I think you did an excellent job at responding (in context and style) to the assumption that Buddhism in all it’s many forms (from the more esoteric Tibetan to the more atheistic occidental philosophy of Zen as-we-know-it) is like other religions in the thought “that this world & our lives in it are somehow corrupt & out of the control of a perfect Deity.”.. especially when defining the concepts of oneness and impermanence.

I would also like to say that I don’t believe Buddhism really assumes at all that our lives and this world (whether dealing with ideas of subjective reality, objective reality, or that true reality which is in-between while also being both and not separate) is inherently corrupt without bringing in the idea that things are along the path of ever-changing impermanence and it is our view of the world that isn’t necessarily wrong or corrupt, but unsatisfactory. Such views are seeing what as impermanent as permanent, seeing what is unattractive in the long run (or the best possible scenario) as attractive, and seeing that which is not self as self.

Personally, I believe it is up to us to be (or not to be) gods of our own world or the more Christianity-friendly term “godlike.” For myself, or the ego attached to the chunk of infinity of space-time and matter that I consider to be “me”, I chose rather recently while deciding my fate and purpose the following: — To live my life to grow toward and become a more satisfactory and enlightened individual, while being an agent for promoting change toward worldwide enlightenment. This will both require and propagate oneness both in reality and perception – (see large parenthetical statement in beginning of last paragraph).

I also believe in consciousness being the universally underlying substratum or “ether” that makes everything possible (such as the speed of the application of gravity being seemingly instantaneous, and bilocation of “separate” particles). There is also, in my view, a grand connection to universal consciousness within each of our conscious brains that we will all wake up to once ego is destroyed and God or Buddhahood is achieved by all. The interesting thing is, it takes functions of ego to perceive having no ego, and there are many levels of having and not having this.

I wanted to comment further and distinctly on the nature of nondualism according to Buddhism and the ego, but my brain is fried. Ha! I think I overloaded my hippocampus by trying to keep all these philosophies and religious arguments readily accessible by my short-term memory without truly being versed in such. So I apologize for any logical contradictions, fallacies, bad grammar, misspellings, and clouded views as I am still developing my knowledge and experience and am ever-changing… hopefully for the better.

I really believe you would love to hear or read what Alan Watts has to say about Zen Buddhism, Christianity and existence, if you haven’t heard him already through my myspace.com page or other outlets. In this article, you really parallel what I was just listening to through his page on myspace. I should buy a book of his.

Lastly, there has been one other thing on my mind… Is there any difference between the idea of solipsism and that of ontological phenominalism? Or am I just getting too out of context with this reply by now?

Thanks so much for the brain food,
To both of you,

– Rich

P.S. (Please let me know if you have any questions and I will do my best to specifically answer them without going into too many tangents.)

I believe I referred to the western conception of Buddhism which is generally gaining popularity among western secularists. For the most part it generally considers Buddhism to be a philosophy and therefore always changing (after all, according to Buddhism, *everything* is changing [or in a state of impermanence]). Generally it doesn’t share the characteristics of a religion being that it’s essentially the same product everywhere; that it follows strict doctrine and scripture. On the contrary, Buddhism is a very subtle idea, and it generally varies widely among different cultures. Though most if not all schools of Buddhist thought do not claim to be the exclusive way to achieve enlightenment; on a general consensus, Buddhists of all sects believe that not one form of Buddhism fits all, but that it has to adapt to other cultures and mindsets.

The old eastern schools of Buddhism for the most part put an emphasis on spiritual existence (even though most of them will say they do not outright believe in a ’spirit’ so-to-speak as it would connote permanence and therefore inherent existence). In fact, I believe I once read Buddha saying something to the effect that the deity-like figures represented in most schools of Buddhism weren’t literal interpretations of reality but merely to attempt to describe concepts to an ignorant people (remember this is one of the oldest living religions).

But generally speaking, even the more dogmatic Buddhists will say that continued searching in the brain will not find something to the effect of “the mind” or spirit. Although they believe in transference of consciousness, they don’t suggest it’s permanent existence as Abrahamic religions suggest in a more literal way. And they consistently cite science to back them up (as opposed to the Abrahamic religions’ way of denouncing science to attempt to justify their claims); and more recently neuroscientists have a lot of evidence that lead them to the conclusion that the “spirit” isn’t needed for us to experience what we experience (consciousness, emotion, etc.).

So that being said, Buddhists don’t suggest the nihilist (in the Indian context of the term) conception that things do not exist (more like the western conception of solipsism), nor does it suggest the radical view that things exist inherently. It’s a kind of compromise between the two (in fact, it’s actually called “The Middle Way”) and suggests that things exist but entirely dependent-arising. All things arise dependent upon the material conditions given, and therefore creating an inter-contectedness. If there were a ’spiritual realm’, that wouldn’t connote “Oneness” like many westerners believe, but it would actually connote inherent existence (as entities separate from existence and one another). So, ironically, the secular (and Buddhist) view that the mind is a material concoction (instead of spiritual) actually connotes ‘Oneness’ more than any spiritual theory out there.

Thanks for reading and commenting, though! I will check out your blog!