All Comments (8)

Dear Norrie, Martiniano, and Anonymous,

I enjoyed reading your conversation and particularly appreciated its convergence and growing understanding. Thank you.

For me, your conversation provokes a seldom-acknowledged point about words, meaning, and language: that different people(s) often use the same word to mean very different things.

For example, Merriam-Webster's Unabridged Dictionary delineates seven definitions of religion, including the following:

"a cause, principle, system of tenets held with ardor, devotion, conscientiousness, and faith : a value held to be of supreme importance"

Note that there is no mention of a supreme being in this definition. Furthermore, the same dictionary includes the following defintions of God:

* the whole of the universe in its unity
* the ideal or essence of what is best in human life

I submit that some atheists and some Buddhists believe in God, if they choose one of these definitions.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

On the one hand Humpty Dumpty's point of view is evasive and annoying, as when someone's meaning "depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."

On the other hand such a perspective is quite useful in understanding disagreements and seeking common ground, as soon as we realize that (1) two people are unlikely to mean exactly the same thing even though they are using the same word, and (2) two people might be trying to say essentially the same thing even though they are using different words.

Thanks again. And thanks to Bishop Dixon for provoking this discussion.

Anonymous, my friend,

I suppose we all have our own definitions for things, but I'm surprised that you, as a Buddhist, want to consider, and do consider, Buddhism to be a religion.

The dictionary definition quoted above is a standard, conservative definition of religion. Buddhism simply doesn't fit within that definition.

When I first started reading about B.ism I found many learned writers who specifically called B.ism a non-religion.

For probably a majority of thoughtful readers, "religion" has negative connotations. The last thing I would ever want to do is to get involved with a "religion." If you want people to think well of B.ism, I'd advise against calling it a religion.

Also, your definition of religion would seem to me to not to cover Judaism very well. J.ism tells people how they ought to live, but I'm dubious that it prescribes a single "purpose of life", unless it's to not make Yahweh mad at you.

Yours in thoughtfulness.

As a practicing Buddhisfor the past 16 years, I was surprised to discover that Buddhism, in the minds of many readers, is not a religion. Religion, to my mind, offers two things: 1) an explanation of the purpose of life; 2) a methodology for achieving that goal. A creator-god is not necessary for there to be a religion.

Unless, of course, "God" is required by one's definition. Then one can use the word (the faith?) to exclude others. Buit that's the problem, not the solution in today's world. Yes?

Anonymous,

Thanks for your post. I think what Bishop Dixon wrote is wonderful and heartwarming. I completely agree with her. I was a jerk to glom on to the single word "Buddhists" and ignore everything she had written. I agree with Martiniano's comment about that. Her "Good gosh" comment was a nice, gentle admonition and right on.

I think I wrote what I did because I'd just come over from another thread where I'd been jousting with cyberspace "mortal enemies" and was in a fighting mood. That's the problem with these non-face-to-face conversations. There's very little moderation.

I do stand by what I wrote about heavily degreed "learned fools" who can't think straight or write simple English. I don't include Bishop Dixon in that group.

The word "Buddhist", coupled with an erroneous statement such as that "Buddhism is a religion", is a red flag to my inner bull. I'll try to tame him a bit.

My very good dictionary defines religion as "The experession of man's belief in and reverence for a superhuman power recognized as the creator and governor of the universe."

A person who first learns a little bit about Buddhism is usually struck immediately by the fact that Buddhists absolutely do not believe in such a superhuman power. Buddhists also believe that the universes have eternal existence and were not created. They also do not believe that any being is governing this or any other worlds.

I really appreciate your note - thanks for posting it.

Norrie,

From Dr. Dixon's bio (just click on "more" by her picture): "A graduate of Vanderbilt University, she obtained a Master of Divinity degree from Virginia Theological Seminary in 1981. The seminary awarded her a Doctor of Divinity degree in 1993."

I wish you well too. I don't mean to pick a fight with you. I only wish you would respond to Dr. Dixon's content.

Martinano,

I don't know anything of Bishop Dixon's state of learning. I'm sure she's a fine person. But if you are learned you should write with precision. To refer to Buddhism as a religion, for the writer's convenience, offends me in the same way that I imagine you and she would be offended if I referred in passing to Christianity or Deism as a cult, for my convenience.

I've been astonished to see the number of advanced-degree Faith Panelists who make reference to Buddhism when it's clear that they know little about Buddhism and most of what they do know is wrong.

Have you been as astonished as I have been that so many of these learned Panelists can't write a simple English sentence or explain intelligibly what's on their minds? Not to mention the muddled thinking that underlies the language. One Professor's piece, written in my home state, is just a mess.

I appreciate your comment and hope that Bishop Dixon, as you sugest, really does have a grasp of Buddhism and knows that it is not "a religion". Best wishes to you and her.

Bishop Dixon, thank you for expressing such beautifully Christian beliefs. I am a Deist but I attend services at St. Paul's Episcopal in San Diego because I find people like you, true Christians, in the congregation. May God bless you.

Norrie: Don't you imagine that someone as well learned as Bishop Dixon knows much about Buddhism? Can you imagine that she referred to it as a religion in the context of this thread only for convenience? Good gosh.

Bishop Dixon, Buddhism is not a religion. Please see my comment on Professor Prothero's article, which explains this. Thanks.