"Determined by the past" and "kamma" are not synonyms in Early Buddhist doctrine. Even though in popular parlance, they tend to be treated that way.

you’re splitting hairs now.

you’re splitting hairs now. — Wayfarer

Sadly, no.
I'll get back to you, I need a chunk of time to compose a reply to you.

I feel really awkward having this discussion with you.

Well don’t. Go with the flow.

Indeed, it isn't. But that doesn't make it a DIY hobby either.

If you say that the Buddha claimed something, you need to provide a canonical reference. — baker

I never implied that Buddhism is a DIY hobby. Straw man.

The Buddha doesn't have to to, like some people, spell out everything he wished to convey. You have to, like a rational person, infer some things from what he did say.

For example, take this excerpt from the book, History Of Western Philosophy by Anthony Kenny:

About the gods, I cannot be sure whether they exist or not, or what they are like to see; for many things stand in the way of knowledge of them, both the opacity of the subject and the shortness of human life. — Protagoras

From the above statement made by Protagoras, Anthony Kenny (the author) concludes/infers that Protagoras was an agnostic. Now, Protagoras never explicitly claims that he's an agnostic. The Buddha's philosophy too, some aspects of it, is amenable to such a treatment.

The Buddha doesn't have to to, like some people, spell out everything he wished to convey. You have to, like a rational person, infer some things from what he did say. — TheMadFool

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.023.than.html

"Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains a discourse whose meaning needs to be inferred as one whose meaning has already been fully drawn out. And he who explains a discourse whose meaning has already been fully drawn out as one whose meaning needs to be inferred. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an02/an02.025.than.html

I never implied that Buddhism is a DIY hobby. Straw man. — TheMadFool

You give me the credit you think I deserve, obviously.

:rofl:

Q. Does the Buddha argue his position or not?

A. He argues his position.

Q. Why, may I ask?

A. Simple, the Buddha respects rationality.

Q. Does the Buddha think we're rational?

A. Yes, why else would he resort to arguments?

Q. Then, as per the Buddha, I can conduct my own rational analysis?

A. Yes.

Q.E.D.

You give me the credit you think I deserve, obviously. — baker

You're welcome.

Good that you brought that issue -epistemic autonomy - up; it (epistemic autonomy) is, to me, basically the idea that one must reserve one's belief only for those claims/theories that has oneself studied and thought through. Buddha was a staunch advocate. — TheMadFool

Compare what the Buddha has actually said (or at least what is generally accepted in Buddhism to be the word of the Buddha):

"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." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, 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.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html

The popular rendition of this is like this (similar to what you've been saying):

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.”

Clearly, a lot has been lost in translation/transition.

↪baker :rofl: — TheMadFool

You think that's funny???????

You think that's funny??????? — baker

It's absolutely ridiculous because you're treating Buddhist scriptures like the Koran/Bible - a, as Christopher Hitchens puts it, final solution. That's not what the Buddha, a very reasonable man, would've wanted.

Let me recount to you a personal experience of mine.

I recall having seen a video of a supposedly very erudite buddhist master. People asked him questions and what he would do was recite verbatim the contents of the relevant excerpt from buddhist scripture.

Then I met a buddhist monk who, when I asked him questions, would tell me what the scriptures say and also add his own personal commentary to that.

See the difference?

Compare what the Buddha has actually said (or at least what is generally accepted in Buddhism to be the word of the Buddha):

"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." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" — then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said.

"Now, 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.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' — then you should enter & remain in them.

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/an/an03/an03.065.than.html


The popular rendition of this is like this (similar to what you've been saying):

“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and common sense.”

Clearly, a lot has been lost in translation/transition. — baker

:fire:

See this source, under the heading ‘karma doesn’t explain everything’. Provides citations. — Wayfarer

Do you think that those passages are evidence that there is luck?

Here the Buddha explicitly denies that everything that occurs to one is a consequence solely of past actions. And I can see why: because to assert that is to be dogmatic.

