The place of doubt in practice

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 13737
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 4:15 am
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by DNS »

Luca123 wrote: I have noticed, however, that the posts I ahve written in reply to Bhikku Samadita have been moved from another thread here
I do not understand the reason of this move
My replies were totally in line and directed to his comments and were not against the TOS so why move them?
Correct, your posts were not removed, just moved to this thread. Bhikkhu Samahita's Daily Drops thread is just for that as the venerable noted in that thread. If you have any questions or comments related to any of his posts, you need to do so in another thread.
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by aflatun »

Luca123 wrote:Rebirth IS an essential part of Buddhism
I ask some senior Buddhists to come here and reply me on this so we can check this out
And a part from that I have discussed also pain and suffering
I believe the doctrine of rebirth and suffering in Buddhism are central points
If you read what I wrote carefully I think you'll find I never denied this, and the details of my personal beliefs were provided to make the point that they're not the only "central points" and it might be the case that they don't need to be resolved prior to engaging with the path as a whole.

I can't address anything about your posts being moved, I'm not a moderator.
Luca123 wrote:I have never professed nor asked other people to believe any religious dogma
Please see binocular's comment:
binocular wrote:Then there is also the issue of knowing one's epistemic standards or criteria. I think few people are aware of them, or have developed them consciously.
I say 'religious dogma' because if you believe something, including a set of epistemic criteria, which is not certain (and here this is the magic question: what can we know and how can we know it?) then you have a religious belief. Religious beliefs are as ubiquitous these days as they were 1000 years ago in the medieval west, they're just wearing drag. I work with rabid religionists who think they're something else simply because they wear lab coats.

I believe binocular has ably addressed your other responses so I won't go there.
binocular wrote:I suggest those questions are feasible for separate threads.
Here, let's get back on topic about the place of doubt in the practice.
Yes please!
SDC wrote:FYI: I edited your post as almost all of aflatun's posts that you quoted had my name on them
Dude can you imagine if some garbage I said were to be attributed to you? If you ever ran for political office it would be curtains! :tongue:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
SDC
Posts: 6735
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by SDC »

aflatun wrote:
SDC wrote:FYI: I edited your post as almost all of aflatun's posts that you quoted had my name on them
Dude can you imagine if some garbage I said were to be attributed to you? If you ever ran for political office it would be curtains! :tongue:
I was frantic to make the corrections, literally made me sick to my stomach thinking about it... :rofl: ;)
"As fruits fall from the tree, so people too, both young and old, fall when this body breaks." - Raṭṭhapāla (MN 82)
Pārāpariya | Phussa | Subhā of Jīvaka’s Mango Grove | Kappa
chownah
Posts: 9131
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by chownah »

aflatun wrote:
I say 'religious dogma' because if you believe something, including a set of epistemic criteria, which is not certain (and here this is the magic question: what can we know and how can we know it?) then you have a religious belief.
If I take this sentence and strip off what is only supplementary I get:

"if you believe something then you have a religious belief."

Is this what you are meaning to say?
chownah
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by aflatun »

chownah wrote:
aflatun wrote:
I say 'religious dogma' because if you believe something, including a set of epistemic criteria, which is not certain (and here this is the magic question: what can we know and how can we know it?) then you have a religious belief.
If I take this sentence and strip off what is only supplementary I get:

"if you believe something then you have a religious belief."

Is this what you are meaning to say?
chownah
You've stripped off some things that are not supplementary. So no that's not exactly what I'm meaning to say, but I wouldn't exactly disagree with what you've written.
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
chownah
Posts: 9131
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by chownah »

aflatun wrote:
chownah wrote:
aflatun wrote:
I say 'religious dogma' because if you believe something, including a set of epistemic criteria, which is not certain (and here this is the magic question: what can we know and how can we know it?) then you have a religious belief.
If I take this sentence and strip off what is only supplementary I get:

"if you believe something then you have a religious belief."

Is this what you are meaning to say?
chownah
You've stripped off some things that are not supplementary. So no that's not exactly what I'm meaning to say, but I wouldn't exactly disagree with what you've written.
Well let's look at it.
"I say 'religious dogma' because "....isn't this just introductory and showing what this is supposed to relate to?....and thus supplementary?

" including a set of epistemic criteria"....isn't this just showing that an epistemic criteria is included in that 'something" in which one has a belief?...and thus is just supplementing the understanding of what all 'something' includes?

"which is not certain ".....everything is uncertain to one degree or another....I'm not sure what this supplements and I suspect that you might not consider this to be supplementary.

