Is Buddhism a religion?

[Frankiel]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

Indisputably, Buddhism is a religion.

I, however, am not.



Edited to add a comma.

[Shui_Di]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

Hello Sangha... What do you think? If yes, what makes it so? How do you define "religion"? Are some Buddhist traditions more "religions" than others? What makes it so?

Another question: I have prayer flags hanging over my front door, and someone asked me "what is this?" and I answered "Prayer flags"...
Then she asked "if you don't believe in God, who do you pray to?" Help me with this... what would you answer to a conservative Christian, with approx. 10th grade education... (my understanding would not make any sense to her).

Curious of your responses
with Gassho
G.

"if you don't believe in God, who do you pray to?"

some of my friend also ask me that question, and I just said," who said that I don't believe in God, only our way to understand God is different."

You understand God as some one that you can ask for something, about new car or new house.

I understand God as something perfect, which inside it there is no good or bad, high and low, which never born and died, no appear or disappear, is the perfect one. This is God. This is the reality. This is the Way.

And God cannot be separated from us. We are inside God, and God inside us. It's beyond analytical thinking.

So, if some said I don't believe in God, he is wrong. I believe in It, and I live with It.

You think God as something separated to you, that's why you feel lack something in your life, and that's why you need to pray and ask.

I understand God as something that cannot be separated for us. That's why, we never lack of something, and no need to ask more.

Gassho, Mujo

[Jundo]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

From a little reading of blogs here and there, this seems to be a debate ( probably an argument somewhere or many somewheres) that has come up recently.

My view is..does it matter what we label it? Who are we labelling it for? To understand it is to practice it. Logic and intellectualizing only go so far.So why worry about whether it is or isn't? For me the practice is what it is.

As far as deities and what not. I have the view that even if they exist...what ARE they? What Is their place? And then ...does it matter? In sitting zazen I believe I please them all..if they exist.

When it comes to anything "supernatural" I niether dismiss nor accept. We don't know that great mystical powers don't exist. We don't know that they do. I feel I have experienced things "supernatural"..to me they are just natural.. nothing super..just are what they are. But at the same time I could have been completely delusional in those moments, and thinking myself the careful skeptic when in the end it was just some normal science based everyday occurrence with no mysticism whatsoever.

If we close ourselves to them, we won't experience them. Even if they are right in our faces..we'll miss them because we dismissed them as something else.But if we're all superstitious than a "normal" everyday happening becomes some great mysterious thing because we just can't accept that it wasn't some rare occurrence.

Dave _/_

Dave _/_

Hi Dave,

Just today, on another thread, I posted a couple of things on this topic that I write from time to time. Please have a look ...

http://blog.beliefnet.com/treeleafzen/2 ... gness.html

http://blog.beliefnet.com/treeleafzen/2 ... nking.html

I am sure others will have much to add here too.

Gassho, Jundo

[Shonin]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

From a little reading of blogs here and there, this seems to be a debate ( probably an argument somewhere or many somewheres) that has come up recently.

My view is..does it matter what we label it? Who are we labelling it for? To understand it is to practice it. Logic and intellectualizing only go so far.So why worry about whether it is or isn't? For me the practice is what it is.

As far as deities and what not. I have the view that even if they exist...what ARE they? What Is their place? And then ...does it matter? In sitting zazen I believe I please them all..if they exist.

When it comes to anything "supernatural" I niether dismiss nor accept. We don't know that great mystical powers don't exist. We don't know that they do. I feel I have experienced things "supernatural"..to me they are just natural.. nothing super..just are what they are. But at the same time I could have been completely delusional in those moments, and thinking myself the careful skeptic when in the end it was just some normal science based everyday occurrence with no mysticism whatsoever.

If we close ourselves to them, we won't experience them. Even if they are right in our faces..we'll miss them because we dismissed them as something else.But if we're all superstitious than a "normal" everyday happening becomes some great mysterious thing because we just can't accept that it wasn't some rare occurrence.

