Everything Changes / the Buddist notion of Anatta

[Slartibartfast]

Thanks Contarini and KjetilK for your detailed replies.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

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.

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.

You can examine its rationality.

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.

I think you have unwittingly demonstrated the point I made. I encourage you to re-read the post you responded to carefully.

 

[Contarini]

I think you have unwittingly demonstrated the point I made. I encourage you to re-read the post you responded to carefully. .

You are behaving arrogantly.

I gave a detailed response. Respond substantively, or don’t respond at all.

At this point you do not appear to be interested in a serious discussion. Your loss.

Edwin

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

You are behaving arrogantly.

I gave a detailed response. Respond substantively, or don’t respond at all.

At this point you do not appear to be interested in a serious discussion. Your loss.

Edwin

I don’t want to participate in a discussion of knee-jerk reactions. I do think it is important for you to reread that post and my first post so that you can think about what constitutes proof from a Buddhist perspective and view what I said about Christianity in that context. If you still find a point of disagreement then let me know and we can discuss it.

 

[Spiritualawoken]

I am Madhyamika, not Yogacara; I prefer the Prajnaparamita sutras. From the Madhyamika perspective, the Tathagatagarbha is merely a useful means, an upaya, which can help some people, but is not to be seized on or grasped.

The parable of the raft applies:

[The Buddha said:] "Suppose, monks, there is a man journeying on a road and he sees a vast expanse of water of which this shore is perilous and fearful, while the other shore is safe and free from danger. But there is no boat for crossing nor is there a bridge for going over from this side to the other. So the man thinks: ‘… Suppose I gather reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and bind them into a raft.’ Now that man collects reeds, sticks, branches and foliage, and binds them into a raft. Carried by that raft, laboring with hands and feet, he safely crosses over to the other shore. Having crossed and arrived at the other shore, he thinks: ‘This raft, indeed, has been very helpful to me. … Should I not lift this raft on my head or put it on my shoulders, and go where I like?’

“What do you think about it, O monks? Will this man by acting thus, do what should be done with a raft?”

“No, Lord”

"How then, monks, would he be doing what ought to be done with a raft? Here, monks, having got across and arrived at the other shore, the man thinks: ‘This raft, indeed, has been very helpful to me. Carried by it, and laboring with hands and feet, I got safely across to the other shore. Should I not pull it up now to the dry land or let it float in the water, and then go as I please?’ By acting thus, monks, would that man do what should be done with a raft.

“In the same way, monks, have I shown to you the Teaching’s similitude to a raft: as having the purpose of crossing over, not the purpose of being clung to.”

– Alagaddupama Sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 22.

Like many things, the Tathagatagarbha is for helping some of us to cross over. Once we have crossed we need to leave it behind.

rossum

( Buddhist here ) lol. You are 100% right.

 

[Spiritualawoken]

Excellent citations.

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?

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.

Thanks. Sorry if my admonishment was too harsh.

What yous fail to realize is when yous are asking jesus for answers, theyre coming from your mind within yourself, not the sky which is one of the main buddhist teaching. We dont deny God(Gods) but believe worshipping them will not lead you to perfectness
And enlightenment. Why does christianity think its the only correct religion when it was the last major religion formed? Jesus was a Jew and Died a jew. Chritianity wasnt a religion till years after he passed. So why do you have to be christian to be accepted by a jew ? YOUS have questions but not the answers because you seek a book written in perspective of what jesus said and altered. The king from england made angelicalism because he couldnt get a divorce. Modern christianity is built of past arrogance. Believing in Jesus christ is love. Not christian tradition

 

[rinnie]

There are many schools of Buddhism, only some are atheist.

For example, this from the Udana:

“There is, O monks, an Unborn, Unoriginated, Uncreated, Unformed.”

That sure sounds like God to me.

The fact that the Buddha emphasized different teachings than Moses (he came about 1000 years later, to an completely different part of the world, with a completely different society, and at a different stage of development) but still emphasized moral behavior (right action), moral thinking (right thought), spiritual vision (right view) - all things emphasized by the Jewish religious tradition and later by Jesus.

You might find this paper about the different understandings of ultimate reality (God) and how the various religious traditions approach these different understandings. For example, mystical Christianity (as practiced by people like Julian of Norwich, Hildegard of Bingen and Saint John of the Cross) bears a great resemblance to the practices of Buddhism.

Link:

preview.bahai.org/documents/essays/momen-dr-moojan/god-bahaullah

I believe that there is only one God, but there is another thing I also believe, as you stated there are different understandings of the One God.

And I also believe that he can be visible in any faith, and will not be visible in the Trinity for everyone. I just can’t explain why this can be possible. It just is.

 

[rinnie]

What yous fail to realize is when yous are asking jesus for answers, theyre coming from your mind within yourself, not the sky which is one of the main buddhist teaching. We dont deny God(Gods) but believe worshipping them will not lead you to perfectness
And enlightenment. Why does christianity think its the only correct religion when it was the last major religion formed? Jesus was a Jew and Died a jew. Chritianity wasnt a religion till years after he passed. So why do you have to be christian to be accepted by a jew ? YOUS have questions but not the answers because you seek a book written in perspective of what jesus said and altered. The king from england made angelicalism because he couldnt get a divorce. Modern christianity is built of past arrogance. Believing in Jesus christ is love. Not christian tradition

That is not exactly true, Jesus Christ is who started Christianity. See look at the word Christianity. Do you see it.

St Paul before his conversion was killing Christians. Christianity was not the last religion formed, did you not hear of Luther and how then are millions of Non-Catholic Churchs.

The first Church was a Catholic Church. Jesus was indeed the King of the Jews but was denied by his own people. But not all Jews, many accepted him for who he was. God.

Jesus never altered the word of God. He fulfilled the Old Testament never altered it.

The questions we have, do not have anything to do with a perspective of what Jesus said, the questions we have are questions that we as humans cannot understand simply because we do not have the mind of God.

The truth we have is given to us from God, and the truth we don’t have will be given to us from God when we meet again.

 

[rinnie]

What yous fail to realize is when yous are asking jesus for answers, theyre coming from your mind within yourself, not the sky which is one of the main buddhist teaching. We dont deny God(Gods) but believe worshipping them will not lead you to perfectness
And enlightenment. Why does christianity think its the only correct religion when it was the last major religion formed? Jesus was a Jew and Died a jew. Chritianity wasnt a religion till years after he passed. So why do you have to be christian to be accepted by a jew ? YOUS have questions but not the answers because you seek a book written in perspective of what jesus said and altered. The king from england made angelicalism because he couldnt get a divorce. Modern christianity is built of past arrogance. Believing in Jesus christ is love. Not christian tradition

But if you don’t deny God, and you believe enlightenment comes from oneself, how could believing in Jesus be Love.

And what is your need for God, after all you have yourself? And how is belief in Christ Love?

 

[Contarini]

I don’t want to participate in a discussion of knee-jerk reactions.

Indeed. That’s why I gave you a detailed response, which you brushed off.

I do think it is important for you to reread that post and my first post so that you can think about what constitutes proof from a Buddhist perspective and view what I said about Christianity in that context. If you still find a point of disagreement then let me know and we can discuss it.

Sorry, you don’t get to do that.

Respectful discussion works like this:

You post something. I respond substantively. You respond substantively. If you think I missed something you point out exactly what I missed and restate it so I won’t miss it this time. You do not tell me to “reread” things that I have already responded to in detail.

Probably the miscommunication is that I was not talking about the Buddhist concept of proof, but your blatant mischaracterization of the Christian understanding for the basis of faith in God.

Orthodox Christianity does not ask for blind faith, and particularly not for blind faith in God’s existence.

That Christians and Buddhists have different understandings of what kinds of evidence “count” in religious matters is obvious. But you did a very bad job of describing the Christian position. I have explained why. If you want to respond to my explanation, do so. Courteously and substantively.

Edwin

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Indeed. That’s why I gave you a detailed response, which you brushed off. Sorry, you don’t get to do that.

Respectful discussion works like this:

You post something. I respond substantively. You respond substantively. If you think I missed something you point out exactly what I missed and restate it so I won’t miss it this time. You do not tell me to “reread” things that I have already responded to in detail.

No, I was giving you the opportunity to realize your error in thinking that, based on what you said, we are in disagreement without being condescending and rude about it. Which, I’m sorry to say, is my impression of your post. It is rather ironic that, in a thread about Buddhism, I am somehow responsible for convincing you of the truth. :ehh: Encouraging you to do so through your own efforts is what the teacher-student dichotomy in Buddhism is all about.

