Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register
Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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.

Why is Buddism considered a form of religion?

motosyko628motosyko628
edited March 2010 in Buddhism Basics
Kind of a dumb question, but why id Buddism thought of as an religion when there is no God or deity worshiped?

Comments

  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited March 2010
    motosyko628 wrote: »
    Kind of a dumb question, but why id Buddism thought of as an religion when there is no God or deity worshiped?
    Not really a dumb question. The answer has to do with how you define "religion". The study of comparative religions is a western phenomenon, created by people who had grown up in a Christian society. Defining religion as being about gods shows a Christian bias.

    Buddhism is a specific type of religion; it's a soteriology. It offers us a way to save ourselves from the problem of duhkha.
  • BrotherBobBrotherBob
    edited March 2010
    I imagine training with the Buddhadharma. That's all. I imagine some label this as religion. Okay. Whatever gets you there.
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited March 2010
    In my admittedly relatively short experience with it, I very quickly decided that the label "religion" didn't really apply to Buddhism in the way that I'd come to understand the term. I really don't care what people call it (or me). It's a path, that's all.

    Mtns
  • AnupassīAnupassī
    edited March 2010
    Brother Bob wrote: »
    I imagine training with the Buddhadharma. That's all. I imagine some label this as religion. Okay. Whatever gets you there.

    YES.
  • motosyko628motosyko628
    edited March 2010
    Thanks everyone to the replies. I'm really new to Buddism so excuse me for my ignorance. I was rasied in a Christian family and I've had some friends over the years who were rasied by Jewish and Muslim famlies. When I hear the term religion I thing of worshiping a higher power of sort just because of this. It was something I was curious about.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited March 2010
    Buddhism is most certainly a religion (we have monks, and nuns as you well know) but the term religion - as already mentioned - has long been associated with a devotion to a God.
    The word 'Religion' etymologically speaking, means "to bind one's self to something".
    So by devoting ourselves to following the path to Liberation, we bind ourselves to a calling, an example given to us by the Buddha (who of course, wasn't Buddhist......)
    Those who practice Buddhism with the Right Intention of adhering to the Buddha's teachings, are to me, as religious as any person who follows God devotedly, is.....

    :)
  • ansannaansanna Veteran
    edited March 2010
    In fact, there are many religions in the east that do not required any form of deity/deities , they such talk about Tao, Bahrman , universal conscious , naturally Law or principle etc
  • MikeMike
    edited March 2010
    Huston Smith, the noted MIT Professor of Religion, in his book The Religions of Man outlines the basic tenants of a religion as follows:

    <O:p</O:p
    • Authority
    • Ritual
    • Speculation
    • Tradition
    • Acceptance of a God/Gods
    • Element of mystery
    <O:p</O:p
    Professor Smith notes that Buddhism as it was originally conveyed by the Buddha was devoid of all six elements (pages 93-96). Elements, according to Professor Smith, the Buddha consciously excluded during his lifetime. Only after his death did the “accouterments of religion” incorporate themselves into his philosophy through cultural adaptation.
    <O:p</O:p
    It is clear that Buddhism, as originally taught by the Buddha, was a system of liberation not a religion. In fact the Buddha is often referred to as a “rebel child of Hinduism” in that he rejected religion on its face. Karl Jaspers reinforces this idea as he stated in his book Socrates, Buddha, Confucius, Jesus “But the most important aspect of Mahayana is that it transformed Buddha’s philosophy of salvation into a religion” (page 36).
    <O:p</O:p
    This transformation occurred after the Buddha’s death by people in specific cultural systems with their own interpretations and views on what was originally taught. Many times adding new ideas or ritual as the system evolved within the context of their own individual and group experience. Unfortunately this distortion manifests itself in a wide variety of ways to this day. Chiefly (but not exclusively) in the worship of the Buddha.
    <O:p</O:p
    I think it is important to be mindful when contemplating this question as I do not believe it is a purely metaphysical one. If we in our efforts seek to receive religious recognition or personal identification, or we confuse religion with system, we ultimately engage in clinging behavior as much to ideas as anything in the physical realm. Exactly what the Buddha warned us against doing.
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Older theories that pattern religion along Christian or Jewish lines have been mostly abandoned. It turns out that definitions based on religions that originated in the Middle East don't do a very good job of describing other religions.
  • jovialpranksterjovialprankster
    edited March 2010
    "This transformation occurred after the Buddha’s death by people in specific cultural systems with their own interpretations and views on what was originally taught. Many times adding new ideas or ritual as the system evolved within the context of their own individual and group experience. Unfortunately this distortion manifests itself in a wide variety of ways to this day."

    Mike, thank you for your post, it has put into words what I have been thinking since I first looked into Buddhism. I still believe Buddhism is an incredibly simple concept (but not necessarily easy!) made over complicated and confusing by people.
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited March 2010
    One of the best pieces of advice I ever received was from the kindest of on-line monks, (on another forum) who told me,
    'Just concentrate on The Four, The Eight and The Five. This should keep you well-occupied and busy for at least, oh,.... three lifetimes'....:D
    Then, visiting my local Theravadan monastery, a sweet nun told me (after I had relayed this advice) "Oh, it gets much better than that - 17 into one, will go. Simplify!"

    These two people did more to help me 'see' the Buddha's teachings than any amount of reading suttas and listening to long teachings ever did.
    Not that there's anything wrong about doing that. I think that's important.
    But all roads lead to Rome.
    And all subsequent teachings lead back to The Four, The Eight, the Five.....The 17....the one.

    Simple.

