Insisting on discussing Buddhist doctrine, while at the same time refusing to learn said Buddhist doctrine is the mark of a fool. — baker

Why? How is trying to get an idea of what it is that one's getting into "...the mark of a fool..."? How did the buddha discover buddhism and come to the conclusion that, yeah, this is it?

How about meeting halfway. It's not that there's no luck, there is but it's part of karmic causality.
— TheMadFool
Like you say:
Speculation does not give us knowledge, but only illusion.
— TheMadFool — baker

I don't think I'm speculating. That's already done with. What I'm offering is a compromise of two opposing perspectives.

How is trying to get an idea of what it is that one's getting into "...the mark of a fool..."? — TheMadFool

But you're not trying to get that idea.
If you want to argue against Buddhist doctrine - fine. But for this, you first need to learn it.

What I'm offering is a compromise of two opposing perspectives.

To what end?

But you're not trying to get that idea.
If you want to argue against Buddhist doctrine - fine. But for this, you first need to learn it. — baker

How do you know what I'm trying to do?

To what end? — baker

To understand the issue.

To understand the issue. — TheMadFool

And you think this is possible in a suprareligious, neutral, objective way?

And you think this is possible in a suprareligious, neutral, objective way? — baker

Why is that surprising?

It's not surprising. Epistemic autonomy is the holy grail for many people.

It's not surprising. Epistemic autonomy is the holy grail for many people. — baker

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.

Thanks for your answer, Baker. I guess we often have this ideas or stereotypes of how peaceful the Buddhists are. Of course one shouldn't forget that people in the end are quite similar everywhere, and if things go bad, people can be violent and intolerant to each other. And it's actually stupid in my view to argue that the reason is purely because of religion.

Where is there chance in the present moment?
— baker

There’s no saying what will happen. — Wayfarer

Do explain why lack of prescience is evidence of chance.

It's an unwinnable and interminable argument; a poison arrow argument.

It's an unwinnable and interminable argument; a poison arrow argument. — Wayfarer

So you're using a teaching by the Buddha to defend a teaching for which you can provide no evidence that the Buddha taught it, and for which there is some evidence that he didn't? You should do better than that.

You can easily win and terminate this by providing a sutta that says words to the effect that chance is a necessary element on the path to nibbana; or one that says that there's a hole in paṭiccasamuppāda; or some such.


But I can't just let you get away with an egregous suggestion that the attainment of nibbana depends on chance (and that as such, it is quite beyond a person's control).

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

Then it should be easy for you to provide at least two canonical references that support the above. TY.

So you're using a teaching by the Buddha to defend a teaching for which you can provide no evidence that the Buddha taught it, and for which there is some evidence that he didn't? — baker

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

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.

My question has always been specifically as to whether chance is a necessary element on the path to nibbana. You implied that it was. This point you have not clarified.

This issue is of vital importance insofar the efficacy of the Noble Eightfold Path depends on deliberate action. If it depends on chance, the whole project of the complete cessation of suffering becomes hopeless.

My question has always been specifically as to whether chance is a necessary element on the path to nibbana. You implied that it was. This point you have not clarified.

This issue is of vital importance insofar the efficacy of the Noble Eightfold Path depends on deliberate action. If it depends on chance, the whole project of the complete cessation of suffering becomes hopeless. — baker

All I’ve said, and those sources I provided affirm, that chance is an element in reality. Some things occur by chance, not everything is determined. It is a modest claim. If you smoke cigarettes you have a greater chance of getting lung cancer but some get lung cancer never having smoked in their lives. There are countless possible examples. This doesn’t mean specifically that the eightfold path ‘depends on chance’ but that chance is a factor.

Actually an old folktale from Chinese Buddhism comes to mind. It concerned the death of a dedicated aspirant who had long left home and become completely detached from all his worldly concerns. At the moment of his dying, he happen to catch sight of a beautiful fawn in dappled sunlight. As I recall the story, this caused him to be reborn in the animal realm. (Don’t ask me to track it down again!)

I wouldn’t overdramatise the principle, though. Chance is a factor, that is all.

I wouldn’t overdramatise the principle, though. Chance is a factor, that is all. — Wayfarer

You underestimate the gravity of the issue.

Well, I definitely don’t understand what your issue is with it. Perhaps you could explain it.

Then it should be easy for you to provide at least two canonical references that support the above. TY. — baker

Sorry I can't respond to your request but for what it's worth, Buddhism is, inter alia, an argument, the key premise being the doctrine of impermanence (anicca).

Actually an old folktale from Chinese Buddhism comes to mind. It concerned the death of a dedicated aspirant who had long left home and become completely detached from all his worldly concerns. At the moment of his dying, he happen to catch sight of a beautiful fawn in dappled sunlight. As I recall the story, this caused him to be reborn in the animal realm. — Wayfarer

No offence intended but I thought the punchline - after the aspirant saw the lovely animal in that golden light - was going to be, "Damn, I've wasted my life!"

It might seem so if there were nothing else at stake.

Actually an old folktale from Chinese Buddhism comes to mind. It concerned the death of a dedicated aspirant who had long left home and become completely detached from all his worldly concerns. At the moment of his dying, he happen to catch sight of a beautiful fawn in dappled sunlight. As I recall the story, this caused him to be reborn in the animal realm. — Wayfarer

Stories like that do not illustrate chance. They illustrate the standard doctrinal point that indulging in sense pleasures leads to a rebirth in the animal womb.

They also illustrate the vital point that one must be heedful at all times, esp. at the time of death.

appamāda
Heedfulness; diligence; zeal. The cornerstone of all skillful mental states, and one of such fundamental import that the Buddha's stressed it in his parting words to his disciples: "All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful!" (appamādena sampādetha).

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/glossary.html#a

Then it should be easy for you to provide at least two canonical references that support the above. TY. — baker

Sorry I can't respond to your request but for what it's worth, Buddhism is, inter alia, an argument, the key premise being the doctrine of impermanence (anicca). — TheMadFool

What happened?

What happened? — TheMadFool

What do you expect me to say? You make a claim about the Buddha, and I ask for a canonical reference for said claim. You don't provide it. You see no problem with not providing it.

*sigh*

Stories like that do not illustrate chance. They illustrate the standard doctrinal point that indulging in sense pleasures leads to a rebirth in the animal womb. — baker

Yes, I think you're right. Badly chosen on my part.

What do you expect me to say? You make a claim about the Buddha, and I ask for a canonical reference for said claim. You don't provide it. You see no problem with not providing it.

*sigh* — baker

There's no point in providing a reference, canonical or otherwise because, unlike other religions, buddhism isn't what philosophers refer to as arguementum ad verecundiam.

As for luck's existence/nonexistence, @Wayfarer is right, buddhism is, all said and done, a rejection of dogmatism and as per Nagarjuna's tetralemma, the statement "luck plays a role in a person's life" would elicit the following responses:

1. It does. No!
2. It does not. No!
3. It does and it does not. No!
4. Neither it does nor it does not. No!

Chew on that and tell me what you make of it.

On whether everything is determined according to kamma:

Once the Blessed One dwelled at Rajagaha in the Bamboo-Grove Monastery, at the Squirrel's Feeding Place. There a wandering ascetic, Moliya Sivaka by name, called on the Blessed One, and after an exchange of courteous and friendly words, sat down at one side. Thus seated, he said:

"There are, revered Gotama, some ascetics and brahmans who have this doctrine and view: 'Whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action.' Now, what does the revered Gotama say about this?"

"Produced by (disorders of the) bile, there arise, Sivaka, certain kinds of feelings. That this happens, can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true. Produced by (disorders of the) phlegm... of wind... of (the three) combined... by change of climate... by adverse behavior... by injuries... by the results of Kamma — (through all that), Sivaka, there arise certain kinds of feelings. That this happens can be known by oneself; also in the world it is accepted as true.

"Now when these ascetics and brahmans have such a doctrine and view that 'whatever a person experiences, be it pleasure, pain or neither-pain-nor-pleasure, all that is caused by previous action,' then they go beyond what they know by themselves and what is accepted as true by the world. Therefore, I say that this is wrong on the part of these ascetics and brahmans."

When this was spoken, Moliya Sivaka, the wandering ascetic, said: "It is excellent, revered Gotama, it is excellent indeed!...May the revered Gotama regard me as a lay follower who, from today, has taken refuge in him as long as life lasts." — Sivaka Sutta

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.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu comments:

For the early Buddhists, kamma was non-linear and complex. Other Indian schools believed that kamma operated in a simple straight line, with actions from the past influencing the present, and present actions influencing the future. As a result, they saw little room for free will. Buddhists, however, saw that kamma acts in multiple feedback loops, with the present moment being shaped both by past and by present actions; present actions shape not only the future but also the present. Furthermore, present actions need not be determined by past actions. In other words, there is free will, although its range is somewhat dictated by the past. The nature of this freedom is symbolized in an image used by the early Buddhists: flowing water. Sometimes the flow from the past is so strong that little can be done except to stand fast, but there are also times when the flow is gentle enough to be diverted in almost any direction.

:up:

What do you expect me to say? You make a claim about the Buddha, and I ask for a canonical reference for said claim. You don't provide it. You see no problem with not providing it.

*sigh*
— baker

There's no point in providing a reference, canonical or otherwise because, unlike other religions, buddhism isn't what philosophers refer to as arguementum ad verecundiam. — TheMadFool

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.

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

Stories like that do not illustrate chance. They illustrate the standard doctrinal point that indulging in sense pleasures leads to a rebirth in the animal womb.
— baker

Yes, I think you're right. Badly chosen on my part. — Wayfarer

Not "badly chosen". I dare you to find a Buddhist story that actually illustrates luck. You can choose from any Buddhist tradition you like, including the modernists.

(The Chiggala Sutta is specifically about the appearance of a Tathagata and his dispensation, not about the ordinary person.)