Is Buddhism a religion?

Spirituality Religion
#155

You are not the mind for the same reason you are not the body. They are your possesions. If you get a sinful thought, what do you do? You suppress it right. So where is that thought occuring and who is suppressing the thought? The thought is occuring in the mind and the suppresser of thought is the soul. This is why we say “my mind” You can control your mind. Just as you can control your body.

Then maybe I used the wrong word.

There is certainly a part of me that can watch my thoughts and control my thoughts to a degree. I am not my thoughts.

I don’t see why it’s so illogical that a soul cannot have a beginning in the same way we believe that angels had beginnings too. I forget the word theologians use–is it avi-eternity? Something like that, meaning there is an eternity in one dirction. Not like a line going on infinitely both ways, but like a ray with a beginning point, but no end point.

I do meditate, btw.

I do Christian meditations, but also do a “secular” meditation of being aware of the body, breathing, sounds, thoughts, etc.

#156

Suffering is caused by clinging and if you cannot totally surrender yourself, you can never escape suffering.

And how on earth did you get from what I wrote that I don’t believe in the Anatman Doctrine? I have said nothing to indicate this. In my post where I cited Buddhist views on I am ness goes to prove what I have said. Again, you are basing why I am wrong on YOUR belief system.

#157

I don’t see why it’s so illogical that a soul cannot have a beginning in the same way we believe that angels had beginnings too. I forget the word theologians use–is it avi-eternity? Something like that, meaning there is an eternity in one dirction. Not like a line going on infinitely both ways, but like a ray with a beginning point, but no end point.

Things that have beginnings have ends. What is produced happens in time and space and nothing endures in time and space because change is constant in time and space. The plants, animals and humans do not endure. The earth is not going to endure. The sun is not going to endure. The galaxy is not going to endure. The universe is not going to endure. Whatever is produced is material, it can be rock solid material like a building or can be subtle material like energy and it is never going to endure. It will change constantly. Even the mind is a material because it is produced. It is made out of stuff.

One thing you will eventually realise in your meditation practice is how mind stuff precedes physical stuff. Physical stuff literally is condensed thought energy. Your thoughts can manifest and become physical in your body. This is proven by the phenomenon of psychsomasis. Obviously you know that the body responds to thoughts, because you can think of a thought say a favourite food item, and your mouth waters up, or you can think of a traumatic incident, and your heart starts to race, or you get anxious and your breath becomes shallow. They respond to each other because they are the same stuff.

The soul or consciousness/awareness is distinct because it is not of the nature of production and it is not a stuff. It is not something that we can see with any of our senses(5 senses, and internal sense of mind) it is not something we know through anything. It is not something which comes into being. It is something that is always there and self-evident. It is not material. What does not have a beginning is eternal. Therefore the soul has never been created. It has existed eternally. There was a never time when you and I did not exist, and there never will be.

Jesus says this in your bible when he is says he existed in the time of Moses. His disciples ask him how could be have existed then, when Moses was born many generations ago. Jesus responds, “Even before the time of Moses, I AM” I AM is the name of the Self in Hinduism. Krishna says in our Gita when he says that he taught the science of Yoga to the first man, Arjuna asks how is it possible he taught Yoga to the first man, when the first man was born many generations ago. Krishna responds, “There was never a time when you and I did not exist, the only difference is I remember all my past incarnations and you do not”

The pre-existence of the soul was a major doctrine in early Christianity. The soul does not come into being. It is merely takes on new bodies and discards them when they become unusable and takes on another.

#158

Buddhism is monism. Only one thing in reality. The universe is all there is.

Vedanta is dualistic correct? What is the ultimate goal of Hinduism? The highest state? Is it to merge with Brahman? If it is the highest state, what happens to the self? Does it dissolve?

You have it the wrong way around. Monism is the the view that everything is made out of one substance and only that substance exists and nothing else. Vedanta is a monism beause it asserts only Brahman exists and nothing else and everything else is maya, appearance/illusion.

Buddhism is nihilism because it is the holds that view that everything is nothingness/void and nothing else really exists, it is just momentary.

And how on earth did you get from what I wrote that I don’t believe in the Anatman Doctrine? I have said nothing to indicate this. In my post where I cited Buddhist views on I am ness goes to prove what I have said. Again, you are basing why I am wrong on YOUR belief system.

Then suffice it to say you are hopelessly confused about this doctrine. You do not really believe it, because you keep on saying things that contradict it. The source you just cited on it is from Mahayana Buddhism which reject anatman doctrine and are considered heresy by orthodox Buddhism.

I still think you are mixing new age beliefs with Buddhist beliefs. A lot of the words you use are new-age buzz words.

#159

Jesus says this in your bible when he is says he existed in the time of Moses. His disciples ask him how could be have existed then, when Moses was born many generations ago. Jesus responds, “Even before the time of Moses, I AM” I AM is the name of the Self in Hinduism. Krishna says in our Gita when he says that he taught the science of Yoga to the first man, Arjuna asks how is it possible he taught Yoga to the first man, when the first man was born many generations ago. Krishna responds, “There was never a time when you and I did not exist, the only difference is I remember all my past incarnations and you do not”

The pre-existence of the soul was a major doctrine in early Christianity. The soul does not come into being. It is merely takes on new bodies and discards them when they become unusable and takes on another.

Jesus, being God Incarnate, could say that.

There is no Christian doctrine about souls pre-existing. Any such beliefs were either heresy, or speculation that was not doctrine.

#160

Jesus never said he was god incarnate. He called god his father and prayed to god.

There is certainly a Chrisitian doctrine about pre-existing souls by early Church fathers:

History records that the early Christine church believed in Reincarnation and of the souls journey back to oneness with God. This all changed by Emperial decree some 500 plus years after the death of Christ. Emperor Justinian in 545 A.D. was able to apply the full power of Rome and his authority to stop the belief in reincarnation. He forced the ruling cardinals to draft a papal decree stating that anyone who believes that souls come from God and return to God will be punished by death. The actual decree stated:

“If anyone asserts the fabulous preexistence of souls, and shall assert the monstrous restoration which follows from it: let him be anathema. (The Anathemas against Origen), attached to the decrees of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, A.D. 545, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d ser., 14: 318).”

There you go, the belief in reincarnation of early Christians was crushed by the threat of the punishment of death for anybody who believed in it.

A prominent theologian named Origen wrote around 250 AD about the pre-existence of the soul. He taught that the soul’s very source was God and that the soul was traveling back to oneness with God via the lessons learned in multiple lives. He taught that Christ came to show us what we can become. For centuries this was the mainstream view of Christianity but 300 years later it became a huge issue and the belief was made illegal because Emperor Constantine believed it was dangerous to the Empire to believe in reincarnation.

In the sixth century A.D., Emperor Justinian and Pope Vigilius disagreed on whether or not the teachings of Origen should be condemned as heresy. The Pope supported the teaching as being consistent with the teachings of Jesus the Messiah. The Emperor was determined to eradicate the belief even though the Pope and the church believed in reincarnation. The fact that the doctrine of reincarnation had been a part of Christian theology for over 500 years did not sway the Emperor.

Origen’s writings were considered heresy by important cardinals in the sixth century. Origen’s teachings had been considered as profound spiritual wisdom for three centuries. Origen lived around 250 AD and wrote about the pre-existence of the soul and in reincarnation. He taught that the soul’s very source was God and that the soul’s was traveling back to oneness with God via Reincarnation.

Emperor Justinian wanted Origen’s writings and teachings to be condemned and destroyed but Pope Vigilius refused to sign a papal decree condemning Origen’s teachings on reincarnation. As a result of his disobedience, the Emperor had the Pope arrested and put into jail. In 543, Justinian convoked the Fifth General Council of the Church and told the Pope he would sign whatever into doctrine whatever the council decided. On the way there, under guard, the Pope escaped to avoid being forced to condemn Origen’s writings. The Emperor commanded the council to continue despite the Pope’s refusal to attend.

