Design

[tonyrey]

If Buddhism is considered in the context of Design its basic flaw is its failure to explain how the** purposeful **process of spiritual development and the power to control oneself originated…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If Buddhism is considered in the context of Design its basic flaw is its failure to explain how the** purposeful **process of spiritual development and the power to control oneself originated…

I don’t understand how Buddhism explains anything since it does not even claim to have science or revelations concerning the origins of the universe itself.

At least the Judeo-Christian theology takes a reasonable stab at that consistent with discoveries of modern science.

Book of Genesis 1000 B.C. : “And God said, ‘Let there be light.’”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[rossum]

Non sequitur. Creating the universe and painting a person are completely different activities.

Then creating our galaxy and creating the Andromeda galaxy are completely different activities and two different creators is possible.

Creating cheetahs to kill gazelles is a completely different activity from creating gazelles to avoid being killed by cheetahs. Two more creators.

As soon as there can be two different creators for two different things, then the number of creators can be multiplied at will, as far as the number of things.

Unless you completely deny all human creativity, then there can be more than one creator. Did God compose Mozart’s music? Did God compose Chuck Berry’s music?

It is obvious that there is more than one creator in the universe.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I don’t understand how Buddhism explains anything since it does not even claim to have science or revelations concerning the origins of the universe itself.

Some questions are useful; some are not. The Parable of the Arrow applies:

[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.

'In exactly the same way, Malunkyaputta, any one who says “I will not lead the religious life under the Blessed One until the Blessed One explains to me whether the universe is eternal, whether the universe is not eternal, whether the universe is finite, whether the universe is infinite etc.” [many questions omitted here] That person would die Malunkyaputta, before I had ever explained all this to that person.

‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

– Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

At least the Judeo-Christian theology takes a reasonable stab at that consistent with discoveries of modern science.

Consistent with some, not all, discoveries. The Bible also contains scientific errors. For example birds appear on Day Five, before land animals on Day Six. This is false, since birds appeared after the first land animals.

Buddhist scriptures are a similar mix of correct science – stars are very distant suns with their own sets of planets – and incorrect science – the earth is flat and America is unknown.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Then creating our galaxy and creating the Andromeda galaxy are completely different activities and two different creators is possible.

Creating cheetahs to kill gazelles is a completely different activity from creating gazelles to avoid being killed by cheetahs. Two more creators.

As soon as there can be two different creators for two different things, then the number of creators can be multiplied at will, as far as the number of things.

Unless you completely deny all human creativity, then there can be more than one creator. Did God compose Mozart’s music? Did God compose Chuck Berry’s music?

It is obvious that there is more than one creator in the universe.

rossum

The word “in” gives the game away!

One Creator of the universe is sufficient - just as in Buddhism there is one set of spiritual principles and development. Unity is at the core of reality, not diversity. In Buddhism the Four Noble Truths are all related to one fundamental fact: suffering. And there is **one **successful outcome: nirvana - which is regarded as the ultimate purpose of existence.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t understand how Buddhism explains anything since it does not even claim to have science or revelations concerning the origins of the universe itself.

At least the Judeo-Christian theology takes a reasonable stab at that consistent with discoveries of modern science.

Book of Genesis 1000 B.C. : “And God said, ‘Let there be light.’”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

That is Buddhism’s fatal flaw. It takes both physical and spiritual existence (which are both purposeful) for granted and commences* in medias res *without accounting for their origin…

 

[tonyrey]

Well, you got me there, a westerner through and through. I was drawn to the simplicity of Zen when, as a math-physics-chemistry theoretical science guy, it became apparent that what I knew and whatever else I could ever discern using the methods I had learned, that I could not explain what was most real - myself. In modern scientific terms the universe is absurd. It is of no surprise then, that at least one influential scientist, limited to that restricted vision of reality, would assert “philosophy is dead”. This here and now is reality. Within our daily relationships, directed towards love, we find Holiness. I guess if you scratch the surface of what appears to be a western Buddhist, what you’ve sometimes got is a poorly catechised Catholic.

To wrench the post back on track:
This story has some relevence to the OP, in that the current “scientific” view of humanity’s creation is what can happen when we get lost in the fantasy world of materialism.
There is so much more to existence than the few handfuls of physical properties, constants and relationships.
While able to explain some of how matter behaves, they are embarrassingly lacking in their capacity to grasp the nature of personhood.
In order to try to explain our creation, one needs an appreciation of who and what we are, and of the God who created us.
The idea of design incorporates the realities of meaning, purpose, personal existence, beauty, goodness and its counterpart evil, rationality, truth and love.
Ultimately, God is God, and while we may each have our pet theories about how we came to be, anything is possible because we are dealing with creation.

Neither science nor materialism explain themselves! They presuppose consciousness, insight and the power of reason…

 

[rossum]

The word “in” gives the game away!

Not in the way you think it does. If your “in” just refers to the material universe that started at the Big Bang, then a multiverse is just as good an explanation. Neither your God nor the multiverse is “in” the BB universe.

