Talk:Buddhist philosophy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Permanence, Spinoza, Buddhism[edit]

Spinoza teaches that we should look for something permanent but " Buddhism teaches that such a quest is bound to fail. " ? Where does he teach that? 

Nirvana IS permanent! The whole point of Buddhism is to disover what the Buddha in the Nikayas calls "the unborn" - that which transcends time. Let alone the Mahayana sutras who directly speak of the Nirvanic state as BLISS, THE SELF (Atman), and PERMANENT, ETERNAL, PURE. (Mahaparanirvana Sutra)

2002[edit]

I just wanted to thank the anonymous person who wrote this excellent start of an article on Buddhist philosophy. --Larry Sanger

I think that something about philosophy of Zen and other non-traditional Buddhist sects should be written. Taw

Many philosophers of Zen would maintain that Zen is anti-philosophy. :-)

I would like to see something about commonly practiced forms of Buddhism, such as Nichiren Buddhism, Tendai and Nembutsu. [bddougie]

(Nichiren Buddhism, Tendai Buddhism, Nembutsu Buddhism).

To my knowledge, the Buddha clearly states in the Pali Suttas that there is no self or soul (anatta). - Clive

Recent edits[edit]

I just made some pretty sweeping changes; the existing description was questionable on several points and vague on most, and I did my best to make clear some of the basic issues. However, this is still massively underdeveloped.कुक्कुरोवाच


The fact is that philosophy is different from religion and therefore should not be merged.

Round Two[edit]

Deleted a sentence saying the Buddha began from the Upanishadic position on the unity of the atman and Brahman, and the desirability of escape from samsara, because (1) Early Buddhism does not reject the ultimate desirability of samsara, and (2) as I learned it, the Buddha's teachers were likelier Samkhyans then advaitins, (3) I'm not at all sure that the Upanishads are what the Buddha was rejecting, since they were largely being formulated around the same time, as I recall, and wouldn't be totally canonical yet. This is not to say that the Buddha doesn't reject them, of course, but that's covered under saying he rejects metaphysical being.

I'm moving the pratitya-samutpada section into metaphysics and phenomenology where it belongs; causation is not a problem of logic in Indian philosophy, it is a problem of metaphysics, and, in Buddhism, a problem of psychology or phenomenology.कुक्कुरोवाच 21:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Explanation of revert[edit]

I thought the deleted paragraph had some value in its original form. I didn't find it to be particularly trite. Also, I think "non-theistic" is better than "atheistic". "Atheism", as people often use it and as W'pedia defines it, seems to rule out a "middle way" balancing act. In conclusion, please allow me to say that I think the paragraph's last sentence preeemptively expresses Kukku's concerns about a tendentious definition of religion. That's all, thank you. - Nat Krause 04:19, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am happier with non-theistic than with atheistic; however, I do object to having a pragraph that's so problematic that it has to conclude with a disclaimer that it may be moot before we ever get to what the article is actually about. I suggest that that paragraph be moved somewhere less obtrusive in the body of the article. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 04:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I reworded the paragraph and put back in the fact that many; including some prominent Buddhists describe much of Buddhism as atheistic, this is a matter of fact not POV. Here are some sources:
The prominent British Buddhist Christmas Humphreys (also a prominent judge) in "Buddhism"(1954). C.H. was President of the Buddhist Society, London, from it's foundation in 1924 for 30 years. On page 79 under the title "No God, No Soul" he writes "As between the theist and atheist positions, Buddhism is atheist".
"The Varieties of Religious Experience", William James pg 50: "the Buddha himself stands in place of a God; but in strictness the Buddhistic system is atheistic".
--Nick-in-South-Africa 07:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Good historical point about the view of early scholars studying Buddhism who lived and worked primarily within theistic cultures. However, (1) I have found that some Buddhists in fact do include theistic and polytheistic beliefs, in spite of many Buddhist writings suggesting this is inappropriate, and (2) the term "atheistic" tends to be confusing in cultures in which religion is equated with belief in God. The result is often the follow-up explanation that Buddhism is more of a philosophy than a religion. That's consistent with my own view but I don't think it accurately describes how the majority of practioners view it. Maybe description of beliefs isn't the primary goal here, but if not the article will probably end up being assertive of a particular view and not Buddhism as it is actually thought about and practiced.::

Link[edit]

Someone added this link to the page, and while it doesn't seem like a horrible site on a first glance, it does seem like a personal one, and perhaps not exactly NPOV, etc. Can folks take a look at it and convey reflections? -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 22:00, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

vegetarian[edit]

A bot changed [[vegetarian]]s to [[vegetarianism|vegetarians]], since the former is a double-redirect. It was reverted back to the double-rd -- I'm not sure why. I changed it back. If you think it should be [[vegetarian]]s again, let's discuss. Quadell (talk) 13:31, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

Quote[edit]

My teaching is not a philosophy. It is the result of direct experience...
My teaching is a means of practice, not something to hold onto or worship.
My teaching is like a raft used to cross the river.
Only a fool would carry the raft around after he had already reached the other shore of liberation.
– The Buddha

I removed this quote from the beginning of this article because (a) it's unattributed (we need chapter and verse, not just "The Buddha", (b) it's not appropriate to use it as an epigram, (c) I'm not 100% sure it's pertinent to the article, and (d) if it is to be included, it should get textual context to make clear what it's doing in the article, and this should take place in a section discussing, I don't know, arguments against taking Buddhism as a philosophy. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 17:33, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Text duplicated[edit]

It is pretty clear that the text got duplicated between edit times 20:08, 19 Oct 2004 and 23:59, 20 Oct 2004. I got the diffs down to a few words. Editors may wish to verify that their favorite changes are back in the text. I was clued in to the problem by duplicated categories at the bottom. Looks fixed now. Ancheta Wis 00:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Noumena[edit]

@Earcanal: I'd love to see sources for your statement "IMHO The Buddha said that these 'noumena' are knowable via meditative states."

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Buddhist_philosophy&oldid=919654864"