Buddhism, is it really a religion?

I don't want to offend anyone, if I do it is not my intention. I really love the concept of Buddhism and I love Buddhist countries, I have been to a few. I'm just curious about it.

But I have to ask; is Buddhism really a religion? I know it is classified as one but doesn't religion mean that you believe in a god? What Buddha wanted to teach people was a philosophy, the best way to live. His plans were definently not to be treated as a God, which he now is. His whole philosophy is about balance within, isn't it?

 

agreed. I've always thought of Buddhism as more of a teaching.

 

Some of the quotes at Dictionary.com also use the word "worship" in several of their descriptions of the term, such as from American Heritage Dictionary, Online Etymology Dictionary, and Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary.



Buddhist, Buddhists, Buddhism ... these are words used to describe the teachings of a Buddha, and the individuals who practice the methods described in the teachings of a Buddha. Particularly the Buddha of this period whose name was Siddhattha Gotama (skt: Siddhartha Gautama).
Generally, those who practice the teachings of Buddha do not "worship" anything, or anyone. The principle teachings, or core teachings of Buddha are first to be understood, clearly and completely. Then to realize it, and finally to follow it.

Philosophy itself cannot lead one to liberation from suffering (p: Dukkha, meaning pain, suffering, sorrow, misery), nor does it openly offer a method for this end. At best philosophy will lead one to seek, through investigation principles of being, principles or truths of knowledge and/or conduct.

While the teachings of Buddha do have an outcome of realizing the truth regarding existence (becoming, being) through conduct, it does not cling to ideas or notions of attaining and accumulating knowledge pertaining to ones physical reality.

The whole idea or view of Buddhist teachings are self-contained in the Four Noble Truths. Both the origin of Dukkha, and the eradication of Dukkha. Following, through understanding, realizing and practicing, these teachings, one attains to a state of "no more learning".

You say, "Buddha wanted to teach people was a philosophy" ... ! This is not a truth, but an idea that you share with other people. Buddha whole concern was to teach sentient beings a way out of suffering, particularly the way he, and other Buddha's before him had done it.

Is it possible to be liberated from suffering and attain Enlightenment to final Nibbana (skt: Nirvana) without being a Buddhist? ... Yes, most definately. Point of fact is, the teachings of a Buddha are to show those who don't know HOW. Another point of fact: Siddhattha Gotama was just a man, who after attaining to a state of Enlightenment BECAME a Buddha. This means anyone can become a Buddha.

But, and here's the kicker, a Buddha is a SELF-AWAKENED being. If you become awakened through or as a result of the teachings of a Buddha, you are not a Buddha, but an Arahat (Mahayana: Hearer), one who attains to a state of Enlightenment through the teachings of a Buddha.

This is why most texts stipulate that a Buddha cannot arise during the dispensation period of another Buddha. This doesn't mean that if you live in an isolated area where the teachings of a Buddha have not been spoken and heard you cannot become a Buddha, you can, as long as your attaining such transformation is one of SELF-AWAKENING. Those who become self-awakened and do not teach, as did Siddhattha Gotama, are referred to as Pratyekabuddha (sanskrit) or Paccekabuddha (pali) (Mahayana: Solitary-realizer).

The Buddha's teaching was regarded to as the Middle Way. Not taking to extremes in one direction or the other, i.e., not adhering to the extremes of eternalism (Becoming) or the extremes of nihilism (Non-Becoming). So if one could bring this thought to an essence it would be about "balance", yes.

Hope this helps ...

HTML:

 

to me its a lifestyle,,,,

waves to darrell... i hadda pop in when i saw ya post n say howdy

 

Buddha means "enlightened one". So I think it means, not someone enlightened in terms of themself, but in terms of the world.

 

Ultimately, anyone can be SELF awakened. After all, it is the individual SELF that is awakened. And it is the individual SELF that goes through the actual transformation. And it is the individual SELF that exerts the effort to do so.

In the context I was using it, conventionally, and the context which the Pali texts use it, it refers to one who becomes awakened due to their OWN disillusionment with the current state or mode of existence and seeks a way out on their own and by themselves, without aid from other(s) as how to actually do it.

Good to see you again, old friend!

