5 ms·

I'm always fascinated by the use of the word religion in connection with Buddhism. I can see why, people are always mislabeling things in a way that makes sense

I'm always fascinated by the use of the word religion in connection with Buddhism. I can see why, people are always mislabeling things in a way that makes sense in a quick-and-dirty way that reuses existing models of thought, but they're ultimately a drag on any deeper discussion, and this happened long ago with Buddhism. It's not a religion, it's a framework that other religions have taken on. Hence there are Buddhist religions. It makes about as much sense to call Buddhism a religion as it is to call Ruby on Rails a website (if we're being precise). Note: I can see how this could look like a rebuttal but it's not, I'm actually joining in with the discussion, riding along with it, not trying to be an arse. I liked the comment I'm replying to! :)

zepto 7y ago
The teachings of Buddha are a framework that religions have taken on in the same sense that the teachings of Jesus are a framework that religions have taken on.
- brigandish 7y ago
  I would define a framework as set of methods and practices to apply to a specific problem domain, those methods based on principles/conclusions arrived at from observation of that domain. If the teachings of Jesus are a framework that religions have taken on and not a doctrine, then you should specify: 1. what the problem domain is 2. what the conclusions drawn about that domain are 3. what the principles are and how they are arrived at 4. what the methods are 5. how it can be applied to different religions, or non-religions (for example, what use does prayer to God or eternal damnation have to atheists?) You should also deal with the problem of a supernatural being that you must believe in and follow (may be covered in (5)). I don't know many frameworks like that.
  - zepto 7y ago
    Just because the teachings of Jesus aren’t presented in the format you prefer doesn’t mean they can’t be. It’s not hard to do this, so I’ll leave that as an exercise for you. Who said the framework has to be useful for atheists?
    - brigandish 7y ago
      If it's a framework then it will be able to be applied in several contexts. Hence, there are a set of questions that help show it is a framework. It doesn't have to be useful for atheists but it would go a long way to showing it's a framework and not a religion. I'd be more than happy to go through all of those questions for Buddhism (or Prince2 or Rails or any framework), it would be easy. I can't see how it would be done for Christianity, nor for any formulation of Jesus' teachings, but if you know how, you should!
      - zepto 7y ago
        What are the several contexts in which the framework of Buddhism can be applied? (I’m not asking you to answer your questions, since they don’t establish this.)
        brigandish 7y ago
        The problem domain is that of happiness/suffering, and how to obtain/lessen it. Anywhere that is a goal it can be applied. It has been applied to each of the Buddhisms (see edit note), which is why they're called Buddhism. You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family, or yourself. The problem domain for Ruby on Rails is how to build websites. That's why websites built using Rails are referred to as a Rails site. The problem domain of Prince2 is how to manage a project. It's why projects which apply it are called Prince2 projects, or Prince2 organisations if they apply it more widely. What's the problem domain for Jesus' teachings? Where has it been applied? Edit: Because of the misnomer (people calling things Buddhism that aren't) it makes my initial phrasing seem circular. The Buddhisms are each their own religion which then applied Buddhism, which is why they're now know as Buddhism. So, Bon, the Tibetan shamanic religion is now known as Tibetan Buddhism.
        zepto 7y ago
        The problem domain for Jesus teachings is ethical action and how to encourage it. It has been applied to each of the forms of Christianity as well as in many secular societies that eschew the religious components. You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family or yourself. The various Christianitys just like the Buddhisms incorporate many of the beliefs and customs that existed before Christ and the Buddha’s teachings respectively were incorporated.
- tim333 7y ago
  I'm kind of working on a fork. Everyone should have their own variant.
Iv 7y ago
> It's not a religion, it's a framework that other religions have taken on. Same can be said about the Torah, the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad. Each has a plethora of religions built on top of them, that we group into big families (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) despite some members of these families having tried to kill each other for centuries. I think that what makes Buddhism a bit apart is that it is also a framework several people use to build atheistic, humanist philosophies. It is less common (but used to be two centuries ago) to do the same with Christianity. There are also Jews who reject the belief in God and many religious parts of the Talmud but still follow many tenets of judaism for a variety of philosophical reasons. Living in Asia, seeing the more cultish aspect traditional Buddhism can have, made it harder for me to see it as a kind of special religion, rather than one that is exotic enough to westerners so that they can transform it into a modern philosophy.
- tim333 7y ago
  I think Buddhism is special for atheistic, humanist philosophies in that the foundational writings didn't go on about God. Of course people may have tacked stuff on subsequently. The Torah, the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on the other hand all recognise Genesis and "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."
  - ghthor 7y ago
    The torah as commonly translated does, but there is an interesting work from a physicist that brings a very atheistic/geometric translation of the torah to light that has been blowing my mind. https://youtu.be/OJGW2UANWRE https://youtu.be/OJGW2UANWRE
    - stallmanite 7y ago
      Thanks for the oddball YouTube link. Love finding gold with <300 views.
  - Iv 7y ago
    Many Buddhist texts are full of supernatural claims about afterlife, the worlds of demons and devas, about prayers opening the earth to see flowers giving you the text of Buddha, that sort of things. Thinking Buddhism focuses on the philosophical parts is like cherry-picking Proverbs from the bible. Buddhism also has its own nonsensical cosmology [1]. We just don't care too much about it in the West. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology

zepto 7y ago

The teachings of Buddha are a framework that religions have taken on in the same sense that the teachings of Jesus are a framework that religions have taken on.

