by VorJack
During the recent discussion of Buddhism, the usual argument that Buddhism is a “philosophy and not a religion” came up. When having this discussion, I think it’s necessary to be clear which type of Buddhism you’re talking about. Think of it this way: if you’re arguing about Christianity, you don’t want to be talking about Universalist Unitarianism while the other person is thinking about the Church of Latter Day Saints.
Consider for example the broad stream of Buddhism usually called (in the west) Pure Lands Buddhism or Amidism. Like most forms of eastern religion, it seems to play well with others, so there are many combinations and permutations. Still, if you take a step back and squint, it looks like Pure Lands Buddhism may be the most popular form of Buddhism in the east.
One of the core concepts of Pure Lands is that a Buddha named Amitabha (there are several other renderings) provides an alternative path to enlightenment. The idea is that this current age, with its temptations and hardships, makes it extremely difficult for the commoner to engage in the meditative pursuits that lead to enlightenment. By exhibiting devotion to Amitabha, the believer may be reborn in the Pure Lands at a future time.
The Buddha Amitabha has created the Pure Lands as a place of peace and repose, where the (literally) born-again believer may be instructed by Bodhisattvas and attain enlightenment with relative ease.
Which, is you squint some more, looks quite a bit like heaven. And Amitabha sounds an awful lot like a messiah figure, with whom we are saved. My understanding is that the various Pure Lands groups occasionally have the same arguments that reformed Protestants do: saved by grace alone or saved by grace through faith?
I’ve also heard that the same arguments take place in certain Hindu sects, where they are known as the “cat school” and the “monkey school.” The cat school says that we are saved by grace alone, like a mother cat yanking up a straying child by the scruff of its neck. The monkey school says that we are saved by grace through faith, like a baby monkey who is lifted by mother, but then must cling on to her back.
I’d just like to echo what I said before: we’re all humans, and all faced with many of the same problems and failings. It shouldn’t be surprising that our religions end up sharing many of the same traits.
I always find it weird when people insist that Buddhism is a philosophy not a religion — I mean, who prays to their philosophy? It reminds me of a conversation I had with a Muslim who insisted Islam was a “way of life” and not a religion.
It’s like they want to distance themselves from the negative imagery surrounding religion. But at the end of the day, you have to call a spade a spade.
Well, Buddhism does not have prayer; at least not the Theravada Buddhism (afaik). Don’t confuse meditation and mantras with prayer.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s still very religion-like – but at least in Theravada anyone can be a Buddha, with no intervention from anyone but the person. I don’t know about Mahayana/Pure Land, though.
But what about those Buddhist shrines people go and light candles next to? Aren’t they praying?
I think there’s a distinction between contemplation and supplication.
Not in the sense they are requesting favors/divine intervention. It’s more like a tribute to the Buddha followed by meditation/introspection.
Fear of death drives the self-aware primate to cling to false hope. That is the universal driver of religion.
Certain aspects of xtian say that jesus never said ‘I am g0d’ but that does not stop the followers from making him g0d. This principle hold for buddha as well. His followers made him g0d, thus a philosophy of self discovery becomes a religion.
As said by others there is many good things at the core of many religions, but it all gets distorted by culture, politics, & Fear.
One tenet of ZEN ‘look into yourself and see the failure (wrongness-sin-whatever) acknowledge it, accept it, then change your behavior to not do so again’ paraphrasing the idea.
Now jesus said something like..’release your guilt of sin and give it onto me and live your life in goodness’ paraphrased again.
the two ideas are the same with the cultures reflected in the statements (self vs authority).
My journey from catlick to A-theist has shown me that broad titles on any religion will lead you to difficulties because of the various subtle differences. You see the same shadings in political parties. Some one asked what party I favor and I answered that I am a ‘liberal democratic republican libertarian rational anarchist with tendencies of not giving a damn’ as in religion I am an ‘AmerIndian buddhistic christian with tendencies of agnostic atheism and tendencies of not giving a damn’.
I find that religion is just another form of politics with shadings that go from mild philosophy to fundamentalist bat-schite crazy.
Right on….
I sort of understand “grace” v. “faith.” But what about “acts?” The thing I found disappointing about religion when I was inside was the weird sense that you could get away with anything, so long as you believed the right thing. Made no sense.
A philosophy is supposed to help you live a better life, more productive, more content, nicer to have as a neighbor, etc. Ideally a religion would be a philosophy, but it’s not very often the case. The whole point of either buddhism or christianity that I can see from the outside is to slow down, forgive yourself, try to be a better human being. What attracts people to these ways of thought is a need for structure, stability, ritual, be in touch with themselves, that’s what makes them a philosophy even if they utilize the supernatural “all-being,” god or whomever wiser than they. When someone says their christianity is not a religion, it’s a relationship, perhaps this is what they mean – they actively get benefits from considering their actions. It’s what people go to therapy for. With the right attitude going in, you get better results or are at least not so quick to anger or impatience.
I’m also in favor of “prayer” as a form of meditation. It’s not who you talk to, it’s that you sit still and concentrate, meditate, it does have a calming effect to wait things out or clear your head for a few minutes and approach the situation with a positive action and attitude rather than rush in with your emotional reaction. “Count to 10″ that sort of thing. Everyone is better off with a cool head.
Religion as I’ve seen it, misses the point. Belief that it works is not enough, and I have heard people say that if you give your heart to Jesus, you will see results, because he moves through you… or something. It’s a trick of being conscientious and attributing it to Jesus. They say it’s not acts, and they really believe it’s all for heaven. The philosophy would bear out, I think both teach that life is suffering, and acceptance. It’s not to suffer, but to remind us to endure life, the heaven is on earth if you manage not to crumble under the weight of things as they come, you’ll actually have a happier life, and it can be seen as a convenience to believe in god, to mentally move your troubles over to him so you can move and think more clearly. He’s not really there, but that’s not a bad way to think. What is not so good is people who fool themselves their whole life only to hit a wall, realize god is not there (or wonder why he abandoned them) because their troubles did not go away, or that if there’s nobody there, they have nobody to shift their pain over to. Like the same thing I said about prayer, it’s not who you are talking to, it’s the meditative effect; you don’t need god to set your troubles aside somewhere. It’s not like god literally takes them from you and gives them back all fixed, you’re just taking a load off your mind while life goes on, and getting some perspective or waiting for chance to turn around. Life needs your direct attention to move through the hard parts, nothing good comes from dwelling on the hard parts and ignoring your regularly scheduled life.
I really think what I know about religions puts these things in a nutshell, but the people who believe they work don’t really know how to use them or why they work. Above all is the sentiment of acceptance, the more you accept life on earth, your life in particular, as it is, the better the payoff. You might not actually get a heaven as it’s been described to you, but you feel better than you thought you would… that’s how it’s all supposed to work! That’s heaven, it’s been warped into something you wait until after you die, people take that literally. People working hard and “accepting” their dreary life to rationalize that someday after they die, they will be rewarded. Think about the selling point of that and the protestant work ethic. If you work hard in this life, don’t complain, heaven is what’s waiting for you after you live a long time and finally die. I guess motivational if you believe it.
Buddhism isn’t a religion?
Its defenders would have me spend a lifetime studying the Eight Ways to Stub Your Toe and while away my days meditating on the Four Things That Get Meditated. It still has its devines and its monks and its superstitious flapdoodle.
Buddhism isn’t a religion? Perhaps not, but its close enough, isn’t it?
Buddhism is based on divine revelation. Gautama received a vision of how the world works, and then he passes this to others who believe basically on faith.
The difference between philosophy and religion is how they achieve their information. Religion always comes in the form of revelation. Information is given that is believed simply because of the source. The source doesn’t have to be a god, but it must be supernatural.
Philosophy receives their beliefs from a rational examination of the world around them. The two foundations of philosophy are that we start the study by assuming we don’t know the answers, and that through logic and reason we can find those answers.
That’s why science and evolution aren’t religions. They are actually philosophies. They use logic to examine world rather than relying on supernatural revelation.
Since buddhism relies on revelation it is definitely a religion.
Revelation, but not divine revelation. Neither deity nor supernatural force provided Gautama’s revelation experience.
I used to be a Buddhist, though I never belonged to any specific institution. The thing about Buddhism, is that when you strip away every bit of the supernatural, you’re left with something that is a simple, but not easy, practice of self-discipline and introspection with the nominal purpose of reducing suffering. That’s where the philosophy (more of an early applied psychology) is.
You can get revelation on a therapist’s couch. How many self-help books are there? That’s not religion.. religion promises that if you believe in a divine supernatural thing and follow its laws, you will be saved. In the ways I described upthread, doing so can improve your life if you have the right attitude, it’s no magic, a lot of it works toward fixing your lousy attitude and periodically forcing you to slow down and examine what’s in front of you. Self-help, I think is a revelation of a sort. I have had my own revelations, I don’t think they are supernatural. Gautama Buddha may have also had some revelations just the same way I have had, at once you are in trouble, and then you see where you can approach life with a better attitude. All I know of Buddhism (or Christianity for that matter) works off this attitude, and the same is taught in self-help books.
What happens is you realize this can become that, you try it and have success. And this may help others troubled by similar problems, but it’s not a guarantee. For all the self-help books or therapy sessions there are in this world, what exactly unlocks a stuck person from this to become that? It’s not something you can necessarily follow the same steps as someone else and achieve. So really anything that supposes you would succeed from following a list of instructions is something of a religious belief. Nothing there actually unlocks the stuck person, it’s just they are troubled and notice someone has success. They want steps to follow, they want change. I don’t think it’s religion because it comes from a supernatural source more than it comes from people wanting a list of instructions not really “getting” that it’s not the instructions, it’s whatever it is that will unlock them.
Religion is people doing and saying all the same things, repeating “wisdom” from some successful source. Doing and saying the things is not wisdom or success. Getting results from unlocking what is stuck, though, may get people to believe the powers are magical, and that whoever the source of them is also magical. If you can’t think of it yourself, it must have occurred to someone else from a supernatural source, and if that supernatural source visited this one particular person, then they must be “chosen” or something, that person is particularly wise.
Wisdom can be revered, but presuming the ultimate source was outside the wise person, chose to visit the wise person or was supernatural in any way, that’s the problem with religion. It’s presumed magic.
Also The Buddha left specific instructions on how to go about replicating his revelation, which is somewhat unusual.
Then again his revelation can be paraphrased as follows:
1) People are unhappy a lot of the time
2) Wanting things you don’t have makes you Unhappy
3) If you stop wanting what you don’t have you’ll be happier
4) here is a technique of achieving point 3
I don’t think you’re talking about Buddhism. Perhaps you know what you’re talking about.
I just roll my eyes when people trot out the tired old “it’s a philosophy, not a religion’ bullshit. A) It’s a religion; and B) it makes no difference what you call it, it’s just another flavor of superstition at the end of the day, anyway. As to those who say it’s an ‘atheistic religion’ – again, I roll my eyes. You’ve just replaced one imaginary anthropomorphic entity (God/the gods) with another (Buddha/Amitabha). ‘Oh, but Buddhists don’t worship the Buddha,’ that makes no difference, as the term “worship” means different things in different traditions anyway. What’s behind all this is the myth of the ‘Inscrutable East,’ where some westerners expect to find all the magic and mystery that there is no longer a place for in the modern, industrialized West. Koan, schmoan! Zen, schmen!
Indeed.
Any charm Buddhism may have held for me vanished when my Chinese boss paid a ton of money to Buddhist monks to determine the most auspicious month for him to marry, and to come in and tell us how to arrange the furniture in our offices to increase our prosperity.
DM: “Monk casts bless spell on your business!”
Ty: “I make my Will save and disbelieve.”
DM: “Your boss fails his saving throw, and the monk takes all his money!”
Amen to that, Steve. Does it matter if it is called a religion, philosophy, myth, set of beliefs, superstition,cult? They are all the same thing, name just describes how society see it. Do with it as you will.
Buddhism has some great ideas and beliefs but followers are still the same as the rest of the people on this planet. No magic in any of them.
It matters. Since the pure believe/worship in Buddha doesn’t make you a Buddha yourself.
As the person who replied to the previous thread with “it’s a philosophy not a religion”, I’m interested in this follow on thread from my comments.
The original post asked why Westerners were so attracted to Buddhism. Posting on Pure Land is a real strawman argument. The Buddhism that interested the West from the 19th century til the 1970′s was Theravada. This is very much a philosophy. In recent years the film star infatuation with Tibet has led to interest in a Buddhism that is very much is a religion. The two are very different.
Theravada doesn’t see Buddha as a God. There is no heaven there is only self-responsibility for your actions. To compare it with xnity is ridiculous, as there is no personal salvation through belief /subjugation in anyone and no bible to follow.
I do however have to agree that a lot of what has been done with Buddhism around the world shows the typical ignorance of religions. This is partly the problem that Buddhism is very accepting and doesn’t have a lot of dogma. So it can be adapted / perverted in many ways.
If however you learn about Theravada Buddhism then you will see that it is a very sensible, liberal, self-aware, compassionate approach to life. All these but not a religion.
Any “philosophy” that tries to convince me that there is an “afterlife” (the word itself is oxymoronic) becomes a religion. It doesn’t matter to me whether one “worships” or not, if the philosophy touts the existence of the “supernatural” then it ceases to be a thought exercise and becomes a religion. Done.
There is no afterlife since there is no life in Buddhism.
6uldvnt
don’t see what you mean. If there was some way that when we died, we simply appeared somewhere else (not likely) then that would be an afterlife and would have no need to be predicated on a God. So afterlife and religion don’t have to be interlinked. They usually are however as you say, because people are terrified of death so seek a pathetic reassurance in belief in magical figures. Thankfully Theravada buddhism doesn’t believe in an afterlife.
I suppose we have to make a distinction between Buddhism and Buddhists.
If I met Christ I suspect I would be very impressed with him and his way of life (think money changers in the temple etc). If Christ met modern right wing American Christians I suspect they would hate him. The message and the messenger are not always the same thing.
Theravada Buddhism is a religion.
It starts with revelation. Theravada buddhism, like all other religions, is based on a scripture that has been passed down through the generations. Philosophy does not rely on texts that are automatically believed to be true. There is not one philosophy text that does not have multiple people that attempt to reject it. Where are the buddhists that argue against the four noble truths?
The basic tenants of buddhism come from scripture. The four noble truths, the noble eightfold path, the three jewels, all of these are taught to a student as absolute truth rather than arguments to be considered.
The eightfold path is based on “right” actions. What is right? This is an argument that has resonated through philosophy since the beginning, but it is notably absent in buddhism. Further one of the basics of this path is Karma. The idea that good actions draw good in ones life, and the opposite, is a distinctly religious view. This view is not based on reason, experimentation, or logical examination.
The four noble truths can be boiled down to a few simple statements. Desire is the root of suffering, to stop suffering one should stop desiring. This is a classic religious trope. Religions have always tried to separate people from the physical world. Buddhism does the same thing. Don’t worry about how hard this life is, or how much the nobility abuses you, don’t worry it will all be better when you die. The divorcing of people from actual reality is how religion controls people, and one of the reasons why it is damaging to society.
Finally, does Buddha give logical arguments as to why he seeks nirvana? Is that even the best goal to head after? Where are the logical arguments in support of buddhism? If it is a philosophy then it must be based on reasonable evaluation of the world. Otherwise it is all mystical mumbo-jumbo.
Sure four noble truth has always been discussed heavily. Read them please.
D’n: Yes, the teachings of Buddhism come from the teachings of a man named Buddha. But just because they were realized by someone a long time ago doesn’t make them any less true or false. Buddhism is about applying these principles/values to your life, and seeing for yourself whether it relieves your suffering. If it doesn’t, ditch it. That’s all. There’s no leap of faith necessary. You apply to your life (Note: NOT pray, NOT hope, NOT do this, that and wait for heaven). If you have a positive state of mind, more clearer mind, more still mind, then Buddhism works for you. It’s all about inner peace, not about taking a leap of faith.
In the end, any Buddhist will tell all of you, you’ve missed the point. Buddhism is not about arguing about semantics, or theory, or categorizing it as religion or philosophy: It’s about relieving suffering, and internal conflict. That’s all. No need for theory here.
No. If there is no need of theory then there is no need for teaching/listening/thinking/practising. That’s not Buddhism.