I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs then they are welcome to do so...

That seemed implausible, so I checked the all-knowing Wikipedia. But it turns out to agree with you and disagree with me. I stand corrected, and am now inclined to agree with Joe that Buddhism is not a religion.

I still don't see why some people can't use it as a religion and others as a practical philosophy. I still see the question as a false dilemma.

In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:

Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive.

Thomas wrote:

That seemed implausible, so I checked the all-knowing Wikipedia. But it turns out to agree with you and disagree with me. I stand corrected, and am now inclined to agree with Joe that Buddhism is not a religion.

Yes, come over to the dark side!

Romeo proclaimed: A dictionary definition of Religion is-
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
but as far as I know Buddhism doesn't believe in any gods?
Frank Apisa huffed: That is a definition of religion.
Are you saying it is the only one...or are you just pretending it is so you can make an invalid point?
Since you just looked it up...why not list any other definitions you see. Or would that be asking you to be too honest?

FBM wrote:

I still don't see why some people can't use it as a religion and others as a practical philosophy. I still see the question as a false dilemma.

Because you laid it out yourself.

Quote:

In cases in which the two options are, in fact, the only two options, this line of reasoning is not fallacious. For example:

Bill is dead or he is alive.
Bill is not dead.
Therefore Bill is alive.

"Religion" is a category like "alive." Either something is in the category or it's outside the category. Thus, this is not an example of a false dilemma (instead, it's an example of the law of non-contradiction). That, by the way, is not a function of how the world works but of how categories work.

But let me approach this in a different fashion. Can someone be both a Buddhist and a Christian?

And the human mind is forced to make new categories when experience tells them that old dichotomies just don't work. Are viruses alive? Their properties overlap both categories simultaneously. An inflexible mind isn't as capable of dealing with the world as a flexible one, seems. A new category of venemous mammals had to be created in order to accomodate the features of the platypus and a very few others as they were discovered. That's the thing with categories: they're not conserved as are matter and energy. You can make as many as you need to describe empirical data.

Quote:

But let me approach this in a different fashion. Can someone be both a Buddhist and a Christian?

Yep. Here's one: http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2010/08/christian-buddhism/

And it looked like it would be pretty easy to Google up a bunch more.

I would not hesitate to hire you to represent my interests in court, but I would not likely come to you for advice or inspiration regarding issues philosophical.

I wonder how I gave the appearance of wanting to straddle the fence regarding the categorical status of Buddhism.

I don't care at all. I'm glad it is not similar to any fundamentalist Christian sect, but I don't mind that it has qualities similar to religious properties of Hinduism. I'm sorry to have caused you anxiety regarding (my view of) your tendency toward black and white over-simplification of experience.

...
I think you misapprehend the nature of this thread. It isn't titled "I am a Buddhist and if anyone wants to question my beliefs they can Google it themselves." If you're not willing to answer questions based on your own knowledge and beliefs, then you can sit in the corner with Krumple and be quiet.

Unless you can say without question you are not deluding yourself when "meditating"...AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY SAY WITHOUT QUESTION YOU ARE NOT DELUDING YOURSELF WHEN "MEDITATING"..."a product of meditation" is nothing more than a belief, JL.

That's just the way it is.

"Belief" (pretending a guess about REALITY is something more than a guess)...is the cinder in the eye. Finally coming to grips with the believe/belief problem will do more for you than Buddhism.

I think that Buddhism can have characteristics of "a religion" and characteristics of a philosophy and a psychology, depending on how we construct those categories. I don't think it matters in practice. As Frank might say it simply is what it is and does what it does.

The world is fuzzy.

i don't have a serious dog in this fight (although i think the current fight is largely pointless and ideological...) However, i do need to respond to this:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Unless you can say without question you are not deluding yourself when "meditating"...AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY SAY WITHOUT QUESTION YOU ARE NOT DELUDING YOURSELF WHEN "MEDITATING"..."a product of meditation" is nothing more than a belief, JL.

That's just the way it is.

"Belief" (pretending a guess about REALITY is something more than a guess)...is the cinder in the eye. Finally coming to grips with the believe/belief problem will do more for you than Buddhism.

If you said this about TM or some other meditation methods, i'd agree with you. But you misunderstand Buddhist meditation if you think the meditation "process" produces either beliefs, guesses, standards, or "results".

The only "product" of Buddhist meditation, properly pulled off, is the, sometimes vague, memory of experiencing it.

I cannot talk with Frank about meditation since he does not do it, and from my view of his cognitive style he has never done it. I will say, however, that in my experience with buddhist meditation (since around 1960) it has no content. If I have come away with anything it is a generalized attitude that everything is fine just as it is and that it is me, something that seems to me to be much more than a belief.

“In these "mystical" forms of religion experience (a product of meditation) rather than doctrinal belief (a product of scholarship) is what matters.”

As far as I can tell my reference to the experience of meditation is description rather than belief in the usual sense of the term. What I said is that I gain an attitude. My use of "experience" is merely a description of the phenomenon of mediation: watching the proocess of existence, not analyzing or even interpreting it. The subsequent peaceful /accepting attitude is part of its benefit, not a doctrinal belief as you seem to insist. If it were a belief I would be able to share it with you, but as a generalized attitude (mood?) it is ineffable and therefore I can only recommend meditation as a means to accessing this highly hygenic and nutritous mood.

Razzleg wrote:

i don't have a serious dog in this fight (although i think the current fight is largely pointless and ideological...) However, i do need to respond to this:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Unless you can say without question you are not deluding yourself when "meditating"...AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY SAY WITHOUT QUESTION YOU ARE NOT DELUDING YOURSELF WHEN "MEDITATING"..."a product of meditation" is nothing more than a belief, JL.

That's just the way it is.

"Belief" (pretending a guess about REALITY is something more than a guess)...is the cinder in the eye. Finally coming to grips with the believe/belief problem will do more for you than Buddhism.

If you said this about TM or some other meditation methods, i'd agree with you. But you misunderstand Buddhist meditation if you think the meditation "process" produces either beliefs, guesses, standards, or "results".

The only "product" of Buddhist meditation, properly pulled off, is the, sometimes vague, memory of experiencing it.

I did NOT say the meditation "process" produces beliefs or guesses. I have no idea of whether it does or doesn't.

Read what I said again...and I stand by it.

"Unless you can say without question you are not deluding yourself when "meditating"...AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY SAY WITHOUT QUESTION YOU ARE NOT DELUDING YOURSELF WHEN "MEDITATING"..."a product of meditation" (JL's words) is nothing more than a belief, JL."

Frank Apisa wrote:

Razzleg wrote:

i don't have a serious dog in this fight (although i think the current fight is largely pointless and ideological...) However, i do need to respond to this:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Unless you can say without question you are not deluding yourself when "meditating"...AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY SAY WITHOUT QUESTION YOU ARE NOT DELUDING YOURSELF WHEN "MEDITATING"..."a product of meditation" is nothing more than a belief, JL.

That's just the way it is.

JL is saying that "experience is gained through meditation."

It MAY NOT be.

All of the so-called "experience" gained while meditating MAY BE an illusion.

(Some people think they gain insights into REALITY while stoned on pot. It MAY BE a total illusion.)

The notion that the "experience" is gained...IS PURELY A GUESS.

"Belief" (pretending a guess about REALITY is something more than a guess)...is the cinder in the eye. Finally coming to grips with the believe/belief problem will do more for you than Buddhism.

If you said this about TM or some other meditation methods, i'd agree with you. But you misunderstand Buddhist meditation if you think the meditation "process" produces either beliefs, guesses, standards, or "results".

The only "product" of Buddhist meditation, properly pulled off, is the, sometimes vague, memory of experiencing it.

I did NOT say the meditation "process" produces beliefs or guesses. I have no idea of whether it does or doesn't.

Read what I said again...and I stand by it.

"Unless you can say without question you are not deluding yourself when "meditating"...AND YOU CANNOT LOGICALLY SAY WITHOUT QUESTION YOU ARE NOT DELUDING YOURSELF WHEN "MEDITATING"..."a product of meditation" (JL's words) is nothing more than a belief, JL."

Haha...man, Frank, sometimes you make me miss kennethamy.

Let me ask for clarification on the point you are making. Are you saying that a person who meditates, when speaking about the "product" of meditation, doesn't make a guess about reality, but is only pretending to make a guess about reality as an extension of an "act" or "state" or "experience" they are pretending to have?

That seems to be what you are saying, but i'm sure that i'm misinterpreting you. If i'm not entirely wrong, how do you support your "argument"?