[Buddha-l] Hindu Fundamentalism

[Richard P. Hayes]

On Sun, 2005-08-07 at 05:06 -0400, StormyTet at aol.com wrote:

>         RH: It would be completely impossible for a
>         scientist to speak of "higher states of consciousness" without
>         ceasing
>         to be a scientist. Why not just accept that reason is one way
>         of several
>         ways that the mind works? On what basis would one say that any
>         way of
>         using the mind is higher than reason.
> ST: Are you suggesting in this first sentence that scientists do
> accept higher states of consciousness than reason, in general?

No. I meant just what I said. Let me say it in another way. Speaking of
higher states of consciousness is unscientific. It is a value judgement,
and science can have nothing to do with value judgements. Freedom from
value judgements is its greatest strength. Value judgements is the
domain of religion. That is its greatest strength. I think there is
something to be said for allowing both science and religion into one's
life. Mixing them together into a unified system, however, is a
disaster.

> The problem with 'one way of many' is that it denies hierarchy.

What is the problem in denying hierarchy?

> Reason is higher than mythic thought, just as mythic thought is higher
> than the undifferntiated thought of a baby.

That is an assertion of values. Value claims are neither true nor false.
They are simply fancy ways of saying "Hurray!" and "Booo!" You can
hurray whatever you like, but you should be aware that you re doing
nothing more than making noise.

> What Wilber suggests is that material scientists are not equipped with
> the right tools to judge this issue in terms of higher states of
> consciousness beyond reason. In this, I think he is right.

The way he states the issue shows that he knows very little about
science. Scientists qua scientists have no interest in judging that some
ways of using the mind are higher than others. Scientists are content to
leave such value judgements to preachers and used politicians.

> They are not using the tools to study consciousness except in a
> materialist way (studying brain waves).

This is simply false. Many cognitive psychologists speak of the mind in
terms of information processing. Information is not regarded as material
at all, although it must have some material medium or another for
storage and transmission.

> Likewise, it is equally possible that there is a mode of consciousness
> higher than reason that can be proved by experience and peer review

Experience and peer review? What are they, aside from forms of prejudice
and dogma?

> Its a fair argument, I think.

Wilber wouldn't recognize an argument if it slapped him in the face. He
is a man of assertions, not a man of arguments.

> You don't try to prove it with words -- reason .. you say, "use the
> tool (meditation)" and see for yourself.

And what does this prove? Some people try the tool and find it
completely useless. Others fine it useful. Whether one values one's
meditative experiences is purely a matter of personal taste. Some might
regard their meditative experiences as higher than their thinking
states, while others see meditative experiences as having the same value
as, or lesser value than, their various other kinds of experience. There
is no way of adjudicating among the many value judgements, just as there
is no way of determining whether mineral water tastes better than
distilled water.
 
> As for his brilliance, I have read an overview of his writings that
> said that he has an IQ of 170 and reads seven books (i think) a day.

IQ scores mean next to nothing, except how good one is at taking a very
particular kind of test. My father used to administer IQ tests to
thousands of people. Each time he gave a test, he also took it. After
about a year of doing this he raised his score by some 40 points,
bringing himself to over 100. (I've never had the opportunity to take IQ
tests several times, so I struggle with the 75 points God gave me.)

As for reading, I am more inclined to admire a person who has the
patience to take a year or so to read a book. Reading seven books a day
is just silly. Hell, after about three days one would have read every
book worth reading. What would one do then?

> Can anyone use words and make an argument without dogma?

Yes. It is done all the time.

> I cannot logically find fault in his writings.

This may say as much about you as it says about his writings. What it
suggests to me is that you have fallen in love and lack the will to look
beneath the surface. So where does having an infatuation rank in your
hierarchy of modes of consciousness?

> When you get right down to it, what is not dogma?

The last person I heard make this kind of claim was a "news" commentator
on Fox News. He was making one unsubstantiated assertion after another.
When someone (Bill Moyers) called him on it and asked him what his
evidence was, the sly Fox said "When you get right down to it,
everything is just dogma and opinion. Whoever convinces the most people
wins elections and gets to say what the truth is." (Gee, didn't Socrates
know a guy just like that?)

> The idea that science is a way to truth is a dogma.

Yes, it is. It is not, however, what scientists usually say about their
hypotheses. They rarely say they have arrived at truth. Rather, they say
they are testing hypotheses. So the dogma you are stating is one that
non-scientists say about science, which is no more accurate than what
non-Buddhists say about Buddhism.

> Wilber simply says that meditation is a way to truth and that it has
> real results that can be verified or not within a community. No more
> or less dogmatic than the materialist scientist.

Wilber's claim about meditation is pure dogma. What a scientist says
about her work is not dogma at all. What Wilber says about science is
also dogma. For a guy with a high IQ, he sure has a hard time liberating
himself from his own prapanca. This tends to support what the Buddha
said, namely, that becoming liberation from prapanca has nothing to do
with learning the truth. It has everything to do with throwing out
opinions. This is something Wilber has not yet managed to do. Opinions
seems to stick to him like the tar baby stuck to Br'er Rabbit. This
often happens to smart people. IQ is a very sticky substance.


-- 
Richard Hayes
***
"The spiritual path is never one of achievement; it is always one of
letting go. The more we let go, the more there is empty and open space
for us to see reality." 
                                              --Sister Ayya Khema