Ask A Buddhist

[snarflemike]

Thanks for the quick answers. I have a few followup questions:

Great questions!

1. The universe is taught to be something that has always existed in some form or another, but constantly expands or contracts, being re-formed during the re-expansion phase.

Is there any scientific evidence for this expansion and contraction?

1. Buddhism teaches that there are three ways of living that can be called good. In order of their goodness, they are

a) Living a life of happiness in the here and now through good things like friendship and kindness

b) Living a life filled with good deeds in order to have a good rebirth for one’s future lives

c) Living a life of practicing the Buddha’s teachings in order to attain Nibbana (Nirvana in sanskrit, Nibbana in Pali, They are different forms of the same word.)

What is the standard against which goodness is judged?

1. At death, if a person has not fully attained Nibbana, they will be reborn as something else, either as a hell-being, an animal, a petta spirit, a human being, or a Deva (a being in a heaven realm). What they are born as is determined in part by one’s deeds

Who or what makes this judgment? What is the mechanism, and what is the standard?

 

[notself]

QUOTE=snarflemike;9534629]Thanks for the quick answers. I have a few followup questions:

Is there any scientific evidence for this expansion and contraction?

What is the standard against which goodness is judged?

Who or what makes this judgment? What is the mechanism, and what is the standard?

There is no teaching in Buddhism about the origin of the universe as we speak of it in the West. In fact the origin of the universe is considered one of the four unconjecturables which are of no use thinking about in the effort to end suffering.

There are 5 precepts which Buddhists resolve to undertake. They are no killing, no taking of that which is not given, no improper speech, no sexual misconduct, no intoxication. All five can be covered under doing no harm to oneself or to another. No harm is the standard. The standard comes from the Buddhist equivalent of the Golden Rule. See my signature line for the reference.

 

[Michael19682]

It’s not really punishment in the full sense of the word. It’s just a consequence of one’s actions just like if you put your hand in a fire, it get’s burned as a result, rather than being punished for doing so. Similarly, consistently behaving in an ignorant and pointless manner can eventually result in animal rebirth.

Once a person is reborn as an animal, it can be very difficult to get back out because animals have such limited moral capacities. However, even with this limitation, animals still have a crude ability to make moral choices, which can eventually bring them to the human realm again. More than this is that such a person would have done good deeds in their lives as humans beforehand, and this might eventually take fruit and return them back to the human realm.

It is also important to note that chance can play a part in one’s births as well. It isn’t a totally mechanistic process.

Good question!

Speaking as someone who has studied and lived amongst those of your religion, I find your answer very well put. I like how you compassionately side-stepped the “punishment” quick sand. I recall from my studies that not only do all living beings act to obtain happiness (even if such action is unskilfull), but he has a karma that cannot be affected by other than his own mind. Thus the apparent fruitlessness of conceptions of blame and punishment, since these are more of self imposed restrictions or limitations than punishment, which implies an external, ‘own-sided’, inherently existent entity: and such a being does not exist in the Buddhist system. I also liked the example of latent seeds and good deeds, and would add that upward rebirth could also be explained in this system as resultant from the exhaustion of negative karma.

In that line of reasoning I would like for you to respond to a traditionally middle eastern view on animals that I heard from a friend. He said that an animal such as a cattle or steer will accept its death at slaughter in a more profound way than an ordinary person can. Perhaps this, or the service of a pack animal, can result in upward rebirth? Not really a moral choice, but a service to others. Vegetarianism aside, and the wisdom of meat eating, would you agree?

 

[Bakmoon]

Thanks for the quick answers. I have a few followup questions:

Is there any scientific evidence for this expansion and contraction?

What is the standard against which goodness is judged?

Who or what makes this judgment? What is the mechanism, and what is the standard?

Science does confirm the expansion of the universe at the moment, but there is still a lot to learn. I suppose I should mention that this exansion-contraction model is mentioned in the commentarial literature to the scriptures rather than in the scriptures themselves. To translate it in Christian terms, it would be sort of a Theologoumenon rather than a Dogma of the faith.

The result of an action is determined by its effects on others and one’s self. Those acts that harm one’s self or others are negative, whereas those that help one’s self and others are positive, and everything else is morally neutral.

The mechanism is an impersonal and naturalistic process like gravity. I explained it in some detail in an earlier response to Boulder257, but here it is again:

"One’s rebirth is determined by a complex mental process that occurs at the time of death. The mind sort of ‘opens up’ and enters a state that is determined by some major deed done in life, such as commiting murder, or gaining certain meditative attainments, and one’s birth is determined by this state of mind. If there are no major deeds, the mind goes to how it was habitually during life. If this isn’t strong enough to take hold, then the mind enters a state determined by actions just prior to death. If this isn’t significant, then it is determined by actions in previous lives.

