Buddhism and Hegel

[rossum]

How could Buddha be so sure about gaining nirvana before his death? You apparently become sure when you experience the life after death.

Nirvana is not heaven. It can be attained during this lifetime. The Buddha attained nirvana age 35; he died age 80. For 45 years he was alive on this earth and simultaneously in nirvana. If you want to prove it to yourself, then follow the path and attain nirvana for yourself.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Please give the quote and source where the Buddha says he achieved nirvana.

Certainly:

"So when I had taken solid food and regained strength, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, I entered & remained in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the fading of rapture I remained equanimous, mindful, & alert, and sensed pleasure with the body. I entered & remained in the third jhana, of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.’ But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two…five, ten…fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: ‘There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.’ Thus I remembered my manifold past lives in their modes & details.

"This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the heavenly eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: ‘These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.’ Thus — by means of the heavenly eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

"This was the second knowledge I attained in the second watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I discerned, as it was actually present, that ‘This is stress… This is the origination of stress… This is the cessation of stress… This is the way leading to the cessation of stress… These are fermentations… This is the origination of fermentations… This is the cessation of fermentations… This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.’ My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, ‘Released.’ I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’

"This was the third knowledge I attained in the third watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. (emphasis added)

– Maha-Saccaka sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 36.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Certainly:

"So when I had taken solid food and regained strength, then — quite secluded from sensuality, secluded from unskillful mental qualities, I entered & remained in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from seclusion, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the stilling of directed thoughts & evaluations, I entered & remained in the second jhana: rapture & pleasure born of concentration, unification of awareness free from directed thought & evaluation — internal assurance. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the fading of rapture I remained equanimous, mindful, & alert, and sensed pleasure with the body. I entered & remained in the third jhana, of which the noble ones declare, ‘Equanimous & mindful, he has a pleasant abiding.’ But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. With the abandoning of pleasure & pain — as with the earlier disappearance of elation & distress — I entered & remained in the fourth jhana: purity of equanimity & mindfulness, neither pleasure nor pain. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of recollecting my past lives. I recollected my manifold past lives, i.e., one birth, two…five, ten…fifty, a hundred, a thousand, a hundred thousand, many eons of cosmic contraction, many eons of cosmic expansion, many eons of cosmic contraction & expansion: ‘There I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose there. There too I had such a name, belonged to such a clan, had such an appearance. Such was my food, such my experience of pleasure & pain, such the end of my life. Passing away from that state, I re-arose here.’ Thus I remembered my manifold past lives in their modes & details.

"This was the first knowledge I attained in the first watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the passing away & reappearance of beings. I saw — by means of the heavenly eye, purified & surpassing the human — beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma: ‘These beings — who were endowed with bad conduct of body, speech, & mind, who reviled the noble ones, held wrong views and undertook actions under the influence of wrong views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the plane of deprivation, the bad destination, the lower realms, in hell. But these beings — who were endowed with good conduct of body, speech & mind, who did not revile the noble ones, who held right views and undertook actions under the influence of right views — with the break-up of the body, after death, have re-appeared in the good destinations, in the heavenly world.’ Thus — by means of the heavenly eye, purified & surpassing the human — I saw beings passing away & re-appearing, and I discerned how they are inferior & superior, beautiful & ugly, fortunate & unfortunate in accordance with their kamma.

"This was the second knowledge I attained in the second watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain.

"When the mind was thus concentrated, purified, bright, unblemished, rid of defilement, pliant, malleable, steady, & attained to imperturbability, I directed it to the knowledge of the ending of the mental fermentations. I discerned, as it was actually present, that ‘This is stress… This is the origination of stress… This is the cessation of stress… This is the way leading to the cessation of stress… These are fermentations… This is the origination of fermentations… This is the cessation of fermentations… This is the way leading to the cessation of fermentations.’ My heart, thus knowing, thus seeing, was released from the fermentation of sensuality, released from the fermentation of becoming, released from the fermentation of ignorance. With release, there was the knowledge, ‘Released.’ I discerned that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.’

"This was the third knowledge I attained in the third watch of the night. Ignorance was destroyed; knowledge arose; darkness was destroyed; light arose — as happens in one who is heedful, ardent, & resolute. But the pleasant feeling that arose in this way did not invade my mind or remain. (emphasis added)

– Maha-Saccaka sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 36.

rossum

I see the Buddha makes no reference to God, and so it is reasonable to suppose that he was an atheist full of himself and his mission on earth. And so his philosophy is useless drivel designed to make himself look Blessed and almighty among men, with the promise that if others too become atheist, and do it all on their own without God’s help, they will look just as blessed and almighty among men.

Vanity of vanities.

 

[thinkandmull]

You are certain of this how?

Certainly if Buddha claimed this he was the most arrogant of men.

If he didn’t claim it, how do you know he achieved it?

Nirvana is not a state to be one by never having gone against you conscience. Buddha was speaking as a Christian; he wasn’t saying he was never imperfect

 

[thinkandmull]

I see the Buddha makes no reference to God, and so it is reasonable to suppose that he was an atheist full of himself and his mission on earth. And so his philosophy is useless drivel designed to make himself look Blessed and almighty among men, with the promise that if others too become atheist, and do it all on their own without God’s help, they will look just as blessed and almighty among men.

Vanity of vanities.

My issue on this thread was with a quote from a Zen Buddhist. Anyway, Vatican II says “Buddhism, in its various forms, realizes the radical insufficiency of this changeable world; it **teaches a way **by which men, in a devout and confident spirit, may be able either to acquire the state of perfect liberation, or attain, by their own efforts or through higher help, supreme illumination.” What is supreme illumination if not life with God in Heaven?? “by their own efforts or through higher help” must be interpreted to mean “either without realizing God’s hand at work or by actually calling on God towards the end of you Buddhist journey”

 

[annem]

rossum

Why were you given a brain that reasons?
Ask my parents, I inherited my brain from them

Buddhists reject reason, absolute truth (God) and the logical debate that goes with it. Aren’t these all constructs of our mind, according to most Buddhist sects?

Doesn’t a reasoning mind, a consciousness not in any other creature on earth, urge you to use reason to find out why you exist?

Can you tell me why humanity has consciousness?

God bless, Annem

 

[rossum]

I see the Buddha makes no reference to God,

Not in this section of scripture. It you want gods then look in something like the Lotus sutra:

Sakra, the ruler of the celestials, with twenty thousand gods, his followers, such as the god Chandra (the Moon), the god Surya (the Sun), the god Samantagandha (the Wind), the god Ratnaprabha, the god Avabhasaprabha, and others; further, the four great rulers of the cardinal points with thirty thousand gods in their train, viz. the great ruler Virudhaka, the great ruler Virupaksha, the great ruler Dhritarashtra, and the great ruler Vaisravana; the god Ishvara and the god Maheshvara, each followed by thirty thousand gods; further, Brahma Sahdmpati and his twelve thousand followers, the Brahmakayika gods, amongst whom Brahma Sikhin and Brahma Gyotishprabha, with the other twelve thousand Brahmakayika gods.

– Saddharmapundarika sutra, Chapter One

If you want gods, then there are plenty of them around.

And so his philosophy is useless drivel

No, it is not useless. I have tried it and it works. Using Jesus criterion, “By their fruits …” is is most certainly not useless. See: Buddhists really are ‘happier’.

Vanity of vanities.

Remember that at the time that was translated, the word “vanity” meant something closer to “emptiness”, as in the phrase “all in vain”.

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything – without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya … everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

You do not have to be Buddhist to reach enlightenment.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Buddhists reject reason, absolute truth (God) and the logical debate that goes with it.

Does absolute truth exist? Possibly. However, we have no absolute means of determining which of the many different claims to absolute truth are actually absolutely true. Since we are human, and our brains are not absolutely accurate, then we have no means of absolutely determining whether the claims in the Bible, the Qur’an, the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, the Iliad, the Egyptian Book of the Dead, the Tibetan Book of the Dead or any other such text are, or are not, absolutely true.

As a further point, no human language is absolute – all languages change over time. Hence no book written in any human language can be absolute. No dictionary can ever be absolute. No grammar book can ever be absolute. No translation can ever be absolute.

Absolute truth may exist, but we can never be absolutely sure whether a given statement is absolutely true.

The Greek Orthodox Bible includes Psalm 151, which is not included in Catholic Bibles. Is that psalm a statement of absolute truth or not? Where is the absolute proof of your answer?

Aren’t these all constructs of our mind, according to most Buddhist sects?

A great many things are constructs of our minds. Since our minds are involved in perception, then all of our perceptions involve our minds:

On a cold winter night, a big snow storm hit the city and the temple where Dharma Master Dan Xia served as a Monk got snowed in. Cut off from outside traffic, the fuel delivery man could not get to the Zen Monastery. Soon it ran out of heating fuel after a few days and everybody was shivering in the cold. The monks could not even cook their meals.

