Debunking a Creator

[ralis]

Cause and effect is blurred also in Madhyamaka.

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=rJ2qasKWbrYC&pg=PA122&dq=Madhyamaka+cause+and+effect+same+different&hl=en&sa=X&ei=LtikUsiOKtLJsQSyooDQBQ&ved=0CDIQuwUwAA#v=onepage&q=Madhyamaka%20cause%20and%20effect%20same%20different&f=false

 

Every response you post, is nothing more than cookie cutter, cut/paste, with no real discussion.

Edited December 8, 2013 by ralis

[Simple_Jack]

You keep restating these two assumptions -- you DO realize that they are just assumptions, right? That whole cause & effect thing is so 19th century. If I might borrow: RongzomFan, don't tell God what to do.

 

You should consider reading Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural Systems by Joanna Macy. The author makes comparisons with the Buddhist model and the linear causality of both the West and India.

[RongzomFan]

Can we get back to the main line of reasoning? That everything is illusion?

 

All philosophical and religious positions revolve around only 2 views: Existence and Nonexistence.

However its all illusion, like a dream. Phenomena don't arise in the first place.

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:
"An existent does not arise from an existent;
neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.
A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;
neither does a non-existent arise from an existent."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false

 

 

Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky:

 

"Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

 

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."
-Candrakirti

 

"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."
-Candrakirti

"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things."
-Candrakirti

"Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world."
-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since
I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,
nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to
level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

"I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness."
-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states:

"Not from themselves, not from something other,

Not from both, and not without a cause-

At any place and any time,

All entities lack arising."

 

Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika):

"Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments:

"If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it,

Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames

And everything could arise from everything,

Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]."

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states:

"If some nonarisen entity

Existed somewhere,

It might arise.

However, since such does not exist, what would arise?"

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states:

"If something that lacks arising could arise,

Just about anything could arise in this way."

[ralis]

You should consider reading Mutual Causality in Buddhism and General Systems Theory: The Dharma of Natural Systems by Joanna Macy. The author makes comparisons with the Buddhist model and the linear causality of both the West and India.

 

I looked at her bio and her Ph.d is in religious studies and as far as I can tell she has no training in science or math. I recommend Bateson over most of these writers.

[zerostao]

then your rigpa is also an illusion?

[Simple_Jack]

I looked at her bio and her Ph.d is in religious studies and as far as I can tell she has no training in science or math. I recommend Bateson over most of these writers.

 

That's a reasonable assessment unlike all of the other double standards you have presented.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[RongzomFan]

I looked at her bio and her Ph.d is in religious studies and as far as I can tell she has no training in science or math. I recommend Bateson over most of these writers.

 

The translator of this book has training in science.

 

He is a Harvard educated medical doctor:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Nagarjunas-Yuktisastika-Candrakirtis-Commentary-Yuktisastikavrrti/dp/0975373420

[ralis]

That's a reasonable assessment unlike all of the other double standards you have presented.

 

You cry 'double standards' to everyone here that posits a different point of view. Yet, you never explain yourself.

[Simple_Jack]

You cry 'double standards' to everyone here that posits a different point of view. Yet, you never explain yourself.

 

Your criticisms of Buddhism are double standards which could also apply to the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran.

[ralis]

The translator of this book has training in science.

 

He is a Harvard educated medical doctor:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Nagarjunas-Yuktisastika-Candrakirtis-Commentary-Yuktisastikavrrti/dp/0975373420

 

I was referring to one with advanced degrees in religious studies with no formal training in systems theory but is using systems theory to write a book on Dharmic systems theory. I see far too many dilettantes crossing over into fields they know nothing about.

 

As for the above, am I supposed to be impressed that an M.D. is a translator? I read his bio and he is studying Indo-Tibetan mind and health science which he is applying to various physical and mental problems in his practice. Because it is Tibetan medicine, is it beneficial? Are ancient teachings that date back to the Middle Ages of benefit? Are the teachings of the Buddha relevant to this age?

Edited December 8, 2013 by ralis

[ralis]

Your criticisms of Buddhism are double standards which could also apply to the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, the Koran.

 

We are only discussing "debunking a creator" here. The other texts in question have only been referred to in the context of this discussion. I refrain to comment on those at this time.

[Simple_Jack]

We are only discussing "debunking a creator" here. The other texts in question have only been referred to in the context of this discussion. I refrain to comment on those at this time.

 

Regardless, the criticisms you have previously presented in other areas of this forum, have revolved around double standards and e-prime.

Edited December 8, 2013 by Simple_Jack

[ralis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTjwJSE_qvA&list=FLQEUIs_2tRU4ir4250bakfQ

[Thunder_Gooch]

bump for a response

I like turtles.

[Thunder_Gooch]

From the perspective of your cells, you are a God.

 

Yet from the perspective of your cells you don't even exist.

 

Imagine for a moment that each of your cells was an individual, with it's own intelligence, ego, identity etc.

 

Imagine that collectively your cells work together exactly as a society does and it is their cooperation, intercommunication, and exchange of energy and information that gives rise to your very consciousness itself.

 

Imagine that one day one of your cellular citizens looked over at another and said he was an atheist, and didn't believe in a grand overseeing consciousness. From the perspective of the cells he would be correct, there is no independent consciousness separate from them.

 

Yet as they work together, and share energy and information over a vast organic internet and coordinate themselves as a society they generate consciousness as a function of the exchange of that energy and information.

 

We as a society perform exactly the same role as neurons in a neural network as we interact and share energy and information.

 

We generate exactly the same sort of consciousness we ourselves experience.

 

Yet it has no existence independent of us.

[Isimsiz Biri]

From the perspective of your cells, you are a God.

 

Yet from the perspective of your cells you don't even exist.

 

Imagine for a moment that each of your cells was an individual, with it's own intelligence, ego, identity etc.

 

Imagine that collectively your cells work together exactly as a society does and it is their cooperation, intercommunication, and exchange of energy and information that gives rise to your very consciousness itself.

 

Imagine that one day one of your cellular citizens looked over at another and said he was an atheist, and didn't believe in a grand overseeing consciousness. From the perspective of the cells he would be correct, there is no independent consciousness separate from them.

 

Yet as they work together, and share energy and information over a vast organic internet and coordinate themselves as a society they generate consciousness as a function of the exchange of that energy and information.

 

We as a society perform exactly the same role as neurons in a neural network as we interact and share energy and information.

 

We generate exactly the same sort of consciousness we ourselves experience.

 

Yet it has no existence independent of us.

 

Nice to see you in a non-Mo Pai thread. I liked your post. Interesting contribution.

[ralis]

[Isimsiz Biri]

 

 

Maths is always used by God Almighty and Divine Realms want us to understand it as deep as possible.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Can we get back to the main line of reasoning? That everything is illusion?

 

All philosophical and religious positions revolve around only 2 views: Existence and Nonexistence.

 

However its all illusion, like a dream. Phenomena don't arise in the first place.

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 21.12. states:

"An existent does not arise from an existent;

neither does an existent arise from a non-existent.

A non-existent does not arise from a non-existent;

neither does a non-existent arise from an existent."

 

http://books.google.com/books?id=38WJRwP3nLgC&pg=PA297&dq=Mulamadhyamakakarika+of+Nagarjuna+An+existent+does+not+arise+from+an+existent;+neither+does+an+existent+arise+from+a+non-existent.&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fnGiUtuWMPPMsQSzkIDwCA&ved=0CDgQuwUwAQ#v=onepage&q=Mulamadhyamakakarika%20of%20Nagarjuna%20An%20existent%20does%20not%20arise%20from%20an%20existent%3B%20neither%20does%20an%20existent%20arise%20from%20a%20non-existent.&f=false

 

 

Here are some quotations from 2 top books, Nagarjuna's Reason Sixty and Center of the Sunlit Sky:

 

"Nagarjuna taught , "bereft of beginning, middle, and end," meaning that the world is free from creation, duration, and destruction."

-Candrakirti

 

"Once one asserts things, one will succumb to the view of seeing such by imagining their beginning, middle and end; hence that grasping at things is the cause of all views."

-Candrakirti

 

"the perfectly enlightened buddhas-proclaimed, "What is dependently created is uncreated."

-Candrakirti

 

"Likewise, here as well, the Lord Buddha’s pronouncement that "What is dependently created is objectively uncreated," is to counteract insistence on the objectivity of things."

-Candrakirti

 

"Since relativity is not objectively created, those who, through this reasoning, accept dependent things as resembling the moon in water and reflections in a mirror, understand them as neither objectively true nor false. Therefore, those who think thus regarding dependent things realize that what is dependently arisen cannot be substantially existent, since what is like a reflection is not real. If it were real, that would entail the absurdity that its transformation would be impossible. Yet neither is it unreal, since it manifests as real within the world."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna said "If I had any position, I thereby would be at fault. Since

I have no position, I am not at fault at all."

 

Aryadeva said "Against someone who has no thesis of “existence,

nonexistence, or [both] existence and nonexistence,” it is not possible to

level a charge, even if [this is tried] for a long time."

 

"I do not say that entities do not exist, because I say that they originate in dependence. “So are you a realist then?” I am not, because I am just a proponent of dependent origination. “What sort of nature is it then that you [propound]?” I propound dependent origination. “What is the meaning of dependent origination?” It has the meaning of the lack of a nature and the meaning of nonarising through a nature [of its own]. It has the meaning of the origination of results with a nature similar to that of illusions, mirages, reflections, cities of scent-eaters, magical creations, and dreams. It has the meaning of emptiness and identitylessness."

-Candrakirti

 

Nagarjuna in Mūlamadhyamakakārikā 1.1. states:

"Not from themselves, not from something other,

Not from both, and not without a cause-

At any place and any time,

All entities lack arising."

 

Buddhapālita comments (using consequentalist arguments which ultimately snowballs into Tibetan prasangika vs. svatantrika):

"Entities do not arise from their own intrinsic nature, because their arising would be pointless and because they would arise endlessly. For entities that [already] exist as their own intrinsic nature, there is no need to arise again. If they were to arise despite existing [already], there would be no time when they do not arise; [but] that is also not asserted [by the Enumerators].

 

Candrakīrti, in ''Madhyamakāvatāra'' VI.14., comments:

"If something were to originate in dependence on something other than it,

Well, then utter darkness could spring from flames

And everything could arise from everything,

Because everything that does not produce [a specific result] is the same in being other [than it]."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Entities also do not arise from something other, because there is nothing other."

 

Nagarjuna in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' 1.3cd. states:

"If an entity in itself does not exist,

An entity other [than it] does not exist either."

 

Candrakīrti, in the ''Prasannapadā'', comments:

"Nor do entities arise from both [themselves and others], because this would entail [all] the flaws that were stated for both of these theses and because none of these [disproved possibilities] have the capacity to produce [entities]."

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.17., states:

"If some nonarisen entity

Existed somewhere,

It might arise.

However, since such does not exist, what would arise?"

 

Nagarjuna, in ''Mūlamadhyamakakārikā'' VII.19cd., states:

"If something that lacks arising could arise,

Just about anything could arise in this way."

 

Perfect Bullshit. 100% pure. May be you can market it in fertilizer industry.

[Jeff]

Can we get back to the main line of reasoning? That everything is illusion?

 

Can you prove this point?

 

All you have done is listed hearsay positions of others. I don't see how that is intellectually any different than saying that God created everything from himself.

 

Best,

Jeff

[RongzomFan]

Perfect Bullshit. 100% pure. May be you can market it in fertilizer industry.

 

Thats a good endorsement, coming from you.

[RongzomFan]

Can you prove this point?

 

All you have done is listed hearsay positions of others. I don't see how that is intellectually any different than saying that God created everything from himself.

 

Best,

Jeff

 

Then you are beyond help.

 

Gnomes, elves and leprechauns are more possible than a Creator.

[Jetsun]

You can't prove an infinite regression of cause and effect, therefore you cant disprove a creator.

 

Saying everything is illusory just means the way we are perceiving things is different from the way they actually are, which doesn't disprove a creator it just means we are mistaken in our perception of the nature of the universe.

[Aetherous]

Gnomes, elves and leprechauns are more possible than a Creator.

 

What's the reasoning behind this statement? lol

[Jeff]

Then you are beyond help.

 

Gnomes, elves and leprechauns are more possible than a Creator.

 

Let's attempt to stay with the logical analysis.

 

You have stated as a definitive position that "everything is illusion" and based your analysis on that point. But, you have provided no proof to support your supposition. Do you have any empirical and verifiable support for your position? Or, is it all just hearsay?