Is Buddhism a religion?

[Om85]

I have been reading a lot about Buddhism, and it seems to me that the teachings of the Buddha were more a philosophy than a religion, he gave a way to eliminate suffering but I have never found anything regarding to the worshiping of a god or even miracles among his teaching, I personally don't see any use in going to temple and preying and worshiping status that can't help you, I as the Buddha, think that we are the only ones that can find a solution for the different problems that we face in our life, but I would like to know what my fellow members of Thaivisa think. Do you go to temples to worship and praying? do you believe in the Phees stories etc? if so please could you give us your reasons?

PS: I am not judging anyone, just want to try to understand.

[rockyysdt]

Hi Om.

I think, before anyone can attempt to answer your broad question, you need to review your definition of religion.

Is your definition limited to "worshiping a god"?

If you look up the word "religion" you will see a number of definitions.

There you will find your own answer regarding Buddhism.

[Srikcir]

From a political perspective, the Thai constitutions and government executive branches treat Buddhism as a religion.

[DogNo1]

Governments have made Buddhism the national religion to unify and control their people. During the seventh century, the Nguyen Dynasty in Vietnam created "Pure Land' Buddhism, built a lot of temples and erected a lot of statues. It is said that the Buddha forbid his followers to make statues of him but that only lasted for about 300 years before the first statues were made. Of course, statues of Buddha are now ubiquitous. People seem to psychologically need them. Personally, I prefer Buddhism as a philosophy rather than as a religion.

[rockyysdt]

Yes, but putting the politics aside, if you look at what the Buddha actually offered, religion will continue to come to mind.

[Om85]

Hi Om.

I think, before anyone can attempt to answer your broad question, you need to review your definition of religion.

Is your definition limited to "worshiping a god"?

If you look up the word "religion" you will see a number of definitions.

There you will find your own answer regarding Buddhism.

When I say religion what I mean is the act of worshiping a god, in fact even though the Buddha was just a man, must of Thais refer to him as a god and pray to him etc, so for me this is something that I can't understand.

[willyumiii]

It depends on the individual perspective.

To many it is a religion.

To others, like me, it is a philosophy, and a healthy way to live life.

I am not religious at all and consider all religions to be superstitions.

To address your question about Phee...

Ghosts and spirits, good or bad are not part of Buddhism,

They are part of animism, and Brahmanism that many who call themselves Buddhist have incorporated into their beliefs..

[gk10002000]

I feel it is more of lifestyle, way of life and view of the world and oneself. Lower your expectations, less greed and less desire lead to more peace and contentment. Religions tend, in my view to demand worship of a deity or a person. Buddhism is not supposed to and is not meant to worship the Buddha. The humbleness and bowing is meant as a reminder and to pay homage to what I consider a great thinker. I don't consider it worship when Buddhists are observed "praying", although I think many of them are praying and not just paying homage and respect

[rockyysdt]

Hi Om.

Limiting "religion" to the Judaic/Christian model is extremely simplistic and ignores many models, some more plausible than others.

I also note that you divide Buddhism into two categories:

The first one, in which believers pray to the Buddha for good luck, a better next life, and one day maybe to end up in paradise with the Buddha.

The second one in which Buddhism is a philosophy and a better way of life.

Your conclusion about Buddhism being predominantly a philosophy might be just as incorrect as the other camps view that it is a religion.

At first reading, the ability through practice, to eliminate suffering sounds plausible in terms of philosophy until you dig deeper to learn what that entails.

Suffering, or Dukkha, is said to occur over countless re births, driven through unspent kharmic forces.

To be re born is to suffer.

To eliminate the cycle of re birth one must quench or put out the fires which are fueled by unspent kharma.

Then what remains?

That which is born must die.

There is nothing inside (call it spirit or soul) to be re born.

Yet, even though body, mind, thought, and awareness end upon death, what/who is re born?

It is taught there are two states.

That which is born, is governed by time and must die.

That which is unborn can never die.

Not self, or Anatta.

In order for such a state to be entered, one must totally abandon any attachment to that which we call ego.

And what of this lifestyle born of philosophy.

Humility, sharing, care for ones fellow men.

All are attachments.

There is nothing an egocentric human becomes involved with which is free of attachment.

Even to follow Buddhism itself is of ego.

Why else would "you" follow it?

Initially for self gain.

"You" want to be Awakened.

"You" want to escape suffering.

The Buddha said that self is self's own refuge, which means that the very self that anyone grasps at and clings to as his own essence must be taken as his refuge until he is through with it (that is, free himself from self attachment), and no longer has self or needs to depend on self.

