Coming from a family of Buddhists, I say it's a semi-religion. By semi, I mean it is religious and philosophical at the same time. One aspect of that Buddhism not being a religion is unlike other religions, it doesn't have mythological origins of mankind and no central God or sets of gods. However, I know one reason Buddhism is categorized as a religion because of the beliefs in afterlife, the laws of karma, and reincarnation. I'm still conflicted to whether I should follow Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy. My family follow Buddhism as a way of life and I follow it too. While practicing and attending services, I began to develop adopting Buddhism a as philosophy and being part of my everyday life. Anyway, from what I see in this video, this topic is still in debate and I like your insight of this topic. Thank you for sharing your views.
@@barebasics it's a religion and philosophy like the person said they have a belief system they idolizing they also have a heaven and hell you might not understand but in every religion they are spiritual paths and a philosophy way of thinking you have to do deep research to understand
One thing that distinguishes Buddhism from religions in my mind at least is its lack of supernaturalism. The central teachings of the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path are practices and things you can prove to yourself by observation and contemplation.
Thanks for the comment Frank. Yes, the central teachings do not require belief in supernatural causes or entities, and that's a great thing. Though to be fair, traditional practitioners do interpret them as having supernatural import. It comes down to a question of what you feel is best for your own practice: a this-life approach, or a notion of beginningless lifetimes.
Does every religion need to have supernatural beliefs? Why can't there be a religion that focuses on making life better for people? Who made the rule that a religion needs to have supernatural beliefs?
😂😂😂😂 oh my god had you ever read the Pali Canon? Buddhism is the most supernatural religion in the world. I can't believe this what you were reading all this time?? 😂😂
Thanks Doug, my attraction to 'Buddhism' is its approach to seeing things as the Buddha taught his generation. As a non-theist, the Buddha's approach has allowed me to seek balance and better understanding of my self. I find myself sometimes in a quandary when I share with folks that I am more in tune with Buddhism, but not sure if that makes me a Buddhist. This video has enlightened me some more. Much appreciation to you.
That’s great El Gato, you’re very welcome. I don’t think it matters so much what you call yourself (“Buddhist” or otherwise). What matters more is practice and what sort of person you want to become.
Yes Lennon, Buddhism has a lot in common with atheism, though with nuances. See my earlier video on Buddhism and atheism: ua-cam.com/video/QOQiZbAPtW4/v-deo.html
Thank you, you're a very good speaker. I wish i could go on like that with my family (i'm from a large family) and friends. I'm Joe Melanson. I studied for nearly 2 years with Albert Low (as well as Jean, his wife, team work) in Montreal in the 80's, a very great teacher, with tons of patience, wits and grace.
Thanks for watching Joe, that’s very kind of you. Great to hear about your experience! I don’t know Albert Low but he sounds like a wonderful teacher to have had. 🙏
To add to the comparison to Plato's Academy, Buddhism as a school of thought is pretty clearly analogous to schools of Chinese thought like Confucianism and especially Taoism, which is why once Buddhism was introduced to China, the three co-existed pretty comfortably for centuries as three of the major pillars of Chinese Philosophy. Chan/Son/Zen is, by and large, the synthesis of a very long and largely amicable discourse between Buddhism and Taoism.
This comment is for the sake of those folks who stumbled upon this video and it happened to be their very first encounter with Buddhism. For the last 35 years I have been a western practitioner of religious Buddhism. Alas, I have started to become impatient with the growing and unimaginative western secularization of this beautiful, diverse tradition. All three ways that Doug states in favor of Buddhism not being a religion can be applicable to, for example, Hinduism, which its practitioners themselves consider a religion. In fact, there is no single founder for Hinduism. For folks new to Buddhism, I highly recommend reading Damien Keown’s *Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction*. Keown analyzes Ninian Smart’s 7 dimensions of religions as applied to Buddhism: (1) practical and ritual, (2) experiential and emotional, (3) narrative or mythic, (4) doctrinal and philosophical, (5) ethical and legal, (6) social and institutional and (7) material. All these dimensions are present in Buddhism to varying degrees, depending on the school of Buddhism one follows. While Doug didn’t say the following in this video, I am familiar with the usual arguments against Buddhism-as-religion: Buddhism is rational, Buddhism is scientific, Buddhism is a (usually pragmatic) philosophy, rituals are unnecessary, rebirth is irrelevant and might not exist at all, etc. I agree that a measure of skepticism is healthy and we are all well served by testing the truth of any and all spiritual claims for ourselves. But please be advised: secular Buddhism is a recent invention (less than 40 years) and is not necessarily the only way to approach Buddhism. If secular, non-religious Buddhism resonates with you, fine. If it doesn’t, there are still religious Buddhists out there.
Born in a Buddhist family and raised in a Buddhist country, I would say most of us don't believe in supernatural being or heaven or hell but we do believe in the philosophy behind it. We went to temple from time to time. Not for pray and the belief in heaven but for donation and giving happiness to others, this is what I was taught to be Buddhist. In schools, they taught us about the history of Buddhism and the founder. There are some miracles and supernatural things in it but no one has ever said I have to believe in it, even my teachers said "It is just a chronicle. Chronicles said more than what was actually happened". But anyway there are some people who have faith in supernatural things...mostly not young people.
Thanks for your insights Sora! I imagine there are going to be a range of different beliefs in any of these societies around the world, even in the West there is a huge range. 🙏
@@intellectualbrain1563 Im not sure if I can call myself Buddhism. I like the teaching and sometime applied to my life but I dont go to temple and dont believe in spiritual/superbatural things. I see this religious as history and culture. So maybe non-religious fit me better.
One reason Buddha is a human who found the way of life. You don't need Buddha to gain enlightenment. You are not bound by it's rule belief and study as so enlightenment is with in us not in any book or suttra
You do need Buddha to gain enlightenment. That is the point of the religion. He turned the wheel of Dharma, without him humans would not have found the Dharma
Yes. I fully agreed after using it for as a reference for many years. I am not a Buddhist and even a atheist myself now. I found it easier to understand "the meaning of life" as compared to others religions. To sum it up. I use the word "simplistically" to describe. Cause to me being simple is already a blessing. What more you can still ask for?.
Im buddhist and i also believe buddhism isnt supposed to be a religion eventhough people made it a religion. Lord buddha also didnt want it to become a religion or a cult. He wanted to help everybody to end the suffering they have to face throughout the cycle of life.
I became a subscriber after a while of watching your videos mainly because of two videos specifically - this one and one where you disagreed with, I believe it was Bhikkhu Bodhi, but regardless of the scholar it was a world renowned person. From these videos I learned that I can expect your unbiased and authentic view of Buddhism - being willing to walk into a subject matter like “religion or not” or to disagree with a preeminent scholar is not something that can be found just anywhere and often when found it’s more based in an effort to get more controversy and in turn more attention rather than the genuine sustained effort contained in your videos. It is my view that your intent is to make the viewer learn and also think about the dharma and that is in my mind the epitome of right effort.
Buddha presented us with the TRUTH without sugarcoating it . Buddha's dhamna is for those who genuinely WANT to seek the truth about life. It requires a lot of thinking through.....hence a lone journey.....a journey to be undertaken by the WISE. ....🙏
Hi Doug, My views accord with yours, however, it's obvious that while some Buddhists follow the dharma purely as a "science of mind," many millions do follow it as a religion, not only in the sense of metaphysical beliefs and praying for intervention from various deities, but in the ritual automaticity of their practice, which is similar to what we see in other religions around the world. Many Buddhists do not meditate or otherwise cultivate their consciousness or insight, and temples and sects catering to such adherents often combine pre-Buddhist local deities and superstitions with Buddhadharma. Finally, even among serious meditators there is an element of "faith," namely, the faith in an ultimate or supreme form of enlightenment that (despite the doctrine of impermanence) is permanent and confers upon the enlightened one god-like attributes and powers. Now, I'm not saying that such powers and attributes don't exist, but if they do, the number of people who have experienced or witnessed them is vanishingly small, meaning that the vast majority of those who hold them to be true do so out of faith. This is the same faith that leads Buddhists to believe that the historical Buddha had indeed attained such a state, and that this was what enabled him to speak authoritatively about reincarnation and other metaphysical phenomena. Congratulations on a great channel!
Given the Buddha's statement in Majjhima Nikaya 27 and the Kalama sutta, the Dhamma (Buddhism is far broader), given its entirely complete dependence on observation, is a scientific method with a specific soteriological purpose. What separates science from philosophy/religion is a fundamental basing of its truths/epistemology on the method of observation measurement. This is the same for Buddhism.
I'm definitely a pacheco person! Tried to find myself in various Buddhism groups or kinds, the closest one is secular Buddhism but I can't tell for sure I'm 100%. Maybe because identification myself with any organisation or movement is a strange idea for me....
Thank you for sharing. I was once taught by a Myanmar Buddhist monk that a good Christian is also a good Buddhist.🤔 I do not understand that then. Thank you for enlightening me. 😅 Yes, I am a Christian by faith and a practical Theravada Buddhist and Greek stoicism by philosophy practice.
I am a Christian and have to politely disagree to the statement ......... a Christian cannot be a Buddhist Completely different foundations and theology. Its as absurd as saying " this red paper is black." Another possible statement can be - " a good citizen of the world can be a good Buddhist."
This is true too Jayashree. If you get into them deeply, they are different. But I think the question was perhaps more about lay ethics, which is quite similar in both cases.
Yes. Anyone can become Buddha by creating and practicing dhamma. Buddha keeps his teachings open to all whosoever interested in learning and achieving more🙏🏼
Just a note; The word "religion" comes from Latin and its literal translation means "reunite". In other languages of non Indo- European origin the synonime of we in the West call "Religion" mostly refers to such concepts as "Way", " Knowledge", "Faith" and more. All of these we can apply to Buddhism just as well. Now what DOES make the Buddhism a religion and no "just philosophy" is the presence of such aspects as system of faiths and beliefs, for ex. the basic doctrines of Buddhism like "Four noble truths", "Three gems" etc they DO require certain faith and even devotion, otherwise the further path/ spiritual progress is sensless and brings no results. Speaking about other details such as supreme ideals, availability of moral principles, spiritual authorities, temples, monasteries, rituals, prayers and other spiritual practices, holy scriptures, strictly regulated rules, system of precepts, system of limitations, system of whatever makes reference to what is acceptable or not acceptable, of what is good or bad; All that is unseparate part of Buddhism and all of these (or most part of these) form the fundamet of any or at least the most of todays known religions. The lack of such concepts as "Creator" and lack of strict dogmatism, makes the Buddhism a bit different religion, but still religion. According to the western and also indian theologic classification, Buddhism forms part of so called "Dharmic religions". I can go further and exlain the difference between philosophy and religion, but in brief just to mention the fact that EVERY religion is based on its own philosophy, so it wont be wrong to call for example christianity "philosophy of Jesus Christ" or even just "Teaching of Jesus Christ" and not a religion. I'm a Buddhis convert coming from judaism background and I can say the jews eithet call judaism "religion". They mostly claim it is also a philosophy. By one way or another, the word "religion" does not exist in hebrew, but its marked with the word "דת" which is originated from "דעת" which means "knowledge" or "opinion", but nothing to do with "reunion" (literal translation of "religione" from latin). In some way Buddhism is sort of liberal, so in some cases Buddhists allow the non Buddhist to try and practice several stuff like mostly meditation and even let the ppl from outside to enter the temples etc and some of the Buddhist "churches" allow syncrethism in a certain way. Maybe that openness and excessive "democracy" of some Buddhists makes the outsiders believe that Buddhism is not a religion but an "open club" for anybody. On the other hand not every Buddhists share that excessive liberal approach. In my personal case I belong to that "strict" group and I find it correct. I dont want Buddhism to become "open club" for everyone who passes by carrying their prejudices and non Buddhistic ideas in their minds.
This statement makes me sad. And when one tries to prove it, they actually tell that Buddhism is different from Abrahamic religions. Same happens in this vid. But being different doesn’t mean being none. Lets look at how wiki determines religion: a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. So the person of worship shouldn’t be divine or godlike to make this worship a religion. It doesn’t even require a person of worship or a god (!). Saying that Buddhism is not a religion just because it doesn’t follow the Abrahamic fundamentals is Abrahamic centrism. It might seem it makes Buddhism more accessible to the West but in my opinion it rather slows down the acceptance of diversity.
Yeah it definitely is a religion. Not only this, but as a Buddhist convert myself I can confirm that Buddhism does have loads of supernatural elements and beliefs, in my form of Buddhism (Tibetan) we even believe and pray to gods so not sure where this "philosophy" thing came from
Even if your a Christian or some other religion you can still walk into a Buddhist temple or go to a Buddhist group and still appreciate that which is being taught that is if your not a close minded fundamentalist zealot..
@@DougsDharma I personally do not identify as a Buddhist but I am still willing to get involved with Buddhist groups simply because they do a good job at making people feel at home and because the philosophy and message provides a powerful tool to meditate and reflect on.
I really like the idea of Buddhism being the one religion/guide to life that has the potential to unite all other religions. Everyone could continue to practice their own, but still have at least this one thing in common which would expose the other commonalities every religion has. It seems like Buddhism has that flexibility to be integrated into just about every aspect of life, including all the different forms of worship or spiritual seeking.
@Krieghart. As a spiritual way of living, it is open to any person of any religion or no religion & gender. And it is said that there are people of different belief system who were Pacekka Buddhas (those who discovered the Dhamma on their own) & attained Nibbana.
I appreciate your voice to reveal the true nature of Buddhism to the world. I will add some extra note on Buddhism. As you said Buddism is not getting superpower or get to heaven after death. It is the true nature of life. anyone can observe. What Lord Buddha did is open other's mind to observe the truth and provided a path. You can not get anything simply believing the religion. You have to observe. Load Buddha always has given freedom to argue and understand. Actually, Buddhism is not a religion, it is a philosophy anyone can follow and observe. It is not centered on one person or God. It also proves evolution, the universe, planets, etc. And there are some contradiction parts in current Buddhism that we can see them like magic or something. Most of such things have come from modifications done by the early years because of literature and then make people amaze about Lord Buddha. However, those things don't make a large effect on true Buddhism. Those modifications are done while writing Buddhism in books like Tripitaka. Actually, observing that history is not my field and I'm a computer science student. However, I feel the true nature whenever I'm thinking about the world such as Karma, Changing nature of every matter. Actually, we can relate to current science with Buddhism which said 2550 years ago. I Invite anyone to observer more and reveal the truth of Buddhism by observing history and separate literature content.
Buddhism is a religion in the sense that it deals with the core issue that all religions have tried to deal with in their own way. That issue is to provide a framework to end suffering.
True but philosophies of ancient Greece for example provided similar sorts of frameworks that were not considered religious. It depends how one looks at it.
It is recognized as a religion by government law, and for employer responsibilities as a protected characteristic within equality through diversity policies. Maybe able to get conscientious objector through it in a war, and also avoid being forced into cruel livelihoods under the right livelihood noble path.
Yes, for sure Buddhism is a religion in a legal sense. It's also anthropologically and historically a religion. But there are also other aspects to the teaching.
Without a clear definition of what religion is all we are doing is comparing Buddhism to western religions. It’s a little odd that by not fitting in standard western religious molds Buddhism becomes something non-religious.
Yes, well religion is a western concept anyhow, and indeed if we decide that Buddhism must be a religion we can always come up with a definition of religion that covers it. As I say in the video though, it can be seen either way.
I think there are overlapping themes in Christianity and Buddhism. Prayer or meditation, when practiced correctly leads us to that calm, contemplative state. I think, that if a Christian practices these things correctly even if they are unaware of the dogma, then they can achieve their spiritual goals.
There are many layers of the early Buddhism in India. If one only takes those aspects that one wants and leaves the rest aside, and comes to a conclusion that Buddhism is not a religion, this will narrow people's view about Buddhism.
Thanks for your explanation. Most major religions are associate with the creator and his creation (including ego or soul). Buddha denied it and also denied all 62 wrong views. [DN 1.Brahmajala Sutta] According to Buddha, "without knowing Depentent Originaion, everyone has one of the wrong views". [DN 3.71 Brahmajala Sutta] [Buddha made this sutta ,5 biggest names, for Dhamma]. It is reasonable to think that sotapanna wisdom ,the philosophyical wisdon of non-self, overcome or destroy 62 wrong views by noble eightfold path. As far as my understand, Buddhas teach us to know the truth. It's vitally important for wisdom (i.e Right view and Right think).
Great video. A couple of questions regarding the 32 marks, as well as the Pratyeka Buddha. In the Vajra Prajna Paramita Sutra, Shakyamuni explicitly states that the Buddha cannot be seen in the 32 marks. Does this Sutra come before or after the one referenced in the video? Also, to my understanding the 6th Patriarch of Chan/Zen was able to understand and expound the Dharma without previous teaching (could be wrong). In this case would the 6th Patriarch also have been a Pratyeka Buddha that became a regular Buddha when he began teaching?
Interesting questions. Any Prajñaparamita sutras will be significantly later than the ones discussed in the video. As to Zen, it has rather a different view about dharma than is found in the early teachings: that dharma isn’t transmitted by words.
Buddhism is really broad and should be divided into Spiritual Buddhism ( karma, samsamra, material worl illiusion ), Mystic Buddhism ( Tantra, Mantras ect ), Philosophical Buddhism ( depends on school ) and Psychological Buddhism ( my fav ).
It all depends on the definition of “religion” I guess - most people link religion to a belief in God or Gods as the basis of a set of teachings and way of life and as Buddhism is not God based, then it’s outside the parameters of religion
Thanks for raising this topic Doug. My view tends to be more of a secular one. Nevertheless, I wonder how the teachings would have been transmitted through the centuries without monastic traditions to spread them. Also, is there a spiritual dimension to secular buddhism? For example the Bramhavihara meditations use visualisation which I think adds power. Is this religious, spiritual or simply make believe?
Oh absolutely, the monastic traditions were key. And I think of secular practice as spiritual in its own way. See my video on secular images and rituals: ua-cam.com/video/KDVzuAWj7CU/v-deo.html
Point taken but they do believe in after-life (like all other religions do with the notion of paradise but then in a form of reincarnation), they have moral values that must be followed in order to obtain this constructive reincarnation (like the moral dogma of other religions in order to avoid hell), they do have a religious leader (Dalai Lama), they have "holy" scriptures (book of life), they do believe in this special status of their "prophet" who was able to obtain the "nirvana" due to his lifestyle choices, they also have monks that are sustained financially by the local communities (like the priests and imams and rabbis), All this elements lead to think they have more in common with a plain classical religion rather then a philosophy that does never consider itself as "all-explaining" or absolute truth.
True, but then Pythagoras and Socrates believed in reincarnation; the Dalai Lama isn't so much a religious as a (an ex-) political leader, he has no effective control over even Tibetan Buddhism, and no control at all over other (non-Tibetan) forms of Buddhism; the Buddha wasn't a "prophet" in that he gave no "prophecies", nor did he deal in divine revelations or the like. What he claimed to do was investigate for himself through hard work and find something out about the nature of the mind and reality, which isn't so different from Plato or Aristotle. So while the existence of a monastic sangha and therefore systemic organization does make Buddhism more like a traditional religion, it has significant differences from other forms of religious belief and practice.
@@DougsDharma Many thanks for your answer. I sense your argument about Pythagoras and Socrates but they may believe in anything they want, this does not impair the fact that belief in after-life tends to the irrational immortality of the soul and binding the quality of that afterlife to religious (behavioral) rules tends to be dogmatic (if you don't follow my rules you will or will not have a better after life). The reasoning on the Dalai Lama makes sense even though not every christian follows the pope, that does not make him less of a religious leader (divinely appointed). He was not a prophet, but still the only one who reached nirvana what make him quiet exceptional in comparison with the rest of humanity and indeed everything he said and did is considered as key in order to reach that nirvana what could let one think about prophetic supernatural powers-ish. Do not misunderstand me I have a lot of respect for all religions and philosophys (at least the constructive ones) and I sense many budhists do not want to be affiliated with common religions, but when you look at the history, the traditions, the rituals, the adoration of statutes, and the structure of the thought.. in my modest perspective, budhism is a religion aiming at bringing people together, constructively but build on an obligation to follow certain irrational rules without questioning them. it has the same political ambition as religions, the same dogmatic invitation to consider a certain path better then an other. In my modest opinion much less harmly then most religions but nevertheless.. I do send you my utmost Respect and Appreciation and congratulate you for your very diplomatic and friendly way of presenting things.. have an awesome day Sir! Stay bright and brilliant!
The original concept of the gandharva (gandhabba in Pali) was that in addition to their celestial musical abilities, they escort the [what is being reborn] into the fetus. Specifically in Buddhist ayurveda (probably medieval but possibly older, since Ashoka bragged on his pillars about the prowess of Buddhists at medicine), the antaratam is brought to the womb (and into the fetus) at 27 weeks. Prior to that, the parents' contributions to the 'self' were instilled by 1 month (the sequence is kalala, bubuda, pinda, peshi, ghana from conception to implantation and solid mass (zygote, blastocyst, etc. in Western medicine) preceding this. The fetus is believed to review past actions and suffering after that 27 week point. There is some correlation with Western medicine in that the fetus some time after the quickening spends time dreaming. At some point, the notion of the gandharva being a being that brought the 'soul' to the womb is lost and it becomes that process itself. (I had to figure this out because of trying to understand a Buddhist mahasiddha text).
Interesting. A mahasiddha text will be quite late compared to the texts I normally discuss on these videos. There would have been a lot of elaboration developed by then on all these concepts.
@@DougsDharma Very true. The concept of the gandharva bringing the being to the womb is Vedic. The timing of it (27 weeks) is something I haven't been able to date very well.
In Eastern culture, the ways of philosophy and religion are not seen dualistic. Thus, there is generally tolerance of both fields among the people. For instance, "Is Buddhism a religion or philosophy?" One can answer that it is both. Religion and philosophy are both labels conceptualized by humans. Thus, they are not absolute, but may initially be helpful learning about Buddhism. And because they are generally viewed in the East as complementary instead of contradictory, there is more room for peace and understanding. Reference: The Rationalist Tendency in Modern Buddhist Scholarship: A Revaluation Click on www.jstor.org/stable/1400271?seq=1
There was no religion concept in ancient India there were only sampradayas who used to have philosophical arguments and how do any spiritually englightened being appear different what are the major of the 32 traits, I am curious 🤔
Well it’s not clear any of these “32 marks” were actually visible, since the Buddha was at times mistaken for being just another monk during his lifetime.
Thanks Doug. What are your thoughts about when and where precisely Buddhism began to become more of a religion from a philosophy? Did this take place at the time of Ashoka, or earlier?
Hi Elijah, I think it's hard to say. You could say it started to become a religion after the Buddha's lifetime, as hagiographic stories arose about him. But as to precisely when, I'm not sure. It would certainly have been a gradual development. But that said, in some ways the Buddha did intend his teaching to be more than just a philosophy. This is why he created the sangha of bhikkhus and asked them to go out and spread the dharma, and apparently recommended even certain devotional practices. So there were religious elements there from the beginning. His teaching can be seen either as philosophy or religion.
Buddhism: Pali Canon is the original content, Legends added later. Star Wars: Canon is the original content, Legends added later. Just a funny comparison as both a Buddhist & sci-fi nerd!
Buddhism is a religion, although different than other religions. However there are many sects of Buddhism, so some are "less" religious in nature, such as Thervada, but there is still mythological teachings.
Buddhism is not a religion. Buddhism is a education of wisdom. Buddha is our teacher. Teach us how to leave sufferings and attain happiness. Teach deluded to become awakend. Teach ignorance to become wise. Teach selfish to become compassionate. Teach greedy to become generous. Teach shallow minded to become magnanimous. Teach superstitious the truth. All these benefits will bring you instant happiness. These are the current benefits one will obtain. If one cannot enjoy these benefits now, what is the point of learning?
make no mistake though, Buddhism categorically denies the existence of a creator god or supreme deity. in the most fundamental sense, Buddhism and Christianity are incompatible belief systems.
I don't think the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta works for debunking the 32 marks as a later idea. Here's why: The marks aren't actually particularly outlandish features, and many normal people can be expected to have them. Slender fingers, full/round shoulders, and even slight "webbing" near the base of the fingers (the literature does not mean like a frog), to give a few examples from among the 32 marks, are actually very normal. Some of the 32 do sound strange upon reading them, but may be (and many are) a lot less so when the context of their description is understood. If a palm reader were to tell me that I was the greatest person in history based upon their examination, that would in no way imply that the lines on my palm actually appeared to be anything unusual under casual observation to a layman's eye. By extension, it's entirely likely that if the story of the 32 marks were true, it wouldn't clash the sutta you've referenced at all.
Assuming the 32 signs were original to the texts and not simply an interpolation, it seems that they were expected only to be apparent to Brahminic initiates. There are several stories of people not knowing who the Buddha was in the early texts.
buddha was hiding those signs maybe ?.. when he was talking to him .. umm maybe he wanted to talk to him more closely and get to know for a reason ... umm
This is a theosophical talking point. Buddhism is religion with it's more religious aspects in the domestic religions that it integrates. This is the difference between regional schools, which have been removed for western audiences (although a certain subversive religion remains to dictate terms).
Yes I think that's right. Though to be fair, many practicing Buddhists do see the Buddha as something of a god or godlike figure.
6 років тому+1
Can the Sanskrit word "Dharma" be adequately translated into "Religion"? I think that in Dharmic traditions, since the ancient times, there is a concept of seeking the truth for oneself. In the path of seeking the truth, a "chela" (disciple) develops a relationship with a "Guru" (teacher). We see in the "Bhagvad Gita" this relationship between Arjuna and Krishna. In Dharmic traditions, philosophy and psychology are intertwined into an embodied daily living style. Therefore, I feel that the modern compartmentalized western way of looking at "wholistic" Dharma has shortcomings. I find it helpful to group all Indian Dharmic traditions and see what is common to them. I was born into a Sikh family, whose recent ancestors were Hindus. I have been attracted to Buddhism for nearly forty years. I use the Buddha's teachings expounded in Theravada Buddhism as the Gold Reference Standard for understanding various Dharmic traditions, each has it owns additional aids (e.g. texts, mantras, chanting/dancing , deities or equivalent substitutes, art and rituals).
Hello Harbajan and thanks for the question! There is a sense of dharma that means “the teachings”, as in “the Buddha dharma” which is the Buddha’s teachings. I’m not sure it’s quite the same as “religion” though, since a religion is more than just the teachings. There are other meanings of dharma as well though. I have a video on what dharma means in early Buddhism if you’re interested: ua-cam.com/video/GYJ_k4pITsM/v-deo.html
Doug's Secular Dharma Yes! I see why I was originally attracted to Buddhism. The Buddha is an ancient scientist , because his teachings (Dharma) tell us not to take anything at its face-value but to examine it. Searching causes for the effects and considering inter-relatedness of phenomena . His teachings include methods of examination and analysis via meditation practices informed by ethics. There is a lot of emphasis on the functioning and control of the mind. That is why mindfulness has become so popular in various modern settings for mastering oneself under different situations (e.g. clinics, schools/education, sports, army, etc). This aspect sets Buddha Dharma apart. Nevertheless, as Buddha's teachings arise from the Vedic culture, there is some overlap with other Indian Dharmas.
32 marks gas been discribed in several sttas by buddha him self(eg. Lakkana sutta in deega nikaaya) So the argument that he didnt had had is not acceptable
Thanks for your thoughts Sanjeewa. I discussed this issue here: ua-cam.com/video/N9ltD8wYQCQ/v-deo.html . However it may also be that the supposed 32 marks were not visible except to a trained eye looking for subtleties.
@@DougsDharma who knows. I keep the possibilities open... the human being only uses a small portion of the brain and only has so much in the way of science. The Buddha could have made contact with higher technology and had greater access to his brains abilities etc. it’s wild but the scriptures when read literally, were also wild. It’s these wild things that makes it a religion and not like atheism. I have faith in all the interpretations. These interpretations are merely speculative views though. And you know what the Buddha says about those lol. I keep it open in my mind... or my mind remains neutral and unbiased while my actions are not.
@@DougsDharma But if you say the miracles were meant to be metaphors that is very very flawed. 1) Where is the proof of this? Clearly in history it was taken literally so why now is it suddenly a metaphor (2) where do metaphors stop then? If this is a metaphor, is rebirth a metaphor? Is karma a metaphor? Is the Buddha just a made up metaphor? Where do you draw the line (3) the same could be said about every religion. Allah could have been a metaphor, Jesus could have, why do people assume these religions meant stuff literally but Buddhism means it as a metaphor (4) Thousands witnessed it. How are all these thousands of people just making up metaphors (5) and why do we need to dismiss every supernatural element in Buddhism as a metaphor. So basically we cherry pick what is literal and what is a metaphor? That isn't proper Buddhism, discarding scripture and denying the thousands of mentions of supernatural things and miracles
Would it be possible for you to answer the question of why the Budddha preached the sutta named 'anattalakkhanasutta' to five ascetics who were sotapanna?
Hi so paka and thanks for the question. You're talking about what is traditionally believed to be the Buddha's "second sermon", which he gave to his five ascetic companions. Presumably he gave that sutta because it was something he felt was particularly important for them to understand.
@@DougsDharma Thanks for replying to my question. I also strongly believe that the Buddha might have essential attention for preaching the second sermon but I cannot catch on the Buddha's real attention on it. May I know your idea about this. However, if you do not want, leave my question. Thanks.
I'm not really sure, so paka. It may have been (if we assume that the story is accurate) that the Buddha's companions followed Brahmin or Jain ideas of the self, and the Buddha believed they could be brought to awakening by realizing non-self.
Agama (Religion) A artinya tidak Gama artinya kacau... Buddha Dhamma adl ajaran yg menuntun manusia kepencerahan kesucian tertinggi Nibbana... Yg membuat mental dan bathin seseorg menjadi lebih terkontrol dan terkendali... Bebas dari killesa dan rasa takut ... Bebas dari ancaman-ancaman dll... Amazing.. Sadhu....
Yes Buddha discovered meditation on his own and had no Guru/teacher. Rather he even did not accept himself as teacher and remained a person who teachs and show righteous approach. Buddhism is a method of living life or art of living. To the best of my knowledge, Buddhism even don't have a holy book but just his applied teachings
I don’t understand where the definition of religion was created and have set of rules. As I understand There’re two categories of Buddhism, Buddhism for majority and Buddhism for minority: for majority Buddhism can be applied as philosophy and a way of life, for minority of people practice Buddhism in depth to gain nirvana and have to learn about spirituality in depth. For me Buddhism is Buddhism and I consider myself Buddhist through ordaining and following the five precepts. However, If you believe it’s your religion then it’s a religion. Why u have to have a god to be a religion? thats just strange definition from the west.
Hi Asian Duse, I've done a number of recent videos that touch on the question of whether and how the Buddha's story might have been real. For example: ua-cam.com/video/fKDyCszF7zE/v-deo.html
@@DougsDharma there a guy in my country does the same think like you reveling the trust about Buddha but but he got a lot of hated from people they thought he is crazy and only a few people understand his idea like me
There's this guy called Amitabha who lives in heaven. If you call out to him, " Please save me Amitabha!" He'll definitely save you. He'll warmly receive you in the Pure Land Heaven when you die. You can even insult him and make fun of him, but he'll still save you if you ask him to. That's just the kind of guy he is. Believing in such a thing, it's irrelevant whether one labels it a religion or not, it's the truth. However, if one finds safety and comfort in the term religion, then trying to discount any association with this term is hateful, divisive, and hurtful. But since Amithaba doesn't seek revenge for being insulted, there's no need for us Bombus to do so either. Namo Amituofo.
To come to a conclusion whether Buddhism is a religion or not, it is better that one defines what religion is. There are many definitions of religion, and there are many types of religions. Depending how one defines the meaning of religion, then we can judge if Buddhism is a religion or not. In the time of the historical Buddha, Sakyamuni Buddha, found a way out of the human unsatisfactoriness. He also taught the Four Noble Truth and the discipline helping people to attain the nirvana. He built a community to hand down the teachings. Even nowadays, there are many followers and practitioners. both lay or monastic, claiming that their linage comes from the historical Buddha. With these historical and social phenomenon, I think it is not right to say that all these phenomenon are not religion.
Buddhism too had aspects like exclusivism and elitism in its sociological theories. Modern Buddhists can't pretend that it's different to other religions in this regard. For example, Buddha initially did not allow women to join the sangha. It's written in the scriptures that Bodhisattvas cannot come from lower castes. The historical Budhhism too was not free from contempt towards people from lower strata and women.
To me, Buddhism is a blank template for how to live a fulfilling life that includes the yin/yang of our human experiences and time on earth - the good and bad, happiness and sorrow, pain and bliss, life and death etc. It is a combination or contrast of these that make up the experiences which fill in the blanks within our template of life. We don't need to worship God or even Lord Buddha himself but we may simply reflect and draw from his teachings and wisdom as we would any other philosophical idea or ideology. To view Buddhism as a religion is difficult for me as I'm in fact an anti-theist. The problem I have with ALL religions is that they try to impose teachings, beliefs, dogmas and preconceptions based on fundamentalism and most of their members think that they have the absolute truth and the other is wrong. If God or gods really existed and created us all in his own image, then surely such a supernatural and wise being would be humble and not so narcissistic that he would want us to relinquish our free will or our sovereignty to him or any other higher power. Religious folks need to remember that the "Absolute" does not need to be worshipped or to be obeyed but merely given the same respect as we should be giving ourselves and others.
Hi E.B. Although I'm no expert in Early Buddhism, with my very limited experience I might think that the phrase "a blank template to live a fulfilling life" is kind of inaccurate. In so far, my personal study has shown to me that the Dhamma has a very defined path to reach a very defined goal: the Middle Way between sensory indulgence and extreme asceticsm, expressed in the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path and the formula of the Dependent Origination, which in turn lead to Nibbana, or the extinction of craving, aversion and ignorance, and most importantly, of suffering/dissatisfaction. I don't believe in the idea that "buddhism is a way to build the best version of ourselves", which is a common thought in these days, although vague and imprecise. The final goal of the Path, as expressed by the Buddha, is to eradicate suffering and its causes. Have a wonderful day!
Please don't spread misinformation about Buddhism. I am a Buddhist convert, I just don't really like the wrong image of Buddhism spreading around the internet. Buddhism may not be god based, but there are gods and supernatural elements in ALL traditional forms of Buddhism. And it isn't really a blank template, it is a complete way of life and a complete truth (with rituals, spirits, devas, asuras, demons etc). Especially the form I follow which is Tibetan Buddhism, we pray to gods and it's definitely a polytheistic religion. Just look up names like Avalokitesvara, Vajradhara, Mahakala, Yamantaka and Za Rahula
I am a Sri Lankan. The lord Buddha didn't say to worship himself and anything else. Buddhism grew up in India with Hinduism and Jainism. So after the parinirvana (death in common language) some wrong things added to the philosophy and it became a religon.
You don't know anything about buddha and buddhism hindu is born from tantrayan and bajrayan buddhist you need to read buddhist history and tipithaka hindusm is just 1 thausand years You don.t have read history of buddhist and buddha hindu is very new religion hindu is copy from buddhism hindu god also copy from buddisato Auloketesor hindu is totally copy from buddhim ramayan also copy from buddhist book jatak katha
If religion is supplication to God (as in Almighty Creator God) , then Buddhism is not a religion and/as anyone can attain Buddha-hood and become Buddha.
@@cb250nighthawk3 Well yes if you look at it that simply then your right. But Buddhism is many things to different people. When I did religious studies and we looked at the worlds great religions Buddhism was and still is there.
Billy Beattie : if religion is not about supplication to an Almighty Creator God, then it is a religion. Yeah, I am a simple man, simplifying things and when I'm not being simple, I do look at things from all angles. Nevertheless, I prefer to keep it simple in whether Buddhism is or isn't a religion.
@@cb250nighthawk3 That is fair enough. But I come from the view that there is no real defined idea of what religion is. Whether Buddhism is a religion or nor I guess is about what you define a religion to be.I still maintain that Buddhism is one of the worlds great religions. Have a happy and peaceful day.
If you mean the Buddha wasn’t a theist, yes that’s right. I have an earlier video on that if you haven’t seen it already: ua-cam.com/video/QOQiZbAPtW4/v-deo.html
It is a religion because you have to believe in some major things. Reincarnation and that there is a way out of samsara and Buddha nkow the way and achieved it. Also you have to believe that there is no god/creator. Also the old Pali text have a lot of parts where Buddha seems to be supernatural almost god like. Dīgha-Nikāya Mahāparinibbāna Sutta when Buddha died devas appear sky opened with brighter light than the sun and that of the devas earth was shaking etc.
The 32 marks is physiognomy not a reference to the supernatural, no? On a side note, a Buddha's 'miracles' aren't of supernatural origin either. They're the product of understanding how nature's 'operating system' works so as to be 'hacked'.
But throughout ages, there have been many Buddhas. Buddha is anyone who has achieved enlightenment. And therefore within Buddhism, in different parts of the world there are many variations and in the traditional sense- different Buddhas are worshipped. And a Buddha can be a man or woman.
Thanks for your comment R Gurung. A "Buddha" traditionally isn't just someone who is awakened (that is an "arahant"). A Buddha traditionally is someone who rediscovers the dharma in an age when it has disappeared and teaches it to the world. That said, in different forms of later Buddhism there developed the stories of supposed past or other Buddhas. There are such stories in the early texts but they do not involve the notion that these prior Buddhas are to be worshipped.
@@DougsDharma that is so interesting. i’d like to think that sometime during the approximately three hundred thousand years of human existence there was another person who came to the same realisations as the historic buddha but it was before writing was invented and it was so long ago that it eventually faded. there is just so much about prehistory that we don’t know
Ultimate goal in buddhism (Nibbana) can achieve without any external power. That put Buddhism out of the box. Let go your ego. You will see it crystal clear....
Religion does not need a "god". Religion is a philosophy that posits an ultimate reality, a path towards experiencing ultimate reality, and the potential for personal transformation.
Budhism is not a religion, its a philosophy....any philosopher will tell u that every action has a reaction, and gd and bad deeds hv consequences! You dont need buddha to tell us that. It's about moral standards.
Q: what is the difference between Buddha and God? Answer: In orher religions the LAWS belong to god the creator, They are god's laws.He dominates and controls the laws.In terms of the Buddha's Law, we equally share the LAW. There's no creator. The world was created through links or connections of lives. No one controls ou world We are all Responsible for it. But even some Buddists misunderstand this and have created a creationist narrative that claims the world was created by Buddha. Question: Christianity and Buddishm woreship differently and believe in diffrend things, things. God vs.the law. But their Suffeerings are the same.We all Go through the same sufferings Answer:In Buddishim we also recognize that human beings have both good and evil aspects.Buddishm also admits that the evil side if human beings still exists even after Enlightenment.You cannot extinguish your evil side by practicing Buddhism.You cannot kill some part if yourself.But you can reduce the evil side of yourself and expand your good side.This can be done to lesser degree without Buddhism through mental discipline-thinking positively, and with volition (will to change). But that's not strong enough,In order to truely lesson Our evil nature and expand our Good, we need to realize a greater entiity, which is the Buddha"s LAW.Because we dont really know the ancestral lineage of our species, we therefore dont know where we come from. In the other hand of Buddhism do not give any credence to the Creation story.We believe that life is eternal. Matter was already out there- it already existed.There was LAW befire there was human life. The teaching of buddishm explains that there was the law before there was Buddha.🤣🇯🇵
Can’t be a religion without dogma or deities. At least not by the western definition. Of course traditional Asian Buddhism consists of such religious things as intercessional prayer to ancestors and idols/deities, considering Buddha to be the highest god, an afterlife with reward and punishment, etc., etc. That’s religion but it’s Buddhism grafted onto prexisting beliefs. Not what most westerners are looking for.
@@DougsDharma Thanks for your honest response. Not that I am against believing in these things, but this also means that Buddhism is no less a religion than any other, as it believes in mystical/supernatural forces that cannot be explained by science.
Thanks Doug. I like the answer Ajahn Brahm (BSWA) gave when he was asked if Buddhism was a religion. He replied, "It is, but only for tax purposes."
Yup, I've seen that response as well. 😀
for tax purposes ! lol
What means tax purpose?
😅
@@kirtanrathod6947religions don’t have to pay taxes in many western countries
Buddha dhamma is for everyone to live happy and truthful life .There is no need to become Buddhist to learn buddha dhamma.
Exactly so, Harsh. Well said! 🙏
U're right!
I think that's called a "householder'' in buddhism. And you have to certain things to maintain that.
Buddha's disciples studied Buddha's teaching. Buddhism is very sophisticated study to reach Nirvana.
but if you comprehend the buddism,please tell i am a buddist,because others help to pathway to go to buddism..
Coming from a family of Buddhists, I say it's a semi-religion. By semi, I mean it is religious and philosophical at the same time. One aspect of that Buddhism not being a religion is unlike other religions, it doesn't have mythological origins of mankind and no central God or sets of gods. However, I know one reason Buddhism is categorized as a religion because of the beliefs in afterlife, the laws of karma, and reincarnation. I'm still conflicted to whether I should follow Buddhism as a religion or a philosophy. My family follow Buddhism as a way of life and I follow it too. While practicing and attending services, I began to develop adopting Buddhism a as philosophy and being part of my everyday life. Anyway, from what I see in this video, this topic is still in debate and I like your insight of this topic. Thank you for sharing your views.
Thanks for your thoughts Louis, well said. 🙏
A religion has doctrine Islam has the quran Christians have the bible jews have the torah. Buddhism doesn’t it’s not a religion
Many Buddhist don't hold those beliefs.
@@barebasics it's a religion and philosophy like the person said they have a belief system they idolizing they also have a heaven and hell you might not understand but in every religion they are spiritual paths and a philosophy way of thinking you have to do deep research to understand
@@barebasics buddhism is one of the great religions of the world.
I think the best thing is to say is that it is not necessarily a religion.
Yes exactly Kyle. Well put!
It not a region is peace ☺ , I'm Buddhist
It is 1 week that I discovered Doug and his videos, and my knowledge on buddhism is unexpectedly deepened. Thank you so much Doug!
You’re very welcome Marco. Happy to help out!
One thing that distinguishes Buddhism from religions in my mind at least is its lack of supernaturalism. The central teachings of the Four Noble Truths and Eightfold Path are practices and things you can prove to yourself by observation and contemplation.
Thanks for the comment Frank. Yes, the central teachings do not require belief in supernatural causes or entities, and that's a great thing. Though to be fair, traditional practitioners do interpret them as having supernatural import. It comes down to a question of what you feel is best for your own practice: a this-life approach, or a notion of beginningless lifetimes.
Does every religion need to have supernatural beliefs? Why can't there be a religion that focuses on making life better for people? Who made the rule that a religion needs to have supernatural beliefs?
@@KhanhNguyen-rf2nf because those are usually what we call philosophies.
😂😂😂😂 oh my god had you ever read the Pali Canon? Buddhism is the most supernatural religion in the world. I can't believe this what you were reading all this time?? 😂😂
@@KhanhNguyen-rf2nf Buddhism has supernatural beliefs anyway so either way it is a religion
Thanks Doug, my attraction to 'Buddhism' is its approach to seeing things as the Buddha taught his generation. As a non-theist, the Buddha's approach has allowed me to seek balance and better understanding of my self. I find myself sometimes in a quandary when I share with folks that I am more in tune with Buddhism, but not sure if that makes me a Buddhist. This video has enlightened me some more. Much appreciation to you.
That’s great El Gato, you’re very welcome. I don’t think it matters so much what you call yourself (“Buddhist” or otherwise). What matters more is practice and what sort of person you want to become.
You don't have to be a Buddhist to follow buddhism and go on the right path ^^
hmm as an atheist I've always claimed that Buddhism is the best religion, guess I know why
Yes Lennon, Buddhism has a lot in common with atheism, though with nuances. See my earlier video on Buddhism and atheism: ua-cam.com/video/QOQiZbAPtW4/v-deo.html
Same
Buddhism is unique because it has Kalama Sutta.
Thanks for the reply nayanmalig. Yes, the Kālāma Sutta is quite special.
Hi I think you should do a video on that. Best of luck.
I plan to! 🙂
May you do a video on Buddhism everyday. You'll need more than a lifetime to finish it.
The thing I love about Buddhism is that its more inclusive and tolerant of other opinions unlike most religions.
Yes, it certainly can and should be.
I've really been enjoying some of these older videos. Thank you, Doug.
Glad to hear it! 🙏
Thank you, you're a very good speaker. I wish i could go on like that with my family (i'm from a large family) and friends. I'm Joe Melanson. I studied for nearly 2 years with Albert Low (as well as Jean, his wife, team work) in Montreal in the 80's, a very great teacher, with tons of patience, wits and grace.
Thanks for watching Joe, that’s very kind of you. Great to hear about your experience! I don’t know Albert Low but he sounds like a wonderful teacher to have had. 🙏
To add to the comparison to Plato's Academy, Buddhism as a school of thought is pretty clearly analogous to schools of Chinese thought like Confucianism and especially Taoism, which is why once Buddhism was introduced to China, the three co-existed pretty comfortably for centuries as three of the major pillars of Chinese Philosophy. Chan/Son/Zen is, by and large, the synthesis of a very long and largely amicable discourse between Buddhism and Taoism.
Yes there are a lot of similarities between Taoism and Ch'an/Zen.
This comment is for the sake of those folks who stumbled upon this video and it happened to be their very first encounter with Buddhism. For the last 35 years I have been a western practitioner of religious Buddhism. Alas, I have started to become impatient with the growing and unimaginative western secularization of this beautiful, diverse tradition. All three ways that Doug states in favor of Buddhism not being a religion can be applicable to, for example, Hinduism, which its practitioners themselves consider a religion. In fact, there is no single founder for Hinduism. For folks new to Buddhism, I highly recommend reading Damien Keown’s *Buddhism: A Very Short Introduction*. Keown analyzes Ninian Smart’s 7 dimensions of religions as applied to Buddhism: (1) practical and ritual, (2) experiential and emotional, (3) narrative or mythic, (4) doctrinal and philosophical, (5) ethical and legal, (6) social and institutional and (7) material. All these dimensions are present in Buddhism to varying degrees, depending on the school of Buddhism one follows. While Doug didn’t say the following in this video, I am familiar with the usual arguments against Buddhism-as-religion: Buddhism is rational, Buddhism is scientific, Buddhism is a (usually pragmatic) philosophy, rituals are unnecessary, rebirth is irrelevant and might not exist at all, etc. I agree that a measure of skepticism is healthy and we are all well served by testing the truth of any and all spiritual claims for ourselves. But please be advised: secular Buddhism is a recent invention (less than 40 years) and is not necessarily the only way to approach Buddhism. If secular, non-religious Buddhism resonates with you, fine. If it doesn’t, there are still religious Buddhists out there.
Exactly so Katherine. The practices of Buddhism should be open to a broad tent of people.
@@DougsDharma We can agree on that! Carry on with your work, Doug. You're a good instructor. Hands palm-to-palm.
Born in a Buddhist family and raised in a Buddhist country, I would say most of us don't believe in supernatural being or heaven or hell but we do believe in the philosophy behind it. We went to temple from time to time. Not for pray and the belief in heaven but for donation and giving happiness to others, this is what I was taught to be Buddhist. In schools, they taught us about the history of Buddhism and the founder. There are some miracles and supernatural things in it but no one has ever said I have to believe in it, even my teachers said "It is just a chronicle. Chronicles said more than what was actually happened". But anyway there are some people who have faith in supernatural things...mostly not young people.
Thanks for your insights Sora! I imagine there are going to be a range of different beliefs in any of these societies around the world, even in the West there is a huge range. 🙏
🙏🏼 appreciated
Which meditation method you do?
Are you not buddhism now?
@@intellectualbrain1563 Im not sure if I can call myself Buddhism. I like the teaching and sometime applied to my life but I dont go to temple and dont believe in spiritual/superbatural things. I see this religious as history and culture. So maybe non-religious fit me better.
One reason Buddha is a human who found the way of life. You don't need Buddha to gain enlightenment. You are not bound by it's rule belief and study as so enlightenment is with in us not in any book or suttra
Thanks Rohan!
You do need Buddha to gain enlightenment. That is the point of the religion. He turned the wheel of Dharma, without him humans would not have found the Dharma
Yes. I fully agreed after using it for as a reference for many years. I am not a Buddhist and even a atheist myself now. I found it easier to understand "the meaning of life" as compared to others religions. To sum it up. I use the word "simplistically" to describe. Cause to me being simple is already a blessing. What more you can still ask for?.
Yes, thanks mingyao!
Thank you for the enlightenment sir! I am really fascinated with the teachings of Gautama Buddha! 💚💚
You're very welcome Leah, thanks for your comment! 🙏🙂
Im buddhist and i also believe buddhism isnt supposed to be a religion eventhough people made it a religion. Lord buddha also didnt want it to become a religion or a cult. He wanted to help everybody to end the suffering they have to face throughout the cycle of life.
Yes ending suffering is the important thing. Thanks Axalate.
Buddha's teachings can be experienced by every being and it is the only path to liberation.may every being be happy and liberated.
Thanks roshan, lovingkindness is so important. May all beings be happy and freed. 🙏
I became a subscriber after a while of watching your videos mainly because of two videos specifically - this one and one where you disagreed with, I believe it was Bhikkhu Bodhi, but regardless of the scholar it was a world renowned person. From these videos I learned that I can expect your unbiased and authentic view of Buddhism - being willing to walk into a subject matter like “religion or not” or to disagree with a preeminent scholar is not something that can be found just anywhere and often when found it’s more based in an effort to get more controversy and in turn more attention rather than the genuine sustained effort contained in your videos. It is my view that your intent is to make the viewer learn and also think about the dharma and that is in my mind the epitome of right effort.
Yes that's my aim, to clarify and learn about the dharma and find ways to apply it to our lives. 🙏
Buddha presented us with the TRUTH without sugarcoating it . Buddha's dhamna is for those who genuinely WANT to seek the truth about life.
It requires a lot of thinking through.....hence a lone journey.....a journey to be undertaken by the WISE. ....🙏
Thanks for your input Mandi.
Hi Doug, My views accord with yours, however, it's obvious that while some Buddhists follow the dharma purely as a "science of mind," many millions do follow it as a religion, not only in the sense of metaphysical beliefs and praying for intervention from various deities, but in the ritual automaticity of their practice, which is similar to what we see in other religions around the world. Many Buddhists do not meditate or otherwise cultivate their consciousness or insight, and temples and sects catering to such adherents often combine pre-Buddhist local deities and superstitions with Buddhadharma. Finally, even among serious meditators there is an element of "faith," namely, the faith in an ultimate or supreme form of enlightenment that (despite the doctrine of impermanence) is permanent and confers upon the enlightened one god-like attributes and powers. Now, I'm not saying that such powers and attributes don't exist, but if they do, the number of people who have experienced or witnessed them is vanishingly small, meaning that the vast majority of those who hold them to be true do so out of faith. This is the same faith that leads Buddhists to believe that the historical Buddha had indeed attained such a state, and that this was what enabled him to speak authoritatively about reincarnation and other metaphysical phenomena. Congratulations on a great channel!
Yes that's right George, and thanks! I plan to do a video on Buddhist faith sometime in the coming weeks where I'll discuss some of this.
Well stated! Thank you.
I find it useful to view all religions as attempting to describe the Dharma. It is just a matter of how well they do it.
Yes, I suppose we could say that, but then all philosophies do as well ... that's sort of what Socrates said when he said all people want the Good.
he never told us to believe , he tells us to think about life. It is just what is right or wrong.
Right, and there are certain ways of thinking that are more skillful than others.
Love your videos bro, keep It up!
Thanks David, will do!
Agree as Korean buddist it teach you to live n follow the path it say u to live happy
That's right, we follow the path to achieve deeper happiness. Thanks!
Are you buddhist ?
Given the Buddha's statement in Majjhima Nikaya 27 and the Kalama sutta, the Dhamma (Buddhism is far broader), given its entirely complete dependence on observation, is a scientific method with a specific soteriological purpose.
What separates science from philosophy/religion is a fundamental basing of its truths/epistemology on the method of observation measurement. This is the same for Buddhism.
Thanks for your thoughts, John!
I'm definitely a pacheco person! Tried to find myself in various Buddhism groups or kinds, the closest one is secular Buddhism but I can't tell for sure I'm 100%. Maybe because identification myself with any organisation or movement is a strange idea for me....
As Buddhist I'm really thankful for this video. Your explanation is amazing
My pleasure, Nirman. 🙏😊
Thank you for sharing. I was once taught by a Myanmar Buddhist monk that a good Christian is also a good Buddhist.🤔 I do not understand that then. Thank you for enlightening me. 😅 Yes, I am a Christian by faith and a practical Theravada Buddhist and Greek stoicism by philosophy practice.
That’s great Minsing Leong, yes I think that Myanmar Buddhist monk was right! 🙂🙏
I am a Christian and have to politely disagree to the statement .........
a Christian cannot be a Buddhist
Completely different foundations and theology. Its as absurd as saying " this red paper is black."
Another possible statement can be - " a good citizen of the world can be a good Buddhist."
This is true too Jayashree. If you get into them deeply, they are different. But I think the question was perhaps more about lay ethics, which is quite similar in both cases.
Yes. Anyone can become Buddha by creating and practicing dhamma. Buddha keeps his teachings open to all whosoever interested in learning and achieving more🙏🏼
Just a note; The word "religion" comes from Latin and its literal translation means "reunite". In other languages of non Indo- European origin the synonime of we in the West call "Religion" mostly refers to such concepts as "Way", " Knowledge", "Faith" and more. All of these we can apply to Buddhism just as well. Now what DOES make the Buddhism a religion and no "just philosophy" is the presence of such aspects as system of faiths and beliefs, for ex. the basic doctrines of Buddhism like "Four noble truths", "Three gems" etc they DO require certain faith and even devotion, otherwise the further path/ spiritual progress is sensless and brings no results. Speaking about other details such as supreme ideals, availability of moral principles, spiritual authorities, temples, monasteries, rituals, prayers and other spiritual practices, holy scriptures, strictly regulated rules, system of precepts, system of limitations, system of whatever makes reference to what is acceptable or not acceptable, of what is good or bad; All that is unseparate part of Buddhism and all of these (or most part of these) form the fundamet of any or at least the most of todays known religions. The lack of such concepts as "Creator" and lack of strict dogmatism, makes the Buddhism a bit different religion, but still religion. According to the western and also indian theologic classification, Buddhism forms part of so called "Dharmic religions". I can go further and exlain the difference between philosophy and religion, but in brief just to mention the fact that EVERY religion is based on its own philosophy, so it wont be wrong to call for example christianity "philosophy of Jesus Christ" or even just "Teaching of Jesus Christ" and not a religion.
I'm a Buddhis convert coming from judaism background and I can say the jews eithet call judaism "religion". They mostly claim it is also a philosophy. By one way or another, the word "religion" does not exist in hebrew, but its marked with the word "דת" which is originated from "דעת" which means "knowledge" or "opinion", but nothing to do with "reunion" (literal translation of "religione" from latin).
In some way Buddhism is sort of liberal, so in some cases Buddhists allow the non Buddhist to try and practice several stuff like mostly meditation and even let the ppl from outside to enter the temples etc and some of the Buddhist "churches" allow syncrethism in a certain way. Maybe that openness and excessive "democracy" of some Buddhists makes the outsiders believe that Buddhism is not a religion but an "open club" for anybody. On the other hand not every Buddhists share that excessive liberal approach. In my personal case I belong to that "strict" group and I find it correct. I dont want Buddhism to become "open club" for everyone who passes by carrying their prejudices and non Buddhistic ideas in their minds.
Thanks for your thoughts gleb.
@@DougsDharma thnx for giving me the opportunity to express myself
Exactly!
This statement makes me sad. And when one tries to prove it, they actually tell that Buddhism is different from Abrahamic religions. Same happens in this vid. But being different doesn’t mean being none. Lets look at how wiki determines religion: a social-cultural system of designated behaviors and practices, morals, worldviews, texts, sanctified places, prophecies, ethics, or organizations, that relates humanity to supernatural, transcendental, or spiritual elements. So the person of worship shouldn’t be divine or godlike to make this worship a religion. It doesn’t even require a person of worship or a god (!). Saying that Buddhism is not a religion just because it doesn’t follow the Abrahamic fundamentals is Abrahamic centrism. It might seem it makes Buddhism more accessible to the West but in my opinion it rather slows down the acceptance of diversity.
It can be seen both ways Irinn. If you prefer to hold it as a religion, that's fine too.
Yeah it definitely is a religion. Not only this, but as a Buddhist convert myself I can confirm that Buddhism does have loads of supernatural elements and beliefs, in my form of Buddhism (Tibetan) we even believe and pray to gods so not sure where this "philosophy" thing came from
Even if your a Christian or some other religion you can still walk into a Buddhist temple or go to a Buddhist group and still appreciate that which is being taught that is if your not a close minded fundamentalist zealot..
Yes I think that's right Gary. You can learn a whole lot from the Buddha's teaching without necessarily considering yourself a "Buddhist".
@@DougsDharma I personally do not identify as a Buddhist but I am still willing to get involved with Buddhist groups simply because they do a good job at making people feel at home and because the philosophy and message provides a powerful tool to meditate and reflect on.
Exactly so. Thanks Gary.
I really like the idea of Buddhism being the one religion/guide to life that has the potential to unite all other religions. Everyone could continue to practice their own, but still have at least this one thing in common which would expose the other commonalities every religion has. It seems like Buddhism has that flexibility to be integrated into just about every aspect of life, including all the different forms of worship or spiritual seeking.
You might want to check out my earlier video on Buddhists of other religions: ua-cam.com/video/8wstShpo3Y8/v-deo.html .
@Krieghart. As a spiritual way of living, it is open to any person of any religion or no religion & gender. And it is said that there are people of different belief system who were Pacekka Buddhas (those who discovered the Dhamma on their own) & attained Nibbana.
One of the things I love about Buddhism is Siddhartha Gautama was a regular shmo who became a Buddha. So if he did it, anyone can.
😄 I'd say he was a particularly talented shmo, but he does seem to have led a relatively normal early life, at least for one from a wealthy family.
I think the meaning of dharma/relegion is to learn how to be happy/menatlly stable reather than to think of the obscure.
Yes that's a good way to look at it, thanks Tika.
I appreciate your voice to reveal the true nature of Buddhism to the world. I will add some extra note on Buddhism. As you said Buddism is not getting superpower or get to heaven after death. It is the true nature of life. anyone can observe. What Lord Buddha did is open other's mind to observe the truth and provided a path. You can not get anything simply believing the religion. You have to observe. Load Buddha always has given freedom to argue and understand. Actually, Buddhism is not a religion, it is a philosophy anyone can follow and observe. It is not centered on one person or God. It also proves evolution, the universe, planets, etc. And there are some contradiction parts in current Buddhism that we can see them like magic or something. Most of such things have come from modifications done by the early years because of literature and then make people amaze about Lord Buddha. However, those things don't make a large effect on true Buddhism. Those modifications are done while writing Buddhism in books like Tripitaka. Actually, observing that history is not my field and I'm a computer science student. However, I feel the true nature whenever I'm thinking about the world such as Karma, Changing nature of every matter. Actually, we can relate to current science with Buddhism which said 2550 years ago. I Invite anyone to observer more and reveal the truth of Buddhism by observing history and separate literature content.
Thanks for your thoughts Lakindu! 🙏
Buddhism is a religion in the sense that it deals with the core issue that all religions have tried to deal with in their own way. That issue is to provide a framework to end suffering.
True but philosophies of ancient Greece for example provided similar sorts of frameworks that were not considered religious. It depends how one looks at it.
It is recognized as a religion by government law, and for employer responsibilities as a protected characteristic within equality through diversity policies. Maybe able to get conscientious objector through it in a war, and also avoid being forced into cruel livelihoods under the right livelihood noble path.
Yes, for sure Buddhism is a religion in a legal sense. It's also anthropologically and historically a religion. But there are also other aspects to the teaching.
Without a clear definition of what religion is all we are doing is comparing Buddhism to western religions. It’s a little odd that by not fitting in standard western religious molds Buddhism becomes something non-religious.
Yes, well religion is a western concept anyhow, and indeed if we decide that Buddhism must be a religion we can always come up with a definition of religion that covers it. As I say in the video though, it can be seen either way.
I think there are overlapping themes in Christianity and Buddhism. Prayer or meditation, when practiced correctly leads us to that calm, contemplative state. I think, that if a Christian practices these things correctly even if they are unaware of the dogma, then they can achieve their spiritual goals.
Yes and there are many Christians who pursue Buddhist practices for this reason. Thanks Fran.
Thank you, Doug!
My pleasure!
There are many layers of the early Buddhism in India. If one only takes those aspects that one wants and leaves the rest aside, and comes to a conclusion that Buddhism is not a religion, this will narrow people's view about Buddhism.
Anumodana Doug 🙏
🙏🙏🙂
Thanks for your explanation. Most major religions are associate with the creator and his creation (including ego or soul).
Buddha denied it and also denied all 62 wrong views. [DN 1.Brahmajala Sutta]
According to Buddha, "without knowing Depentent Originaion, everyone has one of the wrong views".
[DN 3.71 Brahmajala Sutta] [Buddha made this sutta ,5 biggest names, for Dhamma].
It is reasonable to think that sotapanna wisdom ,the philosophyical wisdon of non-self, overcome or destroy 62 wrong views by noble eightfold path. As far as my understand, Buddhas teach us to know the truth.
It's vitally important for wisdom (i.e Right view and Right think).
That's right, this understanding is extremely helpful to us.
Great video. A couple of questions regarding the 32 marks, as well as the Pratyeka Buddha. In the Vajra Prajna Paramita Sutra, Shakyamuni explicitly states that the Buddha cannot be seen in the 32 marks. Does this Sutra come before or after the one referenced in the video? Also, to my understanding the 6th Patriarch of Chan/Zen was able to understand and expound the Dharma without previous teaching (could be wrong). In this case would the 6th Patriarch also have been a Pratyeka Buddha that became a regular Buddha when he began teaching?
Interesting questions. Any Prajñaparamita sutras will be significantly later than the ones discussed in the video. As to Zen, it has rather a different view about dharma than is found in the early teachings: that dharma isn’t transmitted by words.
Thanks Doug!
You’re very welcome Frederico!
Buddhism is really broad and should be divided into Spiritual Buddhism ( karma, samsamra, material worl illiusion ), Mystic Buddhism ( Tantra, Mantras ect ), Philosophical Buddhism ( depends on school ) and Psychological Buddhism ( my fav ).
Sure Benas, there are many ways to divide up Buddhism depending on our interests.
It all depends on the definition of “religion” I guess - most people link religion to a belief in God or Gods as the basis of a set of teachings and way of life and as Buddhism is not God based, then it’s outside the parameters of religion
Yeah that's right Brent. It also depends how you view Buddhism.
Thanks for raising this topic Doug. My view tends to be more of a secular one. Nevertheless, I wonder how the teachings would have been transmitted through the centuries without monastic traditions to spread them. Also, is there a spiritual dimension to secular buddhism? For example the Bramhavihara meditations use visualisation which I think adds power. Is this religious, spiritual or simply make believe?
Oh absolutely, the monastic traditions were key. And I think of secular practice as spiritual in its own way. See my video on secular images and rituals: ua-cam.com/video/KDVzuAWj7CU/v-deo.html
Point taken but they do believe in after-life (like all other religions do with the notion of paradise but then in a form of reincarnation), they have moral values that must be followed in order to obtain this constructive reincarnation (like the moral dogma of other religions in order to avoid hell), they do have a religious leader (Dalai Lama), they have "holy" scriptures (book of life), they do believe in this special status of their "prophet" who was able to obtain the "nirvana" due to his lifestyle choices, they also have monks that are sustained financially by the local communities (like the priests and imams and rabbis), All this elements lead to think they have more in common with a plain classical religion rather then a philosophy that does never consider itself as "all-explaining" or absolute truth.
True, but then Pythagoras and Socrates believed in reincarnation; the Dalai Lama isn't so much a religious as a (an ex-) political leader, he has no effective control over even Tibetan Buddhism, and no control at all over other (non-Tibetan) forms of Buddhism; the Buddha wasn't a "prophet" in that he gave no "prophecies", nor did he deal in divine revelations or the like. What he claimed to do was investigate for himself through hard work and find something out about the nature of the mind and reality, which isn't so different from Plato or Aristotle. So while the existence of a monastic sangha and therefore systemic organization does make Buddhism more like a traditional religion, it has significant differences from other forms of religious belief and practice.
@@DougsDharma Many thanks for your answer. I sense your argument about Pythagoras and Socrates but they may believe in anything they want, this does not impair the fact that belief in after-life tends to the irrational immortality of the soul and binding the quality of that afterlife to religious (behavioral) rules tends to be dogmatic (if you don't follow my rules you will or will not have a better after life). The reasoning on the Dalai Lama makes sense even though not every christian follows the pope, that does not make him less of a religious leader (divinely appointed). He was not a prophet, but still the only one who reached nirvana what make him quiet exceptional in comparison with the rest of humanity and indeed everything he said and did is considered as key in order to reach that nirvana what could let one think about prophetic supernatural powers-ish. Do not misunderstand me I have a lot of respect for all religions and philosophys (at least the constructive ones) and I sense many budhists do not want to be affiliated with common religions, but when you look at the history, the traditions, the rituals, the adoration of statutes, and the structure of the thought.. in my modest perspective, budhism is a religion aiming at bringing people together, constructively but build on an obligation to follow certain irrational rules without questioning them. it has the same political ambition as religions, the same dogmatic invitation to consider a certain path better then an other. In my modest opinion much less harmly then most religions but nevertheless.. I do send you my utmost Respect and Appreciation and congratulate you for your very diplomatic and friendly way of presenting things.. have an awesome day Sir! Stay bright and brilliant!
question everything, and be like water my friend!
The original concept of the gandharva (gandhabba in Pali) was that in addition to their celestial musical abilities, they escort the [what is being reborn] into the fetus. Specifically in Buddhist ayurveda (probably medieval but possibly older, since Ashoka bragged on his pillars about the prowess of Buddhists at medicine), the antaratam is brought to the womb (and into the fetus) at 27 weeks. Prior to that, the parents' contributions to the 'self' were instilled by 1 month (the sequence is kalala, bubuda, pinda, peshi, ghana from conception to implantation and solid mass (zygote, blastocyst, etc. in Western medicine) preceding this.
The fetus is believed to review past actions and suffering after that 27 week point. There is some correlation with Western medicine in that the fetus some time after the quickening spends time dreaming. At some point, the notion of the gandharva being a being that brought the 'soul' to the womb is lost and it becomes that process itself.
(I had to figure this out because of trying to understand a Buddhist mahasiddha text).
Interesting. A mahasiddha text will be quite late compared to the texts I normally discuss on these videos. There would have been a lot of elaboration developed by then on all these concepts.
@@DougsDharma Very true. The concept of the gandharva bringing the being to the womb is Vedic. The timing of it (27 weeks) is something I haven't been able to date very well.
excellent explanation ...!!
Thanks sahan!
In Eastern culture, the ways of philosophy and religion are not seen dualistic. Thus, there is generally tolerance of both fields among the people.
For instance, "Is Buddhism a religion or philosophy?" One can answer that it is both.
Religion and philosophy are both labels conceptualized by humans. Thus, they are not absolute, but may initially be helpful learning about Buddhism. And because they are generally viewed in the East as complementary instead of contradictory, there is more room for peace and understanding.
Reference:
The Rationalist Tendency in Modern Buddhist Scholarship: A Revaluation
Click on
www.jstor.org/stable/1400271?seq=1
That's right Raulito, Buddhism can be seen as both.
Life is religion and religion is life. As far as I know the separation and distinction of one from another is a Western and modern separation.
I'm not sure how modern it is, but yes, it is a western concept. (I'm not sure if anything similar exists e.g. in China though).
Doug's Dharma good to know that (maybe) Chinese culture does not make that distinction too. This topic deserves further investigation, I think.
I believe in both ways some people say it's not a relgion some say it is
That's right Myat, it depends how you look at it.
I am Buddhism. Thanks for your opinions.
🙏
There was no religion concept in ancient India there were only sampradayas who used to have philosophical arguments and how do any spiritually englightened being appear different what are the major of the 32 traits, I am curious 🤔
Well it’s not clear any of these “32 marks” were actually visible, since the Buddha was at times mistaken for being just another monk during his lifetime.
I am a Buddhist it is a RELIGION!
Well, yes. It's also not a religion. It depends how one approaches it.
@@DougsDharma I'm so confused
Thanks Doug. What are your thoughts about when and where precisely Buddhism began to become more of a religion from a philosophy? Did this take place at the time of Ashoka, or earlier?
Hi Elijah, I think it's hard to say. You could say it started to become a religion after the Buddha's lifetime, as hagiographic stories arose about him. But as to precisely when, I'm not sure. It would certainly have been a gradual development. But that said, in some ways the Buddha did intend his teaching to be more than just a philosophy. This is why he created the sangha of bhikkhus and asked them to go out and spread the dharma, and apparently recommended even certain devotional practices. So there were religious elements there from the beginning. His teaching can be seen either as philosophy or religion.
Buddhism: Pali Canon is the original content, Legends added later.
Star Wars: Canon is the original content, Legends added later.
Just a funny comparison as both a Buddhist & sci-fi nerd!
Yes that’s often how the terms are contrasted! 🙂
Buddhism is a religion, although different than other religions. However there are many sects of Buddhism, so some are "less" religious in nature, such as Thervada, but there is still mythological teachings.
Buddhism is not a religion.
Buddhism is a education of wisdom.
Buddha is our teacher.
Teach us how to leave sufferings and attain happiness.
Teach deluded to become awakend.
Teach ignorance to become wise.
Teach selfish to become compassionate.
Teach greedy to become generous.
Teach shallow minded to become magnanimous.
Teach superstitious the truth.
All these benefits will bring you instant happiness.
These are the current benefits one will obtain.
If one cannot enjoy these benefits now, what is the point of learning?
🙏😊
As a Christian I'm happy to hear the early Buddhist teachings didn't claim any special Revelation from a, or many god(s)
That's right Orangeratio, Buddhism isn't a belief involving revelation or prophecy.
make no mistake though, Buddhism categorically denies the existence of a creator god or supreme deity. in the most fundamental sense, Buddhism and Christianity are incompatible belief systems.
I don't think the Dhatuvibhanga Sutta works for debunking the 32 marks as a later idea. Here's why:
The marks aren't actually particularly outlandish features, and many normal people can be expected to have them. Slender fingers, full/round shoulders, and even slight "webbing" near the base of the fingers (the literature does not mean like a frog), to give a few examples from among the 32 marks, are actually very normal. Some of the 32 do sound strange upon reading them, but may be (and many are) a lot less so when the context of their description is understood.
If a palm reader were to tell me that I was the greatest person in history based upon their examination, that would in no way imply that the lines on my palm actually appeared to be anything unusual under casual observation to a layman's eye. By extension, it's entirely likely that if the story of the 32 marks were true, it wouldn't clash the sutta you've referenced at all.
Yes, it's possible that the 32 marks were only "visible" to a trained eye. But in general scholars think they are probably hagiographic in origin.
When he saw buddha he didn't recognise those 32 signs before he tells that he is the buddha?..
Assuming the 32 signs were original to the texts and not simply an interpolation, it seems that they were expected only to be apparent to Brahminic initiates. There are several stories of people not knowing who the Buddha was in the early texts.
buddha was hiding those signs maybe ?.. when he was talking to him .. umm maybe he wanted to talk to him more closely and get to know for a reason ... umm
This is a theosophical talking point. Buddhism is religion with it's more religious aspects in the domestic religions that it integrates. This is the difference between regional schools, which have been removed for western audiences (although a certain subversive religion remains to dictate terms).
I like that Buddha picture in the background.
Technically your not supposed to have that type of idol but i like it to XD
The Buddha is seen as a philosopher not a god
Yes I think that's right. Though to be fair, many practicing Buddhists do see the Buddha as something of a god or godlike figure.
Can the Sanskrit word "Dharma" be adequately translated into "Religion"? I think that in Dharmic traditions, since the ancient times, there is a concept of seeking the truth for oneself. In the path of seeking the truth, a "chela" (disciple) develops a relationship with a "Guru" (teacher). We see in the "Bhagvad Gita" this relationship between Arjuna and Krishna. In Dharmic traditions, philosophy and psychology are intertwined into an embodied daily living style. Therefore, I feel that the modern compartmentalized western way of looking at "wholistic" Dharma has shortcomings. I find it helpful to group all Indian Dharmic traditions and see what is common to them. I was born into a Sikh family, whose recent ancestors were Hindus. I have been attracted to Buddhism for nearly forty years. I use the Buddha's teachings expounded in Theravada Buddhism as the Gold Reference Standard for understanding various Dharmic traditions, each has it owns additional aids (e.g. texts, mantras, chanting/dancing , deities or equivalent substitutes, art and rituals).
Hello Harbajan and thanks for the question! There is a sense of dharma that means “the teachings”, as in “the Buddha dharma” which is the Buddha’s teachings. I’m not sure it’s quite the same as “religion” though, since a religion is more than just the teachings. There are other meanings of dharma as well though. I have a video on what dharma means in early Buddhism if you’re interested: ua-cam.com/video/GYJ_k4pITsM/v-deo.html
Great, hope you find it useful!
Doug's Secular Dharma Yes! I see why I was originally attracted to Buddhism. The Buddha is an ancient scientist , because his teachings (Dharma) tell us not to take anything at its face-value but to examine it. Searching causes for the effects and considering inter-relatedness of phenomena . His teachings include methods of examination and analysis via meditation practices informed by ethics. There is a lot of emphasis on the functioning and control of the mind. That is why mindfulness has become so popular in various modern settings for mastering oneself under different situations (e.g. clinics, schools/education, sports, army, etc). This aspect sets Buddha Dharma apart. Nevertheless, as Buddha's teachings arise from the Vedic culture, there is some overlap with other Indian Dharmas.
Exactly so, Harbajan! 🙏
32 marks gas been discribed in several sttas by buddha him self(eg. Lakkana sutta in deega nikaaya) So the argument that he didnt had had is not acceptable
Thanks for your thoughts Sanjeewa. I discussed this issue here: ua-cam.com/video/N9ltD8wYQCQ/v-deo.html . However it may also be that the supposed 32 marks were not visible except to a trained eye looking for subtleties.
He was special. He wasn’t ordinary... in the scriptures he had super powers.
Right but the question is how much of that comes from post-mortem hagiography, and how much is meant to be taken literally.
@@DougsDharma who knows. I keep the possibilities open... the human being only uses a small portion of the brain and only has so much in the way of science. The Buddha could have made contact with higher technology and had greater access to his brains abilities etc.
it’s wild but the scriptures when read literally, were also wild.
It’s these wild things that makes it a religion and not like atheism.
I have faith in all the interpretations. These interpretations are merely speculative views though. And you know what the Buddha says about those lol.
I keep it open in my mind... or my mind remains neutral and unbiased while my actions are not.
@@DougsDharma But if you say the miracles were meant to be metaphors that is very very flawed. 1) Where is the proof of this? Clearly in history it was taken literally so why now is it suddenly a metaphor (2) where do metaphors stop then? If this is a metaphor, is rebirth a metaphor? Is karma a metaphor? Is the Buddha just a made up metaphor? Where do you draw the line (3) the same could be said about every religion. Allah could have been a metaphor, Jesus could have, why do people assume these religions meant stuff literally but Buddhism means it as a metaphor (4) Thousands witnessed it. How are all these thousands of people just making up metaphors (5) and why do we need to dismiss every supernatural element in Buddhism as a metaphor. So basically we cherry pick what is literal and what is a metaphor? That isn't proper Buddhism, discarding scripture and denying the thousands of mentions of supernatural things and miracles
Religion - Word of God (believed)
Others - philosophy of a person who has provided an opinion.
Right, well religions are also beliefs of people who have provided their opinions, they're just opinions about deities, the afterlife, and the like.
Would it be possible for you to answer the question of why the Budddha preached the sutta named 'anattalakkhanasutta' to five ascetics who were sotapanna?
Hi so paka and thanks for the question. You're talking about what is traditionally believed to be the Buddha's "second sermon", which he gave to his five ascetic companions. Presumably he gave that sutta because it was something he felt was particularly important for them to understand.
@@DougsDharma Thanks for replying to my question. I also strongly believe that the Buddha might have essential attention for preaching the second sermon but I cannot catch on the Buddha's real attention on it. May I know your idea about this. However, if you do not want, leave my question. Thanks.
I'm not really sure, so paka. It may have been (if we assume that the story is accurate) that the Buddha's companions followed Brahmin or Jain ideas of the self, and the Buddha believed they could be brought to awakening by realizing non-self.
@@DougsDharma Thanks for your kindness.
Agama (Religion)
A artinya tidak
Gama artinya kacau...
Buddha Dhamma adl ajaran yg menuntun manusia kepencerahan kesucian tertinggi Nibbana...
Yg membuat mental dan bathin seseorg menjadi lebih terkontrol dan terkendali...
Bebas dari killesa dan rasa takut ...
Bebas dari ancaman-ancaman dll...
Amazing..
Sadhu....
Yes Buddha discovered meditation on his own and had no Guru/teacher. Rather he even did not accept himself as teacher and remained a person who teachs and show righteous approach.
Buddhism is a method of living life or art of living. To the best of my knowledge, Buddhism even don't have a holy book but just his applied teachings
Seem like Buddha had many teachers...But he found some unique way to make us better persons.
I don’t understand where the definition of religion was created and have set of rules.
As I understand There’re two categories of Buddhism, Buddhism for majority and Buddhism for minority: for majority Buddhism can be applied as philosophy and a way of life, for minority of people practice Buddhism in depth to gain nirvana and have to learn about spirituality in depth.
For me Buddhism is Buddhism and I consider myself Buddhist through ordaining and following the five precepts. However,
If you believe it’s your religion then it’s a religion.
Why u have to have a god to be a religion? thats just strange definition from the west.
"Religion" is a western term and concept anyway. Often it is not useful to think in terms of "religion" or "not religion", and that's fine too.
i always wondering was the the Buddha's story real or not or someone just made it up ?
