B
Bakmoon
Guest
I understand that. I am just likewise showing why I don’t find those illustrations convincing.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
R
rossum
Guest
This is partly correct. In order to be fully ordained nun, both monks and nuns are needed at the ceremony. The line of Theravada nuns died out, but lines of Mahayana nuns still survive. Modern Theravada nuns were initially ordained by Theravada monks and Mahayana nuns to start a renewed lineage of Theravada nuns.What I gathered was this
- The Theravada tradition no longer has a nuns order (except for novice nuns - there are no full nuns) and modern Theravada monks actively resist the creation of a full nuns order
This created arguments among the Theravada about whether or not the Mahayana ordination lines were valid. A bit like the discussions between Catholics and Anglicans about whether or not Catholics should recognise Anglican ordinations as valid.
Conservative Theravada monks do not recognise Mahayana ordinations, and hence do not recognise modern Theravada nuns as properly ordained. Not because they are female, but because of doubts about the validity of their ordination lineage reaching back to the Buddha.
More liberal Theravada monks accept the validity of the nuns’ ordination.
Both sides accept that, in principle, women can become nuns and reach nirvana.
rossum
M
Michael19682
Guest
I’m sure you must have read the many replies to this question, Bakmoon. Do you honestly expect an answer different or in anyway unique as compared to the classic answers against what is essentially the atheism of your position on creation?But we are talking about the scenario of an eternal universe, one which extends back into the past infinitely. I am holding to the position that such a scenario is not physically impossible. The problem is that you can’t say that such a universe has an initial state. It’s just undefined. That’s like asking “What’s the first number?”
If the mind is empty as the Buddhist’s hold, how can their (mental) conceptions of creation hold any permanent epistimological tenability? Because of their own position, their own ideas have no reality. It might make for a beautiful psychology for those who are satisfied with not knowing and who like to explore mental states like ‘groundlessness’ etc.; but it does not prove nor can it establish arguments which will in any wise suffice to disconfirm catholic doctrine on time and creation.
N
notself
Guest
Allow me to point out that the use of the word liberal does not mean that the monks who support the validity of the ordination of Bhikkhunis are less than orthodox.More liberal Theravada monks accept the validity of the nuns’ ordination.
Both sides accept that, in principle, women can become nuns and reach nirvana.
rossum
Their practice of the Dhamma and Vinaya (except on this one issue) is without reproach.
The dispute is extremely technical about the translation and interpretation of the Vinaya and will make one’s eyes glaze over if I were to go into it.
B
Bakmoon
Guest
I’m sure you must have read the many replies to this question, Bakmoon. Do you honestly expect an answer different or in anyway unique as compared to the classic answers against what is essentially the atheism of your position on creation?
If the mind is empty as the Buddhist’s hold, how can their (mental) conceptions of creation hold any permanent epistimological tenability? Because of their own position, their own ideas have no reality. It might make for a beautiful psychology for those who are satisfied with not knowing and who like to explore mental states like ‘groundlessness’ etc.; but it does not prove nor can it establish arguments which will in any wise suffice to disconfirm catholic doctrine on time and creation.
- Allow me to explain the context of that statement. In that context I wasn’t trying to prove that an eternal universe is possible. InJesusITrust had advanced the analogy of recursive functions needing a starting point in order to be calculated, to which I objected the analogy was begging the question because by definition recursive functions need an initial value, whereas whether or not this is true of the universe is the very matter being debated. In my post you quoted I was just elaborating on pointing out that point, not advancing a new argument.
- That is a misuse of the term ‘empty.’ If you look back to the earliest use of the term by Nagarjuna, the statement that all things are empty means that all things are devoid of inherent existence, meaning that it does not exist in and of itself, but only as the result of conditions and causes. It doesn’t mean that our thoughts lack reality to say that they are empty when the term empty is properly understood.
B
Bakmoon
Guest
Agreed. The whole issue at hand regarding the Mahayana nun’s ability to trace back their ordination lineage to the Buddha is that the Theravada Vinaya requires that when a nun is ordained, her ordination be ratified by an official act of the monks. The Mahayana nuns who served as the preceptors of the disputed Theravada Nuns, like all Mahayana nuns, were ordained without this recognition from monks. The whole issue here is whether or not this lack of ratification invalidates the line of ordination. Reasonable people can easily disagree in this technical point.Allow me to point out that the use of the word liberal does not mean that the monks who support the validity of the ordination of Bhikkhunis are less than orthodox.
