Ask A Buddhist

[Bakmoon]

I thought we had a “just war” doctrine.

The scenario being discussed was about a soldier who killed a terrorist about to kill innocent people, but out of personal hatred with the attacker rather than to protect the innocent. Maybe that clears it up

 

[Bakmoon]

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 would suggest trying a different line of attack than analogies then. I would recommend trying to use a proof by contradiction. You start out with the statement you want to disprove, assume that it is true, and show that it leads to a contradiction. It is probably your best way to proceed here.

To use it here, you would assume that initial states are not required and try to show that this leads to a contradiction.

 

[Bakmoon]

I did. It’s not my fault if you don’t want to hear the truth. Sometimes people find the truth threatening to their own views and refuse to discuss it.

I have carefully re-read all of our exchanges, but I find that you have offered a red herring answer to my argument. Allow me to reiterate as simply and as plainly as I can.

I asked for an argument that would demonstrate that an eternal universe with an infinite regress of events would necessarily have the property that all events would be possible(i.e., I am asking you to prove something about the actual ontology of such a universe.) You responded to this by giving a demonstration of why an individual living in this universe would not be able to discount that anything could happen (i.e., you responded with a statement regarding epistemological difficulties that would occur for an individual living within this universe, but saying nothing as to the actual ontological properties of such a universe.)

Can you give me a response that addresses the ontology of this universe?

 

[Michael19682]

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

.
Subject to conditions? Like a person in a monarchy? I know what the individual words mean, just that the way they are concatenated doesn’t any longer produce a credible rhetoric for me.

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.

Buddhists and Catholics hold that life on earth is but one facet of the overall existence of a person. For them it is the mind that endures, held together by it’s fortunate karma. For Catholics, I would venture to say it is God’s power and love that continues our existence in time.

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.

Whoa…put the brakes on, please. “Something that is eternal is the same for all times” is poetry. As is your paragraph. A pure sonnet with a rhyme scheme I’m sure. Not science, nor reason necessarily. To simplify things – if there were an ether, and only one atom in it, spinning quite happily – how does the spin make for non eternal. Motion and matter, need they negate each other as you propose? I’m simply saying “everything” taken as a totality in a state of change or flux; it is that which is eternal! Different states at different times refers to someone’s perspective on it as regards its motion. If that someone is part of the totality, then his perspective is naught since he is part of that which he seeks to observe in totality. Any reflection on his perceptive faculties leads him nowhere. Hindus call such attempts Samadhi. As I see it, once something gets into the perceptive field, there it goes by the wayside as a possible ground of being. If I wanted to be perverse or ironic in my reasoning I could very well take the Buddhist doctrine of no(t) self and say that it simply refers in this context to the inability of the ego self to be the totality*** in totality***. The Church as far as I know looks at the entire flock of catholics as the recipient of equality with god in communion; and her closure of the sacrament to non catholics is the major detraction wrought against her by those outside her (a misunderstanding in itself but not subject of debate here). Thus in her wisdom there is at least an attempt to show that we need the all in the all to have complete consciousness. One for all and all for one.

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

Again, why not?

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

.

Jesus was born enlightened and came from God.

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

Actually, at the pentecostal time, Jesus sent forth the spirit with breath. Not a single word at all.

 

[notself]

Hello all,

I am awake but mildly incoherent so your patience and understanding will be appreciated.

Well, I finally found the sutta were in the Buddha describes the origin of the “world”. It is not in the Sutta Pitaka: The collection of suttas, or discourses, attributed to the Buddha and a few of his closest disciples, containing all the central teachings of Theravada Buddhism.

It is in the Abhidhamma Pitaka: The collection of texts in which the underlying doctrinal principles presented in the Sutta Pitaka are reworked and reorganized into a systematic framework that can be applied to an investigation into the nature of mind and matter.
It’s importance to Buddhist practice varies between cultural and regional boundaries. The italics in this and the previous paragraphs are sections from the glossary of Access to Insight.

Here is a link to some information. accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/abhi/index.html

The Abhidhamma sutta that describes the origin of the “world” is the Agganna Sutta. I found an online translation but for some reason I can’t open the links. If one is interested one can try Google. I have only seen a small part of it discussed on a Buddhist web site. This quote appeared in a post on that site.

“There comes a time, Vasettha, when, after the lapse of a long, long period, this world died. And when this happens, beings have mostly been reborn into the Realm of Radiance [as devas]; and there they dwell, made of mind, feeding on rapture, self-luminous, traversing the air, continuing in glory; and thus they remain for a long, long period of time. There comes also a time, Vasettha, when sooner or later this world begins to re-evolve. When this happens, beings who had deceased from the World of Radiance usually come to life as humans…now at that time, all had become one world of water, dark, and of darkness that maketh blind. No moon nor sun appeared, no stars were seen, nor constellations, neither was night manifest nor day, neither months nor half-months, neither years nor seasons, neither female nor male. Beings were reckoned just as beings only. And to those beings, Vasettha, sooner or later after a long time, earth with its savours was spread out in the waters, even as a scum forms on the surface of boiled milky rice that is cooling, so did the earth appear.”

After pages and pages of discussion, the consensus is that the cosmology was based on the cosmology of the time and was being used in a subtle way. The Abhidhamma is tough reading and in my opinion only those who actually read computer manuals have the strength to get through it. Please see the definition above for the Abhidhamma.

Those who take the Agganna Sutta literally would be similar to those who take the time frame for Creation literally. (The earth is only 7000 years old). The other thing to note is the use of the word “world” is used with various meaning at various times.

Those of you who want to further discuss the issue should be warned, the discussion of the meaning of this particular sutta has gone on for pages and pages on the Buddhist website.
I don’t know the rules for posting links to other websites but if you must have your eyes glaze over with minutia, then go to Dhamma Wheel where you will also find a discussion disputing the authenticity of the Abhidhamma as any more than a commentary and not the words of the Buddha. Buddhist love these discussion.

 

[rossum]

Subject to conditions?

Think of conditions as necessary, but not sufficient, for something to exist. Oxygen is necessary to be human, but not sufficient. Humans are not caused solely by oxygen.

Buddhists and Catholics hold that life on earth is but one facet of the overall existence of a person.

Buddhists analyse a human being into five factors. The first factor is a physical body. That physical body requires oxygen. In the absence of the physical body, there are only four factors remaining, and they do not make up a human being, but something else. Remember, that not al of our lifetimes are spent as humans.

“Something that is eternal is the same for all times” is poetry.

It may be poetry, but it is also philosophy. This is a reasonably standard philosophical argument in both east and west. Difference cannot be the same as identity. Since something eternal always exists, then at every point in time it must exist. Something that changes exists at some points in time, but does not exist at other points in time. The same thing cannot both simultaneously exist and not exist, that is disallowed by the law of the excluded middle.

I’m simply saying “everything” taken as a totality in a state of change or flux; it is that which is eternal!

You are reifying, and that is always an error in Buddhist philosophy. Your “everything” is not a single thing, with a single set of properties. It is a collection of things with many incompatible properties. It is logically incoherent to treat such a disparate collection as a single entity. For example, what is the temperature of “everything”. The Sun is at millions of °K, the earth is at about 300°K while interstellar space is at 3°K. You cannot expect a single property to apply to everything, unless you are saying that 1,000,000 = 300 = 3, which is mathematically and logically incoherent. Is President Obama over 200 years old because there has been a “President of the United States” for that long?

Buddhist philosophy spends a great deal of time trying to root out reification, and to break down all collections into their constituent parts. While it may be convenient in everyday speech to bundle things together, it is not accurate when discussing philosophy. Casually we may say, “she’s driving a blue Ford.” Her car isn’t blue: the bodywork is blue, but the tyres are black, the windows are clear and the interior upholstery is a different colour again.

Your “everything” includes things that are not eternal, just as the car contains things that are not blue. That is a confusion that needs to be avoided.

Actually, at the pentecostal time, Jesus sent forth the spirit with breath. Not a single word at all.

Then the Bodhisattva Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, “We have all given our teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the the entrance into the principle of nonduality.”

Thereupon Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.

The Bodhisattva Manjushri applauded Vimalakirti: “Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the Bodhisattvas.”

• Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra, Chapter Nine

rossum

 

[Bonnie]

Bakmoon -

I’m so glad you’re here! A young friend committed suicide last week - his parents are Buddhists & he was raised Buddhists, but I don’t think he believed it himself.

At any rate, there will be a memorial service at the Buddhist community center in the nearest big city. His parents are the only Buddhists we know & we’re not close, more acquaintances than friends, so we don’t want to bother them with questions. Mainly, I don’t want to offend them or put my foot in my mouth (where it is too many times ).

What can we expect in the way of ceremonies?

 

[Bakmoon]

Bakmoon -

I’m so glad you’re here! A young friend committed suicide last week - his parents are Buddhists & he was raised Buddhists, but I don’t think he believed it himself.

At any rate, there will be a memorial service at the Buddhist community center in the nearest big city. His parents are the only Buddhists we know & we’re not close, more acquaintances than friends, so we don’t want to bother them with questions. Mainly, I don’t want to offend them or put my foot in my mouth (where it is too many times ).

What can we expect in the way of ceremonies?

Hello there, Bonnie! I’m very sorry for your loss, and for the loss of everyone who knew him. Funeral rituals and ceremonies in Buddhism vary quite a bit by sect and by culture, as these sorts of things are used usually mainly as a means to help friends and families grieve rather than actually having any sort of power, although there are exceptions to this (For example, in Tibetan Buddhism, after someone has died, a book called the Bardo Thodol is read in the belief that the departed can hear it and use its contents) but this will all vary by sect.

