Intellectual Integrity

An open and inclusive investigation into Buddhism and spiritual cultivation

Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:46 pm

An off-shoot of the open mindedness thread.

I was simply going to resurrect that thread as it was opening to this when it ended, and please feel free to respond to that thread.
However, intellectual Integrity particularly in relation to Dhamma Discussion is something worth a separate thread.

the Quote in my signature works well to illustrate what one possible Buddhist perspective of intellectual Integrity is, namely, being open to facts and not ignoring them due to disagreeing, or finding them difficult in some way to absorb.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."

This also reminds me of the imponderables.
but I am curious as to what you all think.

as a little extra food for thought here is a blog post by David Yamada.
Intellectual honesty: A key to ethical behavior and practice wrote:Consultant Steve Weitzenkorn, in an excellent blog post titled “What Happened to Intellectual Honesty?,” writes about the importance of this quality in contemporary life:

Harvard ethicist Louis M. Guenin describes the “kernel” of intellectual honesty as “a virtuous disposition to eschew deception when given an incentive for deception.” Intellectual honesty involves presenting and discussing facts in an inclusive and unbiased manner, and examining all available data not just the information that supports one’s preferred solution or position. It requires that people put aside personal interests and assumptions and be as objective as possible. The opposite of intellectual honesty is “spin” – creating a misleading, distorted, or false impression by intentionally omitting some facts and/or selectively emphasizing or exaggerating others to promote one position or viewpoint over another. Spinning is calculated misrepresentation.

Politics and more
Weitzenkorn’s post focuses on spin and dishonesty in politics: “The common practice is to say anything to get elected or promote an agenda, including personally maligning one’s opponent.” But it’s more than that, he urges. Trash and burn politics is so predominant that these behaviors become modeled for young people, teaching them that lying and distortion are perfectly acceptable ways of getting ahead.

Advocacy vs. dishonesty: A fine line?
If we’re going to be intellectually honest about it, we must concede that pure objectivity in offering an assessment, analysis, or observation is impossible. We all make subjective judgments on how to shape and present information. Sometimes those judgments lead us to become advocates for a given policy, practice, candidate, or cause.

The line between advocacy and dishonesty can be a fine one. The tools of persuasion involve appeals to the heart and mind, and in that realm there is plenty of room for manipulation. As a lawyer, advocate, and educator, I have become well aware of how easy it is to distort. I have heard brilliant legal arguments that are patently dishonest. I have heard utterances at faculty meetings that have made my head spin with their calculated falsity.

I make no claim of purity on these points. I can think of many times when I have advanced weak arguments and spun messages. But over the years I have found myself understanding how inauthentic it feels to conduct one’s work in such a manner. Operating in a constant spin zone requires us to abandon a vital part of our souls.

Personal ethics
We can’t micro-regulate this behavior. Ultimately, intellectual honesty (or lack thereof) is about having a strong personal ethic (or not). For those of us who work in the world of information and ideas, it all comes down to individual responsibility.

and one by Tammi Jonas, which relates to the previous thread.
Intellectual honesty and an open mind wrote:You say a thing. I disagree with the thing you said and I tell you so. You say:

Everybody is entitled to their opinion.
Why are you so difficult?
nothing, and look surly or distraught.

The first example is a 'non-answer', designed to stifle discussion and debate. I may have information you don't have about the topic. Telling me 'it's just my opinion' rather than engaging with the opinion or assertion of 'fact' achieves nothing except to silence me. Your original statement remains unchallenged and unchallengeable, because anything anyone might say is 'just opinion'. This isn't true. Not everything is opinion.

Academics are trained to research a topic until they know it inside and out. That doesn't mean there can't be new data at any time, that may shift the scholar's position once uncovered. It does, however, mean the scholar is considered 'an expert' who has authority to speak on the topic. This authority has come with years of work and constantly challenging assertions and so-called common sense beliefs. It has not come from reading an article in the newspaper and then citing that article for the next year as authoritative.

Newspapers are not authoritative. Research is, as carried out by academics and other knowledge workers across many sectors who read widely, ask questions, observe, and engage in constant discussion and debate on a topic.

What you read in The Australian about climate change is not authoritative. What you read from the Union of Concerned Scientists is.

The second response (that I am being difficult) is also a non-answer, but a more aggressive one in which I am positioned as an unreasonable person who won't let a person speak freely. This answer, while serving the same purpose as the first (to silence me), is, I would argue, pernicious. It allows statements that commit symbolic violence to go forth and prosper.

You're not racist/sexist/nationalist - I'm just difficult.

