doubt meditation epistemology

Previous chapter, 00. Introduction.

What is doubt? Excellent question! First, doubt is one of the Five Hindrances to concentration in the practice of Buddhist meditation. But before we get to the first thing as it relates to applied Buddhism, a detour into epistemology, my favourite! My initial formatting in the above definition inadvertently revealed something significant ~ to be, is to doubt.

In epistemology doubt is a prerequisite for knowledge ~ or, perhaps, for true knowledge. One might believe they know something, and have no doubt ~ this would be a nightmare, entrenched certainty that cannot be modified because there is no room for new evidence to be considered.

Without doubt, no one would ever question what they think is true, but perhaps or probably isn’t. So we can believe something to be true, without a doubt, and be completely wrong because doubt is not there as a check-and-balance. When doubt is present we can feel more confident that our knowledge is at least moving toward justified true belief, even if we aren’t certain about something we believe to be true.

So, doubt is a good thing. Don’t be worried if you are in doubt ~ it just means that you are open to being wrong, to encountering new evidence that might displace your current belief. You’re not alone in this, and this aspect of the human-condition even has a name, ‘epistemic self-doubt’¹. In fact if you are one of the few who are aware of their own epistemic self-doubt, you are in good company. Roush² explains on Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy how Socrates perfected this. He was famously confident that he didn’t know, and would ‘go around town asking others for their answers and making awkward observations about their replies’. When he was infamously prosecuted and murdered for such brazen acknowledgement of the ignorance we all share, he told his prosecuters that his self-proclaimed ignorance ‘had the salutary effect of making it possible for him to find out’ because ‘if he were sure that he already knew, then he would not have motivation to look for the answer’.

So I didn’t just make up all that stuff above, and if you are reading this then we are both part of an long and esteemed tradition of not-knowing. I feel grateful that somehow I have always been intuitively aware of this, and have found myself saying on occasion that ‘ignorance is the gateway to knowledge’. I wasn’t always grateful for this, because it made me awkward company pretty much anywhere I went in the suburbs of Adelaide at the time.

Descartes, on the other hand, famously declared, “I think, therefore I am.” Two truth claims there: it is ‘I’ who thinks; and ‘I’ am. Neither of these claims hold water under the rubric of Buddhist epistemology as I understand it. According to my current understanding of Cartesian epistemology, Descarte said cogito ergo sum because the only thing he could be certain of is that he was thinking ~ therefore, his beingness was embedded in thinking, could not be separated from thinking. Buddhism tells a different story, thankfully: if I identified with every fleeting and inane thought that came to mind, I would be a blubbering mess; indeed, I was a blubbering mess for quite a long time as an adolescent and young adult, precisely because I hadn’t yet learnt that great maxim of self-help and truth-seekers the world over: You are not your thoughts. So there, descartes was wrong. Phew!

So far, in answer to our question, ‘What is (the nature of) doubt?’, we have at least some understanding: doubt is good, not necessarily a problem; the presence of doubt helps us to move closer to truth. Considering that, it can even be worthwhile deliberating surface doubts. Then we can do some reasoned consideration and have ideas to call up when doubt manifests.

01.1. Doubt in the Five Hindrances

Sources of Doubt

Incompatible Worldview

Claims of supernatural phenomena we find in the suttas are one thing, but even the prospect of liberation from or the transcendence of suffering throws up little red flags for me sometimes, because it just doesn’t match with anything I was ever told during the crucial preconscious years I was being inadvertently brainwashed into believing the world operates in a certain way ~ in a mechanical fashion that does not permit such phenomena as clairvoyance or the existence of, let alone the ability to see, past lives. rebirth As you can see from the way I stuttered and puttered about even saying out loud that I have faith in the human potential for transcending suffering , this can be a real sticking point for me at times. I am glad to say, however, that my research so far into the philosophy of science underpinning the worldview I inherited has begun to seriously leaven my attachment to that worldview, making way for saddhā … phew!

