This is a denial of Buddhist doctrine — FrancisRay

If Buddhist doctrine is a doctrine which denies doctrines, I should fit right in. :-)

Praxis, earlier you mentioned a book you were involved with. Is it at all relevant to this thread? If yes, care to share?

I'd rather you stayed, as a useful voice of scepticism — FrancisRay

I'd rather Praxis stayed too, as a useful voice offering constructive alternatives.

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.

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’.

Well, this is brilliant. We may have transcended our difficulties and this is quite an achievement. We should pat ourselves on the back.

Our discussion is complicated by the divide between strands of Buddhism. In the Mahayana tradition, which I regard as the mainstream, no authority is recognised except experience, and nobod can have our experiences except us. (Although eventually one goes beyond experience). To rely on authority is the way of the dogmatic exoteric religions who regard mysticism as heresy. .

Even interpretation need cause no problems since it is only the knowledge acquired in our own experience that allows us to interpret correctly, and if it is sufficient no interpretation is necessary. . My view is that we have found the correct interpretation when we see that all the mystics are saying the same thing. If they seem to disagree then this would indicate a fault in our interpretation. In the end the doctrine is uninterpretable without the knowledge required to understand it, which can only be self-knowledge.

However, I am not a Buddhist but a metaphysician. In metaphysics it is possible to be definite and clear about the issues and demonstrate arguments and results. None of it is a matter of opinion, authority or interpretation. Thus I may seem to be more definite and confident in my views than a typical Buddhist practitioner who is referring only to as-yet limited exerience and the sutras. This would be why Nagarjuna is unusual an so important. He allows us to pin-down much of what the Buddhas was saying without having to take up the practice or refer to authority. We can simply work it out. ,

. . . .

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.

The middle way, eh? — Hippyhead

Yes! I think it's worth examining the issue of "acceptance" a bit closer; not necessarily in terms of history or philosophical background, but the actual act of accepting or experience of acceptance itself. It seems that a lot of the "just accept things as they are" line of thought is well suited for people who incline to aversion, impatience, or a desire to make things how they would like them to be, or those who desire a lot of control over every little bit of their life, etc. - noting that a lot of encouragement tends to revolve around releasing some control or putting anger aside. But right there is an implicit abandonment. So when we're cultivating something wholesome, we're abandoning something unwholesome. Thus there is an implicit "non acceptance", but not necessarily one which is rooted in aversion.

Sometimes "acceptance" works for those with anxiety, for example, but for others there needs to be caution. Some people should not just accept that their actions tend to be harmful to others, and some people should not accept their actions which are harming themselves; on one hand they need to see the harm themselves, and on the other they need to put some sort of effort toward a better direction (if they want a good change). But the problem then comes: telling these people that what they are doing is wrong may lead them to get defensive if not highly self-critical, and that's not helpful. In that kind of scenario, the black and white "acceptance or non-acceptance" dichotomy begins to show its limitations, where both acceptance and non-acceptance can enable bad habits, the former being a means to bypass shame. Thus the need for a more effective strategy, perhaps one with a good focus on personal well-being and non-harming. "Acceptance" may communicate that in some way, but it's not perfect, and there are other ways of moving somewhere good. Thus, thankfully the Buddha has offered different ways to "release control" (particularly unhealthy control) and different ways to abandon anger (or ill will and hostility). That's perhaps one reason why "loving kindness" is gaining some traction these days, along with "equanimity" or "patience". In a way, they point to the same thing (however the latter portion of my post will go into that a little).

Ok, good point, yea, that would help. For the sake of discussion I'm willing to assume such experts exist. Mozart was real. But can Mozart teach me to be a Mozart too? That's less clear. But if you meet models who have succeeded in taking their students where you wish to go, ok, that surely helps. — Hippyhead

Yeah. But it also helps to have them remind you that the point isn't that you're going to become like anyone in particular (although role models are excellent motivators and guideposts of a sort). When a monk instructs you, he isn't necessarily instructing you on how to become more like him, and hopefully he's actually instructing you on how to stand on your own two feet and find the truth yourself. I mean, if Mozart was trying to get you to be Mozart, that may possibly entail a pretty toxic student-teacher relationship.

