Buddhism and logic?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism

Re: Buddhism and logic?

Postby daverupa » Fri Nov 15, 2013 7:58 pm

greenjuice wrote:Saying that one shouldn't accept anything on tradition, hearsay, scripture etc. or logic and rational inquerty, but on seeing for oneself- is a bit hypoctical, because, I'm pretty sure, not only all the people on this forum, but virtually every Buddhist alive accepted Buddhism on the bases on what is said that shouldn't be one's basis for acceptance.


I think you're conflating "basis for acceptance" with "grounds for investigation". The proper basis for acceptance is knowing and seeing for oneself. Grounds for investigation necessarily precede this, as you say, but this doesn't render a hypocritical position.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4099
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Re: Buddhism and logic?

Postby greenjuice » Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:19 am

reflection wrote:for example how virtue leads to happiness, we may begin to have some faith in the path.

But, logically looking at it :D , Buddhism is not the only path that propagates virtue and where virtue leads to happiness. Having faith in the Buddhist path because of that makes no sense, being that there are many other path that have that same part. It the differential specifics of Buddhism, the points that it has but other paths do not, that define it as Buddhism, and that one needs to accept if accepting Buddhism. But those specifics are not plain, general principles, instead they are intricacies of teaching that to the common-sense sound confusing and hardly verifiable (annata, 31 planes of existence, etc.), and a problem arises if Buddha doesn't provide rational analysis of those intricacies, but instead calls people to try his dhamma some time, even for a week, and see for themselves. And again, if there really is someone who accepted Buddha's teaching, not on the basis of tradition, scripture, or rational deliberation, but on the basis of trying it out, and his "dhamma eye" being opened, he directly saw and gained knowledge, let him come forward and describe and explain his achievement and his journey.
User avatar
greenjuice
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2013 11:56 pm

Re: Buddhism and logic?

Postby reflection » Sat Nov 16, 2013 1:48 pm

greenjuice wrote:
reflection wrote:for example how virtue leads to happiness, we may begin to have some faith in the path.

But, logically looking at it :D , Buddhism is not the only path that propagates virtue and where virtue leads to happiness. Having faith in the Buddhist path because of that makes no sense, being that there are many other path that have that same part. It the differential specifics of Buddhism, the points that it has but other paths do not, that define it as Buddhism, and that one needs to accept if accepting Buddhism. But those specifics are not plain, general principles, instead they are intricacies of teaching that to the common-sense sound confusing and hardly verifiable (annata, 31 planes of existence, etc.), and a problem arises if Buddha doesn't provide rational analysis of those intricacies, but instead calls people to try his dhamma some time, even for a week, and see for themselves. And again, if there really is someone who accepted Buddha's teaching, not on the basis of tradition, scripture, or rational deliberation, but on the basis of trying it out, and his "dhamma eye" being opened, he directly saw and gained knowledge, let him come forward and describe and explain his achievement and his journey.

It seems to me again you are thinking of full faith or no faith at all. In the Buddhist path faith is something that develops. It develops until the word faith is inaccurate and better is "conviction". So when you start to see that virtue leads to happiness, you don't have full faith, but at least you see that part of the Buddha's words are true. Then he says the happiness leads to better meditation. If that happens, faith will also develop further. Of course, this is one example. Many people come from another direction, like hoping meditation will bring them something and then see results.
User avatar
reflection
 
Posts: 1115
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 9:27 pm

Re: Buddhism and logic?

Postby retrofuturist » Sat Nov 16, 2013 9:27 pm

Greetings,

greenjuice wrote:
retrofuturist wrote:Alternatively, greenjuice, if you're happy for the scope of the question to be relaxed a bit we can move the topic to a different forum without such stringent quality controls. Let us know.

Yes, maybe it would be better that way, it seems that the topic as I formulated it is a bit narrow, and could use a laxer discussion.

OK, moving to the General Theravada section...

Thanks.

Metta,
Retro. :)
If you have asked me of the origination of unease, then I shall explain it to you in accordance with my understanding:
Whatever various forms of unease there are in the world, They originate founded in encumbering accumulation. (Pārāyanavagga)


Exalted in mind, just open and clearly aware, the recluse trained in the ways of the sages:
One who is such, calmed and ever mindful, He has no sorrows! -- Udana IV, 7


Dharma Wheel (Mahayana / Vajrayana forum) -- Open flower ~ Open book (blog)
User avatar
retrofuturist
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14650
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Previous

Return to General Theravāda discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 10 guests