I want to add a little more to yesterday's post, which explains why I have issues with people who declare what Buddhism should be. Connected to should is the whole issue of clinging to views, which is something the historical Buddha warned us about, big time.
The Buddha's warnings usually were in reference to various philosophical/metaphysical questions, such as "is the cosmos infinite?" or "shall I exist in the future?" The Buddha usually declined to answer such questions, probably because they are based on faulty assumptions. But he also may have thought that any answer he gave would be turned into High Holy Dogma that people would just cling to without questioning. Certitude is a dead end.
Today people have all kinds of firm opinions about what Buddhism is. It's not a religion, it's a philosophy! It's not a religion, it's a way of life! It's not a religion, it's a science of mind! It's anything but religion!
I've been thrashing around (it feels that way sometimes, anyway) as a Zen student going back 25 years now. I can't think of any one label that really fits Buddhism. And I can't think of any reason why I need any one label.
I have problems with these "it's not a religion" views. First, they are based on a rigidly narrow, western-postmodern view of what "religion" is. I have long been fascinated by religion and have read a lot about how it has changed over time and from one culture to another, and I assure you that current common English definitions of "religion" leave out way too much. Among other things, many religions were and are more "ways of life" than anything else. Even Christianity, once upon a time, was not just about believing the right stuff (see, for example, Karen Armstrong on this point).
Second, the notion that "religion" and "philosophy" are two separate and mostly irreconcilable things took shape in western culture only two or three centuries ago. Before that, religion and philosophy were inextricably intermingled. And I don't believe the separation of philosophy and religion ever happened in Asia.
So here in the 21st century West we've got these two separate conceptual boxes labeled "religion" and "philosophy," and the argument is that Buddhism fits into the philosophy box but not the religion box. But I say it doesn't neatly fit into either box. (Yes, you can shove it into the philosophy box, but only if you lop big chunks of it off first.) I think that's true of most of the religions, or whatever they are, that originated in Asia, when viewed as-they-are without use of an Abrahamic lens filter.
Regarding the "science of mind" view -- I can see the argument for that, but Buddhism is not science as scientists currently define science. So if we're going by current definitions -- no, Buddhism doesn't fit into the science box, either.
Basically, I'm arguing that if you can't relate to Buddhism without shoving it into some 21st century conceptual box first, you're doing it wrong. You're distorting it to fit your views. This is not skillful. Let it out of the boxes, and let it be what it is.
I do understand the argument that calling Buddhism a-philosophy-and-n0t-a-religion may make it a more marketable product, but IMO that's something of a bait-and-switch (unless what you're selling is a really watered down version of Buddhism).
All that said, I have no qualms about calling Buddhism a religion. Whatever it is, it is something done religiously. And I agree with the Rev. Danny Fisher, that a lot of the "it's not a religion" arguments amount to Buddhist exceptionalism, which is not healthy.
No comments:
Post a Comment