Questions on Buddhism - answered by a Buddhist!

[*!~Faith~!*]

Thanks trumble for clarifying. It was an essay question I was stuck on

 

[north_malaysian]

Why Chinese Buddhists in my country regard Goddess Kwan Yin (or Guan Yin) as Buddha (or Bodhisatva...)? Can a Goddess or God be Buddha too?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Thanks trumble for clarifying. It was an essay question I was stuck on

Faith, you've got just about the cutest avatar I've ever seen!

:happy:

 

[Malaikah]

Cool thread! I've got two Buddhist friends and I knew absolutely nothing about their 'faith', until now.

So, my question:

If Buddhists do not believe in God, how can they claim that things such as reincarnation occur when this is itself outside the realm of human understanding? How do you know this? If Buddha said so, how did he know, since he was only a human with out divine knowledge? :uuh: :mmokay:

p.s. They both eat meat ^o) and for one of them only males are allowed to drink alcohol, and the other one, well she said she doesnt like alcohol, she didnt mention anything about her 'religion' (if you can call it a religion since there is no God).

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I don't, or at least in the sense that Jews, muslims and Christians believe in God. I don't think there is an independently intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent Creator. I do believe that there is a fundamental unity of some description, for which 'God' is as good a name as anything, from which we and everything are born, and to which we return. Tao is the word that sums it up best (although I have a few personal bolt-ons), but I'll let people look that up for themselves to avoid getting distracted.

If you don't mind I would like to discuss this a lil' bit further, I know it's off-topic; but I'm hoping you'll indulge me. So the questions I have.
1. Do you believe this divine entity or energy is the source of all creation, the beginning?
2a. If yes to question 1; given that the universe would be made up out of this source and maintained by this source wouldn't that make this source omnipresent and omniscient?
2b. If yes to question 1; given the complexity of the universe, wouldn't that make this source an intelligent one?
2c. If no to question 1; what do you consider the source of all?
3. You said you don't see it as independently nor omnipotent so to what kind of forces/authority does/could it depend on? What could it be inferior to?
4. Why do you consider this entity not to be benevolent?

Buddhists, generally, do not believe in the Islamic conception of God - one that is independent of the universe and created it. There are some who believe being a monotheist and a Buddhist are not incompatible, but that is not a belief I share as I think some of the core beliefs are mutually contradictory. It's accurate to say, perhaps, that some Buddhist practices (such as meditation) are not incompatible with monotheism.

5. On what grounds do you feel those two are incompatible?
And finally if you alow me, I would like to expand a bit on our God-view.
First of all contrary to some other monotheistic religions, we believe God to be nothing like anything we know or anything we can Imagen. By imagining something or by attributing a certain characteristic to God we do God injustice. The only thing we do know are the names by which this entity goes by, as they were revealed in the qur'an, and these names do reveal us some characteristics they are the following:
http://www.jannah.org/articles/names.html

6. So my last question, do you think it is at all possible to come from believing in the divine entity you do now to come to believe in the divine entity that we believe, or are their certain bridges that seem uncrossable?

 

[Trumble]

Why Chinese Buddhists in my country regard Goddess Kwan Yin (or Guan Yin) as Buddha (or Bodhisatva...)? Can a Goddess or God be Buddha too?

The boddhissatva of compassion, rather than a Buddha. In other places it's 'god' rather than 'goddess', too.

Again, it comes down to a mixture of terminology and cultural adaptation. I guess 'yes' is the answer to your question, as Kwan Yin is certainly worshipped as a goddess in some places, and there is no perceived incompatibility between that and boddhisavata-hood. I suspect monks and the general populace might view her rather differently, the former being rather more symbolicly. I don't really qualified to comment too much as I have little experience of the more devotional Buddhist schools. Again, Wikipedia seems to have a good article, and there doesn't seem much point in just regurgitating bits of it if there is nothing I can add.

 

[Trumble]

If Buddhists do not believe in God, how can they claim that things such as reincarnation occur when this is itself outside the realm of human understanding? How do you know this? If Buddha said so, how did he know, since he was only a human with out divine knowledge

The Buddha knew by direct experience of fundamental reality, the way things really are. It is that direct experience, that enlightenment, that defines a Buddha. No outside input is required, divine or otherwise. As I have said previously, Buddhism is a religion of self-effort.

The point is that such things are not beyond human understanding, but they are beyond human reasoning. It's not something you can just talk about or read about, you have to experience it to know, but when you do, you know. It's a bit like explaining colour to a man blind from birth. He could understand the physics, and maybe get some idea of what you are talking about, but he could never know what seeing a colour is like in the way you do.

Now, such enlightenment is only at the end of the road. Although Buddhists may gain insights to varying degrees through meditational practice, few, if any approach the state the Buddha did in his final lifetime. So, why do Buddhists believe in the Buddhas teachings when they lack that direct experience?

Two reasons. The first is, simply, faith. Not necessarily a blind faith, though.. the Buddha always took pretty much a suck it and see approach to his teachings. Try it and see if it works, if not be happy in moving on. Most Buddhists after a little practice begin to gain, if not insights into eternity, a more serene, happier life.

The second is that Buddhist ideas have a substantial metaphysics and philosophy of their own that, in the areas they are concerned with, stand up very well against their Western equivalents. Many people, including me, find they provide very convincing explanations for the most fundamental questions although, like theism, whatever logical paths you follow there are always fundamental assumptions based to large degree on faith. I don't buy 'proofs' any more in Buddhism than I do regarding Islam, but that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

..if you can call it a religion since there is no God

I don't think religion has to be defined in terms of a God, although some simplistic definitions do. Buddhism is certainly as much philosophy as religion.

