Tip on how to do enquiry

[doc benway]

Sometimes we lay too much weight on IQ and intelligence. My experience is that the "truth" as it were, needs a dropping of "intelligence" (as in applying our standard categorical frameworks). We are often too smart of our own good...and the more intelligent we are, the greater our propensity for self-delusion...

 

What we are looking for, I think most would agree, is beyond intellect - beyond conventional mind. 

While some traditions attempt to use intellect to go beyond intellect and with some success, I agree that at some level the power of the intellect can be the very thing that is the greatest obstacle. Perhaps there are distinct qualities or characteristics of intellect that can be beneficial on the path but, at least for me, the process and individuals are far too varied and complex for me to see a pattern. What I do tend to see, however, is a spark, a genuineness, a glimmer of wisdom, in those that have made contact. 

Not sure I can see too much of a commonality among those who will make contact, although the one thing that comes closest to a predictor in my experience is a history of life altering trauma. 

 

As I eluded to earlier, I think that the whole question of awakening has a bit of a "quantum" character to it.

Please pardon my use of that word as I don't mean to bring us into a pseudo-scientific, new age discussion.

But the nature of this process for me has a fundamental discontinuity about it and a paradoxical component - Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive and yet it is neither.

 

We are already what we seek and can never arrive somewhere we already are at. 

And once we arrive there, we see that there was never anywhere to go and that we really have not changed, and yet we are never the same again. 

We feel the truth of who/what we are deep, beneath our bones, and yet we cannot control the fact that have this limited perspective and cycle in and out of distraction and confusion.

And we then try to hold on to what we always had and feel like it's slipping away...

So we work at gaining some stability but, for me at least, it can be very elusive.

But when we need it, that beacon of certainty is there, like a lighthouse glimpsed between waves in a storm.

 

Sorry for the rambling but I felt like sharing some of my feelings.

Edited March 28, 2015 by steve

[dwai]

What we are looking for, I think most would agree, is beyond intellect - beyond conventional mind. 

While some traditions attempt to use intellect to go beyond intellect and with some success, I agree that at some level the power of the intellect can be the very thing that is the greatest obstacle. Perhaps there are distinct qualities or characteristics of intellect that can be beneficial on the path but, at least for me, the process and individuals are far too varied and complex for me to see a pattern. What I do tend to see, however, is a spark, a genuineness, a glimmer of wisdom, in those that have made contact. 

Not sure I can see too much of a commonality among those who will make contact, although the one thing that comes closest to a predictor in my experience is a history of life altering trauma. 

 

As I eluded to earlier, I think that the whole question of awakening has a bit of a "quantum" character to it.

Please pardon my use of that word as I don't mean to bring us into a pseudo-scientific, new age discussion.

But the nature of this process for me has a fundamental discontinuity about it and a paradoxical component - Schrödinger's cat is both dead and alive and yet it is neither.

 

We are already what we seek and can never arrive somewhere we already are at. 

And once we arrive there, we see that there was never anywhere to go and that we really have not changed, and yet we are never the same again. 

We feel the truth of who/what we are deep, beneath our bones, and yet we cannot control the fact that have this limited perspective and cycle in and out of distraction and confusion.

And we then try to hold on to what we always had and feel like it's slipping away...

So we work at gaining some stability but, for me at least, it can be very elusive.

But when we need it, that beacon of certainty is there, like a lighthouse glimpsed between waves in a storm.

 

Sorry for the rambling but I felt like sharing some of my feelings.

Very well put. One thing in your post got me thinking - "Perhaps there are distinct qualities or characteristics of intellect that can be beneficial on the path but, at least for me, the process and individuals are far too varied and complex for me to see a pattern. What I do tend to see, however, is a spark, a genuineness, a glimmer of wisdom, in those that have made contact. "

 

Perhaps what is normally considered "intelligence" should be labeled logical left brain activity. "Real" intelligence involves intuition and spontaneous realization (which I'm sure we've all had from time to time - and then the story-teller kicks in to rationalize things to death ) - perhaps that is the spark you were referring to (the pre-interpreter module phase of intelligence)?

[forestofclarity]

I wonder about the role of feelings in investigation. I went past a protestor the other day who was --- with very strong feeling --- screaming about Muslims invading the country and how ungodly everything was. As I walked past, the intensity of his emotion grew until his voice pinched off into a squeak. 

 

He reminded me of the al Qaeda videos I encountered in Iraq. In one video, a masked Muslim screamed "God is great" while slowly, over 20-30 minutes, sawing the head off of a 12-year old child.  In both these cases, there is strong, even intense feeling. 

 

What makes the feeling and intuitions of a fundamentalist wrong, and the intuitions or feelings of the sages right? One of set of feelings is extremely harsh, and the other extremely loving. Yet we say the one is truth and the other delusion, even though they share a common basis: intense feeling. Even mystics with intense feelings of love reach very different conclusions: Christians tend to use this as a validation for Christian beliefs, Buddhists for Buddhist beliefs, etc. 

 

Consider also that many people feel separate from the world. Why is the feeling of separation invalid, but feelings of oneness justified? I would argue that it has nothing to do with the feelings themselves--- there is no mark of truth in any feeling. Rather, feelings of oneness are justified due to modes of knowledge--- direct perception, logic/inference, etc. that show us there is no separation. 

[Zhongyongdaoist]

I wonder about the role of feelings in investigation. I went past a protestor the other day who was --- with very strong feeling --- screaming about Muslims invading the country and how ungodly everything was. As I walked past, the intensity of his emotion grew until his voice pinched off into a squeak. 

 

He reminded me of the al Qaeda videos I encountered in Iraq. In one video, a masked Muslim screamed "God is great" while slowly, over 20-30 minutes, sawing the head off of a 12-year old child.  In both these cases, there is strong, even intense feeling. 

 

What makes the feeling and intuitions of a fundamentalist wrong, and the intuitions or feelings of the sages right? One of set of feelings is extremely harsh, and the other extremely loving. Yet we say the one is truth and the other delusion, even though they share a common basis: intense feeling. Even mystics with intense feelings of love reach very different conclusions: Christians tend to use this as a validation for Christian beliefs, Buddhists for Buddhist beliefs, etc. 

 

Consider also that many people feel separate from the world. Why is the feeling of separation invalid, but feelings of oneness justified? I would argue that it has nothing to do with the feelings themselves--- there is no mark of truth in any feeling. Rather, feelings of oneness are justified due to modes of knowledge--- direct perception, logic/inference, etc. that show us there is no separation. 

 

Very good, you are asking the type of questions I was back in the mid to late sixties. When I asked myself what is the difference between the pronouncements of Buddha, or Laozi and the Prophet Iassaih?  Or for that matter the ranter on the street corner.  I was to eventually formulate it as an inquiry into what do I believe and why do I believe it and came to the conclusion that until this inquiry was at least seriously engaged, everything else was a waste of time.

[9th]

What makes the feeling and intuitions of a fundamentalist wrong, and the intuitions or feelings of the sages right? One of set of feelings is extremely harsh, and the other extremely loving. Yet we say the one is truth and the other delusion, even though they share a common basis: intense feeling. Even mystics with intense feelings of love reach very different conclusions: Christians tend to use this as a validation for Christian beliefs, Buddhists for Buddhist beliefs, etc. 

 

Consider also that many people feel separate from the world. Why is the feeling of separation invalid, but feelings of oneness justified? I would argue that it has nothing to do with the feelings themselves--- there is no mark of truth in any feeling. Rather, feelings of oneness are justified due to modes of knowledge--- direct perception, logic/inference, etc. that show us there is no separation. 

 

Feelings are not "wrong" or "right" - they are just feelings.  Also there is a great deal of difference between experiencing emotion (usually called "feeling") and expressing emotion.  Not only are the health related matters regarding expressing emotion much more debatable than those regarding experiencing emotion, the matters related to this simple turn of 'passive to active' is essential - and not arbitrary by any means.

 

What seems in shortest supply of all, is clarity - on all fronts, in all areas, especially in anything "serious".  Whenever assumptions and opinions are taken as facts, it will result in a fundamental and insurmountable problem in regards to actual facts.  What is left over is the feeling of being "right", rather than someone else who is "wrong".

[dwai]

I wonder about the role of feelings in investigation. I went past a protestor the other day who was --- with very strong feeling --- screaming about Muslims invading the country and how ungodly everything was. As I walked past, the intensity of his emotion grew until his voice pinched off into a squeak. 

