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

The names I listed refer to those who have been suggested to have reached a certain level of awakening. Since a vinaya rule forbids against speaking of one's attainments, these Ajahns have not declared themselves arahants, though in a controversial event Ajahn Maha Bua did (I think somewhat indirectly; maybe others have as well, but not to my memory). And beyond these people, of course the Buddha had his Arahant disciples. — TLCD1996

So, a few more than 7 but still an infinitesimally low number, and the 7 did it on their own? The efficacy of the teaching is appalling. Point is, if it were about awakening, truth, and integrity, as you say, then it seems like the best course would be to abandon the teaching and search for a better way.

Refuge in authority, metaphysics, and solidarity would be consistent with the results.

Any way, in the circumstances we are in, lay followers are not expected to worship teachers. Many due, particularly in Thailand, however from what I've seen and heard, respecting teachers comes from faith and observations/experiences of their conduct. There does not seem to be an established sort of "guru" treatment where the Guru is supposed to be treated like a God or supreme being. Many forest teachers I'm aware of discourage speculation regarding attainments, emphasizing observation and reflection over their teacher's conduct. — TLCD1996

Buddha is the ultimate authority in Buddhism.

these are some examples of "success stories", or even just great teachers. — TLCD1996

So not much difference between the cessation of sufferings or Buddhahood and a great teacher? And what’s the difference between the 7 Buddha’s and those you mention?

That is, we take refuge in awakening, truth, and integrity (noting there is no single correct interpretation of this, it usually falls somewhere along those lines). — TLCD1996

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

There have been at least 30,000 coronavirus infections and 700 deaths as a result of 18 campaign rallies President Trump held from June to September.

Defiantly a death cult.

They learned victimhood from the best.

Everyone should acknowledge their position is faith based — Hippyhead

It's very hard to imagine a worse candidate but if it were possible I suppose that I would vote for Trump, being the lesser of two evils. :vomit:

Welcome, my brotha!

The size and power the U.S. govt. has accumulated over the years and the way theyve handled that power... — Harry Hindu

I think maybe the “truths” of your religious political beliefs are showing.

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

Fits the ppp perfectly.

Usually the practice is like this: you find a meaning which is useful, you pick it up and use it, then you put it down when you don't need it. And you remember that there is no true refuge within that meaning, so you stop seeking it out. — TLCD1996

Unless the meaning is something like, oh, I don't know, Buddhist Romanticism, then you write a whole damn book about it.

is there some point you're trying to make? — FrancisRay

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh, yes, that Buddhism is a religion.

Why not just concede that Buddhism is a religion among others things? Why not just concede that how we define religion is to some extent merely a matter of taste? — FrancisRay

I haven't argued against the idea that some individual's regard for Buddhism is to some extent influenced by subjective feeling. In fact, in my opinion, that has been the obstacle all along. I've not denied the lack of objectivity. Indeed, I've alluded to it on several occasions, only to be attacked for doing so with claims that I'm baiting or trolling.

You’re overreacting and that’s understandable being that Ajahn Geoff is a religious authority.
— praxis

Perfect example of passive-aggressive baiting. Those participating in this thread will do well to take note. — Wayfarer

Your contributions to the topic have been reduced to ad hominem attacks? Figgers.

If you think it;s just a religion (whatever he definition) then you're missing much of what it;s about. It's limiting to pigeon-hole before you do the study. Find out what it is and then you'll know what it is. — FrancisRay

This is like saying that calling the earth a planet pigeonholes the earth and that you're neglecting to communicate much of what the earth is about. Of course you're not communicating much of what the earth is about when you call it a planet. Who would think that calling the earth a planet communicated everything about the earth? No one.

In the context of celestial bodies, the earth isn’t accurately identified as a moon or an asteroid, or a zebra. It’s accurately identified as a planet.

