Is Buddhism a religion?

[Stoniphi]

:yawn: That all you got?

 

[wynn]

It's enough.

 

[Pineal]

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

Where is the guarantee, period? and that's not just a rhetorical question.

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.

Sure. On the other hand they may have tools and insights that are incomplete and have been created by people whose insights were incomplete.

If we know a method to choose the best single religion (for oneself or for everyone) that is guaranteed to be correct, we can then see if this method can also be used to pick and choose. If it cannot, but one has this method to choose to best single religion, then the choice is fairly clear. If one has the methnod to choose the best religion and this seems to apply also to picking and choose and this method indicates this is best for one, then it would seem like one should go with the method towards picking and choosing or not use the method. If one does not have a method that guarantees picking the right religion.....

then what?

 

[wynn]

Where is the guarantee, period?

If there are people who have followed a particular regimen as proposed by a religion, and have attained what said religion promises, it would be reasonable to assume that there is some guarantee that the regimen delivers what is promised.

If one does not have a method that guarantees picking the right religion.....

then what?

If one does not have a method that guarantees picking the right religion and one is concerned over picking the right religion, then one has already chosen one's religion: its basic tenets are that mistakes are fatal and that God is evil or doesn't exist.

 

[Pineal]

If there are people who have followed a particular regimen as proposed by a religion, and have attained what said religion promises, it would be reasonable to assume that there is some guarantee that the regimen delivers what is promised.

Though one is already trusting the religion's self-evaluation (marketing? hindsight bias? ego?), its claim that their methods work for all or most (universalization) and that the goal they describe is one you want (projection, assumtion, indescribability).

Western medicine can claim to heal some or even most people with certain kinds of diseases. Chinese Medicine can also make this claim and is also successful with some or most, depending on the disease.

Some practitioners combine elements of both - I found a series of studies where CM was conbined with chemotherapy. Patients did better with the combination both on survival rates and comfort. I can't remember the specific cancer they were treating.

If one does not have a method that guarantees picking the right religion and one is concerned over picking the right religion, then one has already chosen one's religion: its basic tenets are that mistakes are fatal and that God is evil or doesn't exist.

That could be the case. Or one could think that one must explore one's way forward and one is not sure if this will work or not. One does not have to finalize a belief. Of course we already have beliefs and we also have beliefs that rise to the surface under duress, loss or 'failure'. But these can be challenged.

 

[wynn]

Though one is already trusting the religion's self-evaluation (marketing? hindsight bias? ego?), its claim that their methods work for all or most (universalization) and that the goal they describe is one you want (projection, assumtion, indescribability).

They say it takes a person of integrity to know another person of integrity - and that a person of no integrity cannot recognize a person of integrity.


If there are people who have followed a particular regimen as proposed by a religion, and have attained what said religion promises, it would be reasonable to assume that there is some guarantee that the regimen delivers what is promised.

If you desire x and don't seem to be able to get it yourself and you conclude that you need someone to help you, you go out looking for those who have x.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

They say it takes a person of integrity to know another person of integrity - and that a person of no integrity cannot recognize a person of integrity.

I'm not so sure about that. They also say that it takes a con man to know another con man, and we've probably all seen that happen. The reason con men are so successful is that they can spot one of us honest, trusting souls--persons of integrity--in a second.

 

[Pineal]

They say it takes a person of integrity to know another person of integrity - and that a person of no integrity cannot recognize a person of integrity.

Well then the neophyte is at least accepting their ability to recognize a person of integrity! They are not coming empty to the choice of religion. They have a method, if not a guarantee.

If there are people who have followed a particular regimen as proposed by a religion, and have attained what said religion promises, it would be reasonable to assume that there is some guarantee that the regimen delivers what is promised.

Though how does the outsider judge what they have attained and their integrity. Also a person with integrity can still make mistakes, certainly of scope and applicability. And I think there is a general assumption that what one person wants all want, deep down, 'really.' I am not sure that is the case.

If you desire x and don't seem to be able to get it yourself and you conclude that you need someone to help you, you go out looking for those who have x.

Yes, though over time X may no longer be the goal and/or what looks like X may actually be something else.

This has been my experience. Though I do know there are others who see a master/priest/pastor and think they see X, have pursued the path this leader indicates and so far have been pleased. The leader still seems to have X, X still seems good, they seem to find more X qualities in themselves.

So I am definitely NOT say this cannot work. I just think it is not universal, but is a method, and is not a guarantee.

I also think that people tend to follow abstract ideas much more than people. Even though they are looking at people, sometimes, they filter their experience of that person through the beauty of words that are supposed to apply to that person.

But this can be improved. We learn. Or we can anyway.

 

[wynn]

The reason con men are so successful is that they can spot one of us honest, trusting souls--persons of integrity--in a second.

No. One reason that con men are so successful is because people think that being a person of integrity means being naive.

 

[Pineal]

No. One reason that con men are so successful is because people think that being a person of integrity means being naive.

OOOh. I like that. Also, being nice. I would also say that there is an assumption that one cannot trust intuitive reactions also. Which relates to the above. That we have to treat every person who approaches us the same, despite the warning bells which we can find, at that moment, not objective proof (rationalists) to justify them with.

 

[wynn]

They also say that it takes a con man to know another con man, and we've probably all seen that happen.

And it is better to be conned than to know how to recognize a conman, eh?

 

[wynn]

But this can be improved. We learn. Or we can anyway.

The moment we put aside the eternal damnation issue, all the major parameters of interaction change.

 

[Pineal]

The moment we put aside the eternal damnation issue, all the major parameters of interaction change.

