Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
@Daozen Ok, I see you are leaning towards the evolutionary naturalism position, which I think is a self contradiction. If we are just biological mechanisms who's only purpose is survival, then why should you trust any of your beliefs? A frog can eat a fly while believing "this fly will do nothing for me" or it can think "this fly will supply nutrition". Regardless, it ate the fly by mere instinct. Does it matter what the belief was, if it was right or wrong? no. That being said, why should you trust your mind at all if it's just spewing lies to you? And are you really steeping that low to the "spaghetti monster" theme.
For there being a higher reality. I'm not just saying "there might be something" therefore there is. Philosophers going back thousands of years have reached conclusions that there is a higher reality beyond this material world. Plato rejected materialism and embraced the higher reality. There is some yearning in everyone. That feeling that there is more than these physical objects. You can call it illogical and unreasonable but everyone feels it there. But, this will be debated forever because people have different opinions.
I'm not saying you cant live a moral, purposeful life without god. I'm saying that without god there is no real absolute anything.
Evolution self-contradictory? Well, you should write the book, tell the world, and get rich at disproving it. Good luck!
God is a belief. The only thing he/she/it is needed for is other beliefs about god.
By the way, as an evolution-denying, god-believing creationist, do you have any buddhist beliefs? Or are you perhaps 'just curious' at this point?
Unfortunately: 1. you don't have a very scientific view of science; 2. you confuse your faith (which happens to be Buddhist) with science.
In another thread you said, "This idea is generally the view put forth by science, and I agree with it because it makes sense in the same way all good science does: it's a valid theory based on our observations of human behaviour, including the interaction of subjective reports and technological measurements."
Interesting phrase "all good science". I assume you mean like the "good science" that taught that insanity can be inherited (eugenics), hence uncountable involuntary sterilizations. Or the "good science" that resulted in any number of prescription medicines which have killed or permanently incapacitated people.
Funny, as a person with two degrees in the geosciences (with an emphasis in paleontology), all of my science professors were Christians who believed in God.
You cling to things yourself, but can't see it, and you are unnecessarily and sometimes insultingly dismissive of other peoples' beliefs. While Buddha might have differed in his teachings, I don't remember any suttas where he was insulting.
@Prometheus, I may have been thinking outloud rather than engaging with you. For that I apologize. I was commenting "I'm obviously just making stuff up". I thought you were saying that christians were making up their beliefs.
The second you were saying that they shouldn't believe something that one couldn't reason through. I was pointing out that reason cannot prove existence. Thus there is a greater part of our experience which is not under the umbrella of reason. Compassion or prayer doesn't have to be reasonable. It is our inner yearnings which often we are at the mercy of.
Perhaps "obviously unconsciously making stuff up" or "deluding myself" would have been better?
Now, um... I didn't think existence was something that needed to be "proven". I mean, obviously. Or do you mean the existence of God? Well then, yes, it does need to be demonstrated by reason, otherwise we might as well believe anything and everything. Of course compassion is reasonable. Why else would we value it? Now it is true that all epistemologies are ultimately intuitively cashed. But we go with reason because it WORKS in terms of explaining and predicting phenomena, and that is why your car runs, why your planes fly, why your computer operates, and so on. Reason is still the only game in town.
@Prometheus I see what you're saying. From what I can tell, you've taken on the pantheistic viewpoint. That if there is a god, it is the universe itself. What I'm saying is that if there is a god he was present before the universe was created. You can't have something out of nothing. I think the most personal evidence of god would be in ourselves. The moral laws we are bound to are not just here for survival. In what universe would someone be proud of not helping someone who was drowning? When Buddha called something imponderable it was because the ideas took you away from the present moment/awareness, but there are people who still have discovered logical reasons for an existence in god.
I don't think you see what I'm saying at all. To think that I was saying I was a pantheist is depressingly way off. I was trying to show you that the definition of the word "universe" makes it impossible for anything to exist "outside" of it, or "before" it. I was trying to show you that your definition of God is meaningless by definition. But if you didn't understand the point then, you're not going to understand it now... all I'll say is go back and read that post again and try to at least see what I'm saying.
You can't have something out of nothing? Well, you also can't have something that doesn't have a beginning (whether we are talking about the universe, or God). And yet one of these two impossible scenarios must be true, because here we are. All that tells me is that we cannot trust our intuitions when it comes to a question like where the universe came from, and therefore we cannot actually say "you can't have something out of nothing".
The Buddha talks about there being no discernible beginning to these cosmic rounds, ie; big bangs, big crunches, over and over again. Buddhist cosmology follows cycles of expansion and contraction, and the time of contraction is called a "pralaya" in sanskrit, which is when all the principles of manifestation are in stasis for a time being.
The Buddha said that a creator God is just a first born out of this stasis and the god thinks that everything coming after him/her is his/her doing, when in actuality it's just do to merit from a previous cycle that this being is born first as a long lived god. Basically, the Buddha said that out of delusion, a God thinks that he/she created everything.
If there was a creator, that would mean there is a cosmic Self, or static entity at the hub of the wheel of everything, and the Buddha said that there is not, that to see or experience that there is, is really just false self projection, or the result of identifying with really deep states of samadhi/jhana/meditative absorption.
@roberto78 And finally, what on earth do moral laws have to do with the existence of a God? Euthyphro's Dilemma: If something is good because God commands it, then because God has no reason outside of himself to prefer that one thing be good over any other, then morality is arbitrary and meaningless. If God commands something because it is good, then the ultimate standard of morality is necessarily independent of God, and so we can just go with that independent standard without God.
Positive psychology has shown that compassion is the best path to personal happiness. Not surprising, considering that we evolved as a social species, where survival of the individual depends on survival of the group. Compassion means caring about the happiness and suffering of others. If there are better and worse ways to do that, we have moral laws... and all without any mention of God.
@prometheus I don't think you see what I'm saying at all. To think that I was saying I was a pantheist is depressingly way off. I was trying to show you that the definition of the word "universe" makes it impossible for anything to exist "outside" of it, or "before" it. I was trying to show you that your definition of God is meaningless by definition. But if you didn't understand the point then, you're not going to understand it now... all I'll say is go back and read that post again and try to at least see what I'm saying.
So, you're saying scientists are wrong that the universe had a beginning? I wasn't saying you were a pantheist. From what i read, it looked like you said "if there were a god he is the universe because you can't have something outside of it...which would be wrong if the universe had a beginning.