HTML:

 

In Pali the word for "Enlightened" is the same word for "Awakened".

Also, in Pali, buddha means "aged; old"; and as past-participle of bujjhati means "known; understood; perceived (m), one who has attained enlightenement; the Enlightened One. " bujjhati means "knows; understands; perceives; is awake." bujjhitu means "one who awakes or becomes enlightened."

HTML:

 

If one is referring to the person, yes, only a person can awaken. No one can do that for them. However, "self" can refer to the mental conception of a person, their job, name, personality traits, etc. This "self" is false and identification w/ it only increases unconsciousness. When one sees this "self" as false, the awakening process has begun.

Peace and love

 

Good post.
However, my question is,

Who is it that realizes this "self" as false?

Peace

 

The same "who" that observes thoughts during meditation. Awareness is "who," although awareness is formless, "who" identifies form, therefore, awareness cannot be intellectually understood. In other words, you cannot understand awareness by thinking. It is when you experience awareness separate from thinking that the awakening process begins.

Peace and love

 

Thank you for the response.

I'm still a little confused, but does this mean something like, "awareness aware of itself"?

Thanks in advance.

 

Yes, although there is no "itself" but this is only a semantic difference. You are coming closer to the Truth, although words cannot capture the Truth, but only point the way. It's attachment to beliefs and other mental concepts that separates one from the Truth.

Peace and love

 

i am attached to not being attached

 

i always found it to be more philosophical as well. it's a guideline on reaching enlightment and ending dukkha. it contians many suggestions for living your life. it lacks in the area of a higher power. it addresses brahman, who doesnt take a form, as the higher power that an enlighted ones will be amogst once in moksha. so, it technically embodies all the componets of a religion. it's all up to your interpertation.

peace, love & happiness
jackie

 

Buddhism in my opinion is not a religion. It displeases God because people worship the Buddha. Allthough nobody really knows who was the Buddha. Some say he was a high monk who ran a congregation of Budapest. But my opinion is this. Buddhism is simply worshipping an idol. Although the scriptures are rightous, in such as worshipping idols, this goes against the laws of God. Thou shalt not worship idols. It is my opinion. I could be wrong. So I say this: Utter unto thee a word of information, that thus will use to assemble thy final conclusion. Let it be true that the word of God has indeed come from Buddha. If not, thou shalt recieve a place in the telestial Kingdom.

 

John; what the hell are you doing in a Buddhism thread if you're just going to bash everyone and spew that bs?
Does your all powerful "God" think its ok to be a goth?
That's the problem with christianity; they think that their way of violence and hate is the one true way, and that everyone else is going to hell. Why? Because a little book says so. Grow up and open your mind.

 

and this a problem with people who speak about things they don't understand. Not all christians feel this way, as many would have you believe. There are HUGE differences between certain sects of christianity.

And although I think the poster that was buddhist bashing is in the wrong, and probably very ignorant on the topic of buddhism and eastern philosophies, I wouldn't call anything that he said "violence and hate."
Plus, wouldn't buddhism tell you not to react this way to someone elses own ignorance? Why, unless you actually believe what hes saying and doubt yourself, would you let it get to you?

 

It is a free country. I don't lean to the extreme christianity where people are cast into a lake of fire. Infact there is hope for even the worst sinner. God loves Sinners most. Infact if goths and non believers don't repent, they will wind up back on Earth or in a Telestial kingdom. This is a place which is the third glory of the Kingdom of Heaven.

If you have opinions about christianity, boogy on over to the christian forums. I do agree with what you say, that "Because a little book says so". The bible has been reinterpreted so many times, it isn't accurate. If you notice, Authorised King James Version, what was in the original? Plus there are missing scriptures which men deemed not appropriate, Not God, but man.

Buddhism is about Buddha. They worship him and I have many buddhist folk who all say, that they all want to be enlightened like the Buddha. It is an idol as the world doesn't have a foundation with Buddhism. It is mostly Christianity. If you don't like other people's opinion, you can disagree. But don't flame others for simply having an opinion. Furthermore, don't assume I am a fundemental no tolerating christian. I am open minded. Perhaps more so and the proof is in other threads.