You mean in Buddhism or in my understanding? I think you are missing the point in any case. The point is the "philosophy" can be easily used to control masses just like any other religion.
This is the part you need to be explaining. I don’t see how you’ve drawn your conclusion. I don’t immediately see how the ‘Four Noble Truths’ can be used to control the masses like any other religion.
To the best of my understanding, the ‘Four Noble Truths’ are not statements of logical fact per se. They are simply ‘categories of experience’ in a simple philosophy model, the aim of which is to cleanse yourself of self-affliction. I don’t mean cleanse as in eradicate, I mean cleanse as in refine and improve your mental attitude and actions, encourage positive self-development, positive mental attitude, positive reaction via actions, etc (see the Eight Fold Path). It is simply a method of self-diagnosis, a model of conduct for right manner.
There is the truth of stress and suffering (unskillful effect), the truth of the origination of stress (unskillful cause), the truth of the cessation of stress (skillful effect), and the truth of the path to the cessation of stress (skillful cause). The Four Truths attempt to redefine the concept of the 'self', replacing me/not me and being/not being with a different philosophical model of cause/effect.
"'Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play should be known. The diversity in stress should be known. The result of stress should be known. The cessation of stress should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be known.' Thus it has been said. Why was it said?
"Birth is stressful, aging is stressful, death is stressful; sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair are stressful; association with what is not loved is stressful, separation from what is loved is stressful, not getting what is wanted is stressful. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are stressful.
"And what is the cause by which stress comes into play? Craving is the cause by which stress comes into play.
"And what is the diversity in stress? There is major stress & minor, slowly fading & quickly fading. This is called the diversity in stress.
"And what is the result of stress? There are some cases in which a person overcome with pain, his mind exhausted, grieves, mourns, laments, beats his breast, & becomes bewildered. Or one overcome with pain, his mind exhausted, comes to search outside, 'Who knows a way or two to stop this pain?' I tell you, monks, that stress results either in bewilderment or in search.
"And what is the cessation of stress? The cessation of craving is the cessation of stress, and just this noble eightfold path is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.
"Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns stress in this way, the cause by which stress comes into play in this way, the diversity of stress in this way, the result of stress in this way, the cessation of stress in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the cessation of stress.
"'Stress should be experienced. The cause by which stress comes into play... The variations in stress... The result of stress... The cessation of stress... The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be experienced.' Thus it has been said, and this is why it was said."~ Anguttara Nikaya VI:63How on earth did I draw the conclusion? Well, would you agree that at least 49% of humanity are weaker than average, have less than average intellect? Strength is relative. So in a society there will always be weak ones, whom you despise and blame for being gullible and abused by religious. What good is such an aristocratic attitude in 21st century?
Thing is, your conclusion only makes sense if I let you put words into my mouth. Nowhere did I say I “blame” or “despise” weak people. I said: religion is a door that is always open for the weak (amongst others). You understand the difference, right? I was essentially agreeing with you. Yes, people do abuse religion to abuse others. I also said: people should take responsibility for their own choices in life. Do you disagree with this statement? It seems reasonable to me.
Topic: The Buddah