Is Buddhism a religion?

[Pineal]

Question : can a Christian or Muslim be a follower of Buddha and continue practicing its faith ?

If you are asking me, a non-Buddhist, I would say yes. From the Buddhist side, I have known masters who said this was alright. The trouble comes in on the other side: will the Muslim and Christian leaders consider them still these things. I think as long as they do not contradict any rules, I think it will be accepted by some congregations and leaders. Local theist religions in the East have been integrated, often, into Buddhism (or is it a merger). There Asian Buddhists worship gods, local deities often, as part of their Buddhism. I think it can work.

I think at a certain level there may be theological problems. For example, Jesus could be said to have shown the Buddha nature, but in Christianity he is the only one, period. So who was the Buddha? And what are you trying to accomplish with meditation?

 

[Pineal]

The fact that a person is bowing and praying in front of a statue, or lighting candles and kneeling, or ringing bells, etc., whether Catholic of Buddhist, comes from ancient customs that are used to form a continuous thread between the modern world and the ancient world when all these miracles supposedly happened.

The prayer to Mary says "Holy Mary, Mother of God, pray for our sins, now and at the hour of our death." It's not an act of worshiping Mary, but an intercession.

I don't think this fits at all in general. I am sure you are correct about some people, but I think others are worshipping Mary, do believe in her spirit and its power and hope to have her modify what the male aspects of God, for example, might otherwise do. This is especially true in places where Mary has become almost the central figure in Christianity and the appeals are directly to her.

 

[BlueBaby]

If you are asking me, a non-Buddhist, I would say yes. From the Buddhist side, I have known masters who said this was alright. The trouble comes in on the other side: will the Muslim and Christian leaders consider them still these things. I think as long as they do not contradict any rules, I think it will be accepted by some congregations and leaders. Local theist religions in the East have been integrated, often, into Buddhism (or is it a merger). There Asian Buddhists worship gods, local deities often, as part of their Buddhism. I think it can work.

I think at a certain level there may be theological problems. For example, Jesus could be said to have shown the Buddha nature, but in Christianity he is the only one, period. So who was the Buddha? And what are you trying to accomplish with meditation?

I know plenty of (fundamentalist) Christians who meditate- on their god's word and character traits. The word meditate occurs in several verses in some versions of their scriptures

BB

 

[Pineal]

I know plenty of (fundamentalist) Christians who meditate- on their god's word and character traits. The word meditate occurs in several verses in some versions of their scriptures

BB

Fine, but they are meditating on God's word. They are not meditating on their breath, their own awareness, phenomena as they arise, images of their deaths and so on.

 

[BlueBaby]

Fine, but they are meditating on God's word. They are not meditating on their breath, their own awareness, phenomena as they arise, images of their deaths and so on.

Yes, I didn't disagree. I just pointed out the fact that some christians do meditate. And some focus on one aspect of their god's character such as "Love", "Peace", etc. Which as I understand is not so divergent from some forms of eastern meditation.
BB

 

[Cowboy]

I think that Buddhism (like atheism and agnosticism) does not meet the philosophical definition of religion, but is and should be considered a religion for 1st Amendment/legal purposes.

 

[wynn]

I think at a certain level there may be theological problems. For example, Jesus could be said to have shown the Buddha nature, but in Christianity he is the only one, period. So who was the Buddha? And what are you trying to accomplish with meditation?

In essence, picking and choosing and mixing religions is a statement of the conviction that one doesn't believe that a single religion could provide one with what one is looking for or needs.

While I think it is perfectly legitimate to have the concern whether a single religion could provide one with what one is looking for or needs, I think that at some point, one must address this directly.

Where is the guarantee that picking and choosing and mixing religions will indeed provide one with what one wants and needs?

Especially given that those different religions may have very different goals, and thus the means they provide to reach those goals, may not actually be compatible, so mixing them up could create a toxic way of life.

 

[wynn]

Which I think is fine, actually, as I said above. But to draw conclusions about the religion from what one has picked and chosen and how one interprets texts - in ways the leaders and adherents do - is, I think, really problematic.

And again, I think the example of Yoga is a good one. Are western people who take Yoga classes, Hindus? Most are not. And most would not care how Hinduism was categorized. They would not identify with the religion.

It is also rather fashionable to be a Buddhist nowadays.
Zen sells, and the Tibetans have a charm to them.

 

[Stoniphi]

When you meditate to who you talk to? do you go through some routine ?

I talk to no-one when I meditate, nor do I think words.

When I "sit" (do Zazen) I breathe. I attend to breathing and nothing else, I strive to be "empty". I do not attach to passing thoughts, allowing them to rise like bubbles in water, but not following them at all. I sit on a zafutan and zafu (traditional Zen meditation cushion and barley hull 'pillow') maintain an erect posture and keep my eyes nearly closed and unfocused. I do this for about 20 minutes a session, most often in the afternoon.

When I do "Kata meditation", I do the pattern. (A Taekwon Do Kata is similar to a dance, but it is composed of martial arts techniques) I attempt to put 100% of my concentration into performing the pattern and not to let my attention wander from that at all. I do 19 Kata every morning after breakfast and before I run. My Kata take about 20 minutes to perform.

When I do "running meditation" after I do my Kata, I focus my eyes on the horizon and empty my mind. I concentrate on maintaining a proper stance/style, keeping my toes pointed forward, my motion conservative, my breathing deep and regular and my arms freely swinging at my sides, hands open and loose. I run 7 - 10 miles a day every day, it takes between 1 & 1/2 and 3 hours to do this, but not all of the time is in meditation. I am accompanied by my Labrador Retriever (I call her my Fu Dog) and I often play with her as we go along the back country trails along the river side. Dogs are very "in the moment", she serves to remind me to lighten up and be happy just being there doing what we are doing at the time.

I do "task meditation" when I am doing household chores of a routine nature which requires no thought, like cleaning floors, washing dishes or preparing a meal. I remain open and aware, but carry no thoughts as I do the task.

I meditate when I do yoga as well, concentrating on doing the stretch properly and my breathing - nothing else. I do several yoga sessions every week to stay limber and fluid in my motion. Each session takes about 45 minutes or so.

I have been a practicing Buddhist for 43 years. I have found the practice to be very calming and seriously contributes to my maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

 

[Aqueous Id]

I don't think this fits at all in general. I am sure you are correct about some people, but I think others are worshipping Mary, do believe in her spirit and its power and hope to have her modify what the male aspects of God, for example, might otherwise do. This is especially true in places where Mary has become almost the central figure in Christianity and the appeals are directly to her.

The true Catholic, who believes in apostolic succession, the "one true holy, apostolic and catholic church" rejects the notion of worshiping Mary as a recent innovation among a small segment of the huge worldwide congregation. The extensive presence of art, rendering Mary as the sacred heart, etc., are mostly of Renaissance origin, when chivalry put motherhood on a pedestal. It carried forward with a lot of other tradition.

Mary is not the central figure in any Catholic denomination I know of. Mary has no other power than to intercede, she doesn't forgive sins or save souls, and she is not God. So I'm not sure how you perceive that, but the portrayals of Mary that may seem off kilter to you are probably not nearly what you think they are. The other phenomena, particularly in France, Spain, and Mexico, that Mary makes miraculous appearances, and that there are shrines to her, may seem like worship. If so, then it depends on what you mean by worship. Catholics have a distinct meaning, and worship is directed toward God only. Mary and the Saints may have shrines and renditions, and even prayers directed to them, but never worship. This is call reverence. They are considered saints (a corrupted idea confusing martyrdom with a heavenly spirit). So saints are given reverence as a way to show respect for earning their place at the right hand of the father. The idea is not to worship a saint - for example, Catholics would never offer a sacrifice to a saint - but by always holding the saints up in banners and art, they represent the role models for the faithful, and this is the extent of the respect paid to them. I think Catholics regard Protestantism as cynical about this. That's why I say they would laugh at the idea that an outsider thinks they've figured out Catholicism when they really are too cynical to look at it objectively, and particularly amusing are those sects of Protestants who are always slinging mud at Catholics as idolaters, papists, conspirators, etc. What's so hilarious about this is that those folks owe the existence of their entire belief system to the Catholics who created their Bible and all the fiction evolved from that. I guess it's like the son who carries the genes of his parents finding some fundamental flaw in the DNA and yet ridiculing the parents for having a flaw.

 

[Aqueous Id]

It is also rather fashionable to be a Buddhist nowadays.
Zen sells, and the Tibetans have a charm to them.

Yes. I think the Dalai Lama in particular is sort of wise teddy bear that offers common sense and the American congregations, mostly middle to upper class white folks, respond very positively to his charming nature.

But don't you think it's also taken root here as a serious movement, not to mention the diversity of the population - as compared to say 100 years ago?