But if we see "Mozart creating Mozarts" as a matter of imbuing students with the qualities of a highly skilled musician, that's different. In this case one sees something admirable and wishes to create something along those lines, and they trust in Mozart or a teacher to be able to train them, and so they go that. If they went to that teacher and it turned out that they weren't able to be trained by them, then that's not necessarily a reason to give up hope. One can reflect on the scenario, understand the issue, and perhaps seek better help. Though if you really want to go "Buddhist," perhaps you'd begin to question why it's so important that you make beautiful music in the first place.

Speaking for myself, even if I don't get to "the end of suffering", I can say that I've learned to manage stress by aiming in that direction (coming from a rather misanthropic and anxious background). Of course I couldn't prove it, but I mean, it makes sense that stress is alleviated or ameliorated when one is trying to abandon it, and when one considers that the cause is one (craving) but in another sense there are also many causes (our many cravings and delusions and biases that feed the general habit of craving/clinging). So while total freedom requires total abandonment, the path is necessarily one of gradual abandonment, therefore one becomes less stressed as a natural consequence of following the path. Noting that it's easier to meditate if one isn't stressing themselves out all the time, if one's job is causing stress, it's possible to find ways to ameliorate that stress if keeping the job is truly necessary. Thus a desire to deepen one's practice can be an incentive to improve the more "mundane" aspects of one's life.

If a resistance to or fear of complexity is an issue, then it's worth knowing that the path is quite simply formulated in the four noble truths; one can look at stress quite directly as a mental process, and one can look at practice as a mutli-factored way of training oneself in virtue, wisdom, and concentration. To add nuance to these three: if one abandons five particularly unwholesome courses of action as with the five precepts, one gives others a degree of fearlessness and ease, while also gaining fearlessness and ease oneself (AN 8.39). If one works to abandoning the five hindrances (the necessary pre-requisite for meditative absorption), one will undoubtedly have to observe the stresses caused by them (and thus have a good reasoning for abandoning them and their connected forms of stress). If one gains an understanding of stress, one will begin to see how it can be abandoned or ameliorated beyond whatever prescribed means; one has found a good way themselves.

So, in my opinion, the Buddha's path is quite reasonable and direct even if it's just for stress amelioration.

Now on the issue of an identical goal across all religions or mystical paths, etc...

Even interpretation need cause no problems since it is only the knowledge acquired in our own experience that allows us to interpret correctly, and if it is sufficient no interpretation is necessary. . My view is that we have found the correct interpretation when we see that all the mystics are saying the same thing. If they seem to disagree then this would indicate a fault in our interpretation. In the end the doctrine is uninterpretable without the knowledge required to understand it, which can only be self-knowledge. — FrancisRay

Right now that line of thought is being questioned, and I think it ought to be because it's rather speculative. Ajahn Geoff, who I respect and right now is among many scholarly voices in the Theravadin lineage, connects this sentiment to Romantic philosophy and fervently speaks against it. He talks a lot about it in his book Buddhist Romanticism (e.g. https://www.dhammatalks.org/books/BuddhistRomanticism/Section0011.html), noting an emphasis on "oneness" and a rather all-inclusive (and theoretical) definition of the term "religion", often connected with aesthetic concerns (hence my earlier weariness toward a sort of emphasis on Zen art/aesthetics).

The extent to which religious paths ultimately differ or merge is beyond me, but looking at what the scripture says (MN 1 particularly, or suttas where the Buddha puts aside questions about the existence/non-existence of self; and this is of course an appeal to an authority), it would seem mistaken to suggest that the final goal of Buddhism is a kind of "self" or piece of God, or originator, etc, or that all paths lead to it, especially given the emphasis placed on a rather methodical development of the path and an insistence that some things are to be abandoned, others cultivated.

I think Buddhism is thus unlikely to be on the same page as Krishnamurti or Advaita Vedanta teachings, even though they may seem quite similar in their expression. The Buddha's emphasis, over and over, is on the four noble truths, and it is under this framework that all classifications of "self" or "ultimate" are presumably abandoned and done away with. This is just my opinion.

I suggest that you keep this more top-of-mind. — praxis

The king of lazy one liners is now lecturing us about how to do philosophy.

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

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

I have no idea what your point is, and doubt you do either.

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

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.

misleadingly — praxis

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

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.


Well, I could say I'm a Buddhist and a Taoist and a Christian and an advaitan, and as such don't feel I have the right to claim membership of any one. I don't see these as different teachings, just different methods and languages. It's a rejection of exclusivity and parochialism. , . .

Right now that line of thought is being questioned, and I think it ought to be because it's rather speculative. Ajahn Geoff, who I respect and right now is among many scholarly voices in the Theravadin lineage, connects this sentiment to Romantic philosophy and fervently speaks against it.

Theravadans endorse a doctrine that clashes with the Perennial philosophy so must fight like crazy to debunk the idea of the unity of religion,. This is why i have no time for Theravada. It is metaphysically unsound. The fact that it cannot reconcile the teachings of the various traditions is evidence that it is an incorrect view. I would take no notice of Ajann Geoff. He does religion a disservice. Sorry to be so outspoken but your comment shows the damage done by this errant view.

---"I think Buddhism is thus unlikely to be on the same page as Krishnamurti or Advaita Vedanta teachings, even though they may seem quite similar in their expression.

Metaphysically they are identical. It would astonishing if those who went in search of truth all found something different. Of course they all find the same truth. If they did not mysticism would be implausible.

I thought your comments above on suffering were excellent. .

Just remembered, this fellow lived directly across the street from us for a few years. Buddhists in robes coming and going frequently. Perhaps interesting that nobody seemed phased by that at all. He seemed friendly enough but we didn't talk much. When we did it was mostly about my wife's wildlife rehabbing, and him seeking advice and assistance getting snakes out of his yard. :-)

https://www.ktcgainesville.org/

Resident teacher, Lama Losang, leads our weekly meetings. A fully ordained monk, Lama Losang completed the traditional Kagyu three-year retreat at Karme Ling in 2004. In addition to being a Karma Kagyu lineage teacher, Lama Losang (David Bole) is also an Acupuncture Physician with a Doctorate in Psychology, and teaches, lectures, and conducts workshops around the country. In honor of Lama’s 70th birthday, July 26, 2019, Mayor Lauren Poe and the City of Gainesville proclaimed Dr. David Bole (Lama Losang): Health, Happiness, and Liberation Day.

So are those the good Buddhists or the bad Buddhists? :-) Of course I have no idea, as I'm doing good to know they are Buddhists.

The Buddha's emphasis, over and over, is on the four noble truths, and it is under this framework that all classifications of "self" or "ultimate" are presumably abandoned and done away with. — TLCD1996

To the degree one isn't thinking in any given moment, all classifications of every flavor are abandoned and done away with.

Given that many or most people could access some level of such abandonment by fairly simple methods for hours a day if they so chose, and perhaps more if they are enthusiastic, perhaps it's worth questioning why this isn't enough?

You speculate that all classifications are "presumably abandoned". Why presumably? We know that classifications are made of thought, and that the volume of thought can be controlled to varying degrees by various methods. Given that we all know and agree on this...

By "presumably" you would seem to be referring to the possibility of permanent abandonment, yes?

What's the case for making such a huge demand? Is greed a sin in Buddhism?

A life long every day routine of temporary abandonment is readily available to all, or at least most.

Why not be content with such a bounty?

And in between the bounty, why not just look in the mirror, give a smile a try, and accept that like everything else in nature, human beings are imperfect?

I would say that I'm a radical Zen revolutionary, I mean REVOLUTIONARY!!, except that, oops, I still really have close to no idea what Zen is. :-)

So are those the good Buddhists or the bad Buddhists? :-) Of course I have no idea, as I'm doing good to know they are Buddhists. — Hippyhead

No comment on good or bad Buddhists, but it seems that his lineage is part of a controversy around the issue of genuine reincarnation lineages. An issue found lately in Tibetan Buddhism.

Metaphysically they are identical. It would astonishing if those who went in search of truth all found something different. Of course they all find the same truth. If they did not mysticism would be implausible. — FrancisRay

‍♂️ Maybe it is implausible! We don't know - that's why I'm not one to say that all other religions are wrong, but I will not hesitate to say I'm skeptical that they all lead to the same place. One danger with that, for example, is that it can lead to rather wishy washy ethical principles where somebody's bad actions are "right" because it's part of "their" religion, and all religions point to the same thing, therefore their actions are right. That opens the door to abuse, which is not totally absent in Buddhism but is explicitly against the Buddha's teachings (one reason to be skeptical of "crazy wisdom") .

A possibility is that these other lineages have reached a rather high state of meditative development, such as infinite consciousness or the plane of nothingness, leading one to assume that they've reached nirvana. This is a mistake even the Buddha was aware of, and indeed these states are merely refined states of "being" or "becoming". To me, that's a pretty decent explanation. Can I prove it and do I know it's true? No, but it makes sense to me.

No comment on good or bad Buddhists, but it seems that his lineage is part of a controversy around the issue of genuine reincarnation lineages. An issue found lately in Tibetan Buddhism — TLCD1996

Ok, thanks. As a follow up question, what flavor(s) of Buddhism would be the least likely to get drawn in to such controversies?

that's why I'm not one to say that all other religions are wrong, but I will not hesitate to say I'm skeptical that they all lead to the same place. — TLCD1996

Well, they all lead to death, which in my unproven faith based perspective is reunion with something. Or nothing. Or nothing that is also a something. Or, most likely, I haven't the slightest idea what.

In any case, whatever it is or isn't, we are presumably all going there, probably no matter what we do or don't do.

...that's why I'm not one to say that all other religions are wrong, but I will not hesitate to say I'm skeptical that they all lead to the same place. — TLCD1996

Well, they all lead to death, which in my unproven faith based perspective is reunion with something. Or nothing. Or nothing that is also a something. Or, most likely, I haven't the slightest idea what.


I'd go back to an earlier comment and suggest that when we can see that all religions lead to the same place, albeit more or less effectively, then we know we're intepreting them about right.

I abandoned Christianity as tosh at the age of twelve. Decades later I discovered Buddhism and helped by a study of it suddenly began to understand Christianity. I learn a great deal about Buddhism from Taoism, about Catholicism from Sufism, and about Hermeticism from Advaita.
.
I feel that to suggest these traditions are all significantly different in their core teachings is suppose religion is a lot of nonsense.

To the degree one isn't thinking in any given moment, all classifications of every flavor are abandoned and done away with. — Hippyhead

As far as we know. Thinking is quite subtle, and as I said before it's not just thinking as verbal thought. For example, the Buddha defines "restlessness" not as incessant thinking, but as a lack of stillness in attending; e.g. instead of paying attention to a specific thing, one moves back and forth without settling. One obvious example is in daily life where we can't stop looking for something to do because we feel bored and dissatisfied with what we've got. Thus meditation is a great way to just be happy with "what is"; "nature" is everywhere around us (and why aren't we content with it and why are we sometimes averse to it?).

And it's not a "sin" to be greedy, but it is unwholesome. It causes suffering in different ways. Suffering isn't a sin, but we want to be happy, and if we want real and lasting happiness, we're talking about something reliable and "permanent". Therefore, it is up to us if we want that ultimate goal. I say it's presumably possible because I haven't gotten there myself; I don't know if it's true.

Ok, thanks. As a follow up question, what flavor(s) of Buddhism would be the least likely to get drawn in to such controversies? — Hippyhead

My limited knowledge regarding lineages lends me to say that Thai Theravadin Buddhism is where you wouldn't find those controversies. Part of it's because lineages aren't built by reincarnation, but tradition. However, I can't say this is universal. My experience is limited to Ajahn Chah's tradition. That's one reason I stick with it; another is that the means of judging a lineage are often focused on the conduct of teachers/monastics.

That's one reason why teachers like Ajahn Geoff stick up for the tradition. Once you start deviating from or embellishing the dhamma vinaya, doubt is quite likely and the teachings are at risk. I mean, people already question whether arahantship is possible or rebirth is real - now they have to wonder if their teacher is a legitimate reincarnation, and if his questionable conduct is just "crazy wisdom". If you want examples of that being disastrous, look at TM (exiter testimonies), Mooji, Cohen, etc. Any way, Vinaya is the traditional element which is supposed to be protective, not destructive.

But being willing to question teachers is necessary, as is being willing to question tradition. But the focus has to be on the cessation of suffering and in accordance with the eightfold path to be reliable.

In any case, whatever it is or isn't, we are presumably all going there, probably no matter what we do or don't do. — Hippyhead

And presumably it's good to consider rebirth along Buddhist lines . If we die, we continue wandering until we stop.

I abandoned Christianity as tosh at the age of twelve. Decades later I discovered Buddhism and helped by a study of it suddenly began to understand Christianity. I learn a great deal about Buddhism from Taoism, about Catholicism from Sufism, and about Hermeticism from Advaita.
.
I feel that to suggest these traditions are all significantly different in their core teachings is suppose religion is a lot of nonsense. — FrancisRay

You know, to say they are different doesn't mean you can't learn from them, just as differentiating Buddhism from religion or philosophy in some way doesn't mean you can't learn from either or utilize their means. My impression is that, when we do learn from other religions, we're often learning ways to cultivate virtue, compassion, or peace of mind (among many other things). That's great. But the Buddhist position is that the ultimate goal is not found within these, save for the latter as long as it is total peace, resulting from dispassion and abandonment.

Philosophies are similarly supposed to lead us to a good life. I myself have found good value in learning (however little) Kant or Aristotle. But the good life is just life; flourishing is just flourishing (and edit: people still argue back and forth about what "good life" or "flourishing" means). Life is subject to death, flourishing can give way (edit: endless conflicts are endless). Therefore Buddhists seek something beyond all that (edit: and something with closure). And the Buddha prescribed a discipline for just that purpose.

Noting that the 5 precepts are fundamental for Buddhists, there's nothing about them which prevents us but learning from different traditions. But 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!

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.

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, but this bit from the Bhagavad Gita makes an interesting case. I'm not sure how accurate the translation is, but it's along the lines of what I've heard of over and over in regard to this matter from non-Buddhists:

Bodies of the eternal, imperishable, and incomprehensible soul are said to be perishable. Therefore, fight, O Arjuna. The one who thinks that Atma is a slayer, and the one who thinks that Atma is slain, both are ignorant, because Atma neither slays nor is slain. (2.19) The Atma is neither born nor does it die at any time, nor having been it will cease to exist again. It is unborn, eternal, permanent, and primeval. The Atma is not destroyed when the body is destroyed. (2.20) O Arjuna, how can a person who knows that the Atma is indestructible, eternal, unborn, and imperishable, kill anyone or cause anyone to be killed? (2.21) Just as a person puts on new garments after discarding the old ones, similarly Atma acquires new bodies after casting away the old bodies. (2.22) Weapons do not cut this Atma, fire does not burn it, water does not make it wet, and the wind does not make it dry. (2.23)This Atma cannot be cut, burned, wetted, or dried up. It is eternal, all pervading, unchanging, immovable, and primeval. (2.24) The Atma is said to be unmanifest, unthinkable, and unchanging. Knowing this Atma as such you should not grieve. (2.25) If you think that this (body) takes birth and dies perpetually, even then, O Arjuna, you should not grieve like this. (2.26) Because, death is certain for the one who is born, and birth is certain for the one who dies. Therefore, you should not lament over the inevitable. (2.27) All beings, O Arjuna, are unmanifest before birth and after death. They are manifest between the birth and the death only. What is there to grieve about? (2.28) Some look upon this Atma as a wonder, another describes it as wonderful, and others hear of it as a wonder. Even after hearing about it no one actually knows it. (2.29) O Arjuna, the Atma that dwells in the body of all (beings) is eternally indestructible. Therefore, you should not mourn for any body. (2.30) Considering also your duty as a warrior you should not waver. Because there is nothing more auspicious for a warrior than a righteous war. (2.31) Only the fortunate warriors, O Arjuna, get such an opportunity for an unsought war that is like an open door to heaven. (2.32) If you will not fight this righteous war, then you will fail in your duty, lose your reputation, and incur sin.

Besides that, I've heard it said: "If you just swing a sword around without intending to kill, you're not guilty." Whether or not that has a basis in a tradition, it's not Buddhist practice and it would be disturbing to say that this is correct on the grounds that all religious beliefs are pointing to the same thing.

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?

And I don't know... 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:

“It is the goal of spiritual life to open to the reality that exists beyond our small sense of self. Through the gate of oneness we awaken to the ocean within us, we come to know in yet another way that the seas we swim in are not separate from all that lives. When our identity expands to include everything, we find a peace with the dance of the world. It is all ours, and our heart is full and empty, large enough to embrace it all.”

Any way, the point is that Buddhism isn't about that, and you don't really need to compare it to other religions to make that distinction. The Buddha talked a fair bit about self-views in relation to the world being wrong views, and he talked about the different formless meditative attainments (e.g. infinite consciousness) as being modes of becoming which are not nirvana and are one chain in the link of birth, death, and suffering. And if Nirvana is undefinable and beyond conceptualizations, why not point toward it by saying what it isn't?

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.

:meh: Yeah, I don't have a sufficient understanding of Romanticism, Hinduism, or everyone in the world to say with certainty that they are or are not practicing in line with their tradition, nor the extent to which they identify as a romantic struggling to find meaning (and so you can take what I say with whatever grain of salt you want). But whether or not I'm referencing hyperbole seems beyond the point if what I'm saying is that Buddhism is not those things which the Buddha advised against - hyperbolic or not - and that I'm doubtful that all religions lead to the same place. However, this does make a good point that it would be useful to accurately understand other doctrines before talking about them. I could do my own research, but it would be useful for others to insert their own understanding of these different traditions and teachings. But my impression is that many equate Buddhist teachings on anatta or even dependent origination to things such as one-ness or even amorality, and if that's true, I'd like to show how it isn't accurate in doctrine or (my understanding of) practice.

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.

And since it seems that some views expressed here are similar to what Ajahn Geoff points out as Romantic thinking, I think it's necessary to bring that up as well, noting that Ajahn Geoff is speaking of Romanticism as a lens we have unknowingly adopted through which we interpret Buddhism.This is a concern to Buddhists who want try and stick to the Buddha's tradition (or even what they believe is the Buddhist tradition) and avoid watering it down with misunderstandings handed to us by our surrounding culture. It's also the concern of monks who must maintain a consistent vinaya and avoid a schism which would be perhaps be caused by a radically new interpretation of the vinaya.

and avoid a schism which would be perhaps be caused by a radically new interpretation of the vinaya. — TLCD1996

Aren't schisms inevitable in every philosophy, religion, ideology etc?

If yes, what can we learn from that?

“It is the goal of spiritual life to open to the reality that exists beyond our small sense of self. Through the gate of oneness we awaken to the ocean within us, we come to know in yet another way that the seas we swim in are not separate from all that lives. When our identity expands to include everything, we find a peace with the dance of the world. It is all ours, and our heart is full and empty, large enough to embrace it all.”

Any way, the point is that Buddhism isn't about that,

Could you explain which bit of this Buddhism is not about? I cannot see how it can be about anything else.

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.

Quite so. It would be odd not to bring it up.

Culturally, methodologically, linguistically and psychologically the various traditions vary, but the truth is the truth and the nature of Reality is the nature of Reality. To say these religions lead to different places and different discoveries is to say they are unscientific, untrustworthy and implausible.
Oneness is always the core message and union with Reality the goal,

'I and the Father are One' says Jesus, summarising the entire affair. .