Buddhist Metaphysics

administrator's picture
Submitted by administrator on Thu, 08/09/2012 - 21:27

The ‘Epiontic’ Dependently Originating Process of Cyclic Existence According to Early Buddhist Metaphysics (by Graham P. Smetham): Abstract: Some modern Western interpreters of Buddhist teachings and philosophy claim that the original teachings of the Pali Canon were staunchly anti-metaphysical. In this article I exa-mine the early Buddhist worldview and demonstration that this assertion is deeply mistaken. Whilst the early teachings of the Buddha clearly rejected dogmatic metaphysical positions which the Buddha characterised as being ‘extreme’, he also implicitly, yet clearly, taught a subtle metaphysical view of the process of reality which is consistent with the modern quantum ‘epiontic’ (epistemological perception creates ontology) perspective of ‘quantum Darwinism.’ Central to this viewpoint is 1) a non-materialism which indicates that the ultimate process of reality is of the nature of mind; 2) the assertion that the ultimate nature of reality lies between the extremes of ‘existence’ and ‘non-existence’, ‘eternalism’ and ‘nihilism’; 3) the assertion that the epiontic mechanism operates as ‘kamma’, or ‘karma’, a central mechanism for the functioning of conditioned samsaric (cycle of dissatisfactory lives) reality.

On the basis of these fundamental insights the doctrines of ‘rebirth’ and ‘dependent origination’ are shown to be crucial metaphysical components of the overall early Buddhist worldview as taught by the Buddha. These doctrines are also shown to be consistent with modern quantum theory. On the basis of this investigation recent claims that the 3-lifetimes model of dependent origination is mistaken are shown to be desperately misleading. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/156

The Quantum Truth of the Buddhist Metaphysics of the ‘Two Truths’ or ‘Two Realities’ (by Graham P. Smetham): Abstract: According to the ‘Buddhist’ writer Stephen Batchelor the core Buddhist doctrine of the ‘two truths’ or ‘two realities’ is a major mistake on the part of Buddhist practitioners and philosophers throughout the ages. Although this doctrine has been central to Buddhist thinking since the time of the Buddha, Batchelor says that it is a serious mistake, and is completely unscientific. This article show that it is Batchelor who is desperately mistaken because modern quantum theory has validated the metaphysical claim that the ‘classical’ or ‘conventional’ world is an illusion which is derived from the deeper quantum realm. Thus the division into the ‘classical’ realm and the ‘quantum’ realm maps onto the Buddhist distinction between the ‘conventional’ mode of reality and the ‘ultimate’ mode of reality. Far from Buddhist philosophy being ‘unscientific’, it is Batchelor who displays ignorance of modern science. http://scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/view/157

Comments

hspal

Sun, 08/19/2012 - 14:48

Here are two sayings of the Buddha:
“There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor staying; neither passing away nor arising: unestablished, unevolving, without support. This, just this, is the end of stress.”
“There is, monks, an unborn, an unbecome, an unmade, unfabricated. If there were not that unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born, be-come, made, fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated, emancipation from the born, become, made, fabricated is discerned.”

On the basis of these two sayings it can be said that it is a big lie that Buddhism is an atheistic religion. When Buddha said that there is an unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated, he betrayed himself. Atheists will even deny the existence of this unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated. The only difference between Buddhism and other religions is that Buddha refused to give this unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated any name. But it is the same Brahman of the Hindu religion that has no qualifier, and it is the same God of the mystics who is a no-thing. The first quote above is nothing but the description of a no-thing. Even an echo of some of the terms here, e.g., unborn, unmade (uncreated), can be heard in other religions also like Christianity. Another difference of Buddhism from other religions is that instead of praying to it for our deliverance from sorrows and sufferings, Buddha insisted on our striving to be it.

hspal

Mon, 08/20/2012 - 03:38

Unborn cannot reside in man who is born. Unbecome cannot reside in man who has become. Unmade cannot reside in man who is made. Unfabricated cannot reside in man who is fabricated. So it will be another big lie if we are told that this unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated is not in the outside world, and that it resides in every human being, dormant. If unborn resides in man only, then where was this unborn when man was not born?

hspal

Wed, 09/05/2012 - 13:14

Buddha's doctrine of no-self can be caricatured in the following way:
A man was inflicting pain on another man. A third man saw it and thought that he should do something to stop that. Then he thought: The great lord Buddha had taught that there was only the perceiving, but no perceiver. From this we will have to understand that there is no actor behind the act. Thus here actually "no one" is seeing "no one" inflicting pain on "no one". Everything is maya. Arguing like this he simply left the place without doing anything. And the second man went on suffering.
Although Buddha loved to say that his path was the middle path, but actually his was another extreme path. The other extreme path was that of the sages of the Upanishads who declared: "I am all. I am the Supreme Brahman." Buddha went to the other extreme of it and declared: "There is no I. There is no self." Both of these extreme paths will have to be avoided. The real middle path will be this: There is Brahman on one side, and there is man on the other side. This separatedness between Brahman and man will have to be maintained at any cost, because through man only Brahman can overcome His utter loneliness.