Their practice of the Dhamma and Vinaya (except on this one issue) is without reproach.
The dispute is extremely technical about the translation and interpretation of the Vinaya and will make one’s eyes glaze over if I were to go into it.
N
notself
Guest
I think you may be mistaken or perhaps I am. The problem as I understand it was that some Theravada monks did not recognize the unbroken lineage of the Korean nuns. This was traced back to the satisfaction of other monks. This whole kerfuffle is ridiculous since even if the preceptors were flawed, the Buddha stated in the Vinaya that the ordination still stands.Agreed. The whole issue at hand regarding the Mahayana nun’s ability to trace back their ordination lineage to the Buddha is that the Theravada Vinaya requires that when a nun is ordained, her ordination be ratified by an official act of the monks. The Mahayana nuns who served as the preceptors of the disputed Theravada Nuns, like all Mahayana nuns, were ordained without this recognition from monks. The whole issue here is whether or not this lack of ratification invalidates the line of ordination. Reasonable people can easily disagree in this technical point.
The Bhikkhunis were fully qualified in all ways for ordination and that is what really counts. After all, even after the Buddha set up the rules for ordination, he personally ordained a woman as a Bhikkhuni by the simple statement, “Come, Bhadda”.
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.05.09.hekh.html
B
Bakmoon
Guest
According to my understanding, this issue involving ratification is the reason why the the Korean nuns weren’t considered to have a valid lineage, because their predecessors were ordained in an invalid fashion, according to the detractors.I think you may be mistaken or perhaps I am. The problem as I understand it was that some Theravada monks did not recognize the unbroken lineage of the Koren nuns. This was traced back to the satisfaction of other monks. This whole kerfuffle is ridiculous since even if the preceptors were flawed, the Buddha stated in the Vinaya that the ordination still stands.
The Bhikkhunis were fully qualified in all ways for ordination and that is what really counts. After all, even after the Buddha set up the rules for ordination, he personally ordained a woman as a Bhikkhuni by the simple statement, “Come, Bhadda”.
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/thig/thig.05.09.hekh.html
I agree the debate is quite ridiculous. It’s not like Theravada ordination confers some power or authority on a person. It is merely an administrative act. Any spiritual benefits one gains from ordination are the result of one’s living in accord with the monastic life. Even if their ordination is invalid, they are living as Theravada nuns, so they would have all the qualities of those who are validly ordained.
N
notself
Guest
I agree.According to my understanding, this issue involving ratification is the reason why the the Korean nuns weren’t considered to have a valid lineage, because their predecessors were ordained in an invalid fashion, according to the detractors.
I agree the debate is quite ridiculous. It’s not like Theravada ordination confers some power or authority on a person. It is merely an administrative act. Any spiritual benefits one gains from ordination are the result of one’s living in accord with the monastic life. Even if their ordination is invalid, they are living as Theravada nuns, so they would have all the qualities of those who are validly ordained.
R
rossum
Guest
In Buddhist texts, especially Madhyamika texts, “empty” is the translation of the Sanskrit śūnya. This is not the same as “nothing”. A pot can be empty, but it is not nothing. Things are empty of inherent existence, just as a pot may be empty of water. Unfortunately humans have a tendency to attribute inherent existence to things that do not possess it. That leads us into error.If the mind is empty as the Buddhist’s hold, how can their (mental) conceptions of creation hold any permanent epistimological tenability? Because of their own position, their own ideas have no reality. It might make for a beautiful psychology for those who are satisfied with not knowing and who like to explore mental states like ‘groundlessness’ etc.; but it does not prove nor can it establish arguments which will in any wise suffice to disconfirm catholic doctrine on time and creation.
A mirage looks like water, but there is no water there: it is empty of water. It is deceptive. A mirage is not nothing. It looks like water, and nothing would not look like that. Viewing emptiness incorrectly will lead us into error:
If their view of emptiness is wrong,
those of little intelligence will be hurt.
Like handling a snake in the wrong way,
or casting a spell in the wrong way.
– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 24:11
rossum
N
notself
Guest
The following is from an essay on emptiness by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. I’ve put in some line breaks to make it easier to read.
…Now, stories and world views do serve a purpose. The Buddha employed them when teaching people, but he never used the word emptiness when speaking in these modes. He recounted the stories of people’s lives to show how suffering comes from the unskillful perceptions behind their actions, and how freedom from suffering can come from being more perceptive…
In all these cases, these teachings were aimed at getting people to focus on the quality of the perceptions and intentions in their minds in the present — in other words, to get them into the emptiness mode.
