Buddhism and the concept of "no" soul, "no" God

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
Whatever did Gautama Buddha say, was it Word of Revelation from G-d or it is supported by Science? Anybody,please

Revelations in the form of light, electromagnetic energy, photon particles refracting into synapses across the brain from having a pure,virgin,undefiled, and still mind.

I am not sure I could understand your viewpoint exactly.

Is the source of your post based on Word of Revelation on a founder of religion from G-d or it is based on science?

If it is based on the former then please quote from the scripture so revealed.

If it is based on the later then please quote:

• • A peer reviewed article published in a science journal of repute
  • From a text book of science
  • Please mention the specific science discipline that deals with it.

Regards

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

I get the sense that the point of this thread is somehow related to proving the idea that Buddhism somehow allows for or doesn't allow for the existence of God in some form or another. This is strictly a Western question born of New-Agers, who, first coming upon these teachings assume that Siddhartha Gautama posited that there was no God because he didn't mention God, when all he really did was to write a method or way of living that is steeped heavily in already existent Hindu philosophy.

there is prehaps an element of actuality in your satatment , ....as you rightly noted in predominantly Buddhist cultures there is no feeling of need to remove the presence of what are often termed Hindu gods , ....in actuality these are Gods of the lower realms and are very much a part of Buddhism , ...and again you are right to observe that it is a ''strictly a Western question born of New-Agers'', ''who, first coming upon these teachings assume that Siddhartha Gautama posited that there was no God because he didn't mention God'', .....there seems also to be an element of dissatisfaction with Christaian Theism that drives the western mind to explore what they assume to be non theistic religions therefore there is a tendancy to ovwelook the Gods of Buddhism or to try to explain them away as cultural accreations , ....this however falls down when one gets to the top of the tree , to the Question of an Unborn Unoriginated , Eternal , Unchanging Perfect Being , ....

however it is probably missleading to have to use the term theistic , or the Title God , ....when we mean to say Adi Buddha , .....

and because of the missconceptions often held about the nature of God in the theistic sence many western minds canot look at the Three Kaya's , ... the Dharmakaya , the truth body , ...the Sambhogakaya , the blissfull body , ...and the Nirmanakaya , the emanation body , ......many modern Buddhists see only the Nirmanakaya , the buddha if this age , the manifest being , ..thinking that manifestation to be the one and only Buddha , .....

In truth, if you go to Bali, or Cambodia and the like and visit Buddhists temples you will see Hindu gods carved all over them. Buddhists in many parts of the world have statues of Ganesh in their homes, workplaces and cars. The Buddha was from the Hindu culture and much of what he wrote were analogous to what Hindus already knew. The middle path is simply Sattva. Right actions and wrong actions are simply Yamas and Niyamas. Meditation is just Raja Yoga. Mindfulness is just Karma Yoga. All of these things are found in the Yoga Sutras and Bhagavad Gita without the existence of a Buddha. Nothing new under the sun here. The Buddha just adds practical methods of growth and development and a way of life heavily tied to what was already widely known, salted with some new and very effective methods.There is no worry here about Gods. You can practice Buddhism and believe whatever it is you want about such things as God. My point is that I think you are worried about things you don't need to really worry about.

All the best
Gary

and of course what need is there for ones physician to give you his life history when his purpose at that moment is to cure you of your ills , ....and of course the patient has his own personal suffering to contend with , in this state he is not in a position to conscider any other atributes of his physicians life , but that dose not mean that he does not have any life outside the surgery , ..... there are some Buddhists that feel the need to contemplate the motivating force behind the alturistic action , ....and to acertain its true nature , .....and to know that could be said to be Nirvana , .....

 

[Vishvavajra]

I was under the impression that such a person wouldn't care because knowing that water seeks it's own proper level under any and all circumstances, each living being is in exactly the spot they are supposed to be in.

Yeah, no. That's New-Ageism, not Buddhadharma.

Actual Buddhist teachings aren't easy to hear. They don't encourage complacency or self-satisfaction. The entire tradition is based on a fundamental sense of dissatisfaction and uses that to impel people towards practice that will cultivate Awakening. There is a great sense of urgency, that you should stop wasting time and get to practicing right now, that wherever you are, you should practice better and harder. What you're describing would be likened to a honey trap, a false sense of security that soothes the ego and saps the initiative.

