Letters to the Editor
-
when bad things happen to good people
>I realize that Karma is primarily about actions taken in >the present. But what of reincarnation being determined by >past (mis)/deeds? In several other religions, when 'bad >things happen to good people' it is said to be a 'test' of >their faith, not retribution for past sins. (Neither >explanation really works for me.)
To my understanding, when bad things happen to good people - the advice is to keep carrying on living according to the principles. The Buddha's words paraphrased: when someone is shot with an arrow, it is better to tend to the wound (suffering/stress) first rather than asking who shot it. http://buddhism.about.com/od/keyconcepts/a/Noteach.htm
So in a way, yes, challenging situations are tests too on top of being the 'natural' results of negative past actions. Yet the most important thing is to focus on what we can do right now, and the quality of the actions we do right now.
-
Why not kill yourself?
The more scientific evidence that comes in, the more likely it seems that there is no permanent self or soul - all the wonderful things I love about my husband could be destroyed by Alzheimer's, any quality I've worked hard to cultivate in myself could be destroyed in a car accident.
I desperately (probably like most people) want to believe not necessarily that there's a specific higher power, but that there's something transcendant about the world we live in.
A certain set of scientists (and I admire their logic) unerringly find the "hiding" place for that stubborn transcendant wish (quantum physics, the "substrate consciousness") and relentlessly argue that it's all just a pretty fairy tale. We're electric meat. Nothing endures.
I mean this question seriously: for those of you comfortable believing this, isn't it true at the very least that there's no reason _not_ to kill yourself? Your "self" has no inherent meaning anyway. Sure your husband and your cats would "miss" you, but that's just a cascade of chemical reactions. Who cares? You feel a strong sense of duty towards those who are less fortunate and would like to stick around to try to make the world a better place - but why try to alter other pieces of electric meat? It can't really matter if you're here or not, since "you" is a fictional construct. How can it be wrong to "check out?"
-
Why not kill yourself?
Hey Anonymous,
If you are really sure that nothing endures and your self has no inherent meaning, (a) feel free to "check out", and (b) before you do, please show how you *know* nothing endures and your self has no inherent meaning. Item (b) in particular would be greatly appreciated because lots of the people over the centuries have been trying to figure that one out without any success.
What is this scientific evidence you speak of which proves there is no permanent self or soul? Is it like the scientific evidence 200 years ago which proved that man could not fly?
As for me, although I accept the Buddhist theories on faith, it seems better to bet on them being true than false.
-
Exactly!
That's just it - I definitely don't know that the self has no inherent meaning (in fact, I'd like to believe it does). I thought (and I may well be wrong) that the idea that your "self' is an illusion and had no inherent meaning was one of the key tenants of Buddhism. And the scientific evidence (that a brain lesion destroys your personality, that deep emotional responses can arguably be explained solely by chemical cascades) seems to point in that direction.
Is the idea that there is a permanent self or soul compatible with Buddhism?
-
Re: Exactly!
I'm not sure how this area of Salon works... if it's really "Letters to the Editor" or if we're supposed to be talking to each other, but since it seems to be going in the direction of the latter...
No, the idea of a permanent self or soul is not compatible with Buddhism, and you're right, the illusory nature of such a self is one of the key tenets. You might say it's THE key tenet, though it has to be understood in the right way.
"Why not kill yourself?" is not the right way. Buddhism is neither nihilistic nor fatalistic. The reason not to kill yourself is that you can use the chance you have right now as an intelligent human being to free yourself from all suffering forever. And if you're a Mahayana Buddhist you can extend that to the opportunity to free everyone else. Or even if you don't manage to do that in this life, you can develop your mind so that you can continue to work toward that aim in the next life. This last, of course, is the canonical view and one that would not fit very well into materialist views of consciousness. But that's their problem.
Meanwhile, as an experiment, I started a discussion thread in Table Talk's "Mind and Spirit" area. I don't know if everyone has access to that or interest in using it, but I assume that as soon as the Wallace interview stops being displayed on Salon's main page it will be hard to continue talking through this letters forum, so welcome to anyone who cares to talk there.
-
Buddha on my Mind
I think much of what is interesting in this interview lies in the distinction between the brain and the mind. Alan is not challenging or denying the utility of the natural sciences or 19th century physics. I saw no criticism suggesting that there is not an important place for neuroscience is understating the processes and functions of the brain.
With that granted, I think that it is a very interesting proposition that the physical functions and processes in the brain are not necessarily equal to the functions and processes of the mind. There are indisputably neural correlates in the brain related to processes of the mind, but does not mean that they explain what the mind is. Of course the study of "consciousness" has of necessity been left out of science, for reasons that Alan touched upon in his interview; and so it has remained under the purview of religion and/or philosophy. I find it a challenging and inspired path of inquiry to wonder how the methods, instruments and theories of contemporary science may be combined with aspects of the (primarily Tibetan) Buddhist experience -- as developed and refined over thousands of years of 1st person investigations of the mind and mental processes -- in a way that might actually allow us to bridge this gap between the physical world and non-physical dimensions of experience and reality. Investigating this "gap" seems a natural extension of contemporary scientific investigations in physics in which it appears we are coming up against findings that seem to lead beyond measurable physical reality through the investigation of matter itself.
If we hypothesize that there is information which is accessible to the mind independent of physical existence and phenomenon, and if in Buddhist practitioners we can find minds that are willing and able to participate in experiments where we can evaluate such information and attempt to rule out all reasonable physical explanations as to how it was manifest, then I think we would be onto something.