Talk:Buddhism/Religion status

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Philosophy? Belief? Faith? Religion? System? Way of life?

User:Nick-in-South-Africa's recent change to Ashoka had summary: "(Replaced word faith with philosophy, many feel that Buddhist faith is an oxymoron)"

Well, it's probably not the best descriptor for the whole of Buddhism, but I don't like philosophy either, since there's a difference between a body of philosophic content (which is what I look to Buddhism for) and a living religious tradition (which is what the people I would call "Buddhists" tend to look to Buddhism for). So my first instinct is to go and change "philosophy" to "religion", but I thought I'd get a feel for all y'all's personal hair-splittings first.कुक्कुरोवाच 01:13, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Buddhist faith isn't really an oxymoron; I mean, you would translate saddha as faith, right? I do agree that it's problematic to describe the whole of Buddhism as a faith, the way you would talk about "the Christian faith". I also think "philosophy" has serious shortcomings. Probably the only really accurate way to describe it is as a type of dharma, but if we want an English word, which I think is advisable, then "religion" is closer than the alternatives. - Nat Krause 04:21, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Moreover, back to motive. If Buddhism was a philosophy, it would be a search for truth, which it isn't; or more literally, the love of wisdom - which is a quality that it has, but not a defining characteristic. Buddhism recognisably shares the features of religions (monks, ceremonies, prayer, institution, education, etc.)

In the end, we should use words as convention gives them to us. If Buddhism is acknowledged by the world as being one of the six world religions, who are we to argue with the world? Should Buddhism not be taught in the religious curriculum of Western schools? (20040302 04:53, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Philosophy does not equate to 'search for truth', which is more of a religious statement, in my view. In my view, early schools were more philosophical approaches to the problem of living than some modern day schools.

The fundamental, experiential, life-confirming quality of Buddhism is what I see as its philosophical facet - what perhaps draws some to its study, and has been partially responsible for its enormous growth in the West.

Regarding above, Buddhism does NOT include prayer to a 'creator', 'saviour', etc. and should therefore be made distinct from major world religions such as Christianity and Islam.

Another point, you have the complete avoidance of discussing some common religious questions by the Buddha himself as evidence that he wanted to provide a practical philosophy for life rather than some sort of 'blind faith' to be propogated.

I could ramble forever, but in summary my view is that Buddhism in its essence is a philosophy, and it is only through the degeneration of its practice in parts of the world that it comes to share qualities with the popular monotheist 'faiths'. (PS: I do not mean to start an argument here, you are entitled to hold differing opinions - By all means make use of that opportunity!)

prat 09:50, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Pratyeka, forgive me for editing out your views on Mahayana and Tibetans - IMHO they don't add to your argument, which is otherwise interesting and valuable; all such expression of views do is make you appear deeply prejudiced.

Thanks ;) (Still, appearing prejudiced, whilst not my aim, may be more accurate... I stand by the unedited version as a product of my thought process at some point in time, anyway!)

What remains unclear however, is just how you wish to define Philosophy. Wikipedia states that: "Philosophy is the critical study of the most fundamental questions that humankind has been able to ask". Well, that is not solely what Buddhism is about. No-one disagrees that Buddhism asserts the four noble truths. In short, Buddhism is concerned with the cessation of samsara.

Well that's a good definition for 'Philosophy' (the broad concept). 'A (practical) Philosophy', however, which is what I have seen Buddhism defined as, is "a set of answers to (those questions) posed as a methodology and framework from which to approach the challenges of human life." prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

So - You identify Buddhism as a set of answers?! Being able to rely upon a set of answers requires an authority, or they are there for us to question. If we accept the former, we need some faith in the structure of that authority. (e.g. Bible, Vedas in other practical philosophies). That leads us with the latter. so that Buddhism is defined as a set of questions posed as answers? Of course, the problem that we face (you and I) is that philosophy still does not claim authority, whereas Buddha (most famously) touched the earth as witness. He told us that he had experience of truth, and that we could also find it if we follow his recipe (aka methodology and framework). Good science. This still requires faith (in recipes, and in his word)...

Religion is also not accurate, I agree, but I consider it to be useful: I dislike the idea of divorcing Buddhism from religion if it means that it doesn't get talked about in schools. (In W.Europe, Buddhism -is- taught, whereas Plato is not.) See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3654263.stm

I don't think our word choice is leading any educational reforms here, wikis are great for linking to ideas with relationships of varying importance... I think creating such mental links is the least of our worries. prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Maybe we would prefer to say "way of life" (see taoism, where the editors have settled on this).

I don't think "way of life" is such a great option because it suggests a single "way of life", whereas Buddhism, in my eyes, acknowledges different paths of coming to realisation for each person. Furthermore, different modern schools maintain widely different lifestyles for laypeople and Sangha alike. This is why I think a more mental phrase, such as "practical philosophy" may be best. prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Buddhism is a faith, in that we are asked to accept karma and rebirth on faith (certainly it is assumed that we believe in both!), and a vast number of the jataka (and sutras) appear fictional if we do not believe in supernatural beings (yaksha, deva, sakka etc) as well. Maybe Prat, you think of Buddha as merely a good storyteller, but many Buddhists do not.

Right, on that one, you've got me in one! Except, we don't actually know anything at all was said by Buddha for sure, so you've got to wonder if those stories were written by him or were created later. By the way, not that anyone probably cares, in terms of sutra-based supernatural beings I think Buddha may have just been relating the correct teaching he perceived to a given being at a given time through the framework of the culture and beliefs in which they were already immersed. Unsure if this stands up with Brahmanism/Hinduism, but it's a working theory of mine... prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Hehe.. You know about the Scotsman? (20040302 09:10, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Well I didn't but after googling, I have some idea. However, I don't quite see how it applies unless you think I'm changing my opinion for the purposes of argument? By the way, my ancestry happens to be part Scottish ;) prat 06:19, 2004 Apr 24 (UTC)

Wow! Same here! Sorry the link was broken.. the point wasn't that you changed your opinion, but that you seemed to be restricting 'true buddhism' to a theory of yours, for which no texts can substantiate. It was not meant to be a big thing though! I am sure that you agree that the Wiki Buddhism article can manage to be more extensive than sentences that accord with your ideas alone! (20040302 10:06, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Even more fundamental (in terms of faith), is that we are asked to accept that it is worthwhile (i.e. of benefit) to examine Buddhism and Buddhist sutras; that we have to accept that on faith is inevitable; we do not achieve the path of insight instantly, without any effort on our behalf! So faith is required. But certainly the raison d'etre of Buddhism is not faith as it may be found in protestantism. (But then that is protestantism, not religion).

It then follows that it is faith which causes me to type a new sentence here? Quite to the contrary, it is experience. Buddha specifically said not to believe things that were written down, passed on, etc. on face value. He urged us to carefully consider from one's own experience and knowledge whether such teachings were of value, and to accept and pass them on carefully. Thus he did not urge us to place faith in texts, or enough faith in their value to trawl through them - quite the opposite. To my knowledge, on this point all Buddhist schools agree - one's salvation from suffering is (more or less) in one's own hands. prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

All these terms have merit in context. We are not obliged to bottle Buddhism as belonging to just one of these to the exclusion of any others; rather, in my mind, to think we should or could choose between religion, philosophy or what-have-you appears to be both reductive and counterproductive. (20040302 12:19, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC))

At times it is useful to use a shorter phrase, for example in not so directly connected articles where it would be a significant tangent to discuss Buddhism's characteristics as a belief system. Thus it is of some value. Though, I agree that it's not really worth spending too much time on! (Eek, what a pendantic answer...) prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

A postscript. Pratyeka, you talk about the "degeneration of [Buddhism]" above. Assuming you are correct, does this mean that such 'post-pure' traditions are actually NOT Buddhist? Who or what do you hold as having the authority to say 'This (person) is Buddhist. This (person) is not.'? This is an important question for you, as the very basis of authority necessitates faith of some sort. (This sort of reasoning is why some philosophers assert that science is also a religion- it depends upon faith in scientific method(s)). (20040302 12:28, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC))

Well, I chose 'degeneration' regarding my personal view of the present situation, which in my view may be roughly brought down to widespread lack of respect for the dhamma, even in historically 'Buddhist' regions. Again in my view, this is occuring in both the formal Sangha and amongst laypeople. Thanks for your interesting points, but I don't want to get in to a formal academic discussion of philosophy on which I am not qualified. Furthermore, I never asserted my or anyone else's authority to define Buddhism. (You will note my previous postscript in that regard - my views are my own, and I do not assert their superiority.)

On a scriptural note, certain traditions see a decline in and loss of the Dhamma as written certainty, which may prompt the question, for some, as to whether this is indeed happening right now? prat 14:02, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah, I should have known this would be a troublesome question. Though I don't think we've seen any other kind.

My suggestion is that "tradition" become the default thing that comes after "Buddhist." It's vague, it's innocuous, it can handle religion and philosophy alike, and if you don't think Buddhism is a tradition, you're very confused.

I don't personally see any problem with "religion," since it's a term that goes back not ultimately to monotheistic tradition but to pagan rome, which had a great deal of religious diversity, and needed a correspondingly very vague term that can easily apprehend a tradition like Buddhism. Now, "religion" and "philosophy" almost never evolved independently in India (and usually not anywhere else, either), so it's not surprising we should have conflict on this point. At the moment, philosophy has dominant connotations of technicality and proffesionalism. I dislike these, but they definitely augur against calling Buddhism as a whole a "philosophy." (I prefer William James's and G.K. Chesterton's definition of philosophy as any (person's) particular way of looking at the world.)

For the record, though, philosophy is just as much a matter of faith as anything else. Look at the Pragmatic tradition's (William James and W. V. Quine) and the Nietzschean tradition's (Nietzsche, Foucault) respective crushing critiques of foundationalism.कुक्कुरोवाच 22:01, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I like 'tradition' too, Kukku - but then 'religion' is good sometimes, and so is 'philosophy'. You probably know me enough by now on this: context defines what is best at any given moment. It seems to me terribly dangerous to hold any word, tradition(!), text, or thought to be truly transcendent over any other. All our castles are made of sand. (20040302 22:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC))

[edit] Buddhism a religion?

Hi! I've been talking with some budhists, and they tend to be skeptical about calling Budhism a "religion". Moreover, calling Budha the "g-d of the budhists" is considered by many as utter ignorance. What is the view of the active editors of this page? --Pinnecco 14:58, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Interesting question! Although many Buddhists deny it, I think, on balance, it is fair to call Buddhism a religion (at least in part, and certainly in its Mahayana version), since its founder (or re-discoverer), the Buddha, made claims about reality which are usually categorised as being of a religious nature. For instance, he taught that death is not the end of consciousness, but that the individual consciousness travels "upwards" (into happier, heavenly realms of existence) if the being has been virtuous during his/her lifetime and "downwards" (into more suffering modes, including hell) if the being has been more selfish and cruel. Then there is the idea of reincarnation or rebirth: beings are caught up in an almost endless cycle of life, death, rebirth, life, death, rebirth, with the suffering or happiness experienced each time being in significant measure influenced by that person's karma (a very religious concept, I would have thought). Most of all, there is the notion of Nirvana - a transcendent realm or state of ineffable Reality which is eternal, blissful and beyond all adequate human conception. In the Mahayana, there is additionally the idea that the Buddha is present in all places, at all times - a very "religious"-sounding notion, it seems to me - and that faith in the Buddha, coupled with good works (or without them, in some interpretations), can lead one after one's death into a Buddhist Paradise (a "Buddha-Field"), from where one will definitely attain Nirvana. These are just some of the features of Buddhism which make of it a religion. Of course, that does not mean that Buddhism is not also a lot of other things at the same time. But seeing Buddhism as a religion (especially in its Mahayana manifestation) should not be a cause for shock, horror and scandal (although one never knows!). Almost overwhelmingly, the Buddha is not viewed as "God" by Buddhists - but there are aspects of Mahayana and Tantric Buddhism that come very close to (if not enter into) a panentheistic or "theos-en-panist" ("God in all") vision of the ultimate "Adibuddha" (see the Wiki entry, God in Buddhism). All good wishes to you. - Tony. TonyMPNS 16:30, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Guys, Buddhism (Hinduism and all the other Indian traditions for that matter) is NOT a religion. If we call Christianity, Judaism and Islam a religion, then we cannot use the term for Buddhism, since it is categorically and fundamentally different!!! A "religion" asserts that there is meaning in the cosmos, that God put it there, that God has a purpose and that everything, including humans, are part of this divine plan. This is what makes something into a religion (not a holy book, churches or anything else). Now, Buddhism does no such thing. Buddhism is "a way" of teaching somebody the right insight, the right attitude to live a happy live. Doctrines are NOT important in Buddhism because it is an insight taught by experience and since all humans are different from eachother, every individual's experience is different. Thus, some traditions are more apt to teach the insight to a individual, that particular tradition works better for that particular individual. One tradition may claim their way is better than the other, but some "doctrine" is not specific for some tradition. "There are different ways to Enlightment." While religion claims there is only ONE way to Salvation and that's that particular religion. Intolerance and true faith are two faces of the same coin. For more information on the subject and on the creation of Buddhism, Hinduism and such as "religious entities" please see: Almond, Philip C. The British Discovery of Buddhism and Balagangadhara, SN. The Heathen in His Blindness. They very convincingly argue my point: if we call christianity, Judaism and Islam religion, then Buddhism is not a religion. Buddhism and the other Indian traditions are kind of manuals to living happily. And one cannot make a manual to guide someone's experiences, without describing to some degree the world and the surroundings. That is why it seems that Buddhism is making claims about reality and the cosmos like religion does. Buddha is saying: hey, to live happily you can follow my way if you want to. He is not a God that put meaning in the cosmos, created the cosmos and the cosmos and human life do not embody his divine plan or such. He is an "example" that people can follow, not a god. It all became mispresented when the missionaries started going to India and they were convinced there would be a "false religion" (because Christianity is the only true one in their eyes). They started mapping so called religions and created the entities "Buddhism, Hinduism, Jainism etc." Just read the two books I mentioned for further reference. It's too long to explain otherwise. The lesson we learn here once again is that Western society dominates the world and that their descriptions, their classification schemes, their terms are being used for the rest of the world. The missionaries described what they saw in India but failed to understand what they described. [13:32h, June 28 2005] Dries.

