|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Mar 16, 2016 15:48:17 GMT -5
and the same could be said of any religion Current religions that are accepted all over the world as a religion...no. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Mar 20, 2016 18:20:27 GMT -5
Current religions that are accepted all over the world as a religion...no. 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. I am aware you have already expressed this. Where have you seen arguments that Buddhism is not a religion, for i have not done so here? I agree with your reasoning, and was well aware of this as i first began my journey into Eastern philosophies. I am relaxed. I see no rational reason to be disturbed about your beliefs about Buddhism. I have not argued that Buddhism is either a religion or not. This is what i said... 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. ...if i person needs or desires to classify Buddhism as a religion, may they go for it with all their might. ...if i person needs or desires to classify Buddhism as not a religion, may they go for it with all their might. What's beneficial to me is what i think of things. All i did after my intial response was express my thoughts about the nature of classifying things. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Mar 21, 2016 11:02:13 GMT -5
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. I am aware you have already expressed this. Where have you seen arguments that Buddhism is not a religion, for i have not done so here? I agree with your reasoning, and was well aware of this as i first began my journey into Eastern philosophies. I am relaxed. I see no rational reason to be disturbed about your beliefs about Buddhism. I have not argued that Buddhism is either a religion or not. This is what i said... 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. ...if i person needs or desires to classify Buddhism as a religion, may they go for it with all their might. ...if i person needs or desires to classify Buddhism as not a religion, may they go for it with all their might. What's beneficial to me is what i think of things. All i did after my intial response was express my thoughts about the nature of classifying things. Okay my bad Jay. Wasn't listening again. Sorry. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Mar 24, 2016 14:57:32 GMT -5
Okay my bad Jay. Wasn't listening again. Sorry. No probs maxprophet. Genuinley curious though...do you have any thoughts on why you were not listening, though i assume you perceived you were? Interested because i am interested in the nature of awareness, not to criticize you of anything. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Mar 25, 2016 10:48:14 GMT -5
Okay my bad Jay. Wasn't listening again. Sorry. No probs maxprophet. Genuinley curious though...do you have any thoughts on why you were not listening, though i assume you perceived you were? Interested because i am interested in the nature of awareness, not to criticize you of anything. twitter brain perhaps, easily overwhelmed by posts >140 characters... presumptuous, assuming a contrary response that wasn't there ... correspondingly, lazy. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Mar 28, 2016 14:09:21 GMT -5
No probs maxprophet. Genuinley curious though...do you have any thoughts on why you were not listening, though i assume you perceived you were? Interested because i am interested in the nature of awareness, not to criticize you of anything. twitter brain perhaps, easily overwhelmed by posts >140 characters... presumptuous, assuming a contrary response that wasn't there ... correspondingly, lazy. All valid theories as to why a person misreads\mishears another. Perhaps also in the mix can be put, you are simply not that interested in the subject matter or of my thoughts about it. Relating back to 'twitter brain'...perhaps it's a short attention span issue, seeing as my posts are larger than average for online interactions. Easy and fast access to vast amounts of information can drive some people to scan quickly so as to experience more info, driven by a need or desire to experience as much as possible. 'Missing out on life' type scenario. This also may include an accumulation of vasts amounts of knowledge, but with little understanding of it all. There are numerous studies linking the fast paced technology driven lifestyle of smart phones, internet, tablets, are causing humans to evolve with lower attention spans. I think there is some merit in these conclusions, but i also think there's more to it. The attention span mythHere the author speaks more of how attention span is connected to how interested a person is in the subject. Bottom line though is, your\our connection to reality is hindered by many factors, and it pays to be aware of them and resolve them. Hence the benefit of increasing self awareness. Left unchecked, we walk around thinking life is ABC when it might actually be XYZ. And most importantly, in my books, relationships with other living beings is stifled or improved, proportional to our self awareness and the conscious development we impliment from it. |
|
|
|
Post by taoistwind on May 13, 2016 6:27:44 GMT -5
