Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As you seem to have already found out, the answer is both yes and no.
Buddhism can be practiced as a "way of life" devoid of any of the rituals that have developed over the past millennia since the Buddha died, and ignoring those writings that were created in the settings of religious Buddhism.
Or a person can embrace the early teachings plus one or the other of the later directions of religious development.
I think people tend to define "religion" solely in the context of what best fits their own, thereby failing to understand how other religions could be religions. Religion is, at its core, a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Those beliefs could include, for example (i.e., not implying that this has anything to do with Buddhism), that there is no cause, no specific nature, and no specific purpose. Paradoxically, some of the most religious people I've ever met were those who were fervent Atheists. The opposite of "religious" involves indifference to the matters of the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, not antipathy for definitive statements thereof.
All the Buddhists I've met are religious people. That doesn't mean that there is no way to "utilize" aspects of Buddhism for non-religious purposes, but that's not really the question in the OP, which is more a question of whether the religion itself is or is not a religion.
A nice gnotty question. I would say yes and I shall explain why. It does rather involve my own definition, but the others, while they are helpful, seem to fail where religions without gods are involved, while at the same time, accepting them (Buddhism, Jainism, and Scientology), as religions.
To call it a 'way of life' is an avoidance or evasion of the point. I have heard the same claimed of Islam, and many certainly make Christianity a way of life and my way of life is rationality, but that doesn't make it a religion, nore does it make Islam NOT a religion. So 'way of life' is an irrelevance.
Now, Buddhism doesn't deny gods, in fact it has gods, in Mahayana, or as near as makes no difference, but the point is that the Gods are not needed for salvation. Karma is. One achieves one's own salvation (without gods) but without Karma, all our efforts will avail nothing. We have to build up a mountain of merit in the bank or Karma and avoid building up a heap of toxic debt and this, is so much like pleasing a god or displeasing a god, that Karma in fact is a god -substitute.
What is more, Karma has to have a degree of intelligence or otherwise, how does it know what are good or bad deeds? However, the definition of religion is
'a supernatural entity which has a measure of control on what happens to us in this life or the next (should there be one) or bout' and 'rules, methods, rites and procedures designed to enable devotees of this supernatural entity to influence, please or propitiate it with a view to achieving benefits in this life or the next (should there be one).
On that basis, I'd say yes, Buddhism is most definitely a religion.
But it has certain principles or laws that one must follow? Kind of like the 10 commandments in Christianity or the 5 pillars in Islam.
Buddhism also have a specific belief about the afterlife too. Which most religions do.
I was interested in Buddhism in the past for mental health benefits. But I stopped because I didnt want it to interfere with my religion
I would say that this question is a distraction from Buddhism itself. It doesn't matter whether Buddhism is a religion or not.
You can read the words of the Buddha, follow the Dharma, meditate on emptiness and dependent arising, practice lovingkindness, and believe wholeheartedly that Buddhism is a religion.
You can read the words of the Buddha, follow the Dharma, meditate on emptiness and dependent arising, practice lovingkindness, and believe wholeheartedly that Buddhism is not a religion.
A nice gnotty question. I would say yes and I shall explain why. It does rather involve my own definition, but the others, while they are helpful, seem to fail where religions without gods are involved, while at the same time, accepting them (Buddhism, Jainism, and Scientology), as religions.
To call it a 'way of life' is an avoidance or evasion of the point. I have heard the same claimed of Islam, and many certainly make Christianity a way of life and my way of life is rationality, but that doesn't make it a religion, nore does it make Islam NOT a religion. So 'way of life' is an irrelevance.
Now, Buddhism doesn't deny gods, in fact it has gods, in Mahayana, or as near as makes no difference, but the point is that the Gods are not needed for salvation. Karma is. One achieves one's own salvation (without gods) but without Karma, all our efforts will avail nothing. We have to build up a mountain of merit in the bank or Karma and avoid building up a heap of toxic debt and this, is so much like pleasing a god or displeasing a god, that Karma in fact is a god -substitute.
What is more, Karma has to have a degree of intelligence or otherwise, how does it know what are good or bad deeds? However, the definition of religion is
'a supernatural entity which has a measure of control on what happens to us in this life or the next (should there be one) or bout' and 'rules, methods, rites and procedures designed to enable devotees of this supernatural entity to influence, please or propitiate it with a view to achieving benefits in this life or the next (should there be one).
On that basis, I'd say yes, Buddhism is most definitely a religion.
I can't agree. Karma doesn't know which deeds are good and which are bad, because deeds are neither good nor bad. Karma isn't about reward and punishment; it's about cause and effect. That's why deeds that reduce suffering are "skillful", not "good". They reflect the doer's understanding of how Karma makes our deeds propagate, leading to less or more suffering for ourselves and others.
I can't agree. Karma doesn't know which deeds are good and which are bad, because deeds are neither good nor bad. Karma isn't about reward and punishment; it's about cause and effect. That's why deeds that reduce suffering are "skillful", not "good". They reflect the doer's understanding of how Karma makes our deeds propagate, leading to less or more suffering for ourselves and others.
Well, I am no expert and maybe my view is too 'simple'. I had a quick read last night and I couldn't quite pin down whether it is right that Karma is a natural force in the universe that is very wide ranging in effect but is the entity that piles up our deeds into good or bad deeds (to use the western terminology) and those deeds affect us (whatever that 'Us is) in our rebirth, should we faill to achieve Nirvana (and most of us won't come close) whether we are Buddhist or not - according to Buddhist belief.
We can also 'buy' credits of good deeds in the bank of Karma by donating to the Sangha. That was made pretty clear in what I read and what I learned when I was in the Sangha.
Thus Karma is an entity that can be propitiated, just like pleasing a god. But karma is not a god. It is a natural force of cause and effect like electricity or gravity. It does not think.
If that is so, I'd still say the propitiation is so similar to pleasing a god that it makes it a quasi -deity and that business of propitiating it in order to obtain benefits in this life and the next is what makes Buddhism definitely a religion, even without gods, just as Scientology with its dealing with Thetans is a quasi -gods method that makes it a religion.
But, what I couldn't quite pin down, though there were hints of it, is who decides what are good or bad deeds? I got the impression that it is down to good effect and bad effect - which may be why Buddhist countries can rationalize the taking of life in warfare. But killing for good reasons, say to save someone from being killed, is it a good or bad deed because it has a good effect? Is it just down to how the killer feels about it? Are deeds good or bad because of how we see it? In fact, are we the judges of our own deeds?
What I read said that this idea of 'Judgement' is a western one and rather incorrect, so I my be misunderstanding this - though if so, many people in Buddhist countries seem to have the same misunderstanding. I know, because I've been there, collecting donations for the Sangha and giving out blessings for merit. Old atheist Arq!
So I'm still wondering (apart from whether Karma is quasi -godlike enough to be the reason why Buddhism IS a religion - which I am pretty sure of) whether this natural entity of cause and effect of our deeds and actions does have some faculty of sorting our deeds into good or bad ones, taking into account what we did, why we did it and what the result was. If so, that is near enough a thinking entity as makes no difference.
But, as I say, that may be too simple a view and it might be that our actions themselves can affect our rebirth without the need for karma being some some sort of entity.
Well, I am no expert and maybe my view is too 'simple'. I had a quick read last night and I couldn't quite pin down whether it is right that Karma is a natural force in the universe that is very wide ranging in effect but is the entity that piles up our deeds into good or bad deeds (to use the western terminology) and those deeds affect us (whatever that 'Us is) in our rebirth, should we faill to achieve Nirvana (and most of us won't come close) whether we are Buddhist or not - according to Buddhist belief.