I really don't want to keep going back and forth saying the same thing over and over (and a fair bit extra) when the point is exactly the opposite of that. So I'll leave that there. — TLCD1996

But you're not saying the same thing. When I showed that labeling something doesn't limit possibilities you switched to the issue of "truthful or accurate." To date, no one has shown how my way of defining religion is inaccurate or shown how Buddhism doesn't qualify in this definition.

our understanding of China will change over time, as will our descriptions and signifiers. Therefore these signs are not totally stable, therefore our usage of them must be a bit more purposeful and perhaps not separate from values of truthfulness. And still, some people will understand them one way, others a different way. And our desire for agreement is not always guaranteed satisfaction, unfortunately. — TLCD1996

No one expects our concepts to not develop. I suppose we might use them without purpose and "separate from values of truthfulness" but I don't see how that's relevant. People may do all sorts of inexplicable things.

Of course, people have varying understandings of things. If you asked a child what religions is they might say something like, "it's about God." If you asked someone with a PhD in religious studies what religion is, God knows what they'd say. As we've already noted, the term is not very well defined, ergo, this topic.

Also, incumbents are harder to beat, and Trump doesn't have a problem with using resources paid for by taxpayers for campaigning.

Buddhism becomes limited to whatever meaning somebody ascribes to those words — TLCD1996

Please, that's like saying that calling China – a place that I've never been to – limits China to the little that I know of it. No possibilities are lost by calling China China. The word is merely a signifier or sign. In fact not using the sign may limit the possibility of my knowing China better because I may not be able to find it without the dang sign!

Okay. So, suppose I teach somebody to keep the precepts, and they do so, but in a way which makes them feel extremely on edge and fearful of stepping on the smallest and unnoticeable bug, leading them to resort to a life of total inaction and fearful misery. Or at least they subject themselves to repetitive guilt trips stemming from accidentally breaking precepts or even intentionally doing so out of a deeply ingrained habit. Are you saying it's wrong for me to tell them not to do that? Because that's basically what's happening when you describe somebody else's wrong actions (however directly or indirectly) and say, "don't do that". Seems pretty necessary to me, at least depending on the circumstances.

And what if it works? What if it makes them think, "oh, he's telling me to keep the precepts, just not like that. Okay, I'll try that." And then they do it, and it works, and they feel more confident in themselves (not to mention me as their teacher). Is it still a bad way to teach? — TLCD1996

In Buddhist Romanticism, Ajahn Geoff points a finger at other schools, not his own. Not by name but if you do a google search with the quotations he lists you can see who they are.

This worries me, he believes that "God", with a capital G exists. What does that tell us about him? — Sir2u

He's religious, is somewhat concerning to others, and has some grammar skillz.

Too loose and there is no support; too tight, the possibilities are limited. — TLCD1996

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

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

Why not? — TLCD1996

Because it's best to teach what you're teaching. But if two different ways are fundamentally the same I guess it doesn't much matter.

Why is reifying the conceptual boundary between religion and philosophy apparently undesirable or wrong, whereas reifying the conceptual boundary between Buddhism and Buddhist Romanticism is apparently desirable or good?
— praxis

Because conventions are limited, yet they are necessary. — TLCD1996

Of course conventions are limited. They may not be necessary. The custom of 'othering', for instance, is not necessary. Showing how others do things differently isn't even a good way to teach something.

Thus earlier I also said that there's nothing totally wrong about calling Buddhism a religion (or even a Philosophy) given a certain context, however for the purpose of realizing the truth of the Buddha's teachings, it is necessary to avoid too tight of a grip on these labels which can pigeonhole the dhammavinaya. — TLCD1996

Well, again, why so loosey-goosey with the religion/philosophy distinction but so anal about the Buddhism/Buddhist Romanticism distinction? You haven’t addressed the question. If it’s pigeonholing by distinguishing religion/philosophy then it’s pigeonholing by distinguishing Buddhism/Buddhist Romanticism.

Why is calling Buddhism a religion overly restrictive? The term isn’t even very well defined, which is probably why this thread exists in the first place. The PPP is not overly restricting and has no trouble at all encompassing Buddhism.

Thanks for clarifying, however you say that this othering is the worst part of religion. It seems that you're accusing him of something that's wrong, then. — TLCD1996

Earlier you wrote:

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

Why is reifying the conceptual boundary between religion and philosophy apparently undesirable or wrong, whereas reifying the conceptual boundary between Buddhism and Buddhist Romanticism is apparently desirable or good?

