Buddhism Psychology or Religion

[steve_bank]

There are plenty of metaphors for psychology in Buddhism. Monkey mind is that chattering screeching monkey inside always trying to figure a way out of its cage. Trying to get out and swing from thought to thought.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_monk
Mind monkey or monkey mind, from Chinese xinyuan and Sino-Japanese shin'en 心猿 [lit. "heart-/mind-monkey"], is a Buddhist term meaning "unsettled; restless; capricious; whimsical; fanciful; inconstant; confused; indecisive; uncontrollable". In addition to Buddhist writings, including Chan or Zen, Consciousness-only, Pure Land, and Shingon, this "mind-monkey" psychological metaphor was adopted in Taoism, Neo-Confucianism, poetry, drama, and literature. "Mind-monkey" occurs in two reversible four-character idioms with yima or iba 意馬 [lit. "thought-/will-horse"], most frequently used in Chinese xinyuanyima 心猿意馬 and Japanese ibashin'en 意馬心猿. The "Monkey King" Sun Wukong in the Journey to the West personifies the mind-monkey. Note that much of the following summarizes Carr (1993).

https://www.pocketmindfulness.com/understanding-monkey-mind-live-harmony-mental-companion/
You might imagine that each thought is a branch, and you, or at least the attention of your conscious mind, is indeed a monkey, swinging from thought-branch to thought-branch all day long.

This might sound like it might be fun, but in our troubled human way the thoughts that are often in our minds are concerned with the fears and pressures of life:

What will happen if I lose my job? I wonder if my partner might be unhappy with our relationship?

What if I don’t have enough money when I retire?

Irrational fears perhaps, but made real by our own constant attention. How infuriating and exhausting it becomes.

The Buddha, who coined the word some two and a half millennia ago, termed this mental state “Kapicitta.”

Of course, he defined it best when he said; ‘Just as a monkey swinging through the trees grabs one branch and lets it go only to seize another, so too, that which is called thought, mind or consciousness arises and disappears continually both day and night

 

[Politesse]

All religions include mental and emotional disciplines. Separating spirituality from secular psychology is a relatively recent phenomenon. Before James and Freud, even Europeans got whatever psychological care and healing they received from practitioners of the supernatural.

 

[ronburgundy]

All religions include mental and emotional disciplines.

True, but in theistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) the foundation of those disciplines are a focus upon, obedience to, and worship of an authoritarian God. Buddhism is largely non-theistic. Thus, most of it's perspectives aimed at improving one's outlook and state of mind do not require supernatural assumptions. This, makes it's psycho-therapeutic aspects more distinct from it's religious aspects than with the Abraham religions or even polytheistic religions like Hinduism. That said, there are supernatural aspects of Buddhism, including reincarnation and Karma. Although, a "spirit" that is always tethered to a physical body is less supernatural than the immaterial God and soul assumed by theistic religions. Also, without a theistic foundation, the supernatural aspects of Buddhism are easier to ignore and dispense with while still retaining most of what it says about how to achieve happiness, which is what most Westeners do when adopting Buddhism (or Taoism and Zen).

 

[Angry Floof]

I consider it more accurate to call Buddhism a philosophy because a, it's relevant to everyday human experience, and b, it's about questioning and self awareness.

Much of what we call religion in the world is quite the opposite, offering answers rather than encouraging questioning, and in fact, often punishing questioning, and it's often irrelevant to everyday human experience. Some of that is old metaphors that either no longer apply in a modern world, or could apply if not for the religious impulse to believe metaphors literally.

Buddhism teaches that we're all basically made of the same stuff, that suffering applies to all of us, that anyone can inquire into their own nature without regard to anything else they've been taught. All of which is antithesis to a lot of other ideologies, such as Islam and Christianity, that go out of their way to divide people into different values of human, sometimes based in nationality or ethnicity or other religions, but most strongly in the "us vs. everybody else" sense. In Christianity, that's "saved or not saved." In Islam, it's more simply put as Muslim or not Muslim. And both strongly discourage questioning into one's own nature without regard to what their damn scriptures say.

Buddhism is antithesis to Abrahamic religions, and some others like scientology, that reinforce conformity to an authoritative body of teachings and an ideological identity and that discourage and punish metathought, introspection, or questioning of the authority figure or text.

Much more can be said on this topic, but I think this is the most fundamental area of difference.

 

[steve_bank]

Psychology is about self awareness and experience. What is self?

Atman is an eastern theory of self.

In Buddhism living what is defined as the right way is not a glorification of a deity. It is about feeling good and being healthy in a chaotic world. There are no devils, evil spirits, or a Satan to do battle with. The battle is within.

Most Christians will not see it, the battle with evil as an external devil or Satan can be seen as metaphor for the human internal struggle.

 

[bilby]

Meh. It's a religion. Complete with suicide bombers and other terrorists.

Given the history, it's most probable that the Sri Lankan church bombings this weekend are down to Buddhist extremists.

Philosophy is all very well, but to kill blameless strangers takes religion.

 

[rousseau]

It depends on how you define religion. More broadly, belief systems about metaphysics and human nature are about transcendence. In that frame of reference 'religions' are what's happened as people have explored metaphysical possibilities.

1. God exists and we need to transcend our earthly limitations to reach heaven
2. Many Gods exist and we need to appease all of them to change our luck
3. No Gods exist and we're better off focusing on our material behavior to overcome suffering

So when you tie up religion with transcendence then Buddhism is certainly a religion, it's just that people in the Western world have had religion constantly contextualized with theism.

From that point forward it looks more like psychology because it attempts to deal with reality as it is, rather than making presumptions and arbitrary rules about God.

 

[fromderinside]

Religion. Any belief that uses something one can thump.

 

[steve_bank]

American Buddhists seem a bit aloof and unaware. Buddhist cultures do have a history of violence. In Myanmar today the dominate Buddhist culture is enacting an ethnic cleansing forcing a minority out to Bangladesh.

There are other examples in modern history.

I like to think it is not what you believe, it is how you believe it.

 

[ronburgundy]

American Buddhists seem a bit aloof and unaware. Buddhist cultures do have a history of violence. In Myanmar today the dominate Buddhist culture is enacting an ethnic cleansing forcing a minority out to Bangladesh.

There are other examples in modern history.

I like to think it is not what you believe, it is how you believe it.

There is violence that is promoted, enabled, and thus increased by the content of beliefs, then there is violence committed by people who happen to hold a set of ideas but has no connection to those beliefs or is even against them.

When what you believe in is an intolerant authoritarian God who has committed and commands his followers to commit murder and genocide against non-believers and those who disobey his will, then, it doesn't matter "how" you believe that. Such beliefs inherently promote intolerance and are supportive of violence against others for their beliefs. And that is what all adherents to Abrahamic religions believe, unless they disregard the Bible and the Koran as being lies and complete misrepresentations of God. The old "it's a metaphor" excuse doesn't change the explicit promotion of authoritarian violence throughout these texts.

This is in stark contrast to the content of Buddhist doctrines where there is no God to whom obedience is the definition of morality and disobedience is a justification for punishment. In fact, there isn't a concept of "infidels" or hardly any mention of non-followers b/c every person is thought to be on their own path and each differs in where they are toward enlightenment. The Buddhist doctrines strongly and repeatedly denounce violence or anything that increases suffering, including insulting speech. I'v seen articles by anthropologists who study texts, concluding that there is nothing in canonical writings of Buddhism that could be interpreted as encouraging violence, and killing is forbidden even to protect one's own life or even killing of any animal for food.

IOW, if you believe in the God of Abraham and give priority to either the Bible or Koran, you must concoct incoherent and internally contradictory excuses NOT to view violence against the disobedient as morally required let alone acceptable. Whereas, if you are Buddhist and defer to it's canonical writings, you must concoct incoherent and internally contradictory excuses to view an violence against others for any reason to be acceptable.

The violence against the Rohingya in Myanmar is mostly by the government and military and supported by nationalistic sentiments against a group that does not have citizenship and is thus viewed as immigrants. Notice the absence of references to Buddhist teachings by those committing the violence, b/c there is nothing they could point to that is consistent with that violence. This is similar to other instances of sectarian violence by Buddhists. Simply being a member of a group, tends to make one more aggressive towards those who belong to other groups. I mean even sports fans engage in violence against fans of the other team.

Buddhist are humans and thus subject to intolerance and violence, and hypocrisy. But when they do so, they go against the clear teachings of their religion, unlike the adherents of Abrahamic religions who can easily and often do point to the clear commands of their doctrines that not only allow but require intolerance and violence (Note, one command not to kill in the Bible doesn't outweigh the numerous instances where God or his followers killed or commanded violence to infidels).

 

[fromderinside]

.....

Buddhist are humans and thus subject to intolerance and violence, and hypocrisy. But when they do so, they go against the clear teachings of their religion, unlike the adherents of Abrahamic religions who can easily and often do point to the clear commands of their doctrines that not only allow but require intolerance and violence (Note, one command not to kill in the Bible doesn't outweigh the numerous instances where God or his followers killed or commanded violence to infidels).

Oooh. Give Buddhist racists a pass because they look so good in orange. Buddhists in Myanmar practice reflects their understanding of their faith in the context of race. Period.

As we're beginning to understand here in the US tribe Trumps - meant to be - faith.

 

[ronburgundy]

.....

Buddhist are humans and thus subject to intolerance and violence, and hypocrisy. But when they do so, they go against the clear teachings of their religion, unlike the adherents of Abrahamic religions who can easily and often do point to the clear commands of their doctrines that not only allow but require intolerance and violence (Note, one command not to kill in the Bible doesn't outweigh the numerous instances where God or his followers killed or commanded violence to infidels).

Oooh. Give Buddhist racists a pass because they look so good in orange. Buddhists in Myanmar practice reflects their understanding of their faith in the context of race. Period.

As we're beginning to understand here in the US tribe Trumps - meant to be - faith.

It' isn't giving anyone a pass. It has nothing to do with the degree of morality of their actions. It's about making a rational assessment about the causal role that the content of their religious beliefs are playing. There is a clear, direct, logical, and psychological causal link between belief in and worship of an authoritarian God assumed to have killed many times for disobedience and violence of believers in that God against non-believers. Take any person in any context and instill those beliefs in them, and their probability of violence will increase. There is no such connection between the content of Buddhist doctrines and violence of it's adherents, and in fact, there is a negative logical and psychological connection between those beliefs and acts of violence. Which means, the actual ideas and content of those Buddhist beliefs are not likely playing any causal role in the acts of violence. In fact, if anything they are likely causing the violence to be less than it otherwise would be in that context.

Yes, "Tribe" matters, regardless of the content of one's beliefs. IOW, belief content can have it's causal role, but mere tribal association has a separate influence on violence. That's the point. Once Buddhists come to identify as part of an ingroup with an outgroup enemy, then outgroup violence is made more likely, even without the content of the beliefs enabling it. But when belief content strongly encourages violence (as it inherently does in authoritarian monotheism), then the problem of outgroup violence is compounded.

 

[DBT]

For my two Bobs worth, Buddhism is essentially a philosophy with various sets of religious beliefs forming around the core teachings.

 

[DrZoidberg]

All religions include mental and emotional disciplines.

True, but in theistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) the foundation of those disciplines are a focus upon, obedience to, and worship of an authoritarian God. Buddhism is largely non-theistic. Thus, most of it's perspectives aimed at improving one's outlook and state of mind do not require supernatural assumptions. This, makes it's psycho-therapeutic aspects more distinct from it's religious aspects than with the Abraham religions or even polytheistic religions like Hinduism. That said, there are supernatural aspects of Buddhism, including reincarnation and Karma. Although, a "spirit" that is always tethered to a physical body is less supernatural than the immaterial God and soul assumed by theistic religions. Also, without a theistic foundation, the supernatural aspects of Buddhism are easier to ignore and dispense with while still retaining most of what it says about how to achieve happiness, which is what most Westeners do when adopting Buddhism (or Taoism and Zen).

Meditation is meditation. Christians all pray to God, ie silent introspection. So it qualifies as also being a spiritual practice.

 

[fromderinside]

.....

Buddhist are humans and thus subject to intolerance and violence, and hypocrisy. But when they do so, they go against the clear teachings of their religion, unlike the adherents of Abrahamic religions who can easily and often do point to the clear commands of their doctrines that not only allow but require intolerance and violence (Note, one command not to kill in the Bible doesn't outweigh the numerous instances where God or his followers killed or commanded violence to infidels).

Oooh. Give Buddhist racists a pass because they look so good in orange. Buddhists in Myanmar practice reflects their understanding of their faith in the context of race. Period.

As we're beginning to understand here in the US tribe Trumps - meant to be - faith.

It' isn't giving anyone a pass. It has nothing to do with the degree of morality of their actions. It's about making a rational assessment about the causal role that the content of their religious beliefs are playing. There is a clear, direct, logical, and psychological causal link between belief in and worship of an authoritarian God assumed to have killed many times for disobedience and violence of believers in that God against non-believers. Take any person in any context and instill those beliefs in them, and their probability of violence will increase. There is no such connection between the content of Buddhist doctrines and violence of it's adherents, and in fact, there is a negative logical and psychological connection between those beliefs and acts of violence. Which means, the actual ideas and content of those Buddhist beliefs are not likely playing any causal role in the acts of violence. In fact, if anything they are likely causing the violence to be less than it otherwise would be in that context.

Yes, "Tribe" matters, regardless of the content of one's beliefs. IOW, belief content can have it's causal role, but mere tribal association has a separate influence on violence. That's the point. Once Buddhists come to identify as part of an ingroup with an outgroup enemy, then outgroup violence is made more likely, even without the content of the beliefs enabling it. But when belief content strongly encourages violence (as it inherently does in authoritarian monotheism), then the problem of outgroup violence is compounded.

Twp quick points. One: Buddhism emerges from societies that are both structured and structured by subservience. In such societies one doesn't often see uprisings and when one does see them there they are usually non-violent. So buddhism arises and applies to special circumstances. Two: When there are two competing faiths, one arising from militant tribes militant and the other arising from a subservient one must pull analysis from the tribes in which those modes exist rather than compare religions.

Trying to parse in defence of a religion or a philosophy where this thread is least suited to address stretches one's analysis all out of shape and consistency as you so aptly demonstrate.

Militancy exists as a fundamental element in tribalism whereas it is a pick and choose aspect of religions.

 

[ronburgundy]

All religions include mental and emotional disciplines.

True, but in theistic religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam) the foundation of those disciplines are a focus upon, obedience to, and worship of an authoritarian God. Buddhism is largely non-theistic. Thus, most of it's perspectives aimed at improving one's outlook and state of mind do not require supernatural assumptions. This, makes it's psycho-therapeutic aspects more distinct from it's religious aspects than with the Abraham religions or even polytheistic religions like Hinduism. That said, there are supernatural aspects of Buddhism, including reincarnation and Karma. Although, a "spirit" that is always tethered to a physical body is less supernatural than the immaterial God and soul assumed by theistic religions. Also, without a theistic foundation, the supernatural aspects of Buddhism are easier to ignore and dispense with while still retaining most of what it says about how to achieve happiness, which is what most Westeners do when adopting Buddhism (or Taoism and Zen).

Meditation is meditation. Christians all pray to God, ie silent introspection. So it qualifies as also being a spiritual practice.

Which is about as useful as saying "Matter is matter, so there is no point is making any distinctions among different forms of it."
Most theistic prayer is not actually meditation in any meaningful sense. It is more similar to begging your daddy for something, and is an external focus upon a supernatural deity the lacks the quiet introspection of Buddhist prayer that has no supernatural. In most ways the two are the exact opposite of each other. So, if they are both "spiritual", then that just reveals how completely meaningless the word "spiritual" is.

 

[fromderinside]

When it comes to establishing a calming state; one where heart, breathing, and activity are at minimum other than when sleeping, meditation and prayer are equivalent. Hell we demonstrated that in our labs in the '70s when we researched tools useful for repose, DMR, etc. and found drugs, alpha generation, hypnosis, and meditation and prayer all similar in those regards we we went about setting up relaxation therapy labs. Yes we unofficially included marijuana in those studies.

In conclusion through the experimental method in psychology we established the equivalence between prayer and meditation. So on that plane buddhism and other organized religions that include prayer are similar to each other and different from psychology. The objective link is critical.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Meditation is meditation. Christians all pray to God, ie silent introspection. So it qualifies as also being a spiritual practice.

Which is about as useful as saying "Matter is matter, so there is no point is making any distinctions among different forms of it."
Most theistic prayer is not actually meditation in any meaningful sense. It is more similar to begging your daddy for something, and is an external focus upon a supernatural deity the lacks the quiet introspection of Buddhist prayer that has no supernatural. In most ways the two are the exact opposite of each other. So, if they are both "spiritual", then that just reveals how completely meaningless the word "spiritual" is.

To ask God for stuff you have to peer inwards and figure out what is important to you. That's the important bit. Asking God for it isn't the secret sauce. So I think that qualifies as a spiritual practice. While other forms might be better. This isn't worthless IMHO.

 

[rousseau]

Meditation is meditation. Christians all pray to God, ie silent introspection. So it qualifies as also being a spiritual practice.

Which is about as useful as saying "Matter is matter, so there is no point is making any distinctions among different forms of it."
Most theistic prayer is not actually meditation in any meaningful sense. It is more similar to begging your daddy for something, and is an external focus upon a supernatural deity the lacks the quiet introspection of Buddhist prayer that has no supernatural. In most ways the two are the exact opposite of each other. So, if they are both "spiritual", then that just reveals how completely meaningless the word "spiritual" is.

To ask God for stuff you have to peer inwards and figure out what is important to you. That's the important bit. Asking God for it isn't the secret sauce. So I think that qualifies as a spiritual practice. While other forms might be better. This isn't worthless IMHO.

He does have a point, though.

In Abrahamic religions there is a tendency to push responsibility away from ones self, 'no matter what happens this is a part of God's plan'. So looking inward but then asking God for help implies a kind of delusion. Where, conversely, in something like Buddhism the person meditating is only looking to themselves for guidance.

Broadly speaking, they're both spiritual practices, but one of them is slightly more grounded in reality.

 

[Politesse]

To ask God for stuff you have to peer inwards and figure out what is important to you. That's the important bit. Asking God for it isn't the secret sauce. So I think that qualifies as a spiritual practice. While other forms might be better. This isn't worthless IMHO.

He does have a point, though.

In Abrahamic religions there is a tendency to push responsibility away from ones self, 'no matter what happens this is a part of God's plan'. So looking inward but then asking God for help implies a kind of delusion. Where, conversely, in something like Buddhism the person meditating is only looking to themselves for guidance.

Ah, the general Buddhist perspective is that self does not, in fact, exist.