Oh, my. It was actually better to have stopped there.

cheese_cake said:
[b][u]debates on religion can get messy sometimes[/u][/b] d: been there done that ^ ^;;;

And that explains in a practical and simple way. Simply true.

cheese_cake said:</
i'm not gonna answer if i do believe Buddhism is/is not a religion. but i can tell you that [u]i believe that under the jurisdiction imposed on today's society[/u], a religion constitutes a regular practice of ideals and a sizable amount of followers who calls it so regardless of opinions of non believers d: *my 2 cents*

The logical meaning. Perfectly acceptable. But…

cheese_cake said:
u philosophers who think Buddhism isnt a religion, i'd [s]like[/s] DARE you to to[b] confess[/b] that [b]in public [/b] to a Buddhist in a country with a sizable group of believers.

i'll tell you that u'll get the same response as telling a regular church goer that god is an oxymoron.

Now, that's interesting. There is actually no problem in saying that. I never went to a predominantly Buddhist country, but I've been in retirement communities like Ficus Community and Theravada Nalanda. It was only for a few days, but I could talk to some monks who live there. Anyone can stay in those communities as long as you like, you know? I recommend the experience. Oh, and it's free, but you will have to work a lot, there is work for the entire day. Anyway…

This is not an offense. We are not saying that Buddhism is something less than a religion; we are saying it is not limited to such a parameter. There is a big difference. Then yes, I "confess" freely in public. You can ask a monk at a temple site if Buddhism is a religion. You also can ask Buddhists if they think that Buddhism is a religion. Probably some will say yes, others say no. It's not my private opinion. Did you see the quotes from some Buddhist masters? For a philosophy that preaches non-attachment, the label means nothing. This is consistent with the philosophy of the Buddhists themselves.

It is important to comment on this view instead of just quoting the strictly logical and "juridical" terms. Since we speak of Buddhism, let's see what the Buddhists think. Not an ordinary person, but great teachers. That's the objective.

But then again yes, we can call it a religion. It's officially accepted as a religion, although there is no real imposition on that. The term fits(especially the eastern reading). That's why I say that even this word needs to be better understood. Nevertheless, if you do not want to use the word, no theologian will point the finger at you and say you're totally wrong(disregarding fanatics).

I sincerely apologize if I caused any kind of disturbance. I think I understand Cheese Cake's point, it is also true, the most logical one.

Well… I would like to stress that the intention of all this analysis was to "answer" the primary question, not to discuss religious-philosophical opinions or anything like that. It is advisable to understand about Buddhism to talk about Buddhism.

I can not say I know much, it would be ignorant on my part. The little I could say, I shared always focusing on the issue. This is why we have not discussed too much about history and tradition, although it was also relevant.

If you only consider the "official" definition, the thread may seem pointless. I "you" "understand" the real meaning, the thread may seem pointless. As none was imposed or suggested, we made a healthy debate on this(my opinion). This may help in understanding the subject. So, unfortunately I do not agree with this topic being pointless, but I do agree with argue about personal beliefs being pointless in this case. That's your point, right?

Thank you very much, mates. Highly enjoyed this debate. You can call me Shin, Hikaru or even Ikaro(for that is my real name).

Cantido said:

Yeah you I haven't seen you around before. The general tone of your contribution weren't as [i]hostile[/i] and actually met and broaden my understanding of the subject.

‘Glad to be of use with the little that “I know”. No hostility intended.

Vegio said:
I didn't mean to quote you in order to criticize you – I was just quoting, because that was true.

I just, uhm, forgot to say I was appreciating.

No problem at all, just wanted to be sure. Not because of the possibility of criticism, but because then we could understand each other. Oh, and was my pleasure. ‘Sorry for the “stoppage”, but perhaps someone gets offended by what we’re talking about, you know.

………..Ok. Actually, I don’t know. This is my first time here.

Vegio said:
Less words, more action.
If you spend your time trying to understand what the finger pointing to the moon is, you'll never really get a glimpse of the moon, let alone understand it.

Exactly, I fully agree. That's what I meant, if there was any misunderstanding. Since I could not even know the full extent of my own ignorance, how can I understand something more? When "you" "know", nothing more need to be said. People have the habit of trying to understand everything with their brains. Thus, reaching the "void", the "let it be", can be an arduous task.

Though I also agree with many other things that were said, I better stop here because this subject can be a watershed. Everything has its right time, then let's develop compassion and keep doing the best we can.

The issue is already resolved, I hope?

Great additions! The issue of language is entirely relevant to the subject. Nobody thought of creating a "religion", that's true. And there is a huge dissemblance on the understanding of this word, indeed. I can mention the example of the word used in China and Japan: 宗教. The lousy, rough translation of this can be “doctrine of the essence” or “teaching of the origin”. Anyway… In the context of the primary question, I believe that we have, ultimately, three possibilities:

1 – Define it logically.
2 – Try to define it…"spiritually".
3 – Not define it at all.

