Is Critical Thinking Active Vipassana?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Is Critical Thinking Active Vipassana?

Post by Cittasanto »

Mr Man wrote:
Cittasanto wrote: Are you looking for clarity for the purpose of discourse in this thread or to discus what vipassana is?
Given the title of the thread I would think that it would be esential to have an understanding of what vipassana is and what it isn't. What if the whole discussion was based on a incorrect understanding of a key term?

If we take the definition of vipassana from kirk5a above " "vipassana" is the seeing connected with the "supramundane." and critical thinking as " "analyzing and evaluating thinking with a view to improoving it" I'm struggling to see how the two could be confused.
well there are many ways in which to understand terms, and one of the reasons I chose the Open Dhamma area was to allow for many understandings of what vipassana is and how that could manifest in an active way. and why I provided two possible understandings of what Vipassana is from what I understand to be a common nowadays if not scripturally accurate. I do not feel Vipassana need to be pinned down into one definition so long as it can be active, used in daily life and not solely on the cushion.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
User avatar
Cittasanto
Posts: 6646
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin
Contact:

Re: Is Critical Thinking Active Vipassana?

Post by Cittasanto »

kirk5a wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:please read the post right above the initial reply to you!
What post are you referring to?
http://www.dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.ph ... 40#p233079" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.

He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Is Critical Thinking Active Vipassana?

Post by danieLion »

kirk5a wrote:
danieLion wrote:Not necessarily, but I am claiming it can be used as a tool by some individuals at some times to fabricate part of a path to stream-entry. Are you denying that REBT and CBT can never be used for such a purpose by some people at some times? In other words, are you making a mutual exclusivity claim or false dichotomy claim between path fabrication and REBT and CBT tools?
Unless someone directly, specifically, and creditably credits the REBT or CBT process with the attainment of stream entry, it remains speculation as to whether these tools actually can form a part of the path to stream entry. Is there someone out there who actually makes that claim? Or are they not rather better understood in terms of their recognized goals, rather than giving too much significance to textual similarities here and there?
What do you mean by "someone out there"? Are you committing the fallacy of argument to tradition and/or argument to authority? I'm someone "out there" with academic credentials and an experienced Buddhist who's made direct, specific, credible claims with minimal speculation about the substantial relationship between critical thinking/REBT/CBT and The Path. Cittasanto's someone "out there" that's made similar direct, specific, and credible claims with minimal specualtion about the substantial relationship between critical thinking/REBT/CBT and The Path. And yes, there are many Buddhists "out there" with credibility who have made similar claims. Would you like me to inform you of them, also? I could do it lickity split with one hand tied behind my back.
kirk5a wrote:
Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT), previously called rational therapy and rational emotive therapy, is a comprehensive, active-directive, philosophically and empirically based psychotherapy which focuses on resolving emotional and behavioral problems and disturbances and enabling people to lead happier and more fulfilling lives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_e ... or_therapy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This does not contradict what I've said but rather supports it.
kirk5a wrote:
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is a psychotherapeutic approach that addresses dysfunctional emotions, maladaptive behaviors and cognitive processes and contents through a number of goal-oriented, explicit systematic procedures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_ ... al_therapy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
This also does not contradict what I've said and also supports it.
kirk5a wrote:Bhikkhu Bodhi has some astute things to say about differing goals:
Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: Today the practice of insight meditation has gained global popularity, yet in achieving this success it has undergone a subtle metamorphosis. Rather than being taught as an integral part of the Buddhist path, it is now often presented as a secular discipline whose fruits pertain more to life within the world than to supramundane release. Many meditators testify to the tangible benefits they have gained from the practice of insight meditation, benefits that range from enhanced job performance and better relationships to deeper calm, more compassion, and greater awareness. However, while such benefits may certainly be worthwhile in their own right, taken by themselves they are not the final goal that the Buddha himself holds up as the end point of his training. That goal, in the terminology of the texts, is the attainment of Nibbana, the destruction of all defilements here and now and deliverance from the beginningless round of rebirths.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ay_45.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I'm familiar with Bhikkhu Bodhi's views on this. I've all ready voiced similar concerns (above) about popular Buddhism and western psychotherapeutic co-optation, e.g., therapists who bill themselves as "mindfulness based" but aren't even Buddhists. Furthermore, it's my understanding--and I hope he'll correct me if I'm wrong--that the owner of Dhammawheel is a himself a "secular" Buddhist and is interested in exploring what this means for modern Buddhists. I'm of the opinion that the secular/non-secular dichotomy is basically hot air, but time will tell if I'm accurate on that score or not. The Bhikkhu Bodhi article you cited is illustrates this. First of all, he uses the term "insight mediation" without reference to the related debate about whether or not vipassana is a technique, state of mind or both. Secondly, he invokes the notion of "original" Buddhism without clarifying it's distinction from early Buddhism. Has he went back in time and observed the Buddha and all the "original" Buddhists to come to some special knowledge about this? And where, exactly does "original" Buddhism end and "non-original" Buddhism begin? And by using the term "original" he is implying, whether intentionally or not I don't know, that there was uniform agreement back then as to what Buddhist practice is and isn't. We do not see the Buddha in the suttas drawing such strict lines in the sand.
Furthermore, he also says things in the article like:
Given the skeptical climate of our age, it is quite appropriate that newcomers to Dhamma be invited to explore for themselves the potential inherent in the practice. Perhaps the last thing they need is to have the full agenda of Buddhist doctrine thrust upon them from the start.... The canonical texts do not seem to envisage the possibility that a person lacking faith in the tenets specific to the Dhamma could take up the practice of insight meditation and reap positive results. Yet today such a phenomenon has become extremely widespread. It is quite common now for meditators to make their first contact with the Dhamma through intensive insight meditation, and then to use this experience as a touchstone for assessing their relationship to the teaching....

The fact that insight meditation can be seriously practiced even outside the domain of Buddhist faith raises an interesting question never explicitly posed by the canon and commentaries. If insight meditation can be pursued solely for its immediately visible benefits, then what role does faith play in the development of the path? Certainly, faith as a full acceptance of Buddhist doctrine is not a necessary condition for Buddhist practice. As we have seen, those who do not follow the Dhamma as a path to spiritual deliverance might still accept the Buddhist ethical precepts and practice meditation as a way to inner peace.

Faith must therefore play a different role than that of a simple spur to action, but the exact nature of this role remains problematic. Perhaps the solution will emerge if we ask what faith actually means in the context of Buddhist practice. It should be clear at once that faith cannot be adequately explained simply as reverence for the Buddha, or as some alloy of devotion, admiration, and gratitude. For while these qualities often exist alongside faith, they may all be present even when faith is absent.
He's mincing words here (which he can be very good at, considering his Western Philosopical-Secular-Speculative background). If someone's taking up "insight mediation" that implies some degree of faith. He seems to be suggesting that Buddhist faith is some kind of club or that you have to have a special kind of faith to do "authentic" or "original" insight meditation.

It gets worse:
It is this decision that separates those who take up the practice of insight meditation as a purely naturalistic discipline from those who practice it within the framework of the Buddhist faith. The former, by suspending any judgment about the picture of the human condition imparted by the Buddha, limit the fruit of the practice to those that are compatible with a secular, naturalistic worldview. The latter, by accepting the Buddha's own disclosure of the human condition, gain access to the goal that the Buddha himself holds up as the final aim of the practice.

The second pillar that supports the practice of insight meditation is the cognitive counterpart of faith, namely, right view (samma ditthi). Though the word "view" might suggest that the practitioner actually sees the principles considered to be right, at the outset of the training this is seldom the case. For all but a few exceptionally gifted disciples, right view initially means right belief, the acceptance of principles and doctrines out of confidence in the Buddha's enlightenment. Though Buddhist modernists sometimes claim that the Buddha said that one should believe only what one can verify for oneself, no such statement is found in the Pali canon. What the Buddha does say is that one should not accept his teachings blindly but should inquire into their meaning and attempt to realize their truth for oneself.

Contrary to Buddhist modernism, there are many principles taught by the Buddha as essential to right understanding that we cannot, in our present state, see for ourselves. These are by no means negligible, for they define the framework of the Buddha's entire program of deliverance. Not only do they depict the deeper dimensions of the suffering from which we need release, but they point in the direction where true liberation lies and prescribe the steps that lead to realization of the goal (my bolds).
First, he is not at all clear what he means by "naturalistic." The bolded sentence is a view held not only by the likes of K.N Jayatilleke, Thanissaro but even his good friend Analayo who's scholarship has went far beyond the standard reference to the Kalama Sutta as a verificationist text and shown from several other suttas that the Buddha strongly encouraged a verificationist, or "charter of free inquiry" approach in his words, to Buddhist faith. I've documented this here.

Second, he is not at all clear what he means by "Buddhist modernism." As a Buddhist living in modern times, he himself is a product of modernism and "Buddhist modernism."

It gets even more convoluted when he brings up the mundane/supramundnae distinction.
These principles include the tenets of both "mundane" and "transcendent" right view. Mundane right view is the type of correct understanding that leads to a fortunate destination within the round of rebirths. It involves an acceptance of the principles of kamma and its fruit; of the distinction between meritorious and evil actions; and of the vast expanse and multiple domains of samsara within which rebirth may occur. Transcendent right view is the view leading to liberation from samsara in its entirety. It entails understanding the Four Noble Truths in their deeper ramifications, as offering not merely a diagnosis of psychological distress but a description of samsaric bondage and a program for final release. It is the transcendent right view that comes at the head of the Noble Eightfold Path and steers the other seven factors toward the cessation of suffering.
Which view is Bhikkhu Bodhi speaking from? Is he speaking as a puthujjana? If so, how can we trust he understands Buddhist doctrine enough to be credible? And has he come to these conclusions completely divorced from his modernistic background? If so, he's reasoning in circles; if not, is he suggesting we beleive him because he has special knoweldge? Even if he's a stream-enterer, he's still speaking from a mundane perspective--assuming the line between mundane and supramundane is drawn between non-returner and arahant--and so his views are still defiled.

These are not minor problems. They go the to the heart of challenges facing not only people interested in Buddhism but those who call themselves Buddhists. For those interested in Buddhism, it can discourage them; for those who call themselves Buddhists, it can ber very confusing. Is this what we would expect from a teacher (the Buddha) who taught seeng things as they really are? I don't think the Buddha is the problem, here, though. He himself expressed concerns about how to articulate his message and constantly refined his methods throughout his life, and even left his bhikkhus scratching their heads over which of rules of the vinaya were the minor ones and which ones were the majore ones. Perhaps his admonitions near the end of his life that we ought to be our own refuges is an expression of his own critical thinking about these issues? And they fly in the face of the view that Buddhist faith and verification are mutually exclusive.
User avatar
kirk5a
Posts: 1959
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 1:51 pm

Re: Is Critical Thinking Active Vipassana?

Post by kirk5a »

danieLion wrote: What do you mean by "someone out there"? Are you committing the fallacy of argument to tradition and/or argument to authority? I'm someone "out there" with academic credentials and an experienced Buddhist who's made direct, specific, credible claims with minimal speculation about the substantial relationship between critical thinking/REBT/CBT and The Path. Cittasanto's someone "out there" that's made similar direct, specific, and credible claims with minimal specualtion about the substantial relationship between critical thinking/REBT/CBT and The Path. And yes, there are many Buddhists "out there" with credibility who have made similar claims. Would you like me to inform you of them, also? I could do it lickity split with one hand tied behind my back.
I meant a specific case of someone attaining stream-entry, and directly crediting one of these psychotherapies for reaching the first level of awakening. Do you know of such a case?
"When one thing is practiced & pursued, ignorance is abandoned, clear knowing arises, the conceit 'I am' is abandoned, latent tendencies are uprooted, fetters are abandoned. Which one thing? Mindfulness immersed in the body." -AN 1.230
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Is Critical Thinking Active Vipassana?

Post by danieLion »

kirk5a wrote:
danieLion wrote: What do you mean by "someone out there"? Are you committing the fallacy of argument to tradition and/or argument to authority? I'm someone "out there" with academic credentials and an experienced Buddhist who's made direct, specific, credible claims with minimal speculation about the substantial relationship between critical thinking/REBT/CBT and The Path. Cittasanto's someone "out there" that's made similar direct, specific, and credible claims with minimal specualtion about the substantial relationship between critical thinking/REBT/CBT and The Path. And yes, there are many Buddhists "out there" with credibility who have made similar claims. Would you like me to inform you of them, also? I could do it lickity split with one hand tied behind my back.
I meant a specific case of someone attaining stream-entry, and directly crediting one of these psychotherapies for reaching the first level of awakening. Do you know of such a case?
Oh...well...that's a lot different than what I initially thought. I don't know of a case like that, but then again, this is the only place I currently intentionally interact with other Buddhists and when I was involved in groups around here it didn't come up that I recall. My first meditation teacher here was therapist, but I don't recall her specifically talking about it. She used a lot of REBT and CBT terminology, but I never asked her if she was a stream-enterer or not. Plus, I'm under the impression genuine stream-enterers aren't generally into announcing the fact, so I don't know how one would determine that.

I don't know if the Dhammawheel Founding Member Venerable Dhammanando is a stream-enterer (but I wouldn't doubt it), but I do know he has implicitly approved of REBT as a good fit with Buddhism in this post and in this one. Come to think of it, that whole topic, Practitioners view of psychotherapy, is relevant to this one.

IMHO, it would be very helpful of Venerable Dhammanando to weigh in here, but I also understand he is an elusive figure and often dwells in the wilds, so I'm not holding my breathe.
danieLion
Posts: 1947
Joined: Wed May 25, 2011 4:49 am

Re: Is Critical Thinking Active Vipassana?

Post by danieLion »

A typical problem I and I bet many others have:

1. You have a memory, usually out of the blue, about something you did and feel ashamed (not in the otapa and hiri sense, for that's healthy shame; but in the self-hating sense).

2. You say things to yourself like, "I'm such a jerk," or "I'm such and idiot."

I've trained my self with "active" vipassana to actively dispute these irrational beliefs (a la REBT) by applying the tilakkhana and kilesa teachings (the two functions of vipassana I pointed out above) to my self-defeating beleifs (Cf. David D. Burns).

Take the first word of either sentence, "I'm." Here we have an expression of not only clinging to a view of self (atta/anatta) but also a presumption that this sense of self is how I am permanently (anicca), which, as we know, results in dukkha. We may further see this phenomenon by using Gombrich's and Thanissaro's, "we're processes not things," (see above posts), Korzybski's "is of indenity" theory (see above posts), Thanissaro's "When you define yourself you limit yourself (see above posts), and Ellis', "REBT Diminishes Much of the Human Ego" (see above posts) perspectives in our introspective analysis.
As a process and not a thing (Gombrich, Thanissaro), I can't be/equal "jerk" or "idiot" (Korzybski, Ellis). Yet that's what most of us feel when we say such things to ourselves. It is an attempt at self definition, and definitions are usally attempts to solidify (anicca) one's "being" (Thanissaro).

Furthermore, as an irrational belief (Ellis)--and as the whole process is indicative of--I'm acting out of delusion (moha), and this unrealistic view of myself involves self-hate (dosa). It also involves greed (lobha) for a final summation of who I am, and conceit (mana) as it also usually involves comparing myself to others as non-jerks and non-idiots. It is also engaging in shamelessness (ahirika) and lack of moral dread or unconscientiousness (anottappa) via mental torpor (thina) because instead of taking the time to see distinguish between my past behaviors as mistakes which I can learn from with some Effort, I resort to the quicker and more convenient mis-labeling (see David D' Burns's cognitive distortions) myself with a simple yet innacurate sentence like, "I'm such a jerk."
Post Reply