Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
My Thoughts on Doubt in Buddhism
(original)
The Kalama Suttra is one of the most important Buddhist texts. It is a short sutra in which the Buddha visits some Kalama’s who ask him which of the many doctrines and claims they should believe in. The Buddha’s answer is clear: he instructs that they, and thus we, should doubt everything:
There are many translations of this, and many interpretations of the specific ten items of doubt, but the general thrust of the Kalama Suttra is that all things are doubtable and should be doubted.
But this proposal of Universal Doubt might seem at odds with another key aspect of Buddha’s teaching, The Five Hindrances. One of these hindrances is Doubt. So it seems we have one part of the Buddha’s teaching is to doubt everything and another part specifies that Doubt is a hindrance to Dharma Practice. Is this an incompatibility?
I think it isn’t, and we can see this by the Buddha’s specification for the removal of Doubt in the Kalama Suttra. The answer is simple. The Buddha instructs the Kalamas that when “you yourselves know ” or, as some translations say, when you “know directly” something that you were doubting, then, and only then, can you be rid of the doubt.
When the Buddha uses “Know” in this context I think he must be using it as meaning Knowing that something is the case because one knows it couldn’t be any other way. To start from the position of Knowing one knows nothing and building on that. It is Knowledge derived by certainty from Universal Doubt, this is the justification for the true beliefs that are known.
The Initial state is Doubt. The problem is that Doubt prevents knowledge; the solution is to know that which cannot be doubted.
The Kalama Suttra is an amazing text, that establishes the critical, skeptcial, rational method, with doubt as its starting point and reflexive certainty as the only viable destination. Doubt is a hindrance and it’s only solution is its removal.
Everything, including the dogma and supernaturalism that has distorted Buddhism over the millennia should be doubted, questioned and tried to be disproved, just as The Buddha instructs with all doctrine and belief. Of course, this means also that the Kalama Suttra should be doubted, and it should! All teachings should be doubted including the one that purports that all teachings should be doubted. But this is not an obtuse paradox, it’s a perfect gem of the Dharmic methodology[4] .
The Kalama Suttra is one of the most important Buddhist texts. It is a short sutra in which the Buddha visits some Kalama’s who ask him which of the many doctrines and claims they should believe in. The Buddha’s answer is clear: he instructs that they, and thus we, should doubt everything:
“Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher.' “
There are many translations of this, and many interpretations of the specific ten items of doubt, but the general thrust of the Kalama Suttra is that all things are doubtable and should be doubted.
But this proposal of Universal Doubt might seem at odds with another key aspect of Buddha’s teaching, The Five Hindrances. One of these hindrances is Doubt. So it seems we have one part of the Buddha’s teaching is to doubt everything and another part specifies that Doubt is a hindrance to Dharma Practice. Is this an incompatibility?
I think it isn’t, and we can see this by the Buddha’s specification for the removal of Doubt in the Kalama Suttra. The answer is simple. The Buddha instructs the Kalamas that when “you yourselves know ” or, as some translations say, when you “know directly” something that you were doubting, then, and only then, can you be rid of the doubt.
When the Buddha uses “Know” in this context I think he must be using it as meaning Knowing that something is the case because one knows it couldn’t be any other way. To start from the position of Knowing one knows nothing and building on that. It is Knowledge derived by certainty from Universal Doubt, this is the justification for the true beliefs that are known.
The Initial state is Doubt. The problem is that Doubt prevents knowledge; the solution is to know that which cannot be doubted.
The Kalama Suttra is an amazing text, that establishes the critical, skeptcial, rational method, with doubt as its starting point and reflexive certainty as the only viable destination. Doubt is a hindrance and it’s only solution is its removal.
Everything, including the dogma and supernaturalism that has distorted Buddhism over the millennia should be doubted, questioned and tried to be disproved, just as The Buddha instructs with all doctrine and belief. Of course, this means also that the Kalama Suttra should be doubted, and it should! All teachings should be doubted including the one that purports that all teachings should be doubted. But this is not an obtuse paradox, it’s a perfect gem of the Dharmic methodology[4] .
Doubt everything, be your own light.
0
Comments
In essence, until I know better, I am an agnostic, I don't know if anything of buddhism or hinduism says is real, I would like to believe so, but they are yet to be put to the trial.
The Kalama Sutta replaces personal allegience to a teacher with critical thinking about what is harmful and what is not harmful, what leads to suffering and what does not lead to suffering.
In brief, that which is not connected to suffering & freedom from suffering is not connected to Buddhism.
If you really believe the above, why do you appear so insistent upon having others read & follow your writings and opinions?
The important part of the KS that you think I "missed" was sated. Its the part about "When you know for yourselves..."
I disagree:) It is clearly stated at the start of the KS what the KS is about. Its about how to sift through beliefs (it doesn't specify what these beliefs may be) by those who "expound, explain and glorify their own doctrines; the doctrines of others they deprecate, revile, show contempt for, and disparage."
The Buddha's responce is a critical tool kit for such appraisals.
Well, that is true in the sense that everything is connected:) But I don't think it is true in the limp sense you mean it with relevance to the KS.
For example, how does axioms/logical inference fit in? We may know from the KS that The Buddha thinks they can be incorporated in beliefs one can know and not know, do you have to deny these?
Also you are totally avoiding the place doubt plays elsewhere in the suttra's (eg the Vimamsaka Suttra I like to).
The KS seems a radical and original foundation of critical thinking in all domains, yet you seem to wish it was a limp, proverbial, pat on the back to practice.
Doubt everything:)
remember, the Kalamas were not followers of the Buddha. They merely asked his opinion of what to do in such circumstances. So DD is quite right.
With the greatest of respect, you do not know DD enough to make such statements.
You may give opinions, but do not attempt to disparage the knowledge of somebody you know nothing about. By all means debate the Dhamma. But do not make personal assumptions.
Thanks.
Thanks.
The list of ten items is exhaustive of human knowledge. Can you think of a domain of human knowledge that is not covered by that list? I cannot.
Ergo it seems it wasn't merely as DD says. I believe DD is mistaken here, can you show me where I am mistaken:)
As you can see, my response was based purely upon DDs response, not anything personal. I believe DD is mistaken in interpreting the KS the "limp" way:)
Thanks
Mat
Yes, that is the important part. But the context in which that was said is equally important.
He goes on to specify three specific qualities which the Kalamas discern for themselves to be unskilful and lead to harm and suffering: greed, aversion, and delusion.
What he says of beliefs is that they are irrelevant to his teachings on suffering, and advises them to concern themselves with abandoning qualities which are harmful and replacing them with skillful qualities which lead to peace and wellbeing:
As the Buddha said, he taught only dukkha and freedom from dukkha. His teachings are concerned with absolutely nothing else.
In truth this sutta is similar to MN 16.
Thank you.
I haven't cherry picked, the KS contains even more points than the one you allude to. All of which are compatible with what I believe about the KS.
The KS starts with a question, "How can we know what to believe?"
The answer is given, "Doubt everything but that which you know you can know, ie, cannot doubt".
Then the Suttra continues with further ellcuidations specific to Dharma practice. These
He goes on to specify three specific qualities which the Kalamas discern for themselves to be unskilful and lead to harm and suffering: greed, aversion, and delusion.
>>>"What he says of beliefs is that they are irrelevant to his teachings"
Yes! But the point is, how does one know hat is irrelevent or not.
>>>and advises them to concern themselves with abandoning qualities which are harmful and replacing them with skillful qualities which lead to peace and wellbeing.
As so the Buddha Should!
The KS is a story told many times over, its not a snipers gun of Dharma. All we can do, as with any ancient text, is extract as close as we can of the meaning of it. And the KS has many meanings, it is a Narrative that develops, just like all Suttras.
Of course its application in the Suttra moves to the dharmic side... but that's not how it starts off. It starts of with very specifically being about "all beliefs".
We know this from two points in the text:
1) The Kalamas ask about all the wandering sages of their times and their doctrines.
2) The Buddha proposes a carpet bombing on all types of belief, from the logical, to the epistemic to the moral and the sensed. Nothing is left unavaiable for doubt.
If you don't agree with either of those points then please try to explain why, not with reference to another part of the text but with regards to the start of the text where the problem is stated and the solution proposed. IE 1 or 2 above.
Thanks:)
Mat
You are taking small pieces of the sutta and not reading it as a whole:
The Kalamas asked how to know which doctrine/faith/whatever they should follow. The Buddha redirected the subject to concerning themselves with abandoning qualities which lead to harm and suffering, and develop qualities which lead to the cessation of suffering. Basically, forget about taking on speculative beliefs, and concern yourself with what you can be assured of (which is specified in the second last quote in my last post). No point wasting your time doubting all the speculative doctrines, and just set them aside alltogether.
The Buddha didn't care about how the world began, what happened after death, etc. etc. The Buddha taught suffering, and the cessation of suffering. If you want to apply this sutta to every aspect of life, by all means... but dedicating your life to discovering a rock-solid scientific formula that explains the origins of the universe and could not possibly be doubted or argued (for example) isn't what the Buddha was concerned with and will not lead to freedom from dukkha.
What is the point of this Thread? What are you trying to accomplish? You want every Buddhist to abandon their belief in rebirth and other similar beliefs? It isn't going to happen. While it may be speculative (along with any other belief, including yours), it's not necessarily a bad thing. What's important is that people, regardless of their beliefs, understand suffering and freedom of suffering in the here-and-now. From what you've shown, you're very far away from understanding dukkha, and could learn a thing or two even from those who believe in rebirth.
And I believe that:
The Buddha simply answered this by stating one should doubt everything (Composed of the ten items, eg logical inference) that they cannot know without doubt (eg know they know).
You don't seem to believe that. You seem to believe that the Buddha is in fact saying, don't Doubt these things, ignore them, and focus on "suffering reduction."
For example. When he says "Kalamas, when you yourselves directly know, "These things are wholesome, blameless, praised by the wise; when adopted and carried out they lead to well-being, prosperity and happiness," then you should accept and practise them."" To me the "things" he is refering to are the very same things that he says should be doubted. IE for all kinds of beliefs, only accept them when you cannot doubt them.
Which makes great sense to me.
>>>>The Buddha didn't care about how the world began, what happened after death, etc. etc.
As you know I hold little respect for the autenticity of the remnant teachings so such bold and certain statements as that just dont wash with me. I doubt them. Why should I not doubt them?
Why do you accept them?
Did the certainty of that statement come to you after some deep meditation?
Can we focus on the contents, varied, distorted and fractures as they may be, of the various translations of Tha Kalama Suttra, if you wish to continue with me in this thread.
>>>What is the point of this Thread?
To debate and doubt Buddhism, as I believe the Buddha would have wanted:)
>>>You want every Buddhist to abandon their belief in rebirth and other similar beliefs?
I care not what other people believe so long as they do not try to impinge on my beliefs. I was a big doubter way before I first read the KS nearly a decade ago. Its the only way to be and stay rational.
I think the Buddha did not believe in Rebirth. I think he actively contained enlightenment in a denial of rebirth, ie the antecedent Hindu notion. We must escape form the idea of a cycle of rebirth or heaven to be truly liberated. I believe that totally.
Atheist Buddhists and Theist Buddhists can live perfectly side by side in my view. Its the Eightfold path that is ultimately important.
I am interested in the Dharmic philosophy as well as practice, it interests me. I am sure Magga is the path for me and I want to understand why. If people want to debate with me about that that's great, but by rational thinking not just scripture shouting as you do.
You clearly know your scriptures really well, its impresssive and i commend you. But just because I don't respect the authenticity of those scriptures I am sorry, your knowledge on them doesn't have much value to the kind of Buddhism chats we can have.
The only scriptures I am interested in are those may have existed in the very first days of the Buddha's enlightenment:) We don't have that now, we just have centuries old and miles apart hearsay:)
Doubt everything:)
Think for your self!
Mat
I do believe that, because he flat out says it. He says that speculating on the unknowable is pointless and we should develop the qualities he discusses in this sutta which give us certain assurances regardless of which belief may be true.
See, you aren't reading it clearly. You just replaced "things" with "qualities." He never says "things" and he specifies the qualities as "greed, aversion, and delusion."
Because he said, as you know, that he taught only suffering and the end of suffering, and in this very sutta, he says that what happens after death is irrelevant to his teachings.
Why do you keep bringing this up? I am fairly familiar with the suttas, yes. But we are only discussing the one YOU brought up.
And who is impinging on your beliefs? For that matter, how is that possible unless you allow them to?
You seem very interested in the Kalama sutta and ones which you can twist to suit your own needs. Just saying.
I'm not sure why you're trying to suggest I believe the suttas are flawless and we should take them all as ultimate truth. I believe that where the suttas accurately show a path leading to freedom from dukkha, they are accurate and although perhaps not word-for-word, do convey the message of the Buddha. You have moved far away from this in your writings.
Oh for god's sake.
Yes, thank you, Mat; how did you know I'm coloured like the rainbow and reside atop a pirate's shoulder? What mean think for self? I no understand. I has never done such thing. Sound ridiculous. :buck:
Why do you think they are accurate and how do you know what the message of the Buddha is, without recourse to scriptures? I just dont get that.
God wrote the bible too?
The KS is hearsay. It should be doubted. it should be doubted because it even says all teachings should be doubted?
>>>You have moved far away from this in your writings.
I may very well have! LOL I may be even further than a Shin Yo En Buddhist from his teachings. I may be anti Buddhist even.
All I have to go on is the fragments we have and reason and insight.
>>>Oh for god's sake.
That ironic, but not as ironic as you treating with certain authority the Buddha's treaties on doubt:)
I admit I'm probably wrong about many things to do with Buddhism, i still enquire.
You seem to think you are write on everything.
We will never agree I guess:)
Mat
Mat.
Do you agree that the Buddha said he taught only dukkha and freedom of dukkha? I mean, generally, that's the one thing all people can agree on.
If so, then when I see what is the true source of dukkha, and what leads to freedom from dukkha, then I can safely assume that that is what the Buddha taught.
The suttas that accurately teach this, I assume to be close enough to the actual words of the Buddha that they can be attributed to him.
People who practice Buddhism.. this is what they seek, this is what their practice is about.
Perhaps the Buddha never even existed. :eek: But most suttas still accurately illustrate dukkha and a path that leads to freedom of dukkha, and that is what I and most people here are interested in-not being able to say "I'm a Buddhist and I know the true words of the Buddha, and this is what happens after death and how the universe was created, and when there is Megan Fox there is an erection because when there is A there is B and this is CRUCIALLY IMPORTANT because the Buddha was only concerned with formulas which could be applied to all possible systems, but 'When there is ignorance/clinging there is dukkha' is totally irrelevant to his teachings."
What...?
Everything? What are you talking about? We are discussing a sutta and I have backed up what I've said with logic and only referencing the sutta in question.
Ok, so you don't agree that he said he taught only that one thing. Well, that says it all, then.
The reason for this is that we are never without a value system. Before our belief in the dharma comes along, our values are in line with that of our surrounding culture. We believe that we can acquire our way to happiness and we have a firm belief in the solidity and permanence of the self. These values blind us to the truths of suffering and the ending of suffering.
The metaphor of bootstrapping can be helpful here. Bootstrapping is a description of a process that, after an initial jumpstart, becomes self-sustaining without external input. The initial jumpstart in this case is "faith" in the truth of the dharma. I hesitate to use the loaded word "faith", but I think it accurately describes the jumpstart needed. Thus, doubt (in the truth of the core dharma) at this point is a hindrance because it undermines the faith needed to jumpstart the process of realization. Doubt here is not referring to doubt of non-core dharma teachings like what happens after death, what happened before the universe began, etc. These things should be doubted unless and until they can be shown to be relevant to suffering and the ending of suffering.
We agree: I think that is the reason for his quest, from the moment he left the palace to the moment he died, yes.
I think the method of his quest was a rigorous investigation into human experience and reality in which he understood the interconnectivity of all things, moral, metal, ontological, causal and logical.
We agree: But I think he understood and taught the source of Dukka and all contained within its mutual dependences (karma, tanha, ignornace etc etc etc) as a complete philosophical system.
You don't seem to think that.
Thanks fine:)
(Other than your own unshaken belief that you are right about the teachings and everyone else is wrong, that is.....):rolleyes:
That which cannot be doubted. Doubt everything and start from there.
What is wrong with that methodology?
Meh. Thats so misrepresenting.
When you doubt something, you have already solidified a position. You have already decided it is false before doing the requisite consideration to really have any understanding of whether or not it is skillful or not. The Buddha is telling the Kalamas to assess teachings based on a set of pragmatic criteria: does this teaching lead to the end of dukkha?
The Middle Way in the Kalama Sutta operates thusly: Accept nothing and doubt nothing until you have determined whether it is "skillful... blameless... praised by the wise... [and] lead to welfare & to happiness."
What has?
I disagree with you:) It says what to doubt and what to accept and how to accept:)
THEN it specifies this in the context of Dharma Practice, as you note:)
Deciding something is false is not the same as doubting it:)
If you doubt something you are not certain it is true.
The starting point for all enquiry should be that of doubt. That is what I and most rational, non religious, people would agree on.
That is the methodology I believe the Buddha proposes to the Kalamas:)
What is wrong with that methodology?
Something may well hit you as true, the first time you hear it, and you may be attracted to its veracity.
But question it anyway.
Something may well hit you as false the first time you hear it, and you may well be troubled by its veracity.
But question it anyway.
Doubting is not the same as questioning.
Dismiss nothing.
Question everything.
But "Blind doubt" (That is, doubt from the very beginning) is just as foolish as "Blind Faith".
I would question your insistance on doubting everything, just as much as I would question somebody's implicit faith in everything.....
Errr... not in the KS he doesn't, at least in the various translations I have read. EG
"Buddha advised them, saying, "Kalama people, it is proper for you to doubt and to have perplexity [under such circumstances, when [great] doubt has arisen in a doubtful matter."
OR
""It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain;uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful. Come, Kalamas. Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor..."
>>Doubting is not the same as questioning.
I agree, in a sense. I doubt there is a MC Donalds on the moon but I do not really question that. But I dont see the relevance of the distinction relavant to this.
>>>But "Blind doubt" (That is, doubt from the very beginning) is just as foolish as "Blind Faith".
Where do you get this notion from?
Its also not true:) "Blind doubt" as you call it is the perfect starting point for certainty. This is called the critical method:)
The reason people are trying to get you to distinguish "questioning" as it appears in the Kalama Sutta from "doubt" as it appears anywhere else in Buddhism is because it ends up confusing people -- is doubt a hindrance or something the Buddha encouraged? I am not all that familiar with Pali, but IME it tends to recycle words much more so than we do in English. (Case in point, the word "dukkha" used to cover everything from physical pain to existential angst.) Linguists believe English has possibly the largest vocabulary of any modern language and, as such, we have the luxury of making minute and nuanced distinctions between terms that probably were not possible in the then newly-emerging literary tradition of Pali.
And so here we have one of those pervasive ambiguities: how can the Buddha be encouraging "doubt" on the one hand, yet on the other regard it as one of the hindrances? The solution to this seeming logical inconsistency is that "doubt" as it pertains to the hindrances is defined differently than the "doubt" of the Kalama Sutta. In the latter case, doubt it simply not accepting or rejecting qualities merely because they are encouraged by someone important, because it is regarded as common sense, etc. In the former sense, doubt is a quality of distrustfulness -- a negative bias that already has decided on the speciousness of something without so much as testing it out.
By simply distinguishing the two by using different wording (there is no such thing as a synomyn, after all), we solve this ambiguity.
Do you not see how preposterous your certainty on any definition or term usied in any Buddhist text is? Where do you get the authority to tell anyone what any word means?
This is how the meanings of those words were carried:
Magadhi>400 years and 1500 Miles> PALI> various translations and transcriptions> English
Do you see the absurdity in your certainty or even surety in the definitions above?
If you don't, where am I missing your majic authority?
