I don't believe Buddhist philosophy is true so much as effective

shays860

I don't necessarily believe that Buddhist philosophy is literally and objectively true so much as the ideas lead you to a state of freedom. Anyone else operate effectively from this perspective? Maybe it's not so much that I don't believe them as that I don't want to. Like the idea of no self for instance. My ego doesn't like the idea of not really existing. It's almost funny, where as a lot of religions pander to the fear of death Buddhism goes the completely opposite direction and says that we don't even exist in the first place! But I am still intent on pursuing the path because I like meditation and can already imagine how much better it could get after only a few weeks of practice.

caz

Theres a good bit of practise when starting Buddhism. The mind we have now is faulty and creates Samsara so therefore this mind will always turn toward the causes of Samsara which is more ignorance. When it encounters the profound teachings of Buddha delusions naturally kick against it but with a little wisdom through examining teachings on meditation and so forth we can take back control and attain freedom from suffering.

It all begins with watching the mind and understanding the defilements of the mind if you arent aware of the enemy of delusion then one can be constantly foiled by it and reject Buddhadharma because of deluded minds.

vinlyn

It will be interesting to read the responses to your post!

shays860

ps, any recommendations of good elucidations of buddhist philosophy?

genkaku

@shays860 My ego doesn't like the idea of not really existing.

What sane ego would?

Buddhism does not assert that the ego doesn't exist. It asserts that there is no such thing as an abiding ego ... or an abiding anything else, for that matter. Whether you believe this or not hardly matters since all things constantly change and there is no escaping it. Buddhism is in the business of getting squared away with the facts.

Belief is something, like hope, that most of us indulge or have indulged in at one time or another. As my teacher once said, "Belief and hope are necessary at the beginning [of an actual practice]. After four or five years [of practice] they are not so necessary." Why? Because experience trumps belief. If you doubt this, check it out.

shays860

Thanks for the responses guys. Sorry, your posts weren't there when I began to post the ps or I wouldn't have so rudely ignored your input

vinlyn

Belief is something, like hope, that most of us indulge or have indulged in at one time or another. As my teacher once said, "Belief and hope are necessary at the beginning [of an actual practice]. After four or five years [of practice] they are not so necessary." Why? Because experience trumps belief. If you doubt this, check it out.

Well, perhaps. Or, perhaps after 4 or 5 years of practice it is habit and/or you begin to justify the belief you have developed.

IronRabbit

Doubt in Buddhist tradition exists alongside belief, and is defined by its relativity to it. In ancient and modern Buddhist texts, the tension between faith and doubt juxtaposes in various ways. In some texts, doubt is considered contradictive to faith, and defined as a hindrance in the believer's path. Other texts regard doubt as a teacher, who shows the practitioner the delusional nature of his mind. Doubt can also be a method of developing the practitioner's ability to think independently, and examine ideas on his own. Without the doubt, says the Buddhist tradition, faith would be lacking the depth and inner inquiry, essential for developing awareness. Thus, faith and doubt are woven together, essentially supporting each other.

"Buddhism without Beliefs" & "The Faith to Doubt" - by Stephen Batchelor are just a couple of books that might prove interesting.

Good luck in the battle with your ego - perhaps in time you will see it as a warm coat that keeps out the cold in winter - and thoughts as farts - all functions of a physical being harboring an awareness that is the embodiment of wisdom unattached to those functions - then again, maybe not.....

caz

ps, any recommendations of good elucidations of buddhist philosophy?

Yes but they are very advanced and it is not entirely wise to become caught up in it unless one has a steady practise and is ready to progress or sometimes it can turn people of because the language can be complex and profound. One good book that describes the mind in detail is Understanding the mind. http://www.understandingthemind.org/

taiyaki

Even if the whole world forgets buddhism the world has its law. The buddha saw what is.

Ideas do not free people. It is practice with clear intention and the heart of sincerity.

To describe how things are is a gift. We live life and examine through our experience what the buddha saw.

In a way it is objective. It is only our blinded subjectivity which prevents us from accepting and seeing what is.

I do hope you practice and free the mind from itself. Then you and the rest of us will smile for another has come home.

Cinorjer

It's hard for me to remember much of my philosophy class in college, because we had the world's most boring professory, but can words like "literally and objectively true" apply to any philosophy?

Buddhism does have a philosophy, but Buddha was more of a physician than philospher. He taught a way of living, not just a way of looking at reality.

pweic

Your ego likes pleasure and avoids pain, it hates emptiness, it hates even more to be reduced. I take it that this post is posted by your ego . Be careful that you seems to be taking meditation as a source of pleasure, that ultimately might result in suffering when you have some setbacks in meditation or when you develop tolerance and withdrawals as if in addiction. Its better to take it as a training or seeking of truth. Continue if you wish, just remember to seek guidance or reflect yourself when you run into problem.

As for "no self", there is some controversy on this issue. Some Buddhists prefer "not self" instead. If you ever try to enjoy a quite evening at home, or take a walk in the park without any sense of what you are or what you want but simply present, you might realize it is not too bad living without your ego. Though I believe occasionally you still need your ego especially in the workspace, just be aware of it and use sparingly. I am not an expert, just sharing my personal experience.

vinlyn

@pweic -- I'm not saying I'm in total agreement with you, or not, but I do like the way you explained your thinking.

I don't know the answers, but personally I think there is a "self", but I don't know if there will always be a "self" for Vince. And so for me, what I try to do (and I'm not always very successful with it) is to not get too wrapped up in my "self".

pweic

@vinlyn . There is no consensus on "self" in philosophy, psychology and Buddhsim (not too sure about this one). There are many theories, i.e. reptilian brain vs core consciousness vs higher consciousness, true self vs false self, ego vs self, essense vs personality, self vs no self etc.

The only conclusions I can draw after reading those are that (1) there are more than one self, and (2) some are born with, some are created as we experience the world. The rest are beyond me at the moment.

genkaku

Belief is something, like hope, that most of us indulge or have indulged in at one time or another. As my teacher once said, "Belief and hope are necessary at the beginning [of an actual practice]. After four or five years [of practice] they are not so necessary." Why? Because experience trumps belief. If you doubt this, check it out.

Well, perhaps. Or, perhaps after 4 or 5 years of practice it is habit and/or you begin to justify the belief you have developed.

@vinlyn -- You could be right, but I also think it is instructive to consider the matter of learning to ride a bike. At first, you desire to ride a bike because you see your friends and neighbors riding. You too want to be able to greater distances at a speed faster than walking ... not to mention how kool it is to skid. You have faith you can do it because you see your friends doing it ... so it's not impossible. So you start to practice. At first mom or dad hold on from the side and you implore them not to let go. But then, by the nature of the exercise, they do let go and bit by bit you ride a little further and a little further ... before, inexorably, you fall, skin your elbows or knees, bang your head and wail with the application of iodine. But still you keep practicing because, well, you believe and you want to do this. Hope and belief carry you forward until one day, believe it or not, you can actually do it. And once you can actually ride a bike, there's no longer a need to believe or hope. Belief and hope that you can ride a bike become secondary and more or less useless. You don't believe or hope ... you KNOW from experience. No need for justification ... you KNOW.

@ironrabbit -- Belief, if you look into it, MEANS doubt. That's not meant as a criticism. It's like saying the sky is blue when the sky is actually blue.

ddrishi

@genkaku, you have hit the nail on the head, like always.

Ada_B

Some interesting points here.

I have recently got into a bit of a row on another site, over whether Buddhism is a philosophy or a religion. I stated that for some people, Buddhism has nothing to do with the supernatural or faith, but is a practice that they follow, much like the OP in this thread.

I have been contradicted by people talking about Thailand and all the superstitions associated with Buddhism there. And then of course, someone brought in HH Dalai Lama as an example of 'superstition' to do with reincarnation.

The thing is, I am actually a philosophy student (who should be revising at this moment, but revision is deathly boring IMHO). So I know you cannot contradict a statement like "Some people do x" with a statement that "Some people do y". I believe it's a non sequitor (but I'd have to look it up to check - I really *do* need to revise! ).

So of course, I unwisely got into a debate about the difference between reincarnation as it is commonly understood in the West (a person dies and is reborn in a new body) and the Buddhist view of rebirth. I tried zapping with a bit of a Zen koan: "What is it that is reborn?" but they didn't go for it.

Unfortunately, I tried to set out an argument rationally: since there is no Buddhist belief in a soul, or 'essential self', rebirth cannot be a belief that 'I' am simply reborn in a new body. Even if sometimes it sounds like it from the way various dharma teachers talk (such as HH Dalai Lama), the actual belief, I said, was far more subtle and nuanced. And I have asked a Tibetan lama the question "What is it that is reborn?" but unfortunately not understood the answer. All I can say was that it was, as they say, "a bit more complicated than that".

Anyway, the point is, I might as well have tried arguing with the wall, for all the effect my carefully constructed logic had on that discussion group. For me Buddhism has to have an essential logic, otherwise it is nonsense and irrational to practice. So I base much of my 'faith' on the bald fact that it works. It works as a philosophy, and a way of life. Complete understanding is not necessary, nor is blind faith. But sometimes it is nice to know that "it's a bit more complicated than that" when I come across hard-to-swallow concepts like rebirth.

seeker242

I don't necessarily believe... the ideas lead you to a state of freedom. Anyone else operate effectively from this perspective? Maybe it's not so much that I don't believe them as that I don't want to. Like the idea of no self for instance. My ego doesn't like the idea of not really existing.

Yes, even Buddhist masters go by this.

"To understand Anatta (Not-self), you have to meditate. If you only intellectualize about it, your head will explode" ~Ajahn Chah

He said that perhaps because to say "not/no self = not existing", is a wrong idea. One that will make your head explode.

genkaku

@genkaku, you have hit the nail on the head, like always.

@ddrishi -- And let's not forget that if belief MEANS doubt, then doubt by necessity MEANS belief. This is not some philosophical or theological Tinker Toy. Check it out.

Tosh

"To understand Anatta (Not-self), you have to meditate. If you only intellectualize about it, your head will explode" ~Ajahn Chah

I'm currently trying to understand the difference between produced space and unproduced space, and my head is about to explode!



Surely the absence of obstructive contact is the same for both; and light and dark can change both?

I feel a new post coming on! :dunce:

pweic

"To understand Anatta (Not-self), you have to meditate. If you only intellectualize about it, your head will explode" ~Ajahn Chah

He said that perhaps because to say "not/no self = not existing", is a wrong idea. One that will make your head explode.

I just realize that in translated Chinese Sutra, the word wu wa meaning "without self" has always been used instead of no/not-self. But then the Chinese/Taiwanese have their own share of Buddhists developing mental disorder trying to remove the "self", so this might not be a better translation.

I personally never had my head nearing explode thinking about self/no-self. The reason being I use alternatives like "Eternal Verities" (Socrates), "core consciousness" (António Damásio) or "Essence" (AH Almass) in my thought process. I simply take it they all mean the same thing as no/not-self, that which is ineffable anyway.

taiyaki

When you look for the permanent essence we can never find it.

When we don't look we assume its there.

In hindsight the self is a process.

Cute stuff.

pweic

Some minor correction on my previous post:

In Chinese Sutra such as the Diamond Sutra, the phrase "无我相 wu wo xiang" is used (not "wu wa" as I posted earlier, which I spelled wrongly anyway)。 This phrase roughly means "without perception of myself".