I find it interesting that one of the central ideas in Buddhism is the non-existence of the self. This is in direct contrast with Descartes' famous 'cogito ergo sum' idea, which states that the existence of the self is the only thing that one can be certain of. I wonder how a Buddhist would respond to Descartes' reasoning - would they say that the apparent self is actually just a collection of attributes which can under certain circumstance break apart? Would they say that the consciousness perceiving the (possibly illusionary, by both theories) world is not the self, but a universal consciousness that is simply manifested in parts?
Not being sufficiently well-versed in Buddhist doctrine myself, I cannot make any assertions about the answer with any confidence. If anyone would like to suggest ideas, I would very much appreciate it!
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Response: Buddhism's Compatibility
In response to Brian Fitzpatrick's post "On Rerererererereading the Dhammapada" (April 5, 2012):
The non-mystical, detectable results of practising Buddhism are, I think, a very large part of its appeal. Particularly to those who grew up with traditions such as Christianity (wherein the results of belief and practice do not become manifest until after death), getting actual results within this lifetime may seem like a refreshing change. Furthermore, I think that the compatibility of Buddhism with other religions may also seem welcoming to many, as they do not have to abandon their previous religious affiliation in order to practice at least a large portion of the advice of the Buddha.
While Buddhism does contain some metaphysical and spiritual elements which contradict the doctrines of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and so on, the actual practices (meditation, letting go of attachments, etc.) do not clash at all with these religions. As such, it is possible for someone who is, for example, Muslim, to also practice Buddhism as part of their daily life.
The non-mystical, detectable results of practising Buddhism are, I think, a very large part of its appeal. Particularly to those who grew up with traditions such as Christianity (wherein the results of belief and practice do not become manifest until after death), getting actual results within this lifetime may seem like a refreshing change. Furthermore, I think that the compatibility of Buddhism with other religions may also seem welcoming to many, as they do not have to abandon their previous religious affiliation in order to practice at least a large portion of the advice of the Buddha.
While Buddhism does contain some metaphysical and spiritual elements which contradict the doctrines of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and so on, the actual practices (meditation, letting go of attachments, etc.) do not clash at all with these religions. As such, it is possible for someone who is, for example, Muslim, to also practice Buddhism as part of their daily life.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Response: Antiquated Style
In response to Rebecca Ryan's post "Dhammapada" (April 5, 2012):
The verses of the Dhammapada are indeed quite repetitive in form. However, I do not think that this is at all a result of bad writing or bad translation. In ancient times, when oral tradition was much more prominent in many cultures, people would frequently set stories or advice in poetic or chanted form, because poems and songs are typically easier to remember than straight prose. I do not know a whole lot about Indian poetry, or about the oral tradition there, but I would guess that it was not totally dissimilar to that in Europe and the Middle East.
As for the contradictory nature of juxtaposed verses, it makes sense in the context of a poetic collection of sayings. Because the Dhammapada's format is so structured, it typically has one verse describing bad actions or traits and the negative results thereof, and then positive actions or traits and the corresponding results of those. It may seem unnecessary, but if one thinks about it like the lyrics to a song, or the verses in a poem, it seems less strange.
The verses of the Dhammapada are indeed quite repetitive in form. However, I do not think that this is at all a result of bad writing or bad translation. In ancient times, when oral tradition was much more prominent in many cultures, people would frequently set stories or advice in poetic or chanted form, because poems and songs are typically easier to remember than straight prose. I do not know a whole lot about Indian poetry, or about the oral tradition there, but I would guess that it was not totally dissimilar to that in Europe and the Middle East.
As for the contradictory nature of juxtaposed verses, it makes sense in the context of a poetic collection of sayings. Because the Dhammapada's format is so structured, it typically has one verse describing bad actions or traits and the negative results thereof, and then positive actions or traits and the corresponding results of those. It may seem unnecessary, but if one thinks about it like the lyrics to a song, or the verses in a poem, it seems less strange.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012
Temporary States of Inequality
During Tuesday's class, we briefly touched upon the topic of teen pregnancy being partially a product of the larger issue of legal and societal discrimination against teens. I have thought about this issue before, and concluded that it is almost uniquely difficult to address. This is because, unlike other forms of discrimination, it has no permanent victims. The status of being a teen is temporary; and as the firmest advocates (and indeed, the majority of advocates) for a cause are typically those most affected by it, there is no long-lasting pool of firm advocates for teen rights.
To illustrate this more clearly, let us use the example of gay rights. Someone who is gay will always be gay, regardless of whether or not they actively take part in homosexual actions. As such, a gay advocate for gay rights will continually feel the injustice directed towards them, and thus will continue to work towards eradicating that injustice. Over time, they may build up a reputation among political or intellectual groups, and as a result will be able to have a greater influence on the social situation which is causing or allowing the injustice.
In contrast, people are only teens (defined here as being between the ages of thirteen and eighteen - the period during which social inequality is most pronounced) for a short while. After they reach legal adulthood, the feelings of injustice which they previously possessed may begin to fade, removing their motivation to continue working to achieve teen rights. In fact, as members of the privileged majority (adults) they may condemn their earlier views as immature. As a result of this temporariness, most advocates for teen rights have no time in which to build up a reputation in influential circles.
A last note - perhaps the only group which is (slightly) comparable to teens in terms of temporary discrimination is the transgendered community, due to the fact that after transitioning, transgendered people (rightly or not) often no longer consider themselves part of the community. However, as many areas do not allow people to transition completely (legally as well as physically) and because even after transitioning many people still have trouble being perceived as members of their actual gender, even this issue has more chance of resolution than teen rights.
To illustrate this more clearly, let us use the example of gay rights. Someone who is gay will always be gay, regardless of whether or not they actively take part in homosexual actions. As such, a gay advocate for gay rights will continually feel the injustice directed towards them, and thus will continue to work towards eradicating that injustice. Over time, they may build up a reputation among political or intellectual groups, and as a result will be able to have a greater influence on the social situation which is causing or allowing the injustice.
In contrast, people are only teens (defined here as being between the ages of thirteen and eighteen - the period during which social inequality is most pronounced) for a short while. After they reach legal adulthood, the feelings of injustice which they previously possessed may begin to fade, removing their motivation to continue working to achieve teen rights. In fact, as members of the privileged majority (adults) they may condemn their earlier views as immature. As a result of this temporariness, most advocates for teen rights have no time in which to build up a reputation in influential circles.
A last note - perhaps the only group which is (slightly) comparable to teens in terms of temporary discrimination is the transgendered community, due to the fact that after transitioning, transgendered people (rightly or not) often no longer consider themselves part of the community. However, as many areas do not allow people to transition completely (legally as well as physically) and because even after transitioning many people still have trouble being perceived as members of their actual gender, even this issue has more chance of resolution than teen rights.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)