Karma is hardly an “add-on” to Buddhism, it’s a central teaching of the Tipitaka. Karma is not, or rather is not necessarily supernatural. In its most fundamental expression it is a law that states that for every action there is a reaction and that every action is itself a previous action’s reaction - cause and effect. You could even argue, I suppose, that karma is anti-supernatural in the sense that there is something highly deterministic about it.
Since this is in IMHO, I guess I should add my own HO. When people here ask me what my religion is, I always feel uneasy answering “Buddhism”. That’s because when I do, people will then ask me if I have an altar (butsudan) in my home, or if I read sutras every day. To say that you are Buddhist in a Buddhist country is to identify yourself with an existant culture - a culture that isn’t mine. In that sense, I’m culturally a catholic but my practice is Buddhist (or tries to be).
To me the perenial question, “is Buddhism a religion?” is a semantic problem and nothing more, as the answer entirely depends on your definitions of “Buddhism”, “religion” and “philosophy”. I try not to worry too much about it. After all, we’ve all been hit by a poisonous arrow and figuring out the doctor’s husband’s name isn’t going to help much. To paraphrase someone.
By forum description, this topic is a little more “cosmic” than purely IMHO fare. I really hate to lose a good thread* but this one is more appropriate to Great Debates.
Moving it on over…
[sub]*It’s the karmic flipside of being able to dump all the Buffy threads on Cafe Society.[/sub]
He taught a method of achieving enlightenment. Some misguided followers developed a splinter sect into a religion by deifying and worshipping the Buddha, which is contrary to his teachings, but what can you do. The same problem degraded Christ’s teachings into what passes for mainstream Christianity today.
“When you see the finger pointing at the moon, GO WHERE IT IS POINTING. Don’t worship the finger! And whatever you do, don’t suck it for comfort.”
Worshipping the messenger is “sucking the finger.”
Correct me if IIRIC (if I recall incorrectly), but the current Dalai Lama uses both terms.
Thanks for the Hinayana as I kept thinking Mini-yana and knew that was incorrect.
For anyone that wants to learn more about Tibetan Buddhism and Tibet check out The Way of the White Clouds by Lama Govinda. It goes into great detail about the Tibetan form of Buddhism.
In Mahayana litterature (Zen-Chan being the one I’m most familiar with) terms like Hinayana and Arhat are sometimes meant unequivocally as insults.
In Vajrayana (diamond vehicle) schools like Tibetan Buddhism, Hinayana is used, I believe, to refer to one of the three scriptural canons. I’d have to check but Theravada is probably the term Tibetans use to refer to the movement, as opposed to a body of sutras.
yes, Priceguy, it seems if we take number 4 as the definition of religion, then I can agree with you.
I always had the connotation religion = god image, and in that case i didn’t want to see Buddhism classified under religions, but more under philosphy.
elfje
Check me if I’m wrong here, but I think Buddhism does recognize God(s), or the existence of God(s); they just don’t necessarily pray to one God in particular. The ultimate goal is to reach Nirvana which is the highest level of being. I seem to recall that Buddhists believe that God (of any religion) is on a lower level or tier - for lack of a better description, or lack of knowledge - than Buddah. Anyone can be Buddah. Religious worship and praise is directed at an altar that commemorates a Buddah.
There are hundreds of Buddah’s; most western people recognize the Happy Buddah, who is the fat male with a big smile and in a sitting position. I believe that the majority of Buddhists do not choose Happy Buddah as their Buddah of choice.
It is a very tricky question to try to define a religion by its followers.
The Dharma, as taught by the Lord Buddha, has been adapted to the cultures of many places and the society of those places has made some changes that make it seem more like a religion than a philosophy. Most, but not all, cultures practice it as a religion with all the trapings most would associate with a religion. Such as places of “worship”, ordained leaders, rituals and established institutions of learning.
Yet some can practice Buddhism as a philosophy without the basic bones of the Dharma. Such as acceptance of the laws of karma and rebirth. If you do then you are not a Buddhist but find some value in the ethics or wisdom of the Dharma.
It is hard for me to understand how some call themselves Christian-Buddhist. Buddha taught that there is no GOD or supreme being that created the universe, nor can this GOD save you. On this very important point they differ in a mutually exculsive way. That is not to say that Buddha and Jesus did not agree on many worhwhile points but one was a GOD and one was a human being who woke up with no help from the creator GOD.
Mostly it does not matter if Buddhism is called a religion or not. To one who follows the path it is a way of life.
In China, Arhat or Luohan is widely used. Just about every Chinese buddhist temple i’ve ever been too has Arhat figures. So, I find it surprising that Arhat is considered an insult.
Vector No, Buddha did not invoke gods. Many “Buddhist” sects do. Is Buddhism what is practiced today in Tibet, or what Buddha wrote in Pali years ago?
One advantage we have today is that we can refer to original writings. Buddha lived for decades after his enlightenment, whereas Christ (as one example) was killed at a young age. Hence, there are many years when Buddha’s teachings were recorded while he was still alive.
Did Buddha want you to believe in gods? No. Did he want you to believe in him? No. What he taught was to examine your own experience for yourself. He taught certain things from his own experience, but he said that you should check it out yourself to find what is true and to make up your own mind.
The word insult was probably way too strong, I’ll admit. However, you’ll often run into authors claiming that making it to the state of Arhathood isn’t good enough.
For instance, Hakuin-zenji wrote:
When Arhat is meant pejoratively, it refers to practitioners of the Theravada who having reached this level of enlightenment, do not seek to move to the “greater” Boddhisattva level. In Mahayana, becoming an Arhat is of course good, but thinking it’s the end of the road isn’t.
