Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Being in Buddhism is considered on different levels. The elements of being (dharma) have the following qualities:: they can appear and disappear instantly, and they may or may not form aggregates. Our habitual existence (samsara) continues as long as the elements of being are gathered into five groups or aggregates (skandhas). So, matter is only one of the five groups of elements of being:
That is, psychophysical existence is defined by one group of physical elements and four groups of consciousness elements. These groups are not primary or secondary to each other, but are interdependent. When the elements of being are gathered into these five groups, they become links in the causal process. The result is an individual psychophysical flow that participates in interaction with other flows, is conditioned by causes and is interdependent with other phenomena in the state of existence. The goal of Buddhists is to prevent the formation of these five aggregates of the elements of being at the moment of death. If they come together again, then there will be another incarnation in the form of an unsatisfied being.
Why is it considered harmful in Buddhism to consider existence only as a manifestation of material elements? Because a person seems to lose sight of most of reality. The Buddha said about a person with this attitude of thinking:”he is afraid of what is not worth being afraid of, and he is not afraid of what is worth being afraid of.” And what is there to be afraid of in the opinion of Buddhists? You need to be afraid of incessant dissatisfaction. That is, a person who considers himself, his personality only as a set of material elements, who thinks that at the moment of death and disintegration of the material body, individuality ceases to exist, such a person is mistaken. At the moment of death, 5 groups of elements will break up, but due to the action of karmic laws, they will gather into new five groups in a new form of incarnation. That is, such a deluded person will be like a squirrel in a wheel again and again to return to the next dissatisfaction, will create new problems for himself.
The Buddha criticized radical materialistic views in the Udana Sutta: Spoken from the inspiration of Sanyutta Nikaya 22.55, as well as in several sutras when analyzing the views of Ajita Kesakambali and Gosal Makkhali, the founders of the Ajivika materialist school.
Materialism assumes that matter not only exists objectively, but also plays a major role in the entire world around a person. Many branches of Buddhism generally consider the whole world illusory. But whatever direction of Buddhism you take, everywhere the main role is played by a person's consciousness and its interpretation of the experience they experience. Therefore, Buddhism cannot be called materialistic in any way.
According to Buddhism, any opposition between matter and spirit is illusory, just as the concepts of “matter and spirit” themselves are illusory, and in general any mental isolation of the “individual” from the whole is illusory. Therefore, Buddhism is neither a materialistic nor an idealistic teaching. The point is beyond dualistic thinking, words, labels, and your cliches.
The language does not turn to call Buddhism a materialistic teaching. What kind of materialism is this, if the dharmas are calmed down, and the skandhas are unleashed by psychotechnics, that is, by ideal means, the world is transferred to a state of unmanifestedness, a vacuum? This means that the spiritual is primary and substantial. In this respect, Buddhism is no different from Brahmanism, where the same means, although without a dharmic appendix, achieve the same result, which is called a little differently-Nirguna. At the same time, Brahmanism is preferable, since it is consistently monistic, and Buddhism is clandestinely dualistic.
It is a completely materialistic teaching, but not in the outward signs of the followers who turned Buddhism into a religion, but in the essence of the healthy materialism of the Buddha's Teaching.
If we perceive electricity as energy (not matter) from the position of consciousness located on the lower plane of being, then in comparison with refined types of energy, say subatomic, we will already perceive electricity of the lower plane of being (manifestation) as matter, as a carrier of higher types of energy. This is the idea of dualism, or more precisely the duality of the manifested, as a form-carrier (more materially condensed) and essence-consciousness (more refined forms of matter), which can manifest itself only by “falling” into dense matter, in other words, being incarnated. It is all that is manifested that is matter. As for the Unmanifest (the so-called Absolute), reasoning is superfluous here.
Buddhism – – – “behavior, outlook and meditation”. The basic idea of Buddhism is the existence of a material world inhabited by conscious beings; it asserts that everything is subject to the law of causality, and that everything is constantly, though imperceptibly, changing. This law applies everywhere; therefore, in the general sense of the word, there is neither heaven nor hell.”Power belongs to the one who knows”; it's a very old axiom Knowledge is the first step to which is the ability to understand the truth, valid distinguished from the false—there are only those who, freed from all prejudices and defeating their human doubt and selfishness is ready to accept every and any truth, if it was proven.Man is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind, nor space, nor consciousness, nor all of this together. What else is a human being? The person is not real! The Buddha expresses this thought: “In the mind, the mind is not to be found, its nature is – – – clear light”!!! There is nothing materialistic in the NGO teaching!!! With respect
Well, first of all, the Buddhisms are very different. The different branches of Islam differ from one another more than Islam differs from Christianity. And different schools have different attitudes to materialism.
But my personal experience of studying B. Says that it cannot be considered a materialistic teaching. To me, B. looks like a mystical path .�
With the exception of some Zen schools, which can hardly be considered sympathetic to materialism. But it has its own specifics – they are not materialists, they just discard everything that seems superfluous to them, including the mystical part.