Eastern philosopy is religion
- Thread starter sigurdV
- Start date
last I checked even religion is under the subheading of philosophy
:shrug:
methinks its just another atheist trying to feather their cap
:shrug:
:shrug:
methinks its just another atheist trying to feather their cap
:shrug:
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Yes, it can be called religion, but it's different enough to merit it's own category.
The OP is on my ignore list, but I made the mistake of clicking on this thread while I wasn't logged in. This thread is clearly an attempt to goad and troll the forum members in that it absurdly claims (sic) "Its an insult to philosophy having them as an underforum to philosophy" (whatever that means???).
Anyone who knows anything about Buddhism would realize that while it can be viewed as a religion, and millions of people will tell you Buddhism is their religion, it is nevertheless a philosophy in which the existence of gods is completely ignored - in its purest, most basic writings. The Buddha never concerned himself with gods.
And if SciForum chooses to place Philosophy and Religion in neighboring categories, why try to stir the pot by claiming someone is insulted? (the poster perhaps is insulted? Seems he doesn't even include himself.)
I would suggest someone report the OP as a troll. For myself, I will go on ignoring him. I only write this post because I am in a bad mood, not having had breakfast yet today. Sorry...
Last edited:
Religion does not necessitate a deity, so I don't know what you hope to accomplish by pointing out that Buddhism "in its purest, most basic writings"
bugeye does not delve into the god question. I really don't agree that it's an "insult" to call these religions "philosophy," because in truth all religion is a kind of proto-philosophy, but I do understand how one can take offense at the contrast the site seems to make. Calling Eastern religions "philosophy" could be construed as a way of legitimizing their beliefs, as opposed to those of Jews, Muslims, or Christians, who are piled (rightly) into the "Religion" subforum.
Then again, it seems SigurdV's complaint is that Eastern Philosophy is no more legitimate than the stuff we call "religion," and as such shouldn't be legitimized. I tend to agree with that, but it's not really anything I'm all that broken up about, either. Still, he's not breaking any rules by expressing his distaste for the site layout.
Yazata
Valued Senior Member
Yeah, to some extent, in some ways, it probably is.
(The same thing is true of a great deal of Western philosophy as well.)
Do you think that a clear distinction exists between philosophy and religion? How would you characterize it?
Why an "insult"? You're making a value judgement there, and it's going to need some justifying and defending.
'Eastern philosophy' posesses no end of valuable philosophical content. It addresses many problems familiar in Western philosphy from unfamiliar and perhaps fruitful directions.
For example, see the SEP article on classical Indian epistemology:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-india/
Indian logic:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-india/
Mind in Buddhist philosophy (an old favorite):
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-indian-buddhism/
This last article notes ('soteriological' means 'relating to salvation'):
Salvation is an eminently religious goal.
We should recognize that ancient Greek philosophy was much closer to Indian philosophy than contemporary 'analytic' philosophy is today.
The Stoics, Skeptics and Epicureans were all teachers of 'eudaimonia', the objectively good life, what they believed was the highest human good. In Hellenistic times that was often thought of as the very-Buddhist-sounding path of equanimity, imperturbability and lack of disfunctional attachments.
Plato's theories about the world of Forms had a religious tone that later Neoplatonism with its mysticism, transcendentalism and theurgy, emphasized and wore on its sleeve.
http://stairs.umd.edu/308m/neoplatonism2.html
The point is that for the Greeks, as for the Indians, philosophy wasn't merely a means of satisfying our idle intellectual curiosity. Philosophy was intended to be a transformative spiritual path, leading its practitioners towards a higher and more satisfactory mode of living.
Of course, which is why philosophy is love of wisdom.
To some people, everything is Greek ...
Why not?
Right View is a part of the Eightfold Path, and Right View is, in intention and in effect, love of wisdom.
What would you like to point out with that?
It's the word "love" when it comes to how Buddhism looks at attaining wisdom that I think is somewhat awkward here. I'm just about to leave work (early) for a little vacation so I don't have time, but I will respond with more next week.
The right view deals with attaining an understanding of truth that brings about an acceptance of the nature of things. I just can't see Sid's recipe for nirvana fitting in with the greek's "love of wisdom". Have a nice weekend, and HAPPY CANADA DAY!
The right view deals with attaining an understanding of truth that brings about an acceptance of the nature of things. I just can't see Sid's recipe for nirvana fitting in with the greek's "love of wisdom". Have a nice weekend, and HAPPY CANADA DAY!
So, you simply define dharma as wisdom?
Wisdom is an important part of the Dharma.
kmguru
Staff member
That means we can not engage in Brain Science or major health needs or chemical vs. surgery? Or that the world is still flat? ...and imported ideas of one place vs. the other...
Oh...well...