A lot of people sit around thinking they're enlightened because they feel at peace with everything as they rest on their cushions (both literal and figurative). Then someone gets cancer, or is hit by a car, or loses their livelihood and is faced with homelessness. Then it's strange how all that wise equanimity goes out the window. That's because it's just words. Buddhadharma aims at something that isn't so flimsy, and that requires hard work and correct views, not platitudes about how everything is how it should be—i.e. the words of one who has yet to truly experience all that suffering has to offer.

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Yeah, no. That's New-Ageism, not Buddhadharma.

Actual Buddhist teachings aren't easy to hear. They don't encourage complacency or self-satisfaction. The entire tradition is based on a fundamental sense of dissatisfaction and uses that to impel people towards practice that will cultivate Awakening. There is a great sense of urgency, that you should stop wasting time and get to practicing right now, that wherever you are, you should practice better and harder. What you're describing would be likened to a honey trap, a false sense of security that soothes the ego and saps the initiative.

A lot of people sit around thinking they're enlightened because they feel at peace with everything as they rest on their cushions (both literal and figurative). Then someone gets cancer, or is hit by a car, or loses their livelihood and is faced with homelessness. Then it's strange how all that wise equanimity goes out the window. That's because it's just words. Buddhadharma aims at something that isn't so flimsy, and that requires hard work and correct views, not platitudes about how everything is how it should be—i.e. the words of one who has yet to truly experience all that suffering has to offer.

I think you may have assumed that when I asked whether an enlightened master would care that I was talking about someone who was necessarily Buddhist. I think that awakening through any system such as that is a rare thing. I have seen people who were at peace with life even in the face of such things as you mentioned (illness. loss, death and the like) and these people had no idea about Buddhism. On the other hand, I have met some pretty squirrely people who are working toward enlightenment and following the Dhammapada. But I spend some time with an enlightened and fully awakened master every day and I am pretty certain that she knows nothing about the teachings of the Buddha - being cat and all. I try to learn form her. When she's playing, she's playing. When she's resting, she's resting. When she's eating, she eats like she hasn't eaten in a week. When she's catching a bug, she's working. When you pet her, she is fully immersed in the interaction. When she is sick, she takes it as it comes. She is never distracted or troubled by ideas or philosophy. She has no fear of death. She is attached to nothing. She extracts every aspect from a breeze when it crosses her face. She is fully present in all things. She is not on Amazon and makes appearances only as the moment dictates.

All the best,
Gary

 

[aoji]

why do these folks think it's so important that there be some solid, unassailable concept of self that will allow them to persist after death?

Because most are afraid of death. The problem with using words like "self" and "soul" is that they have associated concepts from other religions, in the case of Buddhism, Hinduism. Buddha was an Indian and so Hinduism, Vedanta, Advaita, et. al., was probably known to him and as such he probably needed to use the same words but wanted to impart different meanings.

 

[aoji]

Then someone gets cancer, or is hit by a car, or loses their livelihood and is faced with homelessness. Then it's strange how all that wise equanimity goes out the window. That's because it's just words.

And is being hit by car, getting cancer or losing their job karmic retribution? All three will cause a shift in consciousness. As Buddhists we can rationalize that we have to work through our karma, but even that idea pre-supposes that there was a prior incarnation of a self which accumulated and which generates and which needs to work out karma. Otherwise what is the concept of karma and re-incarnation good for? As concepts to encourage leading a good life? And yet life is suffering, old age, illness, etc. But that may be from the viewpoint of the poor. Why then are there rich and poor, why is there good and evil?

If one accepts that there is no self then how did this mind accumulate karma? One would have to pre-suppose that when one dies the contents of one's mind, their experiences, their memories, their pain, their joy, their happiness, etc. & et. al, are released into an ether, and that a new born mind has to travel through that same collective ether, just as one could be born at high altitude, or in a hot climate or a cold climate or a wet climate, and that going through the ether mind impressions somehow attach themselves to the consciousness in the mind. But that again begs the question as to why it happens since one has traveled through a karmic bath. Now having inherited other minds' karma they have to pay the karmic price. Doesn't that seem unreasonable? Do we just accept it because there is nothing that can be done since one is already alive?

Was the theory of karma and re-incarnation something which the rich and powerful conjured to keep the populace in check, submissive, enslaved?

They may be just words, but the experience will affect the consciousness and change it. Hopefully it will prove positive and lead to greater compassion, empathy and service towards others.

As far as the mind goes, what is it that can observe the mind thinking? Awareness, obviously. Which begs the question of whether or not this awareness survives death, and if it does, is that the self? Likewise, is the self subject to karma?

 

[aoji]

We do not accept being forced into supernaturalism or theistic beliefs, certainly.