Do you know what sect they follow?

I know that a traditional Theravada funeral is simply a gathering of friends and family for the cremation of the body, and monks do a chant taken from one of the earliest philosophical treatises describing how reality is analyzed into its basic components (kind of an equivalent to the meaning of the phrase “From dust we came and to dust we shall return”)

A general rule when interacting with Buddhist monks of most traditions is that the most traditional and appropriate way of greeting them is to simply place your palms together at about neck level and then bow the head slightly. This is just a cultural thing, because in ancient India this was basically the equivalent of a handshake. Exactly how this is performed might vary by local custom, but just doing this will be seen as a sign of respect and an honest attempt to follow their traditions.

 

[Michael19682]

Rossum,

Since something eternal always exists, then at every point in time it must exist.

Good. You do not answer, save for the use of a single word, reification, the objection that motion and matter are not equivalent. Another name for spirit or God is Prime Mover. The animation, that is. The vivification of all.

For example, what is the temperature of “everything”. The Sun is at millions of °K, the earth is at about 300°K while interstellar space is at 3°K. You cannot expect a single property to apply to everything, unless you are saying that 1,000,000 = 300 = 3, which is mathematically and logically incoherent.

No. The mean temperature of the total mass is acertainable given the proper spectroscopy and technology. That mean, a derived property, might very well be constant over a set of eternal cycles.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Good. You do not answer, save for the use of a single word, reification, the objection that motion and matter are not equivalent.

Where does my argument require that motion and matter are equivalent?

Another name for spirit or God is Prime Mover.

I am aware of that. However, any “mover” (= creator) must be contingent. Something cannot be a mover unless there is something moving. A creator cannot be a creator unless there is something created. Otherwise it would be like a parent who has never had any children.

What would you say to a being who claimed to create universes, but had not in fact actually created any universes? Any mover/creator/cause has to be contingent on the moved/created/effect.

rossum

 

[patrick457]

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.

I would think that part of the reason is that Vajrayana has the rituals and mystery and all that stuff.

As for Nichiren, he was really the Japanese equivalent of a Protestant reformer: AFAIK he held that the Lotus Sutra alone had transmitted the Buddha’s teachings accurately. As per the idea of Mappo (末法), the age when the Buddha’s teachings will be forgotten and the world will fall into decline, he condemned all the other Buddhist schools of his time as being obsolete or even outright dangerous and invalid, and blamed them as the cause of medieval Japan’s social ills. Accordingly he promoted his Lotus Sutra-centered version of Buddhism as being the only correct and effective one for this day and age. He even wrote a treatise expounding his ideas entitled Treatise on Establishing the Correct [Teaching] for the Peace of the Land (立正安國論).

 

[notself]

I would think that part of the reason is that Vajrayana has the rituals and mystery and all that stuff.

As for Nichiren, he was really the Japanese equivalent of a Protestant reformer: AFAIK he held that the Lotus Sutra alone had transmitted the Buddha’s teachings accurately. As per the idea of Mappo (末法), the age when the Buddha’s teachings will be forgotten and the world will fall into decline, he condemned all the other Buddhist schools of his time as being obsolete or even outright dangerous and invalid, and blamed them as the cause of medieval Japan’s social ills. Accordingly he promoted his Lotus Sutra-centered version of Buddhism as being the only correct and effective one for this day and age. He even wrote a treatise expounding his ideas entitled Treatise on Establishing the Correct [Teaching] for the Peace of the Land (立正安國論).

Thank you for your comments. I wonder if the Agamas (Sutta Pitaka) were available in Japan at that time. I would think if one wanted to go back to the original teachings he would have used the oldest available. The Agamas were available in China at the time and most likely Korea.

 

[patrick457]

Thank you for your comments. I wonder if the Agamas (Sutta Pitaka) were available in Japan at that time. I would think if one wanted to go back to the original teachings he would have used the oldest available. The Agamas were available in China at the time and most likely Korea.

The Agamas were indeed available (via translation) in China and Japan, but it seems that they were not too influential. The Kusha school (one of the six Buddhist schools introduced to Japan when Buddhism was first propagated; usually considered an adjunct of the Hosso school) seem to have studied the Agamas, but AFAIK we do not hear of any more beyond that. And there’s also the issue of the Chinese translation.

 

[notself]

I think Korea had a closer relationship with China than Japan. Korea in some respects was a vassal state of China. I know the Vinaya used in Korea was almost identical to that of Theravada because of the ordination of Bhikkhunis rested on the Korean Bhikkhunis following the same Vinaya.

For the non Buddhists, the Suttas are called the Dhamma and the Vinaya is called the Discipline. It is the rules of conduct for Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis and covers the process of ordination.

