The Kalama Sutta states (Pali expression in parentheses):[4]
Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā),
nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
nor upon another's seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: "These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness," enter on and abide in them.'
Thus, the Buddha named ten specific sources whose knowledge should not be immediately viewed as truthful without further investigation to avoid fallacies:
Oral history
Traditional
News sources
Scriptures or other official texts
Suppositional reasoning
Philosophical dogmatism
Common sense
One's own opinions
Experts
Authorities or one's own teacher
Instead, the Buddha says, only when one personally knows that a certain teaching is skillful, blameless, praiseworthy, and conducive to happiness, and that it is praised by the wise, should one then accept it as true and practice it. Thus, as stated by Soma Thera, the Kalama Sutta is just that; the Buddha's charter of free inquiry:
The instruction of the Kalamas (Kalama Sutta) is justly famous for its encouragement of free inquiry; the spirit of the sutta signifies a teaching that is exempt from fanaticism, bigotry, dogmatism, and intolerance.[2]
However, as stated by Bhikkhu Bodhi, this teaching is not intended as an endorsement for either radical skepticism or as for the creation of unreasonable personal truth:
On the basis of a single passage, quoted out of context, the Buddha has been made out to be a pragmatic empiricist who dismisses all doctrine and faith, and whose Dhamma is simply a freethinker's kit to truth which invites each one to accept and reject whatever he likes.[5]
Rather than supporting skepticism or subjective truths, in the sutta the Buddha continues to argue that the three unwholesome roots greed, hatred and delusion lead to the opposite negative results, i.e. they are unskillful, blameworthy, etc. Consequently, behaviour based on these three roots should be abandoned. Moral judgements of actions can therefore be deduced by analysing whether these actions are based on the unwholesome roots or not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta
Originally posted by SuzianneSo are you saying that Buddhism is not a religion? Was the Buddha not a religious innovator?
But philosophy is not religion.
Well, for most people, it's not.
There have been many Buddhist philosophers and many Christian philosophers, as well as Hindu, Muslim and Jewish philosophers. Much of Greek philosophy was translated and preserved by Zoroastrians in Persia.
Even the claim that religion should not be based on or make use of philosophy is in itself an oft repeated philosophical argument, classically expressed for example in the work of Augustine of Hippo. The whole debate about faith and belief has a massive literature in all the major religions.
One option for you is a strand of anti-intellectual, practical religion, typically relying on rituel, superstition and magic, the religion of simple folk. You seem far too sophisticated to carry off such a position convincingly. Even so, anti intellectualism is prominent in America so maybe that is your position. That position sadly precludes participation in rational debate and fails to protect you from political and ideological manipulation by less fastidious sources. At some point, it becomes at least desirable to use your capacity for reason and you know perfetly well that you make routine use of exactly that capacity - with which you are generously endowed - in your posts here.
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeHowever, pholosophy only for its own sake is merely another form of 'mental masturbation' I've railed against here before.
The religious chap should always wear a 'philosophy thinking hat,' to prevent brain freeze.
To seperate philosophical thought from religion is to extract cucumber from a sandwich.
It's the same mechanic as using 'logic' to refute faith.
The more words are added, the less meaning remains.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29602
Originally posted by SuzianneI'm pleased we agree logic refutes faith.
However, pholosophy only for its own sake is merely another form of 'mental masturbation' I've railed against here before.
It's the same mechanic as using 'logic' to refute faith.
The more words are added, the less meaning remains.
🙂
Originally posted by SuzianneSo how would you respond to the Socratic claim that an unexamined life is not worth living? This was apparently spoken at his trial where he accepted the death sentence and declined to escape from Athens before it was implemented.
However, pholosophy only for its own sake is merely another form of 'mental masturbation' I've railed against here before.
It's the same mechanic as using 'logic' to refute faith.
The more words are added, the less meaning remains.
Wiki comments: "Since Socrates was religious and trusted his religious experiences, such as his guiding daimonic voice, he accordingly preferred to continue to seek the true answer to his question, in the after-life, than live a life not identifying the answer on earth"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_unexamined_life_is_not_worth_living
Originally posted by finnegan".., the Buddha says,.."
The Kalama Sutta states (Pali expression in parentheses):[4]
Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā),
nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka), ...[text shortened]... tions are based on the unwholesome roots or not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta
You make it sound as though Buddha is alive. The last time I checked Buddha was dead and buried. How can a dead man speak?
On the other hand I hear the voice of the living Jesus.
Acts 1:1-4
The former treatise have I made, O Theophilus, of all that Jesus began both to do and teach,
Until the day in which he was taken up, after that he through the Holy Ghost had given commandments unto the apostles whom he had chosen:
To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God:
And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Acts 10:39-41
And we are witnesses of all things which he did both in the land of the Jews, and in Jerusalem; whom they slew and hanged on a tree:
Him God raised up the third day, and shewed him openly;
Not to all the people, but unto witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.
The testimony of eye witnesses of a living savior who has taken up residence in the hearts, minds, and bodies of all those who have by faith trusted in Jesus Christ who has paid for our sins with His own blood.
Jesus is Lord.
Originally posted by finneganSounds like the ol' Buddha came up with a single-use philosophy toward life; one and done, if we accept his advice not to accept his advice.
The Kalama Sutta states (Pali expression in parentheses):[4]
Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā),
nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka), ...[text shortened]... tions are based on the unwholesome roots or not.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalama_Sutta
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt's being some time, hope you are good;
Sounds like the ol' Buddha came up with a single-use philosophy toward life; one and done, if we accept his advice not to accept his advice.
Kalamas asked how should they gain knowledge because they could not choose one of the two rival epistemologies –revelation and experience (dualism).
Buddha pointed out that, since both have drawbacks, the basic principle of knowledge about the Dharma involves balancing these sources of knowledge in a way that avoids the weaknesses of each and enables the fullest access to “truth” undistorted by the ignorance of prejudice or by the ignorance of misplaced faith;
😵
Originally posted by Ghost of a DukeTo extract cucumber from a sandwich is to involve informal mathematics in philosophical thought😵
The religious chap should always wear a 'philosophy thinking hat,' to prevent brain freeze.
To seperate philosophical thought from religion is to extract cucumber from a sandwich.