Replies

That is an awful lot to reply to. My friend is a Buddhist. He is my teacher. However the idea that Buddhism teaches that this reality is entirely an illusion and has no existence isn't really correct. It's rather difficult to explain but its real meaning is that this reality has "no abiding existence." ie nothing is permanent.

That is easy to see if you consider how many cells in your body are dying, coming into existence and otherwise changing in every moment. So the 'you' that existed two minutes ago no longer exists. What you are in this moment is different than what you were before and what you will be.

Does that not hold true for everything in the universe? Isn't everything constantly changing? It is perhaps more accurate to say that this world is illusory than an illusion but that is picking nits. This world, Samsara as it is called, does exist but it is a phantom-like existence due to the impermanence I described and as opposed to what is called 'absolute reality' which is unchanging.

I used the word 'intellect' instead of 'ego' because I thought it would be better understood here where the Buddhist view of ego is not well known and is quite different than the Freudian-western definition of the word.

I disagree strongly that Buddhism denies intellect or sees the cosmos as purposeless. As to its purpose I expect most lamas would say that that is a question that is unanswered and that the Dharma is not intended to be a means to answer it. The goal of the Dharma being to directly experience the true nature of existence (as opposed to intellectually understanding it) they would probably say that it is irrelevant to say whether the universe has a purpose or not. Follow the path and see for yourself.

As for denying intellect, I don't know of any lama who is not interested in intellectual knowledge of the world around us as that type of knowledge has many practical advantages for alleviating the suffering of beings. We obviously aren't going to all escape the cycle of birth-death-and rebirth any time soon and an incalculable number of beings need whatever help can be given them. Intellectual knowledge of the Dharma itself is highly revered. However, intellectual knowledge of any kind is by far secondary in importance to the practices that lead to escape from that Samsaric cycle which is the supreme enlightenment.

There is certainly nothing random about Samsara either otherwise the concept of karma would be meaningless and false.

The Buddhists I know have the utmost regard for human accomplishments and endeavors. It is a staple of developing wisdom and compassion in the basic practice of Dharma to recognize the importance of knowledge passed down from one's parents and from the many generations of people who have come before us building a body of knowledge one step at a time that has progressed from starting a fire with a bow and drill to designing space shuttles and nuclear reactors.

However the idea that Buddhism teaches that this reality is entirely an illusion and has no existence isn't really correct. It's rather difficult to explain but its real meaning is that this reality has "no abiding existence." ie nothing is permanent.... That is easy to see if you consider how many cells in your body are dying, coming into existence and otherwise changing in every moment. So the 'you' that existed two minutes ago no longer exists. What you are in this moment is different than what you were before and what you will be.

I am heartly sorry if I offended you, TigersEye. Please accept my apology.

So you are a Buddhist. I am a Christian.

WRT the above italics, I would say that there is something permanent about a human being, even though bodily, everything is constantly changing — "So the 'you' that existed two minutes ago no longer exists," as you truly say. That permanent thing is the soul, which is eternal and not susceptible of change. As far as I can tell, Buddhism has no doctrine of the soul, and thus no solid basis for a concept of personality, or personhood. (Which is more than just "ego" or "intellect.")

Consider the reason we know that the physical world is constantly changing, at micro- and macroscopic levels — science has shown us this. Science works through the presupposition that the natural world is "lawful." Though matter is constantly in flux, the forms it takes are constrained by natural laws that do not change. Without this presupposition, science would be impossible, an exercise in futility.

You wrote:

It is a staple of developing wisdom and compassion in the basic practice of Dharma to recognize the importance of knowledge passed down from one's parents and from the many generations of people who have come before us building a body of knowledge one step at a time that has progressed from starting a fire with a bow and drill to designing space shuttles and nuclear reactors.

IMHO (FWIW), the precepts of Buddhism comport with "starting a fire with a bow and drill." But there's nothing in Buddhism that could account for progress from there to "designing space shuttles and nuclear reactors."

Science is the product of Western civilization, which is based on ancient Hellas — preeminently on Aristotle — and (arguably) the Holy Scriptures. There was no natural science in the East until it came into contact with the West.

In short, Buddhism didn't teach you about "cells." And one does not have to be a Buddhist to recognize the impermanence of all things physical in this world.

In the end, it appears to me that Christianity is "realist," and rational. Buddhism is "idealist," a sort of withdrawal from the "pain" of the human condition....

Just some thoughts, for what they're worth to you. Thank you so much for writing!