Did The Universe Have A Creator?
-
The example in this article is superb...
http://thedailyenlightenment.com/2010/12/did-the-universe-have-a-creator/
From “Why ‘Intelligent Design’ Lacks Intelligence (The Daily Enlightenment Book 3)” – “Ironically, if it is a rule that ‘there must be a creator’, it means that this uncreated rule precedes the ‘creator’. This rule, being a law of nature, implies that nature precedes the ‘creator’, that no ‘creator’ can precede nature. Since nature precedes the ‘creator’, the ‘creator’ is of course not the ‘creator’ of nature. This simple proof shows that no one can create nature, and that there can be no ‘creator’.” Nature thus naturally ‘is’, while it allows for natural and willed (d)evolution of its inhabitants and the universe itself.
A ‘creator’ by definition is not the created. But what if there is a ‘creator’ who is part of nature? If ‘he’ is part of nature, how can ‘he’ create it? For instance, a painted character in a painting cannot paint the whole painting, that includes ‘himself’. The painter cannot be (part of) that painted. The painter must precede the painting, just as the ‘creator’ before nature. Yet, there cannot be a ‘creator’ who precedes nature, as shown by the proof in the excerpt. And if a ‘creator’ is already part of nature, there will be no need (or ability) to create nature. This again proves there can be no ‘creator’.
Also, to say a ‘creator’ is part of nature means ‘his’ essence is (omnipresent) within nature. The immeasurable suffering due to countless natural disasters in history however implies that if such a ‘creator’ exists, ‘he’ is not omnipotent, omni-benevolent or omniscient, as ‘he’ fails (to know how) to prevent any disaster with ‘his’ power, compassion and wisdom. Are we, if we are the created, instead to blame for such suffering? Surely, the inherent faults or fallibility of a ‘creator’s creation’ arise from the ‘maker’, and not from the created. So it seems, as the Buddha suggested, such a ‘creator’ idea was created from the lack of enlightenment.
-
hhaiz.....chicks and egg story .....
and the source of many religious wars...
respect the human beliefs while investigating the probables....
-
huh my intention is not to stir up any disagreements.. Not going to the chicken and egg story direction. What i meant was i like the example here of a painter if people wants to convert buddhists peace.
-
Well written and well said. Buddha gave the best answers to the questions of humans sufferings. I noticed that there are many people accept creator at their early stage of life but as life goes on, they tend to encounter questions in life which they can't find satisfatory answers. I have quite a number of Dharma friends who turn to Buddhism at their later stage of life.
-
Nice little exposition with an apt analogy. Thanks for sharing!
-
When nature precedes the ‘creator’, it has its functionality of ‘creator’ of blissful omni-benevolent and omni-compassion. This is your buddha nature and as an identifier known it as Buddha
-
not many ask themselve "who am i?" "where i come from?" " why am i here alive?" "how the universe come about?" etc.
most scientific-based people are of the third kind, Accidentalism. evolution believers of sort.
Misunderstandings of the Law of Kamma
Beliefs that are contrary to the law of kamma
There are three philosophies which are considered by Buddhism to be wrong view and which must be carefully distinguished from the teaching of kamma:
1. Pubbekatahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering arise from previous kamma (Past-action determinism).
2. Issaranimmanahetuvada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are caused by the directives of a Supreme Being (Theistic determinism).
3. Ahetu-apaccayavada: The belief that all happiness and suffering are random, having no cause (Indeterminism or Accidentalism).
-
Nice explanation! Well few days back I heared news that 3000 scientets will find the creator of this universe before 2013! I was ttally amazed! Anyone know about it?
-
I don't find the analogy 2009novice makes sense to why God cannot be the creator of the universe or such a "creator" idea is lack of enlightment by the argument you mention the article. I am sorry to say so, but I think you too into Buddhism that you can't .... also many also can't ..... Having said so, my position is that there is no loving God create the world. There are much better rational arguments err.. than a play of twist of logic.
Just you mention correctly that the immeasurable suffering due to countless natural disasters in history however implies that if such a ‘creator’ exists, ‘he’ is not omnipotent, omni-benevolent or omniscient, as ‘he’ fails (to know how) to prevent any disaster with ‘his’ power, compassion and wisdom. this implies as well to Buddha, as well to be fair.
sinwely mentioned that extreme view of determinism or no indeterminism is contrary to law of karma. At least, I have to say law of karma is effected by past-life determinism, whether all, many or some, since you believe in karma. I don't believe in karma becos karma does not make sense.
