Can there be a child without a parent? No, the child depends on the parent to exist. Can there be a parent without a child? No, if there is no child then there can be no parent so the parent also depends on the child to exist. Parent and child are mutually codependent. Neither can exist without the other.
I would count mind as one part of reality, not separate from it. Did you mean mind and materiality?
Do not confuse “empty” with nothingness. The real that we sense is real, but only conventionally, dependently contingently real. There is no underlying layer of “real reality” underneath it. That supposed underlying layer is a pure mental construct only found inside our heads.
What they teach in the Vajrayanna I am familiar with everything is some form of mind. Not quite sure on that one. Substance is not only Thomist but Aristotle too. I’ve always been taught there is ultimate reality that is empty and yes that doesn’t necessary mean void everything. And there is each of our own realities based on Karma. The chair neither exists, doesn’t exist, is not both or neither. But “empty” of inherent existence. What is inherent existence. When the child dies the “parent” is no longer a parent that is what you’re saying right? In order to exist one must’ve been non-existent and both the existent and the non-existent are in suffering. So God gives us the gift of existence. Right?
Correct. Anything with inherent existence cannot change, and since everything changes…
Existence which is solely dependent on itself. It needs nothing else to exist, requiring no external causes. It is neither contingent nor dependent.
The description “parent” is not inherent in the person. Its presence is caused and hence contingent on external factors. The designation “parent” does not have inherent existence, but only changeable contingent existence.
Not in Buddhism, human existence is not a gift but an imposition of suffering. We do not get it from God, but from ourselves in our previous lives.
This is one of the Catholic definitions of God.
Indeed. Buddhists deny the existence of any inherently existent entity, since everything changes and any inherently existent entity cannot change.
The Big Bang originated the material STEM universe. It did not originate the immaterial universe of the heavens hells, kinnaras, devas, asuras and all the rest. You are using too narrow a definiton of “universe”. For philosophical discussion it is better to use the more general definition of “all that exists”.
Not for Buddhists. Atheists seem mostly to replace an uncreated God of unknown origin with an uncreated Multiverse of unknown origin, which solves the problem for them.
The saying is derived from a modern commentary on Nagarjuna by Mark Siderits:
No, it doesn’t solve the problem for them. They can’t prove the existence of an uncreated Multiverse any more than they can disprove the existence of a Designer God. Moreover, following Occam’s Razor (which atheists love to cite), the Multiverse is a far less simple explanation than a Designer God.
It is not self-evident that a Being with inherent existence is in the same category as everything else.
Dependence doesn’t even come into the picture!
In this context parenthood is simply an analogy.
The reduction of human existence to an imposition of suffering is a morbid rejection of the immense value, richness and beauty of life.
Self dependence is always part of the picture: X cannot exist unless X exists. The question is whether the existence of X depends on other things as well.
Which is why Buddhism provides the path to the cessation of suffering.
Christianity also provides a path to the cessation of suffering … but more … the triumph of immortal joy.
But no proof. Only suggestion?
I’ve never heard of this STEM universe. I don’t know what buddhism teaches about “alternate realities” but the Dalai Lama has said there are conditions and ways that one can cross over into these. Such things would be Tantras or higher. Certainly not in the Suttras. The realities and beings you mention would have places in the Cosmological texts though right?
STEM = Space, Time, Energy, Matter and is what originated at the Big Bang. Space (3 dimensions) and Time (1 dimension) form the four dimensional space-time manifold. Energy and Matter are interconvertible using e=Mc[sup]2[/sup]. Think of it as the material universe that is studied by science.
Buddhist cosmologies cover both the material universe: other stars and other planets, as well as the non-material universe which includes the heavens and hells.
What are good cosmology texts? I have a text called “Myriad Worlds” but it’s tough to understand. Everything surrounds a mount meru. There are some hells I have read that are hells so cold that those born there; there skin cracks open. But all this started for us with ignorance.