Buddhism is the Middle Way. They have no concept of left and right. That is a very dualistic hindu concept. Also, even in the Hindu tradition this left and right in no way represents good or evil or white magic or black magic. If a Buddhist rapes or sacrifices anybody, even an animal, he is not a Buddhist. There is no place for animal sacrifice in Buddhism, anywhere. Buddhism is completely nonviolent. That is why it was so easy to invade Tibet. This is a very accurate assessment of him. It seems like you are asking whether or not we think that he is worthy to idolize. No he is not worthy to idolize. Idolatry is a wrong turn. Bring your attention back to the quality of your own being. Any master or guru or saint is just as human as you. They fart, they burp. They get angry. They get sad. They just learn how to relate to it differently. Amir is very much on the path. I consider him an equal. A spiritual friend. But he won't have that relationship with anybody. He wants to be seen as the master. As for a spiritual critique of him and his teachings. He doesn't actually give teachings. He just tells what it is like to be enlightened. I have a problem with those kind of 'teachers'.... People need a path. Not somebody to idolize. They need to know what they can do to minimize their suffering, gain some insight or wisdom.... They need a path. So, in my opinion, enlightenment is not some expanded state of consciousness or a mystical high. Enlightenment is realizing thoroughly the true nature of ALL experience, even the most ordinary state of mind right now. Amir doesn't realize that. He is clinging to altered states of consciousness. The Buddha proved that. The first thing the Buddha tried was he mastered all the samadhis and jhanas of the form and formless states.... and he saw that they were all temporary states and he just went around the block and after the meditation was over nothing had changed. You can get yourself high and practice looking like a guru in the mirror, but it is temporary. What really matters is not who Amir is, even if he is am authentic guru (he has nothing new to say) but who you are and if you are committed to your path and practice regularly and are progressing. Nobody can do it for you. Not any guru. Beware the gurus who do not offer a path but rather just sit there telling you how enlightened they are and what it is like. I remember many times, and one time in particular, where people relate their insightful realizations into their true nature to Amir, and he says "It is not like that, once you REALLY awaken you see that it is like this...." and in this particular time this girl felt very invalidated and doubted herself and her own experience. That is dangerous. A real teacher never invalidates anybody or gets them to doubt their own experperience. Remember that! I had to go in and tell her secretly not to listen to Amir and that she was on the right track and just keep it up and allow her insight to deepen on its own. Like it or not, Buddhism is a religion too. And like all Religions, whatever nuggets of Truth may or may not be bandied about, power struggles arise as people use groups of people to exploit stuff. Some Buddhists think praying over and over will get you an iPhone, some think the buddha was born out of the side of his mother while white elephants floated nearby, many delight in all sorts of meaningless accessories to display their buddhist identification. In Sri Lanka, Buddhists are engaged in violent struggle. That has not been my experience at all. He has been extremely friendly, but also thought-provoking. I think you have to get people to doubt what they know to get people to think in new ways, and that's definitely part of what Amir does. About a teacher NEVER getting others to doubt their own experience, is that true ? Gautama Buddha criticized other traditions and said outright that what they experienced as "enlightenment" was not enlightenment to him at all. He was all about getting people to question what they know.... so I think you're wrong about that. People need to question their own experience and not assume everything their mind tells them is right, even if it convincing to them. And you're wrong... Amir Mourad does offer teachings and methods. He teaches methods of yoga for inner transformation and offers a path to liberation for those who are searching it. |
|
|
|
Post by taoistwind on May 13, 2016 6:29:23 GMT -5
Current religions that are accepted all over the world as a religion...no. 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. Right. And there are even some Buddhists who are so corrupted, that they are "Buddhist" in name only. |
|
|
|
Post by taoistwind on May 13, 2016 6:37:02 GMT -5
[/quote]Buddhism is the Middle Way. They have no concept of left and right. That is a very dualistic hindu concept. Also, even in the Hindu tradition this left and right in no way represents good or evil or white magic or black magic. If a Buddhist rapes or sacrifices anybody, even an animal, he is not a Buddhist. There is no place for animal sacrifice in Buddhism, anywhere. Buddhism is completely nonviolent. That is why it was so easy to invade Tibet.
That is all right, ideally. You probably are not aware of how there have been some Buddhist monks who have done very questionable things. Look at what some Buddhist monks in Sri Lanka are doing, who are rebellious and intent on fighting and starting a war. There has also been Buddhist brutalities in Burma.
So I believe it was these sort of happenings which Amir Mourad was originally talking about. In general... Buddhism has been much more peaceful than other religions.... and I agree there is no concept of promoting violence in any teachings of Buddha. But that doesn't mean some Buddhists aren't going to be corrupted.
|
|
|
|
Post by martinlakeuk on Nov 29, 2016 13:42:01 GMT -5
Ive had huge problems with this guy Amir Mourad and seriously recommend staying away from him. He's a self styled, self proclaimed zen teacher - who has never learned zen with a real teacher. He's kind of like a cult leader - he's a bit of a psycho and spams people constantly, demanding everyone listens to him and keeps spouting the same rubbish over and over again. He won't leave you alone and seems to have personality issues. Very strange character with no genuine background in zen training - very worrying. STAY AWAY.