A bit complicated, but that’s how it is understood in the Theravada sect."

If that doesn’t clear it up, I am happy to clarify.

 

[Bakmoon]

I also liked the example of latent seeds and good deeds, and would add that upward rebirth could also be explained in this system as resultant from the exhaustion of negative karma.

…

In that line of reasoning I would like for you to respond to a traditionally middle eastern view on animals that I heard from a friend. He said that an animal such as a cattle or steer will accept its death at slaughter in a more profound way than an ordinary person can. Perhaps this, or the service of a pack animal, can result in upward rebirth? Not really a moral choice, but a service to others. Vegetarianism aside, and the wisdom of meat eating, would you agree?

The metaphor of seeds is indeed a very good one, because it captures that one’s kamma (Pali equivalent of Karma) only has the potential to finally bear its fruit, and that it may be dependent on whether or not circumstances will support it. And yes, once it is exhausted it is possible to return back to a human birth.

In regards to the question on animal slaughter, I think it’s rather unlikely that an animal could posses the mental capacity to understand its death in any meaningful way. However, it is certainly possible for the service of a pack animal to be good Kamma, for example if the animal has love for its master and does so out of a desire to please them, for example.

 

[snarflemike]

The result of an action is determined by its effects on others and one’s self. Those acts that harm one’s self or others are negative, whereas those that help one’s self and others are positive, and everything else is morally neutral.

The mechanism is an impersonal and naturalistic process like gravity. I explained it in some detail in an earlier response to Boulder257, but here it is again:

"One’s rebirth is determined by a complex mental process that occurs at the time of death. The mind sort of ‘opens up’ and enters a state that is determined by some major deed done in life, such as commiting murder, or gaining certain meditative attainments, and one’s birth is determined by this state of mind.

Thanks for continuing the conversation, and I hope you understand that all my questions are asked in charity.

You mention murder. I take it that is not a good thing, being the unlawful taking of human life. But what if the killing is lawful because the law is not good. For example, the Nazi regime allowed “murder” (as most people understand it) in concentration camps, but did not call it murder, and prosecuted nobody for those deaths. So was that murder as you speak of it? Was it bad, even though it was not unlawful?

If it was bad, but not according to the Nazi law governing the Nazi killers, then by what law is it judged bad, and by what authority is that other law imposed on the Nazi killers?

 

[Shiranui117]

A few questions from me…

1: When we reincarnate into our next life, obviously our karma transfers over. Does anything else about us transfer over? Can we still be considered the same being? What exactly is the link between our past lives, present life and future life? Are our other lives still “us” in some sense? Sorry if that seems like a lot of questions, but I’m trying to convey the single question I have in as many ways as possible, so hopefully you can understand what I’m attempting to get at.

2: What exactly is Nirvana? I’m aware it’s a state of bliss, but what exactly is it?

3: Can Nirvana be attained and experienced in this present life?

4: What is the role of the self in Buddhism? I’ve heard that there is “no self, no mind, no feelings,” etc. But what does this mean?

 

[notself]

A few questions from me…

1: When we reincarnate into our next life, obviously our karma transfers over. Does anything else about us transfer over? Can we still be considered the same being? What exactly is the link between our past lives, present life and future life? Are our other lives still “us” in some sense? Sorry if that seems like a lot of questions, but I’m trying to convey the single question I have in as many ways as possible, so hopefully you can understand what I’m attempting to get at.

2: What exactly is Nirvana? I’m aware it’s a state of bliss, but what exactly is it?

3: Can Nirvana be attained and experienced in this present life?

4: What is the role of the self in Buddhism? I’ve heard that there is “no self, no mind, no feelings,” etc. But what does this mean?

1. Good question. One I’ve spent some time thinking about. Some say consciousness passes but there are suttas which describe consciousness as moment in time much like the light of a strobe light. Some say empty phenomena. I’ll be interested in what Bakmoon has to say.
2. Nirvana is undefined. Think of math. Some suttas refer to it as release.
3. Nirvana can and is obtained during life even if it is only in the last seconds of life.
4. There is the conventional self that we all refer to just to talk to one another. This conventional self is made up of the combination of form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications and consciousness. There is not concept of an eternal unchanging self (soul) because every thing in existence changes.

 

[Bakmoon]

Thanks for continuing the conversation, and I hope you understand that all my questions are asked in charity.

You mention murder. I take it that is not a good thing, being the unlawful taking of human life. But what if the killing is lawful because the law is not good. For example, the Nazi regime allowed “murder” (as most people understand it) in concentration camps, but did not call it murder, and prosecuted nobody for those deaths. So was that murder as you speak of it? Was it bad, even though it was not unlawful?

If it was bad, but not according to the Nazi law governing the Nazi killers, then by what law is it judged bad, and by what authority is that other law imposed on the Nazi killers?

I understand that this is offered in a spirit of goodwill, and I enjoy this conversation quite a bit. I appreciate the respect.

The cornerstone of murder is the intentional taking of human life based on either greed, hatred, or delusion. These three things are sometimes referred to as the roots of evil, and all actions that are based on them are at least partially unskillful (that is to say, will lead to future unhappiness in this life or in future lives.)

The only form of killing that really avoids this totally is killing in defense of self or others. Even capital punishment has an unskillful result on those directly responsible for the execution, so surely the acts of the Nazis would be, regardless of the laws.

I think it is important to note here that these principles are not prescriptive, but descriptive. They are not laws in the sense of rules that are backed up by authority and whose transgressions are punished, but a description of a naturalistic mental process that determines one’s next life. It is like how the law of gravity works not as a rule that is proclaimed, but is a description of motion.

 

[Bakmoon]

A few questions from me…

1: When we reincarnate into our next life, obviously our karma transfers over. Does anything else about us transfer over? Can we still be considered the same being? What exactly is the link between our past lives, present life and future life? Are our other lives still “us” in some sense? Sorry if that seems like a lot of questions, but I’m trying to convey the single question I have in as many ways as possible, so hopefully you can understand what I’m attempting to get at.

2: What exactly is Nirvana? I’m aware it’s a state of bliss, but what exactly is it?

3: Can Nirvana be attained and experienced in this present life?

4: What is the role of the self in Buddhism? I’ve heard that there is “no self, no mind, no feelings,” etc. But what does this mean?

Excellent questions!

1. Many things transfer, such as a large part of our personality, various habits, and other such things. But they are also modified by our actions.
2. Nirvana is the cessation of suffering. It is a state of total and perfect contentment and satisfaction. It is a totally perfect and eternal happiness. It isn’t really bliss in terms of an emotion, but as a state of attachment.

3)Yes, it can. It is also possible to enter Nirvana temporarily as a result of attaining partial enlightenment.

1. The issue regarding the question of self is probably the most difficult to answer simply because it is hard to describe the context of this teaching. There is a key teaching of Buddhism called Anatta. Briefly stated, it is that there is no phenomenon that can be properly regarded as being the self. More elaborately stated, it is a recognition that the ordinary mind has a habit of identifying with various things as being who we are. Buddhism teaches that this perception of identifying with various mental phenomenon is incorect.

This is a difficult teaching, mostly because you can really only understand it if you practice meditation for a while and observe this mental process of identification.

 

[iloveangels]

It’s not really punishment in the full sense of the word. It’s just a consequence of one’s actions just like if you put your hand in a fire, it get’s burned as a result, rather than being punished for doing so. Similarly, consistently behaving in an ignorant and pointless manner can eventually result in animal rebirth.

Once a person is reborn as an animal, it can be very difficult to get back out because animals have such limited moral capacities. However, even with this limitation, animals still have a crude ability to make moral choices, which can eventually bring them to the human realm again. More than this is that such a person would have done good deeds in their lives as humans beforehand, and this might eventually take fruit and return them back to the human realm.

It is also important to note that chance can play a part in one’s births as well. It isn’t a totally mechanistic process.

Good question!

2 Questions:

1. Do Buddhists believe in God, the creator of the universe?
2. Buddhism is a system. Who created the system and maintains it?

 

[rossum]

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.

2 Questions:

1. Do Buddhists believe in God, the creator of the universe?

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.

1. Buddhism is a system. Who created the system and maintains it?

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

 

[InJesusItrust]

Is Chesterton correct when he describes Buddhism as a system of seeing others as self and loving the self as opposed to seeing others and loving them? How does one passionately love himself?

Also is suffering something to escape or something to embrace for the love of God and others?

Where is the justice in being punished for actions you have no recollection of? Like in reincarnation.

Thanks

 

[rossum]

Is Chesterton correct when he describes Buddhism as a system of seeing others as self and loving the self as opposed to seeing others and loving them? How does one passionately love himself?

Chesterton is incorrect. Not very surprising, since accurate translations of the Buddhist texts did not appear until around the 1950s. Before then many of the technical terms had not been sufficiently understood. Translating “a red herring” as “a pink fish” does not carry the full meaning intended.

