Bases for Skillful Action?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by contemplans » Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:19 pm

tiltbillings wrote:
  • "The assumption that a God is the cause (of the world, etc.) is based on the false belief in the eternal self (atman); but that belief has to be abandoned, if one has clearly understood that everything is impermanent and subject to suffering." Abhidharmakosha 5, 8 vol IV, p 1
Two question from such a quote:

1) The "that" refers to the belief in a creator God, or in the belief in an eternal self?
2) Is Nibbana impermanent and subject to suffering since everything is?

Please also note that the logic of God as cause does not stem from a belief in an eternal soul. The belief in an eternal soul stems from God as cause. The writer is mixing this up, or it is a bad translation. Also does this writer 900 years after the Buddha point out that he taught also that annihilationism is also a false belief?

User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by contemplans » Sun Dec 25, 2011 3:20 pm

danieLion, I'll read it over very soon. Thanks.

User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by contemplans » Tue Dec 27, 2011 3:31 pm

God does not have the attributes of a Christian Providence, for it would derogate from His perfection to think about anything except what is perfect, i.e. Himself "It must be of itself that the divine thought thinks (since it is the most excellent of things),and its thinking is a thinking on thinking...." We must infer that God does not know of the existence of our sublunary world. Aristotle, like Spinoza, holds that, while men must love God, it is impossible that God should love men.
This statement assumes that humans have no perfection in them, that imperfection is an absolute, and hence we are unloveable.
God is not definable as "the unmoved mover." On the contrary, astronomical considerations lead to the conclusion that there are either forty-seven or fifty-five unmoved movers....
Aristotle finally concluded that there is only one unmoved mover. Thomas Aquinas stated that is because He is neither composed of quantitative parts, nor of matter and form, nor does His nature differ from His intelligence, nor does His essence differ from His existence, etc. Nor does He depend on the pre-existence of His parts to exist afterwards as a composite of those parts. Nor is there any potentiality in Him, nor cause of Him.
Motion, we are told, is the fulfilling of what exists potentially. This view, apart from other defects, is incompatible with the relativity of locomotion. When A moves relatively to B, B moves relatively to A, and there is no sense in saying that one of the two is in motion while the other is at rest. ... But it has turned out that this point of view cannot be applied to dead matter, and that, for the purposes of scientific physics, no conception of an "end" is useful, nor can any motion, in scientific strictness, be treated as other than relative.
The relativity of locomotion as well as the science of physics relate to material created things. They see no “end” because the end is outside their consideration. That is where philosophy picks up. Physics itself is not concerned with why we exist or why we change as in first origin.
this opinion, also, is not allowed to be professed by any Catholic philosopher or teacher of philosophy.
Not true. Aquinas is held in very high esteem, but improvements of his work were always welcomed.
Take the arguments professing to prove the existence of God. All of these, except the one from teleology in lifeless things, depend upon the supposed impossibility of a series having no first term. Every mathematician knows that there is no such impossibility; the series of negative integers ending with minus one is an instance to the contrary. But here again no Catholic is likely to abandon belief in God even if he becomes convinced that St. Thomas's arguments are bad ; he will invent other arguments, or take refuge in revelation.
Infinite series are intellectual constructs used as tools. Furthermore this does not address the real crux of the argument which relates to causality. This line never comes to be without a first plot of this line from which the series can run. It can be any number for the sake of this line.

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by danieLion » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:29 am

contemplans wrote:
God does not have the attributes of a Christian Providence, for it would derogate from His perfection to think about anything except what is perfect, i.e. Himself "It must be of itself that the divine thought thinks (since it is the most excellent of things),and its thinking is a thinking on thinking...." We must infer that God does not know of the existence of our sublunary world. Aristotle, like Spinoza, holds that, while men must love God, it is impossible that God should love men.
This statement assumes that humans have no perfection in them, that imperfection is an absolute, and hence we are unloveable.
Can you demonstrate the assumption, or is it just a hunch you have?
Daniel :heart:

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by danieLion » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:33 am

God is not definable as "the unmoved mover." On the contrary, astronomical considerations lead to the conclusion that there are either forty-seven or fifty-five unmoved movers....
contemplans wrote:Aristotle finally concluded that there is only one unmoved mover.

