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 would point out, for the sake of not confusing the hell out of you, that the view you are opposing here is not 'one of the worst aspects',. It's a critique of Theravada, a particular interpretation that, right or wrong, does not stand up in philosophy. Theravada is religion in way that Mahayana is not.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What most of us are suffering from is that we think about ourselves too much.

Seeing that we have a problem we go looking for a solution. Sometimes we bump in to various philosophies which essentially say each in their own way, "the solution to your problem is to think about yourself some more".

That sounds pretty good, because that's what we've been doing all along already. It's a pattern which we're comfortable with, and a form of psychic junk food which we've become addicted to. So when somebody says, "let's eat more junk food together" we nod in agreement, thumbs up, ok, good plan.

And so we become part of some system which is built upon thinking ourselves even more, but now the junk food has been rebranded from what used to sound kinda like selfishness, but now sounds more like something glamorous.

We could choose to stop thinking about ourselves right now, not forever, just for awhile. But wait, before we do that, let's insert a process which takes many years. Also, a process which promises to make us bigger and better than ever before.

So instead of letting go of suffering right now, our plan is to let go after we've become rich, or famous, or popular, or better looking, or enlightened, or anything, anything at all really. Except for right now.

We could choose to stop thinking about ourselves right now, not forever, just for awhile. But wait, before we do that, let's insert a process which takes many years. Also, a process which promises to make us bigger and better than ever before.

So instead of letting go of suffering right now, our plan is to let go after we've become rich, or famous, or popular, or better looking, or enlightened, or anything, anything at all really. Except for right now. — Hippyhead

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

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

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

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

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

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

But besides the fact this might not solve suffering at the very core — TLCD1996

Very unlikely to be possible, except maybe for a rare few. This is what thousands of years of evidence reveals. If that is true (debatable of course) then the next question could be, if something isn't possible, why chase it?

simply sitting down in meditation - perhaps in the forest - are a good starting point of letting go — TLCD1996

A good starting point and a good ending point. The idea of "starting point" assumes a process of becoming. Become what? Something impossible?

I'm really not arguing with what anybody chooses to do. Really I'm not.

Just doing the analysis dance with you and pointing out the obvious that this entire discussion is all about "me and my situation". A focus on "me and my situation" is proposed as the solution. Could it instead be the problem? Not the cure, but the disease?

Two key points which may define the divide between our perspectives:

1) What is the source of suffering? The content of thought, or the nature of thought?

2) Is a fundamental shift in human psychology generally possible?

If we answer the content of thought, philosophy seems advisable. If we answer nature of thought, perhaps not.

If we answer fundamental shift is within reach, then a process of becoming seems advisable. If we answer otherwise, perhaps not.

I'm really not being cynical, just empirical. What if we took one of the teachers and put them on the grill at McDonalds 40 hours a week for a few years living on minimum wage? That is, living an ordinary life. That experiment would interest me.

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

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

"Malunkyaputta, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that "The cosmos is eternal,"... or that "After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,"' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.

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

"In the same way, if anyone were to say, 'I won't live the holy life under the Blessed One as long as he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' the man would die and those things would still remain undeclared by the Tathagata.

...

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

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

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

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

Just doing the analysis dance with you and pointing out the obvious that this entire discussion is all about "me and my situation". A focus on "me and my situation" is proposed as the solution. Could it instead be the problem? Not the cure, but the disease? — Hippyhead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

Why not?

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

That's very true! But it doesn't make the sign especially truthful or accurate. It just means that they have their purpose and can be used accordingly. But our understanding of China will change over time, as will our descriptions and signifiers. Therefore these signs are not totally stable, therefore our usage of them must be a bit more purposeful and perhaps not separate from values of truthfulness. And still, some people will understand them one way, others a different way. And our desire for agreement is not always guaranteed satisfaction, unfortunately.

Meanwhile, the suffering that arises from our attachment to these terms still lingers. And on that note I suspect that my own understanding of the words you seek to use and define is limited, so my ability to contribute to this part of the discussion is limited as well. Therefore, I really don't want to keep going back and forth saying the same thing over and over (and a fair bit extra) when the point is exactly the opposite of that. So I'll leave that there.

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

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

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

I really doubt it'll ever be proven. — TLCD1996

Agreed, never proven, just made more credible.

Partly because we're talking about something which could be called "subjective", something which many have trouble even describing or even teaching to their students. — TLCD1996

Have you ever worked a hard low paying job for years? If the guy next to you is always happy, at peace and contented while you're burning out, you'd probably take note of that and wonder how they did it.

There's a guy like this who loads lumber for customers at my local HomeDepot. Hard sweaty job, 8 hours a day. Been there for years. Probably makes about $10/hour. Always cheerful, always a smile, always helpful, always fun to see again. One day I asked him, how do you do that? Jesus he said. Credibility.

Pretty much all the gurus and teachers I've seen sit on a pillow at the center of a crowd of adoring followers. Even I could be enlightened in such a circumstance.

Just saying, one more way to look at it. Not "the" way. Just another way.

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.

Thanks, That's a nice description of the history. There are lots of schools, but Theravada is the only one that causes me difficulties.

I'm afraid that I believe Nagarjuna is entirely correct about metaphysics and Reality. I'm unable to grasp why anyone would want to disagree with him.

This doesn't matter generally, each to his own and all that, but it means that when you and I describe Buddhist teachings we present two quite different pictures. I feel this is a tragedy for Buddhism and more generally religion.

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

Not sure we can do much about this but I'm happy to delve deeper if you wish.

My objection is metaphysical. It doesn't matter what a practitioner believes because they;re going to find out for themselves who is right. But our interpretation of the sutras is crucial in metaphysics., Nagarjuna has the only metaphysical scheme that works, so to say his philosophical exegesis of Reality is wrong is to say that Buddhism has no coherent philosophical foundation. This does it no favours and renders it incomprehensible to outsiders. . ,

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

It's fine to call it a religion. But it's also a philosophy, a practice, an art and a science. I don't know why you cannot see this. 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.

If you understood BUddhism you would not be asking these questions. Surely the best idea would be to forget your theories and just study it. . .

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.

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.

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.

I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you're talking about in your comment.

I cannot grasp the point that you've been trying to make for so long.

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? Then we can all relax.

Or is there some point you're trying to make?

Have you ever worked a hard low paying job for years? If the guy next to you is always happy, at peace and contented while you're burning out, you'd probably take note of that and wonder how they did it.

There's a guy like this who loads lumber for customers at my local HomeDepot. Hard sweaty job, 8 hours a day. Been there for years. Probably makes about $10/hour. Always cheerful, always a smile, always helpful, always fun to see again. One day I asked him, how do you do that? Jesus he said. Credibility. — Hippyhead

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

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

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

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

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

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

So it seems you understand, in one way or another, what I'm saying. And since I'm not really interested in finding a definition for religion myself, at least not right now, I won't go much further. Usually the practice is like this: you find a meaning which is useful, you pick it up and use it, then you put it down when you don't need it. And you remember that there is no true refuge within that meaning, so you stop seeking it out.

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.

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.

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

I work at Walgreens! — TLCD1996

Aha! I have found my guru! :-)

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

And you remember that there is no true refuge within that meaning, so you stop seeking it out. — TLCD1996

I like this. I call this "taking it up a level". On one level we can debate the value of "this meaning vs. that meaning" until the end of time. If "take it up a level" and stand back from the debate, we can observe that all meanings, every one of them, whatever their relative value, are all just a pile of symbols.

Every photo on Facebook is just a photo. None of the photos, not a single one, is a real person.

The value of the Facebook photos is derived from our relationship with the person the photo points to. If we don't know the person, if we have no relationship with them, then the photo can only hope to be temporarily mildly interesting and little more.

The value we seek, the "refuge" is found in the real world. The symbolic world is a primary obstacle to focusing on the real world.

If we spend all day every day on Facebook looking at photos, then we will likely have few to no real world friends, and thus all the photos will be largely meaningless.

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

"Maybe my thinking's a little out there (I think you had pointed out that my understanding of koans was not correct), but to me that reminds me of so many classic Zen stories. The teacher says something apparently contradictory, and the student is just confused. Sometimes maybe they leave, but those who stay learn -

This is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the disagreement within Buddhism as to what is true. (I don't remember saying your understanding of koans was incorrect). .

I don't know much about Nagarjuna, and I'm not saying his arguments are wrong. But at least, from my understanding, understanding metaphysical arguments just isn't totally necessary in practice to get the results.

You're right, of course. But this in no way changes the fact that a doctrine that is not metaphysically sound is a mistake. As Aurobindo notes, and as the Buddha implies when he invites us to apply our critical reason to his teachings. metaphysics is a reliable guardian against error. .

"This isn't to shoot you down. I don't know much about your practice (you say it's not Buddhist). But for some people who are prone to digging themselves too deep into a book, I would say: Do what HippyHead does. Go out in the woods and just sit there and enjoy it.

I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. This is a philosophy forum,and so I do not appeal to experience. My point is that a study of metaphysics reveals that Buddhism doctrine is the only one that works, as Nagarjuna shows, and this is the case regardless of our beliefs, faiths, hopes and dreams. ,If this was a Buddhist forum full of practitioners I;d come at it differently.

In Theravada metaphysics is bound to be played down since it reveals things best left unrevealed. In Mahayana metaphysics is an easy way to show the sound logical basis of the Buddha's teachings.

Most Buddhists I've met have no interest and no knowledge of metaphysics and have some funny ideas about it. Yet analysis allows us to shed light on the teachings and to demonstrate their sense and plausibility. Zen koans would be impossible to explain (as opposed to 'grok') without a grasp of logic and metaphysics.

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


.
. . .