Tagged: philosophy Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
Soft Buddhism, Hard Buddhism, and the Middle Path between…
If there is a convergence of Christianity and Buddhism in the works, as I often think, then I think that will be accomplished by the evolution of ‘soft’ versions of each, which will allow them to mix and mingle almost imperceptibly, which I think is good. Because, even if I have some minor misgivings about Buddhism possibly losing some of its distinctive characteristics, I can assure you that rebirth is not one of them, nor is the vengeful form of ‘hard’ karma that supports it.
In that mindset, the idea is that not only rebirth, but virtually everything, is a result of prior actions, both good and bad, which strictly control present rewards or punishments, to the point that the word ‘karma’, which means ‘actions’ becomes a synonym for the English term ‘fate’. I don’t think that was the Buddha’s intent, but many people have a negative view of the world, and we are all subject to their influence. I prefer a much softer karma, more closely related to the Buddha’s own ‘samma kammanta’, i.e. right actions, as elucidated in the Eightfold Path. Do good actions, and you will receive good things.
And, if that karma of retribution is the ‘hard’ Buddhism which I dislike, then that Eightfold Path, which is the Middle Way between extremes is mainstream Buddhism, which stands like Hegel’s dialectic as a path forward for decision making, which is how I often use it. In this view, ‘Soft’ Buddhism would be the meditation and mindfulness often invoked by those monks walking for Peace and for which many Westerners are poised and ready to adopt whole-heartedly ASAP.
Christianity has a soft mystical side, too, and even a ‘reborn’ side which is preferable to the Hindu reincarnation which often is the source of Buddhist rebirth and which supports a caste and class system which too often follow hereditary priest and warrior affiliations. That is why Buddhism is not popular in India today and good reason to avoid Hinduism like the pandemic. Buddhism and Christianity need fertile ground on which to mix and mingle. That is the Buddhist Middle Way, Hegel notwithstanding…
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
-
hardie karges
Buddhism: Living and Dying in ¾ Time…
Fundamental principles stay the same, but situations always change. That’s why I’m here right now, and possibly you, too, if you’re like me and you want to know the truth, and you want it to set you free. That’s what the Christian Scientists used to say until blue in the face when I was a child, so I learned it by heart, whether I really wanted to or not. Because for them to ‘know the truth’ was an all-pervading mantra which supposedly had the power to heal and nothing else was really necessary.
They believed that reality was perfection, and that was our birthright, and all we needed to do was to manifest it. But that was then. And this is now—for me. That was fringe Christianity, this is Buddhism, and still I want to take ancient principles and test them against modern circumstances for veracity and efficacy. But there is a universe of differences between the circumstances of 500 BCE and 1880. Still, both protagonists thought that they had a vision of the truth worth pursuing and still do.
And sure enough, the Zen Buddhism of 500 CE is very different from the Early Buddhism of 500 BCE and looks much more like the fringe Christianity of 1880, with its six perfections and transcendental wisdom. So, Buddhism and Christianity both went through phases of practical application before proceeding to a more ‘transcendental’ phase of perfections and exalted statuses, then a ‘magical’ phase of Vajrayana and New Age mysticism. Neither may be totally right, but the pattern is clear. Once we’ve done the hard work of creating something from nothing, we retrofit the short-cut to prove that’s not what happened at all. It simply manifested. It seems to be a religious, but not philosophical, paradigm. Religions don’t have to make sense. They have to make new converts.
-
hardie karges
The Buddhist Middle Path Between Bliss and Industry
The most difficult attachments are to (our) selves and (our) lives, which almost goes without saying, because what could be more logical and apparently natural? But it’s probably worth the effort to say it, because it may not be natural at all, maybe just the opposite, in fact. Because the only thing connecting it all is consciousness, and that hardly implies attachment, only awareness. This is a core principle of Buddhism, and nothing is more important.
Because once you’ve become attached to yourself, then you will certainly become attached to your wife and your children and your job, as if nothing could be more natural. But there is something almost more natural, and that’s non-attachment. Imagine the bliss that becomes possible by simply being alive without transacting, becoming blissfully wet when it rains and playfully engaged when it dries? So, why don’t animals do that, then, as we imagine they do?
But they don’t, or not totally. Jesus has already been busted for claiming that birds don’t build barns, when in fact they clearly do. In the English language we call them nests. In fact, these birds are a full step ahead of those imaginary ‘present moment’ Buddhists, as they are more like Middle Path Buddhists, splitting the difference between bliss and industry, very much in the moment, but with an eye to the future, too. We humans were once like that, planting seeds but also practicing crafts. Cities should be unnecessary with the advent of high tech. Maybe we should try that.
streaming consciousness... 
Reply