PSA: Buddhism is a religion

[Anonymous]

In the "can christians do yoga?" thread, a self-proclaimed "Buddhist Christian" jumped in and asserted that Buddhism isn't a religion, it's a philosophy. This is one of the most widespread misconceptions about Buddhism in the West, and it's especially promoted by evangelical/militant atheists like Sam Harris. It's fine to practice Buddhism and be an atheist, but it's incorrect to state that Buddhism itself is atheistic - as a friend of mine (who is an actual sworn Buddhist nun) says, "Buddhism isn't atheistic, it's un-theistic." So if you think "Buddhism isn't a religion", this public service announcement is for you.

Buddhism and Hinduism are both vulnerable to an extremely Abrahamic-centric view of religion, which Westerners often use as justification for selectively appropriating or for outright saying that Buddhism or Hinduism aren't religions. It's based on an inherent, biased, chauvinistic assumption that the gold standard for defining religion is the standard by which monotheistic, Abrahamic religions are defined: one God, one prophet, one central religious text, one unifying doctrine.

A religion can be a religion without having these things.

Buddhism is about achieving a state of transcendence. This does not require belief in a creator deity, but it does require belief in consciousness being separate from the mind - an eternal consciousness that transcends physical reality, that reincarnates from body to body, that eventually dissolves in the void of nirvana. Buddhists speak of attaining nirvana in exactly the same way that a God-worshipping person speaks of attaining heaven, or union with God. This is a belief that exists in both Mahayana and Theravada Buddhism (the two big categories of Buddhism, each of which contains multiple schools - for example, His Holiness the Dalai Lama is the leader of the Gelugpa school of Tibetan Mahayana Buddhism). As an aside, the fact that the Dalai Lama is addressed as "His Holiness" and has the status equivalent to the Pope in Tibetan Buddhism is itself an argument in favor of Buddhism being an actual religion.

From the Buddha Zen Tumblr:

According to giants in the field of religion, like Ninian Smart and Huston Smith, Buddhism very much is a religion. It fits perfectly with the traditional Smartsian model of a religion.

All religions are composed of more than a mere belief system. Indeed, a belief system is only one of the total seven components of religion, according to the Smartsian model. All religions have: 1) ritual, 2) myth (sacred stories), 3) doctrine, 4) ethic, 5) social structure or institution, 6) materials–e.g. churches, sacred objects, iconography, etc., and finally and most importantly 7) experience–whether or not a religion is meaningful to the individual, and deeply strikes him emotionally [1].
Buddhism possesses every single of these qualities. Here are some examples:

1) Ritual - meditation, chanting, praying, holidays like Vesak (Buddha’s Birthday)
2) Myth (Sacred Stories) - the story of the Buddha’s life and path to enlightenment.
3) Doctrine - metaphysical concepts like rebirth and karma
4) Ethics - some of which are laid out in the Eightfold Path [1][2], particularly Right Speech, Right Action, Right Livelihood, etc.
5) Social Structure and/or Institution - clearly exemplified by the Sangha, which is the community of monks and lay people.
6) Materials - from structures like stupas, which are said to house sacred objects in Buddhism, to everyday objects like mandalas, prayer beads, statues, etc.
7) Personal Experience - devotees from all over the world can attest to the emotional comfort and efficacy that this 2,500+ religion provides.
So now you know! Buddhism has a lot more to offer than mere metaphysical speculation and an ethics system. It’s much more than that. It’s a religion that can be a way of living and make your life meaningful.

Further reading:
Why Buddhism is a religion, not just a philosophy

As a social construct, Buddhism has evolved as a religious way of life in India and Nepal (where it was born) and in the countries where it spread to. Traditional Buddhists - as opposed to Westerners who are recently beginning to appropriate the teachings of the Buddha - have always considered their faith a religion. Even Zen Buddhists, who in the nineteenth century attended the World Parliament of Religions along with Swami Vivekananda, a famous Hindu monk. The Zen Buddhists of 1893 didn't plonk themselves down in Chicago with the disclaimer: "We're just here to talk about the mind and a way of life, we're not actually a religion." Their argument was actually the opposite - they were of the opinion that Japanese Mahayana Buddhism was a great world religion, and they saw the spread of Christianity in Japan as a religious threat to Buddhism.

Traditional South Asian Buddhism has always honored deities, many of whom are closely interlinked with Hindu deities. It is an integral part of traditional Buddhist cosmology (by the way, Buddhism has a cosmology). Deities are explicitly acknowledged to exist in a polytheistic sense of, although worship of these deities is not encouraged - with certain exceptions, of course. These deities are not considered creators of the universe, and these deities are also considered to be on their own path of spiritual evolution - in Buddhism, even gods are just souls like us on a more advanced level as they move towards nirvana. However, despite Buddhism never requiring worship of these deities, they nevertheless are prayed to. Some of the most beautiful prayers to the goddess of learning and knowledge, Saraswati, were written by Buddhists of the Gelugpa school. Yama, the death god, is honored in both Hinduism and Buddhism. Devotional activity therefore exists in traditional Buddhism, not only in India but also in China and Japan - especially in Japan, where often the Shinto religion and Buddhism bleed together. Belief and faith, the two foundational stones of any religious practice, are also foundations in Buddhism.

By the way, if you this socio-cultural context isn't relevant to whether or not a set of teachings can be considered a religion, be prepared to acknowledge that Christianity, Islam and Judaism aren't religions either.

Buddhism believes in six realms of reincarnation, in traditional Buddhist cosmology: the realm of hell, the realm of ghosts, the realm of animals, the realm of asuras, and the realm of heaven. Heaven is still a place of reincarnation, it is not nirvana but merely a very enjoyable place for rebirth. You move between realms of existence based on your karma, your actions, and your movement is conceptualized as the wheel of samsara that is common to all the Dharma religions - Sikhism, Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism.

To say that Buddhism isn't a religion is to show a very infantile understanding of what religion is, and it also shows a certain cultural arrogance that presumes only an Abrahamic model can adequately define a religion.

[Anonymous]

OP again. The other argument that the naysayers use is something like this: "Well I know a Buddhist who says it's just a philosophy of the mind for him." Well, I know a Christian who says Jesus isn't the only way to God - her name is Oprah.

There are a lot of Christians who think that Jesus isn't the only way or the only truth. Does that suddenly invalidate Christianity as a religion? Does that suddenly mean that I can argue that the central tenets of Christianity - that Jesus is the Son of the Father and the only way to the Father is through Jesus - no longer exists? Of course not.

In terms of legal definitions, Buddhism fulfills almost every criterion the United States Internal Revenue Service uses to define a religion for tax purposes.

Returning to the big problem about Westerners having a narrow definition of "God" (that it can only be conceptualized in an Abrahamic context), when you apply such a narrow definition of what a deity should be, you not only invalidate Buddhism, you also invalidate a bunch of Western pagan religions like the ancient Celtic religion and the ancient Norse religion, and you also invalidate the Shinto religion of Japan. Buddhism is atheistic and polytheistic, just like Hinduism is many 'theisms tied together. These faith traditions do not have to conform to a Western template in order to be religions.

This is not to say you can't borrow what you like. Are you a fan of Buddhist mindfulness meditation but you want to remain Christian/Muslim/whatever? Sure you can practice mindfulness and still be a Christian or a Muslim. You can benefit from these techniques without turning Buddhism itself into some pop culture, feel-good, New Age way of life, because that's not what the Buddha Dharma is.

The sad thing about history is that Buddhism likely would not have survived in the West if it had not been stripped down to sparkly New Age bullshit and/or promoted strictly as a science. This is part of the trend that has grossly misinterpreted a whole host of dharmic concepts, from what karma is (no, shouting "karma!" when your sworn enemy falls off a cliff isn't accurate) to what chakras are. Buddhism has been grossly watered down to suit the comfort levels of white Christians or ex-Christians who, for all they may call themselves "Buddhist", would likely feel grossly uncomfortable if they saw traditional Buddhists lighting incense in prayer to Shakyamuni Buddha, or even worse, chanting hymns to a wrathful Dharmapala.

[Anonymous]

I would like to add: Buddhism has nothing to do with yoga.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I would like to add: Buddhism has nothing to do with yoga.

OP here. Yoga wasn't even brought up in this thread. Links between Buddhism and yoga weren't the issue I was arguing, just the links between Buddhism and what can be considered a religion.

[Anonymous]

Well done OP, so ask Jeff in the website forum to lock your thread so no one can argue your very obvious point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Well done OP, so ask Jeff in the website forum to lock your thread so no one can argue your very obvious point.

[Anonymous]

I wouldn't worry about this, OP.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't worry about this, OP.

Thank you, I try to remind myself of this usually.

[Anonymous]

Some forms of Buddhism IS atheistic.

[Anonymous]

What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some forms of Buddhism IS atheistic.

OP here, and yes I agree. Buddhism is actually "atheistic" in the Western notion of it not believing in a creator or a universal cosmic consciousness. Some forms of Buddhism don't adhere to traditional cosmology either. Zen Buddhism (Chan Buddhism), which has a heavy influence of Taoism, is compatible with other non-Buddhist faith practices. Even then, the foundational principle of Zen Buddhism is the discover that the core of all humanity (or the essence) is the Buddha, to awaken to their Buddha-nature. You can practice Zen Buddhism without wanting to discover your Buddha-nature but the fact is that it has this goal at its core, while remaining atheistic.

Here's the thing. Buddhism being a religion doesn't mean you can't study it, learn from it, or use its teachings or methods to enrich your own life as an atheist. It also doesn't mean a practitioner of another religion can't study and learn from Buddhism. The issue is saying that "You can learn from Buddhism because it's not a religion."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What did the Buddhist say to the hot dog vendor?

Make me one with everything.

[Anonymous]

Can you please tell me more about the doctrinal quality of Buddhism? It's #3 on the list of 7 qualities of a religion. I'm Unitarian Universalist and I'm wondering if we "fail" as a religion on this point. anyway, Karma and rebirth are listed above as Buddhist doctrines-- does that mean that you can't be a Buddhist unless you believe in karma and rebirth? Any other doctrines you must believe in? Who defines the parameters of such doctrines?

thanks-- I'm a Californian and I have been raised with so many wrong ideas about Buddhism that I fear it will take me a long time to correct myself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Can you please tell me more about the doctrinal quality of Buddhism? It's #3 on the list of 7 qualities of a religion. I'm Unitarian Universalist and I'm wondering if we "fail" as a religion on this point. anyway, Karma and rebirth are listed above as Buddhist doctrines-- does that mean that you can't be a Buddhist unless you believe in karma and rebirth? Any other doctrines you must believe in? Who defines the parameters of such doctrines?

thanks-- I'm a Californian and I have been raised with so many wrong ideas about Buddhism that I fear it will take me a long time to correct myself.

OP here, so sorry for this late reply, I had not been keeping an eye on the thread!

That's great that you want to know more about Buddhism! There's no need to feel guilty about getting concepts wrong as long as you aren't consciously doing it because it's "easier to swallow" - the vehemence of my original post was really a response to the deliberate, fingers-in-the-ears, "la la la I can't hear you!" attitude that some Western "Buddhists" take when called out on something like this, and probably because DCUM - the Internet itself, really - is a place where you wonder if you need to shout to be heard. But as long as you are being mindful and respectful in your approach to learning about Buddhism, that's really all that matters; and your attitude is great!

Well, acceptance of karma and reincarnation is a central tenet of Buddhism, it's just that the definition of reincarnation changes. In Tibetan Buddhism alone, for example, the less evolved aspirant has no control over the place, time, or circumstances of the next birth. The more evolved aspirants, who have growth through compassion and destruction of their egos, choose the time and place of their rebirths, and also reincarnate less frequently.

The tricky thing here is that another central tenet of Buddhism is that there is no self. Adi Shankaracharya wrote in his treatises that one of the distinguishing characteristics of Buddhism, which separated it from its parent religion Hinduism, was that Buddhism believes there is no self, while Hinduism does believe in a self. This creates a paradox: how can reincarnation happen when there is no self? This is another argument that some atheists use to argue that reincarnation can't be a part of Buddhism. But the deeper metaphysics of Buddhism are lost on the atheist when they argue this.

This is a really hard-to-explain topic, and if I want to explain it properly without diluting it into fluff like so many New Age practitioners do, I would need to write a book. I will say that if you really want to see two Buddhists get into a ferocious argument, ask them to define what the "self" is.

The common, nutshell explanation: No self exists, but attachment exists. The attachment is consciousness, which is thoughts, feelings, perceptions, reactions, everything that goes on in the "mind", basically. The attachment to these mind-qualities is what causes karma, which is external (physical reality) action, as opposed to kriya, which is internal (causal reality) action. Attachment to the mind-qualities --> karma --> illusory consciousness carries over into a new body.

If no self exists, who is attaching themselves to mind-qualities? Where does this consciousness come from? Books have been written examining this paradox and how it all leads back to anatta, but the "no self" remains a fundamental doctrine in Buddhist thought - it's just that the way to explain and conceptualize that changes, much like how Christians of all denominations agree that salvation leads to Heaven, but disagree on how salvation is obtained.

Karma and reincarnation are also part of Gautama Buddha's original teachings (in the Pali Canon), and he is the source of all Buddhist thought. So yeah, I would say that despite differences of opinion over how karma and reincarnation are conceptualized, along with the "no self", they are core teachings of Buddhism.

Re: Unitarian Universalism, I think you could probably argue that it is a real religion, just a new/young religion. Theological frameworks build slowly, and intermingling and mixing is a part and parcel of that. Unitarian Universalism's "parent" is Christianity (correct me if I'm wrong), just as Buddhism's "parent" is Hinduism. Buddhism is sometimes unfairly stereotyped as Hinduism stripped down and boiled in a bag, but there is evidence that Buddhism's separation from Hinduism actually influenced the way Hinduism itself later developed - so really, they both influenced each other.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Can you please tell me more about the doctrinal quality of Buddhism? It's #3 on the list of 7 qualities of a religion. I'm Unitarian Universalist and I'm wondering if we "fail" as a religion on this point. anyway, Karma and rebirth are listed above as Buddhist doctrines-- does that mean that you can't be a Buddhist unless you believe in karma and rebirth? Any other doctrines you must believe in? Who defines the parameters of such doctrines?

thanks-- I'm a Californian and I have been raised with so many wrong ideas about Buddhism that I fear it will take me a long time to correct myself.

OP here, so sorry for this late reply, I had not been keeping an eye on the thread!

That's great that you want to know more about Buddhism! There's no need to feel guilty about getting concepts wrong as long as you aren't consciously doing it because it's "easier to swallow" - the vehemence of my original post was really a response to the deliberate, fingers-in-the-ears, "la la la I can't hear you!" attitude that some Western "Buddhists" take when called out on something like this, and probably because DCUM - the Internet itself, really - is a place where you wonder if you need to shout to be heard. But as long as you are being mindful and respectful in your approach to learning about Buddhism, that's really all that matters; and your attitude is great!

Well, acceptance of karma and reincarnation is a central tenet of Buddhism, it's just that the definition of reincarnation changes. In Tibetan Buddhism alone, for example, the less evolved aspirant has no control over the place, time, or circumstances of the next birth. The more evolved aspirants, who have growth through compassion and destruction of their egos, choose the time and place of their rebirths, and also reincarnate less frequently.

The tricky thing here is that another central tenet of Buddhism is that there is no self. Adi Shankaracharya wrote in his treatises that one of the distinguishing characteristics of Buddhism, which separated it from its parent religion Hinduism, was that Buddhism believes there is no self, while Hinduism does believe in a self. This creates a paradox: how can reincarnation happen when there is no self? This is another argument that some atheists use to argue that reincarnation can't be a part of Buddhism. But the deeper metaphysics of Buddhism are lost on the atheist when they argue this.

This is a really hard-to-explain topic, and if I want to explain it properly without diluting it into fluff like so many New Age practitioners do, I would need to write a book. I will say that if you really want to see two Buddhists get into a ferocious argument, ask them to define what the "self" is.

The common, nutshell explanation: No self exists, but attachment exists. The attachment is consciousness, which is thoughts, feelings, perceptions, reactions, everything that goes on in the "mind", basically. The attachment to these mind-qualities is what causes karma, which is external (physical reality) action, as opposed to kriya, which is internal (causal reality) action. Attachment to the mind-qualities --> karma --> illusory consciousness carries over into a new body.

If no self exists, who is attaching themselves to mind-qualities? Where does this consciousness come from? Books have been written examining this paradox and how it all leads back to anatta, but the "no self" remains a fundamental doctrine in Buddhist thought - it's just that the way to explain and conceptualize that changes, much like how Christians of all denominations agree that salvation leads to Heaven, but disagree on how salvation is obtained.

Karma and reincarnation are also part of Gautama Buddha's original teachings (in the Pali Canon), and he is the source of all Buddhist thought. So yeah, I would say that despite differences of opinion over how karma and reincarnation are conceptualized, along with the "no self", they are core teachings of Buddhism.

Re: Unitarian Universalism, I think you could probably argue that it is a real religion, just a new/young religion. Theological frameworks build slowly, and intermingling and mixing is a part and parcel of that. Unitarian Universalism's "parent" is Christianity (correct me if I'm wrong), just as Buddhism's "parent" is Hinduism. Buddhism is sometimes unfairly stereotyped as Hinduism stripped down and boiled in a bag, but there is evidence that Buddhism's separation from Hinduism actually influenced the way Hinduism itself later developed - so really, they both influenced each other.

Thanks for the response! Very interesting! One of the few religious experiences I've had is when the Dalai Lama was visitng DC and there was huge prayer group on the Mall. At some point I fel tI had lost my "self" and felt truly a part of the crowd. But in my day to day life, I certainly feel more like an individual than an element of the whole, so I suppose I'd make a bad Buddhist-- especially as I am very much OK with that.

Regarding UU-- I suppose one could say that its belief system is actually very old-- pre-Nicean Creed when "it was decided" that to be Christian you had to believe in the Trinity. Those early Christians that argued against this requirement (and there were many) were early Unitarians. And UU churches can touch on many early religions, not just Christianity. So the lack of "years in service" I wouldn't say is what makes UU questionable as a religion-- it's the lack of a required common belief. I consider it a religion as I go every Sunday and I sit in a pew and tithe and listen to hymns and sermons that very much inspire me to be a better person and do good in the world. My kids attend Sunday School and learn about not only previous UU leaders, but other religious leaders and traditions of many faiths. (I was raised Methodist, so I expect my kids will understand far more about Buddhism that I do!) Anyway, that feels like religion to me. But if the technical definition requires a common belief, maybe it isn't. Rather than give answers, UU churches say "we aren't really sure-- but we support you as ask your questions."