On Verification

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
User avatar
Dan74-MkII
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:22 am

Re: On Verification

Post by Dan74-MkII »

binocular wrote: Thu Mar 28, 2019 2:06 pm
Dan74-MkII wrote: Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:29 pmThere is some element of the "pudding proving itself, even if it is not a pudding, but believed to be a pudding", kind of a self-justifying belief system plus the placebo effect of religions and all those psychologically beneficial and enjoyable factors you list.
No no no, I'm not talking about placebos and useful fictions.
But saying that " Beyond that, it doesn't really seem to matter which religion/spirituality one commits to." is a massive overreach in my view. It matters a great deal as people who have practiced different religions can readily attest to, but also as one can see by looking at the practices and the underlying belief-systems.This isn't to say that one can rigorously prove one religion to be superior to another, but to rush into the opposite conclusion and say that they are all the same is intellectually lazy, IMO.
Notice that I did not say they are all the same.
I'm saying that if one commits to a religion/spirituality, one will experience it as true, useful, beneficial. If one doesn't experience it as such, then, so the religious/spiritual justification, one has not committed to it. If someone is not satisfied with a particular religion/spirituality, then this is because they have not committed to it, not because said religion/spirituality would be faulty in any way.
Hmm.. to set the bar as high as proving that a religious system is true, is impossibly high. Inevitably we will fall back on some major assumptions and evidence that is largely "internal".

But your answer to this seems to be to basically say that therefore they are all the same and what matters is the depth of commitment. I don't think this follows. If you commit deeply to something with Wrong View, like the IS suicide bombers, the results of your commitment will not be wisdom and compassion.

Susam Blackmore, I think it was, described Buddhism as a self-destroying meme (back in the days when a meme was more than a funny picture). The Buddha himself described it as a raft and warned that the teachings were to be used appropriately and not attached to beyond their use. So commitment in Buddhism is a very different thing - it is about doing moreso than believing. Nagarjuna's expanding the Buddha's teaching of Emptiness makes clear that there is in reality no suffering and no ending of suffering, no birth and no ending of birth and all the concepts we hold to are not the reality. This is, to me, the essential difference between Buddhism and all other religious systems. It spells out its own provisional nature and urges us to awaken to reality, rather than worship the Buddha and make a fetish out of his teachings. We may well do that and perhaps that can have some provisional beneficial effect, but it's not the point.

So what does commitment mean in Buddhist practice? I think it means first and foremost training the mind in ethics, contemplation and wisdom, which includes sharpening awareness and eventually dropping all assumptions, beliefs, conceptual and other attachment, even notions like commitment. As Blackmore said 'a self-destroying meme.'
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by binocular »

Dan74-MkII wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:59 amBut your answer to this seems to be to basically say that therefore they are all the same and what matters is the depth of commitment. I don't think this follows. If you commit deeply to something with Wrong View, like the IS suicide bombers, the results of your commitment will not be wisdom and compassion.
That is so only from your particular perspective, which you're taking for granted, but from the perspective of IS and suicide bombers, it's a perfectly good thing to do.

You're not allowing for the possibility that someone has an entirely different evaluation of a situation than you do.
The Buddha himself described it as a raft and warned that the teachings were to be used appropriately and not attached to beyond their use. So commitment in Buddhism is a very different thing - it is about doing moreso than believing.
That doesn't affect my point.
Nagarjuna's expanding the Buddha's teaching of Emptiness makes clear that there is in reality no suffering and no ending of suffering, no birth and no ending of birth and all the concepts we hold to are not the reality.
That's Nagarjuna. We're at a Theravada forum.
This is, to me, the essential difference between Buddhism and all other religious systems. It spells out its own provisional nature and urges us to awaken to reality, rather than worship the Buddha and make a fetish out of his teachings. We may well do that and perhaps that can have some provisional beneficial effect, but it's not the point.
:strawman:
So what does commitment mean in Buddhist practice? I think it means first and foremost training the mind in ethics, contemplation and wisdom, which includes sharpening awareness and eventually dropping all assumptions, beliefs, conceptual and other attachment, even notions like commitment. As Blackmore said 'a self-destroying meme.'
By "commitment" I simply mean something along the lines of 'being serious about Buddhist practice; doing it consistently; gradually increasing consistency".
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by binocular »

Sam Vara wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:39 amAs Budo points out above, the same applies to any type of verification. It is an issue only with regards to analytic truths. One can easily discover the truth about fire or gravity, even though you didn't define the terms.
Is suffering the same kind of thing as fire or gravity? It's not clear that it is.
The only thing one can find out for oneself in religion/spirituality is whether one can keep up with the program
If one takes that to be an axiom, then it will indeed be self-evidently true. But the purpose of the Dhamma is not to confirm self-evident truths.
Every religion/spirituality that I know of has a clause like this in its favor.
I have yet to meet or hear of such a person. I make a point of investigating deconversion accounts. So far, in all cases, I was able to discover that the person has a faulty knowledge of the doctrines of the religion they've left.
Well, I've known many such people, and their knowledge has been detailed and orthodox, so that might just be an issue about different life-experiences. In terms of important accounts of people losing faith, there are the examples of Darwin, who was steeped in Nonconformist theology and was destined for the Anglican priesthood; Richard Holloway, who was Bishop of Edinburgh and Primus of the Scottish Episcopalians; Karen Armstrong, who renounced Catholicism after being a nun; Salman Rushdie, an exceptionally well-informed apostate from Islam; and within Buddhism, Stephen Batchelor, who disavowed his earlier realist conception of the Dhamma in favour of "Buddhist Atheism".
We would need to look into their detailed accounts. But at first glance, these people apparently didn't understand the doctrinal points about piety, obedience, or epistemic dependence of the religions they have left behind.
The devil can quote scripture; but he clearly does not understand the role of piety and obedience.
Of course, one might claim that they and all the others had a "faulty knowledge" of their erstwhile doctrines, but it sounds like another axiom.
It's an axiom, a failsafe clause that all religions/spiritualities that I know of contain. I didn't have to invent it; it's there already.
In religion/spirituality, failure to see a religion/spirituality as true is, as a matter of principle, blamed on the person, on their lack of effort (which entails lack of knowledge).

Indeed, some religions/spiritualities make some minor concessions and blame such failure on the devil or unfavorable circumstances, but on the whole, if you don't come to the conclusion that some religion/spirituality is true, you're the one who gets blamed.

This is an example of such a clause:
When this had been said, the brahman Ganaka-Moggallana spoke thus to the Lord:

"Now, on being exhorted thus and instructed thus by the good Gotama, do all the good Gotama's disciples attain the unchanging goal[8] — nibbana or do some not attain it?"

"Some of my disciples, brahman, on being exhorted and instructed thus by me, attain the unchanging goal — nibbana; some do not attain it."

"What is the cause, good Gotama, what the reason that; since nibbana does exist, since the way leading to nibbana exists, since the good Gotama exists as adviser, some of the good Gotama's disciples on being exhorted thus and instructed thus by the good Gotama, attain the unchanging goal — nibbana, but some do not attain it?"

"Well then, brahman, I will question you on this point in reply. As it is pleasing to you, so you may answer me. What do you think about this, brahman? Are you skilled in the way leading to Rajagaha?"

"Yes, sir, skilled am I in the way leading to Rajagaha."

"What do you think about this? A man might come along here wanting to go to Rajagaha. Having approached you, he might speak thus: 'I want to go to Rajagaha, sir; show me the way to this Rajagaha.' You might speak thus to him: "Yes, my good man, this road goes to Rajagaha; go along it for a while. When you have gone along it for a while you will see a village; go along for a while; when you have gone along for a while you will see a market town; go for a while. When you have gone along for a while you will see Rajagaha with its delightful parks, delightful forests, delightful fields, delightful ponds. But although he has been exhorted and instructed thus by you, he might take the wrong road and go westwards. Then a second man might come along wanting to go to Rajagaha...(as above)... you will see Rajagaha with its delightful... ponds.' Exhorted and instructed thus by you he might get to Rajagaha safely. What is the cause, brahman, what the reason that, since Rajagaha does exist, since the way leading to Rajagaha exists, since you exist as adviser, the one man, although being exhorted and instructed thus by you, may take the wrong road and go westwards while the other may get to Rajagaha safely?"

