Ask A Buddhist

[ebonykawai]

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?

I personally don’t think so. Buddhism denies the existence of god in the traditional, Abrahamic sense. Some sects don’t agree, but it’s a basic teaching so no need to split the discussion.

 

[iloveangels]

Is this a philosophical question?

We’ve been talking philosophy for a page now, since philosophy is the foundation for understanding what it is to be a human being, including being a religious human being. You can’t talk about religion coherently without it being about what it is for a human being to be religious.

I don’t know how a thread fits into a Catholic forum unless it’s possible to discuss the ideas that relate it to Catholicism. Do you?

 

[ebonykawai]

This is the non-Catholic religion section, isn’t it? No need to be nasty.

As per your question, how do people know about the world: through our 5 senses and our mind. Impressions come into the body and mind through our 5 senses. It’s very simple.

 

[iloveangels]

I personally don’t think so. Buddhism denies the existence of god in the traditional, Abrahamic sense. Some sects don’t agree, but it’s a basic teaching so no need to split the discussion.

I agree. If one of the tenets of Buddhism is Atheism, then that’s a tenet, and there’s no need to split the thread because of it. It’s part of the same conversation.

 

[iloveangels]

This is the non-Catholic religion section, isn’t it? No need to be nasty.

As per your question, how do people know about the world: through our 5 senses and our mind. Impressions come into the body and mind through our 5 senses. It’s very simple.

Yes, and if your senses tell you that you’ve run into a wall, what do you do? Keep right on running into the wall over and over or? What?

 

[ebonykawai]

I agree. If one of the tenets of Buddhism is Atheism, then that’s a tenet, and there’s no need to split the thread because of it. It’s part of the same conversation.

Not everyone follows this. As in how all sects develop, people use what they find helpful or things that ring true to them. Not all buddhists disbelieve in a god or gods.

The early teachings came about in opposition to the vedic writings and beliefs.

 

[ebonykawai]

Yes, and if your senses tell you that you’ve run into a wall, what do you do? Keep right on running into the wall over and over or? What?

I’m sorry, I don’t understand your line of questioning. What exactly are you trying to figure out? Do you yourself normally run into walls over and over again? Perhaps you need to see a doctor.

 

[iloveangels]

I’m sorry, I don’t understand your line of questioning. What exactly are you trying to figure out? Do you yourself normally run into walls over and over again? Perhaps you need to see a doctor.

No, as a matter of fact, I don’t. And I don’t think you do either.

I believe you know what I’m getting at. There is a saying among professional philosophers that goes like this: “The denial of a contradiction produces a logical truth.”

 

[ebonykawai]

No, as a matter of fact, I don’t. And I don’t think you do either.

I believe you know what I’m getting at. There is a saying among professional philosophers that goes like this: “The denial of a contradiction produces a logical truth.”

LOL, if I knew what you were getting at, I wouldn’t be sitting here confused.

I didn’t read 7 pages of commentary, sorry about that. Can you at least tell me the context of denying a contradition? Was this in the discussion earlier and I missed it? How does it relate to the discussion of buddhism? What particular contradition are you talking about and where is the argument?

 

[Shiranui117]

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.

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.

Thank you and notself for your answers. A little follow-up while I tiptoe around the current debate over God and the universe…

RE#4: Looking at what both of you have written in response to my question, would you say that the perceptions of “self” are generally faulty, because our “self” is always changing from day to day and from life to life, based on how our feelings, perceptions, etc. change? And that identifying “ourselves” with various things is mistaken primarily for this reason?

Also, having checked out the work that was referenced about past-life recall, how common or achievable is it to actually achieve such recollection, and to see and learn from who “we” were in previous lives?

 

[iloveangels]

LOL, if I knew what you were getting at, I wouldn’t be sitting here confused.

I didn’t read 7 pages of commentary, sorry about that. Can you at least tell me the context of denying a contradition? Was this in the discussion earlier and I missed it? How does it relate to the discussion of buddhism? What particular contradition are you talking about and where is the argument?

I"m not going to retype the whole thing. ;p
Just read back about …2 pages. It’s about Rossom’s signature line at the bottom of his posts.

 

[ebonykawai]

Are you able to give me the post number?

 

[iloveangels]

Are you able to give me the post number?

When I was a kid, a little non-Catholic redneck kid, we used to have this lazy old guy in our neighborhood who used to say, in a drawly old country voice, “Give me an apple and I’ll eat it.” Cracked us up every time. Still cracks me up.

 

[ebonykawai]

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.]

OK, here’s an answer at least to this question:

The world and reality was/is created out of causes and conditions of other things around them. Things create things, or more specifically, impermanent things create impermanent things.

 

[ebonykawai]

When I was a kid, a little non-Catholic redneck kid, we used to have this lazy old guy in our neighborhood who used to say, in a drawly old country voice, “Give me an apple and I’ll eat it.” Cracked us up every time. Still cracks me up.

You’re quite a non-charitable person who has a lot of ego.

Have a great night.

 

[iloveangels]

You’re quite a non-charitable person who has a lot of ego.

Have a great night.

Not really. I’m just an older person who’s been all over this territory in my own life and this is how I know what I know. Call it the school of hard knocks. There are a lot of blind alleys out there.

You have a great night too.

 

[iloveangels]

OK, here’s an answer at least to this question:

The world and reality was/is created out of causes and conditions of other things around them. Things create things, or more specifically, impermanent things create impermanent things.

Causes and conditions cause things. Okay.

What exactly caused those causes and conditions?

And how many causes and conditions can there be? And if you know that, how exactly do you know that?

 

[Bakmoon]

Thank you and notself for your answers. A little follow-up while I tiptoe around the current debate over God and the universe…

RE#4: Looking at what both of you have written in response to my question, would you say that the perceptions of “self” are generally faulty, because our “self” is always changing from day to day and from life to life, based on how our feelings, perceptions, etc. change? And that identifying “ourselves” with various things is mistaken primarily for this reason?

Also, having checked out the work that was referenced about past-life recall, how common or achievable is it to actually achieve such recollection, and to see and learn from who “we” were in previous lives?

You hit the nail on the head. This is the primary reason why Buddhism rejects such a concept of the self.

Actually attaining the ability to recall one’s past lives would probably require practicing intensive meditation specifically for that purpose. Most Theravadins would consider this to be a waste of time because that time could be spent meditating for the purpose of moving closer to enlightenment. However it is possible to gain such powers through normal meditation too, though much rarer.

The biggest difficulty in estimating how many people can actually recall their past lives is that the people who are the most likely to be able to do this (Theravada forest monks) are the least likely to reveal this as the monastic rules strictly forbid monks letting laypeople know about what attainments they have.

In addition to this, it should be noted that in many Theravada circles the subject of these kinds of powers is rather taboo. Some of the most famous monks who are widely believed to have been enlightened in modern times have refused to confirm or deny this even with their closest disciples, so for all we know, lots of people can remember their past lives but don’t talk about it, although I rather doubt this

 

[Bakmoon]

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.

I think you are misunderstanding my argument, so let me cover it in some more detail. Imagine a scenario in which there is nothing. There is no God, there is no universe, there is no space or time or anything else whatsoever. This scenario is hypothetically possible. The explanation that the universe was created by God does not answer why this is not the case, namely why it isn’t the case that there isn’t a God. Please not that I am not asking “what caused God” or “where did God come from” which can both be dismissed with the response “God is Eternal and Self-Sufficient.” I am saying “why is it the case that there is a God, rather than there not being anything at all?” which is something that God’s eternity and self-sufficiency does not answer.

 

[rossum]

I"m not going to retype the whole thing. ;p
Just read back about …2 pages. It’s about Rossom’s signature line at the bottom of his posts.

At the risk of restarting the whole sub-thread, here is my canned answer to questions about my sig:

You are not the first to notice my sig. The original source is Mark Siderits, “Thinking on Empty: Madhyamika Anti-Realism and Canons of Rationality” in S Biderman and B.A. Schaufstein, eds, Rationality In Question (1989). Dordrecht: Brill.

I have not read Siderits but saw the quote in a piece on Nagarjuna. The “Madhyamika” in Siderits’ title refers to the religious and philosophical school of Buddhism that Nagarjuna founded. I have seen the same quote again in other places in reference to the Madhyamika and Nagarjuna - it seems quite popular. The quote is intentionally paradoxical; paradox is necessary to remind us that words are insufficient when trying to describe the fundamental nature of reality.

For a philosophical discussion of Nagarjuna and reality see the web article Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought. The Siderits quote is at the end of section four of the article:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

rossum