Are 'cause' & 'effect' interdependent on each other?

[rossum]

There wasn’t a “before”, though. At least, Christian theologians going as far back as Saint Augustine, and certainly further, would like to quibble with you on that point.

If there wasn’t a “before” then time started simultaneously with the rest of the universe. In that case we can say “there was no time when the universe did not exist”, and on that statement the universe is eternal. The universe has existed for all time, since they both started simultaneously.

God doesn’t change. He is unmoved. He is the same now as He was a thousand years ago, and the same as He will be in a million years.

Of course God changes. He says different things on different days in Genesis; that is a change. Is the Red Sea currently parted for Moses to cross it? No. The sea was not parted in the time of Abraham; it was parted in the time of Moses; it was not parted in the time of Jesus. The sea changed, so the actions of whoever parted the sea also changed. If God cannot change, then God cannot act. Any action in time requires change. If God does not change, then something else must be performing the actions ascribed to God.

You are quite right that God did not change from “I will make the universe” to “I have made the universe.” That would be absurd.

If God created, then God had to change. It is not absurd, it is required. Any action in time required change (even if only an internal mental change) from “I will act” to “I am acting” to “I have acted.” If Jesus is God, then God has to change from a newborn to a thirty-year-old man. That is a change, or are you telling me that Jesus (who changes) is not God (who you claim does not change)?

Cause and effect are not really separated by time. A window is breaking because a brick is pushing through it.

Excellent. Because the cause and the effect are actually simultaneous, when analysed closely, both are co-dependent. Hence neither has independent existent, each is co-dependent on the other. To be a child requires parents; to be a parent requires a child. Neither can exist without the other.

As there was no duration before, there was no change from nothing to something. There was no “switch”.

There was an internal change within God. If there was no change within God, and God is eternal, then the universe was created as soon as God existed, and the universe is eternal. Something changed within God to change Him from not-creating to creating. Just as something changed within God to change Him from “not parting the sea” to “parting the sea”, and then later changing Him back to the original state. Actions within time require some change. Otherwise we are back to my boring version of Genesis:

On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day…

If God does not change, then that is the effect we would observe from within time.

You’re referring to an accidentally ordered series when we should be looking at an essentially ordered series.

I am Buddhist. One of the marks of Buddhist philosophy, particularly Nagarjuna’s philosophy, is the rejection of essences. Essences have no real existence in the external world, they are merely internal mental constructs. They have as much reality as the water in a mirage. We think the water is there, but there is no actual water present. The only water is inside our head.

rossum

 

[ynotzap]

If there wasn’t a “before” then time started simultaneously with the rest of the universe. In that case we can say “there was no time when the universe did not exist”, and on that statement the universe is eternal. The universe has existed for all time, since they both started simultaneously.

Of course God changes. He says different things on different days in Genesis; that is a change. Is the Red Sea currently parted for Moses to cross it? No. The sea was not parted in the time of Abraham; it was parted in the time of Moses; it was not parted in the time of Jesus. The sea changed, so the actions of whoever parted the sea also changed. If God cannot change, then God cannot act. Any action in time requires change. If God does not change, then something else must be performing the actions ascribed to God.

If God created, then God had to change. It is not absurd, it is required. Any action in time required change (even if only an internal mental change) from “I will act” to “I am acting” to “I have acted.” If Jesus is God, then God has to change from a newborn to a thirty-year-old man. That is a change, or are you telling me that Jesus (who changes) is not God (who you claim does not change)?

Excellent. Because the cause and the effect are actually simultaneous, when analysed closely, both are co-dependent. Hence neither has independent existent, each is co-dependent on the other. To be a child requires parents; to be a parent requires a child. Neither can exist without the other.

There was an internal change within God. If there was no change within God, and God is eternal, then the universe was created as soon as God existed, and the universe is eternal. Something changed within God to change Him from not-creating to creating. Just as something changed within God to change Him from “not parting the sea” to “parting the sea”, and then later changing Him back to the original state. Actions within time require some change. Otherwise we are back to my boring version of Genesis:

On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day…

If God does not change, then that is the effect we would observe from within time.

