I explain why I prefer discuss Buddhism intellectually but others don't seem to accept my point. Why is that?
In this Reddit post Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?, I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it.
But after I explain my point, it seems that it goes into one ear and out another. Why is that? Is it actually bad to use intellect? Telling me to not using intellect sounds like asking me to think about the shore when the job is to paddle. I just want to find a way to paddle more efficiently.
I am reading Nagarjuna's Middle Way if that matters.
Related:
• intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
• How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
practice thinking
add a comment |
In this Reddit post Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?, I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it.
But after I explain my point, it seems that it goes into one ear and out another. Why is that? Is it actually bad to use intellect? Telling me to not using intellect sounds like asking me to think about the shore when the job is to paddle. I just want to find a way to paddle more efficiently.
I am reading Nagarjuna's Middle Way if that matters.
Related:
• intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
• How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
practice thinking
add a comment |
In this Reddit post Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?, I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it.
But after I explain my point, it seems that it goes into one ear and out another. Why is that? Is it actually bad to use intellect? Telling me to not using intellect sounds like asking me to think about the shore when the job is to paddle. I just want to find a way to paddle more efficiently.
I am reading Nagarjuna's Middle Way if that matters.
Related:
• intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
• How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
practice thinking
In this Reddit post Is Buddhism about cognitive linguistics and cognitive psychology?, I am advised that practice is far more important than intellectualizing. I understand that the core teaching of Buddhism is to stop clinging on dharma, and I would miss the main point of it if I don't practice it, but I'm not sure if intellect is less important than it. Sure, after you get to the opposite shore, you want to left your raft behind, but when you are still paddling in the middle of the river, you should take care of it.
But after I explain my point, it seems that it goes into one ear and out another. Why is that? Is it actually bad to use intellect? Telling me to not using intellect sounds like asking me to think about the shore when the job is to paddle. I just want to find a way to paddle more efficiently.
I am reading Nagarjuna's Middle Way if that matters.
Related:
• intellectualism or anti-intellectualism and Buddhism
• How to ask other Buddhists doing analysis, rather than advising me to stop analyzing?
practice thinking
practice thinking
edited Feb 19 at 23:16
Ooker
asked Feb 17 at 17:38
OokerOoker
24512
24512
add a comment |
add a comment |
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
You should always keep in mind the differences between the Buddha's dispensation, and the teaching of, let's say, Socrates, Plato and other Hellenistic philosophers, which were, apparently, contemporaries of the historical Buddha.
While Greek philosophers were trying to use their intellect to understand the world surrounding us, sometimes as a means for living a better life, and others just for the sake of knowing more, the Buddha was part of a living tradition of ascetics and mystics that were trying to get free from Samsara (this latter concept having multiple descriptions and definitions, according to the tradition telling the story).
The Simpasa Leaves sutta point to the general direction of Early Buddhism: deliverance from suffering. All the efforts, both practical and intellectual, were directed to that very end; all the teachings, debates and analyses had Dukkha and the end of Dukkha as its axis.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html
Intellect is an essential part of Buddhism, as well as critical thinking and empirical endeavours. Your views about the world inform to and are the basis of your perceptions and thought, which in time are the ground for your intentions and actions. And that's why the cultivation of the mind is so important to the Path. But this cultivation is not a mere absoption of information, but a practice for understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point.
This is why it's so hard to classify Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy. It has a bit if both, while being none. If comparison have to be made, Stoicism would be a good point to start if you are looking to the west, and early Daoism, if you look to the East. Both paths were pretty practical, both in reflexion and in deeds.
EDIT: This post from a discussion on DhammaWheel might shed some light on the question of the involvement of Buddhism in matters that may fall outside the "original dispensation" (on quotations, because we'll never know for sure if the NikayAgamas contain the original teachings just as the historical Buddha taught them).
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=500754#p500754
Have a wonderful day!
This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:15
First, I think you should define precisely when something is "intellectualized". As PeterJ wrote, intellect itself is neither bad nor good. What Buddhism show us is how to use that intellect skillfully and in a wholesome manner. In the Path, the knowledge that helps to destroy the taints of craving, aversion and ignorance is the knowledge worth reflecting on. Any other knowledge can have social and personal value and utility, or can be used as leisure. The key is to be mindful of your intentions when executing any act, even when trying to learn new things. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
Feb 18 at 15:59
add a comment |
This is just from a personal perspective
In my early 20s my engagement with Buddhism was exclusively reading books and intellectualising about it. Fairly quickly I ran into the sand with it as I just couldn't see the difference between nihilism and Buddhism. It was only years later when I joined a Buddhist group and built up a regular meditation practice that I was able to move past this and engage again with Buddhism.
For me there are two activities
- Practising Buddhism - meditation, ethics and wisdom
- Being interested in Buddhism - reading books about it and wondering about the finer philosophical points
Nothing wrong at all with the second one but for me it isn't helping me practise and realise the end of suffering. Practicising and heavy intellectualising are different. I read that when it comes to wisdom - a good grasp of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path is good enough. Once you are there then get working on your ethics and meditation. You can come back to the intellectual stuff (much) later.
As I say - this is just my own personal experience. Others will have a different view and I know that traditions such as Tibetan are a lot more keen on the intellectual stuff.
Cheers
Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?
– ruben2020
Feb 18 at 3:13
1
@ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway
– Crab Bucket
Feb 18 at 3:17
So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 3:55
add a comment |
Here's a very suitable sutta for this question. Self-explanatory.
From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):
Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
dwells in the Dhamma?"
"Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
to you."
add a comment |
In the post in question:
- You use the parable of the elephant as an example (which is in a sutta about sectarian disputes)
- You say that "Buddhism is strongly about this interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistic"
When I first read that I think that's an unorthodox and unrecognisable summary of Buddhism, or at least, it is so from the perspective of the suttas.
See also comments under this question, I think you assume that Nagarjuna's Middle Way is Buddhism -- and 'that "dharma has no self-nature" is a basic foundation in Buddhism' -- which I think isn't so.
I don't want to say that "Nagarjuna isn't Buddhism" but I think there's a school (Theravada) for whom Nagarjuna isn't canonical and to whom a statement like "dharma has no self-nature" is a bit far-fetched, possibly heretical, maybe novel at best, I don't know -- anyway, who aren't familiar with Nagarjuna's doctrine.
I think that a more-orthodox (according to the suttas) summary of Buddhism might be something like:
- The Buddha taught about "suffering and cessation" (of suffering)
- The way (to end suffering) has components including "ethics, mindfulness, and wisdom"
I think that's maybe the shortest summary.
I find it hard to see that definition in "interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics ... to identify incorrect sememes", so I sympathise with those who disagree with it as a definition. But I for one had never heard the word "sememe" before this, so maybe that definition makes more sense to you than it does to me. But perhaps you're not wrong, either, and that what you're saying reflects Buddhist doctrine that "right view" is important, and so is "seeing things as they truly are".
Still if that (i.e. "right view") is all you're talking about, I think that Buddhism is more than that.
Incidentally I don't see that the suttas identify "illusion of transparency" as a cause of dispute -- more likely conceit (e.g. "my view is superior to yours"). You might be onto something with "naïve realism", I think that papañca is identified as the cause of (e.g. sectarian) disputes, defined e.g. here and here, and "reification" might be part of that.
A breakdown to my original post is what I'm actually looking for, but in this question technically it's off-topic. Should I accept it? I think it's better if you post this as a comment in that post. I agree that this may be a little nitpicking though
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 16:30
I don't really know what cognitive linguistics are, nor anything much about Nagarjuna's Middle Way, so I can't comment on that, can't break that down.
– ChrisW♦
Feb 19 at 16:47
nope, it's not necessary that you can break down cognitive linguistics, it's just that you have provided much more relevant information to my idea. Again, this may be nitpicking, but I think this answer is better posted in there than here
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 23:15
Are you saying you'd like me to repost this answer on r/Buddhism -- perhaps, because it answers that question ("Is Buddhism about...?")? And I think you're saying it "technically" doesn't answer this question (Why won't people accept...?").
– ChrisW♦
Feb 20 at 7:37
yes, that's right
– Ooker
Feb 20 at 8:10
|
show 1 more comment
Venerable Nāgārjuna calls nirvāṇa "the ending of body, the ending of speech, the ending of mind" (T1564.23c16). No room for chatter, no room for activities, no room for proliferation.
Ven Nāgārjuna asks us to 'just stop.'
'Just stop what?' the uninstructed disciple asks.
'No,' says the sage, 'just stop.'
Just stop. That's the lesson. IMO at least, and I've spent a fair amount of misguided time trying to 'logic through' Madhyamaka.
4 answers, regardless of what the question is: 1)yes, 2)no, 3)yes and no, 4)neither yes nor no
4 denials of an answer, regardless of the question: 1)not yes, 2)not no, 3)not yes and no, 4)not neither yes nor no
We have to "just stop." There is no answer. Stop asking questions. Stop everything.
That seems to be the lesson IMO.
add a comment |
It was against the rules for monks to speak without knowing if something is true or false.
If you yourself don't understand or know something then it's just the same as lying or misleading others.
‘If a monk falsely claims for himself a superhuman quality, knowledge
and vision worthy of the noble ones, saying, “This I know, this I
see,” but after some time—whether questioned or not, but having
committed the offense and desiring purification—should say: “Not
knowing I said that I know, not seeing that I see; what I said was
empty and false,” he too is expelled and excluded from the
community.’” (Uttarimanussadhamma Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 4)
What is the point in discussing something without experiencing it? What is the point of mere words if the world is empty of a sammasambuddha, paccekabuddhas, arahants, or those near-enlightened beings who have attained higher jhanas and developed iddhi?
The goal in Buddhism is to achieve arahantship here and now not merely read about it or discuss it.
After you experience something and actually know it yourself then speak about it. From direct experience you should also be able to correctly reason things.
I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:30
add a comment |
How many years do you already hang around in Dhamma areas and still not grasp the basics?
As it is with chosing teachers. Good if following those who let it rain.
Only one who walks arives and the villagers just wast their times, discussing what they are to lazy to do and see for themselves.
[Given not for trade exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism and intellectual "sex" but for liberation]
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "565"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31152%2fi-explain-why-i-prefer-discuss-buddhism-intellectually-but-others-dont-seem-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
7 Answers
7
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
You should always keep in mind the differences between the Buddha's dispensation, and the teaching of, let's say, Socrates, Plato and other Hellenistic philosophers, which were, apparently, contemporaries of the historical Buddha.
While Greek philosophers were trying to use their intellect to understand the world surrounding us, sometimes as a means for living a better life, and others just for the sake of knowing more, the Buddha was part of a living tradition of ascetics and mystics that were trying to get free from Samsara (this latter concept having multiple descriptions and definitions, according to the tradition telling the story).
The Simpasa Leaves sutta point to the general direction of Early Buddhism: deliverance from suffering. All the efforts, both practical and intellectual, were directed to that very end; all the teachings, debates and analyses had Dukkha and the end of Dukkha as its axis.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html
Intellect is an essential part of Buddhism, as well as critical thinking and empirical endeavours. Your views about the world inform to and are the basis of your perceptions and thought, which in time are the ground for your intentions and actions. And that's why the cultivation of the mind is so important to the Path. But this cultivation is not a mere absoption of information, but a practice for understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point.
This is why it's so hard to classify Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy. It has a bit if both, while being none. If comparison have to be made, Stoicism would be a good point to start if you are looking to the west, and early Daoism, if you look to the East. Both paths were pretty practical, both in reflexion and in deeds.
EDIT: This post from a discussion on DhammaWheel might shed some light on the question of the involvement of Buddhism in matters that may fall outside the "original dispensation" (on quotations, because we'll never know for sure if the NikayAgamas contain the original teachings just as the historical Buddha taught them).
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=500754#p500754
Have a wonderful day!
This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:15
First, I think you should define precisely when something is "intellectualized". As PeterJ wrote, intellect itself is neither bad nor good. What Buddhism show us is how to use that intellect skillfully and in a wholesome manner. In the Path, the knowledge that helps to destroy the taints of craving, aversion and ignorance is the knowledge worth reflecting on. Any other knowledge can have social and personal value and utility, or can be used as leisure. The key is to be mindful of your intentions when executing any act, even when trying to learn new things. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
Feb 18 at 15:59
add a comment |
You should always keep in mind the differences between the Buddha's dispensation, and the teaching of, let's say, Socrates, Plato and other Hellenistic philosophers, which were, apparently, contemporaries of the historical Buddha.
While Greek philosophers were trying to use their intellect to understand the world surrounding us, sometimes as a means for living a better life, and others just for the sake of knowing more, the Buddha was part of a living tradition of ascetics and mystics that were trying to get free from Samsara (this latter concept having multiple descriptions and definitions, according to the tradition telling the story).
The Simpasa Leaves sutta point to the general direction of Early Buddhism: deliverance from suffering. All the efforts, both practical and intellectual, were directed to that very end; all the teachings, debates and analyses had Dukkha and the end of Dukkha as its axis.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html
Intellect is an essential part of Buddhism, as well as critical thinking and empirical endeavours. Your views about the world inform to and are the basis of your perceptions and thought, which in time are the ground for your intentions and actions. And that's why the cultivation of the mind is so important to the Path. But this cultivation is not a mere absoption of information, but a practice for understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point.
This is why it's so hard to classify Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy. It has a bit if both, while being none. If comparison have to be made, Stoicism would be a good point to start if you are looking to the west, and early Daoism, if you look to the East. Both paths were pretty practical, both in reflexion and in deeds.
EDIT: This post from a discussion on DhammaWheel might shed some light on the question of the involvement of Buddhism in matters that may fall outside the "original dispensation" (on quotations, because we'll never know for sure if the NikayAgamas contain the original teachings just as the historical Buddha taught them).
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=500754#p500754
Have a wonderful day!
This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:15
First, I think you should define precisely when something is "intellectualized". As PeterJ wrote, intellect itself is neither bad nor good. What Buddhism show us is how to use that intellect skillfully and in a wholesome manner. In the Path, the knowledge that helps to destroy the taints of craving, aversion and ignorance is the knowledge worth reflecting on. Any other knowledge can have social and personal value and utility, or can be used as leisure. The key is to be mindful of your intentions when executing any act, even when trying to learn new things. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
Feb 18 at 15:59
add a comment |
You should always keep in mind the differences between the Buddha's dispensation, and the teaching of, let's say, Socrates, Plato and other Hellenistic philosophers, which were, apparently, contemporaries of the historical Buddha.
While Greek philosophers were trying to use their intellect to understand the world surrounding us, sometimes as a means for living a better life, and others just for the sake of knowing more, the Buddha was part of a living tradition of ascetics and mystics that were trying to get free from Samsara (this latter concept having multiple descriptions and definitions, according to the tradition telling the story).
The Simpasa Leaves sutta point to the general direction of Early Buddhism: deliverance from suffering. All the efforts, both practical and intellectual, were directed to that very end; all the teachings, debates and analyses had Dukkha and the end of Dukkha as its axis.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html
Intellect is an essential part of Buddhism, as well as critical thinking and empirical endeavours. Your views about the world inform to and are the basis of your perceptions and thought, which in time are the ground for your intentions and actions. And that's why the cultivation of the mind is so important to the Path. But this cultivation is not a mere absoption of information, but a practice for understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point.
This is why it's so hard to classify Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy. It has a bit if both, while being none. If comparison have to be made, Stoicism would be a good point to start if you are looking to the west, and early Daoism, if you look to the East. Both paths were pretty practical, both in reflexion and in deeds.
EDIT: This post from a discussion on DhammaWheel might shed some light on the question of the involvement of Buddhism in matters that may fall outside the "original dispensation" (on quotations, because we'll never know for sure if the NikayAgamas contain the original teachings just as the historical Buddha taught them).
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=500754#p500754
Have a wonderful day!
You should always keep in mind the differences between the Buddha's dispensation, and the teaching of, let's say, Socrates, Plato and other Hellenistic philosophers, which were, apparently, contemporaries of the historical Buddha.
While Greek philosophers were trying to use their intellect to understand the world surrounding us, sometimes as a means for living a better life, and others just for the sake of knowing more, the Buddha was part of a living tradition of ascetics and mystics that were trying to get free from Samsara (this latter concept having multiple descriptions and definitions, according to the tradition telling the story).
The Simpasa Leaves sutta point to the general direction of Early Buddhism: deliverance from suffering. All the efforts, both practical and intellectual, were directed to that very end; all the teachings, debates and analyses had Dukkha and the end of Dukkha as its axis.
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.031.than.html
Intellect is an essential part of Buddhism, as well as critical thinking and empirical endeavours. Your views about the world inform to and are the basis of your perceptions and thought, which in time are the ground for your intentions and actions. And that's why the cultivation of the mind is so important to the Path. But this cultivation is not a mere absoption of information, but a practice for understanding suffering, the causes of suffering, the ending of suffering and the path leading to it. Everything else goes beyond the point.
This is why it's so hard to classify Buddhism as a religion or as a philosophy. It has a bit if both, while being none. If comparison have to be made, Stoicism would be a good point to start if you are looking to the west, and early Daoism, if you look to the East. Both paths were pretty practical, both in reflexion and in deeds.
EDIT: This post from a discussion on DhammaWheel might shed some light on the question of the involvement of Buddhism in matters that may fall outside the "original dispensation" (on quotations, because we'll never know for sure if the NikayAgamas contain the original teachings just as the historical Buddha taught them).
https://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?p=500754#p500754
Have a wonderful day!
edited Feb 18 at 11:32
answered Feb 17 at 17:58
Brian Díaz FloresBrian Díaz Flores
46718
46718
This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:15
First, I think you should define precisely when something is "intellectualized". As PeterJ wrote, intellect itself is neither bad nor good. What Buddhism show us is how to use that intellect skillfully and in a wholesome manner. In the Path, the knowledge that helps to destroy the taints of craving, aversion and ignorance is the knowledge worth reflecting on. Any other knowledge can have social and personal value and utility, or can be used as leisure. The key is to be mindful of your intentions when executing any act, even when trying to learn new things. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
Feb 18 at 15:59
add a comment |
This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:15
First, I think you should define precisely when something is "intellectualized". As PeterJ wrote, intellect itself is neither bad nor good. What Buddhism show us is how to use that intellect skillfully and in a wholesome manner. In the Path, the knowledge that helps to destroy the taints of craving, aversion and ignorance is the knowledge worth reflecting on. Any other knowledge can have social and personal value and utility, or can be used as leisure. The key is to be mindful of your intentions when executing any act, even when trying to learn new things. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
Feb 18 at 15:59
This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:15
This nails it. Thank you so much. If I see the sufferings as interesting and see it with a curious eye, then does it make sense to intellectualize the teachings? From the Daoist perspective, you can always transform your sufferings into an opportunity that you are long seeking for.
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:15
First, I think you should define precisely when something is "intellectualized". As PeterJ wrote, intellect itself is neither bad nor good. What Buddhism show us is how to use that intellect skillfully and in a wholesome manner. In the Path, the knowledge that helps to destroy the taints of craving, aversion and ignorance is the knowledge worth reflecting on. Any other knowledge can have social and personal value and utility, or can be used as leisure. The key is to be mindful of your intentions when executing any act, even when trying to learn new things. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
Feb 18 at 15:59
First, I think you should define precisely when something is "intellectualized". As PeterJ wrote, intellect itself is neither bad nor good. What Buddhism show us is how to use that intellect skillfully and in a wholesome manner. In the Path, the knowledge that helps to destroy the taints of craving, aversion and ignorance is the knowledge worth reflecting on. Any other knowledge can have social and personal value and utility, or can be used as leisure. The key is to be mindful of your intentions when executing any act, even when trying to learn new things. Kind regards!
– Brian Díaz Flores
Feb 18 at 15:59
add a comment |
This is just from a personal perspective
In my early 20s my engagement with Buddhism was exclusively reading books and intellectualising about it. Fairly quickly I ran into the sand with it as I just couldn't see the difference between nihilism and Buddhism. It was only years later when I joined a Buddhist group and built up a regular meditation practice that I was able to move past this and engage again with Buddhism.
For me there are two activities
- Practising Buddhism - meditation, ethics and wisdom
- Being interested in Buddhism - reading books about it and wondering about the finer philosophical points
Nothing wrong at all with the second one but for me it isn't helping me practise and realise the end of suffering. Practicising and heavy intellectualising are different. I read that when it comes to wisdom - a good grasp of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path is good enough. Once you are there then get working on your ethics and meditation. You can come back to the intellectual stuff (much) later.
As I say - this is just my own personal experience. Others will have a different view and I know that traditions such as Tibetan are a lot more keen on the intellectual stuff.
Cheers
Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?
– ruben2020
Feb 18 at 3:13
1
@ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway
– Crab Bucket
Feb 18 at 3:17
So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 3:55
add a comment |
This is just from a personal perspective
In my early 20s my engagement with Buddhism was exclusively reading books and intellectualising about it. Fairly quickly I ran into the sand with it as I just couldn't see the difference between nihilism and Buddhism. It was only years later when I joined a Buddhist group and built up a regular meditation practice that I was able to move past this and engage again with Buddhism.
For me there are two activities
- Practising Buddhism - meditation, ethics and wisdom
- Being interested in Buddhism - reading books about it and wondering about the finer philosophical points
Nothing wrong at all with the second one but for me it isn't helping me practise and realise the end of suffering. Practicising and heavy intellectualising are different. I read that when it comes to wisdom - a good grasp of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path is good enough. Once you are there then get working on your ethics and meditation. You can come back to the intellectual stuff (much) later.
As I say - this is just my own personal experience. Others will have a different view and I know that traditions such as Tibetan are a lot more keen on the intellectual stuff.
Cheers
Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?
– ruben2020
Feb 18 at 3:13
1
@ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway
– Crab Bucket
Feb 18 at 3:17
So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 3:55
add a comment |
This is just from a personal perspective
In my early 20s my engagement with Buddhism was exclusively reading books and intellectualising about it. Fairly quickly I ran into the sand with it as I just couldn't see the difference between nihilism and Buddhism. It was only years later when I joined a Buddhist group and built up a regular meditation practice that I was able to move past this and engage again with Buddhism.
For me there are two activities
- Practising Buddhism - meditation, ethics and wisdom
- Being interested in Buddhism - reading books about it and wondering about the finer philosophical points
Nothing wrong at all with the second one but for me it isn't helping me practise and realise the end of suffering. Practicising and heavy intellectualising are different. I read that when it comes to wisdom - a good grasp of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path is good enough. Once you are there then get working on your ethics and meditation. You can come back to the intellectual stuff (much) later.
As I say - this is just my own personal experience. Others will have a different view and I know that traditions such as Tibetan are a lot more keen on the intellectual stuff.
Cheers
This is just from a personal perspective
In my early 20s my engagement with Buddhism was exclusively reading books and intellectualising about it. Fairly quickly I ran into the sand with it as I just couldn't see the difference between nihilism and Buddhism. It was only years later when I joined a Buddhist group and built up a regular meditation practice that I was able to move past this and engage again with Buddhism.
For me there are two activities
- Practising Buddhism - meditation, ethics and wisdom
- Being interested in Buddhism - reading books about it and wondering about the finer philosophical points
Nothing wrong at all with the second one but for me it isn't helping me practise and realise the end of suffering. Practicising and heavy intellectualising are different. I read that when it comes to wisdom - a good grasp of the 4 noble truths and the eightfold path is good enough. Once you are there then get working on your ethics and meditation. You can come back to the intellectual stuff (much) later.
As I say - this is just my own personal experience. Others will have a different view and I know that traditions such as Tibetan are a lot more keen on the intellectual stuff.
Cheers
edited Feb 18 at 2:48
answered Feb 17 at 22:08
Crab BucketCrab Bucket
13.2k645123
13.2k645123
Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?
– ruben2020
Feb 18 at 3:13
1
@ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway
– Crab Bucket
Feb 18 at 3:17
So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 3:55
add a comment |
Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?
– ruben2020
Feb 18 at 3:13
1
@ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway
– Crab Bucket
Feb 18 at 3:17
So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 3:55
Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?
– ruben2020
Feb 18 at 3:13
Was it nihilism because the Dhamma takes you towards not-self, but your natural (non-practising) tendency takes you towards identity views? Was it a kind of dissonance? And then meditation helped you reduce this dissonance?
– ruben2020
Feb 18 at 3:13
1
1
@ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway
– Crab Bucket
Feb 18 at 3:17
@ruben2020. Not so much. I've always being reasonably comfortable with not-self. It was more reading about the emptiness of all things and the lack of inherent existence in everything. Also no metta practice and general ignoring of compassion. That's how I remember it now anyway
– Crab Bucket
Feb 18 at 3:17
So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 3:55
So dissonance is everyday life and we don't even see it as suffering. Do you think that our discussion actual makes us suffer?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 3:55
add a comment |
Here's a very suitable sutta for this question. Self-explanatory.
From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):
Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
dwells in the Dhamma?"
"Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
to you."
add a comment |
Here's a very suitable sutta for this question. Self-explanatory.
From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):
Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
dwells in the Dhamma?"
"Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
to you."
add a comment |
Here's a very suitable sutta for this question. Self-explanatory.
From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):
Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
dwells in the Dhamma?"
"Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
to you."
Here's a very suitable sutta for this question. Self-explanatory.
From Dhammaviharin Sutta (AN 5.73):
Then a certain monk went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having
bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to
the Blessed One, "'One who dwells in the Dhamma, one who dwells in the
Dhamma': thus it is said, lord. To what extent is a bhikkhu one who
dwells in the Dhamma?"
"Monk, there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
answer sessions. He spends the day in Dhamma-study. He neglects
seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on study, not one who
dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and teaches it in full detail to others. He spends the
day in Dhamma-description. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit
himself to internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk
who is keen on description, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and recites it in full detail. He spends the day in
Dhamma-recitation. He neglects seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to
internal tranquillity of awareness. This is called a monk who is keen
on recitation, not one who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk takes the Dhamma as he has heard
& studied it and thinks about it, evaluates it, and examines it with
his intellect. He spends the day in Dhamma-thinking. He neglects
seclusion. He doesn't commit himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who is keen on thinking, not one who
dwells in the Dhamma.
"Then there is the case where a monk studies the Dhamma: dialogues,
narratives of mixed prose and verse, explanations, verses, spontaneous
exclamations, quotations, birth stories, amazing events, question &
answer sessions. He doesn't spend the day in Dhamma-study. He doesn't
neglect seclusion. He commits himself to internal tranquillity of
awareness. This is called a monk who dwells in the Dhamma.
"Now, monk, I have taught you the person who is keen on study, the one
who is keen on description, the one who is keen on recitation, the one
who is keen on thinking, and the one who dwells in the Dhamma.
Whatever a teacher should do — seeking the welfare of his disciples,
out of sympathy for them — that have I done for you. Over there are
the roots of trees; over there, empty dwellings. Practice jhana, monk.
Don't be heedless. Don't later fall into regret. This is our message
to you."
answered Feb 18 at 4:26
ruben2020ruben2020
15.8k31243
15.8k31243
add a comment |
add a comment |
In the post in question:
- You use the parable of the elephant as an example (which is in a sutta about sectarian disputes)
- You say that "Buddhism is strongly about this interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistic"
When I first read that I think that's an unorthodox and unrecognisable summary of Buddhism, or at least, it is so from the perspective of the suttas.
See also comments under this question, I think you assume that Nagarjuna's Middle Way is Buddhism -- and 'that "dharma has no self-nature" is a basic foundation in Buddhism' -- which I think isn't so.
I don't want to say that "Nagarjuna isn't Buddhism" but I think there's a school (Theravada) for whom Nagarjuna isn't canonical and to whom a statement like "dharma has no self-nature" is a bit far-fetched, possibly heretical, maybe novel at best, I don't know -- anyway, who aren't familiar with Nagarjuna's doctrine.
I think that a more-orthodox (according to the suttas) summary of Buddhism might be something like:
- The Buddha taught about "suffering and cessation" (of suffering)
- The way (to end suffering) has components including "ethics, mindfulness, and wisdom"
I think that's maybe the shortest summary.
I find it hard to see that definition in "interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics ... to identify incorrect sememes", so I sympathise with those who disagree with it as a definition. But I for one had never heard the word "sememe" before this, so maybe that definition makes more sense to you than it does to me. But perhaps you're not wrong, either, and that what you're saying reflects Buddhist doctrine that "right view" is important, and so is "seeing things as they truly are".
Still if that (i.e. "right view") is all you're talking about, I think that Buddhism is more than that.
Incidentally I don't see that the suttas identify "illusion of transparency" as a cause of dispute -- more likely conceit (e.g. "my view is superior to yours"). You might be onto something with "naïve realism", I think that papañca is identified as the cause of (e.g. sectarian) disputes, defined e.g. here and here, and "reification" might be part of that.
A breakdown to my original post is what I'm actually looking for, but in this question technically it's off-topic. Should I accept it? I think it's better if you post this as a comment in that post. I agree that this may be a little nitpicking though
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 16:30
I don't really know what cognitive linguistics are, nor anything much about Nagarjuna's Middle Way, so I can't comment on that, can't break that down.
– ChrisW♦
Feb 19 at 16:47
nope, it's not necessary that you can break down cognitive linguistics, it's just that you have provided much more relevant information to my idea. Again, this may be nitpicking, but I think this answer is better posted in there than here
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 23:15
Are you saying you'd like me to repost this answer on r/Buddhism -- perhaps, because it answers that question ("Is Buddhism about...?")? And I think you're saying it "technically" doesn't answer this question (Why won't people accept...?").
– ChrisW♦
Feb 20 at 7:37
yes, that's right
– Ooker
Feb 20 at 8:10
|
show 1 more comment
In the post in question:
- You use the parable of the elephant as an example (which is in a sutta about sectarian disputes)
- You say that "Buddhism is strongly about this interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistic"
When I first read that I think that's an unorthodox and unrecognisable summary of Buddhism, or at least, it is so from the perspective of the suttas.
See also comments under this question, I think you assume that Nagarjuna's Middle Way is Buddhism -- and 'that "dharma has no self-nature" is a basic foundation in Buddhism' -- which I think isn't so.
I don't want to say that "Nagarjuna isn't Buddhism" but I think there's a school (Theravada) for whom Nagarjuna isn't canonical and to whom a statement like "dharma has no self-nature" is a bit far-fetched, possibly heretical, maybe novel at best, I don't know -- anyway, who aren't familiar with Nagarjuna's doctrine.
I think that a more-orthodox (according to the suttas) summary of Buddhism might be something like:
- The Buddha taught about "suffering and cessation" (of suffering)
- The way (to end suffering) has components including "ethics, mindfulness, and wisdom"
I think that's maybe the shortest summary.
I find it hard to see that definition in "interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics ... to identify incorrect sememes", so I sympathise with those who disagree with it as a definition. But I for one had never heard the word "sememe" before this, so maybe that definition makes more sense to you than it does to me. But perhaps you're not wrong, either, and that what you're saying reflects Buddhist doctrine that "right view" is important, and so is "seeing things as they truly are".
Still if that (i.e. "right view") is all you're talking about, I think that Buddhism is more than that.
Incidentally I don't see that the suttas identify "illusion of transparency" as a cause of dispute -- more likely conceit (e.g. "my view is superior to yours"). You might be onto something with "naïve realism", I think that papañca is identified as the cause of (e.g. sectarian) disputes, defined e.g. here and here, and "reification" might be part of that.
A breakdown to my original post is what I'm actually looking for, but in this question technically it's off-topic. Should I accept it? I think it's better if you post this as a comment in that post. I agree that this may be a little nitpicking though
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 16:30
I don't really know what cognitive linguistics are, nor anything much about Nagarjuna's Middle Way, so I can't comment on that, can't break that down.
– ChrisW♦
Feb 19 at 16:47
nope, it's not necessary that you can break down cognitive linguistics, it's just that you have provided much more relevant information to my idea. Again, this may be nitpicking, but I think this answer is better posted in there than here
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 23:15
Are you saying you'd like me to repost this answer on r/Buddhism -- perhaps, because it answers that question ("Is Buddhism about...?")? And I think you're saying it "technically" doesn't answer this question (Why won't people accept...?").
– ChrisW♦
Feb 20 at 7:37
yes, that's right
– Ooker
Feb 20 at 8:10
|
show 1 more comment
In the post in question:
- You use the parable of the elephant as an example (which is in a sutta about sectarian disputes)
- You say that "Buddhism is strongly about this interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistic"
When I first read that I think that's an unorthodox and unrecognisable summary of Buddhism, or at least, it is so from the perspective of the suttas.
See also comments under this question, I think you assume that Nagarjuna's Middle Way is Buddhism -- and 'that "dharma has no self-nature" is a basic foundation in Buddhism' -- which I think isn't so.
I don't want to say that "Nagarjuna isn't Buddhism" but I think there's a school (Theravada) for whom Nagarjuna isn't canonical and to whom a statement like "dharma has no self-nature" is a bit far-fetched, possibly heretical, maybe novel at best, I don't know -- anyway, who aren't familiar with Nagarjuna's doctrine.
I think that a more-orthodox (according to the suttas) summary of Buddhism might be something like:
- The Buddha taught about "suffering and cessation" (of suffering)
- The way (to end suffering) has components including "ethics, mindfulness, and wisdom"
I think that's maybe the shortest summary.
I find it hard to see that definition in "interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics ... to identify incorrect sememes", so I sympathise with those who disagree with it as a definition. But I for one had never heard the word "sememe" before this, so maybe that definition makes more sense to you than it does to me. But perhaps you're not wrong, either, and that what you're saying reflects Buddhist doctrine that "right view" is important, and so is "seeing things as they truly are".
Still if that (i.e. "right view") is all you're talking about, I think that Buddhism is more than that.
Incidentally I don't see that the suttas identify "illusion of transparency" as a cause of dispute -- more likely conceit (e.g. "my view is superior to yours"). You might be onto something with "naïve realism", I think that papañca is identified as the cause of (e.g. sectarian) disputes, defined e.g. here and here, and "reification" might be part of that.
In the post in question:
- You use the parable of the elephant as an example (which is in a sutta about sectarian disputes)
- You say that "Buddhism is strongly about this interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistic"
When I first read that I think that's an unorthodox and unrecognisable summary of Buddhism, or at least, it is so from the perspective of the suttas.
See also comments under this question, I think you assume that Nagarjuna's Middle Way is Buddhism -- and 'that "dharma has no self-nature" is a basic foundation in Buddhism' -- which I think isn't so.
I don't want to say that "Nagarjuna isn't Buddhism" but I think there's a school (Theravada) for whom Nagarjuna isn't canonical and to whom a statement like "dharma has no self-nature" is a bit far-fetched, possibly heretical, maybe novel at best, I don't know -- anyway, who aren't familiar with Nagarjuna's doctrine.
I think that a more-orthodox (according to the suttas) summary of Buddhism might be something like:
- The Buddha taught about "suffering and cessation" (of suffering)
- The way (to end suffering) has components including "ethics, mindfulness, and wisdom"
I think that's maybe the shortest summary.
I find it hard to see that definition in "interaction between cognitive psychology and cognitive linguistics ... to identify incorrect sememes", so I sympathise with those who disagree with it as a definition. But I for one had never heard the word "sememe" before this, so maybe that definition makes more sense to you than it does to me. But perhaps you're not wrong, either, and that what you're saying reflects Buddhist doctrine that "right view" is important, and so is "seeing things as they truly are".
Still if that (i.e. "right view") is all you're talking about, I think that Buddhism is more than that.
Incidentally I don't see that the suttas identify "illusion of transparency" as a cause of dispute -- more likely conceit (e.g. "my view is superior to yours"). You might be onto something with "naïve realism", I think that papañca is identified as the cause of (e.g. sectarian) disputes, defined e.g. here and here, and "reification" might be part of that.
edited Feb 18 at 16:54
answered Feb 18 at 16:45
ChrisW♦ChrisW
30.4k42485
30.4k42485
A breakdown to my original post is what I'm actually looking for, but in this question technically it's off-topic. Should I accept it? I think it's better if you post this as a comment in that post. I agree that this may be a little nitpicking though
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 16:30
I don't really know what cognitive linguistics are, nor anything much about Nagarjuna's Middle Way, so I can't comment on that, can't break that down.
– ChrisW♦
Feb 19 at 16:47
nope, it's not necessary that you can break down cognitive linguistics, it's just that you have provided much more relevant information to my idea. Again, this may be nitpicking, but I think this answer is better posted in there than here
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 23:15
Are you saying you'd like me to repost this answer on r/Buddhism -- perhaps, because it answers that question ("Is Buddhism about...?")? And I think you're saying it "technically" doesn't answer this question (Why won't people accept...?").
– ChrisW♦
Feb 20 at 7:37
yes, that's right
– Ooker
Feb 20 at 8:10
|
show 1 more comment
A breakdown to my original post is what I'm actually looking for, but in this question technically it's off-topic. Should I accept it? I think it's better if you post this as a comment in that post. I agree that this may be a little nitpicking though
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 16:30
I don't really know what cognitive linguistics are, nor anything much about Nagarjuna's Middle Way, so I can't comment on that, can't break that down.
– ChrisW♦
Feb 19 at 16:47
nope, it's not necessary that you can break down cognitive linguistics, it's just that you have provided much more relevant information to my idea. Again, this may be nitpicking, but I think this answer is better posted in there than here
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 23:15
Are you saying you'd like me to repost this answer on r/Buddhism -- perhaps, because it answers that question ("Is Buddhism about...?")? And I think you're saying it "technically" doesn't answer this question (Why won't people accept...?").
– ChrisW♦
Feb 20 at 7:37
yes, that's right
– Ooker
Feb 20 at 8:10
A breakdown to my original post is what I'm actually looking for, but in this question technically it's off-topic. Should I accept it? I think it's better if you post this as a comment in that post. I agree that this may be a little nitpicking though
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 16:30
A breakdown to my original post is what I'm actually looking for, but in this question technically it's off-topic. Should I accept it? I think it's better if you post this as a comment in that post. I agree that this may be a little nitpicking though
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 16:30
I don't really know what cognitive linguistics are, nor anything much about Nagarjuna's Middle Way, so I can't comment on that, can't break that down.
– ChrisW♦
Feb 19 at 16:47
I don't really know what cognitive linguistics are, nor anything much about Nagarjuna's Middle Way, so I can't comment on that, can't break that down.
– ChrisW♦
Feb 19 at 16:47
nope, it's not necessary that you can break down cognitive linguistics, it's just that you have provided much more relevant information to my idea. Again, this may be nitpicking, but I think this answer is better posted in there than here
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 23:15
nope, it's not necessary that you can break down cognitive linguistics, it's just that you have provided much more relevant information to my idea. Again, this may be nitpicking, but I think this answer is better posted in there than here
– Ooker
Feb 19 at 23:15
Are you saying you'd like me to repost this answer on r/Buddhism -- perhaps, because it answers that question ("Is Buddhism about...?")? And I think you're saying it "technically" doesn't answer this question (Why won't people accept...?").
– ChrisW♦
Feb 20 at 7:37
Are you saying you'd like me to repost this answer on r/Buddhism -- perhaps, because it answers that question ("Is Buddhism about...?")? And I think you're saying it "technically" doesn't answer this question (Why won't people accept...?").
– ChrisW♦
Feb 20 at 7:37
yes, that's right
– Ooker
Feb 20 at 8:10
yes, that's right
– Ooker
Feb 20 at 8:10
|
show 1 more comment
Venerable Nāgārjuna calls nirvāṇa "the ending of body, the ending of speech, the ending of mind" (T1564.23c16). No room for chatter, no room for activities, no room for proliferation.
Ven Nāgārjuna asks us to 'just stop.'
'Just stop what?' the uninstructed disciple asks.
'No,' says the sage, 'just stop.'
Just stop. That's the lesson. IMO at least, and I've spent a fair amount of misguided time trying to 'logic through' Madhyamaka.
4 answers, regardless of what the question is: 1)yes, 2)no, 3)yes and no, 4)neither yes nor no
4 denials of an answer, regardless of the question: 1)not yes, 2)not no, 3)not yes and no, 4)not neither yes nor no
We have to "just stop." There is no answer. Stop asking questions. Stop everything.
That seems to be the lesson IMO.
add a comment |
Venerable Nāgārjuna calls nirvāṇa "the ending of body, the ending of speech, the ending of mind" (T1564.23c16). No room for chatter, no room for activities, no room for proliferation.
Ven Nāgārjuna asks us to 'just stop.'
'Just stop what?' the uninstructed disciple asks.
'No,' says the sage, 'just stop.'
Just stop. That's the lesson. IMO at least, and I've spent a fair amount of misguided time trying to 'logic through' Madhyamaka.
4 answers, regardless of what the question is: 1)yes, 2)no, 3)yes and no, 4)neither yes nor no
4 denials of an answer, regardless of the question: 1)not yes, 2)not no, 3)not yes and no, 4)not neither yes nor no
We have to "just stop." There is no answer. Stop asking questions. Stop everything.
That seems to be the lesson IMO.
add a comment |
Venerable Nāgārjuna calls nirvāṇa "the ending of body, the ending of speech, the ending of mind" (T1564.23c16). No room for chatter, no room for activities, no room for proliferation.
Ven Nāgārjuna asks us to 'just stop.'
'Just stop what?' the uninstructed disciple asks.
'No,' says the sage, 'just stop.'
Just stop. That's the lesson. IMO at least, and I've spent a fair amount of misguided time trying to 'logic through' Madhyamaka.
4 answers, regardless of what the question is: 1)yes, 2)no, 3)yes and no, 4)neither yes nor no
4 denials of an answer, regardless of the question: 1)not yes, 2)not no, 3)not yes and no, 4)not neither yes nor no
We have to "just stop." There is no answer. Stop asking questions. Stop everything.
That seems to be the lesson IMO.
Venerable Nāgārjuna calls nirvāṇa "the ending of body, the ending of speech, the ending of mind" (T1564.23c16). No room for chatter, no room for activities, no room for proliferation.
Ven Nāgārjuna asks us to 'just stop.'
'Just stop what?' the uninstructed disciple asks.
'No,' says the sage, 'just stop.'
Just stop. That's the lesson. IMO at least, and I've spent a fair amount of misguided time trying to 'logic through' Madhyamaka.
4 answers, regardless of what the question is: 1)yes, 2)no, 3)yes and no, 4)neither yes nor no
4 denials of an answer, regardless of the question: 1)not yes, 2)not no, 3)not yes and no, 4)not neither yes nor no
We have to "just stop." There is no answer. Stop asking questions. Stop everything.
That seems to be the lesson IMO.
answered Feb 25 at 23:52
CaoimhghinCaoimhghin
1696
1696
add a comment |
add a comment |
It was against the rules for monks to speak without knowing if something is true or false.
If you yourself don't understand or know something then it's just the same as lying or misleading others.
‘If a monk falsely claims for himself a superhuman quality, knowledge
and vision worthy of the noble ones, saying, “This I know, this I
see,” but after some time—whether questioned or not, but having
committed the offense and desiring purification—should say: “Not
knowing I said that I know, not seeing that I see; what I said was
empty and false,” he too is expelled and excluded from the
community.’” (Uttarimanussadhamma Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 4)
What is the point in discussing something without experiencing it? What is the point of mere words if the world is empty of a sammasambuddha, paccekabuddhas, arahants, or those near-enlightened beings who have attained higher jhanas and developed iddhi?
The goal in Buddhism is to achieve arahantship here and now not merely read about it or discuss it.
After you experience something and actually know it yourself then speak about it. From direct experience you should also be able to correctly reason things.
I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:30
add a comment |
It was against the rules for monks to speak without knowing if something is true or false.
If you yourself don't understand or know something then it's just the same as lying or misleading others.
‘If a monk falsely claims for himself a superhuman quality, knowledge
and vision worthy of the noble ones, saying, “This I know, this I
see,” but after some time—whether questioned or not, but having
committed the offense and desiring purification—should say: “Not
knowing I said that I know, not seeing that I see; what I said was
empty and false,” he too is expelled and excluded from the
community.’” (Uttarimanussadhamma Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 4)
What is the point in discussing something without experiencing it? What is the point of mere words if the world is empty of a sammasambuddha, paccekabuddhas, arahants, or those near-enlightened beings who have attained higher jhanas and developed iddhi?
The goal in Buddhism is to achieve arahantship here and now not merely read about it or discuss it.
After you experience something and actually know it yourself then speak about it. From direct experience you should also be able to correctly reason things.
I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:30
add a comment |
It was against the rules for monks to speak without knowing if something is true or false.
If you yourself don't understand or know something then it's just the same as lying or misleading others.
‘If a monk falsely claims for himself a superhuman quality, knowledge
and vision worthy of the noble ones, saying, “This I know, this I
see,” but after some time—whether questioned or not, but having
committed the offense and desiring purification—should say: “Not
knowing I said that I know, not seeing that I see; what I said was
empty and false,” he too is expelled and excluded from the
community.’” (Uttarimanussadhamma Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 4)
What is the point in discussing something without experiencing it? What is the point of mere words if the world is empty of a sammasambuddha, paccekabuddhas, arahants, or those near-enlightened beings who have attained higher jhanas and developed iddhi?
The goal in Buddhism is to achieve arahantship here and now not merely read about it or discuss it.
After you experience something and actually know it yourself then speak about it. From direct experience you should also be able to correctly reason things.
It was against the rules for monks to speak without knowing if something is true or false.
If you yourself don't understand or know something then it's just the same as lying or misleading others.
‘If a monk falsely claims for himself a superhuman quality, knowledge
and vision worthy of the noble ones, saying, “This I know, this I
see,” but after some time—whether questioned or not, but having
committed the offense and desiring purification—should say: “Not
knowing I said that I know, not seeing that I see; what I said was
empty and false,” he too is expelled and excluded from the
community.’” (Uttarimanussadhamma Pli Tv Bu Vb Pj 4)
What is the point in discussing something without experiencing it? What is the point of mere words if the world is empty of a sammasambuddha, paccekabuddhas, arahants, or those near-enlightened beings who have attained higher jhanas and developed iddhi?
The goal in Buddhism is to achieve arahantship here and now not merely read about it or discuss it.
After you experience something and actually know it yourself then speak about it. From direct experience you should also be able to correctly reason things.
answered Feb 18 at 2:10
MischievousSageMischievousSage
74436
74436
I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:30
add a comment |
I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:30
I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:30
I think I have experience mindfulness, but not really into it. Is that good? What do you think?
– Ooker
Feb 18 at 2:30
add a comment |
How many years do you already hang around in Dhamma areas and still not grasp the basics?
As it is with chosing teachers. Good if following those who let it rain.
Only one who walks arives and the villagers just wast their times, discussing what they are to lazy to do and see for themselves.
[Given not for trade exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism and intellectual "sex" but for liberation]
add a comment |
How many years do you already hang around in Dhamma areas and still not grasp the basics?
As it is with chosing teachers. Good if following those who let it rain.
Only one who walks arives and the villagers just wast their times, discussing what they are to lazy to do and see for themselves.
[Given not for trade exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism and intellectual "sex" but for liberation]
add a comment |
How many years do you already hang around in Dhamma areas and still not grasp the basics?
As it is with chosing teachers. Good if following those who let it rain.
Only one who walks arives and the villagers just wast their times, discussing what they are to lazy to do and see for themselves.
[Given not for trade exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism and intellectual "sex" but for liberation]
How many years do you already hang around in Dhamma areas and still not grasp the basics?
As it is with chosing teachers. Good if following those who let it rain.
Only one who walks arives and the villagers just wast their times, discussing what they are to lazy to do and see for themselves.
[Given not for trade exchange, stacks, Buddh-ism and intellectual "sex" but for liberation]
edited Feb 18 at 4:43
answered Feb 18 at 4:38
Samana JohannSamana Johann
434
434
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Buddhism Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fbuddhism.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f31152%2fi-explain-why-i-prefer-discuss-buddhism-intellectually-but-others-dont-seem-to%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown