More Than Mere Philosophy

A friend of mine emailed asking if Buddhism was more than a philosophy...and I ended up writing her a lengthy reply. A few friends at the Vihara liked it a lot and all asked for copies...since I got such a good response from it--in spite of it being written in the style of a personal communication rather than an essay or thesis--I ended up submitting it to the Theravadin blog.

In the event that you guys would like to read it, it can be found here:

http://theravadin.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/buddhism-more-than-mere-philosophy/

With metta,
Brian A.

Thanks for sharing, Brian. I enjoyed reading the blog post.

This is a tricky subject. When someone makes a statemet like "(Blank) isn't a religion, it's just a philosophy," it's hard to know what to say about it without unpacking what they mean by "philosophy." Is that like saying, "I'm spiritual, but not religious?" Someone who says this has some very specific views about what "religion" is, usually related to being bound to a particular view rather than being able to pick and choose as desired.

It's hard to argue against Buddhism being a religion. It clearly is an established religion. I think what most people are saying when they say "Buddhism is a philosophy," is, "Look, I know what the real meaning behind Buddhism is, and it isn't all of this ritualistic stuff."

For me, one of the things that sets Buddhism -- and any deeply contemplative tradition, for that matter -- aside from other religions is that the path of practice is based on detailed phenomenological empiricism. It is a wisdom tradition much unlike the popular others, in that it really seeks to understand the mind by working with it directly. The method is very scientific. However, the scientific method is itself philosophical, so we end up talking about the many facets of "philosophy" the more we talk about this subject.

As you stated in the post, Buddhism has many aspects: religious, philosophical, practical, psychological, social, moral, scientific, etc. It's difficult to say that it is "this" and not "that". So saying it is "mere" philosophy, of course, if incorrect.

Jackson

wow.

I loved reading that, I learned a lot of stuff that hadn't occurred to me before. And, you put a lot of things in a way that I could understand for the first time.

Very nice.

I'm not against relgion, really. There is something about my psychological make up that is both strongly attracted to and repeled by religions life. As an adult I've had opportunities to be very involved in both Zen Buddhist and Christian communities and while I love so much about both I just can't sustain a committment to jump into either and stay involved (though I'm technically still a member of the Modesto Church of the Brethren and could start back at any time which still might happen some day).

I think, though, that a lot of westerners that are attracted to Buddhism are attracted because they think for some reason that it is JUST a philosophy and many refuse to admit that it is a religion. How many "philosophers" officiate at weddings and funerals, run temples, wear special robes, participate in rituals, etc? None.

I'm going to really speak my mind...this doesn't happen often, so enjoy...or grit your teeth because it will be over shortly.

I think it is very important for everyone to realize that there is more to Buddhism than many Westerners make out. If one chooses not to accept it, that is perfectly fine...but it is important for one to know there is more to it. If there is $20 buried in a sand pile, but someone tells you there is only $10, you will most likely stop looking once you've found $10. This simple simile illustrates a travesty in our society.

The "all religions are different expressions of the same path" is a key pre-existing influence for many quasi-famous Buddhist Meditation Teachers. The attachment to this, and many other Western notions, has prevented the total adoption of the Buddhist doctrine. This is okay. What is not okay is to tell everyone that you've "captured the essence" and left all the "cultural stuff" out. Particularly when you've removed one central doctrinal points and replaced it with your own "cultural stuff" that you simply don't consider to be "cultural stuff" because you are Western.

But this isn't an issue because Westerners see through all of their own cultural B.S. and are immune to socialization, right?

Seriously, I'm sure this will ruffle a few feathers. I know, because it ruffled my feathers when I still saw the Western worldview as "free from the intrusion of fairy tales" like the rest of the world.

The truth is, doctrinal points such as rebirth, kamma, multiple world systems, and the such all seem to be "cultural BS" that was added to the philosophy. If one does practice, exactly as the Buddha instructed, and perfect mundane right view...one finds more than a just a "psychological awakening". And one does not begin believing in unbelievable things...but the certain views on reality that made these things seem to be "unbelievable" fall away...and certain "psychological" awakenings are appended by deep insights that rock your "world", so to speak. (Okay, the pun was gratuitous.)

I say this, because, once upon a time I had great contempt for anyone that spoke of the things I am speaking. But one day, in a very low point in my life, I gave up. I decided to completely do everything the Buddha instructed--even if everyone laughed at me for it. It turned out to be the best decision of my life.

I entice everyone that doesn't accept the total doctrine to prove me wrong. Just give it a shot. What do you have to lose? Don't believe; just set disbelief aside. You just might be amazed.

There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are in the world good and virtuous recluses and brahmins who have realized for themselves by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.

- Mundane Right View

My interpretation:

There is merit in generosity, both gifts and deeds. There is merit is what is not done; renunciation. There is Moral Law. This is not the only world. There is a special kammic link towards those who sacrificed much to care for you when you were unable to care for yourself. There are not only beings born from eggs, wombs, and other physical means, but those that appear in higher realms. There are bhikkhus who, by practicing rightly, have realized for themself all of the preceding and declare it first-hand [implying you may do this, too, if you are willing to practice rightly.]

[/rant]

Palabra.
(I'm not too sure about beings in other realms but I'm certainly open to it being true.)

Also, great point about us Westerners not realizing that we are socialized in a culture. Man, we look at everthing through that filter, don't we?

Ha! nice rant Brian I think you make some great points about the way Westerners have been appropriating Buddhism, and the danger of being overconfident in separating the "cultural" from the "pragmatic".

Personally I value diversity and complexity, particularly when the differing styles and viewpoints are in dialogue and able to appreciate each other. I find myself on the more eclectic end of the spectrum in some ways, and I can even see some traditional support for that (ironic, huh?) in sayings such as "the dharma is a raft" and the Tibetan saying that "methods are like patches (in an article of clothing, i.e.); when the time is right they fall away".

Universe is so vast and experience goes so deep, it truly is surprising. And considering how practitioners in long established lineages have gone very very deep into wisdom, generation upon generation, I think it's good to respect "the package(s)" of the various lineages which have been reliably producing awakening for millenia.

So I'm really grateful that in addition to the laisez fair, post-modern eclectics like myself there are traditionalists like you who are willing to preserve the full packages of respected ancient traditions. I see the two poles (ideally) operating in harmony in the larger context of society and dharma transmission.

And as for the "wilder' aspects of the traditional cosmologies, and the continuation of the mindstream beyond this lifetime, in my own reasoning (although I have no direct evidence) the traditional ideas of a fractal meta-verse and the continuum of rebirth make solid logical sense to me in terms of Occam's Razor if nothing else. I.e., believing in them requires more minimalist sets of assumptions than believing in Judeo-Christian or 19th Century Materialism (as far as my logic can tell anyway). In each case the belief in question is less of a leap from what I can verify in my present experience than belief in an "eternal soul", "creation/creator", nihilism, or "finite" Universe.

Cool essay

"..."Why is that so radical, Brian?

-cmarti

My sentiments exactly...

Cool essay


-jake

You know, I wanted to clean up the rant and make it more essay-like for posting to the Theravadin Blog. However, I met some resistance on that. Everyone seem to like it just as it is...in a bit less organized, "rant" form.

"If one does practice, exactly as the Buddha instructed, and perfect mundane right view...one finds more than a just a 'psychological awakening'. And one does not begin believing in unbelievable things...but the certain views on reality that made these things seem to be 'unbelievable' fall away...and certain 'psychological' awakenings are appended by deep insights that rock your 'world', so to speak." -Brian

Brian, I'd like some more information on what you mean here by "psychological". It would seem that you have a very specific idea of what types of awakenings you would label "psychological" as opposed to others. I'm interested to hear what those might be.

The reason I ask is that my future vocation will be in the field of psychology/psychotherapy. Like Buddhism, the greater tradition of psychology as a discipline, science, philosophy, and therapy is quite vast. But I think you know this. So, I'm waiting to convey any further opinions until I know what you mean by "psychological" within the context of your blog post and whatever commentary you've offered up thus far.

Thanks!

Jackson

"Brian, I'd like some more information on what you mean here by 'psychological'.

-awouldbehipster

Jackson, the reason "psychological awakening" was used in quotes because I was addressing certain assertions made by some locals here that engage in debates. The person that came to mind when I wrote that was a humanist...he, and quite a few others, feel strongly that Buddhism is a form of Humanism and that Buddhist meditative attainment leads to "realizations" that make us more okay with the "way things are" rather than anything beyond that. It is a way to hold onto certain deterministic views of the world while benefiting from certain realizations one has during meditation. It almost has a Zen/Taoist ring to it...the idea of acceptance rather than transcendence.

I'm not denying this happens, but again, holding onto preconceptions won't prevent one from progression, but it will prevent certain insights from arising along the way. One reason I emphasize "setting aside disbelief" rather than "adopting new beliefs" is that even the notions advanced in mundane right view can cause this same problem...it stems, IMHO, from slight misunderstandings of "how these things can be true", and not the view itself.

In short, I cannot expound exactly what is meant by that because it was not referring to a particular definition I hold, but rather addressing the concept as defined by others--which will inevitably differ from person to person. But the understanding, as I personally infer from the implications made those in past debates is just as I explained it so far. I could be way off, but I'm pretty sure that is how it is interpreted by "them". You know, "those" people that are always giving "us" a hard time! You've forced me into a dualistic dialogue, damn you!

What I do believe is this: Meditation, depending upon technique and pre-existing attachment to certain views, can lead to different forms of awakening. I see nothing wrong with anyone promoting the awakening they've found. Especially when it betters peoples lives.

I think everyone, myself included, should be very careful as to calling their version of "awakening" as the same as "Buddha Gotama's Enlightenment". Especially when you are tossing out chunks of the Pali Canon to do so. (I don't dogmatically cling to every word of the Pali Canon, but many important parts that are ignored/devaulated are repaeated over and over in many suttas and are reflected in both the Nikayas & Agamas.)

Even those that whole-heartedly accept the Canon, in humbleness, refuse to make assertions of certain labels based on attainments...all I know, at least. It is better to let your demeanor and actions scream "Arahant!" than your mouth, right? My personal opinion is that the real "mushroom factor" is not discussing why the certain objective, goal-oriented meditation system like Mahasi and its derivatives break down at (or after, depending upon one's perspective) 2nd Path--which leads to a plethora of personal interpretations after that point (most being similar or same prior to 2nd Path).

Does this help at all? Or did I create more issues than I resolved?

Hi Brian. Thank you for providing some additional information.

"The person that came to mind when I wrote that was a humanist...he, and quite a few others, feel strongly that Buddhism is a form of Humanism and that Buddhist meditative attainment leads to 'realizations' that make us more okay with the 'way things are' rather than anything beyond that. It is a way to hold onto certain deterministic views of the world while benefiting from certain realizations one has during meditation. It almost has a Zen/Taoist ring to it...the idea of acceptance rather than transcendence" (emphasis mine). -Brian

First, I'm glad you narrowed it down to Existential/Humanist psychology, rather than just psychology in general. That helps me to understand what you're attempting to expose as being not-so-clear-a-picture of what you might consider authentic, source-text Buddhism. Is that right?

This "acceptance" vs. "transcendence" issue is one that I've given a great deal of energy to contemplating lately -- actually, since first forming this community. My personal understanding is that acceptance of present experiencing is an antecedent to transcendence. That is, resisting present experiencing is no way to meditate. And by acceptance I mean "accepting what is in the moment", not giving it any moral significance (e.g. what is happening is "right" or "good" or "best"). Without acceptance of what is in each moment, there's no way to gain liberating insight into the nature of experience. Without liberating insight, there can be no transcendence. That's how I see things right now.

So, if one were to suggest that Buddhist philosophy and practice was simply about accepting the way things are, and that's all... I don't buy that. But I do think that it's an important part of the journey.

I think we should also contrast Existential-Humanist psychology/psychotherapy with more change-focused psychologies/psychotherapies. CBT, for example, is less about acceptance and more about how to improve one's symptoms. The goal is to identify the psychological mechanisms involved in perpetuating a set of symptoms or specific disorder, and then manipulating them to result in a desired change. The strategies used to manipulate the mechanisms (i.e. the "intervention") consist of cognitive, affective, and behavioral components (much like some aspects of the Eightfold Path). This is not "accept things as they are" psychology. And, it doesn't work for every problem. But I can see how there are aspects of both acceptance-based and change-based strategies in both the greater psychological tradition and the greater Buddhist tradition -- hell, within Theravada Buddhism alone there are aspects of both.

Anyway, is any of this helpful? I think one of the best things we can do as practitioners of Buddhadharma (in whatever tradition) is to advocate for a full and integrative understanding of the teachings, rather than just picking out of few pieces and calling it the "essence" of the teaching. Such ways of thinking are out dated. And that's why I appreciated your blog post. You made a great case for the fact that Buddhism isn't merely a humanistic philosophy, and I agree with you.

So, Brian, you practice Buddhism as a religion, right? You are a priest or a monk or a formal student of some kind? You do rituals with a group of other Buddhist? I'm curious.

Now, what about people like me (and I think Tomo, Chris, and Jackson, I'm not positive about the other members except for Mike), who think and read and talk about "dharma" and meditate, etc. but who don't belong to any temple or center, aren't formal students anywhere, etc. ??

How are we different, as "buddhists" than you and all the others who practice it more formally as a religion? Are we Buddhists? Are we missing out on something? (I've never called myself a buddhist, ever)

So, Brian, you practice Buddhism as a religion, right? You are a priest or a monk or a formal student of some kind? You do rituals with a group of other Buddhist? I'm curious.

Now, what about people like me (and I think Tomo, Chris, and Jackson, I'm not positive about the other members except for Mike), who think and read and talk about "dharma" and meditate, etc. but who don't belong to any temple or center, aren't formal students anywhere, etc. ??

How are we different, as "buddhists" than you and all the others who practice it more formally as a religion? Are we Buddhists? Are we missing out on something? (I've never called myself a buddhist, ever)



-michaelmonson

I don't really get into the Buddhist/Non-Buddhist debate, Mike. Since Buddhism is inherently non-dogmatic (in its apprehension of the Truth, but not the declaration of it), the argument negates itself...again, my personal opinion.

Now, I will assert Theravadin/Non-Theravadin as there is a very clearly defined monastic discipline and philosophical doctrine (Vinaya/Abhidhamma). And....I think it is probably best I leave it at that. I'm still looking over my previous posts, trying to find what I said that would so drastically and immeditaely alter the atmosphere/tone/line of questioning...

"I'm still looking over my previous posts, trying to find what I said that would so drastically and immeditaely alter the atmosphere/tone/line of questioning..." -Brian

I think what's occurring is simply the sort of natural differentiation that follows the initial acknowledgement of common ground. I think we're going through a process of refining our understandings of each other's views. I'm not picking up on any drastic changes in tone, but I could be missing something.

Over all, I think this discussion is unfolding in a very skillful and beneficial manner.

Jackson

...You made a great case for the fact that Buddhism isn't merely a humanistic philosophy, and I agree with you.


-awouldbehipster

Thank you, Jackson. I really think you're the only one that clearly understood what I was trying to convey...the Vihara isn't a place for Buddhism because rituals are performed there. In fact, Thervadins have more "ceremony" than ritual. It is because face-to-face discussion and debate can ensue...without the antagonistic "mis-communications" that are so prevalent in online discussion/debates. It is much easier to methodologically get to the conceptual "bottom" of things when everyone is in the same room and held accountable for their remarks--be they commendable or "censured by the wise".

I don't really get into the Buddhist/Non-Buddhist debate, Mike. Since Buddhism is inherently non-dogmatic (in its apprehension of the Truth, but not the declaration of it), the argument negates itself...again, my personal opinion.

Now, I will assert Theravadin/Non-Theravadin as there is a very clearly defined monastic discipline and philosophical doctrine (Vinaya/Abhidhamma). And....I think it is probably best I leave it at that. I'm still looking over my previous posts, trying to find what I said that would so drastically and immeditaely alter the atmosphere/tone/line of questioning...

-brian_ananda

I'm lost. I didn't know I was asking you to get into a debate, I was just wondering what you thought about the differences between a more formal religious practioner and some of us who have no affiliations at this time. It was a question, not the opening salvo of an argument.

Maybe I'm so out of the loop on a lot of the discussions that you've been involved in over time that I didn't even realize what I was asking. You know what I mean?

Over all, I think this discussion is unfolding in a very skillful and beneficial manner.

-awouldbehipster

I would agree...up to the point where I was accused of fabricating views/opinions/discussions. In essence, accused of outright lying.

I've enjoyed the conversation--really, I have--but I'm going to bring my involvement to an end here. I've sent a private message to one individual that I believe I have offended in one way or another in the hopes it will prevent future problems. One point of view that I hold strongly is that group cohesion is more important that individual liberty.

I am glad that everyone enjoyed my original email and point.

With metta,
Brian A.J.

Still lost. Oh well.

Brian, I reviewed the comments in this thread and don't fully understand why you feel accused of lying. However, I respect your decision. While I regret that you did not feel welcome here, I wish you the best. Thanks for sharing your points of view.

Jackson

Hi Brian--
While I think it's fair to say your perspective differs in some ways from many of us here, speaking for myself I wasn't offended! I was sincere when I said I value your side of things. I'm glad there are people who pick up the "whole package" of a given tradition to the best of their ability and understanding.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I can comment on my general impressions of the social atmosphere on this forum. I've found it to be really open and friendly, and a place where people with different backgrounds and different practices can share and contrast experiences, stories, practice advice and support, models and theories.

And I've been impressed with how discussions involving very different points of view that might degenerate into flame wars on other forums have actually risen to mutual understanding and growth so far here. I hope you give us a second chance!