Enlightenment May 12, 2015
This continues from yesterday ...
The one insight that lead me to regard yesterday as an "Enlightenment" connects my own (somewhat quirky) "take" on the idea with the fact that reincarnation is assumed by the Buddha and all his heirs and disciples. The insight itself is really nothing new but the connection is powerful and opens up a radical interpretation of Buddhism. Reincarnation is the bedrock of Buddhism just as the "one God" is the bedrock of "religions of the book" (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). In both cases, the unquestioned "bedrock" belief creates problems of its own. Much of the intellectual "work" (Theology) of these traditions is devoted to attempts to solve problems artificially created by the theory that the entire faith is built on. When a theory is defended for centuries against all reason and evidence, the cure is worse than the disease. These theories should have been abandoned centuries ago by reductio ad absurdum -- the fact that they lead to impossible absurdities, paradoxes and obvious contradictions with observed reality.
For example, if you believe in the "book" God, you are instantly confronted by the problem of Evil in the world, along with the challenge of finding ways to please this God and figure out generally what He is up to. Intractable logical problems arise, such as "Who created God" and "Do we have free will?". Of course, none of these problems exist for an atheist, so perhaps the atheist has no reason to heed the moral messages in the Bible ...
If you believe in reincarnation, you are faced with the prospect of spending a million incarnations as a worm and/or the prospect of the pleasant life you are leading being followed by a life as a cockroach due to karma you have (perhaps unwittingly) accumulated in this life (or previous ones). Escape from endless rebirths is the explicit aim of 2,500 years of Buddhist practice. If you don't believe in reincarnation, you don't have this problem so it's tempting to ask if Buddhist practice or philosophy has anything for you.
In both cases (God and reincarnation) it is possible to look past the conventional interpretations to discover the problems or experiences that give rise to these theories. One can then see if it's possible to re-cast the "evidence" in a way that makes some kind of sense to the skeptical mind and perhaps salvages some elements from the wreckage that inevitably results when the foundation is pulled out from under the "Great Religions".
For example, the idea of one God can be seen as a predecessor to the idea that the physical Universe is governed by law - a fundamental idea of what we call "Science". The idea that there is a corresponding moral law in the Universe -- that the Universe somehow "cares" what we do -- turns out to be highly questionable to say the least. Personally, I think we are better off without it. There is nothing stopping us from lending an ear to the admonitions of the prophets and great teachers in the tradition (including of course Jesus), but, to my mind, the moral force of these messages is not diminished by making allowances for the fact that the speakers believed what everyone around them believed at the time.
About reincarnation: The idea that we are at root re-creations of people that have gone before us is at odds with the Buddhist doctrine that the "self" doesn't really exist at all in any fundamental sense. As with the idea of God, reincarnation leads to all kinds of logical problems which seem to have troubled believers much less than the corresponding puzzles arising out of the "one God" theory.
"Karma", the basic "law of the universe" that governs your assignment in the next life, can be reduced to the (still questionable) idea that your current situation is the product of your past actions. Far from a universal principal, it can be demoted to a simple motherly warning. You do need to watch out for consequences of your acts (even your thoughts) but the vast bulk of individual fortune and/or misfortune is determined by factors beyond the control of the individual. At all costs, you need to avoid the idea that people born into crushing poverty or obscene wealth somehow deserve their fate.
It makes better sense to entertain the idea (held lightly as all ideas must be in Buddhism) that our thoughts and ideas are very largely determined by the influence of other human beings, both living and dead. What is more, DNA is proof that we are all, in a sense, branches of the same tree. It makes sense to me to think of myself as a "reincarnation" of everyone who has ever lived, everyone who is currently alive and every living thing on the planet. This insight is not without moral force: it inspires an approach to life that is not different in kind from that inspired by the ancient "insight" of reincarnation. I think of humanity as a field of flowers, each flower a bit different from all the others, but the differences are hardly important in the "big picture'.
In all cases, it is important to remember the difference between human ideas and reality. This is the fundamental Buddhist contribution, a practice that survives long after the reason for developing it turned out to be a fantasy. In Western philosophy, a similar idea (called "Idealism") lead to a sterile game of words. In Buddhism, the idea lead to a powerful reorientation of the relationship between mind and reality.
The one insight that lead me to regard yesterday as an "Enlightenment" connects my own (somewhat quirky) "take" on the idea with the fact that reincarnation is assumed by the Buddha and all his heirs and disciples. The insight itself is really nothing new but the connection is powerful and opens up a radical interpretation of Buddhism. Reincarnation is the bedrock of Buddhism just as the "one God" is the bedrock of "religions of the book" (Christianity, Judaism, Islam). In both cases, the unquestioned "bedrock" belief creates problems of its own. Much of the intellectual "work" (Theology) of these traditions is devoted to attempts to solve problems artificially created by the theory that the entire faith is built on. When a theory is defended for centuries against all reason and evidence, the cure is worse than the disease. These theories should have been abandoned centuries ago by reductio ad absurdum -- the fact that they lead to impossible absurdities, paradoxes and obvious contradictions with observed reality.
For example, if you believe in the "book" God, you are instantly confronted by the problem of Evil in the world, along with the challenge of finding ways to please this God and figure out generally what He is up to. Intractable logical problems arise, such as "Who created God" and "Do we have free will?". Of course, none of these problems exist for an atheist, so perhaps the atheist has no reason to heed the moral messages in the Bible ...
If you believe in reincarnation, you are faced with the prospect of spending a million incarnations as a worm and/or the prospect of the pleasant life you are leading being followed by a life as a cockroach due to karma you have (perhaps unwittingly) accumulated in this life (or previous ones). Escape from endless rebirths is the explicit aim of 2,500 years of Buddhist practice. If you don't believe in reincarnation, you don't have this problem so it's tempting to ask if Buddhist practice or philosophy has anything for you.
In both cases (God and reincarnation) it is possible to look past the conventional interpretations to discover the problems or experiences that give rise to these theories. One can then see if it's possible to re-cast the "evidence" in a way that makes some kind of sense to the skeptical mind and perhaps salvages some elements from the wreckage that inevitably results when the foundation is pulled out from under the "Great Religions".
For example, the idea of one God can be seen as a predecessor to the idea that the physical Universe is governed by law - a fundamental idea of what we call "Science". The idea that there is a corresponding moral law in the Universe -- that the Universe somehow "cares" what we do -- turns out to be highly questionable to say the least. Personally, I think we are better off without it. There is nothing stopping us from lending an ear to the admonitions of the prophets and great teachers in the tradition (including of course Jesus), but, to my mind, the moral force of these messages is not diminished by making allowances for the fact that the speakers believed what everyone around them believed at the time.
About reincarnation: The idea that we are at root re-creations of people that have gone before us is at odds with the Buddhist doctrine that the "self" doesn't really exist at all in any fundamental sense. As with the idea of God, reincarnation leads to all kinds of logical problems which seem to have troubled believers much less than the corresponding puzzles arising out of the "one God" theory.
"Karma", the basic "law of the universe" that governs your assignment in the next life, can be reduced to the (still questionable) idea that your current situation is the product of your past actions. Far from a universal principal, it can be demoted to a simple motherly warning. You do need to watch out for consequences of your acts (even your thoughts) but the vast bulk of individual fortune and/or misfortune is determined by factors beyond the control of the individual. At all costs, you need to avoid the idea that people born into crushing poverty or obscene wealth somehow deserve their fate.
It makes better sense to entertain the idea (held lightly as all ideas must be in Buddhism) that our thoughts and ideas are very largely determined by the influence of other human beings, both living and dead. What is more, DNA is proof that we are all, in a sense, branches of the same tree. It makes sense to me to think of myself as a "reincarnation" of everyone who has ever lived, everyone who is currently alive and every living thing on the planet. This insight is not without moral force: it inspires an approach to life that is not different in kind from that inspired by the ancient "insight" of reincarnation. I think of humanity as a field of flowers, each flower a bit different from all the others, but the differences are hardly important in the "big picture'.
In all cases, it is important to remember the difference between human ideas and reality. This is the fundamental Buddhist contribution, a practice that survives long after the reason for developing it turned out to be a fantasy. In Western philosophy, a similar idea (called "Idealism") lead to a sterile game of words. In Buddhism, the idea lead to a powerful reorientation of the relationship between mind and reality.
Comments
Post a Comment