Can Buddhism accomodate the discoveries of modern science?
Quoting Wayfarer
Do expand on how Buddhism is more able to accomodate the discoveries of modern science.
I'll reply to your points with a reference to the Early Buddhist scriptures, and then we can take it from there.
My overall position is that it cannot, it doesn't, and that it won't accomodate the discoveries of modern science.
I think overall, Buddhism is more able to accomodate the discoveries of modern science but it's not a foregone conclusion.
Do expand on how Buddhism is more able to accomodate the discoveries of modern science.
I'll reply to your points with a reference to the Early Buddhist scriptures, and then we can take it from there.
My overall position is that it cannot, it doesn't, and that it won't accomodate the discoveries of modern science.
Comments (115)
There's a lot of commentary on that. Basically I think Buddhism is quite open to scientific method, but not compatible with scientific materialism. The former is the way of discovering facts and principles about nature, the latter more a culturally-conditioned view about the nature of the world.
The Dalai Lama is known for his interest in science. His book Universe in a Single Atom is basically about philosophy of science. In it he says that if science empirically demonstrates the falsehood of some Buddhist dogma, then it will have to be modified. The overall principles have not, I think, been subject to that kind of challenge, but the traditional Buddhist cosmology of Mt Meru is certainly challenged by it. There has been a conference that has run for a number of years, Mind and Life, of which the Dalai Lama is chair, that explores the interface between Buddhist philosophy and science. There's quite a bit of interest from some physicists in the Buddhist philosophy of ??nyat?.
I'm just now reading a book on interpretations of physics, Helgoland by Carlo Rovelli. He refers to the Indian Buddhist philosopher, N?g?rjuna, as providing an explanatory framework which is compatible with his own philosophy of 'relationalism'. (I haven't finished it yet.)
But overall, the reason I made that remark is that I don't think Buddhism is necessarily grounded in a mythological narrative but on an insight into a fact about the nature of existence. There are many challenges on both sides but I don't see a deep incompatibility in principle with anything science has discovered.
What’s the insight into a fact about the nature of existence? If you cannot say then perhaps it is incompatible with science, and that would suggest Buddhism, like all religions, is necessarily based in unverifiable metaphysics.
Did the Buddha ever think about what The Doctrine Of Impermanence (Anicca/Anitya), the cornerstone of Buddhism, meant for Buddhism? Does anicca/anitya apply to The Four Noble Truths? It should, right? Ergo, there's plenty of room in Buddhism for science and even other stuff to set up house.
[quote=Tenzin Gyatso, The 14th Dalai Lama]If scientific analysis were conclusively to demonstrate certain claims in Buddhism to be false, then we must accept the findings of science and abandon those claims.[/quote]
Exactamundo. :razz:
He has a very clear scientific mind. He’s very analytic, very precise. I explained the superposition principle and entanglement and the randomness of measurement events, and he always asked the right questions. I invited him to visit a laboratory in Innsbruck, which has ion traps for individual atoms, and you can usually look at an atom there. I wanted to show this to the Dalai Lama because he didn’t believe in atoms. And interestingly, when he came it didn’t work.[/quote]
Good luck/Bad luck? Knowledge/Illusory Knowledge?
Yes, he said that at some point, his teachings will become lost.
If that were the case, then we'd be living in a chaotic universe, and in a chaotic universe enlightenment wouldn't be possible (since the attainment of enlightenment depends on there being cause and effect, reliably), and the whole project of looking for true happiness would be pointless. Upon realizing this, one would give up on it, and succomb to misery.
In which case, why still call it "Buddhism"?
Why should a relatively small school within Buddhism and its most visible representative be considered representative of all Buddhism?
Although I do give the Dalai Lama credit for saying "certain claims in Buddhism". Heh. He could be referring to spelling mistakes, historical data, and culturological findings -- things that are indeed the domain of science. And mostly irrelevant to Buddhism.
Do you think that the doctrine of pa?iccasamupp?da is compatible with science, or that science can demonstrate it to be wrong?
