G
grannymh
Guest
In my humble opinion, morality is based on truth. That is why I also can say that “What I say about one is distinct from what I say about the other.”
- Status
G
grannymh
Guest
This is the first time I’ve seen karma equated with moral law. One of my sons talked about karma only he considered it as “what comes around goes around” or sometimes he considered it fate. My dictionary is either unclear or doesn’t address moral law. Or, which is probably more correct, I am not understanding it.
I am interested in knowing the Buddhist viewpoint.
Easter Blessings,
granny
Spring is a sign of faith in the future.
R
rossum
Guest
Buddhist morality says that actions have results. Good actions have good results and bad actions have bad results:Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.
Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.
- Dhammapada 1:1-2
The Sanskrit for “action” is karma and the Sanskrit for “result” is phala. The Buddhist moral system of action and result is also known as karma-phala. Hindus use the same two Sanskrit words but with different emphases. With the British in India the Sanskrit karma came over into English but it got attached to the Hindu meaning of phala, which is closer to “fate” or “destiny” than the Buddhist sense of result of an action.
“It is their karma to be poor, it is your karma to help them.”
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
Thank you for explanation of karma.
I am still looking for the first objective truth. What about this –
Human life is worthy of profound respect.
Or is there a better word than respect? My goal is to answer claim 1 in OP with an objective truth that is apparent.
Blessings,
granny
Humanity is the pinnacle of creation.
R
rossum
Guest
Why just human life. How about: “All life is worthy of profound respect.”
You may not be human in your next life, but you will still be alive.
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
You have just opened up a whole different area of thoughts. There are a couple of sentences in the Catechism of the Catholic Church which, in my opinion, would relate to other life in the world. That sounds cold so I need to struggle a bit with these ideas.
When you say next life, are you referring to one-time eternal life after death or are you referring to reincarnation? In either case, I would think that some kind of metaphysics would come into play since you follow with “but you will still be alive.”
Here is the Catechism comment which came to me. “God created everything for man, but man in turn was created to serve and love God and to offer all creation back to Him:” (CCC 358) What follows that is from St. John Chrysostom regarding man as being precious in the eyes of God. Paragraph 358 is in the section which treats the origin of Adam as being in the image of God. Somewhere else, there are Catechism comments about man’s responsibility toward creation–the stewardship concept.
What we are dealing with is the first claim in the OP. “1. There’s no such thing as absolute truth. What’s true for you may not be true for me.”
Do you see this OP as a form of relativism? I do, especially since there have been a number of thread discussions which dealt with this under different names, one of which was utilitarianism. The big problem with discussion was that participants used objective/subjective in opposite ways.
I never did get the idea across that there are some basic objective truths which should be apparent because of the unity of the human race. At that time, I wasn’t totally sure what these objective truths would be.
Since I have been studying the origin of the human species, I now believe that the first and most basic objective truth involves the human person. Our discussion is worthwhile.
Blessings,
granny
Link to Catechism of the Catholic Church – www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm
R
rossum
Guest
Life on other planets has been present in Buddhism from the start. Remember also that we can be reincarnated on Earth as animals. There is a meditation exercise which focuses on any animal: “This living being was once my mother, … my father, … my son, … my daughter. Therefore I should treat this living being as I would my mother, … my father, … my son, … my daughter.” The whole thing is then repeated for the future, “This living being will be my mother, …”
Buddhism does not accept the existence of any permanent soul so there is much less perceived difference between humans and other living things both on Earth and elsewhere.
I am talking about reincarnation, whether on Earth or elsewhere, whether in a material realm or a non-material realm.
I see the OP as confusing two different things here. There is absolute truth and non-absolute truth. There is also objective truth and subjective truth.
Absolute truth is impossible to apprehend. It may or may not exist, but if it does we have no guaranteed absolute way to determine whether any given truth is actually absolute or not absolute. There are subjective and objective truths.
Humanity is part of the universe, but it is not as important a part as it likes to think that it is.
rossum
D
Douglas_Kraeger
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
I am capable of error, as are you. I have tested Buddhism as far as I can and so far it has passed all the tests. I am continuing to test it. I cannot live my life on the basis of “what ifs”. What if the Prophet Mohammed was right and we are both following the wrong religion? I have found a path that works for me and I will continue to follow it as long as it continues to work.
