Is Buddhism a religion (my own point of view)
"Is Buddhism a religion or not?" remains an open question. I even think that was the first thing that i have ever heard about Buddhism. I was thinking then: "If it is a way of life, a phylosophy, what is so special about it?" I think everyone is going to have their own answer to whether it is a religion or a way of life. This is only narutal, because of the whole concept of Buddhism being very individualistic. Buddhism is not a hypothetical imagination but a practical theory each person would need to understand as an individual, not as a member of a group.
I practice Buddhism now. I go to my begginers meditation classes and learn more about it. I love it! I have read a couple of books on this subject (some of them were not directly about Buddhism, but more about monks who live in Tibet and their perception of reality).
As I have already mentioned, my personal point of view is that Buddhism is a way of life. It comes from how i define religion. I see religion as "worshipping of God or something supranatural". It is when people believe in a supreme being who is responsible to give them happiness, help them in difficult situations, take control of their lifes or whatever else people choose to believe that God has to do for them.
Well, Buddhism provides an opposite point of view. First of all, it is up to you to decide whether you believe in God. You can, in fact, not believe in God (although I should imagine that the majority of Buddhist still choose to believe in God). Secondly, you can remain a Christian/Muslim/Jewish whilst practicing Buddhism. On our classes we have people from various faiths who still strongly follow their religions and Buddhist principles at the same time. There is no set of rules, nobody tells you what you must do. You can believe in some Buddhist ideas and not others. There is no pressure. How far you wanna go should be a decision made by you solely. Again, it is very individualistic.
I am Orthodox Christian as before, i think Buddhism helps me to understand Christianity a lot better (or any other religion for that matter). I dont have to change my life. My external life remains exactly the same as before. By practicing Buddhism, i choose to follow its principles: clear my mind from dillusions and step on a road to enlightement. However, by following the same principles and ideas as other people who practice Buddhism, i choose to behaive and see life in the similar way as they see it. Because we are united by common principles/ideas and choose to live our lives in certain ways, I suppose you could call Buddhism a religion. If that is how other people define a religion, it is then a religion for them.
I don't know what every other Buddhist out there thinks on this question (again, we respect a freedom of choice) but the impression i get is that Buddhists themselves see Buddhism as a way of life (btw, our teacher thinks so too). By chosing to live our lives a certain way, we consider Buddhism to be a way of life, rather then a religion. And because of its profound principles, Buddhism is a philosophy (at least it is to me). That well may be a "Western" point of view (native Buddhism countries may think differently, i dont know).
And what makes Buddhism different from the majority of other religions is that Buddhists do not worship God. We believe that our lifes are in our hands and that we are responsible for our own actions. We and only we create our karma and we and only we can influence it.
There is so much more to say about Buddhism, but I only wanted to express my opinion that I take it as philosophy, a way of life. That is what i think right now, however, I may change my view later on in my life. I am only a begginer in Buddhism, I still learn.
Let me finish by quoting Voltaire:
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it"
posted by :-> @ 9:47 PM
8 Comments:
Your getting better at using those brackets :)
I agree that calling it a religion depends on your definition of religion. That made me realise I'm not completely sure on my definition of religion. I've never claimed to belong to any religion, yet have a strong belief in God. The term "way of life" is also quite broad and can cover pretty much anything. It could be a "way of life" to be Christian/Muslim/Jewish etc or Communist/Democratic etc or strong/shy/well eductated/rich/poor etc etc etc.
I must therefore agree that, depending on definitions, Buddhism is a way of life (and maybe not a religion).
The only thing i have difficulty accepting is that you can be Christian AND Buddhist. I don't know as much about other religions as I do about Christianity, so i won't comment. But Christians are very exclusive, it's a very "our way or the highway" type religion. Christian's believe, no matter how nice a person is, that deep deep down they are evil and corrupted and the ONLY way to be good is to let Jesus wash into you and clense you, therefore self improving mediation doesn't make sense. Also, a true Christian, since they know only christians will be saved, should do there best to go out and convert ("save") others, which completely doesn't sit well with the easy going buddhist approache you described.
Bottom line, in my opinion, a religion should be all or nothing, not just a general ,"yeah, that sounds ok". I don't include buddhism in that statement, for sake of argument, but i most certainly include christianity. I know I do not fully believe in any religion, that's why i don't claim to.