"(and here this is the magic question: what can we know and how can we know it?) "....isn't this just bringing epistemology directly into the picture?....and thus supplementing the idea presented by showing its similarity to a purely epistemic view?

What I have written is my interpretation of what you wrote and shows how I got the stripped version of your sentence. It seems that you think that some of what I removed is essential and I hope that you can show me what it is. Since you didn't clarify this in your previous post it might be that you don't want to reply to this. That is OK and fine. It is not important. I only commented on this because I think that the idea of what is 'religion' or 'religous' has been unconscionaby expanded in recent years (decades?) so that it has I think lost alot of its ability to delineate much and your sentence seemed to me to be a quintissential example of one way that this has happened. I think that a case can be made that all belief is religious but this really dilutes the meaning of 'religious' and I think we would be better of thinking that a religious system of beliefs is a subset of the larger idea of all sytem of beliefs. If we do that then 'religious' will still have a distinct meaning.

chownah
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by aflatun »

The way you used the word "supplementary" read to me like "inessential." So my response meant "you've stripped off some things that are essential to what I meant." By saying I wouldn't exactly disagree with what you've written, I meant, I agree, more or less, but this needs some context and qualification.
chownah wrote:Well let's look at it.
"I say 'religious dogma' because "....isn't this just introductory and showing what this is supposed to relate to?....and thus supplementary?
And thus essential.
chownah wrote:" including a set of epistemic criteria"....isn't this just showing that an epistemic criteria is included in that 'something" in which one has a belief?...and thus is just supplementing the understanding of what all 'something' includes?
An essential supplementation, because said criteria are generally never even on the radar, and clearly not on the radar of the person I'm responding to.
chownah wrote:"which is not certain ".....everything is uncertain to one degree or another....I'm not sure what this supplements and I suspect that you might not consider this to be supplementary.
Disagree that everything is uncertain to one degree or another. It implies, however vaguely, that something that can be known for certain is not a religious belief if it is known for one's self. Correct, its not supplementary. It clarifies that I'm not positing an absolute skepticism.
chownah wrote:"(and here this is the magic question: what can we know and how can we know it?) "....isn't this just bringing epistemology directly into the picture?....and thus supplementing the idea presented by showing its similarity to a purely epistemic view?
Yes, because as I said above, its generally not on the radar, and not on the radar of the person I'm engaging as far as I can tell. I don't know what a "purely epistemic view is."
chownah wrote: I only commented on this because I think that the idea of what is 'religion' or 'religous' has been unconscionaby expanded in recent years (decades?) so that it has I think lost alot of its ability to delineate much and your sentence seemed to me to be a quintissential example of one way that this has happened.


I don't know what you're referring to here.
chownah wrote:I think that a case can be made that all belief is religious but this really dilutes the meaning of 'religious' and I think we would be better of thinking that a religious system of beliefs is a subset of the larger idea of all sytem of beliefs. If we do that then 'religious' will still have a distinct meaning.
I agree in a sense, except I would add that a belief in something that is known as a certainty is not religious (in the way I'm using the term), and I guess, not a belief per se. It's knowledge.

I'm specifically using the word religious in a pejorative sense here (although I am a religious person, and I generally don't) because 1) I presume the person I'm engaging might relate to it in that way and see it as something less than, lets say, scientistic beliefs 2) I'm specifically rejecting that it is any 'lower' than such beliefs: Us modern folk are generally no different than the mythical peasant sitting in the church 1000 years ago having the Bible read to them, whether the topic of that reading is science, medicine, politics, or Harry Potter.

Hope that helps
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
The Thinker
Posts: 806
Joined: Sun Nov 08, 2015 6:12 pm
Location: UK

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by The Thinker »

Bundokji wrote:
BasementBuddhist wrote:

The buddha believed that joy was the nature of the world, and that we blot that out with clinging. If we pretend joy is bad, we are missing the whole point.
I think you are missing the point of my post.

If you practice Buddhism seriously and then you decide to leave it, your ability to enjoy life (especially sensuality and hedonism in general) is permanently affected, something you don't take into consideration before you decide to start practicing. For instance, i don't think i can ever enjoy again the so-called romantic love. I still can play the game, but knowing that its only a game, there is no drama (which is surprisingly the source of both enjoyment and pain).

Drama is the main source of meaning for most of us whether we admit it or not, and it can take countless forms: a parent, a partner, a hero ..etc and when the role playing comes to an end and you realize that you are just an ordinary person, it is very unpleasant truth.

The real pretending is not the denial of joy as you indicated in your post, but the denial that we don't want to be something extra ordinary. I can promise you that most Buddhists, whether they know it or not, are practicing to be extra ordinary (and the extra ordinary experiences some of them have is a manifestation of this fantasy). The existence of this deeply held desire can be easily seen by their selective perception of what constitutes an insight in their minds.

