Buddhism, Religion?

[mikenz66]

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?

Sure. So chanting and bowing to Buddha images is OK then, if it's part of the training? Along, of course, with practising generosity, and so on?

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.

So a large proportion of the Suttas have stuff smuggled in later? How can you tell what is genuine?

Of course , different people will have different interpretations of the Suttas. And they may or may not be taken literally. But you'd have to ignore quite a few of them to claim that that Buddha didn't teach about such things.

Whether or not there is another life, merit is important here and now...

Mike

[Thaibebop]

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?

Sure. So chanting and bowing to Buddha images is OK then, if it's part of the training? Along, of course, with practising generosity, and so on?

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.

So a large proportion of the Suttas have stuff smuggled in later? How can you tell what is genuine?

Of course , different people will have different interpretations of the Suttas. And they may or may not be taken literally. But you'd have to ignore quite a few of them to claim that that Buddha didn't teach about such things.

Whether or not there is another life, merit is important here and now...

Mike

Okay, really? I think you are being (fill in the blank here) now. I was talking about the chanting and bowing to statues yes, generosity is not a trait that solely stems from religion and yes I would say that trying to be nice to people is good training for you. I think though you are just trying to be nasty now with that sentence. What, are you offended now?

All the suttas were written after the Buddha's death, so just like Jesus no one was there to record his words, it has all been written later and with educated guessing and what elders wanted to be in there. This is a perfect reason to apply the Buddha's own lesson to question and pick apart teachings and decide for yourself what is worth paying attention to and what is not. The suttas have restricted nuns in Theravada countries have they not? Have not the elders said women can't ordain and given all sorts of reasons why, all based on the suttas? Aren't women held as less then men, because only men can attention enlightenment? Of course there are suttas which contradict that as well, so take your pick I guess. Which would you rater adhere to? Do believe the Buddha said women could, or could achieve enlightenment? I say of course they can and perhaps the suttas that suggest otherwise should be ignored.

I think the Buddha talked about rebirth as many of his followers would have understood those references, much like Thomas Paine used Christianity as examples and reference points even though he was an outspoken Atheist. The people reading his works would have understood the Christian references. I do find it difficult to believe that after teaching such enlightening things like vipassana meditation the Buddha would turn around and talk about demons or being born from his mother's side with lotuses for footprints. I believe that mythical influence was added later by people who felt that it would be better understood by lay folk. Let's face the truth that people back then would have responded better to those stories than a purely philosophical practice. Considering that these mythical aspects increase in number the further away in time and space Buddhism gets from India also leads me to believe that a large part of superstitious stuff was added later. Tibetan Buddhism is filled with myths that pertain only to them and no one else. It is the same for lay people in South East Asia, there is what the monks practice and then there are all these magic based beliefs that lay folks have that are only found there. Buddhism has changed as it has traveled, just like any other religion and it has been shaped by humans, just like any other religion, so why take anything as face value? Why not pick and choose? I would think that many here picked and choose when it came to Christianity, what is the difference than?

Remember the story of the burning house and lying to get the children out, which showcases the whatever it takes to get the Dhamma to the people and worrying about right practice later. So, why wouldn't mythical, superstitious things be added to scare people or comfort them into the Damma? That would be what got them to the temple, so to speak, than you can focus on right practice when you have their attention.

[mikenz66]

Hi Thaibebop,

Okay, really? I think you are being (fill in the blank here) now. I was talking about the chanting and bowing to statues yes, generosity is not a trait that solely stems from religion and yes I would say that trying to be nice to people is good training for you. I think though you are just trying to be nasty now with that sentence. What, are you offended now?

Sorry if I offended you. That wasn't my intention, so clearly I'm not communicating very well. I was simply trying to point out that is very difficult to separate some of these things. As I said earlier, my opinion is that veneration for the Buddha can be a very positive thing, yet it's something some people see as "too religious". And practising generosity seems to be an important precursor to any kind of development, which, again, is sometimes viewed as too religious or not sophisticated enough.

Rebirth, is clearly something everyone has their own opinion on. As you say, you don't have to take the Suttas describing rebirth and other things literally, and, whatever your preference, it would probably be a mistake to fixate on a purely literal view.

Mike

[Nyana]

There is no proof of rebirth.... I think the Buddha talked about rebirth as many of his followers would have understood those references....

Hi Thaibebop,

How do you know that the Buddha didn't understand and teach about rebirth based upon his own direct knowledge of former existences?

All the best,

Geoff

[jcsuperstar]

There is no proof of rebirth.... I think the Buddha talked about rebirth as many of his followers would have understood those references....

Hi Thaibebop,

How do you know that the Buddha didn't understand and teach about rebirth based upon his own direct knowledge of former existences?

All the best,

Geoff

he doesn't know. if one reads the Buddha's account of his enlightenment remembering his past lives and understanding kamma was a huge part of his experience.

[Ben]

Buddhism, Religion?

Does it actually matter?
Just walk the path and these types of questions become irrelevant.

[GrahamR]

Personally I don't really care if we call it a religion, or a belief or a philosophy or what ever, what matters to me is my own personal practice rather than semantics

[Sobeh]

What is disingenuous is believing that Asian cultures can't tell the difference between religion and philosophy.

I said the difference was contextualized with reference to Western history. The word "religion" didn't exist as such prior to the Western explication of it. I never said they couldn't tell the difference, I'm saying that while the difference is here now it wasn't always so.

You did not understand what I wrote.

As to religion generally, you are saying that some adherents are ignoring passages in the scriptures they don't like, but this is at least partly inaccurate. Often such passages receive one or another interpretation that locates them in a chronological or theological development. You cited parts of the Tanakh and a Pauline epistle, for example, but I doubt you are familiar with the various catechisms on those writings as followed by such adherents (the Talmud, for example, or the CCC). They render a different picture, one you seem to be ignorant of. It is on account of that ignorance that I caution you about your conclusions.

I have an MA-ABT in Comparative Religion, so I'm actually very comfortable talking about religion and philosophy in any capacity, contrary to your later claim. On that note:

Really, do I need to define religious trappings to you?

This is why I brought anything up at all; definitions are part and parcel of a discussion like this, and leaving terms such as this critically undefined is a problem. The definition of religion is itself a troublesome bugbear, how much more so 'religious trappings'? The difference between religion and philosophy is another such issue. Definitions are in fact wholly pertinent to the OP, so why would you not take the time to clearly define your ideas?

I've read Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, and others, so the video added nothing new. Note that this is a debate on the terms used, another example of how important definitions are. I decided to visit the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on account of this:

"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." Simple. Agnosticism is more nuanced, but has to do with the lack of either belief or disbelief. Atheism is thus a metaphysical claim about what exists and does not exist, while agnosticism takes the epistemological position that we don't know yet (or can't know ever - it can be used either way).

Also, Thomas Paine was a Deist (that's my BA in History getting dusted off, combined with a bit of internet verification).

As I said: clearer thinking is called for.

[pilgrim]

I'm waiting for this argument to settle down before I ask "Is Buddhism an atheistic religion/non-religion."

[bodom]

I'm waiting for this argument to settle down before I ask "Is Buddhism an atheistic religion/non-religion."

Buddhism and the God-idea by Nyanaponika Thera

In Buddhist literature, the belief in a creator god (issara-nimmana-vada)is frequently mentioned and rejected, along with other causes wrongly adduced to explain the origin of the world; as, for instance, world-soul, time, nature, etc. God-belief, however, is placed in the same category as those morally destructive wrong views which deny the kammic results of action, assume a fortuitous origin of man and nature, or teach absolute determinism. These views are said to be altogether pernicious, having definite bad results due to their effect on ethical conduct.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... didea.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Kare]

I'm waiting for this argument to settle down before I ask "Is Buddhism an atheistic religion/non-religion."

I'd like to recommend two books:

Helmuth von Glasenapp: "Buddhism -- A Non-Theistic Religion"
Gunapala Dharmasiri: "A Buddhist Critique of the Christian Concept of God"

These are both old and may be difficult to find. But they are definitely worth the effort.

