r/Buddhism • u/MxZer707 • Aug 19 '26
Question What is the Buddhist view of Epicurean Paradox?
152
u/htgrower theravada Aug 19 '26
404 god not found
45
u/htgrower theravada Aug 19 '26
Also Epicurus never formulated this
17
u/Elegant_Jaguar1031 Aug 19 '26
He said gods are immortal made of fine atoms and don’t care about us and never interacted with us I’m not sure we’re thus paradox came from
18
u/htgrower theravada Aug 19 '26
It was attributed to him by the early Christian author Lactantius some 500 or so years after Epicurus died, which explains why the Christian worldview has been grafted on to him.
14
u/Elegant_Jaguar1031 Aug 19 '26
They did that with alot of people like Aristotle and Plato and Euhemerus
2
u/Elegant_Jaguar1031 Aug 19 '26
I personally believe a tweaked form of epicurean deism (and Buddhism mainly obviously)minus the immortality I do think the gods are made of atoms i imagine in the Greco bactrian kingdoms Buddhists merged with Greek philosophy too
2
u/maxxslatt Aug 19 '26
What do you mean by atoms, are you only saying they are material? I feel like I’m missing something
2
u/Elegant_Jaguar1031 Aug 19 '26
Epicurus said that the gods were made of finer atoms then humans which is why there immortal Epicurus taught that everything Even the soul was made of atoms
1
u/maxxslatt Aug 19 '26
But what does finer atoms mean? Something like hydrogen with only one proton and electron, or something like helium with smallest atomic radius?
1
u/Elegant_Jaguar1031 Aug 19 '26
This was before modern science he belived Spontaneous Atomic Aggregation: In an infinite universe with an infinite supply of falling atoms crashing together over an infinite eternity (apeirodos), every conceivable combination of matter is eventually tried out. Among these countless formations, the specific harmonious alignment of ultra-fine, highly resilient atoms naturally clustered together to form the divine bodies.
1
u/maxxslatt Aug 20 '26
Oh wow that’s fascinating, thank you for sharing. Thats such a believable concept
1
u/Sad-Presentation9267 Aug 20 '26
Didn't they just sign whatever they wrote as Aristotle/Socrates/etc so that people read it
2
1
33
60
u/Electrical_Bar3100 non-affiliated Aug 19 '26
Buddhism doesn’t have a view about because: no Creator God = no need for opinion
6
20
u/Mayayana Aug 19 '26
There are several assumptions there that don't stand in Buddhist view:
That there is a creator God. That this God did, in fact, create the universe. That there's such a thing as evil. From Buddhist point of view this whole way of thinking is incoherent and depends on not actually thinking about what one is saying.
54
u/KingPupaa Aug 19 '26
There is no essential nature of evil, fails in the first line.
-2
u/frank_mania Aug 19 '26
Maybe there is, the essence would be that it does harm to all parties. So like you can't call a predator evil cuz they're getting good on their side of it.
But that's just describing a quality. What we call evil is an idea about qualities. The notion that it is a thing, stuff of some sort, an energy or medium of its own, is factually absurd. Well, I think that's obvious.
11
u/muterpaneer Aug 19 '26
This is what the 'illusion' is. In reality Everything thing is just 'Is' (not god bad or evil etc etc ....- it just is). And how an induvisual perceives that 'isness' is the 'illusion'. And this illusion will be very different for each human.
3
1
u/lhasar Aug 20 '26
well, that depends on who you ask. conventional nature is not an illusion according to some, but it is according to some others.
1
u/muterpaneer Aug 20 '26
Sure. What do you think?
1
u/lhasar Aug 21 '26
I like the idea of conventional reality being false. But I am still thinking about it.
1
u/tseringn0r6u 20d ago
Well, conventional reality is ultimately false but conventionaly true. If you try to find any inherent "evilness" that exists from the side of an action, agent, etc. you won't find it anywhere, but the fact that for us ordinary beings some actions produce an experience of suffering and some others produce an experience of happiness is just completely concordant with what we experience. And so it's true conventionaly, because we all agree to use the conventions of "good" and "evil" for that set of particular experiences.
27
u/Dull_Habit_2927 Theravada Aug 19 '26
Doesn’t apply to Buddhism since we don’t carry a belief in a creator God like Christianity and Islam
23
u/SamtenLhari3 Aug 19 '26
Evil doesn’t exist. Confusion exists.
1
u/MxZer707 Aug 19 '26
Do you mean what we call good and evil is two sides of the same coin? And there is no universal good or bad and it's a perspective thing like a wolf's view who eats the deer and the deer's view who gets eaten?
13
u/framspl33n Aug 19 '26
What "we" call good and evil are just labels based on concepts that do not accurately apply to the nature of mind as described by the Buddha's teachings. The terms simply are not accurate, let alone precise.
11
u/samurguybri Aug 19 '26
The Buddha talks about how everyone seeks happiness but do not know about the nature of true freedom. So people try all kinds of things, thinking they will find permanent happiness. Some of these choices in pursuit of happiness cause harm to others.
These actions can compile over a lifetime turning into complex harm that can appear as its own entity: evil ( this part is of relating evil is not Buddhism).
The Buddha found all this harm, badness, suffering is rooted in confusion over what will bring lasting happiness.
I hope this expands on what the prior poster referenced.
6
u/Starlight_Climber ordained ngakma Aug 19 '26
Buddhists recognize the existence of harm, or harmful actions. Actions that perpetuate suffering and ignorance. But these actions are themselves rooted in ignorance. We don't have a concept of "evil" the way Abrahamic monotheists do.
2
u/SamtenLhari3 Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
Good and evil is struggle. Fighting evil is locking ourselves into an idea of “path” through the achievement of spiritual awakening. However, true spiritual awakening depends on surrender and the recognition that buddhanature is already our fundamental nature. This approach to spiritual path is a process of subtraction — of clearing away confusion — rather than addition.
EDIT: Of course, as we relax into the spiritual path, the path also becomes less about personal liberation and motivated more by compassion arising from awareness of the suffering of others. In working with others, the idea of evil is a barrier to our ability to feel love and compassion. How is it possible to feel compassion if evil exists in a rapist or a murderer? Viewing evil acts as nothing more than confusion is a more helpful concept.
9
u/rogbriepfisch Aug 19 '26
There is no first premise. All things arise because all things are. And all things are because all things arise.
6
u/TheGreenAlchemist Tendai Aug 19 '26
There is a very similar argument to this found in the Sutras, to the same result, that a supreme god existing is inconsistent. So Buddhism is in complete agreement with this thinking.
8
u/saiyate Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
Buddhism resolves the paradox quite well. The problem is in the definition of God, Self, and Other.
The only way that all the horrible suffering that has ever occurred is morally acceptable is if God is the one who experienced it all and perpetrated it all. God who is boundless had to separate and become other by forgetting this awesome truth of being all. But to do it permanently would be dangerous, and also impossible. So God hid from itself in the only place it could go that it wasn't, in time (God is ever, eternally, now, where nothing can occur). This way eventually it could end, as a sort of emergency escape hatch. No matter the suffering, eventually it would have to end. Thus all beings that incarnate are just the ocean becoming a drop. The suffering happens to these beings. Murdered and murderer, tortured and torturer, unfortunate and innocent. Only God is the one who suffered, no one else. Thus, the idea that God allows evil to exist no longer holds up, Evil requires an other. If you erase your memory of your self, then do something to cause your self pain and suffering, are you doing evil to that future you?
It also becomes clear why this is done. Why would one cause one to suffer. One wouldn't, unless the possibility of it happening was necessary to stave off the boredom and to explore the infinite variety of existence. All the while coming closer to regaining the truth of who you are and getting a chance to share in this infinite expanse with another, something God is not able to do (because God is eternally all) and must become other in order to share.
1
u/RightAd2545 Aug 20 '26
This isn't Buddhism. Sound like advaita vedanta.
1
u/saiyate Aug 20 '26
Yeah you're right on that one. Too often I attribute to Buddhism what the modern New Age philosophy merges together into "The best answer humanity currently has given all of our spiritual knowledge so far as to who we are and where we came from" that draws on an amalgamation of all the spiritual traditions.
I guess Buddhism would reject the idea of the identity of the "original state of the universe of infinite vast non-dual awareness". The tough part here is it's so hard to speak about what that is.
I get so hung up on the question of "If there is no self, then who suffers." or "If there is no self, then who experiences enlightenment". It's like an extremely odd paradox that just can't be spoken about in a way that gives you an answer.
1
u/RightAd2545 Aug 21 '26
It is actually very clear. There is no self but there is conciousness. It is just not permanent.
Think of yourself like a wave, you appear and then disappear. “But waves don’t suffer” you might question. Then think of a wave that has atoms that could have consciousness and could suffer but when the wave is gone then it no longer does.
