Is Buddhism A Religion Or Not?

[camerata]

Does this mean that a lama is reborn many times, or that a lama's rebirth can be take essence in two people?

I don't know how accurate it is, but in the movie Little Buddha a lama takes rebirth in three different beings.

[Several]

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.

You should have seen the look on my teachers face when I made derisive comments about amulets. He regaled me with stories about how they'd made some of his gangster mates bullet proof.

I chose not to respond.

[Jawnie]

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.

I won't disagree with this entirely because the essence of your meaning is that one should not and can not rely on externals. Since this board is a Theravada board, your comment would be the end of it as Theravada does not use or include much Buddhist art or symbolism. However, in Mahayana and Vajrayana Buddhism, art and symbols are central elements of practice in that they bring into view higher spiritual qualities. This is why you see the rather fantastic artwork produced by Tibetans with multiple heads and arms, etc. Each represents a spiritual quality which the practitioner aspires to and the art work, often used for visualization purposes, is the physical representation of the various qualities.

[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??

The highest Vajrayana teachings indicate that advanced bodhisattvas are able to project more than one body and in more than one world or realm...this is not a Theravada teaching. So, yes, high tulkus (re-incarnated bodhisattvas) have been known to exist in more than one body in our world. The Vajrayana view of mind is that there are simply no limits on what it is capable of, including existing in multiple bodies in multiple places at one time for a single, highly evolved spiritual being. Again, this is not a Theravada teaching.

[Xangsamhua]

Since this board is a Theravada board, your comment would be the end of it as Theravada does not use or include much Buddhist art or symbolism.

I don't see the board as an exclusively Theravada one. However, as it is a Thai-focused one I would expect that most contributors are Theravada lay people and some, as we know, are clergy.

For people whose primary identification is not Theravadin, therefore, I think what is expected is courtesy, open-mindedness and respect towards that tradition and its practitioners. However, I don't see anything in the rules that discourage one from expressing other Buddhist perspectives, as long as one is not proselytizing or attempting to engage in drawn-out disputation for its own sake.

While views on Buddhism as practiced in other schools of Buddhism and in other countries are welcome, the primary focus is the Thai brand of Theravada Buddhism (since this is ThaiVisa.com after all) http://www.thaivisa....ing-guidelines/

[hookedondhamma]

Thanks alot Camerata and Jawnie. Yes, it is not Therevada, though I posed the question as I remember many threads bringing in new information from other branches. But once again, thanks for the information! It is appreciated!

[camerata]

The question was about Buddhism in general, not specifically Theravada. I think it could be argued that with various buddhas and especially bodhisattvas able to help us worldly beings, Mahayana leans more toward religion than Theravada. It all depends on your definition of "religion." It could also be argued that popular Buddhism is religious whereas doctrinal Buddhism isn't.

[rockyysdt]

The question was about Buddhism in general, not specifically Theravada. I think it could be argued that with various buddhas and especially bodhisattvas able to help us worldly beings, Mahayana leans more toward religion than Theravada. It all depends on your definition of "religion." It could also be argued that popular Buddhism is religious whereas doctrinal Buddhism isn't.

I know it sounds like I'm flogging a dead horse, but if you take into account the oral nature of the Buddhas teachings, the prevailing religions of the time, the way this was passed on down the years, the translation from a dead language into a written form, the further deviation due to culture, the rewriting when the Mahayana group lost their scruiptures, and differences into sects and streams, then one could go further and say that"

Theravada also leans towards religion, but not as far as does Mahayana.

[fabianfred]

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?

Depends whether you are looking at the Theravada understanding of Boddhisatta or the Mahayana one....different beliefs....

Only in the mahayana one doe they believe that all beings end up as Buddhas.....

That is not what the Buddha taught...he intended all to reach nibbana which means Arahant...then no more rebirths.

[sabaijai]

Since this board is a Theravada board, your comment would be the end of it as Theravada does not use or include much Buddhist art or symbolism.