Science is concerned with third-person observables. Dependent origination is something that has to be understood in the first person. It’s the ‘insight’ of ‘insight meditation’.
[quote=Thupten Jinpa; https://tricycle.org/magazine/under-one-umbrella-2/] It really depends on your conception of the scope of science. If you believe that anything that is knowable, anything that is real, has to somehow come under the scope of science, then of course you have conflict. But if your understanding of science is that science is a particular way of doing things—a particular way of knowing that includes a particular methodology—then some aspects of reality may fall into this category and some aspects may not.
….. For practicing Buddhists, why would you need third-person proof to show that your own practice is helping you? In the end, when it comes to spiritual practice, you are your own best proof. Individual practitioners can understand from their own personal experience that practice is helping them to be more understanding, to be more open, to be more at home with others, or to have a greater sense of ease. From my point of view, these effects are much more powerful as a source of motivation than a scientific study that uses a scanner to show that when you meditate, things happen in your brain. Why would that help you?[/quote]
@Wayfarer, I seek your counsel.
Indeed, causality is central to buddhism as it is in other religions. The law of karma (moral causation) along with reincarnation provides a pretty good explanatory framework for a lot of otherwise inexplicable events we encounter in life which we've come to love and hate as luck, good and bad respectively. Of the mundane, what goes around comes around, too obvious to state.
What this means, in the most basic sense, is there is no chance, no randomness. Everything happens for a reason or
[quote=Master Oogway (Kungfu Panda)]There are no accidents.[/quote]
I wonder how that fits into the biological concept of random genetic mutation as a driving force behind evolution. Looks like buddhism isn't as science-friendly as I thought it was.
I’ll add more later.
Thanks. My take on karma is that it determines the circumstances of our birth and life till the very end, all things that depend on it - which is a lot (parental care, access to education, money for basic comforts, the religion you're born into, whether you'll ever encounter philosophy, will you have the resources to do philosophy?, and so on) - but that, if you'll notice, also includes, quite unfortunately it seems, your exposure to buddhism and knowledge free will, key components, I reckon, of your ability to respond appropriately, in a manner that you don't make matters worse karmically speaking, to your circumstances, good/bad.
Much like...
[quote=Thanissaro Bikkhu] In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past.[/quote]
What I said above is what I gleaned from the article you provided a link to but also includes some thoughts shared by a mahayana buddhist monk I happened to meet. There's a harmony of views that I feel should be stated.
Buddhism, contextualized in the free will- determinism debate, makes it amply clear that the past does determine the present but depending on one's karma, one can gain knowledge of one's free will and also buddhism; armed with these two, we can think/speak/act in ways that'll improve the conditions of our next life, a positive feeback loop begins to take shape and before you know it, you're having tea with the buddha in nirvana land.
However, what about chance or randomness? Known as luck, there doesn't seem to be any room for it in buddhism's karmic causality.
Bingo!
There's always an element of chance. Not everything is fixed by karma, because reality is not fixed.
Quoting TheMadFool
:ok:
Where the idea of karma becomes negative, is when it is used to assign blame or rationalise misfortune. Reflection on karma should always be positive, that the right intention produces a positive result. Blaming everything on karma, or saying something terrible happened to someone because 'it's their karma' easily becomes fatalism and superstition. It is not a compassionate attitude.
Quoting TheMadFool
Yeah, no. I really don't buy that. Innocent people fall victim to accidents and diseases, I never like to say that it's because of karma. More important is how you help them, and on how they are able to respond to tragedy or disaster. On the other hand, people sometimes 'get what is coming', also. But being dogmatic about it is never a help.
Karma is a very deep subject, I would never claim any kind of expertise about it. But it seems to me the most obvious and natural ethical principle in existence. It's even described in the New Testament, 'as you sow, so shall you reap'. I can't see how that is not a fundamental truth. But theorising about it or trying to second-guess its working is rarely helpful. As a wise friend of mine said, sometimes your karma runs over your dogma. :wink:
Quoting Wayfarer
I maybe wrong of course but, if there's a chance factor in all this, even the best laid out plans for nirvana that span many future lives would be a waste of time. I could, god forbid, lead a life of debauchery, even order genocide and torture, in most horrible ways possible, and, by a stroke of luck, become enlightened. Nirvana, then, is nothing more than a game of die - about lucky people, not good people.
Of course. If you think that Nirv??a can be won by some contrivance then you are indeed wasting your time, and indeed many of these discussion are likely the same.
Let’s just point out that the whole purpose of the Buddhist path is not gaining something - Nirv??a is not like ‘winning the jackpot’ or having everything go your way. Consider what the Buddha gained by setting out on his path - nothing whatever. Instead he gave up a comfortable living, wife and child in exchange for a begging bowl. In the Diamond Sutra, the Buddha says ‘I have attained supreme enlightenment, and gained nothing by it.’ It’s a hard saying, but true.
So, there's no difference between an evil person and (say) a bodhisattva - the difference in their deeds, one cruel, the other kind, means nothing and even if it did, that can be easily compensated for/reduced to naught by the vagaries of chance. The buddha then wasn't a good guy, he was just one helluva lucky dude. Something's off, no? You're contradicting the law of karma but you already knew that.
People who aren't karmically predisposed to worry about karma don't lose sleep over karma, so the above concern is moot.
However, I sense from this post of yours and from some others that your concern is about something else as well. It seems you hold that "all men were created equal" and when you consider that Buddhism doesn't hold such a belief in the equality of all men (or humans), this causes you unease. Is this so?
Also, it seems to tie in with another idea you expressed elsewhere, namely, that religions are obligated to convert people.
No, because it's irrelevant to effort, and Right Effort is what matters
Quoting TheMadFool
In Buddhist terms, genetic mutations, too, are not random. But they are irrelevant to the project of seeking enlightenment.
How? It seems all the more important, given how karma works, to, in this present life, take measures through good deeds to ensure our next life is as good or even better which includes getting the opportunity to learn buddhism and reacquaint ourselves with karma.
Quoting baker
If karma is real, any ability/disability, any advantage/disadvantage we possess/experience is an effect of our actions in a past life. We have to come to terms with that at the soonest. However, buddhism doesn't leave us without any means to remedy/improve our condition - it also informs us that we can, in this life, do good in order that our next life is better than this, the present.
In the process of the complete cessation of suffering?
Do you have a canonical reference for that?
This is a folk belief in karma, Thanissaro Bhikkhu calls it "karmaism".
The stronger argument against karmaism (other than that it lacks compassion) is that, according to doctrine, only a sufficiently advanced person can discern the exact workings of karma in regard to a particular situation (while everyone else would become mad and vexed if they were to conjecture about it). When people who are not thusly attained are making bold pronouncements about someone's karma, they are thus wrong on account of speaking beyond their competence (and mad and vexed).
A part of the fourth brahmavihara, upekkh? (equanimity) is precisely a reflection on karma (such as when in the chant it is said "I am the owner of my karma, heir to my karma" and so on).
I'm a bit rusty on that, and I don't have my old notes anymore, but I do still remember that it's part of doctrine that not everything that happens to a person is due to their fault (their "bad karma").
Actually, being dogmatic here does help -- provided one learns what the doctrine actually teaches (as opposed to what the folk beliefs and one's fears are).
The Buddha says here that hard karmic determinism ("all is caused by what was done in the past") is wrong view.
Hence the admonition about the unconjecturables.
Quoting Wayfarer
And a saying not found in the Pali Canon.
I have the impression that you think of Buddhist teachings as having the same coercive, commanding, universally binding nature as those in Christianity.
No, see my post above. Hard karmic determinism is wrong view.
Quoting TheMadFool
Not only that, it teaches that (with some exceptions), we can attain enlightenment in this lifetime, we're not automatically doomed to work hard and wait for a future lifetime.
Quoting TheMadFool
This is not what the Buddha of the Pali Canon teaches.
That you have concerns about the implications of luck and concerns about nirvana depending on luck is one thing, but what the Buddha of the Pali Canon teaches is another thing, and they should clearly be kept separate.
I just don't understand how you come to that conclusion on the basis of what I said.
To recap - there's an element of chance in life. Buddhism is not deteminist, it doesn't say that everything that happens is determined by karma or the past. But karma nevertheless remains a prime determinant of one's experience and quality of life. As I said, it's a deep topic, I'm not claiming to be an expert in it, but can't see how you're reaching such conclusions.
Quoting TheMadFool
Do more reading. Perhaps something like this book might be helpful, as it explains Buddhism from the point of view of philosophy. Here is the author profile.
There's also a relatively recent book specifically about karma here https://g.co/kgs/NctqCc
Quoting baker
How about the Chiggala Sutta?
Quoting baker
I concede it's more characteristic of Mah?y?na. There are the 'eight worldly concerns' - gain and loss being among them. Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind says again and again to 'practice with no gaining idea'. 'Gaining' the true identity means 'loosing' the false sense of self, which is nearly always concerned with getting something.
Implied in this 'observation' is the oft-mistaken conflation, or confusion, of knowing with understanding; and the false dichotomy of third vs first person (observables?) does not clarify anything, and only obscures what's at issue.
Quoting Wayfarer
Well, I think you're quite mistaken. Materialism – both scientific and philosophical – conceives of 'material stuff' as emergent from (temporary, transient, confluent, ceaseless recombinations of) swirling atoms analoguous to "co-dependent arising" and "anicca"; and, other than this, there is only void which is also analogous to "sunyata" "anatta". Clearly, Wayf, you've not studied it at all and yet you love to rant about "materialism" quite a lot. Typical idealist / anti-realist I suppose. :roll:
Not a false dichotomy. 'Galilean' science divides the world into the bearers of primary attributes, namely, material bodies that have measurable characteristics. The observing mind has nothing to do with what is observed. That is precisely what was called into question by the 'observer problem', which you have never shown any indication that you understand.
Phenomenology is concerned with 'the nature of experience'. That is what demarcates it from Anglo-american 'scientism' a la Daniel Dennett.
Quoting 180 Proof
For example? That is nothing like Lucretius, Democritus, or the French Enlightenment philosophers generally, said.
Materialism is the view that matter is what is fundamentally real. But materialism has become untenable due to the discoveries of quantum physics in the 20th century. What remains is no longer materialism, unless you're thinking of the dubious pop-sci 'philosophy' of Krauss or the like. He, and Hawkings and a few others, have attempted to prove that the universe arises from the void, the empty space of quantum flunctuations, saying that this amounts to an explanatory metaphor, as in Krauss' book the Universe from Nothing. But as David Albert, another philosopher of physics, pointed out in his review of that book, 'The particular, eternally persisting, elementary physical stuff of the world, according to the standard presentations of relativistic quantum field theories, consists (unsurprisingly) of relativistic quantum fields. And the fundamental laws of this theory take the form of rules concerning which arrangements of those fields are physically possible and which aren’t, and rules connecting the arrangements of those fields at later times to their arrangements at earlier times, and so on — and they have nothing whatsoever to say on the subject of where those fields came from, or of why the world should have consisted of the particular kinds of fields it does, or of why it should have consisted of fields at all, or of why there should have have been a world in the first place. Period. Case closed. End of story.'
Quoting 180 Proof
The Buddhist conception of the atom is not the material atom of Greek atomism, but moments of experience, arising and falling in rapid succession. Buddhism always argued against there being ultimate material atoms, and generally argues against materialism as a form of nihilism, on the basis that it makes no provision for karmic continuity. And I have studied it, through an MA in Buddhist Studies which I completed ten years ago.
Ah yeah, again you prove my point. Effin' clueless. :clap:
Well, I'm acquainted with some Tibetan monks and they have a concept of luck and they believe that it can be accumulated just like good karma by performing kind acts. In short, the lucky and the morally upright can't be distinguished from each other i.e. luck is just another way karma manifests itself in our lives or, to put it another way, there's no such thing as luck, it's all your past karma, good or bad.
Quoting Wayfarer
I'll take that advice. Thanks. As you said, karma is a deep subject and I should know better than shoot my mouth off before carefully studying it.
:ok:
In his new book, ‘Helgoland…’, about Quantum Theory, Carlo Rovelli notes that All is Relational, that no entity exists independently of anything else, so that there are no intrinsic properties at all, but only features in relation to something else, which is essentially what Nagarjuna means by ‘emptiness’ in his Buddhism.
Relationism and Buddhism
(Outline gleaned from reading Rovelli)
Quantum fields form and exhaust reality,
As partless, continuous—there’s no Space!
Reality maintains itself in place
As the net of objects interacting.
Copernicus’ revolution’s complete;
External entities aren’t required
To hold the universe; God’s not needed,
Nor any background; there is no Outside.
Nor is there the ‘now’ all over the place.
GR’s relational nature extends
To Time as well—the ‘flow’ of time is not
An ultimate aspect of reality.
All is Relational: no entity
Exists independently of anything;
There are no intrinsic properties,
Just features in relation to what’s else.
Interactions and events (not things) are
Quantum entangled with such others else;
Impermanence pertains all the way through—
What Nagarjuna means by Emptiness.
There are no fundamental substances,
No permanences, no bird’s-eye view
Of All, no Foundation to Everything,
Plus no infinite regress ne’er completed.
(The fields are not from anything—causeless!
Or ‘not from anything’ is of lawless
‘Nothing’, which can’t ever form to remain.
There is no reason, then, to existence.)
Hope’s Necessary ‘God’ vanishes!
This realization of Impermanence,
No Absolutes, and Emptiness,
Is Nirvana, though coincidently.
Which is precisely the sutta I had in mind when I asked the above question.
Attaining nibbana does not depend on chance, but on deliberate action.
Indeed, it may be a sheer coincidence that one meets an arahant or comes across a sutta, but this alone is not the deciding factor on one's path. Many people may meet an arahant, or read a sutta, but do nothing with that.
And I didn't say that it did. I said that not everything is determined, and that chance is a factor.
:clap: Eloquent.
A factor in what? The process of attaining nibbana?
Take the middle path.
Two positions:
1. Everything is determined (karma). No!
2. Not Everything is determined (chance factor). No!
What's the proposition that corresponds to the middle path?
3. From 1 (no!) , some things are not determined.
4. From 2 (no!) , everything is determined.
So,
5. Everything is determined (3) and some things are not determined (4) [contradiction]. No!
So,
6. Neither everything is determined nor some things are not determined. No!
I've applied Nagarjuna's tetralemma (supposedly the foundation of the middle path).
The burning question is, what is the proposition that is the middle path?
I don't think it's a propositional form of philosophy even though it sometimes appears in the form of syllogistic logic. N?g?rjuna is notoriously difficult to interpret. There are nowadays many online courses about madhyamaka, try this one which is a series of lectures. Or explore Jay Garfield's presentations.
This might be relevant :point:
[quote=T. R. V. Murti]Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion. Neither the M?dhyamika nor Kant has any doctrine or theory of their own.[/quote]
The point is for any proposition p, the positions that a person can take are:
1. p [it is]
2. ~p [it is not]
3. p & ~p [it is AND it is not]
4. ~(p v ~p) [neither it is nor it is not]
N?g?rjuna rejects (N?g?rjuna's tetralemma) all possible stances a person can adopt, referring to all four of them, perhaps derogatorily, as extremes and hence the middle path (m?dhyamaka).
About a year or so ago, you made some posts that strongly reflected this idea of the middle path. Sorry, I can't quote them here because I can't remember the exact words, necessary for a successful search. It was very inspiring to see someone put to practice a buddhist principle that I find deeply meaningful.
Good day.
You still haven't provided a canonical reference that it does, given that you seem to argue that chance exists and plays a role (in the process of attaining nibbana as well?).
Quoting Wayfarer
Tell me: How is chance a factor??
Where is there chance in the present moment?
Sometimes, people confuse merit with good luck.
Sometimes, they conflate will with chance. Those who come from the position of hard karmic determinism have no notion of will/volition, so they think it's luck or randomness when in fact it's will.
We could say that luck, chance, randomness is what not knowing the exact workings of kamma _feels/seems_ like to a person. Because if you don't know how something works, it might, for all practical intents and purposes, just as well be luck, right? But according to Buddhist doctrine, it's not luck.
Learning the Buddhist doctrine.
How exactly?
First question: Are there militant Buddhist extremists who attack people in order to defend their cherished religion?
If not, why not?
There’s no saying what will happen.
@Wayfarer
How about meeting halfway. It's not that there's no luck, there is but it's part of karmic causality. [@Jack Cummins (synchronicity/luck???)].
It's very much like saying there is altruism but altruism is just another way selfishness manifests in the world. :chin:
There are militant Buddhists -- like the persecution of the Rohingya by Buddhists or Sumedhananda Thero in Sri Lanka.
Secondly, in traditionally Buddhist countries, there is a penalty, sometimes more than just a fine, for failing to show proper respect to Buddhist symbols.
On the whole, I think that if Buddhists don't go out of their way to deal with the infidels, that has more to do with the snobism of the Buddhists rather than anything else.
That's not chance. That's just lack of omniscience/prescience.
Insisting on discussing Buddhist doctrine, while at the same time refusing to learn said Buddhist doctrine is the mark of a fool.
Like you say:
Quoting TheMadFool
Why? How is trying to get an idea of what it is that one's getting into "...the mark of a fool..."? How did the buddha discover buddhism and come to the conclusion that, yeah, this is it?
Quoting baker
I don't think I'm speculating. That's already done with. What I'm offering is a compromise of two opposing perspectives.
But you're not trying to get that idea.
If you want to argue against Buddhist doctrine - fine. But for this, you first need to learn it.
To what end?
How do you know what I'm trying to do?
Quoting baker
To understand the issue.
And you think this is possible in a suprareligious, neutral, objective way?
Why is that surprising?
Good that you brought that issue -epistemic autonomy - up; it (epistemic autonomy) is, to me, basically the idea that one must reserve one's belief only for those claims/theories that has oneself studied and thought through. Buddha was a staunch advocate.
Do explain why lack of prescience is evidence of chance.
So you're using a teaching by the Buddha to defend a teaching for which you can provide no evidence that the Buddha taught it, and for which there is some evidence that he didn't? You should do better than that.
You can easily win and terminate this by providing a sutta that says words to the effect that chance is a necessary element on the path to nibbana; or one that says that there's a hole in pa?iccasamupp?da; or some such.
But I can't just let you get away with an egregous suggestion that the attainment of nibbana depends on chance (and that as such, it is quite beyond a person's control).
Then it should be easy for you to provide at least two canonical references that support the above. TY.
See this source, under the heading ‘karma doesn’t explain everything’. Provides citations.
Here the Buddha explicitly denies that everything that occurs to one is a consequence solely of past actions. And I can see why: because to assert that is to be dogmatic.
This issue is of vital importance insofar the efficacy of the Noble Eightfold Path depends on deliberate action. If it depends on chance, the whole project of the complete cessation of suffering becomes hopeless.
All I’ve said, and those sources I provided affirm, that chance is an element in reality. Some things occur by chance, not everything is determined. It is a modest claim. If you smoke cigarettes you have a greater chance of getting lung cancer but some get lung cancer never having smoked in their lives. There are countless possible examples. This doesn’t mean specifically that the eightfold path ‘depends on chance’ but that chance is a factor.
Actually an old folktale from Chinese Buddhism comes to mind. It concerned the death of a dedicated aspirant who had long left home and become completely detached from all his worldly concerns. At the moment of his dying, he happen to catch sight of a beautiful fawn in dappled sunlight. As I recall the story, this caused him to be reborn in the animal realm. (Don’t ask me to track it down again!)
I wouldn’t overdramatise the principle, though. Chance is a factor, that is all.
You underestimate the gravity of the issue.
Sorry I can't respond to your request but for what it's worth, Buddhism is, inter alia, an argument, the key premise being the doctrine of impermanence (anicca).
No offence intended but I thought the punchline - after the aspirant saw the lovely animal in that golden light - was going to be, "Damn, I've wasted my life!"
Stories like that do not illustrate chance. They illustrate the standard doctrinal point that indulging in sense pleasures leads to a rebirth in the animal womb.
They also illustrate the vital point that one must be heedful at all times, esp. at the time of death.
Quoting TheMadFool
What happened?
What do you expect me to say? You make a claim about the Buddha, and I ask for a canonical reference for said claim. You don't provide it. You see no problem with not providing it.
*sigh*
Yes, I think you're right. Badly chosen on my part.
There's no point in providing a reference, canonical or otherwise because, unlike other religions, buddhism isn't what philosophers refer to as arguementum ad verecundiam.
As for luck's existence/nonexistence, @Wayfarer is right, buddhism is, all said and done, a rejection of dogmatism and as per Nagarjuna's tetralemma, the statement "luck plays a role in a person's life" would elicit the following responses:
1. It does. No!
2. It does not. No!
3. It does and it does not. No!
4. Neither it does nor it does not. No!
Chew on that and tell me what you make of it.
[quote=Sivaka Sutta; https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.nypo.html] Once the Blessed One dwelled at Rajagaha in the Bamboo-Grove Monastery, at the Squirrel's Feeding Place. There a wandering ascetic, Moliya Sivaka by name, called on the Blessed One, and after an exchange of courteous and friendly words, sat down at one side. Thus seated, he said:
"There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?"
"Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm... of wind... of (the three) combined... by change of climate... by adverse behavior... by injuries... by the results of Kamma — (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true.
"Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these ascetics and brahmans."
When this was spoken, Moliya Sivaka, the wandering ascetic, said: "It is excellent, revered Gotama, it is excellent indeed!...May the revered Gotama regard me as a lay follower who, from today, has taken refuge in him as long as life lasts."[/quote]
Dan Lusthaus comments
Thanissaro Bhikkhu comments:
Indeed, it isn't. But that doesn't make it a DIY hobby either.
If you say that the Buddha claimed something, you need to provide a canonical reference.
Not "badly chosen". I dare you to find a Buddhist story that actually illustrates luck. You can choose from any Buddhist tradition you like, including the modernists.
(The Chiggala Sutta is specifically about the appearance of a Tathagata and his dispensation, not about the ordinary person.)
Sadly, no.
I'll get back to you, I need a chunk of time to compose a reply to you.
I never implied that Buddhism is a DIY hobby. Straw man.
The Buddha doesn't have to to, like some people, spell out everything he wished to convey. You have to, like a rational person, infer some things from what he did say.
For example, take this excerpt from the book, History Of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny:
[quote=Protagoras]About the gods, I cannot be sure whether they exist or not, or what they are like to see; for many things stand in the way of knowledge of them, both the opacity of the subject and the shortness of human life.[/quote]
From the above statement made by Protagoras, Anthony Kenny (the author) concludes/infers that Protagoras was an agnostic. Now, Protagoras never explicitly claims that he's an agnostic. The Buddha's philosophy too, some aspects of it, is amenable to such a treatment.
You give me the credit you think I deserve, obviously.
Q. Does the Buddha argue his position or not?
A. He argues his position.
Q. Why, may I ask?
A. Simple, the Buddha respects rationality.
Q. Does the Buddha think we're rational?
A. Yes, why else would he resort to arguments?
Q. Then, as per the Buddha, I can conduct my own rational analysis?
A. Yes.
Q.E.D.
You're welcome.
Compare what the Buddha has actually said (or at least what is generally accepted in Buddhism to be the word of the Buddha):
The popular rendition of this is like this (similar to what you've been saying):
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.”
Clearly, a lot has been lost in translation/transition.
You think that's funny???????
