[JulieSmithXIV]

Hmmm... I would argue that both the four truths and karma are speculative on the basis of objective truth.

Objective: "of or pertaining to something that can be known".

I can see and verify and know for myself that greed, anger, and delusion lead to suffering.

I can see and verify and know for myself that removing greed, anger, and delusion lead to the cessation of that very same suffering.

i can see and verify and know for myself that the Noble Eightfold Path as prescribed by the Buddha removes greed, anger and delusion; effecting the cessation of suffering.

QED.

Maybe I am splitting hairs here, but the only truth I can ever find is based on perspective and perception, which are subjective. Objective truth only seems to exist as much as people agree on it, which is really more of a collection of subjective truths.

Yes, and splitting epistemological hairs is not relevant to the Buddha's teachings on suffering. I can see and know suffering. I can see and know the quenching of suffering. That is enough.


The rest of you comments in that post just go further and further down that same dead end.

[jgztw2es]

I can see and know suffering. I can see and know the quenching of suffering.

[bingookenoo]

The Certainty Bias would seem to be a large part of the problem of believing against the (lack of) evidence. Then there's master-worship, sect-worship, etc, that so often blind the sincere and enthusiastic follower to what's in plain sight for those unaffected by it. A lot of people don't see anything wrong with believing what makes them feel better and don't bother to investigate any further. My current girlfriend, a non-practicing Catholic, is like that. She doesn't seem to be embarrassed when she says that she has no evidence for God, but that she believes because it makes her feel better. She's not of a philosophical bent, so she doesn't even bother with considering the arguments. That, to me, is a perfect example of faith. Since she's not interested in developing her mind in that direction or cultivating the insights that the Buddha pointed to, I don't see any problem. Most of the world is like that, I imagine. That is, most of the people I've gotten to know have been.

[R1king]

Objective: "of or pertaining to something that can be known".

Many more definitions of this word below... by "objective" truth I am referring to something akin to 4-8, truth that is purported to exist out there. Not so much an object of knowledge.

ob·jec·tive
   /əbˈdʒɛktɪv/ Show Spelled[uhb-jek-tiv] Show IPA
–noun
1.
something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.
2.
Grammar .
a.
Also called objective case. (in English and some other languages) a case specialized for the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition, as him in The boy hit him, or me in He comes to me with his troubles.
b.
a word in that case.
3.
Also called object glass, object lens, objective lens. Optics . (in a telescope, microscope, camera, or other optical system) the lens or combination of lenses that first receives the rays from the object and forms the image in the focal plane of the eyepiece, as in a microscope, or on a plate or screen, as in a camera.
–adjective
4.
being the object or goal of one's efforts or actions.
5.
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.
intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.
being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8.
of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.
9.
Grammar .
a.
pertaining to the use of a form as the object of a transitive verb or of a preposition.
b.
(in English and some other languages) noting the objective case.
c.
similar to such a case in meaning.
d.
(in case grammar) pertaining to the semantic role of a noun phrase that denotes something undergoing a change of state or bearing a neutral relation to the verb, as the rock in The rock moved or in The child threw the rock.
10.
being part of or pertaining to an object to be drawn: an objective plane.
11.
Medicine/Medical . (of a symptom) discernible to others as well as the patient.

Quote from: KoolAid
Maybe I am splitting hairs here, but the only truth I can ever find is based on perspective and perception, which are subjective. Objective truth only seems to exist as much as people agree on it, which is really more of a collection of subjective truths.


Yes, and splitting epistemological hairs is not relevant to the Buddha's teachings on suffering. I can see and know suffering. I can see and know the quenching of suffering. That is enough.

True enough, thanks for sharing, helps me to relate as I feel the same way about other things like karma & rebirth.

[Dwemadayday]

That is, most of the people I've gotten to know have been.

Yes, that is true...

[cestsennY]

KoolAid900:

It's occasionally an interesting thought experiment to say "nothing is objectively true, there is no reality outside of our perception of it, and there's no such thing as truth," but it's not particularly useful in the here and now. When I ask my doctor whether I'm sick because of a bacterium or a virus, this viewpoint is not useful. When I ask my partner whether we have enough money to cover our expenses, this viewpoint is not useful. Why? Because these are practical questions.

Questions of suffering are practical questions. This is why I often refer to my particular path as "dharma practice" and not "Buddhism." I've seen too much suffering caused by belief systems that come packaged with beliefs that must be taken on faith for it to seem plausible that yet another one is the solution.

(stuka edit:When) Until anybody who believes in karma or rebirth fulfils their burden of proof and persuades me, I'm not going to live as though they're true. Why? Because I have actual problems to solve in my actual life, and I can't do this unless I'm only factoring in things which are likely to be true. Considering that the tools of dharma practice that Buddha laid out deal with actual problems for my actual life, I see no reason to distract myself by clinging to past lives or yearning for future ones. I see no reason to worry about them at all. Aren't we supposed to be living in the present and aware of what's going on around us now?

It's my opinion that if I'm willingly making decisions based on less than accurate information, I am less able to find practical and effective solutions to my problems, with suffering being a big one. So again, no, I don't see any reason to include faith in dharma practice. There are Buddhists who find it expedient to play around with hypotheticals that don't have evidence behind them, but once again... I am not among them. I have too many things on my hands and too many problems to solve here to make decisions based on legends and fears which may not even have any basis in reality.







