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

[Charlemagne_III]

I like Chsterton on Buddhism:

“The rough, shorthand way of putting the difference is that the Christian pities men because they are dying, and the Buddhist pities them becasue they are living. The Christian is sorry for what damages the life of a man; but the Buddhist is sorry for him becasue he is alive…When the Buddha said, “I can only teach you two things: sorrow and the end of sorrow,” he was not saying something trivial and personal, but something tremendous and profound… What he meant was that desire is one with despair, and the only way to be free from despair is to be free from desire. Over against this stands the great Christian conception; that the Creator will indeed give to the creature his heart’s desire, since it is desire for the right thing; but that the creature is free to desire the wrong thing, though it be to desire despair.”

 

[rossum]

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

They carry enough weight to rebut the charge of atheism.

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

No He didn’t create “all that is”, unless you are saying that your God is Himself created?

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

They carry enough weight to rebut the charge of atheism.

No He didn’t create “all that is”, unless you are saying that your God is Himself created?

rossum

But those 10,000 gods are not uncreated, so how can they be gods?

Our God by definition is eternal, uncreated. Buddhist gods are created. So who or what created them?

 

[rossum]

But those 10,000 gods are not uncreated, so how can they be gods?

We have different definitions of “deva”.

Our God by definition is eternal, uncreated.

Which is why I was correct to point out that your God did not create “all that is” in your own system.

Buddhist gods are created. So who or what created them?

They created themselves by their failure to attain nirvana in their previous life. You and I are only here because we both failed to attain nirvana in our previous lives. Our previous actions had the consequence of us being born yet again. Actions and consequences. Causes and effects.

rossum

 

[weller2]

Can science verify the feeling of love?

Oxytocin

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

Nope, it simply means that God is necessarily too big to be completely understood by my (relatively small) brain.

? 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?

Once we establish that life on Earth is a simple consequence of laws governing the universe, it follows that life should also arise elsewhere, if the required conditions are met. (Simplifying, if you do not believe that God had to intervene personally to create life on Earth, then life should arise on any planet similar to precambrian Earth.) This allows you to make a simple probabilistic argument for the number of alien civilizations. From the current estimates (see linked page), probability that a randomly selected star has life-supporting planets is about 4%.

Now, let’s talk about gamma ray bursts. A dying star emits a flash of gamma radiation which is powerful enough to sterilize any planet less than 1000 light years away. (Or at least cause mass extinction). This radiation is emited in two cones with 7 degress opening angle. Some basic trigonometry gives me that the sterilized volume of space is about 10^7 cubic light years.

In our region of space, there is 0.004 stars per cubic light year. Multiplying the two values, we get about 40’000 stars in the affected volume of space. 4% of these have life, which means that 1600 life-supporting planets are being wiped per event.

The number of life-supporting planets having intelligence (civilization) is highly controversial, but let’s assume very conservatively that it is 1%. So, 16 civilizations are wiped, somewhere, each time we see a gamma flash.

And we see on average one per day.

 

[weller2]

But those 10,000 gods are not uncreated, so how can they be gods?

Our God by definition is eternal, uncreated. Buddhist gods are created. So who or what created them?

It’s a terminological problem. Buddhist gods are entities which we would call angels or daemons.

 

[Memaw]

It’s a terminological problem. Buddhist gods are entities which we would call angels or daemons.

I doubt very much their angels. God Bless. Memaw

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You and I are only here because we both failed to attain nirvana in our previous lives. Our previous actions had the consequence of us being born yet again. Actions and consequences. Causes and effects.

Where did this knowledge you present come from? It certainly didn’t come from the gods, since they are subject to actions and consequences along with the rest of us.

Whay I’m getting at here is that you have no way of authoritatively explaining anything. You have revelations from God knows where (certainly not the gods whom you believe can be safely ignored). I don’t know of any other religion in the world that says its gods can be safely ignored. The only conclusion to draw is that these “gods” of yours are really not gods.

So basically it’s true that Buddhism is atheistic.

 

[rossum]

Where did this knowledge you present come from?