 

[Trumble]

If you don't mind I would like to discuss this a lil' bit further, I know it's off-topic; but I'm hoping you'll indulge me. So the questions I have.
1. Do you believe this divine entity or energy is the source of all creation, the beginning?
2a. If yes to question 1; given that the universe would be made up out of this source and maintained by this source wouldn't that make this source omnipresent and omniscient?
2b. If yes to question 1; given the complexity of the universe, wouldn't that make this source an intelligent one?
2c. If no to question 1; what do you consider the source of all?
3. You said you don't see it as independently nor omnipotent so to what kind of forces/authority does/could it depend on? What could it be inferior to?
4. Why do you consider this entity not to be benevolent?

Steve,

I notice you started with a quote of what I made clear were my own personal beliefs. I don't want to dodge the question, but I don't want to cause confusion either, so in answering I will stick as closely as a can to a traditional Buddhist angle on those questions. My own conceptions may be slightly different, but I'm not even sure I could explain precisely how in any comprehensible form even if I thought it was a good idea to try!

Note that I said "fundamental unity". That doesn't imply 'divine', 'entity' or 'energy' except perhaps in the absolute broadest of terms.

1. The first thing to get to grips with is the fundamental idea that Buddhist cosmology rejects the idea that "reality" has any material existence. Matter, time and space are not "real" in that they have no existence apart from our perception of them. That is true of all phenomena of any description, all are interdependent and nothing can be defined in isolation. That includes conciousness itself. All phenomena are the result of cause and effect, each is conditioned by what happened before; by the condition of that entirety of independent phenomena.. unity.

In those terms, the idea of a 'beginning' simply makes no sense. Nothing, even the apparent start of time and space, can happen without a cause, and so the idea of an absolute beginning makes no sense. There is no beginning, and no end. There is no 'creation', and everything is 'creation'; everything is conditioned by what came before and conditions what comes afterwards.

2a. 'No' was the answer, but 'everything' must be 'omnipresent' by definition. As to 'omniscient', in a sense, but there is nothing permanent to be omniscient in the sense I suspect you mean.

2c. "What came before" is the answer, but 'source' is misleading. It is an infinite sequence of cause and effect, every phenomena has a source or sources, and every phenomena has an effect, or effect. In principle the cause of a phenomena may be the condition of everything prior to its coming into being.

3. It is "reality", it is everything. It therefore makes no sense to talk of 'authority', 'inferiority' or any outside force being applied to it.

4. It is neither benevolent or malevolent. It is everything, and so it must manifest aspects of both. It has to, neither concept makes any sense except in relation to the other.

Buddhists, generally, do not believe in the Islamic conception of God - one that is independent of the universe and created it. There are some who believe being a monotheist and a Buddhist are not incompatible, but that is not a belief I share as I think some of the core beliefs are mutually contradictory. It's accurate to say, perhaps, that some Buddhist practices (such as meditation) are not incompatible with monotheism.

5. On what grounds do you feel those two are incompatible?

Buddhist cosmology does not actually exclude God or gods, but any such entity must be subject to the same laws of cause and effect as anything else. It is the concept of God as first cause, and as something existing outside everything else, that it cannot accommodate. Also, in philosophical terms, as there is no need for a Creator God, a first cause, it would be in flagrant breech of 'Occam's Razor' to introduce one. Buddhist philosophy also has some rather nice little logical arguments demonstrating that such a first cause could not exist, which are actually similar to some of the Western equivalents.

And finally if you alow me, I would like to expand a bit on our God-view.
First of all contrary to some other monotheistic religions, we believe God to be nothing like anything we know or anything we can Imagen. By imagining something or by attributing a certain characteristic to God we do God injustice.

Noted.

6. So my last question, do you think it is at all possible to come from believing in the divine entity you do now to come to believe in the divine entity that we believe, or are their certain bridges that seem uncrossable?

I think I have explained already the concepts are radically different, so I fear that particular bridge is uncrossable, yes. The 'divine entity' of mine (and I really don't think the phrase is appropriate) encompasses everything; there cannot therefore be anything outside it to either create it or influence it. It includes conciousness, indeed consciousness is fundamental to it, but that conciousness has always been there, will always be there, and is the same conciousness that is manifested in very small part in ourselves.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Yes, I realise this was your personal view and not necesairly the classical Bhudistic doctrine. So thanks for indulging me on my questions.
I get what you are saying but when talking about such believes it is extremely difficult to use the appropriate words. I am a bit familiar with the theory you are trying to explain and when I use words like devine entity or energy I do so only in lack of better word. What I meant was the transcending power you believe in. But I bet those words to will not be accurate

Anyway Let's try not to fix to much on words like reality matter and so on since that really doesn't bring us any further. You might be interested in knowing that sufism teaches a simular aproach to matter and reality. I'm more pragmatic when it comes to the matter of matter. What counts for me is that matter is real to me (I expieriance), and for me that is enough to define it as "real". Whether the method trough which I experience "reality" is close to how I (or science) imagen it to be or not; I consider irrelevant.
What I am really curious about is your believe that everything is causal and there cannot be a beginning of existence. Am I correct when I assume that this means you believe that time stretches back infinitely in history? This is something I cannot logically grasp. Maybe it is because the way I look at time, I can understand time being infinite in the future, but I can't understand how you see time as infinite in the past yet believe in complete causality at the same time. Here is my dilemma:

If time stretches back infinitely that means that the ever going causal process would take "forever" to reach "now".
In other words, if the present has infinite time that needs to pass before it, then that means this present will and can never occur.

Another thing that strikes me as odd is your firm believe in the unbreakable law of causality. Because to me causality is very relative. We do not even know why an apple falls to the earth. Yeah sure we say it's cause and effect. But why? Newton examined the process and found that all body's with mass seem to attract each other in a certain ratio. But he didn't know why. Einstein examined the phenomena and found that body's with mass create geodesic paths which other body's with mass seem to follow due to cause and effect. According to certain theories there is a messenger-particle called the graviton which causes objects with mass to be attracted to one another. These are all attempts trying to explain how the phenomena works, but none tell us why. And what I 'm trying to say here is: we don't know why.

Imagen a 2 dimensional piece of paper which has little flat inhabitants. Now Imagen someone pierces holes with an ice-pick in that paper periodically in a certain pattern. The inhabitants suddenly notice the holes and start examining it. They figure out the pattern and the period in which they occur and call it "the law of the holes". Now imagine two of those inhabitants discussing. And one of them saying, sure the existence of a giant 3d ice-pick is possible, just as long as it doesn't break the causal law of the holes. Because nothing can break causality. I hope you're getting my point. We are seeing the same actions always triggering the same reactions that we are starting to think that this is simply natural. We stop to think what lies behind it and assume that it is just a characteristic of the universe to respond in certain ways. We take causality for granted. To claim that nothing can break causality we first need to understand what causality is and why it manifests in the way it does. And so far science has offered us nothing to work with. So what do you think is behind causality? Why do certain actions have certain reactions? Could there be something that governs this?

By the way, thanks for taking the time to explain all of this, I'm really enjoying this discussion.

 

[Malaikah]

The Buddha knew by direct experience of fundamental reality, the way things really are. It is that direct experience, that enlightenment, that defines a Buddha.

I dont get it. What kind of experience was it exaclty? Did he die and come back to life and was able to tell the others that he was reincarnated?

 

[snakelegs]

is there a tradition of charity that would be comparable with that of The Big 3? i'm wondering because of the concept of karma.
btw, i am really enjoying reading your replies on this thread.

 

[Trumble]

Yes, I realise this was your personal view and not necesairly the classical Bhudistic doctrine. So thanks for indulging me on my questions.

Actually, what I wrote is pretty much the classical Buddhist position.

I get what you are saying but when talking about such believes it is extremely difficult to use the appropriate words.

Yes, although really there are no appropriate words. As with the muslim appreciation of God, the best you can do with language is approximations.

What counts for me is that matter is real to me (I expieriance), and for me that is enough to define it as "real". Whether the method trough which I experience "reality" is close to how I (or science) imagen it to be or not; I consider irrelevant.

Fair enough, although a Buddhist could never consider it that way. It is forever being trapped in an illusion about how things really are, and trapped in the cycle of rebirth and suffering.

What I am really curious about is your believe that everything is causal and there cannot be a beginning of existence. Am I correct when I assume that this means you believe that time stretches back infinitely in history? This is something I cannot logically grasp. Maybe it is because the way I look at time, I can understand time being infinite in the future, but I can't understand how you see time as infinite in the past yet believe in complete causality at the same time. Here is my dilemma:

If time stretches back infinitely that means that the ever going causal process would take "forever" to reach "now".
In other words, if the present has infinite time that needs to pass before it, then that means this present will and can never occur.

Like most things I'm talking about it's difficult to logically grasp, as it cannot be logically proved. It is not unique to Buddhism, though. The 'steady state' cosmological theory, although now effectively disproved, was happy enough to include that idea. From the Buddhist perspective time does not exist as distinct from our perception of it; our perception is always in the 'now'.

The alternative is just as paradoxical. Assume that there was in fact a prime cause, which might as well be 'God' as anything. Such a prime cause would have to be immutable, unchanging. By definition it has no cause other than itself, so there is no reason for it to change. Change of any sort must imply the intervention of a further cause beyond the first cause. But it is impossible for something immutable to create anything! If it does, it must change in doing so.. simply from being something that has the potential to create to something that has created! And what causes it to create, to change? There can't be anything if it is a prime cause. If there is it is no longer immutable or omnipotent (something has influenced it).

Another thing that strikes me as odd is your firm believe in the unbreakable law of causality. Because to me causality is very relative. We do not even know why an apple falls to the earth. Yeah sure we say it's cause and effect. But why? Newton examined the process and found that all body's with mass seem to attract each other in a certain ratio. But he didn't know why. Einstein examined the phenomena and found that body's with mass create geodesic paths which other body's with mass seem to follow due to cause and effect. According to certain theories there is a messenger-particle called the graviton which causes objects with mass to be attracted to one another. These are all attempts trying to explain how the phenomena works, but none tell us why. And what I 'm trying to say here is: we don't know why.

As I said, all phenomena are totally interdependent and have no independent existence apart from our perception of them, so causality could be understood to be relative in those terms. I don't think that the fact "we don't know why" is really relevant. Everybody assumes there is a cause, and keeps looking for it; that cause could be anything from graviton interaction to God. If you consider quantum theory it seems at first glance that causality is thrown out the window, with bits of matter popping up here, there and everywhere without an obvious cause. Indeed it has been speculated that even an entire new universe could just pop out of 'nowhere' in that fashion. The Buddhist take, though, would be that causality is undiminished. Every is cause, everything is effect. What determines even events like that is the immediately precending state of everything.

Imagen a 2 dimensional piece of paper which has little flat inhabitants. Now Imagen someone pierces holes with an ice-pick in that paper periodically in a certain pattern. The inhabitants suddenly notice the holes and start examining it. They figure out the pattern and the period in which they occur and call it "the law of the holes".

My first thought is that such 'Flatlanders' would have no way of interpreting the phenomena as 'holes'? Holes in what? If anything they would appear as barriers, a 'wall' in their universe?

