Yesterday's essay stirred up a hornets nest. One of the angry hornets identified himself as a professor of world religions who admonished: " Buddha did not teach nihilism, and, in fact, he taught against it. It's true that he didn't believe in a creator god (because in Buddhism the view is that creation happens over and over, like a tide coming in and going out, eternally, and there is no original creation to require a creator) but that does not suggest that he taught that life is meaningless or without moral values. Quite to the contrary, he was very specific about life's moral values and purpose.."
Ideas have consequences, and as the professor's understanding of how ideas work is rather shallow he cannot see the nihilism lurking at the deepest level of Buddha's ideas. Did Buddha mean to teach nihilism? No. But like a man who does not foresee the consequences of drinking and driving Buddha envisioned not the nihilist consequences of his teachings. And the professor has placed his faith in the claims made by this fallible man who could not envision the consequences of his own teachings.
According to the professor creation "just happens" meaning that 'something' came from 'nothing' unaided by a living Creator. The professor adds that this 'something' is like a tide coming in and going out.
By virtue of Buddha's naturalist belief system (monism) both he and the professor are aspects of nature, mere grains of sand on a cosmic beach, making them fully determined and caused by natural forces acting upon the sand.
The beach is the'whole-thing' the imaginary cosmic force of which everything---including Buddha and the professor--- is comprised. Buddha and the professor then are grains of sand helpless against the forces of nature---wind, rain, tide and the things that sea gulls do as they walk on sandy shores. Neither the Buddha nor the professor can choose other than to be tossed to and fro, blown hither and yon or to be used for the building of sand castles by little children who are the spiritual image-bearers of the supernatural living Triune God.
Either the Buddha and the professor are aspects of nature, which has no source for life, consciousness, soul, spirit and free will or they are not.
But if the professor is an aspect of nature then there is no 'him' capable of freely choosing Buddha over the Son of God let alone choosing to angrily write to me.
Do grains of sand argue? No. Do grains of sand seek Godless 'moral systems' as the professor claims? No.
The professor disproves his own claims by his use of personal pronouns and the fact of his free will.