Is Buddhism a Religion?

[Anti]

So I was wondering whether there is a concrete definition for Buddhism.
Is it following a certain script, mantra; is it a way of life; certain beliefs one holds to be true, or is it a methodology in which to view this world? etc...
I'm asking this partially because I have two friends who are both Buddhist; or at least they both claim to be Buddhist yet they differ completely on what Buddhism entails. One believes it to be a religion in which you follow certain dogmas from certain texts, observe certain religious functions i.e fasting/mediating and following other (religious?) rituals. While the other completely denies it as a religion; claiming it as just certain beliefs one holds to be true such as "real awakening" or "liberation of suffering"; although some of these beliefs intersect, others do not. So then what is the problem here, is it over the question of what Buddhism should be concerned with or is it their definition of what qualifies as a religion that needs to be flushed out. As Ian Dove what say do we have a problem with the content or the methodology? (Applied to both "Buddhism" and "religion")

[Ron-the-Elder]

Originally Posted by Anti

So I was wondering whether there is a concrete definition for Buddhism.
Is it following a certain script, mantra; is it a way of life; certain beliefs one holds to be true, or is it a methodology in which to view this world? etc...
I'm asking this partially because I have two friends who are both Buddhist; or at least they both claim to be Buddhist yet they differ completely on what Buddhism entails. One believes it to be a religion in which you follow certain dogmas from certain texts, observe certain religious functions i.e fasting/mediating and following other (religious?) rituals. While the other completely denies it as a religion; claiming it as just certain beliefs one holds to be true such as "real awakening" or "liberation of suffering"; although some of these beliefs intersect, others do not. So then what is the problem here, is it over the question of what Buddhism should be concerned with or is it their definition of what qualifies as a religion that needs to be flushed out. As Ian Dove what say do we have a problem with the content or the methodology? (Applied to both "Buddhism" and "religion")

You will find two basic sincere approaches to Buddhism:

1. As a religion
2. As a practice

Those approaching Buddhism as a religion come from faith based upon what they are taught.

Those approaching Buddhism as a practice develop faith from the teachings of Buddha, which they have validated and verified through personal practice.

Both make beneficial progress by studying The Dhamma, the teachings of Buddha, and by living their lives in accordance with The Noble Eight Fold Path.

[Kaosu]

Is Buddhism a religion? Well let's see. "Buddhism" includes all of the following:

Clergy
Holidays
Scriptures
Rituals/Ceremonies
Temples
Mythology

So for all practical purposes, I would say yes, yes it is.

In my experience, a lot of people interested in Buddhism get hung up on the term "religion", especially Westerners who often have very negative associations with Christianity (often for good reasons).

Personally, I think it is best to see the word "religion" in a broad, non-pejorative sense, as being a way of life organized around certain principles, practices and certain institutions.

[the_aphid]

Personally, I feel that it depends not on how you define Buddhism, but on how you define Religion. If you feel that Religion is about orthodoxy, then I would say that the Buddhist practice in question would have to be orthodox in nature, which from what I understand is not very common in Buddhism. I mean there are some aspects like karma, rebirth and certain precepts that approach orthodoxy, however there are many more teachings to be found that specifically deny the formation of an orthodox practice of the Dharma.

So it sounds like the friend who believes that in order for someone to be considered a Buddhist, a specific dogma must be followed, that he obviously views Religion as necessarily being orthodox in nature and furthermore views certain Buddhist dogma as uncompromising. Thus if there is a right view, and the right Buddhist view is followed, than one is simultaneously Buddhist and Religious. However your other friend might similarly be defining Religion as orthodox in nature, but making the argument that Buddhism does not readily follow any dogmatic teachings or practices, and thus is not really a Religion.

Just for the sake of argument I don't exactly agree with either of them. I am of the opinion that true Religion is not orthodox in nature, but I know that not many people adopt this view, and I am frequently engaged into debates on this. This means that even Humanism or Atheism can be considered as Religions, and obviously Buddhism as well. However this also means that the vast majority of 'Religions' in the world, are really just orthodox denominations of an overall Religion. Basically I feel that orthodoxy is the death of Religion.

[Akamu]

Personally, I practice Buddhism in a non-religious sense.

re⋅li⋅gion  /rɪˈlɪdʒən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ri-lij-uhn] Show IPA
Use religion in a Sentence
See web results for religion
See images of religion
–noun 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

It seems that a set of beliefs or a certan measure of faith are the essential qualities of a religion.

Now, according to Shakyamuni Buddha:
"Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it."