"What can I, good Gotama, do in this matter? A shower of the way, good Gotama, am I."

"Even so, brahman, nibbana does exist, the way leading to nibbana exists and I exist as adviser. But some of my disciples, on being exhorted and instructed thus by me attain the unchanging goal — nibbana, some do not attain it. What can I, brahman, do in this matter? A shower of the way, brahman, is a Tathagata."

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitak ... .horn.html
Indeed, above, the individuals who didn't get to Rajagaha or nibbana aren't being blamed. But every Buddhist I know makes that inference, and blames the person.


IOW, in Buddhism one is not supposed to start with a null hypothesis ("Either there is nibbana, or there isn't"), but with a desire for a very specific result ("There is nibbana"). That makes verification in any kind of scientific sense moot. Instead, it makes the Buddhist path more like a course of education where one pursues a particular goal.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by binocular »

binocular wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:46 pm
since nibbana does exist, since the way leading to nibbana exists, since the good Gotama exists as adviser
This is like, for example, when Christians say, "But Christ _has_ risen" or "God _does_ love you".

It's a doctrinal claim; stating it emphatically or repeating it doesn't make it true. I take no issue with preaching and making declarations. I do think that those who are trying to frame the religious/spiritual matter as a type of (pseudo)scientific pursuit, apparently uncomfortable with preaching, are misleading people.

"Sciencing up" religion/spirituality, apparently in an effort to make it more palatable or relatable to more people, is misleading.


I actually feel relieved, now that I've formulated it like this. Distancing myself from my old Buddhist teachers and friends ...
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: On Verification

Post by cappuccino »

binocular wrote: I actually feel relieved, now that I've formulated it like this. Distancing myself from my old Buddhist teachers and friends ...
why choose darkness?
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by binocular »

cappuccino wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 6:22 pm
binocular wrote: I actually feel relieved, now that I've formulated it like this. Distancing myself from my old Buddhist teachers and friends ...
why choose darkness?
What darkness? I said I'm distancing myself from my old Buddhist teachers and friends. I didn't say anything about not making new ones. Before one can make new ones, one has to let go of the old ones.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
cappuccino
Posts: 12879
Joined: Thu Feb 11, 2016 1:45 am
Contact:

Re: On Verification

Post by cappuccino »

:)
User avatar
Dan74-MkII
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:22 am

Re: On Verification

Post by Dan74-MkII »

binocular wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:04 pm
Dan74-MkII wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 4:59 amBut your answer to this seems to be to basically say that therefore they are all the same and what matters is the depth of commitment. I don't think this follows. If you commit deeply to something with Wrong View, like the IS suicide bombers, the results of your commitment will not be wisdom and compassion.
That is so only from your particular perspective, which you're taking for granted, but from the perspective of IS and suicide bombers, it's a perfectly good thing to do.

You're not allowing for the possibility that someone has an entirely different evaluation of a situation than you do.
The Buddha himself described it as a raft and warned that the teachings were to be used appropriately and not attached to beyond their use. So commitment in Buddhism is a very different thing - it is about doing moreso than believing.
That doesn't affect my point.
Nagarjuna's expanding the Buddha's teaching of Emptiness makes clear that there is in reality no suffering and no ending of suffering, no birth and no ending of birth and all the concepts we hold to are not the reality.
That's Nagarjuna. We're at a Theravada forum.
This is, to me, the essential difference between Buddhism and all other religious systems. It spells out its own provisional nature and urges us to awaken to reality, rather than worship the Buddha and make a fetish out of his teachings. We may well do that and perhaps that can have some provisional beneficial effect, but it's not the point.
:strawman:
So what does commitment mean in Buddhist practice? I think it means first and foremost training the mind in ethics, contemplation and wisdom, which includes sharpening awareness and eventually dropping all assumptions, beliefs, conceptual and other attachment, even notions like commitment. As Blackmore said 'a self-destroying meme.'
By "commitment" I simply mean something along the lines of 'being serious about Buddhist practice; doing it consistently; gradually increasing consistency".
I don't buy into your ethical relativism. Of course IS fanatics believe themselves to be in the right, but that doesn't mean I have to.

