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.
No views… no brains?
Hmmm so I’m not really sure what I’m trying to get at with this post… but hopefully with discussion it will become clearer.
My main concern: Is it common, in Buddhist practice, to have a shift in the way you gauge the value of people’s (and your own) views? What is this shift, and does it compromise your ability to think critically
(As background, I've been practicing for a few years, mostly in the Zen tradition)
I used to place primary importance on things being logically consistent… when I looked at things it was very black and white, true or false. The value of a view was mostly a product of the extent to which it could be proven true, objectively. Especially in the sciences and philosophy/ religion.
But I’ve had a shift in criteria. I’m less concerned with the objective truth of a view, because I’ve stopped believing that purely objective truth can be known. Even if we did strike upon the truth, it would be unknowingly. And something that is true in one instance is not necessarily true in the next, making all views provisional. So I gave up trying to find it (for the most part, anyway), because it causes too much grief and worry.
I’m more concerned with how useful a view is in a given circumstance, not whether it is consistent with other views I've held in the past or hold now. One practice is not going to cover all cases, so pick a different theory or “view” according to the needs of the circumstance. So, the cognitive dissonance i used to feel so strongly when my views were inconsistent is now rarely a problem (except for maybe now, haha).
Once a hard-line atheist, I wasn’t interested in the value of religion, because I didn’t think that views that couldn’t be proven by objective standards could be of any value. Now I place more confidence in my own experience. Instead of judging the views of others, I’m more interested in investigating why they might hold them. Same goes for my own views – usually I find a view is held onto to try to protect yourself from something (often uncertainty), so you can’t really trust them. They usually make you stuck and inflexible to changing circumstances.
Even as an atheist (which I still am, but kind of half-heartedly) I believed in things that I couldn’t see. Like inherent good and bad in people, feelings, actions etc. So perhaps when i was "rational" and "analytical" i was actually more stupid and dogmatic.
It also feels like my views about things change all the time, and can appear to be quite inconsistent when viewed objectively or subjected to logical analysis.
The dilemma I guess is that an experience of the emptiness of views (which I think formed the basis for my shift in criteria) cannot be justified with views, only experienced. So you look like a crazy when working from this foundation. And it’s harder to communicate when the other person is working from an entirely different criterion for assessing the value of views.
It’s true too that an idea about the emptiness of views can be attached to.
My worry is that I’ve gone too far down the path unexamined by my rational thinking/ judging mind. Maybe I’m holding onto the absolute view of reality and ignoring the relative. My responses to circumstances seem to come out of nowhere, rather than a set of beliefs about how one should act. I feel a bit insecure, and probably a bit worried that I’m losing touch with society. Because, you know, society likes (at least the appearance of) Truth and consistency in their beliefs. Also, I don’t want to lose my intellectual integrity.
Anyway, help me out guys. My thinking and analysing mind is well out of practice, so perhaps with some discussion I can find out if I have an imbalance here to be addressed. Thank you very much!
My main concern: Is it common, in Buddhist practice, to have a shift in the way you gauge the value of people’s (and your own) views? What is this shift, and does it compromise your ability to think critically
(As background, I've been practicing for a few years, mostly in the Zen tradition)
I used to place primary importance on things being logically consistent… when I looked at things it was very black and white, true or false. The value of a view was mostly a product of the extent to which it could be proven true, objectively. Especially in the sciences and philosophy/ religion.
But I’ve had a shift in criteria. I’m less concerned with the objective truth of a view, because I’ve stopped believing that purely objective truth can be known. Even if we did strike upon the truth, it would be unknowingly. And something that is true in one instance is not necessarily true in the next, making all views provisional. So I gave up trying to find it (for the most part, anyway), because it causes too much grief and worry.
I’m more concerned with how useful a view is in a given circumstance, not whether it is consistent with other views I've held in the past or hold now. One practice is not going to cover all cases, so pick a different theory or “view” according to the needs of the circumstance. So, the cognitive dissonance i used to feel so strongly when my views were inconsistent is now rarely a problem (except for maybe now, haha).
Once a hard-line atheist, I wasn’t interested in the value of religion, because I didn’t think that views that couldn’t be proven by objective standards could be of any value. Now I place more confidence in my own experience. Instead of judging the views of others, I’m more interested in investigating why they might hold them. Same goes for my own views – usually I find a view is held onto to try to protect yourself from something (often uncertainty), so you can’t really trust them. They usually make you stuck and inflexible to changing circumstances.
Even as an atheist (which I still am, but kind of half-heartedly) I believed in things that I couldn’t see. Like inherent good and bad in people, feelings, actions etc. So perhaps when i was "rational" and "analytical" i was actually more stupid and dogmatic.
It also feels like my views about things change all the time, and can appear to be quite inconsistent when viewed objectively or subjected to logical analysis.
The dilemma I guess is that an experience of the emptiness of views (which I think formed the basis for my shift in criteria) cannot be justified with views, only experienced. So you look like a crazy when working from this foundation. And it’s harder to communicate when the other person is working from an entirely different criterion for assessing the value of views.
It’s true too that an idea about the emptiness of views can be attached to.
My worry is that I’ve gone too far down the path unexamined by my rational thinking/ judging mind. Maybe I’m holding onto the absolute view of reality and ignoring the relative. My responses to circumstances seem to come out of nowhere, rather than a set of beliefs about how one should act. I feel a bit insecure, and probably a bit worried that I’m losing touch with society. Because, you know, society likes (at least the appearance of) Truth and consistency in their beliefs. Also, I don’t want to lose my intellectual integrity.
Anyway, help me out guys. My thinking and analysing mind is well out of practice, so perhaps with some discussion I can find out if I have an imbalance here to be addressed. Thank you very much!
0
Comments
Let me ask, when you were capable of logical assertions and conversations, were they not limited to a large extent by staying close to what you thought you knew? Wasn't your social/world view narrow in the sense that you could convince yourself and others that yours was the "correct" view?
I ask this because you have described quite well the process i too have experienced. Many years ago that was what gave me my social identity. As i continued to practice Buddhism, this social identity began to unravel. I found myself saying things that i was not sure of, but seemed necessary to communicate the Dharma. Some, if not most, of what i communicated went against the grain of popular/consensus thought. One reason is that i came to realize that my view and others view was constructed on social approval, even the hard lines i held to concerning politics, religion, news, sports, you name it.... What started happening is that i knew these views were conditioned by peoples acceptance and approval. That became less and less important to me. Being truthful and original in my response to things that happened around me became my spontaneous response. To my surprise it usually stimulated conversation, but i came away with the feeling i had not communicated anything....:) In truth what we end up communicating, if we are really practicing the Dharma, is the essence of "emptiness" and of course that has no mirror or reward to it. At least that is the way it has gone for me....
In a word, yes. And I can also see that my views on politics, science, religion and the rest were motivated by a need to either be right or to get the approval of others through forming an impressive social identity. I came to Buddhism because i could see how scientists (specifically psychologists) became attached to their theories and therefore unable to see clearly. Perhaps ironically, i thought Buddhist practice would make me more objective. I've ended up becoming more aware of and comfortable with my own subjectivity.
Sometimes though, I have doubts and crave for some truth to hold onto. Something i can hold up and say "Well, you can't say i'm wrong because X". Perhaps right now i'm trying to back out of uncertainty to somewhere a bit safer. Could it also be a function of my age? I'm only 20, so maybe i got into the heavy stuff a bit too soon, and now i'm feeling unstable.
Anyway, i'm going to try to stay put and not go running about looking for views to cling to. See if the sky falls in or not
"No mind" does not mean stuck in emptiness. It means non-attachment.
Ever wondered what happens when you actively try to remember something? (This is a good meditation topic, examine the process of remembering) Often there is some repetitive thought process that loops around until the memory surfaces - I think that the gross thought patterns are just a smoke screen, the answer arises from the underlying non-conception, memory still functions without these gross thought patterns.
"gross" meaning non-subtle/obvious not "gross" as in yuck/disgusting.
As to OP's question:
My main concern: Is it common, in Buddhist practice, to have a shift in the way you gauge the value of people’s (and your own) views?
Yes.
What is this shift,
My views: Views are only relevant at the particular time at which they are presented. I don't care whether they're right or wrong, though the intent is that they are correct. I don't hold to the views and have no problem with them being refuted or disagreed with. It is possible that a completely contradictory view could arise in opposition to a previously stated view. A collection of views do not constitute a story or profile as each view stands in its own right, though there may appear to be some underlying cohesion, the story or profile generated is purely illusional. Others’ views: People hold the views that they hold due to their own karmic tendencies and the underlying conditions involved, under this situation their views are just as reasonable as my own irrespective of their content or consistency or any other method used by me to judge their views.
and does it compromise your ability to think critically
Critical(freedictionary-dot-com): 1. Inclined to judge severely and find fault, 2. Characterized by careful, exact evaluation and judgment. I think 1 & 2 are inseparable. Seeing “things as they are” would tend to imply that critical thinking is a process of finding fault in “things as they are” rather than just seeing “things as they are”. Ie. excessive thinking leads to confusion, confusion leads to conflicting emotions and conflicting emotions leads to Samsara. Critical thinking could be seen as “not letting go”, one of the last intact vestiges of ego, the fear of being manipulated or duped. Having said that skepticism and even cynicism are not likely to go away in a hurry. Its not as though you are going to become exceptionally gulible all of a sudden, in fact the exact opposite is more likely to be the case. An open mind is not a stupid mind, it’s a free mind. Free from misconceptions of the past, well at least to some degree. Lastly critical thinking needs a framework to operate, judgements need to be made as to what criteria are more important than others, these judgements are arbitrary and relative and definitely not absolute. The judgement themselves are influenced by karmic conditioning so that critical thinking is conditioned and flawed.
Of course critical thinking itself dawns from the unconditioned mind, so that it is flawless.;)
Cheers,
WK
What I see in your post is a description of what happens when a person lets go of their own solid views. Once you accept that subjective views are important to the people experiencing them, it becomes easy to simply accept views for what they are. Views.
From there, the purpose of holding beliefs and ideas becomes more apparent, as one begins to see millions and millions of relationships evolving between two people, a person and objects, and a person and conceptions.
This is a great sign, and from my view, means that you are entering the dance, where you can use your insight and compassion to see deeply, helping people skillfully. With roots into non-conceptual space without a view, you don't have to have a person 'buy' your view to communicate with them. Without needing to sell your view, you can help them relate more compassionately to theirs.
This is a good sign, but I can understand why a logical mind might be disturbed a little at the lack of concrete truth to which to cling. Spend some time in meditation just looking at how conceptions are not necessary to see the truth, that truth exists before conceptions arise about them. You'll be at peace in no-time.
With warmth,
Matt
But seriously, that is nicely put.
No, it doesn't compromise your ability to think critically. Once you let go of the attachment to the idea that you are logical, you become more aware of how infrequently you are logical. So your critical thinking is actually improving.
I can say that the people who go on Internet forums and announce that they are "critical thinkers" and "skeptics" are the ones making the biggest, most obvious logic errors. The practice of critical thinking makes us aware of how much of our thinking is emotion and rule of thumb. People who have actually been practicing critical thinking for a while are usually hesitant to call themselves critical thinkers.
Current evolutionary theories of cognition start with the fact that logic is slow and emotion and rule of thumb are fast. We evolved in environments where we needed to quick decisions in order to survive, and these decisions didn't have to be perfectly logical. The most common exceptions involved social exchange. So as a result of evolution, people with no training in logic are capable of amazing feats of logic when dealing with social situations, and all of us, logicians included, make repeated simple logic errors when we're not dealing with social situations.
Regardless of theory, I have formal training in logic and a great deal of experience, and ninety nine percent of the time I'm not any more logical than any one else. I've noticed that the same is true of the professors who teach logic and the computer programmers I've worked with who do work that requires them to know formal logic.
You and everyone else in the world. :-)
It's harder, it's more stressful, it causes you to doubt yourself, it increases defensiveness... You couldn't ask for better material for practicing Buddhism.
:-)
Setting aside Buddhism and looking at this from a rational point of view, your critical thinking seems to have improved.
Buddhism is not a religion for mere "logical analysis", "faith", "philosophical arguments" or "rationalization". It is for directly applying here and now and seeing the results for yourself. Once you have got a "taste" of what it is you will know for sure this is what it is all about. Here is a clue. It is verifiable here and now by the average human being without years of meditative experience.
Everything else is mere unverifiable speculation. As a result many people have many views on them. For example, one person can say there is rebirth after death and the other can say there is not. You can sit and debate about it for many hours.
In response to RenGalskap:
Yeah that’s true… and personally I find it reassuring that confidence in your own experience doesn’t preclude openness to everything else. Still, the idea of such independence is pretty heavy – but like you say, it’s something to practice with. Thanks
Also, cheers Deshy for the link.