Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.

Is Modern Western Philosophy and Buddhist Philosophy Really Just Facets of the Same Wisdom

anatamananataman Who needs a title?Where am I? Veteran
I used to think that what I perceived was an 'outside' world. And those perceptions did not fool me. However, over time through reading I have come to conclude that we can only go so far with any knowledge and no amount of thinking is going to liberate us from the human condition. We just have to BE.

I was in my early twenties when I became interested in the mind, and the 'TRUE' reality of the world and started reading western philosophy. First I discovered Descartes and his 'discourse on the meditation', Doubt and Universal Skepticism, were introduced to me. But Descarte had to posit God's existence to be free of doubt. Doubt can only take you so far!

Then came Sartre with 'being and nothingness', and the idea of the phenomenological existent, and the concept of nihilism arose wow, Western Philosophy was really drilling down into reality and the mind, what was left if there was ultimately nothing and we were just phenomenological arisings, then Heidegger, and his 'Introduction to metaphysics', where he begins by asking the question: Why are there beings at all instead of nothing? And drills a hole into everything with a broad brush and in a universal way.

The Greek Philosopher Parminedes was writing about the middle path we tread as humans between something and nothing, that we find ourselves on: the path of 'it is' and 'it is not', and also positing 'For to be aware and to be are the same'.

http://www.literature.org/authors/descartes-rene/reason-discourse/
http://archive.org/stream/MartinHeidegger-IntroductionToMetaphysics/Heidegger-Introduction_to_metaphysics_djvu.txt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

My point is this. The buddha worked with his mind and came up with a philosophic interpretation of the world, which is useful to end suffering, but it also points to various universal truths that are difficult to deny, and in their own way, many other eastern and western philosophers also have come up with similar concepts and 'visions of reality', that are not overtly distinct from or far from the views posited in Buddhism. Even modern physics, theoretical and experimental, demonstrate the interdependence and emptiness of our reality. That is not saying Western Philosophy has not been influenced by buddhism, but all these spirtual explorers interpretations of themselves, and their reality, all help to achieve the same goal.

I am saying that for some people reading a good western philosophical text can be just as rewarding and insightful, and dare I say it enlightening as reading the sutra's. Does anyone have any experience of this, or is the consensus that we have to read the Sutra's and that is the only way to develop insight and wisdom. Period. Or do you have an opinion that you may like to offer here.

Comments

  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited January 2014
    I don't think that is what the Buddha did at all. His realisation was a result in part of his dropping philosophical interpretations of the world.
    lobsterTheswingisyellowperson
  • Yeah its possible. The philosophical traditions can help people grapple with the deep existential issues. But it takes a profound intelligence to actually believe, assimilate concepts to end all concepts.

    But Buddhism I find is all about letting go, renouncing our ideas and stances on the world and ultimately ourselves.

    This isn't something we can just think away, because thinking itself is what structures the whole perception of duality and inherency, which is the cause of pretty much all afflictive patterning and what we call human suffering.

    Insight/wisdom arises for people who face their lives in their direct immediacy. Facing their loneliness, fear of death, all the masks one wears, facing it all. Bare and just waiting. Insight has to cut deep beyond mind into the body, into the subtle channels, into every single belief we have.

    And its a painful process.

    And if one has enough patience and willingness. Then one can read any philosophical tradition and come to the simple conclusion that it is merely thought thinking about thoughts.

    For there to be serious insight one has to sit and bear the terror of all the masks and facades we fabricate moment to moment.

    Wisdom sucks as it destroys everything.
    JeffreyTheswingisyellow
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    Citta said:

    I don't think that is what the Buddha did at all. His realisation was a result in part of his dropping philosophical interpretations of the world.

    I agree @Citta, but when you read some modern philosophical texts, they may be interpreted similarly if you have an open and investigative mind. I am not discussing philosophy, but whether what has been written in Western philosophy can enable you to achieve the same goal, with the right view. There is often the distinction between the 'western mind set' and the eastern one. Can a western mind reading western philosophy achieve the same thing?
  • matthewmartinmatthewmartin Amateur Bodhisattva Suburbs of Mt Meru Veteran
    edited January 2014
    anataman said:


    I am saying that for some people reading a good western philosophical text can be just as rewarding and insightful, and dare I say it enlightening as reading the sutra's. Does anyone have any experience of this, or is the consensus that we have to read the Sutra's and that is the only way to develop insight and wisdom.

