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.
I'd like to know what part of it, exactly, do people consider to be the religion component.
If you are talking about people and mean "the public?" I think it's the fanfare of Buddhism that makes them think there's a personify-able god involved.
Buddhist practitioners who know that Buddha never claims to be god-like? I think they use a lower case "r." For example someone saying, "I get up every single morning and work out. It's a religion to me."
Very interesting. Do you think it's a misunderstanding of who the Buddha was (man vs. god) that leads some to categorize Buddhism as a religion?
(BTW, welcome aboard, New Member! )
It's most likely all the talk about this-and-that realm and beings on those realms, combined with all of the multi-cultural rituals and ceremonies that are associated with Buddhism, that makes people think it's more or less the same as other religions. It's just as Roger says, practitioners know better. It's the public perception that is awry, and perception is truth (not in the literal sense).
I've never seen or heard of the Buddha being thought of as a god in any sense, so I doubt that's it. It may be the perception of praying to this-or-that bodhisattva or buddha (not "the" Buddha) that contributes to the misunderstandings.
It's most likely all the talk about this-and-that realm and beings on those realms, combined with all of the multi-cultural rituals and ceremonies that are associated with Buddhism, that makes people think it's more or less the same as other religions. It's just as Roger says, practitioners know better. It's the public perception that is awry, and perception is truth (not in the literal sense).
I've never seen or heard of the Buddha being thought of as a god in any sense, so I doubt that's it. It may be the perception of praying to this-or-that bodhisattva or buddha (not "the" Buddha) that contributes to the misunderstandings.
Right, but in Asia (most if not all Asians will say it's a religion, or "Religion") they seem to relate to the BUddha as a god, praying to him and asking for favors, etc. (There's a thread on this site about that, I think I mentioned it earlier.)
All those beings, realms, hells--you're right. Not to mention the demons, gods, and goddesses, yidams, etc., but aren't most of those things mainly symbolic? So no one believes they truly exist. Except maybe some of the common folk living very traditional lives in Inner Asia....right?
(Nice new cloud, Cloud, BTW.)
What can ya do? There will always be people, and groups of people, that think differently. What I go by are the traditional accounts and views, and none of those are of the Buddha being a god. If there was a tradition to the contrary, that would be something detrimental to Buddhism IMHO.
Just FYI, Cloud, there is a thread here (older one) titled something like "A different Buddhism" that describes some of the practices by SE Asian Buddhists, and the poster commented that the impression is that they rever Buddha like a god. That's why Asians will say it's a religion (someone on this thread said that), while Westerners see it differently. I think it's because Westerners tend to approach it more intellectually, and analyze it and say, well, there's no divine being, etc., so it must not be a religion.
Very interesting. Do you think it's a misunderstanding of who the Buddha was (man vs. god) that leads some to categorize Buddhism as a religion?
(BTW, welcome aboard, New Member! )
You're very kind. Thank you.
I'm no expert. People get adoration or extreme respect for others confused with godliness, otherworldliness or the divine. They can't see that the radiant beauty of an enlightened being is merely part of the human potential. Again, just a guess on my part.
(response to Cloud.) No. This is something that evolved later. Regional folk beliefs got mixed in, traditional practices, it amalgamated with the earlier traditions in different parts of Asia. What I'd like to understand is why someone like the Dalai Lama says it's a religion; he knows Buddha wasn't a god. He says it's "non-theistic", so, which part of it is a religion? Anyway, whether it's a religion, a philosophy, or a science of the mind (psychology) seems to be in the eye of the beholder.
I'm no expert. People get adoration or extreme respect for others confused with godliness, otherworldliness or the divine. They can't see that the radiant beauty of an enlightened being is merely part of the human potential. Again, just a guess on my part.
You're right, I'm sure that's partly what contributes to those other "styles" of practicing Buddhism; reverence turns to adoration, which gets confused with godliness and the divine.
I like your phrase "the radiant beauty of an enlightened being is merely part of the human potential". YEAH! Sign me up! :thumbsup:
There's popcorn left but I'm out of real butter. I see nothing wrong with calling Buddhism a religion, whether or not there are any gods. Who said religion has to have a god? Religion implies an entire set or framework, more than a philosophy. Technically Buddhism is unique amongst philosophies, religions, and sciences... but there's no word that is specific enough, sorta like how dukkha has many English words but none of them is a perfect fit. That's Buddhism.
I like your phrase "the radiant beauty of an enlightened being is merely part of the human potential". YEAH! Sign me up! :thumbsup:
HAHAHA. What a joy that would be, walking down the street and finding a table with welcoming people smiling warmly and genuinely. "Oh great! Here's that 'Radiant Beauty' clipboard! Sign me up!"
There's popcorn left but I'm out of real butter. I see nothing wrong with calling Buddhism a religion, whether or not there are any gods.
From my POV? FWIW. Maybe I'm going off topic here so I should apologize but I personally want to avoid calling B. a religion as much as possible among non B. people.
I'm in the middle of some who are suffering thru an us vs. them Christian vs. Muslim mindset. There's no more room in their over-taxed brains for another god claim. Since they want to equate B. with atheism, I have enough work just to keep reasserting tactfully there's absolutely nothing "god-like" about Buddha. :eek:
Actually, I bet there are, occasionally, such tables full of welcoming people with a radiant beauty clipboard. But you have to write a check for thousands of dollars first, and then join their cult. Sadly, one has to proceed with caution in the "radiant beauty" and enlightened being dept. Or just try to do it yourself, or with friends.
Oh no! You sound like Querist, on the (members-only) How do you tell people you're Buddhist thread. He's living in a community surrounded by hard-core Christians. Where are you, Roger? Somewhere in the US, it sounds like. (?)
All you have to tell them is that you like to do inner reflection on a regular basis, and read philosophy. *sigh* These situations are painful to read about. I hope it's not too bad for you, Roger.
Actually, I bet there are, occasionally, such tables full of welcoming people with a radiant beauty clipboard. But you have to write a check for thousands of dollars first, and then join their cult. Sadly, one has to proceed with caution in the "radiant beauty" and enlightened being dept. Or just try to do it yourself, or with friends.
Yeah. Too true. I guess I was having a Hollywood Movie moment.
Personally I just call Buddhism a tool/method for awakening to reality. How we relate it to others depends on the situation... as with Roger's situation, I'm surrounded by Christians so I don't call Buddhism a "religion" in my life either. That doesn't mean I have a problem with it being called that, but that yes it can be misconstrued.
Oh no! You sound like Querist, on the (members-only) How do you tell people you're Buddhist thread. He's living in a community surrounded by hard-core Christians. Where are you, Roger? Somewhere in the US, it sounds like. (?)
All you have to tell them is that you like to do inner reflection on a regular basis, and read philosophy. *sigh* These situations are painful to read about. I hope it's not too bad for you, Roger.
Nah. Not a big problem. I have a Born Again cousin whom I grew up with as a boy; we have fun together based on that trust. I visit him and his family and I get involved with their friends. I do what I can to be "inert," non-threatening. I encourage them to explain Jesus' teachings to me. I tell them I'm really verrrry interested in what Jesus taught (wink wink jesus=buddha). They have a respect for B. when I leave but I think they revert a few hours later. The rest of my rather large barely-practicing catholic family thinks they're "Born Again crazy"
Wow I am really glad I am keeping your brain cells in shape cause this really developed in some scientific debate.
What's bothering me again about the fifth precept is stopping drinking of alcohol. I am socialized and moving in the circle of friends and we all drink. It seems that this personality of a drinker is stuck with me. I remember on some occasions when I tried to stop drinking but still was socializing I always got that look from my friends like wtf why are you not drinking. Do you think you are something special? I am really having trouble not drinking on fun social events and parties cause sooner or later I feel like an outlaw. It surely is just my thinking that is messing with me but it's too powerful to cope with. How do I deal with it?
