The idea that everything is set up just right for life on earth

[Boulder257]

How do you know that all this is true? That gods are:

a) Inhabitants of the universe, immaterial, longer lived, more powerful
b) they actually get to reborn as humans and vice versa

B]What is the purpose of their existence if they don’t explain much? What are their nature? Why do they need to be reborn? How many gods are there altogether? Who decide which gods get to die, get to reborn, which human get to reborn as god? Who and what keeps the system going? How is the system being administered? Are these gods created or have they always existed? How do you get from the Big Bang to gods like these? Did they preceded the Big Bang?

I wouldn’t mind seeing a point by point answer to these questions. They are certainly valid and they would help us to understand. I hope you take the time to answer.

 

[rossum]

By the same token, it would not be wise to import Buddhist assumptions into Abrahamic assumptions.

Agreed. The moral rules are much the same but the underlying philosophies are very different.

The Buddhist gods in no way qaulify as gods that would be recognized in the Abrahamic tradition.

Then why the commandment not to worship other gods “before Me”? If that commandment has any meaning then there must be other gods in existence, such as Chemosh.

They certainly are not supreme beings.

Agreed; such a claim is not made in Buddhism.

So why call them gods at all?

They are called devas, the word “gods” is a translation. The Sanskrit deva is cognate with the Latin deus, so the translation is not unreasonable.

They are not even worshiped and can safely be ignored.

Many of the Buddhist gods are shared with Hinduism, where they are worshipped.

But what does any of this have to do with the title of this thread?

It drifted. If the construction of the universe is attributed to a God, then the nature of gods becomes part of the discussion.

rossum

 

[rossum]

How do you know that all this is true? That gods are:

a) Inhabitants of the universe, immaterial, longer lived, more powerful
b) they actually get to reborn as humans and vice versa

Scripture tells me. It is all there in the Tripitaka.

What is the purpose of their existence if they don’t explain much?

Their purpose is whatever purpose they set for themselves. If they are wise then their purpose will be to walk the path to peace, happiness and nirvana. Much the same as for humans.

What are their nature?

There are a number of different classifications of gods. The lowest are the six Kāma Heavens, which are primarily about sensual pleasure (yes, that is the same word as in “Kāma sūtra”). Next are the four Rupa Heavens, where the gods have a physical body, form, but are above desire. Above that are the four Arupa Heavens, the formless heavens. The four Rupa heavens are associated with the first four Dhyanas (meditative states) while the four Arupa heavens are associated with the 5th to 8th Dhyanas. Attain the corresponding level of meditation and you can glimpse the nature of the heaven in question.

Much of this information on gods comes from chapter three of Vasubandhu’s Abhidharmakośa. You can look there if you wish to pursue the topic further.

Why do they need to be reborn?

Because they have not attained enlightenment and so miss out on nirvana when they die, just like most humans.

How many gods are there altogether?

Lots. Potentially as many as there are living beings in the universe.

Who decide which gods get to die, get to reborn, which human get to reborn as god?

Each person or god decides for him/her/itself by their actions in their current life.

Who and what keeps the system going? How is the system being administered?

Karma. It is ‘administered’ in the same way as gravity. If you throw a rock straight up in the air then it will come down and hit you on the head. If you don’t want to be hit then don’t throw the rock. Actions have consequences, so the whole thing is cause and effect writ large.

Are these gods created or have they always existed?

Neither. All are temporary and if anything ‘created’ them, then it was their earlier selves.

How do you get from the Big Bang to gods like these? Did they preceded the Big Bang?

Any god over 13.5 billion years old preceded the Big Bang. Any younger god did not. We got here because the discussion of the suitability of earth for life included suggestions of the creation of earth by God, and so drifted into a discussion of the nature of gods in general.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Scripture tells me. It is all there in the Tripitaka.
rossum

Who wrote the Tripitaka? And on whose authority are we supposed to take that Scripture as true? Does the Tripitaka contain a passage such as this from Genesis which accounts for Creation on the first day and is compatible with the Big Bang?

“In the beginning God said ‘Let there be light.’”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

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

 

[rossum]

Who wrote the Tripitaka?

It was not written, it was spoken. Then it was transmitted orally. Only later was it written down. The style of the Pali Canon shows very clearly the marks of a long oral transmission.

And on whose authority are we supposed to take that Scripture as true?

On our own authority. We test its prescriptions for ourselves. If they work then we follow them and if they do not work then we reject them.

[The Buddha said:] “Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are bad; these things are blameable; these things are censured by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to harm and ill,’ abandon them. … Kalamas, when you yourselves know: ‘These things are good; these things are not blameable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,’ enter on and abide in them.”

– Kalama sutta, Anguttara Nikaya, 3.65

Does the Tripitaka contain a passage such as this from Genesis which accounts for Creation on the first day and is compatible with the Big Bang?

No. The question is not relevant:

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

– Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

Abrahamic religions are far too interested in history. Buddhism is interested in our current situation and how to cure its problems. The past cannot be changed. The future can. There is no point in wasting time and effort on what cannot be changed.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Abrahamic religions are far too interested in history. Buddhism is interested in our current situation and how to cure its problems. The past cannot be changed. The future can. There is no point in wasting time and effort on what cannot be changed.

Abrahamic religions are vested in the past, the present, and the future. They subscribe to the well known adage that those who refuse to study the past are condemned to relive it. Abrahamic religions believe that knowing the past can help to sustain us in the present and propel us wisely and mercifully into the future. After all, it was out of the Christian West, not the Buddhist East, that came the belief in changing the world into something better than it had ever been.

 

[rossum]

Abrahamic religions are vested in the past, the present, and the future. They subscribe to the well known adage that those who refuse to study the past are condemned to relive it. Abrahamic religions believe that knowing the past can help to sustain us in the present and propel us wisely and mercifully into the future. After all, it was out of the Christian West, not the Buddhist East, that came the belief in changing the world into something better than it had ever been.

We do nor want to change the world into something better. We want to change ourselves into someone better.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

Gods are not an explanation for much. They are inhabitants of the universe who are immaterial, longer lived and more powerful than other inhabitants, but not fundamentally different. Gods may be reborn as humans; humans may be reborn as gods.

Buddhism is not an Abrahamic religion, so it is usually an error to import Abrahamic assumptions into Buddhism.

rossum

In fact Buddhism has no explanation for the origin, value or purpose of existence. It recognises the reality of spiritual development but implies that it occurs in a vacuum - with the physical universe tagged on as an inexplicable accretion. If the conditions for life on earth are fortuitous why is life on earth an integral part of Buddhist doctrine?

 

[ericc]

Why is citing scripture sufficient for ONLY the Christians on here?

Do you have the answers? Or is it your routine to answer valid questions with questions without answering? I do not know whether the answer is scripture. Are you replying on behalf of rossum?

I thought original Buddhism was godless. If rossum’s version of Buddhism have gods in it, I think it is a valid question to ask about the nature of his gods. If the original version of scriptures did not have such gods, isn’t it a valid question to ask of rossum where they come from? Since you know the answer is scriptures, please answer these questions with more detail.

If I were an atheist, would you have answered the same way? If you have no answer, please wait for the real dude to turn up. At times, silence is golden if you have no value add.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We do nor want to change the world into something better. We want to change ourselves into someone better.

Guess what? The world IS ourselves!

 

[ericc]

Neither. All are temporary and if anything ‘created’ them, then it was their earlier selves.

So either they have always existed or they came out of nothingness?

Any god over 13.5 billion years old preceded the Big Bang. Any younger god did not. We got here because the discussion of the suitability of earth for life included suggestions of the creation of earth by God, and so drifted into a discussion of the nature of gods in general.

Just to clarify. You do have gods existing before the creation of the universe? If they existed before the creation of the universe, did these gods play a role in the creation of the universe? Or if these gods came after the creation of the universe, before there were human beings, how did these gods appear into existence. Was there a causal agent?

If there are gods before the creation of the universe, how many of them were/are there, do they have names, what do they do, which god spoke to which human on what subject, and finally which human first wrote down your scriptures in what time frame?

 

[rossum]

In fact Buddhism has no explanation for the origin, value or purpose of existence.

Christianity does not provide an explanation for the origin of existence. God exists, so the origin of existence is the same as the origin of God. What is the Christian explanation for the origin of God?

It recognises the reality of spiritual development but implies that it occurs in a vacuum - with the physical universe tagged on as an inexplicable accretion.

The physical universe is the result of cause and effect, just as everything else. The Brahmajala sutta (DN 1) refers.

If the conditions for life on earth are fortuitous why is life on earth an integral part of Buddhist doctrine?

Not fortuitous, but the result of cause and effect. In Buddhism life exists on a lot more planets than just earth. See the Vimalakirtinirdesa, chapter 10 for one example. Buddhist doctrine has life in the hells, in the material universe, on earth and elsewhere, and in the heavens.

rossum

 

[rossum]

I thought original Buddhism was godless.

You are misinformed. Buddhism has always mentioned gods. However, those gods are of minor importance. Their main function in scripture is to listen to the Buddha preaching and to applaud at the right places. Basically Buddhism ignores gods, rather than denies them.

Here is a god speaking, taken from the earliest layer of Buddhist scriptures, the Pali canon:

“I am the Brahma, the great Brahma, the conqueror, the unconquered, the all-seeing, the subjector of all to his wishes, the omnipotent, the maker, the creator, the supreme, the controller, the one confirmed in the practice of jhana, and father to all that have been and shall be. I have created these other beings.”

– Brahmajala sutta, Digha Nikaya 1

rossum

 

[rossum]

So either they have always existed or they came out of nothingness?

A false dichotomy. They were caused in time, and their cause no longer exists. Everything that exists is caused, temporary and subject to change.

Just to clarify. You do have gods existing before the creation of the universe?

The word “creation” is incorrect. Some gods did exist before the origin of the current material universe.

If they existed before the creation of the universe, did these gods play a role in the creation of the universe?

Some may have. The question is not important. Since the universe exists, we have to work with it as it is now.

Or if these gods came after the creation of the universe, before there were human beings, how did these gods appear into existence. Was there a causal agent?

Human beings are not the only form of living thing. Everything dies and is reborn. The causal agent is previous actions and their later effects.

If there are gods before the creation of the universe, how many of them were/are there, do they have names, what do they do, which god spoke to which human on what subject,

There were as many gods as there are angels which can dance on the head of a pin. The parable of the man shot with a poisoned arrow applies here:

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

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

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

– Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, Majjhima Nikaya 63

and finally which human first wrote down your scriptures in what time frame?

The Pali canon was first written down in Sri Lanka about 100 BCE by Sinhalese monks. It is possible that one or other of the Sanskrit canons was written a little earlier, but those versions were written before 1 CE.

rossum

 

[josh987654321]

On scripture.

May I ask what evidence your scripture writers had of Karma?

We are not completely material, we have one material component and four immaterial components. None of the four immaterial components is a soul. This is standard Buddhism.

May I ask how we would not be completely material if the cause for our very existance was completely material?

Of course science is unreliable. That is why if you look at a scientific paper you will see the margin of error stated on any results given. Like opinion polls that have 3% error, scientific results also have error estimates attached.

It may be a mirage, but it is a consistent mirage. Every time I drop something it falls under gravity at a known acceleration. The mirage is consistent, so I will work with that consistency as much as I can.

In Dawkins book ‘The God Delusion’ he say’s “When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.”

Could I not say *“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called science.” *?

Neither. We cannot think freely, since there are thoughts that we cannot think. Can you think of the nature of sensations a fish gets from its lateral line system? Can you think of what a bee sees when it detects polarized light? Can you think of what it is to walk like a millipede?

(within the boundaries of our nature)

If our very existance is due to an unintelligble, determined cause, than how could we be intelligible or free? how could the result of unitelligibility be intelligibility? the product of unintelligibility could only appear to be intelligibile wouldn’t you agree?

Again with the “who”. Why do you insist on personalising that which is not personal? I live in an intelligible, caused universe, and I guide myself through this universe. If you really want a “who” for the universe in which I live, then the “who” is myself. Different people see the universe differently, so in some senses we are all living in our own self-created universes. Some people live in a universe where President Obama is the anti-Christ, intent on destroying America; other people live in a universe where he is a reasonably good president hampered by an overly obstructive opposition in congress.

How do you get the existance of a ‘who’ from an ‘it’?

‘it’ produces ‘who’ if ‘it’ is the source of our existance, than we are also an ‘it’ delusional in thinking we are a ‘who’ but if a ‘who’ is the source of our existance, I believe than and only than can we be a ‘who’

For the material universe I look for material causes. For the spiritual universe I look for spiritual causes, but since I am Buddhist my spiritual causes are not the Abrahamic deity.

The material universe say’s we have no spiritual causes. Materialism and Supernaturalism cannot be reconciled. If the cause for our universe is entirely material, than you cannot get supernaturalism out of it. Didn’t you mention ealier about the ‘God of the gaps’ argument Dawkins uses? so who is appealing to supernatural gaps now?

First, there are many more gods in my scriptures than in yours. One thing that Buddhism does not lack is gods. Why does the presence of one or more gods suddenly render subjective truths objective? What is the logical link?

rossum

Because without a supreme being, an intelligible creator of the universe and us. who/what could you appeal to for objective truth? Atheism tells us that the human mind is the human brain and it’s the end product of a mindless unguided process, why should I believe anything it tells me if thats the case?

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. C.S. Lewis

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Except that we have now arrived at deism. Since life can arise in the Universe by itself, then all that God HAD to do was to set down initial laws and initiate the Big Bang.

Now I believe it would be good to look into the historically verfiable Jesus Christ and his cross and resurrection.

You might also like this youtube video called ‘Science tests the faith’ - youtube.com/watch?v=-kuxEJXgGSI

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[josh987654321]

Yeah, but it’s not like there is any scientific evidence which necessisates the Creator. As far as science is concerned, the Creator is currently unverifiable.

Can science verify the feeling of love?

That said, while I prefer Creator to the multiverse, I’m very sceptical that Christianity got the whole truth in this matter. More like a part of truth, and the complete truth is unknowable for a human anyway.

To say that the whole truth is ‘unknowable’ means that you believe you know the whole truth and that it’s not completely knowable.

I’ll have a look, thanks. But the quote about Big Bang you’ve posted doe not fill me with much hope

Okay.

Oh, that’s just something I find terribly amusing when I look at Christianity as a complete system. I mean, you have God who is ultimately responsible for the entire Universe, with its galaxy collisions, black holes tearing star is apart, supernova explosions obliterating planets, gamma ray bursts wiping civilizations – and who, at the same time is greatly concerned that in galaxy #77881485647, on a planet #585451548560, lifeform #47912268951 is doing something inappropriate with its genitals.

? Do you know there are other lifeforms out there being obliterated all of the time do you? I thought ‘aliens’ or other lifeforms in the universe were only regarded as ‘possible’, so how do you know that they do exist on these other planets etc and are thus being wiped out by supernova’s etc all of the time?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[tonyrey]

May I ask what evidence your scripture writers had of Karma?

May I ask how we would not be completely material if the cause for our very existence was completely material?

In Dawkins book ‘The God Delusion’ he say’s “When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.”

Could I not say *“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called science.” *?

(within the boundaries of our nature)

If our very existence is due to an unintelligible, determined cause, than how could we be intelligible or free? how could the result of unintelligibility be intelligibility? the product of unintelligibility could only appear to be intelligible wouldn’t you agree?

How do you get the existence of a ‘who’ from an ‘it’?

‘it’ produces ‘who’ if ‘it’ is the source of our existence, than we are also an ‘it’ delusional in thinking we are a ‘who’ but if a ‘who’ is the source of our existence, I believe than and only than can we be a ‘who’

The material universe says we have no spiritual causes. Materialism and Supernaturalism cannot be reconciled. If the cause for our universe is entirely material, than you cannot get supernaturalism out of it. Didn’t you mention ealier about the ‘God of the gaps’ argument Dawkins uses? so who is appealing to supernatural gaps now?

Because without a supreme being, an intelligible creator of the universe and us. who/what could you appeal to for objective truth? Atheism tells us that the human mind is the human brain and it’s the end product of a mindless unguided process, why should I believe anything it tells me if that’s the case?

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset. C.S. Lewis

Thank you for reading
Josh

An incisive and decisive post!

 

[rossum]

May I ask what evidence your scripture writers had of Karma?

Buddhist scriptures are the words of the enlightened Buddha, so it is his knowledge that backs them up. We can also test his words by trying out his prescriptions and seeing if they work. They do.

What evidence do your scripture writers have of the existence of an immortal soul?

May I ask how we would not be completely material if the cause for our very existance was completely material?

The causes (plural) of our existence are not completely material. There is an immaterial component, formations/samskāra, that carries our accumulated karma from previous lives.

In Dawkins book ‘The God Delusion’ he say’s “When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion.”

Could I not say *“When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called science.” *?

You could say whatever you want. There is no guarantee that what you say is correct. The overwhelming success of modern science would tend to indicate that you would be incorrect to make that statement.

If our very existance is due to an unintelligble, determined cause, than how could we be intelligible or free?

Buddhism rejects all essentialist reasoning. You would also do well to study emergent properties. Hydrogen is a gas. Oxygen is a gas. How can a liquid like water be produces from a combination of two such gases? Where is the essential liquidness in either of the two components? Sodium is a poison. Chlorine is a poison. Salt, sodium chloride, is not a poison and is required for life – without it we die. Where did the essential poisonousness of the two components go? Where did the required-for-life property of salt come from?

the product of unintelligibility could only appear to be intelligibile wouldn’t you agree?

No, I would disagree. Intelligibility is not an intrinsic property. Here is some text:

nyer zhir 'khrid mdzad gang yin dang 'gro la phan par byed
rnams lam shes nyid kyis 'jig rten don sgrub mdzad pa gang
gang dang yang dag ldan pas thub rnams rnam pa kun ldan

Is that text intelligible? Maybe not to you, but it is intelligible to someone who can read Tibetan. Intelligibility is not an intrinsic property, but an extrinsic property.

I believe than and only than can we be a ‘who’

I do not share your belief. Again you are in essentialist mode, which I reject. “Who” is another emergent property, not found in any of its components.

Materialism and Supernaturalism cannot be reconciled.

Methodological materialism, which is what science uses, can easily be reconciled with supernaturalism. Every religious scientist makes exactly that reconciliation, Monseigneur Georges Lemaître for example. Supernaturalism cannot be reconciled with philosophical materialism. It is a common error to mistake methodological materialism for philosophical materialism.

If the cause for our universe is entirely material

It isn’t.

Because without a supreme being, an intelligible creator of the universe and us. who/what could you appeal to for objective truth?

To that which exists. Truth is in agreement with what exists; falsehood is not in such agreement. Our objective criterion is the universe itself. Occam’s razor removes the need for any entity beyond that. In philosophical terms we can define the universe as “all that exists”, and hence any such entity that you propose is already part of the universe, so defined.

Atheism tells us that the human mind is the human brain and it’s the end product of a mindless unguided process, why should I believe anything it tells me if thats the case?

Numerically, the Abrahamic religions are closer to atheism than Buddhism is. Buddhism has tens of thousands of gods.

If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision…

It wasn’t. Gravity is not accidental, and the solar system is the result of an accretion disc condensing under gravity. C. S. Lewis was not an astronomer, and our understanding of astronomy has advanced since the time he was writing.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Numerically, the Abrahamic religions are closer to atheism than Buddhism is. Buddhism has tens of thousands of gods.

But those gods carry no significant weight by your own admission.

10,000 gods are no match for the one God who has created all that is.