Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Buddhism is not a Religion
lobster
Crusty Veteran
Even though Buddhism has in its diversity all the trappings of regional religions, is it always a religion?
For example we have no need for God . . . and loads of devotional deities. We have nothing holy . . . and sacred sites and sanghria-la. We have secular Buddhists . . . and dharma terrorists. We have hell realms and Pureland Heavens.
. . . and of course the Middle Way between these extremes.
All these wonders and all I got was this lousy cushion . . .
I want a refund! 
OM MANI PEME HUM as the cushion said to the Bishop . . .
0
Comments
A rose by any other name would smell sweet. aka 'it is what it is'
Buddhism is not a Religion
It's a cult
....
Well this what a lady told me when we were discussing spiritual 'beliefs' , her exact words were "Oh yeah I've heard about that 'cult' " I just smiled....
It's both a religion AND a Philosophy
http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism8.htm
http://buddhism.about.com/od/basicbuddhistteachings/a/philosophy.htm
In Thailand, it's clearly a religion.
It's whatever the practitioner needs.
Oh shit, I'm in a cult
It is seriously considered a cult in France.
I once had a psychologist tell me Buddhism is a bullshit religion. The amount of ignorance regarding Buddhism knows no bounds.
It's the practitioner's needs that make the difference.
To me, it is the clearest and most logical psychological self-help system ever.
It can also fit neatly under the philosophy label to a tee.
Some people need to invest it with religious trappings.
Well, if it works for them, why not?
Whether more religious or secular, Buddhism has found the way to impact positively in people's lives for over two millenia, so whatever floats your boat, that it is...
Thanks guys
I feel this flexibility is part of the strength. Some people are alarmed by being brainwashed, however a good cleansing would do me the world of good . . . :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye:
There are Buddhist cults, terror States sponsored by monks, why? People with agendas.
However more importantly, as mentioned, there are methods and practices for all the family.
A sort of vague affiliation is not going to be as worthwhile as many of the western Buddhists who are crossing cultures and practices and picking out the gems.
I also would suggest our understanding may widen, we may find parallels with existing traditions or philosophies. For example psychology can often provide insights and help where Buddhist psychology might be inappropriate or premature.
I am also glad to hear we are a cult. Are we a beneficial cult? Mostly in my opinion. Don't want to be a cultist? Go rhinosaurus.
http://www.hermitary.com/solitude/rhinoceros.html
This message sponsored by Dharma Rhino
I don't use it as religion.
In fact I don't like to call myself Buddhist, it straight away puts a concept into the other persons mind.
For me it's more like a method of self inquiry with different facets for different people. I like it because of its' practical approach.
like @vinlyn said, there are definitely people that see this as a religion. Use terms like Lord Buddha and chant to deities. This is fine to but not for me.
I do like how it brings mostly like minded people together which is great, I don't like how it puts labels on things.
You are this(Christian), I am that (Buddhist). No we are both humans. Both suffering, both want a way to find lasting peace.
The French harumph
Madame DeFarge: We are so poor, we do not even have a language! Just this stupid accent!
Fellow Revolutionist: She's right, she's right! We all talk like Maurice Chevalier!
[impersonates the Chevalier laugh]
Fellow Revolutionist: Au-haw-haw.
Crowd: Au-haw-haw.
/end Mel Brooks mode
The same, it would seem, is also the case in Tibet, Nepal, Bhutan and Japan.
Have always had problems with the word "religion". To me, it is something that is imposed from without, which does not allow freedom of thought but which is designed to keep the elite in positions of power/enrichment. Wiktionary gives its etymology as:
For me, religion is not far removed from cult. Perhaps just that it's more generally accepted?
The fifth definition wiktionary quotes is:
Obsolete ...
If this definition were still current, I would be happy to call Buddhism a religion. But given current definitions, I don't see how Buddhism can be a religion when one of the "sins" of Buddhism is attachment. Religion does not permit itself to be transient. Don't know how to do the mathematical symbol for contradiction here but that's what I would like to put!
From Dictionary.com:
>
By THAT definition, Buddhism is a religion. And That's ok. Nothing inherently wrong with religion, per se.
If you don't like religion, fine. Don't practice it.
Dictionary.com includes Buddhism as an example of a religion, so it must be true!
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
But seriously, the great thing about Buddhism is that it can be seen as religion or a philosophy, so there is something for everyone. Hurrah!
To me, it's the Christian faith. Anglicanism, Catholicism, Quakerism etc are religions. Similarly, I study the Buddhist way of life (as @federica say, philosophy) rather than the restrictions of a particular sect. But all words have different associations for different people. One more reason for loving Maths!
I have Quaker friends who say they don't have a creed and therefore don't regard Quakerism as a religion. So it all depends who you talk to.
Of course Buddhism is a broad church, and some schools are more "religious" than others. IMO that diversity is a positive thing.
And Burma and Laos, and although not the national religion, in Malaysia and Singapore.
Both religion and philosophy depend on beliefs. The difference is, philosophy appears to be more open to questioning. If Buddhism is a religion, I would say the place where it differs is that it too is open to questioning.
This thought occured to me as a result of this article Pema Chodron just released today:
November 26, 2014
"HOLDING ON TO OUR BELIEFS
In Taoism there’s a famous saying that goes, “The Tao that can be spoken is not the ultimate Tao.” Another way you could say that, although I’ve never seen it translated this way, is, “As soon as you begin to believe in something, then you can no longer see anything else.” The truth you believe in and cling to makes you unavailable to hear anything new.
Holding on to beliefs limits our experience of life. That doesn’t mean that beliefs or ideas or thinking is a problem; the stubborn attitude of having to have things be a particular way, grasping on to our beliefs and thoughts, all these cause the problems. To put it simply, using your belief system this way creates a situation in which you choose to be blind instead of being able to see, to be deaf instead of being able to hear, to be dead rather than alive, asleep rather than awake."
I believe a definition of religion also needs to include "grasping onto our beliefs and thoughts" hence adhering to a mindset "religiously".
That's not due to ignorance, necessarily ... they say it, because it's a threat.
Yes.... we're delusional and being brainwashed to be happy
Whether or not Buddhism is a religion or not a religion depends on the practitioner. Whether or not it's a cult depends on the sangha.
For many Westerners, I think it's not a religion. For most, if not all, Easterners, it is a religion. Notice the presence of: temples, monks, scripture. The practice of prayers, often involving offerings to statuary or paintings of Realized Beings, ritual (even though the Buddha was anti-ritual), prohibitions (vows, precepts), belief in a sacred cosmology.
Put all that together, and you've got yourself a religion. But Secular Buddhists and Westerners who study the philosophy and practice kindness independently of a temple or spiritual guide tend to say it's not a religion. And most, if not all, of the trappings of religion are absent.
I'm not sure anymore that it's possible to claim that Mahayana Buddhism is non-theistic. Because the plethora of Buddhas seem pretty theistic. And some hedge around that by saying they're only symbolic. But most Easterners take them to be real, not merely symbolic. I suppose this is something that could be debated endlessly, but the way many Easterners relate to the Buddha (praying to him for good fortune, and so forth), not to mention all the other Buddhas and bodhisattvas really makes me wonder how "non-theistic" some forms of Buddhism really are. But maybe that's just me.
Found the following comments on what religion needs last night, which I found fruit for thought:
-- Frank Herbert, The Godmakers
Identifying a god and a devil in Buddhism is not clear but enlightenment and dukkha could fill the role? And even Buddhism has absolutes. The 4 Noble Truths spring to mind.
@SarahT Who cares what Frank Herbert thinks a religion needs?
Especially the god and devil part seems to be a bias; he probably thinks all wrong religions are ripoffs of the one true religion (i.e. Christianity). I've seen Christian apologists try to say Buddhism fails as a religion because it doesn't answer all the same questions as Christianity, and that's true. Buddhism has its own agenda, so it doesn't matter whether it fits a Christian definition of religion or not. What matters is what we use it for!
Not for us heretics:
The truth of ducks
The truth of the arising or origin of daffy dukkha
The truth of the cessation of duck hunting
The truth of the path leading to the cessation of daffy
and now back to the absolutes:
The truth of dukkha
The truth of the arising or origin of dukkha
The truth of the cessation of dukkha
The truth of the path leading to the cessation
of dukkha
Funny you should mention ducks, OP. I was just thinking, "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck".
So, do you have an altar at home? Hmm...looking kinda religion-y. Do you say prayers on a mala? One more check-mark on the "religion" side. Do you attend a temple? Oops, 3 strikes and you're out!
