Buddhist epistemology
Quoting baker
Quoting FrancisRay
So do say more about your view of Buddhist epistemology.
How do you think that Buddhism explains or justifies its epistemology?
What made me hopeless about Buddhism is that its epistemology is, essentially, a self-fulfilling prophecy: first, one takes some premises for granted; then one acts in line with those premises; and then one "sees" that those premises "are true".
Quoting FrancisRay
This is a misunderstanding. The route you describe is one approach. But it is possible to describe and prove the epistemology in logic, and Buddhism NEVER asks us to take some premise for granted. The approach you suggest is a practical method, not the way in which Buddhism explains or justifies its epistemology. Of course, until we know that knowing is fundamental we can only assume it, but the assumption is unnecessary to discovering the facts.
Even if you take no premises for granted you'll end up knowing the truth about epistemology.
So do say more about your view of Buddhist epistemology.
How do you think that Buddhism explains or justifies its epistemology?
Comments (119)
I should have said 'philosophically justified'.
It is most famously justified logically by the Noble Nagarjuna in his Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way. The doctrine states that knowing is fundamental, so epistemology and ontology become one.at the base of metaphysics. This is true also in experience, but this is not a justification since it cannot be demonstrated. In metaphysics it can be demonstrated.
But I have no wish to browbeat. You don't have to take my word for it. The literature is extensive,.
No. You said that I misunderstood Buddhism. It's on you to make your case.
Ah yes. Quite right. But your disparaging comments about Buddhist epistemology suggest that it is a lot of nonsense, and it might take a long time to dispel this idea. If you start a thread on the topic I'll join in, but I'm stupidly getting caught up in too many conversations at once to keep track, so I'd rather leave it here.
Calling all Buddhists fools for not seeing the faults in their own epistemology even after two and half thousand years puts you out on a very fragile limb, so I could argue it's up to you to present a clearly reasoned objection - but let;s call it a draw. . .
This is the new thread, scroll up, join in.
Talk about projection!
Okay. What's the question?
Could you narrow down the problem by asking a more specific question?
If you're simply asking how the mystics acquire their knowledge of the true nature of Reality then the answer is 'introception', or 'knowledge by identity', but I think you're asking more than this. .
3 at the very least.
But I do find the Buddhist theory of impermanence or momentariness quite interesting. Maybe @baker can tell us more.
If you see it that way, you should definitely abandon interest in it. If you start with the opinion that it's all a foregone conclusion, then there's obviously nothing to be learned by studying it.
Quoting MondoR
Not so. 'Epistemology' has a name in Indian philosophy, it's pram??a-v?da , the theory of justification and Hetu-vidya, the science of causation. The two exemplary sources are the scholar-monks Dharmakirti and Dign?ga, whose treatises on logic and epistemology are studied in every Mah?y?na Buddhist institution worldwide. By all means don't believe it, but your depiction of it as a matter of subjective choice is mistaken, based on indlvidualist liberal philosophy, 'what is right for me'. It's a very rigorous and highly structured doctrine.
Quoting Apollodorus
The Buddhist theory of impermanence is described in the Abhidharma, which is the 'third basket' of the tipitaka (three baskets - vinaya (monastic rules) sutta (discourses) abhidhamma (higher teachings)). It is a very scholastic subject with many very fine distinctions and is conceptually challenging to uinderstand as it is radically different to Western metaphysics. The starting point of the analysis is the 'chain of dependent origination' (pratityasamutpada) which describes the psycho-physical process of causation which gives rise to the concept of self and other. There's a lot of useful material on Wikipedia, have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abhidharma#Doctrine.
From what I've seen Abhinavagupta who developed the philosophical system of Kashmiri Shaivism seems to have borrowed something similar from Buddhists in the context of his theory of perception. I've mentioned this on the thread on Platonism and Indian philosophy. But I'll have a look at the Wikipedia article, thanks.
Correct. I thinks it translates "means of knowledge".
:starstruck:
You're the one who said that I misunderstood. So it's on you to show me how, where, why I misunderstood.
I think this problem of circularity/self-referentiality applies to many (if not all) fields of knowledge. To me, that it should apply to Buddhism, is nothing special.
I don't think there is anything to be learned (strictly speaking) by studying something, but there very well is something to become, something to do, something to attain. Like when one enrolls in a course of
education to acquire a qualification, and then one can do things one was not able to do before.
I don't think one can test or learn whether the Four Noble Truths are in fact true. But by starting off by taking them for granted, one might be able to do and attain things that one otherwise might not be able to.
To me, the real problem in regard to knowledge is epistemic triviality. As above with Buddhism, I think similar applies with other religions and philosophies. For example, I think that if one tries hard enough, Jesus becomes one's lord and savior and one lives happily ever after. So the question is, how on earth does one choose a religious (etc.) path???