I'll admit it. I'm contrarian when people un-reflexively reproduce stereotypes and prejudice that keep us from progressing towards a more egalitarian/cosmopolitan/sustainable society.

I will tell you I disagree with you when you say things that maintain hegemonic structures such as white privilege. Calling me difficult when I tell you I disagree is tantamount to saying you don't care that you are privileged, and in fact you bloody well like it this way, so bugger the global south/Indigenous Australians/asylum seekers/women… Why don't you try an honest approach and just admit it - the status quo benefits you - rather than obfuscating the point by trying to dismiss me as difficult?

But wait, you meant no harm? That is why I will disagree with you respectfully. People often reproduce stereotypes while meaning no harm. Wouldn't you like to know that's what you did though, so you don't do it again? And please tell me when I say something unintentionally offensive or inaccurate.

The third one, silence (often surly silence), is spectacularly disingenuous - you get to be a victim of this difficult contrarian. Make sure your eyes look pained in your silence so everyone around you can see that I'm picking on you. In fact, I'm the elitist one, sharing what I've learned as a researcher, 'me and my f**king education'. Yes, it's awful that I have learned many things that have made me want to do more so that more people in the world can feed themselves and have choices in their lives as to what and where they will eat, study, work, marry, vote, live.

Rather than being so wounded when I tell you I disagree with you and why, try something different. Try saying, 'Really? Tell me more. I'm interested'. There should be nothing threatening about learning something new, something that may even change your mind. It's okay to change your mind. I'll change mine if you provide compelling evidence for me to do so.

You say a thing. I disagree with the thing you said, but I say nothing.

You believe I agree with you.
I feel dishonest for not saying what I think/know.
Your peace is kept, mine is disturbed.

If the world is to distribute resources and power more equally amongst all its people, then for me to imply with my silence that I agree with your statement that is promoting ignorance or prejudice is for me to support the very hegemony I am suggesting we should contest. I become complicit. My silence extends the symbolic violence of your words by giving the impression of consent.

I am then a lesser person for my intellectual dishonesty. I have remained silent and allowed you to believe that your comment about 'those uncivil people of…' was acceptable. I am unhappy with my silence, but I am so well versed in what happens (1, 2 or 3) that I have learned to pick my battles and 'get along well enough'. In getting along well enough with you, I have failed to protect the voiceless. I have not used my own privilege to fight for the rights of others. I am wasting my privilege so that you may maintain yours.

You say a thing. I disagree with the thing you said, and I tell you so. You say:

Really? Tell me more. I'm interested.


Now some page style maybe missing and there are some links in them I will leave for you all to follow through the links on the source pages if you are so interested.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Kim OHara » Sun Jan 27, 2013 11:59 pm

:thumbsup:
It's all good, Cittasanto.
I went looking for the absolute fundamentals of ethics and philosophy a few years ago and decided that honesty and the Golden Rule were all that were absolutely essential, in that without them you can't get anywhere and with them you can build just about anything.
Honesty is the foundation of intellectual integrity.

This scripture quote is also very relevant - in fact, it parallels two of your quotes: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/skill-in-questions.pdf
PEOPLE WORTH TALKING TO (& NOT)
§ 117. “Let an observant person come, one neither fraudulent nor deceitful, one of straightforward nature. I instruct him, I teach him the Dhamma. Practicing as instructed, he in no long time rightly knows, rightly sees, ‘So this, it appears, is liberation from the bond, i.e., the bond of ignorance.’” — MN 80
§ 118. “Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. ...


:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim OHara
 
Posts: 3063
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:29 am

Kim O'Hara wrote::thumbsup:
It's all good, Cittasanto.
I went looking for the absolute fundamentals of ethics and philosophy a few years ago and decided that honesty and the Golden Rule were all that were absolutely essential, in that without them you can't get anywhere and with them you can build just about anything.
Honesty is the foundation of intellectual integrity.

This scripture quote is also very relevant - in fact, it parallels two of your quotes: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/skill-in-questions.pdf
PEOPLE WORTH TALKING TO (& NOT)
§ 117. “Let an observant person come, one neither fraudulent nor deceitful, one of straightforward nature. I instruct him, I teach him the Dhamma. Practicing as instructed, he in no long time rightly knows, rightly sees, ‘So this, it appears, is liberation from the bond, i.e., the bond of ignorance.’” — MN 80
§ 118. “Monks, it’s through his way of participating in a discussion that a person can be known as fit to talk with or unfit to talk with. ...


