Amir Mourad - Spiritual Teacher Mar 16, 2016 15:48:17 GMT -5
Post by maxdprophet on Mar 16, 2016 15:48:17 GMT -5
Perhaps when a spiritual philosophy was in it's infancy, didn't have many followers, they may have not been classified as a religion, but as the philosophy developed, especially with the rituals, rules and customs of the belief system, it became classified as a religion.
And there's the issue of the definitions of 'religion'
1. The belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers, regarded as creating and governing the universe.
2. A particular variety of such belief, especially when organized into a system of doctrine and practice.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
I think #1 matches any religion that worships a god\creator being.
The traditional idea of religion, a god as the head of the organisation.
Christianity as an example
#2 seems like the 30,000+ variants of it, catholics, protestants, baptists, etc
#3 seems to be different to #1&2 , in that the spiritual teacher does not have to proclaim he is a god\has become one, or has any contact with one, or his\her teachings has anything to do with any type of god\higher that human kind authority.
That's how i perceive Buddha's teaching, he simply discovered how to end internal suffering, and thus the subsequent harm\suffering we humans inflict on all other living things.
However, i am speaking of the original teachings, the founding fathers of these philosophies.
And like how Jesus was deified 300 years after his death by Constantine because the growing followers of Christ were undermining his power\the stability of his domain, so he decided to unite everyone under one religion, called christianity, with Christ as the actual son of god. Though the Gnostic bible tells a completely different story of the teachings of Jesus than the commonly used bible of today. And in the same way, i have met a person who is part of a culture that has evolved into deifying Buddha, even though he never proclaimed any god-like status.
So in that sense, there are branches of Buddhism that are transforming\evolving into the traditional form of religion, people worshipping a god, praying to it, hoping it will solve their problems for them...yet that has nothing to do with Buddha's original teaching of self awareness, knowledge and development.
To these people who build alters to Buddha and pray to him, i imagine they have no prob calling their belief system a religion.
My relationship with buddha and his teaching will never be called that.
I am not a fan of having two completely different definitions of the same word. I find it can create confusion and misunderstanding. Words are easily created, so i don't see the rational in using one word to define two different things.
Unless, in this case, the people who decided to lump the likes of Christianity and Buddism under the singular category of Religion was due to them not knowing the differences in the two spiritual philosophies, in my mind being, one is about worshipping and submitting to the will of a god, while the other is simply about self development, without any external higher power involved.
I prefer to call my connection with Buddhism as a spiritual philosophy, not a religion, regardless of the dictionary definitions.
For that is a vital element of life is it not...to make up our own minds about things, regardless of what anyone else things or of how many subscribe to one specific idea.
Hence my statement, Buddhism is only classified as a religion by...Only in the mindtanks of those that treat\label it as such...or those that ignorantly think all Buddhists or all people who appreciate and impliment soul change from Buddha's teaching treat their relationship with it as a religion.
blah blah Buddhism is a religion. Amusing to see flailing arguments that it is not. That you do stuff that buddhists do doesn't mean you're a Buddhist though. Relax.