I was discussing the pramanas once with a Hindu brahmacari. I asked him whether it was possible to choose as to which pramana one considers authoritative. He had to pause (otherwise, he was extremely fluent and fast-spoken), and said that it would depend on whatever pramana one currently holds as authoritative. Ie. the idea is that there are pramana positions from which individual choice is possible, and others, from which it is not.
What do you think of that?
Sure. But the issue is that relevant experiences are gained through doing a particular practice. Doing this practice to begin with requires that some things are taken for granted.
Oh okay.
Do you really need me to explain that this is a misunderstanding? I would have thought it impossible to misunderstand Buddhism this wildly.
As I've already pointed out, Buddhism never asks us to take any premises for granted.
So maybe we could start by asking why you believe it does. Of course, as Fooloso4 mentions, there may have to be some suspension of disbelief at the start for practical reasons, but this has nothing to do with epistemology. .
Yes, by all means, do. This is key.
For a secular Westerner interested in Buddhism, it is indeed quite likely politically incorrect to propose that Buddhism requires that we take some things for granted.
In contrast, cradle Buddhists typically take for granted that the tenets of their religion are true.
For one, from listening to Buddhists of various walks and provenances and from reading the Pali suttas.
For two, it's the only sensible explanation. Up until stream entry, a practitioner can't possibly know he's on the right path or that the practice "works".
Oh? And you think that all the bowing, kneeling, prostrating before monks and teachers "has nothing to do with epistemology" either?
If I’m not mistaken, the traditional means of knowledge (at least in Indian philosophy in general) is said to be (1) pratyaksha personal experience, (2) anum?na, reason and (3) shabda, trustworthy testimony or authority.
The last one (3) would be either scripture or a qualified teacher. Problem is that scripture is often unclear or incomplete and qualified teachers are hard to find so you have to rely on (1) and (2) a lot of the time especially nowadays.
But I do agree that some assumptions that are fundamental to Buddhism can be flawed. Impermanence or momentariness (kshanikavada) is one example. If all things are momentary, it may be hard to explain memory, whereas if we admit a permanent soul the problem doesn’t arise. I remember reading somewhere that this was one of the arguments Hindu philosophers used to refute Buddhist teachings, leading to the decline of Buddhism.
This may be Hindu propaganda, but it used to be customary to accept a rival philosophy if its proponent could show in a debate that yours is wrong. In Europe, people used to progress from one philosophy to another until they found one that suited them. That's how many arrived at Christianity.
In the case of Buddhism, I suppose you either accept Hinduism or hold on to some Buddhist views and accept others from Hinduism.
I never said that they are flawed. I don't think they are. I only pointed out that doing some practices and holding some views can lead to some trouble for the practitioner.
Well, even if some Buddhist teachings aren't flawed in terms of logical consistency, they may still be "flawed" in the sense and to the extent that they lead to "some trouble for the practitioner". That's why a qualified teacher is absolutely necessary. Without that, there is absolutely no way knowing whether you are headed for nirvana or for something else. Manipulation of and interference with psychological processes can lead to more than just "some trouble" without qualified guidance, especially in the case of Westerners who often don't have a clue (not referring to you personally).
From an Hindu, presumably. I wonder if he or she mentioned the Mughal invasion of India in which hundreds of thousands of Buddhist viharas were sacked and their inhabitants slaughtered. That might also have been a factor.
I have explained that Buddhism does not require that we take anything for granted,. The Buddha spends half his time telling us not to do this. There is no such thing as 'politically incorrect in mysticism. I can't imagine where you get these ideas. . .
A person who take this for granted is not a Buddhist but a credulous fool.
Of course it has nothing to do with epistemology.
It seems you want me to explain what is explained in ten thousand books. This is not fair. I'll probably stick to recommending relevant texts in future. . .
There’s your problem right there. It’s a religion, and belief is involved. Either get over it, and get on with it, or walk away. They’re your choices.
I agree that this was probably one factor but surely not the only one? Buddhism had many centuries to defeat Hinduism before the arrival of the Mughals. Why did it fail to do so? Besides, the Hindu (non-Buddhist) critique of Buddhist momentariness does seem valid to me - at least in terms of logic.
You seem to be concerned about (1) "Buddhist epistemology", about (2) "Western political correctness" and about (3) "how to choose a religious/spiritual path".
If "How on earth does one choose a religious (etc.) path" is your question, then you need to go back to choosing one in the first place and then worry about practice or about what Western political correctness thinks of it. Asking that question suggests that you haven't decided yet. Or have I misunderstood something?
I think the Buddhist view is quite coherent, but it has to be understood against the background of the culture in which it developed. There was a prevailing view that observances of the appropriate disciplines and sacrifices could assure the ascetic of an endless series of fortunate re-births - basically a form of eternal life through continued re-birth. That is the 'eternalism' that the Buddha rejected - not the simple belief that there is an agent-doer, but the belief that the agent-doer had an 'immortal essence' which lived on and on, endlessly.
There is a Buddhist sutta, called the Brahmajala Sutta, the 'net of views'. It describes the 64 types of wrong view. All of them stem from desire - the desire to continue to exist ('eternalism') or the desire to cease from existing ('nihilism'). But because all these view spring from desire, they will lead to further birth-and-death. Seeing through the way that desire gives rise to continued existence is the essence of the Buddhist path, but it's a very difficult thing to understand.
Well, desire is fundamental to our psychological make-up, it's extremely difficult to get rid of. And there is always that secret nagging desire to attain nirvana. But it looks like our friend @baker will require a good few rebirths - hopefully as a Buddhist - to achieve that. Should he have decided what path or epistemology to choose, that is.
One needs to have trust or faith or a belief that enlightenment is possible. But the goal is liberation not knowledge.
The hope is that this will come through practice, but it does not always happen. Some Buddhist schools believe that enlightenment can be spontaneous, others believe practice is required. And of course the hope or desire can be the attachment.
Buddhism is not a religion. It employs no supernatural elements.
Belief is involved in everything. Marxist material atheists have a belief, too. (That the world is real, and there are no supernatural forces acting in it.)
You can't get away from belief no matter what system you choose to apply to build models of the world or to find guidance under.
However, that does not make all systems religions. Religions have a particular quality: they all share in having supernatural entitties called gods. (Plural or singular.) If a system is not a religion, then it has beliefs, but not in gods or in other supernatural things that play a direct role in the world view. If all the effects are accounted for in witnessed or explained repeated evidence, the belief is not religious.
I can't see how liberation can happen without gaining any knowledge. Can you enlighten me and help me to see how I am wrong in this opinion?
If I was a bodhisattva I could help guide you to enlightenment, but not having experienced it I know nothing of it except whatever it is I imagine it to be based on the writing of others. Whether they attained enlightenment I cannot say since one would have to be enlightened in order to verify that someone else is.
It is not that liberation happens without gaining any knowledge but that the goal of enlightenment is not to gain knowledge but to gain liberation. Knowledge comes with it. That is why I said in an earlier post that the knowledge is experiential.
You most certainly did not explain it. You just claimed it, with nothing further.
How about you actually reading what I said? The you'll see that I don't have the ideas you imagine I have!
*sigh*
Well, you described yourself as "lazy". That says a lot.
Well, Marxists would probably like to see their system as a "science". However, the fact is that some historians and even socialists have described it as a form of messianic religion.
As to Buddhism, at least in some forms of it, it does believe in supernatural beings, there is no doubt about it.
While you, of course, are inevitably close to nirvana, or already there, right? Right.
No. A bodhisattva is not yet a buddha, a bodhisattva is not yet enlightened, he doesn't have that status.
The idea that the unelightened could lead others to enlightenment is absurd.
I never said that. But from all the questions you're asking here it's hard to tell what it is that you actually want.
I don't experience those as my choices, though.
What a rookie.
That was meant as a joke.
There are different schools of thought on this. For example:
Science depends on beliefs, too. To call it a messianic religion is a religious person's way of saying that he or she is not able to get out of his head that there are other world views, which do not contain any god or gods whatsoever.
It was funny, but true.
Check. Thanks. Collateral benefits.
The entire geshmeel is absurd to me, but nobody asked me. It takes a lot of belief to become a Buddhist, and I am very low-key and low-energy on belief. I can hardly muster up any to believe that there is a real word out there, and in here.
Unfortunately, I've seen too many people looking for "enlightenment" or whatever for years without result, only to start taking stuff to "speed up" the process and end up in a way that I wouldn't wish on anyone. Just ask Indian locals in Goa and other parts. People brought up with the Western mentality of materialistic consumer society often fail to understand what it all involves.
What is the name of the Buddhist god, (not the name of a god concurrent to Buddhism), and what role does he play in the world of a Buddhist.
This may be too divergent a question, requiring too rich an answer. So discard it, and, instead, please consider this question and please consider writing the answer to me:
What is an exclusively Buddhist god, and name one instance of the God which is Buddha's alone, in which that god intervenes in the life of Buddha or other Buddhists.
But not everyone fails, right? Just most of them, often, but some get to the enlightenment part, albeit seldom? Your wording is unambiguous, but I check for understanding, anyway.
BTW, you are almost invoking a fallacy (but you are not, since your statement is not an argument) that is called "No true Scottsmen".
Most of the supernatural beings of Buddhism were of course taken from Hinduism. You'll find devas (gods), asuras (demons), gandharvas (celestial beings), everywhere in early Buddhist text. You can see it in religious (temple) art, etc. It looks like Buddhists did worship some of them from the start. Obviously, not in the sense of a supreme being as in most religions.
Thanks, this is great, can you cite just one example in which Buddha or Buddhism relied on supernatural thingies to accomplish something? We know they are not supernatural beings exclusive to Buddhism, but can you cite just one example I can check that these gods and others helped Buddha or anyone attain anything which is typically and exclusively a Buddhist thing, and without which help by Hindu gods the Buddha could not have done an exclusively Buddhist thing?
This is what I would seek to find if I made the utterance that (some) sort of Buddhism involves a belief in supernatural beings.
If this did not happen, then one could insist that Buddhism is not a religion, but Buddha and Buddhists were religious, in a form of religion which is separate from Buddhist teachings.
This is important. It's like considering Einstein's theory of relativity and saying it is a religion because Einstein believed in a god.
Actually, depending on the group or movement we're talking about, most seekers are said to attain enlightenment after many lives, the lucky ones after two or three and very rarely in this lifetime. I think you can see the dangers of us Westerners trying to attain that "here and now". A lot of realism and proper guidance is needed to avoid potential problems. I'm not trying to put anyone off anything, just advising some caution.
How can you determine the lifetimes, and how can you declare categorically "not in this lifetime", when you have no way of discerning with any amount of certainty, how many lifetimes a person have lived through?
I'm not sure the majority of early Buddhists looked on the gods and other supernatural beings as "Hindu" or "non-Buddhist", they were just part of Indian culture.
As for enlightenment you can't declare anything in advance, you're just stating what normally happens, and in those cases where you can see that you yourself or some other practitioner has not attained that state in their lifetime.
And yet you stated many things in advance re: enlightenment. Some of them were: "takes many lifetimes," "not in this life". How come you can declare these things, when you can't? You defend by saying you have witnessed them fail to attain enlightenment in this life. So they are dead. I admit that you are right and correct when you said of those, "Not in this life". On the other hand, the ones that have attained enlightenment: how do you know with certainty enough to say that this is not their first run at it?
Just curious. You must have some sort of measuring system, that would be interesting to know about.
Right. So when we talk about Buddhists, then we say religion was part of their culture, but not part of their teachings.
It would indeed. Unfortunately, it isn't my measuring system. I'm just relating what I've heard from Buddhists and Hindus. But some texts do describe what might amount to "evidence" or "signs" of enlightenment. You can always consult them or ask a "guru".
Oh, that is not my contention. My contention is that Buddhism is not a religion, whereas you said it is.
And I don't contest the ability to reach enlightenment.
I contest the allegation that it is known that it takes several lifetimes to attain it.
It isn't quite as simple as that. If deities occur in Buddhist texts then it is hard to tell what was culture and what was actual teachings. There was very little distinction between culture and religion in those days. In the case of the Buddhist masses the distinction would have been negligible. But this is just a guess as none of us were there at the time or if we were we don't remember.
If? IF? I should have thought you would be familiar with Buddhist texts since you know much about Buddhism. So if you don't know of a particular feature, you can still be an expert, that is not my contention. My contention is that you don't say in the affirmative that deities appeared. It is at this point, so much for you as for me, an unknown. I say you can't say therefore that Buddhism is a religion, on the basis that there may be, but not for sure, some texts that treat Hindu gods in the tales of Buddhist legends.
One also needs to accept certain assumptions about what enlightenment consists in, and whether it can really can tell us anything about the nature of reality and of life and death.
If enlightenment is just liberation and involves "knowing how" but no "knowing that", then it could be understood to simply consist in realizing the ability to completely be oneself, and nothing more than that could be justifiably said about it.
Once someone starts talking about it taking many lives to realize enlightenment then it has become a religion, as faith-based as Christianity, with its promise of resurrection, Islam with its paradise, or any other.
This is from the Visuddhimagga, a central text of Theravada Buddhism:
"One who wants to develop the recollection of deities should possess
the special qualities of faith, etc., evoked by means of the noble path,
and he should go into solitary retreat and recollect his own special quali-
ties of faith, etc., with deities standing as witnesses, as follows:
'There are deities of the Realm of the Four Kings (devacatu-
maharajika), there are deities of the Realm of the Thirty-three (deva
tavatimsa), there are the deities who are Gone to Divine Bliss (yama)...."
Obviously, there was widespread belief in deities.
I'm neither a Buddhist nor a Hindu, I just remember reading about deities in Buddhist texts when I was doing some research on philosophy. At the time, I was a bit surprised myself as I had thought there were no gods in Buddhism. We all learn something new every day ....
Which doesn't sound especially attractive or interesting.
This is untrue about some forms of Buddhism.
(Edit: I see @Apollodorus has already corrected you on this).
I'm not so sure there is a you to become exactly. But some people can sure make improvements in how they manage their lives. This can be done in many ways and none of them need to cater in truth or ultimate reality.
