Is Buddhism a religion?

[VincentRJ]

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."

There's a lot of confusion with the word 'normal'. What was considered to be normal 2,500 years ago in India, might be considered as very abnormal in a modern Western society. I tend to shy away from such descriptive terms as 'normal'.

The question as to what is normal could generate even more discussion than the question, 'Is Buddhism a religion?"

[camerata]

There's a lot of confusion with the word 'normal'. What was considered to be normal 2,500 years ago in India, might be considered as very abnormal in a modern Western society. I tend to shy away from such descriptive terms as 'normal'.

Well, I'm sure you know that I meant "normal" according to contemporary society's standards. Western medicine isn't aiming to make the average person happier, like Buddhism. It's aiming to make people with what we consider to be illnesses, healthy. But I can't think of any stories in the suttas where the Buddha cures someone of what we would consider an illness. Even the serial killer Angulimala is presented as someone with bad karma tricked into killing by his guru, rather than as a psychopath.

[VincentRJ]

yawn

Thank you for your perceptive and illuminating comment, AYJAYDEE.

[VincentRJ]

There's a lot of confusion with the word 'normal'. What was considered to be normal 2,500 years ago in India, might be considered as very abnormal in a modern Western society. I tend to shy away from such descriptive terms as 'normal'.

Well, I'm sure you know that I meant "normal" according to contemporary society's standards. Western medicine isn't aiming to make the average person happier, like Buddhism. It's aiming to make people with what we consider to be illnesses, healthy. But I can't think of any stories in the suttas where the Buddha cures someone of what we would consider an illness. Even the serial killer Angulimala is presented as someone with bad karma tricked into killing by his guru, rather than as a psychopath.

I agree that Buddhist practices are not designed to cure major illnesses, so the roles of medicine and Buddhism are different, but they do seem to overlap in the psychology department.

In a sense we have the best of both worlds. We have the effective treatment of serious diseases and injuries, which weren't available during the times of the Buddha, and we have also the availability of the wisdom of Buddhist teachings which can potentially bring additional peace and understanding into our lives, and possibly counteract the stresses of modern life with its continual emphasis on economic development and it's constant persuasion of people to buy things they don't really need, but which they think they do need in order to satisfy their vanity and ego.

[only1]

Hi A J.

My wish for justice is irrelevant.

The example simply does not conform to your beliefs.

you dont know my beliefs

Karma and rebirth is nature, universal and applies to every beings regardless of beliefs.

Many people think that they need not care what will they be born of the next life but I tell them they will still have know who they are when the time comes. For eg, who we are now, we know it and we are in this body now. Can you imagine how you feel if you are any animal or a different person ? Yes, you will still know. This is the reason it is better to do good so that we are born to be a better being and enjoy a better life in the future. Can we change our belief or religion to believe in something else that guarantees us heaven after life ? Definitely not, that is a scam created to cheat the ignorant ones.

Can one choose to stay ignorant or pretend to stay evasive of such knowledge and still stay happy ? Yes, for this life at least but sorry, now that you already read this, it will not work for you anymore. It's just like the placebo effects those omnipotent God believers hold. When they understand how their religion and placebo effects work, it will no longer work them.

We are all travelers in this circle of Life, until we reach nirvana where we no longer need a life.

[fang37]

"Is Buddhism a religion?"

I do not care what you call it?

It will do me just fine, thank you.

[AYJAYDEE]

Hi A J.

My wish for justice is irrelevant.

The example simply does not conform to your beliefs.

you dont know my beliefs

Karma and rebirth is nature, universal and applies to every beings regardless of beliefs.

Many people think that they need not care what will they be born of the next life but I tell them they will still have know who they are when the time comes. For eg, who we are now, we know it and we are in this body now. Can you imagine how you feel if you are any animal or a different person ? Yes, you will still know. This is the reason it is better to do good so that we are born to be a better being and enjoy a better life in the future. Can we change our belief or religion to believe in something else that guarantees us heaven after life ? Definitely not, that is a scam created to cheat the ignorant ones.