    Over at the Non-Buddhist website, Glenn Wallas et al, make that point a lot. They are critical of Buddhism and often say that the bad parts would be better replaced by some more modern thinkers, like, say Proust or [Insert prestigious intellectual name here].

    My retort is that:
    - Is that a club you can join?
    - Can I get someone to officiate a Proustian wedding or funeral?
    - What practices are entailed by living a Proustian lifestyle? (when the rubber hits the road, is Proustian, or Platonic thinking just a thought, or does it actually involve doing anything visible different?)
    - What does the lifestyle look like?

    Some modern thinkers, especially in the field of Psychology do meet some of the criteria I mentioned- Cognitive Therapy comes to mind.

    When people think that X or Y can replace religion, and there isn't a "club", nor a system of social interations, nor a practice... then I think people have missed the point of religion. An amusing story about the beginning of the world is just that. Replacing it with the big bang doesn't actually solve the problems that people are trying to solve when they sign up for a religion.

    BhikkhuJayasaraanatamanTheswingisyellowperson
  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran

    ....
    When people think that X or Y can replace religion, and there isn't a "club", nor a system of social interations, nor a practice... then I think people have missed the point of religion. An amusing story about the beginning of the world is just that. Replacing it with the big bang doesn't actually solve the problems that people are trying to solve when they sign up for a religion.

    And that is why I often speak out against the desire to mix Buddhism with science. While there may not always be a specific border to each, in general the purpose of science is different than the purpose of religion.

  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    edited January 2014
    taiyaki said:

    Yeah its possible. The philosophical traditions can help people grapple with the deep existential issues. But it takes a profound intelligence to actually believe, assimilate concepts to end all concepts.

    But Buddhism I find is all about letting go, renouncing our ideas and stances on the world and ultimately ourselves.

    This isn't something we can just think away, because thinking itself is what structures the whole perception of duality and inherency, which is the cause of pretty much all afflictive patterning and what we call human suffering.

    Insight/wisdom arises for people who face their lives in their direct immediacy. Facing their loneliness, fear of death, all the masks one wears, facing it all. Bare and just waiting. Insight has to cut deep beyond mind into the body, into the subtle channels, into every single belief we have.

    And its a painful process.

    And if one has enough patience and willingness. Then one can read any philosophical tradition and come to the simple conclusion that it is merely thought thinking about thoughts.

    For there to be serious insight one has to sit and bear the terror of all the masks and facades we fabricate moment to moment.

    Wisdom sucks as it destroys everything.

    This is such a double edged sword though... Buddha is said to see little merit in philosophers but he himself, was a philosopher by the only definition I can really find.

    It may be worded differently elsewhere but Wiki seems about right.
    Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group".[4]

    The word "philosophy" comes from the Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (philosophia), which literally means "love of wisdom".[5][6][7] The introduction of the terms "philosopher" and "philosophy" has been ascribed to the Greek thinker Pythagoras.[8]
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

    Buddha did address these problems and he was surely systematic and rational in his approach so while I agree he didn't have much use for the philosophy of those before him, he ended up being a philosopher.
    The Blessed One said, "The ignorance with which the fool is obstructed, the craving with which he is conjoined, through which this body results: that ignorance has not been abandoned by the fool; that craving has not been destroyed. Why is that? The fool has not practiced the holy life for the right ending of stress. Therefore, at the break-up of the body, he is headed for a [new] body. Headed for a body, he is not entirely freed from birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. I tell you, he is not entirely freed from stress & suffering.

    "The ignorance with which the wise person is obstructed, the craving with which he is conjoined, through which this body results: that ignorance has been abandoned by the wise person; that craving has been destroyed. Why is that? The wise person has practiced the holy life for the right ending of stress. Therefore, at the break-up of the body, he is not headed for a [new] body. Not headed for a body, he is entirely freed from birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is, I tell you, entirely freed from stress & suffering."
    http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.019.than.html

    So wisdom is not a bad thing and I don't think Buddhism is strictly about renunciation for Buddha would never renounce compassion.

    Some say there is a time to let go of the teachings but then what good are we? Buddha never let go of the teachings because there was no border between him and the teachings.

    I think Buddha signaled a time to let go of letting go. This is why he got up from his tree and set the wheel in motion instead of giving into decay.


    anataman
  • DavidDavid A human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First Nations Veteran
    edited January 2014
    vinlyn said:

    ....
    When people think that X or Y can replace religion, and there isn't a "club", nor a system of social interations, nor a practice... then I think people have missed the point of religion. An amusing story about the beginning of the world is just that. Replacing it with the big bang doesn't actually solve the problems that people are trying to solve when they sign up for a religion.

    And that is why I often speak out against the desire to mix Buddhism with science. While there may not always be a specific border to each, in general the purpose of science is different than the purpose of religion.

    I can agree up until the point where we ignore scientific findings that show a correlation.

    Sorry for joining in and not addressing the o/p first...

    I think it is probably possible.



  • vinlynvinlyn Colorado...for now Veteran
    ourself said:

    vinlyn said:

    ....
    When people think that X or Y can replace religion, and there isn't a "club", nor a system of social interations, nor a practice... then I think people have missed the point of religion. An amusing story about the beginning of the world is just that. Replacing it with the big bang doesn't actually solve the problems that people are trying to solve when they sign up for a religion.

    And that is why I often speak out against the desire to mix Buddhism with science. While there may not always be a specific border to each, in general the purpose of science is different than the purpose of religion.

    I can agree up until the point where we ignore scientific findings that show a correlation.



    athat's why said there is not always a specific border between the two.

    David
  • Western philosophy is based on logic, whereas Indian philosophy is based on intuition. The two are distinct - and Buddha went further and combined religion and philosophy.
  • NevermindNevermind Bitter & Hateful Veteran
    Citta said:

    I don't think that is what the Buddha did at all. His realisation was a result in part of his dropping philosophical interpretations of the world.

    ... and taking up religious ones.
  • CittaCitta Veteran
    edited January 2014
    Nevermind said:

    Citta said:

    I don't think that is what the Buddha did at all. His realisation was a result in part of his dropping philosophical interpretations of the world.

    ... and taking up religious ones.
    Probably not. that was probably a process that happened a couple of hundred years later. Culminating with Buddhaghosa.
    Much of what we think of as Buddhism was invented by Buddhaghosa and his school.
    matthewmartinlobster
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    vinlyn said:

    ....
    When people think that X or Y can replace religion, and there isn't a "club", nor a system of social interations, nor a practice... then I think people have missed the point of religion. An amusing story about the beginning of the world is just that. Replacing it with the big bang doesn't actually solve the problems that people are trying to solve when they sign up for a religion.

    And that is why I often speak out against the desire to mix Buddhism with science. While there may not always be a specific border to each, in general the purpose of science is different than the purpose of religion.

    I am not mixing Buddhism with science I am asking if there is some insight that can be gained from Western thought processes. Here we are Westerners, as. I see it a majority here, dabbling in an Eastern religion, and not quite getting it right. However, if we look at some Western thought processes looking at an age old problem! might we gain insight and understanding from it?
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    betaboy said:

    Western philosophy is based on logic, whereas Indian philosophy is based on intuition. The two are distinct - and Buddha went further and combined religion and philosophy.

    Not sure I agree with that! But that is only a logical assertion of my intuitive self.
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    genkaku said:

    My point is this. The buddha worked with his mind and came up with a philosophic interpretation of the world, which is useful to end suffering, but it also points to various universal truths that are difficult to deny....
    @anataman -- If wisdom were proved between the covers of a book, we'd all be in clover. It may be fun or informative or encouraging to read books, munch on concepts, connect dot A with dot B, but none of this is a guarantor of happiness and peace.

    OK, Buddhism as a philosophy or religion is pretty nifty. But Buddhism as a practice is more patient and determined. There are a lot of potholes to fall into and climb back out of. The advantage of practice is that it provides experience and in experience, wisdom finds a grounding that is as peaceful as it is practical. Wisdom is not what you know. It's who you are. And who you are, while capable of playing intellectual games, is no longer required to do so.

    Yeah yeah yeah

    I have heard and understood that Wisdom is what you are and knowledge is what you know - there's a great track on one of the megatripolis albums that expounds that. however, back to my point. Wisdom is Wisdom. Knowledge is fundamental to understanding. Where does the understanding that we have become wise come from?

    Knowledge? Or Wisdom? Or both? Or neither?

    If it is the first, then whose knowledge benefits who?

    If it is the second, then Wisdom is just there so this thread doesn't matter!

    If it is the Third everything is complimentary!

    If it is the fourth, nothing matters.

    These are just thoughts by the way

    :wave:
  • Cushion ?
  • A different translation of philosophy is 'love of ideas'
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    Citta said:

    Cushion ?

    No thanks! Trying to give them up!
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    Jeffrey said:

    A different translation of philosophy is 'love of ideas'

    Well that's better than a greedy ideal!
  • genkakugenkaku Northampton, Mass. U.S.A. Veteran
    If, when holding a chicken, I asked a guy from Brooklyn and a gal from Jakarta what it was I had in my hand, I suspect the answer might be "a chicken." I don't think I could learn more from my Brooklyn countryman than I might from an Indonesian onlooker.

    I suppose that in the game of religions, Buddhism might qualify as "eastern." Anyway, it sure isn't Christianity, which is the religion most prevalent in Brooklyn and my environs.

    Yup, I am a westerner and can learn a great deal from my own background and culture and ambient philosophies. No need to travel far and wide, wear other clothes or take up traditions that are not my own.

    Yup, I'm a westerner ....

    And a chicken is still a chicken.

  • Philosophers don't know what they are talking about. Buddhists do.

    :nyah:
    Theswingisyellowanataman
  • TheswingisyellowTheswingisyellow Trying to be open to existence Samsara Veteran
    Western philosophy is insightful and good at pointing out fundamental problems of the human condition, but it offers no practical way to overcome these problems. The rubber doesn't meet the road.
    The Buddha I think laid out some pretty hard facts of our existence but his insight also detailed a path with which to understand and ultimately overcome our suffering.
    robotlobsteranatamanperson
  • We probably know the 'parable' of the cup
    http://truecenterpublishing.com/zenstory/emptycup.html

    Both the Zenith, the intellectual and all of us are expressions of what we know . . . as far as I know.
    Personally I prefer pragmatism to anything learned from Western Philosophy, which has never offered me much practical wisdom.
    Maybe its a two cup solution . . .

    ;)
  • lobster said:

    Philosophers don't know what they are talking about. Buddhists do.

    :nyah:

    Buddhists don't know what they're talking about. The Buddha does.
    anataman
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    Since when did the Buddha 'do' anything?
  • @anatman, sounds like a koan
    Theswingisyellow
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    Jeffrey said:

    @anatman, sounds like a koan

    Just being playful @Jeffery! Right (cough's nervously) let's get back to the serious business of the OP.

  • anataman said:



    I used to think that what I perceived was an 'outside' world. And those perceptions did not fool me.

    However, over time through reading I have come to conclude that we can only go so far with any knowledge and no amount of thinking is going to liberate us from the human condition. We just have to BE.

    I was in my early twenties when I became interested in the mind, and the 'TRUE' reality of the world and started reading western philosophy.



    I am saying that for some people reading a good western philosophical text can be just as rewarding and insightful, and dare I say it enlightening as reading the sutra's.

    this is worldly insight and wisdom



    Does anyone have any experience of this, or is the consensus that we have to read the Sutra's and that is the only way to develop insight and wisdom. Period. Or do you have an opinion that you may like to offer here.

    reading sutra is not enough
    one has to calm one's mind
    and then
    THINK about things one has read from sutras

    this is the only way to develop Insight and Wisdom

    so

    SIT and THINK



    :)
    JeffreyanatamanrobotTheswingisyellow
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    Thank you @upekka for that. Your contribution is very much valued.
    lobster
  • anataman said:

    I used to think that what I perceived was an 'outside' world. And those perceptions did not fool me. However, over time through reading I have come to conclude that we can only go so far with any knowledge and no amount of thinking is going to liberate us from the human condition. We just have to BE.

    I was in my early twenties when I became interested in the mind, and the 'TRUE' reality of the world and started reading western philosophy. First I discovered Descartes and his 'discourse on the meditation', Doubt and Universal Skepticism, were introduced to me. But Descarte had to posit God's existence to be free of doubt. Doubt can only take you so far!

    Then came Sartre with 'being and nothingness', and the idea of the phenomenological existent, and the concept of nihilism arose wow, Western Philosophy was really drilling down into reality and the mind, what was left if there was ultimately nothing and we were just phenomenological arisings, then Heidegger, and his 'Introduction to metaphysics', where he begins by asking the question: Why are there beings at all instead of nothing? And drills a hole into everything with a broad brush and in a universal way.

    The Greek Philosopher Parminedes was writing about the middle path we tread as humans between something and nothing, that we find ourselves on: the path of 'it is' and 'it is not', and also positing 'For to be aware and to be are the same'.

    http://www.literature.org/authors/descartes-rene/reason-discourse/
    http://archive.org/stream/MartinHeidegger-IntroductionToMetaphysics/Heidegger-Introduction_to_metaphysics_djvu.txt
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

    My point is this. The buddha worked with his mind and came up with a philosophic interpretation of the world, which is useful to end suffering, but it also points to various universal truths that are difficult to deny, and in their own way, many other eastern and western philosophers also have come up with similar concepts and 'visions of reality', that are not overtly distinct from or far from the views posited in Buddhism. Even modern physics, theoretical and experimental, demonstrate the interdependence and emptiness of our reality. That is not saying Western Philosophy has not been influenced by buddhism, but all these spirtual explorers interpretations of themselves, and their reality, all help to achieve the same goal.

    I am saying that for some people reading a good western philosophical text can be just as rewarding and insightful, and dare I say it enlightening as reading the sutra's. Does anyone have any experience of this, or is the consensus that we have to read the Sutra's and that is the only way to develop insight and wisdom. Period. Or do you have an opinion that you may like to offer here.

    Well, the way you put, they probably are both the same thing. I am not surprised. The air we all breathe should be the same. We all have 21% oxygen, more or less.
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    edited January 2014


    A western view of Tibetan buddhism? Or a western approach to buddhism, or Tibetan buddhism from a philosophical viewpoint. Whatever - the Chinese and the aspect of Tibetan cultural destruction is something to consider for what it is.
  • I do enjoy Schopenhauer. Have you tried his works? There is some cross polination going on here, where the philosopher believes that he came up, with his independent investigation, with theories that aligned in some way with Buddhist/Eastern thought. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on this one, though the expression of his ideas do appear influenced by his readings of Eastern thought.

    What is unfortunate is that when he was writing, the translations he read muddled up a lot of Eastern thought, and what he believed was Buddhist was something else - I think more Hindu.

    What I find interesting is that he extends Western philosophy, as to where it had come up to before him (Kant), one step forward, in a way that it in some ways meets Eastern ideas.

    Of course no thought developed from his school, and given that it would seem that most of his ideas aren't thoroughly accepted, or not possibly providing foundations for further development. He did influence many artists though.

    This might have gone a bit off topic, apologies mods. Though to bring it back, I did garner an interest in Buddhism though Schopenhauer

    :)
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    Apparently Schopenhaur read and was influenced by translations of the Upanishads. So perhaps because he was of the 'right frame of mind' readily understood the dharma and was really just introducing hinduism/buddhism to the West, with a Germanic twist - I love the logic of the German language!
  • That's right it was the Upanishads. I was searching for the text. tks! It's been a while since I've read philosophy closely.
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    I think even Immanuel Kant was influenced by them as well but don't really have any evidence for that, perhaps his independently critical and analytical approach to rational thinking lead to the same conclusions. I was profoundly influenced by his ideas of freedom and in particular these ideas of freedom appear to be ultimately dependent on there being transcendental freedom.

    If you read his 'critique of pure reason' and 'metaphysics of morals' they seem to point quite clearly to what I believe the buddhist ideal of morality is, and that if you practice freedom you become morally right.

