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. Calling it "dhamma vinaya" is likewise limiting. Identifying anything is necessarily limiting. Your condition of necessity seems completely arbitrary and meaningless.

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:

... 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.

This is not at all what I said. I never mentioned a 'modern' perspective and wouldn't know what the phrase means. I regard the Perennial philosophy as, well, perennial, and not ancient or modern. At this point I'm not sure what I've said that you would object to, but if you make this clear I'll have a go at responding.

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

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.

why are you interested in calling it a religion or philosophy? — TLCD1996

I believe that it's a religion and am arguing that it is.

I never mentioned a 'modern' perspective and wouldn't know what the phrase means. — FrancisRay

Do you think that premodern people viewed Buddhism as a religion, a science, an art, and whatever else?

Well, that would be a rather anachronistic idea. It is a science if we use the definition laid down by Popper, but this is a modern idea. If we are a practitioner we soon find out what it is, and if we are not we'll never know. I would agree with you that it is a religion, but many Buddhist would argue otherwise. It's an academic point and I can't see much point in arguing over it. It would all depend on our definitions of religion, art, science etc,, but it makes no difference to Buddhism what we call it.

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. . , . . ., ,

If we are a practitioner we soon find out what it is... — FrancisRay

Unfortunately for those who died in Jonestown (a different religion than Buddhism), this is obviously false.

it makes no difference to Buddhism what we call it. — FrancisRay

Right, it makes a difference to Buddhists and others.

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

Silly strawman. Believe it or not, essential characteristic features can be identified in things.

It would be more helpful to ask whether it works, whether it reveals truth, whether it brings liberation etc. — 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.

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

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.

So while sometimes it's good to have these labels, other times maybe not. — TLCD1996

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.

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

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, yathābhūtaṃ. 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.

Praxis wants to nail down what "thing "Buddhism is — Hippyhead

Don't be silly. I'm merely arguing that it's a religion rather than a philosophy.

he wants to confine it within a noun, mostly so he can debunk it because that's his goal on every subject. — Hippyhead

Ad homs are a stupid way to argue.

Buddhism is not a single thing. Nor is Christianity. Nor is anything in all of reality, except in our minds. — Hippyhead

If it's not a single thing outside of our minds then why would it be a single thing in our minds?

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 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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Religion necessarily promises salvation — praxis

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.

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.



Again, I’m arguing that Buddhism is a religion rather than a philosophy, primary in pointing out two glaring contrasts:

• In philosophy there is no ultimate authority such as there is in Buddhism.
  
  
• There is no one metaphysical theory in philosophy whereas Buddhism holds to a single metaphysical understanding.

So good that you’re unable to answer it, apparently — praxis

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:

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. Hence the Kalama Sutta, where we must find out for ourselves what is worth grasping and abandoning, and the Dhammapada:

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.

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?

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

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).

Perhaps this helps? — Hippyhead

Yes! :wink:

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

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:

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."

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.

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

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.

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

Are you claiming that Aristotle is the Philosopher King and that only his philosophy is philosophy? That is a very strange and misguided idea.

The Buddha (specifically, Sakyamuni Buddha) is something of an authority figure, but it's not like he's God, or even the Buddha. — 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.

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

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.

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

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.

I admit that I've expressed hostility towards Hippy — praxis

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.

However, it seems that some people, myself included, needed a little push or shove (so to speak) to break out of that. — TLCD1996

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?

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. 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.

It’s nevertheless ubiquitous in most traditional philosophy and religion that the human condition is somehow flawed or faulty. — Wayfarer

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.

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

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.

Here's one of my pet rant questions which perhaps members can examine through the lens of Buddhism, as I am not qualified to do that.

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?

Do the problems we are attempting to resolve arise primarily from the content of thought, or from the nature of thought? — Hippyhead

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 prajñā, 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:

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.

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.'

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

Good God Mr. Way, you are truly well read, a good teacher for me in that regard.

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

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?

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

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.

The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult, and left untried — G K Chesterton

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.

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

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:

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.

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'.