Is Buddhism A Philosophy Or A Religion?
@Wayfarer
Buddhism is currently looked upon as a religion in the same way as Abrahamic faiths. This isn't surprising because the Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, is worshipped though not as an omnipotent being and there's an entire pantheon of deities in some Buddhist sects that should provide enough ammo to someone who wants to make the case that Buddhism is a religion.
However, I've had the good fortune of meeting some Buddhist practitioners and get acquainted, albeit only superficially, with their holy scriptures. If I'm not mistaken, these scriptures, although memorized and chanted like prayers, actually contain logical arguments aimed at proving Buddhist doctrines. It's the equivalent of philosophers committing to memory every book written on philosophy and chanting them verbatim.
No other religion is like Buddhism in this regard.
Buddhism is currently looked upon as a religion in the same way as Abrahamic faiths. This isn't surprising because the Buddha, the founder of Buddhism, is worshipped though not as an omnipotent being and there's an entire pantheon of deities in some Buddhist sects that should provide enough ammo to someone who wants to make the case that Buddhism is a religion.
However, I've had the good fortune of meeting some Buddhist practitioners and get acquainted, albeit only superficially, with their holy scriptures. If I'm not mistaken, these scriptures, although memorized and chanted like prayers, actually contain logical arguments aimed at proving Buddhist doctrines. It's the equivalent of philosophers committing to memory every book written on philosophy and chanting them verbatim.
No other religion is like Buddhism in this regard.
Comments (474)
But for purposes of this forum, considering it a philosophy might be useful. To break it down instead of swallowing it whole. One can get to know it as a philosophy, fall in love with it as a practice, and marry it as a religion... if one were so inclined, lol.
How do we define philosophy and religion?
The heart of philosophy is critical thinking and Buddhism meets that condition in being both based on facts (4 noble truths) and arguing for a worldview from them.
While religion may not be all blind faith, argumentation is frowned upon for the reason that god is perfect - among other things, is infallible and all good - and so to argue against good becomes, in the eyes of the faithful, both foolish and evil, with greater emphasis on the latter.
I assume that you can easily show how the Four Noble Truths are factual.
The 4 noble truths:
1. Life is suffering
2. Craving is the cause of suffering
Ergo,
3. To end suffering, one must end craving
4. The 8-fold path is a means to end craving
That life is suffering is plain to see. That craving is, if not the primary cause, at least a major contributor to suffering. That to end suffering, craving has to be ended follows from these premises. Whether the 8-fold path is the correct method to end craving is, unfortunately, debatable.
How so? I did mention some elements of Buddhism like the existence of a pantheon of deities could be grounds to infer it to be a religion but these are, to my reckoning, later additions as Buddhism came under the influence of Hinduism.
If you'll allow me to reframe the question: Which of the existing religions is closest to the spirit of philosophy? Perhaps the star of Buddhism's philosophical nature gets obscured in the bright sunlight of philosophy proper but if I were to compare them to the more or less equally bright stars of other religions, you might be able to discern something.
The essence of Buddhism is rational analysis and in that it resembles science.
What is the optimistic version?
1. Life is joy
2. Experience brings joy
ergo
3. To continue joy, one must continue experiencing and questioning
4. (I don't have a path for this)
No, there’s pleasure or satisfaction also, truth be told.
Quoting TheMadFool
If craving is only a partial cause then ending it may not do the trick.
Quoting TheMadFool
So debatable rather than factual.
It could be thought to qualify to an equal degree as a philosophy as Schopenhauer's World as Will and Representation does, except for the twin irrational beliefs in Karma and Rebirth (Schopenhauer's philosophy arguably entertained only one irrational belief, namely the belief in Will).
ask @180 Proof about how pessimism is the only realistic attitude to adopt. Hint: entropy. Always indebted to you 180 Proof.
Quoting Janus
As I mentioned in a preceding post, Hinduism had a major influence on Buddhism in its history. The core principles of Buddhism remain atheistic in the sense it doesn't subscribe to an all-powerful, all-good, all-knowing being.
Why should the fact of entropy lead us to pessimism?
Quoting TheMadFool
The Buddha is considered to be all-good and all-knowing if not all-powerful. There are many deities in Tibetan Buddhism (not to mention quite a few other schools). Buddhism may not be a "true" religion (in the sense that there are no "True Scotsmen") but it undoubtedly contains religious elements that most philosophy does not. Any philosophy that does contain religious elements would probably be better characterized as theology.
There are more ways to suffer than there are ways to be happy. All things being equal, you're likely to experience more suffering than happiness.
Quoting Janus
All I'm saying is that unlike the other three major religions, Buddhism doesn't have a god you have to pray to.
Bhutan is the only Buddhist country in the world. They measure gross national happiness, 75% of the country is wildlife reserves. They are carbon negative. No doubt there would be negatives also.
Dear @180 Proof,
How is pessimism the only realistic attitude to adopt?
Surely that would vary with each individual. Not having experienced what others do, and having only anecdotal evidence of a vanishingly tiny fraction of humanity's experience, how could you possibly justify such a claim?
Quoting TheMadFool
In some schools of Buddhism adherents do pray, and give offerings, to deities.
Is not will, even if not free, obviously existent? Buddhism is about making it (the will/ego) subtle, as in being Quietist
There is theoretical knowledge and practical knowledge on one side, and theoretical ethics and practical ethics on the other. (I like to avoid the words objective and subjective because that gets into the murky waters of Platonism) I learn about knowledge and practical ethics through reading. People have to ask themselves: am I looking for a way of a life or a set of beliefs?
I am not sure the cessation of suffering and enlightenment are facts, for example. That elimination of suffering and the hard to define state of 'enlightenment' are hardly testable. There is a great deal of evidence that Buddist meditation and other meditations can reduce suffering, but that's true of other things as well.
But I am not arguing that there isn't a Buddhist philosophy, but I think that's only a portion of Buddhism and hardly the most important. The practices are vastly more important and this is inherent in most Buddhisms. IOW you will be encouraged not to think a great deal, at least in comparison with how much you are encouraged to engage in the practices. Quoting TheMadFoolI am not sure how well it would go in much of the East if you wanted to argue about Buddhism. I wouldn't recommend going into temples and giving that a shot, though Buddhism covers such a wide variety of people, it might go over well in some places. Yes, Buddhism is less focused on morals, which are actually more like practical heuristics, but then it seems to me you are conflating religion with Abrahamic religions. And even in that group you have Judaism which has much more focus on argument, reasoning the like than Buddhism.
Religion, philosophy, and sets of practices with goals are not mutually exclusive categories. I think Buddhism is centered on practices and eliciting responses, rather than arriving at mental verbal models of the universe than other philosophies. This is most clear in the Zen version of Buddhism, but other branches are really quite wary of trying to arrive at truth via mental verbal practices.
I would add that Buddhist texts are often accumulations of assertions, often with a lot of metaphors. This does not rule it out as being philosophy, but it is nothing at all like modern philosophy which is more focused on critical thinking.
We don't have to ascribe to, or be attached to, such views at all; I would argue that they spring from preoccupation with the self. The cure is acceptance, even affirmation, of one's conditions, which enables you to see the joy in life. This was Nietzsche's correction of Schopenhauer.
My take is that Buddhism is an experience which transcends philosophy and religion. The philosophy and religion parts are props people are using to try to talk themselves in to the experience.
The same might be said for Christianity for example. Jesus said, "Die to be reborn". Die is a verb which suggests an act of surrender. An act. An experience. All the other junk piled on top of that is supposed to help people make their way to the experience, though I'm guessing the piled on junk is as much obstacle as asset.
@TheMadFool
Looks like either 180 has chosen not to be your personal secretary or you should fire him for being an inattentive minion. Whatever the case, no one can make a successful argument for you that the Four Nobel Truths are factual. In fact, the genius of them is in their fallacious expediency. If a potential follower can deny their own reason and experience right off the bat, and accept this doctrine on faith from an authority, then the rest of the Kool-Aid will be easy to swallow.
Quoting praxis
Quoting Roy Davies
To the three of you: I'll attempt a simple proof of why we should be pessimists and why life is suffering.
Happiness is, by and large, associated with order and sorrow with chaos.
The entire enterprise of building a society that's conducive to happiness is centered around the notion harmony - the smooth interaction between the various parts of the social machine that ensures, if not anything else, the optimum environment for happiness to take root and thrive.
In the event of disharmony, happiness is the first casualty then. Everyone has seen on TV what happens when law and order breaks down - neither our lives nor our property are safe. Note that chaos needn't be as extreme as a riot - it can take the simpler but still painful form of breaking your favorite cup, losing your wallet, having to spend the day with a person you don't like, etc.
Entropy says that disorder is always more likely than order for the simple reason that there are more ways to be disordered than ordered - there are more ways your favorite cup can break and there's only one way it can stay whole.
Ergo, it must be that, on average, we suffer more than enjoy in life. At the very least, a great deal of energy must be expended to maintain order, our preferred state, and that's exhausting work.
Given the above, we should expect things to go wrong more often than go right. Hence, pessimism is the most realistic attitude to life.
Quoting Hippyhead
It's possible that the objective of Buddhism is not just plain old comprehension of logical arguments like in math or science. From my encounters with Buddhism I sense it has cabalistic overtones.
The practice of Buddhism can find appeal only when its core tenets make sense. At least that's how Buddhism is advertised - as a completely rational philosophy/religion based on hard facts.
Quoting Skeptic
I want to investigate the philosophical aspects of religions. Buddhism seems to stick out like a sore thumb on that score.
Is this you summarizing the Buddhist argument? To me it doesn't sound like Buddhism. Buddhism may or may not be correct. I haven't argued that it is wrong. It also seems like you are saying that Buddhism is pessimistic and that is not what most Buddhists think. And there are many presentations on line by Buddhists for what this is not a correct interpretation. In some ways it is wildly optimistic. Quoting TheMadFool
That's how some people advertise it, trying to draw a distinction, generally in the West, between Buddhism and other religions. But there is, as I said before, a very strong push for one to engage in practices and that this should, in the religion, dominate over rational thinking, argument, thinking in general, emoting and following desires. The idea is to set aside cognitive habits. Philosophical positions center themselves in thoughts, expect criticisma and active on verbal levels. (of course people check their experience within philosophical interactions, but the extreme emphasis is on words, dialogue, essays, argument, criticism, and verbal thinking. Buddhism does present philosophical positions. We don't have a binary or trinary choice. There is a Buddhist philosophy and sets of philosophical texts. But I can't see a reason to make this the primary descriptive word for Buddhism, GIVEN much of what it presents as facts: that the mind is problematic, the things it suggests one focus one's time on, the actual behavior of the Buddha, the behavior or the experts (as decided in the various branches) and the admonitions about what one should and should not do and what to prioritize in Buddhism if one wants to succeed. And all that is radically different from philosophical interaction. There are also implict and explicit criticisms in Buddhisms of folk and other philosophies of language. And that one should not get fastened onto what is a fact or not. Not that the word fact is tossed around much in Buddhism I don't think.
Philosophies tend to be about reality, about what is. Here we have a program of activity and one that runs in parallel to normal society, with the goals of changing things like the structure of perception, the way other parts of the brain relate to the limbic system, to states of mind not centered in words. And once one is trying to be an expert in Buddhism, one engages in non-verbal activities with specific practices for very large periods of time. Try to be an expert in Hegelian philosohpy, or Western philosophy,or existentialism or.....pretty much any philosophy, and you are engaged in mental verbal activities, with a strong focus on critical analysis, mental verbal processes, the trying to get a grasp, through mental paraphrase on concepts the philosopher has come up with, argument, counterargument....thinking, thinking, thinking........Which is why, despite my acknolwedging that Buddhism also includes a philosophy, it makes much more sense to say it is a set of practices that also have a supportive philosophy, and a religion.
Buddhism is a theory among many. Hinduism, Zen, Daoism are the other major theories in this “field”. I find it interesting though that nothing like this is in the west. We are just beginning to make something like it with psychology and biology recently. The closest western field to Buddhism and Co is I think psychoanalysis. Both try to describe what goes on in the mind starting from the mind, rather than to try doing it starting from how the world works.
Well Schopenhauer was from the West and he proposed that Spinoza was correct all along, although the former thought a way to eternal existence is possible. Schopenhauer's psychology lesson started with explaining that matter itself is incorpereal
More or less, yes. Pessimism, in fact it's actually being realistic, is an underlying message in Buddhism. All philosophies that recommend making changes internally, within one's self, rather than externally, in the world outside, smack of a tacit admission that we really can't control the world we live in - basically adapt or die seems to be the motto prescribed.
I'm not denying that Buddhism has features like praying, rituals, gods, views on moral matters, etc., practices, that lend it a religious character but all these are extraneous to its core doctrines and have come about through its interactions with other religions, mainly Hinduism as far as I can tell. I stressed on the existence of logical arguments in Buddhist scripture because no religion can make a similar claim. In Abrahamic religions if there's an argument in them at all it's one of appeal to the authority of a supreme being viz. god and we all know the bad rep this particular kind of argument has. Though the Buddha is revered, even worshipped as a god, Buddhism's appeal does not lie in his person as an infallible perfect being but in the strength of his arguments.
Read below:
Quoting khaled
Thanks Khaled.Quoting khaled
Interesting. I beg to differ though. As I said above, the existing dynamics of mind-world interactions has one rule - adapt (to the world) or die. The mind, capable of imagining a better arrangement with the world, must eventually learn that the world isn't a person in which case we could negotiate the terms of our relationship with it. I drew some comfort initially that though we can't bargain for a good deal, reality is, all said and done, indifferent to our plight but that isn't true. Reality, entropy given due consideration, actually stacks the odds against us, making it almost a foregone conclusion that life will not be as enjoyable an experience as one would've liked or hoped. To make the long story short, Buddhism's journey begins outside - the world - and ends inside - the mind.
Psychoanalysis, on the other hand, seems to be about how our minds are constructed - what features it possesses, how they interact with the world and shape our attitude, mood, and behavior. There's a superficial resemblance with Buddhism given that both are about how well our minds are adapted to the world but the difference begins to show in the way the problem is dealt with.
In psychoanalytics, people are treated like animals and are trained like them using positive and negative reinforcement and other tricks of the trade. In Buddhism a person's higher faculty - reason - is engaged, arguments are presented for examination, and people are encouraged to think and decide how to behave rather than practise a particular behavior until it becomes a habit like in psychoanalytics.
Quoting Coben
You're probably conflating variety with chaos. The similarity is that in both cases there are more options (this you saw) but the difference is that in chaos all options are unacceptable while in variety they are (this you overlooked).
Close enough to the first noble truth (life sucks). The point is though that in Western philosophy there have been much fewer explorations about what to do about this internally. The closest western philosophcal doctrine to buddhism that I can think of is stiocism. Stoicism actually tries to do the same thing so now that I think about it maybe IT was the first rather than psychoanalysis but phsychoanalysis is definitely closer in terms of "methodology". It tries to figure out what to do about being in such a terrible world in terms of what you should do with your mind.
Other than that the west seems to have largely tried to deal with this issue by changing the world itself. That is the key. The East tries to deal with this problem by configuring our minds so as to deal with it best. Just look at the second noble truth, to the East the problem is in the mind not the world. The West tries to deal with the problem by "fixing" the world (results vary from crusades to scientific revolution, handle with care).
I think that's part of the reason why the scientific revolution showing how insignificant we are, and the weakening of the belief in God caused such a massive void in the West which existentialists, absurdists and Co tried to fix. You hardly hear of existentialism in the East. That's because in The East there was no belief that the world needs to be fixed for us to be able to live in it, no need for mankind to be the centrepiece of the world for it to be worth it, it was always believed that the world is fine and we should just fix ourselves to deal with it. Notice how most Eastern religions don't have any sort of afterlife or "great quest" or purpose or destination baked in unlike most Western religions and myths. You can argue Nirvana is that but a Buddhist will never tell you "You must seek Nirvana". Nirvana is a state of enlightenment but there is no pressure to get there unless one personally thinks it's worth it. Unlike heaven where the only altenative is eternal damnation.
Quoting TheMadFool
I don't think it's that simple. If I remember correctly reinforcement learning came way after psychoanalysis. At least I don't think it's about training people like animals anymore rather it is about explaining to them how their minds worked, and what they should do to deal with whatever issue they are having. For Buddhism though this is just false:
Quoting TheMadFool
Medidation. Meditation in Buddhism is either perscribed as medicine or is used in order for one to make their own conclusions. There are meditations designed to alleviate stress, deal with insecurities about X or Y, etc. The main thing a Buddhist hopes to do by meditating is to understand how his/her own mind is constructed. But as he/she understands more about the mind they become able to perscribe people certain meditations that help alleviate their stress just like a personal trainer perscribes a workout schedule. It will work regardless of whether or not you understand why.
That's the same as psychoanalysts giving people certain habits. They have enough of an understanding about how the mind works to give them a habit that will help them regardless of their own understanding of themselves.
The main difference is that a psychoanalyst is primarily a doctor while a Buddhist is primarily a scholar who knows enough to likely be able to help if asked. And psychoanalysts mainly get their knowledge from what the previous generation has found while Buddhists try to come to their own conclusions.
I think it depends on what side of the Lotus Flower you find yourself sitting on.
It can be both, and it can be neither, at the same time and in the same respect.
Buddhism IS like that.
Or maybe I'm mixin' it up with Zenism. Or Jesusism.
I think stoicism is missing something viz. doctrine of impermanence and thus, in a way, fails at the get go. The legendary stoic calm doesn't arise from understanding a cold hard fact of reality but is rather a policy based on the impression that emotions are destructive. I have no clue why they thought that.
Quoting khaled
By my reckoning, the west got it right. We can tinker around, add/delete features of our world to suit our needs. I might even go so far as to say that the first noble truth - that life is suffering - will probably become untenable at some point in the distant future considering the pace of medical and technological progress. We might find a way to defeat entropy. You never know.
That said, even if we were to eventually bend nature to our will and create paradise on earth it still feels wrong to completely indulge our senses. Perhaps this felt need to control our passions needs to be put under the microscope.
Quoting khaled
I've heard that a lot about this so-called "void" but how about looking at the whole issue a little differently. I personally feel that religions, the ones that are around, are, at their core, a business deal - you purchase a ticket to paradise with good deeds. In the future, once utopia becomes a reality, this product can be made available in the market for real. In other words, what religion offers without a guarantee can be sold as actual goods with a warranty to boot. It seems therefore that the so-called "void" left by religion's departure from our lives can actually be dealt with in a satisfactory manner without abandoning the principle therein contained.
Quoting khaled
I'm not sure about this myself. It was just a shot in the dark but I sense that I haven't strayed too far from the truth about psychoanalytics. After all, the subject seems to isolate the mind for study, disassembling it as it were, something not that different from putting animals in a lab and learning how their minds work.
Buddhism, on the other hand, is about how the world works and making necessary adjustments to our minds so that our lives don't end up being a tale of tears [of the pointless kind].
All in all, psychoanlytics seems to be about mind manipulation but Buddhism is about understanding the world we live in.
Quoting khaled
Meditation, to my reckoning, only serves to calm our minds to the point where it becomes possible to reflect deeply about the nature of reality, a prerequisite if one is to gain any degree of understanding on the matter. It's quite different from giving a dog a treat everytime it does what you want it to. If a dog starts meditating it would be the first step it takes to an understanding of its behavior - what role the dog-treat has in shaping its habits and so on.
You may be interested in Leo Tolstoy's work then. He was able to find quite solid philosophical foundation behind the Christianity. He even wrote his own translation of the Bible to show possible original philosophical context of the text.
In fact, life is not chaos and disharmony. It requires order and chaos.
Granted I’m no fan of dogma but the cessation of suffer’n is a bit more appealing, to me.
Quoting khaled
What religion doesn’t have this take it or leave it attitude? If you decide to walk away from Christianity will they nail you to a cross or something? In any case, you're mixing metaphors, the 'kill the Buddha' thing is about transcending intellection and in that way very zen.
The best aid to meditation for me has been cigarettes. There is no evidence it causes cancer. There could easily be a gene that makes certain people smoke which also causes the cancer. Tobacco has been used as medicine since ancient times. It's a myth that it smells too. What passes for "science" these days is not much of anything. If you have a theory that they think is 60 percent likely to be true, then toss it out for an 80 percent, the 80 percent really isn't 80 percent because the 60 percent wasn't true. I think scientists misuse statistics in attempts to prove their own theories without taking into account a holistic understanding of all scientific studies in human history
Buddhism seems to be both a Religion for the masses, and a Philosophy of life for the few. Admonished by his critique of their current decadent society, his earliest followers (Bikkhu) simply withdrew from society to become navel-gazing monks. But over time, some of his disciples became evangelical, and spread the "word" throughout Asia. And that "word" eventually became doctrine and dogma. The Buddha's simple rules for living a good life eventually became entangled with local traditional religious notions, deities, and demons. Thus, a philosophy of individual morality evolved into formalized religious Faith for the general population.
Christianity also evolved in a similar manner. Jesus preached revival of defunct Jewish traditions & morality to his own people. His "sermon on the mount" teachings were primarily philosophical, in that they were aimed at personal improvement. But again, his disciples generalized his Jewish message of moral redemption, and adapted them to the the religious traditions of Gentiles. The, perhaps unintended, result of such evangelism was to convert his simple moral rules, tailored to a specific vernacular, into a worldwide religious dogma. In the process of institutionalizing Jesus' uplifting message for his own downtrodden people, he was transformed (apotheosis) from a man into a god --- suitable for a world-dominating political religion.
In his recent book, Why Buddhism Is True, Robert Wright notes that the Buddhist message of personal salvation from suffering has now morphed back into a personal philosophy of self-improvement. In its Westernized form, Buddhism now seems to be similar to the Stoic philosophy of the Greeks. It doesn't promise salvation in an afterlife, but merely peace of mind in the midst of the world's evils and suffering. The key to his message was self-reliance, instead of praying to invisible gods for supernatural succor. Of course, the Buddha didn't present syllogistic arguments in the Greek manner of philosophy, but Wright traces the logic of his aphoristic teachings to our modern understanding of human psychology. The rationale of his methods is reflected in the modern secular Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy. :smile:
Buddhism Is Logical : This book is not recommending conversion to one of the various Asian religions that evolved from the Buddha’s teachings. Instead, he sees secular Meditation as a viable technology for taking command of our lives, and for avoiding or alleviating the psychological suffering — mostly Freudian neuroses — that plague many people today. Wright sees a need for such ancient techniques, even in the light of the European Enlightenment, which was focused mainly on controlling the outer natural world, but not on mastering the personal demons within.
http://bothandblog6.enformationism.info/page51.html
Not anymore but they used to as far as I know. Especially if you cure too many sick people. And in Islam the punishment is in fact death. And in both it is thought that anyone who doesn’t think like you do is wrong and will burn in hell forever so forcing people to adopt your beliefs at any cost is a good thing. Both place pressure on following their doctrines while Buddhism emphasizes that it is strictly optional.
Quoting praxis
I don’t see how it would be so I don’t think so.
Neither side negates the other. It’s not a dichotomy it’s an attitude. In the west people try to fix the problem of life by fixing the outside world while in the east they try to fix themselves. That doesn’t mean that in the east it is thought that scientific advancement is impossible nor does it mean in the West that being able to bear life is not valuable. Both methods lead to a better life. Nowadays both are finally being used in tandem slowly
Quoting TheMadFool
I don’t think it ever will
Quoting TheMadFool
People aren’t sad because they haven’t been able to find heaven in the sky. People are sad because without an omnipotent god telling them what to do exactly and why exactly they were made they can’t figure out what their purpose is and they can’t handle being in such a hostile world for no reason. Maybe a corporation will reach so much influence so as to take the position of God eventually but I’m willing to wager that would be a dystopia. Though I don’t think any corporation or person will ever get to that point.
Quoting TheMadFool
Which would require us to:
Quoting TheMadFool
So that we may understand how it works to make said adjustments. Which is done by meditating
Quoting TheMadFool
I don’t think so. Some forms of meditation are FAAAR from relaxing. Meditation plays a much bigger role than you give it credit I think.
To be clear, dogma can be a take it or leave it (optional) proposition. On the other hand, you know what they call someone who tries to reform Buddhist doctrine? Not a Buddhist.
Quoting khaled
I think that the wise nugget you were thinking of is from the Kalama Sutta:
Take it or leave it (no corrections allowed).
oof
Me too but I'm not sure whether I'm meditating when I light one up.
Quoting Skeptic
I'll take a look. Thanks.
Quoting Gnomon
This makes sense only if it's true that the suffering people have to go through is severe enough that it weighs heavily in our minds and hearts, a vindication that entropy is wreaking havoc in our lives.
Quoting Gnomon
This I must disagree with. At this point let's take a look at how psychology and Buddhism deal with a certain known neurosis.
Take phobias.
One technique employed in psychology is graded exposure in which a person with a phobia is made to face the object of his/her fears in slow incremental steps of intensity. The idea behind this is simply, "get used to it". No arguments are made about the nature of fear itself. Why we fear? is left unanswered.
In Buddhism, the method of overcoming fears, phobias included, is not by "getting used to it" but by coming to an understanding on why we fear anything at all. We fear, Buddhists might say, because we're clinging to existence like an infant monkey clings to its mother and this happens when we fail to recognize the truth of impermanence, the truth that nothing lasts as long as we'd have liked. Fear then is a reaction to existential threats and we wouldn't be in its grips if only we knew the truth of impermanence.
In other words: come to your own conclusions. At least that’s what I meant when I said it. I don’t think what you sent is saying “Transcend intellectualism” I think it’s more like “don’t just become a Buddhist because an old guy told you to”. Anyways I don’t care to debate this detail anymore because we can at least agree that the Kalama Sutta applies.
Quoting praxis
Where did this come from? Who’s trying to reform Buddhist doctrine?
:up: What if you were offered a choice between Eastern thought and Western thought but not both?
Quoting khaled
Why do they need a god? As a guarantor of paradise, no?
Quoting khaled
:ok:
I would tell the guy that posed the choice wtf he means because it’s not like Chinese people can’t conceive of scientific theories or British people can’t conceive of meditation. It’s not like these discoveries are inherent in the geographic configuration of a bunch of rocks. If I look from the opposite side the East is the West and the West is the East.
I think a better question would be “Do you think the answer to our suffering is primarily fixing the world or primarily configuring our mind?” To which I would answer “I don’t care which one is “primary” just do both as efficiently as possible”
Quoting TheMadFool
Because they want to know that all their suffering has some purpose behind it, that there is someone or something that will make everything right at the end, that world is not just a bunch of floating rocks indifferent to their suffering. Heaven is a bonus. Idk about Christianity but at least in Islam it is emphasized that one shouldn’t follow Islam for the Heaven but only do so when they can have full faith in its teachings. It is said that if you’re just a Muslim because you think you have to be or else you’ll suffer that you’re not a real Muslim and that God would rather see you continue questioning the faith until you’re convinced rather than harbor doubt in your mind which you muffle because you want to get into heaven.
One must consider all possibilities. Surely, you must've fallen for more than one woman/man as the case may be and decided to court one and not the other on pain of losing both by being a two-timing jerk. How did you cope with that?
Quoting khaled
I suppose there's a grain of truth in what you say but what do you mean by "...all their suffering has some purpose behind it..." You seem to be trying to eat the cake and have it too. Implicit in your sentence is the claim that suffering is bad. Isn't that why you want to know the purpose? To find out if it's in the service of good/god? The get right to the point, you've contradicted yourself by both admitting that suffering is bad and that it, in some warped sense, is also good.
Saying “do both” in this case does not make me a two timing jerk unless you consider Eastern and Western views people. I’m a practical guy so that’s my answer
Quoting TheMadFool
You have defined suffering
Quoting TheMadFool
*can be coped with or eliminated* is what I said. Not that it is good.
It does not apply to dogma, an issue that you brought up.
Quoting khaled
Anyone resisting religious dogma.
I put in a condition you're ignoring.
Quoting khaled
In what sense do you mean "can be coped with or eliminated"? It is next to impossible to "cope" with suffering because it's bad. Ergo, to cope with it, it must, as of necessity, be good.
No offence but why can't you just say something directly? If I didn't get what you're saying the first time saying "go back and read" will likely not change that.
Quoting TheMadFool
Things hurt less. Maybe eventually reaching 0.
What does this mean? It means that we often think that our western way to analyse ideas and concepts is the only way, but Kaupapa Maori teaches us some useful rules of life, but also how one should interact with other people, and that one should start with the community, not the individual.
Quoting khaled
Quoting khaled
It seems the broken world is created by our broken minds. So the Buddhist meditates to better understand the internal suffering which is the source of the broken external world. Perhaps what some Buddhists discover in their meditations is...
1) Suffering is made of thought.
2) Thought is a required mechanical function of the body, like eating and sleeping.
3) Thought, and thus suffering, can be managed by simple mechanical means, just as it true with eating and sleeping.
Thought, eating, and sleeping are required for survival. So there is no permanent solution to physical hunger, tiredness, or suffering. There is nothing we can eat which will end all future hunger. There is no nap we can take which will end all future weariness. And there is no philosophy, theology or psychology which will end all future suffering. That's the bad news, no permanent fix.
The good news is that just as the mechanical functions of digestion and sleep can be managed for enhanced health by simple mechanical means, so can thinking. And thus, so can suffering.
Do you need a fancy abstract philosophy to tell you what to do when you're physically hungry? No, you recognize a simple mechanical problem, and you solve it by simple mechanical means.
And you're way to sensible to spend years looking for some food you can eat which will end your need to eat again, right? You don't waste a minute on that. You know you're going to have to eat pretty much every day for the rest of your life, and you don't make that in to a problem. When you're hungry, you eat something. Simple.
Because suffering arises from a mechanical process of the body it can be addressed and managed (but not solved) by simple mechanical means.
This is really good news for everyone, except....
Philosophers. :-)
Then again, I don't think the primary purpose of those fields (except psychology) is to alleviate suffering. I think they are steps in the attempt to make the world better. To know what the world is and how it works will allow us to change it. Philosophy is primarily concerned with what the world is and how it works, but the results can also be used practically. Similar to how a Buddhist is mainly concerned with how his mind is constructed but the results of that search can be used practically. But otherwise I agree with everything.
Well, ok, maybe we can explore that a bit...
Do you agree that suffering is made of thought?
Do you agree that thought is a mechanical function of the body?
Why are we complicating suffering? You know, to my knowledge, there is no sophisticated philosophy or religion which addresses itself to constipation. :-) Instead, we see a mechanical problem, and reply to it with mechanical solutions. Simple, direct, practical, serious. If we take such an approach to other mechanical problems of the body, why not suffering too?
Would looking at suffering in such a simple practical manner be in the spirit of some flavors of Buddhism? If so, which flavors?
Actually, meditators may also try the "get used to it" method to overcome a personal problem. I once worked with a man who flew-in from California to open a local aerial mapping office. On his first day in town, he realized that he was coming down with the flu. Since he didn't have "time" to treat the symptoms in the usual way --- bed rest, etc --- he decided to meditate on the symptoms themselves. As he related it, he experienced the flu intensely for about an hour. And then, having "gotten used to them", the symptoms abated, so he could get back to work setting-up his new office.
He was not a Buddhist, but had been trained in rigorous Erhard Seminars (EST). One of those self-improvement techniques was something similar to Bruce Lee's philosophy, to paraphrase : "don't just passively experience the pain, be the pain". I suppose you could call that a Westernized form of the Buddhist answer to suffering, or simply self-imposed Mind Control. One of the most effective forms of modern psychotherapy is Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy (REBT), which uses similar inward looking techniques to overcome suffering. These modern therapies don't require any religious commitments, but simply a buy-in to a "philosophical" perspective on suffering, similar to Buddhism and to Stoicism. :smile:
EST : I considered the training to be a brilliantly conceived Zen koan, effectively tricking the mind into seeing itself, and in thus seeing, to be simultaneously aware of who was doing the seeing, a transcendent level of consciousness, a place spacious and undefined, distinct from the tired old story that our minds continuously tell us about who we are, and with which we ordinarily identify.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erhard_Seminars_Training
REBT : A fundamental premise of REBT is humans do not get emotionally disturbed by unfortunate circumstances, but by how they construct their views of these circumstances through their language, evaluative beliefs, meanings and philosophies about the world, themselves and others
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_emotive_behavior_therapy
Be the pain. In other words, don't think about the pain, experience the pain. To the degree we are able to do this we eliminate the thought generated distance between "me" and "pain". Or to use fancy language, between subject and object. It's that division which is the source of suffering. That division is auto-generated by thought, because that's how thought works, by generating conceptual divisions.
It seems key to grasp that suffering arises from the nature of thought itself. The evidence for this is that human psychological suffering is universal. Suffering exists in every time and place and in every person, whatever the culture, religion or philosophy of that time, place and person.
Quoting Gnomon
I suppose such a buy-in might be necessary for some to be willing to experiment with "be the pain", especially we philosopher types. But if it's true that suffering arises from the nature of thought, then the less analyzing we do perhaps the better. Really no philosophical anything is required. One can simply do the experiment by trying such techniques and then proceed from there.
William Shakespeare — 'There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so.'
Your claims are oddly contradictory. Stoicism utilizes psychotherapy similar to modern CBT. This is not the same as phsychoanalysis.
Reducing maladaptive negative thoughts, such as "being in such a terrible world" is exactly the sort of thing that Stocisim, Buddhist meditation, and CBT try to accomplish.
Quoting khaled
No this is false, the main thing is to realize emptiness.
Quoting khaled
Buddhist teachers are not psychoanalysts. I don't think that this can be stressed enough. Of course, a Buddhist teacher may be a psychoanalyst if they've gone through the training and have a graduate degree in the mental health field, but that must be quite rare.
Anyone could outline the basics of CBT, on the other hand, and it's a practice that doesn't require a psychoanalyst.
Quoting khaled
This is just a weird and confused way of saying that religious life is spiritual and secular life is materialistic. There is no difference between East and West in this regard.
Quoting khaled
:lol: Yeah, you could do that.
Quoting khaled
I guess you've never heard of the 'hell realms' or being reborn as a scarabaeinae (dung beetle).
To sum, your heart appears to have been pierced by the seductive arrow of Eastern Mysticism, a rather common affliction in the West.
Your posts are predictably of the gotcha flavor. Try developing your own ideas instead of just waiting for someone to post something you can object to.
What is that supposed to mean?
Should I cheer whatever someone posts because they merely participated, like this were a kindergarten classroom? And if that’s what you want, why have you failed to praise my contributions? Have I not made a sincere effort to correct misrepresentations about things that I think are important?
You’ve got a lot of explaining to do, Mr. Hippyhead. Or maybe this is only a gotcha thing and nothing of any substance.
I said nothing about cheering. What I did say was, develop and share your own ideas. Start some threads. Present your thesis.
Or not. If you prefer to be boring and predictably reactive, ok, they're your posts.
Well, forgive me for caring about stoicism, Buddhist meditation, CBT, the difference between religion and philosophy, and whatever else fucking bores you.
It looks like you've started 3 threads over the last 3 years. If you are indeed interested in those subjects, and have anything interesting to say about them, why not start some new threads where you outline your perspectives on those topics.
Don’t be an ass, I clearly said my caring for those topics. I’ve demonstrated that caring in this topic. I don’t care if it bores you.
You've demonstrated that you like other people to type things you can object to.
Mindfulness helps people to diminish the suffering caused by their negativity bias and their automatic rumination. A lot of well adjusted folks might have no need to structure their lives by a ritualistic/secular mindfulness practice but at least they may be aware, via the memes of Buddhism, that there are great tools for the amelioration of mental suffering. Mindfulness works if you can make it work for you. Thank you Buddha!
:flower:
Fine, if that’s what you want to believe then be my guest.
Objecting to things that other people type makes me feel like a big dog and boosts my fragile lil ego.
Can we return to the topic now? If you have any [s]objections[/s] thoughts about any of my objections please share, I'd love to shoot them down.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07Z6JTB9Z/ref=sspa_dk_detail_1?psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEzUVRIOTA3V0xSSklFJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMTM5NjM0MjBTUlhLR1FNRDlQOSZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwNjI3OTQ0MlVPRVkyMEtWMlVQTCZ3aWRnZXROYW1lPXNwX2RldGFpbCZhY3Rpb249Y2xpY2tSZWRpcmVjdCZkb05vdExvZ0NsaWNrPXRydWU=
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1654888036/ref=sspa_dk_detail_2?psc=1&spLa=ZW5jcnlwdGVkUXVhbGlmaWVyPUEzUVRIOTA3V0xSSklFJmVuY3J5cHRlZElkPUEwMTM5NjM0MjBTUlhLR1FNRDlQOSZlbmNyeXB0ZWRBZElkPUEwMTUwMzQ0SExDTVUyMloxM01CJndpZGdldE5hbWU9c3BfZGV0YWlsJmFjdGlvbj1jbGlja1JlZGlyZWN0JmRvTm90TG9nQ2xpY2s9dHJ1ZQ==
What is truly "scientific" in psychology is debatable, considering how complex the subject matter is (humanity) and that it is studying itself. But all the topics in these books sound interesting
https://www.amazon.com/How-Become-Schizophrenic-Biological-Psychiatry/dp/0595242995
Quoting TheMadFool
:chin:
Marxist-Communism?
Psychoanalysis?
Reformed Judaism?
Christian Atheism?
Gnostic Christianity?
Apophatic theism(s)?
Advaita Vedanta?
Therav?da (Abhidhamma) Buddhism?
Dao(jia)ism?
...
Quoting TheMadFool
:cool:
Quoting praxis
@TheMadFool was referring to another thread discussion where I'd posted this quote
[quote=George Orwell]The only ism that has justified itself is pessimism[/quote]
and pointed out that the total entropy - disorder - of the universe never decreases, which describes everything inexorably decaying, running down, collapsing, and freezing in "cosmic heat death" in the end. Things fall apart locally & cosmically no matter what we do (whereby "all doings", in fact, contribute to, as they themselves are manifest by, things falling apart). Asymmetry of pain over pleasure; asymmetry of breaking-destruction over making-creation; asymmetry ("arrow") of time ... loss, extinction, oblivion ... future over past.
[quote=Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1818] I met a traveller from an antique land,
Who said—“Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. . . . Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed;
And on the pedestal, these words appear:
[i]My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair![/i]
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal Wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.[/quote]
(emphasis is mine)
:fire:
Nevertheless, life is not disorder. It requires order and chaos.
Yup, life can be dissatisfying.
