Did the Buddha talk about God?

[wittgenstein]

Is any action where the person does not ask for God’s assistance egotistical? If I pick up my cup of coffee without asking for God’s help am I being egotistical?
Also, I am confused by your saying that Buddhists preach to the Gods. Since it is possible to be an atheist Buddhist what Gods is he preaching to?

 

[wittgenstein]

Lets say that Joe is very egotistical. He knows that people that are egoless (priests, monks etc) are greatly respected. He wants to become egoless because then he will be praised. Obviously a paradox.
A lot of Buddhist scripture deals with this seeming paradox. I will weakly (by comparison ) try to explain the resolution of the paradox. (Note that Joe is an extreme example. Not everyone that desires enlightenment does so because they desire praise) Suppose Bob thinks he is wealthy. He loves to walk around town to show off. However, he soon realizes that his neighbours are just as wealthy as he is. As Blake said the fool that persists in his folly shall become wise. This is the principle behind Zen koans. An unsolveable riddle is given. Eventually, after intense thinking,one realizes that rational thought is incapable of giving an answer.

 

[wittgenstein]

As the Buddhists say,“How can one be rid of desire by desiring desirelessness?”

 

[InJesusItrust]

Is any action where the person does not ask for God’s assistance egotistical? If I pick up my cup of coffee without asking for God’s help am I being egotistical?

God basically comes down from heaven and offers a path to salvation. Then you decide that you’ll walk your own path to salvation, disregarding God’s path. Is this not the height of arrogance?

Hindus resolve this by claiming that there are multiple paths up the mountain. The error is assuming that a man-made religion is equivalent to one sanctioned directly from God.

It is like spitting in the face of the one who created you and gave you life. How is it different from Satan’s “I will not serve” or Eve disobeying God to become a god through enlightening knowledge rather than obedience?

It is thanklessness and rebellion against the one who gave you life.

 

[Ion]

As the Buddhists say,“How can one be rid of desire by desiring desirelessness?”

Sounds like the wish of death, or a death wish…
I do not know to much of buddhism; many would be more interested in it just for the sake of dicovering inner contradictions in the hope of saving them, but thinks would go down to the fact that they decided to believe Buddha. Enlightment to achieve no suffering by living in a desireless state. Now if you have to work hard, thats because of what, desire? Because working hard makes you suffer, you sweat…Doesn’t add up. My personal view is that there are 2 groups, one very commited in monasteries, and a second one which does,t take the things literary.

 

[rossum]

You are therefore way out of line assuming that he was contradicting himself, and referring to the Origin of All under the name, “Brahma.” He was not, nor would he have ever done so.

Correct. The Buddha was pointing out that the god who claimed to be the origin of all was mistaken. The Brahmajala sutta explains why that god was mistaken and how his error arose.

No god can be the origin of all because that does not explain the origin of the god himself.

rossum

 

[rossum]

rossum’s primary error as I see it, and the one that may cost him his eternal soul if he does not renounce it, is lumping God in with the “gods.”

Buddhism rejects the existence of any soul. What we see as our soul has as much reality as the water we see in a mirage. We cannot lose our soul because we do not have one to start with. We just think we do, but we are mistaken:

“All the elements of reality are soulless.”
When one realises this by wisdom,
then one does not heed ill.
This is the Path of Purity.

– Dhammapada 20:7

rossum

 

[rossum]

So they seek neither god nor salvation. They seek wisdom only … then the worms?

Worms? The worms are inevitable as soon as you are born, they cannot be avoided. Birth is the cause of death: if you are born then you will die.

The point of nirvana is that you do not get reborn, so you avoid any more worms.

Otherwise you might get reborn as a worm…

rossum

 

[InJesusItrust]

Worms? The worms are inevitable as soon as you are born, they cannot be avoided. Birth is the cause of death: if you are born then you will die.

The point of nirvana is that you do not get reborn, so you avoid any more worms.

Otherwise you might get reborn as a worm…

rossum

Why not simplify things by going around destroying all life in the universe? If there is no life anywhere no one can be reborn. Why even bother marrying and having children if life is death?

Also the number 1 does not have any explanation by itself. Do you believe in the laws of arithmetic? If so, why? It is based on induction, which explains that there has to be a first number.

If all things have to have a cause nothing can happen. The very fact that things happen show that there is one cause that can exist without a cause. You see a row of dominoes falling and you can reason that there was at least one that fell without an internal cause to cause this motion to happen.

