19 May '05 09:50>
Originally posted by NemesioBuddhism uses the via negativa approach. That is, it concerns itself with eliminating the false. Not all that different from Sherlock Holmes' credo, "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
Christianity, some strains of Judiasm, and Islam (I think) make clear distinctions between
the ephemeral and the eternal, the flesh and the psyche (usually rendered 'soul'😉.
The psyche, they assert, inherently 'is' -- it exists, unchanging in the image of God.
The flesh is 'animated' (from anima, meaning spirit as distinct fro ...[text shortened]... rs to exist -- that there is something which does not appear that
does exist?
Nemesio
Philip K. Dick also had a good line -- "Reality is that which remains even after we cease believing in it."
Buddha's concern was with eliminating the false because he believed that the human mind was just too tricky and any attempt to "name" the positive or true -- as in calling it "God" or "soul", etc. -- would just result in the mind turning it into a static icon, and thus dissociating from its reality. This is why he refused to discuss God or the soul. He taught that the ultimate truth wasn't the problem, that the truth would never go anywhere because it is all that is ultimately real. All we have to concern ourselves with is observing the mind and its tendencies to distort truth via attachment, emotionalism, projection, identification, etc.