brigandish 7y ago
I would define a framework as set of methods and practices to apply to a specific problem domain, those methods based on principles/conclusions arrived at from observation of that domain. If the teachings of Jesus are a framework that religions have taken on and not a doctrine, then you should specify: 1. what the problem domain is 2. what the conclusions drawn about that domain are 3. what the principles are and how they are arrived at 4. what the methods are 5. how it can be applied to different religions, or non-religions (for example, what use does prayer to God or eternal damnation have to atheists?) You should also deal with the problem of a supernatural being that you must believe in and follow (may be covered in (5)). I don't know many frameworks like that.
- zepto 7y ago
  Just because the teachings of Jesus aren’t presented in the format you prefer doesn’t mean they can’t be. It’s not hard to do this, so I’ll leave that as an exercise for you. Who said the framework has to be useful for atheists?
  - brigandish 7y ago
    If it's a framework then it will be able to be applied in several contexts. Hence, there are a set of questions that help show it is a framework. It doesn't have to be useful for atheists but it would go a long way to showing it's a framework and not a religion. I'd be more than happy to go through all of those questions for Buddhism (or Prince2 or Rails or any framework), it would be easy. I can't see how it would be done for Christianity, nor for any formulation of Jesus' teachings, but if you know how, you should!
    - zepto 7y ago
      What are the several contexts in which the framework of Buddhism can be applied? (I’m not asking you to answer your questions, since they don’t establish this.)
      - brigandish 7y ago
        The problem domain is that of happiness/suffering, and how to obtain/lessen it. Anywhere that is a goal it can be applied. It has been applied to each of the Buddhisms (see edit note), which is why they're called Buddhism. You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family, or yourself. The problem domain for Ruby on Rails is how to build websites. That's why websites built using Rails are referred to as a Rails site. The problem domain of Prince2 is how to manage a project. It's why projects which apply it are called Prince2 projects, or Prince2 organisations if they apply it more widely. What's the problem domain for Jesus' teachings? Where has it been applied? Edit: Because of the misnomer (people calling things Buddhism that aren't) it makes my initial phrasing seem circular. The Buddhisms are each their own religion which then applied Buddhism, which is why they're now know as Buddhism. So, Bon, the Tibetan shamanic religion is now known as Tibetan Buddhism.
        zepto 7y ago
        The problem domain for Jesus teachings is ethical action and how to encourage it. It has been applied to each of the forms of Christianity as well as in many secular societies that eschew the religious components. You could apply it to a school or business if you wished, or a family or yourself. The various Christianitys just like the Buddhisms incorporate many of the beliefs and customs that existed before Christ and the Buddha’s teachings respectively were incorporated.
tim333 7y ago
I'm kind of working on a fork. Everyone should have their own variant.

Iv 7y ago

> It's not a religion, it's a framework that other religions have taken on. Same can be said about the Torah, the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad. Each has a plethora of religions built on top of them, that we group into big families (Judaism, Christianity, Islam) despite some members of these families having tried to kill each other for centuries. I think that what makes Buddhism a bit apart is that it is also a framework several people use to build atheistic, humanist philosophies. It is less common (but used to be two centuries ago) to do the same with Christianity. There are also Jews who reject the belief in God and many religious parts of the Talmud but still follow many tenets of judaism for a variety of philosophical reasons. Living in Asia, seeing the more cultish aspect traditional Buddhism can have, made it harder for me to see it as a kind of special religion, rather than one that is exotic enough to westerners so that they can transform it into a modern philosophy.

tim333 7y ago
I think Buddhism is special for atheistic, humanist philosophies in that the foundational writings didn't go on about God. Of course people may have tacked stuff on subsequently. The Torah, the teachings of Jesus and Muhammad on the other hand all recognise Genesis and "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..."
- ghthor 7y ago
  The torah as commonly translated does, but there is an interesting work from a physicist that brings a very atheistic/geometric translation of the torah to light that has been blowing my mind. https://youtu.be/OJGW2UANWRE https://youtu.be/OJGW2UANWRE
  - stallmanite 7y ago
    Thanks for the oddball YouTube link. Love finding gold with <300 views.
- Iv 7y ago
  Many Buddhist texts are full of supernatural claims about afterlife, the worlds of demons and devas, about prayers opening the earth to see flowers giving you the text of Buddha, that sort of things. Thinking Buddhism focuses on the philosophical parts is like cherry-picking Proverbs from the bible. Buddhism also has its own nonsensical cosmology [1]. We just don't care too much about it in the West. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_cosmology