The crucial hermenuetic point is that Buddhism never posits any everlasting entity, thing, or object. — Wayfarer

Exactly, hence "eternity in an hour".

Definitions are useful, not truthful. And again, "Buddhism is just realism" is not an argument, so no "fallacy" applies.

'Outside of time' is not the same as 'of endless duration'.

That's exactly the distinction I'm pointing to; I think what Blake is speaking about is being "outside of time". That state is "in an hour" precisely because it is not everlasting.

According to this interpretation that state might last for an hour, a day, a week or a lifetime, but it is not everlasting.

Easterners generally don't see the "ego" as as problematic as Westerners do. — baker

The evil ego is gonna getcha!

Yes, Buddhism is realism in that it has a rather dim view of metaphysics. From how metaphysically austere Buddhism is, we can discern an attitude that can be described as anti-metaphysics. One fascinating technique of dealing with the problem - metaphysics - is Nagarjuna's tetralemma. It simply takes any claim, metaphysical ones included, and teleports it into another dimension, a dimension that's beyond the reach of both language and logic (have I left anything out?). It's overkill but the Buddha didn't want to take any chances. There are skeptical undertones in this.

Pretty much every religion would say the same, so no, I don't agree.

'Outside of time' is not the same as 'of endless duration'. — Wayfarer

The difference being...

To be eternal is basically to claim that the passage of time doesn't/fails to register change. Suppose an object, call it x, becomes eternal at exactly 5:00:00 PM. For all intents and purposes it's properties, it itself, is stuck at that particular moment. Basically, any duration after 5:00:00 PM is, for x, zero/nought! In the simplest sense, time no longer matters to x and isn't that equivalent to being outside of time? I dunno.

You’re talking about objects.

You’re talking about objects. — Wayfarer

What should I have been talking about?

It’s just that it’s not relevant to the (admittedly esoteric) point. It’s not as if Buddhism posits any sort of imperishable object. If there is such a condition then it is an attribute of the Tathagata not of any literal object.

It’s just that it’s not relevant to the (admittedly esoteric) point. It’s not as if Buddhism posits any sort of imperishable object. If there is such a condition then it is an attribute of the Tathagata not of any literal object. — Wayfarer

The Tathagata is a synonym for Nagarjuna's tetralemma. You can take him/her (the Tathagata) as a personification of the madhyamaka.

Calling Buddhism "realistic" is clearly an attempt to make Buddhism more marketable, more palatable to Westerners. — baker

This thread seems to be arguing about different meanings of the label "Buddhism", as-if it is a homogenized belief & practice system. But, in fact, Buddhism is just as fragmented as Christianity, in terms of both creeds and rituals. The most basic division is between Theravada (orthodox) and Mahayana (heterodox). Then there is the range from Tibetan (traditional superstitions) to Zen (no doctrine, just doing). Some of these Buddhisms are somewhat "realistic", while others are more idealistic, and a few are just Wacko. So, for simplicity and accuracy, I think we need to stipulate whether we are talking about the various popular religions, or about the core philosophical (highbrow) worldview. In my opinion, it would be more profitable to discuss the latter on a Philosophical Forum. Perhaps Wayfarer could give us a synopsis to agree on. :smile:

Mahayana vs. Theravada :
https://www.diffen.com/difference/Mahayana_vs_Theravada

:up:

That seems to be very much open to interpretation to me. — Janus

By all means, interpret.

Calling Buddhism "realistic" is clearly an attempt to make Buddhism more marketable, more palatable to Westerners.
— baker
This thread seems to be arguing about different meanings of the label "Buddhism", as-if it is a homogenized belief & practice system. But, in fact, Buddhism is just as fragmented as Christianity, in terms of both creeds and rituals. The most basic division is between Theravada (orthodox) and Mahayana (heterodox). Then there is the range from Tibetan (traditional superstitions) to Zen (no doctrine, just doing). Some of these Buddhisms are somewhat "realistic", while others are more idealistic, and a few are just Wacko. So, for simplicity and accuracy, I think we need to stipulate whether we are talking about the various popular religions, or about the core philosophical (highbrow) worldview. In my opinion, it would be more profitable to discuss the latter on a Philosophical Forum. — Gnomon

No need for such consideration. The OP is talking about Buddhism being "realistic" in the popular, vernacular sense of "realistic", namely, "commonsensical", "practical". It's a catchy self-help term.
Hence my reply.

