Buddhism and Hegel

[rossum]

Well their is no explicit recognition or turning to God, but I remember when John Paul II called Buddhism atheistic a lot of Buddhists objected that they didn’t say there definitely was NOT a God.

There are tens of thousands of gods in Buddhist scriptures, however none of them is important. Their principal task is to applaud in the right places when the Buddha is speaking. Gods are not important and can generally be ignored.

Some Buddhists, mostly western Buddhists, are indeed atheists.

Anyway, people say that Islam does not believe in sin either. However I think if we understand sin as a free will offense against conscience, then Islam and Buddhism believe in sin.

In Buddhism, the offence caused by unwise actions is to ourselves. There is no external entity that is offended. It is ourselves who we offended by our actions. Actions have consequences. If you don’t want the consequences then don’t do the actions. It is also worth noting that there is no Buddhist equivalent of the forgiveness of sin. If you do the crime then you do the time.

rossum

 

[thinkandmull]

There are tens of thousands of gods in Buddhist scriptures, however none of them is important. Their principal task is to applaud in the right places when the Buddha is speaking. Gods are not important and can generally be ignored.

Some Buddhists, mostly western Buddhists, are indeed atheists.

In Buddhism, the offence caused by unwise actions is to ourselves. There is no external entity that is offended. It is ourselves who we offended by our actions. Actions have consequences. If you don’t want the consequences then don’t do the actions. It is also worth noting that there is no Buddhist equivalent of the forgiveness of sin. If you do the crime then you do the time.

rossum

Yes but Buddhists DO give the impression that they know what the conscience is

 

[annem]

rossum

The point of Buddhism is to avoid suffering. With reincarnation, dying does not always avoid suffering – you get born again and die again and again and again. Only by attaining nirvana during your current life can future lives (and deaths) be avoided.

Rossum, hi. So nirvana, which is the ultimate you can achieve, stops all reincarnations. How is this different from death itself, then?

Eternal life, even in heaven, is eternal suffering

A scientist can attach the right connection to the pleasure centers and the brain, and make a monkey so happy he will stop eating. Why isn’t the pantheistic entity capable of making people happy?

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

thinkandmull

IHowever I think if we understand sin as a free will offense against conscience, then Islam and Buddhism believe in sin. .

Hi. Yes, but what is sin? Without limits or laws set by an eternal God, what exists is your personal interpretation.

God bless Annem

 

[rossum]

Yes but Buddhists DO give the impression that they know what the conscience is

If by “conscience” you mean “being aware of the moral rules and (mostly) following them” then yes. The word itself does not exist in Buddhism; “wise action” is probably closest.

rossum

 

[rossum]

So nirvana, which is the ultimate you can achieve, stops all reincarnations.

Correct.

How is this different from death itself, then?

Ordinary death is followed by ordinary birth and another ordinary death and so on. The enlightened, who have attained nirvana, are not reborn after their final death.

A scientist can attach the right connection to the pleasure centers and the brain, and make a monkey so happy he will stop eating. Why isn’t the pantheistic entity capable of making people happy?

Temporary happiness is not difficult. Since no entity is eternal, then any happiness derived from another entity will end when either you die or the entity providing the happiness dies.

Buddhism emphasises the universality of change/impermanence:

“Impermanent are all compound things.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:5

One of the sources of suffering is the failure to recognise that things change, and wishing to turn back the clock. You can’t, and it is futile to try.

rossum

 

[thinkandmull]

If by “conscience” you mean “being aware of the moral rules and (mostly) following them” then yes. The word itself does not exist in Buddhism; “wise action” is probably closest.

rossum

By moral law, do you mean the rejection of which is sin (even without thinking of a personal God as the source of the conscience)?

 

[rossum]

By moral law, do you mean the rejection of which is sin (even without thinking of a personal God as the source of the conscience)?

No. The equivalent of moral law, is better described as “moral advice”. There is no “law” in the sense of the law of the land. It is closer to the law of gravity, and is phrased more like, “If you do not want stones to fall on your head then do not throw stones straight up in the air.”

It is more of a guide to navigating the world while avoiding as much suffering as possible. There is no police force enforcing the law, no judge and no jury. No forgiveness either, which is why Buddhists are advised to be mindful of all their actions.

rossum

 

[annem]

rossum

Ordinary death is followed by ordinary birth and another ordinary death and so on. The enlightened, who have attained nirvana, are not reborn after their final death.

Who gets to decide whether you get another life or whether, at long, long last, you’re allowed to perish for all eternity? And do they ever make mistakes?

God bless Annem

 

[rossum]

Who gets to decide whether you get another life or whether, at long, long last, you’re allowed to perish for all eternity? And do they ever make mistakes?

The “who” is ourselves. If we attain enlightenment then we are not reborn. If we fail to attain enlightenment then we get reborn. The decision is our own, made every day by our own actions and our failures to act. Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion, so there is no omnimax God running everything. Our actions have consequences, and certain actions have the consequence that you are not reborn. The only mistakes made are by people who fail to perform those actions and hence suffer the consequence of another life and a subsequent death.