......
What's bothering me again about the fifth precept is stopping drinking of alcohol. I am socialized and moving in the circle of friends and we all drink. It seems that this personality of a drinker is stuck with me. I remember on some occasions when I tried to stop drinking but still was socializing I always got that look from my friends like wtf why are you not drinking. Do you think you are something special? I am really having trouble not drinking on fun social events and parties cause sooner or later I feel like an outlaw. It surely is just my thinking that is messing with me but it's too powerful to cope with. How do I deal with it?
Fifth Precept: I undertake the training precept to abstain from alcoholic drinks that cause heedlessness.
Ok... small steps. For now, if you must, go ahead and drink at social occasions but stop before you surrender yourself to heedlessness? How many drinks will make you behave heedlessly? Figure that one out for yourself. .
I don't need any; I'm happy defining Buddhism as psychology + mysticism.
Sukhita has thrown a new definition of religion into the ring. We now have three definitions:
1. "Practical experience and realization of the Dharma" -- Sukhita
2. "A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" ---Wuji, from unnamed dictionary
3. "A system of beliefs that characterize god" [i.e. descriptively] --Roger
Sukhita, could you explain a bit, please, your definition fits in with "religion"? Practical experience by itself doesn't constitute religion. So I'm guessing that in your mind, there's something about the process of realizing the Dharma that leads you to characterize Buddhism as a religion. Could you elaborate? (Who knows--by the end of this discussion, I may end up on the Buddism-as-religion side! )
By Roger's definition, Buddhism isn't a religion. We haven't had any explanation from Wuji, maybe someone else would like to try to explain what beliefs in BUddhism would put it in the "religion" category.
(Don't worry, Kundabuffer; you're allowed to drink beer, just not to excess )
I don't need any; I'm happy defining Buddhism as psychology + mysticism.
Sukhita has thrown a new definition of religion into the ring. We now have three definitions:
1. "Practical experience and realization of the Dharma" -- Sukhita
2. "A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" ---Sukhita, from unnamed dictionary
3. "A system of beliefs that characterize god" [i.e. descriptively] --Roger
Can I add, for 3 points:
Religion - "Any coercive hegemony that emerges when a minority becomes aware that they can control the majority by exploiting the inevitable existential uncertainties that confront us all."
As opposed to:
Celebrity - "Any coercive hegemony that emerges when a minority becomes aware that they can control the majority by exploiting the inevitable social uncertainties that confront us all."
..... ..... .....
Sukhita has thrown a new definition of religion into the ring. We now have three definitions:
1. "Practical experience and realization of the Dharma" -- Sukhita
2. "A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" --- Sukhita [Wuji said this ], from unnamed dictionary
3. "A system of beliefs that characterize god" [i.e. descriptively] --Roger
Sukhita, could you explain a bit, please, your definition fits in with "religion"? Practical experience by itself doesn't constitute religion. So I'm guessing that in your mind, there's something about the process of realizing the Dharma that leads you to characterize Buddhism as a religion. Could you elaborate? (Who knows--by the end of this discussion, I may end up on the Buddism-as-religion side! )
Yes, your guess: "the process of realizing the Dharma leads you to characterize Buddhism as a religion" is correct. Realizing the Dharma involves 'direct insight' into anatta, impermanence, dependent origination, etc. This is done through meditation and mindfulness - you could say a straightforward "opening of the eyes". These "TRUTHS" don't come from pondering a lot of "conseptual truths" and discussing them on an intellectual level. This part, I feel, falls outside philosophy or psychology. It fits quite nicely under "religion", albeit a religion that does not rely on a creator or protector God.
Religion - "Any coercive hegemony that emerges when a minority becomes aware that they can control the majority by exploiting the inevitable existential uncertainties that confront us all."
As opposed to:
Celebrity - "Any coercive hegemony that emerges when a minority becomes aware that they can control the majority by exploiting the inevitable social uncertainties that confront us all."
Hot stuff, Thickpaper! Want to start a thread in that vein?
Yes, your guess: "the process of realizing the Dharma leads you to characterize Buddhism as a religion" is correct. Realizing the Dharma involves 'direct insight' into anatta, impermanence, dependent origination, etc. This is done through meditation and mindfulness - you could say a straightforward "opening of the eyes". These "TRUTHS" don't come from pondering a lot of "conseptual truths" and discussing them on an intellectual level. This part, I feel, falls outside philosophy or psychology. It fits quite nicely under "religion", albeit a religion that does not rely on a creator or protector God.
I'm with you, Sukhita. So you feel that the only way to understand these more challenging concepts is not via the mind and logic (reading and discussing ad infinitam), but through meditation insights. Do you have a sangha? Can I move into your meditation room?
Well, this fits in with my characterization of Buddhism as "psychology + mysticism (via meditation)". Does the mysticism part automatically put BUddhism in the "religion" category? (I'm wondering to myself.) You're the only person on this site to address (and answer) my question: "Where's the religion part?" I've asked that on several threads. Congrats! You win the prize, but since we're not materialists, the prize is karma points; knowing you've helped someone on the path. Thanks!
So let's see....maybe it's still psychology but plus religion...*mumble mumble* hmm... :scratch:
Why put modern labels on something that has ancient roots? Buddhism is just this path to liberation from suffering; religions don't have that, philosophies don't have that, sciences don't have that... nothing does. We can call it any of these things, but it's not (not really).
Why put modern labels on something that has ancient roots? Buddhism is just this path to liberation from suffering; religions don't have that, philosophies don't have that, sciences don't have that... nothing does. We can call it any of these things, but it's not (not really).
Why put modern labels on something that has ancient roots? Buddhism is just this path to liberation from suffering; religions don't have that, philosophies don't have that, sciences don't have that... nothing does. We can call it any of these things, but it's not (not really).
Can't argue with that.
Talking about 'ancient roots', maybe we should stick to Buddha Dhamma (pali) or Buddha-Dharma (Skt.) These words are much more meaningful than "Buddhism"; after all "Buddhism" was never meant to be an "-ism".
<DT>[Pali. dhamma; Skt. dharma]: (1) Event; a phenomenon in and of itself; (2) mental quality; (3) doctrine, teaching; (4) nibbana.<DT><DT>Also, principles of behavior that human beings ought to follow so as to fit in with the right natural order of things; qualities of mind they should develop so as to realize the inherent quality of the mind in and of itself. By extension, "Dhamma" (usu. capitalized) is used also to denote any doctrine that teaches such things. Thus the Dhamma of the Buddha denotes both his teachings and the direct experience of nibbana, the quality at which those teachings are aimed.<DT>
Sorry everyone, for introducing more 'labels' and prolonging this debate.
Bye
:wavey:
</DT>
Talking about 'ancient roots', maybe we should stick to Buddha Dhamma (pali) or Buddha-Dharma (Skt.) These words are much more meaningful than "Buddhism"; after all "Buddhism" was never meant to be an "-ism".
Beat you to that one. I used to use Buddha-Dhamma, being the older Pali... but now Buddha-Dharma, since it seems a majority of the world is more familiar with the Sanskrit (no one who isn't familiar with Theravada knows wth "kamma" is... it's "karma" here in the USA). No reason to be confusing just to associate with what is older.
It's not just something to say, but what my practice is... not attached to any specific tradition. The Four Noble Truths (and Noble Eightfold Path) are the Buddha's Dharma, and those are what have worked for me without the divisive or cling-y nature of tradition that leads to fights between people and misunderstandings.
[QUOTE=compassionate_warrior;151801]Hot stuff, Thickpaper! Want to start a thread in that vein?[/QUOTE] Not really! I am not sure what good would come from a willfully controversial thread, though I stick by my definitions:)
"Willfully controversial". I hadn't thought of it that way. The topics that "think outside the box" I think are the most interesting to explore. But maybe that's just me. Good definition, though. It would've been useful on the Theocracy thread. But if you believe in your definitions so strongly, they must be worth discussing.....!
I just noticed this thread has had a lot of updates since my reply. I got the definition from dictionary.com which I believe gets it from the New World Dictionary. For reference, "a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.".
As I said that is entry number 2 and I referenced it because Buddhism does fit this definition and the definition actually says "the Buddhist religion". One thing I think people forget is that words generally have more than one definition. There is a separate definition which mentions a higher power. I speculate the latin root word religio probably did refer to a belief in God and the second definition was added in English specifically for Buddhism. For me it would feel strange to say that 95% of people in Thailand have no religion since they are Buddhist or to say monks are not religious people.
I have noticed talking to theist in the past that they often fail to understand that a religion doesn't necessarily require a belief in God. I think it is important to teach people that isn't true at least by today's definition. I also think that people apply emotions to words and challenging those attachments is a Buddhist thing to do. The word religion is not bad in and of itself. I would argue why should we stop there, if anything the problem is people thinking and acting as groups that leads to bad things associated with religion.
Roger said, "I'd like to know what part of it, exactly, do people consider to be the religion component". I would have to say that for me those would be:
1.) Belief - as in following precepts and teachings.
2.) Traditions - meditation, passing down the teachings, temples, monks etc.
You raise some good points, Wuji. You may be right; some of us may be stuck on the definition of religion as something that involves a higher power or one or more deities. But according to a discussion on another thread (" A different Buddhism" I think it was called), the SE Asian laity tends to worship Buddha differently than in the West. They pray to him, ask him for favors, make offerings, and tend to treat him more as a god, so Buddhism looks more like the original definition of religion in some parts of the world than in others. But maybe it doesn't matter, because there's the other definition to cover other forms of Buddhism. That's an interesting definition you came up with. Thanks for coming back to explain.
Challenging attachments is a good thing to do. But it raises questions about "right speech" and "wrong speech". There's another thread active now where a definition of "right speech" came up. "What is Compassion" the name of the thread was. If a statement is factual and true, if it's beneficial, endearing and agreeable, then making the statement is right speech. If any of those components is missing, then it's wrong speech. So is challenging someone's attachments, by that definition, wrong speech because it would be disagreeable and not endearing?
Weird, after posting I was also thinking of right speech and thought maybe I should have added something... I was wondering if it was wrong speech to say Buddhism is not a religion because, it doesn't appear to me to be true based on the definition.
I think the question of whether challenging their attachment is right speech is one of intention. I was more of the impression the criteria is, It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will. I feel that showing someone they are attached to a word is truth, I try to do it affectionately, I believe it is beneficial to not have it and I have good-will for the person.
Can someone show me where Buddha's teaching says speech must be "agreeable". I think that would make speech dificult and require you to pretend to fully understand what all possible listeners believe/disbelieve. I found the following critieria searching around...
spoken at the proper time (Kalena bhasita hoti) spoken in line with the truth (Sacca bhasita hoti) spoken gently (Sanha bhasita hoti) spoken beneficially (Atthasanhita bhasita hoti) spoken with a friendly heart (Mettacittena bhasita hoti)
The footnote given under the quote on the other thread was "MN 58". I don't know what that refers to. Check out the "What is Compassion" thread, and you'll find it. Yours are good, too, underscoring the need to speak gently, beneficially, and with a friendly heart. One can challenge anything, following those guidelines.
The sanskrit terms are far more edifying than this division into religion vs. philosophy that we inherited from the Middle East and Greece. The clearest sanskrit term is 'darshana' or 'point of view'. Do we really need to say more than that? The distinction between philosophy and religion tells us more about our own taboos and preconceptions than about the subject under consideration.
I for one am a Westerner that is of the opinion that the Gods are at least as real as we humans are, which is to say not at all. I have no problem praying to a seemingly external being knowing that nothing is external of buddha nature. It isn't just uncivilized Tibetan nomads that believe in this way. While there is definitely a symbolic aspect, there is also what one could call a theurgic aspect. One can have visionary experience that transcends personal psychology.
If I had to choose, I would go with religion because most people I meet who call themselves philosophers are self-important jerks. :-) I can spend hours happily talking with others that have a sense of the holy regardless of their tradition. I would get exasperated with philosophers in under an hour.
Well, the 3rd possibility is that it's neither religion nor philosophy, but psychology.
I like Wuji's definition, which reminds me of the adage, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck." So if it has rituals, prayers/meditation, and monks...By George, I think we have ourselves a religion! And Sukhita made a good point about the meditation being the religious component.
If we reach Buddhahood, then the question will be irrelevant, but Buddhahood is a long way off, so in the meantime, being mere mortals, we amuse ourselves with "unimportant" debates relating to Buddhahood and the Dharma.
If we reach Buddhahood, then the question will be irrelevant, but Buddhahood is a long way off, so in the meantime, being mere mortals, we amuse ourselves with "unimportant" debates relating to Buddhahood and the Dharma.
Comments
Assume there is no God. The difference between philosophy and religion is?
Buddhism is non-theistic. That's why we're debating this, and why there are 2 threads on Buddhism's compatability with science.
If you are talking about people and mean "the public?" I think it's the fanfare of Buddhism that makes them think there's a personify-able god involved.
Buddhist practitioners who know that Buddha never claims to be god-like? I think they use a lower case "r." For example someone saying, "I get up every single morning and work out. It's a religion to me."
FWIW, that's the best I can do.
(BTW, welcome aboard, New Member!
I've never seen or heard of the Buddha being thought of as a god in any sense, so I doubt that's it. It may be the perception of praying to this-or-that bodhisattva or buddha (not "the" Buddha) that contributes to the misunderstandings.
Right, but in Asia (most if not all Asians will say it's a religion, or "Religion") they seem to relate to the BUddha as a god, praying to him and asking for favors, etc. (There's a thread on this site about that, I think I mentioned it earlier.)
All those beings, realms, hells--you're right. Not to mention the demons, gods, and goddesses, yidams, etc., but aren't most of those things mainly symbolic? So no one believes they truly exist. Except maybe some of the common folk living very traditional lives in Inner Asia....right?
(Nice new cloud, Cloud, BTW.)
You're very kind. Thank you.
I'm no expert. People get adoration or extreme respect for others confused with godliness, otherworldliness or the divine. They can't see that the radiant beauty of an enlightened being is merely part of the human potential. Again, just a guess on my part.
You're right, I'm sure that's partly what contributes to those other "styles" of practicing Buddhism; reverence turns to adoration, which gets confused with godliness and the divine.
I like your phrase "the radiant beauty of an enlightened being is merely part of the human potential". YEAH! Sign me up! :thumbsup:
HAHAHA. What a joy that would be, walking down the street and finding a table with welcoming people smiling warmly and genuinely. "Oh great! Here's that 'Radiant Beauty' clipboard! Sign me up!"
From my POV? FWIW. Maybe I'm going off topic here so I should apologize but I personally want to avoid calling B. a religion as much as possible among non B. people.
I'm in the middle of some who are suffering thru an us vs. them Christian vs. Muslim mindset. There's no more room in their over-taxed brains for another god claim. Since they want to equate B. with atheism, I have enough work just to keep reasserting tactfully there's absolutely nothing "god-like" about Buddha. :eek:
All you have to tell them is that you like to do inner reflection on a regular basis, and read philosophy. *sigh* These situations are painful to read about. I hope it's not too bad for you, Roger.
Yeah. Too true.
Nah. Not a big problem. I have a Born Again cousin whom I grew up with as a boy; we have fun together based on that trust. I visit him and his family and I get involved with their friends. I do what I can to be "inert," non-threatening. I encourage them to explain Jesus' teachings to me. I tell them I'm really verrrry interested in what Jesus taught (wink wink jesus=buddha). They have a respect for B. when I leave but I think they revert a few hours later. The rest of my rather large barely-practicing catholic family thinks they're "Born Again crazy"
Well, it sounded rather blissful while it lasted.
I think I still want to sign up, but not at the table where they require a check.
Heck. If we were Bill Gates we'd write them a check just for being friendly.
Dream on!
And I don't think BG would want to encourage that lot.
I can't help you.
What's bothering me again about the fifth precept is stopping drinking of alcohol. I am socialized and moving in the circle of friends and we all drink. It seems that this personality of a drinker is stuck with me. I remember on some occasions when I tried to stop drinking but still was socializing I always got that look from my friends like wtf why are you not drinking. Do you think you are something special? I am really having trouble not drinking on fun social events and parties cause sooner or later I feel like an outlaw. It surely is just my thinking that is messing with me but it's too powerful to cope with. How do I deal with it?
Fifth Precept: I undertake the training precept to abstain from alcoholic drinks that cause heedlessness.
Ok... small steps. For now, if you must, go ahead and drink at social occasions but stop before you surrender yourself to heedlessness? How many drinks will make you behave heedlessly? Figure that one out for yourself.
- Religion: practical experience and realization of the Dharma;
- Philosophy: intellectual formulation of above experience; and
- Psychology: self-observation and analysis.
... so have I read in this thread and elswhereI don't need any; I'm happy defining Buddhism as psychology + mysticism.
Sukhita has thrown a new definition of religion into the ring. We now have three definitions:
1. "Practical experience and realization of the Dharma" -- Sukhita
2. "A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices agreed upon by a number of persons or sects" ---Wuji, from unnamed dictionary
3. "A system of beliefs that characterize god" [i.e. descriptively] --Roger
Sukhita, could you explain a bit, please, your definition fits in with "religion"? Practical experience by itself doesn't constitute religion. So I'm guessing that in your mind, there's something about the process of realizing the Dharma that leads you to characterize Buddhism as a religion. Could you elaborate? (Who knows--by the end of this discussion, I may end up on the Buddism-as-religion side!
By Roger's definition, Buddhism isn't a religion. We haven't had any explanation from Wuji, maybe someone else would like to try to explain what beliefs in BUddhism would put it in the "religion" category.
(Don't worry, Kundabuffer; you're allowed to drink beer, just not to excess
Can I add, for 3 points:
Religion - "Any coercive hegemony that emerges when a minority becomes aware that they can control the majority by exploiting the inevitable existential uncertainties that confront us all."
As opposed to:
Celebrity - "Any coercive hegemony that emerges when a minority becomes aware that they can control the majority by exploiting the inevitable social uncertainties that confront us all."
Namastay
Yes, your guess: "the process of realizing the Dharma leads you to characterize Buddhism as a religion" is correct. Realizing the Dharma involves 'direct insight' into anatta, impermanence, dependent origination, etc. This is done through meditation and mindfulness - you could say a straightforward "opening of the eyes". These "TRUTHS" don't come from pondering a lot of "conseptual truths" and discussing them on an intellectual level. This part, I feel, falls outside philosophy or psychology. It fits quite nicely under "religion", albeit a religion that does not rely on a creator or protector God.
Hot stuff, Thickpaper! Want to start a thread in that vein?
I'm with you, Sukhita. So you feel that the only way to understand these more challenging concepts is not via the mind and logic (reading and discussing ad infinitam), but through meditation insights. Do you have a sangha? Can I move into your meditation room?
Well, this fits in with my characterization of Buddhism as "psychology + mysticism (via meditation)". Does the mysticism part automatically put BUddhism in the "religion" category? (I'm wondering to myself.) You're the only person on this site to address (and answer) my question: "Where's the religion part?" I've asked that on several threads. Congrats! You win the prize, but since we're not materialists, the prize is karma points; knowing you've helped someone on the path. Thanks!
So let's see....maybe it's still psychology but plus religion...*mumble mumble* hmm... :scratch:
Word.
Can't argue with that.