 

He reminded me of the al Qaeda videos I encountered in Iraq. In one video, a masked Muslim screamed "God is great" while slowly, over 20-30 minutes, sawing the head off of a 12-year old child.  In both these cases, there is strong, even intense feeling. 

 

What makes the feeling and intuitions of a fundamentalist wrong, and the intuitions or feelings of the sages right? One of set of feelings is extremely harsh, and the other extremely loving. Yet we say the one is truth and the other delusion, even though they share a common basis: intense feeling. Even mystics with intense feelings of love reach very different conclusions: Christians tend to use this as a validation for Christian beliefs, Buddhists for Buddhist beliefs, etc. 

 

Consider also that many people feel separate from the world. Why is the feeling of separation invalid, but feelings of oneness justified? I would argue that it has nothing to do with the feelings themselves--- there is no mark of truth in any feeling. Rather, feelings of oneness are justified due to modes of knowledge--- direct perception, logic/inference, etc. that show us there is no separation. 

At the risk of aiding and abetting that which I just put down ("intellect"), perhaps emotion is a reaction - a response based on interpretations of what we perceive (however flawed it might be) ? 

 

When we can experience the perception without the story, then perhaps the oneness is all that will matter?

[3bob]

"God" is not democratic... and I'd say a half truth is not the truth.

Edited March 30, 2015 by 3bob

[doc benway]

 "Real" intelligence involves intuition and spontaneous realization (which I'm sure we've all had from time to time - and then the story-teller kicks in to rationalize things to death ) - perhaps that is the spark you were referring to (the pre-interpreter module phase of intelligence)?

 

 

Rather, feelings of oneness are justified due to modes of knowledge--- direct perception, logic/inference, etc. that show us there is no separation. 

 

Indeed, what is it that denotes truth?

How do we know it to be genuine?

[forestofclarity]

Given the forum, I think an Advaitin would point to the truth as that which does not change, or that which is never negated and replaced --- sat. Most Indian schools have what they call pramanas, or means of knowledge. They typically get down to three basic divisions:

 

1) direct/sensory experience 

 

2) logic/inference

 

3) testimony of others/evidence from Scripture

 

The main difference with Buddhism is that Buddhists tend to reject Scriptural authority, although they often allow for the testimony of Buddhist sages. 

 

Valid knowledge would be justified through the pramanas: knowledge that is confirmed by experience, logic, and the testimony of others / Scripture. 

 

So then how do we justify the pramanas? The appeal is usually pragmatic: the pramanas work in experience. 

 

Indeed, what is it that denotes truth?

How do we know it to be genuine?

[9th]

The main difference with Buddhism is that Buddhists tend to reject Scriptural authority, although they often allow for the testimony of Buddhist sages

 

Sounds like you havent hung out with very many Buddhists 

[forestofclarity]

Or perhaps a different set of Buddhists. 

 

Sounds like you havent hung out with very many Buddhists 

[Jetsun]

Coming back to the topic of quality of mind I was just reading "I am that" by Nisargatta Maharaj and thought this was relevant:

 

M: To earn a livelihood some specialised knowledge is needed. General knowledge develops the mind, no doubt. But if you are going to spend your life amassing knowledge, you build a wall around yourself. To go beyond the mind,a well-furnished mind is not needed.

 

Q: Then what is needed?

 

M: Distrust your mind, and go beyond.

 

Q: What shall I find beyond the mind?

 

M: The direct experience of being, knowing, loving.

[9th]

Or perhaps a different set of Buddhists. 

 

Yes, this could be it.  The reason I said that is because I have been around a number of buddhists for a number of years, and most of them are very reverential of the sutras.  Particularly these people were into Tibetan buddhism but also Theravadins and Zen people as well.  

 

In general, Ive found that predispositions of this sort are more about human nature than a particular tradition.  Of course, all traditions have their advice and wisdom from notable sages - but the average person can make all sorts of claims as to whatever they want. 

 

For example there is the somewhat well known story of the monk who carries the girl across the pond, later questioned by another monk saying they are not allowed to touch women, to which he replied "I put her down back there, why are you still carrying her?".  But as tends to happen most of the time, people only pay lip service to such ideas... and instead remain firmly affixed to the teat of external authority, whatever they determine it to be.

[Nikolai1]

I agree, attachment to scripture is an individual spiritual trait. Most of the highest teachings warn against it, but there are many people incapable of truly hearing it. In fact they turn the vey advice into more scripture.

[forestofclarity]

There is a difference between reverence and valid means of knowledge. The historical Buddha allegedly himself rejected tradition and scripture as a source of authority in the Kalamas Sutta. 

 

Vedantins will often consider the Vedas to be self-authenticating. However, when a Vedantin encounters a Buddhist, they will not necessarily appeal to the authority of Scripture. However, Advaita Vedanta has also developed an intense method of investigation that will reveal its truths to those who apply them, as has Buddhism. 

[doc benway]

The main difference with Buddhism is that Buddhists tend to reject Scriptural authority, although they often allow for the testimony of Buddhist sages. 

I can only speak to my limited experience in Tibetan Buddhism and Bön but there is a reverence for scriptural authority.

Certainly there are statements regarding the importance of testing everything and not simply relying on belief, but there is no rejection of scriptural truth. The Buddha's speech is the highest of the representations of body, speech, and mind.

Perhaps you are referring to Zen?

[forestofclarity]

I didn't mean to make a controversial point: in Buddhist epistemology, it is often (but not always, which I why I used the word "tend") a given that the two pramanas of Buddhism is perception and direct inference, with the allowance of reliable testimony (which I noted).  

 

Here are a variety of sources for further exploration: 

 

Wikipedia

 

RigpaWiki

 

Reugg

 

Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism

 

Klein/Wangyal

 

Gombrich

 

Murti

 

Mookerjee

[dwai]

I didn't mean to make a controversial point: in Buddhist epistemology, it is often (but not always, which I why I used the word "tend") a given that the two pramanas of Buddhism is perception and direct inference, with the allowance of reliable testimony (which I noted).  

 

Here are a variety of sources for further exploration: 

 

Wikipedia

 

RigpaWiki

 

Reugg

 

Oxford Dictionary of Buddhism

 

Klein/Wangyal

 

Gombrich

 

Murti

 

Mookerjee

Traditionally, one didn't become a "Buddhist" by self-education. One had to learn from a teacher. So that is dependence on reliable testimony, right? 

But it is true, that Buddhists didn't consider the "Vedas" as infallible (or in many cases, outright rejected them) - that's why they are considered "Nastika" within the traditional Indian Dharma system.  That doesn't of course mean they consider their own books infallible (not factoring in factions within the Buddhist ecosystem)? 

[forestofclarity]

I am not an expert or a specialist in this area, so be warned. I base most of my findings on scholarly readings and teachings for Westerners. 

 

One learns from a teacher, but I personally think that is a different thing that taking the word of the teacher as reliable. I find that much of the time, according to Buddhist teachers, the teacher's words get their authority from inference. For example, if you find your teacher is right about A, B, and C, then it makes it more likely that your teacher is also right about D (in many cases, D is rebirth). 

 

I think there is a good reason the Buddha did not include scriptures as authoritative: 1) he didn't find existing scriptures helpful to achieving liberation in his case and 2) he didn't have any of his own. It wouldn't make any sense for the Buddha, or early Buddhists, to have a pro-scripture attitude.

 

I also think this lack of a central authority is one of the keys to Buddhism's growth, but also a core weakness. You can see a wide variety of Buddhist teachings as they spread from India into East and Southeast Asia, through China, Korea, Japan and so on. If one looks at the Theravada teachings, they are very different from Japanese Zen or Tibetan Gelugpa. However, this also (in my opinion) cost Buddhism a lot by way of clarity and consistency. 

 

Advaita is different. Shankara did not abandon scriptures, rather he based his insights on them. A great deal of Shankara literature is in the form of commentary. Reading Shankara and listening to a contemporary teacher in the Dayananda lineage, or even the philosophical reconstruction of Eliot Deutsch, I get the sense of a strong consistency between the teachings. The teachings have become very sharp and clear over the course of time. However, Advaita did not expand the way Buddhism did, and even now it is far less popular in its traditional form than Buddhism in the West.

 

This makes sense given the spirit of the different teachings. Buddhism tends to focus on emptiness and change, whereas Advaita tends to focus on what doesn't change. Accordingly, what would be the ultimate ground of Buddhist authority? Yet for Advaita, the notion of unchanging truths is a part of the methodology. 

