It's what it often amounts to. Unfortunately.

The last book I read on Buddhism was Thoughts without a Thinker by Mark Epstein. I read articles too

My general concern here is how Buddhist reject substance all together. Rejecting ego is understandable. But why is rejecting substance in general important? Are they saying simply that there is nothing that deserves attachment? That's a very hard doctrine to follow especially while someone rejects ego. And if complete detachment is impossible, then so seems Nirvana

is an exercise in tail-chasing. — Wayfarer

Sounds like at least one definition of philosophy. :joke: — Tom Storm

Only if you expect answers from it. I see philosophy as consisting in the discovery of questions (in it's dimension as history of ideas) and descriptions of our practices, and the dissolution of artificial language-generated puzzles.

Philosophy should help you to stop chasing your tail, otherwise it is a waste of time (unless like some dogs, you enjoy it).

Is Buddhism even concerned about philosophical truth?

I think this is largely a matter of personal taste. The fact that philosophy continues to recycle the same questions and answers on an almost endless loop of reoccurrence strongly suggests to me a nutty mammal doing circles to catch an extremity. I am an atheist, and I don't really expect answers and yet it still appears like this to me. It doesn't bother me.

I think this is largely a matter of personal taste. — Tom Storm

Yep, I agree philosophy is, like the arts, a matter of taste. Why do it if there's no joy in it for you? (I don't mean you, the 'you' there is generic).

Some Hindus speak of nirguna Brahman, who has only sat (existence), chit (consciousness), and ananda (bliss). Some even speak of the saguna of Brahman, the God of many infinite attributes. Buddhism seem to me to say there is really nothing except suffering and ananda (bliss). This seems to be there doctrine on an abstract level, but I'm told they are far more about practice than abstract truths

One point is, Buddhism and Brahmanism were enormously influenced by each other. To this day, Adi Sankara, who is like 'the Aquinas of the Vedanta', is accused by some other Hindu schools of being too Buddhist, which arguably arose because he had to debate the Buddhist logicians to some extent on their own terms. To really appreciate the intricacies of the debate takes knowledge of Sanskrit. From an external perspective, however, the two religions are far more like each other, than any of them are like the Biblical faiths. What they both have in common, is the cultural background of understanding life as an endless succession of rebirths across cosmic time-periods. There's nothing remotely like that in the Semitic religions.

I posted on a Mahāyāna Buddhist forum for quite a few years. I learned there that the most scholastically-educated Buddhists, even those of Western ancestry, were scornfully dismissive of one of the Hindu sages that first attracted me to Eastern philosophy. He is, formally speaking, a heretic, from the Buddhist P-O-V. It's that sectarian aspect of Buddhism that I like least about it.

What is the source for your understanding of Buddhist doctrine? — baker

My knowledge is very general. Quite a number of years ago, I read a book called "Buddhism for Beginners" (I forget the author's name), and I've read one and a half of Thich Nhat Hanh's books, given to me by a buddy: all of "The Art of Communicating", and about half of "Living Buddha, Living Christ", before my interest in something else tore me away from it. Also, I have, somewhere, a great looking scolarly book on the ways in which Buddhism was changed as it crossed the Himalayas into China and Tibet. I actually can't remember the title right now, but I think it's from the University of Chicago Press...that tome is somewhere on the reading list... I've gotten my concept of the 'general Buddhist landscape' from the Wikipedia article on Buddhism (colored maps, and all, Wikipedia is awesome, sometimes), and that is where I originally read about Theravada (which I evidently misspelled earlier) Buddhism, it's geographic distribution and it's distinction from better known Mahayana and Tibetan Buddhism. I also have a friend who, following his mother, practices Nichiren Buddhism, and have had a few brief conversations with him about that. That's about it, really.

I suppose my own stated misgivings are based upon my view of the human being, and the fact that I percieve Buddhist doctrine and practice as involving a renunciation of those things that make particularly men great men: aggression, the lust for power and dominance, the desire for fame/renown, etc., etc. To be totally honest, I must admit that, in common with most other "meat and potatoes" American guys, these traditional western "manly attributes" remain my own cherished values; I suppose that I am fully steeped in that tradition. Though they all certainly died agonistically, driven men like Alexander, Sulla (a real 'man's man'), Caesar, Charlemagne, remain my ideals, as opposed to Diogenes, Cicero (although his bad-ass prose redeems him), and indeed, Siddhartha. Of course, the purpose of life for such men as compose the first group is not bliss, happiness, or inner peace, it is achievement. Buddhism just seems to fly in the face of all the values that I was raised with. For me to accept Buddhism as aiming at something desirable, my basic values would have to change.