:namaste:
Kim

Hi Kim
I see § 118 is AN 3:68.
but lets not forget about the silver rule
"Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you"

yes only the converse of the golden rule, but seeing as morality is generally described (i.e., precepts...) in the negative, it does give a different angle to reflect upon :)

But I think honesty in regards to intellectual integrity is more nuanced than right speech in that it requires setting aside opinions and views to establish fact/s and interpret them on the facts terms rather than on what we want, or find convenient. Where-as right speech is subjective, intellectual honesty is objective.

note = with nuanced I mean it is outside the usual frame we use daily, so requires slightly modified ways of viewing.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Nyana » Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:48 am

Cittasanto wrote:But I think honesty in regards to intellectual integrity is more nuanced than right speech in that it requires setting aside opinions and views to establish fact/s and interpret them on the facts terms rather than on what we want, or find convenient. Where-as right speech is subjective, intellectual honesty is objective.

What "facts" are those, and how does one go about establishing them objectively?

Let's remember that the Indians -- including Buddhists -- debated epistemology for hundreds of years without ever reaching any consensus.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby ground » Mon Jan 28, 2013 4:20 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:But I think honesty in regards to intellectual integrity is more nuanced than right speech in that it requires setting aside opinions and views to establish fact/s and interpret them on the facts terms rather than on what we want, or find convenient. Where-as right speech is subjective, intellectual honesty is objective.

What "facts" are those, and how does one go about establishing them objectively?

It reads "I think" so the statements are intellectually honest, since one may think everything one wants or finds convenient. I can think this or that being a "fact", I can think "absolute" or "objective" in all kinds of contexts too. What makes a difference? :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Nyana » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:17 am

ground wrote:It reads "I think" so the statements are intellectually honest, since one may think everything one wants or finds convenient. I can think this or that being a "fact", I can think "absolute" or "objective" in all kinds of contexts too. What makes a difference?

I wasn't challenging Cittasanto's own efforts at intellectual honesty. Rather, I was questioning the assumption that there is an object (prameya) that can be established independently of a subjective knower (pramātā).

ground wrote:What makes a difference?

The application of the noble eightfold path leading to dispassion makes a difference.

BTW, while no version of Buddhist epistemology maintains that concepts & thoughts are a substitute for non-conceptual awareness, they do accept the role of inference (anumāna) in orienting one towards right view concerning conditionality. Even Nāgārjuna acknowledges that without using conventions the ultimate can't be taught, and without the ultimate, liberation can't be achieved. Your penchant for anti-intellectualism leaves little room for the stages of discernment obtained through hearing (sutamayā paññā) and discernment obtained through reflection (cintāmayā paññā) -- both of which are important for learning how to integrate a developmental path.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby ground » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:28 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
ground wrote:It reads "I think" so the statements are intellectually honest, since one may think everything one wants or finds convenient. I can think this or that being a "fact", I can think "absolute" or "objective" in all kinds of contexts too. What makes a difference?

I wasn't challenging Cittasanto's own efforts at intellectual honesty. Rather, I was questioning the assumption that there is an object (prameya) that can be established independently of a subjective knower (pramātā).

There was neither assumption nor perception of such kind of challlenge.

Ñāṇa wrote:
ground wrote:What makes a difference?

The application of the noble eightfold path leading to dispassion makes a difference.

I think that this is what you think.

Ñāṇa wrote:BTW, while no version of Buddhist epistemology maintains that concepts & thoughts are a substitute for non-conceptual awareness, they do accept the role of inference (anumāna) in orienting one towards right view concerning conditionality. Even Nāgārjuna acknowledges that without using conventions the ultimate can't be taught, and without the ultimate, liberation can't be achieved. Your penchant for anti-intellectualism ...

I think "your anti-intellectualism" is just your preferred way of thinking or "inferring" - as you call it - in this context. Why do you say "even Nagarjuna"? I don't know a Nagarjuna but a lot of people talk about "Nagarjuna" claiming this or that in the context of their talk.

Ñāṇa wrote:leaves little room for the stages of discernment obtained through hearing (sutamayā paññā) and discernment obtained through reflection (cintāmayā paññā) -- both of which are important for learning how to integrate a developmental path.

I think that it is a matter of "how far" discernment goes. If it is superficial, stops too early, then there may arise inference of "your anti-intellectualism". At least this is what I think. No offence intended. :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Nyana » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:47 am

ground wrote:At least this is what I think.

I think there's little point in talking to you. To me, your posts read like a poorly translated Zen text.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby ground » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:56 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
ground wrote:At least this is what I think.

I think there's little point in talking to you. To me, your posts read like a poorly translated Zen text.

