Looking at your post history, I see that you have experience in this matter. I'm assuming it's fairly complicated so I'll avoid trying to explore that here, so we can stay more on topic. But I think it's fair to say that you know that was an unsatisfactory experience.

Speaking for myself, kalyanamittata has totally been a way for me to grow in my confidence regarding the possibility of this "knowledge". Even the monks who haven't always been "perfect" have, in my eyes, manifested admirable qualities. I've never met a monk who said they were totally free (it's against the Vinaya, anyway), but their behavior or what they taught me would surely lead me to feel confident that they've gained benefit in their practice. And they've never demanded I assume that they're superior in any way.

The closest thing I've gotten to "if you don't like it, leave" is "if you didn't want my advice, why did you ask?" And there it was always relevant, because first I would find the assumption within myself that they're going to give me a particular kind of advice, or I would find that I didn't really trust them when I asked.

From there it's become apparent to me that trust or distrust can be quite instinctual for some such as myself, but also that it can be deliberately used as a personal tool to build relationships as well as help ourselves; sometimes we have a sort of instinctual trust based on ignorance and naivete, sometimes we have it after (truthfully) making some qualifying considerations. For example: I've never seen this person do anything hurtful, and in fact what I see them do usually has a good result. Further, the people who follow this person's advice seem to have good results as well, so I might as well trust them and see what happens. A similar process can be applied for distrusting people. That's where we begin to have a little more autonomy and also apply ourselves. It took me a long time to learn that, and the monastics I know have been so instrumental in that.

I'm not well versed enough in philosophy to understand exactly where this fits into discussions of "epistemology", but I think it's fair to say that knowing oneself to be faithful is a trustworthy claim of knowledge. And I know from past experience that sometimes this faith changes, especially as we learn more about our human condition and understand where our trust should or should be placed if we want to be at ease. Sometimes we place it in the wrong spot and grow sorely disappointed when it fails us. Sometimes we think we got it right, but we see how we're wrong later. That's where I've often found myself (and I'm beginning to think that "rightness", not in terms of "samma" but more on the cocky side of "rightness", is a poor place to place one's confidence).

So, trying to connect this with your earlier post on trusting experience: are you saying that in a spiritual community, one has to be cocky enough to trust their own experiences so as not to be influenced by the thoughts, opinions, criticisms etc of others?

If so, I'm wondering what this might look like, or how it might manifest. I've seen cockiness lead to survival, but it wasn't really pretty, and I think it would be short term unless it was addressed somehow. Cockiness to me conveys an attitude of mistrust toward others (based on one's own conceit), which isn't all that healthy in a small spiritual community as far as I know.

I'm just saying that we shouldn't define the people who need help by their racial features nor offer help exclusively to people based on their race. — Judaka

Would you say this is the same as ignoring race or broadening the perspective to be more holistic?

But a more fundamental problem with "equity" seems to be that is is difficult to define and even more difficult to implement. To begin with, who decides? It looks like the group that shouts loudest or gets the support of the media, big tech and big bucks tends to win the day. — Apollodorus

And that doesn't sound like equity! But then again, we need to shout sometimes; on a micro scale, if we've fallen and we're being trampled in a crowd, we'll die if we don't shout. But we're not asking everyone to stop what they're doing and help us in every way. We have a need which isn't being recognized, so we shout that get that need heard so it can be met.

From https://www.raceforward.org/about/what-is-racial-equity:

At Race Forward, we define racial equity as both an outcome and a process. As an outcome, we achieve racial equity when race no longer determines one's socioeconomic outcomes; when everyone has what they need to thrive, no matter where they live. As a process, we apply racial equity when those most impacted by structural racial inequity are meaningfully involved in the creation and implementation of the institutional policies and practices that impact their lives.

So you think equality should be a guiding compass rather than equity, and that equity needs a stronger foundation in order to have a good effect when pursued?

Do you mean in the context of a community where susceptible newcomers, inquirers etc need to protect themselves against charismatic online "gurus" or potentially harmful ideas?

Totally. Sometimes people get a bit too cocky about their "experience" to the point where they assume that everyone else is below them (an inferior "other"). This is, to my understanding, what is called "mana" or "conceit" in Buddhism (and I'd guess outside of Buddhism as well).

Buddhists need to be honest with themselves when asking if they're free from suffering or defilement; and if they ask, they need to understand when their response is a reflexive (edit: impulsive) "Yes I am free because x y and z", (edit:) rather than a clear recognition.

According to (my understanding of) the scriptures, one who reaches the goal has no doubt about it, and no reason to argue at all. They're also not necessarily all-knowing; what they "know" are the four noble truths, and their capacity to know other things (e.g. the ways of the world, people, language, etc) is limited to their psychological conditioning. They know for themselves that they are free from greed and anger, and the delusion which would lead to grasping. Edit: whether or not they know the minds of others or the extent of the physical universe or their past lives is not of primary concern.

As for myself, I can't say I'm totally free from that. But I can say confidently that I know what it's like to be momentarily free from anger or greed; to be open-hearted and content (and I would wager that some of us here, even non Buddhists, have felt that) The question now is: can I cultivate that, maintain it, and liberate myself with it? The scriptures say yes, the teachers say yes, and I say yes, but the "yes" doesn't mean much if I don't try and see.

I'm only a sitting duck if I rest content with that "yes," as far as I'm concerned, and if I sit around all the time trying to argue my case ;)

I want to keep this discussion more along the lines of discussion and not therapy, so I'll try to keep probing minimal. And I want to emphasize that one of the things about NVC that would make it helpful is not just that the framework allows us to connect to others, but that it allows us to clarify and make explicit what it is we're feeling, and what it is we want. If it doesn't help us connect with others, it can help us connect with ourselves; so if we find ourselves getting a bit flustered in our interactions, we can look inward to see why that is, and then take responsibility for that.

I'm assuming you would like them to recognize that you have some sort of knowledge, or that your views/thoughts/ideas/mentality are all humane/ethical/rational etc?

Do you feel hurt when people insult you? Is it because you want people to treat you with kindness or respect? I'm wondering if some insults anger you lead to you feeling angry more than others.



Thanks for sharing this. NVC has been hugely helpful for me, in that it's given me new tools to look inward and understand why I'm doing things, and of course to understand why others are doing things - so that I can help them, or I can help them help me, etc. It's amazing. Total paradigm shift for me.

Man, if my practice in pursuit of liberation of Nirvana is a self-fulfilling prophecy, I'm a lucky duck!