No one can force anyone to believe what they already wanted to believe or already believed before it was said. (Well, there is brainwashing and chemical inducement...) If there is no need for "you" to believe it why put greater mental emphasis in rejecting it? Why not remain open to the possibility? Not to entertain the possibility but knowing that others believe what they believe just as you believe what you believe. Compassion. If there is a spiritual cycle, that the spirit is always evolving to a higher state, then in this life you are not in that circle of believers, although you may be in the cycle without your knowing it. Does it matter to you? Not at all.

 

[aoji]

We do not accept being forced into supernaturalism or theistic beliefs, certainly.

No one can force anyone to believe what they already wanted to believe or already believed before it was said. (Well, there is brainwashing and chemical inducement...) If there is no need for "you" to believe it why put greater mental emphasis in rejecting it? Why not remain open to the possibility? Not to entertain the possibility but knowing that others believe what they believe just as you believe what you believe. Compassion. If there is a spiritual cycle, that the spirit is always evolving to a higher state, then in this life you are not in that circle of believers, although you may be in the cycle without your knowing it. Does it matter to you? Not at all.

http://www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htm

Unfortunately, the concepts presented are Western minded. For example,

Bergson says, "All consciousness is time existence; and a conscious state is not a state that endures without changing. It is a change without ceasing, when change ceases it ceases; it is itself nothing but change."

"All consciousness is time existence" can be rebutted as being a preposition. Eastern Religion says that Time does not exist but in the mind, that what we call "Time" is merely a mental convention - and as such time cannot be perceived but by consciousness within a living body. Before you were born you did not know that time existed, after you die you will not know that time exists. So, is time real? That also is a preposition, no? Prove it wrong, then.

What does he mean that "when change ceases it ceases"? Eastern Religion would again rebut it. Our everyday life rebuts it - when we go to sleep we "lose consciousness". Does that mean that consciousness has died? Or that it means that it has changed while in a cycle?

As to

Watson, a distinguished psychologist, states: "No one has ever touched a soul or has seen one in a test tube or has in any way come into relationship with it as he has with the other objects of his daily experience.

No one has touched a consciousness or seen one in a test tube, either, so, obviously it does not exist. No one has ever touched a mind or seen one in a test tube, so it does not exist, either. Where does artistic creativity come from? One can't put music under a microscope and no one has ever seen it in a test tube, so it can't exist, either. No thought or idea can ever be seen in a test tube, so they can't exist, either. No one has ever touched love or seen one is a test tube, so it cannot exist, either. Science can cut into a living being and dissect ever smaller and smaller parts of the body and it will never find a soul, nor love, nor creativity - when they do go that far what they will finally find is a dead body.

Watson presents a childish argument, a childish preposition, a childish conclusion.

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]As the wheel of a cart rests on the ground at one point, so does the being live only for one thought-moment. It is always in the present, and is ever slipping into the irrevocable past. What we shall become is determined by this present thought-moment. [/FONT]

Eastern Religion says that thought is never in the present. Now, even Science says the same.

 

[LuisDantas]

No one can force anyone to believe what they already wanted to believe or already believed before it was said. (Well, there is brainwashing and chemical inducement...) If there is no need for "you" to believe it why put greater mental emphasis in rejecting it?

Because I have concluded from the available evidence that such a stance is better than the alternatives.

Why not remain open to the possibility?

Mainly because it would be a pointless waste of energy, with more than a small amount of moral and intellectual dishonesty.

Not to entertain the possibility but knowing that others believe what they believe just as you believe what you believe. Compassion.

Compassion is no reason to mislead others, and this situation does not at all strike me as being somehow an exception.

The closest it comes to applying is by reminding me that I should be aware of how sensitive people are to direct statements and attempt to give them some warning.

There is no good reason I can think of to imply theism where there is none. Out of respect among other reasons I shall attempt to be clear and transparent about my belief stances.

If there is a spiritual cycle, that the spirit is always evolving to a higher state, then in this life you are not in that circle of believers, although you may be in the cycle without your knowing it. Does it matter to you? Not at all.

I beg to differ. It does matter a lot to me. I do not want to be mistaken for a theist, nor for an encourager of theism.

 

[aoji]

Because I have concluded from the available evidence that such a stance is better than the alternatives.

[/quote]Compassion is no reason to mislead others, and this situation does not at all strike me as being somehow an exception. [/quote]

No, I did not mean it as you took it. Compassion is Compassion, it cannot be used to mislead others because then that means that one is misleading oneself knowingly. If you are true to yourself how can you be untrue to someone else when you see them as yourself?

