Is Buddhism a Religion?

A place to compare and contrast Dharmic traditions, debates allowed, but be polite.
AlexMcLeod
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 1:41 am

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by AlexMcLeod »

Udani wrote:so we have no doubt about his attainment. without knowing anything you guys just say he is not an Arahant. Im sure he can prove his arahantship if anyone going meet him to and challenge. how can you prove he is not and Arahant.
I can't "prove" he isn't an Arahant, just as he can't prove he is. That's beyond the point. I can get a vague sense of his mind from pictures, because the mind "colors" the energy. His attainment is only very similar to my own. Not even as pure a mind as my teacher, and certainly not on the level of a Bodhisattva or Arahant. Also, the more pure the mind, the more a person smiles. He has frown lines, and not the tell-tale smile wrinkles.
There is no Emotion, there is Peace;
There is no Ignorance, there is Knowledge;
There is no Passion, there is Serenity;
There is no Death, there is the Force.
No_Mind
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 1:54 pm

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by No_Mind »

AlexMcLeod wrote:[
I can't "prove" he isn't an Arahant, just as he can't prove he is. That's beyond the point. I can get a vague sense of his mind from pictures, because the mind "colors" the energy. His attainment is only very similar to my own. Not even as pure a mind as my teacher, and certainly not on the level of a Bodhisattva or Arahant. Also, the more pure the mind, the more a person smiles. He has frown lines, and not the tell-tale smile wrinkles.
Good observation Alex. Yesterday saw a guy at the grocer shop. He looked so peaceful (ordinary fellow in bermuda shorts buying bread). Not happy .. many people look happy (when people buy a car they look happy) .. he looked so in tune with the universe and relaxed .. I was quite taken aback.

Wanted to ask him the secret but then thought asking a stranger how he managed to look peaceful maybe deemed as weird.

:namaste:
May the Force be with you
Udani
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2016 10:51 am

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Udani »

You clearly mentioned that you can't prove he is not an arahant, so there is no need to make arguments. I just put his book for the guys who seek pristine dhamma.you guys take his arahanship to the stage. I have 100% confident in this with many years of experiance of his meditation teachings , dhamma discussions as well as his behaviours. World will realize this in near future and not worth to agur with the people who make decisions only looking at his picture. This dhamma is only for the people who willing to follow norble eight fold path and not for the hobbits who hang on arguments. If anyone has something to clarify after reading this whole book they can message me . Hv a good day
With Metta.
No_Mind
Posts: 185
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 1:54 pm

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by No_Mind »

Udani wrote:You clearly mentioned that you can't prove he is not an arahant, so there is no need to make arguments. I just put his book for the guys who seek pristine dhamma.you guys take his arahanship to the stage. I have 100% confident in this with many years of experiance of his meditation teachings , dhamma discussions as well as his behaviours. World will realize this in near future and not worth to agur with the people who make decisions only looking at his picture. This dhamma is only for the people who willing to follow norble eight fold path and not for the hobbits who hang on arguments. If anyone has something to clarify after reading this whole book they can message me . Hv a good day
With Metta.
People who are enlightened do not say they are enlightened (at least not through pdf books).

When other people come into contact with them they realize this person is an enlightened being .. like Ramana Maharishi or Ajahn Mun or Ven Ledi Sayadaw.

In Buddhist tradition one cannot claim one is an arahant .. it is one of the four parajikas (you should know that well being a Buddhist). If you want to believe he is an arahant you are welcome to do so. But do not use this forum to spread that notion.


:namaste:
May the Force be with you
AlexMcLeod
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 1:41 am

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by AlexMcLeod »

Udani wrote:You clearly mentioned that you can't prove he is not an arahant, so there is no need to make arguments. I just put his book for the guys who seek pristine dhamma.you guys take his arahanship to the stage. I have 100% confident in this with many years of experiance of his meditation teachings , dhamma discussions as well as his behaviours.
My argument was not about proof. It is quite subjective. Just as is yours. I was simply offering my reasons for saying as I did.