Even the so called "innocent" pleasures of renunciation fade away with time, and those pleasures does not come without their own pain, which is starving the senses (ultimately not so different from the pleasures of sensuality).

The most natural outcome for someone who sees the truth of the Buddha's teachings is not joy, but despair. Pleasure is mostly experienced and valued by beginners in my opinion.
Your observation is valid. Some or all of us perhaps may feel despair at various stages of the practice. The observation of the conventions that we took for granted can be decimated by the ultimate reality the teachings point us toward. We breath, eat, sleep, and travel, whether indigent or wealthy, this never changes and is an example of recognizing the mundane. To the poor, it can be very liberating. For those who have been poor and suddenly find wealth it can be depressing, and they can struggle, once the travel and accumulation of luxuries (wants) is achieved.
"Watch your heart, observe. Be the observer, be the knower, not the condition" Ajahn Sumedho volume5 - The Wheel Of Truth
chownah
Posts: 9131
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by chownah »

aflatun wrote:The way you used the word "supplementary" read to me like "inessential." So my response meant "you've stripped off some things that are essential to what I meant." By saying I wouldn't exactly disagree with what you've written, I meant, I agree, more or less, but this needs some context and qualification.
chownah wrote:Well let's look at it.
"I say 'religious dogma' because "....isn't this just introductory and showing what this is supposed to relate to?....and thus supplementary?
And thus essential.
chownah wrote:" including a set of epistemic criteria"....isn't this just showing that an epistemic criteria is included in that 'something" in which one has a belief?...and thus is just supplementing the understanding of what all 'something' includes?
An essential supplementation, because said criteria are generally never even on the radar, and clearly not on the radar of the person I'm responding to.
chownah wrote:"which is not certain ".....everything is uncertain to one degree or another....I'm not sure what this supplements and I suspect that you might not consider this to be supplementary.
Disagree that everything is uncertain to one degree or another. It implies, however vaguely, that something that can be known for certain is not a religious belief if it is known for one's self. Correct, its not supplementary. It clarifies that I'm not positing an absolute skepticism.
chownah wrote:"(and here this is the magic question: what can we know and how can we know it?) "....isn't this just bringing epistemology directly into the picture?....and thus supplementing the idea presented by showing its similarity to a purely epistemic view?
Yes, because as I said above, its generally not on the radar, and not on the radar of the person I'm engaging as far as I can tell. I don't know what a "purely epistemic view is."
chownah wrote: I only commented on this because I think that the idea of what is 'religion' or 'religous' has been unconscionaby expanded in recent years (decades?) so that it has I think lost alot of its ability to delineate much and your sentence seemed to me to be a quintissential example of one way that this has happened.


I don't know what you're referring to here.
chownah wrote:I think that a case can be made that all belief is religious but this really dilutes the meaning of 'religious' and I think we would be better of thinking that a religious system of beliefs is a subset of the larger idea of all sytem of beliefs. If we do that then 'religious' will still have a distinct meaning.
I agree in a sense, except I would add that a belief in something that is known as a certainty is not religious (in the way I'm using the term), and I guess, not a belief per se. It's knowledge.

I'm specifically using the word religious in a pejorative sense here (although I am a religious person, and I generally don't) because 1) I presume the person I'm engaging might relate to it in that way and see it as something less than, lets say, scientistic beliefs 2) I'm specifically rejecting that it is any 'lower' than such beliefs: Us modern folk are generally no different than the mythical peasant sitting in the church 1000 years ago having the Bible read to them, whether the topic of that reading is science, medicine, politics, or Harry Potter.

Hope that helps
I wasn't very clear about what I was saying. I was talking about the core meaning of the sentence while I think you are talking about its meaning in the discussion.

From what you have said I think that from my point of discussion the essential statement which your sentence conveys is "if you believe something which is not certain then you have a religious belief." I stripped off the "which is not certain" which I think was my main mistake.

I think it would be good to clarify what things are not certain and which things are certain. My view is that all things are uncertain to some degree more or less. This would make all beliefs religious beliefs more or less.

