Is Buddhism A Religion?

[All Gods Fail]

Buddhism is a much more malleable 'religion' than most western religions. It is very easy to practice it simply as a naturalistic philosophy, or turn it into a full-blown religion with rituals, dogma, etc.

 

But in general, even as a shinto-style religion, it seems much less death-obsessed, guilt-ridden and fearful than the Abrahamic religions. There is something inherently more noble about a voluntary quest for enlightenment than being a degenerate, hopeless wretch redeemed by a vastly superior being, IMO.

[roman]

Thanks, fallenleaf, for your excellent post, especially this reference to the words of Lord Buddha:

 

"The fact that it strongly encourages people to test every bit of it and reject what does not work for them or things they find untrue would be very non-religious."

 

As I often tell people, "pay no attention; I don't know a thing." But it is very difficult for Americans to overcome the tendency to show off memorized "knowledge," something that we overachievers learned in school at a very young age. I am referring to my own childhood, of course, wherein I was a sissy and not very good at sports and to compensate became "the smartest boy."

[Asimov]

Its still giving instructions.

Lots of things give instructions. Like Self help books. What makes one a religion and the other not?

 

 

It's a specific philosophy centered around the teachings of a spiritual leader who has sayings or sayings attributed to him regarding this philosophy. It has a specific center of worship, a group of people who adhere to a specific label regarding that worship, a spiritual leader.

[snookums]

The person who is posting about the Tamils and so on is not speaking with knowledge, in my opinion, but is trying to appear knowledgeable for some kind of imaginary points on this forum. This person needs to study more about the infiltration of communist idealogies into the area. And possibly a little actual study of Buddhism wouldn't hurt.

 

The youth of Tibet would never refer to the Dalai Lama as the DaLama, nor would they question his wisdom. This is an absurd statement which shows an ignorance of Tibet and which ignores (or is unaware of) the influence of Chinese communist propaganda.

 

 

First of all...pardon my miss spelling and appreciate the problems of communicating online..I don't have time to give a full account of my interest in Buddhism/or the social issues in countries such as TIbet or China.

 

I'm not a buddhist as such ...however i've attended many teachings & social gatherings - involving buddhist involvements in Aust. ...and the specific quest to bring buddhism to the west ..in a form that westerner's can accept. (perhaps not the right word).....at http://www.chenrezig.com.au/site/about.htm and in other parts of Aust. Whilst I attend I do not observe the buddhist rituals as a btw.

 

I've also sponsored the Free Tibet Campaign

from where you'll see that I've provided a quote.....

 

Exiled Tibetan writer and activist, Tenzin Tsundue (3), who is currently visiting the UK stated, "The coming of the commercial trains into Tibet is the first serious onslaught of globalisation China is introducing in Tibet. Whatever it takes the Tibetans will protest this. And I personally will not allow China to jeopardise our future."

 

Tibet is changing and so is the face of the population - they are tired of doing nothing and without much help from the west. I don't see that as 'spreading chinese propaganda'.....okay

 

Its reasonable to question the buddhist teachings (any kind of religion)...and the its various representatives, what buddhism represents to the individual and popular myths about buddhism.... in fact its encouraged....

 

 

In the sixth century BC, the historical Buddha said:

 

Rely not on the teacher/person, but on the teaching.

Rely not on the words of the teaching, but on the spirit of the words.

Rely not on theory, but on experience.

Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.

Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations.

Do not believe anything because it is spoken and rumored by many.

Do not believe in anything because it is written in your religious books.

Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.

But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and the benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.

Kalama Sutra (ancient Buddhist text)

 

 

but yeah......buddhism is a religion - a 'big' one.

 

Buddhism is the fourth largest religion in the world, being exceeded in numbers only by Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. It was founded in Northern India by the first known Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama. In 535 BCE, he attained enlightenment and assumed the title Lord Buddha (one who has awakened)

 

As Buddhism expanded across Asia, it evolved into two main forms, which evolved largely independently from each other:

 

Theravada Buddhism (sometimes called Southern Buddhism; occasionally spelled Therevada) "has been the dominant school of Buddhism in most of Southeast Asia since the thirteenth century, with the establishment of the monarchies in Thailand, Burma, Cambodia and Laos."

Mahayana Buddhism (sometimes called Northern Buddhism) is largely found in China, Japan, Korea, Tibet and Mongolia.

 

To which might be added:

 

Tibetan Buddhism, which developed in isolation from Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism because of the remoteness of Tibet.

 

Since the late 19th century:

 

Modern Buddhism has emerged as a truly international movement. It started as an attempt to produce a single form of Buddhism, without local accretions, that all Buddhists could embrace. source

 

 

 

 

Lastly.......I understand that a person who is 'attached' to the identity or ideas of buddhism (or any kind of religion) it maybe difficult for that person to accept 'critisizm' or any kind of different opinon that they 'judge' as being false.......or malicious.

[The Sage Nabooru]

Buddhism is whatever its followers want it to be.

 

In some parts of Asia it's polytheism with a range of gods, heavens, hells, demigods, etc. In others it's a sophisticated non-theism or pantheism-based philosophy.

 

Buddhism doesn't outright disbelieve in gods or a God, it just says that, like the question of where the world came from, is ultimately unimportant. What's important is ending suffering, not worrying our heads about our origins. God(s) may or may not exist but they are not neccessary to achieve salvation, or Nirvana. Only a person itself can do that.

 

Unless, of course, you're a Pure Land Buddhist, in which case repeating the name of Amitabha will do you good.

 

Buddhism is open-minded. It encourages questioning.

[Ouroboros]

Its still giving instructions.

Doesn't Objectivism give instructions too?

 

It's a specific philosophy centered around the teachings of a spiritual leader who has sayings or sayings attributed to him regarding this philosophy. It has a specific center of worship, a group of people who adhere to a specific label regarding that worship, a spiritual leader.

Is worship really a tenet in Buddhism? I'd say Buddhism is a lot more a philosophy or world view than a religion. I do understand what you're saying, but with a wide enough definition of religion it would make humanism and objectivism to religions too. Or do you disagree?

[truthbound]

I believe that the discussion is attempting to define Buddhism, however the problem seems more to exist in the definition of religion.

 

Websters New World Dictionary defines religion as such: 1. belief in and worship of God or gods 2. a specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics.

 

According to this definition, it appears that Buddhism fits the bill. Of course there is the problem that exists for most of us "ex-christians" in that, the term "religious" or "religion" can evoke negative feelings and thereby leave those words as negative symbolism almost threatening to drag us back to a world better left behind.

 

My wife, who is still a fundie (damnit!) hates that I call christianity, in general, and her church, more specifically, a "cult". Yet the definition of the word "cult" ,using the same reference, is: 1. a system of religious worship or ritual 2. devoted attatchment to a person, principle, etc. 3. a sect. - Of which Buddhism also fits. The point is that because the terms themselves have achieved some negative association, there is a real desire to avoid them in every sence.

 

While I'm at it I might as well include the definition of "philosophy" which is as follows: 1. the study of the principles underlying conduct, thought, and the nature of the universe 2. the general principles or laws of a field of knowledge 3. a particular system of ethics 4. composure; calmness

I have to say that Buddhism fits right in there, as would christianity to be quite frank.

 

I think that all the "vices" that mankind creates in order to find security and purpose, are eaqually in danger of becomming the controling, mid-warping, distructive type systems that we are so sensative to as long as it is truly in the hands of man to interpret that system and seek to impose it on the rest. At least, with Buddhism, what little I have studied about it, turns its adherents within themselves rather than implimenting the "great commision" or evangelical methods. Though, it can be argued that the "truest Buddha" chooses to set aside his treasure in order to teach all remaining "sentient beings", Still I would argue that the methods are more personal rather than intrusive by nature.

 

Not that my personal preference amounts to anything here, but I am falling in love with certain aspects of Buddhism that have truly helped me to become more "comfortable" in my skin. The main idea being that, Humans seem to be obbsessed with the idea that something is just not "right" and that there should be "more", as if we had the capacity to know this anyway, but this drives us to consider that there must be something I am "supposed" to "do", while I'm here therefore, we begin setting up all sorts of desires or rejections as we form our decision about this "doing" business, which gets us into all sorts of trouble and eventually, pain.

 

Once we come to the realization that there is really nothing to be done, nothing to be learned or understood, no moral ethic that earns us any merit for future reference (I can hear the growls already), that all the activities that man creates for himself is foolishness (but not to be rejected). There really is a peace that comes.

 

Peace, to me, is stillness. No more grasping or rejecting, which all I can do presently is to contemplate without striving to not strive (if that makes any sense?).

 

Anyway, sorry for the rambling hope this helps.

[Ouroboros]

I believe that the discussion is attempting to define Buddhism, however the problem seems more to exist in the definition of religion.

 

Websters New World Dictionary defines religion as such: 1. belief in and worship of God or gods 2. a specific system of belief, worship, etc., often involving a code of ethics.

 

According to this definition, it appears that Buddhism fits the bill.

