Buddhism: Is it really a religion?

Okay, lemme explain first before I get death threats:bugeye:. We were studying Asia in world history a few weeks ago, and we basically studied China and India back to back.

Buddhism came about because Buddha (born a regular person into royalty, forget his real name at the moment) stepped outside of his palace one day and saw suffering. He wanted to seek the reason humans suffer, and eventually became enlightened, earning the name "Buddha."

China sprouted a philosophy known as Confucianism. From http://www.religioustolerance.org/confuciu.htm : Confucianism does not contain all of the elements of some other religions, like Christianity and Islam. It is primarily an ethical system to which rituals at important times during one's lifetime have been added.

Now, from what you know about Buddhism and what you know about Confucianism: Are the structures similar enough that Confucianism (and maybe more philosophies) should be religions, or should Buddhism be considered a philosophy more than a religion.

Note: Neither of these have a god.

Second note: I only included Confucianism because thats what I know most about. Feel free to compare Buddhism to other philosophies.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

sure it's still a religion. Religion doesn't need a belief in God or a higher power to be considered one.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You are quite correct. I prefer to call Buddhism a philosophy rather than a religion, as Prince Siddhartha's teachings were all about trying to get real people to be groovy to each other, and that's about it.

Confucious was famed in his time for his revolutionary teaching methods, which involved asking the students questions rather than drumming dogma into them.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would rather see it as a part of Hinduism itself.

 

You can be Hindu without being Buddhist. And you can be Buddhist without being Hindu.

 

Buddhism is a practice. It doesnt ask you to believe in much, just that you practice.
The four noble truths are an identification of a problem, an outline of the causes of the problem, and a series of practical steps to deal with the problem. Much like a recipe in a cookbook

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

perhaps the definition of religion has to be cleared up. what attributes or characteristics have to be acquired before a philosophy evolves into a religion? why does it have to be one or the other? why not both?

 

According to dictionary dot com.

 

Buddhism is a way of thought. Buddha never claimed to be a prophet, or the son of God. Buddha is more about trying to find enlightenment. Didn't you ever hear the saying When you find the Buddha you slay him. Because you don't need the Buddha to live.

 

I said this before in another thread - I think Buddhism
is more of a spiritual philosophy than it is a religion.

 

couldnt you say the same thing about christianity? strip off the outer trappings, burn the edifices, jail the priests; what is left?

 

Buddhism is a religion, though many of the religious trappings were tacked on after Siddartha's time. It has a whole pantheon of gods, not necessarily worshipped but acknowledged and believed in; in fact, they believe that one of the reincarnation stops before Nirvana is godhood. Also, there are the rituals and whatnot that are supposed to be observed.

Zen, on the other hand, is essentially Buddhism without the ritual and pantheistic trappings. It's more of a school of thought than a religion.

 

Buddhist without being a Hindu, yes; but a Hindu essentially has Buddhism as part of his philosophy (unless he prefers not to)!
This is because Hinduism is essentially the consummation of numerous philosophies based on a few basic tenets, and some of these philosophies have branched into full-fledged separate religions (like Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and so on). Some others are dominant but remain as a component of the main thread itself.
After all, doesn't Buddhism have its base in Karma siddhanta?
I hope I am right!

 

Just to clear up some misconceptions on the differences between hinduism and buddhism:

"Another difference, which has been proposed, is the acceptance of god. Hindus have many gods, including Brahman, but Buddhists refute their existence. The Buddha never preached that there was no god, here merely demonstrated the futility of searching for one. He gave the Hindus an analogy of a man who loved a woman, but did not know which woman. When they said that the man was a fool he asked them, "Are you not the same? You say that this God your father or grandfather never saw, and now you are quarreling upon a thing which neither you nor your ancestors ever knew and you are trying to cut each other's throats about it"

http://vava.essortment.com/differencesbetw_rrax.htm

Buddhists also dont believe in a soul and that may be the biggest difference.

Zen is buddhism influnced by taoism and like other forms of buddhism more than a school of thought, though if might not look like a religion to someone thinking that a religion has to answer questions like "what will happen to my soul after I die?" or "is there a god". The buddha taught that asking questions like this was worse than futile because it was a distraction from the immediate problem of getting along with life and discovering ones true nature.

The emphasis in zen more than in other types of buddhism is on meditation practice to unify ones mind.

"Zen practice is not special, mysterious, or esoteric. It is not separate from the world and everyday life. Zen is nothing other than the return to the normal condition of body and mind.

Normal condition, as Master Deshimaru taught it, is not a norm, nor a special state. It means rediscovering a mind that is vast, free, beyond categories and fearless. It means harmonizing with the cosmic system and with others, and becoming less selfish. Normal condition is a mind which is not limited by concepts, a mind which is not stagnant. "

http://www.zen-azi.org/html/what_e.html


Zen is about transcending the small, confused, self centered, scattered, thought beseiged conciousness that most of us consider normal, so that we can become more fully human. The object is to unify the mind. If you were able to concentrate fully on whatever you were doing, rather than being pulled this way and that by your own thoughts and environmental distractions, what could you do? What would you be like? Zen can help you answer that question.
Ever had a moment when you were completely THERE? It happens to people when their doing something they like, playing an instrument, coding, having sex, doing a favorite hobby, and maybe for a moment you were so focused and integrated that it seemd that the instrument was playing you or that you were no longer outside of it that it was all just happening and you were completely single pointedly THERE. Zen is about living your life that way. Zen says that the way to get there is to practice the five precepts and the eightfold path and most importantly (though its hard to sit with a clear mind if youre violating the precepts) get a meditation cushion and SIT, SIT, SIT.

The buddha taught that rather than be concerned with things like the law of karma or what happens to you when you die you should practice the principles and meditate to discover your own truth.
Here is a zen master talking about karma:

"Zen Master Seung Sahn: Zen practice does not take away karma. If you practice Zen, your karma becomes clear. If you are not practicing, your karma controls you. But if you are practicing, you control your karma. So your karma becomes clear. Good karma, bad karma, whatever karma you have becomes clear; then only help other people. That's the point. Sometimes when a person first starts practicing Zen we talk about "taking away karma," but those are only teaching words. Bodhisattvas have bodhisattva karma. Karma means mind action. So, karma controls me, or I control my karma and help other people. These two are different, but same karma."

http://www.kwanumzen.com/pzc/newsletter/v05n04-1994-Feb.html

Perfectly clear, no?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

nice nice nice

however a sticky point in buddhism is the belief in reincarnation. is there is no soul, what is it that get reborn?
analogies such as candle.......have been offered as explanations but i do not quite comprehend


???

 

There are five skandhas or parts that make up a human being.
"First, form: Solidity, earth element, shape.

Second, feelings: Sensations. Not just emotional feelings, but also physical sensations and so on. Whatever we feel.

The third skandha is perceptions: Experiences, like thoughts, sights, sounds, and so on. In the second and third skandhas, in feelings and perceptions, liking and not liking arise. That's when the whole problem, the whole duality, the whole push and shove starts. The entire, exhausting treadmill or roller coaster of ups and downs.

The fourth is will or volition: Intending to do things. That's where karma comes in. Liking and not liking arise, then from that devolves reactions. Reactions rather than freedom and proactivity.

Our form feels things, perceives things this way or that way, liking or not liking. Then actions or intentions push or pull, trying to get more, get less, ignore it, or get away from it. Avoidance, denial, greed, demandingness, attachment, and so on, equals dissatisfaction and misery.

