I wonder if the results would have been altered by simple capitalization in the question.
IMO - it's like saying are you a theist or atheist?
truth
It seems to me that the question Do you believe in God? is very slanted. The wording implies there is a God and asks if you believe in Him. I would have preferred something like Do you believe that there is a God?or Do you believe in the existent of a God?
C.I., please reconsider my point. I was talking about "existential/spiritual anxiety" not physical pain. I can be dying painfully from cancer yet not "suffer" in the same way that another might be suffering, even if we were enduring the same amount of physical pain. Physiological pain is not the same thing as spiritual suffering. If you are freed from your fear of death or the illusion of your separateness from the World, that does not necessarily mean that you will not be concerned about and therefore fight against the pain of hunger, aids and war in the world. Pain and suffering, as I refer to them, are two different things.
Indeed, the increase in selflessness and compassion that follows from spiritual enlightenment (sensing the nature of Ultimate Reality) would incline a person to be more rather than less involved in alleviating both the physical pain and the spiritual suffering of others. That fits with the Mahayana Buddhist's ideal of the Bodhisattva.
Even though I am an atheist, and an unrepentant materialist skeptical about the concept of universal consciousness, or, at least, my ability as a finite, material being to access the same, I would have to say that my answer to this question, as stated, is still yes.
Most people, I think, believe in "some kind" of god, even if its only money or fame. Its the other guy's gods we don't believe in.
Thanks JL and Asherman,
Now I begin to think that I begin to understand the conception of "Ultimate Reality".
So is a lack of "perceptual reality" practically (for practical purposes) equivalent to death
If so then it could possibly be equivalent to the ideas as to Paradise, Heaven, Eternal Contentment or nirvana as espoused by other philosophies.
Or, (I am still confused) The Ultimate Reality of Buddism cannot be attained except by becoming comatose or dying. Neither Paradise, Heaven, or eternal bliss can be attained any other way either.
May I remark (musingly) that the idea of an Alternate Reality has been kicking around in human minds for a very long time. At the time of Genesis it was probably already a mature philosophy. It has been around so long with absolutely no perceptual evidence for it that I kind of wonder if there is some sort of genetic component to it, aided and abetted by the earlier successes of well ordered societies. In this case I am regarding a society as a "species of mindset" with their survivals and extinctions outlined so competently by Charles Darwin.
Carrying that idea out to its conclusion it is easily shown that "Revelations" (The Book of in the Abrahamic Bible) is a logical outgrowth of Darwinian evolution. Revelations outlines the "battle" of two different "mind species" (good and evil) competing for the same turf (Earth).
I am still naive
Q. "So is a lack of "perceptual reality" practically (for practical purposes) equivalent to death?"
A. No. Perceptual Reality is what we experience everyday with our senses. Suffering is a consequence of perceptual reality, as is birth, growing old, becoming ill, pain and dying. Perceptual Reality is, according to what I'm saying, an illusion. The underlying reality, Ultimate Reality is quite different from the multiplicity of perceptual reality. Ultimate reality is undifferentiated, neither one nor more. Being a single thing without substance, this reality has zero dimensions, but encompasses N-dimensions. Outside of time, and infinite, there is no beginnings and no endings. No ego, nor personality exists outside of the illusory world that we "inhabit". Ultimate Reality has no light, no color, nor darkness. It exists, and is the foundation on which the illusory world rests.
This does not mean that we should ignore the fundamental structure of the illusory world, for we can not ever be entirely free of it so long as we are a part of the dream. Even in dying we are caught in the currents of the illusion. The personality is transformed, metamorphed into some new part of the illusion. Having no existence in life, there is no cessation in death. From time to time (conceptual notions that only have meaning within the perceptual world a dream creature will become aware of the false reality of existence. They Awaken to the underlying reality and, for a moment (again a time conception having meaning only in the illusory world) they lose their Ego ... the false notion of separateness from the All of Ultimate Reality. If the Awakening is complete enough, the dream creature is merged back into the indivisible source of all things. With them vanishes the consequences of their dream existence that contribute to perpetuating the dream and the suffering that inevitably accompanies it. Other dream creatures might say the Buddha died ... an impossibility in Ultimate Reality.
Most who experience Ultimate Reality will return to the illusion, and continue "living". Living, but altered forever by the personal understanding of the actual structure of reality. If the experience is valid, there are certain signs that will be recognized by others. Those whose experience is only a projection of their ego state will exhibit other signs. One will be a sage, and the other either a madman, or a potential force that will increase suffering as they reinforce the hold of illusion. The liars and fakes also cause greater suffering for themselves and others.
Q. "Or, (I am still confused) The Ultimate Reality of Buddhism cannot be attained except by becoming comatose or dying. Neither Paradise, Heaven, or eternal bliss can be attained any other way either?"
A. No. Enlightenment is not reached by dying, but by the living direct personal experience that transcends mundane existence. Plato's notion of the Ideal is an intellectual construct, Awakening is direct experience and that can be had by anyone, at almost any time. One can increase their chances of having this experience by following the Teachings of the Buddha, or by the strict disciplines that can be found in some other religious traditions. Emptying the mind, or by so overwhelming the senses so that they shut down is conducive to having the experience. Artists, poets, mystics from many traditions report have very similar experiences that forever alter their understanding. However, even a simple person might suddenly find the door open while sweeping a filthy hallway.
