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

I think it's possibly split into much more. There were a decent number of schools that had apparently split off from each other just a couple hundred years after the Buddha's death. It's a point that some like argue about on Dhamma forums. But I think if there's a crucial point of agreement, it can be found in the Four Noble Truths. Which is partly why, any way, Thai Theravadin Buddhism is not actually hostile toward other schools, regardless of Ajahn Geoff's rather direct statements about what is or isn't dhamma. From what I see there is an "agree to disagree" dynamic at times, but often "let's just look after eachother". Abhayagiri Monastery in California was built on a land gifted by a local (and quite massive) Chan monastery, and they have a solid relationship. Abhayagiri also has good relations with a local Orthodox Christian monastery on the other side of the mountain. So it's not totally "us and them".

Abhayagiri also comes from a lineage of another sort of split. Ajahn Geoff wrote about it here: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.dhammatalks.org/Archive/Writings/CrossIndexed/Uncollected/MiscEssays/The%2520Traditions%2520of%2520the%2520Noble%2520Ones.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiU6PrN5trsAhWVU80KHfemDmsQFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3ilQ7XYmzdvcTxJpGX-9f_&cshid=1604008867777

Basically, Ajahn Geoff's lineage is in the Dhammayut, which was based off of a Thai reform movement. At that time what would be called the "Mahanikaya" group was deemed illegitimate because the monks were lax in their discipline and had arguably broken their lineage to the Buddha (which also partly informs debate about Bhikkhuni ordination). Therefore the king sought out a Purportedly "pure" lineage of Mon monks to learn from and re-establish the discipline. While this lineage began to focus more and more on study and broader social reform, a group of Forest monks headed by Ajahn Sao and Ajahn Mun began to keep to what they saw as essential to the monastic life: simplicity, discipline and meditation in the forests.

From there, Ajahn Mun taught Ajahn Lee who taught Ajahn Fuang who taught Ajahn Geoff; thus Ajahn Geoff is "dhammayut". But Abhayagiri was formerly headed by Ajahn Pasanno, who was taught by Ajahn Chah, who was taught (however briefly) by Ajahn Mun. Ajahn Chah was Mahanikaya, and was denied ordination under Ajahn Mun's Dhammayut lineage, but was nevertheless encouraged to keep up the discipline.

Thus we have two similar but not identical schools, with an apparently clear point of contention but a similar origin at this part of the tree. Yet Abhayagiri doesn't talk smack about Ajahn Geoff and vice versa. Abhayagiri gladly distributes Ajahn Geoff's books. Like at all monasteries there are disagreements of a sort, but both parties, to my understanding, are not at all interested in fighting over it. They want to practice, and they both look to the Suttas for a lot of their teachings. But it's not by any means the only source of inspiration for either.

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

Maybe, maybe not.

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

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.

Edit: and thank you Hippyhead for your kind words!

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 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.

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.

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.

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".

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

Given that some may seem to confuse Buddhism with Hinduism or conflate them (I've heard so much that Buddhism is rebranded Hinduism), given that some Hindus see the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, given that many western philosophers e.g. Huxley, Emerson have taken up Hinduism in some way when speaking of "The East", given that Hindu figures (e.g. Sadhguru) may reference Buddhist teachings and vice versa, and given that Hinduism has been referenced here in this thread, it doesn't seem wrong to bring up Hinduism.

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

Hyperbole to make a point? Which leads me to... — praxis

It's not a hyperbole at all! I've actually heard or seen people say this. Are they speaking in line with their tradition? I don't know, but this bit from the Bhagavad Gita makes an interesting case. I'm not sure how accurate the translation is, but it's along the lines of what I've heard of over and over in regard to this matter from non-Buddhists:

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

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

I'd also like to hear what basis you have for thinking the romantic "era" is over if people still struggle with meaningless and still advocate that we create whatever meaning we want and it's okay. If it isn't romanticism, what is it?

And I don't know... Ajahn Geoff references some quotes that indicate oneness or non-separateness to be an important aspect of Romanticism, if not a goal of sorts. E.g. Emerson:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Noting that the 5 precepts are fundamental for Buddhists, there's nothing about them which prevents us but learning from different traditions. But when a tradition enables us to kill because there is no self in the body therefore there is no killer or killed? Yeah, no. Stick with the precept, please!

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

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

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

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

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

misleadingly — praxis

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

The middle way, eh? — Hippyhead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The resentment of my neighbor's dog is made of thought. What else could it be made of? — Hippyhead

Desires, intentions perceptions, feeling, sound, bodily sensations and movements, elements, past habits. There's a lot of ways to look at it.

And yeah, in a certain way one is trying to change what "is". That's why interpreting the Buddha's teaching as "total acceptance" should be recognized as an oversimplification (which we often see in modernist or Romantic contexts). There's plenty of instances where the Buddha or others are warning monks not to be heedless; to stop messing around or sitting idly, and put forth some effort. Then again, there are instances where the Buddha encourages his disciples to find joy in the practice and not make it oppressive or totally unpleasant, and to be patient. There needs to be a balance between acceptance and non-acceptance.

The thing is, assuming that death is the end or nobody has realized cessation are both things we don't know for sure. Of course some might demand proof before accepting (cough cough) anything here, but to that the Buddha said one would die without having learned anything or done anything. One just binds themselves to this skeptical cycle without realizing the dangers within that.

And of course, it's totally a matter of faith. But in my opinion, the skepticism grows weaker when one meets good models - regardless of whether or not one knows if they're awakened (I believe I quoted Ajahn Amaro regarding this earlier in the thread). As for me, one thing that led me to increased faith was the fact that my teacher Ajahn Pasanno (noting our relationship is not formal) was so apt at pointing out my suffering, teasing it apart and giving me different ways of working with it. To me, it takes a lot of wisdom and skill to do that. And also, his behavior and self discipline always seemed to be of high quality and I never saw much to complain about. To me he's a really special person, and his example is quite strong.

That, and knowing that my practice seems to be having good results, even if they are really slow to come.

So faith in the practice, and also a willingness to see one's death as something other than a reason to just sit back and relax, are really an individual matter and can't be forced. It's something that happens according to causes and conditions.

Ok, that makes sense. I experience peace in the woods, and then start chasing that, and when I don't get it I'm frustrated, annoyed, suffering etc. So long as I don't understand what's happening I'm stuck on the treadmill of chasing. Like that, more or less? — Hippyhead

Yes, that's one way out of many; a common way for impatient or enthusiastic people to make themselves suffer.

And it's here that one may see that all things (of not some) are unworthy of attachment. It's partly because all things are impermanent, etc. That's because all things are conditioned by causes, and so in order to maintain them one must keep the causes going. Fueled by craving, this leads to suffering. So on one hand all things are unworthy of attachment because they're "unsatisfactory".

But another reason is because attachment leads to suffering. Like: fire is not worth touching because it's hot, and also because it gets us burnt. There's two sides to the coin In the case of your treadmill, we've started suffering as soon as we started getting attached to the peace; there's agitation as soon as craving arises; excitement and infatuation are forms of suffering (going back to Ajahn Chah's image of the snake where the tail is happiness, the head is suffering; it's one snake). Thus the Buddha summarized suffering as "the five clinging aggregates" or "the five aggregates subject to clinging" (dif. Translations for upadana khandha).

Therefore suffering arises from something a little more subtle than thinking. Once one goes beyond thinking, there's still some suffering (hence why to progress in jhana, one needs to keep an eye out for subtle agitations, like removing subtle impurities from gold).

Once one has gone beyond thinking, a lot of suffering is left behind, but that doesn't mean one is free, because the causes are still there. Therefore a stream-enterer may be free in a big way, but not totally.

