All religions started off as philosphy

[form]

I heard of this from in a lecture. The speaker continue.... When a philosophy becomes a religion, then it becomes a problem.

Does this make sense to u?

[Coëmgenu]

It sounds like, tbh, standard Western gripes about "organized religion." Religions are not all built equal. We don't have to cater to the lowest common demoninator IMO. Religion does not have to equal fundamentalism. Obviously religion is prone to being hijacked by bad faith actors, but so is "philosophy." I've a pet theory that atheistic and/or Western and/or evangelical religion-bashing (I am not accusing your lecturer of this) is all redirected anti-Catholic sentiment from the hundreds of years of sectarian warfare in Europe. These things don't disappear overnight. The complaints of "ritualism of the other" while ignoring your own ritualism, complaints of "just going through the motions" versus "actually having an experience," these are all old evangelical tropes they used to throw at Catholics. "Our non-religion is empirical and experiential, their religion is ritual, smokes, smells, and bells." "We have personal relationships with our soteriological goal, they have impersonal non-relationships stifled by their traditions of men."

I'm not accusing your lecturer of thinking these things, but I do think that these trends of thought go behind whenever someone says "Religion is bad, but spirituality/philosophy/free inquiry, what-have-you, is good." As if "religion" cannot include free inquiry and must always imply that someone kowtows to "the letter of the law" at the expense of its underlying intent and meaning.

[Sam Vara]

I agree with coëmgenu, and would also add that there are so many different definitions of what a "religion" is, and what "philosophy" is, that discussions along these lines are likely to involve a group of people talking past one another. Each person will have their own definitions, and will be unlikely to communicate those definitions clearly to the others, because it all seems so obvious to them...

It might be helpful if you could say what definitions the speaker in question is working with.

[form]

I forgot what he said about the definition of religion, but for philosophy he said ask about why did we come from, where do we go after death, what is the purpose of life. I think the Buddha has attempted to answer these questions.

But to me a religion will be something that contains threats in its teachings like if u insult our founder, Prophets, priests etc. you will be for example strike by lightning (can be other Curses to create fear). Or instigate followers to go after u and kill or harm u. Become organised with hierarchy and one or a certain group have significant control over others.

[Coëmgenu]

But to me a religion will be something that contains threats in its teachings like if u insult our founder

This is what a lot of people go to and think of as default whenever they hear something described as a "religion," I agree. That I think anti-religionism comes from specific Protestant sects and then spreads culturally via osmosis during the height of Western power in the 1800s doesn't mean it's so.

[Sam Vara]

I forgot what he said about the definition of religion, but for philosophy he said ask about why did we come from, where do we go after death, what is the purpose of life. I think the Buddha has attempted to answer these questions.

Yes, certainly, and most other religions will also have something to say about these, or will at least claim that their founder/s answered them implicitly.

But to me a religion will be something that contains threats in its teachings like if u insult our founder, Prophets, priests etc. you will be for example strike by lightning (can be other Curses to create fear). Or instigate followers to go after u and kill or harm u. Become organised with hierarchy and one or a certain group have significant control over others.

Those are not essential to a definition of religion, of course, and it might be worth noting that plenty of Westerners have spent time in Thai jails for showing disrespect to Buddhism; and the Buddha himself apparently issued threats of supernatural retribution for those not answering his questions in a particular way...

[SteRo]

I heard of this from in a lecture. The speaker continue.... When a philosophy becomes a religion, then it becomes a problem.

Does this make sense to u?

No because adopting the thought of a philosophy is already a problem and not very different from religion.

[Bundokji]

Human knowledge is interconnected and historical interpretation is usually based on imagining time as a line where precedence becomes a determining factor in explaining phenomena. For example, to say religion started as philosophy implies that philosophy preceded religion in time for the explanation to be plausible. When everyone uses this model for explaining phenomena, it creates its own practicality and all of our modern life becomes primarily organized and based on such modelling.

Western philosophy is usually traced back to Greek philosophy of which its revival during the renaissance ended what historians call the dark ages. The formulation of the scientific approach separated science from philosophy as a different branch of knowledge. Some would describe Greek philosophers as priests and the effects of Plato and Aristotle on Christian thought cannot be underestimated. Also some philosophers are considered martyrs due to their love of truth (or god for that matter) such as Socrates and Seneca. Science cannot help but identify itself through religion by its rejection of what it describes as the supernatural (epistemological claims - philosophy) but cannot help but to provide metaphysical explanations of how people should behave (ethics - philosophy). Religion on the other hand provides people with code of behavior (ethics) and uses scientific terminology in explaining phenomena (god - design - replicability - causality)The relationship between the three and politics is another interesting matter. Philosophers called for the ruling of philosophers, while the church calls for the ruling of high ranking priests and science calls for the so-called democracy!

My interpretation is that the speaker's view is probably motivated by his aversion to religion more than anything else.

[form]

I can tell because of our difference in culture and religious upbringing environment we have quite different ways of seeing things. It will be very interesting if we can meet up and share our thinking.

That late professor is from Taiwan and specialised in Chinese culture, being most famous on the subject of Iching. He will say westerner when ask what is 1 + 1, the answer will be 2. But 1 + 1 = 3 in Taodejing.

[asahi]

Gotama wanted to release himself from suffering is a philosophy ? Then somehow becomes a religion ? Did ancient indian call their doctrine philosophy ?

[SteRo]

Gotama wanted to release himself from suffering is a philosophy ?

An intention isn't a philosophy but an intention can be based on a philosophy. Whatever Gotama intended fact is that he taught a philosophy after he attained his intended goal, a philosophy of dukkha, its cause, release and the path to release.

Then somehow becomes a religion ? Did ancient indian call their doctrine philosophy ?

Doesn't matter. Buddhism today is called "religion". If there weren't all these metaphysical speculations it might be called "philosophy" but since there are all these metaphysical speculations it is rightly called "religion".

[Ceisiwr]

I don’t think so. I think religions start off as either revelation or realisation. The philosophy comes later to justify it.

[asahi]

An intention isn't a philosophy but an intention can be based on a philosophy. Whatever Gotama intended fact is that he taught a philosophy after he attained his intended goal, a philosophy of dukkha, its cause, release and the path to release.


Doesn't matter. Buddhism today is called "religion". If there weren't all these metaphysical speculations it might be called "philosophy" but since there are all these metaphysical speculations it is rightly called "religion".

So philosophy is something about metaphysical matters ? Buddhism is accepted as a religion not by itself "is" .
Why not say Dhamma is just another type of teaching ?

[DooDoot]

Does this make sense to u?

wikipedia says: "Initially the term referred to any body of knowledge. In this sense, philosophy is closely related to religion, mathematics, natural science, education, and politics"\

the word 'dhamma' does not mean the above

[DooDoot]

As if "religion" cannot include free inquiry and must always imply that someone kowtows to "the letter of the law" at the expense of its underlying intent and meaning.

the buddha taught the law (niyama; AN 3.136; SN 12.20). religion is largely fixed (ṭhitā) law (niyāmatā). the only "free inquiry" in Buddhism, per the Kalama Sutta, is the freedom to verify what the Buddha taught