Might Buddhism be incomplete?
zenguitar
Bad BuddhistNew England Veteran
I know I'm not supposed to think about this, but does anyone else wonder why the universe seems to follow regular (albeit complex) mathematical laws? Or where the whole shebang (the universe, that is) came from?
I'm asking because I think it is not completely absurd to believe that our ultimate purpose may be tied up with these laws and with whatever entity generated this underlying order (if there is such an entity). But ultimate origins and ends are never mentioned in Buddhism; in fact, thinking about these things is discouraged. The attitude is more like "Don't worry your pretty little head about it, just focus on your breathing."
Does anyone else think this attitude is a little bit insulting to one's intelligence?
Note that I'm not trying to sell theism here, I'm just wondering what people think... 
Comments
How will thinking about those things get answers for you?
Developing concentration through focusing on the object of meditation, like the breath can increase your intelligence. It's not an insult to it. It's excersize for your mind.
Speculation about the origins of the universe is just daydreaming unless you are studying astrophysics or something like that.
When there are no answers, questioning is suffering.
As a contrarian I will never let my Buddhist tendencies dampen my curiosity abour life, the universe, and everything. Har!
But ultimate origins and ends are never mentioned in Buddhism; in fact, thinking about these things is discouraged. The attitude is more like "Don't worry your pretty little head about it, just focus on your breathing."
Buddhist cosmology talks about thousands of world systems, time without beginning, contraction and expansion - somewhat reminiscent of the way a modern cosmologist might describe things.
Generally though the Buddha discouraged speculation about these ideas because they distract from the goal of liberation from suffering.
Can you come up with any logical, satisfactory and/or definite answers to your ponderings about origins and endings, @zenguitar?
Why would theism be the answer? Isn't that the easy way out?
May I ask why a theistic religion would be more complete?
(Edit: I have edited the content of my former comment because today I bite. Sorry.)
In a dream world where we are the cause of our own suffering, the Buddha said he knew of a path towards sufferings cessation.
He said it is the waking up from that dream.
Don't confuse sleepwalking (the attempted mastery of the dream)
with the actual waking up from the dream.
@zenguitar said:
Well we are beginning to understand before matter and time (nonsensical as that sounds) and how they maybe came into being. I see no reason why this should not be a legitimate exploration.
http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/can-a-universe-create-itself-out-of-nothing
However as @how might say dreams within dreams. Important. Not really.
Jesus Christ, man, you GOTTA lighten up.
Used to. Then it occured to me that none of that really matters.
That's because it doesn't really matter.
Really? Who discouraages it?
Sure, if you're talking about your practice, you shouldn't be "worrying" about anything, especially the origins of the universe.
No, why?
Strange, but you didn't mention god, you did mention "entity". That could mean anything.
The latest thinking in cosmology seems to be that there was something before the big bang, eg our current universe being just the latest in an infinite series. For me this further weakens the argument for some kind of creative force "behind" everything because it means there is no need for a first cause.
This is the response you get when the people you ask don’t know the answers or can’t find it in a book – hence the “just focus on your breathing”
Who is asking the question ?
Aha! You're a fake ultra spiritualist! (see SpinyNorman's recent thread). You are a failure at being ultra spiritual, shame on you!
YES, my intelligence, such as it is, would be and is often insulted by such comments -- that is, until I realize that NOT worrying my pretty little head and focusing on my breathing was exactly what I've been looking for my whole life. As a matter of fact, I am still unwilling to NOT worry my pretty little head, and enjoy whatever I can get my hands on in terms of cosmology, Big Bangism, biocentrism, and hey, did you hear that the large hadron collider discovered TWO MORE mathematically predicted particles? Erm, waves? Whatever? Maybe that will speed up my awakening . . .
I'm not a very good sutta scholar, I read what the real scholars have written, admittedly. Even so, I did get the impression the Buddha told people frequently to refrain from asking certain questions. Not because he didn't know the answers or because he didn't think WE should care about the answers, but because they were the 'wrong questions' who's answers don't serve the cessation of suffering (or so the Buddha believed).
He was just a man, which is the best news of all, but still, he didn't address every supposed little thing. The Buddha was not a 'god' and avoided that head trip altogether. Without a 'god' telling us what to believe or think, we are encouraged to dig into it ourselves. It's hard to shake off that Yahweh/Jehovah/Allah head trip when it comes to Buddhism, and I see that head trip as being the cause of this 'dilemma' within you. How you personally perceive the Buddha's message won't reflect its whole essence, not until you (we) are much more Awake, anyway.
