I am reposting this from my other blog.
The blog entry is Reason, Gut Feel, Or Faith.
This is to add to a previous blog entry in this website: If Critical Thinking Were A Religion.
A lot of religions are faith based. I got surprised when I found out that one was not. Buddhism claims to be logical. Buddha even went to an extent to show how logical he was by instructing the kalamas with what is known now as the Kalama Sutta:
Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing ;
nor upon rumor ;
nor upon what is in a scripture ;
nor upon tradition
nor upon surmise;
nor upon an axiom;
nor upon specious reasoning;
nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over;
nor upon another’s seeming ability;
nor upon the consideration, “The monk is our teacher.”
Kalamas, when you yourselves know: “These things are good; these things are not blamable; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness,” enter on and abide in them.’
I find the writing, very nice, concise and direct to the point, something I frankly woulnd’t expect from a religion. Buddhism though did not stop at rationalization, how then would buddha be able to explain his views on the afterlife and even his previous reincarnations. Although the public was urged to test ideas given by faith with logic, it seemed that the more enlightened ones would acquire knowledge from still other sources.
Different people have different ways of getting knowledge. Some use the words gut feel, intuition, even divine inspiration. I prefer to use the term intuition, ‘gut feel ‘to me sounds like I’m waiting for a disaster to happen and the term ‘divine inspiration’ seems to suggest that the person who gets the knowledge can not be questioned because it is from God. I feel that all intuition must be taken with a grain of salt and validated before being taken seriously. Schizophrenics also receive messages by hearing voices in their heads, but they are not necessarily correct.
Different strokes for different folks. I feel that if one is enlightened, or simply deeply intuitive, he/she must be able to discern what is right or wrong because he/she has evolved to such a state that just thinking of doing something bad is disgusting to him/her. This person does things not out of faith, not out of fear from retribution of people, not out of fear of going to hell, but simply because he/she knows what is right and wrong. Other people though who are not yet in this state, have to be told what to do, what is right and wrong. If this is the case, then so be it, it is best that they behave out of faith than out of intuition.
There are those who believe that man must believe in God. They feel that without any concept in God, man will go amock and do what is wrong. Excuse me, not all people are like that, there are people who behave even when they are not threatened. Buddhists are basically atheist, they have no belief in a creator God. How often have you heard of an unpleasant Buddhist. People who are inherently good are better than people who have to be threatened to be good. If you have a dog, would you want a dog who only behaves when it is on a leash, or a dog which behaves even when it is not on a leash.
Very true, most Eastern religions are misunderstood…
the word “Suffering” is often misunderstood by most people….
answers are everywhere….we just have to look harder..
[…] Buddhism and Critical Thinking « The Critical Thinker(tm) […]
[…] case, then so be it, it is best that they behave out of faith than out of intuition. Read more at: thecriticalthinker.wordpress.com/2009/02/19/buddhism-and-critical-thinking/ Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Buddhism and Critical ThinkingTeen Non Fiction of […]
Just a thought but one who has awakened to the enlightenment of themselves (every body has it they are just unaware or do not associate themselves with it due to attachment with the body)
That distinction or concept of good and evil or right and wrong melt away because at some point, Your True Nature emerges and goes beyond the intellect, and given that duality is a concept in itself, it is ultimately transcended. The only thing left for lack of better words would be right action because the mind no longer fights for its individuality that it thinks it is, the illusion has been brought to the forefront and has faded as such, “like a silk garment” I’ve heard so many times.
“Different people have different ways of getting knowledge. Some use the words gut feel, intuition, even divine inspiration. I prefer to use the term intuition, ‘gut feel ‘to me sounds like I’m waiting for a disaster to happen and the term ‘divine inspiration’ seems to suggest that the person who gets the knowledge can not be questioned because it is from God.”
I like this because it shows that although these concepts are named different, they all filter into the same thing, just like God has many names because of mans label. Its best to experience it directly rather than through second hand knowledge, because that second hand knowledge can never be truth for it only comes from another point of view which is a distortion to begin with what was actually experienced. So given that second hand knowledge is only a fraction of the truth, nothing that can be put into words can possibly be whole truth.
“There are those who believe that man must believe in God. They feel that without any concept in God, man will go amock and do what is wrong.”
I also like this because like i said above, that man puts a label on everything and fears what he cannot possibly understand, so why is that man labels God when they know very well the label itself, restricts something that goes beyond the label of man itself. This is where I think the buddhist trys to get at, that the Absolute/I Am principle is not something to reason over with the intellect but to be experienced in its full subjective glory. If you objectify something it is bound in time and space, both of which come and go, and do not stay constant. So how can one possible put concept of God in this and expect it to stay constant when the whole fabric itself is not constant.
You have to go beyond concept at some point, although concept is comforting it is only an illusion.
This is so true- I think a lot of people misinterpret Eastern religions…
HI…
I think I amnot much convinced…
Every religion has its own theories to make the people who believe in them to understand what their birth is for.
Its the perception of the people to take the things from it in a constructive manner.
“People who are inherently good are better than people who have to be threatened to be good. If you have a dog, would you want a dog who only behaves when it is on a leash, or a dog which behaves even when it is not on a leash.”
Very true. Mom threatens the child: “Sige ka, if you are bad, magagalit ang diyos. hala ka.” Wrong way of disciplining. Stupid mom.
Theists, religionists always put the blame on atheists for war and chaos in the world. In reality, the theists have more issues with the differences they have with others.
The only reason that war from without is so apparent is because the body doesn’t want to deal with the war within.
How can you possibly expect to stop the external war when you can’t even stop the war within yourself? So i totally agree.
A lot of people unfortunately don’t like to hear the truth that to take something beyond what it appears to be, they must first purify their own action. you can’t liberate someone if you yourself are not liberated from that very thing.
For me the key phrase that hits home is:
Common sense right? Morality and reason should go together. We do what’s good not because we’re afraid of punishment, but because it benefits us as well.
It’s interesting that if you attempt to reduce everything to their basic elements (call them ‘axioms’ if you will), to basic blocks that we have to presume in order to function, you could start with the first two statements:
– We exist
– We would like to continue existing
Safe so far? The third statement is tricky though. Either:
– We would like to exist even at the expense of others
or
– We would like to exist, but in harmony with others
Both are practiced in varying degrees in our daily lives. But it’s debatable which is more true or ‘good’ in this case. It’s easy to admit what is beneficial to ourselves, but whether that should come at the disadvantage or co-benefit of other people/beings is a blurry question.
I can definitely see the conflict that could arise. However I don’t think there is a more true answer. I think the answer falls under a gray area that a lot of people do not like to deal with such as that last statement would be answered to the degree of:
They are both equally as true to one another just as they are both equally as false to each other.
To the enlightened there is no distinguishment between many people to himself. To the enlightened, one is all and all is in the one so to love the self is to love another as there again is no distinguishing factor between the two. So the question of harmony with others or at the expense of others never comes up, but merely an illusion that is created by the confused ego.
The thought of wrong doing never occurs because it does not exist so only right action takes place, when the mind remembers that it is Right Action or remembers its True Nature, it no longer is alluded into believing in selfish things such as being an individual among other individuals.
I don’t know if that makes sense but its like the ocean and the waves, although the waves appear as many is it not the fact that they are the ocean? Or perhaps the one of the gold bracelet, is it not the fact that no matter what, gold is gold whether the bracelet exists or not, so the bracelet is merely an illusion of what actually is.
Gee, it’s hard not to distinguish self from others, and not to distinguish one from the other. We are still here on earth. Survival of the fittest pa rin. Or you’ll be extinguished.
i suppose that is perceived as being true when an individual is attached to the body-mind. But how can Brahma be extinguished when Brahma is unborn? Who extinguishes who, there is nothing to be extinguished as everything is a play in the universal consciousness.
The only reason the question of extinguishment comes into play is because of attachment of the idea that the body is what you are.