Ask A Buddhist

[Bakmoon]

Hi there

What is your understanding of the following passage from Buddhist Scripture?

“The Buddha continued again:’ I am not the first Buddha to come upon earth; nor shall I be the last. In due time, another Buddha will arise in this world, a Holy One, a Supremely Enlightened One, endowed with wisdom, in conduct auspicious, knowing the universe, an incomparable leader of men, a master of devas and men. He will reveal to you the same Eternal Truths which I have taught you. He will proclaim a religious life, wholly perfect and pure; such as I now proclaim.”

Thank you my friend, your time here is appreciated and your time in answering my question is even more so

Kam

It simply means that there have been other Buddhas before the current one, and there will be Buddhas in the future

That was an easy question for once on this thread

 

[iloveangels]

1. You haven’t addressed the issue at all. Read my statement again carefully. :

“Can you prove that in a hypothetical universe that is without a prime mover and is an infinitely long series of events** would by necessity mean that anything could happen in this universe? All you have done so far is assert that an infinite regress is unable to explain why some things happen and others don’t**, but this isn’t the same thing.”

Yes, I did. Perhaps you don’t understand it, but I did. Your system explains nothing.

1. “God created it because he wanted it. You may not find that very satisfying but it beats no explanation whatsoever.” This is still ultimately unable to explain anything until you can answer why God wanted A,B, and C, rather than not wanting them. It is ultimately no explanation at all.

It depends on the level of explanation you want. The theistic view gives you an explanation as to why one appears and one does not, even if it doesn’t tell you why God chose a particular one but not the particular other one. Read what I just wrote carefully. They are two very different propositions. In the first proposition, it says that one was chosen and one was not chosen; the second proposition says that God used his own reasoning for picking those out whatever they are. Two very different ideas.

I used to say to my children, you can have one, but just one, but it’s up to you which one you choose. It’s the same distinction.

1. Allow me to rephrase. You are begging the question. You are saying that N is not the case, and that neither is an infinite regress. But the whole issue being debated is whether or not an infinite regress is impossible or not.

Not at all. You agreed with me in a previous post that N is not the case. That’s been settled in the negative.

You are insisting on an infinite chain of causes each explained by the previous cause. That is an infinite regress, pure and simple. An infinite regress cannot exist, no matter how much you might want it to exist. I have drawn one out to show you what kind of havoc it would cause if such a thing were to exist, which it CANNOT.

 

[Michael19682]

I noted that this discussion in its most recent angularity refers to an age old discussion on the origins of the universe and that Time’s possible relation to a Divinity. May I remind myself and those observing this event (no contextual pun intended) that Saint Augustine commented on such questions long ago. God made hell for those who would speculate on the time before His creation’s beginning. Nevertheless, Charles Darwin, and many astronomers too revered to name have apparently given us a chart - however incomplete - capable of circumnavigating the obstacle of that hell Augustine referred to with a flippancy that only a Saint in his humility can master. For me that hell is this: the emotional and unwise words and deeds that oft flow from fierce polemic. In a sense, all such speculation on pre-beginnings is disingenuous because no one really can fathom the ocean of another’s disconcerting incertitude.

Also, the discussion is clearly engaging in retrograde patterns and returning to the nature and qualities of God discussion whence it came. Perhaps either of the main, current players would like to tell me how Buddhists can claim the everlastingness of change, and at the same time admit that their own law of change must, to be always applicable, must not change qua Law. To admit no ignorance of the best answer, I ask in different terms, to whose advantage in this polemic thus far does the phrase the Emptiness of Emptiness lend it’s conclusive support? Surely the Buddhist must admit in this usage a kind of regress that could easily become infinite were it not for (also a kind of) obstinancy in saying, or laughing out loud for that matter, “No, we adhere to a middle way; so further regress is simply not utilitarian!”

Surely everyone must see the relation in the discussion thus far to the Vedantic claim that God has no attributes and therefore cannot change. Catholic theology as far as I know holds fast to the reality of Being and it’s primacy and authority over the speculations of man, which, as Romans Chapter 8 makes clear in perhaps like terms, “anxiously awaits the revelation of the Children of God.”

 

[iloveangels]

I also assert that N is not the case. …

Here is our agreement that N, nihilism, is not the case. It is post #159.

 

[iloveangels]

1. OK.
   You observe A happening, which is supposedly explained by remote B, which is supposedly explained by remote C, and so on to infinity.
   You observe A* happening which is supposedly explained by remote B*, which is supposedly explained by remote C*, and so on to infinity.
   You observe A** happening which is supposedly explained by remote B**, which is supposedly explained by remote C**, and so on to infinity.
   Each of these things A (with an increasing number of stars) is a new and novel animal, event or being.