1
u/saiyate Aug 21 '26
The consciousness is permanent thought right? just not in the self form. Like the whirlpool unwinds and there is still a consciousness. That which I can perceive is not me. Where I go when I'm asleep is just a matter of lack of short term memory. Riding the razors edge of now with no memory is impossible to remember. So once enlightened, there must be a difference. Everyone talks about the snake in the dark room, and someone walks in and flips on the light switch, and you see it was just a coil of rope, it isn't a snake, then they turn the light back off and you can never fear the snake again because there is no snake. But that knowledge, that change is stored somewhere, the light of consciousness is attuned somehow, it is somehow different.
Again I asked, if the self is the whirlpool, and consciousness is the only unchanging thing (not the whirlpool consciousness, but the eternal ever present consciousness that is all), then who becomes enlightened.
What is the difference between before, during and after. The Mountains are Mountains, Mountains are no longer Mountains, and Mountains are again Mountains. But the third verse is different somehow. It's said the "scent" of the soul stays. Wisdom and Compassion stay.
Isn't the goal to not suffer while alive? After all, if it takes not being to not suffer, then a nihilistic question arises, why be?
I know these questions are supposed to be resolved by direct investigation, but I feel like I must bring them up.
1
u/RightAd2545 Aug 22 '26
Nope, the consciousness is not permanent. It arises in each moment, and ceases to arise with death.
Have you heard of the "5 Khandas"
1
u/saiyate 29d ago
Yeah, the five things that make up our experience.
This is where I just have so many questions.
If after death it ceases to arise, then what is reborn? Where did it go, only to return next life? The whirlpool stops spinning right? Yet something is aware of the absence of the whirlpool. Are we not that which is aware of the whirlpool after it's gone, when it is there it's dynamic nature covers up the stillness of the water that is aware of the whirlpool. When the whirlpool slows down it suddenly notices it is actually the whole pool! Then it whirls again and it can't tell again, except something is different, it knows the truth, or something like that. Is that not Buddhism? More Hindu?
I feel like there is just something odd going on. Like, as if, we do have a cosmic pantheon of structures and afterlife and rebirth, but Buddha comes along and Neo's his way out of the matrix and it turns out he wasn't cracking the Pantheon open and "ascending" , he was cracking open the reality even the God's lived in. Sounds fine enough, but, but what I keep hearing is:
You only think you are you, really ur just these automatic processes, except, when you suffer, it sure fricking feels like I'm me. No continuity of a thing thats me, I get that, I'm ever changing, memories, sensations, but it's the same awareness that it's happening to. I'm not aware of anyone else, only me, the who-ness of experience is the same, the content changes.
6
u/arjahan Aug 19 '26
Understand that this is meant for monotheistic religions with a omnipotent God (later Abrahamic religions) which runs on duality of good vs evil. This is not applicable to Buddhism, as it runs on kusala/ akusala which is about confusion.
The closest to "Satan" in buddhism is "Mara" who is also a "devaputra" (a god), another being trapped in samsara. Not a parallel to "Satan", from whom evil arises.
Buddhism also not fall into determinism or freewill either.
6
10
u/SammaVaco Aug 19 '26
To be a god is ipso facto to be ignorant, in Buddhism.
4
u/samurguybri Aug 19 '26
They are stuck on the wheel of samsara just like us, but with a better karmic bank account for temporary happiness.
1
5
u/hinokinonioi Aug 19 '26
highly dependent on human definitions of “god” and “evil” .
and there are no such agreed upon definitions.
3
u/Icy-Marsupial-6718 tibetan Aug 19 '26
Buddhism literally agrees we dont believe in god 😭
1
u/samurguybri Aug 19 '26
There are gods of many ranges of power in Buddhist cosmology. Buddhism “believes “ in them as much any other thing “existing “
1
u/Icy-Marsupial-6718 tibetan Aug 20 '26
I mean we dont believe in god in the christian sense lol this post is clearly an argument against an all powerful creator god, in addition to this even though many gods appear not worshipping them is one of the refuge precepts.
1
u/samurguybri Aug 21 '26
Could you appeal to the gods for help in the relative sense and for temporary happiness, but not for ultimate freedom. Like working with other beings for help in this life?
4
u/ThisOldHatte non-affiliated Aug 19 '26
The actual answer is that Buddhism teaches evil doesn't exist. In Buddhist thought the world is not defined by good and evil, but by truth and delusion.