Who am I conversing with if there is no you? I agree with you about there being many ways to become more free from neurosis and anxiety; different ways suit different people, and basically that's all I'm talking about.
If you are mired in anxiety and concern about how others see you, for example, then your being who you are is inhibited; you are not free but constrained.
Religious, philosophical and spiritual systems in general have many layers of psychological and spiritual experience or attainment. Nobody can force "truth" or "ultimate reality" down your throat. It's for the individual "seeker" to decide how much or how little they want to take from a system. Plus, in a proper tradition there would be qualified and experienced teachers or spiritual guides - similar to psychotherapists - who would help you along the path or advise you as to what the best course of action is for you personally. But some Westerners are trying to guide themselves on the basis of what they find in books or online and in my experience this is the wrong approach.
Without doubt.
I think your experience in this matter can only justifiably speak for yourself and others you may know well enough. In my view there are as many approaches as there are people, and none of them wrong. Success or failure depends on many factors, and it is up to individuals to assess in their own cases.
I'm not sure you can say this. Are you saying it is impossible to follow a wrong approach?
All we can do here is go with a common sense approach. If a pathway involves gassing people - I think we can safely say it is wrong. If it involves harming children: wrong. Etc.
So, I'm not convinced any path, whether Scientology, following Da Free John, Osho, Buddhism, Krishnamurti, Christianity, psychotherapy, CBT, Gestalt, or whatever can be said to be wrong, per se, for what we might call personal development. I think they are all just tools, which may or may not be useful (i.e. lead to growth and greater freedom) in any particular case.
The Buddhist world was always populated by gods (and demons, yaksas, various other supernatural beings.) But the dogma makes it clear that the Buddha is 'teacher of gods and men'. The deities will ask the Buddha for guidance, making clear that the Buddha is seen as above them. Furthermore he attributes his enlightenment solely to gaining insight into the truth of dependent origination, which was taught to him by nobody and was not gained in reliance on any deity.
It's incorrect however to say that Buddhism is not a religion and contains nothing supernatural. 'Supernatural' is a boo-word in secular culture, as secularism defines itself by its exclusion. But from the outset the Buddha is understood to have won liberation from sa?s?ra, the endless caravan of birth and death, and is therefore described as 'lokuttara', which is literally translated as 'world-transcending', but to all intents is synonymous with 'supernatural'. (It should be noted also that 'metaphysical' is the Greek equivalent of the Latin-derived 'supernatural'.)
[quote=Nyanoponika Thera]Buddhism has sometimes been called an atheistic teaching, either in an approving sense by freethinkers and rationalists, or in a derogatory sense by people of theistic persuasion. Only in one way can Buddhism be described as atheistic, namely, in so far as it denies the existence of an eternal, omnipotent God or godhead who is the creator and ordainer of the world. The word "atheism," however, like the word "godless," frequently carries a number of disparaging overtones or implications, which in no way apply to the Buddha's teaching.
Those who use the word "atheism" often associate it with a materialistic doctrine that knows nothing higher than this world of the senses and the slight happiness it can bestow. Buddhism is nothing of that sort. In this respect it agrees with the teachings of other religions, that true lasting happiness cannot be found in this world; nor, the Buddha adds, can it be found on any higher plane of existence, conceived as a heavenly or divine world, since all planes of existence are impermanent and thus incapable of giving lasting bliss.
The spiritual values advocated by Buddhism are directed, not towards a new life in some higher world, but towards a state utterly transcending the world, namely, Nibbana (Nirv??a). In making this statement, however, we must point out that Buddhist spiritual values do not draw an absolute separation between the beyond and the here and now. They have firm roots in the world itself for they aim at the highest realization in this present existence.[/quote]
The Buddhist would say that the assumptions are things you must do away with, one must be able to see past there mental constructs.
My opinion is that Buddhism makes the same demand as other religions, you must first buy into it, commit yourself to it, if one is to gain what it promises. It is not a commitment that I am willing to make.
Fair enough. Well there are versions of the above that are morally wrong in less dramatic ways. Gay-hating Pentecostal Christianity, for instance. Is Scientology anything more than a scam that seeks to rigidly control its members? What counts as psychotherapy (we may need to list specific versions)? There are centrally a couple of Freudian schools I know of where therapists sometimes sleep with their patients. Not meant to of course. The fidelity of the model may be inversely proportionate to the morality of the practice. As is often the case with schools of thought.
How can we tell when someone has experienced personal growth and greater freedom, I wonder? It seems to me that sometimes this is said to be experienced when what is seen by others is a shrinking away from life and a palpable decrease in liberty. Personal testimony is unreliable.
I wonder is it really possible to see beyond mental/ cultural constructs? In any case you must believe it is to make following the Buddhist path worthwhile. As you say Buddhism demands commitment, but there is no promise that you will gain enlightenment (at least not in this life). And even if there were such a promise you would only stay with the path until you gained enlightenment (or believed you had) or until your belief ran out.