There is no good reason I can think of to imply theism where there is none.

Can you see your own circular thinking bias? We all have them, opinions, prejudices, etc. Why would you imply a theism when you do not believe in it? Those that believe in theism will imply it. Neither is right, neither is wrong; both are right, both are wrong; both are neither right nor wrong.

I beg to differ. It does matter a lot to me. I do not want to be mistaken for a theist, nor for an encourager of theism.

Again, you mistook what I said. If you are in a cycle of not-knowing, how could you know that you were in a cycle of not-knowing? Your not knowing that your consciousness is evolving is not a concern to you because you ARE that consciousness which does not know that it is evolving. We say that we are the same, but are we really? We know that we went through the stages of being a baby, a child, a teenager, a young adult, a middle age adult, an old adult. How (or rather "what") you think now is not likely to be the same as how ("what") you will think decades from now; how and what you thought decades ago is not likely to be the same as how and what you think today. All experiences change us. The consciousness we identify with is always changing but seems always the same. We go to sleep "knowing" who we are, we forget who we are in deep sleep, we wake up and when we wake up we start to think, and what we think about is what we went through the previous day, so it seems like a continuous consciousness. But sometimes we have nightmares and we wake up screaming and in that moment we don't know where or who or when we are.

I don't know if you noticed but somehow the discussion of "soul" magically changed to "God" in the article, if not in the thread. The author is taking for granted that everyone agrees that if there is a soul then there must be a God. Does someone having "visions" of demons and angels mean that there is a God?

No matter what is said, the reader interposes his own prejudices, his own understanding colors what is being tried to be conveyed. It can't be helped for most of us. It definitely cannot be conveyed because words are concepts and how we understand certain words clouds what the other person is saying when he uses the same words. Logic has the same failings.

What do you make of this?:

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Buddhism does not totally deny the existence of a personality in an empirical sense. It only attempts to show that it does not exist in an ultimate sense. The Buddhist philosophical term for an individual is santana, i.e., a flux or a continuity. It includes the mental and physical elements as well. The kammic force of each individual binds the elements together. This uninterrupted flux or continuity of psycho-physical phenomenon, which is conditioned by kamma, and not limited only to the present life, but having its source in the beginningless past and its continuation in the future — is the Buddhist substitute for the permanent ego or the immortal soul of other religions.

[/FONT]

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

Mainly because it would be a pointless waste of energy, with more than a small amount of moral and intellectual dishonesty.

I wonder if taking an atheist stance is as intellectually dishonest as any theist stance. Basically, both sides offer solutions that are only broadly implied and inconclusive. I have seen Richard Dawkins dismiss peer reviewed and published studies that he himself admits he has never read. That is the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty. For the most part, we seem to be drawn to certain conclusions based on intellectual of intuitive proclivities or tendencies whose processes we are only vaguely able to account for. We do this in spite of the most obvious of facts, primary among which is the fact that we really don't know anything about the nature of existence. The most common responses I see from atheists are declarations about the silliness or absurdity of other ideas, which is an opinion, not an argument.

People create epicycles in logic to support whatever they believe. If you are a materialist, you create dark matter to resolve the issues caused by certain conclusions in physics. I have seen people who call themselves scientists simply create more dark matter as the need presents itself. I have seen them create infinite universes to solve other problems brought about by their own conclusions, when there is absolutely no evidence that infinite universes are anything more than a possibility. Not a fact or a conclusion, but a possibility. A rather fantastic notion that rivals anything from religious myth. It also assumes that in these infinite universes, every possible outcome plays itself out. Which means the outcome of a God is in fact happening in one of them I would think, while in yet another universe, you yourself are God and you have fooled yourself into thinking that there is no such thing. A Hindu would tell you that the latter is precisely the universe you are in right now. The universe in which you have deluded yourself through materialist mythology into believing that there is no God, when that is in fact that is precisely what you are - God . If you believe in infinite universes, well you have to allow for that outcome if we are going to be truly intellectually honest.

As for what I believe, well, I believe that neither of us has a clue, and this intellectual honesty. And when we refuse to explore other ideas, well, I think that's hiding.

All the best,
Gary

 

[LuisDantas]

Because I have concluded from the available evidence that such a stance is better than the alternatives.

(...)Compassion is no reason to mislead others, and this situation does not at all strike me as being somehow an exception.

