Buddhism Is A Religion

[camerata]

every time, and often they call Buddhism a 'religion', I close my eyes and 'vision' philosphy and move on.

I think it depends on your own definition of the word "religion" (there are many definitions) and the way you practise it. If your definition is "believing in a Creator God" it isn't a religion. If it is "believing in something supernatural" it probably is a religion for most, but not all, practitioners. If it is "believing in some external force that can intervene in worldly affairs" Mahayana would probably qualify as a religion but Theravada wouldn't.

Anyway, what does it really matter? I think it just bugs some Western Buddhists because they don't like the sound of the word "religion." The way I practise, it is applied psychology, but when I have to state my "religion" on an official form I don't have any problem writing "Buddhist."

[xenophanes]

To label Buddhism as a religion is merely a convenience. All religions demand 'faith' which I understand is not required in Buddhism. The Buddha provided tools to discover truths for the individual and does not involve having to accept abstract deities.

[buddy]

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 class Buddhism as a belief system, which is more benign than Mono-Theistic Religions.

[lungmi]

Religion means: religio (latin) - I attach myself to.....

Buddhism is only in one understanding a religion: I attach myself to wisdom (pannya). I don't need to "believe" in a God, a Buddha, Allah etc.

I have faith and confidence in the Teaching of the Buddha because he teaches me the Dhamma, the Law of Nature and I have the freedom to check it out.

Everyone can discover the Truth in his own religion when he has wisdom. He will see that Dhamma, Tao, God, Allah etc. are the same-

[bangon04]

Buddhist teaching as a Belief System has a sublime message, as do other major Belief Systems in the world.

However the creation by humans of an organised religion around any Belief System must inevitably debase the purity of the message, as the message is hjacked by special interest groups.

In Thailand, the Sangha Therevada Corporation has reduced the public practice of this belief system to a money-making, face-making "religion" controlled by politics and social hierarchy.

The positive thing about Buddhism is that at least it does not advocate the mass slaughter of non-believers, which is something most other religious movements have done at various periods in history. Be grateful for small mercies.....

[eggomaniac]

Buddhist teaching as a Belief System has a sublime message, as do other major Belief Systems in the world.

However the creation by humans of an organised religion around any Belief System must inevitably debase the purity of the message, as the message is hjacked by special interest groups.

In Thailand, the Sangha Therevada Corporation has reduced the public practice of this belief system to a money-making, face-making "religion" controlled by politics and social hierarchy.

The positive thing about Buddhism is that at least it does not advocate the mass slaughter of non-believers, which is something most other religious movements have done at various periods in history. Be grateful for small mercies.....

<< Oh? you wanna look that one up on Google and we're talking millions and millions, wiping out other religions and other sects.

[bangon04]

Buddhist teaching as a Belief System has a sublime message, as do other major Belief Systems in the world.

However the creation by humans of an organised religion around any Belief System must inevitably debase the purity of the message, as the message is hjacked by special interest groups.

In Thailand, the Sangha Therevada Corporation has reduced the public practice of this belief system to a money-making, face-making "religion" controlled by politics and social hierarchy.

The positive thing about Buddhism is that at least it does not advocate the mass slaughter of non-believers, which is something most other religious movements have done at various periods in history. Be grateful for small mercies.....

<< Oh? you wanna look that one up on Google and we're talking millions and millions, wiping out other religions and other sects.

I think the key word was "advocate". Humans will find an excuse to slaughter each other any time they feel like it. At least it is not official Buddhist policy.

[lungmi]

Buddhism is n o t a belief system. Ignorant people believe. They have the right to stay ignorant. Dukkha follows.

[lungmi]

I didn't understand Einstein before as student in Germany - zero mathematics, zero physics.

My years in Thailand to study Tan Adjarn Buddhadasa and more the Buddhadamma of Tan Dhammapitaka (P.Payutto) gave me the conviction to see the connection, the nexus.

---------

If there is any religion that would cope with modern scientific needs it would be Buddhism. -Albert Einstein

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual; and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. -Albert Einstein

A human being is part of the whole, called by us 'Universe'; a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest--a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and affection for a few persons nearest us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely but striving for such achievement is, in itself, a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.

-Albert Einstein

The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed. -Albert Einstein

----

The 'Universe' =Dhamma, Tao

[camerata]

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual; and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. -Albert Einstein

Interestingly, this specific quote and its variant have never been sourced to anything Einstein said or wrote. It seems someone made it up.

[lungmi]

Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future: It transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural and spiritual; and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. -Albert Einstein

Interestingly, this specific quote and its variant have never been sourced to anything Einstein said or wrote. It seems someone made it up.

I agree, but it's coherent.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Albert_Einste...bild_.281931.29

"Mein Weltbild" stays in Germany, I never thought I would need it in Thailand.

[lungmi]

I hear Tan Adjahn Buddhadasa:

"The true value of a human being is determined primarily by the measure and the sense in which he has attained liberation from the self." Quoted in the book, "Essential Einstein," originally from Mein Weltbild, 1934.

[buddy]

Buddhism is n o t a belief system. Ignorant people believe. They have the right to stay ignorant. Dukkha follows.

In my ignorant state can I ask what you consider Buddhism is?

[lungmi]

Buddhism is n o t a belief system. Ignorant people believe. They have the right to stay ignorant. Dukkha follows.

In my ignorant state can I ask what you consider Buddhism is?

In my ignorant state I cannot say what Buddhism is. I just use my freedom to check it out, and it's a long way. For the moment I only can say what Buddhism is not.

From Kalama Sutta, Help! (Tan Buddhadasa)

10. Ma samanฺo no garu ti: do not believe just because the samanฺa or preacher, the speaker, is "our teacher." The Buddha's purpose regarding this important point is that no one should be the intellectual slave of someone else, not even of the Buddha himself. The Buddha emphasized this point often, and there were disciples, such as the venerable Sariputta, who confirmed this practice. They did not believe the Buddha's words immediately upon hearing them, but believed only after adequately considering the advice and putting it to the test of practice. See for yourselves whether there is any other religious teacher in the world who has given this highest freedom to his disciples and audiences! Thus in Buddhism there is no dogmatic system, there is no pressure to believe without the right to examine and decide for oneself. This is the greatest special quality of Buddhism which keeps its practitioners from being the intellectual slaves of anyone, as explained above. We Thais should not volunteer to follow the West as slavishly as we are doing now. Intellectual and spiritual freedom is best.

The Teaching of the Buddha is based on his studies of the Dhamma (Law of Nature).

The teaching of a teacher of mathematics is based on his studies. Don't believe him immediately.

[phetaroi]

Thus in Buddhism there is no dogmatic system, there is no pressure to believe without the right to examine and decide for oneself. This is the greatest special quality of Buddhism which keeps its practitioners from being the intellectual slaves of anyone, as explained above. We Thais should not volunteer to follow the West as slavishly as we are doing now. Intellectual and spiritual freedom is best.

There is actually great pressure to believe what the majority of Buddhists are supposed to believe. The difference may be that it is not official pressure, but rather the pressure of the community, which often shows through in this forum.

I fail to see what following the west has to do with this topic.

[Xangsamhua]

There is actually great pressure to believe what the majority of Buddhists are supposed to believe. The difference may be that it is not official pressure, but rather the pressure of the community, which often shows through in this forum.

If people are putting pressure on us to believe what they believe, can't we just walk away from them? Perhaps, Thai-style, wai and smile first, then walk away. If a community (sangha) is putting this pressure on us, surely it's time to find a better sangha.

I don't think of this forum as a sangha, though it can be, and often is, supportive - at least in helping us to clarify our understandings. Some forum members may be firmer in their beliefs than others, but I don't think I've seen anyone anathematized yet. :-)

Edited May 11, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[lungmi]

Thus in Buddhism there is no dogmatic system, there is no pressure to believe without the right to examine and decide for oneself. This is the greatest special quality of Buddhism which keeps its practitioners from being the intellectual slaves of anyone, as explained above. We Thais should not volunteer to follow the West as slavishly as we are doing now. Intellectual and spiritual freedom is best.

There is actually great pressure to believe what the majority of Buddhists are supposed to believe. The difference may be that it is not official pressure, but rather the pressure of the community, which often shows through in this forum.

I fail to see what following the west has to do with this topic.

Tan Buddhadasa means "Consumerism"

[lungmi]

An analysis of actual Buddhism in Thailand.

http://www.buddhistethics.org/15/parnwell-seeger-article.pdf

[phetaroi]

If people are putting pressure on us to believe what they believe, can't we just walk away from them? Perhaps, Thai-style, wai and smile first, then walk away. ...

I don't think of this forum as a sangha, though it can be, and often is, supportive - at least in helping us to clarify our understandings. Some forum members may be firmer in their beliefs than others, but I don't think I've seen anyone anathematized yet. :-)

Of course anyone can walk away from any level of religious dogma or institutionalism. That is true in most religions in today's world...as many of us know from our own experiences. The greater shame is when some might not walk toward a religion or philosophy because of dogma or institutionalism.

[proto]

To me "Buddhism" is a convenient frame of reference. It is quite nice to have contemplation places scattered around, with only a few hundred meters between them, and noone lifting an eye when you enter and kneel down or squat for doing your 'thing".

[MrE]

Wouldn't any religion's "status" as a religion, philosophy, psychology or way of life only really be correctly interpreted and labeled by those who practice it?

[phetaroi]

Wouldn't any religion's "status" as a religion, philosophy, psychology or way of life only really be correctly interpreted and labeled by those who practice it?

Logically, of course. And yet there is the ongoing debate (not just here in this forum) about whether it is a religion or a philosophy. And I think there's really only one concern that brings -- how the religion/philosophy is perceived by others.

Let me give you a real example...me. I may not be at all representative.

I began thinking about Buddhism during my first 3 yearly trips here in 1987, 1988, and 1989. By that 1989 trip I began labeling myself as a Buddhist, when asked.

I'm glad this forum wasn't around then. Even though there are many wonderful posters within our forum, I think the dogma with which some speak would have turned me off, from the perspective that some people on here say the same things as fundamentalist Christians...just fill in the blank (of which religion) differently.

As someone who has thought more about Buddhism, and practiced some level of it (although far from what many in the group have), now when I read posts here that have that fundamentalist dogma view, I am better able to shrug it off and say to myself that what they believe is not what I believe...and that's oaky.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Vince.

What were some of the topics pursued in a fundamentalist way?

[Xangsamhua]

Wouldn't any religion's "status" as a religion, philosophy, psychology or way of life only really be correctly interpreted and labeled by those who practice it?

My understanding is that the term “religion” is a marker used by followers of certain teachings and practices to identify themselves in distinction from followers of other teachings and practices. Or it could be used to refer to others' teachings and practices in order to distinguish them as different from ours. (Or a third person could use the term to distinguish between followers of different, teachers, teachings and practices). If there were no others, or one was unaware of them, or they were not using this term, we would not use it. We would follow a master’s “teaching” or “way” and identify our fellow-followers/practitioners accordingly.

The Buddha did not speak of founding a religion. He taught a way to enlightenment and cessation based on his own experience and insights. He and his followers did not speak of the followers of Nigantha, Purana, Makkhali etc as followers of a religion, but as disciples of a teacher. However, the early concept of “religion” as a set of rules by which the disciple is bound to the teacher and his community was present and the Buddha developed and clarified these rules over his lifetime. They applied to the monastic Sangha (the community bound by these rules) and they were/are referred to as Vinaya. This understanding of “religion” survives in Roman Catholic discourse in reference to non-ordained members of religious orders (people referred to as “religious”, as distinct from clergy or lay people).

So Buddhism can be defined as a religion to the extent that it has a sangha and a vinaya, informed by the Buddha’s teachings. Monastics are clearly “religious” in the sense that they abide by the rules of their sangha and their membership of it is conditional on their obedience at least to the major rules, to the extent that monastic leaders enforce them.

But laypeople in Buddhism are under no obligation to follow rules other than the protocols that apply to behaviour in the temple, towards monks, etc, though these tend to be social conventions rather than religious obligations. Even the five precepts are widely honoured in the breach by Buddhist laypeople, though they clearly identify themselves publicly as Buddhist and think of themselves privately in this way also. However, they would probably acknowledge that their non-conforming practices are at least formally in conflict with the core rules of the Buddhist religion.