We can also 'buy' credits of good deeds in the bank of Karma by donating to the Sangha. That was made pretty clear in what I read and what I learned when I was in the Sangha.
Thus Karma is an entity that can be propitiated, just like pleasing a god. But karma is not a god. It is a natural force of cause and effect like electricity or gravity. It does not think.
If that is so, I'd still say the propitiation is so similar to pleasing a god that it makes it a quasi -deity and that business of propitiating it in order to obtain benefits in this life and the next is what makes Buddhism definitely a religion, even without gods, just as Scientology with its dealing with Thetans is a quasi -gods method that makes it a religion.
But, what I couldn't quite pin down, though there were hints of it, is who decides what are good or bad deeds? I got the impression that it is down to good effect and bad effect - which may be why Buddhist countries can rationalize the taking of life in warfare. But killing for good reasons, say to save someone from being killed, is it a good or bad deed because it has a good effect? Is it just down to how the killer feels about it? Are deeds good or bad because of how we see it? In fact, are we the judges of our own deeds?
What I read said that this idea of 'Judgement' is a western one and rather incorrect, so I my be misunderstanding this - though if so, many people in Buddhist countries seem to have the same misunderstanding. I know, because I've been there, collecting donations for the Sangha and giving out blessings for merit. Old atheist Arq!
So I'm still wondering (apart from whether Karma is quasi -godlike enough to be the reason why Buddhism IS a religion - which I am pretty sure of) whether this natural entity of cause and effect of our deeds and actions does have some faculty of sorting our deeds into good or bad ones, taking into account what we did, why we did it and what the result was. If so, that is near enough a thinking entity as makes no difference.
But, as I say, that may be too simple a view and it might be that our actions themselves can affect our rebirth without the need for karma being some some sort of entity.
I can account for the bolded parts like so: Our actions and inactions create or relieve suffering. Karma is the means by which our actions and inactions do this. Karma is neutral toward our actions and their results.
Take donating food to the sangha. That donation relieves the poverty of the monks/nuns somewhat by giving them the means to continue toward enlightenment and accruing merit for everyone. Hence the act of donating has "seeds" in it that relieve the suffering of the monks/nuns who receive it. On the other hand, your donation means giving up food for which you labored and which you now don't have to sustain yourself. Hence your act also contains "seeds" that add to your own suffering. Just like your example of killing, the act plants both kinds of seeds.
Karma then lets all those seeds grow, both those that cause suffering and those that relieve suffering. Some seeds may not grow at all, and some may grow rapidly and wildly. We don't know beforehand which seeds will grow, or and we can't always tell whether they will relieve or add to suffering. Sometimes we can, which is why we study ethics and why right intention is so important.
And that's why we try to follow the Dharma; the Buddha, through his enlightenment, came to be able to see how such seeds grow through Karma. The path to release from samsara involves planting as few seeds as possible, and to the extent that one can't avoid planting seeds, planting seeds that relieve suffering rather than ones that add to suffering. Once those seeds are planted, Karma will do with them what Karma does.
That's the way I understand it, at least. Maybe I have it wrong, but it makes a lot of sense to me this way.
Yes. It may be my 'Western' misunderstanding, but there seemed to be a divide between doing good for the good it does for others and for oneself (which doesn't require religion at all) and the way it aligns one for in what circumstances one is reborn.
There is a definite idea of reward for good deeds (a westerner is reborn in a Buddhist country, a buddhist woman is reborn as a man, so as to be able to dedicate themselves to the three jewels more devotedly. It seems that there is some mechanism for piling up the merit of good deeds to achieve this objective (and as I say, while the donating to the sangha benefits monks and nuns, it gains merit for the donator in a way it does not if one just gives to beggars.
It looks to me (and I may be misunderstanding) that karma is an entity that can sort your actions into merit -gaining, merit losing or indifferent. Though I suppose any good deed is a good one, but nothing gains merit like paying for a slab of gold to be attached to a famous pagoda.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