 

[Bonnie]

Hello there, Bonnie! I’m very sorry for your loss, and for the loss of everyone who knew him. Funeral rituals and ceremonies in Buddhism vary quite a bit by sect and by culture, as these sorts of things are used usually mainly as a means to help friends and families grieve rather than actually having any sort of power, although there are exceptions to this (For example, in Tibetan Buddhism, after someone has died, a book called the Bardo Thodol is read in the belief that the departed can hear it and use its contents) but this will all vary by sect.

Do you know what sect they follow?.

Unfortunately, I don’t know the sect. But from your reply it sounds rather like a wake. Guess I’ll just keep my eyes open & do my best to follow along.

Thank you for answering my question. Now you can get back to the theological & philosophical topics with the rest of the CA gang!

 

[patrick457]

I think Korea had a closer relationship with China than Japan. Korea in some respects was a vassal state of China. I know the Vinaya used in Korea was almost identical to that of Theravada because of the ordination of Bhikkhunis rested on the Korean Bhikkhunis following the same Vinaya.

For the non Buddhists, the Suttas are called the Dhamma and the Vinaya is called the Discipline. It is the rules of conduct for Bhikkhus and Bhikkhunis and covers the process of ordination.

Well, they’re just beside each other for a start. Buddhism entered Japan by way of Korea; more specifically, the kingdom of Baekje. Baekje in turn was introduced into it by the rival kingdom of Goguryeo, which in turn apparently got it from China.

I have another question: is there something similar in Theravada to that Mahayana tendency for different schools/sects to emphasize different sutras (cf. the Nichiren schools and the Lotus Sutra, the Pure Land schools and the Amitabha Sutra and the Infinite Life Sutra, the Prajna-paramita Hridaya aka the Heart Sutra among various groups, etc.)

 

[notself]

I have another question: is there something similar in Theravada to that Mahayana tendency for different schools/sects to emphasize different sutras (cf. the Nichiren schools and the Lotus Sutra, the Pure Land schools and the Amitabha Sutra and the Infinite Life Sutra, the Prajna-paramita Hridaya aka the Heart Sutra among various groups, etc.)

Theravada does not have any version of the Lotus Sutra, Amitabaha Sutra, Infinite Life Sutra, or the Heart Sutra. Those sutras are unique to the Northern forms of Buddhism.

Theravada is the only remaining school of the early Southern schools. Theravada dates to around 250 BCE when the King Ashoka sent his son and daughter to Sri Lanka to spread the Dhamma. They were both fully ordained. Theravada doesn’t have any sectarian angst. There are different lineages but they all seem to get along except when it comes to the recent re-establishment of the Bhikkhunis. This has caused some tension. But, I expect in a few years everyone will adjust.

 

[Bakmoon]

Well, they’re just beside each other for a start. Buddhism entered Japan by way of Korea; more specifically, the kingdom of Baekje. Baekje in turn was introduced into it by the rival kingdom of Goguryeo, which in turn apparently got it from China.

I have another question: is there something similar in Theravada to that Mahayana tendency for different schools/sects to emphasize different sutras (cf. the Nichiren schools and the Lotus Sutra, the Pure Land schools and the Amitabha Sutra and the Infinite Life Sutra, the Prajna-paramita Hridaya aka the Heart Sutra among various groups, etc.)

Not really. There are a lot of important suttas in the Theravadin Canon, but I don’t really think you could base an entire sect or tradition off of just one or a few like you can in Mahayana Buddhism because the message is expressed very similarly in the various suttas and each sutta only really touches on a single facet or aspect of the teaching.

It is really interesting that the Theravada sect never formed sub-sects like the different Mahayana groups have. Instead, you might have a teacher that arises with a specific understanding and emphasis, and his followers form a distinct tradition within Theravada Buddhism, but without any sort of organization beyond similarities in teaching. So for example, out of Burma there is the Mahasi Sayadaw tradition, the U Ba Khin tradition, the Pa Auk Sayadaw tradition, and many others, but they have never considered themselves to be distinct sects from one another. I have always wondered why this is so.

 

[Bakmoon]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bakmoon View Post
do you mean to say that natural knowledge is impossible? That for any given truth, it is impossible to know it without divine assistance?

bingo!

Even the existence of God? Be careful how you answer here, because Chapter II Canon I of the First Vatican Council says:

If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.

 

[InJesusItrust]

Rather than explain it I will leave is to more astute minds: doxa.ws/cosmological/No_ICR.html

Quite simply, if there is no beginning, and if everything depends on a previous cause, no event should be taking place currently, because there was no beginning. Though an infinite regression is impossible an infinite progression is not (to the best of my knowledge). There is a good reason why recursion is defined the way it is and why I chose it as a first analogy.