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.
A Proposal for a Distinction in Different Approaches to Buddhism
person
Don't believe everything you thinkThe liminal space Veteran
I think the distinction between skeptical and faithful doesn't really fit into the Buddhist framework like it does for most other religions. Buddhism encourages critical inquiry so I think a more fitting distinction may be practical vs. philosophical or metaphysical (the study of the immaterial). This just came to me this morning so I'm still working it out, I'm biased towards the metaphysical, so any additional suggestions or defining characteristics would be welcome, a bit of newbuddhist brainstorming. Anyway, I thought to start with a list of some of the main features of each, what they are and what they aren't. There will be crossover and elements from each in the other, this is just meant to be what is seen to be the main focus and distinguishes the two. Practical buddhists don't like being called cherry pickers and philosophical buddhists don't like being called gullible or uncritical, so lets say they aren't but approach Buddhism from different aspects.
Practical Buddhism:
-Is mainly concerned with knowledge and practices that help in daily life.
-Relys primarily on knowledge that is objectively knowable
-Uses objective analysis and everyday experience to reach conclusions
-Doesn't find useful metaphysical inquiry into reality for practice
-Improves the quality of this life and probably the next, (if such a thing exists)
Philosophical Buddhism
-Seeks to understand the nature of existence
-Accepts first person experience as a legitimate source of knowledge
-Uses reason and philosopical inference to reach conclusions
-Doesn't think that all that is knowable is material
-Improves the quality of future lives and probably this one, (if such a thing exists
)
Again, this is just a rough start and any input or ideas would be appreciated.
Practical Buddhism:
-Is mainly concerned with knowledge and practices that help in daily life.
-Relys primarily on knowledge that is objectively knowable
-Uses objective analysis and everyday experience to reach conclusions
-Doesn't find useful metaphysical inquiry into reality for practice
-Improves the quality of this life and probably the next, (if such a thing exists)
Philosophical Buddhism
-Seeks to understand the nature of existence
-Accepts first person experience as a legitimate source of knowledge
-Uses reason and philosopical inference to reach conclusions
-Doesn't think that all that is knowable is material
-Improves the quality of future lives and probably this one, (if such a thing exists
)Again, this is just a rough start and any input or ideas would be appreciated.
0
Comments
Why do we need to divide things up? This is something humans always tend to do, find the differences and focus on that. But in my eyes, doing this isn't Buddhism at all, because labeling ourselves with things is identifying ourselves with things, which is not what the Dhamma teaches.
To tell you the truth, there are millions of types of "Buddhism". There is Sabre-"Buddhism", there is person-"Buddhism", there is Dalai Lama"Buddhism", there is Thich Nhat Hanh-"Buddhism" etc. etc. Everybody has his or her personal experience of the dhamma.
Fitting those experiences into certain categories only limits them, in my perspective. Like in your boxes, someone who is philosofical apparently is not practical..
with metta,
Sabre
I guess that's one in the column for scrap the idea. I'm hoping to keep it and improve it though so I'd prefer any suggestions to make it better.
-Is mainly concerned with knowledge and practices that help in daily life.
-Relys primarily on knowledge that is objectively knowable
-Uses objective analysis and everyday experience to reach conclusions
-Doesn't find useful metaphysical inquiry into reality for practice
-Improves the quality of this life and probably the next, (if such a thing exists)
-Seeks to observe the nature of consciousness directly
thats the basis of practical Buddhism imo.
How to do this technically without any of the fluff. How to get the deeper meditation and progress quickly so we can realize this.
The distinction also isn't to say that philosophical Buddhism is only interested in speculation and not practice and practical Buddhism is only interested in practice and doesn't want any philosophical context, so maybe I need to make that more explicit.
i would say it's the complete exact opposite
Usually practical Buddhists are pretty much only interested by those, and not (enough?) about the 8 fold path, loving kindness etc...
How to get the technical stuff done, how to get there quickly, what happen to the mind in such states, how to recognize whats happening so we can progress, recognizing where one is blocked so he can unblock himself and move forward etc...
You bring up a good point and I think I'll have to come up with a different label.
- practical
- religious
- philosophical (doesn't do any meditation but talk about it and criticize the other 2
I do not mean practice in a highfaluting way, just ass on the cushion practice.
Empirical Buddhism:
-Is mainly concerned with knowledge and practices that help in daily life.
