Is it correct to call the Buddha’s Teaching a religion?
Having just ushered in a traditional new year, swiftly to be followed by the most important Buddhist celebrations, it seems an opportune moment to take stock of what one has learned during the past year, especially any ‘new revelations’. My thoughts were mixed as I had done only a few important things, but the one thing that kept recurring was the thought that Buddhism is not really a religion after all! Let’s consider if this might be valid:
To my mind, Buddhism is a doctrine that surpasses the narrow confines of a ‘religion’. These are my own inferences, having read some of the salient features of Buddhist Teaching.
‘Although there are places of Buddhist ‘worship’ that one could visit in order to contemplate His Teaching (The Dharma or The Doctrine), there is no compulsion to attend these temples’
Buddhism is very well established throughout the world, more particularly in the East, and still continues to offer solace, without distinction, to the millions who have followed Buddha’s Teaching for over 2,600 years. Although there’s no convention for an institutionalisation of Buddhism as a ‘religion’, as found in the various other popular religions of the world, the Buddha’s Teaching swept far and wide merely by word-of-mouth, encompassing the Middle East, ancient Greece and parts of Europe (including Russia), on its way to becoming a world ‘religion’. Presently, however, while it persists in the East, Buddhism has dwindled elsewhere, as newer religions have become established. ‘The Teaching of the Buddha’ or Buddhism, in commonly parlance, is generally practised as a ‘religion’, with all the trimmings associated with that word. I cannot help but wonder whether this is truly the right thing to do. It is possible that some readers concur with my line of thinking, but let me present my case anyway, about why I think ‘religion’ is a misnomer here.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘religion’ as a “belief in, and worship of, a superhuman controlling power – a God or Gods”. Thus, it is obvious that Buddhism cannot be defined as a ‘religion’ in these conventional terms. The very first fact we accept is that Buddha is not a God; hence there is no compulsion to ‘worship’ him. There is no acknowledgement of a super-being in heaven, with an omnipotent presence and power over beings on Earth. The Buddha is human, with no ‘controlling power’. Therefore, the use of the word ‘religion’ is already questionable. Buddha is not derived from a ‘powerful spiritual being’, so He is not a ‘messenger’ from heaven; neither has He described Himself as a ‘God’. Though there is no coercion to worship Him, all Buddhists will invariably show Him respect as acknowledgement of His status – as a Buddha or “Enlightened One” – by bringing their palms together. This is not only a mark of reverence but also an expression of gratitude for the incomparable Teaching He has placed before us. According to the Mangala Sutta, to ‘venerate’ those who deserve to be venerated, is a ‘blessing’. So to Buddhists, the Buddha is a ‘special human being’ suitable to be revered and venerated.
Although there are places of Buddhist ‘worship’ that one could visit in order to contemplate His Teaching (The Dharma or The Doctrine), there is no compulsion to attend these temples. The word ‘worship’ is used here in the broadest sense (such as when it is used in the act of showing respect to one’s parents, teachers or elders); it is not equivalent to ‘praying’. Buddhism recognises the individual freedom in the choice of one’s ‘religion’, but if the need is for ‘prayer’, then Buddhism is not the right choice – there is indeed no-one to pray to! Buddha is not a god. He does not answer prayers. He is not in ‘heaven’. Unless the word ‘prayer’ is used casually, the chanting associated with Buddhism is merely recitation of the Buddha’s word, written down by disciples many years after His passing. Buddhism is one doctrine that existed for three centuries in the oral tradition, with no written scriptures or ‘prayers’.
The sole aspiration of each disciple was to break away from repeated births: in other words, to attain Nirvana. To achieve this, it was necessary to develop an advanced culture of Morality (Seela), Mental Discipline (Samadhi) and Wisdom (Pragna) – under a proficient teacher in the absence of The Buddha Himself. There was no need for the written word then. This discipline is unique to the practice of Buddhism. To follow it, one merely needs to be convinced of The Dharma. Accordingly, can Buddhism be a ‘religion’?
There are a few principles of Buddhism that make His doctrine stand out from other ‘religions’. One is the identification and acknowledgement of the everyday-problem of ‘Dukkha’ or, for the lack of a better word, ‘Suffering’. The Pali word, dukkha, is not easy to define: it is a state of ‘un-satisfactoriness’ that exists in every aspect of our lives. The happiness we enjoy is short-lived or could end up in sorrow. Think about it or observe it objectively and you’ll see that this is what life offers us. This is the reality, but we tend to ignore it as we are enthralled with the few moments of enjoyment or pleasure we perceive. The fact that life is fraught with ‘un-satisfactoriness’ is not recognised in other religions. Although difficult to comprehend, those who are open-minded are likely to understand what is meant by ‘suffering’.
