Quote Originally Posted by Karatos View Post
This is one of the most challenging aspects of Buddhism in that Buddhism demands what appears to be a logical impossibility. If you're attached to the precepts of Buddhism, you can't reach what's touted as the objective, since the objective, by definition, demands a lack of attachment. This challenging aspect is exemplified in some sects of Buddhism that are more "dogmatic" and authoritarian than others. For example, Tibetan Buddhism tends to be more rigid, didactic, and autocratic than Zen counterparts.

If we continued to rely on rational discourse to resolve the discrepancy here, then the issue would just become more muddled. It's impossible to convey central aspects of Buddhism through rational discourse because rational discourse entails attachment to premises and arguments.

Nevertheless, detachment is possible and happiness is possible through practices of mindfulness. So, if you're interested in what it is that I'm referring to, as opposed to my references themselves, then you should meditate, check out a local Sanga, or investigate Buddhist literature that does a better job of allowing the reader to peer through the cracks of the arguments, so to speak, than I do. Thich Nhat Hahn produced a good introductory book: "The Heart of Buddha's Teaching", which you should be able to find as a free pdf.
To me, Buddhism is religious dogma because it takes as a given that is some supernatural or superhuman force, which motivates followers to believe for example that suffering is desirable and that the emphasis of a person's life should not be on material things but on an afterlife.

Claims about happiness through meditation, mindfulness etc. could feasibly be proven true, although in my view, such practices are activities than can be done independently of religion.