16 Mar '05 01:49>4 edits
Darfius ...
I see. So would I be fair in stating that Buddhism doesn't offer "the" answer, but rather "an" answer?
That would be accurate. Buddhism has had its share of intellectual elitists who believe it to be the most superior of all religions, but generally speaking it discourages any sort of absolutism in terms of defining itself as "the only way". Buddha did not present himself as a god or divine incarnation (although later on, Hindus tried to portray him that way, as an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu, but Buddha denied this).
Again, very interesting, but I was hoping for more of a debate than a history lesson.
I think it's important to lay out some basic groundwork. Clearly, this discussion forum is heavily preoccupied with the Christian tradition, either for it or against it; if something like Buddhism it to be discussed, we have to understand the basics of what we are talking about.
I see. So are we all born with this blindness to reality? Is that how objectivity is explained?
Buddhism postulates that human beings are born into "vidya" (ignorance), and that this ignorance is the effect of many causes and factors. Some are
-- gradual identification with the body (believing that we are a body, and nothing more)
-- gradual identification with the mind (beleiving that we are thoughts, feelings, etc., and nothing more)
-- gradual identification with culture, nation, etc. (see above).
In all of these forms of identifications, we lose touch with our natural core, and come to fall asleep into what Buddhists call the "dream world of Maya". "Maya" is an interesting word that means both "illusion" and "measure". It's related to the idea that the very process of conceptualization that we learn from a young age leads to the obscuring of our natural clarity and natural wisdom.
Hmm, Christians believe time is an illusion as well. We believe God created time to make things make sense for us. I'm not sure how Buddhism "explains it better", since it doesn't address how our "consciousness" came into being and what would have happened had Buddha not had that free time.
Actually, Buddhism does address how consciousness "comes into being", via its teachings on cause and effect (interdependence) and shunyata (emptiness).
Briefly (and this is really a book length matter), cause and effect is the notion (as understood in Buddhism) that all things are caused to exist, and therefore, no things exist absolutely or inherently *on their own*. Because everything that shows up in manifest existence has been caused to exist, the very idea of trying to understand how any "one thing" came about is barking up the wrong tree.
In other words, the problem is not with the universe, or its ontology or origin point, the problem is with the way that we are perceiving it and trying to understand it.
In the Zen Buddhist "koan", for example, the Zen practitioner attempts to resolve a question that has no apparent logical answer. The resolution of it happens not in the "answering" of the question, but more properly in the deconstructing of the question. That is, the question is resolved via insight, which is more akin to profound intuition than logical deduction. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with logic, in fact, clear logic takes us right up to the doorway of ultimate truth -- but it can't quite enter the doorway. Something else is needed to enter the doorway, and this something else is a radical and direct insight into what consciousness actually is. In other words, the resolution of the ultimate Zen koan -- "Who am I?" In Buddhism, the idea is that the answer to "Who am I?" is a direct spiritual experience that best translates as "emptiness" because it is *beyond form*. Anything that has *form* is caused to exist, and is therefore finite and mortal. Our real nature is formless, or "empty of form". It is therefore also beyond time, being unborn and undying.
Are these realms anything more than conjecture? Did Buddha reveal them or were they later "discovered"? Who was the very first soul to be reincarnated?
These realms were penetrated and explored by Buddhist mystics who had the ability to "return" to our world and relay what they'd understood and seen. That's the traditional view. A more symbolic view is that these levels represent levels of the psyche as we mature in our undestandings. Many see them as being both symbolic and actual.
Who was the first soul to reincarnate?
This question assumes that linearity of time is real in an absolute sense. Buddhism rejects this and therefore the question has no real meaning. It is a "mind question" that is formulated by the mind when still working from a belief in the absolute reality of time.
So once you reach Nirvana, can you elect to stop the journey? Or are you forced to earn it again? Is any of this eternal? In other words, if a huge asteroid hit the earth, would this process continue somehow?
In Buddhist teaching, a being who enters into the condition of Nirvana -- remember, Nirvana is a *condition*, not a place -- is now free and able to move as they please, whether in dimensions of form, or in pure formlessness. If they choose to remain human through many lives, they are known as a "Bodhisattva", that is, one who places the welfare of others before the significance of their own enlightenment. This is an important ideal in Tibetan and Zen Buddhism.
Bit short of time at the moment, I'll respond to your last few questions later tonight time permitting.
edit -- getting the hang of this boldfaced codes...
