Skepticism is probably more appropriate on a philosophy forum than a religious forum.

Not at all, you just seem to have forgotten when you wrote the linked post that this is a philosophy forum.

which baby should I throw overboard to keep the ship from sinking? — Hanover

I guess my presidential vote will count more than yours after all. :party:

It's all meaningless
— Gregory
As I said, it's fantasy
— Gregory
Thank you. Here it's clear for all to see you that your thinking is nonsense and mean-spirited. That, or you do not know what the words mean. — tim wood

If I may take the liberty to rephrase it for the good Gregory, he considers it fiction that is meaningless to him.

I guess the ten thousand hour rule applies, but at least the practice sticks.
— praxis

Not the best advert I've ever seen, but better than "Hey chaps why not get crucified like me?" With music they give you the results of the 10k hours first and deemphasise the excruciating school orchestra bit.

But I want to tease out the idea of practice a bit. — unenlightened

There's an aspect similar to philosophical stoicisms dichotomy of control (or perhaps essentially identical to older forms of stoicism?) but with a faith-based radical acceptance, basically living the serenity prayer rather than praying it.

At base (neurological) level I think it amounts to sustained suppression of the DMN, and given enough practice, pathways may be enforced enough to establish a trait rather than a state.

Ergo, Nixon’s war on drugs and declaring Timmy the most dangerous man in America.

I am not a Buddhist — FrancisRay

This is a significant statement in relation to my ‘project’ because it inspires curiosity as to why you’re not a Buddhist. It’s natural to suspect that the reason may have to do with a rejection of some kind.

I appreciate all of your post, btw, I just found this bit key.

Hidden Zen, a book dedicated to sharing practices that are not commonly found outside dedicated traditions.

Thoroughly traditional, I’m not sure what the author’s position would be in regards to my ‘pet project’.

The unconventional views expressed in this topic, with the exception of Wayfarer and TLCD1996, may not be well tolerated.
— praxis

Thanks Praxis. Perhaps that's part of what I was wondering. You know, on a philosophy forum everything is up for challenge. Not always so on sites dedicated to particular disciplines. — Hippyhead

You forget where you are, this site is dedicated to a particular discipline. I suggest that you keep this more top-of-mind.

I appreciate your openness and I too apologize, for my silly behavior.

As for my pet project, I count all in agreement. The only blurry part that remains is around the issue of the necessity of ultimate authority in Buddhism. Perhaps I need to emphasize that this pertains to traditional forms and not an individual’s own interpretation that may stand apart from traditional beliefs and practices. Maybe that will clear up the miscommunication.

I was curious how this thread might go over on a Buddhist forum. — Hippyhead

Funny you should ask because Wayfarer is a moderator, or used to be one, at dharmhawheel.net, a popular Buddhist forum. He’d be the one to ask.

The unconventional views expressed in this topic, with the exception of Wayfarer and TLCD1996, may not be well tolerated. I’ve noticed an apparent avoidance of discussing rebirth/karma here, so that’s probably good...

Oh it’s real... but I confess that I plagiarized a bit from a movie that I watched the other day.

Such was my beginning. Yet I must tell you that for the first ten years I suffered a great deal. During this time I fell often, and rose again presently. It seemed to me that all creatures, reason, and God Himself were against me and faith alone for me.

…

by rising after my falls, and by frequently renewed acts of faith and love, I am come to a state wherein it would be as difficult for me not to think of God as it was at first to accustom myself to it.

:grimace: I guess the ten thousand hour rule applies, but at least the practice sticks.

Interesting, the inner feminine caught in an endless repetitive nihilism while concurrently presenting masculine physiognomy. What you appear to be creatively expressing is the eventuality of a systemic anomaly that is inherent to the nature of patriarchal Western culture. While it remains a burden to sedulously avoid it, it is not unexpected, and thus not beyond a measure of resolution. Which brings us to the method of sustentation, wherein the fundamental flaw is ultimately expressed, and the anomaly revealed as both beginning, and end. Ergo, what is required is a return to the Sacred Feminine. Embrace the Goddess and recapture the meaning of your life.

Science bad, let’s get rid of it.

I ain’t go’n nowhere, bi-otch. :lol:

So, what are these emotional agendas? No, I don't mean you of course dear reader, you would never do this, I mean that other guy. Why is that other guy craving the Gotcha Game experience? — Hippyhead

Cuz it makes ya feel like a big dog and pumps the ego, of course, whaddya stup’it?!

You can’t fire God, Hippyhead, because he’s an ultimate authority. Why are you talking about those below him?

