That seems to counter your next statement.
An astounding statement. Do Buddhists have no beliefs at all?
A race horse
- Thread starter Michael
- Start date
That seems to counter your next statement.
An astounding statement. Do Buddhists have no beliefs at all?
How so?
Everyone has beleifs. I believe I am discussing this with you right now.
However, Hinduism and the Abrahamic religions make claims about the afterlife, the realms of Gods and Demons and other "unknowable" things. These teachings are central to the religion and followers have no choice but to take them on faith.
Buddhism is a reason-based system. Siddhartha encouraged his students to question all they know - even what he told them - to determine if it made reasonable sense to them, as opposed to just follow his words on faith. He did not claim his wisdom was gained through some form of divine revelation - rather through years of meditation and scrutiny.
Siddhartha quoted in the Kalama Sutta (translated by Thanissaro Bhikkhu):
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.”
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.”
I don't understand the question.
He [or whoever] claimed to have obtained his wisdom through meditation and scrutiny.
Is he right?
Yes.
I don't agree with all he taught, but I do agree with this - very much so.
So in keeping with this philosophy, you consider it wise to abandon all that comes under:
'These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering' — then you should abandon them.”
It is a guideline, not a prescription, but yes.
For example, two different people with wisdom can disagree.
Because they both have different ideas about what works, what is unskilled, blameworthy, criticised, etc based on differences in their values and thought processes.
So does it work because the Buddha is right or does it work because you believe it works?
Do you feel wise because you believe he is right?
Neither.
I agree with him because I spent many years myself considering the words of Siddhartha, many others, my own experiences and my own reason and this was the conclusion I came to. Therefore I think the Buddha was right about this particular aspect of his teachings.
Sounds just like how I feel about Islam.
How do you distinguish between faith in something that agrees with you and concluding something is right because you agree with it? I have never been able to understand what makes something acceptable and hence right for anyone as distinguished from their own propensity to be attracted to it.
Except for the faith in the "unknowable" (afterlife, existence of God, intention of said God, etc) then I could go along with that.
I know many religious people who have not just followed blindly and genuinely scrutinzed their beliefs.
When I genuinely scrutinize, however, I find that I am incapable (and unwilling) to accept anything for which I have no evidence as truth.
Honesty.
It is fairly simple, but can be very difficult.
A genuine willingness to admit you are wrong and re-evaluate everything you thought you knew is necessary for scrutiny.
I know of no other way.
I have never been able to understand those who "decide" to have faith in something simply because it is attractive to them or convenient for them.
Come on, Plato, get to your point.
edit: Beat me to it again.
I have to be careful what I say with you, you're one of the smart ones.
How do you define "evidence as truth"?
Possibly we have differing conceptions of what matters. I try to avoid assigning such values as true or false, unless I define the parameters.
Coming from you, that’s quite a compliment.I have to be careful what I say with you, you're one of the smart ones.
Thanks.
I don’t define it – I’m not certain how definable it is. If you define it tightly, it is too restrictive – too loosely and it is meaningless.
I know that four is twice two. Not only is it reasonable, but I can demonstrate it.
I know that racism exists – I have seen plain evidence of it.
Simple question:
Do you believe that Allah exists? (don’t play philosophical, rhetorical games with me, it is a simple question)
I see no reason to believe Allah exists, because I have not experienced evidence of Allah’s existence and don’t see a reasonable need to add a God to the equation of four is twice two.
I agree with much of what Buddha said – that is very different from having faith in him or his words or claims. Faith in religious doctrine is faith in man, not God.
If the Buddha said that a God existed, I would not take that on faith. If I had never heard of Allah, I would never have come to the conclusion that Allah existed.
Faith in Allah is not – it is faith in Mohammed. You are taking it on faith that it was a revelation from Allah. I see no reason to believe this. It is plainly evident to me that attachment to material possessions is unskillful. It is not plainly evident at all that any God exists. Faith is required for claims that cannot be verified through reason or experience. Man’s claims of God(s), Heaven, Hell, afterlife, Angels, Demons, Demigods or the ideas, ideals, thoughts or intentions of any of these things all require faith.
This is why I said Buddhism, as opposed to the other three in the metaphor, does not require faith.
Do you believe there is racism in animals too?
Yes of course, its what my faith is based on
Well I have not experienced Buddha's existence either but I am willing to concede on faith that he may have existed.