    (No, not 'easy'....'Simple'.)
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited March 2010
    My take on this is that a religion is a system of organisation, control and conservatism that resists self-correction.

    I believe the Buddha wouldn't have said his discovery and teachings was a religion, for those 50 years he instructed people found their own path, doubted his teachings, the talk of others. Saw things for themselves.


    I am sure he would call what he sees now as a religion.
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    :eek: Are you a sensationalist Mat?
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited March 2010
    Nios wrote: »
    :eek: Are you a sensationalist Mat?

    Not sure what that means?:)
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited March 2010
    Nios wrote: »
    :eek: Are you a sensationalist Mat?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism


    Hummm... I certainly dislike authority in all forms, be that religious, political or whatever. I think the Buddha did too;)

    Thats a big part of my belief system.

    Am I willfully "extremely controversial, loud, or attention grabbing..." No. I am not.

    At least not much:)
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Just an observation Mat. A lot of your posts are worded in such a way that they will, no doubt, cause a heated debate, and they do!
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited March 2010
    Nios wrote: »
    Just an observation Mat. A lot of your posts are worded in such a way that they will, no doubt, cause a heated debate, and they do!

    Apparently heated debates don't belong in buddhism! whowouldathunkit;)
  • NiosNios Veteran
    edited March 2010
    MatSalted wrote: »
    Apparently heated debates don't belong in buddhism! whowouldathunkit;)

    Heated? No. Debate? Yes.
    Part of the buddhist practice is about choosing our words carefully. Right speech. Though it seems, people forget that on a forum. :)
  • federicafederica Seeker of the clear blue sky... Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubt Moderator
    edited March 2010
    MatSalted wrote: »
    My take on this is that a religion is a system of organisation, control and conservatism that resists self-correction.

    I believe the Buddha wouldn't have said his discovery and teachings was a religion
    I disagree.
    Why do you think he founded an order of monks and then nuns?
    for those 50 years he instructed people found their own path, doubted his teachings, the talk of others. Saw things for themselves.
    He encouraged them then, precisely as his teachings do now. Whether ordained or lay, the teachings are the same. This encouragement and instruction does not negate the existence of a religious order, then.

    I am sure he would call what he sees now as a religion.
    Agreed.
    although I feel sure he would be amused at the existence of so many different schools...just as 'God' (if he existed) would be amused by Judaism/christianity/Islam......
  • RayfieldNeelRayfieldNeel
    edited March 2010
    So this appears to be about the label that we apply to our practice?
    This is another thing that I intentionally spend little time worrying about. No worries, though, I have plenty of issues to sort out in its stead. :p
  • skydancerskydancer Veteran
    edited March 2010
    I think of dharma as medicine more than anything else.
  • MatSaltedMatSalted
    edited March 2010
    Nios wrote: »
    Heated? No. Debate? Yes.
    Part of the buddhist practice is about choosing our words carefully. Right speech.

    I am not sure that heated debate isn't right speech so long as its not deceptive, pointless etc...
    Though it seems, people forget that on a forum. :)

    No they dont! Why would you say that! I curse your ancestors! :p

    Maximum Metta,

    Mat
  • EricEric
    edited March 2010
    In short,very short:For me Buddhism is finding all "things"(Problems,questions,feelings ect.)in yourself while believing in a god you put a big part of this out of your hands,and that`s why I don`t see it as a religion.I don`t really see myself as a Buddhist I`ve only followed a big part of "his path" for the last 6-7 years.I would love to know when a person becomes a Buddhist.I find that to be one of the more difficult questions.
    People of this forum,greetings from Holland;Eric.
  • StephenStephen
    edited March 2010
    A lot of ritualistic practices that one may see or hear about in certain Buddhist cultures would seem to make Westerners think of Buddhism as a religion. Ritual and religion go hand-in-hand as far as Christianic history goes.

    I think the core problem though is that Buddhism can't be easily defined as either religion, philosophy or science because it is *unique*. It combines aspects of all three, and has its own way about it that no other set of teachings has.

    I'm not temperamentally or emotionally capable of "belief" without proof. I've tried; trust me I've tried. It's just not in my nature. If I tell someone I'm a Buddhist, they're going to naturally assume that's my religion - and that makes me laugh.
  • RenGalskapRenGalskap Veteran
    edited March 2010
    Stephen wrote: »
    I think the core problem though is that Buddhism can't be easily defined as either religion, philosophy or science because it is *unique*. It combines aspects of all three, and has its own way about it that no other set of teachings has.
    All religions are unique. All religions combine aspects of philosophy and other fields of study (law, ethics, psychology, etc).

    Buddhism is structured around systems of myth, ritual, and symbol, like any other religion. And if you mediate, chant, recite a mantra, do prostrations, put flowers in a vase in a little alter, etc, you are engaging in ritual. There may be Buddhists who avoid ritual entirely, but they are very few.
  • EricEric
    edited March 2010
    Stephen I totally agree when you say;"I can`t belief without proof". For me it`s the same.It would be so much more easy too believe without proof.My life would be 100 times more easy.It`s also a fact that most if not all people want to"put everything in a box",to make,sometimes different things,the same out of ease/comfort....??? I don`t even tell most people what I believe because most of them are so indoctrinated that I don`t even want to try.You can`t get through the "wall".I also believe that when people start to analize\discuss\theorize ect. ect. Buddhism to much a lot of what is very important and simple in Buddhism gets lost or clouded.Buddhism to me is very simple;Follow your heart.
    I wish you all the best from a "cold"(for here) Holland;Eric.(I hope my spelling is ok).:)
Sign In or Register to comment.