In Buddhism there is no self. We are mistaken in taking what we think is our real self as actually existing. We are mistaken:

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7

As to how we should see others:

Love others as you love yourself.

– Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra, 91.

That should look somewhat familiar to you.

Also is suffering something to escape or something to embrace for the love of God and others?

Suffering is to be escaped. The Four Noble Truths are phrased as a doctor’s diagnosis of a disease. The Buddha shows us the cure for the disease of suffering.

Where is the justice in being punished for actions you have no recollection of? Like in reincarnation.

You knew what you were doing at the time, didn’t you? If I turn up in court and tell the judge, “I don’t remember stealing $1,000,000,” and I pass a lie detector test do, you think the judge would let me off?

If you wish to remember your former lives then follow the instructions in Chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga.

rossum

 

[TomFromMD]

“In Buddhism there is no self. We are mistaken in taking what we think is our real self as actually existing.”

If there is no self, what does the perceiving (seeing, hearing, tasting, remembering, thinking, etc) and on what do these perceptions act? How is it that I am aware only of my perceptions and my thoughts? Or is “there is no self” meant to be taken metaphorically?

Decartes argued that the existance of these perceptions (but not their trustworthiness) and the existance of the self on which they acted were the primary things of which we could be sure. What would be a Buddist response to this? If you don’t believe in a self, do you believe that the perceptions are real?

 

[TomFromMD]

From what I’ve read on this forum, it seems like the “there is no self” is very similar to Catholicism?
Often when people have written here that they feel something that is different than church teachings, they are told that their own specific feelings, thoughts, needs, desires should not be listened to…and should be pushed aside.

On the contrary, Christianity in general very much believes in the self, and the self’s importance, moreso than many other religions. God is the creator, and He created us in His image, and loves us. All “selfs” are important though, and not just oneself.

Now Decartes stated that our perceptions and thoughts can be mistaken, and the Church would agree with that. It’s certainly possible for someone to think they’re “right” in doing something, and be “wrong”.

 

[rossum]

“In Buddhism there is no self. We are mistaken in taking what we think is our real self as actually existing.”

If there is no self, what does the perceiving (seeing, hearing, tasting, remembering, thinking, etc) and on what do these perceptions act? How is it that I am aware only of my perceptions and my thoughts? Or is “there is no self” meant to be taken metaphorically?

Buddhism analyses a human being into five parts: form, feelings, perception, impulses and consciousness. None of the five is permanent. None of the five is unchanging. Any attempt to find a permanent or unchanging ‘soul’ or ‘self’ is doomed to fail.

We are caused by our past, and in turn cause our future. Each of us is a continuing flow of causation, a bit like Heraclitus’ river. Only I sense my perceptions because only I am caused by the I of the previous instant, not you. Those perception take a little time to travel down the sensory nerves from the eye to the brain. In my past the light arrived at my eye, not at your eye. In my present the nerve impulse arrives in my brain, not in yours.

The chain of cause and effect links me to my past, not to yours, and vice versa.

Decartes argued that the existance of these perceptions (but not their trustworthiness) and the existance of the self on which they acted were the primary things of which we could be sure. What would be a Buddist response to this? If you don’t believe in a self, do you believe that the perceptions are real?

Perceptions exist, but not a perceiver. Buddhism, especially Mahayana Buddhism, denies all reification. Humans have a strong tendency to see hidden depths behind things. That often leads us into errors of reification. There are no hidden depths, we just think there are.

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

 

[TomFromMD]

OK, so as you see it, there is a “instantaneous” self, just not a “persisting” self? Or do I still miss your point?

 

[mikelionheart]

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.

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

Hi Rossum

Can you tell me where in the Digha Nikaya I can find that quote about Brahma please?

 

[rossum]

OK, so as you see it, there is a “instantaneous” self, just not a “persisting” self? Or do I still miss your point?

There is no self beyond the five parts. Remove the parts, ad there is nothing remaining. The usual example is a car. Start with a car. Remove each part of the car. The part is not the car, you are just removing a wheel or a door, not removing the car. When you have removed all the individual parts, none of which is the car, what you have left must be the car. However, there is nothing left. There is no “car”, the word is merely a convenient label for a collection of parts arranged in a certain way.

The same with a human being. None of the five parts taken on their own is a human being. However, once you remove the five parts, there is nothing left. “Self” or “soul” is just another convenient label.

Just because we have a word for something does not mean that the thing really exists, “unicorn” for example.

rossum