I am Buddhist. One of the marks of Buddhist philosophy, particularly Nagarjuna’s philosophy, is the rejection of essences. Essences have no real existence in the external world, they are merely internal mental constructs. They have as much reality as the water in a mirage. We think the water is there, but there is no actual water present. The only water is inside our head.

rossum

 

[ynotzap]

ynotzap:
I answered the above post by Rossum but did something wrong that cancelled the post.

 

[ynotzap]

I answered the above post by Rossum but did something wrong that cancelled the post.

I tried again and this time I did nothing wrong and my answers were cancelled???

 

[Ben_Sinner]

I tried again and this time I did nothing wrong and my answers were cancelled???

I saw them earlier, and now they’re gone. That’s weird.

 

[ynotzap]

If there wasn’t a “before” then time started simultaneously with the rest of the universe. In that case we can say “there was no time when the universe did not exist”, and on that statement the universe is eternal. The universe has existed for all time, since they both started simultaneously.

When things are created they have the characteristics of potency and act. The fulfilling of the potency produces the change, the act. To say the universe is eternal, is to say that it had no beginning and always existed. If it always existed it would have no beginning, and need no cause to exist. Existence would be it’s nature. In that case it would be all that it could be and there would be no change. To say that time and the universe STARTED simultaneously and they are eternal is a contradiction. If they are both eternal, they didn’t have a beginning or start.

Rossum:

If God created, then God had to change. It is not absurd, it is required. Any action in time required change (even if only an internal mental change) from “I will act” to “I am acting” to “I have acted.” If Jesus is God, then God has to change from a newborn to a thirty-year-old man. That is a change, or are you telling me that Jesus (who changes) is not God (who you claim does not change)?

God’s creative act is eternal not in time (which is change) God creates time and things, the universe is always changing, in motion (change) God is the Unmoved Mover, complete, Pure Being and Pure Act Jesus had two natures, divine and human, but one divine personality. His human nature underwent change, but not His Divinity, or Divine Person Jesus is at once human and divine, but His human nature is subject to change. Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Incarnation to redeem the world.
.

Rossum:

There was an internal change within God. If there was no change within God, and God is eternal, then the universe was created as soon as God existed, and the universe is eternal. Something changed within God to change Him from not-creating to creating. Just as something changed within God to change Him from “not parting the sea” to “parting the sea”, and then later changing Him back to the original state. Actions within time require some change. Otherwise we are back to my boring version of Genesis:

God is the I Am Who Am, I Am Existence. He give existence to creation, He is not subject to change, time, and motion, this is His creation. His act is eternal. We had a beginning so did the universe, God has no beginning, no end, for us He is the beginning, and the end, we were created for Him and by Him. God’s eternity is concurrent with our timely existence. What He creates is sustained eternally because His act is eternal. To fully understand His act of creation is to be God, we can understand somethings about creation in part. We are finite, He is infinite. In God we have our being, but we are not God.

Rossum:

I am Buddhist. One of the marks of Buddhist philosophy, particularly Nagarjuna’s philosophy, is the rejection of essences. Essences have no real existence in the external world, they are merely internal mental constructs. They have as much reality as the water in a mirage. We think the water is there, but there is no actual water present. The only water is inside our head.

rossum

I respect you for your beliefs even though I don’t agree with some of them, and I believe that I can answer some things that I don’t agree with in the Buddhist philosophy. So we agree to disagree. Faith in Jesus Christ as God-man is a gift given by the Father in my belief and understanding

 

[Wesrock]

If there wasn’t a “before” then time started simultaneously with the rest of the universe. In that case we can say “there was no time when the universe did not exist”, and on that statement the universe is eternal. The universe has existed for all time, since they both started simultaneously.

The universe has existed for all time, and all time is itself a finite quantity, not infinite.

Of course God changes. He says different things on different days in Genesis; that is a change. Is the Red Sea currently parted for Moses to cross it? No. The sea was not parted in the time of Abraham; it was parted in the time of Moses; it was not parted in the time of Jesus. The sea changed, so the actions of whoever parted the sea also changed. If God cannot change, then God cannot act. Any action in time requires change. If God does not change, then something else must be performing the actions ascribed to God.

