Questions on Buddhism - answered by a Buddhist!

[north_malaysian]

Is being a vegetarian, optional or obligatory in Buddhism?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

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.

Actually this is a huge misconception that was told in "what the bleep we know". It is true that sometimes electrons seem to be wavy and at other times they seem to be particles. However that has nothing to do with our observation of them. Certain tests will make it look like were dealing with waves and other tests make it look like were dealing with particles. The outcome is a result of the method in which we test it and the equipment we use. We make the electrons interact with our equipment in a certain way, and hence it does. So the difference in appearance is due to the equipment that interacts with it, not due to the observation of the tester.

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 consciousness with everything else), but an interpretative model of it...'our' subjective reality if you like. While consciousness streams are present and intertwined with everything else, they have no control over that interpretative process. Consciousness 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.

So there are inherited laws which our conscience abides to. Or is this method of interaction due to an inherited characteristic of our consciousness?

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.

Well first of all my question was not about creation vs. no creation but about creation causes creator to change vs. creation doesn't causes creator to change. And in the later question I would say that an explanation without the change is simpler then a explanation with the change.

Now however you have brought up an interesting argument I would like to respond to: does oxhams razor tell us creation is false?

So you have two views being:
[Pro anthropic theory:] When considering the complex way the rules of physics manifest themselves in both physiology and cosmology it seems obvious that the slightest change in any factor of physics or any change in the nature of the universe would have made life impossible. It all started with a design of life; then the universe was custom made in order for such life to exist. Such a well balanced universe and complicated creatures cannot be the result of mere luck. This order suggests creation.

[Contra anthropic theory:] This appreciation of the inherited characteristics of nature is a result of both the ignorance of people while being overwhelmed by information that is beyond their comprehension as well as their imagination. Order is subjective. In reality things are very disordered, but we just categorize them in an ordered way. If the laws of physics were different, we would have classified and ordered them differently. And life could very well have exist albeit then in a completely different way then we now know it. Probably to different for our limited minds to comprehend. Such a hypothetical life would simply evolve different from the way it has evolved now. this based on the fact that different laws of nature would call for different adaptations. Everything started as a result of the laws of the universe. That life rose out of these natural inherited laws is the result of mere luck.

We notice the contra argument can defend itself with Ockham’s razor because an explanation without a design is simpler then an explanation with a design. But at the same time the pro argument can also defend itself with Ockham’s razor because a purpose minded design seems much simpler then appointing the miraculous characteristics of the universe to nothing more then coincidence. This because luck isn’t something real. Its just a term to indicate that something happens against expectations. Most of the time that is because when we make our expectations we fail to include all factors that play a significant role. When we win the lottery we call it luck, we can even calculate the chance of winning mathematically. But in the end, the numbers are not decided by luck. there is no chance, the balls with the numbers simply follow the laws of physics. Their movement is just to complex for us to calculate the outcome. So when one says that life is the result of luck that’s just another way of saying: we fail to comprehend all the factors that play a decisive role in it. It’s simply to complex. So the contra argument attempted to cover up this need for causal chain of events going back all the way to big bang. And it covered this up by claiming it was mere luck. Now if we assume that there actually is such a causal chain of events; then -according to Ockham’s razor- the contra argument the more complex one; and hence less likely to be true.

However this difference in judgement is not due to a paradoxical nature of Ockham’s razor, nor due to an inherited paradox in the anthropic theory. It is much rather the result of the two different starting points of the respectively defending atheists and theists. An atheist is biased by his view that there is nothing beyond science. Therefore –to him- such a design seems like an unnecessary expansion of his perspective of the world. Whereas a theist is biased by his view that there is a Creator, which makes the notion of “coincidence” look like an uncalled expansion of his world-view. So in conclusion I think both parties have to agree that the use of Ockham’s razor when comparing viewpoints is rather tricky.

 

[Trumble]

Actually this is a huge misconception that was told in "what the bleep we know". It is true that sometimes electrons seem to be wavy and at other times they seem to be particles. However that has nothing to do with our observation of them. Certain tests will make it look like were dealing with waves and other tests make it look like were dealing with particles. The outcome is a result of the method in which we test it and the equipment we use. We make the electrons interact with our equipment in a certain way, and hence it does. So the difference in appearance is due to the equipment that interacts with it, not due to the observation of the tester.

Mostly true (the "that has nothing to do with our observation of them" part is not), but it is irrelevant to what I was saying, which had nothing to do with the experimental observation of wave/particle duality. The point I made concerns pure theory, not the 'observer effect' of experimental observation.

According to quantum mechanics if the outcome of a possible event has not been observed it exists in a state of superposition, that is all possible states 'exist' at once. That has actually been interpreted in several different ways, but rather than me trying to describe what I don't pretend to fully understand anyway try the Wiki entry on the famous 'Schrödinger's Cat' thought experiment.

So there are inherited laws which our conscience abides to. Or is this method of interaction due to an inherited characteristic of our consciousness?

No to the second, because consciousness has no inherent existence apart from everything else, and therefore can have no characteristics independent of everything else. I guess you could say that there must be 'rules' by which reality functions, at which point you will no doubt suggest that it is God who created them and enforces them? The Buddhist response would be in two parts. Firstly that that is just the way things are, and they cannot be any other way. Bringing in a God is therefore nonsense as it implies things would somehow be different if those laws were 'created' or enforced differently, be they could not be different. Second, and not just a Buddhist point by any means, invoking a God just leaves you with the same problem only with another layer of complexity - which tales us back to where we were before.

Whereas a theist is biased by his view that there is a Creator, which makes the notion of “coincidence” look like an uncalled expansion of his world-view. So in conclusion I think both parties have to agree that the use of Ockham’s razor when comparing viewpoints is rather tricky.

Absolutely, but I made perfectly clear that I was talking about creation (or lack of it) in terms of Buddhist metaphysics only. Using a different set of metaphysical assumptions (i.e theist), Occam's Razor may well 'cut' something else, i.e a non-creation. In 'everyday' terms it has actually been claimed to support both points of view.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Mostly true (the "that has nothing to do with our observation of them" part is not),

Actually I'm quite confident that according to science the observer plays absolutely no role in the this. The behavior of the electrons is determined by the equipment we use to examen them not by the examinator's awareness.

According to quantum mechanics if the outcome of a possible event has not been observed it exists in a state of superposition, that is all possible states 'exist' at once. That has actually been interpreted in several different ways, but rather than me trying to describe what I don't pretend to fully understand anyway try the Wiki entry on the famous 'Schrödinger's Cat' thought experiment.

Well superposition is man-made. If you ask me, superposition doesn't refer to a state of an electron, but rather to the fact that we do not know what/where the electron actually is because we simply can't "look" at that level.

No to the second, because consciousness has no inherent existence apart from everything else, and therefore can have no characteristics independent of everything else. I guess you could say that there must be 'rules' by which reality functions, at which point you will no doubt suggest that it is God who created them and enforces them? The Buddhist response would be in two parts. Firstly that that is just the way things are, and they cannot be any other way. Bringing in a God is therefore nonsense as it implies things would somehow be different if those laws were 'created' or enforced differently, be they could not be different. Second, and not just a Buddhist point by any means, invoking a God just leaves you with the same problem only with another layer of complexity - which tales us back to where we were before.

I think your position here is a lil' bit contradictory, when you say: "that that is just the way things are" isn't that the same as saying: it's an inherited characteristic of the "reality". It is the natural way for things to do. And no offense, but you're still not thinking outside of the box. you're saying a creator outside would have the same problem, by what 'rules' does it abide. so instead of looking outside the box, you're just expanding the box so it can fit both our reality and the external creator, but since that creator is still in the box it still follows rules. you're still seeing creation as a causal action that follows the same rules of nature as we do. If you think of a creator which is truly omnipotent then suddenly this problem is gone and there needs to be no bigger ruling.

 

[Trumble]

Actually I'm quite confident that according to science the observer plays absolutely no role in the this. The behavior of the electrons is determined by the equipment we use to examen them not by the examinator's awareness.

I suppose that would depend on how you define 'observation' in this context, but the point is simply not relevant. As I said, you are confusing the 'observer effect' with the basic principles of quantum mechanics. The Wiki article makes the position quite clear.

Well superposition is man-made. If you ask me, superposition doesn't refer to a state of an electron, but rather to the fact that we do not know what/where the electron actually is because we simply can't "look" at that level.

Again, your position seems rather different to everybody else's! Now you seem to be just dismissing the Uncertainty Principle - with what possible justification? I'd point out that superposition applies to everything, not just electrons, which you seem rather hung up on. The classic experiment demonstrating superposition in action is the 'double slit' through which photons are fired (light). Each photon not only passes through both slits but takes every possible trajectory to reach the target. It is limited to only a single possibility when we observe it.

I think your position here is a lil' bit contradictory, when you say: "that that is just the way things are" isn't that the same as saying: it's an inherited characteristic of the "reality". It is the natural way for things to do. And no offense, but you're still not thinking outside of the box. you're saying a creator outside would have the same problem, by what 'rules' does it abide. so instead of looking outside the box, you're just expanding the box so it can fit both our reality and the external creator, but since that creator is still in the box it still follows rules. you're still seeing creation as a causal action that follows the same rules of nature as we do. If you think of a creator which is truly omnipotent then suddenly this problem is gone and there needs to be no bigger ruling.

We have been here before.

You can come up with as many 'out of the box' ideas as you like, but there is simply no need to do so. Buddhist metaphysics and cosmology have nothing that needs explaining by the existence of a truly omnipotent creator, so why postulate one? There simply is no 'problem'. You might as well go outside the box and consider that 'reality' as I have described it all sits on the back of a giant turtle swimming in another 'reality' box. All you have to do is say the turtle is somehow immune from the same rules as everything else and, in your terms, it is just as valid a postulate as God. I have also explained how an omnipotent 'creator' must be immutable, logically following which it cannot change and therefore cannot create. Your only response has been to throw away logic as well, which as I said is fair enough but you need a reason to justify doing it. Buddhism has no such reason. It doesn't prove there is no creator God, but it just doesn't need one.

 

[Trumble]

Is being a vegetarian, optional or obligatory in Buddhism?

Sorry, I missed that earlier.

Like everything else in Buddhism it is optional, but most Buddhists are. Vegetarianism is always part of the rules in formal Buddhist communities, such as monasteries, with exceptions only where a vegetarian diet is not practical for geographical reasons (such as parts of the Himalayas).

 

[north_malaysian]

... and Malaysia too. Most of Chinese Buddhists here eat meat.

 

[Trumble]

Does that include those living a monastic life, or just lay-Buddhists?

 

[north_malaysian]

Does that include those living a monastic life, or just lay-Buddhists?

lay buddhists. The monks and nuns are strictly vegetarians. When a Muslim wants to eat in a Chinese restaurant, they'll go to the vegetarian ones.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I suppose that would depend on how you define 'observation' in this context, but the point is simply not relevant. As I said, you are confusing the 'observer effect' with the basic principles of quantum mechanics. The Wiki article makes the position quite clear.

Again, your position seems rather different to everybody else's! Now you seem to be just dismissing the Uncertainty Principle - with what possible justification? I'd point out that superposition applies to everything, not just electrons, which you seem rather hung up on. The classic experiment demonstrating superposition in action is the 'double slit' through which photons are fired (light). Each photon not only passes through both slits but takes every possible trajectory to reach the target. It is limited to only a single possibility when we observe it.

First of all you're mixing two things up. the uncertainty principle is the principle that due to it's wavy nature we are unable to simultaneously examine both the course and the speed of certain particles. So since we can only measure one at the time that means we never have enough data to pinpoint it's location, therefor e calculate a probability space in which the particles probably reside.

As for superposition, that is a different phenomena that certain particles can sometimes appear to be at different places simultaneously.

