Buddhism Is A Religion

[eggomaniac]

There are Christians, too, that say Christianity is not a religion, but 'a way of life'. Is religion, now, a bad word that faith organizations want to distance themselves from?

One definition of religion is 'a search for transcendence, going beyond self'. stopping here, Buddhism is a religion by that definition.

Also, for those who call Buddhism a 'philosophy' what was it called before the 18th century when, in the West only, philosophy was distinguished from religion. Buddhism existed before the word 'philosophy'.

Also, Buddhism is deeply mystical and mysticism falls more into the definition of religion than philosophy.

Another thing, we are talking in the English language which is constantly growing and evolving. Think of how many encyclopedias would have to be rewritten that name the organized and established groups, faith orders, sects as 'religions'. If it boils down to English being an all encompassing bas**rd language, then under the loose rules of English definition it is a religion.

This is not to say Buddhist religion cannot, and should not, be distinguished from other religions on being less dogmatic, along with other differences. Even here, though, I would argue there are a goodly number of practices and codes by which the adherents have no true idea of the real meanings and purposes. [That filters over into the argument of whether all 'registered' Buddhists are 'real' Buddhists, so called Buddhists, or Buddhists at lower stages stages of development. If you take the 3rd scenario then it creates a 'place' for dogma as a necessary step. I don't see Buddhism, as being dogma free].

To say 'Buddhism is not a religion' is the kind of conceptual packaging which thought to be a barrier to enlightenment. Describing the tenets of the Buddhist religion and how it differs from other religions would be more noteworthy, at least until all of the dictionaries are rewritten.

Here is what person says.

"The wisdom of the Buddha is currently trapped within the religion of Buddhism," Harris laments. "Worse still, the continued identification of Buddhists with Buddhism lends tacit support to the religious differences in our world. ... Given the degree to which religion still inspires human conflict, and impedes genuine inquiry, I believe that merely being a self-described 'Buddhist' is to be complicit in the world's violence and ignorance to an unacceptable degree."

Religion is NOT a dirty word. >>> "A Buddhism that remains in the realm of concepts and ideas is not Buddhism. The robes, ritual and other trappings of religion are not a corruption of Buddhism, as some imagine, but expressions of it."

You don't have to call Buddhism a religion, but it is clearly clinging to sophism to dictate that others cannot either.

Buddhism is one of the World's great and remarkable, transcendent, religions.

[seedy]

I was brought up a Roman Catholic. This ended when I was about 14.

Buddhism for me is more of a way of growing spiritually, of living a life more in touch with the lives of others.

It is a path to my becoming a better person.

Is it religion ? Philosophy ? Dogma ?

I do not know.

Does it matter to me ? No.

[fabianfred]

To me... a religion is an attempt to describe why we are here, what we should do with our lives, and what happens when we die. In this respect Buddhism gives answers to these great questions and I class it as a religion.

It is non-theistic because it does not believe in a god.

I changed from Catholic to Buddhist when i was about 24.... for me it is very logical and gives answers to everything I need to know.

[andD]

im a catholic buddhist

[eggomaniac]

hmm.. sorry mods...

I just noticed this topic had already been discussed...

----------------

Anyway, here is something written over 200 years ago.

B Saint-Hilaire "I do not hesitate to add," he writes, "that, save the Christ alone, there is not among the founders of religion a figure more pure, more touching, than that of Buddha. His life is without blemish; his constant heroism equals his conviction; whether or not the theory he extols is true, the personal examples he affords are irreproachable. He is the accomplished model of all the virtues he preaches; his abnegation, his charity, his unalterable sweetness never belie themselves. At the age of 29 he retires from the court of the king, his father, to become a devotee and a beggar. He silently prepares his doctrine by 6 years of seclusion and meditation. He propogates by the unaided power of speech and persuasion, for more than 1/2 a century; and when he dies in the arms of his disciples, it is with the serenity of a sage who has practiced goodness all his life, and knows that he has found Truth."

My point is, do we get the poor guy that wrote this out of his grave to correct him on 'word meanings'?

Perhaps, the real 'smart' Buddhist will also take umbrage at the terms 'preach' and 'doctrine'.

Why not, instead, glance off the imperfect English and enjoy the thoughts?

[Brucenkhamen]

I don't believe the Buddha considered he was teaching a religion at the time he was teaching it. Many aspects of his teaching are in fact anti religion and debunk the prevailing religious beliefs of the time.

However the religion of Buddhism that has grown around his teachings and the religion of Buddhism is definately a religion and has most of the normal characteristics of a religion.

Some christians would like you to believe their religion is not a religion but a relationship, what is a reltionship with somebody you believe in but have no definitive proof? I'd call it institutionalised imaginary friend.

[fabianfred]

The Buddha did not start the religion of Buddhism.... he rediscovered and taught the eternal Dhamma. Every Buddha teaches exactly the same Dhamma. It is known for a period...then lost....then rediscovered by the next Buddha. The Dhamma is not the Buddha's own thoughts or invention...but the Truth.....the Ultimate truth...of which there can only be one..... and each buddha has the knowledge of the truth come to him after attaining enlightenment....which is then taught by him.

People construct religions around the founders of their faiths.

Edited April 24, 2010 by fabianfred

[PeaceBlondie]

Good OP.

[phetaroi]

Good OP.

Yes, it is a good OP because, although discussed many times before in many venues, it is a topic that never fails to bring up interesting points.

The Dalai Lama frequently speaks about Buddhism within the framework of religion (for example, on his own website he says, "I maintain that every major religion of the world - Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Sikhism, Taoism, Zoroastrianism - has similar ideals of love, the same goal of benefiting humanity through spiritual practice, and the same effect of making their followers into better human beings. All religions teach moral precepts for perfecting the functions of mind, body, and speech."

Of course, part of the debate is how one defines religion.

For example, to me, some set of principles becomes a religion where faith becomes a significant aspect of the set. There are people in our forum who believe 100% in the words of the Dhamma. They believe first that all those words came from the Buddha and, quite frankly, they believe that the words are the one great truth. That is faith. And there's nothing at all wrong with that. But it is religion.

And from that level of belief, there are what I refer to as "terraces of belief" at different levels, which at some point no longer involve faith (and therefore in my view religion), but come to be a respect for wisdom in that set of principles...but not the belief that the principles are the only truth or that they necessarily were exactly the words spoken by the Buddha. And that's fine, too.

No matter what terrace one is on, it's okay. Even when you belong to a group, it's still an individual journey.

[Xangsamhua]

I don't believe the Buddha considered he was teaching a religion at the time he was teaching it. Many aspects of his teaching are in fact anti religion and debunk the prevailing religious beliefs of the time.

However the religion of Buddhism that has grown around his teachings and the religion of Buddhism is definately a religion and has most of the normal characteristics of a religion.

Some christians would like you to believe their religion is not a religion but a relationship, what is a reltionship with somebody you believe in but have no definitive proof? I'd call it institutionalised imaginary friend.

Yes, perhaps all theism is "institutionalised imaginary friend" (love it!). Not so for deism, the final view of the recently deceased and erstwhile atheist, Antony Flew, but then deism's pretty abstract. (I think Einstein was a deist, too, and even Richard Dawkins has shown an openness to deism, as in his 2006 discussion with Francis Collins.)

DAWKINS: To me, the right approach is to say we are profoundly ignorant of these matters. We need to work on them. But to suddenly say the answer is God--it's that that seems to me to close off the discussion.

TIME: Could the answer be God?

DAWKINS: There could be something incredibly grand and incomprehensible and beyond our present understanding.

COLLINS: That's God.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/4047

However, the term "religion" suggests that there is an identifiable body of believers who all believe essentially the same things and follow certain practices according to the guidance of the religion's leadership. Or, perhaps, that there are certain core beliefs, e.g. the physical resurrection of Christ, Christ as both divine and human, the importance of baptism, etc.

However, in reference to the earlier comment about whether it's a religion or way of life, "Christianity" incorporates a great variety of differing and often contradictory beliefs. The fundamentalist mindset is probably closer to the Islamic than the liberal Christian, who is probably closer to the Buddhist mindset than that of his fundamentalist "co-religionist".

Objectively, I would think Buddhism is a religion for millions of people, though also a widely varied one. In Thailand, Dharmakaya has an affinity to fundamentalist Christianity. Santi Asoke is similar to the Catholic "basic Christian communities" of Latin America and the Philippines. The State Sangha, like the Vatican, has lost much credibility and has little to offer. But they all reflect a religious view and could be said to be elements in the Buddhist religion.

For me, Buddhism is not a religious practice, but rather a method. The teachers I follow, however, such as Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh, the Dalai Lama, the FPMT teachers etc., are clearly religious people. They have a faith and their method is inseparable from it. I have to extract the benefits of the methodology (and its underpinning systematic psychology) from the religious beliefs that I don't yet share.

[Xangsamhua]

And from that level of belief, there are what I refer to as "terraces of belief" at different levels, which at some point no longer involve faith (and therefore in my view religion), but come to be a respect for wisdom in that set of principles...but not the belief that the principles are the only truth or that they necessarily were exactly the words spoken by the Buddha. And that's fine, too.

No matter what terrace one is on, it's okay. Even when you belong to a group, it's still an individual journey.

"Terraces of belief" - nice. But are you talking about "beliefs" (which, after all, are conclusions), or "acceptance" or "assent", i.e. not as conclusive as "belief"?

Acceptance and assent, to me, convey a sense of "yes, but not quite, or not yet".

Full acceptance (belief) is a surrender of the right to consider further or choose from alternative possibilities. To step back from a "commitment" is not a positive thing, as it suggests that the commitment was not there in the first place, in which case anything you've said in the name of that commitment has not been fully sincere.

Or possibly, you were motivated to commit to something by forces beyond your control, e.g. information you didn't have access to at the time, in which case your commitment was premature.

But we'll never know if there is not relevant information to which we won't have access, so firm belief is probably best avoided. Tentative belief is the best we can aim for if we want to keep our options open to new information and new insights that we can't at present foresee.

(Incidentally, I've used "you" and "we" in the universal sense, not in reference to any individual.)

[rockyysdt]

Born Again Christians have responded to me in a similar way.

Some say theirs is not a religion but the truth.

Their definition of religion is of beliefs which are false.

To me Buddhism can either be practiced as a religion or as the Buddha intended it to be practiced.

Those who follow Buddhism as a custom with all its deviations & beliefs whether provable or not are following a religion.

Many don't have the will or motivation to work towards their advancement, preferring the easy path of belief. Some even idolize the Buddha as if a God. It's way to easy to just believe & leave it to someone else to gift you heavenly salvation.

The other way of practicing Buddhism is to regularly perform the exercises the Buddha taught as well as leading a charitable, virtuous & selfless life.

By doing so, without the need to dwell in esoteric matters such as belief, re birth, realms, khamma & such, one can actually take control & realize improvements in ones existing life & become receptive to profound experience.

I wouldn't describe daily practice of self awareness, single pointed concentration, & a selfless lifestyle with an open mind a religion.

Edited April 24, 2010 by rockyysdt

[phetaroi]

Full acceptance (belief) is a surrender of the right to consider further or choose from alternative possibilities. To step back from a "commitment" is not a positive thing, as it suggests that the commitment was not there in the first place, in which case anything you've said in the name of that commitment has not been fully sincere.

Or possibly, you were motivated to commit to something by forces beyond your control, e.g. information you didn't have access to at the time, in which case your commitment was premature.

...Tentative belief is the best we can aim for if we want to keep our options open to new information and new insights that we can't at present foresee.

As always from you, a very thoughtful and thought-provoking post.

I think that's one of the best descriptions I've ever seen of what I refer to as terraces of belief.

I guess what you describe as "tentative belief" is where I am. And I am there because of my observations of people who are in "full acceptance; belief", as you put it. It's helpful for me to put it in human terms.

There's at least one poster on this forum that simply oozes that "full acceptance" of Buddhism. And, that's not a criticism.

But, I know so very well through a very close working relationship, but also a close personal friendship, a born-again-Christian, who simply oozes that "full acceptance" of Christianity.

But, I also have known in the past at least one Muslim who simply oozes that "full acceptance" of Islam.

Just within that group of 3 people, either 2 of the 3, or all 3 are wrong.

Or, there is one other possibility -- that a higher form sent multiple teachers to spread "the truth", and there I go back to what Anwar Sadat said about Christianity versus Islam: that there are more similarities between the two religions than there are differences, but that it is man who accentuates the differences. This issue is also addressed frequently by the Dalai Lama, who often writes and speaks about the similarities of the world's great religions (for example on his official website). What I am saying is that there may be various paths to...well, to what I'm not quite sure...to our destination. But you know, that's a fundamental problem, too -- we don't really know (I'll put the know in caps -- KNOW) what the ultimate destination is.

But there's something I do know. A person who identifies with Buddhism that follows the Eightfold Path to a very high degree will lead a moral life that benefits mankind. A person who identifies with Islam that follows true Islamic principles to a very high degree will lead a moral life that benefits mankind. A person who identifies with Christianity that follows the Ten Commandments and the known teachings of Christ* to a very high degree will lead a moral life that benefits mankind.

* Interesting to contemplate, for example, the effort by Thomas Jefferson to extract the doctrine of Jesus by removing sections of the New Testament containing supernatural aspects as well as perceived misinterpretations he believed had been added by evangelists.

[sabaijai]

Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?

The Buddha referred to his teachings simply as Dhamma-vinaya -- "the doctrine and discipline" -- but for centuries people have tried to categorize the teachings in various ways, trying to fit them into the prevailing molds of cultural, philosophical, and religious thought. Buddhism is an ethical system -- a way of life -- that leads to a very specific goal and that possesses some aspects of both religion and philosophy:

It is a philosophy.

Like most philosophies, Buddhism attempts to frame the complexities of human existence in a way that reassures us that there is, in fact, some underlying order to the Universe. In the Four Noble Truths the Buddha crisply summarizes our predicament: there is suffering, it has a cause, it has an end, and there is a way to reach the end. The teachings on kamma provide a thorough and logically self-consistent description of the nature of cause-and-effect. And even the Buddhist view of cosmology, which some may at first find farfetched, is a logical extension of the law of kamma. According to the Dhamma, a deep and unshakable logic pervades the world.

It is not a philosophy.

Unlike most philosophical systems, which rely on speculation and the power of reason to arrive at certain kinds of logical truths, Buddhism relies on the direct observation of one's personal experience and on honing certain skills in order to gain true understanding and wisdom. Idle speculation has no place in Buddhist practice. Although studying in the classroom, reading books, and engaging in spirited debate can play a vital part in developing a cognitive understanding of basic Buddhist concepts, the heart of Buddhism can never be realized this way. The Dhamma is not an abstract system of thought designed to delight the intellect; it is a roadmap to be used, one whose essential purpose is to lead the practitioner to the ultimate goal, nibbana.

It is a religion.

At the heart of each of the world's great religions lies a transcendent ideal around which its doctrinal principles orbit. In Buddhism this truth is nibbana, the hallmark of the cessation of suffering and stress, a truth of utter transcendence that stands in singular distinction from anything we might encounter in our ordinary sensory experience. Nibbana is the sine qua non of Buddhism, the guiding star and ultimate goal towards which all the Buddha's teachings point. Because it aims at such a lofty transcendent ideal, we might fairly call Buddhism a religion.

It is not a religion.

In stark contrast to the world's other major religions, however, Buddhism invokes no divinity, no supreme Creator or supreme Self, no Holy Spirit or omniscient loving God to whom we might appeal for salvation.[1] Instead, Buddhism calls for us to hoist ourselves up by our own bootstraps: to develop the discernment we need to distinguish between those qualities within us that are unwholesome and those that are truly noble and good, and to learn how to nourish the good ones and expunge the bad. This is the path to Buddhism's highest perfection, nibbana. Not even the Buddha can take you to that goal; you alone must do the work necessary to complete the journey:

"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge." [DN 16]

Despite its non-theistic nature, however, Buddhist practice does call for a certain kind of faith. It is not blind faith, an uncritical acceptance of the Buddha's word as transmitted through scripture. Instead it is saddha, a confidence born of taking refuge in the Triple Gem; it is a willingness to trust that the Dhamma, when practiced diligently, will lead to the rewards promised by the Buddha. Saddha is a provisional acceptance of the teachings, that is ever subject to critical evaluation during the course of one's practice, and which must be balanced by one's growing powers of discernment. For many Buddhists, this faith is expressed and reinforced through traditional devotional practices, such as bowing before a Buddha statue and reciting passages from the early Pali texts. Despite a superficial resemblance to the rites of many theistic religions, however, these activities are neither prayers nor pleas for salvation directed towards a transcendent Other. They are instead useful and inspiring gestures of humility and respect for the profound nobility and worth of the Triple Gem.

from http://www.accesstoinsight.org/bfaq.html#neither-and-both

[IMA_FARANG]

This topic has been debated over and over on various Buddhist chat forums. I guess you could say opinions are about 50/50 whether the answer is yes or no.

Some people say NO...because it doesn't have a "God" figure. And then Buddha was a human not a "God".

Other people say YES...because it provides a structure for their lives and moral choices... just like a religion.

I guess it is a lot on how you see it ...is the glass half empty or half full?

I do think it is worth argueing about...either way it is the same thing for me.

[phetaroi]

This topic has been debated over and over on various Buddhist chat forums. I guess you could say opinions are about 50/50 whether the answer is yes or no.

Some people say NO...because it doesn't have a "God" figure. And then Buddha was a human not a "God".

Other people say YES...because it provides a structure for their lives and moral choices... just like a religion.

I guess it is a lot on how you see it ...is the glass half empty or half full?

I do think it is worth argueing about...either way it is the same thing for me.

I think the reason it is worth debating is because the debate allows each of us to focus our thoughts and beliefs further.

[rockyysdt]

I think the reason it is worth debating is because the debate allows each of us to focus our thoughts and beliefs further.

Definitely worth discussing.

I like to learn others views & to iron out any of my misconceptions.

Although one thing worth noting is that often our beliefs get in the road.

[sabaijai]

Obviously the fact the question is bounced around so much is because Buddhism is in many respects less like a religion than other world religions.

I think for most folks committed to a Buddhist path, it matters little or nothing either way. One question that crosses my mind whenever someone appears to be so compelled to make it one or the other, is why they're so impassioned.

[phetaroi]

Obviously the fact the question is bounced around so much is because Buddhism is in many respects less like a religion than other world religions.

I think for most folks committed to a Buddhist path, it matters little or nothing either way. One question that crosses my mind whenever someone appears to be so compelled to make it one or the other, is why they're so impassioned.

I'm not sure I agree too much with your first point. I really think that there are two Buddhisms operating -- the Buddhism within each individual as they move along the path, and what I'll call public Buddhism (the temples, the rituals, the Buddha images and relics, and so forth. On the one hand, as one monk discussed with me several years ago, you don't need the temples or the rituals or Buddha images...everything you need for Buddhism is in your mind. Although, on the other hand, if there were no public Buddhism, if people were not attracted to the temples and the Buddha images, few (if any) of us would even be aware of Buddhism.

The point where I disagree with you -- to a degree -- is that (for example), being a Christian does not require church attendance or statues of Christ being crucified, or the Turin shroud, or any of the rest of public Christianity. Everything one needs to follow Christ's teachings is in their mind, also. There is, of course, more of an emphasis on congregation, but that is not required to follow the teachings.

In terms of your second point, I guess for me I would examine one of your phrases for the answer -- the difference between "a Buddhist path" and "the Buddhist path". From the very beginning of my forays into Buddhism, both in reading and in talking with a few monks, I was taught that I did not have to accept everything, but that I should keep my mind open to everything, accept what principles of Buddhism that I could, and begin walking down the path. As to why such people are so impassioned...many of the people who truly think about Buddhism were not born into Buddhism, and -- at least in the Catholic world -- it is often accepted that a new convert is often the most fervent.

[eggomaniac]

Born Again Christians have responded to me in a similar way.

Some say theirs is not a religion but the truth.

Their definition of religion is of beliefs which are false.

To me Buddhism can either be practiced as a religion or as the Buddha intended it to be practiced.

Those who follow Buddhism as a custom with all its deviations & beliefs whether provable or not are following a religion.

Many don't have the will or motivation to work towards their advancement, preferring the easy path of belief. Some even idolize the Buddha as if a God. It's way to easy to just believe & leave it to someone else to gift you heavenly salvation.

The other way of practicing Buddhism is to regularly perform the exercises the Buddha taught as well as leading a charitable, virtuous & selfless life.

By doing so, without the need to dwell in esoteric matters such as belief, re birth, realms, khamma & such, one can actually take control & realize improvements in ones existing life & become receptive to profound experience.

I wouldn't describe daily practice of self awareness, single pointed concentration, & a selfless lifestyle with an open mind a religion.

Well, I, also, think of meditation as more akin an athletic event, and that is the way I teach it. I don't even have to know if the person 'has' a religion. That does not mean meditation cannot be linked to prayer, if suited. [btw My latest revelation is that prayer is listening, not talking.] Prayer and codes of conduct are the aspects of Buddhism wherein I am calling it a religion. The hundreds year old books I am reading, there is a whole lot of prayer going on with Buddhists. [wait for it, who will be the first to say Buddhists don't actually pray it's, wot?] ?hope I am joking, I am joking, right? Buddhists do pray, yikes?

Solve the mystery of what is, or not, a religion AND fund USA health care all in one obscure forum.

This one really should come down from the mountain. All the 'so called' religions can now give up their tax excempt 'religious' status! how do you say ergo in Thai, bingo?

---------

"depends on one's definition of religion"

I LIKE the/a definintion of 'religion', it's way up in the OP, so I will paraphrase. > An organized group of practioners/adherents seeking other worldly answers beyond their temporal self. < Would any Buddhist, or Christian run away from that, especially when they keep their tax free status and big cars and big houses?

Religions not being religions is the flavor of the month, in my humble opinion, a clinging to self.

[phetaroi]

...who will be the first to say Buddhists don't actually pray it's, wot?] ?hope I am joking, I am joking, right? Buddhists do pray, yikes?

Interestingly, TV dot com is reporting elsewhere in the forum that today: "Buddhists hold mass prayers at Emerald Buddha temple, pray for peace to return to Thailand".

[eggomaniac]

Obviously the fact the question is bounced around so much is because Buddhism is in many respects less like a religion than other world religions.

I think for most folks committed to a Buddhist path, it matters little or nothing either way. One question that crosses my mind whenever someone appears to be so compelled to make it one or the other, is why they're so impassioned.

EGGsactly, if someone is exploring a question, mystery, of Buddhism, for example, talking about how some of moral codes coincide with Judea Christian religions, or whether Thai men still, customarily, spend times as monks, what learned purpose is ascribed to throwing the grammar police hand cuffs on the discussion,[sorry did I say religion back there]?

Here is something written from 160 years ago. It is so well written, and, possibly translated from French, that it would give even the most advanced sophist a double take before they could run the ideas into the ditch on word meanings.

http://books.google.com/books?pg=RA1-PA203...amp;output=text

"The most important element of the Buddhist reform has always been its social and moral code, not its metaphysical theories. That moral code, taken by itself, is one of the most perfect which the world has ever known. On this point all testimonies from hostile and friendly quarters agree. Spence Hardy, a Wesleyan missionary, speaking of the Dhamma Padam, or the ' Footsteps of the Law,' admits that a collection might be made from the precepts of this work, which in the purity of its ethics could hardly be equaled from any other heathen author. M. Labnulaye, one of the most distinguished members of the French Academy, remarks in the ' Dehats' of the 4th of April, 1853: ' It is difficult to comprehend how men [sic a man] not assisted by revelation could have soared so high, and approached so near the truth.' Besides the five great commandments not to kill, not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to lie, not to get drunk, every shade of vice, hypocrisy, anger, pride, suspicion, greediness, gossiping, cruelty to animals, is guarded against by special precepts. Among the virtues recommended we find not only reverence of parents, care for children, submission to authority, gratitude, moderation in time of prosperity, submission in time of trial, equanimity at all times, but virtues unknown in any heathen system of morality, such as the duty of forgiving insults and not rewarding evil with evil.

All virtues, we are told, spring from Maitri, and this Maitri can only be translated by charity and love. 'I do not hesitate,' says Burnouf,'to translate by charity the word Maitri, which does not express friendship or the feeling of particular affection which a man has for one or more of his fellow-creatures, ***but that universal feeling which inspires us with goodwill towards all men and constant willingness to help them.' We add one more testimony from the work of M. Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire:—' Je n'hesite pas a ajouter,' be writes, 'que, 8auf le Christ tout seul, il n'est point, parmi les fondaUurs de religion, de figure plus pure ni plus touchante que celle do Bouddha."

***This is similar to 'The Golden Rule' in the Bible.

[xenophanes]

My Thai doctor at the Ram fascinated me. He said that Buddhism was not a religion but a philosophy and that its practise was a science.

[rockyysdt]

[btw My latest revelation is that prayer is listening, not talking.]

Precisely.

And the Buddhas techniques lead to acute listening.

Edited April 25, 2010 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

"The most important element of the Buddhist reform has always been its social and moral code, not its metaphysical theories. That moral code, taken by itself, is one of the most perfect which the world has ever known. On this point all testimonies from hostile and friendly quarters agree. Spence Hardy, a Wesleyan missionary, speaking of the Dhamma Padam, or the ' Footsteps of the Law,' admits that a collection might be made from the precepts of this work, which in the purity of its ethics could hardly be equaled from any other heathen author. M. Labnulaye, one of the most distinguished members of the French Academy, remarks in the ' Dehats' of the 4th of April, 1853: ' It is difficult to comprehend how men [sic a man] not assisted by revelation could have soared so high, and approached so near the truth.' Besides the five great commandments not to kill, not to steal, not to commit adultery, not to lie, not to get drunk, every shade of vice, hypocrisy, anger, pride, suspicion, greediness, gossiping, cruelty to animals, is guarded against by special precepts. Among the virtues recommended we find not only reverence of parents, care for children, submission to authority, gratitude, moderation in time of prosperity, submission in time of trial, equanimity at all times, but virtues unknown in any heathen system of morality, such as the duty of forgiving insults and not rewarding evil with evil.

All virtues, we are told, spring from Maitri, and this Maitri can only be translated by charity and love. 'I do not hesitate,' says Burnouf,'to translate by charity the word Maitri, which does not express friendship or the feeling of particular affection which a man has for one or more of his fellow-creatures, ***but that universal feeling which inspires us with goodwill towards all men and constant willingness to help them.' We add one more testimony from the work of M. Barthelemy Saint-Hilaire:—' Je n'hesite pas a ajouter,' be writes, 'que, 8auf le Christ tout seul, il n'est point, parmi les fondaUurs de religion, de figure plus pure ni plus touchante que celle do Bouddha."

Sadly those who are drawn to true practice & stick with it are few.

The fruit of mankind's behavior is there to see.

http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldClock.php

Edited April 25, 2010 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Sadly those who are drawn to true practice & stick with it are few.

The fruit of mankind's behavior is there to see.

http://www.peterrussell.com/Odds/WorldClock.php

A really interesting site. Thank you.

[seedy]

I think there is a real danger - both to yourself and to society at large - in fanaticism.

Total surrender to any set of beliefs I believe is dangerous.

Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim".

According to Winston Churchill, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".

[phetaroi]

I think there is a real danger - both to yourself and to society at large - in fanaticism.

Total surrender to any set of beliefs I believe is dangerous.

Philosopher George Santayana defines fanaticism as "redoubling your effort when you have forgotten your aim".

According to Winston Churchill, "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject".

None of us, I'm sure, knows exactly who you're referring to, but I will respond by simply saying that believing in Buddhist (or Christian or Muslim) principles does not necessarily mean that one is closed minded about such things. And further, having no beliefs or principles may very well be as dangerous -- and stupid -- than having beliefs or principles that are set in concrete. Since you like quoting people, "A man who stands for nothing will fall for anything" (Malcolm X). Or how about "Dubby dubby doo, doo doo doo dee dah" (Frank Sinatra).

[eggomaniac]

I have found a Solution! In all the readings I am doing about Buddhism, some of it from hundreds of years ago, by great Buddhists [can I call them 'scholars'? {probably not, eh}]; every time, and often they call Buddhism a 'religion', I close my eyes and 'vision' philosphy and move on.

[phetaroi]

I have found a Solution! In all the readings I am doing about Buddhism, some of it from hundreds of years ago, by great Buddhists [can I call them 'scholars'? {probably not, eh}]; every time, and often they call Buddhism a 'religion', I close my eyes and 'vision' philosphy and move on.

I think that's an acceptable approach depending on how one sees the importance of the debate. And, in my readings, I see that many do and many don't see it as an important debate.

The reason I think that it is important is that I think it is central to defining what it means to say "I am a Buddhist" (or conversely, "you are not a true Buddhist").

In one's own personal practice, it is sort of irrelevant. But then again, if each of us on this forum were only interested in our own personal practice, we probably wouldn't be in a discussion forum.