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.

Actually Haidt claims that we share the same moral intuitions and they’re merely packaged differently, such as liberal or libertarian.

Will assist with this to the degree desired, after you pay the bill. — Hippyhead

You’ve really outdone yourself this time, Hippyhead, and that’s a tall order. You should at least try to show where I demonstrate a lack of understanding and perhaps regain some semblance of credibility.

Ok, but first — Hippyhead

:lol:

If only you could be so frugal with what bounces around in your head. But please, you were going to show there I demonstrate a lack of understanding.

Claiming that I don’t understand the issues rather than addressing my points
— praxis

Except that you don't understand the issues, so it's not an insult, but rather a factual statement. — Hippyhead

So show where I demonstrate a lack understanding.

The point was not to critique anyone’s habits but to point out that if the religious were actually motivated by what they claim to be motivated by, some form of salvation, then they would behave accordingly
— praxis

And if you were actually motivated by what you claim to be motivated by, reason, you would surgically identify whatever aspects of religion (which you are clearly very interested in) you can make constructive use of, and then throw the rest in the trash bin. It's entirely possible to do this without in anyway whatsoever becoming religious.

Every day you go to thread after thread on forum after forum to toss all the things you don't like about religion in the dumpster, which is rational. But then you jump in the dumpster and endlessly roll around in all the discarded trash which you have already identified as being of no use to you, which is NOT rational.

If it should be true that there is absolutely nothing about religion which you can make constructive use of, ok, fair enough. Lots of people feel that way. I have no complaint, to each their own. Should this be the case, then what is rational about spending every day for years in religion threads???

The thing is praxis, you want to lecture everyone about reason, but you don't actually believe in it yourself. That's why everyone finds you so tiresome. You're a heretic. To your own position.

Here's what reason looks like. Shit or get off the pot. Find something in religion you can make constructive use of and focus on that, or let religion go, and redirect your time and intelligence at more promising targets.

And, if I actually believed in reason, I would be taking all the good advice I've been getting to walk away from you and leave you to your fate. But, I'm as nutzo as you are, so no worries, it's safe, the circus merry-go-round can go on, endlessly round and round and round, to nowhere. — Hippyhead

Cute caricature that shows how your mind works.

The crazy thing is that the only thing I’m doing in this topic is committing the cardinal sin of arguing that Buddhism is a religion. :lol:

Elegant arguments from highly informed members revealing the limitations of the title have since been presented at great length. — Hippyhead

Right, the limited view that has been freed by a modern perspective, where we can see Buddhism as a philosophy, science, art, or indeed, a religion.

You seem to highly value a modern perspective, despite the terrible loss of an intimate relationship with reality and our deep existential plight. I guess it’s worth the price of admission?

Whinny ad hominem attacks
— praxis

Don't see any. — Hippyhead

No doubt. Claiming that I don’t understand the issues rather than addressing my points is a feeble minded attempt to invalidate anything I say and a logical fallacy.

I see no attempt by you to understand the issues. I cannot see the point of your approach and clearly it prevents you from learning anything. I will not respond to you from now on. — FrancisRay

How many times do I need to point out the obvious? I’m arguing that Buddhism is a religion rather than a philosophy. That is the core of the topic, after all. If you don’t want to respond to my points then don’t. Whinny ad hominem attacks are not an argument.

You appear to have bought the propaganda that people may have completely different values.

"Left" is useful because it can describes a certain set of ideas or values. — BitconnectCarlos

Discrete identities are useful for politicians to manipulate an unsuspecting public, so in order to not be fooled, it may be better to focus on the ideas and values expressed in what others say and do.

What does that have to do with religious followers being misled or otherwise taken advantage of? You think that doesn't happen in Buddhism? Awwwww, you're so adorably innocent.

Half a second with SLX should tell you which side of that fence he stands on. — BitconnectCarlos

I honestly couldn't say. So pragmatist or ideolog?

Complete non sequitur.

In any case of course they're trying to shame you into (theoretically) voting Biden here. Good American liberals when push comes to shove gotta shut up and get in line, no other way about it. — BitconnectCarlos

I haven't followed all of it but from what I gather it was a matter of trying to determine if SLX stood on pragmatic ground, as in the lesser of two evils or 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' or ideological ground, a refusal to participate in a system that is beyond reform. A resolution would be interesting, assuming there isn't already one and my assessment is at all accurate.

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.

What I said was that where a religion is the search for truth it will lead to truth. The religions you speak of do not quality. They depend on faith and belief and usually deny even the possibility of truth and knowledge. — FrancisRay

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

Thus there is something called the 'Perennial' philosophy, which includes (Middle Way) Buddhism, (Philosophical) Taoism, Sufism, Advaita Vedanta, Christian, Jewish and Islamic mysticism and so forth. Monotheism is rejected as being false. . . . . — FrancisRay

Of all posters in this topic I would expect you to be the first to acknowledge a difference between spirituality or mysticism and religion.

Your comment relates to the commonplace dogmatic kind of monotheism but is not relevant where a religion is the search for truth. — FrancisRay

Lol, true religions are true and false religions are false. That’s your response, essentially? If so, well, okay, but then why do false religions still work?

In a word, to gotcha! :razz:

Praxis - "Unfortunately for those who died in Jonestown (a different religion than Buddhism), this is obviously false."

What of Earth has Jonestown got to do with anything? We're talking about Buddhism. — FrancisRay

You claimed that a practitioner would know what Buddhism (a religion) is. My point was that religious followers are notoriously often mislead.

You say 'religion works'. How do you know this? What do you even mean by it? — FrancisRay

Religion binds a community with common values, narrative, and goals. This has great survival value, evolutionarily speaking.

How can it be beside the point if religion reveals truth? — FrancisRay

There are literally thousands of religions. Can they all be true? Of course they can’t. Therefore truth must be beside the point, right?

I admit that I've expressed hostility towards Hippy
— praxis

You and I both would seem to have a natural talent for getting under people's skins. The two of us together is annoying squared. Let's just take a break from engaging. — Hippyhead

:razz: Do whatever you must.

If it were the only reason, or even a primary reason, then why would you be wasting your time arguing here, something that you've described yourself as "burdensome," rather than putting effort into realizing Dharmma?
— praxis

I attempted to address this above. Alcoholics are the primary people in AA meetings. Thought-o-holics (like me) are often those most interested in exploring these topics. It's typically the sick who show up at the hospital.

Not a fixed rule which includes everyone, but true often enough to merit mention. — Hippyhead

The point was not to critique anyone’s habits but to point out that if the religious were actually motivated by what they claim to be motivated by, some form of salvation, then they would behave accordingly. Typically they behave as though the solidarity of their tribe religion was of the utmost importance.

I admit that I've expressed hostility towards Hippy, in this topic, who has blatantly used ad homs against me and so not undeserving, but I've quickly reviewed and can't say that I've expressed or felt hostility towards you. Impatience perhaps, but not hostility. And I did not mean to suggest any nefarious ulterior motives on your part, only an inclination to support a meaningful belief system.

In your case I believe that less pharmaceutical technology would be most beneficial.

In your case I believe that pharmaceutical technology would be most efficacious.

The meaning of 'Buddhism' is unlimited for you? If that were true we wouldn't be able to talk about it because you wouldn't be able to identify what I was talking about.
— praxis

Sure! The Dhamma is beyond words. That's why we practice it; to realize the Dhamma. — TLCD1996

That's one reason, and perhaps not even a very strong reason. If it were the only reason, or even a primary reason, then why would you be wasting your time arguing here, something that you've described yourself as "burdensome," rather than putting effort into realizing Dharmma? Because that is NOT the only reason you practice. It is the same with all religions. It's pointless to deny that religion fulfills human needs other than some grandiose notion of realizing emptiness.

I still don't think I understand, because it seems that the philosophies people often describe have a kind of authority figure attached (e.g. Aristotle), and these philosophies often seem concurrent with metaphysical theories (and I wonder if those theories could be easily discarded if we really held tightly to the philosophy's constraints). — TLCD1996

Are you claiming that Aristotle is the Philosopher King and that only his philosophy is philosophy? That is a very strange and misguided idea.

The Buddha (specifically, Sakyamuni Buddha) is something of an authority figure, but it's not like he's God, or even the Buddha. — TLCD1996

Does an ultimate authority need to be a God? I don't think so. In any case, if a Buddha is not an ultimate authority then perhaps they may have all been misguided or even plain con-men, and this possibility is in accord with Buddhist doctrine.