Bases for Skillful Action?

Buddhist ethical conduct including the Five Precepts (Pañcasikkhāpada), and Eightfold Ethical Conduct (Aṭṭhasīla).
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by Dan74 »

Regarding the first cause, just two quick points:

1. I don't see where above you show that an infinite chain of causes back in time is impossible. Why does there have to be a first?

2. Physicists are quite comfortable with the Big Bang originating by itself. Causation only operates within time, but prior to the Big Bang, there is no time, hence no prior to the Big Bang. I am not a physicist, but as a mathematician, I see a fallacy of applying the our usual logic to a situation where it is inapplicable.

For centuries the greatest minds have attempted to prove the existence of God and failed. I don't think the Church maintains that God is a logical necessity. It is not a subjective necessity either - I certainly see many people living exemplary lives without a theistic belief. But if it makes sense to you, then it makes sense. There are also many people living exemplary lives with theistic beliefs.
_/|\_
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by contemplans »

A long one. :reading:
David N. Snyder wrote:
contemplans wrote: (1) In sensible things we find an order of efficient causes.
(2) It is impossible for this order of causes to proceed to infinity.
(3) There must be a first efficient cause.
(4) This first cause is God.
There is no logic at all in the above. The premises and the conclusion do not follow at all. Here are some other so-called arguments for the existence of a supreme being which also contain many logical fallacies:

http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2011/03/l ... ology.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The logical fallacies are so easy to spot, they might even be humorous.


Mr. Snyder, the blog post is interesting, but it is filled with straw men. What is funny (not ha ha) is that a monk of 32 years engages in the debate in such a disingenuous way. What about a teachings on pride and ill-will? I believe that Bhikkhu Thanissaro teaches that most modern humor is hateful these days (puts people down, etc.). Maybe he is right. I can take a laugh, but usually people resort to this stuff when they can't argue on the level.

As for fallacy, please explain the fallacy in this argument:

a) Whatever is in motion, is moved by something else.
b) We cannot regress to infinity in the series of moved movers.

Motion is nothing other than the process by which a substance undergoes change, and that change is one of the actuality of the potential. Whatever is in motion is at each moment of its change gaining new actuality. It is continuous. Consequently, everything subject to change is in potency in some respect, and anything that moves something is in act in precisely that respect in which what moves is in potency. Nothing therefore, can move itself; because in order to do so it would have to be in in act and in potency in the same respect, in one identicacl movement. If that was the case, then the "movement" of the individual would be complete actuality, not the actualization of a potency. But to conceive of motion as a complete actuality is to destroy the concept of change/impermanence itself. Therefore, since nothing can move itself and since nothing can be in motion by its essence, whatever is in motion is moved by something else.

Now everything in motion will require a cause of its own motion, consequently there is no moved mover -- no mover which is itself in motion -- as the true cause or source of motion. It moves something only in virtue of the motion it has received. Therefore it is a transmitter of motion, rather than a true cause of motion. Consequently all the movers-in-motion which make up the world require as the true cause and source of their movement an unmoved mover.

Now this conclusion cannot be escaped by the hypothesis of an infinite series of moved movers. Why? Such a series has an adequate cause, it is argued, the movement prior to it. To say that each memeber of an infinite series of casually connected movements is in motion because a prior member moves it, is not to explain its movement. It is not to explain anything, but merely is a repeat that the series is a series of moved movers. It does not answer the question why members of the series are not in static instead of dynamic relation. It does answer why any of them move at all. This is taking motion/change for granted, and what implies something prior to itself cannot be taken for granted..

To accept that an infinite series of moved movers without an unmmoved mover outside the series causing its movements, is to accept motion within the series as an absolute, a starting point of explanation not to be explained itself. It is clear that the motion of the series does not arise from anything in the series. While motion can, for the sake of method, be taken as an ultimate *within* the series, it cannot be taken as an ultimate absolute, because it necessarily involves a reduction of potency to act, and implies a prior actuality.

The argument is a manifestation and explanation of what every motion utlimately presupposes and implies, namely, a mover is not itself in motion -- a Pure Actuality. God is not dragged in, in default of a natural explanation, but He comes in as a reality rigidly implied by nature's mode of being, which is being in process of actualization.




Dan74 wrote:Regarding the first cause, just two quick points:

1. I don't see where above you show that an infinite chain of causes back in time is impossible. Why does there have to be a first?

2. Physicists are quite comfortable with the Big Bang originating by itself. Causation only operates within time, but prior to the Big Bang, there is no time, hence no prior to the Big Bang. I am not a physicist, but as a mathematician, I see a fallacy of applying the our usual logic to a situation where it is inapplicable.

For centuries the greatest minds have attempted to prove the existence of God and failed. I don't think the Church maintains that God is a logical necessity. It is not a subjective necessity either - I certainly see many people living exemplary lives without a theistic belief. But if it makes sense to you, then it makes sense. There are also many people living exemplary lives with theistic beliefs.
Big Bang has either God as cause, or Big Bang isn't the start. That's it. Big Bang doesn't cause being to come to be. The Big Bang is not God, but an process/event. And let's be quite clear, the Church teaches that God can be known *with certainty* through observation of the created world. Not that we can understand Him completely. While we conclude that logic says God, it does not mean we have all the answers as to why and how. That is where Revelation and Faith come in, which supply some of the why and how of all this. Those are not always drawn from reasoned logic, although they don't against reason either. They are outside the scope of reason (that's why they are propositions of belief).

My basic evolution was that had a lot of problems with the process of rebirth. Secondly I thought the teaching of right view taught by some discouraged independent inquiry into whether Buddhism was completely true, especially logical argument, which is highly discouraged by some as wrong view. I plainly doubted that the Buddha saw all his lives without a beginning being evident, i.e., he posits a circle of existence instead of a line. I also doubted that my body wasn't mine (anatta). If something of mine can attain nibbana, which appparently is also subject to change since it attains something, then why not this body of mine? Why can't the most basic understanding of myself also be part of the deal. (This is related to rebirth. Our bodies are "mirages" in that world-view. It is an idealistic system, while I think the hylemorphism system is a better explanation.) Pieces were missing in the Buddhist story. Applying the logic, God (Pure Actuality) is a necssary conclusion. I then believed that behavior has to acknowledge that. Much of Buddhism doesn't go against this, but endless round of rebirth is certainly off the table. And from there karma is understood in a different way, not only in practice, but in basis. Some people think that rebirth came to be as an explanation because there was not a belief in a personal God. The God of ancient India was impersonal, because of their pantheism and monism. Buddhism shows some signs of this. Certainly a Buddha has no communication with us after his life. So samsara, rebirth, and the goal are impersonal in the sense that us now are really just one version. Me 2.0, Me 3.0, etc. Some even take the me out of it. Certainly the body you look at each day is not yours. So your entire sensory experience is one of disconnection and impersonality. Furthermore there is no personal connection with the ultimate of our existence. Some may say we don't need that, but I think it is evident in Buddhism in places where it has become the religion of the populace. People naturally place things in as the divine. So we have prayer to devas and revential gestures, and what-not which would have been reserved for the divine (not exclusively, of course). Somehow we need to do this stuff. We call it respect for the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha, but I think more is at work here. And lastly there is no possible way to ever know that anyone attained the goal, since no one is able to talk about it. So I do jhanic meditation, and have incorporated much of what the Buddha said, but some teachings just didn't square with logic.

Also I would say that your statement that the greatest minds have attempted to prove the existence of God and failed is not correct. The proofs are very strong, and in fact have not been defeated. The defeats, if even attempted, are defeats of straw men. Most people are at a level of ignorance of the arguments, or at a level of belief about our existence which makes argument futile (like we live in matrix cacoons or something). You can read a book called, "The Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism" by Edward Feser. I think most people reject the logic of God because of the problem of moral action, bringing us back to karma. Buddhism has a great moral system, which is fit to its goal. But in the wider scheme of things, if that goal is not true, or transmigration is not true, or there is no ultimate basis for good action (which I think is not true), then something has to change. But there is no external test of logic to test that. It is pure faith proceding each act. There is nothing wrong with faith, but everyone prides themselves of that they live by experience and the "come and see" attitude. It's sort of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.
User avatar
Khalil Bodhi
Posts: 2250
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:32 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by Khalil Bodhi »