Buddhism is most certainly a religion by any reasonable definition. It is not, however, based on belief on any gods, although there are some practice deities mixed in some schools. The Buddha is most certainly NOT a god. He said so himself, even. Dries is confusing ABRAHAMIC religions with religions in a general sense, which would make most traditional religions somehow not "true" religions - including Shamanism, Confucionism, Jainism, and IMHO Shinto. I also disagree on Buddhism "having no Doctrine". Luis Dantas 28 June 2005 18:59 (UTC)

EXACTLY my point: they are no "true religions". Did it ever occur to you that there are cultures out there that have no religion? That's the problem: people think every culture MUST have a religion. It's a Christian idea: that religion is universal. But people think denying a people their religion is somehow equivalent to denying them of being cultured, of having a "culture", is equivalent to degrading them, because "only civilized people have religion". I gave you my hypothesis of what religion is and then I clearly showed that Buddhism etc. differed from this. Hence, it is not "a religion" (but that's OK). What is your definition of religion then? Because if it doesn't necessarily envolve gods, then I'm very curious about it... Our problem we have here, my dear Dantas, is that our starting point for our discussion is fundamentally different. You are basing your arguments on "Buddhist texts". I'm saying there's no need to do that, because there aren't such things like that. Why? Because they were discovered, referred to as Buddhist texts and then translated and interpreted by WESTERNERS in the 18th and 19th century. These Christian Westerners had the prefixed idea in them that there HAD to be (heathen-) religion amongst the Indians, that such religion had its origin in sacred texts (just like Christianity, Judaism and such). They gathered some texts that were old and of which they heard the Indians speak of and, most importantly, they then translated and interpreted these texts as if they were religious ones. By the supremacy of the Western culture over time there grew the acceptance of "Buddhism", "Hinduism",... as religions, even in India. For reference what these traditions really are, look at my previous posts. You see we are arguing on different levels? You are basing your arguments with the prefixed idea that there must be religion in India and that it's prescribed in holy texts. But I'm saying a culture doesn't necessarily have to have religion (which isn't degrading or condescending in any way!), and that those so called religious texts are no reasonable basis for arguing that Buddhism is a religion, because they were translated and interpreted (and some of them even created!!!) by people who thought they had religion on their hands. If you have the stomach for it and are interested, then read the book I recommended. It will give you a whole new, fundamentally different perspective on the whole case. If you don't feel like reading all of it, then just read Chapter 2,3,4 and 9. By reading those chapters you'll get the general sense of it. Afterwards we can continue our argument (if you still hold a different opinion). Otherwise there's no point in us arguing further since our pre-existing beliefs on which we base our arguments are too different. You're looking at Buddhism on a "micro-level" (internally; problem is that those internal aspects are today very much defined by what Christians wrote and said about it centuries ago) and I'm looking at it on a "macro-level".[User: Dries 13 July 2005 19:47h]

Actually, Dries, it seems to me that your stance is way more Christian-centric than mine. It implies that non-Abrahamic religions are not "proper" somehow. I will read that book if I can, but it is unlikely to be THAT convincing. Luis Dantas 02:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

There might be similarities, but what you are doing is undermining the term religion. You say: A, B and C are religions because they have these specific characteristics. Then you say: although these things right here (let's call them X, Y and Z) don't have the above characteristics (that make A, B and C into religions), they still are religions. Do you see the paradox?

I most certainly do not, at least when it comes to this case. Luis Dantas

All I'm saying is that you can't use the term religion for Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. if you simultaneously use it for Christianity and such. You undermine the meaning of the word if you do so. It seems to me like you use an awfully broad concept of the term.

Then again, I find your own concept of the term awfully narrow and biased towards Abrahamic faiths, to the point of uselessness. Luis Dantas 30 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)

By doing so, you eliminate all meaning from it. Further, you run the risk of classifying many things that have absolutely nothing to do with religion, as a "religion".

Such as? Luis Dantas 30 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)

I just took a class on "Buddhism" at my university by an Indian professor. He taught us the above by means of the book he wrote (see the reference to Balagangadhara in my previous post). He said the West started this farce of calling Buddhism and all a "religion" and what's even more sad is that most of the Indians themselves are continuing this farce even today. He also taught us though, that, from the viewpoint, the religious background (cfr. Reformation) and understanding of the world of the missionaries who started the farce, it is perfectly understandable that they did so. Religions can't see "otherness", can't see different things that they are different in a "different" way, but can only recognize false variations of themselves.

That is a POV that IMHO has been greatly abused. It is quite true that most non-Abrahamic religions are very different in many significative ways from Abrahamic ones, but they are still and very much religions by any reasonable definition of the word. Luis Dantas 30 June 2005 15:03 (UTC)

Pretty interesting class it was. Throughout his book he told about Roman times, the Reformation period, Enlightment period, what the missionaries' expectations were before going to India, how the missionaries' frame of mind was fitted onto Indian culture, how both sides misinterpreted each other etc. By doing so he explained HOW the situation today came to be. And to tell you, it is indeed perfectly understandable from both the Western ánd the Indian viewpoint. It is an unfortunate collusion of misunderstandings and accidents. I can really recommend the book. [30 June 2005 10:41h] Dries.

Missionaries noticed some 'facts' and that these facts are accounted for by religion. This unity, or conceptual gestalt, is not due to the nature of what there exists in the east, but due to the nature of christian religions; that religion is cultural universal is a claim of christian theology. Thanks to secularization of theology, this theological claim that religion is a cultural universal has become pretheoritical, or unexamined trivium. Of course, one can put forward, as many have done, an argument saying that there are religions besides the empirical ones that christianity, islam, judaism are. But what is needed to counter Balagangadhara's hypothesis is this: in the words of Philosopher of Science Larry Laudan, confirmatory instances, but not positive instances; that is, I can always put forward an argument to the effect that P explains a, b, and c, where a, b, and c are positive instances. If P predicts 'novel' facts, such novel facts are confirmatory instances. No matter how loud one claims, as seen in humanties, a hypothesis with testable consequences is necessary, but not an argument which just explains the selected facts!

Buddhism should not be called a religion because it is not revealed. Only revealed religions are religions. Revealed religions only include Judaism, Christianity and Islam in choronological order. Rest all including Hinduism, Budhhism, Sikhism etc are called philosophies given by some man some ages ago! PassionInfinity 07:09, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

If only revealed religion (i.e. religions that are law-giving, that provides revelations handed down by a god or gods) are religions, then why use the prefix revealed at all? Religion is, in one of its many definition, a set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. --Andkaha^(talk) 08:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think it is a religion. Sometimes I think that some western buddhists regard their religion as special or even superior to say Islam, Judaism and Christianity. "No, we´re not like them...!" Someone was saying "religion" implies a revelation (!) well, the Buddha presented some revelations to the people, one of them being the Noble Truths. Philosophers do not know work with such ideas as karma, it´s absurd to say buddhism is a philosophy, because it has a set of fixed ideas and philosophy doesn´t. --213.190.195.100 18:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC) Anyway this is the opinion of a Buddhist scholar, Donald S. Lopez, Carl W. Belser Professor of Buddhist and Tibetan Studies at the University of Michigan:

• Buddhism is a religion, in the sense that it presents an entire worldview with which to confront the issues of life and death. It is not only a worldview but also a form of practice. Hence, although there are many philosophical schools within Buddhism, it is best to consider Buddhism a religion.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/32/story_3272_4.html

Well as a set of beliefs, Buddhism may be called a religion but not revealed religion. Prefix is necessary because dictionary does not define the word religion as a revealed one. Revealed religions only include Abrahamic religions i.e. Judaism, Christianity and Islam. PassionInfinity 04:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the word religion stems from re-ligare and in this sense means a re-uniting. It refers to the concept of re-uniting with a paradise(-like-state) of which we were part once, but now have fallen out of. As such Buddhism is not a religion. It does not assert a state we have fallen out of and which we are trying to find back again. Buddhism asserts that we have, since beginninless time, been ignorant. The goal of Buddhism is to finaly understand our true potential, which is of course enlightenment. As such Buddhism could probably be called a 'ligion' and not a 'religion'. 150.203.2.85 06:17, 21 November 2005 (UTC)R. Sok

I think it is too close minded to define a religion as a revealed religion. A religion is simply a belief that many people have about life, death, and the afterlife, regardless of the source of the idea. It would just be better to encompass all belief systems that fit this larger definition as religion, i.e. Buddhism, Hindu, and even the Pagan religions.--Jonthecheet 05:51, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I am actually sympathetic with Dries and think they are being misunderstood and that there were two arguments happening on two very different levels - with alot of assumptions being made on their POV - could be wrong - but I'm an Agnostic and certainly not biased towards Abrahamic faiths (sic!!!); yet I saw where they were coming from. It is true, Western Religion and Dharma are two completely different concepts (especially when it comes to Hinduism which would have never been referred to as a unified religion prior to the British [and other colonial powers / missionaries] by the various sects from different regions who practiced the indigenous belief system), and Buddhists coming from a Western background should especially appreciate this fact - e.g. were you ever encouraged to ask questions in Sunday school [or subsequently chastised!]; whereas Buddha encouraged his followers to never accept anything blindly? A base example I admit, but it does get to the "crux" of the issue for me. I do; however, believe that this whole semantic argument is not appropriate for an encyclopædia where religion is being used in the general sense for practicable and ostensible reasons (i.e. Major World Religions, and such - not 'Great Belief Systems, Ways of Life, Philosophies, and Everything Else Under the Sun, etc.). So while I myself love such discussions, I realize a public repository of knowledge is unfortunately not the right place to make any changes such as those suggested.

And as to others: 1st: the etymological argument is itself quite flawed indeed![1]. And I was completely taken aback when it was asserted that the Abrahamic religions were the only revealed religions. Whaaaaaa?! Parsis can tell you about Zarathushtra (زرتشت), though I'd be happy as well; and Sikhism was also a revealed religion - not merely a syncretic faith - but the revelation of the the One God (ੴ) to Guru Nanakji, etc. To echo earlier sentiments, I do agree that those of the Abrahamic faiths do seem to often have an insular view, but I'd prefer to assume good faith, and believe there's nothing maliciously ignorant about it. Khirad^talk 11:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is an argument that comes up so often in discussions of Buddhism. I find that this quote from Richard Gombrich pretty much sums up my own views:

"Much that has been said and written in the field of comparative religion is, alas, a waste of time, because it has been concerned with a search for 'correct' definitions. To start with, there has been endless argument over the definition of religion itself. The argument is bound to be endless, because the problem is a pseudo-problem and has no 'correct' solution. A certain definition may serve certain purposes, and hence be justified in that context, but there is no reason why others with different purposes should adopt it. For a long time religion was generally defined by western scholars in terms of belief in a god or gods, and that led to arguments over whether Buddhism was a religion, as argument which even had some impact on Buddhists. Anthropologists then discovered that most Buddhists do believe in gods, so to that extent the argument may have had some heuristic value. But whether you can deduce from that that Buddhism is a religion is quite another matter. Those coming from a Christian — and in particular Protestant — cultural background have been far too ready to equate religion with belief or faith, and this has led to severe distortions in their understanding of other religions."

Essentially, Buddhism isn't a religion if you chose to define religion in such a way as to exclude Buddhism, and it is a religion if you don't. By "common consent", as Gombrich mentions in a footnote, Buddhism is called a religion; for one thing, there is no other English word that does an adequite job of describing what Buddhism is. 'Philosophy' is certainly too narrow and smacks of essentialism (anyone who has been to a Buddhist temple festival can tell you that there is something other than philosophy going on), and most other definitions (like 'way of life') are too vague and aphoristic. 'Religion' may not be an ideal term, but it's the one we've got, and there are bigger fish to fry. The two terms most commonly used to refer to Buddhism in Pāli, by the way, are sāsana (teaching, message, or order- sometimes translated 'dispensation') and dhamma-vinaya (teaching and discipline). --Clay Collier 11:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I basically agree with Clay - though I add that if one defines religion as requiring belief or conviction in anything that cannot be empirically proved (similar to superstition), then, as the four noble truths depend upon dependant arising, and that in turn depends upon karma, which itself depends upon rebirth - one would have to acknowledge that Buddhism is indeed a religion. Of course, I would also argue that Buddhism is an anti-philosophy, in that anatman/annata is the promotion of anti-essentialism (certainly according to Nagarjuna's approaches) - in that (as I understand it) essentialist views are considered to be the very cause of Samsara. (20040302 14:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Just wanted to point out that there are multiple definitions of "religion", some fitting Buddhism, and others not... "Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe." "A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader." "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religion

[edit] Words in Buddhism , Not Buddhism in Words

No offence but for me all effort trying to contain Buddhism in a word will be totally useless because it will always be relativity.As all Buddhist know, Buddha ( in it`s real form ) cannot be known through form seen anywhere in the world and because of that, it is the (unpointable,uncreated,unborn etc.) and therefore there can be no word to describe Buddha as the Buddha is known not to be anywhere in the world but is known to exist by way of realization. If the Buddha himself and all the awakened ones , are known to be nowhere in the world , how can his teaching which lead to such state be defined. In conclusion, The Path of Buddhahood leads to the uncreated and by this reason, there can be no exact defination of the path or teaching as language has reach it`s limit.As always in Buddhism,nothing is to be accepted blindly ,it is to be accepted only after examination.

Note : Tathagata is the name Buddha Gautama adresses himself.

(((((*This is a quote taken from the VIMALAKIRTI NIRDESA SUTRA

"The Tathágata has reached the extreme of detachment in regard to all things, yet he is not a reality-limit. He abides in ultimate reality, yet there is no relationship between it and him. He is not produced from causes, nor does he depend on conditions. He is not without any characteristic, nor has he any characteristic. He has no single nature nor any diversity of natures. He is not a conception, not a mental construction, nor is he a non-conception. He is neither the other shore, nor this shore, nor that between. He is neither here, nor there, nor anywhere else. He is neither this nor that. He cannot be discovered by consciousness, nor is he inherent in consciousness. He is neither darkness nor light. He is neither name nor sign. He is neither weak nor strong.

He lives in no country or direction. He is neither good nor evil. He is neither compounded nor uncompounded.

He cannot be explained as having any meaning whatsoever.

"The Tathágata is neither generosity nor avarice, neither morality nor immorality, neither tolerance nor malice, neither effort nor sloth, neither concentration nor distraction, neither wisdom nor foolishness. He is inexpressible. He is neither truth nor falsehood; neither escape from the world nor failure to escape from the world; neither cause of involvement in the world nor not a cause of involvement in the world; he is the cessation of all theory and all practice. He is neither a field of merit nor not a field of merit; he is neither worthy of offerings nor unworthy of offerings. He is not an object, and cannot be contacted. He is not a whole, nor a conglomeration. He surpasses all calculations. He is utterly unequaled, yet equal to the ultimate reality of things. He is matchless, especially in effort. He surpasses all measure. He does not go, does not stay, and does not pass beyond. He is neither seen, heard, distinguished, nor known. He is without any complexity, having attained the equanimity of omniscient gnosis. Equal toward all things, he does not discriminate between them. He is without reproach, without excess, without corruption, without conception, and without intellectualization. He is without activity, without birth, without occurrence, without origin, without production, and without non-production. He is without fear and without sub-consciousness; without sorrow, without joy, and without strain. No verbal teaching can express him.

"Such is the body of the Tathágata and thus should he be seen. Who sees thus, truly sees. Who sees otherwise, sees falsely.")))))