Is Buddhism a religion?

[MAJIC]

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'.

You forgot the nececessity to be worshipping a God to be a Religion!

[rockyysdt]

You forgot the necessity to be worshiping a God to be a Religion!

It's a good example though, of our conditioned ideas or interpretations of the meanings of words, and our consequential response to these.

Perhaps, partly for the reason for concentrating on practice until personal experience reveals something beyond our conditioned views/ideas/beliefs.

When I say, "sell our ideas/beliefs", this may not be exclusively blatant but can range to quite subtle levels.

Ones Ego not only identifies with ones beliefs and attachments, it's also reinforced through social and sympathetic relationships formed through like minded views/beliefs.

This can be achieved by interacting with others of similar view, or by succeeding to persuade another to realign their views with yours.

In summary, God (and worship of) is not essential to a religion.

Buddhism is a religion, as it promises a state, both permanent and unconditioned (beyond the physical) which is the leading most common ingredient of the definition of religion.

None of us want to die.

My Ego wants to know, have I one you over?

Edited October 14, 2015 by rockyysdt

[VincentRJ]

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'.

You forgot the nececessity to be worshipping a God to be a Religion!

Sorry! You failed the reading test.

The first definition of 'religion' from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is:

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

That does not mean worship of the God called OR.

'Or' does not mean 'and'. The definition means, not only is the worship of a God a religion, but the worship of any supernatural phenomena, irrespective of notions of God, is also a religion. The traditional Buddhist concepts of karma and rebirth are supernatural phenomena by modern or scientific standards. Okay?

[VincentRJ]

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.

I imagine, Camerata, that discussing the issue helps one analyze one's own motives and interests in relation to Buddhism. How significant to one's underlying motives is the religious aspect of Buddhism, which undoubtedly exists? Is a degree of belief, in what science would describe as supernatural phenomena, necessary, or at least helpful, to motivate one to embark upon the so-called Buddhist path?

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.”

We have modern medicine, very effective pain-killers, psychotherapists, and a great variety of medical specialists. There are plenty of opportunities for anyone who is suffering from physical pain, psychological stress, depression, or general unhappiness, to get help to reduce his/her suffering.

I get the impression that Buddhism, at least as it has currently been interpreted, offers something more than mere cessation of suffering, like the bliss of Nirvana.

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.

There was a recent thread on this forum that discussed the dangers of people with psychological disorders practicing meditation. Apparently, it can sometimes have a negative effect with disastrous results. Such effects have been documented. How does this situation fit in with your above comment?

[fang37]

"Is Buddhism a Religion?"

Were I to make a comment TODAY,

I would understand what Buddhism is about &

I would understand what Religion is.

Until then, I choose to say nothing.

[AYJAYDEE]

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.

I imagine, Camerata, that discussing the issue helps one analyze one's own motives and interests in relation to Buddhism. How significant to one's underlying motives is the religious aspect of Buddhism, which undoubtedly exists? Is a degree of belief, in what science would describe as supernatural phenomena, necessary, or at least helpful, to motivate one to embark upon the so-called Buddhist path?

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.”

We have modern medicine, very effective pain-killers, psychotherapists, and a great variety of medical specialists. There are plenty of opportunities for anyone who is suffering from physical pain, psychological stress, depression, or general unhappiness, to get help to reduce his/her suffering.

I get the impression that Buddhism, at least as it has currently been interpreted, offers something more than mere cessation of suffering, like the bliss of Nirvana.

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.

There was a recent thread on this forum that discussed the dangers of people with psychological disorders practicing meditation. Apparently, it can sometimes have a negative effect with disastrous results. Such effects have been documented. How does this situation fit in with your above comment?

modern medicine attacks the symptoms, Buddhism attacks the causes. big difference. And modern interpretations have no bearing on what the Buddha taught.

[fang37]

"Buddhism attacks the causes." (AYJAYDEE)

I agree.

[MAJIC]

You forgot the necessity to be worshiping a God to be a Religion!

It's a good example though, of our conditioned ideas or interpretations of the meanings of words, and our consequential response to these.

Perhaps, partly for the reason for concentrating on practice until personal experience reveals something beyond our conditioned views/ideas/beliefs.

When I say, "sell our ideas/beliefs", this may not be exclusively blatant but can range to quite subtle levels.

Ones Ego not only identifies with ones beliefs and attachments, it's also reinforced through social and sympathetic relationships formed through like minded views/beliefs.

This can be achieved by interacting with others of similar view, or by succeeding to persuade another to realign their views with yours.

In summary, God (and worship of) is not essential to a religion.

Buddhism is a religion, as it promises a state, both permanent and unconditioned (beyond the physical) which is the leading most common ingredient of the definition of religion.

None of us want to die.

My Ego wants to know, have I one you over?

Rocky how I

[MAJIC]

You forgot the necessity to be worshiping a God to be a Religion!

It's a good example though, of our conditioned ideas or interpretations of the meanings of words, and our consequential response to these.

Perhaps, partly for the reason for concentrating on practice until personal experience reveals something beyond our conditioned views/ideas/beliefs.

When I say, "sell our ideas/beliefs", this may not be exclusively blatant but can range to quite subtle levels.

Ones Ego not only identifies with ones beliefs and attachments, it's also reinforced through social and sympathetic relationships formed through like minded views/beliefs.

This can be achieved by interacting with others of similar view, or by succeeding to persuade another to realign their views with yours.

In summary, God (and worship of) is not essential to a religion.

Buddhism is a religion, as it promises a state, both permanent and unconditioned (beyond the physical) which is the leading most common ingredient of the definition of religion.

None of us want to die.

My Ego wants to know, have I one you over?

Unfortunately no! the answer is not that simple.it is or a not a Religion? press on brother.

[nidieunimaitre]

Which buddhism are you all talking about?

There are so many different ones.

[MAJIC]

"Is Buddhism a Religion?"

Were I to make a comment TODAY,

I would understand what Buddhism is about &

I would understand what Religion is.

Until then, I choose to say nothing.

Good choice!

[MAJIC]

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..

Normally I pay scant regard to some of your comments ,the other 50% we have 50% to be discuss.

[rockyysdt]

"Is Buddhism a Religion?"

Were I to make a comment TODAY,

I would understand what Buddhism is about &

I would understand what Religion is.

Until then, I choose to say nothing.

Good choice!

As the ultimate goals of Buddhism have only be proven to individuals, it remains a religion.

This is why religions remain religions.

The absence of proof.

[fang37]

#373

Many would beg to differ.

[VincentRJ]

modern medicine attacks the symptoms, Buddhism attacks the causes. big difference. And modern interpretations have no bearing on what the Buddha taught.

I hope you don't feel insulted when I say parts of your above comments seems totally illogical and incorrect, to me. Perhaps you're deliberately just giving me an opportunity to express contrary views, or even grandstand.

Whatever one's opinion on a matter, the opinion is worth something only when it's supported by a rational explanation which includes facts and reliable information.

Whilst it's true that modern medicine sometimes does address only the symptoms of a 'poor health' condition, rather than the actual causes, there are many diseases caused by harmful bacteria that can be completely cured through taking modern antibiotics, which were not available during the times of the Buddha. There are also many diseases that can be prevented through vaccinations, or through changing the environmental conditions that allow certain harmful bacteria to flourish, such as spraying mosquito breeding grounds to reduce outbreaks of Malaria, or creating a more hygienic sewage system.

As I understand, the Buddha was motivated to embark upon the ascetic life, in search of answers to disturbing problems, because he was so appalled at the suffering he witnessed among ordinary people outside the palace precincts.

The Indian continent 2,500 years ago would have been rife with all sorts of incurable and difficult-to-cure diseases, such as cholera, malaria, smallpox, scarlet fever, occasional outbreaks of deadly plagues, and so on. The suffering would often have been horrendous.

Cholera in particular has been a devastating disease for many centuries. There are references to the symptoms in ancient Greek and Latin that go back at least 2,500 years. The Indians even have a Goddess of Cholera, with variations of names such as Oola Beebe, or Olabibi, Oladevi, Bibima etc. I'm sure the worship of such Gods would have had at least some placebo effect on those peoples' cholera symptoms, and experienced Buddhist meditators who didn't worship such Gods might have got some comfort from the notion that their suffering was a 'just desert' as a result of their immoral actions in previous lives.

I imagine also that those experienced Buddhists who had achieved good control over their thoughts, through years of meditation practice, would be less distracted by the pain and discomfort of such diseases, but is that process of reducing the suffering really attacking the cause of the disease, and how practical is such a solution for the millions of ordinary folks who haven't been able to practice such meditation techniques, for whatever reason?

It's now understood that the causes of Cholera are due to inadequate hygiene, contaminated water sources, and the failure to fully cook food which has been contaminated with the 'Vibrio cholera bacteria'.

As for your comment,

And modern interpretations have no bearing on what the Buddha taught.

could you elaborate on that? It makes no sense at all to me. Are you saying, for example, that the Pali Canon has no bearing on what the Buddha taught? The Pali Canon at the time it was written, around 29 BC, was a modern interpretation of what the Buddha had taught about 400 years earlier. It was written in a different language to the language which the Buddha used for his teachings, and was largely based upon memorised teachings passed down through many generations.

Perhaps you are trying to make the point that the Pali Canon is unlikely to be an accurate and reliable account of the Buddha's teachings, or that modern translations of the Pali Canon do not fully and accurately translate the meaning of certain words and phrases which have no exact equivalent in English.

If that's what you mean, that's a long way from your expression, 'no bearing on'.

Edited October 15, 2015 by VincentRJ

[fang37]

I was introduced to Buddhism about 25 years ago.

When reading Buddhist literature, I have never observed any debate over whether Buddhism is a religion.

"Soul" - never a mention thereof.

Why waste time on such trivia?

[AYJAYDEE]

modern medicine attacks the symptoms, Buddhism attacks the causes. big difference. And modern interpretations have no bearing on what the Buddha taught.

I hope you don't feel insulted when I say parts of your above comments seems totally illogical and incorrect, to me. Perhaps you're deliberately just giving me an opportunity to express contrary views, or even grandstand.

Whatever one's opinion on a matter, the opinion is worth something only when it's supported by a rational explanation which includes facts and reliable information.

Whilst it's true that modern medicine sometimes does address only the symptoms of a 'poor health' condition, rather than the actual causes, there are many diseases caused by harmful bacteria that can be completely cured through taking modern antibiotics, which were not available during the times of the Buddha. There are also many diseases that can be prevented through vaccinations, or through changing the environmental conditions that allow certain harmful bacteria to flourish, such as spraying mosquito breeding grounds to reduce outbreaks of Malaria, or creating a more hygienic sewage system.

As I understand, the Buddha was motivated to embark upon the ascetic life, in search of answers to disturbing problems, because he was so appalled at the suffering he witnessed among ordinary people outside the palace precincts.

The Indian continent 2,500 years ago would have been rife with all sorts of incurable and difficult-to-cure diseases, such as cholera, malaria, smallpox, scarlet fever, occasional outbreaks of deadly plagues, and so on. The suffering would often have been horrendous.

Cholera in particular has been a devastating disease for many centuries. There are references to the symptoms in ancient Greek and Latin that go back at least 2,500 years. The Indians even have a Goddess of Cholera, with variations of names such as Oola Beebe, or Olabibi, Oladevi, Bibima etc. I'm sure the worship of such Gods would have had at least some placebo effect on those peoples' cholera symptoms, and experienced Buddhist meditators who didn't worship such Gods might have got some comfort from the notion that their suffering was a 'just desert' as a result of their immoral actions in previous lives.

I imagine also that those experienced Buddhists who had achieved good control over their thoughts, through years of meditation practice, would be less distracted by the pain and discomfort of such diseases, but is that process of reducing the suffering really attacking the cause of the disease, and how practical is such a solution for the millions of ordinary folks who haven't been able to practice such meditation techniques, for whatever reason?

It's now understood that the causes of Cholera are due to inadequate hygiene, contaminated water sources, and the failure to fully cook food which has been contaminated with the 'Vibrio cholera bacteria'.

As for your comment,

And modern interpretations have no bearing on what the Buddha taught.

could you elaborate on that? It makes no sense at all to me. Are you saying, for example, that the Pali Canon has no bearing on what the Buddha taught? The Pali Canon at the time it was written, around 29 BC, was a modern interpretation of what the Buddha had taught about 400 years earlier. It was written in a different language to the language which the Buddha used for his teachings, and was largely based upon memorised teachings passed down through many generations.