Can one choose to stay ignorant or pretend to stay evasive of such knowledge and still stay happy ? Yes, for this life at least but sorry, now that you already read this, it will not work for you anymore. It's just like the placebo effects those omnipotent God believers hold. When they understand how their religion and placebo effects work, it will no longer work them.

We are all travelers in this circle of Life, until we reach nirvana where we no longer need a life.

you dont know them either

[fang37]

And is Buddhism a religion?

Simple question?

[VincentRJ]

And is Buddhism a religion?

Simple question?

I've answered the question. Check the definition in the dictionary. If you find a definition in a dictionary that states that the word 'religion' applies only to a belief in a God, then we can discuss the credibility of the dictionary.

Some dictionary definitions might use the term 'especially', as in 'a belief in the supernatural, especially a God'. But 'especially' does not mean 'only' or 'exclusively'.

The real questions that are meaningful for each person to address are, what aspects of Buddhism attract them the most? The purely practical, such as techniques of meditation? The purely philosophical/scientific aspects, such as the nature of reality and the confusion that results when we assume that our individual interpretations of sensory phenomena accurately represent reality? Or the purely religious aspects, which include divine or supernatural spirits affecting our current life?

[rockyysdt]

And is Buddhism a religion?

Simple question?

I've answered the question. Check the definition in the dictionary. If you find a definition in a dictionary that states that the word 'religion' applies only to a belief in a God, then we can discuss the credibility of the dictionary.

Some dictionary definitions might use the term 'especially', as in 'a belief in the supernatural, especially a God'. But 'especially' does not mean 'only' or 'exclusively'.

The real questions that are meaningful for each person to address are, what aspects of Buddhism attract them the most? The purely practical, such as techniques of meditation? The purely philosophical/scientific aspects, such as the nature of reality and the confusion that results when we assume that our individual interpretations of sensory phenomena accurately represent reality? Or the purely religious aspects, which include divine or supernatural spirits affecting our current life?

Your explanation has expanded my interpretation of Buddhism as a religion.

You've broken it up into three categories.

1. Practical application.
2. Philosophical/Scientific
3. Religious

The Buddha taught the way to gain freedom from the endless cycle of Re Birth in Samsara, by entering the permanent and deathless state of Nibanna, free from the laws of Dukkha, Anicca, & Anatta.

A limitless state of infinitely refined awareness beyond the confines of time and space, encompassing the entire cosmos.

Many will linger in the practice for practical applications, seeking freedom from anxiety, and fear, or to improve their well being.

Others will deny the teaching in its entirety and marvel at the aspects which resonate with science, psychology and to provide meaning in their lives having abandoned main stream religious paths, many not making sense in a modern world.

Then there are others, endowed with conditioning, which gives them the faith and drive to aim for the peak.

A Christian drunk on his faith once told me that he doesn't follow a religion, he follows the truth.

In my interpretation of the word, Buddhism hovers between option 2, and option 3.

If proven (personal experience) then Buddhism is "philosophical & scientific", but until proven, it remains "Religious".

The answer is it can be both, and is determined by the state of the seer.

[AYJAYDEE]

And is Buddhism a religion?

Simple question?

I've answered the question. Check the definition in the dictionary. If you find a definition in a dictionary that states that the word 'religion' applies only to a belief in a God, then we can discuss the credibility of the dictionary.

Some dictionary definitions might use the term 'especially', as in 'a belief in the supernatural, especially a God'. But 'especially' does not mean 'only' or 'exclusively'.

The real questions that are meaningful for each person to address are, what aspects of Buddhism attract them the most? The purely practical, such as techniques of meditation? The purely philosophical/scientific aspects, such as the nature of reality and the confusion that results when we assume that our individual interpretations of sensory phenomena accurately represent reality? Or the purely religious aspects, which include divine or supernatural spirits affecting our current life?

Your explanation has expanded my interpretation of Buddhism as a religion.

You've broken it up into three categories.

1. Practical application.
2. Philosophical/Scientific
3. Religious

The Buddha taught the way to gain freedom from the endless cycle of Re Birth in Samsara, by entering the permanent and deathless state of Nibanna, free from the laws of Dukkha, Anicca, & Anatta.

A limitless state of infinitely refined awareness beyond the confines of time and space, encompassing the entire cosmos.

Many will linger in the practice for practical applications, seeking freedom from anxiety, and fear, or to improve their well being.

Others will deny the teaching in its entirety and marvel at the aspects which resonate with science, psychology and to provide meaning in their lives having abandoned main stream religious paths, many not making sense in a modern world.

Then there are others, endowed with conditioning, which gives them the faith and drive to aim for the peak.

A Christian drunk on his faith once told me that he doesn't follow a religion, he follows the truth.

In my interpretation of the word, Buddhism hovers between option 2, and option 3.

If proven (personal experience) then Buddhism is "philosophical & scientific", but until proven, it remains "Religious".

The answer is it can be both, and is determined by the state of the seer.

deny what teaching entirely?

[rockyysdt]

And is Buddhism a religion?

Simple question?

I've answered the question. Check the definition in the dictionary. If you find a definition in a dictionary that states that the word 'religion' applies only to a belief in a God, then we can discuss the credibility of the dictionary.

Some dictionary definitions might use the term 'especially', as in 'a belief in the supernatural, especially a God'. But 'especially' does not mean 'only' or 'exclusively'.

The real questions that are meaningful for each person to address are, what aspects of Buddhism attract them the most? The purely practical, such as techniques of meditation? The purely philosophical/scientific aspects, such as the nature of reality and the confusion that results when we assume that our individual interpretations of sensory phenomena accurately represent reality? Or the purely religious aspects, which include divine or supernatural spirits affecting our current life?

Your explanation has expanded my interpretation of Buddhism as a religion.

You've broken it up into three categories.

1. Practical application.
2. Philosophical/Scientific
3. Religious

The Buddha taught the way to gain freedom from the endless cycle of Re Birth in Samsara, by entering the permanent and deathless state of Nibanna, free from the laws of Dukkha, Anicca, & Anatta.

A limitless state of infinitely refined awareness beyond the confines of time and space, encompassing the entire cosmos.

Many will linger in the practice for practical applications, seeking freedom from anxiety, and fear, or to improve their well being.

Others will deny the teaching in its entirety and marvel at the aspects which resonate with science, psychology and to provide meaning in their lives having abandoned main stream religious paths, many not making sense in a modern world.

Then there are others, endowed with conditioning, which gives them the faith and drive to aim for the peak.

A Christian drunk on his faith once told me that he doesn't follow a religion, he follows the truth.

In my interpretation of the word, Buddhism hovers between option 2, and option 3.

If proven (personal experience) then Buddhism is "philosophical & scientific", but until proven, it remains "Religious".

The answer is it can be both, and is determined by the state of the seer.

deny what teaching entirely?

Not entirely, my word was entirety (complete teaching).

[AYJAYDEE]

Not entirely, my word was entirety (complete teaching).

so which of the three categories will deny the entire teaching?

[rockyysdt]

The categories explain themselves.

It's the followers of Buddhism and their adherence to their individual beliefs.

[AYJAYDEE]

The categories explain themselves.

It's the followers of Buddhism and their adherence to their individual beliefs.

are you suggesting that one of these categories of buddhists rejects the ENTIRE teachings???

[rockyysdt]

Not at all.

It all revolves around what you want to achieve.

What do you want to achieve?

[AYJAYDEE]

Not at all.

It all revolves around what you want to achieve.

What do you want to achieve?

then I dont understand your post. i thought you said there were some buddhists who reject the teachings in their entirety. i re-read it and it still seems to say that.

[rockyysdt]

Not at all.

It all revolves around what you want to achieve.

What do you want to achieve?

then I dont understand your post. i thought you said there were some buddhists who reject the teachings in their entirety. i re-read it and it still seems to say that.

Poor grammar.