Karma is much like gravity, there is no “who” enforcing gravity, it is part of the universe and we have to operate in the knowledge that gravity exists. The Buddhist approach to morality is not command based, like: “Thou shalt not jump off a tall building without a parachute”. It is more advice based: “If you jump off a tall building without a parachute then …” Similarly for karma: “If you kill a living thing then …”

The general approach is very different: actions and consequences, not crime and punishment.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

The “who” is ourselves. If we attain enlightenment then we are not reborn. If we fail to attain enlightenment then we get reborn. The decision is our own, made every day by our own actions and our failures to act. Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion, so there is no omnimax God running everything. . . Karma is much like gravity, there is no “who” enforcing gravity, it is part of the universe and we have to operate in the knowledge that gravity exists. . . The general approach is very different: actions and consequences, not crime and punishment.

rossum

There are consequences to our actions.
The Christian perspective is that we participate in the creation ourselves within the larger cosmos.
If there is a cycle of rebirth, there is someone being reborn into this world, within a framework, a structure of the universe in which Karma would exist.
We do not bring the universe, nor its laws into existence. We do not bring the totality of ourselves into existence.
The concept of punishment would also apply in the Buddhist world-view, since the principles that govern actions and consequences are not self-determined, but given by a universal transcendent Mind.

I have my own understanding of enlightenment and how it would bring about an end to to rebirth. I am interested in hearing from you, What is enlightenment and how does it do that?

 

[rossum]

There are consequences to our actions.

Not always. Forgiveness of sin can give you a potential ‘Get Out of Hell Free’ card. Conversely Original Sin can give you a ‘Get Into Hell Anyway’ card. In Christianity, the consequences of actions can be avoided. In strict Calvinism, actions have no consequences at all beyond this single life: whatever you do does not change anything after death. In that respect strict Calvinism resembles materialism.

rossum

 

[Bahman]

The point of Buddhism is to avoid suffering. With reincarnation, dying does not always avoid suffering – you get born again and die again and again and again. Only by attaining nirvana during your current life can future lives (and deaths) be avoided.

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.

“This is the 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 – not the water in the four great oceans.”

– Assu sutta, Samyutta Nikaya 15.3

Eternal life is eternal suffering.

rossum

What Buddha missed is that suffering and pleasure complete each other since existence is neutral in its deepest sense.

 

[rossum]

What Buddha missed is that suffering and pleasure complete each other since existence is neutral in its deepest sense.

“All differences are falsely imagined.” – Hui-neng.

rossum

 

[thinkandmull]

Not always. Forgiveness of sin can give you a potential ‘Get Out of Hell Free’ card. Conversely Original Sin can give you a ‘Get Into Hell Anyway’ card. In Christianity, the consequences of actions can be avoided. In strict Calvinism, actions have no consequences at all beyond this single life: whatever you do does not change anything after death. In that respect strict Calvinism resembles materialism.

rossum

Most Catholics don’t believe original sin, contracted by us all, merits punishment. Anyway, are you saying there is something inherently in the Buddhist system and writings which is against seeing an act as bad aside from its consequences? What about child abuse?

 

[Bahman]

“All differences are falsely imagined.” – Hui-neng.

rossum

That is not correct. I put it differently: all different things are equal in value in the deepest sense.

 

[rossum]

Anyway, are you saying there is something inherently in the Buddhist system and writings which is against seeing an act as bad aside from its consequences?

The act cannot be separated from its consequences; there is no Buddhist equivalent of the forgiveness of sins. All actions bring consequences, which may be good, neutral or bad.

What about child abuse?

That will generally fall under causing injury to a living thing or under sensual misconduct.

rossum

 

[annem]

Aloysium

The Christian perspective is that we participate in the creation ourselves within the larger cosmos.
If there is a cycle of rebirth, there is someone being reborn into this world, within a framework, a structure of the universe in which Karma would exist.

Hello Aloysium.

I am perplexed by this comment. How do you combine “a cycle of rebirth” with Christianity? And how do you imagine Christians “participate” in creation?

God bless, Annem

 

[annem]

rossum

The act cannot be separated from its consequences; there is no Buddhist equivalent of the forgiveness of sins. All actions bring consequences, which may be good, neutral or bad.

So you judge yourself ready for the utter extinction of nirvana, or not. You also judge when you have been wrong, or not. This makes it sound as if you believe yourself to be a god.

God bless Annem

 

[rossum]

So you judge yourself ready for the utter extinction of nirvana, or not.

No. Nobody ‘judges’; you appear to be thinking along Abrahamic lines here. Does gravity “judge” whether something is to fall or not? All I can do is to choose my actions. Once I have done that, then I have to deal with the consequences: good, neutral or bad. There is no judging going on. Only actions and consequences. The Buddhist world-view ignores all gods – they are merely fellow being suffering until they attain nirvana. It is an error to assume that there is an omnimax God behind the scenes. There isn’t.

rossum