Ask A Buddhist II

[Yeshua_Adonai]

Statements are true inasmuch as they correspond with reality. However, as in the case of Newton’s Laws of motion, in many cases you will have to make modifications as the situation arises.

Joe,

While I see where you are trying to go, Newton’s Laws of motion have no bearing on this topic; I am referring to absolute truth, not scientific realities which we may uncover to be different than our current perception holds them to be.

What I am referring to is the under girding truth on which we all rest. As a believer in G-d and Messiah Yeshua, I believe absolute truth is rooted firmly in the person of G-d the Father. As he is a transcendent, personal, point of reference to this truth, and in fact, is truth, there in lies my foundation.

What I am trying to figure out is how a person with no belief in the above mentioned foundation, can find any ultimate truth. And if they cannot, then truth becomes relative, and if truth becomes relative, then anything is permissible, including the statement that truth is exclusive.

Shalom!

 

[notself]

Joe,

This is where a relativistic perspective on truth begins to run in to trouble; to describe what they believe to be true, relativism, they must try and convince someone that they have found truth. But what truth is to be found, if in fact, relativism is the objective reality?

Shalom!

What specifically makes you think that Buddhism is relativistic?

Here is a quote from an internationally known Theravada Buddhist monk, Bhikkhu Bodhi.

“By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view … threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.” accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/bodhi/response.html

Clearly Buddhist morality **is not **relativistic. I think you will find the entire essay worth reading.

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

notself;

I believe Buddhism is relativistic because it has no way in which to uphold a* reason* for following truth, morality, or love.

For instance, in the sub-vein of truth, we find morality;

How, in the Buddhist world view, can one logically compel me to follow a set of moral standards?

Shalom!

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

As an aside, to avoid confusion; I am not saying that Buddhists can’t be good people. That is not the argument.

My point of contention is simply, that without a transcendent, personal G-d, who upholds a truth standard, and subsequently a moral standard, a person cannot posit a valid reason for following any such truth code, or moral path. Inevitably in such a discussion, the question then becomes, what is truth, or morality, if in fact there is no point of reference on which to uphold it.

Shalom!

 

[Bakmoon]

Statements are true inasmuch as they correspond with reality. However, as in the case of Newton’s Laws of motion, in many cases you will have to make modifications as the situation arises.

I agree.

 

[Bakmoon]

notself;

I believe Buddhism is relativistic because it has no way in which to uphold a* reason* for following truth, morality, or love.

For instance, in the sub-vein of truth, we find morality;

How, in the Buddhist world view, can one logically compel me to follow a set of moral standards?

Shalom!

First of all, that is not what relativism means. Moral relativism is the idea that there are ultimately no universal moral standards, not that it is impossible to give a justification for doing what is good.

Buddhism regards it as axiomatic that it is wrong to harm others. This is a basic and fundamental truth in Buddhism.

Let’s examine the issue from the other direction. How can a theist logically compel someone to follow a set of moral standards?

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

I agree.

Bakmoon & Joe,

I agree with this as well; truth should correspond to reality. Given truth’s nature, we would most certainly expect this. If it did not correspond to reality, it would not be true. IE; a cat is not a dog; this corresponds to reality, thus it is a “true” statement.

But this is where it is so important to understand.

According to Buddhism, underneath everything, all is maya, or illusion. This is the ground of all being; an impersonal ground as well.

My point is that with an illusory ground of being as your foundation, according to the Buddhist world view, it is impossible to posit anything of true meaning.

Am I making a tad bit of sense?

Shalom!

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

First of all, that is not what relativism means. Moral relativism is the idea that there are ultimately no universal moral standards, not that it is impossible to give a justification for doing what is good.

Buddhism regards it as axiomatic that it is wrong to harm others. This is a basic and fundamental truth in Buddhism.

Let’s examine the issue from the other direction. How can a theist logically compel someone to follow a set of moral standards?

Bakmoon,

That is not my argument; I know that relativism means there are ultimately no universal moral standards.

I am trying to understand, from a foundational level, how one can, as a Buddhist, justify themselves to follow a path of loving kindness, being “moral,” and following truth, when at their core level of belief, all is illusion, and there is no ultimate personal G-d on which truth and morality rest.

