Buddhism, Religion?

Exploring Theravāda's connections to other paths - what can we learn from other traditions, religions and philosophies?
User avatar
EricJ
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 2:38 am
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by EricJ »

I consider Buddhism to be the most profound expression of human religious sentiment [although I'm a bit biased ;D]. I don't find this thought alienating, and I don't think that "religion," "philosophy," and "Dhamma" are mutually exclusive terms. I look at that sutta quoted by Dukkhanirodha as discouraging spiritual beliefs which are clung to as ultimate truth without any sort of personal verification a la Vibhajjavada. Think about what the term "creed" means. People often equate it with the word "religion," but the word itself points to a specific core set of religious beliefs which are clung to as ultimate truth, even whenever experience suggests something else. In some religions, the creed is effectively the religion and the acceptance of the creed is taken as the entry in to spiritual life. I think of the shahadah, the obligatory statement of belief for all Muslims which serves as the basis for the key points of Islam ("There is no God but Allah [the characteristic strict monotheism of Islam] and Muhammad is his Messenger [which lends divine authority to the Qur'an and all other Muslim beliefs which emerge from that book.]) This statement is also the means of officially converting to Islam. Of course the Buddha would oppose beliefs of a creedal nature, because creeds are based upon speculation and lead to a great deal of clinging to ultimately useless views. Creedal religions lay out religious paths which are founded upon unverifiable claims and while these claims are taken as the basis of spiritual life, liberating discernment cannot occur. I think you can see this point of mine in the sutta itself:

""Outside here the followers of creeds, place their confidence in views." They place confidence in views instead of experiential discernment.

Here is how I think of the word "religion" [which, admittedly, doesn't count for much]: Any institution with a prescribed set of beliefs and practices which are used to "attain," "realize" or "connect to" something beyond the range of "conventional experience." I put these phrases in quotation marks because they obviously aren't sufficient to describe Nibbana.
I do not want my house to be walled in on sides and my windows to be stuffed. I want the cultures of all the lands to be blown about my house as freely as possible. But I refuse to be blown off my feet by any.- Gandhi

With persistence aroused for the highest goal's attainment, with mind unsmeared, not lazy in action, firm in effort, with steadfastness & strength arisen, wander alone like a rhinoceros.

Not neglecting seclusion, absorption, constantly living the Dhamma in line with the Dhamma, comprehending the danger in states of becoming, wander alone like a rhinoceros.
- Snp. 1.3
User avatar
m0rl0ck
Posts: 1193
Joined: Fri Jan 30, 2009 10:51 am

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by m0rl0ck »

Thaibebop wrote:Hello,
I just wanted to share this blog entry I found on Huffington Post which offers an opinion on the debate over whether or not Buddhism is a religion.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dzogchen- ... 69740.html
This is one of those debates i dont get. Word meanings are just agreed upon conventions after all. Buddhism would fit the second sense listed here http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;. For that matter so would being a republican, or a girl scout.
“The truth knocks on the door and you say, "Go away, I'm looking for the truth," and so it goes away. Puzzling.” ― Robert M. Pirsig
User avatar
jcsuperstar
Posts: 1915
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 5:15 am
Location: alaska
Contact:

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by jcsuperstar »

I've found those (Buddhist or not) who say Buddhism is not a religion usually do so because they don't want it to be a religion
สัพเพ สัตตา สุขีตา โหนตุ

the mountain may be heavy in and of itself, but if you're not trying to carry it it's not heavy to you- Ajaan Suwat
User avatar
Kare
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:58 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by Kare »

jcsuperstar wrote:I've found those (Buddhist or not) who say Buddhism is not a religion usually do so because they don't want it to be a religion
I once used to say that "Buddhism is no religion". But then I heard fanatical Christians say that Christianity is no religion - it is truth. I also found that some Muslims say the same thing about Islam, and some Hindus say the same thing about Hinduism. After discovering this, I just had to laugh. :lol:

Now I really don't care if Buddhism is a religion or not. It all depends on how to define "religion" and what you mean by "Buddhism". But since Buddhism conventionally is counted among the world religions, I have no problem with accepting this.

So, OK, Buddhism is a religion. There are other religions. This means that "religion" is a wider category, and "Buddhism" is a subcategory within this wider category.

But the funny thing is that we can say that there are "religious" Buddhists (observing rituals, having faith, etc.), and there are "non-religious" Buddhists (practicing meditation and ethics and studying the Dhamma, but not really caring for the traditional "religious" trappings). This means that "Buddhism" is a wider category, and that "religion" is a subcategory within this wider category.

