Ask A Buddhist

[snarflemike]

This naturalistic process is a psychological one, so yes. A suicide bomber forms an intention of causing harm, which, when coupled with the actual act, has a spiritually negative effect. In contrast, the guard who shoots him has no such intention because his mind is motivated by compassion for the school children to prevent them from being harmed, and so the effect is different.

OK, hypothesize with me. Imagine the mental state of the two (bomber and guard) was exactly the same. Somehow the bomber had been taught or had convinced himself that his act was also motivated by compassion for some innocents, to prevent some innocents from being harmed. Would their karma then be the same?

Or suppose that the guard had had relatives killed by suicide bombers in the past, and he hated them with great passion, and he relished killing the bomber. The innocent schoolchildren are still saved, so is his karma the same or different?

 

[Contarini]

OK, hypothesize with me. Imagine the mental state of the two (bomber and guard) was exactly the same. Somehow the bomber had been taught or had convinced himself that his act was also motivated by compassion for some innocents, to prevent some innocents from being harmed. Would their karma then be the same?

Or suppose that the guard had had relatives killed by suicide bombers in the past, and he hated them with great passion, and he relished killing the bomber. The innocent schoolchildren are still saved, so is his karma the same or different?

Snarflemike,

How does this question affect Buddhists and Christians differently?

It seems to me that an orthodox Christian answer would be that in the first case, you don’t kill innocents to prevent innocents from being harmed. A person might be confused on this point, and how culpable they were would depend on how they had come to be confused–but there’s no way that such an act wouldn’t be judged as bad (the only question would be how gravely culpable the killer was). And in the second place, the security guard who acted out of malice would be culpable to the degree that he did so, but again, the fact that he was defending innocents would count “in his favor,” unless it genuinely played no role at all in his motivation, which is pretty hard to imagine.

And it seems to me that Buddhists, with their “psychological naturalistic” explanation, would come to much the same conclusion.

In short, I fail to see that the concept of a personal Judge has the kind of significance with regard to culpability that you’re giving it, unless (which God forbid) you’re supposing that God acts arbitrarily.

Where I think the Christian understanding does make a difference is in the concept of forgiveness. But even there, we believe that forgiveness has to be received by repentance, and in the Catholic understanding there’s still a “temporal punishment” that remains after forgiveness, which becomes practically indistinguishable from the Buddhist view, it seems to me. (I’ve referred several times on this forum to Paul Griffiths’ talk “Purgatory as Reincarnation,” which unfortunately is no longer available online. Griffiths is both an expert on Buddhism and a Catholic theologian. And for the Buddhists who dislike the term reincarnation, let me clarify that Griffiths deliberately uses “reincarnation” in a very broad sense and uses the Greek term “metempsychosis” to refer to the kind of reincarnation Buddhists deny. His point is precisely that both Buddhists and Christians deny “reincarnation” in the sense of “metempsychosis,” but both hold to a form of reincarnation broadly defined.)

Edwin

 

[iloveangels]

My name was mentioned upthread, so I just had to join in. My Buddhism has much more of a Mahayana flavour than Bakmoon’s Theravada.

Does He exist? Yes, he gets a mention in the Brahmajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1:

“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”

Are all His claims correct? No. For the most part Buddhists ignore Him. If you want a miracle performed, then by all means ask Him. If you want to attain nirvana, then He can’t help you.

So:

1. Buddhists think that Brahma is God, and
2. Buddhists ignore who they think is God.

Buddhism is a description of the way the world, both material and spiritual, works: “Do this and that will happen.” Buddhism is rediscovered at intervals by fully enlightened Buddhas, who preach and teach others. Eventually the religion decays and disappears until a new Buddha arises, rediscovers its truths and preaches them again. We are currently in the era of the Buddha Shakyamuni. After the current Buddhism has disappeared, the next Buddha, Maitreya Buddha, will be born and refound the religion.

Buddhism is discovered. Since it is inherent in the world, it correctly describes the way the world works. Each Buddha rediscovers it anew.

rossum

That’s NOT what I asked you. I asked you who created the system and then who maintains it.

 

[notself]

So:

1. Buddhists think that Brahma is God, and
2. Buddhists ignore who they think is God.

That’s NOT what I asked you. I asked you who created the system and then who maintains it.

1. Buddhists think that Brahma was a deva who incorrectly thought he was a creator and supreme being. Deva is often translated as god, but devas are mortal and are not all powerful.
2. Buddhists do not see any deva as an all powerful creator and arbitrator of right and wrong, so ignoring a deva is just fine.

What do you mean by system and maintenance of a system? I don’t understand your question. Will you rephrase it?

 

[iloveangels]

1. Buddhists think that Brahma was a deva who incorrectly thought he was a creator and supreme being. Deva is often translated as god, but devas are mortal and are not all powerful.
2. Buddhists do not see any deva as an all powerful creator and arbitrator of right and wrong, so ignoring a deva is just fine.

What do you mean by system and maintenance of a system? I don’t understand your question. Will you rephrase it?

So Brahma only thought he was God. Ah.

So you still haven’t answered that question either.

You are telling me that Buddhists don’t believe there is a God.

 

[iloveangels]

1. Buddhists think that Brahma was a deva who incorrectly thought he was a creator and supreme being. Deva is often translated as god, but devas are mortal and are not all powerful.
2. Buddhists do not see any deva as an all powerful creator and arbitrator of right and wrong, so ignoring a deva is just fine.

What do you mean by system and maintenance of a system? I don’t understand your question. Will you rephrase it?

The things that you “discover” are not only in your imagination, right? Then they must have some objective reality. Who created that reality? [These are all very simple questions.]

 

[notself]

So Brahma only thought he was God. Ah.

So you still haven’t answered that question either.

You are telling me that Buddhists don’t believe there is a God.

Whether there is or is not a god is unimportant to Buddhist practice. Some Buddhists of the Northern schools revere the teachings as eternal like a god is eternal. Some Japanese Buddhists of the Nichiren sect believe in a Buddha/god. Theravada and Tibetan Buddhism are what you would consider to be atheistic.

 

[Contarini]

So Brahma only thought he was God. Ah.

So you still haven’t answered that question either.

You are telling me that Buddhists don’t believe there is a God.

I’ve been round this issue with rossum several times. He persists in identifying the God of Western monotheism with “Brahma,” because of course we do ascribe to God the qualities that Brahma is described in that passage as claiming for himself.

Buddhists believe that any individual, personal being whose existence can be pointed out and described is temporary. Hence, a personal God would be just one temporary being among others. If he were the first being to come into existence, he might imagine himself to be eternal and the creator, but this would be an illusion.

The main point of dialogue between Christians and Buddhists on the nature of God (a point I’ve tried to commend to rossum several times, to no avail) is the “apophatic” tradition within Christianity, which emphasizes that God cannot be defined and is beyond our understanding. In both Western and Eastern Christian theology, this is the fundamental truth about God (though it’s emphasized more in the East than in the West).

Edwin

 

[Bakmoon]

OK, hypothesize with me. Imagine the mental state of the two (bomber and guard) was exactly the same. Somehow the bomber had been taught or had convinced himself that his act was also motivated by compassion for some innocents, to prevent some innocents from being harmed. Would their karma then be the same?

Or suppose that the guard had had relatives killed by suicide bombers in the past, and he hated them with great passion, and he relished killing the bomber. The innocent schoolchildren are still saved, so is his karma the same or different?

This is a rather technical question, so I hope you can forgive a rather technical answer My use of the term mind state is sort of a non-technical translation of the Pali term Citta. The term Citta refers to a very brief mental arising of consciousness. To use an analogy from science, it is like one of the types of subatomic particles that makes up the mind and its contents so to speak.

I don’t think that it would be actually possible for the bomber to not have a negative mental state. Although it is possible to imagine being in his situation and not feel a negative state of mind, in actuality, the various Citta that arise during the action would undoubtedly be negative.

In the case of the guard killing the bomber out of hatred however, he would have negative Citta arising during the commission of the act. This would make his act bad Karma. I don’t see the objection to this, however, as Jesus himself said "You have heard that it was said to the men of old, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother shall be liable to the council, and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be liable to the hell of fire. " (Mathew 5:21-22) Is killing with hatred, even legitimate killing, is held to be immoral by the Catholic Church? It seems to my understanding that it is.

 

[iloveangels]

Whether there is or is not a god is unimportant to Buddhist practice. …

There’s the “money quote.” Buddhism is a sort of fancy atheism.

 

[Bakmoon]

The things that you “discover” are not only in your imagination, right? Then they must have some objective reality. Who created that reality? [These are all very simple questions.]

Buddhism teaches that there is no creator of the universe.

The reason why we had some problem with your question is that the wording was a little bit ambiguous. For example, I didn’t know whether you were asking about the system of Buddhist teachings, or were using the term system to refer to the universe as a whole.

 

[iloveangels]

Buddhism teaches that there is no creator of the universe.

The reason why we had some problem with your question is that the wording was a little bit ambiguous. For example, I didn’t know whether you were asking about the system of Buddhist teachings, or were using the term system to refer to the universe as a whole.

Ah, there it is. Buddhism is a system.

I was referring to the world as a whole, as well as your system of teachings, which is an element of things in the world (which are supposed to somehow inform us about at least some facet of the world, if they’re not totally illusory, right?)

 

[notself]

The things that you “discover” are not only in your imagination, right? Then they must have some objective reality. Who created that reality? [These are all very simple questions.]

Reality can be objective. “that’s a chair” or subjective “that chair is beautiful”. One reality is external and object directed and the other reality is internal, of the mind. Who creates the reality of beauty?

Suffering as it is discussed in Buddhism is an invention of the mind. It is subjective. Pain is a physical response of the body. It is objective. Of course we know that the subjective mind can increase or decrease the reality of pain.

I don’t think your questions are simple. They have been the topics of philosophy for thousands of years. Let me ask your questions in reverse.

What makes you think that your imagination is not real? Dreams, imaginings, can increase heart rates, blood pressure, respirations. How can something that is not real have these effects?

Would objective reality exist without an observer?

 

[rossum]

So:

1. Buddhists think that Brahma is God, and
2. Buddhists ignore who they think is God.

You need to read the Brahmajala sutta. The quote is part of the fifth mistaken view, and comes from a section of the sutta listing 62 mistaken views. The being who makes those claims is mistaken. Sincerely mistaken, but mistaken. His claims are false. YHWH is long lived, but not immortal. YHWH is powerful, but not omnipotent. YHWH knows a great deal, but He is not omniscient. YHWH is not above morality.

Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion, and has a very different attitude to the Abrahamic God, and indeed to all the many other gods it recognises. YHWH is one of the more powerful ones among them, but He is still one of many.

The gods are ignored because they cannot attain nirvana for us. They can only attain nirvana for themselves.

That’s NOT what I asked you. I asked you who created the system and then who maintains it.

From the outside, your question is useless. The system exists, here and now, and we have to work within it. The parable of the man shot with an arrow applies:

[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.

'In exactly the same way, Malunkyaputta, any one who says “I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One explains to me whether the universe is eternal, whether the universe is not eternal, whether the universe is finite, whether the universe is infinite etc.” [many questions omitted here] That person would die Malunkyaputta, before I had ever explained all this to that person.

‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

– Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63.

Buddhism is a practical religion, and spending time to answer your question is a distraction which does not help us towards the goal. If you want to know the origin of the material universe, then ask a cosmologist.

From the inside, the answer is that we each create the universe by failing to attain enlightenment in our previous life.

That is also the answer to the second part of your question. We each maintain the universe by continuing to be reborn inside it. If we had achieved enlightenment, then we wouldn’t be here.

rossum

 

[iloveangels]

Reality can be objective. “that’s a chair” or subjective “that chair is beautiful”. One reality is external and object directed and the other reality is internal, of the mind. Who creates the reality of beauty?