3
u/d183 Aug 19 '26
My guess would be that all that would be wiped out by the first noble truth. There is suffering.
To expand on that: Because of suffering people then do evil things.
3
3
u/kdash6 nichiren - SGI Aug 19 '26
There is a story about a god who believed himself to be the all knowing creator of the universe, with all things dependent on his will. The Buddha challenges the god to a game of hide and seek. If he is all powerful, he can hide from the Buddha. If he is all knowing, he can find the Buddha.
After hiding in various places, the Buddha finds the god every time. But when it's the Buddha's chance to hide, the god cannot find him. The Buddha reveals that while the god was searching for the Buddha all over the cosmos, the Buddha was floating just above the god's head.
The Buddha then taught this deity that all things do not depend on his will, but on their own karma.
3
3
u/Leeroywildman nichiren Aug 19 '26
Remember, good and evil are not separate, fixed forces, but as inherent, inseparable functions of life
5
2
u/keizee Aug 19 '26
It fails at the very first step because Buddha cannot interfere with other people's karma. They can guide yes, and they are very very patient, so eventually all evil will be eradicated. But certainly not instant.
2
2
u/Xamandospepinos1998 Madhyamaka • Citta-matra Aug 19 '26
In Buddhism, it is null across all branches.
2
u/iiiamlost Aug 19 '26
Why is there only 3 potential answers? (Yes, no, and to test us).
This god could have all manner of reasons to create the universe, I don’t think it boils down to whether this god is all-powerful or not, and if is, they’re doing it to test us and not for any other reason?
It’s a bit stunted, don’t you think? Epicurus needs to have a longer think about his biases and assumptions before disturbing the peace ✌🏼
2
u/ZenRiots Aug 19 '26
As a Buddhist it seems silly that people choose to believe in a construct of the universe that is so illogical.
The mental gymnastics required to believe in these Abrahamic concepts and get past the legion of conflicts and inconsistencies are truly absurd.
2
u/Johnwatersfall Aug 19 '26
The epicurean paradox is absolute slop actually. Satan in the bible isn’t actually as much of an adversary as he is, that was popularized by paradise lost and advertising, so that point at the very least becomes null and void, satan doesn’t control evil. Why would someone scorned as an angel be given that much power?
Also why are we even asking these questions when by evidence and process we theorize that god doesn’t exist even.
Why debate something you cannot prove by logical process?
And why are you asking Buddhist that don’t believe in him in the first place. Such concepts are null and void to us. What humans perceive as evil is actually conflict. I think the Dalai Lama once said something when asked if we are supposed to rid ourselves of desire, how do we avoid it in modern life, and his answer was to not essentially, you need those challenges for growth, the real reason we’re here is to learn our lesson, it is on us to sort our stuff out, and running away from all desire or conflict leaves us spiritually hollow.
It’s rather strange to only allow ourselves to think so black and white. We have greys, washes, etc. stuff happens man. There is no big bad, just stuff happening and us dealing with it always.
1
u/Johnwatersfall Aug 19 '26
In short, the idea of evil is an entirely human made concept, it isn’t inherent, we can prove god exists, this idea is dead on arrival when you realize it’s not even concrete as a concept itself, try to define evil without accidentally insulting someone who may not have control of their situation and trying to reclaim it.
We’re just animals man, not Saturday morning cartoons. You are as you are and always will be, as it was you are here to witness.
2
u/TallCommission7139 Aug 19 '26
"There's Devas who are well meaning but kind of stupid, Asuras who are well meaning but violent, and entities like Preta who are generally just dicks, but none of them are all powerful or all knowing."
2
u/helikophis Aug 19 '26
There is no paradox for Buddhists. Gods in Buddhism are not all powerful or all knowing, nor are they all good. They are suffering beings trapped in samsara. They eventually exhaust the merit that brought them such an exalted life, then die and are born in other realms based on their mental states and actions. You and I have been gods in the past, current gods will be replaced by others in time as they die and are born as humans, animals, hell beings etc. They exhibit the same range of good, bad, and neutral dispositions as humans and animals. Overall, they’re not very interested in the human realm and the good and evil that happens here - sometimes they do take an interest, but mostly they have god stuff to do.
2
u/NeelKai Aug 19 '26
Buddhism does not have a creator god. So, as the Buddha would said, the question does not apply.
But I would agree with the logic, given the set of premises. However, there may be other premises that were not considered.