@prometheus Moral laws have a lot do with the existence of god, because where did they come from? Where did the laws of the universe come from? To me, it makes more sense that something created these laws than them just "being here". I'm not saying you're wrong, nobody really knows or else there wouldn't be a debate about it. And i don't see how believing in a god interferes with Buddhism at all.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
A timeless, space less, immaterial, eternal god cannot have a first cause. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, something cannot come into being out of nothing. If something is eternal and timeless then it doesn't fall under those rules.
Time is the measurement of change. If something is timeless it can't go from a state of non-creation to deciding to create, that movement is change and thus time, so a creator god can't be timeless.
I'm not saying you cant live a moral, purposeful life without god. I'm saying that without god there is no real absolute anything.
Yes, this is the Buddhist teaching on emptiness, that there is no real absolute anything, everything is interdependent and momentarily changing. But that doesn't mean good isn't better than bad or happiness isn't better than suffering, it just means its relative not absolute.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@prometheus Moral laws have a lot do with the existence of god, because where did they come from? Where did the laws of the universe come from? To me, it makes more sense that something created these laws than them just "being here". I'm not saying you're wrong, nobody really knows or else there wouldn't be a debate about it. And i don't see how believing in a god interferes with Buddhism at all.
Yes, as far as I know Buddhism does say that things are just here, it doesn't have an explanation why there is something instead of nothing. Believing in God doesn't interfere with much of the moral aspect of Buddhism. Its ultimatly incompatible with the doctrine of shunyata and liberation though.
If I am correct, Buddhism is more of a path to liberation than it is an analytical philosophy of our existence. Thinking and contemplating the existence of God may stray one away from the path to enlightenment, but I don't think that means it disproves God. I am thinking about the Jhana state and how it is a complete annihilation of the ego. Maybe an experience like that will change your state of perception and make you closer to enlightenment, but this has nothing to do with the philosophical argument of Gods existence. Maybe one does not need to contemplate/believe in God to attain enlightenment. Maybe one does not need to contemplate how you need oxygen to live to attain enlightenment, but that doesn't mean someone will find a reason for it.
0
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
edited June 2011
@roberto78 Are you saying that maybe God exists but Buddha didn't talk about it because its not necessary for enlightenment?
From my understanding analyzing and understanding our existence is the path to liberation.
I personally don't have any issue with someone believing in God, I don't and don't find anything about our existence that requires one. I guess in the end I could be wrong but its a belief based on reason and investigation.
Unfortunately: 1. you don't have a very scientific view of science; 2. you confuse your faith (which happens to be Buddhist) with science.
Thanks for these empty, baseless personal remarks. May you see clearer.
Interesting phrase "all good science". I assume you mean like the "good science" that taught that insanity can be inherited (eugenics), hence uncountable involuntary sterilizations.
So if anyone does anything bad in the name of science, all of science is bad? Cmon. If that's the case, religion is in serious trouble, considering the things that have been done in Gods' name! Eugenics was a politically motivated program which simply used (bad) science as an excuse. This has often happened. Because science actually has a lot of credibility, people often try to use 'scientific' reasoning for doing all kinds of things, but this is no reflection on the core scientific method - which, when applied correctly will always reveal these hoaxes and shams for what they really are. No, the problems like eugenics you mention are not a science problem, it is a people problem.
Or the "good science" that resulted in any number of prescription medicines which have killed or permanently incapacitated people.
A ridiculously misleading statement. Western medicine, including the use of pharmaceuticals (which by the way is simply the continuation of herbal medicine but with more scientific precision) has saved and improved FAR more lives than it has harmed. If there is a disease that kills 100 people, and a medicine that saves 99 of them but causes a horrible reaction that makes it worse for 1 of them, is it a good medicine? You bet it is.
Funny, as a person with two degrees in the geosciences (with an emphasis in paleontology), all of my science professors were Christians who believed in God.
So what? Having a degree isn't an instant passport to rational thought. Many qualified doctors prescribe homeopathy, which is an absolute quack cure. If they are geoscientists, then I imagine they are 'minimal' Christians - someone who believes God kicked off the Big Bang and then let physics take over. It would certainly be weird if they were creationist fundamentalists (thinking God made the world 6,000 years ago as per literal Bible reading) after all the evidence to the contrary that their science would be showing them. Anyway, it's not that i said you can't be scientist and believe in God. Obviously you can be at least some kind of Christian and a scientist, but the principle of parsimony of description (ie Occam's Razor) means God is redundant from a purely scientific point of view - and irrelevant in Buddhism too, by the way.
You cling to things yourself, but can't see it, and you are unnecessarily and sometimes insultingly dismissive of other peoples' beliefs. While Buddha might have differed in his teachings, I don't remember any suttas where he was insulting.
These are your thoughts, not mine. I simply say the truth i believe. And I avoid insulting a person - i criticise ideas or beliefs.
...And I avoid insulting a person - i criticise ideas or beliefs.
Namaste
As in this comment you made: "By the way, as an evolution-denying, god-believing creationist, do you have any buddhist beliefs? Or are you perhaps 'just curious' at this point?"
And then, your comment, "I simply say the truth i believe." Interesting perspective.
So, you're saying scientists are wrong that the universe had a beginning? I wasn't saying you were a pantheist. From what i read, it looked like you said "if there were a god he is the universe because you can't have something outside of it...which would be wrong if the universe had a beginning.
This appearance of the universe is based upon the last appearance of the universe, or rather what was left over and compressed into the big crunch from the last universe, to be the big bang of this universe. Kind like rebirth, or your next moment is based upon what is left over from the previous moment, except more on a cosmic level.
This still does not mean that there is a creator god behind all this, just causes and conditions as a process or cycling and recycling over and over again. That's how Samsara is defined in Buddhism. It starts to really make sense as one meditates on the teachings of the Buddhas.
They come from the realization that all things are connected. In Buddhism, they do not come from a God, but rather that we are all inter-dependent and to do harm to another is the same as doing it to oneself, on the relative level, and everything is relative, but inter-relative. Basically, being good is natural when one sees the interconnectivity of everything, then ones view is expanded beyond the limited state of selfishness. Being bad is basically assuming that I am me and you are you as an ultimate truth.
It's very simple. Good comes naturally for those that see interconnectivity, and bad comes more easily for those that see only separateness.
Buddhism has never needed a God to create morality, or the universe.
