2

I am planning to live with Buddhist monks. But I am hesitant. I am not sure whether I shall be able to live with them without leaving my current religion.

I think, if Buddhism is a religion, I am bound to face hard times. Because, it will clash with my current religion.

If it is a philosophy, then I dare to attempt.

Is Buddhism a religion or philosophy?

  • 2
    If it is a _deeply held belief_, what difference does it make whether it's religion or philosophy? (And does not the _content_ of the belief matter? Or is your existing religion hostile to other religions and therefore it doesn't matter what others' stance is if they believe a different religion?) – Rex Kerr Aug 05 '12 at 17:25
  • 7
    These "Is X a Y?" questions always vex me; why don't people just look up Y and see if X then falls under it? These are purely semantics questions and have nothing to do with philosophy proper... >_> – stoicfury Aug 06 '12 at 01:49
  • 1
    @stoicfury - I both agree and note that the philosophy literature is full of debates that boil down primarily to semantics. (Free will seems particularly prone to this, for instance.) Let's at least aim for _interesting_ questions about semantics! – Rex Kerr Aug 06 '12 at 16:03
  • 2
    Why either/or. Why not both? – Mozibur Ullah Aug 09 '12 at 08:02
  • @Mozibur Ullah, your name is grammatically incorrect (if it is adapted from Arabic), I guess! It should be "Muzibullah" or "Muzib-ur-Rahman". Both have same meanings. –  Aug 09 '12 at 09:02
  • @BROY: I know, but that's the way its written on my birth certificate. You don't happen to know what it means? – Mozibur Ullah Aug 10 '12 at 19:49
  • Buddhism is a Philosophy that is also interpreted by those who so choose as a religion just as nearly all religions started out as a philosophy. Buddha himself said this philosophical, and I believe, profound statement; "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense." Personally I find that there is great knowledge in all Philosophies and all religions to be gleamed by those who are not afraid to delve beyond their own cultures and belief systems. –  Aug 11 '12 at 10:12
  • 1
    The "quotation" you offer is a very infamous **misquotation**; the Buddha actually said something profoundly different, almost precisely the opposite. You can read an article on the matter here: http://www.tricycle.com/feature/lost-quotation – Michael Dorfman Aug 11 '12 at 11:48
  • Buddhism is a *religion* that has its *philosophy*. And the word "Buddhism" could mean both of them. From religion it has ritualism, beliefs, soteriology and from philosophy it has analytical teaching, dialectics, logic. For monks it is definitely should be a religion. But it is not necessarily that they will attempt to convert you, depends on people. – catpnosis Oct 27 '12 at 04:18
  • You may what to ask yourself if it really matters at all? Playing with definitions of words to make a choice is not the way forward. I believe the best thing you can do is study how their traditions would affect you and your religious beliefs, them you will see clearly. – OMGtechy Oct 29 '12 at 02:32
  • In the East, there is not the distinction between religion and philosophy which has arisen in the West. you may want read Chandradhar Sharma's definition, first paragraph Chapter 1 Introduction, available here - https://archive.org/details/IndianPhilosophyACriticalSurvey. Also Surendranath Dasgupta's History of Indian Philosophy, Vol.1 - http://consciouslivingfoundation.org/ebooks/13/CLF-HistoryOfIndianPhilosophy.pdf – Swami Vishwananda Mar 22 '18 at 09:51

6 Answers6

11

There are two aspects to this question, a theoretical one and a practical one. I shall attempt to address each of these in turn.

The theoretical question regards whether Buddhism is to be considered a philosophy or a religion. This is a definitional question; it assumes that we already have rigorous delimitations of the notions of "religion" and "philosophy"; needless to say, we don't. There is a large literature on the subject with regard to Buddhism, which comes to no real conclusion; most people consider Buddhism a religion, but this depends on the assumed definition of "religion." So, at the end of the day, it is not a useful distinction.

The more practical question is whether Buddhism would conflict with your prior religious beliefs. Here, the answer is somewhat clearer: as Buddhism rejects the notion that there is anything eternal: any religion that posits an eternal God is going to be in conflict with Buddhism's main tenets. Furthermore, even if your religion posits a God that is not eternal, Buddhism rejects the notion of a creator God.

However: the fact that you are planning to live with Buddhist monks while knowing so little about Buddhism itself is worrisome. I'd strongly recommend you check out a good, single-volume introduction to Buddhism, such as Peter Harvey's An Introduction to Buddhism (published by Cambridge) or Rupert Gethin's Foundations of Buddhism (published by Opus) which will give you a good overview of Buddhist doctrine.