As a theist, I can comfortably justify the reason for following my moral path because I have the foundation level framework on which to base this.

I do not try and be kind or loving for any other reason than that it is the right thing to do. The problem with Buddhism is that we cannot adequately define what is right, or wrong.

Shalom!

 

[notself]

Bakmoon & Joe,

I agree with this as well; truth should correspond to reality. Given truth’s nature, we would most certainly expect this. If it did not correspond to reality, it would not be true. IE; a cat is not a dog; this corresponds to reality, thus it is a “true” statement.

But this is where it is so important to understand.

According to Buddhism, underneath everything, all is maya, or illusion. This is the ground of all being; an impersonal ground as well.

My point is that with an illusory ground of being as your foundation, according to the Buddhist world view, it is impossible to posit anything of true meaning.

Am I making a tad bit of sense?

Shalom!

I think you are talking about Mahayana Buddhism. Bakmoon and I are Theravada Buddhists. The concept of maya has no role in Theravada.

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

I think you are talking about Mahayana Buddhism. Bakmoon and I are Theravada Buddhists. The concept of maya has no role in Theravada.

notself;

Forgive my misunderstanding.

Let me ask then one question; do you believe in a transcendent, personal G-d, who upholds and is truth, moral goodness, and love?

If this is not the ultimate reality in your belief system, my comments still stand.

Shalom!

 

[Bakmoon]

Joe,

One can skirt around words all they want, but ultimately, one must use words to describe reality. This is our human communicative mode; speech.

A Buddhist must believe that what he or she has to say has some sort of meaning behind the words being spoken, otherwise they would not speak in the first place.

This is inherently obvious on a discussion board such as this; we are all here, discussing our various “truths” and every single person on this board, whether they admit it or not, thinks that ( at least ) something of what they have to say has meaning, and truth value behind it.

The words may only be thoughts, vocalized, but they are still ideas being conveyed through the medium of speech.

This is where a relativistic perspective on truth begins to run in to trouble; to describe what they believe to be true, relativism, they must try and convince someone that they have found truth. But what truth is to be found, if in fact, relativism is the objective reality?

Shalom!

It is only the Madhyamika school of philosophy and perhaps the sects which are based on the Lotus Sutra that actually hold to such a view, I think. In any case, it is not a denial that words can be used to represent truth, but a recognition that words do have some limitations in expressing the ultimate truth. I don’t think that this is very foreign to Christianity, either. For example, don’t most forms of Christianity hold that the essence of God is beyond all human comprehension? Surely God cannot fully be expressed in words, and He is regarded as the ultimate truth. This doesn’t mean that Christians can’t talk about God, but that there are limits to how much can be meaningfully expressed about God in such a way.

In fact, in Christianity there is an entire branch of theology that is based on this principle. It is called ‘Apophatic theology’ and it holds that the most accurate way to describe God is not by listing his attributes, but by saying what God is not. For example, rather than saying “God is Good”, it is better to say “God is not evil” because the Goodness of God is perfect Goodness that can only be partially expressed with the word ‘Good’ because God’s Goodness is infinitely greater than the mere human concept of goodness which we express in the word ‘Good.’ This doesn’t mean that human beings cannot talk about God’s Goodness, but merely that when we do so, our words are limited.

 

[notself]

Bakmoon,

That is not my argument; I know that relativism means there are ultimately no universal moral standards.

I am trying to understand, from a foundational level, how one can, as a Buddhist, justify themselves to follow a path of loving kindness, being “moral,” and following truth, when at their core level of belief, all is illusion, and there is no ultimate personal G-d on which truth and morality rest.

As a theist, I can comfortably justify the reason for following my moral path because I have the foundation level framework on which to base this.

I do not try and be kind or loving for any other reason than that it is the right thing to do. The problem with Buddhism is that we cannot adequately define what is right, or wrong.

Shalom!

Our foundation is that being loving and kind is the right thing to do. What defines this is seeing others as self and self as others. (see my signature line). It is a variation of the Golden Rule.

accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.061.than.html#rahula

“What do you think, Rahula: What is a mirror for?”

“For reflection, sir.”

"In the same way, Rahula, bodily actions, verbal actions, & mental actions are to be done with repeated reflection.

"Whenever you want to do a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then any bodily action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any bodily action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

"Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

"Whenever you want to do a verbal action, you should reflect on it: ‘This verbal action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then any verbal action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any verbal action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a verbal action, you should reflect on it: ‘This verbal action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

"Having done a verbal action, you should reflect on it: ‘This verbal action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful verbal action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful verbal action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful verbal action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

"Whenever you want to do a mental action, you should reflect on it: ‘This mental action I want to do — would it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Would it be an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it would lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it would be an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then any mental action of that sort is absolutely unfit for you to do. But if on reflection you know that it would not cause affliction… it would be a skillful mental action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then any mental action of that sort is fit for you to do.

"While you are doing a mental action, you should reflect on it: ‘This mental action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

"Having done a mental action, you should reflect on it: ‘This mental action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful mental action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful mental action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should feel distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it. Feeling distressed, ashamed, & disgusted with it, you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful mental action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

It is only the Madhyamika school of philosophy and perhaps the sects which are based on the Lotus Sutra that actually hold to such a view, I think. In any case, it is not a denial that words can be used to represent truth, but a recognition that words do have some limitations in expressing the ultimate truth. I don’t think that this is very foreign to Christianity, either. For example, don’t most forms of Christianity hold that the essence of God is beyond all human comprehension? Surely God cannot fully be expressed in words, and He is regarded as the ultimate truth. This doesn’t mean that Christians can’t talk about God, but that there are limits to how much can be meaningfully expressed about God in such a way.

In fact, in Christianity there is an entire branch of theology that is based on this principle. It is called ‘Apophatic theology’ and it holds that the most accurate way to describe God is not by listing his attributes, but by saying what God is not. For example, rather than saying “God is Good”, it is better to say “God is not evil” because the Goodness of God is perfect Goodness that can only be partially expressed with the word ‘Good’ because God’s Goodness is infinitely greater than the mere human concept of goodness which we express in the word ‘Good.’ This doesn’t mean that human beings cannot talk about God’s Goodness, but merely that when we do so, our words are limited.

Bakmoon,

Thanks again for continuing our dialog

I agree that G-d, in his existential nature is beyond comprehension. That is not, however, my point. As a follower of Yeshua, I know that G-d has revealed himself in his personal attributes, perfectly, in and through Yeshua HaMashiach.

That I would not be able to describe G-d in some of his other aspects, such as how he looks or feels in human words, I agree completely with you. But as a follower of Yeshua, I believe that there are things I can, and do know about G-d.

In Buddhism, the argument is that nothing, I repeat, nothing is ultimately “knowable.” This is not the Hebraic view however.

Shalom!

 

[Bakmoon]

Bakmoon & Joe,

I agree with this as well; truth should correspond to reality. Given truth’s nature, we would most certainly expect this. If it did not correspond to reality, it would not be true. IE; a cat is not a dog; this corresponds to reality, thus it is a “true” statement.

But this is where it is so important to understand.

According to Buddhism, underneath everything, all is maya, or illusion. This is the ground of all being; an impersonal ground as well.

My point is that with an illusory ground of being as your foundation, according to the Buddhist world view, it is impossible to posit anything of true meaning.

Am I making a tad bit of sense?

Shalom!

The term ‘Maya’ is used in some forms of Hinduism (especially the school of Advaita Vedanta which holds that all of reality is nothing but illusion, and that ultimately only God exists) but not in any forms of Buddhism to my knowledge, especially in the way you are using the term.

Theravada Buddhism in particular would reject the concept of any ‘Ground of all being’ as the concept is rejected in the Pali Canon in MN 1, the Mulapariyaya Sutta, the discourse on the root sequence. If interested, you can read it here:
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.001.than.html
(By the way, this particular Sutta is probably one of the most dificult to understand in the entire Pali Canon, so don’t worry if you have trouble with it. Even experienced Buddhists often struggle with its full teaching. The monks listening to the sermon sure did!)