Dave _/_

Dave _/_

[Jundo]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

Hi Mountaintop,

Good to hear from you.

Your post is a very accurate description of my experience of how Buddhism is practiced in most of Asia. As well, Buddhism has certainly changed in many ways as it has come into Western cultures, just as it changed in important ways over the centuries ...

I mean, it is different ... but the same. Let me explain. Here is what I usually post on this topic.

But one thing for folks to remember is that Buddhism did change and evolve over many centuries, as it passed from culture to culture in Asia. The Buddha lived 2500 years ago in ancient India, whereupon the philosophy passed to China 1000 years later, and then to someone like Master Dogen who lived about 1000 years after that in medieval Japan. You and I live in the strange world known as the 21st century. Certainly, some changes arose along the way in some important interpretations and outer forms. For example, the Chinese made Zen Practice very Chinese, the Japanese very medieval Japanese, and now we are making it very Western.

However, the Heart of the Buddha's teachings ... the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, Non-Self, Non-Attachment, the Middle Way, etc. etc., ... All are here now as much as there then!!

How?

On the one hand some outer stuff is, well, changed. For example, when Buddhism came to China it was heavily influenced by, and pretty much merged with, Taoism (not to mention that it was already "Mahayana Buddhism" by that time, a very different flavor from the original). The result was this little thing we now call "Zen Buddhism". So, congratulations, we are already "Taoists" and "Mahayana Buddhists" ... not just "Buddhists". When it got to Japan, the Japanese added Japanese culture to it. In the West, we are now making some very good changes (although we have to, of course, try to avoid bad changes). These good changes include equality of the sexes and a greater emphasis on lay practice.

But it is still Buddhism. What Dogen taught was Buddhism. What we do around Treeleaf (I do believe) is as Buddhism as Buddhism can be.

I will even go so far as to say (and this is the kind of statement that has gotten me into all kinds of trouble on with some folks in Buddhism's own fundamentalist quarters) that maybe, just maybe, later Buddhism actually made some big and important "improvements" to the Buddha's original formulation with all those additions, and a couple of thousand years of working out the kinks and bugs. It is much like saying that Buddha was Henry Ford, who first thought up the brilliant idea of sticking 4 wheels on an internal combustion engine, but now we can drive a Prius! I even say that maybe, just maybe, the Buddha was not infallible on every darn thing. Not on the vital heart of the teachings, mind you. But while he was 90% right in his proposals, he maybe also had some klunkers and narrow ideas here and there (as fits a man who lived in a traditional, myth based society some 2500 years ago in ancient India) ... like the whole thing about an overly mechanical view of rebirth, the place of women, the need to abandon the world and family in order to Practice and to repress or extinquish (as opposed to moderate & balance & pierce) the desires and emotions. ...

Dogen was different from Shakyamuni Buddha, who are both different from all of us.

But when we are sitting a moment of Zazen ... perfectly whole, just complete unto itself, without borders and duration, not long or short, nothing to add or take away, containing all moments and no moments in "this one moment" ... piercing Dukkha, attaining non-self, non-attached ... then there is not the slightest gap between each of us and the Buddha.

Gassho, Jundo

I would add that, in the West for lay people who are not of Asian heritage and did not come to Buddhism as their "family religion", it is not about the things that you describe in your post, Mountain .... the worship, intervention with spirits, hoping for good luck, praying for a dead ancestor, etc.

It is about Practice, at least for the meditation schools. That is a good thing, a good development. I believe.

Gassho, Jundo

[Mountaintop Rebel]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

Buddhism is certainly a religion. When you have a system of monks and nuns, prayers, idols, chants, scriptures, etc, I think it's pretty safe to say that you have a religion on your hands. And the thing is that popular Buddhism in Asia is overwhelmingly religious in a way that I think few Western Buddhists are aware of. Buddhists where I live don't meditate, don't debate koans, none of that, unless they're monks (who here are celibate, vegetarian monastics 24/7). Lay Buddhists go to the temple and pray to the appropriate deity that their kid does well on the college entrance exam, they get that promotion at work, or they have a son instead of a daughter. Occasionally they'll burn some fake money for a dead relative. And this is more or less what Buddhism is in every part of Asia. The gods aren't metaphors, they are real, existing beings, and you want to get on their good side. The rituals aren't to affirm intention, they're to tangibly affect reality. There's no "real" Buddhism that accords with Western principles of the Enlightenment, as a lot of Western seekers imagine; from the earliest records we have in the Pali canon, we have Buddha doing magic tricks, traveling to other realms, performing miracles, etc. And from the earliest Mahayana scriptures we have loads of supernatural nonsense. I think there's a certain amount of arrogance in the "Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion" shtick, kind of a Victorian attitude like those benighted brown people don't get their own religion, but we understand the full import of it.

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

Mensch said

Is Buddhism a religion?
Is Pluto a planet?
Is a Toyota RAV4 an offroad vehicle?
Is Europe really a continent?

Who cares – really?
When someone says Buddhism is a religion, I reply: No, it isn’t. When somone says no, I insist it is. Beyond that I never bothered.

Danke

On the other hand, if we insist on confronting concepts and verbal conventions, I'll paraphrase Nishijima Roshi in that religion is the set of beliefs on which your actions are based. Thus, atheism is a religion and you act based on the belief that there ain't no stinkin' gawd; shunning religion altogether is a religion in which you act believing that religion is irrelevant, etc.

This reminds me of a Steve Hagen talk where he says that arguments between Atheists and Christians are arguments between to believers, not arguments between believers and non-believers.

[Alberto]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

Mensch said

Is Buddhism a religion?
Is Pluto a planet?
Is a Toyota RAV4 an offroad vehicle?
Is Europe really a continent?

Who cares – really?
When someone says Buddhism is a religion, I reply: No, it isn’t. When somone says no, I insist it is. Beyond that I never bothered.

Danke

On the other hand, if we insist on confronting concepts and verbal conventions, I'll paraphrase Nishijima Roshi in that religion is the set of beliefs on which your actions are based. Thus, atheism is a religion and you act based on the belief that there ain't no stinkin' gawd; shunning religion altogether is a religion in which you act believing that religion is irrelevant, etc. Acts, and not wooden icons or speeches, tell us what your religion is.

This is a derivative of a cliche: buddhism is not a religion, but as many religions as there are people following buddhist teachings.

America is the only real continent, by the way.

[Jundo]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

ScottyDoo... thank you for clarifying for me...

Your writing reminds me someone's, someplace, statement: "They don't like me being a Buddhist, but they love me when I am a Buddha." Meaning we have often problems with people (or they have with us ) when we say "I am a Buddhist", but they love us when we actually behave like one... :wink:

with metta
G.

I did a "sit-a-long" talk on this subject during the Christmas season ... very common issue for that season (and cooling to listen to in the heat of August) ...

http://treeleafzen.blogspot.com/2007/12 ... ng-to.html

[Gautami]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

ScottyDoo... thank you for clarifying for me...

Your writing reminds me someone's, someplace, statement: "They don't like me being a Buddhist, but they love me when I am a Buddha." Meaning we have often problems with people (or they have with us ) when we say "I am a Buddhist", but they love us when we actually behave like one... :wink:

with metta
G.

[ScottyDoo]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

I, personally, am not devotionally inclined therefore more attracted to the philosophical aspect of Buddhism. Because of my personal preferences, and for the sake of principle (of respecting all preferences), I reacted to your (or your wife's) statement "...moving towards a more serious, devout Buddhist practice".

Using Yoga as an example, there are devotional, philosophical, as well as integrative (Raja Yoga) traditions, yet I have not heard any reference to which one is more serious. Also, for the sake of curiosity, what is making Christianity (clearly and strongly devotional) less serious than devotional Buddhism?

Also, if I understand you correctly, what about 'devout Buddhist practice' makes it more serious than philosophical?

I feel I have missunderstood your statement...
Thanks for your thoughts ScottyDoo
G.

I may not have used the term 'devout' properly. I see in the dictionary there are a few different meanings. Traditionally I guess it is used in reference to religion, or similar, whereas I meant in this sense, as outlined by Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

devoted to a pursuit, belief, or mode of behavior

When I say my 'devout Buddhist practice', what I'm truly saying is that I'm serious and dedicated to learning and understanding and to take on the precepts and philosophies as a way of life. It is much more than just a current interest or fad for me. So I don't see it personally for myself as a religion by my definition, but I could see how it could be taken that way.

As an example, some people choose to be Vegetarians/Vegans. Many are hardcore, serious believers in the philosophies/reasons to follow that path.

Is it a religion? No
Is it a lifestyle? Yes.

That's kind of how I see Buddhism...it's a lifestyle of sorts, though a little more perhaps.

[Gautami]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

Hello ScottyDoo... I have always been fascinated by the impression that so many Buddhists, (majority of?) Buddhist scholars and a majority of Buddhist traditions treat and refer to Buddhism as a religion. There are many implications in refering to the tradition as 'religion' (regardless of the meaning of the word) - see your wife's comment "...so long as I personally don't take it on as a "religion", the "philosophy" is fine." I have been reading every one's responses with interest... thank you. Posted the question while being curious what you all think about it.

My wife says she doesn't care how people look at it so long as I personally don't take it on as a "religion", the "philosophy" is fine. She's struggling with my departure from traditional Christianity and moving towards a more serious, devout Buddhist practice.

I, personally, am not devotionally inclined therefore more attracted to the philosophical aspect of Buddhism. Because of my personal preferences, and for the sake of principle (of respecting all preferences), I reacted to your (or your wife's) statement "...moving towards a more serious, devout Buddhist practice".

Using Yoga as an example, there are devotional, philosophical, as well as integrative (Raja Yoga) traditions, yet I have not heard any reference to which one is more serious. Also, for the sake of curiosity, what is making Christianity (clearly and strongly devotional) less serious than devotional Buddhism?

Also, if I understand you correctly, what about 'devout Buddhist practice' makes it more serious than philosophical?

I feel I have missunderstood your statement...
Thanks for your thoughts ScottyDoo
G.

[Jundo]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

Please see what I wrote in the "Ignorance is Bliss" thread ... two birds with one stone ...

viewtopic.php?p=14521#p14521

[ScottyDoo]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

My wife says she doesn't care how people look at it so long as I personally don't take it on as a "religion", the "philosophy" is fine. She's struggling with my departure from traditional Christianity and moving towards a more serious, devout Buddhist practice.

[robert]

Re: Is Buddhism a religion?

Hello...I'm new here, just wanted to dip my feet in the water so to speak...

I think "philosophical Buddhism" is valid -- who am I to say that it isn't? -- but certain problems arise. For example, sooner or later you run into "devotional Buddhism", which, as Hans mentioned, actually accounts for the vast majority of Buddhist practice. Moreover, when you begin looking at the sutras, you find that they contain supernatural language and concepts. The effort to strip them away can become tiring and unproductive, plus it limits the possibilities for interaction. It may be a happier approach simply to acknowledge Buddhism as a religion, albeit one whose core teachings correlate unusually well with a rational understanding of the cosmos.

On another note, it seems to me that the distinction between philosophy and religion is not clear-cut in some parts of the world where Buddhism is practiced -- in China, for example. Confucianism would strike most Westerners as a philosophy, but there are Confucian temples. There is folk Taoism and philosophical Taoism. Likewise people seem to freely move between "intellectual" and "devotional" Buddhism. Maybe it is a more holistic outlook...

Best regards, Rob