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.
Philosophy is dualistic from intellectual mindset based on the analysis of present situation and past experiences, and to an extent that it varied according to every level of human intellectual understanding and well beings. The tenet of religion which based on its followers concept is firmly built on the God and followers relationship, and there is no way that their followers can be a God. Only its followers would be liberated to heaven, and other living beings including animals, ghosts, diety, pathetically landed themselves into hell. And for some religions, probably reincarnation to be taken place until the Lord is happy and satisfied. Buddhism is a philosophy on true insight & attainment of non dualism basically liken to the broaden love between parents and their children in all living beings and its surroundings such as human, diety, ghosts, animals, heavenly, hell beings and non living beings. This love is truly so beautiful, touching, and incredibly magnificent. Unfortunately, it could not be described accurately based on intellectually reasoning. How to express accurately the love of a mother on the very moment she cradles a new born baby in the animals species , isn't it spendidly magnificent and amazing - your buddhahood :rockon:
First, you define philosophy as dualistic. Then you say Buddhism is a philosophy. Could it be that you meant that Buddhism is a method that utilizes true insight to reach a state of non-duality. (?)
I appreciate that, but this isn't a case of inflating oneself and diminishing others. It definitely depends on what one's view of buddhahood is. If one holds that all sentient beings are in fact buddhas that have not recognized themselves, it isn't false pride to say that in fact buddhahood is very close, very natural and in fact very ordinary. I will demur because I am taking this slightly off topic.
I think that this is an interesting question, given that it exposes our underlying assumptions about what religion, philosophy and psychology are and where their boundaries are. I think that the answer chosen by any given person can indeed reveal much about what buddhism means to them. I don't think that there is a right answer that would include everyone, though.
The thing I really like is Buddha's teaching where he says characterization of god is unnecessary and troublesome.
It allows Buddhism as a spiritual practice to be SPECIAL at least in my mind. When I mention B. is not a religion and Buddha Himself was "just a guy" who attained enlightenment through his own concentrated efforts and without any divine intervention- people get very curious.
I think it's good to make the characterization of God the definitive quality of a religion because I like being able to "promote" B. as "not a religion."
People whom I know see Buddhism as a major world-wide spiritual practice and when they learn (from me :eek: ) that there is no typical, powerful, all-knowing, human-like, potentially meddling, potentially jealous, etc., etc., bigtime God involved in reaching enlightenment people may think of themselves and other "ordinary" people as more special than they did before.
Works for me.
OTOH, I do know there ___IS___ a HUUUUUUUUUUGE God-aspect behind Buddhism. I just keep my small bit of currently-embodied mind occupied with things it can now or someday might be able to handle.
IOW, Like an ant who somehow through diligent effort and reflection figured out what a grain of sand is. Will he all of a sudden understand and run back to explain the Empire State Building to his ant friends?! No way. Not going to happen! That's what I mean by Huuuuuge. LOL. I dunno.
Roger, what do you mean by "there's a HUGE God-aspect behind Buddhism" ?
Thanks for asking C. IMHO, when I meditate I am sometimes overwhelmed by how incomprehensibly vast _*IT*_ is. I bet you are too.
We're just this little pinch of mind occupying these physical forms. We have "big" ideas but they are the result of our limitations.
You know if people say, "It's so magnificent and staggering you can't even imagine it?" What happens when that statement is magnified by a quintillion? I think at that point a "God-aspect" emerges. The only message "from God" we get is simply and profoundly: love kindness and compassion. Done. There's no more for us there.
I think the Buddha knew this and so recommended we stay away from making up our _little_ religion stories about it in the form of creation myths and behavioral guidelines claiming supernatural validation.
Again, it's just my humble opinion, I'm struggling too.
If one holds that all sentient beings are in fact buddhas that have not recognized themselves, it isn't false pride to say that in fact buddhahood is very close, very natural and in fact very ordinary. I will demur because I am taking this slightly off topic.
I think that this is an interesting question, given that it exposes our underlying assumptions about what religion, philosophy and psychology are and where their boundaries are. I think that the answer chosen by any given person can indeed reveal much about what buddhism means to them. I don't think that there is a right answer that would include everyone, though.
Good point, that Buddhahood may be just around the corner for us. And I think it's possible that some people already are Buddhas or Bodhisattvas and don't know it, especially if they're not Buddhists. The thread on "Any Enlightened Beings in Modern Times?" demonstrated that to some extent, I think. (My candidate was Stevie Wonder.) On the other hand, if Buddhahood may, in fact, be "ordinary", why are there millions of Buddhists striving toward Buddhahood and not reaching it?
I have some further thoughts on why there's a tendency in the West to see Buddhism in secular terms, whether as a philosophy or psychology. Many Westerners study Buddhism at home; I've seen comments on this site to the effect that so-and-so isn't into "the sangha scene" (with good reason, in view of the mindset in some sanghas). Others combine home study with occasional or regular sangha participation. But sangha participation doesn't include the rituality that is part of Eastern Buddhism, except for Vajrayana sanghas that may offer the occasional empowerment, and many sanghas are lead by lay teachers, so members may rarely even see a monastic. So, to go back to an earlier analogy, for many Westerners, Buddhism doesn't walk or quack like a duck; no rituals, few, if any, monks, nuns. And for those who came to Buddhism after being turned off by Christianity, the attitude of reverence that's part of the package in the East also may be absent. Buddhism is experienced much more on an intellectual level, with the exception of the meditation experience. I'm not generalizing to all Westerners, but I think these things are true for many.
---An Excerpt from [I]Old Path White Clouds [/I]by Thich Nhat Hanh---
[The Buddha] "My teaching is not a doctrine or philosophy. It is not the result of discursive thought or mental conjecture like various philosophies which contend that the fundamental essense of the universe is fire, water, earth, wind, or spirit, or that the universe is either finite or infinite, temporal, or eternal. Mental conjecture and discursive thought about truth are like ants crawling around the rim of a bowl - they never get anywhere. My teaching is not a philosophy. It is the result of direct experience. The things I say come from my own experience. You can confirm them all by your own experience. I teach that all things are impermanent and without separate self. This I have learned from my own direct experience. You can too. I teach that all things depend on all other things to arise, develop, and pass away. Nothing is created from a single, original source. I have directly experienced this truth, and you can also. My goal is not to explain the universe, but to help guide others to have a direct experience of reality. Words cannot describe reality. Only direct experience enables us to see the true face of reality."
p. 212-213
wonderful, thanks
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Same question... Ultimately, what difference does it make what label we put on it? Does the label change the way we practice? Does it change the truth of the dharma?
It makes a huge difference don't you think so?
so many are contended to philosophize, many, even in this thread say such things as "Buddhism is a philosophy for me" or "For me it is a philosophy of life"... Their whole Buddhism experience could be summarized by stating that they have talked/read/thought about Buddhism but never tried it. Never experiencing any of the truth, without ever going any deeper.
Like an obese person talking and reading about diet and health without ever even trying to change their diet and/or exercise, without ever experiencing the burn of the muscles working and any of the benefits of being healthier... Even that extreme image does not get anywhere close to illustrate the absurdity of this situation.
so many are contended to philosophize, many, even in this thread say such things as "Buddhism is a philosophy for me" or "For me it is a philosophy of life"... Their whole Buddhism experience could be summarized by stating that they have talked/read/thought about Buddhism but never tried it. Never experiencing any of the truth, without ever going any deeper.
I find this to be a great tragedy don't you?
It's definitely a tragedy for people who have never heard of nor studied Buddhism in any way.
OTOH, it's a _very_ attractive philosophy. Philosophy means "love of wisdom."
It gets people excited and ready act after they do all that reading the night before
I don't know. I think it is simple. Practice is very simple. Go out and do good things.
Come home and focus the mind in many ways. Get some mentor guidance you so you don't waste too much time on one thing. When it's labelled a philosophy it might as well be labelled a "practical" philosophy meaning __practice__.
I think people are more likely to walk into a Buddhist center for the first time if they think it's a philosophy rather than a religion.
I'm not sure what my point is here. I'm just talking. Thanks for listening.
How 'bout... Buddhism is everything. It is religion, science, philosophy, psychology, what have you. That's better than trying to call it any one thing, unless we could simply call it the means to end suffering (but not everyone uses it for that purpose).
How 'bout... Buddhism is everything. It is religion, science, philosophy, psychology, what have you. That's better than trying to call it any one thing, unless we could simply call it the means to end suffering (but not everyone uses it for that purpose).
Good point. All those terms you mention are useful and work for me. Sorry if this sound trite but overall B. is a "quest for knowledge."
I sound like a broken record, but because B places the responsibility on the inner workings and deeds of the individual (ego and self notwithstanding) and not some external all-powerful separate entity is what makes it so potent as a "quest for knowledge."
"Buddhist meditation is about the heart; to develop the heart or mind, to develop your own heart. This is very, very important. This training of the heart is the main emphasis. Buddhism is the religion of the heart. Only this! One who practices to develop the heart is one who practices Buddhism."
Comments
Buddhism is a philosophy on true insight & attainment of non dualism basically liken to the broaden love between parents and their children in all living beings and its surroundings such as human, diety, ghosts, animals, heavenly, hell beings and non living beings. This love is truly so beautiful, touching, and incredibly magnificent. Unfortunately, it could not be described accurately based on intellectually reasoning. How to express accurately the love of a mother on the very moment she cradles a new born baby in the animals species
I think that this is an interesting question, given that it exposes our underlying assumptions about what religion, philosophy and psychology are and where their boundaries are. I think that the answer chosen by any given person can indeed reveal much about what buddhism means to them. I don't think that there is a right answer that would include everyone, though.
It allows Buddhism as a spiritual practice to be SPECIAL at least in my mind. When I mention B. is not a religion and Buddha Himself was "just a guy" who attained enlightenment through his own concentrated efforts and without any divine intervention- people get very curious.
I think it's good to make the characterization of God the definitive quality of a religion because I like being able to "promote" B. as "not a religion."
People whom I know see Buddhism as a major world-wide spiritual practice and when they learn (from me :eek: ) that there is no typical, powerful, all-knowing, human-like, potentially meddling, potentially jealous, etc., etc., bigtime God involved in reaching enlightenment people may think of themselves and other "ordinary" people as more special than they did before.
Works for me.
OTOH, I do know there ___IS___ a HUUUUUUUUUUGE God-aspect behind Buddhism. I just keep my small bit of currently-embodied mind occupied with things it can now or someday might be able to handle.
IOW, Like an ant who somehow through diligent effort and reflection figured out what a grain of sand is. Will he all of a sudden understand and run back to explain the Empire State Building to his ant friends?! No way. Not going to happen! That's what I mean by Huuuuuge. LOL. I dunno.
We're just this little pinch of mind occupying these physical forms. We have "big" ideas but they are the result of our limitations.
You know if people say, "It's so magnificent and staggering you can't even imagine it?" What happens when that statement is magnified by a quintillion? I think at that point a "God-aspect" emerges. The only message "from God" we get is simply and profoundly: love kindness and compassion. Done. There's no more for us there.
I think the Buddha knew this and so recommended we stay away from making up our _little_ religion stories about it in the form of creation myths and behavioral guidelines claiming supernatural validation.
Again, it's just my humble opinion, I'm struggling too.
I have some further thoughts on why there's a tendency in the West to see Buddhism in secular terms, whether as a philosophy or psychology. Many Westerners study Buddhism at home; I've seen comments on this site to the effect that so-and-so isn't into "the sangha scene" (with good reason, in view of the mindset in some sanghas). Others combine home study with occasional or regular sangha participation. But sangha participation doesn't include the rituality that is part of Eastern Buddhism, except for Vajrayana sanghas that may offer the occasional empowerment, and many sanghas are lead by lay teachers, so members may rarely even see a monastic. So, to go back to an earlier analogy, for many Westerners, Buddhism doesn't walk or quack like a duck; no rituals, few, if any, monks, nuns. And for those who came to Buddhism after being turned off by Christianity, the attitude of reverence that's part of the package in the East also may be absent. Buddhism is experienced much more on an intellectual level, with the exception of the meditation experience. I'm not generalizing to all Westerners, but I think these things are true for many.
so many are contended to philosophize, many, even in this thread say such things as "Buddhism is a philosophy for me" or "For me it is a philosophy of life"... Their whole Buddhism experience could be summarized by stating that they have talked/read/thought about Buddhism but never tried it. Never experiencing any of the truth, without ever going any deeper.
Like an obese person talking and reading about diet and health without ever even trying to change their diet and/or exercise, without ever experiencing the burn of the muscles working and any of the benefits of being healthier... Even that extreme image does not get anywhere close to illustrate the absurdity of this situation.
I find this to be a great tragedy don't you?
OTOH, it's a _very_ attractive philosophy. Philosophy means "love of wisdom."
It gets people excited and ready act after they do all that reading the night before
I don't know. I think it is simple. Practice is very simple. Go out and do good things.
Come home and focus the mind in many ways. Get some mentor guidance you so you don't waste too much time on one thing. When it's labelled a philosophy it might as well be labelled a "practical" philosophy meaning __practice__.
I think people are more likely to walk into a Buddhist center for the first time if they think it's a philosophy rather than a religion.
I'm not sure what my point is here. I'm just talking. Thanks for listening.
I sound like a broken record, but because B places the responsibility on the inner workings and deeds of the individual (ego and self notwithstanding) and not some external all-powerful separate entity is what makes it so potent as a "quest for knowledge."
"Buddhist meditation is about the heart; to develop the heart or mind, to develop your own heart. This is very, very important. This training of the heart is the main emphasis. Buddhism is the religion of the heart. Only this! One who practices to develop the heart is
one who practices Buddhism."