I think it would be good to clarify whether the determination of not being certain is what you mean by 'not certain' or if there is some category of things which you view as being 'certain' as an inate characteristic...I doubt that you ascribe to the view of inate certainty but I could be wrong in this doubt....I guess that I have religious belief in your not ascribing to the view of inate uncertainty since it is a belief in something which is uncertain at least from the perspective of the idea that it is the determination of not being certain which is operative. If it is the determination of uncertainty then many christian fundamentalist's views God etc. are not religious views because they view these things as being certain.....
Maybe I am being ridiculous....I think I am not being ridiculous but I am uncertain about this....another religious view.
chownah
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by binocular »

The word "religious" has developed a broader meaning over time, especially as the adverb "religiously"; see the examples at Urban Dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... eligiously :
doing something on a regular basis.
doesnt just have to be about religion.
she does her homework religiously to get inna good college.

Being scrupulous and faithful .
He stared at the full moon , every month , religiously .

Completing an action without really thinking it through. Just like how religious people ignore reality to follow a faith.
Before performing on stage, I would religiously down a box of wine.

Or the Cambridge dictionary:
informal If you do something religiously, you do it regularly:
He visits his mother religiously every week.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... eligiously
We could go into how come this broadening of the meaning has happened. There is a reason why we can understand the above examples.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by binocular »

Buddhism is sometimes described as a scientific religion, as a religion in which one doesn't have to simply believe as told, but can and should verify the teachings for oneself. But what exactly does that mean, "to verify things for oneself"?

In the suttas, there is the phrase "inviting verification" used several times.
But what exactly is it referring to? Is it referring to what would be considered verification in Western secular critical thinking? I couldn't find any sutta that would confirm that.

There is AN 6.47, Sanditthika Sutta that addresses to what extent is the Dhamma inviting verification:
Then Moliyasivaka the wanderer went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "'The Dhamma is visible here-&-now, the Dhamma is visible here-&-now,' it is said. To what extent is the Dhamma visible here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves?"
"Very well, then, Sivaka, I will ask you a question in return. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: When greed is present within you, do you discern that 'Greed is present within me'? And when greed is not present within you, do you discern that 'Greed is not present within me'?"

"Yes, lord."

"The fact that when greed is present within you, you discern that greed is present within you; and when greed is not present within you, you discern that greed is not present within you: that is one way in which the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves.

"What do you think: When aversion is present within you... When delusion is present within you... When a greedy quality[1] is present within you... When an aversive quality is present within you...

"What do you think: When a delusive quality is present within you, do you discern that 'A delusive quality is present within me'? And when a delusive quality is not present within you, do you discern that 'A delusive quality is not present within me'?"

"Yes, lord."

"The fact that when a delusive quality is present within you, you discern that a delusive quality is present within you; and when a delusive quality is not present within you, you discern that a delusive quality is not present within you: that is one way in which the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

So this is a specific understanding of "verification". It's not about scientific empirical experiments or third-party proof. It's about recognizing greed, aversion, and delusion within oneself.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by aflatun »

binocular wrote:The word "religious" has developed a broader meaning over time, especially as the adverb "religiously"; see the examples at Urban Dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.p ... eligiously :
doing something on a regular basis.
doesnt just have to be about religion.
she does her homework religiously to get inna good college.

Being scrupulous and faithful .
He stared at the full moon , every month , religiously .

Completing an action without really thinking it through. Just like how religious people ignore reality to follow a faith.
Before performing on stage, I would religiously down a box of wine.

Or the Cambridge dictionary:
informal If you do something religiously, you do it regularly:
He visits his mother religiously every week.

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... eligiously
We could go into how come this broadening of the meaning has happened. There is a reason why we can understand the above examples.
Ah, thank you for the clarification binocular.I was missing the obvious, sorry about that chownah.

Why do you think this broadening of meaning has happened?
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by aflatun »

chownah wrote:From what you have said I think that from my point of discussion the essential statement which your sentence conveys is "if you believe something which is not certain then you have a religious belief." I stripped off the "which is not certain" which I think was my main mistake.
Yeah I think so, and I wanted to insist on including "what we can know and how we can know it" because as I said, that's usually assumed while doubting something else rather than subjected to that same doubt.
chownah wrote:I think it would be good to clarify what things are not certain and which things are certain. My view is that all things are uncertain to some degree more or less. This would make all beliefs religious beliefs more or less.
Yes, I think its a very important thing to clarify, and something we all have to do for ourselves (assuming we're interested). I think people that have gone through a profound experience of crippling doubt, literally subjecting everything to its acid, and struggled with that aspect of choice like binocular pointed out somewhere recently (meaning, realizing you have to choose for your self, and not being free to not do so)...people who have gone through this and come through the other side, to whatever extent, tend to take this more seriously than others.

I take it on faith, that what the Buddha awoke to, and what noble disciples 'see' on the stages of the path, is certain, and innately so. I also believe it is beyond the scope of reason and conjecture, personally verified, etc, which is more or less saying the same thing. The Buddha's warning about taking his wisdom as the product of reason is quite interesting in this regard (sorry I can't source this at the moment, time crunch). I find the Mahayana/Vajrayana idea of nonconceptual wisdom on point here.

