Buddhism: Neither Theistic nor Atheistic

[Chris B]

I think Buddhism can be summarized in this statement by the Buddha: "the Dhamma is visible here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves" (AN 6.7). Through careful observation of and adherence to the laws of reality governing our existence - laws which are visible here-&-now, timeless, verifiable, pertinent - we discover and realize the Dhamma for ourselves.

That will do, once one has managed some sort of unpacking of "Dhamma", a term with many aspects.
I can't quite get there, on the inside of that, not seeing an adequate set of *proven* "laws of reality governing our existence."
It leaves me with some epistemological and existential uncertainty to carry alongside that which I think I know, and think I have observed. That has its uses as well as its hang-ups.
It allows me some freedom in my being condemned to be free.

 

[ananda]

That will do, once one has managed some sort of unpacking of "Dhamma", a term with many aspects.
I can't quite get there, on the inside of that, not seeing an adequate set of *proven* "laws of reality governing our existence."
It leaves me with some epistemological and existential uncertainty to carry alongside that which I think I know, and think I have observed. That has its uses as well as its hang-ups.
It allows me some freedom in my being condemned to be free.

"Dhamma", in its most essential form, simply means "Reality". To follow Dhamma is to follow Reality, and its laws.

Some of the laws of reality which the Buddha spoke of as "Dhamma" includes the Law of Cause and Effect (Kamma and its consequences), and the inability to escape from it in samsara (akin to the First Law of Thermodynamics), for example. Wouldn't you agree that those laws are proven and observable?

 

[juvenissun]

Absolutely.

I observe that I am not the same as I was 10 seconds ago, much less 10 years ago. I am undergoing a constant state of rebirth at every successive moment of time, with new food, emotions, thoughts, consciousnesses, etc. changing "me" from moment to moment. Just as a river might appear - on a superficial level - to be the same, it is undergoing constant change as new streams of water and other plants and animals flow through it from moment to moment. In accordance with the laws of thermodynamics, the "matter" and "energy" which constitutes this form commonly identified as "me" is undergoing endless change in samsara, but is never destroyed - even after physical death. This is rebirth.

Do you mean you will be reborn as an infant through a woman?

 

[Chesterton]

Existence is bad. Attachment to it is bad. Hence euangelion; the gospel, the good news. God is good and existence is good. We all know deep down existence is good, even when we may wish we existed in a better mode.

 

[juvenissun]

In the same way, we strip away attachments to middle layers, which might represent things like "toys/gadgets", "clothing", "body". Then the deepest layers of "emotions", "mind", and finally even "consciousness" ... leaving only nibbana.

You WANT that nibbana, which may be nothing. But that is what you WANT.

 

[ananda]

Do you mean you will be reborn as an infant through a woman?

Depends on my kamma.

If I am driven exclusively by the lusts of my body with little mental or spiritual development, I might be reborn in the hell or ghost realms.
If I am driven mainly by instinct, I might be reborn as an animal.
If I have an equal balance of body/mind/spirit development, I might be reborn as another human.
If I am less attached to my body, and have high mental development but little spiritual development, I might be reborn as a deity in the lower to middle heavens.
If I have little attachments to my body and mental development, but possess high spiritual development, I might be reborn as a deity in the higher heavens.

 

[ananda]

You WANT that nibbana, which may be nothing. But that is what you WANT.

Nibbana is not nothing. But yes, it is what I want.

I possess want and attachment for nibbana, but that want and attachment is given up once one reaches nibbana. E.g. "he eventually abandons craving, having relied on craving" (AN 4.159) & "Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed? ... So it is with an arahant [who has reached nibbana] ... whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed." (SN 51.15).

 

[gord44]

Existence is bad. Attachment to it is bad. Hence euangelion; the gospel, the good news. God is good and existence is good. We all know deep down existence is good, even when we may wish we existed in a better mode.

Why is existence bad good sir?

 

[Chesterton]

Why is existence bad good sir?

Are you missing a comma?

 

[gord44]

I suppose I am. ;D

 

[Chesterton]

People feel it's bad because we're sick; we exist in a broken state in a broken world. But there is healing in Christ.

 

[Chris B]

"Dhamma", in its most essential form, simply means "Reality". To follow Dhamma is to follow Reality, and its laws.

That's fine, and I agree. Except for knowing what reality is *exactly*
We have some very good approximations to it, mental maps of it and knowledge of aspects of it.
More than that I'd not be prepared to go.
It's that unavoidable (as far as I can see) gap which means we only have a second-hand (shadows on a cave wall) access to reality.

Some of the laws of reality which the Buddha spoke of as "Dhamma" includes the Law of Cause and Effect (Kamma and its consequences), and the inability to escape from it in samsara (akin to the First Law of Thermodynamics), for example. Wouldn't you agree that those laws are proven and observable?

Cause and effect isn't quite what it used to be so a no, there, although it's a reasonable general rule to consider.
Actions may damp out from simple lack of consequences, for one thing.
(Newton's third law does not apply in the slightest, outside of its proper context.)

Kamma and Karma, no, not in any form strict enough to serve Hindu or Buddhist purposes.
Actions often have consequences, but in no way can the latter be tied neatly to a particular action by timing or proportion.
except on the assumption of some vast and intricate cosmic accounting system.
Even then it would leave some events difficult to understand: 100,000 killed at the same time in the same way in a tsunami, for example. There would seem little individual or carefully balanced about that. It looks and feels far more like something indiscriminate, even random.
That's before moral and ethical implications are managed, or ducked.
Just for one thought, are the suffering to be helped? To whose benefit?