Now imagine two of those inhabitants discussing. And one of them saying, sure the existence of a giant 3d ice-pick is possible, just as long as it doesn't break the causal law of the holes. Because nothing can break causality. I hope you're getting my point.

Not really, I'm sorry. Surely there would be no 'causal law of holes' until an explanation had been suggested for why they kept popping up? Our flatlanders would assume there was a cause, and would speculate as to what it might be. Many might think it was the action of some sort of god. Perhaps a few cosmologists might postulate the existence of a '3rd dimension', invisible to normal perception, and indeed of a giant ice-pick that makes the holes. In both cases, then you have a 'causal law of holes'. In both cases it is merely a mental construction, the holes phenomena have no inherent existence apart from their observers - the phenomena requires both. You will see similarilities between that and both quantum physics and relativity; in both cases the phenomena being explained cannot be explained without reference to the observer. They are interdependent.

We are seeing the same actions always triggering the same reactions that we are starting to think that this is simply natural. We stop to think what lies behind it and assume that it is just a characteristic of the universe to respond in certain ways. We take causality for granted. To claim that nothing can break causality we first need to understand what causality is and why it manifests in the way it does. And so far science has offered us nothing to work with. So what do you think is behind causality? Why do certain actions have certain reactions? Could there be something that governs this?

Firstly, it is necessary to clarify the Buddhist concept of 'causation'. It does not refer to isloated phenomena and laws, such as one apple falling to earth and the theory of gravity predicting that behaviour. Buddhism does not deny such phenomena exist, but believes they are merely mental constructions. The idea that objects such as the apple, or the earth that attracts it, have objective independence, that they exist apart from conciousness, is simply not true. Buddhists do not reject such everyday phenomena and neither do they reject science and mathematics - clearly it would be foolish to do so - but they do believe that if we look deeper at the world we see the way it really is - devoid of any intrinisic existence.

Buddhist causality includes everything.. not one, or two, or a million objects that have any objective material existence of their own, but everything, including conciousness. Everything is causally connected, interdependent. It therefore makes no sense to talk of anything 'behind' causality, or anything that might 'govern' it. There is nothing outside causality, and can be nothing outside therefore nothing can cause of influence it. Anything that could influence it, cause it, must be within it.

 

[Trumble]

I dont get it. What kind of experience was it exaclty?

A direct experience, a fundamental realisation. Not been told about it or reading about it but knowing it. The anology I gave earlier of explaining colour to a blind man is about the best I can come up with.

Another way to think of it is as a mystical experience in the traditional religious sense. Mystical traditions, seeking such direct experience of reality, or God, are common to all the Great Religions. There were Christian mystics, Hindu mystics, Jewish mystics and islamic mystics (sufis), although I understand Islam has pretty much rejected that aspect of itself. Among 'ordinary' people, it would be suggested by such phrases as "God spoke to me" or "I felt Gods all-loving presence" or anything similar. All such experiences are a sliver of direct realisation, a small taster of what it is to be a Buddha.

Did he die and come back to life and was able to tell the others that he was reincarnated?

No, he just died. Before he did he left teachings that would enable people to achieve such a fundamental understanding of "reality" as it actually is that they wouldn't have to go through the rebirth purpose to know it was there. It is important, though, to remember that Buddhists do not believe in life after death in any literal sense. 'They' could not be reborn as 'they' no longer exist.. just aspects of the stream of conciousness of which 'they' once consisted. What made the Buddha unique is that the last vestige of that conciousnessness stream ceased with his death, and he escaped the cycle of rebirth and inevitable suffering.

 

[Trumble]

is there a tradition of charity that would be comparable with that of The Big 3? i'm wondering because of the concept of karma.

Very much so, all Buddhists seek to obtain a sense of universal compassion for all sentient beings. That would be manifested in charitable works, gifts (from lay Buddhists) and helping the needy.

Karma, in Buddhist terms, needs to be considered very carefully. It is a little different from the Hindu concept of merit, of 'good' and 'bad' karma. The ultimate objective of Buddhist practice is to shed all personal attachments in favour of developing that universal compassion. Karma is that which results from creating and maintaining such attachment. While most attachments are the result of 'bad' or 'evil' things to varying degrees (lust, pride, avarice, greed etc) there can be 'good' attachments, too. Where that often gets misinterpreted is assuming that it must lead to the conclusion that Buddhists should not love their wife/husband or children as that love must be an 'attachment'. That is not correct. It is not the experience of love, but the attachment to it, clinging to past experience, dreaming of future experience, that accumulates karma, rather than just living in the now and appreciating what is not what was or what you want to be.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

The alternative is just as paradoxical. Assume that there was in fact a prime cause, which might as well be 'God' as anything. Such a prime cause would have to be immutable, unchanging. By definition it has no cause other than itself, so there is no reason for it to change. Change of any sort must imply the intervention of a further cause beyond the first cause. But it is impossible for something immutable to create anything! If it does, it must change in doing so.. simply from being something that has the potential to create to something that has created! And what causes it to create, to change? There can't be anything if it is a prime cause. If there is it is no longer immutable or omnipotent (something has influenced it).

I understand your arguments why time with a starting point is equally tricky; but I can see two objections against them from my point of view. Actually both are based on the same principle and are more or less the same. hey are a bit abstract to explain, but I'll give it a fair shot. The first one is regarding the requirement for change. In the world that we study it is true that there is never a loss or gain of energy, the total sum of all the energy of the universe is always the same, the only difference is the state of the energy. If you push a box, the box acquires new energy, but the energy comes from your muscles. If you burn the box new heat comes (energy) but that energy comes from the chemical bounds that are broken. So in this world we are used that in order to change something we have to invest change ourself. That is because we are bound to those laws of the universe. But if an entity created the universe, then it wouldn't be bound to the laws of the universe itself and it would not necessarily require change. In teh quran Allah subhana wa ta'ala says: 46:33: See they not that Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth, and never wearied with their creation, is able to give life to the dead? Yea, verily He has power over all things.

Now the same argument can be made about being dependent on time. Time is a material dimension which is part of the creation. To put it in a more simplistic way, people sometimes ask: why didn't Allah subhana wa ta'ala create the universe sooner. Or what did Allah subhana wa ta'ala do before he created the universe? To answer these question (and the question you raised) We need to rethink what dimensions actually are. People see dimensions as liberties of freedom. A point on a line can move over that line when it is free in that dimension. A point in a plane can move north, south, west and east or any combination of those when it is free over those two dimensions. But you could also see it the other way around. Real freedom is not being bound to dimensions. A point can only move in those two directions when it is bound to that one dimension. Or a point can only move S, N, E and W when it is bound to that plane. We can say the same about time. And if Allah subhana wa ta'ala created time as a dimension, as a limitation and he himself is not bound to that limitation than he is not limeted to "before" and "after". In your question you said: Such a prime cause would have to be immutable, unchanging. But that is wrong that is because you weren't thinking out of the box (I hate to use these cliché's but it really illustrates my point here just think "the box = time"). If the source is not bound to time it has the liberty to change even without time.

As I said, all phenomena are totally interdependent and have no independent existence apart from our perception of them, so causality could be understood to be relative in those terms. I don't think that the fact "we don't know why" is really relevant.

Ok let me try another to explain why the reason behind causality is important. Imagen an autistic child. Every morning his mother puts a cookie on his desk while he is still asleep. he never caught his mom, and he never asked her about the cookie, but as far back as he remembers there was always a cookie on his desk as he woke up. For him it is in the nature of cookies to appear on mornings on his desk. It is their natural causality. One day he has to sleep over someplace else with his parents, it's a real drama, but the next day he's back home. And the next morning there's a cookie again. So he starts thinking. On the morning of the night I didn't sleep here there wasn't a cookie. Otherwise I would have found when I gotten back. There was nobody else in the house and when we got back I ran to my room before anyone else could get there. And there was no cookie.So he thinks maybe cookies only magically appear in my room in the morning if I sleep in the room. Now this might seem stupid but in science we do this all the time. We see that one event always goes hand in hand with another and we assume that they are magically linked by causality. But we have no explanation of how sleeping in the room is correlated with the appearance of the cookie. But we do see that if one happens the other always follows. So we say there is a causal reaction. And if you'd be able to inquire to the autistic kid. He will be convinced beyond the shadow of a doubt that for the rest of his life a cookie will appear on his desk if he sleeps in his room. It is causality. It has always happened as such, there is no reason to think that it could happen differently.

Everybody assumes there is a cause, and keeps looking for it; that cause could be anything from graviton interaction to God. If you consider quantum theory it seems at first glance that causality is thrown out the window, with bits of matter popping up here, there and everywhere without an obvious cause. Indeed it has been speculated that even an entire new universe could just pop out of 'nowhere' in that fashion.

So what do you think that the reason is? Am I correct when I assume you think that causality is an inherited characteristic of things. That there is nothing behind it, no God enforcing the causal link (=the magic of sleeping in the room). No "natural law" enforcing it (=a mother placing the cookie). It just is that way, no questions asked.

Surely there would be no 'causal law of holes' until an explanation had been suggested for why they kept popping up? Our flatlanders would assume there was a cause, and would speculate as to what it might be. Many might think it was the action of some sort of god. Perhaps a few cosmologists might postulate the existence of a '3rd dimension', invisible to normal perception, and indeed of a giant ice-pick that makes the holes. In both cases, then you have a 'causal law of holes'. In both cases it is merely a mental construction, the holes phenomena have no inherent existence apart from their observers - the phenomena requires both. You will see similarilities between that and both quantum physics and relativity; in both cases the phenomena being explained cannot be explained without reference to the observer. They are interdependent.

More then that, in both cases we people miss the point. In both cases we make a judgment by only knowing the tip of the iceberg.

Buddhist causality includes everything.. not one, or two, or a million objects that have any objective material existence of their own, but everything, including conciousness. Everything is causally connected, interdependent. It therefore makes no sense to talk of anything 'behind' causality, or anything that might 'govern' it. There is nothing outside causality, and can be nothing outside therefore nothing can cause of influence it. Anything that could influence it, cause it, must be within it.

And do you personally agree that there can be nothing outside of that totality, that everything that is must be included. That there is no beyond?

 

[Trumble]

And do you personally agree that there can be nothing outside of that totality, that everything that is must be included. That there is no beyond?

That is both my, and Buddhist belief. Totality must, by definition, include everything; there can be no 'beyond'. Perhaps the most significant point, though is that Buddhist cosmology requires nothing beyond. The 'God' solution answers a 'question' that in Buddhist terms simply does not need to be asked. Using your own analogy in a slightly different context, it is like trying to explain the appearance of cookies when no cookies are appearing! What use is there to a hypothetical solution (and very much a faith based one) to a non-existent problem?

