Codependant origination and emptiness

I am a little confused on interdependent or codependent arising. Mind and reality depend on each other. But ultimate reality is empty and our Karma is projected onto things. But the chair is real and we each have our own reality and experience of it. Can this be explained a little more?

Firstly, may I point out that Karma isn’t a Catholic concept or belief.
The Buddhist belief that whatever you do comes back to you, e.g. if you do something good, something good will happen to you, and vice versa, does not stand up to reality nor is it a matter of faith.
It doesn’t always follow that if you do good, it will be rewarded in this life. Sometimes good acts seem punished, sometimes bad ones seem rewarded. God is our judge, not our deeds.

Yes there are consequences to our choices, to our good choices and our sinful choices.
Sometimes the consequences come after death, if we have been unloving and unChristian in our behavior and do not repent and make restitution where possible. And it is in heaven that our good deeds will finally be rewarded.

As human persons created by God we all have need of each other in some way or other.
In this regard our relationships re 'interdependent. We rely on others. or they on us, for our food, clothing and shelter, for companionship and for support. Very few persons can be satisfied by complete isolation and dependence upon no one for their human needs.

In our Christian view, the Judge of souls, Jesus, will judge our souls, or rather, express the judgement we have made upon ourselves. This judgement is based on whether or not we have lived lives of practical kindness to each other. (Matthew 25 verses 31-46)
This necessitated a healthy degree of interdependence and a healthy degree of codependence.

Certainly, our hearts and lives will be empty if we do not live in practical respect and kindness to each other.
Utter selfishness, egocentricity, isolation within self…is quite hellish even if enjoyed for a time.

And yes, of course, for most if not for each of us, our experience of physical objects is discernible even if each of us perceives it via our senses through our own individual mental and tactile frameworks. We accept its reality because of its impact upon us. If I try sit on the chair and it isn’t there I can impute it is absent form where I expect it to be, and if I kick the chair, my toe hurts. To me therefore it is real.
I can vigorously kick the air with any discernible results except perhaps falling upon my back, but through learned facts, I know it exists. There are other realities that are less obvious to a physical being yet are true.

Can there be a child without a parent? No, the child depends on the parent to exist. Can there be a parent without a child? No, if there is no child then there can be no parent so the parent also depends on the child to exist. Parent and child are mutually codependent. Neither can exist without the other.

Mind and reality depend on each other.

I would count mind as one part of reality, not separate from it. Did you mean mind and materiality?

But ultimate reality is empty and our Karma is projected onto things. But the chair is real and we each have our own reality and experience of it. Can this be explained a little more?

Do not confuse “empty” with nothingness. The real that we sense is real, but only conventionally, dependently contingently real. There is no underlying layer of “real reality” underneath it. That supposed underlying layer is a pure mental construct only found inside our heads.

The emptiness of emptiness is the fact that not even emptiness exists ultimately, that it is also dependent, conventional, nominal, and in the end it is just the everydayness of the everyday. Penetrating to the depths of being, we find ourselves back on the surface of things and so discover that there is nothing, after all, beneath those deceptive surfaces. Moreover, what is deceptive about them is simply the fact that we assume ontological depth lurking just beneath.

– Jay Garfield, “Empty words, Buddhist philosophy and cross-cultural interpretation.” OUP 2002.

What is empty is the idealised Thomist ‘Substance’. There is only ‘Accident’. The error is to mistake one for the other.

HTH

rossum

What they teach in the Vajrayanna I am familiar with everything is some form of mind. Not quite sure on that one. Substance is not only Thomist but Aristotle too. I’ve always been taught there is ultimate reality that is empty and yes that doesn’t necessary mean void everything. And there is each of our own realities based on Karma. The chair neither exists, doesn’t exist, is not both or neither. But “empty” of inherent existence. What is inherent existence. When the child dies the “parent” is no longer a parent that is what you’re saying right? In order to exist one must’ve been non-existent and both the existent and the non-existent are in suffering. So God gives us the gift of existence. Right?

Correct. Anything with inherent existence cannot change, and since everything changes…

What is inherent existence.

Existence which is solely dependent on itself. It needs nothing else to exist, requiring no external causes. It is neither contingent nor dependent.

When the child dies the “parent” is no longer a parent that is what you’re saying right?

The description “parent” is not inherent in the person. Its presence is caused and hence contingent on external factors. The designation “parent” does not have inherent existence, but only changeable contingent existence.

So God gives us the gift of existence. Right?

Not in Buddhism, human existence is not a gift but an imposition of suffering. We do not get it from God, but from ourselves in our previous lives.

rossum

This is one of the Catholic definitions of God.

But the Big Bang proves that the universe did not depend on itself to exist and required an external cause.

This is an everlasting conundrum for atheists and Buddhists.

rossum

You say: “The ultimate truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth.”

But if there is one “ultimate truth,” why can’t there be more than one ultimate truth?

Is this a dogma of Buddhism? If so, where does Buddha say this?

Indeed. Buddhists deny the existence of any inherently existent entity, since everything changes and any inherently existent entity cannot change.

But the Big Bang proves that the universe did not depend on itself to exist and required an external cause.

The Big Bang originated the material STEM universe. It did not originate the immaterial universe of the heavens hells, kinnaras, devas, asuras and all the rest. You are using too narrow a definiton of “universe”. For philosophical discussion it is better to use the more general definition of “all that exists”.

This is an everlasting conundrum for atheists and Buddhists.

Not for Buddhists. Atheists seem mostly to replace an uncreated God of unknown origin with an uncreated Multiverse of unknown origin, which solves the problem for them.

rossum

The saying is derived from a modern commentary on Nagarjuna by Mark Siderits:

There is, then, no escape. Nagarjuna’s view is contradictory. The contradiction is, clearly a paradox of expressibility. Nagarjuna succeeds in saying the unsayable, just as much as the Wittgenstein of the Tractatus. We can think (and characterize) reality only subject to language, which is conventional, so the ontology of that reality is all conventional. It follows that the conventional objects of reality do not ultimately (non-conventionally) exist. It also follows that nothing we say of them is ultimately true. That is, all things are empty of ultimate existence; and this is their ultimate nature, and is an ultimate truth about them. They hence cannot be thought to have that nature; nor can we say that they do. But we have just done so. As Mark Siderits (1989) has put it, “the ultimate truth is that there is no ultimate truth.”

Nagarjuna and the Limits of Thought.

rossum

No, it doesn’t solve the problem for them. They can’t prove the existence of an uncreated Multiverse any more than they can disprove the existence of a Designer God. Moreover, following Occam’s Razor (which atheists love to cite), the Multiverse is a far less simple explanation than a Designer God.

I prefer the Gospel of Mark to the Gospel of Mark Siderits! :D;)

It is not self-evident that a Being with inherent existence is in the same category as everything else.

Existence which is solely dependent on itself. It needs nothing else to exist, requiring no external causes. It is neither contingent nor dependent.

Dependence doesn’t even come into the picture!

The description “parent” is not inherent in the person. Its presence is caused and hence contingent on external factors. The designation “parent” does not have inherent existence, but only changeable contingent existence.

In this context parenthood is simply an analogy.

Not in Buddhism, human existence is not a gift but an imposition of suffering. We do not get it from God, but from ourselves in our previous lives.

The reduction of human existence to an imposition of suffering is a morbid rejection of the immense value, richness and beauty of life.

‘Multiverse’ theory suggested by microwave background

rossum

Self dependence is always part of the picture: X cannot exist unless X exists. The question is whether the existence of X depends on other things as well.

The reduction of human existence to an imposition of suffering is a morbid rejection of the immense value, richness and beauty of life.

Which is why Buddhism provides the path to the cessation of suffering.

rossum

Christianity also provides a path to the cessation of suffering … but more … the triumph of immortal joy.

But no proof. Only suggestion?

Creator God is also suggested by the Big Bang.

And then, of course, there’s this: :wink:

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

Genesis, 1200 B.C. : “In the beginning God said: ‘Let there be light.’”

As astronomer Robert Jastrow pointed out in God and the Astronomers.

“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.”

I’ve never heard of this STEM universe. I don’t know what buddhism teaches about “alternate realities” but the Dalai Lama has said there are conditions and ways that one can cross over into these. Such things would be Tantras or higher. Certainly not in the Suttras. The realities and beings you mention would have places in the Cosmological texts though right?

STEM = Space, Time, Energy, Matter and is what originated at the Big Bang. Space (3 dimensions) and Time (1 dimension) form the four dimensional space-time manifold. Energy and Matter are interconvertible using e=Mc[sup]2[/sup]. Think of it as the material universe that is studied by science.

I don’t know what buddhism teaches about “alternate realities” but the Dalai Lama has said there are conditions and ways that one can cross over into these. Such things would be Tantras or higher. Certainly not in the Suttras. The realities and beings you mention would have places in the Cosmological texts though right?

Buddhist cosmologies cover both the material universe: other stars and other planets, as well as the non-material universe which includes the heavens and hells.

rossum

What are good cosmology texts? I have a text called “Myriad Worlds” but it’s tough to understand. Everything surrounds a mount meru. There are some hells I have read that are hells so cold that those born there; there skin cracks open. But all this started for us with ignorance.

How does one fold ignorance?

How is Karma not a Catholic concept? There indeed is a universal Karma which is one and the same with one of the definitions of God. So, where …
Anything with inherent existence cannot change, and since everything changes…

prescribes an ontology that does not express the nature of time within a STEM that has both beginning and end. A beginning and end that is not cojoined in such a way as to make a wheel of the true way, truth and life; Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is united with the Father and with The Holy Spirit. There is not fallacy which may clearly be interpreted as Original Sin in the disjoint union of the Multiverse space times.

So, when three cojoined infiinities that have inherent existence are summed there is only the one inifinity. The Holy Trinity is the nature of True God who is a union of coeternal love existing before the beginning of the universe we perceive as the concrete reality. Wherein Buddhism does show knowledge of this truth in perceiving how the concrete is rather the abstract. The hole into which the Buddhist spring egg rabbit falls is unfolding of self into the center. This is a self deceit that comes from the true enemy.

One must open themselves to the love of God the Creator not to become some false image of a creator form interpreted from within. The codependant origination is Baptism. By Baptism one can find there is no “beyond Christ.” Christ is the end to which we were made. Know Him.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.