By the entirely logical way, the term "religion" fits the Buddhism, and that's why we see this classification in the Theology books and can learn it from most religion classes. We know there is something else, but this is just a label, a tag.

The second possibility can lean on epistemology, metaphysics, occultism, esotericism, phenomenology, spirituality and whatsoever. This will probably give a more accurate result, since the Far East languages have their essence more in keeping with this form of analysis.

Finally, we can choose not to name it. We can discuss about it, but not define with words. We can say that Buddhism is the teaching of Buddha, but what is a Buddha? Certainly not a person, but what does Buddha really mean? "Awakened one"? "True enlightment"? As Vegio said:

Vegio said:
Identifying Buddhism as either a "religion" or a "phylosophy" right now is rather controversial. First, you have to take a certain teaching, and then you can talk about it.

That's true. Well, we have some examples. Master Tozan Shusho once was asked about this. "What is Buddha?" … But then he replied: [b]"three pounds of flax."[/b] Once again we have the "language barrier/contrast", but in this case that's not the only cause.

Then, what's the point of being so enigmatic(Koan)? Why not go straight to the point? All the "examples" of masters are like that, apparently vague when they determine something "basic". That's simply because Buddha and Buddhism can not be fully defined with words, according to their philosophy. You must flow and leave the understanding to your true self.

Buddhism is about detachment to break the karma chain, ending the suffering. The very existence of consciousness about what Buddhism is should be eliminated from the mind at the end. We see that in the words of Master Linji Yixuan, as he says:

"[b]If you meet a Buddha, kill the Buddha. If you meet a patriarch, kill the patriarch. If you meet an arhat, kill the arhat. If you meet your parents, kill your parents. If you meet your kinfolk, kill your kinfolk.[/b]"

Yep, that's not just some average freedom, there is a deeper meaning.

Soooo… I still think we would better not try to categorize it. But if we need, yes, we can idly call it a religion, we can idly call it a philosophy of life, a philosophical system or whatever may be appropriate. This is perfectly acceptable since the truest meaning is not to be told.

poyohebat said:
Oh wait…. I think I'm wrong. It was actually a manga.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddha_%28manga%29

Oh, and soon we will have an anime of this.

Interesting debate. I think that since you put the scope of the question on how we classify Buddhism, the wisest course is, in fact, analyzing the meaning of the proposed word: religion. Let's see some more definitions:

[b]1.
a.[/b] Belief in and reverence for a supernatural [u]power or powers[/u] regarded as creator and governor of the universe.[b] /Check. (See Bodhi and Nirvana)[/b]
[b]b.[/b] A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. [b]/Check. (See Meditation)[/b]
[b]2.[/b] The life or condition of a person in a religious order. /Check. (See…Monks?)
[b]3.[/b] A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. [b]/Check. (See Fundamentals of Buddhism and Siddhartha Gautama)[/b]
[b]4.[/b] A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. [b]/Check. (See Satori)[/b]

If any item is not clear, here is an elucidation:

[b]"Bodhi is pure universal and immediate knowledge, which extends over all time, all universes, all beings and elements, conditioned and unconditioned. It is absolute and identical with Reality and thus it is Tathata. Bodhi is immaculate and non-conceptual, and it, being not an outer object, cannot be understood by discursive thought."[/b]

As you see, there is no [u]concrete image[/u] of a creator. Simply put: their beliefs go according to a universal force that the logical mind is unable to comprehend. This is equivalent to an absolute God, an absolute "existence". Omniscient, Omnipresent, Omnipotent. Absolute.

Also, a religion does not necessarily need to have a deity. The name for it is "Atheistic Religion". The Atheism is basically the "rejection of belief in the existence of deities".

"[b]Buddhism is widely regarded as an atheistic religion. Buddhist scriptures either do not promote or actively reject the existence of a creator god, the existence of "lesser" gods who are the source of morality, and that humans owe any duties to any gods. At the same time, though, these scriptures accept the existence of supernatural beings which might be described as gods. Some Buddhists today believe in the existence of such beings and are theists. Others dismiss these beings and are atheists. Since there is nothing about Buddhism which requires belief in gods, atheism in Buddhism is easy to maintain[/b]."

But the Buddhism does differ from any simplistic spiritual belief. Therefore, it's not confined to this definition. I don't think anyone needs to explain this…right?

After all, the definition may be futile for both Buddhism and the word "religion". Just labels. The essence of the Buddhism will not change, no matter whether it is a religion, cult, doctrine, etc… [b]Yes[/b], there may be a better word to frame Buddhism, I fully agree. But regardless of this, Buddhism is Buddhism, and its "philosophy" will remain.

This is my humble view of the facts.