What made me hopeless about Buddhism is that its epistemology is, essentially, a self-fulfilling prophecy: first, one takes some premises for granted; then one acts in line with those premises; and then one "sees" that those premises "are true". — baker
This is a misunderstanding. The route you describe is one approach. But it is possible to describe and prove the epistemology in logic, and Buddhism NEVER asks us to take some premise for granted. The approach you suggest is a practical method, not the way in which Buddhism explains or justifies its epistemology. Of course, until we know that knowing is fundamental we can only assume it, but the assumption is unnecessary to discovering the facts.
Even if you take no premises for granted you'll end up knowing the truth about epistemology. — FrancisRay
How do you think that Buddhism explains or justifies its epistemology? — baker
No. You said that I misunderstood Buddhism. It's on you to make your case.But I have no wish to browbeat. You don't have to take my word for it. — FrancisRay
No. You said that I misunderstood Buddhism. It's on you to make your case. — baker
This is the new thread, scroll up, join in.Ah yes. Quite right. But your disparaging comments about Buddhist epistemology suggest that it is a lot of nonsense, and it might take a long time to dispel this idea. If you start a thread on the topic I'll join in, — FrancisRay
Talk about projection!Calling all Buddhists fools for not seeing the faults in their own epistemology even after two and half thousand years puts you out on a very fragile limb, so I could argue it's up to you to present a clearly reasoned objection - but let;s call it a draw. .
I've found if you ask two Buddhists about Buddhism you get 3 contradictory answers, — Daemon
What made me hopeless about Buddhism is that its epistemology is, essentially, a self-fulfilling prophecy: first, one takes some premises for granted; then one acts in line with those premises; and then one "sees" that those premises "are true". — baker
There is no Buddhist epistemology. — MondoR
I do find the Buddhist theory of impermanence or momentariness quite interesting. — Apollodorus
Epistemology has a name in Indian philosophy, it's pramāṇa-vāda — Wayfarer
You're the one who said that I misunderstood. So it's on you to show me how, where, why I misunderstood.Could you narrow down the problem by asking a more specific question? — FrancisRay
I think this problem of circularity/self-referentiality applies to many (if not all) fields of knowledge. To me, that it should apply to Buddhism, is nothing special.What made me hopeless about Buddhism is that its epistemology is, essentially, a self-fulfilling prophecy: first, one takes some premises for granted; then one acts in line with those premises; and then one "sees" that those premises "are true".
— baker
If you see it that way, you should definitely abandon interest in it. If you start with the opinion that it's all a foregone conclusion, then there's obviously nothing to be learned by studying it. — Wayfarer
I was discussing the pramanas once with a Hindu brahmacari. I asked him whether it was possible to choose as to which pramana one considers authoritative. He had to pause (otherwise, he was extremely fluent and fast-spoken), and said that it would depend on whatever pramana one currently holds as authoritative. Ie. the idea is that there are pramana positions from which individual choice is possible, and others, from which it is not.Not so. 'Epistemology' has a name in Indian philosophy, it's pramāṇa-vāda , the theory of justification and Hetu-vidya, the science of causation. The two exemplary sources are the scholar-monks Dharmakirti and Dignāga, whose treatises on logic and epistemology are studied in every Mahāyāna Buddhist institution worldwide. By all means don't believe it, but your depiction of it as a matter of subjective choice is mistaken, based on indlvidualist liberal philosophy, 'what is right for me'. It's a very rigorous and highly structured doctrine.
Sure. But the issue is that relevant experiences are gained through doing a particular practice. Doing this practice to begin with requires that some things are taken for granted.As I understand it, knowledge for the Buddhist comes with enlightenment. It is experiential not theoretical. — Fooloso4
What made me hopeless about Buddhism is that its epistemology is, essentially, a self-fulfilling prophecy: first, one takes some premises for granted; then one acts in line with those premises; and then one "sees" that those premises "are true".
Yes, by all means, do. This is key.Do you really need me to explain that this is a misunderstanding? — FrancisRay
For a secular Westerner interested in Buddhism, it is indeed quite likely politically incorrect to propose that Buddhism requires that we take some things for granted.As I've already pointed out, Buddhism never asks us to take any premises for granted.
For one, from listening to Buddhists of various walks and provenances and from reading the Pali suttas.So maybe we could start by asking why you believe it does.
Oh? And you think that all the bowing, kneeling, prostrating before monks and teachers "has nothing to do with epistemology" either?Of course, as Fooloso4 mentions, there may have to be some suspension of disbelief at the start for practical reasons, but this has nothing to do with epistemology..
So the question is, how on earth does one choose a religious (etc.) path??? — baker
I never said that they are flawed. I don't think they are. I only pointed out that doing some practices and holding some views can lead to some trouble for the practitioner.But I do agree that some assumptions that are fundamental to Buddhism can be flawed. — Apollodorus
I only pointed out that doing some practices and holding some views can lead to some trouble for the practitioner — baker
I remember reading somewhere that this was one of the arguments Hindu philosophers used to refute Buddhist teachings, leading to the decline of Buddhism. — Apollodorus
For a secular Westerner interested in Buddhism, it is indeed quite likely politically incorrect to propose that Buddhism requires that we take some things for granted. — baker
In contrast, cradle Buddhists typically take for granted that the tenets of their religion are true.
Oh? And you think that all the bowing, kneeling, prostrating before monks and teachers "has nothing to do with epistemology" either?
For a secular Westerner interested in Buddhism, it is indeed quite likely politically incorrect to propose that Buddhism requires that we take some things for granted. — baker
Sure. But the issue is that relevant experiences are gained through doing a particular practice. Doing this practice to begin with requires that some things are taken for granted. — baker
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.