Without Discoverable Beginning (The limitations of science)

by dhw, Tuesday, January 17, 2012, 12:39 (4480 days ago) @ xeno6696

Matt quoted from the teachings of “the Blessed One”, and I posed a series of questions.

First of all, thank you for your response. I must confess that I was being slightly naughty, in that my questions were a mixture of inquiry and Matt-like scepticism. Virtually every aspect of the quote was wide open to different interpretations, and my post contained a particularly pointed parenthesis concerning the situation of women in the great quest for Enlightenment. Ambivalence is the keynote here as in many other religious teachings: they mean whatever you want them to mean. So much so that for me they lose all credibility, and even when they give direct moral or philosophical guidance, this is also – as you so rightly say – subject to the test of experience. Your answers generally confirm this impression, and there are only two that I would like to make further comment on.

You wrote: “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.” This would help to explain the nature of our discussion on NDEs, but for what it’s worth, I don’t see you as a nihilist at all. You have a breadth of interests that indicates almost boundless curiosity, and your scepticism does not stop you from continually delving into the value of things and pursuing those which you think have potential. That, I’m happy to say, is not my idea of nihilism! As regards the afterlife, I myself can’t conceive of a form that would entail “purpose”, but I remain curious without “craving”. If death is the end, so be it. But the idea of being reunited with loved ones is immensely attractive, even if one hasn’t a clue what one will do for the next hundred years, let alone eternity!

Secondly, the first two lines of my little poem (“O Master Xeno, thou know’st more than me, / Myopic as I am, so help me see") disturbed you:
“I fear condescension and don’t wish to harm our friendship in that way!”
I hope you now know me better than that! You have a far broader grasp of Buddhism than I have, and the same applies to a vast range of other subjects. The poem was a light-hearted way of finishing off a series of questions – though of course I did not expect definitive answers – and of making my own comment on the negative view of life that arises from the whole concept of samsara. We have many disagreements, but these are rarely based on knowledge and far more frequently on matters of interpretation and/or difficulties of communication. However, let me state categorically that the last thing my wide-ranging ignorance could possibly allow is condescension. People like David and yourself are continually broadening my horizons, even if my own scepticism (and pedantry) make me challenge you every inch of the way! My apologies if the lines gave you the wrong impression.