These eastern paradoxes sound deep but they are not logical. I don’t mean to be rude, but they make no sense.

 

[rossum]

Why not simplify things by going around destroying all life in the universe? If there is no life anywhere no one can be reborn. Why even bother marrying and having children if life is death?

Why not kill all innocent babies as soon as they are conceived so God can take them straight up into heaven without them having to suffer on earth?

Also the number 1 does not have any explanation by itself.

Of course it doesn’t. Like everything else it is contingent.

It is based on induction, which explains that there has to be a first number.

The Peano Axioms, are just that – axioms. If you pick a different set of axioms then you get a different number system. I can create a number system containing only the even numbers, where 1 does not exist. Just as if you pick different versions of the parallel axiom you get different geometries. Axioms can be arbitrary, so long as they are consistent within a single system.

If all things have to have a cause nothing can happen.

Things can only happen because things have a cause. In the absence of a cause there can be no effect.

The very fact that things happen show that there is one cause that can exist without a cause.

False. No cause can exist without an effect. If there is no effect, then it wasn’t a cause. Your eternal cause is just as contingent as everything else. Would you accept a creator who had not created anything? That would be a non-creator, not a creator.

You see a row of dominoes falling and you can reason that there was at least one that fell without an internal cause to cause this motion to happen.

I also infer light to see with and gravity to cause them to fall. Your analysis is too simple.

These eastern paradoxes sound deep but they are not logical. I don’t mean to be rude, but they make no sense.

They make as much sense as 3 = 1 in the Trinity or:

1. *]God is immortal and so cannot die.
   *]Jesus is God.
   *]Jesus died on the cross.
   
   Any two of those are consistent. Add in the third and they are inconsistent.
   
   rossum

 

[InJesusItrust]

God is the cause, the universe is the effect. If there was no first cause, nothing else would exist; this proves that there is at least one cause that is not bound to the system of cause and effect. To argue that there is no first cause leads to a contradiction, because obviously here we are, existing, contingent entities.

Because killing babies will send us to hell.

1 cannot come from 0, but 2 can come from 1. Whether you can create a number system starting with even numbers is irrelevant, you’re missing the analogy.

Something cannot come from nothing. Only something can create/draw out something from nothing. Nothing remains a void otherwise.

 

[InJesusItrust]

In Christianity, life is the gift, and suffering and death are curses.

In Buddhism, from what I understand, life is the cause of suffering and death.

If the goal is to stop living, then ending all life is a way to go about it. Is my logic wrong here?

I can’t understand why life is treated as precious if it is something the Buddhist goal is to eliminate. This is the paradox I am talking about.

 

[rossum]

God is the cause, the universe is the effect.

The material universe began 13.7 billion years ago. Before then there was no effect (= universe) so there cannot have been a cause either. A cause is not a cause without there also being an effect, and vice versa. 20 billion years ago there was no creator because nothing had been created. Your creator is contingent on creation just as much as creation is contingent on the creator. You cannot separate the two.

If there was no first cause, nothing else would exist

If there was no first effect, then there was no first cause either. Cause and effect are mutually contingent. An effect without a cause is like a child with no parents. A cause without an effect is like a parent with no children. Both are impossible. Neither is capable of standing on its own.

Because killing babies will send us to hell.

We agree. Killing any living thing will send us to one of the hells, or at least it will cause suffering in future.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

– Dhammapada 1:1

Buddhist morality and Christian morality are very similar.

1 cannot come from 0, but 2 can come from 1. Whether you can create a number system starting with even numbers is irrelevant, you’re missing the analogy.

All numbers systems are constructed from axions, just as plane geometry, spherical geometry and hyperbolic geometry are constructed from their respective axioms. You are reifying a contingent entity which is always an error. The group (+, { … -6, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, … }) is a perfectly good mathematical construction.

Remember that 1 can also come from 2: 2/2 → 1. In the modern version of the Peano axioms, 1 is derived from zero and the successor function: S(0) = 1.

Something cannot come from nothing.

Stephen Hawking disagrees:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– A Brief History of Time

rossum

 

[rossum]

In Buddhism, from what I understand, life is the cause of suffering and death.

The cause of suffering is given in the Second Noble Truth:

[The Buddha said:] “And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of suffering: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion and delight, relishing now here and now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.”

