I know, the relationship is definitely dramatized, but still a good story and it's informative and promotes ecology.

Oh, sorry, your answer is “thought operates by a process of division” then?

My understanding is that concepts are formed from a rather large amount of sense patterns and though the patterns are singled out they build to form larger patterns in a hierarchical fashion, like letter > word > sentence > paragraph etc. So all the information that a concept (like Buddhism) is comprised of is in our minds and is not a single thing, just like outside the mind. :razz:

If it's not a single thing outside of our minds then why would it be a single thing in our minds?
— praxis

When you're not distracted by being a Gotcha Monster you can ask good questions. This is one. — Hippyhead

So good that you’re unable to answer it, apparently.



Again, I’m arguing that Buddhism is a religion rather than a philosophy, primary in pointing out two glaring contrasts:

• In philosophy there is no ultimate authority such as there is in Buddhism.
  
  
• There is no one metaphysical theory in philosophy whereas Buddhism holds to a single metaphysical understanding.

Praxis wants to nail down what "thing "Buddhism is — Hippyhead

Don't be silly. I'm merely arguing that it's a religion rather than a philosophy.

he wants to confine it within a noun, mostly so he can debunk it because that's his goal on every subject. — Hippyhead

Ad homs are a stupid way to argue.

Buddhism is not a single thing. Nor is Christianity. Nor is anything in all of reality, except in our minds. — Hippyhead

If it's not a single thing outside of our minds then why would it be a single thing in our minds?

If we are a practitioner we soon find out what it is... — FrancisRay

Unfortunately for those who died in Jonestown (a different religion than Buddhism), this is obviously false.

it makes no difference to Buddhism what we call it. — FrancisRay

Right, it makes a difference to Buddhists and others.

If religion requires dogma, authority and belief then it is not a religion. If science must depend entirely on sensory-data then it is not a science. If philosophy requires endless confusion then it is not a philosophy. If art requires paint and a canvas then it is not an art. — FrancisRay

Silly strawman. Believe it or not, essential characteristic features can be identified in things.

It would be more helpful to ask whether it works, whether it reveals truth, whether it brings liberation etc. — FrancisRay

Religion works, but not in the way most people think, in my opinion. Religion may or may not reveal truth, that's beside the point. Religion necessarily promises salvation, delivering on that promise is beside the point.

I never mentioned a 'modern' perspective and wouldn't know what the phrase means. — FrancisRay

Do you think that premodern people viewed Buddhism as a religion, a science, an art, and whatever else?

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: — TLCD1996

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.

why are you interested in calling it a religion or philosophy? — TLCD1996

I believe that it's a religion and am arguing that it is.

I am weary to say Buddhism is a "religion" when "religion" is being used in an unnecessarily limiting manner. — TLCD1996

In all instances that I can imagine it's used in an identifying manner, which is necessarily limiting. Calling it "dhamma vinaya" is likewise limiting. Identifying anything is necessarily limiting. Your condition of necessity seems completely arbitrary and meaningless.

What I find laughable is how in one corner we have Wayfarer and Hippyhead lamenting the loss of an intimate relationship and our existential plight...

What I'm getting at is that modernity, 'being modern', is in some ways an existential plight. Pre- moderns had a different mindset and relationship with the world, as they intuitively felt a kinship to it - not that they would have expressed it that way, or even been aware of it. — Wayfarer

And in the other corner, we have you and Hippyhead claiming that unless viewed from a modern lens we miss the significance of Buddhism (or any religion?) and sell it short.

:lol:

Suspicion?

Buddhism is rather more sophisticated than a hammer.. — FrancisRay

That’s not saying anything. A hammer is more sophisticated than a rock. That doesn’t mean that a hammer isn’t designed or best utilized for a particular purpose.

If you’re serious then you could backup your claim by explaining how not seeing Buddhism as an art or philosophy sells it short and misses its significance.

Because Gods can be infinitely cruel.
— praxis

Thank you for chanting your usual dogmas. — Hippyhead

It stands to reason that if there can be a virtual heaven then there can be a virtual hell. Imagine, for example, if someone programmed your digital Diane Lane to be a zombie that nibbled on you for a few hours or days, or weeks.

Why inhabit an often cruel real world when one can instead inhabit a wonderful imaginary realm where we are gods? — Hippyhead

Because Gods can be infinitely cruel.

For me Buddhism would be a religion, a science, an art and a philosophy, same as all the 'mystical' traditions. To see them as just one of these would be to miss their significance and sell them short. . . — FrancisRay

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.

There's a lot to unpack there that seems to be glossed over in a "religion or philosophy" argument. — TLCD1996

Or perhaps the gloss evades the argument. No problem, for my part.

One point of clarification though...

But isn't Stoicism based on a premise that reason is divine? — TLCD1996

I might be persuaded by an argument that sapiens don’t actually possess the capacity of reason, in this day and age, regardless of its nature.

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. — TLCD1996

You mentioned that blind attachment to practice/doctrine is abandoned at some point, suggesting that this somehow distinguishes it from religion. This is how religions are, however. Do Christians go to church in heaven, for example? Once the promise is fulfilled the practice is superfluous, and because all other religions are false they are never fulfilled. Only our own religion can be fulfilled. That is the unspoken assumption, as I read your statement.

The point, in the end once more, is that these things are unworthy of attachment and aren't worth hanging onto. — TLCD1996

Given this sentiment, I don't understand your reluctance to accept that Buddhism is a religion. My suspicion is essentially that you would like to consider it 'reality' and religion does not reflect reality.

