I’ve been dialoguing with a so-called Zen Buddhist on another forum. I’m having trouble with some of the claims of Buddhism - the most important one being… if I understand correctly…
…that… literally “nothing” is better than good or evil?
At least, that
seems to be what it boils down to.
Pursuing a detachment from all things - nothingness - seems to be the goal of Buddhism (at least he has described it).
How can I logically reply to such an argument?
The endgame goal is freedom from Samsara, or the cycle of suffering. Suffering (Dukkha) in this case is often incompletely translated as simply suffering, but it includes a different range of things than just mental and physical pain, anger, stress, anxiety, and general dissatisfaction. A core belief amongst all the Buddhist traditions is the four noble truths:
- Suffering Exists
- There is a cause of suffering (Desire)
- To end suffering, one must end Desire
- To End desire, one must follow the eightfold path.
Again, here’s where an issue in translation causes misunderstanding for Christians and other westerners in general trying to make sense of it. The third noble truth is what reccomends “detachment from desire”, which could be misunderstood as denying the self of emotion and feelings and connections with others, or to tune out the universe and empty the mind completely. – That would actually be nearly the complete opposite of what the right action would be.
Imagine that I gave you a fat slice of extremely delicious and unhealthy cheesecake, and you were eating it happily, and when you had about 50% of it, I went and took it from you mid bite. You’ll probably have one of two reactions: You will A) Get upset in some form or another because you no longer have the cheesecake to eat or B) Realize that it was a tasty cheesecake and you were happy to have the bit you head.
A would be an example of that unhealthy attachment that we’re told to learn to break. You’re lamenting the loss of your cheescake and fighting negative emotions because of it instead of appreciating it. B, expresses an understanding of contentment, and of transience. All things are transient, the things we like, the people we love, and ourselves. Rather than to dwell in the past, or dream of the future, the goal is to live in that moment we are living in and be happy with what we have; and when things go bad, we must keep ourselves centered and go with the flow because that suffering is also transient.
Good and Evil don’t exist in the way that Christians understand evil because Christianity teaches of Absolute alignments personified by Characters (God/Satan). Buddhist perception of Good/Evil is not absolute because the reality of situations can be quite gray. When we think of actions that affect others or the world around us, that is Karma (action). Actions that help us and others are seen as acts of skillful (Good) karma, and acts that we do that we knowingly harm others and the self with are unskillful (Bad) karma. The Buddhist view of Karma is not a cosmic justice system, if we suffer for the things we do, it is because our own actions punish us, not another outside force, much like touching a hot stove with your bare hand. Nobody punished you, you just got the inevitable result of touching a stove.
Also of note is the destruction of the self/ego and form is emptiness and emptiness is form: You, and reality as you know it are delusions --non-existent. Obviously you do exist, and this reality does exist, but what doesn’t truly exist is your perception. The way you see things are not the way things are because you are looking through the universe as you being the center of it. Everything you see is biased by you, just because you exist. You can’t say that an apple is red and be absolutely correct --what if you’re perception of colors is skewed, or what if the friend next to you is colorblind and he sees a completely different color? Who’s to say you’re right and he’s wrong or vice versa?
The ability to recognize this, and not only view the world objectively, but as seeing yourself as part of the universe and all things and not merely just a thinking meatbag occupying a space in that universe is integral, especially when it comes to how we treat others.
If a man is out on the street begging for food, and we give him a dollar because “we” feel bad, or “we” are in a better position than him so we should throw him some change, is the wrong view. This is Pity, and considered a near enemy of the true virtue of compassion. Putting a small Christian spin on it, Pity is the wrong view because we are incorrectly seeing ourselves as seperate for that suffering man. And we’re not. We are all children of God, he should not be a stranger to us simply because we don’t know his face. We would hopefully feed our hungry brother because we love him and do not want to see him hungry --because if he suffers, so do we.
That is the point of destroying the ego, and nothingness, because when you erase the lines that seperate you from the universe, you can connect with anyone, and the more love you have the better for all sentient beings. So I don’t think it’s something you really want to refute, but rather something you hopefully will take some time to dig deeper and understand. It’s just a different perspective of meeting a similar end.
If you want to read more about the interesting interplay between Zen and Christianity, you should check out Living Buddha, Living Christ by Thich Nhat Hanh
