Buddhism and the Conundrum of Change
Change is not a cause of suffering if things are getting better all the time. That’s the Buddha’s only conceptual mistake, and that’s what makes him so real. The Mahayanists tried to make him perfect, as some transcental manifestation should be, but the historical Buddha was first and foremost a real person with real-world problems, which he tried to renounce, of course. Some modern women take offense to the fact that he left his wife and child behind, but that must be seen within the context. They were well cared for.
But his conceptual blunder, just like Einstein’s ‘cosmological constant’, Jesus’s birds with nests but no barns, and Plato’s perfect dictatorship, show his intrinsic humanity. Everything is subject to revision, and everything is subject to change, even concepts. That is a conceptual necessity, since it can never be proven one way of the other, anyway. But if life is predetermined, then there is no reason to act, either good or bad, and karma loses meaning. Change may appear to be a cause of suffering, if your high status is diminished, but that probably says more about superficial status than change itself.
Christianity thrives on the optimism that change hopefully brings, of course, and the Buddha was certainly right to call BS on that, of course, even if Christianity as such didn’t exist at the time. Bhahmanism did, though, and there are very real similarities. Eternal life is a plaything of children, and we have better things to do, reincarnation ditto. This life and this world require nothing but kindness and compassion.
streaming consciousness... 
Reply