Most scientific-based people of the mainstream science (not the religious-affliated science) do ask ourselves "who am i?" "where i come from?" " why am i here alive?" "how the universe come about?" etc. But the answer we say is we accept humility to acknowledge we don't know, rather than boasting that we know the truth from some guru. Even though we may have our own sophisticated guesswork, we don't really make a fuss about it becos we do need evidences to prove. Why does mainstream scientific-based people reject reincarnation as a fairy tale but accept evolution as a theory and a fact.? Do we believe in science as infallible, of course not.. science can be flawed, becos man can be flawed .. but we can & have to trust science to find our way out.
-
Originally posted by TrueReppuzan:
I don't find the analogy 2009novice makes sense to why God cannot be the creator of the universe or such a "creator" idea is lack of enlightment by the argument you mention the article. I am sorry to say so, but I think you too into Buddhism that you can't .... also many also can't ..... Having said so, my position is that there is no loving God create the world. There are much better rational arguments err.. than a play of twist of logic.
Just you mention correctly that the immeasurable suffering due to countless natural disasters in history however implies that if such a ‘creator’ exists, ‘he’ is not omnipotent, omni-benevolent or omniscient, as ‘he’ fails (to know how) to prevent any disaster with ‘his’ power, compassion and wisdom. this implies as well to Buddha, as well to be fair.
sinwely mentioned that extreme view of determinism or no indeterminism is contrary to law of karma. At least, I have to say law of karma is effected by past-life determinism, whether all, many or some, since you believe in karma. I don't believe in karma becos karma does not make sense.
Most scientific-based people of the mainstream science (not the religious-affliated science) do ask ourselves "who am i?" "where i come from?" " why am i here alive?" "how the universe come about?" etc. But the answer we say is we accept humility to acknowledge we don't know, rather than boasting that we know the truth from some guru. Even though we may have our own sophisticated guesswork, we don't really make a fuss about it becos we do need evidences to prove. Why does mainstream scientific-based people reject reincarnation as a fairy tale but accept evolution as a theory and a fact.? Do we believe in science as infallible, of course not.. science can be flawed, becos man can be flawed .. but we can & have to trust science to find our way out.
Wait ... this thread is not about comparing religions, science etc etc... aiyah... nevermindFcukpap is right... LOL this thread is a potential fodder for arguments
-
Originally posted by TrueReppuzan:
I don't find the analogy 2009novice makes sense to why God cannot be the creator of the universe or such a "creator" idea is lack of enlightment by the argument you mention the article. I am sorry to say so, but I think you too into Buddhism that you can't .... also many also can't ..... Having said so, my position is that there is no loving God create the world. There are much better rational arguments err.. than a play of twist of logic.
Just you mention correctly that the immeasurable suffering due to countless natural disasters in history however implies that if such a ‘creator’ exists, ‘he’ is not omnipotent, omni-benevolent or omniscient, as ‘he’ fails (to know how) to prevent any disaster with ‘his’ power, compassion and wisdom. this implies as well to Buddha, as well to be fair.
sinwely mentioned that extreme view of determinism or no indeterminism is contrary to law of karma. At least, I have to say law of karma is effected by past-life determinism, whether all, many or some, since you believe in karma. I don't believe in karma becos karma does not make sense.
Most scientific-based people of the mainstream science (not the religious-affliated science) do ask ourselves "who am i?" "where i come from?" " why am i here alive?" "how the universe come about?" etc. But the answer we say is we accept humility to acknowledge we don't know, rather than boasting that we know the truth from some guru. Even though we may have our own sophisticated guesswork, we don't really make a fuss about it becos we do need evidences to prove. Why does mainstream scientific-based people reject reincarnation as a fairy tale but accept evolution as a theory and a fact.? Do we believe in science as infallible, of course not.. science can be flawed, becos man can be flawed .. but we can & have to trust science to find our way out.
No, it does not apply to Buddha.
Buddha never claimed to be an omnipotent creator.
Buddha never taught that there is a creator.
Is Buddha omniscient? Yes.
Is Buddha omnipotent? Not exactly - he has immense powers, but karma cannot be changed by powers.