No temple? Your teacher (if you have one) doesn't wear robes? No prayers, mala or altar? You mostly read books about Buddhism, and try to cultivate compassion, and help others? I don't hear any ducks quacking.
Do you pass the duck test? (Not that there's anything wrong with flunking it. "Pass" and "fail" are just illusions of duality, right?)
Herbert may have been raised a Catholic but he chose Buddhism (as I find clear in his writings): http://www.adherents.com/people/ph/Frank_Herbert.html
@SarahT Good for him! See it makes sense, the god/devil thing, because that's what he was introduced to first. Anything after that he would be comparing by those standards. Everything makes sense given enough info.
I do understand where you are coming from, @Toraldris, but, in the interests of communication, would be interested to know what the word "religion" means to you? I am still trying to make up my mind about what it means to me and whether I am comfortable with allowing myself to be labelled as "religious" (see above as to my problems with the word) - which is one of the reasons I found Herbert's comments interesting.
@SarahT I have no idea what religion should mean. It's like "spirituality", everyone uses it differently.
I don't really mind being called religious at this point, because I've accepted that Buddhism has been labeled as a religion and that's how people think of it. No use struggling against it, it would only be creating my own suffering!
If I may interject, for me, a religion involves worship. I've seen Buddhism clearly treated as a religion. And clearly treated as a philosophy.
I just don't know what to make of religion these days. That people think religion automatically deserves any kind of respect, or should be an excuse for bad behavior... it's just mental. How long will the world be divided up, and fought over, by adult children clinging to fairy tales? Okay rant over.
Interesting ...to be labelled religious in the UK is definitely something that makes most people extremely wary of the one so labelled. They are more likely to end up being committed than respected. I still wear a cross, although I do not put it deliberately on display. This has counted against me many times - both in court and in the psychiatric playground. How many differences an ocean and 5 centuries makes!
I wear two crosses very often. Both invisible. Basically I have a Arabic perfume sandalwood deodorant that I 'wear' by anointing myself with a cross on the forehead and throat.
In this way I am protected from Christians, Moslems and a smelly forehead.
Yeah I guess so. Here in the USA it's we atheists/agnostics/humanists who are mistrusted and thought somehow out of our minds. It's completely normal and even expected to be "religious", though that doesn't mean you have to be a churchgoer or anything. Belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, Lord and Saviour, dead and risen to wash the sins of mankind... is expected and normal. Non-Belief is feared, hated, and misunderstood. Go fig right! Something like 40% of the population doesn't believe in EVOLUTION.
Can we swap? I'll take UK, you take USA.
No thanks
But you are always welcome here!
It might be because us Brits have a better sense of irony.
That's pretty sad, but I've found something rather ..... curious. I've met people who identify as atheists/agnostics/humanists who seem to revel in the negative attitutudes some people hold towards them, like hatred, mistrust and misunderstanding. It's like they chose to be atheist/agnostic/humanist because they have some kind of odd need to be hated/ mistrusted /misunderstood, or at least to feel that way. They don't come right out and say they chose that path for those reasons, but they seem to talk about the negative reactions in others all the time. They say people don't like them because their atheists, over and over, yet they seem to have a nice circle of friends or no apparent need for friends. It's almost like they stand out in a thunderstorm hoping to be struck by lightning and talking about others that do, but only end up getting wet themselves.
Very strange.
The same applies to the born-again. You suddenly "get religion" as they say, and it seems all of your friends head for the proverbial exits. I got born again and it pretty much destroyed my family. It wasn't the religion or the beliefs. It was the attitude.
Lesson learned. I'm a bit more circumspect about my Buddhism and others. Truth is, most people don't give a shit about what you believe. They just don't want to be annoyed.
@Chaz I've never understood the "born again" thing. I thought it was something positive, but then I read that many born-again Christians simply become absolutely certain that their views are right at that point, including being sure of whatever morality they've cherry-picked from the Bible. So I'm not sure what it even means now, because that destroyed whatever I had thought it was about.
I suppose religion is in the eyes of the beholder.
It's pretty easy, actually. Joseph Campbell once said that a common thread running though all the world's mythologies, is the need for a spiritual awakening.
In Christianity this is expressed though the metaphor of birth, or being "reborn". Jesus spoke about it in the Book of John.