No, I did not mean it as you took it. Compassion is Compassion, it cannot be used to mislead others because then that means that one is misleading oneself knowingly. If you are true to yourself how can you be untrue to someone else when you see them as yourself?

I am sorry to find myself duty-bound to tell you that you are wrong about that. It is possible and frequent for misguided compassion to lead people into misleading themselves and others. An example that springs to mind are situations when children with terminal diseases are lied to outright in order to believe that they will recover, denying them the chance to make proper use of their remaining time.

There is no good reason I can think of to imply theism where there is none.

Can you see your own circular thinking bias? We all have them, opinions, prejudices, etc. Why would you imply a theism when you do not believe in it? Those that believe in theism will imply it. Neither is right, neither is wrong; both are right, both are wrong; both are neither right nor wrong.

Aoji, you are so very mistaken. You are treating this whole matter of whether a god exists as if it were something that belongs to the field of objective truth. As if it were possible that it would turn out that there is a creator god and some people such as me are simply failing or refusing to accept it.

That is not only not the case, but it is intentionally not the case. The very concept of god is utterly insuitable for matters of literal existence. That is why it survives and spreads in the first place. Its use springs from its vagueness and, to a lesser extent, from its adaptability to a very few people's individual religious practice. But mostly it is just an useful tool for sociological manipulation.

Gods, when properly used, are simply religious practice tools. Tools that have unfortunately become wildly abused and become tools of repression and violence.

I beg to differ. It does matter a lot to me. I do not want to be mistaken for a theist, nor for an encourager of theism.

Again, you mistook what I said. If you are in a cycle of not-knowing, how could you know that you were in a cycle of not-knowing? Your not knowing that your consciousness is evolving is not a concern to you because you ARE that consciousness which does not know that it is evolving. We say that we are the same, but are we really? We know that we went through the stages of being a baby, a child, a teenager, a young adult, a middle age adult, an old adult. How (or rather "what") you think now is not likely to be the same as how ("what") you will think decades from now; how and what you thought decades ago is not likely to be the same as how and what you think today. All experiences change us. The consciousness we identify with is always changing but seems always the same. We go to sleep "knowing" who we are, we forget who we are in deep sleep, we wake up and when we wake up we start to think, and what we think about is what we went through the previous day, so it seems like a continuous consciousness. But sometimes we have nightmares and we wake up screaming and in that moment we don't know where or who or when we are.

That is basic Buddhist doctrine, but it is no reason to even consider believing in a soul, Atman or deity.

I don't know if you noticed but somehow the discussion of "soul" magically changed to "God" in the article, if not in the thread. The author is taking for granted that everyone agrees that if there is a soul then there must be a God.

That is probably because the idea that there is a soul or atman is difficult to propose without also implying or stating that there is a powerful God that somehow protects those personal essences from their otherwise obvious vulnerability to circunstances, which would make their very existence very dubious (as they indeed are).

Does someone having "visions" of demons and angels mean that there is a God?

Obviously no. Why do you ask?

No matter what is said, the reader interposes his own prejudices, his own understanding colors what is being tried to be conveyed. It can't be helped for most of us. It definitely cannot be conveyed because words are concepts and how we understand certain words clouds what the other person is saying when he uses the same words. Logic has the same failings.

That is true to an extent, but you really overselling the case. You make it appear unavoidable, and it really isn't. It is, for instance possible to realize how marginal and unnecessary certain dogmas and beliefs are. Among them those of soul and god.

What do you make of this?:
Buddhism does not totally deny the existence of a personality in an empirical sense. It only attempts to show that it does not exist in an ultimate sense. The Buddhist philosophical term for an individual is santana, i.e., a flux or a continuity. It includes the mental and physical elements as well. The kammic force of each individual binds the elements together. This uninterrupted flux or continuity of psycho-physical phenomenon, which is conditioned by kamma, and not limited only to the present life, but having its source in the beginningless past and its continuation in the future — is the Buddhist substitute for the permanent ego or the immortal soul of other religions.

If you understand this, why are you having such a hard time accepting atheism and anatta?

I wonder if taking an atheist stance is as intellectually dishonest as any theist stance. Basically, both sides offer solutions that are only broadly implied and inconclusive.

I am surprised that you are even able of making such a question, Gary, because it is so blatantly at odds with reality.

Atheism offers no solutions at all. It just refuses distractions that get in the way of seeking them.

Theism, too, offers no solutions as such. It does sometimes connect with specific people in ways that offer constructive motivation and inspiration. Much more often it just becomes a distraction that is confused with a solution, or a social control tool.

