From personal experience.
I was born into a buddhism/neo-taoism family. I started my study in buddhism very young and about 6 years ago i got really serious. I had study many different school of buddhism, different traditions/branches from Mahayana to therevada to vajrayana. I read and study many sutras, mainly the Mahayana canon. I was initially a devout Pure Land buddhist, after a while I became interested in Chan (or Zen in japanese). I attended a Chan monastery, an affiliation to Chung Tai Chan Monastery in Taiwan, one of the very well known monastery in the world. There I practice meditation and finally took refuge under the triple jewels and became an upasaka and uphold the precepts. I actually have one of those upasaka robe with the sash. Anyway at that time I still attend my Pure Land monastery where I teach Buddhism theory to youth and became pretty well known in the community there. I also wanted to later on ordain and lead a monastic life.
To make story short, I had always been skeptical and very liberal in views. I couldn't accept some of the teachings by masters. I attended a trip to see Grand Master Wei Chueh, the founder of Chung Tai, and for many reasons I was disappointed and it made me question everything. I was also aware of the "blind faith" which buddhists have even though they claim they don't. I often times discuss my concern and my doubt with my dharma brothers and sisters and they would avoid it. Sometimes I would comment on a Master and how his teaching is nonsense according to scientific findings and they accused me of slandering and will receive negative retribution. So yes Buddhism, atleast modern buddhism, is based on faith and therefore no different from any other religion.
However I do want to say that they are indeed much more peaceful in my opinion. In all of my years of studying it, meeting different teacher at different monastery and different traditions, they tend to be very accepting and open minded. If someone doesn't believe in what they believe in, they simply say that it isn't the person's affinity yet. When I was a buddhist, along with many of my dharma friends, we never feel the need to force our belief onto anybody. And I wouldsay if you meet moderate buddhist, they are the wisest and most peaceful people, not always right but peaceful.
In Mahayana and Vajaryana (which includes Mahayana but much more tantric practices) most masters are I would say liberal. like the interview of Dalai Lama by Carl sagan, Dalai Lama said that if a buddhist belief or practice conflicts with science, buddhism must always give in and accept science.
I came across an article on Theravada Buddhism, now I did not spend enough time with Theravada buddhism to say much but they are quite interesting. An article said that ordained monks was trained and teach to not accept any teachings either from sutras or from teachers unless it agrees with logic and reasoning. Therevada monks will also consume meat if it was offered to them. One odd thing is that nuns are often time refered as monk but most modern therevada buddhism schools had been an advocate for women and gay rights.
So if I have to pick a religion, I would say that I would pick Buddhism over others. I might be bias because I was a Buddhist. But either way Buddhism has its religious, faith, and supernatural aspect that I can't accept. It has woshipping practice, though they claim they worship to remind them of practicing, I suspect they worship buddhas and bodhisattvas like gods/goddesses. It also has fear of retribution as a mean of control. And my process going from a religious Buddhism to an Atheist was painful and took a few years of philosphical examination and debating with myself, I finally abandon buddhism and now an Atheist.
I was born into a buddhism/neo-taoism family. I started my study in buddhism very young and about 6 years ago i got really serious. I had study many different school of buddhism, different traditions/branches from Mahayana to therevada to vajrayana. I read and study many sutras, mainly the Mahayana canon. I was initially a devout Pure Land buddhist, after a while I became interested in Chan (or Zen in japanese). I attended a Chan monastery, an affiliation to Chung Tai Chan Monastery in Taiwan, one of the very well known monastery in the world. There I practice meditation and finally took refuge under the triple jewels and became an upasaka and uphold the precepts. I actually have one of those upasaka robe with the sash. Anyway at that time I still attend my Pure Land monastery where I teach Buddhism theory to youth and became pretty well known in the community there. I also wanted to later on ordain and lead a monastic life.
To make story short, I had always been skeptical and very liberal in views. I couldn't accept some of the teachings by masters. I attended a trip to see Grand Master Wei Chueh, the founder of Chung Tai, and for many reasons I was disappointed and it made me question everything. I was also aware of the "blind faith" which buddhists have even though they claim they don't. I often times discuss my concern and my doubt with my dharma brothers and sisters and they would avoid it. Sometimes I would comment on a Master and how his teaching is nonsense according to scientific findings and they accused me of slandering and will receive negative retribution. So yes Buddhism, atleast modern buddhism, is based on faith and therefore no different from any other religion.
However I do want to say that they are indeed much more peaceful in my opinion. In all of my years of studying it, meeting different teacher at different monastery and different traditions, they tend to be very accepting and open minded. If someone doesn't believe in what they believe in, they simply say that it isn't the person's affinity yet. When I was a buddhist, along with many of my dharma friends, we never feel the need to force our belief onto anybody. And I wouldsay if you meet moderate buddhist, they are the wisest and most peaceful people, not always right but peaceful.
In Mahayana and Vajaryana (which includes Mahayana but much more tantric practices) most masters are I would say liberal. like the interview of Dalai Lama by Carl sagan, Dalai Lama said that if a buddhist belief or practice conflicts with science, buddhism must always give in and accept science.
I came across an article on Theravada Buddhism, now I did not spend enough time with Theravada buddhism to say much but they are quite interesting. An article said that ordained monks was trained and teach to not accept any teachings either from sutras or from teachers unless it agrees with logic and reasoning. Therevada monks will also consume meat if it was offered to them. One odd thing is that nuns are often time refered as monk but most modern therevada buddhism schools had been an advocate for women and gay rights.
So if I have to pick a religion, I would say that I would pick Buddhism over others. I might be bias because I was a Buddhist. But either way Buddhism has its religious, faith, and supernatural aspect that I can't accept. It has woshipping practice, though they claim they worship to remind them of practicing, I suspect they worship buddhas and bodhisattvas like gods/goddesses. It also has fear of retribution as a mean of control. And my process going from a religious Buddhism to an Atheist was painful and took a few years of philosphical examination and debating with myself, I finally abandon buddhism and now an Atheist.