Anyone know where I can report this guy?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Post by adriansmith1 on Oct 17, 2018 14:10:40 GMT -5
Ive had huge problems with this guy Amir Mourad and seriously recommend staying away from him. He's a self styled, self proclaimed zen teacher - who has never learned zen with a real teacher. He's kind of like a cult leader - he's a bit of a psycho and spams people constantly, demanding everyone listens to him and keeps spouting the same rubbish over and over again. He won't leave you alone and seems to have personality issues. Very strange character with no genuine background in zen training - very worrying. STAY AWAY. Anyone know where I can report this guy? Thanks. Sorry Martin, this information is false. I've looked into Amir Mourad and have been following him on YouTube and Facebook for a while. Nowhere does he even claim to be a zen master or initiated into zen. He teaches yoga and mentioned his teacher in his biography, Madan Bali in Montreal. He's not a cult leader at all, ive found him to be rather original, warns people about giving into authority figures, puts good amount of importance on inquiring out of your own intelligence, and is truly compassionate. About "spamming" - all that I've seen is that he shares some of his videos on different groups and forwards some of the content on his Facebook page, and does it only occasionally. A bit unfair to accuse somebody of "spamming" just because he wants to share his knowledge. Many people promote their work through social media, why not accuse them all of "spamming" ? I really suspect that you have alterior motives in writing your message. |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Oct 17, 2018 18:13:57 GMT -5
and the same could be said of any religion Current religions that are accepted all over the world as a religion...no. 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. Yes there is strong argument that Jesus was deified. Its a bit like the Harry Potter film having a fictional character but placing him in real historical places and events. The term is a little different from deification but swings more to euhemerization The word “euhemerize” means doing what Euhemerus did. Taking mythical figures and placing them in and amongst real places and historical figures. These may have just been writing trends in the past. As the ancient world will have been accustomed to new trends competing against old trends. Jesus was most likely not a historical figure who walked this Earth. Richard Carrier has written a peer reviewed book on the existence of Jesus. There's also Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulou she did a fascinating series on the historicity of Prophet David in Israel. How most of the set up there is not based on real facts or archeology but more from a political and religious need to say this person was real for a certain people to hold on to a certain tradition or to make claims to land on a king that may never have ever existed. |
|
|
|
Post by ckacka on Dec 4, 2018 9:00:10 GMT -5
Amir Mourad added me on facebook but i could not accept as facebook said he couldnt have anymore as his friends list was at the 5k limit.
I sent Amir a message stating I could not accept it as of what facebook said.
Amir then blocked me from his facebook profile. I sent his Teachings of Amir Mourad facebook page a message to say wow, youve blocked me and maybe he just had to say it was an accidental friend request, not just confuse me by blocking my facebook profile.
Amir used another facebook profile of his to send me this abusive message in reference directly to the message I had sent before to his Teachings of Amir Mourad page:
'Yes the arrogance and stupidity you have demonstrated should be rather embarassing for any individual with a drop of genuine self analysis.
You responded to a post on the Facebook page. I sent you a friend request because I thought you may be interested in similar content I am sharing on my profile page, and then you respond with your neurotic message as though you are surprised I sent a friend request.
Next time don't post on the page, especially since such superficial behavior seems to suggest a person without the slightest interest in spiritual growth'
I have screenshots to show the link of his referencing my message to his Teachings of Amir Mourad fb page in the message he sent me from his less offical fb profile account named Amir nabil.
I had sent no abuse or anything wrong for this nasty, vile, hateful, uncompassionate, immoral abuse. Ive done NOTHING to deserve this hurt.
I followed Amir on youtube and facebook since 2012. What a waste of a preacher. This goes against all I thought he was. I am horrified. Cannot trust anyone with words said. I am very isolated and alone and this stabs my very core.
|
|
|
|
Post by adriansmith1 on Dec 6, 2018 14:21:37 GMT -5
Saw the comments you left yesterday on some of his posts on Facebook. You're obviously a troll so not surprised you were blocked
|
|
|
|
Post by adriansmith1 on Dec 6, 2018 14:36:09 GMT -5
Current religions that are accepted all over the world as a religion...no. 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. I think its misleading when people say Buddhism has nothing to do with being a religion |
|