Which is what happens in the effort of trying to understand how your mind works
Quoting praxis
I didn’t say they were
Quoting praxis
My mistake then
Quoting praxis
It is a way of saying that fundamentally Eastern “religions” and western religions are different in how they present “salvation”. Eastern religions try to fix your attitude towards life while western religions claim that there is a fixed version of life that you can go into if you pass this “test” that is this current life.
I don’t know how you got that from what I wrote.
Quoting praxis
To be honest I completely forgot about the whole reincarnation bit. I’m mostly familiar with Zen Buddhism (and not that familiar at that) where reincarnation isn’t really emphasized. And there are other schools of Buddhism that say that reincarnation isn’t a literal reincarnation after death but more like a metaphor for change.
Quoting praxis
Probably. I don’t know if you can really count meditation as “mysticism” though. I don’t buy incarnation or reading the stars if that’s what you’re alluding to.
I can't say what happens when you try to understand how your mind works because I don't know what that means. What does it mean?
Brain science has come a long way in recent years, by the way. Buddhist conceptions of how the human mind works are rather antiquated.
Quoting khaled
Both promises fixed salvation.
You don't seriously think that Buddhism only promises an attitude adjustment, do you? You are of course free to believe whatever you want, but by the same token, I could say the same thing about Western religions.
Quoting khaled
Such as?
Quoting khaled
Reading the stars is not mysticism unless you're doing it on peyote or something.
But one says you can get it right here and now by fixing your own mind and the other says that this world is doomed and terrible specifically to test you so that you can get the fixed version after you die.
Quoting praxis
Yes I do. Then again as I said I'm only really familiar with zen and I am saying what zen people say about buddhism.
I just want to clarify though that I'm not demonizing Western religions or anything. I just think they have fundamentally different approaches. And I think they complement each other.
As chance would have it, shortly after my last post I received a book that I had preordered from Amazon. It's a new book fresh off the presses titled: Hidden Zen, by Meido Moore. Meido Moore is a highly respected Zen teacher from Korinji Monastery in Madison, Wisconsin. @Wayfarer has visited this monastery in recent years, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, there's a part in the introduction that made me think of you.
For my money, Buddhism in its present state - with its pantheon of deities - is not the right place to start. As I already mentioned, Buddhism has had a long relationship with Hinduism which shows if you know what I mean.
I suggest, therefore, we go back to the very beginning, to the birth of Buddhism as it were. This only so that we don't get sidetracked by theistic elements that Buddhism began to soak up through its encounters with primarily Hinduism and secondarily other animistic religions existing then.
Buddhism begins with one single, all-important axiom - the doctrine of impermance that change is an inevitable and undeniable aspect of our reality - and brings logic to bear on it to build a system of recommended practices which is, at its core, an answer to the question that greek philosophers were grappling with, to wit, how to live well?. Buddhism, ergo, is a success story in philosophy; in other words it is a philosophy.
Why can’t we say this about any religion?
I made a point of mentioning logic. I guess it slipped under your radar. I didn't expand on the role rationality plays in Buddhism. So if you missed it, it's not your fault.
What is the logic applied to impermanence that answers the question of how to live well? And, btw, the question is ‘how to end suffering?’ and not ‘how to live well?’
Not to be rude or anything but isn't it obvious?
Not to me. If it were I wouldn’t have asked.
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting TheMadFoolQuoting TheMadFool
Quoting TheMadFool
Quoting Hippyhead
I was reading through this thread and my brain started getting tired... whew.
First just to give some background: I've been practicing Thai Theravadin Buddhism for about 6 years. I think this is worth mentioning because at least some of us seem to recognize that one's teacher and their tradition plays a role in how the Buddha's teachings are interpreted. Although Thai Buddhists like Ajahn Geoff (Thanissaro Bhikkhu) are especially skeptical of "Buddhist Modernism" or "Buddhist Romanticism" wherein the principles of Buddhism are interpreted in a way that makes them more broadly "applicable" to modern times (e.g. by getting rid of rebirth, reducing the suttas to merely imperfect expressions of past realizations which are no longer applicable in their entirety), it is worth noting that Thai Buddhism is itself a reform movement that was oriented around going back to the suttas, and back to the core monastic discipline. Thai Buddhist figures saw all the diety worship and animist trends, and decided it was best to go back to bare bones. Thus we hear of figures such as Ajahn Mun, renowned for austere practice that was nonetheless in line with the Vinaya's protections against extreme asceticism or isolation.
Any way, I think from the Buddhist perspective, the question of "philosophy or religion" isn't really all that important. As evidenced here, it leads to a lot of debate (one could say that the conclusions aren't necessarily worthy of attachment). But I think it wouldn't be wrong to say that it incorporates both, if we see philosophy as being oriented around an application of reason, and religion as a utilization of faith. As Ajahn Geoff often suggests, these and other things (e.g. morality) are used for the sole purpose of realizing freedom from suffering. They are not, for example, meant for adopting an identity as a "good philosopher" or "good Buddhist". Perhaps one can say that there is an instrumental value to these things, but the dichotomy of instrumental vs. intrinsic isn't utilized all that much in Thai Buddhism. In the end, at least ideally speaking, Buddhists aren't totally interested in pigeonholing the practice.
But any way, yes: we don't know that the eightfold path gets us to the cessation, and to that extent it is "debatable", but I think also that's where we must remember that the path is to be developed, not merely analyzed. Debating the path is kind of missing the point.
And yes: maintaining order is stressful and exhausting, but that doesn't mean it's worthless: the Buddha criticized those who defined themselves by going against the order of the day, but he also criticized those who went with it. If you reject order or embrace it, you can be a fool either way. Sometimes we tend to do both, anyhow (e.g. we value ordered arguments in favor of chaos). The order he didn't criticize, though, was the monastic vinaya, because this order is necessary for the practice. If you go to a monastery, order is pretty important, and when everyone is willing to put aside their preferences for the sake of harmony, it's not all that exhausting, except when the work is hard (as it is for the abbot, usually). In my experience, what's more exhausting is getting upset because things aren't the way you would like them to be. And even when general work is exhausting, it is often a source of joy when one recollects that they have done what is necessary to support their practice environment. Truly, life and its elements are subject to dissolution, yet we must take care of them in the pursuit of our goal. It's hard to practice when you're just lazing around, letting the meditation hall crumble on top of you because you decided that all things are not worth fixing.
Yes: the ceremonies are (often, but not absolutely) embellished by tradition. For example, chanting suttas is done with a certain appreciation for rhythm and melody, which seems distinct depending on your tradition. And ultimately, there is nothing inherently Buddhist about chanting, generally speaking. But what makes the chanting important here is the memorization, and what makes the memorization important is its applicability to practice. We don't memorize chants just to prove them or think about them, although it can be helpful to tease them out sometimes (especially with a friend). Memorizing is part of mindfulness (sati), thus we have Buddhanusati (recollection of the Buddha), maranasati (recollection of death) anapanasati (recollection of breathing, aka breath meditation), silanusati (recollection of virtue), among other things. The purpose of recollecting is not just to bring to mind the teachings and bring them to bare on one's life, but to uplift the mind and provide food for contemplation. Often, Buddhanusati is used to arouse faith; maranasati is used to arouse a sense of heedfulness and ardency; silanusati can arouse joy and confidence in oneself; anapanasati, which isn't necessarily exclusive from these other practices, is used to both settle and energize the mind to bring it into concentration. And then the Buddha goes on about that: concentration is used to bring about equanimity.
This, being in the context of the "seven factors of awakening," puts concentration and the other 6 in the context of seeking awakening. And what are we awakening to? The Four Noble truths. But the Four noble truths are not framed as "life is suffering, craving is the cause of suffering, to end suffering one must abandon craving," etc. Given that this is a matter of insight, and the purpose of insight is to arouse disenchantment and thus letting go (AN 11.1), insight into the four noble truths is not a matter of logical arguments or premises, but understanding and letting go, which is an act that cannot be contrived by mere theoretical analysis. In short, one must meditate, engage, understand, and eventually let go. Otherwise, one simply grabs hold of one thing in favor of another (not ignoring that the refinement of one's attachments is integral to this process). On that note, we do not merely abandon fear having understood its irrational basis; we abandon fear having also realized the drawbacks of holding on to it (i.e. we are enmeshed into a cycle of suffering).
And on that note, yes: Buddhists are encouraged to be considerate in their decision making, and not act unless if is deemed wise (or, more precisely, wholesome). However, this does not rule out the aspect of training or utilizing rewards. As AN 9.41 suggests, we do use thinking to consider the benefits and drawbacks of certain behaviors (e.g. sensuality vs. renunciation), however that reasoning cannot stand on its own (it's unsatisfactory, any way). We need to actually engage in the practice to realize the rewards, otherwise they're merely conceptual (and it's easier to debate concepts than to live in accordance with them). Thus meditation, virtue, and concentration (the "threefold training") are quite tied in with giving the mind good food to put it into a good direction.
And on that note, thought is not treated as a required mechanical process. It is treated as a tool for well-being, and it is also a tool which can be put down when it is no longer needed. Thus after talking with people about Buddhism, we no longer feel the need to think about it in such a way as to clarify it to others, rather we think about it to calm down our own mind. And once it's sufficiently calm, we settle onto a good object of meditation. From there, the practice continues. If our mind is infatuated with concepts, still lingering on past debates and cherished theories, we can see that "this is suffering" and thus move the mind to a more settled state, remembering that the breathing, again, is a suitable vehicle for such stability. And our foregoing of internal debate is not a cause of disorder in the world if it's helping to bring our own minds and attitudes into order, and especially if we end up cultivating wholesome qualities over unwholesome ones.
Yes and no. A lot of people WANT Buddhism to be 'anti-religious' or secular, but it really isn't. The other problem is, that in Eastern culture "religion" is understood in different ways to the way the West understands it. We associate 'religion' with all kinds of pre-enlightenment mentalities - supersition, dogma, mind control and the like. Often fairly, but still...
There are aspects of Buddhism that are consonant with liberal individualism, like the emphasis on self-knowledge and self-control. But in practice, it is a religion, with prayers, a hierarchy of realms, and heaven and hell.
The contrast should be made between religion and dharma. Dharma has overlapping meanings with religion, but it's not the same animal. Dharma does put a lot of emphasis on experiential insight. But it's not 'empiricism' in the modern sense of 'only relying on what can be quantified and measured'. Far from it. The Buddha 'sees and knows that which is deep, difficult to fathom, beyond mere logic, perceivable only to the wise'.
A couple of readings:
http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion
https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/buddhism-is-a-religion/
Oh, and
https://www.inquiringmind.com/article/3102_20_bodhi-facing-the-great-divide/
Quoting TLCD1996
Given your obvious knowledge I accept your report that Buddhists, or at least some segment of Buddhists, don't "treat thought as a required mechanical process". I have no complaint with how they might regard it other than to remind us that thought is obviously required for human survival, and that thought is a mechanical function of the body just like eating, sleeping, sex etc.
This last point seems quite important to me so I will expand on it. Perhaps you can educate me regarding how the following thoughts might be related to Buddhism in general, or the flavors of Buddhism you are most familiar with.
We philosopher types enjoy our grand sophisticated theories because, well, that's who we are and this is what we do. Most of us were born this way and don't really have a choice about it, myself included. While such activity tends to be a compelling form of entertainment for us, it's of little interest to most human beings, who are typically far more practical than they are abstract. Evidence, philosophy departments are shrinking or closing all over the place because the public doesn't really see the point of philosophy, and thus doesn't wish to pay for it (a rational conclusion I find myself quite sympathetic to).
Enter the fact that thought is a mechanical function of the body. I see this as very good news because mechanical functions can be managed by simple mechanical means, which makes solutions accessible to far more people. As example...
- When you're tired you rest. You don't need a philosophy degree or 23 years in a monastery to figure out what to do here.
- When you're hungry you eat. Simple. Obvious. Effective. No need for sophisticated fancy talk theories.
- When you're horny, you do whatever it is you do. No experts required. No years of study involved.
Point being, mechanical functions lend themselves to very accessible management solutions which are readily available to pretty much anyone who is the least bit serious. It makes sense to focus on these kinds of widely applicable solutions first before diving in to sophisticated theories and practices which will be of interest to only a relative few.
What most human beings are suffering from is overheated brains, an essentially mechanical issue. Thought can be very useful and enjoyable, so we tend to use it too much, leading to stress upon the thought machine which manifests itself in various forms of psychic pain, which the body uses as a signal that we're going in the wrong direction. There's nothing complicated about this. If we eat too much we'll get a stomach ache, a signal from the body to stop eating.
The above mechanical perspective is typically of little to no interest to we philosopher types for the following reasons:
1) It's our nature to whip up complex abstractions.
2) We want a path, a program, a system, a becoming trip that we hope will take us somewhere "advanced".
3) We don't really give a crap what kinds of solutions would be most accessible to most people.
Please observe how with all other mechanical functions of the body we take a straightforward practical approach to solving problems, but when it comes to thought we want to complicate the subject to the greatest degree possible. My argument is...
1) That's not rational.
2) Nor is it compassionate or serious.
Too many words here as usual. Over to you!
To quibble just a bit, while you've probably accurately described philosophers, and particularly atheist philosophers, a great many people who are actually religious don't consider their religion a "pre-enlightenment mentality" at all, and often with very good reason. As example...
Most of the discussion about religion on Western philosophy forums is about Christianity, for obvious reasons. And so it might be asked.....
Why should we consider the experience of love to be a "pre-enlightenment mentality"???
This is not a rebuttal to you Wayfarer, because I know the above doesn't need to be explained to you. But it does seem to need to be explained to 95% of our honorable fellow commentators.
Quoting TLCD1996
Assuming you haven’t fully realized freedom from suffering, are you not utilizing faith that full liberation is possible?
Didn't he already admit that when he said...
Quoting TLCD1996
Is freedom from suffering possible? I don't claim to know, but my best guess is that if it is possible it's so rare as to be largely irrelevant to the human experience. It is however entirely possible that I don't fully understand what Buddhists mean by the phrase "freedom from suffering", and of course, different Buddhists may mean different things.
While awaiting further clarification I would propose that as I understand the phrase, if I do, "freedom from suffering" is just another glamorous becoming trip like becoming wealthy, famous or popular etc.
It seems more realistic and practical to focus instead on better managing suffering, an admittedly less glamorous agenda, but one that is clearly possible and available to just about anyone who is at least a little bit serious.
TLCD1996 wrote:
If neither of you think that it doesn’t apply reason, well, I suppose there wouldn’t be much point in argument. It is unclear if TLCD1996 believes that faith is utilized.
Ok, fair point, perhaps he will clarify further.
Quoting Hippyhead
Quoting Hippyhead
Hahaha. First, Buddhists may find it worth questioning that "we are like x y and z and we have no choice about it". Truly, these are views that we have adopted about the world and ourselves. Thus the Buddha advocates for Right view: all things are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self. The idea that "we are like this" is impermanent, and in different ways it can prove unsatisfactory (e.g. when it binds us to habits which cause stress). Thus in Buddhist practice we examine that thought process, pay attention to its effect, and let it go once we have learned that it's not worth believing (and is it truly in truthful reference to a self if it's capable of cessation?) When the thought ceases and no longer describes a self, or any thoughts about self cease, what does that say about self? Nothing, but we're at ease because we have put down a heavy burden. (particularly one which may limit our potential to realize the fruits of practice).
Also, in regards to horniness, truly that depends on your aspirations or lack thereof. Many people would engage with no thought. Some might sense that it's really unnecessary; some feel like they are addicted to it and doomed to hell because of that. Buddhists, especially in the west where we have many backgrounds, come to the practice with lust in greater or lesser strength. For those who follow the 5 precepts, it's no issue so long as one doesn't harm others with it. However, in general, when one hears that the practice entails renunciation (and indeed sensuality is a basic hindrance to meditative concentration, jhana), one may undertake the 8 precepts or 227 as a monk. And still, this doesn't guarantee freedom from lust, but when it comes up, it is absolutely essential that one exercise restraint and try to undermine it. This takes a lot of skill and patience, but for one seeking the goal, it's necessary (as is our faith until we realize whatever fruit of this practice).
Quoting praxis
Faith is absolutely necessary; it's one of the five spiritual faculties/powers in Buddhism. There is unconfirmed faith and confirmed faith. The unconfirmed faith comes through either a taking on of conviction, or agreement through reflection, pondering, etc (SN 25.1). To my understanding, they are not mutually exclusive (ditto with "vipassana" and "samatha", an issue of concern for some Buddhists). Some things we don't know, somethings we do know but maybe not so completely. In the end, if we are not enlightened, we must take many things on faith: that our actions have consequences, that the intentions of our actions inform the consequences, that all things are impermanent, that we can realize cessation, etc. And this faith is nourished by both example (good teachers) and practice (see my earlier post about using refined sources of pleasure as rewards, and note that peace from insight and letting go is pleasant).
In my opinion, really the fundamental faith is that our suffering has a cause, and it ceases. This is affirmed when we simply notice it change, however realization into the four noble truths is more final and "penetrative"; in stream entry (the first stage of enlightenment), for example, we gain penetrative insight that cuts our attachment to bad actions, identity views, attachment to precepts and practices, and doubt. This is because we have witnessed the complete cessation of suffering ourselves, and we know what we did - the eightfold path. And when we consider that the cause (craving, ignorance) is both cause and effect of bad action (e.g. doing the same thing over and over again is fueld by craving, reinforces our ignorance if we don't reflect on it, and causes suffering), then reflection on the four noble truths naturally extends to reflection on our behavior. I think this is why Sariputta said that all skillful qualities are found within the four noble truths (MN 28).
And I think that's where Buddhism goes beyond religion or philosophy. The Buddha called his teaching dhamma-vinaya, meaning doctrine and discipline, and we utilize that dhamma vinaya for the purpose of realization. Even though it involves faith, it's hard to call it a religion (noting that blind attachment to precepts/practices/rites/rituals is abandoned at some point); even if it involves reasonable inference or reflection, it's hard to call it a philosophy (noting that ideas, concepts, arguments are not our refuge). So as a Buddhist, I like dhamma vinaya.
Quoting Hippyhead
Surely, one can glamorize it or make it romantic (myself included), however it is worth considering the nobility of this goal. Ajahn Geoff, for example, aptly notes (in a recorded talk, "Purity of Heart") that in the context of interdependency (which he also calls "inter-eating"), realization nibbana entails that first of all, one abstain from harming others to realize a greater happiness. Second of all, upon realization, one gains a happiness that is not dependent on anything at all (given that it has been realized by insight and total relinquishment of all conditions). Given that it's uncaused, it is not dependent, and therefore it does not dependent on resources, taking others' belongings, etc. The life of an Arahant may depend on these things, however their mind does not (thus we have heard of arahants going without food, etc). So in that sense, I would see it as worthy of admiration, and potentially quite impactful on society (but it's truly a matter of choice).
That suffering is best left managed isn't exactly bad, but in Buddhist thought it's quite limiting and unfortunate, and is particularly unfortunate when coming out of a teacher's mouth. However, again it's a matter of choice, and living a meritorious life is, as said, meritorious. The Buddha never said everyone had to practice, he said "come and see". But nevertheless, it is the position of some Buddhists (especially Thai Forest reformers like Ajahn Mun) that total realization is indeed possible. It really is a matter of faith, though, until enlightenment.
Of course I agree that it would be misleading to call a religion a philosophy.
It is the promise that must necessarily be taken on faith that correctly identifies it as a religion and not the fulfillment of the promise. You appear to believe as all religious followers believe: that their religion delivers on its promise and all others are false (no other religious practice can be abandoned because they’re all false).
What do you suppose the problem is in accepting the fact that Buddhism is a religion?
Sure, though I don't understand the part of your post that's in parentheses.
The problem with calling it a religion is that it pigeonholes the dhamma and potentially reduces its potential for practice. And then, of course, there is the possibility that it may be watered down by those who hold to the teachings incorrectly in such a manner; the Buddha was quite clear that the teachings have to be put into practice to realize their benefit, hence the vinaya. If one merely identifies as a Buddhist, that doesn't exactly guarantee benefit for them, and may eventually lead to what we see today; in Thailand, for example, ordination is often temporary and sometimes a matter of improving one's image or collecting merit (and one is not making good karma just because they wear robes).
But if you want to call it a religion, by all means do so. Another problem, though, seems to be endless debate. While calling it a religion may be practical in terms of politics for example, I'm not sure if that usage is universal, and when the usage is given high importance, it can create complications. But then again, labels are important for society's functioning. So it's shaky. This is what it means for something to be marked with dukkha; even though it may provide convenience, there is suffering involved. As far as I know, that's where the apparent solidity of terminologies begins to crumble. The point, in the end once more, is that these things are unworthy of attachment and aren't worth hanging onto.
I'm curious: what's your purpose for calling it a religion or philosophy? And do you think that faith in one's philosophy of choice would render it a religion?
It wasn't meant as a pejorative. Actually what I originally wrote was 'pre-modern', perhaps I should have left it at that. What I'm getting at is that modernity, 'being modern', is in some ways an existential plight. Pre- moderns had a different mindset and relationship with the world, as they intuitively felt a kinship to it - not that they would have expressed it that way, or even been aware of it.
Yes. Imho, that's what religion arises from. It's an attempt to recover that previous intimate relationship with reality which was largely lost as thought became more prominent in the human experience and our focus substantially shifted from the real world to the abstract realm between our ears. So for example, we see concepts like "getting back to God" which is an attempt to recover that lost relationship by translating reality in to a relatable human-like figure.
The good news is that an intimate personal relationship with reality is still available. It just doesn't come as naturally as it once did, so we have to work at it more now. It's not that complicated really, it's just a matter of what we turn our attention to. If we shift our focus to the actual real world, instead of our thoughts about the real world, that intimate personal relationship with reality is still there patiently waiting for us.
This isn't a philosophical theory for me, but personal experience. It's a real thing, not just an idea. I've spent about a billion hours over the last 20 years in a nearby state park exploring this experience. It's not for everybody, but it's available to anybody who wants it enough to do the work.
What's the work? Again, not so complicated. It's just like building a relationship with a fellow human being. You put in the time, and open yourself up emotionally to the relationship. You show up, do the work, and trade your tiny little tinkertoy human thoughts for the amazing glory of the real world.
I spent most of yesterday in a place much like this:
Once you find the groove you can sit there for hours doing nothing at all, totally satisfied, at peace, experiencing the bounty of enoughness the real world is happy to provide, if only we will shut up and listen. Huh? Me? Shutting up?? I know, it seems impossible :-) but it does happen.
Experiences like this tend to put philosophy in a quite different context. It starts to dawn on you that you're not going to be able to think your way to what you really want.
I'm open to the possibility that a radical transformation of psychology may be possible for some. In every field there are people with rare abilities who go places the rest of us can not.
However, based on 50 years of interest in such topics, my best guess is that such transformations are so rare as to be largely irrelevant to most people. You know, while Mozart could teach me how to play piano, he could never teach me to be another Mozart.
Well ok, but as Praxis might reasonably squawk, get back to us when you can prove that enlightenment is possible. Not just in theory, not just for you or somebody else, but for us too. Until such a time, a focus on management seems the most rational and practical approach. Management of suffering by Buddhist methods or something else is not necessarily in conflict with a possible permanent solution. Maybe one could lead to the other, I really can't say.
Do you have ironclad proof that philosophy will take you where ever it is you wish to go? If not, does that make you religious too?
Well, Buddhism is huge so we probably can't nail it with any one label. But to try, how about a "self help methodology"?
I think that's agreeable. Truly, a lot about Buddhism is putting aside that kind of idealism; we're not so much trying to be like The Buddha or Ajahn Mun as much as we are trying to investigate what "being" is; not in terms of a definition, but the actual experience (and it turns out what we "are" is informed by our tendency to define things conceptually). It's important that we investigate that tendency to want to "be" like "somebody" and work with what we've actually got right here; meditatioj isn't easy when you're trying to be something different than what you already "are". Meditation is best done with an attitude of contentment, though contentment with a sense of aspiration and dispassion.
I think a lot of similarities can be found between Buddhism and what you describe in your post above about nature (which seems like Romanticism?). But things change in the context of meditation, where the "relationship" and its grounds are gradually cast aside; eventually the experience of the world fades away (based on what I've heard), and that is a crucial area of exploration to understand how it is we grasp at perceptions, identity structures, etc., and of course how we suffer because of our lack of understanding in regard to these matters.
That said, I think in a monastery a person drawn toward cynicism and misery would be encouraged to work on that relationship part first, before getting gung ho about enlightenment. This is partly in relation to virtue; if we relate to the world in unskillful ways, and if our negative attitude is attributing to that, we should really put some focus into adopting better attitudes. Thankfully, the Buddha provided some pretty straightforward means through meditation, the brahmaviharas, spiritual friendship, etc; but really, in practice sometimes the ideals must be put aside in favor of just simple and down to earth living.
Quoting Hippyhead
I don't really think it's my responsibility to prove it, though I can certainly see value in inspiring confidence. That really comes out of my own practice (and I must admit I don't inspire confidence in everyone). The only reason I have faith besides my own practice and views is the fact that I have met people who I would call good examples. Can I say with certainty that they have reached the end goal? No; as Ajahn Amaro once said when asked if he were an Arahant, "it takes one to know one". Thus there is a point where one needs to put their doubts and searches for proof aside and just look inward: how does suffering arise, and how does it cease? Or: what is preventing me from being at ease in this moment? Or: I feel okay, but there's this little bit of tension here and my mind isn't totally still; what if I relaxed and settled my attention just a little more? At some point, one's just got to go for it and see what happens.
Didn't run into Rousseau there by any chance? Or Margeret Mead?
//sorry - being facetious. I think there's a lot of truth in what you say in that post.//
You mentioned that blind attachment to practice/doctrine is abandoned at some point, suggesting that this somehow distinguishes it from religion. This is how religions are, however. Do Christians go to church in heaven, for example? Once the promise is fulfilled the practice is superfluous, and because all other religions are false they are never fulfilled. Only our own religion can be fulfilled. That is the unspoken assumption, as I read your statement.
Quoting TLCD1996
Given this sentiment, I don't understand your reluctance to accept that Buddhism is a religion. My suspicion is essentially that you would like to consider it 'reality' and religion does not reflect reality.
Quoting TLCD1996
What is the purpose of distinguishing an apple from an orange? There could be many purposes. More than I could list here.
Quoting TLCD1996
I'm currently interested in stoicism and have a kind of shmuckish practice going. Stoicism is not a religion because though there are authorities, there's no hierarchical ultimate authority. Also, there's no metaphysics that are essential to the philosophy/practice. In religion, metaphysics and ultimate authority go hand in hand and are both essential.
But isn't Stoicism based on a premise that reason is divine? And what about Zeno or Citium (looking at Google for this) - aren't these figures in some way authoritative (if not reason itself)? And doesn't practice operate on the assumption that practices have results? At least according to Ajahn Geoff (or how I understand his words) this kind of position is metaphysical; in the context of Buddhism, it is the necessary metaphysical aspect of Right View which holds that actions have consequences (karma), and the causal principle which underlies karma is what guides rebirth. I've been interested in learning about Stoicism myself (and it's partly why I created an account here any way), so I'm really curious about that.
Back to the point: I'm not reluctant to call Buddhism a religion, generally speaking. But what I am reluctant to do is pigeonhole it, or essentialize it as religion. Why? Because it's my practice, and although wise utilization of precepts, practices, views, etc is necessary for practice, there is a tendency for us humans to take our concepts just a little too seriously and forget that they're really quite empty and subject to time and place; I'd rather pull things in a different direction than that, because people already equate Buddhism with a lot of things that aren't Buddhism, such as Romanticism or even Stoicism. I think if anyone's interested in learning about Buddhism, they ought to know what Buddhism is not.
If somebody's interested in practicing or really learning about Buddhism, perhaps they should consider that a lot more can be learned by putting down the concepts and ideas and just going to bare bones basics. That often means recognizing the malleability of concepts and the effect they have on our lives, and considering that there are good ways to use them, and there are bad ways to use them. Buddhism is concerned with how we use these ideas, among other things such as our breathing, in a way which is good, which is a way that leads to well-being (ultimately to unconditioned well-being). If people are caught up in the concepts, they'll skip over a lot of the meat and end up talking about surface appearances, isolating this part or that part of Buddhism, cherry-picking this and that part, getting caught up in historical debate, etc. I mean, one can say that art is an important cultural element of Zen Buddhism, but it's also a part of Christianity and even Marxism. I think it's beautiful, but what's the connection to practice? And how do we respond to it? Why do we prefer the art gallery over the meditation cushion? There's a lot to unpack there that seems to be glossed over in a "religion or philosophy" argument.
Or perhaps the gloss evades the argument. No problem, for my part.
One point of clarification though...
Quoting TLCD1996
I might be persuaded by an argument that sapiens don’t actually possess the capacity of reason, in this day and age, regardless of its nature.
:up:
Why?
The reason why I asked this question is that there's a difference between the philosophical notion of the good life and the religious one of the virtuous life. Granted that both address the issue of how we must conduct ourselves in life but the path to discovery of what the good life is is reason/logic/rationality which isn't so in the case of the virtuous life of religion. This is a big difference for if Buddhism is a philosophy then it's open to criticism and subsequent modifications or even disposal into the garbage can of bad ideas and if Buddhism is a religion then not so.
Furthermore, if Buddhism is treated as a religion then it comes into conflict, by virtue of its doctrinal dissimilarities, with other religions that are around. This isn't a desirable state of affairs for reasons that are obvious - think 9/11, jihad, crusades, and so on. Ergo, it's imperative, to me at least, to know how Buddhism shoud be viewed, as either a philosophy or a religion?
:up:
What to me is a striking difference is that in Buddhism, heaven isn't the main objective (like in all religions).I interpret this fact as proof that Buddhism is, at the very least, a quirky religion or, at most, not a religion at all. :chin:. A penny for your thoughts.
But in the popular imagination, heaven and Nirv??a are often equated. In popular Asian PureLand Buddhism, the accepted aim of the faith is rebirth in Suhkavati, the 'realm of bliss' from where rebirth in Nirv??a is then assured. This is to be taken as an article of faith resulting in calm assurance (shin-jin).
One a different note - the Eastern ideal (if it's an ideal) of liberation, moksha, nirodha, is elusive, precisely because it's non-verbal. It arises from a kind of gnostic insight into the fetters that bind the personality to the wheel of transmigration. Is that religion? Yes and no. It requires a kind of religious dedication and spiritual purity, but it's rather different to mainstream Western religion. It's the 'religion of yoga' (not in the sense of physical postures but of purificatory practices and renunciation.)
Western culture is very hung up on religion - same as Victorian culture used to be about sex - because of the history of religion in the West. There were massive conflicts fought over religion in European history. Arguably the Catholic Church was a model for authoritarianism in some important respects. So this has lead to a massive cultural back-lash along the lines of 'anything but God'. Ideas associated with religion are rejected or suppressed, and the West continually tries to re-invent itself without reference to them. I see that in many of your posts. That is not a personal slight or pejorative, it is a consequence of the culture we inhabit. 'Don't mention the War!'
Quoting TLCD1996
[quote=Edward Conze] The "perennial philosophy" is in this context defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worth-while knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise men of old have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality - through the Prajñ?p?ramit? of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the Sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents.[/quote]
Buddhist philosophy and its European parallels
(This idea is generally unpopular and regarded as "politically incorrect" in today's culture; it is generally associated with reactionary political movements and extreme conservatism. )
Thanks for noticing! :smile:
Quoting Wayfarer
:up: There was a thread a couple of weeks ago about how Buddhism has become, or is amenable to the interpretation that it's, psyschoanalysis or psychology, I can't recall which. In any case, I was opposed to such a view on Buddhism for the simple reason that there's a huge difference between Buddhism and psychoanalysis/psychology in terms of their methodology - at the very least, in the simplest sense, among other things, Buddhism is about breaking habits, all of them, and claiming one's independence so to speak but psychology/psychoanalysis is about modifying/tuning one's habits as if we're animals in a training facility.
Anyway, the point is no other "religion" can be adapted in similar fashion to modern theoretical frameworks of the human mind. I'm tempted to take this as evidence that Buddhism is, as some might come to believe, not just a unique religion but is actually something entirely different, a philosophy perhaps?! After all, that it can be subsumed by, or more accurately, conflated with, modern psychology/psychoanalytics suggests this.
This is agreeable too, I like it. For instance, you say, "we are trying to investigate what "being" is; not in terms of a definition, but the actual experience".
Quoting TLCD1996
I suspected as much, which is why I'm interested in your posts. Please note that I'm not well read nor a serious student of any particular established discipline so when it comes to categorizing my interests or comparing them to something else I'm not of much use.
Quoting TLCD1996
I agree. Nor is it really my place to try to disprove it. To each their own and whatever works seems useful enough guidelines. And there's not really that much of a conflict between our perspectives. If someone manages so well that they reach some kind of permanent solution to suffering, so much the better.
Perhaps there is a kind of delicate balancing act which you can relate to as a Buddhist. On one hand, one can be serious and determined about reaching for one's goals, while at the same time doing so with a shrug, a laugh, a twinkle in the eye. Taking it seriously and not, at the same time. Hard to explain, and perhaps even harder to do, but perhaps a realistic approach. We reach for the stars, and when we fall in the mud, we laugh, get up, and try again. The reaching and falling a kind of dance one enjoys for itself, you know, an embrace of our imperfect humanity.
Quoting TLCD1996
I hear you. It's certainly true that some people are more psychologically sophisticated than others and that there can be a power in that which transcends logical analysis. Some people just feel saner than others, and when in their presence it's natural to want to get in on the action.
Quoting TLCD1996
Yea, it's called exploring. Go for it. Enjoy the adventure.
Didn't see them, but I did get bitched out by a squirrel sage. :-) He came down the tree until he was about 10 feet off the ground, and then hung there upside down as they do, and began yelling at me. After being so entertained for a few minutes I got a clue and looked around and realized the ground was covered with nuts. I was sitting on his breakfast. Don't do that, it's rude! Or so he says.
Yes, and it's not rational to focus too much time on automated rejectionism of that which doesn't work for someone. It's more rational to note that XYZ is not working for a person, then put XYZ down, and focus on finding what does work for that person. A few examples to illustrate...
Christianity contains a number of ideological assertions which many people find they are allergic to. Ok, no problem, so dump that which isn't working. In the dumpster the ideology goes, and we walk away. Christianity also has a lot to say about the experience of love. One could explore that without believing in God, without joining any club, without labeling oneself as Christian or anything else.
Love not working? Ok, so let's dump that too. How about service? This doesn't have to have anything to do with love, but can instead be a purely rational act of shifting one's focus from oneself and one's own problems on to others who have bigger problems. One's own problems are then seen in a larger context. Not love, not religion, not God. Just reason. Nothing but reason.
My sense is that many forum atheists are angry because they know in their hearts that there are things going on that they don't know how to access, and so they feel left out, which perhaps they are unable to admit, to themselves. If true, the things they're missing out on don't require religion. Say it again, do not require religion.
As example, a key principle of atheism is observation of reality. That's a great principle, and a very effective methodology for many of the same experiences religious people talk about.
Not observation of our thoughts about reality. Observation of reality. Note the difference. Take your own perspective seriously, and literally, and explore from there.
It works! But you have to actually do it. Not just whine about it.
Maybe what it's telling you is that your definition of what constitutes religion is too narrow.
Quoting TheMadFool
:up: With the caveat that it ought not to be 'adapted' at the cost of bending it to fit the procrustean bed of secular humanism, which is more alien to Buddhism than is traditional Christianity.
Quoting Hippyhead
Love is demanding. It's very easy to do what suits, what you like, what feels good. Not so easy to stick with love no matter what. As you say, may not be love, but service - but whatever it is, has to be something that puts demands on you, that requires your attention, not something that simply pleases you. So the effort over many generations to carry that forward, to work it out in day-to-day existence, is one of the sources of religion. Which I'm sure you know.
It seem relevant to note that Taoism began life as a philosophical method emerging from a prior shamanism, but five hundred years later someone decided more bums on seats were needed and developed a religious version with hells and heavens and angels and guilt etc. So now we have Philosophical Taoism and Religious Taoism. Buddhism suffers form the same sort of splits, so it is diffcult to generalise,
For me Buddhism would be a religion, a science, an art and a philosophy, same as all the 'mystical' traditions. To see them as just one of these would be to miss their significance and sell them short. . .
Not to say I didn't catch your drift but there's such a thing as a definition that's too broad too.
Quoting Wayfarer
Noted with the utmost gratitude. Yet, I have a feeling the Proctustes of secularism found fitting Buddhism into his godless bed to be less work than other religions.
Well, maybe. Not really arguing or suggesting another "one true way", but maybe challenging your statement a bit can lead to further useful discussion?
The effort you suggest would seem to be related to a path, a goal, a desire to be there instead of here, an agenda of growth, change, transformation, essentially a rejection of what already is. Ok, not really complaining with this or trying to tell anybody else what they should do, but maybe we can try to put such "becoming trips" (as I so ungraciously tend to put it) in to a larger context?
Have you noticed that, generally speaking, we tend not to relate to other mechanical functions of the body in a "becoming trip" manner? As example, we don't go looking for some kind of food which will end our need to eat. Instead, we are realistic and practical, and accept without complaint that living will require eating pretty much every day of our lives. We satisfy the physical hunger as needed, take care of business, and then get on with our lives. Doing so typically doesn't become part of our identity.
I want to push back against the grow, change, transform, effort required for enlightenment etc notion a bit, just a bit, because it seems to me that we should at least be aware that becoming trips run the risk of feeding the very problem we are attempting to solve, ego, the endless obsession with "me". I know that you are so aware, so I'm addressing readers in general here.
It seems to me that there is a rational middle ground between glamorous becoming trips and status quo complacency. And that's why I'm always going on about management. To continue with the eating example, I can manage my hunger by eating. I can manage a bit better by eating more nutritious foods. Ok, good, I'm not arguing against reasonable change and improvement. But a management paradigm doesn't lend itself that easily to further ego feeding (recent vegetarian converts a possible exception :-) )
Even for those seeking enlightenment, better mind management is where that journey begins, right? So it seems rational to focus on management first, and leave the possible enlightenment until somewhere later down the road.
And a simple fact of life, that I suspect you will acknowledge, is that most of us are never going to reach a fundamental transformation of psychology no matter what effort we might invest. And so it seems we might be wary of waving something around that few will ever reach, a form of fairy tale, fuel for a near inevitable disappointment, another failure, and more suffering.
So ok to effort. Within reason. I'll do some homework and learn how to buy organic foods instead of factory foods. I'll invest some effort to upgrade my eating habits to something more healthy. But I won't get caught up in a dream that there's anything I can eat that will solve all my problems. People who eat healthy can get fat too, and I can prove it! But I'm not posting that photo. Too scary! :-)
Anyway, it's not my intention to start yet another dualistic either/or war, and I'm content that "to each their own" should rule the day. Just suggesting that management is yet another way to look at such topics.
I like this, thumbs up from here.
Like this too! It seems that all the major religions at least are a bit like reality itself, a container for all things. Thus, attempts to say religion is this or religion is that seem inevitably doomed to failure. Religion expresses the best in us, the worst in us, and everything in between.
I like your 'management' idea up to a point. Beliefs are motivational but otherwise may not help. In the end its all about the ending of ignorance and the process has to be managed. But dangling the carrot of enlightenment may help keep the donkey moving forward, just as the carrot of future good health may motivate us to manage our diet. . . . .
I hear you, that's a good point. But what happens if the donkey never gets the carrot?
I don't wish to be dogmatic and redundant, but it might be helpful for us to further investigate the "moving forward" concept.
The 'moving forward' thing is relevant to realisation, which would usually grow with time. But there is more going on. Mahayana Buddhism represents an interpretation for quantum mechanics and a solution for all philosophical problems. It is about truth and knowledge and can easily defend itself as a method for acquiring it. This is a much misunderstood issue. Commonplace Christianity is, as Whitehead notes, a 'religion in search of a metaphysic'. The philosophy department is unable to assist in this search. Buddhism, more generally mysticism, does not have this problem. It is a fundamental theory testable as such in philosophy. It is easy to focus on 'enlightenment' and forget what else we can learn from Buddhism as scholars. . .
This is like saying that only seeing a hammer as a hammer, rather than a paperweight or artwork, sells it short. A hammer is designed to be a hammer and best fulfills its purpose in being used as a hammer. Indeed, using it as a paperweight sells it short and mistakes its significance.
Ok, that's interesting. Further explanation will be welcomed as your time permits. Again, I know very little about Buddhism, which means that pretty much anything you say might be useful here.
Thus it is not necessary to meditate or speculate in order to test the Buddha's teachings in philosophy. They endorse the only metaphysical position that survives analysis. It's not clear to me why more people do not know this but poor scholarship in our universities seems to be the main reason. .
Don't let me bore you. I'm on my hobby-horse here, which is the dire quality of university philosophy.
Suspicion?
Quoting FrancisRay
That’s not saying anything. A hammer is more sophisticated than a rock. That doesn’t mean that a hammer isn’t designed or best utilized for a particular purpose.
If you’re serious then you could backup your claim by explaining how not seeing Buddhism as an art or philosophy sells it short and misses its significance.
Everything depends on how deep we want to go. A hammer has no depth or analytical interest but Buddhism is a notoriously subtle doctrine and practice with all sorts of levels and aspects. .
What I find laughable is how in one corner we have Wayfarer and Hippyhead lamenting the loss of an intimate relationship and our existential plight...
Quoting Wayfarer
And in the other corner, we have you and Hippyhead claiming that unless viewed from a modern lens we miss the significance of Buddhism (or any religion?) and sell it short.
:lol:
Yes, if I understand correctly, I do see this time to time. Especially when Buddhism is praised as "the science of the mind" or "the religion closest to atheism". I have some roots there myself. Though seeing what Conze says about this "rare and unordinary faculty"... a point of the Thai Forest tradition is, to my understanding, that everyone has this faculty. I mean, everyone suffers. The question is: do we recognize it and are we willing to do what it takes to abandon it? Ajahn Chah was asked what made him different from others, and he said that it was his willingness "to dare". That is, he and others were, as the stories go, quite determined in their efforts to the extent that they often put their life on the line.
Ajahn Chah and many of his contemporaries were farmers. Their education was usually limited to exams (which were becoming increasingly important to the government which, to my memory, sought to regulate the sangha). Most of what they learned through practice was gained by studying with "masters", who in turn got their own knowledge from tradition passed down through the Sangha. And however they were taught, they wouldn't get anything if they didn't practice.
I think this is partly related to the issue of idealism. Time and time again, for myself included, the "goals of Buddhism" are elevated in such a way as to suggest that "that's up there and I'm down here." And it seems prevalent in western society to really hold fast to this sort of mentality without really looking at it; in Buddhist terms, that means looking at how it operates in the process of suffering. On this matter, Ajahn Geoff often references a teaching by Ananda (AN 4.159): "it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned." Conceit (mana) meaning that one sees others as inferior, equal, or superior to oneself. Conceit, being a fetter, is to be abandoned (particularly at arahantship). But to get there, we use conceit to see that there are people with superior virtue, wisdom, and concentration, and we can get there too. Thus over and over, we are advised to interact with those we deem superior. Seeing the "superior" as "beyond us" or "reserved for the mighty few" is unhelpful. Really, all it takes is a disenchantment and aspiration to say, screw it. I want this, and I'm going to seek someone out for help. And then one meets the person, forms a relationship, and they go from there. Although highly respected monks don't just teach anyone willy-nilly, they aren't exactly elitist gatekeepers, which seems to be suggested when we start talking about "superior faculties" being held by a fortunate few.
Quoting Hippyhead
If I understand this question correctly, what happens in the Buddhist view is that one dies without having attained the goal, and they are simply reborn according to their karma and state of mind at death. If they haven't reached stream entry, who knows where they'll go. But it's said that upon reaching stream entry - wherein one's virtue and view are purified - one will only be reborn 7 times before reaching total Arahantship, and never in hell.
There is a tendency to wonder: what if I don't have the good karma to realize enlightenment? Well, this is answered in different ways. I think traditions like Pure Land suggest that there have been well-formulated practices passed down to us from the heavens that say, "hey, just chant this and do that and you'll at least be reborn closer to the Dharma". This isn't common in Thai Theravada, but what I hear is: just do your best. Make good karma. Follow the precepts. Be generous. Oh, maybe try some meditation here and there. Make good friends. Enjoy your life. Maybe stop ignoring your brothers and sisters when they try to talk to you, and don't hang out with that one friend who always brings you down.
On that note, I've seen teachers have good relationships with those who I would personally find difficult to talk to; I remember one person at the monastery grew pot in the area and was pretty unrestrained in his speech, swearing all the time and apparently stoned. And I've heard stories of Thai gangsters seeking spiritual guidance from people like Ajahn Chah. From what I see and hear, these sorts of people aren't told to "stop doing all that and be a monk or get out". The "policy" is not to give advice or guidance when unasked, though once a good relationship is established, you might hear the teacher pointing out that some forms of suffering, etc., can be ameliorated by making a few small changes here and there to one's life if not one's attitude (and the directness of their speech may vary). The path is gradual, and good teachers recognize that and are happy to prod you along gently. Speaking for myself, the first step to learning how to meditate was to stop asking so many questions about the "khandhas" or "dependent origination" and just focus on my breathing. That helped a lot and was extremely encouraging.
I think the Zen (?) story of a Samurai seeking training, only to be told to do chores, makes a decent example. Although he was being taught from the beginning, it wasn't until he started having the "spirit" of a samurai that he was given training in the sword. Until then, he had to learn to be on his toes when doing basic chores.
Whatever the case, if you think you may "never get the carrot", don't fret about that. Just do your best to live a good and happy life - and that doesn't necessarily require much research in the kind of philosophy we might be accustomed to on this forum. And does it require us to be acquainted with all of the teachings or teachers? No, but those would certainly help. Thus I think one has a choice: "I can't/won't do it," or "I can do it; it's difficult, but I'll do my best."
Quoting praxis
You mean if I use a hammer for both purposes I'm selling it short? :joke: Interestingly, depending on the tradition, you would be praised or censured for using the Buddharupa as anything but an object worthy of respect, etc. Thus in the Thai Forest tradition you do not use the Buddharupa as a paperweight, or robes as mere towels, because this serves to undermine their purpose and power as images (and remember to treat your begging bowl like the Buddha's head). But that isn't to say that these things have any ultimate essence; it's just not how they should be used by someone practicing dhamma.
I think on this note, I am weary to say Buddhism is a "religion" when "religion" is being used in an unnecessarily limiting manner. Given that I value the power of the teachings, I am inclined to try and stay true to them in this regard by calling it "dhamma vinaya" (or perhaps buddha-sasana). And when I see philosophers talking about Buddhism as a philosophy, if they are teasing apart the four noble truths or eightfold path in a way which seems kind of irrelevant to Buddhist practice, I would be inclined to say: "hey, that's not quite what Buddhism is for" (if appropriate). Otherwise, you get people calling Buddhism a "philosophy", when the Buddhism they seem to be referring to is not the Buddhism you'd see being practiced in a monastery (edit: or the Buddhism being taught by monastics, assuming they have the most reliable teachings to use as reference). Sometimes you see this in books, where the goal of Buddhism is said to be "oneness", or the cause of suffering is "ego". That's just not entirely true.
In all instances that I can imagine it's used in an identifying manner, which is necessarily limiting. Calling it "dhamma vinaya" is likewise limiting. Identifying anything is necessarily limiting. Your condition of necessity seems completely arbitrary and meaningless.
Okay? Maybe your imagination is limited :lol:
... and it is! That's why we can't rely on it solely, or take "refuge" in it. We have to use it skillfully and know how to pick it up and put it down, like a hammer, paperweight, or Buddharupa. I mean, I wouldn't use "dhamma-vinaya" when talking about "separation of church and state", etc - at least, I don't have the legislative expertise to even know where to even start with that. So why not call it a religion in that circumstance? Or why might we prefer to call it a philosophy? Those might be questions worth asking (edit: in that circumstance).
I'm not so familiar with what is meant by "condition of necessity" here. Maybe "mine" is arbitrary and meaningless, like you say. Maybe you're speaking in reference to my proposition that we call it this or that name according to the circumstances; that is, when it's necessary. I don't know what that means to you, but to me that is another way of saying "use these terms in the way you think is appropriate". Is that arbitrary? Sure. But to a Buddhist interested in exploring this thing called "wisdom" or "discernment", and "good karma", it's necessarily to learn how to use one's best judgement instead of relying on clear-cut concepts or logical thought-formulas all the time. That means learning when it's appropriate to use an agreed-upon term, or when it's appropriate to do away with the terms and introduce a new (or old and overlooked) one. Of course it can be necessary to use certain frameworks (e.g. utilitarianism), but other times it's good to just do away with that, and maybe focus on the brahmaviharas, core values, etc. Sometimes it's good to just do nothing.
So while sometimes it's good to have these labels, other times maybe not. And that brings me back to my earlier question... why are you interested in calling it a religion or philosophy? I don't think you made it clear. I can imagine, any way, that a lot of disagreements come from different intentions and purposes.
The meaning of 'Buddhism' is unlimited for you? If that were true we wouldn't be able to talk about it because you wouldn't be able to identify what I was talking about.
Quoting TLCD1996
I believe that it's a religion and am arguing that it is.
Do you think that premodern people viewed Buddhism as a religion, a science, an art, and whatever else?
If religion requires dogma, authority and belief then it is not a religion. If science must depend entirely on sensory-data then it is not a science. If philosophy requires endless confusion then it is not a philosophy. If art requires paint and a canvas then it is not an art. It is what it is, and a study of it is the only way to find out what it actually is. This would be why some people wonder why the OP's question is important. The answer doesn't seem to make a difference to anything.It would be more helpful to ask whether it works, whether it reveals truth, whether it brings liberation etc. This is something that may be studied and researched. What we call it is a matter of convention and convenience. The Buddha calls it a medicine, and this seems the best description to me. . , . . ., ,
Unfortunately for those who died in Jonestown (a different religion than Buddhism), this is obviously false.
Quoting FrancisRay
Right, it makes a difference to Buddhists and others.
Quoting FrancisRay
Silly strawman. Believe it or not, essential characteristic features can be identified in things.
Quoting FrancisRay
Religion works, but not in the way most people think, in my opinion. Religion may or may not reveal truth, that's beside the point. Religion necessarily promises salvation, delivering on that promise is beside the point.
This is cool, like it. I sense that a lot of us who get involved in such subjects are people like myself with overactive analytic minds. I'm guessing that some teachers deliberately spin up a bunch of concepts for us to chew on just to help us get in the door.
And, I'm guessing such overactive analysis could be useful if we analyze our way to an understanding of the limits of such analysis. Not the most efficient method of travel perhaps, but one does what one has to do.
To the degree my theory above is true, it comes with some unfortunate downsides. Many religions can come to be dominated by those who are most in need of a religion. As example, the best Christians are probably those too busy serving to have time for writing sermons, leaving the field open for those of us, who, um, enjoy words rather too much.
Perhaps this helps?
The purpose of all nouns is to create conceptual divisions. This is how thought works, it divides a single unified reality in to conceptual objects. This is clearly a useful process, but it comes at the price of significant distortion because reality is not divided in a neat and tidy way such as nouns imply.
We have the noun "tree" which implies an object separate from other objects. But trees are not separate from everything else, but are instead intimately connected to their environment. As example, their continued existence depends entirely on a star which is 93 million miles away.
Praxis wants to nail down what "thing "Buddhism is, he wants to confine it within a noun, mostly so he can debunk it because that's his goal on every subject. But Buddhism is not a single thing. Nor is Christianity. Nor is anything in all of reality, except in our minds.
The title of this thread has been useful in generating some interesting discussion. But it would be wise not to get too anal about it.
In Christian religions the doctrine of the fall means that humans on the whole are marked by a basic imperfection, 'original sin', the overcoming of which is the purpose of the religion.
In Buddhism, there is no 'doctrine of original sin', as such, but human life is characterised by avidya, ignorance, which is actually the root cause of coming into existence in the first place. It is said to be beginningless, i.e. no definite time can be assigned to its start, and it can only be ended by hearing and practicing the teaching of the Buddha.
The point in both cases is that, left to your own devices, you will likely fail, because of this inherent imperfection, flaw, or fault.
In the early Buddhist texts, the whole aim of the discipline is to perceive the root of ignorance, which comprises the discipline of the Buddhist path. The whole movement is geared around that. It was typically practiced by renunciates - monks, male and female - whose lives were governed by the Vinaya, the monastic rules.
The aim is, as you say, to 'see things as they truly are' - actually there is a term for that, yath?bh?ta?. But it's not, shall we say, a natural skill. The Buddha is understood to have been able to traverse the seven stages of dhyana - which are levels of meditative absorption. These are very difficult skills to master, in my opinion - I don't think I've ever come close to any form of dhyana. The psychosomatic, metabolic and psychological dynamics are deep and powerful.
One of the issues I see with Buddhism in the West, is that the degree of discipline is often misunderstood. Because of its association with the counter-culture, there is often a sense that Buddhism is just about 'being natural' or 'acting spontaneously' and that 'enlightenment' is a kind of mental sleight-of-hand that can be obtained without a great deal of effort or training. But again if you read the early Buddhist texts, it becomes clear that it is a path that requires lifelong dedication and commitment.
Don't be silly. I'm merely arguing that it's a religion rather than a philosophy.
Quoting Hippyhead
Ad homs are a stupid way to argue.
Quoting Hippyhead
If it's not a single thing outside of our minds then why would it be a single thing in our minds?
The concept of sin is an unfortunate spin, as we had nothing to do with what is being described. But yea, otherwise that concept you refer to is indeed true, and indeed the purpose of religion. It's insights like this that prevent me from discarding Christianity with a lazy sweep of the hand.
In my view, the original "sin" is that as thought emerged in human beings we became distracted from the real world by the much smaller symbolic world within our minds. Imho, the Adam and Eve story speaks to this with it's reference to the "apple of knowledge" and "being expelled from the Garden of Eden".
The symbolic world is not bad or wrong, and is obviously a necessary part of being human. But the symbolic world contains much fewer psychic calories, if you will. And so a hunger arises. And from that hunger we will sometimes take unhelpful actions that might properly be labeled sin.
Quoting Wayfarer
I would counter argue that it's not possible to fail in a big picture way because we're all melting back in to Whatever It Is no matter what we know or do. It's possible to fail in a temporary small picture way as it's true that we may, or rather almost certainly will, experience unnecessary suffering by not managing our minds in an effective manner.
I'm enjoying the Buddhism education which is being provided, and hope members will continue with it.
It's true I remain somewhat skeptical of all the goal setting and effort agendas etc, but well, so what?
When you're not distracted by being a Gotcha Monster you can ask good questions. This is one.
Truly not being snarky here, just asking, have you read my way too many posts regarding how thought operates by a process of division? Interested in that at all? If yes, I'll continue. If not, ok, no problem. I'm not an evangelist, I'm just overly enthusiastic sometimes.
Imho, some religious practices can credibly promise and deliver "salvation", but probably not in the sweeping permanent existential manner which is often suggested.
Acts of kindness provide temporary "salvation" from the self obsession which is the primary source of our suffering. Techniques like meditation can as well.
The rational act is to let go of that which doesn't work for us.
For example, neither you nor I believe in the traditional salvation story of Christianity. So let it go already. Get over it. Give that kind of stuff up. Put it in the trash bin and walk away. Be loyal to your own stated position. Act on it. It's not rational to keep arguing with things you can do nothing about, and for which there is no evidence they will ever be of any use to you.
But you don't have to throw the baby out with the bath water. You're clearly interested in religion, you engage the subject almost every day, and there are other aspects of it which we all can benefit from, without any need whatsoever to do so in a religious context.
Be rational. Carefully pick through the pile, find what works for you, and throw the rest away. Call whatever works whatever you want.
So good that you’re unable to answer it, apparently.
Again, I’m arguing that Buddhism is a religion rather than a philosophy, primary in pointing out two glaring contrasts:
Consistently clogging thread after thread with these kind of lazy little gotcha quips which aren't actually clever is tiresome. Maybe you could try raising your game? I specifically offered to answer the question. I've already done so many times.
Oh, sorry, your answer is “thought operates by a process of division” then?
My understanding is that concepts are formed from a rather large amount of sense patterns and though the patterns are singled out they build to form larger patterns in a hierarchical fashion, like letter > word > sentence > paragraph etc. So all the information that a concept (like Buddhism) is comprised of is in our minds and is not a single thing, just like outside the mind. :razz:
Sure! The Dhamma is beyond words. That's why we practice it; to realize the Dhamma. Hence the Kalama Sutta, where we must find out for ourselves what is worth grasping and abandoning, and the Dhammapada:
[i]Following it, you put an end to suffering & stress. I have taught you this path having known — for your knowing — the extraction of arrows.
It's for you to strive ardently. Tathagatas simply point out the way. Those who practice, absorbed in jhana: from Mara's bonds they'll be freed.[/i]
Therefore there are different meanings to "Dhamma". Besides "phenomena", it means "teaching" or "truth". It's really conventional language. And it would be silly to call the transcendent Dhamma a "religion" or a "philosophy", because it's undefinable. What we're talking about here in this thread, though, is the dhamma-vinaya, meaning doctrine and discipline, or the sasana, meaning dispensation (which is undeniably a dhamma-vinaya). If not, we're talking about more Some people are including culture and art with that; they're taking what they think is "Buddhism" into a box and putting a categorical label onto it with a mix of a few other things here and there. It may be necessary to call that "Buddhism" (a relatively new word) in this case a "religion" or "philosophy" in certain contexts, but it just simply doesn't encompass the nuances of dhamma-vinaya. The application is not universal and not an "ultimate" truth. And of course, your argument is that it's a religion, because it fits certain criteria. But that's your own criteria, if not the accepted criteria of experts, which you decide is worth holding onto.
I understand you're arguing that it's a religion, but my question is why? What is the underlying intention here? Why does it matter to you that Buddhism is a "religion"? What are you getting from it? I mean, you're free to do so, and personally I find the way you define it (as something promising salvation, etc) mostly acceptable. But, again, it's not absolute. It's conventional and FrancisRay put it, not exactly of utmost importance. If anything, clearly it's burdensome. So why?
Quoting Hippyhead
Absolutely! However, it seems that some people, myself included, needed a little push or shove (so to speak) to break out of that. Some people are quick to see the danger in their habits, others not so much. That's what teachers and friends are really good for (and thankfully, most Theravadin monasteries are easily accessible, although they are relatively sparse).
Quoting Hippyhead
Yes! :wink:
Quoting praxis
This again. I still don't think I understand, because it seems that the philosophies people often describe have a kind of authority figure attached (e.g. Aristotle), and these philosophies often seem concurrent with metaphysical theories (and I wonder if those theories could be easily discarded if we really held tightly to the philosophy's constraints).
And I really think that it comes down to how you define "authority" or "metaphysics," and perhaps how you're supposed to use them in context. The Buddha (specifically, Sakyamuni Buddha) is something of an authority figure, but it's not like he's God, or even the Buddha. He was, the story goes, a Buddha - meaning, he found the Dhamma himself (with no teacher to show him) through parami he developed through many lifetimes, which in turn gave him the ability to train others in the Dhamma as well (if he couldn't train anyone, he would be a Private Buddha). In this case it seems the true "authority" is the dhamma (if we want to speak about the "truth"), if not the dhamma-vinaya, which the Buddha himself said would be the "master" after his death (DN 16). In regards to the dhamma-vinaya, he also said:
[i]Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'
"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. Butif the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."[/i]
So, clearly, what the Buddha taught is dhamma-vinaya. He taught the truth as knew it, and he formulated a discipline around it, wherein one devotes their life to what he taught. That's the bare bones, as far as I know.
That's one reason, and perhaps not even a very strong reason. If it were the only reason, or even a primary reason, then why would you be wasting your time arguing here, something that you've described yourself as "burdensome," rather than putting effort into realizing Dharmma? Because that is NOT the only reason you practice. It is the same with all religions. It's pointless to deny that religion fulfills human needs other than some grandiose notion of realizing emptiness.
Quoting TLCD1996
Are you claiming that Aristotle is the Philosopher King and that only his philosophy is philosophy? That is a very strange and misguided idea.
Quoting TLCD1996
Does an ultimate authority need to be a God? I don't think so. In any case, if a Buddha is not an ultimate authority then perhaps they may have all been misguided or even plain con-men, and this possibility is in accord with Buddhist doctrine.
Although (or because) you seem to be suggesting some ulterior motives behind my posting (and even my practice), I'm grateful for what you have to say. So far trying to have a discussion with you has indeed been a waste of time and this is a good reminder to back away from the kind of exchange we've been having so far.
I'm interested in learning (about Philosophy, Buddhism, and discussion itself), so actually I would say that talking about these things can be part of one's dhamma practice if done skillfully. But I think, on a similar note, a good skill is learning how to back out of a discussion which isn't really fruitful or beneficial (and indeed I have other things to do than go back and forth like this). You seem to have some skill at reading people and playing with different ideas, and you seem to be a determined person yourself, but your intentions are questionable and mostly unclear (except perhaps in a degree of hostility), so I'll leave it at that. Thanks.
I admit that I've expressed hostility towards Hippy, in this topic, who has blatantly used ad homs against me and so not undeserving, but I've quickly reviewed and can't say that I've expressed or felt hostility towards you. Impatience perhaps, but not hostility. And I did not mean to suggest any nefarious ulterior motives on your part, only an inclination to support a meaningful belief system.
I attempted to address this above. Alcoholics are the primary people in AA meetings. Thought-o-holics (like me) are often those most interested in exploring these topics. It's typically the sick who show up at the hospital.
Not a fixed rule which includes everyone, but true often enough to merit mention.
You and I both would seem to have a natural talent for getting under people's skins. The two of us together is annoying squared. Let's just take a break from engaging.
The "breaking out" notion is of interest here.
I still remember the moment 50 years ago when it first dawned on me that I don't actually have to be analytic in every moment of my life. I come from a very analytic family, and being that way was/is so utterly natural to me that it came as a revelation that analysis wasn't the only mental option. I'm happy that I broke out of blind full immersion and that other options became available. So far, so good.
That said, I do remain somewhat wary of going to war with what was installed in my DNA before I was born. I do see the downsides of being a nerd. But I also see that there are pros and cons to any kind of mind I might have been born in to. I'm wary of getting drawn in to a notion that there is some kind of perfection out there somewhere that I should be chasing.
Whatever flavor of human one might be sooner or later we're going to have to look in the mirror and accept what we see. I'm already here in this imperfect place. Might as well get on with saying ok to it.
Age might help. At some point we start running out of time for big journeys to somewhere else, which raises the logic of "be happy here and now", while there's still time.
Is it Buddhism that has a concept of "the middle way"? Perhaps that's what I'm trying to express without knowing the appropriate terminology?
It’s nevertheless ubiquitous in most traditional philosophy and religion that the human condition is somehow flawed or faulty. The Buddha is sometimes compared to a ‘physician’ who diagnoses ‘the cause of suffering’ and prescribes its cure (which is the eightfold path).
The main reason this is at odds with the modern sensibility, is that in many respects the aim of modern liberal culture is to accomodate and ameliorate the human condition, rather than to transcend it. So we think that normal consciousness, the normal human state, Is fundamentally OK and that the way to improve it is through the improvement of living conditions, medicine and technology, and the like. The sense of the human condition as fundamentally flawed or lacking or in need of a cure, is absent.
Which I am agreeing with. I was objecting only to labeling the fundamental problem as a sin, as that implies a choice, which none of us had. The Adam and Eve story is built upon the notion that they had a choice of whether to eat the "apple of knowledge". And so based on the assumption of choice, the word sin arises. But the human race did not have a choice about evolving in to thought based creatures, as it was that or death.
I'm not arguing with you here of course, but with my Catholic upbringing.
Quoting Wayfarer
Perhaps this is because there is very little evidence that transcending it is possible for more than maybe a very limited rare few? You know, we've had thousands of years of Buddhism and Christianity by now, and while I wouldn't say nothing has changed, there hasn't exactly been a revolution in the human psychological condition. Even if we were to agree that sitting with the guru under the pear tree can lead to revolutionary change, history has proven that this methodology is not scalable.
Thus, turning our attention to factors we can do something about seems to have a reasonable logic to it. That said, we do this largely through science. And science is very busy handing us more power than we can handle. Which probably will lead to a revolutionary change in the human condition, just not the kind we had in mind.
Do the problems we are attempting to resolve arise primarily from the content of thought, or from the nature of thought?
1) To what degree does human suffering arise from faulty thought content, bad ideas, incorrect understandings etc?
2) To what degree does such suffering arise from the medium of thought itself?
To the degree #1 is true, some form of philosophy seems the remedy.
To the degree #2 is true, would any form of philosophy be an act of poring more fuel on the fire?
I read Krishnamurti for a lot of years, and he had much to say about 'thought' being 'of the nature of time', on how 'the old must cease for the new to be' and about 'dying to the known'. He differentiated 'thought' from 'intelligence' which is 'seeing what is'. Hence his constant emphasis on the 'right now', on seeing the whole 'in an instant'. Strong parallels with Zen Buddhism, particularly the Platform Sutra of the Sixth Patriach.
Likewise, one of the foundational attitudes in Zen Buddhism is the radical contrast between discursive thought and prajñ?, the latter being 'intuitive wisdom' or 'liberating insight'.
There are also exact parallels with neoplatonism and the Christian mystical schools that grew from it. Plotinus, founder of the neoplatonic schools:
This is a common thread in many schools of perennial philosophy. But I think the Buddhist attitude is, not so much that thought is a problem, but attachment to the sensory realm by clinging to experience basically wanting or not wanting which takes place moment to moment and conditions every moment of experience/existence.
The Buddhist 'buddhi' means 'intellect' - not in the sense usually meant now as 'discursive intellect' but 'penetrating wisdom' which 'sees how things truly are'.
There are parellels with 'nous' in the Greek tradition - Nous, (Greek: “mind” or “intellect”) in philosophy, the faculty of intellectual apprehension and of intuitive thought. Used in a narrower sense, it is distinguished from discursive thought and applies to the apprehension of eternal intelligible substances and first principles. It is sometimes identified with the highest or divine intellect.'
Quoting Hippyhead
[quote=G K Chesterton]The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried.[/quote]
Quoting Wayfarer
Ok, so impression so far is that Buddhism would come down more on the "thought content is the problem" side, leading to an examination of that content, and corrections where needed. To what degree is that a fair summary, or not?
Quoting Wayfarer
I'm hearing you saying that by "seeing things as they truly are" the Buddhist observes the mind in action, sees content that is incorrect, and then by the act of seeing, the faulty content is repaired. Again, I'm attempting to translate your understandings in to my kind of language, and asking to you edit the translation as you feel necessary.
Ok, that seems another way of phrasing the intent of my claim. Whatever the value of the Christian (or Buddhist) methodologies might be they have, for whatever reason, failed to transcend the human condition at sufficient scale so as to prevent insanity such as for example, nuclear weapons, and our boredom with them.
I'm not claiming they are worthless, for that is clearly not the case. Just debating the "transcend" notion, that's all.
Edit, nudge, manage, tweak, assist, yes. Transcend, no, imho.
That's really pretty right, but it's easier said than done.
You're no doubt aware of the popular catchphrase of 'mindfulness' which is now very much part of the cultural vernacular, and is basically Buddhist in origin. And the originating text is the Satipatthana Sutta - 'the discourse on mindfulness'. (Cast your eye down the list, you will notice 'the hindrances and obstacles' - 1,3 and 5 get me all the time.) It is all about 'seeing things just as they are' - but again, it's not a gimmick or a shortcut but a mental and physical discipline based on clear comprehension of everything you do:
The popular 10-day Vipassana Retreats established by the late S N Goenka teach something very close to mindfulness - actually 'vipassana' meaning 'insight'. During the ten-day course, students are required to sit something like 8-10 one-hour sessions per day, whilst maintaining silence and avoiding eye-contact with other students. Their recommended regimen for the household practitioner is two hours of sitting meditation each day - which from my perspective takes considerable discipline.
So - yes, it is true that in a sense, all you need is clear awareness and concentrated attention, that this itself brings about changes in the way your mind works - but it takes some doing (or not-doing.) It is essentially a yogic discipline - by doing this, the practitioner aspires to becoming a 'house-holder yogi'.
Given that you seem to have investigated these topics extensively, (amazing really!) I'm wondering if you can point me to any schools or teachers who have set aside the "mental and physical discipline" and the "comprehension of everything you do" parts. It's not my intent to argue such a route would be superior to anything else, though I may regrettably wander in to that, I'm mostly just intrigued by the notion.
To the degree that the problems being addressed arise from the medium of thought itself, that suggests remedies which may be radically simpler, and thus much more accessible to many more people. My practical nature is drawn to that, and my intellectual nature is intrigued by the possibility of sweeping all of the philosophy off the table in one efficient movement.
In both science and religion observation is typically considered a means to some other end, knowledge or insight etc. What if we were to instead embrace observation for itself? The desired end would still be a healthier mind, but we would have removed the middle men of insight, understanding, growth, change, transformation, and all that this entails.
It's impossible that I would be the first or only person to have such a notion, so I'm curious where others with such perspectives might reside. Zen? I have no idea.
Don't let me hijack the thread in to Hippyheadism. :-) Please change the subject when it's time to do so. I get carried away with things that interest me and may need some assistance.
Praxis - "Unfortunately for those who died in Jonestown (a different religion than Buddhism), this is obviously false."
What of Earth has Jonestown got to do with anything? We're talking about Buddhism.
Praxis - "Right, it makes a difference to Buddhists and others"
What we call Buddhism makes no difference to Buddhism. Obviously it makes a difference to you. .
Praxis - "Religion works, but not in the way most people think, in my opinion. Religion may or may not reveal truth, that's beside the point. Religion necessarily promises salvation, delivering on that promise is beside the point. "
You have almost no comprehension of religion and you make this perfectly clear. Your opinions are not interesting and really you shouldn't have any. Much better to establish the facts. You say 'religion works'. How do you know this? What do you even mean by it? How can it be beside the point if religion reveals truth? If it doesn't do this it doesn't work>
Sorry mate, but I have you down as a troll. I see no serious interest in the topic or any desire to know much about it. . . .
Yes. yes, yes. Spot on! You say you know little of Buddhism and yet you say nothing but sensible things about it. This would be exactly the purpose of analysis. The method is demonstrated to perfection by Nagarjuna's in his Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way.. In this text he proves the absurdity of all positive metaphysical theories. thus proving that the true nature of Reality lies beyond conceptual fabrication.
Your comments above suggest you would be naturally drawn to the simplicity of Zen practice. Nagarjuna is a patriarch of Zen.
You say - "In both science and religion observation is typically considered a means to some other end, knowledge or insight etc. What if we were to instead embrace observation for itself?"
Again, spot on. Science asks us to look through the telescope. Mysticism asks us to investigate who is doing the looking. Basically the idea is to discover that we are not body or mind. As one Sufi sage puts it, 'Man can partake of the perpetual, but not by thinking he can think about it'.
.
https://iep.utm.edu/nagarjun/
Here's the summary at top of the page. I've added some white space here and there because, well, that seemed appropriate. :-)
Apparently I'm one of the great Buddhist sages and didn't even know it. Would someone please tell the hippy chicks? :-)
Quoting FrancisRay
Best I can tell, that seems a reasonable description of mysticism. But not quite what I was referring to so much. Maybe I can improve the question...
Sri Baba Hippyhead asked, "What if we were to instead embrace observation for itself?"
---------
Put another way, what if the psychic nutrition we seek can be found in the experience of observation itself, and is thus not dependent upon any insights which may or may not arise as a result of that experience?
---------
Having just today learned of Nagarjuna today for the first time, I of course can not relate this question to his teachings. But maybe you can?
The point was not to critique anyone’s habits but to point out that if the religious were actually motivated by what they claim to be motivated by, some form of salvation, then they would behave accordingly. Typically they behave as though the solidarity of their [s]tribe[/s] religion was of the utmost importance.
:razz: Do whatever you must.
I'm not sure I understand this question. Certainly the question 'Who is observing?' would be vital since it comes down to 'Who am I?'.
---"Having just today learned of Nagarjuna today for the first time, I of course can not relate this question to his teachings. But maybe you can?"
Hmm. Nagarjuna tells us nothing really exists or ever really happens, and this would cover all observations and observers, We would have to go deeper than the relative world. Likewise, Meister Eckhart tells us whatever we observe is quite literally nothing. Time and space would be smoke and mirrors. This would be meaning of the Grail experience by which we discover our immortality beyond the psycho-physical world. The observer and the observed would the same phenomenon. Consciousness and Reality would be the same phenomenon.
We're diving straight into the deep end here. .
Pardon me if I was bit effusive earlier, but It's not often people ask questions rather than just argue for their own view. . . .; . .
You claimed that a practitioner would know what Buddhism (a religion) is. My point was that religious followers are notoriously often mislead.
Quoting FrancisRay
Religion binds a community with common values, narrative, and goals. This has great survival value, evolutionarily speaking.
Quoting FrancisRay
There are literally thousands of religions. Can they all be true? Of course they can’t. Therefore truth must be beside the point, right?
Ah. I was speaking of practitioners of Yoga and self-enquiry, not crazy quasi-religious cults.
---"There are literally thousands of religions. Can they all be true? Of course they can’t. Therefore truth must be beside the point, right?"
This is a common misunderstanding and I wouldn't criticize you for holding it. But a little research will dispose of it.
Your comment relates to the commonplace dogmatic kind of monotheism but is not relevant where a religion is the search for truth. Regrettably many people only know the former kind of religion, since the Churches have worked around the clock for centuries to ensure their flock don't ever break free of superstition and speculation. You have to remember that until quite recently my posts here would probably have led to my martyrdom. It's only recently that it has become safe in Western society to speak about mysticism. I have a Christian friend who believes mysticism is the work of the Devil. Even Erwin Schrodinger ran into this problem, as he endorsed the doctrine of the Upanishads. His regular publisher refused to publish one of his books on grounds of heresy!
For a great book there is Fritz Schuon;s Transcendent Unity of Religion.. Or perhaps you could check out Alan Watts on youtube talking about Jesus and religion. .
Lol, true religions are true and false religions are false. That’s your response, essentially? If so, well, okay, but then why do false religions still work?
This is very definititely not what I said. But I'll respond anyway.
Religion is an ambiguous word with many meanings. What I said was that where a religion is the search for truth it will lead to truth. The religions you speak of do not quality. They depend on faith and belief and usually deny even the possibility of truth and knowledge. Thus the mystic would endorse the teachings of Jesus but reject the teachings of the Roman Church. If you have a look at Classical Christianity, the tradition of the first three centuries, you'll ses it is entirely different from the later Roman bowdlerisation of the teachings.
Thus there is something called the 'Perennial' philosophy, which includes (Middle Way) Buddhism, (Philosophical) Taoism, Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, Christian, Jewish and Islamic mysticism and so forth. Monotheism is rejected as being false. . . . .
I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority.
Quoting FrancisRay
Of all posters in this topic I would expect you to be the first to acknowledge a difference between spirituality or mysticism and religion.
Okay. So this is your definition of religion. In this case Buddhism is not a religion. If you define religion like this then there is clearly a strict dividing line between religion and mysticism. There need be no prevarication.
But many people do not define religion in this way and I don't. You don't seem to acknowledge the difficulty caused by the variety of definitions in common use. Perhaps this is because you have clear definition. If you can persuade everyone to adopt the same definition then the ambiguities will disappear. . . . . . . .
I assume you're claiming this because Buddha's are not considered Gods and therefore not an ultimate authority. What matters is that in order to be part of the religion, the authority has access to knowledge or experience that others do not, and that their authority is beyond questioning. Those who question are heretics, outsiders, or otherwise not considered part of the tradition.
People often point to the K?l?ma Sutta and say something like, "see, the Buddha says to not take anything on authority and simply try it out for yourself." Notice that nowhere does the doctrine entertain the possibility that the doctrine could be mistaken in any way or invite criticism or reform. In philosophy, science, and art, revision is an integral part.
Very well. Yes, I do have an inclination to support the teachings and try to share them, but you make a good point that I should be supportive of my own practice as well (indeed it can be quite challenging). I'd be happy to keep discussing with you, however I'm weary of what's been happening thus far (even though I was content to play with it a little).
Quoting Hippyhead
The perfection is not "out there", that's the thing. Even though we get our ideals and guidance from "out there", it's all "in here". Suffering is here; the "nerd" is here, the mentalities and habits and attitudes are "here"; the "virtue" is here and, over all, the "karma" is here.
The middle way is, simply put, the middle way between happiness and suffering, or indulgence in pleasure and pain. It's often treated as the middle way between severe asceticism and sensual indulgence, but it's not so black and white. Monks, even during the Buddha's time, were praised for their extreme austerities, as long as it bore good fruit in their practice (e.g. Maha Kassapa). And there are a number of indications that it's quite wholesome and "pure" to enjoy the pleasures of nature.
The important thing comes down to the mind, particularly where one seeks happiness. At the time people thought indulgence in sensuality was the best way to be happy; others thought that they needed to torture themselves to realize nirvana by exhausting their bad karma. The Buddha's position was, based on his own realization, that no - one simply needs to abandon the cause of suffering, which sometimes entails austere practice but also entails the enjoyment of pleasure, be it the fruits of one's virtue or the more refined pleasures of meditative absorption. So actually, perhaps it might not be wrong to say that the middle way is a path which is not devoid of pleasure of pain, but rather approaches them from a different vantage point and with a different purpose of mind.
And so, this "nerd" business is indeed a form of pleasure, though there is pain involved, inevitably (e.g. in the sense that from birth comes aging, illness, death). You say there's pros and cons, the Buddha says yes: and therefore it's unsatisfactory, and one ought to abandon that for something more refined, to the point where "happiness" and "suffering" are both transcended (Ajahn Chah said that happiness was the tail of the snake, suffering its head). If I'm not wrong, it seems that you already have a sense that some pleasures are a bit more refined, such as when you're out in nature. "Being okay with it" is a form of contentment, which is also a form of refined pleasure. This, to my understanding, seems pretty much along the lines of dhamma practice, however in Buddhism, if one really wants to be free, one has to push the envelope just a little bit and say "this is pleasant, but it's not quite there yet. There's still some underlying dis-ease here. My mind isn't free from unskillful attitudes. There's more to be done." This is the kind of discontent which, perhaps like dispassion and a sense of urgency from recollecting one's inevitable death (and uncertain future), incites us to go deeper. Edit: And I must say that truthfulness and honesty are of great importance here.
Quoting Hippyhead
Having faulty thought content can cause suffering by putting us into conflict with the world or even ourselves. This is, to my understanding, because the processes of our thought-forming are informed by our lack of understanding. Not only that, we attach ourselves (through craving) to these thoughts, and so they keep going. As a result, holding to wrong thinking causes us suffering on different levels.
But thoughts are not easy to tame. Even though thoughts are karma, it's as if we don't intend to think them and they keep coming up. They come up, partly, due to inappropriate attention, which includes the manner in which we assume a "self". It doesn't matter what kind of self it is - the "self" as an internal essence or "soul", the "body as self", the self as "the universe", or even the self as non-existent. Any self-view is a wrong-view, and it comes from wrong-attention. Similarly, sensual desires and ill-will come from inappropriate attention as well. Our thoughts and intentions are quite connected to the way we attend to "experience". Thus the Buddha (in MN 2) advocates for "appropriate attention" or "right view" which means attending to things in terms of the four noble truths: "this is suffering, this is the cause of suffering...". This is the framework which allows us to see everything as something capable of transcending, even total "oneness" (which seems to be the interest of Romantic philosophers and some popular secular Buddhist teachers).
Given that we don't currently have a realization into the four noble truths, we can't say with 100% certainty that our current attention is truly "correct"; it's said the only person who has truly correct attention, or at least practice, is a stream-enterer. Until then, we're really taking the framework of the noble truths to the best of our ability, paying attention to the results and seeking guidance, finding what works and what doesn't.
I would hesitate to say that we need to drop thinking and just "know" (this can be impractical if not self-oppressive or delusional). Also I would hesitate to say that we need to examine all the contents of our thoughts (because thoughts will often just keep coming and complicating themselves). Simply put, we need to learn how to think skillfully. And for this it also helps to live skillfully, which is why virtue is quite fundamental and the precepts are by no means "beginner stuff". They're the foundation, because just as our attention informs our thinking, so does our behavior. Thus monastics have lots of rules and their way of living is peaceful, simple, and not so entangled into modern society.
But any way, in the context of meditation as I have learned it, one first has to take stock of their mind; going straight to the breath is not so easy (although Goenka retreats advocate this, and not without good reason). If thoughts are just coming, one should actually just go straight to the breath and try to settle. If the mind is kind of dull and lazy or sleepy, one should actually use thinking to uplift the mind, make it resolute, and then settle it (see SN 46.51). Sometimes it's necessary to look at the content of the thoughts to see in what way it's feeding restless activity, doubt, depression, etc, and then sometimes it's necessary to use thoughts to kind of give the mind the strength to cut through thinking processes - especially after one has understood that those processes are not helpful for one's well-being. Thus, although observing is important (and clarity of vision is desired), thinking is important too. Edit: But also, here is where thinking becomes a mix of verbal and non-verbal; we may use verbal thinking ("Buddho" on the in and out breath) to maintain focus, and we may also engage with the breath to make it more pleasant (modifying our breath by relaxing it, lengthening or shortening it, etc). So there's engagement on different levels according to the mind's needs, and this is developed fundamentally through practice; teachers can't give us all the answers.
So, when I learned from my own teacher and I was asking him all those technical questions, he had a good reason for telling me to "stop asking questions" and just focus on my breath. It was a good way to cut through the crap. :]
And really, it mostly comes down to suffering and not suffering, or you can say happiness and unhappiness. If we're suffering, there's no need to start analyzing it philosophically, or trying to understand right away which form of "inappropriate attention" one is engaged in, or trying to see which chain link of dependent origination went wrong. As I was taught, if going back to the breath isn't helpful, one can just remember: "this is suffering." For me, that's a really good way to get one back to the fundamental point, which is to be free and be at ease. That's a good way to establish a good intention for practice, and a good way to give the mind a reason to let go and relax a little... then get down to business.
It's for this reason that, to some extent, I think "authority" isn't of supreme importance. That said, I respect authority enough to give credit to the Buddha when he said, as per the Dhammapada, that oneself is one's refuge. And indeed, when Thai Forest teachers talk about "taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha," they often point out that these are most importantly internal. I find it helpful to remember to recollect the "external" Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, but the internal ones need to be remembered as well: one's own "knower", the "truth" of one's present state, and one's virtue and proper methods for practice.
Edit: made some edits above. Also, since you mentioned emptiness, it might be good to look at Bhikkhu Analayo's book on Compassion and Emptiness, if not the cula-sunnata sutta itself. It makes an interesting point that emptiness is not necessarily treated as a metaphysical trait as it is a recgonition of absence: not just of self or ultimate existence, but also of stress. In the sutta, each progressive state of meditation is "empty" of a particular "disturbance," namely the disturbance of the previous state of concentration. As far as I know, it's useful to see stressful "self" oriented thinking along these lines, and pay attention to where it's present and where it can be abandoned so one may enjoy its absence. Similarly with even "pleasant" ways of "self" thinking.
Pure Land schools teach the setting aside of all 'self-effort' and simple recitation of the name of Amidha, the Buddha of Boundless Light. There is actually a vast literature behind this too, beginning with the Pure Land Sutras, which are Mah?y?na texts. You can read about it here.
In my own experience, Pure Land is inextricably bound up with Japanese culture. Whilst I appreciate the ethics and aesthetics of the tradition, due to my Anglo cultural background, I don't think I have the appropriate mentality to really benefit from it. I have encountered some people on forums who really managed to integrate with it but I've decided my own path lies elsewhere. I think the basic text I need to follow is the venerable and time-tested Mindfulness in Plain English which was the book that introduced the whole 'mindfulness movement' to modern culture.
Quoting Hippyhead
N?g?rjuna is indeed fascinating, including to many academics and philosophers. When I first started studying Buddhism, I read The Central Philosophy of Buddhism by T R V Murti. Murti was an Oxford-trained professor of Asian studies, who compares the 'revolution' introduced by N?g?rjuna to Kant's 'Copernican revolution in philosophy'. He's rather fallen out of favour amongst later scholars but this book was electrifying for me, it made sense on so many levels.
Other than that, I endorse everything TLCD1996 has said above (with the caveat that his username sounds like a bus license plate :-) ).
Quoting FrancisRay
Because I'm not putting it well. That happens a lot. Your patience is appreciated.
Quoting FrancisRay
What if questions and insights and philosophies etc are largely unnecessary?
We eat an apple. We receive the nutrition. We don't really need to know much of anything about apples or digestion.
We observe. Our minds receive a rest. We don't really need to know much about how or why.
PREMISE: If the problem we are trying to address arises primarily from the nature of thought itself....
THEORY: Then it's essentially a mechanical issue which doesn't really require much insight.
UNNECESSARY FANCY PHILOSOPHY: :-)
It's my sense that what we're looking for is embedded in the real world. What's typically preventing us from accessing this asset is that we are distracted by the symbolic world inside our heads. It's not complicated, we're just not paying much attention to the real world, that's all. Typically we are instead paying attention to our thoughts about the real world, which is something else entirely.
Any method of observation which succeeds in shifting our attention from the symbolic world to the real world would seem to be sufficient. As you know, there are countless simple mechanical exercises which can lead one in this direction.
Not sure if this helps, or just makes things worse. :-) In any case, I'm obsessed with such notions, but nobody else need be. Whatever works seems a rational principle.
And if a perspective should consider "the truth" to be the real world, and not any collection of ideas pointing to it, then concerns about dogmatism, contradiction etc are resolved. Instead of an endlessly unproductive debate about who has the correct philosophy, another option is to just toss all the philosophies overboard.
Homework: Start a new thread on any subject where you share your own insights, without any reference whatsoever to what anybody else has said. If you find that you can't do so, start a thread about that.
Complete non sequitur.
I agree and spoke imprecisely. Was trying to say that I'm a human being, and so there is no perfection in here. The evidence suggests that this will always be the case, so the rational course would seem to be to make peace with "what is", as the saying goes. Not complacency exactly, but not chasing an illusion either. One way to look at it, not a "one true way".
Quoting TLCD1996
Ok, yes, observation of reality is neither happiness or suffering because those are made of thought, and the clearest observation requires setting thought aside, or at least turning down the volume. Observation might be described as peace, but at it's best it's not that either, but rather nothing. A state of mind which happens to match the vast majority of reality pretty well, thus adding to it's credibility, imho.
Transcended in the moment, yes, possible. Transcended permanently? Not possible for me, but maybe for you. I do wish to avoid making sweeping dogmatic assertions about millions of people I've never met.
Quoting TLCD1996
Yes, of course, agreed.
Quoting TLCD1996
Agreed again. When I'm anywhere near a computer (work of Satan!! :-) ) impossible. However, when I'm in the woods, the volume of thought tends to lower naturally and largely without effort. The "secret" ingredient is time. Just time. It's perhaps from this experience that I'm questioning the necessity of philosophy, insights, transformation etc.
There is so much more of interest in your post, but we're reaching the end of the day here and my focus is fading away. Look forward to more soon!
Listen up punks! Now THAT is how to give someone a good debunking!
But now I'm terrified of what he's going to say about my screen name.... :-)
Entrance fee to being taken seriously. Or not.
What does that have to do with religious followers being misled or otherwise taken advantage of? You think that doesn't happen in Buddhism? Awwwww, you're so adorably innocent.
To a Buddhist your paragraph is a muddle of misconceptions. What you call the real world would be unreal. What makes you say it is real? Realism causes nothing but paradoxes and contradictions in metaphysics, which suggest it is false.
I realise you want to throw philosophy away, but God gave us a brain and we may as well use it. Nagarjuna proves, as does the history of Western philosophy, that there is only one metaphysical theory or position that survives analysis. This shows the value and importance of metaphysics, As Bradley says, it is an 'antidote to dogmatic superstition'. Not to take this antidote is to risk believeing all sorts of nonsense.
I suspect your low view pf philosophy comes from surveying the state of Western academic or university philosophy. If I didn't know more than academics usually know about the subject I'd also believe philosophy is a waste of time. But anyone who understands Nagarjuna's logical argument knows more than most professors.
The idea of meditation would be lead one from the symbolic or 'conventional' world to the real or 'ultimate' world. Sensory observation would have the opposite effect. To escape from what you call the real world would be the cessation of suffering. To be stuck in it would the definition of suffering. .
Ok, I can obviously endorse this suggestion. In that spirit, we might start by attempting to approach this advice in the simplest most straightforward manner possible.
I recently purchased a chain saw. The very first step in understanding how to "saw skillfully" is to learn how to operate the on/off button. Should a philosopher consider the mind to be another mechanical device of the human body, the very first step in understanding how to think skillfully might be to learn how to operate the on/off button.
What if what the philosophical mind in all it's infinite complexity is reaching for is most efficiently found simply by turning the mind machine off?
Or, to chant this in Hippiehead dogma, what if the problem we are trying to address arises not from thought content, but from the medium of thought?
I'd rather say that if we take a scientific approach we will not be led astray. Most people view the world pre-analytically, adopting a folk-psychological realism whereby kicking a rock is enough to prove its reality. The value of philosophy is that it debunks this naive idea. Once the idea is debunked perhaps analysis can be abandoned, but to abandon it while holding on to logically-absurd and indefensible ideas would be to seriously shoot oneself in the foot.
For a practitioner discursive philosophy is not important, but for anyone else it is the only way to work out where the truth lies. ,.
Respect to Sri Baba Hippyhead but there's something I think you're missing here. If you want to take this 'no-thought' route then Zen practice would be just the ticket. But this profoundly simple practice is justified in philosophy by Nagarjuna's not-so-simple logic.
So thought is important and unimportant, necessary and unnecessary. Lau Tsu tells us 'True words seem paradoxical' and this is what Nagarjuna proves in logic.We-are and are-not, says Heraclitus, and this dual-aspect view is what we need to understand for a grasp of what Buddhism is about. We have to go beyond the binary yes-no, on-off kind of thinking that causes Western metaphysics to be useless, and it's not an easy trick to learn. . , .
.
Sorry, more sloppy writing on my part. I wasn't using the term "real world" as precisely as you are. I was just trying to make a common sense distinction between, say, the pencil on my desk, and the symbol "pencil" in my mind. I should likely try to upgrade my lingo as you are not the first person I've confused with it.
Quoting FrancisRay
Not exactly, as documented by my 40 billion posts on the forum. :-) Instead, allow me to remind you of what we seem to have already agreed upon, using philosophy to explore it's limits.
Quoting FrancisRay
To play the role of quibble monster, :-) to the degree I "throw philosophy away" I run no such risk, as the nonsense philosophy will go in the trash can with all the rest. To the degree I attempt to find the "correct philosophy" then I will inevitably be generating conflict with those who find a different "one true way" than I do.
As example, consider Christianity (I don't know Buddhist history and so can't use that as example). Christianity is a very well intended philosophy about bringing people together in peace. And what happened? It broke up in to a thousand sects which then came in to conflict with each other, sometimes with murderous results. If I were to propose some new flavor of Christianity which supposedly would fix this, I would thereby be joining and adding to the ongoing conflict.
My point here, as usual, is that the electro-chemical information medium that ALL philosophies are made of operates by a process of division, thus ANYTHING made of thought generates more division. That is, all philosophies inherent the properties of the medium which they are all made of.
To the degree one accepts such a perspective, it puts philosophy as a whole in a new light. This is fascinating to me, but again, need not be to anyone else.
Quoting FrancisRay
Again, please observe me generating large volumes of philosophy. And please recall our earlier agreement regarding using thought to explore it's limits.
Ok, I bow to your expertise on Nagarjuna, of whom I still know basically nothing. Just wish to add that there is another simpler way to justify a "no-thought route", one's experience.
I'm really not trying to argue with anyone's philosophy so much as I'm seeking the most efficient route the bottom line. One could spend years studying "no thought" philosophy and then come to it that way. Or, one could simply try "no thought", see what happens, draw one's own conclusions, and proceed from there.
Again, whatever works and to each their own is agreeable to me. But, this is a philosophy forum so if one person says "tomato" the next person is likely going to say "tomawto", as that is the dance we do here.
I agree with all of this!
Imho, the source of the binary thinking is thought itself, how it operates. The evidence for this is that everything the mind touches gets chopped up in to opposing binary pieces. If true, we can escape binary thinking simply by not thinking. Or more realistically most of the time, by lowering the volume of the thought machine.
I agree that lowering the volume of thought is not necessarily simple pimple instant easy, especially at first, but then it need not be very complicated either. A high school kid can teach simple mechanical exercises for calming the mind.
A possible problem with all of the above is that it's a temporary solution, not a permanent solution, much in the same way that eating lunch does not end hunger forever.
And because it's not a permanent solution, it's not glamorous, which turns out to be a really lame marketing strategy. :-) And the thing is, we often don't want simple solutions, but instead a glorious mountain to climb. Well, ok then, everyone is free to climb if that is the path they prefer. Not complaining, just attempting however ineptly to explore alternatives.
"The Truth" lies just beyond the symbolic realm. It's right there in front of our face at all times.
Imho, the source of the binary thinking is thought itself, how it operates. [reply="Hippyhead; 464109"]"
This is what Nagarjuna proves. The psycho-physical is a world-of-opposites for this reason ,since it is constructed by Mind. These are the categories of thought, and they would have to be transcended for Nagarjuna;s 'emptiness', the Unity spoken of in mysticism and the Christian doctrine of Divine Simplicity. If the source of binary thinking is thought itself (and not the binary world 'out there') then the source of the world 'out there' is thought. .
----"The evidence for this is that everything the mind touches gets chopped up in to opposing binary pieces".
Yes. It is not possible to think without using the categories of thought, which are binary. You're making many good Buddhist arguments; . .
For meditation it is not necessary to stop thinking. Rather, it is necessary not to follow ones thoughts. This is not an easy trick to learn.
--- "A possible problem with all of the above is that it's a temporary solution, not a permanent solution, much in the same way that eating lunch does not end hunger forever."
Yes. Hence Buddhism is rather more than just calming the mind.
On what grounds do you make this claim?
And if you were actually motivated by what you claim to be motivated by, reason, you would surgically identify whatever aspects of religion (which you are clearly very interested in) you can make constructive use of, and then throw the rest in the trash bin. It's entirely possible to do this without in anyway whatsoever becoming religious.
Every day you go to thread after thread on forum after forum to toss all the things you don't like about religion in the dumpster, which is rational. But then you jump in the dumpster and endlessly roll around in all the discarded trash which you have already identified as being of no use to you, which is NOT rational.
If it should be true that there is absolutely nothing about religion which you can make constructive use of, ok, fair enough. Lots of people feel that way. I have no complaint, to each their own. Should this be the case, then what is rational about spending every day for years in religion threads???
The thing is praxis, you want to lecture everyone about reason, but you don't actually believe in it yourself. That's why everyone finds you so tiresome. You're a heretic. To your own position.
Here's what reason looks like. Shit or get off the pot. Find something in religion you can make constructive use of and focus on that, or let religion go, and redirect your time and intelligence at more promising targets.
And, if I actually believed in reason, I would be taking all the good advice I've been getting to walk away from you and leave you to your fate. But, I'm as nutzo as you are, so no worries, it's safe, the circus merry-go-round can go on, endlessly round and round and round, to nowhere.
Ok, cool, so we aren't really debating, just using different language and methods to head in the same general direction.
Quoting FrancisRay
Hmm.... Don't quite get this. Would you like to expand on this a bit? Do you mean, like, the moon is made of thought? Probably not. Obviously, I don't get it.
Quoting FrancisRay
Except that I didn't know they were Buddhist arguments until, um, yesterday. :-) It seems that somehow I've absorbed at least some of Buddhism from, somewhere, without being educated enough to identify the original source. Or maybe I've just come to a similar place by my own methods. No idea really.
Quoting FrancisRay
Yes, I understand. I'm not attempting to redefine Buddhism, but perhaps, um, offering related alternatives?
Quoting FrancisRay
Fair question. Hmm....
In part, it's just a language issue, as I tend to use the words "real" and "truth" to refer to that which symbols point to. Not very important, I wouldn't argue with other word choices.
This language use seems to arise from my experience of spending tons of time in the North Florida woods. I've developed this sense that what we're really looking for is embedded in the material world. Some people might call this God? Not being religious myself I guess I chose the word truth.
Truth is usually thought of a some collection of symbols which point accurately to the material world. I'm ok with that, but to me, it feels more like truth is the real world, and symbols merely point to the truth. Some symbols are more accurate than others, but to me, they're still all just symbols, and not "truth".
Dunno if I've explained that well, even to myself.
If the source of 'binary distinctions (the categories of thought) is thought itself, the very nature of thought, then thought is the source of distinctions and divisions in the world. This is mysticism. The idea is that Reality is undivided and free of all distinctions but thought chops it up into subjects and objects, here and there, this and that. This chopping-up or symmetry-breaking would create the words of life and death. Buddhism would be a way to re-unify life and death by revealing the underlying state common to both.
---" It seems that somehow I've absorbed at least some of Buddhism from, somewhere, without being educated enough to identify the original source. Or maybe I've just come to a similar place by my own methods. No idea really."
I think you're proving that all that is required for Bu8ddhist philosophy is clear thinking, or enlightened common sense. Metaphysics becomes very easy once one sees what Nagarjuna is saying. He is saying the metaphysics does not endorse a positive result, which is a fact well-known to most philosophers. It is just that most cannot make sense of this fact. Mysticism allows us to make sense of it and thus understand philosophy. .
When Lao Tsu is asked how he knows the truth about origins and creation he replies, 'I look inside myself and see'. He says nothing about looking 'out there' in the world. . .
.
Ah, yes, exactly what I meant as well. Just a language hiccup, thanks for clarifying.
Quoting FrancisRay
I like this a lot. If you wish, please expand on the "underlying state common to both". I've expressed similar ideas in my own more clumsy language, but the underlying state notion is new. Tell me more.
Quoting FrancisRay
Ok, and for those allergic to anything that smells like it might be a religion, we might also just call it clear thinking. Though, that said, I'm not sure clear thinking alone is sufficient. But anyway...
Quoting FrancisRay
If you wish, I would welcome a further expansion of this too. How does mysticism allow us to make sense of metaphysics? I suppose it might help if I knew what metaphysics is :-) always forgetting that.
As is probably clear by now, I'm not a philosopher in the sense of being well read etc. You know, my source material is pine trees, palmetto bushes, armadillos, dirt etc. :-) I have little knowledge of who said what about who what and when and so on.
Ok, well, was Lao Tsu an urban dweller, or did he live in the country?
I do hear what you're saying. The experience I'm reporting does happen within, that's true.
I'm just reporting how that experience feels to me, anecdotal report, that's all. If I were to jump in the lake, I'd get all wet. When I jump in to the woods, should I stay long enough, I get all "truth". That is, whatever it is we're attempting to point to, it feels to me as if it's embedded in the material world. This proves nothing, except that I like it. :-)
How many times do I need to point out the obvious? I’m arguing that Buddhism is a religion rather than a philosophy. That is the core of the topic, after all. If you don’t want to respond to my points then don’t. Whinny ad hominem attacks are not an argument.
Me either.
Quoting FrancisRay
Me either. Well, other than the emotional buzz of the gotcha dance, I get that part.
Quoting FrancisRay
Seems reasonable, but unproven.
Quoting praxis
It's the core of the thread title, eight pages ago. Elegant arguments from highly informed members revealing the limitations of the title have since been presented at great length.
Quoting praxis
Don't see any.
Right, the limited view that has been freed by a modern perspective, where we can see Buddhism as a philosophy, science, art, or indeed, a religion.
You seem to highly value a modern perspective, despite the terrible loss of an intimate relationship with reality and our deep existential plight. I guess it’s worth the price of admission?
Quoting Hippyhead
No doubt. Claiming that I don’t understand the issues rather than addressing my points is a feeble minded attempt to invalidate anything I say and a logical fallacy.
Cute caricature that shows how your mind works.
The crazy thing is that the only thing I’m doing in this topic is committing the cardinal sin of arguing that Buddhism is a religion. :lol:
Except that you don't understand the issues, so it's not an insult, but rather a factual statement.
So show where I demonstrate a lack understanding.
Wow! Two entire sentences! You must be exhausted. Do you want to lay down?
Buddhism is a religion! OMG! Who knew??? Fascinating!!!
If only you could be so frugal with what bounces around in your head. But please, you were going to show there I demonstrate a lack of understanding.
Ok, but first, pay the bill.
1) Start a thread where you share your insights on any topic of your choice without making any reference whatsoever to anything anybody else has said.
2) Either find something in any religion which you can personally put to constructive use and explore that, or let the subject of religion go and move on to some other arena where you can find something of constructive use. That is, be rational. This is only a request that you be loyal to your own chosen methodology, nothing more.
When you can show that 1) you're not a chronic troll, and that 2) you do have a perspective which you believe in enough to act on yourself, I predict your ratings will rise.
:lol:
Will assist with this to the degree desired, after you pay the bill.
If you choose not to pay the bill, ok, no problem. I'm not going to chase you around and yell at you etc. But I probably will finally take the advice to ignore you. Maybe that matters, maybe not, no idea really, up to you.
You’ve really outdone yourself this time, Hippyhead, and that’s a tall order. You should at least try to show where I demonstrate a lack of understanding and perhaps regain some semblance of credibility.
As is probably clear by now, I'm not a philosopher in the sense of being well read etc. You know, my source material is pine trees, palmetto bushes, armadillos, dirt etc. :-) I have little knowledge of who said what about who what and when and so on.".
Okay. Here goes. Let me do this in stages. You are at a huge advantage over most folk since you have not been brainwashed and confused by studying philosophy academically. I had the same advantage and am very thankful.
The first,task would be to figure out why so few people understand metaphysics. The reason is that all positive theories fail in logic. A 'positive' theory states that Reality is 'this' as opposed to 'that',It is the idea that one or more of the categories of thought are fundamental. For instance, we might conjecture that Reality is Mind as opposed to Matter or vice versa, or that we do or do-not have freewill, that we exist or exist-not and so on. These are extreme, partial, selective and positive views. .
These questions are undecidable in dialectical logic because both their available answers are logically indefensible. It is for this reason that many philosophers conclude that metaphysics is hopeless and a waste of time. Kant puts this conclusion as, 'All selective conclusions about the world as a whole are undecidable'. Bradley puts it as, 'Metaphysics does not endorse a positive result'. This is the reason why metaphysics seems hopeless to most people.
What creates this problem is not the failure of these theories but the assumption that no other kind of theory is possible. This assumption is popular because the only other kind of theory is the one endorsed by the mystics. This possibility is rejected as a matter of principle by Russell's 'Western' tradition of thought. I know of no academic philosophers who have a grasp of what lies beyond the walls of the Academy. It is assumed the mystics have nothing of value to say about philosophy. The lack of scholarship is astonishing.
The solution is obvious. It is to assume all positive theories are false and this is why they are absurd. Then we are forced to adopt the neutral metaphysical theory endorsed by Nagarjuna, who is famous for explaining the philosophical foundation of Buddhism. When we assume a neutral theory is true we immediately dispose of all undecidable metaphysical problems. The solution is instant and comprehensive. .
I'll pause before continuing because this is the essential point. If we grasp that metaphysical problems are undecidable then we are half way to understanding metaphysics. .
A useful problem to study is the 'Something-Nothing' problem. Which came first? This is an undecidable question and the source of endless angst in philosophy. Mysticism says the answer is neither, and if we see how this is possible then we have understood the problem and solved it. The answer takes us beyond the categories of thought thus beyond the possibility of thought, but even so we can think about it. , .
So, the first proposition for a solution for metaphysics would be 'All positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible'. This is the problem, If you can see what this statement means and agree with it then we can move on to solution.
You're right to say that thinking is not enough for an understanding of Reality, but it's enough to solve metaphysical problems. . . .
.
Quoting FrancisRay
Quoting Hippyhead
I'm still unclear as to what you mean. Partly because, to be frank, I'm not well-educated on philosophy (and I don't think it's wrong to say that a lack of education would influence one's aversion or resistance to the subject). Nonetheless I think philosophy could be good for a lot of things.
But the Buddhist position, as far as I know, is we get caught up in a world that is continually in flux and bound to fall apart if we don't hold it together; things arise, are maintained, and cease when they can no long be maintained. Nevertheless, in Buddhism, we must use these things as tools for a good reason, whether it be thinking or perception.
I think philosophers might argue what that "good reason" is, or what defines "good", etc. I think this isn't totally bad. It can lead to good dicussion. But the Buddhist approach is: you won't get there just by thinking or debating about it, and while you're sitting there debating, you're getting old and dying along with everyone else. And even if you do come to an agreement, other factors may come into play to challenge it and break it apart. It's nature. I think that's what TheMadFool is referring to when he speaks of "entropy," but in Buddhism, arising and ceasing should both be taken into account, and we learn how to make good things arise and how to make bad things cease for the purpose of ending our own suffering if not the suffering of others. The response isn't pessimism, but sobriety.
Quoting FrancisRay
Quoting FrancisRay
I think the trick is actually quite involved with respecting whatever sense of "reality" we get from sensory experience and using it wisely. Regardless of whether or not a rock is ultimately real, we can still treat it with respect and not just smash it out of impulse or throw it at people. And that's partly because we're willing to train ourselves not to engage in those behaviors and observe our impulses and refrain from them. From there, we can observe our ideas about "rock", and even observe the sensory experience itself, and just let it fade away and let the mind settle into something deeper. The path is gradual; the Buddha doesn't have us thinking about this "reality" business right off that bat while we're still indulging in fine wine and even killing insects. Putting those habits aside is necessary for entering meditative absorption where thinking and evaluation are quite quickly refined and then put aside.
Looking at Zen, we see the usage of koans, which to my understanding are meant to help us break through a habitual tendency to crave logical clarity. And similarly, in Thai Theravada, we have all sorts of methods for cultivating dispassion to our sense of self, our body, and even the sensory world. Everything from koans to the suttas are tools for arousing dispassion and letting go to anything one is attached to, be it duality or non-duality. So while getting beyond "yes-no" thinking is arguably quite important (especially since it helps us attend to nuance and avoid getting trapped in our own ideas), it is not the essence, which is dispassion and release. Given that that binary way of thinking can be transcended by directing focus to dispassion and release, I think that's where the focus should be placed. And it still takes place in a binary of "suffering and not suffering". And not everyone wants to do it, because they're impassioned with ideas and philosophies. Edit: perhaps in the Buddha's words, they haven't seen the drawbacks and the path to escape from those drawbacks (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/adinava/index.html).
The origin of "problems", the Buddha said, is just our ignorance. Meaning, we don't pay attention to the processes of our life, especially the process of suffering. From that one point we start attending wrongly, intending wrongly, speaking wrongly, and acting wrongly; this includes getting caught up in binary thinking or even non-dual thinking, having failed to realize the limits of both. When we decide that we want to be free from suffering, we'll start to move into a better direction. Virtue, meditation, insight, thinking, robes, food, lodgings, a joyful life etc. - all are used with this purpose in mind, under the premise that this focus will solve our problems (though not necessarily the world's problems).
Nice post. I can agree with most of what you say but not this statement. But it's quite a technical matter and not easy to deal with on a forum. .
In short, a koan draws our attention to the need to transcend dialectical logic and the categories of thought for the true nature of Reality. .Having done so we can achieve logical clarity.
For this clarity we would have to grok Nagarjuna's theory of two truths or worlds, by which all selective statements about reality are inadequate. This is a double-aspect theory by which reality has a Conventional and Ultimate aspect, both of which have to be taken into account. Thus the endlessly (seemingly) self-contradictory nature of the language of mysticism and non-duality. It is logically rigorous and precise but takes effort to understand.
The idea that mysticism is 'illogical' or logically unclear is a misunderstanding. It's answer for 'this or that' metaphysical questions is the same in every case. It is to reject both for a middle way. It was said earlier that 'middle way' refers to the balance between indulgence and asceticism, but this is just one application. It has infinite applications and is indispensable in philosophy. It would be because this idea is indispensable that Western philosophy, which has no knowledge of it, goes nowhere
e from one century to the next. . .
Pardon my enthusiasm. I become agitated when anyone suggests mysticism is not logical and cannot be analysed in philosophy. This is the idea peddled by the professors, and it is poppycock and balderdash.
Of course, all this talking can be be sidestepped by meditation and realisation as advised by the Buddha, but in a sceptical world analysis becomes vital.
Patiently awaiting receipt of your payment. Take your time. Or ignore, as you wish.
Ok, got that part.
Quoting FrancisRay
Confused by this. Remember, no philosophy education here.
Quoting FrancisRay
Ok, academics are trapped in a box, and unwilling to consider alternate theories from outside the box, such as those offered by mystics.
Quoting FrancisRay
Not obvious to we armadillo worshippers sadly. :-) The neutral metaphysical theory? Are you happy you signed up to teach a kindergarten class? :-)
Quoting FrancisRay
I get that typical Western thought seeks simplistic dualistic answers such as the classic "exists or not" paradigm of the God debate. I've argued against such dualism extensively all over the form, using space as the example of a phenomena which transcends "exists or not". So I'm surely receptive to what you're saying. It's possible that all that's needed here is more translation from your style of language to mine. Also possible I'm only touching the tip of the iceberg, so keep going if you wish.
Quoting FrancisRay
So far, I would say I get this to a limited degree, maybe. Enough to be interested, not enough to be done.
Quoting TLCD1996
Are you referring to my quote just above?
Could you perhaps expand on dispassion and release? If this is a bottom line, I'm interested in bottom lines.
This could be a key point of divergence between Buddhism and whatever we want to call my perspective. As I may have said too many times, I see the origin of human suffering as the nature of that which we are made of psychologically, thought. The evidence for this is that psychological suffering is universal in all times and places, and thus must arise from something we all have in common. That can't be anything within culture, as there is huge diversity among cultures.
That said, should this be true, then ignorance of it would be a source of suffering.
I can get this. The vast majority of reality is space, and it would seem to inhabit a middle way between existence and non-existence. If true, then the vast majority of the God debate (all sides of it) is built upon a foundation of sand. If that is true, it might teach us much about our relationship with authority.
I just read your conditions with the intent to comply but — and I guess it shouldn’t have come as a surprise — they’re unmeetable or not coherent enough to follow.
If you lack the honor to withdraw a lie then own your dishonesty.
If you find you can not write a thread which doesn't reference other people's ideas, write a thread about that.
Is the following your only condition then?
That’s quite easy, particularly if, in all fairness, it only needs to meet the quality of your posts.
Thanks for sharing this! I think I'm understanding a little more of what you're saying; it's a bit tricky for me to get through the technical language. It would probably not be a bad idea to read up on Nagarjuna. Do you have any recommended reading as an intro?
Quoting Hippyhead
Yes; I have an idea of what you're trying to say, but am not totally certain. Are you saying that thinking itself is the cause of suffering, or that the problems that philosophy tries to solve are totally imagined? Both seem to be agreeable in their own way.
Quoting Hippyhead
I believe so. Dispassion is what takes us to the end, which is release. See:
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.030.than.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.029.than.html
Basically, both suttas are saying that there are different fruits of practice. First, a monk gains food and other requisites if not fame. Two things can happen: either he grows intoxicated (impassioned) with it, or he remains heedful and dispassionate toward it. If he is dispassionate, he goes for something more refined.
The list is, from coarse to most refined: virtue, concentration (i.e. jhanas), knowledge and vision (wisdom), or "non-occasional awareness release" (basically, liberation from suffering).
Except for the last, it is possible for one to grow intoxicated with each one and thus "pass over the heartwood" (or miss the point) of practice. In this sense, one must not rest content merely with comfortable or pleasant living, a virtuous or "good" life, the peace of meditation, or even insight itself. Otherwise, one is still bound to samsara (another good reason to not think too much and just do the thing). Release happens, any way, as a result of vision (if that vision is used skillfully, with "right intention"). This is because if one sees things as they are, one "sees all things as worthy of non-attachment", to put it simply (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.080.than.html). Thus, one lets go. This is not necessarily the same as having an intellectual understanding of the statement; often it seems that people tend to equate the statement to "I should be un-attached". It's limited to the imagination and hasn't really gone deep. When it goes deep, you totally let go, so they say. However, whatever limited intellectual understanding we have can be used if we trust that it's pointing to something deeper (this is something we can take advantage of in meditation; if a dhamma-phrase has meaning and allows us to let go or abandon unwholesome qualities, we should use it even if we can't completely understand it).
One gets a taste of release each time one gets into a state of meditation, or when one puts coarser things aside (e.g. sensual pleasures) in favor of a more refined state of peace. The thing is, you need to pay attention and understand it to make it go deeper, otherwise it comes and goes like any other form of happiness and you have little understanding of how it can be used or cultivated; the Buddha practiced jhana meditation when he was a young child, but it wasn't until after his ascetic years that he realized he could use it to find total release. However, this is pretty much the name of the game: we usually don't understand meditation right away, and that's why it's difficult. But the more we do it and the more we pay attention to it, the more skilled we become and the closer we get.
Quoting Hippyhead
Sure, but what says "we are made of thought" and why is suffering limited to that? I think we need to understand that thought isn't just logical thought or philosophical thought or discursive thought or verbal thought. If we look a little deeper, we see that a lot of our state of mind is based off of intention and attention. Those, too, are what the Buddha calls "sankhara", or "fabrications". They're something we do, with (and because of) ignorance. And fabrication is something that happens even at the subtlest levels of consciousness, such as those attained through meditative absorption. This is why nirvana is also called "unfabricated" or "unconditioned". There's no intention or acting force to "create it"; it's uncreated.
So yeah, it's not limited to culture. Culture is something that comes out of this process we call thinking, specifically when it's happening between multiple people.
It's yet another reason to just look at suffering as we experience it and not get caught in the labelling. Even though the Buddha defines suffering as "sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair" it's not like we have to look at our minds and check off the list to see what we're experiencing. At some point, such as in jhana, the "Dukkha" becomes quite refined and hard to pin down with these words. The words become pointers for the mind, and the meanings become progressively more refined and impactful.
Yes, this. Don't mean all thinking is bad, but rather that psychological suffering arises from the properties of the medium (thought) which both thinker and his thoughts are made of. Our genius also arises from those properties.
GENIUS: Thought divides the single unified reality in to conceptual parts, allowing us to rearrange the conceptual parts in our minds to create new visions of reality, that is, to be creative.
SUFFERING: Thought creates a human experience of reality as being divided between "me" and "everything else", with "me" being very small, and "everything else" being very big. This perspective gives rise to fear, which in turn is the source of most human problems.
Both the genius and the suffering arise from the nature of thought itself, from how it operates through a process of conceptual division.
Quoting TLCD1996
No, not this. Problems are real.
Quoting TLCD1996
Ok. Why are all things worth of non-attachment, in theory at least? Not arguing, just trying to get a better understanding, to the degree it is possible to explain in logic and words etc.
Quoting TLCD1996
Off topic perhaps, but I've long wondered what relationship this might have with the advice of Jesus to "die and be reborn". Don't know what he meant, but sounds similar?
Quoting TLCD1996
Ok, that makes sense. I experience peace in the woods, and then start chasing that, and when I don't get it I'm frustrated, annoyed, suffering etc. So long as I don't understand what's happening I'm stuck on the treadmill of chasing. Like that, more or less?
I do. :-) My argument is that suffering is made of thought, so to the degree one is not thinking, one doesn't suffer. One is not happy either, as happiness is also made of thought. Not sure how to translate this in to Buddhism language, or if that would be appropriate.
I'm still interested in learning more about this, should anyone wish to chew on it. Underlying state common to life and death? Hmmm...
Confused by this. Remember, no philosophy education here.
We can go no further until this is clear. Take the question 'Is this bicycle male or female?' Both answers are absurd so it is undecidable. The question embodies an assumption that renders it so.
'Dialectical' logic is binary. Its job is to decide between a thesis and its counter-thesis. The thesis may be 'Socrates is wise' or 'God exists'. In each case the system has to decide whether the thesis is true or false. Analysis shows that metaphysical questions take the form of 'Does two plus two equal three or five?'. Thus they are undecidable. The answer is 'neither'', and we are offered no third alternative. .
But they are not intractable. The answer is clearly 'four'. They become intractable when for some reason we refuse to accept 'four' as an answer and demand an answer to the question as stated. Thus Western thinkers find metaphysical questions both undecidable and intractable, while 'mystical' philosophers find them undecidable and easily answerable. They are answered by denying their extreme answers and endorsing a third alternative.
This logical issue is what divides Western dualism from mysticism and non-dualism. In university philosophy the undecidability of these questions is a barrier-to-knowledge and a frustrating mystery. It prevents philosophers from solving or understanding philosophical problems. The solution is easy but it is mysticism, so ideology wins and metaphysics is declared incomprehensible,
It's all tosh. When one adopts the Middle Way view metaphysical problems immediately evaporate. All of them have a third answer.
So, if you ask a mystic 'Do we have freewill' the answer will be yes and no. If you ask, 'Do we exist' the answer will be the same. These anwers ask us to reconsider the categories of thought. If Heraclitus is right to say 'We exist and exist-not', then this sends us back to examine our categories of thought. The answer transcends the categories, just as does Reality itself.
So Wordsworth's 'spirit that rolls through all things', which no doubt you sense as you walk through the woods, leads us beyond dialectical logic to Unity and to the idea that reality is 'advaita' or 'not-two'.. This is called 'non-dualism' because it takes us beyond the dualism that renders metaphysical questions intractable (and not just undecidable).
If you want to grasp this issue better I may need to refer you elsewhere to an essay or two. I'm enjoying the discussion but there may be too much ground to cover to get to the end of it here. Simple as it is, it took my five years to get to the bottom of this logical issue when I started out. So don't feel bad if it doesn't immediately make sense.
. . . , ,. . .
. . . . .
I realise you;re almost on board with all of this otherwise I wouldn't be putting in the time. The trouble is that this is a technical logical issue and some grasp of Aristotle's dialectic and 'laws of thought' is required. A practitioner has no need to bother with all of this. They can by-pass the logical issues by leaping straight to truth and understanding. But a philosophical understanding requires getting ones hands grubby and dealing with the intellectual details. . .
Yes. This is roughly what the mystics discover. Thus suffering is both real and unreal, since when we transcend psychology we transcend suffering. Your vview would be incorrect only insofar as you reify the intellect and psychology. But Kant notes that the source of the intellect must be a phenomenon that is not an instance of a category, and this idea takes us beyond psychology and suffering. .
Exactly. Meister Eckhart dismisses the argument as prattle. Complete waste of time.
You clearly know a lot about many of the issues surrounding the practice, but the logic is not often studied by practitioners since it is not interesting if our goal is soteriological - as the Buddha points out. It is a little studied area of knowledge.
The academic literature on Nagarjuna is best avoided in my opinion. It usually just massively complicates the issues. It generally treats Nagarjuna's logic as if it is unusual or idiosyncratic in some way, when in fact it is just ordinary logic. The most straightforward and easiest introduction I've found is The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way/ by Khenpo Tsutrim Gyamptso. This deals with what Nagarjuna proves and the form of his argument. It does not explain the logical issues. . . .
For the logical issues there's an essay here that covers the ground. https://www.bernardokastrup.com/2017/05/aristotle-nagarjuna-and-law-of-non.html
You’re not speaking so I have nothing to listen to but ad hominem attacks. My last post on topic was the following.
——————
I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority.?praxis
Okay. So this is your definition of religion. In this case Buddhism is not a religion.
— FrancisRay
I assume you're claiming this because Buddha's are not considered Gods and therefore not an ultimate authority. What matters is that in order to be part of the religion, the authority has access to knowledge or experience that others do not, and that their authority is beyond questioning. Those who question are heretics, outsiders, or otherwise not considered part of the tradition.
People often point to the K?l?ma Sutta and say something like, "see, the Buddha says to not take anything on authority and simply try it out for yourself." Notice that nowhere does the doctrine entertain the possibility that the doctrine could be mistaken in any way or invite criticism or reform. In philosophy, science, and art, revision is an integral part.
——————
And don’t blame me for Hippyhead’s nuttyness.
Why not try to learn? What;s the point of arguing with a Buddhist about what Buddhism is and is-not?
Have you no humility at all? How can you learn when you believe you know it all already? You cannot expect people here to keep responding to your comments when you invariably ignore their replies.
Nobody is attacking you personally. They just cannot see any point in your approach.and find it wearisome. You could change this in an instant if you chose to stop imagining Buddhist doctrine and practice is so useless that even you can find fault with it, before even learning what it is. .
The fact that you call Hippyhead a nutcase is a reflection on you and has nothing to with him I find he speaks nothing but good sense. You have an unusual opportunity here since there are a few posters who know what they're talking about. I would suggest taking advantage of this opportunity. . . . .
I’m willing to entertain all the meta-discussion if it’s a prerequisite to your returning to the topic. Let me know if it is. I’ll reiterate my position below and wait for your response in case the meta-chat isn’t necessary.
I’m arguing that Buddhism is a religion rather than a philosophy, primary by pointing out two distinguishing aspects:
Because metaphysics are not empirical some special mode of understanding or experience must be necessary, if it’s not merely theory. If someone were to claim what the nature of reality is, and they had access that others did not have, those who don’t have access will necessarily need to take the claim on faith. In this way ultimate authority and metaphysics go hand in hand in religion.
Now, where we left off, you told me that by my own definition Buddhism is not a religion but you didn’t explain how. There is something of a clue in your last post where you write, “It is all about discovering what is true. It is not about being told!!! If you do not understand this then you understand exactly nothing about mysticism.”
With that you seem to be equating Buddhism with mysticism. Obviously there is mysticism in Buddhism, but just as obvious is the fact that there’s much more than mysticism. I think you might agree that mysticism could be said to be a mode of access to the nature of reality, and that the Buddha had this access. However, this access is uncommon and therefore the common folk necessary need to take whatever the Buddha claims about the nature of reality on faith. Many of the claims are unverifiable, by any known means. For instance, there are countless questions about rebirth that no one on earth could answer. Questions of this kind are rebuffed as ‘imponderables’.
How is Buddhism not a religion by my definition?
I agree that Buddhism is a religion, but it seems in your view, religion is bad, so the point you always seem to laboring is that insofar as Buddhism is a religion, then this is a bad thing. Religious authority is to be rejected, religious experience not to be trusted.
Whereas my view is that, yes, Buddhism is a religion, and there's nothing the matter with that. Yes, I think there is a conflict between modern liberal individualism and religion, but the former is created on unsound premisses - basically on the premise that there is nothing beyond the individual ego, that the individual is him or herself (along with science) the only real authority. This might be a sound principle in terms of civil culture, but when it comes to 'matters of ultimate concern', most individuals don't have the insight, discipline, or skill required to navigate them.
I agree that in Western culture, religious authority has often be used to blatanly political ends especially in pre-modern culture. But I see the problem as the imposition of political power rationalised by religious dogma. In principle, at least, all the Biblical religions are supposed never to convert by force, although as is obvious, this principle is widely flouted.
In any case, I disagree that religions are necessarily bad, which is what you always seem to argue. They can be, they often have been, but they don't have to be.
Quoting praxis
There was arguably a single metaphysical understanding in Western philosophy, up until the fragmentation of world-views introduced by the transition to modernity. But to show that would be an enormous undertaking, because of the vast nature of the subject.
Quoting praxis
Let me re-post some of the passage from Edward Conze on the nature of religious authority:
In the early Buddhist texts, the authoritative summary of kinds of religious views is the Brahmajala Sutta (the Net of Views). Throughout it, we read the following formulation:
However, in Buddhism it is understood from the beginning that others may indeed 'see and comprehend' these 'dhammas', provided they go about it properly. That is why, in Buddhism, the Buddha is a type, not a singular instance or the only one of a kind.
I'm arguing that the animus against religion is based on the history of religious oppression in Western cultural history, which has left a deep shadow in collective psyche. It's the source of the 'anything but religion' feeling, in my view.
See https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/12/does-reason-know-what-it-is-missing/?searchResultPosition=1
Ok, I get this, and have been taking that approach in the God debate, without knowing what to call it.
Quoting FrancisRay
This all makes sense, and represents my view too. I think we're just working on a translation from Buddhist language to armadillo worship language. :-)
Without arguing, or suggesting what approach anyone else should pursue, we might keep in mind that I'm referencing different source material most of time. I'm getting my hands grubby with actual grubs, you know, in the dirt. :-) The philosophy is still interesting though, and this is of course a philosophy forum.
A nutcase who sometimes speaks good sense. :-) Remember folks, it's typically the ill who show up at the hospital.
I'm not debating your ideas here, just suggesting another way in which we might proceed.
Be practical.
There is a great deal of psychological suffering in the world, it's pretty much universal to one degree or another. Anything that relieves such suffering in a non-destructive manner, even if just temporarily, is good. To me, it's not that rational for us to endlessly nitpick anything which is working for someone, assuming no harm is being done to others.
Perhaps I'm too practical, but my question is, does it work? Whether it is a philosophy, or a religion, or a can of beans is of less interest here. But obviously, this is not a rule anyone has to follow, just stating my own perspective.
Thanks for the thoughtful response that I will characterize as corroborative.
I take exception to this bit though:
Quoting Wayfarer
Because you responded to it I know that you read in this topic that I’m reading Meido Moore’s new book. Meido Moore is a religious authority who’s “religious experience” I trust and who’s practice methods and techniques I study and practice, so it is rather absurd to claim that I reject all such authority.
Like so many things in life religion can be beneficial or injurious. Wouldn’t it be just as irrational to hold the view that religion is all good?
If you were practical you’d keep your silly fantasies about fellow posters to yourself and stick to the topics.
Of course! I too am sceptical of institutional religions.
Quoting praxis
Fair enough! It's just that many of your posts seem to express a hostility towards 'religion' generally and to deprecate 'faith' as a kind of intellectual weakness.
No one need take on faith a core principle of Christianity, the experience of love. Try it, if you like it, do more of it. No one need to take on faith the value of meditation. Try it, if you like it, do more of it. Fully empirical. No authority involved.
Faith is obviously not going to be a useful methodology for you, as is true of many people, myself included. This is way beyond totally clear and so the matter should be considered settled and set aside.
My argument with your perspective would not be that you are a heretic to Christianity, Buddhism or religion in general, as I have no complaint with that at all. My argument would be that you are a heretic to your own chosen methodology, reason.
It's simply not rational to spend years fighting a holy war against faith when you can simply toss faith in the dumpster and walk away. That done, your time and intelligence can then be redirected at those methods which you do find useful. That would be rational.
Whether there is anything at all within the field of religion that you would find useful is unknown to me. If you can find nothing useful in religion, I don't see that as an obstacle as many of the same benefits are available through reason alone. If it's true there is nothing anywhere in religion that you would find useful, then the rational act would be to walk away from religion threads and invest your time elsewhere.
I don’t believe that I’ve done that in this topic.
If we define practical as keeping you as a member of this thread who is engaged by the other members, certain issues need to be addressed. That said, you're headed in the right direction so just keep going and then my silly fantasies will not be necessary.
That seemed to me the implication of this:
Quoting praxis
I agree the whole issue of religious authority is vexed, that it is often abused, and that appeals to faith often underwrite ludicrous behaviours and ideologies. But I still don't think that amounts to a reason to reject the whole idea. (In other words - I still have faith :-) )
One approach is to spend a lifetime trying to find the good authorities while weeding out the bad ones. Ok, to each their own, but this may be a highly inefficient use of time.
Another more efficient approach could be to discard all philosophies, dogmas, doctrines, assertions, ideologies, understandings, insights etc in a single move. If we're not chasing such things, we don't require authorities.
Authorities and philosophies etc are based on the assumption that the problem we're trying to address arises from the content of thought. Thus, the authorities suggest various ways that content should be edited.
If it is instead true that the problem of human suffering arises from the medium of thought itself, then we're looking at a mechanical issue which can be addressed by simple mechanical means. Don't really need experts and authorities for this. And no one need believe me about this either. They can conduct their own experiments and come to their own conclusions. No faith needed. No authorities needed.
My post above counter argues that some people should reject the entire business. If it's not working, and shows no promise of ever working, let it go, put it down, walk away. Try something else.
Open mindedness is good, but there comes a point when the most rational act might be to make a decision and act on it. Shit or get off the pot.
. . .
Yes! It's the same language. If we we have the shamanistic impulse we don't need books. Black Elk of the Dakotas tells us that when the white man arrived in their lands what amazed the tribes most was that they got their religion out of a book and argued about it like lawyers. This was incomprehsible to them.
Ha, ha! Good one. :-)
Oh hell. I'll break my rule.
You don't seem to grasp that Buddhism does not rely on authority. It expressly forbids a reliance on authority. Buddhist would consider it absurd to rely on authority. It is all about becoming our own authority.and about nothing else. An authoritative knowledge of the true nature of Reality is the entire point and purpose of it. We may choose to trust the teachings or the teacher, but we'll never understand either properly until we know they are true, and everybody knows this.
Your assumption that only the Buddha can be relied on as an authority is ridiculous. He must be turning in his grave.It's as silly as the idea that Jesus is the the only son of God. There is an old saying that when we meet the Buddha on the road we should spit on him. It's a saying the can withstand a lot of thought. . ,
If it is not a secret I'd be interested to know where your woodland retreat is. I imagine its somewhere near Walden Pond. .
Here ya go: San Felasco State Park
Briefly, what I've learned there. Twenty years ago I sold a business and was flush with cash. My idea was to fulfill the classic Hippy dream of going out West, Oregon and such. My wife wasn't up for such a big change. So I made do with what was available locally, and this park is just four miles up the road.
What I learned there is that it's not the place, it's the relationship with the place that matters. In other words, it's all in my head. Now I'm too old and lazy to get much farther than the county line, so it's good I learned that. :-)
It doesn't imply that faith is an intellectual weakness. It states that religion depends on faith in an ultimate authority as a necessary condition for it to be a religion. Clearly, faith isn't limited to religion and is expressed in our lives in various ways.
I've often considered writing a collaborative book in the form of an edited) internet discussion with all sorts of views represented as a commercial philosophical adventure, and this is the first forum I've visited in two decades where I've thought the idea might be practical. .
It’s easy to say that ‘thought is a mechanical process’ but what does it mean?
As this is a Buddhism thread, some reference ought to be made to abhidharma, which is Buddhist philosophical psychology. It is the ‘third’ of the ‘three baskets’ the other two being vinaya (monastic regulations) and sutta (sayings and teachings). It’s a methodical analysis of the whole process of perception and ideation which leads to rebirth in sa?s?ra. As such it’s a deep and difficult study, but suffice to say in this context that it is based on the same principles that (I think) you’re trying to get at. But I think that left to our own devices, none of us will come remotely near understanding it in any depth. In the Buddhist context, it is reserved for advanced studies, and it is a curriculum that takes many years to master.
Sceptics will say - and it’s a fair point - that it’s said in the Theravada Buddhist sphere (S.E. Asia) that nobody has realised Nirv??a (nibanna) in centuries. So maybe it is time to go off and ‘start the whole search again’. But first, consider what in involved and what Gautama who became the Buddha had to go through to do that.
Quoting FrancisRay
They were probably Calvinists. ;-)
Re: meeting the Buddha on the road - that is a Zen saying, and it’s not ‘spit’, it’s ‘kill’. It represents that kind of anti-nomian trend in Ch’an/Zen.
There is authority in Buddhism but it’s different to the Catholic model. In the Catholic model, the Pope is the sole authority of the one true faith, all power emanates from him. In the Buddhist model, it’s more like the ‘passing of the torch of wisdom’ through practice lineages. Centripetal as opposed to centrifugal if you like. The Buddha appointed no single successor, and that is probably the main reason. But there nevertheless is an hierarchy in the Buddhist sangha, based on years of service and other criteria, mainly peer judgement of spiritual attainment (about which, by the way, no monk is ever allowed to boast, on pain of being expelled from the Sangha. ) So overall, Buddhism is an early adopter of what would nowadays be called a ‘flat management structure’.
What I’m arguing with Praxis, is that the kind of deep and instinctive rejection of religious authority that he is expressing, is a very widespread view in modern culture. But he has an interest in Buddhism, so I think is trying to sort out ‘the wheat’ of spiritual practice from ‘the chaff’ of simple ‘belief in religion’. Would that be about right?
Second that!
---"Sceptics will say - and it’s a fair point - that it’s said in the Theravada Buddhist sphere (S.E. Asia) that nobody has realised Nirv??a (nibanna) in centuries.".
I'm happy to speak about Mahayana and the Abhidharma but must carefully avoid speaking about Theravada. I believe it is not a correct interpretation. I would explain its poor performance by reference to its poor methodology. The crucial point on a philosophy forum is that Theravada does not have a metaphysical foundation and Mahayana does. This is what Nagarjuna demonstrates, and so Therevadans have little time for him,. . .
If you are in the Theravada tradition then my apologies for this comment, I don;t want to argue about anything. The viciousness of the argument between the two stands of Buddhism is frightening and nothing to do with philosophy.
The comments of Praxis about Buddhism make a lot more sense if they refer to the Theravada tradition, a point I had forgotten. . . .
Fair enough. Yes, I need to reach for better language because I'm typically not connecting on this point. I'm not sure I have better language yet though. Some patience may be necessary. Hmm...
1) Do you consider other functions of the body to be mechanical processes?
2) Do you agree that that every ideology ever invented inevitably subdivides in to competing internal factions? It doesn't matter what the philosophy is, right? If true, the division is being generated by what all the many different philosophies have in common, thought itself.
If the division was being generated at the level of the content of thought it could be fixed at that level. By now somebody would have stumbled upon an ideology that doesn't generate division. To my knowledge that's never happened.
Quoting Wayfarer
Do we need to understand digestion to receive nutrition from an apple? Or is eating the apple enough? That is, is our physical hunger a philosophical problem, or a mechanical problem?
Quoting Wayfarer
To do a quick quibble dance, the Pope has no authority in Catholicism. He says stuff, and Catholics take it in a million different ways, any way they want to. The Pope has authority over a pile of papers in the Vatican. The Pope does have influence, can agree there.
Case in point. The source of the problem is not Buddhism, or Catholicism, or religion in general. The problem arises from that which all these things are made of. That's why such conflicts are universal, not limited to particular ideologies.
Well, what have you got nearby? It seems good to find something within 30 minutes range or so, that way you can go often. I find that time is the secret ingredient. It's like building a relationship with a person, you have to put in the time, imho.
I know there's nothing that I or anyone else could say that will convince you that Buddhism is a religion that relies on an ultimate or supreme authority but, I'll go through your post anyway. Please try not to be offended. I am not disparaging Buddhism by arguing that it's a religion or that it relies on ultimate authority.
Quoting FrancisRay
K?l?ma Sutta? If so, I've been over that.
Quoting FrancisRay
Is this a very odd way of saying the cessation of suffering?
Quoting FrancisRay
Teaching and teacher in a general sense? No. Specifically to metaphysics that is not commonly accessable? Sure, but how does this relate to faith? As I wrote earlier, there are claims in Buddhism that are not verifiable by any known means, such as claims about rebirth and karma, and no one on earth could answer countless questions about them. They are considered imponderables, despite being based on cause & effect.
Quoting FrancisRay
I forget how many acclaimed Buddhas there are, around a half dozen I think. Why does the number of them matter? There could be a thousand. What difference would it make? If anything more success stories would make what they teach seem more reliable.
Quoting FrancisRay
Kill him, rather. It's a koan, and yes, it can withstand a lot of thought, but best not.
I'm claiming that it's a necessary feature of religion, for reasons that I've pointed out and you've read and responded to. It's not a rejection any more than claiming that heat is a necessary feature of fire is a rejection of heat.
How is anything that I've posted in this topic a rejection of faith?
Honestly, I have no faith that you can, or will even try, to answer this question but I ask anyway with the faintest hope that you have an ounce of intellectual honesty.
:lol:
I assume that you’re joking. Not long ago I was a bit surprised to see far-right leaning conservatives disowning the current progressive Pope for promoting the virtue of good stewardship in relation to climate change. Once again, it’s all about tribal solidarity.
Quoting Wayfarer
A flat hierarchy. Hmmm :chin: Have you ever joined to a Buddhist sangha? You may be surprised how unflat they are, traditional ones anyway.
Even flat management structures have managers.
And what happens if you have a shitty manager (or a shitty Pope)? You fire them. Are you then left empty handed with no higher authority? In other words, is the Pope God? or is the Buddhist priest Buddha? I know... we all have Buddha nature and we’re all Gods children.
Again, without arguing what anybody else should pursue, and thank you for your patience as I beat my dogma drum... I'm not really talking about methodical analysis.
A methodical analysis would seem to assume that the problem we're addressing arises at the level of the content of thought (this idea vs. that idea) and thus can be solved at that level by editing thought content. My argument is that if conflict and suffering arose from the level of the content of thought then by now someone would have stumbled upon some ideology, philosophy or religion which has escaped conflict and suffering, and such a happy ideology would have taken over the world.
What we see instead is that every ideology, philosophy and religion seems to be generating it's own flavor of conflict. You know, if this methodical analysis were to become a new religion or ideology, it would probably only be about 2 weeks before it began breaking up in to sects which then come in to conflict with each other.
The universal nature of such conflicts in every time and place suggests that the source of the conflict is something all the ideologies have in common, which can only be that which they are all made of, thought itself, the medium.
The personal suffering of individual human beings is also a universal phenomena, no matter what time, place, culture, philosophy or religion etc that a person might be part of. This again suggests that such suffering does not arise primarily from cultural factors.
What I'm suggesting is that it's at least worth considering that psychological suffering might be usefully considered to be a mechanical issue, just as we consider every other operation of the body to be a mechanical issue.
To the degree that might be true, it would seem to open the door to mechanical remedies that are far more universally accessible than any philosophy or religion.
I once heard a story about some heart doctors who wanted to teach their patients meditation. The doctors removed all philosophical and religious concepts from their teaching because they didn't want to alienate any of the patients from the class. They wanted their class to be accessible to all their patients, no matter the patient's beliefs or level of education etc.
My critique of religion would be that it typically attempts to address problems generated by thought by piling on more thought. That's kind of like an alcoholic trying to treat his disease with a case of scotch.
What you are perhaps forgetting is that everyone on Earth is not a great philosopher like you and me. So what may seem correct in the ideal (such as my post above) it's not so ideal if most people can't get it and don't want it (such as my post above).
In the real world where real human beings live religious structures have arisen and long ago proven that they are well adapted to their environment, ie. the human condition. Religious structures typically involve some kind of authority structure so that the religion can manage the process of defining itself. And...
Most people simply ignore the authorities when ever the authorities proclamations become inconvenient to the user's own perspective. As example, the vast majority of American Catholics simply ignore the Vatican's teachings on contraception. Half of them ignore the teachings on gay rights and abortion. The list goes on and on and on....
The Pope and the Vatican are not the Catholic Church. They are instead a tiny number of influential Catholics who have appointed themselves to prominent public positions. The real Catholic Church is the community of a billion Catholics and all the many different flavors of what they believe, and way more importantly, what they actually do.
Just for a change I wouldn't agree. But the issue is too deep to delve into here.
You can’t fire God, Hippyhead, because he’s an ultimate authority. Why are you talking about those below him?
I despair. Please go away. I've given it my best shot but enough is enough.
You don't imagine we still trees here in the UK do you? Hell, they would get in the way of railways and supermarkets. .
I'm beginning to grasp your view. It appears to be Buddhism. But there's something you may be forgetting.
Earlier you said that thought leads beyod thought, and that the purpose of philosophical analysis is to reveal the limits of analysis. This is exactly the value of it. You could equally say that analysis takes us beyond ideology.
Nagarjuna's analysis disposes of ideologies. His position It is often said to be not a view but a non-view. It reveals that all the ideas we can think of don't work. Thus it sweeps away all our conjectures and beliefs and replaces them with the idea that we are unable to formulate the truth in our mind, and the only way to know it would be to transcend the mind. .
However, this is no excuse for woolly thinking or the avoidance of analysis. N uses analysis to prove the limits of analysis, thus proving that Reality conforms to a very particular descriptive metaphysical theory. This is a neutral metaphysical theory, which is the formal theory required for non-dualism and the Perennial philosophy.
This is not an ideology but it is a very definite and identifiable description of Reality.
What worries me about your view is that it might undervalue analysis. Buddhist meditation includes analysis. For a person who wants to know whether Buddhism is worth doing before booking a cave in the Himalayas, analysis is all they have to help them. Does it make sense? Is it systematic and logically sound? What does it say about such and such an issue? How does it answer metaphysical questions? Does what it says about suffering make sense? Etc. A sceptical intellectual would want to know all this before risking going on a wild goose chase and taking up the practice. They should ask these questions, and they should expect an answer.
It is demonstrable that N's neutral position is the only one that survives analysis. Every other metaphjysical view gives rise to fatal contradictions. This is the value of analysis, that it proves Buddhist doctrine. This is the reason why Western philosophy has no fundamental theory and is a mess. The only idea that works is not allowed. If we do not do the analysis we will miss this fact and be unable to understand metaphysics, .
. . . .
Yes, that's one way out of many; a common way for impatient or enthusiastic people to make themselves suffer.
And it's here that one may see that all things (of not some) are unworthy of attachment. It's partly because all things are impermanent, etc. That's because all things are conditioned by causes, and so in order to maintain them one must keep the causes going. Fueled by craving, this leads to suffering. So on one hand all things are unworthy of attachment because they're "unsatisfactory".
But another reason is because attachment leads to suffering. Like: fire is not worth touching because it's hot, and also because it gets us burnt. There's two sides to the coin In the case of your treadmill, we've started suffering as soon as we started getting attached to the peace; there's agitation as soon as craving arises; excitement and infatuation are forms of suffering (going back to Ajahn Chah's image of the snake where the tail is happiness, the head is suffering; it's one snake). Thus the Buddha summarized suffering as "the five clinging aggregates" or "the five aggregates subject to clinging" (dif. Translations for upadana khandha).
Therefore suffering arises from something a little more subtle than thinking. Once one goes beyond thinking, there's still some suffering (hence why to progress in jhana, one needs to keep an eye out for subtle agitations, like removing subtle impurities from gold).
Once one has gone beyond thinking, a lot of suffering is left behind, but that doesn't mean one is free, because the causes are still there. Therefore a stream-enterer may be free in a big way, but not totally.
This is one reason why the typical interpretation of the Four Noble Truths as "Life is suffering..." is inadequate and inaccurate; the accurate translation is "This is suffering, this is the cause of suffering...", and the Buddha attached different duties to each noble truth, thus there are four noble truths and twelve aspects. We need to investigate suffering not by wondering how "life is suffering", but by looking at the suffering involved with life. Suffering is something to be understood, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the way leading to cessation developed. Each aspect arises in our daily life, we just need to tune in. Therefore: yes to the treadmill example, and also more. And work! Otherwise it's just an idea.
Quoting FrancisRay
Thanks a lot! And much thanks to Wayfarer for tackling the issue of religion, authority, etc. so succintly.
As an initial simple practice Sadhguru advises to breath out saying 'I am not the body', and to breath out saying 'I am not the mind'. Simple as that. . .
That's one road one can take. We might also keep in mind that most people aren't all that philosophical. But for those of us who are, we start where we are and take that where we can. I started off in this reading Jiddu Krishnamurti, who is very wordy and analytical. That's the only channel I could hear on at the time. I didn't know there were any other channels! :-)
Quoting FrancisRay
I used to call my view "aphilosophy", as in "not of philosophy". Like atheism is not of theism. The experiences I was pointing to are "aphilosophy" but the explanations obviously are not. So, as you say, a view about non-views.
Quoting FrancisRay
Yes, any "truth" we formulate in our minds is just a symbol. We could take 10,000 photos of me and put them on Facebook, but none of them could ever possibly be me, as they are all photos.
Quoting FrancisRay
It appears that N is a real philosopher operating rather far above my level. Like I said, I seem to have some difficulty remembering what "metaphysical" means. :-)
Quoting FrancisRay
That's fair. Well, I'm very analytical about debunking analysis. I'm a human being, contradiction oozes out of my every pore. :-)
Seriously, I'm really not trying to overthrow the kind of analysis you are discussing, or claim it's all wrong or bad or anything at all like that. Though sometimes I may say it kind of that way as a method of stirring the conversational pot, um, you know, uh, trolling a bit. I'm just trying to offer another optional way of looking at such issues. You know, contribute to the conversation somehow. My bottom line is to each their own, and whatever works is good.
Quoting FrancisRay
Well, to be a troll :-), one can always just try meditation and see if that seems like something one wishes to do more of. Perhaps the fear of a wild goose chase arises from the stated or implied promise of some kind of permanent solution, which would indeed seem to be a big project. Hippyhead holy dogma :-) states that thought is just another mechanical function of the body, and so like all other mechanical functions it's an issue of ongoing life long management. You know, we don't go searching for some kind of food which will end our physical hunger forever.
Quoting FrancisRay
Ok, I hear you. No complaints with this. Personally, I'm not a real philosopher but instead a typoholic blowhard. So if I never understand metaphysics I'll honk about something else. But, that's me, not a rule for anyone else. This is a philosophy forum after all, so what you're discussing seems entirely appropriate.
That's interesting. Considering market research for such a book, I was curious how this thread might go over on a Buddhist forum. Any idea?
Underlying state common to both life and death. If there's more that can be said about this from within the Buddhist perspective, interested here.
I find peace in the woods, become addicted to it, and then resent my neighbor's barking dog.
Quoting TLCD1996
The resentment of my neighbor's dog is made of thought. What else could it be made of?
Quoting TLCD1996
Ok, but isn't that called being alive as a human being? Isn't a notion that we should somehow transcend suffering altogether just another form of rejecting "what is"? I'll admit I'm uncomfortable with such an agenda, but I'm more than happy to talk about it.
Quoting TLCD1996
Well, there's already a method of being totally free in a big way which is available to every person ever born. It's called death. Seriously, not being snarky here. What's the big hurry? We're all going to get there, no matter what we do, 100% guaranteed. Well ok, I guess this easier to say at age 68 than younger ages.
Quoting TLCD1996
I realize that this is Buddhist theory, which you put well. The problem we're having (or rather that I'm having) is that in my 68 years I've not yet met a single person for whom suffering has ceased. I'm open to the possibility that such people exist, for there are very talented rare end of bell curve people in every field of endeavor, but they would seem to be so rare as to be largely irrelevant.
Here's what I suspect is happening. Mozart gives a class on how to become a Mozart. Many people learn how to play the piano, but almost no one becomes a Mozart, because one has to be born in to such a talent. Point being, just because some rarely talented expert can transcend suffering permanently really tells us nothing about whether they can teach the average person to also do that.
That said, I don't think our views are really that much in conflict. I'm arguing primarily for a practical focus on suffering management. If such a focus should lead to suffering cessation, great, no complaints at all, that would obviously be good.
Desires, intentions perceptions, feeling, sound, bodily sensations and movements, elements, past habits. There's a lot of ways to look at it.
And yeah, in a certain way one is trying to change what "is". That's why interpreting the Buddha's teaching as "total acceptance" should be recognized as an oversimplification (which we often see in modernist or Romantic contexts). There's plenty of instances where the Buddha or others are warning monks not to be heedless; to stop messing around or sitting idly, and put forth some effort. Then again, there are instances where the Buddha encourages his disciples to find joy in the practice and not make it oppressive or totally unpleasant, and to be patient. There needs to be a balance between acceptance and non-acceptance.
The thing is, assuming that death is the end or nobody has realized cessation are both things we don't know for sure. Of course some might demand proof before accepting (cough cough) anything here, but to that the Buddha said one would die without having learned anything or done anything. One just binds themselves to this skeptical cycle without realizing the dangers within that.
And of course, it's totally a matter of faith. But in my opinion, the skepticism grows weaker when one meets good models - regardless of whether or not one knows if they're awakened (I believe I quoted Ajahn Amaro regarding this earlier in the thread). As for me, one thing that led me to increased faith was the fact that my teacher Ajahn Pasanno (noting our relationship is not formal) was so apt at pointing out my suffering, teasing it apart and giving me different ways of working with it. To me, it takes a lot of wisdom and skill to do that. And also, his behavior and self discipline always seemed to be of high quality and I never saw much to complain about. To me he's a really special person, and his example is quite strong.
That, and knowing that my practice seems to be having good results, even if they are really slow to come.
So faith in the practice, and also a willingness to see one's death as something other than a reason to just sit back and relax, are really an individual matter and can't be forced. It's something that happens according to causes and conditions.
I like this. The middle way, eh?
Quoting TLCD1996
Fair enough. Yea, just expressing my own faith based belief on the death issue.
To be clear, I'm not claiming no one has realized a cessation of suffering. There's no way I could know such a thing. I'm instead claiming that such a cessation would appear to be exceedingly rare.
Quoting TLCD1996
The faith part seems to be related to the very ambitious goals.
Quoting TLCD1996
Ok, good point, yea, that would help. For the sake of discussion I'm willing to assume such experts exist. Mozart was real. But can Mozart teach me to be a Mozart too? That's less clear. But if you meet models who have succeeded in taking their students where you wish to go, ok, that surely helps.
Quoting TLCD1996
Well, everyone has their own preferred flavor of faith. :-) And there's less proof of mine than yours, so there's that.
Funny you should ask because Wayfarer is a moderator, or used to be one, at dharmhawheel.net, a popular Buddhist forum. He’d be the one to ask.
The unconventional views expressed in this topic, with the exception of Wayfarer and TLCD1996, may not be well tolerated. I’ve noticed an apparent avoidance of discussing rebirth/karma here, so that’s probably good...
There are/were many such discussions on Dharmawheel.
Thanks Praxis. Perhaps that's part of what I was wondering. You know, on a philosophy forum everything is up for challenge. Not always so on sites dedicated to particular disciplines.
As a hopefully comic interlude, I would like to introduce a new term: Karma Hog
This is what we call a person who is so kind, so compassionate, and so in service to others that they're sucking up almost all the karma available within reality, leaving little left over for buttheads such as myself.
I call my wife this all the time. She'll be up at 3am feeding (again!) seven orphaned baby squirrels that just came in, and if I catch her at it I'll scowl, point an accusing finger, and snarl "DAMN KARMA HOG!!!"
She thinks this is pretty much as stupid as everything else I say, but she's a good sport about it.
DAMN KARMA HOG!!!
Yes he is. But a reliable teacher. I see it isn't only trees and armadillos from whom you learn.
"Hippyhead holy dogma :-) states that thought is just another mechanical function of the body, and so like all other mechanical functions it's an issue of ongoing life long management. You know, we don't go searching for some kind of food which will end our physical hunger forever."
We do if we have any sense. I'm with TLCD on the issue of suffering. The trick would be continue thinking but stop suffering. Abandoning thought to prevent suffering would be like cutting off your legs to avoid having to trim your toenails.
"That's interesting. Considering market research for such a book, I was curious how this thread might go over on a Buddhist forum. Any idea?
.
The trouble it causes would probably be in direct proportion of the number of Theravadans present. They deny the Middle Way teachings and give the sutras a different interpretation, and they get pretty hot under the collar when challenged. It is a disgrace that this split exists but Theravada pays no attention to metaphysics, which is to reason and logic, so nothing can be done about it. Even Nagarjuna could not unify the Sangha. . .
"Underlying state common to both life and death. If there's more that can be said about this from within the Buddhist perspective, interested here.
I'll reply with an essay. See below.
"Isn't a notion that we should somehow transcend suffering altogether just another form of rejecting "what is"? I'll admit I'm uncomfortable with such an agenda, but I'm more than happy to talk about it.
Oh no. In a sense suffering is a rejection of 'what is' since suffering is not truly real. It is not necessary to stop thinking, only to become detached, desireless, egoless etc. If you examine the Buddha, Lao Tsu, Sri Ramana Maharshi, Mooji, Spira and other well-known teachers you'll see they do a lot of thinking and are quite good at it. I wonder if your view on this issue is result of listening to Krishnmurti, since he is an unusual teacher who many people find too analytical and wordy, or too steeped in thought. . , , , . , .
"To be clear, I'm not claiming no one has realized a cessation of suffering. There's no way I could know such a thing. I'm instead claiming that such a cessation would appear to be exceedingly rare.
A total and permanent cessation may be rare for this is the buddhahood, but a partial cessation is commonplace and one of most accessible of the benefits of the practice.
It seems unfair to some people that we are not all equally well-equipped to attain the cessation of suffering, or not equally close to it, but total cessation is enlightenment, and if it was easy to be enlightened the space-time universe wouldn't be here.
You asked about the substrate that is the continuum underlying life and death and is our immortality. This would be the ‘spirit that rolls through all things’ Wordsworth feels in his heart as he walks around Tintern Abbey in the Wye valley, the very same spirit you feel as you walk the woods paying attention to life and the Great Spirit of the native Americans, the One that is All known as Wakantanka.
This substrate or Source would be the only phenomena that is truly real. It would be everywhere at all times because the extended space-time world would not be truly real. This is what we learn in Buddhist practice if we have some success. This would be how God is able to watch every sparrow that falls. He would be unable not to watch.
