Buddhism v. Thomism

[Pope_Noah_I]

I was on a Buddhist forum, e-Sangha, and I inquired Buddhists on what they thought of St. Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of God. This is what I got.

1. There can’t be an infinite series of movers"

Unsubstantiated and thus incoherent.

“2. There can’t be an infinite series of causes”

Unsubstantiated and thus incoherent.

“3. Not everything is contingent. What is not contingent is God.”

Nirvana is not contingent, nirvana is not conditioned. Nirvana is not a being, not God.

“4. There is a greatest, this is God”

Greatness is adduced only in contrast, and within a subject/object dichotomy. Fundamental to the proposition is dependency, which Buddhism treats consistently, and Aquinas does not.

“5. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by intelligence. The designer is God”

Presumption of universal purpose or teleological end. No beginning, no end.

Buddhists believe in Karma, which I understand to be the process of cause and effect. Buddhists also acknowledge existence and being, albeit in a very existentalist manner. Buddhists, however, reject the existence of Brahman.

Karma is also empty.

So, if everything has a cause, because nothing exists independently of Karma, than what is the primary cause of karma, surely it is not an intrinsic characteristic of existence itself?

Ignorance permits the accumulation of karma. Karma is more than an intrinsic characteristic of “existence itself” - the appearances of existence arise specifically within consciousness that depends upon karma.

How can there not be an un-caused cause which put into effect everything that is?

[snapback]957111[/snapback]​

Time and “becoming” are also products of incidental causes, and are ignorances exacerbated by secondary causes.

So, I would like to debate them further. Can anyone help me refute these arguments?

 

[Cajetan]

Look into Book One (“God”) of the Summa contra Gentiles, where St. Thomas briefly outlines Aristotle’s very strong arguments for the impossibility of an infinite series of movers/causes.

From Chapter 13 (“Arguments in Proof of the Existence of God”):

Argument 1:

"[12] The first is as follows [VII, 1]. If among movers and things moved we proceed to infinity, all these infinite beings must be bodies. For whatever is moved is divisible and a body, as is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. But every body that moves some thing moved is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all these infinites are moved together while one of them is moved. But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all those infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is impossible. It is, therefore, impossible that among movers and things moved one can proceed to infinity.

“[13] Furthermore, that it is impossible for the abovementioned infinites to be moved in a finite time Aristotle proves as follows. The mover and the thing moved must exist simultaneously. This Aristotle proves by induction in the various species of motion. But bodies cannot be simultaneous except through continuity or contiguity. Now, since, as has been proved, all the aforementioned movers and. things moved are bodies, they must constitute by continuity or contiguity a sort of single mobile. In this way, one infinite is moved in a finite time. This is impossible, as is proved in the Physics [VII, 1].”

Argument 2:

“[14] The second argument proving the same conclusion is the following. In an ordered series of movers and things moved (this is a series in which one is moved by another according to an order), it is necessarily the fact that, when the first mover is removed or ceases to move, no other mover will move or be moved. For the first mover is the cause of motion for all the others. But, if there are movers and things moved following an order to infinity, there will be no first mover, but all would be as intermediate movers. Therefore, none of the others will be able to be moved, and thus nothing in the world will be moved.”

Argument 3:

“[15] The third proof comes to the same conclusion, except that, by beginning with the superior, it has a reversed order. It is as follows. That which moves as an instrumental cause cannot move unless there be a principal moving cause. But, if we proceed to infinity among movers and things moved, all movers will be as instrumental causes, because they will be moved movers and there will be nothing as a principal mover. Therefore, nothing will be moved.”

 

[Pete_1]

“3. Not everything is contingent. What is not contingent is God.”

Nirvana is not contingent, nirvana is not conditioned. Nirvana is not a being, not God.

Unsubstantiated and thus incoherent.

 

[Pope_Noah_I]

Alright, before I want to debate them, I want to make sure I absolutely understand the material.