Certainly, he could be a very good teacher, but that is not the claim I was evaluating. The claim was Arahant. And one doesn't have to be an Arahant to be either a good teacher, or far ahead of the general population on the path.
There is no Emotion, there is Peace;
There is no Ignorance, there is Knowledge;
There is no Passion, there is Serenity;
There is no Death, there is the Force.
AlexMcLeod
Posts: 129
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 1:41 am

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by AlexMcLeod »

No_Mind wrote:Wanted to ask him the secret but then thought asking a stranger how he managed to look peaceful maybe deemed as weird.
Yeah, that would be weird. But most people don't mind a weird question every once in a while.
There is no Emotion, there is Peace;
There is no Ignorance, there is Knowledge;
There is no Passion, there is Serenity;
There is no Death, there is the Force.
User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Dharmasherab »

Buddhism (or Buddha Dharma / Buddha Dhamma) is referred to as a system of Dhamma-Vinaya. The term Vinaya, the way it is usually understood means the code of conduct followed by fully ordained Buddhist monks. But in its broadest possible meaning, the Vinaya refers to the conditions that is supportive for the Dhamma to ripen and flourish. This also includes external condition that support established Sanghas such as Buddhist monasteries, support of lay Buddhists, etc. Given that the external conditions are important not only limited to the development of the individual but also in the sense of entire communities, it is more than reasonable to consider Buddhism as a religion.

If Buddhism was not a religion then it would be possible to follow Buddhism with a religion such as Islam or Christianity. But taking the Three Refuges means that one is determined not to take spiritual refuge in anything or anyone else outside of the Three Jewels. This means that whether one has taken refuge in Muhammad/Allah, or Jesus/Yahweh a person lets go of these other refuges to take Refuge in the Three Jewels (The Buddha, The Dharma and The Sangha).

Taking Refuge in Buddha as a training rule means not to follow any other religious leader outside of the Buddhist lineages. This does not mean that other religions are bad. It means that other religions may have good teachings, but we take Refuge in the Buddha, because of the exceptional qualities of the Buddha which make him stand out from other religious leaders. One may draw inspiration from other religious paths such as Taoism, Hinduism etc, as long as we consider the Buddha's teachings as priority and not take up views contrary to his teachings.

Even from the time of the Buddha, his teachings with the community that he established did show characteristics that are so typical of religions such as a clerical order (the Sangha), places to train practitioners (Monasteries), dedicated lay supporters and followers (Upasaka/Upasika). These are just a few factors that made Buddhism distinct as a system of belief compared to the beliefs that existed at that time.

Therefore for all these reasons, Buddhism is a religion.
User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Dharmasherab »

This was a comment made by a friend of mine on social media.

"For all those who do not know the definition of the word 'religion'. From the world's most authoritative dictionary of English, the Oxford English Dictionary, let us see why it is incorrect to say that Buddhism is not a religion:

Religion: "1.a A state of life bound by monastic vows; the condition of one who is a member of a religious order, esp. in the Roman Catholic Church."
That applies perfectly to the Buddhist Sangha.

"1.b man, etc. of religion, one bound by monastic vows or in holy orders. Obs. "
That also applies to Buddhism.

"1.c house, etc. of religion, a religious house, a monastery or nunnery. Obs. "
That also applies to Buddhism.

"2.a A particular monastic or religious order or rule; †a religious house. Now rare. "
That also applies to Buddhism.

"4.a A particular system of faith and worship."
That also applies to Buddhism.

"4.c religion of nature: the worship of Nature in place of a more formal system of religious belief. "
That does not apply to Buddhism but shows you that 'religion' need not refer to a system based around a god.

"6.a Devotion to some principle; strict fidelity or faithfulness; conscientiousness; pious affection or attachment. Obs. "
That also applies to Buddhism.

And finally, the definition of 'Buddhism' from the same dictionary:
"The religious system founded by Buddha. " "
User avatar
Lotodelsol
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:49 pm

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Lotodelsol »

Dharmasherab wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:39 pm Buddhism (or Buddha Dharma / Buddha Dhamma) is referred to as a system of Dhamma-Vinaya. The term Vinaya, the way it is usually understood means the code of conduct followed by fully ordained Buddhist monks. But in its broadest possible meaning, the Vinaya refers to the conditions that is supportive for the Dhamma to ripen and flourish. This also includes external condition that support established Sanghas such as Buddhist monasteries, support of lay Buddhists, etc. Given that the external conditions are important not only limited to the development of the individual but also in the sense of entire communities, it is more than reasonable to consider Buddhism as a religion.

If Buddhism was not a religion then it would be possible to follow Buddhism with a religion such as Islam or Christianity. But taking the Three Refuges means that one is determined not to take spiritual refuge in anything or anyone else outside of the Three Jewels. This means that whether one has taken refuge in Muhammad/Allah, or Jesus/Yahweh a person lets go of these other refuges to take Refuge in the Three Jewels (The Buddha, The Dharma and The Sangha).

Taking Refuge in Buddha as a training rule means not to follow any other religious leader outside of the Buddhist lineages. This does not mean that other religions are bad. It means that other religions may have good teachings, but we take Refuge in the Buddha, because of the exceptional qualities of the Buddha which make him stand out from other religious leaders. One may draw inspiration from other religious paths such as Taoism, Hinduism etc, as long as we consider the Buddha's teachings as priority and not take up views contrary to his teachings.

Even from the time of the Buddha, his teachings with the community that he established did show characteristics that are so typical of religions such as a clerical order (the Sangha), places to train practitioners (Monasteries), dedicated lay supporters and followers (Upasaka/Upasika). These are just a few factors that made Buddhism distinct as a system of belief compared to the beliefs that existed at that time.

Therefore for all these reasons, Buddhism is a religion.
I'm not sure that Buddhism is always quite so exclusivistic... unlike Christianity or Islam, Buddhism generally doesn't insist that one give up all other religious beliefs or practices... perhaps certain groups, but Buddhist societies, no...in China being Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian is not seen as a contradiction...same in Japan for being Buddhist and Shinto, or Theravada countries in Southeast Asia where people also engage in spirit worship...this might not be orthodox Buddhism, but it is reality in much of the world.
Buddhism is in many ways more focused on práctice than adopting a certain set of beliefs. Even those ordaining in Theravada Buddhism are not commanded to adopt a certain belief system or set of dogmas (though of course Buddhism has certain key teachings), they are simply expected to keep the vinaya regardless of personally held beliefs. I knew Christians who ordained, they weren't forced to renounce their previous beliefs, and were good monks, too.
One should become the master of one's mind rather than let one's mind master oneself.
User avatar
Lotodelsol
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:49 pm

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Lotodelsol »

I think that Buddhism certainly is a religion by most definitions...but it is also a philosophy. Buddhism can accomodate people who want to take either or both from it.
One should become the master of one's mind rather than let one's mind master oneself.
User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Dharmasherab »

Lotodelsol wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:17 pm I'm not sure that Buddhism is always quite so exclusivistic... unlike Christianity or Islam, Buddhism generally doesn't insist that one give up all other religious beliefs or practices..
It actually does. Exclusivity is not a bad thing. For example, not everyone who is unqualified can become a doctor, lawyer or an engineer. Likewise those who havnt taken Refuge at the very least are not Buddhists. To take Refuge is to see the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha as the excellent refuge towards Enlightenment. To take Refuge as a set of training rules means not to take refuge in anything else outside of the 3 Jewels.
Lotodelsol wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:17 pm perhaps certain groups, but Buddhist societies, no...in China being Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian is not seen as a contradiction...same in Japan for being Buddhist and Shinto, or Theravada countries in Southeast Asia where people also engage in spirit worship...this might not be orthodox Buddhism, but it is reality in much of the world.


This is the main problem behind trying to give importance to what people do in the name of religion and coming to a conclusion about a doctrine based on the external behaviours of those who claim to follow that doctrine from an external point of view. Not only this is blind, but it leads to erroneous conclusions. Such people tend to make misguided incorrect conclusions such as "I have seen Buddhists kill animals, so therefore in Buddhism its okay to kill animals". Not only it is wrong but it is also insulting, given that those who dont know anything about Buddhism, when they hear such statements are not going to know as to who is compliant with the Buddhist teachings within their own school compared to people who have the label of Buddhism and do whatever they want even if that means killing, stealing, infidelity and following wrong paths which do not lead to Nirvana.

Just because people decide to mix and mash what they like, it doesnt make it complaint with what the Buddha taught as recognised by the teachings of Buddhism (whether that is Sravakayana, Mahayana or Vajrayana). Secular history may have its own academic view on how different schools of Buddhism evolved. But those who follow their own school of Buddhism usually accept their own traditionalist history of how their lineages began and that may not always correlate with a secular academic view of such schools. Even if that was the case, it doesnt give the academics the prerogative as to what those schools of Buddhism are and impose their views on followers of such schools.

In addition to this, one who has truly taken Refuge (i.e. a Buddhist) may wish to incorporate other aspects from other religions, as long as she or he doesnt consider that as a refuge. For example a Buddhist may take up Hatha Yoga which is a practice in Hinduism. From a Refuge point of view this is fine, as long as the Buddhist does not see Hatha Yoga as a Refuge (or a path) that liberates one from Samsara. One may believe or be convinced that such Yogic practices may help the body prepare so that the mind is more oriented towards meditation practice. But with respect to a path, it is to see that Hatha Yoga is its own path which recognises its own goals and outcomes which is not the same as Niravana as far as Buddhism is concerned.
Lotodelsol wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:17 pm Buddhism is in many ways more focused on práctice than adopting a certain set of beliefs.


This is incorrect. The belief that the Buddha was a real enlightened being is important. This conviction is based on faith given that none of us unenlightened people can dip into Buddha's experience at will. Therefore it is appreciate that the Buddha really existed in the world in history as well as be convinced that his enlightenment was genuine and not fabricated. If I did not have faith that the Buddha was enlightened, then I dont have a reason to follow his teachings, which also means that I dont have a reason to take refuge.
Lotodelsol wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:17 pm Even those ordaining in Theravada Buddhism are not commanded to adopt a certain belief system or set of dogmas (though of course Buddhism has certain key teachings), they are simply expected to keep the vinaya regardless of personally held beliefs.


Extremely wrong. During the time of the Buddha there was a Bhikkhu who said that "when the 5 Hindrances are observed in the mind, just observing them is good enough, and one does not need to do anything about it". The Buddha rebuked the Bhikkhu, and the Sangha gave him a condition. This was to either accept that the Hindrances (Nivarana) should not only be recognised, but they also should be overcome, or he was asked to disrobe. The acceptance of the 5 Hindrances (Panca Nivarana) is a small aspect compared to the rest of the corpus of Theravada doctrine. If the Buddha gave this condition for something like the 5 Hindrances, then it is out of the question that one is required to adopt specific beliefs which are compliant with what the Buddha taught at a faith level till realisations come into mind.
Lotodelsol wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:17 pm I knew Christians who ordained, they weren't forced to renounce their previous beliefs, and were good monks, too.


The Christians who ordained did not know the reason why they were ordaining for. In a proper ordination lineage if one was to violate Refuge Vows (as in follow another religion whiles being a Bhikshu) then one is guilty of impersonating a Bhikshu and immediate confession and disrobing is recommended. Then one is no longer allowed to become a Bhikshu in that lifetime ever again. If one conceals this and secretly follows other religions and takes refuge in their leaders/founders as well as take up their articles of faith as having a liberating essence whiles being a fully ordained monastic (Bhikshu) then this is extreme bad karma that is likely to lead to rebirth in the lowest of lower realms (Naraka/Niraya).
Lotodelsol wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:17 pm I think that Buddhism certainly is a religion by most definitions...but it is also a philosophy. Buddhism can accommodate people who want to take either or both from it.


The word philosophy does not do full justice when it comes to appreciating the different domains within the body of knowledge within Buddhism. There are aspects to Buddhism which are outside the domain of philosophy hence the term philosophy touches only some aspects of Buddhism but it is not an all encompassing categorical term that includes Buddhism in its entirety. Buddhism is not just limited to discussing the reality of the world and the nature of our existence. It is also a path with its own practices for the sake of an intended outcome which is not necessarily a feature of philosophy.

Ofcourse people are free to pick and choose from Buddhism. But that does not make them part of CatuParisa or Sangha. Buddhism has its own dedicated followers at the level of faith as well as practice and they are distinct from those who wish to take teachings from Buddhism by picking and choosing allowing their preferences and intuition to guide their instincts. They are not the same.

