-
To what extent is critical thinking an essential component of contemplative practice? (Here are some definitions & discussions of that term) What, if anything, is as important - or even more important - than critical thinking with respect to examining contemplative claims & practices?
-
(…you know, let me also ask: Who has/has not taken e.g. college classes in critical thinking, or otherwise engaged in a specific attempt to learn it?)
5 Likes
Here goes -
-
I don’t think “critical thinking” is an essential part of religious (including Buddhist) contemplative practice. Faith is more important and is the starting point for religious contemplative practice. I’m not sure if examining contemplative claims & practices is part of Buddhist contemplative practice.
-
No.
Critical thinking…the awakening of the intellect to the study of itself.
.
Critical thinking is a rich concept that has been developing throughout the past 2500 years. The term “critical thinking” has its roots in the mid-late 20th century. We offer here overlapping definitions, together which form a substantive, transdisciplinary conception of critical thinking.
.
Critical Thinking as Defined by the National Council for Excellence in Critical Thinking, 1987
.
A statement by Michael Scriven & Richard Paul, presented at the 8th Annual International Conference on Critical Thinking and Education Reform, Summer 1987.
.
Critical thinking is the intellectually disciplined process of actively and skillfully conceptualizing, applying, analyzing, synthesizing, and/or evaluating information gathered from, or generated by, observation, experience, reflection, reasoning, or communication, as a guide to belief and action. In its exemplary form, it is based on universal intellectual values that transcend subject matter divisions: clarity, accuracy, precision, consistency, relevance, sound evidence, good reasons, depth, breadth, and fairness.
.
It entails the examination of those structures or elements of thought implicit in all reasoning: purpose, problem, or question-at-issue; assumptions; concepts; empirical grounding; reasoning leading to conclusions; implications and consequences; objections from alternative viewpoints; and frame of reference. Critical thinking — in being responsive to variable subject matter, issues, and purposes — is incorporated in a family of interwoven modes of thinking, among them: scientific thinking, mathematical thinking, historical thinking, anthropological thinking, economic thinking, moral thinking, and philosophical thinking.
This is particularly important for beginner practitioners, who haven’t practiced and learnt the truth of the teachings and therefore to trust and have faith in the teacher.
Moral and reflective practice is more important, according to Buddhism- does it help me be a better person to myself and others?
"As they sat there, the Kalamas of Kesaputta said to the Blessed One, “Lord, there are some brahmans & contemplatives who come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. And then other brahmans & contemplatives come to Kesaputta. They expound & glorify their own doctrines, but as for the doctrines of others, they deprecate them, revile them, show contempt for them, & disparage them. They leave us absolutely uncertain & in doubt: Which of these venerable brahmans & contemplatives are speaking the truth, and which ones are lying?”
.
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born. So in this case, Kalamas, don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, ‘This contemplative is our teacher.’ When you know for yourselves that, ‘These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering’ — then you should abandon them.
.
“What do you think, Kalamas? When greed arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?”
.
“For harm, lord.”
.
“And this greedy person, overcome by greed, his mind possessed by greed, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person’s wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering.”
.
“Yes, lord.”
.
“Now, what do you think, Kalamas? When aversion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?”
.
“For harm, lord.”
.
“And this aversive person, overcome by aversion, his mind possessed by aversion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person’s wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering.”
.
“Yes, lord.”
.
“Now, what do you think, Kalamas? When delusion arises in a person, does it arise for welfare or for harm?”
.
“For harm, lord.”
.
“And this deluded person, overcome by delusion, his mind possessed by delusion, kills living beings, takes what is not given, goes after another person’s wife, tells lies, and induces others to do likewise, all of which is for long-term harm & suffering.”
.
“Yes, lord.”
.
“So what do you think, Kalamas: Are these qualities skillful or unskillful?”
.
“Unskillful, lord.”
.
“Blameworthy or blameless?”
.
“Blameworthy, lord.”
.
“Criticized by the wise or praised by the wise?”
.
“Criticized by the wise, lord.”
.
“When adopted & carried out, do they lead to harm & to suffering, or not?”
.