Quoting Tom Storm
I don't believe it is, but others do.
Quoting Tom Storm
I imagine it would be manifest in their behavior and disposition.
Quoting Tom Storm
I agree that personal testimony gives little reason to believe in such matters; "actions speak louder than words". But when it comes to whether you have achieved a state of greater freedom, apart from your works and actions, I would say that only you are (if anyone is) qualified to judge.
Correct. The evidence stretching from Buddhist texts to religious art strongly suggests that supernatural beings were a not unimportant element of Buddhism. At the same time, Buddha was the supreme spiritual authority. This doesn't elevate him to the status of "God" as in other religions but it would be wrong to say that "Buddhism is not a religion because it doesn't believe in supernatural beings".
I think it is outrageous that you say these daft things and don't bother to check your facts. It's the very opposite of doing philosophy.
I'm sorry mate, but I have you down as someone not worth arguing with.
. .
The Dhamma is "ehipassiko"; encouraging investigation, inviting others to see for themselves. Since I trust the teachers of this Dhamma, I'll gladly accept their premises and try to follow them as best as I can, because they've helped me a lot over the years and continue to do so. If you don't believe me, that's fine.
But is it really problematic to believe the teachings? I don't think so. Again, because it's given me good results as far as I can see - that's my own anecdotal reasoning. Second, because my acceptance and trust isn't mutually exclusive from questioning - acceptance doesn't have to be absolute, and indeed teachers would discourage that. However, what this faith (to my understanding) entails is a need to not rest satisfied with result based in rationality alone (a need to go beyond thought), because rationality is just thinking (and thoughts are empty of essence; they arise and then they cease). What do you get when thinking ceases? The 2nd jhana. You can't argue your way through even meditation. The only time argument works is when it actually leads to the stilling of arguments within oneself. Then, finally, one can begin to focus on breathing without getting caught up in philosophy.
In that case, you don't necessarily need to even start with criticism of the prospect of nirvana. Start with criticism of jhana. We're told that we'll achieve a "happiness not of the flesh" (not necessarily nirvana) by momentarily abandoning the five hindrances (sense-desire, ill-will, dullness, restlessness, doubt), and properly utilizing the faculty of thinking (vitakka-vicara) to maintain a wholesome focused/settled attention on the object of meditation (samadhi). This isn't necessarily just a little sense of relaxation and escape from the hustle and bustle of daily life, it's a way of being at ease and experiencing pleasure just by focusing our attention in a particular way. It's an inner happiness, which again is not nirvana! And then we're told this will get deeper once that faculty of thought is stilled. Can you believe that? Well, a lot of meditators do. Does it seem problematic to trust that it's possible and put aside our questioning and just try for ourselves? Maybe so, once we learn that we have to begin changing our habits. No wonder even some Buddhists think Jhana is impossible these days.
Or a sitting one.
Experience is not enough, though. It takes a certain self-confidence, a "big ego", if you will, to trust one's experience over and above the comments, instructions, and criticisms of others (in this case, esp. Buddhists).
As far as people are concerned who proclaim to be members of a particular religion, the above can be ascertained, by checking in what way their testimonies of their betterment/improvement are aligned with the doctrines of the religion they profess to be members of.
Anyone who has committed to some goal can be described with such words. For example, a highly successful businessman can be seen by others as shrinking away from life and palpably decreasing in liberty. Such is the nature of pursuing goals: one's options in life shrink.
I'm not sure what you have in mind by "experience", but I would include the experience that something feels very right. To distinguish between that and wishful thinking is not always easy, of course. But absent such a feeling I can't think of what good reason one would have for following a religion.
Totally. Sometimes people get a bit too cocky about their "experience" to the point where they assume that everyone else is below them (an inferior "other"). This is, to my understanding, what is called "mana" or "conceit" in Buddhism (and I'd guess outside of Buddhism as well).
Buddhists need to be honest with themselves when asking if they're free from suffering or defilement; and if they ask, they need to understand when their response is a reflexive (edit: impulsive) "Yes I am free because x y and z", (edit:) rather than a clear recognition.
According to (my understanding of) the scriptures, one who reaches the goal has no doubt about it, and no reason to argue at all. They're also not necessarily all-knowing; what they "know" are the four noble truths, and their capacity to know other things (e.g. the ways of the world, people, language, etc) is limited to their psychological conditioning. They know for themselves that they are free from greed and anger, and the delusion which would lead to grasping. Edit: whether or not they know the minds of others or the extent of the physical universe or their past lives is not of primary concern.
As for myself, I can't say I'm totally free from that. But I can say confidently that I know what it's like to be momentarily free from anger or greed; to be open-hearted and content (and I would wager that some of us here, even non Buddhists, have felt that) The question now is: can I cultivate that, maintain it, and liberate myself with it? The scriptures say yes, the teachers say yes, and I say yes, but the "yes" doesn't mean much if I don't try and see.
I'm only a sitting duck if I rest content with that "yes," as far as I'm concerned, and if I sit around all the time trying to argue my case ;)
I'm not sure we're on the same page here.
I'm talking about the need to "grow a pair", to "show elbows" when it comes to interacting with others in religion/spirituality. In many ways, religion/spirituality is very much like highschool or a work environment where there is mobbing and bullying, power cliques, the old boys' club, and so on . It's necessary to claim and protect one's space, or one will get squished, socially, but more importantly, in one's own mind and efforts. Squished -- not necessarily by evil, malicious devotees, but often by well-meaning but not highly attained practitioners who happen to posses a lot of self-confidence, or at least more than oneself.
I agree. And I think the business man's story is a sad one also.
Why sad?
Do you mean in the context of a community where susceptible newcomers, inquirers etc need to protect themselves against charismatic online "gurus" or potentially harmful ideas?
So, trying to connect this with your earlier post on trusting experience: are you saying that in a spiritual community, one has to be cocky enough to trust their own experiences so as not to be influenced by the thoughts, opinions, criticisms etc of others?
If so, I'm wondering what this might look like, or how it might manifest. I've seen cockiness lead to survival, but it wasn't really pretty, and I think it would be short term unless it was addressed somehow. Cockiness to me conveys an attitude of mistrust toward others (based on one's own conceit), which isn't all that healthy in a small spiritual community as far as I know.
Yes.
As (right-wing) authoritarian mentality.
The thing about noble friendship (kalyanamittata) is that it bears very little resemblance to ordinary friendship. There's no (need for) mutual respect and trust. It's all about one person assuming superiority over the other person in terms of the Dharma, and that's pretty much it. "If you don't like it, leave" is the motto.
Speaking for myself, kalyanamittata has totally been a way for me to grow in my confidence regarding the possibility of this "knowledge". Even the monks who haven't always been "perfect" have, in my eyes, manifested admirable qualities. I've never met a monk who said they were totally free (it's against the Vinaya, anyway), but their behavior or what they taught me would surely lead me to feel confident that they've gained benefit in their practice. And they've never demanded I assume that they're superior in any way.
The closest thing I've gotten to "if you don't like it, leave" is "if you didn't want my advice, why did you ask?" And there it was always relevant, because first I would find the assumption within myself that they're going to give me a particular kind of advice, or I would find that I didn't really trust them when I asked.
From there it's become apparent to me that trust or distrust can be quite instinctual for some such as myself, but also that it can be deliberately used as a personal tool to build relationships as well as help ourselves; sometimes we have a sort of instinctual trust based on ignorance and naivete, sometimes we have it after (truthfully) making some qualifying considerations. For example: I've never seen this person do anything hurtful, and in fact what I see them do usually has a good result. Further, the people who follow this person's advice seem to have good results as well, so I might as well trust them and see what happens. A similar process can be applied for distrusting people. That's where we begin to have a little more autonomy and also apply ourselves. It took me a long time to learn that, and the monastics I know have been so instrumental in that.
I'm not well versed enough in philosophy to understand exactly where this fits into discussions of "epistemology", but I think it's fair to say that knowing oneself to be faithful is a trustworthy claim of knowledge. And I know from past experience that sometimes this faith changes, especially as we learn more about our human condition and understand where our trust should or should be placed if we want to be at ease. Sometimes we place it in the wrong spot and grow sorely disappointed when it fails us. Sometimes we think we got it right, but we see how we're wrong later. That's where I've often found myself (and I'm beginning to think that "rightness", not in terms of "samma" but more on the cocky side of "rightness", is a poor place to place one's confidence).
LMFAO, just be a sanctimonious chauvinist. You must've just fallen into the wrong the Buddhist circles.
Not at all. I'm just a Western female who happens to have an innate interest in Early Buddhism. A very bad combination with very bad consequences.
Well, that'd make more sense, though chauvinism does technically refer to a certain kind of arrogance.
I feel like that didn't come off well. What I mean is that, within any spiritual, social, or political circle, that a person would think that, what to me, would be the most vexing code of conduct that a person could possibly adopt, as I am so inclined to be willing to invoke that pride is a cardinal sin, aside from that self-righteousness is just generally infuriating, as somehow requisite to survive within it is just indicative of that it isn't the a set of society that that person should even want to take part in.
You, I think, have spoken of your experience in another thread, which I haven't read, and, so, have, perhaps, lost too much. I can understand how you could feel a need to be somewhat assertive, given your situational context. I had honestly assumed that you were a person who identifies as being male, as that is what I tend to assume of most of the users of this forum, and, so, apologize by that account.
