Is Theravada Buddhism a Religion?

[Mohan Gnanathilake]

It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being.

Theravada Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here, mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge which, in Pali, is known as saddhā. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Theravada Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the Path of Deliverance.

A Theravada Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by the Buddha’s personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another.

The Buddha, as Teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification.

Although a Theravada Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self – surrender. Nor does a Theravada Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself.

***Submitted by Mohan Barathi Gnanathilake***

The source of this post is “Buddhism in a Nutshell” by Venerable Narada Mahathera

[Zom]

Without a doubt, it is a religion.

[Caodemarte]

Whether or not Threavada is called a religion depends on how you use and define the word (to state the obvious). it is classified as a religion as the word is used by scholars of religion. A religion in this usage by scholars is a belief system that deals with ultimate reality, has a sense of a non-mundane goal, and has faith (rites and rituals). Note that belief in God is not in the definition. So Confucianism is called a religion. In the same way, the communist movement could be considered as a religion.

My own Buddhist teacher used to say that Buddhism was definitely a religion because it was that which laid behind all religions.

[SDC]

This question invites opinion so it will be moved to "General Theravada".

[dhammarelax]

It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being.

Theravada Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here, mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge which, in Pali, is known as saddhā. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Theravada Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the Path of Deliverance.

A Theravada Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by the Buddha’s personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another.

The Buddha, as Teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification.

Although a Theravada Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self – surrender. Nor does a Theravada Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself.

***Submitted by Mohan Barathi Gnanathilake***

To be called a religion it has to be similar to the other religions, the basic teachings as morality and generosity are also found on other teachings, so far so good. But the core of Buddhism is a problem: Suffering, explained in detail by the 12 links of dependent origination, and a solution: the 4 noble truths. To my knowledge no other religion, way of life or psychology has something even remotely similar, it would seem that the Buddha stood on the shoulders of the previous teachings and evolve them to something much better.

smile
dhammarelax

[Goofaholix]

Theravada Buddhism is very much a religion, however the Dhamma and the path upon which it is based is not so these can apply and be practiced outside of a religious context.

[mikenz66]

This might be a useful read:

Problems with definitions of "Religion:"

Some exclude beliefs and practices that many people passionately defend as religious. For example, their definition might requite a belief in a God or Goddess or combination of Gods and Goddesses who are responsible for the creation of the universe and for its continuing operation. This excludes such non-theistic religions as Buddhism and many forms of religious Satanism which have no such belief. Also, Unitarians, who are called Unitarian Universalists in the U.S., do not require their members to believe in a deity, and many members don't.

Mike

[davidbrainerd]

This might be a useful read:

Problems with definitions of "Religion:"

Some exclude beliefs and practices that many people passionately defend as religious. For example, their definition might requite a belief in a God or Goddess or combination of Gods and Goddesses who are responsible for the creation of the universe and for its continuing operation. This excludes such non-theistic religions as Buddhism and many forms of religious Satanism which have no such belief. Also, Unitarians, who are called Unitarian Universalists in the U.S., do not require their members to believe in a deity, and many members don't.

Mike

I'd say the statement "Also, Unitarians, who are called Unitarian Universalists in the U.S., do not require their members to believe in a deity, and many members don't" is inaccurate. The difference between Unitarian Universalists and just Unitarians is precisely that without the extra U they do believe belief in a monotheistic deity is necessary. Often times though to make sure they're not confused with Unitarian Universalists they will call themselves Biblical Unitarians.

[The Thinker]

The teachings are very agreeable to a more peaceful and harmonious existence, I don't like calling it a religion, but does it really matter?

[dhammafriend]

This might be a useful read:

Problems with definitions of "Religion:"

Some exclude beliefs and practices that many people passionately defend as religious. For example, their definition might requite a belief in a God or Goddess or combination of Gods and Goddesses who are responsible for the creation of the universe and for its continuing operation. This excludes such non-theistic religions as Buddhism and many forms of religious Satanism which have no such belief. Also, Unitarians, who are called Unitarian Universalists in the U.S., do not require their members to believe in a deity, and many members don't.

Mike

What that says to me is we don't have a workable theory of what religion is. There's a graveyard filled with definitions of religion. Changing definitions is symptomatic of the lack of theory.

From your link:

Many definitions focus too narrowly on only a few aspects of religion; they tend to exclude those religions that do not fit well.

If something does not "fit well", and you keep including things that do not "fit well", then how do you know you are studying religion and not some other social phenomenon? If a certain set of properties are needed for something to qualify as a religion, but at the same time, those same set of properties are not needed for something to qualify as a religion, then what are we saying?

I do not think that what we call Shinto, Buddhism, Hinduism etc qualify as religions. (I would refer to them as traditions) Only Islam, Christianity and Judaism qualify as religions. But then, many would accuse me of being too narrow(?) in my definition. All that lays bare is that we dont have a working theory of religion.

[chownah]

It depends on how you grasp the buddha's teachings. Some people grasp it religiously, some grasp it philosophically, and some grasp it psychoanalytically.
Theravada buddhism is empty of self......
chownah

[JeffR]

I find this to be a topic that goes round and round. Some follow the teachings and the canon religiously, some follow it only to the extent that it suits them. My canned response to the title question: If you want it to be.
-Jeff

[cappuccino]

Theravada Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents.

Spiritual progress depends on the emergence of five cardinal virtues —
faith, vigor, mindfulness, concentration and wisdom.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... el065.html

[cappuccino]

Faith is called "the seed," and without it the plant of spiritual life cannot start at all. Without faith one can, as a matter of fact, do nothing worthwhile at all. This is true not only of Buddhism, but of all religions
Edward Conze

[Tex]

It depends entirely on which definition of "religion" one prefers.

Miriam Webster gives the following three: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion)

1. The belief in a god or in a group of gods.

2. An organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods.

3. An interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group.

Only by the third definition can Theravada be considered a religion, and so also can the Marine Corps, or my university's alumni association, or a million other things that the majority of people would agree are not religions.

To most people, religion implies god(s). Many of my friends have been surprised to learn that I don't worship the Buddha because they've been told that Buddhism is a religion. For this reason, I prefer to call it a practice or a way of life.