Is Western Buddhism Neutered? Part II - Buddhism as non-religion religion

Recently posted by the Angry Asian Buddhist and I agree with the sarcasm. I tend to get annoyed at people when they say that my religion is not a religion. But I think that the reasons why people say this should be examined...

I’m 100% fine with people who insist that Buddhism isn’t a religion. But if they’re going to make that stand, then they should be fine with telling self-professed Buddhists that because Buddhism isn’t a religion then… Freedom of religion doesn’t apply to Buddhism. Buddhism doesn’t belong in interreligious dialogue. Monks and nuns should not be eligible for visas as religious workers. Buddhism doesn’t belong in religious studies. Persecuted Buddhists shouldn’t get religious amnesty.I’m probably preaching to the choir here. But in all honesty, if I find such a person who’s willing to do all that, I want to meet them. I want to bring my video camera too.

Hah! Funny the second time too! Seriously this whole religion/non-religion thing spreads around like a virus. With one camp insisting that the other camp is following (or not following) a religion (or non-religion). It starts to get silly. Hell, I used to consider a combination of Robitussin and Jim Henson's The Muppet Show as a religion and we're going to argue over this? Although, this distinction does some origin. I personally think this issue stems from some of the reasons that many individuals turn to Buddhism in the first place - reasons which turn out to be false. And what do you do when you discover that you were mistaken? Blame the people who may have had it right in the first place.

A deep dissatisfaction with the Judeo-Christian religion or an initial interest in agnosticism/atheism.

The lack of a creator god is a huge reason for the switch over to Buddhism from Christianity as well as the lack of an "official" holy text. Rather in Buddhism the emphasis is on a canon of works as well as supplemental works from other commentators and Masters. It then comes as a large surprise when practitioners learn that while no creator per se there are several celestial entities floating about dependant upon the specific school. The same thing applies to the Buddhist canon - it is far more than a vague roadmap to some Buddhist schools.

Buddhism is all about the individual and not about the group.

We would like it to be since we place so much emphasis in the West on individualism. Many of the aspects of the philosophy associated with Buddhism gives a sense of an amorphous, free floating belief system with rare intersections into society and politics. Of course this is utter bunk but it does seem to be how many new to Buddhism tend to view it.

Thus it comes as quite a shock when they learn that many organizations operating in the United States (Buddhism Churches of America) as well as those that have operated for a long time in Asia (the Soto school of Buddhism comes to mind). These have a well-defined hierarchy and priesthood. They perform the perfunctory role of religious educator, purveyor of services as well as arbitrator of rules and regulations - just as in any church the westerner may be familiar with.

Man, I can't even pop over to Twitter for a break without seeing this - "Buddhism is not an organized religion, it is an organized way of life without all the beliefs of a religion." or "Atheism is defined by not believing in deity. Buddhism is an atheistic religion (so are many others)." or "I have a hard time with religions. Buddhism comes the closest, only because to me it's not a "religion" so much as a philosophy."

While the above are true in a way. Buddhism is a way of life and does not believe in a divine creator it does have a massive amount of hierarchy and a defined cosmology. But to be fair, I do believe that Buddhism does take into account philosophy much more than other religions but it doesn't change the fact that it is,well, a religion.

So does this make Buddhism as a religion bad? No. Does it make Buddhism as a non-religion good? No. It just serves to highlight the difference in viewpoints - One a Westerner with no Buddhist experience just beginning to walk the path versus a person who grew up in a culture with an established Buddhist tradition. One views and desires a Buddhism free from all hierarchical entanglements and the other is more familiar with Buddhism functioning as a religion as well as a philosophical tool and cultural base. That religion is going to contain a cosmology, as well as spiritual realms and deities. It remains within us to determine which are useful for our own lives and which are not. If you wish to believe in a literal belief in the afterlife and deities then by all means do so. If you wish to view these as analogies and symbolism then you also have that right.

The problem lies when one insists that the other is a perverted or lessened form of the other.

Personally, I don't see too much in the way of one being better than the other. My own initial experience was with Buddhism in an academic or philosophical realm. Beliefs and the structures of those beliefs are presented in very academic and cold terms (read "faith free" or pragmatic). Like studying any philosophy, it is based largely on logic. A very "here is the outline and now apply to personal and daily life" sort of approach to it. Great, I learned some of the philosophical branch of Buddhism and next to nothing about why and how we practice and study. Nothing of the personal and communal aspect of Buddhism and certainly nothing of the history or culture of Buddhism - nothing of faith and belief (for the best definition of faith that I have seen in while, click the link). It was similar to learning a dead language. A very interesting topic but one that has long since passed from common usage and practice. ("No one actually believes that do they?")