The rest of your post doesn't really engage with any of the points I've made, so I will leave it at that.
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: On Verification

Post by Sam Vara »

binocular wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 5:46 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Sun Mar 31, 2019 9:39 amAs Budo points out above, the same applies to any type of verification. It is an issue only with regards to analytic truths. One can easily discover the truth about fire or gravity, even though you didn't define the terms.
Is suffering the same kind of thing as fire or gravity? It's not clear that it is.
It's exactly like it, in terms of the question you asked:
How are you finding out for yourself whether something is true or not, when it is someone else who defines all the terms for you, someone else who defines what the result of your efforts should be?
One finds out whether statements about fire or gravity are true or not, regardless of definitions.

You appear to think that there are two answers to the question of verification.

1) That the verification of religious/spiritual claims is entirely a matter of self-verification, in the sense that verification is no more than a concomitant of, or logically derived from, the commitment to that religion.

2) That there is a form of external verification of religious claims via the scientific method: "sciencing up".

You seem to favour the first, which incidentally implies that all religions are equally verifiable, and equally independent of the way things are. Reasons for choosing one religion over another are extraneous to the truth of that religion. And you seem to think that the second answer (favoured by the likes of Robert Wright, and maybe Sam Harris) is wrong.

In fact, this is a false dilemma, as there is another option which is far closer to what the Buddha taught. He taught that there are real results which are experienced by the sincere practitioner (the usual epithets applied to the Dhamma are "apparent here and now, timeless, leading onwards, to be experienced individually by the wise".) The Buddha invites personal verification throughout his teachings in many different ways, and on occasion chides followers for merely believing what he has said without checking it out for themselves. Conversely, scientific understanding of the results of practice is precluded by the emphasis on individual understanding, rather than public verification of objective reality. What the Buddha urges is direct realisation or insight for oneself, not the ability to demonstrate "truth" in a public context.

That's unfortunate for those who are operating from a hermeneutic of suspicion, or are otherwise carrying around a set of axioms which prevent them taking sincere steps in order to help themselves. If one thinks that all religions or spiritual paths, etc. are such that their verification is a matter of mere analytic truth, or is conversely unproven due to a dearth of scientific evidence, then one will not walk the path; and consequently, one will find verification impossible. Unless one's desperation and suffering increase, or unless the Dhamma is presented in a more palatable way, then such a person is simply stuck.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by binocular »

Dan74-MkII wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:35 pmI don't buy into your ethical relativism.
My moral relativism is merely descriptive, not meta-ethical or normative.
Of course IS fanatics believe themselves to be in the right, but that doesn't mean I have to.
And yet you're the one who keeps saying that we're all deluded ...
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by binocular »

Sam Vara wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:43 pmOne finds out whether statements about fire or gravity are true or not, regardless of definitions.
Words ought to mean something, so your point is moot.
You appear to think that there are two answers to the question of verification.
No, there's more than those. You should add at least "direct perception", "intervention by a supreme being", and "epistemic luck".
1) That the verification of religious/spiritual claims is entirely a matter of self-verification, in the sense that verification is no more than a concomitant of, or logically derived from, the commitment to that religion.
Sure, but this isn't a problem per se. If a system of claims and practices is self-verifying, circular, self-referential like that, this means it does in some way reflect the workings of the universe correctly. It's not like this process of self-verification operates in a vacuum outside of our universe.

It's the inner Abrahamist that starts with the premise that only one religion can be compeltely true, and all others are less or more wrong. That's when one gets into a thorny thicket.
You seem to favour the first, which incidentally implies that all religions are equally verifiable, and equally independent of the way things are.
The first part yes, the underlined, no.
I'm merely a descriptive relativist, not a normative or meta-ethical or meta-epistemic one.
Reasons for choosing one religion over another are extraneous to the truth of that religion.
Again, no, that's incomplete. I think religious choice is actually a process that is simultaneously inductive and deductive, where taking for granted a conclusion makes one see the justification for it. That's different both from blind faith and ordinary circular reasoning. The initial reason for choosing one religion over another is extraneous to said religion in the sense that it temporally precedes one's involvement with it.
2) That there is a form of external verification of religious claims via the scientific method: "sciencing up".
And you seem to think that the second answer (favoured by the likes of Robert Wright, and maybe Sam Harris) is wrong.
I don't think it's wrong; I think it's at best the path of the paccekkabuddha. It's trying to pass it off as the path of the sekha that is something to take some issue with.
In fact, this is a false dilemma, as there is another option which is far closer to what the Buddha taught. He taught that there are real results which are experienced by the sincere practitioner (the usual epithets applied to the Dhamma are "apparent here and now, timeless, leading onwards, to be experienced individually by the wise".) The Buddha invites personal verification throughout his teachings in many different ways, and on occasion chides followers for merely believing what he has said without checking it out for themselves. Conversely, scientific understanding of the results of practice is precluded by the emphasis on individual understanding, rather than public verification of objective reality. What the Buddha urges is direct realisation or insight for oneself, not the ability to demonstrate "truth" in a public context.

Hence my comparing the Buddhist path (of the sekha) to a course of education, as I've been going on for a while.
Unless one's desperation and suffering increase, or unless the Dhamma is presented in a more palatable way, then such a person is simply stuck.
Clearly, I'm the only one at this point who can present the Dhamma to myself in such more palatable way.


Edited for some clarification.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: On Verification

Post by Sam Vara »

binocular wrote: Thu Apr 04, 2019 6:20 pm
Sam Vara wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:43 pmOne finds out whether statements about fire or gravity are true or not, regardless of definitions.
Words ought to mean something, so your point is moot.
They do mean something. The Buddha was referring to realities when he taught. Just as we can be pointed towards a real something which we know as fire - but did not define as such - so we can be pointed towards things which are real results of our actions, but which we played no part in defining. Dhamma by any other name would taste as sweet, and the Buddha was a thoroughgoing linguistic conventionalist.
Clearly, I'm the only one at this point who can present the Dhamma to myself in such more palatable way.
Maybe, but even that is a choice. "The voice of another", and "I will lift up mine eyes unto the hills, from whence cometh my help."
User avatar
Dan74-MkII
Posts: 241
Joined: Sun Jan 27, 2019 10:22 am

Re: On Verification

Post by Dan74-MkII »

binocular wrote: Thu Apr 04, 2019 5:58 pm
Dan74-MkII wrote: Mon Apr 01, 2019 8:35 pmI don't buy into your ethical relativism.
My moral relativism is merely descriptive, not meta-ethical or normative.
Of course IS fanatics believe themselves to be in the right, but that doesn't mean I have to.
And yet you're the one who keeps saying that we're all deluded ...
If it was just descriptive, then that goes without saying. Of course there is more than just my perspective, we are not agreeing for goodness sake, why bring IS into it?

That said, while I find that you do make interesting points from time to time, you don't really engage much with what others reply to them, except to clarify your own position. This makes the conversation one sided.
binocular
Posts: 8292
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:13 pm

Re: On Verification

Post by binocular »

Dan74-MkII wrote: Fri Apr 05, 2019 3:39 pmThat said, while I find that you do make interesting points from time to time, you don't really engage much with what others reply to them, except to clarify your own position. This makes the conversation one sided.
Because I'm on a mission, pursuing my goal, as stated earlier.
Besides, you want me to listen to you, but you don't listen to me.
Hic Rhodus, hic salta!
Post Reply