Dan Xia began to remove the wooden Buddha Statues from the display and put them into the fireplace.

“What are you doing?” the monks were shocked to see that the holy Buddha Statues were being burnt inside the fire place. “You are burning our holy religious artefacts! You are insulting the Buddha!”

“Are these statues alive and do they have any Buddha nature?” asked Master Dan Xia.

“Of course not,” replied the monks. “They are made of wood. They cannot have Buddha Nature.”

“OK. Then they are just pieces of firewood and therefore can be used as heating fuel,” said Master Dan Xia. “Can you pass me another piece of firewood please? I need some warmth.”

The next day, the snow storm had gone and Dan Xia went into town and brought back some replacement Buddha Statues. After putting them on the displays, he began to kneel down and burn incense sticks to them.

“Are you worshipping firewood?” asked the monks who were confused about what he was doing.

“No. I am treating these statues as holy artefacts and am honouring the Buddha,” replied Dan Xia.
Are the statues firewood or holy artefacts? What is the absolute truth about the statues, or is their status a function of what is in the mind of the beholder?

Doesn’t a reasoning mind, a consciousness not in any other creature on earth, urge you to use reason to find out why you exist?

I know why I exist. It is because I failed to attain enlightenment in my previous life, and so was born again into my current life.

Can you tell me why humanity has consciousness?

Not always. A person may be unconscious and still be human. Similarly sleep and comas also interrupt consciousness. Consciousness is not absolute.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No, it is not useless. I have tried it and it works. Using Jesus criterion, “By their fruits …” is is most certainly not useless. See: Buddhists really are ‘happier’.

rossum

When you have finished remembering all your former selves, as the Buddha did, do let me know so that I can be assured you are on your way to nirvana.

 

[rossum]

When you have finished remembering all your former selves, as the Buddha did, do let me know so that I can be assured you are on your way to nirvana.

I have already referenced Chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga, which gives the method. If you want to remember your former lives, then you will have to do it for yourself. I cannot remember your lives for you.

We are all on our way to nirvana; every living being attains nirvana eventually. Some do it in a few lifetimes, some do it in many lifetimes. All do it eventually.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I have already referenced Chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga, which gives the method. If you want to remember your former lives, then you will have to do it for yourself. I cannot remember your lives for you.

We are all on our way to nirvana; every living being attains nirvana eventually. Some do it in a few lifetimes, some do it in many lifetimes. All do it eventually.

rossum

Good luck remembering your former selves.

 

[annem]

Rossum:

Does absolute truth exist…A great many things are constructs of our minds

Hi Rossum. Apparently I am not being clear enough, because no matter what my question is, you dance around the problem, ignore it, or tell a story.

So, let’s try again. Buddhism says I am an illusion. I am no-self. But how can this be true if there is no truth?

Buddhism says my self is a construct, the dog is a construct, the night sky is a construct, and all that appears real is merely an illusion. How do you know this? You can only derive belief from facts. Where were Buddha’s facts?

And please do tackle this statement: Buddhism is anti science, anti intellectual, anti rational, and anti matter. It will harm society, therefore. Show me if I am wrong.

God bless, Annem

 

[Bahman]

So, let’s try again. Buddhism says I am an illusion. I am no-self. But how can this be true if there is no truth?

He was wrong. What we experience is an illusion. There are however facts about what we experience, so called truth.

Buddhism says my self is a construct, the dog is a construct, the night sky is a construct, and all that appears real is merely an illusion. How do you know this? You can only derive belief from facts. Where were Buddha’s facts?

What are you facts that what we experience is not an illusion?

And please do tackle this statement: Buddhism is anti science, anti intellectual, anti rational, and anti matter. It will harm society, therefore. Show me if I am wrong.

The same applies to Christianity.

 

[rossum]

Buddhism says I am an illusion.

No, you are not an illusion, you are merely mistaken. You are not what you think that you are.

Consider a mirage. You see a mirage, and you think that there is water there. Actually, there is no water, the water is an illusion; it is merely the appearance of water. However, a mirage is not nothing. If it were really nothing, then it would not have the appearance of water. Pure nothing does not look like water.

I am no-self.

You mistakenly think that you have a self. Your ‘self’ is as real as the water you think you see in a mirage. It is a mistaken perception.

But how can this be true if there is no truth?

There is truth, and truth certainly exists. The issues usually arise from reifying truth (lower case) into Truth (upper case) and trying to extend it into something it is not. All reifying is an error.

