I always felt like Buddhism was more a philosophy than a religion. It can be used as a religion, but it really boils down to “Life sucks, but you can be happy if you stop thinking about how much life sucks”.
There’s also Nirvana, so it’s more like “Life sucks. Rebirth sucks. If you follow the path of Buddha you might be able to break this cycle”.
Rebirth sucks.
I never understood that part. Maybe the next life does suck, but so what? I’m not going to be there to experience it, and the next guy won’t have any memory of me, so who cares? Reincarnation as a concept never made sense to me. You get a new body, your memories get erased… what is even left of you?
I have been to South East Asia and married a women from the Thervada tradition. If it isn’t a religion I don’t know what that word means.
Yes of course you can treat it like a philosophy. You can pretty much do whatever you want. I am pretty confident I can treat 3rd wave feminist thought as a metaphysics system if I put my mind to it, I am also confident that I could interpret a child’s drawing via a Marxist-Hegelian lens. Anything can be modeled as anything else. I can model the sun and the banana. Both appear yellow to me, both have dark spots, both make human life more enjoyable.
The issue is if that means anything, is it useful to us? So yes you can go thru their 25 centuries of writing spread over an area 3x of Europe, with 4x the population. Filter out everything you want and keep only what you want. Then slap a label on it called Secular Buddhism. You can do this, but don’t really expect us to all say what you are doing relates at all to what they are doing.
No offense but I don’t think you’ve read any of the texts or seen any Bhuddist practice if you think so. The corpus of texts that belong to the different traditions are massive and Bhuddists have everything from prayer to pilgrimage. It’s only not a religion if you ignore everything.
You could say the same about Christianity. “Life sucks, but you can be happy if you think about the fact that the suffering is temporary.”
Absolutely not. Christianity is “Life sucks and will always suck unless you submit to what we say and only what we say, otherwise you suffer forever”
Christianity is “Life sucks and will always suck unless you submit to what we say and only what we say, otherwise you suffer forever”
And Buddhism doesn’t say that? The only difference is that Christianity adds “in hell” at the end of that sentence, Buddhism adds “in the cycle of death and rebirth”.
It’s more of “life sucks because the all knowing, all powerful, all loving deity is not so secretly a sadist who is constantly testing you to see if you’re good enough”
True, but whether or nor the suffering is caused by a personal god or by impersonal cosmic forces doesn’t really make any practical difference. Both religions claim, without any basis in fact, that the suffering is eternal and that they are the only way out.
