Ask A Buddhist

[notself]

I am not familiar with the big bounce model, but it seems rather peculiar to me that this iteration depends on the previous being successful, that depends on the one before, and so on. I don’t see how any future iteration can take place, including this one, unless at least one iteration is successful. How would that prime iteration have taken place unless the universe was created initially, was uncreated initially or somewhere in the middle.

Seems like a lot of mental gymnastics involved to avoid a first cause, but the first cause had to be an on switch to the cycle to take place.

There are several models for the universe as I understand things. One model states the universe is expanding and will continue to expand. The other model, called the big bounce, says the universe will expand to a point and the contract only to expand again.

This last model can be construed to be a universe that does not have a beginning or an end, an eternal universe.

There is a third model that our universe is part of an even larger multiverse.

There is a hypothesis that the universe was the result of two “branes” touching. You can go to Nova on PBS to find out about this one.

The point I would like to make is the Buddha was not an astrophysicist nor did he ever speak as if he were.

 

[notself]

As my previous post have indicated, the emptiness that the Buddha speaks about is the emptiness of self. Please comment on the suttas I’ve posted rather than this ongoing argument about the universe.

You clearly don’t understand the concept of not-self. No where does the Buddha say there is no self. He repeatedly says that form, our bodies, are not self; feelings are not self; perceptions are not self, etc…

He never denies the reality of chairs, earth, elephants. Nor does he ever state that the universe had no beginning. What he said was in his contemplation of the universe, he could not envision a beginning. He was a man of his times and this was a common understanding of the time. The universe and it’s beginning does not figure in more than one sutta that I am aware of and I pretty much covered the topic. He does discuss Samsara as an endless round of rebirth to be avoided,and I suppose someone else could draw the conclusion that if Samsara goes on and on that the universe has no beginning or end. But, I think this whole universe topic is more of a simile in Buddhist teachings that say we are caught in a trap of suffering and there is a way to get out.

Some how this thread got side tracked into an almost Hindu concept of the universe. Its a darn shame because it was not a topic the Buddha was particularly interested in. Emptiness (of self in our form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness) is not the basis for rebirth. The concept of emptiness is the basis for dispassion.

Whether the universe has a beginning or not does not effect the concept of rebirth. I don’t know where you got that idea.

As for Buddhist criticizing Christianity as the pinnacle of ignorance, you are going to have to provide a link for that one. For a Buddhist to do so would be a violation of Right Speech.

 

[notself]

Michael19682,

I tried to edit my post because of some remarks that were not clearly stated. But I waited to long to edit them. Here is my corrected post.

…The universe and it’s beginning does not figure in more than one sutta that I am aware of and I pretty much covered the topic. He does discuss Samsara as an endless round of rebirth to be avoided,and I suppose someone else could draw the conclusion that if Samsara goes on and on that the universe has no beginning or end. But, I think this whole universe topic is more of a simile in Buddhist teachings that say we are caught in a trap of suffering and there is a way to get out…

 

[Bakmoon]

I am not familiar with the big bounce model, but it seems rather peculiar to me that this iteration depends on the previous being successful, that depends on the one before, and so on. I don’t see how any future iteration can take place, including this one, unless at least one iteration is successful. How would that prime iteration have taken place unless the universe was created initially, was uncreated initially or somewhere in the middle.

Seems like a lot of mental gymnastics involved to avoid a first cause, but the first cause had to be an on switch to the cycle to take place.

In an eternal universe model though, there is no prime iteration. That’s what I’ve been getting at. You are assuming that there must be an initial state, but you haven’t demonstrated this yet.

 

[InJesusItrust]

In an eternal universe model though, there is no prime iteration. That’s what I’ve been getting at. You are assuming that there must be an initial state, but you haven’t demonstrated this yet.

I thought you were saying the universe is created and destroyed, death and rebirth, which is not a sign of an eternal universe but an eternal cycle.

 

[Michael19682]

As my previous post have indicated, the emptiness that the Buddha speaks about is the emptiness of self. Please comment on the suttas I’ve posted rather than this ongoing argument about the universe.

