kirk5a wrote:Thanks Daniel, there is a lot of great information there. However, given what is plain from that reading material, that papañca is something very deeply rooted in the mind, I think the argument that "actively disputing your irrational beliefs, reduces and possibly eliminates papañca" remains thin. Particularly, since the elimination of papañca is the domain of the arahant.
Recognizing and disputing one's own irrational beliefs surely is a beneficial practice. However, is it within the sphere of the "supramundane" (lokuttara) or "mundane" (lokiya)? Now unless the proponents of critical thinking are saying their methods result in the levels of awakening, not just enhanced psychological well-being, then, it is "mundane."
This is relevant here because "vipassana" is the seeing connected with the "supramundane."
One simile, for instance (SN 35.204), compares samatha and vipassana to a swift pair of messengers who enter the citadel of the body via the noble eightfold path and present their accurate report — Unbinding, or nibbana — to the consciousness acting as the citadel's commander.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... etool.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It's difficult to make a case that the the mundane/suprmundane distinction is a
hard one (I'm sure you're aware of the threads here on that very isssue). Re-read the last paragraph from the Bhikkhu Ninoslav Ñāṇamoli article I cited above, where he uses terminology indicative of a "gradual path" and implies that these processes occur more along the lines of a continuum than along the lines of a sharp dichotomy.
For instance, we find
arhants and the Buddha in the
suttas and
vinaya making mistakes, and we find the Buddha changing his mind on several occasions after he realized nibbana. This suggests that critical thinking is still necessary for even arhants and Buddhas. This goes to what REBT and CBT calls "perfectionism." Nobody's perfect, not even
arhants and Buddha's. If this were not the case, we would see only superhuman Buddhas and superhuman
arrhants in the texts who have no need to ever change their minds or behaviors about anything. Of course, many Buddhists want to elevate the Buddha and
arhants beyond his humanness and worship him as such. This, however, is neither warranted by the texts nor is it compatible with the experiences of my own practice.
I presume you and I are technically operating in the "mundane" realm, yet we are practicing all the while, including engaging in dhamma discussion and debate in this and other threads. Do we
never leave the "mundane" realm and enter the "mundane"? Do we not, perhaps, have moments when we are "tasting" the "supramundane"? And are we at least not striving to approximate it? Is this not implied in phrases like "entering the stream" or even in descriptions of practitioners as "faith followesr" and "dhamma followers"?
Furthermore, you've not addressed the challenges I made that
papanca is defined in a clear enough way to be as relevant to your perspective as you want it to be. I have admitted that
papanca plays at least a minimal role in understanding the relationship of cognition, intellect, logic, and reason to Buddhist practice. However, I have also tried to show that it, like most if not all concepts, has limited usefulness. You claim it is plain from the reading material (I presume you mean the citations I made) that REBT and CBT as
papanca reducers or eradicators is "thin." This makes me wonder how thoroughly you read my post. Furthermore, enhanced psychological well-being in not mutually exclusive from "mundane" or "supramundane" Buddhist practices. I have addressed this with my comments and references to how teleology relates to these matters. Was I not explict enough? Please let me know, and I'll do my best to clarify. I await your response.