Buddhism: Neither Theistic nor Atheistic

[Jane_the_Bane]

Christianity does not even BEGIN to grasp the problem, since "evil" is such an unproductive concept to begin with.
Calling things evil does not help us understand *why* they are bad. It does not help us understand how they come to be. Worst of all, it does not even help us to avoid the causes that lead to it in the future, but instead focuses on the final symptoms of a process.
It is not a coincidence that many people who felt that they were "fighting evil" ended up committing the most atrocious of deeds - because the harm they were inflicting wasn't perceived as hurting other people, it was perceived as championing good vs. evil.

Abrahamic theism does little to promote ethical understanding, since most of its historical rules and taboos are the kind of random cultural norm that have absolutely no basis in factual harm or benefit. Worse, good and evil are mostly defined in terms of obedience vs. disobedience, instead of promoting an understanding of the ethical dimension of our conduct. Instead of learning to navigate a complex terrain, they only follow the cattle prod - and feel that anybody would be lost without it.

 

[ananda]

I agree, but I have found it taught by some naming themselves Buddhist and Hindu. They embrace without explaining that there is no chance or randomness... despite the paradox.

Unfortunately, in my experience, most religious people - "Buddhist" and "Hindu" not excluded - are cultural adherents, and know little about the original tenets of their religious faith. In a second case, there are "casually serious" adherents, but prefer to casually read secondary sources instead of primary sources about their religious faith. Those who choose to approach primary sources are few and far between.

“[URL='http://izquotes.com/quote/208891']The energies of our system will decay; the glory of the sun will be dimmed, and the earth, tideless and inert, will no longer tolerate the race which has for a moment disturbed its solitude. Man will go down into the pit and all his thoughts will perish.” ―[URL='http://izquotes.com/author/arthur-balfour']Arthur Balfour[/URL][/URL]

Simply that it denies continuing cycles. Rather than being stuck in a revolving and repeating eternity, we are stuck in the role of a clock or a battery: inevitably running down. There is no "up" phase of the cycle. The apparent examples seen on Earth cheat, by taking energy from the sun. Which is not and cannot be on a cycle. It is just dying.

The cyclic universe in early Buddhism does not have an expansionary phase dependent on energies from a previous contraction. In fact, it is empty until the first being born into this empty realm imparts energy into his universe through application of conscious thought.

 

[ananda]

If you were reborn through a woman, you will still keep your skills mastered in your previous life. Right?
If so, in your reborn life, would you still be a "normal" child?
Do we see some super-matured children around us in this world?

Spiritual skills achieved during a previous life continues on to a new rebirth in the form of latent energies in the spiritual body.

This doesn't mean that the material/physical body does not have to undergo another, new period of maturing into adulthood.

Yes, I've seen evidence of some super-(spiritually)-matured children around us in the world, while others are more average in their spiritual development, and a majority are far more immature in that respect.

 

[ananda]

Then what? A deity who wants nothing? Not even wants want? How is it different from nothing?

I don't recall describing a deity. Deities in Buddhism possess desire. Arahants - those who have transcended samsaric existence - "has no wants" (but does not "want nothing," nor does he "want not-nothing"/"want something").

Buddhism identify the consequence, but not considering the cause. A Buddhist tries to get rid of everything which leads to suffering. The end would be: he becomes nothing.

That's not true. The Buddhist tries to gets rid of everything in samsara, because it all leads to suffering. But it's not true that nibbana (the result of getting rid of everything in samsara) is nothing. Nibbana simply cannot be accurately described in precise terms because the words we use are all - more or less - tied to samsara.

It's like a handful of men in the world possessing eyesight, trying to describe what sight is to a world full of blind people whom has never seen anything in their lifetime. The former might use terms like "more real than our 4 'normal' senses" or "energetic" or "like a sound sounding in the silence".

Likewise, nibbana has been described as "the highest bliss", "the taste of peace", "the foremost ease", the "unbinding of suffering", etc. I believe nibbana is a completely different state of existence which has no comparison to the samsaric states of existence.

Christianity looks it differently. Suffering is a consequence of evil. If we get rid of the evil, happiness will be the thing left. Christians want. They want good things. Christian God wants. He wants good things, and good people.

Yes, deities want too. It's an attachment. What happens when you want people in your life, but they let you down due to their imperfections? Suffering happens. A deity who wants imperfect beings in its heaven will also be let down eventually, and also suffer.

 

[ananda]

Untrue. As we have said several times, Buddhism deals directly with the cause. The cause is attachment, not evil. The consequence is suffering. Christianity deals with the consequence but doesn't touch on the cause. Evil is a consequence of attachment. Christianity and many other religions can actually increase attachment to many things and as a consequence increases suffering.