The second reason for my misgivings center around my renunciation of any notions of "spirituality". I am an atheist who refuses to accept the possibility of the existence of a God, of Satan, of heaven or hell, of spirits, human souls, and all the rest of it, until such a time as I have some evidence for these things. In short, I have become a strict spiritual skeptic. Based upon my notion that, ultimately, the acceptance of Samsara, of reincarnation, which itself suggests the incorporeal self, the 'spirit' if you will, is necessary to the full realization of Buddhist doctrine, it would seem to myself that my lack of belief in the incorporeal self nearly proscribes participation in the Buddhist enterprise. To myself, the pursuit of Nirvana without believing in Samsara appears as no more than a masturbatorial exercise, a mere chasing after the good feeling of bliss. For a guy who believes that the point and purpose of life has nothing to do with feeling good, it seems that all masturbatory exercises should be limited to two minutes in the loo...

This is alot more information than you asked for, @baker, but I figured I'd put it all out there, so people could try to convince, enlighten, shape, and mold me in more pointed ways, should they desire to do so.

I agree with Un. It's not to say that anyone will 'attain Nirvāṇa' just like so, but there's a practical side to Buddhism. Speculating about whether Nirvāṇa is simply non-existence is an exercise in tail-chasing. — Wayfarer

There are dozens of purported pathways of practice to Nirvana. How do you know which one to choose?

Speculating about whether Nirvāṇa is simply non-existence is an exercise in tail-chasing.

Assuming that one means something by the words one uses, how can one practice toward Nirvana, if one has no idea what it is? (Or at best, only has an Oxford English Dictionary kind of definition of it.)

(Okay, let's be serious.)

But have you read anything from the primary Buddhist text, the Pali Canon?

Is Buddhism even concerned about philosophical truth? — Gregory

It doesn't seem to, as the analogy with the handful of leaves illustrates.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN56_31.html

The fact that philosophy continues to recycle the same questions and answers on an almost endless loop of reoccurrence strongly suggests to me a nutty mammal doing circles to catch an extremity. — Tom Storm

One of the meanings of "samsara" is 'to wander on, aimlessly'.

My knowledge is very general.
/.../ — Michael Zwingli

But have you read anything from the primary Buddhist text, the Pali Canon?

For me to accept Buddhism as aiming at something desirable, my basic values would have to change.

Why would you even think of accepting it?

Based upon my notion that, ultimately, the acceptance of Samsara, of reincarnation, which itself suggests the incorporeal self, the 'spirit' if you will, is necessary to the full realization of Buddhist doctrine, it would seem to myself that my lack of belief in the incorporeal self nearly proscribes participation in the Buddhist enterprise.

From a Theravadan perspective, this is backwards. They would say there is kamma, therefore, there is rebirth. It all starts with kamma. And ends with the ending of it.

To myself, the pursuit of Nirvana without believing in Samsara appears as no more than a masturbatorial exercise, a mere chasing after the good feeling of bliss.

Ha ha! That's something to say to the modern Buddhists!

This is alot more information than you asked for, baker, but I figured I'd put it all out there, so people could try to convince, enlighten, shape, and mold me in more pointed ways, should they desire to do so.

No, Buddhists are generally not particularly interested in proselytizing, so don't expect much from them on that front.

It's that sectarian aspect of Buddhism that I like least about it. — Wayfarer

Buddhist practice is a matter of life and death.

Right view vs. wrong view is a matter of life and death.

Right view and wrong view cannot coexist peacefully.

One of the meanings of "samsara" is 'to wander on, aimlessly'. — baker

Yep, from सम्- ("sam-"), "along with", "together with" + सार ("sara"), "extension", "prolonging", "stretching out". And so literally, "that accompanied by prolongation", or metonymically "aimless wandering".

But have you read anything from the primary Buddhist text, the Pali Canon? — baker

No, I cannot say that I have. I suppose that a translation would have to be special ordered at the bookstore, allow five weeks for delivery...

Why would you even think of accepting it? — baker

To fill the void left by the lapsed Christian faith. Religion seems important to me, after all.

From a Theravadan perspective, this is backwards. They would say there is kamma, therefore, there is rebirth. It all starts with kamma. And ends with the ending of it. — baker

Did you mean to write "karma"? Please expand upon this when you have time. Does the view of this differ in Mahayana Buddhism, or in Tibetan?

