Oneness is always the core message — FrancisRay
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
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
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
And since it seems that some views expressed here are similar to what Ajahn Geoff points out as Romantic thinking — TLCD1996
Could you explain which bit of this Buddhism is not about? I cannot see how it can be about anything else. — FrancisRay
Schisms, arguments, hatred, conflicts, violence. Problems. — Hippyhead
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
It isn't wrong to say that Buddhism is a religion, but it is limited, and being limited, it is not perfect. — TLCD1996
my role in the discussion usually is one of trying to dissolve certain conceptual boundaries (e.g. the "religion and philosophy" dichotomy) — TLCD1996
I don't believe there's such a thing as an unlimited or perfect definition. — praxis
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
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.