You clearly don’t understand the concept of not-self. No where does the Buddha say there is no self. He repeatedly says that form, our bodies, are not self; feelings are not self; perceptions are not self, etc…

He never denies the reality of chairs, earth, elephants. Nor does he ever state that the universe had no beginning. What he said was in his contemplation of the universe, he could not envision a beginning. He was a man of his times and this was a common understanding of the time. The universe and it’s beginning does not figure in more than one sutta that I am aware of and I pretty much covered the topic. He does discuss Samsara as an endless round of rebirth to be avoided,and I suppose someone else could draw that conclusion, but I have never read that as a comment on the universe.

Some how this thread got side tracked into an almost Hindu concept of the universe. Its a darn shame because it was not a topic the Buddha was particularly interested in. Emptiness (of self in our form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations and consciousness) is not the basis for rebirth. The concept of emptiness is the basis for dispassion.

Whether the universe has a beginning or not does not effect the concept of rebirth. I don’t know where you got that idea.

As for Buddhist criticizing Christianity as the pinnacle of ignorance, you are going to have to provide a link for that one. For a Buddhist to do so would be a violation of Right Speech.

1. You spelled ‘nowhere’ as two words. Either you intended it to be ‘nowhere’ or you left out a letter and were asking “now where?”. I can only assume the former is true since it is unlikely you would have omitted a question mark. I make all sort of errors like that; so take no criticism here; and I’m not trying to be funny. But since Buddhism is so logical an outline, the point should be made here that there is a strong distinction between implicit statements and explicit ones, and, further, if it is a different thing at all, between explication and implication. So when you say ‘nowhere’, I might not be able to answer in counter point, Where; but I needn’t be discouraged by this. Quoting sutras and statements out of context can be a form of practice Catholics call(ed) ‘fundamentalism’ - and though this is not a Buddhist apology forum, I think we need to avoid fundamentalism, anyway.
2. As a Buddhist who says that I don’t understand the doctrine of no-self, you seem to imply that I have nothing to teach you. Though perhaps a wise implication, it is not provable. And certainly not from the standpoint of one who espouses belief in reincarnation would I expect a statement like ‘never’ “denies the reality of chairs, earth, elephants.” How do any of us know what Buddha ‘never’ did? Not to be ridicuous, but teachers in the east are well known for ridiculing their sophisticated students, especially those who purport to be advanced or highly realized; and so I think that no matter how perverse and ironic it may sound, it remains entirely possible that all of Buddha Dharma is a multi-leveled Hindu ridicule, reserved, of course, for those with varying levels of good intentions.
3. If Buddha said that our enlightenment path involves Dharma practice, what did he mean by that? Certainly right views are critical to enlightenment? Enlightenment is the answer to all woes and questions, an end to samsara.
4. My understanding is that emptiness is a doctrine of the way things exist, not if they exist. Thus Buddha is said to not have negated reality. My point, which involved a lot of wasted words in expression thereof, is that emptiness of self, phenomenon, or anything, does, as a doctrine, implicitly deny creation proper. If we know there is a creation of things, then emptiness of self, etc, falls away as false. The solidity of objects hinges not on how many rods and cones there are in your eyes, nor its reality on the refinement of your cortex vs. that of a chimp’s. If it’s there, it’s there. And, in some configuration, its quantum reality* always has been. *
5. So you see that creation is important to emptiness of self. The five skandas aside, we are enduring beings in our inner nature. Just don’t need to be so spacial and physical about interpreting ‘inner’ and ‘outer’, and you’ll get on the creationist track. Check out Plato’s Allegory of the Cave in The Republic. The words “inherent existence” have in my opinion a very technical meaning in their origins. Saying that all changes is very nice, but can it be proven? How do we know there is no ‘essence’ of Being, meaning, or life?

 

[Michael19682]

Whether the universe has a beginning or not does not effect the concept of rebirth. I don’t know where you got that idea.

As for Buddhist criticizing Christianity as the pinnacle of ignorance, you are going to have to provide a link for that one. For a Buddhist to do so would be a violation of Right Speech.

Oh no? If something is never born, or has no beginning, how can it be reborn? Has the cat named The Rapunzel of Lichtenstein ever been reborn?

 

[InJesusItrust]

In an eternal universe model though, there is no prime iteration. That’s what I’ve been getting at. You are assuming that there must be an initial state, but you haven’t demonstrated this yet.

I have demonstrated this but none of my analogies are being accepted. I have demonstrated it but not proved it, and I suspect that it is not provable.

