Actually, I have never encountered a single Christian who argued that Christianity can be scientifically confirmed. There might have been a small few such Christians in the 18th and 19th centuries, but they seem to be a minority.
I understand the argument of “experientially confirmed” differently, not as scientifically. I can easily imagine a Christian discourse (sorry I’m not Christian) like “… and when the Holy Spirit touches your heart you suddenly know with utmost conviction that Jesus has taken away your sins and longs for your prayers and devotion…”
The point is rather, that it totally feels like the Holy Spirit and Jesus, and nobody (for sure not some weird Indian esoterics) can take away that conviction. In fact they with their polytheism are blasphemous and delusional, etc…
2 Likes
They are hugely plentiful, but much like modern people who want to believe in Abhidharma in a very strict way, they have to set up a parallel “science” or a parallel reality, from where they can dictate science.
For instance, Young Earth creationists believe that either a) a giant ocean used to float above the earth or b) it used to and its still there. Christianity, therefore, can be scientifically confirmed, because there is this giant celestial ocean. God called down this ocean in the Great Flood and it carved out all of the earth geological features. By studying geology, we can see Christianity confirmed, because we can see evidence for this flood everywhere.
That’s how they do it. People who believe in Sumeru do it the same way, in my experience, at least.
4 Likes
The Kalama Sutta states (Pali expression in parentheses):[4]
Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing (anussava),
nor upon tradition (paramparā),
nor upon rumor (itikirā),
nor upon what is in a scripture (piṭaka-sampadāna)
nor upon surmise (takka-hetu),
nor upon an axiom (naya-hetu),
nor upon specious reasoning (ākāra-parivitakka),
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over (diṭṭhi-nijjhān-akkh-antiyā),
nor upon another’s seeming ability (bhabba-rūpatāya),
nor upon the consideration, The monk is our teacher (samaṇo no garū)
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: “These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,” enter on and abide in them.’
Thus, the Buddha named ten specific sources whose knowledge should not be immediately viewed as truthful without further investigation to avoid fallacies:Oral history
Traditional
News sources
Scriptures or other official texts
Suppositional reasoning
Philosophical dogmatism
Common sense
One’s own opinions
Experts
Authorities or one’s own teacher
Instead, the Buddha says, only when one personally knows that a certain teaching is skillful, blameless, praiseworthy, and conducive to happiness, and that it is praised by the wise, should one then accept it as true and practice it.
Kesamutti Sutta - Wikipedia
4 Likes
Due to such concepts as skillful means and the two-truths doctrine, Buddhists aren’t required to interpret Buddhist scriptures 100% literally:
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/30.8-Upaya-Skillful-means.-piya.pdf
As a Pure Land Buddhist, reciting the name of Amida Buddha is central to my practice. Shinran Shonin understood Amida as a upaya-symbol for the Dharmakaya itself, rather than a literal flesh and blood Buddha from ten kalpas ago, and the Pure Land as the realm of Nirvana.
This is good advice, but, all followers of any given religion believe that they personally know that a certain teaching is skillful, blameless, praiseworthy, and conducive to happiness, and that it is praised by the wise.
1 Like
The Buddha said to verify these things by one’s own reasoning and experience, rather than accept on blind faith.
1 Like
Indeed, this is also good advice. I imagine that is why all practitioners of all religions say that their religious convictions are based in their own reasoning and experience.
2 Likes
I think there is something to be said though for high Buddhist teachings to be more down to earth and less speculative than the notion of the Holy Spirit or God, under a certain interpretation.
If we take a minimalist approach to nibbana such as Ajahn Brahmali does, whereby nibbana is simply the extinguishment of greed, hate, and delusion, then surely that is a less metaphysical notion than being touched by the Holy Spirit. On the other hand, the idea of contacting an unconditioned unchanging reality that removes greed, hate, and delusion from the mind is an idea on par with the Holy Spirit.
If amata-dhatu is the deathless element as some immortal realm or death free plane of reality beyond conditioned existence, then that is on par with the idea of God. On the other hand, if amata-dhatu is simply the reality that in principle there can be a kind of freedom from death if one lets go of identification with everything that dies, then amata-dhatu or the principle of deathlessness is simply a psychological state of complete non-attachment and non-identification which is not so much metaphysical.
Such a psychological condition completely free from greed, hate, and delusion, free of any identification with, or attachment to, the body and experiences, might not be possible for humans to achieve, but it is much more readily conceivable without postulating the existence of out of the ordinary entities. I imagine all of us have at times experienced mind states free from greed, contented states, free from hate, friendly states, free from delusion, states where we accepted the impermanence of some changing phenomena or didn’t get upset when something changed knowing that to get upset would be useless.
In other words, there is less of an interpretation on experience when dealing with moods or emotions such as the presence or absence of hatred. But once we start taking some experience and saying that it was an experience of some entity such as the Holy Spirit or an unconditioned reality beyond phenomenal existence then we are further removed from the simple qualia of the experience itself and have moved into the realm of reifying those qualia or assuming/projecting some further fact beyond the experience itself.
7 Likes
This is still my go-to research of the historical evidence for the Buddha and his teachings: https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf
Well researched, detailed, and yet very readable and enjoyable. If I were to submit a legal brief in support of this issue, this would be the brief that argues the evidence of the historicity of the Buddha well, beyond a reasonable doubt.
There will always be doubters, and scholars looking to deny the existence of the Buddha in order to create controversy or make names for themselves within the field, but the scholarship from Vens. Sujato and Brahmali is superb, and creates, at least in me, a measure of saddha (and I value evidence above all) in the historicity of the Buddha, his monks and nuns, the kings, patrons, people and places that he encountered, and his Dhamma, that is solid.
5 Likes
Of course, its just that some prefer to do less reinterpreting.
I find prayer to celestial Buddhas and pure heaven realms to generate just a bit too much cognitive dissonance for me in regards to my practice, so it’s probably better to just set that stuff aside. But then again, my goal is not a heaven realm/buddha field.
For others, such teachings may be helpful.
4 Likes
“Reinterpreting” would mean that the text was intended to be read strictly literally in the first place, and that we are “reinterpreting” it today as modern readers.
Instead, Buddhist scriptures have never in history been intended to be read strictly literally:
http://dharmafarer.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/30.8-Upaya-Skillful-means.-piya.pdf
Buddhism has always regarded its scriptures as teaching devices for one’s path to enlightenment, rather than the infallible decrees of a god.
The Buddha himself, for the sake of his disciples, distinguished between provisional truth and ultimate truth.
The goal of seeking rebirth into a Pure Land has always been to more quickly attain Buddhahood for the sake of all beings, in fulfillment of the Bodhisattva ideal.
The Pure Land is not, and never has been, a Buddhist heaven. This is similar to the Pure Abodes described in the Pali canon, not a heaven.
Are you aware of how seeking rebirth into Amitabha’s Pure Land, for the sake of attaining Buddhahood more quickly, has been a central aspect of Tibetan Buddhism throughout its history, up to today?
Here is the Dalai Lama blessing a statue of Amitabha:
The heaven-like language of the Pure Land sutras is a provisional device for describing the formless realm of Nirvana to unenlightened beings like ourselves.
1 Like
Now this is actually an interesting topic.
I know nothing about the Pure Abodes. In Mahāyāna Buddhism, they are replaced by the akaniṣṭagandavyūha and the lotus vault.
Pure Lands are like idyllic advanced bodhisattva training grounds. The Pure Abodes are… what are they exactly?
2 Likes
Are you saying that Buddhists have historically not seen the supranormal claims in their scriptures about Pure Lands and Celestial Buddhas and Bodhisattvas living for eternity in these places as literally real? Because all evidence points to the contrary, that they did believe in these places quite literally and seriously.
I have never heard any scholarship which argues that pure lands like Sukhavati are meant to be metaphorical or not literal places. None of the links you provided touch on this. But if you have further sources, that would be interesting for me to look at.
The Pure Land is not, and never has been, a Buddhist heaven. This is similar to the Pure Abodes described in the Pali canon, not a heaven.
Are you aware of how seeking rebirth into Amitabha’s Pure Land, for the sake of attaining Buddhahood more quickly, has been a central aspect of Tibetan Buddhism throughout its history, up to today?
Yes I am aware of this doctrine, but just don’t find it useful for my own practice which is focused on Dhamma visible in the here and now, so I put it aside. Also I would mention that it is strictly not in line with the view taught in the early discourses, which says that after death a tathagatha cannot be found and cannot be said to exist / not exist / neither / both.
1 Like
@Coemgenu They are a group of five special heavens that are reserved only for those who realise the state of non-returners (and only them). Once you’re reborn there, you will never return to any other realm, instead the only thing that awaits you is awakening/extinguishment. There are stock passages in both Chinese Agamas and Pali Nikayas about how those who’re non-returners will never again return to “this world”, and will make an end to all suffering there. For the best picture of Pure Abodes, I think you should read DN 14/DA 1 in the last topic.
@Kensho No, you’re incorrect. In both Chinese Agamas/Pali Nikayas, the Pure Abodes are heavens in the truest sense, with the Pali version saying that the Pure Abodes’s dwellers are deities, and the Chinese Agamas explicitly use the word “heaven” to describe one of the Pure Abodes heavens like Aviha, or all of them.
I would like to say something about the early discourses since from many of your posts, you give the impression that you think of the Pali Nikayas as the “only” and “oldest” early Buddhist texts. That’s only partly correct. The most ancient Buddhist texts are comprised of: Agamas that are extant in many ancient languages, notably: Gandhari, Middle Chinese, Sanskrit, Prakrit, etc (and no, they are not Mahayana in anyway, they are discourses that are transmitted by ancient Buddhist schools like Dharmaguptaka, Mahasanghika, Sarvastivada, Mulasarvastivada, Mahisasaka, Kasyapiya, and more), and Pali Nikayas by Theravada.
4 Likes
Fair enough. It’s possible that Pure Lands are based on an idea like that… what is the Pāli for “pure abode”? It’s certainly not buddhakṣetra.
Buddha’s, or non-returners for that matter, do not produce or build Pure Abodes, so that is one lack of similarity.
But on the same note, it is said that the dhyāna heavens are ‘built’ by dhyānins. So…
kṣetrapariśuddhi, it would have been an interesting parallel. Certainly, the fact that this is more-or-less ‘replaced’ by saṃbhogakāya pure lands of varying sorts, is very interesting, if nothing else, from the perspective of general religious studies.
1 Like
So the placement of śuddhāvāsikāḥ in the rūpadhātu in the above graphic is an accident of the abhidharma-chart compiler, likely.
Wait, this chart is derived from the kośa, so it has Sarvāstivādin orientation.
It is placing śuddhāvāsikāḥ in the 4th dhyāna heaven of the rūpadhātu. It is also in the leftmost column too.
5 classes of śuddhāvāsikāḥ in the 4th heaven, starting with akaniṣṭhāḥ downwards.
Surely this is a mistake? Or is this an eccentric Sarvāstivāda view?
1 Like