The Kalama Sutta and Scepticism

[Ceisiwr]

I also see a similarity between Buddhadhamma and the teaching of the Dhamma as a raft and pyrrhonism, since both use the teachings to let go that which causes stress without clinging to it


For example Sextean Pyrrhonism argues that scepticism is used to free one self from opinions, and then to collapse in on itself to escape from making a fresh dogma.

[Ceisiwr]

Yes, you may be right, everyday meaning v. technical meaning - though I think there is some conflating of these different meanings going on here.

Where?

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.

I do see a sceptical mind as instrumental to Buddhist, that is dont hold fast to a concept but simply investigate appearances


N.B. A pyrrhonist would doubt the outcomes of science as well, they even doubted causation, logic etc and their own scepticism

[Ceisiwr]

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."

A pyrrhonist wouldnt say "Dont go by" but would examine each and come to withholding opinion for each one

by probability

Funnily enough this was a difference between the scepticism of the New Academy under Carneades et al and Pyrrhonist scepticism. Pyrrhonist's had issue with agreeing on the "probable". Aenesidemus, who seems to have re-started the tradition of Pyrrho and Timon, saw the New Academy sceptics of falling into a negative dogma of denying knowledge and had become as dogmatic as their arch rival, the Stoics.

As he (apparently) said they had become stoics in disguise and it had become "Stoics arguing against Stoics".

[Ceisiwr]

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?

I have thought the same, due to the Jain doctrine you mentioned and the practice of the jains going naked. However its difficult to tell.

[Ceisiwr]

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.

Depends on the sceptic and the definition of the scepticism

However a pyrrhonist sceptic would hold no opinions, only saying "I experience X" without saying that X is or that X is such and such in nature, or that X is the same for everyone


"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." Outlines of Scepticism - Sextus Empiricus


http://evans-experientialism.freewebspa ... icus02.htm



To give another example, there are arguments for God and arguments against God. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Being unable to decide either way which is correct, and lacking an external judge to decide, one withholds to assent of God or no God and forms no opinion either way, neither does he form the opinion of "It cant be known or decided". Its a blank state where there is awareness and peace of mind.

[Ceisiwr]

Also we do have the freedom of views, in line with pyrrhonism, in Buddhism


"A person who associates himself with certain views, considering them as best and making them supreme in the world, he says, because of that, that all other views are inferior; therefore he is not free from contention (with others). In what is seen, heard, cognized and in ritual observances performed, he sees a profit for himself. Just by laying hold of that view he regards every other view as worthless. Those skilled (in judgment)[1] say that (a view becomes) a bond if, relying on it, one regards everything else as inferior. Therefore a bhikkhu should not depend on what is seen, heard or cognized, nor upon ritual observances. He should not present himself as equal to, nor imagine himself to be inferior, nor better than, another. Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides. He does not [have] recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana[2] who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world?

"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views."


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




This

"Abandoning (the views) he had (previously) held and not taking up (another), he does not seek a support even in knowledge. Among those who dispute he is certainly not one to take sides. He does not [have] recourse to a view at all. In whom there is no inclination to either extreme, for becoming or non-becoming, here or in another existence, for him there does not exist a fixed viewpoint on investigating the doctrines assumed (by others). Concerning the seen, the heard and the cognized he does not form the least notion. That brahmana[2] who does not grasp at a view, with what could he be identified in the world?

"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views."


Could be something Sextus would have said. Here I see a synthesis of Buddhadhamma and Greek Pyrrhonist Scepticism

[Spiny Norman]

To give another example, there are arguments for God and arguments against God. Both have strengths and weaknesses. Being unable to decide either way which is correct, and lacking an external judge to decide, one withholds to assent of God or no God and forms no opinion either way, neither does he form the opinion of "It cant be known or decided". Its a blank state where there is awareness and peace of mind.

OK, withholding both assent and denial. But are you saying this is skepticism? To me it sounds more like having an open mind.

[Ceisiwr]

OK, withholding both assent and denial. But are you saying this is skepticism? To me it sounds more like having an open mind.

It's the scepticism of pyrrhonism, which doesn't deny that knowledge is possible. Neither does it affirm it is possible. Instead there is epoche and the continuation of the investigation.


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


This is contrasted to the scepticism of the New Academy which denies knowledge, "nothing can be known, not even this"

[Ceisiwr]

"They do not speculate nor pursue (any notion); doctrines are not accepted by them. A (true) brahmana is beyond, does not fall back on views."

From my above post, this is scepticism

[ricebowl]

The point about the Kalamas as far as the records go, was that they were just a bunch of confused people whose confusions was worsened by foreign visitors with their own ideas from foreign learnings. So the Buddha happened to visit them, and since the Kalamas had already asked people regarding so many opinions, one more wouldn't hurt. The Buddha's point was just to believe in nothing when it gets too confusing. Still, he said with a starkingly helpful prose, that the Kalamas can believe in Him.

In other words, drive aside everything else since they were already confusing enough, start afresh, it ain't about sceptiscm, it ain't about the buddha with a newest doctrine, the notion was that even though many others came to the Kalamas, they had already come and left. Since the Buddha was there, and imho HE WAS AUTHORATATIVE enough in His time, all He did was to ask the Kalamas to "come to Mama and drink some milk".

[Sam Vara]

The point about the Kalamas.... was that they were just a bunch of confused people whose confusions was worsened by foreign visitors with their own ideas from foreign learnings.

Sounds familiar....