So, you're saying scientists are wrong that the universe had a beginning? I wasn't saying you were a pantheist. From what i read, it looked like you said "if there were a god he is the universe because you can't have something outside of it...which would be wrong if the universe had a beginning.
Like I said, I wasn't espousing pantheism, please go back and see what I was actually saying. And if you think the universe having a beginning means there must be something outside it to cause it, you clearly have not taken in anything else I've said on the issue.
My problem with you is not that you disagree with me, but that you seem curiously incapable of even understanding an alternative point of view. Maybe you have thought about this topic a certain way for so long that you're actually incapable of comprehending a new way of thinking about it. I don't know. But as it is, I'm done replying to you about the origin of the universe.
@prometheus Moral laws have a lot do with the existence of god, because where did they come from? Where did the laws of the universe come from? To me, it makes more sense that something created these laws than them just "being here". I'm not saying you're wrong, nobody really knows or else there wouldn't be a debate about it. And i don't see how believing in a god interferes with Buddhism at all.
Oh wow, are we going to have a repeat of the last debate, where you put forward your position, I tell you my answer, and you insist on not understanding it and then simply repeat yourself? Did I not say in my previous post addressing morality exactly where moral laws come from? Seriously, dude, this stuff is not that hard!
As for laws of the universe, I'd try to explain the "multiverse hypothesis" and the "anthropic principle" which explains the laws of the universe, and I'd try to explain that any designer God has to account for all the bad design in the universe as well, but I have a feeling you won't bother to try to understand that either.
I think Buddha called a Creator "imponderable" because that is what he believed. Also, the focus of Buddhism is the elimination of suffering and the self. The focus or worship of a god or deity is not essential to Buddhism. Of course, you can choose to believe in one, but it would have nothing to do with Buddhism.
Interesting discussion; although I think some people are getting a little too personal here, and as a moderator, I'd like to ask that everyone try to focus on the arguments, not the poster. When I get a little riled myself, I find that it sometimes helps to write my response, then copy and paste it into a Word document and do something else for a while, then come back and read it again. Just a suggestion.
@Daozen Yes, this god can interact with all these things because it created them! If there is a higher reality other than the material universe we live in, who are we to say what can interact with what?
Sure, one can say that it can, but it's not a very meaningful statement from a logical standpoint without then logically demonstrating how besides 'it just can.' For example, if God exists outside of time and space, how can God interact with humanity in any meaningful way?
It can be argued, for example, that anything existing outside of time and space must be completely static, meaning that God would be an undynamic being if God existed at all. If this were the case, God would be more like the impassive and impersonal God of Aristotle, whose being is pure actuality and exists solely in the realm of form, than the personal God of, say, Christianity. Conversely, if God is able to interact with our universe, then it can be argued that God also has to be temporal and subject to causality, i.e., how can a non-temporal being (static, unchanging) interact in a temporal word (dynamic, changing).
So just saying that God created space and time, but exists outside of space and time, yet can still interact with beings in space and time isn't necessarily an easy out, and I don't find it to be a very satisfactory solution from a logical perspective.
Okay, but philosophically and scientifically that is extremely improbable. I think without god the universe becomes nihilistic. I'm not saying you can't live without the idea of god, just that god is a metaphysical necessity for there to be any real absolute meaning, morals, truths. If there is no god there is no absolute right or wrong. You could say it's "socially unacceptable" to rape someone, but without a moral 'law' who's to say what's really wrong other than our own subjective impressions.
I disagree. I don't think that God is necessary to have morals. For one thing, we can empirically observe the fact that there are many moral people who are atheist and completely non-religious, so we can conclude that simply believing in a creator God isn't a requirement to being a moral person, i.e., someone who lives by a particular standard of what's right and wrong.
Moreover, we can empirically observe the fact that there are many religions and philosophies, including Buddhism, that have strong ethical and moral principles without being based on the idea of a creator God, many of their adherents being moral people. From this, we can conclude that theism isn't necessarily the only theological/philosophical basis for morality. Whether or not a theist accepts the validity of these systems is irrelevant.
Buddhist morality, for example, which I'd say is ultimately empirical and pragmatic in nature rather than 'revealed,' is centred on the efficacy of actions and the intentions underlying them, the underlying principles being kamma — the idea that certain actions produce pleasant, painful or neutral feelings/results — and the principle of ahimsa or harmlessness.
Hence, a Buddhist (or anybody else for that matter) can be a moral person even without a belief in God simply by constantly reflecting upon their actions of body, speech and mind, and whether they lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both (MN 61).
We can also observe that morals change. There was a time not too long ago, for example, when things like genocide and rape were justified (and in some cases, it appears they still are). Just look at the Bible and the accounts of what ancient Israelites supposedly did to other tribes in the name of their god, acts which they where able to justify then but aren't so justifiable today, e.g., Deut 20:16-18, where God ordered the death of every man, woman and child in Canaan.
Very few today would say that it's OK to murder civilians, including the children of your enemies. And I'm not just trying to pick on the Bible; every culture has its own examples. The point is, morality isn't as timeless as we sometimes believe it to be, and that's not even taking evolutionary theory and our primitive past into consideration.
Interesting phrase "all good science". I assume you mean like the "good science" that taught that insanity can be inherited (eugenics), hence uncountable involuntary sterilizations.
So if anyone does anything bad in the name of science, all of science is bad? Cmon. If that's the case, religion is in serious trouble, considering the things that have been done in Gods' name! Eugenics was a politically motivated program which simply used (bad) science as an excuse. This has often happened. Because science actually has a lot of credibility, people often try to use 'scientific' reasoning for doing all kinds of things, but this is no reflection on the core scientific method - which, when applied correctly will always reveal these hoaxes and shams for what they really are. No, the problems like eugenics you mention are not a science problem, it is a people problem.
I agree with Daozen here. Of course, empirical data can be faulty and/or interpreted incorrectly, and the name of science can be used to condone some pretty terrible things, but the neat thing about scientific knowledge is that it's always open to falsification if and when new evidence is presented (which can't always be said for religious orthodoxy). Sometimes these advances take time, and it can be a long and often messy process.
That doesn't mean, however, that scientists are always as open as science. Sometimes scientists (being human, after all) ignore evidence that will disprove a particular theory, and/or are unwilling to give up on what they believe despite the facts. Scientists can also be biased and motivated by other factors (e.g., personal, political, social, etc.), and may do things that we find ethically and morally objectionable. But none of that in and of itself negates the importance or usefulness of the scientific method, nor does it contradict or disprove evolution.