If I required absolute certainty before I did anything then I would never even go to work because I cannot be absolutely certain that my office had not been destroyed by aliens overnight.
I do not need to give purpose to your life or to anyone else’s life or to the rest of the universe. All I need to do is to give purpose to my own life. You can give purpose to your life. My current purpose is the pursuit of peace, happiness and nirvana. It is up to you to set your purpose.
There is no test that can absolutely disprove an all-powerful entity since an all-powerful entity is capable of mimicking anything else. That applies just as much to the Moslem Allah as it does to the Christian God. My tests have shown me that the Buddhist scriptures are correct in what they say; that actions lead to results and that different types of actions lead to different types of results. Since Buddhist scriptures do not go into much detail about the exact mechanisms that karma uses I am not particularly interested. I do not have to be an electronics expert to be able to work my TV set. I know what outputs I will get for given (name removed by moderator)uts.
No. Without time we cannot distinguish between cause and effect. Cause precedes effect in time. If there is no time then both are simultaneous and we can no longer distinguish them one from the other. You cannot have causation in the absence of time, neither can you have creation in the absence of time.
No. We can only describe something as “uncaused” if we know what “caused” means. Telling you that something is unflargle is not a lot of use unless you know what flargle means. Prior to the creation of cause and effect we cannot have ‘caused’ and equally we cannot have ‘uncaused’ except as a nonsense word like ‘unflargle’.
The logical impossibility of such a concept. The idea of ‘cause’ requires the existence of time and is necessary for “uncaused” to have any meaning at all. ‘Uncaused’ cannot exist prior to ‘caused’.
The word “Creator” is a synonym for “cause”. Karma is a synonym for “cause and effect”. How can we have “cause” without “cause and effect”? Cause on its own is not a cause, in order to be a cause it must have an effect. A parent cannot be a parent on their own, they must also have a child. A cause cannot be a cause unless there is also an effect. A creator cannot be a creator unless there is also something created.
Because then the (alleged) Creator would not have created anything. For there to be a Creator there must also be a creation. A Creator who has not created anything is wrongly described. The Creator has to be part of cause and effect, otherwise there can be neither Creator (cause) nor creation (effect). Your use of the word “first” also implies the existence of time. Cause and effect are very closely linked to time. You will find it difficult to have either one of cause and effect without also having the other one and time as well. Since a Creator is a cause then you also require the effect, i.e. creation, and time as well.
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
Personal note to Rossum,
Your post 106 needs a lot of serious thought before I can respond. First, I need to put my ducks in order as is said in my neighborhood.
Blessings,
granny
The quest for truth is worthy of the difficulties of the journey.
D
Douglas_Kraeger
Guest
QUOTE=rossum;6508395]I am capable of error, as are you. I have tested Buddhism as far as I can and so far it has passed all the tests. I am continuing to test it. I cannot live my life on the basis of “what ifs”. What if the Prophet Mohammed was right and we are both following the wrong religion? I have found a path that works for me and I will continue to follow it as long as it continues to work.
I understand your answer to be, “yes, it is possible that buddism is not the best explanation of the cause of all of this, when I find something that fits better with a creator God than buddism, I will have to follow the truth as I see it then.”
If I required absolute certainty before I did anything then I would never even go to work because I cannot be absolutely certain that my office had not been destroyed by aliens overnight.
I agree. We all have to make decisions based on incomplete knowledge, we have to believe the perceived consistancy will continue and continue to ask "why does one choice lead to happiness, another does not, and why is happiness intrinsically good, and why do people always choose based on what they hope will bring them happiness, either short term or long term, is there a choice that will bring eternal happiness or eternal unhappiness, and so on…?
I do not need to give purpose to your life or to anyone else’s life or to the rest of the universe. All I need to do is to give purpose to my own life. You can give purpose to your life. My current purpose is the pursuit of peace, happiness and nirvana. It is up to you to set your purpose.
My original question contained the phrase, “objective meaning”. How can we give creation, or our lives, “objective meaning or objetive purpose”? I can make my current purpose to run a 6 minute mile for 5 miles, and train accordingly, but that does give objective meaning orobjective purpose to my pain and suffering, or to my life. In your understanding of buddism, is there any objective purpose or objective meaning to all of existence, AND who, or what, gives existence it’s objective meaning and purpose? Does your answer boil down to " nothing gives existence “objective meaning or objective purpose because to give meaning or purpose must be an act of an intelligence with a will to make a decision.” How does your answer differ fundamentally from the preceeding?
