Namaste Juan,
crikey! just a few questions, eh?
when we Buddhists talk about "abandoning the raft" we are meaning several different things. what the Buddha taught are called "dharmas". the word "dharma" comes from the root word Dhri and means "to cling" so, Dharmas are things that we cling to. be they "truth", "teachings" or others. so... what we really mean when we say that we abandon the raft is that we leave behind the teachings as well.
the teachings are used to help us cross to the other shore, that of Nirvana, for wont of a better term, and once there, they no longer apply.
now... it is the position of my particular school that yes, something like that would happen... one would say, be a Christian and owning to various karmic factors and so forth, be reborn as a human who then, due to their merit of good deeds and so forth, may begin to practice the Dharma.
this gets to an area that can lead to conflict and confusion if not properly explained. i'll try to explain it the best that i can, however, i'm not very skilled at this sort of thing.
from my schools point of veiw, it is quite important to have faith. in fact, one needs to have faith that the path they are practicing is the "correct" path, to the exclusion of others. this has very practicle reasons behind it... most of which have to due with the nature of humans. humans, by and large, require a certain degree of certainity about things. especially one that can be as important as religion. thus, each religion expounds is path and praxis as the "only" path and praxis to inspire it's adherents, not, necessarily, to denegrate other traditions. from our view at any rate.
how does this relate? generally speaking, Buddhists are quite supportive of other religious traditions, as i'm sure you've heard me say more than once. it is our belief, however, that these are not "final" paths, they will all lead to rebirth and do not put an end to it. only the Buddhist path of the Mahayana can do this, according to our teachings.
reincarnation is not my belief either. Buddhists believe in rebirth, those that do at any rate. reincarnation implies that there is something permenant in the body that moves from being to being. this is tied to the theory of Atman in the Vedas and is something that Buddhism specifically refutes. rebirth is different in that it is an aspect of your consciousness that is reborn based on the influence of our karma. so, bearing this in mind, we Buddhist types, tend to be quite focused on the here and now, not the next life. as what we do here and now effects our next rebirth quite significantly.. of course, as there are multiple rebirths, you may lead a completely meritorious life but still have terrible things happen due to karma ripening from previous life times. karma, in its most basic sense, is described very much like a seed and the result of karma is it's fruit. if we plant a good seed and water it, we'll get good fruit. if we plant a bad seed and water it, we'll get bad fruit. when the causes and conditions are such, the fruit ripens, when the causes and conditions are not, no fruit appears.
you are correct, Buddhism does not have a "personal" conception of a Creator deity. there is a protestant theologian named Paul Tillich who says that "God is the ground of Being." if that were the definition used, i would say that a Buddhist wouldn't have much issue with the concept. however, what we will not accept (i'm speaking quite generally as there are many different types of folks) is attributing qualites to that which is beyond conception.
this is an especially important bit, in my opinion. Buddha was rather agnostic about a creator deity in general, however, specifically refuted the conception of a Creator Deity that is able to be conceputalized. in his day, this being was called Ishvara and was typcially described in language that would have a home in most protestant churches. all loving, merciful etc.
i whole heartedly agree with you. to take some simply bumper sticker sloganing to heart and in context... "kill your television." i was reading an essay by an economist the other day who was explaning the driving engine of the Capitalist system is the consumerism that is fueled and, perhaps, even created by mass media, especially the television. i'm not sure if he was advocating removing the televisions, however, that was certainly one of the points that he made, quite strongly i think.
i would say "both". it seems to be that the initial formation of a thought is self contained, a complete and seemless whole that appears in the mind as a freeform symbol. after the arising of the thought, we begin the process of analyzing it and seperating it into it's consituant parts.. discarding this and keeping that further refining the "broad idea" into "talking points" that we can easily convey.
i do marvel at, for instance, how music has the ability to convey so much information without words. i personally feel that its the evocative quality of music that allows this to happen... music, in some fashion, turns on the projector in our mind. though it's a poor analogy it may do for now.
actually, it's my Taoist texts that are more repleat with their inquries of a scientific nature. western alchemy and eastern alchemy are related but quite distinct. i'll admit that my western alchemy is confined to a few individuals and my knowledge of their praxis is rather limited. in the Eastern form of Alchemy, there were three main schools that arose, those of the literalits, that thought they could turn lead to gold, those of the philosophers that veiwed this as a metaphor for refining the self and those of the spiritualists, which veiwed it as a metaphor for refinding the dross of the mundane spirit into the gold of the immortal spirit.
it is very interesting to see how these two forms moved through their culture. in the West, it was Greek thought, and still is really, that gave rise to the science that we have today. in the East, specifically in China, it was Taoism that gave rise to the scientific endeavors and minds that we still find today. the Greek view of things is mechanistic and only very, very recently in the west, has this been shown to be inaccurate. the Chinese veiw of Li, or "organic pattern" seems to be a more accurate understanding of the nature of the universe, given the new experiments that we are now able to conduct... we are "proving" in our western way, what the East has held to be correct for over 2500 years
memes aren't bad or good, they simply are the method that thoughts are transferred to people. bacteria isn't good or bad, it just depends on where you happen to have some
i would tend to think that memes are the vehicle by which ideas replicate themselves to others.
given my listing of Buddhism and things above, it is still a meme in the strictest sense... however, it is unique in that it seeks to rid itself of memes, even itself. Buddhists are regular folks too, so yes, we can be pursauded and influenced. however, if one gets to the heart of the Buddhist teaching.. we find that there is no "i" that is pursauded. this is, in my opinion, why Buddhism could be considered to be a 'meme clearing meme'.
