Secular Buddhism

Nevermind

vinlyn said:

MaryAnne said:

@nevermind & @Jeffery

Let's not start muddying the waters by promoting the idea that "faith" is a complex word or concept. It isn't. I'm pretty sure numbers 1 through 4 sums up the context of the word faith - in this particular discussion...

Faith
n
1. strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence
2. a specific system of religious beliefs; the Jewish faith
3. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) Christianity trust in God and in his actions and promises
4. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) a conviction of the truth of certain doctrines of religion, esp when this is not based on reason
5. complete confidence or trust in a person, remedy, etc.
6. any set of firmly held principles or beliefs

It isn't that the definition is cloudy. But the use of the word is. A silly example, one day when I was having a faculty meeting and walked in with donuts for everyone, one of the teachers said, "I had faith in Vince, I knew he wouldn't let us down." Which is a lot different than saying, "I have faith in God".

Someone had faith in Vince. We can have faith in the Buddha's teaching and in more experienced practitioners.

Sile

Faith is, in my experience, defined differently in (for example) Christianity, vs. in Buddhism.

In the Christianity of my upbringing, faith was not dependent on proof, and in fact it was generally implied that the less the proof, the better (quality) the faith.

In Buddhism, faith is meant to be developed, based on one's own experience and/or exploration of a certain topic. As one develops greater insight and experience in a matter, one's faith in that matter becomes stronger. It seems clear to me that faith, in Buddhist terms, might better be translated as "confidence."

Jason

The way I see it, faith isn't necessarily a bad thing; although I agree there are different kinds of faith. And as rational as many aspects of Buddhism may be, there's still a role for faith, in my opinion. In the Pali Canon, the word saddha can be translated as 'confidence,' 'conviction,' or 'faith.' More specifically, it's a type of confidence, conviction, or faith that's rooted in understanding as well as what we'd conventionally refer to as faith in the West (i.e., confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing).

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with faith in and of itself; and I think having a certain amount of conviction in the Buddha's teachings is needed from a purely pragmatic point of view. For one thing, without at least a modicum of confidence in the Buddha as a teacher, there's no motivation to put his teachings into practice (and the same with the teachings and the advice of those who dedicate themselves to practicing them/passing them down). As Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes in his essay "Faith in Awakening":

The Buddha never placed unconditional demands on anyone's faith... We read his famous instructions to the Kalamas, in which he advises testing things for oneself, and we see it as an invitation to believe, or not, whatever we like. Some people go so far as to say that faith has no place in the Buddhist tradition, that the proper Buddhist attitude is one of skepticism. But even though the Buddha recommends tolerance and a healthy skepticism toward matters of faith, he also makes a conditional request about faith: If you sincerely want to put an end to suffering — that's the condition — you should take certain things on faith, as working hypotheses, and then test them through following his path of practice.

Without faith that the Buddha had at least some insight into the nature of suffering, there's little reason to take anything he said as a working hypothesis to test. Therefore, while faith by itself isn't a sufficient condition for arriving at the highest fruits of the Dhamma, there are elements of faith that are important to the practice, which is illustrated in places like MN 70:

Monks, I do not say that the attainment of gnosis is all at once. Rather, the attainment of gnosis is after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice. And how is there the attainment of gnosis after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice? There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a teacher]. Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it.

In essence, faith in Buddhism is a stepping stone to gnosis, much as it is in Christianity. And while some find theistic spiritual traditions like Christianity a source of comfort, guidance, and happiness, I've found Buddhism to be the same. I don't know if nibbana — the extinction of craving; the extinguishing of greed, hatred and delusion; the complete end of suffering — is attainable, but I certainly like where the path has taken me thus far, and I have confidence that it's worth my continued effort. And I imagine that others feel the same about their respective spiritual journeys, whatever the context, which is something I can appreciate.

Nevermind

Dakini said:

Not getting your drift, @Nevermind, you'll have to spell it out. All I said was that for many Westerners, faith is not seen as a part of Buddhism. We've had a couple of threads debating that topic, you can look them up, if you want. Don't shoot the messenger, I"m just stating a fact in response to your question, "Clearly there is faith in Buddhism, yes?"

You're stating a fact? That some Western Buddhists are lacking in faith? Okay.

Nevermind

Sile said:

Faith is, in my experience, defined differently in (for example) Christianity, vs. in Buddhism.

In the Christianity of my upbringing, faith was not dependent on proof, and in fact it was generally implied that the less the proof, the better (quality) the faith.

In Buddhism, faith is meant to be developed, based on one's own experience and/or exploration of a certain topic. As one develops greater insight and experience in a matter, one's faith in that matter becomes stronger. It seems clear to me that faith, in Buddhist terms, might better be translated as "confidence."

Are you in any way suggesting that we should not have faith in enlightenment or other Buddhist teachings that are beyond our experience?

vinlyn

Sile said:

Faith is, in my experience, defined differently in (for example) Christianity, vs. in Buddhism.

In the Christianity of my upbringing, faith was not dependent on proof, and in fact it was generally implied that the less the proof, the better (quality) the faith.

In Buddhism, faith is meant to be developed, based on one's own experience and/or exploration of a certain topic. As one develops greater insight and experience in a matter, one's faith in that matter becomes stronger. It seems clear to me that faith, in Buddhist terms, might better be translated as "confidence."

I think it becomes very problematic in discussions when key terms are defined differently.

vinlyn

Jason said:

The way I see it, faith isn't necessarily a bad thing; although I agree there are different kinds of faith. And as rational as many aspects of Buddhism may be, there's still a role for faith, in my opinion. In the Pali Canon, the word saddha can be translated as 'confidence,' 'conviction,' or 'faith.' More specifically, it's a type of confidence, conviction, or faith that's rooted in understanding as well as what we'd conventionally refer to as faith in the West (i.e., confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing).

Personally, I don't think there's anything wrong with faith in and of itself; and I think having a certain amount of conviction in the Buddha's teachings is needed from a purely pragmatic point of view. For one thing, without at least a modicum of confidence in the Buddha as a teacher, there's no motivation to put his teachings into practice (and the same with the teachings and the advice of those who dedicate themselves to practicing them/passing them down). As Thanissaro Bhikkhu writes in his essay "Faith in Awakening":

The Buddha never placed unconditional demands on anyone's faith... We read his famous instructions to the Kalamas, in which he advises testing things for oneself, and we see it as an invitation to believe, or not, whatever we like. Some people go so far as to say that faith has no place in the Buddhist tradition, that the proper Buddhist attitude is one of skepticism. But even though the Buddha recommends tolerance and a healthy skepticism toward matters of faith, he also makes a conditional request about faith: If you sincerely want to put an end to suffering — that's the condition — you should take certain things on faith, as working hypotheses, and then test them through following his path of practice.

Without faith that the Buddha had at least some insight into the nature of suffering, there's little reason to take anything he said as a working hypothesis to test. Therefore, while faith by itself isn't a sufficient condition for arriving at the highest fruits of the Dhamma, there are elements of faith that are important to the practice, which is illustrated in places like MN 70:

Monks, I do not say that the attainment of gnosis is all at once. Rather, the attainment of gnosis is after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice. And how is there the attainment of gnosis after gradual training, gradual action, gradual practice? There is the case where, when conviction has arisen, one visits [a teacher]. Having visited, one grows close. Having grown close, one lends ear. Having lent ear, one hears the Dhamma. Having heard the Dhamma, one remembers it. Remembering, one penetrates the meaning of the teachings. Penetrating the meaning, one comes to an agreement through pondering the teachings. There being an agreement through pondering the teachings, desire arises. When desire has arisen, one is willing. When one is willing, one contemplates. Having contemplated, one makes an exertion. Having made an exertion, one realizes with the body the ultimate truth and, having penetrated it with discernment, sees it.