Yes, technically, playing Russian roulette is an NDE, or holding your breath for a couple of minutes.

@david plumb

I don’t think anyone would argue that politicians, ad agencies, think tanks, etc., don’t effectively manipulate the public. What’s unclear is how superheroes in popular culture have usurped God, and if this is the case, and the coup d’état was executed by liberals, how liberalism or a liberal agenda is promoted via the superhero franchise. An explanation of that would be interesting.

From what I remember of the last superhero movie that I watched, the super-villain, I think his name was Thanos, was basically an overzealous ecologist who wanted to half the universal population in the interest of sustainability. The super-heroes fought for a more conservative approach and were vehemently against Thanos's super-radical progressivism. So if anything it seems like conservatism is being championed in this story.

And please, let's not go down the path of trying to speculate on somebody else's motives and accuse them of wrongful action. I don't think I should even be defending Ajahn Geoff. It just seems so inappropriate. Thanks. — TLCD1996

Othering (pointing out the heretics) is a common practice as old as religion itself and serves the useful function of enhancing meaning and group solidarity. As I’ve mentioned several times in this topic, it’s all about tribal solidarity.

I did not accuse Ajahn Geoff of wrongful actions. You’re overreacting and that’s understandable being that Ajahn Geoff is a religious authority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I hope you find a way to deal with it, even if it involves defining waves out of existence.
— jamalrob

Thank you, same to ya! We shall see. — Hippyhead

Yeah, that doesn't work. Try LSD for end-of-life anxiety.

In 2008, we co-sponsored a MAPS-led trial, conducted by Dr Peter Gasser, which was the first study to use LSD in patients since prohibition. As the first LSD study approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 40 years, it put the drug’s medical potential back in the spotlight. The study demonstrated that LSD paired with psychotherapy alleviated end-of-life anxiety in patients suffering from terminal illnesses. In each study session, patients were assisted by therapists, who walked them through their psychedelic experience. Patients reported no prolonged negative effects of the drug, and the 200 ug dose was associated with profound positive effects in alleviating anxiety. At 1-year follow-up, patients reported that their reduced anxiety levels were maintained, and identified no harmful side-effects. — Beckley Foundation

the ocean is where I come from — Hippyhead

You can't know that. Maybe you come from a very different place and upon death will return there, wherever that is. The ocean is far too big for you to even begin to imagine, in other words. Scary thought?

The main topic is whether or not Buddhism qualifies as a religion, and it seems that indeed it does in your view, but then again it also seems that in practice it takes on nuances that make it quite distinct from what we may usually think of as "religion". — TLCD1996

Such as?

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

Oh hell. That would be me then. Can you explain what is wrong with my view? If mysticism is not about Oneness then I can;t imagine what else it could be about. I've not heard anyone argue it is about anything else. — FrancisRay

Pardon my confusion but in some instances you claim to be a Buddhist and in other instances you claim not to be. I don't mind being confused about this so no need to explain if you don't feel like it.

Anyway, in addition to what TLCD1996 wrote above regarding Oneness, I'll simply say that Oneness by itself is meaningless, and Buddhism seeks to transcend whatever dualism is implied for Oneness to have meaning. Kinda like both oneness and manyness, and neither oneness and manyness. Beyond all dualisms. There's really no good way to indicate non-duality, I guess. You might say that Oneness is a good indicator, but the fact that the term is meaningful suggests that we may be a bit clingy in how we regard it.

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

Good guess, but no, it's more like Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz. A fictional character that's too stupid to fight back when you beat it up. If it only had a brain....

Perhaps this is evidence to support to the Plumb theory then, superheroes being super-leftist-villains. On the other hand, the top superhero is called Homelander and supports a xenophobic agenda making him a super-righty-villain. The Hollywood Lefty Elite is super insidious.

I’m currently rather fond of a series called “The Boys.” The boys are a ragtag group of malcontents who’s intent is to kill-off all the superheroes. They’re anti-superhero heroes, essentially. Those elite Hollywood righties really know how to give a good mind fuck.

It’s all just so much neural activity, ergo, all meaningless and certainly nothing to get anxious about.

Given that some may seem to confuse Buddhism with Hinduism or conflate them (I've heard so much that Buddhism is rebranded Hinduism), given that some Hindus see the Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu, given that many western philosophers e.g. Huxley, Emerson have taken up Hinduism in some way when speaking of "The East", given that Hindu figures (e.g. Sadhguru) may reference Buddhist teachings and vice versa, and given that Hinduism has been referenced here in this thread, it doesn't seem wrong to bring up Hinduism. — TLCD1996

In all your givens you neglect to mention that at the point of dialogue in question we were talking about Buddhism and the alleged Religion of Romanticism.

If you believe that murder rationalized based on atman is part of the Hindu tradition, that’s really weird, in my opinion, and if you don’t want to try proving it that’s your choice.

And since it seems that some views expressed here are similar to what Ajahn Geoff points out as Romantic thinking — TLCD1996

His argument is based on the strawman that he calls Romantic Religion. Disowning the heretics to shore-up a waning tradition is one of the oldest tricks in the book, and one of the least virtuous.

You asked what was misleading and I’ve shown it. You can show that I’m mistaken by simply pointing out the Religion of Romanticism. A Buddhist who believes that Buddhism is about Oneness is simply a mistaken Buddhist and not someone who belongs to the Religion of Romanticism. There’s alway the possibility, of course, that a Buddhist knows the difference but intentionally misleads for some reason. That’s been known to happen.

I see theism and metaphysics on the same level as poetry and the arts; they can certainly enrich lives, but from a purely rational and/or empirical perspective (which are the only perspectives where determinate inter-subjective knowledge can be established) they are groundless. Imagine trying to rationally prove or empirically show that one particular interpretation of a poem is "the one true meaning" of the poem. It simply can't be done. — Janus

Sound reasoning, but no believer could see their beliefs as art or poetry. It simply can’t be done.

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 — TLCD1996

If you don't know whether or not they're speaking inline with their tradition then you don't know if it's hyperbole, but whatever the case, how is Hinduism relevant to a discussion about Buddhism and the alleged religion of Romanticism?

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? — TLCD1996

I suppose because it's a bygone era and no longer a dominant approach to dealing with meaninglessness. If, for example, I were to paint a realistic painting on Monday, does that mean that I'm living in an era of realism on Monday, and if I were to paint a romantic painting on Tuesday that I'm living in a romantic era on Tuesday? Course not.

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 — TLCD1996

Case and point, transcendentalism is a philosophical movement and not a religion. Why is it not a religion you ask? See praxis's pet project.

And if Nirvana is undefinable and beyond conceptualizations, why not point toward it by saying what it isn't? — TLCD1996

It's the manner in which it's done that is telling, in my opinion.

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! — TLCD1996

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

I'd be interested in hearing what you find misleading about it, if you don't mind elaborating on that. — TLCD1996

Just like there are no traditions that rationalize murder on the basis of no-self, there's no Romantic Religion whose core principle is Oneness.

The romantic era, which by the way is long gone, was essentially a reaction to meaninglessness. Ironically, a common approach to dealing with encroaching meaninglessness and shore-up the meaning of a religious tradition is to define it by proclaiming what it's not, by pointing out the heretics, and if a little hyperbole is required, well, the end justifies the means.

SLX has deleted more HH content?

If so, we owe him our gratitude.

Beware the intellectual lefties as they understand the value of dumbing down society and attacking those remaining that have the intelligence to challenge the new dawn. Look at it philosophically, i.e objectively for a moment, and notice the rise of the god like celebrities, action heroes, sporting icons etc. — david plumb

Wasn’t it uneducated righties that helped to put a celebrity in the Oval Office in 2016?

Bicontinental actually.

That's quite a book and I'm quite the romantic myself. :love:

Spoiler alert: Traditionalist promoting traditionalism in exhausting length and a bit misleadingly.