Is God Important?

[Yazata]

just as I thought

The authority of the pali cannon is a waste of time

The Pali canon might be dismissed as a waste of time by some people in some circumstances, but Buddhists (especially Theravadins) obviously don't agree.

The Kalama sutta certainly doesn't suggest that the Pali canon is a waste of time.

The Kalamas had complained that they had been visited by many religious teachers, each teaching what the teacher claimed was the only true doctrine. So the Kalamas asked the Buddha how people can distinguish the wheat from the chaff. In the Kalama sutta, the Buddha is telling the Kalamas that people can't ever be sure that what a religious teacher is telling them is true or efficacious, if those people merely trust in scripture, tradition, a teacher's prestige, or in philosophical speculation. The only way that people can be certain that a path works is if they personally walk the path and experience whatever the results are for themselves.

That doesn't mean that the Pali canon is useless or a waste of time. The Tipitaka (and countless other Buddhist writings along with it) are practical advice for traversing the Buddhist path. As such, they pretty much define what the Buddhist path is.

But it might indeed be pointless to try to determine whether Buddhism succeeds by simply having faith in it, by reading scriptures, by listening to teachers talk, or by reasoning about Buddhism endlessly in some university seminar room.

Simply put, the Buddhism of the Pali canon isn't a faith, it's a practice.

 

[lightgigantic]

The Pali canon might be dismissed as a waste of time by some people in some circumstances, but Buddhists (especially Theravadins) obviously don't agree.

The Kalama sutta certainly doesn't suggest that the Pali canon is a waste of time.

The Kalamas had complained that they had been visited by many religious teachers, each teaching what the teacher claimed was the only true doctrine. So the Kalamas asked the Buddha how people can distinguish the wheat from the chaff. In the Kalama sutta, the Buddha is telling the Kalamas that people can't ever be sure that what a religious teacher is telling them is true or efficacious, if those people merely trust in scripture, tradition, a teacher's prestige, or in philosophical speculation. The only way that people can be certain that a path works is if they personally walk the path and experience whatever the results are for themselves.

That doesn't mean that the Pali canon is useless or a waste of time. The Tipitaka (and countless other Buddhist writings along with it) are practical advice for traversing the Buddhist path. As such, they pretty much define what the Buddhist path is.

But it might indeed be pointless to try to determine whether Buddhism succeeds by simply having faith in it, by reading scriptures, by listening to teachers talk, or by reasoning about Buddhism endlessly in some university seminar room.

Simply put, the Buddhism of the Pali canon isn't a faith, it's a practice.

It was more directed on Wynn's insistence that the tools of discrimination (such as analyzing/asserting the validity of scripture or practitioners on the authority of scripture) are completely untenable.

 

[wynn]

It was more directed on Wynn's insistence that the tools of discrimination (such as analyzing/asserting the validity of scripture or practitioners on the authority of scripture) are completely untenable.

you miss the point

No, you miss the point.

My point is that there seems to be no sane way for an adult person to convert to a theism.

A theism like that of your religion is a closed, self-referential system, which is bound to verify itself, of course. But an adult outsider can't enter such a closed system, other than by a leap of faith.

Typically, for the greater part of human history, people have been born into such systems, taking on the religion of their parents from birth on. Which is why, for the greater part of human history, there didn't exist problems related to conversion as they do today, when more and more people are born outside of religion and somehow have to find a way to enter it as adults.

None of this would be a problem, as long as your preaching would acknowledge that.

But as soon as a preacher preaching such a closed system to outsiders resorts to supposed "reasons for believing in God" and "reasons for joining a particular theism" - this is when things become irrational.

You stumbled on to an authoritative aspect of buddhism, which according to your credo, is an epistemological impossibility.

You are ascribing to the Buddhism of the Pali Canon an outlook that it doesn't claim to have.
IOW, you are treating the Buddhism of the Pali Canon as a religion, as a set of doctrines and authoritative instances. And while the later Buddhist traditions certainly function they way religions typically function, the Buddhism of the Pali Canon is not like that.

Saying that you don't readily identify as a buddhist simply places you in a worse position (since you also insist being an outsider places one in even more of a double bind)

I welcome everyone to be enlightened.

 

[wynn]

you miss the point

And I think it is worrisome the way theists tend to keep missing this point:

A person expresses concern for their own wellbeing among theists, expresses discomfort and worry over the things they have seen theists say and do, and how therefore, the person doesn't feel comfortable trusting the theists.
And the theists completely miss out on this point, all they see is criticism of theists, take offense and become defensive.

 

[wynn]

The Pali canon might be dismissed as a waste of time by some people in some circumstances, but Buddhists (especially Theravadins) obviously don't agree.

Apparently, LG would rather die than grant that I may have a point.

 

[Yazata]

My point is that there seems to be no sane way for an adult person to convert to a theism.

A theism like that of your religion is a closed, self-referential system, which is bound to verify itself, of course. But an adult outsider can't enter such a closed system, other than by a leap of faith.

I agree, when we are talking about the 'just have faith in the Bible/Quran/Gita' varieties of fideist theism. That's just circular and hence epistemologically empty in my opinion: Simply will yourself to believe that X is true, and you will believe that X is true. Unfortunately, that path would seem to work for any X, even psychotic delusions. I fear it as the path to madness.

But it it's conceivably possible to approach theism in the manner that the Kalama sutta suggests. A theist might tell a non-theist that 'here's a method, a practice, that leads those who follow it, even individuals who aren't already convinced that the path works or that God exists, to knowledge of God (in the strong personal experience sense, as opposed to the weak inferential sense).

I've always been kind of attracted to the theistic mystical/contemplative traditions for that reason. (Not interested enough to follow them though.) Unfortunately, many of these theistic paths do seem to presuppose a preexisting belief, and even make one's success in following the path a function of one's faith.

Typically, for the greater part of human history, people have been born into such systems, taking on the religion of their parents from birth on. Which is why, for the greater part of human history, there didn't exist problems related to conversion as they do today, when more and more people are born outside of religion and somehow have to find a way to enter it as adults.

Or when they fall out of their birth-religion, and then thrash around crazily looking for a substitute (whether another religion or some ostensibly secular belief system like Marxism). I think that more and more people are falling out of their birth-religions, because there are viable alternatives available in their own communities today that didn't exist in the past, and because religion today is far more perfunctory for most secular-but-nominally-religious people than it might have been for more devout people in ages past.

But as soon as a preacher preaching such a closed system to outsiders resorts to supposed "reasons for believing in God" and "reasons for joining a particular theism" - this is when things become irrational.

Maybe not entirely irrational, but ultimately unconvincing and unsuccessful. The Buddha seems to have noted it in the Kalama sutta. (Actually, I'm unsure whether the failure of the theistic arguments is due to logical defects, or to the simple doubtfulness of the arguments' axiomatic assumptions.)

You are ascribing to the Buddhism of the Pali Canon an outlook that it doesn't claim to have.

It isn't a matter of subjecting one's self to the Buddha, or to some contemporary who claims to represent the Buddha. That sounds more like guru-worship to me. (Actually, I think that we sometimes do see that in some tantric-influenced varieties of Buddhism and perhaps even in Zen. But as you say, not in the Buddhism of the Pali canon.)

Having said that, there is some basic requirement for faith, in the minimal sense that a Buddhist needs to have enough faith in Buddhism to think that it's worthwhile to engage in Buddhist practice. But that doesn't seem to be anything remotely like the kind of circular supposedly self-verifying faith that some theists exalt.

IOW, you are treating the Buddhism of the Pali Canon as a religion, as a set of doctrines and authoritative instances. And while the later Buddhist traditions certainly function they way religions typically function, the Buddhism of the Pali Canon is not like that.

Or if it is, it's a set of authoritative instances that define Theravada Buddhist practice, especially for monastics. It isn't really a set of propositions whose truth Buddhists are expected to believe on faith. The truth of the propositions is something that's said to become apparent to practitioners in the course of their own direct experience.

 

[lightgigantic]

No, you miss the point.

My point is that there seems to be no sane way for an adult person to convert to a theism.

only because you insist on approaching the problem without the tools of discrimination (which you can obviously call upon when it suits your purposes)

A theism like that of your religion is a closed, self-referential system, which is bound to verify itself, of course. But an adult outsider can't enter such a closed system, other than by a leap of faith.

... or utilizing tools of discimination

Typically, for the greater part of human history, people have been born into such systems, taking on the religion of their parents from birth on.

If that was the case, religion (or even buddhism for that matter) would not spread

Which is why, for the greater part of human history, there didn't exist problems related to conversion as they do today, when more and more people are born outside of religion and somehow have to find a way to enter it as adults.

for the greater part of human history, secular civilization didn't exist ... and to that end, the secular age has actually increased the element of intellectual discrimination ("the secular age" by charles taylor goes to great lengths to explain this) involved.

None of this would be a problem, as long as your preaching would acknowledge that.

None of this would be a problem if you would acknowledge that you have somehow surmounted these barriers when you quite comfortably start talking about the proper and improper basis of authority for buddhism

But as soon as a preacher preaching such a closed system to outsiders resorts to supposed "reasons for believing in God" and "reasons for joining a particular theism" - this is when things become irrational.

only because discrimination is what lends rationality to any problem you care to mention. The moment one insists on abandoning discrimination is the moment one goes head first into irrationalism. For instance if you tried to explain buddhism by incorporating any bit of behavior or information offered by anyone who claims to be one (alongside the pretext that you can't bring the character and actions of such persons in line with whatever texts on buddhism one has available) one is also left with a mental maelstrom

You are ascribing to the Buddhism of the Pali Canon an outlook that it doesn't claim to have.

Correction
You are ascribing something to the pali canon as representative of what a buddhist does or doesn't do

IOW, you are treating the Buddhism of the Pali Canon as a religion, as a set of doctrines and authoritative instances. And while the later Buddhist traditions certainly function they way religions typically function, the Buddhism of the Pali Canon is not like that.

So there you have have it : the impossibility of making heads or tails of buddhism unless one has a leap of faith (and nirvana forbid if you should ever encounter a fat male buddhist who yells at you ....)

I am treating the pali canon as something representative of buddhists

obviously.

what is not so plain is why you can't see that in doing so you have just somehow surmounted all those impossible conditions you place on other systems

I welcome everyone to be enlightened.

Don't see how that somehow lessens your position on being an outsider in buddhism while simultaneously being confident that you can speak somewhat authoritatively on what it does and doesn't include
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

only because you insist on approaching the problem without the tools of discrimination (which you can obviously call upon when it suits your purposes)

... or utilizing tools of discimination

The thing is that theists tend to dismiss people's tools of discimination.

If that was the case, religion (or even buddhism for that matter) would not spread

The other big reasons for the spread of a religion have been conversion due to social, economical and political pressures.

I think it is safe to say that historically, very few people converted because they wanted to "improve their spiritual life."

But in modern Western countries, the desire to "improve one's spiritual life" seems to be the main reason for conversion.

for the greater part of human history, secular civilization didn't exist ... and to that end, the secular age has actually increased the element of intellectual discrimination ("the secular age" by charles taylor goes to great lengths to explain this) involved.

And this intellectual discrimination is what you theists readily dismiss.

None of this would be a problem if you would acknowledge that you have somehow surmounted these barriers when you quite comfortably start talking about the proper and improper basis of authority for buddhism

Don't twist this. You people mock an incarnation of the God you believe in, and I pointed this out. This is all there is to it.

Correction
You are ascribing something to the pali canon as representative of what a buddhist does or doesn't do

So there you have have it : the impossibility of making heads or tails of buddhism unless one has a leap of faith (and nirvana forbid if you should ever encounter a fat male buddhist who yells at you ....)

Of course I have met such self-declared Buddhists.

obviously.

what is not so plain is why you can't see that in doing so you have just somehow surmounted all those impossible conditions you place on other systems

Don't see how that somehow lessens your position on being an outsider in buddhism while simultaneously being confident that you can speak somewhat authoritatively on what it does and doesn't include

Again, don't twist this. You people mock an incarnation of the God you believe in, and I pointed this out. This is all there is to it.

 

[lightgigantic]

The thing is that theists tend to dismiss people's tools of discimination.

Some of them
not all of them

Everyone who can be accredited as being a professional in the field does teh same thing.

Problems usually occur when the said professional discredits some aspect of another's discrimination that they are attached to.

Hence their discrediting of one aspect of a persons discrimination gets inflated to "all tools of discrimination")

The other big reasons for the spread of a religion have been conversion due to social, economical and political pressures.

I think it is safe to say that historically, very few people converted because they wanted to "improve their spiritual life."

But in modern Western countries, the desire to "improve one's spiritual life" seems to be the main reason for conversion.

the cycle of dharma artha kama moksa indicates where a person is likely to want to improve their spiritual life - thats why it works that way in western countries or any other situation of substantial social stability, economic opulence and enjoyment

And this intellectual discrimination is what you theists readily dismiss.

not at all since secularism has expanded the parameters of intellectual discrimination
IOW in this modern age, discrimination is at its high point

Don't twist this. You people mock an incarnation of the God you believe in, and I pointed this out. This is all there is to it.

I'm not twisting it.

You can quite comfortably talk about what is and isn't buddhism on a textual authority (presumably to the point of even great social persecution or heated argument) yet do a complete 180 degree turn inother circumstances

Of course I have met such self-declared Buddhists.

yet you don't have problems applying tools of discrimination, even if they are quite adamant in explaining how you are wrong

Again, don't twist this. You people mock an incarnation of the God you believe in, and I pointed this out. This is all there is to it.

even when you insist you are bereft of the tools of discrimination, you cannot help but apply them.
:shrug:

 

[wynn]

Some of them
not all of them

even when you insist you are bereft of the tools of discrimination, you cannot help but apply them.

I don't insist in that, you do.

And you are using my respect for you and my humanism for you against me.


Talking to you and to all the theists I have known is like talking to someone with borderline personality traits: You are suspicious, defensive, combative, you harp on everything I might say so that you can turn it against me. You default to assuming I am ill-willed, project that onto/into me, and insist in that image of me to the point that I introject it and start talking and behaving in line with your projections.
You say that I should be more assertive, but you yourself are not, but you almost exclusively use the aggressive communication style.
You are constantly harping for one-up-manship, all exchanges are a power game for you. Get the other person to shut up, to retreat, using any and all means, at any and all costs to the other person.

Right in line with the instruction in NoD - When faced with opposition, a devotee must beat the opponent in argument, commit suicide on the spot, or leave.
And that is your attitude precisely. Congratulations.

 

[lightgigantic]

I don't insist in that, you do.

And you are using my respect for you and my humanism for you against me.


Talking to you and to all the theists I have known is like talking to someone with borderline personality traits: You are suspicious, defensive, combative, you harp on everything I might say so that you can turn it against me. You default to assuming I am ill-willed, project that onto/into me, and insist in that image of me to the point that I introject it and start talking and behaving in line with your projections.
You say that I should be more assertive, but you yourself are not, but you almost exclusively use the aggressive communication style.
You are constantly harping for one-up-manship, all exchanges are a power game for you. Get the other person to shut up, to retreat, using any and all means, at any and all costs to the other person.

Right in line with the instruction in NoD - When faced with opposition, a devotee must beat the opponent in argument, commit suicide on the spot, or leave.
And that is your attitude precisely. Congratulations.

The irony is that you are presenting a weaker and weaker argument for being bereft of the tools of discrimination in this matter

:shrug:

 

[wynn]

The irony is that you are presenting a weaker and weaker argument for being bereft of the tools of discrimination in this matter

:shrug:

Oh well. Maybe you, too, are looking for a savior. Someone who will defeat you, and save you thereby.