What can you say about the following claims?

[rossum]

The problem with treating an abstraction, beauty for example, as having material existence is that it cannot be put under the natural science microscope in the same way the eyeball can. The sensory realm used for informing oneself of reality is limited not only externally but also by what mechanical tools can be used for reality’s exploration.

Beauty is indeed a non-material abstraction, however it is a non-material abstraction that is formed entirely in our minds. As long as we remember that it is an internal abstraction it is not a problem. The problem arises when we reify the internal abstraction into something external.

When one chooses to close the door on anything that is not material, the human experience of reality is flawed. A flawed personal experience does not change reality; it only limits personal knowledge of it.

I have no problem with the existence of the non-material. I do have a problem with internal abstractions being reified into external reality. It is correct to allow reality, both material reality and immaterial reality, to drive our internal abstractions; it is an error to allow our internal abstractions to try to drive external reality.

rossum

 

[jmcrae]

The problem with treating an abstraction, beauty for example, as having material existence is that it cannot be put under the natural science microscope in the same way the eyeball can.

The branch of philosophy called Aesthetics deals with how we understand and perceive beauty.

The Greeks believed that as human beings, we find to be “beautiful” that which most reminds us of ourselves - thus, my child is “beautiful” to my eye, because he looks like me. Architecture is “beautiful” when it is created according to human proportions. Paintings, sculptures, and other static pieces are “beautiful” when they take for their subject matter heroic human experiences; likewise, stories are “great” that help us to better appreciate heroic human experiences.

When one chooses to close the door on anything that is not material, the human experience of reality is flawed. A flawed personal experience does not change reality; it only limits personal knowledge of it.

 

[DonM]

Reification is a purely mental construct. We have all seen beautiful sights, none of us have seen ‘Beauty’ separate from any particular object…The problem comes when people take their mental constructs and think that they reflect something in the real world.

For the sake of brevity, let me say this:

The problem of impermanence is thorny in Western philosophy as well as Buddhism. Plato decided that concepts were real, our experience shadows. Kant decided that certain concepts were a priori. There is a tradition in the West of solving the question of impermanence by reification and dualism. This doesn’t conflict with Scripture, but isn’t mandated, as far as I can see, either. I find one of the central tenets of Christianity – the Trinity – to challenge notions of simple dualism and absolutism.

Buddhism looks at the problem of Plato with universals and particulars, and steadfastly refuses to consider any reaching beyond to something solid as valid. Theoretically, the Buddhist remains poised in non-dualism, avoiding reification and nihilism equally. Except, of course, that Buddhism, as practiced by the common person historically, is every bit as superstitious and reified as any Christian practice. I’m not so certain, myself, that reification is avoidable. Since ultimately Buddhism takes matters on faith (that is, without proof), I struggle with why the analysis starts with this “scientific” inquiry, and then blocks off the avenue of the eternal, while opening other avenues of nonscientific doctrine. I also struggle with why, logically, suffering should be considered a result of clinging to illusion as opposed to simply something we can do nothing about, except in small concrete ways that may leave no lasting improvement, even to ourselves.

It seems the Buddhist must take the notion of enlightenment and transcending suffering on faith, just as the Christian takes God on faith. I realize that there is a ‘Buddhism Without Beliefs” approach, but I can’t distinguish it from simple atheistic materialism.

Is there absolute truth? You decide. You can choose materialism, with the hopelessness that follows. You can choose to disbelieve in absolute truth, but accept, against considerable evidence, that suffering can be transcended, and possibly accept, against considerable evidence, rebirth and karma. Or you can believe, also against considerable evidence, that God is Truth, that God loves us.

 

[rossum]

The problem of impermanence is thorny in Western philosophy as well as Buddhism. Plato decided that concepts were real, our experience shadows. Kant decided that certain concepts were a priori. There is a tradition in the West of solving the question of impermanence by reification and dualism. This doesn’t conflict with Scripture, but isn’t mandated, as far as I can see, either. I find one of the central tenets of Christianity – the Trinity – to challenge notions of simple dualism and absolutism.

Buddhism looks at the problem of Plato with universals and particulars, and steadfastly refuses to consider any reaching beyond to something solid as valid. Theoretically, the Buddhist remains poised in non-dualism, avoiding reification and nihilism equally.

Agreed. The world is a mixture of change and permanence. I see Buddhist philosophy as taking the change as the more fundamental with the permanence being a veneer of appearance over the underlying change. Western philosophy, particularly Platonic, tends to see the permanent as more fundamental with a veneer of apparent change laid over it.

Except, of course, that Buddhism, as practiced by the common person historically, is every bit as superstitious and reified as any Christian practice. I’m not so certain, myself, that reification is avoidable.