Meanwhile, it still bugs me sometimes that I’m not sure how I feel about such claims as being able to swim in the Earth , perhaps because I have read this depicted in an actual sci-fi novel ~ brilliant book though, and part of a trilogy by Is it possible that a man from ancient India could use his refined mind to defy laws of physics we take as gospel today? Do worldviews influence the way laws of physics operate across different cultures in time? If the ancient Indian worldview included/permitted human abilities a modern Western worldview would chalk up as paranormal ~ improbable at best, and flagrantly impossible at worst ~ then being able to swim in the Earth would not be in defiance of natural law, but in compliance with a perception we have lost, marginalised into the ‘unstudyable’ too-hard basket.

Does it have to be as dichotomous as all this, as 🎯 Patrick Harpur suggests with his imploration that we re-cultivate a sense of ‘double-vision’, the capacity to see mythology as existing somewhere in the blurry cross-eyed epistemological state of being simultaneously metaphorical, and literal³. Or do the supernatural claims discredit the whole Buddhist canon because they seem to contradict our inherited metaphysical materialist worldview? Can these claims be dismissed as embellishments venerating an already mythologised (literally lionised) man?, while retaining the pragmatic⁴ instructions and putting the mythological, metaphysical, and cosmological details aside, chalking them up as … what, superstition? If these are just cultural embellishments, then his ability to abandon suffering may be also, which would tank/scuttle the whole thing. That’s the sort of reasoning that my mind gets into around this. 🎯

Reading Gethin helped with this - his idea that Buddhist cosmology is ‘old and to be regarded as intrinsic to the system’, not mere apologetics of Buddhist Modernism ‘to render a primitive, pre-modern understanding of the world palatable to contemporary tastes’. He also talks about the psychological and literal interpretations of Buddhist cosmology, believing they can coexist because there can be “different conceptions of the nature of “reality”’, reality being as subjective as it is objective, allowing both a ‘psychological and symbolic interpretation to coexist with a literal interpretation’.

I consider reading the likes of Dan Ingram, and other folk who claim to have proved that the dhamma works, by becoming arahants. These are contemporary individuals who presumably worked through the same epistemological challenges and apparently managed to not throw the baby out with the bath water. I also find it helpful to read contemporary dhamma-related authors who speak my language, and researching where modern science is beginning to converge with the insights of the Buddha, as well researching philosophy of science to understand that, you know, that inherited worldview: much of it is founded upon assumptions that themselves are taken on faith. The whole process of the modern scientific method could not operate if scientists did not have confidence that the conclusions of their peers were reliable.

Buddhist Cosmology

Gethin says (115) the ‘earliest strata’ of texts (the Nikāyas/Agamas) do not contain a systematic cosmology, but details that were ‘systematised into a coherent whole’ in the abhidhamma⁵. There are two abhidhamma streams: Theravādin; Sarvāstivādin (Chinese, Tibetan); but they share essentially the same cosmology.

I wonder sometimes, Are the sutta descriptions of the cosmos believed to be based on the Buddha’s direct experience of such cosmological features as expanding and collapsing world-systems⁶, etcetera? (He attained the Three Knowledges, I know that much is reported in the suttas.) buddhānusati Because such direct/empirical observation says a lot about the untapped potential of the human mind, even if such potential is available only to a buddha and there can be only one at a time in a world-system.

If it’s true that only a buddha experiences the Three Knowledges … wait no, there are numerous accounts in the Theragata of arahants attaining the Three Knowledges. Whether they are necessary for enlightenment is probably the more-pertinent question. That they are possible is a good contemplation for both buddhānusati and dhammānusati - for the Buddha who realised these knowledges, and for the dhamma he taught for us to realise them too.

Doubt About Rebirth

If there is no rebirth, then actions have no lasting consequences

The Bodhisattva Ideal

If holding belief in the bodhisattva ideal contradicts the dhamma then it needs to be abandoned, and the stakes are high here - if one chooses to renounce nirvana on behalf of all sentient beings, they may be subjecting themselves to endless rounds of rebirth until the impossible or at least unimaginable goal of all beings escaping the cycle of rebirth … what happens when there are no more beings in the cycle of rebirth? 👀 🤯 This question honestly troubles me.

The bodhisattva ideal is so strong because it aligns perfectly with another source of doubt such as considering that one should be helping directly, not by such obscure means as meditation. It also gets me tied up in thinking that if I’m not likely to become a buddha in this lifetime - and as a bodhisattva-worshipping egalitarian I have pledged to stay in samsara indefinitely - then I may as well dedicate some of my time to social work.

Is Awakening Possible?

My inherited worldview doesn’t even have the concept of awakening, let alone the belief it is possible. Nonetheless, I am confident ✅ that awakening is possible.

Limitations of the Dhamma

It might sound sacrilegious to say the dhamma has limits, but the Buddha declared repeatedly that his whole project was the cessation of suffering - nothing more, nothing less. Breaking down what this means is going to leave us with a clearer understanding of what we can and can’t achieve in dhamma practice. It might be like sculpting, where we chip away beliefs that are not incorrect about Buddhism, leaving us with a small pile of wishes that Buddhism cannot grant, such as rebirth in an eternal afterlife or even personality health in this lifetime.

Not knowing the boundaries of Buddhism’s scope, I sometimes feel doubt from the question of whether Buddhism is sufficiently holistic for the goals I would like to achieve.

Is Buddhism Holistic?

Is Buddhism holistic?

What if the scope of some other spiritual tradition is more encompassing of a truth more whole and complete than the Buddha’s truths of suffering and its cessation? Is there more to the self than Buddha understood? Does practising dhamma work at the level of personality, and if not, which modalities do I need to complement the practice?

The New Age movements and other movements around personal- or self-development have left a big imprint on the modern Western mindset, as well as having grown out of an existing self-obsession, meaning many of us have been conditioned to believe that wellbeing results from ‘finding oneself’ or from ‘becoming one’s best self’ and even, going back to the dawn of much Western thought, from the Delphic oracle’s injunction to ‘know thyself’, which rings a bit true if read to mean, ‘know thy self is an illusion’. A real illusion, but an illusion nontheless.

It’s easy to poke holes in most of the New Age stuff, but they do present a shiny facade that promises a kind of wholeness that has a lot of appeal - many of us are fragmented from trauma, and chronically distracted to avoid the pain of not being whole. Buddhism doesn’t seem to have the same focus on becoming whole, or at one with the unconscious, although it does get close here. It doesn’t seem to be ‘integrative’. So it comes to mind occasionally to wonder, Is Buddhism holistic? What if the scope of some other spiritual tradition is more encompassing, more whole and complete than the Buddha’s truths of suffering and its cessation? It may be that I need to complement my Buddhist practice with other modalities. To know what I need to complement, I need to know where Buddhism starts and stops.

Internal Consistency of the Dhamma

The question of internal consistency may need to be considered as well:

a. if one thing doesn’t make sense or seems inconsistent with another, should that necessarily compromise my faith in the rest of the teachings?

b. does a requirement/expectation for such consistency come from the cultural conditioning of someone steeped in linear logic and can this be let go of/replaced by another kind of logic, or the cultivation of double-vision?

Or c., I talked with a teacher about how the fantastical cosmological and mythological elements don’t generally contain dhamma instruction such as we find in the meditation suttas. If inconsistencies occur within these parts of the Dhamma that are relatively inconsequential, can we discount how much they compromise the integrity (internal consistency) of the Dhamma, and thereby retain our faith?

Epistemic Self-doubt

I Should be ‘Helping’

Related to the common mythperception that Self-awakening is Selfish, a common source of doubt that undermines one’s willingness to apply effort in meditation is the belief that one should be helping in ways that are more direct, not in ways reliant upon obscure metaphysical mechanisms one might never understand (cf. AN 10.95, Uttiya Sutta).

This view can be challenged a number of ways: by recourse to Buddha's teaching that self-awakening is the superior way to help oneself and all beings; and by recognising that the desire to help is not always wholesome, can sometimes be conceited and deluded - may even be an expression of codependency or spiritual bypassing: I need to save the world, no time for my own practice!

The mechanics of how one’s practice influences change in society gets its own guernsey in the chapter on What the Buddha Taught, ‘Can Dhamma Save the World’? By modelling an alternative way of being?, or by somehow influencing the collective consciousness? or both. Is one of these ways more or less direct than the other? Do we need to know how it works, or is it enough to have saddhā that our mental training is for the benefit of gods and humans. Asking how it works might be akin to asking who shot the poisoned arrow.