Cut your finger off, you still exist, put your finger back you say finger is you ?
You get your finger, from earth, you put it back after time.
It is small at first now is bigger, how ? Food from earth.
Dony forget you are the nature and truth is always only what really works, conciouss is 100% nature.

No need for such consideration. The OP is talking about Buddhism being "realistic" in the popular, vernacular sense of "realistic", namely, "commonsensical", "practical". It's a catchy self-help term.
Hence my reply. — baker

OK. But who is doing the marketing : The Mad Men? Asian practitioners of Buddhism would be expected to evangelize their own "brand" of Buddhism. For example, Chinese immigrants in the 19th century were mostly religious instead of philosophical. So, the marketing of an obscure oriental Philosophy to Westerners seems to have begun with academic scholars, such as D.T Suzuki. His austere Zen variant may have been presented in "realistic" terms, in order to make it more acceptable to secularists, and less threatening to Christians. But the non-scholars were seldom so pragmatic. And acceptance of vague Buddhist notions in the US, first became widespread among Beatniks and New Age Hippies, looking for an alternative to stagnant Western religions. So, even in its self-help forms, it retained some religious trappings such as mantras & symbolic spiritual candles. :smile:

Buddhism Travels West :
Knowledge of Buddhism has come through three main channels: Western scholars; the work of philosophers, writers and artists; and the arrival of Asian immigrants who have brought various forms of Buddhism with them to Europe, North America and Australia.
https://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhistworld/to-west.htm

D. T. Suzuki :
Note -- not a marketer of motorcycles. :wink:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/D-T-Suzuki

Yep. like it or not, we all do it.

And what effect were you trying to induce in me by pointing this out?

But who is doing the marketing — Gnomon

Self-help authors, wannabe gurus who try to borrow the legitimacy and authority of a religion without actually promoting that religion.

Buddhism appears to be especially vulnerable to this type of exploitation, probably largely due to its foundational scriptures being unknown and not readily available for a long time.

I had no thought of trying to "induce" any effect in you. I was telling my thoughts on what we have been discussing.

"Interpretation" is a hot topic in some religious circles, surely you are aware of that.
The Hare Krishnas, for example, go so far as to say that they don't interpret, but simply say it "as it is".


Anyway, the items in the doctrine on dependent co-arising are much discussed in the Pali suttas, so there's actually not that much room for interpretation.

Regarding experience there may be an 'as it is', but as soon as it is spoken about interpretation enters. Ideas are always open to interpretation.

I think most people are not such relativists and "to interpret" is usually taken to be pejorative, derogatory. "Those who don't know the truth or who don't want to know or tell the truth, interpret."

When it comes to empirically observable events, like who was at fault in a traffic accident, or who started a fight by throwing the first punch, and so on, there is much less room for interpretation. There is a realm of determinable facts, assuming honesty on the part of reporters, of course.

I think most people are not such relativists and "to interpret" is usually taken to be pejorative, derogatory. "Those who don't know the truth or who don't want to know or tell the truth, interpret." — baker

I think this is true but does it not also remain that any account of anything becomes an interpretation? So much more ironic when people are not aware they are holding on to a particular expression of a religion . I can't think of many or any traditions that don't have a plethora of sects or sub-groups, hardliners and liberals.

One of the great myths of spiritual traditions is that of the immutable truth. The truth (whatever that is) may well be immutable but the pathway there is as bent and conflicted as a Vegas pawnbroker.

To all logicians (pro & amateur)

What's the difference between

1. Buddhism is (just) Realism.

and

2. Realism is (just) Buddhism?

Thanks in advance.

Since when are empirically observable events or empirically observing events the priority or even all that matters?

I think this is true but does it not also remain that any account of anything becomes an interpretation? — Tom Storm

Back to issues of naive realism and direct realism.