The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
santa100
Posts: 6799
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by santa100 »

Which is why Ven. Bodhi mentioned that word "provisional" in his essay. Do skeptics have something like that?
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by Ceisiwr »

I wouldn't label it like that. For issue like rebirth, which is yet to have "seen it for yourself", do you:

1. Throw away and conclude that it's a false idea? OR
2. Set it aside to wait and see?
I try to withhold assent to any non-evident propositions and continue on investigating, via my pyrrhonist side, and carry on investigating Buddhadhamma via my Buddhist side. Which, on a side note, is how I see a synthesis of the two. The withhold of assent and the investigation of what is apparent being a tenant of both schools.

So I do not say it is or is not. I do not know, yet I practice regardless and continue on investigating. As per my signature ...


"Some have claimed to have discovered the truth, others have asserted that it cannot be apprehended, while others again go on inquiring"


Same question for: nibbana, the 6 supernatural powers, the four jhanas, the four immaterial attainments, the mind-made body, the cessation attainment, stream entry, once-return, non-return, and arahant fruit ?
I dont know if Nibbana is true or not, its non-evident but yet its likelihood seems more and more the more I practice. The Jhanas are a matter of my personal practice.


The Buddha says "come and see" any yet do not assert as true, the pyrrhonist says withhold assent to any non-evident propositions, any carry on investigating what is apparent (investigate things as they appear to the senses). And both seem to dispense with metaphysics, the Buddha because they are a thicket of craving, the pyrrhonist because of the 5 modes, for example, of Agrippa the Sceptic

[165] According to the mode deriving from dispute, we find that undecidable dissension about the matter proposed has come about both in ordinary life and among philosophers. Because of this we are not able to choose or to rule out anything, and we end up with suspension of judgment. [166]

In the mode deriving from infinite regress, we say that what is brought forward as a source of conviction for the matter proposed itself needs another such source, which itself needs another, and so ad infinitum, so that we have no point from which to begin to establish anything, and suspension of judgment follows. [167]


In the mode deriving from relativity, as we said above, the existing object appears to be such-and-such relative to the subject judging and to the things observed together with it, but we suspend judgment on what it is like in its nature. [168]


We have the mode from hypothesis when the Dogmatists, being thrown back ad infinitum, begin from something which they do not establish but claim to assume simply and without proof in virtue of a concession. [169]


The reciprocal mode occurs when what ought to be confirmatory of the object under investigation needs to be made convincing by the object under investigation; then, being unable to take either in order to establish the other, we suspend judgment about both.[2]
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:18 pm, edited 3 times in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by Ceisiwr »

santa100 wrote:Which is why Ven. Bodhi mentioned that word "provisional" in his essay. Do skeptics have something like that?
What do you mean by "provisional"?
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by Ceisiwr »

For example I see a similar teaching coming from Ajahn Sumedho that resonates well with Pyrrhonist Scepticism

With awareness practice, however, one is not being asked to believe in anything or to operate from any theory - or even to regard ones own preferences for the afterlife - but to recognize the way it actually is at this moment.


..."So this helps me to recognize that I don't have to know what happens after physical death, because I cant know, and it doesn't really matter. I am not asking for some kind of affirmation to make me feel better"

Taken from his book "Dont take your life personally" Chapter "Knowing not Knowing"


Compare with

CHAPTER X. – DO THE SCEPTICS ABOLISH APPEARANCES?

Those who say that "the Sceptics abolish appearances," or phenomena, seem to me to be unacquainted with the statements of our School. For, as we said above, we do not overthrow the affective sense-impressions which induce our assent involuntarily; and these impressions are "the appearances." And when we question whether the underlying object is such as it appears, we grant the fact that it appears, and our doubt does not concern the appearance itself but the account given of that appearance, -- and that is a different thing from questioning the appearance itself.


For example, honey appears to us to be sweet (and this we grant, for we perceive sweetness through the senses), but whether it is also sweet in its essence is for us a matter of doubt, since this is not an appearance but a judgement regarding the appearance. And even if we do actually argue against the appearances, we do not propound such arguments with the intention of abolishing appearances, but by way of pointing out the rashness of the Dogmatists; for if reason is such a trickster as to all but snatch away the appearances from under our very eyes, surely we should view it with suspicion in the case of things non-evident so as not to display rashness by following it.
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Fri Sep 06, 2013 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
santa100
Posts: 6799
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by santa100 »

The "provisional trust" in the Buddha and His teaching as opposed to "verified trust" which only happens once you've experienced it for yourself. One cannot be said to have provisional trust if s/he just brush aside all the concepts mentioned above and jump to the conclusion that they're all false..
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by Ceisiwr »

The "provisional trust" in the Buddha and His teaching as opposed to "verified trust" which only happens once you've experienced it for yourself
Which we can do via the pyrrhonist method. Hear what the Buddha says, withhold assent (as its non-evident), examine our subject experience to see if it correlates and then we know for ourselves (yet cannot affirm its true in of it self or true for everyone).
. One cannot be said to have provisional trust if s/he just brush aside all the concepts mentioned above and jump to the conclusion that they're all false..
A mistake is to assume that scepticism implies falsehood. To be a sceptic doesn't mean you say something is false, you withhold opinion and continue investigating.


