How to respond to the Buddhist argument that the universe is eternal?

Answer Podcast:

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
focus on improving oneself rather than proving to others. So, it is argued that the creation itself is eternal and therefore there is no need for a creator. So, now how do we answer this? There are three different ways of looking at this.
First is from the point of view of Buddhist texts. Second is from the point of Vedic texts. Third is from the point of view of logic.
Let’s start from the point of view of logic itself. What exactly is logic? Logic means that we have certain observations and we find some consistent pattern in the observations and then we make inferences from those patterns. So, for example, if I say what does logic mean? If I was sick yesterday and yesterday night I took a medicine and today I am okay.
So, everything else remains the same. If my health is improved, I can logically say that medicine improved my health. So, logic is not always a foolproof way of knowledge.
It might be that my body itself was on the path of recovery and it could have been that I would have recovered even without taking the medicine also. But logically all other things remain the same. I can say that the cause of the problem.
So, basically logic, it has many aspects to it. Logic or Nyaya itself is a whole universe. It is a grand jama.
But broadly speaking logic means there is a correlation between cause and effect. We look at the pattern of correlation between cause and effect and that study of that pattern and then inferences from that pattern that is called logic. Broadly speaking or specifically speaking in respect to our context.
Now, if we look at creation, I look at the world around us. The defining characteristic of the world around us is that it is temporary. Everything here is temporary.
Now, our bodies are temporary, our houses are temporary. Whatever we observe in nature that is temporary. Whether we look at the scientific methodology, which also in fact in western intellectual thought there was a theory called as the steady state theory, which was very much preferred by atheists because they said that the creation itself determined that there is no need for cause.
But then not only from the inference from our general observations when we see everything is temporary and therefore the world itself will be temporary. But even from scientific point of view with the idea of a big bang, there is now persuasive scientific evidence that the universe as it exists is not eternal. So, now when Buddhists argue that the creation is eternal, that is a counter observational argument or counter observational claim.
We do not see anything in this world is eternal. So, from the point of view of logic, it is very difficult to say that it is logically sustainable to say that the creation itself is eternal. If we say no, the creation goes through cycles and the cyclicity is eternal.
Then that means there is creation, there is maintenance, there is destruction. Again there is creation, maintenance, destruction. The cycles go on eternally.
Then that is a very different argument from saying creation is eternal. Because then we get the question, who set up the cyclicity? What causes the cyclicity? And both these answers require something beyond cyclicity to talk about. So, something is going on a cyclic pattern, it does not start off.
Something might be like a self-sustaining action. It is like we say, who came first, the chicken or the egg? Now, once they came, they can go on. A chicken will produce an egg, a chicken will produce an egg, they will go on.
But for any cycle to start, it has to be, it requires something outside its scope. So, if we say matter is eternal in the eternal cyclic, then the source of cyclicity and the setting up of cyclicity requires a source outside of itself. Now, going to the point of Buddhist texts itself, Buddha’s writings were compiled, he did not write much down.
He spoke and what he spoke was written down several decades, sometimes several centuries afterwards. So, it is difficult, even if we look at Vinaya Patra or any of his what are considered mainstream Buddhist texts, whether they were really taught by Buddha or whether they were taught by, they were, they are recollections of others, and how accurate those recollections are, all that becomes a question. In general, we could say that Buddha himself did not at any time directly refute the existence of God.
His philosophy, although modern Buddhism is in some way atheistic, Buddha’s teachings as far as we can see are non-theistic, they are not atheistic. There are three different things, there is non-theism, there is atheism and there is anti-theism. Anti-theism means somebody is aggressively against God.
Atheism is what does not believe in God. Non-theism means one does not talk about God. So, Buddhism, from the original Buddhist point of view is non-theistic.
And that is why many modern scientists feel that if there is any, there is going to be any synthesis between science and religion, it will be between science and Buddhism. Because Buddhism does not require bringing God into the picture. But then Buddhism’s own explanatory framework is inadequate.
Because Buddhism’s focus is not on the world below, it is focused on this world only. How to live in this world? How to act in this world? So, it does not really focus on a transcendent source of meaning or transcendent purpose of life. So, now going to the Vedic scripture, from the Vedic perspective, we know that Buddha came for a particular purpose to teach things at a particular time, what Vishnacharya has explained is that he came especially to stop the abuse of Vedic literature for licensing, mediating.
And that is why he gave a provisional teaching. So, his teachings are according to time and circumstance meant to elevate people at that time. So, beyond that, when people try to extend the jurisdiction of his teachings, both in terms of duration as well as philosophical scope, then often they end up going against the essential purpose for which Buddha came.
So, modern day Buddhism does unfortunately do that. Many Buddhists are very indiscriminately kill animals and eat meat. Many Buddhists are often engaged in, there is a form of Buddhism, which is, Buddhism got very much mixed with Tantra later on.
And Tantra is the idea that spirituality can be best experienced through sexuality. That is the idea. They say that everything that exists is actually the interaction of Shiva and Shakti.
So, when man and woman unite, actually it is Shiva and Shakti that are united. It is a very complex, it is very, not complex, it is a very, very confused idea, confused and deluded idea. So, Buddha came around 5th century BC, and in 6th, 7th century AD, around 5th, 6th century AD, around 1000 years afterwards, some Buddhists said that actually Buddha came in our dreams, or Buddha came in our vision.
And he told him, my original disciples were not very advanced. That’s why I gave them preliminary teachings. Now, all of you are advanced, I will give you advanced teachings.
What is advanced teaching? Actually, you can practice spirituality through sexuality. Now, Buddha renounced family life, entirely, but apparently, his disciples are more advanced than they can, through self-identification, they can actually advance spiritually. So, basically the point is from the Vedic perspective, if an avatar who has come, even if he is an avatar, if he has come for a particular purpose, in a particular time and place, when his teachings are extended beyond the time and place, there can be extrapolation that ends up becoming a distortion, which goes against the original purpose of those teachings.
So, Buddhism, in that sense, today, it is practiced by most people as a counter, as a non-demanding, sattvic counter to the Rajaguna of today’s life. So, Rajaguna exhausts people, irritates people, but people don’t want to surrender to God. So, they want a sattvic kind of lifestyle.
So, it’s not demanding. Why? Because there is no surrender to God required. And people do give sattva guna.
People adopt the principles of Buddhism, they do get some amount of sattva guna in it. So, people adopt Buddhism more as a lifestyle than as a philosophy nowadays. And many modern Buddhists do not even know what the philosophical implications of Buddhist thought are.
They just don’t care much about it. They feel it helps us feel better, do better. So, Dalai Lama was asked, what is the essence of religion? So, he said, the essence is tolerance and compassion.
This sounds very good. Yeah, we have so much conflict in the world today, so tolerance is very good, compassion is very good. But what is the basis? Okay, you tolerate me, compassionate, but for what purpose? So, he doesn’t talk about it also.
So, that’s right. This sattva guna in it may attract people and to some extent sattva guna lifestyle, but it is not very coherent in its philosophical import.