Interesting phrase "all good science". I assume you mean like the "good science" that taught that insanity can be inherited (eugenics), hence uncountable involuntary sterilizations.
So if anyone does anything bad in the name of science, all of science is bad? Cmon. If that's the case, religion is in serious trouble, considering the things that have been done in Gods' name! Eugenics was a politically motivated program which simply used (bad) science as an excuse. This has often happened. Because science actually has a lot of credibility, people often try to use 'scientific' reasoning for doing all kinds of things, but this is no reflection on the core scientific method - which, when applied correctly will always reveal these hoaxes and shams for what they really are. No, the problems like eugenics you mention are not a science problem, it is a people problem.
I agree with Daozen here. Of course, empirical data can be faulty and/or interpreted incorrectly, and the name of science can be used to condone some pretty terrible things, but the neat thing about scientific knowledge is that it's always open to falsification if and when new evidence is presented (which can't always be said for religious orthodoxy). Sometimes these advances take time, and it can be a long and often messy process.
That doesn't mean, however, that scientists are always as open as science. Sometimes scientists (being human, after all) ignore evidence that will disprove a particular theory, and/or are unwilling to give up on what they believe despite the facts. Scientists can also be biased and motivated by other factors (e.g., personal, political, social, etc.), and may do things that we find ethically and morally objectionable. But none of that in and of itself negates the importance or usefulness of the scientific method, nor does it contradict or disprove evolution.
Jason, actually if we had a long conversation, I think you'd find you and I are in agreement. In fact, you stated so well my view in your third paragraph. I should emphasize that I have two degrees in the field of geology and meteorology.
Daozen does not understand eugenics. It wasn't all "bad science". It was a case of "bad people" (for wont of a better term) using science toward their own purpose. And in fact, the basic principles of eugenics are seeing a resurgence in terms of research in genetic engineering.
And where are you getting the idea that I am attempting to disprove evolution? Not only was an emphasis in my university years in invertebrate paleontology, but I taught evolutionary theory at the high school level for 13 years. My only point in regard to evolution was that most professors I have ever met who teach evolution are also Christians. The only real problem that exists for some is that you cannot be an evolutionist and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible...an guess what...most Americans no longer believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Each of us is free to believe what we wish. Daozen is entitled to his view. So am I. And again, as so often on this forum, it comes down to a continuum of beliefs, not this OR that. You can't be truly open-minded and not accept that there are varying beliefs among well educated and good people.
Jason, actually if we had a long conversation, I think you'd find you and I are in agreement. In fact, you stated so well my view in your third paragraph. I should emphasize that I have two degrees in the field of geology and meteorology.
Daozen does not understand eugenics. It wasn't all "bad science". It was a case of "bad people" (for wont of a better term) using science toward their own purpose. And in fact, the basic principles of eugenics are seeing a resurgence in terms of research in genetic engineering.
I suppose that some of the research done under the guise of eugenics was scientific; but many of the conclusions and 'applications' of that research were certainly anything but scientific, let alone humane.
And where are you getting the idea that I am attempting to disprove evolution? Not only was an emphasis in my university years in invertebrate paleontology, but I taught evolutionary theory at the high school level for 13 years. My only point in regard to evolution was that most professors I have ever met who teach evolution are also Christians. The only real problem that exists for some is that you cannot be an evolutionist and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible...an guess what...most Americans no longer believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Nowhere. I was simply making a general statement here, and not implying that you were attempting to disprove evolution. (In fact, this was taken from something I wrote as a response to a friend of mine on Facebook about a month ago re: evolution and the theory of recapitulation.)
Each of us is free to believe what we wish. Daozen is entitled to his view. So am I. And again, as so often on this forum, it comes down to a continuum of beliefs, not this OR that. You can't be truly open-minded and not accept that there are varying beliefs among well educated and good people.
Of course. I certainly wouldn't deny that there are other beliefs (and I'd be the first to admit that one can make a rational argument logically demonstrating the independence of God and morality); but at the same time, I'd also say that some are more believable and/or useful when it comes to trying to understand our world than others.
Interesting discussion; although I think some people are getting a little too personal here, and as a moderator, I'd like to that everyone try to focus on the arguments, not the poster. When I get a little riled myself, I find that it sometimes helps to write my response, then copy and paste it into a Word document and do something else for a while, then come back and read it again. Just a suggestion.
Oh all right, one more post. Personally, I'm not taking anything personally. Disagreement is fine, and the debate the rises from it is both fun and self-improving. But to say that roberto78 was simply ignoring what I said and repeating himself like I hadn't said anything, refusing to understand any point of view other than his own, was simply a statement of fact. I'm sorry if the truth sounds condescending.
Interesting discussion; although I think some people are getting a little too personal here, and as a moderator, I'd like to that everyone try to focus on the arguments, not the poster. When I get a little riled myself, I find that it sometimes helps to write my response, then copy and paste it into a Word document and do something else for a while, then come back and read it again. Just a suggestion.
Oh all right, one more post. Personally, I'm not taking anything personally. To say that roberto78 was ignoring what I said and simply repeating himself like I hadn't said anything, refusing to understand any point of view other than his own, was simply a statement of fact. I'm sorry if the truth sounds condescending.
1. Do you realize that the same thing you are saying about roberto, you also said about me. Now, maybe it's just us, or maybe you have a tendency to think people aren't listening if they don't capitulate to your point of view. Just something -- perhaps -- you should consider. In fact, consider your final sentence -- "I'm sorry if the truth sounds condescending." Actually, THAT IS condescending.
2. Print -- particularly short-version print like we use in a forum -- has a tendency to sound terse, even when it's not meant to be. So part of the issue is the medium.
I remember a time when I was a principal, and I wrote an email to the staff about some issue. I intentionally wrote it to be non-positional. Just facts. No statement of opinion about the facts. Totally flat. I had several people read it and they all agreed there was no TONE to it. I emailed it. I got back an email from one teacher saying what a negative tone my email had.
Interesting discussion; although I think some people are getting a little too personal here, and as a moderator, I'd like to that everyone try to focus on the arguments, not the poster. When I get a little riled myself, I find that it sometimes helps to write my response, then copy and paste it into a Word document and do something else for a while, then come back and read it again. Just a suggestion.
Oh all right, one more post. Personally, I'm not taking anything personally.
If you weren't getting personal, then there's no need for you to respond to my suggestion.
