Perhaps I'm too practical — Hippyhead

If you were practical you’d keep your silly fantasies about fellow posters to yourself and stick to the topics.

Like so many things in life religion can be beneficial or injurious. Wouldn’t it be just as irrational to hold the view that religion is all good? — praxis

Of course! I too am sceptical of institutional religions.

it is rather absurd to claim that I reject all such authority. — praxis

Fair enough! It's just that many of your posts seem to express a hostility towards 'religion' generally and to deprecate 'faith' as a kind of intellectual weakness.

However, this access is uncommon and therefore the common folk necessary need to take whatever the Buddha claims about the nature of reality on faith — praxis

No one need take on faith a core principle of Christianity, the experience of love. Try it, if you like it, do more of it. No one need to take on faith the value of meditation. Try it, if you like it, do more of it. Fully empirical. No authority involved.

Faith is obviously not going to be a useful methodology for you, as is true of many people, myself included. This is way beyond totally clear and so the matter should be considered settled and set aside.

My argument with your perspective would not be that you are a heretic to Christianity, Buddhism or religion in general, as I have no complaint with that at all. My argument would be that you are a heretic to your own chosen methodology, reason.

It's simply not rational to spend years fighting a holy war against faith when you can simply toss faith in the dumpster and walk away. That done, your time and intelligence can then be redirected at those methods which you do find useful. That would be rational.

Whether there is anything at all within the field of religion that you would find useful is unknown to me. If you can find nothing useful in religion, I don't see that as an obstacle as many of the same benefits are available through reason alone. If it's true there is nothing anywhere in religion that you would find useful, then the rational act would be to walk away from religion threads and invest your time elsewhere.

It's just that many of your posts seem to express a hostility towards 'religion' generally and to deprecate 'faith' as a kind of intellectual weakness. — Wayfarer

I don’t believe that I’ve done that in this topic.

If you were practical you’d keep your silly fantasies about fellow posters to yourself and stick to the topics. — praxis

If we define practical as keeping you as a member of this thread who is engaged by the other members, certain issues need to be addressed. That said, you're headed in the right direction so just keep going and then my silly fantasies will not be necessary.

It's just that many of your posts seem to express a hostility towards 'religion' generally and to deprecate 'faith' as a kind of intellectual weakness.
— Wayfarer

I don’t believe that I’ve done that in this topic. — praxis

That seemed to me the implication of this:

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority. — praxis

I agree the whole issue of religious authority is vexed, that it is often abused, and that appeals to faith often underwrite ludicrous behaviours and ideologies. But I still don't think that amounts to a reason to reject the whole idea. (In other words - I still have faith :-) )

Regarding religious authority, which is of course a huge obstacle to very many people.

One approach is to spend a lifetime trying to find the good authorities while weeding out the bad ones. Ok, to each their own, but this may be a highly inefficient use of time.

Another more efficient approach could be to discard all philosophies, dogmas, doctrines, assertions, ideologies, understandings, insights etc in a single move. If we're not chasing such things, we don't require authorities.

Authorities and philosophies etc are based on the assumption that the problem we're trying to address arises from the content of thought. Thus, the authorities suggest various ways that content should be edited.

If it is instead true that the problem of human suffering arises from the medium of thought itself, then we're looking at a mechanical issue which can be addressed by simple mechanical means. Don't really need experts and authorities for this. And no one need believe me about this either. They can conduct their own experiments and come to their own conclusions. No faith needed. No authorities needed.

I agree the whole issue of religious authority is vexed, that it is often abused, and that appeals to faith often underwrite ludicrous behaviours and ideologies. But I still don't think that amounts to a reason to reject the whole idea. — Wayfarer

My post above counter argues that some people should reject the entire business. If it's not working, and shows no promise of ever working, let it go, put it down, walk away. Try something else.

Open mindedness is good, but there comes a point when the most rational act might be to make a decision and act on it. Shit or get off the pot.

I give up. I will not respond again.

You explain the religion issue very well. I should make clear that in my view likewise Buddhism is a religion. It would also be a science, a philosophy, an art, a practice and a medicine..

. . .

This all makes sense, and represents my view too. I think we're just working on a translation from Buddhist language to armadillo worship language. :-)

Yes! It's the same language. If we we have the shamanistic impulse we don't need books. Black Elk of the Dakotas tells us that when the white man arrived in their lands what amazed the tribes most was that they got their religion out of a book and argued about it like lawyers. This was incomprehsible to them.

Black Elk of the Dakotas tells us that when the white man arrived in their lands what amazed the tribes most was that they got their religion out of a book and argued about it like lawyers. This was incomprehensible to them. — FrancisRay

Ha, ha! Good one. :-)

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority. — praxis

Oh hell. I'll break my rule.

You don't seem to grasp that Buddhism does not rely on authority. It expressly forbids a reliance on authority. Buddhist would consider it absurd to rely on authority. It is all about becoming our own authority.and about nothing else. An authoritative knowledge of the true nature of Reality is the entire point and purpose of it. We may choose to trust the teachings or the teacher, but we'll never understand either properly until we know they are true, and everybody knows this.

Your assumption that only the Buddha can be relied on as an authority is ridiculous. He must be turning in his grave.It's as silly as the idea that Jesus is the the only son of God. There is an old saying that when we meet the Buddha on the road we should spit on him. It's a saying the can withstand a lot of thought. . ,

If it is not a secret I'd be interested to know where your woodland retreat is. I imagine its somewhere near Walden Pond. .

If it is not a secret I'd be interested to know where your woodland retreat is. — FrancisRay

Here ya go: San Felasco State Park

Briefly, what I've learned there. Twenty years ago I sold a business and was flush with cash. My idea was to fulfill the classic Hippy dream of going out West, Oregon and such. My wife wasn't up for such a big change. So I made do with what was available locally, and this park is just four miles up the road.

What I learned there is that it's not the place, it's the relationship with the place that matters. In other words, it's all in my head. Now I'm too old and lazy to get much farther than the county line, so it's good I learned that. :-)

It's just that many of your posts seem to express a hostility towards 'religion' generally and to deprecate 'faith' as a kind of intellectual weakness.
— Wayfarer

I don’t believe that I’ve done that in this topic.
— praxis


That seemed to me the implication of this:

I'm talking about all religions and all religions depend on faith, specifically and significantly faith in ultimate authority.
— praxis

I agree the whole issue of religious authority is vexed, that it is often abused, and that appeals to faith often underwrite ludicrous behaviors and ideologies. But I still don't think that amounts to a reason to reject the whole idea. (In other words - I still have faith :-) ) — Wayfarer

It doesn't imply that faith is an intellectual weakness. It states that religion depends on faith in an ultimate authority as a necessary condition for it to be a religion. Clearly, faith isn't limited to religion and is expressed in our lives in various ways.

I simply have to say something about this discussion. It's the first one I've had here and as a veteran of philosophy forums it seems to me almost miraculously thoughtful and sensible, I'm excited to be talking to such interesting people. Even Praxis has been unable to disrupt it.

I've often considered writing a collaborative book in the form of an edited) internet discussion with all sorts of views represented as a commercial philosophical adventure, and this is the first forum I've visited in two decades where I've thought the idea might be practical. .

If it is instead true that the problem of human suffering arises from the medium of thought itself, then we're looking at a mechanical issue which can be addressed by simple mechanical means. — Hippyhead

It’s easy to say that ‘thought is a mechanical process’ but what does it mean?

As this is a Buddhism thread, some reference ought to be made to abhidharma, which is Buddhist philosophical psychology. It is the ‘third’ of the ‘three baskets’ the other two being vinaya (monastic regulations) and sutta (sayings and teachings). It’s a methodical analysis of the whole process of perception and ideation which leads to rebirth in saṃsāra. As such it’s a deep and difficult study, but suffice to say in this context that it is based on the same principles that (I think) you’re trying to get at. But I think that left to our own devices, none of us will come remotely near understanding it in any depth. In the Buddhist context, it is reserved for advanced studies, and it is a curriculum that takes many years to master.

