Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

[rastamonte]

I have been reading a bit about Buddhism. Specifically, I am reading "One Breath at a Time - Buddhism and the Twelve Steps." by Kevin Griffin.

One of the things he talks about is the seven "hindrances", of which "skeptical doubt" is said to be either the worst or the hardest to overcome. Sorry, I don't have the book with me now to quote exactly.

Anyway, the gist of it, as I understand it, is that skeptical doubt stops us from taking the "leap of faith" necessary for spiritual growth to happen.

My question, to my fellow skeptics, is this:

Are we missing something here? Are our minds open enough to allow spiritual experiences to happen to us? Is skepticism a "virtue", as I have always believed, or can it be a "hindrance" to seeing the whole of the universe?

I'd like to hear from everyone, but I'd expecially like to hear from any skeptic buddhists out there.

 

[IllegalArgument]

First, there's the whole issue about what is "spiritual growth".

Second, what if you could produce all the same effects that buddhism talks about, without thinking it's "spiritual" at all?

I think you would find this thread interesting, the OP seems to produce all sorts of interesting mental states.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57967

 

[Ryokan]

This is what the Buddha had to say about scepticism :

http://www.alc.enta.net/kalama.htm

http://www.mahasati.org/library/kalama_sutta.shtml

 

[Piscivore]

There are five hindrances that Buddha actually spoke about, and yes, one of them is "skeptical doubt." I don't know how that compares to what Mr. Griffin is selling.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

If you see the Buddha Kill Him!!

 

[Ryokan]

If you see the Buddha Kill Him!!

Hehe, spoken like a true zen freak

 

[Marquis de Carabas]

If you meet the Buddha in the lane, feed him the ball. --Phil Jackson

 

[TragicMonkey]

If you see the Buddha Kill Him!!

In Monkey Zen, it has been rephrased.

"If you see the Buddha, chitter chitter screech! chitter oook oook chitter fling! Splat! Splat! Splat!"

Well, anyone with a propensity for sitting under a tree for a long time is fair game for monkeys.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

In Monkey Zen, it has been rephrased.

"If you see the Buddha, chitter chitter screech! chitter oook oook chitter fling! Splat! Splat! Splat!"

Well, anyone with a propensity for sitting under a tree for a long time is fair game for monkeys.

An interesting way to put it. Chitter Fling!!

 

[Meadmaker]

I haven't read Griffin's book, and I haven't read enough about Buddhism to be an expert, but I do sometimes style myself a skeptical Buddhist.

Let me speculate about why skeptical doubt could be a hindrance.

Sometimes, the skeptic says he will not believe without evidence. However, in saying that, sometimes he chooses not to seek the evidence. I can say, "I will not follow the dhamma, because I do not know if it will work."

In that way, skepticism can be a hindrance. If skepticism prevents you from seeking the truth, because you demand the evidence before you will seek, then skeptical doubt is a hindrance.

Properly applied, skepticism will not prevent seeking evidence. However, I think if you read the posts in this forum, you will be able to see that in some cases, some people do just that, and claim that they are being skeptical in the process.

 

[arthwollipot]

Are we missing something here? Are our minds open enough to allow spiritual experiences to happen to us? Is skepticism a "virtue", as I have always believed, or can it be a "hindrance" to seeing the whole of the universe?

You'd have to accept that there is such a thing as "spiritual experiences". So far the evidence is not in to support their existence. If there is any evidence that spirituality is in any way applicable to the real, observable world, then there would be reason to set aside doubt.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

You'd have to accept that there is such a thing as "spiritual experiences". So far the evidence is not in to support their existence. If there is any evidence that spirituality is in any way applicable to the real, observable world, then there would be reason to set aside doubt.

I disagree. Of course there are evidence regarding "spiritual experiences", and their applicable use. The problem lies in the explicative background used to understand them, or define them.

 

[Meadmaker]

A lot of people mistakenly equate "spiritual" with "psychic", "paranormal" or other things that would get you the JREF prize.

arth's response is a prime example of how skeptical doubt can get in the way of spritual growth.

 

[Gestahl]

I have been reading a bit about Buddhism. Specifically, I am reading "One Breath at a Time - Buddhism and the Twelve Steps." by Kevin Griffin.

One of the things he talks about is the seven "hindrances", of which "skeptical doubt" is said to be either the worst or the hardest to overcome. Sorry, I don't have the book with me now to quote exactly.

I wouldn't think that he is speaking of our skepticism... otherwise the perfect Buddhist would be a gullible, credulous sap... are they not seekers of truth? By what means would you know it?

There are two connotations for skeptical: one is the one we use, meaning questioning, inquisitive, and not accepting things without good cause. The second is the connotation that is just the opposite: ignoring the plain truth in doubt and cowardice, and not trusting your own logic, reason, and evidence to be correct, and to not accept things for no reason other than doubt for doubt's sake.

