The six qualities of the Buddha's Dharma.

[white_wolf]

As some of you all may know I'm fairly skeptical of "God-based" religions. I find them to be too dogmatic and anti-scientific for me to follow. I find the leap of faith required to be too large a leap for me to make. As some of you also know I have recently started studying Buddhism and I personally have found it to be a much better fit for me than the more God oriented religions. However, when I was discussing this with a friend of mine, he made an interesting point. He is a Christian and claimed that I am being hypocritical because Buddhism is just another religion and requires as much faith as Christianity.

I disagreed because I don't view Buddhism as religion, in the same way I used to view my Catholic faith.. First of all do you consider Buddhism to be a religion, philosophy, or something else? My second question is, do you all agree that I'm being hypocritical in this instance? For sake of reference I've copied the six qualities of the Buddha's teaching from Wikipedia for you all to look at.


The Teaching of the Buddha has six supreme qualities:

1. Svākkhāto (Sanskrit: Svākhyāta "well proclaimed"). The Buddha's teaching is not a speculative philosophy but an exposition of the Universal Law of Nature based on a causal analysis of natural phenomena. It is preached, therefore, as a science<3> rather than a sectarian belief system. Full comprehension (enlightenment) of the teaching may take varying lengths of time but Buddhists traditionally say that the course of study is 'excellent in the beginning (sīla – Sanskrit śīla – moral principles), excellent in the middle (samādhi – concentration) and excellent in the end' (paññā - Sanskrit prajñā . . . Wisdom).
2.Sandiṭṭhiko (Sanskrit: Sāṃdṛṣṭika "able to be examined"). The Dhamma is amenable to scientific scrutiny and is not based on faith alone. It can be tested by personal practice and he who follows it will see the result for himself by means of his own experience.
3.Akāliko (Sanskrit: Akālika "timeless, immediate"). The Dhamma is able to bestow timeless and immediate results here and now, for which there is no need to wait until the future or next existence. The dhamma does not change over time and it is not relative to time
4.Ehipassiko (Sanskrit: Ehipaśyika "which you can come and see" — from the phrase ehi, paśya "come, see!"). The Dhamma invites all beings to put it to the test and come see for themselves.
5.Opanayiko (Sanskrit: Avapraṇayika "leading one close to"). Followed as a part of one's life the dhamma leads one on to liberation. In the "Vishuddhimagga" this is also referred to as "Upanayanam."
6.Paccattaṃ veditabbo viññūhi (Sanskrit: Pratyātmaṃ veditavyo vijñaiḥ "To be personally known by the wise"). The Dhamma can be perfectly realized only by the noble disciples (Ariyas) who have matured in supreme wisdom.

[mzteris]

1. There are different types of Buddhism

some embrace it as a "religion" replete with prayers and elevated beings and everything.

Some as a Philosophy - Ch'an and it's off-shoot "Zen" - are more philosophical and not "religious", really.

[Grey]

2. No, i don't think you are.....

I view it as a philosophy, and something else. I, also, believe you are to take from it what works for you and leave the rest.
I love that Buddha says you must question everything, name the 'church' that tells you to do that?
It's the best fit for me, as I think you are finding out.

[Warpy]

3. And most of all, he told people not to believe a word he said

but to check it out for themselves. What religious leader has ever done that? All in all, it's tailor made for skeptics.

[patrice]

9. The American Buddhist, Alan Watts, used to say that they objective of any true church

would be to make itself obsolete.

[independentpiney]

10. Alan was paraphrasing the Buddha I think

I don't remember the sutta, but he described his path as a boat one uses to cross the stream. And when the other side is reached theres no more need for the vehicle.

[patrice]

11. Yes. Too many people confuse the boat for the point with a lot of help from those who do not

disabuse them of that notion.

[independentpiney]

14. Like any religion nt

[dynasaw]

4. A Practice

When asked "what are you?" The Buddha replied "I am awake." Most buddhists would say
Buddhism is "a practice" rather than a religion requiring the active cultivation of awareness
rather than passive faith in god or gods. Buddhists in this way are atheists hence buddhism
isn't technically a religion as one of the key requirements of any religion is the centrality of god or gods.

