Dunno, maybe I am unfair here, but it feels like peeling the layers of an onion, and what you find below them turns out to be yet another layer of onion.
I think you’re not being unfair but you’re also responding to an amalgam of things that different people have said, and yes some of those people do have bad epistemics and do make unfounded claims that are very reasonable to criticize.
I’d like to think that I’m not engaging in those kinds of onion layers, though. My position is something like, yes lots of Buddhists do believe in weird supernatural stuff, but they still seem to have developed some meditative techniques and theories about how the mind works that seem accurate. (Though they are not the only ones, as contemplatives in many different religions seem to have converged on similar claims and techniques. This seems like suggestive evidence that the techniques do something real that can be separated from the supernatural metaphysics, if religious people with drastically clashing metaphysics can still arrive at similar techniques and conclusions [while disagreeing about the metaphysical implications].)
And in my experience, following those practices does help in reducing something that’s in my opinion reasonable to round into “suffering”, at least as measured by tests such as “if my past self got to compare his mindstate at the time to my mindstate now and asked ’would you agree that future!Kaj’s mindstate has less suffering than yours”, he’d say “yes definitely, please please tell me how I could achieve the same”.
Obligatory caveat is that this is not only because of meditation, there have been a lot of other things like therapy, improvements in external circumstances, etc. etc. too, and that all of these also seem mutually synergestic, such that it’d be impossible for me to say which parts of my suffering reduction have been due to meditation specifically. But I have also had several occasions when I have e.g. just come off a retreat or finished a particularly good meditation session when I’ve had some experience like “oh wow I wouldn’t have been able to even imagine this kind of a state before and it’d be really hard if not impossible to adequately explain it to anyone who hasn’t experienced before, but it’s definitely accurate to say that I’m now suffering less than usual, even if some of the specifics of how that reduction is realized are not what I would have expected”.
Some of these are easier to explain than others, though. For instance, once I had a crush on a particular friend and whenever we hung out, I’d feel a mild tendency for my thoughts to slip into something like “man it’d be nice if we were dating”. This was a form of slight suffering (and a sense that the world ought to be different, as lsusr put it), though mild enough that ‘dissatisfaction’ might be a better word. On one occasion right after a particularly good meditation session, that dissatisfaction temporarily disappeared, such that I was genuinely just completely enjoying her presence as-is, with no need for anything to be different.
My alternative hypothesis is: Buddhist meditation does something real, but if you described it clearly (without metaphors, without hype), it would be much less impressive than if you keep it vague.
That seems wrong to me. “Buddhist meditation leads to vastly reduced suffering” is already a clear explanation. It’s only when people press for specific details of what it’s like that it becomes hard to explain to people who haven’t had the experience and thus have difficulty understanding the technical distinctions being drawn. Again kind of like the physicist explaining things to people who don’t know math: if your audience doesn’t have the ability to understand the equations, you have to fall back to metaphors to try to convey some kind of understanding, and probably the metaphors will break down if your audience keeps pressing for details that can’t be properly explained without the math.
I think you’re not being unfair but you’re also responding to an amalgam of things that different people have said, and yes some of those people do have bad epistemics and do make unfounded claims that are very reasonable to criticize.
I’d like to think that I’m not engaging in those kinds of onion layers, though. My position is something like, yes lots of Buddhists do believe in weird supernatural stuff, but they still seem to have developed some meditative techniques and theories about how the mind works that seem accurate. (Though they are not the only ones, as contemplatives in many different religions seem to have converged on similar claims and techniques. This seems like suggestive evidence that the techniques do something real that can be separated from the supernatural metaphysics, if religious people with drastically clashing metaphysics can still arrive at similar techniques and conclusions [while disagreeing about the metaphysical implications].)
And in my experience, following those practices does help in reducing something that’s in my opinion reasonable to round into “suffering”, at least as measured by tests such as “if my past self got to compare his mindstate at the time to my mindstate now and asked ’would you agree that future!Kaj’s mindstate has less suffering than yours”, he’d say “yes definitely, please please tell me how I could achieve the same”.
Obligatory caveat is that this is not only because of meditation, there have been a lot of other things like therapy, improvements in external circumstances, etc. etc. too, and that all of these also seem mutually synergestic, such that it’d be impossible for me to say which parts of my suffering reduction have been due to meditation specifically. But I have also had several occasions when I have e.g. just come off a retreat or finished a particularly good meditation session when I’ve had some experience like “oh wow I wouldn’t have been able to even imagine this kind of a state before and it’d be really hard if not impossible to adequately explain it to anyone who hasn’t experienced before, but it’s definitely accurate to say that I’m now suffering less than usual, even if some of the specifics of how that reduction is realized are not what I would have expected”.
Some of these are easier to explain than others, though. For instance, once I had a crush on a particular friend and whenever we hung out, I’d feel a mild tendency for my thoughts to slip into something like “man it’d be nice if we were dating”. This was a form of slight suffering (and a sense that the world ought to be different, as lsusr put it), though mild enough that ‘dissatisfaction’ might be a better word. On one occasion right after a particularly good meditation session, that dissatisfaction temporarily disappeared, such that I was genuinely just completely enjoying her presence as-is, with no need for anything to be different.
That seems wrong to me. “Buddhist meditation leads to vastly reduced suffering” is already a clear explanation. It’s only when people press for specific details of what it’s like that it becomes hard to explain to people who haven’t had the experience and thus have difficulty understanding the technical distinctions being drawn. Again kind of like the physicist explaining things to people who don’t know math: if your audience doesn’t have the ability to understand the equations, you have to fall back to metaphors to try to convey some kind of understanding, and probably the metaphors will break down if your audience keeps pressing for details that can’t be properly explained without the math.