Re: Logic?
Wolfspirit, on host 206.47.244.92
Thursday, February 24, 2000, at 08:52:40
Logic posted by Issachar on Tuesday, February 22, 2000, at 11:27:00:
> the pastor made a reference to the prevailing attitude in popular thought that all religions ultimately point to the same 'God' or divine reality -- they only differ in the particulars of expression, tradition and practice. To refute that claim, he contrasted Buddhism, which identifies the ultimate reality as "nothingness" [an imprecise and un-nuanced term, but fair enough],
I don't know very much about the various flavors of Buddhism, even though some of my relatives practise the meditative forms. But I suspect they might disagree with the pastor's assessment that Nirvana is "the ultimate reality" of "nothingness". The terminology is too antagonistic, because we Westerners label nothingness as being meaningless. Correct me if I misinterpret it but doesn't Buddhism hold that all perceived reality is an illusion? All worldly cravings and desires are a chasing after the wind, because they inevitably lead to suffering. By extinguishing desire, Nirvana is supposed to be the state of mind-being that transcends suffering and passion and leads to absolute peace and harmony. Never mind that this is beginning to sound like Yoda's Jedi lesson mystique. At any rate, this concept cannot simply be characterized as "empty oblivion" because it is being attributed with a state of perfect "happiness". Sort of like no worries, no pain makes everything peachy-keen... I guess.
> with Christianity, which points to God as an individual with distinct personal attributes. To suggest that these two religions are referring to the same thing, the pastor summarized, is sheer nonsense -- it is a *logical impossibility*. > > That remark sparked a couple of thoughts in rapid succession: > 1) "Hmm. The Buddhist might not agree with you there; a Buddhist might indeed accept that there is no contradiction in identifying the Christian God with the principle of nothingness. Strict logic cannot be properly applied within the Buddhist view."
It would appear so. I think one reason why Buddhism has proven resistant to influence from Western thought is that very flexibility of logic. So, going by the first assumption that all human reality is ultimately an illusion, then what we choose to believe on earth regarding Gods and First Causes and stuff is not terribly critical to them. (I suspect I'm drastically oversimplifying there, but that's how I'm interpreting it...) Anything goes, so long as no harm comes to others, so to speak. That logic probably would explain why Buddhism is so tolerant towards other religions. In fact I've seen photos of Chinese altars which are Buddhist shrines, all right, but combined right alongside a crucifix and Eucharist chalice. Weird.
> 2) "Okay, but surely even practitioners of Theravada Buddhism employ logic on a day-to-day basis. [snip]
Er... Would there be a benefit to practitioners for doing that (applying logic in a court of law)? When they're not meditating, they're not practising Theravada then...
Wolf "Gee, there's a LOT that can be covered under this subject -- talk about thinking about thinking! :-)" spirit
|