I’ll try a final analogy. Dominoes are arranged in a circle, and let us ignore the laws of thermodynamics, so that perpetual motion is possible. The dominoes are arranged so after falling they lift themselves up. Now no domino can fall until the previous one has fallen. The only way for the motion to begin is if one domino starts in a state of falling. Otherwise no motion occurs, because no domino can fall without a previous one falling. Maybe a man, who did not observe that initial state, comes in the room and suspect it has always been this way. But how can the cycle be in motion if no domino was initially in a state of falling? If no prior domino was ever in a state of falling there is no motion because nothing ever fell.

If you cannot see why this is I surrender. It is futile for me to try and I give up. I will let someone else try.

 

[Michael19682]

. But how can the cycle be in motion if no domino was initially in a state of falling? If no prior domino was ever in a state of falling there is no motion because nothing ever fell.

You have got it exactly! What Bakmoon appears to be looking for is tangible proof; whereas you have demonstrated logical, hypothetical proof. All proof begins with a premise. Interesting that Buddhists who rely so heavily on premises and the ripple effects of these do not appear to acknowledge a beginning to their own arguments. No beginning, no end implies nothing in between. Looking around us we see that there clearly something here. Not liking what it is called or the sound of its label is not a reason to assume it is not what it is.

 

[notself]

Michael19682;9549874]1) You spelled ‘nowhere’ as two words. Either you intended it to be ‘nowhere’ or you left out a letter and were asking “now where?”. I can only assume the former is true since it is unlikely you would have omitted a question mark. I make all sort of errors like that; so take no criticism here; and I’m not trying to be funny

. I have insomnia due to a medication I’m taking. It not only effects my clarity of thought, but obviously my typing skills.

Quoting sutras and statements out of context can be a form of practice Catholics call(ed) ‘fundamentalism’ - and though this is not a Buddhist apology forum, I think we need to avoid fundamentalism, anyway.

I don’t believe I have quoted out of context. I have sometimes quoted parts of suttas that are too long to be quoted in their entirety but I have always provided a link so the reader could see the context. Some suttas are very short. This may be what is confusing things.

1. As a Buddhist who says that I don’t understand the doctrine of no-self, you seem to imply that I have nothing to teach you.

There is not “doctrine of no-self”. The Buddha never taught that there is no self. He taught about “not-self”. I even provided a short sutta with footnotes to clarify this. Your statement above supports my contention that you do not understand what the Buddha taught on the subject.

I never meant to suggest that you have nothing to teach me. I think your comments have been very interesting and you bring up good points.

…And certainly not from the standpoint of one who espouses belief in reincarnation would I expect a statement like ‘never’ “denies the reality of chairs, earth, elephants.” How do any of us know what Buddha ‘never’ did?

First of all, like Ananda, I do not yet believe in reincarnation. Perhaps someday I will figure it out, but I just don’t see it as more than a reason to be moral and practice. Much like some Christians need the fear of hell to keep them on the straight and narrow. My practice is not fear based. There is no doubt that the Buddha taught about reincarnation, but many Buddhists see these as metaphorical.

Not to be ridicuous, but teachers in the east are well known for ridiculing their sophisticated students, especially those who purport to be advanced or highly realized; and so I think that no matter how perverse and ironic it may sound, it remains entirely possible that all of Buddha Dharma is a multi-leveled Hindu ridicule, reserved, of course, for those with varying levels of good intentions.

That would be hilarious if true.

1. If Buddha said that our enlightenment path involves Dharma practice, what did he mean by that? Certainly right views are critical to enlightenment? Enlightenment is the answer to all woes and questions, an end to samsara.

He meant the Eight Fold Path. Right View is one of the eight. Here is a link to a sutta that talks about Right View. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.009.ntbb.html

1. My understanding is that emptiness is a doctrine of the way things exist, not if they exist. Thus Buddha is said to not have negated reality. My point, which involved a lot of wasted words in expression thereof, is that emptiness of self, phenomenon, or anything, does, as a doctrine, implicitly deny creation proper. If we know there is a creation of things, then emptiness of self, etc, falls away as false. The solidity of objects hinges not on how many rods and cones there are in your eyes, nor its reality on the refinement of your cortex vs. that of a chimp’s. If it’s there, it’s there. And, in some configuration, its quantum reality* always has been. *

I haven’t had much sleep so forgive me when I say, I don’t understand what you are saying here.