Hi Asian Duse, I've done a number of recent videos that touch on the question of whether and how the Buddha's story might have been real. For example: ua-cam.com/video/fKDyCszF7zE/v-deo.html
@@DougsDharma thank you so much i also come from a country where 80% person of people are Buddhism but almost all of them have no idea about Buddha
Well in the West it's pretty close to 100% of the people who have no real idea about what the Buddha taught. Oh well. That's why I do my videos. 🙂
@@DougsDharma there a guy in my country does the same think like you reveling the trust about Buddha but but he got a lot of hated from people they thought he is crazy and only a few people understand his idea like me
There's this guy called Amitabha who lives in heaven. If you call out to him, " Please save me Amitabha!" He'll definitely save you. He'll warmly receive you in the Pure Land Heaven when you die. You can even insult him and make fun of him, but he'll still save you if you ask him to. That's just the kind of guy he is. Believing in such a thing, it's irrelevant whether one labels it a religion or not, it's the truth. However, if one finds safety and comfort in the term religion, then trying to discount any association with this term is hateful, divisive, and hurtful. But since Amithaba doesn't seek revenge for being insulted, there's no need for us Bombus to do so either. Namo Amituofo.
To come to a conclusion whether Buddhism is a religion or not, it is better that one defines what religion is.
There are many definitions of religion, and there are many types of religions. Depending how one defines the meaning of religion, then we can judge if Buddhism is a religion or not.
In the time of the historical Buddha, Sakyamuni Buddha, found a way out of the human unsatisfactoriness. He also taught the Four Noble Truth and the discipline helping people to attain the nirvana. He built a community to hand down the teachings. Even nowadays, there are many followers and practitioners. both lay or monastic, claiming that their linage comes from the historical Buddha. With these historical and social phenomenon, I think it is not right to say that all these phenomenon are not religion.
Buddhism too had aspects like exclusivism and elitism in its sociological theories. Modern Buddhists can't pretend that it's different to other religions in this regard. For example, Buddha initially did not allow women to join the sangha. It's written in the scriptures that Bodhisattvas cannot come from lower castes. The historical Budhhism too was not free from contempt towards people from lower strata and women.
It’s a religion for some people, but not for those that have paid attention
To me, Buddhism is a blank template for how to live a fulfilling life that includes the yin/yang of our human experiences and time on earth - the good and bad, happiness and sorrow, pain and bliss, life and death etc. It is a combination or contrast of these that make up the experiences which fill in the blanks within our template of life. We don't need to worship God or even Lord Buddha himself but we may simply reflect and draw from his teachings and wisdom as we would any other philosophical idea or ideology. To view Buddhism as a religion is difficult for me as I'm in fact an anti-theist. The problem I have with ALL religions is that they try to impose teachings, beliefs, dogmas and preconceptions based on fundamentalism and most of their members think that they have the absolute truth and the other is wrong. If God or gods really existed and created us all in his own image, then surely such a supernatural and wise being would be humble and not so narcissistic that he would want us to relinquish our free will or our sovereignty to him or any other higher power. Religious folks need to remember that the "Absolute" does not need to be worshipped or to be obeyed but merely given the same respect as we should be giving ourselves and others.
Thanks E.B.! 🙏
Hi E.B.
Although I'm no expert in Early Buddhism, with my very limited experience I might think that the phrase "a blank template to live a fulfilling life" is kind of inaccurate.
In so far, my personal study has shown to me that the Dhamma has a very defined path to reach a very defined goal: the Middle Way between sensory indulgence and extreme asceticsm, expressed in the Four Noble Truths, the Noble Eightfold Path and the formula of the Dependent Origination, which in turn lead to Nibbana, or the extinction of craving, aversion and ignorance, and most importantly, of suffering/dissatisfaction.
I don't believe in the idea that "buddhism is a way to build the best version of ourselves", which is a common thought in these days, although vague and imprecise. The final goal of the Path, as expressed by the Buddha, is to eradicate suffering and its causes.
Have a wonderful day!
Please don't spread misinformation about Buddhism. I am a Buddhist convert, I just don't really like the wrong image of Buddhism spreading around the internet. Buddhism may not be god based, but there are gods and supernatural elements in ALL traditional forms of Buddhism. And it isn't really a blank template, it is a complete way of life and a complete truth (with rituals, spirits, devas, asuras, demons etc). Especially the form I follow which is Tibetan Buddhism, we pray to gods and it's definitely a polytheistic religion. Just look up names like Avalokitesvara, Vajradhara, Mahakala, Yamantaka and Za Rahula
I am a Sri Lankan. The lord Buddha didn't say to worship himself and anything else. Buddhism grew up in India with Hinduism and Jainism. So after the parinirvana (death in common language) some wrong things added to the philosophy and it became a religon.
Thanks Januda. That can be one way to look at it.
You don't know anything about buddha and buddhism
hindu is born from tantrayan and bajrayan buddhist
you need to read buddhist history and tipithaka
hindusm is just 1 thausand years
You don.t have read history of buddhist and buddha
hindu is very new religion
hindu is copy from buddhism
hindu god also copy from buddisato
Auloketesor
hindu is totally copy from buddhim
ramayan also copy from
buddhist book jatak katha
*I agree Buddhism it is a philosophy of Life not a religion*
Yep T-boy, that’s how it is for me too.
@@DougsDharma *our religion should be humanity☸️*
👍
Buddhism is the philoshophy of life
Yes it is a very wise philosophy of life. Thanks Nissan.
@@DougsDharma buddha is real bt hindu’s gods are gake imaginational,brahman convert buddha’s statue to many fake gods
God does’nt exits in this universe
LMAO. Sanatana Predates Budhhism
@@TheGoat2367 tumko pata nahi hoga asia ka purani savyetaki
Buddhism is a philosophy dressed up as a religion. Though it is one of the great religions of the world.
Yes, it can be seen through either lens I think. Thanks Billy.
If religion is supplication to God (as in Almighty Creator God) , then Buddhism is not a religion and/as anyone can attain Buddha-hood and become Buddha.
@@cb250nighthawk3 Well yes if you look at it that simply then your right. But Buddhism is many things to different people. When I did religious studies and we looked at the worlds great religions Buddhism was and still is there.
Billy Beattie : if religion is not about supplication to an Almighty Creator God, then it is a religion. Yeah, I am a simple man, simplifying things and when I'm not being simple, I do look at things from all angles. Nevertheless, I prefer to keep it simple in whether Buddhism is or isn't a religion.
@@cb250nighthawk3 That is fair enough. But I come from the view that there is no real defined idea of what religion is. Whether Buddhism is a religion or nor I guess is about what you define a religion to be.I still maintain that Buddhism is one of the worlds great religions. Have a happy and peaceful day.
It say that there is no Supreme all good and with out having any bad intent.
If you mean the Buddha wasn’t a theist, yes that’s right. I have an earlier video on that if you haven’t seen it already: ua-cam.com/video/QOQiZbAPtW4/v-deo.html
I would rather say that Buddhism is not a faith but it is a religion.
It is a religion because you have to believe in some major things. Reincarnation and that there is a way out of samsara and Buddha nkow the way and achieved it. Also you have to believe that there is no god/creator.
Also the old Pali text have a lot of parts where Buddha seems to be supernatural almost god like. Dīgha-Nikāya Mahāparinibbāna Sutta when Buddha died devas appear sky opened with brighter light than the sun and that of the devas earth was shaking etc.
Thanks Gieszkanne, there certainly are religious or faith-based aspects to Buddhism as well, depending on how it is understood.
The 32 marks is physiognomy not a reference to the supernatural, no?
On a side note, a Buddha's 'miracles' aren't of supernatural origin either. They're the product of understanding how nature's 'operating system' works so as to be 'hacked'.
I don't think there's anything within the 32 marks that's necessarily supernatural, but it does suggest supernatural influences.
But throughout ages, there have been many Buddhas. Buddha is anyone who has achieved enlightenment. And therefore within Buddhism, in different parts of the world there are many variations and in the traditional sense- different Buddhas are worshipped. And a Buddha can be a man or woman.
Thanks for your comment R Gurung. A "Buddha" traditionally isn't just someone who is awakened (that is an "arahant"). A Buddha traditionally is someone who rediscovers the dharma in an age when it has disappeared and teaches it to the world. That said, in different forms of later Buddhism there developed the stories of supposed past or other Buddhas. There are such stories in the early texts but they do not involve the notion that these prior Buddhas are to be worshipped.
@@DougsDharma that is so interesting. i’d like to think that sometime during the approximately three hundred thousand years of human existence there was another person who came to the same realisations as the historic buddha but it was before writing was invented and it was so long ago that it eventually faded. there is just so much about prehistory that we don’t know
Ultimate goal in buddhism (Nibbana) can achieve without any external power. That put Buddhism out of the box. Let go your ego. You will see it crystal clear....
Thanks Thush, that's very good advice. 🙏
Religion does not need a "god". Religion is a philosophy that posits an ultimate reality, a path towards experiencing ultimate reality, and the potential for personal transformation.
Perhaps so Haiden. Thanks!
Budhism is not a religion, its a philosophy....any philosopher will tell u that every action has a reaction, and gd and bad deeds hv consequences! You dont need buddha to tell us that. It's about moral standards.
Q: what is the difference between Buddha and God?
Answer: In orher religions the LAWS belong to god the creator,
They are god's laws.He dominates and controls the laws.In terms of the Buddha's
Law, we equally share the LAW.
There's no creator. The world was created through links or connections of lives. No one controls ou world We are all
Responsible for it. But even some Buddists misunderstand this and have created a creationist narrative that claims the world was created by Buddha.
Question: Christianity and
Buddishm woreship differently
and believe in diffrend things, things. God vs.the law. But their
Suffeerings are the same.We all
Go through the same sufferings
Answer:In Buddishim we also recognize that human beings have both good and evil aspects.Buddishm also admits that the evil side if human beings still exists even after
Enlightenment.You cannot extinguish your evil side by practicing Buddhism.You cannot kill some part if yourself.But you can reduce the evil side of yourself and expand your good side.This can be done to lesser degree without
Buddhism through mental discipline-thinking positively,
and with volition (will to change). But that's not strong enough,In order to truely lesson
Our evil nature and expand our
Good, we need to realize a greater entiity, which is the
Buddha"s LAW.Because we dont really know the ancestral lineage of our species, we therefore dont know where we come from.
In the other hand of Buddhism do not give any credence to the
Creation story.We believe that life is eternal. Matter was already out there- it already existed.There was LAW befire there was human life. The teaching of buddishm explains that there was the law before there was Buddha.🤣🇯🇵
Buddhism is sceince.It can be proved
@@sawaiikrongyudh9327 Hello.How?
@@sawaiikrongyudh9327
From where is your buddishm
Believing it?
Can’t be a religion without dogma or deities. At least not by the western definition. Of course traditional Asian Buddhism consists of such religious things as intercessional prayer to ancestors and idols/deities, considering Buddha to be the highest god, an afterlife with reward and punishment, etc., etc. That’s religion but it’s Buddhism grafted onto prexisting beliefs. Not what most westerners are looking for.
I’m a bit confused. Isn’t karma a supernatural thing that is part of Buddhism? Incarnation?
This monk is at least honest about why Buddhism is a religion: ua-cam.com/video/xN_mOGbmSNM/v-deo.htmlsi=uO8iJwiK6f9uNkPN
ua-cam.com/video/yywJecYLqBA/v-deo.htmlsi=uGcVzTsNYDeMR_9Q
Yes, these certainly are a part of traditional Buddhist belief.
@@DougsDharma Thanks for your honest response. Not that I am against believing in these things, but this also means that Buddhism is no less a religion than any other, as it believes in mystical/supernatural forces that cannot be explained by science.