Where philosophy and religion meet

The following is taken form the Wikipedia article Eastern Epistemology: "The world abounds with a myriad of conflicting ideologies; each claiming the truth; each refuting the others. Dialectical materialism and Protestant theism, Roman Catholicism and pagan polytheism, spiritualism and atheism, Freudianism and Vedanta; the list is virtually endless.One approach which the 'seeker of truth can and must use in his investigation of each philosophical system is to ask the question: "How do you know?" or otherwise stated: "Why do you believe? What is the evidence? How can you be sure? Is there possibly another explanation?" This is the study known as epistemology, the study of the acquisition and verification of knowledge.Human beings are much too credulous. The vast majority of us believe either what, we want to believe or what we have been told to believe. It is a rare person who thoroughly and honestly explores the question: "How do I know?"One of the greatest appeals of Buddhism for the Western mind is that the Buddha repeatedly told his followers to base their convictions neither on faith nor on scripture. 'Investigate, analyze and see for yourself ' he told them; then you can believe. However the unfortunate paradox is that most Buddhists unquestioningly accept the writings of the Tipitaka for no other reason than the alleged authority of the Buddha." The Buddhism we understand in the West is too often that simple credulity which prostrates itself before the 'divine Buddha'. But properly seen, Buddhism is not a religion at all but a philosophical method identical to the ancient western tradition of scepticism. At heart, everything we think we know is groundless. All the knowledge we attain through patient rational thought is based on beliefs and assumption - nothing more. What we think we know is indistinguishable from those assumptions that remain unknown. We get out only what we put in - and these are castles in the air and nothing more. Then why has Eastern scepticism (Buddhism) attracted this label of Religion? Because when the wise see through the illusion of knowledge once and for all, something remarkable happens. Notions that preoccupy the mind are seen as being no more substantial than dreamstuff. The Self, the world, life and death, happiness, sadness, good and evil are seen for what they really are. Just fantsaies of the human mind that exist only in the mind and have nothing to do with the reality we experience.And so these wise sages find themselves no longer spellbound by the illusions that preoccupy the many. And with these illusions absent there is no sense of needing to rush around doing this and that - the motivation to chase dreams has completely withered away in them. And so they sit still for there is nothing else to do. That is how they behave. They sit still and just see reality for what it is. This freedom from passion, this clarity of mind feels blissful - it is salvation from the constant hurried feeling. The eastern sceptics call it Enlightenment, the western variety call it ataraxia. It is nothing special, it is the feeling of joy, expansiveness and well being that all people experience on occasions. But only those philosophers who have the insight and tenacity to expunge their illusions in a thoroughgoing fashion can hope to achieve it as a dominant experience. The Buddha was one, Phyrrus was one, Meister Eckhart was one, Teresa of Avila was another. So this is why Buddhism attracted the label of Religion. People wanted the bliss for themselves and saw that these sages spent much time sitting and watching (whether in meditation or prayer). But these people mistook the effect for a cause. They saw what they did and turned iit nto so many doctines and rituals. But these sages are not divine. They are merely thinkers who have realised the limits of thought and managed to see beyond. Those who think they can achieve the same state through mere imitation of their behaviour are mistaken. The philosophical tendency is a calling confined to the few. And of the philosophical few a still smaller figure have the sceptical tenacity to reject their precious beliefs over and over again. Socrates saw that there was nothing to know. It is surprising how many of us are afraid to reach that intolerable conclusion. Western epistemology is presently at that high water mark that the sages of Ancient Greece, and of India and China also reached. Since Nietzsche showed us that without God there is no way of arbitrating between the multitude of equal and opposite beliefs, we have been floundering in post-modern quicksand. But this is an opportunity to go beyond, however daunting it might seem. The decisive intellect sees that there is no way of knowing and nothing to know. So it sits still and sees reality directly and as it is.