Does this mean that “religion” is something identified only with professed monks and nuns and obedient lay folks? If so, is the whisky-drinking layman who has recently cheated on both his tax return and his wife telling a further lie in writing “Buddhist” on forms that ask for religious affiliation? Probably not, if we accept the term “religion” as a very loose marker of collective identity rather than a term that denotes people who follow certain rules. If we think of “religion” as an objectifying, or etic term (i.e. referring to a system viewed from outside) rather than one that describes any individual’s belief-system and intended life-practices, then Buddhism is a religion and our whisky-drinking cheating friend is a Buddhist as long as he identifies himself as such.

Edited May 18, 2010 by Xangsamhua

[rockyysdt]

..Does this mean that “religion” is something identified only with professed monks and nuns and obedient lay folks? If so, is the whisky-drinking layman who has recently cheated on both his tax return and his wife telling a further lie in writing “Buddhist” on forms that ask for religious affiliation? Probably not, if we accept the term “religion” as a very loose marker of collective identity rather than a term that denotes people who follow certain rules. If we think of “religion” as an objectifying, or etic term (i.e. referring to a system viewed from outside) rather than one that describes any individual’s belief-system and intended life-practices, then Buddhism is a religion and our whisky-drinking cheating friend is a Buddhist as long as he identifies himself as such.

Would you say that those who refer to themselves as being Buddhist, but generally don't uphold precepts & don't practice mindfulness nor concentration as the Buddha taught, are pandering to their ego?

[phetaroi]

Hi Vince.

What were some of the topics pursued in a fundamentalist way?

Paraphrased: "Buddhism is the one real truth" or "Everything written in the Dhamma are the words of Buddha and they are the only perfect truth" are two examples.

[Xangsamhua]

..Does this mean that “religion” is something identified only with professed monks and nuns and obedient lay folks? If so, is the whisky-drinking layman who has recently cheated on both his tax return and his wife telling a further lie in writing “Buddhist” on forms that ask for religious affiliation? Probably not, if we accept the term “religion” as a very loose marker of collective identity rather than a term that denotes people who follow certain rules. If we think of “religion” as an objectifying, or etic term (i.e. referring to a system viewed from outside) rather than one that describes any individual’s belief-system and intended life-practices, then Buddhism is a religion and our whisky-drinking cheating friend is a Buddhist as long as he identifies himself as such.

Would you say that those who refer to themselves as being Buddhist, but generally don't uphold precepts & don't practice mindfulness nor concentration as the Buddha taught, are pandering to their ego?

I'm not very good at Freud, but perhaps religious identification of the kind above is sourced in the border regions of ego and id. It's not basal, not instinctive; it requires a cognitive decision, but it may not be a well-structured, rational one. It regresses to the childlike stage of ego development that emerges from the id, but it's more psychic than appetitive. It comes from the need to have an identity, and religious identity may be part of the identity-package we get from our family and community.

If a person found that the religious component of this package conflicts with his/her conscience (super-ego) , rejection of that component would be seen as a form of psychic advancement. However, one may not be entirely free to reject it. Community pressure may require a person to live and speak as though he subscribed to the religion's beliefs, and even private internal rejection may be difficult for one who is dependent, uneducated and vulnerable. For the latter it's not really a matter of ego, as they haven't the choices to be egoistic.

It's also quite possible that a slack Buddhist or Catholic or whatever may still regard his religion's standards as ideal, but hasn't the self-discipline to practice them just now. As St Augustine said: "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet!" Yes, I'd say these people are putting ego first. Many saints, at least of the Christian variety, have had a lot of trouble overcoming ego. Augustine is a good example and that is why his "Confessions" have continued to sell well for the past 1600 years. We identify with his struggle.

[eggomaniac]

..Does this mean that "religion" is something identified only with professed monks and nuns and obedient lay folks? If so, is the whisky-drinking layman who has recently cheated on both his tax return and his wife telling a further lie in writing "Buddhist" on forms that ask for religious affiliation? Probably not, if we accept the term "religion" as a very loose marker of collective identity rather than a term that denotes people who follow certain rules. If we think of "religion" as an objectifying, or etic term (i.e. referring to a system viewed from outside) rather than one that describes any individual's belief-system and intended life-practices, then Buddhism is a religion and our whisky-drinking cheating friend is a Buddhist as long as he identifies himself as such.

Would you say that those who refer to themselves as being Buddhist, but generally don't uphold precepts & don't practice mindfulness nor concentration as the Buddha taught, are pandering to their ego?

I'm not very good at Freud, but perhaps religious identification of the kind above is sourced in the border regions of ego and id. It's not basal, not instinctive; it requires a cognitive decision, but it may not be a well-structured, rational one. It regresses to the childlike stage of ego development that emerges from the id, but it's more psychic than appetitive. It comes from the need to have an identity, and religious identity may be part of the identity-package we get from our family and community.

If a person found that the religious component of this package conflicts with his/her conscience (super-ego) , rejection of that component would be seen as a form of psychic advancement. However, one may not be entirely free to reject it. Community pressure may require a person to live and speak as though he subscribed to the religion's beliefs, and even private internal rejection may be difficult for one who is dependent, uneducated and vulnerable. For the latter it's not really a matter of ego, as they haven't the choices to be egoistic.

It's also quite possible that a slack Buddhist or Catholic or whatever may still regard his religion's standards as ideal, but hasn't the self-discipline to practice them just now. As St Augustine said: "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet!" Yes, I'd say these people are putting ego first. Many saints, at least of the Christian variety, have had a lot of trouble overcoming ego. Augustine is a good example and that is why his "Confessions" have continued to sell well for the past 1600 years. We identify with his struggle.

not very good at Freud? pretty good at Xang!

----------

Let's not forget one of the published definitions of 'religion', an organized group contrived to assist its followers seek transcendence beyond one's self.

<< nails Buddhism, eh?---------

It's a tad hilarious that 'religion' woo ooh is now a 'dirty' word. too many 'holy' wars, what?

[Xangsamhua]

Let's not forget one of the published definitions of 'religion', an organized group contrived to assist its followers seek transcendence beyond one's self.

<< nails Buddhism, eh?---------

It's a tad hilarious that 'religion' woo ooh is now a 'dirty' word. too many 'holy' wars, what?

It does seem quite an applicable definition for Buddhism. "organized ... to assist ... to seek ... beyond ..." However, is nirvana "beyond" or "outside" in the traditional sense of "transcendence", or is it simply the ultimate dimension accessible within the everyday dimension? That is, can we attain nirvana while in the everyday?

To be fully aware of the cosmos in a flower, or in the breath, is that transcendence or simply deep insight, being fully "awake" as the Buddha was, " awake to the infinite spiritual potential of each and every moment"? (http://www.purifymind.com/StepsBuddha.htm)

I think Buddhism is better described as "an organized group contrived to assist its followers to be fully awake", but that might be confusing to the general public.

[phetaroi]

I'm not very good at Freud, but perhaps religious identification of the kind above is sourced in the border regions of ego and id. It's not basal, not instinctive; it requires a cognitive decision, but it may not be a well-structured, rational one. It regresses to the childlike stage of ego development that emerges from the id, but it's more psychic than appetitive. It comes from the need to have an identity, and religious identity may be part of the identity-package we get from our family and community.

If a person found that the religious component of this package conflicts with his/her conscience (super-ego) , rejection of that component would be seen as a form of psychic advancement. However, one may not be entirely free to reject it. Community pressure may require a person to live and speak as though he subscribed to the religion's beliefs, and even private internal rejection may be difficult for one who is dependent, uneducated and vulnerable. For the latter it's not really a matter of ego, as they haven't the choices to be egoistic.

It's also quite possible that a slack Buddhist or Catholic or whatever may still regard his religion's standards as ideal, but hasn't the self-discipline to practice them just now. As St Augustine said: "Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet!" Yes, I'd say these people are putting ego first. Many saints, at least of the Christian variety, have had a lot of trouble overcoming ego. Augustine is a good example and that is why his "Confessions" have continued to sell well for the past 1600 years. We identify with his struggle.

An excellent post.