Is Buddhism a religion?

[only1]

Problem in any religion is people are mostly misled into it or against it. Ignorance, Buddhism call it. Although less so in Buddhism, still majority of their followers don't fully understand it. And those who don't follow Buddhism due to lack of understanding are the real majority.

[camerata]

As money collection is part of the game it's bears all signs of a religion.

True! but much higher than the normal accumulation of religious wealth!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddhist_temples_in_Thailand

everyone is a goldmine!

This is not correct. A relatively small number of temples in Thailand have a lot of money from offerings due to sacred relics, a famous Buddha image, a famous deceased monk, a famous living monk, significant historical importance, cultural importance, or unusual and attractive architecture. The majority, which are quite poor, rely on offerings from locals, which doesn't amount to much.

Also, Lampang2, money collection is not a "sign of religion." Many secular organisations collect money. To provide facilities and services for members, organisations - including religions - have to have money. At the very least, you need to build and maintain a meeting place for members, if that's what they want.

[rockyysdt]

There are plenty of examples of people who have perpetrated the most heinous of crimes and escaped from any kind of kharmic payback or suffering in this life.

Pol Pot for example, had 2 - 4 million killed in horrendous manner .

Pol Pot died of old age.

no he didnt

There is some dispute over whether he was poisoned or died of heart complications.

The main thrust of my assertion is that, in his seventies, he lived and died with relatively very little pain or suffering, in comparison to the suffering he perpetrated.

In other words, if confined to a single life, the kharmic ledger did not work against him, as does for many.

There are dozens and dozens we hear about in public life, all getting away with it.

Hitler got away with it (in comparison).

Henry Kissinger got away with it.

Kim Ill Sung got away with it.

Joseph Stalin got away with it.

In the U.S.A. one third of all murders go unsolved.

If there is no Re Birth, you don't need to practice to eliminate or reduce kharma, just play the numbers.

[only1]

As money collection is part of the game it's bears all signs of a religion.

True! but much higher than the normal accumulation of religious wealth!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddhist_temples_in_Thailand

everyone is a goldmine!

This is not correct. A relatively small number of temples in Thailand have a lot of money from offerings due to sacred relics, a famous Buddha image, a famous deceased monk, a famous living monk, significant historical importance, cultural importance, or unusual and attractive architecture. The majority, which are quite poor, rely on offerings from locals, which doesn't amount to much.

Also, Lampang2, money collection is not a "sign of religion." Many secular organisations collect money. To provide facilities and services for members, organisations - including religions - have to have money. At the very least, you need to build and maintain a meeting place for members, if that's what they want.

Furthermore, if anyone wish to make money out of a religion, they will rather start a church instead of a temple. Church collect much much more money based on the collection during mass and percentage from income tricks.

[VincentRJ]

I see! So you don't buy books on Buddhism, or donate money to Buddhist causes, or accept free tuition from people who call themselves Buddhists?

Even if the plumber did the work free of charge, I would still want to be certain that he was a qualified plumber.

you sure enjoy jumping to conclusions, you must be in great shape. i buy books that I decide have information i want to acquire, I donate to causes i know and approve of no matter what theyre called and i have no idea what free tuition someone might want to give me. what someone considers themselves to be in a philisophical or religious sense is none of my affair and as i wont be hiring them based on those things, it matters not a whit. People that judge such things are busybodies and cause a great deal of discord in this world

I was making the point that buying a book in order to acquire information should involve ascertaining that the author is what he claims to be, otherwise you might be misled.

Likewise, when you donate to causes you approve of, it is reasonable to expect that you have investigated whether the recipients of your donations are who they claim to be, and do what they claim to do.

Such matters may be of the nature of a personal judgement, but hardly the activities of busybodies who cause discord. A major point of Buddhist teachings is that our mind easily trick us, and is often tricked by other people attempting to sell their product, whether their product is philosophy or religion or a motor car. It pays to be wary and inquisitive.

Free tuition by the way, is what sites such as Wikipedia provide.

[slipperylobster]

Back to the posters questions.

Yes..it is a religion, according to at least 5 internationally recognized literary resources.

An easy check.

here is one... http://kids.britannica.com/elementary/article-352887/Buddhism

[AYJAYDEE]

I see! So you don't buy books on Buddhism, or donate money to Buddhist causes, or accept free tuition from people who call themselves Buddhists?

Even if the plumber did the work free of charge, I would still want to be certain that he was a qualified plumber.

you sure enjoy jumping to conclusions, you must be in great shape. i buy books that I decide have information i want to acquire, I donate to causes i know and approve of no matter what theyre called and i have no idea what free tuition someone might want to give me. what someone considers themselves to be in a philisophical or religious sense is none of my affair and as i wont be hiring them based on those things, it matters not a whit. People that judge such things are busybodies and cause a great deal of discord in this world

I was making the point that buying a book in order to acquire information should involve ascertaining that the author is what he claims to be, otherwise you might be misled.

Likewise, when you donate to causes you approve of, it is reasonable to expect that you have investigated whether the recipients of your donations are who they claim to be, and do what they claim to do.

Such matters may be of the nature of a personal judgement, but hardly the activities of busybodies who cause discord. A major point of Buddhist teachings is that our mind easily trick us, and is often tricked by other people attempting to sell their product, whether their product is philosophy or religion or a motor car. It pays to be wary and inquisitive.

Free tuition by the way, is what sites such as Wikipedia provide.

I do ascertain. what he chooses to CALL himself has nothing to do with it. and I certainly dont spend time passing judgement on what he chooses to call his beliefs. I do , however, pass judgement on people that do.

[VincentRJ]

There are plenty of examples of people who have perpetrated the most heinous of crimes and escaped from any kind of kharmic payback or suffering in this life.

Pol Pot for example, had 2 - 4 million killed in horrendous manner .

Pol Pot died of old age.

no he didnt

There is some dispute over whether he was poisoned or died of heart complications.

The main thrust of my assertion is that, in his seventies, he lived and died with relatively very little pain or suffering, in comparison to the suffering he perpetrated.

In other words, if confined to a single life, the kharmic ledger did not work against him, as does for many.

There are dozens and dozens we hear about in public life, all getting away with it.

Hitler got away with it (in comparison).

Henry Kissinger got away with it.

Kim Ill Sung got away with it.

Joseph Stalin got away with it.

In the U.S.A. one third of all murders go unsolved.

If there is no Re Birth, you don't need to practice to eliminate or reduce kharma, just play the numbers.

Good points, Rocky. If one strips Karma of all its moral connotations, and describes it merely as 'action' within a process of cause and effect, then one could claim that Karma works only at the level of a single life, and doesn't need the concept of previous and future lives for its operation.

Your examples of Pol Pot and Hitler suggests that Karmic retribution for moral misbehaviour may require a real, future life.

[AYJAYDEE]

There are plenty of examples of people who have perpetrated the most heinous of crimes and escaped from any kind of kharmic payback or suffering in this life.

Pol Pot for example, had 2 - 4 million killed in horrendous manner .

Pol Pot died of old age.

no he didnt

There is some dispute over whether he was poisoned or died of heart complications.

The main thrust of my assertion is that, in his seventies, he lived and died with relatively very little pain or suffering, in comparison to the suffering he perpetrated.

In other words, if confined to a single life, the kharmic ledger did not work against him, as does for many.

There are dozens and dozens we hear about in public life, all getting away with it.

Hitler got away with it (in comparison).

Henry Kissinger got away with it.

Kim Ill Sung got away with it.

Joseph Stalin got away with it.

In the U.S.A. one third of all murders go unsolved.

If there is no Re Birth, you don't need to practice to eliminate or reduce kharma, just play the numbers.

no one knows what kind of suffering he had

[Om85]

Everyone loves healthy debate and a chance to learn and impart knowledge, but seriously, how much time and effort went into this thread with all its posts?

How much cushion time has been lost?

The Buddha said that without practice knowledge is of no use.

I can only speak for myself, Rocky. I'm retired and have plenty of time to sit on cushions, although I prefer to do some physical work on my own property, without pay. Religion and philosophy have always been an intellectual interest and a great puzzle.

In my case I have plenty of time, not retired yet but my job gives me plenty of time to kill and me really likes politics, philosophy and history

[MAJIC]

As money collection is part of the game it's bears all signs of a religion.

True! but much higher than the normal accumulation of religious wealth!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddhist_temples_in_Thailand

everyone is a goldmine!

This is not correct. A relatively small number of temples in Thailand have a lot of money from offerings due to sacred relics, a famous Buddha image, a famous deceased monk, a famous living monk, significant historical importance, cultural importance, or unusual and attractive architecture. The majority, which are quite poor, rely on offerings from locals, which doesn't amount to much.

Also, Lampang2, money collection is not a "sign of religion." Many secular organisations collect money. To provide facilities and services for members, organisations - including religions - have to have money. At the very least, you need to build and maintain a meeting place for members, if that's what they want.

Over fourty thousand Temple (if that is true) would generate wealth IMO.

[Om85]

This is not a Buddhist forum, this is a forum about Buddhism which is not the same And as I told here already I don't intent to denigrate anyone I just saying the truth, take a look around you and see how must of Buddhist temples here in Thailand work, what do they teach to the people? I honestly think that if Siddhartha were to come back from death and see what his "followers" do, he would be so upset that he might have a heart stroke and die again.

yes a forum about a belief system that you dont agree with. you dont think buddhism exists without rebirth, and you dont believe in rebirth. so why come here but to argue with people that have these beliefs and tell them they are wrong to have them?

not all the people in this forum are Buddhist, and I argue cuz I want to understand, I have ask the same question again and again and no one have been able to give a rational answer, you are the Buddhists here, you are the ones who are suppose to know so to you I ask my questions, I don't intend to hurt anyone, I was very polite until people here start to call me a troll etc when I am not, but this is not about me is about Buddhism so I ask again:

What do we have left if we strip Buddhism of the concepts of rebirth and samsara?

If you believe in rebirth, then what is to be reborn? Where are the proofs?

If you are firm in your believes you should be able to give your arguments and to debate, not just accuse other people of trolling and denigrating other people belief just because they are challenging them.

The problem is people are giving you answers but you then ignore what you don't like or ridicule them. Members are happy to answer questions, but they aren't here to justify themselves to you or "defend their beliefs." I have already explained about 'rebirth' but you just ignored it. There is no scientific proof, of course. If you don't accept it, that's up to you. There is no scientific proof of karma operating from like to life, as described by the Buddha. Many Buddhists believe in it to some extent, but if you don't, that's fine. We can only tell you what the Buddha said according to the scriptures, or what we've experienced ourselves, but we can't prove metaphysical ideas for you. Nobody can.

The Buddha provided us with a model of the mind and techniques for reducing suffering. These techniques work for many of us when we try them. It doesn't matter whether the Buddha's model of the mind in in accord with science or not - it is a tool to reduce suffering. The only thing that comes near it in modern terms in cognitive behavioral therapy, a branch of psychotherapy. But note that modern psychiatry and psychotherapy in not a science. It works for some, but not for others. Results can't be reliably reproduced.

Now, if you have any questions that aren't challenges to provide proof for metaphysical systems, let's hear them.

The problem is not that ignore the answers, is simply that those answers provided are not satisfactory member here are to answer and defend their beliefs, I don't see whats the problem with that, btw I like your answer is all I wanted to hear, so yes, Buddhism is just another religion, thanks Camerata.

[rockyysdt]

no one knows what kind of suffering he had

True, but his wife indicated that on his last night he felt tired and went to bed.