 

[wynn]

There are cultural/social changes as well. Very significantly, monasticism is being dramatically deemphasized. Few Westerners ordain, yet they nevertheless aspire to learning teachings and engaging in practices that only monks attempt in Asia.

I think a crucial difference is that in traditionally Buddhist countries, Buddhism is a natural part of the socio-economic fabric. The lays provide the monastics for their material needs, while the monastics in turn preserve the Dharma and teach it to the lays.
This also provides a natural entry point for people, with an emphasis on generosity and appreciation of the Dharma.

But this is generally not the case in the West, or only takes place within relatively small communities. The Westerner interested in Buddhism will have to put in sometimes considerable effort just to get in some kind of contact with other Buddhists, what to speak of actually becoming a functional member of a community of practitioners. Then there is the awkwardness of giving donations or giving alms to monks. For a Westerner, Buddhism can become quite an abstract and individualistic matter, thereby bypassing much of what in the original teachings is considered central - namely, admirable friendship.

 

[Yazata]

Do I have to reach a state of enlightenment to teach Buddhism?

I don't think so. A Buddha kind of sets the wheel of the dhamma rolling, you might say, and get's everything going. But subsequently, within Theravada at least, it's more about what the suttas call "spiritual friends", fellow travelers on the path helping each other. In the suttas, Ananda and others among the earliest monks are portrayed as teaching, and they hadn't achieved enlightenment yet. Today, many Theravadans don't think that anyone is becoming an Arahant in this day and age, so perhaps nobody on earth is enlightened at the moment.

In Theravadan monasteries, young monks are typically placed under the guidance of preceptor monks, who are usually chosen by seniority and are termed 'theras' or elders. A senior elder is called a 'mahathera' (great elder) and these usually supply the monastic abbots and such. But the 'thera' and 'mahathera' titles aren't really a measure of enlightenment so much as they are a measure of time that's already been spent as a monk.

The thing is, Buddhism is about realization, about actually experiencing something for yourself. Nobody can teach that into you, they can only give you some helpful tips from their own experience.

The Vajrayana traditions like Tibetan Buddhism have a much stronger emphasis on a guru-disciple relationship, in keeping with developments in Indian tantra. There's more emphasis on initiations and such. But even there, I don't think that there's really any expectation that the teacher be fully enlightened.

If I reach enlightenment can I personally profit from it: Books, DVD's, paid interviews

Would you want to?

In the Buddhist world, monks traditionally aren't supposed to handle money at all. (Monasteries often hire a lay manager to take care of the institution's business affairs.) Writings produced by monks are typically given away for free on a 'dana' basis, as gifts. These are usually pamphlets, but can be nicely bound books. They are paid for by lay donors who believe that giving gifts to the monks is a meritorious act. That's common in parts of Asia.

It's true that here in the United States, we often see self-styled 'Buddhist teachers' charging for their services. Some of them are very sincere and are just trying to make a living in an environment where monasteries and monasticism don't provide support for Buddhist teachers. And sadly, some of these "teachers" don't have the faintest clue and are treating the whole thing as a business opportunity.

and still call myself enlightened?

Just as a rule of thumb, I'm skeptical of Buddhists who call themselves enlightened. If they say that about themselves, it suggests to me that they probably aren't.

It's like that proverb -- "Those who speak don't know, those who know don't speak". At least about themselves in that kind of way. Many people who rise to the top as teachers in Western Buddhism seem to me to be rather self-absorbed, with massive self-regard and huge egos. That's kind of the antithesis of what advanced Buddhists perhaps should be.

Sadly, the Western Buddhist magazines sometimes seem to function as advertising vehicles for this kind of person. I tend to avoid that stuff and favor teachers who never advertise and never boast of being enlightened, but who have earned the respect of individuals whose judgement I trust.

 

[Stoniphi]

For a Westerner, Buddhism can become quite an abstract and individualistic matter, thereby bypassing much of what in the original teachings is considered central - namely, admirable friendship.

This is a very broad - brushed statement Sig, at this point in our relationship I do not think it is called for. There are some things that one must experience to understand, there is simply no other way, sorry. Remember that you are the one on the outside looking in, I am the on the inside looking out.....

Speaking only for myself, I have many friends whose love I deeply cherish, despite that it is not affiliated with anything other than basic daily commerce and lifestyle. The ladies behind the deli counter at the local fruit market have known me since I put my (now) 19 year old son down in his baby - bouncer on the counter when he was mere months old. In my heart of hearts and my mind of minds I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that this is exactly what the Buddha taught.

