I am afraid that you need to learn more about Buddhism - this is completely wrong. Buddhism denies the the real existence of any “self” or “soul”. Enlightnement is the realisation that there is no real self at all.
“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.
(Dhammapada 20 v 7)
Your criticism does not apply to Buddhism.
In dealing with Protestants, one trick I have found helpful is to argue from the point that some things are unavoidable. For example, authority. Protestants claim a book as their sole interpretative authority.
Yet this is impossible because every congregation adds its own unique spin to the book. The book is is not self-interpreting (though it does speak) – hence the thousands of conflicting denominations led by varying interpretive authorities. They say one thing while ignoring the facts.
Christianity takes for granted the fact that we exist. Even if you could logically prove that we do not exist, the logical proof you offer would be evidence of a working intellect – hence a self – hence a soul – hence you exist.
The “Nada nada nada” emptying of Christianity is more like the emptying of two lovers in the act of procreation. There is total self-donation but it is a CO-self-donation. The root for the word “ecstasy” means “to stand outside oneself” – hence the selflessness of Christianity. The procreative aspect also emphasizes another aspect of selflessness in that the act creates a third person – another soul – to which we must devote time and attention.
But even though we give all to our Lover, we also receive. This means that there can be no total self-annihilation otherwise there would be no one to receive the gift. Even though the creation of the third person in this act demands that we relinquish an ego-centric world view to care for him, again the self cannot be totally annihilated because it is the self that is doing the caring.
See how Christianity uses a natural act (procreation) to understand a supernatural reality. We do not believe the natural world is corrupt, but innately good and designed for the purpose of revealing God to us. This is why Catholicism invented the natural sciences.
Just as we understand the moon exists for a purpose, we see that every act of our selflessness receives in equal or greater portion an affirmation of the purpose of our existence. Christian selflessness is intimately tied to our individual purposefulness. No matter how much we give, we cannot negate our existence even if that giving is leads to death.
Every affirmation of purpose comes from the Other and not from within.
The Buddhist may he is destroying the illusion of self but he cannot even put such ideas into words without betraying the underlying reality: "
I am destroying the illusion of
my self ."
One trick to get around this is to “transcend” language and forego the very use of words; focus on secret knowledge that comes through intuitive processes like meditation . But this only buries the same problem deeper. It is undeniably plain that A) there is a person and B) he is destroying the illusion of self.
Once you destroy the significance of the material world, you leave the believer with nothing to work with but his own intellect and soul (however illusory that may be). This is what is known as philosophical Idealism: the only thing we can be sure of is that which is perceived in our minds – all else is illusory.
But then isn’t the practitioner actually relying totally on self to destroy self? Where is his reality? Locked in his own mind! This is not self-destruction but self-affirmation. It is also a process that is completely internal because the affirmation can only come from within (actually EVERYTHING must come from within or it is summarily rejected as not reliably existing).
In more mystical forms of Buddhism, there is a sort of relationship introduced that more closely mirrors the Christian image of exchange.
But not all of these acknowledge the Buddha as the Creator (who would transcend the natural by his supernatural nature). He is more like a Pagan god – tied to this universe. The god of wind cannot be the god of wind if the universe has no wind. His existence depends on the existence of the material world. (There goes that paradox again).
Though there are still some sects which recognize the Buddha as creator (or one of a group of gods), the significance is only tertiary. As we have already discussed, Buddhism does not care about this issue in the first place.
Its goal is largely to affirm through self the meaninglessness of self. This is how Buddhism inevitably makes the self the center of the universe while seeking to take self from the center of the universe.
Therefore I contend if “one” “realizes” anything you are implying a
one who is a
realizer .
(in my opinion).