Buddhism is not a religion.
Well, that settles it.
Have you noticed though that a lot of people seem to think it is? Perhaps you could (1) give an account of why so many people have succumbed to this error and (2) disabuse them by providing your explanation as to why it is not a religion?
Whether Buddhism is or is not a religion depends on what kind of Buddhism you’re talking about and what your definition of “religion” is.
Buddhism is a philosphy and a mental discipline which over the cenuries got adapted and fused with some pre-existing indigeonous religious practices and beliefs, but it’s not defined by those practices or beliefs and can and does often exist without them. Most of what people mean when they say “religion” does not have any application in Buddhism. There are no necessary metaphysical beliefs. There is nothing you have to worship (though you can if you want to). There is nothing supernatural. In its essence, Buddhism is just about using meditation and mental discipline to attain a state of consciousness or awareness in which one is free of the inherent dissatisfactions of life. It’s not “spiritual.” It’s not magic. It’s not devotional. It’s not doctrinal. It’s a mental discipline the way yoga is a physical discipline. It’s no more a “religion” than kung fu is a religion, even though both can certainly be adpated to and learned within a broader, “religious” cultural context.
Not all Buddhists schools have any religious trappings or beliefs at all, and some will say outright that they aren’t religions.
If you want to think it’s a religion, knock yourself out, but you don’t get to tell other people (Buddhsist and non-Buddhists alike) how THEY have to think of it.
Because they’re ignorant.
Sure, you provide a link that describes what some Kabbalists think (i.e. the “Zohar” work and the mystic Arizal from your link), which is no surprise since Kabbalists are mystics, and mystics from many religious traditions have similar ideas.
What about mainstream Judaism?
From the wikipedia entry on Kabbalah, under the section of “Orthodox Judaism”, it says
Also, if we follow the link to Dor Daim
Dio, I know you have extensive background on religious issues, but even a quick 15-minute wikipedia search showed you are wrong on this.
This is an account of Western-style, Buddhist-inspired practices. You have elsewhere in this thread dismissed evidence from Wikipedia (and backed therein with citations) with “Don’t believe everything you read in Wikipedia.” Nevertheless, the plurality of religious scholars count Buddhism as religious (see opening sentence Buddhism, and n.1-2) and devotion is identified as “an important part of the practice of most Buddhists” (see Buddhist Devotion and n.1). Your own description above contains no citations to either studies of actual practices or any consensus accounts of what Buddhism is.
I wouldn’t claim that your description is made out of whole cloth, as I said, it is a system of beliefs at least inspired by Buddhist philosophy that has some currency in the West. To say that this is the Form of Buddhism, however, while disregarding the religious aspect of Buddhism that most non-Western followers participate in, and for no better reason than to use it as a foil to Christianity in Western cultural battles, seems, at best, to be an unbecoming, if unwitting, instance of cultural appropriation.
As to your explanation of why so many people erroneously (in your view) believe that Buddhism is a religion, I will address that once the question is seriously entertained – a prospect I do particularly expect.
By the way, this whole Buddha/reincarnation issue is a side issue.
There are two aspects to the BCE/BC case
-
Some people don’t feel comfortable saying BC because of its religious connotations
-
Given the above, the solution is to use BCE
The problem with (1) is that these same people are being very selective in which religious things (from religions other than their own) they feel comfortable using (e.g. OK with San Francisco and Christchurch, not OK with BC), which is a bit disingenuous or idiotic, depending on the cause of the selectivity
Having said that, even if we grant that people are entitled to feel comfortable with whatever they wish to feel comfortable with, and it’s OK to have contradictory feelings of comfort with different things, the “solution” in (2) is dumb, for the reasons I listed in post #70. Going +/- is much better.
I didn’t say itt was a universal Jewish belief, I said it was a common one and it is. Judaism has no Pope or official rule book on afterlife beliefs, so it doesn’t matter if some rabbis say it isn’t Jewish. You can’t get 100% of all rabbis to agree on much of f anything. The fact still remains that you can be Jewish and believe in reincarnation.
The fact also remains that is going very far afield to try to make what is essentially a reaching and specious point on your part. If a Jewish person does not want to call Jesus “Christ” or “Lord,” they don’t have to justify it to you, nor are they bound by your interpretation of how you think Jews have to view Buddhism.
Plus calling somebody a “Buddha” does not necessiatate any belief in reincarnation anyway.
No, it’s an account of Eastern Buddhism from its earliest inception.
You have it completely wrong. I am emphatically NOT talking about western Buddhism. I am talking about EASTERN Buddhism in some of its oldest traditions. I actually don’t much about Americanized Buddhism because all I’ve ever studied is Eastern traditions. I’ll tell it to you again really slow. Buddhism, as tradition holds it was originally formulated in the 4 Noble Truths, contains no necessary metaphysical or theological beliefs, and hence, no religious content. There are some iterations of Buddhism (Like Tibetan Buddhism or Pure land Buddhism) which incorporated preexisting cultural religious beliefs and practices into the discipline, and some have fused with it to the point that they are virtual religions unto themselves, but none of those beliefs or practices are DEFINITIONAL. None of them are required to practice the disciplines. None of them are required to call yourself a Buddhist.
My answer stands. People think it’s a religion because they don’t know anything about it.
This is a highly specious objection on your point, but more importantly, it’;s irrelvant. It’s not your place to choose what they have to be comfortable with.
You have still failed to articulate a reason why “Common/Christian Era” is “dumb.”
ETA, there are no “contradictory” feelings being expressed. Your attempts to equate “Christ” to “Buddhist” or “Anno Domini” to “San Francisco” are just feeble and sophist.
Holy crap. I just noticed this thread is in IMHO. All this time I thought it was in the Pit for some reason. My apologies if my polemic has been inapproriately heated for this forum.
Oh, please. scifisam2009 didn’t say “That presumes that Jesus actually was the Christ.” He said, “That presumes he actually existed” (emphasis added). There’s a world of difference between the two phrasings. It’s the sort of sloppiness that one has to dance around by saying, “Oh, but, um… maybe Jesus existed but the Christ didn’t. Yeah, that’s it.”
Remember, the operative phrase here is “Before Christ,” not “Before the Christ.” In this context, the term “Christ” is used as a personal name, not as a title. (Yes, it’s a title, but it is also frequently used as a name, and the vast majority of folks have no idea that it’s anything else.)
Actually, I also said that this dating presumes that the messiah actually existed, since messiah = Christ. Check the post this originally came up in.
You cannot seriously be saying that BC doesn’t say ‘Christ - the one from the Bible who’s the song of God, yeah, the religious one - existed.’ It’s not talking about some old magician, rebel leader, cult leader or amalgam of several different magicians, rebel leaders etc, the kind that some historians think might have inspired the Jesus story. It’s not talking about some random dude named Jesus. It’s talking about the one that can walk on water.
If you claim that BC is not about the religious Christ, then you’re the one dancing around word meanings.
(FYI, scifisam = she).
-
Because most people don’t know anything about it other than, “fat guy under tree, Nirvana, reincarnation, Dalai Lama”.
-
Because religion implies organized worship of one or more deities; belief in a higher power, though as common among Buddhists as nonbelief, is not an essential part of the practice of Buddhism. Buddhism does function as a religion, since adherence to it generally means nonadherence to any other organized spiritual code, but that doesn’t mean it is one.
Some of the people who believe Buddhism is a religion/family of religions are religious scholars. I would suppose that these academics have a view slightly more nuanced understanding than “fat guy under tree, Nirvana, reincarnation, Dalai Lama.”
Several points:
(a) I think your definition of religion is a little too pat and based on your experience of modern Western religions. What about animism, which is typically not organized and which is more pantheistic rather than given to worshipping one or more deities. Shinto is more organized perhaps, but otherwise also much like animism. What about modern “neopagan” nature-based religions, which have a measure of hierarchy, but few would call it organized religion.
(b) I am troubled by Westerners announcing that Buddhist devotion, a typical practice of a large number of Buddhists (more than half their numbers), is somehow inauthentic, and that essential Buddhism (whatever that should be taken to mean) does not require such practices/beliefs. For me, the question “What is Religion X?” is answered by asking “What do most adherents of Religion X believe and do in respect of their religion?”. It certainly does not come from, at least in the case of Buddhism, the philosophical introspection of white people in Florida and Minnesota who read some wikipedia articles, and perhaps a book or two, on the subject. This is not to say that outsiders cannot furnish serviceable reports about religious beliefs; but when those outsiders start discounting the practices of a majority of the religion’s adepts because this pared-down Western conception of Buddhism has proven to be useful in American cultural battles over the rôle of religion in public life, then I am prepared to junk those reports.
(c) It seems Buddhism does function as a religion. It has features we associate with religions elsewhere: holidays, festivals, contemplative practices, guidelines for personal purity, &c. I think, in asking “Is this system of beliefs a religion?” the functional analysis provides the best method for deciding that. Unlike you, I think Buddhism does function as a religion, for the reasons given above. I am surprised you don’t; I imagine that if you really thought about the function of Buddhism in the lives of Buddhists/in Buddhist societies, you would come to the opposite conclusion.
Yes, but that’s not the comment I was responding to.
Right. It does NOT say that. It simply says “Before Christ” – and the word “Christ” can be used as either a personal name or as a religious title for the Messiah.
The vast majority of people simply treat it as a personal name. This is especially evident when they refer to him as “Christ” rather than “The Christ.”
Lots of religious scholars also say it’s NOT a religion. Like I said upthread, it depends a lot on what form of Buddhism you’re talking about and what your definition of “religion” is.
Those all have metaphysical, supernatural,“theological” beliefs. Buddhism necessitates nothing like that.
Nobody has said that, and I think you misunderstand the word “essential.” It is not synonomous with “authentic.” It just means that which is minimally required to call a belief or practice “Buddhist.” Supernatural beliefs are optional. That doesn’t mean they’re “inauthetic,” just that Buddhism can and does exist without them and always has. Have you ever heard of Zen?
This is a circular formula which attempts to define what is essential by simply declaring by fiat, that whatver any adherent practices is essential because they practice it. It doesn’t work that way.
I’m not the one trying to cite Wikipedia in this thread, and I certainly didn’t get my knowledge from it. For whatever it’s worth (which I don’t try to aver is overwhelming), I do have a BA in Religious Studies and had a particular emphasis on Eastern traditions. In addition I have been a practioner of Zen Meditation for close to 20 years, and have done a considerable amount of study on my own.
“Outsiders?” who are you talking about? Outsiders to what. How are you defining “outsider?”
I also don’t know where you’re getting this “western” thing. I’m talking about Eastern Buddhism, not western (which I know very little about), and you’re simply making it up when you say that anything has been “discounted” about any Budhist practice at all. Nobody has saud that Buddhists who incorporate religious beliefs and practices into the discipline aren’t really Buddhist. What we;re telling you is that they aren’t NECCESSARY, It’s OTIONAL> It’s not “wrong” or “inauthentic,” It’s basically just irrelevant.
[quote]
(c) It seems Buddhism does function as a religion. It has features we associate with religions elsewhere: holidays, festivals, contemplative practices, guidelines for personal purity, &c.
[/quoteYou cann say the same thing about national patriotism.
I think most people would say that the definition of “religion” would require some kind of necessary assumptions or beliefs of a metaphysical nature. If you’re just going to say it’s anything “organized,” then fooball is a religion.
With regards to the origin of this tangent, and it’s relationship to the ostensible thread topic, your definition of “religion” pretty much surrenders the argument. The assertion was made that it’s inconsistent for Jews to avoid calling Jesus “Messiah” and “Lord” unless they also avoid the word “Buddha,” because calling someone “Buddha” is religiously inconsistent with Jewish beliefs. That contention has not been supported, and merely trying to wave a magic wand and say that all Buddhism is necessarily “religious,” and therefore necessarily in contradiction to Jewish religious beliefsm, and therefore so is any use of the title “Buddha,” is already an incredible exercise in facile semantics, cultural ignorance and grasping at straws. Trying to further prop up that house of cards by broadening your definiton of “religion” tobthe extent that it’s basically meaningless is not only sophist, but loses sight of the original assertion that the word “Buddha” supposedly contradicts Jewish religious beliefs.
For lots and lots of people, it only means “Messiah,” and the Messiah hasn’t come yet. It’s not for the “vast majority” to decide how the minority has to view the word or to dictate whether they should feel religiously comfortable using it.