Later that night he felt pain and lapsed into unconsciousness.

He then died.

Hardly equivalent to the systematic torture and death of approx 3 million.

I'm referring to the kharmic ledger.

Surely the suffering of so many would warrant more than a nights pain or even a lifetime of mental suffering, or even back or other chronic physical pain.

In these cases the only way that kharma will balance out is through Re Birth.

[rockyysdt]

Technically it is not a Religion,but more a Philosophy,the main point: there is no claim to a God!

But I suspect other Religions probably started out the same way,and in time Buddhism may very well go the same way,the peoples devotion indicate going in that direction!

Your definition of religion is very narrow.

How can a teaching be referred to as a Philosophy if it includes existence in two states, one characterized by conditioning and impermanence, and the other of the permanent and unconditioned?

Samsara (the natural world we find ourselves in) & Nibanna (the unborn, the deathless, timeless, boundless, knowing without a knower).

Hardly philosophy.

It's OK though.

We are all trapped by our conditioning, myself included.

We tend to focus on the sections of the Buddhas teaching which aligns with our beliefs.

If you have an hour or two, read carefully through all the posts on this thread.

Each of us is attempting to sell our beliefs to the others.

How many here have dropped their fixed states and embraced what others have brought to the table?

I'd put my money on none.

This is OK as well.

The Buddha taught that we are our own refuge.

Anchored to our egos (false identity), as long as we have the drive to adopt correct regular practice we can move to states in which we will be guided to having personal experience.

An unfolding of what really is.

Until this occurs we are reliant on egotistic motives to get the ball rolling.

If philosophy ticks ones egos box, then this is cool, as long as it drives you to practice.

[only1]

Om85,

Yes, Buddhism can be called a religion but not the way you implied. Both the judge and the criminal are humans but they are very different and can be even opposites in character. So think.

[only1]

In these cases the only way that kharma will balance out is through Re Birth.

Yes, the world's oldest religions and civilizations like Hindus and Chinese Taoism believed rebirth and karma.

Only newer religions followers don't believe in it.

[AYJAYDEE]

no one knows what kind of suffering he had

True, but his wife indicated that on his last night he felt tired and went to bed.

Later that night he felt pain and lapsed into unconsciousness.

He then died.

Hardly equivalent to the systematic torture and death of approx 3 million.

I'm referring to the kharmic ledger.

Surely the suffering of so many would warrant more than a nights pain or even a lifetime of mental suffering, or even back or other chronic physical pain.

In these cases the only way that kharma will balance out is through Re Birth.

your wishes for justice and retribution mean nothing to the dhamma. he did what he did, he suffered at some level, he died. the rest is speculation.

[rockyysdt]

Hi A J.

My wish for justice is irrelevant.

The example simply does not conform to your beliefs.

[AYJAYDEE]

Hi A J.

My wish for justice is irrelevant.

The example simply does not conform to your beliefs.

you dont know my beliefs

[MAJIC]

Technically it is not a Religion,but more a Philosophy,the main point: there is no claim to a God!

But I suspect other Religions probably started out the same way,and in time Buddhism may very well go the same way,the peoples devotion indicate going in that direction!

Your definition of religion is very narrow.

How can a teaching be referred to as a Philosophy if it includes existence in two states, one characterized by conditioning and impermanence, and the other of the permanent and unconditioned?

Samsara (the natural world we find ourselves in) & Nibanna (the unborn, the deathless, timeless, boundless, knowing without a knower).

Hardly philosophy.

It's OK though.

We are all trapped by our conditioning, myself included.

We tend to focus on the sections of the Buddhas teaching which aligns with our beliefs.

If you have an hour or two, read carefully through all the posts on this thread.

Each of us is attempting to sell our beliefs to the others.

How many here have dropped their fixed states and embraced what others have brought to the table?

I'd put my money on none.

This is OK as well.

The Buddha taught that we are our own refuge.

Anchored to our egos (false identity), as long as we have the drive to adopt correct regular practice we can move to states in which we will be guided to having personal experience.

An unfolding of what really is.

Until this occurs we are reliant on egotistic motives to get the ball rolling.

If philosophy ticks ones egos box, then this is cool, as long as it drives you to practice.

"Each of us is attempting to sell our beliefs to the others."

I don't have any beliefs of which to sell!

Reading up on religeous beliefs,the basic consensus is generally considered a religeon has a God in order to be considered a Religeon in the first place!

[MAJIC]

Technically it is not a Religion,but more a Philosophy,the main point: there is no claim to a God!

But I suspect other Religions probably started out the same way,and in time Buddhism may very well go the same way,the peoples devotion indicate going in that direction!

Your definition of religion is very narrow.

How can a teaching be referred to as a Philosophy if it includes existence in two states, one characterized by conditioning and impermanence, and the other of the permanent and unconditioned?

Samsara (the natural world we find ourselves in) & Nibanna (the unborn, the deathless, timeless, boundless, knowing without a knower).

Hardly philosophy.

It's OK though.

We are all trapped by our conditioning, myself included.

We tend to focus on the sections of the Buddhas teaching which aligns with our beliefs.

If you have an hour or two, read carefully through all the posts on this thread.

Each of us is attempting to sell our beliefs to the others.

How many here have dropped their fixed states and embraced what others have brought to the table?

I'd put my money on none.

This is OK as well.

The Buddha taught that we are our own refuge.

Anchored to our egos (false identity), as long as we have the drive to adopt correct regular practice we can move to states in which we will be guided to having personal experience.

An unfolding of what really is.

Until this occurs we are reliant on egotistic motives to get the ball rolling.

If philosophy ticks ones egos box, then this is cool, as long as it drives you to practice.

"Each of us is attempting to sell our beliefs to the others."

I don't have any beliefs of which to sell!

Reading up on religeous beliefs,the basic consensus is generally considered a religeon has a God in order to be considered a Religeon in the first place!

Here is the Dictionary definition of a Religion:

:the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

[MAJIC]

Technically it is not a Religion,but more a Philosophy,the main point: there is no claim to a God!

But I suspect other Religions probably started out the same way,and in time Buddhism may very well go the same way,the peoples devotion indicate going in that direction!

Your definition of religion is very narrow.

How can a teaching be referred to as a Philosophy if it includes existence in two states, one characterized by conditioning and impermanence, and the other of the permanent and unconditioned?

Samsara (the natural world we find ourselves in) & Nibanna (the unborn, the deathless, timeless, boundless, knowing without a knower).

Hardly philosophy.

It's OK though.

We are all trapped by our conditioning, myself included.

We tend to focus on the sections of the Buddhas teaching which aligns with our beliefs.

If you have an hour or two, read carefully through all the posts on this thread.

Each of us is attempting to sell our beliefs to the others.

How many here have dropped their fixed states and embraced what others have brought to the table?

I'd put my money on none.

This is OK as well.

The Buddha taught that we are our own refuge.

Anchored to our egos (false identity), as long as we have the drive to adopt correct regular practice we can move to states in which we will be guided to having personal experience.

An unfolding of what really is.

Until this occurs we are reliant on egotistic motives to get the ball rolling.

If philosophy ticks ones egos box, then this is cool, as long as it drives you to practice.

"Each of us is attempting to sell our beliefs to the others."

I don't have any beliefs of which to sell!

Reading up on religeous beliefs,the basic consensus is generally considered a religeon has a God in order to be considered a Religeon in the first place!

Here is the Dictionary definition of a Religion:

:the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

If that makes my definition of Religion "very narrow" and indeed the Dictionary, then I offer no apologies for that which is most likely!

[AYJAYDEE]

did you leave out the other definitions on purpose?

[MAJIC]

As money collection is part of the game it's bears all signs of a religion.

True! but much higher than the normal accumulation of religious wealth!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Buddhist_temples_in_Thailand

everyone is a goldmine!

This is not correct. A relatively small number of temples in Thailand have a lot of money from offerings due to sacred relics, a famous Buddha image, a famous deceased monk, a famous living monk, significant historical importance, cultural importance, or unusual and attractive architecture. The majority, which are quite poor, rely on offerings from locals, which doesn't amount to much.

Also, Lampang2, money collection is not a "sign of religion." Many secular organisations collect money. To provide facilities and services for members, organisations - including religions - have to have money. At the very least, you need to build and maintain a meeting place for members, if that's what they want.

Furthermore, if anyone wish to make money out of a religion, they will rather start a church instead of a temple. Church collect much much more money based on the collection during mass and percentage from income tricks.

Well somebody is getting the money,as anyone knows Churchs are very poor,and can sometimes take many years to accumulate a new Church roof!

[VincentRJ]

Here is the Dictionary definition of a Religion:

:the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:

If that makes my definition of Religion "very narrow" and indeed the Dictionary, then I offer no apologies for that which is most likely!

Is there only one dictionary and one definition, like there is only one God?

Just out of curiosity, I referred to my Merriam Webster dictionary for its definition of religion.

Following are the main definitions, with my emphasis in bold.

1. The service and worship of God or the supernatural.

2. A personal set or institutionalised system of religious attitudes, beliefs and practices.

3. Scrupulous conformity.

4. A cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith.

I think Buddhism would inarguably fit into most of the above definitions. I made the point in an earlier post that I thought Buddhism might fall out of the definition of 'religion' if the practicing of certain Buddhist meditation techniques did not require a belief in the supernatural aspects of traditional Buddhism, such as karma and rebirth.

However, in light of the above dictionary definitions, if a person practices certain Buddhist techniques with scrupulous conformity, regularity and ardour, such as meditating every day for 2 hours without fail, always eating only one meal a day, regularly shaving one's head and face, (if one is a monk) and arising at 5 am every morning, and so on, then such behaviour and practices in themselves can be considered religious, and would fit into the 2nd, 3rd and 4th definitions above, particularly the 3rd and 4th definitions.

Thus endeth the lesson on 'How to read a dictionary'.

[rockyysdt]

In light of the other definitions, have you broadened your view of what religion is?

Definition also includes that which is beyond our physical world. The super natural, or as some Arahants call it, the supermundane.

[rockyysdt]

Yes, but on the point of discussion haven't you made your position (belief) clear?

[VincentRJ]

Yes, but on the point of discussion haven't you made your position (belief) clear?

I consider myself to be fairly flexible and adaptable. I hope my position on any matter would change in the light of new, convincing evidence and/or greater understanding. To be otherwise would to be dogmatic, which I hope I am not.

[camerata]

In these cases the only way that kharma will balance out is through Re Birth.

Yes, the world's oldest religions and civilizations like Hindus and Chinese Taoism believed rebirth and karma.

Only newer religions followers don't believe in it.

Do you have a reference for rebirth in Taoism? AFAIK, Taoism has a belief in a kind of immortality after death, not repeated rebirths in different realms.

"Immortality doesn't mean living for ever in the present physical body.

The idea is that as the Taoist draws closer and closer to nature throughout their life, death is just the final step in achieving complete unity with the universe."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/taoism/beliefs/concepts.shtml

[camerata]

I wonder why some people are so hellbent on putting a label on Buddhism as "religion" or "philosophy?" It seems that for us Westerners, it's embarrassing to admire a system of thought if it is deemed to be in any way a religion.

The fact is, the Buddha did not start a religion. In the Majjhima Nikāya the Buddha says: “One thing only does the
Buddha teach, namely, suffering and the cessation of suffering.”

So, the Buddha's teaching,which we now call Buddhism, is really a system of self-administered psychotherapy with the cessation of suffering as its goal - not a religion or a philosophy.