How do you know if you have all the events at A**********? Maybe there is an A**********+1. You have no way of accounting for that. And of course, there’s always the possibility of one more you haven’t seen yet. You’re going to infinity across the system as well as from front to back through time in the system, you should realize here.

Not only that, but your chain of letters is infinitely long so you never really end up hearing the explanation at an infinite number of ZZZZZZZZZZ*s or whatever, which would ultimately explain everything if only there wasn’t one after ZZZZZZZZZZZZ or whatever. Yes, all the previous ones depend on it, and you will never know. So, there is NO EXPLANATION, even after all of THAT.

And still A (star infinity +1) could show up and be a ravaging monster and you wouldnt have any right to be surprised. Your system does not account for that.

1. If there is a prime mover and he creates things, you at least have an explanation why some things are in existence and some are not. That’s rather basic. Not only that, but the things that are in existence follow a logical pattern and you can know the explanation straight up. God created it because he wanted it. You may not find that very satisfying but it beats no explanation whatsoever for whatever happens which is what your view has. And it offers the advantage that not everything can occur…which turns out to be almost unimaginably important. The universe actually turns out to be an orderly place and people can know things. This is huge for the deistic religions and gives them great advantages because it turns out in the physical world to be demonstrably TRUE. Imagine that.
2. Your third point makes no sense to me. You have an infinite regress and a very aggressive one at that. Did you see the definitions on the U of California website?

I"m not sure why my post was changed when you quoted on it earlier.

Note that the system is running to infinity long (backward and forward in time) and also infinity across (the number of events or things that can happen). There are no constraints in either direction. Not only that, there are no explanations possible in either direction.

In the backward/forward in time instance, there are no explanations because the explanation is always supposedly always given by the one you’re just short of viewing. AKA, while viewing C**, the answer is in D** , and you’re not there yet. And so on ad infinitum.

In the number of events direction, which is perpendicular to time in this model, the explanation is simply missing. It’s a taxonomy pure and simple. An experiential laundry list which may or may not ever be complete. Surprises would always be possible. Always.

 

[Kam_Fanaian]

It simply means that there have been other Buddhas before the current one, and there will be Buddhas in the future

That was an easy question for once on this thread

Thankyou Bakmoon

So how many Buddhas have come that have fulfilled the attributes of the Maitreya, since this quote refers to the Maitreya?

Also this refers to “ONE” not several persons…

Is the Dalai Lama the Maitreya?

Kam

 

[Michael19682]

But a theistic model can’t account for it either because it can’t account for why there is a God.

If I were a Buddhist I might ask my teacher:

I hold that there is a God because the arguments against his existence are simply mental creations. Since the mind is impermanent, so must the arguments against his existence be impermanent. The only alternative is the Platonic Theory of Forms (or Ideas), which in its variations holds a permanent reality apart from the mind (read: God). In either case, we have the instability of change because of the priniciple of mind and matter and their subjectivity to change - hence what is unstable cannot always be true, and, if not always true, then sometimes false.

Finally, if we admit that the arguments for God are similarly unstable, what does it matter? We already have a negation of those who deny him. Being taunted by such arguments does not affect the Roman Catholic, for, this latter has heard it said: “Let the dead bury their dead.”

 

[Bakmoon]

Thankyou Bakmoon

So how many Buddhas have come that have fulfilled the attributes of the Maitreya, since this quote refers to the Maitreya?

Also this refers to “ONE” not several persons…

Is the Dalai Lama the Maitreya?

Kam

I would say that none have yet. One of the conditions of his arrival is the total destruction of Buddhism, which hasn’t happened yet.

It refers to one person because it is talking about the very next one.

 

[rossum]

Thankyou Bakmoon

So how many Buddhas have come that have fulfilled the attributes of the Maitreya, since this quote refers to the Maitreya?

There is a traditional list of about 28 past Buddhas, ending with the historical Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama Shakya. The previous Buddha (Kashyapa Buddha) is placed around 30,000 years earlier. Maitreya Buddha is the next Buddha to appear on earth and will be a minimum of 5,000 years after Siddhartha.

Other Buddhas may appear on other planets to teach the living beings on those planets.

Is the Dalai Lama the Maitreya?

No. He is normally thought to be an incarnation of the Bodhisattva Avalokita.

rossum

 

[Bakmoon]

An infinite regress cannot exist, no matter how much you might want it to exist. I have drawn one out to show you what kind of havoc it would cause if such a thing were to exist, which it CANNOT.

Then prove it.

 

[Kam_Fanaian]

I would say that none have yet. One of the conditions of his arrival is the total destruction of Buddhism, which hasn’t happened yet.

It refers to one person because it is talking about the very next one.

That’s interesting Bakmoon

Do you have a reference for that please?

Thanks
Kam

 

[InJesusItrust]

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

Do you remember your former lives? Do most Buddhists?

Also why follow Buddha? Lewis’ trilemma shows that Jesus was no lunatic or liar, but in fact Lord, and His teachings center around Him being the Son of God and he did miracles like heal amputees and rise from the dead and finally the Old Testaments prophecies can be applied to Him (he was prophesied in advance). In fact we could argue that if there was no Jesus there would be no Christianity.

Why follow Buddha? Why accept his teachings as true? Did he come back from the dead to tell us about it? Did the Hindu scriptures preannounce his coming? As far as I know people saw how peaceful he looked under a tree and started following his teachings. He made no guarantees that he spoke the truth and told people to be skeptical. As opposed to Jesus who claimed to be Truth itself.

What does Buddhism teach about Jesus? He never claimed to be just a teacher but God Incarnate.

 

[rossum]

Do you remember your former lives? Do most Buddhists?

No, but the instructions are there if we wish to follow them. You could follow them as well if you wanted to.

Also why follow Buddha?

Because Buddhism works. It provides a number of techniques, and everyone is invited to try them to see for themselves that they work. I tried them and they do work. See, Buddhists ‘really are happier’.

Lewis’ trilemma shows that Jesus was no lunatic or liar, but in fact Lord,

Lewis’ trilemma omits, ‘sincere but mistaken’, Bodhisattva (the usual Buddhist view of Jesus), misreported and others.

and His teachings center around Him being the Son of God and he did miracles like heal amputees

The Buddha performed miracles, such as the miracle of the pairs. The Bodhisattva Vimalakirti fed 80,000 people from a single bowl of rice. Buddhism has its own miracles, just as Christianity has its miracles.

and rise from the dead

Which is a measure of Jesus’ failure. Remember that in Buddhism eternal life equates to eternal suffering:

[The Buddha said:] “What do you think, monks: Which is greater, the tears you have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — or the water in the four great oceans?”

“As we understand the Dhamma taught to us by the Blessed One, this is the greater: the tears we have shed while transmigrating and wandering this long, long time — crying and weeping from being joined with what is displeasing, being separated from what is pleasing — not the water in the four great oceans.”

"Excellent, monks. Excellent. It is excellent that you thus understand the Dhamma taught by me.

– Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya, 15.3

and finally the Old Testaments prophecies can be applied to Him (he was prophesied in advance).

A Messiah was indeed prophesied in advance. This Messiah would rebuild the Temple and reign for 1,000 years over a peaceful world. So far, neither of those events have happened. At most Jesus is currently only a partial fulfilment of the OT prophecies. I myself also fulfil one of the prophecies of the Messiah, I am male, though I don’t fulfil any of the others. A great many people partially fulfil the prophecies of the Messiah. So far, nobody has fulfilled all of them.

Why follow Buddha? Why accept his teachings as true?

His teachings work. They deliver what they promise.

Did he come back from the dead to tell us about it?

Returning from the dead is easy, we are all reborn. The point is not to be reborn. Being reborn is a result of our failure to attain enlightenment in our previous life.

You are applying the criteria used in Christianity to Buddhism. That is a mistake. Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion, and starts from very different premises. History and prophecy are not seen as particularly important. Gods and miracles are de-emphasised. The focus is very much on the here and now. What must I do today in order to progress further on the path?

What does Buddhism teach about Jesus? He never claimed to be just a teacher but God Incarnate.

Most Buddhists see Jesus as an advanced Bodhisattva. Much of His practical teaching is perfectly good Buddhism. He may possibly have been a God as well – gods can be Bodhisattvas – but as this thread has shown, the Buddhist attitude to gods is very different from the Christian attitude.

rossum

 

[rinnie]

I was raised as a Lutheran, but left Christianity after engaging in some historical critical studies on biblical texts. It’s kind of a long story.

I was mainly attracted to Buddhism because its teachings truly seemed universal. Its moral teachings seemed to be based on universal ethical principles rather than the specific mores of the culture in which it originated, for example. (Not that I’m putting other religions down, though.)

But what about the universal teachings of Christianity? Do you believe in Jesus Christ? Just wondering? And do you believe he is indeed God the Son?

 

[Bakmoon]

Lewis’ trilemma shows that Jesus was no lunatic or liar, but in fact Lord…
.

The big problem here is that the trilemma doesn’t address at all any historical criticism of the new testament at all. It just makes too many assumptions to be workable.

 

[Bakmoon]

That’s interesting Bakmoon

Do you have a reference for that please?

Thanks
Kam

I would just call it a logical inference. There are other texts that speak more in general about the arising of Buddhas which don’t mention just one, so that seems the best inference I can make from the texts.

 

[rossum]

That’s interesting Bakmoon

Do you have a reference for that please?

Here is something:

“After my decease, first will occur the five disappearances. And what are the five disappearances?
• the disappearance of attainments [to Nirvana],
• the disappearance of the Dharma [the practices of Buddhism],
• the disappearance of learning [loss of men who follow the Dharma],
• the disappearance of the symbols [the outward forms, the robes and practices of Buddhism],
• the disappearance of the relics [of the Buddha] …”

– The Surangama Sutra.

I suspect that this reference may not be completely accurate. There is a Surangama sutra, and there is a Surangama samadhi sutra, which are often confused. I suspect that this fragment is actually from the Surangama samadhi sutra. Whichever one this is, it is a Mahayana source, rather than the Theravada which Bakmoon is more familiar with.

It is a standard of Buddhism that everything changes and Buddhism is no exception. Buddhism will eventually disappear, and be refounded by the Maitreya.

rossum

 

[Bakmoon]

Maybe a math analogy will show why an infinite regress can’t exist. Suppose we can correctly compute an event and we know what it is, say F(200); We also know that to compute F we have to know F(n-1), say F = 4F(n-1) + 3, In order for F(200) to be computable we have to have at least one k such that F(k) is known and smaller than 200. If we had no base case, F(200) is not an event that can be computed. That is because is there is no base case and it regressed forever, F(200) should not be computable, but we already know it is. The base case HAS to exist.

In the same sense causality HAS to have a first cause, otherwise no event would exist. Clearly events exist and they depend on prior events.

The reason why I don’t find the analogy convincing is that there are also mathematical analogies that would conclude that a regress is possible. For example, let us assume that an infinite regress is not possible. Consider the number line, an infinitely large and continuous ordered set of all real numbers. Each number in this set possess the property of having numbers before it and numbers after it. There can be no first number on the line, because such a number would have numbers before it, thus not being the first number, and therefore by contradiction, we have proved that such a number does not exist. Because the line has no first number (analogous to F(1) in your example), we have an infinite regress, and therefore by our first premise, the number line cannot exist. However, the number line does exist in standard mathematics, and therefore, by contradiction, we have demonstrated that an infinite regress is possible. Q. E. A.

This number line analogy approximates the argument about the eternal universe much better, because from the perspective of general relativity, the space time of an eternal universe behaves the same way. In fact, I can convert the argument about the number line into an argument about the space-time of my mentioned eternal universe model. Here’s my best shot at it:

Let us assume that an infinite regress is not possible. Consider the 4 dimensional space-time structure of an eternal universe, which is a 4 dimensional Riemann manifold. Each event in this manifold possesses the property of having events in its past light cone and in its future light cone. (Let us assume here that this manifold is free from causal loops to make it more analogous to a line) There can be no event which occurs prior to all others in the temporal dimension, because such an event would have events in its past light cone, therefore not occurring prior to all other events in the temporal dimension, so by contradiction, we have proved that such an event does not exist in this manifold. Because there is no event which occurs prior to all others in this manifold (analogous to F(1) in your example, we have an infinite regress, and therefore by our first premise, the manifold cannot exist.

See? The number line argument much more closely analogues the eternal universe than your example of recursive functions.

 

[Bakmoon]

Yes, I did. Perhaps you don’t understand it, but I did. Your system explains nothing.

Two problems:

a) I have already clearly said in post 193 that:

“But I’m not positing infinite regress as an explanation for why things are the way they are. I’m just proposing it as a physical model of the universe as an infinite string of events.”

b) Let me explain why I say that you haven’t addressed my argument. I said:

“Can you prove that in a hypothetical universe that is without a prime mover and is an infinitely long series of events** would by necessity mean that anything could happen in this universe? All you have done so far is assert that an infinite regress is unable to explain why some things happen and others don’t,** but this isn’t the same thing.”

In other words, I have been asking you to prove something about the ontology of this hypothetical eternal universe. All you have done so far is make arguments about various difficulties involved with the epistemology of a being in this universe. You have spent quite a lot of time criticizing such a being’s ability to draw conclusions about the nature of such a universe, but that doesn’t actually tell us anything about the properties of the universe itself.

 

[Bakmoon]

But what about the universal teachings of Christianity? Do you believe in Jesus Christ? Just wondering? And do you believe he is indeed God the Son?

No. I left Christianity before embracing Buddhism