Buddhism and the meaning of life
Related Topics
bholl ...@hotmail.com (Brian Holly)
Was writing a reply to someone on another board and came up with this. Would love to get your reactions. Best - Brian If life had a predetermined meaning, then it would have an essence and hence be non-empty. "Life has meaning" -- that means that the events in life can be arranged into a satsifying narrative. I think that's one of the chief roles of religion and myth: to give us the resources to shape the events of our life into a narrative. But this meaning is not inherent in life, rather it is an interpretation. When someone converts from one religion to another, the events in their past do not change, but how they view them, the narrative significance they give them does. Christianity offers us one sort of template we might use to give significance to the events of our lives: it generates a narrative of sin, forgiveness, and redemption, and it offers us an important role to play (usually a variation of the Prodigal Son), so that we see what happens in our life as significant, not just atoms bumping into each other randomly.
Buddhism offers us a much different template, but the function is pretty much the same. The difference is that Buddhism teaches us to see that the meaning is not inherent, that it is instead imputed --
by us. Life has no meaning until we find and impose an intepretation of it that satisfies us. - Brian
Tang Huyen tang_hu...@yahoo.com
So to you Buddhism is another religion just like any other religion, in that it supplies us with meaning to interpret our life with, which is its function, the only difference between it and the other religions being that it relegates this meaning to the imputed realm rather than to the natural realm.
If I get Buddhism aright, the state of blowing-out (nirvana) is the calming of all compositions (the fourth aggregate, which includes thought and language), and in this state all value and meaning have been relinquished, all templates with them.
So if I get Buddhism aright, it goes beyond all other religions in emptying out any and all value or meaning from the ultimate state even while one remains alive and fully cognisant of the world.
Technically, the Buddhist sage does not put anything in front of himself (a-pranihita, usually translated "wishless"). He does not impose any template, any value, any meaning, any interpretation, be they satisfying to him, for the Buddha says: "What and what they think it, it is otherwise".
He opens himself up fully and unconditionally to what happens, but if a contrario he was to impose any template, any value, any meaning, any interpretation, be they satisfying to him, they would instantly act as an obstacle between him and what happens.
Tang Huyen
Boris Fuller orourbo...@hotmail.com
following the logic ...as far as i am able...
dropping (or extinguishing) the imputed meanings would result necessarily in a life with no meaning...
no significance.
do you mean this as the "end" of buddhism?
that last sentence was interestingly worded.
"satisfaction" allows nicely for a wide range of narrative solutions.
apart from that, i think you stereotype both christian and buddhist attitudes. if you look at the humanist end of christianity and the devotion end of buddhism your characterisations become nonsensical, or just plain wrong.
Boris
ltl ...@hotmail.com (LT Lee)
Excellent question.
Meaning is putting things in a context, fitting it to a narrative script or template. Life has no "correct" objective meaning without humanity having a destiny.
Religion such as Christianty does try to provide the objective meaning by providing a realtaively fixed destiny. History, according to the Christian world view is a linear and parallel progression of good and evil toward the final show down between them. The subjective meaning of a Christian's life is a struggle to reamin in the right side of history, to remain good.
Buddhism, however, does not recognize any fixed destiny. If there is no fixed destiny, no one can reach the wrong destination. The subjective meaning of a buddhist's life is to overcome the temptation of attachment to a fixed destiny.
"Eric Chang ~{VY;T~}" ecch...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Are you sure about that? Are you sure "remaining good" is not a central tenet of Buddhism?
Eric
"Dwayne Conyers" dwa...@my-deja.com
Have you read "Jesus and Buddha as Brothers" by Thich Nhat Hanh? A very interesting read...
--
?¤??,????,???¤???°`?°???¤?????¤???°`?°???¤?¤???°`?°???¤?¤??,????,???¤ Can you hear me now? Good!
http://www.dwacon.com ?¤??,????,???¤???°`?°???¤?????¤???°`?°???¤?¤???°`?°???¤?¤??,????,???¤
Tang Huyen tang_hu...@yahoo.com
Being good or doing good or remaining good has no central place in Buddhism and is not a central tenet of Buddhism.
Buddhism is concerned with ending suffering, and suffering is due to desire, which itself creates thought and the self to satisfy itself, desire.
Thus Buddhism seeks to end desire and its products, like thought and the self, and being good or doing good or remaining good are at best peripheral to such a pursuit. Indeed when thought is quiesced, there is no distinction between good and bad any longer.
To return to the meaning of life and Buddhism, the quiescence of thought entails the release of all structures, frameworks, templates, values, meanings, etc., and in this tranquil absence of them there is nothing fixed, even less any fixed destiny. That is why the Buddhist sage has a consciousness that is unsupported, unestablished, ungrounded.
In Buddhism, especially in Chinese Buddhism, a well-known saying is: "The past thought is already vanished, the future thought is not reached yet, the present thought does not stand (yadi tavad atitam cittam tat ksinam yad anagatam cittam tad asampraptah atha pratyutpannasya cittasya sthitir nasti)." A. von Sta?«l-Holstein, ed., Kasyapa-parivarta, Shanghai: Commercial Press, 1944, ?§97, 142.
Given that the present thought does not stand, there is no remaining on anything, no remaining anything, even less remaining good.
Tang Huyen
Ch'an Fu Cha...@metta.lk
yet with distinction erased, discernment and wisdom become clear, cause and effect unchanged.