I suffered more as a Christian then I did after leaving Christianity, although I suffered on other paths as well. Only when I started looking at the route cause of suffering, attachment, that I started to suffer less.

Well said.

As I see it, in practically every religious faith there is, to "add something" is the solution to relieve suffering. We need more this or that, more perfection, more pleasures, more land, more house, more riches, more family, more friends, more virgins, more gold-paved streets, etc. Worshiping the deity will give you "more beyond your wildest imaginations" - usually in the next life.

The only exception I've found is Buddhism, where "removing" or "minimizing" is the solution for suffering. I have found this to be the truth in my personal practice, in this life.

 

[juvenissun]

I don't recall describing a deity. Deities in Buddhism possess desire. Arahants - those who have transcended samsaric existence - "has no wants" (but does not "want nothing," nor does he "want not-nothing"/"want something").

That's not true. The Buddhist tries to gets rid of everything in samsara, because it all leads to suffering. But it's not true that nibbana (the result of getting rid of everything in samsara) is nothing. Nibbana simply cannot be accurately described in precise terms because the words we use are all - more or less - tied to samsara.

Many people in nibbana live in the highest heaven. What do they do? Do they have leaders and social structure?
What do you expect once you are in nibbana? The time is forever, what would you do?

 

[ananda]

Many people in nibbana live in the highest heaven. What do they do? Do they have leaders and social structure?
What do you expect once you are in nibbana? The time is forever, what would you do?

Nibbana is outside samsara, so those in nibbana are not in heaven (samsara includes the heavens, earth, and hells).

I don't know what those in nibbana do, except it's described as "the highest bliss", "the taste of peace", "the foremost ease", the "unbinding of suffering". I imagine it's nothing like samsara, and so can't be described in words through which we understand "existence". As I stated, it's like a blind person asking a sighted person to describe sight and vision in words the blind can understand.

 

[juvenissun]

Nibbana is outside samsara, so those in nibbana are not in heaven (samsara includes the heavens, earth, and hells).

I don't know what those in nibbana do, except it's described as "the highest bliss", "the taste of peace", "the foremost ease", the "unbinding of suffering". I imagine it's nothing like samsara, and so can't be described in words through which we understand "existence". As I stated, it's like a blind person asking a sighted person to describe sight and vision in words the blind can understand.

What you described may be true for a person in nibbana. BUT, there are other persons there too. As a consequence, there MUST BE a society there. If there is a society, then there will be dynamics in the society.

A person spent so much time and effort to enter a place, but has no idea on what kind of society he would be. I should say that is very bad situation.

I know you do not know. No Buddhist knows. That is why I said the Buddhism is an incomplete theology. Both the origin and the end are not known.

One more question: If one achieved the status of nibbana, Is he still able to communicate with people outside the nibbana?

 

[ananda]

What you described may be true for a person in nibbana. BUT, there are other persons there too. As a consequence, there MUST BE a society there. If there is a society, then there will be dynamics in the society.

A person spent so much time and effort to enter a place, but has no idea on what kind of society he would be. I should say that is very bad situation.

I know you do not know. No Buddhist knows. That is why I said the Buddhism is an incomplete theology. Both the origin and the end are not known.

Nobody knows every answer regarding Nibbana (until we become arahants), just like no Christian has all the answers regarding the Christian god's heaven.

One thing I can say about early Buddhism and Nibbana, however: As I proceed along the path towards nibbana, each progressive intermediate goal I reach is more peaceful, blissful, and sublime than the last. The path in early Buddhism basically a form of the scientific method; that is, we extrapolate expectations, from my knowledge gained from my personal experience, towards faith in what is upcoming.

Does Christianity have anything comparible? Is it not true that descriptions regarding its end (heaven) must be taken on faith alone, with no intermediate steps on which to base a knowledgable expectation?

One more question: If one achieved the status of nibbana, Is he still able to communicate with people outside the nibbana?

I imagine he could, but would not, as achieving the state of nibbana means that he no longer grasps for anything in samsara, including desire(s) to communicate with people in samsara.

 

[Chesterton]

Does Christianity have anything comparible? Is it not true that descriptions regarding its end (heaven) must be taken on faith alone, with no intermediate steps on which to base a knowledgable expectation?

Yes Christianity does have something comparable although it is pretty much gone from modern Western Christianity. I tried to find something which would describe it quickly but it's really too expansive for quick summary. If you're interested you can look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis_(Eastern_Orthodox_theology).

Fun trivia: if you've ever heard spiritual, meditative people being mocked for being "navel gazers" or people who sit around pondering their navels, that term may have been coined long ago by a Western Christian who mocked Eastern Christians by calling them "omphalopsyches," meaning "those whose soul is in their navels".