The Dhamma is "ehipassiko"; encouraging investigation, inviting others to see for themselves. Since I trust the teachers of this Dhamma, I'll gladly accept their premises and try to follow them as best as I can, because they've helped me a lot over the years and continue to do so. If you don't believe me, that's fine.

But is it really problematic to believe the teachings? I don't think so. Again, because it's given me good results as far as I can see - that's my own anecdotal reasoning. Second, because my acceptance and trust isn't mutually exclusive from questioning - acceptance doesn't have to be absolute, and indeed teachers would discourage that. However, what this faith (to my understanding) entails is a need to not rest satisfied with result based in rationality alone (a need to go beyond thought), because rationality is just thinking (and thoughts are empty of essence; they arise and then they cease). What do you get when thinking ceases? The 2nd jhana. You can't argue your way through even meditation. The only time argument works is when it actually leads to the stilling of arguments within oneself. Then, finally, one can begin to focus on breathing without getting caught up in philosophy.

In that case, you don't necessarily need to even start with criticism of the prospect of nirvana. Start with criticism of jhana. We're told that we'll achieve a "happiness not of the flesh" (not necessarily nirvana) by momentarily abandoning the five hindrances (sense-desire, ill-will, dullness, restlessness, doubt), and properly utilizing the faculty of thinking (vitakka-vicara) to maintain a wholesome focused/settled attention on the object of meditation (samadhi). This isn't necessarily just a little sense of relaxation and escape from the hustle and bustle of daily life, it's a way of being at ease and experiencing pleasure just by focusing our attention in a particular way. It's an inner happiness, which again is not nirvana! And then we're told this will get deeper once that faculty of thought is stilled. Can you believe that? Well, a lot of meditators do. Does it seem problematic to trust that it's possible and put aside our questioning and just try for ourselves? Maybe so, once we learn that we have to begin changing our habits. No wonder even some Buddhists think Jhana is impossible these days.

Sure. Let me know if that makes any sense to you. I think I'll be finishing here as well.

The reason why I called it "repressing grief" was because, at least in some circumstances, that is what is entailed when one tries to force it away by bringing up thoughts of impermanence (and my apologies if I mischaracterized your words). Expressing grief is healthier than repressing it, and yes, seeing impermanence and really taking it to heart will lessen grief. But it's not really so simple; speaking for myself, my parents are both alive. When my grandfather died, I admit I felt a little uneasy, but I didn't grieve like my father because I wasn't so close, yet I couldn't really have expected what I felt just because I've been practicing Buddhism. Thinking about impermanence won't solve the issue by itself, which is why I'm weary when people isolate it, especially from dispassion; it is dispassion as a result of reflection on impermanence that we free ourselves from grief. And our passions can go quite deep. So there needs to be a proper usage of "impermanence" to get the Buddha's intended result; sometimes there are better options for dealing with loss (or threat of loss), and sometimes we need to add a few things into the mix.

And in regards to your thoughts on medicine: yes, you make a good point. The Buddha didn't recognize suffering until he saw it quite explicitly. However, there's still a whole lot of suffering around today... you'd have to live in a pampered palace not to see it :joke: I'm just not sure if advanced medicine would rule out concerns for well-being. Maybe, maybe not. What really spurs the "search for Dhamma" is a sense that nothing is really satisfactory, even if it brings some happiness. That can happen in all sorts of places, but it depends on the person.

This is clinging with wisdom then? How? — TheMadFool

Because we need to hold onto something to be nourished. The word for clinging is "upadana", which also translates to "sustenance" as in "nutriment"; that which we cling to is what keeps the mind going. (Edit: this might not be totally correct; see down below).

To keep the mind going in a good direction, into the direction of non-clinging, we need to "cling" to good things, such as virtue, meditation, and wisdom, but in a way which is skillful. We use those three for the purpose of realizing the end of suffering; we don't use virtue to exalt ourselves or control others, we don't use meditation just to provide a brief escapade, and we don't use (what we think is) wisdom to prop up a new "enlightened identity," so to speak. Thus we also have this sutta:

"Brahman, the holy life is lived under the Blessed One with the aim of abandoning desire."

"Is there a path, is there a practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"

"Yes, there is a path, there is a practice, for the abandoning of that desire."

"What is the path, the practice, for the abandoning of that desire?"

"Brahman, there is the case where a monk develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on desire & the fabrications of exertion. He develops the base of power endowed with concentration founded on persistence... concentration founded on intent... concentration founded on discrimination & the fabrications of exertion. This, Brahman, is the path, this is the practice for the abandoning of that desire." — Brahmana Sutta

And in the Alagaddupama Sutta, the Buddha says the Dhamma is like a watersnake and a raft: those who hold the snake correctly will not be bitten by it, just as those who grasp the dhamma (as a subject of study) rightly will not be bitten by it; to hold it wrongly is to use it as a tool of debate (I admit this is a weak point of mine), to use it rightly is to practice it in accordance with its purpose. And just as one discards a raft having passed to the farther shore, one discards the path having realized Nibbana. But the reason why Arahants don't revert to lives of sensuality is because they have no interest in it (having seen its danger), and are content with the monastic life. In another sense, they maintain the discipline to serve as an example to future generations (e.g. Maha Kassapa).

And on that it's worth pointing out the different words used: craving is tanha, while desire is chanda; they have different connotations, the latter being inclusive of wholesome desires. Meanwhile clinging (edit: and sustenance) is upadana, and grasping is gahanatthaya, the latter being "grasping" with a purpose in mind.

Yes, appeal to authority, not appeal to ultimate authority, whatever that means to you. :razz:

The point is that if religious people actually believed what they profess to believe they would act accordingly, but they pretty much act like everyone else. Despite the possibility of the cessation of suffering or 'being one with God' or whatever else, they pursue material well-bing. And despite the possibility of being reborn in a hell realm or other hellish fate, they act normally and do normal shitty stuff. — praxis

Yeah, that's a huge (not to mention unfortunately pessimistic) generalization. And even so the Buddha acknowledged that it was rare to find people who were well-restrained. It doesn't really mean people don't believe what they say they believe; it might actually mean they're reluctant to put it into practice to whatever degree, for whatever reason, and there are many reasons. One reason is that it's easy to rationalize not following one's faith in difficult scenarios. And that in itself is a reason why the Buddha emphasized spiritual friendship. If restrained people are rare, spiritual friends are hard to find for the one who interested in restraint, and thus practice will be difficult as well. Thankfully, in my case, I have access to a group of like-minded practitioners, albeit a small one, and I have other people to look up to in my life. And even if it's hard to find somebody admirable, I can still find admirable actions in people. (Edit: e.g. at work I have some co-workers with a good work ethic, and meet customers with all sorts of good qualities who are willing to share them with me; some people close to me aren't always engaged in good behavior but nonetheless they are smart, crafty, and willing to point out your own faults and listen to criticism to whatever extent).