Creation itself, and all of God’s interactions within it, are one act that persists eternally. To us, the parting of the Red Sea occurred at a different time than the burning bush. But to God, God sees both of these moments, and all moments, at the same time. His knowledge is of all points in time at once, and his one act is directed to all points in time at once. I can lay my hand on a ruler and touch multiple points of space along that ruler at one time in one act. Similarly with God.

If God created, then God had to change. It is not absurd, it is required. Any action in time required change (even if only an internal mental change) from “I will act” to “I am acting” to “I have acted.” If Jesus is God, then God has to change from a newborn to a thirty-year-old man. That is a change, or are you telling me that Jesus (who changes) is not God (who you claim does not change)?

There is no movement in the divine nature. As discussed above, God’s knowledge and act is directed to all points in time at once. Your comments about Jesus don’t acknowledge the hypostatic union between the nature of man and the nature of God. Jesus changed as a human, but the divine that infused his personhood was eternal and unchanging.

Excellent. Because the cause and the effect are actually simultaneous, when analysed closely, both are co-dependent. Hence neither has independent existent, each is co-dependent on the other. To be a child requires parents; to be a parent requires a child. Neither can exist without the other.

Simply descriptive relationships, and what we’d call accidental to what the being actually is.

There was an internal change within God. If there was no change within God, and God is eternal, then the universe was created as soon as God existed, and the universe is eternal. Something changed within God to change Him from not-creating to creating. Just as something changed within God to change Him from “not parting the sea” to “parting the sea”, and then later changing Him back to the original state. Actions within time require some change. Otherwise we are back to my boring version of Genesis:

On the first day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the second day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the third day God said, “Let there be light,” and on the fourth day…

If God does not change, then that is the effect we would observe from within time.

God’s one act "touches’ all points in time. God never began to exist. There was never a time when God was not creating, as there was no time before creation, nor any “higher” dimension of time in which he thinks but we don’t perceive. He exists and he wills and he acts, and we experience this in time. For God, there is no change or movement.

I am Buddhist. One of the marks of Buddhist philosophy, particularly Nagarjuna’s philosophy, is the rejection of essences. Essences have no real existence in the external world, they are merely internal mental constructs. They have as much reality as the water in a mirage. We think the water is there, but there is no actual water present. The only water is inside our head.

rossum

And I reject Nagarjuna’s philosphy. The external world is real, is a multitude of types of existence, can be known, and is good.

 

[rossum]

I answered the above post by Rossum but did something wrong that cancelled the post.

Ahhh… A Zen Buddhist answer. “The answer that is no answer.”

rossum

 

[rossum]

When things are created they have the characteristics of potency and act.

I disagree with your “potency”, it is not real. A male baby has the “potency” to father children in future, but may die before actually fathering any children. That potency is null.

The fulfilling of the potency produces the change, the act.

We agree that acting involves change.

To say the universe is eternal, is to say that it had no beginning and always existed.

Equally, to say the universe is eternal, is to say that it has existed for all time. If time and the universe started simultaneously then the universe has existed for all time.

If it always existed …

How do you define “always” in the absence of time?

Existence would be it’s nature.

I do not accept any essences, “nature” or similar. They are not real, but are ascribed to our internal models of external entities.

God’s creative act is eternal not in time (which is change) God creates time and things, the universe is always changing, in motion (change)

Then the Red Sea it eternally parted (by God) and eternally not parted (also by God). That is not a tenable position. The sea cannot be both parted and not parted. There has to be a change between the two states. If you God is not able to change then some other entity, which is capable of change, must have temporarily parted the sea.

Jesus had two natures, divine and human, but one divine personality. His human nature underwent change, but not His Divinity, or Divine Person Jesus is at once human and divine, but His human nature is subject to change. Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Incarnation to redeem the world.

Again, this is philosophically difficult. Is there one Jesus, two Jesuses (?) or one-and-a-half Jesuses. You need two Jesuses when we have differences between God and man: God cannot die; Jesus died on the cross. And yet you need one Jesus when “Jesus is God”. I never see “Part of Jesus is God and part of Jesus isn’t God” in Christian writings. There is a major problem here, which is why it is called a “mystery” I suspect.

His act is eternal.

