When Is It Reasonable To Believe?

[Xangsamhua]

In The Monk and the Philosopher, Revel & Ricard, Schocken, NY 1998, the monk Matthieu Ricard states (pp. 48-49) that "According to Buddhism, three criteria allow a statement to be considered valid: verification by direct experience, irrefutable deduction, and testimony worthy of confidence."

Ricard goes on to argue that if a person is entirely credible - sane, no evidence of false or misleading behaviour, no benefit from telling an untruth, admirable life and example to others, etc - then one is justified in believing what the person is telling us where the circumstances seem to justify it. (Exceptions might include confused memory, statements made when unwell, e.g. in delirium, confusion between an event and what one has dreamt, etc.)

Ricard speaks of examples from his own experience and of what highly credible people have told him. His father the philosopher (Revel), however, while acknowledging that as far as it goes, suggests that these testimonies don't amount to proof of anything - just a person's belief and testimony. Ricard accepts that, in terms of scientific method, that is so, but it doesn't diminish the force of something you feel obliged to accept on the basis of direct experience (though perhaps not replicable) or confidence (reasonable trust) in another.

In Thailand we hear all the time of monks who are said to practise transkinesis, communion with those who have died, memories of previous incarnations, claivoyance and so on. Not only monks, but some holy women and rishis are also venerated for these abilities. An example is Khun Mae Chantha in Roi Et, who practises transkinetic diagnoses and receives messages from Ajarn Mun (died 1949). There is nothing about Mae Tha's life or daily practice that suggests she is trying to hoodwink people or build a following. She can't read or write and can't speak Thai (she speaks only Lao). So she appears to be credible. In an earlier thread there was some discussion about the paranormal abilities of Luang Phor Jaran - also an apparently credible and responsible monk.

It seems though that if we look at the credibility of the testifiers then we are going to have to accept a lot of things that are in contradiction with each other. Ghost stories (at least in the British tradition) are always presented as highly credible, with lots of reliable witnesses. Visions, both private and public, are often reported by people who do not have a record of delusion or mendacity. Some are backed by public demonstration - the spring in the Lourdes story, the spinning sun witnessed by 70,000 people at Fatima, for example. The uneducated farm boy, Joseph Smith, produced a book which, despite some parts that appear to be plagiarised, seems far beyond the capacity of one of his age, education and circumstances, and his subsequent life - despite his failings - seems to have been driven by belief in his mission. Muhammad appears to have been an upright character, not one given to deceiving people, yet the Qur'an in my view contains some highly specious passages that he seems to have picked up from Jewish and Christian teachings floating around Arabia at the time.

So what do we do: make a choice of what to accept based on prior assumptions; believe everything that seems credible and assume that there is some unifying principle of truth behind the different stories; or just remain open, neither accepting nor rejecting?

Apologies for the length of the post and thank you for your patience.

Xangsamhua

[fabianfred]

I have always considered that we shouldn't assume that everybody is trying to hoodwink us or fool us, and like to give people the benefit of the doubt. If we only accept what has physical proof then we can hardly get a foothold in scaling the cliff of religious belief. We all need to have a certain faith in a path before following it and getting the benefits and personal proofs which can be obtained, but not shown to others.

My own two teachers Luang Por Jaran and Supawan Green work selflessly and tirelessly for the benefit of others and I am 100% convinced they are both Arahants.

[Xangsamhua]

I think there's something in what the critic Peter Elbow had to say on doubt and belief:

My claim is that methodological doubt is only half of what we need. Yes, we need the systematic, disciplined and conscious attempts to criticize everything no matter how compelling it might seem – to find flaws or contradictions we might otherwise miss. But thinking is not trustworthy unless it also includes methodological belief: the equally systematic, disciplined and conscious attempt to believe everything no matter how unlikely or repellent it might seem – to find virtues or strengths we might otherwise miss. Both processes derive their power from the very fact that they are methodological: artificial, systematic, and disciplined uses of the mind. As methods, they help us see what we would miss if we only used our minds naturally or spontaneously.

(Elbow, P. Embracing Contraries: Explorations in Learning and Teaching. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986.)

One needs to be neither skeptical nor gullible, but both critical and open. However, we also like closure, so this can be an unsatisfying position to hold.

[Brucenkhamen]

So what do we do: make a choice of what to accept based on prior assumptions; believe everything that seems credible and assume that there is some unifying principle of truth behind the different stories; or just remain open, neither accepting nor rejecting?

I don't really see why I should care less. They are doing what they are doing, it doesn't appear to have any relavence to life as I know it, nothing to do with the Buddhist path, no affect on me or anything I care about, so why have an opinion at all?

However if there was a circumstance where such things do have an affect on me to the extent that I needed to form an opinion then I guess my first rule of thumb would be "would open minded acceptance of this work as a skilful means in terms of practice?".

[camerata]

In The Monk and the Philosopher, Revel & Ricard, Schocken, NY 1998, the monk Matthieu Ricard states (pp. 48-49) that "According to Buddhism, three criteria allow a statement to be considered valid: verification by direct experience, irrefutable deduction, and testimony worthy of confidence."

What's his source for this? Ricard is a Tibetan Buddhist so it may not be from the Pali Canon. Maybe be "Buddhism" says it, but the Buddha didn't.

[Xangsamhua]

In The Monk and the Philosopher, Revel & Ricard, Schocken, NY 1998, the monk Matthieu Ricard states (pp. 48-49) that "According to Buddhism, three criteria allow a statement to be considered valid: verification by direct experience, irrefutable deduction, and testimony worthy of confidence."

What's his source for this? Ricard is a Tibetan Buddhist so it may not be from the Pali Canon. Maybe be "Buddhism" says it, but the Buddha didn't.

Good question. I was wondering about that, but would think Ricard is a reliable source. If it's not explicit in the Pali canon, is it implicit? Does it sound like the sort of thing the Buddha could have said?

Edited September 20, 2009 by Xangsamhua

[phetaroi]

In The Monk and the Philosopher, Revel & Ricard, Schocken, NY 1998, the monk Matthieu Ricard states (pp. 48-49) that "According to Buddhism, three criteria allow a statement to be considered valid: verification by direct experience, irrefutable deduction, and testimony worthy of confidence."

What's his source for this? Ricard is a Tibetan Buddhist so it may not be from the Pali Canon. Maybe be "Buddhism" says it, but the Buddha didn't.

Good question. I was wondering about that, but would think Ricard is a reliable source. If it's not explicit in the Pali canon, is it implicit? Does it sound like the sort of thing the Buddha could have said?

Does it matter or does it not matter?

It matters if you wish to practice pure Buddhism...whatever that means. It matters if you believe that the only font of wisdom ever in this world was Buddha in all his incarnations. It matters if you are discussing Buddhism or the philosophy of morality.

It doesn't matter if you use wisdom to improve your life. Uncle Ted wasn't Buddha, but he was awfully wise and taught me some wonderful life-long lessons. Vince Natale wasn't Buddha...nope, just my psychology professor...but his wisdom on certain topics enriched my life. Victor Schmidt wasn't Buddha...just my glaciology professor...but he was wise and taught me how to think and changed my life for the better.

Wisdom can be found many places and from many people. Buddhism is one channel, and for those of us in this forum probably the most important channel. But I would hope that any of us would acknowledge wisdom and truth wherever we find it.

[agent69]

So what do we do: make a choice of what to accept based on prior assumptions; believe everything that seems credible and assume that there is some unifying principle of truth behind the different stories; or just remain open, neither accepting nor rejecting?

I don't really see why I should care less. They are doing what they are doing, it doesn't appear to have any relavence to life as I know it, nothing to do with the Buddhist path, no affect on me or anything I care about, so why have an opinion at all?

However if there was a circumstance where such things do have an affect on me to the extent that I needed to form an opinion then I guess my first rule of thumb would be "would open minded acceptance of this work as a skilful means in terms of practice?".

Exactly how I believe. Why care if it does not affect me.

I do have opinion on this regard, but it is not whether they are real. Rather my opinion is that they are not relavant to how I will get to my goal. Skepticism is always there. But I keep that to myself as I do not know what it is based on. And to say it without the real knowledge would most likely do more harm than good.

[Xangsamhua]

Without suggesting we should go down the trail of every truth-claim, whether relevant or not, trivial or not, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with a general kind of insouciance either.

Although the claims of Joseph Smith, Guru Nanak, Lobsang Rampa or Kermit the Frog may not have any direct influence on my practice, that would suggest that my practice takes place in something of a vacuum, insulated from claims of objectivity or reality. That may be fine; in fact one's practice doesn't even need to be directly influenced by or attributed to the teachings of the Buddha. As long as it is an effective method of understanding reality and dispelling ignorance, then who cares what propositional statements anyone makes.

In my own case, however, my practice is undeveloped. I'm still interested in truth-claims, though they don't worry me any more. I still think it's handy to have criteria for evaluating the things people claim, especially if they want you to accede to them. And I'm interested in the multitude of truth-claims one hears in Thailand for paranormal occurrences that are said to occur and the extraordinary abilities certain people are said to have, and to somehow try to fit these into a coherent view of the world and its methods, or to exclude them as delusion or deception.

William James, the American philosopher-psychologist who studied mediums, found that most of them were fakes, but there were some who, despite rigorous testing, were not and James simply had to admit that science as he understood it had no answer. Being a curious soul, as well as not liking to be led by the nose, I, like James, would like to know when to believe, when not to, and when to simply suspend judgement.

[camerata]

In The Monk and the Philosopher, Revel & Ricard, Schocken, NY 1998, the monk Matthieu Ricard states (pp. 48-49) that "According to Buddhism, three criteria allow a statement to be considered valid: verification by direct experience, irrefutable deduction, and testimony worthy of confidence."

What's his source for this? Ricard is a Tibetan Buddhist so it may not be from the Pali Canon. Maybe be "Buddhism" says it, but the Buddha didn't.

Good question. I was wondering about that, but would think Ricard is a reliable source. If it's not explicit in the Pali canon, is it implicit? Does it sound like the sort of thing the Buddha could have said?

Not to me. It sounds like somebody intellectualizing about how to determine truth, when in fact the Buddha encouraged practice to verify the truth. I think this statement more likely has its origin in a Mahayana sutta or treatise, and therefore not necessarily in the Pali Canon. This is the problem with "Buddhism says..." statements when they come from Mahayana practitioners: they include a vast body of traditional literature from scholars like Nagarjuna plus suttas attributed to Sakyamuni that historians tell us were written long after his death.

[camerata]

In my own case, however, my practice is undeveloped. I'm still interested in truth-claims, though they don't worry me any more. I still think it's handy to have criteria for evaluating the things people claim, especially if they want you to accede to them.

At some point you have to decide whether you want to cultivate your mind by following the Buddha's instructions (with its tried and true results) or waste time investigating other people's claims.

And I'm interested in the multitude of truth-claims one hears in Thailand for paranormal occurrences that are said to occur and the extraordinary abilities certain people are said to have, and to somehow try to fit these into a coherent view of the world and its methods, or to exclude them as delusion or deception.

But how does this help you cultivate your mind? "Delusion" in Buddhist terms really refers to our normal belief that things are not anicca, dukkha and anatta. It's not about disproving claims of the supernatural. That's just one of the infinite number of ways the ego keeps us distracted from real practice - a road to nowhere (in Buddhist terms).

[Xangsamhua]

In my own case, however, my practice is undeveloped. I'm still interested in truth-claims, though they don't worry me any more. I still think it's handy to have criteria for evaluating the things people claim, especially if they want you to accede to them.