It is not avoidable this side of enlightenment. I agree that the ordinary ‘Buddhist in the pews’ is not terribly knowledgeable about the more abstruse reaches of sunyata and the tathagatagarbha, any more than the average ‘Catholic in the pews’ is always aware of the difference between latria and dulia when praying to a Saint.

Since ultimately Buddhism takes matters on faith (that is, without proof), I struggle with why the analysis starts with this “scientific” inquiry, and then blocks off the avenue of the eternal, while opening other avenues of nonscientific doctrine.

Buddhism starts with faith, but as we progress along the path we need less faith as knowledge gradually replaces faith. By the end of the path we have reached our goal and we do not need faith any more.

It seems the Buddhist must take the notion of enlightenment and transcending suffering on faith, just as the Christian takes God on faith.

Not entirely. The Buddha was enlightened at age 35 and died at age 80. While he needed faith up to age 35 he did not need it afterwards - he knew that his methods worked because he had seen them working for himself. In principle all Buddhists can do this and see for themselves that the methods work.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

‘Less detailed’ means that some of the detail is missing. If some detail is missing then the image is incomplete. If the image is incomplete then it is in error. “100 + 23 = 1 3” is missing a single digit and so is in error.
Then all of your thoughts are in error because some details are missing? Actually missing details does not prove true error. True error is details that are contrary to reality. 1 3 is in error because it does not equal 123.

You say that an infinitely powerful God could do certain things. I say that an infinitely powerful God could just as easily do other things. Some things He did do while other things He did not do. If you attempt to use the existence of things that God could do as proof of God then I will use things that God did not do as proof of His non-existence. Because He is infinitely powerful then it is not possible to reason from what He has done or what He has not done to His existence.
I am sorry, I never intended to prove the existence of God by the arguement that there are things that he could do? I do not see where I made that claim. Sorry about that.

I am real, I am not Real. You appear to want to reify ‘real’ into ‘Real’ - to add extra stuff to your mental image of reality to turn it into Reality. I am contingent, changing, impermanent, soulless, essence-less just like everything else in reality. There are no hidden depths to reality, there is no Reality sitting behind reality.
So you believe. But does your belief prove you are correct? and no, my belief does not prove that I am correct either.

René Descartes.

So, since you require the universe to have a purpose, what is the purpose of that piece of rock in the Lesser Magellanic Cloud? How does the purpose (or lack of purpose) of that piece of rock prevent or allow me setting a purpose for my life? If that piece of rock cannot love does that then prevent me or you feeling love? What mechanism links my purpose to that piece of rock?
If my life has absolute objective meaning because God created me and Jesus Christ lived and died for me, then God has a purpose for that rock and I do not have to know it. It is a consequence of God giving meaning and purpose to my life.

I

It is objective because it is outside myself. It is not a law because it may be incorrect, there is no guarantee of correctness until I have verified it for myself.

But if everything that is missingdetails,(your mental images) is in error,then why would you trust your verification which is in error?

What happens if someone does not agree with your choice of Holy Book as an
objective source of morality? Whatever source we use, others may pick a different source. What is your objective method of picking an objective source of morality. The Tanakh, the (Catholic) Bible, the (Protestant) Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Tao Te Ching, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tripitaka and many others are offered as objective sources of morality. What objective method do we have to choose between them?

Why do you think karma is like a rock? I have repeatedly used the analogy of karma as gravity, not as a rock. Gravity can do a lot of things a rock cannot do; karma can do a lot of things a rock cannot do. Gravity ‘knows’ when a body is unsupported yet gravity is not intelligent. Karma knows what a person’s motives are yet karma is not intelligent.

Our accumulated karma is not stored in our conscious memory, it is stored in our samskāra, which is one of the Five Aggregates. Often translated as “mental formations”, it does not have an exact equivalent in English. Karma reads our samskāra just as gravity reads our position in space.

Because karma is not a rock. Karma is more like gravity than a rock.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Agreed. The world is a mixture of change and permanence. I see Buddhist philosophy as taking the change as the more fundamental with the permanence being a veneer of appearance over the underlying change. Western philosophy, particularly Platonic, tends to see the permanent as more fundamental with a veneer of apparent change laid over it.

It is not avoidable this side of enlightenment. I agree that the ordinary ‘Buddhist in the pews’ is not terribly knowledgeable about the more abstruse reaches of sunyata and the tathagatagarbha, any more than the average ‘Catholic in the pews’ is always aware of the difference between latria and dulia when praying to a Saint.