Human beings would not be exceptions to the rule. Lao Tsu is able to know the truth about the origin of creation by ‘looking inside himself’. Inside us, prior to our intellect and discursive mind, and cleverly veiled by our intellect and discursive mind, would be the source of our intellect and discursive mind. This is not subject to life and death.
A brief way of stating all this is to say that Reality is a Unity, but this word often causes misunderstandings. It is not easy to understand the meaning of ‘Unity’ and at limit impossible. To properly know the intended meaning of this word we would have to properly know the true nature of
Reality.
We can know this because we are Reality. What else could we be? ‘Within’ each of us, prior to our sense of individuality, is a spark of God, the pristine awareness, let us say, from which the world emerges. Without this spark we are nothing. Thus Iman Ali, the first Shia Imam, asks us why we think we are puny beings when ‘within us the universe is enfolded’.
The only way to know this substrate is to ask ‘Who am I?’ and keep asking until we find out.
Nagarjuna proves that this Ultimate has no positive attributes or properties and is a Unity in this sense or, as Plotinus puts it, a ‘One with no Second’. This would be why metaphysics does not endorse a positive result.
Thus you simply are this substrate and Ultimate. That is to say, as Schrödinger puts it, ‘I am God’ as are you. The appearance of ‘you’ and ‘me’ would be just that, an appearance. As such it is possible to look beyond. The Ultimate, Brahman, Wakantanka or Source, the goal to which Buddhist aspire, is not, as Jesus puts is, ‘Lo! Here or Lo! There’. It is who we are. It seems obvious that everything is Reality but it’s quite easy to forget.
This would be the reason why anyone is capable of feeling ‘the spirit that rolls through all things’, whether they are on the plains of the mid-West before the white man arrived, on the Tibetan plateau in 500 BC, roaming the hills outside Jerusalem at the time of Jesus or right this minute wherever we happen to be. It is an omnipresence. A full realisation of this is said to be our birthright. Not a gift of God to His selected cronies but our inevitable destination if we persevere.
We can all sense The Great Spirit of the native Americans to some degree as an intuition or feeling, but those who never walk in the quiet woods paying attention, or never stand in wonder and awe under a starlit night sky, as is becoming increasingly difficult to do in this decadent age, may, I suspect, lose their ability to tune in to the Great Spirit, which is to say their inner feelings and intuitions that point to their true nature. .
Thus I fear for the future, or would if I thought the global economy was going to survive much longer. Martin Heidegger expresses the same fear as early as the 1930’s, foretelling that Man will become so entranced by all his fancy new gadgets in this atomic age He would lose his abilities and forget He is an essentially meditative species.
JK and I were 50 years ago, but yes, I was influenced by his writing.
Quoting FrancisRay
Yes, but I've not suggested abandoning thought, except temporarily. Abandoning it permanently would clearly not be possible, and if possible, not advisable.
Quoting FrancisRay
Ah, I see. Well, I have no idea who the Theravadans are, but this sounds like the kind of ideological divisions which inevitably arise in every ideology. As I've said, probably too many times, I find the universal nature of that phenomena to be instructive.
Quoting FrancisRay
In the ideal abstract, ok, that's an interesting concept. In the real world of human beings, rarely possible. I'm really not trying to convert you to anything, but just reporting my own situation. I find widely accessible solutions to be the most interesting.
Quoting FrancisRay
Perhaps you've noticed, I do a lot of thinking too! Whether I'm good at is a matter of some dispute. :-) We're all doing a lot of thinking, just coming to different conclusions on some points, while enjoying considerable agreement on others. I see my job as a thinker, a forum poster, to try to add something to a conversation. So if you say tomato, I may very well say tomawto, if I believe that doing so might present constructive alternatives for some readers. You know, if I was a deeply educated party line Buddhist I would not be needed here, as readers already have you.
Quoting FrancisRay
My view on this issue arises primarily from the fact that I find myself too analytical and wordy, and too steeped in thought. And so as a young man I was attracted to the same. Krishnamurti was broadcasting on the only channel I could access at the time. He performed a useful function of alerting me to other channels, which I then proceeded to explore on my own. At this point 50 years later it's no longer possible for me to separate his influence from other influences. It doesn't matter to me too much, so not a problem.
Quoting FrancisRay
I'm all for that. When hungry, pick up some food and eat it.
I'd rather you stayed, as a useful voice of scepticism, but I just wish you;d listen to what people are saying. Internet forums are wonderful places for learning but the process fails when one starts arguing for a pet theory and stops listening. The fact that all of us here are in close agreement except you should give you pause for thought. If you find yourself unwilling to pause for thought then this should give you pause for thought. . .
Exactly! If Buddhist doctrine is not universal then it is nonsense. Theravada is an ideology, or so it seems to me, while Mahayana or 'Greater Vehicle' is the search for truth; It is not possible to be a serious metaphysician or meditative practitioner and maintain an ideology.
However, formal metaphysics is like mathematics. One just has to shut up and calculate and there is no arguing with the results. This is why I don't like your laissez faire approach. It is unscientific. If we use our reason we find we do not have a free choice as to what to believe. This is exactly what Nagarjuna proved, for the sake of unifying the sangha.
Thanks for following up. Ok, that which some call God, and which is identified by many other names as well.
Quoting FrancisRay
As my Catholic upbringing also suggested.
Quoting FrancisRay
Joni Mitchell called God "the tireless watcher", a phrase I always enjoyed.
In recent years Hippyheadism has speculated that this phenomena is space. Ever present at every scale, both real and non-existing, transcending simplistic human dualism, perhaps tirelessly watching. This Thing we're looking for, embedded in the fabric of reality, right in front of our faces at all times. But often missed, because we are distracted by the all little symbols which point to it.
Like I said, speculation, but to the degree true, perhaps a unification of theism and atheism. Theists access this Thing with their hearts, while atheists access It with their minds.
Quoting FrancisRay
The urbanization of humanity may be the biggest news to come out of the 20th century. That said, the Thing we are discussing is claimed to be everywhere, so perhaps those who have paved over all their trees :-) will adapt, and find another way. We humans do things like that.
Why do you assume spatial and temporal extension is real? This is a denial of Buddhist doctrine. In Buddhism space is defined as 'non-obstruction'. No suggestion that it is a thing. The phrase 'advaita' implies there are not two places or two times. . .
I was, well, referring to the universality of ideological conflict within every ideology.
Quoting FrancisRay
Which often looks kinda like that. :-) My ideology too, same thing, all ideologies. Divide, divide, divide.
Quoting FrancisRay
Any house built by one man can be burned down by another.
Quoting FrancisRay
Not quite accurate. I spend what seems a million hours a year in my "church". I show up, I put in the time, I do the work. Just not exactly the same work you do, that's all.
And, however my approach might be described, I have no objection to anyone not liking it. To each their own, whatever works. I'm describing one of many options, not a "one true way".
PS: (though weaknesses in my personality and writing style may sometimes give that impression. my bad.)
Ok, I'm agreeable to learning about this.
Please recall, I did explain that my space theory is just speculation. Interesting to me. Sometimes a conversation starter. Could change at any moment.
I appreciate your openness and I too apologize, for my silly behavior.
As for my pet project, I count all in agreement. The only blurry part that remains is around the issue of the necessity of ultimate authority in Buddhism. Perhaps I need to emphasize that this pertains to traditional forms and not an individual’s own interpretation that may stand apart from traditional beliefs and practices. Maybe that will clear up the miscommunication.
If Buddhist doctrine is a doctrine which denies doctrines, I should fit right in. :-)
I'd rather Praxis stayed too, as a useful voice offering constructive alternatives.
You forget where you are, this site is dedicated to a particular discipline. I suggest that you keep this more top-of-mind.
Hidden Zen, a book dedicated to sharing practices that are not commonly found outside dedicated traditions.
Thoroughly traditional, I’m not sure what the author’s position would be in regards to my ‘pet project’.
Our discussion is complicated by the divide between strands of Buddhism. In the Mahayana tradition, which I regard as the mainstream, no authority is recognised except experience, and nobod can have our experiences except us. (Although eventually one goes beyond experience). To rely on authority is the way of the dogmatic exoteric religions who regard mysticism as heresy. .
Even interpretation need cause no problems since it is only the knowledge acquired in our own experience that allows us to interpret correctly, and if it is sufficient no interpretation is necessary. . My view is that we have found the correct interpretation when we see that all the mystics are saying the same thing. If they seem to disagree then this would indicate a fault in our interpretation. In the end the doctrine is uninterpretable without the knowledge required to understand it, which can only be self-knowledge.
However, I am not a Buddhist but a metaphysician. In metaphysics it is possible to be definite and clear about the issues and demonstrate arguments and results. None of it is a matter of opinion, authority or interpretation. Thus I may seem to be more definite and confident in my views than a typical Buddhist practitioner who is referring only to as-yet limited exerience and the sutras. This would be why Nagarjuna is unusual an so important. He allows us to pin-down much of what the Buddhas was saying without having to take up the practice or refer to authority. We can simply work it out. ,
. . . .
This is a significant statement in relation to my ‘project’ because it inspires curiosity as to why you’re not a Buddhist. It’s natural to suspect that the reason may have to do with a rejection of some kind.
I appreciate all of your post, btw, I just found this bit key.
Yes! I think it's worth examining the issue of "acceptance" a bit closer; not necessarily in terms of history or philosophical background, but the actual act of accepting or experience of acceptance itself. It seems that a lot of the "just accept things as they are" line of thought is well suited for people who incline to aversion, impatience, or a desire to make things how they would like them to be, or those who desire a lot of control over every little bit of their life, etc. - noting that a lot of encouragement tends to revolve around releasing some control or putting anger aside. But right there is an implicit abandonment. So when we're cultivating something wholesome, we're abandoning something unwholesome. Thus there is an implicit "non acceptance", but not necessarily one which is rooted in aversion.
Sometimes "acceptance" works for those with anxiety, for example, but for others there needs to be caution. Some people should not just accept that their actions tend to be harmful to others, and some people should not accept their actions which are harming themselves; on one hand they need to see the harm themselves, and on the other they need to put some sort of effort toward a better direction (if they want a good change). But the problem then comes: telling these people that what they are doing is wrong may lead them to get defensive if not highly self-critical, and that's not helpful. In that kind of scenario, the black and white "acceptance or non-acceptance" dichotomy begins to show its limitations, where both acceptance and non-acceptance can enable bad habits, the former being a means to bypass shame. Thus the need for a more effective strategy, perhaps one with a good focus on personal well-being and non-harming. "Acceptance" may communicate that in some way, but it's not perfect, and there are other ways of moving somewhere good. Thus, thankfully the Buddha has offered different ways to "release control" (particularly unhealthy control) and different ways to abandon anger (or ill will and hostility). That's perhaps one reason why "loving kindness" is gaining some traction these days, along with "equanimity" or "patience". In a way, they point to the same thing (however the latter portion of my post will go into that a little).
Quoting Hippyhead
Yeah. But it also helps to have them remind you that the point isn't that you're going to become like anyone in particular (although role models are excellent motivators and guideposts of a sort). When a monk instructs you, he isn't necessarily instructing you on how to become more like him, and hopefully he's actually instructing you on how to stand on your own two feet and find the truth yourself. I mean, if Mozart was trying to get you to be Mozart, that may possibly entail a pretty toxic student-teacher relationship.
But if we see "Mozart creating Mozarts" as a matter of imbuing students with the qualities of a highly skilled musician, that's different. In this case one sees something admirable and wishes to create something along those lines, and they trust in Mozart or a teacher to be able to train them, and so they go that. If they went to that teacher and it turned out that they weren't able to be trained by them, then that's not necessarily a reason to give up hope. One can reflect on the scenario, understand the issue, and perhaps seek better help. Though if you really want to go "Buddhist," perhaps you'd begin to question why it's so important that you make beautiful music in the first place.
Speaking for myself, even if I don't get to "the end of suffering", I can say that I've learned to manage stress by aiming in that direction (coming from a rather misanthropic and anxious background). Of course I couldn't prove it, but I mean, it makes sense that stress is alleviated or ameliorated when one is trying to abandon it, and when one considers that the cause is one (craving) but in another sense there are also many causes (our many cravings and delusions and biases that feed the general habit of craving/clinging). So while total freedom requires total abandonment, the path is necessarily one of gradual abandonment, therefore one becomes less stressed as a natural consequence of following the path. Noting that it's easier to meditate if one isn't stressing themselves out all the time, if one's job is causing stress, it's possible to find ways to ameliorate that stress if keeping the job is truly necessary. Thus a desire to deepen one's practice can be an incentive to improve the more "mundane" aspects of one's life.
If a resistance to or fear of complexity is an issue, then it's worth knowing that the path is quite simply formulated in the four noble truths; one can look at stress quite directly as a mental process, and one can look at practice as a mutli-factored way of training oneself in virtue, wisdom, and concentration. To add nuance to these three: if one abandons five particularly unwholesome courses of action as with the five precepts, one gives others a degree of fearlessness and ease, while also gaining fearlessness and ease oneself (AN 8.39). If one works to abandoning the five hindrances (the necessary pre-requisite for meditative absorption), one will undoubtedly have to observe the stresses caused by them (and thus have a good reasoning for abandoning them and their connected forms of stress). If one gains an understanding of stress, one will begin to see how it can be abandoned or ameliorated beyond whatever prescribed means; one has found a good way themselves.
So, in my opinion, the Buddha's path is quite reasonable and direct even if it's just for stress amelioration.
Now on the issue of an identical goal across all religions or mystical paths, etc...
Quoting FrancisRay
Right now that line of thought is being questioned, and I think it ought to be because it's rather speculative. Ajahn Geoff, who I respect and right now is among many scholarly voices in the Theravadin lineage, connects this sentiment to Romantic philosophy and fervently speaks against it. He talks a lot about it in his book Buddhist Romanticism (e.g. https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BuddhistRomanticism/Section0011.html), noting an emphasis on "oneness" and a rather all-inclusive (and theoretical) definition of the term "religion", often connected with aesthetic concerns (hence my earlier weariness toward a sort of emphasis on Zen art/aesthetics).
The extent to which religious paths ultimately differ or merge is beyond me, but looking at what the scripture says (MN 1 particularly, or suttas where the Buddha puts aside questions about the existence/non-existence of self; and this is of course an appeal to an authority), it would seem mistaken to suggest that the final goal of Buddhism is a kind of "self" or piece of God, or originator, etc, or that all paths lead to it, especially given the emphasis placed on a rather methodical development of the path and an insistence that some things are to be abandoned, others cultivated.
I think Buddhism is thus unlikely to be on the same page as Krishnamurti or Advaita Vedanta teachings, even though they may seem quite similar in their expression. The Buddha's emphasis, over and over, is on the four noble truths, and it is under this framework that all classifications of "self" or "ultimate" are presumably abandoned and done away with. This is just my opinion.
The king of lazy one liners is now lecturing us about how to do philosophy.
Not at all, you just seem to have forgotten when you wrote the linked post that this is a philosophy forum.
I have no idea what your point is, and doubt you do either.
Skepticism is probably more appropriate on a philosophy forum than a religious forum.
That's quite a book and I'm quite the romantic myself. :love:
Spoiler alert: Traditionalist promoting traditionalism in exhausting length and a bit misleadingly.
I'd be interested in hearing what you find misleading about it, if you don't mind elaborating on that.
Well, I could say I'm a Buddhist and a Taoist and a Christian and an advaitan, and as such don't feel I have the right to claim membership of any one. I don't see these as different teachings, just different methods and languages. It's a rejection of exclusivity and parochialism. , . .
Theravadans endorse a doctrine that clashes with the Perennial philosophy so must fight like crazy to debunk the idea of the unity of religion,. This is why i have no time for Theravada. It is metaphysically unsound. The fact that it cannot reconcile the teachings of the various traditions is evidence that it is an incorrect view. I would take no notice of Ajann Geoff. He does religion a disservice. Sorry to be so outspoken but your comment shows the damage done by this errant view.
---"I think Buddhism is thus unlikely to be on the same page as Krishnamurti or Advaita Vedanta teachings, even though they may seem quite similar in their expression.
Metaphysically they are identical. It would astonishing if those who went in search of truth all found something different. Of course they all find the same truth. If they did not mysticism would be implausible.
I thought your comments above on suffering were excellent. .
https://www.ktcgainesville.org/
So are those the good Buddhists or the bad Buddhists? :-) Of course I have no idea, as I'm doing good to know they are Buddhists.
To the degree one isn't thinking in any given moment, all classifications of every flavor are abandoned and done away with.
Given that many or most people could access some level of such abandonment by fairly simple methods for hours a day if they so chose, and perhaps more if they are enthusiastic, perhaps it's worth questioning why this isn't enough?
You speculate that all classifications are "presumably abandoned". Why presumably? We know that classifications are made of thought, and that the volume of thought can be controlled to varying degrees by various methods. Given that we all know and agree on this...
By "presumably" you would seem to be referring to the possibility of permanent abandonment, yes?
What's the case for making such a huge demand? Is greed a sin in Buddhism?
A life long every day routine of temporary abandonment is readily available to all, or at least most.
Why not be content with such a bounty?
And in between the bounty, why not just look in the mirror, give a smile a try, and accept that like everything else in nature, human beings are imperfect?
I would say that I'm a radical Zen revolutionary, I mean REVOLUTIONARY!!, except that, oops, I still really have close to no idea what Zen is. :-)
No comment on good or bad Buddhists, but it seems that his lineage is part of a controversy around the issue of genuine reincarnation lineages. An issue found lately in Tibetan Buddhism.
Quoting FrancisRay
??? Maybe it is implausible! We don't know - that's why I'm not one to say that all other religions are wrong, but I will not hesitate to say I'm skeptical that they all lead to the same place. One danger with that, for example, is that it can lead to rather wishy washy ethical principles where somebody's bad actions are "right" because it's part of "their" religion, and all religions point to the same thing, therefore their actions are right. That opens the door to abuse, which is not totally absent in Buddhism but is explicitly against the Buddha's teachings (one reason to be skeptical of "crazy wisdom") .
A possibility is that these other lineages have reached a rather high state of meditative development, such as infinite consciousness or the plane of nothingness, leading one to assume that they've reached nirvana. This is a mistake even the Buddha was aware of, and indeed these states are merely refined states of "being" or "becoming". To me, that's a pretty decent explanation. Can I prove it and do I know it's true? No, but it makes sense to me.
Ok, thanks. As a follow up question, what flavor(s) of Buddhism would be the least likely to get drawn in to such controversies?
Well, they all lead to death, which in my unproven faith based perspective is reunion with something. Or nothing. Or nothing that is also a something. Or, most likely, I haven't the slightest idea what.
In any case, whatever it is or isn't, we are presumably all going there, probably no matter what we do or don't do.
Well, they all lead to death, which in my unproven faith based perspective is reunion with something. Or nothing. Or nothing that is also a something. Or, most likely, I haven't the slightest idea what.
I'd go back to an earlier comment and suggest that when we can see that all religions lead to the same place, albeit more or less effectively, then we know we're intepreting them about right.
I abandoned Christianity as tosh at the age of twelve. Decades later I discovered Buddhism and helped by a study of it suddenly began to understand Christianity. I learn a great deal about Buddhism from Taoism, about Catholicism from Sufism, and about Hermeticism from Advaita.
.
I feel that to suggest these traditions are all significantly different in their core teachings is suppose religion is a lot of nonsense.
As far as we know. Thinking is quite subtle, and as I said before it's not just thinking as verbal thought. For example, the Buddha defines "restlessness" not as incessant thinking, but as a lack of stillness in attending; e.g. instead of paying attention to a specific thing, one moves back and forth without settling. One obvious example is in daily life where we can't stop looking for something to do because we feel bored and dissatisfied with what we've got. Thus meditation is a great way to just be happy with "what is"; "nature" is everywhere around us (and why aren't we content with it and why are we sometimes averse to it?).
And it's not a "sin" to be greedy, but it is unwholesome. It causes suffering in different ways. Suffering isn't a sin, but we want to be happy, and if we want real and lasting happiness, we're talking about something reliable and "permanent". Therefore, it is up to us if we want that ultimate goal. I say it's presumably possible because I haven't gotten there myself; I don't know if it's true.
Quoting Hippyhead
My limited knowledge regarding lineages lends me to say that Thai Theravadin Buddhism is where you wouldn't find those controversies. Part of it's because lineages aren't built by reincarnation, but tradition. However, I can't say this is universal. My experience is limited to Ajahn Chah's tradition. That's one reason I stick with it; another is that the means of judging a lineage are often focused on the conduct of teachers/monastics.
That's one reason why teachers like Ajahn Geoff stick up for the tradition. Once you start deviating from or embellishing the dhamma vinaya, doubt is quite likely and the teachings are at risk. I mean, people already question whether arahantship is possible or rebirth is real - now they have to wonder if their teacher is a legitimate reincarnation, and if his questionable conduct is just "crazy wisdom". If you want examples of that being disastrous, look at TM (exiter testimonies), Mooji, Cohen, etc. Any way, Vinaya is the traditional element which is supposed to be protective, not destructive.
But being willing to question teachers is necessary, as is being willing to question tradition. But the focus has to be on the cessation of suffering and in accordance with the eightfold path to be reliable.
Quoting Hippyhead
And presumably it's good to consider rebirth along Buddhist lines . If we die, we continue wandering until we stop.Quoting FrancisRay
You know, to say they are different doesn't mean you can't learn from them, just as differentiating Buddhism from religion or philosophy in some way doesn't mean you can't learn from either or utilize their means. My impression is that, when we do learn from other religions, we're often learning ways to cultivate virtue, compassion, or peace of mind (among many other things). That's great. But the Buddhist position is that the ultimate goal is not found within these, save for the latter as long as it is total peace, resulting from dispassion and abandonment.
Philosophies are similarly supposed to lead us to a good life. I myself have found good value in learning (however little) Kant or Aristotle. But the good life is just life; flourishing is just flourishing (and edit: people still argue back and forth about what "good life" or "flourishing" means). Life is subject to death, flourishing can give way (edit: endless conflicts are endless). Therefore Buddhists seek something beyond all that (edit: and something with closure). And the Buddha prescribed a discipline for just that purpose.
Noting that the 5 precepts are fundamental for Buddhists, there's nothing about them which prevents us but learning from different traditions. But when a tradition enables us to kill because there is no self in the body therefore there is no killer or killed? Yeah, no. Stick with the precept, please!
Hyperbole to make a point? Which leads me to...
Quoting TLCD1996
Just like there are no traditions that rationalize murder on the basis of no-self, there's no Romantic Religion whose core principle is Oneness.
The romantic era, which by the way is long gone, was essentially a reaction to meaninglessness. Ironically, a common approach to dealing with encroaching meaninglessness and shore-up the meaning of a religious tradition is to define it by proclaiming what it's not, by pointing out the heretics, and if a little hyperbole is required, well, the end justifies the means.
It's not a hyperbole at all! I've actually heard or seen people say this. Are they speaking in line with their tradition? I don't know, but this bit from the Bhagavad Gita makes an interesting case. I'm not sure how accurate the translation is, but it's along the lines of what I've heard of over and over in regard to this matter from non-Buddhists:
Bodies of the eternal, imperishable, and incomprehensible soul are said to be perishable. Therefore, fight, O Arjuna. The one who thinks that Atma is a slayer, and the one who thinks that Atma is slain, both are ignorant, because Atma neither slays nor is slain. (2.19) The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed. (2.20) O Arjuna, how can a person who knows that the Atma is indestructible, eternal, unborn, and imperishable, kill anyone or cause anyone to be killed? (2.21) Just as a person puts on new garments after discarding the old ones, similarly Atma acquires new bodies after casting away the old bodies. (2.22) Weapons do not cut this Atma, fire does not burn it, water does not make it wet, and the wind does not make it dry. (2.23)This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. (2.24) The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging. Knowing this Atma as such you should not grieve. (2.25) If you think that this (body) takes birth and dies perpetually, even then, O Arjuna, you should not grieve like this. (2.26) Because, death is certain for the one who is born, and birth is certain for the one who dies. Therefore, you should not lament over the inevitable. (2.27) All beings, O Arjuna, are unmanifest before birth and after death. They are manifest between the birth and the death only. What is there to grieve about? (2.28) Some look upon this Atma as a wonder, another describes it as wonderful, and others hear of it as a wonder. Even after hearing about it no one actually knows it. (2.29) O Arjuna, the Atma that dwells in the body of all (beings) is eternally indestructible. Therefore, you should not mourn for any body. (2.30) Considering also your duty as a warrior you should not waver. Because there is nothing more auspicious for a warrior than a righteous war. (2.31) Only the fortunate warriors, O Arjuna, get such an opportunity for an unsought war that is like an open door to heaven. (2.32) If you will not fight this righteous war, then you will fail in your duty, lose your reputation, and incur sin.
Besides that, I've heard it said: "If you just swing a sword around without intending to kill, you're not guilty." Whether or not that has a basis in a tradition, it's not Buddhist practice and it would be disturbing to say that this is correct on the grounds that all religious beliefs are pointing to the same thing.
I'd also like to hear what basis you have for thinking the romantic "era" is over if people still struggle with meaningless and still advocate that we create whatever meaning we want and it's okay. If it isn't romanticism, what is it?
And I don't know... Ajahn Geoff references some quotes that indicate oneness or non-separateness to be an important aspect of Romanticism, if not a goal of sorts. E.g. Emerson:
“It is the goal of spiritual life to open to the reality that exists beyond our small sense of self. Through the gate of oneness we awaken to the ocean within us, we come to know in yet another way that the seas we swim in are not separate from all that lives. When our identity expands to include everything, we find a peace with the dance of the world. It is all ours, and our heart is full and empty, large enough to embrace it all.”
Any way, the point is that Buddhism isn't about that, and you don't really need to compare it to other religions to make that distinction. The Buddha talked a fair bit about self-views in relation to the world being wrong views, and he talked about the different formless meditative attainments (e.g. infinite consciousness) as being modes of becoming which are not nirvana and are one chain in the link of birth, death, and suffering. And if Nirvana is undefinable and beyond conceptualizations, why not point toward it by saying what it isn't?
If you don't know whether or not they're speaking inline with their tradition then you don't know if it's hyperbole, but whatever the case, how is Hinduism relevant to a discussion about Buddhism and the alleged religion of Romanticism?
Quoting TLCD1996
I suppose because it's a bygone era and no longer a dominant approach to dealing with meaninglessness. If, for example, I were to paint a realistic painting on Monday, does that mean that I'm living in an era of realism on Monday, and if I were to paint a romantic painting on Tuesday that I'm living in a romantic era on Tuesday? Course not.
Quoting TLCD1996
Case and point, transcendentalism is a philosophical movement and not a religion. Why is it not a religion you ask? See praxis's pet project.
Quoting TLCD1996
It's the manner in which it's done that is telling, in my opinion.
:meh: Yeah, I don't have a sufficient understanding of Romanticism, Hinduism, or everyone in the world to say with certainty that they are or are not practicing in line with their tradition, nor the extent to which they identify as a romantic struggling to find meaning (and so you can take what I say with whatever grain of salt you want). But whether or not I'm referencing hyperbole seems beyond the point if what I'm saying is that Buddhism is not those things which the Buddha advised against - hyperbolic or not - and that I'm doubtful that all religions lead to the same place. However, this does make a good point that it would be useful to accurately understand other doctrines before talking about them. I could do my own research, but it would be useful for others to insert their own understanding of these different traditions and teachings. But my impression is that many equate Buddhist teachings on anatta or even dependent origination to things such as one-ness or even amorality, and if that's true, I'd like to show how it isn't accurate in doctrine or (my understanding of) practice.
Given that some may seem to confuse Buddhism with Hinduism or conflate them (I've heard so much that Buddhism is rebranded Hinduism), given that some Hindus see the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, given that many western philosophers e.g. Huxley, Emerson have taken up Hinduism in some way when speaking of "The East", given that Hindu figures (e.g. Sadhguru) may reference Buddhist teachings and vice versa, and given that Hinduism has been referenced here in this thread, it doesn't seem wrong to bring up Hinduism.
And since it seems that some views expressed here are similar to what Ajahn Geoff points out as Romantic thinking, I think it's necessary to bring that up as well, noting that Ajahn Geoff is speaking of Romanticism as a lens we have unknowingly adopted through which we interpret Buddhism.This is a concern to Buddhists who want try and stick to the Buddha's tradition (or even what they believe is the Buddhist tradition) and avoid watering it down with misunderstandings handed to us by our surrounding culture. It's also the concern of monks who must maintain a consistent vinaya and avoid a schism which would be perhaps be caused by a radically new interpretation of the vinaya.
Aren't schisms inevitable in every philosophy, religion, ideology etc?
If yes, what can we learn from that?
“It is the goal of spiritual life to open to the reality that exists beyond our small sense of self. Through the gate of oneness we awaken to the ocean within us, we come to know in yet another way that the seas we swim in are not separate from all that lives. When our identity expands to include everything, we find a peace with the dance of the world. It is all ours, and our heart is full and empty, large enough to embrace it all.”
Any way, the point is that Buddhism isn't about that,
Could you explain which bit of this Buddhism is not about? I cannot see how it can be about anything else.
Quite so. It would be odd not to bring it up.
Culturally, methodologically, linguistically and psychologically the various traditions vary, but the truth is the truth and the nature of Reality is the nature of Reality. To say these religions lead to different places and different discoveries is to say they are unscientific, untrustworthy and implausible.
Oneness is always the core message and union with Reality the goal,
'I and the Father are One' says Jesus, summarising the entire affair. .
And the message is presented in the medium of thought, that which by it's inherently divisive nature destroys the experience of oneness.
Imagine that we all met to discuss this in person. So we're all sitting on the couches in my living room looking at each other across the coffee table. And then imagine that instead of saying anything, we just sat there looking at each other for an hour.
Aren't schisms inevitable in every philosophy, religion, ideology etc?
If yes, what can we learn from that?
We learn that it's a good idea to investigate the world with logic and experience and not just speculate or buy into someone else's ideas. . .
Yes. The message is not the thing. It's just the message. The word 'elephant' is not an elephant. I don't think there's any reason for this issue to cause problems.
My understanding so far is that many Buddhists have sincerely tried to do just that. And yet, still the schisms.
Certainly many Christians have sincerely tried to love and unite. And yet, still the schisms.
To my knowledge there is no ideology which is not afflicted by schisms.
If it's true that schisms are universal, they can't be arising from thought content. If they were, by now some one would have found the ideology which is schism-proof.
Instead we see lots of people claiming their ideology can do the job, without evidence of success.
Schisms, arguments, hatred, conflicts, violence. Problems.
I'm suggesting we can avoid it.
This might be the definition of ideology. Easiest thing is to abandon ideology, as the mystics do, and as any good Buddhist or Christian should do. .
In all your givens you neglect to mention that at the point of dialogue in question we were talking about Buddhism and the alleged Religion of Romanticism.
If you believe that murder rationalized based on atman is part of the Hindu tradition, that’s really weird, in my opinion, and if you don’t want to try proving it that’s your choice.
Quoting TLCD1996
His argument is based on the strawman that he calls Romantic Religion. Disowning the heretics to shore-up a waning tradition is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and one of the least virtuous.
You asked what was misleading and I’ve shown it. You can show that I’m mistaken by simply pointing out the Religion of Romanticism. A Buddhist who believes that Buddhism is about Oneness is simply a mistaken Buddhist and not someone who belongs to the Religion of Romanticism. There’s alway the possibility, of course, that a Buddhist knows the difference but intentionally misleads for some reason. That’s been known to happen.
Oh hell. That would be me then. Can you explain what is wrong with my view? If mysticism is not about Oneness then I can;t imagine what else it could be about. I've not heard anyone argue it is about anything else.
I don't know the phrase 'Religion of Romanticism' before and don't know what it means. Is it for members of dating websites? ,. '
We certainly agree on this one. The number of ways to misunderstand religion seems to be infinite.
First, what Emerson is describing is a form of becoming, where the mind latches onto an identity of any sorts. The Buddha says that all things are "not self", even identity, and he avoids answering any question related to its existence or non-existence, as he does questions related to the (in)finitude of the universe, because these are not related to the cessation of suffering (MN 2, MN 63, SN 12.48). Any state of identity is a state of becoming and thus a transient state of birth and death, therefore it's not cessation therefore it's worth abandoning.
Here are bits from MN 63 and SN 12.48:
MN 63: "Malunkyaputta, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... or that "After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,"' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.
SN 12.48: [i]"'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman."
"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"
"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman."
"Then is everything a Oneness?"
"'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."
"Then is everything a Manyness?"
"'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness ... From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering."[/i]
As much as the Buddha was interested in truth, he wasn't interested about the truth of "the universe" or "reality" as others were. Everyone had their own theory and hardly anyone could agree, and they would debate until they die and nothing would be solved for them. Thus the Buddha defined the "world" as the six senses, and taught that surely, one must understand this world to transcend suffering - and to understand it means to understand dependent origination, not laws of physics or the scientific minutaie of interconnection.
The Buddha said his path was one of "non-contention," meaning he didn't seek out debate on those matters; his focus was on training people who were interested in learning the path.
Quoting Hippyhead
I haven't read much on the schisms of the Sangha, but for sure they happen. Thus Thai Forest teachers advise against debates like this, and if they do happen, we learn to respect each other's opinion and keep the practice at heart - maintain metta, keep letting go, etc (edit: and just stick to the discipline and try to resolve differences). If people take their opinions too seriously, as is something which can happen in any context including science, then people split apart and miss the point entirely. Edit: there are also rules against starting schisms, and given the consequences of such an event among other things, monastics are (or should be) very interested in avoiding these issues. My experience is that starting debates or arguments gets you bad looks, or you may be approached about the issue later; depending on one's relationship to the community, they may be asked to leave.
Quoting praxis
I'd really like some evidence that says this isn't part of a hindu tradition; at least to my knowledge there are many and hinduism is something of an umbrella term, connected with Brahmanism which the Buddha had moved away from with his establishment of the Sangha.
As for "romantic religion", again I'm not really concerned with the accuracy of the word, or how it fits with your own definition of it. Ajahn Geoff's book suggests that not only did romantics not even identify as "romantic", but a man named Schleiermacher (as a member of a "group of Romantics") was noted for his insistence that religion be defined not be its texts, but on a feeling; a universal feeling of intimate oneness with the universe.
Is that true? I don't know and at this moment I don't feel inclined toward research in that area. If you want to provide some hard evidence against that, please do. But I know that people really gravitate toward this sentiment regardless of their knowledge, and although it's not bad or anything, it's just not the point of Dhamma practice. A good means for sure, but one which should be approached with caution for the sake of preserving tradition.
And I won't speculate on Ajahn Geoff's underlying intentions, but based on his teachings and reputation I have pretty high trust in his discernment and virtue (though you would not be the first to criticize his hard opinions), and based off my (limited) experience with other Sanghas and some research in the Thai Forest tradition, I doubt there's something sinister underneath. The truth seems to be, based on my limited observation, that people seeking unity often want something soft, but Buddhism isn't always soft, and people don't like that. Further, people seek something to hold onto - but the Buddha (and his Vinaya) say, with compassion: "If you want to reach the goal, you're going to need to let go of that." And then you hear the "buts".
Edit: and since this seems to be going away from the topic of discussion, I would suggest we start moving away from it or starting a new separate thread. The main topic is whether or not Buddhism qualifies as a religion, and it seems that indeed it does in your view, but then again it also seems that in practice it takes on nuances that make it quite distinct from what we may usually think of as "religion".
Pardon my confusion but in some instances you claim to be a Buddhist and in other instances you claim not to be. I don't mind being confused about this so no need to explain if you don't feel like it.
Anyway, in addition to what TLCD1996 wrote above regarding Oneness, I'll simply say that Oneness by itself is meaningless, and Buddhism seeks to transcend whatever dualism is implied for Oneness to have meaning. Kinda like both oneness and manyness, and neither oneness and manyness. Beyond all dualisms. There's really no good way to indicate non-duality, I guess. You might say that Oneness is a good indicator, but the fact that the term is meaningful suggests that we may be a bit clingy in how we regard it.
Quoting FrancisRay
Good guess, but no, it's more like Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. A fictional character that's too stupid to fight back when you beat it up. If it only had a brain....
Such as?
It seems that a lot of people define religion by faith or belief in a particular idea, so for these sorts I'd usually point out the amount of questioning involved with dhamma practice, the extent to which beliefs are to be discarded or analyzed, and the place of meditation practice which is not to appease anyone, but to have certain effects on the mind which are necessary for total unbinding to take place.
Given some say this would be a blind belief in the unknowable (which they associate with religion so often), I would point out the necessity of faith to drive any practice, again reminding that the faith is never solid (though it is said to become "confirmed" and "unshakeable" after the first stage of enlightenment) and continually being reworked based on one's own insights. In a sense, the practice depends as much on personal wisdom/insight as it does faith. In short, for the standard practitioner, faith is never static and one's conception of the goal is bound to change (and indeed however we conceive of Nirvana is not Nirvana) according to their own understanding. But the Buddhist suttas and teachings keep it within a certain bounds; if we get rid of the suttas or traditions, it will be harder to stay away from sensuality and indulgence in painful habits. Thus one doesn't just take faith in the "unknowable", but also the discipline and its premises, which are certainly knowable in this life. Further, it may perhaps be worth pointing out that the Buddha said the "dhamma is visible here and now" in the sense that one is able to see, right now, whether their mind has greed, hatred, or delusion by being observant (AN 6.47). And indeed, another driver is dispassion; if we are disillusioned with life yet find it hard to have faith in some ultimate purpose or find it difficult to find nourishment in that which we are handed, perhaps we should recognize the extent to which the Buddhist teachings use that dispassion to build happiness, and the extent to which that happiness is supposed to depend on our actions, which include our actions in the world and our habits of thinking. At that point, Buddhism seems to move quite in the direction of psychological development, not just belief or ritualized practice.
If some say that religion is merely a ways of controlling the masses through meaningless rituals, I would partly agree that there is some degree of resultant orderliness in society after agreeing to rules and being lead by figures of a certain stature who may prescribe "rituals", but you're only expected to follow them (to the best of your ability) if you have faith in them; if you're being forced totally against your will, it's likely a cultural thing. The Buddhist rules aren't necessarily equivalent to what we're used to in a post-industrialist society, nor are they just a matter of "being a good Buddhist" in the sense of conforming to a very constricted image (which must be attained as soon as possible to avoid punishment or ridicule). Indeed the Buddha said that the rules were protectors; anyone, after all, can take on the precepts without identifying as anything at all, and without wearing any particular clothing or going to a particular temple. So equating religion to control of the masses and lumping Buddhism in with that is rather overly simplistic, because for the layperson there is actually considerable latitude (hence why earlier I said that one can still learn from other religions or philosophies or ideas, with the caveat that one be mindful of one's core intentions for practice).
If some say religion is brainwashing or has no basis in reality, I think it would be worth reminding the extent to which we all agree or disagree on what "reality" is, and again that it's important for Buddhists to investigate their experience for themselves. The Four Noble Truths, to me, put that well into focus: we're not just agreeing on suffering or a theory of suffering, we're taking that framework and seeing how it actually plays out in our experience. In a sense, it's a working hypothesis, as some teachers would say.
In this way I think the lines between religion, philosophy, science, etc., are quite blurred. And it seems to me that some don't want it to be that way, but noting the conflicts that arise from trying to draw hard lines on things, and noting that any conceptualization at all becomes unsatisfactory at a point, I would say it's not always worth taking seriously. I admit I get a bit caught up in this issue myself at times, but I try to keep it limited to talking about Buddhism with others and, again, bringing the core teachings out in the open and showing how they can be quite challenging. It isn't wrong to say that Buddhism is a religion, but it is limited, and being limited, it is not perfect. It's precisely the limitations of concepts that should drive us to focus on our actual actions and their consequences instead of bein stuck on debating.
Yes, yes, we know, you are the Great Debunker etc etc. Yawn.......
Thanks for this report. I understand this to be the exercise of will at the social level to attempt to manage conflict at the level of the content of thought. This seems like a "middle way" issue to me. Some debate seems essential (imho) but yea, it can indeed become an ego food fight which doesn't serve any useful purpose. Well, unless perhaps one observes the food fight carefully and draws lessons from it?
A religion might based on an encyclopedia of various practical techniques for reaching for that experience. If the focus is on the experience itself, it should become clear in time that theories about the experience (such as mine for example) are more obstacle than asset. They probably still happen for some (like me for example) but their importance can perhaps be put in to a useful context.
Sometimes I say things like the "explanations are a waste product of the experience", which is probably too colorful and extreme, but perhaps movement in generally the right direction? Well, according to Hippyheadism anyway.
It really depends on who's in charge. Harmony is really appreciated in a broad way; it's not necessarily a theological issue, particularly because people's basic understandings of practice seem to be on the same page in a given tradition. Arguments may come from specific interpretations, in which case it is usually reminded (from what I've seen) that everyone is free to have their interpretation, just don't cause problems and be willing to question your views. But it's the teacher's duty to tell the student that's not quite the proper way to look at things, and here trust in the teacher becomes important (and is often based on the teacher's conduct as monks or laypeople). That is my recollection.
Quoting Hippyhead
That's agreeable, though again it's a middle way thing. Don't cling to theory tightly, but don't discard it entirely; learn to use it skillfully. Since the Buddha seems quite insistent on a particular goal and way of training, the meaning of "skillful" here is contextualized accordingly. But even if one doesn't seek that goal, they can still learn good things from this, in my opinion. A decent amount of the Buddha's teachings, anyhow, talk a whole lot about communal harmony. I think it's important for Buddhists to take the context of those teachings into consideration, but in a way they seem quite down-to-earth and applicable for a broad audience, and indeed it seems we're recognizing some similar trends across different traditions/reigions/philosophies etc. One of my favorite examples are the five precepts(AN 8.39):
[i]There are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. Which five?
"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life [similarly with stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, lying, and using intoxicants]. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans.[/i]
Every ideology says this. If only everyone agreed with us then we'd have peace. Except that never happens, even within a particular ideology.
Any way, the point is that Buddhism isn't about that, ?TLCD1996 “
I asked what part of this description of the 'spiritual' life Buddhism was not about. I don't understand the relevance of your reference to Emerson and the sutras.
I've read this pararaph three times and would say confidently it is exactly what Buddhism is about. What else could it be about? It seems a very good summary.
So I must be misunderstanding your comment. If not, then might be about to have an interesting discussion. .
. .
[reply="praxis";465933"]
(For some reason the link doesn't show.)
I'm not a Buddhist, I just believe that Buddhist doctrine is true. I'm,not a Christian but believe the teachings are true. And so forth. Once you find the correct interpretation then the religions all line up behind the same metaphysical scheme and world-view. This is the 'coherence' test of truth, that it makes sense of everything. There is also the problem that I am a poor practitioner. It would be cheeky to call myself a Buddhist or Christian. The Buddha and Jesus didn't find it necessary.
You say this. ---"Anyway, in addition to what TLCD1996 wrote above regarding Oneness, I'll simply say that Oneness by itself is meaningless, and Buddhism seeks to transcend whatever dualism is implied for Oneness to have meaning. Kinda like both oneness and manyness, and neither oneness and manyness. Beyond all dualisms. There's really no good way to indicate non-duality, I guess. You might say that Oneness is a good indicator, but the fact that the term is meaningful suggests that we may be a bit clingy in how we regard it.
I know exactly what you mean, and you might like to know that Nagarjuna disaproves of the word 'Unity for this very reason. So do many other sages, and It is a well known problem of language. But it is possible to use the word 'Unity' and Oneness' with a different meaning, and we must, for it we do not use these words then we have no words at all. Thus Lao Tsu tells us we cannot speak the Tao but also that we must.
In the Perennial tradition the words 'Unity', 'One' or Unicity' may be used, but they should not imply a numerical value. They are not dualistic unless misinterpreted. In metaphysics we need 'Unity', 'One' and so forth for words and cannot do without them, but we should take full account of your comments above and make sure we're not misinterpreting them. , . . . . .
If we take this approach then we can say Buddhism and mysticism is general is all about Oneness. This is probably made most obvious by Plotinus. .
You misunderstand. My suggestion is that we approach religion in the same way as we should do philosophy, by abandoning all our ideologies, beliefs, hopes, dreams, theories and views and other useless baggage at the door. . .
Okay - perhaps I had answered the question wrongly, then.
The quote is apparently expressive of Emerson's view regarding the goal of religion: that through oneness as a "gate", we open to an "ocean within", and "dance" with the world without, so to speak. Apparently, having acknowledged our one-ness and non-separateness, we attain this harmony and thus we no longer suffer. We become intimately connected with ourselves and the world.
Ignoring that this isn't too far fetched, and ignoring that it isn't a difficult conclusion to come to if one finds significant ease and well-being by relaxing and living with the world rather than in spite of it or against it, this attainment is describing a state of becoming, albeit a refined one. While it wouldn't be non-Buddhist to incorporate a relaxed and integrated mindset into one's practice (not to mention one which is oriented around sensitivity), it would be "non-Buddhist" to say that this is the goal. In short, Buddhism is not about this "integration" of "self". Even though one may infer that the enlightened Buddhist is integrated, the thing is they have abandoned becoming and "self", however "self" may be defined.
To get to the broader picture of that, Ajahn Geoff is saying that this is a subtle point; the "romantic" conclusion is a conclusion many Buddhists have been led to because it seems, in some ways, to be quite close to the Buddha's teaching and is reinforced by certain aspects of our culture, be it consumer culture, artistic culture, religious or spiritual culture, etc. And in many ways, even from my own perspective, it's hard to see why it couldn't be the goal; but I can only imagine what such a goal is like, and so I wouldn't be quick take my imagination's word. It's only when we look at some particular patterns or historical occurrences that we begin to see that maybe things are just a bit off (Ajahn Geoff talks more about that in his book and I don't really want to go too in depth there).
Looking at the suttas, be it the Buddha's stance on cosmology, self-thinking, becoming, dependent origination, or suffering, it's clear that there's got to be "something" beyond the oneness described. And based on the teachings of the Buddha and, recently, respected teachers in the Thai Forest tradition (not just Ajahn Geoff; Thai Forest Ajahns such as Ajahn Lee and Ajahn Mun included here among others), there comes a point in practice where it is crucial that one keep an eye out for refined experiences that may appear to be easeful and blissful but are in fact modes of birth and becoming which the mind has latched onto, which will thus keep it bound to birth and death.
Thus, when speaking of the goal here, Ajahn Geoff is quite particular about the wordage used to describe "spiritual goals" and is diligent in his efforts to say "what is and what is not the dhamma". And it is out of trust that myself and others take his word for it, follow his instructions (if not the instructions of others), and grow just a bit weary of words like "oneness" and "unity", and even philosophical rigor. Thus: use and then abandon the preconceived notions, develop virtue, focus on the breath, understand things, and let go.... and enjoy it! As much as it seems that Ajahn Geoff is being a party pooper (at least for some people), and as serious as this issue can be approached by practitioners or scholars alike, the path should be joyful and it would be good to have a sense of connection to the world, as long as it's wholesome. Thus the Buddha said, in AN 11.1:
[i]"Ananda, skillful virtues [e.g. the five precepts] have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.
"In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship."[/i]
Edit: to add on, I think the Buddha's teachings on sense-restraint and virtue, which are notably strict for monastics, further suggest that there's something about Buddhism that can't be simplified to "dancing with life," for example. Although we could say that virtue, restraint, and even the method of practice can be likened to artistic constraints which are necessary for creativity and not necessarily inhibitive of enjoyment, they are notably direct and at times quite demanding. For example, some monks have found it necessary to sleep in the wilderness or cremation grounds - not as a matter of "dancing with life" or "living life to the fullest," as would seem to be along some romantic lines, but as a matter of developing contentment, patience, determination, relinquishment, dispassion, etc. Thus it is also worth noting the rather step-by-step progression described above: although it doesn't necessarily scream at you to do "this then this then this then this" in a robotic or strict way, it is aiming at a sort of methodical and gradual approach to practice which is built off of these causal relationships. For example: joy is necessary to make practice sustainable in the long term, but in the short term (particularly upon a degree of mastery) it is necessary to juse joy to go to the next step in one's practice: rapture, concentration, and so on.
A long post and there are many curious things about it but I'll focus on the most glaring curiosities rather than pick it apart. No one in this topic seems to like that.
Though you talk about the question of Buddhism being a religion and address me, you don't apply the PPP (praxis pet project, as it has become so affectionately known). You talk about faith, controlling the masses, meaningless rituals, etc. etc., and there's nothing wrong with that of course, but it's incidental to my project, or rather, it misses or doesn't address the point.
Quoting TLCD1996
I don't believe there's such a thing as an unlimited or perfect definition.
Quoting TLCD1996
That's a really rich comment coming from someone who dragged out the book of Buddhist Romanticism, a work that goes to exhausting length to distinguish the other. This is one of the worst aspects of religion, its limited inclusion that always seems to require an other to help define itself.
Okay. I'll keep that in mind.
Quoting praxis
A really important point. But Ajahn Geoff, for one, isn't naming Buddhist-romantic names (see below). And further, Ajahn Geoff doesn't say that romantics or "Buddhist romantics" need to pack their bags and leave. He's not saying they have to be "excluded" from "Buddhism", but he's stating certain qualifications, as the Buddha did, for what counts as "dhamma"; he isn't obligated to make everyone feel like they're preaching dhamma just because what they say is beautiful and convincing. Ajahn Geoff isn't here to validate you or anyone else. He's trying to preserve dhamma-vinaya. Sometimes that will push some buttons, but sometimes pushing buttons is necessary, especially when it means getting people out of their dhamma-ruts, so to speak.
I mean, if he was so intent on "othering" or pitting people against each other, he and his his followers could probably do a lot more than put a book on their site and share it with those who request it. But the only reason you're hearing about this specific "othering" is because I'm here trying to explain Dhamma. That is, I am not pitting myself against you. I am saying: this is what you say, but here's what the Buddha said, and here's what I think and what I've come to understand over time. On that note I admit: I am going a little out of bounds of the norm by coming here unsolicited. But I take responsibility for that - and I apologize if I've "othered" people. That's something I don't want to do.
Here are Ajahn Geoff's words from the book. Noting, especially in light of what I've just said, that the book is primarily directed towards practitioners:
[i]Buddhist Romanticism is so pervasive in the modern understanding of the Dhamma that it is best approached, not as the work of specific individuals, but as a cultural syndrome: a general pattern of behavior in which modern Dhamma teachers and their audiences both share responsibility for influencing one another—the teachers, by how they try to explain and persuade; the audiences, by
what they’re inclined to accept or reject. Thus, this section quotes passages from modern Dhamma books, articles, interviews, and talks to illustrate the various features of Romantic religion contained in modern Dhamma, but without identifying the authors of the passages by name. I do this as a way of following the example set by the Buddha: When discussing the teachings of his contemporaries to non-monastic audiences, he would quote their teachings but without naming the teachers (DN 1; MN 60; MN 102), the purpose being to focus attention not on the person but on the teaching. In that way he could discuss the reasoning behind the teaching, and the consequences of following the teaching, all the while focused on showing how these points were true regardless of who espoused the teaching.
In the same way, I want to focus attention, not on individuals who may advocate Buddhist Romantic ideas, but on the cultural syndrome they express, along with the practical consequences of following that
syndrome. It’s more important to know what Buddhist Romanticism is than to know who has been espousing it or to enter into fruitless debates about how Romantic a particular Buddhist teacher has to be in order to deserve the label, “Buddhist Romantic.” By focusing directly on the syndrome, you can then learn to recognize it wherever it appears in the future.
Some of the teachers quoted here are lay; others, monastic. Some make an effort to shape their Romantic ideas into a coherent worldview; others don’t. Some—and, ironically, these are among the most consistently Romantic in their own thought—misunderstand Romanticism to be nothing but anti-scientific emotionalism or egotism, and so have explicitly denounced it. But the tendency to Romanticize the Dhamma is present, at least to some extent, in them all.[/i]
Regarding your project and my inability to speak to it in a way which you find fitting: if you think it's such an important issue, it may be helpful to explain why and how Buddhism fits in with it. Forgive me for being rude, but I don't think it's really necessary for me to give your "pet project" much thought in this scenario, which is why I haven't really addressed it. If your ideas on religion are as rigorous as I think they might be, I think it would take a lot of time and energy to understand it while addressing other points in this thread and mazing through your thorny questions. But again, if you can communicate them in a way which is easy to understand, please do so.
Edit: And please, let's not go down the path of trying to speculate on somebody else's motives and accuse them of wrongful action. I don't think I should even be defending Ajahn Geoff. It just seems so inappropriate. Thanks.
I think you should apologize for apologizing in any way for your contributions here. :-) This is my clever one liner, uh, two liner.
I don't misunderstand, I've been chanting that very thing over and over to the point where even I'm now annoyed by the chanting. :-)
Ah. I get it now. Regrettably we are never going to be able to agree about Buddhism. I have no time for Theravada, just as you have no time for Mahayana.
I would point out, for the sake of not confusing the hell out of you, that the view you are opposing here is not 'one of the worst aspects',. It's a critique of Theravada, a particular interpretation that, right or wrong, does not stand up in philosophy. Theravada is religion in way that Mahayana is not.
It will cause confusion if you think Buddhism is one religion. It is split very definitely into two. It's a disgrace, and I hate to say it, but there it is.
Othering (pointing out the heretics) is a common practice as old as religion itself and serves the useful function of enhancing meaning and group solidarity. As I’ve mentioned several times in this topic, it’s all about tribal solidarity.
I did not accuse Ajahn Geoff of wrongful actions. You’re overreacting and that’s understandable being that Ajahn Geoff is a religious authority.
Maybe, maybe not.
Quoting praxis
Thanks for clarifying, however you say that this othering is the worst part of religion. It seems that you're accusing him of something that's wrong, then.
Edit: and thank you Hippyhead for your kind words!
I think it's possibly split into much more. There were a decent number of schools that had apparently split off from each other just a couple hundred years after the Buddha's death. It's a point that some like argue about on Dhamma forums. But I think if there's a crucial point of agreement, it can be found in the Four Noble Truths. Which is partly why, any way, Thai Theravadin Buddhism is not actually hostile toward other schools, regardless of Ajahn Geoff's rather direct statements about what is or isn't dhamma. From what I see there is an "agree to disagree" dynamic at times, but often "let's just look after eachother". Abhayagiri Monastery in California was built on a land gifted by a local (and quite massive) Chan monastery, and they have a solid relationship. Abhayagiri also has good relations with a local Orthodox Christian monastery on the other side of the mountain. So it's not totally "us and them".
Abhayagiri also comes from a lineage of another sort of split. Ajahn Geoff wrote about it here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/The%2520Traditions%2520of%2520the%2520Noble%2520Ones.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiU6PrN5trsAhWVU80KHfemDmsQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3ilQ7XYmzdvcTxJpGX-9f_&cshid=1604008867777
Basically, Ajahn Geoff's lineage is in the Dhammayut, which was based off of a Thai reform movement. At that time what would be called the "Mahanikaya" group was deemed illegitimate because the monks were lax in their discipline and had arguably broken their lineage to the Buddha (which also partly informs debate about Bhikkhuni ordination). Therefore the king sought out a Purportedly "pure" lineage of Mon monks to learn from and re-establish the discipline. While this lineage began to focus more and more on study and broader social reform, a group of Forest monks headed by Ajahn Sao and Ajahn Mun began to keep to what they saw as essential to the monastic life: simplicity, discipline and meditation in the forests.
From there, Ajahn Mun taught Ajahn Lee who taught Ajahn Fuang who taught Ajahn Geoff; thus Ajahn Geoff is "dhammayut". But Abhayagiri was formerly headed by Ajahn Pasanno, who was taught by Ajahn Chah, who was taught (however briefly) by Ajahn Mun. Ajahn Chah was Mahanikaya, and was denied ordination under Ajahn Mun's Dhammayut lineage, but was nevertheless encouraged to keep up the discipline.
Thus we have two similar but not identical schools, with an apparently clear point of contention but a similar origin at this part of the tree. Yet Abhayagiri doesn't talk smack about Ajahn Geoff and vice versa. Abhayagiri gladly distributes Ajahn Geoff's books. Like at all monasteries there are disagreements of a sort, but both parties, to my understanding, are not at all interested in fighting over it. They want to practice, and they both look to the Suttas for a lot of their teachings. But it's not by any means the only source of inspiration for either.
Earlier you wrote:
Why is reifying the conceptual boundary between religion and philosophy apparently undesirable or wrong, whereas reifying the conceptual boundary between Buddhism and Buddhist Romanticism is apparently desirable or good?
Because conventions are limited, yet they are necessary. Thus earlier I also said that there's nothing totally wrong about calling Buddhism a religion (or even a Philosophy) given a certain context, however for the purpose of realizing the truth of the Buddha's teachings, it is necessary to avoid too tight of a grip on these labels which can pigeonhole the dhammavinaya.
The term dhammavinaya is also a label, and one with the purpose of pointing to key components of the Buddha's teaching: doctrine and discipline. This is important so we avoid putting one over the other, and so we remember our purpose in holding to both, among other things (and to my understanding).
The reason why Ajahn Geoff brings up "Buddhist Romanticism" is to point to a mental tendency, not necessarily a distinct entity. The tendency is to, partly out of a desire for meaning if not joy, to seek some sort of connection with the whole world, because we feel separate from it.
In practice, the recognition of a need for a sense of connection and unity is by no means bad or wrong or whatever. But based on the Buddha's teaching, one must remember the point of dispassion and unbinding from another "tendency", which is becoming.
One can reify "becoming" as much as they can reify "self" or "no self" or whatever. But this word "becoming" is meant to "lead inwards", in the sense that one directs their intention toward it so as to become dispassionate toward it and unbound by it.
This cannot be easily done if one is seeking unity, because that's actually seeking more becoming. It's missing a crucial point of practice. Therefore it is worth pointing out. Not to exclude others, but to guide oneself.
Seeing that we have a problem we go looking for a solution. Sometimes we bump in to various philosophies which essentially say each in their own way, "the solution to your problem is to think about yourself some more".
That sounds pretty good, because that's what we've been doing all along already. It's a pattern which we're comfortable with, and a form of psychic junk food which we've become addicted to. So when somebody says, "let's eat more junk food together" we nod in agreement, thumbs up, ok, good plan.
And so we become part of some system which is built upon thinking ourselves even more, but now the junk food has been rebranded from what used to sound kinda like selfishness, but now sounds more like something glamorous.
We could choose to stop thinking about ourselves right now, not forever, just for awhile. But wait, before we do that, let's insert a process which takes many years. Also, a process which promises to make us bigger and better than ever before.
So instead of letting go of suffering right now, our plan is to let go after we've become rich, or famous, or popular, or better looking, or enlightened, or anything, anything at all really. Except for right now.
If you can stop thinking about yourself so quickly, that's good for you. But besides the fact this might not solve suffering at the very core, according to the Buddha's teaching (noting that our desire to stop is still a form of craving), not everyone can do it. Therefore the Buddhist path is one of gradually getting to that point, and then further, by taking the four noble truths as our focus.
And it can actually start right now with the 5 precepts: we resolve not to kill, steal, engage in sexual misconduct, and avoid intoxicants - all actuons which can be quite selfish. We can also put aside a part of our day to just pay attention to the breath and settle down all of the afflictive processes which include excessive self-thought. And from there we can gain some real powerful insights into that thought process itself, not to mention happiness and suffering.
And there might come a time where we feel demotivated in that development. From there we can uplift that self thought to be less miserable and more healthy, if not more expansive and boundless. And if we want to go just a bit deeper beyond that, we sure can. But it's up to us. And the letting go can start right now, by letting go of that which holds us back, or which keeps us going to all the bad places, selfish or harmful or whatever.
The precepts and simply sitting down in meditation - perhaps in the forest - are a good starting point of letting go. As is simplifying our lifestyle and making good friends. Letting go doesn't have to be limited to something ultimate, far into the future. We can let go of that idea as well, right now.
Edit: One of the problems with thinking that our problems come from thinking about "self" is that it leads people to beat themselves over "self" thinking: I have a self, therefore I'm bad. Or even: I'm suffering, I'm bad; it's because I have a self, I'm bad. Thus the Buddha focuses on suffering: yes, you experience suffering to whatever extent because of "self" and "thinking". But you may also suffer by thinking "I won't be happy until I stop thinking about myself, or until I stop thinking at all. I have to stop all of that right now." The suffering really comes because you're seeking happiness in these things, you're not getting it, so you're beating yourself up. Or you're getting angry and discontent. Among other possibilities.
So the imperative to "stop ego" or "stop thinking about self" can become quite toxic. Therefore: start with virtue. Start with the breath. Relax. Enjoy life, do good things, and go further, because you can. If you're suffering, just start chipping away at it by looking right at it. (Edit 2: noting that more sensitive people may have to go a little easy on this part as well).
Very unlikely to be possible, except maybe for a rare few. This is what thousands of years of evidence reveals. If that is true (debatable of course) then the next question could be, if something isn't possible, why chase it?
Quoting TLCD1996
A good starting point and a good ending point. The idea of "starting point" assumes a process of becoming. Become what? Something impossible?
I'm really not arguing with what anybody chooses to do. Really I'm not.
Just doing the analysis dance with you and pointing out the obvious that this entire discussion is all about "me and my situation". A focus on "me and my situation" is proposed as the solution. Could it instead be the problem? Not the cure, but the disease?
Two key points which may define the divide between our perspectives:
1) What is the source of suffering? The content of thought, or the nature of thought?
2) Is a fundamental shift in human psychology generally possible?
If we answer the content of thought, philosophy seems advisable. If we answer nature of thought, perhaps not.
If we answer fundamental shift is within reach, then a process of becoming seems advisable. If we answer otherwise, perhaps not.
I'm really not being cynical, just empirical. What if we took one of the teachers and put them on the grill at McDonalds 40 hours a week for a few years living on minimum wage? That is, living an ordinary life. That experiment would interest me.
I really doubt it'll ever be proven. Partly because we're talking about something which could be called "subjective", something which many have trouble even describing or even teaching to their students. It would probably take a long time to even get to a satisfactory definition of "suffering" and "not suffering" which would allow for an effective study (which in your case sounds potentially unethical and disrespectful), and perhaps by then the ideas may be mixed around and confused in such a way so as to create more disagreements and more debates. Therefore it seems shaky to me to place any bets on that, if we were to do so.
Any way, this is kind of a problem that even the Buddha came across, in a different way. Here's a good example I quoted earlier:
[i]"Malunkyaputta, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... or that "After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,"' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.
"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.
"In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.
...
"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.
"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.[/i]
But this teaching was given to somebody who originally wanted to practice. So I would understand if it didn't really mean much to you.
Besides that, I think it's worth picking apart the notion of "goals" (particularly on our own). Holding to goals wrongly can become oppressive; I know people who associate "goals" with guilt and shame as much as others do with "chasing". That's perhaps a decent explanation of why people gravitate to the idea of "no goal Buddhism"; it makes some people feel less pressure in life, which isn't totally a bad thing (indeed, Buddhists can be susceptible to this). But the Buddha wasn't trying to oppress anyone with "goals", and he connected his teaching with a basic desire for happiness, which is exactly what's at play if we abandon goals for the sake of some sort of relief. In that case we're happy, until somebody comes along and asks us about our goals. That's one of many cycles of samsara. If you can relate to that, I think it's evidence that suffering arises and it ceases according to causes and conditions. And given that suffering ceases, perhaps a total cessation is possible, so long as we find a root cause and abandon it - a cause that is perhaps a little more subtle than just thinking, because thinking can be just as joyful as it can be miserable.
Quoting Hippyhead
Yes, it's suffering. I think that's a subtle point that is addressed over the long term. We tend to think like this all the time, and we don't give much attention to it as a process. Therefore the Buddha or his disciples might say: okay, yes, that's suffering. Take a look!
About a year ago when I was visiting Abhayagiri, I was refreshed when I entered the hall for tea time and the abbot said, in answer to a question: "...yeah, that's suffering. This whole 'me and my mind' program we keep giving into." I can't say those were his exact words, but that's how I remember it: "me and my mind". Something we do over and over again that's problematic. And it was totally a "oh yeah, that's me" thing. But that right there: "oh yeah, that's me." That's it. That's how knee-jerk it is. That's why we meditate: to slow it down and pay attention.
I asked him once: "I keep having this problem where, when I feel really good, I feel on top of the world. And there's just that strong sense of 'me' there that I can't get rid of. It's really bothering me, what do I do?"
And his answer really helped: "... The problem isn't that we have a sense of self, it's that we believe in it."
Although I wasn't totally liberated right then and there, that definitely shifted things. "Okay, it's not like I have to get rid of it, but what if I just started picking it apart?" But it was only, relatively speaking, a small step. Not unimportant to me, but small. And I have no evidence for it and no way to measure it. Similarly when he encouraged me, the previous year, to "maybe distance yourself from being a misanthrope and give some good attention to developing a more positive sense of self". Paraphrasing, again. But there's definitely something "middle" about that.
I don't want to go far into story mode, but yes: the "me" program is definitely stressful. But it can also be used well. It's really something we can do just by desiring to be happy.
And perhaps you can see where maybe Buddhism becomes apparently paradoxical. "Don't focus on being happy, learn from your suffering; don't make yourself miserable, learn to be happy; don't become anything; develop the path, it's good becoming; we're practicing for death; go beyond birth and death; virtue leads to happiness, cultivate it; happiness is unsatisfactory, abandon it."
Lots of ways to spin your head around. But it's all meant to point to the middle.
Of course conventions are limited. They may not be necessary. The custom of 'othering', for instance, is not necessary. Showing how others do things differently isn't even a good way to teach something.
Quoting TLCD1996
Well, again, why so loosey-goosey with the religion/philosophy distinction but so anal about the Buddhism/Buddhist Romanticism distinction? You haven’t addressed the question. If it’s pigeonholing by distinguishing religion/philosophy then it’s pigeonholing by distinguishing Buddhism/Buddhist Romanticism.
Why is calling Buddhism a religion overly restrictive? The term isn’t even very well defined, which is probably why this thread exists in the first place. The PPP is not overly restricting and has no trouble at all encompassing Buddhism.
Since I'm really saying the same thing over and over again... it's because in some cases it's necessary to have a loose grip, others a tight grip. Maybe I'm wrong in the way I'm approaching it - but it's a matter of framing one's practice so as to encourage engagement and investigation. Too loose and there is no support; too tight, the possibilities are limited. Dhamma-vinaya, taken in reference to the tendency toward Romantic thinking, limits possibilities but not so much that they can't be expanded in whichever way is necessary.
Quoting praxis
Why not?
If you have an explanation of how calling Buddhism a religion limits possibilities it would be interesting to know.
Quoting TLCD1996
Because it's best to teach what you're teaching. But if two different ways are fundamentally the same I guess it doesn't much matter.
I think you already know that words are limiting, at least it seems you indicated that earlier. Sorry, it's really hard to answer your questions because they're so simple and yet my answers are apparently unsatisfying to you.
If you define religion as believing in something and doing rituals according to the religion's beliefs, you've limited Buddhism to rituals based on belief. Given the relative lack of clarity surrounding even those terms, you could spend hours teasing them out. But if you just limit it to that simple definition, as people may be inclined to do, Buddhism becomes limited to whatever meaning somebody ascribes to those words - same with whatever detailed definition you tease out after hours of analysis and arguing back and forth. Therefore calling Buddhism anything is limiting. However it is because we can ascribe words different meanings and explicate those meanings that some people, the Buddha included, would explain what these things mean in more detail, and insist on particular interpretations or applications - to keep those meanings alive and applicable in practice. Nobody will ever provide you or me a definition which is ultimately satisfying in itself, especially when the "goal" of Buddhism is said to be beyond words and conceptualizing. Therefore teachers seek to preserve a particular interpretation which, to them, has proven useful and beneficial, and they will defend that interpretation to the extent they deem necessary.
Quoting praxis
Okay. So, suppose I teach somebody to keep the precepts, and they do so, but in a way which makes them feel extremely on edge and fearful of stepping on the smallest and unnoticeable bug, leading them to resort to a life of total inaction and fearful misery. Or at least they subject themselves to repetitive guilt trips stemming from accidentally breaking precepts or even intentionally doing so out of a deeply ingrained habit. Are you saying it's wrong for me to tell them not to do that? Because that's basically what's happening when you describe somebody else's wrong actions (however directly or indirectly) and say, "don't do that". Seems pretty necessary to me, at least depending on the circumstances.
And what if it works? What if it makes them think, "oh, he's telling me to keep the precepts, just not like that. Okay, I'll try that." And then they do it, and it works, and they feel more confident in themselves (not to mention me as their teacher). Is it still a bad way to teach?
Please, that's like saying that calling China – a place that I've never been to – limits China to the little that I know of it. No possibilities are lost by calling China China. The word is merely a signifier or sign. In fact not using the sign may limit the possibility of my knowing China better because I may not be able to find it without the dang sign!
Quoting TLCD1996
In Buddhist Romanticism, Ajahn Geoff points a finger at other schools, not his own. Not by name but if you do a google search with the quotations he lists you can see who they are.
That's very true! But it doesn't make the sign especially truthful or accurate. It just means that they have their purpose and can be used accordingly. But our understanding of China will change over time, as will our descriptions and signifiers. Therefore these signs are not totally stable, therefore our usage of them must be a bit more purposeful and perhaps not separate from values of truthfulness. And still, some people will understand them one way, others a different way. And our desire for agreement is not always guaranteed satisfaction, unfortunately.
Meanwhile, the suffering that arises from our attachment to these terms still lingers. And on that note I suspect that my own understanding of the words you seek to use and define is limited, so my ability to contribute to this part of the discussion is limited as well. Therefore, I really don't want to keep going back and forth saying the same thing over and over (and a fair bit extra) when the point is exactly the opposite of that. So I'll leave that there.
Quoting praxis
Are you (edit: really) saying he never mentions the teachings of his own tradition in the book[s], or in general[/s]?
Edit 2: Given that somebody could easily make up claims that Buddhist is undermined by the introduction of a new way of thinking, don't you think it's necessary to provide evidence for such a claim? And aren't the teachings of others evidence? Indeed, those in the Buddha's time may have been similarly in some proximity to the teachers he does not name; do you think it would have been better if he didn't say anything at all and just kept to himself?
Agreed, never proven, just made more credible.
Quoting TLCD1996
Have you ever worked a hard low paying job for years? If the guy next to you is always happy, at peace and contented while you're burning out, you'd probably take note of that and wonder how they did it.
There's a guy like this who loads lumber for customers at my local HomeDepot. Hard sweaty job, 8 hours a day. Been there for years. Probably makes about $10/hour. Always cheerful, always a smile, always helpful, always fun to see again. One day I asked him, how do you do that? Jesus he said. Credibility.
Pretty much all the gurus and teachers I've seen sit on a pillow at the center of a crowd of adoring followers. Even I could be enlightened in such a circumstance.
Just saying, one more way to look at it. Not "the" way. Just another way.
Perfect example of passive-aggressive baiting. Those participating in this thread will do well to take note.
I'm afraid that I believe Nagarjuna is entirely correct about metaphysics and Reality. I'm unable to grasp why anyone would want to disagree with him.
This doesn't matter generally, each to his own and all that, but it means that when you and I describe Buddhist teachings we present two quite different pictures. I feel this is a tragedy for Buddhism and more generally religion.
If I were a newcomer to Buddhism I;d probably dismiss it for being unreliable, as indicated by its internal disagreements.
Not sure we can do much about this but I'm happy to delve deeper if you wish.
My objection is metaphysical. It doesn't matter what a practitioner believes because they;re going to find out for themselves who is right. But our interpretation of the sutras is crucial in metaphysics., Nagarjuna has the only metaphysical scheme that works, so to say his philosophical exegesis of Reality is wrong is to say that Buddhism has no coherent philosophical foundation. This does it no favours and renders it incomprehensible to outsiders. . ,
It's fine to call it a religion. But it's also a philosophy, a practice, an art and a science. I don't know why you cannot see this. If you think it;s just a religion (whatever he definition) then you're missing much of what it;s about. It's limiting to pigeon-hole before you do the study. Find out what it is and then you'll know what it is.
If you understood BUddhism you would not be asking these questions. Surely the best idea would be to forget your theories and just study it. . .
But you're not saying the same thing. When I showed that labeling something doesn't limit possibilities you switched to the issue of "truthful or accurate." To date, no one has shown how my way of defining religion is inaccurate or shown how Buddhism doesn't qualify in this definition.
Quoting TLCD1996
No one expects our concepts to not develop. I suppose we might use them without purpose and "separate from values of truthfulness" but I don't see how that's relevant. People may do all sorts of inexplicable things.
Of course, people have varying understandings of things. If you asked a child what religions is they might say something like, "it's about God." If you asked someone with a PhD in religious studies what religion is, God knows what they'd say. As we've already noted, the term is not very well defined, ergo, this topic.
This is like saying that calling the earth a planet pigeonholes the earth and that you're neglecting to communicate much of what the earth is about. Of course you're not communicating much of what the earth is about when you call it a planet. Who would think that calling the earth a planet communicated everything about the earth? No one.
In the context of celestial bodies, the earth isn’t accurately identified as a moon or an asteroid, or a zebra. It’s accurately identified as a planet.
Your contributions to the topic have been reduced to ad hominem attacks? Figgers.
I cannot grasp the point that you've been trying to make for so long.
Why not just concede that Buddhism is a religion among others things? Why not just concede that how we define religion is to some extent merely a matter of taste? Then we can all relax.
Or is there some point you're trying to make?
I work at Walgreens! And I'm a full time student. There's definitely stressors that make practice difficult, but the thing is learning how to bring it all together in a good way. That's really up to the individual, but it's something I'm working on myself. And at the monastery, especially Ajahn Chah's monastery, work is part of the daily life. Sometimes you do things you don't want to do; the junior monastics often have to clean out the septic. One monk I know would spend hours each day, sometimes losing sleep, over managing the technological side of things - the website, utilities, etc. At Ajahn Chah's monastery back in the day, long periods of hard labor were pretty common. Lots of hard work, but it's not separate from practice. And especially based on my experiences at the monastery and stories I've heard... lots of joy to be found through generosity.
Quoting FrancisRay
Maybe my thinking's a little out there (I think you had pointed out that my understanding of koans was not correct), but to me that reminds me of so many classic Zen stories. The teacher says something apparently contradictory, and the student is just confused. Sometimes maybe they leave, but those who stay learn - after whatever period of time. Whatever the case, there's some sort of mental barrier to get through. To my understanding, a lot of that means not grasping for a clear argument and just doing the practice and seeing what works (perhaps this has a connection to Kierkegaard's leap of faith, which I have only heard about in passing). And what works for you is something you find for yourself.
I don't know much about Nagarjuna, and I'm not saying his arguments are wrong. But at least, from my understanding, understanding metaphysical arguments just isn't totally necessary in practice to get the results. That's a broad statement, but again it's just my own understanding that we ought to just focus on the nitty gritty of the work without getting too heady; you don't need to read a lot to know what happens when you try to focus on your breath. Often, in the Thai forest tradition, the position on reading is to do so very little, and put the books down when you start feeling inspired to practice, or when you start tangling yourself in a knot. And that is itself a crucial point of practice which is simple and not bound with metaphysical argument: knowing "the right amount", getting the "just right practice". When you know the "just right practice", you'll come to learn a lot just by engaging and observing. Of course you can learn by reading, but then again you can also just read your own mind.
This isn't to shoot you down. I don't know much about your practice (you say it's not Buddhist). But for some people who are prone to digging themselves too deep into a book, I would say: Do what HippyHead does. Go out in the woods and just sit there and enjoy it. Don't think too much about it, just be present. Relax a little, tune in with the senses a bit more. It's not religious or philosophical until you start pinning that label on it. Drop the label, just do the thing.
Quoting praxis
So it seems you understand, in one way or another, what I'm saying. And since I'm not really interested in finding a definition for religion myself, at least not right now, I won't go much further. Usually the practice is like this: you find a meaning which is useful, you pick it up and use it, then you put it down when you don't need it. And you remember that there is no true refuge within that meaning, so you stop seeking it out.
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh, yes, that Buddhism is a religion.
Quoting FrancisRay
I haven't argued against the idea that some individual's regard for Buddhism is to some extent influenced by subjective feeling. In fact, in my opinion, that has been the obstacle all along. I've not denied the lack of objectivity. Indeed, I've alluded to it on several occasions, only to be attacked for doing so with claims that I'm baiting or trolling.
Unless the meaning is something like, oh, I don't know, Buddhist Romanticism, then you write a whole damn book about it.
You're not the only one allowed to have pet projects :)
Aha! I have found my guru! :-)
Well, almost. You are not claiming to be an authority, a leader, a teacher etc. Should you ever do so I will visit your Walgreens and subject you to a ceaseless barrage of annoying customer complaints. Science! :-)
Quoting TLCD1996
I like this. I call this "taking it up a level". On one level we can debate the value of "this meaning vs. that meaning" until the end of time. If "take it up a level" and stand back from the debate, we can observe that all meanings, every one of them, whatever their relative value, are all just a pile of symbols.
Every photo on Facebook is just a photo. None of the photos, not a single one, is a real person.
The value of the Facebook photos is derived from our relationship with the person the photo points to. If we don't know the person, if we have no relationship with them, then the photo can only hope to be temporarily mildly interesting and little more.
The value we seek, the "refuge" is found in the real world. The symbolic world is a primary obstacle to focusing on the real world.
If we spend all day every day on Facebook looking at photos, then we will likely have few to no real world friends, and thus all the photos will be largely meaningless.
"Maybe my thinking's a little out there (I think you had pointed out that my understanding of koans was not correct), but to me that reminds me of so many classic Zen stories. The teacher says something apparently contradictory, and the student is just confused. Sometimes maybe they leave, but those who stay learn -
This is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the disagreement within Buddhism as to what is true. (I don't remember saying your understanding of koans was incorrect). .
I don't know much about Nagarjuna, and I'm not saying his arguments are wrong. But at least, from my understanding, understanding metaphysical arguments just isn't totally necessary in practice to get the results.
You're right, of course. But this in no way changes the fact that a doctrine that is not metaphysically sound is a mistake. As Aurobindo notes, and as the Buddha implies when he invites us to apply our critical reason to his teachings. metaphysics is a reliable guardian against error. .
"This isn't to shoot you down. I don't know much about your practice (you say it's not Buddhist). But for some people who are prone to digging themselves too deep into a book, I would say: Do what HippyHead does. Go out in the woods and just sit there and enjoy it.
I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. This is a philosophy forum,and so I do not appeal to experience. My point is that a study of metaphysics reveals that Buddhism doctrine is the only one that works, as Nagarjuna shows, and this is the case regardless of our beliefs, faiths, hopes and dreams. ,If this was a Buddhist forum full of practitioners I;d come at it differently.
In Theravada metaphysics is bound to be played down since it reveals things best left unrevealed. In Mahayana metaphysics is an easy way to show the sound logical basis of the Buddha's teachings.
Most Buddhists I've met have no interest and no knowledge of metaphysics and have some funny ideas about it. Yet analysis allows us to shed light on the teachings and to demonstrate their sense and plausibility. Zen koans would be impossible to explain (as opposed to 'grok') without a grasp of logic and metaphysics.
Maybe we should thrash this one out properly on a separate thread.
.
. . .
Fits the ppp perfectly.
But surely you are trolling. Why keep sniping away when you already agree that whether Buddhism is a religion is a matter of definitions? We all agreed about this days ago.
reply="praxis;466844"]
It would be impossible to know what the Buddha's teachings mean without knowing they are true, so the word 'authority' here should be treated with caution. Clearly Buddhists believe he knew his onions, but most of them are still in the process of discovering what they mean. When they discover this, they will know whether he was an authority. . .
Dear mods, could you please close the forum and erase all the backups so that praxis will have to infect some other site? Thank you!
Such is life in a scientific and capitalistic America. And yes: a lot of it is really recognizing the limitations of whatever we're attached to, and going beyond it.
Quoting FrancisRay
I don't know. It may insert something good into the Philosophy or Religion thing. I'm not keen the dichotomy, but it seems to be useful for some to whatever extent (I'm mostly just concerned with the way it limits our own understanding, application, or even treatment of practice). And really: over and over your posts are suggesting that I probably don't understand metaphysics; like with koans, it's not because you said I'm wrong, but because what you're saying is going beyond my understanding. So my inference is that I don't understand it fully!
It seems that a theme over the past couple of days for me is that we all have our logical ways of thinking, and although they aren't ultimately a refuge they can be useful, but our own attachment to our own views may lead us to just throw out all other considerations out the window. It seems that certain logical approaches, theories, or whatever you want to call them, are like mathematical formulas we don't understand. If we don't understand them, of course we won't be able to use them properly and we might dismiss them as utterly useless.
So I think it would be good to clear up confusion in that area.
Quoting praxis
Perhaps questionable in the language, but not totally wrong. Those are the external refuges, and the externals ultimately can't be relied on. Therefore we must also take refuge in the inner Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha. That is, we take refuge in awakening, truth, and integrity (noting there is no single correct interpretation of this, it usually falls somewhere along those lines). Ajahn Lee offers some really interesting words on that, where actually each refuge is in a way pointing to the same thing, just from a different angle (and after all it is in reference to a multifaceted gem).
In truth it’s authority, metaphysics, and solidarity. If it were otherwise Buddhism would have been abandon centuries ago, because out of the millions of practitioners there are only 7 known successes stories, only 7 Buddha’s. No one would use a “medicine” that has such an infinitesimal cure rate unless the medicine fulfilled some other need.
No, no, no! There's much more. Ajahn Mun, Ajahn Lee, Ajahn Sao, Ajahn Khao, Ajahn Maha Bua, Ajahn Thate, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Khinaree, Ajahn Tongrat, Ajahn Pannavaddho, Ajahn Liem (a recent example)... Xuyun from the Chinese tradition... these are some examples of "success stories", or even just great teachers. You're probably not interested but if anyone else is, their stories and teachings are there.
So not much difference between the cessation of sufferings or Buddhahood and a great teacher? And what’s the difference between the 7 Buddha’s and those you mention?
I don't know a whole lot about the other Buddhas, but so the theory goes: a Buddha is an Arahant, one who has put an end to their suffering, but by their own efforts without any guidance on the eightfold path. Those other Buddhas, or the future Buddha to be, would only arise after a "Buddha era" has passed (when the dhamma teachings have disappeared in the world), however I have heard that private Buddhas may arise, particularly in very special circumstances (and they don't teach). Non-buddhas who are awakened are called Arahants.
The names I listed refer to those who have been suggested to have reached a certain level of awakening. Since a vinaya rule forbids against speaking of one's attainments, these Ajahns have not declared themselves arahants, though in a controversial event Ajahn Maha Bua did (I think somewhat indirectly; maybe others have as well, but not to my memory). And beyond these people, of course the Buddha had his Arahant disciples.
Any way, in the circumstances we are in, lay followers are not expected to worship teachers. Many [s]due[/s] do, particularly in Thailand, however from what I've seen and heard (edit 2: and experienced!!!), respecting teachers comes from faith and observations/experiences of their conduct. There does not seem to be an established sort of "guru" treatment where the Guru is supposed to be treated like a God or supreme being. Many forest teachers I'm aware of discourage speculation regarding attainments, emphasizing observation and reflection over their teacher's conduct.
So, a few more than 7 but still an infinitesimally low number, and the 7 did it on their own? The efficacy of the teaching is appalling. Point is, if it were about awakening, truth, and integrity, as you say, then it seems like the best course would be to abandon the teaching and search for a better way.
Refuge in authority, metaphysics, and solidarity would be consistent with the results.
Quoting TLCD1996
Buddha is the ultimate authority in Buddhism.
I'm good lol. Since a lot of the efficacy of Buddhism actually lies within us (hence the purpose of inner refuges), and since the origin of suffering also lies within us, Buddhists (at least the ones I know and learn from) believe that if something isn't working, it's best to look inward rather than outward. Sometimes new teachings or perspectives can help (if they don't confuse us even more), but often we don't need to look that far for solutions, we just need to let go of the problems inside. If we do that, outside problems don't really matter that much, because we have our inner refuges; it doesn't matter if people around us aren't enlightened, because at least we have a good means of finding ease for ourselves. The decision to not care so much about the (non-)enlightenment of our teachers can lead to a great deal of self-confidence.
Buddhism is about the cessation of suffering and not merely finding inner ease. There are secular ways of finding ease for ourselves that doesn’t rely on externalities.
The cessation of suffering is the foremost ease, because it is unconditioned. Given that it is reached by means of the eightfold path, which itself is conditioned and without a doubt bound with happiness (to be found within the results virtue, concentration, and insight), the path to the end of suffering is a path of gradually refined happiness. Secular means are not mutually exclusive from this and could fall under the category of virtue (e.g. right livelihood means we take on a means of gaining a livelihood which is virtuous and blameless). Even so, this still has its sources within, because it is by our own understanding and effort that we adopt, maintain, and refine such a livelihood. That's Right Effort: to abandon the unskillful, prevent the unskillful from arising again, cultivate the skillful, and maintain the skillful. Skillful, being a translation of kusala, can also be synonymous with "wholesome", which may illustrate to some the extent to which the term is related to well-being.
Noting that Right effort falls under the category of concentration and precedes right mindfulness and follows right livelihood, there is a connection between one's virtuous action/livelihood and one's ability to cultivate right effort and maintain a focused attention on the aspects of our experience that are pertinent to the path (satipatthana, namely). And given that right mindfulness precedes right concentration which is defined as jhana (which are in turn progressively refined states of well-being devoid of the hindrances), we can trace deep inner ease straight to our actions. And given that concentration precedes knowledge and vision which precedes dispassion and release, we can also trace release to our actions.
So it all starts with our actions. Thus another notable aspect of the Thai Forest tradition is an emphasis on practical applications of the teaching in daily life, that is, our virtue (sila), but to support (not to discount) the other factors. Thus the "vinaya" of "dhammavinaya" is absolutely crucial and Buddhism is not merely a matter of faith, yet nonetheless practice is motivated by faith.
No one has claimed that it’s only faith. Not sure what that even means.
Even so, some people may feel uncomfortable having faith in something they don't know. Sometimes the issue of faith weighs over their minds; maybe they forget about the teachings of insight, or maybe they have something against faith. People who tend to equate religion to something like "all faith and no reason" may be inclined to think that Buddhism is a matter of faith, perhaps faith in the Buddha as a savior or even rituals as a savior. Maybe they have the wrong idea that their practice entails absolute faith right from the get-go with no questions asked regarding basic principles, their teachers, or the Buddha.
In such a scenario it might be helpful to remind them that actually, you start right where you are; practice according to your understanding, ask questions, and learn from the results of your practice. Thus faith is to be exercised and examined, the result being understanding, which increases faith - not just in the teachings, but one's own efforts and ability to affect good and bad qualities within.
As I've pointed out, considering the extremely dubious success rate of the cessation of suffering everyone should seriously question their faith in Buddhism, from the get-go to wherever they are. As I've said, inner ease that doesn't rely on externalities can be had via secularity.
Totally.
Seriously questioning one's faith in Buddhism is a really good part of the practice. I've done it a good few times. It's a pretty natural aspect of having faith. I think it's actually one way to know you're learning. And after a crisis, one may find that their intention is even stronger and more clarified.
I'm wondering what kind of inner ease which doesn't depend on externals but can be found via secularities are you referring to?
I've arrived at, what to me is, an interesting and also profound conclusion. First things first, "religion", is the wrong word and, dare I say, the prolonged, anticlimactic, ongoing discussion proves this point. "Religion" - the word - is, even if intepreted in the most charitable manner, actually a layman's approximation, liable to be misunderstood in every way imaginable. The word, "religion", is a slippery customer and just won't cut it if we're to answer the question in the OP in a meanignful way.
What are our options here then? This question has an answer that's so obvious that it slips under our radar with ease. The answer, the alternative, is philosophy. If there's anyone at all that can come up with the term that fits the bill insofar as my inquiry is concerned, it's got to be a philosopher worth faer salt.
To cut to the chase, let's look at some philosophical terms that the man on the Clapham omnibus knows like the back of his hand viz. theism and atheism.
[quote=Wikipedia, Etymology Of Theism]The term theism derives from the Greek theos or theoi meaning "god" or "gods".[/quote]
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that religion when put under the well-trained philosopher's micrcoscope reveals its true form, its essence as it were, and that, as the chosen etymology proves, is that religions are about gods - beings as such, usually with the responsibility of both generating, enforcing, and judging moral codes, their observance and their violation.
Buddhism has no god or gods. Before you raise the objection that there are gods in Buddhism, remember Buddhist gods aren't the source of our morals; in fact they differ from us only in terms of how happy they are and how long they live - basically they're extremely long-lived, extremely happy versions of humans and that's just sad if anything.The Buddha, for some reason, for better or for worse, kept a close and careful watch over his metaphysical claims - I suppose he tried his best to keep the metaphysical content of now his philosophy rather than religion to a bare minimum.
What say you? :chin:
I think that quote could be used to suggest that Buddhism is not (a)theistic, and although concepts in general may seem to be slippery in some ways, it seems that one could call Buddhism a religion:
Or a philosophy, albeit with a certain twist:
Buddhism incorporates all of the above elements and so you could say it's both (though some people may really be insistent on placing it under one label and sticking with it). But if you consider the cultural origins of the terms (my knowledge is limited but it seems they were in use long before The West came into contact with The East), it might be worth considering that Buddhism is neither (opting for Dhammavinaya).
I'm wondering what would be the intention behind such a categorization, though; it seems like that would play a role in coming to something of a conclusion. Why are we stuck on these two terms if they both seem to be inadequate?
Then Buddhism studies, is concerned with worldly affairs, and doesn't contain truths but only theory.
Yes, usually academic studies on Buddhism are focused more on theory (even perhaps theory of practice). Schools usually aren't teaching you how to practice dhamma, to my understanding. But is it worldly? I think that would depend on the content. I've never taken a Buddhist studies course so I wouldn't know for sure.
"Worldly" in Buddhism refers to concerns/intentions with worldly affairs such as gains, honor, fame, pleasure, etc. at their heart. If these things are used in accordance with the path, though, they're headed in the direction of "living in the world, but not of it."
You misunderstand, no philosophy teaches truth, it studies fundamental questions, etc, so to say that Buddhism is philosophy is to say that it does not teach the truth but merely theorizes.
Well, the story goes that the Buddha's question revolved around suffering and its cessation, and what he found was the truth; if you teach about that, you're teaching the truth (until you start saying things that undermine the path to that cessation of suffering). Therefore Buddhists may say that a class teaching about Buddhism is teaching about things which are true, to a greater or lesser extent. After all, even dry theory can be used as a starting point for practice (but it's difficult).
You seem to make an interesting point that since Buddhism doesn't only theorize and proclaims to teach truth, perhaps it is not a philosophy at its heart; a philosophy class which teaches of Buddhism would undermine its claim to truth and render it a philosophy which is only theory. Right?
But to say Buddhism "incorporates" philosophy may be rephrased: Buddhism contains elements which would render it similar to a philosophy such as an attempt to answer questions and provide a framework for thinking and practicing. But in other ways it departs, such as the incorporation of devotional practices or practices which are neither devotional or thought-based, and the formation of community).
Philosophically, you would need to show how it's true, but that's not possible.
In what way would one show that something is true philosophically?
Quoting TLCD1996
I think you're spot on. What is intriguing here is that no religion, save Buddhism, shares this quality, the quality of being, in one sense, a religion, and in another sense, a philosophy.Quoting TLCD1996
What's that?
Quoting TLCD1996
My intent here is twofold:
1. Answer the question that I posed in the OP viz. is Buddhism a religion or philosophy? This so that we can clear up the misconception that people have regarding Buddhism that shows in attitudes captured by statements like, "Buddhism is just another religion." or "Buddhism is my religion", etc. Buddhism is so much more, a conclusion you, yourself seems to have arrived at in our discussion.
2. By acheiving 1, to expose, perhaps "reveal" is a better word, the, now, patent, truth that philosophies that are geared toward answering one of the top questions in philosophy viz. "what is the good life?" eventually become religions, religions in the sense of the definition you provided. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that what are actually philosophies get lumped in with what are true theistic traditions, mainly the Abrahamic triad. This is a grievous error with what are truly horrible consequences - for instance Buddhism can become, has been, both a perpetrator and a victim of religious violence. The incongruity of treating Buddhism as a religion becomes starkly apparent once we take it to its logical conclusion - treating those who subscribe to a worldview of a certain philosopher as constituting the creation of a religion: We would have, on our hands, "religions" such as Aristotelianism, Humianism, Schopenhauerism, if you know what I mean.
What I mean is that it’s not philosophical to accept that something is true based on mere authority, and authority that has access to supernatural knowledge or experience. Apropos...
Quoting TheMadFool
You don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize that “generating, enforcing, and judging moral codes, their observance and their violation” don’t need to be... Godified. What matters is that it comes from an authority with supernatural access to this knowledge/experience.
You know that karma/postmortem rebirth are integral to Buddhism, right?
Quoting TheMadFool
Not at all, Aristotelianism, Humanism, and Schopenhauerism do not rely on an authority with access to supernatural knowledge/experience.
Yet Buddhism doesn't really fall neatly into this either. Of course some Buddhists may do this, but accepting the Buddha's words as absolute truth would bar development on the path; having rigid and unchanging preconceptions about anything in practice limits one's capabilities and often sets up many obstacles along the way (in the form of ideas), thus viewpoints aren't necessarily to be "accepted" as they are "respected" and agreed upon, but tested along the way and abandoned when necessary. This is for the sole purpose of coming to the Buddha's insights into the Four Noble Truths (as accepted possibilities built on the assumption that "suffering arises and ceases therefore there must be a cause and an ability to understand suffering and that cause, and supposing the cause is a matter of habit then the cause can be abandoned"), which aren't in any way supernatural (if I understand the word and its usage correctly). Although the Buddha is said to have built upon the merit accumulated through past lives (which can be called supernatural), what he really did was exercise Right Effort, which is what we are able to do as well (which may explain why a Buddha is an Arahant but an Arahant is not necessarily a Buddha).
On that note rebirth is accepted similarly, not as an absolute but as a possibility (and for different reasons). Same with karma, however research of the suttas and practice itself should yield an understanding that karma isn't totally supernatural at all; karma is literally "intention" (cetana) that yields corresponding results, not just in terms of rebirth but also worldly results and mental results. It's a complicated web of cause and effect wherein there is a distinction between "Wholesome" (non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion) and "unwholesome" (greed, hatred, delusion), the understanding of which is resultant of making the delineation and testing it through cultivation of the former sort and thorough investigation of both intention and consequence.
The result of holding to a view but being able to question it while putting it into practice is that one is able to investigate it in a manner not necessarily limited to debate or pondering, so that one may come to a personal understanding of it.
Saying this, going back to what I said about a class teaching about Buddhism: That such a class would be teaching "truth" is a matter of my own conviction and perhaps the conviction of other Buddhists; along similar lines I was once told to be mindful of how one treats a collection of suttas because "they're the truest teachings you'll ever hold"; yet this was not necessarily to be accepted immediately as an unquestioned order (authority may imply absolute power). It's not necessarily meant to say that they are teaching something which is absolutely true on that grounds that it is Buddhism, but rather that a Buddhist would declare it truthful teaching based on the extent to which it describes the Buddha's positing of suffering, an origin, a cessation, and a way leading to cessation. This point is mostly of interest to practitioners, I think, but would be illustrative of faith as a kind of confidence and trust, which is said to be deepened by the aforementioned realizations gleaned by personal investigation. And in that sense, going back to inner refuges, the authority would be those insights, particularly the insights which actually result in abandonment of the causes of suffering (and the fetters of becoming which are bound with a certain level of ignorance and craving). The dhammavinaya is, in a sense, not just prescribed but realized and strengthened in those insights.
I talked a bit about dhammavinaya here and there in the thread, but basically it's what the Buddha called his dispensation: dhammavinaya, teaching/doctrine and discipline. The teachings being the four noble truths, khandhas, three characteristics, dependent origination, etc., and the discipline being that which comes as both cause for and result of understanding doctrine. In the vinaya you have rules against violence and killing, among other things, and these disciplinary constraints are deemed essential for the refinement of virtue (particularly the 5 precepts) which is in turn deemed essential for the development of concentration and wisdom. Thus the dhammavinaya is a threefold training in virtue, wisdom, and concentration, and it's something of a feedback loop where wisdom nourishes virtue and so fourth. Maybe one could call it a discipline built on an acceptance (but not an absolute or incontrovertible acceptance) of the teachings.
Quoting TheMadFool
Are you saying that the intention is to try and illustrate how Buddhism can shift (or has shifted) from Philosophy to Religion?
You wrote:
Quoting TLCD1996
You are saying that what he found was the truth. Are you saying now that what he found may be false?
Quoting TLCD1996
You agree that it can be called supernatural.
So in all honesty, Buddhism does meet these criteria.
Please define supernatural.
I beginning to wonder if you know the meaning of honesty.
Well, all I said was that I have faith that he found and taught truth, and this faith grows with my confidence gleaned from practice. Faith in his truthfulness doesn't mean it's false, it just means I have come to agree with it to whatever extent, and I still have yet to realize it entirely.
To correct myself, it may suggest the possibility of the teachings being wrong, but to me I see no falsehood. It's not much more than if you said you were a male, and since I didn't know but believed you, there is the possibility of you being dishonest. There is also the possibility of you being wrong about your biology.
If I have said anything that constitutes a lie, please point that out. And please answer my questions instead of making these kinds of irrelevant accusations.
Just to be clear, you agree that Buddhism might not be true?
Thanks for informative post. I'm going to read it in the context of the OP if that's ok with you. First is the notion of dependent origination which I surmise leads to the doctrine of impermanence and that gibes with the last line in your post viz. "...but not an absolute incontrovertible acceptance of teachings". Since the Buddha is no longer with us, all we can do, at this moment, is connect the dots, add two and two together so to speak, and my guesstimate is that the Buddha intended his system (Buddhism) to be Darwinian in character i.e. it was intended to evolve over time even if it meant that his theory about the world would be scrunched up into a ball and flung into the trash can. This will make more sense if you read the paragraph that follows.
Second is the presence of the words "concentration and wisdom" - I'm familiar with them in a philosophical setting. It's as if Buddhism wants us to, well, think and not just think but to think well. This exhortation to use one's brains is completely absent in other religions and needs to be emphasized without hesitation of any kind. To add, the entire edifice of Buddhism appears to me as an axiomatic system that begins with what was then incontrovertible truths viz. the four noble truths and the doctrine of impermanence. In short, Buddhism is a theory of life built up from known facts with the primary objective of teaching us how the good life must be lived and that completely within a rational framework.
Third, Buddhism has, in the course of its history, rubbed shoulders with other true religions and that has, inevitably in my opinion, led to a one-sided relationship that shows - Buddhists eventually deifying the Buddha, developing rituals and practices that are probably meant to reinforce Buddhist precepts, sanctification of certain important historical sites, and so on but Buddhism itself failed to make an impact on other religions in a similar way. This inter-religious event in Buddhism's past, present and probably the future has upended the spirit of Buddhism as a fluid, dynamic, evolving theory of life and the world and morphed it into a rigid and fixed dogmatic system of beliefs. Thankfully, in my humble opinion, this isn't something that can't be reversed - all it takes realize the true character of Buddhism is some thought, just as I've done here.
In summary, Buddhism has too much reason in it to be clubbed with other religions and too much ritual in it not to be.
Quoting TLCD1996
Read the above.
To my understanding this is not quite the logic of the Buddha's teachings. Knowledge of impermanence was something of a given to whatever extent before the Buddha's enlightenment; other spiritual figures or sources seemed to have pointed to change as being an important reason to abandon worldly concerns and seek something higher; different religious traditions sought the unchanging and equated it with self and/or Brahma, for example. But the Buddhist scriptures say that this "Brahma" was yet another form of becoming; the notion of "atman" based on a wrong assumption; both being involved in the process of suffering. Dependent origination was, as the story goes, one of the Buddha's fundamental insights into the process by which suffering arises and ceases, and how it can be traced through sense experience to ignorance (of impermanence as "origination" and "cessation", notably in regards to the Four Noble Truths). Rebirth is connected with this, in that DO illustrates how the process of rebirth continues to happen over and over again in a process with no conceivable beginning (and indeed one can interchangeably interpret DO to refer to this lifetime and many lifetimes). The role of the teaching is solely to give a framework for investigating the process of becoming and suffering. To whatever extent it provides a theory is not important as a matter of debate but as a matter of practice.
Perhaps it can be inferred that since all things are subject to change, the Buddha's teachings are as well. And indeed, in whatever way, they are: people interpret them, translate them, or re-formulate them differently in different places and times. But the Buddha's teachings and his prescribed practice therein did not speak about "evolution" or did they see change as a "good thing", and the point of the suttas and Vinaya was to try and conserve those teachings for as long as humanly possible. If schisms erupt, as they have, that puts the teachings in danger. Even more so if the discipline is done away with altogether.
Noting that darwinian evolution, as I am currently learning about it in my gen ed classes, describes how populations change via reproduction - it's just a process that occurs mostly regardless of how we judge it as favorable or not. It's something which allows species to live on, yet it is also something which kills or endangers a species (e.g. sickle cells, replacing one advantage for another, cancer). If something goes wrong, things just break down. And whatever the case, the animal or being or its biological constituents still need to do something to survive. And it seems to be in reference to what one wants as a living being that they see the process as "good" or "bad". Thus the same is so for the Buddha's teachings. And in that case we need to ask what's surviving.
As Ajahn Geoff aptly points out, in whatever way the practice of concentration is as much a resistance to change as it is an acceptance: we accept that things change, we are equanimous toward that change, but we do not surrender to that change. Instead, we keep the mind as stable as possible and do what we can to affect good changes and bad changes: abandoning and not taking up the unwholesome, taking up and maintaining the wholesome.
This is easiest to do if one takes and holds to the basic teachings properly. When one starts using them with unwholesome intentions, you get bad results, such as violence. If one uses them to become something or get sense pleasure, you just get more becoming and more sense pleasure, not necessarily more virtue, concentration, or wisdom. And then if your misuse becomes the norm, the original purpose of the teachings is lost. But when one uses them, maintains them, respects them, investigates them, and keeps them in mind, one is able to investigate them thoroughly and understand them thoroughly. Thus their essence, which the scriptures/the Buddha says is "freedom", can live on. If the Buddha's teachings are used to give meaning to life or establish intimate connection with the infinite and organic cosmos, you get Romanticism. If the Buddha's teachings are used to justify not doing anything about anything, you get something nihilistic, no? But if the Buddha's teachings are used to cultivate dispassion and release, you'll get dhamma. Dispassion and release are the essence.
Changing the teachings, especially according to cultural norms which are under the influence of a variety of different intentions and outside influences, is something that is not necessarily a good thing. Thus the Buddha said to keep to the vinaya, and regard it and the teachings as an authority; but don't settle on just memorizing texts. Question them, investigate them, utilize them, and understand them.
Especially when society is changing so rapidly, and our interest in well-being is growing but in such a complicated social and academic context (to my understanding), it seems we need to be weary of quick change. And classifying Buddhism as religion or philosophy is definitely part of that change. Good or bad? I don't know, I'm just weary, and I think forgetting about the practical elements endangers the teaching as much as it endangers our potential.
To use one's brain.
Step One: Find the on/off switch
I suppose then that the Buddha's contribution is in having recognized, refined, and emphasized the profundity of the truth we call impermanence. A "casting pearls before swines" kinda thing.
Quoting TLCD1996
Therein, in my humble opinion, lies the rub.
Quoting TLCD1996
I must confess this was simply me trying my hand at being Sherlock Holmes, or if you prefer the other guy, Hercule Poirot. It isn't part of the mainstream view on Buddhism. I see it as having been implied from, a necessary consequence of, impermanence. Surely, you can see it too? Between the delightful duo of recommended wisdom, and the doctrine of impermanence, there's one conclusion that stands out - change, transformation, or as I like to call it, evolution.
Quoting TLCD1996
In my humble opinion, the Buddha was primarily and deeply concerned about only one fact of life - suffering. To him, the person he met while out on an excursion from his palace - the one in pain from an illness - was something excruciating to behold. Fastforward to the 21st century and that person could've been successfully treated with some analgesics and, perhaps a course of antibiotics. The landscape of truth shifts with time; in short, impermanence and the Buddha, surely, would've foreseen the eventuality that his theory of life, to wit, Buddhism, would either morph or disappear (for ever).
Quoting TLCD1996
This, again only in my humble opinion, is another addition to the list of misconceptions about the Buddha and his teachings. It's not that the Buddha advised/recommended some kind of dispassionate, emotionally sterile, state of mind always and everywhere. We can and should experience all emotions i.e. we are to be passionate but this should be done, in computer-speak, with the software of impermanence running in the background, ready to be activated as it were when the moment change occurs and what it is that one is passionate about dies, decays or is desrroyed. If not interpreted this way, Buddha would be, essentially, asking us to be passionless, and lifeless, rocks which just doesn't add up.
Quoting TLCD1996
It is, as Agent Smith and then Neo himself says in the Matrix, inevitable. Impermanence!
Quoting TLCD1996
Who isn't? We all are! However, the universe seems, sadly, indifferent to our plight!
Exactly, this is how religious people are. If the religious truly believed they would act accordingly. If they believed that there were Gods, ghosts, demons, hell realms, and that if they did bad stuff they would be reborn as a dung worm, they would certainly act accordingly. But religious folk work at Walmart and serve up toxic highly processed foods and intoxicants to their fellow human beings, and also sell medicines to treat the results of the toxic food and drink they sell. Talk about a samsaric exercise. And they go to college and study things concerned with worldly affairs and material gain.
They all believe that their religion is special. That it's the truth and can't be limited to any definition. Other traditions can, of course, like Buddhist Romanticism, but not their precious tradition.
I can see what you mean, but it doesn't really add up. Of course it's your opinion, however this is an interesting misconception about "dispassion". The Buddha, in teaching dispassion, didn't teach us to be emotionally sterile. To "activate" impermanence only when that which we love is gone is to attempt to repress grief by a kind of spiritual bypassing. That doesn't really solve any problems and doesn't necessarily help us. Nor does beating ourselves over the head with this word "dispassion" if we take it to mean absolute blankness; such a blankness is, in a way, suffering itself; it is when we tighten our grip on the mind for the sole purpose of not feeling any emotion. But that's not what dispassion is.
Dispassion is the result of understanding, which is the result of concentration, which is the result of joy, which is a result of virtue. Thus the Buddha's teachings actually encourage us to take joy and delight in virtue and wholesome forms of happiness. Thus the scriptures say:
One could infer that this was a later addition and thus had nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching because his original teaching was all about suffering and being emotionally sterile, or it had everything to do with it because it was about a "Good life" and not necessarily about this "cessation" or "dispassion" business. But actually, its connection to the teachings finds a basis in the teaching that joy leads to concentration, and so forth up until dispassion and release.
Speaking about the advent of modern medicine, that doesn't necessarily rule out suffering. And that can be connected to impermanence: our medicine may fail, our medical infrastructure may collapse, our bodies (or rather their invaders) may just develop resistance. That is unsatisfactoriness from impermanence, not just a single incident of dissolution (edit: impermanence does not happen in isolation; DO illustrates that things are originated, not that they arise or cease on their own). And the dispassion lies in not holding to medicine in such a way as to cause suffering; we use it to care for our bodies, but not on the hopes that our bodies will be healthy forever or that we'll be happy just because our bodies are happy, because the mind bound by craving will find other things to suffer about. Thus when we lose things, the problem isn't that we have lost something, it's what we've been holding on to that which was never truly ours in the first place (anatta), and we seek refuge in other things to ease our pain (such as a mere program or idea of impermanence running in the background). Thus perception of impermanence, not just thought of impermanence, is what (in conjunction with the joy of virtue and meditation) leads to dispassion and release: non-grasping by understanding suffering and abandoning its cause.
Quoting TheMadFool
If I understand correctly, yes: impermanence can lead to a sort of necessary "evolution". The culture surrounding the Buddha's teachings has to adapt in order to keep the essence, the life, going. So while it's necessary to avoid panicking over these changes, it is also necessary to protect the essence through practice, education, discipline, etc. If impermanence met letting everything go according to whatever influences exerted upon it... I doubt Buddhist monks would even be alive right now! There was a story along these lines:
Well, good on you for having ideals. But there's no textual basis for your implication that I (edit: at least immediately) avoid such a livelihood in order to be "acting accordingly". Given the current circumstances, avoiding such a job may lead to full on homelessness (or total dependency on others) which could arguably put me in a scenario which is even worse.
As the Buddha said, it's a gradual training. If our livelihood isn't totally "pure" or "perfect", or we have found it to cause whatever form of harm (even without our intending to harm), then we should do our best to distance ourselves away from it. Given the circumstances, this isn't always possible immediately, and so in that scenario we can just do our best to keep to the basic precepts: not killing, not stealing, not engaging in sexual misconduct, not lying, or not indulging in intoxicants ourselves. Whatever others do is up to them, and if we seek to avoid any input in the matter we should work up to that. If we demand that of ourselves immediately, we may end up causing ourselves more suffering than necessary.
I appreciate that criticism but it isn't up to you to tell Buddhists how they should act, especially if you don't understand their practice or even the context of their life. Their actions are not your responsibility.
Edit: Thank you for sharing the beautiful photos :pray:
You're missing the point entirely.
The point is that if religious people actually believed what they profess to believe they would act accordingly, but they pretty much act like everyone else. Despite the possibility of the cessation of suffering or 'being one with God' or whatever else, they pursue material well-bing. And despite the possibility of being reborn in a hell realm or other hellish fate, they act normally and do normal shitty stuff.
Thanks for enjoying them. Winter hiking season has finally arrived and I'm back in the woods almost full time. Nothing any philosopher has ever said can touch it. So for now, I'm just not gonna try. Maybe more photos in a bit.
Yeah, that's a huge (not to mention unfortunately pessimistic) generalization. And even so the Buddha acknowledged that it was rare to find people who were well-restrained. It doesn't really mean people don't believe what they say they believe; it might actually mean they're reluctant to put it into practice to whatever degree, for whatever reason, and there are many reasons. One reason is that it's easy to rationalize not following one's faith in difficult scenarios. And that in itself is a reason why the Buddha emphasized spiritual friendship. If restrained people are rare, spiritual friends are hard to find for the one who interested in restraint, and thus practice will be difficult as well. Thankfully, in my case, I have access to a group of like-minded practitioners, albeit a small one, and I have other people to look up to in my life. And even if it's hard to find somebody admirable, I can still find admirable actions in people. (Edit: e.g. at work I have some co-workers with a good work ethic, and meet customers with all sorts of good qualities who are willing to share them with me; some people close to me aren't always engaged in good behavior but nonetheless they are smart, crafty, and willing to point out your own faults and listen to criticism to whatever extent).
Haha, good for you! :pray: Edit: It's about to get snowy here in Illinois, but if the economy doesn't collapse again I should be on a plane to California soon for some time in the forests myself.
Yea, sounds good! Post some pics if you can.
It’s not a huge generalization at all, religious folks are just as messed up, if indeed not more messed up, than non. And it’s not pessimistic because they’re getting what they’re supposed to be getting from their religion, which is being part of something greater than themselves and the sense of meaning derived from shared values and purpose. Also, as you’ve pointed out yourself, religion can offer an inner “ease.”
Quoting TLCD1996
For someone who claims to not depend on authority, you sure appeal to it A LOT.
Quoting TLCD1996
A spiritual life does not require an authority figure!
Why would you say that? What is "...to repress grief..."? It sounds like some kind of extremely tough and equally wrong course of action when faced with loss. Why exactly do we grieve when we lose something we dearly love? Isn't it because we wanted it to last a little longer or, even forever? Knowledge of impermanence would've informed you that that's impossible and that everything dies and decays. Wouldn't this have lessen the suffering, the pain, the anguish, of loss? In short, knowing that nothing lasts forever, makes it easier to accept loss - the grief isn't being repressed, it's being alleviated, mitigated, or even eliminated through understanding the nature of our world, our universe, of life.
Quoting TLCD1996
I only mentioned about modern medicine to drive home the point of impermanence - had the Buddha been living in the 21st century, surrounded by modern amenities, creature comforts, access to dentists and doctors, living close to a popular nightclub, etc, would he have had the motivation to seek the cessation of suffering? In fact the Buddha's story, to the extent that it's true, reflects this in the clearest of terms. He was, by his father, isolated from all the pain and suffering that were extant then and what was the result? No impulse to solve the problem of suffering. Things change - that's what impermanence is. There's no hard and fast rule that the Buddha's words are eternal truths. In fact it's my prediction that in about 100-200 years, all religions, if their central premise is the alleviation of suffering, will become obsolete and people of that future will look at religions thus based with utter disbelief - suffering will be so alien to them because they would've never experienced it.
Quoting TLCD1996
This is clinging with wisdom then? How?
And in regards to your thoughts on medicine: yes, you make a good point. The Buddha didn't recognize suffering until he saw it quite explicitly. However, there's still a whole lot of suffering around today... you'd have to live in a pampered palace not to see it :joke: I'm just not sure if advanced medicine would rule out concerns for well-being. Maybe, maybe not. What really spurs the "search for Dhamma" is a sense that nothing is really satisfactory, even if it brings some happiness. That can happen in all sorts of places, but it depends on the person.
Quoting TheMadFool
Because we need to hold onto something to be nourished. The word for clinging is "upadana", which also translates to "sustenance" as in "nutriment"; that which we cling to is what keeps the mind going. (Edit: this might not be totally correct; see down below).
To keep the mind going in a good direction, into the direction of non-clinging, we need to "cling" to good things, such as virtue, meditation, and wisdom, but in a way which is skillful. We use those three for the purpose of realizing the end of suffering; we don't use virtue to exalt ourselves or control others, we don't use meditation just to provide a brief escapade, and we don't use (what we think is) wisdom to prop up a new "enlightened identity," so to speak. Thus we also have this sutta:
And in the Alagaddupama Sutta, the Buddha says the Dhamma is like a watersnake and a raft: those who hold the snake correctly will not be bitten by it, just as those who grasp the dhamma (as a subject of study) rightly will not be bitten by it; to hold it wrongly is to use it as a tool of debate (I admit this is a weak point of mine), to use it rightly is to practice it in accordance with its purpose. And just as one discards a raft having passed to the farther shore, one discards the path having realized Nibbana. But the reason why Arahants don't revert to lives of sensuality is because they have no interest in it (having seen its danger), and are content with the monastic life. In another sense, they maintain the discipline to serve as an example to future generations (e.g. Maha Kassapa).
And on that it's worth pointing out the different words used: craving is tanha, while desire is chanda; they have different connotations, the latter being inclusive of wholesome desires. Meanwhile clinging (edit: and sustenance) is upadana, and grasping is gahanatthaya, the latter being "grasping" with a purpose in mind.
Oh? So Buddha ain’t the top dog? :worry:
Ditto.