But have you read anything from the primary Buddhist text, the Pali Canon? — baker

Yes, but only excerpts in textbooks and such. I want find find detailed arguments about philosophy from Buddhists, but maybe they are hard to come by, as the following indicates:

It doesn't seem to, as the analogy with the handful of leaves illustrates.

https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN56_31.html — baker

Btw, High Noon cool

But have you read anything from the primary Buddhist text, the Pali Canon?
— baker
No, I cannot say that I have. I suppose that a translation would have to be special ordered at the bookstore, allow five weeks for delivery... — Michael Zwingli

You can start right here, right now:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/

or

https://suttacentral.net/pitaka/sutta

Why would you even think of accepting it?
— baker
To fill the void left by the lapsed Christian faith. Religion seems important to me, after all.

Okay.

From a Theravadan perspective, this is backwards. They would say there is kamma, therefore, there is rebirth. It all starts with kamma. And ends with the ending of it.
— baker
Did you mean to write "karma"? Please expand upon this when you have time. Does the view of this differ in Mahayana Buddhism, or in Tibetan?

"Kamma" is Pali for Sanskrt "karma". Pali is the language usually used in Theravada.

For your questions, you may consult
The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice
and other writings by the same author.

Yes, but only excerpts in textbooks and such. I want find find detailed arguments about philosophy from Buddhists, but maybe they are hard to come by — Gregory

I addressed your OP question in my first post in this thread.

The links from it contain further links that address all of your further questions. Understanding dependent co-arising/dependent origination is vital.

Thanks for the resources. The quote about dependent origination is interesting because it directly contradicts the Prime Mover argument

There are dozens of purported pathways of practice to Nirvana. How do you know which one to choose? — baker

It was a more a matter of responding to the speculative questions in the OP.

'The Sabbasava Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 2) mentions 16 questions which are seen as "unwise reflection" and lead to attachment to views relating to a self.

What am I?
How am I?
Am I?
Am I not?
Did I exist in the past?
Did I not exist in the past?
What was I in the past?
How was I in the past?
Having been what, did I become what in the past?
Shall I exist in future?
Shall I not exist in future?
What shall I be in future?
How shall I be in future?
Having been what, shall I become what in future?
Whence came this person?
Whither will he go?'

Well, that's 16 nails in the coffin for Californian New Age practices... :razz:

It was a more a matter of responding to the speculative questions in the OP. — Wayfarer

I don't see them as speculative in the pejorative sense suggested, but as questions that are bound to arise for a person who relies on extracanonical sources for Buddhist doctrine but which are nevertheless being presented as Buddhist doctrine.

The simple fact of the matter is that all kinds of things are being presented as "paths to enlightenement" and as Buddhist doctrine, marketed and sold under the title of Buddhism, and yet those teachings have little or no grounding in the Pali Canon.

So when people who read those teachings come up with the questions you mention, that is a different situation from when an ordinary person who has no knowledge of Buddhism is asking those questions.


Other than that, I'd still like to hear your reasoning for agreeing with @unenlightened 's stance earlier.

Oh no, those Californians are undead.

It wasn't 'a stance'. It was advice. I agreed with it, for the reasons I gave, I'm not going to elaborate.

Point taken, although there's a lot of diversity in California.

I want find find detailed arguments about philosophy from Buddhists — Gregory

Buddhism, A Philosophical Approach, Cyrus Panjavi

Buddhism as Philosophy, Mark Siderits

The Central Philosophy of Buddhism, T.R.V. Murti

(The last was published in 1955. Murti was an Indian scholar educated at Oxford and his book has detailed comparisons with Buddhist Madhyamika philosophy with Kant, Hegel, Bradley and others. It is nowadays a pretty unfashionable book, current Buddhist scholarship says he was too Euro-centric in his views, but it was one of the first serious books I read on the subject and I found it incredibly illuminating. It was also my first exposure to Kant, and seeing Kant through that perspective has also been important, because it locates his work in a practical philosophy. See this excerpt.)

Many people seem to be incapable of shaking the illusion that apart from some insight, some clarity and (hopefully) some joy, there is something else to be had by wandering the many paths of philosophy.

Those books look amazing. I shall order them

For your questions, you may consult
The Truth of Rebirth And Why it Matters for Buddhist Practice
and other writings by the same author. — baker

:up: