[Buddha-l] there he goes again (sam harris)

[Vicente Gonzalez]

Richard wrote:

RH> I don't know. I can't figure out what you are trying to say. What I was trying
RH> to say is that if one arrives at knowledge by inference, then one is not
RH> arriving at it by experience. So if you are saying that one's inference of
RH> the absence of a dog is experiential knowledge, then I would disagree with
RH> that.

I think I understand you, and I agree with you in the inference of the
absence of a dog. His absence exists by inference.
However, I disagree in a inference of the experience of his absence. I
think it is really experience, not inference. In another way: I don't
believe in the oasis imagined by a castaway, although I believe in the
experience of such oasis. 

RH> That is precisely what I deny. I agree with Dignaga and Dharmakirti on this
RH> when they say that our knowledge that a dog is not present is not an 
RH> experiential knowledge but an inference that involves mental constructions of
RH> the sort that are not present in direct experience.

and that's right. We cannot experience a thing which is not present.
However, these mental constructions are experienced by the subject.
What is not present is the object of knowledge, not the mental
constructions.


RH> Right. But then who would try to establish the impossibility of the overcoming
RH> of suffering. That would be overstepping the range of evidence. At most I
RH> should think one would say that there is no evidence to support the dogmatic
RH> claim that suffering can be ended. To say that there is no evidence in
RH> support of P is quite different from saying that there is evidence that
RH> not-P.

in fact, nobody can say that your view is not in agreement with
Dharma, despite I know it is not one of your main concerns.
Accepting the impossibility to overcome the suffering can be a
powerful tool, and it exists in Buddhism. In example, inside Mahayana
Pure Land views and, in less grade, in some Zen Chinese masters.
Japanese Shin tradition express quite strong the acceptance of this
impossibility with the notions of tariki and jiriki. Then one lives
in this world under Amida action, which is the compassion inherent in
this world. This acceptance of our limitation finally can work as an
effective tool to realize the truth. I ignore if you can think
something similar or, at the contrary, the impossibility would be a
definitive panorama for the living beings. Although I resist to think
you can believe that there is not escape from any hell.


RH> You're quite right. It is not at all the kind of irresponsible dogmatic claim
RH> I would make, let alone try to establish. I would rigorously question the
RH> claim that suffering can be overcome, because I see no basis for making that
RH> sort of claim. But rigorously questiong a claim is quite different from
RH> trying to establish that claim's contradiction.

I know, and I share part of that position. Well, these discussions
are cyclic in this list, and I suppose this topic exits for everybody
and in many places. On my side I think they are useful when there is
not an excessive dose. Although I fear the only truth is that there is
not way to establish what only can be established by the overcoming of
our doubts, and maybe it doesn't mean making so many questions.

"Furthermore, there is the case where a monk might say, 'Although "I
am" is gone, and I do not assume that "I am this," still the arrow of
uncertainty & perplexity keeps overpowering my mind.' He should be
told, 'Don't say that. You shouldn't speak in that way. Don't
misrepresent the Blessed One, for it's not right to misrepresent the
Blessed One, and the Blessed One wouldn't say that. It's impossible,
there is no way that — when "I am" is gone, and "I am this" is not
assumed — the arrow of uncertainty & perplexity would keep
overpowering the mind. That possibility doesn't exist, for this is the
escape from the arrow of uncertainty & perplexity: the uprooting of
the conceit, "I am."' -- Nissaraniya Sutta


best regards,