There is no place for idealism in religion or spirituality.
There doesn't seem to be a place for me within them then, though I think that you might just have too negative of a depiction of them because of your own experience. Granted, I'm an atheist, anyways.
Rather, it's that one is a weakling, a wimp, if one isn't able to take part in such a society.
And they certainly don't think of themselves as "haughty".
W/e.
That's a sweeping statement, which I don't think has any grounds, although I suppose it depends on what you take 'idealism' to mean.
Should I take solace in the fact that you're having it better than I do, and should I base my faith in religion/spirituality in the belief "Oh, but some people _are_ having it good, so even though I never get to experience the positive effects of religion/spirituality, I should still have faith in it, because it's good and it works for others" --?
Like the way Western medicine expects us to have unquestioning faith in and obedience to medicine, even though it has let us down so many times?
The poster who inspired this thread backed off. He accused me I didn't understand Buddhist epistemology, but then refused to explain where my mistake was. It's through this type of incidents that one learns the hidden curriculum of Buddhism.
You didn't have to defend me, as, though "w/e" does just translate to "whatever" in 1337 speak, I was kind of implying that baker only thinks that because she is a woman.
Feminists who spend too much time around intelligent, but chauvinist men usually come to the same conclusions and are often unwilling to listen to the good advice that they should just find some other sets of society to participate in. Thus, "w/e".
Though well-meaning, I was ultimately making kind of essentialist statement of which there was no reason to defend.
An explanation:
It surprises me that Baker has encountered this in religious and spiritual circles as I am more familiar with it in intellectual and cultural ones. To put this in fairly binary terms, women often think that they should contend with chauvinist men so as to secure their place in the world. As such men, being chauvinists, don't tend to listen to women, what that invariably do is to put someone else up to doing this for them. As I am sympathetic towards them and fairly keen on such things, who this invariably ends up being are people like me. Their doing so engages us within the very disputes that we set out to avoid. When we explain this to them, they will, in return, claim that we just think that they should join us when we act just like them, but tend not to be terribly successful. As explaining to them that we only act like them because we end up involved within the very disputes that we set out to avoid and are only, in part, lacking in success, and I do mean within a person's life and career, because of that they continue to perpetuate this idea that pretending to be a chauvinist can somehow facilitate the success of the Feminist movement is only likely to make them further vexed at us, I have come to just make snide remarks.
All of which is to say that us wastefully expending all of our social capital so as to contend their position within the sets of society in which they should like to succeed is never going to bring about substantial change and that they would be much better off either just creating the kind of world in which they would like to live on their own or, at the very least, just letting us do so.
Being said, this is Baker's thread about Buddhist epistemology and she has only put forth a retort because of that I had mistaken her for a man in the first place. For all that there is to say of theological rigor, I still contend that carrying oneself as arrogant or self-righteous, even as a woman, which I do better understand, is just generally not good advice. My theories about all of this just aren't terribly relevant, though.
Anyways, that joke from Catch-22 relates to the kind of mindset you adopt when you end up in a fight that you can't bail yourself out of. Solidarity just doesn't mean anything at all when you get into that kind of fight. It was just a funny thing to say to me, though. It's a funny thing that you said.
Eh, no.
For one, the worst and the most misogyny and chauvinism I have experienced in life has been from women, not from men.
For two, Early Buddhism is discriminatory against women and favors men, it's doctrinally so. Women interested in Early Buddhism tend to cope with this by being pious, but since I didn't have that in me, I felt the full force of the blow.
For three, I'm not a feminist. Blegh.
For four, I'm not interested in other schools of Buddhism, because I'm just not convinced that they can veritably transmit the Buddha's teachings.
Although women became part of the Buddhist sangha in the Buddha’s lifetime. Yes, more rules to observe than the men, but even so, hard to make the case for actual misogyny.
Incidentally, as you’ve expressed interest in early Buddhist teachings, in particular, I wanted to recommend a particular book I very much liked when I did Buddhist Studies - Early Buddhism: A New Approach: The I of the Beholder Sue Hamilton-Blythe. One of those books I read cover-to-cover over about 5 days, in preparation for thesis on the topic. (I notice the Amazon prices for that book are prohibitively expensive, but it’s been in print a long while, you might find it online somewhere.)
And I'm not saying that it's Early Buddhism that is misogynistic. It certainly is discriminatory against women. But discrimination and misogyny are two different things. The way some Buddhists (and others, too) have interpreted that discrimination is that they turned it into misogyny; they turned a neutral enough selectiveness into misogyny by assuming said selectiveness is or should be motivated by contempt and hatred.
Quoting Wayfarer
I found it on Google books. I skimmed it. It doesn't seem to be anything special, although I'm sure there was a time in the past when it was.
That said: Do you have anything to add on the issue of Buddhist epistemology?