Sceptics will say - and it’s a fair point - that it’s said in the Theravada Buddhist sphere (S.E. Asia) that nobody has realised Nirvāṇa (nibanna) in centuries. So maybe it is time to go off and ‘start the whole search again’. But first, consider what in involved and what Gautama who became the Buddha had to go through to do that.

they got their religion out of a book and argued about it like lawyers. — FrancisRay

They were probably Calvinists. ;-)

Re: meeting the Buddha on the road - that is a Zen saying, and it’s not ‘spit’, it’s ‘kill’. It represents that kind of anti-nomian trend in Ch’an/Zen.

There is authority in Buddhism but it’s different to the Catholic model. In the Catholic model, the Pope is the sole authority of the one true faith, all power emanates from him. In the Buddhist model, it’s more like the ‘passing of the torch of wisdom’ through practice lineages. Centripetal as opposed to centrifugal if you like. The Buddha appointed no single successor, and that is probably the main reason. But there nevertheless is an hierarchy in the Buddhist sangha, based on years of service and other criteria, mainly peer judgement of spiritual attainment (about which, by the way, no monk is ever allowed to boast, on pain of being expelled from the Sangha. ) So overall, Buddhism is an early adopter of what would nowadays be called a ‘flat management structure’.

What I’m arguing with Praxis, is that the kind of deep and instinctive rejection of religious authority that he is expressing, is a very widespread view in modern culture. But he has an interest in Buddhism, so I think is trying to sort out ‘the wheat’ of spiritual practice from ‘the chaff’ of simple ‘belief in religion’. Would that be about right?

How lucky you are. I always planned to emigrate to the forests of Canada but never got around to it. Nor did I ever get around to buying a double-decker bus and living in it, Us old hippies had some sensible ideas about life.

It's the first one I've had here and as a veteran of philosophy forums it seems to me almost miraculously thoughtful and sensible, I'm excited to be talking to such interesting people. — FrancisRay

Second that!

I'll assume I misremebered and you;re right about 'kill'. It makes the point even stronger. You raise an important issue. . .

---"Sceptics will say - and it’s a fair point - that it’s said in the Theravada Buddhist sphere (S.E. Asia) that nobody has realised Nirvāṇa (nibanna) in centuries.".

I'm happy to speak about Mahayana and the Abhidharma but must carefully avoid speaking about Theravada. I believe it is not a correct interpretation. I would explain its poor performance by reference to its poor methodology. The crucial point on a philosophy forum is that Theravada does not have a metaphysical foundation and Mahayana does. This is what Nagarjuna demonstrates, and so Therevadans have little time for him,. . .

If you are in the Theravada tradition then my apologies for this comment, I don;t want to argue about anything. The viciousness of the argument between the two stands of Buddhism is frightening and nothing to do with philosophy.

The comments of Praxis about Buddhism make a lot more sense if they refer to the Theravada tradition, a point I had forgotten. . . .

It’s easy to say that ‘thought is a mechanical process’ but what does it mean? — Wayfarer

Fair enough. Yes, I need to reach for better language because I'm typically not connecting on this point. I'm not sure I have better language yet though. Some patience may be necessary. Hmm...

1) Do you consider other functions of the body to be mechanical processes?

2) Do you agree that that every ideology ever invented inevitably subdivides in to competing internal factions? It doesn't matter what the philosophy is, right? If true, the division is being generated by what all the many different philosophies have in common, thought itself.

If the division was being generated at the level of the content of thought it could be fixed at that level. By now somebody would have stumbled upon an ideology that doesn't generate division. To my knowledge that's never happened.

But I think that left to our own devices, none of us will come remotely near understanding it in any depth. — Wayfarer

Do we need to understand digestion to receive nutrition from an apple? Or is eating the apple enough? That is, is our physical hunger a philosophical problem, or a mechanical problem?

In the Catholic model, the Pope is the sole authority of the one true faith, all power emanates from him. — Wayfarer

To do a quick quibble dance, the Pope has no authority in Catholicism. He says stuff, and Catholics take it in a million different ways, any way they want to. The Pope has authority over a pile of papers in the Vatican. The Pope does have influence, can agree there.

The viciousness of the argument between the two stands of Buddhism is frightening and nothing to do with philosophy. — FrancisRay

Case in point. The source of the problem is not Buddhism, or Catholicism, or religion in general. The problem arises from that which all these things are made of. That's why such conflicts are universal, not limited to particular ideologies.

I always planned to emigrate to the forests of Canada — FrancisRay

Well, what have you got nearby? It seems good to find something within 30 minutes range or so, that way you can go often. I find that time is the secret ingredient. It's like building a relationship with a person, you have to put in the time, imho.

I know there's nothing that I or anyone else could say that will convince you that Buddhism is a religion that relies on an ultimate or supreme authority but, I'll go through your post anyway. Please try not to be offended. I am not disparaging Buddhism by arguing that it's a religion or that it relies on ultimate authority.

It expressly forbids a reliance on authority. — FrancisRay

Kālāma Sutta? If so, I've been over that.

It is all about becoming our own authority.and about nothing else. An authoritative knowledge of the true nature of Reality is the entire point and purpose of it. — FrancisRay

Is this a very odd way of saying the cessation of suffering?

We may choose to trust the teachings or the teacher, but we'll never understand either properly until we know they are true, and everybody knows this. — FrancisRay

Teaching and teacher in a general sense? No. Specifically to metaphysics that is not commonly accessable? Sure, but how does this relate to faith? As I wrote earlier, there are claims in Buddhism that are not verifiable by any known means, such as claims about rebirth and karma, and no one on earth could answer countless questions about them. They are considered imponderables, despite being based on cause & effect.

Your assumption that only the Buddha can be relied on as an authority is ridiculous. He must be turning in his grave. It's as silly as the idea that Jesus is the only son of God. — FrancisRay

I forget how many acclaimed Buddhas there are, around a half dozen I think. Why does the number of them matter? There could be a thousand. What difference would it make? If anything more success stories would make what they teach seem more reliable.

There is an old saying that when we meet the Buddha on the road we should spit on him. It's a saying that can withstand a lot of thought. — FrancisRay

Kill him, rather. It's a koan, and yes, it can withstand a lot of thought, but best not.

What I’m arguing with Praxis, is that the kind of deep and instinctive rejection of religious authority that he is expressing, is a very widespread view in modern culture. — Wayfarer

I'm claiming that it's a necessary feature of religion, for reasons that I've pointed out and you've read and responded to. It's not a rejection any more than claiming that heat is a necessary feature of fire is a rejection of heat.

How is anything that I've posted in this topic a rejection of faith?

Honestly, I have no faith that you can, or will even try, to answer this question but I ask anyway with the faintest hope that you have an ounce of intellectual honesty.

the Pope has no authority in Catholicism. — Hippyhead

:lol:

the Pope is the sole authority of the one true faith, all power emanates from him. — Wayfarer

I assume that you’re joking. Not long ago I was a bit surprised to see far-right leaning conservatives disowning the current progressive Pope for promoting the virtue of good stewardship in relation to climate change. Once again, it’s all about tribal solidarity.

there nevertheless is an hierarchy in the Buddhist sangha ... Buddhism is an early adopter of what would nowadays be called a ‘flat management structure’. — Wayfarer

A flat hierarchy. Hmmm :chin: Have you ever joined to a Buddhist sangha? You may be surprised how unflat they are, traditional ones anyway.

A flat hierarchy. — praxis

Even flat management structures have managers.

And what happens if you have a shitty manager (or a shitty Pope)? You fire them. Are you then left empty handed with no higher authority? In other words, is the Pope God? or is the Buddhist priest Buddha? I know... we all have Buddha nature and we’re all Gods children.