Suffering as it is discussed in Buddhism is an invention of the mind. It is subjective. Pain is a physical response of the body. It is objective. Of course we know that the subjective mind can increase or decrease the reality of pain.

I don’t think your questions are simple. They have been the topics of philosophy for thousands of years. Let me ask your questions in reverse.

What makes you think that your imagination is not real? Dreams, imaginings, can increase heart rates, blood pressure, respirations. How can something that is not real have these effects?

Would objective reality exist without an observer?

Ah, but even if its elements are subjective, it has to be objectively something otherwise you couldn’t point to it and say “that,” or refer to it as a system, right? [aka it couldn’t be shared, given a name, etc etc]

 

[Bakmoon]

There’s the “money quote.” Buddhism is a sort of fancy atheism.
Reply With Quote

…

Ah, there it is. Buddhism is a system.

I was referring to the world as a whole, as well as your system of teachings, which is an element of things in the world (which are supposed to somehow inform us about at least some facet of the world, if they’re not totally illusory, right?)

I would agree that Buddhism is an Atheistic religion.

As to the second part, I would say that the teachings are not so much a part of the world as they are a description of the world. I don’t know if that is an answer to your question, but that’s the best way I can put it.

 

[iloveangels]

I would agree that Buddhism is an Atheistic religion.

As to the second part, I would say that the teachings are not so much a part of the world as they are a description of the world. I don’t know if that is an answer to your question, but that’s the best way I can put it.

Okay, I would buy that the teachings of Buddhism are descriptions of the world. But that doesn’t really seem sufficient for a view of the world that’s supposed to be religious in nature-aka worthy of belief…

I mean, it seems more like a taxonomy of experiences which doesn’t really rise to the level of being an explanation of reality, any more than the taxonomy of plants and animals in the world rises to the level of offering an explanation as to why they’re that way and not another, or an explanation of why they exist at all.

Unless you’d like to say that the world brings itself into existence, which is a logical impossibility. You see, the problem here is that either you have an inadequate system, or a system that claims self-subsumption which is a kind of infinite regress.

 

[Bakmoon]

By the way, Hi rossum! I find it very helpful that you have joined in our discussion. Nice to meet you.

By the way, what form of Buddhism do you follow? If you are non-sectarian, what types of materials do you find the most influential? I’m a Theravadin who generally follows the Thai forest tradition myself, but uses Classical Mahavihara interpretations when helpful and likes modern critical scholarship too.

 

[Bakmoon]

Okay, I would buy that the teachings of Buddhism are descriptions of the world. But that doesn’t really seem sufficient for a view of the world that’s supposed to be religious in nature-aka worthy of belief…

Unless you’d like to say that the world brings itself into existence, which is a logical impossibility. You see, the problem here is that either you have an inadequate system, or a system that claims self-subsumption which is a kind of infinite regress.

I personally never found the cosmological argument to be that convincing. Why is an infinite regress impossible?

P.S.

By the way, Hi rossum! I find it very helpful that you have joined in our discussion. Nice to meet you.

What form of Buddhism do you follow? If you are non-sectarian, what types of materials do you find the most influential? I’m a Theravadin who generally follows the Thai forest tradition myself, but uses Classical Mahavihara interpretations when helpful and likes modern critical scholarship too

 

[iloveangels]

…Why is an infinite regress impossible?

Because an infinite regress totally sidesteps the point. It gets lost in details and doesn’t have a point. That’s why it’s a logical fallacy. It’s not a point of view. It’s more of a cosmic case of ADD on steroids.

So you can mess with an infinite regress. You can collect instances of them. You can identify with them like you list all the reasons why you didn’t get to the event on time. You can call yourself a certain kind of practitioner of infinite regressing, in this case Buddhism.

But you can’t state it or believe in it. It’s not that sort of thing. It doesn’t really explain anything in itself.
[Any more than the observation that most people like chocolate ice cream explains things. It just is, in a statistical sort of way. That’s not religious or even particularly useful for anyone who doesn’t run an ice cream company.]

Unless you have a story line that’s made up to go with all this cataloging of experiences.