No it is not. His act in creating the physical body of Adam is not eternal, since the physical body of Adam no longer exists. That body was not eternal, hence some of God’s creation is not eternal.

We had a beginning so did the universe

So, you are saying that the universe, which is God’s creation, is not eternal. Why did you claim above that “His act is eternal”? Whether it is eternal or not eternal, it cannot be both. You will have to come down on one side or the other here.

What He creates is sustained eternally because His act is eternal.

This is manifestly wrong. Adam’s physical body was not “sustained eternally”.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The universe has existed for all time, and all time is itself a finite quantity, not infinite.

Creation itself, and all of God’s interactions within it, are one act that persists eternally.

You say that time is finite, than claim that creation is eternal. Are you saying that the universe and time, despite being finite, are also eternal?

To us, the parting of the Red Sea occurred at a different time than the burning bush. But to God, God sees both of these moments, and all moments, at the same time.

If God sees truly, then he sees them as happening at different times because they happened at different times. God may be sitting in a fifth dimension and have a general overview of the fourth (time) dimension. But in that case you will have to develop a whole new vocabulary that relates to the fifth dimension. God is no longer “eternal”, which relates to time, God is 5eternal, or whatever, and you will have to give a defined meaning to “5eternal” which we can all agree on.

Your comments about Jesus don’t acknowledge the hypostatic union between the nature of man and the nature of God. Jesus changed as a human, but the divine that infused his personhood was eternal and unchanging.

Since I reject essences and natures (in this sense) then I obviously reject the hypostatic union. It is an attempt to avoid many logical problems by bringing in two non-existent entities.

He exists and he wills and he acts, and we experience this in time. For God, there is no change or movement.

God changes in time. I suspect that what you are talking about here is 5change. If God does not change in time (4change, say) then Genesis is wrong, and we are back to my boring version of Genesis.

And I reject Nagarjuna’s philosphy. The external world is real, is a multitude of types of existence, can be known, and is good.

The external world is probably real. We can never absolutely disprove a Matrix/VR reality. However, we can never truly know the external world. Our senses are imperfect, so we can only build imperfect internal models of that imperfectly sensed external world. A mirage is one example of the imperfection of our internal models.

One of the functions of Buddhist meditation is to let us see what is actually real in the external world, and what is merely part of our internal models. The water in a mirage only exists as part of our internal model, not as part of the real world. That is what Buddhism means by calling the world an illusion. The illusion is our mistaking our own internal model for the actual external world.

Things like “essence”, “substance” (in the Thomist sense) and “nature” are part of our internal models and do not correspond to anything in the real external world.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

Our internal models assume things that are not really there.

rossum

 

[ynotzap]

I disagree with your “potency”, it is not real. A male baby has the “potency” to father children in future, but may die before actually fathering any children. That potency is null.

If potency state was not real, the baby could never be a father in the future, your statement Is not in accord with reality. The fact that a baby can die, means it’s state of existence can change, if it didn’t have potency the baby wouldn’t die, it wouldn’t change. In potency it’s body till exists as matter, without form because it’s soul (the form of the body) is no longer in the body. Another contradiction. Our nature is matter and form

We agree that acting involves change.

Rossum:

Equally, to say the universe is eternal, is to say that it has existed for all time. If time and the universe started simultaneously then the universe has existed for all time.

The earth is not eternal, but is sustained eternally because God’ act is eternal and is the cause of it’s existence, it had a beginning. If it was eternal it would have no beginning. (I covered this in past posts)

Rossum:

How do you define “always” in the absence of time?

Always is a word that can mean “at any time” or “forever(eternally)” which is a synonym.

Rossum:

I do not accept any essences, “nature” or similar. They are not real, but are ascribed to our internal models of external entities.

Essence is what a thing is, a thing has it’s own properties and constitute what a thing is, often it is said to be the same as being. Actual essence is the essence which exists in a real thing. Abstract essence is an essence represented as a form without a subject, the objective concept is an abstract idea. The divine essence is the essence or nature of God as somehow distinguished from the persons and the attributes of God. Physical essence is a nature that exists concretely with it’s needed parts and as these things are independently of the mind’s thinking As long as the concepts of our minds are consistent with the outside objective world we are in contact with reality. If our minds are not consistent with this objective reality then we become slaves to our purely subjective thinking and this is the world of illusion and fantasy, non-reality.