Tang Huyen tang_hu...@yahoo.com
I don't claim wisdom, but from the little that I know, the Buddha before starting his teaching career realised that what he had discovered goes against the stream, and as it is said in English, wisdom is odious to fools.
Tang Huyen
Ch'an Fu Cha...@metta.lk
simply that, without 'self' in the way, clear discernment and wisdom (understanding karma)'replace' good/bad distinctions and judgments, without rules or bibles to rely on.
it is indeed odious to fools.
ltl ...@hotmail.com (LT Lee)
"Remaining good" is implicit in all human pursuits. Else there will not be any kind of seeking. But still, Christianity is about having one singular desire (Jesus/God) leads to strength. Buddhism is about "having no desire leads to strength." In zen buddhism, it is called "normal heart is dao." The problem is not the lack of desire to be good. But the gap between desire and outcome.
1. No one do bad things for the sake of doing bad things. Most of the time, they wants to do good. But they end up doing bad thing. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak." 2. Without knowing the future, we really don't know what is doing good and what is doing bad. (An analogous question in evolutionary biology is: Whether evolution is directional?)
"Eric Chang ~{VY;T~}" ecch...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
In my mind, Christians are in many ways more Buddhist than Buddhists.
Through his salvation, and in following the Way and the Word, earthly desires are abandoned.
"No one" is too all-inclusive.
For Christians, the weakness of the flesh cannot be overcome by oneself, but through God.
I disagree. We do know.
Eric
"Eric Chang ~{VY;T~}" ecch...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
Isn't "ending suffering" a form of doing good?
Why does Buddhism "seeks" to do anything? Why is it "concerned" with anything?
Isn't that a form of desire, albeit a spiritual one?
What do you think "doing good" means anyway?
Eric
"Eric Chang ~{VY;T~}" ecch...@soda.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
1 Corinthians 1:18-31 The Wisdom of God 18 I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God. 19As the Scriptures say, "I will destroy human wisdom and discard their most brilliant ideas."[3] 20 So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. 20 Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would never find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe. 22 God's way seems foolish to the Jews because they want a sign from heaven to prove it is true. And it is foolish to the Greeks because they believe only what agrees with their own wisdom. 23 So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended, and the Gentiles say it's all nonsense. 24 But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles,[4] Christ is the mighty power of God and the wonderful wisdom of God. 25 This "foolish" plan of God is far wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God's weakness is far stronger than the greatest of human strength. 26 Remember, dear brothers and sisters, that few of you were wise in the world's eyes, or powerful, or wealthy when God called you. 27 Instead, God deliberately chose things the world considers foolish in order to shame those who think they are wise. And he chose those who are powerless to shame those who are powerful. 28 God chose things despised by the world, things counted as nothing at all, and used them to bring to nothing what the world considers important, 29 so that no one can ever boast in the presence of God. 30 God alone made it possible for you to be in Christ Jesus. For our benefit God made Christ to be wisdom itself. He is the one who made us acceptable to God. He made us pure and holy, and he gave himself to purchase our freedom. 31 As the Scriptures say, "The person who wishes to boast should boast only of what the Lord has done."[5]
ltl ...@hotmail.com (LT Lee)
Christians think they know according to their faith. But it is not objective. If only subjective meaning is soughted, no religion is needed to accomplish that.
Seeing time as space, each of us is a worker on an unending ***embly-line of humnaity. We primarily work on us. Each of us appear from one end of this ***embly-line and disappear at the other end. As far as we can see, all other people are doing similar task. We are all fanatically doing something like Charlie Chaplin in the movie "Metropolis." But to what end?
Of course, the Charlie Chaplin character can appreciate and find meaning in the work he did. "It is indeed wonderful that the bolt and nut fitted." "Look at the new screwdriver, it is a masterpiece of art." "I put on 1500 screws each day 2 years ago, I put on 1800 screws today, I can strive to 2000 screws next year." No religion is needed to be like that.
But many people will also seek to answer the question: "What are we all making?" This is where organized/group religion become important in play.
ltl ...@hotmail.com (LT Lee)
Actually, the rise of West is the result of abandoning "doing good" in the sense of seeking the absolute will of God which had caused tremendous suffering. Instead, the focus is on a proxy, the accumulation of earthy goods.
Jack spaml...@ntlworld.com
Ambiguous post - what is it that you are ***erting "had caused tremendous suffering" - seeking the will, or abandoning it?
I note the word used in your last sentence to refer to material production - "goods". The rise of western industrial society was not (IMO) the result of abandoning the search for the AWOG, quite the contrary - surely it was the result of a wish to diminish human suffering by trying to better meet the needs of mankind for food, clothing, fuel, shelter etc.
I'm not particularly espousing industrialism (or capitalism, for that matter); I'm just suggesting that it did not arise from malign intentions, and its defects are to do with the way it is administered.
Jack.
ltl ...@hotmail.com (LT Lee)
Is this a pre-supposition about human's buddha nature?
Ch'an Fu Cha...@metta.lk
no. it's the secret to really good curry.
Ch'an Fu Cha...@metta.lk
no. it's the secret to really good curry.
ltl ...@hotmail.com (LT Lee)
Not from malign intention. From certain sense of humbleness.
"Evelyn Ruut" mama_l...@ulster.net
Buddhism and is not a desire, which itself self, and being good So then Tang, why is it that the Buddha offered us the noble 8 fold path?......which approaches the very issue of suffering through creating better causes for better effects? in essence - being "good"...
Regards, Evelyn
| To Top |