Buddhism: Religion or Philosophy

[Duncable]

I'm not sure if this would be more appropriate in the Comparative Religions board; if so, can a mod please move it? Thanks!

I was just curious what the fine patrons of AW think on the subject. I know opinions differ even when you're talking to two Buddhists, and it's pretty dang hard to define "religion" in general since it means something different to everyone.

But in your opinion, do you consider Buddhism a religion, or a philosophy? I'd like to get responses from Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike. I won't throw in my two cents right off that bat, just wanted to pose the question and see where it takes us. :)

Also, I'm pretty sure there isn't a thread already exisiting on this particular subject, since I didn't find it in searching, but I'd be lieing if I said my search skills are top-notch. So feel free to link a thread if I missed it. :)

[Rhoda Nightingale]

Firstly, THANK YOU for creating a Buddhism thread. I've been miffed about the lack of one in the past.

I consider it a spiritual philosophy, and it's what I "practice" in lieu of an organized religion. I like that there are no specific rites to go through or vows to recite--it's a personal journey, and no two people experience it exactly the same way, and aren't supposed to.

I've always felt that spirituality is necessarily personal, and not something that you can get out of a book or a building. Buddhism tends to reflect that, and it's what I finally stumbled on when trying to put a name to what I actually believe and not finding it in any existing Western faiths.

[Maxx]

I'm not sure if this would be more appropriate in the Comparative Religions board; if so, can a mod please move it? Thanks!

I was just curious what the fine patrons of AW think on the subject. I know opinions differ even when you're talking to two Buddhists, and it's pretty dang hard to define "religion" in general since it means something different to everyone.

But in your opinion, do you consider Buddhism a religion, or a philosophy? I'd like to get responses from Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike. I won't throw in my two cents right off that bat, just wanted to pose the question and see where it takes us. :)

Also, I'm pretty sure there isn't a thread already exisiting on this particular subject, since I didn't find it in searching, but I'd be lieing if I said my search skills are top-notch. So feel free to link a thread if I missed it. :)

As a non-Buddhist, it seems to be that there has been a lot of organized Buddhism. I don't know how things are now, but lots of organized religious institutions have been Buddhist.

For example the complex of the Magao Caves suggests a religion more than a philosophy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mogao_Caves

[Devil Ledbetter]

I think it's a loose religion based on a philosophy. I know a few Buddhists and they seem to hold non-scientific beliefs and base their actions around those beliefs. For example, the Buddhists I know will not kill bugs, because they believe the assertion that bugs have souls and these souls are here in the form of a bug for the purpose of development, and killing the bug thwarts their development to reincarnate into a "higher" being.

Those are assertions that seem religious in nature to me. If it was only a philosophy, it would just be "live and let live" without the non-scientific reasoning about higher consciousness, reincarnation, soul development and so on.

JMO

[Rhoda Nightingale]

^I hold to that for everything except cockroaches. I have....issues....which cockroaches. Trying to work on it, but still.

However, I still stick with the assertion of it being a spiritual path, but not necessarily "religious." It's very individualized, which to me is the opposite of how I think of organized religion.

[zornhau]

If you believe in non scientific stuff, you at the very least have a Faith.

If all Faiths are also Religions, then you have a Religion. If not, then we're into an argument about what we mean by "religion".

[Devil Ledbetter]

If you believe in non scientific stuff, you at the very least have a Faith.

If all Faiths are also Religions, then you have a Religion. If not, then we're into an argument about what we mean by "religion".The word does have a definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion), and Buddhism seems to fit it.

Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith Commitment or devotion to a faith? Check. A personal set of beliefs? Check. And practices? Check. Held to with ardor and faith? Check. By the word's definition, the Buddhists I know are actually more "religious" than the casual Christians I know.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Maxx]

^I hold to that for everything except cockroaches. I have....issues....which cockroaches. Trying to work on it, but still.

However, I still stick with the assertion of it being a spiritual path, but not necessarily "religious." It's very individualized, which to me is the opposite of how I think of organized religion.

There may be interpretations of Buddhism that are in some way not religious, but it looks like most Buddhist institutions and art have been religious most of the time.

As the stories behind these lost caves suggest:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/4256119

[Duncable]

I forgot I even started this thread, since it didn't get any responses the first few days. I must remember to subscribe!


However, I still stick with the assertion of it being a spiritual path, but not necessarily "religious." It's very individualized, which to me is the opposite of how I think of organized religion.

This is basically how I feel about it, too, and I consider myself a Buddhist.

While it may have some aspects in common with most religions, I believe that speaks more to the fact that all religions are philosophies, so they all have philosophical similarities. It's what Buddhism lacks that sets it apart.

Yes, people have and do treat it as a religion, and they have tacked certain rituals and ceremonies and other trapings onto it to make it more organized and structured; fine, that's what they need, and one of the best aspects of Buddhism in my opinion is that, like Rhoda said, it is a personal journey which is experienced differently by everyone. The Buddha did, after all, instruct us to disregard those ideas which don't resonate with us personally. But the core of Buddhism doesn't change.

If someone who had no idea what Buddhism was were to ask me to describe it as simply as possible I would say this: Buddhism is the awareness of the nature of cause and effect; or, it is simply the awareness of being aware. I don't personally think there is anything necessarily religious about either of those statements.

Since that is what (and, essentially, all) Buddhism is to me, I can't lump it into the same category as the other world religions. Which is probably why my World Religions professor didn't like me very much back in the day. :D

Thanks for the responses, guys. I've got a jumble of a story idea bouncing around in my brain that you're helping me cement into something worth writing about.

ETA: Maxx, I'm at work so I can't check out those links you provided, but I plan to when I get home tonight. :)

[Maxx]

Since that is what (and, essentially, all) Buddhism is to me, I can't lump it into the same category as the other world religions. Which is probably why my World Religions professor didn't like me very much back in the day. :D


Well, I've never taken a World Religions class, but it seems to me that there is something religious about most religions. For example, you could reduce Christianity to having a nice feeling about some things that Jesus reportedly said, but that would suggest that whatever professed Christians have done for the last two thousand years is somehow not Christian. It seems to me that a non-religious interpretation of a religion is clearly not the same as a religious interpretation of a religion. Moreover, for most people who have professed a religion (say Christianity or Buddhism) over the last few thousand years, the religious aspects of their religion would be foremost in their minds. For example, Christian women have traditionally covered their hair in Church (as Paul suggests) "because of the Angels" (ie female hair excites Angelic Lust and that's no appropriate in Church). That's clearly a religious idea and not a philosophical one and one that probably has some analog in Buddhism: ie a day-to-day religious action such as reciting the Sutras to get good things in life.

[RandomJerk]

As I understand it, it's a religion that was built off a philosophy. One can practice either, though the religion is specifically at odds with some of the philosophical underpinnings. Like most religions.

[Namatu]

I see philosophy as the foundation of all religion. Buddhism is a religion because of the formalized institutions - the traditions of Theravada, Mahayana, etc. - and the ceremonies therein that have built up around it. Its philosophy, however, makes it well-suited for practice outside of those formal institutions. This may be equally true of other religions, but Buddhism appeals to me for the same reasons Rhoda mentions, it's a very personal journey that doesn't rely on rites and passages.

[benbradley]

First of all I'm not a Buddhist, never been one, and what I write here may be off the mark, but I'm sure it's not as far off as this speaker I quote. But at least he (inadvertently) pompted me to learn a little about something I had almost no clue about before. Take what I say with a grain silo of salt.

I distinctly remember one "eloquent" speaker I heard over 20 years ago who said "Just as Christians turn their wills and lives over to Jesus, Muslims turn their wills and lives over to Mohammed and Buddhists turn their wills and lives over to Buddha." Despite my lack of religions knowledge outside of what I learned growing up in Baptist Sunday School, I was suspicious of that last one about Buddhists, so I read what few popular books I could find (ISTR Alan Watts, mainly). Indeed, Buddhism appears to have little if anything to do with God, or turning your "will and life" over to anything. Buddha apparently found some way to achieve "enlightenment" or a way to be happy, and his writings were just instructions on how to do it. This is definitely a philosophy and not a religion.

That's my understanding of the origins of Buddhism. Of course after growing over the centuries, it changed and different factions grew with various amounts of ritual and whatnot added, which may be religious by some definitions, but still it (or the way many people practice it) does not include God.

My hypothesis of how it got called a religion is that the Western World studied Eastern practices, and wondered what the East had for religion (because everyone must have religion, right???). Buddhism was the thing that most closely resembeled a religion, so Westerners started calling it a religion and assumed that what Buddhists do is worship Buddha as some incarnation of God, just as Christians worship Jesus.

I consider it a spiritual philosophy, and it's what I "practice" in lieu of an organized religion. I like that there are no specific rites to go through or vows to recite--it's a personal journey, and no two people experience it exactly the same way, and aren't supposed to.

I've always felt that spirituality is necessarily personal, and not something that you can get out of a book or a building. Buddhism tends to reflect that, and it's what I finally stumbled on when trying to put a name to what I actually believe and not finding it in any existing Western faiths.
^I hold to that for everything except cockroaches. I have....issues....which cockroaches. Trying to work on it, but still.

However, I still stick with the assertion of it being a spiritual path, but not necessarily "religious." It's very individualized, which to me is the opposite of how I think of organized religion.
Spirituality is an interesting word. There was a time when its meaning was tied more closely to religion, and I suspect ir was Alcoholics Anonymous and other 12-step programs that have popularized the idea of spirituality as separate from religion. AA has claimed from the start (the 1930's) that it is "spiritual, not religous. This originated in the Oxford group (within which AA originated and then split off from) a fundamentalist Christian group that claimed to be "more spiritual than religious."

Spirituality used to be a part of religion (dictionaries still have these earlier meanings). Now spirituality, as commonly used, means believing in or worshiping God, but outside the formal trappings of religion and church buildings. I suppose whether Buddhists are "spiritual" is an open question, but apparenty those in this thread are claiming so.

[Namatu]

I think the definition of spirituality, while perhaps originally based in religion, has expanded beyond those borders. I've seen it mentioned in regard to yoga practice and other things that are decidedly not religious. I interpret it in those situations to be referring to a mindfulness and compassion/understanding that doesn't need to connect to religion.

[froley]

As I understand it, Buddhists believe in certain supernatural principles. And many different people all around the world believe/follow the same core ideas/beliefs. That's pretty much a 'religion' by definition, isn't it?

[AVS]

Religion, philosophy and political movement can be close companions on the highway to the somatic experience. Often they contain or procure elements from each other. The fervour they are able to tap into appears to come from the same psychological source. Sometimes they inspire dangerous zealotry sometimes they inspire peace, love and understanding. (often derived from different interpretations of the same underlying data).

I'm not saying religion, politics and philosophy are the same thing, clearly they can be distinct. Think of a Venn diagram (remember those?) the areas of overlap can be large.

[Rufus Coppertop]

It's what Buddhism lacks that sets it apart.

What is it that Buddhism lacks to set it apart?

Buddhism is the awareness of the nature of cause and effect; If you're defining that awareness as the ability to see the working of karma, then I personally don't think that that awareness is Buddhism. It might be an aspect of Buddhahood but not of Buddhism.

Buddhism is the set of teachings, philosophies, rituals and meditation techniques which lead to Buddhahood and that awareness.

Allegedly.

[Rufus Coppertop]

As I understand it, Buddhists believe in certain supernatural principles. And many different people all around the world believe/follow the same core ideas/beliefs. That's pretty much a 'religion' by definition, isn't it?

Of course.

[Rufus Coppertop]

Religion, philosophy and political movement can be close companions on the highway to the somatic experience.

Somatic means "of the body". While there are physical yogas in Buddhism, it's not a highway to a "somatic" experience.

[AVS]

Rufus,

"O wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world
That has such people in't!"

Well the mind and body might be a different thing, but it's jolly hard to prove.

[Rufus Coppertop]

In that the mind can be defined as the "working" of the brain, we might be able to prove that the mind is different from the body in the same way that the functioning of software is different to hardware.

You're right in that we cannot prove that the mind doesn't arise strictly and only from the functioning of the brain.

Given this, maybe I should have said that Buddhism does not regard itself as a highway to somatic experience rather than saying that it's actually not.

[nibris]

I have a research project that has a lot to do with Buddhism and other Southeast Asian religions, and I think there's evidence for the idea that Buddhism is a religion rather than strictly a philosophy. The reason I say this is the fundamental belief that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu, who is known in Hindu religion to be the god of all gods. Even though the Buddhists don't believe in the plethora of the Hindu gods, they believe in Vishnu and that Buddha was his most enlightened, spiritual form in which he bore all truths.

[Rufus Coppertop]

I have a research project that has a lot to do with Buddhism and other Southeast Asian religions, and I think there's evidence for the idea that Buddhism is a religion rather than strictly a philosophy. The reason I say this is the fundamental belief that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu, who is known in Hindu religion to be the god of all gods. Even though the Buddhists don't believe in the plethora of the Hindu gods, they believe in Vishnu and that Buddha was his most enlightened, spiritual form in which he bore all truths.

Which school of Buddhism teaches this?

I know that some Hindus believe that the buddha Shakyamuni was an avatar of Vishnu but I've never heard this from fellow buddhists and I've been a buddhist since 1993.

[Maxinquaye]

I have a research project that has a lot to do with Buddhism and other Southeast Asian religions, and I think there's evidence for the idea that Buddhism is a religion rather than strictly a philosophy. The reason I say this is the fundamental belief that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu, who is known in Hindu religion to be the god of all gods. Even though the Buddhists don't believe in the plethora of the Hindu gods, they believe in Vishnu and that Buddha was his most enlightened, spiritual form in which he bore all truths.

That is a very strange interpretation of buddhism. Buddha, afaik, consider belief in a god to be an attachment, ie something that lead to suffering. There are some buddhist sects that consider the Boddhisatva to be a more-than-human, a predestined birth, but that's as far as Buddhists go to deify things.

[aruna]

^

However, I still stick with the assertion of it being a spiritual path, but not necessarily "religious." It's very individualized, which to me is the opposite of how I think of organized religion.
Then we come back to the definition of "religion", which is variable; the defniitions posted by Devil, for me, are not complete. For me, religion in its essence IS spirituality. That is the core of every religion: personal experience, individual transcendence. The very word Religion can be traced back etymologically to mean re-bonding; and that would be, re-bonding with the essence of life, which is internal; thus all religion starts with spirituality.

Because that re-bonding experience is too abstract for most people, all kinds of beliefs, customs, traditions are pasted on top of that core experience, and thus we have the superimposition of externalised religion, which is what most people understand under the definition.

In effect, it's hard to discuss Eastern religions with Westerners, since there are certain pre-conceptions and presumptions that are immediately latched onto the Eastern principles, which simply don't hold true.

I'm not a Buddhist but I have occasionally visited the Buddhist temple north of London for meditation, and I know many Buddhists and it's always a joy to see the core correlation between Buddhism and Hinduism, and for that matter Taoism. All of these religions are built on the assumption that man has to turn inwards to find Truth; that God is not some white-bearded entity sitting up in heaven judging us but right here and now, within consciousness itself; that consciousness itself is the key to religion. That heaven and hell are all in the mind.


As I understand it, it's a religion that was built off a philosophy. One can practice either, though the religion is specifically at odds with some of the philosophical underpinnings. Like most religions.
My bold.

This is the difference between Eastern and Western "philosophies". Eastern philosophy, or teaching, is based on practice, ie, direct experience; turning the mind within to find the truth of one's own being. It's not conjecture or cognitive; and approaching it from a purely rational, analytic (Western!) mindset is futile. Somebody who merely talks philosophy wothout trying to actually practice it is, in Eastern religions, just playing mind-games. You have to go there. You can't just talk about it. That's why I mostly keep away from the god-threads! :)

The reason I say this is the fundamental belief that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu, who is known in Hindu religion to be the god of all gods. Even though the Buddhists don't believe in the plethora of the Hindu gods, they believe in Vishnu and that Buddha was his most enlightened, spiritual form in which he bore all truths.

Hindus believe that the Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu, like Rama and Krishna and the others. This is a Hindu belief, not a Buddhist one. Then again, Vishnu himself is not God. The idea that Hinduism has many gods is just another Western misconception. In the final analysis Hinduism too teaches that there is nothing outside consciousness; that God, the self and the universe are all nothing but consciousness. The many gods, the rituals, the various manifestations of religions are all only props, which help the mind to turn away from the material and to the spiritual. Once it can do that unaided, once it is strong and unwavering, the props are unnecessary. Till then, they are helpful.

[Snappy]

Buddhism also has different belief structures and practices based on what form you follow. I'm a Buddhist leaning toward the older practices. If you want to see some of the differences, you can look here (http://www.religionfacts.com/buddhism/fastfacts/differences_theravada_mahayana.htm).

As far as religion vs. a philosophy, well I consider it both. It's my religious and spiritual practice as well a philosophy for my life. If I choose in the future to become more involved with the religion, I know there is a community of Buddhists out there, even though it may be a personal journey. Hope that makes sense. :)

[Rufus Coppertop]

As far as religion vs. a philosophy, well I consider it both.

Being one does not preclude it from being the other.

[Pippi]

It is both and neither. ;)

[Death Wizard]

The paradox of Buddhism is that you can learn the core of its brilliance (awareness) in a minute or two and yet spend an entire lifetime studying it (awareness) and barely scratch the surface. Most Westerners who were raised Christian -- or who at least were indoctrinated in a heavily Christian climate -- have little understanding of Buddhism. And reading a graf or two of summary about the religion does not do it justice. The Buddha's teachings rank among the most brilliant accomplishments of any human being, and if you cast aside any of the religion's supernatural edifices, of which there are relatively few -- the core of the teachings remains entirely intact and supremely effective. I consider Buddhism to be a religion based on the non-supernatural. Here is one of my favorite Buddhist quotes, and it encapsulates the religion for me:

“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” -- the Buddha, 563-483 B.C.

[Lhipenwhe]

As others have said, it can be one, both, or neither; Theravada and Mahayana both fit the 'standard' model of worshiping/revering supernatural beings, while Zen can be treated as a philosophy/guide. I personally base my thoughts and actions from a quasi-Buddhist point of view regarding non-attachment (to most things.)

[Lycoplax]

Buddhism is one of the philosophies that I find most fascinating, and I call it a philosophy for this reason:

The Buddha, the human man who kicked off the whole idea, emphasized up until his death that he was not a deity to be worshiped, but an example to be followed.

True Buddhism, then, isn't a practice, (generally speaking, religion requires a practice of ceremony and symbolic behavior*) but a way of thinking. A philosophy.

A small sect of his followers deified him after his death, creating religious Buddhism. So there are two kinds of Buddhism; a religion and a philosophy, but the philosophy is the way it was originally intended.

*By this same token, I follow a Christian lifestyle but refuse to call it religion, because it's what I have faith in that's important to me, not the motions I go through.

My philosophy dictates my behavior, but my behavior doesn't exist to showcase my philosophy. Does that make sense?

[Rufus Coppertop]

The Buddha, the human man who kicked off the whole idea, emphasized up until his death that he was not a deity to be worshiped, but an example to be followed.

The buddha Shakyamuni may well have said something along those lines but in which particular sources dating from the time or shortly thereafter is it recorded?

True Buddhism, then, isn't a practice, (generally speaking, religion requires a practice of ceremony and symbolic behavior*) but a way of thinking. A philosophy.

Do you have sources or evidence of any kind for this?

A small sect of his followers deified him after his death, creating religious Buddhism. So there are two kinds of Buddhism; a religion and a philosophy, but the philosophy is the way it was originally intended.

Do you have sources or evidence of any kind for this?

[veinglory]

I think observation provides the data, Lycoplax is providing commentary. It is easy to see how Buhhda is treated similar to a deity, enshrined, worshiped etc by some.

[RichardGarfinkle]

I have a big problem with this thread because in a lot of cases the distinction between Religion and Philosophy is not that bright a line. Most of the arguments seem to be relative to Christianity as a religion which is centered on Faith.

By that standard I doubt that many sects of Buddhism, Taoism, or Confucianism would qualify as religions, since they are focused far more on practice than on any statement or concern of faith.

It is true that there are exceptions. Some of the populist forms of Pure Land Buddhism are close to faith based.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism

The thing is that not even every Western religion is Faith based. Judaism as practiced by many focuses on observance rather than Faith and in many respects resembles Confucianism.

The Sufis in Islam also have more than a passing resemblance to Mahayana Buddhism in certain practices and views. Their language is radically different, but the practices and stories have interesting commonalities.

And as for philosophy. The NeoPlatonists had some seriously religious elements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoplatonism

I'd like to propose a slightly different perspective on the question.

On the whole, people are untroubled taking aspects of philosophies and adapting them to the needs of their lives (treating them as mental tools), but are less comfortable doing the same with aspects of religions.

This may be because a great many spokespeople for the Abrahamic religions tend to treat practice as the private province of the religion, something for members only. In other words, you have to join before you can get any benefit out of it.

Most versions of Buddhism teach that one can simply practice without any form of conversion. The tools and teachings are laid out for anyone to use without any assertion of identity or formal ceremony.

Rather than phrasing it as Religion versus Philosophy, we might consider it closer to Shareware or even Open Source Religion.

[ViolettaVane]

The line between religion and philosophy is totally culture-bound and subjective, I think. From a certain perspective, a religion is just a philosophy plus an infrastructure (buildings, special garments, schools, people who promote it as their full-time job, etc.)

[Lycoplax]

The buddha Shakyamuni may well have said something along those lines but in which particular sources dating from the time or shortly thereafter is it recorded?

Do you have sources or evidence of any kind for this?

My source is that I took a World Religions course in college, and we spent a significant period of the semester on Buddhism. Unfortunately, I no longer have the class text in front of me, but I have no reason to believe that my professor didn't know what she was talking about.

[aruna]

By that standard I doubt that many sects of Buddhism, Taoism, or Confucianism would qualify as religions, since they are focused far more on practice than on any statement or concern of faith.




Don't forget Hinduism, which encompasses the entire spectrum of philosophy-religion from the experience/practice-based and entirley abstract teachings of Advaita, to the very concrete worship of images, idols, etc.... all of which are regarded as entirely valid and to be chosen according to the understanding and mental inclination of the practitioner.

Hindu Advaitist philosophy has its roots in the Upanishads, dating back to 1000 BCE, and is more concerned with the experience and knowledge of consciousness rather than faith and worship; it's similar in many ways to Buddhism, but with completely opposing end-conclusion, it's main teacher being Shankara. More here. (http://www.thaiexotictreasures.com/advaita_vedanta.html)

Sankara proposed that while the phenomenal universe, our consciousness and bodily being, are certainly experienced, they are not true reality. He did not seek to negate them, but considered that the ultimate truth was Brahman, the unborn essence of the Universe that is beyond time, space and causation. Brahman is immanent and transcendent, but not merely a pantheistic concept. This contrasts with Buddhism: Advaita talks of the nature of the Universe as a reality "lesser" than Brahman, which is the absolute reality. Buddhism on the other hand, describes the Universe as a mere illusion caused due to ignorance that leads to a false concept of the "self". About any concept of Brahman, Buddhism chiefly remains silent, since "the absolute truth is incomprehensible and unutterable".


The philosophy that Shankara proposed was powerful and capitalized on years of dormant monist and mystic understandings of existence. He proposed that while the phenomenal universe, our consciousness and bodily being, are certainly experienced, they are not true reality. He did not mean to negate it, but considered that the ultimate truth was Brahman, the one divine ground that is beyond time, space and causation. Brahman is immanent and transcendent, but not merely a pantheistic concept. Indeed, while Brahman is the efficient and material cause for the cosmos, Brahman itself is not limited by its self-projection and indeed transcends all binary opposites/dualities, especially such individuated aspects as form and being, since it is incomprehensible by the human mind. We must pierce through a hazy perspectival lens to understand our true being and nature that is not perennial change and mortality but unmitigated bliss for eternity. If we are to understand the true motive force behind our actions and thoughts, we must become aware of the fundamental unity of being. How, he asks, can a limited mind comprehend the limitless Self? It cannot, he argues, and therefore we must transcend even the mind and become one with Soul-consciousness.
Hindus have no problem calling this religion. And I have no problem defining even the abstract teachings of Buddha as religion.

[veinglory]

I would help if we started by saying what we mean by these two words. But in relation to Buddhism i think having a deity-like status shifts to religion. Not all religions have gods, but if it has a god I think it is probably a religion.

[veinglory]

If people are being offended by how their religion is be characterized in this thread I would suggest stating this and explaining where/how. It is a policy of this sub-forum that religions not be denigrated. Alternatively, report the thread to an Admin or super-mod, but they are likely to ask the same question.

[Rufus Coppertop]

My source is that I took a World Religions course in college, and we spent a significant period of the semester on Buddhism. Unfortunately, I no longer have the class text in front of me, but I have no reason to believe that my professor didn't know what she was talking about.

There are many different schools of Buddhism, many of which have a definite religious element. The symbolic details of mandalas in Vajrayana Buddhism for example, are derived from philosophy.

The professor you listened to and you yourself are entitled to an opinion about what Buddhism is and isn't and what constitutes true Buddhism and what doesn't but hundreds of thousands, or even millions of monks, nuns, yogis and yoginis in myriads of lineages and different schools for the last two thousand years or so, have practiced Buddhism in various forms and I suspect they also knew and know what they're talking about and what they're practicing.

[ViolettaVane]

I think a lot of people in the United States who come from a culturally Christian background encounter Buddhism only through written texts, and based on that, decide it's something quite different from what heritage-Buddhists actually practice.

I'm a Buddhist. What I believe in, I think of as a religion. But if someone else wants to call it "just a philosophy" for them, that's fine with me, as long as they don't put down people who believe otherwise.

[Lycoplax]

There are many different schools of Buddhism, many of which have a definite religious element. The symbolic details of mandalas in Vajrayana Buddhism for example, are derived from philosophy.

The professor you listened to and you yourself are entitled to an opinion about what Buddhism is and isn't and what constitutes true Buddhism and what doesn't but hundreds of thousands, or even millions of monks, nuns, yogis and yoginis in myriads of lineages and different schools for the last two thousand years or so, have practiced Buddhism in various forms and I suspect they also knew and know what they're talking about and what they're practicing.

