@MrLizard one of things this Guru would say regularly was, “If science finds Buddhism to be wrong it is Buddhism that much change“

Coffee is totally a religion. The coffee bean is God who sacrifices itself for us . IT comes down off the tree, is dried & is roasted by fire. Then IT is ground & by mixing & brewing we the take holy coffee communion by which we start our days, end our nights, drown our sorrows, celebrate with family & friend, etc. (Don't get me started on the deep & abiding faith of the dark chocolate covered expresso bean, all hail.)

Keep learning with an open mind! You will find Buddha clearly stated he had nothing to do with Gods or the afterlife. His concern was the relief of suffering. Classifying Buddhism as a religion is an interest of those influenced by religion, and the attending hatreds, ignorance, greed surrounding that activity. Buddha's epiphany under the Bodhi tree was the way to relieve suffering was from within, and not a concern of Godheads of any kind, including himself. He said don't believe anybody, even me - unless you can honestly agree that it is the best thing for yourself..

@jeffy I didn't mention a god.

@WonderlandJail Excuse me, I thought you were implying it was a religion - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Your definition of karma isnt correct. From a buddhist perspective karma is simply the manifestation of cause and effect. Your definition is more a deritive of a pre ordained Destiny type thing. This is more of a Hindu type view. Buddhism would have been a kick back against this view. Buddhism doesn't tell you to be nice for a reward either. The Kalama Sutta makes exactly that point. Being 'nice' is its own reward. In this life, right here right now.

@JimmyM i know, but for brevity i decided to make it more basic.i'm pretty sure that's why i said "basically", otherwise i would have used a more definite word or a more absolute statement.

you are right sort of, but karma is pretty much cause and effect, be it for reincarnation or what comes your way in this life. the idea is still disturbing and shouldn't be spread as a truth.

i'm not nice for a reward, i'm nice and do good things (or resist bad things) because that's the right thing to do. anybody who does anything for a reward is clearly just doing it for themselves, sharing the idea as something to gain because you're nice, is not something we should hold onto and is something we should throw away in the interest of a more attainable sense of morality.

@WonderlandJail but 'basically' what you are saying is wrong. Karma is the result of action. No more, no less. AND this includes the action of others. It's NOT some kind of universal balancing act as you are suggesting that Buddhists beleive.
I'm glad that you are nice and do nice things because you beleive that is the right thing to do. I agree. I think being 'good' is its own reward. However, to me, what's important is that the 'good' gets done. The homeless housed, the hungry fed.... and i don't really care wether the motivation for that is the nasty man in the sky will burn me forever if I don't or the different sky person will make me live again as a cockroach....
I guess what I'm actually getting at here is that your original post was factually incorrect and so misrepresented Buddhism. Which as I'm sure you know is as broad and diverse a religion as any other

@JimmyM broad and diverse? you do understand the meaning of "foundation" right? so regardless of how many different denominations there are, the foundation remains pivotal.

if you purposefully say something, for instance, deliver an order or command, then you are executing the beginnings of karma, the results of which are labelled the fruit of such an action. to refer to karma as a foundation, means you are accepting that once something has begun, it can't be undone and the results must come to fruition. this is why most normal people don't use karma, they accept the advent of human mistakes and they admire the growth in humanity for realising its own mistakes.

there are plenty of issues i have with karma, and it's not just within buddhism i have these issues. pretending that karma is a simple concept to allow to grow, is a horrid idea. humanity made a monumental mistake when the events which sprung world war two into action, were just allowed. it was only the results which caused a reaction. that is karma in a literal sense. being told something and just going along with it.

buddhism is a religion, the foundations of that religion are just as despicable as any other. why else would the swastika be abused by such a dictator if the intent wasn't one of following an ideology and imposing it on his public? Hitler knew what he was doing and he made sure his intentions were wrapped in ideologies which supported his actions.

every single religion has killed someone because of its principles. there isn't a single one without that in their history.

i dare you to tell me i'm wrong again. you were right, karma is the result of action, which includes and isn't just limited to action. words and the things people say are also covered too, along with inaction. the nazi war machine spread propaganda by pretending it was a movement intelligence and mystic guidance, when all it did was reveal the inherent weakness within all religions. most people equate the times of the nazi with christianity, but it doesn't stop with one religion. buddhism is a religion, there is no escaping that fact. the things religions teach, spread and infect us with are not helpful to the welfare of humanity. they are only useful to the individual who is ignorant enough to blindly accept it for a little emotional comfort. pretending you think your view on buddhism is pure and righteous is a fallacy and you should know you're lying to yourself.

i didn't misrepresent anything, i just said something you didn't like. that's a you problem. so do yourself a favour and make sure you know 100% that i'm wrong. i know i'm right, so much so, i don't need to write tons of text which says nothing just to say "you're wrong". instead i tackle the actual bullshit as it stands. the individual pretending to defend it is the one who can't accept the truth of the matter, which is their view on the religion is pointless when history has proven time and again, if it's a religion, it's going to kill someone eventually. no religion is exempt from this realisation. it's unfortunate and i don't like it either, but at least i tell the truth.

being good is not it's own reward. not at all. there is no reward to being good. if you're being good for a reward then you're not being good, you're being selfish. i'm a nice guy because it's the right thing to do. i do what's right, because it's right. expecting anything in return is the sign of a weak fool who can't fathom being alone, depressed, sad, poor, homeless and hungry while holding doors, taking people to hospitals, helping those who are injured, feeding those who are hungry.

i've had one of the shittiest experiences in life. i'm severely depressed. but it won't stop me from buying someone food and putting myself out. it won't stop me walking a stranger 10 miles to a destination to make sure they get there safe despite a fucked up leg or a sickness i have. doing it for something in return, that's just wrong. i don't need to be happy or get shit sent my way because of a nice thing i did. doing it wasn't a reward, it's never a reward, it's just the right thing to do. the lonely walk back, cursing myself for being such a fucking idiot, and for what, someone who can't really speak english trying to show gratitude with a handshake and then they're gone forever, yeah, great fucking reward.

i get to say i helped another human being. language barriers, difference of opinion, culture clashes, none of that matters when the right thing to do is help them.

no fucking wonder you can't help yourself and say i'm wrong and misrepresent some shit you think you know. i hold no respect for any religion, and buddhism is a religion. it's been a documented religion for a super long time. it's not like it propped up in the 1950's, unlike some religions, like, lets say, scientology for one. even then over the past 70 years, scientology has ruined and destroyed lives which lay in conflict or try to expose it. but it's ok if i misrepresent that religion, because most people don't know dick about it and just assume it's kinda right anyway.

the bullshit surrounding karma is disgusting. and how about that, what d'ya know, this is your karma for the things you said. and vice versa for me.... that's how dumb karma is. if you fancy dancing a little more with me, we can do this for hinduism next, or don't you care about their karma? maybe we can discuss the idiocy behind the karma of the jain religion.

karma. what a fucking joke.

@WonderlandJail wow! You're an angry fella and still wrong but I think we may have to let this go. I wasn't arguing whether Buddhism is a religion or not. I think it is too. The Buddhist view of karma differs greatly from the Hindu or Jain version but you don't seem to grasp that. Never mind. It sounds like you've probably got more important things to worry about

There is no faith in Buddhism, only deep and focused observation of life. The Buddha at all times encouraged people to doubt anything and everything including the things he was teaching.
To answer the original question Buddhism is an energy management system

I like that definition, and I think Buddhism might fall in a grey area because some sects believe supernatural things but others very explicitly do not. If no faith is required I don’t think I would consider it religion.

@Atpeaceone Yes I'm aware of the Buddha saying you should doubt and question even his teaching. The open question is whether in practice this is really adhered to or just given lip service or relative application. Can you really question any group's teaching beyond some point, and still be a member of the group? Inherently, I would say not. It's a noble aspiration, but fundamentally a non-starter IF you are actually wanting to "belong" to the religion and not just practice it on your own. If you're just evaluating and using it for yourself, then it's a different story but then we're not talking about religion then in this sense.

Also as @DominicShaull points out, some Buddhist sects have supernatural beliefs and cosmology. I would argue in fact that teaching about something beyond, above, or outside the natural order is part of the definition of most religions, and if you properly unpack them, maybe of all of them. In the case of Buddhism you have what amount to demigods (ascended masters / Bodhissatvas / hungry ghosts) and a form of cyclic afterlife (cycle of rebirth / karma). These are still magical beliefs asserted without substantiation, and inherently un-falsifiable. It's my personal view that if you have something un-falsifiable on offer, even if that doesn't include a deity or supreme being, you have a magical belief; add a bit of ritual and ceremony and you have a religion.

@mordant To the question of whether or not all Buddhists question all knowledge passed down to them, the answer is of course not. There are fanatics among the Buddhists also. But if they don't are they then still Buddhists, since this seems to be one of the most basic tenets of the teachings? Then follows your question: how much can you question and still be part of the group. In order to determine that there would have to be a centralized "authority" that makes those kinds of decisions like in the Catholic Church, which is my personal experience, but I ma sure all other religions are the same. The Buddhists bicker a lot about this but there is not a centralized panel recognized as such by all. So maybe that is part of why I don't see them as a religion. If the Buddha was here today he would be something like a Tony Robbins But maybe that is a religion

@Atpeaceone I don't think group exclusion necessarily requires a central body. If you attend the local Buddhist temple here, the local Buddhist temple can decide officially or unofficially that you're not to be encouraged or that you're to be outright ostracized because you're too divergent. For example, perhaps you choose not to obey the admonition to take off your shoes for group meditation, or violate some other agreed group convention. It doesn't take a central body to admonish you about not adhering to that. That's what I'm getting it, denying or threatening to deny social reciprocity to you personally, by the people you're trying to be part of a community with, is a strong disincentive to diverge very much. You get away from this only by practicing alone, and then you lose the social benefits.