I don't see the board as an exclusively Theravada one. However, as it is a Thai-focused one I would expect that most contributors are Theravada lay people and some, as we know, are clergy.

For people whose primary identification is not Theravadin, therefore, I think what is expected is courtesy, open-mindedness and respect towards that tradition and its practitioners. However, I don't see anything in the rules that discourage one from expressing other Buddhist perspectives, as long as one is not proselytizing or attempting to engage in drawn-out disputation for its own sake.

While views on Buddhism as practiced in other schools of Buddhism and in other countries are welcome, the primary focus is the Thai brand of Theravada Buddhism (since this is ThaiVisa.com after all) http://www.thaivisa....ing-guidelines/

[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.

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.

Do not try to tell me what I mean....you did not make it clear in your first post what your own understanding of Nibbana was.....

The goal of heaven is to attain pleasure...the goal of nibbana is to escape suffering...but nibbana is permanent unlike heaven which isn't.

[sabaijai]

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'

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?

That is not what the Buddha taught...he intended all to reach nibbana which means Arahant...then no more rebirths.

"That is not what the Buddha taught.." .according to the Pali canon. There are other versions of the story, all claiming to be what the Buddha taught. Although like you I follow the Pali canon, I think it's good to add that qualifier out of respect for Buddhists who find that the Sanskrit, Chinese, Tibetan and Korean texts resonate with their experience.

[sabaijai]

Note: The member known as leolibby no longer has posting rights here.

[fabianfred]

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.

Sariputa was an Arahant so he had already reached nibbana...there is no going back and undoing that so no more rebirth.....within the 31 realms of samsara.

Mahayana supposes that their boddhisatta helps other beings whilst Buddhas and Arahants have gone on and cannot do so......

IMHO an Arahant or Buddha which has attained to Parinibbana is now withing a kind of existence unknowable to those of us yet to reach it.....

Therefore there is nothing to stop them taking on a human form and appearing where and when and how they want in order to do something similar.

Taking on a form and appearing in the human realm is something beings in some of the higher heaven and Brahma realms are also capable of and those beings are still stuck in samsara....

[Jawnie]

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.

You should have seen the look on my teachers face when I made derisive comments about amulets. He regaled me with stories about how they'd made some of his gangster mates bullet proof.

I chose not to respond.

I'd probably be even more skeptical if gangsters dodging bullets was the only example this teacher had regarding the 'power' of amulets. I'd be looking more for stories of amulets that healed sick people or provided food or water, some kind of positive benefits. But, for dodging bullets....I don't think so.

[BoonToong]

Note: The member known as leolibby no longer has posting rights here.

Why?

[fabianfred]

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.

You should have seen the look on my teachers face when I made derisive comments about amulets. He regaled me with stories about how they'd made some of his gangster mates bullet proof.

I chose not to respond.

I would view with suspicion any monk who is into amulets and advocates their use.....

They are for those who prefer the false things to the truth...

The only real protection is mindfulness.

Of course there are bound to be instances where seemingly miraculous things happen, because the power of the mind is extraordinary.

Edited August 21, 2012 by fabianfred

[rockyysdt]

The goal of heaven is to attain pleasure...the goal of nibbana is to escape suffering...but nibbana is permanent unlike heaven which isn't.

Hi Fred.

Isn't this dependent on which heaven one refers to?

If it's a Deva relm in samsara, then the goal is to attain pleasure.

If one invisages the Christian Heaven, then the goal would be totally different.

As the Deva relm is only a higher samsaric level, wouldn't it differ to the Christian heaven which is more akin to an end state on a par with Nibbana, granted one maybe real and the other not so real?

Edited August 22, 2012 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

IMHO an Arahant or Buddha which has attained to Parinibbana is now withing a kind of existence unknowable to those of us yet to reach it.....

Therefore there is nothing to stop them taking on a human form and appearing where and when and how they want in order to do something similar.

Taking on a form and appearing in the human realm is something beings in some of the higher heaven and Brahma realms are also capable of and those beings are still stuck in samsara....

If an Arahant or Buddha with attained to Parinibbana took on human form, could this entity awaken or enlighten a human through grace?

Edited August 22, 2012 by rockyysdt

[fabianfred]

IMHO an Arahant or Buddha which has attained to Parinibbana is now withing a kind of existence unknowable to those of us yet to reach it.....

Therefore there is nothing to stop them taking on a human form and appearing where and when and how they want in order to do something similar.

Taking on a form and appearing in the human realm is something beings in some of the higher heaven and Brahma realms are also capable of and those beings are still stuck in samsara....

If an Arahant or Buddha with attained to Parinibbana took on human form, could this entity awaken or enlighten a human through grace?

They could not awaken or enlighten...we have to do the work...they only show the way.

I think they could take on a form which to us would look like a normal being....and then teach us. Perhaps only for a particularly apt pupil who is denied teachings by normal means or access to a good teacher.

Angulimala was certainly fortunate to meet the Buddha.

Each morning the Buddha would use his powers to see someone suitable to receive a direct teaching which would help them gain attainment on that day...but they would have to be ripe for such a teaching...

Edited August 22, 2012 by fabianfred

[Several]

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.

You should have seen the look on my teachers face when I made derisive comments about amulets. He regaled me with stories about how they'd made some of his gangster mates bullet proof.

I chose not to respond.

I'd probably be even more skeptical if gangsters dodging bullets was the only example this teacher had regarding the 'power' of amulets. I'd be looking more for stories of amulets that healed sick people or provided food or water, some kind of positive benefits. But, for dodging bullets....I don't think so.

Oh I've seen more than one monk here claiming that an amulet or tattoo actually makes their skin bullet or knife proof. If its true they'll be in trouble if they ever need surgery.

[Several]

Personally I call Buddhism a religion because it requires belief in the teachings and then becomes reality through practice.

[rockyysdt]

Personally I call Buddhism a religion because it requires belief in the teachings and then becomes reality through practice.

I'm interested to learn why you feel Buddhism requires belief in the teachings.

Isn't diligent practice of the eightfold path a revealing process?

Let's suppose we sat on the fence regarding re birth into future lives.

Whether we have belief in it or not, if it exists, when the time comes won't it just take place?

Also, whether we believe in Kharma reaching out and affecting future lives, by practicing the eightfold path diligently, won't we be automatically ending new Kharma/Vipaka being generated?

Perhaps having a mental image/belief in re birth, relms, and Nibbana might even be counterproductive, as our visualisation may be nothing like the reality, and therefore generate false attachment.

Isn't the beauty of embracing the eightfold path, that it's not dependent on belief, but by commitment to a practice with verifiable growth on many levels?

Edited August 23, 2012 by rockyysdt

[huli]

Personally I call Buddhism a religion because it requires belief in the teachings and then becomes reality through practice.

I'm interested to learn why you feel Buddhism requires belief in the teachings.

Isn't diligent practice of the eightfold path a revealing process?

Let's suppose we sat on the fence regarding re birth into future lives.

Whether we have belief in it or not, if it exists, when the time comes won't it just take place?

Also, whether we believe in Kharma reaching out and affecting future lives, by practicing the eightfold path diligently, won't we be automatically ending new Kharma/Vipaka being generated?

Perhaps having a mental image/belief in re birth, relms, and Nibbana might even be counterproductive, as our visualisation may be nothing like the reality, and therefore generate false attachment.

Isn't the beauty of embracing the eightfold path, that it's not dependent on belief, but by commitment to a practice with verifiable growth on many levels?

I have read, and have concluded, that there is a small place for faith/belief in Buddhism. People need to have some faith that the Buddha's teaching is true in order to pursue it to begin with. After that, the faith/belief is based on experience

[rockyysdt]

I have read, and have concluded, that there is a small place for faith/belief in Buddhism. People need to have some faith that the Buddha's teaching is true in order to pursue it to begin with. After that, the faith/belief is based on experience

Yes.

Unless you had some faith that practice is capable of improving your life, you probably wouldn't entertain the effort involved.

I was referring to belief in the metaphysical (religion).

Authentic, dedicated practice is said to be revealing.

Am I wrong in saying that one doesn't need to believe the metaphysical aspect (religious) in order to travel on a revealing path?

[huli]

I have read, and have concluded, that there is a small place for faith/belief in Buddhism. People need to have some faith that the Buddha's teaching is true in order to pursue it to begin with. After that, the faith/belief is based on experience

Yes.

Unless you had some faith that practice is capable of improving your life, you probably wouldn't entertain the effort involved.

I was referring to belief in the metaphysical (religion).

Authentic, dedicated practice is said to be revealing.

Am I wrong in saying that one doesn't need to believe the metaphysical aspect (religious) in order to travel on a revealing path?

Rocky,

Some of our senior posters I have in mind could no doubt illuminate your query far better than myself, but may I make a comment?

It seems to me that metaphysical and religious are both adjectives of the nouns metaphysics and religion, respectively.

Looking up the words,

Metaphysics seems to be a rational philosophy seeking to explain the world.

Religion seems to be a set of beliefs which claim to explain the world.

Metaphysics is rational thought. Religion is beliefs.

I have admittedly over-simplified in order to make my point, that there is a question of semantics that needs attention in order to answer your question. It is not true that the two terms are synonymous, and for this reason, your question is impossible to answer or understand.

I hope you won't think I am being nit-picky. To me, semantics are critical to dialogue.

[rockyysdt]

I have read, and have concluded, that there is a small place for faith/belief in Buddhism. People need to have some faith that the Buddha's teaching is true in order to pursue it to begin with. After that, the faith/belief is based on experience

Yes.

Unless you had some faith that practice is capable of improving your life, you probably wouldn't entertain the effort involved.

I was referring to belief in the metaphysical (religion).

Authentic, dedicated practice is said to be revealing.

Am I wrong in saying that one doesn't need to believe the metaphysical aspect (religious) in order to travel on a revealing path?

Rocky,

Some of our senior posters I have in mind could no doubt illuminate your query far better than myself, but may I make a comment?

It seems to me that metaphysical and religious are both adjectives of the nouns metaphysics and religion, respectively.

Looking up the words,

Metaphysics seems to be a rational philosophy seeking to explain the world.

Religion seems to be a set of beliefs which claim to explain the world.

Metaphysics is rational thought. Religion is beliefs.

I have admittedly over-simplified in order to make my point, that there is a question of semantics that needs attention in order to answer your question. It is not true that the two terms are synonymous, and for this reason, your question is impossible to answer or understand.

I hope you won't think I am being nit-picky. To me, semantics are critical to dialogue.

Sorry Huli.

It's probably our interpretation of the word "metaphysical" or 'metaphysics".

My thoughts were that "metaphysical' pertains to things not of this world (the physical world).

Metaphysics appears to revolve around the philosophy of the existence of something beyond what we see (natural world), something in common with religion which involves a world/state/being beyond the physical world.

Metaphysics:

• Concerned with abstract thought or subjects, as existence, causality, or truth.
  

• Concerned with first principles and ultimate grounds, as being, time, or substance.
  

Synonyms to this meaning include:

Transendental.

Supernatural.

Philosophical.

Preternatural (outside of nature).

One description of metaphysical is "highly abstract".

How can matters which revolve around abstract, causality, preternatural, transendental, supernatural, and ultimate grounds be rational, when, without first hand experience these will invariably involve belief, as does religion?

Edited August 23, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Several]

Everything requires belief. Knowing is seperate. You can convince yourself you know something but you're really just cheating yourself of experience. The world is round. Is it? From my perspective it looks flat if somewhat bumpy. I have heard convincing arguments it is round(ish) so I accept that as true. But I do not know for sure. Hearing what the Buddha taught compared to what other systems of self-realisation state, I believe his way to be the most effective. But I am no Arahant, so I do not know for sure. By this I also consider science to be a religion, much to the disgust of the scientific faithful.

