Introduction : My first thoughts on Buddhism
This was my first post on how I became interested in Buddhism, from about 2.5 months ago. I wanted to move those entries over here to keep everything together, so this is the first. I'm re-reading each one to see if there is anything I want to add since then.
In trying to trace my ancestry and ethnic origins I have landed at Buddhism by a slight tangent and finding it very interesting, I have been reading a bit about it here and there in my free minutes. From my ignorance to it, it has surprised me with it's logic in many regards. My natural tendency to view all things within the basic concepts of physics and apply pure logic where possible have been crowding my mind so I am making some notes for now. There might be errors in my logic and less important things, these are spontaneous and I don't have much time right now so I will just begin, and let it end where it does, and at least have something to come back to.
thoughts in no particular order:
The cycle of rebirth if I attempt to interpret it in scientific terms may well be the exhaustion of the neural momentum with the decomposition of our physical, biological being to the individual basic elements again, with the pure potential to once again become part of a new organism. The lack of the concept of a "soul" in Buddhism encourages my interpretation of this as a purely physical process.
The concept of Karma (the influence of actions and intentions in this existence within itself or on the next) looks a lot like a picture of Newton's third Law of Motion -- for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction -- and the conservation of energy, that is that energy is neither created nor destroyed but exists as a constant which simply changes from one state to another -- which to us mere mortals may appear to be the creation and depletion of energy altogether; but this is an illusion to our shallow and superficial perception -- something which can easily be overcome, for instance through right observation. One thing that evades my logic is the carrying over of this energy within the specific cycle of a single individual's existence -- perhaps it's not meant to be interpreted that way at all though and lacking individuality in general we are meant to see our actions as influence on the world and life in general which in this way affects our next existence.
The Four Noble Truths are a basic teaching of Buddhism and main principle of the philosophy. They read as:
...which I understand as:
1. the cause of unhappiness, ie The Problem
2. the Cause of this problem
3. the Solution to this problem
4. the actual Act of implementing the solution (a solution being useless if not put into action)
This is the logical foundation of how I personally solve a problem and have for a long time. This very simple approach that can be applied to virtually and situation in which a problem is perceived is why so many people consider me to give good advice. The matters of identifying the problem and of coming up with a viable solution are of course key variables but the formula for resolution is the same.
Human Superiority + other Life
In the teachings I have found to this point, it would appear to me that the life of a human is not in any way special as compared to that of any other animal. I have long asked myself why it should be, and explained my own subscription to the notion as speciesism, which I consider natural and healthy. I have always found the unnecessary harm or destruction of life of any kind to be abhorrent yet accepted the slaughter of animals by humans for food even if I myself have a vegetarian preference. After all, other animals practice this and what is natural is acceptable.
What seems to set us apart from the other animals is our sentience and intelligence. Sentience is something perceived and assumed to be unique to us -- interestingly enough, some of the Buddhist reference I have found have referred to it as a "delusion". And intelligence at all is not inherent among humans. So when it comes down to the value of the life of someone who is unintelligent it seems to be our speciesism alone that still puts them before an animal. (This is the logical conclusion I have come to thus far and any further insight would be appreciated.)
The lack of attempt to "control" others and their decisions makes the Buddhist philosophies feel very free to me. Christianity seems to want to boast the same free will, in fact considering it a key part of their own teachings, yet has so many exceptions in the form of rigid commands (the most important being literally set in stone!) it almost seems contradictory. (Edit: I just do not consider someone "free" to do something if they would receive punishment for it as a consequence. I think it was a concept adapted into Christianity as a way of explaining why God doesn't simply make everything happen the way it should.) Most Christian establishments seem to teach that a person will be held accountable for their actions at some point after death and (depending on the denomination) finally at the ultimate "Judgement Day." Yet the churches today still insist on ruling and punishing here and now, in their own right, particularly by a participation in government with the intent of upholding their own opinions of morality.
It's clear even from a non-religious perspective why this is necessary to a degree -- in fact, perhaps even more so from the non-religious side and not believing that a person will eventually be brought to justice by some supernatural means, and so exercising our responsibility to protect the rest of our community from anyone who is an obvious threat, for instance.
If we consider something wrong and therefore make it illegal we are really not doing anything different than what religious activists want to do in making what they believe to be wrong also illegal. We just disagree about what is wrong and harmful. As non-religious persons our concepts of the wrong and harmful are limited to literal and physical perception and this suffices. (Edit: I no longer consider myself a non-religious person, but an adherent to Buddhist philosophy which can be defined as religion and I have no problem with that, personally.)
The religious insist on taking this a step further, into their spirituality, which can arguably be considered wrong because it places restrictions on those of us who do not subscribe to such concepts (not only the non-religious but also those practicing other sets of beliefs which do not necessarily entail the specific rules in question). This part is obvious. What is less obvious is what I have already hinted toward though, that it is not only not in the interests of those not adhering to this religion but also, for instance again in the case of most denominations of Christianity, but also a seemingly blatant sign of doubt that a person will in fact be inevitably held accountable for their actions, making it necessary to take matters into their own hands in this existence. (HMM, a lot of nots but not for naught, lol sorry) (Can anyone offer another explanation on this one or otherwise further enlightment?)
note: I am aware that there are several different types of Buddhism and I have not specified any of my references. To be honest, I have not kept them. I am still learning and perhaps will take better notes as I continue but I have limited time right now as well.
