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

Well, Buddhism is huge so we probably can't nail it with any one label. But to try, how about a "self help methodology"?

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. — Hippyhead

I think that's agreeable. Truly, a lot about Buddhism is putting aside that kind of idealism; we're not so much trying to be like The Buddha or Ajahn Mun as much as we are trying to investigate what "being" is; not in terms of a definition, but the actual experience (and it turns out what we "are" is informed by our tendency to define things conceptually). It's important that we investigate that tendency to want to "be" like "somebody" and work with what we've actually got right here; meditatioj isn't easy when you're trying to be something different than what you already "are". Meditation is best done with an attitude of contentment, though contentment with a sense of aspiration and dispassion.

I think a lot of similarities can be found between Buddhism and what you describe in your post above about nature (which seems like Romanticism?). But things change in the context of meditation, where the "relationship" and its grounds are gradually cast aside; eventually the experience of the world fades away (based on what I've heard), and that is a crucial area of exploration to understand how it is we grasp at perceptions, identity structures, etc., and of course how we suffer because of our lack of understanding in regard to these matters.

That said, I think in a monastery a person drawn toward cynicism and misery would be encouraged to work on that relationship part first, before getting gung ho about enlightenment. This is partly in relation to virtue; if we relate to the world in unskillful ways, and if our negative attitude is attributing to that, we should really put some focus into adopting better attitudes. Thankfully, the Buddha provided some pretty straightforward means through meditation, the brahmaviharas, spiritual friendship, etc; but really, in practice sometimes the ideals must be put aside in favor of just simple and down to earth living.

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. — Hippyhead

I don't really think it's my responsibility to prove it, though I can certainly see value in inspiring confidence. That really comes out of my own practice (and I must admit I don't inspire confidence in everyone). The only reason I have faith besides my own practice and views is the fact that I have met people who I would call good examples. Can I say with certainty that they have reached the end goal? No; as Ajahn Amaro once said when asked if he were an Arahant, "it takes one to know one". Thus there is a point where one needs to put their doubts and searches for proof aside and just look inward: how does suffering arise, and how does it cease? Or: what is preventing me from being at ease in this moment? Or: I feel okay, but there's this little bit of tension here and my mind isn't totally still; what if I relaxed and settled my attention just a little more? At some point, one's just got to go for it and see what happens.

Anything is whatever anyone wants it to be. Especially if money and power are involved or rather can be.

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

Didn't run into Rousseau there by any chance? Or Margeret Mead?

//sorry - being facetious. I think there's a lot of truth in what you say in that post.//

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. — TLCD1996

You mentioned that blind attachment to practice/doctrine is abandoned at some point, suggesting that this somehow distinguishes it from religion. This is how religions are, however. Do Christians go to church in heaven, for example? Once the promise is fulfilled the practice is superfluous, and because all other religions are false they are never fulfilled. Only our own religion can be fulfilled. That is the unspoken assumption, as I read your statement.

The point, in the end once more, is that these things are unworthy of attachment and aren't worth hanging onto. — TLCD1996

Given this sentiment, I don't understand your reluctance to accept that Buddhism is a religion. My suspicion is essentially that you would like to consider it 'reality' and religion does not reflect reality.

I'm curious: what's your purpose for calling it a religion or philosophy? — TLCD1996

What is the purpose of distinguishing an apple from an orange? There could be many purposes. More than I could list here.

And do you think that faith in one's philosophy of choice would render it a religion? — TLCD1996

I'm currently interested in stoicism and have a kind of shmuckish practice going. Stoicism is not a religion because though there are authorities, there's no hierarchical ultimate authority. Also, there's no metaphysics that are essential to the philosophy/practice. In religion, metaphysics and ultimate authority go hand in hand and are both essential.

I'm currently interested in stoicism and have a kind of shmuckish practice going. Stoicism is not a religion because though there are authorities, there's no hierarchical ultimate authority. Also, there's no metaphysics that are essential to the philosophy/practice. In religion, metaphysics and ultimate authority go hand in hand and are both essential. — praxis

But isn't Stoicism based on a premise that reason is divine? And what about Zeno or Citium (looking at Google for this) - aren't these figures in some way authoritative (if not reason itself)? And doesn't practice operate on the assumption that practices have results? At least according to Ajahn Geoff (or how I understand his words) this kind of position is metaphysical; in the context of Buddhism, it is the necessary metaphysical aspect of Right View which holds that actions have consequences (karma), and the causal principle which underlies karma is what guides rebirth. I've been interested in learning about Stoicism myself (and it's partly why I created an account here any way), so I'm really curious about that.

Back to the point: I'm not reluctant to call Buddhism a religion, generally speaking. But what I am reluctant to do is pigeonhole it, or essentialize it as religion. Why? Because it's my practice, and although wise utilization of precepts, practices, views, etc is necessary for practice, there is a tendency for us humans to take our concepts just a little too seriously and forget that they're really quite empty and subject to time and place; I'd rather pull things in a different direction than that, because people already equate Buddhism with a lot of things that aren't Buddhism, such as Romanticism or even Stoicism. I think if anyone's interested in learning about Buddhism, they ought to know what Buddhism is not.

If somebody's interested in practicing or really learning about Buddhism, perhaps they should consider that a lot more can be learned by putting down the concepts and ideas and just going to bare bones basics. That often means recognizing the malleability of concepts and the effect they have on our lives, and considering that there are good ways to use them, and there are bad ways to use them. Buddhism is concerned with how we use these ideas, among other things such as our breathing, in a way which is good, which is a way that leads to well-being (ultimately to unconditioned well-being). If people are caught up in the concepts, they'll skip over a lot of the meat and end up talking about surface appearances, isolating this part or that part of Buddhism, cherry-picking this and that part, getting caught up in historical debate, etc. I mean, one can say that art is an important cultural element of Zen Buddhism, but it's also a part of Christianity and even Marxism. I think it's beautiful, but what's the connection to practice? And how do we respond to it? Why do we prefer the art gallery over the meditation cushion? There's a lot to unpack there that seems to be glossed over in a "religion or philosophy" argument.

There's a lot to unpack there that seems to be glossed over in a "religion or philosophy" argument. — TLCD1996

Or perhaps the gloss evades the argument. No problem, for my part.

One point of clarification though...

But isn't Stoicism based on a premise that reason is divine? — TLCD1996

I might be persuaded by an argument that sapiens don’t actually possess the capacity of reason, in this day and age, regardless of its nature.

Any way, I think from the Buddhist perspective, the question of "philosophy or religion" isn't really all that important — TLCD1996

:up:

Why?

The reason why I asked this question is that there's a difference between the philosophical notion of the good life and the religious one of the virtuous life. Granted that both address the issue of how we must conduct ourselves in life but the path to discovery of what the good life is is reason/logic/rationality which isn't so in the case of the virtuous life of religion. This is a big difference for if Buddhism is a philosophy then it's open to criticism and subsequent modifications or even disposal into the garbage can of bad ideas and if Buddhism is a religion then not so.

Furthermore, if Buddhism is treated as a religion then it comes into conflict, by virtue of its doctrinal dissimilarities, with other religions that are around. This isn't a desirable state of affairs for reasons that are obvious - think 9/11, jihad, crusades, and so on. Ergo, it's imperative, to me at least, to know how Buddhism shoud be viewed, as either a philosophy or a religion?

:up:

What to me is a striking difference is that in Buddhism, heaven isn't the main objective (like in all religions).I interpret this fact as proof that Buddhism is, at the very least, a quirky religion or, at most, not a religion at all. :chin:. A penny for your thoughts.

What to me is a striking difference is that in Buddhism, heaven isn't the main objective (like in all religions). — TheMadFool

But in the popular imagination, heaven and Nirvāṇa are often equated. In popular Asian PureLand Buddhism, the accepted aim of the faith is rebirth in Suhkavati, the 'realm of bliss' from where rebirth in Nirvāṇa is then assured. This is to be taken as an article of faith resulting in calm assurance (shin-jin).

One a different note - the Eastern ideal (if it's an ideal) of liberation, moksha, nirodha, is elusive, precisely because it's non-verbal. It arises from a kind of gnostic insight into the fetters that bind the personality to the wheel of transmigration. Is that religion? Yes and no. It requires a kind of religious dedication and spiritual purity, but it's rather different to mainstream Western religion. It's the 'religion of yoga' (not in the sense of physical postures but of purificatory practices and renunciation.)

Western culture is very hung up on religion - same as Victorian culture used to be about sex - because of the history of religion in the West. There were massive conflicts fought over religion in European history. Arguably the Catholic Church was a model for authoritarianism in some important respects. So this has lead to a massive cultural back-lash along the lines of 'anything but God'. Ideas associated with religion are rejected or suppressed, and the West continually tries to re-invent itself without reference to them. I see that in many of your posts. That is not a personal slight or pejorative, it is a consequence of the culture we inhabit. 'Don't mention the War!'

If somebody's interested in practicing or really learning about Buddhism, perhaps they should consider that a lot more can be learned by putting down the concepts and ideas and just going to bare bones basics. — TLCD1996

The "perennial philosophy" is in this context defined as a doctrine which holds [1] that as far as worth-while knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others; [2] that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and [3] that the wise men of old have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no empirical basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality - through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the Sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and [4] that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents. — Edward Conze

Buddhist philosophy and its European parallels

(This idea is generally unpopular and regarded as "politically incorrect" in today's culture; it is generally associated with reactionary political movements and extreme conservatism. )

I see that in many of your posts. — Wayfarer

Thanks for noticing! :smile:

But in the popular imagination, heaven and Nirvāṇa are often equated. In popular Asian PureLand Buddhism, the accepted aim of the faith is rebirth in Suhkavati, the 'realm of bliss' from where rebirth in Nirvāṇa is then assured. This is to be taken as an article of faith resulting in calm assurance (shin-jin).

One a different note - the Eastern ideal (if it's an ideal) of liberation, moksha, nirodha, is elusive, precisely because it's non-verbal. It arises from a kind of gnostic insight into the fetters that bind the personality to the wheel of transmigration. Is that religion? Yes and no. It requires a kind of religious dedication and spiritual purity, but it's rather different to mainstream Western religion. It's the 'religion of yoga' (not in the sense of physical postures but of purificatory practices and renunciation.)

Western culture is very hung up on religion - same as Victorian culture used to be about sex - because of the history of religion in the West. There were massive conflicts fought over religion in European history. Arguably the Catholic Church was a model for authoritarianism in some important respects. So this has lead to a massive cultural back-lash along the lines of 'anything but God'. Ideas associated with religion are rejected or suppressed, and the West continually tries to re-invent itself without reference to them. I see that in many of your posts. That is not a personal slight or pejorative, it is a consequence of the culture we inhabit. 'Don't mention the War!' — Wayfarer

:up: There was a thread a couple of weeks ago about how Buddhism has become, or is amenable to the interpretation that it's, psyschoanalysis or psychology, I can't recall which. In any case, I was opposed to such a view on Buddhism for the simple reason that there's a huge difference between Buddhism and psychoanalysis/psychology in terms of their methodology - at the very least, in the simplest sense, among other things, Buddhism is about breaking habits, all of them, and claiming one's independence so to speak but psychology/psychoanalysis is about modifying/tuning one's habits as if we're animals in a training facility.

Anyway, the point is no other "religion" can be adapted in similar fashion to modern theoretical frameworks of the human mind. I'm tempted to take this as evidence that Buddhism is, as some might come to believe, not just a unique religion but is actually something entirely different, a philosophy perhaps?! After all, that it can be subsumed by, or more accurately, conflated with, modern psychology/psychoanalytics suggests this.

Truly, a lot about Buddhism is putting aside that kind of idealism; we're not so much trying to be like The Buddha or Ajahn Mun as much as we are trying to investigate what "being" is; not in terms of a definition, but the actual experience (and it turns out what we "are" is informed by our tendency to define things conceptually). It's important that we investigate that tendency to want to "be" like "somebody" and work with what we've actually got right here; meditatioj isn't easy when you're trying to be something different than what you already "are". Meditation is best done with an attitude of contentment, though contentment with a sense of aspiration and dispassion. — TLCD1996

This is agreeable too, I like it. For instance, you say, "we are trying to investigate what "being" is; not in terms of a definition, but the actual experience".

I think a lot of similarities can be found between Buddhism and what you describe in your post above about nature — TLCD1996

I suspected as much, which is why I'm interested in your posts. Please note that I'm not well read nor a serious student of any particular established discipline so when it comes to categorizing my interests or comparing them to something else I'm not of much use.

I don't really think it's my responsibility to prove it (enlightenment) — TLCD1996

I agree. Nor is it really my place to try to disprove it. To each their own and whatever works seems useful enough guidelines. And there's not really that much of a conflict between our perspectives. If someone manages so well that they reach some kind of permanent solution to suffering, so much the better.

Perhaps there is a kind of delicate balancing act which you can relate to as a Buddhist. On one hand, one can be serious and determined about reaching for one's goals, while at the same time doing so with a shrug, a laugh, a twinkle in the eye. Taking it seriously and not, at the same time. Hard to explain, and perhaps even harder to do, but perhaps a realistic approach. We reach for the stars, and when we fall in the mud, we laugh, get up, and try again. The reaching and falling a kind of dance one enjoys for itself, you know, an embrace of our imperfect humanity.

The only reason I have faith besides my own practice and views is the fact that I have met people who I would call good examples. — TLCD1996

I hear you. It's certainly true that some people are more psychologically sophisticated than others and that there can be a power in that which transcends logical analysis. Some people just feel saner than others, and when in their presence it's natural to want to get in on the action.

At some point, one's just got to go for it and see what happens. — TLCD1996

Yea, it's called exploring. Go for it. Enjoy the adventure.

Didn't run into Rousseau there by any chance? Or Margeret Mead? — Wayfarer

Didn't see them, but I did get bitched out by a squirrel sage. :-) He came down the tree until he was about 10 feet off the ground, and then hung there upside down as they do, and began yelling at me. After being so entertained for a few minutes I got a clue and looked around and realized the ground was covered with nuts. I was sitting on his breakfast. Don't do that, it's rude! Or so he says.

Western culture is very hung up on religion - same as Victorian culture used to be about sex - because of the history of religion in the West. There were massive conflicts fought over religion in European history. Arguably the Catholic Church was a model for authoritarianism in some important respects. So this has lead to a massive cultural back-lash along the lines of 'anything but God'. Ideas associated with religion are rejected or suppressed, and the West continually tries to re-invent itself without reference to them. — Wayfarer

Yes, and it's not rational to focus too much time on automated rejectionism of that which doesn't work for someone. It's more rational to note that XYZ is not working for a person, then put XYZ down, and focus on finding what does work for that person. A few examples to illustrate...

Christianity contains a number of ideological assertions which many people find they are allergic to. Ok, no problem, so dump that which isn't working. In the dumpster the ideology goes, and we walk away. Christianity also has a lot to say about the experience of love. One could explore that without believing in God, without joining any club, without labeling oneself as Christian or anything else.

Love not working? Ok, so let's dump that too. How about service? This doesn't have to have anything to do with love, but can instead be a purely rational act of shifting one's focus from oneself and one's own problems on to others who have bigger problems. One's own problems are then seen in a larger context. Not love, not religion, not God. Just reason. Nothing but reason.

My sense is that many forum atheists are angry because they know in their hearts that there are things going on that they don't know how to access, and so they feel left out, which perhaps they are unable to admit, to themselves. If true, the things they're missing out on don't require religion. Say it again, do not require religion.

As example, a key principle of atheism is observation of reality. That's a great principle, and a very effective methodology for many of the same experiences religious people talk about.

Not observation of our thoughts about reality. Observation of reality. Note the difference. Take your own perspective seriously, and literally, and explore from there.

It works! But you have to actually do it. Not just whine about it.

I'm tempted to take this as evidence that Buddhism is, as some might come to believe, not just a unique religion but is actually something entirely different, a philosophy perhaps?! — TheMadFool

Maybe what it's telling you is that your definition of what constitutes religion is too narrow.

The point is no other "religion" can be adapted in similar fashion to modern theoretical frameworks of the human mind. — TheMadFool

:up: With the caveat that it ought not to be 'adapted' at the cost of bending it to fit the procrustean bed of secular humanism, which is more alien to Buddhism than is traditional Christianity.

Ok, no problem, so dump that which isn't working. In the dumpster the ideology goes, and we walk away. Christianity also has a lot to say about the experience of love. One could explore that without believing in God, without joining any club, without labeling oneself as Christian or anything else. — Hippyhead

Love is demanding. It's very easy to do what suits, what you like, what feels good. Not so easy to stick with love no matter what. As you say, may not be love, but service - but whatever it is, has to be something that puts demands on you, that requires your attention, not something that simply pleases you. So the effort over many generations to carry that forward, to work it out in day-to-day existence, is one of the sources of religion. Which I'm sure you know.

I would say that whether Buddhism is a religion or philosophy depends entirely on our definitions. Theravada seems more like a religion and Mahayana more like a philosophy, but the lines are difficult to draw. It may be more a matter of how you approach it. If you approach Buddhism as a religion then it will be one. If you approach it as a science then it will be one.

It seem relevant to note that Taoism began life as a philosophical method emerging from a prior shamanism, but five hundred years later someone decided more bums on seats were needed and developed a religious version with hells and heavens and angels and guilt etc. So now we have Philosophical Taoism and Religious Taoism. Buddhism suffers form the same sort of splits, so it is diffcult to generalise,

For me Buddhism would be a religion, a science, an art and a philosophy, same as all the 'mystical' traditions. To see them as just one of these would be to miss their significance and sell them short. . .

Maybe what it's telling you is that your definition of what constitutes religion is too narrow. — Wayfarer

Not to say I didn't catch your drift but there's such a thing as a definition that's too broad too.

With the caveat that it ought not to be 'adapted' at the cost of bending it to fit the procrustean bed of secular humanism, which is more alien to Buddhism than is traditional Christianity. — Wayfarer

Noted with the utmost gratitude. Yet, I have a feeling the Proctustes of secularism found fitting Buddhism into his godless bed to be less work than other religions.

but whatever it is, has to be something that puts demands on you, that requires your attention, not something that simply pleases you. — Wayfarer

Well, maybe. Not really arguing or suggesting another "one true way", but maybe challenging your statement a bit can lead to further useful discussion?

The effort you suggest would seem to be related to a path, a goal, a desire to be there instead of here, an agenda of growth, change, transformation, essentially a rejection of what already is. Ok, not really complaining with this or trying to tell anybody else what they should do, but maybe we can try to put such "becoming trips" (as I so ungraciously tend to put it) in to a larger context?

Have you noticed that, generally speaking, we tend not to relate to other mechanical functions of the body in a "becoming trip" manner? As example, we don't go looking for some kind of food which will end our need to eat. Instead, we are realistic and practical, and accept without complaint that living will require eating pretty much every day of our lives. We satisfy the physical hunger as needed, take care of business, and then get on with our lives. Doing so typically doesn't become part of our identity.

I want to push back against the grow, change, transform, effort required for enlightenment etc notion a bit, just a bit, because it seems to me that we should at least be aware that becoming trips run the risk of feeding the very problem we are attempting to solve, ego, the endless obsession with "me". I know that you are so aware, so I'm addressing readers in general here.

It seems to me that there is a rational middle ground between glamorous becoming trips and status quo complacency. And that's why I'm always going on about management. To continue with the eating example, I can manage my hunger by eating. I can manage a bit better by eating more nutritious foods. Ok, good, I'm not arguing against reasonable change and improvement. But a management paradigm doesn't lend itself that easily to further ego feeding (recent vegetarian converts a possible exception :-) )

Even for those seeking enlightenment, better mind management is where that journey begins, right? So it seems rational to focus on management first, and leave the possible enlightenment until somewhere later down the road.

And a simple fact of life, that I suspect you will acknowledge, is that most of us are never going to reach a fundamental transformation of psychology no matter what effort we might invest. And so it seems we might be wary of waving something around that few will ever reach, a form of fairy tale, fuel for a near inevitable disappointment, another failure, and more suffering.

So ok to effort. Within reason. I'll do some homework and learn how to buy organic foods instead of factory foods. I'll invest some effort to upgrade my eating habits to something more healthy. But I won't get caught up in a dream that there's anything I can eat that will solve all my problems. People who eat healthy can get fat too, and I can prove it! But I'm not posting that photo. Too scary! :-)

Anyway, it's not my intention to start yet another dualistic either/or war, and I'm content that "to each their own" should rule the day. Just suggesting that management is yet another way to look at such topics.

If you approach Buddhism as a religion then it will be one. If you approach it as a science then it will be one. — FrancisRay

I like this, thumbs up from here.

For me Buddhism would be a religion, a science, an art and a philosophy, same as all the 'mystical' traditions. To see them as just one of these would be to miss their significance and sell them short. — FrancisRay

Like this too! It seems that all the major religions at least are a bit like reality itself, a container for all things. Thus, attempts to say religion is this or religion is that seem inevitably doomed to failure. Religion expresses the best in us, the worst in us, and everything in between.

Thanks. I feel that to ask whether Buddhism is a religion, a philosophy or a science betrays a misunderstanding, since the question assumes it cannot be all three.

I like your 'management' idea up to a point. Beliefs are motivational but otherwise may not help. In the end its all about the ending of ignorance and the process has to be managed. But dangling the carrot of enlightenment may help keep the donkey moving forward, just as the carrot of future good health may motivate us to manage our diet. . . . .

But dangling the carrot of enlightenment may help keep the donkey moving forward, just as the carrot of future good health may motivate us to manage our diet. . . . . — FrancisRay

I hear you, that's a good point. But what happens if the donkey never gets the carrot?

I don't wish to be dogmatic and redundant, but it might be helpful for us to further investigate the "moving forward" concept.

I would say the carrot is not all or nothing. I discovered something important almost as soon as I first sat in zazen. This was lucky, I must admit, but it does go to show...

The 'moving forward' thing is relevant to realisation, which would usually grow with time. But there is more going on. Mahayana Buddhism represents an interpretation for quantum mechanics and a solution for all philosophical problems. It is about truth and knowledge and can easily defend itself as a method for acquiring it. This is a much misunderstood issue. Commonplace Christianity is, as Whitehead notes, a 'religion in search of a metaphysic'. The philosophy department is unable to assist in this search. Buddhism, more generally mysticism, does not have this problem. It is a fundamental theory testable as such in philosophy. It is easy to focus on 'enlightenment' and forget what else we can learn from Buddhism as scholars. . .

For me Buddhism would be a religion, a science, an art and a philosophy, same as all the 'mystical' traditions. To see them as just one of these would be to miss their significance and sell them short. . . — FrancisRay

This is like saying that only seeing a hammer as a hammer, rather than a paperweight or artwork, sells it short. A hammer is designed to be a hammer and best fulfills its purpose in being used as a hammer. Indeed, using it as a paperweight sells it short and mistakes its significance.

Mahayana Buddhism represents an interpretation for quantum mechanics and a solution for all philosophical problems. It is about truth and knowledge and can easily defend itself as a method for acquiring it. — FrancisRay

Ok, that's interesting. Further explanation will be welcomed as your time permits. Again, I know very little about Buddhism, which means that pretty much anything you say might be useful here.

I see your point, or your suspicion, but Buddhism is rather more sophisticated than a hammer..

I'd be happy to say more. Perhaps we could start in philosophy. Mahayana Buddhism claims that the reason why all positive metaphysical positions are logically indefensible is that they are false. This disposes of Kant's antinomies and pretty much does way with the whole of Western metaphysics. This rejection of extreme. partial and positive theories is necessary for 'non-dualism' and the 'Perennial' philosophy.

Thus it is not necessary to meditate or speculate in order to test the Buddha's teachings in philosophy. They endorse the only metaphysical position that survives analysis. It's not clear to me why more people do not know this but poor scholarship in our universities seems to be the main reason. .

Don't let me bore you. I'm on my hobby-horse here, which is the dire quality of university philosophy.

Suspicion?

Buddhism is rather more sophisticated than a hammer.. — FrancisRay

That’s not saying anything. A hammer is more sophisticated than a rock. That doesn’t mean that a hammer isn’t designed or best utilized for a particular purpose.

If you’re serious then you could backup your claim by explaining how not seeing Buddhism as an art or philosophy sells it short and misses its significance.

What I'm suggesting is that we have a choice as to how to approach Mahayana Buddhism. As as science and practice it requires devoted meditation. As a theoretical philosophical doctrine it requires only scholarship and study. As a descriptive ontology it requires a bit of both. It depends how we wish to approach it. We could see a hammer as an object d'art, a tool for banging in nails, a murder weapon, a paper-weight etc etc. A case in point would be the physics of Ulrich Morhrhoff, who relates Buddhism to QM while hardly mentioning it.

Everything depends on how deep we want to go. A hammer has no depth or analytical interest but Buddhism is a notoriously subtle doctrine and practice with all sorts of levels and aspects. .

What I find laughable is how in one corner we have Wayfarer and Hippyhead lamenting the loss of an intimate relationship and our existential plight...

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. — Wayfarer

And in the other corner, we have you and Hippyhead claiming that unless viewed from a modern lens we miss the significance of Buddhism (or any religion?) and sell it short.

:lol:

Western culture is very hung up on religion - same as Victorian culture used to be about sex - because of the history of religion in the West. There were massive conflicts fought over religion in European history. Arguably the Catholic Church was a model for authoritarianism in some important respects. So this has lead to a massive cultural back-lash along the lines of 'anything but God'. Ideas associated with religion are rejected or suppressed, and the West continually tries to re-invent itself without reference to them. I see that in many of your posts. That is not a personal slight or pejorative, it is a consequence of the culture we inhabit. 'Don't mention the War! — Wayfarer

Yes, if I understand correctly, I do see this time to time. Especially when Buddhism is praised as "the science of the mind" or "the religion closest to atheism". I have some roots there myself. Though seeing what Conze says about this "rare and unordinary faculty"... a point of the Thai Forest tradition is, to my understanding, that everyone has this faculty. I mean, everyone suffers. The question is: do we recognize it and are we willing to do what it takes to abandon it? Ajahn Chah was asked what made him different from others, and he said that it was his willingness "to dare". That is, he and others were, as the stories go, quite determined in their efforts to the extent that they often put their life on the line.

Ajahn Chah and many of his contemporaries were farmers. Their education was usually limited to exams (which were becoming increasingly important to the government which, to my memory, sought to regulate the sangha). Most of what they learned through practice was gained by studying with "masters", who in turn got their own knowledge from tradition passed down through the Sangha. And however they were taught, they wouldn't get anything if they didn't practice.

I think this is partly related to the issue of idealism. Time and time again, for myself included, the "goals of Buddhism" are elevated in such a way as to suggest that "that's up there and I'm down here." And it seems prevalent in western society to really hold fast to this sort of mentality without really looking at it; in Buddhist terms, that means looking at how it operates in the process of suffering. On this matter, Ajahn Geoff often references a teaching by Ananda (AN 4.159): "it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned." Conceit (mana) meaning that one sees others as inferior, equal, or superior to oneself. Conceit, being a fetter, is to be abandoned (particularly at arahantship). But to get there, we use conceit to see that there are people with superior virtue, wisdom, and concentration, and we can get there too. Thus over and over, we are advised to interact with those we deem superior. Seeing the "superior" as "beyond us" or "reserved for the mighty few" is unhelpful. Really, all it takes is a disenchantment and aspiration to say, screw it. I want this, and I'm going to seek someone out for help. And then one meets the person, forms a relationship, and they go from there. Although highly respected monks don't just teach anyone willy-nilly, they aren't exactly elitist gatekeepers, which seems to be suggested when we start talking about "superior faculties" being held by a fortunate few.

But what happens if the donkey never gets the carrot? — Hippyhead

If I understand this question correctly, what happens in the Buddhist view is that one dies without having attained the goal, and they are simply reborn according to their karma and state of mind at death. If they haven't reached stream entry, who knows where they'll go. But it's said that upon reaching stream entry - wherein one's virtue and view are purified - one will only be reborn 7 times before reaching total Arahantship, and never in hell.

There is a tendency to wonder: what if I don't have the good karma to realize enlightenment? Well, this is answered in different ways. I think traditions like Pure Land suggest that there have been well-formulated practices passed down to us from the heavens that say, "hey, just chant this and do that and you'll at least be reborn closer to the Dharma". This isn't common in Thai Theravada, but what I hear is: just do your best. Make good karma. Follow the precepts. Be generous. Oh, maybe try some meditation here and there. Make good friends. Enjoy your life. Maybe stop ignoring your brothers and sisters when they try to talk to you, and don't hang out with that one friend who always brings you down.

On that note, I've seen teachers have good relationships with those who I would personally find difficult to talk to; I remember one person at the monastery grew pot in the area and was pretty unrestrained in his speech, swearing all the time and apparently stoned. And I've heard stories of Thai gangsters seeking spiritual guidance from people like Ajahn Chah. From what I see and hear, these sorts of people aren't told to "stop doing all that and be a monk or get out". The "policy" is not to give advice or guidance when unasked, though once a good relationship is established, you might hear the teacher pointing out that some forms of suffering, etc., can be ameliorated by making a few small changes here and there to one's life if not one's attitude (and the directness of their speech may vary). The path is gradual, and good teachers recognize that and are happy to prod you along gently. Speaking for myself, the first step to learning how to meditate was to stop asking so many questions about the "khandhas" or "dependent origination" and just focus on my breathing. That helped a lot and was extremely encouraging.

I think the Zen (?) story of a Samurai seeking training, only to be told to do chores, makes a decent example. Although he was being taught from the beginning, it wasn't until he started having the "spirit" of a samurai that he was given training in the sword. Until then, he had to learn to be on his toes when doing basic chores.

Whatever the case, if you think you may "never get the carrot", don't fret about that. Just do your best to live a good and happy life - and that doesn't necessarily require much research in the kind of philosophy we might be accustomed to on this forum. And does it require us to be acquainted with all of the teachings or teachers? No, but those would certainly help. Thus I think one has a choice: "I can't/won't do it," or "I can do it; it's difficult, but I'll do my best."

This is like saying that only seeing a hammer as a hammer, rather than a paperweight or artwork, sells it short. A hammer is designed to be a hammer and best fulfills its purpose in being used as a hammer. Indeed, using it as a paperweight sells it short and mistakes its significance. — praxis

You mean if I use a hammer for both purposes I'm selling it short? :joke: Interestingly, depending on the tradition, you would be praised or censured for using the Buddharupa as anything but an object worthy of respect, etc. Thus in the Thai Forest tradition you do not use the Buddharupa as a paperweight, or robes as mere towels, because this serves to undermine their purpose and power as images (and remember to treat your begging bowl like the Buddha's head). But that isn't to say that these things have any ultimate essence; it's just not how they should be used by someone practicing dhamma.

I think on this note, I am weary to say Buddhism is a "religion" when "religion" is being used in an unnecessarily limiting manner. Given that I value the power of the teachings, I am inclined to try and stay true to them in this regard by calling it "dhamma vinaya" (or perhaps buddha-sasana). And when I see philosophers talking about Buddhism as a philosophy, if they are teasing apart the four noble truths or eightfold path in a way which seems kind of irrelevant to Buddhist practice, I would be inclined to say: "hey, that's not quite what Buddhism is for" (if appropriate). Otherwise, you get people calling Buddhism a "philosophy", when the Buddhism they seem to be referring to is not the Buddhism you'd see being practiced in a monastery (edit: or the Buddhism being taught by monastics, assuming they have the most reliable teachings to use as reference). Sometimes you see this in books, where the goal of Buddhism is said to be "oneness", or the cause of suffering is "ego". That's just not entirely true.