And indeed, the second connotation is a hard thing to overcome.

 

[Batman Jr.]

Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

There are five hindrances that Buddha actually spoke about, and yes, one of them is "skeptical doubt." I don't know how that compares to what Mr. Griffin is selling.

I don't understand the six steps which supposedly culminate ultimately in the supposed consignation of "doubt" to oblivion; the second encourages you to raise questions and to probe and carefully examine Buddhist teachings, yet the fourth asks you to hold firm convictions about those same teachings! Don't these two steps constitute an internal inconsistency in the system? Maybe a suitable answer to this logical problem is that the inquisitiveness the Buddha encourages is self-contained within the teachings so that if you hold a firm conviction about the verity of the Buddhist teachings, you make implicit that you are likewise devoted to conscientious and objective investigations of them.

Gestahl brings up a good point. The writings don't really clarify what is intended by the word "skeptical." Is this the kind of "skepticism" which intelligently guides us away from those places where we are most susceptible to falling prey to the mental prisons of the incredible and superstitious, or is this the kind of "skepticism" which turns a blind eye to anything outside those prison walls?

 

[arthwollipot]

A lot of people mistakenly equate "spiritual" with "psychic", "paranormal" or other things that would get you the JREF prize.

arth's response is a prime example of how skeptical doubt can get in the way of spritual growth.

I've never seen a definition of "spritirual growth" that makes me feel that it is anything to be required or desired. Care to enlighten me?

 

[c4ts]

All I remember about Buddhism was the story about the monk who got drunk, fell out of a carriage, and came out unharmed. He was the man.

Well, I do remember more than that, but it was my favorite example of "universal motion."

 

[Meadmaker]

I've never seen a definition of "spritirual growth" that makes me feel that it is anything to be required or desired. Care to enlighten me?

[smartass buddhist]
I cannot enlighten you. You can only enlighten yourself.
[/smartass buddhist]

But seriously, the serious response isn't all that different from the smartass Buddhist response. Seeking a definition isn't going to get you to spiritual growth. Waiting for someone to come along and enlighten you won't get you anywhere, either. As I said, this is where skepticism is not a virtue, because you are saying, "I don't think it exists, so I won't bother looking for it."

But to try to answer the question anyway, I would say that there is something within each of us that could be described as a spirit. This need not be a non-material thing. It is simply that part of us, those patterns of behavior if you will, that cannot be described in simple, logical terms. When it is working, it's the part of you that creates joy for yourself.

Those people with high levels of spiritual growth can look at something inspiring, and be inspired. Those who are spiritually underdeveloped will look at the same thing and ask, "What has it done for me?" Or, "What could I get if I had that?"

Buddhism focuses on spiritual growth by removal of the causes of suffering. Someone who understands the true nature of the world will not experience suffering. By growing spiritually, he can overcome the suffering.

Part of a sermon heard at a UU chuch: A monk was meditating in the forest when he was attacked by a tiger. He ran away down the path, but he came to a cliff. The tiger was almost upon him, so he jumped. He caught a branch, but the branch was not strong enough to hold him. Within a few seconds, it would pull out of the cliff, and he would crash to his death. Suddenly, he noticed a wild strawberry growing out of the cliff next to the branch. He plucked it, ate it, and thought, "Ahh. Delicious."

That guy had achieved a very high level of spiritual growth.

 

[Piscivore]

Re: Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

I don't understand the six steps which supposedly culminate ultimately in the supposed consignation of "doubt" to oblivion; the second encourages you to raise questions and to probe and carefully examine Buddhist teachings, yet the fourth asks you to hold firm convictions about those same teachings! Don't these two steps constitute an internal inconsistency in the system? Maybe a suitable answer to this logical problem is that the inquisitiveness the Buddha encourages is self-contained within the teachings so that if you hold a firm conviction about the verity of the Buddhist teachings, you make implicit that you are likewise devoted to conscientious and objective investigations of them.

The writings don't really clarify what is intended by the word "skeptical." Is this the kind of "skepticism" which intelligently guides us away from those places where we are most susceptible to falling prey to the mental prisons of the incredible and superstitious, or is this the kind of "skepticism" which turns a blind eye to anything outside those prison walls?

The former. A Buddhist should have the same sort of relationship to the teachings as we do with the scientific method and logic. Ideally.

 

[arthwollipot]

[smartass buddhist]
I cannot enlighten you. You can only enlighten yourself.
[/smartass buddhist]

I think I understand what you mean. But I don't call it spritualism. In fact with the connotations of "spiritual" with the immaterial and the woo, I would think that it is the exact opposite.

By your definition, I guess I would be a fairly "spiritual" person. But I get it from a thorough grounding in reality. I'm one of those people who doesn't see a materialistic existentialist philosophy to be bleak and depressing, I see it as uplifting and awe-inspiring.

I'm not sure what words I would use to refer to this, but it wouldn't be "spiritual growth".