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. — TLCD1996
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. — FrancisRay
I did not accuse Ajahn Geoff of wrongful actions. You’re overreacting and that’s understandable being that Ajahn Geoff is a religious authority. — praxis
It will cause confusion if you think Buddhism is one religion. It is split very definitely into two. It's a disgrace, and I hate to say it, but there it is. — FrancisRay
Thanks for clarifying, however you say that this othering is the worst part of religion. It seems that you're accusing him of something that's wrong, then. — TLCD1996
... my role in the discussion usually is one of trying to dissolve certain conceptual boundaries (e.g. the "religion and philosophy" dichotomy),...
Why is reifying the conceptual boundary between religion and philosophy apparently undesirable or wrong, whereas reifying the conceptual boundary between Buddhism and Buddhist Romanticism is apparently desirable or good? — praxis
We could choose to stop thinking about ourselves right now, not forever, just for awhile. But wait, before we do that, let's insert a process which takes many years. Also, a process which promises to make us bigger and better than ever before.
So instead of letting go of suffering right now, our plan is to let go after we've become rich, or famous, or popular, or better looking, or enlightened, or anything, anything at all really. Except for right now. — Hippyhead
But besides the fact this might not solve suffering at the very core — TLCD1996
simply sitting down in meditation - perhaps in the forest - are a good starting point of letting go — TLCD1996
Just doing the analysis dance with you and pointing out the obvious that this entire discussion is all about "me and my situation". A focus on "me and my situation" is proposed as the solution. Could it instead be the problem? Not the cure, but the disease? — Hippyhead
Why is reifying the conceptual boundary between religion and philosophy apparently undesirable or wrong, whereas reifying the conceptual boundary between Buddhism and Buddhist Romanticism is apparently desirable or good?
— praxis
Because conventions are limited, yet they are necessary. — TLCD1996
Thus earlier I also said that there's nothing totally wrong about calling Buddhism a religion (or even a Philosophy) given a certain context, however for the purpose of realizing the truth of the Buddha's teachings, it is necessary to avoid too tight of a grip on these labels which can pigeonhole the dhammavinaya. — TLCD1996
Well, again, why so loosey-goosey with the religion/philosophy distinction but so anal about the Buddhism/Buddhist Romanticism distinction? You haven’t addressed the question. If it’s pigeonholing by distinguishing religion/philosophy then it’s pigeonholing by distinguishing Buddhism/Buddhist Romanticism. — praxis
Showing how others do things differently isn't even a good way to teach something. — praxis
Too loose and there is no support; too tight, the possibilities are limited. — TLCD1996
Showing how others do things differently isn't even a good way to teach something.
— praxis
Why not? — TLCD1996
If you have an explanation of how calling Buddhism a religion limits possibilities it would be interesting to know. — praxis
Because it's best to teach what you're teaching. But if two different ways are fundamentally the same I guess it doesn't much matter. — praxis
Buddhism becomes limited to whatever meaning somebody ascribes to those words — TLCD1996
Okay. So, suppose I teach somebody to keep the precepts, and they do so, but in a way which makes them feel extremely on edge and fearful of stepping on the smallest and unnoticeable bug, leading them to resort to a life of total inaction and fearful misery. Or at least they subject themselves to repetitive guilt trips stemming from accidentally breaking precepts or even intentionally doing so out of a deeply ingrained habit. Are you saying it's wrong for me to tell them not to do that? Because that's basically what's happening when you describe somebody else's wrong actions (however directly or indirectly) and say, "don't do that". Seems pretty necessary to me, at least depending on the circumstances.
And what if it works? What if it makes them think, "oh, he's telling me to keep the precepts, just not like that. Okay, I'll try that." And then they do it, and it works, and they feel more confident in themselves (not to mention me as their teacher). Is it still a bad way to teach? — TLCD1996
Please, that's like saying that calling China – a place that I've never been to – limits China to the little that I know of it. No possibilities are lost by calling China China. The word is merely a signifier or sign. In fact not using the sign may limit the possibility of my knowing China better because I may not be able to find it without the dang sign! — praxis
In Buddhist Romanticism, Ajahn Geoff points a finger at other schools, not his own. — praxis
I really doubt it'll ever be proven. — TLCD1996
Partly because we're talking about something which could be called "subjective", something which many have trouble even describing or even teaching to their students. — TLCD1996
I really don't want to keep going back and forth saying the same thing over and over (and a fair bit extra) when the point is exactly the opposite of that. So I'll leave that there. — TLCD1996
our understanding of China will change over time, as will our descriptions and signifiers. Therefore these signs are not totally stable, therefore our usage of them must be a bit more purposeful and perhaps not separate from values of truthfulness. And still, some people will understand them one way, others a different way. And our desire for agreement is not always guaranteed satisfaction, unfortunately. — TLCD1996
If you think it;s just a religion (whatever he definition) then you're missing much of what it;s about. It's limiting to pigeon-hole before you do the study. Find out what it is and then you'll know what it is. — FrancisRay
You’re overreacting and that’s understandable being that Ajahn Geoff is a religious authority.
— praxis
Perfect example of passive-aggressive baiting. Those participating in this thread will do well to take note. — Wayfarer
Have you ever worked a hard low paying job for years? If the guy next to you is always happy, at peace and contented while you're burning out, you'd probably take note of that and wonder how they did it.
There's a guy like this who loads lumber for customers at my local HomeDepot. Hard sweaty job, 8 hours a day. Been there for years. Probably makes about $10/hour. Always cheerful, always a smile, always helpful, always fun to see again. One day I asked him, how do you do that? Jesus he said. Credibility. — Hippyhead
If I were a newcomer to Buddhism I;d probably dismiss it for being unreliable, as indicated by its internal disagreements. — FrancisRay
Of course, people have varying understandings of things. If you asked a child what religions is they might say something like, "it's about God." If you asked someone with a PhD in religious studies what religion is, God knows what they'd say. As we've already noted, the term is not very well defined, ergo, this topic. — praxis
is there some point you're trying to make? — FrancisRay
Why not just concede that Buddhism is a religion among others things? Why not just concede that how we define religion is to some extent merely a matter of taste? — FrancisRay
Usually the practice is like this: you find a meaning which is useful, you pick it up and use it, then you put it down when you don't need it. And you remember that there is no true refuge within that meaning, so you stop seeking it out. — TLCD1996
I work at Walgreens! — TLCD1996
And you remember that there is no true refuge within that meaning, so you stop seeking it out. — TLCD1996
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.