Buddhism-as-a-religion vs Buddhism-as-Dharma

[shel]

In another topic Namdrol wrote that:

That would be the difference between Buddhism-as-a-religion and Buddhism-as-Dharma. It is sometime very difficult to differentiate that. So, we are heavily pressured to believe that we are not swans, and are not capable of separating the milk of Dharma from the water of religion.

What does that mean?

[Malcolm]

In another topic Namdrol wrote that:

That would be the difference between Buddhism-as-a-religion and Buddhism-as-Dharma. It is sometime very difficult to differentiate that. So, we are heavily pressured to believe that we are not swans, and are not capable of separating the milk of Dharma from the water of religion.

What does that mean?

The former is a morass of intellectual opinions, views and beliefs. The latter is something that one has integrated into one's personal experience.

[shel]

In another topic Namdrol wrote that:

That would be the difference between Buddhism-as-a-religion and Buddhism-as-Dharma. It is sometime very difficult to differentiate that. So, we are heavily pressured to believe that we are not swans, and are not capable of separating the milk of Dharma from the water of religion.

What does that mean?

The former is a morass of intellectual opinions, views and beliefs. The latter is something that one has integrated into one's personal experience.

You're basically saying that the difference between Buddhism-as-a-religion and Buddhism-as-Dharma is that the latter is practiced and the former is not?

[ground]

I guess "Buddhism-as-a-religion" stands for wholesome fabrications, wholesome thoughts and believes, conceptuality, views and dialectics.

For "Buddhism-as-Dharma" I would apply the ambiguity of the term "dharma" meaning "the teaching" and meaning "phenomenon". Combining both entails sort of " the teachings displaying itself through phenomena" and refers to a direct approach not based on conceptuality, non-discursive.


Kind regards

[Malcolm]

You're basically saying that the difference between Buddhism-as-a-religion and Buddhism-as-Dharma is that the latter is practiced and the former is not?

Well, no, because there are many religious practices one can do, blindly, like making donations to a monastery because some Lama told you to accumulate merit. What I am saying is that Buddhism-as-Dharma is integrated into your personal experience. It means you know why are doing what you are doing when you are doing it. No blind faith.

[Malcolm]

I guess "Buddhism-as-a-religion" stands for wholesome fabrications, wholesome thoughts and believes, conceptuality, views and dialectics.

For "Buddhism-as-Dharma" I would apply the ambiguity of the term "dharma" meaning "the teaching" and meaning "phenomenon". Combining both entails sort of " the teachings displaying itself through phenomena" and refers to a direct approach not based on conceptuality, non-discursive.


Kind regards

However you would like to parse to yourself as long as it is not some intellectual theory.

[shel]

I guess "Buddhism-as-a-religion" stands for wholesome fabrications, wholesome thoughts and believes, conceptuality, views and dialectics.

For "Buddhism-as-Dharma" I would apply the ambiguity of the term "dharma" meaning "the teaching" and meaning "phenomenon". Combining both entails sort of " the teachings displaying itself through phenomena" and refers to a direct approach not based on conceptuality, non-discursive.


Kind regards

Again basically logos/praxis.

I guess my critique is that this difference is not the least bit difficult to see.

[Malcolm]

I guess "Buddhism-as-a-religion" stands for wholesome fabrications, wholesome thoughts and believes, conceptuality, views and dialectics.

For "Buddhism-as-Dharma" I would apply the ambiguity of the term "dharma" meaning "the teaching" and meaning "phenomenon". Combining both entails sort of " the teachings displaying itself through phenomena" and refers to a direct approach not based on conceptuality, non-discursive.


Kind regards

Again basically logos/praxis.

I guess my critique is that this difference is not the least bit difficult to see.

You might be surprised.

[shel]

I guess "Buddhism-as-a-religion" stands for wholesome fabrications, wholesome thoughts and believes, conceptuality, views and dialectics.

For "Buddhism-as-Dharma" I would apply the ambiguity of the term "dharma" meaning "the teaching" and meaning "phenomenon". Combining both entails sort of " the teachings displaying itself through phenomena" and refers to a direct approach not based on conceptuality, non-discursive.


Kind regards

Again basically logos/praxis.

I guess my critique is that this difference is not the least bit difficult to see.

You might be surprised.

No, I wouldn't. I see people failing to meet the practice of their religion all the time. It's quite noticeable.

[Malcolm]

No, I wouldn't. I see people failing to meet the practice of their religion all the time. It's quite noticeable.

I misread your statement.

My point however is a little different. There is a kind of Buddhism that is religious and so on. But it misses the point of the dharma's essence.

[shel]

No, I wouldn't. I see people failing to meet the practice of their religion all the time. It's quite noticeable.

I misread your statement.

My point however is a little different. There is a kind of Buddhism that is religious and so on. But it misses the point of the dharma's essence.

You suggesting that the point of 'religious' Buddhism is not the cessation of suffering?

[Malcolm]

No, I wouldn't. I see people failing to meet the practice of their religion all the time. It's quite noticeable.

I misread your statement.

My point however is a little different. There is a kind of Buddhism that is religious and so on. But it misses the point of the dharma's essence.

You suggesting that the point of 'religious' Buddhism is not the cessation of suffering?

Yes, because it is entirely focused on externalities.

[shel]

You suggesting that the point of 'religious' Buddhism is not the cessation of suffering?

Yes, because it is entirely focused on externalities.

"Externalities" is a little vague. If you know that the point of religious Buddhism is not the cessation of suffering then you must know what the point of religious Buddhism is, so what is the point of religious Buddhism?

[Malcolm]

You suggesting that the point of 'religious' Buddhism is not the cessation of suffering?

Yes, because it is entirely focused on externalities.

"Externalities" is a little vague. If you know that the point of religious Buddhism is not the cessation of suffering then you must know what the point of religious Buddhism is, so what is the point of religious Buddhism?

Higher rebirth, primarily. Also success in business, and so on.

[conebeckham]

Stroking-of-ego?

Or is that not even Buddhism-as-religion, much less Buddhism-as-Dharma?

[Caz]

If you do a practise and you dont know why you are doing it you've got religion.
If you do a practise and can explain the benifits of doing so and demonstrate the benifits of having done so you've got Dharma.

[conebeckham]

I would carry it one step further, Caz...or modify it thus:

If you're doing a practice but don't know why you're doing it, this is not even truly Buddhism-as-religion, because you have not understood, even conceptually, what you're "wasting your time on"....(though, I believe, it is likely that merely doing the practice creates a connection).

If you are doing a practice, and can explain "why" you're doing it, you likely have understood Buddhism-as-a-religion, especially if you can contextualize the practice in terms of a larger structure, purpose, meaning, etc.

If you have actualized the practice, to any degree, and ultimately, if you have brought the practice to fruition, you have "Buddhism-as-Dharma." It is highly likely that, until Enlightenment is attained, even those on the Bhumis have both Buddhism-as-a-religion and Buddhism as Dharma. But only those who have reached the limit, come to the end, can really "demonstrate" fully "Buddhism-as-Dharma."

[shel]

... only those who have reached the limit, come to the end, can really "demonstrate" fully "Buddhism-as-Dharma."

I don't know of anyone who has "come to the end," do you? which means that everyone is practicing religious Buddhism, right?

[Jikan]

Might this distinction also be explained as that between:

on one side, a set of practices & imperatives one inherits from one's milieu growing up or takes up socially and, later, practices mechanically and uncritically (that is without reflection or question), toward ends that are taken for granted as good or desirable also without question or reflection

on the other side, a set of practices taken up intentionally and critically with an eye on an aim that is also taken up intentionally and critically

[shel]

Might this distinction also be explained as that between:

on one side, a set of practices & imperatives one inherits from one's milieu growing up or takes up socially and, later, practices mechanically and uncritically (that is without reflection or question), toward ends that are taken for granted as good or desirable also without question or reflection

on the other side, a set of practices taken up intentionally and critically with an eye on an aim that is also taken up intentionally and critically

Being that right effort, right view, etc. are part of the path, it would seem to boil down to:

Religious Buddhism = bad practice.

Dharmic Buddhism = good practice.

Is this an agreeable distinction?