I have seen Richard Dawkins dismiss peer reviewed and published studies that he himself admits he has never read. That is the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty.

No. That pinnacle is actually presenting fraudulent studies as if they were true. I would refrain from commenting on what Dawkins may be dismissing mainly because I am not aware of how accurate your description is and how much indirect evidence about their quality he has (and yes, it is very much legitimate to use indirect reviews, as well as a practical necessity due to time constraints), but even taking for granted that he was arrogant and negligent (which I doubt, but let's run with it for a while) that is simply not nearly as harmful, even potentially, as it can be to carelessly take into consideration mystically-oriented wishful thinking and call it science.

(...)
As for what I believe, well, I believe that neither of us has a clue, and this intellectual honesty. And when we refuse to explore other ideas, well, I think that's hiding.

"Hiding" is a very loaded, unsuitable word to use here. Unless we have switched subjects without me noticing, that is. It is just odd to accuse anyone of bein "hiding" from god beliefs.

 

[Lyndon]

Must be nice to be so confident about ones OPINIONS that you treat them as if they are proven facts, and tell people they are wrong just because they disagree with your OPINIONS.

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

I
Atheism offers no solutions at all. It just refuses distractions that get in the way of seeking them.Theism, too, offers no solutions as such. It does sometimes connect with specific people in ways that offer constructive motivation and inspiration. Much more often it just becomes a distraction that is confused with a solution, or a social control tool.

It's a blindfold like any other blindfold, because it does in fact posit a conclusion. The conclusion of no God. In this regard, I am happy to reveal to you that Atheism is a belief system like any other belief system replete with its own set of dogmas.

No. That pinnacle is actually presenting fraudulent studies as if they were true. I would refrain from commenting on what Dawkins may be dismissing mainly because I am not aware of how accurate your description is and how much indirect evidence about their quality he has (and yes, it is very much legitimate to use indirect reviews, as well as a practical necessity due to time constraints), but even taking for granted that he was arrogant and negligent (which I doubt, but let's run with it for a while) that is simply not nearly as harmful, even potentially, as it can be to carelessly take into consideration mystically-oriented wishful thinking and call it science.

I am not talking about fraudulent studies. I am talking about peer reviewed and published works. I've seen him do it. You know, I know a lot of people who have credentials as good as Dawkins, and some of them are crazy as a loon. You have to think for yourself.

 

[paarsurrey]

I wonder if taking an atheist stance is as intellectually dishonest as any theist stance. Basically, both sides offer solutions that are only broadly implied and inconclusive. I have seen Richard Dawkins dismiss peer reviewed and published studies that he himself admits he has never read. That is the pinnacle of intellectual dishonesty. For the most part, we seem to be drawn to certain conclusions based on intellectual of intuitive proclivities or tendencies whose processes we are only vaguely able to account for. We do this in spite of the most obvious of facts, primary among which is the fact that we really don't know anything about the nature of existence. The most common responses I see from atheists are declarations about the silliness or absurdity of other ideas, which is an opinion, not an argument.
People create epicycles in logic to support whatever they believe. If you are a materialist, you create dark matter to resolve the issues caused by certain conclusions in physics. I have seen people who call themselves scientists simply create more dark matter as the need presents itself. I have seen them create infinite universes to solve other problems brought about by their own conclusions, when there is absolutely no evidence that infinite universes are anything more than a possibility. Not a fact or a conclusion, but a possibility. A rather fantastic notion that rivals anything from religious myth. It also assumes that in these infinite universes, every possible outcome plays itself out. Which means the outcome of a God is in fact happening in one of them I would think, while in yet another universe, you yourself are God and you have fooled yourself into thinking that there is no such thing. A Hindu would tell you that the latter is precisely the universe you are in right now. The universe in which you have deluded yourself through materialist mythology into believing that there is no God, when that is in fact that is precisely what you are - God . If you believe in infinite universes, well you have to allow for that outcome if we are going to be truly intellectually honest.
As for what I believe, well, I believe that neither of us has a clue, and this intellectual honesty. And when we refuse to explore other ideas, well, I think that's hiding.
All the best,
Gary

These are signs of some anti-theist/atheists becoming fundamentalist-atheists or fanatic-atheists.
This is one aspect which makes science gibberish at times.
Regards

 

[Gary Sheldrake]

These are signs of some anti-theist/atheists becoming fundamentalist-atheists or fanatic-atheists.
This is one aspect which makes science gibberish at times.
Regards

I agree.