There is no test that can absolutely disprove an all-powerful entity since an all-powerful entity is capable of mimicking anything else. That applies just as much to the Moslem Allah as it does to the Christian God. My tests have shown me that the Buddhist scriptures are correct in what they say; that actions lead to results and that different types of actions lead to different types of results. Since Buddhist scriptures do not go into much detail about the exact mechanisms that karma uses I am not particularly interested. I do not have to be an electronics expert to be able to work my TV set. I know what outputs I will get for given (name removed by moderator)uts.
you say, “an all-powerful entity is capable of mimicking anything else.”, I see another way to explain it, “some people create in their minds an understanding that tries to explain existence without an All-Powerful Creator who can make demands on us and has the right to punish us when we do not live up to our responsibilities by giving the credit, or reasons for something perceived, giving it to a manmade entity rather than to the creator.” This is not the creator mimicking anything else, it is merely people attributing the anything else to something above God.
I understand your answer to be, “yes, it is possible that buddism is not the best explanation of the cause of all of this, when I find something that fits better with a creator God than buddism, I will have to follow the truth as I see it then.”
If I required absolute certainty before I did anything then I would never even go to work because I cannot be absolutely certain that my office had not been destroyed by aliens overnight.
I agree. We all have to make decisions based on incomplete knowledge, we have to believe the perceived consistancy will continue and continue to ask "why does one choice lead to happiness, another does not, and why is happiness intrinsically good, and why do people always choose based on what they hope will bring them happiness, either short term or long term, is there a choice that will bring eternal happiness or eternal unhappiness, and so on…?
I do not need to give purpose to your life or to anyone else’s life or to the rest of the universe. All I need to do is to give purpose to my own life. You can give purpose to your life. My current purpose is the pursuit of peace, happiness and nirvana. It is up to you to set your purpose.
My original question contained the phrase, “objective meaning”. How can we give creation, or our lives, “objective meaning or objetive purpose”? I can make my current purpose to run a 6 minute mile for 5 miles, and train accordingly, but that does give objective meaning orobjective purpose to my pain and suffering, or to my life. In your understanding of buddism, is there any objective purpose or objective meaning to all of existence, AND who, or what, gives existence it’s objective meaning and purpose? Does your answer boil down to " nothing gives existence “objective meaning or objective purpose because to give meaning or purpose must be an act of an intelligence with a will to make a decision.” How does your answer differ fundamentally from the preceeding?
There is no test that can absolutely disprove an all-powerful entity since an all-powerful entity is capable of mimicking anything else. That applies just as much to the Moslem Allah as it does to the Christian God. My tests have shown me that the Buddhist scriptures are correct in what they say; that actions lead to results and that different types of actions lead to different types of results. Since Buddhist scriptures do not go into much detail about the exact mechanisms that karma uses I am not particularly interested. I do not have to be an electronics expert to be able to work my TV set. I know what outputs I will get for given (name removed by moderator)uts.
you say, “an all-powerful entity is capable of mimicking anything else.”, I see another way to explain it, “some people create in their minds an understanding that tries to explain existence without an All-Powerful Creator who can make demands on us and has the right to punish us when we do not live up to our responsibilities by giving the credit, or reasons for something perceived, giving it to a manmade entity rather than to the creator.” This is not the creator mimicking anything else, it is merely people attributing the anything else to something above God.
D
Douglas_Kraeger
Guest
No. Without time we cannot distinguish between cause and effect. Cause precedes effect in time. If there is no time then both are simultaneous and we can no longer distinguish them one from the other. You cannot have causation in the absence of time, neither can you have creation in the absence of time.
I think my God is bigger than your perception of God. My God is infinite and changeless, with one eternal thought, always in the present tense. He has brought into existence all time and space and matter and energy, and He sees all time at once, in every detail, knowing every thought and action of everyone, without violating their free will decisions. So from my God’s perspective, He sees all the cause and effects and yet He is the uncaused cause of it all and is unchanged by all the cause and effects we see, just as He was unchanged by the bringing into existence of space and time, in “the beginning” of our space and time and all this stuff. If God is outside space and time and has one eternal thought, do you see how He would not be affected by all the changes we see and can you understand how it would be possible for Him to be not affected by His bringing space and time into being? If you can not imagine a God so infinitely infinite, maybe you need to accept as possible that your understanding of “God” is too small, that He is bigger than you imagined? Is that possible?
Yes, to God there is no change. St. Augustine said, " To God, time is the revealing of truth that has always been." We need to understand how we can have free will even though God knows the decisions we will make,and that is not to hard to explain,but later maybe.
rossum, continued
No. We can only describe something as “uncaused” if we know what “caused” means. Telling you that something is unflargle is not a lot of use unless you know what flargle means. Prior to the creation of cause and effect we cannot have ‘caused’ and equally we cannot have ‘uncaused’ except as a nonsense word like ‘unflargle’.
That is a conclusion that you have come to believe. Does your believing it make it objectively true ? I think it is possible that if you consider a truely infinite God, Uncaused and changeless and infinite, not a manmade god, you might see it differently.
The logical impossibility of such a concept. The idea of ‘cause’ requires the existence of time and is necessary for “uncaused” to have any meaning at all. ‘Uncaused’ cannot exist prior to ‘caused’.
I think it is more accurateto say, “Uncaused cannot exist prior to “caused” unless uncaused is unchanged by all that He causes.” Do you see a problem with this?
I think my God is bigger than your perception of God. My God is infinite and changeless, with one eternal thought, always in the present tense. He has brought into existence all time and space and matter and energy, and He sees all time at once, in every detail, knowing every thought and action of everyone, without violating their free will decisions. So from my God’s perspective, He sees all the cause and effects and yet He is the uncaused cause of it all and is unchanged by all the cause and effects we see, just as He was unchanged by the bringing into existence of space and time, in “the beginning” of our space and time and all this stuff. If God is outside space and time and has one eternal thought, do you see how He would not be affected by all the changes we see and can you understand how it would be possible for Him to be not affected by His bringing space and time into being? If you can not imagine a God so infinitely infinite, maybe you need to accept as possible that your understanding of “God” is too small, that He is bigger than you imagined? Is that possible?
Yes, to God there is no change. St. Augustine said, " To God, time is the revealing of truth that has always been." We need to understand how we can have free will even though God knows the decisions we will make,and that is not to hard to explain,but later maybe.
rossum, continued
No. We can only describe something as “uncaused” if we know what “caused” means. Telling you that something is unflargle is not a lot of use unless you know what flargle means. Prior to the creation of cause and effect we cannot have ‘caused’ and equally we cannot have ‘uncaused’ except as a nonsense word like ‘unflargle’.
That is a conclusion that you have come to believe. Does your believing it make it objectively true ? I think it is possible that if you consider a truely infinite God, Uncaused and changeless and infinite, not a manmade god, you might see it differently.
The logical impossibility of such a concept. The idea of ‘cause’ requires the existence of time and is necessary for “uncaused” to have any meaning at all. ‘Uncaused’ cannot exist prior to ‘caused’.
I think it is more accurateto say, “Uncaused cannot exist prior to “caused” unless uncaused is unchanged by all that He causes.” Do you see a problem with this?
R
rossum
Guest
You are making an unwarranted assumption here. Not “that fits better with a creator God” but “that fits better with reality”. The test in the Kalama sutta is whether a given practice fits with reality.
If “objective meaning and purpose” is outside myself then it is not mine. Any meaning and purpose that I apply to myself must be mine in the final analysis. I may accept suggestions and ideas from external sources but in the end it is me who accepts them and makes them my own. The outcomes of any actions I take as a result of my adopting that meaning and purpose are objective.
I am not sure what you are saying here. If people set up something that is exactly like God then that thing might as well be God. My point was that God is undisprovable because God can mimic anything that He wants to, including His own absence.
How do you know that God is “changeless” in the absence of time? How do you know that His thought is “eternal” in the absence of time? How can you have “the present tense” in the absence of time. These words are time dependent and have no meaning in the absence of time. By your own words the God you are describing is within time and contingent on time.
An unchanging God cannot create the changing universe we see around us. An unchanging God looks like: “On the first day God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and on the second day God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and on the third day God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and on the fourth day …” An unchanging God can only ever create one unchanging thing day after day after day.
