On our continuing series of posts from the gospel of Buddha, allow me to share this passage from the book.
Again it is said that the Absolute has created us. But that which is absolute cannot be a cause. All things around us come from a cause as the plant comes from the seed; but how can the Absolute be the cause of all things alike? If it pervades them, then, certainly, it does not make them.
Again it is said that the self is the maker. But if self is the maker, why did it not make things pleasing? The causes of sorrow and joy are real and objective. How can they have been made by self?
Again, if we adopt the argument that there is no maker, our fate is such as it is, and there is no causation, what use would there be in shaping our lives and adjusting means to an end?
Therefore, we argue that all things that exist are not without cause. However, neither I?vara, nor the absolute, nor the self, nor causeless chance, is the maker, but our deeds produce results both good and evil according to the law of causation.
Let us, then, abandon the heresy of worshipping I?vara and of praying to him; let us no longer lose ourselves in vain speculations of profitless subtleties; let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions.
Random thoughts 
“let us practice good so that good may result from our actions.”
This is a good one. Whose good are we going to practice? 😦
LikeLike
That will always be the question.
LikeLike
Yeah, it is running off the rails at this point…
LikeLike
And this little gem:
“Again, if we adopt the argument that there is no maker, our fate is such as it is, and there is no causation, what use would there be in shaping our lives and adjusting means to an end?”
Yes, without Oogity Boogity exercising POOF!ism, our lives can have no meaning or purpose! Such clarity of thought! Such wisdom! Such insight! (Apparently…)
LikeLike
Whereas I agree with you slightly, there is no where as far as I can tell where he says we must believe in a god or some other for our lives to have meaning. I can only construe that statement as a rejection of nihilism, though our fate is such as it is.
There is a discussion he has with a few Brahmans on the question about the path to follow to god and he inquires of them if any of the people who tell them about the gods know anything about gods. They respond to the negative and so finally he tells them the only thing they can do is to follow truth, whatever that is, and do good deeds and I think even you agree.
LikeLike
Oooooh, i like his rebuttal to the First Cause argument!
LikeLike
All he needed was time in a science class and he would have received a Nobel in some field. He is an interesting fellow.
LikeLike
So that we might know the difference.
LikeLike
Khalil Gibran is definitely going to be in my reading list. I have read and reread this gem you have shared and still have not had enough of it.
LikeLike
http://www.katsandogz.com/gibran.html
LikeLike
Thanks for this!
LikeLike
An early First Cause argument… interesting. I see you’re researching Buddhism. Pass along any recommended literature, as I am in the middle of doing the same.
LikeLike
The Buddha taught his disciples, and they must have been many the futility of talking about a first cause. I think he could be an interesting teacher to have
LikeLike
Interesting is an understatement. He was revolutionary.
LikeLike