Is Buddhism A Religion Or Not?

[leolibby]

When I was a theist, the only reason for my belief was the possibility that I would experience existence beyond death. Simply ceasing to exist seemed unfair, painful and fearful

It seems the crux of religion is the promise of a blissful existence after death: Heaven, afterlife, resurrection etc.

Is nibbana simply the same as heaven? (be flexible with the word promise).

Edited August 15, 2012 by leolibby

[leolibby]

By 'heaven", i mean a blissful existence beyond death--a "goal." That cannot be reached without following the Buddhist path at some point.

Edited August 16, 2012 by leolibby

[camerata]

Is Buddhism a religion? Everything depends on your definition of "religion." Access to Insight has a good article on this:

Is Buddhism a religion or philosophy?

Basically, it can be both.

[GrahamR]

Greetings

Not all religions promise(d) heaven, for example it is quite ambiguous in Greek and Roman religion whether everyone would go to another world, I believe evidence from memorial stones is that most people would simply pass into non existence.

Also in Judaism the concept of heaven and hell is quite debatable.

Graham

Edited August 16, 2012 by GrahamR

[lungmi]

Buddhism is freedom. You want a religion? Buddhism gives you an answer .You want a way of life? Buddhism gives you an answer.

You want a philosophy? Buddhism gives you an answer.

You want science? Buddhism gives you an answer.

Up to you what you do with the answer.

[tpthai2]

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 the 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

[camerata]

Unfortunately, the above is a fake quote that has never been accurately sourced to Einstein. See http://tricycleblog.wordpress.com/2007/10/26/einsteins-quotes-on-buddhism/

[leolibby]

Greetings

Not all religions promise(d) heaven, for example it is quite ambiguous in Greek and Roman religion whether everyone would go to another world, I believe evidence from memorial stones is that most people would simply pass into non existence.

Also in Judaism the concept of heaven and hell is quite debatable.

Graham

I was generalizing. I didn't want to make my question too complicated.

[DrTuner]

The everyday trinketry with statues, alms &co sure does it make look like just another organized religion. But since it's not an aggressive one and does promote goodies such as using your own brain, it's by far not the worst of them.

[leolibby]

The everyday trinketry with statues, alms &co sure does it make look like just another organized religion. But since it's not an aggressive one and does promote goodies such as using your own brain, it's by far not the worst of them.

Clearly, it can be a religion, a phiiosophy, a combination of, etc. But I would think most often it's a religion because many people need a religion.

[cdnvic]

Buddhism is so varied in it's interpretation that there's never going to be a clear answer to this. Look all over Asia and you almost always find it being blended in with local beliefs that put a further twist on it.

[fabianfred]

In answer to the first post... no Nibbana is not like heaven.

Heaven is a cop-out..... what you get if you 'be good' but avoid doing the real practice.

Nibbana is a state which is attained....not a place or realm.

Once attained there is no more rebirth in Samsara, the continual cycle and struggle, so it is an escape from suffering.

No more creating positive or negative karma so no reason to be reborn.

But it does not mean no more existence....however the kind of existence is beyond our capability to understand...until we also reach the same state.

[leolibby]

Buddhism is so varied in it's interpretation that there's never going to be a clear answer to this. Look all over Asia and you almost always find it being blended in with local beliefs that put a further twist on it.

Are Buddhist monasteries in The US taxed?

[tpthai2]

http://tricycleblog....es-on-buddhism/ Interesting discussion regarding the purported Einstein

quote. Ranging from he could of said it, never said it, to he did say it. Axiomatic at best.

[Xangsamhua]

This is what I think.

There are Secular Buddhists, but they are marginal and, I think, found mainly in the West.

Most Buddhists take karma and rebirth seriously. These are metaphysical beliefs, not testable and therefore not scientific.

They may be reasonable beliefs, but to really accept them as personal beliefs requires an act of faith.

For the overwhelming majority of people who describe themselves as Buddhist (not just sympathetic to Buddhism), Buddhism is a faith system, i.e. a religion.

However, unlike Christianity and Islam, Buddhism is not a revealed religion. No outside agency revealed itself to the pre-enlightened Buddha and said "Here's the truth - God's word, you lucky man - go off and teach it". The Buddha was awakened through his own efforts, and those who wish also to be awakened must, by their own efforts, arrive at realization from within, not from answers to prayers.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[leolibby]

This is what I think.

There are Secular Buddhists, but they are marginal and, I think, found mainly in the West.

Most Buddhists take karma and rebirth seriously. These are metaphysical beliefs, not testable and therefore not scientific.

They may be reasonable beliefs, but to really accept them as personal beliefs requires an act of faith.