At some point you have to decide whether you want to cultivate your mind by following the Buddha's instructions (with its tried and true results) or waste time investigating other people's claims.

And I'm interested in the multitude of truth-claims one hears in Thailand for paranormal occurrences that are said to occur and the extraordinary abilities certain people are said to have, and to somehow try to fit these into a coherent view of the world and its methods, or to exclude them as delusion or deception.

But how does this help you cultivate your mind? "Delusion" in Buddhist terms really refers to our normal belief that things are not anicca, dukkha and anatta. It's not about disproving claims of the supernatural. That's just one of the infinite number of ways the ego keeps us distracted from real practice - a road to nowhere (in Buddhist terms).

Fair enough. I appreciate the advice of people who are much more advanced than me. However, I'm constantly being told amazing stories about the miraculous attributes of Luangphor X and Luangpu Y. It's really in-your-face and seems to be at the heart of Thai Buddhist belief. Yet I'm also trying to adopt a sympathetic and broad-minded approach to popular Buddhism in Thailand rather than a purist and elitist one. I'd like to believe that the things friends and family tell me are possible, even though they seem quite weird. Like some other things I've tried maybe one can't have it both ways. Better to "stick to the knitting" and not get distracted, as you say.

(Sorry, I'm not good at the cutting and pasting thing, so have had to include the whole set of quotes above.)

[rockyysdt]

I'm constantly being told amazing stories about the miraculous attributes of Luangphor X and Luangpu Y. It's really in-your-face and seems to be at the heart of Thai Buddhist belief.

Although I respect anyone who has the tenacity to stick with their daily practice as Luangphor X and Luangpu Y might have, as the Buddha taught that we are all equally capable of reaching enlightenment, I no longer place anyone on a pedestal.

Yet I'm also trying to adopt a sympathetic and broad-minded approach to popular Buddhism in Thailand rather than a purist and elitist one. I'd like to believe that the things friends and family tell me are possible, even though they seem quite weird. Like some other things I've tried maybe one can't have it both ways.

Although my ego seeks proof from others experiences that our path is true, I avoid any attachment to the Thai Buddhism we see & hear being practiced around us. Much of it deviating so far from what the Buddha taught, I suspect many perpetrators will be accumulating quite a bit of negative karma.

On the other hand I constantly seek pockets of inspiration where true practice is taught & encouraged.

Edited September 21, 2009 by rockyysdt

[Samuian]

A glass of milk, if it is poured it down the throat, if the milk flows across the tongue,

the taste buds will confirm it's good, it's milk!

A cup of tea.... sweeping the court, clipping roses,

watching the fish in the ponds, a leave drop down,

witness the sun,the moon and the stars rise,

watching the breath come and go, rise and flow -

...what else do "I" need to know?

Lift a stone and you will "see" me!

Turn a piece of wood and you will "see" me!

"Happy family, one hand clap!"

"Hey stranger, step a side, let the mind pass!"

"why have you come?"

"to seek the Buddhas way!"

"there is nothing in my temple, look after your own treasure!'

""Where is my treasure?"

"Now that is asking me, is your own treasure.

It has everything it needs;

and it lacks nothing; its use is spontaneous.

What for do you seek outside?"

Have a beautiful day, everyday!

Edited September 21, 2009 by Samuian

[camerata]

However, I'm constantly being told amazing stories about the miraculous attributes of Luangphor X and Luangpu Y. It's really in-your-face and seems to be at the heart of Thai Buddhist belief. Yet I'm also trying to adopt a sympathetic and broad-minded approach to popular Buddhism in Thailand rather than a purist and elitist one. I'd like to believe that the things friends and family tell me are possible, even though they seem quite weird. Like some other things I've tried maybe one can't have it both ways. Better to "stick to the knitting" and not get distracted, as you say.

Have you read Life as a Siamese Monk? The author investigates some "supernatural phenomena" and only finds one that he can't explain (a monk who by "power of suggestion" turns a grain of rice into a shrimp in front of many people). He also teaches himself how to stick spikes through his cheeks without pain or bleeding. I admit this stuff is fascinating, but it really is a distraction.

On the other hand there are the supernatural phenomena from the Pali Canon, The Three Sciences, the Buddha talking to devas, and so on. But it seems to me that these can be explained as subjective psychological events. In any case, "believing" in them on any level doesn't necessarily hinder one's mental cultivation, while investigating them does, IMO. Like you, I see no reason to look down on Thai Buddhism just because there is a fascination for the supernatural.

There's even more of the supernatural in pre-Occupation Tibetan Buddhism, of course. Try Alexandra David-Neel's Magic and Mystery in Tibet, for example. Perhaps a bit exagerated for the readers of the day (1920s), but a thrilling read nevertheless.

[phetaroi]

At some point you have to decide whether you want to cultivate your mind by following the Buddha's instructions (with its tried and true results) or waste time investigating other people's claims.

I don't agree that it has to be either (Buddha) or (other philosophies/religions).

Let me ask you this. I am assuming you are a Westerner. Were you born into a Buddhist family? I am guessing not. Let's say you were born a Methodist and you believed and said, "At some point you have to decide whether you want to cultivate your mind by following Jesus' instructions as taught by the Methodist Church or waste time investigating other people's claims." Result, you would have never learned about Buddhism. Hmmmmmm.

[Samuian]

And next is Lobsang Rampa.... Dr.Tuesday... yes, there is a message out there!

What did the wedge tailed robin tell this mornin'?

[camerata]

At some point you have to decide whether you want to cultivate your mind by following the Buddha's instructions (with its tried and true results) or waste time investigating other people's claims.

I don't agree that it has to be either (Buddha) or (other philosophies/religions).

I was referring to the difference between what historians agree the Buddha said in the Pali Canon and what various Buddhists sects claim he said or what various scholar monks taught as their own interpretation of the texts. Of course, anyone can choose to follow whichever philosophy they find rewarding.

Let me ask you this. I am assuming you are a Westerner. Were you born into a Buddhist family? I am guessing not. Let's say you were born a Methodist and you believed and said, "At some point you have to decide whether you want to cultivate your mind by following Jesus' instructions as taught by the Methodist Church or waste time investigating other people's claims." Result, you would have never learned about Buddhism. Hmmmmmm.

Well, in my case I was brought up as a Christian. I investigated Christianity and found it illogical and unproven*, so I discarded it. I also investigated science and found that it wasn't the answer to suffering. I eventually investigated Theravada Buddhism and found it logical and unique in the sense that it is primarily a matter of cultivating the mind, with the expected result possible within the current lifetime. "Cultivating the mind" is not acquiring knowledge in the conventional sense, it is changing your behavioural patterns through long practice. It is closer to self-administered psychotherapy than to religion. The pointers to this cultivation are in the Noble Eightfold Path as set out in the Pali Canon, which is why I personally am not very interested in what some 5th century scholar-monk or 14th century Tibetan guru has to say about it, although others might be. You could say I am Sakyamuni-centric. From my own reading, I can see Sakyamuni fully understood the human condition and had the answer to it.

* Since I seem to recall you saying you believed God had sent Buddha to teach us something, let me expand on what I said here. While it's very easy to discard the concepts of Christianity and the bible, it isn't easy to discard the concept of God. For many of us this has been buried deep in our subconscious since a very early age and logic alone doesn't get rid of it. My solution was to simply set it aside as a concept that is irrelevant to my goal and which will disappear if/when I reach a high level of practice. This is the attitude I take towards supernatural phenomena of all types. I guess it all depends on what your personal goal is. If one's personal goal is some kind of existence after death, my technique probably won't work, leaving you with a choice among the various supernatural alternatives.

[phetaroi]

I was referring to the difference between what historians agree the Buddha said in the Pali Canon and what various Buddhists sects claim he said or what various scholar monks taught as their own interpretation of the texts. Of course, anyone can choose to follow whichever philosophy they find rewarding.

Well, in my case I was brought up as a Christian. I investigated Christianity and found it illogical and unproven*, so I discarded it. I also investigated science and found that it wasn't the answer to suffering. I eventually investigated Theravada Buddhism and found it logical and unique in the sense that it is primarily a matter of cultivating the mind, with the expected result possible within the current lifetime. "Cultivating the mind" is not acquiring knowledge in the conventional sense, it is changing your behavioural patterns through long practice. It is closer to self-administered psychotherapy than to religion. The pointers to this cultivation are in the Noble Eightfold Path as set out in the Pali Canon, which is why I personally am not very interested in what some 5th century scholar-monk or 14th century Tibetan guru has to say about it, although others might be. You could say I am Sakyamuni-centric. From my own reading, I can see Sakyamuni fully understood the human condition and had the answer to it.

* Since I seem to recall you saying you believed God had sent Buddha to teach us something, let me expand on what I said here. While it's very easy to discard the concepts of Christianity and the bible, it isn't easy to discard the concept of God. For many of us this has been buried deep in our subconscious since a very early age and logic alone doesn't get rid of it. My solution was to simply set it aside as a concept that is irrelevant to my goal and which will disappear if/when I reach a high level of practice. This is the attitude I take towards supernatural phenomena of all types. I guess it all depends on what your personal goal is. If one's personal goal is some kind of existence after death, my technique probably won't work, leaving you with a choice among the various supernatural alternatives.

Another of your really great posts!

But let me ask, do you also "set aside" the concepts of all the Buddhist heavens and hells?

[camerata]

But let me ask, do you also "set aside" the concepts of all the Buddhist heavens and hells?

Yes, if you mean in literal terms. And it's my impression that Ajahn Sumedho (my main inspiration) does too. But I think the effect of high-level practice (i.e. at sotapanna level) should be to intuitively grasp rebirth in different realms. And at that level you won't care much about rebirth anyway.

[phetaroi]

But let me ask, do you also "set aside" the concepts of all the Buddhist heavens and hells?

Yes, if you mean in literal terms. And it's my impression that Ajahn Sumedho (my main inspiration) does too. But I think the effect of high-level practice (i.e. at sotapanna level) should be to intuitively grasp rebirth in different realms. And at that level you won't care much about rebirth anyway.

Okay, I admire your consistency in principle in this.

[Samuian]

But let me ask, do you also "set aside" the concepts of all the Buddhist heavens and hells?

Yes, if you mean in literal terms. And it's my impression that Ajahn Sumedho (my main inspiration) does too. But I think the effect of high-level practice (i.e. at sotapanna level) should be to intuitively grasp rebirth in different realms. And at that level you won't care much about rebirth anyway.

Why then care in the first place?

Isn't it wondering why the wind blows, why the rain falls, the sun shines?

Every frog can leap across the water, every crane can fly through the skies, every bat can sleep upside down...

why worry, unless one wants to be a frog or a crane!

Does anyone (here) know the story of the "dead fox, at the foot of the rock, behind the monastery... and it's meaning?

The supranatural, the occult, the phenomena of the empirical world, the here and now, the past, the future and present -

is vanishing at the face of the immediate present pure, untouched reality, of that where there is no other -

that which hasn't gone, not come, nor can it be named, no face, no name, no number.. - the omnipresent, all pervading silence within the chaos - the sound of a single clapping hand!

...Tu en veux encore?....

Okay - one more...

Huineng's flag

Two monks were watching a flag flapping in the wind.

One said to the other, "The flag is moving."

The other replied, "The wind is moving."

Huineng overheard this. He said: "Not the flag, not the wind; mind is moving."

Have a nice day,every day!

[rockyysdt]

I eventually investigated Theravada Buddhism and found it logical and unique in the sense that it is primarily a matter of cultivating the mind, with the expected result possible within the current lifetime. "Cultivating the mind" is not acquiring knowledge in the conventional sense, it is changing your behavioural patterns through long practice. It is closer to self-administered psychotherapy than to religion.

I'm just worried I'm going to run out of time before I can achieve a reasonable level.

[rockyysdt]

Why then care in the first place?

Isn't it wondering why the wind blows, why the rain falls, the sun shines?

Every frog can leap across the water, every crane can fly through the skies, every bat can sleep upside down...

why worry, unless one wants to be a frog or a crane!

Does anyone (here) know the story of the "dead fox, at the foot of the rock, behind the monastery... and it's meaning?

The supranatural, the occult, the phenomena of the empirical world, the here and now, the past, the future and present -

is vanishing at the face of the immediate present pure, untouched reality, of that where there is no other -

that which hasn't gone, not come, nor can it be named, no face, no name, no number.. - the omnipresent, all pervading silence within the chaos - the sound of a single clapping hand!

The poetry is beautiful.

Gives one great encouragement to move on & touches us with an inkling of insight.

Until I achieve a level of cultivation (experience) though, I can only look with the crudity of ego.

Having said that I won't lose heart.

I'll continue my sittings & mindfulness until I can see.

Edited September 22, 2009 by rockyysdt

[camerata]

But let me ask, do you also "set aside" the concepts of all the Buddhist heavens and hells?

Yes, if you mean in literal terms. And it's my impression that Ajahn Sumedho (my main inspiration) does too. But I think the effect of high-level practice (i.e. at sotapanna level) should be to intuitively grasp rebirth in different realms. And at that level you won't care much about rebirth anyway.

Why then care in the first place?

Exactly. That's the advice I'm giving. Focusing on trying to attain this realm or that realm is a sucker's game.

[camerata]

But let me ask, do you also "set aside" the concepts of all the Buddhist heavens and hells?

Yes, if you mean in literal terms. And it's my impression that Ajahn Sumedho (my main inspiration) does too. But I think the effect of high-level practice (i.e. at sotapanna level) should be to intuitively grasp rebirth in different realms. And at that level you won't care much about rebirth anyway.

Okay, I admire your consistency in principle in this.

It's really just the end result of a lot of reading on the subject. Ajahn Brahm is the one I recall saying that at Sotapanna level you'll have no doubts about rebirth. Ajahn Thanissaro once said "take it as a hypothesis to be proven." Ajahn Sumedho, when asked about doubts, said Ajahn Chah taught him to simply observe them rising and falling away. The main idea seems to be not to go looking for some intellectual proof of the supernatural aspects of Buddhism because there isn't one. But if one has faith in these things - for whatever reason - that's fine too.

[camerata]

I'm just worried I'm going to run out of time before I can achieve a reasonable level.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. Progress tends to be slow - too slow for us Westerners with our need for instant gratification. Also, sometimes we don't realize when we are making progress.

It seems to me that some specific problems are harder to make progress with than others. People I know who meditate because of anger issues seem to have a hard time of it. Often there are specific practices for specific problems. For example, for someone who tends to be critical and sarcastic all the time, that's aversion, and the antidote is metta meditation.

[OxfordWill]

I do not wish to deminish what is being said in what you cited, but there is a very simple mechanism for covering the problem of testimony/arguments which are not deductively valid but one cannot see a reason to reject them along the lines of "sane, no evidence of false or misleading behaviour, no benefit from telling an untruth, admirable life and example to others, etc" and this is called inductively forceful arguments. I wont go into detail here but you can google it. Unfortunately I think its quite amateur to require anything more than a paragrpah or two on the subject, but I will apply the principle of charity and assume the author only wishes to use the point as a path to a discussion of more religious topics.