Buddhist Philosophy Vs Buddhist Religion

[ourmanflint]

Ever since I was 21 , which was a lifetime ago, I have called myself a buddhist when people ask what religion I am, though I am always keen to stress that Buddhism is a philosophy NOT a religion. That is how I see it!!

Now, Thailand has a Buddhist "religion", full blown, and after reading many of the posts on this forum, I have come to wonder wether, you too consider yourselves part of the religion of Buddhism or are you more akin to the philosophy?

To me there is a huge difference, the religion of buddhism is full of the nonsense that most organised religions develop through time, rituals, miracles and such! None of which have anything remotely to do with the teachings of Buddha. I see these as the consequence of the weakness of "man" who when trying to grasp the very simple, end up by making it more and more complex, why we do it is beyond me, but we do!

So which side of the line do you stand... or do you even see the line???

[Kruang]

One of the reasons that many people don't consider Buddhism a religion is because it's basically non-theistic. For many people the concept of a religion involves the idea of a superhuman power (a "god") who created the world and (perhaps) continues to control it. That's not a very good description of Buddhist philosophy.

Some people distinguish between "religion" and "organized religion," where the latter includes some distinctive institutions like a set of scriptures and a priesthood. It's debateable whether the 3 Jewels of Buddhism (the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha) qualify. Though some Buddhists monks take on what appear to be priestly duties, that doesn't seem to be essential to being a monk.

Personally, I think of Buddhism as a philosophy and what is practiced in Thailand today as a debased form of Buddhism. But Sir George Scott was writing the same thing about Burmese Buddhism more than 100 years ago. Many monks in Thailand will tell you how "pure" and "strict" Buddhism still is in Myanmar.

When I go to the wat with my wife, she no longer asks me to make a wish. She got tired of me asking "why?" and "to whom?".

Ever since I was 21 , which was a lifetime ago, I have called myself a buddhist when people ask what religion I am, though I am always keen to stress that Buddhism is a philosophy NOT a religion. That is how I see it!!

Now, Thailand has a Buddhist "religion", full blown, and after reading many of the posts on this forum, I have come to wonder wether, you too consider yourselves part of the religion of Buddhism or are you more akin to the philosophy?

To me there is a huge difference, the religion of buddhism is full of the nonsense that most organised religions develop through time, rituals, miracles and such! None of which have anything remotely to do with the teachings of Buddha. I see these as the consequence of the weakness of "man" who when trying to grasp the very simple, end up by making it more and more complex, why we do it is beyond me, but we do!

So which side of the line do you stand... or do you even see the line???

[robitusson]

It's a religion. Buddhism goes into all sorts of things which go beyond philosophy such as life after death, blessings, sanctity of the monkhood, etc. The Buddha's enlightenment cannot be understood in philosphical terms either. The unaltering, changeless state can only be experienced as a transendental condition which is beyond mental and intellectual understanding. This is what makes enlightenment a religious experience. The concepts and ideas we have about enlightenment are irrelevant to the experience of it. Besides the Dalai Lama and many other Buddhist teachers, especially Tibetan, aften make comparisons with Buddhism and other religions. They all have their individuated or completely whole men, Christ, Mohamed, Moses, Mahavira, etc. They all have prayer, ritual like funerals, baptisms, etc. Having a God or Gods as part of the belief is not essential to define something as a religion, which Buddhism acknowledges anyway in the Dhammapada.

[jdinasia]

<no comment>

[ourmanflint]

<no comment>

I assume this has been asked before hence your reticence... which I completely understand. I'm not attacking anyone in Thailand or anywhere who has grown up with Buddhism as the all encompassing religion of their country, but as foreigners who weren't born into the buddhist tradition I wanted to know if you got involved in Buddhism because you were in Thailand and you therefore became involved in the religion of buddhism, or you were just attracted to the philosophy of Buddhism, from reading and studying etc.

[Suthep_Steve]

So which side of the line do you stand... or do you even see the line???

I entered from the philosophical side, moved over to the religious side and now I no longer see the line.

Be careful about discarding ritual and the like there is a lot of good stuff in there. If you approach it with an open philisophical mind.

[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 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.

Note

1. According to Buddhist cosmology, every living being dwells in one of thirty-one distinct "planes," of which our familiar human plane is but one. Some of these realms are home to beings (the devas) with unusual powers and extraordinarily subtle and refined physical bodies — or even no body at all. Their god-like status is, however, short-lived; like all living beings, they are mortal and ultimately subject to death and rebirth in other planes according to the purity and skillfulness of their actions (kamma). One of these devas, the Great Brahma, is so clouded by his own delusion that he believes himself to be the all-powerful, all-seeing creator of the universe (see DN 11).

See also:

"The Dhamma: Is it a Philosophy?" in Buddhism in a Nutshell, by Narada Thera

"Is it a Religion?" in Buddhism in a Nutshell, by Narada Thera

"Two Faces of the Dhamma," by Bhikkhu Bodhi

"The Five Spiritual Faculties," by Bhikkhu Bodhi

"Opening the Door to the Dhamma: Respect in Buddhist Thought & Practice," by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

"The Road to Nirvana is Paved with Skillful Intentions," by Thanissaro Bhikkhu.

source: FAQ on Buddhism

[robitusson]

I entered from the philosophical side, moved over to the religious side and now I no longer see the line.

That's my exactly my position now too.

[ourmanflint]

That was all I wanted to know....

Cheers

[thaibebop]

As a Buddhist I believe that they line is only a line if you see the line, other wise the line is the line as it's nature defines it, which means it may not be a line afterall.

[ourmanflint]

Thaibebop... that is also the Mystics view!!

[thaibebop]

Thaibebop... that is also the Mystics view!!

Really? I thought I was taking the Zen approach there.

[ourmanflint]

I must admit there are similarities between aspects of Zen and mysticism ( what I would call eastern mysticism) which also have things in common with elements of buddhism and brahmanism, the idea of the unity of all things.

[robitusson]

Ever since I was 21 , which was a lifetime ago, I have called myself a buddhist when people ask what religion I am, though I am always keen to stress that Buddhism is a philosophy NOT a religion. That is how I see it!!

Now, Thailand has a Buddhist "religion", full blown, and after reading many of the posts on this forum, I have come to wonder wether, you too consider yourselves part of the religion of Buddhism or are you more akin to the philosophy?

Anyway the point is the Thais know more about it than we do. They're part of the line that goes back 2, 500 years to the time of the Buddha so if they practice it as a religion and understand it as a religion then I would regard my personal view of it as a philosophy as either lacking in complete understanding somehow or else just plain wrong.

[sabaijai]

As a Buddhist I believe that they line is only a line if you see the line, other wise the line is the line as it's nature defines it, which means it may not be a line afterall.

As a Korean Zen master once told me, "A stick is just a stick until you need it for something. Then it's either too short or too long."

[jdinasia]

back to the Original question ... I am a practitioner of the Religion

[thaibebop]

I must admit there are similarities between aspects of Zen and mysticism ( what I would call eastern mysticism) which also have things in common with elements of buddhism and brahmanism, the idea of the unity of all things.

Sounds like Taoism.

Ever since I was 21 , which was a lifetime ago, I have called myself a buddhist when people ask what religion I am, though I am always keen to stress that Buddhism is a philosophy NOT a religion. That is how I see it!!

Now, Thailand has a Buddhist "religion", full blown, and after reading many of the posts on this forum, I have come to wonder wether, you too consider yourselves part of the religion of Buddhism or are you more akin to the philosophy?

Anyway the point is the Thais know more about it than we do. They're part of the line that goes back 2, 500 years to the time of the Buddha so if they practice it as a religion and understand it as a religion then I would regard my personal view of it as a philosophy as either lacking in complete understanding somehow or else just plain wrong.

Some Thais do some Thais don't. My wife knows little to nothing except popular cultures focus on Buddhism. My father-in-laws know more. So, I would say they have to study just like we do. They might understand it faster than we will though.

As a Buddhist I believe that they line is only a line if you see the line, other wise the line is the line as it's nature defines it, which means it may not be a line afterall.

As a Korean Zen master once told me, "A stick is just a stick until you need it for something. Then it's either too short or too long."

That is great!

I remember reading about a Buddhist conference between Tibetan and Japanese Zen. The Zen master pulled out an orange and asked the Tibetan master what it was. The Tibetan master didn't answer so the Zen master just kepy asking. He started to mad and was yelling to the Tibetan master "What is this?'

Finally the Tibetan master leaned over to his translator and said "What's the matter with this guy? Hasn't he ever seen an orange before?"

[ourmanflint]

I must admit there are similarities between aspects of Zen and mysticism ( what I would call eastern mysticism) which also have things in common with elements of buddhism and brahmanism, the idea of the unity of all things.

Sounds like Taoism.

Quite right.. I think I am a taoist/buddhist if there is really such an animal... as opposed to a zen buddhist, thai buddhist, tibetan buddhist etc etc....

Wasn't Zen influenced on it's passage to Japan by Taoism?

[thaibebop]

I must admit there are similarities between aspects of Zen and mysticism ( what I would call eastern mysticism) which also have things in common with elements of buddhism and brahmanism, the idea of the unity of all things.

Sounds like Taoism.

Quite right.. I think I am a taoist/buddhist if there is really such an animal... as opposed to a zen buddhist, thai buddhist, tibetan buddhist etc etc....

Wasn't Zen influenced on it's passage to Japan by Taoism?

Yes, Zen in China came about because of earlier Taoist ideas before it got shipped to Japan.

[Tippaporn]

Ever since I was 21 , which was a lifetime ago, I have called myself a buddhist when people ask what religion I am, though I am always keen to stress that Buddhism is a philosophy NOT a religion. That is how I see it!!

Just a question: do you need to define yourself one way or the other?