 

[Bakmoon]

Bakmoon,

Thanks again for continuing our dialog

I agree that G-d, in his existential nature is beyond comprehension. That is not, however, my point. As a follower of Yeshua, I know that G-d has revealed himself in his personal attributes, perfectly, in and through Yeshua HaMashiach.

That I would not be able to describe G-d in some of his other aspects, such as how he looks or feels in human words, I agree completely with you. But as a follower of Yeshua, I believe that there are things I can, and do know about G-d.

In Buddhism, the argument is that nothing, I repeat, nothing is ultimately “knowable.” This is not the Hebraic view however.

Shalom!

I can assure you that is not what Theravada Buddhism teaches, and I am fairly sure that the other sects don’t teach that either. The Theravadin Scriptures clearly teach that enlightenment is the result of gaining wisdom, which is clearly impossible if knowledge is unobtainable. Where did you here that nothing is knowable?

(By the way, Shalom to you too! Or as you might say for a Buddhist greeting, May you have peace, happiness, and freedom from suffering!)

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

Our foundation is that being loving and kind is the right thing to do. What defines this is seeing others as self and self as others. (see my signature line). It is a variation of the Golden Rule.

notself,

I hope you can forgive my non malleability here, but that is not the point.

Let me posit an example.

Why for instance do we follow the laws and governance’s in this, or other various country’s?

( PS - I am not seeking the answer “to avoid punishment;” that is not my intent here with this example )

One may answer, “because they are there, we must follow them.”

I would reply, but why really, do you follow them? Is there any reality behind those laws that upholds them, thereby giving them true meaning?

And there is the ever important point my friends.

It is not my argument that there are no human morals, etc… My point is that, without a law giver, to uphold the law, there is no point whatsoever for following any, and I repeat, any law, moral code, or truth claim.

Shalom!

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

( I don’t know why that post has a weird hyperlink, disregard that! )

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

I can assure you that is not what Theravada Buddhism teaches, and I am fairly sure that the other sects don’t teach that either. The Theravadin Scriptures clearly teach that enlightenment is the result of gaining wisdom, which is clearly impossible if knowledge is unobtainable. Where did you here that nothing is knowable?

(By the way, Shalom to you too! Or as you might say for a Buddhist greeting, May you have peace, happiness, and freedom from suffering!)

Bakmoon,

Is it not the goal of all forms of Buddhism to attain Nirvana? What is Nirvana? The cessation of the self, correct?

If this is true, my arguments, again, still stand, as this is ultimately a nihilistic world view, and nihilism rests logically only in the acceptance that all is, ultimately nothing. This is the same with any religion, philosophy, or world view that posits no conscious existence of the person in some form after death.

There is no meaning in any of those said systems.

Shalom! ( and thank you for your Buddhist blessing )

 

[Bakmoon]

Bakmoon,

Is it not the goal of all forms of Buddhism to attain Nirvana? What is Nirvana? The cessation of the self, correct?

If this is true, my arguments, again, still stand, as this is ultimately a nihilistic world view, and nihilism rests logically only in the acceptance that all is, ultimately nothing. This is the same with any religion, philosophy, or world view that posits no conscious existence of the person in some form after death.

There is no meaning in any of those said systems.

Shalom! ( and thank you for your Buddhist blessing )

Nibbana (The Pali form of the Sanskrit word Nirvana; I use the Pali terms to stay consistent because most of the Theravadin vocabulary is Pali, and it would be confusing to switch back and forth) can be defined in several different ways. You can describe it as the destruction of the three negative roots of Greed, Hatred, and Delusion, or you could describe it as the destruction of all craving. It is peaceful, perfectly happy, transcendent, and eternal. In the Buddhist scriptures it is usually described by what it is not, because it is more accurate to do so (just like in Christian Apophatic theology) using these terms because the experience of Nibbana is truely beyond words, but it is sometimes described using positive pays by using very poetic terms like the Deathless, the Other Shore, the Unconditioned, or the Taintless.

 

[JoeBowen7]

As a follower of Yeshua, I know that G-d has revealed himself in his personal attributes, perfectly, in and through Yeshua HaMashiach.

If God has revealed Himself perfectly, then why is there a disagreement between E. Orthodox and R. Catholics as to whether or not the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone (EO) or from the Father and from the Son (RC)?