Do you still cling to Philosophy, or is there an element of Faith (religion) until one has personal experience?

Edited August 25, 2015 by rockyysdt

[only1]

Om,

I am not Thai and I don't know if Thais go to a temple to pray like the Christians pray for hope of something but I do know that some go to the temple to pay respect.

I go to respect and give some donations to keep Buddhism going. The temple is a place and symbol, without which, Buddhism could go extinct due to their nature and practice.

As whether it is a religion, philosophy, or a way of life, it really does not matter. Obviously, believers of all other religions will consider Buddhism a religion too. Not me.

[fang37]

Whether it is a RELIGION or not does not interest me.

More important -

explains things succinctly

useful in living

[cooked]

First post in this forum so be kind!

I like to simplify things. Buddhism in a sentence: "Suffering can be overcome and that true happiness and contentment are possible lf we let go of our craving and learn to live each day one at a time (not dwelling in the past or the imagined future) then we can become happy and free." This certainly doesn't fit into my idea of a religion, which involves misuse of a philosophy to keep people under control, building up a hierarchy of people that generally go a long way from the original message. Worshipping statues, making merit, and all the rest of it seems like a religion to me. It shouldn't be.

[sfokevin]

The most venerable Ajahn Brahm's has said said on many occasion Bhuddism is a religion for tax purposes...

Edited August 28, 2015 by sfokevin

[j0hnga1t]

The Wat I go to in San Francisco (with Thai monks) treats it as a philosophy; however, they do talk karma and reincarnation (but not much on the latter)

[AYJAYDEE]

The Wat I go to in San Francisco (with Thai monks) treats it as a philosophy; however, they do talk karma and reincarnation (but not much on the latter)

actually its rebirth. reincarnation refers to a soul

[Om85]

Hi Om.

Limiting "religion" to the Judaic/Christian model is extremely simplistic and ignores many models, some more plausible than others.

I also note that you divide Buddhism into two categories:

The first one, in which believers pray to the Buddha for good luck, a better next life, and one day maybe to end up in paradise with the Buddha.

The second one in which Buddhism is a philosophy and a better way of life.

Your conclusion about Buddhism being predominantly a philosophy might be just as incorrect as the other camps view that it is a religion.

At first reading, the ability through practice, to eliminate suffering sounds plausible in terms of philosophy until you dig deeper to learn what that entails.

Suffering, or Dukkha, is said to occur over countless re births, driven through unspent kharmic forces.

To be re born is to suffer.

To eliminate the cycle of re birth one must quench or put out the fires which are fueled by unspent kharma.

Then what remains?

That which is born must die.

There is nothing inside (call it spirit or soul) to be re born.

Yet, even though body, mind, thought, and awareness end upon death, what/who is re born?

It is taught there are two states.

That which is born, is governed by time and must die.

That which is unborn can never die.

Not self, or Anatta.

In order for such a state to be entered, one must totally abandon any attachment to that which we call ego.

And what of this lifestyle born of philosophy.

Humility, sharing, care for ones fellow men.

All are attachments.

There is nothing an egocentric human becomes involved with which is free of attachment.

Even to follow Buddhism itself is of ego.

Why else would "you" follow it?

Initially for self gain.

"You" want to be Awakened.

"You" want to escape suffering.

The Buddha said that self is self's own refuge, which means that the very self that anyone grasps at and clings to as his own essence must be taken as his refuge until he is through with it (that is, free himself from self attachment), and no longer has self or needs to depend on self.

Do you still cling to Philosophy, or is there an element of Faith (religion) until one has personal experience?

The only things that I have seen in Buddhism that can make it look like a religion is the concept of rebirth , but I see that simply as a creed that was the normal thing in Buddha's time, I personally don't belief in reincarnation , the existence of the soul or anything like that, so I keep only the philosophical aspects of Buddhism that for me is very similar to Stoicism and I identify myself as a Buddhist.

[AYJAYDEE]

Hi Om.

Limiting "religion" to the Judaic/Christian model is extremely simplistic and ignores many models, some more plausible than others.

I also note that you divide Buddhism into two categories:

The first one, in which believers pray to the Buddha for good luck, a better next life, and one day maybe to end up in paradise with the Buddha.

The second one in which Buddhism is a philosophy and a better way of life.

Your conclusion about Buddhism being predominantly a philosophy might be just as incorrect as the other camps view that it is a religion.

At first reading, the ability through practice, to eliminate suffering sounds plausible in terms of philosophy until you dig deeper to learn what that entails.

