Buddhism and Skeptical Doubt

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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

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.

Fair enough. Of course I cant speak for all Buddhists, but I can tell you that in order to see, you have to see. No, Im not trying to use any sophistry nor trying to play some fancy semantic game with you, it is just that I cant talk about red with a blind person.

The irony here is that you wont know what is that "knowledge" until you reach it. Now, if you were interested, I would strongly suggest you to read this thread, at some point there is an interchange of "something" that is never expressed with words between me and other Buddhists. Thats as close as you can get to "that" without seeing "it" for yourself.

Suggesting you to do some Zen might sound sterile, still, its the best thing I can do, in order to show you that

 

[epepke]

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

Fair enough. Of course I cant speak for all Buddhists, but I can tell you that in order to see, you have to see. No, Im not trying to use any sophistry nor trying to play some fancy semantic game with you, it is just that I cant talk about red with a blind person.

The irony here is that you wont know what is that "knowledge" until you reach it. Now, if you were interested, I would strongly suggest you to read this thread, at some point there is an interchange of "something" that is never expressed with words between me and other Buddhists. Thats as close as you can get to "that" without seeing "it" for yourself.

Suggesting you to do some Zen might sound sterile, still, its the best thing I can do, in order to show you that

Fair enough, too, and thanks. That's pretty much what I expected.

I think I'll pass. I don't have much interest in becoming, once again, the kind of person who has to say "I can't talk about red to a blind person" when my beliefs are challenged. I had that, and then I moved on. I'd rather be like the main character in Mr. Holland's Opus who, when challenged to show music to deaf people, figured out a way to do it to the best of his ability.

I've experienced states that, as far as I can tell, are indistinguishable from the best of what people describe when talking about enlightenment or whatever. I can reproduce them at will. I just did. It's fun for about 20 minutes. Then I get bored, and I want to do something else.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

"Enlightment" is trascendent, yet, completely mundane. There is nothing "supernatural" about it, nothing that should appeal to anyone looking for magical powers or getting an afterlife in some heaven.

"Enlightment" is as natural as eating pizza, or going to take a pee, so I believe you when you say that you have reached "it".

And I hope I have given you a different perspective about it.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

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.

I see what you mean, although I'm not sure that you have captured accurately the thoughts of the OP.

I think spiritual practice can reveal a part of the universe that is otherwise difficult to reveal. I think skeptical doubt can prevent you from seeing that part of the universe. I don't think anything, including any spiritual practice, can get you to see all of the universe. Buddhism doesn't promise to show you all of the universe, although it does promise an occaisional strawberry.

As for a "leap of faith", being the key, I don't think that is usually necessary, but an open mind is necessary. Many skeptics will insist that they are extremely open minded, but that isn't always true. A skeptic says that he won't accept something as true without evidence, but in practice many skeptics refuse to look for the evidence. If skeptical doubt prevents you from looking for the evidence, it's a hindrance.

I was thinking about spiritual experiences, and I think many of us might experience something spiritual during the course of athletic competitions. For a couple of years, I participated in the sport of luge. (I wasn't particularly good.) In luge, the motion of the sled is determined entirely by physics, and fairly simple physics at that. Gravity. Friction. Acceleration caused by muscle at the launch.

Being really good at physics doesn't help you in luge. "Feeling" the ice does help you. During my most successful sled runs, I was in a state comparable to meditation. Clear minded and observant. It's a feeling that can't be described adequately.

 

[Kitty Chan]

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

It's a feeling that can't be described adequately.

Although what Im about to say does not describe clear minded and observant. Im thinking about your last statement above.

I have always compared it to a ride at Disneyland. unless someone has actually gone on the ride, the ride cannot be expressed adequately. There simply is no relative (is that the right word) experience. Nothing relates.

(Like Hollands Opus you can try to explain it and show it in a different way. ) But words and efforts to explain the ride will pale because it is still not the same experience.

When one finally goes on the ride, then they will say OH I see what you were saying, now I understand.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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

When one finally goes on the ride, then they will say OH I see what you were saying, now I understand.

Yes, exactly. I went to the extreme with my "explain to a blind", but it is the same principle. This should not be interpreted as an arrogant statement, I dont know why some people take it in that way.

 

[Kitty Chan]

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

Yes, exactly. I went to the extreme with my "explain to a blind", but it is the same principle. This should not be interpreted as an arrogant statement, I dont know why some people take it in that way.

no its not arrogant at all, its just accurate.

 

[rastamonte]

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

Yes, exactly. I went to the extreme with my "explain to a blind", but it is the same principle. This should not be interpreted as an arrogant statement, I dont know why some people take it in that way.

Maybe some people take it that way because the implication is: If I don't understand you, it is because I am deficient (blind). If I was whole (if I could see) (if I was enlightened?), I would understand. The arrogance may be in your comparison of all of us normal people to the disabled.

ETA: The rollercoaster analogy, on the other hand, doesn't set off my "arrogance" meter.

 

[Kitty Chan]

rastamonte

good point and some nice thoughts for self assessment.

We all suffer from low self esteem and when so and so says they know we feel bad. But we shouldnt cause we just dont know, simple as that.

 

[epepke]

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

I see what you mean, although I'm not sure that you have captured accurately the thoughts of the OP.

Maybe not. I frequently use threads as starting points for peripheral discussions.

I think spiritual practice can reveal a part of the universe that is otherwise difficult to reveal. I think skeptical doubt can prevent you from seeing that part of the universe.

I don't know if you are right or wrong. I have engaged in activities that some might call "spiritual practice," although I'm still after decades unclear as to what "spiritual" is actually supposed to me.

My problem is that I see practically everything opposed to "skeptical doubt." Skepticism is, I think, a high attainment which few achieve, and in my experience results in a great thwacking hell of a big boatload of understanding parts of the universe. I get the impression that people are being asked to make a choice, which choice necessarily, again in my experience, requires turning one's back on those great thwacking hell of big boatloads.

If skeptical doubt prevents you from looking for the evidence, it's a hindrance.

That's fine, but I don't get it from the OP.

I was thinking about spiritual experiences, and I think many of us might experience something spiritual during the course of athletic competitions. For a couple of years, I participated in the sport of luge. (I wasn't particularly good.) In luge, the motion of the sled is determined entirely by physics, and fairly simple physics at that. Gravity. Friction. Acceleration caused by muscle at the launch.

Being really good at physics doesn't help you in luge. "Feeling" the ice does help you. During my most successful sled runs, I was in a state comparable to meditation. Clear minded and observant. It's a feeling that can't be described adequately.

I've never done the luge. But then again, I live in Florida, and there aren't too many luge tracks.

As for the rest, there's a book called From Novice to Expert. It's really about nursing, but it has some good stuff about cognitive processes.

Also, a knowledge of physics has helped me in pocket billiards, at least.

 

[Atlas]

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

...I have engaged in activities that some might call "spiritual practice," although I'm still after decades unclear as to what "spiritual" is actually supposed to me.

My problem is that I see practically everything opposed to "skeptical doubt." Skepticism is, I think, a high attainment which few achieve...

Just elbowing my way in...
I think "spiritual" is the wrong word for you to use at this time. As a skeptic you have an innate distrust of such notions.

High attainment IS where it's at. And skeptical attitudes can help spot the bull**** on the path we walk.

What "spiritual" can mean in terms of high attainment is more likely not an intellectual phenomenon. But skepticism can help lead to "wisdom" which appears like an intellectual gift. I'm not convinced it is though. There are lots of superintelligent people who lack the quality and there are some who are not so intelligent that do seem to be wise.

Love brings people close. So close sometimes they think and feel as one. This "Oneness" is a feeling that is central to the "spiritual". I think wisdom springs from it. I think the "spiritual" exercises are designed to enhance it so much that you feel like you are perticipating in the One. I don't know if it matters if God is that One or if it's the Buddhist universe. Feeling it is uplifting and participating identically is what passes for Truth with a capital T.

I said it earlier that skepticism is analytical - its truth is factual and intellectual. Spiritual truth is unifying - it's synthetic - it's felt.

When someone lays wisdom or love on you it hits you where you can't fight it. It's good and true and right - for the moment you share. That to me is the reason to seek it. To be able to manipulate the moment for others to uplift and edify past the intellect and reach them where they know it's good and right. Facts only get you so far. That which others call "spiritual" takes you where the facts cannot. That is why skepticism is a hindrance.

There comes those times when a person has got to go with their gut. That's just a euphemism too. The spiritual exercise is designed to clarify the "mind" which really allows one to make calm, clear-eyed, open, honest, assessments. My emphasis would be on calm. It results in the wise, unifying, life affirming solutions.

 

[epepke]

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

Just elbowing my way in...
I think "spiritual" is the wrong word for you to use at this time. As a skeptic you have an innate distrust of such notions.

I don't know that I have an innate distrust of it; I just don't know what it's supposed to mean. But it probably is the wrong word for me to use, except that I am talking to people who use that word casually. And if I ask about it, they tend to come up with stuff like explaining red to a blind person, which really doesn't help me. So I make guesses about what they mean, based on the things that they say about it.

[/quote]High attainment IS where it's at. And skeptical attitudes can help spot the bull**** on the path we walk.[/quote]

When I speak of "high attainment," I am reminded of the words of Ursula K. Leguin in The Lathe of Heaven:

To let understanding stop at what cannot be understood is a high attainment. Those who can achieve it we call the sons of heaven. Those who cannot will be destroyed on the lathe of heaven.

Which turns out to be a mistranslation, because there were no lathes in China at the time it was written, but wotthehell, archie.

But skepticism can help lead to "wisdom" which appears like an intellectual gift. I'm not convinced it is though. There are lots of superintelligent people who lack the quality and there are some who are not so intelligent that do seem to be wise.

Now we're talking about wisdom, which is a whole 'nother can of worms. I quote Mary on the bus in the Frank Zappa operetta:

Information is not knowledge.
Knowledge is not wisdom.
Wisdom is not truth.
Truth is not beauty.
Beauty is not love.
Love is not music.
Music is the best.
Wisdom is the domain of the wiz, which is extinct.
Beauty is a French phonetic corruption of a short cloth neck ornament currently in resurgence.

There comes those times when a person has got to go with their gut. That's just a euphemism too. The spiritual exercise is designed to clarify the "mind" which really allows one to make calm, clear-eyed, open, honest, assessments. My emphasis would be on calm. It results in the wise, unifying, life affirming solutions.

The gut is fine. I use mine all the time. I just find it troublesome when somebody says that I have to cut off fingers, such as skepticism, in order to be able to use my gut. If it's so right, I shouldn't have to make that choice.

And there's a big difference between feeling wise and actually being so.

 

[rharbers]

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.

Yes indeed, and then define Spiritual. Spirituality or Religion, as I have experienced it, is not the recitiation of beliefs but a way of helping to understand our lives. It must therefore be based in objective reality. It must have an intimate connection with the world in which we live, and any religion that promotes other places-heaven and so on- in favor of what we have in the physical world is a delusion, wishful thinking and a mere control device to allow us to be manipulated. So, a supernatural experience would have to be a "more natural experience", making miracles, or claims of shamans and preachers total fabrications, or unexplained natural causes.

 

[Meadmaker]

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

I don't know if you are right or wrong. I have engaged in activities that some might call "spiritual practice," although I'm still after decades unclear as to what "spiritual" is actually supposed to me.

Yeah, you can spend a lot of time and effort searching for definitions, and have no benefit at the end.

To me, if it lifts your spirit, then it's spiritual. So, what's a spirit? I don't know, or much care. In the last few years, I have found such questions to be a great distraction.

Skepticism is, I think, a high attainment which few achieve

Ain't it the truth. There are a lot of pseudoskeptics who participate on these boards.



I get the impression that people are being asked to make a choice, which choice necessarily, again in my experience, requires turning one's back on those great thwacking hell of big boatloads.


In my limited experience with Buddhism, I never felt I had to make that sort of choice, with one exception. I encountered many Buddhists who were into "woo" stuff. Example, the first person I encountered who directed me at the Detroit Zen Center told me how to hold my hands because "you lose a lot of chi through your thumbs." And one of the first books I read said that development of psychic powers was one of the benefits of meditation. That sort of stuff is a real distraction, and if it gets under your skin, you can miss the rest of the stuff. That's another way that skeptical doubt can get in your way of comprehension. The "I don't agree with one point that the last guy made. Therefore, everything he said should be dismissed." syndrom.


