pampe
- Thursday, April 10 2008
|
what difference would it make?
|
|
leegee
- Thursday, April 10 2008
|
I am sure plenty of people consider it one, and just as many the other.
If religion is a set of beliefs, then Buddhism is not really a religion, since all aspects of Buddhism require knowledge gained through experience. Shakyamuni Buddha explicitly and repeated called his audience/readership to question everything and accept nothing that does not make sense. This is still a highly encourage practice: His Holiness The Dalai Lama repeats this: that in the sutras which does not make sense literally should be interpreted metaphorically; that which does not make sense metaphorically should be discarded.
As to whether Buddhism is a philosophy, that depends on the use of the term philosophy. A love of wisdom? Certainly respect for, and love of, wisdom is central to Buddhists - to least in that the first tenent of the Eightfold Path, which might be thought of as one of the few central creeds, is Right Understanding. Buddhism is also a philosophy in as much as it is a methodological study.
Personally, I would not be happy using either term, but then I do not really discuss Buddhism outside of my family and a few online groups, so I do not need a language to speak of it to those who have no knowledge of it.
I would advise avoiding both terms, and consider Buddhism as a way of life.
|
|
|
I think it depends on how you define religion. The youth group at my temple have this discussion now and again and what i've noticed is that the folks who tend to call buddhism a phillosophy do so because their connotative definition of religion dosent fit their idea of buddhism. I live in the south so religion is all over the place here and the need to belong to a group can be over whelming at times, which dosent mean the folks who call buddhism a religion are doing so out of peer pressure or anything it just works for them that way.
I think as westerners, americans in particular we are so used to religion being presented as someone else calling all the shots and being the driver that when we are presented with an alternative it does not compute. I think you should toss doctrine in a religion that does not work for you, thats just common sense. I think religion should be a way of life and for me this is buddhism. Its kinda like how a square can be a rectangle, but a rectangle can never be a square kinda thing. Personal interpretation is a good thing. Buddhism is a religion for me, and the reason why it works is because if calling it a religion dose not make sense to you then you dont have to do so and we both are still buddhist how awesome is that?
|
|
|
Just the other day I was listening some explanation about mystic poetry and there was explained the first thing the reader of mystic poetry notices and gets in the contact with, is »the aesthetics«, which function as kind of medium and enable the reader to, well not to experience direct mystic adventure or transcendency, yet to get the taste of mysticism. And, here with buddhism I think people need medium as well, depending on which one we are touchy and sensitive. Somebody more on religion and what ever does it mean, like transcendensy or to reconnect with some powers outside ourselves, call it god, but somebody more on philosophy and theories, analysis and such.
|
|
|
I believe that it is to be a philosophy- a way of living that can be used in conjunction with MANY different kinds of religions. Siddhartha Buddha never intended to be worshipped, it was his intention to serve as a teacher to others on how to attain personal enlightenment.
However, there are many different factions of Buddhists, just as there are many protestant factions and there are different Muslims with different beliefs... Even down to the demoninational level- just as there are many different TYPES of Baptists, Christian Fellowships, Church of Christers, etc...there are different types of Buddhists.
It is human nature to splinter off into factions at the hint of disagreement. But even as Jesus said, "Do not stop [them], for whoever is not against you is for you." (Luke 9:50 and Mark 9:38-41)
|
|
|
If by religion, you assume worship of a deity, then Buddhism is not a religion. Although most people assume that Buddhists worship the Buddha, it is more correct to say that we honor him. There is no belief in an external creator.
|
|
macloo
- Sunday, April 27 2008
|
Well, I have heard experienced dharma teachers say this:
Buddhism is not about the Buddha, is not about religion, is not about worship, is not even about Buddhism. Buddhism is about an end to suffering for all beings.
So if that sounds like a religion to someone, then it could be their religion. And if it sounds like a philosophy to someone else, then it could be their philosophy. And if you would like to call it a path, as many texts do, then I guess for you it could be a path.
|
|
|
I agree with every post on this board that I have read. It is not about the Buddha per-se, and I have many friends who are enthusiastic about the non-religious application of meditation and other useful practices.
But, some forms of Buddhism, such are Pure Land, are extremely devotional and nearly devoid of philosophical trappings. My lama has even mentioned that the usual practice of Buddhism in Tibet is a bit more devotional than thoughtful.
I have heard dharma teachers explain that Buddhism was not an "-ism" in the time that Buddha taught, and that he would have been perplexed. And while Buddhism (some flavors anyhow) contains vast philosophical insights, literature, and non-religious practices that are helpful . . . I think it is very narrow to say Buddhism is not a religion.
It is a religion in my opinion and practice. If you know or speak with active practitioners I think you will largely see that the ngondro practices are so difficult, and physical, that any armchair Buddhist tendancies we may have fall to the wayside. One's intellect is rarely enough alone to sustain the practices required by most Buddhist teachings. There practices are what make it a religion in my mind.
You practice instead of thinking about (or not only thinking about). So, taking refuge, prostrations, Vajrasattva purification, chanting, prayers . . . I think it is safe to say it is a religion, and then work with any issues or connotations that arise for the hearer based on the word religion.
But, of course, if a religion requires worship of a deity, then Buddhism is not strictly a religion; I have heard His Holiness say as much. But, then you look at Tibetan Buddhism and you have all those deities right? It is confusing at first until you have your first qualified lama explain that there is no one who is saying Yamantaka is really real, wears a belt of skulls, and so forth. It is a physical depiction that our senses can work with . . . a tool; not really a god.
|
|
leegee
- Saturday, July 5 2008
|
Not so much a discussion going on here, as a series of answers. Shame.
Anyway, to balance my own earlier reply, I would like to point out that the historic Buddha did refer to the defence of the "religeon" when specifying some of the occasional instances when violence is permitted by Buddhists.
Mahyanans believe that the understanding of the mythology of Buddhism changes as once advances through the ten stages of the Bodhisattva path. That there is such a mythology also implies a formal religeon. The change in perspectives upon the practioner and practice, the auto-referential nature of the whole schtick, is undeniably philosophical.
|