Yup, life can be dissatisfying.

No this is false, the main thing is to realize emptiness. — praxis

Which is what happens in the effort of trying to understand how your mind works

Buddhist teachers are not psychoanalysts — praxis

I didn’t say they were

psychotherapy similar to modern CBT. This is not the same as phsychoanalysis. — praxis

My mistake then

This is just a weird and confused way of saying that religious life is spiritual and secular life is materialistic. There is no difference between East and West in this regard — praxis

It is a way of saying that fundamentally Eastern “religions” and western religions are different in how they present “salvation”. Eastern religions try to fix your attitude towards life while western religions claim that there is a fixed version of life that you can go into if you pass this “test” that is this current life.

I don’t know how you got that from what I wrote.

I guess you've never heard of the 'hell realms' or being reborn as a scarabaeinae (dung beetle). — praxis

To be honest I completely forgot about the whole reincarnation bit. I’m mostly familiar with Zen Buddhism (and not that familiar at that) where reincarnation isn’t really emphasized. And there are other schools of Buddhism that say that reincarnation isn’t a literal reincarnation after death but more like a metaphor for change.

To sum, your heart appears to have been pierced by the seductive arrow of Eastern Mysticism, a rather common affliction in the West. — praxis

Probably. I don’t know if you can really count meditation as “mysticism” though. I don’t buy incarnation or reading the stars if that’s what you’re alluding to.

No this is false, the main thing is to realize emptiness.
— praxis

Which is what happens in the effort of trying to understand how your mind works — khaled

I can't say what happens when you try to understand how your mind works because I don't know what that means. What does it mean?

Brain science has come a long way in recent years, by the way. Buddhist conceptions of how the human mind works are rather antiquated.

It is a way of saying that fundamentally Eastern “religions” and western religions are different in how they present “salvation”. Eastern religions try to fix your attitude towards life while western religions claim that there is a fixed version of life that you can go into if you pass this “test” that is this current life. — khaled

Both promises fixed salvation.

You don't seriously think that Buddhism only promises an attitude adjustment, do you? You are of course free to believe whatever you want, but by the same token, I could say the same thing about Western religions.

there are other schools of Buddhism that say that reincarnation isn’t a literal reincarnation after death but more like a metaphor for change. — khaled

Such as?

I don’t know if you can really count meditation as “mysticism” though. I don’t buy incarnation or reading the stars if that’s what you’re alluding to. — khaled

Reading the stars is not mysticism unless you're doing it on peyote or something.

Both promises fixed salvation. — praxis

But one says you can get it right here and now by fixing your own mind and the other says that this world is doomed and terrible specifically to test you so that you can get the fixed version after you die.

You don't seriously think that Buddhism only promises an attitude adjustment, do you? — praxis

Yes I do. Then again as I said I'm only really familiar with zen and I am saying what zen people say about buddhism.

I just want to clarify though that I'm not demonizing Western religions or anything. I just think they have fundamentally different approaches. And I think they complement each other.

As chance would have it, shortly after my last post I received a book that I had preordered from Amazon. It's a new book fresh off the presses titled: Hidden Zen, by Meido Moore. Meido Moore is a highly respected Zen teacher from Korinji Monastery in Madison, Wisconsin. @Wayfarer has visited this monastery in recent years, if I'm not mistaken. Anyway, there's a part in the introduction that made me think of you.

It must be noted that there is today a common kind of Buddhist modernism in which the fruition of Zen is conceived to be a primarily psychological revolution. According to this view, the intent of Zen practice is attainment of a kind of acceptance of samsaric existence — a short-term (that is, for the duration of on’s life span) psychological resilience in the face of life’s inevitable suffering — rather than liberation from samsaric existence as classically understood in Buddhism; the dispelling of delusion and the final dissolving of the body-mind karmic obstructions (jikke) with which we have been entwined for endless lives and eons.
…
… a purely psychological realization is mostly conceptual and so inevitably shallow. It is a mirage, lacking sufficient power to cut the roots of ignorance in a lasting manner. More bluntly: it is not the awakening of Zen and is unworthy of comparison with the profound attainment for which the great Zen masters labored so exhaustively. — Meido Moore, in Hidden Zen

huh. Might pick that up then. Can’t seem to find an audiobook though :confused:

It appears that before we can answer the question of whether Buddhism is a philosophy or religion, we need to first get a handle on what these three are. Duh! The question assumes from the get go an essentialist point of view - the view that things have defining essences and that these essences can be utilized to differentiate philosophy from religion and decide Buddhism's membership.

For my money, Buddhism in its present state - with its pantheon of deities - is not the right place to start. As I already mentioned, Buddhism has had a long relationship with Hinduism which shows if you know what I mean.

I suggest, therefore, we go back to the very beginning, to the birth of Buddhism as it were. This only so that we don't get sidetracked by theistic elements that Buddhism began to soak up through its encounters with primarily Hinduism and secondarily other animistic religions existing then.

Buddhism begins with one single, all-important axiom - the doctrine of impermance that change is an inevitable and undeniable aspect of our reality - and brings logic to bear on it to build a system of recommended practices which is, at its core, an answer to the question that greek philosophers were grappling with, to wit, how to live well?. Buddhism, ergo, is a success story in philosophy; in other words it is a philosophy.

a system of recommended practices which is, at its core, an answer to the question that greek philosophers were grappling with, to wit, how to live well? — TheMadFool

Why can’t we say this about any religion?

Why can’t we say this about any religion? — praxis

I made a point of mentioning logic. I guess it slipped under your radar. I didn't expand on the role rationality plays in Buddhism. So if you missed it, it's not your fault.

What is the logic applied to impermanence that answers the question of how to live well? And, btw, the question is ‘how to end suffering?’ and not ‘how to live well?’

What is the logic applied to impermanence that answers the question of how to live well? And, btw, the question is ‘how to end suffering?’ and not ‘how to live well?’ — praxis

Not to be rude or anything but isn't it obvious?

Not to me. If it were I wouldn’t have asked.

That life is suffering is plain to see. That craving is, if not the primary cause, at least a major contributor to suffering. That to end suffering, craving has to be ended follows from these premises. Whether the 8-fold path is the correct method to end craving is, unfortunately, debatable. — TheMadFool

Ergo, it must be that, on average, we suffer more than enjoy in life. At the very least, a great deal of energy must be expended to maintain order, our preferred state, and that's exhausting work. — TheMadFool

If I'm not mistaken, these scriptures, although memorized and chanted like prayers, actually contain logical arguments aimed at proving Buddhist doctrines — TheMadFool

I'm not denying that Buddhism has features like praying, rituals, gods, views on moral matters, etc., practices, that lend it a religious character but all these are extraneous to its core doctrines and have come about through its interactions with other religions, mainly Hinduism as far as I can tell. — TheMadFool

If I'm not mistaken, these scriptures, although memorized and chanted like prayers, actually contain logical arguments aimed at proving Buddhist doctrines — TheMadFool

In psychoanalytics, people are treated like animals and are trained like them using positive and negative reinforcement and other tricks of the trade. In Buddhism a person's higher faculty - reason - is engaged, arguments are presented for examination, and people are encouraged to think and decide how to behave rather than practise a particular behavior until it becomes a habit like in psychoanalytics. — TheMadFool

By my reckoning, the west got it right. We can tinker around, add/delete features of our world to suit our needs. — TheMadFool

Meditation, to my reckoning, only serves to calm our minds to the point where it becomes possible to reflect deeply about the nature of reality, a prerequisite if one is to gain any degree of understanding on the matter. It's quite different from giving a dog a treat everytime it does what you want it to. If a dog starts meditating it would be the first step it takes to an understanding of its behavior - what role the dog-treat has in shaping its habits and so on. — TheMadFool

In Buddhism, the method of overcoming fears, phobias included, is not by "getting used to it" but by coming to an understanding on why we fear anything at all. — TheMadFool

2) Thought is a required mechanical function of the body, like eating and sleeping. — Hippyhead

I was reading through this thread and my brain started getting tired... whew.

First just to give some background: I've been practicing Thai Theravadin Buddhism for about 6 years. I think this is worth mentioning because at least some of us seem to recognize that one's teacher and their tradition plays a role in how the Buddha's teachings are interpreted. Although Thai Buddhists like Ajahn Geoff (Thanissaro Bhikkhu) are especially skeptical of "Buddhist Modernism" or "Buddhist Romanticism" wherein the principles of Buddhism are interpreted in a way that makes them more broadly "applicable" to modern times (e.g. by getting rid of rebirth, reducing the suttas to merely imperfect expressions of past realizations which are no longer applicable in their entirety), it is worth noting that Thai Buddhism is itself a reform movement that was oriented around going back to the suttas, and back to the core monastic discipline. Thai Buddhist figures saw all the diety worship and animist trends, and decided it was best to go back to bare bones. Thus we hear of figures such as Ajahn Mun, renowned for austere practice that was nonetheless in line with the Vinaya's protections against extreme asceticism or isolation.

Any way, I think from the Buddhist perspective, the question of "philosophy or religion" isn't really all that important. As evidenced here, it leads to a lot of debate (one could say that the conclusions aren't necessarily worthy of attachment). But I think it wouldn't be wrong to say that it incorporates both, if we see philosophy as being oriented around an application of reason, and religion as a utilization of faith. As Ajahn Geoff often suggests, these and other things (e.g. morality) are used for the sole purpose of realizing freedom from suffering. They are not, for example, meant for adopting an identity as a "good philosopher" or "good Buddhist". Perhaps one can say that there is an instrumental value to these things, but the dichotomy of instrumental vs. intrinsic isn't utilized all that much in Thai Buddhism. In the end, at least ideally speaking, Buddhists aren't totally interested in pigeonholing the practice.

But any way, yes: we don't know that the eightfold path gets us to the cessation, and to that extent it is "debatable", but I think also that's where we must remember that the path is to be developed, not merely analyzed. Debating the path is kind of missing the point.

And yes: maintaining order is stressful and exhausting, but that doesn't mean it's worthless: the Buddha criticized those who defined themselves by going against the order of the day, but he also criticized those who went with it. If you reject order or embrace it, you can be a fool either way. Sometimes we tend to do both, anyhow (e.g. we value ordered arguments in favor of chaos). The order he didn't criticize, though, was the monastic vinaya, because this order is necessary for the practice. If you go to a monastery, order is pretty important, and when everyone is willing to put aside their preferences for the sake of harmony, it's not all that exhausting, except when the work is hard (as it is for the abbot, usually). In my experience, what's more exhausting is getting upset because things aren't the way you would like them to be. And even when general work is exhausting, it is often a source of joy when one recollects that they have done what is necessary to support their practice environment. Truly, life and its elements are subject to dissolution, yet we must take care of them in the pursuit of our goal. It's hard to practice when you're just lazing around, letting the meditation hall crumble on top of you because you decided that all things are not worth fixing.

Yes: the ceremonies are (often, but not absolutely) embellished by tradition. For example, chanting suttas is done with a certain appreciation for rhythm and melody, which seems distinct depending on your tradition. And ultimately, there is nothing inherently Buddhist about chanting, generally speaking. But what makes the chanting important here is the memorization, and what makes the memorization important is its applicability to practice. We don't memorize chants just to prove them or think about them, although it can be helpful to tease them out sometimes (especially with a friend). Memorizing is part of mindfulness (sati), thus we have Buddhanusati (recollection of the Buddha), maranasati (recollection of death) anapanasati (recollection of breathing, aka breath meditation), silanusati (recollection of virtue), among other things. The purpose of recollecting is not just to bring to mind the teachings and bring them to bare on one's life, but to uplift the mind and provide food for contemplation. Often, Buddhanusati is used to arouse faith; maranasati is used to arouse a sense of heedfulness and ardency; silanusati can arouse joy and confidence in oneself; anapanasati, which isn't necessarily exclusive from these other practices, is used to both settle and energize the mind to bring it into concentration. And then the Buddha goes on about that: concentration is used to bring about equanimity.

This, being in the context of the "seven factors of awakening," puts concentration and the other 6 in the context of seeking awakening. And what are we awakening to? The Four Noble truths. But the Four noble truths are not framed as "life is suffering, craving is the cause of suffering, to end suffering one must abandon craving," etc. Given that this is a matter of insight, and the purpose of insight is to arouse disenchantment and thus letting go (AN 11.1), insight into the four noble truths is not a matter of logical arguments or premises, but understanding and letting go, which is an act that cannot be contrived by mere theoretical analysis. In short, one must meditate, engage, understand, and eventually let go. Otherwise, one simply grabs hold of one thing in favor of another (not ignoring that the refinement of one's attachments is integral to this process). On that note, we do not merely abandon fear having understood its irrational basis; we abandon fear having also realized the drawbacks of holding on to it (i.e. we are enmeshed into a cycle of suffering).

And on that note, yes: Buddhists are encouraged to be considerate in their decision making, and not act unless if is deemed wise (or, more precisely, wholesome). However, this does not rule out the aspect of training or utilizing rewards. As AN 9.41 suggests, we do use thinking to consider the benefits and drawbacks of certain behaviors (e.g. sensuality vs. renunciation), however that reasoning cannot stand on its own (it's unsatisfactory, any way). We need to actually engage in the practice to realize the rewards, otherwise they're merely conceptual (and it's easier to debate concepts than to live in accordance with them). Thus meditation, virtue, and concentration (the "threefold training") are quite tied in with giving the mind good food to put it into a good direction.

And on that note, thought is not treated as a required mechanical process. It is treated as a tool for well-being, and it is also a tool which can be put down when it is no longer needed. Thus after talking with people about Buddhism, we no longer feel the need to think about it in such a way as to clarify it to others, rather we think about it to calm down our own mind. And once it's sufficiently calm, we settle onto a good object of meditation. From there, the practice continues. If our mind is infatuated with concepts, still lingering on past debates and cherished theories, we can see that "this is suffering" and thus move the mind to a more settled state, remembering that the breathing, again, is a suitable vehicle for such stability. And our foregoing of internal debate is not a cause of disorder in the world if it's helping to bring our own minds and attitudes into order, and especially if we end up cultivating wholesome qualities over unwholesome ones.

Yes, I did visit Ven. Meido at Korinji, in 2017, on the occasion of the birth of my grandaughter in Wisconsin. Splendid and accomplished teacher. I also follow his posts on Facebook. But I do grapple with the fact that his school of Zen teaches and relies on an extremely high level of self-discipline and self-mastery which shmucks (Japanese: 'bombu') like myself are never remotely likely to real-ise. Seeing this, I have attempted to engage with Pureland, but with its emphasis on 'salvation by faith' it's rather too much like the Christianity I imagined I had left behind. None of this is solved in my case.

However, I've had the good fortune of meeting some Buddhist practitioners and get acquainted, albeit only superficially, with their holy scriptures. If I'm not mistaken, these scriptures, although memorized and chanted like prayers, actually contain logical arguments aimed at proving Buddhist doctrines. — TheMadFool

Yes and no. A lot of people WANT Buddhism to be 'anti-religious' or secular, but it really isn't. The other problem is, that in Eastern culture "religion" is understood in different ways to the way the West understands it. We associate 'religion' with all kinds of pre-enlightenment mentalities - supersition, dogma, mind control and the like. Often fairly, but still...

There are aspects of Buddhism that are consonant with liberal individualism, like the emphasis on self-knowledge and self-control. But in practice, it is a religion, with prayers, a hierarchy of realms, and heaven and hell.

The contrast should be made between religion and dharma. Dharma has overlapping meanings with religion, but it's not the same animal. Dharma does put a lot of emphasis on experiential insight. But it's not 'empiricism' in the modern sense of 'only relying on what can be quantified and measured'. Far from it. The Buddha 'sees and knows that which is deep, difficult to fathom, beyond mere logic, perceivable only to the wise'.

A couple of readings:

http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion

https://tricycle.org/trikedaily/buddhism-is-a-religion/

Oh, and

https://www.inquiringmind.com/article/3102_20_bodhi-facing-the-great-divide/

Thank you for a quite articulate, thoughtful and educational post. Particularly educational for those like myself who really know little about Buddhism.

And on that note, thought is not treated as a required mechanical process. It is treated as a tool for well-being, and it is also a tool which can be put down when it is no longer needed. — TLCD1996

Given your obvious knowledge I accept your report that Buddhists, or at least some segment of Buddhists, don't "treat thought as a required mechanical process". I have no complaint with how they might regard it other than to remind us that thought is obviously required for human survival, and that thought is a mechanical function of the body just like eating, sleeping, sex etc.

This last point seems quite important to me so I will expand on it. Perhaps you can educate me regarding how the following thoughts might be related to Buddhism in general, or the flavors of Buddhism you are most familiar with.

We philosopher types enjoy our grand sophisticated theories because, well, that's who we are and this is what we do. Most of us were born this way and don't really have a choice about it, myself included. While such activity tends to be a compelling form of entertainment for us, it's of little interest to most human beings, who are typically far more practical than they are abstract. Evidence, philosophy departments are shrinking or closing all over the place because the public doesn't really see the point of philosophy, and thus doesn't wish to pay for it (a rational conclusion I find myself quite sympathetic to).

Enter the fact that thought is a mechanical function of the body. I see this as very good news because mechanical functions can be managed by simple mechanical means, which makes solutions accessible to far more people. As example...

- When you're tired you rest. You don't need a philosophy degree or 23 years in a monastery to figure out what to do here.

- When you're hungry you eat. Simple. Obvious. Effective. No need for sophisticated fancy talk theories.

- When you're horny, you do whatever it is you do. No experts required. No years of study involved.

Point being, mechanical functions lend themselves to very accessible management solutions which are readily available to pretty much anyone who is the least bit serious. It makes sense to focus on these kinds of widely applicable solutions first before diving in to sophisticated theories and practices which will be of interest to only a relative few.

What most human beings are suffering from is overheated brains, an essentially mechanical issue. Thought can be very useful and enjoyable, so we tend to use it too much, leading to stress upon the thought machine which manifests itself in various forms of psychic pain, which the body uses as a signal that we're going in the wrong direction. There's nothing complicated about this. If we eat too much we'll get a stomach ache, a signal from the body to stop eating.

The above mechanical perspective is typically of little to no interest to we philosopher types for the following reasons:

1) It's our nature to whip up complex abstractions.

2) We want a path, a program, a system, a becoming trip that we hope will take us somewhere "advanced".

3) We don't really give a crap what kinds of solutions would be most accessible to most people.

Please observe how with all other mechanical functions of the body we take a straightforward practical approach to solving problems, but when it comes to thought we want to complicate the subject to the greatest degree possible. My argument is...

1) That's not rational.

2) Nor is it compassionate or serious.

Too many words here as usual. Over to you!

We associate 'religion' with all kinds of pre-enlightenment mentalities - supersition, dogma, mind control and the like. — Wayfarer

To quibble just a bit, while you've probably accurately described philosophers, and particularly atheist philosophers, a great many people who are actually religious don't consider their religion a "pre-enlightenment mentality" at all, and often with very good reason. As example...

Most of the discussion about religion on Western philosophy forums is about Christianity, for obvious reasons. And so it might be asked.....

Why should we consider the experience of love to be a "pre-enlightenment mentality"???

This is not a rebuttal to you Wayfarer, because I know the above doesn't need to be explained to you. But it does seem to need to be explained to 95% of our honorable fellow commentators.

A well written and informative post, TLCD1996. I will cut to the chase as it relates to the topic.

I think from the Buddhist perspective, the question of "philosophy or religion" isn't really all that important. As evidenced here, it leads to a lot of debate (one could say that the conclusions aren't necessarily worthy of attachment). But I think it wouldn't be wrong to say that it incorporates both, if we see philosophy as being oriented around an application of reason, and religion as a utilization of faith. As Ajahn Geoff often suggests, these and other things (e.g. morality) are used for the sole purpose of realizing freedom from suffering. — TLCD1996

Assuming you haven’t fully realized freedom from suffering, are you not utilizing faith that full liberation is possible?

Assuming you haven’t fully realized freedom from suffering, are you not utilizing faith that full liberation is possible? — praxis

Didn't he already admit that when he said...

Any way, I think from the Buddhist perspective, the question of "philosophy or religion" isn't really all that important. As evidenced here, it leads to a lot of debate (one could say that the conclusions aren't necessarily worthy of attachment). But I think it wouldn't be wrong to say that it incorporates both, if we see philosophy as being oriented around an application of reason, and religion as a utilization of faith. — TLCD1996

As Ajahn Geoff often suggests, these and other things (e.g. morality) are used for the sole purpose of realizing freedom from suffering. — TLCD1996

Is freedom from suffering possible? I don't claim to know, but my best guess is that if it is possible it's so rare as to be largely irrelevant to the human experience. It is however entirely possible that I don't fully understand what Buddhists mean by the phrase "freedom from suffering", and of course, different Buddhists may mean different things.

While awaiting further clarification I would propose that as I understand the phrase, if I do, "freedom from suffering" is just another glamorous becoming trip like becoming wealthy, famous or popular etc.

It seems more realistic and practical to focus instead on better managing suffering, an admittedly less glamorous agenda, but one that is clearly possible and available to just about anyone who is at least a little bit serious.

TLCD1996 wrote:

I think it wouldn't be wrong to say that it incorporates both [application of reason and utilization of faith]

If neither of you think that it doesn’t apply reason, well, I suppose there wouldn’t be much point in argument. It is unclear if TLCD1996 believes that faith is utilized.

It is unclear if TLCD1996 believes that faith is utilized — praxis

Ok, fair point, perhaps he will clarify further.

First I want to say: no, certainly I have not realized liberation. That said, everything I say here is only to my own understanding gained through study and practice.

We philosopher types enjoy our grand sophisticated theories because, well, that's who we are and this is what we do. — Hippyhead

When you're horny, you do whatever it is you do. No experts required. No years of study involved — Hippyhead

Hahaha. First, Buddhists may find it worth questioning that "we are like x y and z and we have no choice about it". Truly, these are views that we have adopted about the world and ourselves. Thus the Buddha advocates for Right view: all things are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self. The idea that "we are like this" is impermanent, and in different ways it can prove unsatisfactory (e.g. when it binds us to habits which cause stress). Thus in Buddhist practice we examine that thought process, pay attention to its effect, and let it go once we have learned that it's not worth believing (and is it truly in truthful reference to a self if it's capable of cessation?) When the thought ceases and no longer describes a self, or any thoughts about self cease, what does that say about self? Nothing, but we're at ease because we have put down a heavy burden. (particularly one which may limit our potential to realize the fruits of practice).

Also, in regards to horniness, truly that depends on your aspirations or lack thereof. Many people would engage with no thought. Some might sense that it's really unnecessary; some feel like they are addicted to it and doomed to hell because of that. Buddhists, especially in the west where we have many backgrounds, come to the practice with lust in greater or lesser strength. For those who follow the 5 precepts, it's no issue so long as one doesn't harm others with it. However, in general, when one hears that the practice entails renunciation (and indeed sensuality is a basic hindrance to meditative concentration, jhana), one may undertake the 8 precepts or 227 as a monk. And still, this doesn't guarantee freedom from lust, but when it comes up, it is absolutely essential that one exercise restraint and try to undermine it. This takes a lot of skill and patience, but for one seeking the goal, it's necessary (as is our faith until we realize whatever fruit of this practice).

Assuming you haven’t fully realized freedom from suffering, are you not utilizing faith that full liberation is possible? — praxis

Faith is absolutely necessary; it's one of the five spiritual faculties/powers in Buddhism. There is unconfirmed faith and confirmed faith. The unconfirmed faith comes through either a taking on of conviction, or agreement through reflection, pondering, etc (SN 25.1). To my understanding, they are not mutually exclusive (ditto with "vipassana" and "samatha", an issue of concern for some Buddhists). Some things we don't know, somethings we do know but maybe not so completely. In the end, if we are not enlightened, we must take many things on faith: that our actions have consequences, that the intentions of our actions inform the consequences, that all things are impermanent, that we can realize cessation, etc. And this faith is nourished by both example (good teachers) and practice (see my earlier post about using refined sources of pleasure as rewards, and note that peace from insight and letting go is pleasant).

In my opinion, really the fundamental faith is that our suffering has a cause, and it ceases. This is affirmed when we simply notice it change, however realization into the four noble truths is more final and "penetrative"; in stream entry (the first stage of enlightenment), for example, we gain penetrative insight that cuts our attachment to bad actions, identity views, attachment to precepts and practices, and doubt. This is because we have witnessed the complete cessation of suffering ourselves, and we know what we did - the eightfold path. And when we consider that the cause (craving, ignorance) is both cause and effect of bad action (e.g. doing the same thing over and over again is fueld by craving, reinforces our ignorance if we don't reflect on it, and causes suffering), then reflection on the four noble truths naturally extends to reflection on our behavior. I think this is why Sariputta said that all skillful qualities are found within the four noble truths (MN 28).

And I think that's where Buddhism goes beyond religion or philosophy. The Buddha called his teaching dhamma-vinaya, meaning doctrine and discipline, and we utilize that dhamma vinaya for the purpose of realization. Even though it involves faith, it's hard to call it a religion (noting that blind attachment to precepts/practices/rites/rituals is abandoned at some point); even if it involves reasonable inference or reflection, it's hard to call it a philosophy (noting that ideas, concepts, arguments are not our refuge). So as a Buddhist, I like dhamma vinaya.

While awaiting further clarification I would propose that as I understand the phrase, if I do, "freedom from suffering" is just another glamorous becoming trip like becoming wealthy, famous or popular etc.

It seems more realistic and practical to focus instead on better managing suffering, an admittedly less glamorous agenda, but one that is clearly possible and available to just about anyone who is at least a little bit serious. — Hippyhead

Surely, one can glamorize it or make it romantic (myself included), however it is worth considering the nobility of this goal. Ajahn Geoff, for example, aptly notes (in a recorded talk, "Purity of Heart") that in the context of interdependency (which he also calls "inter-eating"), realization nibbana entails that first of all, one abstain from harming others to realize a greater happiness. Second of all, upon realization, one gains a happiness that is not dependent on anything at all (given that it has been realized by insight and total relinquishment of all conditions). Given that it's uncaused, it is not dependent, and therefore it does not dependent on resources, taking others' belongings, etc. The life of an Arahant may depend on these things, however their mind does not (thus we have heard of arahants going without food, etc). So in that sense, I would see it as worthy of admiration, and potentially quite impactful on society (but it's truly a matter of choice).

That suffering is best left managed isn't exactly bad, but in Buddhist thought it's quite limiting and unfortunate, and is particularly unfortunate when coming out of a teacher's mouth. However, again it's a matter of choice, and living a meritorious life is, as said, meritorious. The Buddha never said everyone had to practice, he said "come and see". But nevertheless, it is the position of some Buddhists (especially Thai Forest reformers like Ajahn Mun) that total realization is indeed possible. It really is a matter of faith, though, until enlightenment.

Even though it involves faith, it's hard to call it a religion (noting that blind attachment to precepts/practices/rites/rituals is abandoned at some point); even if it involves reasonable inference or reflection, it's hard to call it a philosophy (noting that ideas, concepts, arguments are not our refuge). — TLCD1996

Of course I agree that it would be misleading to call a religion a philosophy.

It is the promise that must necessarily be taken on faith that correctly identifies it as a religion and not the fulfillment of the promise. You appear to believe as all religious followers believe: that their religion delivers on its promise and all others are false (no other religious practice can be abandoned because they’re all false).

What do you suppose the problem is in accepting the fact that Buddhism is a religion?

You appear to believe as all religious followers believe: that their religion delivers on its promise and all others are false (no other religious practice can be abandoned because they’re all false). — praxis

Sure, though I don't understand the part of your post that's in parentheses.

The problem with calling it a religion is that it pigeonholes the dhamma and potentially reduces its potential for practice. And then, of course, there is the possibility that it may be watered down by those who hold to the teachings incorrectly in such a manner; the Buddha was quite clear that the teachings have to be put into practice to realize their benefit, hence the vinaya. If one merely identifies as a Buddhist, that doesn't exactly guarantee benefit for them, and may eventually lead to what we see today; in Thailand, for example, ordination is often temporary and sometimes a matter of improving one's image or collecting merit (and one is not making good karma just because they wear robes).

But if you want to call it a religion, by all means do so. Another problem, though, seems to be endless debate. While calling it a religion may be practical in terms of politics for example, I'm not sure if that usage is universal, and when the usage is given high importance, it can create complications. But then again, labels are important for society's functioning. So it's shaky. This is what it means for something to be marked with dukkha; even though it may provide convenience, there is suffering involved. As far as I know, that's where the apparent solidity of terminologies begins to crumble. The point, in the end once more, is that these things are unworthy of attachment and aren't worth hanging onto.

I'm curious: what's your purpose for calling it a religion or philosophy? And do you think that faith in one's philosophy of choice would render it a religion?

a great many people who are actually religious don't consider their religion a "pre-enlightenment mentality" at all — Hippyhead

It wasn't meant as a pejorative. Actually what I originally wrote was 'pre-modern', perhaps I should have left it at that. What I'm getting at is that modernity, 'being modern', is in some ways an existential plight. Pre- moderns had a different mindset and relationship with the world, as they intuitively felt a kinship to it - not that they would have expressed it that way, or even been aware of it.

Pre- moderns had a different mindset and relationship with the world, as they intuitively felt a kinship to it — Wayfarer

Yes. Imho, that's what religion arises from. It's an attempt to recover that previous intimate relationship with reality which was largely lost as thought became more prominent in the human experience and our focus substantially shifted from the real world to the abstract realm between our ears. So for example, we see concepts like "getting back to God" which is an attempt to recover that lost relationship by translating reality in to a relatable human-like figure.

The good news is that an intimate personal relationship with reality is still available. It just doesn't come as naturally as it once did, so we have to work at it more now. It's not that complicated really, it's just a matter of what we turn our attention to. If we shift our focus to the actual real world, instead of our thoughts about the real world, that intimate personal relationship with reality is still there patiently waiting for us.

This isn't a philosophical theory for me, but personal experience. It's a real thing, not just an idea. I've spent about a billion hours over the last 20 years in a nearby state park exploring this experience. It's not for everybody, but it's available to anybody who wants it enough to do the work.

What's the work? Again, not so complicated. It's just like building a relationship with a fellow human being. You put in the time, and open yourself up emotionally to the relationship. You show up, do the work, and trade your tiny little tinkertoy human thoughts for the amazing glory of the real world.

I spent most of yesterday in a place much like this:



Once you find the groove you can sit there for hours doing nothing at all, totally satisfied, at peace, experiencing the bounty of enoughness the real world is happy to provide, if only we will shut up and listen. Huh? Me? Shutting up?? I know, it seems impossible :-) but it does happen.

Experiences like this tend to put philosophy in a quite different context. It starts to dawn on you that you're not going to be able to think your way to what you really want.

But nevertheless, it is the position of some Buddhists (especially Thai Forest reformers like Ajahn Mun) that total realization is indeed possible. — TLCD1996

I'm open to the possibility that a radical transformation of psychology may be possible for some. In every field there are people with rare abilities who go places the rest of us can not.

However, based on 50 years of interest in such topics, my best guess is that such transformations are so rare as to be largely irrelevant to most people. You know, while Mozart could teach me how to play piano, he could never teach me to be another Mozart.

That suffering is best left managed isn't exactly bad, but in Buddhist thought it's quite limiting and unfortunate, and is particularly unfortunate when coming out of a teacher's mouth. — TLCD1996

Well ok, but as Praxis might reasonably squawk, get back to us when you can prove that enlightenment is possible. Not just in theory, not just for you or somebody else, but for us too. Until such a time, a focus on management seems the most rational and practical approach. Management of suffering by Buddhist methods or something else is not necessarily in conflict with a possible permanent solution. Maybe one could lead to the other, I really can't say.

It is the promise that must necessarily be taken on faith that correctly identifies it as a religion and not the fulfillment of the promise. — praxis

Do you have ironclad proof that philosophy will take you where ever it is you wish to go? If not, does that make you religious too?