Who said that these things should be easy? :rofl:
Mettāya,
Kåre
User avatar
Digger
Posts: 87
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 2:12 pm
Location: Florida USA

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by Digger »

If you define religion as "belief in, worship of, or obedience to a supernatural power or powers considered to be divine or to have control of human destiny", unfortunately Buddhism has taken a wrong turn this way as many people pray to Buddha to grant wishes, win the lottery, etc. I personally witnessed this at a Buddhist temple in Taiwan. When I asked how and why Buddha became a god to worship I was told "It's the same thing you (the western world) did with your Jesus"

If you define religion as "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" then pretty much anything a bunch of people do could be a religion.

I think when you say "religion", most people think worshiping a deity and many people wrongly worship the Buddha this way instead of understanding and following his teaching.
He is different. He thinks.
User avatar
Tex
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 9:46 pm
Location: Austin, TX, USA

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by Tex »

It definitely depends on how "religion" is defined.

To me, a religion involves an object of worship, whether it's god(s), nature, the sun, ancestors or whatever. So, I consider Buddhism as simply a practice or a way of life. If a way of life is considered a "religion" even if it does not involve worshipping anything, then okay, Buddhism is a religion. And so is being in the Marine Corps, or being a college student, or practicing any number of other lifestyles, and then the word religion has lost any real meaning anyway.

Just my take.
"To reach beyond fear and danger we must sharpen and widen our vision. We have to pierce through the deceptions that lull us into a comfortable complacency, to take a straight look down into the depths of our existence, without turning away uneasily or running after distractions." -- Bhikkhu Bodhi

"No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man." -- Heraclitus
User avatar
Kare
Posts: 767
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 10:58 am
Location: Norway
Contact:

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by Kare »

Tex wrote:It definitely depends on how "religion" is defined.
Yes. Definitely. When I studied comparative religion, I was at first confused - then more and more amused - seeing that every important writer on religion had their own definition, and that there is no consensus among the learned ones. :shrug: :rolleye:

But I do not see this as a problem. Dhamma is dhamma, no matter how you choose to define "religion" - and there are scores of definitions floating around, so just pick whichever suits you.

:lol:
Mettāya,
Kåre
User avatar
Thaibebop
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by Thaibebop »

Sobeh wrote:Comments below, per highlighted sections:


1. The difference is a Western one, and thereby created, not inherent. Reifying the difference in order to apply it across cultures and intellectual traditions worldwide is unsupported and disingenuous.
"The third fetter is superstition or attachment to rules and rituals based on a misguided understanding of their real purpose. Essentially it is a misguided attachment to certain things one does. Usually it has to do with doctrines and ceremonies. An example of this is belief in magic and magical practices, which is blatantly just superstition and occurs even among Buddhists. Practice based on the belief that it will produce magical abilities, psychic powers, and protective forces is founded on false and irrational hopes."
Also, " Buddhist practice becomes superstition if there is the expectation of mystical powers. This applies even to very small and trivial things such as ritual chanting, merit-making, and the like. The ceremony of placing rice and trays of sweetmeats before the Buddha's image, if performed in the belief that it is an offering to the Buddha's 'spirit' and that he will be able to partake of it, is certain to produce effects precisely the opposite of what the devotee is hoping for." Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, ed. Swearer, Donald K., Me and MIne: Selected Essays of Bhikkhu Buddhadasa, Handbook for Humankind, pg. 48.

What is disingenuous is believing that Asian cultures can't tell the difference between religion and philosophy. I think you will find with a little study that philosophy, that not being attached to religion, has been alive an well throughout Asia for centuries. I believe someone here shared a story about Ajahn Chan and a woman being 'possessed' and how he tricked her out it by claiming she had to be burned to exorcise the demon. Clearly, putting superstition in a negative light and the Dhamma in the forefront.



2. Sloppy generalization, as I warned against; centuries of theistic philosophy are wholly ignored here. Further, while I'm not in agreement with theism as it makes too strong of an epistemological claim, a-theism makes the same epistemological mistake. (Eternalism/Annihilationism.)

I'll say this another way: (a-)theism is a metaphysical claim; agnosticism is an epistemological one, as is the Dhamma. The difference is enormous.

A-theism is not anti-atheism, if that is what you are getting at. I suggest you watch the link I'll put at the bottom, the gentleman who produced the video speaks nicely about atheism.


This discounts the difference between views on homosexuality that arise between adherents of the same religion. Religion is sometimes used as an explanation, but it is not necessarily the cause of the behavior as different individuals agree, or not, on this interpretation of their scripture(s). This is the same mistake as saying...
No, I am sorry but you are dead wrong.

"If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:13)

"Women should be silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but should be submissive, as the law also says." (1 Corinthians 14:34)

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

There is no interpretation here, you either follow it or ignore it. Most Christians ignore such Biblical passages, which we should all be thankful for. Yet, many still follow these and for those who attack homosexual civil rights these are the kinds of passages they are reading. The Christians who support gay rights are clearly ignoring such barbarous passages./color]


The intentions of all Abrahamic thinkers are assumed to be known. This is not a valid claim.
I was clearly talking about those of the Abrahamic faiths who take their scripture literally and use it to attack others. They position on such matters is very clear, just reading the passages above. For those who follow an Abrahamic faith and are not engaging in such hateful speech, again, I say they are ignoring the parts of their religion that they don't like.


Your inherent assumption is that religious components are all merely decorative, but "religious decoration" is carelessly left undefined.
I believe many examples were in the article in question, but I could list amulets, statues, robes, items blessed by monks, who are just humans after all, having to say anything at a given time of day for whatever reason, and on and on. Really, do I need to define religious trappings to you? Refer as well to the second quote from Buddhadasa as well, please.

---

Have a care, all: this is the sort of loose reasoning that eschews evidence in favor of supporting preexisting biases. Clearer thinking is called for.

What are you talking about? Who's preexisting bias, mine, somebody else? Evidence, since we were talking about the article, perhaps that monks evidence? Is there enough evidence here in this post for you. Sorry to say but it sounds to me as if you are just uncomfortable speaking candidly about religion and philosophy. I took care about what I said and I stand by what I said. Cheers!


.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og2Uz_0W ... rHVXjNBaRI.
Last edited by Thaibebop on Sun Aug 08, 2010 9:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Thaibebop
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by Thaibebop »

mikenz66 wrote:
Thaibebop wrote:
mikenz66 wrote:I'm fine with teachers warning about grasping teachings wrongly. Which I think this article is trying to do.

However, I'm in agreement with Sobeh that people often use words like "religion" in an attempt to justify their particular prejudices, as in:
  • "I'm not interested in (religion/other labels for other stuff I don't like), only Dhamma."
Mike
I agree, but see no reason why those prejudices are negative things. I think the Dhamma is the most important thing out of Buddhism. I don't think people need the stories about demons and lotuses in footprints, I think they need the Dhamma. So, I think the prejudices are important. Take what is useful and what is needed, why bother with the trappings?
Exactly my point. The parts of the Suttas that you think are unimportant you label "religion" and dismiss them...

What exactly is the Dhamma, and what is not? How do you know?

I'm not suggesting that all the statements in the Suttas need be taken literally. But there is plenty of stuff in there that makes people uncomfortable not because it seems mythical, but because it is extremely radical. Just look at the threads about rape such as http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=5183" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; to see how much aversion there is to taking seriously the teachings that suggest that we should give the same amount of compassion to the perpetrator as the victim.

Mike
"The Dhamma is paccattam-you know it for yourself. To know for yourself means to practice for yourself.' Ajahn Chan

Both Chan and Buddhadasa have advocated that the individual is responsible for the progress along the path. So, individual practice is more important the memorizing suttas. As I pointed out before suttas dealing with the Buddha's birth and Maya's dreams and all that is religion, and not attached to the thinking behind the practice. It can be and has been removed from the practice many times. Plus, there are other sects of Buddhism that are nothing but religion, praying to Buddhist saints to come save you before you die, and never putting in a day of meditation. Pureland is a perfect example of this. Just say the name over and over and no matter how much of a nasty person you've been you will be saved. That my friend, supported by scripture, is religion. There is no philosophy there, no thinking involved, you either believe or not, pure faith.
User avatar
Thaibebop
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by Thaibebop »

jcsuperstar wrote:I've found those (Buddhist or not) who say Buddhism is not a religion usually do so because they don't want it to be a religion
No, it is a religion, as practiced in one way. It can also be a philosophy that is based on reason and not faith in rebirth, demons and Buddhist angels. So, there are people that choose to take from it those nice rational aspects that are useful for human beings and stick with that. It's the same a people saying the Sermon on the Mound contains good moral lessons, and disregarding the hate filled Old Testament. Thomas Jefferson did such a thing when he created his own Bible, which just contained the parts that he thought were the truly rational and moral parts.
User avatar
Thaibebop
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by Thaibebop »

Tex wrote:It definitely depends on how "religion" is defined.