    Buddhism for me is a practical foundation and formulation for moral insight and living, whereas a lot of Western philosophy has provided me with a logical foundation for understanding and having faith in Buddhist teachings. Stimulating the thought-secretary organ can enable insight and understanding as well, but that is my mind's perspective for you.

    Just some thoughts!
    Theswingisyellow
  • atiyanaatiyana Explorer

    @anataman said:
    I used to think that what I perceived was an 'outside' world. And those perceptions did not fool me. However, over time through reading I have come to conclude that we can only go so far with any knowledge and no amount of thinking is going to liberate us from the human condition. We just have to BE.

    I was in my early twenties when I became interested in the mind, and the 'TRUE' reality of the world and started reading western philosophy. First I discovered Descartes and his 'discourse on the meditation', Doubt and Universal Skepticism, were introduced to me. But Descarte had to posit God's existence to be free of doubt. Doubt can only take you so far!

    Then came Sartre with 'being and nothingness', and the idea of the phenomenological existent, and the concept of nihilism arose wow, Western Philosophy was really drilling down into reality and the mind, what was left if there was ultimately nothing and we were just phenomenological arisings, then Heidegger, and his 'Introduction to metaphysics', where he begins by asking the question: Why are there beings at all instead of nothing? And drills a hole into everything with a broad brush and in a universal way.

    The Greek Philosopher Parminedes was writing about the middle path we tread as humans between something and nothing, that we find ourselves on: the path of 'it is' and 'it is not', and also positing 'For to be aware and to be are the same'.

    http://www.literature.org/authors/descartes-rene/reason-discourse/
    http://archive.org/stream/MartinHeidegger-IntroductionToMetaphysics/Heidegger-Introduction_to_metaphysics_djvu.txt
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parmenides

    My point is this. The buddha worked with his mind and came up with a philosophic interpretation of the world, which is useful to end suffering, but it also points to various universal truths that are difficult to deny, and in their own way, many other eastern and western philosophers also have come up with similar concepts and 'visions of reality', that are not overtly distinct from or far from the views posited in Buddhism. Even modern physics, theoretical and experimental, demonstrate the interdependence and emptiness of our reality. That is not saying Western Philosophy has not been influenced by buddhism, but all these spirtual explorers interpretations of themselves, and their reality, all help to achieve the same goal.

    I am saying that for some people reading a good western philosophical text can be just as rewarding and insightful, and dare I say it enlightening as reading the sutra's. Does anyone have any experience of this, or is the consensus that we have to read the Sutra's and that is the only way to develop insight and wisdom. Period. Or do you have an opinion that you may like to offer here.

    I want to keep this short, but no. There are certain overlapping concepts but not the same wisdom. Sartre for example believed the Soi was an impossible ideal and Hume didn't see any value in understanding the non-ego model of self, such as the bundle self. These are in complete contradiction, and so not the same wisdom. They do not all help to achieve the same goal, I find none of these others actually speaking about the practical application of emptiness, how it can lead to liberation etc. Their wisdom amounts to merely theoretical elaboration, nothing more. It can be appreciated though, for example Capriles uses Sartre to make certain points, but we can diminish the great differences between these styles, one being theoretical and one being primarily soteriologically applied.

  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran

    I am not sure if I have read what you say as correct @atiyana but are you saying buddhism is a doctrine of salvation?

  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator

    So let's screw 'Mind' up even further....

    Your memory is illusory in more ways than you think....

    instead of remembering the actual memory, you’re recalling the memory of the last time you remembered it and any mistakes that might have been introduced there. Like a game of human telephone, those mistakes can build on one another over time, leaving out details and introducing mistakes.>

  • atiyanaatiyana Explorer

    @anataman said:
    I am not sure if I have read what you say as correct atiyana but are you saying buddhism is a doctrine of salvation?

    It contains a doctrine of salvation absolutely, what you think liberation/nirvana is?! It has a soteriological emphasis absolutely, it IS a soteriologicaly based religion. It isn't about some philosophical elaboration or theoretical exercise, it is about reaching nirvana/becoming enlightened. In the study of religions and Buddhist philosophy, this is pretty standard speak.

    Salvation is taught to be available in this lifetime, and to be self-enacted. My guess is you are projecting more cultured meaning to the word, as in academic circles this doesn't carry connotation of a Christian salvation or reference or anything like that.

  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran

    What is to be salvaged? When everything has already been accomplished?

  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran

    I am not saying this to start an argument or debate that spins into god and hell realms.

    We are enlightened mind already (albeit dirtied and in need of a good scrub to shine brightly again); or is that new to you?

  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran

    If you want to salvage your idea of your self, it's not going to happen, because it is an idea. It might arise again, but then it doesn't need salvation does it?

  • atiyanaatiyana Explorer

    @anataman said:
    What is to be salvaged? When everything has already been accomplished?

    Who is this directed to?

  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran
    edited April 2014

    you of course... you brought up salvation.

  • Their wisdom amounts to merely theoretical elaboration, nothing more.

    Exactly so. Thinking about thinking. A bit like armchair discussions of Nirvana. There is wind, hot air and the wisdom that fills the sails of our raft to the far shore . . .

    Western philosophy can be left going around in circles in its own little pond . . . :nyah:

  • atiyanaatiyana Explorer
    edited April 2014

    @anataman said:
    you of course... you brought up salvation.

    It is really straightforward, instead of the semantic oscillation you seen intent on. Does Buddhism focus on soteriology or not? I have not met a single Buddhalogist who claims that there is no soteriological component to Buddhism, nor that such a soteriological component is not absolutely central. "Everything having already been accomplished" is referring to the rejection of causality in regards to producing or creating enlightenment, or growing it from a seed, as Tantrayana and Dzogchen teach Buddhahood is already fully the case. The issue is that, they carefully teach that it is not intrinsic, nor intrinsically existing, rather it is a manifestation of propensities insofar as the true condition of the Base. Therefore there are still methods that bring out first a sampling of the primordial gnosis and then the eventual total realization of the all-good Buddhahood. To say though that everything has been accomplished in terms of realization and attainment though, is highly misleading, as it would entail the idea that everyone has already achieved the phowa chenpo or one of the other unique modes, such as the light body, which is simply untrue and asserted by no one. Furthermore, are you already fully realized Buddha? Do you claim anuttara samyak sambodhi or the bodhisattva levels which transcend this?

    The point is, your statement is misleading because it is trying to conflate contexts. Though causally, the primordial gnosis, the all-good samantabhadra, and the true condition of the Base, are indeed already accomplished. There is an unawareness of this fact, an unawareness of the true condition of the Base (called the first marigpa), which then sunders beings into a spiral of pretenses that usually result in the second and third marigpas emerging. Therefore salvation lies in the awareness of the true condition of the Base (nirvana), unawareness is non-salvation as it continues the trans-migratory process.

    I am kind of surprised you find the word salvation so troubling, the Buddha taught that beings/selves have absolutely no svabhava and he also taught liberation. What is there to be liberated if there is no property-less bare particular, no substantial self or essential self, or absolute self?

    It is really simple, liberation = salvation. Buddhism is a soteriological tradition, everything else is tertiary. As one buddhologist put it during debate on reddit, "the soteriological aspect is the only thing that matters, it is the whole point".

    lobster
  • atiyanaatiyana Explorer

    @anataman said:
    If you want to salvage your idea of your self, it's not going to happen, because it is an idea. It might arise again, but then it doesn't need salvation does it?

    The self isn't what is salvaged. You seem to think that there must be a thing or substance that is salvaged. The Buddha taught liberation and rejected svabhava of self. There just is liberation just as there just is salvation. You are presupposing an "I", that isn't needed for such a thing to be the case.

    Just like the classic quote "I doubt, therefore I think, therefore I am". This is actually circular reasoning, as it presupposed an I to begin with without any real justification. Instead, just like there is lightning, there is doubt, there is thought. No need for an I. Likewise, there is salvation, there is liberation.

    anataman
  • anatamananataman Who needs a title? Where am I? Veteran

    I get what you are saying. I also get the softening attitude.

Sign In or Register to comment.