I'm curious: what's your purpose for calling it a religion or philosophy? — TLCD1996

What is the purpose of distinguishing an apple from an orange? There could be many purposes. More than I could list here.

And do you think that faith in one's philosophy of choice would render it a religion? — TLCD1996

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.

"Enemy of my enemy is my ally" — 180 Proof

:razz: That proverb came to mind when reading along with the Streetlight drama.

Watched this last night on Netflix, quite fascinating.

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). — TLCD1996

Of course I agree that it would be misleading to call a religion a philosophy.

It is the promise that must necessarily be taken on faith that correctly identifies it as a religion and not the fulfillment of the promise. 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).

What do you suppose the problem is in accepting the fact that Buddhism is a religion?

They can't join an atheist philosophy forum to discuss love, because that conversation doesn't happen here. — Hippyhead

https://thephilosophyforum.com/search?Search=Love&expand=yes&child=&forums=&or=Relevance&discenc=&mem=&tag=&pg=1&date=All&titles=1&Checkboxes%5B%5D=titles&Checkboxes%5B%5D=WithReplies&or=Relevance&user=&disc=&Checkboxes%5B%5D=child

TLCD1996 wrote:

I think it wouldn't be wrong to say that it incorporates both [application of reason and utilization of faith]

If neither of you think that it doesn’t apply reason, well, I suppose there wouldn’t be much point in argument. It is unclear if TLCD1996 believes that faith is utilized.

My biggest problem with Trump is that he lacks any leadership qualities and instead just fans the flames where ever there is conflict in order to create a stark choice for the voters. — Hanover

Rather euphemistically put, but anyway, four more years of that, yay! :cheer:

A well written and informative post, TLCD1996. I will cut to the chase as it relates to the topic.

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. — TLCD1996

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

That's why I'm not voting for Biden. — Hanover

Since you brought it up, are you skipping this part of the ballot or voting for Trump... or Kanye?

(Just a small correction: the outlet that reported on the emails was the New York Post, the paper of Hamilton.) — NOS4A2

Oh wow, the paper of Hamilton. Must be reliable reporting then!

Religion arises from the inherently divisive nature of thought itself. — Hippyhead

Undeniably true, but then what doesn’t arise from this creator of worlds, oh wise one?

Yes, the believer is more likely to believe that they are moral beings due to their affiliation with ultimate authority, but that is an unfortunate illusion because it stifles moral development.

Believers must be kept dependent so the development of virtue is never seriously pursued. Sinners are forgiven, and in so doing kept dependent on a forgiver.

The development of virtue leads to independence. The nonbeliever may base their development on principles.

the nonbeliever does not believe in God, thus there is no internal source to compel his morality. The nonbeliever lacks the transfigured judge which is lurking over the shoulder of the believer at all times. — Merkwurdichliebe

Both believer and nonbeliever have the same internal moral intuitions. Their justifications (after the fact) differ, merely.

I think if you had something worthwhile to say that you would be able to articulate it succinctly and without further tedium.
— praxis

That's an odd thing to assume. Maybe he doesn't want to throw his pearls in the wrong direction. — frank

Is it odd? Maybe it seems that way because you don't know him as well as I do.

He can keep his damnable pearls. This pig ain't interested.

I think if you had something worthwhile to say that you would be able to articulate it succinctly and without further tedium.

Why do we seek such stories? What is the need which causes us to go looking for stories? Yes, we want meaning. But why? Why do we seek meanings?

Keep digging... — Hippyhead

You seem to suggest that you have answers to your four questions but for some weird reason aren't saying.

Don't worry, I promise no one will make fun of your answers.

I know of one fan.

Bringing religion to an end would require understanding the fundamental human need which gives rise to religion and then providing, at massive scale, some manner of meeting that need which users find more effective than religion. — Hippyhead

In a word, the need is meaning and people best find this for themselves. The necessary cultural shift would be towards the pursuit of meaning rather than materialistic goals and tribal solidarity.

You appear to be buying the myth that he’s a 4-D chess player or whatever. Grated he’s an accomplished con-man, but the self-beneficial accomplishments he has are owed to inherited wealth and the freedom of not being burdened with any principles.

He’s a right-wing populist, as traditional in the US as white bread or apple pie. Think stupid Nixon.

I'm voting for Trump because of this amazing accomplishment. He's made us long for traditional politicians! — Hippyhead

He couldn't be more traditional, merely a different brand.

Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced — James Baldwin

Yet another word from the Dune universe, this one from The Duke of Caladan. While listening to the audiobook last night there was a part in the story where the Baron Vladimir Harkonnen informed a visiting guest that some such thing would be arriving presently. The word 'presently' had apparently triggered in my mind the latent thirst for exotic words and within less than a minute a new beauty blossomed from the narrative.

Feyd-Rautha gave the Baron's guest an insouciant glance as he walked away.

I like the sound of the word, and its meaning, but I can't imagine using it in day-to-day language, unfortunatly.

Not to me. If it were I wouldn’t have asked.

What is the logic applied to impermanence that answers the question of how to live well? And, btw, the question is ‘how to end suffering?’ and not ‘how to live well?’

a system of recommended practices which is, at its core, an answer to the question that greek philosophers were grappling with, to wit, how to live well? — TheMadFool

Why can’t we say this about any religion?