Words on nihilism

[Astus]

But the path is a path out of the world -- an escape from samsara. So, in effect, actions and experiences in the world are judged by whether they will help us get out of the world. Because of this, we can't really say that dharmas have any intrinsic value, and insofar as that is true, Buddhism is similar to philosophical nihilism.

That only creates two levels of a value system: worldly (laukika) and other-worldly (lokottara). Those with worldly interest have the values of merit and sin, and those with other-worldly interest also have the values of conducive or unconducive to liberation.

Denying those values is the wrong view of the ten unwholesome actions: "There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves." (MN 41)

The only point where both worldly and other-worldly values lose meaning is where one is liberated from karma. But the consequences of previous actions do not disappear because of enlightenment, it's just that they do not cause suffering any more, and no new karma is generated.

[Losal Samten]

The only point where both worldly and other-worldly values lose meaning is where one is liberated from karma. But the consequences of previous actions do not disappear because of enlightenment, it's just that they do not cause suffering any more, and no new karma is generated.

Buddhas have cleared away all obscurations, and thus have no karma. It is arhats and pratyekabuddhas whose alayavijnana no longer produces the afflicted consciousness but whose alayavijnana remains, and thus, still have karmic seeds.

[Astus]

Buddhas have cleared away all obscurations, and thus have no karma.

In the case of buddhas, they have the merits accumulated and the vows made during their bodhisattva career, and only because of those merits and vows can they produce a buddha-field and manifest skilful actions.

[Losal Samten]

In the case of buddhas, they have the merits accumulated and the vows made during their bodhisattva career, and only because of those merits and vows can they produce a buddha-field and manifest skilful actions.

There is no merit outside of good karma, and there is no karma outside of the alayavijnana. Are you saying that buddhas have an alayavijnana?

[Astus]

There is no merit outside of good karma, and there is no karma outside of the alayavijnana. Are you saying that buddhas have an alayavijnana?

You can call them inconceivable merit and great mirror wisdom, if you like. Still, the idea is that it is accumulated on the bodhisattva path in order to accomplish the buddha qualities. So, there is cause and effect.

[Losal Samten]

You can call them inconceivable merit and great mirror wisdom, if you like. Still, the idea is that it is accumulated on the bodhisattva path in order to accomplish the buddha qualities. So, there is cause and effect.

Yeah, I get the idea of the accumulation of merit to emanate the rupakaya, however I don't actually understand the mechanics of it in sutrayana.

Maybe Malcolm could clarify?

[Lazy_eye]

That only creates two levels of a value system: worldly (laukika) and other-worldly (lokottara). Those with worldly interest have the values of merit and sin, and those with other-worldly interest also have the values of conducive or unconducive to liberation.

But what is the laukika good for, really? In and of itself, it can only lead to a temporary interlude in heaven, followed by descent towards hell. The point of truth in dharma comes when the practitioner understands this is pointless, and thus turns to the lokottara instead.

Denying those values is the wrong view of the ten unwholesome actions: "There is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed. There is no fruit or result of good or bad actions. There is no this world, no next world, no mother, no father, no spontaneously reborn beings; no contemplatives or brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves." (MN 41)

Saying there is fruit or result is not the same thing as saying there is intrinsic value. Right view is simply a proposition about reality: that actions lead to corresponding results. If you don't want unpleasant results, don't do unwholesome things. A nihilist can say the same thing: there may be no meaning to life, but shoot someone and you'll likely end up in jail. If you don't want to be in jail, don't commit crimes.

But over the long term, unless someone finds the path to liberation, none of this really matters -- because dukkha and anicca have a leveling effect on any perceived value. You can adhere to the ten wholesome actions and honor as many mothers, fathers, contemplatives and brahmans as you want, but you'll still be stuck in the samsaric cycle and all the good results will be wiped out by future bad karma and suffering.

The only point where both worldly and other-worldly values lose meaning is where one is liberated from karma. But the consequences of previous actions do not disappear because of enlightenment, it's just that they do not cause suffering any more, and no new karma is generated.

Sure, but are you using "consequence" as a synonym for "meaning"?

[Astus]

Sure, but are you using "consequence" as a synonym for "meaning"?

See in my previous post: "When we want something to have value, have meaning, what we want is to have effects, that it matters what one does."

Causality is the basic rule of the world in Buddhism. That's what makes things good or bad, and that's what one is either deluded or enlightened about. Belief in an intrinsic value is not only against enlightenment, but against the worldly values as well.

[Wayfarer]

This is mostly tangential, but one famous theistic argument is that since God is by nature perfect, He must have the quality of existence; if He didn't exist, He wouldn't be perfect and thus wouldn't be God.

I have a belief (that nobody agrees with) that there's a difference between what exists and what is real. What is real is the totality, the moment, being. What exists are things, objects, and phenomena. So according to that criteria God does not exist.

The argument you refer to, by the way, is 'the ontological argument'.

Also, I differ with Astus' interpretation regarding 'meaning'. I think that the Buddhist life is animated by the reality of striving for liberation, and that everything is understood in those terms.