As I said, I withhold assent to any non-evident propositions.


X appears as neither

F

nor not F

Nor Neither F and not F

And so a sceptic continues the inquiry


Or to put it another way, Rebirth appears as neither F (true) nor not F (not true), nor neither F and not F (true and not true).
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
santa100
Posts: 6799
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:55 pm

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by santa100 »

clw_uk wrote:To be a sceptic doesn't mean you say something is false, you withhold opinion and continue investigating
Thank you for clarifying your position. I highlighted what is important for I'm not so sure if all skeptics out there are willing to stick to that part..
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by Spiny Norman »

clw_uk wrote: The words of the wise are to see for yourself and not to blindly follow doctrines, do you agree?
Also not to blindly follow teachers, or logical argument or to reify one's own opinions.

As the Kalama Sutta says:

"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher."
Last edited by Spiny Norman on Sat Sep 07, 2013 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by Spiny Norman »

clw_uk wrote:
Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote:There is also no denying that the Sutta does contain a sceptical element, a caution against being credulous :meditate:
I think in a nutshell the Kalama Sutta is an encouragement to develop Right Intention, and not to get caught up in views - including one's own.
But right intention comes to be via right view, right view arising through detached observation of how things appear to be.
I don't think it's as simple as that. For example the Sutta on Right View, MN9, begins with a section on the Wholesome and the Unwholesome, which is closely related to Right Intention.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el377.html
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by Spiny Norman »

clw_uk wrote: To be a sceptic doesn't mean you say something is false, you withhold opinion and continue investigating.
This sounds like a rather idealised view, and it depends which definition of skepticism one is using:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/skeptic

But are you saying skeptics don't have opinions? I'm rather skeptical about that idea. ;)
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Dhammabodhi
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: New Delhi, India

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by Dhammabodhi »

An interesting comparison with these two doctrines of skepticism can be made with the theory of logic and etymology in the Jain tradition. Maybe the philosopher Pyrrho met jain sages in India from where he learned this concept?

Anekantavāda ("the school of manifoldness") is built into Jain tradition of logic and reasoning as an ontological theory of relative truths, and promotes the idea that there are manifold ways to see, know, or perceive "The" truth. The famous story of blind men describing an elephant illustrates this view.
Wiki:

The etymological root of anekāntavāda lies in the compound of two Sanskrit words: anekānta ("manifoldness") and vāda ("school of thought").[7] The word anekānta is a compound of the Sanskrit negative prefix an, eka ("one"), and anta ("attribute"). Hence, anekānta means "not of solitary attribute".[7] The Jain doctrine lays a strong emphasis on samyaktva, that is, rationality and logic.


An extension of Anekantavada comes in the form of "conditional predication", Syādvāda.
Wiki:

Syādvāda (Sanskrit: स्याद्वाद) is the theory of conditioned predication, which provides an expression to anekānta by recommending that the epithet syād be prefixed to every phrase or expression.[12] Syādvāda is not only an extension of anekānta ontology, but a separate system of logic capable of standing on its own. The Sanskrit etymological root of the term syād is "perhaps" or "maybe", but in the context of syādvāda, it means "in some ways" or "from a perspective". As reality is complex, no single proposition can express the nature of reality fully. Thus the term "syāt" should be prefixed before each proposition giving it a conditional point of view and thus removing any dogmatism in the statement.[2] Since it ensures that each statement is expressed from seven different conditional and relative viewpoints or propositions, syādvāda is known as saptibhaṅgīnāya or "the theory of seven conditioned predications". These saptibhaṅgī are:[13]
syād-asti—in some ways, it is,
syād-nāsti—in some ways, it is not,
syād-asti-nāsti—in some ways, it is, and it is not,
syād-asti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, and it is indescribable,
syād-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is not, and it is indescribable,
syād-asti-nāsti-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is, it is not, and it is indescribable,
syād-avaktavyaḥ—in some ways, it is indescribable.
Each of these seven propositions examines the complex and multifaceted nature of reality from a relative point of view of time, space, substance and mode.[13] To ignore the complexity of reality is to commit the fallacy of dogmatism
There is a third school of Nayavāda, Naya -" of partial viewpoint".

The Jains are praised to have dared to "hold both the horns of the bull", i.e. to have syncretised the opposed viewpoints of permanent vs. impermanent, an eternal ātman vs aniccā, of Vedic and Buddhist thought. Of course, as far as I remember the Buddha gave a famous rejoinder to such relativistic logic: that the assertion of relativistic logic cannot be wholly accepted by its own rules. (I forget which sutta was this in.)