No. Aristotle merely desired it to be true--thought it must be true--and invented an "argument" to support his wish--which is really just a wish to have a "permanent "soul.
D :heart:

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by danieLion » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:36 am

contemplans wrote:Physics itself is not concerned with why we exist or why we change as in first origin.
Depends on which physicist you ask.
D :heart:

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by danieLion » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:37 am

contemplans wrote:Not true. Aquinas is held in very high esteem, but improvements of his work were always welcomed.
Again: depends on who you ask. If you ask me, there's nothing worth trying to improve on.
D :heart:

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by danieLion » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:42 am

contemplans wrote:But if there is a law of the cosmos, then should there not be a law giver?
We cannot know if this is necessary or not. That's why the Buddha set it aside.
D :heart:

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by danieLion » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:43 am

contemplans wrote:Infinite series are intellectual constructs used as tools. Furthermore this does not address the real crux of the argument which relates to causality. This line never comes to be without a first plot of this line from which the series can run. It can be any number for the sake of this line.
The "real" crux of what/which argument?
D :heart:

User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by ground » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:48 am

contemplans wrote:2) Is Nibbana impermanent and subject to suffering since everything is?
As per definition the term "nibbana" means mere permanent absence of what has been eliminated before.
There is no connotation of "place", "locus", or "state", or "experience" implied. There is no affirmation of anything implied when saying "nibbana". (At least from my perspective).

Kind regards

User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by contemplans » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:53 am

Do you ever find it strange that the Buddha speaks freely about various worlds of existence, and rebirths back millions upon billions of years, but regard something like the soul or God as a question to be set aside? Which is a more reasonable to speak about, millions of eons of birth, or the soul and God which are held to be right here and now? What about someone who says scientific evidence proves the world started 3.5 billions years ago, but they doubt Shakespreare wrote his plays. Must of been Francis Bacon.

User avatar
ground
Posts: 2591
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by ground » Wed Dec 28, 2011 3:59 am

contemplans wrote:Do you ever find it strange that the Buddha speaks freely about various worlds of existence, and rebirths back millions upon billions of years, but regard something like the soul or God as a question to be set aside?
No because the Buddha puts everything he says into appropriate context.
What context?
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kind regards

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by danieLion » Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:07 am

contemplans wrote: Do you ever find it strange that the Buddha speaks freely about various worlds of existence, and rebirths back millions upon billions of years, but regard something like the soul or God as a question to be set aside?
No, I don't find it strange because setting something aside does not mean it stops "existing" (if it exists)--in the Buddha's case it gets appropriately prioritized.

Why do you suppose the Buddha appears inconsistent when speaking of "other worlds" or "rebirth" in contrast to his teaching on impermanence, not-self and stress/suffering? Surely he was aware he'd be misunderstood.

The Buddha taught that "god" exists and thinks he created the world but didn't.
contemplans wrote:Which is a more reasonable to speak about, millions of eons of birth, or the soul and God which are held to be right here and now? What about someone who says scientific evidence proves the world started 3.5 billions years ago, but they doubt Shakespreare wrote his plays. Must of been Francis Bacon.
Depends on what you mean by "reason." Mmm, Bacon.
D :heart:

danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by danieLion » Wed Dec 28, 2011 4:08 am

TMingyur wrote:
contemplans wrote:Do you ever find it strange that the Buddha speaks freely about various worlds of existence, and rebirths back millions upon billions of years, but regard something like the soul or God as a question to be set aside?
No because the Buddha puts everything he says into appropriate context.
What context?
"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak."

"As you say, lord," the monks responded.

The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Kind regards
:goodpost:
D :heart:

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 12 guests