I didn’t refer to anything as “essential Buddhism”. I said that something isn’t an “essential practice of Buddhism”, and I think you know exactly what I mean. However, since you say you don’t, I’ll explain.
The essential practice of Christianity is the act of accepting JC as one’s lord and savior, and that’s it. Anything else you do is extraneous. The essential practice of Islam is acknowledging one’s submission to Allah. Anything else you do is extraneous. The essential practice of Buddhism is to seek the middle way, through observation of the four noble truths, and try not to be a dick. Anything else you do is extraneous.
If a Buddhist wants to call their belief system a religion, that’s totally up to them, and I certainly wouldn’t argue. However, because Buddhism is in many ways totally unlike “Western” religions, or even the other dharmic religions (read: Indian religions), it doesn’t really fit the word.
I am an Indian-American in Florida, for what it’s worth. I attended a Buddhist youth group (as well as Hindu ones) when I was a kid.
Re-read my post. I specifically said it functions as a religion. I also said that doesn’t make it one.
RNATB makes a similar point as well (the “essential practice” of Christianity is the belief in the divinity and redemption of Jesus Christ). I am not sure I buy it. Suppose a person had the requisite belief in JC, but beyond that, his religious life was indistinguishable from that of an atheist or a Muslim. I don’t know that we would readily call such person a Christian.
Also, who decides this? Is there a significant fraction of Christians who say “Whatever else you do, if you do this you are Christian, everything else is optional.” I don’t know if this get said, or if it does get said, whether it is implemented in practice. (I.e., do these people who claim the possibility of “minimal Christianity” really not inveigle things like church attendance or evangelizing or the like?) Even still, can we be sure this essential/optional split is just not an artifact of Christianity? For instance, although RNATB states the minimal practice of Islam is “submission to Allah,” the expression of this submission incorporates a whole host of practices.
Not really a circle, more like a Möbius strip! What I was getting at with the phrase “with respect to their religion” is that a commonality of belief among Buddhists is not alone enough to make it a Buddhist belief, although it is a necessary condition. For instance, let’s take it as probable that most Buddhists who have a belief regarding the matter believe that Kathmandu is the capital of Nepal. Let’s go further and state that proportionally more Buddhists know this fact than non-Buddhists.
So, here is a common, and even somewhat distinctive, belief among Buddhists: Kathmandu is the capital of Nepal. Nevertheless, no on confuses this for a Buddhist belief. Neither essentially nor optionally.
It would be nice to come up with criteria other than “in respect of their religion,” but this is probably an ongoing project in the philosophy of religion, since last I heard, the question “What makes something a religion” has not been definitively answered.
Yes. And that’s an interesting question: why is national patriotism not religion? If my “Religion X is what people who practice Religion X do and believe in respect of there religion” is a Möbius strip, then your response here, “no metaphysical beliefs,” is a Klein bottle. It does not lean quite so conspicuously on presupposing what religion is, but in truth, by “no metaphysical beliefs” you mean “no religious beliefs” or at least “no beliefs we typically associate with religion.”
But if you can explain how we know if a given belief is metaphysical without reference to religion, you will have pulled off a remarkable accomplishment.

I didn’t refer to anything as “essential Buddhism”. I said that something isn’t an “essential practice of Buddhism”, and I think you know exactly what I mean. However, since you say you don’t, I’ll explain.
The essential practice of Christianity is the act of accepting JC as one’s lord and savior, and that’s it. Anything else you do is extraneous. The essential practice of Islam is acknowledging one’s submission to Allah. Anything else you do is extraneous. The essential practice of Buddhism is to seek the middle way, through observation of the four noble truths, and try not to be a dick. Anything else you do is extraneous.
This is the part of your post I refer to above.
I am an Indian-American in Florida, for what it’s worth. I attended a Buddhist youth group (as well as Hindu ones) when I was a kid.
Ha! I have no defense to this. It was a gauche and needless preconception on my part.
Re-read my post. I specifically said it functions as a religion. I also said that doesn’t make it one.
Yes, you did say it functions as one. Unlike you, I contend “being a religion” and “functioning as a religion” are the same thing, largely because it issues from that great maxim of empiricism “If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck, swims like a duck, smells like a duck, and tastes like a duck, then it’s a duck.”