 

[aoji]

I am sorry to find myself duty-bound to tell you that you are wrong about that. It is possible and frequent for misguided compassion to lead people into misleading themselves and others. An example that springs to mind are situations when children with terminal diseases are lied to outright in order to believe that they will recover, denying them the chance to make proper use of their remaining time.

Namaste, Luis.

Now it is I that jumped to conclusions. I apologize. I assumed that we were specifically talking about religions as a whole. "We do not accept being forced into supernaturalism or theistic beliefs, certainly." Cults force, and some can argue that Militant Mohammedanism does too, for example ISIS. As far as brainwashing goes the same can be said of Social Engineering, especially as seen from a fundamentalist mindset. Certainly torture and brainwashing can force one to change their beliefs, for example the Stockholm Syndrome.

You are treating this whole matter of whether a god exists as if it were something that belongs to the field of objective truth.

That is exactly what may atheists call for - objective truth.

As if it were possible that it would turn out that there is a creator god and some people such as me are simply failing or refusing to accept it.

That may belong to the fundamentalist religious mind, the evangelist mind.

The very concept of god is utterly unsuitable for matters of literal existence.

How so? Were not our (U.S.) laws based upon Religious beliefs? Laws are suitable for literal existence. The USA was founded as a Christian nation and therefore our Laws are based upon Christian scriptures. Yes, one can argue that the USA has swung towards a secular society, but its history is still Christian-centric.

But mostly it is just an useful tool for sociological manipulation.

No matter what politics it is (Capitalism, Socialism, Democracy, Republicanism, etc.) there will always be sociological manipulation. I assume that you actually meant "sociological" instead of "psychological". Obviously politics and religion have been bed mates. I see your stance being more closely aligned with Humanism, which some see as Social Engineering/Social Sciences/Political Science. But it might be better to stick to Rationalism versus Empiricism versus Fideism. I am in the a posteriori Empiricism camp.

Gods, when properly used, are simply religious practice tools. Tools that have unfortunately become wildly abused and become tools of repression and violence.

Did you know that the original idea for Star Wars' "Empire" was America's war in Vietnam? Many see America, and Americanism (the exportation of American ideals through music, film, sports, fashion, etc.), as being repressive and advocating violence (wars). So, in the final analysis it all comes down to politics.

... the idea that there is a soul or atman is difficult to propose without also implying or stating that there is a powerful God that somehow protects those personal essences from their otherwise obvious vulnerability to circumstances, which would make their very existence very dubious ..

I can see where one doesn't necessarily lead to the other. Some can "believe in" an impersonal God, while Theists "believe in" a Personal God or Hinduism's 'God without form' and 'God with form'. Again, I am assuming that you are talking about Christianity ("a powerful God that somehow protects those personal essences from their otherwise obvious vulnerability to circumstances.") Otherwise we must assume that we are talking about Hinduism, specifically as stated in the Vedas and Upanishads (Atman), or at least as espoused by Sankara.

Atheism offers no solutions at all. It just refuses distractions that get in the way of seeking them.

Let me get back to you. (Seeking "what"?)

 

[ratikala]

@Vishvavajra said: ↑
why do these folks think it's so important that there be some solid, unassailable concept of self that will allow them to persist after death?

Because most are afraid of death.

prehaps not only that one is afraid of death , ...as many accept that death is inevitable , ...there is however the question of karma , even with the most skillfull actions many Buddhists feel that they may not attain enlightenment in this lifetime therefore belive in some form of mental continium that carries the imprints of their Karmas , ...from one life to the next

The problem with using words like "self" and "soul" is that they have associated concepts from other religions, in the case of Buddhism, Hinduism. Buddha was an Indian and so Hinduism, Vedanta, Advaita, et. al., was probably known to him and as such he probably needed to use the same words but wanted to impart different meanings.

personaly I feel that much of the difference in meaning has accumulated over the centuries and one of the major reasons that we find it hard to understand the commonality of the princiles used in Hinduism and Buddhism is because of the different slant implied over the years , ....thus with all religions there are times when reforms become nececary to clear up missconceptions which have crept in , ...to do this one has to go back to the original word dissregarding inturpretations .
True these are all vedic concepts , ....Buddha's teachings were a reform , Shankara's teachings again was a reform and after him came other reforms , ....Buddha himself warned that the teachings would become lost , that understanding would substantialy deminish , ....therefore accknowledging the need for constant reform .

Many schools of Buddhism also accknowledge that there are many Buddhas still to come , and that this existance is cyclic , so also beleive that we ourselves are a part of that cycle , so there must be some form of Continium ......this is prehaps what some people fear ? ...prehaps atheists fear being reborrn ? .....prehaps they fear waking up and realising that they were wrong ???