In essence, faith in Buddhism is a stepping stone to gnosis, much as it is in Christianity. And while some find theistic spiritual traditions like Christianity a source of comfort, guidance, and happiness, I've found Buddhism to be the same. I don't know if nibbana — the extinction of craving; the extinguishing of greed, hatred and delusion; the complete end of suffering — is attainable, but I certainly like where the path has taken me thus far, and I have confidence that it's worth my continued effort. And I imagine that others feel the same about their respective spiritual journeys, whatever the context, which is something I can appreciate.

Well written...pretty much in agreement.

vinlyn

Nevermind said:

Sile said:

Faith is, in my experience, defined differently in (for example) Christianity, vs. in Buddhism.

In the Christianity of my upbringing, faith was not dependent on proof, and in fact it was generally implied that the less the proof, the better (quality) the faith.

In Buddhism, faith is meant to be developed, based on one's own experience and/or exploration of a certain topic. As one develops greater insight and experience in a matter, one's faith in that matter becomes stronger. It seems clear to me that faith, in Buddhist terms, might better be translated as "confidence."

Are you in any way suggesting that we should not have faith in enlightenment or other Buddhist teachings that are beyond our experience?

Sile may not be saying that, but I am.

robot

vinlyn said:

Nevermind said:

Sile said:

Faith is, in my experience, defined differently in (for example) Christianity, vs. in Buddhism.

In the Christianity of my upbringing, faith was not dependent on proof, and in fact it was generally implied that the less the proof, the better (quality) the faith.

In Buddhism, faith is meant to be developed, based on one's own experience and/or exploration of a certain topic. As one develops greater insight and experience in a matter, one's faith in that matter becomes stronger. It seems clear to me that faith, in Buddhist terms, might better be translated as "confidence."

Are you in any way suggesting that we should not have faith in enlightenment or other Buddhist teachings that are beyond our experience?

Sile may not be saying that, but I am.

I agree. In my view buying into religious aspects of Buddhism such as rebirth, on faith, because "that's what Buddhists believe", can stall reaching a deeper understanding or realization of emptiness or suchness. Without insight such things can become sort of a fixed idea that one might not be inclined to give up on easily. That's been my experience.
Like the overflowing cup story.

DairyLama

vinlyn said:

Define faith in this discussion, then I'll answer.

saddhā: Conviction, faith. A confidence in the Buddha that gives one the willingness to put his teachings into practice. Conviction becomes unshakeable upon the attainment of stream-entry.

Nevermind

robot said:

vinlyn said:

Nevermind said:

Sile said:

Faith is, in my experience, defined differently in (for example) Christianity, vs. in Buddhism.

In the Christianity of my upbringing, faith was not dependent on proof, and in fact it was generally implied that the less the proof, the better (quality) the faith.

In Buddhism, faith is meant to be developed, based on one's own experience and/or exploration of a certain topic. As one develops greater insight and experience in a matter, one's faith in that matter becomes stronger. It seems clear to me that faith, in Buddhist terms, might better be translated as "confidence."

Are you in any way suggesting that we should not have faith in enlightenment or other Buddhist teachings that are beyond our experience?

Sile may not be saying that, but I am.

I agree. In my view buying into religious aspects of Buddhism such as rebirth, on faith, because "that's what Buddhists believe", can stall reaching a deeper understanding or realization of emptiness or suchness. Without insight such things can become sort of a fixed idea that one might not be inclined to give up on easily. That's been my experience.
Like the overflowing cup story.

Wouldn't it be easier to give up the idea without faith or insight?

Nevermind

vinlyn said:

Nevermind said:

Sile said:

Faith is, in my experience, defined differently in (for example) Christianity, vs. in Buddhism.

In the Christianity of my upbringing, faith was not dependent on proof, and in fact it was generally implied that the less the proof, the better (quality) the faith.

In Buddhism, faith is meant to be developed, based on one's own experience and/or exploration of a certain topic. As one develops greater insight and experience in a matter, one's faith in that matter becomes stronger. It seems clear to me that faith, in Buddhist terms, might better be translated as "confidence."

Are you in any way suggesting that we should not have faith in enlightenment or other Buddhist teachings that are beyond our experience?

Sile may not be saying that, but I am.

I have little if any faith in Buddhism, but I would not suggest that others reject it.

vinlyn

PedanticPorpoise said:

vinlyn said:

Define faith in this discussion, then I'll answer.

saddhā: Conviction, faith. A confidence in the Buddha that gives one the willingness to put his teachings into practice. Conviction becomes unshakeable upon the attainment of stream-entry.

Yes, I would say that's an example of faith in Buddhism, and also a reason that some of us reject faith in Buddhism.

Jeffrey

Sradda is something you have whether you are Buddhist or not. It is one of the five Indiryas. You might not believe it exists, but from the perspective of a person who has studied Buddhism you automatically have Sradda. Prajna occurs not just on Buddhist topics, but also in all secular matters. For example you could realize an efficient way at work. Prajna is having the vision of how to be efficient at work, say, and Sradda is bringing your vision to reality. In that setting it's kind of like confidence and conviction. You know you can improve your work, but you are nervous to talk to your boss or make waves. With more confidence and determination you can get that efficient result. In Buddhism you can have the courage to take more time from family to meditate.

vinlyn

Nevermind said:

vinlyn said:

Sile may not be saying that, but I am.

I have little if any faith in Buddhism, but I would not suggest that others reject it.

In really big matters I try to look at things conceptually. And for some Buddhist who tells me that faith in God or faith in Jesus Christ is not realistic, then I'm unlikely to say that faith in another man is therefore realistic. What do we who are non-Catholic (and even some Catholics) think of the concept of the Pope's infallibility? I'm simply not going to say that the Pope is infallible when he says he's in fallible (how convenient).

I have a problem with the concept of "stream entry" because it is defined as that point when "doubt about the Buddha and his teaching is eradicated". Which translates as meaning that you will accept every and all teachings of Buddha without exception.

For those who accept that...fine. I don't. Although I can be convinced...but haven't been yet.

But, my confidence (I'll select that word, rather than faith) In Buddha's teachings is at such a high level that I will seriously consider any teaching of his because I think he was one of the wisest men who has walked the earth...but not omnipotent (as in all seeing and all knowing). Which is not enough for many Buddhists, but gee...there's only a couple of people in whom I have that much confidence.

Nevermind

Confidence is synonymous with faith guys. Why split hairs? Really, why split hairs???

Sile

vinlyn said:

I think it becomes very problematic in discussions when key terms are defined differently.

Absolutely - and it's very often the case that terms (in any conversation) are understood differently; so, in the case of Buddhism and Christianity where it seems clear the usages can, depending on the author/speaker, be quite different, it's good to identify that difference and explore it. In many cases it's a translation issue, I think, but has to be clarified nonetheless.

Even for me as a once-Christian, if I were to have said, "I have faith in Jesus" and "I have faith in my Dad," those usages of faith would have been different, because I have quite a bit of proof that my Dad is trustworthy, whereas Jesus is someone I have never personally met. Faith in the religious sense very much implied, at least in my religion, taking something on absolutely blind faith (because the Bible said so), whereas faith in someone I know implied direct experience with that person.

I.e. even the most strict, dogmatic Adventist preacher would not require my use of "faith in my Dad" to represent blind faith, whereas that same preacher would require my use of "faith in Jesus" to include blind faith.

Dakini

Nevermind said:

You're stating a fact? That some Western Buddhists are lacking in faith? Okay.

You're twisting my words, but to an extent, yes. You should re-read my first post on the topic. It sounds like you didn't understand it. Many Westerners approach Buddhism as a non-faith-based system.

Nevermind

Dakini said:

Nevermind said:

You're stating a fact? That some Western Buddhists are lacking in faith? Okay.

You're twisting my words, but to an extent, yes. You should re-read my first post on the topic. It sounds like you didn't understand it. Many Westerners approach Buddhism as a non-faith-based system.

There is nothing to misunderstand, Dakini. Either we have some measure of faith/confidence or we don't.

vinlyn

Whoa, @nevermind. First you say "we have some measure of faith/confidence", but then you turn it into an either/or situation ("or we don't").

Dakini

Nevermind said:

There is nothing to misunderstand, Dakini. Either we have some measure of faith/confidence or we don't.

Well, the point is that some followers of Buddhism see no need for faith. For them, there's no place for faith in Buddhism. So, for example, faith doesn't enter into understanding the 4NT. The 4 NT are simply an analysis of reality, as in any philosophical system. "Enlightenment" isn't viewed as something magical. It's viewed more like the absence of stress (dukkha), or healing one's neuroses and reaching a point of contentment (absence of dukkha) or equanimity in life. This is why some Westerners categorize Buddhism as an early type of psychology. You can see the parallels.

Does psychology involve "faith"? Do people have "faith" that if they go to the psychologist (or doctor, or lawyer) that their problems will be effectively addressed? Well, medicine and psychology are considered science in the West, and we don't normally view science as requiring faith. That's a whole other discussion. The fact remains that some people come to Buddhism because they perceive it to be logic-based, not faith-based.

Jeffrey

It can be demonstrated pretty much objectively that sradda is needed in a meditation/daily awareness/eightfold path situation. And this is where people need to see that the concept of faith in Buddhism has very little to do with faith in God. So I would say every Buddhist needs Sradda. To do anything not even Buddhism you need Sradda.

vinlyn

Dakini said:

Nevermind said:

There is nothing to misunderstand, Dakini. Either we have some measure of faith/confidence or we don't.

Well, the point is that some followers of Buddhism see no need for faith. For them, there's no place for faith in Buddhism. So, for example, faith doesn't enter into understanding the 4NT. The 4 NT are simply an analysis of reality, as in any philosophical system. "Enlightenment" isn't viewed as something magical. It's viewed more like the absence of stress (dukkha), or healing one's neuroses and reaching a point of contentment (absence of dukkha) or equanimity in life. This is why some Westerners categorize Buddhism as an early type of psychology. You can see the parallels.

Does psychology involve "faith"? Do people have "faith" that if they go to the psychologist (or doctor, or lawyer) that their problems will be effectively addressed? Well, medicine and psychology are considered science in the West, and we don't normally view science as requiring faith. That's a whole other discussion. The fact remains that some people come to Buddhism because they perceive it to be logic-based, not faith-based.

The one of the best explanations I've ever read! Bravo!

Jeffrey

Faith in the 4NT is buddhist. Some Buddhists do not practice them fully and with commitment they can learn the 4NT more deeply.

It's just a buzzword, faith. Some people don't like it. In Buddhism the correct word is confidence and 'follow-thru'. If you don't have Sradda it is a stumbling point on the 8FP and the 4NT. Faith (sradda) helps you with priorities and to power through obstacles. It's like the community rules say X and if the authorities (mandala guardians) don't enforce the rules then the whole mandala loses integrity.

So find a different word if you don't like faith. There is a leap of faith to realize right view. We try to protect ourselves from that which unsettles us and the groundless nature of reality can manifest as fear, another obstacle. There are thousands of obstacles.

From my sangha liturgy: "(Buddha) holder of the vajra sword that cuts the wall of doubt concealed in the dark confusion of wrong view." My teacher who is a lineage holder in the karma kagyu says that ignorance is cut by confidence and that all of the thousands of dharma teachings are all about restoring us to confidence in our true nature of space and compassion.

Sile

Almost every act, as a human being--perhaps every act, in fact--requires faith, i.e. doing something without proof it will turn out okay. If we had no faith, we wouldn't leave our houses (and statistic sshow that even staying in one's own house is dangerous).

No one can ever have proof that the next step won't result in death or calamity; so we all live by faith. The question becomes what kind of faith--is it utterly blind, or very reasoned, or somewhere in between? (And of course if we just plain don't like the word faith, we can choose a word we personally feel more comfortable with--confidence, trust, etc.--but as long as at least some people are using the words interchangeably, we can't write the word "faith" off as meaning only belief-in-invisible-gods, etc.)

At no time, stepping foot outside my front door, have I been hit by a meteor. I have experience-based, or odds-based faith that I'm not likely to be hit by a meteor today when I leave home. Now, it's not necessarily scientifically reasoned faith; there could have been a TV bulletin warning of a meteor, which I missed; the only people exhibiting scientifically-reasoned action under those circumstances would be those staying indoors. But my faith is still not blind--the odds, in my lifetime, of such a thing happening have proven very low. So I can't be accused of being a complete dunce, even if I missed the TV bulletin.

I think it's interesting to look at the various conditions of faith--reasoned faith, blind faith, impatient faith (I don't feel like turning on the telly and I'm sure there are probably no tornados/meteors)...maybe there are better categories yet?

If we talk of reasoned faith, of course we can question each others' reasoning, so reasoned faith is still somewhat personal. Or maybe the "blind" faith we see in others isn't as blind as we think--my Grandma, for example, would've said that her faith in Jesus was based on feeling evidence of his hand in her life. It's just really hard to qualify others' experiences, I think.

But it seems clear we can't write "faith" off as one, solid thing to be accepted or rejected; we'd always need to qualify it at least a little, in order to have something approaching a genuine conversation.

Nevermind

vinlyn said:

Whoa, @nevermind. First you say "we have some measure of faith/confidence", but then you turn it into an either/or situation ("or we don't").

What's the problem? We can have strong faith, or normal faith, or weak faith, or no faith. I described a range.

Nevermind

Dakini said:

Nevermind said:

There is nothing to misunderstand, Dakini. Either we have some measure of faith/confidence or we don't.

Well, the point is that some followers of Buddhism see no need for faith. For them, there's no place for faith in Buddhism. So, for example, faith doesn't enter into understanding the 4NT. The 4 NT are simply an analysis of reality, as in any philosophical system.

The Four Noble Truths are not an "analysis." They are claimed to be "Truths," with a capital T. Philosophy does not claim to be truth, if indeed it is philosophy.

Dakini said:

"Enlightenment" isn't viewed as something magical. It's viewed more like the absence of stress (dukkha), or healing one's neuroses and reaching a point of contentment (absence of dukkha) or equanimity in life. This is why some Westerners categorize Buddhism as an early type of psychology.

Are you speaking for all Buddhists when you say that enlightenment is merely healing one's neuroses or reaching a point of contentment in life?

Dakini said:

The fact remains that some people come to Buddhism because they perceive it to be logic-based, not faith-based.

No religion is based in logic or reason. I suspect the people you refer to have simply not investigated why they've come to it.

vinlyn

Sile said:

Almost every act, as a human being--perhaps every act, in fact--requires faith, i.e. doing something without proof it will turn out okay. If we had no faith, we wouldn't leave our houses (and statistic sshow that even staying in one's own house is dangerous).

No one can ever have proof that the next step won't result in death or calamity; so we all live by faith. The question becomes what kind of faith--is it utterly blind, or very reasoned, or somewhere in between? (And of course if we just plain don't like the word faith, we can choose a word we personally feel more comfortable with--confidence, trust, etc.--but as long as at least some people are using the words interchangeably, we can't write the word "faith" off as meaning only belief-in-invisible-gods, etc.)