It's absolutely ridiculous because you're treating Buddhist scriptures like the Koran/Bible - a, as Christopher Hitchens puts it, final solution. That's not what the Buddha, a very reasonable man, would've wanted.
Let me recount to you a personal experience of mine.
I recall having seen a video of a supposedly very erudite buddhist master. People asked him questions and what he would do was recite verbatim the contents of the relevant excerpt from buddhist scripture.
Then I met a buddhist monk who, when I asked him questions, would tell me what the scriptures say and also add his own personal commentary to that.
See the difference?
:fire:
Do you think that those passages are evidence that there is luck?
By "dogmatic", do you refer to "going beyond what one knows by oneself and what is accepted as true by the world"?
Quoting Wayfarer
See Thanissaro Bhikkhu's more recent comment on the Sivaka Sutta (probably in reply to Mr. Lusthaus):
You'll need to ask those who claim that everything is determined by the past. Such as the contemplatives & brahmans who hold such a view:
Thus such sectarians remain stuck in (a doctrine of) inaction. Another group of sectarians who are similarly stuck in (a doctrine of) inaction are those who believe in a creator god and those who believe in luck ("all is without cause, without condition").
You seem to be suggesting that the valid dichotomy to work with is as follows:
either everything is determined by the past
or there are things that are determined by the past but there is also luck.
It seems you're saying that the only way to overcome "hard karmic determinism" is through luck.
Also: What do you think is the relationship between free will and luck, within the Early Buddhist framework?
Are you issuing a challenge to me?
[quote=Yuval Noah Harari][s]Gender[/s] Nirvana is a race in which [s]some[/s] all of the runners compete only for the bronze medal.[/quote]
Good luck! :grin:
Thought you might find this :point: Argument From Silence (argumentum ex silentio) interesting.
[quote=Wikipedia][Argument from silence is] To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence.[/quote]
One learns this from studying many suttas and learning how they are interconnected, how one sutta can provide the context of or further detail for another sutta.
Those who have not studied the suttas simply don't have this knowledge. Some of those people instead have vivid imaginations and they rather invent things and make their own extrapolations from the little they do know.
Nobody is disputing their freedom to do so. It's just that what they're doing has no bearing on Buddhist doctrine.
Of course, but argumentum ex silentio is made on the basis of what isn't in canonical texts. That's the whole point.
Quoting baker
I don't doubt the profundity of the truths in Buddhist suttas. All I'm saying is that what I mentioned earlier - drawing conclusions from what was said and unsaid by the Buddha - is a perfectly legitimate hermeneutic technique.
Quoting baker
Argumentum ex silentio is based on what isn't in scriptures (documents) - consulting them would be pointless.
Quoting baker
Why not? Arguments from silence are based off of what's missing in documents, in our case suttas, that are Buddhist in nature, philosophically speaking.
By the way, the previous post wasn't meant as a challenge; rather I felt you might find the concept of argumentum ex silentio interesting, you know, a cute tidbit of sorts.
But to know what isn't in the texts, one has to read them first.
Sure. And again: To know what isn't in the texts, one has to read them first.
Even I can tell that all of your questions so far have been addressed in the suttas. You yet have to come up with one that, to the best of my knowledge, isn't addressed in the suttas.
Anything for a cute tidbit, eh!
Quoting baker
You're right. To know what is not asserted (in documents), I have to know what is asserted (in the documents).
What I meant to point out was the argument from silence itself contains no premises that are taken from the source documents (Pali Canon in our case).
Quoting baker
Just thought it might come in handy for you some day.
Luck & Karma
Synchronicity [meaningful coincidence]
[quote=Wikipedia]Jung held that there was both a philosophical and scientific basis for synchronicity. He identified the complementary nature of causality and acausality with Eastern sciences and protoscientific disciplines, stating "the East bases much of its science on this irregularity and considers coincidences as the reliable basis of the world rather than causality. Synchronism is the prejudice of the East; causality is the modern prejudice of the West".[/quote]
And we all know that "Easterners" are a completely homogenous group.