Rewatching the scene just now I can see that I was mistaken. In my defense, it’s a musical and sometimes in musicals I get more rapped in the music than the story. I mean, does anyone remember what happens in Cats beside a catchy tune or two and that it felt kinda weird wanting to bang a hot cat-girl?

He’s ultimately heroic.

And what happens if you have a shitty manager (or a shitty Pope)? You fire them. Are you then left empty handed with no higher authority? In other words, is the Pope God? or is the Buddhist priest Buddha? I know... we all have Buddha nature and we’re all Gods children.

God protects and so do the super heroes. — david plumb

What God movies have you been watching? I remember watching one where this guy was literally crucified and asking God for help. He didn’t help.

the Pope is the sole authority of the one true faith, all power emanates from him. — Wayfarer

I assume that you’re joking. Not long ago I was a bit surprised to see far-right leaning conservatives disowning the current progressive Pope for promoting the virtue of good stewardship in relation to climate change. Once again, it’s all about tribal solidarity.

there nevertheless is an hierarchy in the Buddhist sangha ... Buddhism is an early adopter of what would nowadays be called a ‘flat management structure’. — Wayfarer

A flat hierarchy. Hmmm :chin: Have you ever joined to a Buddhist sangha? You may be surprised how unflat they are, traditional ones anyway.

How is anything that I've posted in this topic a rejection of faith?

Honestly, I have no faith that you can, or will even try, to answer this question but I ask anyway with the faintest hope that you have an ounce of intellectual honesty.

What I’m arguing with Praxis, is that the kind of deep and instinctive rejection of religious authority that he is expressing, is a very widespread view in modern culture. — Wayfarer

I'm claiming that it's a necessary feature of religion, for reasons that I've pointed out and you've read and responded to. It's not a rejection any more than claiming that heat is a necessary feature of fire is a rejection of heat.

I know there's nothing that I or anyone else could say that will convince you that Buddhism is a religion that relies on an ultimate or supreme authority but, I'll go through your post anyway. Please try not to be offended. I am not disparaging Buddhism by arguing that it's a religion or that it relies on ultimate authority.

It expressly forbids a reliance on authority. — FrancisRay

Kālāma Sutta? If so, I've been over that.

It is all about becoming our own authority.and about nothing else. An authoritative knowledge of the true nature of Reality is the entire point and purpose of it. — FrancisRay

Is this a very odd way of saying the cessation of suffering?

We may choose to trust the teachings or the teacher, but we'll never understand either properly until we know they are true, and everybody knows this. — FrancisRay

Teaching and teacher in a general sense? No. Specifically to metaphysics that is not commonly accessable? Sure, but how does this relate to faith? As I wrote earlier, there are claims in Buddhism that are not verifiable by any known means, such as claims about rebirth and karma, and no one on earth could answer countless questions about them. They are considered imponderables, despite being based on cause & effect.

Your assumption that only the Buddha can be relied on as an authority is ridiculous. He must be turning in his grave. It's as silly as the idea that Jesus is the only son of God. — FrancisRay

I forget how many acclaimed Buddhas there are, around a half dozen I think. Why does the number of them matter? There could be a thousand. What difference would it make? If anything more success stories would make what they teach seem more reliable.

There is an old saying that when we meet the Buddha on the road we should spit on him. It's a saying that can withstand a lot of thought. — FrancisRay

Kill him, rather. It's a koan, and yes, it can withstand a lot of thought, but best not.

It's just that many of your posts seem to express a hostility towards 'religion' generally and to deprecate 'faith' as a kind of intellectual weakness.
— Wayfarer

I don’t believe that I’ve done that in this topic.
— praxis


That seemed to me the implication of this:

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority.
— praxis

I agree the whole issue of religious authority is vexed, that it is often abused, and that appeals to faith often underwrite ludicrous behaviors and ideologies. But I still don't think that amounts to a reason to reject the whole idea. (In other words - I still have faith :-) ) — Wayfarer

It doesn't imply that faith is an intellectual weakness. It states that religion depends on faith in an ultimate authority as a necessary condition for it to be a religion. Clearly, faith isn't limited to religion and is expressed in our lives in various ways.

It's just that many of your posts seem to express a hostility towards 'religion' generally and to deprecate 'faith' as a kind of intellectual weakness. — Wayfarer

I don’t believe that I’ve done that in this topic.

Perhaps I'm too practical — Hippyhead

If you were practical you’d keep your silly fantasies about fellow posters to yourself and stick to the topics.

Thanks for the thoughtful response that I will characterize as corroborative.

I take exception to this bit though:

but it seems in your view, religion is bad, so the point you always seem to laboring is that insofar as Buddhism is a religion, then this is a bad thing. Religious authority is to be rejected, religious experience not to be trusted. — Wayfarer

Because you responded to it I know that you read in this topic that I’m reading Meido Moore’s new book. Meido Moore is a religious authority who’s “religious experience” I trust and who’s practice methods and techniques I study and practice, so it is rather absurd to claim that I reject all such authority.

Like so many things in life religion can be beneficial or injurious. Wouldn’t it be just as irrational to hold the view that religion is all good?

I’m willing to entertain all the meta-discussion if it’s a prerequisite to your returning to the topic. Let me know if it is. I’ll reiterate my position below and wait for your response in case the meta-chat isn’t necessary.

I’m arguing that Buddhism is a religion rather than a philosophy, primary by pointing out two distinguishing aspects:

• In philosophy there is no ultimate or supreme authority and in Buddhism there is.
  
  
• There is no one metaphysical theory in philosophy whereas Buddhism holds to a single metaphysical understanding.

Because metaphysics are not empirical some special mode of understanding or experience must be necessary, if it’s not merely theory. If someone were to claim what the nature of reality is, and they had access that others did not have, those who don’t have access will necessarily need to take the claim on faith. In this way ultimate authority and metaphysics go hand in hand in religion.

Now, where we left off, you told me that by my own definition Buddhism is not a religion but you didn’t explain how. There is something of a clue in your last post where you write, “It is all about discovering what is true. It is not about being told!!! If you do not understand this then you understand exactly nothing about mysticism.”

With that you seem to be equating Buddhism with mysticism. Obviously there is mysticism in Buddhism, but just as obvious is the fact that there’s much more than mysticism. I think you might agree that mysticism could be said to be a mode of access to the nature of reality, and that the Buddha had this access. However, this access is uncommon and therefore the common folk necessary need to take whatever the Buddha claims about the nature of reality on faith. Many of the claims are unverifiable, by any known means. For instance, there are countless questions about rebirth that no one on earth could answer. Questions of this kind are rebuffed as ‘imponderables’.

How is Buddhism not a religion by my definition?

Good grief. Do you not ever listen? By your defintion of religion Buddhism is not one. I toid you this some time ago. — FrancisRay

You’re not speaking so I have nothing to listen to but ad hominem attacks. My last post on topic was the following.

——————

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority.↪praxis

Okay. So this is your definition of religion. In this case Buddhism is not a religion.
— FrancisRay

I assume you're claiming this because Buddha's are not considered Gods and therefore not an ultimate authority. What matters is that in order to be part of the religion, the authority has access to knowledge or experience that others do not, and that their authority is beyond questioning. Those who question are heretics, outsiders, or otherwise not considered part of the tradition.

People often point to the Kālāma Sutta and say something like, "see, the Buddha says to not take anything on authority and simply try it out for yourself." Notice that nowhere does the doctrine entertain the possibility that the doctrine could be mistaken in any way or invite criticism or reform. In philosophy, science, and art, revision is an integral part.

——————

And don’t blame me for Hippyhead’s nuttyness.

Is the following your only condition then?

write a thread which doesn't reference other people's idea

That’s quite easy, particularly if, in all fairness, it only needs to meet the quality of your posts.

That appears to be only one of the conditions.

You should at least try to show where I demonstrate a lack of understanding and perhaps regain some semblance of credibility.
— praxis

Patiently awaiting receipt of your payment. Take your time. Or ignore, as you wish. — Hippyhead

I just read your conditions with the intent to comply but — and I guess it shouldn’t have come as a surprise — they’re unmeetable or not coherent enough to follow.

If you lack the honor to withdraw a lie then own your dishonesty.

It can be hard to imagine things that exist and things that don't exist.

:heart: :broken:

my feelings towards loyalty are lukewarm — BitconnectCarlos

Betrayal isn't usually met with insouciance, even for Libertarians. And thanks for providing an opportunity to use the word insouciance, btw.

Same story with the rest of your alleged lack of feeling.

His movies are hilariously perverted.

he’s tucking in his pants after she removes the microphone from him. — NOS4A2

You would "tuck your shirt" in front of a 15-year-old girl? Pervert.

If someone values X trait enormously while someone else values the same trait at essentially zero while the two might have the "same" moral value in actuality the two differ starkly on that value. — BitconnectCarlos

Is that true or is it just a story we tell ourselves in order to navigate the social world. I value liberty a great deal, as well as loyalty, and I feel a sense of the sacred on occasion even though I claim to not be religious. Conversely, do you not value fairness? Do you not care about others? You give every indication that you do.

If Streetlight has a distaste for planting a fucking flag, in my opinion, it demonstrates a quality that the vast majority of us tragically lack.