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.
What do you believe buddhism has that 'other' philosophies havent?
zenmyste
Veteran
For me, buddhism is a cool philosophy!
But another which i think is awesome is STOICISM
(Stoics believe that happiness can only be achieved when we live in accordance with nature and 'accept' things as they are!!
It reminds me of zen and taoism!!
So what are your thoughts? X
But another which i think is awesome is STOICISM
(Stoics believe that happiness can only be achieved when we live in accordance with nature and 'accept' things as they are!!
It reminds me of zen and taoism!!
So what are your thoughts? X
0
Comments
prag·ma·tism [prag-muh-tiz-uh m] Show IPA
noun
1.
character or conduct that emphasizes practicality.
2.
a philosophical movement or system having various forms, but generally stressing practical consequences as constituting the essential criterion in determining meaning, truth, or value.
also that it is an exoteric teaching.. there is nothing hidden.. you see it all through your own practice.. your own experiential wisdom... there is nothing else like this.
Just self-imposed discipline.
Buddhism is who you really are.
Buddhism probably then does not have happiness like other religions.
What it has on the plus side is the ability to transform the nature of our being for the benefit of the individual and those around them.
In terms of worldly happiness, the Buddha mentions "four kinds of bliss (or happiness)" that can be attained by a householder "partaking of sensuality" (i.e., indulging in a non-contemplative lifestyle): the bliss of having, the bliss of wealth, the bliss of debtlessness, and the bliss of blamelessness (AN 4.62). The highest happiness in Buddhism, however, is a happiness born of renunciation (Ud 2.10) and letting go (SN 35.101) rather than one born of sensual indulgence (AN 9.41).
For example, Seneca, quoting Epicurus, wrote, "I read to-day, in his works, the following sentence: 'If you would enjoy real freedom, you must be the slave of Philosophy.' The man who submits and surrenders himself to her is not kept waiting; he is emancipated on the spot. For the very service of Philosophy is freedom" (Epistles 1.8). Moreover, I find it interesting that in the same letter, Seneca's warning regarding the "snares" of sensuality closely parallels that of the Buddha in MN 26, and his admonishment regarding food, clothing, and shelter closely parallels that of the Buddha in MN 2.
I see a lot of similarities between the middle way of Buddhism (i.e., the middle way between the two extremes of self-mortification and self-indulgence) and the hedonism of Epicurus, as well. Epicurus' philosophy, for example, was aimed at attaining ataraxia, peace of mind and freedom from fear, and aponia, the absence of pain, via a system of ethics, rational thinking/contemplation, and a secluded, moderate lifestyle. His hedonism wasn't so much unlimited indulgence in sensual pleasures as it was about balance.
Epicurus himself held that the absence of pain was the highest pleasure (compare that to the idea of nibbana being the highest bliss a la Dhp 202-04), and he favoured static pleasure over dynamic pleasure. The difference is explained by Bertrand Russell in A History of Western Philosophy using hunger as an example: This doesn't mean, of course, that you constantly stuff your face, but that you eat moderately, just enough to keep the body from experiencing the pain of hunger but not so much that it experiences the pain of overeating. In fact, Epicurus himself, contrary to popular belief, bordered on asceticism, renouncing sex and living off of little more than bread and cheese. The Buddha had a similar attitude towards food (among other things), as well. For example, from AN 4.37: Personally, I love seeing the insights of, and similarities between, other spiritual traditions, and I've spent a fair amount of time discovering some of the seeming similarities between Buddhism, Platonism, Stoicism, and Epicureanism, as well as Christianity (e.g., see this, this, and this). My own practice and understanding has benefited from such comparisons, and I think they're worth exploring.
As for what's unique to Buddhism, I'd say that the Buddha's teachings on dependent co-arising and not-self were evolutionary and unique contributions to Indian thought and philosophy as a whole.
I practiced it, I saw results... Result after result, problem after problem, fixed, through my own doing based on what I would learn and read through Buddhism, action is what it is all about, action and I can say (I usually don't make promises) but after what I got through, it was not just something that may have happened regardless of action, it was because of what I learned from Buddhism and applying that to my daily life... I have never through those, promise, Buddhism works... Whether Siddhartha Gautama was a real person, I don't know, whether these somewhat outlandish claims of rebirth and reincarnation and realms are true, I don't know, but what I do know, is that someone had to come up with this absolutely beautiful way of life, and this beautiful way of life saved my life that I was so innocently drug into and I am forever grateful to Buddhism aswell as the followers of it...
I would no more call figure skating a philosophy than I would call Buddhism a philosophy. Both take constant practice and dedication, both take a long time to master, and both benefit from the guidance of an experienced skilled coach.
Especially a coach who would tell you it's not a philosophy.
I guess we need to sit on them . . . It's the friendly thing to do? :om:
The insight is how suffering is constructed.
Once that insight is seen then one can understand how suffering is unconstructed.
Then there is a whole path dedicated to that specific insight and integration of that insight into life.
There is nothing like Buddhism in that respect. It is clear, very straightforward and very pragmatic.
I'd even say not even metaphysical at its heart. It deals with the simple, basic problem of suffering and nothing more at its heart.
Everything else becomes the support to help to consolidate this specific knowledge that then is applied via mind and body.
Okay, you wanna criticize numbers? Your 90% comment is not accurate.
It would follow that the lives of all creatures are put on the same plane of value, full stop.
Next, in a Buddhist economic system, world ecology would not suffer the rape and torture of things like wars, strip mining, and many pitfalls of mass-marketing.
I'd begin with these three, although admittedly the first that I mentioned is predicated on the second.
Less than 1 million, and there are 7 billion people in the world.
FRIENDLINESS?????????
(Everyone else seems to claim some *knowledge* about the universe. When facts contradict that knowledge, then trouble. In Buddhism, it is ok not to know)
The model for Stoic psychology is one of separation between 'the things within my control' and 'the things not in my control'--in which an independently existing 'self' is strongly asserted. Now, as 'un-Buddhist' as that may sound, the goal is actually one which, in effect, leads to a sense of 'letting go'--which leads to apatheia --which does not mean anything like the modern word 'apathy' but something akin to non-abiding. The method of Stoicism is radically different from Buddhism, and but underneath all these apparent differences, Stoicism is quite similar to Buddhism!
Seneca's writings especially served as a great comfort to me last year and was helpful to me in regaining some momentum in my own journey. Stoicism helped me to re-focus and I will always be grateful for what great provisions Seneca, Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius provided me in restoring my direction in life. I think of Stoicism as a temporary bridge that was very useful--and in a way, helped me to better understand Buddhism.
For understanding Stoicism in greater depth, Pierre Hadot and John Sellars both have written some excellent studies on the subject (as well as Epicurean and other Greco-Roman schools of philosophy).
/\
Buddhism is a philosophy and a well developed one. This can be stated without proviso. It is also a metaphysical position, a religion, a practice and a science of mind. These things are not mutually exclusive. But yes, it is not not merely a philosophy. Mind you, in defence of philosophy, at its best a philosophy is something you do, if you are a genuine philosopher in the old-fahioned sense.
It seems to me that the greatest mistake that a philosopher can make is to assume that Buddhism is not a philosophy, or cannot be expressed as a philosophy. Then we end up with the complete mess that we call 'western' philosophy, which is essentially a massive communal endeavour to prove the truth of some other philosophy than Buddhism's and thus doomed to endless confusion and eternal failure.
It should be more widely recognised that Buddhism solves all well-known problems of philosophy. At least 'scientific' consciousness studies would finally have a solution for the 'hard' problem. Also, by seeing it as a philosophy we are better able to reconise its kinship with Taoism, Sufism, Stoicism etc,. since we will be less distracted by superficial differences in ritual, practice, language etc etc..
Don't sell Buddhism short. It is a medicine with a very wide range of applications.
Never found that one back in other filosofies.