Before discussing whether Buddhism is a religion or not, it is important to understand that “religion” does not necessarily involves diety or deities. The key component in any religion is faith, which is reinforced by rituals and may or may not involve sacred elements, such as objects, texts, rights etc.
As far as Buddhism goes for faith, with its highly ritualised rites and lifestyle, a large number of sacred texts, concepts and items, as well as the entire narrative associated with it, Buddhism is definitely a religion.
An atheist, who may believe in Samsara cycle, that involves constant birth and rebirth in this world, due to our inability to separate ourselves from Dukkha, the ever-unsatisfying nature of impermanent state of things; our ultimate goal is the absolute state of Nirvana, the intimate extinction of any karmic dependencies; the adherence to Bhavana, the Buddhist’s way, in order to achieve the ultimate goal, can not be considered an atheist.
“If Buddhism is not about ‘God’ and even against ‘God’, why is it still regarded as religion, not as an atheism?”
In my humble opinion, that oft-misconception is a ‘gap’, or ‘overlap’, in an over-time definition-over-stuffing of the word ‘religion’.
To elaborate: ‘religion’ is a vague word today (often abused by apologists to ‘appropriate’ the better/honest qualities of other ‘religions’ that have nothing to do with theirs), but its Latin root, religare, means simply ‘to bind’, which aptly describes the ‘many people adhering (around one school of thought, technique or method)’ aspects of most all religions. I think that the disciplines of coreBuddhism fit this description quite well.
Yet when Latin became the official language of Christianity around the late 4th century (Greek was its ‘lingua franca’ until then), the word probably began to take on the ‘in adoration (of God)’ meaning, and that later was extended to the all-inclusive deity/deities meaning it has today.
So, today, it is hard to use the earliest definition of the term without confusion with the second… and I have even heard some profess themselves as ‘atheist Buddhists’ to avoid it.
Because the word “religion” can have another meaning without an almighty god. Google “define religion” and see the meaning of the word.
religion
rɪˈlɪdʒ(ə)n/
noun
- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods."ideas about the relationship between science and religion"synonyms:faith, belief, divinity, worship, creed, teaching, doctrine, theology; More
- a particular system of faith and worship.plural noun: religions"the world's great religions"
- a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion."consumerism is the new religion"
Read the bold lines. Buddhism has a particular system of faith and worship. Buddhists follow a pursuit or an interest with great devotion. That’s why Buddhism is considered as a religion.
Of course there’s a philosophical insight in Buddhism. But Buddhists believe in deities, heavens, hells etc just out of faith.
If Buddhism is not about ‘God’ and even against ‘God’, why is it still regarded as religion, not as an atheism?
Because “a religion” is not a synonym for “a belief system including one or more deities.”
Buddhism is not the only religion that doesn’t include a concept of gods.
The opposite of atheism is not “religion,” it is theism. Not all theists are religious, and not all religions are theistic.
There is no such thing as “an atheism.”
Religion is man's attempt to explain the unknowable.
Buddhism may do that better than all other thought systems. It happens to be one of the few nondualistic systems, therfore does not separate God from the rest of the universe.
As for belief in a God as requirement for explaining the unknowable, that has never really been the case, but, Buddhism’s precepts do not preclude the belief in a supernatural force that unites all things, past, present, and to come. Some Buddhists prefer to call that Oneness, some call it God, neither goes against the teachings of the Buddha.
Because religions don’t require gods to be in it. Religion is a set of philosophies, rules and regulations, beliefs, and so on, which Buddhism has. Buddhism has the Buddhas and various other celestial beings.
Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, or it’s the belief that gods do not exist. Both definitions work. Atheism lies there with theism, not with religion.
Buddhists can be theists, or atheists, or anywhere on the spectrum. So can Hindus, so can Christians, so can people belonging to many other religions (not all).
The difference between Buddhism (or any religion) and atheism is like apples, and the colour of that apple. Over time I have realized that the “off-television” analogy is incorrect to explain atheism. A Black & White TV or a coloured TV or an HD TV or similar examples is a better analogy.
There are multiple categories which come into play:
- Either you belong to a certain religion, or you’re irreligious (not necessarily an atheist) .
- You range from Theist to Atheist (consider Dawkin’s Spectrum of Theistic Probability.)
Atheism is merely a lack of belief in any gods. Buddhism is complex as it is in many ways a philosophy rather than a religion. My understanding is that it is possible to be an atheist Buddhist or a Hindu Buddhist or an agnostic Buddhist. Buddhism isn't against god but god isn't a necessity of it.
Buddhism had its origin in the period of the older Vedic Upanishads - Br̥hadāraṇyaka, Chāndogya etc.
The language and ideas used in the Buddhist sūktas (in the pāli canon) resemble the late vedic texts such as the śatapatha brāhmaṇa (of which the Br̥hadāraṇyaka upaniṣad is the last part).
By that time the vedic religion was evolving away from ritualism and theism to abstract philosophies and non-theism.
The Buddhists, Jains, Ājivakas, apart from the Vedāntins (followers of the Upaniṣads) were the prominent groups who were spearheading this evolution.
However these groups still have the concept of devas (vedic deities) — the greek cognate of deva being ‘theo’ and the latin cognate being ‘dei’. So the existence of devas was taken for granted across the indo-european world in the late vedic era (circa 6th-4th centuries CE).
So there are aspects of daiva/dei/theo even in the oldest forms of Buddhism as a historical remnant, but that theism is not the core of early Buddhism.
Buddhism is not atheistic, it is not against gods - however Buddhism is non-theistic, which means it does not recognize deities as being capable of granting salvation to humans. It considers the vedic and post vedic deities as being irrelevant to salvation.
Buddhism is not a religion in the same sense as christianity, judaism and islam - and in the Buddha’s time, there was no word that had all the connotations of ‘religion’ or ‘god’ in the abrahamic sense of the word.
Atheism and religion aren’t opposites. Being religious doesn’t mean you’re not an atheist.
There are atheistic forms of religion. Religious humanism and many forms of Buddhism are atheistic.
There are also atheist Jews and atheist Christians.
The basic reasoning that things that “aren’t about God or against ‘God’” aren’t religions is mistaken.
Also atheism isn’t a collection of belief systems so the grammar of “Buddhism is an atheism” is wrong. You probably want to say “Buddhism is atheistic” but as mentioned being so doesn’t make it not a religion.
It has a prophet and it has teachings from that prophet. That is usually all you need to be classified a religion.
I am not sure it s not about ‘God’. It is not about God in the Abrahamic sense, but all about God in the impersonal approach, vis a vis, the manifestations of God as love, peace, joy, compassion and so on.
If you look at the historical context of Gautama Buddha’s arrival, he came just as the world was sinking into a long period of ignorance (just as the transition into a descending Kali Yuga proper was beginning). At the time of his birth the people of the Indian subcontinent had lost their way religiously. They had interpreted scripture inadequately and had become so reliant on the gods (God and his countless propensities) to do everything, nothing was getting done and little progress was being made.
So the Buddha said, “Hang on, this is silly. You can’t rely on God to do everything for you. God gets things done through your actions. So get rid of this whole notion of God. Learn to take responsibility for your own lives.”
The problem was excessive reliance on God based on ignorance, so the solution was to remove the source of that reliance—God— from the equation and act.
Buddhism is every bit a religion as any and the personal aspect of God is found in the Boddhisatvas and the examples they set.
The reason why Buddhism isn’t atheism is given in your question — it isn’t against God.
Why is it’s a religion is because a religion can be without God, Google Search -religion
By religion, many people are referring to a system by which people worship. In Buddhism, people pray to and worship Buddha. They may not see him as God but they worship him nonetheless.
As for Atheism, it is its own religion. While most religions direct worship (the act of attributing value) to a supreme being, atheism directs it to ourselves and to pursuing knowledge via empirical methods.
I believe that humans always worship no matter what. My reasoning is that we attribute value to everything but value itself is not tangible. You can't put value in a box. We were made to worship and it is what we will do forever.
Buddhism is not atheist or anti-theist - it is agnostic - basically god or gods are irrelevant.
The problem facing human beings is suffering (dukha)
The source of suffering is craving and attachment.
The way out is to follow the noble 8th fold path.
God has no place in this scenario because the work of liberation must be done by oneself.
Buddhist doctrine is essentially atheist as explained by leading Buddhists such as the Dalai Lama. They say that God or gods are constructs which keep people clinging to this current reality. I believe this to be a mistake. Christianity teaches that man is responsible for his own suffering by clinging onto his sin. It isn’t clinging onto this material world which causes suffering per se. It is rebelling against God’s Law which causes suffering.
Satanism, secular humanism, Wicca also don’t have God. It doesn’t mean they cannot be religious in their own way. Buddhism is a very religious atheist religion. Perhaps the understanding of the questioner has too narrow a definition of what religion truly is. It involves a set of values and rituals in which the practitioner has in which to express those values.
This is a very good question. When I became disillusioned with Catholicism which is how I was raised I began to seek out other religions. Buddhism seemed deeply symbolic and malleable and I liked it so I studied it for awhile. The main principle of Buddhism is that desire is the root of all suffering and in many stories there were monks whose desire to become enlightened ends up being what keeps them from enlightenment. I saw that my desire for answers to unanswerable questions is what led me to Buddhism in the first place. So in a sense Buddhism ultimately led me to atheism. Further study and experience led me to be an antitheist as the damage religion does to poor people and culture in general is not acceptable to me.
Buddhism is non-theistic. It is a religion because it binds people together (lignare) in a community that attempts to make ethical sense of life and death. I n its basic form it sees no need for gods only an inevitable natural law of karma.
Because religion means an organized faith-based system of set beliefs, rituals, holy laws, etc., and NOTa group of people who worship the Judeo-Christian God. In fact, the only religions that are about the Judeo-Christian God are Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mormonism, the only religions that are against the Judeo-Christian God are Theistic Satanism and LeVeyan Satanism (and it could be argued that LeVeyan Satanism doesn’t actually meet the criteria for being religion, and is functionally closer to being a fraternal society), and the remainder—which make up the overwhelming majority of religions that are practiced by people or have been in the past—have absolutely nothing to do with the Judeo-Christian God whatsoever. Most have their own gods, but some don’t have any. This isn’t an act of rebellion against the Judeo-Christian God any more than being Christian is an act of rebellion against Brahma.
And “atheism” is simply a lack of belief in gods, a single, simple quality possessed by an individual. The term isn’t used as a catagory for different belief systems the same way “religion” is. There is no such thing as “different atheisms”. There’s just atheism. Whatever other beliefs someone may hold are irrelevant to the term.
Also, Buddhism isn’t inherently atheist. Strictly speaking, it’s agnostic. Many sects are explicitly atheist, but there are a large number of theistic sects as well, and an awful lot that take no position on the question of deities and leave that for their followers to decide for themselves.
the·ism
ˈTHēˌizəm/
noun
belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.
There is no god or gods in Buddhism.
Buddhism IS an atheist religion.
No comments:
Post a Comment