Could I see quotations about the history of violence? Buddhism has by far the lowest score of violence of all five big religions of the world. Not to mention that when that violence did happen (zen priests blessing kamikazes during WW2, myanmar riots these days...) it has been condemned as explicitly not-buddhist by the wider Buddhist world (for violence has no place in the Buddha's thought).

As for it being a religion, well yes it is, however it is not a theistical religion that explicitly asks you to believe in a vengeful, retributing god.

The Buddha describes how reality works (karma - from a certain action an appropriate consequence will follow, and there's nothing fixed or permanent, just conditions giving rise to other conditions) with the important corollary that if you want to be happy, then do actions that are ethical because "good" consequences will follow from those. This is what we call a "philosophy" in western thought.

It only becomes a "religion" when one believes that one too, could be like the Buddha, becoming something that's much higher than what one is right now. One doesn't have to believe this bit however, one could very well follow the Buddha's teachings (and meditation, which is an integral part of) just to become a happier human being.

Satan and Jesus are walking down the street. They see man in front of them picking up small piece of truth. Jesus says "Satan! That man has realized the Truth! There is nothing you can to do to stop him now!" Satan smiles cunningly at Jesus "Yes, he has realized the Truth. And now I am going to help him organize the Truth!" As a secular Buddhist the key issue for me is that whenever Buddhism becomes popular main religion, it will will more or less dilute into something very different.

In Zen Buddhist tradition there are many autobiographies and stories from over thousand years of Zen Buddhism. They tell the story of constant struggle between community/authority and actual praxis. Either authorities want to embrace Buddhism and dilute and disfigure it into common religious formula, or they prosecute it. Buddhism as a religion seems to be in the state constant decay and needs periodic reforms to get back into basics.

The history of Thai Forest Tradition is good example of how there was need for reform in Buddhist monastic tradition in a country where Buddhism is everywhere in well organized and accepted form.

Wikipedia has a light page on the topic.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

Not mentioned in the above link is the Tibetan serfdom controversy.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serfdom_in_Tibet_controversy

Regarding you second point, I am not sure I see the value of saying "Buddhism is not a religion if you ignore the religious bits"... you might well say that about any religion. There are plenty of secular Muslims and secular Jews for example, but that does not make Islam or Judaism any less of a religion.

Key difference is, the founders and leaders of Judaism and Islam claim to have believed in God. The Buddha did not. A lot of us identify a deity as being core to the idea of being a religion.

That's not to say that sects haven't developed and diverged from the initial beliefs, perhaps in order to build their own communities (or empires). But these are later developments than the teachings set forth by Siddhartha Gautama.

if you read even just a bit of 2000 years history of Christianity, you'll see that violence in the name of God and Church and toward the infidels/heretics/etc. has all this time been considered a virtue of a good Christian. Not that Christianity is any special here. The base of any religion is division between "good" and "bad" and fostering the feeling of superiority in "good" and hatred toward the "bad". In particular "<Religion> of peace" for any value of <Religion> is an oxymoron the same way as "white black".

Buddhism is mostly peaceful, but there is currently a buddhist army (The DBKA) and 2 buddhist terrorist groups (the 969 movement, and Bodu Bala Sena)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Karen_Buddhist_Army

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/969_Movement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodu_Bala_Sena

Here's a news report of buddhist violence: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25866350

> for violence has no place in the Buddha's thought).

There are plenty of buddhist leaders who've said that violence is acceptable.

This wikipedia article starts by listing many of the buddhist doctrines against violence, and then gives examples of many times when buddhists have turned to violence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism_and_violence

I want to address this comment because it's a key objection from Buddhist Apologists.

Every small religion is going to score low on the "violence meter." That's because Buddhism wasn't politically successful. China went Communist and took over Tibet, and Buddhism lost in India.

And for those that condemn violent actions - OF COURSE! Everyone does that! Muslims overwhelmingly condemn ISIS, American Christians condemn wars and domestic terror, and many Jews condemn Israel's military behavior.

Many of the popular religions can be interpreted to be peaceful or violent. Blame the people, not the religion.

edit: words

1) Most of Buddhist scripture is not translated to modern languages

2) There is so much of it. Which Buddhist scriptures? Zen? Theravada? Tibetan? Tantric? It's hard to say which text is representative of Buddhism as a whole. Some people say all of them are (except when they disagree).

I'd encourage you to wonder if that's the right question to ask. In terms of International war and politics, do the words themselves matter more than how they're used?

In most cases, Buddhists kill others in the name of compassion. It is compassionate to kill a misguided (or Muslim) person and give them the chance to reincarnate as a Buddhist. To me, that's more fucked up than justifying murder by twisting the definition of something like Jihad.

I believe the core tenets of buddhism to be more about hacking your mind and body with certain lifestyle and practice (meditation etc) and living without infringing on others. The fairytales are extra baggage.

The difference between for example islam is that there are some seriously bad ideas (by socially liberal western live-and-let-live standards) in that scripture. Islam is an inseparable part of the culture in muslim majority countries hence it is bound to influence actions and attitudes to some degree.

How is the fourth largest religion in the world a "small religion"?

It would be interesting to “rebase” Buddhism on western culture, but I can’t think of anything which would fit this description.

Today, large chunk of Buddhism (well Mahayana (Chinese buddhism) and Vajrayana (Tibetan buddhism) at least) is practiced in societies where there was never Hinduism in the first place.

So it mixed with the local religions instead and what we get in China, Japan, Korea is mix of local religious traditions and Buddhism.

Theravada ("Sri Lanka and company" buddhism) seems to me closer to the "actual" original Buddhism, but really I was never in any Theravada majority place for a longer time, so I don't know

Vipassana is actually quite a new tradition, as is for example Japanese zen as we know it now (from what I can gather, it was sort of a reaction to Meiji reforms in Japan that violently separated Shinto and Buddhist traditions, not that long ago).

Hmm, no not really.(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vipassan%C4%81)

It's dealt with in a couple of the Pali suttas afaik.

The explanation Goenka gives is that the technique of noting was passed down from teacher to teacher all the way back to the Buddha, but of course every tradition says this about every technique so it can be hard to verify.

For example, many people believe that Buddhism teaches reincarnation. But Hinduism also has reincarnation, and Buddhism simply chose to alter the concept, and it is this alteration which is the interesting bit. Buddhism can only be properly understood as a reaction to Hinduism, not by coming to it fresh and reading about the eightfold path or whatever – that way it will only come across as weird.

It is definitely a religion. But I'd like to add the remark that the earlier writings in particular (those attributed to the Buddha and those of early Zen masters) focus mostly on meditation practice and ethics and are quite agnostic about other (e.g. existential) questions.

Zen came wayy after, which was more or less predicated on earlier Japanese Buddhism that integrates a great deal of Shinto beliefs.

These are not agnostic.

>I just wish people recognized Buddhism for what it is - a religion.

There was no one ordained by him or any religion proclaimed by him on his name. Around his words later there is a whole religion of buddhism that came up with many different kind of practices and rituals. You could follow none of that (this religion and its rituals) and just live by the principles by which Gautam Buddha "lived" himself and could have a better life.

To say Gautama was an atheist is to push onto history a distinction that had yet to be invented. He was very much a participant in the spiritual / religious frameworks of the time, and rejection of certain aspects of those frameworks does not necessarily make you an apostate or unreligious or atheistic.

> There was no one ordained by him or any religion proclaimed by him on his name.

Jesus ordained nobody either. Nor did he ever proclaim a religion. All that came later.

If Buddhism isn't a religion, Christianity isn't either. Buddhism has teachings, mythology, places of worship, specific means of prayer, (meditation, anybody who says meditation isn't prayer has never really prayed) holy books, priests, and a thriving metaphysical dialogue. It walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, water rolls down its back like a duck.

Well, catholics say differently. "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church."

So, Jesus ordained 0 or 1 people, depending on your choice of tradition.

Although many people practice it as a religion it doesn't have to be practiced as one. For example one can attend a meditation workshop and learn Theravada or Mahayana techniques in a non sectarian environment free from any ceremony, dogma or iconography. Unlike the Judeo-Christian faiths there is no litmus test for who is a buddhist and who isn't one.

There´s a lot of research going on about mindfulness / vipassana and what ever is true about it is of course not buddhist. Just like algebra isn´t muslim because the inventors of it were muslim. Real knowledge / facts transcends these cultural contingencies.

Buddhism, my friend, has many branches and sects. The original teaching, which is more or less accurately preserver in Dharmapadda of so-called Pali canon is a philosophic doctrine, losely based on Upanishads, narated in an easy to understand, poetical way - a bunch of metaphors familiar to a village folks.

This doctrine has no notions of rituals, idol worship, mantras, tantras, mandalas, monasteries or other kind of social hierarchy. These were almost 1000 years later inventions (the era of Indian writings dated back to 6th to 8th century AD - thousand years after Buddha's death, and associated with places like Nalanda "university" in Bihar).

All that lately written nonsense usually referred to by using the umbrella term Mahayana (with implies, of course, better than older teachings). These writings were translated into Tibetan in the first wave of translation, about 7th AD.

The second wave, which is associated with the mythical guru Padmasambava and his so-called tantric Buddhism - a profound tribal (non-arian) influence of primitive deity worship - Tantra - could be considered only as a farce.

The branch of teaching adopted and developed in China has been already distorted by Mahayana writers, but, strictly speaking, it is closer to the Pali Canon than the texts translated into Tibetan during the second wave.

So, which one you are refering to as Buddhism religion? Which set of rithualized idol worship which has been imported popularized in US in 60s and 70s?

And, I call bullshit that you know what's in the Pali Canon. The vast majority of it is still in ancient Tibetan. You have no evidence to prove that there isn't dogma within it, nor is there any conclusive evidence that the "original" Pali Canon was all philosophy.

That's like saying the "real Bible" that Jesus heard from God was not the "actual Bible" that was written down. Perhaps the "real Bible" was only philosophy, and we humans added the dogma.

Plus - the existence of Buddhist dogma in ancient India is abundantly clear. Just go to a museum or Google it! What do you think those people are doing when they're bowing to the Buddha!?

You're also kind of an asshole to say Tantric Buddhism is a farce. Who are you to say something like that? I'm just stating a blatant fact that the Buddhist religions are indeed religions. Nothing more, nothing less.

Again - I'm not suggesting that Buddhism is bad. I think there are many beautiful lessons to be learned as you eloquently allude to. If you, as a person, connect with the Dharma, no one can take that away from you. Once you find a Sangha, it is profound and incredible. My goal is to clear misconceptions of the Buddhist religions, which many Westerners have.