Is Buddhism a religion?

[Richo83]

I was talking to a Buddhist I know about Buddhism's religious nature, how at times it seems to shirk religious sense of spiritual beliefs and truths, instead embracing guidelines and philosophical insights. My point was that religion is essentially a social construct, and since Buddhism is a social construct, with many spiritual insights no less, it is a religion.

My question to you people is, do you think Buddhism is a religion? Or is it just a philosophical system with religious elements?

What does everyone else think?

 

[bit_pattern]

Buddhism is science of the mind...

 

[finders]

just a philosophical system with religious elements?

But many Buddhists try to turn Sitthatta Gauatama into a God to have something someone to pray to.
The Buddha never said he was anything but a spiritual teacher with a doctrine on how to live a peaceful and happy life - nothing else.

 

[wally funk]

i have heard people say that it's a philosophy or a lifestyle choice rather than a religion. what's the definition of religion or a religion, though?

 

[volcboy]

I am a buddhist, and in the tradition I follow, it is explicitly stated that buddhism is not a religion.

That may not be the case for all buddhist traditions however.

 

[Richo83]

I am a buddhist, and in the tradition I follow, it is explicitly stated that buddhism is not a religion.

That may not be the case for all buddhist traditions however.

What tradition is that?

 

[volcboy]

Specifically the dzogchen lineage, which is from the Nyingma school of Vajrayana buddhism (Tibetan).

I know that may not make any sense to you - rather than explain it, if you are interested in what it means, you could read Wikipedia (not perfect, but a good summary).

The most well known Dzogchen teacher is Sogyal Rinpoche, who wrote The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying.

 

[Ruanaidh]

Buddhism is a path. Who could know the destination? It is not a religion.

 

[Qsaint]

Specifically the dzogchen lineage, which is from the Nyingma school of Vajrayana buddhism (Tibetan).

I know that may not make any sense to you - rather than explain it, if you are interested in what it means, you could read Wikipedia (not perfect, but a good summary).

The most well known Dzogchen teacher is Sogyal Rinpoche, who wrote The Tibetan Book of Living and Dying.

Probably easier to start with the greater and lesser paths, with Tibetan beliefs adding a bit of Sufi/Gnostic like mysticism.

Anyway No God = No Religion

 

[btdg]

Its a philosophical system with supernatural elements. At least its a start.

Interesting question though. I reckon the supernatural elements stem from the time the religion was formed; everyone was supernatural in those times, so its likely some of those elements got incorporated into Budhism (as much to explain the system to new converts as anything else - as with Christianity, its far easier to just appropriate existing beliefs/practices and shoehorn them into your new religion than it is to convince people their beliefs are wrong). If the same philosophies were developed now, rather than several hundred years ago, I think you probably get less supernatural elements. I'm not sure the same is true for other religions that stem from a supernatural authority figure (if you believe in 'God', you might as well believe in anything else - so why not throw in a few pink unicorns or angels of death or whatever)

 

[Qsaint]

Its a philosophical system with supernatural elements. At least its a start.

Interesting question though. I reckon the supernatural elements stem from the time the religion was formed; everyone was supernatural in those times, so its likely some of those elements got incorporated into Budhism (as much to explain the system to new converts as anything else - as with Christianity, its far easier to just appropriate existing beliefs/practices and shoehorn them into your new religion than it is to convince people their beliefs are wrong). If the same philosophies were developed now, rather than several hundred years ago, I think you probably get less supernatural elements. I'm not sure the same is true for other religions that stem from a supernatural authority figure (if you believe in 'God', you might as well believe in anything else - so why not throw in a few pink unicorns or angels of death or whatever)

The Aggañña Sutta bassically says the world was dark, life came out of water and after a bloody long time man turns up. The no God thing allows Buddhism to cut alot of crap out, the supernatural in Tibetan religion is the left over of the Bon religion

 

[Total_Juddshanks]

Imo, a philosophical system which postulates belief in the supernatural is precisely the definition of a religion.

 

[Qsaint]

Imo, a philosophical system which postulates belief in the supernatural is precisely the definition of a religion.

Not really and outside the Tibetan version there is not alot of supernatural beings in Buddhism, and even then the Beings are not really worshiped.

 

[midorigreenwood]

Wouldn't the Mahayana branch be considered as a religion?

isn't that the one that the chinese hijacked and placed buddha as a deity?

*remembers images of people rubbing buddha's head for good luck*

 

[bit_pattern]

Wouldn't the Mahayana branch be considered as a religion?

Yeah, Qsaint briefly covered that.

I tend to think most schools of Buddhism recognise that supernatural entities exist except that they are just manifestations of the mind, as are all delusions including this waking reality.

 

[evo]

I think it mostly depends on the individuals relationship to the doctrines/philosophy.

Personally i think Buddhism is a philosophy that some/many mistakenly treat as a religion.

Moreover,I don't see any good reason why Christianity couldn't be treated as a philosophy either.That's the relationship guys like Echkart and Kierkegaard had with Christianity.Thinking for themselves,but within a framework.

 

[Richo83]

Few questions:

1. Does Buddhism think it is a religion? Does it try or want to be one?

2. If Buddhism does think it is (or at least have not made any definitive judgments on the subject) a religion, how can you say it's not? I mean think about it, all religion is is a group or society which shares principles, beliefs, morals and practices containing spiritual insight, and since Buddhism is that, it's a religion.

Plus, it could be more accurate than Christianity ever is, and if someone ever definitively proves once and for all that Christianity has no truthful spiritual insight, therefore lowering it to a cult or sorts with no spiritual insight, Buddhism could easily become more of a religion than Christianity, because afterall, it seems that the spiritual insights of Buddhism make much more sense and are much more likely than the Christian ones.

 

[bit_pattern]

Few questions:

1. Does Buddhism think it is a religion? Does it try or want to be one?

2. If Buddhism does think it is (or at least have not made any definitive judgments on the subject) a religion, how can you say it's not? I mean think about it, all religion is is a group or society which shares principles, beliefs, morals and practices containing spiritual insight, and since Buddhism is that, it's a religion.

Plus, it could be more accurate than Christianity ever is, and if someone ever definitively proves once and for all that Christianity has no truthful spiritual insight, therefore lowering it to a cult or sorts with no spiritual insight, Buddhism could easily become more of a religion than Christianity, because afterall, it seems that the spiritual insights of Buddhism make much more sense and are much more likely than the Christian ones.

I'd call it a religion (based entirely on Wikipedia's definition, if that counts for anything). I don't think it necessarily needs to be defined one way or another, it simply is what it is. I'd call it a science myself but there are aspects of Buddhism, such as the belief in reincarnation, that make it incompatible with our idea of a science and makes it something more than a mere philosophy.

I think the difference between Buddhism and cults like Christianity is that the former is not founded on an intangible concept of faith, rather it focuses on a very rigorous method of training the mind to attain a certain level of awareness. It is much more practical than dogmatic, evidenced by some of the results of this study.

 

[Qsaint]

I'd call it a religion (based entirely on Wikipedia's definition, if that counts for anything). I don't think it necessarily needs to be defined one way or another, it simply is what it is. I'd call it a science myself but there are aspects of Buddhism, such as the belief in reincarnation, that make it incompatible with our idea of a science and makes it something more than a mere philosophy.

I think the difference between Buddhism and cults like Christianity is that the former is not founded on an intangible concept of faith, rather it focuses on a very rigorous method of training the mind to attain a certain level of awareness. It is much more practical than dogmatic, evidenced by some of the results of this study.

Put it this way

A Religion = Opiate of the masses = Unsubstantiated Promises of riches

1 Something for nothing
2 Life after Death
3 Rewards
4 Forgiveness for Sin

Hinduism/Christianity/Islam etc all have all 4 especially the Heaven concept. Buddhism really doesn't makeof those promises


The other thing to keep in mind is that Buddhist freely admit there way of reaching perfection is not the only way, just the path of one Buddha

 

[JW Frogen]

____ yes!


Buddism is as religious as Christianity, political relativism or Free Market economics!

Buddism?

Karma?

No scientific proof.

Reincarnation?

No scientific proof.

Noble Truths?

No scientific proof.

Of course it is a religion.

Nothing wrong with that, just as there is nothing wrong with Christianity being a religion.

They are poems about existence, not a literal definition if existence.