Jesus never claims special status that he is the only one. In fact he says to his disciples that they can be just like him:

John 10:33 “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are gods’? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came–and the Scripture cannot be broken-- 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? NIV

There you go Jesus is ratifying the OT that “Ye are all gods” and claiming to be a son of god in line with that teaching.

Later, just before Christ was crucified, he revealed in a prayer that he wanted his disciple to become one with God just as he was.

John 17:20"My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, 21 that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. 22 I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: 23 I in them and you in me. May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.

There you go Jesus is saying to his disciples they can become just like him, in fact one with him and with god and he can pass his glory to them. There is nothing here to offend the Hindu mentality of a teacher passing off his wisdom and enlightenemnt to his disciples.

Jesus never claimed to be special. He never said others were not the sons of god and he never said others could not do the works that he could do. Therefore, we Hindus accept him as only as another teacher/sage/master, not as somebody special.

#161

Texts without contexts are pretexts.

Please…you are an expert at eastern faiths but not Christiainty.

Jesus is “The Word,” who came and dwelt among us. Jesus rasied people from the dead and raised himself from the dead. He performed miracles that no other man has performed.

He claimed equality with God and did not take it back when the Jews wanted to kill him over it.

This is Christian teaching since day one, but I’m not going to get into another fruitless debate involving your misconceptions about my religion.

#162

This is Christian teaching since day one

No it hasn’t :smiley:

Jesus never claimed he was special. Only catholics believe this. He claimed equality with god, but also told everybody else had equality with god and could be like him. This by defiinition is no claim to being special.

We Hindus can accept Jesus as another master/sage/teacher in a long line of masters/sages/teachers, that is the most you are getting from us :smiley:

You are obviously capable of being rational but only up to a certain point and that is when your rationality conflicts with your catholic faith :wink:

What we Hindus are teaching you is that you too can be like Jesus. Continue with your Christian and secular meditation practice, you will unlock in yourself the same glory that Jesus had. Then you too will, like every other master/sage/teacher go around preaching the same to everybody else.

#163

You are really splitting hairs Sd. See post 158

First, I asked questions and you only gave me some answers. It was an honest attempt to understand.

Second, Do you view the self as separate from the rest of the world?

Third,

Quote:
Buddhism is monism. Only one thing in reality. The universe is all there is.

Vedanta is dualistic correct? What is the ultimate goal of Hinduism? The highest state? Is it to merge with Brahman? If it is the highest state, what happens to the self? Does it dissolve?
You have it the wrong way around. Monism is the the view that everything is made out of one substance and only that substance exists and nothing else. Vedanta is a monism beause it asserts only Brahman exists and nothing else and everything else is maya, appearance/illusion.

I believe that’s what I said. Read it again.

#164

Hey guys, isn’t this thread about Buddhism? Just pointing it out.

#165

That is exactly what I do. I am a critical and clear thinker. I need to know my toes, from my foot, from the soles of my feet. Then I do not get confused as to what is what, as you seem to be. In Hinduism we have a precise vocabulary for everything.

First, I asked questions and you only gave me some answers. It was an honest attempt to understand.

Second, Do you view the self as separate from the rest of the world?

We splits hairs here too :smiley:

There are three different major schools of Vedanta. They are non-dualism(advaita), qualified non dualism(vishishdvaita) and dualism(dvaita) The first was founded by Adisankarcharya, the second by Ramunjacharya and the third by Madvacharya.

Non-dualism is the school that asserts that only Brahman exists and the individual soul and the world are all maya. The individual soul eventually realises this maya and merges into Brahman like a droplet into an ocean. This is the closest to the Mahayana school of Buddhism view you described. Hence why some critics argue that Advaita is Buddhism in disguise. This is not true, because Advaita is monistic in that it asserts that the ultimate substance is pure conscousness, existence and being, whereas Buddhism says ultimately there is nothingness and void.

