Drifting wrote:What is epistemically reliable?
Since I've been basically adopting a by-the-books classical Indian Buddhist stance, and to my own surprise the terminology has been working pretty well, I'll continue the trend in my answer: what grants a cognition epistemic instrumentality (
prāmāṇya) is that cognition's "telic efficacy" (
arthakriyā) or ability to perform a function. For example, a cognition of wetness where there is water is epistemically instrumental (a more literal translation than "epistemically reliable," although the latter is perhaps closer in terms of the implied meaning) for the purpose of slaking one's thirst. However, a cognition of wetness where there is only a mirage is not epistemically instrumental or reliable for the purpose of accomplishing that goal/performing that function.
How does the master know the difference?
Good question. It might help to back up a bit and distinguish between two senses of "telic efficacy." There is the ability to perform a function in terms of ordinary, mundane life, and then there is the ability to perform the function of achieving liberation from suffering. In general, cognitions that are epistemically reliable for achieving liberation are also reliable in terms of mundane life, but the reverse does not (generally) hold.
So how does the master know the difference? Since I'm not a qualified master I'm not really able to say. But in terms of a theoretical understanding, the point is that masters have achieved a degree of insight or wisdom such that they are able, through questioning and investigating their disciples' experiences, to ascertain whether their disciples' experiences are reliable or not
for the purpose of achieving liberation.
That is why, when I have spoken with the Tibetan and Christian masters whom I respect the most, they have invariably downplayed the importance of audiovisual spiritual experiences, "miracles" and the like. I have only ever heard it said that these should be ignored and downplayed as far as possible, since a) there is at a certain level really no way to tell whether or not the experience is genuine and b) more importantly, these experiences are not necessary to attain any sort of spiritual progress, and do not necessarily indicate any sort of spiritual progress.
My problem is usually centered around when claims are made that are not supported by other perceptions that I would say are more reliable in every day life, and which we all depend on in a major way.
Yes, of course. I agree, which is why I made the distinction above. There is a common saying in Tibetan Buddhism: if your Dharma practice isn't improving your day-to-day life, you're doing something wrong.