1. Hinduism and Buddhism offer much more sophisticated worldviews (or philosophies) and I see nothing wrong with these religions.

Comment #177518 by CKava on May 9, 2008 at 8:15 am

I think that Buddhism and Hinduism have certain aspects that recommend them over the more commonly criticised monotheistic religions namely:

1. Generally they are less concerned with conversion.
2. The promotion of Holy/Righteous wars is not commonly emphasised.
3. There seems to be more tolerance of multiple viewpoints.

However the notion that they are completely compatible with science and are not pray to the kind of issues found in monotheistic religions is completely false. Looking at Buddhism in particular the idea that it is a rational, scientific and atheistic philosophy is almost entirely a result of the way it was marketed to the 'West' at the start of the twentieth century. The Zen promoted in the West for instance bears little resemblance to how Zen/Ch'an has been actually practiced throughout history or indeed how it is practiced today in the societies it originates from.

Most people from non-Buddhist countries are only familiar with the various exported 'brands' of Buddhism and the image they promote for themselves in the West. The most popular by far are Japanese Zen, Tibetan Buddhism and to a
lesser extent various Theravada schools and New Buddhist movements like Soka Gakkai. The progression of these specific types of Buddhism are not a random phenomena either and often largely rely on the efforts of certain popular missionary type figures. D. T. Suzuki is one prevalent example...

All in all the Buddhist groups prominent in the West tend to reflect only a small proportion of Buddhist schools and how they are practiced and taught and presented in their European and Western contexts is often radically different from how they are taught/practiced in their original contexts. Buddhism like every religion has been adaptated in each new cultural context it has developed in however the issue I take with this in terms of 'Western' Buddhism is that many of the characteristics of 'Western' or 'modern' Buddhism are portrayed as being characteristics of some eternal or 'real' Buddhism when in many cases they are clearly modern interpretations.

Looking at the replies on this thread alone one can see clearly that many self-identified Buddhists who I would hazard a guess are mostly from non-Buddhist countries appeal to Siddhartha Gautama as an example of a purely rational figure
who would not approve of the superstitutions that surround Buddhist practice in Buddhist countries. What this convienantly ignores is that A) what the Buddha 'said' is a matter of debate as he wrote nothing down himself and the authenticity of
texts is a matter of heated debate and B) even accepting the texts most commonly identified as the early teachings as the Buddhas teachings they are rife with supernatural components. One can make an argument that these are not the core
component of the texts however to me that very much seems like picking and choosing what to regard as authentic. Whats more there is a lot of evidence that even the early Buddhist community was involved in many things which today would be regarded by most as superstitious but yet according to the early texts they were approved by the Buddha. One example would be the various protective chants or parittas. Early texts are also rife with supernatural figures and settings which are often dismissed away today as metaphors for pyschological states which seems to bear a strong similarity with Christians attempts to dismiss outlandish aspects of the Bible as just metaphors.

I'm not arguing that one cannot practice a kind of modified Buddhism that is entirely compatible with science but it is simply false to try and assert that 'real' Buddhism is scientific and non-supernatural. Core components of most forms of Buddhism include notions of karma and reincarnation and often include very complex but scientifically dubious concepts of the mind as something entirely distinct from the physical body. There are also numerous claims in Buddhist literature about the various super powers of old Buddhist masters and discussions of the powers that are developed from certain sorts of practice. And the list could go on and on...

The point at the end is that Buddhism and Hinduism suffer from the same kind of drawbacks and dubious claims that all religions I'm aware of do. The rebranding of both (and Buddhism in particular) as a philosophy is also a quite apparently the legacy of how they were promoted to Western society and how they are now continue to appeal to modern secular audience. There is also often more than a pinch of exoticism in how people perceive and comment on these specific religions.

Lastly and to highlight the above points in response to the comments of jpollard & :

Buddhists do not have a GOD.
- The Buddha functions much like a God in every Buddhist country and even disregarding that the early texts make no attempt to deny the existence of Gods (Buddha in fact meets with several).
Buddhists do not have a FAITH.
- Depends on the Buddhists. Again most Buddhist countries have elements that certainly look like faith and if one looks into the massively popular Pure Land schools of Buddhism it's very hard to argue that faith is not a part of Buddhism.
Buddhists do not have a RELIGION.
- Yes they do- Buddhism. The fact that some Buddhists mainly in Europe and North America chose to regard Buddhism as a philosophy does not make Buddhism any less a religion. Taking Christianity as a moral philosophy wouldn't stop it being a religion.

Oh and agree with harishkumar about Hinduism being a British invention but still I think the term is useful for simplifying and due to the fact that there are actually quite a lot of shared beliefs in the different religious groups termed under Hinduism.