is buddhism practical

lobster

For me it is.
Very.
Right from the start.

Buddhism gets to the mind/heart of our being
and asks, 'what is this?'

do we have to answer questions
or agree with anyone's answers, including our own?

Fleeting, they come, they go
Fresh. Momentary. Gone.

Am I Buddhist? No.
That would be impractical.
That is why I practice Buddhism,
without designer labels.

Designs on our Dharma?
Naked awareness?
Still answers?

how

So,,, you admit to practicing without a license.

vinlyn

I'd say he practices it with great license.

lobster

I may stop practicing as soon as that is practical.
As for admitting. I am open to it.

Time to practically sit . . . without license . . . :wave:

karmatib

For me in the short time that I have been practicing it is the most practical thing I know. I am finding ways of thinking that are making me calmer and able to see things with "kind eyes". Even my wife sees the difference. I show more emotion and patients. People call Buddhism a religion or a philosophy but I like to think of it as a type of mind science. The Buddha seems to me like a scientist who uses the mind as a laboratory. Not in the sense of running experiments but in the sense that he looked at a problem (Dukka) and studied his mind until he discovered a way to solve the problem.

genkaku

Buddhism is practical because it is utterly useless. If it were useful, it would fall flat on its ass.

Gui

I don't understand the question. So I ask the OP, to what end are you asking if Buddhism is practical?

Chaz

Gui said:

I don't understand the question. So I ask the OP, to what end are you asking if Buddhism is practical?

You might as well be asking him a question like ....

"What's the difference between an egg?"

You may get a straight answer and you may get nonsense. In this case it would be tough to tell the difference. Best to take the question, if there even is one, and just run with it.

I would answer the OP title like this:

Yes.
No.
Maybe.
Who cares?
Shut up while I do my Ngondro practice if you don't mind.

Gui

Sorry. I just don't understand the question. Whether or not Buddhism is practical (whatever that means) doesn't strike me as being part of the equation, as the saying goes.

Gui

I just looked up the definition of practical. I should have done that before but I thought practical meant something else.
Unrelated, the cat who lives with me asks me from time to time why I talk to myself so much. I tell him,"I don't know".

Vastmind

*pulls out tape measure*


Yep, ....It's practically perfect in every way.

lobster

Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!
Even though the sound of it
Is something quite atrocious
If you say it loud enough
You'll always sound precocious
Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious!

David

If it works then it would be practical.

Seems to work in theory and I think I've seen some results in others and even me to some extent so I'll have faith and say yes.

mindatrisk

Some of the answers here seem incredibly pretentious for what was such a simple question. Sometimes it seems like people want to say the most obscure thing just for the sake of it, or maybe to seem deep. Buddhism is evidently very practical... the Buddha taught practices. If it wasn't practical then no-one would develop, and Buddhism would be pointless.

Kundo

@mindatrisk - and we all read the posts without knowing the tone of the writer. Emoticons help get that across, but some of us just "get it" at times or not (I know I've been guilty of that too).

Lighten up, it's only the internet.

lobster

Lighten up, it's only the internet.

This could be a YinYana mantra . . .
. . . A t-shirt.
. . . Wait . . .
Lighten up, it's only life

Now we need to bottle it and sell it . . .

The roots of the word have been defined[3] as follows: super- "above", cali- "beauty", fragilistic- "delicate", expiali- "to atone", and docious- "educable", with the sum of these parts signifying roughly "Atoning for educability through delicate beauty."
According to the film, it is defined as "something to say when you have nothing to say".


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious

AllbuddhaBound

Completely practical I would think. Maybe that says something about me because I like simplicity.

mindatrisk

Shtt matters, Chick.

Tosh

I think it depends. I once spent four months learning the Two Truths from the point of view of four different schools of Buddhist thought. I'm not sure how practical that was. But on the other hand, I found the Buddhist psychology module of my course very interesting and useful.

Chaz

mindatrisk said:

Some of the answers here seem incredibly pretentious for what was such a simple question. Sometimes it seems like people want to say the most obscure thing just for the sake of it [snip]

Kinda like the OP, right?

Actually, I consider it a species of trolling. Why take it seriously at all?

