Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

I think I understand what you mean. But I don't call it spritualism...

... By your definition, I guess I would be a fairly "spiritual" person. But I get it from a thorough grounding in reality.

Whats the importance of calling "it" this or that? I dont see the separation between "spiritual" and "material", both are aspects or expressions of the same thing (us).

 

[Meadmaker]

In fact with the connotations of "spiritual" with the immaterial and the woo, I would think that it is the exact opposite.

One of the problems I see is that a lot of people who are "spriritual", are just a bunch of new age flakes who wouldn't know reality if it hit them on the head. They sit around building power and sending positive energy all over the place, but never actually seem to do anything.

I don't think of them as very spiritual, even if they say that all their chakras are aligned.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

One of the problems I see is that a lot of people who are "spriritual", are just a bunch of new age flakes who wouldn't know reality if it hit them on the head. They sit around building power and sending positive energy all over the place, but never actually seem to do anything.

Yep, this is the image of "spiritual" for some people. Yet, there are other views, better views.

 

[rastamonte]

I'd like to thank everybody for responding. I've been reading them all and I've really enjoyed this thread. Special thanks to Meadmaker, I needed a real skeptical buddhist point of view. I'm also really enjoying the book. It's helping me to see a point of view with which I can grok the 12-step program I've found myself in.

 

[Ryokan]

grok

Heinlein is good

And there are quite a few sceptical Buddhists around here, it seems. Did you read the Kalama Sutra yet?

 

[rastamonte]

Did you read the Kalama Sutra yet?

No, I'm pretty new to Buddhism. I've read Start Where You Are by Pema Chodron, and I have When Things Fall Apart, also by Chodron. And I'm reading the Ken Griffin book I mentioned above. I just googled the Kalama Sutra and it looks interesting, thanks.

 

[Ryokan]

I just googled the Kalama Sutra and it looks interesting, thanks.

I wrote the url to two translations in the third post from the top. Happy reading

 

[rastamonte]

I wrote the url to two translations in the third post from the top. Happy reading

Thanks. I hadn't clicked on those links yet, I expected them to be longer. But, they're short and sweet. Very nice.

 

[epepke]

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'm pretty sure that skeptical doubt is a hindrance to becoming a Buddhist, but I don't see that as a problem.

Frankly, I don't see why one should attribute "seeing the whole of the universe" to Buddhism or any other "spiritual" practice. One semester of physics is more valuable to me than a tanker full of "enlightenment."

 

[Ryokan]

Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

I'm pretty sure that skeptical doubt is a hindrance to becoming a Buddhist, but I don't see that as a problem.

I'm a Buddhist, and it was never any problem at all with me.

 

[Meadmaker]

Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

I'm pretty sure that skeptical doubt is a hindrance to becoming a Buddhist, but I don't see that as a problem.

It wasn't a hindrance to me, except in one way. I didn't bother learning what Buddhism was for a long time, because I figured it was just another religion. Out of curiousity, I eventually picked up a book on Buddhism, and found myself saying, "Oh my God, I'm Buddhist!" It was rather surprising to me.

I participated in Buddhist practice for a couple of years, but then married a Jewish woman, and when our son was born, for family togetherness, I went along and now participate much more in Jewish ritual. When speaking of Reform Judaism, a skeptic and occaisional Buddhist can get along quite well. The Orthodox are a different story.


Frankly, I don't see why one should attribute "seeing the whole of the universe" to Buddhism or any other "spiritual" practice. One semester of physics is more valuable to me than a tanker full of "enlightenment."

It seems to me highly unlikely that you would "see" anything that was revealed through spiritual practice, unless you engaged in that practice.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

It seems to me highly unlikely that you would "see" anything that was revealed through spiritual practice, unless you engaged in that practice.

Yeah, and I'm also pretty sure I'm not going to see stars in the daytime unless I start hitting myself in the head with a hammer, either.

I don't see evidence that people who engage in "spiritual practice" come out any smarter, nor do I see them as gaining any insights that I consider of particular value. Maybe it's a fun thing to do with your brain while saving money on drugs, but that's about it.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

I don't see evidence that people who engage in "spiritual practice" come out any smarter, nor do I see them as gaining any insights that I consider of particular value. Maybe it's a fun thing to do with your brain while saving money on drugs, but that's about it.

If you dont see it, it doesnt exist?

 

[Meadmaker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

I don't see evidence that people who engage in "spiritual practice" come out any smarter, nor do I see them as gaining any insights that I consider of particular value. Maybe it's a fun thing to do with your brain while saving money on drugs, but that's about it.

Maybe they consider different things to be of particular value?

 

[Atlas]

Here's my take - for what its worth.

There is the world and the self; the truth and the illusion; the intellect and the emotions; eternity and the now; the many and the one.

We perceive a world of opposites. We feel the oneness of it all.

When we think (most of the time) we are inundated with stimuli and the thoughts race through our mind. But when we are presented with something new we are often stopped and we go blank. When I do my computer programming I am holding many ideas in expectent quietude and sometimes there is a flash where I see the whole answer as a complete piece. It must be this way for architects, scientists and others.

Cultivation of the Blankness/Insight experience is an exercise in how the mind already works. It results in emotional flashes of complete visions. It is a good thing to be able to do whether you realize you are doing it or not.

Is it spiritual? Well, yes. When you are contemplating the large abstractions I mentioned above, the world, the illusion, the now, the one - the emotional flashes of insight are enlightenments. They are a gas. Are they truth? Not the factual kind. More the deeply personal mythic kind that enable us to make sense of our lives. Personal truths that come as our own readiness allows. They don't always travel well in communication to others unless the others are ready or accepting and unskeptical.

The skeptical mindset is analytic and that is in opposition to the synthetic insightful flash of the One or the completeness that we seek. If we train our mind to be one way and not the other we become antagonistic unbelievers or gullible fools. I would say the Buddhists (and others) will seek a middle way. The Buddha smiles. The joy of life is apparent. It's a joy that arises in part from the contempletive exercise and insights derived. A semester of physics may be more valuable but only if it delivers the joy of life.

 

[Meadmaker]

Well said.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

If you dont see it, it doesnt exist?

I appreciate the attempt at sophistry, which can be an enjoyable art form, but this one is weak.

It's more like this. If someone says that they're smart but act dumb, I'm going to conclude that they're dumb. If someone says that they're dumb but say something smart, I'm going to conclude that they're smart. If someone tells me that they "saw God" while under the influence of LSD, I'm going to conclude that they had a trip, not that God exists.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

Maybe they consider different things to be of particular value?

Maybe. I'm sure a lot of people consider different things to be of particular value. I'm sure Christians consider different things of particular value, to the exclusion of things that I consider of particular value.

But that's not my point. Or, rather, it sort of is, but backward.

The OP was about "skeptical doubt" being a "hindrance" against taking a "leap of faith" which will lead to "seeing the whole of the universe."

This presupposes that taking a "leap of faith" will lead somehow to "seeing the whole of the universe." Or, at least, that it will lead to some important part, which not taking a leap of faith prevents people from taking. To boil it down, you get goodies.

I'm skeptical of this claim.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

I appreciate the attempt at sophistry, which can be an enjoyable art form, but this one is weak.

It's more like this. If someone says that they're smart but act dumb, I'm going to conclude that they're dumb. If someone says that they're dumb but say something smart, I'm going to conclude that they're smart. If someone tells me that they "saw God" while under the influence of LSD, I'm going to conclude that they had a trip, not that God exists.

Forgive me, I sometimes think that less words are better.

If someone doubts about something, but he doesnt know anything about it, I will know (maybe without telling him) that he is an ignorant, and that he cant state anything about the subject in question. If he is aware of his own ignorance, we can talk, but if he is already convinced that "he knows" nothing else can be said.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

Forgive me, I sometimes think that less words are better.

Quite all right. So do I, though I'd say "fewer." I just thought this one was weak. You can't do good sophistry by starting out with a logical fallacy.

If someone doubts about something, but he doesnt know anything about it, I will know (maybe without telling him) that he is an ignorant, and that he cant state anything about the subject in question. If he is aware of his own ignorance, we can talk, but if he is already convinced that "he knows" nothing else can be said.

That one's a little bit better. It exhibits parallel form and has that subtle sideswipe quality. (Except that the noun form is "ignoramus.")

However, in my discussions with Buddhists, I've noticed that the line between ignorance and what, for want of a better word, I will call "knowledge" has a "wag the dog" quality. If one doesn't Get It™, there's always some other piece of knowledge or result of practice that is missing. I don't see much that differentiates this process from what I've seen and heard with respect to Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, or EST-holes.

One way of attempting to get around this is to ask what level of knowledge is acceptable. This seldom actually works, but at least it provides a paper trail.

As for the rest, I don't know that I know. I'm pretty sure that I'm skeptical, on the other hand.