Buddhism says my self is a construct

More accurately, Buddhism says that your idea of your self is a construct. Your internal image of yourself is a construct, which is not 100% accurate.

the dog is a construct

The dog is not a construct; your internal image of the dog is a construct. You cannot know the real dog. It is external to you, so you only have a limited knowledge of the dog, mediated through your imperfect senses. For example, you have no accurate idea of how the dog smells; any other dog has a far better sense of smell than you, so it will have a far better idea of how the dog smells. Given the imperfect (name removed by moderator)uts from your senses, then the “dog” construct that you build inside your mind is an imperfect representation of the real, externally existent, dog. The fundamental error is to mistake your internal imperfect mental image of the dog for the actual dog.

Your internal mental constructs are imperfect reflections of the real world. This is as true of “self” as it is of “dog” or of “Buddha”.

The point is to understand that your internal mental model of the world is not the world. Becoming attached to your internal model, and mistaking it for reality is a basic cause of suffering. Because the models are inevitably imperfect, there will come times when the model does not match reality. Think of Karl Rove not accepting Romney’s loss of Ohio. That was a case where his internal model – “Romney will win Ohio” – clashed with reality. His model was imperfect, and he held onto it too strongly (“grasping”) hence causing him suffering.

And please do tackle this statement: Buddhism is anti science

The statement is incorrect:

Although Buddhist contemplative tradition and modern science have evolved from different historical, intellectual and cultural roots, I believe that at heart they share significant commonalities, especially in their basic philosophical outlook and methodology. On the philosophical level, both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect. From the methodological perspective, both traditions emphasize the role of empiricism. For example, in the Buddhist investigative tradition, between the three recognized sources of knowledge - experience, reason and testimony - it is the evidence of the experience that takes precedence, with reason coming second and testimony last. This means that, in the Buddhist investigation of reality, at least in principle, empirical evidence should triumph over scriptural authority, no matter how deeply venerated a scripture may be. Even in the case of knowledge derived through reason or inference, its validity must derive ultimately from some observed facts of experience. Because of this methodological standpoint, I have often remarked to my Buddhist colleagues that the empirically verified insights of modern cosmology and astronomy must compel us now to modify, or in some cases reject, many aspects of traditional cosmology as found in ancient Buddhist texts.

– Science at the Crossroads, The Dalai Lama

rossum

 

[annem]

rossum:

You mistakenly think that you have a self.

Hi Rossum. However, I would have to argue, based on your statements, that once again, you have proven Buddhism to be anti reality and anti logic.

I am not a construct of the truth of me. The world around me is not a illusion.

both Buddhism and modern science share a deep suspicion of any notion of absolutes, whether conceptualized as a transcendent being, as an eternal, unchanging principle such as soul, or as a fundamental substratum of reality. Both Buddhism and science prefer to account for the evolution and emergence of the cosmos and life in terms of the complex interrelations of the natural laws of cause and effect.

Speaking of the Dalai Lama reminded me that in 1904 Buddhist monks murdered 11 Catholics, including a priest. Under the orders of the then Dalai Lama. Would you like the title of the book?

The statement you found by one of the current Dalai Lamas made me blink in surprise. What does evolution have to do with reincarnation? Did he really write that? I am truly aghast.

Hinduism believed, deeply, profoundly in cycles. And Buddhism inherited the concept of cycles as well as reincarnation, and both beliefs stand in direct contradiction to every tenet of science. And certainly evolution. Especially evolution.

Has the current Dalai Lama really tossed reincarnation and cycles into the garbage heap?

I am fascinated. Please explain more,

Having a wonderful time, so thank you so much, and may God utterly flood you with light and miracles, God bless, Annem

 

[rossum]

However, I would have to argue, based on your statements, that once again, you have proven Buddhism to be anti reality and anti logic.

Buddhism is not anti-reality. It merely points out the unrealistic mistakes most people make.

I am not a construct of the truth of me. The world around me is not a illusion.

However, your internal model of the external world is inaccurate. The illusion is to mistake the inaccurate model for the external reality.

Speaking of the Dalai Lama reminded me that in 1904 Buddhist monks murdered 11 Catholics, including a priest.

There are rather more examples of Buddhists killing Christians from Japan. There are many examples of Christians killing Buddhists from Sri-Lanka. Large number of the peasants killed as “collateral damage” in Vietnam were Buddhists. Not all Buddhists are good Buddhists. Not all Christians are good Christians.

The statement you found by one of the current Dalai Lamas made me blink in surprise. What does evolution have to do with reincarnation? Did he really write that? I am truly aghast.

He was using “evolution” in the sense of change/development. The cosmos in not a biological entity, so he was not referring to biological evolution.

Hinduism believed, deeply, profoundly in cycles. And Buddhism inherited the concept of cycles as well as reincarnation, and both beliefs stand in direct contradiction to every tenet of science. And certainly evolution. Especially evolution.

Not “every” tenet of science: Cyclic universe bounces back.

As for reincarnation, science deals with the material. The part of us that reincarnates is not material.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

No, you are not an illusion, you are merely mistaken. You are not what you think that you are. . . You mistakenly think that you have a self. Your ‘self’ is as real as the water you think you see in a mirage. It is a mistaken perception. . . There is truth, and truth certainly exists. The issues usually arise from reifying truth (lower case) into Truth (upper case) and trying to extend it into something it is not. All reifying is an error. . . More accurately, Buddhism says that your idea of your self is a construct. Your internal image of yourself is a construct, which is not 100% accurate. . . The dog is not a construct; your internal image of the dog is a construct. You cannot know the real dog. It is external to you, so you only have a limited knowledge of the dog, mediated through your imperfect senses. . . The fundamental error is to mistake your internal imperfect mental image of the dog for the actual dog. Your internal mental constructs are imperfect reflections of the real world. This is as true of “self” as it is of “dog” or of “Buddha”. The point is to understand that your internal mental model of the world is not the world. Becoming attached to your internal model, and mistaking it for reality is a basic cause of suffering. . .

Pretty much of what you are writing about applies to people who go into themselves. Clearly, there is a self: someone who is focussing and attending, someone making it through the third watch, someone achieving enlightenment. That soul is relational; there exists a relationship, a connection between the mystery that is the self and that which is other. Of course we can know what is other; we can know the dog through love. If I am caught up in my thoughts and imaginings, they will clearly not be other. In selfishness, I find only myself, my mental projections. This is why to know, we must give ourselves over to what is other.

There is someone who acts, who creates the karma that governs this life and the next. We do not create the “rules”; they are given and cannot be changed. There exists a higher “Mind” who brings all this into existence. It is not reincarnated, but beyond the self that would participate in such a cycle. I do not believe there is reincarnation. Reincarnation would make sense to me only if it is independent of time. By this I mean that you and everyone and everything would be an incarnation of what is the one true soul - Atman. I believe this to be inaccurate since we are fundamentally individual, unique and irreplaceable persons although fallen and redeemed as one body in Adam and Christ. What the Buddha experienced, I interpret as the realization that we are one humanity and that all life is united in its being, in its coming forth in time and space, created by God the Father, and brought into eternal communion through the incarnation, death and resurrection of the Word and by the power of the Holy Spirit. He spoke of it as he understood it, given the language and traditions of his day.

 

[annem]

rossum

The cosmos in not a biological entity, so he was not referring to biological evolution.

Hi Rossum. However, earlier, you denied you believe in pantheism. So please explain what entity is causing the reincarnation and cycles.

Buddhism is not anti-reality. It merely points out the unrealistic mistakes most people make.

Sorry, but everything you’ve told me argues against this.

And once again you claim a truth while denying a truth. This is classic New Age/Sufi/Zen Buddist/Koan/etc. By introducing a logical fallacy you try to get the other person to step outside of logic and truth and reality.

May God flood you with light and truth, Annem

 

[annem]

Aloysium

There is someone who acts, who creates the karma that governs this life and the next. W.

Hi Aloysium.

Sorry, but you need to catch up on your Catholic catechism. There is no karma, since Catholics don’t believe in fate, they believe in God. Sin isn’t karma. The two don’t equate at all.

Buddha…spoke of it as he understood it, given the language and traditions of his day.

Because God exists, we see God’s truth even in the most pagan of places. Plato and Buddha and millions of others saw small sparks of God’s fire of truth.

But people don’t need to see God dimly now, refracted from thousands of miles away. Surely, as we can now reach out to everyone in the world, it is time to speak God’s truth to everyone.

God bless, Annem

 

[GodMadeMe]

Aloysium

Hi Aloysium.

Sorry, but you need to catch up on your Catholic catechism. There is no karma, since Catholics don’t believe in fate, they believe in God. Sin isn’t karma. The two don’t equate at all.

We reap what we sow. Karma does bear some resemblance to that fact at the very least.