This can be a very frightening experience to the unprepared. One moment they are walking in a garden, and then without warning time and space collapse. They are metaphorically standing at the edge of a great chasm, and their sense of self is shrinking down into nothingness. It takes some courage to step out into the darkness where all is light. In some traditions, the Tantric Buddhist Schools, for instance, where the act of dying is thought to be an opportune portal to the experience I'm trying to describe to you. A properly prepared person at the moment of death might merge themselves so completely back into the primal state that they and their Karma vanish from the illusory world forever, and they will never again suffer. Try the Tibetan Book of the Dead. This notion is fundamental to the Pure Land Schools, though they tend to expect that most people will continue as part of the illusion through a series of heavens and hells as they slowly divest themselves of the karmic chains of perceptual reality.
Any conception that treats "good" and "evil", or any other contrasting and differentiated existence runs counter to my understanding of Buddhist doctrine. All those distinctions are illusory, and constitute the actual causes of suffering.
Asherman, Your explanations are first rate, and I appreciate your taking the time to help us learn what ultimate reality is all about. This "nothingness" you describe has me stumped, as well as this illusory world we live in, and how one achieves enlightenment. My understanding of what you describe seems possible by taking mind-altering drugs, but it would be very difficult for the average person to move from our illusory world to ultimate reality.
truth
C.I., Aldous Huxley did try to take the easy way by means of mind altering drugs. I think he got some insights, but I don't think he believed it would work thoroughly for someone unprepared to face Reality.
It IS difficult to have this experience, yet so easy and simple that it is like learning to walk. People have the experience with no preparation, but that is relatively rare I believe. The best chance we have to have the experience is to spend some quality time in a monastery. There distractions are reduced to a minimum, and the focus of the entire community is on mindful meditation. Proper meditation seems to be the very best means of increasing the chance of experiencing what I've been talking about. Study of the sutras and careful thought about what they intend to convey is also highly desirable.
The psychedelic experience can sometimes be quite similar to that reported by those who reach that state by meditation. See A. Huxley's "The Doors of Perception" as mentioned by JL. I believe that Alan Watts also wrote on the use of psychedelics as a means of inducing the experience, but that may have just been in a conversation I had with him thirty years ago. With age the mind becomes somewhat less reliable. Most of the folks I've talked with about this seem to discount the use of chemicals, and warn of the dangers to people who haven't really prepared for the shock of sudden awakening. If the psycheldelic experiences is really similar to that experienced without chemicals, then we have to question whether the experience may be merely a set of electro-chemical reactions that occurs occasionally in the brain. That can lead us into the whole brain/mind controversy that has fueled a number of modern philosophical debates. Is our brain just a good organic computer, or does the mind transcend the purely electro-mechanical function of the synapsis? This is, by the way, the achilles heel of all religious experiences of the highest order.
Thanks again for your patience Asherman. To save you reading I agree generally with CI's comments.
Perhaps I may suffer from an overdeveloped Achilles Heel
although I agree with completely with your last paragraph. (post of Apr 20, 12:12AM) Of course I would phrase it as such, "the varying human definitions of good and evil are responsible for much suffering in this world."
Frankly, it seems as though my ideas are diametrically opposed to yours. As a "Mechanist" I need to figure out which is real (if any is) and then attempt to fix the differences if, in the final analysis, there turn out to be any.
For those of you who believe in buddhism.
This was taken on our recent buddhist pilgrimate to Japan. We visited 33 temples in 10 days and walked 79 miles, most of the walks were uphill and/or steps. One had somewhere nears 750 steps. The picture shows our priest/tour leader preparing for prayer.
I posted this on another thread, but it's appropriate here, too:
I've thought about this for a long time, especially after losing my mother over the course of a decade. It was a long, cruel ending of a selfless person.
I have now concluded that the basic principles that I was taught (Catholic) of an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God cannot all be true. Two out of three may be, not all three. Probably none. So, if there is a God, I think that God must have bigger fish to fry.
We are given the tools to affect are future and would be wise to do so in the best way we know how. That obviously means we have to take responsibility for our own welfare, but realize that we are all in the same boat. Tremendous support is there, given this collective predicament.
Wild Bill, Welcome to A2K. We all have our beliefs whether it is religious, agnostic or atheist. I was once a buddhist and a christian, but ended up atheist. All my siblings and their children are christian, because our mother converted from buddhism to christianity when we were very young. My wife is buddhist. I have friends of every pursuation, even muslims, but most are christians. Only one philosophy is needed for man; treat all living things with respect and dignity.
Just this one little two-page link reveals so many varying opinions on the subject of God alone. So many "definitions" of God. So many "faiths" ("Religions"?). So many points of view...atheism, agnostic, blah, blah, blah.....
The bottom line is clearly revealed here. People generally do not know God...just like the Bible says. From the time the Bible was written until today, nothing has changed. I repeat...nothing has changed.
Yet all the answers are right under everyones nose. Particularly those in the U.S., and they cannot be seen.
How very strange.
CI, re your "pilgramage"
Not only Buddists enjoy trips to different places-views. And 750 steps to church sounds aerobically beneficial to humans regardless of theologies.
I also am impressed by the engineering that went into the Notre Dame Cathedral.
"It's an ill wind indeed that blows nobody any good."
As for me, there are so many catholic churches/cathedrals with amazing architecture that it's very difficult for me to name one that stands out as being extra-ordinary. Some of the churhes in Russia are also special; even the ones that are not gigantic buildings. The temples I have seen in Thailand, Japan and Malaysia are also impressive. I'll post a few pictures to show you what I mean. Give me about ten minutes.
This is one of the most fascinating in Russia. The ceiling looks as though it has depth and is domed, but it's only a painting.
This is the Wat in Bangkok. This picture shows only a small section of the Wat.
This is a Hindu church in Singapore.
