CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I agree that definition is off, just look at some of the Pagan religions that worship nature and the earth nothing supernatural there but its a religion all the same
But it is still a form of worship. Apart from some devotional sects which have strayed very far from what Buddhism actually was originally Buddhists do not worship anything.
To worship is to also have great respect. Usually a religion is built around this figure. If his or her name is included in the title, then that's a dead giveaway. Does Buddhism have any one like that? Hmmmm...Oh, wait! Buddha!
Buddhists do not believe in and worship a superhuman controlling power, so Buddhism is not a religion.
Well... You could say that Buddhist don't believe in a personal God and you would be right. But dependent origination is like the fundamental teaching of Buddhism, so it's important to see what this concept means. Depending on interpretation it means that nothing has "self-hood". Buddhists don't posit some being that controls everything, they do posit that the nothing controls anything. In this sense, Buddhism borders on pantheism. It doesn't contradict Buddhist teachings to say that everything is controlled by everything. So we could say that the universe in a sense, is controlling us.
Well... You could say that Buddhist don't believe in a personal God and you would be right.
Exactly.
But dependent origination is like the fundamental teaching of Buddhism, so it's important to see what this concept means.
I don't know what "dependent origination" means, nor do I think theeccentric knows either (right?). If it was the fundamental teaching of Buddhism, I'm sure people would know about it.
Depending on interpretation it means that nothing has "self-hood".
Depending on interpretation, CreateDebate could be a dating website.
Buddhists don't posit some being that controls everything, they do posit that the nothing controls anything
theeccentric? Ya, do you posit (assume as fact) that the nothing controls anything?
In this sense, Buddhism borders on pantheism.
In this sense, CreateDebate is a dating website.
So we could say that the universe in a sense, is controlling us.
I want you to go up to a Buddhist and ask them this; "does the universe control us?".
I see I have been confusing superhuman with supernatural. And now that I have found dictionary definition of superhuman I don't think it's a far stretch to say that Buddhism posits anything superhuman as well.
That doesn't mean though, that dependent origination isn't a central doctrine which it is. From this doctrine it follows that we as people have almost no control. We are being controlled by forces which are being controlled by other forces ad infinitum. There's nothing supernatural about this, it's really just a causal, deterministic view of the world. But still it indeed does border on pantheism, though the Dharma says that questions about the theistic nature of the world are useless for enlightenment.
You make it sound like up until recently it was completely ridiculous to say that Buddhism was not a religion. When in fact it the debate of it being a religion or not has being going on since Westerners first began to intellectually understand it at the end of the 19th century.
First of all the Buddha's enlightenment was not a myth. There is evidence to support his existence. Second of all to many Buddhists sacredness does not exist. We know it is only the mind that holds thing as sacred, nothing is inherently. At the end of the day a Buddha statue is just a load of rock, metal or wood and a Dharma text is just paper. That is why some Zen masters use Buddha statues as firewood.
First of all the Buddha's enlightenment was not a myth.
Myth- "ancient story: a traditional story about heroes or supernatural beings, often attempting to explain the origins of natural phenomena or aspects of human behavior".
Also, I'd like to point out that Siddhartha achieved enlightenment after meditating and seeing his "past lives". That's not the most believable story.
Second of all to many Buddhists sacredness does not exist.
Objects, actions, places and people, may be considered sacred.
If nothing is sacred in Buddhism, then is everything considered ordinary?
At the end of the day a Buddha statue is just a load of rock, metal or wood and a Dharma text is just paper.
Then why did you get offended when Nicki Minaj disrespected the Statue of Buddha?
"Also, I'd like to point out that Siddhartha achieved enlightenment after meditating and seeing his "past lives". That's not the most believable story."
First of all that story is 2600 years or so old, other time it would have changed so originally the thing about past lives may not have been their, further more there is evidence for the existence of Siddhartha Gautama, if you want me to I can list them.
"If nothing is sacred in Buddhism, then is everything considered ordinary?"
Actually Buddhism does teach that everything is mundane. All things are empty of inherent existence.
"Then why did you get offended when Nicki Minaj disrespected the Statue of Buddha?"
I knew this was going to be brought up. It was because she was mocking the Buddha by showing her Arse to it, not because the Buddha is sacred. It is like with Gandhi, their is no religion based around him but their would be an outrage if somebody showed their augmented buttocks to a photo or statue of him.
First of all that story is 2600 years or so old, other time it would have changed so originally the thing about past lives may not have been their, further more there is evidence for the existence of Siddhartha Gautama, if you want me to I can list them.
The stories of Old Testament are even older, so what's your point? A religion is still built around those ancient myths.
You still seem to think that myths means "made up stories". It doesn't. They're just ancient stories.
Why are you going to give me evidence that Siddhartha existed? I never said he didn't. Actually, I believe he did... So that would be a massive waste of time.
