For Me, One Of The Best Articles I've Read Along The Theme Of Is Buddhism A Religion Or A Philosophy...and So Much More

[phetaroi]

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith...a_buddhist.html

The whole article is wonderful, but I was particularly interested in the following:

"We start by bringing an open, inquisitive, and skeptical mind to whatever we hear, read, or see that presents itself as the truth. We examine it with reason and we put it to the test in meditation and in our lives. As we gain insight into the workings of the mind, we learn how to recognize and deal with our day-to-day experiences of thoughts and emotions. We uncover inaccurate and unhelpful habits of thinking and begin to correct them. Eventually we're able to overcome the confusion that makes it so hard to see the mind's naturally brilliant awareness. In this sense, the Buddha's teachings are a method of investigation, or a science of mind.

Religion, on the other hand, often provides us with answers to life's big questions from the start. We don't have to think about it too much. We learn what to think and believe and our job is to live up to that, not to question it. If we relate to the Buddha's teachings as final answers that don't need to be examined, then we're practicing Buddhism as a religion."

I see an awfully lot of "Buddha's teachings [are] final answers that don't need to be examined", and if you don't believe everything the Buddha said, then you're not Buddhist in this forum. Perhaps time to rethink some of that.

[montrii]

"If we relate to the Buddha's teachings as final answers that don't need to be examined, then we're practicing Buddhism as a religion."

I agree that 's true if you take the word "religion" in the sense it's used here, as a system of beliefs which come a priori, and can't be questioned, and it's also true that a lot of Buddhists see it that way. But the word is broad, and has other meanings.

One of the Webster meanings is "a quality, condition, custom, or thing inspiring zealous devotion, conscientious maintenance, and cherishing." This could apply as well to the value of questioning and examining, of keeping an open mind. I consider myself a Buddhist, although there are many of the orthodox tenets of the many branches that I don't have much use for. Orthodoxy causes problems, but it also can be useful in establishing forms of practice that have value, as different forms of meditation. When it comes down to it, spiritual practice of any sort does require conscientious maintenance and cherishing, or it doesn't have much value. So what I do is take what I see as good and use it, and leave the rest alone, while questioning everything. I think that can be seen as religious in the best sense. And I hope, and tend to believe, that the Buddha was trying to get us to do just that. That, the article points out, is just what he himself did in his own search.

[Xangsamhua]

Yes, a nicely written piece for a Western audience, though the author’s depiction of “religion” as something about which we don’t have to think too much (“We learn what to think and and believe and our job is to live up to that, not to question it”) bears no similarity to the religion I observed and practiced in 23 years of working in Catholic Education. Nor does it resemble the remarkably frank and open discussions among students and lecturers in my recently completed Masters in Theology courses. As a result of these, I have chosen to walk away from the Church as a teaching body (a magisterium), but many stay and keep up the fight for greater open-mindedness and compassion, qualities that value and enhance our lives rather than restrain and confine them.

The Rinpoche, however, seems to have the same view of religious people as the New Atheists have, that they are unthinking dolts imprisoned in an epistemology imposed by outside forces to which they sacrifice their intellect. Setting up a straw man as your opponent does no service to your own point of view.

And what is the Rinpoche’s point of view? That Buddhism is not a religion, but “a science of mind”. Is this not more of a Vedic/Hindu belief than a Buddhist one? To reify the mind and see it as the source and goal of one’s investigations sounds more like the Vedic identification with Brahman – the world-soul (ayam atma brahma), which forms us and of which we are a part – than the Buddha’s teaching that there is nothing fixed and permanent; all things, including the functions and products of cogitation, contemplation and concentration come into being and pass away – indeed always becoming rather than being, and passing away. To suggest that Buddhism is the science of the mind infers that the mind is a phenomenon, something that can be studied by science, but we’ve never in fact been able to locate the mind for direct observation; we can only observe behaviours and locate their related areas in parts of the brain. As Ryle argued so cogently in The Concept of Mind (1949), it’s best to consider the idea of “mind” as a category mistake. All we know is that a combination of interdependent operations generates mental activity and that these operations follow natural laws. We are still arguing whether the mind transcends the brain or not and of course we don’t know how all this became possible in the first place.

Meditation may open the doors of perception to something, which for the sake of argument we call the “mind”, but though meditation may “satisfy our search for truth”, to quote the author, it’s not a “test” of truth, as he suggests, on other than the subjective plane, even though many of us may share similar meditative experiences and outcomes. In those cases, meditation may constitute a testing ground for shared experiences, but no “truth” beyond that, and these shared outcomes can arise regardless of Buddhist teaching. “Truth” in the absolute sense is impossible to ascertain, though we can reach high levels of probability based on past outcomes. It exists with certainty only in tautologous propositions (“Bachelors are unmarried men”, etc.) and hence is trivial. Buddhist teaching doesn’t change that. For these reasons I would hesitate to call Buddhism, in contrast to religion, a self-validating “science of the mind”, but rather a method that, as a result of practice (the eightfold path) leads to the reduction of suffering in one’s life and as a product of one’s actions in the world.

I’m not sure either how a Buddhist teacher, a rinpoche, can say that “you’re not required to have more faith in the Buddha than you do in yourself”. Apart from the possibility of Buddha-nature, which, if you acknowledge it, is something you have to work very hard at to realize, we don’t normally think of ourselves in the mundane sense as Buddhas. In which case, then, we go to the Buddha, not to ourselves, for refuge. And we go to the Dhamma also, so Buddha and Dhamma (the teachings) are not the same thing, despite what the Rinpoche is saying for his New York Times-reading American audience.

He also proposes that Buddhism contra religion is a philosophy of life. Indeed it is, as is Stoicism, with which the Buddhist philosophy of life has many similarities, but the difference is that Buddhism carries with it untestable, undeniably religious teachings such as Karma, which infers a universal moral law in action, something that can be attributed to God by theists and forming part of the concept of God by Deists and negative theologians. The Rinpoche knows that Karma is hard to swallow for the kind of people likely to read his article in the Times, so he doesn’t mention it, but in most depictions of core Buddhist belief and practice, Karma is right up there.

It seems Buddhism is both a religion and not a religion. A reified “mind” as the source, essence and window of “profound reality” and a moral law that allocates rewards to right behaviour and punishment to wrong both sound like the stuff of religion. The eightfold path and meditation as a method for calming the mind and heightening mental experience can be adopted without the religious superstructure and, hence, can be a very rewarding way in which to manage one’s life and make us better members of our communities.

Reading the above I find I’m shocked by my own arrogance at critiquing the teaching of such a senior lama, but I’m only addressing what he has said in such a confined space and such a limited context as this one. It seems that in trying to apply skillful means to the task of bringing dhamma in a meaningful way to the NY Times’ readership, the Rinpoche has cut corners and over-simplified a little too much. Nevertheless, looking at the whole rather than the parts, I think he gets across the idea of Buddhism as a method rather than a body of dogmatic teaching pretty well.

[phetaroi]

Yes, a nicely written piece for a Western audience, though the author’s depiction of “religion” as something about which we don’t have to think too much...bears no similarity to the religion I observed and practiced in 23 years of working in Catholic Education. Nor does it resemble the remarkably frank and open discussions among students and lecturers in my recently completed Masters in Theology courses. As a result of these, I have chosen to walk away from the Church as a teaching body...but many stay and keep up the fight for greater open-mindedness and compassion, qualities that value and enhance our lives rather than restrain and confine them.

The Rinpoche, however, seems to have the same view of religious people as the New Atheists have, that they are unthinking dolts...

And what is the Rinpoche’s point of view? ... To suggest that Buddhism is the science of the mind infers that the mind is a phenomenon, something that can be studied by science, but we’ve never in fact been able to locate the mind for direct observation; we can only observe behaviours and locate their related areas in parts of the brain. As Ryle argued so cogently in The Concept of Mind (1949), it’s best to consider the idea of “mind” as a category mistake. All we know is that a combination of interdependent operations generates mental activity and that these operations follow natural laws. We are still arguing whether the mind transcends the brain or not and of course we don’t know how all this became possible in the first place.

...“Truth” in the absolute sense is impossible to ascertain...

I would hesitate to call Buddhism, in contrast to religion, a self-validating “science of the mind”, but rather a method that, as a result of practice (the eightfold path) leads to the reduction of suffering in one’s life and as a product of one’s actions in the world.

I’m not sure either how a Buddhist teacher, a rinpoche, can say that “you’re not required to have more faith in the Buddha than you do in yourself”. ...

He also proposes that Buddhism contra religion is a philosophy of life. Indeed it is, as is Stoicism, with which the Buddhist philosophy of life has many similarities, but the difference is that Buddhism carries with it untestable, undeniably religious teachings such as Karma, which infers a universal moral law in action, something that can be attributed to God by theists and forming part of the concept of God by Deists and negative theologians. The Rinpoche knows that Karma is hard to swallow for the kind of people likely to read his article in the Times, so he doesn’t mention it, but in most depictions of core Buddhist belief and practice, Karma is right up there.

It seems Buddhism is both a religion and not a religion. A reified “mind” as the source, essence and window of “profound reality” and a moral law that allocates rewards to right behaviour and punishment to wrong both sound like the stuff of religion. The eightfold path and meditation as a method for calming the mind and heightening mental experience can be adopted without the religious superstructure and, hence, can be a very rewarding way in which to manage one’s life and make us better members of our communities.

Reading the above I find I’m shocked by my own arrogance at critiquing the teaching of such a senior lama...It seems that in trying to apply skillful means to the task of bringing dhamma in a meaningful way to the NY Times’ readership, the Rinpoche has cut corners and over-simplified a little too much. Nevertheless, looking at the whole rather than the parts, I think he gets across the idea of Buddhism as a method rather than a body of dogmatic teaching pretty well.

I was going to begin by saying that I thought you were suffering from doctoralitis, but then I reread your post and realized you had achieved a Masters Degree. That's okay, I hearby bequeath you an honorary doctorate.

You spent many paragraphs condemning what he said, and then conclude with the phrase, "I think he gets across the idea of Buddhism as a method rather than a body of dogmatic teaching pretty well."

Your problem to begin with is that you don't seem to realize that in each religion (and just for the sake of this discussion I will refer to Buddhism as a religion...although I think it is

) there are really two groups of people: those who really think about matters of religion and faith, and those who go through the motions. Since you've been working on a master's in theology, I think you've been spending too much time with the former. Let me remind you about the other group. My grandmother was incensed when they converted the Mass from Latin to English ("But Grandma, you don't even understand Latin." "That's not the point. It isn't important to know what the priest is saying. It's tradition."). The Buddhist who is shaking the fortune sticks in front of Buddha. The Catholic priest who after hearing a confession about masturbation says, "Next time you have that urge, take a piss and forget about it." The Buddhist who offers flowers and candles and incense at the temple so his lottery ticket will win. Make no mistake, the Catholics that think little about their religion, but simply go through the motions of it, far outnumber the theologians and thoughtful laity. The number of Buddhists who can't tell you the basic life story of Buddha, far outnumber the members of the Sangha and even people like those of us in this forum who want to share thinking about Buddhism. However, I don't remember the rinpoche being insulting and calling the masses dolts.

I think that we have learned much more about the brain and how it works than you realize since reading an article published in 1949. As an educator, the courses and workshops I attended over the last decade tended to focus on all that we have learned about how the brain functions and how students learn. And, as the Rinpoche is trying to say -- Buddhism is about learning.

I agree with you that, "“Truth” in the absolute sense is impossible to ascertain...", and that is why -- in my view -- the Rinpoche is saying we must keep thinking, dissecting, being open to new thoughts and interpretations, rather than being shackled to the same old recitations. During the Scopes Monkey Trial, the defense attorney said, "The Bible is a book. It's a good book. But it's not the only book." The same can be said about the Dhamma. It's a foundation for continued contemplation. To me the Rinpoche says...Buddhism is not a completed work of art sitting on a shelf. It's a work in progress." And as soon as it stops being a work in progress, then it is just a cliched religion.

How can "a Buddhist teacher, a rinpoche, can say that “you’re not required to have more faith in the Buddha than you do in yourself”? He can say it because he has freedom of thought. In fact, I would argue that we are required by Buddhist principles to be thoughtful rather than rote.

I agree with you about the issue with the concept of karma. And I'll be honest, no matter whom I have discussed that topic with, they beat around the bush and cannot come up with a satisfactory explanation of it that doesn't at least hint at God...or magic. If I have to pick, I'll go with God over magic.

Yes, you're correct -- "Buddhism is both a religion and not a religion." A dedicated monk spends a great deal of time in mindfulness/meditation AND then goes out and participates in a lot of rituals. And, by the way, everything in religion doesn't have to be a “profound reality”. "...a moral law that allocates rewards to right behaviour and punishment to wrong both sound like the stuff of religion"...or karma.

So, as much as I dislike your discourse, the Rinpoche is saying...keep doing it. Keep thinking. Continue contemplating. Don't settle only for what is already known and handed down.

[IMA_FARANG]

A great article.

As for me, in my personal quest, I always refer to myself as a STUDENT of Buddisim and not a practioner of Buddhisim. I intend to be a STUDENT of Buddhisim and specifically Zen Buddhisim for the rest of my life.

After that, I will let whatever there is, possibly my Karma, sort out whatever happens. I wouldn't presume to ask or want for anything other than that to happen.

[Xangsamhua]

I was going to begin by saying that I thought you were suffering from doctoralitis, but then I reread your post and realized you had achieved a Masters Degree. That's okay, I hearby bequeath you an honorary doctorate.

Thanks for your comments, Phetaroi. They are always appreciated.

I'm not sure what "doctoralitis" is, but I think you're right - my writing style must be insufferable at times. I apologize. Too much academic writing. I actually have three Master's degrees, two of which I had to do to keep up professionally, but I'm not that bright and probably don't have the mental stamina and self-discipline required for a doctorate. I did the Theology Master's for my own personal benefit and while it put me off Systematic Theology (and hence I agree with much of what you say - some theologians are right off the planet), I learned enough to know that while "logos", defined as words, science or academic study, will not bring one to enlightenment, verbal analysis is important in clearing away some of the detritus language leaves on the path to understanding.

I write to find out what I think. Writing for me is more of an exploratory process than an expository one. I may have an idea, an "angle" which serves as a springboard from which to start, but much of the time, even in academic writing, I don't really know what I'm going to say until I've written it down. Hence my wordiness (mea culpa), but it makes writing enjoyable and sometimes surprising ("Is that really what I think?), though it must be a chore for anyone reading it, especially those who like to cut to the chase. Still, in a forum like this, I'm sure many take a look at the first few sentences and then move on to something else. No one is obliged to work through my ramblings.

I don't think I'm an arrogant person, though I may sound like it, and I agree with most of what you say, especially your final sentence. In fact I think I agree with most of what most people say on this sub-forum. Each of us has a perspective that we've arrived at from our experience and study and, as the Rinpoche says, that gives it a validity that must be acknowledged and respected. Our mods are good at identifying and correcting the more formal errors, and I'm grateful for their input. We don't want to be just mutually admiring.

[phetaroi]

Thanks for your comments, Phetaroi. They are always appreciated.

I'm not sure what "doctoralitis" is, but I think you're right - my writing style must be insufferable at times. I apologize. Too much academic writing. I actually have three Master's degrees, two of which I had to do to keep up professionally, but I'm not that bright and probably don't have the mental stamina and self-discipline required for a doctorate. I did the Theology Master's for my own personal benefit and while it put me off Systematic Theology (and hence I agree with much of what you say - some theologians are right off the planet), I learned enough to know that while "logos", defined as words, science or academic study, will not bring one to enlightenment, verbal analysis is important in clearing away some of the detritus language leaves on the path to understanding.

I write to find out what I think. Writing for me is more of an exploratory process than an expository one. I may have an idea, an "angle" which serves as a springboard from which to start, but much of the time, even in academic writing, I don't really know what I'm going to say until I've written it down. Hence my wordiness (mea culpa), but it makes writing enjoyable and sometimes surprising ("Is that really what I think?), though it must be a chore for anyone reading it, especially those who like to cut to the chase. Still, in a forum like this, I'm sure many take a look at the first few sentences and then move on to something else. No one is obliged to work through my ramblings.

I don't think I'm an arrogant person, though I may sound like it, and I agree with most of what you say, especially your final sentence. In fact I think I agree with most of what most people say on this sub-forum. Each of us has a perspective that we've arrived at from our experience and study and, as the Rinpoche says, that gives it a validity that must be acknowledged and respected. Our mods are good at identifying and correcting the more formal errors, and I'm grateful for their input. We don't want to be just mutually admiring.

First of all, don't apologize. There is so much crap on so many forums that it's nice to see a posting that is thoughtful, and yours always are...and that's much appreciated. And yes, I was referring to your "academic writing style" with "doctoralitis"...but, again, don't change...you write very well. I'm just gently kidding you!

Yes! I know what you mean about writing to help discover yourself. I have done that myself, and it follows along with what I very often do -- have conversations with myself. No, I don't go around visibly talking to myself, so there's little danger that men in white coats will chase me and take me away. I just prefer the inner conversation to formal meditation...so far.

It's interesting that you say, "I think I agree with most of what most people say on this sub-forum". I think that's actually the key...you have an open mind. What frustrates me about people who discuss religion is when they say or take the attitude of "I know the truth!" Or dismiss someone else's beliefs or thoughts, when what's up for discussion is some concept that has been debated for, perhaps, centuries. Or who say, "If you don't believe that, then you're not a Buddhist."

I enjoy the discussion. Please don't stop!

[khaowong1]

Yes, a nicely written piece for a Western audience, though the author's depiction of "religion" as something about which we don't have to think too much...bears no similarity to the religion I observed and practiced in 23 years of working in Catholic Education. Nor does it resemble the remarkably frank and open discussions among students and lecturers in my recently completed Masters in Theology courses. As a result of these, I have chosen to walk away from the Church as a teaching body...but many stay and keep up the fight for greater open-mindedness and compassion, qualities that value and enhance our lives rather than restrain and confine them.

The Rinpoche, however, seems to have the same view of religious people as the New Atheists have, that they are unthinking dolts...

And what is the Rinpoche's point of view? ... To suggest that Buddhism is the science of the mind infers that the mind is a phenomenon, something that can be studied by science, but we've never in fact been able to locate the mind for direct observation; we can only observe behaviours and locate their related areas in parts of the brain. As Ryle argued so cogently in The Concept of Mind (1949), it's best to consider the idea of "mind" as a category mistake. All we know is that a combination of interdependent operations generates mental activity and that these operations follow natural laws. We are still arguing whether the mind transcends the brain or not and of course we don't know how all this became possible in the first place.

..."Truth" in the absolute sense is impossible to ascertain...

I would hesitate to call Buddhism, in contrast to religion, a self-validating "science of the mind", but rather a method that, as a result of practice (the eightfold path) leads to the reduction of suffering in one's life and as a product of one's actions in the world.

I'm not sure either how a Buddhist teacher, a rinpoche, can say that "you're not required to have more faith in the Buddha than you do in yourself". ...

He also proposes that Buddhism contra religion is a philosophy of life. Indeed it is, as is Stoicism, with which the Buddhist philosophy of life has many similarities, but the difference is that Buddhism carries with it untestable, undeniably religious teachings such as Karma, which infers a universal moral law in action, something that can be attributed to God by theists and forming part of the concept of God by Deists and negative theologians. The Rinpoche knows that Karma is hard to swallow for the kind of people likely to read his article in the Times, so he doesn't mention it, but in most depictions of core Buddhist belief and practice, Karma is right up there.

It seems Buddhism is both a religion and not a religion. A reified "mind" as the source, essence and window of "profound reality" and a moral law that allocates rewards to right behaviour and punishment to wrong both sound like the stuff of religion. The eightfold path and meditation as a method for calming the mind and heightening mental experience can be adopted without the religious superstructure and, hence, can be a very rewarding way in which to manage one's life and make us better members of our communities.

Reading the above I find I'm shocked by my own arrogance at critiquing the teaching of such a senior lama...It seems that in trying to apply skillful means to the task of bringing dhamma in a meaningful way to the NY Times' readership, the Rinpoche has cut corners and over-simplified a little too much. Nevertheless, looking at the whole rather than the parts, I think he gets across the idea of Buddhism as a method rather than a body of dogmatic teaching pretty well.

I was going to begin by saying that I thought you were suffering from doctoralitis, but then I reread your post and realized you had achieved a Masters Degree. That's okay, I hearby bequeath you an honorary doctorate.

You spent many paragraphs condemning what he said, and then conclude with the phrase, "I think he gets across the idea of Buddhism as a method rather than a body of dogmatic teaching pretty well."

Your problem to begin with is that you don't seem to realize that in each religion (and just for the sake of this discussion I will refer to Buddhism as a religion...although I think it is

) there are really two groups of people: those who really think about matters of religion and faith, and those who go through the motions. Since you've been working on a master's in theology, I think you've been spending too much time with the former. Let me remind you about the other group. My grandmother was incensed when they converted the Mass from Latin to English ("But Grandma, you don't even understand Latin." "That's not the point. It isn't important to know what the priest is saying. It's tradition."). The Buddhist who is shaking the fortune sticks in front of Buddha. The Catholic priest who after hearing a confession about masturbation says, "Next time you have that urge, take a piss and forget about it." The Buddhist who offers flowers and candles and incense at the temple so his lottery ticket will win. Make no mistake, the Catholics that think little about their religion, but simply go through the motions of it, far outnumber the theologians and thoughtful laity. The number of Buddhists who can't tell you the basic life story of Buddha, far outnumber the members of the Sangha and even people like those of us in this forum who want to share thinking about Buddhism. However, I don't remember the rinpoche being insulting and calling the masses dolts.

I think that we have learned much more about the brain and how it works than you realize since reading an article published in 1949. As an educator, the courses and workshops I attended over the last decade tended to focus on all that we have learned about how the brain functions and how students learn. And, as the Rinpoche is trying to say -- Buddhism is about learning.

I agree with you that, ""Truth" in the absolute sense is impossible to ascertain...", and that is why -- in my view -- the Rinpoche is saying we must keep thinking, dissecting, being open to new thoughts and interpretations, rather than being shackled to the same old recitations. During the Scopes Monkey Trial, the defense attorney said, "The Bible is a book. It's a good book. But it's not the only book." The same can be said about the Dhamma. It's a foundation for continued contemplation. To me the Rinpoche says...Buddhism is not a completed work of art sitting on a shelf. It's a work in progress." And as soon as it stops being a work in progress, then it is just a cliched religion.

How can "a Buddhist teacher, a rinpoche, can say that "you're not required to have more faith in the Buddha than you do in yourself"? He can say it because he has freedom of thought. In fact, I would argue that we are required by Buddhist principles to be thoughtful rather than rote.

I agree with you about the issue with the concept of karma. And I'll be honest, no matter whom I have discussed that topic with, they beat around the bush and cannot come up with a satisfactory explanation of it that doesn't at least hint at God...or magic. If I have to pick, I'll go with God over magic.

Yes, you're correct -- "Buddhism is both a religion and not a religion." A dedicated monk spends a great deal of time in mindfulness/meditation AND then goes out and participates in a lot of rituals. And, by the way, everything in religion doesn't have to be a "profound reality". "...a moral law that allocates rewards to right behaviour and punishment to wrong both sound like the stuff of religion"...or karma.

So, as much as I dislike your discourse, the Rinpoche is saying...keep doing it. Keep thinking. Continue contemplating. Don't settle only for what is already known and handed down.