 

[Vishvavajra]

And is being hit by car, getting cancer or losing their job karmic retribution? All three will cause a shift in consciousness. As Buddhists we can rationalize that we have to work through our karma, but even that idea pre-supposes that there was a prior incarnation of a self which accumulated and which generates and which needs to work out karma. Otherwise what is the concept of karma and re-incarnation good for? As concepts to encourage leading a good life? And yet life is suffering, old age, illness, etc. But that may be from the viewpoint of the poor. Why then are there rich and poor, why is there good and evil?

Well, if you look at the life of Shakyamuni as it's been handed down to us, you'll see that even the rich suffer from the same fundamental dissatisfactions as the poor, even if they enjoy greater material comforts. Indeed, those material comforts are often a means of distracting themselves from their basic anxieties. I wouldn't say this is a class issue, though people of different classes will experience the hardships of life differently.

As for karmic retribution, on the one hand it is a Buddhist teaching, but on the other hand it's not meant to be generalized beyond one's own experience. Based on what I've learned from our teacher, viewing the hardships of one's own life as the results of causes and conditions that were laid down in prior times is a useful practice. It's actually meant to lessen one's self-attachment, since it means that the limited view of self that most people carry around with them is not the agent of all the things that happen in their life. On the other hand, we were warned never to regard other people's hardships in terms of karmic retribution, as that way lies the erosion of compassion. In short, like all things related to Buddhadharma, this view of karma is a technique for practice, not a statement about the objective nature of the universe.

If one accepts that there is no self then how did this mind accumulate karma? One would have to pre-suppose that when one dies the contents of one's mind, their experiences, their memories, their pain, their joy, their happiness, etc. & et. al, are released into an ether, and that a new born mind has to travel through that same collective ether, just as one could be born at high altitude, or in a hot climate or a cold climate or a wet climate, and that going through the ether mind impressions somehow attach themselves to the consciousness in the mind. But that again begs the question as to why it happens since one has traveled through a karmic bath. Now having inherited other minds' karma they have to pay the karmic price. Doesn't that seem unreasonable? Do we just accept it because there is nothing that can be done since one is already alive?

The problem here is that you've laid out a number of questions that are predicated on an essentialist viewpoint. It's not true that minds are disappear into the ether and that new ones are born. What you call "mind" is not a thing to be reified; it is a set of phenomena that are perpetually in flux from moment to moment, based on the causes and conditions of each previous moment. Apart from a purely subjective experience, individual identity has nothing to do with that. The idea that there must be a "me" in order for there to be karma is backwards from a Buddhist perspective: it's from certain karmic tendencies that the concept of "me" arises, and those tendencies are in no way dependent on that concept.

But in Buddhist thought karma isn't really individualized--it's not really true that I have "my karma" and you have "your karma." There is dependent origination, there are causes and conditions giving rise to phenomena, and there is no magical barrier between one person and another that prevents one person's acts from having consequences for another. Again, we mustn't confuse the teaching tool I mentioned above with dependent origination generally. If you come to Buddhist thought with the assumption that the individual is ultimately real, none of it will make any sense, since the entire point of Buddhadharma is that individual identity is a conceptual fiction that we impose on our initially non-conceptual awareness of reality. It's a useful fiction at times, but it's not based on anything beyond our evolved capacity for pattern-recognition.

As for the idea that people's individual identities must survive death and reincarnate in order for things like justice and good and evil to make sense, that's also not a Buddhist view. Buddhadharma isn't concerned with trying to elevate human concepts to the level of objective reality. Good and evil are also conceptual fictions--sometimes useful, sometimes not. None of these concepts pertains to reality-as-such (i.e. Nirvana/Dharmakaya), which is prior to all conceptual divisions. None of this stuff is ultimately true. Now, is it conventionally true? Well, the Buddhist measure for that is how useful it is. Buddhist thought takes an entirely pragmatic approach to conventional truth, since at that point we're just dickering over which conceptual fictions are the most useful. So, for example, is it useful to imagine that the things that happen to people are karmic retribution? Well, as I mentioned earlier, based on our teacher's words, the answer seems to be "sometimes yes, sometimes no."

 

[LuisDantas]

As for the idea that people's individual identities must survive death and reincarnate in order for things like justice and good and evil to make sense, that's also not a Buddhist view.

It is amazing how often we have to repeat such a simple fact.