Once there, they can use the teachings on emptiness for their intended purpose: to loosen all attachments to views, stories, and assumptions, leaving the mind empty of all greed, anger, and delusion, and thus empty of suffering and stress. And when you come right down to it, that’s the emptiness that really counts.
M
Michael19682
Guest
Thank you Rossum! I actually know the Buddhist definition of Emptiness and some of the erroneous misunderstandings of that concept - though, of course, I cannot claim to be a realizer of it in the way a Buddha or Bodisattva would. However, it is yet an unresponded to point: if the mind is empty of inherent existence, then that crucial part which holds the essence of the meaning of the concepts of Dharma can also be called empty. Infinite regress is at the heart of the definition of emptiness, and Creation is the heart theistic notions of the universe. One needs a solid, “base case” Being to resolve this dilemma. God has provided that in Himself. Even Buddha, also an empty Being, is no more able to provide inherent existence of self or meaning than You or I. Thus, all Buddhist Dharma is empty. It works as a psychology but, no matter how beautiful and moving, can’t be called an epistemology. Hence, its conclusions are a kind of solipsism with regard to its foundational premises.In Buddhist texts, especially Madhyamika texts, “empty” is the translation of the Sanskrit śūnya. This is not the same as “nothing”. A pot can be empty, but it is not nothing. Things are empty of inherent existence, just as a pot may be empty of water. Unfortunately humans have a tendency to attribute inherent existence to things that do not possess it. That leads us into error.
A mirage looks like water, but there is no water there: it is empty of water. It is deceptive. A mirage is not nothing. It looks like water, and nothing would not look like that. Viewing emptiness incorrectly will lead us into error:
If their view of emptiness is wrong,
those of little intelligence will be hurt.
Like handling a snake in the wrong way,
or casting a spell in the wrong way.
– Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 24:11
rossum
M
Michael19682
Guest
I was trying to show that Emptiness (of phenomenon) and beginningless Time depend on each other and one leads to the other; they have no shared basis as does an omnipotent God which is the basis of all in Creationist systems. Buddhism in this respect is a kind of solipsism (as I began to point out to Rossum).
- Allow me to explain the context of that statement. In that context I wasn’t trying to prove that an eternal universe is possible. InJesusITrust had advanced the analogy of recursive functions needing a starting point in order to be calculated, to which I objected the analogy was begging the question because by definition recursive functions need an initial value, whereas whether or not this is true of the universe is the very matter being debated. In my post you quoted I was just elaborating on pointing out that point, not advancing a new argument.
- That is a misuse of the term ‘empty.’ If you look back to the earliest use of the term by Nagarjuna, the statement that all things are empty means that all things are devoid of inherent existence, meaning that it does not exist in and of itself, but only as the result of conditions and causes. It doesn’t mean that our thoughts lack reality to say that they are empty when the term empty is properly understood.
N
notself
Guest
This is the definition of solipsism: www.thefreedictionary.com/solipsismI was trying to show that Emptiness (of phenomenon) and beginningless Time depend on each other and one leads to the other; they have no shared basis as does an omnipotent God which is the basis of all in Creationist systems. Buddhism in this respect is a kind of solipsism (as I began to point out to Rossum).
sol·ip·sism (s l p-s z m, s l p-). n. Philosophy. 1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified. 2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality…
If you have been reading any posts on this thread besides those about infinite regression, you would have noticed that Buddhism teaches that the self is conditional, that it is a construct of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. The three characteristics of existence are:
- anicca, everything changes,
- dukkha, there is stress,
- anatta, there is no independent self.
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.003.than.html
B
Bakmoon
Guest
Thank you Rossum! I actually know the Buddhist definition of Emptiness and some of the erroneous misunderstandings of that concept - though, of course, I cannot claim to be a realizer of it in the way a Buddha or Bodisattva would. However, it is yet an unresponded to point: if the mind is empty of inherent existence, then that crucial part which holds the essence of the meaning of the concepts of Dharma can also be called empty. Infinite regress is at the heart of the definition of emptiness, and Creation is the heart theistic notions of the universe. One needs a solid, “base case” Being to resolve this dilemma. God has provided that in Himself. Even Buddha, also an empty Being, is no more able to provide inherent existence of self or meaning than You or I. Thus, all Buddhist Dharma is empty. It works as a psychology but, no matter how beautiful and moving, can’t be called an epistemology. Hence, its conclusions are a kind of solipsism with regard to its foundational premises.
