eom

The study of Buddhist teachings and the adherence to Buddhist doctrine on the path to enlightenment are quite different and also quite the same if you catch my zen.

my son decided he was Buddhist at 9. It didn't take him very long to figure out the differences between those who "worshipped" Buddha and those who espoused the philosophy of Buddha.

He announced not long after that he was a Ch'an Buddhist. Not any other kind.

Even the Tibetian center I went to made it very clear that they don't worship Buddha or consider him a god.

nonetheless. They believe in "god(s)". Sorry if I misquoted, etc. He was the Buddhist, not I, so I may have mistated.

I do know he was very adamant that he supported Buddhist philosophy, not the "religion".

Buddhist philosophy is just one part of Buddhism.

"...responsible for preserving and teaching Buddhist teachings..." i assume that is out of Wikipedia...

Tibetan tradition is based on what is called "Transmission". when you receive a Transmission, you are hearing what was originally spoken to a monk by the Buddha 2600 years ago. who was trained in verbal transmission, he passed that on to other monks, etc.. and the Buddha's words have been networked down to today.
when you receive a Transmission from a monk you also get history, insight and interoperation . it is fairly ritualized. it is a really big deal, it is rare ..

becoming a Buddhist involves serious study, you can not mix traditions. if you pour even a little bit of rancid crap into a big vessel of Ambrosia you end up with a big vessel of rancid crap. i really don't know where ya'll get some of this stuff.. but it is mostly rancid crap. i'm not trying to be rude, but it's a fact. if people did what is done here to a Jew, they would immediately stop and tell you you were wrong, and want to know where you got those ideas.

i am telling you this because there is obviously a coordinated program of disinformation going on to confuse you guys... i practiced whatever form of Buddhism was available nearby as i traveled since 1970, i finally ran into a real Tibetan Monk and Songa, he had been the chant master of the Dalia Lama's Monastery. i studied under him for 8 years, three 3-4 hour meetings a week plus my own 2 hours practice at home 4 days a week, for 8 years. i didn't ritually become a Buddhist till after my 5th year there.

here is how it works, religion is religion.. it's called religion because it isn't something else. Buddhism is Buddhism, if it were religion they wouldn't call it Buddhism. you cant be a Buddhist and be a Christian or Muslim because there isn't any religion in Buddhism. if you believe Jesus can save you you don't need Buddhism.. you will NOT find the word 'Faith' in the glossary of any Buddhist book or teaching, Faith isn't a factor in Buddhism and you can't be a Christian, Jew nor Muslim without Faith.. with all the information on the internet, some here are really dedicated to insisting to that which is not true

Religion is more supernatural based, more based around gods and worship. Philosophy has some basis in reality and logic.

...what we're really metaphysically talking about are systems of belief. A great deal of energy has in fact been expended locating "supernatural basis" within "reality and logic" to no certain profit.

It's generally a nontheistic path.

it depends on one's the definitions of religion & philosophy.

if one means religion in the sense of one's fate being governed by the whims & fancies of supernatural beings, who have the power of ordering one's destiny -- then, it is not religion.

on the other hand, if one means religion in the sense of a practical way to live one's life, guiding one's own destiny towards a stated end, then it is religion.

to use an analogy: Buddhism is a combination of both the Science of Physics, and the application of that science -- as Engineering.

at least, that's my take; i may be mistaken.

This might be a good example of how labeling things takes the conversation away from the real point, particularly when the dualistic trap of "this or that" is imposed.
For example, i raise the question of whether Buddhism is atheistic or agnostic and posit that it is neither.
For starters, isn't it important to move beyond the notion (label) of God as a super being who happens to be a Him?
I know of a definition of God that perfectly reflects my Buddhist understanding of Buddha mind, Buddha nature, the absolute truth, or whatever one may choose to call or think of the way things really are (and it is all of the following):
infinite mind, spirit, principle, intelligence, life, truth, love.
This is excerpted from the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, founder of Christian Science. As far as I'm concerned, this understanding of God is completely consistent with and no different from the essence of my Buddhist beliefs as expressed by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche as to the "natural state of mind, unmistakenly and exactly as it is, [which] need not be sought for elsewhere but is present within ourselves."

in a defined structure with defined authority; and, spirituality seems to be part of humanity because all studied cultures be they animists or Roman Catholic(say) have spiritual elements. It may be just the sense of awe one often feels contemplating the night sky on a clooudless moonless night but it's incorporated into the culture at hand.

Buddhism differs in several important ways, one of which is for most traditions, it's something you do and work towards. Meditation whether that of no-mind, or Rinzai koan wrestling, or thanka contemplation, or scholastic study of the suttas, makes Buddhism unique and, with a master to guide you, quantifiable. Maybe simplistic but: If you do A, B, & C, a master can tell you if you're ready for D or already there.

As for the monks and nuns and begging, in most Buddhist communities, they provide needed community services at various significant points in life such as marriage, illness, consoling the bereaved, etc, gratis.

Taking all the above, I believe Buddhism is akin to a science - a science of life to me anyway - plus being an asset to the community. It is certainly not a sky-god religion but having a defined structure removes it from animism and random spirituality.

while others, a philosophy on awareness. Whatever it is, I like it for the most part. I don't view Buddhism as dogmatic and you are free to accept what works for you in trying to reach nirvana.

I'll go with what you said.

<opinion>

Buddhism without the doctrine is a philosophy. With the doctrine it's a religion.

In Christianity, Islam and Judaism the doctrine is central to the system, making them more inherently religious than a lot of schools of Buddhism.

In Taoism or Advaita there is very little doctrine.

Some schools of Buddhism make it easy to tease the doctrine and the philosophy apart, and one can adhere to the philosophy with no requirement to internalize the doctrine. This makes it more accessible to people who come from another (or no) doctrinal background.

</opinion>

Thanks for bringing it up.

Spiritual principles of compassion, etc applied by understanding and disciplining the mind. Psychology, itself, as a science, seems to me to take no position on the right way to treat other people except to the extent of understanding how to motivate them to react as you'd like, i.e., instrumental behavior. Buddhism concerns itself with applying principles to abate suffering not only for the individual actor, but for those affected by his/her actions.

He searched until he found the Way for each individual to free themselves from human suffering and endless rebirth.

After you meditate for a long time you really do find a wonderful sort of freedom from earthly ills and entanglements.

Just living an ethical life helps. But meditation and really concentrating on mindfullness are just so important.

and multifaceted that it is utilized as both. It can also be a form of ancient psychology, or medicine, so to speak.

Some people just want to go get blessing from the Lama and have a good feeling or expectation of good fortune in the future. Maybe the read some sutras and try to be more ethical and kind. They may be at a stage where they take literally what is a metaphor or conflate the internal and external. From that religious perspective, they always have an opening to enter the monastic, messianic or apocalyptic vehicles, and not necessarily in any order. They are, even from a religious and devote belief perspective, imprinting something on their mind-streams and, most likely, benefiting in various ways from Dharma. However, the same can be said of sincere followers of any religion.

Philosophy as a basis for understanding what we know and how, as well as an insight into behavior and relationships is valuable for those who sit back and think about things like that and need to appease their minds by way of inquiry and answers to salient questions. The teachings of the Buddhas certainly provide a treasure trove of material in that arena.

Since the basic core of the teachings is about removing the various obscuration of the shining mind, which is understood as liberation in respect to disturbing emotions and enlightenment in respect to disturbing/obscuring thoughts, the philosophy and logic involved in clearing the mind, (clear-light mind) would imply something transcending a merely religious approach, and yet, it does not exclude, at any point or stage, the rather rare, sudden realization of either or both along the way. When you are ripe, you are ripe, no matter how it comes about. In fact, one obscuration can be to expect how and when it will emerge and unfold since it is literally right here now, nothing new, and never goes away.

However, I am not a Buddhist which just means that I don't subscribe to any particular facet of the ism aspect. My practice is Buddha-dharma and largely pragmatic in that it includes whatever works. Exploring the vehicles and their methods as a whole can lead to sudden insights as to how they relate, what Dharma actually is, and what the core essence of liberation and enlightenment is or is not.

So, the flexibility includes that approach as well as investing yourself in a particular vehicle or school of Buddhism in whatever way fits closely to your current proclivities and tendencies.

While wrong and right way are initially important in the relative sense and discernment depends on them as a foundation, eventually that can lead to the kind of clarity that reveals the absolute relationship of that duality and how the relative and absolute coexist.

I think people tend to look at Buddhism and relate to what captivates them where they are conceptually. The various methods and schools may be available to you, but your tendencies will stick quite naturally to one or more. The dynamics are flexible and you could follow one or move from one to another or even try to swallow the whole lot, depending on you, not the teachings themselves. They can fit like spandex, or a baggy pair of jeans. Sometimes you go naked like Samantabhadra, the adibuddha.

I'm not discouraging or encouraging a particular way to practice, though I do encourage a realistic and fair investigation into the methods, logic and means. What I would suggest for us Westerners is to relax more and more and more. Dive into Dharma in a way that feels comfortable and resonant with what you most deeply understand to be your current nature as you are because, that's where you are going, anyway. Worry less and trust that your insights will grow as you continue sincerely and with the right goal in mind. You may find that the provisional teachings will be your ladder to the definitive and that right understanding of the relative, or conventional truth will naturally reveal the essence of the ultimate or absolute truth implicit in your every experience. Then inner clarity will shine on the definitive teaching most brightly!

While it is enjoyable to enter debate on these matters, (is it more like this or more like that) I have found it impossible to pin the tail on the dharma and, rather than finding that frustrating. it turns out to be revealed as not a negation, but a proof of what the dharma actually is. It is quite the mirror and the reflection is what matters until the mirror reflects nothing else, not even itself.

Religion, philosophy, psychology, ontology, cosmology, medicine? That is a matter of imputation of course, Interpolation and repudiation from our side plays a big part in determining that. The degree of compassion that wells up and becomes action is the perfect and unerring barometer of the results, no matter.

Oh my! He who speaks does not know and he knows does not speak. Judging by all that writing, I've given myself away.

First, they consider themselves a religion, as proven by their tax-except status.

Second, many Buddhists believe in reincarnation. It's a major pillar of Mahayana Buddhism.

Third, some Buddhists believe in supernatural beings, such as gods or spirits.

There is no god to worship except in the religion of the common folk. They have their own dieties and such. But on the higher level there is nothing to worship.

Reincarnation is a belief in endless rebirth but it is not worshipped. Karma is what drives everything but it is not worshipped.

There is a goal - compassion and kindness that is realized thru ethical living and meditation.

The Dharma is important but those are just instructions on how to achieve the goal of compassion and kindness and freedom from the ignorance and suffering of the world.

The Buddha warned against getting too caught up in the Dharma. It points the way along the path but it is not the path. The Dharma is the finger pointing to the moon. It is not the moon.

The Buddha was asked if his way was a philosophy and he answered that it was not. It's a Way. A path that leads out of the endless rounds of rebirth.

If your definition is simply a set of shared beliefs then just about any group is a religion. But if that definition includes the concept of a creator superhuman figure then Buddhism would not be a religion.

I never really think of it as a religion and that may be because I kind of limit my reading to the Sutras that were the actual teachings of the Buddha - not later teachers. Except in the case of Zen where I like to read what all the teachers have come up with. It's just such interesting, beautiful stuff.

"What happens when we die?" "What is the meaning of life?" etc.

He referred to Buddhism as a religion. He should know.

And I'd say that belief in the supernatural counts as religion. Just my two cents.

I guess most people would view a path to enlightenment as a religion, but then again wouldn't that mean that philosophy, art, music, or even science would be a religion? Maybe it's both. Maybe it's neither. Who knows? I love to attend Tibetan Buddhism Chenrezig meditation, but I take a rather agnostic view on whether Chenrezig exists or not. All I know is that the meditation helps guide my meditation and focus my mind.

I'm sure that there are many people who practice it in a non-religous way, but it is similar to religions in a fundamental way: It describes a theory of how the universe works (that to me seems spritual or supernatural) and then provides a course of action for humans based on that spiritual understanding.

I'm speaking as a non-Buddhist myself. Just an opinion.

I practice Zen but I don't think that really is a religion. It's a meditation technique. But if you add the other Buddhist principals to it then it feels like a religion.

Shinto has become. In Japan the reason Buddhism and Shinto go hand in hand is that they are both looked at as Philosophy. In life the Japanese have Shintoism. In death, Buddhism. I only wish one didn't have to travel to Hawaii or Washington state to find a Shinto Shrine. (Or clear to Japan!) but that is the way things are. Though I consider myself Jodo Shinshu, I don't really practice.. maybe I am an Atheist at heart, but I will still do the customary things .. such as sitting before a meal, putting my hands together and saying "Itadakimasu!", only because if feels correct to do so.

At least in Asia, Buddhism seems like a pretty straightforward religion to me; shrines to gods and spirits are ubiquitous in Buddhist countries I've visited, Siddhartha Gautama described various supernatural phenomena like various heavenly worlds, and he is attributed miraculous psychic abilities even in the conservative Pali Canon. In the Himalayas Buddhism is probably more like a "religion" than most liberal Protestant sects, with its colorful iconography and layers of Tantric mysticism.

I do recognize that there are Western interpretations of Buddhism which deny rebirth as a literal phenomenon and are completely secularized. That's certainly as "authentic" as any other kind of Buddhism, and could validly be called a philosophy, but that's still a small minority of practitioners.

More as mind training actually and achieving a particular point of view that is altruistic and co-operative. During a meditation retreat about mahamudra, I asked the teacher, a Tibetan Lama, about the nature of buddha mind. The lama taught that in mahamudra meditation, if we are good meditators, we can experience the ultimate nature of our own mind has limitless, infinite, and present everywhere. I asked him: that as a child in Christian sunday school, I was taught that God was omnipresent, present every where; omnescient, all-knowing; and omnipotent, all powerful. That such a divine consciousness was the definition of God. Is that not the same thing as Buddha mind? To which he replied, "I don't have a problem with that."