So yesteday I am doing my thing at Faithful Fools and after a great meditation, discussion about how to reach those most in need of Buddha Dharma, and gongyo, one of the participants asked me what I thought of a statement he had heard at the Zen Center to the effect that Buddhism is not a religion.
How absurd. I told him that I thought that was the kind of ridiculous thing I have come to expect from some Zen Buddhists in America. I also said, this is the kind of thing some Buddhists say when what they are really trying to do is not be Christians and so are doing their best to make Buddhism into something they want it to be so that it will be as different as possible from Christianity. He thought that was pretty funny, but I followed my flippant remarks with some things I'd like to share here:
1. People say, "Buddhism is a Way of life" but as Marcus Borg points out in his excellent book "The Heart of Christianity", all religions encompass a way of life. Borg points out that according to Act of the Apostles and other early Christian writings, Christianity was originally called "the Way." Borg points out that it is modern people (meaning since the European Enlightenment) who have tended to reduce Christianity to a matter of believing in a set of unbelievable propositions. When I was in Catholic school, the Beatitudes were stressed quite a bit, and the way of life portrayed in the Acts of the Apostles (an egalitarian, communitarian way of life) was pointed out. In fact a constant theme in the Catholic Church as I experienced it was this: "Can one really be a Christian and still conform to the values of this society?" The implied answer was that a fully authentic Christian would be in jail, like Dietrich Bonhoeffer or the Berrigan Brother or dead like Bishop Romero. Ok, I exaggerate only slightly, but the point is that it strikes me as absurd to say that Buddhism is a Way of Life and somehow Christianity (or at least Catholicism) or Judaism or Islam are not meant to be a Way of Living in the World.
2. From my point of view a religion encompasses a Way of Life, but also includes the worldview that gives context to and motivation for living that Way; also a moral and ethical system is a big part of that Way; also a system of spiritual development such as sacramental acts and/or prayer and/or contemplative practices and/or acts of loving-kindness and compassion; and also devotional practices; and also a sense of community which includes such things as the passing on of a certain culture and heritage. Not a single one of those elements is missing from Buddhism, and even Theravadin temples have devotional practices. Those Americans who think Buddhism is not a religion are creating some kind of new thing, because they can't possibly have been around Asian Buddhism and think that Buddhism is not a religion.
3. I think that when people say things like that what they really mean is "Buddhism is not fundamentalist monotheism." I have also noticed that among people who dismiss religion and are proud of having risen above religion, they are almost always thinking only in terms of Christianity or monotheism at least. It doesn't seem to occur to them that religion can encompass traditions that are very different from what they grew up with so they falsely overgeneralize and think that all relgions are about believing the unbelievable, simple affirmations of a set of propositions, and blind belief over spiritual development.
4. The conversation last night also touched on the issue of "faith" and there is the real sticking point. The gentleman I was talking to had grown up in a very cult like fundamentalist Christian Church. Blind belief was stressed so that people would not think for themselves and would only fear and obey. In other words - be perfect little culties. But for me, "faith" is not "blind belief" (and Marcus Borg's The Heart of Christianity has a great section on this) and I have talked about this before. Faith in Buddhism (the Sanskrit word is sraddhah) means trust and confidence. It means trust and confidence in the Buddha, the Buddha's teaching, and that there have been those who have genuinely upheld and passed on those teachings and it means trust and confidence in one's own ability to put the teachings into practice so that one can see for themselves whether they are true or not. Then faith blossoms into wisdom. I pointed out to this person who "no longer has faith" that from the Buddhist point of view to even spend a single moment of your precious time and energy on listening to the Dharma, or reciting it just a little (like chanting Odaimoku for instance) or sitting quietly in calm abiding and clear attentiveness is itself a show of faith. It shows that one has at least enough trust and confidence in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha that one is willing to give it a hearing and try it out even if for just a moment. And from the Buddhist point of view, that is planting the seed of the Dharma - a momentous occasion.
5. So Buddhism is a religion, it is a Way of life, a worldview from which that Way emerges, a system of ethics and morals, a system of spiritual development and a community encompassing a culture and heritage. It is also a Way that begins in faith, faith as a trust and confidence that will lead us to see for ourselves, thus a blossoming of our own wisdom, our own buddhahood.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Ryuei:
To say that Buddhism is not a religion is ignorant. A fundamentalist Christian made that same asserion to me in a letter to the editor. I have also heard it stressed by some in the SGI and even one junior priest in earshot said that Buddhism is a "philosophy." Obviously, it's that and a lot more. Buddhism is the ideal religion, if your going to have one at all. I suppose - and excuse any improper usage - that everyone has a honzon - that prime point of focus in life. I know people that think drinking is a religion. Millions have made sports entertainment their Sunday worship and prime point of of mind.