Not if He is unchanging he didn’t. He changed from “I will create” to “I am creating” to “I have created”. Alternatively the universe is as infinite in time as its creator and neither has a beginning and there is no requirement for a creator at all.
By being a creator your conception of God is intimitely tied into the changing contingent universe by virtue of being the cause of that universe. Indeed He cannot properly be described as “Creator” until after (another time-related word) He created. A creator is not a creator if He has not yet created anything.
I have pointed out the logical problems with any supposed unchanging cause. Causation is contingent on both effect and time. By making your God a Creator you have made Him contingent on both creation and on time.
Yes, I see two problems. First, look at your words “prior” and “unchanged”. Both of them require the existence of time for them to have any meaning.
Second, the very act of causation requires a change form “I will cause” to “I am causing” to “I have caused”. Hence an unchanging cause is an oxymoron unless a single eternal unchanging effect is all that is caused.
rossum
G
grannymh
Guest
As a young person, I dismissed reincarnation because it did not appeal to me. If I made it to heaven, I wanted to stay there, period. Leaving heaven to be reincarnated seemed rather silly. With your explanation that Buddhism does not accept the existence of any permanent soul, I understand why one could accept reincarnation.
Because of my belief that my soul is part of my human nature, I still would not accept reincarnation.
I am not sure where I encountered the meditation exercise you gave, but I am familiar with it. I do not think reincarnation would alter the objective truth that all human life is worthy of profound respect. All the living beings who are part of the meditation are human beings. This is because I think that reincarnation would not change the essence of the person only the outward characteristics.
This may not be logical but when I would think of a basic truth or objective truth, I could adapt it to a particular circumstance without changing it. For example, I could easily accept that all human life is worthy of profound respect but add to it my personal feelings about a pet. Am I arriving at a compromise?
I will stop here since this is as far as I got with my thinking. Also, I am having trouble with my computer. Hopefully, I can post this.
The coming week will be spent closing on a tiny condo where my kids live. I will be up there part time. This place will also serve as my retreat where I can write and do research. With all that is involved like getting the place painted, etc. I will not be on CAF much.
Blessings,
granny
Spring is a message of faith in the future.
G
grannymh
Guest
I was able to post so will try again. Would you please explain what absolute truth, non-absolute truth, objective truth and subjective truth actually are so we are on the same page. Even if absolute truth is impossible to apprehend, I would like to know what it is. Is it universal or unchangeable, etc.
Those words subjective and objective caused so much trouble on the first threads I attempted that the wounds are still raw. Not literaly and not as bad as I sounded.
The strange thing is that I told my daughter about them. She will be getting her degree in physical therapy. She knew exactly the difference between the two words – I was impressed.
Let’s deal with this later in the week.
Blessings,
granny
Good night and sweet dreams.
R
rossum
Guest
Absolute truth is universal, unchangeable, not contingent. Non-absolute truths lack one or more of these.
Objective truths are ascertainable, at least in principle, by anyone. They are not merely arbitrary decisions by a single being, no matter how powerful. “Because I say so,” is not a satisfactory philosophical basis for truth. The Euthyphro dilemma is relevant here.
In Buddhism there are no absolute truths because they are logically incoherent and would be unascertainable anyway. There are objective truths which can be ascertained through study or meditation.
Have fun (?) with the painting.
rossum
D
Douglas_Kraeger
Guest
R
rossum
Guest
I see your point, but I do not accept it. Those responsibilities do not have to come from God, they are themselves a part of reality.
Why? Just because I can create something other than myself does not require that I am changeless, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent etc. I have created this post and I am none of these things. Being able to create a universe does not make God omnipotent, it merely makes Him powerful enough to create one universe. Perhaps He does not have the power to create ten universes?
Assertion is not sufficient to win this point. The words “changeless”, “eternal” and “the present tense” cannot be defined without the concept of time. You have a real difficulty here which you cannot avoid by mere assertion.
Then there is only one ‘day’ in Genesis, which is still continuing. You and I and the rest of creation have existed since the beginning of the universe. Funny that I don’t seem to remember most of it.
Why does reality have to have an objective meaning? Why is an objective meaning required?
rossum
A
alitaptap
Guest
I think the standard set of (absolute) truth includes universal morality.
