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.
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.
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.
I misunderstood and was answering the question how I literally read it; how I saw what Buddhist philosophy was and how it related to Zen. You've misunderstood my perspective though - I can entertain what I believe the object of Buddhism to be without subscribing to it. I may have done Vipassana but I don't believe it to be an answer. I wasn't even looking for answers; it's another experience on the journey (I did get lot's from it though). However, that is what Buddhism - as I understand it - purports to be: the art of living, the middle way and finding balance (through that you find liberation). Zen tries to find that level but does away with the scripture, the individual tries to find it through experience.
> 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.
> 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.
Suppose you say you're practicing and teaching mathematics but you cannot tell me what mathematics is. How can I trust that you know anything about what you are teaching?
> 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.
The burden of proof is on the person who says that something exists, not the person who says that they have not yet found evidence of the thing's existence. If you have some evidence in your life quality that meditation has helped you, we should confirm what the concrete benefit is. No one can speak about what they do not know, and only those who do not know are silent in the face of a fair question. Over time, as I get to know you and see how you live, I get to confirm that if you cannot show proof of what you claim is inside you then it means you are telling untruth.
> 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?
What I claim here is that there is a huge difference between the practice of meditation that people are learning and teaching in modern times, and the specifics of the method of self-reflection that Gautama Buddha guided his disciples to make efforts to undergo. However, I don't know you yet, and it would be a mistake of mine to share his real teaching with you if I don't confirm how genuine you are.
> 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.
To be clear, no, I do not mean that meditation is not sufficient by itself. I mean that meditation is not something that makes you closer to Enlightenment. Enlightenment has very strict preconditions and meditation is not a teaching that you can practice which helps you fulfill those conditions.
Your usage of the term 'nirvana' is interesting. I would like to mention to you that the term 'nirvana' is only misunderstood by modern Buddhists to mean 'cessation of rebirth'. If Buddha taught 'cessation of rebirth' then he was teaching the way that people can die forever. However, that is not what a Buddha teaches people. He taught people to save themselves and to live well. He taught how to bless your endless future lives through what exists in reality. That's why there's a big difference between the upward socioeconomic mobility of someone who learned Buddha's teachings correctly versus someone who didn't. However, a big problem is the fact that it's impossible for people who are untruthful to understand Buddha's teaching. They cannot recognize it due to their lack of virtue and they discard it easily. So I would like to see how you respond before telling you more.
> Suppose you say you're practicing and teaching mathematics but you cannot tell me what mathematics is. How can I trust that you know anything about what you are teaching?
That is perfectly fine. But it does not prove anything remotely close to what you stated.
> The burden of proof is on the person who says that something exists, not the person who says that they have not yet found evidence of the thing's existence.
Now you are just being difficult. I did not ask you to prove anything. I said I was curious as to why you believe it is not way to solve problems, in the face of a huge number of people who have practical experience saying it is.
> If you have some evidence in your life quality that meditation has helped you, we should confirm what the concrete benefit is.
A concrete benefit is reduced stress levels. And this is a concrete benefit that has had plenty of research to confirm it.
> What I claim here is that there is a huge difference between the practice of meditation that people are learning and teaching in modern times, and the specifics of the method of self-reflection that Gautama Buddha guided his disciples to make efforts to undergo.
This is a very different claim from what you made earlier.
> However, I don't know you yet, and it would be a mistake of mine to share his real teaching with you if I don't confirm how genuine you are.
This is just pure, utter bullshit.
> To be clear, no, I do not mean that meditation is not sufficient by itself. I mean that meditation is not something that makes you closer to Enlightenment. Enlightenment has very strict preconditions and meditation is not a teaching that you can practice which helps you fulfill those conditions.
This was not the claim I was responding to. I was responding to your specific claim that Gautama Buddha did not teach that meditation is the way to enlightenment. This was also the entirety of the context for my use of the term "nirvana". If you have other beliefs with respect to what enlightenment and nirvana means, that's an entirely different subject. While I practice meditation, my interest in Buddhism beyond that is one of a general interest in philosophy - I'm not a Buddhist.
> So I would like to see how you respond before telling you more.
I did not ask you to tell me more, I questioned specific claims you made that to me directly disagree with facts, and you avoided answering the questions as best you can. That to me tells me I'd waste my time listening to anything more.
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.