"No church, no guru, no dependency".

"Let go, and then let go of letting go".

"My leg hurts".

Darwinsbulldog wrote:Yup, in my view it is. No gods in Buddhism, but there is belief in supernaturalism, such as souls without bodies and reincarnation.

That's because of local traditional animistic beliefs. Really, when you strip any and all religions down you find animism at their cores. It really is the predominant religious belief of humanity throughout history.

In my understanding, admittedly limited, the Buddhist path is a progressive one. The religious and superstitious elements are often very strong as you begin, but as you study and train, you gradually come to realize that the Buddha's message was to let go of them. Religious and superstitious thinking are popular ways of trying to have some status of existence that you don't already have, some imaginary control over things which you don't. For example, death. Afterlives are the product of the desire for immortality in the face of the observation that everything that lives, dies. If you study Buddhist philosophy and practice the mental yoga, you may eventually realize that the way you've always assumed your 'self' to be doesn't actually fit what is experienced. Your 'self' isn't a static, discrete identity that abides through time. As you learn to let go of this illusory version of self-hood and replace it with an understanding that is commensurate with actual experience, the desperate grasping for eternal life that manifests itself as religious thinking diminishes and eventually dissipates altogether.

I think. But I could be wrong.

Edit:

Oh. The OP. Yeah, it fits the definition of a religion, a philosophy and a practical approach to life.

OBM

Yes, I like that. One realizes that there was never anything that could live after this life, and maybe there isn't even this life! Maybe it is the present moment which is eternal, in a different sense.

Although, strangely enough, this view does find a voice within Christianity, but it is not popular.

It could also be useful to understand that western Buddhism isn't that much the same as Eastern buddhism. There are a lot of Dogma's and rules to live by. There have been quite some wars and conflicts started over and because of Buddhist believes, and it has also been a cause for repression.

So at it origins, Buddhism acts pretty much like other religions.

Girlysprite wrote:It could also be useful to understand that western Buddhism isn't that much the same as Eastern buddhism.

Indeed, this is very true. Most Asian Buddhists I've met are Buddhists just because of family, regional or national tradition. A few delve into the philosophical side, but not so many.

There are a lot of Dogma's and rules to live by.

Oodles and oodles of each.

There have been quite some wars and conflicts started over and because of Buddhist believes, and it has also been a cause for repression.

Eh? Do you have some examples?

So at it origins, Buddhism acts pretty much like other religions.

True that. It's a human institution, so it's going to address human needs and include human shortcomings. One reason I can't get into Buddhist discussion forums is because so many of them treat the suttas and "what Buddha said" as inerrant. IOW, they're basically taking the same approach as xtians.

nunnington wrote:OBM

Yes, I like that. One realizes that there was never anything that could live after this life, and maybe there isn't even this life! Maybe it is the present moment which is eternal, in a different sense.

Although, strangely enough, this view does find a voice within Christianity, but it is not popular.

I think so, except for the 'eternal' part. I'm not sure in what sense you mean it, but one of the tenets of Buddhist philosophy is that nothing is eternal. Maybe you mean something like 'the flow of phenomena from moment-to-moment' is constant/eternal? If that's the case, I'd wholeheartedly agree. Not because Buddha said it, but because it's the best description of what I experience.

It's hard to not call that a religon

FBM

One of the interesting ideas in Christianity is that 'eternal' doesn't mean a very long time, but not in time. I quite like that, as I sometimes have the experience that the present moment is not in time, and isn't even the present moment. What else would it be?

Hello FBM.

How's it going?

XiledSpawn wrote:Very old and repeated question, but no forum is complete without it

Yes. Religion (noun): "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Buddhism is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and involves devotional or ritual observances and contains moral codes for the conduct of human affairs. Therefore, it is a religion. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

I was not aware that there was any dispute about this?

notself wrote:Hello FBM.

How's it going?

Hi! Great! Enjoying the new forum?

Enjoyed your posts earlier in this thread.

Thank you.

Yes, clearing the decks is sometimes refreshing.

Did you hear about the flap in Thailand about Ajahn Brahm? I now understand why you are the FBM.

coito ergo cum laude wrote:

XiledSpawn wrote:Very old and repeated question, but no forum is complete without it

Yes. Religion (noun): "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Buddhism is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and involves devotional or ritual observances and contains moral codes for the conduct of human affairs. Therefore, it is a religion. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

I was not aware that there was any dispute about this?

Buddhism is a practice of understanding the workings of the mind in order to end suffering caused by mental concepts. It does not address the cause or purpose of the universe since speculation on these things is a distraction from ending suffering. It does have precepts/rules for conduct and, depending on the tradition, more or less ritual and observances. These are optional in many traditions.

It can be a philosophy if you ignore the woo or a religion if you embrace the woo.

FBM wrote:

There have been quite some wars and conflicts started over and because of Buddhist believes, and it has also been a cause for repression.

Eh? Do you have some examples?

Read this for example: http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

A quote from that article:

A glance at history, however, reveals that not all the many and widely varying forms of Buddhism have been free of doctrinal fanaticism, nor free of the violent and exploitative pursuits so characteristic of other religions. In Sri Lanka there is a legendary and almost sacred recorded history about the triumphant battles waged by Buddhist kings of yore. During the twentieth century, Buddhists clashed violently with each other and with non-Buddhists in Thailand, Burma, Korea, Japan, India, and elsewhere. In Sri Lanka, armed battles between Buddhist Sinhalese and Hindu Tamils have taken many lives on both sides. In 1998 the U.S. State Department listed thirty of the world’s most violent and dangerous extremist groups. Over half of them were religious, specifically Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist.

Girlysprite wrote:

FBM wrote:

There have been quite some wars and conflicts started over and because of Buddhist believes, and it has also been a cause for repression.

Eh? Do you have some examples?

Read this for example: http://www.michaelparenti.org/Tibet.html

A quote from that article:

A glance at history, however, reveals that not all the many and widely varying forms of Buddhism have been free of doctrinal fanaticism, nor free of the violent and exploitative pursuits so characteristic of other religions. In Sri Lanka there is a legendary and almost sacred recorded history about the triumphant battles waged by Buddhist kings of yore. During the twentieth century, Buddhists clashed violently with each other and with non-Buddhists in Thailand, Burma, Korea, Japan, India, and elsewhere. In Sri Lanka, armed battles between Buddhist Sinhalese and Hindu Tamils have taken many lives on both sides. In 1998 the U.S. State Department listed thirty of the world’s most violent and dangerous extremist groups. Over half of them were religious, specifically Muslim, Jewish, and Buddhist.

Thanks for reminding me of that. As I mentioned earlier, I do that Buddhist religious institutions behave pretty much like any other human institution, religious or secular. However, doesn't seem that most of the article you linked to is referring to political strifes that occurred in Buddhist populations? I don't see much there that can be compared to the Crusades or violence/oppression as a means to compel others to accept a belief system.

No doubt, there are plenty of abuses with Buddhism and occasional violence among sects, and monks here in Korea were instrumental in the violent overthrow of the Japanese. Monks and lamas, etc, are just as subject to greed, lust and other desires as anyone else. Shaving one's head and putting on robes doesn't mean that you have any more insight or discipline than anyone else.

Yes, there are examples of abuses committed by Buddhists, but they weren't - as far as I know - done because of any Buddhist teachings or doctrine. Those actions occurred in violation of Buddhist teachings and doctrines, often by the 'higher ups' in the various sects. That doesn't make them any less atrocious, but it shifts the blame from Buddhist teachings themselves to ordinary human folly. By comparison, xtianity and Islam justify violence and oppression against infidels and unbelievers as a matter of doctrine.

As always, I could be wrong about this and am always open to and grateful for correction.

