Without Discoverable Beginning (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, January 17, 2012, 00:01 (4693 days ago) @ dhw

dhw

...Did he believe that each human being passes through different lives? (Men only, or do the mothers also come again? And can they achieve enlightenment?) Or that humans endlessly repeat the cycle of ignorance and craving endured by their predecessors? Or that each of us repeats the cycle during our one life? I’ve always felt that the concept of moksha (liberation) might just as well be identical to permanent death (no more rebirth, no more suffering). And it’s all very well being unfettered by craving, but some of the greatest human joys and achievements have also arisen out of craving – not least, the need for love – and without it, the human species would die out within a single generation!

1. Did he actually say this?

Who knows for sure? The book is from "In the Buddha's Words," but every Zen teacher I've read all say pretty much the same things: The Buddha was a man, not a God, and his writings were passed orally for a very long time. Is it a good translation? It's translated by 'Bhikku Bodhi' an American-born Theravedan Buddhist ordained in Sri Lanka. He's well-respected.

The tiebreaker in Buddhist practice--is experience. If you use a teaching and it manages to make your own--or someone else's--life better, then its a true teaching. (And it doesn't contradict the core tenets, such as nonviolence.)

You're the one who brought the Samsara discussion together with the Dalai Llama some weeks back. Since the Pali Canon is the oldest known (complete) body of the Buddha's teaching, I thought it would potentially shed some light.

Craving as you have termed it--isn't quite right. It's perfectly fine to love, to get angry, and to get sad--but what isn't alright is when you lose yourself in the emotion. It's true--great and beautiful things can happen when one loses themselves. The main perspective of Buddhism however--is that we should cultivate our insight as well as our will, so we know when we're losing control. It wouldn't be too far to say that it's like learning to lucid dream in your waking hours.

I think that without doubt that the original Buddha most certainly accepted the Hindu idea of the cycles of birth and death--his major reformation was that it was possible to break away from the cycle and live forever in "the ultimate dimension," of which, nothing I've read even tries to discuss it. The more... "Utilitarian" Buddhism that I started learning 8-9 years ago simply chooses not to bring those things on board. (Which makes sense... both the Chinese and Japanese are well known for their practicality.)

What I'm coming to realize is that perhaps David is right, and all along I've been a sort of Nihilist. I just... see no purpose for an afterlife, and that entire aspect of religion is the part that I have the least care for.

Though in my recent searches I HAVE come across several Buddhist sites claiming evidence(s) for rebirth--even from non-Buddhists. However... the stories all fall into that "NDE" territory and I (as usual) feel I have no rung with which I can grasp.

In the context of our discussion on time, how can there be a cycle of birth and rebirth of any kind without a past and a present, and how can moksha be attainable if there is no such thing as a future? All of these terms indicate that time is a sequential reality.

IF you want my true opinion here, I think that the whole concept of death/rebirth is best understood metaphorically. In terms of our relation with time--you hit it right on the head in the other thread--that there are sequences of events, however, the key insight is that at our present state--the ultimate cause of these sequences have no discoverable beginning... hence why I chose that particular selection for this thread. In Buddhist terms, the linear story is really to get the practitioner to think about how inter-related we all are, and in the light of science and evolution--this point is underlined and exclaimed! If it is true that all life descended from a single living creature--then by all means we have much more room (in my book) to love everything that exists.

As for a discoverable beginning for samsara, did he mean that we would never know how life originated, or that life on Earth may have been preceded by life elsewhere in the universe, or that we would never know when humans first walked the earth and began to suffer and get themselves recycled?

I'd have to put myself in the mind of Gotama. I often said that Nietzsche taught me how to read, and I hold to that. I think he would have said yes to all three. Myself... even with the Big Bang, even with a first cause and/or a creator--the problem of discoverability remains.

O Master Xeno, thou know'st more than me,
Myopic as I am, so help me see.
But if to end the cycle of death and life
Means no more chocolate, no more kids or wife,
Methinks my preference will be rebirth,
Since there's so much to live for here on Earth.

I realize it's poetry, but I certainly hope I don't come off as those first two lines... I know I can be strong-willed, but I fear condescension and don't wish to harm our friendship in that way!

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"