Goofaholix wrote:contemplans wrote:If this god was given rise to by itself or another, if that was possible, it wouldn't be god. I am describing something which just is.
Just is, just like the rest of us then, I guess that makes us all gods.
Not like the rest of us. We are a mixture of actuality and potentiality. We are undergoing change in this regard are every moment. Everything is. You can view this from the perspective of the Buddha or Aristotle, they agree in this regard. We are inconstant, or we are constant in our inconstancy. The fact that I am typing right now is an ongoing process of potentialities becoming actualities, in the various ways my desires are prompting my fingers to type, and the physical changes are taking place in my fingers, while I am effecting changes to the keyboard, which are causing the letters to appear right now. Nothing in this chain of causes JUST IS, because otherwise it have anything in it that could change. The change implies something within the system which isn't, but could be. This possibility in itself dequalifies it from being what is called pure actuality. That is why Baka Brahma is not pure actuality as described. We can't say that pure actuality is just really constant, because we are defining him/it as pure constancy. The question is whether this notion is correct in its necessity to explain why anthing exists at all. What else explains why existence is?
Kenshou wrote:The thing that strikes me is that, even if you have a metaphysical explanation for things that makes sense to you personally, that makes no steps towards actually showing that it is true. I question the apparent obligation to have an explanation. Maybe we can't always get what we want.
Science doesn't explain why things exist. Because it can't yet, that information is out of our reach right now. And maybe it will always be, who knows, but better to recognize a lack of information upon which to base such an explanation, than to simply make stuff up and go with it because it feels sensible.
It just doesn't offer anything of value, aside from a bit of diversion, and maybe some warm fuzzy feelings as a result of thinking you've got everything all figured out.
The explanation is on page 5, which explains causal series, and how an essentially ordered one needs something outside of it to explain it. Logic is not making something up. When the Buddha said, "When this is, that is; from the arising of this comes the arising of that." That is logic. He was reasoning. That is what takes place in insight, albeit in a much higher state of refinement. Buddhism is not anti-reason, but selects where to apply that human skill for its specific goals. But we're in the debate, so we ar reasoning about ontology. While human's have applied words to these concepts, they didn't just make them up. Paticca samuppada does not create the causal links, but merely applies human terms to the already existing situation in order to better handle the data, instead of recreating the wheel every time. But this reasoning of hylomorphism is not a diversion. It leads to all kinds of conclusions about this world including that everything has a purpose (teleology). It is no small matter. Whether you agree with it or not, major religions didn't get into this theory becauase they had nothing better to do, but, if we are to be charitable, they adopted it because it blew their minds and gave them better understanding of the world around them, so that with it they can act more skillfully. This is just the raw theory. Many have produced it is "popular" versions for popular consumption. And there it is more palpable. The Buddha did this with his teaching through similes and the like. The raw data is pretty daunting.
Cittasanto wrote:so I have had a black and a white keyboard which on[c]e wasn't a keyboard?
I have also had soft rubber keyboard which could be rolled up and a hard plastic one which was split in two, aswell as rectangle ones, which is not a keyboard?
I am not a scientist. What are keyboardws made of? Polyethelene? I don't know. The point is that you're keyboard(s) didn't pop into existence spontaneously. Humans took plastic, metal, and other things and molded them into the keyboard. That keyboard can be melted and brought back to, say, a state of just being plastic sheets. There is that potentiality in it. It's matter is plastic and metal. Its form is the keyboard. To bring it into something maybe closer to home. My human body has the potential within it to be dust. Right now it is a human body, constantly taking and sluffing off molecules. We have big people, small people, dark people, light people, people missing legs, etc. They are all human. But once we die, the body is buried and/or burned, and all those molecules become earth. This is just in regard to change. The point of ontology is answering the question, Why does anything exist? Hylomorphism goes from the fact of change and reasons out from there. The facts of your keyboard are inetesting, but step one is why what makes up a keyboard, or a human body, even exist. Clearly within themselves they do not have the power to give rise to existence in the same respect in which they exist, i.e., whatever is caused is caused by another.
Cittasanto wrote:please don't alter the statement you quote, the mistake isn't in that word, and you completely changed the question!
I apologize. I misunderstood it. But I did answer your question. You see your beyboard is not self-existent, but formed from parts and remolding. We can go back and back with materials and causes, but nowhere can we explain why anything exists. An essentially ordered series of causes has no explnation within itself of why anything within the series exists. We don't even need to admit a beginning. The series can be infinite. There still is no explanation for the series.
Cittasanto wrote:however, your responce only covers half of the questions, the second question (the one not about colour) actually changed the shape, colour, hardness and texture of the keyboard!
In your estimation, they are still keyboards. They have whatever a keyboard needs to have to be a keyboard. In the human realm, take this examine from my wife yesterday. She saw a patient who probably has mad cow disease. In his 50s. He has many malfucntions in his human body. So much that blood pressure could not even be taken. He is still human. He has whatever it is that makes him human. He isn't just H2O with some carbon and what not mixed in.
Cittasanto wrote:buddhism has causality! everything has a cause and even a cause has a cause.
but I was not referring to the particles, atoms etc, rather how oil metal... came to be. This is an example why a first cause is not discernible.
First in time? First in primacy? Discernable as in known as a bare fact? Or discernable as to its nature? If he didn't see a beginning, as in, "In the beginning ...", I can understand that, because even Catholics admit that a beginning in time is an article of faith. Logic can support a beginning or a world which always existed. The "first" is ultimate, not necessarily first in time. It would take some in depth research to really get a full meaning of what the Buddha was speaking about, which I admit I have not done. You have to go into the Pali and do comparative analysis.
tiltbillings wrote:Not really. An acorn is not a singular thing; rather, it is always composite thing. Each bit of the acorn would have to be actual actualities following your logic.contemplans wrote:The acorn has within itself teh potential to be an oak tree. It is actually an acorn
It is a singular entity in the sense that it is more than its parts. It has a unified form. We and the acorn have similar composition, we are made of the same molecules etc., but we are not the same. I don't have the (direct) potentiality to become an oak tree.
tiltbillings wrote:Kamma, on the other hand, refers to the ethical conditioning based upon choice, which is something that is, in fact, workable empirically.
Kamma is more than this. How's the empirical way for the numerous lifetimes you are reaping karma for right now? How about acting and intending without reaping karma? How about Nibbana, which if you've attained it, no one else can measure nor see your attainment? If you say, well we see these things through effects in the empirical world, then I would say that is the same answer I would give in respect to what I am saying.
tiltbillings wrote:Just is what? The problem with this anemic philosophy is that is really does not account for the fact that each bit of the process must be a complete actuality, otherwise how could it exist?
It exists in one respect, while being potential in another. My body does not have pure existence, because it has within it the potential to die. not only that, though, it is constantly undergoing this change. The actuality we have is true, but it isn't steady or constant. There is within it a possibility of change. JUST IS, refers to something that does not have these possibilities.
tiltbillings wrote:No nibbana is not. Nibbana is not a thing, as has been carefully pointed out to you using the suttas. Nibbana has not a thing to do with what you are talking about.
I am not saying it is a thing. It is a state or dimension. It is related, though. It is constant, steady, no possibility of change or dying, outside of samsara. There is a relation there.
tiltbillings wrote:This is something you do a lot, which is conflate, without justification the Buddha’s teaching with your Christian stuff, but there is no justification for it. Actually, nibbana is not a goal outside the sense sphere.
Final nibbana is outside of the sense sphere. When one attains Nibbana, that break through moment, the senses are not involved at all. The senses come back, but they are related to in a whole different way.
tiltbillings wrote:Only if one uses certain base assumptions.
Here are the asssumptions: 1) Things that exist undergoing change. 2) Their existence needs an explanation.
perkele wrote:Okay, I agree that this usage of actuality/potentiality makes some sense. However, you were also and most importantly talking about "pure actuality". Where is this "pure actuality"? Why do you readily explain the trivialities but not the difficulties?
On one level you can say everywhere. On another level you can say, nowhere within space and time. The point of this line of reasoning, at this point, is not to deduce how we experience this pure actuality, or how we are created, or any of those questions. The first level is just coming up with an explanation of why we exist. All those other questions have answers, but they are based upon the initial logic. If we can't come up with an explanation why anything exists, then those other questions are like putting the cart before the horse.
perkele wrote:The Buddha did not equate happiness with being. You are contorting the whole argument.
Happiness can of course be seen as ultimately good, which is actually rather trivial. That has nothing to do with an ultimate cause of existence or with "pure actuality"/"pure being" etc.
If you look at his path and goal, it is a path which affirms "actuality" -- harmlessness (pro-life), truthful (pro-reality), no theft (a type of truthfulness), no intoxicant (another type of pro-reality). Joy, goodwill, harmony, etc. Even his ascetic life was not harsh or ultimately anti-body, like the Jains. Nibbana as a goal is also not anti "actuality". It refers to constancy, undying. It is beyond this round of existence, but he never defined that as annihilation. I am just pointing out that the notion is consistent.
tiltbillings wrote:He may not be hard core proselytizing, but he certainly is evangelizing.
This forum is for people of all religions. The OP asked a question, and I am participating. The topic is western ontology, and the west has been Christian for a long time. If atheists are given free rein to put their views out, then why should I be shy about my views. I haven't invited you to my church. Furthermore I am referring to widely respected people and theories, so it isn't like I am talking about Pastor Chuck at Blah Blah Blah Church, but stuff which will appear in any university level course on philosophy and/or religion.
[/quote]Sherab wrote:So does this principle create? If it does, then the creation is purposeless. If it does not, then it has no relevance whatsoever to the existence of this world since it is apart from this world. If it has no relevance whatsoever to this world, why bother with it?
Aristotle saw purpose in that all things tended toward an end. He derived this theory from the actualizing of potentials. So the acorn's purpose is to become a tree. This is called teleology.