For those who adhere to the teachings,Buddhism is also more than simply a philosophy. Practitioners
strive for full engagement in all aspects of their lives--personal habits and behavior, as well as social, political, environmental,
commitments--rather than an intellectual exercise.

[patrice]

5. It's all some means of relating to existence, which of course includes non-existence.

Some of it does this with pretty primitive metaphors, but all of it is about the same stuff with more or less organizational structure grafted onto it.

Buddhism has achieved a form with perhaps the fewest and least primitive metaphors and the least organizational structures, but it derives from a much more primitive form with a great deal of primitive metaphors and with more rigid organizational structures in Hinduism and its caste system and, yet, all IS one.

Though my personal place is such that I cannot accept certain things about the Catholic Church, I can attend a Mass and experience everything I experience when I practice Kundalini Yoga. I have identified the detritus of the church and CAN allow it to fall away from the experience of the Eucharist as an artifact of collective human experience.

Personally also, I think Science brings us to the same place that Buddhism does, but by means of a different route that consists of less arbitrary, more disciplined, metaphors and organizational structures. And, truth be told about the more primitive forms of Christian dogma, at least from the Catholic perspective, there is very little or nothing said about what is beyond that ultimate existential place. The Creed contains references to heaven and hell and souls and such, but there is no specific definition of this stuff. My views on this matter and Dogma in general are informed by the essential limitations on language in general. This is one of the reasons I respect Buddhism. It is more phenomenological, i.e. stripped of the non-essentialities. Most of what you hear about and from religion in general is mumbo jumbo that has been attached to the basics in order to articulate that stuff to make it more accessible and hence popular. It still contains a kernal of truth about our actions and behaviors toward ALL others, but the trappings have become more important than that experiential reality.

Satnam!

[independentpiney]

6. There's a great deal of ritual and superstition in much of the

Buddhism practiced in Asia by Asians. I've heard Theravadan mantras to ward off poisonous snakes and other superstitious nonsense, even though Theravada is non-theistic. To believe the circumstances under which the Lotus Sutra was delivered requires as much of a leap of faith as anything in the Abrahamic religions.And the Lotus Sutra is one of the major foundational documents of Mahayana, including Zen/C'han.

[patrice]

7. That's a good example of what I was thinking about the more primitive dimensions of the same

truths.

Hypothesis: If it is possible through prayer/meditation/chanting to IN - form one's self in various ways, would that bring about actions in the "external" world that would shape it in such a manner as to "answer our prayers"?

Of course the nature of in - forming is determined by that which is formed, so there would be limitations on the effects of "spiritual" (I maintain organic) practices. We are not, after-all, what we refer to as "God", but we do have ways of knowing that are not fully manifested.

[patrice]

8. P.S. Creative people talk about this sort of thing if you ask them. nt

[MisterP]

12. not a bit less mystical nor more scientific than transubstantiation

Scholastics and Hermeticists, on the other hand, would say there's no real margins between science, philosophy, and religion--and that's where you get universalism

[cleanhippie]

13. No matter WHAT you choose to believe or follow, that is the FIRST thing a christian will say...

They will ALWAYS say you are "being hypocritical because (insert whatever is NOT christianity here) is just another religion and requires as much faith as Christianity." They say that even when you say you are an atheist, or NON-believer.


They just cannot (or willfully refuse) grasp the concept that someone does not believe in THEIR religion.


And no, not EVERY SINGLE CHRISTIAN will say that, but it seems to be the vast majority.

[Odin2005]

15. I am both an Atheist and a Buddhist, and see no contradiction between the two.

I do not consider Buddhism a religion, I consider it as a way to approach life.

Oddly enough, I "discovered" Buddhism 3 years ago not as a spiritual seeker, but as a anxiety-ridden angsty 22yo who discovered meditation as a way to reduce stress, because I am one of those people that is a compulsive worry-wort.