FBM wrote:
Thanks for reminding me of that. As I mentioned earlier, I do that Buddhist religious institutions behave pretty much like any other human institution, religious or secular. However, doesn't seem that most of the article you linked to is referring to political strifes that occurred in Buddhist populations? I don't see much there that can be compared to the Crusades or violence/oppression as a means to compel others to accept a belief system.

No doubt, there are plenty of abuses with Buddhism and occasional violence among sects, and monks here in Korea were instrumental in the violent overthrow of the Japanese. Monks and lamas, etc, are just as subject to greed, lust and other desires as anyone else. Shaving one's head and putting on robes doesn't mean that you have any more insight or discipline than anyone else.

Yes, there are examples of abuses committed by Buddhists, but they weren't - as far as I know - done because of any Buddhist teachings or doctrine. Those actions occurred in violation of Buddhist teachings and doctrines, often by the 'higher ups' in the various sects. That doesn't make them any less atrocious, but it shifts the blame from Buddhist teachings themselves to ordinary human folly. By comparison, xtianity and Islam justify violence and oppression against infidels and unbelievers as a matter of doctrine.

As always, I could be wrong about this and am always open to and grateful for correction.

Well, Christians and Muslims are sometimes also quick to say that such violence wasn't in line with the teaching, Christianity having the line about turning the other cheek, after all. The violence occurred because people didn't agree on details and/or rules of the teachings. Like who is the incarnation of who? Are certain things that happen because of Karma?
And there have been Buddhists encouraging war, like in japan in the WW2 period. There are enough texts speaking of a 'holy war', which is meant as an internal struggle to get rid of bad elements within yourself, but if you twist them a bit...And other texts that speak of obedience, very useful for political leaders.
http://www.darkzen.com/Articles/zenholy.htm


Such details are not, or barely known to us, and it might seem as if they did much less in terms of violence then other religions. But don't forget that we grew up learning the history of Christianity and Islam because those religions are around us and have interacted. That does not count for the eastern version of Buddhism, which makes it easier to say 'oh, it wasn't that bad'.

Religious and philosophical texts can always be used to justify war. It is a bit more difficult in Buddhism than in Christianity or Islam, but it can be and has been done in spite of texts like this.

Hostilities aren't stilled
through hostility,
regardless.
Hostilities are stilled
through non-hostility:
this, an unending truth.

Unlike those who don't realize
that we're here on the verge
of perishing,
those who do:
their quarrels are stilled. ---Dhp I

notself wrote:

coito ergo cum laude wrote:

XiledSpawn wrote:Very old and repeated question, but no forum is complete without it

Yes. Religion (noun): "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Buddhism is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, and involves devotional or ritual observances and contains moral codes for the conduct of human affairs. Therefore, it is a religion. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

I was not aware that there was any dispute about this?

Buddhism is a practice of understanding the workings of the mind in order to end suffering caused by mental concepts. It does not address the cause or purpose of the universe since speculation on these things is a distraction from ending suffering. It does have precepts/rules for conduct and, depending on the tradition, more or less ritual and observances. These are optional in many traditions.

It can be a philosophy if you ignore the woo or a religion if you embrace the woo.

Sounds pretty religious to me...http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions ... se_1.shtml

As I said, Buddhism can be religious, especially Tibetan Buddhism and Mahayana. Theravada and Zen can go either way.

There is a sutta in the Theravada canon where Gotama asks his follower, Ananda, if he believes in rebirth. Ananda answers, "No, not yet." Gotama considered that an excellent answer. Ananda was keeping an open mind to the possibility but was straight forward is stating his disbelief.

The trouble with the link you provided is it describes Buddhism as if all Buddhist believed the same things. That is not the case. It wasn't even the case at the time of the Buddha.

I will just repeat what I said before. If one is seeking a religion, then one can find religion in Buddhism. If one is interested in a philosophy one can find a philosophical system. I am interested in the philosophical system.