Project Reason is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit foundation devoted to spreading scientific knowledge and secular values in society. The foundation draws on the talents of prominent and creative thinkers in a wide range of disciplines to encourage critical thinking and erode the influence of dogmatism, superstition, and bigotry in our world.
Such a controversial title!
The content is probably much more subtle:
I have being studying Buddhism in the Teravada tradition for the last few months. I came across it as a recommendation from Erich Fromm’s books (has like a billion books all of them highly recommended) and when I first looked into to it it seemed to simply make alot of sense.
Many wonderful Ideas and such a logical and moral attitude towards life!
Meditation on Vipassana really changed my life. The way I experience things and they ease of letting go of the nasty things in my head. Wonderful!
I had several glimpses where I saw things “as they are” and really understood what it means that all things come to be and seize to be, everything is dependent on everything else, nothing has a meaning of its own, I am nothing, true compassion and so forth. It all made perfect sense.
I felt like im progressing very fast, too fast. My teachers said that it’s nothing to worry about and these glimpses disappear as they come. True enough all of them disappeared and reappeared at what seemed to not be so much my control.
I was filled with an enormous love and an overwhelming feeling of gratitude for being alive. Awesome.
My teacher called it a “spiritual birth”.
I, on the other hand, was very ambivalent. My ambivalence turned to fear when I caught a thought going through my head: “This fortunate thing happened to me as a result of my ever improving Kamma!”
Dude!
In empirical reality things don’t happen because of Karma. It is a backwards and false idea about the physical world! It may be true about the psychological world but in reality it is obviously false. It can only make sense if another silly idea is thrown to the mix which is reincarnation. Again, logically, there is no reason to assume that reincarnation occurs.
So what happened next is that I started re-realising that there is no absolute truth. There is obviously no right way of seeing reality.
The wonderful glimpses of awareness I had are not glimpses into the real world. My mind made this trick thingy which made me more aware of things around me and of some of their specific properties (Annica, Dukkha, Annata). It is not necessarily a favorable state.
I asked my teachers what would be better, a lonely, sad man, who has never walked the noble path but found a cure to cancer or the same man who “saw the light” and dedicated his life to helping others by meditating and teaching Dhamma.
They needed very little time to think before they answered that the Dhamma teacher is the preferred guy.
I am sorry but it just makes no sense. I would rather everyone to be moderately or even not that happy but that there will be no hunger and disease.
Giving a different answer is imposing false ideas on reality.
Buddhism is wonderful. It gives us many wonderful tools to see reality in an interesting fashion and simply makes us more happy and compassionate BUT it might, like all other religions, make us impose silly notions on reality which might contradict logic.
Anyone disagrees?
Such a controversial title!
The content is probably much more subtle:
I have being studying Buddhism in the Teravada tradition for the last few months. I came across it as a recommendation from Erich Fromm’s books (has like a billion books all of them highly recommended) and when I first looked into to it it seemed to simply make alot of sense.
Many wonderful Ideas and such a logical and moral attitude towards life!
Meditation on Vipassana really changed my life. The way I experience things and they ease of letting go of the nasty things in my head. Wonderful!
I had several glimpses where I saw things “as they are” and really understood what it means that all things come to be and seize to be, everything is dependent on everything else, nothing has a meaning of its own, I am nothing, true compassion and so forth. It all made perfect sense.
I felt like im progressing very fast, too fast. My teachers said that it’s nothing to worry about and these glimpses disappear as they come. True enough all of them disappeared and reappeared at what seemed to not be so much my control.
I was filled with an enormous love and an overwhelming feeling of gratitude for being alive. Awesome.
My teacher called it a “spiritual birth”.
I, on the other hand, was very ambivalent. My ambivalence turned to fear when I caught a thought going through my head: “This fortunate thing happened to me as a result of my ever improving Kamma!”
Dude!
