Sometimes, I can’t help but believe that the majority of people often mistake their limited field of knowledge for absolute knowledge, especially when it comes to understanding Buddhism. Such an attitude, believe it or not, makes it seemingly easy to understand everything, even a recondite subject like Buddhism: Just ignore what you don’t understand, for example, rebirth! Keep telling yourself that on the important issues like a soul or rebirth you know there is no such thing.
I hate to say this, but people with this kind of attitude often turn out to be pseudoskeptics who are quick to claim such and such has been proven wrong or can't be so who, unlike the classical skeptic, are incapable of suspending judgment while engaged in the activity of investigation. Let me say right now, that Buddhism is not without a substantial number of pseudoskeptics who call themselves secular Buddhists.
When it comes to science, the pseudoskeptic’s hubris takes over the wheel. In their minds, only they have respect for science. Only they fully grasp the scientific method. But truth be told their position with regard to the scientific method when it comes to psychical research is untenable. The scientific method works even in the growing field of psychical research. How pseudoskeptics deal with this research is, not surprisingly, underhanded. The pseudoskeptic declares that the so-called scientific method cannot be extended to psychical research—not without it becoming “pseudo-science”!
On the same thread, if the question comes before us: “Is there postmortem survival?” the pseudoskeptic believes there is no rational means by which to investigate the question, not without the end result falling into the category of pseudo-science. All the NDEs (Near Death Experiences), for example, are bunk—the hallucinations of an oxygen starved brain. The same goes with SDEs (Shared Death Experiences). The investigators are deluded fools, according to the pseudoskeptics.
When Buddhists who are pseudoskeptics take up Buddhism trying to make it modern, what they are actively disseminating isn't real Buddhism. When we closely look behind their efforts, what we find are staunch materialists who are defending the status quo of materialism which still undergirds most of the sciences. This materialism has no place for a self, soul, spirit or a beyond all of which the Buddha taught.
Brooks, this my help. It's from The Zennist blog: http://goo.gl/nhX6n
Posted by: kojizen | April 22, 2012 at 03:00 PM
the last couple of posts really confuse me. could you define materialism as you see it?
Posted by: Brooks | April 22, 2012 at 11:03 AM
I have been following the Zennist for a while now and it seems to me that a lot of the discussion revolves around the very questions about the nature of self and death that the Buddha avoided.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_unanswerable_questions
Posted by: Bob Morris | April 21, 2012 at 08:10 PM
Did I hear somebody call for supersceptic? I was informed earlier by the cognoscenti on this blog that the Kalama Sutta did not count because the Buddha was just shooting the bull with some non-follower villagers [but I don't buy it]. Regarding your "other-worldly" experience...lots of garden variety hallucinations of various sorts have been masquerading as spiritual experiences for a very long time. I remember that the old-time mainlining strung-out speed freaks had a propensity to talk to Jesus. You gotta go with the most likely explanations until strong evidence mandates otherwise.
Posted by: Bob Morris | April 21, 2012 at 07:58 PM
Kevin: How can the world know whether one has had a psychotic episode or a mystical experience?
Good question. Frederic Myers once said that modern thinkers know well that man can fall below himself; but that he can rise above himself they can believe no more.
Posted by: kojizen | April 19, 2012 at 10:39 PM