Having a good description of a thing is as far from truly knowing it as a virgin professor writing a thesis on sex.

Hence I believe in the advice of those who seem wisest.

[camerata]

Let's not forget that the Buddha praised faith. And in the suttas he said:

"Monks, the Dhamma well expounded by me thus is clear... free from patchwork. In the Dhamma well expounded by me thus, those monks who are Dhamma-followers (dhammanusari) or faith-followers (saddhanusari) all have enlightenment as their destination."

[sabaijai]

Just came across this.

Buddhism Not a Religion?

I was reading an opinion piece in the New York Times about the perils of positive thinking, or even the power of negative thinking, when I stumbled upon this part:

Buddhist meditation, too, is arguably all about learning to resist the urge to think positively — to let emotions and sensations arise and pass, regardless of their content.

That’s an unusual description I don’t agree with. Meditation practices come in many forms and focus on just about any kind of mental activity, whether it’s the breath, one’s feelings and emotions, or the center of a lit candle. Even the objective of meditation can differ, from getting less affected by the stream of thoughts (which seems to be what the author has in mind) to cultivating compassion, the latter of which does seem to be a kind of positive thinking.

But the main thrust of this post is common perceptions of buddhism in the West, especially the meme that “Buddhism is not a religion.” Famous anti-religious spokesman Richard Dawkins says in passing in “The God Delusion” (p. 59):

“(…) I shall not be concerned at all with other religions such as Buddhism or Confucianism. Indeed, there is something to be said for treating these not as religion at all but as a ethical systems or philosophies or life.”

Dawkins’ quote is open-ended enough for him not to be caught in the act of explicitly saying Buddhism is not a religion, and I would emphatically agree that Confucianism is not religion. However, that there is something to be said for this argument shows that the idea that Buddhism is not a religion holds sway in the West. In countries with a significant belief in Buddhism, though, it’s hard to see how it would not be a religion, with its temples, offerings, metaphysical teachings of reincarnation and karma, among others. (*)

Another curious part of how Buddhism is often understood in contemporary Western culture is that, apart from being a system of pure wisdom, it’s also thought to be a completely peaceful religion. Any religion, however, can be used for both peaceful and bellicose reasons, and one need look no further than Sri Lanka for an example of nationalism and Buddhism mixed up. Naturally, this can happen with any religion. Christianity can be credited with both supporting and opposing slavery, depending on which historical period, sect or proponent we are talking about. The peaceful faith of Aung San Suu Kyi is poles apart from the Zen buddhists who supported the Japanese war effort in WWII. No matter what, Buddhism is capable of supporting the whole spectrum of human behavior, just as Christianity and Islam is.

I personally find the day-to-day religious practice of Buddhism, and the way it has influenced local culture, more interesting than the abstract and wise version described in popular media. Back in 2006, for example, I visited the restive area of Aba (Ngawa in Tibetan) in Sichuan, where lamaism is very common and practiced by Tibetans and quite a few Han. One thing I’ll never forget is the sight of the meditating monk by the roadside. As our caravan of jeeps drove past, he sat there in his wine-red robe, seemingly oblivious to the noise of the traffic. We must have broken his concentration, though, since five minutes later he overtook us on a motorbike.

On another note, I think the reason the whole question of religion has become so important is because it historically played a different role in the West than in many other places. Quite a few Asian countries have historically had coexisting “teachings” but hardly anything like a state religion. Even Japan’s shintoism has existed alongside Buddhism. The whole idea behind the claim that Buddhism is not a religion seems to be that its proponents does not want it to be associated with religious persecution, superstition and dogma as was common in historical Europe. It’s hardly true, though, unless we accept a very narrow definition of religion.

* Whether Buddhist teachings accept karma and reincarnation in the popularly understood way is a question of debate, but it seems to me that the layman understanding of it even in countries where Buddhism is prevalent is of souls migrating to new bodies.

Source: http://pacificrimshots.com/buddhism-not-a-religion/