– Samyutta Nikaya 56.11

The cause of suffering is not life, but craving - selfish desire.

Death is caused by birth, and so is unavoidable for all who are born.

If the goal is to stop living, then ending all life is a way to go about it. Is my logic wrong here?

How do you propose to end life on other planets? How do you propose to end life in the heavens? How do you propose to end life in the hells? How do you propose to prevent those you kill from being reborn? Gods can have a miraculous rebirth without the need for parents. Similarly for those destined for one of the hells.

How will you prevent yourself being reborn to suffer the consequences of your wrong actions?

I can’t understand why life is treated as precious if it is something the Buddhist goal is to eliminate. This is the paradox I am talking about.

Buddhism does not aim to eliminate life, which is presumably why you are making this error. Buddhism aims to eliminate suffering.

The Four Noble Truths are in the form of a medical diagnosis:

1. *]Suffering - identify the problem.
   *]Origin - the cause of the problem.
   *]Cessation - the problem is curable.
   *]Path - the prescription.
   
   I gave the second Truth, Origin, above.
   
   rossum

 

[Spencerian]

The cause of suffering is given in the Second Noble Truth:

[The Buddha said:] “And this, monks is the noble truth of the origination of suffering: the craving that makes for further becoming — accompanied by passion and delight, relishing now here and now there — i.e., craving for sensual pleasure, craving for becoming, craving for non-becoming.”

– Samyutta Nikaya 56.11

The cause of suffering is not life, but craving - selfish desire.

Death is caused by birth, and so is unavoidable for all who are born.

How do you propose to end life on other planets? How do you propose to end life in the heavens? How do you propose to end life in the hells? How do you propose to prevent those you kill from being reborn? Gods can have a miraculous rebirth without the need for parents. Similarly for those destined for one of the hells.

How will you prevent yourself being reborn to suffer the consequences of your wrong actions?

Buddhism does not aim to eliminate life, which is presumably why you are making this error. Buddhism aims to eliminate suffering.

The Four Noble Truths are in the form of a medical diagnosis:

1. *]Suffering - identify the problem.
   *]Origin - the cause of the problem.
   *]Cessation - the problem is curable.
   *]Path - the prescription.
   
   I gave the second Truth, Origin, above.
   
   rossum

1. 
   It seems that the original question was answered, and now a debate has begun on Buddhism v. Christianity.
   
   I thank Rossum for his patience and charitable answers in explaining the tenets of Buddhism.
   
   His last post shows one commonality that we Catholics share with our Buddhist brethren: Unlike other faiths, both Buddhism and Christianity share a goal towards explaining the meaning of suffering and (through God or not) a means of altruistic and self-introspective practices and philosophies and actions that not only aid in the removing of suffering for the self, but for others–and even to encourage those who manage to escape suffering to continue to help others (Saints/Bodhisattvas).
   
   If I were not a happy Catholic, it is probable I would have found Buddhism a suitable way to find Christ, albeit indirectly. Buddhism shares the marks of an adult faith, as Pope Emeritus Benedict noted: “An adult faith does not follow the waves of fashion and the latest novelties.” Thanks again, Rossum, for the insight.

 

[InJesusItrust]

The material universe began 13.7 billion years ago. Before then there was no effect (= universe) so there cannot have been a cause either. A cause is not a cause without there also being an effect, and vice versa. 20 billion years ago there was no creator because nothing had been created. Your creator is contingent on creation just as much as creation is contingent on the creator. You cannot separate the two.

God can exist without the universe, but not the converse. That God chose to create the universe does not mean that God had no choice but to. The universe requires a first cause but the first cause did not require the universe. “Cause” is an imprecise word, but God existed when there was no universe.

If there was no first effect, then there was no first cause either. Cause and effect are mutually contingent. An effect without a cause is like a child with no parents. A cause without an effect is like a parent with no children. Both are impossible. Neither is capable of standing on its own.

Like I said before cause it an imprecise term. The language used would allow such fallacies like God requiring the universe to exist.

We agree. Killing any living thing will send us to one of the hells, or at least it will cause suffering in future.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

– Dhammapada 1:1

Buddhist morality and Christian morality are very similar.

Thank you for clarifying. This is what confused me. But are these hells eternal?

