What is Buddhism?

[rossum]

But God is not the world, not in Christianity.

I am not saying tha God is the world, I am saying that the effects of an unchanging creator God are not seen in the world we have. We do not see the endless series of “Let there be light”. If something has an unchanging cause then that something can never cease because its cause is always present and hence it is continually being recaused.

He is outside of time;

I disagree. God is omnipresent, so He is present here and now inside time. He is recorded as acting within time. A God who is outside time can never act within time.

applying time to him is an anthropomorphization, a necessary one since human consciousness has to apply time to everything. God is the “unmoved mover,” the thing which causes change without itself changing.

All effects of an unchanging cause are themselves unchanging because their cause is always present. An unchanging cause can never cause anything that changes. Nothing we see about us is unchanging hence nothing we see can have an unchanging cause. Only temporary, changing, causes can cause temporary changing effects. If A → B and A always exists then we can infer that B always exists. If A → B and B does not always exist, then we can infer that A does not always exist.

An uncaused cause is still a cause, hence it is dependent on the existence of an effect. A cause cannot be a cause unless it actually does some causing of an effect. You cannot have a cause without an effect any more than you can have a parent without children. Hence any posited eternal cause requires an eternal effect; I am not aware of any eternal effects. Cause and effect are mutually dependant - you cannot have one without the other.

This argument also applies to any creator. If the universe had a beginning then there cannot have been a creator before the begining - there was no universe then so there could not have been a creator. There can only be a creator if there is also a created universe that the creator has created.

And even so, the statement “everything that is a rising thing is also a falling thing” isn’t necessarily true. It’s empirical, sure, but just because you have X examples of it doesn’t make it correct for all examples.

Nevertheless you do need to show an actual counter example. I can observe very many white swans; those observations do not allow me to deduce the existence of black swans. Only an actual observation of a black swan can do that.

rossum

 

[BlaineTog]

I am not saying tha God is the world, I am saying that the effects of an unchanging creator God are not seen in the world we have. We do not see the endless series of “Let there be light”. If something has an unchanging cause then that something can never cease because its cause is always present and hence it is continually being recaused.

God is not static in action, even though he is atemporal. Your understanding of this appears to be of a lower level than what I’m talking about. (Not to insult you or anything, I’m not trying to do that).

I disagree. God is omnipresent, so He is present here and now inside time. He is recorded as acting within time. A God who is outside time can never act within time.

Not true. He can enter time whenever and however he wants. Plus, the Trinity concept helps with this: not only does God’s presence maintain the universe (the Father), but suffuses it (Holy Spirit) and can even enter it specifically, as a human (Jesus). An useful metaphor is of a novel: God is the author, he can insert himself wherever he sees fit, and from the perspective of the people in the novel, he’s always watching, because the “action” occurs as he reads through for typos.

All effects of an unchanging cause are themselves unchanging because their cause is always present.

You seem to be saying that “unchanging cause” is like an infinitely fast skipping record. It’s an inappropriate metaphor, since it still uses time.

An unchanging cause can never cause anything that changes.

God can.

Only temporary, changing, causes can cause temporary changing effects. If A → B and A always exists then we can infer that B always exists. If A → B and B does not always exist, then we can infer that A does not always exist.

Maybe the world has always existed; like a novel, it sits on the coffee table of its author and he passes it each day as he goes to work. Perhaps in heaven, you can watch any historical event happen, because it’s happening right then. We don’t know, because the knowledge is not particularly related to our salvation so it wasn’t revealed.

An uncaused cause is still a cause, hence it is dependent on the existence of an effect.

No, an uncaused cause, by definition, does not have a cause, at least not outside of itself.

You cannot have a cause without an effect any more than you can have a parent without children.

But we have causes all over the world. What caused them? Other causes. What caused those causes? Other causes. Regressed infinitely, what caused all causes? Either an uncaused cause, or those causes are without cause. Either way, you’re conceding the point.

This argument also applies to any creator. If the universe had a beginning then there cannot have been a creator before the begining - there was no universe then so there could not have been a creator. There can only be a creator if there is also a created universe that the creator has created.

Unless the creator is outside the universe.

Nevertheless you do need to show an actual counter example. I can observe very many white swans; those observations do not allow me to deduce the existence of black swans. Only an actual observation of a black swan can do that.

I need to show an actual counterexample to disprove that the statement is correct, but I don’t need to show anything for it to be self-evidence that it is only potentially correct. If it is potentially incorrect, then you cannot use it as an absolute statement.

 

[rossum]

God is not static in action, even though he is atemporal.

We agree that God changes in time.

(Not to insult you or anything, I’m not trying to do that)

None taken.

He can enter time whenever and however he wants.

I was responding to your post saying “He [God] is outside of time.” We seem to agree that God can be inside time and act inside time. My argument is not with God per se but with an unchanging creator God.

You seem to be saying that “unchanging cause” is like an infinitely fast skipping record. It’s an inappropriate metaphor, since it still uses time.

The concept of “cause” implies the existence of time. The cause must come before the effect; if there is no time then we cannot tell which came first, the supposed cause or the supposed effect. Cause and effect is a temporal relation, it does not make sense without time. In the absence of time you cannot distinguish cause from effect.

God can.

No He cannot, just as He cannot make a square circle. If the effect is not permanent then its cause cannot be permanent.

No, an uncaused cause, by definition, does not have a cause, at least not outside of itself.

You seem to have misunderstood my point, my apologies for not making myself clearer. I am not saying that an uncaused cause must have a cause, I am saying that an uncaused cause must have an effect. If a cause is to be a cause then it must have at least one effect. That is what causes do, they cause effects. Cause and effect are mutually dependent. Just as with parents and children; a parent cannot be a parent unless that parent has children - there is no such thing as a childless parent. Similarly thare is no such thing as an effectless cause.

But we have causes all over the world. What caused them? Other causes. What caused those causes? Other causes. Regressed infinitely, what caused all causes? Either an uncaused cause, or those causes are without cause. Either way, you’re conceding the point.

An infinite regress of causes is not a problem in Buddhism:[The Buddha said:] “From an inconstruable beginning comes transmigration. A beginning point is not evident, though beings hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are transmigrating and wandering on. Long have you thus experienced stress, experienced pain, experienced loss, swelling the cemeteries - enough to become disenchanted with all fabricated things, enough to become dispassionate, enough to be released.”

Assu sutta SN 15.3

My point is not about an uncaused cause, it is about the impossibility of any cause which does not cause anything. How can that be called a cause? If the uncaused cause does not produce any effect then it must be an uncaused non-cause. Causes produce effects, non-causes do not produce effects.

Unless the creator is outside the universe.

My point is not about the location of the creator, it is that a “creator of universes” must have created at least one universe. Prior to creating that first universe then that being cannot be called a “creator of universes”, at best that being can only be a creator-in-waiting. There is also the implication that the transition from creator-in-waiting to creator is a change in that being - this goes back to my point about an unchanging cause. Your example of the skipping record is a good one.

I need to show an actual counterexample to disprove that the statement is correct, but I don’t need to show anything for it to be self-evidence that it is only potentially correct. If it is potentially incorrect, then you cannot use it as an absolute statement.

There are very few absolute statements that we can make. If we have to use a non-absolute language such as English then there are none that we can make. We have to be content with non-absolute statements.

rossum

 

[munan]

It seems to me that buddhism is for those who want to believe in something, yet do not want it to be God, or anything like God, or a god of any kind. They want to be at one with everything, nature especially and others on this earth. They want to find whatever it is within them that helps them to reach a sort of spiritual nirvana, and be able to serve others and be selfless without the help of anything like God.

I know a few buddhists that go against the grain and believe in God, yet like the eastern spirituality of buddhism. the two sort of support each other and contradict each other at the same time.

One cannot be catholic and hold to strict historic buddhist beliefs, for that would mean that you would have no reliance upon God. It seems that it would be more of a self help thing than a God help religion.

Actually, as a Buddhist, I believe in God. Very much the same God Christians believe in. As did Sidartha Buddha.
Buddhism doesn’t have “a grain” as such, other than the Four Noble Truths and The Noble Eightfold Path, but even within its teachings, we learn to accept the nature of all beings, including our own, and if we choose to believe in God, then that is alright.
Calling it self-help certainly shows your lack of understanding of an Eastern religion however. I assure you, it’s considerably more than self-help.

 

[notself]

Actually, as a Buddhist, I believe in God. Very much the same God Christians believe in. As did Sidartha Buddha.
Buddhism doesn’t have “a grain” as such, other than the Four Noble Truths and The Noble Eightfold Path, but even within its teachings, we learn to accept the nature of all beings, including our own, and if we choose to believe in God, then that is alright.
Calling it self-help certainly shows your lack of understanding of an Eastern religion however. I assure you, it’s considerably more than self-help.

Perhaps you will share a sutra or sutta describing the all powerful, Creator God of Buddhism and provide a link to the Buddhist creation story.

I would be very interested in reading it.

 

[Hastrman]

Perhaps you will share a sutra or sutta describing the all powerful, Creator God of Buddhism and provide a link to the Buddhist creation story.

I would be very interested in reading it.

The Buddhist “God,” Mahavairocana Buddha/Dainichi Nyorai or the Great Shining-eyed Enlightened One (as Shingon sect calls him), is Being itself–just as the Christian God is (hence His name, I AM).

The difference is that Buddhists are, in a certain sense, Monists (they claim that reality is neither Being nor Non-Being but the only alternative is Being-in-Potency, which works out to be Being), who deny that, ultimately, there is any distinction between anything and the Mahavairocana. In other words, only God/Being itself is really real. Realizing the lack of the distinction–achieved by meditation, and ecstatic experiences not unlike those sought by Heidegger and the existentialists–is the path to escaping the suffering brought about by the illusion of one’s distinctness from Being.

I would argue that Buddhism (Vajrayana/Mahayana, anyway; Theravada’s a bit shortsighted) is the only viable alternative, philosophically, to Christianity.

 

[notself]

The Buddhist “God,” Mahavairocana Buddha/Dainichi Nyorai or the Great Shining-eyed Enlightened One (as Shingon sect calls him), is Being itself–just as the Christian God is (hence His name, I AM).

The difference is that Buddhists are, in a certain sense, Monists (they claim that reality is neither Being nor Non-Being but the only alternative is Being-in-Potency, which works out to be Being), who deny that, ultimately, there is any distinction between anything and the Mahavairocana. In other words, only God/Being itself is really real. Realizing the lack of the distinction–achieved by meditation, and ecstatic experiences not unlike those sought by Heidegger and the existentialists–is the path to escaping the suffering brought about by the illusion of one’s distinctness from Being.

I would argue that Buddhism (Vajrayana/Mahayana, anyway; Theravada’s a bit shortsighted) is the only viable alternative, philosophically, to Christianity.

Theravada follows the teachings of Siddhattha Gotama as expounded in the Nikayas and Agamas. Mahayana follows many later teaching by those who are thought of as sages by the Chinese and lamas by the Tibetans.

I prefer to stick to the actual teachings of the Buddha.

But you are correct in saying that Mahayana and Vajrayana are much closer philosophically to Christianity. Vajrayana and Pure Land have much in common with Catholicism.

For this reason I believe that Theravada is the most clear sighted of the Buddhist traditions.

 

[Hastrman]

Theravada follows the teachings of Siddhattha Gotama as expounded in the Nikayas and Agamas. Mahayana follows many later teaching by those who are thought of as sages by the Chinese and lamas by the Tibetans.

I prefer to stick to the actual teachings of the Buddha.
…
For this reason I believe that Theravada is the most clear sighted of the Buddhist traditions.

Um…Sola Scriptura is not, and never was, a part of Buddhism.

Also, the Mahayana and Vajrayana all say they preserve the full teachings of Siddhartha Gautama/Shakyamuni Tathagata (Sanskrit sounds better than Pali). And they have better philosophy than Theravada.

 

[notself]

Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism have lovely rituals and music. They use incense, candles, malas (much like rosaries) and have significant hierarchy. That is why they remind me of Catholicism.

Mahayana do preserve the suttas spoken by the Buddha. They are called the Agamas. They have also added teachings by their sages. I believe I said so in my post.

Both are fine traditions. I find Theravada clearer. That’s all. I won’t join you in disparaging any tradition.

 

[Hastrman]

Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism have lovely rituals and music. They use incense, candles, malas (much like rosaries) and have significant hierarchy. That is why they remind me of Catholicism.

Mahayana do preserve the suttas spoken by the Buddha. They are called the Agamas. They have also added teachings by their sages. I believe I said so in my post.

Both are fine traditions. I find Theravada clearer. That’s all. I won’t join you in disparaging any tradition.

I don’t mean any disrespect; sorry. I just think Theravada oversimplifies some ideas–their interpretation of *Anatman *(Anatta, I think, in Pali) seems to barely skirt full-on Materialism.

 

[notself]

Materialism and dualism are just labels. The understanding of impermanance (anicca), unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) and not self (anatta) are what count.

 

[Hastrman]

Materialism and dualism are just labels. The understanding of impermanance (anicca), unsatisfactoriness (dukkha) and not self (anatta) are what count.

That was what I meant–I don’t think Theravada’s understanding of not-self is correct, because it is too close to materialism, which is bad philosophy. It’s not just a label–it refers to a concept the understanding of which is important, just as much as duhkha, anitya, and anatman do.

 

[notself]

That was what I meant–I don’t think Theravada’s understanding of not-self is correct, because it is too close to materialism, which is bad philosophy. It’s not just a label–it refers to a concept the understanding of which is important, just as much as duhkha, anitya, and anatman do.

Tell me what you think the Theravada concept of not self is. I’m interested.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Yesterday i had the wonderful oppurtunity of experiencing Cambodian Buddhism. I talked with a monk who is studying at a local community college and finally got the chance to try some exotic Cambodian Cuisine.I learned about Maha Ghosanada who is consider the Ghandhi of Cambodia and how he started the Dhammayietra movement for peace. Overall it was a good experience. I gave the monk my email so hopefully we can stay in touch.

Peace

 

[AnAtheist]

I’m an ex-Buddhist…I never really understood it,

Now that’s a funny contradiction.

I’m an ex-baker … I never really understood how to make bread.

 

[notself]

I’m an ex-Buddhist…I never really understood it, so that’s why I left when i found Jesus

All I know is that it teaches that in life you have to do good deeds to accumulate as much good karma as possible so that you’ll be reincarnated into a better life

those with bad karma might end up as animals or poor people

and the point is to get rid of desire to reach Nirvana, which means you got out of the painful cycle of karma(reincarnation and cease to exsist)

some Buddhist do worship different gods…I use to worship Chinese gods…now I realise that I’m wrong and I am now an RCIA canidate

I wish you well on your path. I hope it gives you peace.

 

[notself]

Yesterday i had the wonderful oppurtunity of experiencing Cambodian Buddhism. I talked with a monk who is studying at a local community college and finally got the chance to try some exotic Cambodian Cuisine.I learned about Maha Ghosanada who is consider the Ghandhi of Cambodia and how he started the Dhammayietra movement for peace. Overall it was a good experience. I gave the monk my email so hopefully we can stay in touch.

Peace

Here is a short biography of Maha Ghosanada.

buddhanet.net/masters/maha-gosanada.htm

 

[Contarini]

The actual word is not suffering, although this is how it is most commonly translated.