You probably can't do this 'wrong', and if you do, there is no punishment from an angry parent, just the consequences of being wrong. That's it.
That could be a reason, though not being distracted by endless speculation on imponderables is a recognised aspect of Buddhist practice. Endless speculation can lead to doubt, confusion, a busy mind, an over-sceptical attitude, all of which are likely to undermine practice.
It's not that one shouldn't contemplate, discuss and reflect on these big questions, it's that overdoing it can be a problem. By analogy if somebody is spending a bit of time on Buddhist discussion forums, that's fine, however if somebody is spending a lot of time on forums and thereby neglecting their practice, then it becomes a problem.
I question these things simply because I enjoy it. If it is a cause of stress I'd suggest abandoning this line of questioning/reasoning.
Just wanted to say that when pushed, Hawking admits they misuse the word "nothing"
He likens it to digging and filling in a hole where the dirt in the hole is negative energy and the dirt in the pile is positive. As the hole gets filled, negative and positive energy equal out to give a total sum of zero energy.
That of course means the dirt is nothing which means a hole could never be dug.
Really? Where did you get that response? I've never had a Dharma teacher who couldn't answer certain questions and then responded with "focus on your breathing".
I've always thought it was because, in analysis, you can't actually find a first cause. Everything arises from something.
I suppose that's the same thing.
This is the sort of answer to questions people give when they're trying to be Ultra-Buddhist.
I used it just the other day. Someone came up to me at the bus stop and asked when the next bus would arrive. I answered with "Who is asking the question?"
When my wife and I were married the minster asked me if I took her as my lawfully wedded wife. I answered, "Who is asking the question and who am I taking?".
It's great fun to be Ultra-Buddhist.
"First Cause" arguments always gave me a headache. People want to posit an "uncreated Creator", which skips the question of if the Universe was created at all. "Creation" is asserted because that's what they already believe, but it has to be validated beyond their personal tradition's teachings. If the concept of "uncreated" can exist at all, and be accepted by anyone about anything, then it's quite possible that it's the Energy that has formed all constructs in/of the Universe that has always existed... that is uncreated. Why? Who knows!
All we'd need then is for Energy to have properties that dictate how it behaves, creating "laws" or "forces" from our perspective. Chaos can become order through sheer brutal causality acting upon everything at once (it's been demonstrated with computers that random junk can self-organize into "apparent design"). It's all very mysterious, but not so mysterious that we need to posit something even more mysterious (a Supreme Being) that we haven't even proven exists!
(Then of course we get to logic problems, such as a Supreme Being existing completely alone and then creating the Universe... what did they create it with? Nothing comes from nothing.
I'm going to bed, night all!)
It is true that this response could be kind of a cop out answer when someone doesn't know what to say. However, Buddhism also tries to steer us away from metaphysical speculation towards things that are practical and beneficial.
There are a couple of well known short stories from the Buddha's life where he taught about this:
and
“The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the forest are far more numerous.”
“In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven’t I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them.
@dhammadragon, as I said, I am not pushing theism. There are nontheistic philosophies that talk about ultimate origins. See: Taoism, Vedanta, Stoicism. I am thinking maybe my thinking lies more along those lines than along "strict" Buddhism. At least, that's what I'm thinking today.
You know, these kinds of answers irritate the crap out of members, including me.
I swear I'm going to start deleting smart-ass retorts. They're utterly pointless (Yes, we know...!) and do nothing to advance the discussion.
you have ALL been warned!
@chaz, I believe the Buddha himself discouraged speculation about the origins of the universe, if I'm not mistaken.
Ha ha, @shoshin, good one.
But why?
Not to mess with anyone's fiefdom or personality squabbles but
"Who is asking" is
a perfectly reasonable refrain to mention to counter the assumptions that we all see the same thing, or we all stand on the same platform, or we all experience the same solidity of identity, or that the theoretical is being confused for the actual or that anybody knows the answer to that question.
But why?
This is how it's explained in MN63, the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta:
"So, Malunkyaputta, remember what is undeclared by me as undeclared, and what is declared by me as declared. And what is undeclared by me? 'The cosmos is eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is not eternal,' is undeclared by me. 'The cosmos is finite'... 'The cosmos is infinite'... 'The soul & the body are the same'... 'The soul is one thing and the body another'... 'After death a Tathagata exists'... 'After death a Tathagata does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist'... 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' is undeclared by me.
