Buddhism Is... (updated 23 Nov. 04) (updated 7 May, 2005, see below)

A practitioner or scholar of Buddhism learns quickly that there are numerous ways to define Buddhism, and that none of them can be both precise and all-encompassing. The first question on most peoples minds is whether or not Buddhism is a Religion, or if perhaps it is simply a rich form of philosophy, encompassing a system of ethics.

To begin I will give a definition of religion that I think is most helpful in the study of religions. This definition comes from Robert Oden. Ph.D., former Chair of the Department of Religion at Dartmouth University. His definition goes as follows [and I should note that he acknowledges borrowing and only slightly revising the definition given by H.H. Penner]:

I'll begin by discussing each of the 3 main parts of this definition and how Buddhism may in fact fit into them.

First, religion is a communication system. It is a way of communicating with others, both within and outside itself. Forms of communication include scriptures and oral stories of course, but also come in the form of dress and hygiene. Buddhism is certainly a rich source of communication through its 2500 year history. Most forms of Buddhism also prescribe dress codes to distinguish between lay and monastic followers, as well as hygienic rituals such as shaved or shortly cropped hair.

Next is the issue of supernatural beings. In the West when we think of "supernatural beings" we think of God, angels, Satan, etc. These are beings that, if we have embraced a purely scientific/secular world-view, we feel quite strongly do not exist. Dr. Oden defended this point by giving us a perhaps more toned down way of looking at supernatural beings. He says that Buddha fits this definition in a way by simply being extraordinary, or superhuman; by possessing traits that no other human possessed. This is where the crux of defining Buddhism as a religion or not comes in. If, on the one hand, you see the Buddha as having been within the bounds of normal humanity, aside from being perhaps an extraordinary human, and reject all stories of his birth, life, and death which denote a sort of superhuman presence, then you would be something of a secularist. In this case you may even consider yourself to be a Buddhist and I wouldn't argue with you, but you would be kind of a non-religious member of a religion. This is possible in perhaps only a very small number of religions, including Buddhism, that espouse that it is your practice, your way of living your life, and ultimately the insights that follow which make you a member of the religion (in the sense of 'being on the path'), as opposed to religions more familiar to us in the West such as Christianity and Islam that hold belief itself to be the key to membership (scholars describe this as a split between orthopraxis and orthodoxy, religions which urge 'right practice' vs those that urge 'right belief').

But, on the other hand, there are stories/myths of the Buddha's birth, life, and death that could lead to him being considered beyond the human plane. Even this, however, if you want to get into the pithy philosophy of Buddhism, is contestable. Nonetheless, for these purposes I will say that while Buddhists do not revere the Buddha as a God, he can be considered to have been above normal humanity.

A further difficulty in Dr. Oden's (and indeed all) definition of religion in terms of the supernatural is that it is a purely Western construct - this splitting the mundane from the divine. In Buddhism, and in most other non-Western thought systems, no sharp distinction can be made between mundane and divine; in fact the distinction itself may be meaningless! This is especially true in Tibetan traditions, which one may say stress the supernatural aspect of everything one experiences. In this case, the Buddha can emanate/manifest himself in myriad forms throughout the universe in order to help sentient beings realize their predicament and get 'on the path'. It is stressed that even people who appear to be a major pain in our lives (our boss, certain politicians, homeless people, etc) may be emanations of the Buddha trying to teach us something about patience, morality or compassion!

The third and final part of the definition is that of specific patterns of behavior. While the specific patterns do vary a bit from tradition to tradition [Theravada, Zen, Tibetan, etc], there certainly ARE specific patterns of behavior to be found in Buddhism. The one most commonly found is simply one form of meditation or another. Others include the practice of bowing, removing shoes in a shrine room or temple, and chanting.

So from this I feel we can confidently consider Buddhism to be a religion. And as such it is the 4th largest world religion with around 300-500 million followers worldwide. With this is may be appropriate to go into the history of Buddhism a bit, but I don't see myself as being capable of doing any more than regurgitating perfectly good historical accounts that can be found readily elsewhere. I also see little point in any discussion of the religion in the current day. I will, however, refer back to both the past and the current state of Buddhism in my following account of what I see it to be and what my views and hopes for it in the future are.

What Buddhism is: A starting point

7 May, 2005: Here is my own, very preliminary, sketch of what Buddhism is. It will certainly differ from the many other views out there today, as it is based largely on my own past experiences, my path to Buddhism. For more on that path, see my very short autobiography. Essentially, I approached Buddhism as a skeptic. My skepticism grew out of dissonance between my Catholic upbringing and my education in science. I became aware of people around me making absurd claims in the name of religion, as if they were unquestionable Truths of the world.

I first came to Buddhism at the same time that I began studying philosophy, principally ethics. I have tried to apply the same critical reasoning to my understanding of Buddhism that is demanded in philosophical discourse. I have since finished my degree in philosophy and have now completed the coursework for an MA in Buddhist Studies. My views have changed many many times over the course of the last five years, and I don't expect them to ossify now. So what follows, as with that which precedes, is merely a snapshot, and a fuzzy one at that, of my understanding of Buddhism.

To discuss what I've come to think Buddhism is, I will go point by point through the categories listed on the 'home' page: Psychologically Astute, Exploratory, Community Oriented, Socially and Ecologically Conscious, Experientially Based, Gender Equal, and Democratic and Egalitarian. Each is in a sense polemical, a starting point for argument or discussion, not to be taken as 'unquestionable Truths of the world'!

First is the claim that Buddhism is psychologically astute. This I pose in comparison to western liberal democratic culture in general. Buddhism stands on the truth of suffering, and works systematically to uncover the cause of suffering, the question of ending suffering, and the path to ending suffering. The Buddhist discussion of suffering (duhkha, not to be translated merely as suffering, but also as 'stress, angst, dissatisfaction, unsatisfactoriness, etc.') is, I believe, quite astute. One is urged to look inward, to such emotions as desire and anger/aversion as the more likely causes of unhappiness in the world (as opposed to the devil or other people). Further, one is told to examine their understanding of the world, urged to question his/her philosophical understanding of reality, as ignorance here is seen as the sine qua non of harmful desire and aversion. Though historically, and even contemporarily, many Buddhists do not practice meditation or look at their own emotions and understanding, instead relying on 'merit' by helping others (the monks) to do this, there is no reason why we should not heed the Buddhist advice:

"Not to do any evil,
To cultivate good,
To purify one's mind-
This is the advice of the Buddhas."
-- the Dhammapada (183)

Next, is the idea that Buddhism is somehow exploratory. This is not a unique aspect of Buddhism, of course, as one of my favorite philosophers, Socrates, has famously decreed much the same: "the unexamined life is not worth living" (see Plato's Apology). And again, historically, we can see many Buddhists who do not explore much at all. But the fourth great truth of Buddhism is the path to the cessation of suffering. Some may think that the term path implies blindly following the steps of the person in front of you, but this is emphatically not the case in Buddhism. It is very important in Buddhism that you don't accept things unless verifying them logically (I see smoke on the mountain; I know that smoke is the result of fire; I infer that there is a fire on the mountain) or directly (my pain, for instance is something I accept as real). In fact, the cause of ignorance is our taking things to exist or be real, which are not. We look at the 'book' in front of us and think there must be some kind of 'bookness' underneath the paper and ink there, but with some thought, some mental exploration, we come to realize that the 'book' really is nothing more than the paper and ink plus our mental attribution of 'book'. See Thich Nhat Hahn's "The Heart of Understanding" for a very good meditation/exploration on this idea.

Third is the question of whether Buddhism is community oriented. Here is one area where looking at the historical context is more helpful. Buddhism was born out of renunciates, people who completely gave up on society, dropped out, and sought higher realization on their own or under other renunciate teachers. In the society of the time, people openly supported such renunciates (cf. ancient Greece - you never know if the beggar at your door is an incarnate god), so as long as the renunciates didn't get into trouble or put too great a strain on the resources of a community, they would be looked after. There is evidence that with the rise of various schools of thought/religions in ancient India, there was indeed some strain on resources and renunciates needed to compete (to some extent) for food and support. In a sense, the community (lay people) relied on the renunciates for 'spiritual capital' in the same way that the renunciates relied on the lay people for 'material capital'.

In the present day, we can see similar tensions in who the laity support. Today in America most lay support probably goes to secular projects, which is in turn meant to support the people, bypassing religious hands altogether. Much also goes to religion though, by way of donations, tithing, etc. One thing that I believe contemporary Buddhists need to work on (and many, many are already) is benefiting the world around them. It is important to look to the building of shrines and temples and all of this, as these are good to expose people to Buddhism, but simple projects such as food kitchens, clothing donations, etc. will help to broaden the impact of Buddhists in communities.

Ultimately, each of us is urged to identify the pain of others as though it were our own pain. See Santideva's "Guide to the Bodhisattva's Way of Life". We must eventually see the suffering of others as though it were our own and take measures to help, just as urgently. Of course, as Santideva realized thirteen hundred years ago, one doesn't leap from self-centered delusion to social activist all at once. First we must being small, with carrots and potatoes (ie. start by giving small things away, things that you wont regret giving: a dollar a day or week, old clothing, old books, and carrots and potatoes).

Almost halfway there.

Fourth on our list is 'socially and ecologically conscious'. Perhaps the 'socially conscious' element is redundant, if we consider society and community to be much the same thing. Society does seem to relate to a larger sphere, in my mind at least; perhaps something more abstract than community. When I think of community, I think of things I can do in my day-to-day life: seeing my neighbors, picking up garbage on the sidewalk, writing a letter to the editor, etc. To relate in society I think we act as communities rather than as individuals. For instance, we can ask how our physical community relates to the larger (state/national) society or how our religious community relates to wider (intra/inter-faith dialogue) society.

Concerning Buddhism's ecological consciousness, I would heartily recommend "Buddhism and Ecology", a collection of essays dealing with contemporary Buddhist and ecological issues. One essay from the book you can read online here, from my former professor Dr. Alan Sponberg. This essay is very good for understanding a great deal of the complexity inherent in addressing this 2500 year old tradition. It also deals with the topics of equality/egalitarianism in a clear and critical way.

In my own experience, I think Buddhism provides the intellectual tools (interdependence primarily, also karma) to realize one's ecological responsibility and to act on this realization. Through seeing our effect on the environment and the environment's effect on us more clearly, it becomes imperative to improve both equally and rapidly. Does it make sense to destroy everything around you as you build up wealth or fame? Of course not. Those who don't see this are too narrowly focussed on the wealth or fame, blind to the forest for the trees, so to speak. It is all to easy in today's comfy western society to couch our happiness on getting something, using it, tossing it, and getting another (ie consumerism). But there are limits that we must pay attention to, both in the world and in our own psychological ability to be amused/made happy by simple sensory stimuli. Children are the easiest to amuse with new 'stuff', people like Socrates or the Buddha would likely have been neither amused with new toys nor angered when such toys broke or were taken away. You and I are in the middle (likely) and need to look at which direction we would like to go and how to get there.

Fifth is the claim that Buddhism is experientially based. I think this is another possible redundancy, after exploratory, but there might be a couple new points to be made. In Buddhism it can be said that ultimate truth is a matter of experiencing the world 'as it truly is'. This means digging through all of our cultural, societal, etc conceptual baggage and 'returning' to a direct awareness of the world. In Buddhism, this is not just philosophical talk, it is something TO BE DONE. It is done through meditation, hours and hours of meditation. Through sitting silently and observing our mind at work (without all of the world around to keep it somewhat pinned down), we see that our perceptions of the world are only made through a bit of a fog, or better, we see the world as though through a dirtied mirror. Meditation acts to clean that mirror, so that what we see is actually the world, 'as it truly is'.

Things are not to be taken on 'blind' faith ever in Buddhism. Faith is an important concept in Buddhism, but really the Buddhist term should be translated as 'confidence' which includes most importantly, self-confidence. If you don't believe that you can make progress in life, that you can overcome consumerism, destructive relationships, personal issues, etc, then you simply won't be able to. Confidence is the necessary first step (actually second, first you must realize there is a problem to overcome!). Through confidence and some meditation (if done properly) joy arises. You WILL experience something, and this gives more confidence, as you will have seen for yourself a bit of the result. Through further meditation you can move beyond joy (which is in a sense momentary) to a sustained joy (rapture), then to an overall feeling of calm happiness (like a child being hugged by his/her mother after a tough day, or a warm fire and a cup of hot chocolate after a winter day in Montana - point being that it fills your whole body with warmth and security). After this, if one maintains focus, one enters 'bliss', a sort of one-pointed version of the previous feeling (all of the goodness is condensed into a single point and your whole attention is suffused by this). Finally, one enters one-pointedness, where the 'good' quality of the prior sensation falls away and all that remains is the attention. Now one has accomplished the fourth jhana, or absorption, and is quite far on the Buddhist meditative path. From here one goes on, cognitively, to explore reality with this laser-like focus. One also develops the ability to 'call up' states of joy, rapture, bliss and concentration at will, which is extremely useful in city traffic or when working on a long essay. For an in-depth read on meditation, try "The Path of Purification/Visuddhimagga" by Buddhaghosa, a 6th century Sri Lankan monk.

Sixth, we have the concept of gender equality. This is probably the most difficult one to actually argue, as it seems that little in the world is 'truly' gender equal. Historically, there have been some cases where Buddhism has been greatly progressive (establishing an order of women renunciates in the 5th century BCE), but never can we see real argument for the 'equality' of women on a grand scale. There are stories of enlightened women (the Therigatha) in the Pali Canon. In later Buddhism, the concept of nonduality became prominent. We have stories of great siddhas (accomplished ones) who were women (though only three or four out of the well-known eighty-four mahasiddhas). Within nonduality, one can ask, "is your mind male or female?" in part as a real question, but also in part to get the practitioner to stop clinging to ways of identifying him or herself. (Big caveat: such questions are fairly advanced, and should be approached only by those who have strong confidence and 'self'-understanding. It is also important to have a skilled teacher to guide you through the ensuing philosophical/existential dilemmas.).

There are also major issues facing Buddhism as it moves into the West, from cultures were male dominance is not much questioned (perhaps an over generalization as Buddhism is coming from several nations, each with its own character), to the liberal democracy of the West where feminism has been strong for half a century. For a highly personal assessment of Tibetan Buddhism in the West, see this article by an American woman who spent over twenty years in Tibetan Buddhism (one moderate defence in reply is here, and a stronger defence is here, I have no intention at the moment of getting embroiled in this particular debate). If there is one thing I do know well about Buddhism, it is that it changes (sometimes dramatically) as it enters new cultures, so I am certain that we will see the feminist mentality of America play a strong part in the evolution of American Buddhism.

Last, but not least, is the concept of Buddhism being democratic and egalitarian. A pretty big claim for a religion/philosophy which originated and has continued in many monarchical/theocratic societies! But I think it is in many ways a fair claim to make. First, how is Buddhism democratic? First, Buddhism denies any 'innate' qualities in people: nobody is innately bad or innately a king, etc. This means we are equally capable of advancement in the world. Next, it could be said that the concept of Karma (Pali: kamma) is about as democratic a concept of justice as it gets. Your own intentional actions shape who you are and the world around you: if you are kind with selfless motivation, then the world will change, you will change, for the better; if you are cruel and selfish, then the world will change for the worse, people really will get nastier (to you). Does this mean that Buddhism urges or demands political democracy? No, and I think this should give us some pause. In a sense I would say that Buddhist principles are profoundly democratic, and yet at the same time I think Buddhism would not urge political democracy. Perhaps we could say that with the 'internal' democracy, the 'external' (and ultimately unreal, both in Buddhist terms and according to a great deal of contemporary political analysis, see especially this and other books by Jürgen Habermas) democracy is not an issue. That is my speculation, at least, and certainly something to think about. I am myself, and was even prior to Buddhist or philosophical studies, quite skeptical of democracy, as it appears to be at once a product of mass (and uncritical) consumptionand an ideological tool for war and oppression.

Calling Buddhism egalitarian is, again, perhaps more normative than descriptive. The essay here, from Dr. Alan Sponberg, takes a good look at the assertion of egalitarianism in Buddhism. In one sense there is clearly an understanding of hierarchy: being a person is 'better than' being a dog, being a man is better than being a woman. Much of this, however, is or at least could be, pragmatic. Being a man is better (in 5th century BCE India) because men can wander around half naked begging for food without (too much) worry of attack and/or possible rape. This is common sense, not patriarchialism. Such a stance is made clear in Tibetan Buddhism (and likely earlier though I'm not sure where exactly), where it is explained that being a human is better not 'innately' or because of any occult reasons. It is better because humans both suffer and can reason, so they can think about suffering and think about useful ways out of it. Animals suffer but don't understand their pain. They cannot infer causes or contemplate ways of escaping suffering. This dichotomy plays well amongst humans as well: people who never think about suffering seem to be those most prone to sudden ups and downs dictated by events around them, while people who do think about it a lot (Buddha and Socrates, let's say) remain calm and collected, in control of their emotions and reasoning faculties, despite the events around them.

Well, that wraps up my own basic thoughts on what Buddhism is, based on the categories I created almost two years ago. It is also important to remember that Buddhism is people: practitioners, theorists, scholars, seekers, and the rest. Some will be extremely good people (The Dalai Lama and Thich Nhat Hahn for instance), and some will be quite rotten. My view is that if we are rigorous and honest in our own intellectual and personal pursuits, then we will be able to spot the rotten apples rather easily and we will attract other hard working, good people. If we are egotistical, mean, greedy, and/or judgmental (characteristics that can remain in 'spiritual' people their whole lives) then we will continue to find ourselves with others of the same ilk.

It is nothing new that people want to find lasting happiness, flourishing. It is nothing new that people will look for that in the world around them. And it is nothing new that ultimately this will fail, that it is from our own minds that we must seek happiness. This is the teaching of all the Buddhas, the awakened ones.

home