Buddhism starts with faith, but as we progress along the path we need less faith as knowledge gradually replaces faith. By the end of the path we have reached our goal and we do not need faith any more.
Is it possible that what really happens is that the buddhist has gotten so confortible with the underlying assumptions, originally taken on faith, that the buddhist forgets that the basis of all their knowledge relies on a starting faith. A faith that, on faith, concludes there is no Infinitely Powerful Creator?
You have mentioned the 14 points that are unproductive. Could you list them please?
At the end of a Buddhist’s life, how many conclusions. based on faith, do they still have if they just accept the 14 points as unproductive? The Buddha proclaimed these points as unproductive, and some people agree, others disagree. Some christians have attained a high degree of peace of soul and have handled great crosses with that peace, following the path of pursuing the idea of a Creator God. How do you argue that buddha was completely correct in saying there is no point in discussing whether or not here is a God because it is unproductive, when people haveiscussed it and it has been productive, not just once, butmany times?
One of my favorite Bible phrases is 2 Thessalonians 2:10, " Many are perishing because they have not accepted the love of the truth." To seek the whole truth, with our whole heart, mind, soul and strength, with all that we are. I /COLOR]

Not entirely. The Buddha was enlightened at age 35 and died at age 80. While he needed faith up to age 35 he did not need it afterwards - he knew that his methods worked because he had seen them working for himself. In principle all Buddhists can do this and see for themselves that the methods work.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Then all of your thoughts are in error because some details are missing? Actually missing details does not prove true error. True error is details that are contrary to reality. 1 3 is in error because it does not equal 123.

All my thoughts are missing details and hence are incorrect. Whether those missing details are significant or not is a different question. If I type ‘teh’ instead of ‘the’ then my readers will probably understand what I meant to say. My error is not significant, though it is still an error.

So you believe. But does your belief prove you are correct? and no, my belief does not prove that I am correct either.

Currently it is a belief. This is one of those many Buddhist beliefs that start out as faith and end in knowledge.

If my life has absolute objective meaning because God created me and Jesus Christ lived and died for me, then God has a purpose for that rock and I do not have to know it. It is a consequence of God giving meaning and purpose to my life.

I too can set a purpose for my life without knowing what the purpose of that rock is.

But if everything that is missingdetails,(your mental images) is in error,then why would you trust your verification which is in error?

Is the error significant? I think I can generally tell the difference between suffering and happiness even if I am wrong in some of the details.

rossum

 

[rossum]

Is it possible that what really happens is that the buddhist has gotten so confortible with the underlying assumptions, originally taken on faith, that the buddhist forgets that the basis of all their knowledge relies on a starting faith. A faith that, on faith, concludes there is no Infinitely Powerful Creator?

Many things are possible. In the end Buddhism replaces faith with knowledge because it is possible to become enlightened while still alive. Once someone is enlightened they do not need faith the the Buddhist path leads to enlightenment, they know it.

You have mentioned the 14 points that are unproductive. Could you list them please?

First, my apologies for my mistake, there are ten, not fourteen of them.

1. *]is the universe eternal?
   *]is the universe not eternal?
   *]is the universe limited in space?
   *]is the universe unlimited in space?
   *]are the soul and the body identical?
   *]are the soul and the body two different things?
   *]does the Buddha exist after his final death?
   *]does the Buddha not exist after his final death?
   *]does the Buddha both exist and not exist after his final death?
   *]does the Buddha neither exist nor not exist after his final death?
   

   At the end of a Buddhist’s life, how many conclusions. based on faith, do they still have if they just accept the 14 points as unproductive?

   The Tripitaka says that an enlightened person will be able to confirm all aspects of Buddhism that they wish to confirm. Buddhism does not provide answers to these ten questions, it merely says that they are religiously useless – consider them as if the were discussions about how many angels can dance on a pin.
   

   Some christians have attained a high degree of peace of soul and have handled great crosses with that peace, following the path of pursuing the idea of a Creator God. How do you argue that buddha was completely correct in saying there is no point in discussing whether or not here is a God because it is unproductive, when people haveiscussed it and it has been productive, not just once, butmany times?

   The existence, or not, of God is not one of the unproductive questions. The Buddha divided other religions into two groups, useless and useful. Most of Christianity falls into the useful group, though extreme Calvinism falls into the useless group along with the Indian Fatalists (ajivakas) whom they resemble.
   
   rossum

 

[DonM]

Not entirely. The Buddha was enlightened at age 35 and died at age 80.
rossum

This is no more a statement of evidence that the statement that Christ was resurrected. “Enlightenment” “karma” and “rebirth” are entirely based on faith.

 

[rossum]

This is no more a statement of evidence that the statement that Christ was resurrected. “Enlightenment” “karma” and “rebirth” are entirely based on faith.

It is evidence that “enlightenment” as seen by Buddhists can happen before death. This is confirmed by other individuals who have lived since the Buddha also becoming enlightened before they died, though in Thomas Merton’s case sadly only shortly before he died:[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

 

[DonM]

It is evidence that “enlightenment” as seen by Buddhists can happen before death.

Enlightenment as a transcendence of suffering or karma is completely faith-based.

Enlightenment, as a psychological state, is undefined and subjective. I don’t doubt that some Buddhists enjoy equanimity. That doesn’t make them unique.

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

All my thoughts are missing details and hence are incorrect. Whether those missing details are significant or not is a different question. If I type ‘teh’ instead of ‘the’ then my readers will probably understand what I meant to say. My error is not significant, though it is still an error.

Currently it is a belief. This is one of those many Buddhist beliefs that start out as faith and end in knowledge.
You say that you begin in faith and end in knowledge. But you have also said that you can not prove God does not exist, therefore your position that God does not exist will always be a matter of “faith”. Correct?
I asked in a previous post “And again, you have not answered the specifics of my question concerning your hypothetical wife and daughters. Is it that hard to answer? Are you saying that you see nothing implicitly evil in someone doing terrible things to them and that if everybody else said so explicitly and expected you to behave accordingly, that you would go with the flow?” My position is that we all know in our hearts there are some actions that are always, absolutely wrong and evil, And there must be a Creator to make such a moral law. You assume ( or hypothesise) that there is no creator ( a matter of faith) Therefore you can not believe that someone brutally raping and killing your hypothetical daughters is doing something absolutely wrong and evil. Is that what you are saying, explicitly? If not, why not?

I too can set a purpose for my life without knowing what the purpose of that rock is.

The fundamental difference is that in my case, it is an infinitely powerful Creator who gives objective purpose and meaning to my life (whether I agree or not), and in the other it is you who claim to give subjective meaning and purpose to your life (similar to an amoeba deciding it has value) believing that you may end up as some animal in another life because you have no human soul that distinguishes you from other living animals. My position means there is intrinsic value to my life andyours (and that suffering has meaning, great meaning and value when seen properly) yours has no objective meaning or objective purpose to anything. Correct?. My faith gives me true hope, does yours? If your faith can not answer certain questions, perhaps those are the questions you shouldbe asking instead of ignoring?
Is the error significant? I think I can generally tell the difference between suffering and happiness even if I am wrong in some of the details.
If the error is to not believe your heart, (that tells you that it is always absolutely evil for someone to brutally rape young girls) and therefore their must be a Creator, then that would be a serious error. Correct? What does your heart tell you, as distinguished from your mind that has in the past willed to believe their is no Creator, therefore there is no action that is absolutely evil?
rossum

 

[rossum]

You say that you begin in faith and end in knowledge. But you have also said that you can not prove God does not exist, therefore your position that God does not exist will always be a matter of “faith”. Correct?

My position that God does not exist depends on logic. You claim the existence of an unchanging God who maintains a changing universe through time. That is logically inconsistent.

Therefore you can not believe that someone brutally raping and killing your hypothetical daughters is doing something absolutely wrong and evil. Is that what you are saying, explicitly? If not, why not?

There is little prospect of our discussion progressing if you do not take on board what I say. I have repeatedly told you that I do not accept any “absolute”, so I do not accept your example of something supposedly “absolutely wrong and evil”. The existence of my daughters is contingent on the existence of myself and on the existence of any daughters. In a wider sense it is contingent on the existence of Homo sapiens. Ten million years ago your supposed absolute was meaningless so it cannot be absolute – it has a dependency in time. Rape is wrong here and now, that is sufficient for the moment.

Alternatively I could say that the rape is perfectly moral if it is ordered by YHWH for His own reasons while it is immoral if not so ordered. You still do not have an absolutely immoral act because it is dependent on YHWH’s orders. In your morality, YHWH’s orders make the act moral. In my morality no god’s orders can make an immoral act moral. Mere gods have no power over karma.

The fundamental difference is that in my case, it is an infinitely powerful Creator who gives objective purpose and meaning to my life

Better to say that it is your subjective belief in such a creator. When we analyse our own personal motives there is a subjective decision at the base. Do you lack a basis for a motive because you do not believe in Vishnu, when there are millions of people who get their purpose in life from a belief in Vishnu? Why should I treat your God differently from Vishnu?

My faith gives me true hope, does yours?

Yes. My faith gives me true hope and also supplies me with evidence to support that hope and replace the faith with knowledge…

If your faith can not answer certain questions, perhaps those are the questions you shouldbe asking instead of ignoring?

What was the name of Seth’s wife? Can your faith answer that question? Perhaps that is a question you should be asking rather than ignoring? Your faith cannot answer the question, “How do I get to nirvana?” and that is the most important question of all.

If the error is to not believe your heart, (that tells you that it is always absolutely evil for someone to brutally rape young girls) and therefore their must be a Creator, then that would be a serious error. Correct?

My heart tells me different things from your heart.

What does your heart tell you, as distinguished from your mind that has in the past willed to believe their is no Creator, therefore there is no action that is absolutely evil?

Ask the former inhabitants of Jericho, their children, their suckling babies, their unborn children, their animals. You are the one who has the problem with the murder of very young children not being “absolutely wrong”.

As an experiment go through the Old Testament and count up how many people God kills, or orders to be killed, not forgetting the unborn children of all the pregnant women. Next go through Buddhist scriptures and count up how many people the Buddha kills, or orders to be killed. Guess which one comes out better.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

My position that God does not exist depends on logic. You claim the existence of an unchanging God who maintains a changing universe through time. That is logically inconsistent.
I made the claim several posts ago that since God, if He is truly the Creator of all that exists outside of Himself, must be the Creator of all space and time. If He is the Creator of time, then He sees all of time(and each and every event and thought in time) all at once in His single, infinite, eternal, always in the “present tense” thought. I do not see where you have presented any evidense that convinces you that this is not possible. Do you have any such evidense? If this is God’s way of seeing all that He created, where is the logical inconsistancy?

There is little prospect of our discussion progressing if you do not take on board what I say. I have repeatedly told you that I do not accept any “absolute”, so I do not accept your example of something supposedly “absolutely wrong and evil”. The existence of my daughters is contingent on the existence of myself and on the existence of any daughters. In a wider sense it is contingent on the existence of Homo sapiens. Ten million years ago your supposed absolute was meaningless so it cannot be absolute – it has a dependency in time. Rape is wrong here and now, that is sufficient for the moment.

   Please correct me if I am wrong, BUT IT APPEARS TO ME that a fuller, more accurate (because certain details are included) statement of your position would be:  Rape, in my opinion, is wrong because I accept the general consensus that it is wrong evanas I say there is nothing absolutely wrong and evil about it or any other possible action, and I have to admit that it is possible that given the right circumstances, I would change any of my subjective positions to correspond to the general consensus I find myself in since my belief is there is no Absolute moral Lawgiver, no Infinite God outside of and the creator of time, and therefore there is no absolute moral law, everything is relative andreally, anything goes.

Alternatively I could say that the rape is perfectly moral if it is ordered by YHWH for His own reasons while it is immoral if not so ordered. You still do not have an absolutely immoral act because it is dependent on YHWH’s orders. In your morality, YHWH’s orders make the act moral. In my morality no god’s orders can make an immoral act moral. Mere gods have no power over karma.

     I made the point some posts ago that if God is Creator of all things, He is Lord over all and everthing belongs to God. If, in His infinite goodness, He knows that it is best for someone to die at a certain time, in a certain way, If He knows it is best for them, He has them die then and there by the best means for them. If He chooses to have them die by starvation, or flood, or disease, or the cold, or at the hands of the Isrealites, He knows best. If God says to kill the little children, He has the right to order it because they belong to Him, and He knows it is best for them. I believe I asked you before, (maybe I did not though), If those little children, ordered killed by God, were then taken by God and given eternity in heaven with Him, would they be complaining in heaven that they had to suffer such a death?  Do you say that they would be condeming God for taking them to Himself and giving them such an undeserved gift, a gift infinitely better than nirvana ever could be?

    I also have made the arguement ( in so many words), that God can not hold someone responsible for not knowing something they could not know. That God must be perfectly just prevents Him from punishing someone for something outside of their control. I have made the point that God will hold you and me more culpable than a two year old. Does this seem just to you? 
   If God knows the best way to share Himself with the most number of souls, that He has Created out of His infinite love, is for Him to reveal Himself first to the Isrealites, then come as our Saviour, and finally come as our Judge, If God exists and knows this is the best possible history; will you, in the end, see it that way? Again, given the conditions, will you see it that way, in the end?   I think the only honest, logical answer is, yes.

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

Better to say that it is your subjective belief in I treat your God differently from Vishnu?

    Some posts ago, I asked a question concerning two statements:  
      1.    God exists.
       2.  God does not exist.
  You responded by listing two other "possibilities".  I believe they were:
       3. God neither exists  nor does not exist.
       4,God both exists and does not exist. 
     I do not know the "intellectual" arguements, all I know is that your two 'options' do not and can not make sense. Mathematically, I am sure, there is a way to come up with those possibilities, but words have meanings and 3 and 4 are each self-contradicting and therefore have no meaning, they are nonsense statements. Much like "all" and "not all".