Probably the miscommunication is that I was not talking about the Buddhist concept of proof, but your blatant mischaracterization of the Christian understanding for the basis of faith in God.

It wasn’t a mischaracterization at all. Mainstream Christianity does not assert that the existence of a God can be empirically proved. It asserts that logical or reasoned arguments can be made for the existence of a God, but does not support the conclusions of such arguments with empirical proof. I have never heard it said by any mainstream Christian authority that anyone can empirically observe Yahweh. Which means that the only fruit born by these arguments is more faith; faith that its conclusions are true rather than proof that they are.

 

[Spiritualawoken]

Slartibartfast

Hi. Well, I have heard this again and again, but isn’t this simply a denial of reality? My lack of understanding has nothing to do with my leg being cut off by a car. Nothing. Nor does my lack of caring about being hurt, or the fact that I am screaming in pain, alter the actual reality in any way. Please prove how it doesn’t.

Moreover, by claiming that all life is suffering, isn’t Buddhism denying love? On what basis would anyone claim all life is suffering? Or that my desire for something is suffering and is wrong? Doesn’t this make Buddhism basically a nihilist philosophy that denies truth?

Sorry, but how has Buddhism shown compassion? Tell me. Give me the historical facts. Because I can prove that, historically, Christianity has shown more compassion than any other religion. Do you dispute this?

This is a very interesting discussion and I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am,

May God bless you, Annem

Um, how has christianity shown compassion? They made wars and killed people for not having the same faith. Buddhist has never statyed a religious war, has changed peoples lives. For 2,500 years and still does

 

[Spiritualawoken]

But if you don’t deny God, and you believe enlightenment comes from oneself, how could believing in Jesus be Love.

And what is your need for God, after all you have yourself? And how is belief in Christ Love?

Because god isnt a deity in the sky. Its a spirit which is christ also. The spirit we all share. Buddha isnt a deity. A guide and pure conscious. The word buddha isnt a person. It means awaken

 

[Spiritualawoken]

rossum:

Hi Rossum, However, surely, if you asked vast numbers of people, they would all agree that the Buddha was wrong. The problem with this life isn’t suffering. That’s a side issue. Why are you convinced that suffering is the major problem with this life, since, after all, the sole problem for every human being is death? That’s the problem. Suffering? Come on.

Buddhism has no answer for the reality of death, other than the embrace it. Only Christianity has an answer for death. Only Christianity…

Being alive after you have extinguished all desire and all that is your personality and all that is preference is pointless. it’s just another kind of death. Absorbing the belief that you self is no different from the person next to you is merely a denial of reality, not to mention again, pointless. Prove otherwise.

Once again, a Buddhist insisting that death is a good idea. You try to kill your self, the idea that you exist as separate from others, your desires, etc., and most of all, you want to really die??

But who made them? Where did they come from? What proof do you have of their existence? How do these ‘gods’ chose who gets what life? And why?

Christianity had answers to each of these basic questions. Buddhism has no answers at all.

So you have no answer to how reincarnation is accomplished, how lives are chosen, why death or evil is chosen, why good or harm is chosen, why life exists, etc.? In fact, no answers at all? Just that its a reaction of some kind? This simply does not sound very convincing.

Then why can’t you explain to me how reincarnation is accomplished? Who decides what? How can reincarnation be explained with the facts of the big bang?

Thanks again for a chance to discuss such interesting questions. I am really enjoying this discussion.

God bless you, Annem

Death is not the end. Its the beginning. Suffering is the roots of life. We seek temporal please and guidance from the sky, when the guide is inside。also , buddhism does how every answer in the world. We seek ourselves for the answer which we could all attain

 

[Spiritualawoken]

Correction. The Buddha has never taught or acknowledged the existence of a Creator God. Below is the whole passage of the verse which the link extracted from the Udana sutra:

**‘Monks, there is an unborn, a not-become, a not-made, a not-compounded. Monks, if that unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded were not, there would be apparent no escape from this that here is born, become, made, compounded. But, monks, since there is an unborn, not-become, not-made, not-compounded, therefore the escape from this that here is born, become, made and compounded is apparent.’ **

The non-born, a non-produced, non-created and a non-formed which the Buddha taught in this passage of the Udana is the Nirvana, the highest state attainable. The Buddha did not teach of a Creator God or a First Cause here or anywhere in his teachings.

Buddhism does not place reliance for salvation on some external power, such as a god or even a Buddha, but places the responsibility for life’s frustrations squarely on the individual. Here’s what the Buddha taught:

By oneself, indeed, is evil done; By oneself is one defiled.
By oneself is evil left undone; By oneself indeed is one purified.
Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another.

The Buddha taught the Four Noble Truths and the Noble Eightfold Paths after having found the cause of suffering and taught people how to eradicate suffering so mankind does not need to go through the cycles of rebirth endlessly.

God is not what Buddhism is about, the eradication of suffering is.

Buddha guatama was born a Hindu with many gods. He didnt deny them. But said worshipping them will not bring you to liberation. Steve jobs, creator of apple, after college when to India and studyed buddhism and meditated and got his smart success from so. Also, married by a buddhist Zen priest

 

[rossum]

Um, how has christianity shown compassion? They made wars and killed people for not having the same faith. Buddhist has never statyed a religious war, has changed peoples lives. For 2,500 years and still does

There have been Buddhist wars (for example, during the collapse of the Tibetan Empire around 800 - 850 CE). Buddhists in Japan persecuted Christians and in modern times we have religiously based troubles in Sri Lanka and Myanmar, which involve Buddhists as the aggressors.

Buddhism is generally better than the Abrahamic religions, but Buddhists are also human, and have all the usual faults that entails.

rossum

 

[rossum]

The word buddha isnt a person. It means awaken

It is said that soon after his enlightenment the Buddha passed a man on the road who was struck by the Buddha’s extraordinary radiance and peaceful presence. The man stopped and asked,

“My friend, what are you? Are you a celestial being or a god?”

“No,” said the Buddha.

“Well, then, are you some kind of magician or wizard?”

Again the Buddha answered, “No.”

“Are you a man?”

“No.”

“Well, my friend, then what are you?”

The Buddha replied, “I am awake.”

rossum

 

[KjetilK]

Um, how has christianity shown compassion? They made wars and killed people for not having the same faith. Buddhist has never statyed a religious war, has changed peoples lives. For 2,500 years and still does

Seriously? Seriously? lmgtfy.com/?q=buddhist+wars

 

[Contarini]

No, I was giving you the opportunity to realize your error in thinking that, based on what you said, we are in disagreement without being condescending and rude about it. Which, I’m sorry to say, is my impression of your post. It is rather ironic that, in a thread about Buddhism, I am somehow responsible for convincing you of the truth. :ehh: Encouraging you to do so through your own efforts is what the teacher-student dichotomy in Buddhism is all about.

Yes, but I don’t recall inviting you to be my teacher. Hence, your assumption of such a position is arrogant and rude.

It wasn’t a mischaracterization at all. Mainstream Christianity does not assert that the existence of a God can be empirically proved. It asserts that logical or reasoned arguments can be made for the existence of a God, but does not support the conclusions of such arguments with empirical proof.

If you mean “following the scientific method,” then sure. But in fact the mainstream arguments for God are empirical, in the sense that they begin with the observed universe and reason back to God. Furthermore, Christian faith is testable in essentially the same way Buddhism is–by how it makes sense of the universe and transforms people’s lives. And that’s before we get into miracles, which are (sound or otherwise) empirical evidence for people who believe they have experienced them or are convinced by the testimony of others.

So yes, you are profoundly wrong about Christianity.

I have never heard it said by any mainstream Christian authority that anyone can empirically observe Yahweh.

In mainstream orthodoxy, we cannot directly experience God’s essence in this life. In the Eastern Christian tradition, however, we can have direct experience of the divine “energies” in this life. In the Western Thomist tradition, we can only observe God’s effects. But of course in both traditions God is believed to reveal himself in ways that are observable.

Edwin

 

[Spiritualawoken]

Seriously? Seriously? lmgtfy.com/?q=buddhist+wars

Um. Little uneducated one, those were people. Or a person. Not the religion whole. catholic tradition has killed children, women , men and everyone who didnt follow their faith. Like i said, opinion, which buddhist had does not sum up to buddhist teachings. Buddhism teaches that there is no opinion. Opinion is formed by ego so the violent buddhist you proclaim can not be used to show buddhism as they were not true buddhist. Buddhism has got me to stop smoking , drinking , hurting people, from being suicidal by realizing life. By seeing my higher spiritual self is inside, not in the sky