Such people did exist during the time of Buddha. But today we wont hear about the casual 'fell good pagan' who would cherry pick teachings just to reinforce their own delusions. Instead the Buddhist texts speak highly of those who let go of other paths which did not help towards Nibbana and fully committed to the teachings of Buddha. When I say committed I mean that from their life stories they were willing to let go of their preferences and surrender entirely to the teachings of Buddha. This is true Refuge. Examples of such figures from Theravada are Anatapindika, Ananda, Upali, Visakha.

***************

On an end note I would encourage you to post after being educated on such a topic. I find the content you posted as misguiding and dangerous. Now I do not know whether you have taken Refuge or follow a different religion, but if one hasnt taken Refuge then one should not speak for Buddhism. Its better to educate oneself first before being vocal on forums. Misguiding others away from Buddhism is very bad karma.
User avatar
Lotodelsol
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:49 pm

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Lotodelsol »

Lotodelsol wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:17 pm
Dharmasherab wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:39 pm Buddhism (or Buddha Dharma / Buddha Dhamma) is referred to as a system of Dhamma-Vinaya. The term Vinaya, the way it is usually understood means the code of conduct followed by fully ordained Buddhist monks. But in its broadest possible meaning, the Vinaya refers to the conditions that is supportive for the Dhamma to ripen and flourish. This also includes external condition that support established Sanghas such as Buddhist monasteries, support of lay Buddhists, etc. Given that the external conditions are important not only limited to the development of the individual but also in the sense of entire communities, it is more than reasonable to consider Buddhism as a religion.

If Buddhism was not a religion then it would be possible to follow Buddhism with a religion such as Islam or Christianity. But taking the Three Refuges means that one is determined not to take spiritual refuge in anything or anyone else outside of the Three Jewels. This means that whether one has taken refuge in Muhammad/Allah, or Jesus/Yahweh a person lets go of these other refuges to take Refuge in the Three Jewels (The Buddha, The Dharma and The Sangha).

Taking Refuge in Buddha as a training rule means not to follow any other religious leader outside of the Buddhist lineages. This does not mean that other religions are bad. It means that other religions may have good teachings, but we take Refuge in the Buddha, because of the exceptional qualities of the Buddha which make him stand out from other religious leaders. One may draw inspiration from other religious paths such as Taoism, Hinduism etc, as long as we consider the Buddha's teachings as priority and not take up views contrary to his teachings.

Even from the time of the Buddha, his teachings with the community that he established did show characteristics that are so typical of religions such as a clerical order (the Sangha), places to train practitioners (Monasteries), dedicated lay supporters and followers (Upasaka/Upasika). These are just a few factors that made Buddhism distinct as a system of belief compared to the beliefs that existed at that time.

Therefore for all these reasons, Buddhism is a religion.
I'm not sure that Buddhism is always quite so exclusivistic... unlike Christianity or Islam, Buddhism generally doesn't insist that one give up all other religious beliefs or practices... perhaps certain groups, but Buddhist societies, no...in China being Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian is not seen as a contradiction...same in Japan for being Buddhist and Shinto, or Theravada countries in Southeast Asia where people also engage in spirit worship...this might not be orthodox Buddhism, but it is reality in much of the world.
Buddhism is in many ways more focused on práctice than adopting a certain set of beliefs. Even those ordaining in Theravada Buddhism are not commanded to adopt a certain belief system or set of dogmas (though of course Buddhism has certain key teachings), they are simply expected to keep the vinaya regardless of personally held beliefs. I knew Christians who ordained, they weren't forced to renounce their previous beliefs, and were good monks, too.
Well, perhaps your view is "true" orthodox Buddhism...but It has little correlation to the realities in Buddhist countries
Yes, perhaps 99.9% of the Buddhist world doesn't subscribe to your dogmátic views of Buddhism, we're all on the highway to hell... I'm not enlightened, are you? Guessing you're a westerner from a Christian background with strong beliefs as to what "true" or "original" Buddhism really is, yes I've taken refuge in Thailand from respected teachers, none expresed such dogmátic views as yours, some are considered sotapanna or more, perhaps you could correct their "dangerous" positions?
This is why I generally avoid religion, and those who are fanatical or slightly off, not in touch with the realities on the ground, by all means carry on.
Meds
I Will discontinue posting on this forum, my ideas have no validity nor do those of 99.99999% of Buddhists,
Last edited by DNS on Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: profanity removed
One should become the master of one's mind rather than let one's mind master oneself.
User avatar
Lotodelsol
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2021 2:49 pm

