Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Creation’ Category

A dear friend of mine–that happens to be a fairly new convert to Theravada Buddhism–emailed me with a question.  Is Buddhism more than just a philosophy?  A colleague of hers, upon hearing of her new-found religion, quickly dismissed her ambition to be a good Buddhist by informing her that it was nothing more than a philosophy.  In his opinion, there was nothing to convert to; it was no different than someone declaring that he or she had the intent to convert to Kantism or Socialism.
While my friend was sure that this was not true, she really had lacked the confidence to debate the fellow and asked me for guidance.  The question I was to answer was simple: Why is Buddhism more than just a philosophy?
The following was my reply…

Buddhism is not just a philosophy, though many people see it that way.  This false view stems from the fact that theists have a difficult time comprehending a religion that does not worship a creator god.  Abrahmaic religions all gather what they believe to be the truth from [what they believe to be] a divine source—Dogma, it is called.  Buddhism is a religion that is actually backed by consistent philosophy that makes a lot of sense—Dhamma, this is called.  Sadly, this is another reason people don’t see it as “religion”.  In this day and age, many have come to see the term “religious ideals” as synonymous with “irrational ideals”.

Some people only accept the philosophy of Buddhism.  They utilize the aspects of philosophical reasoning and ethics to better their lives without accepting the “total package”, per se.  Others only utilize the psychology of Buddhism to improve their attitudes toward their lives.  Buddhism has so many practical teachings that many pick and choose teachings and use it as a self-help program.  Whoever said this to you most likely knew someone or read something by someone that only accepted/practiced/discussed one or more of the pragmatic facets of Buddhism.  However, this does not mean that there is nothing more to it.

This, too, is something people don’t associate with religion; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam all expect complete commitment or no commitment.  Buddhism, on the other hand, welcomes those that refuse to accept the entire doctrine.  We know that a lot of people are simply too attached to the ideas that were socialized into their mind—brainwashed is another word—and there is no point in trying to convince them.  We’d rather spend more time teaching those that actually want to learn.  No overbearing, door-to-door Buddhists here.

To advance the ideas posited in the first paragraph, Buddhism is a religion because, although we do not believe in god, we do assert the functionality of god.  Most people see god as functioning in two ways: the creator of all things and the enforcer of morality.  We say that creation is irrelevant because there is no beginning and end in the ultimate sense; there is only constant change.  Beginnings and endings, births and deaths, are all problems created by the limitations of our conceptual minds.  In the ultimate sense, the universe is more like a circle.  We may believe in the Big Bang, but we believe there were incalculable Big Bangs in the past and every time the world system renews itself, there will be another.  In essence, the story of a Creator is nothing more than “a story to explain away the problem that the previous story created”.  As you can see, our minds are great story tellers!

Creation doesn’t exist, therefore the need for a creator does not exist.

Regarding the “enforcement of morality”, we do not believe there is a courtroom in the sky where a judging god looks through our record and passes a judgement—a judgement based on what we believe, not what we have done, mind you.  We believe ethics are enforced by a natural law that—like every other tendency in the universe—seeks a point of equilibrium.  When you dole out goodness, goodness returns to you.  Not because a bearded man in the sky says you deserve it, but because it is a natural law; a natural law no different than gravity or the second law of thermodynamics.

We also hold a view on the self, or lack thereof, just like any other religion.  We don’t believe in a “soul” because a “soul” is defined as an unchanging self that includes the ego/personality.  The ego is created during abstraction/conceptualization (detailed in the psychology of the Abhidhamma) and is not permanent.  There is a belief that our personality “matures” from birth into its natural state, then falls away at old age.  This belief that “who we are” is our personality during mid-life is ridiculous.  Here’s another point: If our personality is an unchanging essence of “who I am”, how is it that I can take a pill that will completely change my attitudes, behavior, and social values?  Drugs and time to not mask our true nature; there is only who we are in this very moment.  We are not inherently sinful or nor are we innately good; we are who we are right now, in this very moment, and that is all.

However, this does not mean that I do not exist.  (Most Westerners think there are only two options: soul or non-existence.)  After all, there is a stream of continuity.  We may not physically be the same person we were 10 years ago—I believe the oldest cell in our bodies is no more than 7 years of age—and we may not be the same person psychologically, but we still consider ourselves to be the same person as the kid in the old family photo.  There is continuity; no one denies that.  What we assert, as Buddhists, is that self is a verb.  Let me explain.

We are not a being, but we are a becoming.  We are constantly “becoming” something other than we are right now.  We are a collection of actions, of things done.  What “we” are is a self-ing rather than a self.  Most religions ponder our awareness of the universe and stop there, thinking it all ends with consciousness; that consciousness exists in and of itself.  They believe this consciousness is the end-game; the final root-of-all-things.  In fact, this how the eternalist view came to be.  However, they [the eternalists] overlooked one important detail: we are always conscious of something.