 

How so? Since Buddhism doesn't worship a God or gods (with few exceptions), and it isn't one unified belief system and I'm not sure they have any specific moral codes in a book you have to follow. I'm just wondering, do we feel a need to label Buddhism as a religion only because it believes in some supernatural things, like reincarnation? I would say Buddhism is a belief system, but not a religion, if Websters' definition is used.

[Lycorth]

It seems fairly obvious to me that Buddhism is a religion. There are spiritual practices, rituals, and depending on the sect you examine, "saints" and I believe even deities to pray to for intercession or guidance. Seems like a religion to me.

 

The problem is that after 2000 years of Abrahamic cults and the violence and intolerance that goes along with them, people associate the word "religion" (exclusively at times) with any one or more of the Abrahamic cults, always without any real justification. Most people simply fail to realize (or refuse to realize) that the Abrahamic cults are but just a few religions, not the only ones that exist. The narrow-mindedness of most so-called "modern" and "enlightened" people is staggering.

 

There is no deity demanding worship in Buddhism, much the same as Asatru or Native American religions and so on. To the best of my knowledge, only the Abrahamic cults have gods which demand worship and even violence in their names. Such doesn't seem to exist elsewhere. Followers of other religions can do violence in their religons' names, but are never required to do so. One doesn't need a deity demanding worship and violence to have a religion.

 

"Religion" has become a dirty word, unecessarily so.

[Ouroboros]

It seems fairly obvious to me that Buddhism is a religion. There are spiritual practices, rituals, and depending on the sect you examine, "saints" and I believe even deities to pray to for intercession or guidance. Seems like a religion to me.

I think you got it right, except the "praying part". It looks like spiritual practices and rituals is what we think of, when we call somethine a religion. This way New Age, Scientology, Mysticism and Spiritism can be included too as religions, but still Agnosticism can be left out. Just saying that something is a religion because it approves the possibility of a deity, but worship not necessary, Agnosticism almost becomes a religion, which it isn't. And if we call something a religion because it has rules, ethics, guidelines and practices, then Objectivism and Humanism becomes religions. So in the end I think religion is when it includes practices and rituals that have to do with a belief in the supernatural, of any form.

[Asimov]

Its still giving instructions.

Doesn't Objectivism give instructions too?

 

It's a specific philosophy centered around the teachings of a spiritual leader who has sayings or sayings attributed to him regarding this philosophy. It has a specific center of worship, a group of people who adhere to a specific label regarding that worship, a spiritual leader.

Is worship really a tenet in Buddhism? I'd say Buddhism is a lot more a philosophy or world view than a religion. I do understand what you're saying, but with a wide enough definition of religion it would make humanism and objectivism to religions too. Or do you disagree?

 

Objectivism and Humanism aren't spiritual belief systems. Buddhism is in the grey area of religion and philosophy, and I don't see Objectivists or Humanists in temples, so I'd put it more into a religion.

[Ouroboros]

Objectivism and Humanism aren't spiritual belief systems. Buddhism is in the grey area of religion and philosophy, and I don't see Objectivists or Humanists in temples, so I'd put it more into a religion.

Correct. What I got hooked on was the phrase "giving instructions" which is so generic that it would include any philosophical world view, while in my post just above your response you can see that I included "spiritual" and "practices" and "rituals", and of course it could include certain instructions or guidelines too, but in the end what we call religion is anything that have a belief of some kind in a supernatural realm (not necessarily deities). I think I'd like to call New Age for a religion even if they don't go to temples. What do you think? And another question, where would Astrology go? Superstition only, or is it a religion?

[Asimov]

I think I'd like to call New Age for a religion even if they don't go to temples. What do you think? And another question, where would Astrology go? Superstition only, or is it a religion?

 

You can have a theistic belief system without being called a religion. Astrology would go in the "hey look I'm a retard and believe stupid things!" category...so superstition.

[roman]

I think I'd like to call New Age for a religion even if they don't go to temples. What do you think? And another question, where would Astrology go? Superstition only, or is it a religion?

 

You can have a theistic belief system without being called a religion. Astrology would go in the "hey look I'm a retard and believe stupid things!" category...so superstition.

That's so un-Gemini of you. But you're on the cusp with Taurus, so that explains it.

[Ladyfractal]

Objectivism and Humanism aren't spiritual belief systems. Buddhism is in the grey area of religion and philosophy, and I don't see Objectivists or Humanists in temples, so I'd put it more into a religion.

Correct. What I got hooked on was the phrase "giving instructions" which is so generic that it would include any philosophical world view, while in my post just above your response you can see that I included "spiritual" and "practices" and "rituals", and of course it could include certain instructions or guidelines too, but in the end what we call religion is anything that have a belief of some kind in a supernatural realm (not necessarily deities). I think I'd like to call New Age for a religion even if they don't go to temples. What do you think? And another question, where would Astrology go? Superstition only, or is it a religion?

 

Okay, I'll chime in here. I have practiced Buddhism in the form of Soto Zen, for a little over a decade and took vows as a lay member of a sangha this last spring. I would say that what I practice is a religion but a very different type of religion. There are a set of beliefs, there's more or less a codified set of moral rules, there's a set of strictures (again, pretty loose--more on that in a bit) and a mythology built-up around it. There's a (non-compulsory) set of ideas about death and an afterlife. What there isn't is prosletyzing (at least within the Soto Zen tradition that I practice) nor is there any divinity that needs to be appeased--which is what I find appealing about it.

 

I understand why a lot of folks would say it is a philosophy because 'religion' has gotten such a bad name in the West but I would tend to say that its somewhat disingenuous in that it defines religion as 'that which monotheists' do. I understand, also, why folks would term it a philosophy because the moral strictures are actually much more loosely framed than in any of the monotheisms.

 

What I appreciate about Buddhism is that it encourages us to take life as having meaning without requiring a lot of metaphysical leaps into the wild-blue-yonder which I find intellectually distasteful.

 

Cheers

lf

[snookums]

I've enjoyed Buddhism for years ....but I don't necessarily swallow the whole dogma or whatever you wish to call it, hook line and sinker...but that's cool.

 

One of the major metaphysical leaps into the wild blue yonder, that I choose not to make, is the succession of the leaders or Dalai Lama 's - through the process of reincarnation.

 

Reincarnation seems very 'iffy' to me - requiring 'faith'...........and perhaps on par with the whole 'jesus is coming back' thing the xians go in for.

 

This article describes it pretty well.....

http://www.biocrawler.com/encyclopedia/Dalai_Lama

 

and brings up an important political point - the influence of China in the future of buddhism.

 

Despite its officially secular stance, the government of the People's Republic of China has claimed the power to approve the naming of high reincarnations in Tibet. This decision was based upon a precedent set by the Qianlong (Chinese: 乾隆) emperor of the Qing Dynasty, who instituted a system of selecting the Panchen Lama by means of a lottery which utilised a golden urn with names wrapped in barley balls. Recently, this precedent was called upon to name the Panchen Lama, who is empowered to recognize the new Dalai Lama. There is some speculation that with the death of the current Dalai Lama, the PRC will direct the selection of a successor. The current Dalai Lama has repeatedly stated that he will never be reborn inside territory controlled by the People's Republic of China [1] (http://www.tibet.com/DL/next-reincarnation.html), and has occasionally suggested that he might choose to be the last Dalai Lama by not being reborn at all.

[fallenleaf]

I've enjoyed Buddhism for years ....but I don't necessarily swallow the whole dogma or whatever you wish to call it, hook line and sinker...but that's cool.

 

One of the major metaphysical leaps into the wild blue yonder, that I choose not to make, is the succession of the leaders or Dalai Lama 's - through the process of reincarnation.

 

Reincarnation seems very 'iffy' to me - requiring 'faith'...........and perhaps on par with the whole 'jesus is coming back' thing the xians go in for.

 

You are aware that Tibetian Buddhism is very different from many other forms, right? And although it has wide name recognition in the west, it's not even the most common form. There are many things their culture has which I enjoy (their wheel of life for example) but there are also parts which I find won't fit my conceptions of Buddhism (the Dalai Lama being one of them). In many ways I find that Tibetian Buddhism is like Pure Land Buddhism... and both of them bring Buddhism far beyond what I consider the core. But that's just me.

 

One problem I have finding a place to practice here is that all the close groups seem to be American forms of Tibetian Buddhism and I want nothing to do with that. I could drive over three hours (each way) to a Thai temple if I really felt the need. And I would rather drive 4 extra hours in total than go to the closer ones. I know that saying such things is bound to make me look bad for everyone here. The non-Buddhists will point it out as sectarianism (which it's actually done to avoid) and the Buddhists probably have been greatly influenced by Tibetian Buddhism and... well, we all know what happens when you tread on someone's beliefs.

[snookums]

fallenleaf said...

You are aware that Tibetian Buddhism is very different from many other forms, right?

 

Yep......just like Christianity

Buddhism comes in many different flavours

 

Again....the same as Christianity/judasim/islam..........Buddhist generally, are inclined to cherry pick and form their own 'brand' of the religion. Buddhists tend to call it 'westernisation'...

 

I'm not sure you can avoid 'treading' on someones beliefs....in order to critque a religion of any kind!

I find it very tedious - but you'd think of all people...buddhist wouldn't be so 'attached'...

 

oh well....that's the way the cookie crumbles.

[fallenleaf]

Well, there are different forms. That is true and some are weirder than others. I do find irony in the fact that the two biggest attractions for me are Thai and Zen since these have many differences which would seem impossible to reconcile. But the important parts are the same. Comparing Thai to Zen would be like comparing Catholicism to Pentecostalism. They're very different but on the same page. In many ways I would say that Tibetian Buddhism is the Mormonism of the religion.

 

They have some practices and rituals which often beautiful and symbolic. But sometimes it's too ritualized and symbolic. If you know what I mean.

 

It's not so much attachment. I don't buy into the Dalai Lama claim. And I find that most people in the Tibetian schools are. . . well, "out there." I gave up spiritualism and weirdness. Not that all of them are like that but the numbers are high. It's the same reason I don't hang out with many of the "new hippies." Far too many of them have bizarre conceptions (which are outside the realm of the actual practice) and insist that everyone should hold the same conceptions as true.

 

For example, at the Thai temple I am likely to be instructed on the proper way to meditate and the meaning of the eightfold path. At a closer Tibetian location I am just as likely to be told how I need to recycle and be a vegetarian. I don't wish to cause strife nor do I have a desire to conform to their ideas of what is "right and wrong." So I leave them alone.

 

The schools have always admitted their differences and had people who preferred one over the other. The big difference is that they all see the others as also being a valid path. Even if they don't always see it as an equal path.

[snookums]

Well, there are different forms. That is true and some are weirder than others. I do find irony in the fact that the two biggest attractions for me are Thai and Zen since these have many differences which would seem impossible to reconcile. But the important parts are the same. Comparing Thai to Zen would be like comparing Catholicism to Pentecostalism. They're very different but on the same page. In many ways I would say that Tibetian Buddhism is the Mormonism of the religion.

 

They have some practices and rituals which often beautiful and symbolic. But sometimes it's too ritualized and symbolic. If you know what I mean.

 

It's not so much attachment. I don't buy into the Dalai Lama claim. And I find that most people in the Tibetian schools are. . . well, "out there." I gave up spiritualism and weirdness. Not that all of them are like that but the numbers are high. It's the same reason I don't hang out with many of the "new hippies." Far too many of them have bizarre conceptions (which are outside the realm of the actual practice) and insist that everyone should hold the same conceptions as true.

 

For example, at the Thai temple I am likely to be instructed on the proper way to meditate and the meaning of the eightfold path. At a closer Tibetian location I am just as likely to be told how I need to recycle and be a vegetarian. I don't wish to cause strife nor do I have a desire to conform to their ideas of what is "right and wrong." So I leave them alone.

 

The schools have always admitted their differences and had people who preferred one over the other. The big difference is that they all see the others as also being a valid path. Even if they don't always see it as an equal path.

 

Yep....I know what you mean. I loved observing the mandalla (is that how you write it?) the sand painting - being delicately created and then scrapped & brushed off the table without a moments hesitatation and then chucked into the river. But I don't feel comfortable with the posturing in front of a statue...all that stuff is a bit uncool.

Yep....I do the same thing.......I leave it alone and simply don't participate. I actually haven't been to a 'teaching' or a 'retreat' for a few years..........I can't be bothered anymore. Its a bit of drive. *shrugs*

 

I find the constant calling for money a tad tedious - I don't much see the value of building a 'gompa' - a statue thingy for a few monks and other's to worship at.

But funny you should mention it.......there is brand new Thai Temple just down the road from me...I'm not sure if I want or need any kind of 'religious' connections to a community. I've been 'instructed' on how to mediate using the 'breathing' method - that seems to suit me just fine but I'd rather mediate alone - don't need all that 'fellowshipping' stuff - I've become quite skeptical.

 

The students.....I know what you mean...well some can be very hectic to be around - full of newagey shit - I'm a bit beyond that now...and I don't like how the Monks are treated - above the rest to the extent of being given 'special' food and separate cultery...

reminds me of the catholics..

 

Valid path.....yep but I you could say the same about 'liberal' xianity - that seems to also 'accept' other types of religion or denominations...............'even if they don't always see it as an equal'..Now that's the rub! That Equal bit!

 

You know.....all that 'path' stuff worries me. Why do you need one? & especially one that involves some kind of 'supera natual' element or a hierarchy. All those levels of 'enlightenment' stikes me as being a tad primitive - refecting the Feudial type society of Tibet and India perhaps.?

 

Yep.....all people are far from being equal when it comes to a religion me thinks.