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Lotodelsol »

Lotodelsol wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:52 am
Lotodelsol wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 6:17 pm
Dharmasherab wrote: Tue Jun 29, 2021 1:39 pm Buddhism (or Buddha Dharma / Buddha Dhamma) is referred to as a system of Dhamma-Vinaya. The term Vinaya, the way it is usually understood means the code of conduct followed by fully ordained Buddhist monks. But in its broadest possible meaning, the Vinaya refers to the conditions that is supportive for the Dhamma to ripen and flourish. This also includes external condition that support established Sanghas such as Buddhist monasteries, support of lay Buddhists, etc. Given that the external conditions are important not only limited to the development of the individual but also in the sense of entire communities, it is more than reasonable to consider Buddhism as a religion.

If Buddhism was not a religion then it would be possible to follow Buddhism with a religion such as Islam or Christianity. But taking the Three Refuges means that one is determined not to take spiritual refuge in anything or anyone else outside of the Three Jewels. This means that whether one has taken refuge in Muhammad/Allah, or Jesus/Yahweh a person lets go of these other refuges to take Refuge in the Three Jewels (The Buddha, The Dharma and The Sangha).

Taking Refuge in Buddha as a training rule means not to follow any other religious leader outside of the Buddhist lineages. This does not mean that other religions are bad. It means that other religions may have good teachings, but we take Refuge in the Buddha, because of the exceptional qualities of the Buddha which make him stand out from other religious leaders. One may draw inspiration from other religious paths such as Taoism, Hinduism etc, as long as we consider the Buddha's teachings as priority and not take up views contrary to his teachings.

Even from the time of the Buddha, his teachings with the community that he established did show characteristics that are so typical of religions such as a clerical order (the Sangha), places to train practitioners (Monasteries), dedicated lay supporters and followers (Upasaka/Upasika). These are just a few factors that made Buddhism distinct as a system of belief compared to the beliefs that existed at that time.

Therefore for all these reasons, Buddhism is a religion.
I'm not sure that Buddhism is always quite so exclusivistic... unlike Christianity or Islam, Buddhism generally doesn't insist that one give up all other religious beliefs or practices... perhaps certain groups, but Buddhist societies, no...in China being Buddhist, Taoist and Confucian is not seen as a contradiction...same in Japan for being Buddhist and Shinto, or Theravada countries in Southeast Asia where people also engage in spirit worship...this might not be orthodox Buddhism, but it is reality in much of the world.
Buddhism is in many ways more focused on práctice than adopting a certain set of beliefs. Even those ordaining in Theravada Buddhism are not commanded to adopt a certain belief system or set of dogmas (though of course Buddhism has certain key teachings), they are simply expected to keep the vinaya regardless of personally held beliefs. I knew Christians who ordained, they weren't forced to renounce their previous beliefs, and were good monks, too.
Well, perhaps your view is "true" orthodox Buddhism...but It has little correlation to the realities in Buddhist countries
Yes, perhaps 99.9% of the Buddhist world doesn't subscribe to your dogmátic views of Buddhism, we're all on the highway to hell... I'm not enlightened, are you? Guessing you're a westerner from a Christian background with strong beliefs as to what "true" or "original" Buddhism really is, yes I've taken refuge in Thailand from respected teachers, none expresed such dogmátic views as yours, some are considered sotapanna or more, perhaps you could correct their "dangerous" positions?
This is why I generally avoid religion, and those who are fanatical or slightly off, not in touch with the realities on the ground, by all means carry on.
Meds
I Will discontinue posting on this forum, my ideas have no validity nor do those of 99.99999% of Buddhists, you alone possess accurate knowledge of the White Buddhist talibán ex-Christian self righteous culturally superior & arrogant c u next Tuesday, yes your EGO Is 100% correct mental wanking, feel satisfied in that...you can tell Asia what whitey thinks Buddhism really is & impose that...enjoy t w a t, never gt laid btch you're right, sooo right ego self stimulator fkwad
Dear moderator, the enlightened being said my position Is dangerous so I respect the views of the Arahant as the only orthodox View and Will return to my deluded teachers who presumably are ignorant fools, he Is right, I'm a fool as are most Buddhists in the world. I apologize, he can impose the correct View of Buddhism which he alone possesses, I Will just stfu and never post again. He wins!
One should become the master of one's mind rather than let one's mind master oneself.
Ajay0
Posts: 121
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 6:30 am