It really sounds to me like this is incompatible wth faith and beliefs. I ascribe to the ground-up approach. Buddhism is an experiment and resembles the scientific method quite closely. A problem has been observed (the inevitable experience of suffering), a hypothesis is posited (the root of all suffering arises from ignorance and attachment) is posited and solution is suggested (the eight-fold path). It is up to the individual to perform the experiment. No belief is required. Someone just has to see for themselves where the method takes them.

I don't deny that people can approach Buddhism with a more religious undertone. I don't think it is incorrect to do so either. However, I prefer not to blindly submit myself to beliefs that have not been confirmed by my experience.

[the_aphid]

Originally Posted by Akamu

It is up to the individual to perform the experiment. No belief is required. Someone just has to see for themselves where the method takes them.

I don't deny that people can approach Buddhism with a more religious undertone. I don't think it is incorrect to do so either. However, I prefer not to blindly submit myself to beliefs that have not been confirmed by my experience.

But if you have not yet experienced liberation from all attachment, liberation from any and all forms of suffering, if you have not yet attained Nirvana and perfected the teachings of right view, right mindfulness, right concentration, etc, then what is it that provides the motivation to continue walking the path? When you are confronted with stress and doubt, and things appear as though they are not working, what is it that sustains you in order to reach the other side? In these moments is it always reason, or here can faith be of benefit?

In a world surrounded by dogma and orthodoxy, I feel the benefits of faith have been forgotten, and people have simply begun to view faith as the negative antithesis to the positive reason. Don't get me wrong, reason is essential, however it cannot be relied upon absolutely. Reasoning can sometimes be deceptive, reasoning can lead people to false knowledge and certainty, and it can lead people to doubt things that they had previously gained confidence in through reason.

For example, you might have adopted a view in the past that non-violence is a virtuous behavior to adopt. However, in a moment of stress, prompted by violence being inflicted upon you or others, you might come to a conclusion based on reasoning that tells you a violent response is justifiable in that situation. However, your actions which were based on reasoning at the time might be questioned later. What I mean here is not to debate whether or not violence is justifiable in some scenarios, but rather that this is something that reason cannot provide a concrete solution to, one way or the other. Instead, in a moment of stress perhaps faith should be looked upon. Faith that your convictions you made in the past based on reason are more appropriate than the convictions you are making in the present moment based on reason.

Reasoning is not always flawless, reasoning can be skewed by emotion, and don't forget that Faith (saddha) is similarly an essential component of Buddhist Dharma, one of the Five Factulties of theBodhipakkhiyādhammā along with Energy (viriya), Mindfulness (sati), Concentration (samadhi), and Wisdom (panna).

[wuwei]

Is Buddhism a Religion?

. . . . "Mu"

[Akamu]

Originally Posted by the_aphid

But if you have not yet experienced liberation from all attachment, liberation from any and all forms of suffering, if you have not yet attained Nirvana and perfected the teachings of right view, right mindfulness, right concentration, etc, then what is it that provides the motivation to continue walking the path? When you are confronted with stress and doubt, and things appear as though they are not working, what is it that sustains you in order to reach the other side? In these moments is it always reason, or here can faith be of benefit?

In a world surrounded by dogma and orthodoxy, I feel the benefits of faith have been forgotten, and people have simply begun to view faith as the negative antithesis to the positive reason. Don't get me wrong, reason is essential, however it cannot be relied upon absolutely. Reasoning can sometimes be deceptive, reasoning can lead people to false knowledge and certainty, and it can lead people to doubt things that they had previously gained confidence in through reason.

For example, you might have adopted a view in the past that non-violence is a virtuous behavior to adopt. However, in a moment of stress, prompted by violence being inflicted upon you or others, you might come to a conclusion based on reasoning that tells you a violent response is justifiable in that situation. However, your actions which were based on reasoning at the time might be questioned later. What I mean here is not to debate whether or not violence is justifiable in some scenarios, but rather that this is something that reason cannot provide a concrete solution to, one way or the other. Instead, in a moment of stress perhaps faith should be looked upon. Faith that your convictions you made in the past based on reason are more appropriate than the convictions you are making in the present moment based on reason.

Reasoning is not always flawless, reasoning can be skewed by emotion, and don't forget that Faith (saddha) is similarly an essential component of Buddhist Dharma, one of the Five Factulties of theBodhipakkhiyādhammā along with Energy (viriya), Mindfulness (sati), Concentration (samadhi), and Wisdom (panna).

Hi aphid,

I don't deny the beneficial roles of faith...but they are not necessary and essential in one's practice of Buddhism. You ask me how I gain the motivation to keep on practicing? Because I see the immediate beneficial results of doing so. It doesn't matter to me if enlightenment is impossible; I have reaped many benefits from partaking in meditation, adhering as best as I can to the eight-fold path, etc. Seems to me that a central pillar of Buddhism is learning to live in the present on not dwell on the "faith-based" promisary notes of the future. Wat does it really matter to me right now if ideas such as rebirth or nirvana are true or false? This does not change the fact that participating in Buddhism practices has transformed me for the better.

Now oviously a certain measure of faith is required just in the sense that I have to believe that what I am experiencing is real and not some trick being played on my senses, but I wouldn't lump this into the same category as other types of beliefs people assume to be true. The faith that I have results from direct experience; I don' first posit a faith and then attempt to confirm it...I find this more often than not counterproductive. In my experiene, at least, doing this has always lead me to abandoning a belief I ended up holding dear to me...which of course just causes more suffering. Granted, this fault may simply lie with me and not the actualy actof having faith...but then my approach to Buddhism works out for me as an individual. I am pretty sure that everyone's path is different.

[the_aphid]

Originally Posted by Akamu

I don't deny the beneficial roles of faith...but they are not necessary and essential in one's practice of Buddhism.

Fair enough. I will simply reiterate that I believe that Faith is both necessary and essential, not just in one's practice of Buddhism, but in every other aspect of one's life. For example, in a loving relationship I really don't feel that it is pure logical reasoning that absolutely provides an individual with trust in their partner. Reasoning assists, it reminds you of the behaviors of your partner and calculates probabilities to some degree whether or not you feel they can be trusted, but at some point you have to submit to Faith, a sort of intuition. If you do not, you will likely become jealous or paranoid, constantly questioning them in order to fuel the reasoning process you depend upon. You need to know where she has been, or what he has been doing, or who they were seeing in order to reason whether or not you feel they are remaining faithful.

Originally Posted by Akamu

You ask me how I gain the motivation to keep on practicing? Because I see the immediate beneficial results of doing so.
...
Seems to me that a central pillar of Buddhism is learning to live in the present on not dwell on the "faith-based" promisary notes of the future.

You see the immediate benefits at all times, even in times of strife? Have you not had moments where you encounter doubt, and are forced to rely upon the memory of past experiences where you perceived beneficial results? In your eyes, is this reasoning or faith?

I can understand if you feel that this is a form of reasoning. Reason tells you that you are experiencing a moment of stress, and reason can even address what is causing it. Reason reminds you that your convictions, when in a calm state, are more reliable than what you might presently be experiencing, and thus it is reasoning that motivates you to endure.

However, I see this is a conflict of reasoning, a struggle in which your current (present) reasoning perhaps should not be trusted, and you are in fact being faithful. I feel this way because when I personally have been in those experiences, I cannot necessarily recall exactly what my line of reasoning was that led me to those convictions, basically they become lost to me in the moment of stress. And therefore you are not founding your present/future actions on the reasoning of the present moment, but are founding it on the belief that a line of reasoning not presently available to you is to be trusted (faith).

Don't get me wrong, you are obviously entitled to your opinions, however I just want to make sure I am making my arguments clear and that I am being understood.

Originally Posted by Akamu

Now obviously a certain measure of faith is required just in the sense that I have to believe that what I am experiencing is real and not some trick being played on my senses, but I wouldn't lump this into the same category as other types of beliefs people assume to be true.

Yes, but I am not really talking about faith that what you are experiencing is real. In times of stress, the doubt you might experience is just as real as anything else you might experience when calm.

Originally Posted by Akamu

In my experiene, at least, doing this has always lead me to abandoning a belief I ended up holding dear to me...which of course just causes more suffering.

I find this interesting as I've heard this a number of times and don't entirely understand it. When you are led to the conclusion that any particular belief you had is indeed false, you are simultaneously led to a sort of truth are you not? I personally have always seen this as a good thing which in fact relieves me of suffering. It is a form of relief, like removing a splinter that only hurts when you touch it. By removing it, you immediately recognize that it will no longer cause you any pain.

[Ron-the-Elder]

Originally Posted by the_aphid

....Don't get me wrong, you are obviously entitled to your opinions,........I find this interesting as I've heard this a number of times and don't entirely understand it. When you are led to the conclusion that any particular belief you had is indeed false, you are simultaneously led to a sort of truth are you not? I personally have always seen this as a good thing which in fact relieves me of suffering. It is a form of relief, like removing a splinter that only hurts when you touch it. By removing it, you immediately recognize that it will no longer cause you any pain.

Think of childhood and finding out that there is no Santa Klaus.
Think being in love and finding out that your loving spouse is getting more action than you are.
Think being employed and faithfull to your company and its owners, when they sell out to another agency, which in turn sells-off your company's assets.
......the same with any act of betrayal, the stuff of operas.