originally written 2010-07-12 13:48:00
In trying to trace my ancestry and ethnic origins I have landed at Buddhism by a slight tangent and finding it very interesting, I have been reading a bit about it here and there in my free minutes. From my ignorance to it, it has surprised me with it's logic in many regards. My natural tendency to view all things within the basic concepts of physics and apply pure logic where possible have been crowding my mind so I am making some notes for now. There might be errors in my logic and less important things, these are spontaneous and I don't have much time right now so I will just begin, and let it end where it does, and at least have something to come back to.
thoughts in no particular order:
The cycle of rebirth if I attempt to interpret it in scientific terms may well be the exhaustion of the neural momentum with the decomposition of our physical, biological being to the individual basic elements again, with the pure potential to once again become part of a new organism. The lack of the concept of a "soul" in Buddhism encourages my interpretation of this as a purely physical process.
The concept of Karma (the influence of actions and intentions in this existence within itself or on the next) looks a lot like a picture of Newton's third Law of Motion -- for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction -- and the conservation of energy, that is that energy is neither created nor destroyed but exists as a constant which simply changes from one state to another -- which to us mere mortals may appear to be the creation and depletion of energy altogether; but this is an illusion to our shallow and superficial perception -- something which can easily be overcome, for instance through right observation. One thing that evades my logic is the carrying over of this energy within the specific cycle of a single individual's existence -- perhaps it's not meant to be interpreted that way at all though and lacking individuality in general we are meant to see our actions as influence on the world and life in general which in this way affects our next existence.
The Four Noble Truths are a basic teaching of Buddhism and main principle of the philosophy. They read as:
1. The Noble Truth of Suffering
2. The Noble Truth of the Accumulation of Suffering
3. The Noble Truth of the Elimination of Suffering
4. The Noble Truth of the Path that leads away from Suffering
...which I understand as:
1. the cause of unhappiness, ie The Problem
2. the Cause of this problem
3. the Solution to this problem
4. the actual Act of implementing the solution (a solution being useless if not put into action)
This is the logical foundation of how I personally solve a problem and have for a long time. This very simple approach that can be applied to virtually and situation in which a problem is perceived is why so many people consider me to give good advice. The matters of identifying the problem and of coming up with a viable solution are of course key variables but the formula for resolution is the same.
Human Superiority + other Life
In the teachings I have found to this point, it would appear to me that the life of a human is not in any way special as compared to that of any other animal. I have long asked myself why it should be, and explained my own subscription to the notion as speciesism, which I consider natural and healthy. I have always found the unnecessary harm or destruction of life of any kind to be abhorrent yet accepted the slaughter of animals by humans for food even if I myself have a vegetarian preference. After all, other animals practice this and what is natural is acceptable.
What seems to set us apart from the other animals is our sentience and intelligence. Sentience is something perceived and assumed to be unique to us -- interestingly enough, some of the Buddhist reference I have found have referred to it as a "delusion". And intelligence at all is not inherent among humans. So when it comes down to the value of the life of someone who is unintelligent it seems to be our speciesism alone that still puts them before an animal. (This is the logical conclusion I have come to thus far and any further insight would be appreciated.)
The lack of attempt to "control" others and their decisions makes the Buddhist philosophies feel very free to me. Christianity seems to want to boast the same free will, in fact considering it a key part of their own teachings, yet has so many exceptions in the form of rigid commands (the most important being literally set in stone!) it almost seems contradictory. (Edit: I just do not consider someone "free" to do something if they would receive punishment for it as a consequence. I think it was a concept adapted into Christianity as a way of explaining why God doesn't simply make everything happen the way it should.) Most Christian establishments seem to teach that a person will be held accountable for their actions at some point after death and (depending on the denomination) finally at the ultimate "Judgement Day." Yet the churches today still insist on ruling and punishing here and now, in their own right, particularly by a participation in government with the intent of upholding their own opinions of morality.
It's clear even from a non-religious perspective why this is necessary to a degree -- in fact, perhaps even more so from the non-religious side and not believing that a person will eventually be brought to justice by some supernatural means, and so exercising our responsibility to protect the rest of our community from anyone who is an obvious threat, for instance.
If we consider something wrong and therefore make it illegal we are really not doing anything different than what religious activists want to do in making what they believe to be wrong also illegal. We just disagree about what is wrong and harmful. As non-religious persons our concepts of the wrong and harmful are limited to literal and physical perception and this suffices. (Edit: I no longer consider myself a non-religious person, but an adherent to Buddhist philosophy which can be defined as religion and I have no problem with that, personally.)
The religious insist on taking this a step further, into their spirituality, which can arguably be considered wrong because it places restrictions on those of us who do not subscribe to such concepts (not only the non-religious but also those practicing other sets of beliefs which do not necessarily entail the specific rules in question). This part is obvious. What is less obvious is what I have already hinted toward though, that it is not only not in the interests of those not adhering to this religion but also, for instance again in the case of most denominations of Christianity, but also a seemingly blatant sign of doubt that a person will in fact be inevitably held accountable for their actions, making it necessary to take matters into their own hands in this existence. (HMM, a lot of nots but not for naught, lol sorry) (Can anyone offer another explanation on this one or otherwise further enlightment?)
note: I am aware that there are several different types of Buddhism and I have not specified any of my references. To be honest, I have not kept them. I am still learning and perhaps will take better notes as I continue but I have limited time right now as well.
originally written 2010-07-12 13:48:00