In Buddhism it's expressed in the refuge ceremony. In the Kagyu, after the refuge vows are taken , the preceptor cuts a hair from your head and speaks your Refuge Name. A new name for a new life.
It is similarly marked in Islam when in some cases the convert is given a new name
It can be and often is.
Read, eh?
Such is life. Christians do, it, Buddhists do it, Muslims, new agers, even atheists/agnostic/humanists and, dare I say, skeptics. It's a very human thing.
And nothing wrong with cherry picking. I'd rather Christians do that than, say, stone homosexuals.....
Life does have it's disappointments
I know what you mean, @Chaz. My best friend in high school got me to convert to Catholicism (although my father's side of the family was Catholic, but I was raised Methodist). Then, after not seeing each other for 35 years we reconnected through Facebook. He had since become born again, and immediately started trying to convert me again. I pointed out that that had worked once when I was 16, but there wasn't a prayer (pun intended) of it happening again. He said he now realized his belief in the Catholic faith was all wrong, but that his born again faith was absolutely correct. I told him if he was going to start all that with me, there would be zero contact, so he stopped and has not brought it up again (thankfully).
Seems to be born agains have no self-control.
Why the need for religion when the view is sacrosanct?
@Chaz said:
That is so well said, and so true. It illustrates exactly why 'something is wrong' -- the evidence being destroyed relationships. What destroys relationships that were previously 'fine' can't be skillful, right?
The self reinforcing worldview just chugs right along, cue Jesus' words about family ties broken while one brother follows him and the rest do not.
And that 'righteousness' is co-opted by egos to justify all manner of ideological violence. A person doesn't need to say out loud "you are f*cked but I'm not!". It is communicated loud and clear and it is HEARD and FELT.
I never understood how this could feel 'good' or 'right' to anyone, even when I was a baptized young member of such a church. Once I was baptized I began having nightmares where the Rapture had come and I was searching for my family (not members of the church) screaming for them and distraught. Not once in those dreams did I remember "Oh yeah! I'm going to Heaven cuz I'm right!!"
That this so-called 'righteousness' is so alive and well speaks to a huge gaping collective wound, a loss of our own humanity that the 'righteous' are diligently seeking but won't find. It's all ego and it's pathetic self centeredness, believing promises that can't manifest into anything real. It's a squirrel cage disguised as relief and safety, and maybe that's as close as the poor sufferers can conceive of to actual relief and safety.
Some "psuedo-Buddhist" cults may exist in France, but I don't believe it is true that Buddhism in all forms is considered a cult, at least not officially:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_Commission_on_Cults_in_France
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governmental_lists_of_cults_and_sects
However I can certainly imagine that some rural dwellers in France (as elsewhere) have conservative "backwards" views on any religion that isn't their own. Maybe that is what you were referring to.
I have always admired France's strong stance against those organisations (notably Scientology) who masquarade as legitimate spiritual traditions but are yet clearly nothing more than cults led by some very twisted people and who have destroyed many innocent lives. I wish other countries would be so brave to speak out against these abusive organisations.
Namaste
Very probably....
I was advised that the French in general considered Buddhism to be a 'cult' and that many French people were mistrusting of religion in general. The person i spoke to was the Mayor of the rural village I lived in, and this must have been between 2000 - 2002.... So even though the legislation and definitions were apparently made official in 1995, such initiatives obviously never filtered down. There is no national newspaper in France, and people are extremely regional....
The question arose because, at that time, I conducted a talk on Buddhism, and the only people present in a hall seating 200 (all the chairs were out) were members of my Qi Gong classes (about 30 people).
Yet the following day, virtually every villager I met, asked me "Oh madame, good morning, and the lecture, how did it go?"
Everyone was extremely interested, individually. I had numerous discussions with many people during the following days.....But they wouldn't have been seen dead attending, for fear of what their neighbours might have said....
@Daozen, I think it gets very dangerous to start labeling some religions as "cults" or other derogatory terms. They may be cults. They may be unwholesome. But depending on who's doing the labeling, any religion other than their own might be labeled as a cult...and if they have enough power...
They become Russians, Iranians, Al Quaeda, the Taliban or your next door neighbour...
I call a spade a spade, as they say. Labels can be abused, but I don't think that means we should shy from using them when appropriate.