Disagreement is fine, and the debate the rises from it is both fun and self-improving. But to say that roberto78 was simply ignoring what I said and repeating himself like I hadn't said anything, refusing to understand any point of view other than his own, was simply a statement of fact. I'm sorry if the truth sounds condescending.
The truth isn't condescending, but I'm not sure I can say the same regarding the tone of your reply. In addition, I understand that suggesting someone's using an argumentum ad nauseam isn't an ad hominem, just in case you think I don't know there's a difference.
@vinlyn I agree, print sounds different. Now, I've tried to take a second look at myself, I've tried looking back over our exchanges, but no matter how I squint at it I can't help but conclude that both you and roberto78 were, in fact, simply ignoring my arguments and repeating yourselves. Please go back and re-read our exchanges as well. Can you actually disagree? If you can, that's cool, but I'm truly interested to hear how you can. You would, in that case, be highlighting something about me that I could not see myself, and I could learn from it.
@Jason Clearly some thought I was getting personal, so I had to respond. And, as vinlyn suggested, 'tone' is impossible to assess through print. Personally I don't bother commenting on people's 'tone'. I just comment on their argument and how they are arguing. However, I agree that the last sentence on my previous post was laced with frustration.
After I referred to science in relation to the OP, you said:
Interesting phrase "all good science". I assume you mean like the "good science" that taught that insanity can be inherited (eugenics), hence uncountable involuntary sterilizations.
In other words, you asserted that eugenics *was* (past tense - you said "that taught" not "that teaches") not good science.
Considering that eugenics (past tense) and referring to sterilisations (as you had), could only refer to previous eugenics abuses of the Nazis and other regimes (rather than any modern version of it) i replied:
Eugenics was a politically motivated program which simply used (bad) science as an excuse.
So I basically agreed with YOUR comment that it was bad science (past tense). So, no problem, right? Apparently not!
Daozen does not understand eugenics. It wasn't all "bad science". It was a case of "bad people" (for wont of a better term) using science toward their own purpose. And in fact, the basic principles of eugenics are seeing a resurgence in terms of research in genetic engineering.
You've suddenly switched *your* initial view (that it wasn't good science) by bringing modern eugnenics into the conversation, despite this not being the context of our conversation till now, and used this opinion change as a reason to say i don't understand eugenics? Not to mention saying it was actually about "bad people" - i point i had already made before you did. Wow.
Daozen and Prometheus...our viewpoints differ substantially, as does our style of presenting them. At this point I see no further use to continuing that particular thread. I am not in this for the sake of debate, in and of itself.
Prometheus - I could say the same to you. Obviously you are fixed in your "beliefs" so no matter what I say you will disregard it. I've never attacked you or put you down. I simply responded with my argument. yet in every response you've been insulting and condescending.
I find it ironic that the ones who claim to be Buddhist are the ones pointing fingers and complaining.
Daozen and Prometheus...our viewpoints differ substantially, as does our style of presenting them. At this point I see no further use to continuing that particular thread. I am not in this for the sake of debate, in and of itself.
Nor was I. But in the future, if you are going to debate, I would just ask you to be fair. Acknowledge if you can't answer a given point. Heck, even just acknowledge if you can't be BOTHERED to answer the given point. Do not ignore the point, repeat yourself, and then suggest it is the other person who is the one with the problem for pointing out what you're doing. This is just a common courtesy and respect thing.
By the way, I really am sorry that I don't know how else to word the above to make the 'tone' sound nicer.
Nor was I. But in the future, if you are going to debate, I would just ask you to be fair. Acknowledge if you can't answer a given point. Heck, even just acknowledge if you can't be BOTHERED to answer the given point. Do not ignore the point, repeat yourself, and then suggest it is the other person who is the one with the problem for pointing out what you're doing. This is just a common courtesy and respect thing.
By the way, I really am sorry that I don't know how else to word the above to make the 'tone' sound nicer.
1. You see, you want to debate. I don't. I stated an opinion. I stand by it. You disagree. You stand by it. There's nothing to debate. I don't care if you disagree with me. Therefore, there is no debate. I am not interested in that form of sport.
2. You believe that "imponderable" means that something cannot be pondered. I disagree. To me, everything is ponderable. The fact that you may not -- at the time -- come to a solution does not mean that you cannot ponder it.
3. From what I can tell, you don't believe in God. Fine. I accept that you don't believe in God. As I stated, I do believe in God. You have to accept that I have that belief. Neither of us is going to convince the other. Therefore, there is no logic to debating it.
If you want to debate the concept of impoderable, find someone who wants to debate. If you want to debate the existence of God, find someone who wants to debate.
The fact that someone states an opinion, does not require that person to debate.
Daozen and Prometheus...our viewpoints differ substantially, as does our style of presenting them. At this point I see no further use to continuing that particular thread. I am not in this for the sake of debate, in and of itself.
Nor was I. But in the future, if you are going to debate, I would just ask you to be fair. Acknowledge if you can't answer a given point. Heck, even just acknowledge if you can't be BOTHERED to answer the given point. Do not ignore the point, repeat yourself, and then suggest it is the other person who is the one with the problem for pointing out what you're doing. This is just a common courtesy and respect thing.
By the way, I really am sorry that I don't know how else to word the above to make the 'tone' sound nicer.
1. You see, you want to debate. I don't. I stated an opinion. I stand by it. You disagree. You stand by it. There's nothing to debate. I don't care if you disagree with me. Therefore, there is no debate. I am not interested in that form of sport.
2. You believe that "imponderable" means that something cannot be pondered. I disagree. To me, everything is ponderable. The fact that you may not -- at the time -- come to a solution does not mean that you cannot ponder it.
3. From what I can tell, you don't believe in God. Fine. I accept that you don't believe in God. As I stated, I do believe in God. You have to accept that I have that belief. Neither of us is going to convince the other. Therefore, there is no logic to debating it.
If you want to debate the concept of impoderable, find someone who wants to debate. If you want to debate the existence of God, find someone who wants to debate.
The fact that someone states an opinion, does not require that person to debate.
I never required you to debate. I only asked you to let me know that you can't be bothered to reply to my rebuttal, as opposed to simply repeating your original argument like I hadn't answered it at all. But I suppose you are letting me know now. Well, that's fine.
I'm disappointed that you seem to see debate as a cheap 'form of sport' that's about getting people to agree with you, rather than as a learning tool that's about discussing what's true, but of course you don't have to debate if you don't want to.
