Everything Changes / the Buddist notion of Anatta

[annem]

Contariini

instead of Western cultural superiority. With all due respect, it seems to me that you are identifying the two, and I think that’s a terrible mistake.

Ack. Once again, you have caught me in an error, if you think I was trying to glorify western civilization. Really, I must have been completely unclear, in that case.

No, I was trying to argue *Catholicism * has been an unmitigated good, especially compared to Buddhism (and no, not that I am arguing that Buddhism has brought harm, merely that it is wrong and doesn’t have the full truth). I think I can prove this good caused by Christianity by looking at the ways Christianity has changed civilizations.

Yes, I would argue Catholicism created science and I think I can prove it. I would argue that God’s truths and laws, working through a civilization, will benefit that civilization. Not to mention the world. Don’t you?

Some other arguments on the good caused by Christianity: The ancient world regarded physical work as demeaning. Slaves, except for a few well educated elite slaves, were regarded as little better than dogs. One reason technological improvement did not develop fully in Greece and Rome was because working on trying to improve things like horse harnesses and mechanical gadgets was thought of as demeaning.

Until: “only after the fall of Rome did there arise economies that depended primarily on nonhuman power” (Stark) due to technological innovation.

Banking, finance and trade flourished during the Middle Ages (stark)

In Roman times the population of Europe was perhaps 20 million, by 1500 the population was 75 million due to improvements in the food supply, etc.

In ancient Greece, blind girls were put in brothels. As soon as the church was not persecuted, Catholics set up places to take care of the blind. When leprosy was brought back from the Crusades, hospitals were set up to care for the lepers.

I think I can easily prove that the charity of Christians throughout history has been staggering in comparison to that of any other culture. Slavery was abolished in the western world due to Christians. A belief in the dignity of each human and in human rights sprang from Christianity. There has been a cascade of benefits to humanity through Christianity.

But where are the results from the compassion of Buddhists? Pitifully small. Buddhism is much more focused on self.

And speaking of western civilization, I would also argue that, as Christianity has slid away in the west, great harm has been caused. Look at how the family has fallen apart. Don’t you agree?

Catholicism has brought a cascade of good upon the world. Catholicism. Now please do not tell me you find anything to argue with in that statement.

God bless you, Annem

 

[annem]

Edwin

. But that happiness comes from a recognition of the fundamental suffering of the world, not a denial of it.

Edwin, I am sorry to hear you are so unhappy. I pray that God will flood you with joy and miracles.

As for here on earth, of course we are never fully happy because we are not with God And there is unpalatable fact of death.

Yes, of course it’s true that a great many people experience little other than poverty and hunger and illness, so for them life really is suffering, unending suffering (and why aren’t we doing more as Catholics to help them?).

However, as Catholics, surely we know that whatever our lot in life, we can expect an eternity of bliss later. What an extraordinary difference that should make. No death. Perfect love and justice and peace. Pew research recently found Christians happier than any other group, and I am not surprised by the finding. I actually expected it.

God bless you, Annem

 

[annem]

Slartibartfast

Yes, quite right. It is commonly accepted, at least at the Theravadan Monastery near where I live, that Dukkha cannot be accurately translated.

\

Very well. All is unease because all changes.

But this, also, makes no sense. If everything stayed the same, we would all be bored beyond describing. But of course there is the fact of time and death. We all get old and die.

Buddhism took from Hinduism karma and reincarnation. Cycles. And none of these are true,.

Can you suggest how reincarnation occurs? Who or what decides what you get to be in the next life? What about the animals? On what basis do they graduate into a human body?

If the one thing that will ‘cure’ us of this life is to not hold onto life, and the best thing that we can hope for is our utter extinction, then how is that different from the simple fact of death itself? How can the best thing we can do for ourselves is to seek to extinguish ourselves?

God bless you, Annem

 

[Slartibartfast]

Slartibartfast\

Very well. All is unease because all changes.

But this, also, makes no sense. If everything stayed the same, we would all be bored beyond describing. But of course there is the fact of time and death. We all get old and die.

