It is due to:

-Buddhism = No God

-Judaism, Christianity, Islam = There's 1 TRUE God

-Hinduism > 2 000 Gods/Goddesses

It is due to:

-Buddhism = No God

-Judaism, Christianity, Islam = There's 1 TRUE God

-Hinduism > 2 000 Gods/Goddesses

-Hinduism > 2 000 Gods/Goddesses

Can any Buddhist here explain to me one of the biggest flaws of Buddhism that pretty much disproves the religion. I didn't make this up, this loop hole is found in a lot of books. It goes like this.

To achieve Nirvana one must:

1) give up all desire.

2) But to start on the path of Nirvana, one must "desire" it.

3) So those who are Buddhist and follow Buddhist teachings who try to reach the state of Nirvana break the first rule and thus can never achieve it.

But to achieve Nirvana, one has to be desireless. But when you are attempting to get Nirvana, you are still desiring for it. So how can one ever get Nirvana? That's just a logical contradiction that I've never heard a satisfactory rebuttal against.

Can any Buddhist here explain to me one of the biggest flaws of Buddhism that pretty much disproves the religion. I didn't make this up, this loop hole is found in a lot of books. It goes like this.

To achieve Nirvana one must:

1) give up all desire.

2) But to start on the path of Nirvana, one must "desire" it.

3) So those who are Buddhist and follow Buddhist teachings who try to reach the state of Nirvana break the first rule and thus can never achieve it.

"1 True God" is the most deadly god.

We don't !.......since No God = No

Creator.

I don't understand. How could the universe just come to be? Everything has to have starting point, correct? I wasn't asking about a belief in a creator, I just wanted to know how Buddhist explain how existence came to be.

But to achieve Nirvana, one has to be desireless. But when you are attempting to get Nirvana, you are still desiring for it. So how can one ever get Nirvana? That's just a logical contradiction that I've never heard a satisfactory rebuttal against.

A Solution to the Paradox of Desire in Buddhism
A. L. Herman


If one of the chief aims, if not the only aim, of Buddhism is the cessation of desire and desiring then two questions immediately arise: first, what is the nature of this desire that is to be eliminated? and, second, how does one go about the business of eliminating it? Both questions are central not only to the Buddhist and even the Hindu traditions but to any philosophy or religion that holds that desire per se is a barrier to ultimate human happiness. Furthermore, all of these traditions face the same paradox in their endeavors to explain the process of the elimination of desire, namely, the paradox of desire.

If I desire to cease desiring then I have not ceased all desire after all; I have merely replaced one species of desiring by another. The paradox of desire points to the practical contradiction or frustration involved in the desire to stop all desiring and states simply that those who desire to stop all desiring will never be successful.

"Desire" can be taken to mean any lusting or craving after that which one does not now possess. Desiring generally entails wanting any object or condition that is absent at the time of the wanting. But desiring may also entail any wanting, needing, or wishing for what one already has, for example, wanting the present object or condition to continue into the future. One of the strong emotions that fuels desire, therefore, is the fear of not attaining what is presently absent or the fear of losing what is honestly at hand. In either case it is the fear of the absence or the threatened absence of an object or condition that produces desire, and the greater the fear of not achieving or not retaining the object or condition, the more intense is the desire. Thus anxiety and fear play a major role in defining the nature and intensity of desire.

Intense desires are called "lusts" while weaker desires are called "needs." Desires for sex and property may be called "lusts" while desires for food, shelter, and clothing may be called "needs." But these categories can change with the circumstances. For example, if I regularly enjoy the sexual attentions of my four wives, my lusts may shrivel to near zero. In fact satisfying my lusts as well as satisfying my desires, in general, are surely bona fide ways of eliminating desire, at least temporarily. For example, the hedonist has found a way to attaining the control and cessation of desire; he simply gives in to all of them and this method works as long as his body and mind remain active and healthy. Further, if I am starving and naked, my desire for food and clothing ceases to be merely a need and may in fact become a lust. The Marxists and the other contemporary economic levelers have found ways to attain the cessation of desire by redistributing the economic goods of our society; and this method, too, works as long as there are sufficient goods to be leveled.

The Buddhists have discovered, however, that neither hedonism nor leveling gets at the root cause of desiring. The satisfaction of desire does not prevent desire for other absent objects or conditions from arising in the future. The Buddhist solution does not lie in manipulating external objects, but rather it lies in manipulating internal states of consciousness by cutting off the fuel of desire and by blowing out the flame of desire, once and for all. But such manipulation of internal and subjective states of consciousness brings us back once again to the paradox of desire.

To solve the paradox of desire, we must turn our attention to the nature of desire itself, and to the several kinds of desire involved in desiring and to its cessation.

Let me begin by distinguishing between three types of desire to which the paradox of desire seems to be pointing. First, there is the most important desire, namely, the desire for desirelessness, ("desire(1)"). Second, there is the desire in desirelessness, namely, the desire we are trying to eliminate ("desire(2)''). Finally, there is the desire that is the result of desiring desirelessness, that is, the type of desire that the desire, for desire (2) lessness produces ("desire(3)"). Thus, the first of four premises of the paradox of desire states:
1. Desire (1), for desire (2) lessness leads to desire (3).
Desire (1) may be intense (a lust), or it may be weak (a need), depending on the perseverance, passion, and history of the devotee. Desire (2) is the desire that we have been speaking of above, namely, the lusts, cravings, and needs of ordinary existence that lead to the suffering and misery that the Buddha spoke to so eloquently. The condition that desire (1) attempts to achieve, of course, is the eradication of this desire,. But this desire (1) for desire(2) lessness leads in turn to desire (3), a species of desire that is merely the result of the juxtaposition of the two previous desires. The question that remains to be answered now, of course, is: what is the nature of desire (3)?

The paradox of desire would lead us to believe that desire, is not ultimately different from desire(2) and that the resultant desire, desire(3), is also not ultimately different from desire(2). Hence, the paradox of desire assumes that no matter what I do I can never completely eliminate some species or other of desire(2), that is, the desire that we wanted to eliminate in the first place. Of course, one way out of the paradox would be to argue strenuously that desire(1) and desire(3) are ultimately different from desire(2); or, more to the point, that desire(1) or desire(3) are not desires at all, or not really bad desires, but rather good and useful desires. But we reject this, primarily because the Buddhists themselves seem to reject it: desire, by whatever subscripts it happens to be disguised, is still desire.

Another way out is simply to accept the paradox of desire and then see what happens. And what happens involves us with two other premises necessary to the paradox:
2. Desire (1) is a species of desire (2).
That is to say, desire (1) for the condition of desirelessness is really a desire (2), pure and simple.
3. Desire (3) is a species of desire (2).
That is to say, ultimate desire (3) that results from desire (1) for desire (2) lessness is also just another desire (2), pure and simple. But then the paradox is shown fully and completely by this fourth and final step in the argument:

4.But if desire (1) and desire (3) are merely species of desire (2) then desire (2) lessness is impossible.
Thus the paradox of desire which says that it is impossible to eliminate desire (2) since it would continue to exist as either desire (1) or desire (3). The "impossibility" spoken of here may be a logical impossibility, that is, it may be self-contradictory to desire a condition of desirelessness, or it may be a practical impossibility, that is, it may be self-frustrating to desire a condition of desirelessness. In what follows I want to focus on this practical impossibility or practical contradiction entailed by the paradox of desire and show that, for Buddhism, this is a very salutary contradiction, indeed.

Realizing the practical contradiction that desirelessness can never be attained, because desiring desirelessness produces desire, leads to two consequences: in the first place realizing the contradiction produces frustration in the devotee. Lusting after or needing that which is practically (that is, in practice) impossible to attain produces frustration and with it misery and suffering. The devotee has backed himself into a corner from which there is no practical way out.

If there is no practical way out, and if the frustration that results is a sign of there being no way out, then of course it makes no sense to advise devotees to stop desiring or to remove the objects of desire in order to stop the desiring. What then can a devotee do? And what is the use of Buddhism if it merely points out the contradictions, logical and practical, in the paradox of desire and then leaves one in the paradox? In other words, even if we grant the contradictions in the paradox of desire, what is to be done? The answer is: nothing is to be done; there is nothing one can do because nothing can be done, and that is precisely what Maadhyamika Mahaayaana Buddhism has been saying all along.

In the second place, realizing the practical contradiction (that is, truly understanding the import of 4, herein, namely, that there is no solution to the paradox Of desire) leads to nirvaa.na. Stated as a fifth and final stage this conclusion would look like this:
5. Realizing the truth of 4 is tantamount to achieving nirvaa.na.

That is to say, seeing that there is no way out of the paradox of desire, understanding that, as Maadhyamika Buddhism puts it, there is no way to nirvaa.na, no goal to be desired or achieved, then one "lets go" of the way and the goal. And that "letting go" leads to, or is, nirvaa.na: For once the devotee realizes that there is nothing that he can do then there is nothing left to be done. Thus a philosophical argument leads to rational insight and that insight leads to, or is, nirvaa.na. "Letting go," after all, is the condition of desirelessness, and it is achieved following the frustration of knowing that it cannot be achieved, that is, it cannot be regarded as a goal to be striven for, worked for, sought after--in a word, desired. Hence it is not a question of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" but rather 'damned if you do but saved if you don't.' And that 'don't-ing' is not the result of conscious lusting or needing. It is the result of giving up altogether.

The impatient critic might ask at this juncture: what is the point of all the Buddhist texts, philosophies, theories, and injunctions, if at the end we are told merely, 'Let it all go'? The point, of course, is that these were all necessary to bring one to the realization that they are not at all necessary to nirvaa.na-something the devotee could not know until he had been through all the texts, philosophies, theories, and injunctions. As a child and before I could walk I had to toddle (if that is what toddlers do), and before I could toddle I had to crawl. I do not cry out with impatience, "Why did I have to crawl and toddle? Why could not I have walked to begin with?" More to the point, the texts, philosophies, and theories all helped to back me into the corner that I found myself in; in other words, the paradox had to be experienced before escape from it was possible. The philosophic realization was necessary before the rational insight was possible, and that rational insight, namely, that there is no way out, was necessary before "letting go" could occur, and "letting go" was necessary before nirvaa.na was possible. This is not to suggest, of course, that this is the only way to nirvaa.na; the Mahaayaana Buddhists have other "techniques" as well for the attainment of nirvaa.na:

Just as a child might not go through the crawling and toddling stages but suddenly one day rise up from the cradle and spontaneously walk, or, with the help of a parent a child might walk without going through the crawling and toddling stages.

But this philosophic realization as a solution to the paradox of desire is the method that ultimately passes through China in the first or second centuries A.D. as a heritage from Maadhyamika or ‘Suunyavaada Buddhism and finds its home eventually in Japan, somewhat altered and improved, where it becomes known as Zen Buddhism.

(A. L. Herman is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.)

I was raised Catholic so this topic is very interesting to me.

What is Nirvana? Is it "Nothingness", it is a state of unconsciousness?

How do Buddhist explain the creation of the universe?

I was raised Catholic so this topic is very interesting to me.

What is Nirvana? Is it "Nothingness", it is a state of unconsciousness?

How do Buddhist explain the creation of the universe?

I don't understand. How could the universe just come to be? Everything has to have starting point, correct? I wasn't asking about a belief in a creator, I just wanted to know how Buddhist explain how existence came to be.

Wouldn't that contradict Confucian philosophy? In order for a society to function, there can only be 1 leader, correct? And society's job is to help that leader, LEAD. So I don't understand why a Chinese person would be against the idea of 1 God.

Nirvana in Vietnamese is "Niet Ban".
I was told "its in your mind", the universe that is. As a lay person rarely ponder that question, at least not yet. I take one step at a time and at every step, I have to experience it or realize it and not given to me from anyone or just by reading or listening from anyone.

Buddhism does not attempt to answer the quest for the origin of life. It only addresses how life is transpired once the state of enlightenment is reached.

Confucianism does not have a concrete notion of God. The world is evolved about an emperor who had the mandate from the heaven. Therefore, he was the leader.

And finally for Mr. Jose Cuervo. OK, so I am being lectured, "most messed up and narrow minded people on Earth", by a guy using a username of a Tequila bottle.

How do you know I am one of those elitist Catholics? Let me tell you about Christians theory on origin. They believe it is impossible for life to just have existed without a creator. Yet when asked if life could not come about without a creator, then who created the creator. They tell you that they creator has always existed. So on the one hand they believe life can't happen without a creator, on the other they believe no one created the creator. That is Christianity/Catholicism in a NUT shell.

So I am not condescending. I simply asked a question. Does any philosophy have a good explanation of the origin of life. And the answer is no.

buddhism doesn't explain how the universe came to be, but why does it need to postulate a creator god? buddhism can simply accept any upcoming scientific explanations for the origins of the universe and humanity. to think that there's a god behind the big bang would mean committing the "god-in-the-gaps" fallacy." that is, a god is placed in the gaps of human knowledge. in other words, for every phenomenon that has yet to be explained by science, a god is fallaciously postulated to be behind that phenomenon. for instance, during pasteur's time, people thought that if a pile of dirty rags were left on the street, rats would be generated from the rags. if a piece of meat were left lying around, maggots would generated in the meat. at the time people assumed that god was the divine author of life and was responsible for the generation of life in rags and rotten meat. but thanks to pasteur and his brilliant experiments, spontaneous generation was disproved and god was excised from the aforesaid life-generating phenomenons in meat and rags. descartes, who was a philosopher who worked on the mind-brain problem, once postulated that sensory inputs stimulated the peripheral nerves triggering action potentials which traveled from the peripheral nervous system to the central nervous system and arrived at the pituitary gland, where god is once thought to have been responsible for communicating the action potentials of the physical realm to the non-physical, mental realm of the soul. today, science understands the pituitary gland to be responsible for regulating the body's harmones and having nothing to do with communicating with a soul. as a consequence, god was further excised from a phenomenon. two other phenomenons where god explanations have been replaced by scientific ones include, thunder and lighting (zeus and thor), and earthquakes (poseidon). the trend is, as science advances, god retreats, and the gaps in our knowledge shrink. that is, god-in-the-gaps shrinks. god keeps running away in the face of scientific advance, until the gaps closes. by then, there are no more places for god to hide and god will be cast out of human belief for good.

so why do we even need religion to tell us our origins? why do we need a religious creation story -- a dubious, antiquated myth -- to tell us how we came to be? can't that role of ascertaining origins be left for science? science can answer questions in the realm of origins and buddhism can answer questions on how to live a moral life.

another thing. just because science can't answer the question of the origins of the universe and humanity, doesn't mean god exists. we need to be patient for the scientific explanations to come and not accept dubious god explanations on origins just because we want answers now.