Is Buddhism a process theology?

[Ozzie]

Quoting Willamena's thread OP in the Philosophy section:

"Everything exists in this moment (now). This moment is the basis of all creation. The universe wasn't created the Biblical six thousand years ago or even the scientific fifteen billion. The universe is created right now and right now it disappears. Before you even have time to recognize its existence, it's gone forever. Yet the present moment penetrates all of time and space. In Dogen's words, 'What is happening here and now is obstructed by happening itself; it has sprung free from the brains of happening.'
In other words, we can't know the present in the usual sense because the present is obscured by the present itself and by the act of perceiving it and conceiving of it. Form meets emptiness here and now and all of creation blossoms into being."
~Brad Warner on Dogen's teachings

Do you agree with Brad Warner's consciousness-centred interpretation of reality? Why or why not?

My response to the OP.

"Everything exists in this moment (now). This moment is the basis of all creation. The universe wasn't created the Biblical six thousand years ago or even the scientific fifteen billion. The universe is created right now and right now it disappears. Before you even have time to recognize its existence, it's gone forever.

This bit sits well with a Buddhist concept of reality.

Yet the present moment penetrates all of time and space.

This is an important insight that contradicts Buddhist notions of time and space.

In Dogen's words, 'What is happening here and now is obstructed by happening itself; it has sprung free from the brains of happening.'

This is an intellectual explanation of the contradiction that appears from the two previous parts.

In other words, we can't know the present in the usual sense because the present is obscured by the present itself and by the act of pe rceiving it and conceiving of it. Form meets emptiness here and now and all of creation blossoms into being."

This is a conclusion drawn from the paradox formed then described earlier

Do you agree with Brad Warner's consciousness-centred interpretation of reality? Why or why not?

Brad's interpretation describes a human cognitive limitation of ordinary consciousness.


END



Willamena's OP raises the question whether Buddhism is a process rather than intellectual theology.

Buddhism does describe a process IMO

Does it describe a process that is subconscious?

Do other theologies describe conscious systems of belief that are theory driven?

To what extent is Buddhism theory driven?

Is the paradox between process and static models of religion/consciousness resolvable?

Or is a better explanation of divergence between Buddhist and other models of consciousness based on a process v intellectual model?

How do you as a Buddhist resolve the problem of bringing insights obtained from Buddhist practice into the reality of daily living?

 

[Engyo]

Buddhism is a practice philosophy (NOT Theology). There is a process involved, but that process is driven by practice. As Nichiren said, "Without practice and study there is no Buddhism."

I don't have any problem bringing the insights obtained by practice into the reality of my daily life - they are a part of my life. They aren't theories that have happened to someone else that I must process - the processing takes place as a result of my practice and the insights are the fully processed results of that practice. They are already a part of me - of my understanding, my outlook and my way of relating to the world. Once the insight is obtained it is already processed - it is fully available, and choices and actions are colored by that insight. It is probably harder to ignore that insight and choose NOT to use it; this sometimes does occur when emotion takes momentary control, but over time that also becomes less and less of a problem.

 

[Ozzie]

Buddhism is a practice philosophy (NOT Theology). There is a process involved, but that process is driven by practice. As Nichiren said, "Without practice and study there is no Buddhism."

I don't have any problem bringing the insights obtained by practice into the reality of my daily life - they are a part of my life. They aren't theories that have happened to someone else that I must process - the processing takes place as a result of my practice and the insights are the fully processed results of that practice. They are already a part of me - of my understanding, my outlook and my way of relating to the world. Once the insight is obtained it is already processed - it is fully available, and choices and actions are colored by that insight. It is probably harder to ignore that insight and choose NOT to use it; this sometimes does occur when emotion takes momentary control, but over time that also becomes less and less of a problem.

I think Buddhism is ill-served by the label of philosophy. This sets up the argument of it being either religion or philosophy.

 

[Engyo]

OK - I went with philosophy as opposed to theology. Let's say it's a practice-based religion, then.

 

[Willamena]

I think Buddhism is ill-served by the label of philosophy. This sets up the argument of it being either religion or philosophy.

How so? What distinguishes Buddhism as a religion from Buddhism as a philosophy in your eyes?

 

[Ozzie]

How so? What distinguishes Buddhism as a religion from Buddhism as a philosophy in your eyes?

If I was to answer your question in religion v philosophy terms I would fall into a trap.

Buddhism describes a process. Its interpretation is theological when discussed. As Enygo says, Buddhism may be acted out but this is entirely personal. Buddhism is better interpreted as religious process than as a philosophical pyramid built on sound foundations.

 

[astarath]

Merely because something has a process does not make it any less a religion I do not comprehend this argument pleas to be explain

 

[lilithu]

This is an important insight that contradicts Buddhist notions of time and space.

It does? If all of existence is interdependent, then it is interdependent throughout space and time. This has certainly been my experience during those brief moments of awakening.

Willamena's OP raises the question whether Buddhism is a process rather than intellectual theology.

Buddhism does describe a process IMO

The term "process theology" usually means something rather specific - the view of reality as put forth by philosophers and theologians such as Alfred Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. That doesn't seem to be what you're referring to?

Buddhism is empirical. There is a "theory" behind it, but it is based on one's own direct experience having put its theories into practice. Theory is secondary to practice. The Buddha said so himself in the Kalama sutta.

 

[Random]

I have no problem viewing Buddhism both as a process theology and a religious philosophy. @ a certain level, every process involves some theology and every religion some philosophy. Any other conclusion is semantic.

Goddess Tara and Amitabha Buddha are given godly worship every day in the Buddhist "faith".

 

[Engyo]

Goddess Tara and Amitabha Buddha are given godly worship every day in the Buddhist "faith".

Random -

True - and I suppose all of us practicing Buddhists first consider how things are done in our own practice, only distantly remembering that there are other Buddhists who do things very differently.

 

[Random]

True - and I suppose all of us practicing Buddhists first consider how things are done in our own practice, only distantly remembering that there are other Buddhists who do things very differently.

Of course all methods of observance in Buddhism are not the same for all practitioners, I understand that. But I think it's great that Buddha's are revered in this way!

 

[Ozzie]

It does? If all of existence is interdependent, then it is interdependent throughout space and time. This has certainly been my experience during those brief moments of awakening.

Sure there is interdependence through chains of causation etc. But why should the present moment last forever, as it does in a memory. I'm not sure how Buddhism deals with memory if all phenomena arise and pass away. The rest of human mental life is fleeting and seems to fit with Buddhism.

The term "process theology" usually means something rather specific - the view of reality as put forth by philosophers and theologians such as Alfred Whitehead and Charles Hartshorne. That doesn't seem to be what you're referring to?

I wasn't sure what you were referring to either so I looked it up.

These bit from the Wiki site are interesting.:

Charles Hartshorne believes that people do not experience subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have objectiveimmortality because their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was. Others believe that people do have subjective experience after bodily death.

I think Hartshorne's belief is Buddhist if God is identical with the universe (and your comments about interrelatedness are contained by this belief).

Buddhism is empirical. There is a "theory" behind it, but it is based on one's own direct experience having put its theories into practice. Theory is secondary to practice. The Buddha said so himself in the Kalama sutta.

You cannot experience a theory. You can only experience a practice/method. Buddhist is actually a perfect opportunity to test and potentially falsify theories through observation, which is why I think it is scientific.

 

[lilithu]

Sure there is interdependence through chains of causation etc. But why should the present moment last forever, as it does in a memory. I'm not sure how Buddhism deals with memory if all phenomena arise and pass away. The rest of human mental life is fleeting and seems to fit with Buddhism.

I wasn't sure what you were referring to either so I looked it up.

These bit from the Wiki site are interesting.:
Charles Hartshorne believes that people do not experience subjective (or personal) immortality, but they do have objective immortality because their experiences live on forever in God, who contains all that was.

I think Hartshorne's belief is Buddhist if God is identical with the universe (and your comments about interrelatedness are contained by this belief).

Which brings us back to "time," and what we perceive as the present being linked to what we perceive as the past and future. In the suttas there is reference to the Buddha being able to see into the past and future. Initially I had trouble with such references as I took them to be "supernatural" but having had a tiny glimpse of "temporal interdependency," I now think that there is nothing "supernatural" about it. The Buddha, because he was fully awakened and could see all conditions as they arise and pass away, could indeed see that so-and-so had done something in a previous life that would affect him now as karma came to fruition, or that such-and-such was a "stream-enterer" and would attain enlightenment within a couple of lifetimes.

 

[Ozzie]

Which brings us back to "time," and what we perceive as the present being linked to what we perceive as the past and future. In the suttas there is reference to the Buddha being able to see into the past and future. Initially I had trouble with such references as I took them to be "supernatural" but having had a tiny glimpse of "temporal interdependency," I now think that there is nothing "supernatural" about it. The Buddha, because he was fully awakened and could see all conditions as they arise and pass away, could indeed see that so-and-so had done something in a previous life that would affect him now as karma came to fruition, or that such-and-such was a "stream-enterer" and would attain enlightenment within a couple of lifetimes.

I don't think it detracts from the Buddha as an "all-knowing" individual one iota whether or not he had the ability to see into the past or future so long as he could perceive the present as it is. If he could do that, then he could indeed see the future and the past as a process.

Time held no relevance for the Buddha. Or did it?

What do the teachings say about that?

 

[lilithu]

I don't think it detracts from the Buddha as an "all-knowing" individual one iota whether or not he had the ability to see into the past or future so long as he could perceive the present as it is. If he could do that, then he could indeed see the future and the past as a process.

Time held no relevance for the Buddha. Or did it?

What do the teachings say about that?

Whether or not it detracts, what I'm saying is that I can see how he could do it.

Why should time hold relevance for someone who is Unconditioned? But for the rest of us who are conditioned beings, time is of the essence, as we only have a limited amount in order to achieve Enlightenment. I don't quite understand why, but Buddhism has a stronger sense of urgency than Hinduism, where, if you don't make it in this life, eh, there's always the next.

 

[vandervalley]

Time held no relevance for the Buddha. Or did it?

What do the teachings say about that?

well in Buddhism time is important; Buddha said a person's life is between breaths. One may be breathing right at this moment but there is no guarantee that he/she will be breathing in the next millisecond. So in Buddhism it is important to know that life is short and there isn't much time to attain elightenment and break this suffering of death and rebirth.

 

[zenzero]

Engyo,
Your understanding of Buddhism is perfect but note that the basis of any discussion comes from the very MIND itself which is opposed to the state of no-mind of buddhism. The mind is the very trap and all answeres to questions coming and going are all from the same root.
The circle will continue.
Is it correct? is it wrong?
Again the two sides taken by the mind.
either are not real.
All essential questions are also answered by existence itself and that itself is MEDITATION the very practice that leads each individual towards the universal.
Love & rgds

 

[Engyo]

Zenzero -

Please continue practicing your Path towards enlightenment, and I will continue to practice mine. We will both be successful eventually.

 

[Ozzie]

Zenzero -

Please continue practicing your Path towards enlightenment, and I will continue to practice mine. We will both be successful eventually.

Jeez that was diplomatic. frubals.

 

[zenzero]

hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
No doubt that each being will ultimatly reach THERE.
Love & rgds