Nobody can teach that into you, they can only give you some helpful tips from their own experience.

Exactly. I cannot teach it to you, you must learn it if you want to know it. The emphasis is on you.

This was taught me by my TKD instructors through the years. They were correct, I progress, even in a vacuum, by myself.

 

[Search & Destroy]

That sentence doesn't seem to be very well composed and is somewhat confusing.

Ha it seems you are right

I suspect that what you really mean is that you only have thoughts that you have consciously composed with your free will, and that you have banished subconscious thoughts (to use a familiar Freudian term even though I'm a Jungian) which pop up autonomically and unbidden from the deeper parts of your brain which you inherited from your more primitive ancestral species.

I rather like this interpretation, but it is not what I meant. I mean the little thoughts have a brain of their own - the thoughts seem to possess their own free will. They seemingly run amuck, doing what they please, and are normally invisible. I banished "subconscious" from my spoken words and replaced it with "unconscious" to describe the thoughts some time ago, as it is more accurate to do so. They don't lurk in the basement - but right in front if you... once you focus right you can observe them.

It might be that the act of focusing creates them, or at least focusing puts a linguistic spin on them so that they can be observed. Like focus will translate thoughts into English. However it works, the result is that once you can observe the thoughts, you can interact with them and control them, thus their free-will becomes yours. Or in other words they do not possess free will anymore, as you have supreme control over them.

Emotions will always have a concurrent thought beckoning to be reconciled with. Question the emotion with words, and words will come back.
Q: "Why am I anxious?"
A:"Because you don't have enough time."
Q:"If I miss the bus, I'll just wait for another one, I have nothing to do today"
... and viola the anxiousness disappears.

The last one "I'll just wait for another bus" is an important one. That is where Buddhist belief enters the meditation stage. If you think money is more important than happiness for example. Then you might have not be able to answer to your anxiousness successfully to make it disappear. If you answer to your thought "time is money!" then the emotion will grow.

And if you really want to see egos in action, do a Dian Fossey and try to integrate yourself into a tribe of gorillas. She accidentally slapped a female on the butt while seating herself comfortably on a rock, and started preparing for her death. But she had been a member of the tribe for so long, using her unique human abilities to help them prosper, that she had been awarded status. The gorilla, twice her size, yielded the seat to her.

Haha, I would love to see that on video.

Yeah you're right. Especially higher up, bigger brained mammals with their level of consciousness certainly exhibit an ego.

Down towards lizards and frogs seem to be where the quote holds the most truth, as with their level of consciousness act without a burden of ego prohibiting them from certain actions. It would also seem as they live without thinking too much of the past or future...like one hop at a time.

Anyway, animals having enlightenment is just an idea to aid learning. Animals are good story tellers because they can be seen as very compassionate, or courageous, etc. and invoke a good response. Take frogs who don't have to worry about their in-laws moving in, or the health of their loved ones, who leap between Lilly-pads without fear of the hungry fish - humans can compare themselves to frogs and get ideas about enlightenment. This way we can see enlightened actions like the frog-hop with our own eyes, rather than having to purely imagine.

I believe the precise idea about animals and enlightenment in reincarnation-believing societies is that not all animals are enlightened, but have the possibility to become so, just like humans. Once they go through enough rebirth cycles and become enlightened, they no longer become animals or humans but become something else. I'm not sure about this though I might be wrong.

 

[Search & Destroy]

Just as a rule of thumb, I'm skeptical of Buddhists who call themselves enlightened. If they say that about themselves, it suggests to me that they probably aren't.

It does make me look twice. I've always wanted to meet an enlightened person to feel them out. It'd be interesting to see how they act, speak, and so forth. The thing about Buddhism is after some time you don't even want to be enlightened anymore. The desire for enlightenment seems like such a silly thing now, but it's what grabs most folk's initial attention.

 

[BlueBaby]

The true Catholic, who believes in apostolic succession, the "one true holy, apostolic and catholic church" rejects the notion of worshiping Mary as a recent innovation among a small segment of the huge worldwide congregation. The extensive presence of art, rendering Mary as the sacred heart, etc., are mostly of Renaissance origin, when chivalry put motherhood on a pedestal. It carried forward with a lot of other tradition.

Mary is not the central figure in any Catholic denomination I know of. Mary has no other power than to intercede, she doesn't forgive sins or save souls, and she is not God. So I'm not sure how you perceive that, but the portrayals of Mary that may seem off kilter to you are probably not nearly what you think they are. The other phenomena, particularly in France, Spain, and Mexico, that Mary makes miraculous appearances, and that there are shrines to her, may seem like worship. If so, then it depends on what you mean by worship. Catholics have a distinct meaning, and worship is directed toward God only. Mary and the Saints may have shrines and renditions, and even prayers directed to them, but never worship. This is call reverence. They are considered saints (a corrupted idea confusing martyrdom with a heavenly spirit). So saints are given reverence as a way to show respect for earning their place at the right hand of the father. The idea is not to worship a saint - for example, Catholics would never offer a sacrifice to a saint - but by always holding the saints up in banners and art, they represent the role models for the faithful, and this is the extent of the respect paid to them. I think Catholics regard Protestantism as cynical about this. That's why I say they would laugh at the idea that an outsider thinks they've figured out Catholicism when they really are too cynical to look at it objectively, and particularly amusing are those sects of Protestants who are always slinging mud at Catholics as idolaters, papists, conspirators, etc. What's so hilarious about this is that those folks owe the existence of their entire belief system to the Catholics who created their Bible and all the fiction evolved from that. I guess it's like the son who carries the genes of his parents finding some fundamental flaw in the DNA and yet ridiculing the parents for having a flaw.

Your points are well taken and understood, but it doesn't change the fact that in some Christian circles whether you are worshipping a saint or praying to them to intercede on your behalf it is still seen as going against scripture and as idolatry. They believe their scripture states there is one mediator: Christ. Men/women have no power to intercede for anyone, and praying to them is pointless. Sorry to beat an off topic dead horse. But as I see it we are both right and the only thing separating our definitions is religious belief and therefore inarguable from a secular viewpoint. After all, it is the same with the Pope, and part of what separates protestantism and catholicism.

 

[Search & Destroy]

Yes. I think the Dalai Lama in particular is sort of wise teddy bear that offers common sense and the American congregations, mostly middle to upper class white folks, respond very positively to his charming nature.

But don't you think it's also taken root here as a serious movement, not to mention the diversity of the population - as compared to say 100 years ago?

Right, Buddhism is growing. It's hard to say how fast at what impact but I did find this Wikipedia excerpt:

Buddhism World Growth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest-growing_religion#Buddhism

Lewis M. Hopfe in his "Religions of the World" suggested that "Buddhism is perhaps on the verge of another great missionary outreach".(1987:170)
Buddhism is being recognized as the fastest growing religion in Western societies both in terms of new converts and more so in terms of friends of Buddhism, who seek to study and practice various aspects of Buddhism.[6][7]

As in the United States, Buddhism is ranked among the fastest growing religions in many Western European countries.[8]

The Australian Bureau of Statistics through statistical analysis held Buddhism to be the fastest growing spiritual tradition/religion in Australia in terms of percentage gain with a growth of 79.1% for the period 1996 to 2001 (200,000→358,000).[9] However, because Australia is statistically small, no inferences can be drawn from that for the whole world.

Buddhism is the fastest-growing religion in England's jails, with the number of followers rising eightfold over the past decade.[10]

According to a recent report in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, the Japanese Buddhist sect Nichiren Shoshu of America (NSA) is the fastest growing religion in the United States. Since coming to America in 1960 NSA has launched an aggressive proselytizing program. In 1967 it built a national headquarters and World Culture Center in Santa Monica, California, and has since established offices in most major U.S. cities. According to NSA’s figures the sect, which is part of the Japan based umbrella organization Soka Gakkai (Value Creation Society), now claims a half million members in the U.S. - up 100,000 from a year ago.[11]

 

[Stoniphi]

A pictorial comment (credit: Black Belt magazine) on Korean Taekwon Do Buddhist practice:

...and a statement (from Tricycle, an American Buddhist magazine) about what "success" means to a contemporary Western Buddhist:

To laugh often and much; to win the respect of humankind and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty, to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a garden patch, or a redeemed social condition; to know even one life has breathed easier because you have lived. This is to have succeeded.

 

[wynn]

This is a very broad - brushed statement Sig, at this point in our relationship I do not think it is called for. There are some things that one must experience to understand, there is simply no other way, sorry. Remember that you are the one on the outside looking in, I am the on the inside looking out.....