In empirical reality things don’t happen because of Karma. It is a backwards and false idea about the physical world! It may be true about the psychological world but in reality it is obviously false. It can only make sense if another silly idea is thrown to the mix which is reincarnation. Again, logically, there is no reason to assume that reincarnation occurs.
So what happened next is that I started re-realising that there is no absolute truth. There is obviously no right way of seeing reality.
The wonderful glimpses of awareness I had are not glimpses into the real world. My mind made this trick thingy which made me more aware of things around me and of some of their specific properties (Annica, Dukkha, Annata). It is not necessarily a favorable state.
I asked my teachers what would be better, a lonely, sad man, who has never walked the noble path but found a cure to cancer or the same man who “saw the light” and dedicated his life to helping others by meditating and teaching Dhamma.
They needed very little time to think before they answered that the Dhamma teacher is the preferred guy.
I am sorry but it just makes no sense. I would rather everyone to be moderately or even not that happy but that there will be no hunger and disease.
Giving a different answer is imposing false ideas on reality.
Buddhism is wonderful. It gives us many wonderful tools to see reality in an interesting fashion and simply makes us more happy and compassionateBUT it might, like all other religions, make us impose silly notions on reality which might contradict logic.
Anyone disagrees?
This is what matters (in bold). All of the other notions and commotions that Buddhists make is irrelevant. Ask yourself in what way does it make us more happy and compassionate? Upon answering that question, you extract that knowledge and incorporate it into your own life however and whichever way you deem appropriate, as long as, of course, it follows your own reasoning. The only way is ‘your way’, and when teachers, be them Buddhists or Christians or Jews, attempt to lay out a path for you to ‘believe’ in then I myself pay no heed to them. The Buddha taught us self-reliance; many people try to say that the Buddha is the same as a Jesus or Mohammed, when in truth this is not so. Jesus and Mohammed teach you to take refuge in God, while the Buddha outlines yourself as that refuge. It’s a matter of self-reliance, in that you are the maker of your own path.
I found this ironically funny: “So what happened next is that I started re-realising that there is no absolute truth. There is obviously no right way of seeing reality.” This is what I realize, and I only realized it when I read a passage of the Buddha’s. Prior to my discovery of the Buddha’s philosophy, I was in a never-ending search for some ‘truth’ to reality, whether it be ‘god does not exist’ or ‘god does exist’, I just wanted an answer. It was by chance that I stumbled upon the following passage of the Buddha:
Suppose, Maunkyaputa, a man were wounded by an arrow thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions brought a surgeon to treat him. The man would say: “I will not let the surgeon pull out the arrow until I know the name and clan of the man who wounded me; whether the bow that wounded me was long bow or crossbow; whether the arrow that wounded me was hoof-tipped or curved or barbed.
All this would still not be known to that man and meanwhile he would die. So too, Malunkyaputta, if anyone should say: “I will not lead the noble life under the Buddha until the Buddha declares to me whether the world is eternal or not eternal, finite or infinite; whether the soul is the same as or different from the body; whether an awakened one ceases to exist after death or not,” that would still remain undeclared by the Buddha and meanwhile that person would die.
Interpret it as you may, but what this made me realize is: there is no truth. For as long as you and I live, no truth will be revealed to us like a lightning bolt zapping down from the sky. The Buddha understood this, and instead of asking you to follow some proclaimed truth, he instead tells us that despite whatever truth there may be we will die nonetheless. In retrospect, my choice in matters of the metaphysical is utter irrelevance. The Buddha tells us this:
Do not be satisfied by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This monk is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves: ‘These things are wholesome, blameless, skillful, commended by the wise, and that when adopted and carried out, lead to welfare and happiness,” then you should practice and abide in them.
In other words, the Buddha capitalizes on his point by saying this: “You cannot travel the path until you have become the path itself.” What the Buddha says, or what your teacher may say, is not in my opinion “the path.” The path is that road which you yourself create through the treacherous woods of ‘life’, and in the end, it’s whatever floats your boat man:
“As the Buddha was dying,
Ananda asked
who would be their teacher after death.
