Are Hinduism & Buddhism Religions?

Are Hinduism & Buddhism Religions?

Before I get lynched, there is a story behind the question.

I had a conversation with a group of tourists in Thailand; most were European or North American but one was a Pakistani Muslim, he said Hinduism & Buddhism were not Religions.

As I know very little about Religion I left the reply to the other tourists; but nobody disagreed with him.

My lack of knowledge on the subject left me with only one reply; “Hinduism & Buddhism are a way of life, what makes the Muslim Religion anything more than a way of life?

He was too angry at those comments to give a sensible answer.

Is there any truth in what he says?

They are not organized religions, in the sense of having some Mafia-like outfit controlling the cash flow, covering up for boy-buggering priests, etc. And that's a good thing.

Believers are fighting their own doubts. Before or beyond belief one has to be patient with them and try to see the beauty of it all. Alas, religious fanatics make it very difficult to stay tolerant and keep faith in humanity. Our (agnostics) Big Task is to care for our fellow humans who out of their belief in One or a thousand God(s) and ideologies, created a world of wonderful temples on the one- and killing fields on the other side of this flipping coin...

Yes, I believe they are both religions. If a religion (in essence) is considered as a set of guidelines where one is attempting to practice virtue in this lifetime to improve this lifetime and future existances - Then yes (and this is just my humble worm-like opinion) I consider both to fit that.

~ "Whether one believes in a religion or not, and whether one believes in rebirth or not, there isn't anyone who doesn't appreciate kindness and compassion" ~ H.H. XIV Dalai Lama

hinduism is more a way of life rather than a religion

Humbly I submit:

Would it be true to say that 'a way of life' is intergrating the theory into every day life?

Therefore, would it be true to say that if one can take the theory of a religion and conduct one's life by it's guidelines ....... you then have "a way of life"?

So, would it be true to say that any religion - from that point of view - can be "a way of life"?

Am I misinterpreting "a way of life"? Or am I missing the point? Excuse me if I am.

And the more I've thought about it, I have yet still to think of a religion (in it's essence) that doesn't fit this or my previous post.

I look forward to your reply.

Respectfully,
Dharmasoul

I think its all semantics. way of life vs. religion

depends on how you want to define these things. . the problem is that we all have different associations with these things.

Its certainly not really important

but heres my 2 rupees anyhow!!!

Religion = Organized Institution, using official interpreters whether they be Priests, Monks, Imams, Brahmins, Canons, Bishops whatever.

Mysticism = Not organized, individually based direct communion, revalation etc...

way of life = how we actually act !

therefore a Buddhist/Hindu/Muslim/Jew/Christian who kills and harms others and acts selfishly has a 'way of life' too, just not a very compassionate or wise 'way of life'

And of course what is Orisha? A religion or a way of life?

I believe that Hinduism and Buddhism are religions. Your Pakistani Muslim colleague may believe that because they are not monotheistic religions then they don't fit his own definition of a religion.

The Latin re ligare (that which binds), gave rise to the English word "religion". In that sense, Hinduism & Buddhism are not "a set of rules" which binds or ties together a grouping of peoples. Take Friday namaaz or Sunday Mass which ties together practising Muslims or practising Christians. There is no equivalent in the sanaatana dharma. The multifarious sects have their own practices as equivalent...... which emphasises the above point (How can all of them be right?? According to sanaatana dharma, they are ALL right!!).

The sage Rishyashringa was an unmarried bachelor living alone in a jungle, & is reported to be surprised at seeing the feminine form for the first time in his life (he had never seen his mother). He was definitely a practitioner of sanaatana dharma but to which organized religion did he belong? Most of the time he was alone, at times Veda-chanting teacher when in the company of students. He did not have an Ashram of his own, (it shifted every season.... his hut, that is). He was known as the only practitioner of putrakaameshti yaaga in Northern India during his times. For this reason alone, the King brought him out of the forest.... to perform a yaaga to enable the King to have a son & heir to the throne. (Raamaayana..... Raama was ultimately born after this.)

Was sage Rishyashringa a unit of any organized religion? That would be stretching re ligare like a rubber band. And heaven knows that many religions are anything BUT flexible!

Well they all are religions which makes them all responsible for keep ing the poor as wretched as they are. They wallow in the poor to asauaged their say souls but its all self gratification. Look at me, look at how I have given up everything to live among the wretched is their refrain.

seems to me . . .
Religion strikes me as a form of identity in most non-western countries, much like nationalism, race or gangs. In the west, there is this notion that one can choose their religion, but in most of the world one is simply born into it, and that's that. the philosophy takes a back seat to the identity.
not too long ago, many of the forms one constantly encounters in India needed to state one's religion. Didn't much matter what I told them, they invariably put Christian. I finally got it- I was born a hillbilly Presbyterian, and will die one. Whatever, lolol.

As Inity & Iditation said it is all semantics, ie. how we define "religion", and in that sense the quarel is just about a word, and as we know WE are the ones who give meanings to groups of sounds and letters that we call words.

On the other hand RE LIGARE in latin means re-bind, bind again.
It does not in fact mean what binds people together but what reconnects humans to the transcendental, be it God, Gods, or a higher form of consciousness. In that sense Buddhism and Hinduism are no doubt religions as both try to reconnect the human consciousness to something, "higher", more "true", its true nature etc... whatever the concepts of any of those specific religions are.

I would not mix etimology of the word with definition. While etimology is subject to the logic of the language and develops in a long period of time, definitions should be a matter of scientific (or at least rational) activity of individuals.
Anyway, Ivan is correct - there are many things which bind people beside religion (nation, drinking beer, sex...) but it is religion which binds people with the transcendental.
The problem is if you define religion from a biased focus of only one particular religion (preferably your own). In such case you will soon find out that not many other religions match your definition, therefore they are not religions at all, therefore there is only one religion in the world - the one you belong to.

I only partially agree with you as the term "religion" is an eminently western, European originated notion connected with the meaning given to this word by the languages that use it.

I don't know what is the word, and more importantly the concept that corresponds to religion in Arabic, Hindi, Chinese or Japanese, but my guess is that it has other conceptual roots than the word "religion", so the correspondence must be very imperfect.
So language and etymology are very important here because of this only very conditional correspondence of terms and notions in different cultures and languages.

When one asks if something is a "religion" it makes sense to answer only in relation to the term "religion" as it exists in cultures that use that precise word.
Who knows, maybe our muslim friend who said that Buddhism and Hinduism are not religions is in fact right from the point of view of the word/notion that is used in his own language. His mistake may in fact be to assimilate the word used in his language/religion to the word "religion" originated in the western Christian tradition.
So in a sense there is no scientific definition of religion, only words with different meanings used in different languages and cultures, and yes, religions.

Granted, there are obviously common elements among most activities that we usually regard as religions. However to call something "religion" based on those common elements may be incorrect for those languages and cultures where the corresponding concept may be based on discriminating or even discriminatory elements. Moreover, to broaden the meaning of "religion" (in its European originated meaning) to those common elements, may prove unacceptable from the point of view of the essence conveyed by that specific word inside its cultural frame.

A f a i k, there is no equivalent of the Latin re ligare rooted word "religion" in Sanskrit(Hindi... to answer IVAN above). Loosely, the word sampradaaya in Sanskrit which translates as "sect" or "group" in English could be closest in etymological root-sense to "religion". Am not trying to belittle the word "religion" by translating it as "group". Just trying to dig out etymology of the word.

The words "ligature" , "ligate", come from L. ligare & have almost the same meaning in English, ..."bind".

Re ligare is to re-bind or re-tie as mentioned by IVAN. This same thing has no exact equivalent in Sanskrit. The only two words in practical usage today are sampradaaya (sect) & mata (mental belief, .. which becomes "group having the same belief" by extrapolation).

Just as there is no equivalent of dharma in English (Latin?), there is no equiv. of "religion" in Sanskrit.

A small example: "Speak the truth" is an axiom stated by ALL religions, sects, groups etc. This can be a part of sanaatana dharma, "The Way Eternal" cuz the statement is true for all of past-present-future, as long as there is a "man" who "speaks". On the other hand "Do this" at so-&-so-hour on so&so date will change with the passage of time & location. This will be limiting in effect, on numbers of people at the same time, also on the same set of people at different times. Such things are not eternal. Obviously, all religions have such principles too.

These are practices & rules (of dress code, for example) which will change. Many religions have such codes too, but they are not eternal. Such things could be better classified as "group-code" or "group practice".

Today, most Hindus in India do not know(unfortunately for them) what is "sanaatana dharma", "dharma", "hindu" & so on. Then there are the fanatics who insist on assaulting every perceived "anti-Hindu" cuz they believe it is a part of "dharma". If such diverse practices are taken into account, then "Hinduism" is probably a "religion" cuz its so-called "adherents" have reduced it to that state.

Inherently, it is "An Eternal Way" (of life, of things, of whatever). By today's adherence standards, it has become a "religion", or in actual case, "thousands of religions". The recent import that comes to mind is that of "Hare Krishnas" who brought proselytization into Hinduism for the first time ever! This is obviously leftover Christian-mental-baggage being dragged into Hinduism. The "sanaatana dharma" states that since everything is as it ought to be, it is acceptable in the current form. There is no inherent need to convert "non-believers" into "believers", cuz BOTH are part of the ETERNAL belief. It is best if living beings beget beliefs by evolution(all beings) & mental introspection(man only) rather than being "forced", "coerced", allured", or simply "persuaded & rightly convinced!!". Is there need to convince the sky that it is not the sky?

So, based on present practice, Hinduism is probably a religion. Based in its essence, it is "a manner", a "a bent of mind" or something like that. This includes even the essential practices which are good for ALL time..... like..... reciting the Gaayatree mantra thrice a day(morn-aft-eve). This will not change even after aeons!