If you have “all” the apples in a box, you can not also, at the same time, have ‘not all" the apples in the box.
Do you agree that either God exists, or God does not exist? One of those statements is an absolute, objective truth, correct?
My believing “God exists” does not change the Absolute objective truth. Does it?
Your subjective opinion that there is no Creator does not change the absolute objective truth. Does it? The truth is the truth. Simple enough. We apparantly are both seeking the absolute objective truth. Looking atthe evidense, trying to find the most consistant answer to why is man here, and what should I do. The very question, “What should I do” absolutely implies a moral decision. There is something that tells you and me that we should try and do what we should try and do. Correct? Do you disagree?
Therefore there is a moral command that we can choose to ignore, even though we know we should obey it. Correct?
You asked, “Why should I treat your God differently from Vishnu?” I say the evidense is over whelming that God picked the Jewish nation, protected them, punished them, lead them and then, Jesus Christ came and died for our sins and showed all what true love is, He showed us how much God loves each of us even though He eternally hates each sin that caused Jesus so much pain on the cross. Since I can not imagine a greater love than Jesus’ living and dying on the cross for me. Since I can not imagine a greater love than He showed, I therefore believe there is a reason why my God deserves to be treated differently than Vishnu. Do you have any evidense to show that any other “god” lived, suffered, and died for you and me when they had the power to “get down off that cross”? I am not asking you to accept my faith here. I am asking for any evidense of a greater love, or of an equal accomplishment, rising from ther dead? Do you have verifiable evidence ?
I heard a phrase once, " Some goals are so worthy, it is glorious even in ‘defeat’"
Jesus, giving us His example, is the perfection of that idea. What in buddhism calls you to be willing to sacrifice all your wants and even your life for the benefit of others, even when there appears to be no possibility of “success”? Buddha lived to 80? Jesus suffered and died at 33 (even though He had the power to get down from the cross) as the perfect example of having meaning in suffering. Where does buddha, or anyone else for that matter, offer such an example or show how suffering has so much meaning and be such a great good?

Yes. My faith gives me true hope and also supplies me with evidence to support that hope and replace the faith with knowledge…

  I remember an early post in this series where a disciple of buddha was reported asking for an answer from buddhaand buddha refused to givethatanswer.  Which one of the ten unproductive questions did that incident involve?

What was the name of Seth’s wife? Can your faith answer that question? Perhaps that is a question you should be asking rather than ignoring? Your faith cannot answer the question, “How do I get to nirvana?” and that is the most important question of all.

 How can nirvana compare with the beatific vision of God in heaven?   I agree, if you are correct in your belief that there is no God, then "how do I get to nirvana" can be a very important question, if there is a nirvana.  But why should there be a nirvana in the first place if there is no God?   Why should there be a place of reward and pleasure? if there is no absolute objective moral order to call us to do some things and not do others? A moral order that calls us to try and help people even if we die trying and failing? 
    I think I asked the question: " When buddha died, did he still believe there was no God?"  or what was the evidence that proved there could not be a God? Was his belief really still a matter of faith at the time of his death?

rossum

 

[Douglas_Kraeger]

My heart tells me different things from your heart.
I disagree, my heart tells me that it is absolutely wrong and evil for men, on their own, to rape and kill little children. I believe the only reason you do not admit the same is that would require you to admit there must be a God, so you say it is only wrong because the general consensus says it is wrong, but that could change. But I believe you know it is always, absolutely wrong and evil and theremust be a God. Again, I believe it, but Icouldbe wrong.

Ask the former inhabitants of Jericho, their children, their suckling babies, their unborn children, their animals. You are the one who has the problem with the murder of very young children not being “absolutely wrong”.
If they are enjoying the eternal bliss of the beatific vision, what do you think their answer would be?
As an experiment go through the Old Testament and count up how many people God kills, or orders to be killed, not forgetting the unborn children of all the pregnant women. Next go through Buddhist scriptures and count up how many people the Buddha kills, or orders to be killed. Guess which one comes out better.
If rejecting Jesus Christ leads to hell, and following Him is the best path to heaven, why does it matter how many people God ordered the killing of?
I brought up mercy awhile ago: If people suffer a violent death, but then, through God’s mercy they go to heaven, is that a good thing? What is your source and reason to say mercy is good? How does buddhism explain how karma works in mercy if karma has none of the attributes needed to justify it’s ability to read our past actions and judge according to the circumstances and knowledge? How is your explanation something more than, " It is magic"?

rossum

 

[rossum]

I made the claim several posts ago that since God, if He is truly the Creator of all that exists outside of Himself, must be the Creator of all space and time.

We have discussed this before, as you say. Neither of us convinced the other then, and I do not see that it is worthwhile repeating the discussion. I see sufficient logical contradictions in the idea of an unchanging creator God creating a changing universe for me to reject the idea on logical grounds. You think differently, however from my point of view those logical grounds are sufficient.

Please correct me if I am wrong, BUT IT APPEARS TO ME that a fuller, more accurate (because certain details are included) statement of your position would be:

You are mischaracterising my position. I do not say, and have never said, that “anything goes”. I do deny any moral absolute on rape. I accept an objective moral law on rape that is operative now. I have no interest in what moral law might be in 1,000,000,000 years time. Such questions are irrelevant.

Is rape or killing immoral if it is ordered by YHWH? If you say “yes” then YHWH is not the arbiter of moral law and must be held to account for all the killings He ordered in the Old Testament. If you say “no” then rape and killing are not “absolutely” immoral and can be moral in some circumstances.