1. So you see that creation is important to emptiness of self. The five skandas aside, we are enduring beings in our inner nature. Just don’t need to be so spacial and physical about interpreting ‘inner’ and ‘outer’, and you’ll get on the creationist track. Check out Plato’s Allegory of the Cave in The Republic. The words “inherent existence” have in my opinion a very technical meaning in their origins. Saying that all changes is very nice, but can it be proven? How do we know there is no ‘essence’ of Being, meaning, or life?

If I understand you correctly, you are asking how can there be no soul. Since all things in existence are conditioned and subject to change, there can be no independent eternal soul. Can I prove this? Nno. Can you prove there is such a thing? No. One can make logical arguments for each position but logic is not proof.

 

[patrick457]

The only questions I’ll ask for now are: why don’t I see more Western Mahayana or Esoteric (aka Vajrayana) Buddhists when compared to Theravadins? (There’s Zen, yes, but I seem to get the impression of seeing New Age syncretism-type ‘Zen’ more than ‘authentic’ Zen/Chan/Seon.) Also, for Theravadins: what do you think about Mahayana or Vajrayana? And what are your views on Nichiren’s ideas?

 

[notself]

The only questions I’ll ask for now are: why don’t I see more Western Mahayana or Esoteric (aka Vajrayana) Buddhists when compared to Theravadins? (There’s Zen, yes, but I seem to get the impression of seeing New Age syncretism-type ‘Zen’ more than ‘authentic’ Zen/Chan/Seon.) Also, for Theravadins: what do you think about Mahayana or Vajrayana? And what are your views on Nichiren’s ideas?

Now that you point it out, it is strange that there aren’t more Tibetans and Mahayana joining in. They vastly outnumber Theravadins in the West. I get the impression from being a former moderator on an international Buddhist forum that many Western practitioners of Vajrayana are former Catholics. One would think they would drop by.

Buddhism picks up the culture of the area it is in and various commentaries reflect those cultures. At their heart almost all forms of Buddhism speak of the same thing but in different ways. I have never studied Nichiren. Perhaps others can comment on him.

Dear Friends,
I have been up most of the night (medication induced insomnia). I am going to log off for a while. Have a good day.

 

[Michael19682]

NotSelf,

Since all things in existence are conditioned and subject to change, there can be no independent eternal soul.

How does the one follow from the other? IOW’s. How does ‘conditioned’ and ‘subject to change’ imply no ‘independent eternal soul’? I thought the Declaration of Independence was signed centuries ago I see that you acknowledge there is no proof of this; but I do not even see a logical argument for the Buddhist position as you state it. You have proposed something…so consider your own wording…“in existence” existence is everything, taken as a totality…has everything ever disappeared all at once (barring your insomnia as mine, dreams counter that possibility). No. The independent eternal soul can be all of this (creation) taken as a totality “in” quantum flux.

Your propostion implies that change negates independence. If that be denied, the propostion is false and ergo Buddhism, like that “everything” it proposes to apprehend, is also subject to change. Has Dharma ever changed? Did the Buddha waffle?

Since you quote Buddha quite liberally, allow and consider Jesus for a moment:

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Matthew 24:35

NotSelf,

Can I prove this? Nno. Can you prove there is such a thing? No. One can make logical arguments for each position but logic is not proof

You admit you have no proof. How do you know what I or others can prove? For one who takes logic as proof, that proof is quite real. Considering the technological achievements of the West (in terms of innovation and mastery of “all this” physical reality - man on the moon, television, satellites, E = MC (squared), etc.,) I would say that logic, math, etc. provide us with a great deal of proof, not only for our senses, but for generations of people’s.

What proof would you need to believe in or put faith in an independent eternal soul? Correct me if I am wrong, but Bakmoon stated that he left his church because of historical inconsistencies? The tenets of philosophy, though not independent of an historical context, nevertheless represent a kind of technology of thought and therefore can only be [merely] ‘critiqued’ in their historical context. You said as much when you pointed out not Buddha’s princely birth but his ordinariness and disconcern with Hindu cosmology. Why did you, if you haven’t, not find supremacy in the gospel account of Jesus, who was born enlightened and yet spoke his message with a fraction of the words used by Buddha?