As for the rest, there's a book called From Novice to Expert. It's really about nursing, but it has some good stuff about cognitive processes. I won't read it, but my guess is I would call it "spiritual", whether or not it called itself spiritual. I think all spiritual practice is ultimately about mind training.

 

[rastamonte]

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

In my limited experience with Buddhism, I never felt I had to make that sort of choice, with one exception. I encountered many Buddhists who were into "woo" stuff. Example, the first person I encountered who directed me at the Detroit Zen Center told me how to hold my hands because "you lose a lot of chi through your thumbs." And one of the first books I read said that development of psychic powers was one of the benefits of meditation. That sort of stuff is a real distraction, and if it gets under your skin, you can miss the rest of the stuff. That's another way that skeptical doubt can get in your way of comprehension. The "I don't agree with one point that the last guy made. Therefore, everything he said should be dismissed." syndrom.

Thank you for this post. This is exactly the kind of situation where I stop being open minded, lose respect for the "teacher", and abandon my quest for knowledge. Can someone be "enlightened" and still be so wrong (IMO) about so many other things? If they're so wrong about these other things, maybe they're wrong about enlightenment too?

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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

Thank you for this post. This is exactly the kind of situation where I stop being open minded, lose respect for the "teacher", and abandon my quest for knowledge. Can someone be "enlightened" and still be so wrong (IMO) about so many other things? If they're so wrong about these other things, maybe they're wrong about enlightenment too?

There is a point, beyond "knowledge" when you finally "get it". Unfortunately, you will only know who is "there" by being "there". Afortunately, you have been always "there".

 

[Atlas]

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

Thank you for this post. This is exactly the kind of situation where I stop being open minded, lose respect for the "teacher", and abandon my quest for knowledge. Can someone be "enlightened" and still be so wrong (IMO) about so many other things? If they're so wrong about these other things, maybe they're wrong about enlightenment too?

Meadmaker makes an excellent observation. And I agree with you that we all have a natural inclination to stop being open minded, lose respect for the "teacher", and abandon my quest for knowledge.

As for your question, . Can someone be "enlightened" and still be so wrong. Part of the answer hinges on the definition of "enlightened". Another part, the part that meadmaker alluded to with his "hands, thumbs, and chi" anecdote has to do with the path.

You can get from Denver to Chicago many ways. If you go to Seattle first you're obviously taking the long way. If someone is taking you on that trip, it might be the only way they know is a sure way to get their safely. If you happen to feel like you're getting farther away from your destination you are quite likely to feel disturbed by your guide's approach.

Moses is hailed for leading his people to the promised land. In hindsight, there is something beautiful about getting there that minimizes the ineptitude of a 40 year march through the desert.

 

[Kitty Chan]

et el

Just because one is wrong about a part of something, does not mean they are wrong about it completely.

Thats tossing the baby out with the bath water

Just means you go back over parts and revisit them, then look for and why there is a difference. This is a opportunity to grow for both parties. Ther is discovery of the truth or whatever the case may be.

Maybe there is something not thought of the first time through. That other way to look at it. Or youve (as said) gone the long way around and made it difficult on yourself, when there was a easier way.

 

[epepke]

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

I won't read it, but my guess is I would call it "spiritual", whether or not it called itself spiritual. I think all spiritual practice is ultimately about mind training.

That's a difference. I'll read anything, once. I even read Die Lehre Buddhas, which I've found in several California hotel rooms. Why California hotel rooms should have a book of Buddhist teachings in German is beyond my comprehension.

Anyway, the book I mentioned is largely about the fact that novices use rules, explicitly and consciously, while experts rely on an intiution or a gut feeling. It suggests the idea that intuition is what you get by means of the process of using rules for a while.

 

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

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

Anyway, the book I mentioned is largely about the fact that novices use rules, explicitly and consciously, while experts rely on an intiution or a gut feeling. It suggests the idea that intuition is what you get by means of the process of using rules for a while.

I agree. I should add that the "intuition" comes from the act of experiencing some of the things that are just abstract ideas (or even promises) for the novices.