Thermodynamics... The first law is often misquoted and understood, because it is not taken with the second law.
Without the second the first might seem to imply a never-ending cycle of states.
But all the common things used to describe cyclic life by analogy or example are in fact nothing of the kind. Seeds/trees, rivers and rain. etc. all depend on a continuing energy supply which is not renewable, but finite and reducing. The Sun is wearing out.
(Even renewable energy isn't, in the long term: it is either taking from the sun or the spin of the planet.)
The universe will not run out of energy. But by everything we know it will run out of usable energy.

You'd have to get to unending cosmic and spiritual cycles by some other route. Nature and physics tells a different tale entirely. The irreversible heat death of the universe approaches. It's far distant, but it approaches.

 

[gord44]

People feel it's bad because we're sick; we exist in a broken state in a broken world. But there is healing in Christ.

Gotcha. I suppose it all depends on a person and their circumstances. I think existence can be pretty awesome. Obviously there are many in the world who aren't in good circumstances so I imagine they feel different. Interestingly enough when I was a Christian I saw existence in a much more negative state.

 

[ananda]

... Even then it would leave some events difficult to understand: 100,000 killed at the same time in the same way in a tsunami, for example. There would seem little individual or carefully balanced about that. It looks and feels far more like something indiscriminate, even random.

Kamma is not the only force in the samsaric universe, not all events happen because of kamma.

are the suffering to be helped? To whose benefit?

Of course, for everyone's benefit.

You'd have to get to unending cosmic and spiritual cycles by some other route. Nature and physics tells a different tale entirely. The irreversible heat death of the universe approaches. It's far distant, but it approaches.

The Buddhist universe from the Brahma-heavens downwards is cyclic, and is destined to contract before it expands again.

 

[Chris B]

Kamma is not the only force in the samsaric universe, not all events happen because of kamma.

I have had differently from both Buddhists and Hindus... "No such thing as chance events... " for example.

Of course, for everyone's benefit.

Again not an "of course" due to teachings I have met, where a person's karmic experience should not be interfered with merely because it appears as physical suffering... that would be taken as presumption and seeing things at a merely physical level.
(no, it's not my belief, but I have encountered it taught, as sincere belief.

The Buddhist universe from the Brahma-heavens downwards is cyclic, and is destined to contract before it expands again.

That is fine, taken as a teaching from a different source, but it does not correspond to current understandings of the physical world or of the biological one.
Cold doom awaits, as the universe runs out of usable energy.

“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.”
―Arthur Balfour

 

[ananda]

I have had differently from both Buddhists ... "No such thing as chance events... " for example.

In the earliest Buddhist scriptures, kamma is not the only force; other forces also produce effects (e.g. present volition, medicine, supernormal powers, etc., cf SN 36.21, SN 42.8, etc.)

If kamma is the only force as they suggest, it would be entirely fatalistic and thus pointless for the Buddha or anyone else to teach anything, as all events occur because of past events; there would be no opportunity to apply intentional volition in the present moment to change oneself whatsoever. This is not Buddhist at all.

Again not an "of course" due to teachings I have met, where a person's karmic experience should not be interfered with merely because it appears as physical suffering... that would be taken as presumption and seeing things at a merely physical level. (no, it's not my belief, but I have encountered it taught, as sincere belief.

I would like to know what Buddhist scriptures they're referring to, because I haven't seen such a doctrine in any of the earliest texts I've read.

That is fine, taken as a teaching from a different source, but it does not correspond to current understandings of the physical world or of the biological one.
Cold doom awaits, as the universe runs out of usable energy. “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.” ―Arthur Balfour

I'm not sure how this contradicts what I wrote.

 

[Chris B]

In the earliest Buddhist scriptures, kamma is not the only force; other forces also produce effects (e.g. present volition, medicine, supernormal powers, etc., cf SN 36.21, SN 42.8, etc.)

If kamma is the only force as they suggest, it would be entirely fatalistic and thus pointless for the Buddha or anyone else to teach anything, ...“

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.

“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.” ―Arthur Balfour

I'm not sure how this contradicts what I wrote.

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.

 

[juvenissun]

Depends on my kamma.

If I am driven exclusively by the lusts of my body with little mental or spiritual development, I might be reborn in the hell or ghost realms.
If I am driven mainly by instinct, I might be reborn as an animal.
If I have an equal balance of body/mind/spirit development, I might be reborn as another human.
If I am less attached to my body, and have high mental development but little spiritual development, I might be reborn as a deity in the lower to middle heavens.
If I have little attachments to my body and mental development, but possess high spiritual development, I might be reborn as a deity in the higher heavens.

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?

 

[juvenissun]

Nibbana is not nothing. But yes, it is what I want.

I possess want and attachment for nibbana, but that want and attachment is given up once one reaches nibbana. E.g. "he eventually abandons craving, having relied on craving" (AN 4.159) & "Didn't you first have desire, thinking, 'I'll go to the park,' and then when you reached the park, wasn't that particular desire allayed? ... So it is with an arahant [who has reached nibbana] ... whatever desire he first had for the attainment of arahantship, on attaining arahantship that particular desire is allayed." (SN 51.15).

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

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.

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.

 

[gord44]

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

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.