victorialis

AdamWho, I think yours are the right questions to ask. Do we want to answer them? I'll take a shot at it.

This depends upon the society and the extent to which Buddhism is normative. Where it is dominant, it appears to reinforce social order at the expense of individuals, as sbaii has pointed out.

It's worth noting, though, that this is the view from outside. We can't speak of the satisfaction level of those individuals who aren't complaining; we only know about those who do complain that they are not satisfied. They make a good case for their dissatisfaction.

In a less rigidly stratified society where it is not dominant, Buddhism operates in the individual according to how the individual interprets and applies its principles, and the sum of those practicing individuals determine Buddhism's effect upon society (I don't know how we can quantify or qualify this, or even that we should).

This question makes me wonder about the nature of the alternative implied. Any road followed precisely to its end leads nowhere.

It could be either. Buddhism's effectiveness depends entirely upon the individual's attitude toward the technology involved. By this I mean the quality of understanding gained and, especially, the consistency with which that understanding is applied.

To address this I have to ask for clarification: What do we want this concept (or any concept) to "contain"? What do we want from it? At the risk of playing word games with you here -- I ask this so that I can answer on the ground from which you ask the question.

If you believe it is a non-concept, can you demonstrate this? I can't.

St. Robert

AdamWho,

Read my statement again. I made no such assumption about Buddhists or their motives behind sacrificing desire. You twisted my comment to suit your own assumptions of me. I was strictly making the comment based on the one and only path to absolute peace through the redemptive power and sacrifical blood of Jesus Christ.

Grizzly

St. Robert,

When you say that there is only one path to absolute peace, are your refering to your religions belief in an afterlife (in which there will be peace) or are you implying that absolute peace is obtainable while we are alive?

thanks

AdamWho

victorialis:
I argue that "we are all one" is a non-concept in the same way "god is everything" is a non-concept; that is it does create a new concept, it just shifts labels. What is this One, what are its properties, how are we all one? The idea of Oneness is so vague to the point of being meaningless; we might as well say "we are all dortumz".

You might object and say that Oneness has meaning, such as "we are all in this together" or "we are all the same deep inside", (of course you wouldn't use my colloquialisms).
I would counter lets assume that Oneness has meaning then; the statement "we are all one" is either a statement about the physical world or it is a statement about the speakers feelings, opinions or mental state: subjective.

If it is about the physical world then it is false because we are not one physical, ideological, mentally, psychologically ... all one; we are however the same species, but I don't think that the statement is referring to that or limiting it to humans.
If it is about the speakers "feeling" that we are all one, then it is not any more useful than "I like the color blue" or "I feel happy today" or "My feeling of Oneness makes me feel like I am not alone and my life has meaning"

I think these criticisms can be leveled at the four noble truths, but I have realized from this thread, not everybody wants to deconstruct every religion.
Many non-belivers seem to be revolting against a particular religion and not examining the underlying social / psychological problems that drive people to seek religion in the first place. I think Buddhism makes great stides in this effort, but each person must constantly guard their motivations. I feel that the manifestation of western Buddhism fails in this area.

[ May 26, 2002: Message edited by: AdamWho ]</p>

victorialis

AdamWho, although I don't think they are conclusive, I agree with all your observations about oneness. Responsible objections to the idea of oneness are political in nature, and responsible politics must address the question of fairness to multiplicity.

But are you not demonstrating by your objections that you participate in oneness? You're thinking from a big-picture perspective. And yet you remain yourself.

I agree fully with this, especially about guarding one's motivations. You've nailed something essential there. Meet this one responsibility, and any discipline (spiritual or otherwise) can be undertaken profitably. Know what you want and what you want it for; maintain this knowledge, and even disappointment is constructive -- it's all useful feedback.

About the manifestations of western Buddhism: They are the outer face. sbaii observed that Buddhism does not offer a way to solve the world's problems. At the risk of playing the apologist, I don't find this fact as damning as sbaii seems to. None of us individually stands much of a chance of saving the world, and group efforts have not done much better so far.

A more reasonable expectation might be to render the problems more manageable. Suffering (agitation) is acknowledged by Buddhism to be more or less intractable; our reactions to it, however, are not. The four noble truths are just a model for working the problem of our reactions. The model has to be understood personally before it can be applied to good effect. The fourth noble truth is the hairiest one, as we've already noted (8fold path, right this, right that).

But if the basic ideas I'm working with here are sound, I expect them to be scalable -- up or down, so social participation and self-labeling (and their disadvantages) should be unnecessary, regardless of the comfort, support and confusion they may offer.

Feedback from social interaction is still important, but if I depend upon it exclusively, I'll often be working with either a casual type of understanding -- a lowest common denominator -- or with a specialist type of understanding which may not be appropriate for me at the time. I'm not limited to that, though; I can inquire on my own, directly, and be responsible for my own findings (which I have always been, whether I knew it or not).

As it happens, Zen Buddhism encourages and validates this effort -- unlike deconstruction, the end of which is invariably the nullity of despair. Deconstruction doesn't encourage independent inquiry; it attempts to demonstrate the futility of inquiry, by disestablishing all relationships. Settle for that if you will.

Of course, in order to inquire and realise any benefit, I have to really look at Buddhism and not worry that I "might get some on me." That doesn't worry me at all; plenty of other stuff has washed off of me easily enough.

But I can appreciate this reluctance. Unfortunately I can only validate it clearly by rabbiting on in long posts. Thanks to all for their patience.

AdamWho

victorialis:
I agree with your previous post.
but I am not really interested deconstruction of every detail of Buddhism.
I feel that this thread has given me what I was looking for, i don't know if there is anything I can add.

boneyard bill

Adam Who writes:

You still don't get my point. It has nothing to do with quantum mechanics. (At least not directly). It has to do with epistemology. The question is whether or not radical self-discovery leads to reliable knowledge. My point was that reliable knowledge of self is important not merely for psychological reasons but for physics as well and I used the example of the speed of light to illustrate why.

Of course, modern science doesn't accept radical self-discovery as epistemologically valid and therefore don't try to reconcile their discoveries with mystical claims. There have been a few, Fritof Capra for example, who have suggested a possible connection, and they are usually dismissed as cranks. So I'm not claiming that modern scientific discoveries support mysticism. For that to happen, scientists would have to take such claims seriously and see where it led in terms of the interpretation of present data.

However, I see no reason why radical self-knowledge shouldn't be as reliable a source of information as any other form of empiricism. It is a philosophical prejudice of modern science that rejects this method. There is no logically compelling reason for doing so.

I will probably be off the net for a considerable period of time so I won't be able to discuss this further right now.

boneyard bill

Posted by Victorialis:

Victorialis is correct on this point.

boneyard bill

Adam Who writes:

But when we do that, we make ourselves the center of the world. We put ourselves in the role of the final arbiter of truth, and that is no way to induce self-surrender. That is what is so confoundedly difficult about "enlightenment." That is why "faith," in the Christian sense, seems to work so well. Giving up our demand to know the truth, is essential to knowing the truth. We have to get beyond our ego-centered way of knowing.

boneyard bill

demon sword writes:

Then you probably missed my point. I agree that they are not more "real" than Christian poetic myths, but in the same sense that scientific theories and explanations are no more real than Christian poetic myths. All language is metaphor. Technical language tends to deal with abstractions but these abstractions are still metaphors. Mytho-poetic language deals with the issues in concrete metaphors.