By "dogmatic", do you refer to "going beyond what one knows by oneself and what is accepted as true by the world"?

Dan Lusthaus comments

No one, except perhaps a few 'extremists' at that tiime in India thought that all of one's experiences were determined by past experiences. No one, including Buddha, thought that karma was all-determining, Karma did not denote an all-encompassing model of human behaviour. — Wayfarer

See Thanissaro Bhikkhu's more recent comment on the Sivaka Sutta (probably in reply to Mr. Lusthaus):

Some people have interpreted this sutta as stating that there are many experiences that cannot be explained by the principle of kamma. A casual glance of the alternative factors here—drawn from the various causes for pain that were recognized in the medical treatises of his time—would seem to support this conclusion. However, if we compare this list with his definition of old kamma in SN 35:145, we see that many of the alternative causes are actually the results of past actions. Those that aren’t are the result of new kamma. For instance, MN 101 counts asceticism—which produces pain in the immediate present—under the factor harsh treatment. The point here is that old and new kamma do not override other causal factors operating in the universe—such as those recognized by the physical sciences—but instead find expression within them. A second point is that some of the influences of past kamma can be mitigated in the present—a disease caused by bile, for instance, can be cured by medicine that brings the bile back to normal. Similarly with the mind: Mental suffering caused by physical pain can be ended by understanding and abandoning the attachment that led to that suffering. In this way, the Buddha’s teaching on kamma avoids determinism and opens the way for a path of practice focused on eliminating the causes of suffering in the here and now.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_21.html

We'll see who's first to become enlightened!

If everything was determined by the past, then how could there be freedom? — Wayfarer

You'll need to ask those who claim that everything is determined by the past. Such as the contemplatives & brahmans who hold such a view:

“Having approached the contemplatives & brahmans who hold that… ‘Whatever a person experiences… is all caused by what was done in the past,’ I said to them: ‘Is it true that you hold that… whatever a person experiences… is all caused by what was done in the past?’ Thus asked by me, they admitted, ‘Yes.’ Then I said to them, ‘Then in that case, a person is a killer of living beings because of what was done in the past. A person is a thief… uncelibate… a liar… a divisive speaker… a harsh speaker… an idle chatterer… greedy… malicious… a holder of wrong views because of what was done in the past.’ When one falls back on what was done in the past as being essential, monks, there is no desire, no effort (at the thought), ‘This should be done. This shouldn’t be done.’ When one can’t pin down as a truth or reality what should & shouldn’t be done, one dwells bewildered & unprotected. One cannot righteously refer to oneself as a contemplative. This was my first righteous refutation of those contemplatives & brahmans who hold to such teachings, such views.
https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN3_62.html

Thus such sectarians remain stuck in (a doctrine of) inaction. Another group of sectarians who are similarly stuck in (a doctrine of) inaction are those who believe in a creator god and those who believe in luck ("all is without cause, without condition").


You seem to be suggesting that the valid dichotomy to work with is as follows:
either everything is determined by the past
or there are things that are determined by the past but there is also luck.

It seems you're saying that the only way to overcome "hard karmic determinism" is through luck.

Also: What do you think is the relationship between free will and luck, within the Early Buddhist framework?

We'll see who's first to become enlightened! — baker

Are you issuing a challenge to me?

Gender Nirvana is a race in which some all of the runners compete only for the bronze medal. — Yuval Noah Harari

Good luck! :grin:

@baker

Monks, these two slander the Tathagata. Which two? He who explains what was not said or spoken by the Tathagata as said or spoken by the Tathagata. And he who explains what was said or spoken by the Tathagata as not said or spoken by the Tathagata. These are two who slander the Tathagata."

Thought you might find this :point: Argument From Silence (argumentum ex silentio) interesting.

[Argument from silence is] To make an argument from silence (Latin: argumentum ex silentio) is to express a conclusion that is based on the absence of statements in historical documents, rather than their presence. — Wikipedia

Those who have actually studied at least some of the Pali Canon have some knowledge about which inferences are warranted or likely warranted, and which are not.

One learns this from studying many suttas and learning how they are interconnected, how one sutta can provide the context of or further detail for another sutta.

Those who have not studied the suttas simply don't have this knowledge. Some of those people instead have vivid imaginations and they rather invent things and make their own extrapolations from the little they do know.

Nobody is disputing their freedom to do so. It's just that what they're doing has no bearing on Buddhist doctrine.

Those who have actually studied at least some of the Pali Canon have some knowledge about which inferences are warranted or likely warranted, and which are not. — baker

Of course, but argumentum ex silentio is made on the basis of what isn't in canonical texts. That's the whole point.

One learns this from studying many suttas and learning how they are interconnected, how one sutta can provide the context of or further detail for another sutta. — baker

I don't doubt the profundity of the truths in Buddhist suttas. All I'm saying is that what I mentioned earlier - drawing conclusions from what was said and unsaid by the Buddha - is a perfectly legitimate hermeneutic technique.

Those who have not studied the suttas simply don't have this knowledge. Some of those people instead have vivid imaginations and they rather invent things and make their own extrapolations from the little they do know. — baker

Argumentum ex silentio is based on what isn't in scriptures (documents) - consulting them would be pointless.

Nobody is disputing their freedom to do so. It's just that what they're doing has no bearing on Buddhist doctrine. — baker

Why not? Arguments from silence are based off of what's missing in documents, in our case suttas, that are Buddhist in nature, philosophically speaking.

By the way, the previous post wasn't meant as a challenge; rather I felt you might find the concept of argumentum ex silentio interesting, you know, a cute tidbit of sorts.

Of course, but argumentum ex silentio is made on the basis of what isn't in canonical texts. That's the whole point. — TheMadFool

But to know what isn't in the texts, one has to read them first.

All I'm saying is that what I mentioned earlier - drawing conclusions from what was said and unsaid by the Buddha - is a perfectly legitimate hermeneutic technique.

Sure. And again: To know what isn't in the texts, one has to read them first.

Argumentum ex silentio is based on what isn't in scriptures (documents) - consulting them would be pointless.

Even I can tell that all of your questions so far have been addressed in the suttas. You yet have to come up with one that, to the best of my knowledge, isn't addressed in the suttas.

By the way, the previous post wasn't meant as a challenge; rather I felt you might find the concept of argumentum ex silentio interesting, you know, a cute tidbit of sorts.

Anything for a cute tidbit, eh!

But to know what isn't in the texts, one has to read them first. — baker

Sure. And again: To know what isn't in the texts, one has to read them first. — baker

You're right. To know what is not asserted (in documents), I have to know what is asserted (in the documents).

What I meant to point out was the argument from silence itself contains no premises that are taken from the source documents (Pali Canon in our case).

Anything for a cute tidbit, eh! — baker

Just thought it might come in handy for you some day.

@baker @Wayfarer

Luck & Karma

Synchronicity [meaningful coincidence]

Jung held that there was both a philosophical and scientific basis for synchronicity. He identified the complementary nature of causality and acausality with Eastern sciences and protoscientific disciplines, stating "the East bases much of its science on this irregularity and considers coincidences as the reliable basis of the world rather than causality. Synchronism is the prejudice of the East; causality is the modern prejudice of the West". — Wikipedia

Jung held that there was both a philosophical and scientific basis for synchronicity. He identified the complementary nature of causality and acausality with Eastern sciences and protoscientific disciplines, stating "the East bases much of its science on this irregularity and considers coincidences as the reliable basis of the world rather than causality. Synchronism is the prejudice of the East; causality is the modern prejudice of the West". — Wikipedia

And we all know that "Easterners" are a completely homogenous group.