Consciousness does not exist without an object.  This is the important link between hither and thither, you and the world, and the basis of the dualism our mind creates.  Their fault lies in the over-evaluation of the mind and the confusion of consciousness and mind as being one in the same.  The mind is another sense base; just as the eyes have visual phenomena as objects, the mind has thoughts, concepts, and mental constructs as objects.  Consciousness is the awareness of these mental thoughts and conceptualizations, along with the perception of the physical world through the sense bases.

This is all that really exists in an ultimate sense; the rest is nothing more than an illusionary world of concepts—which are great for interaction with the world, so long as we do not mistake them for reality itself.  The “self” is something added onto the perception/cognition of these events.  Anyone that has lost his or herself in a great song, while performing sports at his or her best, or while admiring nature knows this; it is possible to be cognizant of the world without the creation of a subject.  It is not possible, however, to be conscious without an object.

The Buddhist worldview, which is heavily supported by Quantum Mechanics, asserts that the [materialist] notion of the universe being filled with “things” that “do things” is completely wrong.  A more accurate notion is that the universe is a collection of “events” rather than collection of “things”.  One educated in western society would default to declaring that if there is no “thing” in existence then, it only naturally follows that, the “things done” do not really exist either.  These are all notions built upon the scientific worldview as expounded by Isaac Newton .  This has been proven, absolutely, beyond the shadow of a doubt, to be false.  Why everyone still clings to this perspective is beyond my comprehension.

What is your life?  Most people would say something along the lines of “the collection of experiences up to now”.  Well, the Buddhist worldview is very similar: There are mental and physical events, not things, and there is a knowing of those events.  So, that “collections of experiences/events” is not only your life, but your world, too.  There is no point in trying to objectively figure out the “world out there”.  The only way one knows the world is through the sense bases; to get to the root of your experience is to get to the root of the universe itself.  The important point here is this: although there is no “thing” behind the experience, the experience is real.  Schrödinger’s wave-function exemplifies this: the wave-function of an object is the object; although there is behind it as one would reckon, the wave-function does, in fact, exist.

The universe is this massive, ever-changing, flux of events and “we” are the awareness (or consciousness) of those events—though we later realize that this awareness is dependently originated like all other conditioned phenomena.  In order to deal with the massive amount of information cognized by the mind, our mind wraps everything into separate bundles in order to deal with the information more efficiently.  This perceptual overlay of concepts divides things up into neat little separate objects that seem permanent.  This is a great way dealing with a massive amount of information.  However, it creates a false notion of separate-ness that does not exist in the ultimate sense.

The real problem occurs when we get so deep into this process that we forget what is concept and what is reality.  We have lost ourselves into a daydream of sorts, mistaking the perceptual overlay to be the ultimate reality.  Because of this, we see life and death, beginnings and endings, and everything seems permanent.  The concepts themselves are the only things permanent.  The underlying reality that we have wrapped in this concepts is in constantly flux.

When a certain combination of physical and/or mental phenomena manifest together, we wrap in a concept and give it a name.  For instance, a whirlpool occurs.  What is the whirlpool? It is nothing more than a collection of events—in this case, the circular/funnel-like movement of water.  The whirling slowly speeds to a climax and inevitably slows until it is visible no more.  When it is slowed to the point that it is difficult to cognize, we think it has “ended”, but what has ended?  There was water before and water after.  There was movement in the water before and after.  There was movement in the water during the “life” of this concept.  The only thing that was born, lived, and died was a mental construct in our minds.  In essence, all there was, all there is, all there will be is constant change; a constant flux of events.

In essence, all you were, all you are, all you will be is a constant flux of events.

Buddhists are not merely social activists exercising a philosophy.  It is simply that, based upon our worldview, “belief” is a mental construct while “action” is the only thing that truly defines “you”—as “you” are nothing more than a stream of action/reaction and the awareness of those events.  Bodily action, based upon mental volition, and the cognizing of this process is the mind-body we call self.  Anything else—any other “wrapping up” of this ultimate reality with a perceptual overlay—is an illusion, albeit a very useful one.

Wholesome actions lead to positive reactions as per the law of kamma, the Moral Law, from moment to moment and life to life.  Unwholesome actions lead to negative reactions, from moment to moment, life to life.  We believe in heaven and hell (though not as eternal states), gods (referred to as Brahmas), angels (we call them devas) and ghosts (we call them petas)–though most all of these terms refer to something more rational, and less cartoonish, than some other religions.  In short, we have the same components as every other religion in the world, with a few additions that the others religions are lacking—such as a psychology and a consistent, rational philosophy.

So you see, as Buddhists, we have a world-view, a self-view, a book of scripture, a philosophy, a psychology, a code of ethics, an ordination line traceble to our founder, and ritual observances just like any other religion.  They just need to understand that a creator god is not a requirement of a religion—it is simply a common component of the Abrahmaic religions.

Read Full Post »

Buddhist Genesis

Most of you are probably familiar with the Christian/Jewish bible’s Genesis, the little story about how Mahabrahma (aka ‘God’) created the world….

From a Buddhist cosmological [what a contradiction in terms, :-)] standpoint, this particular event was not really unique – depending on your timeframe of course – but what if we, just for the fun of it, ask ourselves what did the Buddhists put at the very beginning of all their sacred texts and literature? What special emphasis did they create by establishing one particular text at the head of their ‘holy scriptures’, i.e. the Pali Canon of Early Buddhism.

