It feels more like a therapeutic philosophy that is in practice to me. I thought religion is believing in an absolute truth and nothing but that. But Buddhism doesn't have any of that it's more or less just trying to remove suffering from yourself. Why is it categorized as religion? I do realize in it's original cultures the term "religion" is not translated as the same kind westerners and western asians (Middle East) recognize it as.
From wikipedia "Religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence." Buddhism fits that definition neatly.
My knowledge of Buddhism is pretty limited, but my first guess would be that it's called a religion because it's still a somewhat organised and structured belief system built around some sort of faith in unseen and metaphysical philosophies and theories of how the universe works.
Isn't fundamentalism and confucionism the same in those aspects? I would go far to say even science fits the bill as many new cultures are developed due to contributions of science.
The human being were created by alien in another planet. One day the alien found out that human being had sin. They evicted human being on earth. Since then, they had sent 3 agents on earth to check whether human being's sin had been removed or not. if the human being's sin no longer exist, human being will be allowed to go back to the planet that they came from, that planet is called "heaven". Those 3 agents that were sent on earth by alien were Jesus, Buddha, and Muhammad.
If you watch the movie "The man from earth", you will find out the relationship between Buddha and Jesus. You will also find out that the human being created "religion". Both Jesus and Buddha didn't. [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVMhEAI3pvg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVMhEAI3pvg[/ame]
You have to remember that there are many different types of Buddhism and they can be quite different. I must admit, talking about 'Buddhism' in a general way is a bit of a pet hate of mine. I mess around with Soto Zen. It's not even considered a philosphy, it's viewed by (some) practitioners as a practice. On the other hand, Tibeten Buddhism is very different and looks like more of a religion in that western sense of the word. Some schools view Buddha as a god and have all sorts of wacky rituals and supernatural beliefs, some don't. So it's quite easy for it to get thrown in with other religions and possibly should be.
If you take a trip to South Eastern Asia you'll see why (and how) Buddhism can be a religion. That being said. You don't have to be tied down to the supernatural elements (Reincarnation, Karma, Dharma, etc.) of Buddhism to take the philosophy to heart. Likewise I can take Jesus' message of love and peace without buying into the holy trinity and the virgin birth. So it's perfectly normal to take the philosophy out of religion. In fact I personally see that the metaphysical elements in most religions can be taken as metaphors to help explain rather complex ideas. Such as God is just a metaphor for the entirety of the human species due to his omnipotent, omnipresent, benevolent, and jealous character. And so acting in appeasement to "God" should actually mean that you have to act in appeasement to the entirety of the human species, and therefore you'll be rewarded with "paradise", where as if you act in opposition to mankind you will be punished (think of prison and historical forms of punishment). But of course this is very abstract interpretation that can get a little convoluted at times.
The biggest different between the Christian and Buddhism is in - Christian, everybody want to go to heaven (selfish thinking). - Buddhism, some people prefer to go to hell to save those poor souls (non-selfish thinking). By thinking that way, since everybody can be Buddha and save others, it should not be treated as "single God" religion. The Buddhism is just a simple philosophy. If you don't have anything, you will not have to deal with your pain when you lose it because you have nothing to lose. It's pretty much like the communist theory that you only take what you need.
In fact you are right in a certain point of view. Religion is not about truth because that would make it ' science'. Believing is having faith in something you are not sure about, but are willing to accept as 'the best way for you'. Buddhism is not about ' removing' suffering, but more about the fact that suffering is inherent to life and how to deal with it. The fact that it is categorized as religion is indeed a bit weird, since Buddha was never subject of the thought of being a divine person or wanted to be object of devotion. He just wanted a way for him and his followers to escape from the circle of life. On the other hand, man are able to deify everything and make a religion out of it. From money to the elements... so why not Buddha...
Yes, Buddhism isn't necessarily about removing suffering, but it's removing suffering from yourself, you just can't remove suffering from the world and the advances it will continue to make upon you and realizing that. Then of course someone can argue there was no suffering in the first place by the thought of samsara is nirvana and nirvana is samsara. In any case Buddhism takes a lot more thinking and re-educating yourself on the precepts set by the world with less emphasis about saying your way of believing is better than others. It's closer to philosophy by it's practice. There is philosophy practiced in an organized setting similar to religions as well, so the line gets blurred. My definition of religion is that it has less theory and questioning, philosophy is always challenged. I would talk about what I said about science but that might open up another can of worms.
This is not accurate. Followers of religion are sure about their faith. As well as they accept it as "truth"
Buddhism is sort of both: a sort of therapeutic philosophy and a religion (I'd argue several) has formed around it. Spiritually, it has fed the thirst of billions.
One is entitled to their own set of opinions, however only a fool makes the mistake of having his own set of facts. So yes, there are subjective and objective truths.
Without wanting to head for a discussion about " truth", I agree wit Lad Gorg. To be sure about your own faith is basically a subjective truth (like all unproven truths, in my opinion). If your faith is unchallenged or without any doubt, then the term ' faith' is hardly appropriate any more; it becomes a blindly following and hanging on to a dogmatic thought. My point was merely that Buddha never asked to be worshipped, but tried to encourage others to escape from ' the circle of life' through acting by certain principles and not by worshipping Gods or demigods through (complicated) rituals.
:google: http://buddhazen101.tumblr.com/post/25350068069/why-buddhism-is-a-religion-not-just-a-philosophy
What is it with us westerners and trying to force Buddhism into living up to a watered down, post-colonial cliche? Anyone else noticed that the people who come out with the "Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy" talk are almost never practicing Buddhists? I'll be totally honest. Out of all of the, relatively few, Buddhists I've met... all of them are more than happy to consider Buddhism a religion. Seriously... *sigh*
Faith for some is unchallenged and without any doubt. And for them, it isn't blind faith, or blindly following a dogmatic thought. The term "leap of faith" is not just a dogmatic thought. He may not have asked to be worshiped, but he knew he was a leader and was to have followers. And followers of dogmatic thought worship their leader. Occidentals can, at times struggle with placing terms on things. Which is why the English language, in turn, confuses non-occidentals. One of my favorite reads on the subject is "What The Buddha Taught" by Walpola Rahula, given to me by a Professor of Eastern Religions, Friend, and Student ( of mine in martial arts)