The question is, in a manner of speaking, ludicrous. There really is no answer. Whether or not "Buddhism" (whatever that may be) is practical depends entirely on the individual and how they relate to and manifest the Path. What may be practical for one, may be impractical for another.

The best answer would be "maybe" and that's no answer at all.

vinlyn

In general I think you're correct, Chaz. Asking whether the whole of Buddhism is practical...well, it's just too big a question. Asking whether some specific teaching is practical brings it down to earth. And so really the question of practicality of Buddhism is not practical.

Chaz

vinlyn said:

In general I think you're correct, Chaz. Asking whether the whole of Buddhism is practical...well, it's just too big a question. Asking whether some specific teaching is practical brings it down to earth. And so really the question of practicality of Buddhism is not practical.

I agree, of course.

I would suggest that any mainstream teacher, presented with a similar question, might choose to ignore such a question becuase a definitive answer is impossible. It would be pointless to waste the time to try, especially when posed by someone who can be fairly viewed as having questionable sincerity.

Not all questions deserve answers.

Not all questions merit discussion.

I think the OP is having some fun at our expense. I choose to return the favor.

mindatrisk

Chaz said:

mindatrisk said:

Some of the answers here seem incredibly pretentious for what was such a simple question. Sometimes it seems like people want to say the most obscure thing just for the sake of it [snip]

Kinda like the OP, right?

Actually, I consider it a species of trolling. Why take it seriously at all?

The question is, in a manner of speaking, ludicrous. There really is no answer. Whether or not "Buddhism" (whatever that may be) is practical depends entirely on the individual and how they relate to and manifest the Path. What may be practical for one, may be impractical for another.

The best answer would be "maybe" and that's no answer at all.

I suppose because a question well asked or an answer well transmitted can transform lives. I somewhat disagree with your answer above, but at least it is readable and you've shared what you think in an understandable manner. I suspect that those who utilise obscure language are trying to mask a lack of understanding. Which is a shame, because I don't think anyone expects anyone to understand anything, and most people just prefer - and respect - openness and honesty.

mindatrisk

Chaz said:

vinlyn said:

In general I think you're correct, Chaz. Asking whether the whole of Buddhism is practical...well, it's just too big a question. Asking whether some specific teaching is practical brings it down to earth. And so really the question of practicality of Buddhism is not practical.

I agree, of course.

I would suggest that any mainstream teacher, presented with a similar question, might choose to ignore such a question becuase a definitive answer is impossible. It would be pointless to waste the time to try, especially when posed by someone who can be fairly viewed as having questionable sincerity.

Not all questions deserve answers.

Not all questions merit discussion.

I think the OP is having some fun at our expense. I choose to return the favor.

I don't agree. I think that Buddhism is absolutely practical, given you have a practical mind. If you have an abstract way of thinking, or if you engage with Buddhism on an intellectual, theoretical level then maybe you won't see how it relates to your life, but in general the Buddha made his teachings very relative to daily living, especially the ethical elements.

Chaz

mindatrisk said:

Chaz said:

vinlyn said:

In general I think you're correct, Chaz. Asking whether the whole of Buddhism is practical...well, it's just too big a question. Asking whether some specific teaching is practical brings it down to earth. And so really the question of practicality of Buddhism is not practical.

I agree, of course.

I would suggest that any mainstream teacher, presented with a similar question, might choose to ignore such a question becuase a definitive answer is impossible. It would be pointless to waste the time to try, especially when posed by someone who can be fairly viewed as having questionable sincerity.

Not all questions deserve answers.

Not all questions merit discussion.

I think the OP is having some fun at our expense. I choose to return the favor.

I don't agree.

With what, exactly. What follows does, really follow what you quoted, but ....

I think that Buddhism is absolutely practical, given you have a practical mind. If you have an abstract way of thinking, or if you engage with Buddhism on an intellectual, theoretical level then maybe you won't see how it relates to your life, but in general the Buddha made his teachings very relative to daily living, especially the ethical elements.

Because here, you essentially agree.

Some people, for various reasons will find Buddhism very practical. I know I do, but that said, not everyone will agree, nor do I think they should.

The Buddha taught the Dharma according to the acapacities of his students. Not everone recieved the BuddhaDharma the same way. What works for one student may be lost on another.

