Upvote:0
Philosophy is a term that really only makes sense in the Western culture or other Greek-influenced contexts. And no, none of the various Buddhist schools make a distinction between the more religious and the more logical parts of their systems.
However, many Buddhist schools incorporate a thorough and nearly "scientific" method of introspection, sometimes combined with quite formal logical reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_logico-epistemology).
Upvote:0
When a "disciple" just cites texts, yet consumes like one who hasn't heard the teachings, then such hasn't taken on a "(re)legion" (bond) but just defents his stand, his home.
What does one go after when asking a philosophical question? What does one maintain when citing deep words yet wearing pyjamas, sitting in his living room?
Upvote:3
The Buddha once spoke about a philosopher who talked about religions:
AN10.116:3.2: “Mendicants, do you remember this philosopher’s points?”
And the Buddha proceeds to point out the importance of principles in any discussion or lecture:
AN10.116:7.1: Another person rebuts and quashes principled and unprincipled statements with unprincipled statements. This delights an unprincipled assembly,
AN10.116:7.2: who make a dreadful racket:
AN10.116:7.3: ‘He’s a true philosopher! He’s a true philosopher!’
Without a careful discernment of principles, much can go astray:
AN10.116:8.1: Mendicants, you should know bad principles and good principles.
Principles are foundational. Rationality or faith that relies on bad principles is unsatisfactory and unskilled.
Buddhist principles include: right view, right thought, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right immersion. The Buddha concludes quite rationally:
AN10.116:12.1: ‘You should know bad principles and good principles.
So perhaps we should all have faith in the rational application of good principles?