<<Er, he didn’t exactly say that meditation was mere ritual or entirely ritual. Also, note that “ritual” is defined rather broadly in this thread.>>
Not to mention Tantric…
Recall though that Theravada assumes reincarnation, and some of its texts discuss the Buddha’s conversations with animals and supernatural entities such as Mara.
Well, technically, rebirth, not reincarnation.
what is the technical difference? (ps. I am not arguing, just want to be informed)
I realize that, for most practicing Buddhists in the world (I am not one), it is a religion, and for many others (especially in the West), it is more a philosophy,
BUT
speaking for myself, the most attractive aspects of Buddhism are NEITHER religion NOR philosophy, but simply OBSERVATIONS about how the world tends to work – things along the lines of, “Have you noticed how, when you do X, Y often results?”
One good analogy, straight from some of the Pali scriptures, is the image of a candle lighting another candle. In other words, not reincarnation, or “transmigration” of a soul or spirit ( atman in the lingo of the region where Theravada Buddhism got its start) but more of a cause-and-effect propagation of karma, being the fruit of all unenlightened being, in thought and action. To be is to act, and to think, and hence to suffer, and that suffering begets new life, and new suffering, just as a flame lights a new flame, though it does not move from one candle to next, but rather brings the new flame into being. Theravada Buddhism seeks to teach “right” being, if you will (a properly mindful life of thought and action, if you will) that helps negate desire, and hence suffering, and hence karma, and hence being at all.
In the Hindu traditions, one achieves enlightenment when the illusion of the distinction between atman and brahman (self and Self, individual and universal) is seen as an illusion, the evil fruits of samsara. In the Buddhist faith that originally sprang from these traditions, the illusion is the notion that there is a “higher” being at all. Rather, Buddhism teaches that being of any kind is inherently evil, because to be is to suffer, and the goal is to end all suffering. Seeking a better next life is futile. There is no “better” way to be, as all being is cause and effect, suffering begetting more suffering. There is no greater or lesser self to reconcile or unite, no devas who are able to bring you to bliss any better than a good human teacher, and no isolated egos that move about from body to body. All that is completely illusory to the Theravada Buddhist.
I never said it was mere ritual.
Out of interest, what do Buddhists get worked up about?
I asked the Buddha your question.
He said: Whatever.
Remember when they slaughtered all those birds in Hong Kong a couple of years back now?
Buddhists were upset by that, said a lot of prayers, held some pujas, stuff like that. Mostly it’s the same thing that draws a response from anyone. Y 'know, suffering in all it’s forms.
But they don’t really get ‘worked up’ exactly, you’re right.
Not really - you get a Buddist worked up enough, and he might just go and set himself one fire. Better than strapping a bomb onto himself, I guess.
Buddhists here (though I dare say they’re not representative of Buddhists in general) tend to get worked up about any schemes involving money. Thus, the Giant Buddha that was erected on Lantau Island a decade or so ago has become a little industry in its own right, with a cable car the latest project to bring in more tourist dollars. I believe the chief Buddhist, who interestingly enough gives himself the title of “The Revd”, also sits on various Beijing political bodies. So, here at least, they do get involved in more ephemeral, as well as ethereal, matters.
Reincarnation typically refers to a fixed entity that is reborn - a self, a YOU, being born into another body. This is the Hindu concept of reincarnation; it also appears in Jainism and some pagan traditions.
As used in Theravada Buddhism, rebirth refers to the continual process of death and rebirth that may be avoided by following the Eight-Fold Path. But there is no “permanant self” that is reborn. This is a difficult concept, I grant. The Pali word for this is Anatta, and it doesn’t really directly translate to English. What we think of as a “self” is really nothing more than a collection of constantly changing physical and mental attributes, known as skandhas. It is the confusion of these skandhas with a permanant self or soul that paves the way for suffering.
So - if there’s no self, no soul … then what is being reborn?
The Buddha responded to this question by referring to a candle. When a new candle is lit from a burning candle, and then the old candle is extinguished, it cannot be said that the new flame contains the old flame; it is separate, new, and distinct from the old. But neither is it completely unrelated to the original flame.
Incidentally, the attainment of nibbana - the culmination of the Buddhist pursuit of liberation - means freedom from the cycle of rebirth. A person who has freed himself from atachments to the skandhas is not reborn.
Since I don’t get worked up about any of this, I reckon I’m more Buddhist than the Buddhists. Pick your sect.
If it’s not the old candle being reborn, why would it care about attaining nibbana?
It might not. One of the interesting things about Buddhism is it’s entirely up to you what you do with it. There is no greater punishment for not following than life as it is without the Buddha’s teachings.
If one cares about suffering, then enlightenment might be important. The payoff is two-fold: You suffer less, and contribute no more to the suffering of other beings, by breaking the cycle.
As a born Theravadic Buddhist, (although not very relegious kind by any means) I can say the following.
Buddhism is a philosphy as a whole. What lord Buddha (who was a normal day to day man , who wanted to find the truth abt life) said was a way of life which would lead you to giving up on greed and ultimately getting away from the “Dukka” (Problems + Sadness + etc etc)…
One thing lord Buddha insisted was to not to follow his or anybodys preachings blindly . He always insisted on people arguing , discussing and thinking for them selves. There were four guidlines he had given on not beleiving anything including whatever he said unless you are convinced of the accuracy. Is there any relegion which permits this?
IMO relegion is something which tightly bound u to set of rules and expect u to follow them blindly. All the other relegious ritual acts currently in Buddhism are something that monks and concerened parties have developed in last 2500 years since Buddha’s demise and those do not reflect directly on buddhist way of life sometimes.
The simple guide line of buddhism “You will face the consequences of what you do”. There are no gods and lord buddha is definitely not a god.
Hence I would not consider Buddhism as a relegion , but as a philosophy.
p.s. → From the little I have seen about the western buddhism, It is a much more fancier version of it. Most of the monks or followers doesnt follow the basic buddhsit way of life. They think chanting and looking oriental is buddhism. 
Talking of people “born” Buddhists, Chad Varah (the founder of The Samaritans) believed in reincarnation. When asked why (given that this is unusual for an ordained minister of the Church of England) he replied that he was able to read before he could walk. How else was that possible unless he had lived another life? Personally, from the moment I heard that, I thought he was an absolute frigging genius, but I am sure (well, as sure as you can be about people’s motivation) that it was most definitely NIT his intention to give the impression that he was a sort of latterday Mozart.
You may like to compare Jesus’ words (Matthew 23: 8-10): “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ.”
I imagine nearly every religion stresses this. The Judaeo-Christian Bible has “You will reap what you sow”.
For a dreadful moment, I read that as ‘Buddshit’.
Hey, leave Richard Gere and Shirley Maclaine out of it! And while you’re at it, Madonna and Jane Fonda too.
I have a personal anecdote to add. Not a real opinion or confirmation of the OP, but something that had an impact on me culturally.
I was quite offended by a medical professional’s insistance on referring to my professed Buddhist religious leanings as a philosophy. It was the impetus for my discontinuation of services with her. I know it might have been a semantic misunderstanding, but to me it reflected a certain disrespect for what in my mind are unequivocally religous beliefs. I didn’t feel as if she took me seriously and it undermined my trust. I felt as if myself and my beliefs were turned into the proverbial redheaded step child with the implied irreverance. I am not usually that serious about defending my beliefs, I don’t really feel a need to, but our medical relationship required a certain amount of trust and respect that I felt was violated.
Having spent a lot of time in Tibet and a little bit of time in Thailand, I would say that Buddhism is a way of life.
I dunno, but Tibetans are pretty special people. Buddhism is the core of their lives. I can’t explain it.