[Buddha-l] Re. Pali Sutta

[Jayarava]

--- On Thu, 12/3/09, Robert Ellis <robertupeksa at talktalk.net> wrote:

> Surely this is another version of Pascal's wager?

The Buddha predates Pascal, so surely Pascal had a version of the Kālāma Sutta?

> 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.

In the case of traditional Buddhism it is precisely the belief that one will have to live out all of the consequences of one's actions that motivates one to practice ethics. You seem to think that a rational approach will be motivating, but it won't (and when has it ever) because we aren't rational animals. 

Note that the Buddha in the text is not concerned with what people believe as long as it motivates them to be ethical. This is the pragmatic approach.


> 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? 

I think the Buddha was bound to follow this as it was the overriding belief in Magadha at the time. 

You're making an assumption here. Something like: a statement has to be verifiably true in order for it to motivate us or make a difference in our life. You want us to believe that not believing things will be good for us. This is a metaphysic. It doesn't matter if there is karma or not for instance. Whether we can prove it or not is irrelevant. We continue to use and defend karma because it is *useful* in motivating people to be ethical. We need not prove it or disprove it, we need only point to the behaviour of people who believe it and show that they tend to be ethical when they keep it in mind. That is to say karma is pragmatic, not scientific.

Actually the people who I find most inspiring and would wish to emulate (I'm thinking in terms of kindness, generosity, friendliness, calm, joy, emotional robustness etc) are not people who seem to follow your program. So it's possible to be an admirable human being, even an exemplary human being, while taking metaphysics quite seriously and accepting any number of metaphysical speculations. Which from a pragmatic point of view seriously undermines your project - how can they be so admirable if they are getting things so very wrong?

It's this as much as anything that shows the flaws in your anti-metaphysical ideology. It lacks something; it lacks heart. It also lacks exemplars. I think this is why you have struggled to convince people to follow you. 

But best of luck with it. 
Jayarava