I think mathematical propositions are certain, but that's a cold comfort to most, especially if they consider them tautologies.

The principles of logic seem to be certain, which again is cold comfort in a way, as it doesn't tell us anything about "the real world" necessarily (unless you're of an idealist stripe and believe, for example, that the structure of the world is isomorphic to the structure of your linguistic or cognitive apparatus in some way). No one had to teach you the law of identity, your knowledge of it is what makes thought possible in the first place. Of course people have been arguing about this for a very long time, so I'm sure we can find people that say otherwise.

And most importantly for the practice, I think its fair to say that the appearance of phenomena is also certain, e.g. "Lust is present in me."
Venerable Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli wrote:This is why it is crucial for a puthujjana to recognize that a nature of a thing exists. This existence is not 'in' the world of the objects that are ready-to- hand, not 'in' his mind, not even between the two—but, a thing exists as an experience. Strictly speaking that's all that can be truthfully said, without resorting to presupposed theories, inductive observations and explanations of the experience—the only thing that a puthujjana can know for certain is that 'there is an experience'.
Appearance and Existence

Just some examples of how I see it. What do you think?
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
User avatar
aflatun
Posts: 814
Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Bay Area, CA

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by aflatun »

binocular wrote:Buddhism is sometimes described as a scientific religion, as a religion in which one doesn't have to simply believe as told, but can and should verify the teachings for oneself. But what exactly does that mean, "to verify things for oneself"?

In the suttas, there is the phrase "inviting verification" used several times.
But what exactly is it referring to? Is it referring to what would be considered verification in Western secular critical thinking? I couldn't find any sutta that would confirm that.

There is AN 6.47, Sanditthika Sutta that addresses to what extent is the Dhamma inviting verification:
Then Moliyasivaka the wanderer went to the Blessed One and exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "'The Dhamma is visible here-&-now, the Dhamma is visible here-&-now,' it is said. To what extent is the Dhamma visible here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves?"
"Very well, then, Sivaka, I will ask you a question in return. Answer as you see fit. What do you think: When greed is present within you, do you discern that 'Greed is present within me'? And when greed is not present within you, do you discern that 'Greed is not present within me'?"

"Yes, lord."

"The fact that when greed is present within you, you discern that greed is present within you; and when greed is not present within you, you discern that greed is not present within you: that is one way in which the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves.

"What do you think: When aversion is present within you... When delusion is present within you... When a greedy quality[1] is present within you... When an aversive quality is present within you...

"What do you think: When a delusive quality is present within you, do you discern that 'A delusive quality is present within me'? And when a delusive quality is not present within you, do you discern that 'A delusive quality is not present within me'?"

"Yes, lord."

"The fact that when a delusive quality is present within you, you discern that a delusive quality is present within you; and when a delusive quality is not present within you, you discern that a delusive quality is not present within you: that is one way in which the Dhamma is visible in the here-&-now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

So this is a specific understanding of "verification". It's not about scientific empirical experiments or third-party proof. It's about recognizing greed, aversion, and delusion within oneself.
Great post, and great find! :twothumbsup:
"People often get too quick to say 'there's no self. There's no self...no self...no self.' There is self, there is focal point, its not yours. That's what not self is."

Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli
Senses and the Thought-1, 42:53

"Those who create constructs about the Buddha,
Who is beyond construction and without exhaustion,
Are thereby damaged by their constructs;
They fail to see the Thus-Gone.

That which is the nature of the Thus-Gone
Is also the nature of this world.
There is no nature of the Thus-Gone.
There is no nature of the world."

Nagarjuna
MMK XXII.15-16
murphythecat8
Posts: 79
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:07 am

Re: The place of doubt in practice

Post by murphythecat8 »

anyone who is not practising mindfulness fulltime or the 4 supreme emotions or 4 supreme efforts, is in skeptical doubt, whether he has complete faith or not of the buddha teaching.

we can have complete faith of the buddha truths and teaching, yet still not living accordingly which is very dramatic. I feel im sort of stuck in between sensual gratifications and knowing how unsatisfactory they are, yet totally addicted and unable to let go. not because I lack faith, or maybe indeed because so.

I feel that in order to have complete faith in the buddha teaching is a very deep step, a step where you can never really go back from totally. the first precept of not killing is something I could never break anymore, nor stealing, nor sexual misconduct. Lying seems a bit harder perhaps and taking intoxicants as well. ok, off rant now
Post Reply