I am weary to say Buddhism is a "religion" when "religion" is being used in an unnecessarily limiting manner. — TLCD1996
In all instances that I can imagine it's used in an identifying manner, which is necessarily limiting. — praxis
In all instances that I can imagine it's used in an identifying manner, which is necessarily limiting.
— praxis
Okay? Maybe your imagination is limited :lol: — TLCD1996
why are you interested in calling it a religion or philosophy? — TLCD1996
I never mentioned a 'modern' perspective and wouldn't know what the phrase means. — FrancisRay
If we are a practitioner we soon find out what it is... — FrancisRay
it makes no difference to Buddhism what we call it. — FrancisRay
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. — FrancisRay
It would be more helpful to ask whether it works, whether it reveals truth, whether it brings liberation etc. — FrancisRay
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. — TLCD1996
So while sometimes it's good to have these labels, other times maybe not. — TLCD1996
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? — Hippyhead
Praxis wants to nail down what "thing "Buddhism is — Hippyhead
he wants to confine it within a noun, mostly so he can debunk it because that's his goal on every subject. — Hippyhead
Buddhism is not a single thing. Nor is Christianity. Nor is anything in all of reality, except in our minds. — Hippyhead
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. — Wayfarer
The point in both cases is that, left to your own devices, you will likely fail, because of this inherent imperfection, flaw, or fault. — Wayfarer
If it's not a single thing outside of our minds then why would it be a single thing in our minds? — praxis
Religion necessarily promises salvation — praxis
If it's not a single thing outside of our minds then why would it be a single thing in our minds?
— praxis
When you're not distracted by being a Gotcha Monster you can ask good questions. This is one. — Hippyhead
So good that you’re unable to answer it, apparently — praxis
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. — praxis
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 — Hippyhead
Perhaps this helps? — Hippyhead
1) In philosophy there is no ultimate authority such as there is in Buddhism.
2) There is no one metaphysical theory in philosophy whereas Buddhism holds to a single metaphysical understanding. — praxis
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.
— praxis
Sure! The Dhamma is beyond words. That's why we practice it; to realize the Dhamma. — TLCD1996
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). — TLCD1996
The Buddha (specifically, Sakyamuni Buddha) is something of an authority figure, but it's not like he's God, or even the Buddha. — TLCD1996
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. — praxis
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? — praxis
However, it seems that some people, myself included, needed a little push or shove (so to speak) to break out of that. — TLCD1996
The concept of sin is an unfortunate spin, as we had nothing to do with what is being described — Hippyhead
It’s nevertheless ubiquitous in most traditional philosophy and religion that the human condition is somehow flawed or faulty. — Wayfarer
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. — Wayfarer
Do the problems we are attempting to resolve arise primarily from the content of thought, or from the nature of thought? — Hippyhead
Discursive thought is the sort of thinking we do most often in a philosophical discussion or debate, when we seek to follow a series of premises and intermediate conclusions to a final conclusion. In such a thinking, our minds move from one point to the next, as if each point only can be true after we have known the truth of the point preceding it. The final point is true, only because we have already built up one by one a series of points preceding it logically that are also true [e.g. through syllogistic logic and argument]. In the same way, the meaning of the sentence I am now speaking only builds itself up by the addition of each word, until coming to its conclusion it makes a certain sense built of the words from which it is constituted. Because discurive thinking is within ordinary time, it is not capable of thinking all its points or saying all its words in the very same moment [which is comparable to Krishnamurti].
But Plotinus wishes to speak of a thinking that is not discursive but intuitive, i.e. that it is knowing and what it is knowing are immediately evident to it [i.e. 'knower' and 'known' are one]. There is no gap then between thinking and what is thought--they come together in the same moment, which is no longer a moment among other consecutive moments, one following upon the other. Rather, the moment in which such a thinking takes place is immediately present and without difference from any other moment, i.e. its thought is no longer chronological but eternal [in the sense of 'outside the flow of time']. To even use names, words, to think about such a thinking is already to implicate oneself in a time of separated and consecutive moments (i.e. chronological) and to have already forgotten what it is one wishes to think, namely thinking and what is thought intuitively together.
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. — Hippyhead
The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried. — G K Chesterton
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. — Wayfarer
The Buddhist 'buddhi' means 'intellect' - not in the sense usually meant now as 'discursive intellect' but 'penetrating wisdom' which 'sees how things truly are'. — Wayfarer
The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried — G K Chesterton
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. — Hippyhead
Here, O bhikkhus [i.e. monks], a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place, sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap [lotus position], keeps his body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him.
"Mindful, he breathes in, and mindful, he breathes out. He, thinking, 'I breathe in long,' he understands when he is breathing in long; or thinking, 'I breathe out long,' he understands when he is breathing out long; or thinking, 'I breathe in short,' he understands when he is breathing in short; or thinking, 'I breathe out short,' he understands when he is breathing out short.
"'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe in,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Experiencing the whole body, I shall breathe out,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe in,' thinking thus, he trains himself. 'Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe out,' thinking thus, he trains himself.
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.