Perhaps you are trying to make the point that the Pali Canon is unlikely to be an accurate and reliable account of the Buddha's teachings, or that modern translations of the Pali Canon do not fully and accurately translate the meaning of certain words and phrases which have no exact equivalent in English.

If that's what you mean, that's a long way from your expression, 'no bearing on'.

grandstanding? you obviously need no help from me in that regard. i stick by both statements

Edited October 15, 2015 by AYJAYDEE

[fang37]

Why discuss the topic?

Buddhism - Religion

[Om85]

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.

I think that you aren't looking at the big picture, first what today we call Buddhism is in fact a religion, and I dare to say that it is, in most of cases very far away from what the Buddha taught( Buddha was against idolatry, he asked for not being worshiped bcuz he was just another human being and the list goes on).

Then is not only we Westerners that feel embarrassed of admiring a system of thinking if it is deemed to be a religion, must of the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans do as well they consider Buddhism just another religion based on superstition( this is from my own experience, I lived in China and studied there).

[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.

I imagine, Camerata, that discussing the issue helps one analyze one's own motives and interests in relation to Buddhism. How significant to one's underlying motives is the religious aspect of Buddhism, which undoubtedly exists? Is a degree of belief, in what science would describe as supernatural phenomena, necessary, or at least helpful, to motivate one to embark upon the so-called Buddhist path?

That's part of it, I guess. But the problem is that a Westerner's idea of religion comes from a Judeo-Christian perspective, i.e. that you do stuff in this life to gain access to a pleasant afterlife with God. Buddhism seems to offer multiple future lives and then "eternal bliss" without God, so their first question is about rebirth and when they don't get a satisfying answer they lose interest. If only they knew that the right question to ask is, "How can the Buddha's teachings help me in this life?"

[camerata]

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.”

We have modern medicine, very effective pain-killers, psychotherapists, and a great variety of medical specialists. There are plenty of opportunities for anyone who is suffering from physical pain, psychological stress, depression, or general unhappiness, to get help to reduce his/her suffering.

I get the impression that Buddhism, at least as it has currently been interpreted, offers something more than mere cessation of suffering, like the bliss of Nirvana.

The psychotherapy of the Buddha is different from modern psychotherapy. Modern medicine seeks to make an "abnormal" (unhealthy) person normal. The Buddha's teachings aim to make "normal" people better, and ultimately "perfect" (nibbana). Everyone experiences dukkha, but most dukkha is not considered to be "abnormal" or unhealthy - although that is strongly implied by translating dukkha as "suffering."

[VincentRJ]

grandstanding? you obviously need no help from me in that regard. i stick by both statements

AYJAYDEE,

You are perfectly entitled to stick to any statements you like (provided such statement are not against the law of the land, of course), but sticking to such statements without elaboration or explanation when asked, not only does not help anyone, but is also suggestive of dogmatism on your part.

The Buddha didn't behave like that. Even when someone insulted him, he gave an explanation as to why he wasn't offended. Try to learn from the Buddha...please!

[camerata]

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.

There was a recent thread on this forum that discussed the dangers of people with psychological disorders practicing meditation. Apparently, it can sometimes have a negative effect with disastrous results. Such effects have been documented. How does this situation fit in with your above comment?

As I mentioned, IMO the Buddha's teachings were aimed at people experiencing dukkha, not specifically at people with what we'd describe as mental illness. It's hard enough for a healthy person to train the mind, so it must be way harder for someone with a compromised mind. As I recall, the people mentioned in the article were practising mindfulness and meditation in a secular environment, without the support of Buddhism. Perhaps that made a difference.

In one of his books, Jack Kornfield talks about some long-term vipassana meditators suddenly uncovering a repressed memory and gaining a sense of release. So perhaps if dukkha is caused by a repressed memory, meditation can be a cure.

[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.

I think that you aren't looking at the big picture, first what today we call Buddhism is in fact a religion, and I dare to say that it is, in most of cases very far away from what the Buddha taught( Buddha was against idolatry, he asked for not being worshiped bcuz he was just another human being and the list goes on).

Then is not only we Westerners that feel embarrassed of admiring a system of thinking if it is deemed to be a religion, must of the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans do as well they consider Buddhism just another religion based on superstition( this is from my own experience, I lived in China and studied there).

The point I was trying to make is that although Buddhism looks like a religion, and is practised as a religion in Buddhist countries, the real value of it to Westerners is the core teachings, which are more like psychotherapy than religion.

[Om85]

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.

I think that you aren't looking at the big picture, first what today we call Buddhism is in fact a religion, and I dare to say that it is, in most of cases very far away from what the Buddha taught( Buddha was against idolatry, he asked for not being worshiped bcuz he was just another human being and the list goes on).

Then is not only we Westerners that feel embarrassed of admiring a system of thinking if it is deemed to be a religion, must of the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans do as well they consider Buddhism just another religion based on superstition( this is from my own experience, I lived in China and studied there).

The point I was trying to make is that although Buddhism looks like a religion, and is practised as a religion in Buddhist countries, the real value of it to Westerners is the core teachings, which are more like psychotherapy than religion.

I am not sure about the psychotherapy part, but what I can tell you is that I find Buddhist and Hindu religious art fascinating, I really enjoy going to temples and watching the sculptures, bas-reliefs, the mantras and also doing meditation, I find something mystical and very erotic in Buddhist and Hindu religious art.

[AYJAYDEE]

grandstanding? you obviously need no help from me in that regard. i stick by both statements

AYJAYDEE,

You are perfectly entitled to stick to any statements you like (provided such statement are not against the law of the land, of course), but sticking to such statements without elaboration or explanation when asked, not only does not help anyone, but is also suggestive of dogmatism on your part.

The Buddha didn't behave like that. Even when someone insulted him, he gave an explanation as to why he wasn't offended. Try to learn from the Buddha...please!

If you consider parts of my statements to be illogical or incorrect, I don't see the need to answer further or "help" as you put it. If you decide that you are truly interested in further explanation of someone elses thoughts and opinions on a matter under discussion, it would probably be better to refrain from prefacing your request with negative comments and ending them with name calling. It's not so much a matter of being offended as just disinterested.

[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.

I think that you aren't looking at the big picture, first what today we call Buddhism is in fact a religion, and I dare to say that it is, in most of cases very far away from what the Buddha taught( Buddha was against idolatry, he asked for not being worshiped bcuz he was just another human being and the list goes on).

Then is not only we Westerners that feel embarrassed of admiring a system of thinking if it is deemed to be a religion, must of the Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans do as well they consider Buddhism just another religion based on superstition( this is from my own experience, I lived in China and studied there).

The point I was trying to make is that although Buddhism looks like a religion, and is practised as a religion in Buddhist countries, the real value of it to Westerners is the core teachings, which are more like psychotherapy than religion.

I am not sure about the psychotherapy part, but what I can tell you is that I find Buddhist and Hindu religious art fascinating, I really enjoy going to temples and watching the sculptures, bas-reliefs, the mantras and also doing meditation,

Me too. I love temple architecture and art. It's an added bonus to practising the Dhamma.

[VincentRJ]

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.

I imagine, Camerata, that discussing the issue helps one analyze one's own motives and interests in relation to Buddhism. How significant to one's underlying motives is the religious aspect of Buddhism, which undoubtedly exists? Is a degree of belief, in what science would describe as supernatural phenomena, necessary, or at least helpful, to motivate one to embark upon the so-called Buddhist path?

That's part of it, I guess. But the problem is that a Westerner's idea of religion comes from a Judeo-Christian perspective, i.e. that you do stuff in this life to gain access to a pleasant afterlife with God. Buddhism seems to offer multiple future lives and then "eternal bliss" without God, so their first question is about rebirth and when they don't get a satisfying answer they lose interest. If only they knew that the right question to ask is, "How can the Buddha's teachings help me in this life?"

Camerata,

I really think that many Westerners who were brought up in a Judeo-Christian environment, do ask that question when they investigate the nature of Buddhism seriously. I know that I certainly ask myself that question. But I'm also interested in the general mystery of life, how it developed from inanimate material; apparently spontaneously according to science, although no scientist has yet been able to re-create any self-reproducing organism, however basic and primitive, from any dish or large container of various mixtures of purely inanimate chemicals, applying electric shocks, changes in temperature, whatever.

There are many sorts of imponderable questions. Why is there something rather than nothing?

One question that concerns me is, how qualified is the current state of scientific knowledge to answer such questions when we don't even know what 95% of the matter and energy in the universe consists of?

The implication of our current theories of Astrophysics is that 95% of the stuff that surrounds us is totally invisible and undetectable. Within that framework of such limited awareness, is it not possible that some sort of invisible and undetectable 'force or energy' (for want of a better description), is associated with a previous life and transmitted through a person's genes, perhaps, or by some other method?

I'm reminded again of the inadequacy of our scientific knowledge on such matters. When the human genome was cracked, that is, the protein-encoding genes were defined, we had a wonderful sense of achievement.

However, what is not so widely known is that those protein-encoding genes, amounting to about 32,000 different genes, actual represent only about 2% of our total DNA. We refer to the other 98% as 'junk DNA', because it's non-encoding DNA and we can't discover a use for it.

A while back there were a lot of media reports that some breakthroughs had been made in identifying the purpose of some of that junk DNA, so perhaps it is not all junk. However, the jury is still out.

I try to keep an open mind. I try not to be dogmatic on such issues.

[VincentRJ]

If you consider parts of my statements to be illogical or incorrect, I don't see the need to answer further or "help" as you put it. If you decide that you are truly interested in further explanation of someone elses thoughts and opinions on a matter under discussion, it would probably be better to refrain from prefacing your request with negative comments and ending them with name calling. It's not so much a matter of being offended as just disinterested.

Whereas I do. It's the process of learnig. If I make a statement which someone criticizes as being incorrect, I'm quite happy to explain and justify the reason for my statement. I also have no objection to someone successfully refuting the accuracy of my statement, because I will then have learned something as a result. In fact, I'm grateful if someone succeeds in substantiating their criticism of me or my views, with facts, reason and evidence.

If you decide that you are truly interested in further explanation of someone elses thoughts and opinions on a matter under discussion, it would probably be better to refrain from prefacing your request with negative comments and ending them with name calling. It's not so much a matter of being offended as just disinterested.

Can you give me an example of some negative comments or name-calling contained in prefaces to my response? In my previous post, which you later agreed was grandstanding, I prefaced my post with the comment, "I hope you don't feel insulted when I say parts of your above comments seems totally illogical and incorrect, to me."

Do you consider that to be an example of name-calling, or a negative comment? Do you consider a truthful comment to be a negative comment?

By the way, disinterested means objective and impartial. I think you meant 'uninterested'. Is that a negative comment?

Edited October 15, 2015 by VincentRJ

[AYJAYDEE]

If you consider parts of my statements to be illogical or incorrect, I don't see the need to answer further or "help" as you put it. If you decide that you are truly interested in further explanation of someone elses thoughts and opinions on a matter under discussion, it would probably be better to refrain from prefacing your request with negative comments and ending them with name calling. It's not so much a matter of being offended as just disinterested.

Whereas I do. It's the process of learnig. If I make a statement which someone criticizes as being incorrect, I'm quite happy to explain and justify the reason for my statement. I also have no objection to someone successfully refuting the accuracy of my statement, because I will then have learned something as a result. In fact, I'm grateful if someone succeeds in substantiating their criticism of me or my views, with facts, reason and evidence.

If you decide that you are truly interested in further explanation of someone elses thoughts and opinions on a matter under discussion, it would probably be better to refrain from prefacing your request with negative comments and ending them with name calling. It's not so much a matter of being offended as just disinterested.

Can you give me an example of some negative comments or name-calling contained in prefaces to my response? In my previous post, which you later agreed was grandstanding, I prefaced my post with the comment, "I hope you don't feel insulted when I say parts of your above comments seems totally illogical and incorrect, to me."

Do you consider that to be an example of name-calling, or a negative comment? Do you consider a truthful comment to be a negative comment?

By the way, disinterested means objective and impartial. I think you meant 'uninterested'. Is that a negative comment?

yawn