First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Whether you're exploring Buddhism for the first time or you're already on the path, feel free to ask questions of any kind here.

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby shel » Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:24 pm

Sönam wrote:
shel wrote:
Sönam wrote:First cause is ignorance ... not recognizing oneself.

Sönam

Wouldn't that actually be the second cause, cuz like, ya gotta have a self to reconize a self. I'm just say'n!


It depends on the kind of self we are speaking about ... but ma-rigpa (ignorance) is the entrance to samsara/nirvana.

Sönam

Hate to be repetitive but don't there gotta be a door before an entry...
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby asunthatneversets » Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:18 pm

shel wrote:
Sönam wrote:
shel wrote:Hate to be repetitive but don't there gotta be a door before an entry...


"Recognizing oneself" is a phrase used to convey the nature of the realization... It isn't meant to suggest that a self is indeed making this discovery. The nature of the realization transcends the conventional law of cause and effect as well, so while it may seem commonsensical to frame it causally using an analogy like "door before entry", comparing it to a process of that sort wouldn't be applicable in this context.
asunthatneversets
 
Posts: 1314
Joined: Mon Nov 28, 2011 10:30 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby shel » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:24 pm

What are the unconventional laws of cause & effect? :tongue:
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby Sönam » Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:49 pm

shel wrote:
Sönam wrote:It depends on the kind of self we are speaking about ... but ma-rigpa (ignorance) is the entrance to samsara/nirvana.

Sönam

Hate to be repetitive but don't there gotta be a door before an entry...


It is sufficient to say that ma-rigpa (ignorance) is the first cause, otherwise "the Buddhist POV is beginninglessness" as Namdrol explained it ...

This is a door ... but I'm not sure that the key is in the hole :

"The primordial purity of the original basis transcends the extremes of existence and non-existence, and it is the great transcending of the objects of conception and expression. ... As the nature is spontaneously accomplished, ... it is present ... as non-existent either as samsara or nirvana
...
Through the aspect of not realizing the essence of the "appearances of the basis" themselves as they are, one becomes distracted into the delusions ... one becomes deluded into the appearances as the dualistic cognitions of apprehended and apprehender
...
The intrinsic awareness having flashed out from the basis and not having ripened through realizing it as it is, one wanders in the three realms and six migrations of beings through the chain of twelve interdependent causations ..."

- Longchenpa -


Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1971
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby shel » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:02 pm

I've been told today by someone on this forum that my logic skills are deficient, just to be open with my deficiencies. But if I'm not mistaken, to say that something is beginningless is to say that you cannot identify a beginning. That is if "beginningless" were a word of course.

Is that all there is to it?
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby Sönam » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:30 pm

shel wrote:I've been told today by someone on this forum that my logic skills are deficient, just to be open with my deficiencies. But if I'm not mistaken, to say that something is beginningless is to say that you cannot identify a beginning. That is if "beginningless" were a word of course.

Is that all there is to it?


or that beginning has no sense in buddhism ... like "what type of angles can we found in a circle", a circle is angleless.

Sönam
By understanding everything you perceive from the perspective of the view, you are freed from the constraints of philosophical beliefs.
By understanding that any and all mental activity is meditation, you are freed from arbitrary divisions between formal sessions and postmeditation activity.
- Longchen Rabjam -
User avatar
Sönam
 
Posts: 1971
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 2:11 pm
Location: France

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby shel » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:40 pm

Sönam wrote:
shel wrote:I've been told today by someone on this forum that my logic skills are deficient, just to be open with my deficiencies. But if I'm not mistaken, to say that something is beginningless is to say that you cannot identify a beginning. That is if "beginningless" were a word of course.

Is that all there is to it?


or that beginning has no sense in buddhism ... like "what type of angles can we found in a circle", a circle is angleless.

Sönam


Again please be aware of my deficient logical reasoning...

Buddhists don't understand ("has no sense") what a beginning is?

A circle is 360 degrees. :tongue: But the question is really: at what point did the circle begin?
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby Nighthawk » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:47 pm

Namdrol wrote:
steveb1 wrote:Please forgive if this issue has been beaten to death around here, but I am looking for a short explanation of the seeming absence of a First Cause in Buddhism.


There are no causes that are not also effects.

The Buddhist POV is beginninglessness -- we have not problem with infinite regress, we accept it, in this case.

Dharmakāya is not a cause.

N


If there is no beginning then why aren't we all Buddhas now?
Nighthawk
 
Posts: 776
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 8:04 am

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby Josef » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:48 pm

Sönam wrote:First cause is ignorance ...

Sönam

yes.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby Wesley1982 » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:50 pm

I think Buddhism accepts the scientific explanation called the "Big Bang" in earth science and geology.
User avatar
Wesley1982
 
Posts: 739
Joined: Thu Mar 29, 2012 9:45 pm
Location: Magga ~ Path to Liberation.

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby Lhug-Pa » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:53 pm

shel wrote:I've been told today by someone on this forum that my logic skills are deficient, just to be open with my deficiencies.

Again please be aware of my deficient logical reasoning...


