Quick plug, I've started a new thread about life/death, existence and non-existence and it would be neato if Buddhists might comment on it from their perspective. As time permits of course. Or not of course too.

Oneness is always the core message — FrancisRay

And the message is presented in the medium of thought, that which by it's inherently divisive nature destroys the experience of oneness.

Imagine that we all met to discuss this in person. So we're all sitting on the couches in my living room looking at each other across the coffee table. And then imagine that instead of saying anything, we just sat there looking at each other for an hour.

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?

We learn that it's a good idea to investigate the world with logic and experience and not just speculate or buy into someone else's ideas. . .

And the message is presented in the medium of thought, that which by it's inherently divisive nature destroys the experience of oneness.


Yes. The message is not the thing. It's just the message. The word 'elephant' is not an elephant. I don't think there's any reason for this issue to cause problems.

We learn that it's a good idea to investigate the world with logic and experience and not just speculate or buy into someone else's ideas — FrancisRay

My understanding so far is that many Buddhists have sincerely tried to do just that. And yet, still the schisms.

Certainly many Christians have sincerely tried to love and unite. And yet, still the schisms.

To my knowledge there is no ideology which is not afflicted by schisms.

If it's true that schisms are universal, they can't be arising from thought content. If they were, by now some one would have found the ideology which is schism-proof.

Instead we see lots of people claiming their ideology can do the job, without evidence of success.

Yes. The message is not the thing. It's just the message. The word 'elephant' is not an elephant. I don't think there's any reason for this issue to cause problems. — FrancisRay

Schisms, arguments, hatred, conflicts, violence. Problems.

Yes. I'm saying there's no need for this situation. Most people do not approach religion and philosophy as I suggest, so trouble follows.

I'm suggesting we can avoid it.

To my knowledge there is no ideology which is not afflicted by schisms.

This might be the definition of ideology. Easiest thing is to abandon ideology, as the mystics do, and as any good Buddhist or Christian should do. .

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.

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

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.

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

If you believe that murder rationalized based on atman is part of the Hindu tradition, that’s really weird, in my opinion,

We certainly agree on this one. The number of ways to misunderstand religion seems to be infinite.

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

First, what Emerson is describing is a form of becoming, where the mind latches onto an identity of any sorts. The Buddha says that all things are "not self", even identity, and he avoids answering any question related to its existence or non-existence, as he does questions related to the (in)finitude of the universe, because these are not related to the cessation of suffering (MN 2, MN 63, SN 12.48). Any state of identity is a state of becoming and thus a transient state of birth and death, therefore it's not cessation therefore it's worth abandoning.

Here are bits from MN 63 and SN 12.48:

MN 63: "Malunkyaputta, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... or that "After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,"' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.

SN 12.48: "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?"

"'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything a Oneness?"

"'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman."

"Then is everything a Manyness?"

"'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness ... From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

As much as the Buddha was interested in truth, he wasn't interested about the truth of "the universe" or "reality" as others were. Everyone had their own theory and hardly anyone could agree, and they would debate until they die and nothing would be solved for them. Thus the Buddha defined the "world" as the six senses, and taught that surely, one must understand this world to transcend suffering - and to understand it means to understand dependent origination, not laws of physics or the scientific minutaie of interconnection.

The Buddha said his path was one of "non-contention," meaning he didn't seek out debate on those matters; his focus was on training people who were interested in learning the path.

Schisms, arguments, hatred, conflicts, violence. Problems. — Hippyhead

I haven't read much on the schisms of the Sangha, but for sure they happen. Thus Thai Forest teachers advise against debates like this, and if they do happen, we learn to respect each other's opinion and keep the practice at heart - maintain metta, keep letting go, etc (edit: and just stick to the discipline and try to resolve differences). If people take their opinions too seriously, as is something which can happen in any context including science, then people split apart and miss the point entirely. Edit: there are also rules against starting schisms, and given the consequences of such an event among other things, monastics are (or should be) very interested in avoiding these issues. My experience is that starting debates or arguments gets you bad looks, or you may be approached about the issue later; depending on one's relationship to the community, they may be asked to leave.

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. — praxis

I'd really like some evidence that says this isn't part of a hindu tradition; at least to my knowledge there are many and hinduism is something of an umbrella term, connected with Brahmanism which the Buddha had moved away from with his establishment of the Sangha.