This is one reason why the typical interpretation of the Four Noble Truths as "Life is suffering..." is inadequate and inaccurate; the accurate translation is "This is suffering, this is the cause of suffering...", and the Buddha attached different duties to each noble truth, thus there are four noble truths and twelve aspects. We need to investigate suffering not by wondering how "life is suffering", but by looking at the suffering involved with life. Suffering is something to be understood, its cause abandoned, its cessation realized, and the way leading to cessation developed. Each aspect arises in our daily life, we just need to tune in. Therefore: yes to the treadmill example, and also more. And work! Otherwise it's just an idea.

The academic literature on Nagarjuna is best avoided in my opinion. It usually just massively complicates the issues. It generally treats Nagarjuna's logic as if it is unusual or idiosyncratic in some way, when in fact it is just ordinary logic. The most straightforward and easiest introduction I've found is The Sun of Wisdom: Teachings on the Noble Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way/ by Khenpo Tsutrim Gyamptso. This deals with what Nagarjuna proves and the form of his argument. It does not explain the logical issues. . . . — FrancisRay

Thanks a lot! And much thanks to Wayfarer for tackling the issue of religion, authority, etc. so succintly.

For this clarity we would have to grok Nagarjuna's theory of two truths or worlds, by which all selective statements about reality are inadequate. This is a double-aspect theory by which reality has a Conventional and Ultimate aspect, both of which have to be taken into account. Thus the endlessly (seemingly) self-contradictory nature of the language of mysticism and non-duality. It is logically rigorous and precise but takes effort to some understand. — FrancisRay

Thanks for sharing this! I think I'm understanding a little more of what you're saying; it's a bit tricky for me to get through the technical language. It would probably not be a bad idea to read up on Nagarjuna. Do you have any recommended reading as an intro?

Are you referring to my quote just above? — Hippyhead

Yes; I have an idea of what you're trying to say, but am not totally certain. Are you saying that thinking itself is the cause of suffering, or that the problems that philosophy tries to solve are totally imagined? Both seem to be agreeable in their own way.

Could you perhaps expand on dispassion and release? If this is a bottom line, I'm interested in bottom lines. — Hippyhead

I believe so. Dispassion is what takes us to the end, which is release. See:

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.030.than.html

https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.029.than.html

Basically, both suttas are saying that there are different fruits of practice. First, a monk gains food and other requisites if not fame. Two things can happen: either he grows intoxicated (impassioned) with it, or he remains heedful and dispassionate toward it. If he is dispassionate, he goes for something more refined.

The list is, from coarse to most refined: virtue, concentration (i.e. jhanas), knowledge and vision (wisdom), or "non-occasional awareness release" (basically, liberation from suffering).

Except for the last, it is possible for one to grow intoxicated with each one and thus "pass over the heartwood" (or miss the point) of practice. In this sense, one must not rest content merely with comfortable or pleasant living, a virtuous or "good" life, the peace of meditation, or even insight itself. Otherwise, one is still bound to samsara (another good reason to not think too much and just do the thing). Release happens, any way, as a result of vision (if that vision is used skillfully, with "right intention"). This is because if one sees things as they are, one "sees all things as worthy of non-attachment", to put it simply (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.080.than.html). Thus, one lets go. This is not necessarily the same as having an intellectual understanding of the statement; often it seems that people tend to equate the statement to "I should be un-attached". It's limited to the imagination and hasn't really gone deep. When it goes deep, you totally let go, so they say. However, whatever limited intellectual understanding we have can be used if we trust that it's pointing to something deeper (this is something we can take advantage of in meditation; if a dhamma-phrase has meaning and allows us to let go or abandon unwholesome qualities, we should use it even if we can't completely understand it).

One gets a taste of release each time one gets into a state of meditation, or when one puts coarser things aside (e.g. sensual pleasures) in favor of a more refined state of peace. The thing is, you need to pay attention and understand it to make it go deeper, otherwise it comes and goes like any other form of happiness and you have little understanding of how it can be used or cultivated; the Buddha practiced jhana meditation when he was a young child, but it wasn't until after his ascetic years that he realized he could use it to find total release. However, this is pretty much the name of the game: we usually don't understand meditation right away, and that's why it's difficult. But the more we do it and the more we pay attention to it, the more skilled we become and the closer we get.

This could be a key point of divergence between Buddhism and whatever we want to call my perspective. As I may have said too many times, I see the origin of human suffering as the nature of that which we are made of psychologically, thought. The evidence for this is that psychological suffering is universal in all times and places, and thus must arise from something we all have in common. That can't be anything within culture, as there is huge diversity among cultures. — Hippyhead

Sure, but what says "we are made of thought" and why is suffering limited to that? I think we need to understand that thought isn't just logical thought or philosophical thought or discursive thought or verbal thought. If we look a little deeper, we see that a lot of our state of mind is based off of intention and attention. Those, too, are what the Buddha calls "sankhara", or "fabrications". They're something we do, with (and because of) ignorance. And fabrication is something that happens even at the subtlest levels of consciousness, such as those attained through meditative absorption. This is why nirvana is also called "unfabricated" or "unconditioned". There's no intention or acting force to "create it"; it's uncreated.

So yeah, it's not limited to culture. Culture is something that comes out of this process we call thinking, specifically when it's happening between multiple people.

It's yet another reason to just look at suffering as we experience it and not get caught in the labelling. Even though the Buddha defines suffering as "sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, and despair" it's not like we have to look at our minds and check off the list to see what we're experiencing. At some point, such as in jhana, the "Dukkha" becomes quite refined and hard to pin down with these words. The words become pointers for the mind, and the meanings become progressively more refined and impactful.

Cool it!

I suspect your low view pf philosophy comes from surveying the state of Western academic or university philosophy. If I didn't know more than academics usually know about the subject I'd also believe philosophy is a waste of time. But anyone who understands Nagarjuna's logical argument knows more than most professors.

The idea of meditation would be lead one from the symbolic or 'conventional' world to the real or 'ultimate' world. Sensory observation would have the opposite effect. To escape from what you call the real world would be the cessation of suffering. To be stuck in it would the definition of suffering. . — FrancisRay

Or, to chant this in Hippiehead dogma, what if the problem we are trying to address arises not from thought content, but from the medium of thought? — Hippyhead

I'm still unclear as to what you mean. Partly because, to be frank, I'm not well-educated on philosophy (and I don't think it's wrong to say that a lack of education would influence one's aversion or resistance to the subject). Nonetheless I think philosophy could be good for a lot of things.

But the Buddhist position, as far as I know, is we get caught up in a world that is continually in flux and bound to fall apart if we don't hold it together; things arise, are maintained, and cease when they can no long be maintained. Nevertheless, in Buddhism, we must use these things as tools for a good reason, whether it be thinking or perception.

I think philosophers might argue what that "good reason" is, or what defines "good", etc. I think this isn't totally bad. It can lead to good dicussion. But the Buddhist approach is: you won't get there just by thinking or debating about it, and while you're sitting there debating, you're getting old and dying along with everyone else. And even if you do come to an agreement, other factors may come into play to challenge it and break it apart. It's nature. I think that's what TheMadFool is referring to when he speaks of "entropy," but in Buddhism, arising and ceasing should both be taken into account, and we learn how to make good things arise and how to make bad things cease for the purpose of ending our own suffering if not the suffering of others. The response isn't pessimism, but sobriety.

I'd rather say that if we take a scientific approach we will not be led astray. Most people view the world pre-analytically, adopting a folk-psychological realism whereby kicking a rock is enough to prove its reality. The value of philosophy is that it debunks this naive idea. Once the idea is debunked perhaps analysis can be abandoned, but to abandon it while holding on to logically-absurd and indefensible ideas would be to seriously shoot oneself in the foot. — FrancisRay

So thought is important and unimportant, necessary and unnecessary. Lau Tsu tells us 'True words seem paradoxical' and this is what Nagarjuna proves in logic.We-are and are-not, says Heraclitus, and this dual-aspect view is what we need to understand for a grasp of what Buddhism is about. We have to go beyond the binary yes-no, on-off kind of thinking that causes Western metaphysics to be useless, and it's not an easy trick to learn. . , . — FrancisRay

I think the trick is actually quite involved with respecting whatever sense of "reality" we get from sensory experience and using it wisely. Regardless of whether or not a rock is ultimately real, we can still treat it with respect and not just smash it out of impulse or throw it at people. And that's partly because we're willing to train ourselves not to engage in those behaviors and observe our impulses and refrain from them. From there, we can observe our ideas about "rock", and even observe the sensory experience itself, and just let it fade away and let the mind settle into something deeper. The path is gradual; the Buddha doesn't have us thinking about this "reality" business right off that bat while we're still indulging in fine wine and even killing insects. Putting those habits aside is necessary for entering meditative absorption where thinking and evaluation are quite quickly refined and then put aside.

Looking at Zen, we see the usage of koans, which to my understanding are meant to help us break through a habitual tendency to crave logical clarity. And similarly, in Thai Theravada, we have all sorts of methods for cultivating dispassion to our sense of self, our body, and even the sensory world. Everything from koans to the suttas are tools for arousing dispassion and letting go to anything one is attached to, be it duality or non-duality. So while getting beyond "yes-no" thinking is arguably quite important (especially since it helps us attend to nuance and avoid getting trapped in our own ideas), it is not the essence, which is dispassion and release. Given that that binary way of thinking can be transcended by directing focus to dispassion and release, I think that's where the focus should be placed. And it still takes place in a binary of "suffering and not suffering". And not everyone wants to do it, because they're impassioned with ideas and philosophies. Edit: perhaps in the Buddha's words, they haven't seen the drawbacks and the path to escape from those drawbacks (https://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/adinava/index.html).

The origin of "problems", the Buddha said, is just our ignorance. Meaning, we don't pay attention to the processes of our life, especially the process of suffering. From that one point we start attending wrongly, intending wrongly, speaking wrongly, and acting wrongly; this includes getting caught up in binary thinking or even non-dual thinking, having failed to realize the limits of both. When we decide that we want to be free from suffering, we'll start to move into a better direction. Virtue, meditation, insight, thinking, robes, food, lodgings, a joyful life etc. - all are used with this purpose in mind, under the premise that this focus will solve our problems (though not necessarily the world's problems).

I admit that I've expressed hostility towards Hippy, in this topic, who has blatantly used ad homs against me and so not undeserving, but I've quickly reviewed and can't say that I've expressed or felt hostility towards you. Impatience perhaps, but not hostility. And I did not mean to suggest any nefarious ulterior motives on your part, only an inclination to support a meaningful belief system. — praxis

Very well. Yes, I do have an inclination to support the teachings and try to share them, but you make a good point that I should be supportive of my own practice as well (indeed it can be quite challenging). I'd be happy to keep discussing with you, however I'm weary of what's been happening thus far (even though I was content to play with it a little).

That said, I do remain somewhat wary of going to war with what was installed in my DNA before I was born. I do see the downsides of being a nerd. But I also see that there are pros and cons to any kind of mind I might have been born in to. I'm wary of getting drawn in to a notion that there is some kind of perfection out there somewhere that I should be chasing. — Hippyhead

The perfection is not "out there", that's the thing. Even though we get our ideals and guidance from "out there", it's all "in here". Suffering is here; the "nerd" is here, the mentalities and habits and attitudes are "here"; the "virtue" is here and, over all, the "karma" is here.

The middle way is, simply put, the middle way between happiness and suffering, or indulgence in pleasure and pain. It's often treated as the middle way between severe asceticism and sensual indulgence, but it's not so black and white. Monks, even during the Buddha's time, were praised for their extreme austerities, as long as it bore good fruit in their practice (e.g. Maha Kassapa). And there are a number of indications that it's quite wholesome and "pure" to enjoy the pleasures of nature.

The important thing comes down to the mind, particularly where one seeks happiness. At the time people thought indulgence in sensuality was the best way to be happy; others thought that they needed to torture themselves to realize nirvana by exhausting their bad karma. The Buddha's position was, based on his own realization, that no - one simply needs to abandon the cause of suffering, which sometimes entails austere practice but also entails the enjoyment of pleasure, be it the fruits of one's virtue or the more refined pleasures of meditative absorption. So actually, perhaps it might not be wrong to say that the middle way is a path which is not devoid of pleasure of pain, but rather approaches them from a different vantage point and with a different purpose of mind.

And so, this "nerd" business is indeed a form of pleasure, though there is pain involved, inevitably (e.g. in the sense that from birth comes aging, illness, death). You say there's pros and cons, the Buddha says yes: and therefore it's unsatisfactory, and one ought to abandon that for something more refined, to the point where "happiness" and "suffering" are both transcended (Ajahn Chah said that happiness was the tail of the snake, suffering its head). If I'm not wrong, it seems that you already have a sense that some pleasures are a bit more refined, such as when you're out in nature. "Being okay with it" is a form of contentment, which is also a form of refined pleasure. This, to my understanding, seems pretty much along the lines of dhamma practice, however in Buddhism, if one really wants to be free, one has to push the envelope just a little bit and say "this is pleasant, but it's not quite there yet. There's still some underlying dis-ease here. My mind isn't free from unskillful attitudes. There's more to be done." This is the kind of discontent which, perhaps like dispassion and a sense of urgency from recollecting one's inevitable death (and uncertain future), incites us to go deeper. Edit: And I must say that truthfulness and honesty are of great importance here.

1) To what degree does human suffering arise from faulty thought content, bad ideas, incorrect understandings etc?

2) To what degree does such suffering arise from the medium of thought itself? — Hippyhead

Having faulty thought content can cause suffering by putting us into conflict with the world or even ourselves. This is, to my understanding, because the processes of our thought-forming are informed by our lack of understanding. Not only that, we attach ourselves (through craving) to these thoughts, and so they keep going. As a result, holding to wrong thinking causes us suffering on different levels.

But thoughts are not easy to tame. Even though thoughts are karma, it's as if we don't intend to think them and they keep coming up. They come up, partly, due to inappropriate attention, which includes the manner in which we assume a "self". It doesn't matter what kind of self it is - the "self" as an internal essence or "soul", the "body as self", the self as "the universe", or even the self as non-existent. Any self-view is a wrong-view, and it comes from wrong-attention. Similarly, sensual desires and ill-will come from inappropriate attention as well. Our thoughts and intentions are quite connected to the way we attend to "experience". Thus the Buddha (in MN 2) advocates for "appropriate attention" or "right view" which means attending to things in terms of the four noble truths: "this is suffering, this is the cause of suffering...". This is the framework which allows us to see everything as something capable of transcending, even total "oneness" (which seems to be the interest of Romantic philosophers and some popular secular Buddhist teachers).

Given that we don't currently have a realization into the four noble truths, we can't say with 100% certainty that our current attention is truly "correct"; it's said the only person who has truly correct attention, or at least practice, is a stream-enterer. Until then, we're really taking the framework of the noble truths to the best of our ability, paying attention to the results and seeking guidance, finding what works and what doesn't.

I would hesitate to say that we need to drop thinking and just "know" (this can be impractical if not self-oppressive or delusional). Also I would hesitate to say that we need to examine all the contents of our thoughts (because thoughts will often just keep coming and complicating themselves). Simply put, we need to learn how to think skillfully. And for this it also helps to live skillfully, which is why virtue is quite fundamental and the precepts are by no means "beginner stuff". They're the foundation, because just as our attention informs our thinking, so does our behavior. Thus monastics have lots of rules and their way of living is peaceful, simple, and not so entangled into modern society.

But any way, in the context of meditation as I have learned it, one first has to take stock of their mind; going straight to the breath is not so easy (although Goenka retreats advocate this, and not without good reason). If thoughts are just coming, one should actually just go straight to the breath and try to settle. If the mind is kind of dull and lazy or sleepy, one should actually use thinking to uplift the mind, make it resolute, and then settle it (see SN 46.51). Sometimes it's necessary to look at the content of the thoughts to see in what way it's feeding restless activity, doubt, depression, etc, and then sometimes it's necessary to use thoughts to kind of give the mind the strength to cut through thinking processes - especially after one has understood that those processes are not helpful for one's well-being. Thus, although observing is important (and clarity of vision is desired), thinking is important too. Edit: But also, here is where thinking becomes a mix of verbal and non-verbal; we may use verbal thinking ("Buddho" on the in and out breath) to maintain focus, and we may also engage with the breath to make it more pleasant (modifying our breath by relaxing it, lengthening or shortening it, etc). So there's engagement on different levels according to the mind's needs, and this is developed fundamentally through practice; teachers can't give us all the answers.

So, when I learned from my own teacher and I was asking him all those technical questions, he had a good reason for telling me to "stop asking questions" and just focus on my breath. It was a good way to cut through the crap. :]

And really, it mostly comes down to suffering and not suffering, or you can say happiness and unhappiness. If we're suffering, there's no need to start analyzing it philosophically, or trying to understand right away which form of "inappropriate attention" one is engaged in, or trying to see which chain link of dependent origination went wrong. As I was taught, if going back to the breath isn't helpful, one can just remember: "this is suffering." For me, that's a really good way to get one back to the fundamental point, which is to be free and be at ease. That's a good way to establish a good intention for practice, and a good way to give the mind a reason to let go and relax a little... then get down to business.

It's for this reason that, to some extent, I think "authority" isn't of supreme importance. That said, I respect authority enough to give credit to the Buddha when he said, as per the Dhammapada, that oneself is one's refuge. And indeed, when Thai Forest teachers talk about "taking refuge in the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha," they often point out that these are most importantly internal. I find it helpful to remember to recollect the "external" Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, but the internal ones need to be remembered as well: one's own "knower", the "truth" of one's present state, and one's virtue and proper methods for practice.

Edit: made some edits above. Also, since you mentioned emptiness, it might be good to look at Bhikkhu Analayo's book on Compassion and Emptiness, if not the cula-sunnata sutta itself. It makes an interesting point that emptiness is not necessarily treated as a metaphysical trait as it is a recgonition of absence: not just of self or ultimate existence, but also of stress. In the sutta, each progressive state of meditation is "empty" of a particular "disturbance," namely the disturbance of the previous state of concentration. As far as I know, it's useful to see stressful "self" oriented thinking along these lines, and pay attention to where it's present and where it can be abandoned so one may enjoy its absence. Similarly with even "pleasant" ways of "self" thinking.

That's one reason, and perhaps not even a very strong reason. If it were the only reason, or even a primary reason, then why would you be wasting your time arguing here, something that you've described yourself as "burdensome," rather than putting effort into realizing Dharmma? Because that is NOT the only reason you practice. It is the same with all religions. It's pointless to deny that religion fulfills human needs other than some grandiose notion of realizing emptiness. — praxis

Although (or because) you seem to be suggesting some ulterior motives behind my posting (and even my practice), I'm grateful for what you have to say. So far trying to have a discussion with you has indeed been a waste of time and this is a good reminder to back away from the kind of exchange we've been having so far.

I'm interested in learning (about Philosophy, Buddhism, and discussion itself), so actually I would say that talking about these things can be part of one's dhamma practice if done skillfully. But I think, on a similar note, a good skill is learning how to back out of a discussion which isn't really fruitful or beneficial (and indeed I have other things to do than go back and forth like this). You seem to have some skill at reading people and playing with different ideas, and you seem to be a determined person yourself, but your intentions are questionable and mostly unclear (except perhaps in a degree of hostility), so I'll leave it at that. Thanks.

The meaning of 'Buddhism' is unlimited for you? If that were true we wouldn't be able to talk about it because you wouldn't be able to identify what I was talking about. — praxis

Sure! The Dhamma is beyond words. That's why we practice it; to realize the Dhamma. Hence the Kalama Sutta, where we must find out for ourselves what is worth grasping and abandoning, and the Dhammapada:

Following it, you put an end to suffering & stress. I have taught you this path having known — for your knowing — the extraction of arrows.

It's for you to strive ardently. Tathagatas simply point out the way. Those who practice, absorbed in jhana: from Mara's bonds they'll be freed.

Therefore there are different meanings to "Dhamma". Besides "phenomena", it means "teaching" or "truth". It's really conventional language. And it would be silly to call the transcendent Dhamma a "religion" or a "philosophy", because it's undefinable. What we're talking about here in this thread, though, is the dhamma-vinaya, meaning doctrine and discipline, or the sasana, meaning dispensation (which is undeniably a dhamma-vinaya). If not, we're talking about more Some people are including culture and art with that; they're taking what they think is "Buddhism" into a box and putting a categorical label onto it with a mix of a few other things here and there. It may be necessary to call that "Buddhism" (a relatively new word) in this case a "religion" or "philosophy" in certain contexts, but it just simply doesn't encompass the nuances of dhamma-vinaya. The application is not universal and not an "ultimate" truth. And of course, your argument is that it's a religion, because it fits certain criteria. But that's your own criteria, if not the accepted criteria of experts, which you decide is worth holding onto.

I understand you're arguing that it's a religion, but my question is why? What is the underlying intention here? Why does it matter to you that Buddhism is a "religion"? What are you getting from it? I mean, you're free to do so, and personally I find the way you define it (as something promising salvation, etc) mostly acceptable. But, again, it's not absolute. It's conventional and FrancisRay put it, not exactly of utmost importance. If anything, clearly it's burdensome. So why?

And, I'm guessing such overactive analysis could be useful if we analyze our way to an understanding of the limits of such analysis. Not the most efficient method of travel perhaps, but one does what one has to do.

To the degree my theory above is true, it comes with some unfortunate downsides. Many religions can come to be dominated by those who are most in need of a religion. As example, the best Christians are probably those too busy serving to have time for writing sermons, leaving the field open for those of us, who, um, enjoy words rather too much — Hippyhead

Absolutely! However, it seems that some people, myself included, needed a little push or shove (so to speak) to break out of that. Some people are quick to see the danger in their habits, others not so much. That's what teachers and friends are really good for (and thankfully, most Theravadin monasteries are easily accessible, although they are relatively sparse).

Perhaps this helps? — Hippyhead

Yes! :wink:

1) In philosophy there is no ultimate authority such as there is in Buddhism.

2) There is no one metaphysical theory in philosophy whereas Buddhism holds to a single metaphysical understanding. — praxis

This again. I still don't think I understand, because it seems that the philosophies people often describe have a kind of authority figure attached (e.g. Aristotle), and these philosophies often seem concurrent with metaphysical theories (and I wonder if those theories could be easily discarded if we really held tightly to the philosophy's constraints).

And I really think that it comes down to how you define "authority" or "metaphysics," and perhaps how you're supposed to use them in context. The Buddha (specifically, Sakyamuni Buddha) is something of an authority figure, but it's not like he's God, or even the Buddha. He was, the story goes, a Buddha - meaning, he found the Dhamma himself (with no teacher to show him) through parami he developed through many lifetimes, which in turn gave him the ability to train others in the Dhamma as well (if he couldn't train anyone, he would be a Private Buddha). In this case it seems the true "authority" is the dhamma (if we want to speak about the "truth"), if not the dhamma-vinaya, which the Buddha himself said would be the "master" after his death (DN 16). In regards to the dhamma-vinaya, he also said:

Then the Blessed One said: "In this fashion, bhikkhus, a bhikkhu might speak: 'Face to face with the Blessed One, brethren, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a community with elders and a chief. Face to face with that community, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name live several bhikkhus who are elders, who are learned, who have accomplished their course, who are preservers of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with those elders, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation'; or: 'In an abode of such and such a name lives a single bhikkhu who is an elder, who is learned, who has accomplished his course, who is a preserver of the Dhamma, the Discipline, and the Summaries. Face to face with that elder, I have heard and learned thus: This is the Dhamma and the Discipline, the Master's Dispensation.'

"In such a case, bhikkhus, the declaration of such a bhikkhu is neither to be received with approval nor with scorn. Without approval and without scorn, but carefully studying the sentences word by word, one should trace them in the Discourses and verify them by the Discipline. If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' In that way, bhikkhus, you should reject it. Butif the sentences concerned are traceable in the Discourses and verifiable by the Discipline, then one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is the Blessed One's utterance; this has been well understood by that bhikkhu — or by that community, or by those elders, or by that elder.' And in that way, bhikkhus, you may accept it on the first, second, third, or fourth reference. These, bhikkhus, are the four great references for you to preserve."

So, clearly, what the Buddha taught is dhamma-vinaya. He taught the truth as knew it, and he formulated a discipline around it, wherein one devotes their life to what he taught. That's the bare bones, as far as I know.

In all instances that I can imagine it's used in an identifying manner, which is necessarily limiting. — praxis

Okay? Maybe your imagination is limited :lol:

... and it is! That's why we can't rely on it solely, or take "refuge" in it. We have to use it skillfully and know how to pick it up and put it down, like a hammer, paperweight, or Buddharupa. I mean, I wouldn't use "dhamma-vinaya" when talking about "separation of church and state", etc - at least, I don't have the legislative expertise to even know where to even start with that. So why not call it a religion in that circumstance? Or why might we prefer to call it a philosophy? Those might be questions worth asking (edit: in that circumstance).

I'm not so familiar with what is meant by "condition of necessity" here. Maybe "mine" is arbitrary and meaningless, like you say. Maybe you're speaking in reference to my proposition that we call it this or that name according to the circumstances; that is, when it's necessary. I don't know what that means to you, but to me that is another way of saying "use these terms in the way you think is appropriate". Is that arbitrary? Sure. But to a Buddhist interested in exploring this thing called "wisdom" or "discernment", and "good karma", it's necessarily to learn how to use one's best judgement instead of relying on clear-cut concepts or logical thought-formulas all the time. That means learning when it's appropriate to use an agreed-upon term, or when it's appropriate to do away with the terms and introduce a new (or old and overlooked) one. Of course it can be necessary to use certain frameworks (e.g. utilitarianism), but other times it's good to just do away with that, and maybe focus on the brahmaviharas, core values, etc. Sometimes it's good to just do nothing.

So while sometimes it's good to have these labels, other times maybe not. And that brings me back to my earlier question... why are you interested in calling it a religion or philosophy? I don't think you made it clear. I can imagine, any way, that a lot of disagreements come from different intentions and purposes.

Western culture is very hung up on religion - same as Victorian culture used to be about sex - because of the history of religion in the West. There were massive conflicts fought over religion in European history. Arguably the Catholic Church was a model for authoritarianism in some important respects. So this has lead to a massive cultural back-lash along the lines of 'anything but God'. Ideas associated with religion are rejected or suppressed, and the West continually tries to re-invent itself without reference to them. I see that in many of your posts. That is not a personal slight or pejorative, it is a consequence of the culture we inhabit. 'Don't mention the War! — Wayfarer

Yes, if I understand correctly, I do see this time to time. Especially when Buddhism is praised as "the science of the mind" or "the religion closest to atheism". I have some roots there myself. Though seeing what Conze says about this "rare and unordinary faculty"... a point of the Thai Forest tradition is, to my understanding, that everyone has this faculty. I mean, everyone suffers. The question is: do we recognize it and are we willing to do what it takes to abandon it? Ajahn Chah was asked what made him different from others, and he said that it was his willingness "to dare". That is, he and others were, as the stories go, quite determined in their efforts to the extent that they often put their life on the line.

Ajahn Chah and many of his contemporaries were farmers. Their education was usually limited to exams (which were becoming increasingly important to the government which, to my memory, sought to regulate the sangha). Most of what they learned through practice was gained by studying with "masters", who in turn got their own knowledge from tradition passed down through the Sangha. And however they were taught, they wouldn't get anything if they didn't practice.

I think this is partly related to the issue of idealism. Time and time again, for myself included, the "goals of Buddhism" are elevated in such a way as to suggest that "that's up there and I'm down here." And it seems prevalent in western society to really hold fast to this sort of mentality without really looking at it; in Buddhist terms, that means looking at how it operates in the process of suffering. On this matter, Ajahn Geoff often references a teaching by Ananda (AN 4.159): "it is by relying on conceit that conceit is to be abandoned." Conceit (mana) meaning that one sees others as inferior, equal, or superior to oneself. Conceit, being a fetter, is to be abandoned (particularly at arahantship). But to get there, we use conceit to see that there are people with superior virtue, wisdom, and concentration, and we can get there too. Thus over and over, we are advised to interact with those we deem superior. Seeing the "superior" as "beyond us" or "reserved for the mighty few" is unhelpful. Really, all it takes is a disenchantment and aspiration to say, screw it. I want this, and I'm going to seek someone out for help. And then one meets the person, forms a relationship, and they go from there. Although highly respected monks don't just teach anyone willy-nilly, they aren't exactly elitist gatekeepers, which seems to be suggested when we start talking about "superior faculties" being held by a fortunate few.

But what happens if the donkey never gets the carrot? — Hippyhead

If I understand this question correctly, what happens in the Buddhist view is that one dies without having attained the goal, and they are simply reborn according to their karma and state of mind at death. If they haven't reached stream entry, who knows where they'll go. But it's said that upon reaching stream entry - wherein one's virtue and view are purified - one will only be reborn 7 times before reaching total Arahantship, and never in hell.

There is a tendency to wonder: what if I don't have the good karma to realize enlightenment? Well, this is answered in different ways. I think traditions like Pure Land suggest that there have been well-formulated practices passed down to us from the heavens that say, "hey, just chant this and do that and you'll at least be reborn closer to the Dharma". This isn't common in Thai Theravada, but what I hear is: just do your best. Make good karma. Follow the precepts. Be generous. Oh, maybe try some meditation here and there. Make good friends. Enjoy your life. Maybe stop ignoring your brothers and sisters when they try to talk to you, and don't hang out with that one friend who always brings you down.

On that note, I've seen teachers have good relationships with those who I would personally find difficult to talk to; I remember one person at the monastery grew pot in the area and was pretty unrestrained in his speech, swearing all the time and apparently stoned. And I've heard stories of Thai gangsters seeking spiritual guidance from people like Ajahn Chah. From what I see and hear, these sorts of people aren't told to "stop doing all that and be a monk or get out". The "policy" is not to give advice or guidance when unasked, though once a good relationship is established, you might hear the teacher pointing out that some forms of suffering, etc., can be ameliorated by making a few small changes here and there to one's life if not one's attitude (and the directness of their speech may vary). The path is gradual, and good teachers recognize that and are happy to prod you along gently. Speaking for myself, the first step to learning how to meditate was to stop asking so many questions about the "khandhas" or "dependent origination" and just focus on my breathing. That helped a lot and was extremely encouraging.

I think the Zen (?) story of a Samurai seeking training, only to be told to do chores, makes a decent example. Although he was being taught from the beginning, it wasn't until he started having the "spirit" of a samurai that he was given training in the sword. Until then, he had to learn to be on his toes when doing basic chores.

Whatever the case, if you think you may "never get the carrot", don't fret about that. Just do your best to live a good and happy life - and that doesn't necessarily require much research in the kind of philosophy we might be accustomed to on this forum. And does it require us to be acquainted with all of the teachings or teachers? No, but those would certainly help. Thus I think one has a choice: "I can't/won't do it," or "I can do it; it's difficult, but I'll do my best."

This is like saying that only seeing a hammer as a hammer, rather than a paperweight or artwork, sells it short. A hammer is designed to be a hammer and best fulfills its purpose in being used as a hammer. Indeed, using it as a paperweight sells it short and mistakes its significance. — praxis

You mean if I use a hammer for both purposes I'm selling it short? :joke: Interestingly, depending on the tradition, you would be praised or censured for using the Buddharupa as anything but an object worthy of respect, etc. Thus in the Thai Forest tradition you do not use the Buddharupa as a paperweight, or robes as mere towels, because this serves to undermine their purpose and power as images (and remember to treat your begging bowl like the Buddha's head). But that isn't to say that these things have any ultimate essence; it's just not how they should be used by someone practicing dhamma.

I think on this note, I am weary to say Buddhism is a "religion" when "religion" is being used in an unnecessarily limiting manner. Given that I value the power of the teachings, I am inclined to try and stay true to them in this regard by calling it "dhamma vinaya" (or perhaps buddha-sasana). And when I see philosophers talking about Buddhism as a philosophy, if they are teasing apart the four noble truths or eightfold path in a way which seems kind of irrelevant to Buddhist practice, I would be inclined to say: "hey, that's not quite what Buddhism is for" (if appropriate). Otherwise, you get people calling Buddhism a "philosophy", when the Buddhism they seem to be referring to is not the Buddhism you'd see being practiced in a monastery (edit: or the Buddhism being taught by monastics, assuming they have the most reliable teachings to use as reference). Sometimes you see this in books, where the goal of Buddhism is said to be "oneness", or the cause of suffering is "ego". That's just not entirely true.

I'm currently interested in stoicism and have a kind of shmuckish practice going. Stoicism is not a religion because though there are authorities, there's no hierarchical ultimate authority. Also, there's no metaphysics that are essential to the philosophy/practice. In religion, metaphysics and ultimate authority go hand in hand and are both essential. — praxis

But isn't Stoicism based on a premise that reason is divine? And what about Zeno or Citium (looking at Google for this) - aren't these figures in some way authoritative (if not reason itself)? And doesn't practice operate on the assumption that practices have results? At least according to Ajahn Geoff (or how I understand his words) this kind of position is metaphysical; in the context of Buddhism, it is the necessary metaphysical aspect of Right View which holds that actions have consequences (karma), and the causal principle which underlies karma is what guides rebirth. I've been interested in learning about Stoicism myself (and it's partly why I created an account here any way), so I'm really curious about that.

Back to the point: I'm not reluctant to call Buddhism a religion, generally speaking. But what I am reluctant to do is pigeonhole it, or essentialize it as religion. Why? Because it's my practice, and although wise utilization of precepts, practices, views, etc is necessary for practice, there is a tendency for us humans to take our concepts just a little too seriously and forget that they're really quite empty and subject to time and place; I'd rather pull things in a different direction than that, because people already equate Buddhism with a lot of things that aren't Buddhism, such as Romanticism or even Stoicism. I think if anyone's interested in learning about Buddhism, they ought to know what Buddhism is not.

If somebody's interested in practicing or really learning about Buddhism, perhaps they should consider that a lot more can be learned by putting down the concepts and ideas and just going to bare bones basics. That often means recognizing the malleability of concepts and the effect they have on our lives, and considering that there are good ways to use them, and there are bad ways to use them. Buddhism is concerned with how we use these ideas, among other things such as our breathing, in a way which is good, which is a way that leads to well-being (ultimately to unconditioned well-being). If people are caught up in the concepts, they'll skip over a lot of the meat and end up talking about surface appearances, isolating this part or that part of Buddhism, cherry-picking this and that part, getting caught up in historical debate, etc. I mean, one can say that art is an important cultural element of Zen Buddhism, but it's also a part of Christianity and even Marxism. I think it's beautiful, but what's the connection to practice? And how do we respond to it? Why do we prefer the art gallery over the meditation cushion? There's a lot to unpack there that seems to be glossed over in a "religion or philosophy" argument.

However, based on 50 years of interest in such topics, my best guess is that such transformations are so rare as to be largely irrelevant to most people. You know, while Mozart could teach me how to play piano, he could never teach me to be another Mozart. — Hippyhead

I think that's agreeable. Truly, a lot about Buddhism is putting aside that kind of idealism; we're not so much trying to be like The Buddha or Ajahn Mun as much as we are trying to investigate what "being" is; not in terms of a definition, but the actual experience (and it turns out what we "are" is informed by our tendency to define things conceptually). It's important that we investigate that tendency to want to "be" like "somebody" and work with what we've actually got right here; meditatioj isn't easy when you're trying to be something different than what you already "are". Meditation is best done with an attitude of contentment, though contentment with a sense of aspiration and dispassion.

I think a lot of similarities can be found between Buddhism and what you describe in your post above about nature (which seems like Romanticism?). But things change in the context of meditation, where the "relationship" and its grounds are gradually cast aside; eventually the experience of the world fades away (based on what I've heard), and that is a crucial area of exploration to understand how it is we grasp at perceptions, identity structures, etc., and of course how we suffer because of our lack of understanding in regard to these matters.

That said, I think in a monastery a person drawn toward cynicism and misery would be encouraged to work on that relationship part first, before getting gung ho about enlightenment. This is partly in relation to virtue; if we relate to the world in unskillful ways, and if our negative attitude is attributing to that, we should really put some focus into adopting better attitudes. Thankfully, the Buddha provided some pretty straightforward means through meditation, the brahmaviharas, spiritual friendship, etc; but really, in practice sometimes the ideals must be put aside in favor of just simple and down to earth living.

Well ok, but as Praxis might reasonably squawk, get back to us when you can prove that enlightenment is possible. Not just in theory, not just for you or somebody else, but for us too. — Hippyhead

I don't really think it's my responsibility to prove it, though I can certainly see value in inspiring confidence. That really comes out of my own practice (and I must admit I don't inspire confidence in everyone). The only reason I have faith besides my own practice and views is the fact that I have met people who I would call good examples. Can I say with certainty that they have reached the end goal? No; as Ajahn Amaro once said when asked if he were an Arahant, "it takes one to know one". Thus there is a point where one needs to put their doubts and searches for proof aside and just look inward: how does suffering arise, and how does it cease? Or: what is preventing me from being at ease in this moment? Or: I feel okay, but there's this little bit of tension here and my mind isn't totally still; what if I relaxed and settled my attention just a little more? At some point, one's just got to go for it and see what happens.

You appear to believe as all religious followers believe: that their religion delivers on its promise and all others are false (no other religious practice can be abandoned because they’re all false). — praxis

Sure, though I don't understand the part of your post that's in parentheses.

The problem with calling it a religion is that it pigeonholes the dhamma and potentially reduces its potential for practice. And then, of course, there is the possibility that it may be watered down by those who hold to the teachings incorrectly in such a manner; the Buddha was quite clear that the teachings have to be put into practice to realize their benefit, hence the vinaya. If one merely identifies as a Buddhist, that doesn't exactly guarantee benefit for them, and may eventually lead to what we see today; in Thailand, for example, ordination is often temporary and sometimes a matter of improving one's image or collecting merit (and one is not making good karma just because they wear robes).

But if you want to call it a religion, by all means do so. Another problem, though, seems to be endless debate. While calling it a religion may be practical in terms of politics for example, I'm not sure if that usage is universal, and when the usage is given high importance, it can create complications. But then again, labels are important for society's functioning. So it's shaky. This is what it means for something to be marked with dukkha; even though it may provide convenience, there is suffering involved. As far as I know, that's where the apparent solidity of terminologies begins to crumble. The point, in the end once more, is that these things are unworthy of attachment and aren't worth hanging onto.

I'm curious: what's your purpose for calling it a religion or philosophy? And do you think that faith in one's philosophy of choice would render it a religion?

First I want to say: no, certainly I have not realized liberation. That said, everything I say here is only to my own understanding gained through study and practice.

We philosopher types enjoy our grand sophisticated theories because, well, that's who we are and this is what we do. — Hippyhead

When you're horny, you do whatever it is you do. No experts required. No years of study involved — Hippyhead

Hahaha. First, Buddhists may find it worth questioning that "we are like x y and z and we have no choice about it". Truly, these are views that we have adopted about the world and ourselves. Thus the Buddha advocates for Right view: all things are impermanent, unsatisfactory, and not self. The idea that "we are like this" is impermanent, and in different ways it can prove unsatisfactory (e.g. when it binds us to habits which cause stress). Thus in Buddhist practice we examine that thought process, pay attention to its effect, and let it go once we have learned that it's not worth believing (and is it truly in truthful reference to a self if it's capable of cessation?) When the thought ceases and no longer describes a self, or any thoughts about self cease, what does that say about self? Nothing, but we're at ease because we have put down a heavy burden. (particularly one which may limit our potential to realize the fruits of practice).

Also, in regards to horniness, truly that depends on your aspirations or lack thereof. Many people would engage with no thought. Some might sense that it's really unnecessary; some feel like they are addicted to it and doomed to hell because of that. Buddhists, especially in the west where we have many backgrounds, come to the practice with lust in greater or lesser strength. For those who follow the 5 precepts, it's no issue so long as one doesn't harm others with it. However, in general, when one hears that the practice entails renunciation (and indeed sensuality is a basic hindrance to meditative concentration, jhana), one may undertake the 8 precepts or 227 as a monk. And still, this doesn't guarantee freedom from lust, but when it comes up, it is absolutely essential that one exercise restraint and try to undermine it. This takes a lot of skill and patience, but for one seeking the goal, it's necessary (as is our faith until we realize whatever fruit of this practice).

Assuming you haven’t fully realized freedom from suffering, are you not utilizing faith that full liberation is possible? — praxis

Faith is absolutely necessary; it's one of the five spiritual faculties/powers in Buddhism. There is unconfirmed faith and confirmed faith. The unconfirmed faith comes through either a taking on of conviction, or agreement through reflection, pondering, etc (SN 25.1). To my understanding, they are not mutually exclusive (ditto with "vipassana" and "samatha", an issue of concern for some Buddhists). Some things we don't know, somethings we do know but maybe not so completely. In the end, if we are not enlightened, we must take many things on faith: that our actions have consequences, that the intentions of our actions inform the consequences, that all things are impermanent, that we can realize cessation, etc. And this faith is nourished by both example (good teachers) and practice (see my earlier post about using refined sources of pleasure as rewards, and note that peace from insight and letting go is pleasant).

In my opinion, really the fundamental faith is that our suffering has a cause, and it ceases. This is affirmed when we simply notice it change, however realization into the four noble truths is more final and "penetrative"; in stream entry (the first stage of enlightenment), for example, we gain penetrative insight that cuts our attachment to bad actions, identity views, attachment to precepts and practices, and doubt. This is because we have witnessed the complete cessation of suffering ourselves, and we know what we did - the eightfold path. And when we consider that the cause (craving, ignorance) is both cause and effect of bad action (e.g. doing the same thing over and over again is fueld by craving, reinforces our ignorance if we don't reflect on it, and causes suffering), then reflection on the four noble truths naturally extends to reflection on our behavior. I think this is why Sariputta said that all skillful qualities are found within the four noble truths (MN 28).

And I think that's where Buddhism goes beyond religion or philosophy. The Buddha called his teaching dhamma-vinaya, meaning doctrine and discipline, and we utilize that dhamma vinaya for the purpose of realization. Even though it involves faith, it's hard to call it a religion (noting that blind attachment to precepts/practices/rites/rituals is abandoned at some point); even if it involves reasonable inference or reflection, it's hard to call it a philosophy (noting that ideas, concepts, arguments are not our refuge). So as a Buddhist, I like dhamma vinaya.

While awaiting further clarification I would propose that as I understand the phrase, if I do, "freedom from suffering" is just another glamorous becoming trip like becoming wealthy, famous or popular etc.

It seems more realistic and practical to focus instead on better managing suffering, an admittedly less glamorous agenda, but one that is clearly possible and available to just about anyone who is at least a little bit serious. — Hippyhead

Surely, one can glamorize it or make it romantic (myself included), however it is worth considering the nobility of this goal. Ajahn Geoff, for example, aptly notes (in a recorded talk, "Purity of Heart") that in the context of interdependency (which he also calls "inter-eating"), realization nibbana entails that first of all, one abstain from harming others to realize a greater happiness. Second of all, upon realization, one gains a happiness that is not dependent on anything at all (given that it has been realized by insight and total relinquishment of all conditions). Given that it's uncaused, it is not dependent, and therefore it does not dependent on resources, taking others' belongings, etc. The life of an Arahant may depend on these things, however their mind does not (thus we have heard of arahants going without food, etc). So in that sense, I would see it as worthy of admiration, and potentially quite impactful on society (but it's truly a matter of choice).

That suffering is best left managed isn't exactly bad, but in Buddhist thought it's quite limiting and unfortunate, and is particularly unfortunate when coming out of a teacher's mouth. However, again it's a matter of choice, and living a meritorious life is, as said, meritorious. The Buddha never said everyone had to practice, he said "come and see". But nevertheless, it is the position of some Buddhists (especially Thai Forest reformers like Ajahn Mun) that total realization is indeed possible. It really is a matter of faith, though, until enlightenment.

That life is suffering is plain to see. That craving is, if not the primary cause, at least a major contributor to suffering. That to end suffering, craving has to be ended follows from these premises. Whether the 8-fold path is the correct method to end craving is, unfortunately, debatable. — TheMadFool

Ergo, it must be that, on average, we suffer more than enjoy in life. At the very least, a great deal of energy must be expended to maintain order, our preferred state, and that's exhausting work. — TheMadFool

If I'm not mistaken, these scriptures, although memorized and chanted like prayers, actually contain logical arguments aimed at proving Buddhist doctrines — TheMadFool

I'm not denying that Buddhism has features like praying, rituals, gods, views on moral matters, etc., practices, that lend it a religious character but all these are extraneous to its core doctrines and have come about through its interactions with other religions, mainly Hinduism as far as I can tell. — TheMadFool

If I'm not mistaken, these scriptures, although memorized and chanted like prayers, actually contain logical arguments aimed at proving Buddhist doctrines — TheMadFool

In psychoanalytics, people are treated like animals and are trained like them using positive and negative reinforcement and other tricks of the trade. In Buddhism a person's higher faculty - reason - is engaged, arguments are presented for examination, and people are encouraged to think and decide how to behave rather than practise a particular behavior until it becomes a habit like in psychoanalytics. — TheMadFool

By my reckoning, the west got it right. We can tinker around, add/delete features of our world to suit our needs. — TheMadFool

Meditation, to my reckoning, only serves to calm our minds to the point where it becomes possible to reflect deeply about the nature of reality, a prerequisite if one is to gain any degree of understanding on the matter. It's quite different from giving a dog a treat everytime it does what you want it to. If a dog starts meditating it would be the first step it takes to an understanding of its behavior - what role the dog-treat has in shaping its habits and so on. — TheMadFool

In Buddhism, the method of overcoming fears, phobias included, is not by "getting used to it" but by coming to an understanding on why we fear anything at all. — TheMadFool

2) Thought is a required mechanical function of the body, like eating and sleeping. — Hippyhead

I was reading through this thread and my brain started getting tired... whew.

First just to give some background: I've been practicing Thai Theravadin Buddhism for about 6 years. I think this is worth mentioning because at least some of us seem to recognize that one's teacher and their tradition plays a role in how the Buddha's teachings are interpreted. Although Thai Buddhists like Ajahn Geoff (Thanissaro Bhikkhu) are especially skeptical of "Buddhist Modernism" or "Buddhist Romanticism" wherein the principles of Buddhism are interpreted in a way that makes them more broadly "applicable" to modern times (e.g. by getting rid of rebirth, reducing the suttas to merely imperfect expressions of past realizations which are no longer applicable in their entirety), it is worth noting that Thai Buddhism is itself a reform movement that was oriented around going back to the suttas, and back to the core monastic discipline. Thai Buddhist figures saw all the diety worship and animist trends, and decided it was best to go back to bare bones. Thus we hear of figures such as Ajahn Mun, renowned for austere practice that was nonetheless in line with the Vinaya's protections against extreme asceticism or isolation.

Any way, I think from the Buddhist perspective, the question of "philosophy or religion" isn't really all that important. As evidenced here, it leads to a lot of debate (one could say that the conclusions aren't necessarily worthy of attachment). But I think it wouldn't be wrong to say that it incorporates both, if we see philosophy as being oriented around an application of reason, and religion as a utilization of faith. As Ajahn Geoff often suggests, these and other things (e.g. morality) are used for the sole purpose of realizing freedom from suffering. They are not, for example, meant for adopting an identity as a "good philosopher" or "good Buddhist". Perhaps one can say that there is an instrumental value to these things, but the dichotomy of instrumental vs. intrinsic isn't utilized all that much in Thai Buddhism. In the end, at least ideally speaking, Buddhists aren't totally interested in pigeonholing the practice.

But any way, yes: we don't know that the eightfold path gets us to the cessation, and to that extent it is "debatable", but I think also that's where we must remember that the path is to be developed, not merely analyzed. Debating the path is kind of missing the point.

And yes: maintaining order is stressful and exhausting, but that doesn't mean it's worthless: the Buddha criticized those who defined themselves by going against the order of the day, but he also criticized those who went with it. If you reject order or embrace it, you can be a fool either way. Sometimes we tend to do both, anyhow (e.g. we value ordered arguments in favor of chaos). The order he didn't criticize, though, was the monastic vinaya, because this order is necessary for the practice. If you go to a monastery, order is pretty important, and when everyone is willing to put aside their preferences for the sake of harmony, it's not all that exhausting, except when the work is hard (as it is for the abbot, usually). In my experience, what's more exhausting is getting upset because things aren't the way you would like them to be. And even when general work is exhausting, it is often a source of joy when one recollects that they have done what is necessary to support their practice environment. Truly, life and its elements are subject to dissolution, yet we must take care of them in the pursuit of our goal. It's hard to practice when you're just lazing around, letting the meditation hall crumble on top of you because you decided that all things are not worth fixing.

Yes: the ceremonies are (often, but not absolutely) embellished by tradition. For example, chanting suttas is done with a certain appreciation for rhythm and melody, which seems distinct depending on your tradition. And ultimately, there is nothing inherently Buddhist about chanting, generally speaking. But what makes the chanting important here is the memorization, and what makes the memorization important is its applicability to practice. We don't memorize chants just to prove them or think about them, although it can be helpful to tease them out sometimes (especially with a friend). Memorizing is part of mindfulness (sati), thus we have Buddhanusati (recollection of the Buddha), maranasati (recollection of death) anapanasati (recollection of breathing, aka breath meditation), silanusati (recollection of virtue), among other things. The purpose of recollecting is not just to bring to mind the teachings and bring them to bare on one's life, but to uplift the mind and provide food for contemplation. Often, Buddhanusati is used to arouse faith; maranasati is used to arouse a sense of heedfulness and ardency; silanusati can arouse joy and confidence in oneself; anapanasati, which isn't necessarily exclusive from these other practices, is used to both settle and energize the mind to bring it into concentration. And then the Buddha goes on about that: concentration is used to bring about equanimity.

This, being in the context of the "seven factors of awakening," puts concentration and the other 6 in the context of seeking awakening. And what are we awakening to? The Four Noble truths. But the Four noble truths are not framed as "life is suffering, craving is the cause of suffering, to end suffering one must abandon craving," etc. Given that this is a matter of insight, and the purpose of insight is to arouse disenchantment and thus letting go (AN 11.1), insight into the four noble truths is not a matter of logical arguments or premises, but understanding and letting go, which is an act that cannot be contrived by mere theoretical analysis. In short, one must meditate, engage, understand, and eventually let go. Otherwise, one simply grabs hold of one thing in favor of another (not ignoring that the refinement of one's attachments is integral to this process). On that note, we do not merely abandon fear having understood its irrational basis; we abandon fear having also realized the drawbacks of holding on to it (i.e. we are enmeshed into a cycle of suffering).

And on that note, yes: Buddhists are encouraged to be considerate in their decision making, and not act unless if is deemed wise (or, more precisely, wholesome). However, this does not rule out the aspect of training or utilizing rewards. As AN 9.41 suggests, we do use thinking to consider the benefits and drawbacks of certain behaviors (e.g. sensuality vs. renunciation), however that reasoning cannot stand on its own (it's unsatisfactory, any way). We need to actually engage in the practice to realize the rewards, otherwise they're merely conceptual (and it's easier to debate concepts than to live in accordance with them). Thus meditation, virtue, and concentration (the "threefold training") are quite tied in with giving the mind good food to put it into a good direction.

And on that note, thought is not treated as a required mechanical process. It is treated as a tool for well-being, and it is also a tool which can be put down when it is no longer needed. Thus after talking with people about Buddhism, we no longer feel the need to think about it in such a way as to clarify it to others, rather we think about it to calm down our own mind. And once it's sufficiently calm, we settle onto a good object of meditation. From there, the practice continues. If our mind is infatuated with concepts, still lingering on past debates and cherished theories, we can see that "this is suffering" and thus move the mind to a more settled state, remembering that the breathing, again, is a suitable vehicle for such stability. And our foregoing of internal debate is not a cause of disorder in the world if it's helping to bring our own minds and attitudes into order, and especially if we end up cultivating wholesome qualities over unwholesome ones.