It sounds actually like how Taoism is - nature, the immorality of power seeking, simple life, etc... The more philosophical, pensive one at least. And in China, the mixes of Buddhism and Taoism gave birth to Ch'an-Zen branch...
CH: Biggest Religion Has No Gods
- Thread starter Killer300
- Start date
It sounds actually like how Taoism is - nature, the immorality of power seeking, simple life, etc... The more philosophical, pensive one at least. And in China, the mixes of Buddhism and Taoism gave birth to Ch'an-Zen branch...
Again, you're talking about a syncretism of Taoism, Confucianism, and Buddhism, which isn't really a coherent "religion," but more of a philosophy. I also explained in my previous posts why it would be extremely hard for a "religion" with no god(s) to gain converts, and the fact that Hinduism prevailed in India, while Buddhism was essentially wiped out by Hinduism and Islam in South Asia, suggests that the other religions made much more sense to individuals.
Who said a Godless religion had to be vague? Bhuddism is hardly the only option, and surely there is one with concrete promises?
For after all, religion formed out of fear of the unknown, like fear of death. If one can promise those things without a god, and show it in a concrete way, such a religion could gain mass converts.
For after all, religion formed out of fear of the unknown, like fear of death. If one can promise those things without a god, and show it in a concrete way, such a religion could gain mass converts.
Oh yes, I forgot it - there is one religion even closer to to this than Buddhism and Taoism maybe; Jainism. It have Buddhas like figures, but like Theravada, only Enlighted Humans, I found no mentions of Gods, and I am not sure it even have surnatural beings like say demons...
But it's even stricter, very pacifist and vegetarian and all. One sect had wandering NUDE 'monks'.
But it's even stricter, very pacifist and vegetarian and all. One sect had wandering NUDE 'monks'.
There is the word 'spiritualities' used for something between religions and philosophies here, but...
Interesting point.
With that in mind, I guess that goes to the question, what is a religion? Just a spiritual belief that's widely spread, or something more?
Are you sure this is not a theravada biaised interpretation? No offence, but...
Lord Buddha did not preach about any God and gods were not part of original Buddhism. Theravada sect of Buddhism is closer to the original form. Mahayana sect was the result of non-Buddhist influences including those of Hinduism and other religions. Even the Theravada form prevailing in SriLanka is heavily influenced by Hinduism. The concept of Lord Buddha as an avatar of Lord Vishnu was not a Buddhist concept, but it is a Hindu concept. Pure Buddhism as taught by Lord Buddha did not mention about God or soul.
No. It is an established fact that Theravada form of Buddhism is closer to the original teachings of Lord Buddha and Mahayana form is a later development. Mahayanists themselves consider their philosophy as an improvisation of the original form. Hence the name 'Mahayana' or 'The Great Vehicle'. They call 'Theravada' as 'Hinayana' or 'The Lesser Vehicle'. I think Emperor Ashoka championed the Theravada system as it was the prevalent form at that time. Mahayana system developed during the period of Emperor Kanishka.
It's true, but again, there is a possible certain bias, as I heard the consensus is GENERALLY CLOSER, but there is inovations even there.
And frankly,. no offence, but a same argument is made at times from protestants who sneer at catholics, implying they are 'less christians', similar 'inovations' claim, no 'real christians' even from radiucals.
Mahayana and Tibetan vajrayana peoples are NO less buddhists, and no 'heretics' or 'missguided' or such.
Inovations in religions are not always bad. Purism in religion can lead to bad consequences, fanatism...
I did not say that Theravada system is the only correct form and the other forms like Mahayana or Vajrayana are not authentic forms. What I meant is that Theravada form is closer to the original teachings. In fact the sermons of Lord Buddha were not recorded at the time but were collected and codified by his disciples much later. Many of his sermons might have been lost permanently. I think even the first conference of the Buddhist teachers were held two three centuries after his demise. Hence even Theravada form might have deviated away from the original.
All religions in the world have changed and improvised in course of time. Hence the claim of the fundamentalists of any religion that they alone are true followers cannot be admitted. But there is also a fact that any religion or any ideology tends to become more complex with each improvisation. Very simple theories become too complex when developed and interpreted by several experts.
Burton K Wheeler
Moderator
I don't know what this means, but you should probably keep 4chan memes out of serious discussion.
Buddhism is a unique religion in that in reality it really is seperate religions that are all considered a single one do to the importance of the Dharmic cycle and Enlightenment and such.
Now I say that to help show that you could both have a situation where their's a form of Buddhism that has deities that's predominant and a form of Buddhism that's Atheistic being predominant since ultimately the core of the religion is a spiritualistic philosophy rather than belief in a supreme god.
Buddhism is split between Mahayana, Therevada and Vajrayana, the position of the emerging Western Buddhists, who are presently considered one of the three, will be interesting; in the future may form a fourth branch as a result of Western culture and philosophy being so different from Indic and East Asian forms that their will end-up with very substantial differences between it and the other three.
Yes, but most religions tend to focus on material rewards, and Buddhism is probably the only belief that technically fits somewhere between religion and philosophy. It also focuses on ultimately achieving "nothingness," which will probably confuse most people, and generally make any government suspect that there is a hidden agenda.
I don't think that there is any concrete distinction between the two, but I feel that religions generally tend to focus on "in-depth" stories in order to explain morals, and usually have one "sacred book," which can be used for prayer, while philosophies just try to make sense of what the world is like by making analogies. In this regard, Buddhism mixes the two, as it generally leans toward stories rather than analogies in some cases, but there is no one "canonical text," with different versions used across all branches.
This is the problem. Buddhism originated as a belief without "gods," and focused on more philosophical issues, although the different branches began diverging due to syncretism, in which other beliefs, such as animism and folk religions, were thrown in. The split between the different branches and sects suggests that it will be extremely hard to make anything other than the "core tenets," and probably not even those, remain the same.
Yes, but again, the branches are extremely divergent enough for them to be considered distinct from each other, and the biggest issue is that there is really nothing that links them together, except for a few core concepts. This becomes more evident when you realize that there is technically no one "sacred book" that every Buddhist generally believes in, although there are numerous texts, making it much more of a philosophy than a religion.
The same holds true for Hinduism, another family of Dharmic religions. In fact I would say that the differences between certain branches of Hinduism are even greater than those between branches of Buddhism. They include belief systems ranging from monotheism through pantheism to genuine polytheism, with atheism being historically important in the past as well (i.e. Carvaka, which may have had a direct influence upon early Buddhism and Jainism).
Hinduism has the same type of philosophy, for example Advaita Vedanta, which I find to be VERY close to the Buddhist teachings:
Last edited: