In other words, essentially, for its followers, NOT a religion.
This is how I’ve always understood it, not least because for Buddhists man is the highest authority, and there is arguably no God. Further, the impermanence built into Buddhism militates against (dogmatic and fundamental) religion. Its emphasis on enlightenment (the literal meaning of Buddhism) and moderation (or the middle way) also support an understanding of it as a philosophy, rather than a religion.
What sayest Buddhists on the board, given that the choice between whether to ascribe the word ‘philosophy’ or ‘religion’ to the path one follows is of great importance?
First, I am not a Buddhist or an expert on Buddhism. This is based on my general obesrvations; and I did study seriously philosophy in college. Best line I ever heard about Busshism is that it is a philosophy in search of a god. Basically, it is a philosophical system. An atheist could very well be a Buddhist. For Buddhists, whether or not god(s) exist really isn’t important. Even if there is no god, Buddhism would be a good way to live.
As for a “religion”, the problem is that Buddhism is very alien to Western religions. Buddhism isn’t about following god’s commandments, accepting god (or, his son) as your personal savior, or submitting yourself to the will of god. Thus to a Western mindset, Buddhism doesn’t look like what is typically thought of as a religion.
Religions need four things: (1) a group of believers, who share (2) a coherent set of beliefs about the nature of the universe, (3) who therefore have a code of day-to-day behavior (i.e., ethics), and (4) participate in certain rituals and activities (either as individuals or as a group, or both) that are about expressing the belief system.
Interesting, twickster, but the point I’m really after is whether Buddhists see themselves as following a philosophy, a set of teachings (as someone who belongs to the Foucauldian school or the Frankfurt school or the Popperian school might), or as holding religious beliefs.
Interesting. What would you call it if you had, say, the first three, but no rituals? Like, just a bunch of people who share the same beliefs and code of ethics?
IMHO, the Buddhist belief system and practice remains coherant even if one does not believe in reincarnation or other supernatural claims. Some Westerners practice Buddhism in this fashion: it seems acceptable to call it a philosophy.
Add back belief in reincarnation and certain supernatural elements and Buddhism becomes more recognizable as a religion. I suspect that a majority of practicing Buddhists worldwide are in this camp.
I’m not sure that’s entiredly possible – if only because the category “ritual” is pretty damn amorphous. What I mean by it is any activity where the primary point is expressing or enhancing or … whatever … one’s relationship to the sacred. For instance, in Quakerism, the ritual consists primarily of meeting for worship – which is gathering together in a group for silent contemplation. Not real flashy – but prayer (even silent, individual prayer) is a form of ritual.
As a practising Buddhist, I would have to say most would just shrug their shoulders and say it didn’t much matter. And I would agree with that.
Whenever I am asked this question (more often than you might think), I can answer only as I understand. And my understanding is that ‘technically’ it is only a philosophy as it has no dogma, as with most religion.
Not to contradict the Phd, or anything.
As I said, I have never met a Buddhist who could get worked up over the issue. And this is only my understanding.
“Nothing lasts forever,
All beings suffer,
All is selfless,
Quiet abiding brings Peace.”
–from the Four Sentence Sutra
OK, basically nearly everyone who posted here is wron, or at least half-right. There are several major strains of Buddhism, primarily Theravada and Mahayana. Mahayana is definitely a relgion, though you could argue about Thervada. Most people in America know only about Therevada, but they are very much outnumbered by Mahayanists, which includes pretty much all of China and Japan.
I would just say that this is an excellent book. Buddhism ahs a lot to offer in terms of it’s philosophical underpinnings and that is what this book offers. It does not dwell on the more ritualistic aspects like meditation, or the more “supernatural” like reincarnation, but it does open your mind to many things about the nature of being. I am willing to say it changed my life.