For the overwhelming majority of people who describe themselves as Buddhist (not just sympathetic to Buddhism), Buddhism is a faith system, i.e. a religion.

Good post. I believe some people think it's scientific... but it's ostensibly not, unless u throw out all the metaphysics (including notions of Nibanna?)

[Jawnie]

Buddhism is not a religion. It is a system of philosophy, psychology, and mental training. The philosophy explains existence from the smallest single event/instance to the largest extent of cosmic time and space. It is a psychology in that it explains the experience and mind of beings, how they work, how they came to be, and how they can cause happiness or misery. It is a system of mental training by which one can know the topics set out in the philosophy and psychology through one's own experience. Buddhism has a religious connotation because it requires qualities of mind such as compassion, faith, devotion, humility, love, etc.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Jawnie

[leolibby]

The philosophy explains existence from the smallest single event/instance to the larges extent of cosmic time and space. It is a psychology in that it explains the experience and mind of beings, how they work, how they came to be, and how they can cause happiness or misery.

I would counter that this is not scientific in the strict sense. It's a good attempt, and it certainly can ring true and bring peace for some. For example, what is meant by suffering? is it physical or mental? I have no issue with sorrow... I feel sorrow and joy are both essential and give meaning to eachother. I have a terminal illness, however, and i would say recently I suffered because of it. I had a plane ticket to the Philippines.. so I took the bus to Seattle (gateway city)... but i didn't go because I experience health issues if I travel...vertigo and stuff.. so I came back. $1200 down-the-drain. Is that suffering? or is suffering an extreme kind of depression... i never have that. I think many people can benefit from some of the meditations.... but there is no way I can believe in karma.

[leolibby]

For example, the "explaining" can be logically sound.. but it still would need evidence to be "scientific." The philosophies of Kant and Nietzsche are not "scientific," i think, but valuable. I suppose there are many things that can't be explored scientifically.

Edited August 17, 2012 by leolibby

[McMagus]

What attracts me to Buddhist thought is the denial of an interventionist God. It requires us to take responsibility for our thoughts and our actions and recognises that those thoughts and actions have power and can and do affect our existence. The concept of taking on a new life seems pretty sensible. I could never reconcile the Christian belief in an omniscient, interventionist God, who loves us, yet presides over the agonising death of say a child and... 'sorry, you only get one shot at this existence and you've had yours'. Yes, yes I know, I have had discussions with learned clergy who, when pressed will say 'It is the will of God and man cannot know the mind of God we need faith'. That kind of unquestioned blind faith does not work for me, but works for millions of others. In that sense, Buddhism seems more rational in that there is a cause / effect relationship. Unfortunately, most major religious constructs have been highjacked by man to meet his own needs, Buddhism included. However, I have yet to be stopped by a Buddhist zealot on the streets of Sydney haranguing me about his faith, so that draws me to its quiet public stance. I like the Tibetan or Mahayana schools (Big Boat) because of the belief in the enlightened being (Bodhisattva) who chooses to return in order to help others. This concept would recognise not only the Buddha, but also Jesus and Mohamed as enlightened Bodhisattvas. The Thai Theravada school or (Small Boat) looks more at looking after one's own enlightenment. Is it a religion? probably.

[leolibby]

omniscient, interventionist God, who loves us, yet presides over the agonising death of say a child and... 'sorry, you only get one shot at this existence and you've had yours'

Yes and the whole idea is inconsistent and makes no sence. why have it so we get 70 or so years here (1 second for still borns), and the rest of eternity in heaven or hell? and why have 2000 religions each with different stories? Gods are mythological, like ghosts and vampires and Tinker Bell.

I don't get the Bodhisattva thing though. Why does a Bodhisattva eventually decide to be a buddha? why not be a Bodhisattva for eternity?

[leolibby]

In answer to the first post... no Nibbana is not like heaven.

Heaven is a cop-out..... what you get if you 'be good' but avoid doing the real practice.

Nibbana is a state which is attained....not a place or realm.

Once attained there is no more rebirth in Samsara, the continual cycle and struggle, so it is an escape from suffering.

No more creating positive or negative karma so no reason to be reborn.

But it does not mean no more existence....however the kind of existence is beyond our capability to understand...until we also reach the same state.

You are relying on your emotional attraction to Nibanna. I know what Nibanna is. I am not asking if it and heaven are similar, I'm asking if it serves as a similar "goal" as heaven.

[McMagus]

omniscient, interventionist God, who loves us, yet presides over the agonising death of say a child and... 'sorry, you only get one shot at this existence and you've had yours'

Yes and the whole idea is inconsistent and makes no sence. why have it so we get 70 or so years here (1 second for still borns), and the rest of eternity in heaven or hell? and why have 2000 religions each with different stories? Gods are mythological, like ghosts and vampires and Tinker Bell.

I don't get the Bodhisattva thing though. Why does a Bodhisattva eventually decide to be a buddha? why not be a Bodhisattva for eternity?

My limited understanding is that we all have the Buddha seed within.. latent if you like and when attaining Buddhahood, the Bodhisattva, through great compassion for all sentient beings will choose to take another life in order to help others achieve Buddhahood., I am thinking that the key element is .. a great compassion for the suffering of others.

[cdnvic]

Buddhism is so varied in it's interpretation that there's never going to be a clear answer to this. Look all over Asia and you almost always find it being blended in with local beliefs that put a further twist on it.

Are Buddhist monasteries in The US taxed?

Don't know but I doubt it. In Canada they aren't.

[khaowong1]

Buddhism is so varied in it's interpretation that there's never going to be a clear answer to this. Look all over Asia and you almost always find it being blended in with local beliefs that put a further twist on it.

Are Buddhist monasteries in The US taxed?

Don't know but I doubt it. In Canada they aren't.

Good question. I live at a Thai Buddhist temple in Phoenix Arizona, we are a non-profit corp. and don't pay taxes, but have to fill IRS forms every year.

I know several small Thai temples around Arizona and California, they probably don't even know about paying taxes so just ignore it and don't file.

[Jawnie]

omniscient, interventionist God, who loves us, yet presides over the agonising death of say a child and... 'sorry, you only get one shot at this existence and you've had yours'

Yes and the whole idea is inconsistent and makes no sence. why have it so we get 70 or so years here (1 second for still borns), and the rest of eternity in heaven or hell? and why have 2000 religions each with different stories? Gods are mythological, like ghosts and vampires and Tinker Bell.

I don't get the Bodhisattva thing though. Why does a Bodhisattva eventually decide to be a buddha? why not be a Bodhisattva for eternity?

This is where it gets a little tricky for us mortals to explain. A bodhisattva is on the path to enlightenment whereas a buddha has attained it. Bodhisattvas can be extremely and highly realized but not yet buddhas. It is said that Jigdral Yeshe Dorje aka Dudjom Rinpoche, (1904-1987) was Sariputra, one of the Buddha's closest disciples, in a previous lifetime. In his lifetime in the 20th century, he was the supreme head the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism and was born already possessing 'vast spiritual realization'. At the age of nine years old, he initiated hundreds of Tibetan monks and lamas into the Rinchen Terzod, the highest teaching of the Nyingmas - it's a ceremony which requires weeks in order to complete with Dudjom Rinpoche directing and performing it, again, at the age of nine.

The point is that bodhisattvas chose to remain as such (and this is where I don't really understand the difference) rather than becoming fully enlightened buddhas. The choice probably resides is whether the bodhisattva thinks they will benefit beings more as a bodhisattva or as a buddha. Mahayana and Vajrayana texts explain that there are ten different levels of being a bodhisattva. You won't find anything about this in Thai or Theravada Buddhism.

For us mere mortals, with regard to beings such as Dudjom Rinpoche and others (there are other such highly realized beings currently alive), there is no distinction between them and the Buddha.

Edited August 19, 2012 by Jawnie

[hookedondhamma]

omniscient, interventionist God, who loves us, yet presides over the agonising death of say a child and... 'sorry, you only get one shot at this existence and you've had yours'

Yes and the whole idea is inconsistent and makes no sence. why have it so we get 70 or so years here (1 second for still borns), and the rest of eternity in heaven or hell? and why have 2000 religions each with different stories? Gods are mythological, like ghosts and vampires and Tinker Bell.

I don't get the Bodhisattva thing though. Why does a Bodhisattva eventually decide to be a buddha? why not be a Bodhisattva for eternity?

This is where it gets a little tricky for us mortals to explain. A bodhisattva is on the path to enlightenment whereas a buddha has attained it. Bodhisattvas can be extremely and highly realized but not yet buddhas. It is said that Jigdral Yeshe Dorje aka Dudjom Rinpoche, (1904-1987) was Sariputra, one of the Buddha's closest disciples, in a previous lifetime. In his lifetime in the 20th century, he was the supreme head the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism and was born already possessing 'vast spiritual realization'. At the age of nine years old, he initiated hundreds of Tibetan monks and lamas into the Rinchen Terzod, the highest teaching of the Nyingmas - it's a ceremony which requires weeks in order to complete with Dudjom Rinpoche directing and performing it, again, at the age of nine.

The point is that bodhisattvas chose to remain as such (and this is where I don't really understand the difference) rather than becoming fully enlightened buddhas. The choice probably resides is whether the bodhisattva thinks they will benefit beings more as a bodhisattva or as a buddha. Mahayana and Vajrayana texts explain that there are ten different levels of being a bodhisattva. You won't find anything about this in Thai or Theravada Buddhism.

For us mere mortals, with regard to beings such as Dudjom Rinpoche and others (there are other such highly realized beings currently alive), there is no distinction between them and the Buddha.

That is extremely interesting - time to go do some research!

edit* Jawnie, I came across a site which had this quote, though I can't figure it out; the meaning is ambiguous to me:

"Two boys have been recognised as the yangsi of HH Dudjom Rinpoche, Jigdral Yeshe Dorje. Multiple rebirths of great lamas are not all that unusual ."

Does this mean that a lama is reborn many times, or that a lama's rebirth can be take essence in two people? Reading the article I got that it is generally accepted that both boys are making quite a positive impact, while the former of the two is regarded as being Dudjom's incarnation. Can you help me out with this??

Edited August 19, 2012 by hookedondhamma

[SouthernMan3]

By 'heaven", i mean a blissful existence beyond death--a "goal." That cannot be reached without following the Buddhist path at some point.

Heaven is a happy life here now.

i suggest you do some reading up.

[Jawnie]

omniscient, interventionist God, who loves us, yet presides over the agonising death of say a child and... 'sorry, you only get one shot at this existence and you've had yours'

Yes and the whole idea is inconsistent and makes no sence. why have it so we get 70 or so years here (1 second for still borns), and the rest of eternity in heaven or hell? and why have 2000 religions each with different stories? Gods are mythological, like ghosts and vampires and Tinker Bell.

I don't get the Bodhisattva thing though. Why does a Bodhisattva eventually decide to be a buddha? why not be a Bodhisattva for eternity?

This is where it gets a little tricky for us mortals to explain. A bodhisattva is on the path to enlightenment whereas a buddha has attained it. Bodhisattvas can be extremely and highly realized but not yet buddhas. It is said that Jigdral Yeshe Dorje aka Dudjom Rinpoche, (1904-1987) was Sariputra, one of the Buddha's closest disciples, in a previous lifetime. In his lifetime in the 20th century, he was the supreme head the Nyingma School of Tibetan Buddhism and was born already possessing 'vast spiritual realization'. At the age of nine years old, he initiated hundreds of Tibetan monks and lamas into the Rinchen Terzod, the highest teaching of the Nyingmas - it's a ceremony which requires weeks in order to complete with Dudjom Rinpoche directing and performing it, again, at the age of nine.

The point is that bodhisattvas chose to remain as such (and this is where I don't really understand the difference) rather than becoming fully enlightened buddhas. The choice probably resides is whether the bodhisattva thinks they will benefit beings more as a bodhisattva or as a buddha. Mahayana and Vajrayana texts explain that there are ten different levels of being a bodhisattva. You won't find anything about this in Thai or Theravada Buddhism.

For us mere mortals, with regard to beings such as Dudjom Rinpoche and others (there are other such highly realized beings currently alive), there is no distinction between them and the Buddha.

That is extremely interesting - time to go do some research!

edit* Jawnie, I came across a sitewhich had this quote, though I can't figure it out; the meaning is ambiguous to me:

"Two boys have been recognised as the yangsi of HH Dudjom Rinpoche, Jigdral Yeshe Dorje. Multiple rebirths of great lamas are not all that unusual ."

Does this mean that a lama is reborn many times, or that a lama's rebirth can be take essence in two people? Reading the article I got that it is generally accepted that both boys are making quite a positive impact, while the former of the two is regarded as being Dudjom's incarnation. Can you help me out with this??

I suggest you continue the internet research. I don't know much about that issue and I view as Tibetan Buddhist politics which I leave to them. Also, it is not Theravada and might be considered 'off topic' by the board mod who may then delete or lock this thread. I met one of the two Dudjoms in Darjeeling, India, in 2004. Actually, I met and received a blessing from Jigdral Yeshe Dorje in Berkeley, CA, in 1974.

[khaowong1]

The everyday trinketry with statues, alms &co sure does it make look like just another organized religion. But since it's not an aggressive one and does promote goodies such as using your own brain, it's by far not the worst of them.

Everyday trinketry, statues, music etc., is not Buddhism. It's culturism. The Buddha didn't promote that stuff. Buddhism is like most other religions, it got organized and commecialized. You have to do like I do, cut through the fluff to get to the core.