"The man who chases two rabbits catches neither."
Thank you so much for your opinion Dave! I appreciate it. Hope you enjoyed your salsa class (it is about to start now) and shook it well!
Dave must aregue against your opinion that Christianity is a closed religion.
Most religious leaders will not tell you that if you do not share their beliefs you will go to hell. Such opinions are now considered biggotted, whether this is a point of view caused by current political climate or only one found in a liberal country like the UK is debatable. But such methods are seen as archaic and practically medieval in approach, scare them into believing if you will.
Churches are trying to move away from such practices, mainly because of the religious strife it can cause, but also because it's argued that bullying people into believing is not real belief and so erodes a relationship with the divine.
The simple fact is most churches are happy to see people of any faith, expressing their beliefs. No true Christian should be telling you that a Jew is damned for being a jew, that a Muslim will burn in hell for not believing that Jesus was more than a prophet. How can someone who claims to live by the teaching of a man preaching universal tolerance and understanding really believe such things?
Different churches of different beliefs are to be welcomed and encouraged. Over many issues Christian churches become divided and indeed hostile towards each other in interpretting the will of God (Never mind Christian churches against other religions). Such divisions have existed forever, and are most likelly unavoidable.
My overall point is, do you really believe Christianity should hold such closed views against the world. Secondly, where did you get such ideas? Are these feelings or conclusions you have come to yourself, or have people in church been talking like this? If so do you really think such a church is a spiritually healthy environment?
Do I believe they should be closed?
No, I don't. I disagree with it entirely. Especially when u consider that some people in the world have simply never heard of christianity and therefore have absoultely no choice in the matter.
Claiming you are right and everyone else is wrong with 100% certaincy is damn right stupid and people should always be flexible.
However, I do think a lot of people have watered down christianity and continue to do so. I'm not saying the more open christianity isn't more sociably and morally acceptable, but it's not what it was and it seems to be able to fit to anyone's personal requirements. I don't see how that is true religion.
The Bible is a very confusing book, "thou shall not kill" is followed by "you are my chosen people, take this land for yourselves and kill anyone in it." It's obvious why there are so many different subsections to it.
But surely one of the core beliefs of Christianity is Christ the savour, it is afterall where the name came from. I don't think it's very christian to go around saying "your going to hell and i'm not, haha." But I do think it is impossible to be really Christian AND any other religion/Buddhist.
I am NOT Christian and shall never be Christian because I do NOT believe in various sections of the Bible. The fact that I do believe in parts, for me, does not give me the right to say "Well I believe that bit, so sign me up."
I think picking and choosing your favorite parts of any religion is not being true to that religion. It's like saying I know some maths, therefore I'm an accountant. I'm not an accountant.
Shouldn't really get into this because religious discussions have a habit of turning into arguments which have a habit of turning into wars.
BUT i'm gonna have to point out some of the obvious mistakes that are making the smartest mathematician I know in the world is sound SO dumb and ill informed. Sorry D (don't mean to sound so rude but how often does anyone get the chance to call you dumb???)
In defence to your comments in previous post...
'The Bible is a very confusing book, "thou shall not kill" is followed by "you are my chosen people, take this land for yourselves and kill anyone in it." It's obvious why there are so many different subsections to it.'
The bible is not a book, it was never written as a book. It's a fuckin library, the reason the 'subsections' are called books is because they are complete seperate in their own rights books about different people, written by different people about different situations. It's an omnibus, written over the course of thousands of years. That is why parts of the bible contradict each other, it wasn't written by one author straight from the mouth of God, its a collection of thousands of stories about people who have been judged to have led spiritually meaningful lives often by other people years after the event. The bible in itself differs so drastically throughout parts of the world that you wouldn't believe it.
The bible is NOT an instruction manual. Churches have used passages in the bible to help guide issues such as morality, the nature of god, what is right and wrong etc etc. No one would argue that some churches follow the bible word for word, whilst others try to relate what was written into spiritual guidance suitable for the time, place and situations. (and i'm using the bible but i'm pretty sure all religious books are similar) But it should NOT be taken literally, i truly believe this. And i am not the only one the Pope himself, arguably one of if not the leading Christian in the world, has urged Christians throughout the world not to take the bible literally and to come to their own conclusions about their faith.
Secondly the verses you quoted are from THE OLD TESTAMENT, that is the bible written before Christ. Christ debated and often outright went against most of the old testament, one of the main reasons he was crucified. The laws of Moses (ten commandments etc) and Fire and Brimstone (Soddham and Gamaroggh) where never parts of Christ's teachings. Christ's teachings (as i see them) were... Love God, All are equal before the eyes of God and Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Often when 'Christians' follow the teachings of the OLD TESTAMENT they are not following the teachings of Christ.
So to use the Old Testament within a statement about Christianity seems terribly misguided, in fact outright dumb. Its like saying mathematics is wrong because you cannot add up letters and colours(and don't go bringing algebra into this because i'm sure you understand my point).
Finally i was always taught as a child to question my beliefs and come to my own relationship with God. Whilst blindly accepting every part of a churches teaching does show a strong sign of faith, when you examine most teachings you often discover their origins can be found within the history, politics of the church and less than by the guidance of God. For example to keep the church strong, and to ensure new members (get em whilst their young) Catholics often preached that all unbaptised babies burn in hell guaranteed, such babies were not allowed to be buried on Hallowed Ground. This opinion is still preached in parts of the world such as parts of Africa, which leads to many communities outright refusing to supply any form of contraception as they feel it would be killing potential babies thus condemning them to hell before they are even concieved and this in turn is helping the spread of HIV/AIDS.
Whilst i agree picking and choosing beliefs and which rules to follow can seem like an easy option, you should not be so naive to believe that churches do not and have not already previously done so since the dawn of time. I AM NOT saying either of us are right or wrong about our beliefs and opinions, but i will argue that it is better to 'pick and choose' our beliefs and come to our own conclusions about what is right and wrong, and how to lead our lives. And that one can follow the teachings of more than one religion.
(by the way this argument itself has been going on for thousands of years too, by much smarter and eloquent philosophers than you or I and they too have so far come to no conclusion)
Iisadrunk I hope you are bloody happy, me n Dave are probably gonna end up waring over this post.
My goodness, see what happens when you stop talking about astronomy, how long before Lent is over and we can discuss normal things like why Dave likes chocolate because he's a water mixed with a rat type astrological person huh?
OK, come on now mac, "The bible is not a book, it was never written as a book. It's a fuckin library"
You love sounding smart don't ya?
I know full well the history of the bible. I know it was writen as lots of seperate books writen over a long amount of time. I also know the early part wasn't really written by Moses and that it wasn't written in the form it is now in. The early books were originally written by several different sections, some believed more in God coming down and walking around whilst others believed more thunderous clouds with voices, and they were put together by the leader at the time to unit his people. And the new testament wasn't really writen by disciples. etc etc etc
I think u'll find it's still often refered to as a "book" though, which is why I called it so.
Secondly, did u actually read what i said? At all? Your "arguement" that "it is better to 'pick and choose' our beliefs and come to our own conclusions about what is right and wrong, and how to lead our lives. And that one can follow the teachings of more than one religion." is not an arguement against what I said at all.
I DO make up my own mind on all aspects of my faith and would never follow blindly. That is WHY I say I'm NOT Christian. So clearly I already agree with you.
All I was saying is that, for example, If your part Christian and part Muslim then your not actually Christian Or Muslim, your ... Christlum? Mustian? Whatever..
In the same way that robocop is not a robot and is not human.
Now, if your saying that Christianity has already been changed a million times in a million different ways, I agree with you again, and I think the only difference in our arguements at all is that your coming out with
"Christianity has changed so much that now nearly everyone can be put under that heading"
whereas I'm coming out with
"Christianity has changed so much that now almost no one knows what it is and the word is losing it's meaning."
And before you start insulting me again, please try and read and understand what I'm saying first.
for example I did say already
"I'm not saying the more open christianity isn't more sociably and morally acceptable"
and
"The fact that I DO believe in parts, for me, does not give me the right to say "Well I believe that bit, so sign me up.""
So turning round and repeating what I'm saying and using it to call me stupid doesn't quite work.
OK D, i'll draw a line in the sand. I apologise for insulting you far more than what was my intention.
Post a Comment
<< Home