The Atheistic Explanation for the Mystery of Existence

[bisco]

i knew quantum mechanics would show herself, sooner or later.

 

[hangnail]

For even an imaginary reality, is still a reality. Instead I’m talking in a Quantum Mechanical, Heisenberg Uncertainty sort of a way. In other words, every possible reality that could exist, does exist, or at least has the potential to exist, and this includes a reality in which there’s absolutely nothing.

What does QM have to with this?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It is the Buddha who tells us that the gods cannot help us attain nirvana. If you want something material, like curing a disease, then by all means pray to a god. If you want to attain nirvana, then you will have to do it yourself.

rossum

What exactly is nirvana?

How did Buddha acquire this knowledge of nirvana without a god to inspire him?

Why is Buddhism so dedicated to the idea that gods cannot help us to achieve nirvana?

That is to say, did Buddha just think up nirvana on his own, or did he get inspired by one of the gods?

 

[bisco]

What does QM have to with this?

well, that’s the question, isn’t it? atheists thorough it out there whenever the run out of reason, then tell you it explains everything, and you’re too stupid to understand it.

 

[hangnail]

Some aspects of God are dependent on finite beings. God cannot be the “creator” unless there is also a creation. A creator who hasn’t created anything is not a creator.

True, but this doesn’t make God’s existence contingent upon the creature. However the creature’s existence is contingent upon God’s.

Do not confuse the Dharmakaya with a god (or God). As I have pointed out, any and all gods (or God) have a relatively lowly place in Buddhism.

Zen masters are making the confusion, not me.

A further name for the irreducible, time-and-space-transcending mysterious Truth or Essence of Buddhic Reality spoken of in some Mahayana and tantric texts is the Dharmakaya (Body of Truth). Of this the Zen Buddhist master Sokei-An, says:[50]
*
… dharmakaya [is] the equivalent of God* … The Buddha also speaks of no time and no space, where if I make a sound there is in that single moment a million years. It is spaceless like radio waves, like electric space - intrinsic. The Buddha said that there is a mirror that reflects consciousness. In this electric space a million miles and a p(name removed by moderator)oint - a million years and a moment - are exactly the same. It is pure essence … We call it ‘original consciousness’ - ‘original akasha’ - perhaps God in the Christian sense. I am afraid of speaking about anything that is not familiar to me. No one can know what IT is…

(source: Wikipedia: God in Buddhism)

In particular, the Abrahamic God kills (or orders to be killed) far too many people to be assigned a high place in the Buddhist hierarchy. Jesus is usually considered to be a Bodhisattva. The OT God is far less well respected.

I’m not advocating the God of Abraham.

 

[hangnail]

well, that’s the question, isn’t it? atheists thorough it out there whenever the run out of reason, then tell you it explains everything, and you’re too stupid to understand it.

As far as I can see, QM invalidates the materialistic worldview.

 

[rossum]

What exactly is nirvana?

Not what you probably think it is. It is what is left when all the illusions are stripped away.

How did Buddha acquire this knowledge of nirvana without a god to inspire him?

Over many many lifetimes, and over six years of trial and error in his last life.

Why is Buddhism so dedicated to the idea that gods cannot help us to achieve nirvana?

Dedicated? No. Buddhism is dedicated to helping all living beings attain nirvana. As part of that is included advice as to what is useful: morality, meditation, and what is not useful: praying to gods.

That is to say, did Buddha just think up nirvana on his own, or did he get inspired by one of the gods?

False dichotomy. Neither of the options you propose is correct. The Buddha (re)discovered the technique to attain nirvana. Many of the techniques are available in other religions as well, and they are also available to the gods, should they wish to pursue them.

For a Christian example, here is Thomas Merton:

[At Polonnaruwa] I am able to approach the Buddhas barefoot and undisturbed, my feet in wet grass, wet sand. Then the silence of the extraordinary faces. The great smiles. Huge and yet subtle. Filled with every possibility, questioning nothing, knowing everything, rejecting nothing, the peace not of emotional resignation but of sunyata, that has seen through every question without trying to discredit anyone or anything – without refutation – without establishing some argument. For the doctrinaire, the mind that needs well established positions, such peace, such silence, can be frightening.

