Talk:Buddhist philosophy

I just wanted to thank the anonymous person who wrote this excellent start of an article on Buddhist philosophy. --Larry Sanger

I think that something about philosophy of Zen and other non-traditional Buddhist sects should be written. Taw

Many philosophers of Zen would maintain that Zen is anti-philosophy.  :-)

I would like to see something about commonly practiced forms of Buddhism, such as Nichiren Buddhism, Tendai and Nembutsu. [bddougie]

(Nichiren Buddhism, Tendai Buddhism, Nembutsu Buddhism).

To my knowledge, the Buddha clearly states in the Pali Suttas that there is no self or soul (anatta). - Clive

Recent edits

I just made some pretty sweeping changes; the existing description was questionable on several points and vague on most, and I did my best to make clear some of the basic issues. However, this is still massively underdeveloped.कुक्कुरोवाच

Round Two

Deleted a sentence saying the Buddha began from the Upanishadic position on the unity of the atman and Brahman, and the desirability of escape from samsara, because (1) Early Buddhism does not reject the ultimate desirability of samsara, and (2) as I learned it, the Buddha's teachers were likelier Samkhyans then advaitins, (3) I'm not at all sure that the Upanishads are what the Buddha was rejecting, since they were largely being formulated around the same time, as I recall, and wouldn't be totally canonical yet. This is not to say that the Buddha doesn't reject them, of course, but that's covered under saying he rejects metaphysical being.

I'm moving the pratitya-samutpada section into metaphysics and phenomenology where it belongs; causation is not a problem of logic in Indian philosophy, it is a problem of metaphysics, and, in Buddhism, a problem of psychology or phenomenology.कुक्कुरोवाच 21:07, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Explanation of revert

I thought the deleted paragraph had some value in its original form. I didn't find it to be particularly trite. Also, I think "non-theistic" is better than "atheistic". "Atheism", as people often use it and as W'pedia defines it, seems to rule out a "middle way" balancing act. In conclusion, please allow me to say that I think the paragraph's last sentence preeemptively expresses Kukku's concerns about a tendentious definition of religion. That's all, thank you. - Nat Krause 04:19, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am happier with non-theistic than with atheistic; however, I do object to having a pragraph that's so problematic that it has to conclude with a disclaimer that it may be moot before we ever get to what the article is actually about. I suggest that that paragraph be moved somewhere less obtrusive in the body of the article. -- कुक्कुरोवाच|Talk‽ 04:35, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I reworded the paragrpaph and put back in the fact that many; including some prominent Buddhists describe much of Buddhism as atheistic, this is a matter of fact not POV. Here are some sources:

The prominent British Buddhist Christmas Humphreys (also a prominent judge) in "Buddhism"(1954). C.H. was President of the Buddhist Society, London, from it's foundation in 1924 for 30 years. On page 79 under the title "No God, No Soul" he writes "As between the theist and atheist positions, Buddhism is atheist".

"The Varieties of Religious Experience", William James pg 50: "the Buddha himself stands in place of a God; but in strictness the Buddhistic system is atheistic".

--Nick-in-South-Africa 07:25, 22 Jun 2004 (UTC)