Paticcasamuppada
While I was reading some of my collage work about Buddhism, I came across the teachings of the Madhyamaka School which seems similar to my last proof. It is based on the teaching of Nagarjuna (the most famous Buddhist philosopher), and his concept of Sunyata (emptiness) which denies the belief in God and the soul and also takes into account the possibility of God always having existed which I admit, my second proof did not (any suggestions on this problem would be appreciated). I won't go into all the details as it is quite complex but here's a summary of part of the teaching.
There is nothing that exists in its own right- eternally and unchanging, what does exist does so in an inter-relationship so that everything is an effect. There is no uncaused cause that causes effects (i.e. God) because a cause would have to be uncaused to be a cause; it can't so it must be an effect because something that is uncaused is unconditioned and it cannot logically cause some-thing that is conditioned. Hence every thing is Paticcasamuppada (dependent Co-origination).
I recently read a criticism of this concept that argues that if everything is an effect and there can be no uncaused cause then logically this would mean that there is no starting point at which everything was created (because this would be an uncaused cause), this actually agrees with the Buddhist teaching "This cycle of continuity (Samsara) is without a visible end, and the first beginning of beings is not to be perceived" - Buddha. It goes on to say "the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd. This seems a bit strange because they didn't seem to think that God existing eternally is logically absurd.
also "(an) infinite number of creators would mean there was an infinite number of creations and created things including things that cannot be destroyed since they would constitute things that exist. If that is so, then the universe would have had an infinite number of created things in it and it would be full. But it is not full. Therefore, there has not been an infinite regression of creations.
There are a lot of flaws in this statement firstly, the infinite effects will not all be happening simultaneously but over a period of time i.e. over infinity. Now the nature of infinity means that an infinite number of effects spread over an infinite period of time, the universe will not become full. It also wrongly states that there are things that can not be destroyed (I have no idea why this assumption would be made), one of the principle ideas behind Buddhism is that there is nothing that exists that does not change or last forever.
There is nothing that exists in its own right- eternally and unchanging, what does exist does so in an inter-relationship so that everything is an effect. There is no uncaused cause that causes effects (i.e. God) because a cause would have to be uncaused to be a cause; it can't so it must be an effect because something that is uncaused is unconditioned and it cannot logically cause some-thing that is conditioned. Hence every thing is Paticcasamuppada (dependent Co-origination).
I recently read a criticism of this concept that argues that if everything is an effect and there can be no uncaused cause then logically this would mean that there is no starting point at which everything was created (because this would be an uncaused cause), this actually agrees with the Buddhist teaching "This cycle of continuity (Samsara) is without a visible end, and the first beginning of beings is not to be perceived" - Buddha. It goes on to say "the eternal sequence of creators -- which becomes logically absurd. This seems a bit strange because they didn't seem to think that God existing eternally is logically absurd.
also "(an) infinite number of creators would mean there was an infinite number of creations and created things including things that cannot be destroyed since they would constitute things that exist. If that is so, then the universe would have had an infinite number of created things in it and it would be full. But it is not full. Therefore, there has not been an infinite regression of creations.
There are a lot of flaws in this statement firstly, the infinite effects will not all be happening simultaneously but over a period of time i.e. over infinity. Now the nature of infinity means that an infinite number of effects spread over an infinite period of time, the universe will not become full. It also wrongly states that there are things that can not be destroyed (I have no idea why this assumption would be made), one of the principle ideas behind Buddhism is that there is nothing that exists that does not change or last forever.
posted by David at 9:35 am
3 Comments:
i think there is an opportunity here to get tripped up by the concept of dependent co-origination and what the madhyamaka school claimed.
the buddha originally stated "all conditioned things have multiple causes" or something along those lines. which is to say that we constantly think things are solid and lasting but if we look closer we find they are the result of causes and therefore they must be impermanent. i make that mistake all the time, every time I make statements like "i believe" or "it is" or any to be variation is in some sense making a permanent statement about something that will ultimately change and be incorrect.
but the madhyamaka school went further, and claimed that not only do things change but in addition "they" cannot be said to be existent at all! the earlier shravakan and similar schools said things existed and were made of particles (akin to atoms). the madhyamakans said that in the absolute sense we cannot say anything about existence, that things exist or that they do not exist. Any attempt would be purely conjecture, conceptual games of the mind.
However, the madhyamaka school says that we live in a relative world - one composed of our concepts and we relate to the world that way. If we could experience the world directly without our conceptual filter, however, we would be enlightened. So how do we do that? We use our habit of creating a conceptual world using logic and we skillfully use logic to then shake up our mind and see a bigger, less solid world.
I think if posed with your earlier posts about "things" and "god" the madhyamakans would start by saying not only can we not say that "god" exists or doesn't exist, but no "things" can be said to exist either and if you look for your own "self" you'll find that you are not truly existent either (nor non-existent). Which isn't to say that you are not appearing, just that you are not permanent, independent (of causes and conditions), and unitary (separate from everything else). They would instead say you were a karmic stream of causes and conditions but not independent nor permanent. to think of your "self" in those ways in fact is the core reason we suffer, because we're always fixing a view of ourself as unchanging like "i like this" and "i am that" and "how dare you call me that", etc. So these concepts of our "self" as existent and solid are at the root of our suffering. sorta mind bending, isn't it?
oh also, if you'd like an interesting specific example where a madhyamakan master refutes the existence of god, pick up a copy of "The Way of the Bodhisattva" by Shantideva. He lived in the 9th century in India.
in that book, chapter 9 verses (it's poetry) 118 through 140, he refutes the production of entities from a permanent cause (ie. a god). he uses the term Ishvara to refer to god, a generic name in his time. you might want to pick up a good commentary on this though because the verse assumes you know many of the madhyamaka school and previous school arguments. The Dalai Lama published a commentary on this chapter called "Practicing Wisdom" via wisdompubs.org
Interestingly enough, Shantideva starts with an argument that sounds like yours. Note, however, that he writes by posing questions and arguing the other side which you'll notice:
If Ishvara is held to be the cause of beings,
You must now define for us his nature.
If, by this, you simply mean the elements,
No need to tire ourselves disputing names!
Yet earth and other elements are many,
Impermanent, inert, without divinity.
Trampled underfoot, they are impure,
And thus they cannot be a God Omnipotent.
The Deity cannot be Space - inert and lifeless.
He cannot be the Self, for this we have refuted.
He's inconceivable, they say. Then likewise his creatorship.
Is there any point, therefore, to such a claim?
What is it he wishes to create?
Has he made the self and all the elements?
But are not self and elements and he, himself, eternal?
And consciousness, we know, arises from its object;
Pain and pleasure have, from all time, sprung from karma,
So tell us, what has this Divinity produced?
And if Creation's cause in unoriginate,
How can origin be part of the result?
Why are creatures not created constantly,
for Ishvara relies on nothing but himself?
And if there's nothing that he has not made,
What remains on which he might depend?
If Ishvara depends, the cause of all
Is prior circumstances, and no longer he.
When these obtain, he cannot but create;
When these are absent, he is powerless to make.
etc. etc. etc.
So I should also add, that the madhyamakans reject any argument of existence that cannot be observed directly. so they wouldn't say much about claims about existence for a "thing" that cannot be observed. They just don't go there, because there is then nothing that can be said. I think I got that point right, but you might want to check with a modern madhyamaka master for clarification...
Also, the translation from the sanskrit above that I used is from the Padmakara Translation Group. I like it the best, because it is the most poetic.
From my (limited) knowledge of Buddhism I believe that the doctrine of Paticcasamuppada teaches that there is nothing in the universe that is absolute and independent. You can't point to anything in the universes that exists by itself. This is closely linked to the teaching of anatta (emptiness) which denies belief in the self, it is illustrated by the Chariot story by Nagasena. The term "chariot" does not refer to the pole, the axle, the wheels, the chariot-body, the banner-staff, or any other part of the chariot. Nor does it refer to all of them united. In the absolute sense, there is no chariot. Similarly nothing points to anything that can be labelled a ‘true self’, can you point to a specific part that is a human? e.g. a heart is not a human, a brain is not a human. A human is just made up of different parts, and similarly when you say a heart exists, which part - it is just made up of different cells. As the previous person said the madhyamaka school went further and claimed that things cannot be said to exist at all, including atoms. All of these different parts are constantly changing and are not permanent, so there is no part of a human that survives. This is true of all all conditioned things in the universe
This line of thinking could be applied to the existence of God i.e. Point to a specific part that is God and even if you could, that "part" would be constantly changing and impermanent so would not last for ever. I don't know if this is basically what has already been said or if it helps at all.
Post a Comment
<< Home