"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.
"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me."
This is the truth.
You can not acquire this knowledge. But you can not avoid it. it comes with the territory. and when it comes you either get stuck in it or let it be.
That is the difference.
There are nontheistic philosophies that talk about ultimate origins. See: Taoism, Vedanta, Stoicism. I am thinking maybe my thinking lies more along those lines than along "strict" Buddhism. At least, that's what I'm thinking today.
Why not explore these philosophies and see if they make more sense to you?
Okay. That's fine if all one is interested in is "the holy life".
But I don't know anyone who is interested only in "the holy life".
Start making a list of all the things you do every day that are not about "the holy life".
I hate to think of all of the advances in knowledge that we would be devoid of if we only looked at things that related to "the holy life".
And I think back to my geology professors, all of whom taught -- to one degree or another -- evolution, and yet were still Christians and most of whom were still regular church-goers.
And I think of all the Buddhist temples I have visited that had depictions of the Buddhist cosmos, with planets and stars and suns and moons and mountains in the center of the earth...all of which are wrong.
And I think of the times we have been critical on this forum of, for example, right-wing Christians who are anti-science who will not acknowledge things like global warming and vaccines, etc.
Are we saying to be Buddhist you must be anti-science, because at the heart of science is the willingness to explore all realms. It seems to me that there is a middle ground between worshiping at the throne of Buddhism OR worshiping at the throne of science.
To each his own.
Because I have the supernatural powers You don't believe me that is all. Buddhism makes perfect sense because I do. I see what the Buddha saw at this point. But there is always more I don't understand. I am on the path
Are we saying to be Buddhist you must be anti-science, because at the heart of science is the willingness to explore all realms.
No, I don't think anyone is saying that, on the contrary. As I observed earlier in the thread, Buddhist cosmology isn't all that different from the latest thinking in modern cosmology, eg thousands of world systems, beginningless time, contraction and expansion. Then we have teachings like impermanence and emptiness, which again have a strong resonance with modern scientific thinking. And of course the practice of mindfulness, which is actually very scientific in approach.
The Buddha did not discourage speculation about the origins of the universe.
The Buddha did not care about the origins of the universe because it makes no difference to cessation of dukkha.
Knowing whether a God exists or not will not make you any happier.
If you are of those who need a God to be happy then it's your own personal puzzle.
We could debate all evening whether a God exists or not.
You won't be able to provide me with any satisfactory answer.
I don't rely on an outer source for my happiness.
Do you really need a God to be happy? Will all your problems all of a sudden be solved by believing a God created a universe and watches over you?
The Buddha did not care about the origins of the universe because it makes no difference to cessation of dukkha.
Knowing whether a God exists or not will not make you any happier.
If you are of those who need a God to be happy then it's your own personal puzzle.
We could debate all evening whether a God exists or not.
You won't be able to provide me with any satisfactory answer.
I don't rely on an outer source for my happiness.
Do you really need a God to be happy? Will all your problems all of a sudden be solved by believing a God created a universe and watches over you?
This is an answer that I can accept. Thank you for expressing it so well.
You're welcome, @vinlyn.
I wonder how many times a week we land on the same dead-end alley, but I'll make sure to copy-paste this one for future occasions.
Yesterday my answer was far more unskilful, until by the magic of the editting sweep I was able to swallow my Dragon words
Yup, that's what I'm doing, along with Buddhism.
I never mentioned the word "God." I guess the real question I have is this (which may have been asked before): Is our true purpose to discover the truth about life, the universe, and everything? Or is it to extinguish all suffering? Buddhism clearly believes the latter. I am not sure I do though.
Do I detect an anti-Zen bias here?
"Who is asking the question ? "
The question was a legitimate one..
It was just another way of me saying " @zenguitar, you might need to explore a little deeper into your bundle of "selves" to find out why you feel the way you do about this issue...
Anyhow.... enough said, @zenguitar please accept my apologies for causing unrest and disrupting this thread...
I think @vinlyn that we may at one point further on know what created the universe etc. But in Buddhas time they had a long way to go and the upwards spiral of technology could not be predicted. (ex of spiral is discovering radiation allowed a means to probe matter which lead to chemistry)
But I will say that even in our time knowledge of the origin of the universe etc still does not eradicate suffering. But lifesaving or even delightful technology is not forbidden. My teacher says that she wonders if medicines were helped to developement by the prayers of bodhisattvas.
And I think of the times we have been critical on this forum of, for example, right-wing Christians who are anti-science who will not acknowledge things like global warming and vaccines, etc.
Was the Buddha or Christ anti science? Or is it possible that religion is never pro or anti science, only people are.
Well, knowing what existed before the Big Bang, and how it's all going to end, isn't going to help you become a more compassionate person and move you toward Enlightenment. It's not going to lighten your karmic load, and help you gain a better rebirth where you'll be able to achieve more in terms of ending suffering for sentient beings. That's the focus of Buddhism. To help people end their own suffering, so they can help others do the same.
But it kind of does seem that if the Buddha spoke about a cosmology, and 32 realms of existence, that there could be some merit in contemplating such questions. Otherwise he wouldn't have mentioned it. IF he truly did mention it at all.
@betaboy I think Buddhism sometimes doesn't care about science. On the other hand HHDL said that if science proves something wrong about Buddhism then the teachings have to change.
I disagree that Buddhism believes our purpose is to extinguish all suffering. That is instead a goal we can set for ourselves, a vow we can take, an aspiration. The teachings don't say that extinguishing suffering is our very reason for existence; what sense would that even make? Suffering's cessation is what the teachings are about, not ultimate purpose.
It'd be like building a house, setting it on fire, and then putting out the fire... and calling that the house's purpose. A house seems wasted on such an affair (a waste of effort), and life would be wasted if extinguishing suffering was the only reason for it to "be".
I think at this point there's no way to know if life has an "intrinsic" purpose, but it shouldn't matter that we don't know. We create purpose and meaning in our own lives and as a species, and that'll have to do until we know better.
Great points made guys.
Yes because it focuses on Dukkha and its cessation.
No because the cessation leads to the path of completion.
Where does the path to completion lead? First things first. Maybe we have more pressing considerations - ignorance and Dukkha for example . . .
I second what @lobster said. On its own merits and by its own standards, the Dharma is complete in addressing suffering and the cessation of suffering. However if we're judging it like other religions and expecting it to give us metaphysical sureties, we're going to find it lacking. The problem isn't in Buddhism, it's in our expectations of Buddhism.
Precisely that's what I like about Buddhism: it does not provide you any ready-made answers to the puzzle of life.
It provides you with a very specific method to figure answers out for yourself, and learning to remain in equanimity whether the answer sates one's thirst for answers or not. Or probably to accept the limitations of our vehicles to come up with any satisfactory answer at all, and accept that some questions will probably never be answered.
I'd say the problem is in some people's expectations of religions in general, not about Buddhism in particular.
I'd say Buddhism is not for the faint-hearted and those who need a paternalistic presence to rely on.
And for anyone who has ever read anything about his HH the Dalai Lama, he has the most inquisitive mind ever among religious leaders of any denomination.
He has been interested in science since he was a child.
He used to open clocks to find out how the machinery works and used to repair every broken appliance in his monastery.
Now in his adult life, he has created the Mind and Life Institute with scientists from every field, with the intention to update the Buddhist cosmology and psychology books.
He said that whenever any scripture does not match the latest discovery, he intends to have the scripture updated.
So far for Buddhism quenching the curiosity of the inquisitive mind, especially when it is written all over the suttas that we are supposed to bring under scrutiny every single belief we are presented with in life!
I'm happy to hear that, @zenguitar, because I for one won't be disbursing a single penny.
I'd say you need to read a bit more about Buddhism because it is not Buddhism that fails to provide you with answers.
You seem to have some misconceptions which come from not knowing enough about Buddhism.
And honestly, I am curious to see how a theistic religion like Christianity provides you with satisfactory answers to your questions about origins and endings and how exactly they back up their theories.
If that is the case, I'd love to know why brilliant scientists like my idol Carl Sagan were atheists, and if they ever lean towards any belief, they lean towards Buddhism.
I'm all ears.
.
No, the bias is entirely anti bullshit.
Hopefully that makes things fragrantly clear.
One person's BS is another person's wisdom, so good luck with that.
Some of the discussions on this forum might be of interest: https://www.religiousforums.com/