To me, a religion involves an object of worship, whether it's god(s), nature, the sun, ancestors or whatever. So, I consider Buddhism as simply a practice or a way of life. If a way of life is considered a "religion" even if it does not involve worshipping anything, then okay, Buddhism is a religion. And so is being in the Marine Corps, or being a college student, or practicing any number of other lifestyles, and then the word religion has lost any real meaning anyway.

Just my take.
Worship is a good word to bring up. Several teachers have said over the centuries that worshiping the Buddha is a bad thing. Why? Because it creates attachment and you are supposed to do away with attachment. I have heard and read the same for suttas and the teachers themselves as well. Once you remove attachment, it seems to me anyways, that you are dealing with the idea itself and not something divine, for you would be objective without attachment, wouldn't you? Therefore religious trappings would be just something else to be attached to.
User avatar
mikenz66
Posts: 19932
Joined: Sat Jan 10, 2009 7:37 am
Location: Aotearoa, New Zealand

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by mikenz66 »

Thaibebop wrote: Both Chan and Buddhadasa have advocated that the individual is responsible for the progress along the path. So, individual practice is more important the memorizing suttas. As I pointed out before suttas dealing with the Buddha's birth and Maya's dreams and all that is religion, and not attached to the thinking behind the practice. It can be and has been removed from the practice many times.
I agree that the teachings can be misinterpreted, but I don't think it's easy to draw lines...
Ajahn Chah had his monks bow to Buddha images whenever they entered a room. Was that just unimportant religious fluff?

The Buddha frequently talked about recollecting Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, qualities of Devas, etc, as a mediation practice:
"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects the Tathagata, thus: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.' As he is recollecting the Tathagata, his mind is calmed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned...
Similarly for recollection of Dhamma and Sangha.

So when I'm at the Wat chanting:
Itipi so bhagavā arahaṃ sammā-sambuddho,
He is a Blessed One, a Worthy One, a Rightly Self-awakened One,
Vijjā-caraṇa-sampanno sugato lokavidū,
consummate in knowledge & conduct, one who has gone the good way, knower of the cosmos,
Anuttaro purisa-damma-sārathi satthā deva-manussānaṃ buddho bhagavāti.
unexcelled trainer of those who can be taught, teacher of human & divine beings; awakened; blessed.
Is that "religious", or is it, as it clear from the Sutta, a samatha meditation technique?

Mike
User avatar
bodom
Posts: 7215
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:18 pm
Location: San Antonio, Texas

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by bodom »

Handbook for Mankind by Buddhadasa
Of all these various aspects, the one a real Buddhist ought to take most interest in is Buddhism as Religion. We ought to look on Buddhism as a direct practical method for gaining knowledge of the true nature of things, knowledge which makes it possible to give up every form of grasping and clinging, of stupidity and infatuation, and become completely independent of things. To do this is to penetrate to the essence of Buddhism. Buddhism considered in this aspect is far more useful than Buddhism considered as mere morality, or as truth which is simply profound knowledge and not really practical; and more useful than Buddhism considered as philosophy, as something to be enjoyed as an object of speculation and argument of no value in the giving up of the mental defilements; and certainly more useful than Buddhism considered simply as culture, as attractive behaviour, noteworthy from the sociological viewpoint.
http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa4.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
Liberation is the inevitable fruit of the path and is bound to blossom forth when there is steady and persistent practice. The only requirements for reaching the final goal are two: to start and to continue. If these requirements are met there is no doubt the goal will be attained. This is the Dhamma, the undeviating law.

- BB
User avatar
Thaibebop
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by Thaibebop »

bodom wrote:Handbook for Mankind by Buddhadasa
Of all these various aspects, the one a real Buddhist ought to take most interest in is Buddhism as Religion. We ought to look on Buddhism as a direct practical method for gaining knowledge of the true nature of things, knowledge which makes it possible to give up every form of grasping and clinging, of stupidity and infatuation, and become completely independent of things. To do this is to penetrate to the essence of Buddhism. Buddhism considered in this aspect is far more useful than Buddhism considered as mere morality, or as truth which is simply profound knowledge and not really practical; and more useful than Buddhism considered as philosophy, as something to be enjoyed as an object of speculation and argument of no value in the giving up of the mental defilements; and certainly more useful than Buddhism considered simply as culture, as attractive behaviour, noteworthy from the sociological viewpoint.
http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa4.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

:anjali:
I never disagreed that Buddhism was a religion, and within this same text Buddhadasa clearly states that focusing on all these 'religious aspects' would produce a poor practice. From what I have taken away from reading him is that you use these religious symbols and rituals as a starting point to help you progress to practicing correctly. Which means that many of these practices, like chanting, don't do anything by train the mind. No one but you is listening to the chanting. This is one of the great contradictions in Buddhism in my opinion. A person practicing the Dhamma shouldn't be attached to Buddhism itself, yet, you use the aspects of Buddhism to help you train your mind to become unattached, so it seems like teachers always say live Buddhism as a practice, but treat it like a religion. Why?

There are no divine beings to worship, unless you want there to be, and many cultures do. There are no demons, but people have added them. There is no proof of rebirth and even the Buddha said focusing on merit for the after life or next life was unimportant, only the 'here and now' is what the disciplined mind should be focused on, yet people have added that as well. I think on a side note that the idea of rebirth has been used for more harm the good by most, to justify their social position or the position of their lessors. As I pointed out with the Pureland example, where is the Dhamma there? Say a name over and over, never try to do anything other than that, say it before you go to bed and when you wake and the nice Buddhist saint to take you away when you die. That isn't any different then have faith that Jesus Christ is your lord and personal savior and you get into heaven. Just superstition and no practice.

So, yes, it's a religion, I never doubted that. What makes it different is that all these other religions have given their follows reasons to believe, regardless if they are based on hate or nice fluffy thoughts. Yet, Buddhism gives it's follows no reason to believe at all. It states over and over, you don't have to believe in any of the superstitious stuff, the 'religious trappings' if you will, it even says you don't have to believe in the Dhamma. The only solid claim it makes is that when you practice the Dhamma, you will see it's effectiveness and therefore value it, or believe that it works because you tested it, like any other idea from any particle philosophy. However, even when you reach that point, you still don't have to believe in all the other stuff, in fact it's better if you don't, because you don't want to develop attachment. So, I ask, why bother with all the things that could be labeled religious, superstitious, or un-necessary? It seems counter productive when you can just start with the Dhamma itself, just the teachings of the Buddha, no fables, no saints, no demons.
User avatar
Thaibebop
Posts: 287
Joined: Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:37 pm

Re: Buddhism, Religion?

Post by Thaibebop »

mikenz66 wrote:
Thaibebop wrote: Both Chan and Buddhadasa have advocated that the individual is responsible for the progress along the path. So, individual practice is more important the memorizing suttas. As I pointed out before suttas dealing with the Buddha's birth and Maya's dreams and all that is religion, and not attached to the thinking behind the practice. It can be and has been removed from the practice many times.
I agree that the teachings can be misinterpreted, but I don't think it's easy to draw lines...
Ajahn Chah had his monks bow to Buddha images whenever they entered a room. Was that just unimportant religious fluff?
Yes, it was. He justified it as a training for the mind. Do go through these steps of bowing and chanting was to cultivate the mental discipline they were seeking. I remember a story of a Zen monk saying that since his master said the image of the Buddha wasn't important he wouldn't bow it, in fact he was going to spit. The master said fine, you spit, I bow. I thin k it's possible that Chan needed to bow for his practice and perhaps others don't.


The Buddha frequently talked about recollecting Buddha, Dhamma, Sangha, qualities of Devas, etc, as a mediation practice:
"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones recollects the Tathagata, thus: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy and rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.' As he is recollecting the Tathagata, his mind is calmed, and joy arises; the defilements of his mind are abandoned...
Similarly for recollection of Dhamma and Sangha.

So when I'm at the Wat chanting:
Itipi so bhagavā arahaṃ sammā-sambuddho,
He is a Blessed One, a Worthy One, a Rightly Self-awakened One,
Vijjā-caraṇa-sampanno sugato lokavidū,
consummate in knowledge & conduct, one who has gone the good way, knower of the cosmos,
Anuttaro purisa-damma-sārathi satthā deva-manussānaṃ buddho bhagavāti.
unexcelled trainer of those who can be taught, teacher of human & divine beings; awakened; blessed.
Is that "religious", or is it, as it clear from the Sutta, a samatha meditation technique?

Mike
Right, mental training is all that appears to be. You don't except anything to happen because you chant do you, other than the effects it might have on your mind and mental state, right?
Post Reply