Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

No holds barred discussion on the Buddhadharma. Argue about rebirth, karma, commentarial interpretations etc. Be nice to each other.

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby Mr. G » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:35 am

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.
    How foolish you are,
    grasping the letter of the text and ignoring its intention!
    - Vasubandhu
User avatar
Mr. G
 
Posts: 4098
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 6:36 am
Location: Spaceship Earth

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby LastLegend » Tue Apr 26, 2011 11:51 am

devilyoudont wrote: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.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby devilyoudont » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:24 pm

LastLegend wrote: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.
User avatar
devilyoudont
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Fri Mar 11, 2011 3:30 pm

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby LastLegend » Tue Apr 26, 2011 12:57 pm

devilyoudont wrote:
LastLegend wrote: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.
NAMO AMITABHA
NAM MO A DI DA PHAT (VIETNAMESE)
NAMO AMITUOFO (CHINESE)
User avatar
LastLegend
 
Posts: 1732
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:46 pm
Location: Washington DC

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby ground » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:02 pm

Astus wrote:
LastLegend wrote: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


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


Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby Enochian » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:03 pm

Pali Canon is garbage
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby ground » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:06 pm

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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby Enochian » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:11 pm

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
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby ground » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:14 pm

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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby Enochian » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:16 pm

TMingyur wrote:
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
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby ground » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:24 pm

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

Kind regards
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby Enochian » Tue Apr 26, 2011 8:27 pm

TMingyur wrote: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.
There is an ever-present freedom from grasping the mind.

Mind being defined as the thing always on the Three Times.
Enochian
 
Posts: 364
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2011 8:19 pm

Re: Reasons for Rebirth

Postby Fu Ri Shin » Wed Apr 27, 2011 3:47 am

devilyoudont wrote:Fu Ri Shin: I beg to differ.


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


mr. gordo wrote: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:

Fu Ri Shin wrote: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".
"Once delusion is extinguished, your wisdom naturally arises and you don’t differentiate suffering and joy. Actually, this joy and this suffering, they are the same."

— Chinese hermit, Amongst White Clouds
User avatar
Fu Ri Shin
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby Kare » Wed Apr 27, 2011 9:14 am

Enochian wrote:
Pali Canon is garbage


Enochian wrote:
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.

:anjali:
Kåre A. Lie
User avatar
Kare
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 9:48 pm
Location: Norway

Re: Reasons for Rebirth

Postby tobes » Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:52 am

Fu Ri Shin wrote:
devilyoudont wrote:Fu Ri Shin: I beg to differ.


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


mr. gordo wrote: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:

Fu Ri Shin wrote: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.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby Fu Ri Shin » Thu Apr 28, 2011 1:59 am

tobes wrote: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.
"Once delusion is extinguished, your wisdom naturally arises and you don’t differentiate suffering and joy. Actually, this joy and this suffering, they are the same."

— Chinese hermit, Amongst White Clouds
User avatar
Fu Ri Shin
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby tobes » Thu Apr 28, 2011 7:51 am

Fu Ri Shin wrote:
tobes wrote: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"?

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby Fu Ri Shin » Thu Apr 28, 2011 8:50 am

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.
"Once delusion is extinguished, your wisdom naturally arises and you don’t differentiate suffering and joy. Actually, this joy and this suffering, they are the same."

— Chinese hermit, Amongst White Clouds
User avatar
Fu Ri Shin
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby tobes » Fri Apr 29, 2011 1:12 am

Fu Ri Shin wrote: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.

:anjali:
User avatar
tobes
 
Posts: 981
Joined: Fri Dec 24, 2010 5:02 am

Re: Throw Out Buddhist Philosophy / Phenomenology / Psychology

Postby ground » Fri Apr 29, 2011 4:30 am

tobes wrote: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
User avatar
ground
 
Posts: 1782
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2009 8:31 am

PreviousNext

Return to Open Dharma

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Johnny Dangerous, Lotus108, supermaxv and 6 guests

>