The main topic is whether or not Buddhism qualifies as a religion, and it seems that indeed it does in your view, but then again it also seems that in practice it takes on nuances that make it quite distinct from what we may usually think of as "religion". — TLCD1996

Such as?

A Buddhist who believes that Buddhism is about Oneness is simply a mistaken Buddhist↪praxis

Oh hell. That would be me then. Can you explain what is wrong with my view? If mysticism is not about Oneness then I can;t imagine what else it could be about. I've not heard anyone argue it is about anything else. — FrancisRay

Pardon my confusion but in some instances you claim to be a Buddhist and in other instances you claim not to be. I don't mind being confused about this so no need to explain if you don't feel like it.

Anyway, in addition to what TLCD1996 wrote above regarding Oneness, I'll simply say that Oneness by itself is meaningless, and Buddhism seeks to transcend whatever dualism is implied for Oneness to have meaning. Kinda like both oneness and manyness, and neither oneness and manyness. Beyond all dualisms. There's really no good way to indicate non-duality, I guess. You might say that Oneness is a good indicator, but the fact that the term is meaningful suggests that we may be a bit clingy in how we regard it.

I don't know the phrase 'Religion of Romanticism' before and don't know what it means. Is it for members of dating websites? — FrancisRay

Good guess, but no, it's more like Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. A fictional character that's too stupid to fight back when you beat it up. If it only had a brain....

Perhaps this is evidence to support to the Plumb theory then, superheroes being super-leftist-villains. On the other hand, the top superhero is called Homelander and supports a xenophobic agenda making him a super-righty-villain. The Hollywood Lefty Elite is super insidious.

I’m currently rather fond of a series called “The Boys.” The boys are a ragtag group of malcontents who’s intent is to kill-off all the superheroes. They’re anti-superhero heroes, essentially. Those elite Hollywood righties really know how to give a good mind fuck.

It’s all just so much neural activity, ergo, all meaningless and certainly nothing to get anxious about.

Given that some may seem to confuse Buddhism with Hinduism or conflate them (I've heard so much that Buddhism is rebranded Hinduism), given that some Hindus see the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, given that many western philosophers e.g. Huxley, Emerson have taken up Hinduism in some way when speaking of "The East", given that Hindu figures (e.g. Sadhguru) may reference Buddhist teachings and vice versa, and given that Hinduism has been referenced here in this thread, it doesn't seem wrong to bring up Hinduism. — TLCD1996

In all your givens you neglect to mention that at the point of dialogue in question we were talking about Buddhism and the alleged Religion of Romanticism.

If you believe that murder rationalized based on atman is part of the Hindu tradition, that’s really weird, in my opinion, and if you don’t want to try proving it that’s your choice.

And since it seems that some views expressed here are similar to what Ajahn Geoff points out as Romantic thinking — TLCD1996

His argument is based on the strawman that he calls Romantic Religion. Disowning the heretics to shore-up a waning tradition is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and one of the least virtuous.

You asked what was misleading and I’ve shown it. You can show that I’m mistaken by simply pointing out the Religion of Romanticism. A Buddhist who believes that Buddhism is about Oneness is simply a mistaken Buddhist and not someone who belongs to the Religion of Romanticism. There’s alway the possibility, of course, that a Buddhist knows the difference but intentionally misleads for some reason. That’s been known to happen.

I see theism and metaphysics on the same level as poetry and the arts; they can certainly enrich lives, but from a purely rational and/or empirical perspective (which are the only perspectives where determinate inter-subjective knowledge can be established) they are groundless. Imagine trying to rationally prove or empirically show that one particular interpretation of a poem is "the one true meaning" of the poem. It simply can't be done. — Janus

Sound reasoning, but no believer could see their beliefs as art or poetry. It simply can’t be done.

Hyperbole to make a point? Which leads me to...
— praxis

It's not a hyperbole at all! I've actually heard or seen people say this. Are they speaking in line with their tradition? I don't know — TLCD1996

If you don't know whether or not they're speaking inline with their tradition then you don't know if it's hyperbole, but whatever the case, how is Hinduism relevant to a discussion about Buddhism and the alleged religion of Romanticism?

I'd also like to hear what basis you have for thinking the romantic "era" is over if people still struggle with meaningless and still advocate that we create whatever meaning we want and it's okay. If it isn't romanticism, what is it? — TLCD1996

I suppose because it's a bygone era and no longer a dominant approach to dealing with meaninglessness. If, for example, I were to paint a realistic painting on Monday, does that mean that I'm living in an era of realism on Monday, and if I were to paint a romantic painting on Tuesday that I'm living in a romantic era on Tuesday? Course not.

Ajahn Geoff references some quotes that indicate oneness or non-separateness to be an important aspect of Romanticism, if not a goal of sorts. E.g. Emerson — TLCD1996

Case and point, transcendentalism is a philosophical movement and not a religion. Why is it not a religion you ask? See praxis's pet project.

And if Nirvana is undefinable and beyond conceptualizations, why not point toward it by saying what it isn't? — TLCD1996

It's the manner in which it's done that is telling, in my opinion.

when a tradition enables us to kill because there is no self in the body therefore there is no killer or killed? Yeah, no. Stick with the precept, please! — TLCD1996

Hyperbole to make a point? Which leads me to...

I'd be interested in hearing what you find misleading about it, if you don't mind elaborating on that. — TLCD1996

Just like there are no traditions that rationalize murder on the basis of no-self, there's no Romantic Religion whose core principle is Oneness.

The romantic era, which by the way is long gone, was essentially a reaction to meaninglessness. Ironically, a common approach to dealing with encroaching meaninglessness and shore-up the meaning of a religious tradition is to define it by proclaiming what it's not, by pointing out the heretics, and if a little hyperbole is required, well, the end justifies the means.

SLX has deleted more HH content?

If so, we owe him our gratitude.

Beware the intellectual lefties as they understand the value of dumbing down society and attacking those remaining that have the intelligence to challenge the new dawn. Look at it philosophically, i.e objectively for a moment, and notice the rise of the god like celebrities, action heroes, sporting icons etc. — david plumb

Wasn’t it uneducated righties that helped to put a celebrity in the Oval Office in 2016?

Bicontinental actually.

That's quite a book and I'm quite the romantic myself. :love:

Spoiler alert: Traditionalist promoting traditionalism in exhausting length and a bit misleadingly.

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.