From scripture, which in turn is derived from the words of the fully enlightened Buddha.

It certainly didn’t come from the gods, since they are subject to actions and consequences along with the rest of us.

It did not come from the gods, since the Buddha was a Buddha, not a god. However, as with all living things, the Buddha was also subject to actions and consequences. I fail to see how being subject to actions and consequences bars one from the truth. All humans are subject to actions and consequences. Are all humans forever barred from the truth?

The only conclusion to draw is that these “gods” of yours are really not gods.

The gods are the same gods, it is the Buddhist attitude to them that is different. Tell me, where in the Bible does your God tell me how to attain nirvana? What use do I have for a God who does not tell me how to attain nirvana? The Buddha does tell me how to do it; why do I need more?

So basically it’s true that Buddhism is atheistic.

That depends on your definition of “atheistic”. Buddhism is certainly not an Abrahamic religion.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I fail to see how being subject to actions and consequences bars one from the truth. All humans are subject to actions and consequences. Are all humans forever barred from the truth?rossum

No, they certainly are not. But who or what enlightened the Buddha if not the gods?

In Abrahamic religions we invoke God as assurance that we have the truth.

How do you know for a fact that the Buddha has even a smidgeon of the truth if you cannot give the source of that truth other than the Buddha, who is (was) far from a god?

 

[rossum]

No, they certainly are not. But who or what enlightened the Buddha if not the gods?

The Buddha enlightened himself. Nobody can enlighten anybody else; at most they can offer advice and support. Each of us has to do the work for ourselves.

In Abrahamic religions we invoke God as assurance that we have the truth.

I am aware of that. I am also aware that God, as described in the Old Testament, is not enlightened. He kills far to many living beings to be enlightened. Compare that with how many living beings the Buddha killed.

How do you know for a fact that the Buddha has even a smidgeon of the truth if you cannot give the source of that truth other than the Buddha, who is (was) far from a god?

I have tried the methods put forward by the Buddha and they work. An enlightened Buddha is indeed far from a God. The enlightened Buddha is far greater.

rossum

 

[Memaw]

The Buddha enlightened himself. Nobody can enlighten anybody else; at most they can offer advice and support. Each of us has to do the work for ourselves.

I am aware of that. I am also aware that God, as described in the Old Testament, is not enlightened. He kills far to many living beings to be enlightened. Compare that with how many living beings the Buddha killed.

I have tried the methods put forward by the Buddha and they work. An enlightened Buddha is indeed far from a God. The enlightened Buddha is far greater.

rossum

The ultimate truth is, you have not yet found the ULTIMATE TRUTH!!! Jesus said, "I AM the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. Come follow ME. God Bless. Memaw

 

[ericc]

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

This is indeed strange. How were they caused in time? By what or whom? I’m ok if the cause doesn’t exist anymore. Some things are not meant to last. But it would be good to know something about their origin. Hence, before time, (time as I understand began when this universe began), these gods didn’t exist then?

Some gods did exist before the origin of the current material universe.

How do one know that? How many universes were there before the current material universe? Who or what told the people of the current universe this information? The gods? I hope not to go into the multiverse argument.

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

The question is indeed important. If you want to know the nature of these gods, whether they are good or evil, whether they are omnipotent, etc. If these gods are not important, what purpose do they serve other than hanging around? Just the idea that gods have different ages tells you something about the birth/creation/limitation of these so called gods. Perhaps god is too grand a word to describe something so limited? Perhaps spirits?

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.

That human beings are not the only living thing is widely known. The statement that everything dies and reborn is not widely known or accepted as truth or at least the 2nd part. How would anyone know he/she is reborn? There just isn’t any credible proof. The statement “causal agent is previous actions and their later effects” doesn’t explain anything or is it meant to be circular reasoning so no amount of effort can understand what it means?

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.

How do we know that these scriptures are actually true? If these are orally passed down, there must be a first person or living being if not human, to hear it. Which “god(s)” told which person(s) that these are the scriptures? Surely there is a source? If these gods are fairly unimportant or not reliable, isn’t there a risk that all these scriptures are just idle talk of some “gods”? The first living being to hear these scriptures, how do we know that he/it has reliably passed down these knowledge? And the subsequent hearers as well?. All the effort expended to study/live this religion all for naught if the gods were “bluffing” or that the hearers did not reliably passed down these information? What I am trying to pin down whether your source of your scriptures is true and reliable first of all. If deemed to be true and reliable, what is the message of the scriptures. Buddhism still appear as not god-centric but self, with all the pitfalls of self imagination.

 

[rossum]

How were they caused in time? By what or whom?

By their own failure to attain nirvana in their previous lives.

Hence, before time, (time as I understand began when this universe began), these gods didn’t exist then?

The universe has both material and spiritual components. The current material component started at the Big Bang. The spiritual component has no discernible beginning.

How do one know that?

You read it in scripture.

The question is indeed important.

We disagree. If you want answers to all the irrelevant questions, then you will not get answers to the relevant questions. Please name all the angels and archangels. What were the names of all the wives of the men listed in the Biblical genealogies? Were Joseph and Mary left-handed or right-handed? Who were the fathers and mothers of all 700 of Solomon’s wives? Which smith made the lance that pierced Christ’s side?

Irrelevant questions can be multiplied ad infinitum:

At one time the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the Simsapa Grove. Then the Blessed One, taking a few Simsapa leaves in his hand, said to the monks: “What do you think, monks? Which are the more numerous, the few leaves I have here in my hand, or those up in the trees of the grove?”

“Lord, the Blessed One is holding only a few leaves: those up in the trees are far more numerous.”

"In the same way, monks, there are many more things that I have found out, but not revealed to you. What I have revealed to you is only a little. And why, monks, have I not revealed it?

"Because, monks, it is not related to the goal, it is not fundamental to the holy life, does not conduce to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, tranquillity, higher knowledge, enlightenment or Nibbana. That is why I have not revealed it.

– Simsapa sutta. Samyutta Nikaya, 56.31

How would anyone know he/she is reborn?

If you wish to find out, then follow the instructions in Chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga.

How do we know that these scriptures are actually true?

The prescriptions given therein work, and continue to work down to the present day.

If these are orally passed down, there must be a first person or living being if not human, to hear it. Which “god(s)” told which person(s) that these are the scriptures?

There is little point in my posting here if you do not read what I say. Buddhist scriptures were originally spoken by the Buddha, not by any god. I have said this before.

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The Buddha enlightened himself. Nobody can enlighten anybody else; at most they can offer advice and support. Each of us has to do the work for ourselves.

I have tried the methods put forward by the Buddha and they work. An enlightened Buddha is indeed far from a God. The enlightened Buddha is far greater.

This is why most people regard Buddhism as atheistic. As you have indicated, there is really no need for God. We are just fine doing it on our own.

If we depended on any human to figure out all the mystery of life all by himself, we would be playing the fool’s game. Many have tried, but it can’t be done. And it’s the height of arrogance to think it can be done all by oneself.

 

[Lokadottir]

The ultimate truth is, you have not yet found the ULTIMATE TRUTH!!! Jesus said, "I AM the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE. Come follow ME. God Bless. Memaw

The crazy man down the street said he shot his neighbor because “He was going to eat me” the man though he was a jar of peanut butter. I’m not saying Jesus was crazy. I’m saying I have to have believe in this man from 2000 years ago to find it pertinent that he says to believe in him.

 

[rossum]

This is why most people regard Buddhism as atheistic.

Buddhism is functionally atheist – gods can be ignored. It is not strictly atheist as there are dozens of gods in the Theravada suttas and tens of thousands of gods in the Mahayana sutras.

If we depended on any human to figure out all the mystery of life all by himself, we would be playing the fool’s game. Many have tried, but it can’t be done.

The Buddha did it. His major followers did it. Other Buddhists have been doing it ever since. Even those who do not figure out all the mysteries manage to figure out some of them.

And it’s the height of arrogance to think it can be done all by oneself.

How do you know this? Did you figure it out all by yourself?

rossum

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How do you know this? Did you figure it out all by yourself?

