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.
Knowing from experiential knowledge
I think we all know that that is the goal in buddhism. However, it seems like people on these forums are so obsessed with jamming that down other peoples throats. It seems like noone can say anything around here without people saying "yes but the goal is to move past that and move into first hand experience." We all know. But words do not equal first hand experience. Therefore ANYTHING that we say on here isn't experiential knowledge. We need to communicate it, which by it's nature is taking away from it. If someone seems to not understand the nature of what they say, sure help them, but I think the constant correcting people is a bit pretentious. Look at all the sutras. If you read them they're intellectual. If the buddha posted on here some of you would be correcting him. Just let people post, don't assume anything about their knowledge.
0
Comments
Agreed.
Let's speak about our experience, instead of rehashing what we read!
I think what needs to be understood is that within Buddhism there is more than one type of valid cognition. In ancient India the means by which knowledge can be gained is called pramana. There are many means by which knowledge can be gained; one school might accept 5 means of valid cognition, another only one. A list of pramanas and the schools of thought that accepted them can be found at the bottom of the page here.
Notice that it is only the Chaarvaaka, or the materialists, that accept only direct perception (what we call 'experience') as a valid means of cognition. The Buddhists, generally, allow 2 means of valid cognition; that is, Buddhists allow for inference in addition to experience.
Some schools of Buddhism allow other means of valid cognition, such as the knowledge gained by analogy, or via verbal testimony.
Thank you!
Interesting.
Well to use the example that inspired me to make this thread(not to call out the person who did it at all. In fact I won't mention names. It's quite common anyways) I said how it is helpful to make sure you understand that the things that others do are "not self" just as it is with us, and as such we can't get angry when they mistreat us etc. I was told that this was intellectual, and that I needed to see it experientially.
Yes. I find this to be absurd. You cannot experience the emptiness inherent in all of us. Experience implies the duality of subject experiencing object. Thus an experience of emptiness would reify emptiness into an object. Now, you might be able to be the emptiness, like in a way that "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" can be interpreted, or how "exchanging self for other" can be practiced, but that is certainly not the only valid means of cognizing emptiness.
In fact, you need only look to the apophatic descriptions of emptiness to see how it's mode of existence is to be understood via inference. Berzin defines it as the absence of an impossible way of existing, thus we infer from this kind of description its actual mode of existence.
Understanding emptiness via this kind of inference is valid cognition.
You can work with this understanding via inference. You can run with it.
Words are important too, though. Remember: right speech!
The buddha taught that the words of the teachings are like a raft used to cross a river. Once you cross you no longer have any use for it. So yes, words are important because they help us to understand, but ultimately words are just words, concepts, and are empty as is anything else. We should not get hung up on the words, or anything for that matter.
For example, I gravitated immediately to the use of the word 'experience' as it related to describing an understanding of emptiness. I preferred the word 'be', and perhaps that was the intended meaning of 'experience'.
Arguments can only be settled when both sides come to an understanding. If a question remains, the debate will continue. (This might very well be of an internal nature, as well.)
Good point. That's the difficulty and failure of language. And as for that happening internally, this is why I sometimes try to think of the things I realize intellectually. Even though i've already realized it internally, I want to understand what exactly it is that I understand, for my own peace of mind as well as so I can communicate it to others.
Ahem.