I beginning to wonder if you know the meaning of honesty.

Yikes.

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?

Yes and that I am confident it is true.

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, ependent 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. — TLCD1996

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.

Are you saying that the intention is to try and illustrate how Buddhism can shift (or has shifted) from Philosophy to Religion — 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.

This exhortation to use one's brains is completely absent in other religions and needs to be emphasized without hesitation of any kind. — TheMadFool

To use one's brain.

Step One: Find the on/off switch

Knowledge of impermanence was something of a given to whatever extent before the Buddha's enlightenment — TLCD1996

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.

Perhaps it can be inferred that since all things are subject to change, the Buddha's teachings are as well — TLCD1996

Therein, in my humble opinion, lies the rub.

Buddha's teachings and his prescribed practice therein did not speak about "evolution" or did they see change as a "good thing", — 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.

Thus the same is so for the Buddha's teachings. And in that case we need to ask what's surviving. — 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).

Dispassion and release are the essence. — 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.

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. — TLCD1996

It is, as Agent Smith and then Neo himself says in the Matrix, inevitable. Impermanence!

I'm just weary — TLCD1996

Who isn't? We all are! However, the universe seems, sadly, indifferent to our plight!

Just to be clear, you agree that Buddhism might not be true?
–praxis

Yes and that I am confident it is true. — TLCD1996

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.

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. — TheMadFool

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:

"This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Monks, don't be afraid of acts of merit. This is another way of saying what is blissful, desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming — i.e., acts of merit. I am cognizant that, having long performed meritorious deeds, I long experienced desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming results." — Itivuttaka

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.

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. — 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:

Once I had a disciple who stayed in a grass-roofed hut. It rained often that rainy season and one day a strong wind blew off half the roof. He did not bother to fix it, he just let it rain in. Several days passed and I asked him about his hut. He said he was practicing not-clinging. This is not-clinging without wisdom. It is about the same as the equanimity of a water buffalo. — Ajahn Chah

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:

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. — TLCD1996

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.

Thank you for sharing the beautiful photos — TLCD1996

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.

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. — praxis

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.

I should be on a plane to California soon for some time in the forests myself. — TLCD1996

Yea, sounds good! Post some pics if you can.

Yeah, that's a huge (not to mention unfortunately pessimistic) generalization. — TLCD1996

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.”

And even so the Buddha acknowledged that it was rare to find people who were well-restrained. — TLCD1996

For someone who claims to not depend on authority, you sure appeal to it A LOT.

I have other people to look up to in my life. And even if it's hard to find somebody admirable, — TLCD1996

A spiritual life does not require an authority figure!

Yes, appeal to authority, not appeal to ultimate authority, whatever that means to you. :razz:

To "activate" impermanence only when that which we love is gone is to attempt to repress grief by a kind of spiritual bypassing. — TLCD1996

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.

Speaking about the advent of modern medicine, that doesn't necessarily rule out suffering. — 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.

So while it's necessary to avoid panicking over these changes, it is also necessary to protect the essence through practice, education, discipline, etc. — TLCD1996

This is clinging with wisdom then? How?

The reason why I called it "repressing grief" was because, at least in some circumstances, that is what is entailed when one tries to force it away by bringing up thoughts of impermanence (and my apologies if I mischaracterized your words). Expressing grief is healthier than repressing it, and yes, seeing impermanence and really taking it to heart will lessen grief. But it's not really so simple; speaking for myself, my parents are both alive. When my grandfather died, I admit I felt a little uneasy, but I didn't grieve like my father because I wasn't so close, yet I couldn't really have expected what I felt just because I've been practicing Buddhism. Thinking about impermanence won't solve the issue by itself, which is why I'm weary when people isolate it, especially from dispassion; it is dispassion as a result of reflection on impermanence that we free ourselves from grief. And our passions can go quite deep. So there needs to be a proper usage of "impermanence" to get the Buddha's intended result; sometimes there are better options for dealing with loss (or threat of loss), and sometimes we need to add a few things into the mix.

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.

This is clinging with wisdom then? How? — 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:

"Brahman, the holy life is lived under the Blessed One with the aim of abandoning desire."

"Is there a path, is there a practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"

"Yes, there is a path, there is a practice, for the abandoning of that desire."

"What is the path, the practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"

"Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire." — Brahmana 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.

I'm calling it a day. Thanks for your input. Much appreciated. Will get back to you if I think of anything worth the ink.

Yes, appeal to authority, not appeal to ultimate authority, whatever that means to you. :razz: — TLCD1996

Oh? So Buddha ain’t the top dog? :worry:

Sure. Let me know if that makes any sense to you. I think I'll be finishing here as well.

I think I'll be finishing here as well. — TLCD1996

Ditto.

You gals run along now, I’m just getting warmed up. :lol: