Ask A Buddhist

[snarflemike]

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.

You are right that in Catholic teaching the guard would be guilty of sin even though he did an objectively good thing. One cannot commit evil for the purpose of doing good.

Anyway, thanks for the answers. And God bless (if I may be so bold! )

 

[farpinho]

Excelent questions again! I am pleasantly surprised to get such interest in my thread and get to know so many wonderful people. Thank you every body. Keep the questions commin’!

1. Usually when you see people “praying” to the Buddha, they aren’t actually addressing the Buddha. They are usually chanting something to themselves for some sort of benefit. For example, when I prostrate before a Buddha image, I do some chanting about the various qualities of the Buddha and make the resolution to be more like him. Other sects chant various mantras that are believed to have an innate ability to transform the chanter for the better.

That being said, some people do actually directly address the Buddha and ask for favors and such. Some sects of Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism see these beings as still existing in some trancendental way and being able to help people, whereas in Theravada Buddhism (The kind I follow) this kind of thing is largely seen as a form of superstitious folk religion that is just based on misunderstanding. This is because Theravada Buddhism teaches that when an enlightened being dies and enters into Parinibbana, which is a trancendental and unconditioned state, it is impossible to contact or speak with such a being anymore.

1. There are various beings that are what some would call supernatural such as hell beings and heavenly beings. However they aren’t really that different from us. They eventually grow old and die and are part of the same cycle of rebirth as us. We can be reborn in the heavens or in hell or any of these things based on our actions.

Mara is often portrayed similarly to a demon, but that is only in a sense of him tempting the Buddha. There are varied opinions as to who Mara is. The classical view is that he is actually a relatively high ranking being in one of the heavenly realms, but it is also widely held that Mara is just an allegorical figure who symbolizes the temptations that go on in our own hearts.

1. When one dies, one is reborn into another life. It could be in hell, as an animal, as a petta spirit, as a human, or as a being in heaven. This is mostly based on our deeds.

What are the Buddhist views on Hell / Heaven?

 

[Bakmoon]

You are right that in Catholic teaching the guard would be guilty of sin even though he did an objectively good thing. One cannot commit evil for the purpose of doing good.

Anyway, thanks for the answers. And God bless (if I may be so bold! )

You may be as bold as you like whenever you so please May you be well and happy, and may the Catholic Church continue forever as a Bastion of Good an Mercy!

 

[Bakmoon]

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.

Do you object to an infinite regress because it doesn’t explain why there is a universe rather than there not being a universe?

 

[Bakmoon]

What are the Buddhist views on Hell / Heaven?

The Buddhist understanding of hell varies somewhat by sect. Some have very elaborate descriptions of all sorts of torments such as being boiled in oil, being made to consume balls of red hot iron, etc… The earliest Buddhist texts simply describe it as a place of fire. It is quite common to interpret these descriptions as being allegorical of a state in which a person is forced to feel their anger and hatred intensely for a long period of time.

Buddhism has a plethora of various heavens as well. There are three classes of heavens: The formless heavens, the form heavens, and the sense heavens. The sense heavens are the lowest, and those who are reborn there experience lives of ease and great material comfort and long life. In some of the higher sense heavens it is said that its inhabitants can create whatever they desire by sheer act of will, for example.

The form heavens consist of beings with bodies of a subtle matter and the distinguishing feature here is that the mind is constantly in one of a variety of meditative states called Jhanas. These states are extremely pleasant.

The formless heavens are like the form heavens, except there is no body, and the mind is in an even higher and more refined state called an Arupa Jhana that is even more pleasent.

It is important to note that all of these states are temporary, although many of theme last for extremely long periods of time by human standards.

 

[iloveangels]

Do you object to an infinite regress because it doesn’t explain why there is a universe rather than there not being a universe?

That’s silly. You’re in the universe or you wouldn’t be able to talk about it. Stop pondering your belly button and look around you, for pete’s sakes.

I object to an infinite regress as an explanation because it doesn’t explain anything. It’s only a list of stuff, a miscellaneous taxonomy with no underlying reason for existing. And yet it exists, which says that there must be some reasoning outside of it that accounts for it. And yet, in a regress, that’s not allowed for. It’s circular as all get out.

Circularity is a problem. It means that there’s a factor that’s not accounted for, or that’s hidden from view, that’s really responsible for the phenomenon being considered.

The world can’t have created itself after all.

 

[rossum]

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

And nice to meet you as well.

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

My theory is Mahayana, specifically Madhyamika. My practice is mostly Theravadin, with a little Soto Zen mixed in. I have tried some of the Tibetan forms, but visualisation never worked well for me so I went for the simpler meditations instead.