He replied to his disciple:
‘Be lamps unto yourselves.
Be refuges unto yourselves.
Take yourself no external refuge.
Hold fast to the truth as a lamp.
Hold fast to the truth as a refuge.
Look not for a refuge in anyone besides yourselves.
And those, Ananda, who either now or after I am dead,
Shall be a lamp unto themselves,
Shall betake themselves as no external refuge,
But holding fast to the truth as their lamp,
Holding fast to the truth as their refuge,
Shall not look for refuge to anyone else besides themselves,
It is they who shall reach to the very topmost height;
But they must be anxious to learn.’”
The truth is you. You are the truth. I see no faulty logic in that, and I tend to agree with it.
For what it’s worth, I do disagree with your teachers (meaning I agree with you).
Yawn….Buddhism, another boring ass diatribe on how to view the world and find happiness…..
We are both here GAD for the sole purpose of eroding bigotry and encouraging critical thinking. Is this not a diatribe? If it’s not, then I don’t consider Buddhism a diatribe. In fact, the Buddha’s message is the same message you are trying to get across to believers. Two hundred years ago, I wonder if they will refer to us as some diatribe who tried to change the way people think. If we ultimately fail in our task, then we will come across in the exact same way you are viewing Buddhism.
Never the less I still think that the road takes you to a certain place. Directs you to a certain place. Some place which is not purely intellectual.
It’s not even mostly intellectual. That is frightening.
Obviously no one says to stop thinking but doubt is considered as one of the five set backs (Nivarana) while walking the path.
I fear that there might be a sort of loosening grip on rationality because frankly its not considered very important. It’s even considered as an interference in some ways…
The question we should as is not where the Buddah claims to direct you but where you might get while following the path. I truely think that you may reach places which can only be reached with a losening grip on reality and rationality.
My teachers’ comment is, I think, the perfect example.
The problem with all religions is that they were concived long long ago.
Long ago people were irrational. Logic, math, science and true understanding of empirical reality are new discoveries which did not exist in the time of Buddah/Jesus/Muhamad/Mishna.
Therefore I would reccomand to excercise caution and not overly trust the Buddah or anyone else no matter how “true” what they say feels.
Truth is not something you feel nor is it something you know. The truth is what’s been empirically tested enough times so that you can relay on it to happen again.
Anything else does not deserve the definition of truth.
And this, for instance, is not a conversion one can make with religious people no matter what religion they belong to. This reasoning simply eludes persons of very strong faith. That is frightening.
lta: I asked my teachers what would be better, a lonely, sad man, who has never walked the noble path but found a cure to cancer or the same man who “saw the light” and dedicated his life to helping others by meditating and teaching Dhamma.
This is a false dichotomy. Why can’t the scientist be a cheerful, contented guy? Why can’t the enlightened fellow be the one who cures cancer?
Never the less I still think that the road takes you to a certain place. Directs you to a certain place. Some place which is not purely intellectual.
It’s not even mostly intellectual. That is frightening.
Obviously no one says to stop thinking but doubt is considered as one of the five set backs (Nivarana) while walking the path.
I fear that there might be a sort of loosening grip on rationality because frankly its not considered very important. It’s even considered as an interference in some ways…
The question we should as is not where the Buddah claims to direct you but where you might get while following the path. I truely think that you may reach places which can only be reached with a losening grip on reality and rationality.
The Buddha taught utter self-control. If one had control over their senses, their emotions, how would this be a hindrance?
The problem with all religions is that they were concived long long ago.
I’d like to make you think for a bit. I feel that you will understand what others cannot, and the reason why is because you made a similar point yourself:
More so Israel is the land of the Jewish people. Not the Jewish religion, but the Jewish RACE.