I end with the following quote (courtesy Wiki):

(Gautama is not be confused with Siddartha Gautama)
The Jain breadth of vision embraces the perspectives of both Vedānta which, according to Jainism, "recognizes substances but not process", and Buddhism, which "recognizes process but not substance". Jainism, on the other hand, pays equal attention to both substance (dravya) and process (paryaya).

Gautama: Lord! Is the soul permanent or impermanent?
Mahāvīra: The soul is permanent as well as impermanent. From the point of view of the substance it is eternal. From the point of view of its modes it undergoes birth, decay and destruction and hence impermanent.
—Bhagvatisūtra, 7:58–59
"Take rest, take rest."-S.N.Goenka
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by Spiny Norman »

clw_uk wrote:As I said, I withhold assent to any non-evident propositions.
Again, I'm struggling with your use of language.

If somebody said (1) "I'm skeptical about the existence of space aliens", I'd take that to mean their tendency was to disbelieve in the existence of space aliens.
If somebody said (2) "Space aliens? Yes, possible, I'm not sure", I'd take that to mean they had an open mind on the subject - a neutral position of neither belief or disbelief.
Clearly both these positions are opinions, whether informed or not.

I think you're trying to say that a skeptic occupies position (2), but I don't think that complies with the definition of skepticism, which implies a tendency to disbelieve.

And IMO the Kalama Sutta is advocating an open mind, ie position (2), not the skepticism of position (1).
Buddha save me from new-agers!
chownah
Posts: 9336
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by chownah »

Spiny Norman wrote:
clw_uk wrote:As I said, I withhold assent to any non-evident propositions.
Again, I'm struggling with your use of language.

If somebody said (1) "I'm skeptical about the existence of space aliens", I'd take that to mean their tendency was to disbelieve in the existence of space aliens.
If somebody said (2) "Space aliens? Yes, possible, I'm not sure", I'd take that to mean they had an open mind on the subject - a neutral position of neither belief or disbelief.
Clearly both these positions are opinions, whether informed or not.

I think you're trying to say that a skeptic occupies position (2), but I don't think that complies with the definition of skepticism, which implies a tendency to disbelieve.

And IMO the Kalama Sutta is advocating an open mind, ie position (2), not the skepticism of position (1).
I think you are using the term scepticism in the way people do in everyday language when people talk aboit veing sceptical.......while I think that clw_uk is using the term skepticism to mean the particular philosophical school of ancient Greece. If you google for skepticism you will find info about the way clw_uk is using the term.
chownah
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10154
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by Spiny Norman »

chownah wrote: I think you are using the term scepticism in the way people do in everyday language when people talk aboit veing sceptical.......while I think that clw_uk is using the term skepticism to mean the particular philosophical school of ancient Greece. If you google for skepticism you will find info about the way clw_uk is using the term.
Yes, you may be right, everyday meaning v. technical meaning - though I think there is some conflating of these different meanings going on here. It also raises the question of which approach is appropriate for different contexts. For a scientist skepticism might be entirely appropriate, but is it appropriate for understanding Buddhist teachings, and is this what the Kalama Sutta is really advocating? I'm not convinced.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Ceisiwr
Posts: 22287
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 2:36 am
Location: Wales

Re: The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

Post by Ceisiwr »

.
If somebody said (1) "I'm skeptical about the existence of space aliens", I'd take that to mean their tendency was to disbelieve in the existence of space aliens.
Thats a crude scepticism which in fact is a dogmatism in disguise#
If somebody said (2) "Space aliens? Yes, possible, I'm not sure", I'd take that to mean they had an open mind on the subject - a neutral position of neither belief or disbelief.
Clearly both these positions are opinions, whether informed or not.

The neutral position is what pyrrhonism aims for, the state of Epoché, or suspension of judgement which leads to Ataraxia, or tranquillity
I think you're trying to say that a skeptic occupies position (2), but I don't think that complies with the definition of skepticism, which implies a tendency to disbelieve.

Well a pyrrhonist will withhold opinion and not disbelieve, if by disbelieve you mean an assent to a negative proposition.
And IMO the Kalama Sutta is advocating an open mind, ie position (2), not the skepticism of position (1).

Which is why a see a similarity between the two. The postitive dogmatist affirms it is true, the negative dogmatist says it cant be known and the pyrrhonist sceptics keeps on inquiring, giving assent to neither. This is the essence of the Kalama teaching IMO
Last edited by Ceisiwr on Wed Sep 11, 2013 10:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“The teacher willed that this world appear to me
as impermanent, unstable, insubstantial.
Mind, let me leap into the victor’s teaching,
carry me over the great flood, so hard to pass.”
Post Reply