Actually Buddhism does teach that everything is mundane. All things are empty of inherent existence.
Whether you realize it or not, something's in Buddhism are considered sacred.
The Tripitaka, Mahayana Sutras, The Tibetan Book of the Dead. Those are all considered sacred Buddhist texts.
If you don't want to be part of a religion, then maybe you should just meditate and call yourself an atheist.
I knew this was going to be brought up. It was because she was mocking the Buddha by showing her Arse to it, not because the Buddha is sacred. It is like with Gandhi, their is no religion based around him but their would be an outrage if somebody showed their augmented buttocks to a photo or statue of him.
But your Buddhist teachings should have made you not give a shit, right? Like you said, it's just a "load of rock".
You still seem to think that myths means "made up stories". It doesn't. They're just ancient stories.
Oh fair enough then, I thought you meant made up stories.
The Tripitaka, Mahayana Sutras, The Tibetan Book of the Dead. Those are all considered sacred Buddhist texts. They are called that by non-Buddhists. Buddha's teachings are like medicine to cure the delusions in our mind that cause suffering. They are important, but they are not any more sacred than medicine for physical problems.
I would like to remind you that the definition for sacred is:
Connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration this in no way is how you would describe anything in Buddhism as there is no God in Buddhism.
If you don't want to be part of a religion, then maybe you should just meditate and call yourself an atheist. First of all let me make this clear: I am an Atheist. Secondly just simply meditating without following any particular Dharma instruction wont lead to liberation from suffering. Buddhism is an education, not a religion. Also religion is evil and Buddhism is not.
But your Buddhist teachings should have made you not give a shit, right? Like you said, it's just a "load of rock". It was not the rock she was mocking, it was the idea of Buddhism itself.
Oh fair enough then, I thought you meant made up stories.
I'd also like to point out that Buddha did not write down his teachings. They were passed around orally for several hundred years, before finally being written down... So it's impossible to know exactly what he taught.
They are called that by non-Buddhists. Buddha's teachings are like medicine to cure the delusions in our mind that cause suffering. They are important, but they are not any more sacred than medicine for physical problems.
Which branch (they often call them "lineages") of Buddhism do you belong to? Theravada, Mahayana, or Vjrayana?
First of all let me make this clear: I am an Atheist.
Well, duh! You've made that pretty clear... But Buddhism is a religion, whether you're an atheist or not. You refuse to acknowledge it as such, so why not just call yourself an atheist who likes to meditate, rather than a Buddhist?
Secondly just simply meditating without following any particular Dharma instruction wont lead to liberation from suffering.
Ah, the Third Noble Truth: To End Suffering, End desire.
Your belief that following particular Buddhist teachings will lead to liberation from suffering, sounds very religious.
Buddhism is an education, not a religion. Also religion is evil and Buddhism is not.
All religions could be considered an education, to an extent.
It seems like you just adopt from Buddhism, what you agree with. You pick and choose like it's a buffet. You've been a Buddhist for like a year now, right? I think you need to study a little bit more, no offense.
It was not the rock she was mocking, it was the idea of Buddhism itself.
Let's be honest, she probably didn't even know that it was Buddha.
I'd also like to point out that Buddha did not write down his teachings. They were passed around orally for several hundred years, before finally being written down... So it's impossible to know exactly what he taught. I know but the monks who were passing them down memorized them perfectly. We still have a general idea of what he taught, we know he taught a way to liberation through human effort not a way to reach a God.
Which branch (they often call them "lineages") of Buddhism do you belong to? Theravada, Mahayana, or Vjrayana? I follow Vajrayana (which is a part of Mahayana). Lineages are within the branches for example I follow the Kadampa lineage which is Mahayana/Vajrayana.
Well, duh! You've made that pretty clear... But Buddhism is a religion, whether you're an atheist or not. You refuse to acknowledge it as such, so why not just call yourself an atheist who likes to meditate, rather than a Buddhist? Because I agree with Buddhism. There is much more to Buddhism than meditation.
Your belief that following particular Buddhist teachings will lead to liberation from suffering, sounds very religious. How is it any more religious than believing that taking certain medication will lead to liberation from a certain illness?
It seems like you just adopt from Buddhism, what you agree with. You pick and choose like it's a buffet. You've been a Buddhist for like a year now, right? I think you need to study a little bit more, no offense. I do not just pick and choose I follow the whole thing. Even rebirth which I have had trouble with but I have received advice about it from an experienced practitioner and they said that it will come in time and if I study commentaries to the Heart Sutra I should come to understand such phenomena. Obviously you are right I have a lot if studying of the Dharma ahead of me but for the fairly short amount of time I have been practicing I think I have covered a lot and it is a long road and I have years of study and practice ahead of me.
