Buddhism: Religion, Philosophy, or what?
Some people say Buddhism is not really a religion, though I know some monks who would beg to differ. Here’s what my dictionary says about religion:
1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. 2. a particular system of faith and worship. 3. a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion.
The first definition certainly does not fit Buddhism, since there is no all-powerful superman waiting to part the waters, and the second only fits if we define what Buddhists do as worship—so maybe. The third one is frivolous, in the sense that ‘consumerism is the new religion’, but maybe somewhat accurate, especially in the case of ever-trendy Amerika, where Buddhism is currently a hot topic, but where much, if not most, of the information disseminated about it, is limited, or misapplied, or downright inaccurate…
Wikipedia Commons
Others say Buddhism is a philosophy. So what does philosophy mean? Here’s the skinny on that:
1. the study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. 2. a theory or attitude that acts as a guiding principle for behavior.
The first definition is accurate, of course, from an academic standpoint, whether you’re talking Western philosophy or Eastern, as long as you want to discuss the Buddhist concepts of non-self, impermanence, emptiness, mind-only, and non-existence in the same way that you’d discuss the Western concepts of idealism, materialism, empiricism, rationalism or non-existence…
The problem is that most people don’t want to get bogged down in arcane metaphysics. They want some feel-good motivational talk and the appropriate obeisances in response, no debate nor delirium, just devotion. The second definition is getting somewhere, though, and a good starting point for many beginning Buddhists, attracted to the principles of non-ego, non-possession and non-aggression…
There’s more to it than that, though, much more, like this definition:
A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, political, ideological, or a combination of these.
Bingo: belief system, that’s the phrase we’re looking for, something that covers the totality of a system of thought and action that ranges from temple worship to philosophical speculation to late-night psychological recriminations to early-morning meditations. And that meditation is ‘bed-rock’, for me at least, not the vestigial historical baggage of rebirth, past lives, karma, or even nirvana…
Nirvana for me is like the invisible vanishing point behind the board that you want to crack with your bare fist in one striking karate chop, which by aiming for, you crush every thing in its path, that is: the board, but not the actual point aimed for. And so it is for Nirvana, in my humble opinion, largely unattainable, but supremely aim-able, in the process of which you have accomplished much in this life besides the obligatory suffering…
More important, for me at least, is the relationship between science and religion, especially this religion-philosophy-psychology-technique of Buddhism, that has been burdened with the baggage of elder brother Hinduism from the get-go. It’s almost like Ishmael the Abrahamic other brother with big ideas and a soft spot for sore spots, so Buddhism is likewise forced to carry water for the Brahmins, including rebirth and past lives, not-so-noble births with somebody else’s wives, everything but the caste system, just its back-story, just in case, ‘cuz you never know…
But rebirth and past lives are totally at odds with science, and totally unnecessary also, for Buddhism, just there for no good reason but to satisfy the superstitious need for predetermination and the pernicious requirements of latent racism. But that’s another story. I love science and I think the Buddha did, too, or would have, if there had been any. But there was math, and India was at the head of it, they with their zero, shunya, centuries before anyone else…
And there was philosophical narrative, so I think that by now the Buddha would be ready to ditch rebirth in favor of DNA. If we need an article of faith to qualify as faith, then I’m fine with karma in this life: simply do good, and you will receive goodness. That’s easy because there is a scientific basis in the statistical principles of innoculation and vaccination. Only 90% of the people need the shot for everyone to be vaccinated, and that can be drawn on a graph…
So does Science pick up where Religion leaves off or vice-versa: does religion pick up where science leaves off; that is: which comes first? That’s probably not a fair question, as they both have their proper fields of concern. Suffice it to say that there is probably a shifting border of spheres of influence, subject to the accomplishments and failures of each, science or religion, in explaining what is most important to the majority of the faithful: why are we here? Where did we come from? What do we do now? I persevere…
Terborn Zult, and 
streaming consciousness... 
Dave Kingsbury 2:57 pm on January 15, 2018 Permalink |
I like the resonance between ‘unattainable’ and ‘aim-able’ – the whole piece is down-to-earth and easy to relate to. Science, according to the guy who wrote The Golden Bough, superseded Magic because both offer ways of influencing the world – where Religion asks for the intercession of higher forces. Not sure where Buddhism fits in to that, suppose it depends which variety one goes for …
hardie karges 7:51 pm on January 15, 2018 Permalink |
“Before Joseph Campbell became the world’s most famous practitioner of comparative mythology, there was Sir James George Frazer…(and) The Golden Bough”, been on my ‘to-read’ list for 50 years, maybe I should do that now as part of some MA research, thx, Dave. No, there need be no disputes between Science and Buddhism, or any religion, for that matter IMHO. I don’t want to have to make a choice… and that is the great challenge, to make those details fit. It won’t be easy, but I do think that Buddhism has the ability to do it, what with its flexible doctrine, if it only has the will to do it. Predestination is attractive–and easy, just not a defensible position for me…
Terborn Zult 2:57 pm on January 28, 2018 Permalink |
Not bad; the progression from religion(s) to one or several non-religious belief systems is already a step in the right direction, because it allows the “believer” to be in favor of certain principles without having to submit to some entity that is supposed to be somehow intrinsically “higher” than humans or human thinking. So, it’s a step away from mental slavery. If this step is done seriously and systematically, it not only leads to kicking out all superstition, but also to seeing the simple fact that, after all, non-religious ethical “belief” boils down to nothing more than having a certain preference for some principles and guidelines over others. With no mysticism needed to “justify” those principles and guidelines.
However, care needs to be taken to avoid religious mysticism’s sneaking back in through the backdoor. Any assorted principles and guidelines adorned with a halo of absolute value or truth would risk becoming a new religion, as any claim of absoluteness is a sure-fire indicator of creeping religification and transformation into a new mysticism.
Already during the 19th century, then during the first few post-WWII decades, there was a danger of religification of science in the mind of the general (non-scientific) public, frequently promoted by preposterous “science” journalists and other (usually financial) wannabe profiteers from scientific success. Whereas all serious science is a completely relative enterprise, with no fix points being fixed eternally.
In other words, after the downfall of open and direct religion, it is necessary to oppose covert and indirect religion, i.e., all forms of religification, be they applied to scientific methods and results, philosophical considerations, cultural, political, economic or ecologic theories and principles, moral principles, or whatever. Sooner or later, any re-religification would result in fresh mental slavery – by sliding the “believer” back to “self-imposed immaturity” (see I. Kant: “Enlightenment is man’s emergence from his self-imposed immaturity’). Of course, reading and analyzing religious texts and traditions with a critical mind is neither religion nor mysticism; nor is the extraction of inspirations from those.
Since the word “belief” is still tainted by its religious past, it would be preferable to use a different word for all forms of non-religious “belief”. Something like “conviction”, “convincement”, “opinion”, “paradigm” or so would be less ambiguous, because none of these should invoke submission to anything other than critical human reasoning. Because the latter is the most fundamental baseline of all attempts to understand “why are we here? Where did we come from? What do we do now?” – if that’s really the goal (as pointed out in the post above). The rest is history.
hardie karges 3:12 am on January 29, 2018 Permalink |
We’re pretty much on the same page then. Yes, I would like to see Buddhism get rid of all superstitions and irrational ‘beliefs’, especially since that was one of the great selling points 2500 years ago, back when the Hindus were still sacrificing animals. Rebirth is the tough one, for some reason. It seems people are very attached to their past and future lives. Being diplomatic about it, I plead ignorant, and agnostic, in order to promote ‘this life’ Buddhism. Thanks for your comments.