Ask A Buddhist II

[Bakmoon]

Good would be integral to God. An aspect of him. It seems meaningless to question that.

From my perspective it looks like you and I are in the same boat then. I say that by definition, happiness is better than unhappiness, which you see as begging the question, and you say that God is by definition good, which I see as begging the question.

 

[Bakmoon]

And what does one do in this state?

Nibbana is eternal and transcendent. It doesn’t make sense to talk about “doing” in an eternal event.

 

[Bakmoon]

Ah, you can run but you can’t hide! I’m back

Got a question Okay while I agree living a life of balance is much better then living a life of stress, it does not change the fact that in this world it just isn’t reality.

Isn’t tying to live your life in equanimity a stress in itself?

In the Catholic teaching when your life gets out of hand and stress gets out of hand we call on Christ to take away our suffering and our stress.

Every Sunday in church we say take away our anxiety’s etc.

But what I am asking are you not trying in a sense to escape from reality then, and make your own so called heaven on earth all by yourself?

True equanimity isn’t forcing the mind to be balanced by force of will, but is the result of seeing the impermanence, non-satisfactoriness, and the lack of self in all things. Once this is truly seen, attachment is destroyed, and one lives out a life of equanimity. It isn’t about running away from reality, but about running directly into reality and learning to accept it.

By the way, it is great to have you back, rinnie

 

[notself]

Ah, you can run but you can’t hide! I’m back

Got a question Okay while I agree living a life of balance is much better then living a life of stress, it does not change the fact that in this world it just isn’t reality.

Isn’t tying to live your life in equanimity a stress in itself?

In the Catholic teaching when your life gets out of hand and stress gets out of hand we call on Christ to take away our suffering and our stress.

Every Sunday in church we say take away our anxiety’s etc.

But what I am asking are you not trying in a sense to escape from reality then, and make your own so called heaven on earth all by yourself?

Welcome back!

I agree the world isn’t easy, But by practice of metta one controls irritation, fear and anger. Controlling these things leads to more equanimity. More equanimity in one’s life leads to more loving kindness so it becomes a feed back loop.

My mother used to find equanimity while saying the rosary but she couldn’t carry that feeling to all parts of her life. I think she would have been able to do that if she had known about metta.

Rinnie did you see the rewrite of the Metta Sutta and the short metta phrases I did for you? It’s on the first thread that was closed. It’s near the last page.

 

[englishredrose]

does buddhists have a God or many gods?
a religion must have a least one god…?

 

[notself]

does buddhists have a God or many gods?
a religion must have a least one god…?

Buddhism has no god that’s worshipped; no creator, no creation story, no independent self or soul. Here is a 2000 year old poem that covers this.

"Mere suffering is, not any sufferer is found
The deeds exist, but no performer of the deeds.
Nibbana is, but not the one who enters it,
The path is, but no wanderer is to be seen.

No doer of the deeds is found,
No one who ever reaps their fruits,
Empty phenomena roll on,
This view alone is right and true.

No god, no Brahma, may be called,
The maker of this wheel of life,
Empty phenomena roll on,
Dependent on conditions all."

• Visuddhimagga XIX

 

[rinnie]

Welcome back!

I agree the world isn’t easy, But by practice of metta one controls irritation, fear and anger. Controlling these things leads to more equanimity. More equanimity in one’s life leads to more loving kindness so it becomes a feed back loop.

My mother used to find equanimity while saying the rosary but she couldn’t carry that feeling to all parts of her life. I think she would have been able to do that if she had known about metta.

Rinnie did you see the rewrite of the Metta Sutta and the short metta phrases I did for you? It’s on the first thread that was closed. It’s near the last page.

I didn’t. Usually from Fri thru Sun I am gone from the house. Doing a second Job KIND OF! My husband and I are trying to finish a house in the next month or so,

But I should get some time tommorow, I promise I will go back and read it.

I will let you know what I think, or make of it.

 

[rossum]

does buddhists have a God or many gods?
a religion must have a least one god…?

Buddhism has as many gods as you want: none, one, a dozen, tens of thousands. It depends on your definition of “god”. What one person calls a god another might call a deva, an archangel or a djinn.

What the gods have in common is that they are not of any particular importance. Each of us has to follow our own path to nirvana. You cannot walk my path for me, any more than I can walk your path for you. The same applies to gods. Each god/archangel/djinn has to walk its own path to nirvana.

rossum

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

Shalom Everyone;

I’m new to this forum as a user, but not as a reader; have been following CAF for over a year now, and, specifically, I have been checking this thread for a while now as some good discussion seems to be taking place, and that’s always a good thing.

My first question open to any of the Buddhists contributing would be this;

Beginning with the ever important subject of truth;

I have heard countless times those of Eastern philosophical tracts proclaim that, “the only ultimate truth is, in fact, that there is no ultimate truth.”

How can you posit to believe in such a relativism, when you are in fact, by your own declaration, making an absolute truth claim by positing truth as relative?

Shalom

 

[Bakmoon]

Shalom Everyone;

I’m new to this forum as a user, but not as a reader; have been following CAF for over a year now, and, specifically, I have been checking this thread for a while now as some good discussion seems to be taking place, and that’s always a good thing.

My first question open to any of the Buddhists contributing would be this;

Beginning with the ever important subject of truth;

I have heard countless times those of Eastern philosophical tracts proclaim that, “the only ultimate truth is, in fact, that there is no ultimate truth.”

How can you posit to believe in such a relativism, when you are in fact, by your own declaration, making an absolute truth claim by positing truth as relative?

Shalom

I don’t believe that as I am a Theravadin. That quote I believe comes from Madhyamika philosophy, which is an important part of Mahayana Buddhism. To my understanding, it is not a literal statement which teaches relativism, but a poetic way of pointing out the limits of language. In essence, it means that the ultimate truth is ineffable and cannot be fully captured by words.

This was addressed in the earlier thread here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=694737&page=6

 

[JoeBowen7]

I don’t believe that as I am a Theravadin. That quote I believe comes from Madhyamika philosophy, which is an important part of Mahayana Buddhism. To my understanding, it is not a literal statement which teaches relativism, but a poetic way of pointing out the limits of language. In essence, it means that the ultimate truth is ineffable and cannot be fully captured by words.

This was addressed in the earlier thread here:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=694737&page=6

You have mentioned here Theravadin and Mahayana Buddhism.
For us who don’t know too much about Buddhism, could you explain the various different types of buddhism for us.

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

Shalom Bakmoon;

Thank you for your thoughts.

On that note, let me ask you this then;

Do you believe that your previous answer to my original question was a truthful response?

Under the Buddhist world view, would it not be equally true for me to have responded to my question ( if I were a practicing Buddhist ) with this statement;

The sky collapsed tomorrow when it was turned on, and given the way the grass was blue in its odor, the real question to your answer is that dogs like to fly in Cadillacs?

Shalom!

 

[JoeBowen7]

Shalom Bakmoon;

Thank you for your thoughts.

On that note, let me ask you this then;

Do you believe that your previous answer to my original question was a truthful response?

Under the Buddhist world view, would it not be equally true for me to have responded to my question ( if I were a practicing Buddhist ) with this statement;

The sky collapsed tomorrow when it was turned on, and given the way the grass was blue in its odor, the real question to your answer is that dogs like to fly in Cadillacs?

Shalom!

I thought that Bakmoon gave a pretty good response to the question. I think I understood what he was trying to say.

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

Shalom Joe;

Per Bakmoon and his response,

More to the point; ultimately, in Buddhism, truth is relative.

Therefore, according to this foundational Buddhist tenant, that statement, though Bakmoon would suggest I am overlooking the mystical interpretation, holds “true.”

But you see there the law of non-contradiction automatically butting its head.

You cannot have it both ways; to deny the exclusivity of truth, is at the same time, to affirm its very existence.

And in that sense, relativism is self defeating.

In terms of Bakmoon and his offer of a more mystical, beyond words interpretation, I am reminded of this Eastern quip;

“When the mouth opens, all are fools.”

Or,

“He who knows, does not speak; he who speaks, does not know.”

Did they speak?

If he spoke, then he does not know, and if he does not know, does it really matter if he spoke?

Do you see the dilemma here?

Shalom!

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Bhudism is in the same line of thought as the subjectivists? Really?

 

[notself]

Shalom Joe;

Per Bakmoon and his response,

More to the point; ultimately, in Buddhism, truth is relative.

Therefore, according to this foundational Buddhist tenant, that statement, though Bakmoon would suggest I am overlooking the mystical interpretation, holds “true.”

But you see there the law of non-contradiction automatically butting its head.

You cannot have it both ways; to deny the exclusivity of truth, is at the same time, to affirm its very existence.

And in that sense, relativism is self defeating.

In terms of Bakmoon and his offer of a more mystical, beyond words interpretation, I am reminded of this Eastern quip;

“When the mouth opens, all are fools.”

Or,

“He who knows, does not speak; he who speaks, does not know.”

Did they speak?

If he spoke, then he does not know, and if he does not know, does it really matter if he spoke?

Do you see the dilemma here?

Shalom!

Please go back and re-read Bakmoon’s response. He didn’t say anything that you are crediting him with. Buddhism is not the same as Taoism which you seem to be quoting.

 

[JoeBowen7]

Shalom Joe;

Per Bakmoon and his response,

More to the point; ultimately, in Buddhism, truth is relative.

Therefore, according to this foundational Buddhist tenant, that statement, though Bakmoon would suggest I am overlooking the mystical interpretation, holds “true.”

But you see there the law of non-contradiction automatically butting its head.

You cannot have it both ways; to deny the exclusivity of truth, is at the same time, to affirm its very existence.

And in that sense, relativism is self defeating.

In terms of Bakmoon and his offer of a more mystical, beyond words interpretation, I am reminded of this Eastern quip;

“When the mouth opens, all are fools.”

Or,

“He who knows, does not speak; he who speaks, does not know.”

Did they speak?

If he spoke, then he does not know, and if he does not know, does it really matter if he spoke?

Do you see the dilemma here?

Shalom!

But what I think you are missing, is that these things are to be taken poetically or figuratively. What I think they are trying to say is that words do not always convey the absolute truth of reality, but there is always a little bit more that can be added to increase our understanding of it. Take for example, Newton’s Laws of motion. they are great as far as they go and are certainly the product of a great genius. However, twentieth century physics has shown that they are not the last word and that they have limitations when it comes to describing the exceeding small or when describing objects travelling at great speeds.
In other words, don’t think that much of what you say is the last word on the subject at hand.

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

Shalom notself;

Thanks for joining in!

My apologies if I seem to be blanketing various Eastern schools of thought into one.

A new question then, specifically for the Buddhist strain;

How do you define truth, when there is no actual person (you or I) there to do the defining?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but in Buddhism, ultimately, all life is extinguished, once a construct of various traits experiences Nirvana?

If this is the case, that ultimately, you, me, and all living things, will cease to exist in a conscious awareness, how can a Buddhist proclaim that there is any such thing as a true statement?

Is not Buddhism relativistic, in the grand scheme of things? If so, I still stand by my previous comments, as they would most certainly apply to the Buddhist school.

Shalom!

 

[JoeBowen7]

Shalom notself;

Thanks for joining in!

My apologies if I seem to be blanketing various Eastern schools of thought into one.

A new question then, specifically for the Buddhist strain;

How do you define truth, when there is no actual person (you or I) there to do the defining?

Please correct me if I am wrong, but in Buddhism, ultimately, all life is extinguished, once a construct of various traits experiences Nirvana?

If this is the case, that ultimately, you, me, and all living things, will cease to exist in a conscious awareness, how can a Buddhist proclaim that there is any such thing as a true statement?

Is not Buddhism relativistic, in the grand scheme of things? If so, I still stand by my previous comments, as they would most certainly apply to the Buddhist school.

Shalom!

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.

 

[Yeshua_Adonai]

But what I think you are missing, is that these things are to be taken poetically or figuratively. What I think they are trying to say is that words do not always convey the absolute truth of reality, but there is always a little bit more that can be added to increase our understanding of it. Take for example, Newton’s Laws of motion. they are great as far as they go and are certainly the product of a great genius. However, twentieth century physics has shown that they are not the last word and that they have limitations when it comes to describing the exceeding small or when describing objects travelling at great speeds.
In other words, don’t think that much of what you say is the last word on the subject at hand.

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!