Look into Book One (“God”) of the Summa contra Gentiles, where St. Thomas briefly outlines Aristotle’s very strong arguments for the impossibility of an infinite series of movers/causes.

From Chapter 13 (“Arguments in Proof of the Existence of God”):

Argument 1:

"[12] The first is as follows [VII, 1]. If among movers and things moved we proceed to infinity, all these infinite beings must be bodies. For whatever is moved is divisible and a body, as is proved in the Physics [VI, 4]. But every body that moves some thing moved is itself moved while moving it. Therefore, all these infinites are moved together while one of them is moved. But one of them, being finite, is moved in a finite time. Therefore, all those infinites are moved in a finite time. This, however, is impossible. It is, therefore, impossible that among movers and things moved one can proceed to infinity.

I’m not quite understanding the part about one existing in finite time.

“[13] Furthermore, that it is impossible for the abovementioned infinites to be moved in a finite time Aristotle proves as follows. The mover and the thing moved must exist simultaneously. This Aristotle proves by induction in the various species of motion. But bodies cannot be simultaneous except through continuity or contiguity. Now, since, as has been proved, all the aforementioned movers and. things moved are bodies, they must constitute by continuity or contiguity a sort of single mobile. In this way, one infinite is moved in a finite time. This is impossible, as is proved in the Physics [VII, 1].”

I’m not getting the significance of existing in continuity.

Argument 2:

“[14] The second argument proving the same conclusion is the following. In an ordered series of movers and things moved (this is a series in which one is moved by another according to an order), it is necessarily the fact that, when the first mover is removed or ceases to move, no other mover will move or be moved. For the first mover is the cause of motion for all the others. But, if there are movers and things moved following an order to infinity, there will be no first mover, but all would be as intermediate movers. Therefore, none of the others will be able to be moved, and thus nothing in the world will be moved.”

I understand this. Without a first, there would be no following movements.

Argument 3:

“[15] The third proof comes to the same conclusion, except that, by beginning with the superior, it has a reversed order. It is as follows. That which moves as an instrumental cause cannot move unless there be a principal moving cause. But, if we proceed to infinity among movers and things moved, all movers will be as instrumental causes, because they will be moved movers and there will be nothing as a principal mover. Therefore, nothing will be moved.”

I understand this as well.

 

[Howl]

No disrespect, but it sounds to me like you got your questions answered by a fortune cookie Buddhist. That is a huge problem with Buddhism - it is rather ‘cool’ so a whole legion of young people are being exposed to its teachings. Problem is, reading one or two books does not a Buddhist make…

**1. There can’t be an infinite series of movers

Unsubstantiated and thus incoherent.**

A student asked the Master, “When does time begin?”
The Master answered, “At that tree.”

Buddhism is, at its heart, a study of mindfulness. We meditate so that we can learn to become mindful of the present moment. Eternity lies in the space between two thoughts - your last thought and your next thought.

In order for movement to exist, there must be stillness. In order for matter to exist, there must be space. The existence of something implies the existence of nothing which means that nothing is as much something as something. The concepts are interrelated and dependent upon each other!

**2. There can’t be an infinite series of causes

Unsubstantiated and thus incoherent.**

If you believe in the big bang theory, you have to believe that there was a point before causation started. Problem is, our primate brains aren’t strong enough to carry this argument to its end point. In order to argue this point, you have to have some grasp on what surrounded the singularity in the seconds right before the massive explosion.

Physics argues that the number of causes approaches a limit of infinity, but they still get stuck at the penultimate moment between singularity and big bang universe. They can’t agree on what caused the explosion.

Therefore, it is incoherent, but it is incoherent in both directions.

**3. Not everything is contingent. What is not contingent is God."

Nirvana is not contingent, nirvana is not conditioned. Nirvana is not a being, not God.**

In Buddhism, the third noble truth implies that nirvana exists and that each of us can attain it. Nirvana is the state of letting go - the state of no longer clinging to desires. Since the second noble truth posits that suffering comes from craving, it follows that when you extinguish craving, you enter a point in which there is no suffering. If you use logic, it would follow that nirvana can only exist if craving exists.

So now it gets into a debate about semantics. If nirvana is the state of no craving, it follows that nirvana could be contingent upon the existence of craving. And while Buddhism does not have the idea of a personal God, you could argue that what Jesus called the Kingdom of God is actually the state of nirvana.

If the person you are debating with refutes you here, he/she has demonstrated great attachment to his/her own beliefs. Therefore, he/she is stuck in a state of delusion and of craving. In other words, this is a case of the blind leading the blind…

**4. There is a greatest, this is God"

Greatness is adduced only in contrast, and within a subject/object dichotomy. Fundamental to the proposition is dependency, which Buddhism treats consistently, and Aquinas does not.**

I think you’re dealing with a Theravada Buddhist. Theravada Buddhists are great people, but they tend to focus too much attention on the limited number of ‘accepted’ sutras. In other words, they often appear close-minded…

A Mahayana Buddhist would likely smile at the assertion that there is a greatest who bestows greatness upon all the other great things. He/she would then remind you that greatness exists on a continuum - that what is really great to someone is really awful to someone else. I’ll illustrate this with a simplistic example…

There are two people, Bob and Joe. Bob loves salmon. Joe hates salmon. Bob thinks salmon is great. Aquinas would argue that Bob thinks salmon is great because God bestowed the quality of greatness upon salmon. Why doesn’t Joe think salmon is great? If God bestowed the quality of greatness upon salmon for Bob, why didn’t God bestow that quality evenly so that Joe could recognize the greatness?

This opens up a great logical gulf and, in Buddhism, if an assertion can’t be defended through logic, it is discarded. Aquinas had a very strong belief in good and bad as totally distinct entities. Buddhists don’t see the world in such black and white terms - we focus upon suchness…

**5. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by intelligence. The designer is God"

Presumption of universal purpose or teleological end. No beginning, no end.**

And again, you’re likely dealing with a Theravada Buddhist. Logically, there must be a beginning, but mindfulness implies that we don’t focus upon the beginning or the end, only the moment.

---

To conclude, the jewel is in the lotus. Wisdom and practice are inseparable and dependent upon each other. We practice Buddhist methods to prepare our mind for wisdom, and we acquire wisdom so that our practice has direction. Through practice, you will see that the world is not nearly as black and white as your debate partner believes.

My personal belief is that you should refrain from conducting this debate any further. You are dealing with someone who has done some reading, but little real practice. Out of compassion, leave this poor soul alone.

The Lord Buddha was non-committal about the existence of a God. Anyone who says that Buddhism is ‘atheist’ has never studied or practiced Buddhism. When pressed on the existence of a God, Siddhartha said that our place is not to understand God, but to alleviate suffering. There is a non-born, there is a first cause, there is something else there, but our minds aren’t strong enough to grasp it. Since we can’t, by definition, understand God, it makes more sense to figure out how to save/improve lives…

 

[Swan]

No disrespect, but it sounds to me like you got your questions answered by a fortune cookie Buddhist. That is a huge problem with Buddhism - it is rather ‘cool’ so a whole legion of young people are being exposed to its teachings. Problem is, reading one or two books does not a Buddhist make…

**1. There can’t be an infinite series of movers

Unsubstantiated and thus incoherent.**

A student asked the Master, “When does time begin?”
The Master answered, “At that tree.”

Buddhism is, at its heart, a study of mindfulness. We meditate so that we can learn to become mindful of the present moment. Eternity lies in the space between two thoughts - your last thought and your next thought.

In order for movement to exist, there must be stillness. In order for matter to exist, there must be space. The existence of something implies the existence of nothing which means that nothing is as much something as something. The concepts are interrelated and dependent upon each other!

**2. There can’t be an infinite series of causes

Unsubstantiated and thus incoherent.**

If you believe in the big bang theory, you have to believe that there was a point before causation started. Problem is, our primate brains aren’t strong enough to carry this argument to its end point. In order to argue this point, you have to have some grasp on what surrounded the singularity in the seconds right before the massive explosion.

Physics argues that the number of causes approaches a limit of infinity, but they still get stuck at the penultimate moment between singularity and big bang universe. They can’t agree on what caused the explosion.

Therefore, it is incoherent, but it is incoherent in both directions.

**3. Not everything is contingent. What is not contingent is God."

Nirvana is not contingent, nirvana is not conditioned. Nirvana is not a being, not God.**

In Buddhism, the third noble truth implies that nirvana exists and that each of us can attain it. Nirvana is the state of letting go - the state of no longer clinging to desires. Since the second noble truth posits that suffering comes from craving, it follows that when you extinguish craving, you enter a point in which there is no suffering. If you use logic, it would follow that nirvana can only exist if craving exists.

So now it gets into a debate about semantics. If nirvana is the state of no craving, it follows that nirvana could be contingent upon the existence of craving. And while Buddhism does not have the idea of a personal God, you could argue that what Jesus called the Kingdom of God is actually the state of nirvana.

If the person you are debating with refutes you here, he/she has demonstrated great attachment to his/her own beliefs. Therefore, he/she is stuck in a state of delusion and of craving. In other words, this is a case of the blind leading the blind…

**4. There is a greatest, this is God"

Greatness is adduced only in contrast, and within a subject/object dichotomy. Fundamental to the proposition is dependency, which Buddhism treats consistently, and Aquinas does not.**

I think you’re dealing with a Theravada Buddhist. Theravada Buddhists are great people, but they tend to focus too much attention on the limited number of ‘accepted’ sutras. In other words, they often appear close-minded…

A Mahayana Buddhist would likely smile at the assertion that there is a greatest who bestows greatness upon all the other great things. He/she would then remind you that greatness exists on a continuum - that what is really great to someone is really awful to someone else. I’ll illustrate this with a simplistic example…

There are two people, Bob and Joe. Bob loves salmon. Joe hates salmon. Bob thinks salmon is great. Aquinas would argue that Bob thinks salmon is great because God bestowed the quality of greatness upon salmon. Why doesn’t Joe think salmon is great? If God bestowed the quality of greatness upon salmon for Bob, why didn’t God bestow that quality evenly so that Joe could recognize the greatness?

This opens up a great logical gulf and, in Buddhism, if an assertion can’t be defended through logic, it is discarded. Aquinas had a very strong belief in good and bad as totally distinct entities. Buddhists don’t see the world in such black and white terms - we focus upon suchness…

**5. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by intelligence. The designer is God"

Presumption of universal purpose or teleological end. No beginning, no end.**

And again, you’re likely dealing with a Theravada Buddhist. Logically, there must be a beginning, but mindfulness implies that we don’t focus upon the beginning or the end, only the moment.

---

To conclude, the jewel is in the lotus. Wisdom and practice are inseparable and dependent upon each other. We practice Buddhist methods to prepare our mind for wisdom, and we acquire wisdom so that our practice has direction. Through practice, you will see that the world is not nearly as black and white as your debate partner believes.

My personal belief is that you should refrain from conducting this debate any further. You are dealing with someone who has done some reading, but little real practice. Out of compassion, leave this poor soul alone.

The Lord Buddha was non-committal about the existence of a God. Anyone who says that Buddhism is ‘atheist’ has never studied or practiced Buddhism. When pressed on the existence of a God, Siddhartha said that our place is not to understand God, but to alleviate suffering. There is a non-born, there is a first cause, there is something else there, but our minds aren’t strong enough to grasp it. Since we can’t, by definition, understand God, it makes more sense to figure out how to save/improve lives…

Thank you so much for taking the time and having the patience to post this info. I’ve been looking into Buddhism but have only scraped the surface. I knew there was a problem with this thread but had no idea how to address it. I find your info very useful from a personal point of view. I have a friend who is involved in a very committed and intense study of Buddhism but have not have the opportunity to really discuss it with her as of yet. Again, thank you.