The Pali word Dukkha is one of those words that does not have a clear translation. I think of Dukkha as anxiety. There is the kind of anxiety that comes when things are going badly and you don’t know how they will end. It is the kind of anxiety that comes when things are going well and you want them to last forever. It is the kind of anxiety that happens when you want things to be different than they are. It is the kind of anxiety that happens when you want things to stay the same forever.

By learning to observe the workings of one’s mind, one can lessen this anxiety. Equanimity will arise when one is no longer thrown from side to side by the wish that things be different or by the wish that things will stay the same.

Many people think that Buddhists define the world a being full of pain. Pain is something that cannot be avoided, but suffering/anxiety can be eliminated. Buddhism is about the elimination of suffering and with the elimination of suffering comes peace and joy.

Christians seem to relish both pain and suffering, seeking it out and offering it up.

“Offering up” suffering (which is more what you mean by “pain”) is in fact a way of letting go of what you are calling “suffering.” When you offer your pain to God along with the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, you are letting go of all anxiety about the pain inherent in existence as we know it, and you are also letting go of the anxiety/suffering/craving inherent in the attempt to avoid pain and live a comfortable, risk-free, pleasurable life.

I’m sure you don’t like Christians caricaturing Buddhism. Please don’t caricature Christianity.

As for Nirvana (Nibbana in Pali), it is the unconditioned. It is beyond words such as existence or non-existence. It is release, unbinding, luminous, freedom.

And yet again, I’m in the midst of trying to explain this to my students. (One of my sections of World Religions starts in less than an hour.) It’s hard to explain how, if we have no permanent selves and are simply the products of the five skandhas, Nirvana does not simply amount to nonexistence.

I think I’ve asked you this before, but it’s that time in the semester again: any thoughts?

Edwin

 

[notself]

“Offering up” suffering (which is more what you mean by “pain”) is in fact a way of letting go of what you are calling “suffering.” When you offer your pain to God along with the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, you are letting go of all anxiety about the pain inherent in existence as we know it, and you are also letting go of the anxiety/suffering/craving inherent in the attempt to avoid pain and live a comfortable, risk-free, pleasurable life.

I’m sure you don’t like Christians caricaturing Buddhism. Please don’t caricature Christianity.

And yet again, I’m in the midst of trying to explain this to my students. (One of my sections of World Religions starts in less than an hour.) It’s hard to explain how, if we have no permanent selves and are simply the products of the five skandhas, Nirvana does not simply amount to nonexistence.

I think I’ve asked you this before, but it’s that time in the semester again: any thoughts?

Edwin

My comment about Christianity was in relation to voluntary pain such as some practice during Lent. They give things up as a form of suffering to sacrifice in rememberence of Christ’s sacrifice. Such purposeful suffering for the sake of suffering is not a Buddhist concept. In reading my post I can see that I was being very simplistic in my comments.

I wish I could answer your question about Nirvana. The suttas say that Nibbana is the unconditioned and our existance, the khandhas are by their nature conditioned. I am still exploring these concepts.

Here is part of the Kotthita Sutta AN 4.174. Sariputta was an enlightened follower of the Buddha. I have included the footnote by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

[Sariputta:] "The statement, ‘With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?’ complicates non-complication.1 The statement, ‘… is it the case that there is not anything else … is it the case that there both is & is not anything else … is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?’ complicates non-complication. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far complication goes. However far complication goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of complication.​

Note

1. See MN 18. As Sn 4.14 points out, the root of the classifications and perceptions of complication is the thought, “I am the thinker.” This thought forms the motivation for the questions that Ven. Maha Kotthita is presenting here: the sense of “I am the thinker” can either fear or desire annihilation in the course of Unbinding. Both concerns get in the way of the abandoning of clinging, which is essential for the attainment of Unbinding, which is why the questions should not be asked.

Here is a short article by Thanissaro Bhikkhu called a Verb for Nirvana. It might be interesting for your class. It includes some of the Suttas.

accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/nirvanaverb.html

Hope these help.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Here is a short biography of Maha Ghosanada.

buddhanet.net/masters/maha-gosanada.htm

ARe you Buddhist?