If you are seeking affirmation of your words or if you are seeking debate (i.e. arguing pro or con this or that) then there may be no point, since I cannot honestly provide words based on honestly believed ideas which I think can serve as a support for this or that claim. "Zen" is just a thought association of yours. I am not involved in this religious tradition. :sage:
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 2592
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2009 6:01 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:13 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:But I think honesty in regards to intellectual integrity is more nuanced than right speech in that it requires setting aside opinions and views to establish fact/s and interpret them on the facts terms rather than on what we want, or find convenient. Where-as right speech is subjective, intellectual honesty is objective.

What "facts" are those, and how does one go about establishing them objectively?

Let's remember that the Indians -- including Buddhists -- debated epistemology for hundreds of years without ever reaching any consensus.

For the purpose of supporting the path and testing things ourselves, what the Indians argued as a whole is not necessarily going to be useful.
just to quote you
The application of the noble eightfold path leading to dispassion makes a difference.

This would be an "objective fact".
There are ways in-which knowledge can be acquired - such as the list found in the Kalama sutta (to name one instance) - but these need to be independently verifiable, i.e., just because you think it is the case doesn't make it so, and others need to be able to repeat subjectively.
Objectivity could be
how it is expressed;
does the experience (or in this case the path) change between two or more people which isn't accountable through randomness.

and after reading some more of the thread, I will add I wouldn't say the subjective and objective are separate other than a subjective truth can be agreed and disagreed upon with the same honesty, using the same tools. but the subjective and objective will have issues when they don't point to the same thing.
I am thinking of Atheism and Christianity for the latter and to a lesser degree the former, and will go into this later if needed.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Nyana » Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:14 am

Cittasanto wrote:
The application of the noble eightfold path leading to dispassion makes a difference.

This would be an "objective fact".

How is that an "objective fact"?

Cittasanto wrote:There are ways in-which knowledge can be acquired - such as the list found in the Kalama sutta (to name one instance) - but these need to be independently verifiable, i.e., just because you think it is the case doesn't make it so, and others need to be able to repeat subjectively.

Right. Valid means of acquiring knowledge are direct perception and inference. But the use of the latter generally involves accepting valid authorities -- for us as Buddhists these authorities are the three jewels. And unless one is already liberated there is going to be some recourse to faith. The alternative is to remain skeptical about the teachings.

Cittasanto wrote:Objectivity could be how it is expressed; does the experience (or in this case the path) change between two or more people which isn't accountable through randomness.

Well, just as one can't step into the same river twice, one can't duplicate the same experience twice. It seems to me that path structures and formulated descriptions are generalized approximations at best. Thus, path structures are merely provisional expedients. The canonical discourses employ nominal designations to point the way towards utterly non-referential dispassion. But there is a significant amount of diversity in the actual practices offered in the discourses to attain this end. And in terms of individuals there is an even greater diversity of aptitudes and past conditioning.
Nyana
 
Posts: 2227
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:56 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby gendun » Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:59 am

Ñāṇa wrote:
ground wrote:At least this is what I think.

I think there's little point in talking to you. To me, your posts read like a poorly translated Zen text.

Well thats a relief. Its not just me. Although it could just prove that at least two people fail to appreciate the profound points that 'ground ' makes .

ground, I don't suppose it makes any difference to you, but I think I can honestly say that I have not understood a single reply you make on any thread.
Of course the problem might be me. :shrug:

Back to the subject in hand it seems to me that the statement that " path structures are merely provisional expedients " deserves repeating and reinforcing. :anjali:
Gendun P. Brownlow.
Karma Kagyu student.
gendun
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:49 am
Location: Guildford UK

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:30 pm

What has any of that got to do with intellectual honesty
gendun wrote:
Ñāṇa wrote:
ground wrote:At least this is what I think.

I think there's little point in talking to you. To me, your posts read like a poorly translated Zen text.

Well thats a relief. Its not just me. Although it could just prove that at least two people fail to appreciate the profound points that 'ground ' makes .

ground, I don't suppose it makes any difference to you, but I think I can honestly say that I have not understood a single reply you make on any thread.
Of course the problem might be me. :shrug:

Back to the subject in hand it seems to me that the statement that " path structures are merely provisional expedients " deserves repeating and reinforcing. :anjali:
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby gendun » Mon Jan 28, 2013 12:51 pm

If Cittisanto you are addressing me I think Nana's point distinguishing between provisional path structures on the one hand, and outcomes on the other is vital in terms of intellectual integrity when discussing dharma/dhamma.
Gendun P. Brownlow.
Karma Kagyu student.
gendun
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2013 10:49 am
Location: Guildford UK

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby tiltbillings » Mon Jan 28, 2013 5:22 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:Rather, I was questioning the assumption that there is an object (prameya) that can be established independently of a subjective knower (pramātā).
While I have no interest in this debate and will not go any further than this with it, I do have to say Geoff is in this thread is, of course, quite correct. One needs to keep in mind that in the Buddha's teachings truths are cognitions, not objective facts.
This being is bound to samsara, kamma is his means for going beyond.
SN I, 38.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine.
People live in one another’s shelter.

"We eat cold eels and think distant thoughts." -- Jack Johnson
User avatar
tiltbillings
 
Posts: 19545
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 9:25 am

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:40 pm

Ñāṇa wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:
The application of the noble eightfold path leading to dispassion makes a difference.

This would be an "objective fact".

How is that an "objective fact"?

It can be tested by anyone. it is true whether a Buddha is present or not. also see my last comments (this part is why I responded there).
edit - it does not depend on one's personal perspective for it to be the case.

Ñāṇa wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:There are ways in-which knowledge can be acquired - such as the list found in the Kalama sutta (to name one instance) - but these need to be independently verifiable, i.e., just because you think it is the case doesn't make it so, and others need to be able to repeat subjectively.

Right. Valid means of acquiring knowledge are direct perception and inference. But the use of the latter generally involves accepting valid authorities -- for us as Buddhists these authorities are the three jewels. And unless one is already liberated there is going to be some recourse to faith. The alternative is to remain skeptical about the teachings.

there will be recourse to faith, but being doubtful and using scepticism's tools are not the same thing, one part of empirical scepticism is accepting a workable model yet remaining open to a better one.
and a valid authority is as the Buddha said time and again, in various ways (particularly about practice and finding a teacher,) one that can be observed and tested.

Ñāṇa wrote:
Cittasanto wrote:Objectivity could be how it is expressed; does the experience (or in this case the path) change between two or more people which isn't accountable through randomness.

Well, just as one can't step into the same river twice, one can't duplicate the same experience twice. It seems to me that path structures and formulated descriptions are generalized approximations at best. Thus, path structures are merely provisional expedients. The canonical discourses employ nominal designations to point the way towards utterly non-referential dispassion. But there is a significant amount of diversity in the actual practices offered in the discourses to attain this end. And in terms of individuals there is an even greater diversity of aptitudes and past conditioning.

That is accountable through randomness. Just because one can not guarantee 100% reproducibility of experience or how people would express said experiences, that does not mean there are no rules by which these follow. So something does not have to be identical for them to be the same, but they do need to meet certain targets, hence the formulated descriptions, or preciseness of the passage (particularly when you get to precepts for the latter) and various practices to account for the randomness brought in through the hindrances and background.
Last edited by Cittasanto on Mon Jan 28, 2013 7:55 pm, edited 2 times in total.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jan 28, 2013 6:47 pm

gendun wrote:If Cittisanto you are addressing me I think Nana's point distinguishing between provisional path structures on the one hand, and outcomes on the other is vital in terms of intellectual integrity when discussing dharma/dhamma.

that wasn't all that was said.
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby Cittasanto » Mon Jan 28, 2013 11:02 pm

Does anyone find any tools used in Scepticism or Intellectual integrity useful or not?
is yes/no why?
This offering maybe right, or wrong, but it is one, the other, both, or neither!
With Metta
Upāsaka Cittasanto
Blog, - Some Suttas Translated, Ajahn Chah.
"Others will misconstrue reality due to their personal perspectives, doggedly holding onto and not easily discarding them; We shall not misconstrue reality due to our own personal perspectives, nor doggedly holding onto them, but will discard them easily. This effacement shall be done."
User avatar
Cittasanto
 
Posts: 5751
Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
Location: Ellan Vannin

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby SDC » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:01 am

Cittasanto wrote:edit - it does not depend on one's personal perspective for it to be the case.


:o Objectivist!

Just kidding...sort of. :tongue: I find that way of thinking to be dangerous, but that is a discussion for another thread.

In regards to maintaining this intellectual integrity...in my experience, this practice is far too dynamic to worry about such things.
User avatar
SDC
 
Posts: 1023
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:08 pm
Location: North Jersey

Re: Intellectual Integrity

Postby daverupa » Tue Jan 29, 2013 12:09 am

Cittasanto wrote:Does anyone find any tools used in Scepticism or Intellectual integrity useful or not?
is yes/no why?


Critical thinking skills, an understanding of fallacious reasoning, literary criticism - I find these skills to be altogether essential when examining Buddhist texts for practical meaning.
    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

    "And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.
- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]
User avatar
daverupa
 
Posts: 4163
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:58 pm

Next

Return to Open Dhamma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Sanjay PS and 12 guests