I don't know if you're just skipping over the Gombrich quote:
I'm not. Just keeping it in context.
Seems to me you're missing my point but it isn't important because my position doesn't rely on Gombrich, so moving on.
1) It's an inferential arument Gombrich makes.
2) It's not a textual-citational point, but his own opinion.
I think his point is very clearly supported by suttas such as the Pataliya sutta. If need be I will get my copy of the Samyutta out and write the pertinent material but I'd rather not if you have your own copy of the sutta. That sutta explicitly says that those who hold to a doctrine of kamma where all vipaka is experienced in this very life hold wrong view. Also, those who do not believe in kamma have wrong view. Thus, only those who believe in a doctrine of kamma that entails rebirth hold right view according to the suttas.
polarbuddha101 wrote:...or what but he explicitly states that the Buddha's doctrine of kamma necessarily entails rebirth.
Inferences are the opposite of explicits
polarbuddha101 wrote:In order to believe in the Buddha's formulation of the law of kamma one has to believe in rebirth....
That does not follow.
Yes it does, because the doctrine of rebirth is subsumed within the doctrine of kamma expounded by the Buddha (or at least I argue that the suttas prove this).
polarbuddha101 wrote:This doesn't mean that the Buddha's formulation of the law of kamma or the doctrine of rebirth are true it just means that kamma as taught by the Buddha is inseparable from rebirth. I don't see how anyone who's read the suttas could think otherwise and so I side with Gombrich on this matter.
This sentence appears to me to contradict your previous one.
It does not. The difference is between belief and truth. I am saying that if one actually believes in the doctrine of kamma AS EXPOUNDED BY THE BUDDHA then they necessarily believe in rebirth because the Buddha's doctrine of kamma subsumes the notion of rebirth in its formulation. However, the Buddha might be totally wrong, there may in fact be no such thing as kamma or rebirth but that doesn't change the fact that the belief in the Buddha's doctrine of kamma entails belief in rebirth.
polarbuddha101 wrote:As I said earlier, the first noble truth loses alot of its oomph when it isn't seen in light of the doctrine of rebirth
To the contrary. It obsfuscates it.
Well I guess we just have differing opinions then on this matter.
polarbuddha101 wrote:Thus, those who meditate but do not believe in rebirth (and actually disbelieve in it) are less likely to truly strive with all their heart and mind for the total cessation of dukkha and are more likely to meditate for stress reduction, greater peace of mind, and the ability to die with dignity which is awesome but it isn't the same as when someone thinks that they're trying to escape countless aeons of aging, illness, and death, greed, hatred and delusion. When one believes that beings (themselves included) hindered by ignorance and fettered by craving are roaming and wandering on for this long long time dispassion has a much stronger pull and so this means that people who believe in rebirth are certainly more likely to ordain as monastics and often are more likely to be serious lay practitioners (although this is clearly not always the case as there are plenty of lay buddhists just trying to get a better rebirth and plenty of secular buddhists who meditate everyday and take their practice seriously).
Have you done an official survey with documented interviews? Where did you publish the results?
No, it is an inductive argument that I imagine would be generally true but generally does not mean always or nearly so. If it's true 60% of the time then it's generally true.
As far as explaining meditative capabilities by reference to past lives, I think that's ridiculous, counterproductive and that these sorts of statements when spoken as if they're fact do not preserve the truth. If people want to assert this sort of thing, then they have to qualify it by saying that it is their belief or conviction or that the tradition or scriptures say it is so but they must not state it as if fact without qualification unless they know that it is indeed a fact. The Buddha instructs that one should preserve the truth in such a way in this sutta: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html
What exacty do you mean by the "the truth" and "truth"? I don't see any mention of rebirth is this sutta you cited.
1) I don't know why you have written "the truth" and "truth" as if I'm speaking about two kinds of truth, truth is truth period. Anyway, moving on.
2) I mean that one should not make statements as if they are known fact when they are actually beliefs, convictions, or the position of unbroken tradition.
3) The sutta doesn't speak about rebirth but one can simply insert the word rebirth into the sutta instead of the vedas and then you'll see what I mean.
"I don't envision a single thing that, when developed & cultivated, leads to such great benefit as the mind. The mind, when developed & cultivated, leads to great benefit."
"I don't envision a single thing that, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about such suffering & stress as the mind. The mind, when undeveloped & uncultivated, brings about suffering & stress."