Haha, good for you! :pray: Edit: It's about to get snowy here in Illinois, but if the economy doesn't collapse again I should be on a plane to California soon for some time in the forests myself.

This, again only in my humble opinion, is another addition to the list of misconceptions about the Buddha and his teachings. It's not that the Buddha advised/recommended some kind of dispassionate, emotionally sterile, state of mind always and everywhere. We can and should experience all emotions i.e. we are to be passionate but this should be done, in computer-speak, with the software of impermanence running in the background, ready to be activated as it were when the moment change occurs and what it is that one is passionate about dies, decays or is desrroyed. If not interpreted this way, Buddha would be, essentially, asking us to be passionless, and lifeless, rocks which just doesn't add up. — TheMadFool

I can see what you mean, but it doesn't really add up. Of course it's your opinion, however this is an interesting misconception about "dispassion". The Buddha, in teaching dispassion, didn't teach us to be emotionally sterile. To "activate" impermanence only when that which we love is gone is to attempt to repress grief by a kind of spiritual bypassing. That doesn't really solve any problems and doesn't necessarily help us. Nor does beating ourselves over the head with this word "dispassion" if we take it to mean absolute blankness; such a blankness is, in a way, suffering itself; it is when we tighten our grip on the mind for the sole purpose of not feeling any emotion. But that's not what dispassion is.

Dispassion is the result of understanding, which is the result of concentration, which is the result of joy, which is a result of virtue. Thus the Buddha's teachings actually encourage us to take joy and delight in virtue and wholesome forms of happiness. Thus the scriptures say:

"This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Monks, don't be afraid of acts of merit. This is another way of saying what is blissful, desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming — i.e., acts of merit. I am cognizant that, having long performed meritorious deeds, I long experienced desirable, pleasing, endearing, charming results." — Itivuttaka

One could infer that this was a later addition and thus had nothing to do with the Buddha's teaching because his original teaching was all about suffering and being emotionally sterile, or it had everything to do with it because it was about a "Good life" and not necessarily about this "cessation" or "dispassion" business. But actually, its connection to the teachings finds a basis in the teaching that joy leads to concentration, and so forth up until dispassion and release.

Speaking about the advent of modern medicine, that doesn't necessarily rule out suffering. And that can be connected to impermanence: our medicine may fail, our medical infrastructure may collapse, our bodies (or rather their invaders) may just develop resistance. That is unsatisfactoriness from impermanence, not just a single incident of dissolution (edit: impermanence does not happen in isolation; DO illustrates that things are originated, not that they arise or cease on their own). And the dispassion lies in not holding to medicine in such a way as to cause suffering; we use it to care for our bodies, but not on the hopes that our bodies will be healthy forever or that we'll be happy just because our bodies are happy, because the mind bound by craving will find other things to suffer about. Thus when we lose things, the problem isn't that we have lost something, it's what we've been holding on to that which was never truly ours in the first place (anatta), and we seek refuge in other things to ease our pain (such as a mere program or idea of impermanence running in the background). Thus perception of impermanence, not just thought of impermanence, is what (in conjunction with the joy of virtue and meditation) leads to dispassion and release: non-grasping by understanding suffering and abandoning its cause.

I see it as having been implied from, a necessary consequence of, impermanence. Surely, you can see it too? Between the delightful duo of recommended wisdom, and the doctrine of impermanence, there's one conclusion that stands out - change, transformation, or as I like to call it, evolution. — TheMadFool

If I understand correctly, yes: impermanence can lead to a sort of necessary "evolution". The culture surrounding the Buddha's teachings has to adapt in order to keep the essence, the life, going. So while it's necessary to avoid panicking over these changes, it is also necessary to protect the essence through practice, education, discipline, etc. If impermanence met letting everything go according to whatever influences exerted upon it... I doubt Buddhist monks would even be alive right now! There was a story along these lines:

Once I had a disciple who stayed in a grass-roofed hut. It rained often that rainy season and one day a strong wind blew off half the roof. He did not bother to fix it, he just let it rain in. Several days passed and I asked him about his hut. He said he was practicing not-clinging. This is not-clinging without wisdom. It is about the same as the equanimity of a water buffalo. — Ajahn Chah

Well, good on you for having ideals. But there's no textual basis for your implication that I (edit: at least immediately) avoid such a livelihood in order to be "acting accordingly". Given the current circumstances, avoiding such a job may lead to full on homelessness (or total dependency on others) which could arguably put me in a scenario which is even worse.

As the Buddha said, it's a gradual training. If our livelihood isn't totally "pure" or "perfect", or we have found it to cause whatever form of harm (even without our intending to harm), then we should do our best to distance ourselves away from it. Given the circumstances, this isn't always possible immediately, and so in that scenario we can just do our best to keep to the basic precepts: not killing, not stealing, not engaging in sexual misconduct, not lying, or not indulging in intoxicants ourselves. Whatever others do is up to them, and if we seek to avoid any input in the matter we should work up to that. If we demand that of ourselves immediately, we may end up causing ourselves more suffering than necessary.

I appreciate that criticism but it isn't up to you to tell Buddhists how they should act, especially if you don't understand their practice or even the context of their life. Their actions are not your responsibility.

Edit: Thank you for sharing the beautiful photos :pray:

To my understanding this is not quite the logic of the Buddha's teachings. Knowledge of impermanence was something of a given to whatever extent before the Buddha's enlightenment; other spiritual figures or sources seemed to have pointed to change as being an important reason to abandon worldly concerns and seek something higher; different religious traditions sought the unchanging and equated it with self and/or Brahma, for example. But the Buddhist scriptures say that this "Brahma" was yet another form of becoming; the notion of "atman" based on a wrong assumption; both being involved in the process of suffering. Dependent origination was, as the story goes, one of the Buddha's fundamental insights into the process by which suffering arises and ceases, and how it can be traced through sense experience to ignorance (of impermanence as "origination" and "cessation", notably in regards to the Four Noble Truths). Rebirth is connected with this, in that DO illustrates how the process of rebirth continues to happen over and over again in a process with no conceivable beginning (and indeed one can interchangeably interpret DO to refer to this lifetime and many lifetimes). The role of the teaching is solely to give a framework for investigating the process of becoming and suffering. To whatever extent it provides a theory is not important as a matter of debate but as a matter of practice.

Perhaps it can be inferred that since all things are subject to change, the Buddha's teachings are as well. And indeed, in whatever way, they are: people interpret them, translate them, or re-formulate them differently in different places and times. But the Buddha's teachings and his prescribed practice therein did not speak about "evolution" or did they see change as a "good thing", and the point of the suttas and Vinaya was to try and conserve those teachings for as long as humanly possible. If schisms erupt, as they have, that puts the teachings in danger. Even more so if the discipline is done away with altogether.

Noting that darwinian evolution, as I am currently learning about it in my gen ed classes, describes how populations change via reproduction - it's just a process that occurs mostly regardless of how we judge it as favorable or not. It's something which allows species to live on, yet it is also something which kills or endangers a species (e.g. sickle cells, replacing one advantage for another, cancer). If something goes wrong, things just break down. And whatever the case, the animal or being or its biological constituents still need to do something to survive. And it seems to be in reference to what one wants as a living being that they see the process as "good" or "bad". Thus the same is so for the Buddha's teachings. And in that case we need to ask what's surviving.

As Ajahn Geoff aptly points out, in whatever way the practice of concentration is as much a resistance to change as it is an acceptance: we accept that things change, we are equanimous toward that change, but we do not surrender to that change. Instead, we keep the mind as stable as possible and do what we can to affect good changes and bad changes: abandoning and not taking up the unwholesome, taking up and maintaining the wholesome.

This is easiest to do if one takes and holds to the basic teachings properly. When one starts using them with unwholesome intentions, you get bad results, such as violence. If one uses them to become something or get sense pleasure, you just get more becoming and more sense pleasure, not necessarily more virtue, concentration, or wisdom. And then if your misuse becomes the norm, the original purpose of the teachings is lost. But when one uses them, maintains them, respects them, investigates them, and keeps them in mind, one is able to investigate them thoroughly and understand them thoroughly. Thus their essence, which the scriptures/the Buddha says is "freedom", can live on. If the Buddha's teachings are used to give meaning to life or establish intimate connection with the infinite and organic cosmos, you get Romanticism. If the Buddha's teachings are used to justify not doing anything about anything, you get something nihilistic, no? But if the Buddha's teachings are used to cultivate dispassion and release, you'll get dhamma. Dispassion and release are the essence.

Changing the teachings, especially according to cultural norms which are under the influence of a variety of different intentions and outside influences, is something that is not necessarily a good thing. Thus the Buddha said to keep to the vinaya, and regard it and the teachings as an authority; but don't settle on just memorizing texts. Question them, investigate them, utilize them, and understand them.

Especially when society is changing so rapidly, and our interest in well-being is growing but in such a complicated social and academic context (to my understanding), it seems we need to be weary of quick change. And classifying Buddhism as religion or philosophy is definitely part of that change. Good or bad? I don't know, I'm just weary, and I think forgetting about the practical elements endangers the teaching as much as it endangers our potential.

Yes and that I am confident it is true.

Yikes.

Well, all I said was that I have faith that he found and taught truth, and this faith grows with my confidence gleaned from practice. Faith in his truthfulness doesn't mean it's false, it just means I have come to agree with it to whatever extent, and I still have yet to realize it entirely.

To correct myself, it may suggest the possibility of the teachings being wrong, but to me I see no falsehood. It's not much more than if you said you were a male, and since I didn't know but believed you, there is the possibility of you being dishonest. There is also the possibility of you being wrong about your biology.

If I have said anything that constitutes a lie, please point that out. And please answer my questions instead of making these kinds of irrelevant accusations.

No and no.

Please define supernatural.

What I mean is that it’s not philosophical to accept that something is true based on mere authority, and authority that has access to supernatural knowledge or experience. — praxis

Yet Buddhism doesn't really fall neatly into this either. Of course some Buddhists may do this, but accepting the Buddha's words as absolute truth would bar development on the path; having rigid and unchanging preconceptions about anything in practice limits one's capabilities and often sets up many obstacles along the way (in the form of ideas), thus viewpoints aren't necessarily to be "accepted" as they are "respected" and agreed upon, but tested along the way and abandoned when necessary. This is for the sole purpose of coming to the Buddha's insights into the Four Noble Truths (as accepted possibilities built on the assumption that "suffering arises and ceases therefore there must be a cause and an ability to understand suffering and that cause, and supposing the cause is a matter of habit then the cause can be abandoned"), which aren't in any way supernatural (if I understand the word and its usage correctly). Although the Buddha is said to have built upon the merit accumulated through past lives (which can be called supernatural), what he really did was exercise Right Effort, which is what we are able to do as well (which may explain why a Buddha is an Arahant but an Arahant is not necessarily a Buddha).

On that note rebirth is accepted similarly, not as an absolute but as a possibility (and for different reasons). Same with karma, however research of the suttas and practice itself should yield an understanding that karma isn't totally supernatural at all; karma is literally "intention" (cetana) that yields corresponding results, not just in terms of rebirth but also worldly results and mental results. It's a complicated web of cause and effect wherein there is a distinction between "Wholesome" (non-greed, non-hatred, non-delusion) and "unwholesome" (greed, hatred, delusion), the understanding of which is resultant of making the delineation and testing it through cultivation of the former sort and thorough investigation of both intention and consequence.

The result of holding to a view but being able to question it while putting it into practice is that one is able to investigate it in a manner not necessarily limited to debate or pondering, so that one may come to a personal understanding of it.

Saying this, going back to what I said about a class teaching about Buddhism: That such a class would be teaching "truth" is a matter of my own conviction and perhaps the conviction of other Buddhists; along similar lines I was once told to be mindful of how one treats a collection of suttas because "they're the truest teachings you'll ever hold"; yet this was not necessarily to be accepted immediately as an unquestioned order (authority may imply absolute power). It's not necessarily meant to say that they are teaching something which is absolutely true on that grounds that it is Buddhism, but rather that a Buddhist would declare it truthful teaching based on the extent to which it describes the Buddha's positing of suffering, an origin, a cessation, and a way leading to cessation. This point is mostly of interest to practitioners, I think, but would be illustrative of faith as a kind of confidence and trust, which is said to be deepened by the aforementioned realizations gleaned by personal investigation. And in that sense, going back to inner refuges, the authority would be those insights, particularly the insights which actually result in abandonment of the causes of suffering (and the fetters of becoming which are bound with a certain level of ignorance and craving). The dhammavinaya is, in a sense, not just prescribed but realized and strengthened in those insights.



I talked a bit about dhammavinaya here and there in the thread, but basically it's what the Buddha called his dispensation: dhammavinaya, teaching/doctrine and discipline. The teachings being the four noble truths, khandhas, three characteristics, dependent origination, etc., and the discipline being that which comes as both cause for and result of understanding doctrine. In the vinaya you have rules against violence and killing, among other things, and these disciplinary constraints are deemed essential for the refinement of virtue (particularly the 5 precepts) which is in turn deemed essential for the development of concentration and wisdom. Thus the dhammavinaya is a threefold training in virtue, wisdom, and concentration, and it's something of a feedback loop where wisdom nourishes virtue and so fourth. Maybe one could call it a discipline built on an acceptance (but not an absolute or incontrovertible acceptance) of the teachings.

By acheiving 1, to expose, perhaps "reveal" is a better word, the, now, patent, truth that philosophies that are geared toward answering one of the top questions in philosophy viz. "what is the good life?" eventually become religions, religions in the sense of the definition you provided. The problem, as far as I can tell, is that what are actually philosophies get lumped in with what are true theistic traditions, mainly the Abrahamic triad. This is a grievous error with what are truly horrible consequences - for instance Buddhism can become, has been, both a perpetrator and a victim of religious violence. The incongruity of treating Buddhism as a religion becomes starkly apparent once we take it to its logical conclusion - treating those who subscribe to a worldview of a certain philosopher as constituting the creation of a religion: We would have, on our hands, "religions" such as Aristotelianism, Humianism, Schopenhauerism, if you know what I mean. — TheMadFool

Are you saying that the intention is to try and illustrate how Buddhism can shift (or has shifted) from Philosophy to Religion?

Philosophically, you would need to show how it's true, but that's not possible. — praxis

In what way would one show that something is true philosophically?

You misunderstand, no philosophy teaches truth, it studies fundamental questions, etc, so to say that Buddhism is philosophy is to say that it does not teach the truth but merely theorizes. — praxis

Well, the story goes that the Buddha's question revolved around suffering and its cessation, and what he found was the truth; if you teach about that, you're teaching the truth (until you start saying things that undermine the path to that cessation of suffering). Therefore Buddhists may say that a class teaching about Buddhism is teaching about things which are true, to a greater or lesser extent. After all, even dry theory can be used as a starting point for practice (but it's difficult).

You seem to make an interesting point that since Buddhism doesn't only theorize and proclaims to teach truth, perhaps it is not a philosophy at its heart; a philosophy class which teaches of Buddhism would undermine its claim to truth and render it a philosophy which is only theory. Right?

But to say Buddhism "incorporates" philosophy may be rephrased: Buddhism contains elements which would render it similar to a philosophy such as an attempt to answer questions and provide a framework for thinking and practicing. But in other ways it departs, such as the incorporation of devotional practices or practices which are neither devotional or thought-based, and the formation of community).

Then Buddhism studies, is concerned with worldly affairs, and doesn't contain truths but only theory — praxis

Yes, usually academic studies on Buddhism are focused more on theory (even perhaps theory of practice). Schools usually aren't teaching you how to practice dhamma, to my understanding. But is it worldly? I think that would depend on the content. I've never taken a Buddhist studies course so I wouldn't know for sure.

"Worldly" in Buddhism refers to concerns/intentions with worldly affairs such as gains, honor, fame, pleasure, etc. at their heart. If these things are used in accordance with the path, though, they're headed in the direction of "living in the world, but not of it."

I think that quote could be used to suggest that Buddhism is not (a)theistic, and although concepts in general may seem to be slippery in some ways, it seems that one could call Buddhism a religion:

Religion is a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. However, there is no scholarly consensus over what precisely constitutes a religion. — Wikipedia

Or a philosophy, albeit with a certain twist:

Philosophy (from Greek: φιλοσοφία, philosophia, 'love of wisdom') is the study of general and fundamental questions about existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language. Such questions are often posed as problems to be studied or resolved. The term was probably coined by Pythagoras (c. 570 – 495 BCE). Philosophical methods include questioning, critical discussion, rational argument, and systematic presentation. — Wikipedia

Buddhism incorporates all of the above elements and so you could say it's both (though some people may really be insistent on placing it under one label and sticking with it). But if you consider the cultural origins of the terms (my knowledge is limited but it seems they were in use long before The West came into contact with The East), it might be worth considering that Buddhism is neither (opting for Dhammavinaya).

I'm wondering what would be the intention behind such a categorization, though; it seems like that would play a role in coming to something of a conclusion. Why are we stuck on these two terms if they both seem to be inadequate?

Kind of trying to find an entry point here.

It seems you were suggesting a difference between believing and feeling/sensing etc., but actually it seems that the faith/belief we have in a God, religious doctrine, or our experience aren't totally distinct or far off from one another, save from the fact that we "believe" in our devices because we sense them, and we "believe" in our ideas without necessarily sensing what it is they refer to. What seems to place them on the same terms is that both are bases for our own attention, thinking, and action. If we didn't have some sort of faith in our ability to affect anything, for example, I doubt we would even act. By this token even so-called determinists could be said to have faith in their action by way of (edit: their) assuming that their input will or will not have some sort of impact, meaning, or influence.

Any way, the idea in which we believe in may be modified or altered by new sense experiences or understandings of how religion and life come together. And our sense experience may be shaped by what it is we have faith in, because our faith shapes the ways in which we attend to things (i.e. the senses).

So basically, we all believe in something, and although we may think religious faith is baseless, it seems that during the course of holding to faith it actually acquires a number of bases, but ones which are not necessarily easily communicable; it's not exactly verifiable to others by way of concrete evidence or even rational argument. Thus some find it difficult to talk to others without being encountered with a claim that the faith ought to be proven, or that its baseless because there is no clear evidence, and not much more to say than "I can't prove it to you. You need to have faith to see it yourself." And so it seems that faith would actually (edit: purportedly) lead to an experience which is un-measurable. And in this sense one who makes an "argument of faith" may be headed in the direction of an argument by anecdote.

You don't "believe" in the device you are writing on; you see, hear and feel it. — Janus

... and you believe that sense experience constitutes reality, no? Perhaps not much different than believing our ideas about a G/god are representative of any reality.

should seriously question their faith in Buddhism, — praxis

Totally.

Seriously questioning one's faith in Buddhism is a really good part of the practice. I've done it a good few times. It's a pretty natural aspect of having faith. I think it's actually one way to know you're learning. And after a crisis, one may find that their intention is even stronger and more clarified.

I'm wondering what kind of inner ease which doesn't depend on externals but can be found via secularities are you referring to?