Suffering, or Dukkha, is said to occur over countless re births, driven through unspent kharmic forces.

To be re born is to suffer.

To eliminate the cycle of re birth one must quench or put out the fires which are fueled by unspent kharma.

Then what remains?

That which is born must die.

There is nothing inside (call it spirit or soul) to be re born.

Yet, even though body, mind, thought, and awareness end upon death, what/who is re born?

It is taught there are two states.

That which is born, is governed by time and must die.

That which is unborn can never die.

Not self, or Anatta.

In order for such a state to be entered, one must totally abandon any attachment to that which we call ego.

And what of this lifestyle born of philosophy.

Humility, sharing, care for ones fellow men.

All are attachments.

There is nothing an egocentric human becomes involved with which is free of attachment.

Even to follow Buddhism itself is of ego.

Why else would "you" follow it?

Initially for self gain.

"You" want to be Awakened.

"You" want to escape suffering.

The Buddha said that self is self's own refuge, which means that the very self that anyone grasps at and clings to as his own essence must be taken as his refuge until he is through with it (that is, free himself from self attachment), and no longer has self or needs to depend on self.

Do you still cling to Philosophy, or is there an element of Faith (religion) until one has personal experience?

The only things that I have seen in Buddhism that can make it look like a religion is the concept of rebirth , but I see that simply as a creed that was the normal thing in Buddha's time, I personally don't belief in reincarnation , the existence of the soul or anything like that, so I keep only the philosophical aspects of Buddhism that for me is very similar to Stoicism and I identify myself as a Buddhist.

some teachers emphasise the moment to moment rebirth and tend to not concern themselves as to whether there is rebirths as other beings when our body dies.

[fang37]

The best description of Buddhism that I have read is -

Buddhism is a Way of Life.

[rockyysdt]

The only things that I have seen in Buddhism that can make it look like a religion is the concept of rebirth , but I see that simply as a creed that was the normal thing in Buddha's time, I personally don't belief in reincarnation , the existence of the soul or anything like that, so I keep only the philosophical aspects of Buddhism that for me is very similar to Stoicism and I identify myself as a Buddhist.

Hi OM.

In many respects I was also drawn to Buddhism for similar reasons.

To improve my life in so many ways, by living ethically by means of the 5 Precepts, to learn to observe myself and how I interact with the world around me through Mindfulness practice, and from the tranquility, poise and intuition which come about from Concentration (meditation).

I too had a vision of what Buddhism was. A philosophy and a way of life.

Over the years I began to take things a little further with regular Buddhist Retreats, and Study including the Pali Canon, Buddhist Speakers, as well as publications written by Arahats.

What I learned was that Buddhism was not the Philosophical lifestyle I grew to believe.

I also learned that the tools the Buddha prescribed are not exclusively Buddhist, but universal tools which can be used for a multitude of purposes.

These include:

1. Right Values - Commitment to mental and ethical growth in moderation (samyak-saṃkalpa, sammā-saṅkappa)
2. Right Speech - One speaks in a non hurtful, not exaggerated, truthful way (samyag-vāc, sammā-vācā)
3. Right Actions - Wholesome action, avoiding action that would do harm (samyak-karmānta, sammā-kammanta)
4. Right Livelihood - One's job does not harm in any way oneself or others; directly or indirectly (weapon maker, drug dealer, etc.) (samyag-ājīva, sammā-ājīva)
5. Right Effort - One makes an effort to improve (samyag-vyāyāma, sammā-vāyāma)
6. Right Mindfulness - Mental ability to see things for what they are with clear consciousness (samyak-smṛti, sammā-sati)
7. Right Concentration - State where one reaches enlightenment and the ego has disappeared (samyak-samādhi, sammā-samādhi)

These tools can be used for a multitude of purposes including self improvement.

Yoga, Relaxation, Peace of Mind reduction of afflictions such as Fear, and Anxiety in ones life, as well as many other benefits come to mind.

There are many positives which can come from the use of these tools.

• However, as life changing as these are, they will not lead to the extinction of Dukkha without understanding and implementing the 4 Noble Truths.

1. Right Viewpoint - Realizing the Four Noble Truths (samyag-dṛṣṭi, sammā-diṭṭhi).

At this point I'd like to say that I am not selling Buddhism, but merely conveying what I have learned.

I'd also like to add that if anyone lives their life with these seven values they will certainly live a far better life.\

As good as they are, they are not Dhamma (what the Buddha taught).

What they won't do is overcome the cycle of re birth and there will not be an extinction of suffering (Dukkha).