At no time, stepping foot outside my front door, have I been hit by a meteor. I have experience-based, or odds-based faith that I'm not likely to be hit by a meteor today when I leave home. Now, it's not necessarily scientifically reasoned faith; there could have been a TV bulletin warning of a meteor, which I missed; the only people exhibiting scientifically-reasoned action under those circumstances would be those staying indoors. But my faith is still not blind--the odds, in my lifetime, of such a thing happening have proven very low. So I can't be accused of being a complete dunce, even if I missed the TV bulletin.

I think it's interesting to look at the various conditions of faith--reasoned faith, blind faith, impatient faith (I don't feel like turning on the telly and I'm sure there are probably no tornados/meteors)...maybe there are better categories yet?

If we talk of reasoned faith, of course we can question each others' reasoning, so reasoned faith is still somewhat personal. Or maybe the "blind" faith we see in others isn't as blind as we think--my Grandma, for example, would've said that her faith in Jesus was based on feeling evidence of his hand in her life. It's just really hard to qualify others' experiences, I think.

But it seems clear we can't write "faith" off as one, solid thing to be accepted or rejected; we'd always need to qualify it at least a little, in order to have something approaching a genuine conversation.

Very good explanation!

Dakini

Nevermind said:

The Four Noble Truths are not an "analysis." They are claimed to be "Truths," with a capital T. Philosophy does not claim to be truth, if indeed it is philosophy.

Dakini said:

"Enlightenment" isn't viewed as something magical. It's viewed more like the absence of stress (dukkha), or healing one's neuroses and reaching a point of contentment (absence of dukkha) or equanimity in life. This is why some Westerners categorize Buddhism as an early type of psychology.

Are you speaking for all Buddhists when you say that enlightenment is merely healing one's neuroses or reaching a point of contentment in life?

Dakini said:

The fact remains that some people come to Buddhism because they perceive it to be logic-based, not faith-based.

No religion is based in logic or reason. I suspect the people you refer to have simply not investigated why they've come to it.

LOL! The whole point is that some Buddhists don't view Buddhism as a religion, as I posted earlier. You still don't seem to have understood my posts. And the answer to your second question quoted here is also in my earlier posts. The 4 NT are, indeed, the Buddha's view/analysis/interpretation of reality. They are his truth.

Some may disagree with the fact that Buddhism isn't a religion, and doesn't involve faith, and that's all well and good. But it doesn't change the fact that there are practitioners who define Buddhism in terms other than a religion. Many Buddhists believe there is no such thing as protector demons in Buddhism. That doesn't negate the fact that there are tens of thousands of Buddhists whose practice includes belief in Dharma protector demons. Buddhism is diverse, nothing can change that.

Nevermind

Dakini said:

Some may disagree with the fact that Buddhism isn't a religion...

"Some" is in the millions. Besides you, and perhaps Vinlyn, I wonder how many consider it a fact that Buddhism isn't a religion. Have you considered the possibility that you may not know what a religion is?

vinlyn

@Nevermind, you are only reading what you want to read.

I used to look at Buddhism as a religion and know that many -- particularly in Asia -- do, and that is fine.

For me personally, now, it is more a philosophy.

Dakini

@Nevermind This isn't about me. If you thought I was posting about myself, you're mistaken.
As previously posted, quite a few Westerners don't view Buddhism in religious terms. Some do. I don't see a problem there. You seem to be taking this personally, or to be upset with the idea that some people don't view Buddhism as being faith-based. No one is telling anyone else how they should practice or believe (except, maybe, you?). People practice in a way that works for them. We shouldn't be surprised that the West would put a more "scientific" spin on Buddhism, given the West's er..."Enlightenment" tradition. This could be viewed as yet another cultural adaptation Buddhism has made as it moves into new countries. This forum welcomes Buddhists of all types. Welcome to the forum!