(stuka: edit to change "When" to "Until" per poster's wishes)

[Enrivaanonock]

This is why I often refer to my particular path as "dharma practice" and not "Buddhism."

Yes, dharma practice is void from any kind of faith while "Buddhisms" are full of it.

[egershna]

At what point does evidence establish truth?

At the point of consistent, repeatable data that matches the hypothesis.

For myself, I usually consider something as a possibility when there is a reasonable suspicion that it could exist (kinda redundant I guess).

Doesn't really matter if unicorns or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or hindukarma really exist, there is still this problem of ignorance, greed, and anger leading to suffering, and this solution of the Eightfold Path.

I usually will refer to something as true when there is slightly more evidence in its favor than for the other alternative. I don't mind a low burden of proof because I feel that truth is relative anyway.

I had a friend who was hit by a semi truck on the highway. Was the truth of the truck bearing down upon him really "relative"...? Did the truck really not exist, since he never saw it coming?

However, if someone else only considers something true when evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt, then there idea of verifiable evidence will differ.

Again, a consistently repeatable dataset that supports the hypothesis is plenty good. Fortunately for the hypothesis of the 4NT, there is plenty there.

[pE71J5Sw]

Many more definitions of this word below... by "objective" truth I am referring to something akin to 4-8, truth that is purported to exist out there. Not so much an object of knowledge.

But why? How is that relevant? Should we also attempt to force the use of the word to mean a military target as well? What is the point of all this equivocation, of this definitional shell game?

True enough, thanks for sharing, helps me to relate as I feel the same way about other things like karma & rebirth.

Oh, nevermind, I see now what the point is.

[CevepBiageCefm]

Until anybody who believes in karma or rebirth fulfils their burden of proof and persuades me, I'm not going to live as though they're true. Why? Because I have actual problems to solve in my actual life, and I can't do this unless I'm only factoring in things which are likely to be true. Considering that the tools of dharma practice that Buddha laid out deal with actual problems for my actual life, I see no reason to distract myself by clinging to past lives or yearning for future ones. I see no reason to worry about them at all. Aren't we supposed to be living in the present and aware of what's going on around us now?

[Clielldub]

Originally Posted by Cobalt Until anybody who believes in karma or rebirth fulfils their burden of proof and persuades me, I'm not going to live as though they're true. Why? Because I have actual problems to solve in my actual life, and I can't do this unless I'm only factoring in things which are likely to be true. Considering that the tools of dharma practice that Buddha laid out deal with actual problems for my actual life, I see no reason to distract myself by clinging to past lives or yearning for future ones. I see no reason to worry about them at all. Aren't we supposed to be living in the present and aware of what's going on around us now?

Thanks! Though that "when" at the start should read "until." If somebody who advocates for the veracity of dogmas like karma and reincarnation actually fulfils their burden of proof, I'll rethink what I do to account for the fact that I evidently live in a very different universe than it previously seemed to be. However, until then, I'm going to pay attention to the things that I know are problems and lend my energy to the things which I know are solutions.
















'When' changed to 'until' in the above quote also.

[Elaltergephah]

Changed "when" to "until" for you, Cobalt dear.


And agreed :-)

[Alliopeti]

You're the coolest. Thanks.

[ProomoSam]

...Also, it seems that the evidence used to verify the Buddha's teachings would have to include empirical evidence that cannot necessarily be verified with certainty externally... any thoughts?

The problem with obtaining verifiable evidence for what the Buddha seems to have taught is that such evidence is inherently subjective and anecdotal, which makes it practically inadmissible as evidence. Seems to me that whatever we experience, whether a UFO sighting or a carefully-controlled lab experiment, is subject to the same criticism. There seems to be no escape from the subjective perspective, despite our best efforts. Even a lab report is embedded in a subjective perspective, conditioned by a myriad of preceeding conditions.

Every perspective that I've lived so far has proven to be subject to selection and certainty biases, emotional appeals, etc. What's refreshing to me about the Buddha's (apparent) teachings is that he didn't seem to give a rat's ass about ontology as defined by modern academics. For him, what is experienced is what is. That seems to acknowledge the inescapability of the subjective perspective and, in effect, eradicates it.

[Heaneisismich]

The problem with obtaining verifiable evidence for what the Buddha seems to have taught is that such evidence is inherently subjective and anecdotal, which makes it practically inadmissible as evidence.

It might be seen that way if one wished to "show another one's own experience". But the Buddha taught that his Dhamma was "verifiable to oneself". To see the veracity of his teachings and the benefits of his practice for oneself is enough.

[toreesi]

For him, what is experienced is what is. That seems to acknowledge the inescapability of the subjective perspective and, in effect, eradicates it.

And there is where dwells the greatness of the historical Buddha. Fortunatley he was neither a redeemer nor a phylosopher... He was a Buddha, the one who is awake...

To see the veracity of his teachings and the benefits of his practice for oneself is enough.

Nothing more to say... so simple to understand!

[KellyMP]

My thoughts went to the writings of Nagarjuna

Never been keen on Nagarjuna's works personally.......(and not sure what his writings have to do with the OP and the role of faith ?)