 

Now, in the schools of Buddhism I am most familiar with, Theravada and Zen, the scriptures are expressly NOT considered to be infallible. In fact, the Theravada teachers and monks I learned from spent a great deal of time on this issue, and Zen takes a different approach altogether. Nor have I not encountered scriptural infallibility in other Buddhist teachings I have come across (except people in internet forums), but rather the sources I am most familiar with tend to uphold such writings on the ground of inference. Dharmakirti doesn't, as far as I know. 

 

Steve and 9th may very well have a different experience. I would honestly be curious to hear what their teachers have told them.

Edited April 6, 2015 by forestofemptiness

[3bob]

there are many people taking vows as if a whole lot of the same are "reliable" - to say the least, thus there is not much leeway or  add-lib interpretation of such vows.

[doc benway]

Steve and 9th may very well have a different experience. I would honestly be curious to hear what their teachers have told them.

 

In the Tibetan Bön tradition, the scriptures and teachers are both treated with reverence. 

That is not to say that one does not question and use their common sense. 

 

In setting up a Bönpo shrine, for example, a scriptural book of some sort, representative of the Buddha's speech, is alway on the highest shelf - nothing should be placed above or on top of it, not even a stupa or statue of the Buddha.

In general, Tibetans treat books with great respect and care, even those that are not spiritual.

Education was relatively rare for the average Tibetan and was therefore highly respected.

 

Teachings, whether written or oral, aren't really looked at as fallible or infallible, they are different things to different people.

If the teachings work, it is because the combination of causes and conditions came together for these teachings and this individual to achieve a synergy that produce the desired result. If they fail, same thing.

 

Human beings are not infallible. It is the responsibility of the student to scrutinize the teacher and vice versa.

However, once one has accepted a teacher and decided that the teacher is legitimate and credible, they devote themselves to the teacher entirely. That is not to say that one should not remain aware and act appropriately should the teacher prove to be untrustworthy. But that devotion is quite literally the fuel behind the practices. In guru yoga, the teacher is seen as a representative of the divine, embodying the very essence of that which is changeless, limitless, etc... And when we unite with that representation, we are also manifesting that essence. 

 

While it may seem on the surface that Buddhism over emphasizes emptiness and impermanence, that is only at a scriptural level. The meditative practices are designed to put the student in touch directly with that changeless essence that you refer to. 

[forestofclarity]

I think many Buddhists would find this controversial.

 

While it may seem on the surface that Buddhism over emphasizes emptiness and impermanence, that is only at a scriptural level. The meditative practices are designed to put the student in touch directly with that changeless essence that you refer to. 

[9th]

Steve and 9th may very well have a different experience. I would honestly be curious to hear what their teachers have told them.

 

The tibetans I was with took it as far as not placing any books containing scriptures on the bottom shelf (and certainly not on the floor) - it had to be on the highest one.  Also, if any sutras or teachings were printed out on a sheet of paper, you could not just throw it away in the trash - you had to do a ritual to dispose of it.

 

You have to understand how tibetans regard scripture as sacred, and especially the written form - because the written tibetan language was created specifically to record and translate the buddhist sutras when they were imported from India.  Their written language itself is intrinsically tied to them.  They owe a lot to buddhism because it brought education and other social enhancements to their world.  Now, we could go into deeper debates about the darker side of things that most avoid talking about, but it would be a very long conversation as there are many topics.  Suffice to say that there was also a significant wealth gap type issue that remained entrenched and justified through it (as in all human cultures it seems).

 

Beyond that, specifically the modern American buddhist community does contain some strong undercurrents of fundamentalism in a number of areas, of course not as a rule in every circumstance, but it certainly is there.  However you will tend to find this kind of thing in every spiritual tradition that has been institutionalized to such a degree - as it is a beacon or attractor for people in that frame of mind.  The cultural/spiritual content doesnt really matter, the main point is the trappings of authoritarianism, the external infallibility, the self-importance, etc.

[9th]

btw, the tibetans love of scripture is the reason that prayer flags and prayer wheels exist.. the wind carries the prayers into space

 

 

 

[doc benway]

I think many Buddhists would find this controversial.

No doubt!