Traditionally the Pali Canon starts with rules for monks and nuns. But if we skip that part and look at the collection of discourses the first book introduced to the reader is the Digha Nikaya, the ‘Collection of Long Discourses’. The text in this book which ancient compilers put at the beginning is a discourse by the Buddha called the Brahmajala sutta, i.e. ‘The Devine Net’.

So, how does this Buddhist ‘Genesis’ look like? In this text the Buddha starts out asking his followers never to feel angry if the Dhamma is ridiculed nor should they feel elated if the Dhamma is praised. He continues to explain how other religions come into their beliefs about various world- and soul- scenarios (among which the Buddha gives a fascinating account about how the belief in a monotheistic religion – and with it creation – is established).

However, central to this first text of Buddhist scriptures is the following recurring passage which so completely establishes what makes Buddhism so completely a non-religion.

Here the Buddha says:

 

But of these views, monks, the Tathagata (i.e. the Buddha) knows that arriving at such views, holding such views, believing such views, trusting such views will have such and such a consequence in terms of rebirth in the hereafter. This and much more the Tathagata is able to see, for he knows as it really is the coming to be and the passing away of sense experience, the satisfaction of sense experience and the way of escape from sense experience.

And because he does not cling to what he sees he is detached and he experiences for himself the peace of utter freedom.

These are advanced things, monks, matters that are deep, difficult to see, difficult to grasp, subtle, leading one who follows to tranquility and the sublime; things not to be arrived at by mere logic and reasoning, comprehensible only by the wise. These, monks, are the things the Tathagata teaches, having seen them for himself. These are the things which should be spoken of by one when he speaks in praise of the Tathagata.

Tayidaṃ, bhikkhave, tathāgato pajānāti – ‘ime diṭṭhiṭṭhānā evaṃgahitā evaṃparāmaṭṭhā evaṃgatikā bhavanti evaṃabhisamparāyā’ti, tañca tathāgato pajānāti, tato ca uttaritaraṃ pajānāti; tañca pajānanaṃ na parāmasati, aparāmasato cassa paccattaññeva nibbuti viditā. Vedanānaṃ samudayañca atthaṅgamañca assādañca ādīnavañca nissaraṇañca yathābhūtaṃ viditvā anupādāvimutto, bhikkhave, tathāgato.

‘Ime kho te, bhikkhave, dhammā gambhīrā duddasā duranubodhā santā paṇītā atakkāvacarā nipuṇā paṇḍitavedanīyā, ye tathāgato sayaṃ abhiññā sacchikatvā pavedeti, yehi tathāgatassa yathābhuccaṃ vaṇṇaṃ sammā vadamānā vadeyyuṃ.[DN 1 en, pi]

 

This very fundamental Buddhist premise does not only explain a good deal of the tolerance found and appreciated  amongst Buddhist cultures towards people of other denominations and traditions but also helps to understand the following result by a recent survey:

 

religionpew1 

Quite astonishing, even for people who know how relatively easy Buddhism adopts to scientific views (yes, they are views as well). And while Natural Science usually tries to critically approach physical ‘realities’ and establish laws from the observation of conceived reality, Buddha (‘the physician’) went a step further and was interested in how the interplay of concepts (name), physical objects (forms) and consciousness creates our perceived world. His science is still known to Buddhists as “the Law” (Dhamma/Dharma)

Therefore, asked about the world, the Buddha would try to change the inquirers premise:

“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 seeing & forms, hearing & sounds, smelling & aromas, tasting & flavors, feeling & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All.  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.” [SN 35.23 and SN 35.82 en– cakkhu etc. is better translated as seeing or eye-sense as it involves more than just the physical sense organ which would be akkhi]

Still, due to the overwhelming attraction of thoughts and ideas, Buddhism as a religion had to come up with creation-like stories to satisfy the thirst for … stories 🙂 . One of the most ancient ones is definitely the Agganna Sutta [pi]- which, funny enough, most Buddhists have never heard of.

In it we find signs of evolution, physical that is, but the major driving force behind evolution in this text is not attributed to some random magic materialism but rather the governing force of karma (i.e. intentions/actions of beings) driving their physical representation depending on the mental ups and downs in individual beings, societies and cultures in the universe. In the light of the above quoted passages it still should be clear that Buddhism is less interested in these facets of (physical/natural) samsaric re-cycling (pun intended) or evolutionary and devolutionary whirlpools but rather focuses on the sources of the movie projection. 

  1. Loop Quantum Gravity Theory and the Big Bounce – this is a very good summary.
  2. More on Aggannata and Creation in Buddhism: http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/1999vol09no10/1929/
  3. It would be interesting to see what later Buddhist traditions put at the very beginning of their body of scriptures. Maybe one would be able to see a shift in emphasis towards other ideas?
  4. Some further reference in comparison between the idea of a first (only) God and Buddhism: “Christianity in Buddhism”

Read Full Post »