Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

[Mr. G]

My personal issue is that some people become anti-intellectual in the sense that they don't need to study or read other sutras, commentaries, etc. Sure, if one is an illiterate peasant farming in some rice fields 12 hours a day, it's tough. But if a person is of average intelligence and doesn't take the time to study Dharma outside of their school of thought, it borders on laziness or narrow-mindedness. There's a wealth of Dharma out there to be read and thought over. Knowledge is not something to be feared or shut out.

[LastLegend]

Look, it's very simple. Do you mean "no philosophy" in the same sense as "no eating" and "no breathing"? If that is the case, there is no disagreement between us and this pretentious dance is completely unnecessary.

This is an example of philosphical jibberish. Why? Because it does not help my practice. And this whole thread is philosophical jibberish.

[devilyoudont]

This is an example of philosphical jibberish. Why? Because it does not help my practice. And this whole thread is philosophical jibberish.

Where do you get the confidence to predict what doesn't and wouldn't help your practice?

I explained my position in my first post.

[LastLegend]

This is an example of philosphical jibberish. Why? Because it does not help my practice. And this whole thread is philosophical jibberish.

Where do you get the confidence to predict what doesn't and wouldn't help your practice?

I explained my position in my first post.

I am still deluded by karma of body, speech, and greed, anger, and ignorance.

[ground]

Throw away philosophical jibberish and your problem will be solved.

That is the "throw away philosophy" philosophy. Doesn't lead far, or anywhere for that matter.

"Monks, the All is aflame. What All is aflame? The eye is aflame. Forms are aflame. Consciousness at the eye is aflame. Contact at the eye is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I tell you, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.
"The ear is aflame. Sounds are aflame...
"The nose is aflame. Aromas are aflame...
"The tongue is aflame. Flavors are aflame...
"The body is aflame. Tactile sensations are aflame...
"The intellect is aflame. Ideas are aflame. Consciousness at the intellect is aflame. Contact at the intellect is aflame. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect — experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain — that too is aflame. Aflame with what? Aflame with the fire of passion, the fire of aversion, the fire of delusion. Aflame, I say, with birth, aging & death, with sorrows, lamentations, pains, distresses, & despairs.

"Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the eye, disenchanted with forms, disenchanted with consciousness at the eye, disenchanted with contact at the eye. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: With that, too, he grows disenchanted.
"He grows disenchanted with the ear...
"He grows disenchanted with the nose...
"He grows disenchanted with the tongue...
"He grows disenchanted with the body...
"He grows disenchanted with the intellect, disenchanted with ideas, disenchanted with consciousness at the intellect, disenchanted with contact at the intellect. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect, experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain: He grows disenchanted with that too. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is ended, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'"

That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted at his words. And while this explanation was being given, the hearts of the 1,000 monks, through no clinging (not being sustained), were fully released from fermentation/effluents.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

Doesn't lead far, or anywhere for that matter.

Kind regards

[Enochian]

Pali Canon is garbage

[ground]

Mahayana followers must practice all those things taught in the Hinayana scriptural collections, with only a few exceptions, such as diligently seeking blissful peace for oneself alone.

Lama Tsongkhapa

Kind regards

[Enochian]

Mādhyamaka is the like the cliff notes and the definitive meaning of the Pali Canon. No need to guess or figure things out yourself by reading English translations.

Study Mādhyamaka.

Edited because of insulting language. -Huseng

[ground]

Manjushri, the karmic obstruction of abondoning the excellent teaching is subtle. Manjushri, whoever distinguishes some of the words spoken by the Tathagata as good and some as bad abandons the teaching. One who abandons the teaching, by having abondoned it, deprecates the Tathagata and speaks badly of the community.
If you say, "This is reasonable; this is unreasonable", you abondon the teaching. If you say, "this was set forth for the sake of boddhisattvas; this was set forth for the sake of sravakas," you abandon the teaching. If you say, "This was set forth for the sake of pratyekabuddhas," you abondon the teaching. If you say, "This is not a training of boddhisattvas," you abondon the teaching.

The Sutra Gathering all the Threads (Sarva-vaidalya-samgraha-sutra)

kind regards

[Enochian]

Manjushri, the karmic obstruction of abondoning the excellent teaching is subtle. Manjushri, whoever distinguishes some of the words spoken by the Tathagata as good and some as bad abandons the teaching. One who abandons the teaching, by having abondoned it, deprecates the Tathagata and speaks badly of the community.
If you say, "This is reasonable; this is unreasonable", you abondon the teaching. If you say, "this was set forth for the sake of boddhisattvas; this was set forth for the sake of sravakas," you abandon the teaching. If you say, "This was set forth for the sake of pratyekabuddhas," you abondon the teaching. If you say, "This is not a training of boddhisattvas," you abondon the teaching.

The Sutra Gathering all the Threads (Sarva-vaidalya-samgraha-sutra)

kind regards

I should have said your english Pali canon is garbage.

Secondly, Mādhyamaka is the summary of the entire Pali Canon.

Study Mādhyamaka

[ground]

The Buddha's teaching is the only non-partisan teaching. This of course does not appeal to partisans.

Kind regards

[Enochian]

The Buddha's teaching is the only non-partisan teaching. This of course does not appeal to partisans.

Kind regards

You struggling to cipher off meaning of an english translation of only one surviving recession of the Pali Canon is NOT the Buddha's teaching.

Mādhyamaka, which is the bottomline understanding of the entire Pali Canon derived from multiple recessions, IS the Buddha's teaching.

[Fu Ri Shin]

Fu Ri Shin: I beg to differ.

Granted. I'm very open to hearing your difference.

My personal issue is that some people become anti-intellectual in the sense that they don't need to study or read other sutras, commentaries, etc. Sure, if one is an illiterate peasant farming in some rice fields 12 hours a day, it's tough. But if a person is of average intelligence and doesn't take the time to study Dharma outside of their school of thought, it borders on laziness or narrow-mindedness. There's a wealth of Dharma out there to be read and thought over. Knowledge is not something to be feared or shut out.

This is a very good point, but I find it questionable to equate study, intellectual engagement and knowledge with philosophy. See my previous comment:

The Dharma is to be practiced for disengaging the defilements. It's a craft, not unlike carpentry or blacksmithing. Now, carpenters and blacksmiths have techniques, but I doubt they'd ever call them "philosophies".

[Kare]

Pali Canon is garbage

Mādhyamaka is the like the cliff notes and the definitive meaning of the Pali Canon. No need to guess or figure things out yourself by reading English translations.

Study Mādhyamaka.

If the Pali Canon is garbage, and Mādhyamaka is the definitive meaning of the Pali Canon, then Mādhyamaka is the definitive garbage.

Thanks for clearing this up.

[tobes]

Fu Ri Shin: I beg to differ.

Granted. I'm very open to hearing your difference.

My personal issue is that some people become anti-intellectual in the sense that they don't need to study or read other sutras, commentaries, etc. Sure, if one is an illiterate peasant farming in some rice fields 12 hours a day, it's tough. But if a person is of average intelligence and doesn't take the time to study Dharma outside of their school of thought, it borders on laziness or narrow-mindedness. There's a wealth of Dharma out there to be read and thought over. Knowledge is not something to be feared or shut out.

This is a very good point, but I find it questionable to equate study, intellectual engagement and knowledge with philosophy. See my previous comment:

The Dharma is to be practiced for disengaging the defilements. It's a craft, not unlike carpentry or blacksmithing. Now, carpenters and blacksmiths have techniques, but I doubt they'd ever call them "philosophies".

It strikes me that you have rather a narrow view of what constitutes philosophy.

Etymologically, it means 'the love of wisdom.' It entails a very diverse range of practices.

It certainly entails techne (technique)....many recent European philosophers have written on just such a thing, influenced by Heidegger, who was influenced by ancient Hellenics.

[Fu Ri Shin]

It strikes me that you have rather a narrow view of what constitutes philosophy.

I don't really have a concrete view of philsophy. However, I am using a rather narrow view of philosophy for the purposes of this discussion, to advocate the point of view which is being criticized.

To take it back to the OP to which I am responding, I find it bizarre that Astus originally stated that one who discards any notion of using philosophy will not get anywhere. The choice to throw out philosophy can't be invalidated because it isn't a thing to be valid/invalid in terms of some objective criterion, it's upaya. Yes, I'm making nit-picky critiques of semantics, but that's my point: it's all semantics. The judgment call about throwing out philosophy has no substantial footing because it itself is just a semantic critique. LL used a narrow view of philosophy and the subjectivity of that view (as well as its possible benefit) was ignored and disregarded.

[tobes]

It strikes me that you have rather a narrow view of what constitutes philosophy.

I don't really have a concrete view of philsophy. However, I am using a rather narrow view of philosophy for the purposes of this discussion, to advocate the point of view which is being criticized.

To take it back to the OP to which I am responding, I find it bizarre that Astus originally stated that one who discards any notion of using philosophy will not get anywhere. The choice to throw out philosophy can't be invalidated because it isn't a thing to be valid/invalid in terms of some objective criterion, it's upaya. Yes, I'm making nit-picky critiques of semantics, but that's my point: it's all semantics. The judgment call about throwing out philosophy has no substantial footing because it itself is just a semantic critique. LL used a narrow view of philosophy and the subjectivity of that view (as well as its possible benefit) was ignored and disregarded.

I see. So could we just say "it would be wise for all concerned to throw out a narrow conception of philosophy"?

[Fu Ri Shin]

I don't care how everyone views philosophy. I just think they ought to realize that as far as LL is concernred, LL has removed philosophy from practice. Whether they agree with this notion is beside the point. From LL's point of view it is so. To claim that this will lead nowhere is abusrd to me, as it is clear that LL has not fallen into relativistic (as in, devoid of meaning and structure) practice.

[tobes]

I don't care how everyone views philosophy. I just think they ought to realize that as far as LL is concernred, LL has removed philosophy from practice. Whether they agree with this notion is beside the point. From LL's point of view it is so. To claim that this will lead nowhere is abusrd to me, as it is clear that LL has not fallen into relativistic (as in, devoid of meaning and structure) practice.

I wonder, perhaps LL can respond, does the removal of philosophy from practice involve the cessation of concepts?

If this is not the case (and I am assuming it is not, because such a cessation can only occur upon a direct realisation of shunyata), then what is the relationship between concepts and practice?

Can you really claim that there is no relation there?

If there is a relation, then, I think you have to accept than your practice is informed and guided by concepts, and thus, is deeply philosophical in nature.

Otherwise, how do you know what you're doing? Why are you doing what you're doing? What values underpin your actions? Where do they come from? How do they inform your practice? Are you really free from: values, understanding, discernment, thinking??

It is one thing to think that one is free from concepts, quite another to actually be free from concepts.

So, I think the absurdity is on the side of the claim that practice can be unrelated to philosophy, at least until the first Bhumi.

[ground]

If there is a relation, then, I think you have to accept than your practice is informed and guided by concepts, and thus, is deeply philosophical in nature.

Not every concept is philosophy. It is a specific kind of thought that is philosophical in nature.

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] It is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

Concepts applied in the context of practice may be based on direct experience or not. If based on direct experience they are conventionally understood without having to resort to definitions. Philosophical thought is not based on direct experience but a 2nd or higher order derivation of thought needing definitions in order to be conventionelly understood, a sub-convention within the broader convention "of the world".

Kind regards