We’ve been sharing with you here Melvin McLeod’s 10 reasons why Buddhism can be enriching to the growing number of us who consider ourselves “Spiritual but not Religious.” (Click here to read Melvin’s introduction to this series, and here to check out the other reasons.) Here now, is #6:
There is spiritual, nonmaterial reality.
Some people describe Buddhism as the rational, “scientific” religion, helping us lead better and more caring lives without contradicting our modern worldview. It is certainly true that many Buddhist practices work very nicely in the modern world, don’t require any exotic beliefs, and bring demonstrable benefit to people’s lives. But that’s only part of the story.
Buddhism definitely asserts there is a reality that is not material. Other religions say that too; the difference is that in Buddhism this spiritual reality is not God. It is mind.
This is something you can investigate for yourself:
Is my mind made of matter or is it something else?
Does my mind have characteristics, like thoughts, feelings, and identity, or is it the space within which these things arise?
Does my mind change constantly or is it continuous? Is it one thing or many?
Where is the boundary of my mind? Is it large or small? Is it inside me looking at the material world outside? Or are my perceptions and my experience of them both mind? (And if so, perhaps it’s the material world we should be questioning the reality of.)
I was very much under the impression that Buddhism suggests exactly the opposite: that there is no underlying spiritual reality, only conditioned and constructed aggregates? Have you some texts I could check that explain your view? Thanks, N.
Great question, Mr. Walser. To which there is no answer—at least in words or thought—that is correct. Any assertion of a concrete spiritual reality is incorrect. And so is any denial. But since we have to say something, we can choose to fall into one extreme or the other, either eternalism (assertion) or nihilism (denial). Different Buddhist schools find it more useful to fall (slightly) into one extreme or the other. More philosophical schools prefer denial, because that that reflects ultimate reality, or emptiness. Other schools such as the Kagyu-Nyingma or Zen prefer the assertion of buddhadharma, which they find more useful as a view for meditation. So it’s basically pick your poison. For more on the assertion of buddhanature side, you can really go to any Mahayana text. One precisely on this topic is the Uttaratantra Shastra, by Maitreya. http://amzn.to/1pro0r8