[Kare]

I decided to visit the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on account of this:

"‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God." Simple. Agnosticism is more nuanced, but has to do with the lack of either belief or disbelief. Atheism is thus a metaphysical claim about what exists and does not exist, while agnosticism takes the epistemological position that we don't know yet (or can't know ever - it can be used either way).

We should remember that Western definitions of these terms have a strong underlying Christian bias. The term "God", for instance, in the definition of atheism, should rather be "God or gods", or maybe just "gods". And as for agnostisism, it always seems to be taken for granted that it takes an agnostic position to something very much like a Christian concept of god. A real agnostic should also take an agnostic position to the claim that thunder is due to the god Thor, driving around in the sky with his chariot, chasing trolls. But for some reason or other, I have never heard an agnostic claim agnosticism in that connection ...

There is a nice set of definitions that goes like this:

A theist is a person who does not think, but believes.
An atheist is a person who does not believe, but thinks.
An agnostic is a person who neither believes nor thinks.

[Mawkish1983]

I thought an agnostic was just the opposite of a gnostic... the 'sitting on the fence' idea just came later. Just like how atheist used to be an insult meaning 'godless' or 'heathen'.

[Sobeh]

A real agnostic should also take an agnostic position to the claim that thunder is due to the god Thor, driving around in the sky with his chariot, chasing trolls.

The agnostic definition from the encyclopedia I referred to notes that agnosticism is used there only for theistic claims, not meteorological (or other) claims. It has to do with the existence or non-existence of divine beings (more precisely, with the ontology of divine beings). On the agnostic view, evidence for Yahweh is equivalent to evidence for Thor (as well as all other possible deities, of which more are likely forgotten than not). Proof for the cause of thunder, however, has a strong scientific explanation that relies only on verified information, and therefore does not fall under the purview of "agnosticism" as defined here.

It's admirable to remember the Xian foundation of a lot of Western assumptions about philosophy, but that's a sword that cuts both ways as philosophy has impacted Xianity as well. In addition, Xianity itself is reliant on Hebrew thought, and we can go back as far as history goes in this vein (the Tanakh contains much Babylonian thought, for example).

But it doesn't much matter. The idiom "a moot point" now generally means a point not worth discussing, but originally the word "moot" meant something talked about at a meeting, therefore something worth noting. The point is not to get hung up on linguistic history, but to agree on a conventional use of words that facilitates communication. This is what dictionaries and encyclopedias are for.

If you're going to discard the definitions of terms as found in encyclopedias and dictionaries (for example, this one) then we simply cannot communicate.

[Thaibebop]

Hi Thaibebop,

Okay, really? I think you are being (fill in the blank here) now. I was talking about the chanting and bowing to statues yes, generosity is not a trait that solely stems from religion and yes I would say that trying to be nice to people is good training for you. I think though you are just trying to be nasty now with that sentence. What, are you offended now?

Sorry if I offended you. That wasn't my intention, so clearly I'm not communicating very well. I was simply trying to point out that is very difficult to separate some of these things. As I said earlier, my opinion is that veneration for the Buddha can be a very positive thing, yet it's something some people see as "too religious". And practising generosity seems to be an important precursor to any kind of development, which, again, is sometimes viewed as too religious or not sophisticated enough.

Rebirth, is clearly something everyone has their own opinion on. As you say, you don't have to take the Suttas describing rebirth and other things literally, and, whatever your preference, it would probably be a mistake to fixate on a purely literal view.

Mike

I agree with you completely and perhaps it's my fault that we haven't agreed on this before. Being generous is important and I feel that anyone who is making being generous a religious trait is missing the point of being generous. Veneration of the Buddha is an important thing but it seems to me that it is just the beginning, a place to start, and a possible pit fall as an attachment. I do think that veneration of the Buddha is different from believing in rebirth or any other mythical aspect, because I thinking that veneration is a way to help yourself into right mind, right view. Chanting I think would do this as well, but again, I think a person could get attached to the chanting and believe it's doing more then just helping you focus your mind. So, cool, I think we are on the same page.