I begin with an expression of my intent:
- How might I best understand the value that the wise place on direct personal experience ( ‘the transmission of wisdom’ ) as something that is best not digested alone?
My personal experience, stubbornly grasping at the self, is as one who has at times embraced western empirical methods. No ‘choice’ I make undoes my accumulated measurement of verity. It’s cardinal enumeration resists simple inputs as a function of method.
My ‘grasping’ to an empirical framework leaves me befuddled by EBP methods that give weigh the judgement of a transmitter’s ‘trustworthiness’ as much as the ‘trustworthiness’ of the content transmitted, when that transmitter is not the originator of the content in question.
My analogue
a) I read, study, write and repeat a study of Dharmakirtri’s writings, then discuss here.
b) I participate in the transmission of Dharmakirtri’s writings, communicated orally, ingested audibly.
How might b somehow be better than a?
The grasping self sees only the addition of an opportunity to empirically adjust my assessment of the verity of the transmitter and whispers to me worries that the transmitter’s ‘self’ is at risk of affecting my verity assessment of the transmitted content.
Perhaps in doing so, the self becomes less ‘self of one’ and more ‘self of many’?
I welcome your views.
- Buddha said…XYZ
Was he right? Empiricism suggests we associate one or many verity-weighted methods, and re-calculate, joining this measurement to all elements, recalculating the elements as well as the aggregate) - Humans wrote what Buddha said WXYZ (did they understand correctly? did they repeat the understanding correctly? We measure again)
- More humans transmit what previous humans wrote that the Buddha said…etc, etc.
How does direct transmission not only add verity, but also add enough verity to offset the verity reduction that empiricism suggests comes with each iteration in re-communicating what is said already good enough to have been understood by the transmitter? (e.g. the telephone game)
Today, my grasping self raises many red flags in response to understanding this postulated value of transmission. I welcome other ‘angles’ from which I might better understand. I dont think I am trying to apply conventional logic to absolute truth, but I have many times counted trees searching for the forest. Perhaps verity is not within the postulate at all?
“Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.” - Siddhārtha Gautama
Thank you for joining me in the reality that I call ‘today’.
CloudShaper