Now how are those two related? Well we have found that these particles in turn are build up out of quarks. Some sort of subatomic particles. Now it is very plausible that when we project a particle on a screen with two wholes that these quarks can easily split up and each go a parallel different way. Whereas a screen with a single hole would force them to stick together. They would be forced to do so due to whatever force it is that keep them together (I think the strong force does that, but I'm not certain) It would not allow under normal circumstances to leave part of the electron behind at the first screen. As for the seperation in the first test, that wouldn't be a problem since there parallel courses makes them stay relatively close to one another. So it is purely a matter of the particles interacting with the equipment and not a question of dual existence and observation.

The problem whit this answer is that the uncertainty principle makes it impossible for us to test this.

You can come up with as many 'out of the box' ideas as you like, but there is simply no need to do so.

I know we've been there before, the reason I brought it up again was because you suggested that this out of the box would be an infinite loop. But that's proposturous. It would only need to be an infinite loop if the same rules aply outside of the box, in which case the borders of the box aren't really borders; and the outside is more of an expansion of the box in the same plane rather then a real "outside".

Buddhist metaphysics and cosmology have nothing that needs explaining by the existence of a truly omnipotent creator, so why postulate one?

Yes there is one thing that lacks an explanation, why do the rules in reality (whatever that is) govern the things the govern in that certain way. If it's their natural way of acting then there is a reason for that, if they are enforced by something, then there is something behind it, it seems that either answer is problematic with your view.

I have also explained how an omnipotent 'creator' must be immutable, logically following which it cannot change and therefore cannot create. Your only response has been to throw away logic as well,

No I never said trow away logic, I said that the arguments that you are trying to pass of as logic are biased by the laws of this world and are hence not universal logic. As far as the issue of creation altering creator concerns it is your "logical" arguments that are build on assumptions, not the other way around. Bringing in the fact that your view doesn't need it is absurd. I mean, it's like there are two puzzles, my paradigm and your paradigm. You take a piece of my puzzle, and you notice it doesn't fit in with your pieces and then trow it away as "impossible". And when I say well it's not impossible it fits right here you say well that is your view. Well of course it is my view. and I realize that very well, but the point is you cannot dismiss a view based on a different set of views. Either you ignore it all together or you look at the whole puzzle. Now to get back on creation, you brought up that argument because you have a different definition of creation. your defenition of creation is something I would call modification/alteration. Creation from my pov does not make the creator change.

 

[Trumble]

First of all you're mixing two things up. the uncertainty principle is the principle that due to it's wavy nature we are unable to simultaneously examine both the course and the speed of certain particles. So since we can only measure one at the time that means we never have enough data to pinpoint it's location, therefor e calculate a probability space in which the particles probably reside.
As for superposition, that is a different phenomena that certain particles can sometimes appear to be at different places simultaneously.

I'M not mixing anything up. The whole point is not that we can't "pinpoint its location", it is that until we observe it it has no location, only a probabilty function as to where, when observed it will appear. Your definition of superposition in this context is incorrect, it is not "that certain particles can sometimes appear to be at different places simultaneously", it is that until that position is fixed by observation they have the potential to appear anywhere, they 'exist' everywhere simultaneously; the potential exists for them to appear anywhere.

Now it is very plausible that when we project a particle on a screen with two wholes that these quarks can easily split up and each go a parallel different way.Whereas a screen with a single hole would force them to stick together. They would be forced to do so due to whatever force it is that keep them together (I think the strong force does that, but I'm not certain) It would not allow under normal circumstances to leave part of the electron behind at the first screen. As for the seperation in the first test, that wouldn't be a problem since there parallel courses makes them stay relatively close to one another.

Can you please provide a source for that that leads to the conclusion that

So it is purely a matter of the particles interacting with the equipment and not a question of dual existence and observation.

and relates it to any of the conventional interpretations of quantum mechanics? I rather feel I'm banging my head against a wall at the moment.

