Experience is not enough, though. It takes a certain self-confidence, a "big ego", if you will, to trust one's experience over and above the comments, instructions, and criticisms of others (in this case, esp. Buddhists). — baker

I'm not sure what you have in mind by "experience", but I would include the experience that something feels very right. To distinguish between that and wishful thinking is not always easy, of course. But absent such a feeling I can't think of what good reason one would have for following a religion.

Totally. Sometimes people get a bit too cocky about their "experience" to the point where they assume that everyone else is below them (an inferior "other"). This is, to my understanding, what is called "mana" or "conceit" in Buddhism (and I'd guess outside of Buddhism as well).

Buddhists need to be honest with themselves when asking if they're free from suffering or defilement; and if they ask, they need to understand when their response is a reflexive (edit: impulsive) "Yes I am free because x y and z", (edit:) rather than a clear recognition.

According to (my understanding of) the scriptures, one who reaches the goal has no doubt about it, and no reason to argue at all. They're also not necessarily all-knowing; what they "know" are the four noble truths, and their capacity to know other things (e.g. the ways of the world, people, language, etc) is limited to their psychological conditioning. They know for themselves that they are free from greed and anger, and the delusion which would lead to grasping. Edit: whether or not they know the minds of others or the extent of the physical universe or their past lives is not of primary concern.

As for myself, I can't say I'm totally free from that. But I can say confidently that I know what it's like to be momentarily free from anger or greed; to be open-hearted and content (and I would wager that some of us here, even non Buddhists, have felt that) The question now is: can I cultivate that, maintain it, and liberate myself with it? The scriptures say yes, the teachers say yes, and I say yes, but the "yes" doesn't mean much if I don't try and see.

I'm only a sitting duck if I rest content with that "yes," as far as I'm concerned, and if I sit around all the time trying to argue my case ;)

Sometimes people get a bit too cocky about their "experience" to the point where they assume that everyone else is below them (an inferior "other"). — TLCD1996

I'm not sure we're on the same page here.

I'm talking about the need to "grow a pair", to "show elbows" when it comes to interacting with others in religion/spirituality. In many ways, religion/spirituality is very much like highschool or a work environment where there is mobbing and bullying, power cliques, the old boys' club, and so on . It's necessary to claim and protect one's space, or one will get squished, socially, but more importantly, in one's own mind and efforts. Squished -- not necessarily by evil, malicious devotees, but often by well-meaning but not highly attained practitioners who happen to posses a lot of self-confidence, or at least more than oneself.

It seems to me that sometimes this is said to be experienced when what is seen by others is a shrinking away from life and a palpable decrease in liberty.

Anyone who has committed to some goal can be described with such words. For example, a highly successful businessman can be seen by others as shrinking away from life and palpably decreasing in liberty. Such is the nature of pursuing goals: one's options in life shrink. — baker

I agree. And I think the business man's story is a sad one also.

And I think the business man's story is a sad one also. — Tom Storm

Why sad?

Do you mean in the context of a community where susceptible newcomers, inquirers etc need to protect themselves against charismatic online "gurus" or potentially harmful ideas?

No, more basically, and not just in reference to leaders. In religious/spiritual circles, a measure of cockiness and haughtiness is an absolute necessity for day-to-day survival.

So, trying to connect this with your earlier post on trusting experience: are you saying that in a spiritual community, one has to be cocky enough to trust their own experiences so as not to be influenced by the thoughts, opinions, criticisms etc of others?

If so, I'm wondering what this might look like, or how it might manifest. I've seen cockiness lead to survival, but it wasn't really pretty, and I think it would be short term unless it was addressed somehow. Cockiness to me conveys an attitude of mistrust toward others (based on one's own conceit), which isn't all that healthy in a small spiritual community as far as I know.

So, trying to connect this with your earlier post on trusting experience: are you saying that in a spiritual community, one has to be cocky enough to trust their own experiences so as not to be influenced by the thoughts, opinions, criticisms etc of others? — TLCD1996

Yes.

If so, I'm wondering what this might look like, or how it might manifest.

As (right-wing) authoritarian mentality.

Cockiness to me conveys an attitude of mistrust toward others (based on one's own conceit), which isn't all that healthy in a small spiritual community as far as I know.

The thing about noble friendship (kalyanamittata) is that it bears very little resemblance to ordinary friendship. There's no (need for) mutual respect and trust. It's all about one person assuming superiority over the other person in terms of the Dharma, and that's pretty much it. "If you don't like it, leave" is the motto.

Looking at your post history, I see that you have experience in this matter. I'm assuming it's fairly complicated so I'll avoid trying to explore that here, so we can stay more on topic. But I think it's fair to say that you know that was an unsatisfactory experience.

Speaking for myself, kalyanamittata has totally been a way for me to grow in my confidence regarding the possibility of this "knowledge". Even the monks who haven't always been "perfect" have, in my eyes, manifested admirable qualities. I've never met a monk who said they were totally free (it's against the Vinaya, anyway), but their behavior or what they taught me would surely lead me to feel confident that they've gained benefit in their practice. And they've never demanded I assume that they're superior in any way.