Well, that raises an interesting question for Christianity. Is Heaven an abode where everything remains in a constant state of sublime happiness? I don’t know enough about Christianity to say but I am interested to know.

Slartibartfast
Buddhism took from Hinduism karma and reincarnation. Cycles. And none of these are true,.

Well, that is your assertion. I am not arguing for it or against it but , but there are plenty of Buddhists and Hindus who might say that the Christian belief is not true.

Slartibartfast\Can you suggest how reincarnation occurs? Who or what decides what you get to be in the next life? What about the animals? On what basis do they graduate into a human body?

Of course not! I know that I have already said that even the Buddha declined from attempting to explain it. The nature of one’s future life (as already explained by Rossum) is the result of your actions in this life.

Slartibartfast If the one thing that will ‘cure’ us of this life is to not hold onto life, and the best thing that we can hope for is our utter extinction, then how is that different from the simple fact of death itself? How can the best thing we can do for ourselves is to seek to extinguish ourselves?

God bless you, Annem

Again, this is not what is said. The cure is to end attachment to our Self. The Buddha taught that we attach to our Selves where our Self doesn’t exist. He did not say we do not have a Self, only that it is not what we believe it to be. Perhaps we could also use the word ‘ego’. As I rediscover Christianity, I have learnt that there is a belief that the ego is what can separate us from God, thereby causing suffering. I am sure that you know more about that than I do so I should be interested to hear what you think about that .

As for extinction; I don’t think that is the nature of Nibbana. I am not enlightened I am afraid, so I cannot say much about that Extinction of the ego, maybe…

 

[annem]

Slartibartfast

Well, that raises an interesting question for Christianity. Is Heaven an abode where everything remains in a constant state of sublime happiness? I don’t know enough about Christianity to say but I am interested to know.

Let me see. Will we be happy? Hmm. Well, God created sex. God created laughter. God created chocolate. Sounds to me like he knows how to make us happy. I mean, really, the God who created everything in the universe can do anything he wants, surely. And even a researcher in a lab can hook a monkey’s brain to the pleasure center, and the monkey will just sit around smiling. So, yes, I think we can say conclusively that we will be happy, glad, gleeful, and filled with joy.’ And also that it will be interesting. Every. Single. Minute.

Well, that is your assertion. I am not arguing for it or against it but , but there are plenty of Buddhists and Hindus who might say that the Christian belief is not true.

One of the major differences between Buddhism and Christianity would be that Christians claim we can prove the truth of our religion. God expects us to have doubts and wants us to reason our way to him. We are not lost in a chaotic universe that is inexplicable. We have minds; we need to use them to reach God. And there are those prophecies that came true after 500 years. Miracles that cannot be replicated. The truth we were made for God.

even the Buddha declined from attempting to explain it. The nature of one’s future life (as already explained by Rossum) is the result of your actions in this life.

But why can’t anyone explain how it works? Why can’t anyone explain why the universe was set up this way? Unlike Christianity, there are no proofs now, and weren’t when Buddhism began. Doesn’t that give you pause?

, I have learnt that there is a belief that the ego is what can separate us from God, thereby causing suffering. I am sure that you know more about that than I do so I should be interested to hear what you think about that .

I do not claim to be a fount of wisdom on any subject whatsoever, but I think any Christian would point out here that, no, Buddhism and Christianity are not alike at all in this respect.

Buddhism claims we need to destroy ourself/desires. Whereas Christianity says we will continue with all our memories, our personalities, through all eternity, because God created us and loves us - except for the sin we do.

Christianity believes there is nothing wrong with one person preferring red to yellow, or being slow or quick, or a thousand other aspects of our personalities. I don’t want to extinguish all that is me, except, of course, the sins I commit. Those I could do without.

God bless you, Annem

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

One of the major differences between Buddhism and Christianity would be that Christians claim we can prove the truth of our religion.

The particular quality or character of faith in Buddhism is that it is something that must be put to the test for it to be authentic. So if you have a belief that you do not have to be the prey of toxic mental states then you must prove that you can practice in such a way as to abandon those toxic mental states through your own efforts. If you believe that you can cultivate positive, uplifting, and ennobling mental states then you are duty-bound to put that to the test. That is the key feature of faith in Buddhism; which is to say that its value and authenticity are measured in the extent to which it leads to wise-effort to validate it as truth and, if it is validated, to live it as truth.

Faith is therefore not rejected by Buddhism, but it is considered as something which hast to be governed and moderated by the critical faculty of the mind… Faith is one element of an education process and one which hast to be developed within that context. Its cornerstone is based on the human capacity or potential to realize and justify it through verifiable personal empirical experience not on unprovable supernatural elements and superstition like the other faiths of the world. This is in stark contrast to Christianity, in which faith is not an educational tool but something that must be believed without question or, by its definition of the word, supporting evidence and is explicitly forbidden from being tested.

 

[annem]

Dear Emperor Napoleon, Very interesting choice of name. Any particular reason for it? At any rate, hi, and thanks for commenting. However:

…be authentic … the prey of toxic mental states …abandon those toxic mental states… cultivate positive, uplifting, and ennobling mental states…ts value and authenticity are measured in the extent to which it leads to wise-effort to validate it as truth and, if it is validated, to live it as truth.

However, I am sorry, but you appear to be quoting heavily from an encounter group from the 1960s. Authentic? Validated? Why yes, just the words that would drop from the mouth of someone living in 500 BC. Soooooo Buddhist.

by the critical faculty of the mind…

Again, Buddhist to the max! Here’s a quote from Thich Nhat Hanh “the joy of completely extinguishing our ideas and concepts”

Its cornerstone is based on the human capacity or potential to realize and justify it through verifiable personal empirical experience

Again, “Nirvana is the extinction of all notions. Birth is a notion. Death is a notion. Being is a notion.”

This is in stark contrast to Christianity, in which faith is not an educational tool but something that must be believed without question or, by its definition of the word, supporting evidence and is explicitly forbidden from being tested.

So, sorry, but in addition to knowing nothing whatsoever about Buddhism, you have never ever, ever, learned word one about Catholicism.

Handy suggestion: learn to read.

May God bless you and send you light, Annem

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

So, sorry, but in addition to knowing nothing whatsoever about Buddhism, you have never ever, ever, learned word one about…

Do not accuse others of ignorance just because you do not like the answers to your questions. I suspected that you were just trolling and that suspicion has been confirmed.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The particular quality or character of faith in Buddhism is that it is something that must be put to the test for it to be authentic…Etc…

Yes, I agree. In fact, somewhere in the Suttas, the Buddha says something to the effect of ‘don’t just believe what I say, put it to the test. If you are happy with the results, embrace it, otherwise discard it.’

One such example from the Kalama Sutta
"“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

Also (taken from Access To Insight Website)
Experiential Emphasis. Since wisdom or insight is the chief instrument of enlightenment, the Buddha always asked his disciples to follow him on the basis of their own understanding, not from obedience or unquestioning trust. He calls his Dhamma ehipassiko, which means “Come and see for yourself.” He invites inquirers to investigate his teaching, to examine it in the light of their own reason and intelligence, and to gain confirmation of its truth for themselves. The Dhamma is said to be paccattam veditabbo viññuhi, “to be personally understood by the wise,” and this requires intelligence and sustained inquiry.

…This is in stark contrast to Christianity, in which faith is not an educational tool but something that must be believed without question or, by its definition of the word, supporting evidence and is explicitly forbidden from being tested.

I am almost with you on that one, too. It is the 'explicitly forbidden from being tested ’ that I am not so sure about. Also, I wonder if it could be argued that the bible is supporting evidence?

 

[annem]

to the EmperorNapolean

Sorry I was sarcastic. Please forgive me.

God bless you Annem

 

[annem]

Slartibartfast

Buddha says something to the effect of 'don't just believe what I say, put it to the test. If you are happy with the results, embrace it, otherwise discard it.'

But whenever asked about reincarnation or karma, two concepts that are illogical and wrong, he never was able to give a response.

Why should killing your individuality be nirvana? Who decides that a plant has fulfilled his plantness and gets to become a bunny?

At least to me, none of this makes sense. And since even the Buddha couldn’t explain it, I daresay no matter how long you tested it, you couldn’t explain it either.

supporting evidence and is explicitly forbidden from being tested.
I am almost with you on that one, too. It is the 'explicitly forbidden from being tested ’ that I am not so sure about. Also, I wonder if it could be argued that the bible is supporting evidence?
]/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? I have no idea. No idea is expressly forbidden to be tested.

God bless you, Annem

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Yes, I agree. In fact, somewhere in the Suttas, the Buddha says something to the effect of ‘don’t just believe what I say, put it to the test. If you are happy with the results, embrace it, otherwise discard it.’

One such example from the Kalama Sutta
"“Now, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness’ — then you should enter & remain in them.”

Also (taken from Access To Insight Website)
Experiential Emphasis. Since wisdom or insight is the chief instrument of enlightenment, the Buddha always asked his disciples to follow him on the basis of their own understanding, not from obedience or unquestioning trust. He calls his Dhamma ehipassiko, which means “Come and see for yourself.” He invites inquirers to investigate his teaching, to examine it in the light of their own reason and intelligence, and to gain confirmation of its truth for themselves. The Dhamma is said to be paccattam veditabbo viññuhi, “to be personally understood by the wise,” and this requires intelligence and sustained inquiry.

Excellent citations.

I am almost with you on that one, too. It is the 'explicitly forbidden from being tested ’ that I am not so sure about.

I think one of the more fundamental examples of this in Christianity is the faith in the existence of a God. Deuteronomy 6:16 and Matthew 4:7-10 are great examples of the Christian perspective that this belief should not or cannot be validated as truth through empirical means. A human being cannot test the most basic and essential of all Christian teachings. In Buddhism, that is an unacceptable position as the foundation of any belief or any subsequent belief deriving from that.

Questions that cannot be answered, answers which cannot be independently verified, and beliefs that cannot be justified have no value as educational tools and are therefore not worth contemplating. The teachings of Buddhism and Christianity simply disagree on what should happen next. From a Christian perspective, you must have faith that your faith is truth. From a Buddhist perspective, how can something be regarded as truth if its most fundamental and necessary article of faith is unprovable?

Also, I wonder if it could be argued that the bible is supporting evidence?

Christianity does consider the Bible as supporting evidence but this really just goes back to the differing definitions of faith. In Buddhism, such a text may have some value in the sense that it inspires critical thought and inquiry but it is ultimately considered to be hearsay. It is not enough to rely on the alleged personal experiences of others. Reach your own conclusions through your own efforts is necessary to achieve enlightenment.

to the EmperorNapolean

Sorry I was sarcastic. Please forgive me.

God bless you Annem

Thanks. Sorry if my admonishment was too harsh.

 

[annem]

Emperor Napoleon

Deuteronomy 6:16 and Matthew 4:7-10 are great examples of the Christian perspective that this belief should not or cannot be validated as truth through empirical means. A human being cannot test the most basic and essential of all Christian teachings. In Buddhism, that is an unacceptable position as the foundation of any belief or any subsequent belief deriving from that.

No. but at least I see the source of your incorrect information. Many people come to faith through searching. That is of course allowed. Of course you can test whether or not God exists; not only is it not allowed, it is actively encouraged.

You are also incorrect about Buddhism. When asked to explain reincarnation and how karma works, Buddha never responded. Nor can anyone else because reincarnation is not based on logic, and in fact logic would refute it.

     Reach your own conclusions through your own efforts is necessary to achieve enlightenment.

Sorry, but I believe that statement is refuted by most Buddhist texts. You cannot reach conclusions at all, for such things do not exist in Buddhism. You cannot use logic to reach the conclusion, because logic does not exist in Buddhism, and you cannot reach nirvana until you have destroyed your individuality altogether, let alone the ability to discern truth from falsehood.

And as far a reaching it alone most Buddhist texts consist of questions by a student and answers by a Buddhist teacher, who is enlightened and knows that there is no self, no ideas, no notions period.

God bless you, Annem

 

[Contarini]

Do not accuse others of ignorance just because you do not like the answers to your questions. I suspected that you were just trolling and that suspicion has been confirmed.

Your description of Christianity was pretty inaccurate. Annem has strong views and I disagree with a number of them, but she’s no troll.

 

[KjetilK]

rossum:

Everything changes. That worries some people, so they like to hold on to something that they think does not change. That is a mistake, which only leads to suffering. Since everything changes, then trying to look for stasis is a fruitless quest. Looking for what you cannot find will only lead to frustration.

Can you defend this claim on philosophical grounds?

 

[KjetilK]

rossum:

The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.

OK, I’m done. It is impossible to discuss with a person who denies (or pretends to deny) the law of noncontradiction.

 

[Contarini]

I think one of the more fundamental examples of this in Christianity is the faith in the existence of a God.

The existence of “a God” is not that important in Christianity. The existence of God is. That is to say, God is not one being among many or even among many possible beings. God is Being itself (or, in the Eastern Christian tradition, beyond being) and it is impossible for God not to exist. In the Western tradition, the claim is indeed made that this can be proven. So you are just wrong about Christianity.

Deuteronomy 6:16 and Matthew 4:7-10 are great examples of the Christian perspective that this belief should not or cannot be validated as truth through empirical means.

You may have encountered Christians who believed that these passages mean this. That is not what mainstream Christianity says they mean. It is better, when dealing with religions to which you do not belong, to let adherents of those religions tell you what they believe rather than telling them what they believe, don’t you think?

Putting God to the test, in the Matthew passage, meant jumping off a cliff and expecting God to rescue you. An example that is unfortunately common in some circles would be refusing medical treatment out of a conviction that God will heal you (under some circumstances refusing medical treatment might be the right thing to do, of course, but not in order to “force” God to perform a miracle). It has nothing to do with intellectual examination of the idea of God.

A human being cannot test the most basic and essential of all Christian teachings

You can examine its rationality.

Questions that cannot be answered, answers which cannot be independently verified, and beliefs that cannot be justified have no value as educational tools and are therefore not worth contemplating. The teachings of Buddhism and Christianity simply disagree on what should happen next. From a Christian perspective, you must have faith that your faith is truth. From a Buddhist perspective, how can something be regarded as truth if its most fundamental and necessary article of faith is unprovable?

You clearly aren’t familiar with Catholicism. Catholics believe that the existence of God is provable.

It’s true that the genuinely distinctive teachings of Christianity, such as the Trinity and the Resurrection, can’t be proven in the sense of demonstrative, logical proof. But even then that doesn’t mean that there are no rational reasons to believe them, or that one can’t test them by evidence and experience in numerous ways.

There certainly are Christians who reject reason. Catholics and other mainstream Christian bodies do not. You have been misinformed, or you have jumped to prejudiced conclusions, or you have had experience with some of the groups that are genuinely irrational–one of the three.

Please stop lecturing Christians on what we believe. It’s unseemly and unhelpful. Such statements should be rephrased in a form such as “I have understood based on this and this that Christians believe thus and so–correct me if I’m wrong.”

Edwin

 

[Slartibartfast]

You clearly aren’t familiar with Catholicism. Catholics believe that the existence of God is provable.

Edwin

Hi, Well, I have no reservations in admitting that I am decades out of touch with Catholicism so I have no qualms in asking if you wouldn’t mind explaining that . I would find it very helpful. Also, are you saying provable to others or to oneself?
I ask not because I don’t accept it but because I am genuinely intrigued. I must confess that I was under the same impression as the EmperorNapoleon ; namely, that God must be taken as a matter of faith alone.

 

[KjetilK]

Hi, Well, I have no reservations in admitting that I am decades out of touch with Catholicism so I have no qualms in asking if you wouldn’t mind explaining that . I would find it very helpful. Also, are you saying provable to others or to oneself?
I ask not because I don’t accept it but because I am genuinely intrigued. I must confess that I was under the same impression as the EmperorNapoleon ; namely, that God must be taken as a matter of faith alone.

