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.
Question for Buddhist
My question for buddhist is how can you believe the world formed accidentally, then believe there's afterlife rewards and consequences. I don't see how you can have those things without a creator. I'm talking about stuff like being reincarnated as a cochroach for being creul or being reincarnated into a God for being good, or whatever the heck reincarnated for having good behavior. Please help me see your point of view.
0
Comments
Reincarnation is more of a Hindu concept.
First of all I don't worry about how or when the world began.This in no way helps me in my practice.
I personally believe in rebirth(reincarnation is not really a buddhist concept)It is all about cause and effect.However the end goal is not to become a god as gods are still in samsara.
Let me turn your question back to you.How can a christian believe that everything must be created and then say god always was?
Also if things are pre determined then how can you know that you will go to heaven?Your god may not have predetermined that for you.Is it fair that Judas was pre destined to betray Jesus and then kill himself?
Where was his choice?
As you can see,we may be as confused about christian beliefs as much as christians may be confused about ours.I will say this though,no matter what our fundamental differences may be,I believe that no matter what a persons religious beliefs may be,if we are all doing our best to be good buddhists,good christians,good muslims,jews,atheists,agnostics etc then this world that we live in today would be a much better world.
With metta
http://newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=341
In rebirth it is your last moment of consciousness in this life that will largely condition your next rebirth.With rebirth as you pointed out you could indeed be reborn as a cockroach or as a god.Up to you really.No predestination here.
With metta
So, how do you know whether an action is good or bad? We, look at the effect of that action, right? When your act out of good intent, your actions are likely to have good results, thus they are good actions. The good results are the 'reward'. It's simple causality. There doesn't have to be a God to hand our rewards and punishments.
If I was to believe in afterlife, I would see it the same way. A force of nature, rather than a creator.
Another view, that I addressed briefly, is that rebirth refers to mental states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebirth_%28Buddhism%29#Rebirth_as_cycle_of_consciousness
Well, people everywhere believe lots of stuff that doesn't make sense when seen from outside the set of beliefs. As pointed out, the belief in a creator God doesn't make sense to a Buddhist, for me it especially seems impossible to believe in an all-loving God who designed an eternal torture system for nonChristians, which is most of humanity. But that's just me.
See, people everywhere justify their beliefs and rarely examine their own while noticing how strange other people's beliefs can be. Contradictions are explained away. It's your and my nature. So yes, many Buddhists believe both in a noncreated universe and rebirth and even reincarnation.
In Buddhism, nowhere in our core statement of what we are (the Noble Truths and 8-Fold path) does it tell us we have to believe this or that. We don't have a creed, a core statement of beliefs about God or deities that everyone must share. Instead, the sutras claim the Buddha told us that many of our beliefs and the questions that go with them are irrelevant. So, we are told that to focus on the beliefs instead of the Noble Truths gets in the way. We have a famous story (our big lessons are taught in parables, also) about a man shot by an arrow and taken to a doctor. This man refused to have the arrow removed until he knew who shot it, who made the arrow, and why he was shot. So he continued to suffer.
Hope this helps.
It depends in part on how you define 'afterlife'..I personally don't believe or disbelieve in it. I see no evidence for or against it, so I don't let it concern me.
As to predestination..my understanding of that term is in the Calvinist sense, that a deity (or "rational agent", as is sometimes said in theodicies and other philosophical arguments for/against the idea of a god or gods) is responsible for this. That is, a deity has predetermined whether a person will be 'saved' or 'damned'.
Rebirth, on the other hand, is believed by Buddhists to be a function of "dependent co-arising". Which is quite simply a natural (not supernatural!) process of cause and effect (i.e., seeds are planted, with proper sun, water, etc, they grow). It does not happen because a deity or supreme being or rational agent has willed it so, it simply happens. Like gravity or the planets in their orbits. Not purpose in the sense of a higher being behind it all..but not accident either.
(By the way, I like fried chicken too! ^_^)
Actually I know Buddhists who know how the world (of space and time) is formed so I think your premises are already mistaken. Of course trying to explain Buddhism to a bystander is like trying to explain chickens to hens.
Your kidding, right? Who said I have to believe in either?
I don't know enough about astrophysics to know all of what the Big Bang theory entails, so at the moment, no, I don't believe it.
When most people speak of a "creator" they mean an anthropomorphic superbeing that brought the universe into existence. I don't see any evidence of that, and positing that doesn't really solve anything for me since now you're stuck wondering where the creator came from.
I'm content to say I don't know.
These are not the only two options and belief is not necessary. Both the big bang as a single event and a creator god are illogical.
Beliefs?
Best wishes,
Abu
I don't care what came before or what is going to happen after enough to believe in something. Buddhism isn't as much about faith as Christianity. It's more pragmatic.
That IS the Buddhist way ... to only believe that which you have experienced directly. Opinions are only a way to feel "certain" about life, and Buddhists are trying to let go of this need.
Until we learn one way or another, we're ok with simply having opinions, knowing that at one point or another, something may come to our attention, that enables us, or permits us to change them.
So we really don't fuss too much about them.
The questions is always,
"How does this enhance or affect the quality and substance of my practice?
Would knowing these things 'For sure' alter my objective?"
Our objective - as Buddhists - is to understand Suffering, and to make it cease.
This is the Buddha's primary lesson, and one which is hard enough in itself to learn, understand, accept, realise and accomplish - without having to deal with extraneous matters.
THis lesson, at least, we can definitely KNOW.
There's a lot more options than that. A lot more shades of grey than that.
Also, the two things you mention right there are like apples and oranges..and it's perfectly possible to 'believe' in both. (I put 'believe' in quotes because to me, saying one 'believes' in the big bang theory, or for that matter evolutionary theory, is kind of like saying one 'believes' in gravity. While there's a certain body of empirical evidence to support the aforementioned scientific theories, there's nothing similar to support the existence of a creator. So "belief" is a tricky word to use here.)
Well, you should think twice before mocking other peoples beliefs.
This is a tougher sell. A lot would depend on how you're defining rebirth and which flavor of Christianity you're comparing it to.
I don't believe in an accidental world. I believe in Dependent Origination. Dependent origination is that this world was created as a consequence of ignorance.
You're talking about the law of Karma no? The law of Karma is what we know as the law of "Cause and Effect". Karma is just the effects that we humans can cause.
The reincarnation idea is to believe in a soul or a being, separate from the body. At the death of the physical body, this soul is said to move into another state and then enter a womb to be born again. We Buddhists don't believe in that. We believe in rebirth.
Rebirth is different and can be explained, Yew Han Hee once described it perfectly this way: "Take away the notion of a soul or a being living inside the body; take away all ideas of self existing either inside or outside the body. Also take away notions of past, present and future; in fact take away all notions of time. Now, without reference to time and self, there can be no before or after, no beginning or ending, no birth or death, no coming or going. Yet there is life! Rebirth is the experience of life in the moment, without birth, without death; it is the experience of life which is neither eternal nor subject to annihilation."
As a whole, Buddhism doesn't take the view that the world was created by accident; but it doesn't take the view that the world was created by a creator God either. In fact, most Buddhist texts I'm aware of that deal with this issue (which are few and far between) tend to give a naturalistic explanation to the beginning of the universe; although you may be surprised to hear that this questions is really a non-issue in Buddhism, especially in regard to the practice itself.
While there does appears to be a type of creation myth in the Agganna Sutta of Digha Nikaya — where the Buddha does give what can be interpreted as a rough theory of evolution to a pair of brahmins in that the physical characteristics of the mythological beings in question change due to environmental changes and interactions, as well as naturalistic description of how the universe began somewhat akin to the oscillating universe theory — I agree with Prof. Gombrich that, taking the context of DN 27 into account, this sutta is a lively and ingenious parody that was actually meant to make fun of the very need for a cosmology as a foundation for religious development (How Buddhism Began: The Conditioned Genesis of the Early Teachings, pg. 81-82).
Personally, I see Buddhism as dealing exclusively with mental stress and its cessation (i.e., psychology), not biology, or physics, etc. And while some people get excited when they discover that Buddhism contains teachings which seem to be in accord with modern science, I think they can be misleading and shouldn't be taken too seriously, or at least, too literally. This is especially true considering that recent observations of cosmic background radiation indicate the universe is actually expanding at an accelerated rate, hence there may not be any contraction or 'Big Crunch.' Lawrence Krauss mentions this in his talk at the 2009 AAI Conference.
As for the question of God, this also a non-issue in Buddhism. According to the texts, a beginning point to samsara (literally 'wandering on') isn't evident (SN 15.3). This can be interpreted two ways — that a beginning point to the continual cycle of death and rebirth of beings isn't evident, or that a beginning point to the continual cycle of death and rebirth of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta), isn't evident — and they're not mutually exclusive. Either way, the point is the same: all that really matters in the here and now is whether suffering is present, and if so, how it can be overcome.
All in all, I think it's safe to say that Buddhism is essentially non-theistic in view. However, I also happen to be of the opinion that, if we dig a bit deeper, the idea of a creator God is incompatible with certain aspects and teachings that, if taken to their logical conclusion, seem to reject the idea of, or a need for, a creator God. For one thing, the logic of dependent co-arising negates the idea of a creator God in that it precludes a first cause or a causeless cause. Then there's this famous problem of evil passage from the Bhuridatta Jataka (although, to be fair, this is most likely a later addition that some date to the 13th century):
None but the Brahmans offer sacrifice,
None but the Khattiya exercises sway,
The Vessas plough, the Suddas must obey.