Brain & heart are scientifically & medically ponderable, whereas the mind and conciousness are imponderable. Creator is beyond mind & consciousness, how could this magnificently amazing wonder of all for the sake of identification called creator/suchness be ponderable! Even time and space are imponderable in the blackhole :thumbsup:
First, to be accurate, you should only be asking, "Why does the sutra claim the Buddha called the existance of a Creator God an imponderable?"
Well, it doesn't. The sutra is first written in Pali, and has all the problems of translating a dead language into modern English vernacular. So, any time you get a precision word like "imponderable" (meaning cannot be precisely determined or measured) it's immediately suspect. All translations are inherently "loose translations" and it's hard to get people who have not tried learning a wildly different language to understand that. Somewhere, sometime in the history of scholars compiling a Pali-to-English translation, that's the word that stuck. Like defining Dukkha as Suffering. Wrong, but nobody is going to change it now. So, maybe the verse means what we think it does, and maybe it doesn't.
But we have the context of the sutra. Here is one fairly literal translation found online:
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The results of kamma...
"Conjecture about the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
Now, most translators try to fill in the blanks, so to speak, with what they think the sutra means. The problem is, they don't tell you what is their expanded thinking and what is the literal translation. So we have "about the world" changed to "about the origin or ultimate nature or creation of the world".
Many translators use other sutras and what is known about the beliefs of the writers to fill in the blanks, and that's helpful. In other sutras, we find out that there were three different viewpoints people were arguing about that vexed the Buddha and his disciples. Is everything that happens due to chance, is everything due to the will of God, or is everything due to karma or fate? And the Buddha shot down all three views as missing the point.
Now, for the imponderable leading to insanity. People have been pondering the nature of the universe and the philosophical ramifications of free will versus fate for lo these many centuries, and our universities are not full of insane people. OK, all those who have wandered the academic halls may now snork and disagree with me. So, no more insane than usual.
But I can see where the monk who wrote these words felt like he was about to go insane with frustration, from the people around him pestering him with these unimportant questions when he was trying to teach the Dharma.
Let me ask you, the part about the fruits of karma and going mad...I wonder if it could mean this -- someone does something bad...their conscience begins bothering them...they begin to dwell on it and whether it is their karma...they go into depression or worse. I can look at that possibility and say, okay, that is a believable cause and result.
Let me ask you, the part about the fruits of karma and going mad...I wonder if it could mean this -- someone does something bad...their conscience begins bothering them...they begin to dwell on it and whether it is their karma...they go into depression or worse. I can look at that possibility and say, okay, that is a believable cause and result.
I really have no idea. It might simply be the person writing the sutra had a different definition of what "ponder" means than we're using, maybe more on the line of intense meditative focus. Maybe the word we are translating as "madness" had other meanings back then we're not aware of and the writer meant it in a different way. Or it could be a warning along the line of "Don't run out into traffic, you'll get hit by a bus!" even though lots of people do it and don't get hit.
But in the end, like any sacred ancient scripture, these sutras were written to be read and understood by the people of that day and culture and language. So, I can understand in general what the sutra is trying to say even if I can't figure out every detail.
Isn't a Creator an imponderable in other religions, too? Think about it: who/what is God? Is it male, female, or androgynous? Is it humanoid? Does it dwell in the sky, or along side us in another dimension, or ....wtf? Does it even have anything resembling a body? Is it a huge ball of divine, loving Light, like the Near Death Experiencers say? Is it electromagnetic energy in some form? Is it omniscient and omnipotent, and if so, how? Sounds pretty imponderable to me.
Comments
Ok, I see you are leaning towards the evolutionary naturalism position, which I think is a self contradiction. If we are just biological mechanisms who's only purpose is survival, then why should you trust any of your beliefs? A frog can eat a fly while believing "this fly will do nothing for me" or it can think "this fly will supply nutrition". Regardless, it ate the fly by mere instinct. Does it matter what the belief was, if it was right or wrong? no. That being said, why should you trust your mind at all if it's just spewing lies to you? And are you really steeping that low to the "spaghetti monster" theme.
For there being a higher reality. I'm not just saying "there might be something" therefore there is. Philosophers going back thousands of years have reached conclusions that there is a higher reality beyond this material world. Plato rejected materialism and embraced the higher reality. There is some yearning in everyone. That feeling that there is more than these physical objects. You can call it illogical and unreasonable but everyone feels it there. But, this will be debated forever because people have different opinions.
I'm not saying you cant live a moral, purposeful life without god. I'm saying that without god there is no real absolute anything.
God is a belief. The only thing he/she/it is needed for is other beliefs about god.
By the way, as an evolution-denying, god-believing creationist, do you have any buddhist beliefs? Or are you perhaps 'just curious' at this point?
(People were getting tired of the dead horse.)
1. you don't have a very scientific view of science;
2. you confuse your faith (which happens to be Buddhist) with science.
In another thread you said, "This idea is generally the view put forth by science, and I agree with it because it makes sense in the same way all good science does: it's a valid theory based on our observations of human behaviour, including the interaction of subjective reports and technological measurements."
Interesting phrase "all good science". I assume you mean like the "good science" that taught that insanity can be inherited (eugenics), hence uncountable involuntary sterilizations. Or the "good science" that resulted in any number of prescription medicines which have killed or permanently incapacitated people.
Funny, as a person with two degrees in the geosciences (with an emphasis in paleontology), all of my science professors were Christians who believed in God.
You cling to things yourself, but can't see it, and you are unnecessarily and sometimes insultingly dismissive of other peoples' beliefs. While Buddha might have differed in his teachings, I don't remember any suttas where he was insulting.
Now, um... I didn't think existence was something that needed to be "proven". I mean, obviously. Or do you mean the existence of God? Well then, yes, it does need to be demonstrated by reason, otherwise we might as well believe anything and everything. Of course compassion is reasonable. Why else would we value it? Now it is true that all epistemologies are ultimately intuitively cashed. But we go with reason because it WORKS in terms of explaining and predicting phenomena, and that is why your car runs, why your planes fly, why your computer operates, and so on. Reason is still the only game in town.
You can't have something out of nothing? Well, you also can't have something that doesn't have a beginning (whether we are talking about the universe, or God). And yet one of these two impossible scenarios must be true, because here we are. All that tells me is that we cannot trust our intuitions when it comes to a question like where the universe came from, and therefore we cannot actually say "you can't have something out of nothing".
