RE: FW: reality

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 23 Jul 1999 11:49:47 +0100

A standard Zen koan is 'if there is no atman (self, soul, or 'I'), what is
it that becomes enlightened?' You can equally say 'If there is no self then
what is it that is reincarnated'? Reincarnation is really a lay belief, of
the masses but not of the scholars - at least not in the way we usually
interpret the word.

As for your second point re rituals, etc - these are merely tools which,
some groups suppose, will help some people achieve mental states which will
enable them to understand the truth more easily.

As you know, Buddhism has no keeper of a central doctrine - Buddhists are
certainly not required to believe in reincarnation. I have only identified
two core doctrines in many years of study of various strains of Therevada
and Mahayana Buddhism: the 4 noble truths (there is suffering, it is caused
by us wanting things to be other that as they are, it can be eliminated by
ceasing to have this want, and the route to the cessation of wanting is the
12fold noble path) and anatta (no-self).

There are some Pali texts which elaborate on this, but there are almost as
many schools of Buddhism as there are groups of Buddhists. As with Hindus,
a Buddhist is simply someone who calls himself a Buddhist. The ideas we have
discussed on this list fit seamlessly with my version of Buddhism, although
I am not a Buddhist today.

James


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Gilles HENRI [SMTP:Gilles.Henri.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 1999 11:01 AM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden
> Subject: RE: FW: reality
>
> > Russell
> >
> > Good points and much appreciated. Another idea is that everythingers
> >do also believe in reincarnation: It's not impossible, so it occurs. It
> is
> >also true that not all buddhists believe in reincarnation, just as not
> all
> >christians believe in hell.
> >
>
> My personal problem with reincarnation is not if it is possible or not :
> it
> is about its very meaning. If identity is not an objective property, it
> can
> not be transferred to a distant being.
> You could mean by reincarnation the fact that somebody could " remember "
> what really happened to somebody else. Of course this not strictly
> impossible : the atoms (or whatever else) that consitute your brain could
> by chance adopt such a configuration that corresponds to the memory of
> somebody else : but the probability of such a process is extremely low,
> probably not higher than macroscopic tunnelling effect, and most probably
> it never happened in our world. Unless you can invoke anthropic principle
> to show that such events are necessary for mankind to exist? (which is
> very
> doubtful in my sense...)
>
> > A full, deep understanding of physics is equivalent in some ways to the
> > Buddhist concept of enlightenment. The idea of self is relinquished. The
> > very fabric of reality is seen to be subjective. The absurdity of
> > attachments becomes clear.
>
> I agree that MWI (even without computationalist hypothesis) make clear the
> absurdity of any attachments, and even of any belief excepted that you
> don't really exist! (That's why I find it weird that buddhists can tell
> more than that : obey rituals, believe in reincarnation and so on...).
> Actually I think that this would arise from any non-religious vision of
> the
> world. However our brain has been made to feel these illusions, and you
> cannot so easily avoid to be happy or unhappy! So for me it is more useful
> to try to understand the source and the behaviour of our illusions
> (through
> physical laws to describe the material world, and psychology to try to
> understand our own mind) than to deny their reality....
>
> Gilles
>
>
>
>
>
>
Received on Fri Jul 23 1999 - 04:07:29 PDT