D
Douglas_Kraeger
Guest
QUOTE=rossum;6520140]I see your point, but I do not accept it. Those responsibilities do not have to come from God, they are themselves a part of reality.
You claim that responsibilities do not have to come from God, they are themselves part of reality. I ask how is it reasonable for a material universe to make a moral law with moral obligations? It seems that a purely physical universe would not have anything in it’s nature to address a moral question? AND, if your premise is that all creation “just happened”, for no reason, then there was nothing to give creation objective meaning, or objective purpose.
If your original universe has a spiritual component, how does a finite spiritual component of creation give objective meaning and objective purpose to itself once it exists that it did not have before it came into being for no reason? If there was a reason, what was the cause of the reason?
Do you reject my point that if creation, “just happened” then there is nothing that gives creation, or you or me, objective meaning or objective purpose?
If there is nothing that gives objective meaning and objective purpose to creation, what gives, and how does it give, objective responsibilities or moral obligations? If you agree there is nothing that gives creation objective meaning or objective purpose, then say so explicitly.
It seems to me, that you see moral responsibilities and have created, (or accepted), an explanation that has a major flaw. You can not
You have said “Since Buddhist scriptures do not go into much detail about the exact mechanisms that karma uses I am not particularly interested. I do not have to be an electronics expert to be able to work my TV set. I know what outputs I will get for given (name removed by moderator)uts.” Is it possible that Buddhism does not address the exact mechanisms that ‘karma uses’ because Buddhisms solution has inherent problems? Is it possible?
My problem is that it appears you want to have ‘karma’ punish and reward like gravity; yet karma has no consciousness, no intelligence, does not have a personality and therefore karma could not judge according to the intent of a person.
Example: A police officer and his wife are on a trip, they stumble onto a shoot out between drug dealers and police. The police officer tries to help the police, He shoots and kills his own wife, he claims it was a terrible accident; How does ‘karma’, according to Buddhism, know whether to reward or punish him, how does karma, which has has "no consciousness, no intelligence, does not have a personality and therefore karma could not judge according to the intent of a person " know if it was not a true accident? If karma cannot know the intent in this simple example, how could it reward correctly in all circumstances?
Why? Just because I can create something other than myself does not require that I am changeless, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent etc. I have created this post and I am none of these things. Being able to create a universe does not make God omnipotent, it merely makes Him powerful enough to create one universe. Perhaps He does not have the power to create ten universes?
To create means to bring something into existence from nothing. For God to bring into existence all creation absolutely requires that He bring into existence time also because if He does not bring into existence time, if time existed with God but not as part of God, then God is not the creator of all things that are not Him.
Assertion is not sufficient to win this point. The words “changeless”, “eternal” and “the present tense” cannot be defined without the concept of time. You have a real difficulty here which you cannot avoid by mere assertion.
I will quote someone, “Assertion is not sufficient to win this point”. You make the unsupported claim that " “changeless”, “eternal” and “the present tense” cannot be defined without the concept of time", and I understand it differently. The name God gives to Himself, “I am that I am” says a lot. God exists as He is. The words changeless. eternal, and present tense do have a meaning without there being ‘time’. I do not see how you can not see this. Please try to explain your claim that they do not have the meaning consistent with a God who always exists as He is without change, outside of time, ‘always’ doing everything He is doing?
Then there is only one ‘day’ in Genesis, which is still continuing. You and I and the rest of creation have existed since the beginning of the universe. Funny that I don’t seem to remember most of it.
To God, time is the revealing of truth that always was does not say that we are not in time.
Why does reality have to have an objective meaning? Why is an objective meaning required?
I did not say that reality has to have objective meaning. You seem to have missed the crux issue of my question. I asked," In your understanding of Buddism, is there any objective purpose or objective meaning to all of existence, AND who, or what, gives existence it’s objective meaning and purpose? Does your answer boil down to " nothing gives existence “objective meaning or objective purpose because to give meaning or purpose must be an act of an intelligence with a will to make a decision.” How does your answer differ fundamentally from the preceding?"
Again I ask,“In your understanding of Buddhism, is there any objective purpose or objective meaning to all of existence”? yes or no? If you do not believe there is objective meaning or objective purpose to life, just say so. But back to my first paragraph above, what gives objective responsibilities if there is nothing to give objective meaning to life?
