Without Discoverable Beginning (The limitations of science)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 02:35 (4692 days ago) @ dhw

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 bring up a common criticism about Buddhism--in regards to women--one that is certainly shared by the Catholic Church in the west. (At least, Catholic priests were once allowed to marry... but then the question of who got what upon the death of the priest arose...)

Add to that that Gotama himself abandoned his wife and child to pursue his path. Though, they were still living in the resplendence of his father's wealth, so that's mitigated a bit here... The more harmful implication is the idea of abandoning your child. I have a hard time considering what could possibly be so important that I would abandon my children. There's probably an awesome novel in there somewhere...

Still: It is the exegesis of these documents that I find is the most important part. The important aspect for me in regards to religious literature is that it often forces you to be creative, and yes--you can come away with something different every time, but isn't that the true power and beauty of all poetry?

...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!

And if you ever make the mistake of googling "nihilism" I'm sorry. I never saw so much postmodern garbage in my life... And yes, I can see where the lack of a utility for an afterlife would shape my thinking on NDEs. I think I'd be better off planning for the void and be pleasantly surprised.

Returning to the issue you brought up with the Dalai Llama... I have to say that I think he's obligated to reincarnation--there's a battle brewing over his successor with China saying they get to dictate his successor... which of course sounds so absurd! I also learned a bit more... news that's probably old hat. The Dalai Llama is the former title for the ruler of Tibet, which was a "theocracy" based on Buddhism. I've always known that he was respected but wasn't seen as speaking for all Buddhists... It's important I think to note that I have very, very, rarely seen Buddhist writers reference outside of their own sect. I have yet to see Zen writers reference anything that the Llama has to say, Neither Thich Nhat Hahn nor disciples of Dogen here in the states have made any memorable quotes referencing the Dalai Llama. There is probably a polite competition here.

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.

To be clear here... I just wanted to be sure that YOU didn't think I was condescending! I did NOT want to insinuate that upon you.

We can't see into everyone's thoughts, and I KNOW that I can be overbearing... I've had friends and family both call me "self-righteous" before when I was pursuing some line of argument to its end. While I understand that you and David know me quite well about all of that--I never want anything I say to harm.

--
\"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.\"