Michael Dorfman
  • 23,267
  • 1
  • 44
  • 69
  • `any religion that posits an eternal God is going to be in conflict with Buddhism's main tenets` -- I'm not sure that's true. I remember two points on that subject: 1) Even if you are reborn as a god, that state/incarnation will not last forever; 2) When someone asked the Buddha about the after-life he refused to answer, saying, "I am here to talk to you about /this/ life." Furthermore, IMO a characteristic of Buddhism is that it is not antagonistic: I would like to think that someone can, for example, try to live up to Christ's teachings (usually defined as "religious") as well as Buddhism's. – ChrisW Aug 09 '13 at 22:44
  • Regarding your first point: it is in agreement with what I am saying. The Buddha rejects the notion that any god is eternal. Regarding your second point: you are misremembering. The Buddha spoke *often* about what happens after death (i.e., rebirth); what he refused to talk about was the status of a *Tathāgata* after death. You can try to "live up to" whoever's teachings you desire, but Buddhism rejects a Creator God, an Eternal God, an eternal Soul, and an eternal Heaven-- each of which are standard Christian doctrine. – Michael Dorfman Aug 10 '13 at 13:02
2

Both but more than either it is a PRACTICE. Practice and Study lead to Happiness and Enlightenment.

I have practiced Nichiren Shoshu True Buddhism http://www.USABuddhism.com since 1974. Having the correct practice is very important.

SatiricalMuse
  • 25
  • 1
  • If this is the "True" Buddhism, I assume there are other types of False Buddhisms. I wonder what they are, but it is understandable that you would be most familiar with what you practice. – Frank Hubeny Mar 20 '18 at 13:07
  • Nchiren explicitly dismissed other forms of Buddhism. However, this focus on practice over metaphysics goes back to the Buddha. – CriglCragl Mar 20 '18 at 23:17
0

Is Buddhism a philosophy (love of wisdom), a systematic approach to analysing experience (subjective science), an ethical and logical framework, a theory and conclusion that can be tested?

Yes it is.

Does Buddhism challenge fragile beliefs held without empirical evidence such as notions of a vengeful creator god, a sense of self or soul?

Yes it does.

Is Buddhism a religion as undefined by Wikipedia, "an organized collection of belief systems, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to spirituality"

Probably.

respect for what is sacred,

Yes.

reverence for the gods,

Not particularly.

obligation, the bond between man and the gods

Absolutely not.

Latin religiō, ... *le-ligarean ... lego "read", "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully"

Yes.

ligare "bind, connect", ... prefixed re-ligare, ... "to reconnect,"

Yes as far as a community. No as far as the ultimate goal is nibbana (nirvana) which means 'unbinding', release, detachment, blowing out.

Are you likely to find Buddhists argue with you even if you do not engage them in debates of theological speculation?

No, I do not think so.

alex
  • 133
  • 6
0

One of the epithets of the Buddha is 'teacher of the devas'. There are various accounts of Buddha teaching devas or gods, even Brahman the supreme being/ultimate reality. https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html This is a very different dynamic to Western thought, it is not arguing ontic priority, but saying there are insights in this practice for all beings.

The bigger picture is, religion and philosophy are terms rooted in Greek thought. Why should we expect a really ancient practice that arose out of an even more ancient culture, to fit neatly into these categories?

Consider https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_Poisoned_Arrow The concern of Buddhism is not with cosmology, or hierarchies of being, or who's book is best, or even who's account of how we got here is best. It is about suffering, the causes of suffering, that it is possible to live in a way that doesn't cause suffering, and how to do that. They are the Four Noble Truths. At core that is all Buddhism is. The poison arrow is in all beings, it is part of the nature of being an arising phenomenon. It's cessation, however that is achieved, for all beings, is Buddhism.

Buddhism is compatible, in principle, with all religions and cosmologies. But it is not concerned with things outside the area that it addresses, just like eg. science with areas outside it's conxern. That lack of concern can be interpreted as dismissal, but it shouldn't be. Just like scientific method has no concern with phenomena outside of external observations - yet other areas of consideration exist, so Buddhism is not concerned with phenomena outside of internal observations especially those honed by meditation - but such areas do exist. They are just not important to it's context.

Buddhism is about identifying what it is to be awake. What obscures our view of pur being in the world? How do we numb, or distance, or or go to sleep to our experiences? How can we turn that around, be aware, engaged, and awake? In this very moment we decide.

Namaste.

Edited to add: Please note the nature of faith as viewed in Buddhism https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/faithinawakening.html It is not unconditional, or unjustified, it does not require a leap from a standing start. But it does require going into the practice with faith in it, that this has seen others 'across the stream'. You might compare this to how science depends on us having faith in other scientists, and the community. But it must also go beyond the material, the practical, the explained, into something deeply and intrinsically personal. That is certainly not in the realm of science.

CriglCragl
  • 19,444
  • 4
  • 23
  • 65
0

I think, if Buddhism is a religion, I am bound to face hard times. Because, it will clash with my current religion.

That depends on your religion. Eighty percent of Japanese are Buddhists and eighty percent are Shintoists, which means that a lot of people have resolved the problem. The culture seems to have reconciled matters by following Shinto for activities in this world and Buddhism for events in the next.

Mark Andrews
  • 5,894
  • 5
  • 21
  • 38
-3

What is religion?

There are many ways to define "what religion is", but several assertions of them may be used related to this case:

  1. What is the purpose of religion, eventually?

    • The purpose of religion, eventually is to put us on happiness (whatever it is, may be different to others)

  2. What is the consistency on a religion?

    • Religion promises happiness on after life (including current life)

  3. Additional assertion

    • On most religions (not all that i know), related to this discussion, there are fixed assertion, that we must obey commands from God.

What is God?

There are many definitions of God, but in this case i will highlight God as the creator.

Further

There are two differences on definition "what religion is" in this case:

  1. I regard religion as a wider range than spiritualism that adds commands that ascribed to God and should be executed by us.

    Basically the main purpose of religion that has imposed upon us, namely: the continuing expansion of awareness and carry out the commands of God with sincerity to reach long lasting happiness in harmony. Without obediement to God's commands, then there will be no happiness.

    • Whether meditation may be accepted or not on religion, but as long as it can be considered as part of the way to obey on God's commands, then it may be accepted as a cause for us to get into happiness.

  2. Religion is the way that promote fulfillment for better life (happiness) in this current life and after life, with no relation to God's commands. And there is no relation to God as creator.

    • ... he renounced his promising future as prince in order to start a long quest for a higher purpose, nirvāṇa (Pali nibbāna), which entails the cessation of old age, sickness and death

    • ... gods do not play any significant cosmological role. For the Buddha, the universe has not been created by an all-knowing, all-powerful god that is the lord of the universe and father of all beings (M.I.326-7). ...

    IEP

    • Perhaps, this causes that buddhism is rather tolerance to any conflict regarding to "whether there is God or not", since "whether there is God or not" eventually we need happiness.

What is Philosophy?

There are various definition on philosophy. But essentially, in a short, philosophy is:

  • Knowing as it is to lead us acting as it should be (relevantly), IOW
  • Knowing something as it is to direct us acts as it should be (better adjustment)

In this definition, i don't assert philosophy as "rational investigation to the truth", but wider, because philosophy doesn't oblige rational investigation as the first priority, but philosophy obliges us to love wisdom, which oblige us not to use rational only (and mostly), but must be included implementation of wisdom.

Please refer to Distinguishing between philosophy and religion related to the meaning of philosophy in this post.

Conclusions:

Is buddhism a religion or philosophy?

  • Buddhism may be considered as religion with no relation to God as creator, unless a religion must assert God as creator

  • Also, Buddhism is philosophical since it leads us to realize something as it is, and help us to react (adjust) better and better.

  • Whether Buddhism may be considered as religion or not, or may be considered as mysticism, but logical reasoning can be applied on Buddhism. This is why i consider Buddhism is not against philosophical.

We may adapt the goodness on anything, whether from any other beliefs or from any other religions, as long as it doesn't conflict with our main consistent principles:

  • For example, I may adapt technical on meditation to improve my chanting to be more focus.

Don't be afraid to adopt wisdom from another sources. Do it wisely. Know your main consistent principles, and start make further adaptation properly that is in line with your main consistent principles.

Hopefully, we will see where the limit that we couldn't pass it.

Community
  • 1
Seremonia
  • 746
  • 4
  • 8
  • 5
    Sorry, but I disagree with almost every point here. The first 3 numbered points grossly under-appreciate the breadth and depth of religiosity in the world. "**What is God?** Within consistency among religions that God is the creator." I don't know what that means entirely but I don't think it's appropriate to reduce all religions to monotheistic, creation-story belief systems. All further definitions for both religion and philosophy are too narrow IMO. – stoicfury Aug 06 '12 at 18:15
  • I appreciate your objection, really. There is no way for us to define anything without narrowing it. We can only pick a consistency to make our comparison easy to be understood. If I want to clarify "whether it's soft?" And i don't have anything soft that could be an example. I made the comparison with something as the opposite to the softness. But at least i am dealing on comparison using consistency. It's not narrowing definition of God, but it's pointing to definition of God that has an opposite with this discussion related to Buddha, to see where the different is. – Seremonia Aug 06 '12 at 19:03
  • But widely, there are many definitions of God. To be specifically, as i already mentioned by using "IN THIS CASE" & "KNOW YOUR MAIN CONSISTENT PRINCIPLES". But i edited to avoid misleading. Further there is no "well defined" as a complete definition. But if we are talking about whether we can make a "well defined" as a complete definition. It's impossible, because we have to make comparison for something with everything that exist. In any way, how perfect we can define something, still we are narrowing something on our understanding. – Seremonia Aug 06 '12 at 19:04
  • With our limitation on defining something with consistency, at least it will help us to make a limited comparison and to interact properly. Narrowing as long as using consistency help us to put us on exact direction (boundaries, It's safe zone where we can hold on for specific purposes) while we are still making further exploration for more available consistency. – Seremonia Aug 06 '12 at 19:18
  • 3
    Yes, I understand that definitions are a "narrowing" process, but too much narrowing misses important properties of a thing. I just think your earlier definitions left out too much. A definition that encompassed 95% of those belief systems we might call "religious" is one thing, but your definition seems to leave out all non-Abrahamic religions, which is a stretch to say the least. Also, there is really more to religion than simply doing what makes us happy, or will eventually reward us with eternal happiness, or following God's commandments... – stoicfury Aug 07 '12 at 02:00
  • It's no use saying religion in every definitions, that religion is more than believe there is God as creator, if we only need to assert that Buddhism has no relation with God as creator as mentioned by ONLY SOME RELIGIONS believe God as creator. And I am not narrowing "religion", I am just point definition of religion that relevant (IN THIS CASE) to this question. ON OTHER CASES we may have different understanding. Unless i didn't assert IN THIS CASE. – Seremonia Aug 07 '12 at 04:44
  • Anything we do eventually for happiness. At first we didn't care about our safety, but it's for our satisfaction (that makes us happy, no matter small). As long as i am narrowing understand but it has consistency and RELEVANT. It's enough. Unless i am saying ALL RELIGIONS are ... (did i say in this context? No). Please give me examples, 1. where doing something is more than what makes us happy. 2. Please give me examples, that I AM SAYING ALL RELIGIONS ARE ... I don't have to say SOME of these, Some of those. Simply by assert, IN THIS CASE, it already asserts SOME RELIGION. It's within context – Seremonia Aug 07 '12 at 04:47
  • 1
    That is a huge area in and of itself (whether true altruism exists) or everyone is merely acting selfishly, which I don't really want to get into here in the comments, but it'd make for an interesting question. :) – stoicfury Aug 07 '12 at 04:52
  • Narrowing religion IN THIS CASE as there is God as creator, it's enough to assert that if OP has religion with belief system God as creator, it's simply the opposite to Buddha. But if OP believe God as not a creator, than he/she must know expand his/her understanding related to his/her MAIN PRINCIPLES of any other religion (i may not know), and see if it against Buddha principles. It asserts that I wasn't trying to generalize "religion" by narrowing it. Once again, within context and understanding MAY BE EXPANDED with several precaution when we will make comparison – Seremonia Aug 07 '12 at 04:52
  • yes @stoicfury it's huge area, therefore i am using definition with consistency within context, to help "how to deal with huge area". Besides, "defining what we have to do" is dealing with huge area, but still can interact properly in our life by using (narrowing within) RELEVANT CONSISTENCY. Don't give up dealing with huge area :) That's what philosophy are for. It's love wisdom. Try to deal with any thing that consider IMPOSSIBLE with possible approach. Happiness because follow God's commands or in line with Buddhism (already mentioned). I like this conversation. Thanks for your smile :) – Seremonia Aug 07 '12 at 05:18
  • 1
    [No I'm not giving up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bI5hi4c4y9k). I just mean this comment space is not the place to have such a discussion. :P [The question has already been asked](http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2724/is-it-possible-to-be-truly-selfless-or-altruistic), so at some point I may add an answer there. :) – stoicfury Aug 07 '12 at 05:20
  • What i mean, don't give up to deal with huge area by blaming on "narrowing by using RELEVANT CONSISTENCY - WITHIN CONTEXT". at least at this moment, this is "using RELEVANT CONSISTENCY - WITHIN CONTEXT" a better way to deal with huge area and still can be applied on our life. Unless there is another way dealing with "huge area", i will be open minded to accept an alternate way :) – Seremonia Aug 07 '12 at 05:26
  • 1
    You may refer to [this question](http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2724/is-it-possible-to-be-truly-selfless-or-altruistic/3437#3437) to make a better understanding about "happiness" in this discussion. But actually "happiness" in this post already asserted as described on [this link](http://philosophy.stackexchange.com/questions/2724/is-it-possible-to-be-truly-selfless-or-altruistic/3437#3437) (if we understand it not piece by piece), and LOL, thanks for the Galaxy Quest ;) – Seremonia Aug 07 '12 at 08:36