The ‘reality’ of dukkha was propounded by the Buddha in His first sermon after Enlightenment, the Dhammachakkappavattana Sutta, before His five fellow ‘truth-seeker’ ascetics. Dukkha was the first of The Four Noble Truths, one of The Founding Principles of Buddhism, explaining the reality of this existence. One is responsible for one’s own state; no god can be blamed for it. Therefore the Buddha’s Teaching is to define ‘Reality’. Bringing it closer to home, think of the changes that accompany ageing: degeneration and decay. These are not changes we like; they cause dukkha – distress and pain – but that is the certain reality: nothing remains the same in the present or forever. Nothing is eternal. Everything is Impermanent (Anichchaā) causing pain and disgust. It’s impossible to deny ‘suffering’ or ‘un-satisfactoriness’, but most unfortunately nothing can be done, no ‘medicine’ be taken, to stop this onslaught. The only way out is through a fervent effort to break away from this dreary state of woe and cut short the cycle of rebirth.
Rebirth, did I say? One cannot, so far, prove or disprove rebirth, but there is enough circumstantial evidence that that’s the most likely outcome following our death. Research around rebirth has been conducted and books have also been written, for instance by the likes of Professor Ian Stevenson and his team from the University of Virginia.
If one has an enquiring mind and is convinced that there is dukkha in everything around us, then one can decide to eradicate it by following the Noble Eight-fold Path. As outlined in the above sermon, the Buddha encourages us to look at everything objectively; in so doing, you’ll realise that you’re the only one who can help yourself to change this status quo, and that is by eradicating dukkha. There is no place for faith here; no amount of praying will help. The eradication of dukkha takes place only through your own efforts to attain Nirvana. Buddhism teaches us to focus on ‘reality’ or ‘things as they really are’. Scientifically-speaking, we know what we’re made of – the elements of the universe! Various combinations of these elements form everything in this world, including our body, which is functional through chemical and electrical reactions that have developed according to specific cellular programming over millennia. Nothing remains static; everything is in a state of flux across this universe. Therefore everything can be broken down to the finest particle, but also rebuilt when conditions are satisfied for the process. Broadly speaking, there is nothing more than that. Science cannot deny dukkha or impermanence as part of ‘reality’, and no other ‘religion’ professes these two realities are worth overcoming.
There is no concept of a ‘creator’ in Buddhism. Instead, the Buddha strongly confirms that we undergo repeated cycles of birth and death, depending on our own actions. He calls it Karma – actions we all do, good or bad, through mind, word and deed. Just as science confirms that every action has an equal and opposite reaction, so would karma become instrumental in conditioning another existence relevant to the accumulated worth of the karma. This process will continue until one breaks away from the cycles of rebirth on attaining the final stage of sainthood (arahanth), on the verge of Nirvana. This is His Teaching of the existence of the ‘Cause and Effect’ phenomenon, known as ‘Patichcha Samuppada’ or ‘Dependent Origination’. In other words, the arising of everything is dependent on a cause. There is no place for an intermediary; it’s all a part of the ‘reality’ of the existence of things.
Just as the phrase ‘things as they really are’ means that we’re made of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, to my mind, the Buddha’s Teaching offers the prospect of extrapolating the process of evolution. We, as human beings have ended up in the most desirable of existences, being at the top of the animal kingdom. The Buddha stated that this Earth (mangala loka in Pali) is the most salubrious place to be born, and to be born a human is indeed the highest blessing! What the Buddha elaborated is what is most needed by us to end these cycles of rebirth and therefore, dukkha.
Nirvana is not ‘heaven’. It is supra-mundane alright, but quite unlike ‘heaven’. The use of the prefix ‘Ni’, meaning “without”, describes it in the negative, as that “state which is ‘free of’ craving”; thereby denoting the ending of the continuity of the ‘being’ through his/her cycles of existence when the flames of craving that establishes rebirth are totally extinguished.
Given the above, albeit in gist, I am of the firm opinion that Buddhism is certainly not a religion. Can we call it a science? We could. However, as this doctrine was propounded over 2,500 years ago, none of it is in the scientific terms we use today, although there is undoubtedly a great deal of science and reasoning to comprehend within it. One needs patience and commitment to delve into its depths, if one is serious enough to want to study it.
Is it a philosophy? To my mind this is quite unlikely, too. It is not a belief system or a set of theories or hypotheses that can be broken down or superseded in the expanse of time. Buddhist Teaching has endured and remained true to the original writing, even going into this third millennium. There are no addenda, revisions or alterations. The doctrine has been described as ‘timeless’ and equally valid at any given time. When one ‘looks back’ on the Teaching, it is ‘true’ today, as it was yesterday, and it will remain true in the future, as it deals with ‘things as they really are’.
Becoming a Buddha is an extraordinary feat for a human to achieve. Being called The Enlightened One means that He has actively achieved infinite knowledge, wisdom, science, vision and light, and through this expertise He has guided countless other human beings to break away from sansara (cycles of birth and death) and attain Nirvana, after which rebirth is extinguished.
My own conclusion is that the Buddha Dharma is the Teaching of the existing ‘reality’. Therefore, I would like to call the Buddha’s Doctrine, ‘Realism’ rather than a ‘religion’ or a ‘philosophy’, since it teaches us what is real and factual, and encourages us to view things ‘as they really are’. What about you? Why not take the opportunity to read the Teachings of the Buddha yourself and see if they fit in with your line of thinking? No compulsion!