Now the same argument can be made about being dependent on time. Time is a material dimension which is part of the creation. To put it in a more simplistic way, people sometimes ask: why didn't Allah subhana wa ta'ala create the universe sooner. Or what did Allah subhana wa ta'ala do before he created the universe? To answer these question (and the question you raised) We need to rethink what dimensions actually are. People see dimensions as liberties of freedom. A point on a line can move over that line when it is free in that dimension. A point in a plane can move north, south, west and east or any combination of those when it is free over those two dimensions. But you could also see it the other way around. Real freedom is not being bound to dimensions. A point can only move in those two directions when it is bound to that one dimension. Or a point can only move S, N, E and W when it is bound to that plane. We can say the same about time. And if Allah subhana wa ta'ala created time as a dimension, as a limitation and he himself is not bound to that limitation than he is not limeted to "before" and "after". In your question you said: Such a prime cause would have to be immutable, unchanging. But that is wrong that is because you weren't thinking out of the box (I hate to use these cliché's but it really illustrates my point here just think "the box = time"). If the source is not bound to time it has the liberty to change even without time.

Much the same answer. Yes, you could say that change must be a function of time, but I still don't see how God could influence his creation without being influenced by it no matter how far 'out-of-the-box' you go. It's not just a question of 'time' (which has no intrinsic existence anyway). However many dimensions you may have in the act of creation something changed.. the creative act must represent change.

I have no problem with going out of the box, and indeed acceptance of the Buddhist scheme of things pretty much requires it; it can be 'proved' neither scientifically or philosophically only experienced directly. BUT, by going out of the box, you must accept that your (and my) positions immediately become faith based. I have no inherent problem with that either, but faith based solutions serve no purpose unless they answer a problem. In Buddhism, in the context of the existence of God, that problem does not exist, as I said before.

So what do you think that the reason is? Am I correct when I assume you think that causality is an inherited characteristic of things. That there is nothing behind it, no God enforcing the causal link (=the magic of sleeping in the room). No "natural law" enforcing it (=a mother placing the cookie). It just is that way, no questions asked.

No, you are not correct, as in the Buddhist view there are no 'things' to have any intrinsic characteristics. Nor are there such 'things' as intrinsic characteristics! The perception of 'things' with any independent existence and characteristics is purely illusory, a mental construct. Likewise, any laws relating to them, or causal relationships we may believe exist between them, are also merely illusory. All that exists are phenomena, including conciousness, ever changing, and totally interdependent. Nothing has any intrinsic existence apart from everything else. Reality is what Buddhists describe as 'emptiness'. Not nihilism, you can't have nothing without implying the existence of something not to have, nor materialist realism, but a 'middle way' between them.

At one level such constructs are universal. They are how we interpret reality and enable us to function in the everyday world, but that does not alter the fact that constructs is all they are. Be it the kid and the cookie, the theologian pondering God, or the cosmologist formulating theories of the Big Bang, the principle is the same. Buddhists believe there is indeed something beyond the everyday world of appearances; not a God, but reality itself. Man alone (to our knowledge, although Buddhism would not exclude other candidates) has the capacity, while still existing perfectly in the world, to realise and directly experience that that world is nothing but a reflection of reality - like looking at an object in a mirror - not reality itself.

Yes, I know all of that is pretty much out-of-the-box too! It is a purely metaphysical position, and like any such cannot be 'proved'. But as a metaphysics it has certain notable characteristics. In can embrace science and psychology completely and effortlessly. And it requires no outside cause, no beginning, no end. And no God. It doesn't actually discount one (except as first cause) but simply doesn't need one.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

That is both my, and Buddhist belief. Totality must, by definition, include everything; there can be no 'beyond'. Perhaps the most significant point, though is that Buddhist cosmology requires nothing beyond. The 'God' solution answers a 'question' that in Buddhist terms simply does not need to be asked. Using your own analogy in a slightly different context, it is like trying to explain the appearance of cookies when no cookies are appearing! What use is there to a hypothetical solution (and very much a faith based one) to a non-existent problem?

Ok,I see.

Much the same answer. Yes, you could say that change must be a function of time, but I still don't see how God could influence his creation without being influenced by it no matter how far 'out-of-the-box' you go. It's not just a question of 'time' (which has no intrinsic existence anyway).

Oh no I beg to differ. Time has an equally intrinsic existence as the rest of the universe has. Gravity can even bend time. Time is very much materialistic. Unless of course you meant that time is unreal in a similar way as the rest of the universe is unreal. In which I would question your definition of reality.

However many dimensions you may have in the act of creation something changed.. the creative act must represent change.

Why? on what base do you state so? Aren't you assuming here that the creator creates under the laws of physics that we are used to? But why would that be the case. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but from my point of view you're being narrow-minded. On what ground can you make a conclusion of the requirements for creation if those creations would be outside of the rules of causality that we are bound to?

I have no problem with going out of the box, and indeed acceptance of the Buddhist scheme of things pretty much requires it; it can be 'proved' neither scientifically or philosophically only experienced directly. BUT, by going out of the box, you must accept that your (and my) positions immediately become faith based. I have no inherent problem with that either, but faith based solutions serve no purpose unless they answer a problem. In Buddhism, in the context of the existence of God, that problem does not exist, as I said before.

Yes indeed you pinpointed the problem exactly, just as any other discussion in the topics in this forum, this is the problem. Which begs the question, where does your faith come from? What source does it have when you have neither proof nor explanation backing you up? (just in case that comes out bad, this is not a rethorical question, but a genuine inquiry )

No, you are not correct, as in the Buddhist view there are no 'things' to have any intrinsic characteristics. Nor are there such 'things' as intrinsic characteristics! The perception of 'things' with any independent existence and characteristics is purely illusory, a mental construct. Likewise, any laws relating to them, or causal relationships we may believe exist between them, are also merely illusory. All that exists are phenomena, including conciousness, ever changing, and totally interdependent. Nothing has any intrinsic existence apart from everything else. Reality is what Buddhists describe as 'emptiness'. Not nihilism, you can't have nothing without implying the existence of something not to have, nor materialist realism, but a 'middle way' between them.