I was knocked over with a rush of relief and thankfulness at the obvious clarity of the figures, the clarity and fluidity of shape and line, the design of the monumental bodies composed into the rock shape and landscape, figure rock and tree. And the sweep of bare rock slopping away on the other side of the hollow, where you can go back and see different aspects of the figures. Looking at these figures I was suddenly, almost forcibly, jerked clean out of the habitual, half-tied vision of things, and an inner clearness, clarity, as if exploding from the rocks themselves, became evident and obvious. The queer evidence of the reclining figure, the smile, the sad smile of Ananda standing with arms folded (much more “imperative” than Da Vinci’s Mona Lisa because completely simple and straightforward).

The thing about all this is that there is no puzzle, no problem and really no “mystery.” All problems are resolved and everything is clear, simply because what matters is clear. The rock, all matter, all life is charged with dharmakaya … everything is emptiness and everything is compassion. I don’t know when in my life I have ever had such a sense of beauty and spiritual validity running together in one aesthetic illumination. … I mean, I know and have seen what I was obscurely looking for. I don’t know what else remains, but I have now seen and have pierced through the surface and have got beyond the shadow and the disguise. …

It says everything, it needs nothing. And because it needs nothing it can afford to be silent, unnoticed, undiscovered. It does not need to be discovered. It is we who need to discover it.

From: The Asian Journal of Thomas Merton

rossum

 

[rossum]

True, but this doesn’t make God’s existence contingent upon the creature. However the creature’s existence is contingent upon God’s.

If God is defined as the creator, then God becomes contingent on creation. If God is not necessarily the creator, then He is not contingent.

The same applied to many properties assigned to God. Being eternal is contingent on time. Being omnipresent is contingent on space and so forth. A non-contingent God can have very few, if any, properties.

Zen masters are making the confusion, not me.

Zen masters come at things from a different direction. What they say is well worth thinking about.

I’m not advocating the God of Abraham.

Good. He does not set a good example by His behaviour.

rossum

 

[Aloysium]

What exactly is nirvana?

How did Buddha acquire this knowledge of nirvana without a god to inspire him?

Why is Buddhism so dedicated to the idea that gods cannot help us to achieve nirvana?

That is to say, did Buddha just think up nirvana on his own, or did he get inspired by one of the gods?

Imagine a Buddhist forum where someone posts as a representative of Christian faith.
What would be some of your thoughts about that person’s authority to do so.
Please take what such posters say as merely statements of their own beliefs.

Buddha acheived a state of bodhi which is generally translated as enlightenment, but is more accurately “awaking up and understanding”.
What I believe is that he realized the nature of the soul and the nature of its enslavement. The craving and ignorance that is at the root of suffering is sin.

He spoke as a member of a culture different from ours, with a different view of the world.
The metaphor is different and it gets even more confusing since what we are talking about is reality which in itself is mystery.

Nirvana is a state of being sin-free. There are ways to get there, and some can get through the narrow gate; most cannot.

To say that Buddha realized the Truth, is presenting the same idea as when we say that it was revealed to him - the difference being the way we look at the relationship between the agent and the object. Which do we describe, the image or the background that defines it. There is a Truth which Buddha realizes or which reveals Himself (the Truth being transcendent and greater, not less than humanity).

There are no gods. It is all illusion - ways of understanding, the cognitive manifestations of man’s relationship to the Universe of which we are a part and participate and to He who transcends it, and is our Creator in all time, Here and Now.

The Buddha did not think up anything. He taught what he knew to be Real.

 

[Partinobodycula]

What does QM have to with this?

You asked why there’s something rather than nothing, if both states are equally likely, and if in fact both states actually exist, then it seems quite obvious as to why you’re asking this question in a reality in which there’s something, rather than in a reality in which there’s nothing. So what QM has to do with it is, that it may provide the answer as to why there’s something rather than nothing. It may simply be that “nothing” is incapable of being self-aware.

As far as I can see, QM invalidates the materialistic worldview.

It would indeed appear that way. Which leads to some rather intriguing observations. In the worldview of most theists it goes like this, an immaterial “necessary being” gave rise to a material universe, and this material universe in turn gave rise to an immaterial consciousness, me. So somehow, the immaterial gave rise to the material, and then the material gave rise to the immaterial again. But wouldn’t it be much simpler to just switch the order a bit. Perhaps an immaterial “necessary being”, gave rise to an immaterial consciousness, which in turn gave rise to an immaterial universe. No need to switch back and forth between the immaterial and the material, because there is nothing material. This doesn’t mean that reality doesn’t exist, simply that it isn’t material. It isn’t the cause, it’s the effect. Consciousness is the cause, and the “material” universe is the effect. A necessary being gave rise to consciousness, and that consciousness gave rise to everything around it.

But if my consciousness isn’t the product of a material universe, but rather of some “necessary being”, doesn’t that sort of imply that I’m God? Yes and no. There’s no reason to believe that a necessary being can’t give rise to an untold multitude of consciousnesses, each of which may contain some small essence of God, but isn’t in itself the totality of God. And after all, doesn’t the bible say that we’re made in His image. We must in some way be a reflection of Him. And if God isn’t physical, then in what way are we a reflection of Him?

Simply changing the order of things so that reality doesn’t change from immaterial, to material, and back again, goes a long way to explaining why the world is the way it is. But I suppose that’s the subject for another post, and one which I suspect that no one here is interested in reading. So I’ll leave my post as is, and only elaborate as necessary.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Buddha did not think up anything. He taught what he knew to be Real.

Buddhism does not appeal to me at all. There is no God who really matters. There is no assurance of anything but our human choices which may be as mistaken as they can be, there being no absolute assurance of anything and no authority to grant absolute assurance. Since there is no transcendent God, and since all other gods (however they might be defined) are not significant, this Buddhist universe strikes me as meaningless and dead end. Whom does the Buddhist talk to except himself? Perfect and rampant solipsism.

 

[hangnail]

If God is defined as the creator, then God becomes contingent on creation. If God is not necessarily the creator, then He is not contingent.

I already agreed with you on this point. But that’s not what is at issue here. God’s EXISTENCE is not contingent (dependent) upon the creation. But the creation’s existence is contingent upon God’s. .

 

[rossum]

I already agreed with you on this point. But that’s not what is at issue here. God’s EXISTENCE is not contingent (dependent) upon the creation. But the creation’s existence is contingent upon God’s. .

So, we move on to whether God’s actions are necessary or contingent.

If God’s creating is necessary, then creation is also necessary, since it is the result of a necessary action. That action could not not have happened. (if you take my meaning) God has no choice over His necessary actions.

rossum

 

[hangnail]

You asked why there’s something rather than nothing, if both states are equally likely, and if in fact both states actually exist, then it seems quite obvious as to why you’re asking this question in a reality in which there’s something, rather than in a reality in which there’s nothing. So what QM has to do with it is, that it may provide the answer as to why there’s something rather than nothing. It may simply be that “nothing” is incapable of being self-aware.

I still don’t see what “self-awareness” has to do with QM.

Perhaps an immaterial “necessary being”, gave rise to an immaterial consciousness, which in turn gave rise to an immaterial universe.

Yes, this is immaterialism or idealism. And this may have something to do with QM. It’s called “consciousness collapses the wavefunction.”

 

[Aloysium]

Buddhism does not appeal to me at all. There is no God who really matters. There is no assurance of anything but our human choices which may be as mistaken as they can be, there being no absolute assurance of anything and no authority to grant absolute assurance. Since there is no transcendent God, and since all other gods (however they might be defined) are not significant, this Buddhist universe strikes me as meaningless and dead end. Whom does the Buddhist talk to except himself? Perfect and rampant solipsism.

:twocents:

There is one Magisterium.
Budddhism, like Hinduism is as good as one’s Master/Guru. In that grouping of religious thought there are more factions than those found in Christianity.
Since the Church was founded by the Word and is guided by the Holy Spirit, I believe it is the smart move to follow its teachings.

One has a relationship with one’s spouse that is different from those of the kids, the neighbours, colleagues, etc.
The impression of the spouse differs radically depending on the particular relationship.
As there is one spouse, there is one Reality.
Buddhism expresses a particular sort of relationship to Divine Reality.
Wouldn’t a “Buddhist universe” be an imaginary entity created in one’s mind from that belief system.
It would be as useless and as unreal as “a Christian universe” if the is the end of it - to merely say one comprehends.
The whole point is where those ideas lead and what one does.
This is no game in the imagination but a reaching out to ultimate Reality.

Individually and as one body humanity journeys towards communion with God.
We see Catholic doctrine as evolving. Eg: There is no formal mention of the Trinity as such by Christ; the concept was formulated and continues to be developed as we get closer to the Truth.
As the Truth of Old Testament is revealed through the lens that is Jesus Christ, applying the same method to other religions, we can observe their truths shining through.

What draws me to eastern thought is the immediacy of the relationship with God.
He is to be found nowhere else but here and now.
To the degree to which one’s life is not all about God, that is the degree to which it is wasted.
In this very moment, we are in the presence of God. This is where we work on our relationship.

As to solipsism, the issue has to do with the idea of being.
If it were static, unconnected presence, you have a point.
Since it can also be understood as compassion and love, then there is anything but simply an isolated oneself.
It boils down to the fact that the Trinity is the true reality from whom all creation derives its existence.
It is in compassion that one is created, along with the incomprehensible capacity to be compassionate towards all else that has been similarly brought into being…
In that compassion, in giving of oneself to what is other, one joins all creation in loving communion.
In that loving communion we find God Himself.

I may be coming on stronger than I wish to, but it would take too long to modulate my response.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

:twocents:There is no formal mention of the Trinity as such by Christ; the concept was formulated and continues to be developed as we get closer to the Truth.

I’m curious as to why you do not regard this as Christ’s formal mention of the Trinity.

Matthew 28:19 ►

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

 

[hangnail]

So, we move on to whether God’s actions are necessary or contingent.

If God’s creating is necessary, then creation is also necessary, since it is the result of a necessary action. That action could not not have happened. (if you take my meaning) God has no choice over His necessary actions.

The creation is necessary if God could not have chosen but to create. However, the creation is still dependent upon God for its existence. God is not dependent on the creation for his existence.

Keep in mind, from the theistic perspective, something has to exist. Whether the creation is necessary because God’s decision to create could not have been otherwise doesn’t change anything.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m curious as to why you do not regard this as Christ’s formal mention of the Trinity.

Matthew 28:19 ►

“Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

I wrote too much and too little.
The point was that Doctrine developed. Jesus did not use the word “Trinity”, which I believed was coined two centuries later. Most Dogma was clarified in response to heresies, to define the Catholic Faith.
Just as we can get to the truth contained in Christianity, we can also do this with other religions.
I am not a Buddhist, most definitely not an apologist, but my exposure to its teachings and methods make it clear to me that the Buddha had a deep and important relationship with God. He is not described in those terms, but that is what I see. The message, couched in many centuries-old terms belonging to another culture, can still be discerned in terms that are consistent with Christianity, imho. I admit I am making it sound easier than it actually is. Buddhism does not contain the fullness of truth. It also does not have a Magisterium and there are many very different interpretations.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I wrote too much and too little.
The point was that Doctrine developed. Jesus did not use the word “Trinity”, which I believed was coined two centuries later. Most Dogma was clarified in response to heresies, to define the Catholic Faith.

My understanding is that the doctrine was developed immediately. The term “Trinity” may have been introduced later but is not a development of the doctrine. Yes, teachings of the Church do develop as a result of the Holy Spirit inspiring the magisterium of the Church.

That is what is so disconcerting about Buddhism. There is no Magisterium. Buddhism is as fractured as Protestantism in its approaches to God.

Buddha said: “I can only teach you two things: sorrow and the end of sorrow.”

Jesus teaches us a great deal more: He teaches of joy and unending joy, but only if we follow his way rather than our own.

 

[Aloysium]

My understanding is that the doctrine was developed immediately. The term “Trinity” may have been introduced later but is not a development of the doctrine. Yes, teachings of the Church do develop as a result of the Holy Spirit inspiring the magisterium of the Church.

That is what is so disconcerting about Buddhism. There is no Magisterium. Buddhism is as fractured as Protestantism in its approaches to God.

Buddha said: “I can only teach you two things: sorrow and the end of sorrow.”

Jesus teaches us a great deal more: He teaches of joy and unending joy, but only if we follow his way rather than our own.

Jesus is the Truth, the Way and the Light.
Through the Doctrine we come to understand Him, guided by the Holy Spirit.
The nature of our relationship with God, continues to be elucidated as we see in the writings of Ratzinger.

As I said, I am not an apologist for Buddhism.
I do see truth contained within its teachings, which I do not believe I am distorting to make them fit.
As to their methods, they are little different than those employed by mystics everywhere to release themselves to what is ultimately the will of God.

At the end of sorrows, is unending joy.