 

[SedesDomi]

Pope, I saw your post at that Buddhist site, and thought that your main interest of comparing Thomism to Buddhism to be of some importance. However, there are many Buddhist schools, with different emphases, and thus there would be many different Buddhist responses to Thomism, some rather dismissive and some rather engaging.

A few thoughts, from this one’s perspective (who also happens to be Buddhist).

I was on a Buddhist forum, e-Sangha, and I inquired Buddhists on what they thought of St. Thomas Aquinas’ five proofs of God. This is what I got.

Before you can talk about God, you have to define God, or demonstrate how Thomism defines God.

1. There can’t be an infinite series of movers"

Unsubstantiated and thus incoherent.

“2. There can’t be an infinite series of causes”

Unsubstantiated and thus incoherent.

Buddhism is not based on whether there are an infinite series of either movers or causes. The said, however, the Buddha did say that the beginning of existence “cannot be seen”. I take that to mean that the beginning of existence can neither be described as having a unitary beginning nor having an infinite series of movers/causes. Thus, the beginning of existence is impossible to accurately describe in one way or another. So, in fact, the Buddha would agree that there can’t be an infinite series of movers/causes into the past, because “infinite series” fails to capture the true mystery of existence.

“3. Not everything is contingent. What is not contingent is God.”

Nirvana is not contingent, nirvana is not conditioned. Nirvana is not a being, not God.

“4. There is a greatest, this is God”

Greatness is adduced only in contrast, and within a subject/object dichotomy. Fundamental to the proposition is dependency, which Buddhism treats consistently, and Aquinas does not.

“5. Whatever acts for an end must be directed by intelligence. The designer is God”

It’s true that nirvana (or nibbana) does not depend upon causes. If “that which is not dependent upon causes” is how Thomism defines “God”, then the equivalence of God and nibbana would be true. That is, God would be nibbana.

“Great” is an unclear term. Great in what sense? Life-span? Size? Wisdom? Goodness? Evil?

It’s not clear that “whatever acts for an end must be directed by intelligence” because “intelligence” is not defined. Do you mean a human-like intelligence? An infinite intelligence? How many intelligences are there? Do they all work together? Or is there one big boss intelligence?

 

[Greg27]

Personally these statements don’t constitute a refutation of St Thomas’s careful arguments. To refute Thomas, they would have to show where he is wrong, and why.

 

[Genesis315]

I would ask them to better define what Nirvana is. I always understood it as a state of existence (and therefore it is a state of existence of contingent beings). Is that state of being not contingent on how the being lived in his previous state?

If one asserts a non-contingent being, they are asserting a belief in God (even if they do not use the word “God”) since the existence of such a being is necessitated by its essence. Since there cannot be multiple non-contingent beings and since in this case essence necessitates existence, if one describes that essence, one is describing God (that transcendant being in which we all live, move, receive and have our own being).

In regards to contrast, that’s the whole point. There must be a fixed standard. And for that standard to be fixed it must non-contigent: God.

 

[Alopen]

I have a number of friends on E-sangha, and i just want to make this statement.

I would strongly urge you to reconsider this line of action - namely because you haven’t made clear just what type of Buddhism your debating (or the point of this debate for that matter).

The disparity between Theravada and Mahayana is quite considerable - and once we start going into individual Mahayana sects the conception and importance placed on concepts like Nirvana, Reincarantion, etc. grow even larger.

The other problem is you’ll have to contend, at least within the Mahayana, with 2 Schools of Philosophy, the Madyamika and Yogacara. The former is the “Co-dependent arising” viewpoint and the other is the “Mind Only” viewpoint.