In other words, Buddha can only guide, he cannot actually avert a person's bad karma as he wishes.
If a person has to suffer certain karmas, then no matter how he delays it... the karma will play out.
-
http://www.buddhanet.net/t_karma.htm
It was this important text, which states the belief that all physical circumstances and mental attitudes spring solely from past Karma that Buddha contradicted. If the present life is totally conditioned or wholly controlled by our past actions, then certainly Karma is tantamount to fatalism or determinism or predestination. If this were true, free will would be an absurdity. Life would be purely mechanistic, not much different from a machine. Being created by an Almighty God who controls our destinies and predetermines our future, or being produced by an irresistible Karma that completely determines our fate and controls our life’s course, independent of any free action on our part, is essentially the same. The only difference lies in the two words God and Karma. One could easily be substituted for the other, because the ultimate operation of both forces would be identical.
Such a fatalistic doctrine is not the Buddhist law of Karma.
According to Buddhism, there are five orders or processes (niyama) which operate in the physical and mental realms.
They are:
- Utu Niyama - physical inorganic order, e.g. seasonal phenomena of winds and rains. The unerring order of seasons, characteristic seasonal changes and events, causes of winds and rains, nature of heat, etc., all belong to this group.
- Bija Niyama - order of germs and seeds (physical organic order), e.g. rice produced from rice-seed, sugary taste from sugar-cane or honey, peculiar characteristics of certain fruits, etc. The scientific theory of cells and genes and the physical similarity of twins may be ascribed to this order.
- Karma Niyama - order of act and result, e.g., desirable and undesirable acts produce corresponding good and bad results. As surely as water seeks its own level so does Karma, given opportunity, produce its inevitable result, not in the form of a reward or punishment but as an innate sequence. This sequence of deed and effect is as natural and necessary as the way of the sun and the moon.
- Dhamma Niyama - order of the norm, e.g., the natural phenomena occurring at the advent of a Bodhisattva in his last birth. Gravitation and other similar laws of nature. The natural reason for being good and so forth, my be included in this group.
- Citta Niyama - order or mind or psychic law, e.g., processes of consciousness, arising and perishing of consciousness, constituents of consciousness, power of mind, etc., including telepathy, telaesthesia, retro-cognition, premonition, clairvoyance, clairaudience, thought-reading and such other psychic phenomena which are inexplicable to modern science.
Every mental or physical phenomenon could be explained by these all-embracing five orders or processes which are laws in themselves. Karma as such is only one of these five orders. Like all other natural laws they demand no lawgiver.
Of these five, the physical inorganic order and the order of the norm are more or less mechanistic, though they can be controlled to some extent by human ingenuity and the power of mind. For example, fire normally burns, and extreme cold freezes, but man has walked scatheless over fire and meditated naked on Himalayan snows; horticulturists have worked marvels with flowers and fruits; Yogis have performed levitation. Psychic law is equally mechanistic, but Buddhist training aims at control of mind, which is possible by right understanding and skilful volition. Karma law operates quite automatically and, when the Karma is powerful, man cannot interfere with its inexorable result though he may desire to do so; but here also right understanding and skilful volition can accomplish much and mould the future. Good Karma, persisted in, can thwart the reaping of bad Karma, or as some Western scholars prefer to say ‘action influence’, is certainly an intricate law whose working is fully comprehended only by a Buddha. The Buddhist aims at the final destruction of all Karma.
-
http://www.buddhanet.net/3-gqga.htm
- You have talked a lot about rebirth but is there any proof that we will be reborn when we die?
- Not only is
there scientific evidence to support Buddhist belief in rebirth, it is the
only after-life theory that has any evidence to support it. There is not
a scrap of evidence to prove the existence of heaven and of course evidence
of annihilation at death must be lacking. But during the last 30 years parapsychologists
have been studying reports that some people have vivid memories of their
former lives. For example, in England, a 5 year old girl said she could
remember her other mother and father and she talked vividly about what sounded
like the events in the life of another person. Parapsychologists were called
in and asked her hundreds of questions to which she gave answers. She spoke
of living in a particular village, in what appeared to be Spain. She gave
the name of the village, the name of the street she lived in, her neighbours’
names and details about her everyday life there. she also tearfully spoke
of how she had been struck by a car and died of her injuries two days later.
When these details were checked, they were found to be accurate. There was
a village in Spain with the name the child had given. There was a house
of the type she had described in the street she had named. What is more,
it was found that a 23 year old woman living in the house had been killed
in a car accident five years before.
Now how is it possible for a five year old living in England who had never been to Spain to know all these details? And of course, this is not the only case of this type. Professor Ian Stevenson of the University of Virginia’s Department of Psychology has described dozens of cases of this type in his books. He is an accredited scientist whose 25 year study of people who remember former lives is very strong evidence for the Buddhist teaching of rebirth.
- You say that talk about devils is superstitious. Isn't talk about rebirth a bit superstitious too?
- The dictionary
defines superstition as a belief which is not based on reason or fact but
on an association of ideas, as in magic. If you can show me a careful study
of the existence of devils written by a scientist I will concede that belief
in devils is not superstition. But I have never heard of any research into
devils; scientists simply wouldn’t bother to study such things, so
I say there is no evidence for the existence of devils. But as we have just
seen, there is evidence which seems to suggest that rebirth does take place.
So if belief in rebirth is based on at least some facts, it cannot be a
superstition.
- Well, have there ever been any scientists who believe in rebirth?
- Yes. Thomas
Huxley, who was responsible for having science introduced into the 19th
century British school system and who was the first scientist to defend
Darwin’s theories, believed that reincarnation was a very plausible
idea. In his famous book "Evolution and Ethics and other Essays",
he says:
"In the doctrine of transmigration, whatever its origin, Brahmanical and Buddhist speculation found, ready to hand, the means of constructing a plausible vindication of the ways of the Cosmos to man....yet this plea of justification is not less plausible than others; and none but very hasty thinkers will reject it on the ground of inherent absurdity. Like the doctrine of evolution itself, that of transmigration has its roots in the world of reality; and it may claim such support as the great argument from analogy is capable of supplying".
Then, Professor Gust Stromberg, the famous Swedish astronomer, physicist and friend of Einstein also found the idea of rebirth appealing:
"Opinions differ whether human souls can be reincarnated on the earth or not. In 1936 a very interesting case was thoroughly investigated and reported by the government authorities in India. A girl (Shanti Devi from Deli) could accurately describe her previous life (at Muttra, five hundred miles from Deli) which ended about a year before her 'second birth'. She gave the name of her husband and child and described her home and life history. The investigating commission brought her to her former relatives, who verified all her statements. Among the people of India reincarnations are regarded as commonplace; the astonishing thing for them in this case was the great number of facts the girl remembered. This and similar cases can be regarded as additional evidence for the theory of the indestructibility of memory".
Professor Julian Huxley, the distinguished British scientist who was Director General of UNESCO believed that rebirth was quite in harmony with scientific thinking:
"There is nothing against a permanently surviving spirit-individuality being in some way given off at death, as a definite wireless message is given off by a sending apparatus working in a particular ways. But it must be remembered that the wireless message only becomes a message again when it comes in contact with a new, material structure - the receiver. So with our possible spirit-emanation. It would never think or feel unless again "embodied" in some way. our personalities are so based on body that it is really impossible to think of survival which would be in any true sense personal without a body of sorts. I can think of something being given off which could bear the same relation to men and women as a wireless message to the transmitting apparatus for mind".
Even very practical and down-to-earth people like the American industrialist Henry Ford found the idea of rebirth acceptable. Ford was attracted to the idea of rebirth because, unlike the theistic idea or the materialistic idea, rebirth gives you a second chance to develop yourself. Henry Ford says:
"I adopted the theory of Reincarnation when I was twenty six. Religion offered nothing to the point. Even work could not give me complete satisfaction. Work is futile if we cannot utilise the experience we collect in one life in the next. When I discovered Reincarnation it was as if I had found a universal plan I realised that there was a chance to work out my ideas. Time was no longer limited. I was no longer a slave to the hands of the clock. Genius is experience. Some seem to think that it is a gift or talent, but it is the fruit of long experience in many lives. Some are older souls than others, and so they know more. The discovery of Reincarnation put my mind at ease. If you preserve a record of this conversation, write it so that it puts men’s minds at ease. I would like to communicate to others the calmness that the long view of life gives to us".
So the Buddhist teachings of rebirth does have some scientific evidence to support it. It is logically consistent and it goes a long way in answering questions what the theistic and the materialistic theories fail to . It is also very comforting. What can be worse than a theory of life that gives you no second chance, no opportunity to amend the mistakes you have made in this life and no time to further develop the skills and abilities you have nurtured in this life. But according to the Buddha, if you fail to attain Nirvana in this life, you will have the opportunity to try again next time. If you have made mistakes in this life, you will be able to correct yourself in the next life. You will truly be able to learn from your mistakes. Things you were unable to do or achieve in this life may well become possible in the next life. What a wonderful teaching!
-
Thx AEN
-
got a saying karma业 generally mean action. like chinese we have 事业, 毕业. :)
btw, Buddha also taught the simile of:-
A Handful of Leaves
There aren’t that many fundamental, or root, principles of dharma. The Buddha said that his teaching is “a single handful.” A passage in the Samyutta-nikaya makes that clear. While walking through the forest, the Buddha picked up a handful of fallen leaves and asked the monks who were present to decide which was the greater amount, the leaves in his hand or all the leaves in the forest. Of course, they all said that there were more leaves in the forest, that the difference was beyond comparison. Try to imagine the truth of this scene; clearly see how huge the difference is. The Buddha then said that, similarly, those things that he had realized were a great amount, equal to all the leaves in the forest. However, that which was necessary to know, those things that should be taught and practiced, were equal to the number of leaves in his hand.
-Buddhadasa Bhikkhu/\
-
Originally posted by TrueReppuzan:
I don't find the analogy 2009novice makes sense to why God cannot be the creator of the universe or such a "creator" idea is lack of enlightment by the argument you mention the article. I am sorry to say so, but I think you too into Buddhism that you can't .... also many also can't ..... Having said so, my position is that there is no loving God create the world. There are much better rational arguments err.. than a play of twist of logic.
Just you mention correctly that the immeasurable suffering due to countless natural disasters in history however implies that if such a ‘creator’ exists, ‘he’ is not omnipotent, omni-benevolent or omniscient, as ‘he’ fails (to know how) to prevent any disaster with ‘his’ power, compassion and wisdom. this implies as well to Buddha, as well to be fair.
sinwely mentioned that extreme view of determinism or no indeterminism is contrary to law of karma. At least, I have to say law of karma is effected by past-life determinism, whether all, many or some, since you believe in karma. I don't believe in karma becos karma does not make sense.
Most scientific-based people of the mainstream science (not the religious-affliated science) do ask ourselves "who am i?" "where i come from?" " why am i here alive?" "how the universe come about?" etc. But the answer we say is we accept humility to acknowledge we don't know, rather than boasting that we know the truth from some guru. Even though we may have our own sophisticated guesswork, we don't really make a fuss about it becos we do need evidences to prove. Why does mainstream scientific-based people reject reincarnation as a fairy tale but accept evolution as a theory and a fact.? Do we believe in science as infallible, of course not.. science can be flawed, becos man can be flawed .. but we can & have to trust science to find our way out.
We sit still, and examine our assumptions:-
This is a contemplative process, we contemplate, we investigate on process, and then on I, what is self,or rather, no self.
Not based on hearsay, but us actually contemplately, personally investigating, results will vary!
Is creation a process, what becomes of creation before the process; namely what exist before creation and what are conditions necessary for creation to occur. Can creator, of independant will, be independent of process? Or is creation just an expression of a principle of impermanence and change?
Just like the expression of Nataraja, as a new cosmos is being created, the previous one is destroyed. Before this existence, there was another , and another one before that.
Or the Taoist point of creation, before there was one all is Chaos. So was is it before Chaos? Or should i just settle at that?
What was it before the first Big Bang?Once you established a point in chronology, there will always something present before it!
-
Originally posted by sinweiy:
not many ask themselve "who am i?" "where i come from?" " why am i here alive?" "how the universe come about?" etc.
most scientific-based people are of the third kind, Accidentalism. evolution believers of sort.
There is no misunderstanding of the laws of kamma. It depends on which religious view do you take. The Hindu view or the Buddhist view. Both differs on whether karma is immutable or not. -
Creator or Buddha or heart & mind are the same if you had achieved the breakthrough of language barrier on different terms. 唯心所现，唯识所�, the former is Buddha mind while the latter is mind of living beings, both are creators, the former is loving kindnessly sweet while the latter is the creator from defilement.