So, yeah, I walked through that stage of it, myself, but was rather turned off by the view and moved to other studies and interests. Until, some time later, I turned back to the study of Buddhism with a more worldly and religious view. I began to view Buddhism it as more a pattern of belief and faith rather than by philosophical constructs and metaphysical discussions.

But I think the disconnect exists when people insist on what Buddhism is. I have gotten into the habit of stating it as a religion and the sneakily include in parenthesis (non-religion) because it really comes down to what Buddhism does for you. Many (myself included) view it as a religion with all the trappings that any religion brings into your life (including but not limited to - fundamentalism, differing sects, arguments, persecutions, entitlement and snobbery) rather than as a guiding philosophy with all the trappings that it brings into your life (including but not limited to - snobbery, entitlement, persecutions, arguments, differing sects and fundamentalism). Are you picking up on my point here? The difference is minimal and mainly rests in the person and how they express their beliefs (religious or not).

I began like many others and took the pragmatic aspects of Buddhism in an attempt to adapt them into my daily life in the hopes of making myself happier and my life more enriching. This included the reading of secular and philosophical books on Buddhism as well as a pragmatic, non-religion viewpoint on what I was practicing. But an amazing thing happened on my way to the stupa - I began to see the forest from the trees and I slowly began moving towards a faith based mode of worship. Different from my Christian upbringing and past but worship and faith-based nonetheless.

Many enter the river through different streams and nothing, nothing makes Buddhism less attractive as a religious practice then when others state that what they are doing is not Buddhism. Just because it is secular rather than religious, practical rather than faith-based does not mean that it is inferior.

And before the Modern Buddhists start snickering, I would like to mention that the reverse is true. Get off of your secular high-horse and realize that just because someone engages in Buddhist worship and religion, it does not make them any less rational or deserving of respect. To snicker and degrade those that are on the SAME PATH AS YOU because they choose to believe in some symbols that you do not believe in or in some aspect of magic, miracle or mantra makes you just as bad as those zealots that you dislike so much.

In the long run we all go back to the same place...the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. The jewels are the same they just shine differently for different people. Get over it. Scott Mitchell stated it well in his review of the book "North America Buddhists in a Social Context"...[this is specifically the review of the chapter "The Emergence of a New Buddhism: Continuity and Change" by Coleman]

...On the contrary, he constantly compares these so-called "new Buddhists" to "Asian Buddhists," setting up the latter as a straw man to the positive and creative innovations of the former. According to Coleman, "new Buddhists" are embracing the positive effects of modernity whereas Asian Buddhists are "simply born into the faith" and have imported their "cultural baggage" to the West. Further, Coleman claims that "new Buddhism" bears a "striking likeness to the original 'Buddhism' of Siddhartha Gautama" (p. 186), since "new Buddhists" are largely converts as were the Buddha's original disciples. This is an unverifiable claim. As we have no direct access to the teaching of the Buddha, nor to the "conversion experience" of Ananda or Mahakasyapa or Maudgalyayana, how can we compare their Buddhism to that of disaffected white liberal Protestants from Northern California?

The point he brings up is that the conflict between "converts" and those with a cultural connection to Buddhism is a non-issue. By that I am not belittling the differences between to two groups, nor marginalizing their viewpoints. Instead I want to point out that it is a largely contrived difference. The main difference is how much the religion is attached to the culture. Converts may not have a cultural attachment to the religion while those that are born into it usually do. However, that difference is not only between the two groups as described but also exist within each group separately. Many born into the religion make Buddhism a part of their cultural identity and many do not. I was born into a Greek Orthodox family. The Greeks and Greek-Americans do not differentiate between their culture and their religion. The religion is an integral a part of their national identity and heritage as important as Souflaki and the Parthenon.

The point that I am attempting to make, and I hope it is clear, is that a statement against a group because of the culture that surrounds their belief system is a statement against that culture.

I am a converted Buddhist. I was originally Christian. I am now a Greek Buddhist. My Christian heritage is not baggage as would be inferred above but instead is an important part of my make-up and background. The same goes with someone from Thailand, Japan, Korea or Tibet. To say that one's culture is baggage is ignorant at best and at worst racist.

I really hope that we are not in the midst of developing a Fundamentalist group of Buddhists. Because nothing neuters religion (and Buddhism) more than exclusivity, dip-shits and douche-bags.

Cheers,