Whatever the Buddha taught came from self knowledge (attanâ va jâneyyâtha) or personal higher knowledge (sâmam yea dhammam abhiññâya). In this regard, we are not asked to believe in a special creed. We are invited by the Buddha to share in his experience. The Buddha said:
“Well explained has been the Dhamma by the Blessed One, the Dhamma that bears fruit here and now, not subject to time [for results], that invites every man to come and see for himself, leading to the highest good, to be experienced by the wise in their very self (paccattam veditabbo viññûhi)” (M. i. 265).
Western Buddhist can't help but see the above as an ancient species of modern empirical verification or the same, verificationism. But nowhere does the Buddha say that his knowledge is based upon sensory evidence which is at the heart of modern empirical verification. In fact, the modern principle of verification excludes personal knowledge or personal higher knowledge.
"According to the 'Verification Principle' we must exclude from language all propositions which cannot, at any rate in principle, be verified by sense experience--by what is seen, heard, touched, tasted and smelt. Restrict ourselves to propositions of sense experience and all will be well” (Ian T. Ramsey, Religious Language: An Empirical Placing of Theological Phrases, ed. Alasdair MacIntyre and Ronald Gregor Smith, 12).
When we look into the canon of Buddhism, the words of the Buddha resist being empirically verified as to their truth or falsity. This is because the knowledge the Buddha attained went beyond the nets of the sensory.
When we read the following from the Sutta-Nipata, we have to keep in mind that the Buddha is coming from his own personal knowledge—not empirical verification.
"The old is destroyed, the new is not arising. [Those whose minds are disgusted with future existence, their seeds (of rebirth) have been destroyed (and) they have no desire for growth.] The wise are quenched like this lamp. This outstanding jewel too is in the Order; by this truth may there be well-being" (235).
If we wish to know this for ourselves, the Buddha invites us “to come and see” (ehipassika) and experience the knowledge he experienced in our very self. This is not a call to a belief or a dogma; nor is it a call to empirical verification.
It is regrettable that Western Buddhists are skeptical about rebirth (punarbhava). We might conclude from this that they do not understand rebirth from personal knowledge but are skeptical of it based on empirical verification. Ironically, the instrument of their verification are the Five Aggregates from which no self knowledge can possibly come.
I am very fond of coming in the top look.Praise.
Posted by: Mulberry bags handbags | September 28, 2012 at 02:11 AM
Icchantika: (M. i. 265) is by Joaquín Pérez Remón. I tend to favor I.B. Horner when it comes to the Majjhima-Nikaya; and Bhikkhu Bodhi for the Samyutta-Nikaya, although I am not happy with his "nonself" for anattâ which should really be "not the self." Often I have to look at the Pali to see the specific terms.
Posted by: The Zennist | September 17, 2012 at 05:41 PM
The reason why the West excludes personal self-knowledge as you call it is not because evil materialists hate deep spiritual knowledge, but because due to various proven phenomena such as hallucinations and the placebo effect, they simply cannot be trusted as shared, common knowledge.
You will agree that we cannot simply believe every single claims: one is abducted by aliens, saw lights at the end of the tunnel, angels, or Virgin Mary, or a burning bush, or the Heavenly assembly of cherubs.
You can read the mystical revelations in the Apocalypse, about the beast with seven diadems and the number 666 and Christ's mystical wife, mystical Kaballah geometry and numberology and what have you. What is one to make of such mystical experiences? Are they automatically proof, because someone claims to have experienced them "deep within his very self" and that "they cannot be empirically corroborated"?
Muhammad had one too, it inspired him to write the Quran. It is not that Western science hates mystics/spiritualists. It is simply that there are so many claimants to so many varied experiences (that also contradict each other), that one is left confused about which to trust.
Moreover, a person who takes LSD, let alone something truly powerful like DMT, is suddenly catapulted outside of this reality, into a multidimensional superspace in which impossible geometrical shapes (such as square circles) become possible. So what do we conclude: that there are different dimensions the mind can travel to, or that DMT influences the brain in such and such ways? That's the question.
If every mystical experience, "self-knowledge" claim is true, then we live in a truly crazy world, in which both Jesus is the son of God, Mary appears in various places, Buddhas appear and disappear, Hindu gods send avatars, energies heal wounds, Allah is the only god, in which it is possible to unite with God (Christian mystics), but at the same time, there is no creator God (Buddhist mystics), and so on and so forth.
If there are contradictions between them, which "self-knowledge" is correct?
Very simple, this is the reason the West has problem with "self-knowledge". Now, there are many things that are both TRUE and cannot be EMPIRICALLY VERIFIED. Such as mathematical truths, logic axioms, and so on. Why? Because empirical science PRESUPPOSES them, so it cannot prove them. The axioms of logic and mathematics are the foundation of science, so they are a priori true without the need of verifying them.
The question is, can you Buddhist prove your claims in a logic, a priori fashion? If you can, then they will be philosophically considered true WHILE being empirically beyond reach.
This is what the philosopher Nagarjuna tried to do, using dialectics, in a truly magnificent fashion. He did not simply say: "I had a mystical experience that is beyond verification and that authorizes me." - He used logic and deduction, so that everyone can benefit from his wisdom, not only the mystics. Now, his arguments are fallacious and he does not reason with the rigor of modern logic, but that's another thing.
That's it, sorry for the long comment. thanks for writing a good blog. Which translation of the suttas you use, btw? Mine is very different from yours
Posted by: Icchantika | September 17, 2012 at 03:10 PM