Buddhism: Religion or Philosophy

Snappy · Nov 16, 2011

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.

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 · Nov 17, 2011

Its2Snappy said:
As far as religion vs. a philosophy, well I consider it both.

Being one does not preclude it from being the other.

Pippi · May 3, 2012

It is both and neither.

Death Wizard · May 3, 2012

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 · May 4, 2012

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 · May 4, 2012

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 · May 4, 2012

Lycoplax said:
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 · May 4, 2012

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 · May 4, 2012

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 · May 4, 2012

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 · May 4, 2012

Rufus Coppertop said:
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 · May 4, 2012

RichardGarfinkle said:
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.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]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.
[/FONT]

Hindus have no problem calling this religion. And I have no problem defining even the abstract teachings of Buddha as religion.

veinglory · May 4, 2012

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 · May 4, 2012

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 · May 4, 2012

Lycoplax said:
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 · May 4, 2012

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 · May 4, 2012

Rufus Coppertop said:
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 · May 4, 2012

Lycoplax said:
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 · May 4, 2012

Lhipenwhe said:
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 · May 4, 2012

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 · May 4, 2012

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 · May 4, 2012

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 · May 4, 2012

Maxinquaye said:
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 · May 4, 2012

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

This.

Death Wizard · May 4, 2012

WordCount said:
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.

Buddhism: Religion or Philosophy

A new year, a new avatar

Tumhe na koci puujetha

Moving with my soul, step by step

volitare nequeo

Nurture Phoenixes

I'm living in a silent film

On a wing and a prayer

volitare nequeo

volitare nequeo

I'm living in a silent film

Tumhe na koci puujetha

That cheeky buggerer

sometimes woefully inaccurate

Tumhe na koci puujetha

Tumhe na koci puujetha