Buddhist Epistemology
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
When I was early in my practice I more readily accepted many of the metaphysical claims made in Buddhism. Then I encountered some teachings on the hells that described how far below the surface of the Earth each level was. At some point they got deep enough that it would put them all the way through the other side of the planet out into space. That sort of unlocked a sense that personal experience wasn't always valid.
I've been doing some reading on Buddhist epistemology, the study of knowledge, how we know what we know and what counts as valid or not. Its a deep and complex subject but I think I can at least get to something practical. Scientific epistemology relies on empiricism and third party verification. Buddhism also looks to reason but it also allows for personal perception and experience, something like "come and see". We can't really verify through someone else if practicing the path leads to greater happiness and freedom, it has to come from within. But personal observation isn't perfect, so there has to be some limit.
So, where does that leave me? Both the Kalama and Canki suttas tell us things about how the Buddha thought about distinguishing between how a belief is held and whether it is true. I can have conviction about something false and uncertainty about something true. We are instructed not to hold something as true out of reason, tradition, scripture, or teacher authority alone. We need to test it out for ourselves like a goldsmith would test gold. But obviously experiencing something personally isn't sufficient in itself. So how to think about what come and see really means, what can it show us and what are its limits?
Comments
It’s a topic worth thinking about, how you discern what is true. I’ve heard it said, what is true is “that which is”. Which means, all of the physical world plus that which you can observe. Where you run into trouble is all the constructs of the mind.
What I have found is that the heart perceives more truly than the consciousness when it comes to perceiving what is true. Trust what you feel, rather than trying to work out what you should think.
>
Right, there is the problem of interpretation. Two people can perceive the same thing but interpret it differently. Is the cylinder a circle or a square?
Surely there's more to it than that though. People feel all sorts of thing to be true that aren't. Nobody felt their way into space and God didn't burn the image of Jesus into your toast. So when are feelings a valid measure of truth and when aren't they?
Pretty much everyone when they look at this image feel A and B are different colors
But they're the same, what we perceive and feel isn't automatically true. So what qualifiers are needed to say trust what you feel?
Hmmm yes, good points. All I can say is, this quest for truth through thought, what has it brought mankind? We are overpopulating the planet and destroying the natural world, mental health is becoming an increasing problem, the climate is shifting out of balance.
Perhaps it is better to accept that our ability to discern truth has limits, and instead of aiming yourself at truth, which is always going to end up in a dry, mechanical, perfect-but-dead world, instead of that cultivating kindness and peace?
The pre rational world wasn't exactly a great place to live, superstition, tribal violence, disease, famine went largely unchecked. The pursuit of truth has given us medicine, sanitation, reduced poverty, expanded moral circles. I might argue that many of the problems you worry about are due to a lack of understanding, from motivated reasoning and tribalism.
Also, how exactly did you come to understand that these problems are problems if not through a reasoned analysis of the world?
I think this is a good point. The Buddha only gave us the leaves in his hand, the knowledge that would help lead us to liberation. Admittedly, my interest has a worldly element in it, how do we organize and structure our world to make it better for people, and ultimately all sentient beings.
And its true that I value truth rather highly and beauty less so, but it ought to be possible to include beauty without throwing out truth.
What is interesting me is that Buddhist epistemology is open to first hand experience. But it also isn't whatever you feel or experience is true, its fairly explicit in the ways that greed, hatred and ignorance influence our judgement and perceptions. There are seemingly some criteria for examining and establishing valid vs invalid first person perceptions.
I've done some reading, but frankly its very dense and esoteric with a large amount of base knowledge needed just to get to the part that interests me. Its the kind of thing that it would be nice to have a teacher informed in the area to be able to answer.
My own intuition, or feeling if you will, is that some level of meditative training and development or letting go of the kleshas to get to a clearer, less biased perception feels important. Then I'd make a distinction between first person accounts like the nature of suffering in our minds, the flavor and texture of craving, or whether the practices produce equanimity, compassion, insight on the one hand. And on the other third person phenomenon like the size of the sun and moon, whether ghosts exist or if nuclear power is safe, and other third person claims about how the world works.
That is kind of what I’m getting at. I’m trying to say that the world and mankind would be better off if we focused on the leaves in Buddha’s hand, and that the modern world has disadvantages too, and that perhaps the disadvantages of the ancient world would be compensated by it’s advantages over the modern world.
If I have to choose, a world filled with kindness versus a world filled with scientific truth, it would be a world filled with kindness every time. I think mankind can live without truth, but he cannot live without love except when he starts shrivelling up and dying before he dies. Even dictators and mafia bosses have dogs and cats, love women, have children.
I think that one thing has to have the focus, and that for most people in the modern world that is “the desire for more”. First you want food and shelter, then you want a car, then you want a wife, then you want to own a house, then you want kids, then you want to own a yacht, then you want a mansion… it never stops. Mostly these are people who spend too much time doing, and not enough time looking into their own minds.
I've said before that perhaps humans would have been better off not having settled down from hunter-gatherers, our psychology is better fit for small groups and rugged life.
>
That's a false dichotomy. Truth and kindness aren't mutually exclusive. The pre rational world wasn't especially kind. And trying to be kind and offer something like medicine requires truth to actually help and not harm.
Don't understand what this is in relation to?
I think with your responses you're saying something like peace, kindness, love are more important than truth. Perhaps you're overstating that point by negating the value of truth or saying that its actually harmful even though that might not be your belief?
I'm saying that I think Buddhism quite clearly thinks truth is important, understanding is at the core of its view on liberation. And I'm personally saying here and elsewhere that in order to be skillful at kindness and actually avoid doing harm out of good intentions truth is vital.
To bring the Canki sutta in here that I mentioned in the Sitting With Uncertainty thread.
Saying something is your conviction, or your belief about what you find valuable rather than "only this is true; anything else is worthless" is how to safeguard truth.