There are beliefs whose intention, I believe, were to freeze us and make us docile. I think this is one of them.

 

[BlueBaby]

From personal experience I see some religions as loosing their religion, so to speak. They are loosing their differences and becoming more about social changes and personal changes rather than a doctrine of some god. One world "religion" is not such a far off concept. It is evident in Christianity and in Islam (social reform, etc). So why not in Buddhism? A melding, a blending, as we become less and less isolated from others who "believe" differently.
BB

 

[wynn]

A melding, a blending,

- and a gelding.

 

[BlueBaby]

that too

 

[Pineal]

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.

From history....
http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/virg/hd_virg.htm
From Wiki

Mary's role in salvation and redemption

One of the components of the Catholic veneration of Mary is the focus on her participation in the processes of salvation and redemption.[128] Entire books have been devoted to the exploration of the Catholic perspectives on Mary's role in salvation and redemption.[129][130][131]

The underlying theological issues have been discussed as far back as St. Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century and were intertwined with the discussions of the Immaculate Conception. One of the first scholars to offer theological foundations in this area was the Franciscan Duns Scotus who developed the notion that Mary was preserved from sin by the redemptive virtue of Jesus.[132][133][134] Devotions to and the veneration of the Virgin Mary continued to spread, as she came to be seen as the helpful mother of Christians, and by the 15th century these practices had oriented all the Catholic devotions.[135]

As of the 17th century, a common thread in the writings of saints and theologians alike is the role of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary as joint symbols of redemption and coredemption. Saint Veronica Giuliani expressed how Mary's suffering in Calvary united her heart with that of Jesus as she suffered each torment along with him.[136] The joint devotion to the hearts was formalised by Saint Jean Eudes who organised the scriptural and theological foundations and developed its liturgical themes.[137][138] John Eudes wrote that: "The Virgin Mary began to cooperate in the plan of salvation, from the moment she gave her consent to the Incarnation of the Son of God".[107] The venerative aspects of the united nature of the two hearts continued through the centuries and in 1985 Pope John Paul II coined the term Alliance of the Hearts of Jesus and Mary, and in 1986 addressed the international conference on that topic held at Fátima, Portugal.[139][140][141][142]

By the 18th century, the continued growth of Marian veneration had emphasised the role of the Virgin Mary in salvation. In his classic book The Glories of Mary, Saint Alphonsus Liguori explained how God gave Mary to mankind as the "Gate of Heaven", and he quoted Saint Bonaventure, namely "No one can enter Heaven unless by Mary, as though through a door."[143] And he wrote:[144]

Thou art the gate through which all find Jesus; through thee I also hope to find Him."

Saint Louis de Montfort, whose writings later influenced popes, was an ardent supporter of the Virgin Mary's role in salvation.[145][146] The Catholic focus on the role of Mary in salvation and redemption continued into the 20th century, e.g. Pope John Paul II's 1987 encyclical Redemptoris Mater began with the sentence: "The Mother of the Redeemer has a precise place in the plan of salvation."[20]

Some forms this takes up to the present...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legion_of_Mary

note the last section on devotion to Mary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Army_of_Our_Lady_of_Fatima

This is a nice overview of how Mary can be and is the focus of worship for many
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/medny/halsall4.html

- note this has degrees of consciousness and degrees of official approval but I think for many Catholics and other Christians she is the central figure.

My personal experience in Mexico was that Mary was the central figure to many if not most women, and also some men...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Our_Lady_of_Guadalupe

There is also the Black Madonna phenomenon, which I think has allowed a kind covert goddess worship - partially conscious - within Catholicism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Madonna

And for a rather interesting, complicated take by an ex-nun see...

http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/False Religions/Roman Catholicism/mary_worship_a_study.htm

I like what she says about who the Pope prayed to when he was shot to see who he really thought had power.

 

[chimpkin]

Pineal:
Well then the neophyte is at least accepting their ability to recognize a person of integrity!

I can't totally trust anyone...well, I expect them to betray me even when I do trust them. That's why I can't really do organized religion. I don't trust, I can't think that anyone in authority actually has my interest at heart, I don't ever feel a part of any group I'm in.

Maybe I should pursue enlightenment though...if I was able to really figure out I'm an illusion and get that realization to stay stuck, I wouldn't care what people did to me anymore, would I?

 

[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.

I bolded the phrase above adn below, BlueBaby

If I understand you right: "rejects the notion of worshiping Mary as a recent innovation among a small segment of the huge worldwide congregation" That is exactly what I mean. Catholicism is evolving as well, and if they are loosing their worship of Mary one small segment at a time they are loosing a central part of Catholicism (as pointed out by Pineal in post #97) by becoming less disguishable from protestantism.

Yes, I know current catholics whose churches don't resemble the catholic church I attended decades ago.

That is why I believe it is so hard when debating a "religion" like Buddhism or any "ism" because they evolve so much. Are we talking about 500 CE or the 1500's or 1790's or 1950's or 2010? And which country? Which sect or followers? Which Blog?

IMO, we are loosing our distinct religions and even their gods and writings, original tenets, whatever.
BB

 

[Pineal]

I can't totally trust anyone...well, I expect them to betray me even when I do trust them. That's why I can't really do organized religion. I don't trust, I can't think that anyone in authority actually has my interest at heart, I don't ever feel a part of any group I'm in.

Maybe I should pursue enlightenment though...if I was able to really figure out I'm an illusion and get that realization to stay stuck, I wouldn't care what people did to me anymore, would I?

I suppose, if that is appealing.