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Ajay0 »

Discussions should be focused on realizing the truth of the matter rather than illusory personal victories or defeats. :namaste:

There is an often quoted guideline by the enlightened sage Sree Narayan Guru on ensuring proper and regulated
discussions and debates, which are of a productive nature in unveiling the truth and are not counter-productive .

'Not to debate and win,

But to learn and inform.'


Truth is impersonal, it is the false selves or ego's that are personal and which is the source of conflict.So let us be mindful and objective while discussing and arrive at the truth with proper and regulated speech and thought. :anjali:

This arrival at impersonal truth is the true victory. So-called personal victories in this regard is really a defeat whether one likes it or not. So let us discipline and train ourselves to be mentally equanimous, objective and not be swayed by emotions. :meditate:
Wholesome virtuous behavior progressively leads to the foremost.~ Buddha AN 10.1

If you do right, irrespective of what the other does, it will slow down the mind. ~ Rajini Menon
User avatar
Nicholas
Posts: 2081
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2016 8:21 pm
Location: California

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Nicholas »

Dharmasherab wrote: Wed Jul 21, 2021 7:07 pm
On an end note I would encourage you to post after being educated on such a topic. I find the content you posted as misguiding and dangerous. Now I do not know whether you have taken Refuge or follow a different religion, but if one hasnt taken Refuge then one should not speak for Buddhism. Its better to educate oneself first before being vocal on forums. Misguiding others away from Buddhism is very bad karma.
Dharma Paths is an interfaith experiment, it is not expected of posters that any or all will be well informed or respectful of every Path talked about here. Many opinions expressed here may be wrong or misleading, but such is life.

On the other hand, one should try to accept criticism, as well as dish it out.
Truth is against the stream of common thought, deep, subtle, difficult, delicate, unseen by passion’s slaves cloaked in the murk of ignorance. Vipassī Buddha
User avatar
DNS
Site Admin
Posts: 5634
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2016 6:36 pm
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada, Estados Unidos de América
Contact:

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by DNS »

Nicholas wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 2:12 pm Dharma Paths is an interfaith experiment, it is not expected of posters that any or all will be well informed or respectful of every Path talked about here. Many opinions expressed here may be wrong or misleading, but such is life.

On the other hand, one should try to accept criticism, as well as dish it out.
Agreed, especially on an interfaith site, there are bound to be some disagreements; but that's no reason for anyone to leave in a huff. It's a sign of progress when one can handle some degree of criticism and disagreements.
User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Dharmasherab »

Lotodelsol wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:52 am Well, perhaps your view is "true" orthodox Buddhism...
No. What I explained by and large is common to most forms of Buddhism.
Take a look at the Basic points unifying Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism. It explains about the 3 Refuges being common to all forms of Buddhism.
Lotodelsol wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:52 am but It has little correlation to the realities in Buddhist countries
There are Buddhists who are gamblers and sell alcohol. Just because people put a label of Buddhism upon themselves and do whatever they like it doesnt mean that they are practising any type Buddhism in any of the three main schools of Buddhism (Sravakayana, Mahayana and Vajrayana).
Lotodelsol wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:52 am Yes, perhaps 99.9% of the Buddhist world doesn't subscribe to your dogmátic views of Buddhism,
How do you know its 99.9% of Buddhists? Have you done a population study? Have you spoken to all Buddhists around the world as to what they believe. The numbers game is a dangerous game. Best not to make up statistics if you havnt done any yourself or not having the statistical evidence to back up your claims. Or otherwise one is practising Wrong Speech. Lying is a form of wrong speech.
Lotodelsol wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:52 am we're all on the highway to hell...
You dont know unless you are clairvoyant.
Lotodelsol wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:52 am I'm not enlightened, are you?

Dear moderator, the enlightened being said my position Is dangerous so I respect the views of the Arahant as the only orthodox View and Will return to my deluded teachers who presumably are ignorant fools, he Is right, I'm a fool as are most Buddhists in the world. I apologize, he can impose the correct View of Buddhism which he alone possesses, I Will just stfu and never post again. He wins!
I am not enlightened (and thats why I am ordaining). Being Enlightened is not a requirement to post in a forum like this. I live in a monastery and most of the monk I respect and listen to are also unenlightened but it doesnt mean that their advice in relation to Dhamma and Vinaya is invalid. Ofcourse, the teaching of a Buddha or Arahant is of high accuracy as their teachings come from a realised point of view. But till then it is accepted in the Buddhist world that there are teachers or those who simply want to share their knowledge to share what they know. You should not be calling others Enlightened out of sarcasm as this is not Right Speech.
Lotodelsol wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:52 am Guessing you're a westerner from a Christian background with strong beliefs as to what "true" or "original" Buddhism really is,
I am an Eastern Buddhist (i.e. I am an Asian born to Buddhist parents). I was originally a Theravada Buddhist but later changed to Vajrayana Buddhism. To disprove the points you made, I didnt have to take the position as to what I thought was the original Buddhism. Your statements can be disproven for a lot less, as the claims you made are inconsistent from what is common to all forms of traditional Buddhism as explained in the article 'Basic Points common to Mahayana and Theravada' which I already shared with you. Whether you want to look through that or not, that is upto you.


Lotodelsol wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:52 am none expresed such dogmátic views as yours,
You accuse me of being dogmatic. Nowadays there is position taken by some that "you are not dogmatic as long as you agree with my 'dogma'". Please be aware that my position is no more 'dogmatic' than yours. It goes without saying that Buddhism like all religions/spiritual paths or belief systems has its own articles which are based on dogma from the view point of unenlightened beings. And when I use the word dogma I mean articles which are accepted within a certain group of people. For example, for Buddhists, most of us who havnt seen the Buddha, we accept that his enlightenment was genuine and not fabricated. We dont have evidence to believe that he was enlightened as most of us dont even know what enlightenment is. But we as Buddhists continue to believe that and till enlightenment is reached this is dogma. And when I use the word dogma I dont mean it in the vulgar sense of defying questioning and reasoning to forcefully impose one's belief on others. This was never the meaning of dogma but a later epithet that evolved by those who incorrectly use that term.
Lotodelsol wrote: Fri Jul 23, 2021 1:52 am This is why I generally avoid religion, and those who are fanatical or slightly off, not in touch with the realities on the ground, by all means carry on.
Till we are enlightened we will all see the world through a distorted perception. One should not be so arrogant or self-rightous to label others with viewpoints different from yours as 'fanatical' or 'slightly off'.
User avatar
Masaru
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 8:41 pm

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Masaru »

plwk wrote: Sat Sep 10, 2016 2:44 pm The “religion without God” has baffled Western thinkers for hundreds of years.
How did they manage to miss all of the Buddhist gods?
User avatar
Dharmasherab
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Nov 13, 2017 7:36 pm

Re: Is Buddhism a Religion?

Post by Dharmasherab »

Masaru wrote: Sat Jul 24, 2021 3:17 pm How did they manage to miss all of the Buddhist gods?
Its because when Europeans came across Buddhism they translated words like 'devas' in Pali on 'gods' in English. But these devas are not theistic entities. They do not create, destroy or maintain the universe at their own will. They do not play a role in sending their own message to mankind to obey as the ultimate instruction for mankind to obey. They do not play a role in judging mankind and decide what their afterlife will become.

These devas are to be seen as celestial entities who are also sentient beings that are vulnerable to suffering and are part of samsara.

It shows that to be a religion, a belief system need not include the view of an eternal agent that creates and controls the universe at its will.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 17 guests