These greedy liars propagate deceit,
And fools believe the fictions they repeat;
He who has eyes can see the sickening sight;
Why does not Brahma set his creatures right?
If his wide power no limits can restrain,
Why is his hand so rarely spread to bless?
Why are his creatures all condemned to pain?
Why does he not to all give happiness?
Why do fraud, lies, and ignorance prevail?
Why triumphs falsehood, truth and justice fail?
I count your Brahma one of the unjust among,
Who made a world in which to shelter wrong.
Those men are counted pure who only kill
Frogs, worms, bees, snakes or insects as they will,
These are your savage customs which I hate,
Such as Kamboja hordes might emulate.
If he who kills is counted innocent
And if the victim safe to heaven is sent,
Let Brahmans Brahmans kill so all were well
And those who listen to the words they tell.
At best, God would have be more like the impassive and impersonal God of Aristotle, existing outside of time and space, to find a place in Buddhist cosmology. Nevertheless, even in the earliest parts of the Pali Canon, there are references to devas or what we might call 'heavenly beings.' However, devas (literally 'radiant ones'), which are often seen as gods when taken literally, are simply non-human beings who are more powerful and long-lived than ordinary humans, and are by no means eternal, omnipresent, omnipotent, etc. But more importantly, they can also be viewed metaphorically as the indulgent and hedonistic aspects of our psychology (i.e., the parts that are addicted to sensual pleasures).
In addition, according to AN 3.61, the belief in a supreme being can be unskillful and interfere with Dhamma practice if it leads to a denial of the efficacy of kamma (literally 'action') and a life of inaction, or even wrong action:
Furthermore, in relation to the four noble truths and the practice of the noble eightfold path, the matter of the existence of God is irrelevant and, in my opinion, a distraction to be avoided. Of course, this doesn't mean that people can't believe in God and still practice the Dhamma, especially some of its more contemplative aspects, but it does mean that, at the very least, such views can negatively impact the practice when held inappropriately.
Personally, I think Buddhism has always been what we might call a type of 'transcendent psychology,' and it's only been relatively recently (at least in the West) that its more technical terms have been understood and translated in ways that make this clear. I think this shift is due in no small part to the decades of excellent scholarship that has been brought to bear on the texts and the religious-historical context in which they took shape. Regardless of how it's been popularized, at its core, Buddhism deals exclusively with one subject, that of human mental suffering. The Buddha himself made it clear that:
That's not to say there aren't 'supernatural' concepts in Buddhism, or that local customs, deities and religious practices haven't found their way into Buddhism wherever it's been established. But rather than a pure system of thought or a strictly faith-based worship of the supernatural, a critical analysis of the earliest texts reveals a much more pragmatic and specialized method of mental training than most traditional Buddhists and Western converts realize—one that seeks to diminish and even eliminate suffering by radically changing the way the mind relates to experience.
Whatever else this radical transformation may open one up to, I can't say, but I suspect that Thanissaro Bhikkhu's right when he says that we're "not committing spiritual suicide." The allegory of the cave in Plato's Republic immediately comes to mind here, where he uses the image of the philosopher turning the soul (mind) away from the darkness of the visible realm (samsara) towards the light of the form of the Good (nibbana). So, from this perspective, being an atheist, or even a theist for that matter, doesn't preclude one from practicing Buddhism so long as one has an open mind and is willing to at least give some of these teachings a chance.
As for teachings on rebirth, whether or not they're true, they're not illogical; they simply rely on premises that some people (e.g., strict materialists, Christians, etc.) reject. In addition, concepts such as rebirth are really more means to an end (or tools to be used) than dogmas, i.e., they're only useful if they're being used appropriately, leading one towards the experience of happiness and peace of mind that's said to lie at the end of the path. One thing people seem to have trouble understanding is that the Buddha's teachings are pragmatic in nature. This is made clear in MN 22, where the Buddha likens his teachings to a raft:
"As you say, lord," the monks responded to the Blessed One.
The Blessed One said: "Suppose a man were traveling along a path. He would see a great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. The thought would occur to him, 'Here is this great expanse of water, with the near shore dubious & risky, the further shore secure & free from risk, but with neither a ferryboat nor a bridge going from this shore to the other. What if I were to gather grass, twigs, branches, & leaves and, having bound them together to make a raft, were to cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with my hands & feet?' Then the man, having gathered grass, twigs, branches, & leaves, having bound them together to make a raft, would cross over to safety on the other shore in dependence on the raft, making an effort with his hands & feet. Having crossed over to the further shore, he might think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having hoisted it on my head or carrying on my back, go wherever I like?' What do you think, monks: Would the man, in doing that, be doing what should be done with the raft?"
"No, lord."