Rossum:

Then the Red Sea it eternally parted (by God) and eternally not parted (also by God). That is not a tenable position. The sea cannot be both parted and not parted. There has to be a change between the two states. If you God is not able to change then some other entity, which is capable of change, must have temporarily parted the sea.

It’ not that God is not able to change, there is never a need to change, just as God causes all motion in time, time itself is motion and change He can cause the Red Sea to part in time. The Red Sea does not exist in eternity, but can be sustained eternally because (I repeat) God’s act of creation (includes the Red Sea) is eternal.

Rossum:

Again, this is philosophically difficult. Is there one Jesus, two Jesuses (?) or one-and-a-half Jesuses. You need two Jesuses when we have differences between God and man: God cannot die; Jesus died on the cross. And yet you need one Jesus when “Jesus is God”. I never see “Part of Jesus is God and part of Jesus isn’t God” in Christian writings. There is a major problem here, which is why it is called a “mystery” I suspect.

This was covered.

Rossum:

No it is not. His act in creating the physical body of Adam is not eternal, since the physical body of Adam no longer exists. That body was not eternal, hence some of God’s creation is not eternal.

You are saying that God’ act of creating is not eternal, then you are making God subject to His creation, the cause is subject to the effect, and this is another contradiction. I already explained this in a former post.

Rossum:

So, you are saying that the universe, which is God’s creation, is not eternal. Why did you claim above that “His act is eternal”? Whether it is eternal or not eternal, it cannot be both. You will have to come down on one side or the other here.

Creation of the universe is an act of God, and because it is, the act is eternal because of God’s nature (which you reject because you don’t believe in nature or essences) and the nature of the universe is composed of essence and existence potency and act, and matter and form You are defeating your self.

Rossum:

This is manifestly wrong. Adam’s physical body was not “sustained eternally”.

It is our belief, and reason, that Adam will be united with his physical body, the glorified soul will spiritualize the human body, just as the body of Christ was glorified at the Resurrection Matter will be sustained eternally, when the soul gives matter spiritual form, and if God did not sustain matter, this could never happen and if the resurrection is not real, we are all fools. I am very confident that we are not! Praise the Lord!!

 

[rossum]

If potency state was not real, the baby could never be a father in the future, your statement Is not in accord with reality.

One of the differences between Buddhism and the Abrahamic religions is that the Abrahamic religions emphasise stasis over change. Buddhism does the opposite. Hence you see this “potency” as a permanent static entity required to explain the apparent change. Buddhism has no need for that. Change is real and any stasis we see is only apparent, not real. There is still change, but the change is slow so we do not see it.

Your “potency” is an internal mental construct which has no existence in the external world. It is an attempt to make change appear to be stasis.

The earth is not eternal, but is sustained eternally

This is nonsense. We agree that the earth is not eternal; how can it be “sustained eternally”. Is God sustaining nothing when the earth does not exist? Your insistence on stasis, especially in the case of God, leads to many logical absurdities.

Essence is what a thing is, a thing has it’s own properties and constitute what a thing is, often it is said to be the same as being.

Essence is part of our internal models which we use to classify the external world. It is a useful mental tool, but t is only an internal tool, it is not something that exists externally.

Not only was it difficult for him to comprehend that the generic symbol dog embraces so many unlike individuals of diverse size and form; it bothered him that the dog at three fourteen (seen from the side) should have the same name as the dog at three fifteen (seen from the front).

– Funes the Memorious, Borges

Funes understood that the “essence” dog is merely a convenient classification that has no real external existence. The point about the same dog at different times is well made. The Buddhist emphasis on change agrees that they are different; one dog is older than the other at the very least. To misquote Heraclitus: “You can never step in the same river twice because it is not the same river and you are not the same you.”

You are saying that God’ act of creating is not eternal, then you are making God subject to His creation, the cause is subject to the effect, and this is another contradiction. I already explained this in a former post.

You are at a party. There are people and a few gods standing around talking. Only the best parties have gods in attendance. You approach one of the gods:

“Hello, I’m ynotzap. What do you do?”

“Hi. I’m Hakawion and I create universes.”

“Wow! You create universes. How many universes have you created?”

“Erm… Well… Ahh… None so far. But I’ll create one real soon now.”

“Oh my, is that the time? I really must be going.”

God-as-creator is obviously subject to creation, because in the absence of creation there is no creator. In the absence of creation, any claim to be creator is false, and your God does not make false claims. Hakawion cannot claim to be a creator of universes until he has created at least one universe.

One of Nagarjuna’s points is just this, that cause and effect are mutually dependent: one cannot exist without the other. That leads on to his analysis of causality. God-as-creator is a cause, and so is covered by this analysis.

rossum

 

[o_mlly]

An argument made against the First Cause is that a cause is just as dependent on the effect as the effect is on the cause…since the two are dependent on each other, there can’t be a stand alone ‘Cause’ that is completely self sufficient and independent of everything.

A cause is not a cause until it produces an effect. So the cause needs the effect in order to become a cause. Without the effect, the cause wouldn’t exist. The same applies for the opposite.

How can we show that an effect is dependent on the cause only? (especially when it comes to the First Cause)?

The effect exists within its cause(s) potentially. The effect cannot exist until actuated by its cause(s).

 

[ynotzap]

The ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth

You have to acknowledge that there is ultimate truth before you can deny it’s existence, the human mind has to acknowledge what is, because it was created to know the truth. Even a liar does not want to be lied to. If it didn’t exist, you couldn’t deny it. True it is known by the mind and is internal, but all knowledge comes first from without, not from within. A child learns from experience of the external world first, before it can formulate concepts. It is the difference of learning from the objective world outside of the mind that gives interior concepts their truth, and not from the interior concepts of mind that give the objective world it’s truths I find so many illogical concepts of reality in Buddism a belief of denials, and non-existences, Nirvana.

 

[Bradski]

I’d like to deny that dragons exist. But it seems that I must acknowledge their existence before I can do that.

Which is nonsense.

But what I can do is acknowledge that some people have a concept of dragons. And then go on to dent their existence.

 

[ynotzap]

I’d like to deny that dragons exist. But it seems that I must acknowledge their existence before I can do that.

Which is nonsense.

But what I can do is acknowledge that some people have a concept of dragons. And then go on to dent their existence.

To even have a concept of a dragon you must have some concept of a dragon either taken from reality or from imagination. There must be non-fiction before fiction in some form, and that form is taken from reality Even what exists in the imagination is taken from reality in some form, or parts, there is no fiction without non-fiction There must exist something before you negate it, if it didn’t exist in some form, how could you be conscious of it. We are talking about the ultimate truth, and saying the ultimate truth doesn’t exist, which in turn is calling that “the ultimate truth” It sounds to me the ultimate truth still exist in a negative form. A positive statement was made. To me it is it is total denial of reality, that we can’t know and that I find absurd.

 

[rossum]

You have to acknowledge that there is ultimate truth before you can deny it’s existence, the human mind has to acknowledge what is, because it was created to know the truth.

Truth exists. Ultimate truth does not exist. Ultimates, in the sense intended here, do not exist; they are another form of essence. My sig is not original, it is a quote from a book by Mark Siderits. I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

I find so many illogical concepts of reality in Budd[h]ism a belief of denials, and non-existences, Nirvana.

Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion. It starts from a very different point and has a different set of premises underlying its logic. As to nirvana:

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from samsara.

Whatever is the end of nirvana, that is the end of samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35 when he became enlightened. He died age 80. For 45 years he was living in the ordinary world (samsara) while at the same time being in nirvana. Unless you are enlightened, nirvana is not what you think it is.

rossum

 

[ynotzap]

Truth exists. Ultimate truth does not exist. Ultimates, in the sense intended here, do not exist; they are another form of essence. My sig is not original, it is a quote from a book by Mark Siderits. I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion. It starts from a very different point and has a different set of premises underlying its logic. As to nirvana:

Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from samsara.

Whatever is the end of nirvana, that is the end of samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35 when he became enlightened. He died age 80. For 45 years he was living in the ordinary world (samsara) while at the same time being in nirvana. Unless you are enlightened, nirvana is not what you think it is.

rossum

Nirvana, as I understand it is the state of perfect blessedness achieved by the extinction of individual existence and by the absorption into the supreme spirit, or by the extinction of all desire and passions. Buddism starts with a pessimistic concept of life, detecting evil and suffering in every part of it. Since the root of suffering lies in desire, he proposes as a remedy against it, the extinction of every desire and passion and renunciation of activity and life so as to find refuge in a sort of egoistic contemplation. This is a negative solution, anti-psychological (the passions can not be destroyed, but disciplined,) and anti-social (the desertion of life) I find truth in Buddism to be relative, it’s what you want to make it, not what it is We have the state of blessedness, but not here on earth, a place of virtuous trial and purification, and life is the way to achieve it, not by its extinction, but by living it in co-operation with the grace of God, the Ultimate Truth.

 

[rossum]

Nirvana, as I understand it is the state of perfect blessedness achieved by the extinction of individual existence and by the absorption into the supreme spirit, or by the extinction of all desire and passions.

There is no “supreme spirit”. Buddhism leaves that to the Abrahamic religions. Nirvana is usually described in negative terms, by what it is not:

[The Buddha said:] There is, monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unconditioned. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, no escape would be possible from the born, become, made, conditioned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, escape from the born, become, made, conditioned is possible.

– Udana 8.3

Buddism starts with a pessimistic concept of life, detecting evil and suffering in every part of it.

Buddhism starts with a realistic description of the less-than-perfect life we live. It then provides the method to escape from this less-than-perfect life.

Since the root of suffering lies in desire, he proposes as a remedy against it, the extinction of every desire and passion and renunciation of activity and life so as to find refuge in a sort of egoistic contemplation.

Selfish desires and passions are indeed to be avoided. Useless activity is to be avoided and replaced by useful activity. Being reborn is also to be avoided:

[The Buddha said:] What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – or the water in the four great oceans?"

“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – not the water in the four great oceans.”

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – not the water in the four great oceans.

– Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

Everything that is born dies. Do you want to die again and again and again and again? Or would you rather act to avoid being reborn?

rossum

 

[ynotzap]

There is no “supreme spirit”. Buddhism leaves that to the Abrahamic religions. Nirvana is usually described in negative terms, by what it is not:

[The Buddha said:] There is, monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, an unconditioned. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, no escape would be possible from the born, become, made, conditioned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unconditioned, escape from the born, become, made, conditioned is possible.

– Udana 8.3

Buddhism starts with a realistic description of the less-than-perfect life we live. It then provides the method to escape from this less-than-perfect life.

Selfish desires and passions are indeed to be avoided. Useless activity is to be avoided and replaced by useful activity. Being reborn is also to be avoided:

[The Buddha said:] What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – or the water in the four great oceans?"

“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – not the water in the four great oceans.”

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

"This is the greater: the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time – crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing – not the water in the four great oceans.

– Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

Everything that is born dies. Do you want to die again and again and again and again? Or would you rather act to avoid being reborn?

rossum

To die and be reborn in Christianity means that we are born in the state of sin, we inherited this state from our first parents. We are dead spiritually without the grace of God, that was lost by our first parents. Jesus Christ the Son of God assumed our nature and offered His life as a sacrifice for our sins, as we had no access to the Father. His battle was not with us but with Satan, a murderer and father of lies. Satan held humanity in spiritual bondage. Jesus merited for us the Holy Spirit which infused the spirit of adoption in us. We are now the adopted children of God, and with His grace we can defeat Satan by a life of holiness (the practice of the theological virtues of Faith, Hope and Love) Reborn does not mean reincarnation in Christianity If we lose the state of grace we can be reinstated by repentance. God is the Uncaused Cause independent of any effects His attributes are one with His nature With us in time a cause becomes a cause when it produces an effect If we could go from effect to cause in a series of effect to causes we would never come to the Uncaused Cause because God is outside of the series. We make a logical jump by reason that an Uncaused Cause is needed to explain the existence of the series. Unless you understand this you will never understand how God is independent of any effect. A lot of ground has been covered in our discussion and I will move on, its’ been interesting and thanks for your participation.