You claim that responsibilities do not have to come from God, they are themselves part of reality. I ask how is it reasonable for a material universe to make a moral law with moral obligations? It seems that a purely physical universe would not have anything in it’s nature to address a moral question? AND, if your premise is that all creation “just happened”, for no reason, then there was nothing to give creation objective meaning, or objective purpose.
If your original universe has a spiritual component, how does a finite spiritual component of creation give objective meaning and objective purpose to itself once it exists that it did not have before it came into being for no reason? If there was a reason, what was the cause of the reason?
Do you reject my point that if creation, “just happened” then there is nothing that gives creation, or you or me, objective meaning or objective purpose?
If there is nothing that gives objective meaning and objective purpose to creation, what gives, and how does it give, objective responsibilities or moral obligations? If you agree there is nothing that gives creation objective meaning or objective purpose, then say so explicitly.
It seems to me, that you see moral responsibilities and have created, (or accepted), an explanation that has a major flaw. You can not
You have said “Since Buddhist scriptures do not go into much detail about the exact mechanisms that karma uses I am not particularly interested. I do not have to be an electronics expert to be able to work my TV set. I know what outputs I will get for given (name removed by moderator)uts.” Is it possible that Buddhism does not address the exact mechanisms that ‘karma uses’ because Buddhisms solution has inherent problems? Is it possible?
My problem is that it appears you want to have ‘karma’ punish and reward like gravity; yet karma has no consciousness, no intelligence, does not have a personality and therefore karma could not judge according to the intent of a person.
Example: A police officer and his wife are on a trip, they stumble onto a shoot out between drug dealers and police. The police officer tries to help the police, He shoots and kills his own wife, he claims it was a terrible accident; How does ‘karma’, according to Buddhism, know whether to reward or punish him, how does karma, which has has "no consciousness, no intelligence, does not have a personality and therefore karma could not judge according to the intent of a person " know if it was not a true accident? If karma cannot know the intent in this simple example, how could it reward correctly in all circumstances?
Why? Just because I can create something other than myself does not require that I am changeless, eternal, omniscient, omnipotent etc. I have created this post and I am none of these things. Being able to create a universe does not make God omnipotent, it merely makes Him powerful enough to create one universe. Perhaps He does not have the power to create ten universes?
To create means to bring something into existence from nothing. For God to bring into existence all creation absolutely requires that He bring into existence time also because if He does not bring into existence time, if time existed with God but not as part of God, then God is not the creator of all things that are not Him.
Assertion is not sufficient to win this point. The words “changeless”, “eternal” and “the present tense” cannot be defined without the concept of time. You have a real difficulty here which you cannot avoid by mere assertion.
I will quote someone, “Assertion is not sufficient to win this point”. You make the unsupported claim that " “changeless”, “eternal” and “the present tense” cannot be defined without the concept of time", and I understand it differently. The name God gives to Himself, “I am that I am” says a lot. God exists as He is. The words changeless. eternal, and present tense do have a meaning without there being ‘time’. I do not see how you can not see this. Please try to explain your claim that they do not have the meaning consistent with a God who always exists as He is without change, outside of time, ‘always’ doing everything He is doing?
Then there is only one ‘day’ in Genesis, which is still continuing. You and I and the rest of creation have existed since the beginning of the universe. Funny that I don’t seem to remember most of it.
To God, time is the revealing of truth that always was does not say that we are not in time.
Why does reality have to have an objective meaning? Why is an objective meaning required?
I did not say that reality has to have objective meaning. You seem to have missed the crux issue of my question. I asked," In your understanding of Buddism, is there any objective purpose or objective meaning to all of existence, AND who, or what, gives existence it’s objective meaning and purpose? Does your answer boil down to " nothing gives existence “objective meaning or objective purpose because to give meaning or purpose must be an act of an intelligence with a will to make a decision.” How does your answer differ fundamentally from the preceding?"
Again I ask,“In your understanding of Buddhism, is there any objective purpose or objective meaning to all of existence”? yes or no? If you do not believe there is objective meaning or objective purpose to life, just say so. But back to my first paragraph above, what gives objective responsibilities if there is nothing to give objective meaning to life?
- Status