"And what should the man do in order to be doing what should be done with the raft? There is the case where the man, having crossed over, would think, 'How useful this raft has been to me! For it was in dependence on this raft that, making an effort with my hands & feet, I have crossed over to safety on the further shore. Why don't I, having dragged it on dry land or sinking it in the water, go wherever I like?' In doing this, he would be doing what should be done with the raft. In the same way, monks, I have taught the Dhamma compared to a raft, for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of holding onto. Understanding the Dhamma as taught compared to a raft, you should let go even of Dhammas, to say nothing of non-Dhammas."
The good news is, one can practice Buddhism without believing in rebirth, or one can even take a non-literalist approach to rebirth if they so choose. As for myself, I'm agnostic when it comes to the postmortem rebirth. I am, however, a firm believer in moment to moment rebirth, which is readily observable in the here and now. The Buddha himself spoke about punabhava, literally 'again becoming.' The way I understand it, becoming (bhava) is a mental process, which arises due to the presence of clinging (upadana) in the mind with regard to the five-clinging aggregates, and acts as a condition for the birth (jati) of the conceit 'I am,' the self-identification that designates a being (satta).
There's rarely a moment when the mind isn't clinging to this or that in one or more of the four ways (MN 11). Our identity jumps from one thing to another, wherever the clinging is strongest. Our sense of self is something which is always in flux, ever-changing from moment to moment in response to various internal and external stimuli, and yet at the same time, we tend to see it as a static thing. It's as if our sense of self desires permanence, but its very nature causes it to change every second. As the Buddha warns in SN 12.61:
Change is, of course, a fact of nature. All things are in a perpetual state of change, but the problem is that our sense of self ignores this reality on a certain level. From birth to death, we have the tendency to think that this 'I' remains the same. Now, we might know that some things have changed (e.g., our likes and dislikes, our age, the amount of wrinkles we have, etc.), but we still feel as if we're still 'us.' We have the illusion (for lack of a better word) that our identity is who we are, a static entity named [fill in the blank], and we tend to perceive this as being the same throughout our lives.
That said, the conventional use of personality is a function of survival, as well as convenience. However, clinging to our personalities as 'me' or 'mine' is seen as giving continued fuel for becoming, i.e., a mental process of taking on a particular kind of identity that arises out of clinging. Our sense of self, the ephemeral 'I,' is merely a mental imputation — the product of what the Buddha called a process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' (AN 7.46, MN 72, MN 109) — and when we cling to our sense of self as being 'me' or 'mine' in some way, we're clinging to an impermanent representation of something that we've deluded ourselves into thinking is fixed and stable. It becomes a sort of false refuge that's none of these things. So regardless if postmortem rebirth is true, this process of 'I-making' and 'my-making' can be seen here and now, and it's the stilling of this mental process that leads to freedom, liberation, awakening (AN 6.104).
Nevertheless, the process of dependent co-arising, while predominately mental, is a process of conditionality that's traditionally understood to occur moment to moment and over multiple lifetimes, and there's nothing to preclude it from doing both. It's not logically impossible that a new psycho-physical organism can be also born via the same process at the time of death of the physical body whereby the last consciousness of a being at the time of death immediately conditions the arising of a new consciousness, hence statements like, "... when a being sets this body aside and is not yet reborn in another body, I designate it as craving-sustained, for craving is its sustenance at that time" (SN 44.9).
But in either interpretation, rebirth is the continuation of a process — nothing 'remains,' nothing 'transmigrates,' etc. — there are merely phenomena that condition other phenomena in the interdependent process we call life. The only difference I see is that one side believes this process ceases at death, regardless of whether there's still craving present in the mind, and the other doesn't. If you're interested, you can find more of my thoughts on the subject of rebirth here.
It's like, I bake a muffin in my little EZ bake oven, and it's kinda bland, but I made it, so woo.
And Jason then whips up his filet mignon* and cordon bleu for six. :bowdown:
*or vegetarian/vegan substitute
I think this is a good answer. To me, the idea of predestination rests on some pretty big assumptions, such as we've been 'created' for a specific teleological purpose. It's hard not to see some sort of design or purpose in our lives, and maybe deep down we really want there to be one, but I think Darwin's fairly well-proven theory of evolution took a hammer to teleology (not to mention Aristotle's implicitly teleological doctrine of form and actuality), and I don't see much left. Moreover, I don't see why life has to have some sort of preset purpose, or why we can't just create our own.
Me too!
Don't sell yourself short. EZ bake ovens are the shit.
I used to have one but it died. I made mad cookies in it tho' OMNOMNOMNOM
I can't see any point in speculating about other lives and my practice is focused on this life in the here and now.
Buddha said:
Not all buddhists believe in rebirth, I myself do and see it as a fundamental part of the religion.
Now mermaids! They rock too. Mermaids eating fried chicken..!