Religion and Buddhism
This might sound strange coming from someone who has been a student and teacher of Buddhism for thirty-five years, but I must confess that I have never been altogether comfortable with “religion”. In fact, I abandoned the religion of my family and community when I was still in my early teens. That was when my search for the truth - for something I could believe in - began. It took me first through modern western philosophy: Phenomenology and Existentialism, then to Taoism, Hinduism and eventually to Buddhism. My interest in Buddhism caused me again to come face to face with “religion”, because then Buddhism was only taught in the department of religion at my university.
My discomfort with “religion” is not rare or unique in the modern world. Many people, particularly among the young and well educated, share my unease. Perhaps it all began with the advances of science which cast serious doubts upon the fundamental dogmas of traditional “religion”. Then too, there were all the negative manifestations that “religion” has fostered and for which it has to bear the blame: the crusades, the conquest, the inquisition, the intolerance and conflict that “religion” has created throughout the centuries. All of this has lead to the widespread scepticism towards and outright rejection of “religion” that is so common today. But, is religion in general really responsible for all this? Are all religions equally guilty, and most importantly, what exactly do we mean by “religion”? What about Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Confucianism, are they really religions? Although they are commonly called religions, many scholars including myself have questioned the aptness of the name. If we put aside for a moment the dictionary definition of “religion”, it seems to me that what we are actually talking about is a view of man and the world, a value system, a way of thinking and living. If this is what we mean by “religion”, then not only Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Confucianism, but also Marxism, Fascism, humanitarianism, science and technology as well as democracy and free market economics might also be called religions. Indeed, it seems to me that hardly anyone exists who doesn’t have a “religion” of some sort, even if it is as simple as making as much money as possible in the shortest possible time.
What about Buddhism? I still have trouble talking about Buddhism in terms of “religion”. I have often made the point that Buddhism is just as much of and maybe even more of a philosophy and a psychology than it is a “religion”. After all, the Buddha taught the Dharma, and although we sometimes translate the original term Dharma as “religion”, it really means the teaching or the truth. Because it doesn’t make much sense to say the Buddha taught the teaching, we say the Buddha taught the truth. The Buddha didn’t teach Buddhism at all. He taught the truth. And the truth includes a view of the world and man’s place in it, a system of ethics, and a path to understanding. The Dharma, the truth, exists always, whether or not there is a Buddha to realise and teach it. And if in another time and place, someone realises the truth, would he or she be called a Buddha? Probably not, but then what’s in a name anyway? Would a Buddha by any other name not still be a Buddha?
Of course I call myself a Buddhist, I try to practice the teaching of the Buddha and I write books about, and teach Buddhism. People are used to relying upon names - labels - but the Dharma is bigger than any name. Wouldn’t it be better if we could see beyond the names? Might it not be possible to be an anonymous Buddhist? Might not anyone who is gentle, compassionate and genuinely seeks to understand the truth be a Buddhist? If so, then we can all give up arguing about names and get down to the real business of making the world a better place.
The key to the whole problem with the English term “religion” is that when we apply it to the teaching of the Buddha, it doesn’t fit. It is a name rooted in the Semitic, Mediterranean and European traditions. It works well enough for Judaism, Christianity and Islam, but it doesn’t do justice to the teaching of the Buddha. Besides, it carries with it too much negative baggage. The Dharma is probably better off without it.
I think the reason I have been able to embrace the Dharma, the teaching of the Buddha, is that it is not a “religion” in the traditional sense. Buddhist, have sometimes made mistakes just like the followers of other religions. They are people and, as we know, people are not always perfect, but the Dharma itself is pure, practical and profound. “Avoid evil, do good, and purify the mind, this is the teaching of all the Buddhas.” Who would quarrel with this?