Question: Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy of life? (statues)

[Woodrow LI]

I spent my Atheist years following Zen as a way of life, not as a religious following. How about you, do you see it as such?

[cacto]

I have trouble separating religion and philosophy but I understand what you mean. For me, it's more a religion (I guess) because I think there's something apart from the material universe that you could call God or something. I'm cool with the atheist take on it, I just can't agree with it.

[TRANSPONDER]

I did post on this a while ago and I concluded that it was a religion because it invested faith in a supernatural entity (Karma) which was not validated in a way that would justify it being regarded as plausible, let alone a fact on which to base one's life. Therefore, despite it not worshipping a god, it is, in my view a religion.

In that respect the matter of denial of a soul or non -denial of gods, the statues, religious pictures and stupas and the exact meaning, purpose and supposed effect of Buddhist prayer-chanting is all irrelevant and a red - herring. It is the central firm belief in the reality of Karma and the understanding of how it works and how to outsmart it, effectively, makes it a religion.

Or so I suggest.

[RockJock1729]

Honestly, I never think about it. I practice, and that's all. I think the whole debate (whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy) is an illusory distraction from the whole point of both practice and focusing on mindfulness and compassion.

[TRANSPONDER]

You are quite right. However, in the West, we seem to like to get things in the right pigeonhole and it seems to bother people that Buddhism is called a religion, but doesn't have a god. well, I suggest that matter is now settled - it is a religion even without a god, just as scientology is a religion without a god -it has things called Thetans instead. And there are the UFO religions of course.

[miticoman]

I would add that the human spirit has not geographical and socio-political boundaries , it is clear that the different spiritual interpretation, as it is perceived, can lead to different emotional manifestations, some ppl feel in Buddhism aspects simultaneously present, l mean both religious and philosophical; others attribute to Buddhism substantial atheism, since it is motivated and strives for the realization of human-soul quite apart from the existence of a God, God or other gods

[Woodrow LI]

An interesting thing I found in the Orient was that it seemed many people saw no conflict in following Buddhism along with another religious belief. Such as you could ask somebody if they were Buddhist and they would answer yes then if someone them if they were Taoist of even Christian they would answer yes.

[TRANSPONDER]

I had heard that the Asians are so polite they would never dream of answering 'No'. However, I feel I may have overlooked an aspect of the thread - this business of 'Not a religion,it's a way of life'. I first heard this said by a Buddhist and then I heard it by a Muslim and more recently by Christians.

The fact is that any religion is intended as a way of life and the only reason it isn't is when nominative followers don't, very much.

[elfstorage]

I think it is more a philosophy. I found this on buddhanet.net:

Is it a religion?

It is neither a religion in the sense in which that word is commonly understood, for it is not "a system of faith and worship owing any allegiance to a supernatural being."

Buddhism does not demand blind faith from its adherents. Here mere belief is dethroned and is substituted by confidence based on knowledge, which, in Pali, is known as saddha. The confidence placed by a follower on the Buddha is like that of a sick person in a noted physician, or a student in his teacher. A Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha because it was he who discovered the path of deliverance.

A Buddhist does not seek refuge in the Buddha with the hope that he will be saved by his (i.e. the Buddha's own) personal purification. The Buddha gives no such guarantee. It is not within the power of a Buddha to wash away the impurities of others. One could neither purify nor defile another. The Buddha, as teacher, instructs us, but we ourselves are directly responsible for our purification. Although a Buddhist seeks refuge in the Buddha, he does not make any self-surrender. Nor does a Buddhist sacrifice his freedom of thought by becoming a follower of the Buddha. He can exercise his own free will and develop his knowledge even to the extent of becoming a Buddha himself.

The starting point of Buddhism is reasoning or understanding, or, in the Pali words, samma-ditthi.

To the seekers of truth the Buddha says:

"Do not accept anything on (mere) hearsay -- (i.e., thinking that thus have we heard it for a long time). Do not accept anything by mere tradition -- (i.e., thinking that it has thus been handed down through many generations). Do not accept anything on account of mere rumors -- (i.e., by believing what others say without any investigation). Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything by mere suppositions. Do not accept anything by mere inference. Do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons. Do not accept anything merely because it agrees with your pre-conceived notions. Do not accept anything merely because it seems acceptable -- (i.e., thinking that as the speaker seems to be a good person his words should be accepted). Do not accept anything thinking that the ascetic is respected by us (therefore it is right to accept his word).

"But when you know for yourselves -- these things are immoral, these things are blameworthy, these things are censured by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken conduce to ruin and sorrow -- then indeed do you reject them.

"When you know for yourselves -- these things are moral, these things are blameless, these things are praised by the wise, these things, when performed and undertaken, conduce to well-being and happiness -- then do you live acting accordingly."

Pretty cool.