“When adopted & carried out, they lead to harm & to suffering. That is how it appears to us.”
My question for your 2) Did the Buddha take a college class in critical thinking; and did doing so lead to greater well being?
with metta
3 Likes
I think it is valuable but not a requirement for advancement on the path. I believe there is a Sutta I am thinking of the reference of the “simple minded” monk who the Buddha instructs to be mindful of sweeping because of his intellectual limitations on doing much else. Supposedly he became an arhant.
4 Likes
To what extent is critical thinking an essential component of contemplative practice? (Here are some definitions11 & discussions of that term) What, if anything, is as important - or even more important - than critical thinking with respect to examining contemplative claims & practices?
It is critical (pun intended) to the practice. The EBTs state that a dhamma follower must “investigate” (upaparikkhati) and “scrutinize” (tuleti) the teachings and the teacher (the Buddha himself), and ponder them over, etc (see for example, Vīmaṃsaka Sutta).
Moreover, there are clear elements of the dhamma which seem to have an empiricist and coherentist character with regards to epistemology. This material is best covered in Jayatilleke, K. N.; Early Buddhist Theory of Knowledge, possibly the best work on Buddhist epistemology yet written. Of course, since the Buddha is also a sort of pragmatist on this account, critical thinking is not the only important element of his epistemic project, equally important is the pragmatic effect that beliefs have on us, and this is where faith comes in. In this sense, the Buddha’s view on what is an acceptable warrant to hold a view as true is a bit more permissive than modern epistemology would accept since most of them do not take soteriological and psychological consequences of those views to be very important to whether one should hold something as true.
This essay by Kalupahana is also interesting: https://www.andrew.cmu.edu/user/kk3n/80-300/kalupahana1969.pdf
(…you know, let me also ask: Who has/has not taken e.g. college classes in critical thinking, or otherwise engaged in a specific attempt to learn it?)
I never took philosophy or critical thinking courses in university, but I have read a lot of philosophy on my own.
5 Likes
So, what you are saying is not critical to the practice?
It is critical. Critical thinking is critical. It’s a (terrible) pun which I shouldn’t have indulged in.
If you look at 37 Bodhipakkhiyadhamma, critical thinking is only a part or the whole process.
The way I see it, investigation and examination come on this topic.
Perhaps right view. If that is the case critical thinking is critical.
In my opinion, no organised religion supports critical thinking per se. Of course, they pay lip service to it, but never embrace it. You are free to engage in critical thinking, only if your findings fall within our dogma, if it doesn’t then your sre declared heretic. Thinking ‘outside of the box’ threatenes the survival of rigid structure of dogmas, the corner stone of all orginised religions.
That is precisely why the Buddha, in his infinitive wisdom, has insisted on becoming island unto yourself, not dependent on another. It was his penultimate sentence before departing, that’s how important this concept was to him. It is up to each and everyone of us to fully comprehend this statement.
2 Likes
What is organised religion?
Is this refer to a religion with top-down approach
Is Buddhism an organised religion?
…which is why, as an answer to this:
I would suggest: personal experience.
In the end, we are islands unto ourselves and all alone, what does it matter what others think or say. To me the notion of critical thinking - which is a truly excellent one and is not valued enough - is mostly valuable when it assumes the presence of communication within a social network. That is, it only really matters if we’re reviewing others thoughts or holding up our own to be reviewed.
A reliance on personal experience, as I understand it within a particularly Buddhist context, involves deeply personal critical reflection, contemplation and review. I’m hesitant to use the word “thinking” here as I feel this word refers to the use of mental words or mental verbalisations, and while I feel these can be useful up to a point, I know for me, they eventually reach a dead end. Whereas other approaches have provided a richer, more useful pool of data to be personally reflected upon.
I’ve not taken courses on Critical Thinking per se, but it was certainly an important aspect of many of the courses I did undertake and was explicitly acknowledged and valued.
