PeterJ

That's what Neo might have said, before he saw through the scam. .

Monday - Have you considered the possibility of a phenomenon that is unmanifest? One that is prior to spacetime and causality? Lao Tzu tells us that the laws of the human world derive from the laws of Heaven, and that the laws of Heaven are as they are 'Tao being what it is'.. I.e he would agree with you that it begins with an 'is'. Given Tao, all else would follow. I think that the most basic principle for Middle Way Buddhism would be nonduality.

Good question. Or, what do you mean by 'you'?

Aha. Yes, I see why you think I'm disagreeing with the Buddha. What the Budddha is saying is do not speculate, but go and find out. He is not saying that the truth cannot be known, but that there is no point in speculating about it. As for references, I could swamp the thread with them. Better for you to go and read the sutras really, or the Tao Te Ching,,but here are some that were handy. I can post as many as you want, since the topic underlies most of the literature. "Not from self, not from other, Not from both, nor without cause: Things do not arise At any time, at any place. This verse [by Nagarjuna] proves that things do not arise because they do not arise from any of the four extremes: They do not arise from themselves, from something other than themselves, from both themselves and something other than themselves, and they do not arise without any cause at all. These are the only four possible ways in which things could arise, and since none of them are valid, things do not truly arise. Therefore, things do not truly exist." Khenpo Tsütrim Gyamtso The Sun of Wisdom Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna’s Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way Shambala, 2003 (5) This next one is the Buddha. It's the nearest thing to a philosophical statement I can find. It is primarily a psychological statement, but ontological as well. ('Demons here are mental disturbances, not little men with horns). "Further, in his cultivation of samadi which, as a result of his pointed concentration of mind, can no more be troubled by demons, if the practiser looks exhaustively into the origins of living beings and begins to differentiate between views when contemplating the continuous subtle disturbance in this clear state, he will fall into error because of the following four confused views about the undying heaven. i. As he investigates the origin of transformation, he may call changing that which varies, unchanging that which continues, born that which is visible, annihilated that which is no more seen, increasing that which preserves its nature in the process of transformation, decreasing that whose nature is interrupted in the changing process, existing that which is created, and non-existent that which disappears; this is the result of his differentiation of the eight states seen as he contemplates the manifestations of the fourth aggregate. If seekers of the truth call on him for instruction, he will declare,: ‘I now both live and die, both exist and do not, both increase and decrease,’ thus talking wildly to mislead them. ii. As the practiser looks exhaustively into his mind, he finds that each thought ceases to exist in a flash and concludes that they are non-existent. If people ask for instruction, his answer consists of the one word "Nothing," beyond which he says nothing else iii. As the practiser looks exhaustively into his mind, he sees the rise of his thoughts and concludes that they exist. If people ask for instruction, his answer will consist of the one word "Something," beyond which he says nothing else. iv. The practiser sees both existence and non-existence and finds that such states are so complicated that they confuse him. If people ask for instruction, he will say: "The existing comprises the non-existent but the non-existent does not comprise the existing," is such a perfunctory manner as to prevent exhaustive enquiries. By so discriminating he causes confusion and so falls into heresy which screens his Boddhi nature. The above pertains to the fifth state of heterodox discrimination (samskara) which postulates confused views about the undying." Sakyamuni Buddha The Surangama Sutra Trans. Lu K’uan Yu I. Publications, New Delhi, 1966 (p. 222) For Taoism knowing the 'ancient origin' is the essence of the practice. . "Without going outside, you may know the whole world. Without looking through the window, you may see the ways of heaven. The farther you go, the less you know. Lao Tsu Tao Te Ching Trans. Gia-Fu Feng and Jane English Wildwood House Ltd (1973) The entire point of the practice is to discover such things as our own origin and the origin and nature of all phenomena. Loa Tzu states 'knowing the ancient beginnings is the essence of Tao'. Same throughout the various forms of mysticism. For the writers of the Upanishads 'The voidness is one phenomenon is the voidness of all'. That is to say, once one has seen the nature of one phenomenon one has seen the nature of them all. I'm not sure why we're questionning this. It's there in all the texts. I know that many people do not think such practices lead to such knowledge, but we have to concede that this is the perennial claim. PS. The actual claim is that the spacetiome universe doers not originate with Something or with Nothing. This is consistent with reason, which finds that neither of these ideas makes sense, as many threads in this forum illustrate. The claim is also that the universe does not begin and does not not-begin, which is a very confusing claim but can be read as meaning that there are two ways of looking at it depending on what we mean by ';universe', on what level we are speaking and so forth. Also, if by reduction things do not really exist then it makes no sense to say they began. If we say they exist in a way, then they began in a way.

The Buddha did give an answer, not directly.but by implication. It hardly matters, Nagarjuna later made many of the philosophical details more clear, and there are thousands of other sages since who have dealt with this issue. Mahayana Buddhism is grounded philosophically by Nagarjuna's theory of emptiness and doctrine of two truths. This is the philosophical foundation of the Buddha's teaching. Lao Tsu is explicit. He tells us he knows how the world begins, and says he knows this because he has looked inside himself and seen. . I wouldn't expect anyone to take such claims seriously without a great deal of thought and research, but I am surprised when someone suggests that Buddhism and Taoism do not make a claim in this area. The claim is expllcit and no secret. Buddhism and Taoism are all about knowing how the world begins. It is about knowing the nature and origin of all phenomena. You needn;t believe the explanation given, and it is a difficult one to understand, but there's no denying that it is given. We are talking about a complete philosophical scheme. It makes claims in every area of metaphysics, from origins to consciousness, from ethics to spacetime. So I do not think your objections have any weight. You would need to look at the explanation given and object to that. .

Selfishness and altruism need not be at odds with each other. For Schopenhauer the distinction is sublated in the metaphysical truth that we all share a common identity. Hence we can feel selfish when we perform a noble deed for someone else, for it pleases us, and altruistic also, since it also pleases us in the form of them. This is what biologists have not considered much in their pursuit of an explanation for altruism, that altruism is not the opposite of selfishness but a form of it, and explicable as both action and motive by reference to identity. Thus 'knownothing' can see he is performing both an altruistic and a selfish act at the same time. On this view all altruistic acts are performed for what could be judged selfish reasons, or at least benefit the actor, but seem not to be so when the metaphysics of our situation is not grasped.

Forget supernatural powers. Those who seek enlightenment do not have much truck with the supernatural, if there is such a thing. A more common term would be 'supramundane'. Ie. beyond our usual experience, but not beyond Nature. It is quite easy to kill enlightened people, as the Chinese are always keen to demonstrate. After all, the Buddha died of food poisoning. It is true that there is no sure way to identify an enlightenened individual, partly since it is a gradual thing unless one is a buddha and reached the end of the line. but it is often possible to clearly identify people who are definitely not there yet from their speech and behaviour. C. S, Peirce says that it is easy to tell those 'still at the dual stage' from their unrigorous use of language. I agree.

Wha? It's no good just saying someone is wrong. Some evidence is required. Do you know what he means by nirvana and extinction? I wouldn't write off Jung so quickly either. Worth persevering.

The OP's question is not relevant to soteriology. This is why the Buddha does not waste time on it, and why many Buddhists think we should not waste time on it. It is relevant to physics, however, and this is why I think we should consider what Buddhism, more generally mysticism. has to say about it. It is my impression that many people dismiss this long before they have any slighest idea what it is. Science cannot answer the OP's question. This is the reason why this thread is in 'philosophy'. It is a metaphysical problem, and it would be a elementary mistake to wait for science to solve it. Unless, that is, you see metaphysics as as science, as many do. What is your objection to the answer to this question that is given in Buddhism and Taoism?

This thread is about how the universe began. If Buddhism is not relevant to this then it's not relevant to anything. The doctrine of dependent origination states that everything that seems to exist does so only in dependence on something else and that nothing has intrinsic or independent existence. These various aspects fo the doctrine cannot be separated because they all imply each other. The Buddha suggested that we do not get bogged down in questions about beginnings and so forth, but he did not say there are no answers. They are there in the sutras if we extrapolate, and they are presented quite clearly elsewhere in the literature. I'm sorry if you see this answer to the OP's question as bogging down the thread. It's the only answer that makes sense to me, so I have nothing else to add.

Hi Prometheus - This teaching about existence is the essence of the doctrine. It is the doctrine of 'dependent origination' or 'emptiness'. If things existed as we usually think they do then Buddhism, more generally mysticism, would have to be nonsense. The basic idea is that phenomena have no substance or essence 'from their own side', but are conceptual imputations. Where best to find it would depend on where your interests lie . If you're into consciousness studies then I'd recommend an article by Edward Barkin titled 'Relative phenomenalism', from JCS about ten years ago. Nagarjuna is worth checking because he presents a famous logical proof that nothing really exists, and much of the commentary around his work deals with this idea. . It's actually the whole idea behind 'The Matrix'. In the film there is a reference to Beaudrillard's 'Desert of the Real', and this is very relevant to the idea of 'emptiness' and maybe a way to get a handle on it. As the thread is about how everything begins, George Spencer Brown is also worth checking out, since he describes the principles of the mechanism in his book 'Laws of Form'. Don't expect to 'get it' quickly though. It may look irrelevant, This idea, doctrine, belief, theory or simple fact is the reason why the nondual doctrine does not give rise to any metaphysical problems.

Oh no. The idea is not that nothing exists. It is that nothing exists in the way we usually think it does. Our idea of existence would be faulty, and this is why it would make no sense to us. Not a very contentious claim. .

Sebastian - On existence you asked me to elaborate. Here goes. Existence is paradoxical. This is a central problem in metaphysics. It always has been. The intractability of the 'beginning' question is one sign of this. This suggest that there is something wrong with our idea of existence. It makes no sense to us. This leads to the idea that perhaps the Buddhist idea of existence is more useful. This would say that nothing really exists, thus solving the problem of how existence is possible. Sorry to bang on about Buddhism, but really it does have a lot of answers that work, whether they're correct or not.

Arjun - Don;t bother getting hot under the collar. Do you think the Gods care about what names they're called? Prometheus is right. We can call the Buddha what we like and it makes no difference to anything. As for the names of Gods, of which Buddha is not one, Remember that not everyone understands the concept of respect. But I don't know what the discussion is about so will sit out. .

This is very strange. In ten years of inyensive reading I've never noticed Gautama spelt without a final 'a'. Before I mentioned the spelling mistake here I checked Wikki just in case I was going senile. Sure enough, no mention of any variant spelling. But I just did a search and it's a perfectly common spelling. This I do not understand. I shall investigate and report back. What is this discussion supposed to be about, by the way? Something about a tea cup.

Sure. Change it back if you want to be consistent with the people who mispell it and show up on Google searches. It will tell people that you haven't done your homework. I wasn't aware that Google offered information on these things, and as yet I've never come across a Buddhist writer using a variant spelling.

The family name of the Buddha was Gautama.

Yes, I can hear your enthusiasm. It's an exciting area to investigate. I'm happy to chat but I'm not sure I've yet seen what you want to achieve here.

Arjun - I'm not sure what to make of your long post. It is highly confusing, but this may be a language thing. Maybe you could correct the spelling mistake in the title for credibility's sake. .

We seem to agree mostly. Henry Stapp, yes, I've got him here somewhere. I seem to remember liking his thoughts as far as they went. These days I prefer Ulrich Morhoff. Science was inconsistent with Buddhism until quantum physics came along. But it sorted itself out, and Morhoff is moving on. . . JCS? Used to be a subscriber and even submitted an article once (no luck - it was very poor) but I got bored with the lack of imagination. It just goes round and round in circles and the cover price is unjustifiable when one can just re-read old copies from the archive. I would disagree with the idea that classical physics can explain matter. Physics still cannot explain matter and I predict it never will until the mindset changes. Same deal with JCS and consciousness. You have to explain it all or you can't expain any part of it. Btw - Buddhism's impermanence is not a law but a doctrine, or, if you like, a fact. Nothing that exists would be permanent. Fields on fields and all that. To be honest, I suspect that you and I support a view that will soon be commonplace. Or maybe it already is. But the details need a lot of work.

What are you making clear? That reality is not what we usually think it is? This is obvious, since we find it absurd. Or, at least, physics finds it absurd. I agree with the 'evasion' criticism. Philosopher of mind David Chalmers calls it 'sleights of hand'. and accuses his peers of over-indulging. The literature of modern consciousness studies is often evasive to the point of not saying anything at all.

In my view, being a fan of Lao Tzu, everything comes from an 'is'. It's not as if the laws of nature can exist in some disembodied form apart from the phenomenon they govern.

I don't think Dr. Schwartz is suggesting that we replace one set of beliefs with another. The suggestion is that we replace them with knowledge. Many people do not believe real knowledge is possible, but this is just more beliefs.

I read the OP as asking about the reality of instants of time. Contrary to Swansont I do not believe Zeno's paradoxes have been solved, and neither does one Australian physicist who recently wrote a paper about the reality of instants and whose name I forget. I think this question is closely related to the issue of the true nature of the continuum. Thanks to Imatfaal I can refer to Weyl as having something interesting to say about this, since for him (as far as I can make out) a true continuum would have no extension and thus, in the case of time and space, no discrete instants or points. .

Ah yes. I see your point. Many scientists endorse materialism and theism, but they're not doing science when they do so. Fair point. But then, my criticism was not aimed at science (I see no reason to criticise science) but at scientists who promote meta-scientific views. . How about Guth and Stenger with ttheir theories of ex nihilo creation? Or, how about the idea that physics can construct a fundamental theory? Scientific consciousness studies is fertile ground. Here materialism is common, and the 'hard' problem is actually defined by Chalmers as the problem of explaining how consciousness arises from matter. Hardly surprising that defined as such it is intractable. But yes, I agree with your objection. Science does not endorse any failed metaphysical views. It's just that this seems to be regularly forgotten by individual scientists. , .