I'm afraid whe're back to square one then, because if the laws of causality do not happen because of an intrinsic nature of the subject they govern, then what is it that causes this causality? Why is it that certain actions have certain reactions? What maintains this relationship between action and reaction?

Hope I'm boring you to much with my questions, I feel bad for hijacking your thread.
Well I'm off now, bye

 

[Trumble]

Unless of course you meant that time is unreal in a similar way as the rest of the universe is unreal. In which I would question your definition of reality.

That is exactly what I mean, and of course you question it! We would not be having this discussion otherwise. I haven't attempted to 'define' reality though, that is not possible, any more than 'defining' God is possible in anything other than the dictionary sense. At best I have very poorly described something that cannot be described anyway, it has to be experienced.

Aren't you assuming here that the creator creates under the laws of physics that we are used to? But why would that be the case. I'm sorry for being so blunt, but from my point of view you're being narrow-minded. On what ground can you make a conclusion of the requirements for creation if those creations would be outside of the rules of causality that we are bound to?

My argument was logical, not scientific. I am unable to see any logical way in which the act of creation could not result in change to its creator in the terms I have described using whatever laws of physics you may choose to come up with. You can go 'outside the box' in terms of logic too, of course, but in doing so you are immediately accepting a totally faith based position. If you take that step, you could postulate alternative rules of logic (or lack of them) that would allow anything you like. And as I said, why postulate any conclusions regarding requirements for creation if your basic metaphysical position has no need of any creation?

Which begs the question, where does your faith come from? What source does it have when you have neither proof nor explanation backing you up? (just in case that comes out bad, this is not a rethorical question, but a genuine inquiry )

Much the same place as yours, probably. I should point out, though, that all of this has very little to do with the heart of Buddhism. Buddhist philosophy and cosmology is not 'Buddhism' any more than Islamic philosophy is 'Islam'. What really matters is its practices; and as I mentioned before even the Buddha presented those as suck-it-and-see. Those practices have one purpose and one purpose only, the cessation of suffering. Understanding and experiencing reality is one of the means, not the end. The more those teachings work for you, maybe you gain small glimpses of direct experience of 'reality' as I have described, or maybe you just notice yourself becoming a happier and better person, the more 'faith' you have in what lies behind them. Buddhism is a religion, and not 'just' a philosophy. In my case Buddhist metaphysics also happens to make sense, although of course I can't 'prove' they are right. But you can accept any metaphysics, any philosophy, any religion you like, it won't touch your life unless you experience it. Any teachings are pointless unless you follow them at least far enough to establish whether they work.

I'm afraid whe're back to square one then, because if the laws of causality do not happen because of an intrinsic nature of the subject they govern, then what is it that causes this causality? Why is it that certain actions have certain reactions? What maintains this relationship between action and reaction?

There are no 'subjects' for them to govern! That's the whole point. They are merely mental constructs, illusions, with no intrinsic existence. Certain actions have certain reactions because that is how we 'choose' to construct our model of reality, but that model is not reality itself. Buddhist causation is a metaphysical conception of reality, not an alternative physics. Reality is constant change, constant flux, and no 'things' exist separate from everything else. Nothing is needed to maintain it. Even if it were you can't introduce any concepts as to what might be and change the problem in any way. You can build a God into the picture if you like, or not, it makes absolutely no difference. Sure, by going 'outside the box' you can postulate something 'outside' everything. But that solves nothing (and as I keep saying there is nothing to solve); what then might be outside the something that is outside everything, everything now being extended to include what was previously outside it? And what might be 'outside' that? And outside that? Logically, if you accept the possibility of one 'outside' you must accept the possibility of an infinity of 'outsides'. Why not just accept it and bundle the whole lot as 'everything' in the first place? Not doing so, changing the rules halfway through (like claiming this process stops after the first time - the first God) is as OK as any other sort of speculation, but it is totally faith based. Again, there is no 'proof' or 'explanation'. It can't be proved or explained, it can only be experienced. That is the faith (as opposed to philosophical) element. We are in the same position.. and maybe it is just that position that defines religion?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

That is exactly what I mean, and of course you question it! We would not be having this discussion otherwise. I haven't attempted to 'define' reality though, that is not possible, any more than 'defining' God is possible in anything other than the dictionary sense. At best I have very poorly described something that cannot be described anyway, it has to be experienced.

There are no 'subjects' for them to govern! That's the whole point. They are merely mental constructs, illusions, with no intrinsic existence.

Well see the thing that troubles me is, you said something along the lines of reality is an illusion of our consciousness (hope I got that right). So that suggests you do believe in the existence of that conscience. Now how does that make reality "unreal". The way I see this is a dramatically different way of viewing reality, different then mainstream science sees it, perhaps even different then oxford dictionary sees it; but it is nevertheless a reality. Sort of a I-think-therefor-I-am-reality. And if in that universe there are causal laws, that govern actions and reactions then that means they have both a method of govern the reactions as well as an enforcing of those laws that seem to govern whatever it is they govern. To oversimplify it, say that you could bend spoons with your mind just because reality is a construct of your consciousness then that means first of all that this consciousness was enabled to construct his reality, and that means that it is enabled to interact with it in a certain way (e.i. bend the spoon, I know it's a cliche, but you get the point right )

My argument was logical, not scientific. I am unable to see any logical way in which the act of creation could not result in change to its creator in the terms I have described using whatever laws of physics you may choose to come up with.