Qualified non-dualism is the school that asserts that Brahman as god, the soul and the world exist, however they are aspects of one another. The individual soul participates in Brahman(god) in a heavenly state(Vaikunta) when it is liberated through union, and participates in the world when it is not liberated. This school is quasi theistic and presupposes a religious/devotional yoga. It emerged during the Bhakti phase of Hinduism, much after Advaita. It is the closest to Thomas Aquinases view on Christian religion.

Dualism is the school that asserts that Brahman, the soul and the world exist seperately altogether. Brahman is supreme godhead personality with a supreme form, the individual soul is separate from godhead, but it has the potential to share god’s qualities but never become god itself. The world is there for it to evolve in order to win the grace of god through pure devotion and enter into heaven(Vaikunta) This school is completely theistic and is the closest to orthodox Christianity. It is a late development in the Bhakti phase of Hinduism and is purely devotional yoga.

Nobody knows for sure which version is correct. There has been heated debate for centuries on this. This question can only be resolved by one who has reached Brahman-realization.

#166

For the Buddhists: What is the difference between Atheism and Buddhism?

#167

I am not Buddhist but it is clear that Atheism and Buddhism share similarities:

Hard Atheism is the view that ultimately everything is material/natural and everything came out of nothing in the big bang. There is no god, soul or anything supernatural.
Soft atheism is the view that there maybe(or is) a supernatural and a soul, but there is no god.

Buddhism depending on which school you look at is either hard atheism or soft atheism or somewhere in between. Othodox Buddhism or Thervada Buddhism says ultimately everything is void and comes out of nothingness(hard) it denies the existence of anything outside of what we can see(hard) it denies god, soul and the supernatural(hard) But it differs from hard atheism in the sense that it is relatively idealistic. According to it all of world exists in the mind only(Yogachara philosophy) and it is desire that keeps the world going. As soon as one has extinguished desire, the world is also extinguished, and nothingness alone remains.

Non orthodox Buddhism denies god, but does not deny soul and the metaphysical. It has a place for various different beings that populate the planes of the world, such as hungry ghosts(pretas), demi-gods(devatas) and masters(bodhisattvas) It is more ritualistic in that there are various rituals done to worship gods and involves various tantric rites, including sexual rites. Non orthodox Buddhism such as Tibetian Buddhism emerged from the merging of Buddhism, Hindusim and the indigenous Bon religion in Tibet.

There are other forms of popular Buddhism: Zen Buddhism(Chan) is the merging of Theravada Buddhism with Taoism. This is the most nihilistic of all Buddhisms(all Buddhism is nihilistic to an extent) It places a huge emphasis on void and nothingness and doing nothing. It has especially taken off in Japan, where traditionally the emperor was a symbol of nothingness and did nothing. A lot of Zen poetry and Zen art emphasises doing nothing. This can either be literal as in literally doing nothing at all, or non-literal, as in doing everything with mindfulness. But even here what it means is doing normal chores like walking, washing the dishes, gardening, decorating the room. It takes everything lightly including disasters, killing and other evil. It is an anti-intellectual tradition. It also has a history of violence.

All forms of Buddhism are unappealing to me and some kind of atheism. The least most appealing is Zen because it purely nihilistic, then followed by Thervada because it is nihilistic, then followed by Mahayana Buddhism.

Buddhism is a virus that has not helped any country it has been in, whatever form it has taken. It was the cause of the decline of India, it is the cause of the non-progress of all Eastern countries its been in and the cause of people readily accepting suffering and oppression in the East and taking it lightly. Although we Indians were able to drive it out of India, the damage was done to India, and India soon fell prey to invasions due to the weakening of its forces. Hindusim had a place for warriors, Buddhism did not. This is because Hinduism accepted the self and the needs of the self(individual and social progress) and aspired to better the conditions of the self and society. Better sciences; better medicine; better art; better philosophy; better architecture; better technology; better military and weapons. Hence why massive progress was made in pre-Buddhist India in all areas.

#168

Buddhism is a virus that has not helped any country it has been in, whatever form it has taken. It was the cause of the decline of India, it is the cause of the non-progress of all Eastern countries its been in and the cause of people readily accepting suffering and oppression in the East and taking it lightly.

To end the suffering of all sentient beings. They accept suffering as a fact and seek to end it. Where do you get this stuff? (the above)

#169

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;42884]Buddhism is a virus that has not helped any country it has been in, whatever form it has taken. It was the cause of the decline of India, it is the cause of the non-progress of all Eastern countries its been in and the cause of people readily accepting suffering and oppression in the East and taking it lightly. Although we Indians were able to drive it out of India, the damage was done to India, and India soon fell prey to invasions due to the weakening of its forces. Hindusim had a place for warriors, Buddhism did not. This is because Hinduism accepted the self and the needs of the self(individual and social progress) and aspired to better the conditions of the self and society. Better sciences; better medicine; better art; better philosophy; better architecture; better technology; better military and weapons. Hence why massive progress was made in pre-Buddhist India in all areas.[/QUOTE]

You really need to look at reputable sources for historic purposes because it ain’t that simple and you are mosrtly wrong here, particularly about things East as it applies to China and Japan and Buddhism… and no I don’t care enough to actually educate you on it since you most certainly will never admit you could be wrong.

#170

Surya

Although we Indians were able to drive it out of India, the damage was done to India, and India soon fell prey to invasions due to the weakening of its forces. Hindusim had a place for warriors,

So Pratyahara is something you just talk about but is unnecessary to actually practice in India now?

No different to Buddhist principles hey?

#171

[B]Core says— only kidding[/B]

Not taking sides here, but very informative SD. Thanks for sharing your mine of knowledge with us all… What a privilege.

#172

I put this in 2 separate places…thought it should really go in here so here it is,

Su Dongpo was an avid student of Buddhist teachings. He was quick-witted and humorous; as a Zen Buddhism follower he was very serious and self-disciplined. He often discussed buddhism with his good friend, Zen Master Foyin. The two lived across the river from one another.

Following is an interesting and famous story about him and Zen Master Foyin.

One day, Su Dongpo felt inspired and wrote the following poem:

稽首天中天，
毫光照大千；
八风吹不动，
端坐紫金莲。

I bow my head to the heaven within heaven,
Hairline rays illuminating the universe,
The eight winds cannot move me,
Sitting still upon the purple golden lotus.

The “eight winds (八风)” in the poem referred to praise (称), ridicule (讥), honor (誉), disgrace (毁), gain (得), loss (失), pleasure (乐) and misery (苦) – interpersonal forces of the material world that drive and influence the hearts of men. Su Dongpo was saying that he has attained a higher level of spirituality, where these forces no longer affect him.

Impressed by himself, Su Dongpo sent a servant to hand-carry this poem to Fo Yin. He was sure that his friend would be equally impressed. When Fo Yin read the poem, he immediately saw that it was both a tribute to the Buddha and a declaration of spiritual refinement. Smiling, the Zen Master wrote “fart” on the manuscript and had it returned to Su Dongpo.

Su Dongpo was expecting compliments and a seal of approval. When he saw “fart” written on the manuscript, he was shocked . He burst into anger: “How dare he insult me like this? Why that lousy old monk! He’s got a lot of explaining to do!”

Full of indignation, he rushed out of his house and ordered a boat to ferry him to the other shore as quickly as possible. He wanted to find Fo Yin and demand an apology. However, Fo Yin’s door closed. On the door was a piece of paper, for Su Dongpo. The paper had following two lines:

八风吹不动，
一屁弹过江。
The eight winds cannot move me,
One fart blows me across the river.

This stopped Su Dongpo cold. Fo Yin had anticipated this hot-headed visit. Su Dongpo’s anger suddenly drained away as he understood his friend’s meaning. If he really was a man of spiritual refinement,
completely unaffected by the eight winds, then how could he be so easily provoked?

With a few strokes of the pen and minimal effort, Fo Yin showed that Su Dongpo was in fact not as spiritually advanced as he claimed to be. Ashamed but wiser, Su Dongpo departed quietly.

This event proved to be a turning point in Su Dongpo’s spiritual development. From that point on, he became a man of humility, and not merely someone who boasted of possessing the virtue.

#173

Namaste,

I have not yet started my spiritual journey(proper) but I have succesfully evaluated yet another tradition, this time a Buddhist spiritual tradition. I figured, rather than debating over something I have not tried and have no experience of, I should experience it and form my own judgements. So now I will summarize my judgement on Buddhism now that I have actually experienced it myself(intensely). Like any objective person, one should begin by first addressing the positives in something, before criticizing in order to give a fair assessment.

The good is that there is no doubt in my mind at all that Buddhism is a valid path which will lead to enlightenment. This is because Buddhism is practical, real and addresses the immediate reality with clear sight. None of the doctrines you are learning in Buddhism are disagreeable to ones immediate or apparent view of reality. Such as:

Impermenance: A realist should have no qualms with this doctrine that all things have the characeristic of arising and passing. There is nothing in the empirical universe(the world of experience) that does not rise and pass. Everything comes into being, remains for a while, and then passes away. Whether they be long-lasting things like stars, planets and galaxies, or short lasting things like subatomic particles, they all have a transcient nature. Ultimately, a rational person will find that there is no such thing as solidity or substantiality in the empirical universe, it is just a constant flux of very subtle vibrations of energy. Solidity is only apparent, but not real.

No self: A realist can have no qualms with the doctrine that there is no real enduring personality, for the personality is an aggregate made up of changing things like memories, sensations, cells, experiences. Thus an aggregate which is made out of things which are constantly changing can never endure, but rather with every succession of a moment there will be a new aggregate.

Desire is the cause of mental suffering: Again, a realist person should have no qualms that one can only suffer if they have an attachment to an object. The object itself cannot make you suffer. If somebody insults me(which happens regularly on this forum :wink: ) that insult can only cause suffering to me if I identify with the insult. If I do not, then the insult will do nothing to me and no attachment will form. Similarly, I can only feel the loss of an object if I form an attachment with it. If I lose my phone, I will only feel the loss of the phone, if I am attached to the phone.

If one begins to accept these doctrines, and I will emphasise again realist would have no problem accepting these doctrines, then one can practice detachment, humiliy and equanimity and one will surely become a loving, compassionate and peaceful person, much like a saint. I have seen this myself with others who were on the retreat, everybody had a serene smile, conducted themself with equipose and seemed very much at peace.

So what can possibly be wrong with a path whose doctrines are based on the empirical, are real and if practiced and incalcated in life will make you happier, peaceful and more loving and compassionate? The answer is, it is just as wrong as the empirical scientist who is coming up with absolute truths about how the universe works based on looking at apparent reality. You can only come up with temporal and relative truths if you look at apparent reality, but not absolute truths - and this is what Buddhism is missing. Rather than the rejection of the transcendent(not empirical, apparent or immanent) being a blessing, it is a curse in Buddhism. It means that the Buddhist who knows Buddhism only at the doctrine level(impermenance, no-self, desire as the cause of suffering) ends up always living life at the apparent level(like the materialist only looking at the universe at the physical level) They embrace the laws of the apparent universe as a means to live life, and because of this their their lifes goals are limited only to the apparent.

There is no progress in Buddhism, because Buddhism has no desire to look beyond the apparent. The highest goal is to reach saintlihood, becoming loving and compassionate and then go out there and help others to reach the same. The Buddhist utopia is therefore a society where everybody is loving and compassionate. Again, how can anybody quarrel with that? But if you are rational you will find huge quarrels with that. You will ask, “Yes, but what about progress in science, medicine, technology, arts, sports, justice etc” The Buddhist will respond, “Those are trivial goals, ultimately all that matters is being happy” The rationalist will retort, “Yes, but the human being has more than just am emotional aspect, he is also has a physical aspect, an intellectual aspect, a creative aspect, sexual aspect. Further more the world is riddled with diseases, natural disasters, scarce resources, and unanswered questions, surely then we need more than just everybody being happy”

A Buddhist would never have invested any time, energy or money into making trips to the moon, performing experiments to split the atom — or even invent the wheel. After all, what is the need to invent the wheel, if all the cavemen are happy, loving and compassionate?

Continued in next post.

#174

There is no reason why a Buddhist would feel the need to make trips to the moon, perfom experiments to investigate laws of nature and innovate technology, because for them being happy and loving by ending all desire is the ultimate goal. It is easy to see then why Buddhist countries have made no progress. Why no single Buddhist country has any history of great contributions in science, technology etc., and why countries that did make huge progress in these fields, waned when Buddhism became predominant(Read: India)

The rationalist knows that what is apparent is only the surface level of reality and beyond the surface lie higher truths, which once realised will enable us to live a life beyond the apparent level. If we reexamine the Buddhist doctrines from a rational point of view, and not a realist point of view we find so much that is wrong with them.

Impermenance: If we accept that all things are rising and passing, does it mean that things come out of nothingness and go back to nothingness? If there is originally only nothingness, then only nothingness should come out of it. So how can we accept that nothingness is producing everything in the universe, galaxies, stars, planets, animals, humans? To say that something has come into being and ceased being based on what observes is like saying that if something passes outside of ones observation it no longer exists. Like the baby who sees the ball passing behind the screen, then thinks the ball no longer exists because it cannot see it anymore. Is the buddhist then the same mentality of the baby? Just because they cannot see it, it does not mean it has ceased to exist. It simply means it has passed outside of their vision.

To a rational being something being produced out of nothingness without any cause is illogical. Therefore surely there must be an ultimate cause of all of reality which we must strive to know.

No self: It has been stated before if there is no self, then who is the one that remembers the memories, sensations, experiences and who is the one who is aware of each of the aggregates. If you so doubt this, then who is the one that doubts this? Therefore surely there must be a self. Therefore we must inquire into this self to reach the ultimate nature of who and what we are and what our relationship with the world is.

Desire is the cause of mental suffering: Are all desires the cause of mental suffering? What about desires for beauty, widsom, justice, love, kindness, liberation? Does the Buddhist not desire these qualities. Surely they do, otherwise why would they spend hours in meditation everyday and go on gruelling spiritual retreats. Every action has a motivation behind it. Surely then the Buddhist also has motivations for their actions?
The Buddhist says you should be equal minded to both the pleasent and the unpleasent, but if that is the case, why is the Buddhist not even minded to ugly, ignorance, corruption, hatred and suffering? Surely, because the Buddhist prefers what is pleasent.

Therefore this means that as long as you desire what is more pleasent than what you already have it is OK. It is more pleasent for me to eat cheesecake than eat worms, and I am sure every buddhist would prefer eating cheesecake over worms.

Therefore a rationalist will find every Buddhist doctrine to be irrational. Conversely, the rationalist will find the alternative doctrines born out the criticism to be entirely rational and if one accepts these alterantive doctrines one is certainly going to progress.

  1. There is an cause for all things beyond what what is apparent. From this is born the fields of science and technology. We start to investigate the apparent world and penetrate deeper and deeper to discover new levels of this reality, make scientific discoveries and then develop technology to make our life more eaiser, efficient and safe.

  2. There is an ultimate self beyond the apparent aggregate self. From this is born the fields of philosophy and the science of meditation in order to realise this ultimate self that we are.

  3. All motivation is underlied by one ultimate motivation to make life more pleasent for oneself From this is born personal and social development programs to address all our needs(physical, emotional, intellectual, social, spiritual etc)

In countries where any of the above doctrines have flourished, huge progress in science, technology, philosophy and every other field has been made, and ultimately they have become a civilizing force for the entire world. In the past it was India; in modern times it is Europe.

Continued in next post.