You seem to want to cherry pick the semantics so you can coral off the radical, rational skeptisim of the Buddha's teaching in the KS into something that fits more comfortably with the same old same old religious distance that all religions, once given a few hundred years at the hands of men, seem to end up with.
The Dogma amongst the buddhists here is astounding. facinating, but astounding:)
Glow, I thought you made a great post and that we might actually see some mutual understanding--oops. :screwy:
You just made a enormous pile of assumptions about not only Glow, but every member here.
Doubt is uncertainty. The Buddha taught that some things are incomprehensible and irrelevant. In this sutta, if we read it as a whole, we'll see the Kalamas were confused over conflicting teachings on hindu-karma and rebirth... speculative religious teachings. You'll note that he redirected their line of questioning to things that we could be certain of, that could not be doubted because they could be seen firsthand to be true and to lead to less dukkha. These assurances render the questions on life after death irrelevant, unimportant.
The Buddha didn't advise the Kalamas to doubt. He said it was understandable that they were in doubt as to which teaching to follow. He advised, as an antidote to doubt, as Dhamma Dhatu explained:
I think this sums it up nicely:
(emphasis added)
The nuances are important. Glow's post was spot-on. He didn't deserve the response you just gave him.
Umm.. you were until I asked you to explain how you could know that it was x not y:)
I mean... you were... go see:)
>>>>If you enjoy obsessing over terminology and theory, you certainly have every right to do so.
I certainly do obsess over the theory of Dharma and what it could mean in many ways.
>>>>I don't understand how "doubting everything" has any place in dukkha and its cessation.
Because it is clear that you cannot doubt anataman, annica, dukka, karma, tanha, etc etc etc... and all these other concepts that fit so perfectly togther. Dharma is indubitable, thats why I belive in it:)
>>>>Are you perchance a Western convert to Buddhism?
I am western but an athiest:)
>>>The entire religion (and yes, Buddhism is a religion) is built on a set of metaphysical assumptions (literal rebirth) that do not jive all that well with Western secular humanism.
I disagree. I think its been distored into that view:) I think the buddha was a materialist, rationalist who was against the antecdent notion of rebirth.
Kindly answer my question from my last post or lets just pass over this in silence:)
To answer your question, I don't claim to have any unquestionable authority on the Buddha's teaching. To reiterate, I am merely articulating the nuances of the dharma as I see it. I do so, not out of any esoteric/pedantic attachment to rational skepticism, but out practicality (as I said in my last post). IMO, your use of the word "doubt" is liable to confuse people (because "doubt" is also a hindrance) in the actual application the teaching.
As for this: My experience points to the opposite. If the suttas posit a literal understanding of rebirth, if most of Buddhism's historical commentators and modern-day practitioners outside the influence of Western humanism adhere to such an understanding, etc. I see no evidence that such a believe is a "distortion" of what the Buddha in all likelihood actually taught.
How about the fact that the four noble truths specifically doesn't mention rebirth?
Or that rebirth doesn't seem to fit in with the dharmic system in other systematic ways.
Or that he specifically states there is no soul. (So we must use espteric "flame passing" metaphores)
Now you can say all kinds of answer to this, but please don't:)
A short true story:
Five years ago I as in my favorite place on Earth, Gangaramaya temple in Sri Lanka. I went and asked one of the head monks, who I knew and knew spoke good english.
I asked him this question, these questions, "Where does rebirth fit in to Dharma?" I explained my point about it not being in the 4NT etc.
he thought about this for a good while... looking perplexed and then he answered (And this was a big moment of Ephianhy with buddhism for me)... "Higher Dharma."
"Ahibdharma?" I said.
"yes yes." he answered.
I asked many other learned Buddhists this since then, in person and email etc, and none can answer anything that satisfied me even remotely.
I dont believe the Buddha believed in rebirth. I think part of his enlightenment was realising this is all there is, there is no more than this.
I think Buddhism is ditorted from all recognition of whatever it was the buddha disvoved and taught all over the palce in a matter of minutes to countless people.
But that teaching clearly doesnt fit will with the religious and cultural hegemonies that have existed since his time:)
Do you at least see there is room for doubt here?
Mat
As for your second question: I personally don't understand why the Buddha would prescribe such an austere renunciation of this world for his followers if he did not believe in literal rebirth. If you weren't facing a fate of literally being born into more suffering, why wouldn't you simply do as most materialists do and remain in secular existence and engage in the pursuit of worldly pleasure? After all, with only one life to live, why not fill it with pleasurable experiences instead of a path of renunciation? The monks I know say they never would have resigned to such an extent from worldly existence if they did not believe in literal rebirth.
The shramana movements of ancient India spawned many philosophical/spiritual schools with different views. Some of these views posited an eternal self and some posited a nihilistic view. Buddhist dharma and teaching rejects both of these extreme views and it is quite certain that the founder of the Buddhist tradition didnt philosophically follow one of the worldviews that he so precisely refuted, which is nihilism.
To state that there is "no more than this" is an extreme view that Buddhism clearly avoids and refutes.
You seem to have a set of preconceived ideas about Buddhist history and teaching that are based upon your own investigations of rebirth and what you think it means. Your interpretation is incomplete and one-sided.
OK, that came out wrong, I am sorry. My point was that the question is at the end of the post:)
Because it is shown, from first principles (Annica, Anataman, Dukka), why that will not lead to happiness:)
Oh Sure:) I am with you there. I would MUCH rather that there was more than this. But that doesnt mean there is:)
I belive in cosmology, science, reason. I don't belive in anything supernatural as there is no non circular evidence for it.
I do belive in Dharma.
Incidentally, tanha isnt just clinging to worldly possessions, imho, it;s clinging to the notion of self and soul and permience too:)
</PRE>
Dhatu:)
I think its pointless us discussing Buddhism and Dharma:) As said many times, I simply don't have any faith in the suttras, yet that's your foundation:)
I respect your way of things but its not compatible with my skeptyical, rational enquiry into Dharma:)
be well
Mat
F: If you doubt everything, what exactly do you put your faith in?
S9: You doubt everything that the mind tells you, fully realizing that there is something beyond the mind.
Why?
You can feel it, directly to be so, without having to think it.
Respectfully,
S9
That is an interesting point. One has to be inquisitive in order to acquire knowledge - or wisdom - of what is right\real\whatever, and that is what is stated in the KS: the Kalamas ask how to know who to trust, they are filled with doubt; than the Buddha tells them to be inquisitive. It is that very inquisitive nature that dispels doubt.
Doubt, as a hindrance, is the lack of knowledge that makes us unable to proceed in the path. You might have tried to meditate on a given subject, and, in the beginning, your mind is always moving from the object of meditation to your own doubts of whether you are doing it right or not. If you are doubtful of something, anything, how can you give it everything you've got? How can you do it properly? That is a very different thing from seeking knowledge.
Matthew 19:24: "Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."
Choosing between the life of a householder and the life of a monk has nothing to do with a literal rebirth. It has to do with the fact that it is much more difficult to live skillfully with no craving when surrounded by impermanent things the world urges you to take delight and refuge in than it is to live in a monastery. In many respects, living the life of a physical renunciate is more conducive to liberation from suffering (in this lifetime) than living a worldly lifestyle (which is not to say it can't be done).
Trying to determine what is true by deriving it from first principles using reason. Look up the names Aristotle, Descartes, Leibnitz, Kant, Hegel, and many others.
Buddhism is a path, a method for seeing the truth. The method must be trusted because applying it is many years of hard work. But this trust is not blind or mistaken, because you can see the lineage of teachers who have followed the before you.
When you study the sutras to see what the Buddha's philosophy was, you see he held to common sense notions of ethics and cause and effect. He wasn't especially an exclusive rationalist or a skeptic. And on top of that there are descriptions of clairvoyant powers arising from meditation: seeing objects at a distance, flying through the air, remembering past lives and seeing where others are reborn. These are ideas any theosophist would be comfortable with. If you acquaintance with Buddhist scriptures begins and ends with the Kalama Sutta, you have a rude shock ahead of you when you read further.
I agree that craving doesn't disappear if you join a monastery, but do you deny that it is easier to cultivate a practice in an environment free from distractions? That is what I believe the benefit of living as a renunciate gives you.