socratessmith wrote:If I understand correctly, the blog is advocating for an approach to Buddhism from the stance of a simple non-committed human being, and not from that of a "Buddhist." If you think about it, that's how we evaluate other forms of supposed knowledge, such as science, art, and philosophy. So why not Buddhism? Why is such a commitment required? Whether there is value in such an approach can, of course, only be decided by the individual doing the investigation.
I can only speak from my own perspective, but faith in the Buddha and his "postulations" I have found to be necessary for the progression of understanding beyond a certain point. The Buddha himself has said that his doctrine is not speculative, and must be realized by the individual for himself. I (and many others) take the Buddha at his word, despite the fact that I have no personal realization of his teachings. Just as someone with an interest in science having evaluated for himself the logical underpinning of the plate tectonic theory and continental drift may accept it on provision, despite never having seen with one's own eyes that a continent is drifting or that a plate is sub-ducting under another.
The difference I dare say between the position of those in the blog and the position common here at Dhamma Wheel is that those of the blog do not accept The Buddha at his word when it is declared that he is "holy, fully enlightened, perfect in knowledge and conduct, a welfarer, world-knower, the incomparable leader of men to be tamed, teacher of gods and mankind, the awakened one and the exalted one", as opposed to the responses you see here, which most certainly come from a position of confidence in the Buddha and his teachings. On the basis of that, I defer to his word, and attempt to gain the realizations he has said are not only possible, but of the highest value in this life.
To me and many others he is not just another philosopher, he is THEE Philosopher.
Peace to you.
And to you too.