Buddha is indeed omnipotent. Attributing to his enlightenment, he dwell in the Flower Adornment garden through his transformation of all objects and subjects into loving-kindnessly benevolence. Karma can be changed by power but living beings do not want to faithfully believe their inherent omnipotence. This is due to doubt owing to their boisterous search and entanglement of desires for defilement instead of loving-kindnessly serenity.
Indeed, Buddha has the superpower to change karma, apparently, from the living example of this slaughterer whom was liberated by Buddha Amitabha. If it is not omnipotent of Buddha, how could so many beings be liberated. Praised the Lord Buddha Amitabha, King of all Buddhas, as there is no Buddha like Buddha Amitabha who personally appeared before living beings whom were shouldering with heavy karmic hindrance, to personally welcome them to the Land of Ultimate Bliss.
å± å¤«å¼µå–„å’Œå¾€ç”Ÿ
å”�æœ�çš„å¼µå–„å’Œï¼Œä»–æ˜¯å€‹å± å¤«ï¼Œæ®ºç‰›ç‚ºæ¥çš„，一生ä¸�曉得殺了多少é 牛；在這一生ä¸æ²’有é�‡åˆ°å–„緣，å�šäº†ä¸€å€‹å± å¤«ï¼Œä¸€ç”Ÿé€ äº†å¾ˆé‡�的惡æ¥ï¼›è‡¨çµ‚的時候，他見到許多的牛é äººä¾†è·Ÿä»–è¨Žå‘½ï¼Œé€™æ˜¯æžœå ±ç�¾å‰�，也是地ç�„相ç�¾å‰�。但是，我們å�¯ä»¥èªªä»–é�ŽåŽ»ç”Ÿä¸å¿µä½›é€™å€‹å–„æ ¹æ·±åŽšã€‚å¾žä»€éº¼åœ°æ–¹èªªçš„å‘¢ï¼Ÿä»–è‡¨çµ‚çš„æ™‚å€™ç¥žå¿—æ¸…æ¥šï¼Œä¸�迷惑，他大å�«ï¼šã€Œè¨±å¤šç‰›é 人給我討命了。ã€�ä»–èƒ½å¤ å�«å¾—å‡ºæ•‘å‘½ï¼Œèƒ½å¤ æŠŠé€™å€‹ç�¾è±¡çœ‹å¾—清楚說出來。他的緣也好，剛好有一個出家人從他門å�£ç¶“é�Žï¼Œè�½åˆ°è£¡é�¢å–Šæ•‘命，喊好多牛é 人出ç�¾äº†ï¼Œé€™å€‹å‡ºå®¶äººå¿ƒè£¡æ˜Žç™½ï¼Œçµ¦ä»–點了一把香，點燃了，趕緊拿給他，å�«ä»–手拿著，念阿彌陀佛，一心求生西方極樂世界。他接到香之後，就大è�²å�«é˜¿å½Œé™€ä½›ã€�阿彌陀佛......，念了幾è�²ä¹‹å¾Œï¼Œä»–說牛é 人ä¸�見了，阿彌陀佛來了，他跟阿彌陀佛走了。這樣的往生就是〈無é‡�壽經〉第å��八願，臨終å��念往生；臨終å��å¿µï¼Œä¸€å¿µéƒ½èƒ½å¾€ç”Ÿã€‚é€™å€‹æ™‚å€™å› ç‚ºä»–å°‡æ»äº†ï¼Œä»–看到牛é 人來è¦�å‘½äº†ï¼Œæ‰€ä»¥ä»–çš„å¿ƒæ‡‡åˆ‡ï¼ŒçœŸèª ã€‚
Karma can be delayed and subsequently transformed into pure karma that of Buddha. It is a strong mindset of diligent in practice. Citing lottery beads as an example, the winning numbers were chunned out from one lottery bead at a point in time till all the winning numbers materialised. Likewise to the mind of living beings that contained various types of beads or seeds. So, if this being with heavy karmic obstacle, faithfully believe and present the good type of bead such as unconditional loving kindness, all the other bad beads will temporarily remain in the container. For a period of practice rolling out the right bead, all other bad beads will naturally transformed into loving kndness bead because these bad beads that were cultivated are merely delusion with no real basis or existence.You got to love ah_ha
Amitabha!