I'm on the fly.

What I meant was that many adopt a sub set of the teachings (entirety meaning all of the teachings).

[VincentRJ]

Not at all.

It all revolves around what you want to achieve.

What do you want to achieve?

then I dont understand your post. i thought you said there were some buddhists who reject the teachings in their entirety. i re-read it and it still seems to say that.

Poor grammar.

I'm on the fly.

What I meant was that many adopt a sub set of the teachings (entirety meaning all of the teachings).

Yes, that wasn't the best way of expressing that, Rocky. I was also initially confused by what you meant. Now I understand.

This is a common problem with all religions. Do you accept the religion in its entirety, or do you pick and choose the aspects that seem meaningful and credible, like being at a smorgasbord or buffet dinner, choosing only the bits that are tasty and/or nutritious.

I tend to prefer the latter approach, but there are those who would argue that it is advisable to accept all the teachings in their entirety if one is serious about the religion.

[fang37]

Within Buddhist practice, I need to contemplate on wholesome topics.

If I don't, my mind will lead me to places where there is pain & suffering.

[rockyysdt]

I tend to prefer the latter approach, but there are those who would argue that it is advisable to accept all the teachings in their entirety if one is serious about the religion.

Religion until proven as truth, after which it's philosophy/science.

Incidentally picking or choosing the aspects that seem meaningful or credible will not result in realisation of Nibanna.

Much of what the Buddha utilised (tools) were not exclusive.

Breathing, meditation, awareness practice, and living ethically with compassion for others are common tools ultilised by several groups.

The Buddha or Buddhism need not be mentioned or involved to utilise them for self improvement.

Unfortunately without full understanding of Buddhism in its entirety, continuing to cling to self will be the result.

The difference between these and Buddhism is that Nibanna is the highest state that mind will attain, once it has completely eliminated the notion that Atman, Brahma, heaven, God, and all the like are entities to be clung to or eyed at as selves for possession or for uniting with.

As long as the mind perceives being self in any particular thing, it still attaches to that thing; and this is not liberation of the mind.

If you want to land on the moon, you can't select a subset of all the technical requirements required to achieve the aim.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of Nibanna, without a little faith, there is no way to demonstrate scientifically some of the teaching without personal experience, which means some may never allow themselves to come on board.

[VincentRJ]

I tend to prefer the latter approach, but there are those who would argue that it is advisable to accept all the teachings in their entirety if one is serious about the religion.

Unfortunately without full understanding of Buddhism in its entirety, continuing to cling to self will be the result.

The difference between these and Buddhism is that Nibanna is the highest state that mind will attain, once it has completely eliminated the notion that Atman, Brahma, heaven, God, and all the like are entities, to be clung to or eyed at, as selves for possession or for uniting with.

Hey! It looks as though I might have been already half-way to Nirvana before I even got interested in Buddhism. I never had any clinging to Atman, Brahma, Heaven, God, and the like. I never eyed them, or thought I'd like to posses them, or unite with them.

[AYJAYDEE]

Not at all.

It all revolves around what you want to achieve.

What do you want to achieve?

then I dont understand your post. i thought you said there were some buddhists who reject the teachings in their entirety. i re-read it and it still seems to say that.

Poor grammar.

I'm on the fly.

What I meant was that many adopt a sub set of the teachings (entirety meaning all of the teachings).

all the teachings dont agree with each other. anyone who accepted all the teachings at the same time would go insane.

[AYJAYDEE]

I tend to prefer the latter approach, but there are those who would argue that it is advisable to accept all the teachings in their entirety if one is serious about the religion.

Religion until proven as truth, after which it's philosophy/science.

Incidentally picking or choosing the aspects that seem meaningful or credible will not result in realisation of Nibanna.

Much of what the Buddha utilised (tools) were not exclusive.

Breathing, meditation, awareness practice, and living ethically with compassion for others are common tools ultilised by several groups.

The Buddha or Buddhism need not be mentioned or involved to utilise them for self improvement.

Unfortunately without full understanding of Buddhism in its entirety, continuing to cling to self will be the result.

The difference between these and Buddhism is that Nibanna is the highest state that mind will attain, once it has completely eliminated the notion that Atman, Brahma, heaven, God, and all the like are entities to be clung to or eyed at as selves for possession or for uniting with.

As long as the mind perceives being self in any particular thing, it still attaches to that thing; and this is not liberation of the mind.

If you want to land on the moon, you can't select a subset of all the technical requirements required to achieve the aim.

Unfortunately, due to the nature of Nibanna, without a little faith, there is no way to demonstrate scientifically some of the teaching without personal experience, which means some may never allow themselves to come on board.

I dont think any of us are qualified to say who will and who will not realize Nibbana.

[fang37]

It is not up to us to assess another.

[rockyysdt]

There are other ways, but the only one we have control over is through faith and practice.

Excluding intervention even the Buddha said the teaching is useless without practice.

Those who pick and choose are exposing themselves to the powerful clutches of Avijja.

[AYJAYDEE]

There are other ways, but the only one we have control over is through faith and practice.

Excluding intervention even the Buddha said the teaching is useless without practice.

Those who pick and choose are exposing themselves to the powerful clutches of Avijja.

there are many differing interpretations and choices must be made. picking and choosing does not preclude practice.

[rockyysdt]

There are other ways, but the only one we have control over is through faith and practice.

Excluding intervention even the Buddha said the teaching is useless without practice.

Those who pick and choose are exposing themselves to the powerful clutches of Avijja.

there are many differing interpretations and choices must be made. picking and choosing does not preclude practice.

No, but you may end up on the wrong path (Avijja).

Which teachings have you excluded?

[AYJAYDEE]

There are other ways, but the only one we have control over is through faith and practice.

Excluding intervention even the Buddha said the teaching is useless without practice.

Those who pick and choose are exposing themselves to the powerful clutches of Avijja.

there are many differing interpretations and choices must be made. picking and choosing does not preclude practice.

No, but you may end up on the wrong path (Avijja).

Which teachings have you excluded?

i hope you are not taking it upon yourself to say which is the right path and which is not. and its not a matter of exclusion so much as deciding what things to emphasize and which not

[rockyysdt]

There are other ways, but the only one we have control over is through faith and practice.

Excluding intervention even the Buddha said the teaching is useless without practice.

Those who pick and choose are exposing themselves to the powerful clutches of Avijja.

there are many differing interpretations and choices must be made. picking and choosing does not preclude practice.

No, but you may end up on the wrong path (Avijja).

Which teachings have you excluded?

i hope you are not taking it upon yourself to say which is the right path and which is not. and its not a matter of exclusion so much as deciding what things to emphasize and which not

No, just interested.

I'm not a teacher and would never profess such skills.

I agree, but I'd say some are excluding significant parts of the teaching.

This can have an impact on the goal, ones effort, and ones form of practice.

Many Westerners are averse to Re Birth.

My thoughts are to travel with an open mind rather than exclude such things out of hand.

Aversion reinforces Ego.

The other is that for most, not all, devotion to long hours of samadhi practice is essential in order to achieve the levels of concentration and awareness needed to navigate through the stages of realization.

Ven Maha Boowa would spend long periods (weeks or months) of Samadhi, to build up his reserve, after which he would then engage in investigation.

When his reserves were exhausted, he would disengage, and return to Samadhi practice to build himself up in order to perform further investigation.

The Samadhi he developed came easily, was very deep and he was able to remain in such a state for many hours.

Whilst in such states he needed to be vigilant to the traps of Avijja.

Sublime states which would fool most into thinking they had reached Nibanna.

This is even before one has a chance to begin investigation.

Avijja presents all the way up to the precipice.

This is why I indicated an an earlier post that professing to be a Buddhist and practicing for 30 - 40 minutes a day, is nice and has many rewards, but it's akin to a tyre kicker in a car yard.

This is not a reference to you but an observation I have made in terms of practicing to Awaken.