Adam . .:
Joshua ..:
But since they arent meditators...any observations they make about the 'self' are completely hypothetical in nature. So when push comes to shove, they can just forget about any of this.
What do you mean hypothetical? That they are hypothesizing what it would be like to have a self? I think they are definitely making experiential observations just like meditators do.
It is the same thing as a buddhist who can give you the pali names of a hundred types of joy and yet have no meditative attainment. Or somebody who has memorized the sutras. The sutras are afterall, everything about attaining enlightenment so does reading them make you enlightened? It's just ink on paper, or pixels as the case may be.
The scientific method is not experiential observation. Where is the experiential? It's just watching, taking notes. Meditative practice is absolutely not watching and taking notes, it is more like allowing more pure knowing to enter.
Buddha wasn't taking notes and supposing reincarnation for example, was probably the case. He said it was absolutely the case. My vision is not clear enough to see whether it is the case or not. When the buddha makes intellectual statements, it is
after the fact. If it wasn't, then if everybody asked themselves the grand questions of life, it would always lead to great enlightenment.
This is painfully clear when Krishnamurti (who had some attainment) held these intellectual debates with scholars and philosophers. He would break it down and argue intellectually, and after certain points they could not follow. It was a quantum leap through their illusions.