Talking about 'ancient roots', maybe we should stick to Buddha Dhamma (pali) or Buddha-Dharma (Skt.) These words are much more meaningful than "Buddhism"; after all "Buddhism" was never meant to be an "-ism".
<DT>dhamma Sorry everyone, for introducing more 'labels' and prolonging this debate.
Bye
:wavey:
</DT>
Not really! I am not sure what good would come from a willfully controversial thread, though I stick by my definitions:)
Thanks
It's not just something to say, but what my practice is... not attached to any specific tradition. The Four Noble Truths (and Noble Eightfold Path) are the Buddha's Dharma, and those are what have worked for me without the divisive or cling-y nature of tradition that leads to fights between people and misunderstandings.
But if you believe in your definitions so strongly, they must be worth discussing.....!
As I said that is entry number 2 and I referenced it because Buddhism does fit this definition and the definition actually says "the Buddhist religion". One thing I think people forget is that words generally have more than one definition. There is a separate definition which mentions a higher power. I speculate the latin root word religio probably did refer to a belief in God and the second definition was added in English specifically for Buddhism. For me it would feel strange to say that 95% of people in Thailand have no religion since they are Buddhist or to say monks are not religious people.
I have noticed talking to theist in the past that they often fail to understand that a religion doesn't necessarily require a belief in God. I think it is important to teach people that isn't true at least by today's definition. I also think that people apply emotions to words and challenging those attachments is a Buddhist thing to do. The word religion is not bad in and of itself. I would argue why should we stop there, if anything the problem is people thinking and acting as groups that leads to bad things associated with religion.
Roger said, "I'd like to know what part of it, exactly, do people consider to be the religion component". I would have to say that for me those would be:
1.) Belief - as in following precepts and teachings.
2.) Traditions - meditation, passing down the teachings, temples, monks etc.
Challenging attachments is a good thing to do. But it raises questions about "right speech" and "wrong speech". There's another thread active now where a definition of "right speech" came up. "What is Compassion" the name of the thread was. If a statement is factual and true, if it's beneficial, endearing and agreeable, then making the statement is right speech. If any of those components is missing, then it's wrong speech. So is challenging someone's attachments, by that definition, wrong speech because it would be disagreeable and not endearing?
I think the question of whether challenging their attachment is right speech is one of intention. I was more of the impression the criteria is, It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will. I feel that showing someone they are attached to a word is truth, I try to do it affectionately, I believe it is beneficial to not have it and I have good-will for the person.
Can someone show me where Buddha's teaching says speech must be "agreeable". I think that would make speech dificult and require you to pretend to fully understand what all possible listeners believe/disbelieve. I found the following critieria searching around...
spoken at the proper time (Kalena bhasita hoti)
spoken in line with the truth (Sacca bhasita hoti)
spoken gently (Sanha bhasita hoti)
spoken beneficially (Atthasanhita bhasita hoti)
spoken with a friendly heart (Mettacittena bhasita hoti)
I for one am a Westerner that is of the opinion that the Gods are at least as real as we humans are, which is to say not at all. I have no problem praying to a seemingly external being knowing that nothing is external of buddha nature. It isn't just uncivilized Tibetan nomads that believe in this way. While there is definitely a symbolic aspect, there is also what one could call a theurgic aspect. One can have visionary experience that transcends personal psychology.
If I had to choose, I would go with religion because most people I meet who call themselves philosophers are self-important jerks. :-) I can spend hours happily talking with others that have a sense of the holy regardless of their tradition. I would get exasperated with philosophers in under an hour.
The question is worth considering but the answer is maybe unimportant
I like Wuji's definition, which reminds me of the adage, "If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck." So if it has rituals, prayers/meditation, and monks...By George, I think we have ourselves a religion! And Sukhita made a good point about the meditation being the religious component.
If we reach Buddhahood, then the question will be irrelevant, but Buddhahood is a long way off, so in the meantime, being mere mortals, we amuse ourselves with "unimportant" debates relating to Buddhahood and the Dharma.