Here is what the First Vatican Council has to say on the matter:

1. If anyone says that the one, true God, our creator and lord, cannot be known with certainty from the things that have been made, by the natural light of human reason: let him be anathema.
2. If anyone says that it is impossible, or not expedient, that human beings should be taught by means of divine revelation about God and the worship that should be shown him : let him be anathema.
3. If anyone says that a human being cannot be divinely elevated to a knowledge and perfection which exceeds the natural, but of himself can and must reach finally the possession of all truth and goodness by continual development: let him be anathema.
4. If anyone does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of Sacred Scripture with all their parts, as the holy Council of Trent listed them, or denies that they were divinely inspired : let him be anathema.

We thus see a balanced approach: the existence of God, and many of his attributes, can be proven by reason alone. But that doesn’t mean that one can know all that is to know about God from reason alone. To summarize what the Roman Catholic Church teaches on this subject: To know that God exists is a matter of reason and evidence; to say who God is, and what our relationship with him should be, is a matter of revelation. And the two work together.

 

[Contarini]

Hi, Well, I have no reservations in admitting that I am decades out of touch with Catholicism

It’s got nothing to do with being decades out of touch. As KjetilK just posted, Vatican I defined as a matter of dogma that the existence of God can be proven by reason, and that was 1870. (I think it’s a bit odd to define as a matter of faith that something can be proved by reason, but that is in fact what the Council did.)

I have no qualms in asking if you wouldn’t mind explaining that . I would find it very helpful. Also, are you saying provable to others or to oneself?
I ask not because I don’t accept it but because I am genuinely intrigued. I must confess that I was under the same impression as the EmperorNapoleon ; namely, that God must be taken as a matter of faith alone.

Aquinas’ position, confirmed as Catholic doctrine by Vatican I, is that one can reason demonstratively from the natural world to the existence of a Creator. This doesn’t get you specifically Christian doctrines such as the Trinity and the Incarnation, only a First Cause of all existence “which all call God.” However, this doesn’t mean that it is evident to everyone. It can in principle be proven, but for whatever reason not everyone will find the proofs convincing–hence the need of divine revelation for those who aren’t quite up to following the proofs.

I myself am one of those people. But that doesn’t mean I take God’s existence on blind faith. I think that the arguments are strong but not, in Aquinas’ terms, “demonstrative.” No Christian doctrine is without evidence, but the specifically Christian teachings are based on divine revelation, which is supported by historical evidence. This is, by its nature, never more than probable. (I think it is probable that Jesus really did rise from the dead, and that there are good historical reasons for this view. But it’s not absolutely certain by any means, so faith is necessary for everyone on this point.) There are some things that in fact a person may accept simply by faith and would not accept if they followed their own judgment of the evidence (for me the virginal conception of Jesus, let alone some of the more specifically Catholic teachings such as the perpetual virginity and the Immaculate Conception, is in this category). Accepting these things is rational if you think there is good evidence for accepting the “package” that contains them.

So the bottom line is that faith should always be rational, but individual tenets of the faith may fall into one of three categories, and different things will fall into different categories for different people:

1. Things that are rationally certain
2. Things that are rationally probable but require faith in order to be held with certainty
3. Things that are rationally improbable but are accepted by faith in virtue of being connected with other things that fall into one of the first two categories

All the specifically Christian doctrines like Trinity and Incarnation fall into the second or third categories. Belief in God may fall into any of the three. But some things need to fall at least into the second category for one’s faith to be rational. For some people the “category 2” beliefs may pertain entirely to the authority of the Church and/or Scripture, with everything else being in category 3. But I don’t think that’s a healthy situation at all. It leads to a kind of “positivism” in which people just blindly accept whatever their chosen authority tells them to. People then get the impression that this is, in fact, mainstream Christianity.

The way I’m formulating the distinction between the second and third categories is my own, by the way. But the distinction between the first and second categories is certainly not.

Edwin