This post may come off a little opinionated, and I fully admit that I have strong opinions about the subject, but this is something I have needed to say for awhile. To all my 3 readers, bare with me. I do have a reasonable point, obviously my own opinion, and it's time I shared it with all of you... and you... and you over there in the corner.
A story first, to help illuminate the issue. I have a Burmese friend who posted on facebook that Buddhism was a peaceful religion yesterday, an American then replied to the post and said Buddhism is not a religion but a "way of life". I have so many problems with this reply that I am honestly unsure of what to type next...
Let us just start with my Burmese friend, whose English is very good. She was genuinely confused and asked me if she was missing something. I had to tell her that some westerners don't think Buddhism is a religion. I got the same response I have gotten from many other Asians when saying this, "Why would they think that?" I had to tell her I didn't know. This is an issue that I have been dealing with my whole life. I was raised a Buddhist and went to a Thai temple in America growing up. Of course Buddhism was a religion, this was not even a question. However, about the time I started college, I started coming into contact with many Buddhists my own age. I guess this is the first time I heard the all too common phrase, "Buddhism is not a religion."
I was as confused as my Burmese friend. I would ask, "Why would you say that?" I got several responses, none very coherent. I got responses that the Buddha said he didn't want his teachings to become a religion. I am very sorry to anyone that thinks the Buddha said this, he did not. In fact, he set up the Sangha quite similar to any religion to go out and teach people so that his teachings would survive long after he died. He envisioned his teachings to last well over 1000 years, as a structured belief system, eg four noble truths, eightfold path.
I got responses like- you don't need faith to believe in the Buddha's teachings. I am sorry again, I deeply apologize for ruining your day, you do, in fact, require faith in order to believe the Buddha's teachings. I can already picture people reading this and disagreeing, the Kālāma Sutta ready at hand as they formulate an argument. The Kālāma Sutta is one of the most misunderstood suttas in the Pali Canon, it is actually a lesson on faith, you can read my post about the subject here. Saddhā is one of the defining factors of a wholesome consciousness, it is also one of the 5 powers and 5 factors for a wholesome existence within the Dhamma. The Buddha discusses Saddhā at length several times throughout the Tipitaka as a necessary quality of anyone hoping to be liberated. Saddhā is Pali for faith, yes, faith. Some translators have tried to translate it as conviction, however, the most accepted translations are faith. I suspect that the attempt, and not a very convincing one, to translate Saddhā as conviction was because of this western mentality that religion is bad, and hence, faith must be too. Regardless, the meaning of Saddhā is most assuredly faith.
I got responses like- Buddhism is a science, not a religion. I still hear this argument all the time. I completely agree that Buddhism is a very rational religion with a surprising amount of emphasis on empirical experience. However, that is all done within an overarching structure of reality that requires belief, a reality that one must have faith in. These beliefs include rebirth, kamma, and many others. You can read more about this particular subject here.
Lastly, I got the response that Buddhism doesn't have a god. Here I will concede the point. No, Buddhism does not have a god, and if being a religion means the belief must have a god, then I suppose Buddhism is, in fact, not a religion. However, I don't think that is a concrete definition of religion.
If one were to look up religion in a Dictionary, they would find a belief in the superhuman. While I do believe Buddhism fits this model, the Dhamma is most certainly superhuman, I don't think it is a very good definition of religion.
Religion is a cultural model of faith, tradition and community. Things Buddhism is in abundance of.
One standard definition of religion, used in academia all over the world, is that of anthropologist Clifford Geertz, who simply defined it as "a cultural system".
Furthermore, French sociologist Emile Durkheim explains why Buddhism is a religion, "In default of gods, Buddhism admits the existence of sacred things, namely, the fours noble truths and the practices derived from them."
I suspect that much of the West's insistence that Buddhism is not a religion comes from an unsavory view of their own Christian culture. A faulty line of reasoning seems to occur-
Christianity is a religion
Christianity is bad
Therefore, religion is bad.
I have even run into some westerners that think the culture of Buddhism in South East Asia is not real Buddhism! (I have a post on that here). Excuse me, I really don't see that anyone who is relatively new to the religion, and has probably not read many books on the subject, can possibly say that a whole culture of people is practicing their own religion wrong. A common response to that is- it is not the Buddhism the Buddha would have wanted. Maybe not, though I don't think many of the western people complaining about Asian Buddhism have any idea what kind of Buddhism the Buddha wanted either, and are certainly not in the position to tell cultures that have been Buddhist for more than 1000 years what to believe.
Some people may also claim that religion has done atrocities and is a bad thing in itself. Great point. Absolutely religion has done wrong, much of the world's suffering can be laid at its feet. Every single religion has committed atrocities, including Buddhism. And before I hear another claim that Buddhism is too peaceful to be a religion, please look into its history, the Third Buddhist Council was a slaughter, and into the present day state of Buddhism. The violence and brutality in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, and the Southern Thai border are very real things.
Another point I need to make is this idea that if the world had never had religion it would have somehow been more peaceful. Maybe, maybe not. There are no grounds to say this, people can be awful, with or without religion. There is no way to tell if the world would have been better without religion. In saying this, I am in no way excusing religion of its horrors, as a Buddhist monk I carry the weight of what Buddhism has done. I do not act like Buddhism is perfect and pretend terrible things didn't happen. To do so would be a great affront to Buddhism, turning it into a fake plastic construct of perfection. I have too much respect for the religion to even consider such folly.
I guess I will close by saying this, if you don't think Buddhism is a religion and insist on saying it is a "way of life," I have a few questions: What is the difference? Why do you care so much about whether it is or not? and finally, What gives you the authority, expertise or knowledge to say it is not a religion? If one still insists on saying it is not a religion, that is fine, no problem. Just do the whole world and Buddhism a favor, stop correcting other people... especially people that have been born and raised within a Buddhist culture.
Interesting post, and I'm sure you have more than 3 readers.
ReplyDeleteOver time, I have argued both sides of this question. Those westerners who think Buddhism is not a religion should live in a Buddhist country and experience how all-pervasive this way of life can be (calling it a "life style" would be so limiting -- what choices for example do Thais have in picking a way of life to live?). Calling it a science has just been a way to attract more adherents (this has a long history, from the 19th century onwards).
The problem begins when we use a made-up western term like "religion" and start to imagine that such things exist. This is reification -- if there's a word then there must be a thing. You're right that religion haters begin by hating Christianity and continue to hate any other religion. But non-Christians appropriated the term religion and all it connotes to copy Christian missionaries in order to evade their attempts to steal converts.
To prove Buddhism is a religion you bring up its institutionalisation and the word "faith." There are lots of institutions for activities other than religion (science, sports, government) so just starting one is not proof. (If the Sangha is just for monks, then Buddhism for laypeople cannot be a religion). And certainly there are religions without institutions, or very different ones (Islam has no pope). As for faith, the root meaning scholars have argued is more like "trust." I have faith that the sun will rise in the morning but this is not religious faith. I don't have faith that dead humans are reborn. Does that make it impossible for me to appreciate the Buddha's teaching?
I've always liked Geertz's definition of religion as culture. Scholar of religion Jonathan Z. Smith says that religion is no more or less than human activity, like games, superstitions and bachelor parties. I think it's an activity that deals with important questions of meaning and significant issues, but you don't need formal religion to do that.
I am convinced that there is no consensus on a definition of religion. There are only definitions, just like there are only religions in the plural. And I'm not talking about "Great" religions, another fiction.
This is my favorite topic. We may disagree, but that, my father used to say, is what makes horse racing!
Thanks for your comment Will. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. I hold religion as culture, faith in a teaching that is unprovable yet absolute, (I discussed this in my post about science), and tradition. Weak definition to be sure, but I never said it wasn't. If you were to establish the sun rising as a some kind of absolute teaching that we should shape our culture around, that the sun's rising is going to happen in an absolute sense beyond proof, then it would indeed be a religion in many ways (such as the new atheist's view of the material world and the method of science). I think all of that fits well within my argument. As far as institutionalised, I didn't say institutionalised, I said traditionally held and accepted belief structures, can you name me one religion that does not have that? As far as bringing up different structures religions may have, as you did with Islam, I never said that all the structures were the same. In fact, I was very clear that different cultures practice the same teachings in different ways.
ReplyDeleteYou not having faith in rebirth by no means implies you can't appreciate the Buddha's teachings, again, never suggested such a thing. Although, it does mean you don't appreciate his teachings of rebirth, let's not forget that.
You are most probably correct in saying that there is no consensus on a definition of religion, I could support that statement. However, if the word is used in the context of faith, tradition and culture, which it is in the context I pointed out above, then Buddhism is a religion. And arguments of faith, not in the sun rising as a most probable outcome, but in the absolute surety of a reality that is beyond proof (I have been pretty consistent with this usage), arguments of structure, again, I didn't use the word institutionalised, I said a tradition of structured belief, and arguments of science don't hold much weight. The same things that make Christianity a religion in this context makes Buddhism one as well (except for a creator god). I am fine with cautionary usage of the term religion, what I have problems with is a western misconception that puts Buddhism up on a delusional pedestal for all the wrong reasons. This neither helps Buddhism nor the millions who follow the religion.
Sorry if I brought up words you didn't use. This is a many-faceted issue and we've only touch on a few controversial points.
ReplyDeleteI also have problems with the word "absolute." It seems to require a standpoint outside human reality from which one could see and appreciate something beyond question. But one's person's "absolute" is too often another person's "relative." There are no absolutes in my perspective, everything is contingent, changing, historical and interpreted, and all through the use of language.
I would also agree that one person's absolute is another person's relative, and in the absolute sense there is no absolute, if you will (see what I did there). But that is in terms of individuals in relation to individuals from a very modern perspective. I think one of the defining aspects of faith, from a religious point of view, is this sense of absolutism, which is why it is such a controversial subject to begin with.
ReplyDeleteOne of the main points of the Dhamma is that it IS outside of human "reality," it IS paramattha (pali for absolute). You seem to be approaching this from personal perception of non-absolutism, I completely respect that. However, the Buddha did, in detail and extensively, teach of that which is absolute. This is part of the problem, people are defining Buddhism based on a modern perception, that is fine from a personal standpoint, but millions of Buddhists hold the Dhamma as absolute. This is a part of the original teachings, this is what the Buddha meant (traditional Buddha), this is a part of its belief structure. Again, individual interpretation is fine, that, however, does not change what the teachings are to millions of people, and that would be a religion (in the context used above).
I am only human and can only speak from a personal standpoint. Buddhists may believe the Buddha could experience what is called by some "absolute" and even teach about it, but I have my doubts (which I thought were more appreciated in Buddhism than in other religions). If Dhamma = Reality (I'm sure there are more nuances) than I would guess that language interpreting Dhamma is not Dhamma. Dhamma would be beyond language.
ReplyDeletePeople believe lots of things (the Flying Spaghetti Monster comes to mind) but that does not make them "true" (another socially constructed word). So we take a poll and what most people believe is the provisional truth? I don't think Thais struggle over belief like westerners do. Religion is not a matter of propositions, intellectual arguments or words in the head. Where this takes me, I'm not sure...!
I respect beliefs, even beliefs that are IMHO false, so long as no one is hurt and it promotes compassion and efforts toward ending suffering. That's as Buddhist as I get!
Another quality of the Dhamma is that it is beyond language, the Buddha stressed this many times. I am not going to be able to give a coherent lesson on what the Dhamma was as taught by the Buddha here, but I can tell you that Paramattha Dhammas are that which exists without interpretation, hence- absolute. This is what the Buddha taught. The many things people believe is not in question here,ie spaghetti monster, it is whether Buddhism should be considered a religion in the context specified. I think I have covered all your points as to why it shouldn't. It appears you keep attacking the problem from a modern perspective, again, that is fine. However, sorry to keep repeating myself, the Buddha taught of absolutes. I am glad you brought up language, he stressed that point too, language is conceptual, the Paramattha are not. There are indeed many nuances to the Dhamma, this quality is one of those nuances.
ReplyDeleteLet it be known, the Dhamma is not just some teaching that tells people to interpret the world as they wish. The Buddha's teachings did contain lessons of what exists beyond the comprehension of the human mind. Which is why one does not completely understand the Dhamma, till one is no longer a mere human, one must be an arahant.
Obviously believing in things doesn't make them "true". Nor does just talking about it. The Buddha said one does not understand the Dhamma till it is experienced, we can not understand it through language, he can only point the way. What we can understand though is that it can not be understood in a conventional sense, it is absolute, and it is based on faith, this is as the [traditional] Buddha taught it.
Also, at this point, I hope you understand that I am not trying to argue what the actualities of existence are, I am arguing what the Traditional Buddha taught, and why it is a religion, in the context specified.
ReplyDelete