Christian Mindfulness & Emptiness

[Fran65]

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. **

Excellent point.

 

[rossum]

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 only need that knowledge until I have reached the destination. Once I have reached the end of the path the map, and my knowledge of its reliability, is no longer needed.

The problem is that under Buddhist epistemology, there is no way we can know whether Buddhism leads to those good things.

We can know by trying it. We can never know by sitting in a room looking at the map and speculating whether or not the map is reliable. We can see if the map is reliable by putting our boots on and walking the path that the map shows. Jesus advised the same method: “By their fruits shall you know them.”

I ask you how you know that reason is reliable now.

I can observe my reason working now and I can observe that its results are generally good. Observation is not reason. I cannot observe any of the universals you claim to base your epistemology on. You want me to abandon something I can observe for something I cannot observe. That is not reasonable.

I say the rosary daily and attend daily mass.

Excellent. You may wish to consider adding the Jesus Prayer to that.

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

If there is no time when it did not exist then it is eternal. The start you talk about would have been in a different dimension, so the vocabulary of time would not be appropriate in that dimension.

There is a huge distinction between human labels and functions rooted in the universal.

Yes, universals do not exist; all reification is incorrect. Human labels do exist at a conventional level.

However, all of this does nothing to change the logical integrity of a self-existent God that all other things are contingent on.

We are back to the dependence of the creator on the created again. If something is self-existent then it can never change and hence cannot act in the way that you claim God acts. Action requires change, and change requires impermanence. Nothing that is self existent can be impermanent.

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?

“By their fruits…” We can observe what has worked in the past, and continues to work in the present. It is reasonable to continue to use the same methods.

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

Yes, observation is one of the sources of knowledge in Buddhist epistemology.

Is this a true statement?

Yes. It is not a statement about nirvana, it is a statement about statements about nirvana. All X are false, where X is ‘statements about nirvana’.

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

Yes. If you are using words then the words you use will inevitably fall short of the reality you are attempting to describe. Nirvana can only be experienced, not described. Can any description of the taste of an orange ever be the taste of an orange?

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?

I made a statement about all living beings; I did not make a statement about nirvana. And before you ask, that statement is indeed temporary as well. Notice the “will attain” in there. Once all have attained the statement is no longer true because there are no more living beings left outside nirvana to do any attaining.

rossum

 

[Fran65]

rossum,

You have stated that *everything is temporary *- a basic buddhist teaching.

You then state that all will attain nirvana, all will reach the end. That is a universal and something that you implicitly claim as always true whilst there are living beings.

You contradict yourself and have lost this argument.

I know that what will then be claimed is that ‘one must walk the path’ and that with advanced and diligent buddhist practice all will become clear and there will be no contradiction.

Perhaps you propose this as a Zen koan??

Sarpedon, I commend you for your tenacity, your clarity and your success.

 

[James_S_Saint]

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.

Just a quick note;

You cannot, cannot, take any parts from God. There are no “parts” to take.

And the difference between pure Buddhism and pure Jesusism is the difference between pure Peace and pure Harmony. One is eternal something, the other is temporary nothingness.

 

[Xuan]

Although most of this thread probably wasn’t what the OP had in mind, I’ve really enjoyed it. It’s like watching two people discuss a subject, each in a different language, and each not fully comprehending the language of the other. It results in sometimes talking past the other, but in general it has been very informative. I’ve gained some insight into both perspectives, and I appreciate it.

Xuan

 

[rossum]

You have stated that *everything is temporary *- a basic buddhist teaching.

Correct:“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

You then state that all will attain nirvana, all will reach the end. That is a universal and something that you implicitly claim as always true whilst there are living beings.

Correct. It is only true while there are living beings. Once there are no more living beings then it is no longer true. It is a temporary, contingent statement dependent on the existence of living beings.

Perhaps you propose this as a Zen koan??

The Master Tozan was weighing some flax. A monk came up to him in
the storeroom and said, “Tell me, what is Buddha?”

Tozan answered, “Here: five pounds of flax.”

rossum

 

[rossum]

You cannot, cannot, take any parts from God. There are no “parts” to take.

If God has no parts then God cannot change.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Although most of this thread probably wasn’t what the OP had in mind, I’ve really enjoyed it. It’s like watching two people discuss a subject, each in a different language, and each not fully comprehending the language of the other. It results in sometimes talking past the other, but in general it has been very informative. I’ve gained some insight into both perspectives, and I appreciate it.

Thank you. I am aware that we are sometimes talking across one another; we tend to make different assumptions about the world. As you say, the discussion is worthwhile in itself. My thanks also to Sarpedon, without whom this would not have come out the way that it has.
Q. Why will two neighbours never agree?

A. Because they are arguing form different premises.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

I can observe my reason working now and I can observe that its results are generally good. Observation is not reason. I cannot observe any of the universals you claim to base your epistemology on. You want me to abandon something I can observe for something I cannot observe. That is not reasonable.

Epistemology concerns knowing in general, not just abstract knowledge. Abstract knowledge involves the use of our intellectual abilities. The perception of sensory data involves the use of our intellectual abilities as well. Observation is just as much a part of the “model” as anything else. You cannot point to something within a model to justify the truth of the model, right?

Here’s a thought. You have told me that we percieve a “mental model” of the world, and therefore we are ignorant of its true nature. Your propose Buddhism as the way to see through the inaccuracies of our mental models and know the true state of things. As evidence for this, you point to generally good effects of Buddhism. However, your knowledge of these good effects is gained through use of your mind, which means that your knowledge of these good things is within the model. Since the model is not necessarily correct, then your percieved “good effects” of Buddhism are not necessarily correct either.

How do you reach outside the mental model and verify Buddhism? Pointing to generically good effects gained through observation (which goes through the mind) is actually appealing to the model.

We are back to the dependence of the creator on the created again. If something is self-existent then it can never change and hence cannot act in the way that you claim God acts. Action requires change, and change requires impermanence. Nothing that is self existent can be impermanent.

Action does not require physical motion, only will. Humans will in linear time, but God wills all things that He does will eternally, which means there is no change. The will of God appears to us in time, but from His perspective, the will is eternal and unchanging.

“By their fruits…” We can observe what has worked in the past, and continues to work in the present. It is reasonable to continue to use the same methods.

Under Buddhism, we observe fruits in our mental model, which is not necessarily correct. A central goal of Buddhism is to correct our mental model. It is not convincing to justify Buddhism using a parts of a mental model as evidence, especially when you proclaim such models are illusory beforehand.

Yes. It is not a statement about nirvana, it is a statement about statements about nirvana. All X are false, where X is ‘statements about nirvana’.

So can you say with certainty that nothing correct can be stated about Nirvana? Is that always true? What does this mean in terms of permanence?

 

[Sarpedon]

Indeed, I would like to thank you Rossum for this interesting discussion! It’s gone all over the place but I have enjoyed every bit and I appreciate your perspective. Thanks to everyone else too.

 

[James_S_Saint]

If God has no parts then God cannot change.

rossum

Exactly. God DOES NOT change. In fact, God IS the consistency within Reality.

 

[rossum]

You cannot point to something within a model to justify the truth of the model, right?

Are you denying the validity of all axiomatic systems such as logic or mathematics? If you have a definition of ‘truth’ then that definition is only valid where the definition applies. I do not accept a reified TRUTH; my sig applies.

How do you reach outside the mental model and verify Buddhism?

If you wish to verify the correctness of the Buddhist path then you have to follow that path:

1. *]Avoid evil: Follow the Ten Commandments.
   *]Do good: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
   *]Meditate: try the Jesus Prayer.
   
   To avoid all evil,
   to cultivate good,
   and to cleanse one’s mind -
   this is the teaching of the Buddhas.
   
   Dhammapada 14:5
   You cannot verify the correctness of a map by sitting in a room looking at the map. You have to go out and do a survey of the actual territory to verify the map.
   

   Action does not require physical motion, only will.

   I said change, not motion. The will must change from “I will create at some time in the future” to “I will create now”. That change from potential creator to actual creator is a change that may not require motion.
   

   Humans will in linear time, but God wills all things that He does will eternally, which means there is no change. The will of God appears to us in time, but from His perspective, the will is eternal and unchanging.

   If God’s will acts differently at different points in time then that will is changing by any reasonable definition. If God is unchanging then you are separating God from God’s will.
   

   Under Buddhism, we observe fruits in our mental model, which is not necessarily correct. A central goal of Buddhism is to correct our mental model. It is not convincing to justify Buddhism using a parts of a mental model as evidence, especially when you proclaim such models are illusory beforehand.

   Since all that we have is our mental model we have perforce to work with it. By gradually refining our attitude to it, firstly eliminating gross errors and them more subtle errors we can approach the goal. We know that enlightenment is possible because the Buddha did it and many others since him.
   

   So can you say with certainty that nothing correct can be stated about Nirvana? Is that always true? What does this mean in terms of permanence?

   Anything that we state is stated in terms of our model. Since we have not attained nirvana, our model does not contain a correct experience of nirvana. If nirvana is described as “bliss”, we will match that description to our previous experiences of bliss. None of those experiences of bliss are nirvana so our mental model will not accurately reflect nirvana. It is possible that two people who had both attained nirvana could talk accurately about it, though I am not certain about that. One of the less inaccurate descriptions of nirvana was given by Vimalakirti in answer to a question from Manjushri:Then the Bodhisattva Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, “We have all given our teachings, noble sir. Now, may you elucidate the teaching of the the entrance into the principle of nonduality.”
   
   Thereupon Vimalakirti kept his silence, saying nothing at all.
   
   The Bodhisattva Manjushri applauded Vimalakirti: “Excellent! Excellent, noble sir! This is indeed the entrance into the nonduality of the Bodhisattvas.”
   • Vimalakirtinirdesa sutra, Chapter 9
   rossum

 

[rossum]

Exactly. God DOES NOT change. In fact, God IS the consistency within Reality.

“On the first day God said ‘Let there be light.’ On the second day God said ‘Let there be light.’ On the third day God said ‘Let there be light.’ On the fourth day …”

There are many problems with an unchanging God.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

Are you denying the validity of all axiomatic systems such as logic or mathematics? If you have a definition of ‘truth’ then that definition is only valid where the definition applies. I do not accept a reified TRUTH; my sig applies.

I’m not, but that’s the implications of your philosophy. I am talking about Buddhist epistemology in my posts, not Catholic epistemology. If you say that everything is transient then you are eliminiting any potential to know what is true at any single point. If reason is temporary, you still need to point to something that confirms that reason is in fact valid at this particular point. As I’ll address in a minute, pointing to things within the mental model as proof is not consistent with the Buddhist view that the mental model is illusory or can be illusory.

If you wish to verify the correctness of the Buddhist path then you have to follow that path:

1. *]Avoid evil: Follow the Ten Commandments.
   *]Do good: “Love your neighbour as yourself.”
   *]Meditate: try the Jesus Prayer.

1. 
   

   To avoid all evil,
   to cultivate good,
   and to cleanse one’s mind -
   this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

   Dhammapada 14:5
   You cannot verify the correctness of a map by sitting in a room looking at the map. You have to go out and do a survey of the actual territory to verify the map.

   But the “actual territory” is part of the mental model of reality that the Buddhist tries to escape. None of the things you mention escape the mental model. Good works are percieved through the mind. Meditation is percieved through the mind. All of these things are within the mental model of reality. Buddhism says that the mental model is illusory and seeks to escape the false mental model. Because of this, you cannot point to experiences within the mental model as evidence for Buddhism. If the mental model is illusory as Buddhism says, then the mental model is illusory. If the only justification for Buddhism is in the mental model, then the justification for Buddhism is illusory as well.
   

   I said change, not motion. The will must change from “I will create at some time in the future” to “I will create now”. That change from potential creator to actual creator is a change that may not require motion.

   But God does not experience that change. All of his will is eternally copresent with Him. God doesn’t start something and then stop something and change accordingly. Rather, He loves and that timeless love is manifested to us as actions within time. This is part of the problem with a deistic God. It is problematic to speak of God creating the universe and then abandoning it, for God is not in linear time and His will to create does not pass out of being.
   

   If God’s will acts differently at different points in time then that will is changing by any reasonable definition. If God is unchanging then you are separating God from God’s will.

   The will is exactly the same, but the physical effects of that will appear in time. The effects are very different from the will itself.
   

   Since all that we have is our mental model we have perforce to work with it. By gradually refining our attitude to it, firstly eliminating gross errors and them more subtle errors we can approach the goal. We know that enlightenment is possible because the Buddha did it and many others since him.

   You know the Buddha did it based on observation and study of Buddhist techniques, and since that goes through your brain and is part of the mental model, your knowledge of Buddha’s achievement is in fact illusory if your mental model is illusory.
   
   How do we eliminate gross errors? Through Buddhism? That sounds okay, but where is the evidence that Buddhism actually corrects gross errors? So far you have only pointed to pragmatic “good effects” that we percieve here. Our knowledge of such good effects is entirely part of our mental model. If Buddhism is correct in stating that our mental model is illusory, and the evidence for Buddhism is part of our mental model, then the evidence for Buddhism is illusory as well. Therefore, I have no reason to assume that Buddhism will help me eliminate gross errors.
   

   Anything that we state is stated in terms of our model. Since we have not attained nirvana, our model does not contain a correct experience of nirvana.

   It is not a given that Nirvana is possible. What evidence do you have that Nirvana is possible? Whatever you provide, it is going to be based on some thought or observation of yours. Therefore, it is part of your mental model, and Buddhism says that the mental model is illusory. Therefore, your evidence for the possibility of Nirvana is illusory as well.

 

[rossum]

I’m not, but that’s the implications of your philosophy. I am talking about Buddhist epistemology in my posts, not Catholic epistemology.

Buddhist epistemology is an epistemology with a purpose - does this method help me move along the path to nirvana? It is shown correct by progress along the path and by eventual arrival at the destination. It is not an attempt to get at KNOWLEDGE or TRUTH or any other reified object.

If you say that everything is transient then you are eliminiting any potential to know what is true at any single point.

I disagree. President Obama is transient, yet we can know that he is currently President of the United States. Transience does not destroy the possibility of knowing truth.

If reason is temporary, you still need to point to something that confirms that reason is in fact valid at this particular point.

Does reason help move us along the path to nirvana? I have found that it does, so I will use it.

But the “actual territory” is part of the mental model of reality that the Buddhist tries to escape.

We do not attempt to escape the mental model, we merely try to correct and improve it. Nirvana is not something after death, it is something during life. I have quoted Nagarjuna before: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.
Samsara is just another name for our mental model. The Buddha spent 45 years in nirvana while at the same time wandering North India. How could nirvana be different from samsara?

Buddhism says that the mental model is illusory and seeks to escape the false mental model.

The model is not illusory, it is in part deceptive. We seek to replace a bad model with a better model. We are comparing one model with another in practical terms. “Will this model get me to nirvana?”

If the mental model is illusory as Buddhism says, then the mental model is illusory.

We can improve the accuracy of our model using Buddhist techniques, and similar techniques from other religions.

But God does not experience that change.

If something is unchanging then that thing is the same for all possible values of time. X(T1) = X(T2) for all times T1, T2. If something is changing then there are different values of time at which the equality does not hold. X(T1) =/= X(T2).

If I pick T1 as day one of creation then God says “Let there be light”. If I pick T2 as day four then God says “Let there be sun, moon and stars.” Hence X(day one) =/= X(day four) for some X. We have established that X changes. If God does not change then that X is not God.

God doesn’t start something and then stop something and change accordingly.

So what did God not start in 4 BCE? If God is acting within history, then God must stop and start things because things in history stop and start. History is a record of change; if God is acting in history then He is also changing.

His will to create does not pass out of being.

There is not one will but three: “I will create in the future”, “I am creating now”, “I created in the past.” This is standard Buddhist analysis of anything changing, and one which you came up with earlier in our discussion. A cinema film may look like continuous motion, but it is actually a series of still photographs. The appearance of continuous motion is an artefact of our senses.

The will is exactly the same, but the physical effects of that will appear in time. The effects are very different from the will itself.

How can an unchanging will generate changing effects? An unchanging cause acts like a machine gun with infinite ammunition. It cannot change so it continually produces the effect - as with my “Let there be light” example. An unchanging cause produces an unchanging effect. Because the cause is always present so the effect is also always present.

You know the Buddha did it based on observation and study of Buddhist techniques, and since that goes through your brain and is part of the mental model, your knowledge of Buddha’s achievement is in fact illusory if your mental model is illusory.

Not illusory, deceptive. I have faith that I have eliminated enough of the deception to see the next steps on the path. My faith is confirmed by the progress I have made so far, and it is replaced by the knowledge that certain techniques do indeed deliver the proposed results. At the start of the path there is a lot of faith and very little knowledge. At the end of the path there is only knowledge.

How do we eliminate gross errors? Through Buddhism?

And through many other religions. For you I suggested practices from Christianity; other religions have similar practices.

Therefore, I have no reason to assume that Buddhism will help me eliminate gross errors.

Then don’t, use Christian techniques instead; they will work just as well at the early stages.

It is not a given that Nirvana is possible.

I am following a map giving me a path up a mountain. I am still low on the mountain, walking in mist. I have passed a few early landmarks as marked on the map. The path is trending upwards, as I would expect. Sometimes the mist thins a little and I can see something looming ahead, very much like I would expect a mountain peak to look like when seen through mist. I have enough to encourage me to continue.

If you stay at the base of the mountain talking about the map then you will never get anywhere.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

Buddhist epistemology is an epistemology with a purpose - does this method help me move along the path to nirvana? It is shown correct by progress along the path and by eventual arrival at the destination. It is not an attempt to get at KNOWLEDGE or TRUTH or any other reified object.

How do you know that you are progressing along the path if you lack knowledge of the path? How will you know that you eventually arrive at the destination without knowledge of your arrival?

The model is not illusory, it is in part deceptive. We seek to replace a bad model with a better model. We are comparing one model with another in practical terms. “Will this model get me to nirvana?”

In order to do that, we need to do two things. First is to establish Nirvana as a real destination, and second to establish that Buddhism is working toward it. This cannot be done without knowledge and the use of the mind. I can ask “will this model get me to Sesame Street?” That’s not enough. I need to know whether Sesame Street is an actual destination I can and should reach. This necessitates reason. Using reason, I discredit Sesame Street and do not spend my life searching for it. We need reason to know whether Nirvana is real or not. The problem is that when everything is transient, reason is not always reliable. In addition we lack a way to know whether reason is reliable at the present moment when we need it to be.

You say that you know Obama is president. That’s not exactly what I’m asking. Yes, you “know” Obama is president based on your reason (which includes observation). I ask how you know that reason is reliable in the first place. You say that reason is reliable right now (when you make the statement about Obama) because reason has “good effects.” The problem is that your knowledge of such good effects is mediated through your mental model, which does not answer whether your mental model is correct in the first place.

We can improve the accuracy of our model using Buddhist techniques, and similar techniques from other religions.

Both the practice of Buddhist techniques and the observed result of those techniques lie firmly in the mental model. If the mental model is in part deceptive, how do you know that the “positive effects” of Buddhist techniques are not in fact deceptive?

Not illusory, deceptive. I have faith that I have eliminated enough of the deception to see the next steps on the path. My faith is confirmed by the progress I have made so far, and it is replaced by the knowledge that certain techniques do indeed deliver the proposed results. At the start of the path there is a lot of faith and very little knowledge. At the end of the path there is only knowledge.

Why did you say “It is not an attempt to get at KNOWLEDGE or TRUTH or any other reified object”?

Your progress is observed, and therefore part of your mental model. You are using your mental model to correct your mental model. This is why Buddhist epistemology doesn’t work. Buddhism is a pragmatic philosophy. Pragmatism is rooted in experience, and experience is rooted in our perception of the world through our mental model. You still haven’t shown how we can break out of the deceptive model and verify Buddhism. So far, all your evidence for Buddhism is potentially deceptive based on your own philosophy.

You say that we percieve evidence for Buddhism. You also say that our perception is potentially deceptive. You propose Buddhism as the means to eliminate these deceptions. Your evidence for Buddhism is percieved, and therefore the evidence may be deceptive. By your own standard I should not trust the “positive effects” of Buddhism simply because they could very easily be part of my deceptive mental model. This is the crux of the matter.

I am following a map giving me a path up a mountain. I am still low on the mountain, walking in mist. I have passed a few early landmarks as marked on the map. The path is trending upwards, as I would expect. Sometimes the mist thins a little and I can see something looming ahead, very much like I would expect a mountain peak to look like when seen through mist. I have enough to encourage me to continue.

Landmarks are percieved by the mind. Clear lines of sight are percieved by the mind. Buddhism says that our mental model can be deceptive. On what basis do you determine whether these landmarks you mention are deceptive or not? On what basis do you determine whether the “good effects” of Buddhism are deceptive or not?

 

[Sarpedon]

If something is unchanging then that thing is the same for all possible values of time. X(T1) = X(T2) for all times T1, T2. If something is changing then there are different values of time at which the equality does not hold. X(T1) =/= X(T2).

If I pick T1 as day one of creation then God says “Let there be light”. If I pick T2 as day four then God says “Let there be sun, moon and stars.” Hence X(day one) =/= X(day four) for some X. We have established that X changes. If God does not change then that X is not God.

This is a false analogy because time is created by God and contingent on Him. God is not unchanging through time. God is unchanging in the absence of time.

So what did God not start in 4 BCE? If God is acting within history, then God must stop and start things because things in history stop and start. History is a record of change; if God is acting in history then He is also changing.

God does not act within history. God wills timelessly, and that will appears to human beings as events within time. The Bible is written from the human perspective, not divine.

In regards to Jesus, His human body began, but His divine nature did not. We observed a changing human body and human nature of Jesus, but His divine nature was the same as always and part of the timeless totality that transcends time and everything else.

There is not one will but three: “I will create in the future”, “I am creating now”, “I created in the past.” This is standard Buddhist analysis of anything changing, and one which you came up with earlier in our discussion. A cinema film may look like continuous motion, but it is actually a series of still photographs. The appearance of continuous motion is an artefact of our senses.

God does not exist in linear time. God created time. This can be difficult to visualize but you can’t claim that God has to change because we observe things in time. By definition, God transcends time, and therefore He is not affected by time. God is not unchanging within time. God doesn’t sit still while other things happen. God is unchanging in the absence of time, where He is timeless, total, and complete, with no potential for increase or decrease of perfection.

How can an unchanging will generate changing effects? An unchanging cause acts like a machine gun with infinite ammunition. It cannot change so it continually produces the effect - as with my “Let there be light” example. An unchanging cause produces an unchanging effect. Because the cause is always present so the effect is also always present.

God could singularly and timeless will “let the machine gun fire for 5 rounds” That has a concrete result within created time, but since God is outside of time and upholds time, his will does not cease.

 

[rossum]

How do you know that you are progressing along the path if you lack knowledge of the path? How will you know that you eventually arrive at the destination without knowledge of your arrival?

Have you ever been to Vienna? I have never been there. I know how to get there from maps that I trust and from talking to people that I trust who have been there. When I get there I will recognise it from the pictures I have seen of it. Are you saying that I can never ever go anywhere I have not already been?

First is to establish Nirvana as a real destination, and second to establish that Buddhism is working toward it.

People have been getting to nirvana ever since the time of the Buddha, and they are still doing so.

You say that you know Obama is president. That’s not exactly what I’m asking. Yes, you “know” Obama is president based on your reason (which includes observation).

I have never observed President Obama. I have observed various news media, which I trust not to get facts like that wrong.

Both the practice of Buddhist techniques and the observed result of those techniques lie firmly in the mental model. If the mental model is in part deceptive, how do you know that the “positive effects” of Buddhist techniques are not in fact deceptive?

Perhaps an illustration of an incorrect mental model will help. When I was young I was very badly frightened by a large dog. Ever since then my mental image of dogs has contained an element of fear. In terms of the Five Aggregates, my eye (rupa) perceives (samjña) a dog which my impulses (samskara) overlay with the memory of that fear. That fear gives rise to unpleasant feelings (vedana) which impacts my consciousness (vijñana). I am aware of this so I can discount the feeling of fear and ignore it as much as possible. If I were not aware of it then my mental model of dogs would continue to be incorrect. Similar techniques can be used to improve all our mental models.

Your progress is observed, and therefore part of your mental model.

What other sources of knowledge do you propose? I verify Buddhism one step at a time. There are many options in Buddhism, some of which I have tried and which did not work for me so I do not use those techniques.

On what basis do you determine whether these landmarks you mention are deceptive or not? On what basis do you determine whether the “good effects” of Buddhism are deceptive or not?

Pragmatically. “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

This is a false analogy because time is created by God and contingent on Him. God is not unchanging through time. God is unchanging in the absence of time.

How do you know that God created time? Without time you cannot tell whether God existed before time or time existed before God - you cannot determine “before” without time. Any act of causation, including creation, is dependent on time to separate the prior cause/creator from the subsequent effect/created.

God wills timelessly, and that will appears to human beings as events within time.

Then the will is changing and is not God. X(T1) =/= X(T2) must mean change.

In regards to Jesus, His human body began, but His divine nature did not. We observed a changing human body and human nature of Jesus, but His divine nature was the same as always and part of the timeless totality that transcends time and everything else.

Then Jesus did not die, because death is a change. I thought that the special thing about the death of Jesus was that it was not just a mere human dying but that it was God dying. There are many mere human deaths and even a few mere human resurrections described in the Bible, but they did not have the impact of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Are you saying that these were not changes?

God created time.

You cannot have creation without time, as I pointed out. The act of creation is dependent on time to give us a before and an after.

God is unchanging in the absence of time, where He is timeless, total, and complete, with no potential for increase or decrease of perfection.

How do you define “unchanging” in the absence of time? Any use of the word ‘change’ requires the existence of time to define it. As I explicitly show with the X(T1) notation, any definition of change requires the existence of time.

God could singularly and timeless will “let the machine gun fire for 5 rounds” That has a concrete result within created time, but since God is outside of time and upholds time, his will does not cease.

To continue the analogy, someone has to pull the trigger at the start time and release the trigger at a later time. The pulling and releasing of the trigger are changes within time. If God is unchanging then God cannot both pull and release the trigger. At most an unchanging God could either always pull the trigger or always release the trigger - He could not do both. Any action within time requires something that changes. If God cannot change then that something cannot be God. If that something is God then God changes.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

How do you know that God created time? Without time you cannot tell whether God existed before time or time existed before God - you cannot determine “before” without time. Any act of causation, including creation, is dependent on time to separate the prior cause/creator from the subsequent effect/created.

A foundational element of Catholicism is the belief that our mental faculties are capable of correctly reasoning about the true nature of things. Using reason, we can conclude that God, as the most perfect being, cannot be under time. See newadvent.org/cathen/06612a.htm

“Now we assert that God is infinitely perfect in the sense explained, and that His infinity is deducible from His self-existence. For a self-existent being, if limited at all, could be limited only by itself; to be limited by another would imply causal dependence on that other, which the very notion of self-existence excludes. But the self-existing cannot be conceived as limiting itself, in the sense of curtailing its perfection of being, without ceasing to be self-existing.”

Then the will is changing and is not God. X(T1) =/= X(T2) must mean change.

The effects of the will are coming into being and passing out of being within time, but the will itself is not changing. There is a difference between movement from potentiality to actuality and the will that timelessly orders such movement to happen within time.

Then Jesus did not die, because death is a change. I thought that the special thing about the death of Jesus was that it was not just a mere human dying but that it was God dying. There are many mere human deaths and even a few mere human resurrections described in the Bible, but they did not have the impact of Jesus’ death and resurrection. Are you saying that these were not changes?

Jesus’ human nature died, but His divine nature did not change. A big part of the reason God took on a human nature was to make things easier for us to understand. Timeless existence is very abstract, but we have the example of Jesus as a practical day-to-day guide that is easier to understand.

You cannot have creation without time, as I pointed out. The act of creation is dependent on time to give us a before and an after.

There is a difference between act and will. God willing creation does not mean thatHhe changes from potentiality to actuality along with the product of His will. The movement of His creation from potentiality to actuality is eternally predicated because His will is eternal, but it is eternally predicated to change within time.

How do you define “unchanging” in the absence of time? Any use of the word ‘change’ requires the existence of time to define it. As I explicitly show with the X(T1) notation, any definition of change requires the existence of time.

“Unchanging” is actually in reference to the human experience of time. A more accurate description is self-existent, but “unchanging” is conventionally used to denote aspects about that self existent in less abstract terms. I notice that you place a lot of stock in words. Just because a human term does not perfectly capture something does not mean that the concept behind the word is incorrect. The reason the link I provided is so complicated and so long is to protect against false understandings caused by the limitations of language. Each term needs to be fleshed out with many other terms to form a better description, and that adds length to the consideration.

To continue the analogy, someone has to pull the trigger at the start time and release the trigger at a later time. The pulling and releasing of the trigger are changes within time. If God is unchanging then God cannot both pull and release the trigger. At most an unchanging God could either always pull the trigger or always release the trigger - He could not do both. Any action within time requires something that changes. If God cannot change then that something cannot be God. If that something is God then God changes.

God does not pull and release the trigger in the sense you are thinking of it. God wills things eternally, and they are willed to appear in time. Time is present to God in totality and things come and pass in time based on the timeless will of God.

For example, I can will for my whole life that I will attend college at a certain time. That will does not change, but the effects of the will pass in and out of being- I am not always at college. This is not a perfect analogy because I am within time, but it’s still an approximation.

It’s difficult to fully address a subject as complex as this in the context of a message board. The link I provided explains the Catholic concept of God’s nature and His attributes in great detail. A prequisite to understanding why Catholics view God as outside of time and why He can will timelessly is to understand what God is by essence. The link explains this in depth.

 

[Sarpedon]

Have you ever been to Vienna? I have never been there. I know how to get there from maps that I trust and from talking to people that I trust who have been there. When I get there I will recognise it from the pictures I have seen of it. Are you saying that I can never ever go anywhere I have not already been?

I read about Vienna in books. I see pictures online. I hear people talk about it. In other words, I have a mental model of Vienna. Catholics argue that our mental model corresponds to reality. As a Catholic, I can know about the truth of Vienna precisely because I have a mental model of it. In Buddhism our mental model can be illusory. This means that all my knowledge of Vienna can be illusory as well. Furthermore, Buddhism lacks a way to reach outside the mental model because the only justification for the validity of Buddhism is within the model too.

People have been getting to nirvana ever since the time of the Buddha, and they are still doing so.

People within your mental model have been getting to Nirvana ever since the Buddha. On what basis can you say that this knowledge is not illusory?

Perhaps an illustration of an incorrect mental model will help. When I was young I was very badly frightened by a large dog. Ever since then my mental image of dogs has contained an element of fear. In terms of the Five Aggregates, my eye (rupa) perceives (samjña) a dog which my impulses (samskara) overlay with the memory of that fear. That fear gives rise to unpleasant feelings (vedana) which impacts my consciousness (vijñana). I am aware of this so I can discount the feeling of fear and ignore it as much as possible. If I were not aware of it then my mental model of dogs would continue to be incorrect. Similar techniques can be used to improve all our mental models.

In other words, you have a baseline that all other things are compared too. In reality, dogs are not scary, so you had an incorrect mental model of it.

Catholics do the exact same thing. Because we assert that reason leads to truth, we can use reason to strip away our false mental models and know things as they really are. We can use reason to conclude that dogs are not scary, and adjust our mental understanding of dogs accordingly. Because we have the permanent, unchanging universal of reason, we can use reason as a baseline to inform our understanding of reality.

In contrast, Buddhism views everything as potentially transient. Reason is likewise potentially transient, and we have no way to know for the present moment whether it is true or not. Because of this we cannot know what the baseline is and thus we cannot correct our mental model of the dog.

In reference to what do you say that your previous mental model of the dog was incorrect?

What other sources of knowledge do you propose? I verify Buddhism one step at a time. There are many options in Buddhism, some of which I have tried and which did not work for me so I do not use those techniques.

I propose reason. You use reason too, but your philosophy undercuts it.

Pragmatically. “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

Let’s start from the beginning. My mental model of reality is very clouded. Many things that I percieve are illusory and false. You mention “good results, goodness, and wisdom” as evidence that Buddhism will help clear my mind. Since my mind is still clouded, on what basis should I think that my mental perception of these “good effects” of Buddhism is not illusory?

This is the crux of the matter. Your propose a system where our mental models are incorrect and we lack a way to know in what ways they are incorrect. You propose Buddhism as a way to correct the mental model. When asked for evidence, you point to things within the mental model, such as “good effects.” Since my mental model is partly incorrect, and I as of yet lack a way to determine which parts are corect and which parts on incorrect, why should I trust that my mental perception of Buddhism’s good effects are in the correct part?

How do I know that the positive effects of Buddhism are not false or illusory? I am not asking how I can know that Buddhism is true. I am asking how I can know that the my perception of the evidence for Buddhism is true when an unknown degree of my perception is false.