Eudaimonist

After reading Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind, I can't see how at least that form of Buddhism does anything to foster rational thinking. If anything, it seems to do the opposite, fostering a purely perceptual, not conceptual, awareness.

Stoicism, OTOH, does seem to foster rational thought by freeing one from a muddle of emotional impulses.

Answerer

Well, consciousness as far as I understand it has many 'levels' and science had never defined consciousness properly due to their lack of understanding of it. Even the most ancient philosopher had diverse beliefs and ideas about it. Regardless, I'm quite certain that with the scientific devices and theories we have now won't be able to measure or define consciousness properly, but will lead to more useless speculation.
Anyway, after lives in Buddhism is no enjoyment but mostly suffering, thats why Buddhism demands on practical training which ends after lives.

Answerer

Well, recarnation is definitely one of the core ideology in Buddhism, yet, Buddhism doesn't have the 'soul' concept as in hinduism. Of course, in training, most buddhists are asked to get rid of their attachments by 'throwing away' their concepts of 'self', etc, including recarnation. Therefore, it isn't surprising that Buddha , Himself, doesn't believe in anything at all since He is the one who preach Dharma in the first place.

Demosthenes

So...you're saying that recarnation is indeed a core ideology even though the Buddha himself didn't believe in it? Am I missing something here? It's hardly surprising that recarnation came along later on considering the often intimate connections Buddhism had with the Hindu ideology.

universatile

Good point. I suppose I dont either for the most part. Theres just a few things about buddhism that are in my opinion a little excessive.
Like you said before, its not so easy to maintain whether a person is enlightened or not. Theres one discrepancy in my book.

The idea that it is the destiny of everyone to be enlightened is unlikely as well. Thats like saying that mankind will become a utopia and stay that way forever. Very unlikely.

The idea of Boddhisatvas however rings really true for me. Compassion is something so lacking in the world that the idea of them really makes sense. (Related to suffering.)

[ July 27, 2002: Message edited by: universatile ]</p>

Answerer

Well, Buddha did preach that all sentinel beings are undergoing an endless cycle of life and death which indirectly point to recarnation, although He didn't actually say the word.
Nevertheless the primary goal of Buddhism is to remove all attachments and false or pointless views(all sorts of beliefs) rather than promoting or creating an unique religious 'cosmology'. Thats why you won't be able to find Buddha talking about the universe or physics in any sutras. If I'm not wrong, I recall that Buddha often dismiss or ignore questions regarding cosmology which He regarded as irrelevant question, and instead He encouraged questions more about non-attachments.
Well, maybe from His reactions to those metaphysics questions, we can see His non-attachment to the material world.

lugotorix

From what we know of the Buddha's early teachings, he himself seemed to believe in reincarnation but in at least one scripture (the Kalama Sutta) said that it was not necessary to believe in it to practice his teachings.

The degree to which it is considered a basic teaching differs from sect to sect and culture to culture. In Tibetan Buddhism, it's definitely a core belief, something they base even their system of government on. In Chan, though, it's de-emphasized, to the point of not being talked about much.

Personally, I prefer the latter view. I think if you spend too much time thinking about past lives, you miss the chance of this one. And also, if you need to have the motivation of a good future rebirth to behave socially, you're not a very good Buddhist. I take an agnostic view about reincarnation. I figure I'll find out soon enough.


lugotorix

lpetrich

As to reincarnation, I'm reluctant to say that it's been conclusively disproved. However, if we have had past lives, memories of them must get completely erased, because there is not much convincing evidence of past-life recall. Also, many mind functions are closely connected to brain functions, as is evident from a wide variety of evidence.

There is still the riddle of consciousness, but I prefer to consider it an unsolved problem.

As to cosmological speculation, the Buddha would make an analogy between preoccupation with it and being stuck with an arrow -- your first priority is to remove it, and not try to resolve how it was constructed, who shot it, and so forth.

Mageth

However, if we have had past lives, memories of them must get completely erased, because there is not much convincing evidence of past-life recall.

If all memories are erased, what is left? If there's no link between a past life and a current life besides some unconsious, unaware, unremembering "substance" or "life force", how could it be "we" that have had past lives? Whatever was in the past was not us.

Answerer

Well, the Buddha's arrow anology definitely sum up our conclusions on pointless speculation.