May 30, 2015

It Needs Saying

Buddhism is not a philosophy, science, psychotherapy, or culture. It is a religion. David Brazier

It should not need saying. After all, it's obvious. Nonetheless it does need saying. It needs saying because it has been denied by so many people including many who are eminent and even some whose own roles, behavior, and faith contradict what they are saying. It needs saying clearly, that Buddhism is a religion.

Further, this is the right time to say it. The bandwagon of secularization of Buddhism has gradually gathered momentum to the point where it now threatens the whole basis of what the Buddha bequeathed us. Buddhism is becoming popular, but it is doing so in a form that is a new creation. This new creation is not the traditional Buddhism of Asia and it is not the Buddhism of Shakyamuni Buddha, the founder, either. This new creation is an artifact of modernity and postmodernity using elements abstracted from Buddhism, tailored to gain popularity by satisfying contemporary prejudice.

Having said that, we must add that there is nothing wrong with adaptation and creativity. Many of the new manifestations and applications of ideas and methods derived from Buddhism are intrinsically valuable and can stand on their own feet. Buddhism is like a copious spring, the water from which can be gathered and poured into many different shaped containers. What is problematic, however, is that the reductionist philosophy by which such artifacts are being generated threatens to poison the spring from which the water is flowing. It is a kind of asset stripping, or, we could say, it is like taking the fruit while killing the root.

The basic reductionist principle that informs this process is itself the opposite of dharma. It is precisely the kind of blindness that dharma teaching exists to awaken us from. This is why a warning bell needs to be sounded.

I have played a role in the propagation and popularization of Buddhist psychology so I have a personal part in this process. As somebody who could be seen to be one of the culprits I have, perhaps, a double onus to keep the record straight. Buddhism developed a sophisticated psychological approach two thousand years before the modern world discipline of psychology was invented. Psychological investigations have gone on throughout Buddhist history and the result is a gold mine of knowledge, experience, theory, and practice from which we contemporary people can learn a great deal, but although Buddhism has given rise to this treasure, Buddhism is not fundamentally or exclusively a psychology.

My contention is not that we should return to a past that is now irretrievable. It is that while accepting that Buddhism is changing at a cultural level and finding new forms of expression and organization, we should acknowledge that it is more than merely an expression of modernity using elements of Asian terminology. The most forceful way of doing this is to acknowledge that it is more than a way of life, more than a philosophy, more important and profound than a mere cultural artifact—that it is a religion.

Buddhism is commonly said to be about relieving or abolishing suffering. This can be taken as a worthy humanitarian goal that could have little to do with religion. A methodology that overcomes suffering by training the mind is a psychotherapy. There is, thus, a case to be made that Buddhism is a psychotherapy, and if one were to take abolishing suffering, or achieving happiness, as the goal of Buddhism, then one could claim that Buddhism is primarily, or even nothing other than, such therapy. Such a line of rhetoric can then be used to integrate Buddhism within the frame of modern, secular hedonistic ideas. Doing so, however, involves discarding most of what Buddhism actually consists of and missing the point of the Founder's original teaching.

Just as it is possible to present Buddhism as a psychology, we can also look at other things that Buddhism has given rise to. Buddhism has generated great cultures that have played prominent parts in history together with their many constituent ways of life, roles, forms of organization, social structures, politics, economics, and sciences. Modern academic investigation finds in this history fascinating areas for study and research. Some modern people adopt aspects of some of these traditional cultures and find it satisfying to do so. They wear Buddhist style clothes, sit on the floor, and have houses full of Eastern artifacts. They study thangka painting, or create Zen gardens. Many people now have Buddha figures as garden or household ornaments. These things look fine and contribute to a more gentle tenor of life. Buddhism has given rise to treasures such as these. Buddhism, however, is not fundamentally a culture. It has bred many cultures of great diversity. Buddhism is not fundamentally a way of life. There are many ways of life that can be considered to be Buddhist. Buddhism is not, basically, a style. There are many Buddhist styles. Buddhism has its views of economics and society, but Buddhism is not fundamentally a mode of social welfare. These things are all expressions of something more fundamental. Buddhism is a religion. Only a religion could generate such a diversity of riches permeating every aspect of life.

The Buddha gave remarkable codes of ethics tailored to different groups of people, to monks and nuns, to lay people, and to those who would follow an altruistic bodhisattva path. To this day we can learn a great deal from this ethical science. However, Buddhism is not fundamentally a system of ethics. Buddhism is a religion.

The Buddha was sometimes referred to as a doctor of the soul, and perhaps also of the body. It is likely his early disciples, wandering from place to place, not only taught the fundamentals of his doctrine, but also functioned in many cases as healers and medical practitioners. Many modern people are particularly concerned about health. They employ techniques drawn from Buddhism for stress relief, for an improved diet, for deep relaxation, for the treatment of depression, for massage, and so on. All this is wonderful. Buddhism has given rise to such treasures, but Buddhism is not fundamentally a health cure. Buddhism is a religion. The purpose of Buddhism is not stress relief. Buddha did not teach a method to help busy executives survive better in the rat race.

It is because Buddhism is a religion that it has been able to generate such richness. From the perspective of secular, humanistic materialism it is possible to see a value in many of the things to which Buddhism has given rise, but it is not really possible to see how they have come about because such an approach does not value the processes that constitute the substance of religion and does not recognize the religious nature of the human being. In fact, it consciously, deliberately, and systematically excludes them.

Modernity sees the fruits of Buddhism as its substance and then wonders how it can be so diverse. The substance of Buddhism, however, is what gives rise to all these fruits and this substance is not part of the materialistic scheme of things. In fact, it involves and is crucially dependent upon a renunciation of such materialism. It is this renunciation that modernity cannot admit, yet which is at the core of the Buddha's dispensation.

In Buddhism, the spiritual is primary and the physical is a domain in which spirit acts. In modernity, the physical is primary and the spiritual, if it is acknowledged at all, is the epiphenomenon. For Buddhism to survive and continue to produce such wonderful fruit we must not cut off its root in this way. Although Buddhism is, in some respects, very different from the religions we were used to in the past, at core it is a spiritual matter.

Many contemporary thinkers have asserted that Buddhism is not a religion in order to fit it into our culture. They want to create an American Buddhism or a European Buddhism, in which the encompassing frame is American culture or European philosophy. However, if you cut Buddhism down to fit into one of these frames you cut off the essence and root.

Buddhism is not something with which to decorate our existing materialistic culture. Using Buddhist methods to help one be more efficient at work, or cope with the stress of a go-getting lifestyle, is decoration of this kind.

Buddhism has entered this materialist world sometimes disguised as a saleable commodity. In a world where money is the measure of all things, this is the disguise you need to gain entry. Another measure is popularity. One wins by getting more votes. Votes and prices, however, have no necessary relationship to quality or depth. Buddhism aims to deepen life, not trivialize it. Measures are abstract, useful for some purposes, but never touch the essence of anything. No measure can tell you how beautiful something is. None can tell you how pure a person's heart or soul may be. The science of measurement is valuable and utilitarian. The soul of religion is something else. It is a different domain of existence. It is the one that makes life worth living.

Sometimes it is said that Buddhism is scientific. This assertion would put Buddhism somehow within the frame of science, but Buddhism has much that would not fit into that frame.

We should not muddle up science and scientism. Scientism is a modern philosophy. Scientism is not Buddhistic because it is the attempt to make the restrictive rules of science into the dogmas by which the whole of life should be governed. Scientism is a different religion and a rather narrow one and it would be a tragedy if Buddhism in the West were reduced to it. Actually, scientism as one finds it in ordinary members of the public is largely based on a version of science that was superseded in the early decades of the 20th century. I have met people of this persuasion who say that "One should not believe anything that science has not proved." Fortunately or unfortunately, we have discovered that proving is not something that science does. Sometimes science disproves, but science always has an open frontier: it is always open to the new case that overturns what has been thought to be true up to now. Science demonstrates, but such demonstrations are never ultimate or final. We have seen so many revolutions in science in the past century that nobody should be in doubt of this. It does not make science redundant that its findings are so often overturned. It is in the nature of the situation. Science implies that there must be an incalculable amount that we do not know. In this respect science is Buddhistic.

Scientism, however, seeks to restrict our vision of the universe to things that are physically demonstrable. Most of the things that are important to most people—love, loyalty, faith, goodness, meaning, purpose—do not fall into such a category. As a philosophy, therefore, scientism is limited. It's popularity is based on a misreading of the prestige that currently attaches to technology. The proposition that one should believe nothing that is not empirically demonstrable is itself not empirically demonstrable.

An extension of the popularity of scientistic ways of thinking has become the way that many people currently approach Buddhism as though it were a collection of techniques. Certainly Buddhism has generated many techniques. This is another of its richnesses, but the tendency to see it as being merely technique, or merely practice, is a function of the modern world's worship of technology, not a true representation of Buddhism. It is just another case of picking the fruit while not seeing the root.

Buddhism is a religion. The common ground—perhaps the only one—of all schools of Buddhism is a religious act called taking refuge. We take refuge in the three treasures: the buddha, dharma, and sangha. Buddha is the supreme source of teaching, love, compassion, and wisdom. Dharma indicates the fundamentals of life and being. Sangha, in this context, is the assembly of spiritually awakened beings. Taking refuge in these three has salvific power. The popular view is that the aim here is to join the sangha, learn the dharma, and thereby become a buddha. That, however, is not refuge. Refuge is not about taking these jewels in our hands, it is about ourselves being held by them.

The mystique of this act is not something that can be grounded in materialism or psychology. It has material and psychological consequences, but they are incidental. The whole purpose is to transcend such considerations and open the possibility of being liberated from them.

Each deepening of refuge is a lessening of ego. More faith, less ego. Thus Buddhism finds salvation beyond self. It is not a collection of methods for greater self-development, self-assertion, self-cherishing, self-­esteem, or anything of the kind. Rather the opposite. Buddhism is not narcissism. The devotee is encouraged to be ever mindful of the objects of refuge, to bow to them, make offerings, revere and worship them. Being mindful of their supreme qualities one becomes more aware of one's own deficiency. Becoming more aware of the deficiency of self, one's need to take refuge increases in intensity. Finally one lets go of self entirely, takes refuge wholeheartedly and enters nirvana.

Taking refuge is an act of faith. To think that taking refuge is just like joining a worldly organization is to miss the essence and to reduce the supreme mystery to a mundane procedure. Far from reducing mystery to mundanity, Buddhism is about infusing the mundane with the sacred.

Buddhism's foundation is faith. This faith is based in real, close-to-the-bone, experience. We find that the body is not reliable; the mind is not reliable; thoughts are not reliable, emotions are not reliable, circumstances are not reliable, social status is not reliable; the present moment is not reliable. No technique or methodology will make them so. Direct awareness of the present and of the sequence of things occurring demonstrates to us the unreliability of all that the worldly mind considers as self. Awareness alone would leave us frightened and helpless. Therefore we need mindfulness and the other factors of enlightenment that flow from it. We need mindfulness of the treasure that is available to us. Initially we may think it is our own treasure, but this is just the conceit of the self reasserting itself. The treasure is universal and unconditional, but each of us encounters it in a unique way. Buddha speaks to each of us in our own language. Thus everybody has some spiritual treasure to rely upon if they will just heed it. Buddhism helps us to do so with ever-greater depth and confidence.

David Brazier (Dharmavidya) is president of the International Zen Therapy Institute and head of the Amida Order, a Pure Land sangha. His last article for Tricycle, “The ‘Inner Logic’ of Other Power,” appeared in the Spring 2015 issue.

Adapted from Buddhism is a Religion, by David Brazier, with the permission of Woodsmoke Press.

Jonathan Pozniak/GalleryStock

Share with a Friend

Email to a Friend

Already a member? Log in to share this content.

You must be a Tricycle Community member to use this feature.

1. Join as a Basic Member

Signing up to Tricycle newsletters will enroll you as a free Tricycle Basic Member.You can opt out of our emails at any time from your account screen.

2. Enter Your Message Details

Enter multiple email addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
ganjananda's picture

I'm not surprised at all that David Braizer fells this way, he 100% practices Buddhism as a religion. However that doesn't meen that it is a religion or that others practice it that way. Pure-land Buddhism - including a lot of Tibetan Buddhism- is much more religious than other forms of dharma. They rely on the Buddha of their devotion to literally save them from samsara, this is very much in line with "religion" how ever if you look at Ch'an and Zen you will see they can be at points quite irreligious. In the Theravada there is no concept of the Buddha saving you either. It all depends on the path. Also there is no "Buddhism" as a religion as such.

In fact Buddism has more in common with Yoga (as a path no the exercise) than with other traditions or religions.

I think David needs to just add that this is all from his point of view and practice before setting the law down in stone.

cowboy94's picture

self claiming some connection to god thus religion-the entire premise that attracted me all those years ago was that buddhism was NOT a religion-

Dominic Gomez's picture

When I first started practicing Buddhism I saw it as a viable alternative to "religion", at least the one I was raised in. Further discussions with fellow practitioners clarified for us that Buddhism is most accurately a philosophy of life. Certainly it wasn't a "way of life" that we had to abandon our present lifestyles for.
Rather, Buddhism offered guiding principles that answered so many questions other "religions" (for lack of a better term) were in the dark about.

dharmali's picture

Of all the descriptions mentioned, I like 'way of life' best. 'Way' is certainly inclusive; it permits all, denies none, and therefore refutes the notion that only the descriptor 'religion' permits and promotes the richness found in Buddhism. To me, way (or if you're in a bowing mode, Way) has all the depth and range with none of the freight the word religion holds in this often fractious world.

janmuller2's picture

Finally someone who hits the nail right on the head. I haven't been raised in a religion, but many years ago, experiencing a moment of surrendering and grace, I realised that life has a religious quality. So then I needed a religion (not a belief system) to explore this dimension of reality. I found it in Zen Buddhism. Therefore Buddhism is a religion (to me). It certainly isn't anything else.
Maybe the writer doesn't define religion because it is undefinable. If anyone has a problem with the word, by all means do not use it. Still, we all need a way to express our faith, practice it in our lives, and we need a community to support us (that is my belief).
Thank you, Mr. Brazier, for expressing this so clearly.

andrew522's picture

I can't help thinking of this poem by Zen Master Ryodan.
Too lazy to be ambitious,
I let the world take care of itself.
Ten days worth of rice in my bag;
a bundle of twigs by the fireplace.
Why chatter about delusion and enlightenment?
Listening to the night rain on my roof,
I sit comfortably, with both legs stretched out.

bobzane's picture

Does the world need another religion or another sect of Buddhism?

kammie's picture

Religion, from Latin re ligare, (ligare - ligament).
Re ligare: to bind
To bind the earthly spirit to the heavenly spirit, the profane to the sacred.
But the complete, unexcelled awakening of Buddha that we as Buddhists aspire to, or practice, is an awakening to the reality that there has never been a separation between the two. There is no sacred in Buddhism if the definition of such is that it is apart from the profane.
A "secular" Buddhism requires a new definition of "secular," since our culture's working definition of that is as opposed to "spiritual." Buddhism just doesn't recognize that separation, and in that sense can't be either secular or a religion.
In the sense that Buddhism calls into action that part of ourselves that is relegated to the spiritual dominion under religion, though, it could be called a religion.
In my experience, however, calling Buddhism a religion creates a strong influence to separate the holy from the rest of it, which seems to me to be guaranteed to keep one in oblivion.
I vote for neither secular nor religion, but rather to begin a discussion looking for a word that points to the lack of a split between the sacred and the profane, and that includes both.

hollandrmt@gmail.com's picture

Dharma vs. Dogma
Dharma guides us to observe mind/body/interdependence
Dogma robes us in customs, ritual...layering these in a guise to change our perception of who/what/why we are
Sometimes these are blended and obscured
Not the intention
Buddhism is not religion

msmlhill@msn.com's picture

Debating whether or not Buddhism is a religion seems dualistic, and our goal as meditators is non duality. Even discussing it seems not in line with the original teachings. But I suppose like everything Buddhist, one's own personal experience is what matters.
For me, I flee from any forms of Buddhism that insist on too much dogma, and there are some.
Vipassna, metta and mindfulness practice with a FB sangha is the best and most consistent practice I have experienced in over 25 years of investigation.

deannies's picture

Absolutely 100% agree: Buddhism is NOT religion.
Faith? I think of it more as thinking, feeling, incorporation of awareness of the world and ourselves along with all other beings and animate/inanimate objects.

buddhasoup's picture

My sense of the purpose of Mr. Brazier's article is to distinguish Buddhism as a defined religion or practice, with attributes of inviolability, so that is does not become subject to the dilution and distortion that we see in the west, as was the case with, for example, yoga.

Did the Buddha create a religion? It seems doubtful that he tried to, and in fact, the Buddha was more focused on distinguishing his Dhamma from the Vedic and Brahmanic traditions of his time. The Buddha was, in a sense, teaching something revolutionary for its time. He rejected caste and ordained women. As he told the Kalamas, don't necessarily believe what these religious leaders tell you; investigate, determine what is wise and beneficial, seek out the counsel of wise people, and determine what skillful results one's skillful conduct leads to.

I support Mr. Brazier's efforts to protect the Buddhadhamma from distortion. Calling it a religion might be one way to do this, but perhaps it is better for people to truly understand what the Buddha of 2600 years ago actually taught, and see if the Dhamma of the Early Buddhist Texts makes a difference in their lives. Then, people will have faith, a faith borne of confidence gained through practice on this Path.

sharonbw59's picture

Since the author never defined "religion" I couldn't grasp the point of this article. His descriptions of the ways Buddhism is being studied, understood, practiced and internalized by people all over the globe were fairly comprehensive but he seemed to be saying that they all fall short of this undefined concept of religion. What am I missing?

seebem@wildblue.net's picture

Mr. Brazier makes some cogent points: "Buddhism is a religion. The common ground—perhaps the only one—of all schools of Buddhism is a religious act called taking refuge. We take refuge in the three treasures: the buddha, dharma, and sangha. Buddha is the supreme source..." Indeed, these are operational hallmarks of what we call religion everywhere. I think it difficult to deny that Buddhist overall, around the world, is in fact a religion. I think it was Stephen Batchelor who somewhere said that something becomes a religion precisely at the point that it attempt to explain, substantiate, and reassure us of what happens after we die.

Use of the term "salvation" I think is telling here. It is not a word I see associated with either "western" Buddhist schools or sutra/sutta, but I only read these in translation. To the extent this English word does appear, it generally does not appear in the context of life-after-death, whether that be some heaven or future incarnation. Regardless, it is a matter of chief concern amongst us mortal, human animals, whether we acknowledge it or not. Thus, we have a multiplicity of religions following historical and cultural forms to make them accessible.

Mr. Brazier also says, "Buddhism is becoming popular, but it is doing so in a form that is a new creation. This new creation is not the traditional Buddhism of Asia and it is not the Buddhism of Shakyamuni Buddha, the founder, either." Modern religions...those originating within the last 2,500 years...generally attribute their creation to an individual. Most modern religions have subsequently split into diverse and often contentious sects and schools. Each division holds that it is the true heir to the originator's thought and teachings. Arguing about which school is correct is not often fruitful. The valid test is, when I take it on and in, does it work for me, and is its working for me also beneficent to others?

trailpaloma's picture

Could the author even begin to let go of this concept and idea? I find the article as wordy, argumentative opinion.

Lorireazin's picture

re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Does it really matter what we call Buddhism? To some it may be a religion, but I also was waiting for Davis's definition of 'religion'. For me, Buddhism is a way of life. If we follow the teachings, life is suffering. It does not deny that or try to change that. Rather, it teaches us how to live in peace with that knowledge. And in learning how to do that, we do help ourselves. And once we have healed ourselves, only then can we look beyond our ego to helping others. Imagine a world where everyone found inner peace and based all their behavior on compassion for others! Call it a religion, or a psychotherapy, or a philosophy ... does it really matter, if the outcome is a gentler, more peaceful, compassionate world?

JKH's picture

The historical Buddha was only concerned with ending suffering and not creating a religion. He never asked you to have faith but to question everything and practice to see for yourself what he was saying is true. I practice Buddha's Four Noble Truths and FIND them to be true. I also agree with his Five Precepts and find them to be true. The rituals and deification of him that came about after his death I do not agree with. Religion is about one group claiming to have the right interpretation and asserting the other is wrong. I think we have enough of that brand of living already.

chloe's picture

One of my teachers, W.C. Smith, said that there was no such "thing" as religion ... just people who were faithful in a tradition and in a community. David Brazier's article reminds us that Buddhism is about faithfulness and tradition and community.

fmart's picture

It is good that Tricycle is publishing this as an article from David Brazier's book, but there seem to be some possible controversies with Brazier's interpretations; Here is one:

"Buddhism is commonly said to be about relieving or abolishing suffering. This can be taken as a worthy humanitarian goal that could have little to do with religion. A methodology that overcomes suffering by training the mind is a psychotherapy. There is, thus, a case to be made that Buddhism is a psychotherapy, and if one were to take abolishing suffering, or achieving happiness, as the goal of Buddhism, then one could claim that Buddhism is primarily, or even nothing other than, such therapy. Such a line of rhetoric can then be used to integrate Buddhism within the frame of modern, secular hedonistic ideas. Doing so, however, involves discarding most of what Buddhism actually consists of and missing the point of the Founder's original teaching."

The Buddha's definition of happiness is quite different from the world's and "achieving happiness" in the above paraphrase seems to point toward the world's definition. Didn't the Buddha talk about the ALLEVIATION of suffering?

Also - and I know little of Pure Land traditions - it seems that there is quite a reification of the Buddha beyond someone human. And "worship" (as opposed to showing respect) seems to point to an almost Abrahamic maybe Protestant interpretation?

I wonder it the various assertions here might not make for excellent bullet points for an agenda that could be discussed in a conference with all Buddhist traditions - and even better - many cultures represented?

rohiller's picture

Knowing nothing about Mr. Brazier, I agree that his interpretation of "religion" is, if not Abrahamic certainly steeped in Christianity. As I was reading the essay I kept waiting for him to define "religion". I do not see the teachings of the Buddha as a religion, but rather as a way of living or as Brazier puts it , a 'way of life'. 'Religion' in my view is subordinate to a 'way of life' as most people understand that word in the 21st century. Religions tend to be about belief systems rather then direct experience. In that sense (and my intent here is not to offend anyone -- we each have our own paths), the Western religions are a degenerate form of taking refuge, they are more about faith than direct experience. What distinguishes the teachings of the Buddha is that, although there is faith (sadha) as a component, it is a faith that is backed up by direct, personal experience and not merely backed up by belief (like a fear of eternal damnation, for example).

melcher's picture

My impression in surveying the practice of Buddhism around the world is that it is mainly in the West that it has become more about 'practice' and 'direct experience' while the further one goes toward the point of Buddhism's origins in the East the more it becomes a matter of 'faith' and commonly accepted dogma. The difference between religion in the West and religion in the East may thus be somewhat exaggerated.

rohiller's picture

Knowing nothing about Mr. Brazier, I agree that his interpretation of "religion" is, if not Abrahamic certainly steeped in Christianity. As I was reading the essay I kept waiting for him to define "religion". I do not see the teachings of the Buddha as a religion, but rather as a way of living or as Brazier puts it , a 'way of life'. 'Religion' in my view is subordinate to a 'way of life' as most people understand that word in the 21st century. Religions tend to be about belief systems rather then direct experience. In that sense (and my intent here is not to offend anyone -- we each have our own paths), the Western religions are a degenerate form of taking refuge, they are more about faith than direct experience. What distinguishes the teachings of the Buddha is that, although there is faith (sadha) as a component, it is a faith that is backed up by direct, personal experience and not merely backed up by belief (like a fear of eternal damnation, for example).