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.
Existential question
I read somewhere that asking existential questions is likened to a man that has been shot wanting to know who shot him before getting medical help (or something to that effect).
Nonetheless, since you guys and gals are more up on the literature, I'll ask anyway: is there any explanation as to why all of "this"? And by "this" I mean who is responsible for this world and why are we in it? Who set in motion the karmic wheel, and more importantly, to what end? A Divine intelligence? A god? Many gods? Evolutionary process?
The texts explain in great detail the process Gotama went through to reach enlightenment, but fail to go beyond looking at the suffering of this (and past and future) lives to ask where it all started.
Nonetheless, since you guys and gals are more up on the literature, I'll ask anyway: is there any explanation as to why all of "this"? And by "this" I mean who is responsible for this world and why are we in it? Who set in motion the karmic wheel, and more importantly, to what end? A Divine intelligence? A god? Many gods? Evolutionary process?
The texts explain in great detail the process Gotama went through to reach enlightenment, but fail to go beyond looking at the suffering of this (and past and future) lives to ask where it all started.
0
Comments
nope.
More or less. See MN 63.
Basically, it's a non-issue. According to the texts, a beginning point isn't evident (SN 15.3 ). All that matters in the here and now is whether there is suffering present, and if so, how it can be overcome.
If you are atheist then you have some very fundamental preconceptions. Atheism presumes to know what can't be known just as theism does
Now, if you were to say you were atheist in regard to a specific deity about whom testable claims are made this would simply imply you tested the claims and found them false. This would be reasonable.
You might find that agnosticism as defined by Huxley is a more rational fit: Huxley defined agnosticism as follows: "... it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism."
It's simply the dharma. The ultimate truth of reality. Anything that is different from it causes suffering and is thus "bad." Truth is "good" as truth causes suffering to cease. Good and bad being terms I use simply because people understand them, mind you. Personallly I don't like to think of things in terms of good and bad, except I guess I would feel comfortable saying samsara is bad and nirvana is good.
You'll find reference to the existential questions in the Abhidharma texts where the Buddha found it unhelpful to contemplate four groups of questions -
Is the world eternal or not, or either or both?
Is the world infinite or not, or neither or both?
Do the tathagatas exists or not, or neither or both?
Is the self identical with or separate from the body?
The Buddha saw these questions more as a snare being open to endless speculation and therefore could not assist migratory beings in their liberation.
Most people rely on outcome to decide whether an action was good or bad, however a simple way to tell is look at intent and consider whether an action is skilful or unskilful. That way you won't have much confusion deciding between right and wrong.
So, as you can see there's nobody to keep score, it's just the nature of Earth... if you treat everyone badly, steal, lie and so on, chances are these things will catch up with you. If you are kind and honest... you're less likely to cause harm.
That's my 'atheist answer', not my 'Buddhist answer'.
It's in this that the end of suffering is possible.
That's about it.
However, Buddha did encourage us to question phenomena -- Therefore if you are questioning reality, it's a good start and you're on the right path. This general curiosity combined with existential anxiety definitely led me to Buddhism, so it's all good.
Keep playing the mind games, you'll realize that they have no substance eventually.
Sorry Robot - not quite with you on this. Could you elaborate perhaps?
Personally I don't know of any teaching which examines these 14 questions. But I am always open to correction.
To make a list, use [ list ][ /list ] (with out the spaces), and put [ * ] (without the spaces) in front of each item. Here's an example (just hit quote to see the tag codes if you need to):
ffice:office" /><O:p></O:p>
I do not think that Buddhists or those whose spiritual philosophy is influenced by Buddhist thought--such as myself—are by logical necessity against ‘first principles’ or metaphysics per se. What a philosophically informed Buddhism might attempt in answering your questions is that we need not suppose that there’s such an answer or final-absolute principle (involving a Being or causal process) that may account for Dharmic phenomenon. I think first one must see the empirical nature of Dharmic metaphysics via existential suffering and what can we then suppose is an epistemically acceptable answer to what we can say about the nature of things tentatively. Among other things, I think we can say at least three things: One, karmic causation results from the observation that things act on and interact with one another! Simple as that! For convenience sake we may categorize different types of karmic interplay: Common and personal, fixed and mutable, and primary and secondary. Things affect each other from without and within. Two, this reveals that there’s ontological connectivity or ‘interbeing.’ One thing cannot impact or change into something else unless things were mixed and mingled together in such a manner as to make possible such change from ‘this’ to ‘that.’ Hence, three—all things are impermanent. Things hardly remain the same. Buddhist philosophy recognizes that in order for these certain states of affairs to obtain these three conditions must hold. These are simple truths that can have enormous impact on one’s worldview.
<O:p></O:p>
So, if things are causally contingent on other things that have changed and are continuously changing, then one cannot be dogmatic about the ultimate realities beyond these (and some other) truths—so to speak. Since our minds are part of this finite, contingent, and changing experience of the universe we are epistemically bound to be skeptical of ‘absolutes’ and knowledge of ‘first causes’ that purportedly differ in some fundamental-existential way from our empirical observations to the contrary.
<O:p></O:p>
Thanks all again for a wonderful discussion,
<O:p></O:p>
Eric D.
None of which stops me following the dharma of the Buddha.
The Buddha didn't teach concerning the Creation, or lack thereof, because frankly it doesn't matter. What good does knowing origin of the universe do you, beyond satisfying simple curiosity?
As for karma, the Buddha taught that thinking about it too much, like trying to work out the reasons behind why things happen to you is a waste of time.
All you need to know is that your actions have consequences.
There need not be any magical reasoning behind it, you already understand that what you do affects the world around you, which in turn affects you back, usually in relation to your original action. And if you're at all familiar with Chaos theory you'll be able to comprehend the notion that even slight action on your behalf can shape the world in ways beyond your appreciation.
As for who decided what is good and bad, it is pure logic. Actions like killing, stealing, being angry or holding a grudge lead the mind away from a settled and peaceful state. Whereas the opposite emotions - compassion, tolerance, acceptance and contentment contribute toward a peaceful state of mind. There is not a divine judge who separated the light from the dark, that is something we have to do for ourselves.
No. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in god/gods. I don't believe in a god or goddess, I don't see evidence of their existence in my daily life, I see no reason to bow down in worship of them, I have no reason to speculate on their nature and relationship to the world and myself.
I certainly do not claim to know that there is no god, which makes me agnostic. However, I have no god in my life, I am quite literally without (a) god (theos).