BhikkhuJayasara

holy crap this silly post is still going strong ?:P

Nevermind

Dakini said:

@Nevermind This isn't about me. If you thought I was posting about myself, you're mistaken.
As previously posted, quite a few Westerners don't view Buddhism in religious terms. Some do. I don't see a problem there. You seem to be taking this personally, or to be upset with the idea that some people don't view Buddhism as being faith-based. No one is telling anyone else how they should practice or believe (except, maybe, you?). People practice in a way that works for them. We shouldn't be surprised that the West would put a more "scientific" spin on Buddhism, given the West's er..."Enlightenment" tradition. This could be viewed as yet another cultural adaptation Buddhism has made as it moves into new countries. This forum welcomes Buddhists of all types. Welcome to the forum!

I can only assume that you're projecting, Dakini. You wrote it's a fact that Buddhism isn't a religion. A fact, no less. I simply wrote that millions disagree with what you see as factual. You can say that Buddhism isn't a religion of course, but you are simply wrong. It appears that you don't know what a religion is.

May I ask why you don't want Buddhism to be a religion?

Dakini

Nevermind said:

I can only assume that you're projecting, Dakini. You wrote it's a fact that Buddhism isn't a religion.

May I ask why you don't want Buddhism to be a religion?

Wow. I wrote no such thing. So I was right, you have completely misread my posts. Please re-read them, there's no need to rehash and repost. I've been very clear. This is not at all about what I want, because I haven't stated my views on Buddhism.

Nevermind

@Dakini, a couple of posts up you wrote:

Dakini said:

Some may disagree with the fact that Buddhism isn't a religion...

Are you saying this was bady written and you didn't mean to say it's a fact that Buddhism isn't a religion?

Deepankar

The definition of religion has two types from common understanding across all people. One is religion that having an external almighty or diety or others such as science. The other is the almighty of themselves that has no different with the Almighty which is nothing external, and it did not preclude the attained Almighty as their seniors before them. This seniors is always with them in the existence of omni vow to liberate beings that circumstances and condition is ready or prematurely ready for complete or partial recovery depending o its compassionality. May all be joys and be compassion that truly benefit yourself most most dearly and adoringly loving

Dakini

Nevermind said:

@Dakini, a couple of posts up you wrote:

Dakini said:

Some may disagree with the fact that Buddhism isn't a religion...

Are you saying this was bady written and you didn't mean to say it's a fact that Buddhism isn't a religion?

I meant some may disagree with the view that Buddhism isn't a religion. (Note to self: proofread, proofread, proofread)

Sile

Many cultures don't have a word for religion.

It may not be that useful, in the end, to try to determine whether Buddhism is a religion or not, if for no other reason than that the diversity among Buddhist practitioners is so great that no matter what definition one picks for the word "religion," there will be Buddhists who don't meet that definition.

Unitarianism is generally considered a religion, yet is less religion-like, by many accepted definitions of that word, than my local karate school or Civil Air Patrol unit.

Maybe it's more helpful to describe in greater detail some of the things we don't like--those things we assume are covered by terms like "religion" and "faith" but turn out not to be in many cases. Obviously, for example, many or some here eschew a "blind belief in invisible beings." This seems to me at least a less-vague starting point for a conversation; "religion" and "faith" are simply too broadly-defined to be of much use, imo.

Nevermind

Sile said:

Many cultures don't have a word for religion.

It may not be that useful, in the end, to try to determine whether Buddhism is a religion or not, if for no other reason than that the diversity among Buddhist practitioners is so great that no matter what definition one picks for the word "religion," there will be Buddhists who don't meet that definition.

Diversity could be irrelevant to the question. A good place to start investigating the question might be to ask what characteristics are common or essential.

federica

Would members please stick to this thread's topic.
to discuss the much-flogged subject of whether Buddhism is a religion or not, feel free to go elsewhere. The choice of threads on that subject are abundant....

Thanks.