If those little children, ordered killed by God, were then taken by God and given eternity in heaven with Him, would they be complaining in heaven that they had to suffer such a death?

So, killing an unborn baby is not an “absolutely” immoral act. Should we praise abortionists for sending all those unborn babies to heaven? What a very strange morality you seem to be proposing here. You might want to think your position through more carefully.

Some posts ago, I asked a question concerning two statements:

1. God exists.
2. God does not exist.
   You responded by listing two other “possibilities”. I believe they were:
3. God neither exists nor does not exist.
   4,God both exists and does not exist.
   I do not know the “intellectual” arguements, all I know is that your two ‘options’ do not and can not make sense. Mathematically, I am sure, there is a way to come up with those possibilities, but words have meanings and 3 and 4 are each self-contradicting and therefore have no meaning, they are nonsense statements. Much like “all” and “not all”.

Is a chessboard black, white, both or neither? ‘Both’ would seem to be the best answer.

Therefore there is a moral command that we can choose to ignore, even though we know we should obey it. Correct?

All Christians are sinners, so all Christians ignore moral commands. All non-enlightened Buddhist act unwisely so all non-enlightened Buddhists act contrary to moral law.

What in buddhism calls you to be willing to sacrifice all your wants and even your life for the benefit of others, even when there appears to be no possibility of “success”?

Jesus was God and so omniscient. He would have known precisely the later success His acts. As for self sacrifice, just read the Jataka of the Prince and the Tigress or the Jataka of King Vessantara.

You are well read in Christian scripture. You are less well read in Buddhist scripture. You would do well not to assume what is, and what is not, in Buddhist scripture unless you have read the scripture in question.

“Love others as you love yourself.” - Bhadramayakaravyakarana sutra, 91.

I remember an early post in this series where a disciple of buddha was reported asking for an answer from buddhaand buddha refused to givethatanswer. Which one of the ten unproductive questions did that incident involve?

I sometimes quote an abbreviated version of the Cula-Malunkyovada sutta, in which case it would have been the questions about the extension of the universe in time and space.

How can nirvana compare with the beatific vision of God in heaven?

There are lots of gods and lots of heavens. Both gods and heavens are impermanent so all are inferior to nirvana.

Was his belief really still a matter of faith at the time of his death?

No. He was enlightened, he would have known.

If they are enjoying the eternal bliss of the beatific vision, what do you think their answer would be?

What does that have to do with whether or not their killing was “absolutely” wrong? Are you saying that abortion is not “absolutely” wrong because the aborted babies end up in heaven? I do not think that is what you really mean. You need to be very careful when arguing along these lines. What you are saying could lead to: “Kill them all, God will know His own.”

If rejecting Jesus Christ leads to hell, and following Him is the best path to heaven, why does it matter how many people God ordered the killing of?

My God is a killer but I believe what He says? If a god is not acting morally in one way, why would I trust that same god to act morally in other ways?

How does buddhism explain how karma works in mercy

Again, your ignorance of Buddhism is leading you into error. There is no mercy in karma, any more than there is any mercy in gravity. If you jump off a cliff then you will fall to the bottom. If you act then you will suffer the results of you actions for either good or ill. Buddhists should always consider very carefully before acting because there are no “Get out of Hell Free” cards in Buddhism.

rossum

 

[DonM]

My position that God does not exist depends on logic.

No, it depends on your denying the possibility, while adopting a string of wildly inconsistent beliefs, and running off to claim the intellectual superiority in embracing paradoxes, some of which are of your own making.

I have repeatedly told you that I do not accept any “absolute”,

But no one accepts an absolute the way you have defined it. The most literal fundamentalist will acknowledge that there was a time before the creation of the world. With no people, there could be no rape. Rape would be meaningless before the creation and fall. So, the fundamentalist gives the same answer you do, if he were to adopt your absurd definition of “absolute.”

But, I would think that the fundamentalist (and many others), might say that it is absolutely wrong to rape. Meaning, of course, as long as people exist, it can never be justified.

This is the meaning of absolute. Not your semantics.

Alternatively I could say that the rape is perfectly moral if it is ordered by YHWH for His own reasons while it is immoral if not so ordered.

So far as I know, no one has claimed He did. We could go on endlessly in this vein - what if Stalin is in Heaven? The answer, I think, that most Christians might give is that God is faithful to his word and his plan. What happens before and/or after time isn’t our concern - but while there is time, there are absolutes.

My faith gives me true hope and also supplies me with evidence to support that hope and replace the faith with knowledge…

There is NO evidence for any of your key beliefs - no evidence for karma, no evidence for rebirth, no evidence for enlightenment.

“How do I get to nirvana?” and that is the most important question of all.

But the question of the status of the saint after death is one of those forbidden questions. We don’t know if “you” can get to nirvana. It leads not to edification to think of it, yet somehow this irrelevant question is the most important of all to you. I think you don’t have a very good handle on your own faith.

I guess “what is the name of Seth’s wife” is one of those questions that will lead to edification.

 

[rossum]

No, it depends on your denying the possibility, while adopting a string of wildly inconsistent beliefs, and running off to claim the intellectual superiority in embracing paradoxes, some of which are of your own making.

My position is as close as I can get the the standard Madhyamika-Prasangika position on time, change and causation. While my understanding and articulation of that position may well be faulty, the position itself has been much better described by others. I would particularly recommend the Huntington and Wangchen translation of Chandrakirti’s Madhyamakavatara, “The Emptiness of Emptiness”.

But no one accepts an absolute the way you have defined it. The most literal fundamentalist will acknowledge that there was a time before the creation of the world.

Will they? That is an admission that there was something, other than God, existing before the creation of the world. Did God not create time? Is God inside time or outside time? I do not agree with you here, nor I suspect will many fundamentalists.

With no people, there could be no rape. Rape would be meaningless before the creation and fall. So, the fundamentalist gives the same answer you do, if he were to adopt your absurd definition of “absolute.”

How would you define “absolute” then? I define it as “not dependent on anything external to itself”.

What happens before and/or after time isn’t our concern - but while there is time, there are absolutes.

Then, by my definition, they are not absolutes because they depend on time.

There is NO evidence for any of your key beliefs - no evidence for karma, no evidence for rebirth, no evidence for enlightenment.

Every time a criminal is imprisoned or fined that is evidence for karma: wrong actions bring unpleasant results. If you want evidence of rebirth then follow the instructions in Chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga. If you want evidence of enlightenment then follow the path for yourself. The evidence is there; it is up to you to go and find it for yourself.

But the question of the status of the saint after death is one of those forbidden questions.

It is not a “forbidden” question, it is a useless question. It is not forbidden for theologians to discuss how many angels can dance on the head of a pin but it not a particularly useful way for them to spend their time.

We don’t know if “you” can get to nirvana.

I have already got there merely by being alive. The problem is that I do not realise that I have got there.Peak experiences. Some people come to Zen expecting that Enlightenment will be the Ultimate Peak Experience. The Mother of All Peak Experiences. But real enlightenment is the most ordinary of the ordinary. Once I had an amazing vision. I saw myself transported through time and space. Millions, no, billions, trillions, Godzillions of years passed. Not figuratively, but literally. Whizzed by. I found myself at the very rim of time and space, a vast giant being composed of the living minds and bodies of every thing that ever was. It was an incredibly moving experience. Exhilarating. I was high for weeks. Finally I told Nishijima Sensei about it . He said it was nonsense. Just my imagination. I can’t tell you how that made me feel. Imagination? This was as real an experience as any I’ve ever had. I just about cried. Later on that day I was eating a tangerine. I noticed how incredibly lovely a thing it was. So delicate. So amazingly orange. So very tasty. So I told Nishijima about that. That experience, he said, was enlightenment.

• Zen is Boring!
  Now go and eat a tangerine. Nirvana is not “there” it is “here”. More formally:Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana.
  Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara.

Whatever is the end of Nirvana, that is the end of Samsara.
There is not even a very subtle slight distinction between the two.

• Nagarjuna, Mulamadhyamakakarika 25:19-20

rossum

 

[DonM]

My position is as close as I can get the the standard Madhyamika-Prasangika position on time, change and causation.

That doesn’t mean that the teachings on nonself, karma, and rebirth are no inconsistent. It just means someone else holds them.

How would you define “absolute” then? I define it as “not dependent on anything external to itself”.

I think that others would choose a different definition. If someone is claiming it as to morality, they are using it in to describe matters that are situaitonal or relational, hence they aren’t adopting this definition. In Western philosophy, it frequently refers to concepts, “things in themselves,” or God, which are held aparf from the world of the senses.

Every time a criminal is imprisoned or fined that is evidence for karma: wrong actions bring unpleasant results.

Every time someone profits from wrongdoing, karma is disproved.

If you want evidence of rebirth then follow the instructions in Chapter 13 of the Visuddhimagga.

That isn’t evidence for rebirth. I must think you know that.

If you want evidence of enlightenment then follow the path for yourself.

Or I could just look to those who follow the path, and find them no different than anyone else. You could look at the cultures that are most influenced by these ideas, and find them no different than any other culture.

The evidence is there; it is up to you to go and find it for yourself.

Been there, done that.

It is not a “forbidden” question, it is a useless question.

Except, as I’ve mentioned, the “useless” label is an evasion.

The problem is that I do not realise that I have got there.

No, the problem is that it is as likely as you are fooling yourself as not.