Ajahn Brahm said the BSWA is an example of disorganised religion. They seem to be getting better at the organisation thing as the years go by - at least it looks that way from the outside looking in. I guess there is different kinds of organisation. There is the top-down stuff you mentioned and there are also self-organising systems - as in ecological systems. The latter approach - in the four-fold sangha - may be better as it involves cooperation on a level playing field. Everybody is equally valued and has a valuable part to play. The Vajrayana LAMA-thing seems to be a top-down approach but the Buddha seemed to prefer democracy and consensus in the decision-making of monastics within their communities. Monasteries are meant to have a lot of autonomy. I am not sure if this is in keeping with the idea of being an island unto yourself? There is a context where self-reliance is important and there is a context where cooperation is important.
We also need to remember that we have mittas who are at different stages in the development of the three-fold training. We value the assistance we receive from those who have gone before - those who have put in the hard-yards. They may be able to help us to understand the many ways we can get stuck in our practice - the places we stumble and fall or, just remain in limbo! They know this through making the same mistakes and they have had the time to learn from them.
It would be complete foolishness to imagine we have all the important answers in a developmental process that can take years of serious hands-on inquiry to understand and realise. We may believe we are thinking critically when in fact we are not! Some of us just have strong opinions about things that contradict what the Buddha had to teach. We value our opinions more than the Buddha’s teachings. We may then claim to be thinking critically when in fact we are just criticising the Buddha. This confusion seems to be commonplace - and on the increase. Particularly, among non-traditional Buddhists.
Having done college-level courses on critical thinking is no guarantee that a Dhamma practitioner will be good at it anymore than years of Sutta study is a guarantee of a practitioners realisation of the liberating Dhamma. A critical thinker would instantly pick-up on this distinction. Whereas, somebody with poor critical skills would falsely believe a college-level course on the subject may mean something more than imbibing a theory.
What is the importance of this?:
§ 17. {Iti 1.17; Iti 10}
This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: “With regard to external factors, I don’t envision any other single factor like admirable friendship[1] as doing so much for a monk in training, who has not attained the heart’s goal but remains intent on the unsurpassed safety from bondage. A monk who is a friend with admirable people abandons what is unskillful and develops what is skillful.”
.
Note
- In SN 45.2 the Buddha says, “Admirable friendship… is actually the whole of the holy life… It is in dependence on me as an admirable friend that beings subject to birth have gained release from birth… aging… death… sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair.” As AN 8.54 points out, admirable friendship means not only associating with good people, but also learning from them and emulating their good qualities.
with metta
2 Likes
Without criticial thinking, it is impossible to become a buddhist in the first place. One become a buddhist because of seeing christianity and materialism refuted and searching for something not refuted.
If Buddhist would be one of the refuted doctrines, such as materialism or etc. - the critical thinking would only serve to make people abandon it. But since this is not the case, Buddha always invited people to come and check for themselves if the dhamma is true or not. He said "the dhamma is clear, well expounded, inviting one to come and see" It is only through critical thinking that one can find the truth, whatever that truth may be.
And yet, not all people come to the truth through critical thinking and investigation. Some come through all kind of mental conditioning and different clingings. For example if a person has done many bad deeds all his life, he will tend to be an atheist since that is a view that makes all he ever did correct. It would be strange for a person to hold a view that says all he ever did was stupid. If a person has done a lot of good deeds, then he will either be a christian, buddhist, etc. - or, in case he is an atheist, he will be a religious humanist, a totally irrational position based exclusively on this clinging caused by his good deeds.
Many people in the west are atheist and yet they are religious humanist because most people from a given population tend to be good intended. Despite being a good thing to be, this is a totally irrational position based exclusively on clinging and mental conditioning caused by their good deeds and good mental traits. This is why Norway or other 80-90% atheist countries are just normal countries, with such countries having many times lower crime rates than in more religious ones. They might be atheist, but they are religious humanist cause of these good traits found relatively equally distributed among humans worldwide.
1 Like
In my opinion, no organised religion supports critical thinking per se. Of course, they pay lip service to it, but never embrace it.
That’s quite a broad and baseless claim. What is it about being part of an “organized” religious group that makes someone automatically stop thinking critically?
It is ironical that most people who think they posses strong critical thinking are actually believers in materialism, a philosophy totally refuted by science. If you stop to think about it, it’s “more refuted” than Christianity or even the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster because you can’t really refute these things head-on like materialism was refuted through science. You can’t disprove the spaghette monster as clear as materialism has been disproved by science.
Worse than this, many such atheist are religious humanist, believing in doing good deeds and helping other people, ecology and stuff like that despite being atheist, being probably the most irrational people in the world when it comes to views. Religious humanism is probably the most irrational stuff one can believe in.
This religious humanism that has replaced Christianity in the west, if you stop to think about it, is much more irational and empty of any kind of logic than Christianity.
In the teachings on rebirth we have the idea of accumulating merit and the benefit of practice over many life times. If this is the case, then, someone may be a very simple and beautiful practitioner in this life but may have been a genius and a protege in a past life.The simple monk who woke up - and children can have awakenings - may be explained by past life practice? According to the teachings, someone can be born a once-returner - perhaps without having met the Dhamma in this life, this may change later on?
Listen, kids:
Hush.
Answer the questions, and sit quietly. All y’all hash this out everywhere else; not here.
1 Like
Critical thinking can be employed in various contexts. Criticism of the Buddha and his teachings can be mistaken for a critical assessment of the Buddha’s teachings in the light of modern findings. As Buddhists we have a core interest in ‘liberating truth’ - the hearts sure release. If, critical thinking assists us in relieving our suffering and the suffering of others then it is compatible with Buddhist teachings. Even then, we would need to determine how efficacious our thinking is? It may not be of much use unless it is put to work - translated into action - for the benefit of sentient beings.
It is sometimes better to not think about things to much - to avoid over-thinking. This can produce beneficial results i.e. there is a time and place for thinking about things and at others, it is best to just relax and let-go of discursive activity. This serves to ‘highlight’ the limitations of any kind of thinking when it comes to the goals of the contemplative life. Some of our solutions to suffering are like ‘triage’ and others may involve a deeper form of applied practice.
A traditional Buddhist can apply critical thinking with regard to the teachings of the Buddha - but it is unlikely that they would openly criticise the Buddha and his teachings. There are far more useful and skilful ways to negotiate difference. We have many traditional Buddhists on this site who question their tradition vigorously. If we have a fixed-position that traditionalists are not good at critical thinking and only modernists are, then that would be an uncritical perspective to adopt. A competent critical thinker would be able to question their underlying assumptions? This should be encouraged, especially if we ‘believe’ that it is only secularists, atheists, agnostics or, alternatively, traditional Buddhists that make good use of it.
This would be a complete misunderstanding of the nature of critical thinking?
In direct response to the questions: To what extent is critical thinking an essential component of contemplative practice? What, if anything, is as important - or even more important - than critical thinking with respect to examining contemplative claims & practices? 1) critical thinking is an ‘important’ component of contemplative practice - in conjunction with other components. The reason why it is not a stand-alone factor in contemplative practice is easily answered - we can think critically and still be seriously mistaken. What determines its usefulness as a tool is whether it is used for open-inquiry - or not? It has no place - or use - as a false-justification for pre-existing beliefs and conclusions that have been adopted for ideological reasons - speculative opinions and mere conjecture. 2) As Buddhists, we try to go to the root of the problem - for this we need the eightfold path - which includes samma-samadhi.
In fact, a pristine form of critical thinking and reflection would be impossible for anyone without experience of samma-samadhi. Why? Because without it, our clarity is obscured by various taints that perverts our ability to perceive without prejudice - fear or favour. Therefore, if we have a vital interest in critical thinking we need to make discoveries with regard to - and in the light of - Jhana. The period directly after Jhana provides an important opportunity for greater clarity and insight to arise.
The rational thing to do for a person believing in the theory of materialism is to care only about his personal pleasure and not lose time or effort for the benefit of others. For example he should steal as much as possible. He should manipulate others into gaining whatever he can on the back o them.
As for ecology and stuff like that, why in the would should he be concerned about that since after he dies, nothing will matter anyway ? What in the world would be the point o losing time and effort for that instead of using it for imediate personal gratification ?
Any such actions done by a person believing in materialism would be pure stupidity and irrationality. They would be the exact opposite of critical thinking.
Explain me why he should not steal when given the chance ?