about it.
(please forgive any arrogance or shortcomings, as I'm still working on my weaknesses, including writing skills.)
From a certain perspective the Buddhist end-game is to terminate the ultimate/deepest root cause of all suffering, permanently. Quite different from "just to live this life as pain free and as peaceful as possible". Though the two might appear similar.
In my understanding there are "spirit worlds", Buddhism is very detailed and descriptive about them. And there is reincarnation, but exactly how that is understood and explained can vary.
To 'live just for this life alone' is a mistake Buddhism is often warning against.
The saying "no this, no that, no etc. etc." sounds like a verbal technique used by Zen schools. It shouldn't be taken too literally. Zen is very playful with words.
As I see it:
The Theravada school emphasizes practice leading to direct experience rather than trying to explain everything conceptually. While the Mahayana and Vajrayana also adhere to 'practice/direct experience', but go the extra step of attempting to "paint" the grand scheme cosmology in various creative ways. As well as using exotic techniques.
In general in Buddhism, the grand scheme cosmological portrayals are seen as just that, portrayals. Buddhism stresses practice leading to direct experience of reality. Know the truth of things directly through the experience of the full awakening of your potential. Reality/truth cannot be known through words and concepts alone. Practice wholeheartedly and experience the end-game directly.
I consider myself pretty serious about Buddha-Dharma. In my belief the end game is sublime, alive, vibrant, diverse and lacking nothing. It is the best we can imagine of the theistic religions' heavens, though it is still beyond even the best of imaginations and efforts to describe it. In the simplest and most practical sense the Buddhist end game is without suffering, without Klesha
(1).
Which is the meaning of Nirvana:the blowing out of klesha, as a flame is blown out.
If one presents a descriptive of heaven, whatever descriptive there is will be limited by that description. If one simply says that heaven is a place where there is no suffering, that leaves it open for infinite possibilities.
Since overcoming self centered craving is an essential aspect of Buddhism, imagining fantastic heaven realms can become an obstacle, even if they are meant to be a motivation.
The idea's of 'no this and no that' etc. can be misleading.
As I understand it:
No-self. First of all 'self' is not used here in exactly the usual everyday sense we use it. So it's necessary to be flexible and try to see what it being pointed to when using the word 'self'.
'There is no-self' means that no sentient being or object is just 1 single thing. Everything is composed of many elements. When just the right collection of specific elements comes together and connect/cooperate in just the right way, sophisticated objects and intelligent entities appear.
All elements are interdependent. Everything relies on it's relationship and connection with everything else to exist. There is no single "thing" that is disconnected or exists somehow independently from everything else.
No thing or entity will always stay the same, there is no fixed unchanging "self". All appearances of selves and objects are composed of many other parts.
That we humans habitually see things as being in some absolute fixed single-object state is a fundamental cause of many of our problems, attachments, conflicts, etc.
Emptiness, in one of it's many facets
(as emptiness itself is also empty; meaning it is not just 1 single thing) means that all sentient beings and objects are empty of having some sort of fixed, inherent or disconnected, single-object "self". 'It is empty' means: 'that' is not the way the thing itself exists, nor is there some thing inside the thing that exists like that. It is empty of 'those' ways of existing.
Emptiness in my understanding also means:
The ultimate relativity and relationality of all things.
All things rely on open space in order to appear.
As a human I am empty of being fixed in many of my ways of being. Such as: I can change who I am, my personality, a criminal can become a saint.
Emptiness points to infinite possibility. A painters canvas that is clear and white. An empty cup is open and able to contain so many things, but a full cup is holding only whatever it is holding at that moment. A cup holding water is not water itself (water is not it's ultimate essence), while it is currently holding water it is still capable of being emptied and thus open to hold anything again.
In Buddhism Emptiness is used as a powerful medicine for many ailments.
Personally I would say there is a soul, but such a soul cannot be understood by certain aspects or processes of the mind alone. The soul must be experienced. Understanding the soul comes through aspects of the mind that are dormant in most of us. And much of what is said about the soul is misleading.
The idea of a being that is the number one biggest and best and overcomes all the others is a very human and mundane idea. It leads to conflict. It comes from ego and power desires.
My understanding of God through Buddhism: The "universe"
(meaning: all of existence, all beings and things) was not created by an all powerful entity. It's not exactly accurate to say there is an absolute beginning point to everything where somehow before that point nothing existed anywhere.
This is where things get esoteric and cannot be very well understood by the ordinary conceptual mind and words. Many truths are understood in a way other than words/concepts. The rigidly linear mental process is just a small part of the mental processes the mind is capable of. Ideas such as eternal and ultimate-beginning are rigid and narrow. They are misleading and tend toward conflict, internally and externally.
Also, there is no entity that is omnipotent, in that she/he is all powerful, beyond all laws of nature and capable of doing anything she/he wants at will, no matter what.
These two qualities are what we often think of that define God, especially in the mono-theistic systems. Created the Universe. All Powerful.
Buddha did not reject that there is a huge range of ways of existing. Many realms we do not see with the eyes in our ordinary state. Many forms of beings that we have not seen or have forgotten about. Within this range are beings we can call Gods. And within the God realms there are such high and powerful beings that live for so long that they sometimes claim to be God and even mistakenly believe they are God, and even forget they are not eternal. Such beings are able to create things, even whole planets, solar systems, universes. But such creations are not the ultimate first creation of everything.
There are beings who are omniscient. Capable of knowing/understanding anything. Able to see all of past, present and future. Free from all mis-perceptions, confusion and conflict. Able to look into and understand the mind of any being. With God like powers, capable of extraordinary miracles. Though various Buddhist schools do define omniscience in different ways.
(1) The Buddhist term kilesa (Pali; Sanskrit: kleśa or klesha) is typically translated as "defilement," "affliction" or "poison." In early Buddhist texts the kilesas generally referred to mental states which temporarily cloud the mind and manifest in unskillful actions. Over time the kilesas, and in particular the "Three Poisons" of greed, hatred, and delusion, came to be seen as the very roots of samsaric existence.
From Wikipedia article: Kleśā_(Buddhism)
---
Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "What do you think, monks: Which are more numerous, the few simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the simsapa forest?"
"The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the simsapa forest are more numerous."
"In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.
"And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them.
"Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'"
"Simsapa Sutta: The Simsapa Leaves" (SN 56.31), translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.
Access to Insight
This could also be seen by looking at the whole thing, spinning, where there is no distinction.