-Relys primarily on knowledge that is objectively knowable
-Uses objective analysis and everyday experience to reach conclusions
-Doesn't find metaphysical inquiry into reality useful for practice
-Improves the quality of this life and probably the next, (if such a thing exists)
-Understands that the core of Buddhism is application of understanding via contemplation and meditation
Metaphysical Buddhism
-Seeks to understand the nature of existence
-Accepts first person experience as a legitimate source of knowledge
-Uses reason and philosopical inference to reach conclusions
-Doesn't think that all that is knowable is material
-Improves the quality of future lives and probably this one, (if such a thing exists
-Understands that the core of Buddhism is application of understanding via contemplation and meditation
So far, so good. However, if you start to ascribe certain characteristics to certain types of practitioners, you limit them - both the practitioners and the characteristics. For example, I could conclude that understanding of the nature of existence is something that (according to this division) doesn't help in daily life? And also you can't find this nature through everyday experience..
There's more issues I could adress, but my point is: It doesn't matter how we approach the dhamma. If we practice the 8-fold path correctly, the results will be the same for everybody. And so we don't have to label others (or ourselves for that matter) and by doing so in our projection limit their possibilities.
With metta,
Sabre
Ajahn Brahm says to people who claim there is nothing immaterial: "Where is this idea of you that there is nothing immaterial? I can't see it, so apparently it doesn't exist.."
And maybe this is a start of some validation you are seeking. I hope you can find something in it.
With metta,
Sabre
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
----------------
@person
Currently there is already a distinct difference between Buddhism as philosophy and Buddhism as religion.
I can't tell whether this distinction is recognized in your 2 categories, or are you dividing up Buddhism based on the assumption it is a religion?
.
I am happy enough to simply see Buddhism as a philosophy with some very valid and tested teachings. IMO the religious aspect enters the picture if you include the metaphysical ingredients such as gods, realms, rebirth - none of which I could ever believe in.
The argument that the 4/8/5 only make sense if you believe in rebirth does not hold water, IMO, since all of that is applicable in THIS life with Immediate cause and effect and that is all one can hope for, realistically.
Maybe I'm still too new to all this, but that is the only difference I see regarding my own POV vs. traditional Buddhism, and the labels, even in take 2, do not seems to fully incorporate those differences...(?) and in fact are labeling "philosophy" what I would have named 'religion'....
At this point I actually abstain from calling myself "Buddhist", maybe because I feel one needs to accept Buddhism as religion for that label to apply.
----------------------------------------
1-5 above: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/philosophy
I also don't think #2 in your description of philosophy really belongs in the empirical Buddhism category because I don't ever recall anyone relying on a reasoned explanation without a need for empirical data.
The separating into two styles of Buddhism is a partialization of both.
IMHO.
I'm not sure that dividing or categorising Buddhism as suggested would ultimately assist - all variety appears to exist in Buddhism reflecting the variety of the people who practice it and build it...
perhaps your categories would work better if you considered Buddhism as a whole and put in intermediate steps - stage 1 and so forth (or colours so its not hierarchical) - that way, perhaps, certain concepts would be utilised at different stages - so a green Buddhist may meditate once a day for 5 minutes and will try not to be angry with things whereas a red buddhist would never stop meditating and everything would be an impractical reflection of a philisophical reality... maybe...
I find for myself that I have over the years phased in and out of different ways of looking at life and each version has added something to the whole - some empirical and some metaphysical - yin / yang - 2 sides of the same coin...
"religious aspect enters the picture if you include the metaphysical ingredients such as gods, realms, rebirth."
Whether blind faith or "reasoning" ... it is still a metaphysical belief (without proof, which is fine, just not my style) -- so does this mean that your main concern here is to propose that 'religion' practiced the way you see it is arrived at by reasoning and personal experience/conviction rather than blind faith...?
Further, under "empirical Buddhism" you mention: "-Improves the quality of this life and probably the next, (if such a thing exists)" If it was empirical, wouldn't that exclude the reference to a next life? (empirical -- derived from or relating to experiment and observation rather than theory -- http://www.thefreedictionary.com/empirical )
The way I see it, you include unproven beliefs in both categories, so both include 'religious' aspects -- so non-religious Buddhism is not covered... right?
(Not arguing, just trying to understand....)
You're concluding that views of rebirth and such are beliefs and based on faith/reasoning, not on proof. But it is possible for practitioners to confirm such things through their own practice. This was mentioned in the suttas and still taught nowadays. Approaching it via this way isn't a belief, it is empirical.
I think the sutta I quoted pretty much says it: There are people who start out with a lot of faith, because they feel the dhamma is right and there are people who base their ideas on wisdom and pondering, because they intellectually see the dhamma is right. Of course, there are also people who do a bit of both. However, the approach does not limit the possible experiences and views that can achieved. That's my main critique of the division made here.
With metta,
Sabre
This point of "metaphysical Buddhism" The "ultimate" understanding..(using the word "Ultimate" carefully to mean no-relation or stand-alone) of Life etc.... is a non-understanding.. an unknowing, that is realized as ineffable and direct practice. It is the very same practice of ordinary life.. or "practical", "empirical", Dharma.
Ultimate understanding in the common sense is a purely relative affair... mundane. It is just supersized mundane, not trans-mundane.
Without quite understanding the finer points of what you said, I also felt that this characteristic applies to "empirical" Buddhism as well -- so with that much overlapping, I wonder what IS the difference?
@person -- not nit-picking at your efforts, just weighing your statements against my understanding. I'm afraid this questioning is inherent when you put something up for discussion and you are yourself struggling to nail down the point you are making.... So, we're just "thinking" along with you.
This is just IMHO... ofcourse. ..but it is said confidently.
I do think I still want to move forward with this though and thanks to everyone's input I think I have a clearer understanding of why.
In most of modern culture there is a split between faith and reason. I don't think this distinction really works in Buddhism because of its emphasis on testing the teachings. So this is an effort to better label the difference, which clearly exists amongst people here.
The difference in approach really isn't about what teachings either school accepts but more in how they go about interpreting them.
I take your point about the first distinction @RichardH and @possibilities, in that they both try to understand their lives, the distinction is just in how they go about doing that, so I removed them. @possibilities I think I'll stick with the this life/next life distinction because I add (if such a thing exists) at the end.
Empirical Buddhism:
-Relys primarily on knowledge that is objectively knowable
-Uses objective analysis and everyday experience to reach conclusions
-Doesn't find metaphysical inquiry into reality useful for practice
-Improves the quality of this life and probably the next, (if such a thing exists)
-Understands that the core of Buddhism is application of understanding via contemplation and meditation
Metaphysical Buddhism
-Accepts first person experience as a legitimate source of knowledge
-Uses reason and philosopical inference to reach conclusions
-Doesn't think that all that is knowable is material
-Improves the quality of future lives and probably this one, (if such a thing exists
-Understands that the core of Buddhism is application of understanding via contemplation and meditation
a- people using Buddhism as some kind of religion replacement, seeking a place where they feel they belong as the primary objective.
b- people using Buddhism to overcome something in their life, such as depression, anxiety
c- people using Buddhism to get the work done and get enlighten.
d- people using Buddhism to understand it's philosophy because they find it interesting or it somewhat match their own/match some of their insights.
so we could come up with some generalities
and come up with assessments of the 8 fold path and see where they might generally do goo or lacking...
a- Usually work on morality, love community activities, rites and rituals...
don't do much meditation, not much interest in retreats.
usually do well with:
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
since not much meditation,
usually could improve:
1. Right view
2. Right intention
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration
b- people using Buddhism to overcome something in their life, such as depression, anxiety.
Usually do some basic mindfulness meditation.
might do good (but unlikely) with:
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration
might do good with:
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
but only based on previous habits.
c- usually meditate hard.
should do good with:
1. Right view
2. Right intention
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
6. Right effort
7. Right mindfulness
8. Right concentration
but might overlook:
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
d- not likely to do good on any of the path.
might do good with:
3. Right speech
4. Right action
5. Right livelihood
but only based on previous habits.
about that?
The only aspect of the doctrine that does not seem to fall out of metaphysical analysis is rebirth. This may require empirical knowledge. But Nagarjuna seems to cover the whole of metaphysics aside from that.
At any rate, I would never have taken seriously the Buddhist claim to empirical knowledge of reality and started practicing had it not been for the overwhelming metaphysical argument. Knowing metaphysics well I converted to Buddhism thirty seconds after hearing about it. According to logic, (well okay, according to my logic) the doctrine simply has to be essentially true.
Perhaps a division can be made between theoretical and experimental Buddhism, as in physics. Most people theorise about the results of their experiments, however, so it's unlikely anyone would fall neatly into one or the other category. Maybe we need less categories and not more.