Is Buddhism a Religion? Yes, and No. How's That for a Koan?

We often talk about Siddhartha, the young man who became known as the Buddha, as if he were a god. The fact is that he was just a simple Indian guy, a human being like you and me. We think of him as some kind of super-genius for having attained complete spiritual awakening, but in fact his real genius was in showing how any one of us can attain the same awakening as he did. We describe him as a prince and a member of the elite royalty of his time, and we think that must have given him an advantage over us -- but the reality is that most of us today are probably better off, in material terms, than Siddhartha was. The point is, we shouldn't mythologize Siddhartha's life and think that his spiritual awakening was due to his special circumstances. Most of us today actually live in conditions very similar to Siddhartha's, in terms of our material situation.

James: This is something that many in the West don't understand. They think we worship Buddha when we bow to his statues. I think a segment of this misunderstanding stems from the Western idea of what a religion constitutes. The main religions practiced in the West all have the common denominator of a belief in an omnipotent being that rules over all humanity--a "God." Combine that with a relative cultural isolation of many Americans and you have a recipe for misunderstanding Buddhism and other non-Western belief systems.

Siddhartha was a truth seeker, nothing more. He wasn't looking for religion, as such -- he wasn't particularly interested in religion. He was searching for the truth. He was looking for a genuine path to freedom from suffering. Aren't all of us searching for the same thing? If we look at the life of Siddhartha, we can see that he found the truth and freedom he was seeking only after he abandoned religious practices. Isn't that significant? The one who became the Buddha, the "Awakened One," didn't find enlightenment through religion -- he found it when he began to leave religion behind.

James: I don't think this means that we should abandon monasteries, temples and teachers but it is a necessary caution in reminding practitioners that these things are tools to help us along the path that only we can walk. For example, I think we deify our teachers a bit and lean upon them sometimes too much like a crutch. Yet Buddha was clear that we can know the Dharma like the back of our hand but all that is worthless unless we set out on our own and put them into practice. No one can walk the path for us. No teacher can cure us of our suffering--regardless of how enlightened and talented they may be. So, in that sense Buddhism isn't a religion in the Western sense but rather, perhaps, a spiritual school. Let me be clear, however. It doesn't hurt to practice with others in a physical sangha because it offers us support and encouragement but just remember that Buddha had none of these things. And if he can do it, so can we.

After all, what would you do if you were the last Buddhist on Earth? Would you stop practicing because there were no more teachers, temples, statues and sanghas? Of course not. These things are maps but they aren't the path itself. Spiritual materialism and attachment to it's trimmings is just as sure a pitfall as falling into the delusional hole that we don't need any teaching or guidance at all. Ironically, fittingly and beautifully we come back to the conclusion that Buddhism itself should be approached with the middle-path mindset. The way we view it should be balanced between traditional practice and freelance adaptation to an individuals particular karma.

Neither wrong to attend a temple or monastery nor wrong to be more of a hermit Buddhist as Buddha initially was. Some teachers I have read will actually recommend certain students leave the monastery to study on their own as a hermit. So, there are many paths but only one Dharma. That said, neither I, nor Rinpoche are advocating we do away with Buddhism as a religion but rather to go beyond Buddhism as a religion. This means having the structural integrity of the Dharma as our foundation but we shouldn't let organized religion hold back our practice to where we simply copy someone else's practice. In my years of practice I have found that mimicking the path of someone else is simply yet another delusion.

To read the rest of Rinpoche's insightful article, simply click on this sentence.

~Peace to all beings~

Moving Mountains.

There may be people who could move mountains
with their heartfelt beliefs.
Zen wants the mountains to stay where they are.
It is not the task of Zen to rearrange the mountainside.

-Unknown author.

James: I take this as teaching us not to fight up stream nor to fight against nature. Like the temple pictured above we need to work with nature, not destroy it. They don't try and dominate nature they simply build their temple in compliment to it. I also think it is talking about avoiding arrogance when discussing Buddhism with non-Buddhists. No one wants to be preached to about how "Enlightened" you profess to be regardless of your progress along the path. That refers to the verse about "moving mountains." Perhaps we might think or say, "I feel so 'enlightened' that I could move mountains!!"

That's spiritual greed wrapping itself around our practice like a boa constrictor does. The ego-mind is a powerful thing and loves to keep us entertained with delusions of grandeur attempting to use greed as a way to maintain the feeling of "self" and self-importance. It's easy for the ego/mind/self/voice that's in the back of our thoughts to believe, "It's o.k. to be greedy about status as long as it's status as a Buddhist" or "I'm not being mean. They just don't understand how "enlightened" or practiced I am."

So with this ego-mind we sometimes try to convince everyone else to become Buddhist or to remind others that they're not doing such and such as exactly how the Buddha taught in the Tripitaka. It's not the business of Zen or our personal business to try and move people toward what we we personally might think (with a heartfelt belief as the verse above says) is how they should practice Buddhism. The mountains move only when they want to move just like people. It is not our task to proselytize door-to-door as missionaries for Buddhism. It is equally not our task to be the Dharma police.

Leave people be, leave the mountains where they are. As the saying goes, "When the student is ready, the teacher will appear." A person has to come to Buddhism of their own commitment for it to mean anything authentic and to see any meaningful progress. Rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic didn't keep it from sinking and constantly drilling someone in the ears with the Dharma over and over isn't going to keep them from falling away from Buddhism if their heart isn't in it. As I said, mountains only move when they want to move. In order for the Dharma to be sincere in our lives and in the lives of others it has to evolve for each person in their own time.

UPDATE: I wanted to add an addendum to expand a bit upon an aspect to this discussion that Lorem Ipsum brought up in the comment section about being open to sharing the Dharma but not until others are ready and approach us about it. It's a further explanation of what I wrote above. I thought it was an important thought that I had overlooked a bit in the post. I'd add my own twist to it by saying that I talk about Buddhism a bit with non-Buddhists but very sparingly and not in-depth unless questions are asked of me. If people want to know about it then I will gladly discuss it with them but as the verses say it's not our job to move mountains. I usually won't go into any great depth unless someone asks specific questions about Buddhism and what it means to be a Buddhist. I try and emphasize that I'm not an ordained teacher or Dharma scholar. So when my knowledge is exhausted I urge them to seek out a teacher and read books if they have further questions. Especially books from ordained, experienced masters like Thich Nhat Hanh, Ajahn Chah or the Dalai Lama.

~Peace to all beings~