:emb:

Don't know if you saw my last reply in that thread, but I at first assumed you were making a smart-alec straw-man (i.e. logical fallacy) comment, not knowing that you were totally joking there. :oops:

And even if you weren't totally joking, I can see how my response could have come off as abrasive regardless.
Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Tue May 01, 2012 12:03 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby kalden yungdrung » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:56 pm

Wesley1982 wrote:I think Buddhism accepts the scientific explanation called the "Big Bang" in earth science and geology.



Tashi delek,

When there is a first there is a last.
That is never accepted is Buddhism.

The energy is never ending only it transforms.
Also matter changes from structure but never disappears, like black holes are the source for a new galaxy.


Mutsog Marro
KY
THOUGH A MAN BE LEARNED
IF HE DOES NOT APPLY HIS KNOWLEDGE
HE RESEMBLES THE BLIND MAN
WHO WITH A LAMP IN THE HAND CANNOT SEE THE ROAD
User avatar
kalden yungdrung
 
Posts: 1103
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2010 10:40 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby shel » Tue May 01, 2012 12:03 am

Hey wait a dog-gone-minute, was just checking back and I notice:

Sönam wrote:beginning has no sense in buddhism ...

Sönam wrote:First cause is ignorance ...


What da? Is not a first cause a beginning???
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby Josef » Tue May 01, 2012 12:05 am

Wesley1982 wrote:I think Buddhism accepts the scientific explanation called the "Big Bang" in earth science and geology.

No. The proposition that the Big Bang was the beginning is nonsense.
The big bang was a result of something, and therefore not a first cause.
The universe as we know it may have started its formation with the so called big bang but the big bang was not an isolated incident.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby Josef » Tue May 01, 2012 12:07 am

shel wrote:
Sönam wrote:First cause is ignorance ...


What da? Is not a first cause a beginning???


The first/primary cause of our samsaric condition is ignorance.
This is of course only relevant in a relative sense.
Josef
 
Posts: 1565
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 6:44 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby shel » Tue May 01, 2012 1:27 am

Nangwa wrote:
shel wrote:
Sönam wrote:First cause is ignorance ...


What da? Is not a first cause a beginning???


The first/primary cause of our samsaric condition is ignorance.
This is of course only relevant in a relative sense.


Let me see if I've got this straight. In the relative cause & effect sense there is first cause, but in the absolute sense a first cause makes no sense?

What the heck is relevant in the absolute sense???
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby Lhug-Pa » Tue May 01, 2012 1:40 am

Last edited by Lhug-Pa on Tue May 01, 2012 2:36 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1423
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby Malcolm » Tue May 01, 2012 1:50 am

shel wrote:Let me see if I've got this straight. In the relative cause & effect sense there is first cause, but in the absolute sense a first cause makes no sense?


Ignorance also has a cause, hence there is no first cause.
http://www.bhaisajya.net
http://www.bhaisajya.guru
http://atikosha.org
འ༔ ཨ༔ ཧ༔ ཤ༔ ས༔ མ༔

Though there are infinite liberating gateways of Dharma,
there are none not included in the dimension of the knowledge of the Great Perfection.

-- Buddha Samantabhadri
User avatar
Malcolm
 
Posts: 11929
Joined: Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:19 am

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby seeker242 » Tue May 01, 2012 2:11 am

The Buddha didn't teach a "first cause" of everything because doing so would be irrelevant to the task. He taught suffering and the end of suffering and that's it. One does not need to know who shot you with a poison arrow in order to remove the arrow. Learning who shot the poison arrow or why or how, is useless information when it comes to the job of removing it.

One day a man called Malunkyaputta approached the The Buddha and demanded that He explain the origin of the Universe to him. He even threatened to cease to be His follower if the Buddha's answer was not satisfactory. The Buddha calmly retorted that it was of no consequence to Him whether or not Malunkyaputta followed Him, because the Truth did not need anyone's support. Then the Buddha said that He would not go into a discussion of the origin of the Universe. To Him, gaining knowledge about such matters was a waste of time because a man's task was to liberate himself from the present, not the past or the future. To illustrate this, the Enlightened One related the parable of a man who was shot by a poisoned arrow. This foolish man refused to have the arrow removed until he found out all about the person who shot the arrow. By the time his attendants discovered these unnecessary details, the man was dead. Similarly, our immediate task is to attain Nibbana, not to worry about our beginnings. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/whatbudbeliev/297.htm
One should not kill any living being, nor cause it to be killed, nor should one incite any other to kill. Do never injure any being, whether strong or weak, in this entire universe!
User avatar
seeker242
 
Posts: 696
Joined: Sat Mar 17, 2012 2:50 pm
Location: South Florida, USA

Re: First Cause in Buddhism (?)

Postby shel » Tue May 01, 2012 2:17 am

Namdrol wrote:
shel wrote:Let me see if I've got this straight. In the relative cause & effect sense there is first cause, but in the absolute sense a first cause makes no sense?


Ignorance also has a cause, hence there is no first cause.

Once again I will demonstrate my logical abilities, such as they are...

If something is identified as having a cause, but you can't identify that cause, it does not mean that there is no cause for it. It only means that you can't identify the cause.
shel
 
Posts: 1500
Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2010 9:38 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Exploring Buddhism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Kim O'Hara, udawa and 12 guests

>