Buddhist Is Buddhism Really a Religion.

[zippy2006]

It may be widely believed but that doesn't make it true.

It is widely believed and it is true.

 

[Hmm]

It is widely believed and it is true.

You've convinced me

 

[Philip_B]

Wikipedia certainly suggests that Buddhism is a religion:

Religion - Wikipedia

 

[public hermit]

Me too, though I'm not certain I'm a fallibilist.

Classic. If you're not certain, then you are.

 

[zippy2006]

There's a great book by Steven T. Katz Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis, which analyzes the various reported experiences of religious mystics. The basic conclusion of the analysis of the phenomenology of the various experiences is that it is the same experience with different metaphysical underpinnings. It's a fascinating read.

Do you remember why he concluded that? I think it is the intuitive conclusion, and it was especially common during that period when religious pluralism was hot (and literally everything about different religions was interpreted that way), but that is the exact same time that Oxford was running their "Religious Experience Research Unit" and Tugwell was writing his "Faith and Experience" articles.

I've moved away from that conclusion myself. After doing more research I tend to think that the phenomenological experiences are legitimately different, though there are many overlaps. I'm fairly confident that it's almost impossible to separate metaphysical underpinnings from experience, and experience from interpretation.

The trouble with this area of study, as with religious pluralism, is that prior assumptions play an enormous role in conclusions. Simple hidden premises about pacifism, ecumenism, or religious diversity can color an entire evaluation. This means that a strictly defined and adhered to methodology becomes exceptionally important, but alas, this is precisely what is absent from most of these studies. This is usually explicit and is based on some admittance that they don't know exactly what they are studying, what mystical experience is, or what the object of mystical experience is. That sort of intellectual humility is fine, but in this case it means that we are up a creek without a paddle--a raging, white-water creek.

(Granted, as I read this review of Katz' work it seems that I mostly agree with him, if in fact the reviewer is accurately conveying Katz' position. His interpretation of Katz is altogether different from your own.)

Edit: Tugwell seems to concur with Knepper's assessment of Katz:

Katz is much less optimistic, and in fact seems to be
unduly gloomy about the possibility of any kind of cross-cultural
encounter or comparison, as if translation were not just difficult
(as everyone must allow) but actually impossible. But he too at
least sometimes talks as if it were in principle possible to abstract
an experience from its intentionality. (Faith and Experience III)​

 

[buzuxi02]

The only religion (that I know of anyhow) that can be said not to be a religion is the Druze religion. Basically a component of the religion is for adherents to not know anything about it. The only belief is it's monotheistic and maybe a prayer should be said once a year.
They have clergy that are to do the religious stuff behind closed doors on behalf of the adherents who need not nor can participate in anything.

 

[GraceBro]

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of religion

1 a: the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
b(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Though some forms of Buddhism require faith most Buddhists I know approach it as a philosophy and way of life like Stoicism. No faith needed in anything supernatural. It all seems to be about seeing reality clearly with mindfulness and compassion.

With an approach like that there does not need to be conflict with Christian beleif.

The root of the word religion means "return to bondage." According to Christianity, Cults & Religions (7th Edition), Buddhism teaches that the "Eightfold Path recommends right knowledge, intentions, speech, conduct, livelihood, right effort, mindfulness, and meditation. Some Buddhist groups talk about an 'eternal Buddha' (life-force). Through the 'Doctrine of Assimilation,' the belief systems of other religions are blended into their form of Buddhism." Given this definition of Buddhism and its prescription on how to bind its adherents through controlling every aspect of their lives, I would say it qualifies as a religion.

 

[zippy2006]

The root of the word religion means "return to bondage."

According to who or what?!

There are certain lines of etymology that say the word is related to being bound fast to God, but I have simply never heard anyone claim that religion means a return to bondage or a return to slavery. That sounds like the weird notion perpetuated by "non-denominational" Christians who deny that Christianity is a religion and claim that all religion is man-made and evil.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

There are certain lines of etymology that say the word is related to being bound fast to God, but I have simply never heard anyone claim that religion means a return to bondage or a return to slavery.

Right, more like a "tie" to discipline, a way of life, a morality.

Someone mentioned metaphysics, completely different. Yes, and yet the morality still aligns.

 

[ananda]

seeing reality clearly ... With an approach like that there does not need to be conflict with Christian beleif.

That seems to be an inherent conflict.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

That seems to be an inherent conflict.

Can you say more?

 

[ananda]

1. RIGHT VIEW
A true understanding of how reality and suffering are intertwined. ...
Is there incompatibility with Christianity there?

Yes, Buddhism's Right View - the foundation of the other seven aspects of the Noble Eightfold Path - requires knowledge of cause & effect. Christianity's essential dogma - faith in Christ - would be considered Wrong View, since it involves dissolution of cause & effect.

 

[ananda]

Can you say more?

"faith" (Christian belief) by definition does not involve "seeing reality clearly"

 

[Busryde]

In the words of Texas country music legend, Ray Wilie Hubbard, "Buddha was not a christian, but Jesus would have made a good buddhist.".

 

[GraceBro]

According to who or what?!

There are certain lines of etymology that say the word is related to being bound fast to God, but I have simply never heard anyone claim that religion means a return to bondage or a return to slavery. That sounds like the weird notion perpetuated by "non-denominational" Christians who deny that Christianity is a religion and claim that all religion is man-made and evil.

I wasn't responding to you, first of all. Secondly, just because you haven't heard this before doesn't mean it isn't true. Your experience is not the standard by which we measure things. You can look it up and find plenty of sources explaining this definition. Later.

 

[zippy2006]

I wasn't responding to you, first of all. Secondly, just because you haven't heard this before doesn't mean it isn't true. Your experience is not the standard by which we measure things. You can look it up and find plenty of sources explaining this definition. Later.

So then you are unable to give any source for your strange view that the etymology of "religion" is inherently negative. Good to know.

 

[public hermit]

Do you remember why he concluded that? I think it is the intuitive conclusion, and it was especially common during that period when religious pluralism was hot (and literally everything about different religions was interpreted that way), but that is the exact same time that Oxford was running their "Religious Experience Research Unit" and Tugwell was writing his "Faith and Experience" articles.

I've moved away from that conclusion myself. After doing more research I tend to think that the phenomenological experiences are legitimately different, though there are many overlaps. I'm fairly confident that it's almost impossible to separate metaphysical underpinnings from experience, and experience from interpretation.

The trouble with this area of study, as with religious pluralism, is that prior assumptions play an enormous role in conclusions. Simple hidden premises about pacifism, ecumenism, or religious diversity can color an entire evaluation. This means that a strictly defined and adhered to methodology becomes exceptionally important, but alas, this is precisely what is absent from most of these studies. This is usually explicit and is based on some admittance that they don't know exactly what they are studying, what mystical experience is, or what the object of mystical experience is. That sort of intellectual humility is fine, but in this case it means that we are up a creek without a paddle--a raging, white-water creek.

(Granted, as I read this review of Katz' work it seems that I mostly agree with him, if in fact the reviewer is accurately conveying Katz' position. His interpretation of Katz is altogether different from your own.)

Edit: Tugwell seems to concur with Knepper's assessment of Katz:

Katz is much less optimistic, and in fact seems to be
unduly gloomy about the possibility of any kind of cross-cultural
encounter or comparison, as if translation were not just difficult
(as everyone must allow) but actually impossible. But he too at
least sometimes talks as if it were in principle possible to abstract
an experience from its intentionality. (Faith and Experience III)​

It very well could be a conclusion based on prior preconceptions concerning religious pluralism. When it comes to phenomenological experience, it's difficult to seperate subjective experience from objective observation, despite the fact that is the goal of phenomenology, i.e. bracketing presuppositions.

 

[zippy2006]

It very well could be a conclusion based on prior preconceptions concerning religious pluralism. When it comes to phenomenological experience, it's difficult to seperate subjective experience from objective observation, despite the fact that is the goal of phenomenology, i.e. bracketing presuppositions.

This is a big topic, but in general I think the most potentially valuable contributions come from dialogues such as those that Thomas Merton and D.T. Suzuki had. In that case you had two intelligent, schooled, practicing religious who were genuinely interested in each other's religion. Of course the limitation of that model is that you can only compare two religions at any one time, but that "methodology" is hard to beat.

 

[Aabbie James]

From Merriam-Webster
Definition of religion

1 a: the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
b(1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural
(2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Though some forms of Buddhism require faith most Buddhists I know approach it as a philosophy and way of life like Stoicism. No faith needed in anything supernatural. It all seems to be about seeing reality clearly with mindfulness and compassion.

With an approach like that there does not need to be conflict with Christian beleif.

Buddhism is a false religion. Jesus and Buddha are incompatible. Buddha lies dead in his grave.

Christ rose from the dead and will return as conquering King, at the time of His choosing, in His perfect timing. Jesus is the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. No one shall see the Father but though the LORD. Amen.

 

[chilehed]

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

Archaic?? Who the heck do they hire to compile these dictionaries?