Jump to content
Dharmaling Forums
bhakti

A Question

Recommended Posts

I have a question. If every effect has it's cause, how we all know it does, then was was the cause of a first effect, if there is no God? How were we created if we are not soul (atman), a piece of higher soul (paramatman)?

If there is only One, then aren't we a piece of that one?

I realy don't know what buddhists think of this, I would realy like to know...

Thank you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hi !!

 

Yeah this is a good question, but I better think you have to search the answer into books that are talking about Vacuity .. I'm thinking about the Treaty of the Middle by Nagarjurna (it's a hard reading book but quite clear with much exemples).

 

At the same time, it's not really necessary to know how have been made the first effect, because it's too far and you'll probably find the answer of your request into the daily life experiences of emotions, events and your(or other people) relation (attention) towards them. But I maintain that it's more important to stay concentrate into the present and be conscious as much as you can on what you're doing, in thinking about what will be the consequences of what you've done !! :))

 

In that way I can't answer you about the First Effect, if only is there one !!

 

Best regards,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How were we created if we are not soul (atman), a piece of higher soul (paramatman)?
Here is a quote which you might find helpful. :) The Buddha didn't speak about the first cause, but taught how to get liberated from all causes and conditions, and how to become a Buddha for the benefit of all beings. The theory of no-self (anatman) is explained below.

 

"Generally speaking on the practical level someone is not a practicing Buddhist based on whether or not the person has taken refuge in the Three Jewels. The difference between Buddhist and non-Buddhist philosophical schools of thought is made on the basis of whether or not someone subscribes to what is known as the Four Excellences of Buddhism.

 

All composite phenomena are transient, impermanent and all phenomena are empty and selfless. Nirvana alone is true peace. The first of the Four Excellences is the recognition that anything that is a composite, anything, which comes into being from causes and conditions, is transient and impermanent. Second anything which is a product of polluted causes, contaminated causes, in the final analysis is a form of suffering.

 

The third is all phenomena are empty and selfless or devoid of self-existence. The absence of self-existence referred to here is the general notion of anatman, no-self that is common to all the schools of Buddhism. Of course there are one or two exceptional cases where such as the Vatsiputriya school or the Personalist schools which posit some notion of a real existence of self. On the whole, philosophically speaking, all Buddhist schools reject any notion of an atman or soul principle. Therefore the doctrine of no-self is fundamental philosophically for all schools of Buddhism.

 

The fourth and final point is that nirvana; the true cessation of suffering, alone is the state of lasting joy and peace. These are the Four Excellences of Buddhism that are shared by all schools of Buddhism.

 

It is said in ancient Indian schools of non-Buddhist thought that all posit an atman or soul principle which is said to be permanent, autonomous and independent from the mind and the body which constitute the empirical reality of the person. In the non-Buddhist schools of thought there is a belief in some kind of eternal soul which is totally separate, categorically separate from, distinct from the body, the contingent nature of the person, body and mind. Buddhist schools on the whole reject that kind of atman therefore the emphasis is on the no-self, the anatman.

 

There is also another level of the understanding of the doctrine of no-self. The no-self is understood in terms of the rejection of a self that is the master or controller over our aggregates such as the body and mind yet is still a part of it. This kind of clinging to an autonomous self, although this self is not completely separate from the mind/body aggregate but still enjoys some kind of autonomy. This is also said to be a form of belief in an atman or a soul. The majority of the Buddhist schools reject this.

 

When one talks about the Four Excellences in Buddhism, no-self or selflessness needs to be understood along these lines not necessarily along the lines of subtle no-self as presented by Mahayana schools. Buddhist schools on the whole reject any notion of a self that is independent of mind and body, the aggregates. The notion of a self that is permanent, eternal and unitary is also rejected. This is the basic Buddhist position on the whole; it rejects such a soul principle. However as to what exactly is the individual person there is a divergence of opinion among Buddhist thinkers. Some maintain it is the totality of the aggregates, which is the true person. Some maintain that it is mental consciousness, which is the true person.

 

Buddhist schools on the whole accept the person itself as a concept, a nominal construct. Many Buddhist however believe that underlying the nominal construct there must be some real reference, some real person who should be findable under ultimate analysis.

 

On the whole much of the Buddhist position is to identify the person with either the continuum of the consciousness or the aggregates. In the case of the Cittamatra school they posit a continuum of consciousness which enjoys a stable foundation, the alayavijnana, the fundamental store consciousness. All of these schools basically share a commonality that is to suggest there must be a substantially real person who should be findable when one seeks for the reference behind the term and concept of the person. This suggests that these Buddhist schools are not entirely content with the notion of a person as a mere construct, a mere nominal reality. Rather they seek some kind of objective grounding to what a person really is, to find some kind of objective reference to the term and concept of personhood.

 

However, Madhyamika thinkers such as Candrakirti and Buddhapalita rejected all of that and argued that there is no real need to seek for some kind of reference for our concept of person and self and find some kind of objective reality that has a degree of intrinsic existence or identity. From Candrakirti and Buddhapalita's point of view the very urge to seek for some kind of objective grounding in this manner suggests a clinging to some kind of reified reality. Candrakirti argued that this way of looking at the world stems from a belief in some kind of inherent existence of things. If things enjoyed inherent reality that means they enjoy a degree of independence. If things enjoyed independent existence then that would contradict their fundamental nature which is the interdependent nature of reality. The fact those things come into being as the result of many causes and conditions shows they lack independent existence. Candrakirti rejected that even a person has any intrinsic reality. The person is a nominal construct."

 

- from The Spirit of Manjushri

His Holiness the Fourteenth Dalai Lama

link

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question. If every effect has it's cause, how we all know it does, then was was the cause of a first effect, if there is no God? How were we created if we are not soul (atman), a piece of higher soul (paramatman)?

If there is only One, then aren't we a piece of that one?

I realy don't know what buddhists think of this, I would realy like to know...

Thank you

 

Remove yourself from the equation and you'll see that these questions do not need an answer. That's what Buddha teaches us, isn't it? To remove ourselves from the equation... :bow:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for replies, I know it is not necesary to know every anwcer, but my nature is to be a very curious human. I ma trying to get to the bottom of everything :laugh: ...

Sometimes a realise so many things, that I feal like I am going to get mad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question. If every effect has it's cause, how we all know it does, then was was the cause of a first effect, if there is no God? How were we created if we are not soul (atman), a piece of higher soul (paramatman)?

If there is only One, then aren't we a piece of that one?

I realy don't know what buddhists think of this, I would realy like to know...

Thank you

 

Hi Bhakti,

 

Buddha teaches us not to worry about the question of what was the first cause or first effect. He teaches that mind is beginningless, that suffering therefore, is beginningless, and that there is a way out of this suffering. For more info, look into the Buddha's Four Noble Truths:

 

- The truth of suffering,

- The truth of the origin of suffering,

- The truth of the cessation of suffering,

- The truth of the path that leads to the cessation of suffering.

 

You may also find this sutta from the Buddha, interesting:

The Anattalakkhana Sutta

 

Best regards,

Frederic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...