The local temple actually violated MY beliefs and got MY withdraw of social reciprocity by advertising a beginner's introductory meditation session the first Friday of every month and then repeatedly not actually having them. Their web site hadn't been updated in months, the monks were at a retreat, it was spring break, the barometric pressure was too low, I don't know. I just decided that if they don't care enough about the material world to inform it accurately of their activities then I don't need the aggravation of going to the trouble to make my way down there week after week, phone their office and never get a return call, etc. So it cuts both ways ...

Think of it as a practice, not a belief. A religion is the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Buddha specifically said he had nothing to do with that - he was here to talk about suffering caused by hate, ignorance, and greed, and how to end that suffering, that is all. That others have added to this, is apparent, but not what he had in mind.

The Dali Lama has put off his reincarnate due to the Chinese influence of attempting to make budda a god. The Dali Lama understands the words of Jesus and others as a reflection to the goal of reaching Dharma, or enlightenment, Seeing oneself in the total singularity of Buddha .

Because they do not believe in a deity or god. They worship the inner self and strive to be without a god protecting them.

“The Four Noble Truths are pragmatic rather than dogmatic. They suggest a course of action to be followed rather than a set of dogmas to be believed. The four truths are prescriptions for behavior rather than descriptions of reality. The Buddha compares himself to a doctor who offers a course of therapeutic treatment to heal one’s ills. To embark on such a therapy is not designed to bring one any closer to ‘the Truth’ but to enable one’s life to flourish here and now, hopefully leaving a legacy that will continue to have beneficial repercussions after one’s death. (154)”
― Stephen Batchelor, Confession of a Buddhist Atheist

@MrLizard I like the following:
“A religion is a system of symbols which acts to establish powerful, pervasive, and long-lasting moods in men by formulating conceptions of a general order of existence and clothing those conceptions with such an aura of factuality that the moods and motivations seem uniquely realistic.”

― Clifford Geertz

@cava This sounds like a definition of a political party

@Atpeaceone Maybe because religion is the existential basis for political ideology.

@NoTimeForBS That it is an ism to some in the same way as programmed isms, I can't argue. Many atheists imitate their theological and political cousins in trying to hijack the term as one denoting people who are (as a noun) Atheists. I use it more as an adjective a-theist as in un-theist or non-theist. That prefix denoting separation.

Many years ago, the 7up company used a clever marketing term to define their product in the public mind as 'The Un-Cola'. Though being un-cola objectively means a beverage can be understood to be without cola content as description or 'adjective', describing it. In marketing, The Uncola, was a way of claiming the nameas a product with specific definition.

Many atheists of a certain type mind, endeavor to appoint themselves qualifiers or definers of criteria that one must meet to be considered an Atheist. In so doing, they in fact do create an 'ism' in hijacking a term meant to describe those who simply reject gods, setting themselves up as clergy of sorts and disqualifying those who don't subscribe to their respective 'isms' from being true Atheists.

Well, they are right. Those of us who are simply a-theist are not only non-theists we are also non-Atheists as it applies to one of the many franchises.

For personal example, my rejection of notions about gods doesn't automatically place me kneeling in subjection to various forms of thought being called 'science'. Upon examination, I might accept it or reject it and without any necessity of explaining why. I don't, but might believe in ghosts, astrology, Sasquatch or the 'spirit of Santa Claus and STILL be atheist.

By the popery of some officious prigs who take it upon themselves to define both what is a good Atheist and what is good science, I might be disqualified for not measuring-up to their arbitrary and pretentious bars; as one who rejects their 'ISM'.

Buddha was known to get angry when people tried to deify him.

I just realized I typed "Biddhism" instead of "Buddhism."

@captainphilbo we'll have to declare a Buddhist fatwa against you!
And get a load of monks to come and sit cross legged and chanting outside your house

I think supernatural aspects were added to the story. After all he did nto write his own story, but others wrote it. Much like a lot of miracles were added to the story of Jesus after he died, using familiar themes of the time form other known stories of legends.

But, back to your point, yes, one shoudl be at least somewhat familiar with the subject before one comments about it.

Is that the Herman Hesse one? I enjoyed that book. Especially the bit where he met the Buddha. Thanks for reminding me. I'm going to readit again

“Embrace nothing: If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha. If you meet your father, kill your father. Only live your life as it is, Not bound to anything.”
― Gautama Siddharta