[Buddha-l] Pali Sutta

[Robert Ellis]

Jayarava wrote,



>>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.<<

Hello Jayarava, good to hear from you again. 

I think what you're saying here involves a false dichotomy between the "rational" and the non-rational. I don't think that a purely "rational" approach will be motivating, if rational means based on narrow intellectual motives which exclude awareness of emotional conditions. Taking into account the non-rational, however, does not mean running into the arms of dogma. People are neither completely rational nor completely irrational, but rational to some extent, and that extent can be developed.

Nor is it pragmatic (except in a very narrow sense) to adopt what we can appreciate as a falsehood on the assumption that it will be useful and motivating. It?may be useful and motivating only in the light of narrow assumptions which will have a regressive effect in other respects. To educated, Westernised populations it will not be useful at all. Who is actually motivated by belief in karma and rebirth, amongst the highly-educated readers of this list for example,?to do anything better than they would have done it otherwise anyway? A consideration of conditions and of the consequences of our actions may motivate us, but that does not require a belief in the law of karma.

>>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.<<

I challenge you to give me a single specific example of an educated Western person who has been made more ethical by the law of karma specifically, as distinct from merely considering the consequences of actions!

>>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.<<

My assumption is much more subtle than this: that a?belief which cannot conceivably?be tested,?whether in terms of?individual or shared experience, whether the test is one of verification or falsification or even fruitful application, leads us away from conditions and towards dogma and attachment. It is only those kinds of belief that are not good for us: provisional beliefs, on the other?hand,?are positively required. This is not a metaphysic but a physic, a?provisional means of curing us of metaphysics.

The only alternative to this, that I can see, is the belief you appear to hold that metaphysics is inevitable, which implies that?the Middle Way does not exist, and therefore that spiritual progress is impossible. If we can only formulate our beliefs in terms of the delusions that we think are useful, we can do nothing better than migrate between delusions.

?>>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?<<

I think you are interpreting my "program" in unduly narrow terms which make it appear dualistically opposed to the complexity of human motivation. People are motivated by things that they actually experience: I think one can state that point as obvious. Along with that experience, we all have a degree of unexamined metaphysical belief. If you closely examine those human beings you find admirable, I think you will find that what is admirable about them consists in the ways they have challenged the conventions or assumptions about them (whether these were rational or emotional assumptions) and had the courage to follow their experience against the pressure of the group. It is not their metaphysics which enables me to admire the Buddha, St Francis or whoever else, but the ways they went beyond it.

>>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.<<

On the contrary, the whole world furnishes us with examplars: not just those who follow a certain accepted brand of metaphysics, but anyone who has ever made spiritual progress by addressing their experience or challenging dogma. We could start with the Buddha himself in his discovery of the Middle Way. Nor does it intrinsically lack heart, given that it attempts to address all conditions including emotional conditions. Whether or not I have succeeded in addressing emotional conditions myself is another matter, which those who know me better should judge.

Best wishes,
Robert


Robert Ellis

website: www.moralobjectivity.net