I know we've been there before, the reason I brought it up again was because you suggested that this out of the box would be an infinite loop. But that's proposturous. It would only need to be an infinite loop if the same rules aply outside of the box, in which case the borders of the box aren't really borders; and the outside is more of an expansion of the box in the same plane rather then a real "outside".

Again, I'll have to leave it as I don't see how I can make it any clearer. If going 'out of the box', means something outside everything (something, as I keep saying that is simply not required in Buddhist metaphysics anyway), there is no logical reason why that cannot continue ad infinitum, each time with a different set of rules/laws. Your argument amounts to no more than saying "no it doesn't", by conveniently defining (with no justification) the first 'out of the box' venture as excluding all others. It is that which is preposterous.

Yes there is one thing that lacks an explanation, why do the rules in reality (whatever that is) govern the things the govern in that certain way. If it's their natural way of acting then there is a reason for that, if they are enforced by something, then there is something behind it, it seems that either answer is problematic with your view.

Again, again, there is nothing problematic. Enforcement is not required if things cannot be other than they are.

No I never said trow away logic, I said that the arguments that you are trying to pass of as logic are biased by the laws of this world and are hence not universal logic.

I disagree, they are purely logical and have no such bias. I will set them out formally if you like, but a simple Google search on the subject should serve your purposes.

You take a piece of my puzzle, and you notice it doesn't fit in with your pieces and then trow it away as "impossible". And when I say well it's not impossible it fits right here you say well that is your view. Well of course it is my view.

It is not a case of 'impossibility', but logical contradiction. Again, again I seem to be repeating myself. Sure, I can quite happily go 'outside the box' again and accept logical contradictions on the basis of faith. In another context (debating with Ansar) I did just that. There is nothing wrong with faith, it is an integral component of religion. But in Buddhism this particular leap of faith simply is not required; it is redundant. Obviously in Islam that is not so, hence the irreconcilable difference in opinion.

I really suggest we leave it there mate, I just can't see this going anywhere other than round and round in circles. Time to agree to disagree?

 

[AvarAllahNoor]

Hi Trumble - What do you know of Guru Gompka Maharaj or Nanak Lama as known to Buddhists?

Here's more about it

In his lifetime Guru Nanak traveled to distant places and one such place was Tibet. Guru Nanak is well respected by Tibetan Buddhists who consider him a saint; The Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Buddhists in Tibet, has confirmed it in his discussions with some Sikh leaders and that Tibetans revere Guru Nanak as a Buddhist saint under the name of Guru Gompka Maharaj. According to the local legends of North Sikkim, some people approached Guru Ji with an appeal for help. The lake had remained frozen during most of the year and rendered it incapable as a source of water. Guru Nanak Dev Ji is said to have touched the lake with his foot, and it has never frozen since. Guru Nanak's footprints, a robe and a water-carrying utensil are preserved in a nearby place called Lachen Gompha. Here the locals refer to Guru Ji as Rimpoche Nanak Guru who on his way to Tibet had rested there.

Some grazers projected another problem to Guru Nanak Ji. Due to the effect of altitude, their virility was affected. They requested the Guru to do something about it. Guru Nanak blessed the lake, saying, "Whosoever takes the water of this lake will gain virility and strength and will be blessed with children." The people of the area have firm faith in Guru's words and consider the water of the lake as nectar. A Gurdwara was constructed in eighties to commemorate Guru Nanak's visit to the place

A story they tell is that Guru Ji had brought with him a rice meal packed in banana leaves, as is the custom even today in banana growing areas. The two commodities were unknown to the hill folks. Guru Ji having noticed their inquisitiveness bestowed them with a share of this strange cereal. They displayed forethought and instead of eating it sprinkled the rice over the meadow and buried the banana packing in a corner. Today the village harvests a rich crop of rice and bananas.