Like most Western converts, I have picked up bits from here and there, while also ignoring other bits that didn’t fit. Waiting 200 years for a Western Buddhism to coalesce seems a little too long, so like a lot of people, I have assembled something that works for me.

The Perfection of Wisdom sutras and the Vimalikirti nirdesa sutra are my favourites. It is unusual to find humour in scripture, and the Vimalakirti has a good dose of it. The excuses presented by the arhats and bodhisattvas as to why they shouldn’t be the one to visit Vimalakirti…

Nagarjuna is obviously hugely influential, with Chandrakirti close behind. Buddhaghosa is very useful for practical specifics when the Mahayana authors go flying off into the wild blue yonder, as they do sometimes. Dogen has some excellent insights, and is not as deliberately obscure as is some of the stuff coming out of Rinzai Zen. Suzuki is always worth reading. His short book on Shin (Pure Land) Buddhism was an absolute eye-opener. It really fitted the idea into the wider context of Buddhism.

As you say, modern scholarship can be useful for clearing away some of the rubble that has accumulated over the years.

rossum

 

[iloveangels]

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.

Your signature is funny. You’re saying that:

There is no ultimate truth and that’s the ultimate truth.

That’s a contradiction.

 

[Contarini]

Your signature is funny. You’re saying that:

There is no ultimate truth and that’s the ultimate truth.

That’s a contradiction.

It’s a paradox. You know, like “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.”

In both cases, further explanation is necessary to show that this isn’t a contradiction, but perfect explanation is impossible because we’re talking about something that goes beyond language.

The explanation I would offer, based on my very limited understanding of Nagarjuna (the philosopher rossum is paraphrasing in this quote), is that “there is no ultimate truth that can be expressed in words, and this fact is the ultimate truth that can be expressed in words.”

Rossum is welcome to correct me if I’m watering down what he believes.

If the above is in fact his position (it is the way I’ve seen Nagarjuna’s position described elsewhere), then I’m not sure this is incompatible with the Christian position.

What may be very un-Buddhist about Christianity is our belief that ultimate truth–and thus the ultimate Word–is expressed in a historically existing human being.

But that belief, however un-Buddhist, itself indicates that we don’t think ultimate truth is propositional. Those Christians who claim it is are, in my opinion, watering down Christianity in their attempt to maintain it.

Edwin

 

[Bakmoon]

That’s silly. You’re in the universe or you wouldn’t be able to talk about it. Stop pondering your belly button and look around you, for pete’s sakes.

I object to an infinite regress as an explanation because it doesn’t explain anything. It’s only a list of stuff, a miscellaneous taxonomy with no underlying reason for existing. And yet it exists, which says that there must be some reasoning outside of it that accounts for it. And yet, in a regress, that’s not allowed for. It’s circular as all get out.

Circularity is a problem. It means that there’s a factor that’s not accounted for, or that’s hidden from view, that’s really responsible for the phenomenon being considered.

The world can’t have created itself after all.

I didn’t ask the question to be silly. I’m sorry if that’s how it came off. I am just trying to identify the exact area of disagreement here more precisely so that I can try to give the best response that I can give to you.

I am going to operate under the assumption that your objection to an infinite regress of events is that it doesn’t explain why there is a universe rather than there simply being nothing. If this is an inaccurate re-statement of your objection, then please correct me.

The problem that I have with this objection is that even accepting the alternative of a creator God doesn’t really escape from it either. This is because one can analogously object again that this doesn’t explain why there is a God. It is possible to imagine that there would simply be nothing: No God, no universe, no laws, nothing. And yet the explanation of a creator God doesn’t explain why this is not the case. Therefore the theistic model shares the same problem as the infinite regress model.

Just my :twocents:

 

[iloveangels]

It’s a paradox. You know, like “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God.”

In both cases, further explanation is necessary to show that this isn’t a contradiction, but perfect explanation is impossible because we’re talking about something that goes beyond language.

The explanation I would offer, based on my very limited understanding of Nagarjuna (the philosopher rossum is paraphrasing in this quote), is that “there is no ultimate truth that can be expressed in words, and this fact is the ultimate truth that can be expressed in words.”

Rossum is welcome to correct me if I’m watering down what he believes.

If the above is in fact his position (it is the way I’ve seen Nagarjuna’s position described elsewhere), then I’m not sure this is incompatible with the Christian position.

What may be very un-Buddhist about Christianity is our belief that ultimate truth–and thus the ultimate Word–is expressed in a historically existing human being.

But that belief, however un-Buddhist, itself indicates that we don’t think ultimate truth is propositional. Those Christians who claim it is are, in my opinion, watering down Christianity in their attempt to maintain it.

Edwin

No. Actually it’s a flat out logical contradiction.

 

[iloveangels]

I didn’t ask the question to be silly. I’m sorry if that’s how it came off. I am just trying to identify the exact area of disagreement here more precisely so that I can try to give the best response that I can give to you.

I am going to operate under the assumption that your objection to an infinite regress of events is that it doesn’t explain why there is a universe rather than there simply being nothing. If this is an inaccurate re-statement of your objection, then please correct me.

The problem that I have with this objection is that even accepting the alternative of a creator God doesn’t really escape from it either. This is because one can analogously object again that this doesn’t explain why there is a God. It is possible to imagine that there would simply be nothing: No God, no universe, no laws, nothing. And yet the explanation of a creator God doesn’t explain why this is not the case. Therefore the theistic model shares the same problem as the infinite regress model.

Just my :twocents:

By definition, a God as defined by the major religions, needs nothing else to exist. God pre-existed everything and created everything. That’s the only escape from an infinite regress. And logically, it’s superior to an infinite regress, if only because it’s explanatory and an infinite regress can never be explanatory. In fact, an infinite regress is highly circular and its presence is an admission that what’s causing it can’t possibly be even remotely correct.

 

[Bakmoon]

No. Actually it’s a flat out logical contradiction.

If you examine Contarini’s statement a little more closely I think you will find that is not the case.

e.g.
The explanation I would offer, based on my very limited understanding of Nagarjuna (the philosopher rossum is paraphrasing in this quote), is that “there is no ultimate truth that can be expressed in words, and this fact is the ultimate truth that can be expressed in words.”

This understands the statement to be a clever turn of phrase requiring more explanation rather than a flat out contradiction.

 

[Bakmoon]

By definition, a God as defined by the major religions, needs nothing else to exist. God pre-existed everything and created everything. That’s the only escape from an infinite regress. And logically, it’s superior to an infinite regress, if only because it’s explanatory and an infinite regress can never be explanatory.

But it isn’t explanatory because it doesn’t explain why God exists rather than nothing existing at all.

 

[iloveangels]

If you examine Contarini’s statement a little more closely I think you will find that is not the case.

e.g.
The explanation I would offer, based on my very limited understanding of Nagarjuna (the philosopher rossum is paraphrasing in this quote), is that “there is no ultimate truth that can be expressed in words, and this fact is the ultimate truth that can be expressed in words.”

This understands the statement to be a clever turn of phrase requiring more explanation rather than a flat out contradiction.

I have graduate degrees in philosophy. I know what a paradox is technically, and I can assure you that this is a contradiction.

As per your last statement, if this is designed to be just a cute throw-away phrase for a chatroom, sure, it qualifies, I suppose. But it’s still a contradiction.

 

[iloveangels]

But it isn’t explanatory because it doesn’t explain why God exists rather than nothing existing at all.

You’re not catching the definition of God, according to the major religions of the world. God, is, by definition, complete of himself. That’s the definition of God in the other major religions of the world.

I don’t think you want to claim that nothing exists. That’s not credible.

I also don’t really think you want to claim that the rubble of the universe created itself. That’s not really credible either. [If only because things of all sorts could just pop themselves in and out of existence. Lime green elephants etc.]

If you accept an infinite regress as fact, logically speaking, you automatically get the last premise. So don’t be surprised if the sun doesn’t come up tomorrow or you find a chartreuse dragon in your soup. You have no reason to be surprised at anything if you believe this premise.

 

[ebonykawai]

I have graduate degrees in philosophy. I know what a paradox is technically, and I can assure you that this is a contradiction.

As per your last statement, if this is designed to be just a cute throw-away phrase for a chatroom, sure, it qualifies, I suppose. But it’s still a contradiction.

“A paradox is a statement or group of statements that leads to a contradiction or a situation which (if true) defies logic or reason.”

Another long-practicing buddhist here, but mainly buddhist for the bodhicitta. I don’t agree with most of the cosmology, and I do have a strong belief in God, so as a spiritual path in and of itself, it can’t be a stand-alone for me. My spiritual beliefs are samkhya/yoga.

Neat discussions. I don’t have much to contribute, jsut wanted to say hi, lol.

 

[iloveangels]

A contradiction is when it’s asserted that P and not P exist at the same time when P and not P are mutually exclusive.

A paradox is a statement that contradicts itself (or at least seems to at first light). Such as, “I always lie.”

A paradox is a matter of language. A contradiction is a matter of substantial opposition.

 

[notself]

We seem to have drifted away from the discussion of Buddhism to a discussion of god or no god. Should there be a separate thread just on this discussion of the existance of a supreme being?

 

[ebonykawai]

How do you think that people know anything about the world that they know about the world? Seriously. You tell me.

Is this a philosophical question?