- You speak of meaning as though it is some sort of substance that resides within thoughts and statements. I don’t think it makes sense ontologically to talk about meaning in this way.
R
rossum
Guest
You say “essence”. There is no “essence” of anything anywhere. There is no ‘more-real’ reality behind the ordinary everyday reality we all live in. The point of the concept of emptiness is to avoid the erroneous human tendency to reify almost anything and to look for deeper, more-real essences in things.However, it is yet an unresponded to point: if the mind is empty of inherent existence, then that crucial part which holds the essence of the meaning of the concepts of Dharma can also be called empty.
The same applies to emptiness itself, of course. There is no ‘essence of emptiness’, emptiness is itself empty.
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.
rossum
N
notself
Guest
This is an actual sutta about emptiness. Perhaps it will clear things up. It always helps to quote the Buddha directly. The bold is mine
The Venerable Mogharaja:
“Twice have I asked Sakka [1] but the Seeing One has not answered me. I have heard a divine sage replies when asked a third time. I do not know the view of the greatly famous Gotama concerning this world, the next world and the Brahma-world with its deities. To him of supreme vision I have come with a question: how should one regard the world so that one is not seen by the King of Death?”
The Lord:
“Look upon the world as empty,[2] Mogharaja, ever mindful; uprooting the view of self you may thus be one who overcomes death. So regarding the world one is not seen by the King of Death.”
Notes
1.The name “Sakka” is used here as a title for the Buddha. It means, “a man of the Sakya clan.” The Buddha is also sometimes called Sakyamuni, “the sage of the Sakyas.” 2.**In the Samyutta-nikaya (vol. iv, p. 54) the Venerable Ananda asks: “How is the world empty, venerable sir?” And the Lord replies: “Because, Ananda, it is empty of a self or what belongs to a self, therefore it is said, ‘the world is empty.’” **The “world,” here and elsewhere, is not to be understood in the way we usually think of it, but is defined as the five aggregates (khandha) of material form, feeling, perception, activities and consciousness, or as the eye and visible objects, the ear and sounds, etc., that is to say, the whole of our subjective and objective experience.
M
Michael19682
Guest
Yes, of course! Solipsistic in the sense I used it refers to a argument that depends of Itself for its own basis. If we say the self is the only reality that can be known or verified, then how do we verify this very notion - answer is, we need the self to verify it. Without a self, we can verify nothing, since nothing cannot verify anything. Buddhism, the most well developed doctrines and statements on no-self, has no basis of verification unless we heed its advice to simply look at things as they are within us (“pointing out instructions” as they are called by some venerated teachers, many of whom help a great many people and have found happiness). But if the self is empty and cannot support the permanent because it is not permanent, on what basis are its conclusions valid. No matter if this self is called a mind or not: the solid permanent basis for meaning applies to any entity.This is the definition of solipsism: www.thefreedictionary.com/solipsism
sol·ip·sism (s l p-s z m, s l p-). n. Philosophy. 1. The theory that the self is the only thing that can be known and verified. 2. The theory or view that the self is the only reality…
If you have been reading any posts on this thread besides those about infinite regression, you would have noticed that Buddhism teaches that the self is conditional, that it is a construct of form, feeling, perception, mental formations, and consciousness. The three characteristics of existence are:
Buddism is the very opposite of solipsism.
- anicca, everything changes,
- dukkha, there is stress,
- anatta, there is no independent self.
accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn41/sn41.003.than.html
What I meant (and said) ‘in essence’ was that the doctrine of beginningless time has as it basis the doctrine of empitness or no-self, and that this latter in turn is infinitely recursive in terms of its reasoning process (constantly taking ‘apart’ a formal phenomenon - Where is the house? Its door, its window, its garage; and where is the door? Its hinges, its bolts, it’s nuts?) Only God as Christians conceive of him can stop the recursion, unwind it, to use the computer science term, because he has in himself provided a base case test. “Yes, I’m real and I support meaning. Without me there is no meaning, hence no reality for you.” might be said to be his message. God answers the recursive test for meaning: is this meaning I perceive Godly or of God? If yes, then it has meaning. If not, then it is of hell or a lie. The work of the devil, we presume. Now please, much Buddhism overlaps with Christianity on the moral lines of virtue. No harm (ahimsa) is the ‘essence’ of this. However, Buddhism offers its morality on the basis of self interest whereas Christianity emphasizes more the attainment of a served Other. Buddhism seems to avoid “other” service, calling it ‘benefit’ in translation, because one cannot in reality do anything to affect another’s Karma. Karma, as you know, particularly that Karma of Buddha, is believed to have caused the evolution of the illusory reality called Maya by Hindus. This is, as I understood, why the Buddha began to spin the wheel of Dharma and why a good Buddhist will see Buddha’s body, hear Buddha’s speech, etc.