I know but the monks who were passing them down memorized them perfectly.
How would you know that?
We still have a general idea of what he taught
Yeah... A general idea. That's a recurring theme amongst older religions. They shared their stories orally for many years before finally writing them down, yet you have faith in the monks who supposedly remembered everything Buddha taught.
we know he taught a way to liberation through human effort not a way to reach a God.
It's also taught that he lives in a "timeless dimension". Do you believe that part?
I follow Vajrayana (which is a part of Mahayana).
That is a common misconception. Vajrayana is a separate branch. There are three branches: Theravada ("The Way of the Elders"), Mahayana ("The Big Vehicle"), and Vajrayana ("The Diamond Vehicle"). Within those branches are "schools".
Mahayana has Zen/Chan, Nichiren, Tendai, Jodo/Jingtu, and Shingon.
Vajrayana has Tibetan and Shingon.
Those are the main ones.
I find it odd that you claim to be a Vajrayana Buddhist, because they believe that Buddhist nature is divine and it manifests itself in the form of many different deities. Also, you've pointed out before that you do not like Dalai Lama... Which is strange, because he is the head of Tibetan Buddhism, one of the schools of Vajrayana.
Lineages are within the branches for example I follow the Kadampa lineage which is Mahayana/Vajrayana.
Yeah, sorry... You're right. The "lineages" are the schools... Not the branches.
Kadampa? That's kind of dead, isn't it? Do you mean the New Kadampa Tradition? That would make sense, because they are based in England.
They describe themselves as being part of Mahayana, not Vajrayana... Which is kind of confusing to me.
A lot of mainstream Buddhists describe it as a cult... But the NKT is pretty religious. They pray and try to imagine the Buddha and Bodhisattvas as being "physically present". September 22 is a holiday for them called, "Buddha's Return from Heaven Day." Come on, man! That does not sound like something you'd observe.
Because I agree with Buddhism. There is much more to Buddhism than meditation.
Exactly... And all of the additional elements involved in Buddhism are what makes it a religion. You do not need to be ashamed that you are part of a religion.
How is it any more religious than believing that taking certain medication will lead to liberation from a certain illness?
Because Christians believe the same thing. Following the teachings of Jesus will lead to their liberation from suffering (Hell). What you described is one of the main themes found in most religions.
I do not just pick and choose I follow the whole thing.
Okay, then you are very religious!
Even rebirth which I have had trouble with but I have received advice about it from an experienced practitioner and they said that it will come in time and if I study commentaries to the Heart Sutra I should come to understand such phenomena.
You believe in rebirth... Yet you aren't part of a religion?
Obviously you are right I have a lot if studying of the Dharma ahead of me but for the fairly short amount of time I have been practicing I think I have covered a lot and it is a long road and I have years of study and practice ahead of me.
I'm not saying that you don't know a lot, because you do... But you don't know enough. I think that as you progress, you will start to realize and accept that you are part of a religion.
It's also taught that he lives in a "timeless dimension". Do you believe that part?
I suppose so.
That is a common misconception. Vajrayana is a separate branch. There are three branches: Theravada ("The Way of the Elders"), Mahayana ("The Big Vehicle"), and Vajrayana ("The Diamond Vehicle"). Within those branches are "schools".
Bollocks. Vajrayana is an offshoot of Mahayana. What separates Mahayana from Hinayana and Theravada is Bodhichitta and the Bodhisattva path. Vajrayana has these so it is Mahayana as well. Vajrayana contains the Mahayana ideas and sutras e.g. the Heart Sutra as well as practicing tantra. My tradition is Mahayana and Vajrayana.
I find it odd that you claim to be a Vajrayana Buddhist, because they believe that Buddhist nature is divine and it manifests itself in the form of many different deities. They don't have to be taken litterally. They can just be seen as archetypes, there has always been a discussion over which way they exist.
Also, you've pointed out before that you do not like Dalai Lama... Which is strange, because he is the head of Tibetan Buddhism, one of the schools of Vajrayana. He is not the Head of Tibetan Buddhism. He is an important Lama in the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism of which he is not even the head of, the Ganden Tripa is the real head of it. There are many Tibetan Buddhists who do not affiliate with him.
Kadampa? That's kind of dead, isn't it? Do you mean the New Kadampa Tradition? That would make sense, because they are based in England. Yes. New Kadampa still has the Kadam lineage, extending back to Je Tsongkhapa, Atisha and then Buddha Shakyamuni himself.
They describe themselves as being part of Mahayana, not Vajrayana... Which is kind of confusing to me.
That is because they are both. They practice Tantra but they still are Mahayana as they still use the Mahayana sutras and they still obviously follow the Bodhisattva vow.
A lot of mainstream Buddhists describe it as a cult... But the NKT is pretty religious. They pray and try to imagine the Buddha and Bodhisattvas as being "physically present". September 22 is a holiday for them called, "Buddha's Return from Heaven Day." Come on, man! That does not sound like something you'd observe. The people who call it a cult are the horrible followers of the Dalai Lama. They have there religious elements to them which I dislike but I think it is worth putting up with that because they have the best teacher in the whole of the Tibetan tradition (way better than the Dalai Lama) there books have helped me a lot and they are very accessible to me as they are the closest Sangha I can find.
You do not need to be ashamed that you are part of a religion
Religion is poison.
You believe in rebirth... Yet you aren't part of a religion?
Well I think that religion is where you worship something and rebirth is not something you worship it is something you want to escape.
Well, that's kind of supernatural, don't you agree?
Bollocks. Vajrayana is an offshoot of Mahayana.
They're different branches! I'm looking at a diagram in one of my old textbooks.
They don't have to be taken litterally. They can just be seen as archetypes, there has always been a discussion over which way they exist.
Okay, then.
He is not the Head of Tibetan Buddhism. He is an important Lama in the Gelug school of Tibetan Buddhism of which he is not even the head of, the Ganden Tripa is the real head of it. There are many Tibetan Buddhists who do not affiliate with him.
Okay, fair enough.
Yes. New Kadampa still has the Kadam lineage, extending back to Je Tsongkhapa, Atisha and then Buddha Shakyamuni himself.
That's what a lot of critics disagree with.
They have there religious elements to them which I dislike but I think it is worth putting up with that because they have the best teacher in the whole of the Tibetan tradition (way better than the Dalai Lama) there books have helped me a lot and they are very accessible to me as they are the closest Sangha I can find.
Then it's settled... You are part of a religion. Thanks for admitting it. Good game.
Religion is poison.
What you're really saying is, "all religions are bad, except mine".
Open your eyes, man! You are part of a religion. That doesn't mean you have to believe in a god. That seems to be where you're getting confused.
Well I think that religion is where you worship something and rebirth is not something you worship it is something you want to escape.
Rebirth isn't what you worship. It's something supernatural that you believe in. You're being taught that there is a power greater than any human.
You said that you believe that Buddha exists within a timeless dimension, so you are treating him as if he is divine... Or at least supernatural. You also take part in prayers and devotion to your teachings. That is how Buddhism fits into the religious element of worship.
I would like to remind you that the definition for sacred is:
Connected with God or a god or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration this in no way is how you would describe anything in Buddhism as there is no God in Buddhism.
Dude... Did you even read the definition? "or dedicated to a religious purpose". That part was probably specifically added for Buddhism.
Sigh. You do realize that my job here is to stir the pot, right? Anyway, I only take requests from allies so..., I allied you. Now I can take it back ;)
I think that pot has been stirred too much. It's time to stop stirring and everyone agree on what flavor the stew is. It's atheism is not a religion-flavored.
I thought you were already an ally... Until you sent that request.
As long as science is full of "theories," atheists are "believing" in something that hasn't been "proven." That sound like religion to me but..., whatever ;)
Buddhism has its doctrines. It has a cosmology and some metaphysics associated with it plus a set of practices. I am pretty sure it's a religion. What it is not is stupid.
Sure it can. Just because Buddhists are actively skeptical about a lot of things does not mean it is not a religion. I would claim that Buddhist worship life as it is, that is without judgement and clinging. Buddhism would have us worship thusness.
Just saying that doesn't make it true. Submit a decent argument or you can gtfo. Just because in a dictionary it says Buddhism is a religion doesn't make it so.
Buddhism is both a philosophy and a religion built around that philosophy to say it isn't a religion is insulting and hurtful to the great many people who follow it as one, to argue that it isn't a religion is ridiculous as there are temples, monks, writings and followers all over the world that disprove this theory.
I follow Buddhism and I am not insulted or hurt, in any way by saying it is not are religion and I know plenty of other Buddhists who feel like wise. And there is a huge difference between a Monk in Western sense than in a Buddhist one, it is the same with temples.
You follow Buddhism as a philosophy not a religion and your the one saying it's not a religion so of course your not going to be insulted or hurt but I have met a great many that follow it as a religion that would be. Please enlighten us all on the differences between eastern temples and monks that make them non religous
Actually I used to consider Buddhism was a religion and whenever somebody said Buddhism was not a religion I never took offense. A Western monk or a nun (Christian) is not the same thing at all as a Bhiksu/Bhiksuni. they have just been labelled as Monks and Nuns by westerners. Westerners translate Pali and Sanskrit words such as them to western words which greatly simplify the meaning and often do not completely match. They are not religious like the Christian monks because they dedicate their monastic lives to seeking enlightenment to benefit them selves and/or others instead of worshiping a Worldly God or anything for that matter.
