Buddhism Part 3
I am unimpressed with Buddhist metaphysics. In spite of the claim often heard that Buddhism is not a religion, I never seem to get very far into Buddhist doctrine without running into its metaphysics.
Most recently, I was charmed by the idea of "samsara" -- which seemed to me a useful concept -- all the distractions of the world that keep us from enlightenment. However, any discussion I can find of the subject is all about the wheel of life and reincarnation.
I'm also impressed by the idea that our suffering is self-imposed and that we can escape suffering by changing the way we think about our lives. This is a pretty obvious idea, really but the Buddhists seem to wrap it up in religious practice and doctrine. Not all of our problems can be solved this way and certainly not even the problems that arise solely in our minds can be solved this way. There are, after all, strong claims of modern medicine to address genuine illnesses, "chemical imbalances", injuries and so forth.
Personally, I think that one can take the Buddhist observation with the dual aim of tackling unhelpful thoughts (samsara) and moving toward enlightenment without paying too much attention to sitting in such and such a way, breathing in such and such a way or thinking in such and such a way.
I recently read the Dali Lama's book "Toward a Kinship of Faiths". Of course the Dali Lama is famously charming and articulate. He's obviously spent a lot of time studying the world's religions looking for the common thread. It's not surprising that he finds that the main tenet of his own faith (loving kindness) can be found in all religions.
The Dali Lama cheerfully notes that ideas such as reincarnation and karma are common in many religions and have their analogues even in Christianity and Islam (where the scales are balanced in a one-time chance to be re-born in paradise or Hell). Characteristically, the Dali Lama seems totally unconcerned with whether these theories are true. In such cases, Sagan's rule applies: Superstition is belief without evidence. If we are to look for common ground with religious people, we need to emphasize what is observably common and true about the human experience.
Of course one can equally find common ground in the principals of intolerance, dogmatism, authoritarianism and mass murder. What the Dali Lama has established, I think, is that loving kindness and tolerance are ideals that can be advocated with some success within the framework of any religion -- perhaps within the framework of no religion at all. I think the Dali Lama has put his finger on the one value that seems to be missing in the way that religious people of all faiths act in practice.
In my own case, I think that such ideals are perfectly consistent with what I call Christian Skepticism. On the other hand, I think in the name of enlightenment that the Skeptic must take a dim view of all metaphysics -- even those metaphysical systems which don't feature any kind of "god" or "gods".
Skepticism provides its own independent methods and motivation for seeking "enlightenment". I think this is another basis for commonality -- the value of humility, respectful dialogue, investigation, wonder, curiosity. As with "loving kindness", this value is supported within all traditions but opposed by authoritarianism, dogma and ordinary laziness. We all share a common Universe and, at least potentially, the strongest source of agreement is simply that which is the case in fact.
So, we seek to behave with a balance of tolerance, loving kindness and enlightenment, hoping to find a sympathetic ear in every religion, but also expecting "push back" -- sometimes of a violent nature.
This adds up to a willingness to make other people very uncomfortable. We tolerate your silly metaphysics but not your honor killings. Yes we tolerate you but we reject your intolerance of us. We will not tolerate your intolerance of those who want to know more about the world and share it with everyone else. With respect, we reserve the right to call superstition by its right name. Above all, we do not tolerate any tendency to kill the messenger or sweep uncomfortable facts under the rug.
Most recently, I was charmed by the idea of "samsara" -- which seemed to me a useful concept -- all the distractions of the world that keep us from enlightenment. However, any discussion I can find of the subject is all about the wheel of life and reincarnation.
I'm also impressed by the idea that our suffering is self-imposed and that we can escape suffering by changing the way we think about our lives. This is a pretty obvious idea, really but the Buddhists seem to wrap it up in religious practice and doctrine. Not all of our problems can be solved this way and certainly not even the problems that arise solely in our minds can be solved this way. There are, after all, strong claims of modern medicine to address genuine illnesses, "chemical imbalances", injuries and so forth.
Personally, I think that one can take the Buddhist observation with the dual aim of tackling unhelpful thoughts (samsara) and moving toward enlightenment without paying too much attention to sitting in such and such a way, breathing in such and such a way or thinking in such and such a way.
I recently read the Dali Lama's book "Toward a Kinship of Faiths". Of course the Dali Lama is famously charming and articulate. He's obviously spent a lot of time studying the world's religions looking for the common thread. It's not surprising that he finds that the main tenet of his own faith (loving kindness) can be found in all religions.
The Dali Lama cheerfully notes that ideas such as reincarnation and karma are common in many religions and have their analogues even in Christianity and Islam (where the scales are balanced in a one-time chance to be re-born in paradise or Hell). Characteristically, the Dali Lama seems totally unconcerned with whether these theories are true. In such cases, Sagan's rule applies: Superstition is belief without evidence. If we are to look for common ground with religious people, we need to emphasize what is observably common and true about the human experience.
We are no different from one another
We all belong to one family
We love and laugh
We hurt and cry
We love and diefrom We are All the Same by Jim Wooten
Of course one can equally find common ground in the principals of intolerance, dogmatism, authoritarianism and mass murder. What the Dali Lama has established, I think, is that loving kindness and tolerance are ideals that can be advocated with some success within the framework of any religion -- perhaps within the framework of no religion at all. I think the Dali Lama has put his finger on the one value that seems to be missing in the way that religious people of all faiths act in practice.
In my own case, I think that such ideals are perfectly consistent with what I call Christian Skepticism. On the other hand, I think in the name of enlightenment that the Skeptic must take a dim view of all metaphysics -- even those metaphysical systems which don't feature any kind of "god" or "gods".
Skepticism provides its own independent methods and motivation for seeking "enlightenment". I think this is another basis for commonality -- the value of humility, respectful dialogue, investigation, wonder, curiosity. As with "loving kindness", this value is supported within all traditions but opposed by authoritarianism, dogma and ordinary laziness. We all share a common Universe and, at least potentially, the strongest source of agreement is simply that which is the case in fact.
So, we seek to behave with a balance of tolerance, loving kindness and enlightenment, hoping to find a sympathetic ear in every religion, but also expecting "push back" -- sometimes of a violent nature.
This adds up to a willingness to make other people very uncomfortable. We tolerate your silly metaphysics but not your honor killings. Yes we tolerate you but we reject your intolerance of us. We will not tolerate your intolerance of those who want to know more about the world and share it with everyone else. With respect, we reserve the right to call superstition by its right name. Above all, we do not tolerate any tendency to kill the messenger or sweep uncomfortable facts under the rug.
Comments
Post a Comment