Buddhism is quite unique in terms of religious authority. Throughout the ages, Buddhism has endured the formation of many different sects, some of which are based on cultural differences. For example, Tibetan Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism, and Korean Buddhism all have unique aspects that make them distinguishably different from each other. Indeed, there are four different schools of thought within the Tibetan Buddhist tradition alone. However, all forms of Buddhism recognize the same goal – human enlightenment. The Buddha directly addressed the issue of human suffering and gave a solution for this problem. The solution can be found in the Four Noble Truths, which ultimately lead to the goal of Nirvana, or enlightenment.
The Four Noble Truths are as follows:
(1) Life means suffering,
(2) The origin of suffering is attachment,
(3) The cessation of suffering is attainable, and
(4) The path to the cessation of suffering is through the Eightfold Path.
In an online forum titled “Civilization Fanatics’ Forum,” a group of members discuss the meaning and legitimacy of the Four Noble Truths when compared to the main ideologies of Christianity and Judaism. In this specific thread on the forum, members seem to be negotiating their understandings of the Four Noble Truths and providing the knowledge they already have for the benefit of other users.
User WillJ asks in the thread, “Didn't the Buddha get enlightened and discover this after fasting and meditating, where evil and good spirits started talking/messing/discussing/etc. with him?”
Mrogreturns replies, “As far as my understanding goes- which isn`t very far I have to say- the demons / spirits alluded to in buddhism are a part of one`s own personality.”
Immediately following this post, Kshatriya states, “Mrogreturns is correct. The "demons" are hatred, anger, lust, greed, etc.”
The originally poster then discusses the idea of evil in Christianity, and how some Christians view evil as being able to take on tangible life forms in the shape of demons.
This discussion is an example of Cheong’s third reality, that of the logic of dialectics and paradox. These forum members are not outright condemning these religions, nor are they strongly promoting them. From this small sample of the forum conversation, it is evident that the users are simply engaging in a process of exchanging knowledge and forging meaning. Some of these meanings and interpretations may be in line with the authority of the traditional religions being discussed – that is, Christianity, Judaism, and Buddhism. Other interpretations, however, may not be in line with these authorities. This is where the concepts of dialectics and paradox come into play. As Cheong states,
- …these studies suggest the logic of dialectics and paradox as leaders struggle, negotiate and builid tensions related to processes of digital mediation in their work as they attempt to reconstruct religious authority. This interesting, complex and somewhat counter-intuitive relationship warrants conceptual expansion and future-focused attention. (Cheong, Authority, p 22)
Although there are some differences in Cheong’s explanation and the context of this forum, the similarities seem to outweigh the differences. Although the forum members may not be authoritative religious leaders, they are the leaders of their own understanding of religious concepts. They are taking an authoritative and future-focused position in attempting to better understand these traditional religions and the meanings that are inherently attached to them. These individuals are also undergoing digital mediation and are attempting to reconstruct the religious authority in their own personal lives. A conceptual expansion is an inherent aspect of attaining and processing new information. Through this forum conversation sample, one can conclude that perhaps Cheong’s logic of dialectics and paradox is the most applicable reality to the realm of Internet use and religion.