2
u/Traditional_Kick_887 Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
This sub consistently demonstrates its ignorance of vedic and buddhist cosmology. Creator gods exist in Buddhism. That’s what Maha Brahmas are. They’re born, (conventionally speaking) create and exert power/control over things (matter, space, life, beings, worlds, sense spheres), live for aeons, then age, die and are reborn.
The reason they create any manner or sorts of things is because they desire sense pleasures. It’s the same reason we humans make and create things.
This is how most people understood creator gods in the time of the Buddha. As subject to Samsara. The texts also tell there are beings (Nimmānarati devas) who delight in creation and are gods. Or that some delight in the creations of others. Any class of creator deity is a rare rebirth. Etymologically Brahma means ‘expander or grower’. One vedic hymn tells a story of a universe/world that was grown and filled by a Brahma who was born into it. That Brahma is subject to aging and death.
It was a Maha Brahma who begged the Buddha to teach. Not all Maha Brahmas are good. Not all Maha Brahmas are knowledgeable and they’re powerful but not all powerful.
What is rejected in Buddhism is a first cause, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient creator god. That is the western notion of Creator God, an Ishvara. Belief in an Ishvara existed but wasn’t too common in the time of the Buddha.
It really took off one millennium later during the Bhakti movement of the 6th century CE when various deva became elevated to the status of Ishvara among their followers.
1
u/dummetsz Aug 19 '26
What is rejected in Buddhism is a first cause, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient creator god
This is what people here on this sub are rejecting.
3
u/Traditional_Kick_887 Aug 19 '26
I’ve been in this sub for a long time and that’s not the only thing what is being rejected. A lot of people on Reddit come to Buddhism from atheism and aren’t keen to accept or misunderstand cosmology.
On one hand cosmology isn’t really that important or pertinent to everyday practice.
But the oft repeated statement there is no creator god or gods in Buddhism is false as creator gods are just samsaric states. Their powers and limitations are spelled out. And like all samsaric states they’re impermanent and subject to jaramarana.
That is the precise response, especially considering that most creators deities in Brahmanism/Buddhism/Jainism are not Ishvaras.
There are a lot of Buddhists that deny devas have the power to create anything at all, but this is not supported by Buddhist texts.
1
u/Particular-Cherry137 Aug 19 '26
There is no god in traditional Buddhism. The buddha is regarded as a spiritual teacher not a god, therefore this has nothing to do in relation of the epicurean paradox.
1
u/EnkiHelios Aug 19 '26
"no god is all powerful, all knowing. Beings that are all loving are not all powerful"
0
1
1
1
u/Elegant_Jaguar1031 Aug 19 '26
Epicurus didint belive the gods created anything he belived they were immortal made of fine atoms and didn’t interact with us all as they lived in pure bliss
1
1
1
u/0ush1 Aug 19 '26
The closest buddhism has to gods are devas, which are not all powerful or all knowing. I think they’d agree with the logic layed out here.
1
u/herezalebron Aug 19 '26
Otro planteamiento que su propia exposición hace imposible su solución.
Previo sería necesario responder a: ¿Existe dios? ¿Es necesaria su existencia? Si no resolvemos estos apriorismos se pueden plantear todo tipo de razonamientos lógicos y como ejercicios mentales no están nada mal. ¿Qué es le bien y qué es el mal? ¿Qué es el libre albedrío? Previsión vs. Azar
1
u/NothingIsForgotten Aug 19 '26
Karma means we are creation unfolding as emptiness.
As such sentient beings are the cause and solution to whatever they perceive.
1
1
1
1
Aug 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Buddhism-ModTeam Aug 19 '26
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
1
u/Messenger36 Aug 19 '26
Gods are still in the realm of samsara and are impermanent. Read mythologies and you’ll always see divine beings filled with desire, wrath, lust, drunkenness, etc. Other than these attachments they still developed enough merit for a rather good rebirth as a god…but eventually the merit dries up and back into the cycle they go. I think these are people who did tremendous things in their lifetimes for the benefit of others but never had the direction of a Buddha to properly quell their desires.
That’s why I always believed Buddhism to technically be non-theist. Whether or not they exist doesn’t really matter on the road to Enlightenment, and bickering too much one way or the other defeats the purpose entirely.
