Buddhism: a religion?

[jduster]

Many people who proclaim themselves to be buddhists, but buddhism is more of a lifestyle or philosophy of living rather than a religion.  Some may actually believe in samsara and nirvana, but I'm willing to make a safe bet that many people who deem themselves buddhists don't logically believe that those things exists, even if they feel it is the correct philosophy, want it to be true, and live as if it were true.

Your thoughts?

[teifuani]

At its best, Buddhism can be an empowering lifestyle/philosophy. I've been reading about it for my Asian history class, and the more I think about it the more appealing a lot of it seems. From what we've covered in class I'd wager that this was Siddhartha Gautama was aiming for when he founded Buddhism. While there are religious aspects to it, it seems like it wasn't until after his death that people started to add the belief in an individual afterlife and things like that. The Buddha's last words of advice, according to my textbook, were along the lines of "Count on yourself only and be your own refuge," and, "All composite things must pass away." (Not an exact quote as I don't have the book by my side, but I'm pretty sure that was the gist of it.)

[theatheists]

What is a religion then?  I hate it when people try and split hairs.  Religion is a way of life, a philosophy, a lens through which you view the world.  It's all the same and trying to distance yourself from religion because you don't have a certain pathos or god is just ridiculous.  I mean they call Atheism a religion?

[Prometheus]

I'd have to call it a religion. I took eastern religions as an elective in college. The whole premise of budhism is about living a righteous life in order to ascent to a higher level of existence(Nirvana is the end goal although there are different terms for this and different methods of ascention.). The goal is a supernatural one and to be a buddhist you must believe that this world is not real(This is the foundation of their belief system.) and that the cycle of reincarnation is in effect. You might argue that it is more similar to a philosophy than to many of the religions we are familiar with. But I still say that it is by definition a religion since it embraces the supernatural.

[penfold]

Things are real, names are not.

Buddhism is what Buddhism is.

There are characteristics it shares with the western 'revealed' religions. Equally there are characteristics they do not share.

Call it a religion if you want, it doesn't change anything.

What more is there to say?

[jduster]

I'd have to call it a religion. I took eastern religions as an elective in college. The whole premise of budhism is about living a righteous life in order to ascent to a higher level of existence(Nirvana is the end goal although there are different terms for this and different methods of ascention.). The goal is a supernatural one and to be a buddhist you must believe that this world is not real(This is the foundation of their belief system.) and that the cycle of reincarnation is in effect. You might argue that it is more similar to a philosophy than to many of the religions we are familiar with. But I still say that it is by definition a religion since it embraces the supernatural.

Buddhism is a religion.  I am not disagreeing with you there.

But my question is: do many people who deem themselves buddhists truly logically think that a nirvana exists or is it simply a lifestyle?

[BillDugan]

I think deeming Buddhism a religion or not is inconsequential.  Personally, I appreciate some of it's ideas (defeating the ego, silencing the mind, Theory of Emptiness, etc) but can do without the idea of rebirth.  That's whats great about the idea.  I don't have to accept Siddhartha Gautama as my Lord and personal savior and there's no Buddhist judging me or threatening to blow me up.

[Prometheus]

But my question is: do many people who deem themselves buddhists truly logically think that a nirvana exists or is it simply a lifestyle?

I've seen texts and interviews with these followers and I'd say that they definately believe in the supernatural parts. They seemed to believe them even more thouroughly than the christians you see in our culture. It gets confusing when you look in our culture where such religions are mostly a "new age" novelty. People like me and those new agers you see occasionally claim to know what we are talking about with absolution but in reality we haven't grown up in a culture where these religions are practiced and therefore can't know as much about them as someone from those cultures.

 

I don't have to accept Siddhartha Gautama as my Lord and personal savior and there's no Buddhist judging me or threatening to blow me up.

I agree with most of what you were saying but just to clarify, no one views siddhartha as their savior or god. The idea is that he has achieved nirvana and because of this has no interest or power in the material world(It isn't real remember?).

[epepke]

But my question is: do many people who deem themselves buddhists truly logically think that a nirvana exists or is it simply a lifestyle?

This is a question that I think can best be answered by talking to Buddhists.

I've talked to a lot of Buddhists.  My impression is as follows.  For concepts such as nirvana, karma, and rebirth, they eventually start driveling.  They insist that these concepts are all rational, but they fail to provide any rational mechanism or interpretation.  They inevitably make use of one or more of the following tactics:

1) You Just Don't Understand.  This is sometimes justified by saying that certain terms are difficult to translate, or that a Westerner (whatever that is) can't understand it, or that you have to experience it to know that it's real.

2) What It Isn't.  A certain idea is said to be unlike another.  For example, it's rebirth, not reincarnation, dammit!

3) Cheap Analogy.  Rebirth is like a radio transmitter.  Or it's simply like when another person thinks the same way.  Karma is just the Law of Cause and Effect (there is no such law, BTW).

4) Getting Pissed Off and Going Away.  This is at least merciful.

5) Declaring That They Weren't Pissed Off.

All of these are fairly typical religious tactics, but in Buddhism I find them particularly insidious.  For most of the religious, there's an out where they can say that It's Just Faith.  So an adherent of most religions can escape from reason in its defense.  The Buddhists I have met, however, have an overriding desire to declare everything in Buddhism rational, even (especially) when it isn't.

Most of the Buddhists that gave me the googly-eyed mumbo jumbo gave up Buddhism after a few years.  They all seemed a bit irritated by Buddhism after they did (one called it a "mind rape"), much more so than ex-Christians I have known.

[Recusant]

Is a Buddhist who does not embrace nirvana, karma, rebirth, still a Buddhist?

[Islador]

I briefly looked into Buddhism when I was younger but I found its beliefs in reincarnation and suchlike incompatable with my naturalistic view of the universe. Is it a religion? I think so given that its base on a collection of beliefs.

[me_rational?]

Is a Buddhist who does not embrace nirvana, karma, rebirth, still a Buddhist?

Nope -  if you talk to the big guns and the teachers, geshes and lamas, they'll tell you that in order to be Buddhist, these teachings are core to your belief!

[notself]

If one wants to follow Buddhism as a religion then belief in karma and rebirth is part of the religion.  

If one wants to follow the teachings of Siddhattha Gotama as a guide to an ethical life and a way to reduce stress and suffering, then Buddhism is a philosophy.  

Nirvana is not a place like heaven.  It is a state of mind.  The word means release, peace, ease, freedom from stress/suffering.

The word karma translates into action.  Vipaka is the result of an action.  Actions have results that's all there is to it.  Rebirth is the real sticking point.  One has to accept rebirth if one desires to explain why people born in poverty or disease.  If one just wants to deal with things as they are, then rebirth is completely unnecessary.  Ananda, a close follower of the Buddha, did not believe in rebirth.  The Buddha was fine with that.

It is unfortunate that most people who call themselves Buddhists act no differently that religious believers anywhere.  The believe that rules are more important than intent, observation and action.  The Buddha said on several occasions that all he taught was "stress and the ending of stress".

If one is interested in Buddhism without the woo, I recommend "Buddhism without Beliefs" by Stephen Batchelor.  Religious Buddhists strongly object to the book.  I think that's a point in its favor.