Buddhism : Western Dualism + Non-dualistic perspectives

[chilon]

This thread is continuing a tangential discussion that developed in the Atheism Atrocities thread and continued in PM with Seneca. I started this to specifically discuss several points I made regarding Buddhism and clarify what my take is.

Seneca, if you would like to edit this original post to include your comments I will do so. Otherwise I will try to keep this short and succinct.

In short, the question that atheism asks "Is your perspective God/gods or no God/gods" is based on the premise of duality. In other words, even asking the question itself asserts an inherently dualistic point of view.

I am saying that Buddhism itself denies the dualistic point of view. In the words of my friend, a long time Buddhist, "Asking the question of whether the Buddhist perspective is God/gods or no God/gods is itself not part of the Buddhist perspective".

Siddartha Gautama himself would refuse to answer questions such as "Does God exist?". The refusal is basically a denial of the underlying assumptions that must be made to even ask such a question.

Another good example is the famous Buddhist logician Nagarjuna.
Nagarjuna would argue something like:
Dualistic paradigms accept either A is true or Not A is true.
They discount that Both A and Not A can be true and also that Neither A nor Not A are true.

Here is another explanation:
"When asked, for example, whether the world has a beginning or not, a Buddhist should respond by denying all the logically alternative answers to the query; "No, the world does not have a beginning, it does not fail to have a beginning, it does not have and not have a beginning, nor does it neither have nor not have a beginning." This denial is not seen to be logically defective in the sense that it violates the law of excluded middle (A cannot have both B and not-B), because this denial is more a principled refusal to answer than a counter-thesis, it is more a decision than a proposition. That is to say that one cannot object to this "four error" denial by simply saying "the world either has a beginning or it does not" because the Buddha is recommending to his followers that they should take no position on the matter (this is in modern propositional logic known as illocution). This denial was recommended because wondering about such questions was seen by the Buddha as a waste of valuable time, time that should be spent on the much more important and doable task of psychological self-mastery"
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/nagarjun.htm

This shows that Buddhism is outside a dualistic paradigm of asking "God/gods or no God/gods" and shouldn't be fit into a paradigm:



Everything is real and is not real,

Both real and not real,

Neither real nor not real.

This is the teaching of the Buddha.

* Nagarjuna

[Ummon]

Very interesting argument to discuss. Yes, indeed, what you state is correct.

But western dualism meanwhile has somewhat "evolved" into something different, because of progresses in many fields, including physics, logic, etc.

Now for example, fractionary truth-values are a common find.

This is obviously, not the same as Buddhism. Yet, somehow, I feel that the two stances are complementary.

You keep a non-dualistic stance towards your own spiritual practice, you learn dualistic stance as a tool to organize knowledge.

I expect this comment: this is impossible.

It's either this, or dwelling eternally on the limits of our predecessors. This may be the proper answer, yet one may (should) try to discover alternatives.

[chilon]

Very interesting argument to discuss. Yes, indeed, what you state is correct.

But western dualism meanwhile has somewhat "evolved" into something different, because of progresses in many fields, including physics, logic, etc.

I would say more that Western philosophy (with help of neuro and cognitive sciences in some cases) has evolved beyond the older, limiting constraints of dualism.

[Ummon]

Well, not exactly. Fuzzy logic for example is a post-dualistic branch, whereas ternary logic and other variants are non-dualistic. There's also the brilliant (if somewhat sketchy) work of Ignacio Matte Blanco on the logic of the unconscious ( Unconscious as Infinite Sets ).

In the end, there's still so much to discover, (and still so much for me to learn). I have traveled a road which led me from classical studies to medicine to psychoanalysis then to psychology, and now back to the passion of my childhood, physics and mathematics, hopefully. If I can find the time!

Life is such a funny thing.

[Spurius]

This denial is not seen to be logically defective in the sense that it violates the law of excluded middle

Just FYI, the law of the excluded middle is not exactly a holy grail to everyone:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luitzen...us_Jan_Brouwer

On topic: if Time started with the 'beginning' of the Universe, and there 'was' no before (absence of Time does that), it's meaningless to speak of a beginning in a 'timescale sense', but not necessarily in another, ontological sense.

You cannot have an 'eternity' of non-time, in short.

This gave Stephen Hawking a bit of head-ache too, BTW.

[chilon]

Just FYI, the law of the excluded middle is not exactly a holy grail to everyone:

You are completely correct, however it is used against Buddhist logic (or quantum logic and it is indeed, an incorrect rebuttal.

[Ummon]

This, in the case you don't deal with those who postulate more than one time dimension.

[Denny Crane!]

OKay Dokey

That said, I have studied Buddhism from a Buddhist psychological perspective as well as implemented many aspects personally.
The two I follow and have read the most are [size=-1]Thich Nhat Hanh and Chogyam Trungpa, please other work such as Zen and the Brain which is more a cognitive analysis of Buddhist meditation.

My point is that yes, from one angle, Buddhist is certainly a "no god" religion. However from another angle, to simply equate Buddhists to atheists fails at providing a true understanding.
Buddhism might be "no god" but Buddhists (at least those I know in real life that have been Buddhists for decades) do not view themselves as atheists. It fails to truly reflect the way a Buddhist is no god.

A Buddhist is not "no god" in the same way a Strong Atheist (or as close to Strong Atheism without actually admitting you are strong atheist) like Richard Dawkins is.
And many Buddhists have pointed out that their "no god religion" has far more similarities to "multi god" hinduism than any Dawkins style atheist.

The similarities are borne in the proximity of the religions, the fact that Guatama was raised in these areas meant the Sanskrit we can read has many counterparts in hindu philosophy.

Now we may consider Dharma which is a tenet of Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and Hinduism. This reference to the higher path is at its root a simple idea and translates well across the religions without creating conflict in the individual ideologies of each faith which can be quite different as I can show in later concepts.

For want of a better term, I don't personally enjoy the use of the western word enlightenment giving to many abrahamic connotations, I will use the word liberation. This again is a common theme that spread through the region. In Buddhism you use the word Nibana, I can't think of the top of my head for the hindu term but you get the idea.

The fact that common themes spread should come as no surprise, yogic teachings became immensly popular and the Buddha built on these with the idea of more introspective searching and the abolishment of the idea of looking for the self.

You are just brushing the surface here though, if you want to call this similarities to verify your claims it shows a profound misunderstanding of buddhism and hinduism. To illustrate this I would use the concept of karma and samsara, you simply have to look at hinduism and Buddhism to see that this central tenet to living in the faith is so very different with one focused very much on mental states and the here and now, with the other focused on the eternal self (atman). The Buddha rejects the idea of the immutable self or soul, the Hindus embrace it.

Where I think you miss the point in the Buddhists position being different isn't that they have a different perspective on God to Richard Dawkins, they don't reject his ideas so much as his methods. They reject the prioritisation of the intense study and fanaticism of any religion.

The most important part of buddhism is the love and the happiness. The differences in doctrine and belief are incidental to this, its not that you can't think of them, study them. If your missing out on the first part then your priorities are very wrong.

The person who really brought that home to me and I recommend his youtube page highly is Ajahn Brahm. I've spent a long time studying texts, reading into concepts and analysing texts and even meditating but a couple of simple talks brought more home I think than all of that did

I would also say that even looking at Buddhist concepts such as the 6 Realms (samsara) or the 12 nidanas through a western lens is wrong to begin with.

This is through a buddhist lense

Let me put it like this:
Buddhism tends to reject the inherent duality implied by the question "god or no god".

My friend who is a long time Buddhist has said it like this "Asking the question of whether the Buddhist perspective is God or and only or No God itself is not part of Buddhist perspective."

Perhaps the most famous Buddhist logician is Nagarjuna.
He might say it like this:
A is true
Not A is true
A and Not A are both true
Neither A nor Not A are true

It is necessary to accept that the truth of all four of those statements.
What "god or not god" fails to recognize is the A and Not A both true and Neither A nor Not A are true.

Nagarjuna is someone I have not encountered a great deal of except indeed dealing with the position of gods in buddhism, he is in this next referencing the resurgence of hindu God cults:

The gods are all eternal scoundrels
Incapable of dissolving the suffering of impermanence.
Those who serve them and venerate them
May even in this world sink into a sea of sorrow.
We know the gods are false and have no concrete being;
Therefore the wise man believes them not
The fate of the world depends on causes and conditions*
Therefore the wise man many not rely on gods.

(buddhist theory referenced)


Causation in buddhism states as the quote I highlighted states depends on cause and conditions for existence and that law must extend to gods, meaning that if that law were excluded to allow god the creator it denies this principle.

From studying the Pali canons you can see to that other principles are rejected the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada) is frequently mentioned and rejected, as is absolute determinism or any other concepts that have negative effects on ethical conduct.

Paticcasamuppada

When this is, that is;
When this arises, that arises;
When this is not, that is not;
When this ceases, that ceases.



Man created God from fear, buddhism views theistic religion and other polytheistic religions as a device, something man uses to hide himself from the realities of the world.

"Gripped by fear men go to the sacred mountains,
sacred groves, sacred trees and shrines". (buddha)

In the same vein where from a buddhist perspective religion or the idea of a god is stemming from fear there is also a fundamental contradiction placed in the concept of Dukkha (suffering or unsatisfaction) the empirical existence of dukkha can't be reconciled with the existence of a good god.

God as a phenomenon would be attributed with the three essential characteristics. Dukkha is explained, anicca (impermanence) and annata (insubstantiality "no soul"). The attributes of God aren't consistent with the idea of existance in buddhism. He is eternal which is beyond annica and unchanging negating anatta.


If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why does he order such misfortune
And not create concord?

sace hi so issaro sabbaloke
Brahmâ bahûbhûtapati pajâna.m
ki.m sabbaloke vidah alakkhi.m
ki.m sabbaloka.m na sukhi.m akâsi

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Why prevail deceit, lies and ignorance
And he such inequity and injustice create?

sace hi so issaro sabbaloke
Brahmâ bahûbhûtapati pajâna.m
mâyâmusâvajjamadena c'api
loka.m adhammena kimatthakâsi

If the creator of the world entire
They call God, of every being be the Lord
Then an evil master is he, (O Aritta)
Knowing what's right did let wrong prevail!

sace hi so issaro sabbaloke
Brahmâ bahûbhûtapati pajâna.m
adhammiyo bhûtapat Ari.t.tha
dhamme sat yo vidahi adhamma.m


Not far from here do you need to look!
Highest existence — what can it avail?
Here in this present aggregate,
In your own body overcome the world!
[buddha]

[Irishman]

I am saying that Buddhism itself denies the dualistic point of view. In the words of my friend, a long time Buddhist, "Asking the question of whether the Buddhist perspective is God/gods or no God/gods is itself not part of the Buddhist perspective".

The Buddha surely did not promote the deliberation on God and due to this, Buddhism in its teachings are largely non-theistic. Yet, I do not think this representative of what the Buddha wanted either,

For instance, the story of the Buddha at the bamboo groove at Rajagriha, in which a student asks him of God, and he replies (in a much similar fashion to what seneca posted- was this his story sen?) using a derevation of the problem of evil and other arguments.

The Buddha also refers to the Gods in this story as the "illusions of desire" and promotes ridding oneself of them. He promoted this by not thinking of it, becasue he clearly recognized them as illusions, using philisophical and somewhat psychological arguements.

[Denny Crane!]

Ah no sorry I didn't label that very well only the last verse is the buddha, the other is from Bhûridatta Jataka

[Ummon]

I would call it, the difference between two perspectives.

I have to say, that I suspect chilon is correct in substance, whereas Seneca has quoted the right passages. :wink:

[Denny Crane!]

Because I chose to put in some actual things the buddha said don't ignore the substance of the post.

The problem with buddhism is when talking to non buddhists is what they desire it to be. It doesn't accept every idea, some concepts it considers false.

[Ummon]

I will put it differently:

In the pursuit of peace, surely gods are obstacles.

From a perspective of peace, one is at peace with gods as well.

[Denny Crane!]

I will put it differently:

In the pursuit of peace, surely gods are obstacles.

From a perspective of peace, one is at peace with gods as well.

At peace by ending the pursuit of god, perhaps yes. On one level from a buddhist perspective in philosophical discourse it is a false idea and an idea that prevents becoming liberated.

The solution, stop chasing the answer, stop chasing god. In your mocking of my post I see you couldn't see the forest for the trees, or the meaning in the quotes.


Not far from here do you need to look!
Highest existence — what can it avail?
Here in this present aggregate,
In your own body overcome the world!
[buddha]

That is Buddhas method to peace. Stop looking at god and start concentrating on useful ideas.

[Ummon]

If this is what you think, I respect it. But chilon has grasped nonduality, and IMO, you haven't.

You look to the path, while the only important thing is the goal. The result is a codified experience, which has lost its genuine nature.

[Denny Crane!]

Certainly not in your quest to apply it to the existance of god, no. Though I have come across the concept in the idea of obliterating the ego, no where in buddhism have I seen it applied to god(s) which was described by the buddha himself someone supposed to have eliminated the illusions of self.

Your coming at it from a vedic hindu perspective, which is all well and good but it is not ignorance on my part but a different perspective.

[Ummon]

If you do not exist, and the gods do not exist, there is no reason for quarrels with them.

[Denny Crane!]

Funnily enough the question of whether or not there is a self is something buddha categorically refused to answer yes or no on, he viewed it as a question without merit. the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

Any questions of self lead to some level of self identification. If one identifies with the whole of nature then suffering is enhanced with nature, if one identifies with nothing, percieves to be nothing then you are alienating yourself.

[Ummon]

A complicated philosophical outlook on things. Then again, no.

You imply a question, and you imply suffering, but these very things are what misleads you. Most of all, you repropose chilon's argument, just switching it to another object.

Essentially, though, it's your personal outlook, not mine.

[Denny Crane!]

A complicated philosophical outlook on things. Then again, no.

You imply a question, and you imply suffering, but these very things are what misleads you. Most of all, you repropose chilon's argument, just switching it to another object.

Essentially, though, it's your personal outlook, not mine.

When considering your own existance and as implied in your statement your relationship or lack of to a god you are considering a position of self, whether or not it exists.

The existance of god comes back to the existance of a "self" which you referenced as having no distinction. The subjects are linked.