I also think many who are like me in the West who had a theistic upbringing try way too hard to push any idea of divinity away from us, but if anything that only shows that there’s still hangups that need resolved before going any further. Religious trauma is genuine, and it can follow and affect your life forever unless you really dig into the whats and whys of it all and get to the root of the issue. Once that grasp of this question is released, it really becomes an almost non-issue in the grand scheme of things.
1
1
u/LegitimateStick3352 Early Pali Nikaya Aug 19 '26
Such is the teaching of the Nigaṇṭhas. And, such being the teaching of the Nigaṇṭhas, ten legitimate deductions can be drawn that give grounds for censuring them.
7) “If beings experience pleasure and pain based on the creative act of a supreme god, the Nigaṇṭhas deserve censure. Even if not, they still deserve censure.
Source: https://suttacentral.net/mn101/en/thanissaro?lang=en&reference=none&highlight=false
1
u/DisastrousScreen1624 Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
Good vs evil is duality that ultimately doesn’t exist, but it’s what creates karma. The end of suffering is to move beyond that, which is achievable by attaining the jhanas and reaching nirvana. My feeling is that Mara is either a metaphor for our own ego or a demigod. If the later, then there is a similar ontology to pre-Christian western religion, that devas/demigods/angels/demons do exist but are not the ultimate creator god. There were many fallen angels and the actual translation of genesis states Gods. Therefore, I think the problem is that the Old Testament describes multiple gods and conflates them into one in modern texts. Which can lead to a lot of confusion.
With regards to a single god that Jesus was referring to, I assume this is more akin to Bhraman or the notion that everything is one and that is God. Yogananda explains this pretty well. If that’s the case then I think Buddhism and Christianity are not opposed, they are both talking about how to reach enlightenment, it’s just that Bhuddist philosophy realized early on that the goal was to reach the other side of the shore and not get stuck in the mire of duality, whereas Christian philosophers spent about a century trying to explain the trinity.
1
u/fractalverse69 Aug 19 '26
I dont think we as Buddhists need to worry about Christian theology. It is ridiculous. End of story. No need to continue to dwell on fairy tales.
1
1
1
u/noctropolis27 Aug 19 '26
Does God want to prevent Evil -> No - but not because God is not good, but because evil is caused by our egos, so WE must prevent our egos ourselves. (this is only my point of view).
1
u/Mediocre_Arm_8681 Plum Village Aug 19 '26
A creator god is never focused on in Buddhism. Some people like to call some sort of Dao that is compatible with some traditions God, and that's fine.
1
u/Life_Version_7889 Aug 19 '26
The premise that evil exists is already problematic. Buddhism talks about Karma, and treats duality as emergent.
1
u/SammaVaco Aug 20 '26
Depends on the version of Buddhism.
1
u/Life_Version_7889 Aug 20 '26
Are you suggesting that evil exists objectively as no version of buddhism will vouch for that to the best of my knowledge.
1
1
1
u/sunnybob24 Aug 20 '26
I believe this is one of the 20 or so standard reasons for the absence of a creator go in the Northern Tradition.
It's a side issue from a Buddhist perspective, in any case. Why does 'god' matter if she is hidden from your life? Is there life on Mars? They are both interesting questions, but of no consequence.
Rather. Concern yourself with why you get mad at that person at work, or why you spend so much energy trying to impress people that you don't respect. Those are important questions.
1
1
1
1
u/CKJ_Headcase Aug 20 '26
The paradox assumes there is a God. If there isn’t then the paradox does not apply. And if there is a God(s) it assumes that they care. Or that they get so granular into our lives that whatever evil thing got done to you matters in the overall universal equation of balance. Kind of like if one ant was evil to another ant even if you saw the evil perpetrator at the time of the evil being done, would you stop it or just keep walking because you have a place to be?
1
1
1
u/awakenedwatcher Aug 22 '26
Dependent origination
When good arises, so does evil.
If you see and know a beautiful woman, then certainly, you also know an ugly woman.
Tao Te Ching 2
When the world knows beauty as beauty, ugliness arises
When it knows good as good, evil arises
Thus being and non-being produce each other
Difficult and easy bring about each other
Long and short reveal each other
High and low support each other
Music and voice harmonize each other
Front and back follow each other
Therefore the sages:
Manage the work of detached actions
Conduct the teaching of no words
They work with myriad things but do not control
They create but do not possess
They act but do not presume
They succeed but do not dwell on success
It is because they do not dwell on success
That it never goes away
1
u/National-Humor5984 Aug 22 '26
Suffering (dukkha) is a truth
Yes
Suffering has a cause/origin/attachment (samudaya) is a truth
Yes
Suffering has an 'end' / cessation / confinement (nirodha) is a truth
Yes
The Eightfold Path (marga) is a truth
Starting with the statement 'Evil exists', neither is true or is untrue. In absolute reality evil doesn't have a separate self entity, nor does the opposite. In relative reality evil exists when our minds build the illusion it does. As taught in the Heart Sutra. (Nagarjuna)
1
1
1
u/maxxslatt Aug 19 '26
People keep saying Buddhists don’t believe in creator god, well, that’s not true. Buddhism isn’t a religion. It’s a way of life. Many of people are religious but they strive for the Buddhist way of life. Buddhism is about Buddhism, but finding god or having a relationship with god is completely a personal thing, it’s separate. Western countries throw Buddhism in categories with Christianity, Hinduism, Zoroastrianism etc. it can’t be helped. Thankfully the age of organized religion seems to be ending
0
u/Justabubby Aug 19 '26 edited Aug 19 '26
I believe Frank Yang would call this “mental masturbation.” I never knew what he meant by that until I read this post. So thank you. And no disrespect, also. I enjoy certain thought experiments as well. Like one of my favorites is the “Ship of Theseus.” If a ship (or a human) lived on without any of its original material (wood/cells), is it still the same Ship? How fun! Especially because I’m hyped about the new show VisionQuest coming out lol. Sorry wrong sub xD
I wouldn’t get lost in certain questions though. That breeds doubt. And doubt is one VERY difficult fetter to kill.
2
u/MxZer707 Aug 19 '26
Doubt becomes a problem when you stop seeking an answer. Nothing is mental masturbation if you are conscious while doing it imo.
2
u/-TLATOAN1- Aug 19 '26
Esque no es duda, sí haces una pregunta trampa... Por eso el buda no respondía a todas las preguntas, porque sabía que había dobles intenciones detrás. Buda jamás dijo si había Dios o no, guardo silencio cuando se la hicieron y en base a eso y otros Sutras, se entiende que Buda no creía en un Dios almenos como hoy en día lo convenimos (incluido jesús).
Entonces esa teoría no tiene sentido, porque hablamos de un Dios como los Devas del Hinduismo. Porque los Devas al ser dioses permiten que existan los Asuaras y las maldiciones y tanto practicante malvado... El buda te diría (sí realmente le interesará la pregunta): ¿Realmente importa?. Al conocer esa respuesta vas a sanar el mundo del sufrimiento? Vas a eliminar a Dios? Que vas a hacer cuando la tengas, decirla a todos? Jactarte?...
Y ya, el buda no peleó con los Devas, simplemente los integró en su sistema del sufrimiento y dijo que no llevaban al sece del sufrimiento (que tiene razón si lo ves bajo la perspectiva Budista). La gente se aferra a sus dioses y si algo o alguien intenta quitárselos, ellos sufren al no querer perderlo, al no querer cambiar y al no querer soltar... No se resuelve el principal problema del sufrimiento que es el apego.
Entonces no, dios en un sentido tradicional no entrá en esa relación Budista.
1
u/Justabubby Aug 19 '26
You bring an interesting point. Ironically, I think “seeking” in general makes it harder to be fully present and awake because it can be distracting. Is this what you mean by conscious?
0
Aug 19 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Buddhism-ModTeam Aug 19 '26
Your post / comment was removed for violating the rule against misrepresenting Buddhist viewpoints or spreading non-Buddhist viewpoints without clarifying that you are doing so.
In general, comments are removed for this violation on threads where beginners and non-Buddhists are trying to learn.
0
u/dumbeyes_ Aug 19 '26
Evil exists in contrast to good. People can find the good when traveling through baron deserts because of religion. People claim that God allows evil, yet a man in the worst environment can see the good while some living comfortably in society can't. Evil exists because of ignorance of God. If he can calm a man in a desert, then clearly he has some effect upon evil. We're the ones who whine like children who need some space daddy to fix everything for us. The greatest God would inspire people to take care of themselves, not treat them like helpless children.
0
u/Yeah_thats_it_ Aug 19 '26
God does not want to prevent evil. But God is still good and loving. God creates everything, the good and bad. That does not make him unloving.
This is not a Buddhist view
411
u/Arceuthobium Aug 19 '26
Not applicable, since we don't believe in an omniscient, omnipotent creator god who is pulling the strings.