The idea of karma plays a major role in the lives of
Buddhists. “In Buddhism, an individual experiences rebirth into this world and
begins the volitional production of both good and bad karma, or lay, which will
determine his or her future rebirth and chances for enlightenment.” (French, pg.
63) To reach enlightenment is the highest standard for the Buddhists, which
might be why nirvăna is placed on the outer most edge of their world. To reach
enlightenment one must have developed a high level of good karma. Those that do
not reach enlightenment in their lifetime are reborn into the world, and the
life given to them is based on the level of karma they were at when they died.
This makes karma not only important because it is the way to reach
enlightenment, but also because it will provide a better life. After discussing
the cosmogonies of different cultures, we have come across to different methods
of thought. These being, myth and science. We have seen the Greek thought move
from myth to science, and we have seen the Buddhist thought focus in on myth.
The question arises, which method of thought is better or more accurate? Ask an
astronomer or a physicist, and they will probably tell you that science is more
accurate. Ask a Buddhist monk or a Zen master and they might tell you that myth
is better (if the definition of myth is presented to them properly). The
physicist will argue that science has evolved so far that we can accurately
predict the motion of the planets, we can explain the process of recreation,
etc. This is a very strong argument for using science to explain the universe.
The Buddhist monk will reply that we only believe that we know those things and
that it is just a part of the illusion of the first reality. This won’t convince
the physicist, but it does open another door. A person who opens their minds to
all the possibilities will not be able to rule out the idea that everything we
perceive could simply be an illusion presented to us. Science itself could be
the illusion. If the entity that set up the illusion (if there is one) wanted
the illusion to be believable, they most likely would place a set of laws on the
illusion to keep it consistent. These laws could be the laws that we are now
discovering and calling science. This is just one of many possible arguments for
myth being the method of explanation of the universe. A scientist might not
agree and say that this argument is implausible, but their only evidence against
it would be the science that has been declared illusionary. By no means am I
stating that myth is the proper method of explaining the universe. I am merely
stating that it, and science, are possible explanations. Which one to believe in
is complete up to the individual.
Bibliography
: Hetherington, Norriss S. Cosmology : Historical, Literary, Philosophical,
Religious, and Scientific Perspectives. New York & London: Garland Publishing,
Inc, 1993. French, Rebecca Redwood. The Golden Yolk : The Legal Cosmology of
Buddhist Tibet. Ithaca & London, Cornell University Press, 1995. Kloetzli,
Randy. Buddhist Cosmology. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 1983.
Words: 2242
|