The local people of the area and Lamas of Karmapa Nyingmapa Sect confirm Guru Nanak's visit to these areas. The Lamas from these areas have been visiting Golden Temple, Amritsar, regularly to pay obeisance to their beloved Guru Rimpoche, Guru Nanak, also known as Nanak Lama in their areas. Guru Nanak's footprints, a robe and a water-carrying utensil (kamandal) are preserved in Lachen Gompha, Sikkim

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I really suggest we leave it there mate, I just can't see this going anywhere other than round and round in circles. Time to agree to disagree?

Yeah it seems to me that is the only thing we will be able to agree on.

 

[Trumble]

Hi Trumble - What do you know of Guru Gompka Maharaj or Nanak Lama as known to Buddhists?

Nothing at all until I read your post! Interesting stuff.

 

[ManchesterFolk]

Man I really love Buddhism as a religion, but I cannot deal with the rejection of the existence of God. That is why I really am not a Buddhist.

I love the theories on pacifism etc.

 

[snakelegs]

Man I really love Buddhism as a religion, but I cannot deal with the rejection of the existence of God. That is why I really am not a Buddhist.

I love the theories on pacifism etc.

they're a Sensible Bunch, aren't they?

 

[ManchesterFolk]

they're a Sensible Bunch of people, aren't they?

Yeah, to bad the world cannot have there type of Sharia. It would probably lead us to world peace. Some people here might have to much time on there hands if there was world peace though, lol. :X

 

[Trumble]

By request, this thread re-opened with;

Are there any threads about Buddhism, like "Questions About Buddhism Answered by a Buddhist"? I was wondering the connection between Buddhism and Hinduism and how Buddha ended up believing in NO god if he was ever a part of Hinduism with its millions of gods.

A two part answer.

Firstly, the Buddha never was "part of Hinduism", there being no such thing at the time. It did not evolve into anything resembling its current form until after the Buddha's death. The prevailing popular religions, as far as were any, were the old Vedic practices of the Aryans which were supported by the caste system established in most places on the Gangetic Plain although not, incidently, in Sakka, the Buddha's own 'patch'. The 'dharmic' religions were new on the scene, including Jainism (still around) and the traditions arising from the Upanisads - both of which were more or less contemporary with the Buddha.

Secondly, 'Hinduism' is a western concept. It is not a unified religion but a catch-all for a vast number of traditions, which may include elements and 'gods' on both a 'cosmic' scale and a local scale. For example, somebody might worship Krishna, Lakshmi, or Ganesha while also worshipping local spirits or gods. Neither should be confused with the Abrahamic conception of God. The 'big' ones are ways of considering, or different manifestitions of, the same overall 'god' or Universal Reality. The smaller ones are really more 'supernatural beings' than 'gods' as such, capable of bestowing fortune or causing mischief. The "millions of gods" thing is not actually true. Hindu thinking is that all living beings are part of God as He is present in each and every one of them in the form of atman, the all pervading soul of the universe. Thus, in one sense every living being is God, and the ancient idea was that there were 330 million living beings, and hence 330 million 'gods'.

Back to the Buddha. 'Gods' were part of scenery in his time, most people believed in one and usually more be it the old Vedic gods or local spirits and such. The important thing to realise is that, to the Buddha, it didn't matter whether they existed or not. He didn't care either way. The reason was, as I said in the other thread, he knew that any such Gods must be subject to the same fundamental laws of cause and effect, suffering, rebirth and karma as people (and animals, and 'ghosts', and whatever). The Buddha's achievement was that he find the way to escape that cycle of suffering and rebirth forever.. spiritually that was beyond any 'god', and Buddhist mythology (the references are metaphorical, not literal, and are generally later additions to the original Pali canon) tells that the gods themselves turned up to witness and celebrate both Gotama's birth and his enlightenment.

 

[ummAbdillah]

hi,
do you believe in Biblical characters?
salaam

 

[Trumble]

hi,
do you believe in Biblical characters?
salaam

Yes, I think many were historical personages, such as the later Hebrew prophets. Many of the kings and such are established historical figures, of course. I think people like Jeremiah and, of course, Jesus were important religious figures, thinkers and mystics. But not 'prophets' in the sense that they were mouthpieces for, or indeed in Jesus' case a manifestation of, any God.