[Buddha-l] Speaking of simple minds

[Tom Troughton]

Dear Rob

Thanks for the extensive citations. Is this book an edited interview of
some kind? I wonder because if so, we really need to see what the other
participant(s) are saying or asking to understand what Ricard means.

On Fri, 5 Aug 2005 17:49:17 +0200, Rob Hogendoorn wrote:

>Well, to quote Matthieu Ricard himself: "In terms of absolute truth,  
>there's no creation, no duration, and no end" (p. 29). 

Isn't this a little bit misleading? It seems to me equally true to say
that there is no no creation, no no duration, and no no end. This would
mean that questions about the existence of the creator and so forth
cannot be answered absolutely simply because there is no question ;-),
which is quite different from saying that there is no creator.

>...Further: "All  
>religions and philosophies have become unstuck on the problem of  
>creation. Science has gotten rid of it by removing God the creator,  
>who had become unnecessary. Buddhism has done so by eliminating the  
>very idea of a beginning." (p. 31)

I'm not sure of the context of this statement, but surely Buddhists
think there is a beginning to this dharma - it began with this buddha,
and he also newly instituted a social organisation called the sangha.
Further I am not sure what Ricard thinks science has gotten rid of
here. If it has gotten rid of the problem of creation, why is
cosmological theory constantly changing? If he thinks it has gotten rid
of becoming 'unstuck', I must admit I have no idea what that can
mean other than becoming stuck, which I am pretty sure is not what he
means. I think he may mean that it simply avoids the problem by not
dealing with it. It seems that there's a kind of slant to his
statements here, but maybe 'unnecessary' means nothing more than 'not
relevant to the causal questions scientists use their method to
answer'.

>... And then "We [Buddhists, RH]  
>aren't just talking about matter when we depict the universe as a  
>series of metamorphoses without a beginning. Consciousness has no  
>start, either. (...) The problem of the lack of any first cause for  
>phenomena and consciousness falls into the category of what Buddhism  
>calls the "inconceivable." But we need not stand in dumb  
>incomprehension in front of such mysteries unsolvable by the  
>intellect. Certain things simply cannot be grasped using ordinary  
>concepts. The idea of a beginning is "inconceivable" not because it  
>would be so long ago or far off in space, but because our discursive  
>minds cannot stand back from that process of beginning in a way that  
>is needed to transcend all concepts. Our ordinary way of thinking  
>emerged from that same process and thus it can't place itself  
>"outside" the chain of causes and so determine its own origin" (p. 
>35)

I am not sure that he is arguing that there is no creator - maybe he
means that pursuing such ideas beyond the point where we discover their
limits is pointless. If so, doesn't it make sense that people can
believe whatever they wish to believe about such things, since there is
a limit to what we can actually know about reality? Perhaps arguments
about belief, rather than being decided on the basis of their truth
(which is unknowable), need some other measure for their judgement.

>..., after which an entire chapter "In search of the great  
>watchmaker: Is there a principle of organization?" begins.
>
>So, to answer your question: Conceivably, Ricard would agree that our  
>ordinarily way of thinking does allow us to coherently speak of  
>'creation', 'creator' or 'principle of organization', as long as one  
>doing so does not presuppose any notion of a prime cause. I suppose  
>Ricard would ask you back: what created or creates the karma- 
>motivation-action organizing principle that creates a deluded creator  
>of deluded experience?

When I look at existence I see a great deal of what appears to be
infinite recursion and pointless running around in circles, I see some
possibilities that may cut that off, but I don't see any way to use
this way of seeing to answer the question of whether there is a creator
or not. There may be some other way of answering this question, but I
don't know what it is. While I personally believe that there is not
such a thing, it is because I find it simpler and more elegant to think
this way. Others may have different beliefs, and good on them. OTOH it
does seem to me that we can dispense with the idea of an omniscient,
omnipotent, and personal creator on the grounds of simple good sense.
This of course has no bearing on the question of whether we can
similarly dispense with the idea of an omniscient, omnipotent, and
personal judge. What do you think?

Does Ricard find a principle of organisation?

>Take care,

You too.

Tom

>Op 5-aug-2005, om 6:56 heeft Tom Troughton het volgende geschreven:
>
>> On Thu, 4 Aug 2005 21:53:09 +0200, Rob Hogendoorn wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There are some extensive discussions on this theme in Matthieu
>>> Ricard's and Trinh Xuan Thuan's "The Quantum and the Lotus : A
>>> Journey to the Frontiers Where Science and Buddhism Meet" (ISBN
>>> 1400080797) as well. Matthieu holds forth on some Buddhist arguments
>>> against any type of creator, creative or organizing principle in many
>>> places.
>>>
>>
>> Are you saying that Ricard argues that the Buddhist idea of karma and
>> motivation as the principle condition of action leading to deluded
>> experience is not a creative or organising principle, and the agent
>> performing such actions is not the creator of such experience?
>> -- 
>> Best wishes
>> Tom Troughton
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> buddha-l mailing list
>> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>>
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>buddha-l mailing list
>buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
>http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l

-- 
Best wishes
Tom Troughton