Yup!

 

[ericc]

It is strange that the first step to enlightenment was to abandon wife and child. An act of pure selfishness. Then run away from all responsibilities. And blame everything else on karma. And after numbing all the senses through starvation and meditation, enlightenment supposedly ensues. Could this feeling of nirvana be caused by physiological feedback overload caused by severe deprivation of nutrition and intense mental activity aka neural disorder exacerbating existing neural disorder conditions? To the point where they practitioner think he is greater than God?

It is interesting that doing nothing i.e meditating, one is supposedly to be able to gain vast amount of knowledge of life, mysteries of life, all the past lives, karma etc all by themselves. Some how the information just flow into them without any mechanism, or help of any deity. The knowledge just pop into them. Multi universes, previous material universes, spiritual universes, history of past thousand years blah, blah, blah. Aren’t all these signs of some sort of neural disorder? Even if this method can be duplicated by other practitioners to achieve the same symptoms, all it means is that the process is capable of creating the same neural disorders.

Conveniently through the magic word “karma”, one can excuse themselves from assisting another fellow neighbour in pain or suffering because that could be deemed interfering with the karma of another person. How is that for enlightenment?India/Asia has such a long history. Supposedly with all that reincarnation and karma cleansing, we should be observing a nation with progressive improvement in morals and holiness. The observations do not support the claims of those scriptures.

Reincarnation/karma hypothesis is just a poor excuse not to help a fellow neighbour. It is my karma to be rich and happy and yours to be poor and sad. I don’t think that makes it a great religion. That is why in many of such discussions, you just find yourself caught in a never ending argument, where the source is never identified, and pushed indefinitely back into the past. When no memory is retained of past lives, there is no guarantee current lives are lived at a higher moral standard. For an unseen, unknowable karmic debt, payment for such debt is expected to be bore and paid to a creditor which remains unknown and the cause of the debt also remained unknown. This is just plain deception in my opinion. Where detachment from worldly affairs is to be preferred, responsibilities are shirked. Although one can claim there is no self, the whole practice is pure self, pure inward looking, pure selfishness.

 

[rossum]

It is strange that the first step to enlightenment was to abandon wife and child.

And when he had attained enlightenment he returned and enrolled both in the Buddhist order where both attained nirvana.

Is a father who leaves his wife and child to work and make his fortune abroad, and then returns with his new fortune to give great gifts to his family being selfish?

To the point where they practitioner think he is greater than God?

How many people does God kill in the Bible? How many people does the Buddha kill in the Tripitaka? Where in the Bible is that path to nirvana described? I know which one I would rather follow.

It is interesting that doing nothing i.e meditating, one is supposedly to be able to gain vast amount of knowledge of life, mysteries of life, all the past lives, karma etc all by themselves.

You have never meditated, have you? It is a lot more difficult than it looks. Keeping the mind focused on a single subject is far from easy and requires practice. Even with something as simple as counting breaths in groups of ten, it is remarkably difficult to count five groups of ten without the mind wandering away when you start.

Aren’t all these signs of some sort of neural disorder?

Not usually. How many Catholic visions of Saints are due to “neural disorder” and how many are genuine?

Reincarnation/karma hypothesis is just a poor excuse not to help a fellow neighbour.

Failure to give help where it is needed is an unwise action and will generate bad results in future. Helping a neighbour in need is a wise action and will generate good results in future. You need to learn more about karma, and the fact that past karma cannot be changed, while future results can be changed. We cannot prevent our birth; we can prevent our next birth.

“Love others as you love yourself” – The Buddha

It is my karma to be rich and happy and yours to be poor and sad. I don’t think that makes it a great religion.

Correct, which is why the Buddha condemned the Fatalists (Ājīvika) who thought that everything, both past and future, was pre-ordained and unchangeable. For a Buddhist the future is changeable through our own actions.

You are not criticising Buddhism here, but some sort of caricature of Buddhism with bits of Hinduism mixed in. I suggest that you learn more about what you are criticising before continuing on this path.

rossum