My dictionary defines "religion" as "A belief in a divine or supernatural power or principle. 2. the manifestation of such a belief in worship, ritual and conduct, etc."
Charles
Back in the early days of NSA (SGI-USA), we used to say that we did not follow a religion, but practiced a life-philosophy. I think we did this for two reasons, one that being religious in those days was not hip; and to distinguish ourselves from other (in)famous groups of the time, like "One Way" or "Jews for Jesus" or even the People's Temple. Now that it is cool once more to be religious, it is safe to call Buddhism a religion. I think what your Zen friend meant by "it's not a religion" is "it's not Judeo-Christian or Muslim." For most Western practitioners, Buddhism is not something that comes with a lot of tradition or set ceremonies for marking important transitions in life (coming of age, marriage, etc.), which is what most people think of when they say "religion."
Posted by: John at March 7, 2005 02:10 PMI've wondered that people insist that Buddhism is a philosophy rather than a religion and think that attitude peculiarly American. It is difficult for Westerners to reconcile Buddhism's atheism with concepts of reglion we grew up with, even confusing atheism with nihilism. Actually this is a good time to ask a question of you, if you don't mind. It seems to me that if all phenomena arise from a cause, then wouldn't the belief in a god (any god) bring it into being? And it would have the qualities and characteristics, and functionality, we give to it? This is an idea I've been examining lately, because certainly people who pray to God or Allah or Zeus receive a response. Yet this experience doesn't invalidate NMRK. To my mind, it is an instance of esho funi. I'd be interested in knowing anyone else's thoughts on this?
Posted by: titania at March 7, 2005 02:53 PMI'm afraid I'm in the Buddhism as "meta-religion" camp. I just don't buy it as a viable religion on it's own, but rather see it as a religious approach that when adopted makes religion more sensible and less superstitious. As a religion on it's own, which one does one choose?
India: Buddhism never completely divorced itself from it's Jain and Hindu origins. For that reason modern Hindus claim the Buddha as one of their sages and Buddhism has been nearly completely exterminated from India except for where those influences are enduring.
China: Buddhism is syncretic with Confucian and Taoist ideas. One sees them strongest in Zen but they are present in every other form of Chinese Buddhism.
Japan: Shinto, Confucian and Taoist influences in uneasy alliance with Hindu and Buddhist ideas. Heck they have their minds blown by thinking of the Sun as simultaneously a male God (hindu) and a female one (Shinto).
Tibet: Buddhism syncretized with the Bon religion years ago.
Now tell me that Buddhism has to be a "seperate" religion, or if it might just be that the "life philosophy" approach makes more sense? If folks become "buddhists" and cut their ties to church, Synagogue, Mosque and thus to their family traditions are they going to influence people who remain with those ties?
When the Lotus Sutra talks about the true way to Enlightenment being to cut with provisional ideas -- how does one get people to the point where they can even see what the Lotus Sutra is talking about unless they can find the language of those people? People don't take one's word for it, and if all rivers do flow to the Ocean, how can we demonstrate that if we are too busy trying to replace one set of syncretized beliefs with another?
Do we really want to be Japanese Buddhists? Tibetan Buddhists? Hindu Buddhists? Or can we somehow be "Western Buddhists" and find and acknowledge the debt we owe to teachers as varied as Socrates and Isaiah.
The choice is not between accepting fundamentalist ideas and rejecting them, but between seeing the emptiness of all religious expression and seeing the underlying purpose it maintains. All the teachers seek, whether they know it themselves or not, to guide people along the path to Samadhi/Enlightenment. Don't we want to help as many people reach that point as possible?
So Buddhism is more than a religion, more than a way of life, more than a system of ethics and morals, and more than a system of spiritual development, but a system that can make sense of and unite the varying beliefs of this world. No?
Chris
Posted by: Chris Holte at March 8, 2005 08:27 AMHi Titania,
The questions you raise deserve a new blog. But a few quick things:
1. I explore the relationship between God and Buddhism in my FAQ for Christians:
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/ChristianFAQ.html
2. In Buddhism it is said that things never arise from only one cause. There are always many causes and conditions. I also discuss this in the FAQ.
3. Going back to the Pali Canon, the Buddha acknowledged a Creator God named Brahma (who appears on the Gohonzon as Bonten) but also pointed out that this "creator" was not really a "creator" and that whether the world is beginingless or has a beginning is one of the unedifying questions that distracts us from attaining enlightenment.
