Titumuss's "Inquiry Into Awakening"

The Buddha says:

Do not accept anything because of:

1. Repeated oral transmission
2. Lineage or tradition
3. It being widely stated
4. It being written in books such as scriptures
5. It being logical and reasonable
6. It inferring and drawing conclusions
7. It having been thought out
8. Acceptance and conviction thorough thinking about a theory
9. The speaker appearing consistent
10. Respect for the teacher

The only trustworthy resource is to inquire within in order to see what rings true.  The search requires continual investigation – meditation – in order to get to one’s inner truth.

 

If this excerpt wasn’t pertaining specifically to the search for spiritual truth, I would have a lot more of an issue with the above rules.  One must have faith (pun intended) in evidence, reason and respect for one’s teachers when deciding on more rational or empirical truths.  I believe, however,  that unlike rational beliefs, esoteric beliefs are constructed and modeled after one's childhood environment, like so many other foundational concepts of how we understand the world such as family and a moral code.  This is not to say that one necessarily believes what their family of origin believes, but that they approach the problem within the context of their upbringing (and this definitely falls within the realm of nurture, not nature).  I think that somewhere along the lines one becomes a believer or a non-believer.  Furthermore, I think that one might not know what they truly believe until forced to make a choice – hence the plague of death-bed-confessions.

 

“Profound insights can also emerge from reading, but all too often when we read, we only gain some intellectual satisfaction” (Titumuss 8)  This sentence is the most important sentence in the essay - perhaps in the entire book (or so I say on page 8). It gets to the heart of the matter - that there is a difference between intellectual and spiritual truths, or, at least, there can be.  In my experience, one can't reason their way into a belief, but a defining characteristic in "faith" is that these beliefs are valid for the believer despite lack of empirical proof.  Faith in science, or perhaps more to the point faith in atheism is just as strong of a basic religion as any other sect.  Perhaps even more aggressively so.  Reading, however, as well as other forms of exposing one's-self to different opinions are invaluable in expanding one's options.  A belief system that is solid can withstand, and perhaps be re-enforced by questions, and if not, it may not be as solid as one may have originally thought.

I wonder if this is why some people seem to transfer from one faith to another.  From Christian to Buddhism to Judaism, to new-age traditions, taking up pieces of each faith to make a patchwork system of faith that suits them.  Is this lack of satisfaction with any one organised religion because deep down they are non-believers, or is it because as children they constructed an internal model of belief that is their personal truth and what is presented doesn’t match up to this paradigm?  Or is it because what they’re really looking for is a group to belong to?  I suspect that there is a different answer for everybody.

Works Cited:
Titmus, Christopher "Inquiry Into Awakening", Psychology of Awakening. ed Gay Watson, Stephen Batchelor, Guy Claxton.  Maine: Samuel Weiser. 2000. Print.