Christian Mindfulness & Emptiness

[rossum]

You say that languages change over time. Is it possible for the underlying structure of the universe, in terms of its logical laws, to change over time? Is it possible to, say, have a shape that has both 3 and 4 sides simultaneously in some other time? You probably won’t answer this while saying it is “useless” speculation.

If we define ‘triangle’ as a shape with three sides, then by definition it cannot have four sides. If we define ‘triangle’ to mean a shape with either three or four sides then a triangle can have four sides.

The structure of the universe can change over time. Currently we have four fundamental forces: gravity, electromagnetic, weak and strong. At high enough temperatures/energies these forces start to merge - for example the electromagnetic and weak forces merge to form the electroweak force at 100 GeV, about 10[sup]15[/sup]K. At the instant of the Big Bang temperatures were high enough for all four forces to be unified.

How do you that cause and effect itself as a rational description of phenomana, is true and that it transcends and unites the time fragments I mentioned in my experiment?

By observation. If I throw a rock up into the air I can observe that it will later fall to earth. Buddhism is a practical religion. I quoted the Kalama sutta where the Buddha said to try things and see for ourselves that they work. Cause and effect obviously work in nearly all practical cases so that is the way I go. I am aware that there are some quantum phenomena that are outside cause and effect, such as radioactive decay, but they do not have any practical impact.

Aside from “human” reason, is reason itself temporary? Can you have a shape in any circumstances that simultaneously has three and four sides, without reference to humanity at all?

If you are talking about reason by a non-human living being then that living being, and its species, will also be temporary. I am not aware of any form of reason that exists in isolation from any form of living being.

On what basis then, do you say that Maitreya Buddha will appear in the future? That future event is not now, and if your knowledge only works for now, how can you have knowledge about what will happen in the not now?

On the basis of my trust in the Buddhist scriptures. All that I have been able to test so far has been correct. I have a reasonable expectation, though not a certainty, that other things in those scriptures will happen. Given that the Buddha attained enlightenment on his own, it is not impossible that at some time in the future another man will also attain enlightenment on his own. What has been done once can obviously be done a second time.

Cause and effect, as rational phenomana, only answer this question if cause and effect transcend time. Otherwise they are just as much hampered by the temporary nature of things as anything else.

Cause and effect are contingent on time. We require that the cause precede the effect. In the absence of time we cannot tell which one precedes the other so we cannot distinguish between cause and effect.

In relation to the end of spiritual growth, they were holy images. In relation to the end of material survival, they were firewood. Their nature was predicated on their relationship to their ends.

Excellent. They have no intrinsic ‘essence’, any attempt to define their essence is contingent of what they are being related to.

What is the end of spiritual growth?

Nirvana.

What is the end of material survival?

Death.

Keep tracing these converging lines back and back until they all reach the same place- the final universal, which is the Form of the Good, the final end, and the final explanation.

There is no ‘final universal’ because there is not first universal. You have failed to show that the lines converge at all - maybe they diverge? Maybe they are parallel and never meet?

What I put a person in your example rather than statues/firewood? Would the same idea apply?

A person may at the same time be a grandchild, a child, a wife and a mother. Which of these is her ‘essence’. As with the firewood/statue there is no essence, how she is seen is contingent on what she is seen in relation to.

Indeed, science is not Buddhism. Science operates on the propositions I list as universals. Such things must be universals for science to operate. Buddhism rejects universals, and thus science cannot operate under Buddhism.

I showed that they were not universals. Science operates perfectly well as long as those things hold; when those things cease to hold then science will not operate. Buddhism does not prevent them holding here and now so it does not prevent science working here and now.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

If we define ‘triangle’ as a shape with three sides, then by definition it cannot have four sides. If we define ‘triangle’ to mean a shape with either three or four sides then a triangle can have four sides.

I quoted the Kalama sutta where the Buddha said to try things and see for ourselves that they work. Cause and effect obviously work in nearly all practical cases so that is the way I go. I am aware that there are some quantum phenomena that are outside cause and effect, such as radioactive decay, but they do not have any practical impact.

You are basing all of this knowledge on reason and observation. On what basis do you trust reason and observation in the first place?

On the basis of my trust in the Buddhist scriptures. All that I have been able to test so far has been correct. I have a reasonable expectation, though not a certainty, that other things in those scriptures will happen. Given that the Buddha attained enlightenment on his own, it is not impossible that at some time in the future another man will also attain enlightenment on his own. What has been done once can obviously be done a second time.

Again, based on your reasoned study of Buddhism. On what basis do you trust your reason in the first place?

Cause and effect are contingent on time. We require that the cause precede the effect. In the absence of time we cannot tell which one precedes the other so we cannot distinguish between cause and effect.

Again, based on reason.

The key question is this- on what basis can you trust your reason in the here and now?

In Buddhism, everything is temporary. As such, on what basis can you say “my reason right now is reliable”?

Catholicism upholds reason itself as a universal. That is how I accept my rational faculties as legitimate. Since Buddhism lacks universals, it cannot say the same. With that in mind, on what basis can you trust your reason and observation right now? If reason is temporary, then it can be and not be. On what basis do you say that reason is in the “be” stage right now? If you use reason then you are engaging in circular reasoning.

Excellent. They have no intrinsic ‘essence’, any attempt to define their essence is contingent of what they are being related to.

All contingent natures are ultimately related to the source of contingency, which is not contingent. Since this source is unchanging, natures have an unchanging relationship to this unchanging end.

For example, man is created by the final end to love, which involves both rationality and action. This is our human end in relation to the final end. Since the final end does not change, the human relationship to the final end does not change either.

We can define the human essence as love through rationality and action, which is not changing simply because the created end of man is to love. We might change on our side, but then we would cease to be human. The essence of humanity is predicated on its relationship to its end, and end is fixed to the permanent final end.

There is no ‘final universal’ because there is not first universal. You have failed to show that the lines converge at all - maybe they diverge? Maybe they are parallel and never meet?

If the lines do not converge, then there is no ultimate purpose to anything, which is exactly what Buddhism says. This is the fundamental distinction between Buddhism and Christianity. Buddhism takes a nihilistic view of the world where there is no ultimate purpose to anything. In contrast, Christianity accepts a telos for man and therefore can work to achieve that end. The Christian has the hope of achieving the final end, while the Buddhist has no hope of achieving a final end.

I’m curious- is Nirvana permanent? If so, then it could easily be the final end of man. If it is not permanent, then there is no actual permanent release from suffering in Buddhism.

A person may at the same time be a grandchild, a child, a wife and a mother. Which of these is her ‘essence’. As with the firewood/statue there is no essence, how she is seen is contingent on what she is seen in relation to.

No, I mean is it possible for a man to be both fodder for a fire and an object of devotion?

Under your system, anything can be justified in relation to its end. If I have an end of eliminating the Jews, then the Jews are in truth an obstacle to my end. They have no inviolable nature to block that relationship.

In Catholicism, things likewise have a nature in relation to their ends. The difference is that all natures of things are defined relative to the final end, which is God Himself. While I may have the end of eliminating the Jews, the Jews have a human nature due to their relationship with the final end that I cannot overcome. My limited, human end cannot overcome the ultimate, final end, and therefore the Jews have a nature that I cannot compromise. Because Buddhism lacks any ultimate end to form natures on, anything can be viewed as anything. Buddhism lacks permanent, natural, and inviolable things to base morality, rights, and justice on.

I showed that they were not universals. Science operates perfectly well as long as those things hold; when those things cease to hold then science will not operate. Buddhism does not prevent them holding here and now so it does not prevent science working here and now.

Your knowledge of there here and now is predicated on your reason and observation. Again, if everything is temporary, then reason can be or not be at any point. On what basis do you say that reason is in the “be” stage at this current time? If reason does not always apply, how do you know it applies in the present?

 

[soma]

When people who are not experts on Buddhism say it lacks this or it is not that then it makes me think they are not even an expert in their own religion. I think people who are grounded in their religion will start to see the universal Truths in other religions.

 

[JDaniel]

There is more than one source of suffering; life may put us in situations where we have to choose between different forms of suffering. A parent may accept the suffering of burns in order to rescue their child and avoid the suffering of losing their child in a fire. Even a newborn baby will react badly to pain, so the avoidance of suffering is built into us before we can even speak.

Hello, Rossum. I have a problem with all of this. My problem is this: I have no sufferings. Really. Sure, I have minor aches and pains, which anyone my age will begin to get, but, they are not sufferings in the sense you seem to mean it. Should not the concept of “suffering” be a universal predecessor to the quest for nirvana?

In Buddhist philosophy birth is caused by a failure to attain enlightenment in your previous life. Since birth is caused by desire in that previous life, anything that happens in this life can be traced back to birth and the desire in the previous life.

For the Catholic, there is no such thing as “reincarnation.” God intends us to be totally new and separate beings - each and every time a new birth is accomplished. He can make as many of us as He wishes. Once we leave this globe, we go on to our ultimate end.

A Buddhist could never accept an unchanging God. The God described in the Bible does different things at different times, and so must be changing - change is difference in time.

A Catholic could never accept a changing God. For us, God does not actively create, or cause, as in time, simultaneously with us. He has already created and caused, thus, what we are presently experiencing has already occurred. God’s is not a work-in-progress (or process).

You can never step in the same river twice. It is not the same river and it is not the same you.

This is anthropomorphic. It has nothing to do with our God.

God Bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

The original desire, to marry, has disappeared. It has been replaced by the desire to continue and strengthen this particular marriage. Like everything else desire is impermanent and changing.

Not for the Christian. For us, if we are true Christians, we will never change our desire for the possession of the grace of the beatitudes, for example, that lead us to be with God. Thus, this is a desire that will not change when we accept our triune God.

You are correct that Buddhism rejects all concept of a permanent nature for anything. That does not mean that Buddhism rejects the concept of humanity, it is just that the Buddhist idea is changing and impermanent rather than the Platonic-style permanent and unchanging Ideal.

Thus, Buddhism rejects God.

To desire nothing is as bad as to desire something and leads to suffering as well. The four Buddhist virtues (brahmavihara) are love, compassion, sympathetic joy and detachment. This love is ideally detached from desire. When a Bodhisattva helps innumerable beings to enlightenment he has no attachment or desire for those beings because he can see no real beings to desire.

Thankfully, our God “sees” all of us. Thankfully, our God “attaches” us to Him.

Buddhists can appreciate beauty as much as anyone, witness the numbers of beautiful artworks produced by Buddhists. It is just that the appreciation should not include desire. It is not the beauty, transient though it is, that is a problem. It is the attachment to the beauty that is the problem. Because the beauty is transient then any attachment to it will result in suffering when the beauty is gone.

This, to me, is a mis-interpretation of what takes place in the Real World. To say that a person “suffers” when a thing of beauty, such as a loved one passes away, is to seriously misinterpret the purpose and temporality of “mourning.” Certainly, there are those who mourn beyond reason. But, we also know this behavior is a unique (psychological) illness to this or that unique human being.

We can all appreciate a beautiful sunset. If we desire the sunset to last forever then we will be disappointed when the sunset ends. Without that desire we can appreciate the sunset for its transient beauty and move forward without looking back once it is over.

We also understand this to be a pathological excess.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

In the very early days of the Catholic Church, before Constantine, slavery was allowed. Was the Church preaching morality or immorality? As with everything else, morality changes, slavery is just an obvious example.

You have a faulty concept of the early Church and slavery:

newadvent.org/cathen/14036a.htm

Nevertheless, morality perhaps doesn’t change so much as those that practice a morality change. Historically, it appears that though the Catholic Church opposed a great many injustices, it was impossible to change them instantly. Remember, the world, then, was made up of Jews/Christians and pagans. Remember also, that the pagans made up the majority of the placed citizenry.

Why do we need an unchanging reference point? All that we need is a currently valid reference point. I need a morality that will work for my lifetime. In a few thousand lifetimes I will need a morality that works for that lifetime. I do not require that the two moralities be identical. Remember, in that future lifetime I may not be human.

Because, God is God, and is unchanging - especially by some fanciful of whim.

Then the total assembly has changed. Remember there is no soul or core in Buddhism, just assemblies of parts. What we see as a “soul” is more correctly described as an emergent property of the assembly of parts, and has no existence separate from the assembly of parts.

Not much more than a “functional aggregate.”

Human nature is not permanent. After you die you may or may not have human nature. In millions of years it is possible that our entire species will be extinct. Of course human nature changes.

Of course it is, despite the TV/movie scripts that show human/alien bonding resulting in a new nature.

You are not an illusion and nor is you friend. The illusion is to mistake your mental models of yourself and your friend for the realities. You are real, but all you can know of reality is the electrical impulses coming down your sensory nerves into your brain. Your brain builds a model from those electrical impulses. That model is not reality, it is only a model of reality and in some aspects that model is incorrect. It is the model that is a deceptive illusion because we mistake it for the reality. It isn’t, it is only a model.

I strongly disagree. Except for certain, few nonsensicalness’s, humans, I believe, tend to have reached a consensus on what is overtly real. That is not a model.

Change happens, there is not a great deal we can do about it.

That is quite true of corporeal substances and beings.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

The Buddha did not condemn “desire”. He never said “desire causes suffering”. That is a misleading English translation. What he said was that “the origination of dukkha is tanha”.

Tanha is not “desire”. Tanha is a desperate thirsting and craving. It is this craving that causes us to feel dissatisfaction with life; or, to be more precise, it is this craving that is a result of feeling dissatisfaction.

Desire is “chanda”. Desire can be good, if applied in the right way. “Dhamma chanda” is the desire, the zeal, the effort to realize Truth, or Dhamma. We need Dhamma chanda if we want to start any type of spiritual practice at all, including the spiritual practice of raising a family. Siddhartha possessed Dhamma chanda, which caused him to forsake luxury and wealth in order to seek Truth. Most of us perhaps don’t have that level of Dhamma chanda, but we can do what we can, in terms of helping the poor, feeding the hungry, and looking critically at our own desires.

Dhamma chanda, or zeal and effort, is a basic part of Buddhism’s Noble Eightfold Path. Right Effort is the 6th part of the Path:

*"And what, monks, is right effort?

1. "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
2. "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the abandonment of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen.
3. "He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen.
4. “He generates desire, endeavors, activates persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen: This, monks, is called right effort.”*

Siddhartha:

Thank you. This makes much more sense to me. Also, makes it more in alignment with the Catholic rejoinder against excess.

jd

 

[rossum]

You are basing all of this knowledge on reason and observation. On what basis do you trust reason and observation in the first place?

I tried them and they work, at least they work often enough to be useful.

The key question is this- on what basis can you trust your reason in the here and now?

I have found that for me reason works pretty well.

In Buddhism, everything is temporary. As such, on what basis can you say “my reason right now is reliable”?

I do not claim that my reason is permanently reliable, indeed it cannot be because I am not permanent. It works for the moment. If it stops working then I will use something else.

All contingent natures are ultimately related to the source of contingency, which is not contingent.

We cannot have a “source of contingency” without also having some contingency. Any “source of X” it itself contingent on the existence of X. Hence any source of contingency is itself contingent. If there were no contingency then a “source of contingency” could not exist. This is similar to our previous discussion about a creator being contingent on the existence of creation.

The Christian has the hope of achieving the final end, while the Buddhist has no hope of achieving a final end.

You need to learn more about Buddhism:[The Buddha said:] There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.

• Udana 8.3

I’m curious- is Nirvana permanent? If so, then it could easily be the final end of man. If it is not permanent, then there is no actual permanent release from suffering in Buddhism.

All descriptions of nirvana are false, purely because they are only description and not the real thing. We cannot use contingent words to correctly describe nirvana. At best words are only fingers pointing to the moon, they can never be the moon. There is permanent release from suffering in Buddhism as the passage from the Udana shows.

A common mistake by non-Buddhists is to mistake nirvana for some sort of heaven that you get to after you die. That is incorrect. The Buddha attained nirvana at age 35 when he became enlightened. He died at age 80. For 45 years he wandered North India while at the same time being in nirvana.Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana.
Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.

Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

• Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

No, I mean is it possible for a man to be both fodder for a fire and an object of devotion?

We were discussing wooden statues; burning heretics is a different question. Joan of Arc was burned and is also honoured as a Saint. What is her inner nature, fuel or icon?

Under your system, anything can be justified in relation to its end.

There are wise ends and unwise ends. If you want suffering then by all means act unwisely. Karma will ensure that you get the results you wanted. Problems arise because people who do not want suffering act so as to draw suffering down on them.

Killing other human beings will result in your own suffering. You will generate a great deal of deleterious karma for yourself.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Hello, Rossum. I have a problem with all of this. My problem is this: I have no sufferings. Really. Sure, I have minor aches and pains, which anyone my age will begin to get, but, they are not sufferings in the sense you seem to mean it. Should not the concept of “suffering” be a universal predecessor to the quest for nirvana?

‘Suffering’ is the standard translation of the Sanskrit or Pali dukkha which covers a range from mild unhappiness to severe pain. The canonical definition is:“Now this, monks, is the Noble Truth of dukkha: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.”

— Samyutta Nikaya 56.11
The last of those, the five aggregates, I have mentioned before in my discussion with Sarpedon. They are the five constituent parts of a human being.

From the list of dukkha you must have at least birth, aging and the five aggregates. You will have death.

A Catholic could never accept a changing God. For us, God does not actively create, or cause, as in time, simultaneously with us. He has already created and caused, thus, what we are presently experiencing has already occurred. God’s is not a work-in-progress (or process).

Your argument places God both inside time and outside time. Standard Buddhist philosophical analysis immediately splits that into two separate entities: God-inside-time and God-outside-time. Only one of those two is unchanging.

This is anthropomorphic. It has nothing to do with our God.

Could Jesus step in the same River Jordan twice? Your God is anthropomorphic. If we are made in His image then He must also at least partly match our image - that is a reciprocal relationship. If A resembles B then B resembles A.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

I tried them and they work, at least they work often enough to be useful.

I have found that for me reason works pretty well.

Works well in relation to what? Achieving pleasure? Nirvana? Heaven? A pragmatic justification relies on an end that is sought.

In Buddhism, there are no set final ends. Therefore, ends can be effectively anything. If reason works in relation to those temporary ends, whatever they are, then reason can be effectively anything in relation to whatever end is upheld at that point. This then removes any claim to the superiority of reason and the ability of reason to mediate other questions.

I seek Jesus Christ. Will Buddhism prove effective in regards to that end? Will it “work” for me?

Now, if you say that Jesus isn’t real, or that such an end cannot be achieved, you are right back where you started- judging things in a framework of mediating logic and reason. If reason is justified in relation to its end, and anything can be an end, then on what basis do you say that some end, any end, is unreasonable?

We cannot have a “source of contingency” without also having some contingency. Any “source of X” it itself contingent on the existence of X. Hence any source of contingency is itself contingent. If there were no contingency then a “source of contingency” could not exist. This is similar to our previous discussion about a creator being contingent on the existence of creation.

“Contingency” is not a property or an attribute. It is a relationship between things.

Contingency is a human term that descrives dependency on something else. For example, I am contingent on my parents. My parents are not contingent on me. While the human label “parent” is indeed contingent on me, my “parents” are human beings do not depend on me for existence.

Of course, my parents are contingent on their parents, and so on. Tracing this line of contingency back we arrive at the source, which is not contingent on those lines. While it’s name as “source of contingency” does indeed presuppose contingency, such a name does not affect the underlying nature of the “source.”

God is self-sufficient, self-existent. He has the capacity to create, but He does not have to. When He did create, He created things that naturally need Him in the first place (i.e. a work of art presupposes an artist). Things are contingent on God, but God Himself does not presuppose the existence of any other thing and His existence does not presuppose the existence of a voluntary creation. While we attribute human language to Him as “source of contingency” and “creator” we should not mistake these terms for the nature they describe, just as we should not mistake the word “circle” for an O.

 

[Sarpedon]

You need to learn more about Buddhism:

[The Buddha said:] There is, bhikkhus, a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned. If, bhikkhus, there were no not-born, not-brought-to-being, not-made, not-conditioned, no escape would be discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned. But since there is a not-born, a not-brought-to-being, a not-made, a not-conditioned, therefore an escape is discerned from what is born, brought-to-being, made, conditioned.
​

So there is a realm of “nonbeing” which we can escape to based on knowledge gained through the realm of “being?” This is the same idea as Catholicism, but going in the opposite direction. A Catholic looks at the things of the world, the world of transient being, and uses this knowledge to approach the world of perfect being. I think you told me this was impossible to achieve. Are you saying we can go in the opposite direction and approach the realm of nonbeing based on knowledge gained through the world of being?

Does this quote describe a final end of Buddhism?

At best words are only fingers pointing to the moon, they can never be the moon. There is permanent release from suffering in Buddhism as the passage from the Udana shows.

So there is a “permanent” release from suffering? Is this something that cannot change? Why is that not a permanent universal?

We were discussing wooden statues; burning heretics is a different question. Joan of Arc was burned and is also honoured as a Saint. What is her inner nature, fuel or icon?

Respectfully, I was asking you. You say that the “nature” of things is predicated on their relationship to their ends. You used the example of a statue that is used for both the end (telos) of physical comfort (as firewood) and the end (telos) of spiritual growth (as a holy image).

So a statue can have two different natures in regard to what it is used as. My question now extends this to humanity. Suppose that I have an end which is eliminating the Jews. Suppose someone else has an end which is to study the Jews. Is the Jew an obstacle in relation to the end of eliminating the Jews, or is he a study subject in regards to the end of studying the Jews? Which is he?

If you are interested in my response to the question, I will give it here. A Jew can be a problematic obstacle to a Nazi who has the telos (end) of eliminating the Jews. A Jew can also be a study subject in regard to the telos of studying the Jews. Joan of Arc was fuel in regards to the telos of sustaining the fire, and she was an icon in relation to the telos of French nationalism.

All of these things are human ends which are temporary. As such, they all change with time and thus can give rise to all sorts of things. But here’s the big catch- both the Jew and Joan of Arc are human beings in relation to the final end. Since the final end does not change, the Jew and Joan of Arc never cease being human, even though their relationship to other limited ends changes over time. As such, they are permanently human in regards to the permanent final end.

Because Catholicism has a permanent final end, it can have permanent natures in relation to that permanent final end. That’s why the Catholic can speak of things like a universal human nature, a universal justice, and a universal moral order. It’s not because these natures exist in the objects themselves, but rather because all of these natures are rooted in relation to an end that does not change.

Can Buddhism provide a similar unchanging end to firmly root justice and the moral order in? Or is “morality” simply defined in relation to what you are trying to do, whether it be humanitarian aid or genocide? If a statue is both a holy image and firewood with nothing backing that up, what’s to stop a person from being both an obstacle to racial purity and a cherised individual?​

 

[Sarpedon]

There are wise ends and unwise ends. If you want suffering then by all means act unwisely. Karma will ensure that you get the results you wanted. Problems arise because people who do not want suffering act so as to draw suffering down on them.

Killing other human beings will result in your own suffering. You will generate a great deal of deleterious karma for yourself.

This is knowledge that you know through reason. Under your system reason is temporary, so it does not have to be now. You say it is now because it works for you in relation to some end. I suppose your end is a release from suffering. However, you can only know this end through your reason, which brings you right back to where you started.

 

[rossum]

Works well in relation to what?

In relation to other religions I have tried and to atheism.

In Buddhism, there are no set final ends.

Your ignorance of Buddhism is showing. You will not do well in this discussion if you are ignorant of Buddhism. In Buddhism all living beings will attain nirvana.

I seek Jesus Christ.

An excellent example to follow. Most Buddhists consider Him to have been a very high level Bodhisattva.

Will Buddhism prove effective in regards to that end? Will it “work” for me?

You will never know until you have tried it. The Buddha described his teachings as “come and see”, meaning that people should try it for themselves. There are many Buddhist practices that are compatible with Christianity, such as counting breaths.

“Contingency” is not a property or an attribute. It is a relationship between things.

Agreed. The underlying point is that anything that is contingent on something else cannot be an absolute, what you call a universal. It cannot stand alone but depends on something else.

Of course, my parents are contingent on their parents, and so on. Tracing this line of contingency back we arrive at the source, which is not contingent on those lines. While it’s name as “source of contingency” does indeed presuppose contingency, such a name does not affect the underlying nature of the “source.”

Let us call your proposed “source of contingency” Faarn. We have Faarn, and we have the property, that of being a source of contingency. Before we have any other objects we just have Faarn, with no attached property. After we have other objects we also have the attached property. Since Faarn and the property have different periods of existence they are two separate things. Faarn may be a universal, but the attached property is not a universal. Without the attached property then Faarn cannot be a source. Just as Pat Smith is not a parent from birth, it is something which is attached later in life. Faarn on its own cannot be a source, being a source also requires the thing that is sourced. A source of X requires some X.

God is self-sufficient, self-existent. He has the capacity to create, but He does not have to. When He did create, He created things that naturally need Him in the first place (i.e. a work of art presupposes an artist).

You say “When he did create”. As I said before any act of creation in time requires the existence of time - your use of “When” shows that explicitly. You cannot have a “When” without also having time.

Things are contingent on God, but God Himself does not presuppose the existence of any other thing and His existence does not presuppose the existence of a voluntary creation.

We can attach a lot of transient, contingent labels to God. You contend that after all the labels are removed there is an unchanging universal core left. I deny that.

Take a car. Is the steering wheel the car? No, so we can remove the steering wheel and still leave the car behind. Do the same with every part of the car. Is the back seat the car? etc. When we have removed all of the parts of the car, none of which are the car, what do we have left? Nothing. There is no absolute unchanging essence of car that is left behind once all the parts have been removed. The same with a human being and the five aggregates. The same with God.

So there is a realm of “nonbeing” which we can escape to based on knowledge gained through the realm of “being?”

No. Read what the Buddha said more carefully. Nowhere in that passage from the Udana does he mention nonbeing. Buddhism is the Middle Way between being and nonbeing. Reality may be deceptive but it is not nonbeing.

Does this quote describe a final end of Buddhism?

It shows us that there is an escape from suffering.

So there is a “permanent” release from suffering? Is this something that cannot change? Why is that not a permanent universal?

Nirvana is not permanent, it has to change. For there to be any hope of my attaining nirvana it has to change from its current state of nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum.

Since the final end does not change, the Jew and Joan of Arc never cease being human, even though their relationship to other limited ends changes over time. As such, they are permanently human in regards to the permanent final end.

Any human, whether Jewish or French, will have been non-human in previous lives and may well be non-human in future lives. There is no permanent humanity, it only lasts for however many lifetimes.

Can Buddhism provide a similar unchanging end to firmly root justice and the moral order in? Or is “morality” simply defined in relation to what you are trying to do, whether it be humanitarian aid or genocide?

Neither. Buddhist moral law is part of the universe, a bit like gravity. Since it is part of the universe it is impermanent. However, just as I cannot set my own law of gravity so I cannot set my own moral law. I need to learn the laws currently in operation and be aware of them as I act.

This is knowledge that you know through reason.

Through reason, observation and experience. Buddhism provides both a map showing a path. I have followed that map part way down the path and so far I have found that the map is accurate and I have found all the landmarks shown on the map. Why should I not trust the map? It has served me well so far.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

In relation to other religions I have tried and to atheism.

An excellent example to follow. Most Buddhists consider Him to have been a very high level Bodhisattva.

I seek the traditional western conception of Jesus. Will Buddhism “work” for me in this regard?

The point is that using a pragmatic justification for reason by saying that Buddhism “works” for you is irrelevant without knowing what you are working toward. Furthermore, your knowledge of what you are working toward is predicated on reason in the first place.

You say that reason is reliable because it “works.” How do you know that it “works”? Whatever you say, how do you know that? How do you know that the reasoning behind that “works”?

You will never know until you have tried it. The Buddha described his teachings as “come and see”, meaning that people should try it for themselves. There are many Buddhist practices that are compatible with Christianity, such as counting breaths.

If I count my breaths will I immedietely conclude that everything is temporary, that desire leads to suffering in the long run, that bodavisattas are real, and that Maitreya Buddha will appear in the future? Will it all be made clear to me?

Let us call your proposed “source of contingency” Faarn. We have Faarn, and we have the property, that of being a source of contingency. Before we have any other objects we just have Faarn, with no attached property. After we have other objects we also have the attached property. Since Faarn and the property have different periods of existence they are two separate things. Faarn may be a universal, but the attached property is not a universal. Without the attached property then Faarn cannot be a source. Just as Pat Smith is not a parent from birth, it is something which is attached later in life. Faarn on its own cannot be a source, being a source also requires the thing that is sourced. A source of X requires some X.

Exactly, but you are conflating language with nature. Most people call God the source of contingency because He creates the beings that have a contingent relationship to Him. Perhaps “root of contingency” would be a better term. In no way is the doctrine of Catholicism compromised here, however.

You say “When he did create”. As I said before any act of creation in time requires the existence of time - your use of “When” shows that explicitly. You cannot have a “When” without also having time.

That’s because I was using human language from the human perspective. We had a beginning and our contingency began then in relation to us, but that contingency was eternally present from God’s point of view, just as everything is eternally present to Him.

We can attach a lot of transient, contingent labels to God. You contend that after all the labels are removed there is an unchanging universal core left. I deny that.

Take a car. Is the steering wheel the car? No, so we can remove the steering wheel and still leave the car behind. Do the same with every part of the car. Is the back seat the car? etc. When we have removed all of the parts of the car, none of which are the car, what do we have left? Nothing. There is no absolute unchanging essence of car that is left behind once all the parts have been removed. The same with a human being and the five aggregates. The same with God.

A steering wheel is not a label.

Suppose we change the name of the wheel to “pedal.” Is the car no longer a car?

We attach labels to God, yes, and those labels are limited human terms to describe concepts. We revise and replace our language at times when necessary. At no point does this change the nature of God Himself.

 

[Sarpedon]

No. Read what the Buddha said more carefully. Nowhere in that passage from the Udana does he mention nonbeing. Buddhism is the Middle Way between being and nonbeing. Reality may be deceptive but it is not nonbeing.

Replace “nonbeing” with “deceptive being” in my original post, and then what? If there is a “middle way,” is it possible to use that middle way to approach a “far” or “near” way, place, state, whatever?

Neither. Buddhist moral law is part of the universe, a bit like gravity. Since it is part of the universe it is impermanent. However, just as I cannot set my own law of gravity so I cannot set my own moral law. I need to learn the laws currently in operation and be aware of them as I act.

Which brings us right back to temporary reason. How do you know that temporary reason is temporarily reliable right now? Because it “works.” How do you know that it works? Through observation and consideration, which are rational faculties. How do you know that those rational faculties are temporarily reliable? Because they work. It’s circular.

Through reason, observation and experience. Buddhism provides both a map showing a path. I have followed that map part way down the path and so far I have found that the map is accurate and I have found all the landmarks shown on the map. Why should I not trust the map? It has served me well so far.

A map is reliable in relation to the geographic world. A map is of no use without reference to the geographic world.

Things are known in relation to other things. Under Buddhism, everything is temporary. Theoretically speaking, if we knew temporary truths it would make sense to follow them for as long as they apply. The problem is that when reason is made temporary, it cannot be justified in terms of any known thing. It becomes totally dependent on other temporary things, and those things are temporary, and so on. The end result of this is that nothing becomes temporarily knowable because everything, including reason, is “known” in relation to an unknown.

So far you have not justified your reliance on reason to me. You say that it “works” but your knowldge of cause and effect and your observation of those effects are rooted in reason, which makes your argument circular. How do you break this circle? How do you know that reason “works” without using your reason?

 

[Sarpedon]

Nirvana is not permanent, it has to change. For there to be any hope of my attaining nirvana it has to change from its current state of nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum.

Your ignorance of Buddhism is showing. You will not do well in this discussion if you are ignorant of Buddhism. In Buddhism all living beings will attain nirvana.

Regardless of what Nirvana is with and without anyone, is it universally true that all living beings will attain nirvana? Is your statement a true statement?

The point is this- if everything is temporary, then there can be no permanent release from suffering.

Furthermore, if everything is temporary, then I can permanently state that everything is temporary.

 

[rossum]

I seek the traditional western conception of Jesus. Will Buddhism “work” for me in this regard?

The traditional conception of Jesus is as one third of the Abrahamic God. Buddhism will not help you in that regard.

The point is that using a pragmatic justification for reason by saying that Buddhism “works” for you is irrelevant without knowing what you are working toward.

The standard goals of Buddhism: peace, happiness and nirvana.

You say that reason is reliable because it “works.” How do you know that it “works”? Whatever you say, how do you know that? How do you know that the reasoning behind that “works”?

I can see that it works because I have tried it, and it has delivered what it has promised for the distance I have travelled on the path. As I said, it provided a map and the map has so far been reliable.

If I count my breaths will I immedietely conclude that everything is temporary, that desire leads to suffering in the long run, that bodavisattas are real, and that Maitreya Buddha will appear in the future? Will it all be made clear to me?

It took the Buddha six years from leaving home to attaining enlightenment; I suspect that it would take most other people longer than that. If you do not want to use Buddhist techniques then use a Christian meditation such as saying the Jesus Prayer. You will not make any progress just by talking about things; you have to actually meditate. Can you really not find fifteen or twenty minutes a day?

We had a beginning and our contingency began then in relation to us, but that contingency was eternally present from God’s point of view, just as everything is eternally present to Him.

If it is eternally present then it needs no source. It is only if something has a start that it needs a cause/source.

A steering wheel is not a label.

Yes it is. Go through each atom of the steering wheel, ask ‘Is this atom the steering wheel?’, if it is not the steering wheel then remove it. What is left after all the atoms have been removed is the ‘essence’ of the steering wheel. All compound objects are labels without essence.

We attach labels to God, yes, and those labels are limited human terms to describe concepts. We revise and replace our language at times when necessary. At no point does this change the nature of God Himself.

How can we know the nature of God without attaching labels which have referents in our own experience? If I say that the essential nature of God is tumboristid then I have not told you anything useful. We cannot sense the real world, only the model inside our heads. Since ‘tumboristid’ does not have any referent in your model then it conveys no information to you.

Replace “nonbeing” with “deceptive being” in my original post, and then what? If there is a “middle way,” is it possible to use that middle way to approach a “far” or “near” way, place, state, whatever?

When travelling to New York I should not go too far north or I will end up in Boston. I should not go too far south or I will end up in Washington. If I want to get to New York I have to follow a middle way between Washington and Boston. The Middle Way described by the Buddha gets you to nirvana.

Which brings us right back to temporary reason. How do you know that temporary reason is temporarily reliable right now? Because it “works.” How do you know that it works? Through observation and consideration, which are rational faculties. How do you know that those rational faculties are temporarily reliable? Because they work. It’s circular.

Observation is not reason, it is observation. An animal that is incapable of reason can observe things.

A map is reliable in relation to the geographic world. A map is of no use without reference to the geographic world.

