[Buddha-l] Re. Pali Sutta

[Robert Ellis]

Curt Steinmetz wrote:
>>This is actually a common "trope" found in many philosophical/spiritual writings. Socrates/Plato pulls it out in the Phaedo, and other Greek/Roman philosophers made use of the argument as well.?
?
But here is the relevant part of the Kalama Sutra (taken from here:?
http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/kalama1.htm):?
?
*The Four Solaces*?
?
17. "The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom four solaces are found here and now.?
?
"'Suppose there is a hereafter and there is a fruit, result, of deeds done well or ill. Then it is possible that at the dissolution of the body after death, I shall arise in the heavenly world, which is possessed of the state of bliss.' This is the first solace found by him.?
?
"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.?
?
"'Suppose evil (results) befall an evil-doer. I, however, think of doing evil to no one. Then, how can ill (results) affect me who do no evil deed?' This is the third solace found by him.?
?
"'Suppose evil (results) do not befall an evil-doer. Then I see myself purified in any case.' This is the fourth solace found by him.?
?
"The disciple of the Noble Ones, Kalamas, who has such a hate-free mind, such a malice-free mind, such an undefiled mind, and such a purified mind, is one by whom, here and now, these four solaces are found."?<<


Surely this is another version of Pascal's wager? Whether or not there is reward and punishment hereafter, we are told?we should hedge our bets. What this does not take into account is the distracting nature of belief in the afterlife, the attachment it creates, and the energy put into maintaining and defending belief in it. Whether or not any afterlife exists, bothering with it may be a bad thing, and this kind of argument encourages us?to give it unhelpful head-space.

This approach also begs the question. If it makes so little difference to our behaviour whether we believe in karma and rebirth, why the continued use and defence?of karma and rebirth in much of the rest of the Buddha's writings, and in the Buddhist tradition generally? This passage pretty much confirms that karma and rebirth is metaphysical speculation on a par with beliefs about the infinity and eternality of the universe, as avoided in the Potthapada Sutta. Doubtless it has been traditionally interpreted to help reconcile doubters to the traditional dharma, by being taken to mean that they should practise the dharma anyway even if they don't believe in karma and rebirth, but it can?also lead one to the conclusion that karma and rebirth is at best completely irrelevant to the spiritual life, so the traditional dharma thus contains major inconsistencies.

Robert Ellis

website: www.moralobjectivity.net