Contemplans,

Well, unsurprisingly, your response to my question was unsatisfying and didn't really address the question of praxis. The argumentation and eel-wriggling here really doesn't have much on the fruits of the Dhamma-vinaya of the Lord buddha. I wish you happiness with whatever path you choose and will now bow out. Mettaya!
To avoid all evil, to cultivate good, and to cleanse one's mind — this is the teaching of the Buddhas.
-Dhp. 183

The Stoic Buddhist: https://www.quora.com/q/dwxmcndlgmobmeu ... pOR2p0uAdH
My Practice Blog:
http://khalilbodhi.wordpress.com
User avatar
DarwidHalim
Posts: 537
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:49 am
Location: Neither Samsara nor Nirvana

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by DarwidHalim »

contemplans wrote:I am just trying to see if anyone sees an absolute basis for any Buddhist teaching, including the Four Noble Truths, and if so, then where do they think such an absolute comes from. This is worthy of inquiry, since later Buddhists often took up theistic teachings and beliefs, and in our time many take up atheistic teachings and beliefs. How can any ethical system be worthy of practice that is not absolute on its key teachings? I am truly wondering how some reconcile this with the wider Buddhist teaching. Or maybe some just haven't asked themselves what is the basis for the ethical teachings.
Four Noble Truth is not absolute. It is relative.

Which part of four noble truth tell us absoluteness?

There is nothing absolute in any Buddhist teaching.

In case you can show me just 1 example which is absolute, I will buy you :toast:
I am not here nor there.
I am not right nor wrong.
I do not exist neither non-exist.
I am not I nor non-I.
I am not in samsara nor nirvana.
To All Buddhas, I bow down for the teaching of emptiness. Thank You!
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by contemplans »

Khalil Bodhi wrote: Well, unsurprisingly, your response to my question was unsatisfying and didn't really address the question of praxis. The argumentation and eel-wriggling here really doesn't have much on the fruits of the Dhamma-vinaya of the Lord buddha. I wish you happiness with whatever path you choose and will now bow out. Mettaya!
We can easily pose the question back in the opposite way. How is it soteriologically inefficacious? Whether the eightfold path changes at all is worthy of investigation. But you'd have to go back to the four nobles truths, and question in light of new evidence if dukkha is the supreme evil of life.
DarwidHalim wrote:
Four Noble Truth is not absolute. It is relative.
Which part of four noble truth tell us absoluteness?
There is nothing absolute in any Buddhist teaching.
In case you can show me just 1 example which is absolute, I will buy you :toast:
How about the precept which says that drinking intoxicants is bad karma. :toast:
santa100
Posts: 6814
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by santa100 »

Contemplans wrote:
But you'd have to go back to the four nobles truths, and question in light of new evidence if dukkha is the supreme evil of life.
As mentioned before, "supreme evil" wouldn't be the term we use. Dukkha only exists for one who still experiences them. It does not for those who have transcended them.
How about the precept which says that drinking intoxicants is bad karma.


Actually, the original message of the 5th precept is:
Surāmerayamajjapamādaṭṭhānā veramaṇī sikkhāpadaṃ samādiyāmi.
I undertake the training rule to abstain from fermented drink that causes heedlessness.

Again, there's nothing absolute about this message. A person who has terminal cancer or a wounded soldier is allowed to use morphine to help ease their pain. Clinging to an "absolute" precept sometimes result in great tragedy such as the case of a boy not too long ago, needed to have a blood transfusion. His religion somehow forbid this practice and because his family did not allow it, he died at the end..
User avatar
Prasadachitta
Posts: 974
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 6:52 am
Location: San Francisco (The Mission) Ca USA
Contact:

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by Prasadachitta »

contemplans wrote:I am just trying to see if anyone sees an absolute basis for any Buddhist teaching, including the Four Noble Truths, and if so, then where do they think such an absolute comes from. This is worthy of inquiry, since later Buddhists often took up theistic teachings and beliefs, and in our time many take up atheistic teachings and beliefs. How can any ethical system be worthy of practice that is not absolute on its key teachings? I am truly wondering how some reconcile this with the wider Buddhist teaching. Or maybe some just haven't asked themselves what is the basis for the ethical teachings.
Hello Contemplans,

The problem with this kind of discussion is often that our understanding of terms can be so out of sink that little to nothing gets conveyed between one perspective and the next. However, in the spirit of cultivating the ability to communicate with a broad audience, I will try to convey my understanding within the context of my perception of your views.

