3 ms·

My way of thinking is highly influenced by Zen. It has made me wiser, less stressed by life, more able to cope with the world, and generally a little happier.

by rikkus 12y ago

My way of thinking is highly influenced by Zen. It has made me wiser, less stressed by life, more able to cope with the world, and generally a little happier. For those who don't know, Zen is Buddhist philosophy without the religion. That's my explanation, anyway! Alan Watts' explanations and historical notes on philosophy and religion are, to use an appropriate term, highly enlightening. They're also entertaining and often very amusing. I highly recommend subscribing to the Alan Watts Podcast.

blueprint 12y ago
Let's suppose I don't know anything. What do you mean by Buddhist philosophy?
- charliefg 12y ago
  I'm not the OP but i would like to pitch in with my thoughts -the object of Buddhism is the philosophy of Buddhism, and that object is the art of living; the art of living is what they would say at a Vipassana retreat. Zen - you take Buddhism and chuck away the books, while trying to find the experiential basis of that object.
  - blueprint 12y ago
    I'm asking OP about the definition of the term philosophy, i.e. what does the term philosophy indicate? If someone teaches the 'art of living' then they also must teach the principle of how a certain kind of result in life turns out according to what kind of causes lie on what kind of ways of life. But meditation is not the way to solve problems in yourself and it is therefore not a way to learn the art of living. The proof is that there is no clear definition of what life is through anyone who teaches meditation. And I think it will be important for you to know that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to attain an Enlightenment. If we discuss the matter of Zen, we need to admit the fact that a teaching cannot be helpful to living people if it doesn't contain any ways. The way means the process to get from the problem to the answer. There might be some answers in Zen but, like in the scriptures, there are no clear questions therein of how to distinguish between good teaching and bad teaching. As a result, many monks and lay people have placed their own words and thoughts into books and scriptures, and they contribute considerably to misguiding others. Despite the monks' and lay people's ability to convince others with words, there is a huge gap between their level of consciousness and that of a Tathagata.
    - vidarh 12y ago
      > But meditation is not the way to solve problems in yourself and it is therefore not a way to learn the art of living. The proof is that there is no clear definition of what life is through anyone who teaches meditation. That's not a proof of anything. You do not need a clear definition of the goal for a method to help you approach the goal; you need a method that helps you approach the goal. I am also curious as why you believe meditation is not a way to solve problems in yourself. My personal, direct experience is that it does, so I have to conclude that your claim is false based on that alone, and to me this is also direct confirmation that your "proof" is nonsensical. > And I think it will be important for you to know that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to attain an Enlightenment. What is your basis for this claim? And what are you saying? This is from the Nagara Sutta [1] (the last two paragraphs, describing the Noble Eightfold Path): > "In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path. > "Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings." Are you claiming this did not come from Gautama Buddha? Or are you claiming what it describes is not enlightenment? Or are you claiming it does not include meditation as one of the means? ("right mindfulness, right concentration" is what most people would consider to refer to meditation practice, and as far as I can tell it is well supported by other parts of the Pali canon that meditation is what this refers to). Or something else? If you mean that he did not describe it as sufficient by itself to attain enlightenment, then I believe you are right about what he said. Then again, I think a substantial proportion of people who find buddhist philosophy interesting does not believe in nirvana. When I meditation, it is not with that as a goal. [1] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.tha...
- ThomPete 12y ago
  He means it's reason before faith contrary to religion which is faith before reason. I can recommend exploring one of the lesser known "strains" of zen buddhism Madhyamaka. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka
dominotw 12y ago
> It has made me wiser, less stressed by life Isn't this simply objective analysis of our social structures. Why do I need a strange religion from the east in my quest for truth?

by rikkus 12y ago

blueprint 12y ago

Let's suppose I don't know anything. What do you mean by Buddhist philosophy?

charliefg 12y ago
I'm not the OP but i would like to pitch in with my thoughts -the object of Buddhism is the philosophy of Buddhism, and that object is the art of living; the art of living is what they would say at a Vipassana retreat. Zen - you take Buddhism and chuck away the books, while trying to find the experiential basis of that object.
- blueprint 12y ago
  I'm asking OP about the definition of the term philosophy, i.e. what does the term philosophy indicate? If someone teaches the 'art of living' then they also must teach the principle of how a certain kind of result in life turns out according to what kind of causes lie on what kind of ways of life. But meditation is not the way to solve problems in yourself and it is therefore not a way to learn the art of living. The proof is that there is no clear definition of what life is through anyone who teaches meditation. And I think it will be important for you to know that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to attain an Enlightenment. If we discuss the matter of Zen, we need to admit the fact that a teaching cannot be helpful to living people if it doesn't contain any ways. The way means the process to get from the problem to the answer. There might be some answers in Zen but, like in the scriptures, there are no clear questions therein of how to distinguish between good teaching and bad teaching. As a result, many monks and lay people have placed their own words and thoughts into books and scriptures, and they contribute considerably to misguiding others. Despite the monks' and lay people's ability to convince others with words, there is a huge gap between their level of consciousness and that of a Tathagata.
  - vidarh 12y ago
    > But meditation is not the way to solve problems in yourself and it is therefore not a way to learn the art of living. The proof is that there is no clear definition of what life is through anyone who teaches meditation. That's not a proof of anything. You do not need a clear definition of the goal for a method to help you approach the goal; you need a method that helps you approach the goal. I am also curious as why you believe meditation is not a way to solve problems in yourself. My personal, direct experience is that it does, so I have to conclude that your claim is false based on that alone, and to me this is also direct confirmation that your "proof" is nonsensical. > And I think it will be important for you to know that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to attain an Enlightenment. What is your basis for this claim? And what are you saying? This is from the Nagara Sutta [1] (the last two paragraphs, describing the Noble Eightfold Path): > "In the same way I saw an ancient path, an ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. And what is that ancient path, that ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times? Just this noble eightfold path: right view, right aspiration, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. That is the ancient path, the ancient road, traveled by the Rightly Self-awakened Ones of former times. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of aging & death, direct knowledge of the origination of aging & death, direct knowledge of the cessation of aging & death, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of aging & death. I followed that path. Following it, I came to direct knowledge of birth... becoming... clinging... craving... feeling... contact... the six sense media... name-&-form... consciousness, direct knowledge of the origination of consciousness, direct knowledge of the cessation of consciousness, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of consciousness. I followed that path. > "Following it, I came to direct knowledge of fabrications, direct knowledge of the origination of fabrications, direct knowledge of the cessation of fabrications, direct knowledge of the path leading to the cessation of fabrications. Knowing that directly, I have revealed it to monks, nuns, male lay followers & female lay followers, so that this holy life has become powerful, rich, detailed, well-populated, wide-spread, proclaimed among celestial & human beings." Are you claiming this did not come from Gautama Buddha? Or are you claiming what it describes is not enlightenment? Or are you claiming it does not include meditation as one of the means? ("right mindfulness, right concentration" is what most people would consider to refer to meditation practice, and as far as I can tell it is well supported by other parts of the Pali canon that meditation is what this refers to). Or something else? If you mean that he did not describe it as sufficient by itself to attain enlightenment, then I believe you are right about what he said. Then again, I think a substantial proportion of people who find buddhist philosophy interesting does not believe in nirvana. When I meditation, it is not with that as a goal. [1] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.than.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.065.tha...
ThomPete 12y ago
He means it's reason before faith contrary to religion which is faith before reason. I can recommend exploring one of the lesser known "strains" of zen buddhism Madhyamaka. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madhyamaka

dominotw 12y ago

> It has made me wiser, less stressed by life Isn't this simply objective analysis of our social structures. Why do I need a strange religion from the east in my quest for truth?