In the Serendipity castle on the Moon, Kim wants to get Falkayn out of a room with a view so that he won't see a spaceship take off. Sensing that Kim wants him out although not yet knowing why, Falkayn stalls, says that he wants to remain in the room alone to meditate and meanwhile runs off at the mouth about Buddhism, saying that:
purer Buddhist sects might not count as religions because they are agnostic about gods and other "'...animistic elements...'" (p. 374);
karma need not imply reincarnation;
nirvana is not annihilation but can be achieved in this life...
Before he can say what nirvana is, the spaceship takes off.
I suppose that, by purer sects, Falkayn means basic forms of Theravada. I understand that Buddhism has always been practiced within local worldviews. Buddhist texts refer to Indra. In Japan, there are Buddhas and Shinto gods. But the deities are not necessary for meditation. However, Buddhism is a religion because it is an approach to spiritual emancipation and transcendence.
Having analyzed mental processes, the Buddha concluded that there are no souls, therefore no reincarnation, but still referred to rebirth of karmic consequences. I think that rebirth is an unnecessary hangover from reincarnation. Karma is right or wrong action with good or bad consequences, respectively. We experience karma within a single life.
Buddhism can be presented very negatively, thus:
the only way to end suffering is to end consciousness;
the only way to end consciousness is not by suicide but by meditation which prevents rebirth;
thus, effectively, monasticism is elaborate suicide and an optimal world would be one with neither sex nor birth/rebirth ever occurring in it!
In fact, Buddhists experience joy here and now. The fact that Jiddu Krisnamurti, who rejected all supernaturalism, said that, if the Buddha were here, he would follow him to the end shows that the essence of Buddhism is not the teaching about ending rebirth or any other set of ideas.
12 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
But those "purer" forms of Buddhism are closer to what Buddha himself preached. And the forms mixing in religious elements turned it from simply a philosophy into a religion. The gaudiest of which is Tibetan Buddhism. Frankly, I think Buddha would have disliked this jumbling together of what he taught with the local religions of Tibet, China, Japan!
Ad astra! Sean
Of course, he's giving the "Cliff's Notes" version of Buddhism there.
I would point out that the overwhelming majority of people who actually practice Buddhism -do- believe in reincarnation, and always have, and usually in spirits and deities as well.
In India in the Buddha's time, reincarnation was believed in the way we believe in atoms -- it was ubiquitous, just part of the background of life, as was belief in karma/dharma as determining what you got in the lottery of rebirth.
Paul's version of the faith is much more characteristic of Western converts than the masses in countries where Buddhism is actually the majority faith.
Sean,
I don't think that the Buddha was agnostic about devas/gods. He just didn't regard them as important.
I do not accept rebirth and have not taken refuge/lay ordination so I do not count as a Buddhist.
Paul.
Also, his approach was experiential and pragmatic, not doctrinal or dogmatic. He said,"Remove the poisoned arrow from the flesh. Do not inquire about the caste or identity of the archer." (Paraphrase.)
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: Exactly. It looks a lot like how some, in the West, who feel attracted to Buddhism, sort of try to rationalize its more questionable aspects.
Paul: I disagree. Your own comments here strengthens my view. If Buddha did not regard questions about God or gods as important, that looks a lot like Buddha was, at most, agnostic.
I don't regard the "purest" forms of Buddhism as a religion, simply a philosophy. And, frankly, nowhere as solid and substantial as, say, Aristotelianism and its successors. It certainly did not TRANSFORM the world as did Aristotelianism allied with Christianity.
Ad astra! Sean
Buddhism is just the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. Anything else is just a local cultural extra.
Sean,
Urban mercantilism growing in the cracks of rural feudalism transformed the world. Christianity has been re-adapted as the ruling ideology for each stage of social development.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I still don't think Buddha would have approved of how the religions existing in Tibet, China, Japan, etc., became so mixed in with his own ideas.
No, everything that became characteristic of Western civilization: feudalism, Christianity, Aristotelianism/Scholasticism, the rise of new mercantile oriented burghers in the cities, etc., merged in strange, unique, unpredictable ways leading to what we call the West.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think you think the Buddha thought like you: doctrinally.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Actually, no. I was pointing out what I believed were unBuddhistic accretions to Buddha's philosophy, from the religions existing in Tibet, China, Japan, etc., when Buddhism arrived there.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Yes but I don't think he would have minded any more than he minded references to Indra and devas in India.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because of Buddha's indifference to theological questions, I remain dubious.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment