I'm convinced senpai can't answer my questions... so I'd put in
more effort... as per your request.
Your post 13 July 9:57pm: ... For the next
45 years, he taught the ‘Truth’ and developed precepts, moral
values, existential insights, spiritual practices
through discussions...
According to you, the Buddha taught spiritual practises... Which
philosophy embraces spiritual practices? If Buddha did not require
spiritual practices to attain enlightenment, would he teach it? Or
did he think that only the common man requires it?
Your post 15 July 7:13am: "While I do agree that theory without practice is
of little use and emphasis should be on practice rather than just
knowledge and no application, I cannot
see why
this emphasis should disqualify Buddhism
as a ‘philosophy to begin with’...
Buddhism is not a theory, its a way of life. No application of
knowledge = not applying to the way of life. Cherry picking is not
the way of the Buddhism as it was originally intended. The
teachings must always apply to self's life to attain the desired
effect or suffer a reset in certain cultivation. No action = no
work done.
It doesn't matter what definitions philosophy or religion are.
Its meaningless to subject Buddhism to any or any meaning to the
categories. What prompts me to respond to you is your expressions
of bias to your own definition of "religions", effectively
discriminating all the others that you think is under that
category, when its without a doubt you don't know enough of them to
even compare. Perhaps I have not the wisdom to correct, the wisdom
to know when to correct or otherwise.
::: Kouhai humbly goes back to lurking :::
hahaha, finally the empty head decided to fill it
with more MUD-dle and convinced himself I am not able to
answer. Wow, he is full of himself, not
half-empty.
So I see you have pickle-pick a cherry and make a
spirit - cherry brandy. From a long list, you highlighted
‘spiritual practice’ only. Spiritual practice means putting into
practise spiritual values such as charity, forgiveness,
etc. Didn’t I say for the next 45yrs he
taught the ‘Truth’ then he developed the precepts, .... ,
etc. That development came after he
formulated the Noble Truths. The ‘Noble
Truths’ was the beginning of Buddhism (Buddha’s teachings) and the
rationale leading
to his search for the ‘Truth’ was why there is birth, ageing, sickness and
death. In other words he was
trying to find why life sucks and a way out of life sucks! That is
PHILOSOPHY.
I have to correct a serious misconception –
spiritual practice alone does not lead to
Enlightenment.
Next you said “Buddhism is not a
theory”. I didn’t say it is a
theory! I said Buddhism began as a
philosophy. The problem is ‘almost’
every Buddhist (you are one of them) seems to think that philosophy
is all theory. Hence, that is why they
do not consider Buddhism a philosophy.
If you have read many Buddhist literatures whether written by
scholars or monks, Buddha’s thoughts/doctrines have been referred
to as Buddhist philosophy many times.
In my post I said that theory without practice is of little use, it
is like knowledge without application.
And I said that even if we place emphasis on practice, it does not
disqualify the fact that Buddhism began as a
philosophy.
So now it dawn on me that your point
is: “It doesn't
matter what definitions philosophy or religion are. Its meaningless
to subject Buddhism to any or any meaning to the
categories.“ In this case, since
it is meaningless, will your argument or disagreement with my
statement be meaningful? In other
words, all your posts were meaningless.
You said: “What
prompts me to respond to you is your expressions of bias to your
own definition of "religions" ….“,
and I submit you were
mistaken. I have not defined religion
or religions at all or in any way, mine or others! If I had, could you extract and
quote?