However, if we define a more philosophical universe: All That Exists(ATE), then both the multiverse and any existing god(s) are included in the ATE universe. If any existing god(s) are eternal then the ATE universe is also eternal and so the ATE universe needs no designer/creator.

One Creator **of **the universe is sufficient

But not necessary. Each galaxy of the material universe may have had a separate eternal creator. If there is one eternal entity then it is not impossible that there are others.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Neither science nor materialism explain themselves! They presuppose consciousness, insight and the power of reason…

The same for creation by any God that is conscious, has reason and insight. Creation merely asserts the existence of those things. It presupposed them in exactly the same way.

Creationism does not start with nothing. It starts with God, and provides no explanation for the origin of God.

Creationist: “In the beginning God…”

Materialist: “Hey! Where did you get God from? You expect me to start from nothing. Tell us how you get from nothing to God.”

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Some questions are useful; some are not. The Parable of the Arrow applies:

[The Buddha said:] 'It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man is shot with an arrow thickly smeared with poison, … and the wounded man were to say “I will not have the arrow taken out until I know the caste of the man who shot it, … his tribe … his clan … his village … his height etc.” [many questions omitted here] That man would die Malunkyaputta, before he learned all that he wanted to know.rossum
​

I have commented on this before.

The parable of the arrow applies only to a specific condition of being shot with an arrow.

Life and all knowledge is not subject to the condition of being shot with an arrow.

We can remove the arrow and still seek to answer all the other questions once the crisis has passed.

Such as, is the universe eternal?

If Buddhism does not seek to answer that question, at least Christianity and science do.

Buddhism seems preoccupied with feeling sorry for those who are alive, as Chesterton rightly observed, whereas Christians believe that God, when he saw his Creation finished, saw that it was good.​

 

[Charlemagne_III]

But not necessary. Each galaxy of the material universe may have had a separate eternal creator. If there is one eternal entity then it is not impossible that there are others.

rossum

Tell us exactly the words that Buddhism uses to preach this as opposed to your own speculation?

 

[rossum]

The parable of the arrow applies only to a specific condition of being shot with an arrow.

Are Jesus’ parables general or are they specific. Does the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virdinf only apply to female virgins with oil lamps?

Life and all knowledge is not subject to the condition of being shot with an arrow.

Life for most people is subject to the condition of being unenlightened. That is more painful than being shot with an arrow. The arrow can cause you to die once. Being unenlightened can cause you to die again and again and again…

We can remove the arrow and still seek to answer all the other questions once the crisis has passed.

We can ask after we are enlightened. Until that time, attaining enlightenment is more important than irrelevant questions:

‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

The duration of the universe is not relevant to Buddhism. It is obviously an interesting question for scientists, and one which I am happy to leave to scientists who understand a lot more about the question than I do. I tend to get lost beyond about four dimensional manifolds. IIRC cosmologists are currently working with eleven dimensional manifolds.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Are Jesus’ parables general or are they specific. Does the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virdinf only apply to female virgins with oil lamps?

Life for most people is subject to the condition of being unenlightened. That is more painful than being shot with an arrow. The arrow can cause you to die once. Being unenlightened can cause you to die again and again and again…

We can ask after we are enlightened. Until that time, attaining enlightenment is more important than irrelevant questions:

‘The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma that the universe is eternal, nor does it depend on the dogma that the universe is not eternal etc. [many dogmas omitted here] Whatever dogma obtains there is still birth, old age, death, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief and despair, of which I declare the extinction in the present life.’

The duration of the universe is not relevant to Buddhism. It is obviously an interesting question for scientists, and one which I am happy to leave to scientists who understand a lot more about the question than I do. I tend to get lost beyond about four dimensional manifolds. IIRC cosmologists are currently working with eleven dimensional manifolds.

rossum

It’s no wonder that Buddhism dominates in countries that are economically backward and impoverished. Buddhism cares more about achieving nirvana than the adventure of living in this world and seeing that, as Genesis taught us, God saw that it is good…

 

[tonyrey]

It’s no wonder that Buddhism dominates in countries that are economically backward and impoverished. Buddhism cares more about achieving nirvana than the adventure of living in this world and seeing that, as Genesis taught us, God saw that it is good…

Indeed. Buddhism devalues life in this world by seeking to escape from suffering as if it far outweighs the joy and beauty of love and friendship.In fact the Four Noble Truths are all concerned with suffering. It is a negative philosophy the main purpose of which to liberate oneself from human feelings, desires, pleasures and emotions as if they are all evil. Buddhists seem to regard this life as a curse rather than a blessing. Otherwise why do they attempt to become completely detached and reject all its gifts and opportunities for adventure and creativity? What becomes of family life?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Indeed. Buddhism devalues life in this world by seeking to escape from suffering as if it far outweighs the joy and beauty of love and friendship.In fact the Four Noble Truths are all concerned with suffering. It is a negative philosophy the main purpose of which to liberate oneself from human feelings, desires, pleasures and emotions as if they are all evil. Buddhists seem to regard this life as a curse rather than a blessing. Otherwise why do they attempt to become completely detached and reject all its gifts and opportunities for adventure and creativity? What becomes of family life?

There is, of course, a strain of this mentality in the history of the early Church, especially with the holy Fathers of the desert, and in the later Church with monasticism which forgoes the pleasures of this life in preparation for the next life.

But that path to holiness is by choice, not obligatory, to the pursuit of happiness (nirvana).

Chesterton, for example, was no exemplar of sainthood by the standard of Buddhism, but I think his own path to sainthood was a good deal more holy than what is possible by the mere abandonment of pleasure.

The other thing that bothers me about Buddhism is that it relies on the genius of Self rather than on the spirit of God. Everything in Buddhism is focused on how the Self can help the Self independent of any loving relationship with the Creator. All power is in the self, which strips God of his own power to lift us up in spite of our desire to do it by our own will, rather than his.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/saint-gk-chesterton-canonization_n_4018858.html

 

[tonyrey]

Neither science nor materialism explain themselves! They presuppose consciousness, insight and the power of reason…

There is no need to get from nothing to God because we are all made in God’s image. Even His humblest creatures are creators in one way or another but persons share in His power of insight, self-control and capacity for love. The fatal flaw of Buddhism is taking existence for granted as if it requires no explanation whatsoever. It could be regarded as the apotheosis of nothing because it starts with nothing and finishes with nothing - whereas for Christians love is the Supreme Reality…

 

[Aloysium]

Are Jesus’ parables general or are they specific. Does the parable of the Wise and Foolish Virdinf only apply to female virgins with oil lamps? . . .

The story about the arrow is superficial with limited applicability as a symbol for the human condition.

If one is engaged in warfare, it is best to know everything one can about the enemy.
A projectile piercing the skin may be best treated by cutting it out or by running it through.
Pulling it out may be what causes most of the damage.
Obviously one should have an idea as to the poison which it may carry, the mechanism by which it causes harm and its treatment.
At least the healer should be aware of all this, if the patient relies merely on faith.
It is also a fact that some substances may be actually beneficial,
insulin in the case of the diabetic and
the suffering described in the Beatitudes for the human spirit.

If you contemplate the parable of the foolish virgins, you might find in it something applicable to yourself.

. . . Life for most people is subject to the condition of being unenlightened. That is more painful than being shot with an arrow. The arrow can cause you to die once. Being unenlightened can cause you to die again and again and again…

We can ask after we are enlightened. Until that time, attaining enlightenment is more important than irrelevant questions . . .

That’s what you say.

Yet,

you

are

here.

. . . The duration of the universe is not relevant to Buddhism. It is obviously an interesting question for scientists, and one which I am happy to leave to scientists who understand a lot more about the question than I do. I tend to get lost beyond about four dimensional manifolds. IIRC cosmologists are currently working with eleven dimensional manifolds.

Scientists would be wasting their time, presumably dying over and over and over again, as they shun enlightenment in their vain search.

Maybe there is something more to the gaining of knowledge,
a pursuit of the truth that does not conflict with the quest for enlightenment,
that perhaps is one and the same thing

• a journey towards ultimate reality,
  that will be found to be love.

 

[tonyrey]

There is, of course, a strain of this mentality in the history of the early Church, especially with the holy Fathers of the desert, and in the later Church with monasticism which forgoes the pleasures of this life in preparation for the next life.

But that path to holiness is by choice, not obligatory, to the pursuit of happiness (nirvana).

Chesterton, for example, was no exemplar of sainthood by the standard of Buddhism, but I think his own path to sainthood was a good deal more holy than what is possible by the mere abandonment of pleasure.

The other thing that bothers me about Buddhism is that it relies on the genius of Self rather than on the spirit of God. Everything in Buddhism is focused on how the Self can help the Self independent of any loving relationship with the Creator. All power is in the self, which strips God of his own power to lift us up in spite of our desire to do it by our own will, rather than his.

huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/30/saint-gk-chesterton-canonization_n_4018858.html

Once again there is no explanation of the origin of our power. Buddhism has many virtues but it has no ontological foundation. Both spiritual and physical reality exist in a void. It would be more logical to believe everything is an illusion - including nirvana and the Four Noble Truths!

 

[tonyrey]

The word “in” gives the game away!

Existence still requires an explanation. It isn’t self-evident that anything need exist. The fact of contingency is the stumbling block. A reason has to be given for existence and what better than love?

One Creator **of **

the universe is sufficient But not necessary. Each galaxy of the material universe may have had a separate eternal creator. If there is one eternal entity then it is not impossible that there are others.

Logical possibility isn’t an adequate foundation for an explanation but one eternal entity who is the source of truth, goodness, freedom, justice, beauty and love corresponds to the purpose and value of life for those who are enlightened - as Thomas Merton discovered. He was a Trappist monk who realised Christians can learn a great deal from Buddhists… and visa versa.

 

[STT]

Existence still requires an explanation…

Except God!? What about this?: Things has been existing since the beginning.