The Buddhist map of the spiritual path has references to the spiritual world. For example:Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it . He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

• Zen is Boring.
  Both those experiences are marked on the map, which is why Nishijima Sensei was able to recognise them. The first is deceptive, the second not.

Things are known in relation to other things. Under Buddhism, everything is temporary.

Everything is dependent on something else in an ongoing flux of cause and effect. We just have to navigate as best we can through the flux. You are looking for fixity and certainty where there is neither fixity nor certainty to be found. That is a path to suffering.

How do you break this circle? How do you know that reason “works” without using your reason?

I can observe that I have attained the initial goals of Buddhism, as promised. Observation is not reason.

Is your statement a true statement?

All statements about nirvana are false.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

The standard goals of Buddhism: peace, happiness and nirvana.

I can see that it works because I have tried it, and it has delivered what it has promised for the distance I have travelled on the path. As I said, it provided a map and the map has so far been reliable.

The problem is that your knowledge of its “reliability” is just that- knowledge. As such, it is temporary under your system. Since reason is temporarily true, this destroys any assurance you have that Buddhism is actually leading you where you think it is going.

I don’t think you understand what I am saying here. I am not saying that temporary knowledge in of itself is worthless. Obviously, if we knew that Buddhism lead to good things in most cases, then it would make sense to follow it for the time being. The problem is that under Buddhist epistemology, there is no way we can know whether Buddhism leads to those good things. That’s the problem, for Buddhism undercuts itself.

Buddhism does this because it says that everything is transient. If everything is transient, then everything can be or not be at any specific time. For example, I could be human at one point but could also not be human at that point.

Now, extend this line of thought to reason. Under Buddhism, reason could either be or not be at any specific point. At X point, reason could be, but it could also not be. Our task is to determine which it is for any given time. It is important to note that observation is part of reason. I use reason to refer to intellectual consideration in general, whether interpreting signals or evaluating them.

I ask you how you know that reason is reliable now. If reason be can either reliable or not reliable, how do we know that it is reliable now? You point to “good effects.” The problem with this is that your knowledge of both effect and what constitutes a good effect is based on reason, which does not answer the question of whether reason is reliable now. You can’t point to the product of your reason to justify your reliance on reason. Therefore, under Buddhism, we have no way to trust our rational faculties and thus have no way to evaluate whether Buddhism actually leads to good things.

It took the Buddha six years from leaving home to attaining enlightenment; I suspect that it would take most other people longer than that. If you do not want to use Buddhist techniques then use a Christian meditation such as saying the Jesus Prayer. You will not make any progress just by talking about things; you have to actually meditate. Can you really not find fifteen or twenty minutes a day?

I say the rosary daily and attend daily mass. Catholic prayer is totally different than Buddhist spirituality. Catholic prayer is about establishing a relationship, which entails will, communication, and desire in the final teleology. These things are simply not compatible with the teleology of Buddhism.

 

[Sarpedon]

If it is eternally present then it needs no source. It is only if something has a start that it needs a cause/source.

It has a start, but that start is not in linear time.

Yes it is. Go through each atom of the steering wheel, ask ‘Is this atom the steering wheel?’, if it is not the steering wheel then remove it. What is left after all the atoms have been removed is the ‘essence’ of the steering wheel. All compound objects are labels without essence.

There is a huge distinction between human labels and functions rooted in the universal. The essence of a steering wheel is determined in relation to its function, and you could call it a label. However, this label is rooted in the universal of God which does not change, thus lending a permanent nature to the essence of the steering wheel. In contrast, the human word “steering wheel” is irrelevant to the nature of the “steering wheel” in relation to its function. We could change the name to “pedal” and the essence would be exactly the same. Essence is rooted in function, not composition.

How can we know the nature of God without attaching labels which have referents in our own experience? If I say that the essential nature of God is tumboristid then I have not told you anything useful. We cannot sense the real world, only the model inside our heads. Since ‘tumboristid’ does not have any referent in your model then it conveys no information to you.

Of course, it is very useful to use language to describe God. There is no problem with that. The original problem was that you took issue with the phrase “source of contingency.” I explained my meaning by explaining the concept behind that. I grant you that “root of contingency” is probably a better term, and I will make a point to use it in the future. However, all of this does nothing to change the logical integrity of a self-existent God that all other things are contingent on.

When travelling to New York I should not go too far north or I will end up in Boston. I should not go too far south or I will end up in Washington. If I want to get to New York I have to follow a middle way between Washington and Boston. The Middle Way described by the Buddha gets you to nirvana.

How do I know this? Through reasoned observation of its effects? How do I know that my reason and observation are reliable? Because I observe good things? How do I know that that observation is reliable? What is the Buddhist response to this?

I can observe that I have attained the initial goals of Buddhism, as promised. Observation is not reason.

Observation involves using the mental capacities of the brain to process data. Therefore, it falls under epistemology and is affected by Buddhist epistemology

 

[Sarpedon]

All statements about nirvana are false.

Is this a true statement?

Are you saying it is impossible for me to make a true statement about Nirvana?​

Furthermore, you said:

“In Buddhism all living beings will attain nirvana”

I said:
"Is your statement a true statement? "

Then you said:
“All statements about nirvana are false”

If all statements about Nirvana are false, why did you tell me something false?