Hello Leftimies,
Yes, most Buddhisms are probably flawed and just as dogmatic as any other philosophy, religion, way of life, etc.
Some schools teach the Two Truths, relative and absolute, as a means of reconciling this issue, among others. Impermanence is relative while nirvana is absolute. They are two sides to the same coin. Of course, these can also be interpreted in different ways and may not actually resolve the issue.
The Zen interpretation is that "samsara is nirvana" and surmounts to a dogma of "Let's just not think about it." This strikes me as a cop out because it is a legitimate question to ask.
The bigger issue seems to be the desire to reach nirvana is a seemingly unavoidable obstacle. Enlightenment is a moral imperative and yet it may be impossible to fully realize for the majority of ordinary beings.
Yes, this view of karma conjures a false sense of eternal continuity and an illusion of control: everything that happens to us is the direct result of our own past actions that we are solely responsible for. There is no completely closed system of consequences and many things happen for unknown reasons. Due to the vastness of variables in an open system, there will probably be a fair amount of unintended consequences that we cannot control. Think chaos theory...
The majority of Buddhists are laypersons, but becoming a monk does still seem to be the ideal. Although many schools emphasize engagement in the world, the old school does tend to be all about escaping the world of dust. I wouldn't necessarily say that their efforts are completely futile and different monks probably have different personal goals. Many people obviously still benefit from practicing Buddhism despite its flaws.
Is there a single valid course of action? Or just different courses of action unfolding depending upon a variety of constitutional and circumstantial conditions?
I've mostly been influenced by Buddhist and Taoist teachings, but find myself branching away from both traditions. Life is messy and there probably isn't a pure or perfect path towards total escape from the causes and conditions of life, so I say stop trying to be perfect and forget about purity. It's about embracing the messiness of life, accepting a degree of uncertainty, the groundlessness of situations, and allowing ourselves to flow openly rather than thinking ourselves into a box.
Yes, most Buddhisms are probably flawed and just as dogmatic as any other philosophy, religion, way of life, etc.
If everything in reality is impermanent (anicca), then by which mode would an 'eternal bliss of nirvana' exist? Wouldn't the impermanent nature of reality demand that an enlightened being, too, would ultimately have to succumb to impermanence? This concept of attaining lasting enlightenment makes absolutely no sense within the context of impermanence.
Some schools teach the Two Truths, relative and absolute, as a means of reconciling this issue, among others. Impermanence is relative while nirvana is absolute. They are two sides to the same coin. Of course, these can also be interpreted in different ways and may not actually resolve the issue.
The Zen interpretation is that "samsara is nirvana" and surmounts to a dogma of "Let's just not think about it." This strikes me as a cop out because it is a legitimate question to ask.
The bigger issue seems to be the desire to reach nirvana is a seemingly unavoidable obstacle. Enlightenment is a moral imperative and yet it may be impossible to fully realize for the majority of ordinary beings.
Also, if a person inherits karma from previous lives, then wouldn't the bond between a person and his merit be, likewise, permanent? If karma is inherited, from one iteration to another, over the course of reincarnation, and it eventually results in a permanent nirvana, then isn't this bond of merit and the person by definition a permanent phenomena?
Yes, this view of karma conjures a false sense of eternal continuity and an illusion of control: everything that happens to us is the direct result of our own past actions that we are solely responsible for. There is no completely closed system of consequences and many things happen for unknown reasons. Due to the vastness of variables in an open system, there will probably be a fair amount of unintended consequences that we cannot control. Think chaos theory...
I likewise do not agree that because of suffering, you must escape the world, and isolate yourself to the monastery. Even if self doesn't exist, and is not-self at its root, what difference does it make what one thinks? Indeed, deluded or enlightened, all are not-self, all are emptiness. Isn't any monastic practice by definition futile? What can one expect to gain?
The majority of Buddhists are laypersons, but becoming a monk does still seem to be the ideal. Although many schools emphasize engagement in the world, the old school does tend to be all about escaping the world of dust. I wouldn't necessarily say that their efforts are completely futile and different monks probably have different personal goals. Many people obviously still benefit from practicing Buddhism despite its flaws.
Could it be possible to be a Buddhist who:
(1) Agrees with the 'fundamentals' of the Buddhist analysis of reality
(2) Disagrees with the conclusions and solutions that Buddha arrived to (i.e. monastic escapism)
(3) Re-defines certain concepts, like Samsara, Nirvana and Karma, in opposition to what Buddha taught.
I suspect this would be akin to establishing a new school of thought, which would be likely to be viewed as heretical, so there might not be much point in doing so. But what do you think? Would it be a valid course of action?
Is there a single valid course of action? Or just different courses of action unfolding depending upon a variety of constitutional and circumstantial conditions?
I've mostly been influenced by Buddhist and Taoist teachings, but find myself branching away from both traditions. Life is messy and there probably isn't a pure or perfect path towards total escape from the causes and conditions of life, so I say stop trying to be perfect and forget about purity. It's about embracing the messiness of life, accepting a degree of uncertainty, the groundlessness of situations, and allowing ourselves to flow openly rather than thinking ourselves into a box.