4. Nevertheless I am still haunted by the question: "Why is there something rather than nothing?" and "If all things arise and cease in accord with causes and conditions, why is this process the way it is and why is there a process like this at all?"
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
To "Veronica",
Anyone who posts irrelevant links, or makes irrelevant comments, or otherwise posts spam to my blog will be deleted and their IP address blocked. Get a life or get our of my life. You are welcome to interact with me if you can do so in a mature and relevant fashion.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Hi Chris,
In general I agree with your points. Just a few quibbles.
I don't see Buddhism as originating from Jainism at all, though certainly they originated in the same matrix wherein various unorthodox (which is to say those who did not accept the divine authority of the Vedas) debated issues about life and death, liberation, and the workings of cause and effect.
I think the Buddha was pretty unequivocal about disregarding the authority of the Vedas and in that sense Buddhism was a cleaner break from Brahmanism than early Christianity was from Judaism. It did retain a modified form of the cosmology though - thus the appearance of Vedic gods on the Gohonzon and the six worlds are obviously derived from the Vedic worldview.
But it is also true that Buddhism has always coexisted with other religions and does not have the exclusivism or imperialistic nature of some forms of Western monotheistic religions. I have discussed the challenge of Buddhism meeting exclusivistic faiths in my article on Buddhism in America wherein I point out that in Asia relgions were often seen as complimentary wherein in the West they are self-sufficient and exclusive.
http://nichirenscoffeehouse.net/Ryuei/Buddhism-in-America.html
So I would kind of agree that Buddhism lays bare the essential truths of religion itself without a lot of intrinsic tie-ins to a particular mythic worldview - at least if you stick to things like the eightfold path and material in the Pali Canon. The vision of the Lotus Sutra is certainly universal but it is cloaked in a rich mythological setting. At any rate, I do see Buddhism as teaching universal truths and thus revealing a kind of meta-religion. But then, other religions or at least mystics within other religions would make the same claim for their own traditions.
I also agree that we need to meet people where they are at. It is no good, for instance, trying to push the ten worlds on people if it only confuses them. We need to relate the Buddha Dharma to stuff people are already familiar with and then take it from there. That is how Buddhism spread in China for hundreds of years before Buddhist teachers were able to teach Dharma strictly within a Buddhist framework and even then, as you point out, they would bring in material from Confucianism or Taoism or Shinto as the case may be. Nichiren does this a lot. And most people don't realize it because they haven't studied Confucianism or Shinto and are not aware that he is doing it.
As an example of this, I once gave a Dharma talk in which I compared and contrasted Noah's ark and the Buddhist concept of the Hinayana (small Vehicle), Mahayana (Great Vehicle), and Ekayana (One Vehicle). So just as Nichiren often got his point across by referring to Chinese teachings and stories that his readers were familiar with, we need to do the same. And as one temple member in San Jose pointed out to me - the only thing all members of this culture have at least a passing familiarity with is the Bible. Not Star Wars or Star Trek or the works of Joss Whedon or even Shakespeare. The Bible is the only thing all people in this culture have in common in at least a passing way. So I have been thinking a lot about this. It has helped me to read Marcus Borg (and to a lesser extent the reductionist Unitarian wannabe Shelby Spong) and Rabbi Telushkin's take on the Biblical stories to see that there are different and more sane ways to present and approach them and in a way that is still accessible and inspiring.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
www.buddhism.notlong.com
Some good comments and debate from the Ninjas...
Rev. Greg
Posted by: Rev. Greg at March 9, 2005 05:12 PMWell, I think Charles has just read me out of Buddhism, becasue I certainly do not believe in any "divine or supernatural power or pinciple," and my practice has nothing whatever to do with manifesting such a belief.
The concept of a "religion" is a Western notion, and when we try to shoehorn Buddhism into it, some things fit and some things don't. One of the things I like to do when I teach is talk about the question: "Is Buddhism a philosophy or a religion?" And then I have the class create two columns on the blackboard: one listing the characteristics of religion, and the other listing characteristics of philosophy. And then we try to see how Buddhism fits in. For both concepts, some things about Budhism fit, and some things don't.
Brian
Re: Brian's comment - I've had this argument several times. I refer to one of my dictionaries which defines Buddhism as one of the three great religions. No one could "read" you out Dr. Science - perhaps "ignorant" was a bit too harsh. No offense to you or anyone else with a differing opinion, but Buddhis is a religion, a philosopy and practice.
Charles
Posted by: Charles at March 11, 2005 09:39 AM