As for "romantic religion", again I'm not really concerned with the accuracy of the word, or how it fits with your own definition of it. Ajahn Geoff's book suggests that not only did romantics not even identify as "romantic", but a man named Schleiermacher (as a member of a "group of Romantics") was noted for his insistence that religion be defined not be its texts, but on a feeling; a universal feeling of intimate oneness with the universe.

Is that true? I don't know and at this moment I don't feel inclined toward research in that area. If you want to provide some hard evidence against that, please do. But I know that people really gravitate toward this sentiment regardless of their knowledge, and although it's not bad or anything, it's just not the point of Dhamma practice. A good means for sure, but one which should be approached with caution for the sake of preserving tradition.

And I won't speculate on Ajahn Geoff's underlying intentions, but based on his teachings and reputation I have pretty high trust in his discernment and virtue (though you would not be the first to criticize his hard opinions), and based off my (limited) experience with other Sanghas and some research in the Thai Forest tradition, I doubt there's something sinister underneath. The truth seems to be, based on my limited observation, that people seeking unity often want something soft, but Buddhism isn't always soft, and people don't like that. Further, people seek something to hold onto - but the Buddha (and his Vinaya) say, with compassion: "If you want to reach the goal, you're going to need to let go of that." And then you hear the "buts".

Edit: and since this seems to be going away from the topic of discussion, I would suggest we start moving away from it or starting a new separate thread. 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".

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....

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?

I think I've already been through this, but maybe it would be good to summarize in some way. To be honest, given that the definition of "religion" has been subject to constant reworking over the years, and given that I am not a religious studies scholar, I'm not stuck on one definition of "religion" and my approach is really loose and not rigorous at all. And it's just my own opinion and inclination; my role in the discussion usually is one of trying to dissolve certain conceptual boundaries (e.g. the "religion and philosophy" dichotomy), or understand ways to adopt new approaches (noting that this isn't easy on the internet). And I think something decent may come out of bringing the suttas or traditional teachings out into the light, especially ones that show how Buddhism is at once broadly applicable in life but also limited/contained by core principles.

It seems that a lot of people define religion by faith or belief in a particular idea, so for these sorts I'd usually point out the amount of questioning involved with dhamma practice, the extent to which beliefs are to be discarded or analyzed, and the place of meditation practice which is not to appease anyone, but to have certain effects on the mind which are necessary for total unbinding to take place.

Given some say this would be a blind belief in the unknowable (which they associate with religion so often), I would point out the necessity of faith to drive any practice, again reminding that the faith is never solid (though it is said to become "confirmed" and "unshakeable" after the first stage of enlightenment) and continually being reworked based on one's own insights. In a sense, the practice depends as much on personal wisdom/insight as it does faith. In short, for the standard practitioner, faith is never static and one's conception of the goal is bound to change (and indeed however we conceive of Nirvana is not Nirvana) according to their own understanding. But the Buddhist suttas and teachings keep it within a certain bounds; if we get rid of the suttas or traditions, it will be harder to stay away from sensuality and indulgence in painful habits. Thus one doesn't just take faith in the "unknowable", but also the discipline and its premises, which are certainly knowable in this life. Further, it may perhaps be worth pointing out that the Buddha said the "dhamma is visible here and now" in the sense that one is able to see, right now, whether their mind has greed, hatred, or delusion by being observant (AN 6.47). And indeed, another driver is dispassion; if we are disillusioned with life yet find it hard to have faith in some ultimate purpose or find it difficult to find nourishment in that which we are handed, perhaps we should recognize the extent to which the Buddhist teachings use that dispassion to build happiness, and the extent to which that happiness is supposed to depend on our actions, which include our actions in the world and our habits of thinking. At that point, Buddhism seems to move quite in the direction of psychological development, not just belief or ritualized practice.

If some say that religion is merely a ways of controlling the masses through meaningless rituals, I would partly agree that there is some degree of resultant orderliness in society after agreeing to rules and being lead by figures of a certain stature who may prescribe "rituals", but you're only expected to follow them (to the best of your ability) if you have faith in them; if you're being forced totally against your will, it's likely a cultural thing. The Buddhist rules aren't necessarily equivalent to what we're used to in a post-industrialist society, nor are they just a matter of "being a good Buddhist" in the sense of conforming to a very constricted image (which must be attained as soon as possible to avoid punishment or ridicule). Indeed the Buddha said that the rules were protectors; anyone, after all, can take on the precepts without identifying as anything at all, and without wearing any particular clothing or going to a particular temple. So equating religion to control of the masses and lumping Buddhism in with that is rather overly simplistic, because for the layperson there is actually considerable latitude (hence why earlier I said that one can still learn from other religions or philosophies or ideas, with the caveat that one be mindful of one's core intentions for practice).

If some say religion is brainwashing or has no basis in reality, I think it would be worth reminding the extent to which we all agree or disagree on what "reality" is, and again that it's important for Buddhists to investigate their experience for themselves. The Four Noble Truths, to me, put that well into focus: we're not just agreeing on suffering or a theory of suffering, we're taking that framework and seeing how it actually plays out in our experience. In a sense, it's a working hypothesis, as some teachers would say.

In this way I think the lines between religion, philosophy, science, etc., are quite blurred. And it seems to me that some don't want it to be that way, but noting the conflicts that arise from trying to draw hard lines on things, and noting that any conceptualization at all becomes unsatisfactory at a point, I would say it's not always worth taking seriously. I admit I get a bit caught up in this issue myself at times, but I try to keep it limited to talking about Buddhism with others and, again, bringing the core teachings out in the open and showing how they can be quite challenging. It isn't wrong to say that Buddhism is a religion, but it is limited, and being limited, it is not perfect. It's precisely the limitations of concepts that should drive us to focus on our actual actions and their consequences instead of bein stuck on debating.

You asked what was misleading and I’ve shown it — praxis

Yes, yes, we know, you are the Great Debunker etc etc. Yawn.......

My experience is that starting debates or arguments gets you bad looks, or you may be approached about the issue later; depending on one's relationship to the community, they may be asked to leave. — TLCD1996

Thanks for this report. I understand this to be the exercise of will at the social level to attempt to manage conflict at the level of the content of thought. This seems like a "middle way" issue to me. Some debate seems essential (imho) but yea, it can indeed become an ego food fight which doesn't serve any useful purpose. Well, unless perhaps one observes the food fight carefully and draws lessons from it?

but a man named Schleiermacher (as a member of a "group of Romantics") was noted for his insistence that religion be defined not be its texts, but on a feeling; a universal feeling of intimate oneness with the universe. — TLCD1996

A religion might based on an encyclopedia of various practical techniques for reaching for that experience. If the focus is on the experience itself, it should become clear in time that theories about the experience (such as mine for example) are more obstacle than asset. They probably still happen for some (like me for example) but their importance can perhaps be put in to a useful context.

Sometimes I say things like the "explanations are a waste product of the experience", which is probably too colorful and extreme, but perhaps movement in generally the right direction? Well, according to Hippyheadism anyway.

Thanks for this report. I understand this to be the exercise of will at the social level to attempt to manage conflict at the level of the content of thought. This seems like a "middle way" issue to me. Some debate seems essential (imho) but yea, it can indeed become an ego food fight which doesn't serve any useful purpose. Well, unless perhaps one observes the food fight carefully and draws lessons from it? — Hippyhead

It really depends on who's in charge. Harmony is really appreciated in a broad way; it's not necessarily a theological issue, particularly because people's basic understandings of practice seem to be on the same page in a given tradition. Arguments may come from specific interpretations, in which case it is usually reminded (from what I've seen) that everyone is free to have their interpretation, just don't cause problems and be willing to question your views. But it's the teacher's duty to tell the student that's not quite the proper way to look at things, and here trust in the teacher becomes important (and is often based on the teacher's conduct as monks or laypeople). That is my recollection.

A religion might based on an encyclopedia of various practical techniques for reaching for that experience. If the focus is on the experience itself, it should become clear in time that theories about the experience (such as mine for example) are more obstacle than asset. They probably still happen for some (like me for example) but their importance can perhaps be put in to a useful context. — Hippyhead

That's agreeable, though again it's a middle way thing. Don't cling to theory tightly, but don't discard it entirely; learn to use it skillfully. Since the Buddha seems quite insistent on a particular goal and way of training, the meaning of "skillful" here is contextualized accordingly. But even if one doesn't seek that goal, they can still learn good things from this, in my opinion. A decent amount of the Buddha's teachings, anyhow, talk a whole lot about communal harmony. I think it's important for Buddhists to take the context of those teachings into consideration, but in a way they seem quite down-to-earth and applicable for a broad audience, and indeed it seems we're recognizing some similar trends across different traditions/reigions/philosophies etc. One of my favorite examples are the five precepts(AN 8.39):

There are these five gifts, five great gifts — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans. Which five?

"There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life [similarly with stealing, engaging in sexual misconduct, lying, and using intoxicants]. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift — original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning — that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & brahmans.

Yes. I'm saying there's no need for this situation. Most people do not approach religion and philosophy as I suggest, so trouble follows. — FrancisRay

Every ideology says this. If only everyone agreed with us then we'd have peace. Except that never happens, even within a particular ideology.

“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, ↪TLCD1996 “

I asked what part of this description of the 'spiritual' life Buddhism was not about. I don't understand the relevance of your reference to Emerson and the sutras.

I've read this pararaph three times and would say confidently it is exactly what Buddhism is about. What else could it be about? It seems a very good summary.

So I must be misunderstanding your comment. If not, then might be about to have an interesting discussion. .


. .

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. [praxis]


(For some reason the link doesn't show.)

I'm not a Buddhist, I just believe that Buddhist doctrine is true. I'm,not a Christian but believe the teachings are true. And so forth. Once you find the correct interpretation then the religions all line up behind the same metaphysical scheme and world-view. This is the 'coherence' test of truth, that it makes sense of everything. There is also the problem that I am a poor practitioner. It would be cheeky to call myself a Buddhist or Christian. The Buddha and Jesus didn't find it necessary.

You say this. ---"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 know exactly what you mean, and you might like to know that Nagarjuna disaproves of the word 'Unity for this very reason. So do many other sages, and It is a well known problem of language. But it is possible to use the word 'Unity' and Oneness' with a different meaning, and we must, for it we do not use these words then we have no words at all. Thus Lao Tsu tells us we cannot speak the Tao but also that we must.

In the Perennial tradition the words 'Unity', 'One' or Unicity' may be used, but they should not imply a numerical value. They are not dualistic unless misinterpreted. In metaphysics we need 'Unity', 'One' and so forth for words and cannot do without them, but we should take full account of your comments above and make sure we're not misinterpreting them. , . . . . .

If we take this approach then we can say Buddhism and mysticism is general is all about Oneness. This is probably made most obvious by Plotinus. .

Every ideology says this. If only everyone agreed with us then we'd have peace. Except that never happens, even within a particular ideology.

You misunderstand. My suggestion is that we approach religion in the same way as we should do philosophy, by abandoning all our ideologies, beliefs, hopes, dreams, theories and views and other useless baggage at the door. . .

I asked what part of this description of the 'spiritual' life Buddhism was not about. I don't understand the relevance of your reference to Emerson and the sutras. — FrancisRay

Okay - perhaps I had answered the question wrongly, then.

The quote is apparently expressive of Emerson's view regarding the goal of religion: that through oneness as a "gate", we open to an "ocean within", and "dance" with the world without, so to speak. Apparently, having acknowledged our one-ness and non-separateness, we attain this harmony and thus we no longer suffer. We become intimately connected with ourselves and the world.

Ignoring that this isn't too far fetched, and ignoring that it isn't a difficult conclusion to come to if one finds significant ease and well-being by relaxing and living with the world rather than in spite of it or against it, this attainment is describing a state of becoming, albeit a refined one. While it wouldn't be non-Buddhist to incorporate a relaxed and integrated mindset into one's practice (not to mention one which is oriented around sensitivity), it would be "non-Buddhist" to say that this is the goal. In short, Buddhism is not about this "integration" of "self". Even though one may infer that the enlightened Buddhist is integrated, the thing is they have abandoned becoming and "self", however "self" may be defined.

To get to the broader picture of that, Ajahn Geoff is saying that this is a subtle point; the "romantic" conclusion is a conclusion many Buddhists have been led to because it seems, in some ways, to be quite close to the Buddha's teaching and is reinforced by certain aspects of our culture, be it consumer culture, artistic culture, religious or spiritual culture, etc. And in many ways, even from my own perspective, it's hard to see why it couldn't be the goal; but I can only imagine what such a goal is like, and so I wouldn't be quick take my imagination's word. It's only when we look at some particular patterns or historical occurrences that we begin to see that maybe things are just a bit off (Ajahn Geoff talks more about that in his book and I don't really want to go too in depth there).

Looking at the suttas, be it the Buddha's stance on cosmology, self-thinking, becoming, dependent origination, or suffering, it's clear that there's got to be "something" beyond the oneness described. And based on the teachings of the Buddha and, recently, respected teachers in the Thai Forest tradition (not just Ajahn Geoff; Thai Forest Ajahns such as Ajahn Lee and Ajahn Mun included here among others), there comes a point in practice where it is crucial that one keep an eye out for refined experiences that may appear to be easeful and blissful but are in fact modes of birth and becoming which the mind has latched onto, which will thus keep it bound to birth and death.

Thus, when speaking of the goal here, Ajahn Geoff is quite particular about the wordage used to describe "spiritual goals" and is diligent in his efforts to say "what is and what is not the dhamma". And it is out of trust that myself and others take his word for it, follow his instructions (if not the instructions of others), and grow just a bit weary of words like "oneness" and "unity", and even philosophical rigor. Thus: use and then abandon the preconceived notions, develop virtue, focus on the breath, understand things, and let go.... and enjoy it! As much as it seems that Ajahn Geoff is being a party pooper (at least for some people), and as serious as this issue can be approached by practitioners or scholars alike, the path should be joyful and it would be good to have a sense of connection to the world, as long as it's wholesome. Thus the Buddha said, in AN 11.1:

"Ananda, skillful virtues [e.g. the five precepts] have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. Freedom from remorse has joy as its purpose, joy as its reward. Joy has rapture as its purpose, rapture as its reward. Rapture has serenity as its purpose, serenity as its reward. Serenity has pleasure as its purpose, pleasure as its reward. Pleasure has concentration as its purpose, concentration as its reward. Concentration has knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its purpose, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are as its reward. Knowledge & vision of things as they actually are has disenchantment as its purpose, disenchantment as its reward. Disenchantment has dispassion as its purpose, dispassion as its reward. Dispassion has knowledge & vision of release as its purpose, knowledge & vision of release as its reward.

"In this way, Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by-step to the consummation of arahantship."

Edit: to add on, I think the Buddha's teachings on sense-restraint and virtue, which are notably strict for monastics, further suggest that there's something about Buddhism that can't be simplified to "dancing with life," for example. Although we could say that virtue, restraint, and even the method of practice can be likened to artistic constraints which are necessary for creativity and not necessarily inhibitive of enjoyment, they are notably direct and at times quite demanding. For example, some monks have found it necessary to sleep in the wilderness or cremation grounds - not as a matter of "dancing with life" or "living life to the fullest," as would seem to be along some romantic lines, but as a matter of developing contentment, patience, determination, relinquishment, dispassion, etc. Thus it is also worth noting the rather step-by-step progression described above: although it doesn't necessarily scream at you to do "this then this then this then this" in a robotic or strict way, it is aiming at a sort of methodical and gradual approach to practice which is built off of these causal relationships. For example: joy is necessary to make practice sustainable in the long term, but in the short term (particularly upon a degree of mastery) it is necessary to juse joy to go to the next step in one's practice: rapture, concentration, and so on.

A long post and there are many curious things about it but I'll focus on the most glaring curiosities rather than pick it apart. No one in this topic seems to like that.

Though you talk about the question of Buddhism being a religion and address me, you don't apply the PPP (praxis pet project, as it has become so affectionately known). You talk about faith, controlling the masses, meaningless rituals, etc. etc., and there's nothing wrong with that of course, but it's incidental to my project, or rather, it misses or doesn't address the point.

It isn't wrong to say that Buddhism is a religion, but it is limited, and being limited, it is not perfect. — TLCD1996

I don't believe there's such a thing as an unlimited or perfect definition.

my role in the discussion usually is one of trying to dissolve certain conceptual boundaries (e.g. the "religion and philosophy" dichotomy) — TLCD1996

That's a really rich comment coming from someone who dragged out the book of Buddhist Romanticism, a work that goes to exhausting length to distinguish the other. This is one of the worst aspects of religion, its limited inclusion that always seems to require an other to help define itself.

I don't believe there's such a thing as an unlimited or perfect definition. — praxis

Okay. I'll keep that in mind.

That's a really rich comment coming from someone who dragged out the book of Buddhist Romanticism, a work that goes to exhausting length to distinguish the other. This is one of the worst aspects of religion, its limited inclusion that always seems to require an other to help define itself. — praxis

A really important point. But Ajahn Geoff, for one, isn't naming Buddhist-romantic names (see below). And further, Ajahn Geoff doesn't say that romantics or "Buddhist romantics" need to pack their bags and leave. He's not saying they have to be "excluded" from "Buddhism", but he's stating certain qualifications, as the Buddha did, for what counts as "dhamma"; he isn't obligated to make everyone feel like they're preaching dhamma just because what they say is beautiful and convincing. Ajahn Geoff isn't here to validate you or anyone else. He's trying to preserve dhamma-vinaya. Sometimes that will push some buttons, but sometimes pushing buttons is necessary, especially when it means getting people out of their dhamma-ruts, so to speak.

I mean, if he was so intent on "othering" or pitting people against each other, he and his his followers could probably do a lot more than put a book on their site and share it with those who request it. But the only reason you're hearing about this specific "othering" is because I'm here trying to explain Dhamma. That is, I am not pitting myself against you. I am saying: this is what you say, but here's what the Buddha said, and here's what I think and what I've come to understand over time. On that note I admit: I am going a little out of bounds of the norm by coming here unsolicited. But I take responsibility for that - and I apologize if I've "othered" people. That's something I don't want to do.

Here are Ajahn Geoff's words from the book. Noting, especially in light of what I've just said, that the book is primarily directed towards practitioners:

Buddhist Romanticism is so pervasive in the modern understanding of the Dhamma that it is best approached, not as the work of specific individuals, but as a cultural syndrome: a general pattern of behavior in which modern Dhamma teachers and their audiences both share responsibility for influencing one another—the teachers, by how they try to explain and persuade; the audiences, by
what they’re inclined to accept or reject. Thus, this section quotes passages from modern Dhamma books, articles, interviews, and talks to illustrate the various features of Romantic religion contained in modern Dhamma, but without identifying the authors of the passages by name. I do this as a way of following the example set by the Buddha: When discussing the teachings of his contemporaries to non-monastic audiences, he would quote their teachings but without naming the teachers (DN 1; MN 60; MN 102), the purpose being to focus attention not on the person but on the teaching. In that way he could discuss the reasoning behind the teaching, and the consequences of following the teaching, all the while focused on showing how these points were true regardless of who espoused the teaching.

In the same way, I want to focus attention, not on individuals who may advocate Buddhist Romantic ideas, but on the cultural syndrome they express, along with the practical consequences of following that
syndrome. It’s more important to know what Buddhist Romanticism is than to know who has been espousing it or to enter into fruitless debates about how Romantic a particular Buddhist teacher has to be in order to deserve the label, “Buddhist Romantic.” By focusing directly on the syndrome, you can then learn to recognize it wherever it appears in the future.

Some of the teachers quoted here are lay; others, monastic. Some make an effort to shape their Romantic ideas into a coherent worldview; others don’t. Some—and, ironically, these are among the most consistently Romantic in their own thought—misunderstand Romanticism to be nothing but anti-scientific emotionalism or egotism, and so have explicitly denounced it. But the tendency to Romanticize the Dhamma is present, at least to some extent, in them all.

Regarding your project and my inability to speak to it in a way which you find fitting: if you think it's such an important issue, it may be helpful to explain why and how Buddhism fits in with it. Forgive me for being rude, but I don't think it's really necessary for me to give your "pet project" much thought in this scenario, which is why I haven't really addressed it. If your ideas on religion are as rigorous as I think they might be, I think it would take a lot of time and energy to understand it while addressing other points in this thread and mazing through your thorny questions. But again, if you can communicate them in a way which is easy to understand, please do so.

Edit: And please, let's not go down the path of trying to speculate on somebody else's motives and accuse them of wrongful action. I don't think I should even be defending Ajahn Geoff. It just seems so inappropriate. Thanks.

I am going a little out of bounds of the norm by coming here unsolicited. — TLCD1996

I think you should apologize for apologizing in any way for your contributions here. :-) This is my clever one liner, uh, two liner.

You misunderstand. My suggestion is that we approach religion in the same way as we should do philosophy, by abandoning all our ideologies, beliefs, hopes, dreams, theories and views and other useless baggage at the door — FrancisRay

I don't misunderstand, I've been chanting that very thing over and over to the point where even I'm now annoyed by the chanting. :-)

To get to the broader picture of that, Ajahn Geoff is saying.....

Ah. I get it now. Regrettably we are never going to be able to agree about Buddhism. I have no time for Theravada, just as you have no time for Mahayana.

I meant you misunderstood me,such that your comment wasn't relevant. . No matter. We agree. .