And the originating texts is the Satipatthana Sutta - 'the discourse on mindfulness'. 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 — Wayfarer
Often referred to as “the second Buddha” by Tibetan and East Asian Mahayana (Great Vehicle) traditions of Buddhism, Nagarjuna offered sharp criticisms of Brahminical and Buddhist substantialist philosophy, theory of knowledge, and approaches to practice.
Nagarjuna’s philosophy represents something of a watershed not only in the history of Indian philosophy but in the history of philosophy as a whole, as it calls into questions certain philosophical assumptions so easily resorted to in our attempt to understand the world. Among these assumptions are the existence of stable substances, the linear and one-directional movement of causation, the atomic individuality of persons, the belief in a fixed identity or selfhood, and the strict separations between good and bad conduct and the blessed and fettered life.
All such assumptions are called into fundamental question by Nagarjuna’s unique perspective which is grounded in the insight of emptiness (sunyata), a concept which does not mean “non-existence” or “nihility” (abhava), but rather the lack of autonomous existence (nihsvabhava). Denial of autonomy according to Nagarjuna does not leave us with a sense of metaphysical or existential privation, a loss of some hoped-for independence and freedom, but instead offers us a sense of liberation through demonstrating the interconnectedness of all things, including human beings and the manner in which human life unfolds in the natural and social worlds.
Nagarjuna’s central concept of the “emptiness (sunyata) of all things (dharmas),” which pointed to the incessantly changing and so never fixed nature of all phenomena, served as much as the terminological prop of subsequent Buddhist philosophical thinking as the vexation of opposed Vedic systems. The concept had fundamental implications for Indian philosophical models of causation, substance ontology, epistemology, conceptualizations of language, ethics and theories of world-liberating salvation, and proved seminal even for Buddhist philosophies in India, Tibet, China and Japan very different from Nagarjuna’s own.
Indeed it would not be an overstatement to say that Nagarjuna’s innovative concept of emptiness, though it was hermeneutically appropriated in many different ways by subsequent philosophers in both South and East Asia, was to profoundly influence the character of Buddhist thought.
Yes. yes, yes. Spot on! You say you know little of Buddhism and yet you say nothing but sensible things about it. — FrancisRay
Mysticism asks us to investigate who is doing the looking. Basically the idea is to discover that we are not body or mind. — FrancisRay
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. — Hippyhead
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. — FrancisRay
You say 'religion works'. How do you know this? What do you even mean by it? — FrancisRay
How can it be beside the point if religion reveals truth? — FrancisRay
Your comment relates to the commonplace dogmatic kind of monotheism but is not relevant where a religion is the search for truth. — FrancisRay
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. — FrancisRay
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. . . . . — FrancisRay
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 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. — praxis
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. — Hippyhead
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? — Hippyhead
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. — Hippyhead
I found this page about Nagarjuna. — Hippyhead
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? — FrancisRay
I'm not sure I understand this question. — FrancisRay
Certainly the question 'Who is observing?' would be vital since it comes down to 'Who am I?'. — FrancisRay
Your comment relates to the commonplace dogmatic kind of monotheism but is not relevant where a religion is the search for truth. — FrancisRay
You claimed that a practitioner would know what Buddhism (a religion) is. My point was that religious followers are notoriously often mislead. — praxis
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". — TLCD1996
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 — TLCD1996
Having faulty thought content can cause suffering by putting us into conflict with the world or even ourselves. — TLCD1996
But thoughts are not easy to tame — TLCD1996
Other than that, I endorse everything TLCD1996 has said above (with the caveat that his username sounds like a bus license plate :-) ). — Wayfarer
Simply put, we need to learn how to think skillfully. — TLCD1996
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.