I didn't mean to imply that religious Buddhism was wrong, I only meant to point out that it was an offshoot of philosophical Buddhism, as it didn't appear that anyone else so far had mentioned that. I realize in hindsight that calling the philosophical variety 'true Buddhism' could then be inferred as saying anything other than that is incorrect.

My apologies.

[Rufus Coppertop]

My apologies.

No worries at all. :Hug2:

I didn't mean to imply that religious Buddhism was wrong, I only meant to point out that it was an offshoot of philosophical Buddhism, as it didn't appear that anyone else so far had mentioned that. There's definitely something in that although a couple of people who gave talks on Buddhist philosophy at a dharma centre I lived at, one of whom was a lama, the other a western academic, suggested that Buddhist philosophy arose as a way of explaining the experiential results of meditative practice.

Personally, I see it as a bit of a chicken and egg sort of thing.

[Death Wizard]

As others have said, it can be one, both, or neither; Theravada and Mahayana both fit the 'standard' model of worshiping/revering supernatural beings, while Zen can be treated as a philosophy/guide. I personally base my thoughts and actions from a quasi-Buddhist point of view regarding non-attachment (to most things.)

This is inaccurate. For the sake of parable, and also due to the fact that the Buddha existed 2,500 years ago when there were many beliefs/gods that are unlike those that most of us are more familiar with, there are elements of the supernatural in Buddhism just in terms of story. But Buddhists (and certainly not Theravada Buddhists) do not worship/revere a supernatural being. We do not worship the Buddha or anyone or anything, as a matter of fact. The religion itself teaches not to do that. Rather, we honor the Buddha in the regard that we believe he was a spiritual genius who so transcended ordinary life that in some ways his achievements attained a quality that some might label supernatural.

[hlynn117]

Buddhism is a religion. That said, there are philosophical elements to every religion. As an atheist, I'm okay with the more philosophical elements of religion. Those elements explain how you feel, emotions you can't put into words, but I don't believe in the supernatural elements of religions.

[Maxinquaye]

Here's an essay about godhood in Buddhism.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html

The author is a German born Theravadan monk living in Sri Lanka.

[Nimram]

I think Buddhism took more or less the same road as other religions. First philosophy (the first-hand teachings of Buddha), then simple religion (basic ideas spread/preached across land and populations), then philosophy/religion (the specific populations or cultural groups build on those simple principles and come up with their own interpretation of the initial philosophy and, in parallel, developed dogma and ritual).

[Death Wizard]

Here's an essay about godhood in Buddhism.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/nyanaponika/godidea.html

The author is a German born Theravadan monk living in Sri Lanka.

This is excellent and truly accurate. Very well said and representative of the Buddhist belief system.

[Rufus Coppertop]

This is excellent and truly accurate. Very well said and representative of the Buddhist belief system.This.

[Death Wizard]

It's a bit of both, I think. From my understanding, it's a break-off from Hinduism that also started in India, and spread to China and other parts of Asia. I don't believe they ever speak of a "god," but because of the caste system and beliefs of reincarnation, I'm almost sure it can be filed as a religion.

Buddhists know.

[WordCount]

Buddhists know.

Those "I thinks" were put in to signify that I don't know. I'm not a Buddhist. I simply saw the post on the main feed, and came to answer the question. I didn't think it truly mattered whether I was Buddhist or not as to whether I could answer this person's question (unless any of the information I said was incorrect, of course).

[Bartholomew]

I had a somewhat terrible experience with organized Buddhism, but love the teachings.

[aruna]

I would help if we started by saying what we mean by these two words. But in relation to Buddhism i think having a deity-like status shifts to religion. Not all religions have gods, but if it has a god I think it is probably a religion. .


That is still too narrow a definition for me. I use the word "religion" in a much broader sense; it refers more to the sense of devotion, awe and wonder experienced by the members of a religion. Having a god -- that is, some entity outside oneself, up in the sky, an "other" supernatural being -- is not pertinent to that sense. The essence of religion -- to me -- is simply Love, with a capital l.

It's my way of reclaiming the word; all too often it's deliberatelly put into this very narrow definition: worshipping a god, illogical claims, senseless rituals, authoritarian structure -- so that everybody of reasonable mind can reject it.

Once we quite seeing religion ONLY in such terms, all kinds of possibilities open up. Inner joy, love, compassion, strength, peace, fortitude, service to mankind are the qualities almost all world religions ultimately promote and teach. When religion stops being a nasty word we can perhaps pay more attention to those universally valid aspects.

[RichardGarfinkle]

I think we're topic drifting onto what we mean by the word religion.

It's a useful drift since it shows how little dictionary definitions really matter to people's own meanings of things.

But this is the Atheism board, so perhaps the thread should be shifted to the Comparitive Religion board.

[Rufus Coppertop]

It's a bit of both, I think. From my understanding, it's a break-off from Hinduism that also started in India, and spread to China and other parts of Asia. I don't believe they ever speak of a "god," but because of the caste system and beliefs of reincarnation, I'm almost sure it can be filed as a religion.

Buddhism doesn't have a caste system.

[WordCount]

Buddhism doesn't have a caste system.

Excuse me of all my ignorance then, and forget I commented. I believe I may have accidentally forged two religions into one in my head.

Sorry about that.

[Death Wizard]

Those "I thinks" were put in to signify that I don't know. I'm not a Buddhist. I simply saw the post on the main feed, and came to answer the question. I didn't think it truly mattered whether I was Buddhist or not as to whether I could answer this person's question (unless any of the information I said was incorrect, of course).


I don't mean to be offensive. Obviously there are many things that you know a lot more about than I ever will. I just happen to know some things about Buddhism, and therefore chime in every now and then.

[Death Wizard]

I would help if we started by saying what we mean by these two words. But in relation to Buddhism i think having a deity-like status shifts to religion. Not all religions have gods, but if it has a god I think it is probably a religion.

I'm not sure where there is coming from. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said. The Buddha does not have a deity-like status, at least not to Buddhists. He is seen as a human being who became a spiritual genius, but he is not seen as a god. It'd be like comparing a 300-pound couch potato to an Olympic athlete. The athlete isn't a god, but he/she might almost appear like one when standing next to the couch potato. The Buddha was like this, in the mental sense, when compared to ordinary humans, but he was not god-like. He could not create worlds or life.

[Death Wizard]

This evening's super full moon also marks Vesak -- the full moon of May, under which the Buddha was born, became enlightened, and died. Very sacred time for Buddhists.

[Nimram]

Although Buddha did not proclaim himself to be of divine nature, there are Buddhist schools that believe in his miraculous birth.
From what I remember he got in his mother's womb in a form of an elephant through her thigh and once born he took seven steps and roar like a lion. There is also the Mara episode, and the miracles.

[Death Wizard]

Although Buddha did not proclaim himself to be of divine nature, there are Buddhist schools that believe in his miraculous birth.
From what I remember he got in his mother's womb in a form of an elephant through her thigh and once born he took seven steps and roar like a lion. There is also the Mara episode, and the miracles.

Again, this parable, seen as parable, and not debated as truth. It is not evidence of deity status.

[Nimram]

Again, this parable, seen as parable, and not debated as truth. It is not evidence of deity status.

Oh yes, of course, there are such parables in most religions. But some people believe in them. I guess this makes it religion. For them.

[Death Wizard]

Oh yes, of course, there are such parables in most religions. But some people believe in them. I guess this makes it religion. For them.


The difference is, in Buddhism it is seen as a parable. In a religion such as Christianity, there is much debate between parable and factual truth. Buddhism is not the same kind of religion as Christianity. I'm not saying it's better or worse. I'm just saying it's not comparable in terms of belief systems.

[aruna]

I'm not sure where there is coming from. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you said. The Buddha does not have a deity-like status, at least not to Buddhists. He is seen as a human being who became a spiritual genius, but he is not seen as a god. It'd be like comparing a 300-pound couch potato to an Olympic athlete. The athlete isn't a god, but he/she might almost appear like one when standing next to the couch potato. The Buddha was like this, in the mental sense, when compared to ordinary humans, but he was not god-like. He could not create worlds or life.

Furthermore, to continue the analogy: every couch potato could theoretically become an Olympic star athlete - if he or she only made the effort. In other words, there is nothing intrincally miraculous or divine about the star -- and the seed of "stardom" is in everyone.
So, too -- and I'm extrapolating based on Hindu teachings here -- we can all potentially attain the Buddha-mind; it's mostly a matter of sustained effort. It is quite literally in the mind.

[Death Wizard]

Furthermore, to continue the analogy: every couch potato could theoretically become an Olympic star athlete - if he or she only made the effort. In other words, there is nothing intrincally miraculous or divine about the star -- and the seed of "stardom" is in everyone.
So, too -- and I'm extrapolating based on Hindu teachings here -- we can all potentially attain the Buddha-mind; it's mostly a matter of sustained effort. It is quite literally in the mind.

This is absolutely correct.

Heck, all of us have attained Buddha-mind at times in our lives -- at a beautiful sunset, moved by music, etc. It's about shutting down all distractions so that you can see what's really there.