No one has claimed that it’s only faith. Not sure what that even means. — praxis

Even so, some people may feel uncomfortable having faith in something they don't know. Sometimes the issue of faith weighs over their minds; maybe they forget about the teachings of insight, or maybe they have something against faith. People who tend to equate religion to something like "all faith and no reason" may be inclined to think that Buddhism is a matter of faith, perhaps faith in the Buddha as a savior or even rituals as a savior. Maybe they have the wrong idea that their practice entails absolute faith right from the get-go with no questions asked regarding basic principles, their teachers, or the Buddha.

In such a scenario it might be helpful to remind them that actually, you start right where you are; practice according to your understanding, ask questions, and learn from the results of your practice. Thus faith is to be exercised and examined, the result being understanding, which increases faith - not just in the teachings, but one's own efforts and ability to affect good and bad qualities within.

Buddhism is about the cessation of suffering and not merely finding inner ease. There are secular ways of finding ease for ourselves that doesn’t rely on externalities. — praxis

The cessation of suffering is the foremost ease, because it is unconditioned. Given that it is reached by means of the eightfold path, which itself is conditioned and without a doubt bound with happiness (to be found within the results virtue, concentration, and insight), the path to the end of suffering is a path of gradually refined happiness. Secular means are not mutually exclusive from this and could fall under the category of virtue (e.g. right livelihood means we take on a means of gaining a livelihood which is virtuous and blameless). Even so, this still has its sources within, because it is by our own understanding and effort that we adopt, maintain, and refine such a livelihood. That's Right Effort: to abandon the unskillful, prevent the unskillful from arising again, cultivate the skillful, and maintain the skillful. Skillful, being a translation of kusala, can also be synonymous with "wholesome", which may illustrate to some the extent to which the term is related to well-being.

Noting that Right effort falls under the category of concentration and precedes right mindfulness and follows right livelihood, there is a connection between one's virtuous action/livelihood and one's ability to cultivate right effort and maintain a focused attention on the aspects of our experience that are pertinent to the path (satipatthana, namely). And given that right mindfulness precedes right concentration which is defined as jhana (which are in turn progressively refined states of well-being devoid of the hindrances), we can trace deep inner ease straight to our actions. And given that concentration precedes knowledge and vision which precedes dispassion and release, we can also trace release to our actions.

So it all starts with our actions. Thus another notable aspect of the Thai Forest tradition is an emphasis on practical applications of the teaching in daily life, that is, our virtue (sila), but to support (not to discount) the other factors. Thus the "vinaya" of "dhammavinaya" is absolutely crucial and Buddhism is not merely a matter of faith, yet nonetheless practice is motivated by faith.

Point is, if it were about awakening, truth, and integrity, as you say, then it seems like the best course would be to abandon the teaching and search for a better way. — praxis

I'm good lol. Since a lot of the efficacy of Buddhism actually lies within us (hence the purpose of inner refuges), and since the origin of suffering also lies within us, Buddhists (at least the ones I know and learn from) believe that if something isn't working, it's best to look inward rather than outward. Sometimes new teachings or perspectives can help (if they don't confuse us even more), but often we don't need to look that far for solutions, we just need to let go of the problems inside. If we do that, outside problems don't really matter that much, because we have our inner refuges; it doesn't matter if people around us aren't enlightened, because at least we have a good means of finding ease for ourselves. The decision to not care so much about the (non-)enlightenment of our teachers can lead to a great deal of self-confidence.

I don't know a whole lot about the other Buddhas, but so the theory goes: a Buddha is an Arahant, one who has put an end to their suffering, but by their own efforts without any guidance on the eightfold path. Those other Buddhas, or the future Buddha to be, would only arise after a "Buddha era" has passed (when the dhamma teachings have disappeared in the world), however I have heard that private Buddhas may arise, particularly in very special circumstances (and they don't teach). Non-buddhas who are awakened are called Arahants.

The names I listed refer to those who have been suggested to have reached a certain level of awakening. Since a vinaya rule forbids against speaking of one's attainments, these Ajahns have not declared themselves arahants, though in a controversial event Ajahn Maha Bua did (I think somewhat indirectly; maybe others have as well, but not to my memory). And beyond these people, of course the Buddha had his Arahant disciples.

Any way, in the circumstances we are in, lay followers are not expected to worship teachers. Many due do, particularly in Thailand, however from what I've seen and heard (edit 2: and experienced!!!), respecting teachers comes from faith and observations/experiences of their conduct. There does not seem to be an established sort of "guru" treatment where the Guru is supposed to be treated like a God or supreme being. Many forest teachers I'm aware of discourage speculation regarding attainments, emphasizing observation and reflection over their teacher's conduct.

In truth it’s authority, metaphysics, and solidarity. If it were otherwise Buddhism would have been abandon centuries ago, because out of the millions of practitioners there are only 7 known successes stories, only 7 Buddha’s. No one would use a “medicine” that has such an infinitesimal cure rate unless the medicine fulfilled some other need. — praxis

No, no, no! There's much more. Ajahn Mun, Ajahn Lee, Ajahn Sao, Ajahn Khao, Ajahn Maha Bua, Ajahn Thate, Ajahn Chah, Ajahn Khinaree, Ajahn Tongrat, Ajahn Pannavaddho, Ajahn Liem (a recent example)... Xuyun from the Chinese tradition... these are some examples of "success stories", or even just great teachers. You're probably not interested but if anyone else is, their stories and teachings are there.

Well, almost. You are not claiming to be an authority, a leader, a teacher etc. Should you ever do so I will visit your Walgreens and subject you to a ceaseless barrage of annoying customer complaints — Hippyhead

Such is life in a scientific and capitalistic America. And yes: a lot of it is really recognizing the limitations of whatever we're attached to, and going beyond it.

Maybe we should thrash this one out properly on a separate thread. — FrancisRay

I don't know. It may insert something good into the Philosophy or Religion thing. I'm not keen the dichotomy, but it seems to be useful for some to whatever extent (I'm mostly just concerned with the way it limits our own understanding, application, or even treatment of practice). And really: over and over your posts are suggesting that I probably don't understand metaphysics; like with koans, it's not because you said I'm wrong, but because what you're saying is going beyond my understanding. So my inference is that I don't understand it fully!

It seems that a theme over the past couple of days for me is that we all have our logical ways of thinking, and although they aren't ultimately a refuge they can be useful, but our own attachment to our own views may lead us to just throw out all other considerations out the window. It seems that certain logical approaches, theories, or whatever you want to call them, are like mathematical formulas we don't understand. If we don't understand them, of course we won't be able to use them properly and we might dismiss them as utterly useless.

So I think it would be good to clear up confusion in that area.

In Buddhism refuge is taken in the Buddha (ultimate authority), the Dharma (the nature of reality or metaphysics), and the Sangha (tribe). — praxis

Perhaps questionable in the language, but not totally wrong. Those are the external refuges, and the externals ultimately can't be relied on. Therefore we must also take refuge in the inner Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha. That is, we take refuge in awakening, truth, and integrity (noting there is no single correct interpretation of this, it usually falls somewhere along those lines). Ajahn Lee offers some really interesting words on that, where actually each refuge is in a way pointing to the same thing, just from a different angle (and after all it is in reference to a multifaceted gem).

You're not the only one allowed to have pet projects :)

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

I work at Walgreens! And I'm a full time student. There's definitely stressors that make practice difficult, but the thing is learning how to bring it all together in a good way. That's really up to the individual, but it's something I'm working on myself. And at the monastery, especially Ajahn Chah's monastery, work is part of the daily life. Sometimes you do things you don't want to do; the junior monastics often have to clean out the septic. One monk I know would spend hours each day, sometimes losing sleep, over managing the technological side of things - the website, utilities, etc. At Ajahn Chah's monastery back in the day, long periods of hard labor were pretty common. Lots of hard work, but it's not separate from practice. And especially based on my experiences at the monastery and stories I've heard... lots of joy to be found through generosity.

If I were a newcomer to Buddhism I;d probably dismiss it for being unreliable, as indicated by its internal disagreements. — FrancisRay

Maybe my thinking's a little out there (I think you had pointed out that my understanding of koans was not correct), but to me that reminds me of so many classic Zen stories. The teacher says something apparently contradictory, and the student is just confused. Sometimes maybe they leave, but those who stay learn - after whatever period of time. Whatever the case, there's some sort of mental barrier to get through. To my understanding, a lot of that means not grasping for a clear argument and just doing the practice and seeing what works (perhaps this has a connection to Kierkegaard's leap of faith, which I have only heard about in passing). And what works for you is something you find for yourself.

I don't know much about Nagarjuna, and I'm not saying his arguments are wrong. But at least, from my understanding, understanding metaphysical arguments just isn't totally necessary in practice to get the results. That's a broad statement, but again it's just my own understanding that we ought to just focus on the nitty gritty of the work without getting too heady; you don't need to read a lot to know what happens when you try to focus on your breath. Often, in the Thai forest tradition, the position on reading is to do so very little, and put the books down when you start feeling inspired to practice, or when you start tangling yourself in a knot. And that is itself a crucial point of practice which is simple and not bound with metaphysical argument: knowing "the right amount", getting the "just right practice". When you know the "just right practice", you'll come to learn a lot just by engaging and observing. Of course you can learn by reading, but then again you can also just read your own mind.

This isn't to shoot you down. I don't know much about your practice (you say it's not Buddhist). But for some people who are prone to digging themselves too deep into a book, I would say: Do what HippyHead does. Go out in the woods and just sit there and enjoy it. Don't think too much about it, just be present. Relax a little, tune in with the senses a bit more. It's not religious or philosophical until you start pinning that label on it. Drop the label, just do the thing.

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

So it seems you understand, in one way or another, what I'm saying. And since I'm not really interested in finding a definition for religion myself, at least not right now, I won't go much further. 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.

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

That's very true! But it doesn't make the sign especially truthful or accurate. It just means that they have their purpose and can be used accordingly. But 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.

Meanwhile, the suffering that arises from our attachment to these terms still lingers. And on that note I suspect that my own understanding of the words you seek to use and define is limited, so my ability to contribute to this part of the discussion is limited as well. Therefore, 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.

In Buddhist Romanticism, Ajahn Geoff points a finger at other schools, not his own. — praxis

Are you (edit: really) saying he never mentions the teachings of his own tradition in the book, or in general?

Edit 2: Given that somebody could easily make up claims that Buddhist is undermined by the introduction of a new way of thinking, don't you think it's necessary to provide evidence for such a claim? And aren't the teachings of others evidence? Indeed, those in the Buddha's time may have been similarly in some proximity to the teachers he does not name; do you think it would have been better if he didn't say anything at all and just kept to himself?

If you have an explanation of how calling Buddhism a religion limits possibilities it would be interesting to know. — praxis

I think you already know that words are limiting, at least it seems you indicated that earlier. Sorry, it's really hard to answer your questions because they're so simple and yet my answers are apparently unsatisfying to you.

If you define religion as believing in something and doing rituals according to the religion's beliefs, you've limited Buddhism to rituals based on belief. Given the relative lack of clarity surrounding even those terms, you could spend hours teasing them out. But if you just limit it to that simple definition, as people may be inclined to do, Buddhism becomes limited to whatever meaning somebody ascribes to those words - same with whatever detailed definition you tease out after hours of analysis and arguing back and forth. Therefore calling Buddhism anything is limiting. However it is because we can ascribe words different meanings and explicate those meanings that some people, the Buddha included, would explain what these things mean in more detail, and insist on particular interpretations or applications - to keep those meanings alive and applicable in practice. Nobody will ever provide you or me a definition which is ultimately satisfying in itself, especially when the "goal" of Buddhism is said to be beyond words and conceptualizing. Therefore teachers seek to preserve a particular interpretation which, to them, has proven useful and beneficial, and they will defend that interpretation to the extent they deem necessary.

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

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?

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

Since I'm really saying the same thing over and over again... it's because in some cases it's necessary to have a loose grip, others a tight grip. Maybe I'm wrong in the way I'm approaching it - but it's a matter of framing one's practice so as to encourage engagement and investigation. Too loose and there is no support; too tight, the possibilities are limited. Dhamma-vinaya, taken in reference to the tendency toward Romantic thinking, limits possibilities but not so much that they can't be expanded in whichever way is necessary.

Showing how others do things differently isn't even a good way to teach something. — praxis

Why not?

I really doubt it'll ever be proven. 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. It would probably take a long time to even get to a satisfactory definition of "suffering" and "not suffering" which would allow for an effective study (which in your case sounds potentially unethical and disrespectful), and perhaps by then the ideas may be mixed around and confused in such a way so as to create more disagreements and more debates. Therefore it seems shaky to me to place any bets on that, if we were to do so.

Any way, this is kind of a problem that even the Buddha came across, in a different way. Here's a good example I quoted earlier:

"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.

"It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a brahman, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf-toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him.

"In the same way, 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.

...

"And why are they undeclared by me? Because they are not connected with the goal, are not fundamental to the holy life. They do not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are undeclared by me.

"And what is declared by me? 'This is stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the origination of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress,' is declared by me. And why are they declared by me? Because they are connected with the goal, are fundamental to the holy life. They lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, calming, direct knowledge, self-awakening, Unbinding. That's why they are declared by me.

But this teaching was given to somebody who originally wanted to practice. So I would understand if it didn't really mean much to you.

Besides that, I think it's worth picking apart the notion of "goals" (particularly on our own). Holding to goals wrongly can become oppressive; I know people who associate "goals" with guilt and shame as much as others do with "chasing". That's perhaps a decent explanation of why people gravitate to the idea of "no goal Buddhism"; it makes some people feel less pressure in life, which isn't totally a bad thing (indeed, Buddhists can be susceptible to this). But the Buddha wasn't trying to oppress anyone with "goals", and he connected his teaching with a basic desire for happiness, which is exactly what's at play if we abandon goals for the sake of some sort of relief. In that case we're happy, until somebody comes along and asks us about our goals. That's one of many cycles of samsara. If you can relate to that, I think it's evidence that suffering arises and it ceases according to causes and conditions. And given that suffering ceases, perhaps a total cessation is possible, so long as we find a root cause and abandon it - a cause that is perhaps a little more subtle than just thinking, because thinking can be just as joyful as it can be miserable.

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

Yes, it's suffering. I think that's a subtle point that is addressed over the long term. We tend to think like this all the time, and we don't give much attention to it as a process. Therefore the Buddha or his disciples might say: okay, yes, that's suffering. Take a look!

About a year ago when I was visiting Abhayagiri, I was refreshed when I entered the hall for tea time and the abbot said, in answer to a question: "...yeah, that's suffering. This whole 'me and my mind' program we keep giving into." I can't say those were his exact words, but that's how I remember it: "me and my mind". Something we do over and over again that's problematic. And it was totally a "oh yeah, that's me" thing. But that right there: "oh yeah, that's me." That's it. That's how knee-jerk it is. That's why we meditate: to slow it down and pay attention.

I asked him once: "I keep having this problem where, when I feel really good, I feel on top of the world. And there's just that strong sense of 'me' there that I can't get rid of. It's really bothering me, what do I do?"

And his answer really helped: "... The problem isn't that we have a sense of self, it's that we believe in it."

Although I wasn't totally liberated right then and there, that definitely shifted things. "Okay, it's not like I have to get rid of it, but what if I just started picking it apart?" But it was only, relatively speaking, a small step. Not unimportant to me, but small. And I have no evidence for it and no way to measure it. Similarly when he encouraged me, the previous year, to "maybe distance yourself from being a misanthrope and give some good attention to developing a more positive sense of self". Paraphrasing, again. But there's definitely something "middle" about that.

I don't want to go far into story mode, but yes: the "me" program is definitely stressful. But it can also be used well. It's really something we can do just by desiring to be happy.

And perhaps you can see where maybe Buddhism becomes apparently paradoxical. "Don't focus on being happy, learn from your suffering; don't make yourself miserable, learn to be happy; don't become anything; develop the path, it's good becoming; we're practicing for death; go beyond birth and death; virtue leads to happiness, cultivate it; happiness is unsatisfactory, abandon it."

Lots of ways to spin your head around. But it's all meant to point to the middle.

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

If you can stop thinking about yourself so quickly, that's good for you. But besides the fact this might not solve suffering at the very core, according to the Buddha's teaching (noting that our desire to stop is still a form of craving), not everyone can do it. Therefore the Buddhist path is one of gradually getting to that point, and then further, by taking the four noble truths as our focus.

And it can actually start right now with the 5 precepts: we resolve not to kill, steal, engage in sexual misconduct, and avoid intoxicants - all actuons which can be quite selfish. We can also put aside a part of our day to just pay attention to the breath and settle down all of the afflictive processes which include excessive self-thought. And from there we can gain some real powerful insights into that thought process itself, not to mention happiness and suffering.

And there might come a time where we feel demotivated in that development. From there we can uplift that self thought to be less miserable and more healthy, if not more expansive and boundless. And if we want to go just a bit deeper beyond that, we sure can. But it's up to us. And the letting go can start right now, by letting go of that which holds us back, or which keeps us going to all the bad places, selfish or harmful or whatever.

The precepts and simply sitting down in meditation - perhaps in the forest - are a good starting point of letting go. As is simplifying our lifestyle and making good friends. Letting go doesn't have to be limited to something ultimate, far into the future. We can let go of that idea as well, right now.

Edit: One of the problems with thinking that our problems come from thinking about "self" is that it leads people to beat themselves over "self" thinking: I have a self, therefore I'm bad. Or even: I'm suffering, I'm bad; it's because I have a self, I'm bad. Thus the Buddha focuses on suffering: yes, you experience suffering to whatever extent because of "self" and "thinking". But you may also suffer by thinking "I won't be happy until I stop thinking about myself, or until I stop thinking at all. I have to stop all of that right now." The suffering really comes because you're seeking happiness in these things, you're not getting it, so you're beating yourself up. Or you're getting angry and discontent. Among other possibilities.

So the imperative to "stop ego" or "stop thinking about self" can become quite toxic. Therefore: start with virtue. Start with the breath. Relax. Enjoy life, do good things, and go further, because you can. If you're suffering, just start chipping away at it by looking right at it. (Edit 2: noting that more sensitive people may have to go a little easy on this part as well).

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. 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.

The term dhammavinaya is also a label, and one with the purpose of pointing to key components of the Buddha's teaching: doctrine and discipline. This is important so we avoid putting one over the other, and so we remember our purpose in holding to both, among other things (and to my understanding).

The reason why Ajahn Geoff brings up "Buddhist Romanticism" is to point to a mental tendency, not necessarily a distinct entity. The tendency is to, partly out of a desire for meaning if not joy, to seek some sort of connection with the whole world, because we feel separate from it.

In practice, the recognition of a need for a sense of connection and unity is by no means bad or wrong or whatever. But based on the Buddha's teaching, one must remember the point of dispassion and unbinding from another "tendency", which is becoming.

One can reify "becoming" as much as they can reify "self" or "no self" or whatever. But this word "becoming" is meant to "lead inwards", in the sense that one directs their intention toward it so as to become dispassionate toward it and unbound by it.

This cannot be easily done if one is seeking unity, because that's actually seeking more becoming. It's missing a crucial point of practice. Therefore it is worth pointing out. Not to exclude others, but to guide oneself.