[Buddha-l] Enlightenment as dogma

[lemmett at talk21.com]

> Thank you all for your answers.
> 
> Some of the people answering my question seem to suggest
> one has to be
> openminded, let certain critical alertness go, open
> yourself up to, etc. Is
> this not exactly the same language which says one should
> drop critical
> thinking and approach it with trust or put faith in it? How
> is that
> different from 'Open your heart and let Jesus in'? Wat if I
> 'do an
> ehipassiko' and just don't see it, would I be considered
> deluded of blinded
> by ignorance? How is this reIated to the idea that it takes
> faith to be a
> Buddhist? I subscribe to the fact that Buddhist practice
> alters a person,
> but I don't think that would be the merit of it being
> Buddhist, but more as
> a consequence of proper breathing and thought control. But
> I could be wrong.
 
Hi I hope that a reply from me is worth your time.

If I may I want to post what I said before:
"If I may, I would like to add that I probably believe that if the truth of a teaching cannot be communicated to and understood by anyone who has not engaged in the same practices as yourself, then that may be somewhat dubious. I think a more interesting question is whether outside agencies would have to *agree*, qualified with the adept's testimony, in order for it to be a rigorously valid belief. Personally, I would understand the Buddhist insistence on the conventional not refuting the ultimate, in that sort of vein."
To me this *does* seem like critical theory. As far as I know the Frankfurt school's critical theory is about being able to measure society while still being engaged with it, which is at least not obviously the same as what you mean by 'critical theory'. If I can quote from Geuss's useful book The Idea of a Critical Theory



"If one wishes to find out how the agents view the world and what they are likely to find convincing in discussion, one must enter into their mode of life by interacting with them - discussing the weather with them, playinh with their children, planning joint enterprises with them, consuming the local narcotic drug with them, etc. This kind kind of long-term interaction is not, it is claimed, just a course of observation and experiment, and the reason for this is the particularly intimate active involvement of the 'observer' in what is 'observed'... I attribute to the others that set f views (a) which is compatible with all the observational evidence about their behaviour, and (b) which makes them most comprehensible to me, i.e most which makes them least bizarre and most 'normal' by my standards of what are reasonable comprehensible about motives, arguments, reasons, and evidence. If I change my mind about these matters - if for instance, I decide that
 motives I once thought bizarre and perverse are in fact natural and reasonable - I may immediately change the beliefs about human motives a attribute to the 'others' although their behaviour has not discernibly changed at all... >>If I take the 'others' to be human agents, I assume that they are engaged in a similar 'reflective' process<< of (a) trying to make sense of my action by attributing to me views about reasons and motives which are not compatible with my behaviour and which they find comprehensible, and (b) revaluating their own views in the light of their experience with me.
This reflective process of interpretation is an integral part of human interaction; it is the only possible context for the confirmation of a critical theory... they can be brought to recognize these principles as a good rational reconstruction of conceptions underlying their behaviour. But, of course, the basic assumption of the critical theory is that simply brining certain attitudes, beliefs, behaviour patterns etc. to full consciousness changes them...
All the members of the frankfurt school are agreed that the critical theory must be knowledge and show ideological beliefa and attitudes to be false"



So if these other agents are just as much critical theorists as you are, as is suggested by what I have highlighted in the text as well as common sense, it seems that the Frankfurt School's critical theory, as conceived of by Geuss, does allow / suggest the sort of engagement that I mentioned in my previous post and you seemed to disagree with for not being critical enough.

As to the situation with Christianity, I think one is free to not engage with a church or part of society if you believe it actively bars the free thought of its members, or somehow cuts off further critical theories or interactions. Having written this, long, post out I might add that I don't know I have a reason to believe in the fourth noble truth. It belongs with what seems to me three other quite sensible truths (sickness, old age, death. That sort of thing) and there is good reason to believe in meditation etc. having some benefit but why believe in "The Four Noble Truths". I tend toward it due to elegance and that sort of consideration; not entirely because because they were all uttered by one historical figure and he established people on such a path but also that the noble eightfold path is pleasing - both as an idea and presumably in its introjection. Whether or not that's mere pragmatism is probably an article of a type of faith (for me...)
 but it doesn't seem to be tested so much so it's not blind.

I hope I did get the gist of what you were saying and that my email is not too long and or self involved. Thanks,


Luke