I see. So would I be fair in stating that Buddhism doesn't offer "the" answer, but rather "an" answer?
That would be accurate. Buddhism has had its share of intellectual elitists who believe it to be the most superior of all religions, but generally speaking it discourages any sort of absolutism in terms of defining itself as "the only way". Buddha did not present himself as a god or divine incarnation (although later on, Hindus tried to portray him that way, as an incarnation of the Hindu god Vishnu, but Buddha denied this).
Again, very interesting, but I was hoping for more of a debate than a history lesson.
I think it's important to lay out some basic groundwork. Clearly, this discussion forum is heavily preoccupied with the Christian tradition, either for it or against it; if something like Buddhism it to be discussed, we have to understand the basics of what we are talking about.
I see. So are we all born with this blindness to reality? Is that how objectivity is explained?
Buddhism postulates that human beings are born into "vidya" (ignorance), and that this ignorance is the effect of many causes and factors. Some are
-- gradual identification with the body (believing that we are a body, and nothing more)
-- gradual identification with the mind (beleiving that we are thoughts, feelings, etc., and nothing more)
-- gradual identification with culture, nation, etc. (see above).
In all of these forms of identifications, we lose touch with our natural core, and come to fall asleep into what Buddhists call the "dream world of Maya". "Maya" is an interesting word that means both "illusion" and "measure". It's related to the idea that the very process of conceptualization that we learn from a young age leads to the obscuring of our natural clarity and natural wisdom.
Hmm, Christians believe time is an illusion as well. We believe God created time to make things make sense for us. I'm not sure how Buddhism "explains it better", since it doesn't address how our "consciousness" came into being and what would have happened had Buddha not had that free time.
Actually, Buddhism does address how consciousness "comes into being", via its teachings on cause and effect (interdependence) and shunyata (emptiness).
Briefly (and this is really a book length matter), cause and effect is the notion (as understood in Buddhism) that all things are caused to exist, and therefore, no things exist absolutely or inherently *on their own*. Because everything that shows up in manifest existence has been caused to exist, the very idea of trying to understand how any "one thing" came about is barking up the wrong tree.
In other words, the problem is not with the universe, or its ontology or origin point, the problem is with the way that we are perceiving it and trying to understand it.
In the Zen Buddhist "koan", for example, the Zen practitioner attempts to resolve a question that has no apparent logical answer. The resolution of it happens not in the "answering" of the question, but more properly in the deconstructing of the question. That is, the question is resolved via insight, which is more akin to profound intuition than logical deduction. That doesn't mean there is anything wrong with logic, in fact, clear logic takes us right up to the doorway of ultimate truth -- but it can't quite enter the doorway. Something else is needed to enter the doorway, and this something else is a radical and direct insight into what consciousness actually is. In other words, the resolution of the ultimate Zen koan -- "Who am I?" In Buddhism, the idea is that the answer to "Who am I?" is a direct spiritual experience that best translates as "emptiness" because it is *beyond form*. Anything that has *form* is caused to exist, and is therefore finite and mortal. Our real nature is formless, or "empty of form". It is therefore also beyond time, being unborn and undying.
Are these realms anything more than conjecture? Did Buddha reveal them or were they later "discovered"? Who was the very first soul to be reincarnated?
These realms were penetrated and explored by Buddhist mystics who had the ability to "return" to our world and relay what they'd understood and seen. That's the traditional view. A more symbolic view is that these levels represent levels of the psyche as we mature in our undestandings. Many see them as being both symbolic and actual.
Who was the first soul to reincarnate?
This question assumes that linearity of time is real in an absolute sense. Buddhism rejects this and therefore the question has no real meaning. It is a "mind question" that is formulated by the mind when still working from a belief in the absolute reality of time.
So once you reach Nirvana, can you elect to stop the journey? Or are you forced to earn it again? Is any of this eternal? In other words, if a huge asteroid hit the earth, would this process continue somehow?
In Buddhist teaching, a being who enters into the condition of Nirvana -- remember, Nirvana is a *condition*, not a place -- is now free and able to move as they please, whether in dimensions of form, or in pure formlessness. If they choose to remain human through many lives, they are known as a "Bodhisattva", that is, one who places the welfare of others before the significance of their own enlightenment. This is an important ideal in Tibetan and Zen Buddhism.
Bit short of time at the moment, I'll respond to your last few questions later tonight time permitting.
edit -- getting the hang of this boldfaced codes...