Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Did the Buddha care about metaphysics?
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
in Philosophy
Its a question that comes up often here in the threads around metaphysics. This article covers both sides of the argument
http://buddhism.about.com/od/theeightfoldpath/a/Buddhism-And-Metaphysics.htm
The one directly following it on the fetter of views is helpful as well.
0
Comments
It's a long article. Could you summarize the parts you find most cogent?
The fact that the Buddha taught about 32 realms of existence shows he was interested in metaphysics, IMO. Depends on how you define the term, I suppose.
It's not that long, the way the site works is that once you get to the end of one article it continues with the next, so its mainly just the first one which is short then the next is also pertinent.
It's really only like a dozen short paragraphs. It took like 3 minutes to read.
Not sure what else to say. I agree with the conclusion. It makes sense Buddha would be interested in things such a metaphysics because his goals surrounding suffering and its elimination suggests that he would have to understand reality as it is. Otherwise there is no basis on which to compare the separateness of reality verses illusion. Then we'd never know where our suffering really existed.
Edit:: It has been a very long day and I am waiting up way later than my bedtime to pick up my son at his formal dance. We spent 12 hours at a baseball tournament earlier in the day. I might very well read this in the morning and wonder what I was smoking. Apologies if it makes no sense, LOL. I will try again tomorrow if needed.
Yes, nice little bit of writing. Wouldn't call it a long article, myself....
The conclusion is pretty much in line with my thinking. Glad she could summarise in a few short paragraphs, what we sometimes take pages and pages of posts to go ring-a-ring-of-roses around!
(Links abound. Also good reads.....)
I think this goes right back to the discussion on pondering vs conjecture.
Sometimes I feel it's like the difference between asking the question and blindly accepting the truth.
Take kamma for an example. I think it's obvious Buddha taught about it but I don't think he wanted those teachings used as a carrot-on-the-stick guide to making nice.
I think he wanted us to see the logic of compassion through the light of non-separation but that light shines from within.
I think he wanted us to know how beautiful it all really is unobscured by the fetters and without using anothers finger to see the moon even if we need to start that way.
People were probably thinking they deserved to suffer or be joyous because of their past lives and perhaps reflecting that bias onto others. That could create the kind of moralistic mind set Buddha would have us avoid.
Like teaching a child how to think instead of what to think, maybe Buddha would have us find the truth through experience and exploration rather than just telling us.
Hopefully that made sense. Still nursing a coffee.
The arrow analogy goes well with my sceptical post-Christian view. Why do we need to worry about higher powers, and morality from a source outside of space and time as we know it?
The Four Noble Truths and the Eight-Fold Path are practical guides to self-realization of the cause of our suffering and the way out of it. In other words, what can we do to make life better for ourselves and others in the here and now?
I wish people understood that their sense of goodness is their inherent right, it IS what/who they are. That so many people think they only have good attributes because God gave them to them, and that those who are "without God" cannot fully have those attributes, just blows my mind. I feel so sorry for them, thinking all that is good comes from anywhere but within themselves.
Did they have metaphysics in Ye Olde Shakyamunis day?
Metaphysics isn't just the philosophy of mysterious, immaterial things, it asks what there is and what is it like? So the four noble truths, the three marks of existence all fall into the world of metaphysics.
Metaphysics is just a fancy name for something.
Like a dual-vehicle highway collision is a car crash, and something that is orally stimulating is tasty, and the funny web of skin between your thumb and hand, is a purlicue.
Some people just need fancy names for stuff, to make it sound highfalutin.
Samkhya seems to be one of the Buddhist metaphysical teachings.
http://opcoa.st/0FxKb
So @person is right, not just woo woo stuff ...