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.
What do you think this means?
Hi Folks
Can we talk about this saying from The Buddha to the Kalamas.
It starts of his discussion with the Kalamas on doubt and its resolution, so I assume it has significance worthy of calm and insightful discussion between those of Right Speech:)
Much metta
Mat
Can we talk about this saying from The Buddha to the Kalamas.
"When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born."
It starts of his discussion with the Kalamas on doubt and its resolution, so I assume it has significance worthy of calm and insightful discussion between those of Right Speech:)
Much metta
Mat
0
Comments
I think we're all aware of that by now.....
"When there are reasons for doubt..."
What do you think the "reasons" might be?
What one person might doubt, another may be more certain of.
The person with more doubt, would need to do more research.
The Buddha does not specify particular details to doubt, just the circumstances in which doubt might arise.
When you say "circumstances" do you mean the things he lists right after, i,e, reports, legends, traditions, scripture, conjecture, inference, analogy, pondering, probability or prestigue?
Hi Glow:)
No I am familiar with that, I was asking specifically about the conditions of doubt and when they apply rather than his solution.
So specificallty this:
"When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born."
I think federica has some of it but not sure on the first part:)
I hadn't really thought about it before, jumping in to the deep end about reports, legends, traditions, scripture, conjecture, inference, analogy, pondering, probability... and the solution you show in your post:)
salome,
Mat
The point of that phrase is that we can clarify doubt through reasoning and experience and should do so.
I don't think so. I think it comes before the "clarification," it doesn't mention any solution as I said to glow just now.
"When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born."
This is about the birth of uncertainty, not its end?
Hmm... to be honest, I don't really see any answer for what you're asking in the actual sutta itself. My reading of it is that the Kalamas are uncertain because they have been presented with a myriad of teachers preaching various doctrines that all are competing with one another. Based on the characterization of contemporary philosophies in the Samannaphala Sutta, we can see what a lot of these teachers might have been advocating various forms of asceticism, nihilism, materialism and skepticism. None of these really are as topical to living a life free of suffering as what the Buddha was teaching.
I read the Kalama Sutta as the Buddha re-orienting the Kalamas to consider competing philosophies based, not on reputation or logic or tradition, but rather on whether or not it would improve one's life for the better if undertaken.
Hi Glow
Sure, I know that reading of the KS, but again, I'm trying to look at this specific statement:
"When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born."
Either in isolation or within a wider context of the text.
I have read the KS many times and translations but hadn't really looked at this line first before. hence my question.
It is of the familiar format "when this happens that happens" isn't it?
Peace
Mat
In context, the doubt refers simply to the Kalamas' confusion about whose teaching to go on. They doubt, not really based on notions of rationality or reason we today might think of as a basis for uncertainty, but because they don't even know where to begin in these affairs of philosophy/spirituality.
We in the 21st century are not in a very different place, really. Most of us have been exposed to various philosophies, religious traditions, psychologies, etc. Nowadays, we have a heritage of scientific inquiry and post-Enlightenment Era humanism, that might make us question (doubt) some of these philosophies. That is one cause for doubt. Others are the aforementioned competing reputations, scripture, inquiry, etc. We could be made to doubt because of a particular doctrine's logical inconsistency. Or because our mother or wife disapproves of it. Or we might be tempted by a philosophy because our Prime Minister or President practices it. Or legend has it that so-and-so achieved magical powers by practicing it. Whatever causes us to doubt the claims of various philosophers/religious leaders/psychologists/etc., many of us end up just as confused as the Kalamas, lol.
So, I guess that is my roundabout way of saying that the causes of doubt are highly individual and contingent on the particular philosophies being doubted.
The Lojong teachings are teachings intended to overcome obstacles to realizing the state of reality as it is. (so as I understand)
Good luck. Its an interesting question you have.
Thanissaro's translation has this:
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born."
Soma's translation is:
"It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be uncertain; uncertainty has arisen in you about what is doubtful."
What "reading" are you referring to that is different from Gethin's?
I also think that within the wider context of the text, we only have to look at the wider text to see what the Buddha is referring to.
Oh, I think you have.
This has been the fundamental thrust of every thread you've made, so I'm inclined to doubt that, very much.
What, cause and effect? tit for tat? Yin-Yang? What goes around comes around? You shove me I shove you? That kind of thing?
Not in the specific context of the Kalama sutta, no...
But we're not discussing those types. were discussing the specific sentence you proposed in your first post, as you once again pointed out in the first quotation I've included here.
Let's stick to that, and not go off topic.
So we have these four variants:
They don't seem to say the same thing. What do you think?
Lets agree to disagree on if they are or not SV synonymous statements (though happy to talk about it after this point)
What I am trying to focus on is the reasons part of the equation. We know something like, if there is doubt there are reasons, if there are reasons to doubt there is doubt... there are reasons, there is doubt. Not a cler syllogism for sure:)
But what are these reasons?
It seems they have to be those he then goes on to list. Else why state that list right after, ie reports, legends, traditions, scripture, conjecture, inference, analogy, pondering, probability or prestigue.
Do you are with this point?
Hi Mat. Since I just made a big no-no on another thread by assuming I knew something I didn't I will just quote Bikkhu Bodhi:
So apparently the reasons for doubt were many people preaching their own views and tearing down other people's view, so the Kalamas were in a difficult situation, without knowing what to think. That is what I get from this whole story. :S
Yes, this reading of the KS has been discussed here before. Its not one I or all buddhists agree with. We think the KS is "The Buddha's Charter on free Enquiry" as others have described it. to Buddhist skeptics I would say the KS is embodied in the "doubt everything, be your own light," but i am delighted to doubt this. I am happy to doubt the buddha even met the kalamas, what the KS says is wise words to every rationalist from whatever time or place.
Incidentally, have a read of the KS with the singular intention of answering the questions "Are all parts of this text written by the same heart and mind?"
I look forwards to your thoughts:)
Mat
Bingo, I think. If this happens that happens. If this does not happen...
So we need to extinguish the reasons for doubt?
Is doubt a component of dukka?
It seems so.
Doubt everything. Be your own light.
We can quibble about these bagatells in ancient texts for as many centuries as they have been written. Nonetheless, it will be fruitless. Do you belive the buddha taught that universal doubt, ie, doubt everything, as in, "doubt everything be your own light"?
Let's not go down this avenue again, Mat.
Stick to your original question, please, which was
You're now treading old - and more perilous ground....
Please can you treat us like adults? You are not our teacher.
Ren do you need chaperoning from fererida in out chat?
And please don't patronise me.
This is not a list of reasons for doubt. This is a list of unreliable means of verification. The reasons for doubt were given by the Kalamas prior to the Buddha's speech.
Let's go back to what the sutta says. The Kalamas approach the Buddha and tell him that disagreement among teachers leaves them in doubt. They don't know who to believe. The Buddha tells them that their doubts are appropriate, and gives a list of commonly used means of verification that he says won't work.
Soma's list of what is unreliable is different from Thanassaro's. However, Soma and Thanassaro agree on what is realiable: knowing that something is blamable, is censured by the wise, and leads to harm or suffering, one should abandon it. In other words, this is about ethics. The Buddha is telling the Kalamas how to evaluate thoughts, words, and actions. This is reinforced when he talks about abandoning greed, hate, and delusion. He is talking about the motivations behind actions.
The whole sutta is a discussion of ethics. The first part discusses how to evaluate action, the middle part talks about greed, hate, and delusion as motivations to avoid, and the last part talks about the benefits of ethical action.
I note you didnt answer my question, as said, happy to dicuss u=your piints abovem but can you answer my question please.
To recap: Do you belive the buddha taught that universal doubt, ie, doubt everything, as in, "doubt everything be your own light"?
The sentence we're discussing is "When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born." This is Thanassaro's attempt to translate something written in Pali. We've had two other translations quoted in this thread that convey the same idea as Thanassaro's translation, without using that sentence. The sentence appears to have been created as a result of Thanassaro's attempts to convey the meaning of the passage. There's no reason to suppose that the English is a literal translation of the Pali, or that the English will convey the meaning of the original Pali if taken out of context.
Yes and I think, depending on what the reasons are then it's proposing either pristine universal doubt or some wishy washy self help interpritation.
Not at all.
I want your take on skepticism in buddhism, of which this statement may be a pivot or not.
Buddhism with universal doubt is an entirely different thing to with.
Critical Reason or comfortable faith, do you think you can have them both?
For example I could doubt that I had put my wallet into my pants. The doubt would be appropriate to my lack of knowledge. Doubt fits lack of knowledge like a lid fits a jar. 1:1 correspondance. But doubt alone does not prove something dubious.
I could doubt my wallet is in my pants. When I check it could be there.
I could doubt that it is Friday. When I check I might find it is Friday.
I could doubt that I know my friends phone number. When I check I could see it.
(these ones were a bit trivial)
I could doubt that my illegal activities would result in suffering. When in fact they might.
I could doubt that Sigmund Freud's theory of the personality would help me in my life. When in fact it might. (Ok thats one I actually doubt hehe)
I could doubt that I would enjoy salmon sushi when in fact I try it and I do enjoy it.
Notice how doubt is settled by an experience where the doubt is removed? Guess what meditation is for? No its not for brain washing. First part of meditation is for stability. Then when stability (not in my experience so much I am more working on stability) we realize something is true. You could say that until we are enlightened we have some amount of doubt.
When we are convinced of something it is like when we are convinced that our wallet is in our pocket. It is not like we are attached to an idea and not open to examining our rigid beliefs. A rigid belief would be like you say your wallet is in your pocket without having the experience to know that it is there.
Philosophical skepticism? It's not.
The title for the thread is "What do you think this means?". The first post makes it clear that "this" refers to the sentence from Thanassaro's translation.
What if what you call critical reason is actually a comfortable faith in the infallibility of your methods? Why don't you doubt it too? :P
Stick to topic please. We are discussing this saying.
I personally doubt this thread is headed anywhere constructive.
I'm not particularly certain how long it will survive in it's present direction.
I think you are making an error:)
In all these cases:
For each of these, you can look to the world inside or outside your mind and test the hypothesis at hand. You can find reasons to belive or not.
The same is not true with statements such as "there are fairies in my garden", here you cant disprove the theory but equally there is going to be no non dubious evidence supporting the claim.
To be analogous here, it would need to be for proving that there are fairies in your garden. Do you see that?
suppose if I tell you after a life of meditation, "I saw fairies...."
Would you belive me? Would you completely change your view of how the world works? Would you abandon the science that rules out such things?
I would hope after, too!:)
And I am trying to pin down the "reasons" in that quote, they can be one of two ways, and it radically changes buddhism which.
You are clearly wanting it to be wishy washy wheras I think it it shows buddha was a hardcore skeptic.
I guess we will never meet in the middle on this one.