One will not enter the state of Enlightenment.

In other words practicing self improvement, unfortunately, is not Buddhism as the Buddha taught.

Humans have a tendency to pick and choose what aligns with their personal conditioning and their likes.

This is fine if one wants to fashion their own religion, lifestyle, or philosophy, but it's very important to understand that the Buddha was quite clear about what he was teaching.

The path to Awakening involves the understanding that Self can never be referred to at the Supramundane level.

The path is practiced until there is no self left to grasp at, or, until there is no attachment to self, or nothing that is regarded as self within one's mind.

Self is a word referring to an illusion or a mirage, which exists as long as it is attached to.

Naturally, Re Birth, cycle of lives, extinction of self, supramundane existence all entertain religion.

I am like you, a regular mortal human being.

I too would like to improve my life and live fulfilled to the maximum of my potential.

I don't want to die.

If you notice, I've been referring to "I", "Me", "My".

Whilst "I", "Me", "My" is involved, we remain blind to what is.

This is what the Buddha taught.

Conclusion:

We either cling to the concept which we believe Buddhism represents, or which pleases us, or we learn what the Buddha actually taught and decide whether to be a Buddhist or not.

NB: The 16 Steps of Anapanasiti describes in detail the Buddhas practice of building Concentration & Awareness to a deep level from which one can investigate and have personal experience of the reality of Body, Mind, Feeling, the World around us and ultimately Self as illusion.

This practice takes much time and dedication, and hence is the reason for the Buddhas creation of Bikkhu's (Monks).

Edited August 28, 2015 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

The only things that I have seen in Buddhism that can make it look like a religion is the concept of rebirth , but I see that simply as a creed that was the normal thing in Buddha's time, I personally don't belief in reincarnation , the existence of the soul or anything like that, so I keep only the philosophical aspects of Buddhism that for me is very similar to Stoicism and I identify myself as a Buddhist.

The Buddha never taught reincarnation nor soul.

The Buddha taught against attachment to Self or Ego which he referred to as illusion.

To cling to Soul is the most powerful thing Ego can do in order to promote itself.

Re Birth is quite different.

This is what the Buddha taught about Re Birth:

(I) For all things, if any belongs to the group that results from causes, or has causes and contributory factors, it will remain in existence as long as the causes and the factors still exist. However, it is impermanent and always changes with its changing causes and factors. Even for what is said to have been dead, if its causes and contributory factors for its reappearance or rebirth still exist, it will reappear or will be reborn; but if its causes and contributory factors no longer exist, it will become completely extinct. We, however, do not favorably consider these phenomena to be birth and death, for they occur in accordance with their causes and contributory factors; they cannot be born or dead by their own choice.

Once causes and effects are extinguished and Awakening takes place this is what the Buddha taught:

2) But if anything belongs to the group that does not result from causes and contributory factors, it can exist by itself without having to arise, will never cease to exist, and will also be permanent. For example, the Buddha said that nibbana exists. This is existence of the state of being free from causes and factors and what results from them. To speak- in simpler words, after all the causes and effects have been taken out, what is left behind is neither a cause nor an effect, being completely free from causes and effects, and is the extinction zone for causes and effects. This means that, whenever the entities that are causes or effects enter this zone, they will become completely extinct. However, the state of this extinction zone exists eternally. It is the cessation zone of all sufferings because they are effects, or are classified as effects, arising from such causes as defilements and ignorance. As nibbana is the extinction zone for all causes and effects as described, this means that nibbana is also the zone or state of extinction of all defilements and sufferings.

He also said:

Buddhism does not embody the eternal-soul view, for the religion does not accept a permanent self. Buddhism is not an annihilation doctrine, for it maintains that things arising from causes and contributory factors depend on the causes and factors, and that the state existing without causes and factors is eternal. Buddhism is not nihilistic because it accepts existence of things in one of the two states that which is uncertain and impermanent characterizes the conditioned things, and that which is certain and permanent characterizes the unconditioned.

Buddhism, accepts that everything is not self, but at the same time it accepts the existence of things in one of two states: one state continually arising, ceasing, and changing, and the other state having neither origination nor cessation and being unchangeable.

Edited August 28, 2015 by rockyysdt

[rockyysdt]

It seems that Buddhism is a religion after all, but not in the way demonstrated by many Thais.

A religion which involves that which is beyond the physical self.

That which involves a state, permanent and unconditioned.

That was can never die as it was never born.

Edited August 28, 2015 by rockyysdt

[only1]

To fully practise and understand BUDDHISM one must believe in the rebirth part of it. It is the rebirth and karma part that makes Buddhism outstanding and more realistic, compared to "believe me, I can get you to heaven" or "only one true god" claims. Try to apply some science based on Einstein theory and it makes sense for rebirth. Another point I wish to highlight is not believing in rebirth theory means you think that all those evidence of people remembering past life or some links are lies or stories that are made up to cheat.

[rockyysdt]

To fully practise and understand BUDDHISM one must believe in the rebirth part of it. It is the rebirth and karma part that makes Buddhism outstanding and more realistic, compared to "believe me, I can get you to heaven" or "only one true god" claims. Try to apply some science based on Einstein theory and it makes sense for rebirth. Another point I wish to highlight is not believing in rebirth theory means you think that all those evidence of people remembering past life or some links are lies or stories that are made up to cheat.

There is no scientific proof.

There are no scientific tools which can demonstrate Nibanna.

To think otherwise is to kid oneself.

Both Buddhism & Christianity carry an element of faith, until of course one can experience for oneself.

With Christianity you must die to evaluate its validity.

With Buddhism you must devote your entire life to practice and eventually annihilate attachment to Ego.

To devote ones entire life to such practice requires quite an element of faith, as you will live a life of denial of that pertaining to Ego.

Many may never reach the pinnacle (Awakening) in this life, falling away to their greed, aversion & delusion.

To practice the eight fold path is quite an investment.

One must dedicate their life.

Everything else is Ego & talk.

Edited August 28, 2015 by rockyysdt

[AYJAYDEE]

To fully practise and understand BUDDHISM one must believe in the rebirth part of it. It is the rebirth and karma part that makes Buddhism outstanding and more realistic, compared to "believe me, I can get you to heaven" or "only one true god" claims. Try to apply some science based on Einstein theory and it makes sense for rebirth. Another point I wish to highlight is not believing in rebirth theory means you think that all those evidence of people remembering past life or some links are lies or stories that are made up to cheat.

you can believe in rebirth moment to moment without believing or not believing in rebirth in another body after death. and nothing einstein said proves rebirth in another body. and they didnt have to make the evidence up, it could be a delusion on their part that they truly believe.

[only1]

In every religious forum, there are sure to be one or more who appeared like they are paid to do a job a job there.

Since most religions are faith or blindfaith based, it is useless to bring in any science, especially when all scientific discoveries came much later. than religions. Or else,the non believers will simply brush off that any belief is not scientifically proven and the believer will claim that it's based on their "personal" experience which is more believable to them.

So where or how to decide for the truth seeker which is still deciding ?

LOGIC, though not the ultimate way will be the best always.

If you apply logic to religioone will be able to heighten his wisdom level which most religions intentionally do not emphasize.

Eg of using logic:

Do you think just because a God created humans, he can choose anyone at anytime to kill him ?

On placebo effects, if any claims about the next life are made just for the purpose of this lifetime then that religion is simply not honest. So I rather understand its flaws and earn my own placebo effects by understanding my own action called karma.

[rockyysdt]

Since most religions are faith or blindfaith based, it is useless to bring in any science, especially when all scientific discoveries came much later.

Then why introduce a post and claim that Buddhism & science are coherant?

[only1]

rock,

Don't you know that not all people consider Buddhism as a religion ?

I can be among them.

I hope you study and practise the Noble 8 Fold Path if you are a sincere buddhist.

[only1]

Furthermore, my past comments never imply that science and Buddhism have any conflicting views between them.

[AYJAYDEE]

In every religious forum, there are sure to be one or more who appeared like they are paid to do a job a job there.

Since most religions are faith or blindfaith based, it is useless to bring in any science, especially when all scientific discoveries came much later. than religions. Or else,the non believers will simply brush off that any belief is not scientifically proven and the believer will claim that it's based on their "personal" experience which is more believable to them.

So where or how to decide for the truth seeker which is still deciding ?

LOGIC, though not the ultimate way will be the best always.

If you apply logic to religioone will be able to heighten his wisdom level which most religions intentionally do not emphasize.

Eg of using logic:

Do you think just because a God created humans, he can choose anyone at anytime to kill him ?

On placebo effects, if any claims about the next life are made just for the purpose of this lifetime then that religion is simply not honest. So I rather understand its flaws and earn my own placebo effects by understanding my own action called karma.

you are trying to tell us that there were no scientific discoveries before the beginning of christianity and islam?? lol

[rockyysdt]

Buddhism has nothing to do with what people consider it to be.

Buddhism is about what the Buddha taught.