Christians, if they borrow the concept of Karma in debate, can effectively reason that since God is solid and gives us meaning, he, Christ can and does effect the end of transmigration with the attainment of permanent peace in Heaven. Of course Christians don’t normally talk about transmigration (called reincarnation) because Christ’s sacfrice may be seen in debate to stop it at the gates of Heaven.
Buddhist’s need Emptiness to logically hold together transmigration theories, which hinge on beginningless time. With all the solipsism involved, it’s amazing to me that someone doesn’t just say it like it is. Faith is a higher form of reasoning, and there is no fault in believing in the necessary premise of a permanent God anymore than in accepting Karma, Emptiness, and transmigration. Both systems have in common a perfect ending: the paranirvanna and the parasoua, respectively. Thus is seems to me odd that while Christians acknowledge all that is spirtual in all religions, Buddhists often continue to criticise the trinity, the soul, and other sacred Christian theological points as not being valuable and, in some cases, regarding these as the pinnacle of ignorance. If the ‘benefit’ of all living beings is the goal of a spiritual leader, what basis is there in decrying a doctrine like Heaven, which brings so much consolation and peace to many, especially after their loved ones have departed?
N
notself
Guest
As my previous post have indicated, the emptiness that the Buddha speaks about is the emptiness of self. Please comment on the suttas I’ve posted rather than this ongoing argument about the universe.,Buddhist’s need Emptiness to logically hold together transmigration theories, which hinge on beginningless time. With all the solipsism involved, it’s amazing to me that someone doesn’t just say it like it is. Faith is a higher form of reasoning, and there is no fault in believing in the necessary premise of a permanent God anymore than in accepting Karma, Emptiness, and transmigration. Both systems have in common a perfect ending: the paranirvanna and the parasoua, respectively. Thus is seems to me odd that while Christians acknowledge all that is spirtual in all religions, Buddhists often continue to criticise the trinity, the soul, and other sacred Christian theological points as not being valuable and, in some cases, regarding these as the pinnacle of ignorance. If the ‘benefit’ of all living beings is the goal of a spiritual leader, what basis is there in decrying a doctrine like Heaven, which brings so much consolation and peace to many, especially after their loved ones have departed?
You clearly don’t understand the concept of not-self. No where does the Buddha say there is no self. He repeatedly says that form, our bodies, are not self; feelings are not self; perceptions are not self, etc…
He never denies the reality of chairs, earth, elephants. Nor does he ever state that the universe had no beginning. What he said was in his contemplation of the universe, he could not envision a beginning. He was a man of his times and this was a common understanding of the time. The universe and it’s beginning does not figure in more than one sutta that I am aware of and I pretty much covered the topic. He does discuss Samsara as an endless round of rebirth to be avoided,and I suppose someone else could draw that conclusion, but I have never read that as a comment on the universe.
Some how this thread got side tracked into an almost Hindu concept of the universe. Its a darn shame because it was not a topic the Buddha was particularly interested in. Emptiness (of self in our form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness) is not the basis for rebirth. The concept of emptiness is the basis for dispassion.
Whether the universe has a beginning or not does not effect the concept of rebirth. I don’t know where you got that idea.
As for Buddhist criticizing Christianity as the pinnacle of ignorance, you are going to have to provide a link for that one. For a Buddhist to do so would be a violation of Right Speech.
I
InJesusItrust
Guest
I am not familiar with the big bounce model, but it seems rather peculiar to me that this iteration depends on the previous being successful, that depends on the one before, and so on. I don’t see how any future iteration can take place, including this one, unless at least one iteration is successful. How would that prime iteration have taken place unless the universe was created initially, was uncreated initially or somewhere in the middle.One possible model is the big bounce model in physics.
I only used the example of numbers because it acts as an analogy for why it doesn’t make sense to talk about an initial state in the context of an eternal universe. I wasn’t saying that the number line is a perfect analogy for the world.
Seems like a lot of mental gymnastics involved to avoid a first cause, but the first cause had to be an on switch to the cycle to take place.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.