And fifth is consciousness, or as Buddhism says, consciousnesses: States of mind. "

More here:
http://www.dzogchen.org/teachings/talks/dtalk-95may22.html


This is my understanding: These five elements are subject to separation at death so there really is no you in the ego sense. However there is karma in the sense of causation. I think the real misunderstanding here is the nature of time. Time in the way the ego experiences it is largely an illusion. The universe is spontaneously "recreated" (this word doesnt convey the actual sense, because nothing is ever really lost but its the only word I can think of) every instant. The nature of the universe is more like a flower unfolding, an organic event, rather than a linear story.
The ego creates an illusion of linear continuity, this illusion is completely necessary, if you think that form is an illusion, step out in front of a bus and see what happens

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

This allows the play of karma to continue. As necessary as this is it isnt all there is, there is also emptiness (again a bad word, a better concept might be all-inclusive NOW). The ego grasps form to foster the illusion of its own existence, it makes the world small, so that it isnt threatened with the truth of its own fiction. Transendence of form and emptiness is the ideal condition. Language and especially english is not really good at conveying these ideas so its easy to misunderstand. Apprehension of the truth of these concepts, for most people anyway, requires some kind of meditative pratice.

Anyway to get back to your question, at birth skandhas unite to form a new being.

Keep in mind that buddhist psychology has about a four thousand year head start on western psychology and that some of this probably doesnt translate really well into english anyway.
The buddhist view of the self is one the one hand of an integrated whole "the buddha nature" (the true self) and on the other hand piecemeal, the skandhas.
The appearent contradictions here, between form and emptiness, and between the skandhas and the buddha nature arent really subject to understanding through language but only through direct perception. Language and mundane thought force an "is, is not condition" on experience, direct unimpeded experience of conciousness transends false duality, exposes the ego for what it is, a convienient tool for dealing with the world, and unifies the mind. Again this is my understanding and may be faulty

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I think Buddhism is more of a lifestyle. You can be Catholic or whatever, not attend church for years and not practice your faith and God will still love you. With Buddhism however, you have to sleep, eat, and walk the Dharma because it's all about daily thoughts and actions.

 

If Buddhism isn't a religion, why would christian parents get so pissed when schools try to teach a bit of Zen (or even yoga for that matter) to get kids to focus?

Apparently some of us think Buddhism isn't a religion, but some of our parents do.

And one of the things you learn in such 'ways of thought' is flexibility. Hmm, what can we conclude about christian parents and what flaws they have?

 

m0rl0ck:
Thanks for the links. They are great. I reproduce some quotes from your links, but still find more similarities between Hinduism and Buddhism than differences! Different viewpoints?

quote:
-------------------------
The two religions also share the law of karma. Karma is the belief in a "law of consequences." According to this doctrine, the actions, which one performs will redound upon the performer either as blessings for good deeds or curses for evil deeds. These consequences could take the course of several lifetimes to be enacted, depending upon the act performed. The Bhagavad-Gita tells Hindus: Death is certain for anyone born,and birth is certain for the dead;since the cycle is inevitableyou have no cause to grieve.(II, 27)
Buddhists are of similar mind: "The results of acts done in the previous life are transmitted to that consciousness which brings about re-existence, and this transmission takes place ceaselessly and uninterruptedly, like water flowing in a stream"
...
Through this, a Hindu can incorporate aspects of Buddhism into his own religious framework. While the two share many of the same ideas and visions, however, they are different and represent different ideals. One is an ideal of perfect self, one of perfect self-lessness. These are opposing ends, even if their approaches are similar.
------------------------

I don't understand the Karma bit in the zen link- it sounds very different. The karma I was referring to was "actions of one being responsible for the consequences"

 

Ah, but there is a minor difference. Hindu believes in tons of gods/goddesses but Buddhism doesn't...

As for the part about Buddhism's possible logical flaw in that they believe in reincarnation but not a soul (do they really not? probably not in a soul in the rather simplistic 'good/evil' sense that is the hallmark of christians), I lack the theology to argue or disagree.

Well, you could consider Buddhism as a religion because it is "based on the teachings of a spiritual leader". I don't see why Buddhism has to fit the christian description (someone said that Buddhism had no prophets) of a religion to be one.

______________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

-central philosophy of Zero, Sage of Chaos