Well I would say your logic is biased with science since your logic is derived from the logicality's you've learned trough your environment which are in their turn subjected to the laws of science. It seems like a logical conclusion because that is what science has always thought us. But there is no philosophical argument to claim that creating alters the creator. In fact I 'm inclined to think that a creator is not subjected to his creation and is therefor not necessarily affected by it. IF he were, then it would much rather be the case of "modification". Like an artist who modifies an existing rock to "create" a statue. He and the rock are both peers in the sense that they are bound to the same rules of causality. Altering the statue requires energy so the artist as peer needs to produce from within himself the required energy (kinetic energy from the muscles). To suggest the same is true for a superior being to really "create" inferiorly suggests it is similar to the modification of peers; which it by definition is not.

And as I said, why postulate any conclusions regarding requirements for creation if your basic metaphysical position has no need of any creation?

Why postulate the opposite? As for arguments being faith bound, well creation is something from within the realms of faith-knowledge, so there is absolutely no way to approach it from a strictly scientific or pragmatic way.

But you can accept any metaphysics, any philosophy, any religion you like, it won't touch your life unless you experience it. Any teachings are pointless unless you follow them at least far enough to establish whether they work.

Yeah to some extend I agree. But something has to trigger the first step, intrigue you well enough to invest into it. I thought perhaps there was a personal motive; like it is the case for my belief in Islam.

There are no 'subjects' for them to govern! That's the whole point. They are merely mental constructs, illusions, with no intrinsic existence. Certain actions have certain reactions because that is how we 'choose' to construct our model of reality, but that model is not reality itself. Buddhist causation is a metaphysical conception of reality, not an alternative physics. Reality is constant change, constant flux, and no 'things' exist separate from everything else. Nothing is needed to maintain it. Even if it were you can't introduce any concepts as to what might be and change the problem in any way.

So technically speaking, you could bend spoons by looking at 'm?

You can build a God into the picture if you like, or not, it makes absolutely no difference. Sure, by going 'outside the box' you can postulate something 'outside' everything. But that solves nothing (and as I keep saying there is nothing to solve); what then might be outside the something that is outside everything, everything now being extended to include what was previously outside it? And what might be 'outside' that? And outside that? Logically, if you accept the possibility of one 'outside' you must accept the possibility of an infinity of 'outsides'. Why not just accept it and bundle the whole lot as 'everything' in the first place? Not doing so, changing the rules halfway through (like claiming this process stops after the first time - the first God) is as OK as any other sort of speculation, but it is totally faith based. Again, there is no 'proof' or 'explanation'. It can't be proved or explained, it can only be experienced. That is the faith (as opposed to philosophical) element. We are in the same position.. and maybe it is just that position that defines religion?

Yeah you're defenetly right about that one, doesn't hurt to compare views though, right?

 

[Trumble]

Well see the thing that troubles me is, you said something along the lines of reality is an illusion of our consciousness (hope I got that right). So that suggests you do believe in the existence of that conscience. Now how does that make reality "unreal". The way I see this is a dramatically different way of viewing reality, different then mainstream science sees it, perhaps even different then oxford dictionary sees it; but it is nevertheless a reality. Sort of a I-think-therefor-I-am-reality.

It's certainly dramatically different, yes. I think we can forget the OED as the idea of providing a dictionary definition of 'reality' that in any tangible way represents TRUTH is as absurd as producing one regarding GOD. The Buddhist concept of reality isn't so much different from the scientific one as beyond it, it is actually quite happy to accept science (often far more so than the monotheistic religions) whatever it may come up, with the proviso that whatever phenomenon science attempts to describe actually has no 'real' intrinsic existence apart from its interaction with both us and everything else. Science 'supports' that to a degree, if you look at quantum theory, which suggests that phenomena have no such independent existence. A photon behaves as a wave until you observe it, upon which it then behaves, totally differently, as a particle. In science, too, 'things' have no independent existence apart from their observer.

To oversimplify it, say that you could bend spoons with your mind just because reality is a construct of your consciousness then that means first of all that this consciousness was enabled to construct his reality, and that means that it is enabled to interact with it in a certain way.

As to spoons, Buddhism is not an idealist philosophy. It is not reality that is the product of consciousness (or to be precise the interaction of conciousness with everything else), but an interpretative model of it...'our' subjective reality if you like. While conciousness streams are present and intertwined with everything else, they have no control over that interpretative process. Conciousness has no persistent existence, it arises on moment after the next, conditioned by what came before and conditioning what comes afterwards, but not the same as either. You can't 'choose' your reality because there is nothing to choose it.

Why postulate the opposite? As for arguments being faith bound, well creation is something from within the realms of faith-knowledge, so there is absolutely no way to approach it from a strictly scientific or pragmatic way.

Because the opposite is simpler, although it is accepted rather than postulated. The need for creation adds a lot of complexity to the mix (especially if it needs a God - how complex can you get!), but Buddhist metaphysics simply does require a creation - so why bring in that complexity with no justification? Creation gets cut down by what in the West is called 'Occam's Razor'... go for the simplest explanation that fits the facts, as it is most likely to be right. You are quite right on the second point, of course.

Yeah to some extend I agree. But something has to trigger the first step, intrigue you well enough to invest into it. I thought perhaps there was a personal motive; like it is the case for my belief in Islam.

There is. I tried meditational practice (Zen, initially) and for me it worked enough to explore further.

doesn't hurt to compare views though, right?

Indeed, that's the whole point of this particular sub-forum. People who hide away from other points of view for fear they may somehow 'infect' their own faith fail to understand that their own beliefs can be re-enforced as well. In same cases it is commonality between religions - all of them have pretty much the same codes of ethics, for example. In others you may simply see a point where is there disagreement, and say "no.. I don't agree with that, even though I now understand it a little better" and your own belief is stronger than ever.