The closest thing I've gotten to "if you don't like it, leave" is "if you didn't want my advice, why did you ask?" And there it was always relevant, because first I would find the assumption within myself that they're going to give me a particular kind of advice, or I would find that I didn't really trust them when I asked.

From there it's become apparent to me that trust or distrust can be quite instinctual for some such as myself, but also that it can be deliberately used as a personal tool to build relationships as well as help ourselves; sometimes we have a sort of instinctual trust based on ignorance and naivete, sometimes we have it after (truthfully) making some qualifying considerations. For example: I've never seen this person do anything hurtful, and in fact what I see them do usually has a good result. Further, the people who follow this person's advice seem to have good results as well, so I might as well trust them and see what happens. A similar process can be applied for distrusting people. That's where we begin to have a little more autonomy and also apply ourselves. It took me a long time to learn that, and the monastics I know have been so instrumental in that.

I'm not well versed enough in philosophy to understand exactly where this fits into discussions of "epistemology", but I think it's fair to say that knowing oneself to be faithful is a trustworthy claim of knowledge. And I know from past experience that sometimes this faith changes, especially as we learn more about our human condition and understand where our trust should or should be placed if we want to be at ease. Sometimes we place it in the wrong spot and grow sorely disappointed when it fails us. Sometimes we think we got it right, but we see how we're wrong later. That's where I've often found myself (and I'm beginning to think that "rightness", not in terms of "samma" but more on the cocky side of "rightness", is a poor place to place one's confidence).

No, more basically, and not just in reference to leaders. In religious/spiritual circles, a measure of cockiness and haughtiness is an absolute necessity for day-to-day survival. — baker

LMFAO, just be a sanctimonious chauvinist. You must've just fallen into the wrong the Buddhist circles.

LMFAO, just be a sanctimonious chauvinist. You must've just fallen into the wrong the Buddhist circles. — thewonder

Not at all. I'm just a Western female who happens to have an innate interest in Early Buddhism. A very bad combination with very bad consequences.

Well, that'd make more sense, though chauvinism does technically refer to a certain kind of arrogance.

I feel like that didn't come off well. What I mean is that, within any spiritual, social, or political circle, that a person would think that, what to me, would be the most vexing code of conduct that a person could possibly adopt, as I am so inclined to be willing to invoke that pride is a cardinal sin, aside from that self-righteousness is just generally infuriating, as somehow requisite to survive within it is just indicative of that it isn't the a set of society that that person should even want to take part in.

You, I think, have spoken of your experience in another thread, which I haven't read, and, so, have, perhaps, lost too much. I can understand how you could feel a need to be somewhat assertive, given your situational context. I had honestly assumed that you were a person who identifies as being male, as that is what I tend to assume of most of the users of this forum, and, so, apologize by that account.

I feel like that didn't come off well. What I mean is that, within any spiritual, social, or political circle, that a person would think that, what to me, would be the most vexing code of conduct that a person could possibly adopt, as I am so inclined to be willing to invoke that pride is a cardinal sin, aside from that self-righteousness is just generally infuriating, as somehow requisite to survive within it is just indicative of that it isn't the a set of society that that person should even want to take part in. — thewonder

There is no place for idealism in religion or spirituality.

There doesn't seem to be a place for me within them then, though I think that you might just have too negative of a depiction of them because of your own experience. Granted, I'm an atheist, anyways.

What I mean is that, within any spiritual, social, or political circle, that a person would think that, what to me, would be the most vexing code of conduct that a person could possibly adopt, as I am so inclined to be willing to invoke that pride is a cardinal sin, aside from that self-righteousness is just generally infuriating, as somehow requisite to survive within it is just indicative of that it isn't the a set of society that that person should even want to take part in. — thewonder

Rather, it's that one is a weakling, a wimp, if one isn't able to take part in such a society.

And they certainly don't think of themselves as "haughty".

W/e.

There is no place for idealism in religion or spirituality. — baker

That's a sweeping statement, which I don't think has any grounds, although I suppose it depends on what you take 'idealism' to mean.

Like I already told you: your experience of religion/spirituality most certainly differs from mine, given your education and socio-economic class, as well as the fact that you're male.

Should I take solace in the fact that you're having it better than I do, and should I base my faith in religion/spirituality in the belief "Oh, but some people _are_ having it good, so even though I never get to experience the positive effects of religion/spirituality, I should still have faith in it, because it's good and it works for others" --?

Like the way Western medicine expects us to have unquestioning faith in and obedience to medicine, even though it has let us down so many times?

Hey I’m not wanting to pick on you, but it’s a philosophy forum. You may have had or be having a really bad experience and I’m sorry if you are, but if you come out with those kinds of statements, then argue for them. I mean, I could let it go, and probably will, but just saying.

