Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Obvious Phenomena, Partially Hidden Phenomena, Very Hidden Phenomena
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
There are three kinds of valid proof that are recognized in the Buddha’s teachings. One is direct evidence. For example, when you see a fire, you know it is a fire. Another is inference. When you see smoke, you know that if you investigate, you will find a fire. The first two examples relate to obvious phenomenon and partially hidden phenomenon. Then there is the third kind of phenomenon—those that are very hidden and not within our present capacities of perception and investigation.
In the case of very hidden phenomena, we have to rely on the valid testimonies of others. It doesn’t mean that we have to believe whatever people tell us. But in the case of the Buddha, we can judge the Buddha’s behavior, teachings, and any other aspect that we can consider. If the Buddha seems perfect on all counts, why on one single point would he suddenly become ill-willed and wish to fool us and try to lead us into error? It’s much more likely that this person—with the credible array of qualities that we can perceive and testify to—is providing a valid testimony when describing the laws of karma. Now, you might think that this is blind faith. But when we speak about the big bang theory or about particles and electrons, what are we doing? We are relying on the testimony of a certain number of scientists, because we believe that a number of independent scientists cannot all be crooks at the same time. So if they agree on a particular point, we can assume that they are providing a valid description of the laws of nature. And so we say, “Okay. It must be true.” They might have imperfect knowledge, but we agree that they are not fundamentally telling lies or inventing things out of thin air. We believe that there are sound reasons for their conclusions, which we ourselves cannot access at the moment. But we could achieve their understanding if we spent ten years learning mathematics and physics. Likewise, the Buddha never said, “This is a mystery that will always be beyond your reach. Forget about it. You just have to accept it.” Instead, he said, “Don’t accept what I say just because I say it. You can have respect for me but do what it will take to find out for yourself. In the meantime, this is what I’ve seen with my own experience. Plants have no mind. Sentient beings have a mind. And there’s karma. There are past lives. I’ve found that. You can find the same. You just have to make the effort to become a buddha.”
http://www.wisdom-books.com/FocusDetail.asp?FocusRef=64
0
Comments
Second, I don't think the law of averages is a very good way to determine "truth".
If I practice and meditate all my life and I still don't "see it", well I guess that means I'm not a Buddha yet.
Also, there is no proof to what he actually said.... To me, the basic teachings ring true, even if they were a composite of several wise men's ideas.
When someone else is angry we can't actually see their anger, unless maybe someone is highly empathic. What we see are the signs of anger, the eyebrows come together, the eyes tense, the lips tighten together or the mouth opens altogether, maybe the face reddens or the voice is raised. These things aren't anger they're the smoke. We're so conditioned and evolved to interpret them that it comes as second nature to most of us. To an autistic person though these signs aren't so obvious.
Also we have never actually seen an atom, their existence is inferred by the amount of indirect evidence available.
I think the reverse of your other argument would be that if he was wrong %1 of the time then that would discount his other views?
Its hard to use the third type of investigation with the Buddha's words since we can't really say if they are the actual words or not. There are other people though who say they remember past lives. We can get to know them and see if they are trustworthy, honest people. Its not the scientific method but we're not required to admit a peer reviewed paper on the subject, just decide for ourselves.
The opening sentence fooled me. It said "proof".
One of the issues I have with some Buddhists is that they like to throw around this "Buddhism is scientific" concept. While it may be more scientific than some religions, it's not the same as science.
Science only deals with things that are measurable. You can't measure experience. Meditative experience is just that experience. We can measure the results, in terms of the benefits it has on our lives, but that's not where Buddhism has traditionally stopped. If that's as far as someone feels comfortable going, fine, jhana can't be measured, an enlightened mind can't be measured. There is much benefit to be derived without those things, but I've seen too much to stop there and the methods outlined in the OP are the way a spiritually minded person can develop some confidence in non material things.
Like a kid learning the balance beam; even though it's scary and there's no proof you yourself are capable of doing a cartwheel on it (in fact it seems almost impossible), if it's the same teacher who taught you how to do a cartwheel on the floor--something which also formerly seemed impossible--then it's logical to at least consider trusting the teacher.
You have absolutely no proof such a thing is possible; yet most people would not call you foolish or naive if you trusted your teacher in the matter.