How many people actually think of Judaism as anything but a religion? How many people, when you tell them you are Jewish, assume this means that you believe in God and follow the Torah? How many people consider Israel the land of the Jewish race, rather than the religion? My guesses for these questions are: hardly any, most people, very few. Considering these answers, while most people don’t know, it’s obvious that to be Jewish can mean different things for different people. How much trouble do you have trying to explain to others this seemingly simple concept? I imagine much trouble. Now, I’d like to ask you a question as a Buddhist: Does Buddhism have to be a religion?
Long ago people were irrational. Logic, math, science and true understanding of empirical reality are new discoveries which did not exist in the time of Buddah/Jesus/Muhamad/Mishna.
I agree 100%. The thing is though, Buddhism is all about human nature and the mind. I hope you’ll agree that it hasn’t changed much. Besides, I’m aware of no truth assertions within Buddhism (i.e. no “the Earth is flat”, “homos=bad”, etc).
Therefore I would reccomand to excercise caution and not overly trust the Buddah or anyone else no matter how “true” what they say feels.
I agree with this statement. I’m happy to tell you that the Buddha does too:
Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.
Truth is not something you feel nor is it something you know. The truth is what’s been empirically tested enough times so that you can relay on it to happen again.
Anything else does not deserve the definition of truth.
And this, for instance, is not a conversion one can make with religious people no matter what religion they belong to. This reasoning simply eludes persons of very strong faith. That is frightening.
Hmmm…I think you misunderstand. Buddhism is there for a step on a staircase, not the whole staircase itself. The staircase is the ‘self’ (atman/atta), because that’s all that the Buddha taught. It’s not a truth about reality, but a truth about the self. You can’t empirically test the self, unless you are the ‘self’ in question. In other words (I realize it may look confusing or as if I’m doing circular logic), who you are Ita, what’s human inside of you, your mind, thinking process, all of this is unique to you alone. Therefore, it’s solely up to you to be the tester, and what you are testing is “how to best deal with suffering.” That is Buddhism in a nut shell, and while I realize how one may have the utmost tendency to label Buddhism as a religion, it’s really not unless you make you one. This is why I used your example, in that you are the Jewish people, and not necessarily the Jewish religion. Consider it an ‘optional’ religion, just as Buddhism is.
Long ago people were irrational. Logic, math, science and true understanding of empirical reality are new discoveries which did not exist in the time of Buddah/Jesus/Muhamad/Mishna.
You are making an error in equating rationality with logic, math, and science.
I asked my teachers what would be better, a lonely, sad man, who has never walked the noble path but found a cure to cancer or the same man who “saw the light” and dedicated his life to helping others by meditating and teaching Dhamma.
They needed very little time to think before they answered that the Dhamma teacher is the preferred guy.
I am sorry but it just makes no sense. I would rather everyone to be moderately or even not that happy but that there will be no hunger and disease.
Giving a different answer is imposing false ideas on reality.
Humbly, I would ask if you took the time to contemplate the nuances of the question and your teachers response before or after the encounter in question?
The man who finds a cure for cancer, if he knows nothing about suffering, right action, right intention, right action, and so forth, may not care to share his discovery with the world and end up leaving many to suffer needlessly. He might be overcome with greed and only willing to share the cure with those who ply him with the things he desires. He could choose to willfully withhold the cure from his enemies.
Should he choose to practice charity and freely give his treasure to those in need, he could assuage the suffering of a huge number of patients and their families, which would likely make them quite happy for some time. That does not mean, however, that they would have learned anything from his example about how to avoid suffering or find lasting happiness (contentment).
If I’m not mistaken, Buddhism is about learning to discipline, or quiet, the mind so that one might be best able to detect and cope with reality and detach oneself from false or harmful ideas and behaviors that lead to needless suffering . The person who can guide other to this path is not “better” than the man who can cure cancer, but he is in the position to help a good deal more people as what he offers is a way for them to find their own way past clinging.
Imagine the world without cancer.
Now imagine the world where people have learned to master their impulses and stop clinging.
Gonna have to side with your teachers on this one. Sorry!
Thank you all!
This is all very productive for me :D
You all make very interesting and valid points. I would like to clarify a few of the things that I mean:
Buddahism does not present it self as a tool that goes against logic. There is nothing (that I know of) in the Suttas that says you should lose your logic.
BUT I still think that excessive and imbalanced practice MIGHT lead to irrationality.
This would be very interesting to research.
Can a belief system make you less rational? I think so. Can Buddahism do so? I’m not so sure.
I’m really a huge fan of buddha and especially the more refined ways that managed to travel to the west but one cannot ignore that most buddahists do indeed believe in an afterlife. That is irrational. Does it correlate? I don’t know. Just one more thing to ponder upon. ^_^
About the specific issue of the scientist/monk thing:
The whole discussion came about after I heard the story of Matthieu Ricard who was a very promising biologist who became a tibetian monk and the personnal traslator of the Dalhi-Lama. Supposing this man would have used all his enery to cure cancer instead of monking?
Yes, this case is not so cut and dry but it’s not hard to imagine that a different young and promising biologist who could cure cancer but would rather go and sit in a cave for 20 years, than get enlightened and teach a bunch of people some stuff that will make them more content.
I would rather the whole world to be less content and happy but that there will be no hunger and aids.
Yes, obviously one can be a householder and only use buddahism as a tool for his happyness. That is a good question: Maybe it’s not such a good idea that everyone would be buddahists? Yes, there will be no wars and the world would be a much friendlier place but there would also be no internet because people would rather hug each other and farm crops rather than solving practical problems.
I think this can be elaborated wonderfully through an anecdote:
Newton, the dude who reinvented the whole of physics and mathematics and made humanity leap hundreds of years ahead, probably one of the smartest people ever was asked: “How come you’re so smart?” His answer was: “I see no difference between me and other people except for when I’m given a problem I can’t go to sleep before I solve it.”
Does that sound like a happy guy? Someone free from attachments? No. He was also half crazy and a nasty and dreadful person altogether.
Nontheless we owe him SO MUCH.
A Buddahist newton would be much less productive.
Just another something to meditate on..
Buddahism does not present it self as a tool that goes against logic. There is nothing (that I know of) in the Suttas that says you should lose your logic.
BUT I still think that excessive and imbalanced practice MIGHT lead to irrationality. This would be very interesting to research.
Can a belief system make you less rational? I think so. Can Buddahism do so? I’m not so sure.
An excess of anything can be detrimental.. drinking, eating, breathing, not breathing, resting, moving. It’s also possible to harm yourself by consuming (drinking, eating and breathing in) too much information (which is sustenance for the mind) without allowing time for contemplation (resting and digesting) to take place. The man who overfills himself with anything pollutes mind, body, or both. Isn’t this the reason why Buddha’s system is called “The Middle Way”?
Ita - 25 August 2010 03:29 AM
I’m really a huge fan of buddha and especially the more refined ways that managed to travel to the west but one cannot ignore that most buddahists do indeed believe in an afterlife. That is irrational. Does it correlate? I don’t know. Just one more thing to ponder upon. ^_^
Belief in afterlife seems to stem from a misunderstanding of reincarnation and/or attachment to life (which is normal). If I’ve understood correctly, Buddha taught that reincarnation is a continuation of mind in the same body, meaning that the old self dies and is reborn when new impressions enter the stream of consciousness resulting in new thought and will to action or inaction.
Ita - 25 August 2010 03:29 AM
I would rather the whole world to be less content and happy but that there will be no hunger and aids.
Does wanting this cause you suffering? Does not getting your way in this cause you suffering?
Ita - 25 August 2010 03:29 AM
Yes, obviously one can be a householder and only use buddahism as a tool for his happyness. That is a good question: Maybe it’s not such a good idea that everyone would be buddahists? Yes, there will be no wars and the world would be a much friendlier place but there would also be no internet because people would rather hug each other and farm crops rather than solving practical problems.
Can you show me where Buddha taught that one should refrain from contributing their talents to the community and simply go around hugging one another and raising crops? Can’t say that I’ve come across anything that teaches one to disconnect from reality in that way, save for the times it’s recommended that one withdraws in order to meditate.
Ita - 25 August 2010 03:29 AM
I think this can be elaborated wonderfully through an anecdote: Newton, the dude who reinvented the whole of physics and mathematics and made humanity leap hundreds of years ahead, probably one of the smartest people ever was asked: “How come you’re so smart?” His answer was: “I see no difference between me and other people except for when I’m given a problem I can’t go to sleep before I solve it.” Does that sound like a happy guy? Someone free from attachments? No. He was also half crazy and a nasty and dreadful person altogether.
Nontheless we owe him SO MUCH. A Buddahist newton would be much less productive. Just another something to meditate on..
The quote of his does sound like a happy guy.. one who realizes that problems that plague the mind should be solved, not swept aside. His turmoil (half crazy, nasty, and dreadful) wasn’t caused by the need to resolve problems, it was caused by his lack of mental discipline. I propose that Buddhism, well practiced, may have helped him see his way past his own issues and produce an even more disciplined mind through which more valuable ideas might have entered into the stream of consciousness. I would encourage you read more about Newton’s life. Do you know that he wrote more about superstitious religious ideas than science? He believed in the End Times, he believed in an Intelligent Designer who intervenes in the natural world to makes things work this way or that. This is not to discredit him in the least, as he is truly a hero of thought, but he suffered the same kind of things we all do.. blindness brought on by false impressions, emotional attachment to his own perceptions, and lack of self-control in the treatment of self and others.
[ Edited: 25 August 2010 11:58 AM by stardust91977 ]
Buddahism does not present it self as a tool that goes against logic. There is nothing (that I know of) in the Suttas that says you should lose your logic. BUT I still think that excessive and imbalanced practice MIGHT lead to irrationality.
In his first teaching ever, the Buddha spoke thus (this is the first thing the Buddha said):
“One gone forth does not pursue dead ends. Which two? Infatuation (attachment/obsession), which is vulgar, uncivilized and meaningless. And mortification, which is painful, uncivilized and meaningless.”
“I have awoken to a middle path that does not lead to dead ends. It is a path that generates vision and awareness. It leads to tranquility, insight, awakening and release. It has eight branches: appropriate vision, thought, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness and concentration.”
In my opinion, once one reaches a dead end, that is irrationality.
Can a belief system make you less rational? I think so. Can Buddahism do so? I’m not so sure.
Any ideology, whether political, religious or any other can result in irrationality when taken to the extreme, because in doing so you are blinding yourself to any alternatives. So yes, Buddhism can make someone irrational; more importantly though, it is fully dependent on the Buddhist and not Buddhism itself.
I’m really a huge fan of buddha and especially the more refined ways that managed to travel to the west but one cannot ignore that most buddahists do indeed believe in an afterlife. That is irrational. Does it correlate? I don’t know. Just one more thing to ponder upon. ^_^
When I first got into Buddhism, this is what concerned me most. That is, rebirth, reincarnation, after-life, or more pointedly any metaphysical claims. From its very origin, Buddhism has been a very adaptive system. This is to say that Buddhism molds itself into that culture which it diffuses to, thus gathering up past beliefs and placing them into Buddhist doctrine. In truth, Buddhism can be and is a culture, a society, a religion, a philosophy. However, no matter which of the latter categories Buddhism falls into, the only thing which is static across them all is the four noble truths, the path, the middle way. This, among other reasons, are why I deem original Buddhism without metaphysical claims. It is very likely that reincarnation in Buddhism derives itself from Hinduism. Then again, the exact nature of the reincarnation is a mystery (what’s being reincarnated?).
If you want your questions answered (hopefully), I suggest Buddhism Without Beliefs and/or Confession of a Buddhist Atheist, both by Stephen Batchelor (the second of the two I believe would have a major impact on you).
The problem with Buddhism is Buddhists
The problem with Nudism is Nudists.
Flaunting overweight bodies about
Or worshiping Buddha, what’s that about?
Schisms are beset with schismists,
The problem with isms is ismists
But prisems don’t worry ‘bout prisemests.
So well said, J Kapp, especially the part original Buddhism.
Despite the use of symbolic imagery in the Suttas, there doesn’t appear to be anything in them that is about anything more than mind, body and earth.
On that account, and no other, it becomes difficult for me to think that Buddha was hoping for a resurrection of himself beyond that which occured in his own mind or in the minds of those who ‘tune in’ to his stream of consciousness. You appear to have delved more deeply into the Suttas that I. What say you.. does Buddha appear to have been longing for personal rebirth after the death of his body?
So well said, J Kapp, especially the part original Buddhism.
Despite the use of symbolic imagery in the Suttas, there doesn’t appear to be anything in them that is about anything more than mind, body and earth.
On that account, and no other, it becomes difficult for me to think that Buddha was hoping for a resurrection of himself beyond that which occured in his own mind or in the minds of those who ‘tune in’ to his stream of consciousness. You appear to have delved more deeply into the Suttas that I. What say you.. does Buddha appear to have been longing for personal rebirth after the death of his body?
From a purely religious point of view, the metaphysical concept of Buddhism is exactly opposite to that of Christianity or other Western religions. In some traditions, such as that of the Theravada (I think it’s them), rebirth is a continuous process until one obtains enlightenment. In other words, once one has obtained enlightenment, they will not be reborn again. So, in contrast to Western religions, the after-life only applies if you have not reached the goal, and the reward for reaching said goal is extermination, or non-existence.
On a personal level, in regards to Buddha (there are many others with more extensive information than myself, [maybe Burt? not sure. I’ve always wondered about Burt and Buddhism]), I’m of the opinion that Buddha made no metaphysical claims. There are repeated instances in the suttas that, when confronted with metaphysical questions, he either a) remains silent b) deems such questions as irrelevant or c) does not know the answer. However, there are also suttas that contain metaphysical concepts within them, i.e. the Buddha doing something ‘magical’, such as walking on water, or taming an elephant.
However, in retrospect, Buddhism can meet different needs for different people, whether philosophical, spiritual, psychological and/or ethical or all of the above, or a select combination. Perhaps this is the coolest part of Buddhism.
I would rather the whole world to be less content and happy but that there will be no hunger and aids.
Does wanting this cause you suffering? Does not getting your way in this cause you suffering?
Wonderful! This is a key issue I haven’t been able to pin point untill now.
Wanting the world to be more healthy and awesome causes suffering. For me, to cure cancer is more important than to cure suffering. If I (or you) have to suffer in order to cure AIDS than its OK.
Suffering isn’t REALLY all that bad. I don’t want to eliminate suffering! I just want the world to be a better place.
I truely think that seeing life as ‘a process which one does all he can to improve humanity’ is more accurate than seeing it as a ‘journey to be released from suffering’. Yes, you could say that suffering is not private and Mahayana and all that but still, I believe that curing cancer is more important than curing discomfort. Even the discomfort that comes with cancer because cancer kills people and discomfort just makes them uncomfortable.
Sanctity of LIFE… Not of some mental states WITHIN life.
So the question is: Is there a situation where you would chose to suffer? (Use big ego to make the world less hungry or cling to something which makes you more productive or any other idea you guys might have)
And about the thing about reincarnation as being from one moment to the next so yeah but also from one life to the next. Whatever it means, whatever reincarnates it is a false concept about physical reality. Reincarnation of ANYTHING in your mental self has NO EVIDENCE. Assuming that it happens is just wishful thinking. No matter what any enlightened fellow might say.
Oh and thanks for the book recomandations! I’ll look it up!
