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.
Is there a difference between arrogance and certainty?
The_Fruit_Punch_Wiza
Veteran
There are people who believe that there is no absolute right or wrong, goals are neither right nor wrong, and any means that successfully progress efficiently toward the achievement of the goal are acceptable.
I disagree with absolute certainty and think there is objective and relative right and wrongs, goals are either objectively or relatively right or wrong, and any means that successfully progresses efficiently toward the achievement of the goal are not necessarily acceptable.
Am I being arrogant for being certain about this?
I disagree with absolute certainty and think there is objective and relative right and wrongs, goals are either objectively or relatively right or wrong, and any means that successfully progresses efficiently toward the achievement of the goal are not necessarily acceptable.
Am I being arrogant for being certain about this?
0
Comments
Certainty is in a view only. Confidence is in your discernment. To make mistakes and grow.
We call this "Intersubjective agreement"
Wouldn't experience be something that you should have confidence in? For example with the chair example above this post. Shouldn't we understand how the schema works in order to produce confidence in such discernment, and if this confidence has worked out, why ignore one's experiences?
Aye, but what is the definian (definitive distinction) that separates one from the other?
Indeed, the cup metaphor was very true.
Yup.
:skeptical:
Honesty is the best policy. Being honest with yourself and others helps them grow. Pretending they're already enlightened doesn't help at all. Which is why I invite constructive criticism.
Hmmm... but what is the definian (definitive distinction) that separates one(arrogance) from the other (confidence)?
You can be certain though. You can be confident.
Like Jeffrey said it's all on how you open you are to being wrong. Objectively speaking you never be certain of anything, but you could say you are certain based on what you know. In the end the output of certainty and confidence is almost the same...it's just that certainty has gathered an anti-folllowing.....people don't like that word because we have fragile egos.
And we also don't like uncertainty because we have strong egos!
When I'm uncertain I can just cruise... :cool:
I don't know about that. I feel arrogant all alone in my room right now.
I know what you mean, but I am having trouble with conceit.
I'm pretty open to being wrong if you can tell me why what you say must, and not might, be true and why what I say is not. Give me an answer to those 2 questions with confidence and full understanding of the terms you're using, and I will not only consider your view accurate, but I'll respect it. The problem comes with the "mine might be more right" or "yours is only half-right" and then saying something about terms and concepts that one is using without knowing the meaning behind them.
Never true, anyone can be certain of anything, but it doesn't make their certainty right. It also is untrue to say "everything is uncertain". Things are neither certain nor uncertain. The truth is revealed by experience.
True, but I suppose confidence helps your case more when it comes to understanding reality.
That is very true, and it also comes from mathematical and chemical uncertainties, but to be honest, hardly anything is uncertain nowadays unless you focus on bare empiricism.
Theres also a difference between conditional and unconditional confidence....
One of us fails us and I think you got the right one baby!
It is like a river run dry. Eventually it rains and its back again.
The problems start when you think anyone who doesn't agree with you is wrong. Not based on comparison of facts, but simply because that's how you feel. That would be arrogance.
That's true, I agree
You often come across as arrogant, which may be a result of how you express yourself. "Iam certain that I am right, which makes you wrong" is an attitude which closes down both discussion and our own ability to admit that we may not be right.
Look at how you engaged in the discussion about Buddha Nature. You are prepared to state, categorically, that your own, Theravadin beliefs mean that those of others, of different traditions, are stupid/wrong.
It is a hard road to travel to find ways of expressing our own beliefs in such a way as to convey respectful disagreement with differing ones, particularly if we allow our emotions and certainties to come into play.
As one who finds it all-too-easy to get into the "your a stupid mutt" mindset, I have found that identifying that knee-jerk reaction, often through noticing my physiological markers (breathing, heart-rate, vision, etc.) and reminding myself of my interlocutor's probable goodwill enable me to look for a positive response.
This in no way compromises my own certainties but prevents the arising of arrogance which can hinder any new learnings I may gain from the encounter.
But you see experience and understanding determines what conforms to reality and what does not. If a view is inconsistent with reality, experience and even mere honest examination, then it is either wrong or needs to be examined and explained. If not, it is better if it were abandoned.
To try and harmonize doctrines that do not actually work together is a problem, because it actually is a consequence of attachment to a doctrine rather than critical understanding. How many times does a person have to twist something to finally admit that something doesn't make sense?
No one I've met before feels like they're committing an error to point out that direct contradictions in other teachings exist. Why not one's own teachings or perceptions?
No I said the idea was silly. Not that they were stupid nor wrong, but the idea being flung about without proper understanding is just plain silly. I kept mentioning a very important word, and that word is "IF". IF it is misunderstood the word can lead to harm. IF it leads to a person confounding doctrines it is better abandoned. To use words without understanding the usage or context of meaning, is silly. Appealing to tradition or doctrine isn't effective either it's like trying to pretend that tradition or doctrine is an arbiter of truth.
I don't even pretend Theravada doesn't suffer from this, because I'm sure it does, but Mahayana doctrines are not subject to exceptions to the rule. :rolleyes: IF I expressed certain uncomfortable truths about both of the doctrines, a person would be more discerning before slandering either of the doctrines of others, and I have studied both doctrines pretty comprehensively. Thus I will be honest about what is inconsistent in my experience, and I will be honest about what sounds just plain silly.
I usually find that to disagree with someone is disrespectful lately. There's no respectful acknowledgement of disagreement, nor addressing of such disagreements. There is just head-butting, and while I am not averse to it, I recognize it for what it is.
Aye, and I don't have ill will in my explanations. I am just being honest.
I hope so, but I will attempt to be more discerning. I am indeed trying to control my conceit, and I am becoming more mindful when it arises, and usually it occurs when I think someone doesn't choose their words carefully. I don't believe in words all that much and because they're used so loosely that it can lead to profound misunderstandings, so I point it out which is conceited of me.
A good place to start is thinking that in Mahayana traditions practiced by millions of other intelligent Dharma brothers and sisters that if one thinks that something is silly on the face of it, the fault lies with not understanding it enough. You say you have examined Mahayana. Does this extend to reading Nagarjuna, Dignaga, Dharmakirti and Chandrakirti? They provide the philosophical underpinnings for the entire edifice of Vajrayana for example. Assuming that they make a journeyman mistake like accepting the kind of self that is refuted by anatma doctrine is beyond silly. Even a cursory reading of Mulamadhyamakakarikas would demonstrate that. This text is a razor that can cut any conceptual view to pieces. You might want to read about apoha theory:
"Words are the result of mental conceptualization, and therefore they refer to mental images and cannot be directly associated with external realities. Meaning, thus, denotes the referend, the instrument of an act of reference, as distinct from the referent, the object toward which the act of reference is directed. The Madhyamika regards it as only a logical concept, not an external entity inherently residing in the individuals. In other words, meaninq means the relation of the word and the image of the object, The word cannot directly be associated with external objects; it cannot, therefore, denote the object."
All of our words and concepts are tools to lead us to enlightenment. They are not the state of enlightenment itself. We must leave *all* doctrine behind to reach the far shore. The tathagathagarbha corpus is quite logical, I assure you. However, you do not accept the bare epistemological premise that the Mahayana literature is buddhavacana hence without shared premises it is unclear how any conversation can proceed.
We are all discussing things here in good faith. You merely demonstrate your ignorance of the points of view you are arguing against by making the claims you have. I am not saying that to attack you personally, but just to say that I think we should stick to what we really know and try to convince where there is contention by relying on what we accept in common. Dismissing the opposing view out of hand just shuts down discourse or takes it to a profoundly unhelpful level.
Oh dear me, the last time I was told something like that it was coming from a Catholic. :rolleyes: I know what you mean, but I cannot agree to a doctrine just because someone else does. If a doctrine doesn't hold up to scrutiny it is better if it were abandoned.
Nagarjuna was the first among MANY I have read. I also did read Dignaga, and some of Dharmakirti and I'll admit I have not read much of Chandrakirtri, will you be willing to refer some good titles for me to read and study?
Ah, I used to be Mahayana myself until I critically examined the teachings of Mahayana and visited a nearby Vajrayana Vihara. It wasn't aversion that made me walk away, but rather good honest discernment. The woman claimed to be a Tulku and she used it as a platform to have everyone in her Vihara worship her as a Dakini.
The Tathagatagarbha is exactly the Hindu idea of Ataman. The Tathagatagarbha is considered the "true self" ( the nature of ataman is the same) Which undergoes an "understanding of one's true inner Buddha Nature" (Which is the Hindu teaching of Moksha revamped and sans Brahma)so I am fully skeptical of it.
Funny that you mention the very first text I read of Nagarjuna.
Bravo, I do love this teaching, but there's more to it, than that.
Without a figment of doubt. Words are tools. Not an answer.
All false doctrines you mean.
I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt, but I have trouble believing it is not tainted especially because the Buddha warned what would come after his paranirvana. There would be no flavor of liberation, and there is no flavor of liberation, but rather praise of Boddhisattvas, slanders and criticisms of the disciples of the Buddha, advocation of prayers and faith based practices, denial of Anatta doctrine.
Theravada existed for a thousand years "without" Mahayana, anyone who says Mahayana is "the Greater Vehicle" and that Theravada is "The lower vehicle" have not read or understood the history of the religion and how its schisms and sects where started by rebellious monks called Mahasanghika and many other sects which were affected by Shaivistic Hinduism and the Bhakti movement which are very alien to the Dharma of Shakyamuni Buddha. The Mahasanghika are guilty of the schism between Mahayana and Theravada.
Is that so? I am attempting to hear some clarity from teachings, but all I keep hearing are restatements of my ignorance and no actual demonstration that what I am saying is profoundly in error.
Let's try this again, I am saying that the tathagathagarbha doctrine is creating an eternalistic point of view. I ask that you demonstrate that I am absolutely in error and prove to me that the tathagathagarbha doctrine is correct.
You're missing an important point. I actually used to be a Mahayana Buddhist, but a closer examination of doctrine and how they were observed to conform to experience didn't match. So I reexamined my views and upon that discovery I became a Theravadin. I am open to reexamining the doctrine, but I need to know there's no confounded principles that will lead to error. If there is it is better if it were abandoned.
I think I get what you mean there. That's actually very valid.
Because they don't listen to me or respect me either, I hear them just fine, and unlike them I listen and pay close attention to what they are saying to the point where I know I am probably annoying them. But no one has taken my position, beliefs, or claims seriously or even tried to understand why I have them.
I approach a subject directly and in such a way not to over conceptualize things which may be seen as an act of attacking someone else's beliefs or conceptions (I know that's probably what it is), but to be honest I'm no more attacking them than attacking the concept of what a bat looks like in your imagination. Then people get mad! They say stop calling me silly when what I actually said that your idea of a purple sparkled bat is silly. Sure, it might be a very cute purple sparkled bat, and I might even appreciate it in a personal way, but it doesn't reflect reality any more than my perception of a black fanged bat. It's all about perceptions, and I'm not attacking the person, but the perceptions. You are not your perceptions.
Or Certainty could be faith in the basic sanity we have underneath our confusion. Depends. Which would be to sit with the stress and trust. Shamata. And equinimity. And compassion. And when you sit with experience as confusing as it is that is mindfulness. (I am not talking about those things on an intellectually descriptive level though that can be encouraging to hear about. I am talking about them as experiences on the cushion.)
Arrogance usually is not viewed favorably. But certainty can be good. Except when its not.
Arrogant towards whom? You still need someone to be arrogant towards.
Oh you should always be open to might. You don't need must to instill healthy doubt. Might, is quite enough. As it should, imo. This is way I like debating with people. It's the only means I know to NOT be arrogant. A means of being as objective as humanly possible and breaking down my view so that they might understand. And I them.
Experience is uncertain. You are still viewing things through your own eyes at the end of the day.
Nothing is uncertain, what do you mean?
I got the right one? As in I chose the right one or the one that fails us?
I think I meant that it was good to be willing to deal with some uncertainty but I was a bit tipsy and my language was reflected in that fact.
Summarily dismissing *anyone's* religion is a great fault, as far as I am concerned. This applies whether they are Catholic, Muslim, Mahayanist or Theravadin. There have been many highly intelligent practitioners of all faiths. To cleave to one's own particular viewpoint as the One True Tradition is mere fundamentalism. I am quite sure that what you believe is relevant and vital to you. There is no need for you to agree to someone else's doctrine. Nobody is asking you to. In your own mind you need to decide what is proper view and stick to that. Trying to bludgeon other viewpoints in a public forum is not a skillful use of dharma.
Ruegg or Sprung's translation of the Prasannapada if you can't read the source text.
Oh? Who was your teacher? Where did you study? Did you ever receive teachings on the Madhyamaka texts or were you just studying on your own?
As to this person who claimed to be a tulku, I could *claim* to be the Second Coming of Christ. It would not reflect in the least on Christianity, only on my own sanity. One should rely on the exemplars of a tradition, not quacks.
Firstly, there was no such thing as "Hinduism" when Shakyamuni was alive. There were various traditions that were largely derivatives of Samkhya. It was the notion of atman as some sort of existent entity that was refuted by him. The Mahayana and indeed the later advaita vendanta approaches both reject the Atma as some sort of existent entity. If you knew the history of the viewpoints you are categorically rejecting (such as "Hinduism"), you would know that Gaudapada and Adi Shankara were heavily influenced by extant buddhist philosophy. You have confused the direction of the historical influences. Also, in terms of the soteriology it may be that modern Vedanta reaches exactly the same goal as Buddhism. The last time I heard someone claiming a monopoly on truth, it was a Christian evangelist.
Apoha is indeed very deep. However, the most salient point to our discussion is that any doctrine is a mere mental construct. It can be conducive to clearing away misconceptions or not, but the wisdom that is uncovered is not produced by the construct.
All doctrines. See raft metaphor. The only purpose of doctrine for a fully awakened buddha is to help others achieve the same state. They no longer need it as a tool to experience what is real.
Caveat emptor. You are welcome to accept or reject whatever sources you wish. I have seen no slanders or criticisms of the disciples of the Buddha in the the Mahayana teachings. At all. Ever. Nor have I ever seen a denial of the doctrine of anatma. It is foundational for all Mahayana approaches. However it is not understood as you understand it. Have you attained liberation through your practice? If so, perhaps you are qualified to judge whether others have attained liberation through theirs. If not, it is mere presumption.
Who has said such a thing? Within the Vajrayana tradition, one practices all three yanas: the vows of individual liberation, the vows of the bodhisattva and the vows of the vajrayana. The "hinayana" is never equated with the Theravada tradition. It is simply another name for the vinaya. I have never put down the Theravada. I have said that I have my differences of opinion philosophically, but that I have tremendous respect for the practitioners of it. It is completely irrelevant whether I agree with its tenets.
A good faith philosophical discussion starts with laying out underlying premises to establish whether there is a basis for discussion. If the underlying premises are not accepted by both parties, there is little point to further debate. What you are engaging in is simply polemics.
Not my job. I could not care less whether you accept tathagathagarbha doctrine or not. If you are telling me that you read Nagarjuna's opus and still think that his thought is eternalistic, how will anything I say convince you otherwise?
What you claim to have been in the past is completely irrelevant. If you actually were a Mahayanist (which I doubt, because nobody that I know identifies themselves primarily as a "Mahayana Buddhist" but rather as a Tibetan Buddhist, Zen Buddhist, etc.), then you didn't receive any instruction on the meaning of the texts you purport to have read or you wouldn't have such a superficial understanding of the chatushkoti, for example. I am all for finding what path one resonates with. I just don't think that disingenuousness is constructive.
I don't dismiss religions I abandon doctrines that aren't a means to acquiring insight and isn't supported by experience or reality.
Is it in Pali, Sanskrit, Chinese, Japanese? I can figure it out, thanks for the new materials. I do love Mahayana literature. It's all beautiful and colorful metaphors.
I could tell you, but then I don't want to hurt feelings, nor create a huge unnecessary conflict, but I will say that she is the only Tulku that is a woman in my country as far as I know.
The Vihara I went to was the Palyul lineage of the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. I left after deep investigation finding the teachings expounded to be false and misleading.
Both. I actually had to read it on my own to clear up a few of the baloney warnings I got.
I agree, but this is something that can be very difficult when all you have around you are quacks.
I know that, I'm Theravadin, not an idiot.
No I haven't it's actually very closely related to the doctrines.
Same here, but I'm not talking about a monopoly of truth, but veracity of a doctrine in relation to the rest of the teachings. Consistency.
But the construct is a tool that you can use to acquire insight.
You aren't a fully awakened Buddha are you? So naturally to see what is reality is either indescribable or not recognizable by either of us, but we can use the words of Shakyamuni as a greater indication.
If the teachings on the website of this teacher are indicative of what you were being taught, I don't blame you. I have attempted to comment on many blog entries there that to my mind were based on a completely wrong understanding of emptiness, the three natures, etc. These comments never made it past moderation and were never addressed, though they were balanced and factual. Much of what she posts is pop Buddhism, or something that more closely resembles neoplatonism than madhyamaka.
While I can only judge based on the assorted blog entries, twitter feeds, etc. I can totally understand why you have the ideas you have about mahayana. This woman has never done the required retreats nor studied at the level necessary to comment on such profound texts as the MMK. Were I you, I would not be so quick to dismiss the texts and approaches based merely on your experience with her. She is not at all indicative of even the Palyul lineage she claims to represent.
On the other hand, I am quite sincere when I say that one must find the path that resonates for you rather than looking for doctrinal certainty. If that is Theravada, I feel no desire to try to convert you to another point of view. I judge philosophical systems based on my own meditation experience and oral instruction from my guru, who spent more than 40 years of his life in retreat and deep scholarly study rather than accumulating husbands, crystals, mortgages, etc. It is nearly impossible to study the source texts without engaging a scholar to provide context and help in unpacking meaning.
There are other differences, but the big point is that one is seen from the inside looking outward, while the other is from the outside looking in (with disagreement).
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
She doesn't care, and she will not listen to what you have to say. I've said the same things, and after a while when your thoughts are rejected you think you are wrong, unless of course you actually read the teachings, so I distanced myself and walked away.
And so I began to think that Neoplatonism and new age nonsense or other types of issues related were problems of madhyamaka.
No she hasn't but I can. So I try to step back and gain perspective, and ask as many questions as I can. Without doing that I lose all sense of reality.
Goodness I hope not.
Aye, I understand what you mean. Which is why I prefer knowing fact from pop fiction. or in that case pulp fiction.
So do I which is why I have been working hard to study away from said issues and taking refuge in the teachings where I feel safe. Not to say I completely dismiss ANY teachings because as you might understand I love the Mahayana teachings from a literature standpoint and how it resonates with deep compassion, but I also cannot trust teachers and make that leap of faith without feeling like I'll end up in a hole.
Sometimes, but sometimes it is pretty straight-forward. There is of course the Abhidharma which is really tough, and/or more dense texts. I do of course read works from other scholars' analyses.
Good point. I never noticed that factor. That's important to notice.
I know this is part of an old-ish post but it came back to mind as I was trying to sleep and nagged at me. Is it Jetsunma Ahkon Lhamo to whom you refer? I ask because she leads our dear friend Palzang's sangha.
The common way to deal with people that don't conform to our views is to a) disparage the view of the other person, or b) discredit the other person in some way.
Cheers, WK
Wow, what world are you living on? One thing I am certain of is uncertainty.
Cheers, WK