The Buddha said that a creator God is just a first born out of this stasis and the god thinks that everything coming after him/her is his/her doing, when in actuality it's just do to merit from a previous cycle that this being is born first as a long lived god. Basically, the Buddha said that out of delusion, a God thinks that he/she created everything.
If there was a creator, that would mean there is a cosmic Self, or static entity at the hub of the wheel of everything, and the Buddha said that there is not, that to see or experience that there is, is really just false self projection, or the result of identifying with really deep states of samadhi/jhana/meditative absorption.
In Buddhism, there is no uncaused cause.
Positive psychology has shown that compassion is the best path to personal happiness. Not surprising, considering that we evolved as a social species, where survival of the individual depends on survival of the group. Compassion means caring about the happiness and suffering of others. If there are better and worse ways to do that, we have moral laws... and all without any mention of God.
I don't think you see what I'm saying at all. To think that I was saying I was a pantheist is depressingly way off. I was trying to show you that the definition of the word "universe" makes it impossible for anything to exist "outside" of it, or "before" it. I was trying to show you that your definition of God is meaningless by definition. But if you didn't understand the point then, you're not going to understand it now... all I'll say is go back and read that post again and try to at least see what I'm saying.
So, you're saying scientists are wrong that the universe had a beginning? I wasn't saying you were a pantheist. From what i read, it looked like you said "if there were a god he is the universe because you can't have something outside of it...which would be wrong if the universe had a beginning.
Moral laws have a lot do with the existence of god, because where did they come from? Where did the laws of the universe come from? To me, it makes more sense that something created these laws than them just "being here". I'm not saying you're wrong, nobody really knows or else there wouldn't be a debate about it. And i don't see how believing in a god interferes with Buddhism at all.
If I am correct, Buddhism is more of a path to liberation than it is an analytical philosophy of our existence. Thinking and contemplating the existence of God may stray one away from the path to enlightenment, but I don't think that means it disproves God. I am thinking about the Jhana state and how it is a complete annihilation of the ego. Maybe an experience like that will change your state of perception and make you closer to enlightenment, but this has nothing to do with the philosophical argument of Gods existence. Maybe one does not need to contemplate/believe in God to attain enlightenment. Maybe one does not need to contemplate how you need oxygen to live to attain enlightenment, but that doesn't mean someone will find a reason for it.
From my understanding analyzing and understanding our existence is the path to liberation.
I personally don't have any issue with someone believing in God, I don't and don't find anything about our existence that requires one. I guess in the end I could be wrong but its a belief based on reason and investigation.
Namaste
And then, your comment, "I simply say the truth i believe." Interesting perspective.
I understand you.
This appearance of the universe is based upon the last appearance of the universe, or rather what was left over and compressed into the big crunch from the last universe, to be the big bang of this universe. Kind like rebirth, or your next moment is based upon what is left over from the previous moment, except more on a cosmic level.
This still does not mean that there is a creator god behind all this, just causes and conditions as a process or cycling and recycling over and over again. That's how Samsara is defined in Buddhism. It starts to really make sense as one meditates on the teachings of the Buddhas.
They come from the realization that all things are connected. In Buddhism, they do not come from a God, but rather that we are all inter-dependent and to do harm to another is the same as doing it to oneself, on the relative level, and everything is relative, but inter-relative. Basically, being good is natural when one sees the interconnectivity of everything, then ones view is expanded beyond the limited state of selfishness. Being bad is basically assuming that I am me and you are you as an ultimate truth.
It's very simple. Good comes naturally for those that see interconnectivity, and bad comes more easily for those that see only separateness.
Buddhism has never needed a God to create morality, or the universe.
My problem with you is not that you disagree with me, but that you seem curiously incapable of even understanding an alternative point of view. Maybe you have thought about this topic a certain way for so long that you're actually incapable of comprehending a new way of thinking about it. I don't know. But as it is, I'm done replying to you about the origin of the universe.
As for laws of the universe, I'd try to explain the "multiverse hypothesis" and the "anthropic principle" which explains the laws of the universe, and I'd try to explain that any designer God has to account for all the bad design in the universe as well, but I have a feeling you won't bother to try to understand that either.
touché...no need to take anything I said personally. It's not like i'm the only person in the world who has said these things.
You're very condescending for someone who calls themselves a Buddhist...
It can be argued, for example, that anything existing outside of time and space must be completely static, meaning that God would be an undynamic being if God existed at all. If this were the case, God would be more like the impassive and impersonal God of Aristotle, whose being is pure actuality and exists solely in the realm of form, than the personal God of, say, Christianity. Conversely, if God is able to interact with our universe, then it can be argued that God also has to be temporal and subject to causality, i.e., how can a non-temporal being (static, unchanging) interact in a temporal word (dynamic, changing).
So just saying that God created space and time, but exists outside of space and time, yet can still interact with beings in space and time isn't necessarily an easy out, and I don't find it to be a very satisfactory solution from a logical perspective. I disagree. I don't think that God is necessary to have morals. For one thing, we can empirically observe the fact that there are many moral people who are atheist and completely non-religious, so we can conclude that simply believing in a creator God isn't a requirement to being a moral person, i.e., someone who lives by a particular standard of what's right and wrong.
Moreover, we can empirically observe the fact that there are many religions and philosophies, including Buddhism, that have strong ethical and moral principles without being based on the idea of a creator God, many of their adherents being moral people. From this, we can conclude that theism isn't necessarily the only theological/philosophical basis for morality. Whether or not a theist accepts the validity of these systems is irrelevant.
Buddhist morality, for example, which I'd say is ultimately empirical and pragmatic in nature rather than 'revealed,' is centred on the efficacy of actions and the intentions underlying them, the underlying principles being kamma — the idea that certain actions produce pleasant, painful or neutral feelings/results — and the principle of ahimsa or harmlessness.
Hence, a Buddhist (or anybody else for that matter) can be a moral person even without a belief in God simply by constantly reflecting upon their actions of body, speech and mind, and whether they lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others or to both (MN 61).
We can also observe that morals change. There was a time not too long ago, for example, when things like genocide and rape were justified (and in some cases, it appears they still are). Just look at the Bible and the accounts of what ancient Israelites supposedly did to other tribes in the name of their god, acts which they where able to justify then but aren't so justifiable today, e.g., Deut 20:16-18, where God ordered the death of every man, woman and child in Canaan.
Very few today would say that it's OK to murder civilians, including the children of your enemies. And I'm not just trying to pick on the Bible; every culture has its own examples. The point is, morality isn't as timeless as we sometimes believe it to be, and that's not even taking evolutionary theory and our primitive past into consideration.
That doesn't mean, however, that scientists are always as open as science. Sometimes scientists (being human, after all) ignore evidence that will disprove a particular theory, and/or are unwilling to give up on what they believe despite the facts. Scientists can also be biased and motivated by other factors (e.g., personal, political, social, etc.), and may do things that we find ethically and morally objectionable. But none of that in and of itself negates the importance or usefulness of the scientific method, nor does it contradict or disprove evolution.
Daozen does not understand eugenics. It wasn't all "bad science". It was a case of "bad people" (for wont of a better term) using science toward their own purpose. And in fact, the basic principles of eugenics are seeing a resurgence in terms of research in genetic engineering.
And where are you getting the idea that I am attempting to disprove evolution? Not only was an emphasis in my university years in invertebrate paleontology, but I taught evolutionary theory at the high school level for 13 years. My only point in regard to evolution was that most professors I have ever met who teach evolution are also Christians. The only real problem that exists for some is that you cannot be an evolutionist and believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible...an guess what...most Americans no longer believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible.
Each of us is free to believe what we wish. Daozen is entitled to his view. So am I. And again, as so often on this forum, it comes down to a continuum of beliefs, not this OR that. You can't be truly open-minded and not accept that there are varying beliefs among well educated and good people.
2. Print -- particularly short-version print like we use in a forum -- has a tendency to sound terse, even when it's not meant to be. So part of the issue is the medium.
I remember a time when I was a principal, and I wrote an email to the staff about some issue. I intentionally wrote it to be non-positional. Just facts. No statement of opinion about the facts. Totally flat. I had several people read it and they all agreed there was no TONE to it. I emailed it. I got back an email from one teacher saying what a negative tone my email had.
@Jason Clearly some thought I was getting personal, so I had to respond. And, as vinlyn suggested, 'tone' is impossible to assess through print. Personally I don't bother commenting on people's 'tone'. I just comment on their argument and how they are arguing. However, I agree that the last sentence on my previous post was laced with frustration.
After I referred to science in relation to the OP, you said: In other words, you asserted that eugenics *was* (past tense - you said "that taught" not "that teaches") not good science.
Considering that eugenics (past tense) and referring to sterilisations (as you had), could only refer to previous eugenics abuses of the Nazis and other regimes (rather than any modern version of it) i replied: So I basically agreed with YOUR comment that it was bad science (past tense). So, no problem, right? Apparently not! You've suddenly switched *your* initial view (that it wasn't good science) by bringing modern eugnenics into the conversation, despite this not being the context of our conversation till now, and used this opinion change as a reason to say i don't understand eugenics? Not to mention saying it was actually about "bad people" - i point i had already made before you did. Wow.
I find it ironic that the ones who claim to be Buddhist are the ones pointing fingers and complaining.
By the way, I really am sorry that I don't know how else to word the above to make the 'tone' sound nicer.
2. You believe that "imponderable" means that something cannot be pondered. I disagree. To me, everything is ponderable. The fact that you may not -- at the time -- come to a solution does not mean that you cannot ponder it.
3. From what I can tell, you don't believe in God. Fine. I accept that you don't believe in God. As I stated, I do believe in God. You have to accept that I have that belief. Neither of us is going to convince the other. Therefore, there is no logic to debating it.
If you want to debate the concept of impoderable, find someone who wants to debate. If you want to debate the existence of God, find someone who wants to debate.
The fact that someone states an opinion, does not require that person to debate.
Namaste
I'm disappointed that you seem to see debate as a cheap 'form of sport' that's about getting people to agree with you, rather than as a learning tool that's about discussing what's true, but of course you don't have to debate if you don't want to.
Well, it doesn't. The sutra is first written in Pali, and has all the problems of translating a dead language into modern English vernacular. So, any time you get a precision word like "imponderable" (meaning cannot be precisely determined or measured) it's immediately suspect. All translations are inherently "loose translations" and it's hard to get people who have not tried learning a wildly different language to understand that. Somewhere, sometime in the history of scholars compiling a Pali-to-English translation, that's the word that stuck. Like defining Dukkha as Suffering. Wrong, but nobody is going to change it now. So, maybe the verse means what we think it does, and maybe it doesn't.
But we have the context of the sutra. Here is one fairly literal translation found online:
"There are these four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them. Which four?
"The Buddha-range of the Buddhas is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"The jhana-range of a person in jhana...
"The results of kamma...
"Conjecture about the world is an unconjecturable that is not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about it.
"These are the four unconjecturables that are not to be conjectured about, that would bring madness & vexation to anyone who conjectured about them."
Now, most translators try to fill in the blanks, so to speak, with what they think the sutra means. The problem is, they don't tell you what is their expanded thinking and what is the literal translation. So we have "about the world" changed to "about the origin or ultimate nature or creation of the world".
Many translators use other sutras and what is known about the beliefs of the writers to fill in the blanks, and that's helpful. In other sutras, we find out that there were three different viewpoints people were arguing about that vexed the Buddha and his disciples. Is everything that happens due to chance, is everything due to the will of God, or is everything due to karma or fate? And the Buddha shot down all three views as missing the point.
Now, for the imponderable leading to insanity. People have been pondering the nature of the universe and the philosophical ramifications of free will versus fate for lo these many centuries, and our universities are not full of insane people. OK, all those who have wandered the academic halls may now snork and disagree with me. So, no more insane than usual.
But I can see where the monk who wrote these words felt like he was about to go insane with frustration, from the people around him pestering him with these unimportant questions when he was trying to teach the Dharma.
Let me ask you, the part about the fruits of karma and going mad...I wonder if it could mean this -- someone does something bad...their conscience begins bothering them...they begin to dwell on it and whether it is their karma...they go into depression or worse. I can look at that possibility and say, okay, that is a believable cause and result.
But in the end, like any sacred ancient scripture, these sutras were written to be read and understood by the people of that day and culture and language. So, I can understand in general what the sutra is trying to say even if I can't figure out every detail.
Maybe he was thinking along these lines:
Argument:
The origins of the universe are unknowable,
A creator is the originator of the universe.
Therefore a creator is ultimately unknowable.
The O is U.
C is O
Therefore C is U.
Proposition:
God created the universe.
One can assert or deny this forever and never come to a truth.