In AN 10.95 again, the Buddha talks needing to save ourselves from the world, not save the world.

And the desire to serve something greater than myself can be a genuine sign of having self-actualised self-actualisation; or it could be a manifestation of codependency, which is a problem akin to spiritual-bypassing . And the desire to serve something greater than myself: is this a sign of having self-actualised; or a manifestation of codependecy? IF it is codependency THEN this supports my move to prioritise self-awakening because codependency never served anyone. IF it is self-actualisation, only good can come from serving the transcendent.

A less-extreme position is simply that like all desire, a desire to save the world⁷ is conditioned - my upbringing has left me with the impression that my worth is dependent on ‘helping’, on doing something about the situation we share. I believe this tips over into codependency because identification is at play, I am the sort of guy who is doing something to help.

Considering this helps me to let go of proliferation about ways I could be helping more directly (proliferation that causes doubt about the value of bhavana) and gives me permission to get my own house in order before prioritising ‘helping’ others.

At its worst though, such proliferation could be precisely what holds me back from any progress, let alone awakening, because codependency is the need to be needed: I need to help; if I escape samsara, what about the beings left behind?

Common Mythperceptions

It is important to bust these because otherwise they can lay dormant as insidious sources of doubt ~ and because by clearing these we get closer to what the Buddha actually taught.

Self-awakening is Selfish

I wonder about the elusive metaphysical mechanisms for how awakening serves others, and tie myself in knots. I don’t quite think that the pursuit of self-awakening is selfish - I just wonder how such an experience benefits others. Even just modelling happiness-with-less benefits others, but I guess I am thinking about more-cosmic scales, like how does self-awakening contribute to collective consciousness but AN 10.95 steers me away from that.

The Ripple Effect

One of the first and most-common arguments I hear in support of dedicating oneself to something that otherwise might be perceived as quite selfish is the ripple effect: we model an alternative to the neurotic and fevered pursuit of happiness through pleasure, and lead by example.

Buddhism Doesn’t Require Beliefs

When I say that out loud it sounds ridiculous, because any activity requires belief. We wouldn’t do anything if we didn’t believe in anything. Nonetheless I think this myth makes it hard for some Westerners to start believing things when they get a little deeper into the practice.

It has certainly been important for me to recognise and accept it is not quite true that one can be Buddhist without holding certain beliefs, because holding right view requires belief in rebirth, at least, and also kamma %%and%% … Coming to terms with this has been helpful, because I think I was experiencing a generalised reluctance to take things on faith because I had thought I wouldn’t need to.

A great appeal of Buddhism for many Westerners is that one doesn’t have to take on beliefs they cannot prove before they can start practising Buddhism, which I think is related to our fear of credulity. A whole Secular Buddhism movement has developed around this, and I could relate to it for a while because I didn’t like the idea of just accepting beliefs I couldn’t understand or prove to be justified.

But I have since learnt that Buddhism requires a different kind of faith, which is more like a confidence in these beliefs, lightly held while one puts those beliefs to the test - so we can justify them, and Buddha never asked us to accept them without endeavouring to do so.

Footnotes

1. which doesn’t seem to have anything to do with anattā but we’ll get to these relations another time ↩

2. Roush, Sherrilyn, “Epistemic Self-Doubt”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2017 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2017/entries/epistemic-self-doubt/. ↩

3. Interpreting the teachings as simultaneously empirical and psychological is another way of referring to something like this metaphorical/literal double-vision. ↩

4. cf. Pragmatic Buddhism, described here as ‘the progeny of the Buddhist evolution embodied by Chan and Zen, interpreted through the lens of American Pragmatism’. ↩

5. which I thought was taught by the Buddha anyway, so should be canonical 🤔 I guess it’s just that they weren’t described systematically in the canon. ↩

6. From MN 71 Tevijjavaccha Sutta on the Three Knowledges: “Whenever I want, I recollect my many kinds of past lives. […] many eons of the world contracting, many eons of the world expanding, many eons of the world contracting and expanding.” ↩

7. essentially a wish for it to be other than it is, itself a cause of suffering ↩