There's really nothing to argue for, it's only about getting an insight, understanding the principles of religious ethics and religious epistemology. This is because I surmise that those principles are a matter similar to the hidden curriculum, something that "everybody knows or is supposed to know" but nobody will openly admit to. Because of this, it's impossible to make an argument for those principles and support it with empirical or doctrinal evidence. Yet for one's success in religion/spirituality, it is paramount to master those principles.

The poster who inspired this thread backed off. He accused me I didn't understand Buddhist epistemology, but then refused to explain where my mistake was. It's through this type of incidents that one learns the hidden curriculum of Buddhism.

You didn't have to defend me, as, though "w/e" does just translate to "whatever" in 1337 speak, I was kind of implying that baker only thinks that because she is a woman.

Feminists who spend too much time around intelligent, but chauvinist men usually come to the same conclusions and are often unwilling to listen to the good advice that they should just find some other sets of society to participate in. Thus, "w/e".

Though well-meaning, I was ultimately making kind of essentialist statement of which there was no reason to defend.

An explanation:

It surprises me that Baker has encountered this in religious and spiritual circles as I am more familiar with it in intellectual and cultural ones. To put this in fairly binary terms, women often think that they should contend with chauvinist men so as to secure their place in the world. As such men, being chauvinists, don't tend to listen to women, what that invariably do is to put someone else up to doing this for them. As I am sympathetic towards them and fairly keen on such things, who this invariably ends up being are people like me. Their doing so engages us within the very disputes that we set out to avoid. When we explain this to them, they will, in return, claim that we just think that they should join us when we act just like them, but tend not to be terribly successful. As explaining to them that we only act like them because we end up involved within the very disputes that we set out to avoid and are only, in part, lacking in success, and I do mean within a person's life and career, because of that they continue to perpetuate this idea that pretending to be a chauvinist can somehow facilitate the success of the Feminist movement is only likely to make them further vexed at us, I have come to just make snide remarks.

All of which is to say that us wastefully expending all of our social capital so as to contend their position within the sets of society in which they should like to succeed is never going to bring about substantial change and that they would be much better off either just creating the kind of world in which they would like to live on their own or, at the very least, just letting us do so.

Being said, this is Baker's thread about Buddhist epistemology and she has only put forth a retort because of that I had mistaken her for a man in the first place. For all that there is to say of theological rigor, I still contend that carrying oneself as arrogant or self-righteous, even as a woman, which I do better understand, is just generally not good advice. My theories about all of this just aren't terribly relevant, though.

Anyways, that joke from Catch-22 relates to the kind of mindset you adopt when you end up in a fight that you can't bail yourself out of. Solidarity just doesn't mean anything at all when you get into that kind of fight. It was just a funny thing to say to me, though. It's a funny thing that you said.

Feminists who spend too much time around intelligent, but chauvinist men usually come to the same conclusions and are often unwilling to listen to the good advice that they should just find some other sets of society to participate in. — thewonder

Eh, no.
For one, the worst and the most misogyny and chauvinism I have experienced in life has been from women, not from men.
For two, Early Buddhism is discriminatory against women and favors men, it's doctrinally so. Women interested in Early Buddhism tend to cope with this by being pious, but since I didn't have that in me, I felt the full force of the blow.
For three, I'm not a feminist. Blegh.
For four, I'm not interested in other schools of Buddhism, because I'm just not convinced that they can veritably transmit the Buddha's teachings.

Early Buddhism is discriminatory against women and favors men, it's doctrinally so. — baker

Although women became part of the Buddhist sangha in the Buddha’s lifetime. Yes, more rules to observe than the men, but even so, hard to make the case for actual misogyny.

Incidentally, as you’ve expressed interest in early Buddhist teachings, in particular, I wanted to recommend a particular book I very much liked when I did Buddhist Studies - Early Buddhism: A New Approach: The I of the Beholder Sue Hamilton-Blythe. One of those books I read cover-to-cover over about 5 days, in preparation for thesis on the topic. (I notice the Amazon prices for that book are prohibitively expensive, but it’s been in print a long while, you might find it online somewhere.)

Early Buddhism is discriminatory against women and favors men, it's doctrinally so.
— baker

Although women became part of the Buddhist sangha in the Buddha’s lifetime. Yes, more rules to observe than the men, but even so, hard to make the case for actual misogyny. — Wayfarer

And I'm not saying that it's Early Buddhism that is misogynistic. It certainly is discriminatory against women. But discrimination and misogyny are two different things. The way some Buddhists (and others, too) have interpreted that discrimination is that they turned it into misogyny; they turned a neutral enough selectiveness into misogyny by assuming said selectiveness is or should be motivated by contempt and hatred.

Early Buddhism: A New Approach: The I of the Beholder Sue Hamilton-Blythe — Wayfarer

I found it on Google books. I skimmed it. It doesn't seem to be anything special, although I'm sure there was a time in the past when it was.

Yes, when I was a boy the milk was delivered in pails.

When I was little, we would bring the milk directly from a small dairy farm, in a container like this. I couldn't find the English word for it.

That said: Do you have anything to add on the issue of Buddhist epistemology?