All numbers systems are constructed from axions, just as plane geometry, spherical geometry and hyperbolic geometry are constructed from their respective axioms. You are reifying a contingent entity which is always an error. The group (+, { … -6, -4, -2, 0, 2, 4, 6, … }) is a perfectly good mathematical construction.

Remember that 1 can also come from 2: 2/2 → 1. In the modern version of the Peano axioms, 1 is derived from zero and the successor function: S(0) = 1.

The analogy works because if n is in an inductive set so is n + 1. For the set of whole numbers to be non-empty there has to be a least element. No least element, the set is empty. Because the set is not empty we can conclude there is a least element.

Similarly for any event to happen there must be a cause. If there is no prime cause, no events can occur, because all events require a cause. Because events are occurring, there is a prime cause. We do not need a cause for the prime cause in the same way we do not need a positive integer less than 1. It just has to be true, in order to explain why events are occurring.

Causality is isomorphic to inductive sets, IMO.

Stephen Hawking disagrees:

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

– A Brief History of Time

rossum

Potentiality is not “nothing”. Scientific nothing is not the same as philosophical nothing. “Nothing” is a poor name for scientists to use.

 

[Ion]

Rossum,
Why do you believe Buddha and do not believe Jesus Christ?

 

[rossum]

God can exist without the universe, but not the converse.

I was not talking about God, but about the creator. There can be no creator-of-the-universe without the presence of the universe. That is logically inconsistent.

A non-cause may exist without an effect, but any cause can only exist if there is an effect that actually makes it a cause. A creator who claims to create universes, but has not actually created, any is not credible.

That God chose to create the universe does not mean that God had no choice but to.

An interesting question. Does a God, with perfect foreknowledge have free will?

The universe requires a first cause but the first cause did not require the universe.

Yes it does. Otherwise it is a cause that hasn’t caused anything. “I am a gold medal winner who hasn’t won any gold medals” does not make sense. Likewise a cause that hasn’t caused anything doesn’t make sense.

“Cause” is an imprecise word, but God existed when there was no universe.

God may have existed, but then He was not the creator.

Thank you for clarifying. This is what confused me. But are these hells eternal?

No. Neither the hells nor the heavens are eternal. Everything changes. Even nirvana changes. It has to change from nirvana-without-rossum to nirvana-with-rossum otherwise there is no point in me being Buddhist.

Because the set is not empty we can conclude there is a least element.

The set { … -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, … } is not empty and has no least element.

Similarly for any event to happen there must be a cause. If there is no prime cause, no events can occur, because all events require a cause. Because events are occurring, there is a prime cause.

A Prime Cause is derived from Aristotelian philosophy, not Buddhist philosophy. Is the father or the mother the Prime Cause of their child?

The Buddhist universe has no beginning, so does not require an initiating cause. The universe goes through phases of being entirely non-material (heavens and hells only, no material part) and phases where the material part is present as well. Hence the overall universe, both material and immaterial parts, has no beginning. The individual components all change and are temporary.

We do not need a cause for the prime cause

But you do need an effect. You also need time, otherwise you have no way to determine if it is the “Prime” (= first) cause or the “Secundus” cause. There is also the issue of distinguishing cause from effect, which also requires time: the cause is earlier than the effect. As soon as you talk about a cause you are automatically bringing in a lot of other things as well.

The Buddhist analysis of causation differs from the Greek based analysis often used in Western philosophy.

Potentiality is not “nothing”. Scientific nothing is not the same as philosophical nothing. “Nothing” is a poor name for scientists to use.

Hawking did not talk about “nothing”, he talked about zero energy: “So the total energy of the universe is zero.”

rossum

 

[Gricken]

It’s important to remember that the Buddhist/Hindu concept of what makes a God well, a God. Is very different from the Judeo/Christian concept of God

 

[Charlemagne_II]

rossum

The Buddhist universe has no beginning, so does not require an initiating cause. The universe goes through phases of being entirely non-material (heavens and hells only, no material part) and phases where the material part is present as well. Hence the overall universe, both material and immaterial parts, has no beginning. The individual components all change and are temporary.

How would the Buddha deal with the Big Bang?

No god can be the origin of all because that does not explain the origin of the god himself.

I believe this is you speaking, not the Buddha.

The notion that there cannot be an uncaused God is defeated by the the Buddhist assumption that there can be an uncaused universe. Why can you have an uncaused universe but not an uncaused God?