 

[Michael19682]

notself,

sorry to hear of your insomnia. I take medicine everyday, so i’m used to insomnia.

I hope you don’t count sheep to try and sleep

 

[Michael19682]

.
…
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. .

I see now how you use the word ‘meaning’. As a verb, or an adverb, depending on how you look at it. Perhaps this is because of the doctrine of change; and change as a process appears on the sur-face to be an action. Yet if God is unlike Buddha and never changes or is beyond change, and if he is the source of meaning; then ontology and epistemology have indeed converged in his being.

I think if the convergence i currently believe in and propose above is true, then we wouldn’t likely find animals in heaven. however, i think some might be more profound in their acceptance of death. how could a domestic dog put in nature attempt to attack another animal - a wolf or moutain lion, for example - which might obviously destroy him?

 

[rossum]

How does ‘conditioned’ and ‘subject to change’ imply no ‘independent eternal soul’?

Anything that is conditioned is subject to conditions. If it is subject to conditions, then its existence is not independent, but dependent on those conditions. Humans are dependent on oxygen to survive. We are not independent because we require the prior condition of the presence of oxygen in order to exist.

Anything that changes is not eternal, and vice versa. Something that changes is different at different times: X(T1) ≠ X(T2) for some times T1, T2. Something that is eternal is the same for all times: X(T1) = X(T2) for all times T1, T2. Since something cannot be both the same and different, anything that changes cannot be eternal.

Hence if a soul is conditioned and changing, then it cannot be either independent or eternal. Everything is conditioned and everything is changing.

Why did you, if you haven’t, not find supremacy in the gospel account of Jesus, who was born enlightened and yet spoke his message with a fraction of the words used by Buddha?

Jesus taught for three years, between the ages of 30 and 33. The Buddha taught for 45 years, between his enlightenment at age 35 and his death at age 80. If they taught at the same rate, then we would expect the words of the Buddha to be fifteen times longer than the words of Jesus.

If the worth of a piece of scripture is to be determined by its length, then Buddhism has the two best pieces of scripture possible. The ‘Prajñāpāramitā in a Single Letter’ is one letter long: “a”. Vimalakirti’s answer to Manjushri’s question is shorter by one letter.

rossum

 

[InJesusItrust]

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! )

I thought we had a “just war” doctrine.

 

[Bakmoon]

The only questions I’ll ask for now are: why don’t I see more Western Mahayana or Esoteric (aka Vajrayana) Buddhists when compared to Theravadins? (There’s Zen, yes, but I seem to get the impression of seeing New Age syncretism-type ‘Zen’ more than ‘authentic’ Zen/Chan/Seon.) Also, for Theravadins: what do you think about Mahayana or Vajrayana? And what are your views on Nichiren’s ideas?

Really? You see more Theravadins than Mahayanists and Vajrayanists in the west? I always thought that Mahayana Buddhism was more popular in the west, even when you exclude Zen, because of groups like Sokka Gakai and the popularity of Tibetan Buddhism in the west. Go figure.

On the whole, I don’t have any major beef with Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism. Obviously I don’t accept their ideas (The incompatible ones at least) but as long as they are practicing in accordance with the essentials of the Noble Eightfold Path, then I believe they can move towards enlightenment, and so I have no real criticism to make.

Nichiren Buddhism is an exception in my opinion, however. They don’t practice meditation to my knowlege. I must therefore conclude that Nichiren Buddhism doesn’t lead to enlightenment.

 

[rossum]

Nichiren Buddhism is an exception in my opinion, however. They don’t practice meditation to my knowlege. I must therefore conclude that Nichiren Buddhism doesn’t lead to enlightenment.

Nichiren do use a mantra, “Nam myōhō renge kyō”, which can form a sort of meditation.

I do have problems with them, mainly due to their attitude to other Buddhists, and the way some of their groups operate.

rossum

 

[Bakmoon]

I thought you were saying the universe is created and destroyed, death and rebirth, which is not a sign of an eternal universe but an eternal cycle.

I am using the term universe in a broader sense here. I am speaking in the context of the bib bounce model previously mentioned in which there is direct causation between the destruction of one universe and the creation of the next. In this context, the whole thing is one universe in a sense.