I would define absolute in a manner which you may not. For me, an absolute is simply an observation which is universally applicable. Not all Buddhist will describe the teachings the way I will so keep that in mind. Nibanna is not synonymous with truth which is observed. Nibanna is a non universal truth which which arises in dependence upon the before mentioned observation. In other words when the universally applicable truth is observed by any being this results in Nibanna. This is why Nibanna is a relative truth. Nibanna is when greed hatred and delusion cease to influence an individual.

So what is this universally applicable observation? Specific conditions bring specific results. This observation is far deeper than it appears on its face. It is easy to sort of project it on top of all other relative observations and deduce that it is true which for me results in somthing like "So what?". However, if this observation is given absolute priority even going so far as trumping the very occurrence of observation, it radically transforms our way of perceiving. One will see that dividing results from there causes is not actually universally accurate.

I hope this helps

Take care

Prasadachitta
"Beautifully taught is the Lord's Dhamma, immediately apparent, timeless, of the nature of a personal invitation, progressive, to be attained by the wise, each for himself." Anguttara Nikaya V.332
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by contemplans »

Prasadachitta , I appreciate your candor. What I don't understand is why the Buddhist path is a noble truth then, if it is applicable to each person with no reference to all people. Every religion worthy of mention says that the absolutes are applicable to each person uniquely. But the Buddha did say that over your particular application, there are these universals which govern the pariculars -- karma, rebirth, dukkha as undesireable, etc. Nibbana is universal in that it is the goal of all beings. Karma is universal in that all beings get to the goal through skillful karma and go away from it through unskillful karma. Dukkha is bad because beings universally desire lasting happiness. The Buddha takes the universals and sets out a universal path, which we take and apply to our particulars. At least this is what it should be, it seems.
Last edited by contemplans on Wed Dec 21, 2011 7:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by daverupa »

contemplans wrote:As for fallacy, please explain the fallacy in this argument:

a) Whatever is in motion, is moved by something else.
b) We cannot regress to infinity in the series of moved movers.
a), on its own, disproves an unmoved mover, or a prime mover. In fact, holding that a) is true actually demands infinite regress (a Buddhist would prefer to say that "a beginning is not discerned").

Holding that b) is true means a) has at least one exception, which requires that the term "whatever" be modified. Furthermore, b) has no evidence - "we cannot" is hardly convincing, ultimately resolving into argumentum ad ignorantiam.

In short, the two premises are prima facie contradictory, and therefore it's a non-starter; if you were to study the Cosmological Argument (which is basically what you're proposing) you would see this for yourself.

:heart:
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
contemplans
Posts: 152
Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by contemplans »

daverupa wrote:
contemplans wrote:As for fallacy, please explain the fallacy in this argument:

a) Whatever is in motion, is moved by something else.
b) We cannot regress to infinity in the series of moved movers.
a), on its own, disproves an unmoved mover, or a prime mover.
The unmoved mover is not in motion, so please explain how it is disproven.
In fact, holding that a) is true actually demands infinite regress (a Buddhist would prefer to say that "a beginning is not discerned").
Yes, I agree, that is why there is B, which addresses the infinite regress.
Holding that b) is true means a) has at least one exception, which requires that the term "whatever" be modified.
No, it does not. You are assuming that the unmoved mover moves. Please reread your statements in light of the argument and you'll see this. Try examining it during your insight meditation.
Furthermore, b) has no evidence - "we cannot" is hardly convincing, ultimately resolving into argumentum ad ignorantiam.
I developed the argument in the longer statement. "We cannot" is a statement of necessity, not an argument in itself ("this conclusion cannot be escaped by the hypothesis of an infinite series of moved movers"). There is no appeal to ignorance. What I am saying is that we know we cannot regress to infinity, not that we don't know that we can regress to infinity. If it is a unsound/false argument, then please address the material proposed in the paragraph which fleshes it out.
daverupa
Posts: 5980
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by daverupa »

contemplans wrote:If it is a unsound/false argument, then please address the material proposed in the paragraph which fleshes it out.
There's no need, because the Cosmological Argument is already thoroughly analyzed elsewhere; indeed, it's interesting that even if its conclusions are granted, a proponent of this argument is left without the ability to connect the "prime mover" God to any particular religious iteration. Is the "Prime mover" Yahweh, Odin, Osiris, White Buffalo Woman... there is no requisite connection. These contrasting claims about such a Creator and that Creator's intentions and methods of human communication are further claims that demand support, all of it prior to any actionable statements about God's Will or the Absolute Good.

The whole morass is a "thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding." (MN 72)
  • "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.

- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 17191
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by DNS »

contemplans wrote: (1) In sensible things we find an order of efficient causes.
(2) It is impossible for this order of causes to proceed to infinity.
(3) There must be a first efficient cause.
(4) This first cause is God.

As for fallacy, please explain the fallacy in this argument:

a) Whatever is in motion, is moved by something else.
b) We cannot regress to infinity in the series of moved movers.
a) above is okay and is perhaps compatible with Dependent Origination.
b) The Buddha said no first beginning is discernible, so is moot, but your statement is not valid anyway, because we don't know if time or the universe is infinite and if we can regress to infinity. The Buddha did not say there is infinite regress.

3) and 4) do not follow from the premises.
Big Bang has either God as cause, or Big Bang isn't the start. That's it. Big Bang doesn't cause being to come to be. The Big Bang is not God, but an process/event. And let's be quite clear, the Church teaches that God can be known *with certainty* through observation of the created world. Not that we can understand Him completely. While we conclude that logic says God, it does not mean we have all the answers as to why and how.
[The logical fallacy of] circular reasoning.

Astronomers have suggested that solar systems form and deteriorate and re-evolve over long periods of time, similar to what the Buddha said in the Brahmajala Sutta. There does not need to be a first cause, nor a designer. In fact, the diversity of life and the sometimes haphazard flow of evolution clearly shows no designer, including the loss of sight in some species.
That is where Revelation and Faith come in, which supply some of the why and how of all this. Those are not always drawn from reasoned logic, although they don't against reason either. They are outside the scope of reason (that's why they are propositions of belief).
I prefer logic and reason over blind faith.
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by Dan74 »

contemplans wrote:A long one. :reading:
I see a lot of confident assertions and no reasoned sequential argument. Evidently you see your logical powers as being superior to many great minds who failed to see God as a logical necessity and some lesser ones like me. But a coherent argument, this does not make.

I'm sorry but I am too busy for this.
_/|\_
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by danieLion »

contemplans wrote:
As for fallacy, please explain the fallacy in this argument:

a) Whatever is in motion, is moved by something else.
b) We cannot regress to infinity in the series of moved movers.
1. Setting aside the general problems of contextualizing these sentences as an "argument" either fallacious or not (more on this below), the first problem is it's resemblance to Parmenides' tautological conclusions regarding existence (cf., e.g., Nietzsche's Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks) and suffers from the same deficiencies.

2. To which definition(s?) of "fallacy" and "argument" do you refer?

DanieLion :heart:
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Bases for Skillful Action?

Post by danieLion »

contemplans wrote: Buddhism is not immune from any of these things. Buddhism posits a world view, beliefs....
False!

Read Paul Fuller's The Notion of Ditthi in Theravada Buddhism.
contemplans wrote:The path involves investigation into reality, so why is this investigation outside of the path to truth.
Investigation is part of the path. Do you know what is to be investigated?

It's not the path to truth. It's The Path to Liberation.
D :heart:
Last edited by danieLion on Thu Dec 22, 2011 4:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply