Is Buddhism a religion?

Spirituality Religion
#261

[quote=thomas;44214]No thanks, yulaw. I’m not looking for links to websites.

I was asking any Buddhist to explain the difference to me, as I would have been happy to explain a Christian concept.

But if a Buddhist doesn’t want to answer, they don’t have to of course.[/quote]

Thomas,

I am not a Buddhist but if you want an explanation. Buddhism is considered as nirishwara which means “non Supreme personal God”. This is a sanskrit term which fits better than atheist. On the other hand, there are beliefs in gods as beings roaming in the cycle of reincarnation, they are enjoying more blissful states than humans but they will fall from their state into lower ones after their karma is exhausted. The human birth is considered better as one can experience enough dissatisfaction with the human condition to search for liberation from the cycle of reincarnation and he has the potential to reach Nirvana contrary to animals for instance. It is more an indifference than a militant opposition. The system does not include Ishwara as it is considered irrelevant or even deluding by Buddhists to get rid of duhkha and reach Nirvana. So most of Buddhists are weak atheist, strong atheist or agnostic about the existence of a Supreme personal God.

Buddha pragmatical as he was did not care too much about metaphysical debates and endless grinding of mental grains. He was more like a therapist : OK you are suffering (undesired state, unhealthy), you are suffering due to some ignorance (etiology), I tell you that you can get rid of suffering (goal). If you are interested follow my teachings, I show you the way. Do not believe me blindly but check yourself if what I say is relevant for you (means, treatment).

Moreover there are major differences between Buddhist traditions more than between Roman Catholicism, Reformed Protestantism and Orthodox Christianity. Nichiren Buddhism has not a lot of common points with Dzogchen, a Tibetan Vajrayana tradition for instance.

Philippe

#262

[quote=thomas;44219]It seems to me that Buddhism and Hinduism are not so closely related then.

It seems to me, and I emphasize “seems” since I am speaking from a place of ignornce (about eastern religions), that Christianity and Hinduism have more in common than Buddhism and Hinduism.
[/quote]

Culturally Hinduism and Buddhism are more related than Hinduism and Christianity. It is more striking for someone familiar with Indian spiritual cultures. A lot of what Buddha said is found in earlier sources. Buddha did not claim to say something new. On the hand, for other aspects, Christianity is quite close to Dvaita Vaishnavism, especially the Krishna bhakti movements. The recent Hare Krishna movement for instance which is not really representative of Hinduism claims to be Vedic according to a conventional “bona fide” tradition but there are quite Abrahamic so to speak in their mindset. Madhva, a famous dualist philosopher, has even formulated a doctrine of eternal damnation which bears some similarities with doctrines from Calvin et al.

Philippe

#263

A common point between Christianity and Hinduism is also the devotion. There is a kind of devotion in some Buddhist traditions but towards Boddhisattvas, enligthened beings, cosmic saviours who have made to vow to deliver all the beings from Samsara before entering Parinirvana (ulimate extinction) but there are more “transitional objects” of focus in the psychological sense. You can find also devotion towards the guru in Vajrayana. Bhakti/devotion towards transcendant or immanent cosmic Beings or Powers is more developed in Hinduism. There are many traditions considering a Supreme with a personal aspect and accepting devotion as a valid means.

One can find thousands of sources but here is the first hymn of Rig Veda:

[ol]
[li]I adore Agni[I],[/I] placed in front, the [I]deva[/I] of the [I] yajňa[/I], the invoker or the summoner in the [I]yajňa[/I] and carrier of felicities.[/li][li]Agni, adorable by the ancient seers, is adorable by the later ones also. He brings here the [I]devās[/I].[/li][li]The treasure obtained from Agni is full of hearing and strength, Increasing day by day; not subject to dwindling like ordinary wealth.[/li][li]Only the [I]yajňa[/I], which is guarded by Agni, all round reaches the [I]devās[/I].[/li][li]Endowed with Vision and Audition, wise and firm of will Agni is the associate of the gods.[/li][li]Agni’s special Truth is his power of conferring happy and good [I] bhadra[/I], which averts falsehood.[/li][li]We approach thee day by day, in the night and in the light, carrying our surrender by our thought.[/li][li]The (vast) Truth is the own Home of Agni[I].[/I] There he increases for the [I]yajamāna;[/I] That he protects.[/li][li]O Agni[I],[/I] [B]cling to us like a father to the son[/B], be easy of access to us.[/li][/ol]

Philippe

#264

Buddha pragmatical as he was did not care too much about metaphysical debates and endless grinding of mental grains. He was more like a therapist : OK you are suffering (undesired state, unhealthy), you are suffering due to some ignorance (etiology), I tell you that you can get rid of suffering (goal). If you are interested follow my teachings, I show you the way. Do not believe me blindly but check yourself if what I say is relevant for you (means, treatment).

Okay, this is what I don’t get. I equally doubt this in Yogic philosophy as well. How can you remain equanimous to both pain and pleasure? I definitely prefer having pleasure over pain. When I have sex, it feels good and when I am not having sex I am not feeling as good. I prefer eating nice and delicious food over disgusting food. I will sooner eat cheesecake over worms. I like it when I am in the company of pleasent and nice people and not when I am in the company of unpleasent and not nice people. Similarly, I like being free and not imprisned. I like being happy and not sad.

So why should I treat pain and pleasure both in equal light?

#265

[quote=Surya Deva;44222]
Patanjali’s yoga path is not secetarian. It is a pure science of consciousness. It is literally self-development through moral, physical, mental and spiritual training. It does not mention any worship of gods or goddesses, any mantras and the language it uses is nondevotional and universal(subject, object, impressions, mind)[/quote]

While it is true that is is not sectarian, it is not devoid of religious mindset neither. I would add that Patanjali mentions Ishwara pranidhana as a major means to reach samadhi. But Ishwara is more a transitional object, concentration on Ishwara is not an end in itself in YS, it is advised to take Ishwara as a focus (ashraya) to reach states of (sabija) samadhis YS I:23-29 ; II:45 and developed positive samskaras which will lead to nirbija samadhi. It can even be considered as the best means if we consider the number of sutras about Ishwara in YS. Moreover it is an integral part of kriya yoga, the yoga of action YS:II:1. It is also written that pranava expressed Ishwara YS I:27. Pranava means the sacred syllable, it is a word designating OM in Vedic literature. So there is mantra recommended. It talks also about mantras to reach siddhis through samyama YSIII:1. And svadhyaya is defined as the means to reach union with the divinity (ishta devata) through the study of the sacred texts YS II:44.

Philippe

#266

[quote=Surya Deva;44277]Okay, this is what I don’t get. I equally doubt this in Yogic philosophy as well. How can you remain equanimous to both pain and pleasure? I definitely prefer having pleasure over pain. When I have sex, it feels good and when I am not having sex I am not feeling as good. I prefer eating nice and delicious food over disgusting food. I will sooner eat cheesecake over worms. I like it when I am in the company of pleasent and nice people and not when I am in the company of unpleasent and not nice people. Similarly, I like being free and not imprisned. I like being happy and not sad.

So why should I treat pain and pleasure both in equal light?[/quote]

Pleasure is understood as related to suffering, it is the other face of the same coin. The problem is more clinging. In order to remove suffering, you have to remove pleasure by realizing the emptiness of the experiencer. It is an approach through the negative way, the point is getting rid of suffering or more technically duhkha not really getting happiness.

I understand your points, it is also better to cultivate sattvic tastes (rasa) than rajasic or tamasic ones. I think that by getting over some attachments to pleasure one can experience some Ananda, Bliss in both pleasure and even pain. I think that Ananda is a foundation of the universe, I do not think that everything is just duhkha as it is written in YS or stated by people like Buddha. I think that in the universal economy bliss even exceeds pain however horrific it can be. Personally I reach more blissful states without having sex but it is not at all the same quality. Yet I can not manage very long periods of brahmacarya, last time I got pitta problems on skin in Ayurvedic terminology though psychologically I was feeling just positive side-effects.

Philippe

#267

[quote=Philippe*;44276] cosmic saviours who have made to vow to deliver all the beings from Samsara before entering Parinirvana (ulimate extinction) but there are more “transitional objects” of focus in the psychological sense.
Philippe[/quote]

made the vow…they are (used) more like…

Mistakes…

Philippe

#268

While it is true that is is not sectarian, it is not devoid of religious mindset neither. I would add that Patanjali mentions Ishwara pranidhana as a major means to reach samadhi. But Ishwara is more a transitional object, concentration on Ishwara is not an end in itself in YS, it is advised to take Ishwara as a focus (ashraya) to reach states of (sabija) samadhis YS I:23-29 ; II:45 and developed positive samskaras which will lead to nirbija samadhi. It can even be considered as the best means if we consider the number of sutras about Ishwara in YS. Moreover it is an integral part of kriya yoga, the yoga of action YS:II:1. It is also written that pranava expressed Ishwara YS I:27. Pranava means the sacred syllable, it is a word designating OM in Vedic literature. So there is mantra recommended. It talks also about mantras to reach siddhis through samyama YSIII:1. And svadhyaya is defined as the means to reach union with the divinity (ishta devata) through the study of the sacred texts YS II:44.

Yes, Patanjali indeed mentions as one of the niyamas that we must surrender to Ishvara and he does mention that meditations done on ishvara are amongst the best methods to attain the ultimate. The meditation on pranava is especially powerful. However, he also says you can just as well use your own breath, focus on the sensations in your body, focus on energy centres to reach the same goal. Patanjali never says which Ishvara, Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva, Krishna, Rama or Hanuman, Jehova or Allah, this is why it is not secetarian. Here ishvara refers to the supreme and divine self, and one is expected to surrender to the divine self. In the Gita Krishna says “Worship me, do everything for me and you will attain me” But Krishna is not talking about himself as a person, he is talking about himself as god-consciousness that we all have and can all attain.

Patanjali never mentions that one should build idols and temples and do all kinds of devotional acts, as we see are done by Bhaktas, whether they be Shaktas, Vaishnavists, or Shaivaist. Even the Ishvara meditations are done in ones own mind. This is because he is not secetarian. He is not concerned with Sadguna Brahman but Nirguna Brahman.

#269

Pleasure is understood as related to suffering, it is the other face of the same coin. The problem is more clinging. In order to remove suffering, you have to remove pleasure by realizing the emptiness of the experiencer. It is an approach through the negative way, the point is getting rid of suffering or more technically duhkha not really getting happiness.

This is where I have a problem. It is not the teaching of Hinduism that the experiencer is empty. In fact the experiencer is full, absolure, pure. Secondly, surely one does not want to get rid of their pleasures but maximise their pleasure. If I had to eat worms, spiders and insects, then surely if instead I got bread, lentils and rice I would be more happy. If I got cheesecake and chocolate mouse I would be even more happier. Similarly, If I get physical pleasures, I can get even greater pleasure by getting astral pleasures. The astral is so much more pleasurable than the physical and I have greater freedom and capacity there. I feel more alive. Similarly, I could get even greater pleasure and enter the higher astrals and meet the devas and buddhas and experience joy and love. I could go even beyond that and experience ananda itself.

Surely then, rather than being equanimous to pleasure or pain, I naturally have a preference for pleasure. I want to be happy, peaceful and liked and not unhappy, unpeaceful and disliked. I want the world to be harmonious, enlightened and noble and not the opposite. Believe me I have tried smiling at my pain and suffering before, trying to treat it just like I would treat pleasure and happiness, only to realise I was deluding myself. I hated the suffering and pain and wanted it to end.

#270

[quote=Surya Deva;44287]This is where I have a problem. It is not the teaching of Hinduism that the experiencer is empty. In fact the experiencer is full, absolure, pure. Secondly, surely one does not want to get rid of their pleasures but maximise their pleasure. If I had to eat worms, spiders and insects, then surely if instead I got bread, lentils and rice I would be more happy. If I got cheesecake and chocolate mouse I would be even more happier. Similarly, If I get physical pleasures, I can get even greater pleasure by getting astral pleasures. The astral is so much more pleasurable than the physical and I have greater freedom and capacity there. I feel more alive. Similarly, I could get even greater pleasure and enter the higher astrals and meet the devas and buddhas and experience joy and love. I could go even beyond that and experience ananda itself.

Surely then, rather than being equanimous to pleasure or pain, I naturally have a preference for pleasure. I want to be happy, peaceful and liked and not unhappy, unpeaceful and disliked. I want the world to be harmonious, enlightened and noble and not the opposite. Believe me I have tried smiling at my pain and suffering before, trying to treat it just like I would treat pleasure and happiness, only to realise I was deluding myself. I hated the suffering and pain and wanted it to end.[/quote]

Everyone is searching for happiness and wants to get rid of suffering in a way even the one who is about to hang himself as it was noticed by Pascal. Happiness is often conceived differently according to people. And it is a legitimate desire.

Feeling the splendour of “fullness” has been one of the reasons why I left Buddhist sadhana quite really for another path with which I have related better… The teachings I was listening were talking about emptiness all the time while what I was experiencing was on the contrary concrete and “full”. So without making a general rule nor with any “holier than thou” attitude, I can say that in my case, I have been called to something else which suited better for my spiritual evolution.

As for equanimity, we are just right now… humans, we bear the infinite but we are externally limited beings. The infinite can express itself within limits. If you draw a segment in the infinite, it is limited and defined in interdependence with the rest but at the same time there is an infinity of points in the segment. The segment is both finite and infinite.

“OM – Purnamadah Purnamidam Purnat purnamudachyate.
Purnasya Purnamadaya Purnamevavashisyate.” Brihadaranyaka Upanishad

“That is whole, this is whole, from whole comes out of whole.
If whole is subtracted (or perceived) from whole, still whole is left.”

There is a physiological limit to our stamina. Patanjali states that vyadhi/illness is the first obstacle on the path.

Philippe

#271

Uhm, Buddhism is a philosophy. Though it may recognize some gods and goddesses, it has no established system of worshiping them; like a priesthood and so forth. Unless you’re talking about other certain sects of Buddhism…

#272

IF WE ONLY BOW TO THE DIVINITY INSIDE OF PEOPLE THEN LETS CRAP EACH OTHERS PERSONALITIES.If you react to any personal atack then you are not in any way shape of performance close to the divine.lol .lets go now and do an observation of each others inner self .LETS REMEMBER HOW EASY WE GOT ANGRY WHEN SOMEONE SAY ANYTHING WE DIDNT LIKE ABOUT US OR ABOUT OUR TOYS.LOL .MMMMMMM STOP LYING TO YOURSELF .

#273

But you’re implying that personality and divinity are different things. So if we crap on each other’s personalities, won’t it be the fault of the person’s personality (lol) if they react and thus, not indicative of one’s divinity or lack thereof?

I know what you’re really trying to convey in your message. Just twisting your words. :stuck_out_tongue:

#274

Is all kool brother is a litle message to the guy above you that think he is close to the divine cause he can repeat words that he learn in a second class book.Is evident the the first reactor here is him that does not put effort in understand others people points of view.hahahaha .

#275

Hey Nietzsche was hardcore.But Hardcore is dangerous in this forum.This forum is all about peace and words.lol

#276

When you atack an idea you are expressing that that idea is wrong some how.Well thats not really true.Every idea contain in itself the right and the wrong of that idea.So is relative, so atacking is just a way of saying I dont get the whole thing.lol

#277

[QUOTE=pingoletta;45005]When you atack an idea you are expressing that that idea is wrong some how.Well thats not really true.Every idea contain in itself the right and the wrong of that idea.So is relative, so atacking is just a way of saying I dont get the whole thing.lol[/QUOTE]

I completely agree with this. In my post I was intentionally using convoluted logic. And I’m afraid I am too hardcore for those in this forum. :frowning:

#278

lol.you see Im not hardcore Im corehard.

#279

[QUOTE=pingoletta;45018]lol.you see Im not hardcore Im corehard.[/QUOTE]

Haha. I like the way you think. 8)

#280

Buddhism may be called a religion, and schools of Mahayana Buddhism talk about “gods” and “deities”, but if the earlier founded Theravada Buddhism is truly “religion” on par with Hinduism, Islam & Christianity, then it’s about the most un-religious religion I’ve ever heard of. Of course, knowing this actually requires study & not just opinion.

edit: this is replying to no one in particular