Not everyone "gets" Vajrayana. All the ritual practices may fall flat for you, but may have profound meaning and importance for me. It would be impractical for your to attempt a Vajrayana path, given that you may not connect with it, while for me, it would be a moral imperative for me. And that difference is ok.

Or lets say retreat practice. It's an important part of Buddhist practice for many Buddhists, but others may find it impractical to devote time and effort to such practice.

In short there is no pat, absloute answer to the "question", so its somewhat foolish to pursue it.

And if my assertion of the OP being a troll is correct, then pursuit is an even more foolish option.

vinlyn

Very well written, Chaz!

It's even hard to define, for example, what is within the bounds of Buddhism. On the bigger scale, I don't personally find Zen practical...for me; just as others may not find Theravadan practice practical...for them. Even within Theravadan Buddhism...what's a part of Buddhism and what isn't? Adoration of Kuan Yin? Some of the practices within? Silly Precepts for monks (not saying all are silly, but IMHO some are)?

As far as whether or not the OP is a troll, I don't actually think he is. But, for me, I often simply scan over his posts quickly (not always), rather than taking real time to read them because I think he is attached to being clever, rather than speaking simply (and yes, I realize that all of us -- including me -- are attached to various things).

mindatrisk

Chaz said:

mindatrisk said:

Chaz said:

vinlyn said:

In general I think you're correct, Chaz. Asking whether the whole of Buddhism is practical...well, it's just too big a question. Asking whether some specific teaching is practical brings it down to earth. And so really the question of practicality of Buddhism is not practical.

I agree, of course.

I would suggest that any mainstream teacher, presented with a similar question, might choose to ignore such a question becuase a definitive answer is impossible. It would be pointless to waste the time to try, especially when posed by someone who can be fairly viewed as having questionable sincerity.

Not all questions deserve answers.

Not all questions merit discussion.

I think the OP is having some fun at our expense. I choose to return the favor.

I don't agree.

With what, exactly. What follows does, really follow what you quoted, but ....

I think that Buddhism is absolutely practical, given you have a practical mind. If you have an abstract way of thinking, or if you engage with Buddhism on an intellectual, theoretical level then maybe you won't see how it relates to your life, but in general the Buddha made his teachings very relative to daily living, especially the ethical elements.

Because here, you essentially agree.

Some people, for various reasons will find Buddhism very practical. I know I do, but that said, not everyone will agree, nor do I think they should.

The Buddha taught the Dharma according to the acapacities of his students. Not everone recieved the BuddhaDharma the same way. What works for one student may be lost on another.

Not everyone "gets" Vajrayana. All the ritual practices may fall flat for you, but may have profound meaning and importance for me. It would be impractical for your to attempt a Vajrayana path, given that you may not connect with it, while for me, it would be a moral imperative for me. And that difference is ok.

Or lets say retreat practice. It's an important part of Buddhist practice for many Buddhists, but others may find it impractical to devote time and effort to such practice.

In short there is no pat, absloute answer to the "question", so its somewhat foolish to pursue it.

And if my assertion of the OP being a troll is correct, then pursuit is an even more foolish option.



I think it is practical for anyone simply because the only thing we need to practice is the one thing we have at all times... a mind. So, all you need is a conscious awareness of your practice and their will always be some way to use your mind practically. That's how it seems to me, anyway. I can't speak for other minds!

federica

I think some people need to remove their heads from their asses and lighten up. There is so much woe and strife in this world, the least we can do here, is to be amiable to one another and not take ourselves too seriously.

Said the Moderator.
To nobody in particular.

lobster

Thanks guys
As we find illustrated, if not practiced, we have a form of 'Buddhism' that is impractical. In other words it generates confusion, dukkha and conflict to those already engaged in this preference. This is inevitable when communicating is samsara, unless people have to a degree overcome their personal ignorance.

When we implement the eight fold path it becomes a practical means to unfoldment.
Part of the unraveling is knowing what is helpful in terms of overcoming our convolutions and those of others and when this is impossible.

So for example it is useful to provide a tangle that can engage the process of clarity. It is useless to provide cliches that no one engages or profits from.

So again I will say I find Dharma works in a variety of ways, however we have to make the effort to learn from situations based on our best efforts. For some this form of engagement is yet to arise. As usual we make our own assessment. :wave: