What Does it Mean to be a Buddhist?
Thursday November 24, 2005
There’s been a fair amount of discussion here on thinkBuddha.org about religion, belief, and what it might mean to call oneself a Buddhist. This discussion seems to touch on a whole load of interesting – and intersecting – questions, so I’ll attempt to try and unpick some of this here. Most of the time, if pressed, I will say I am a Buddhist; but the question is what on earth I mean by saying such a thing. Let us see…
Buddhism, we are told, is a religion. Our approach to the idea of religion is strongly conditioned by a Western tradition in which belief is central. Christianity, for example, is founded to a large extent upon the idea of a creed, a statement of belief. As the often admirable Wikipedia puts it in its article on the Nicene Creed
The purpose of a Christian creed was to establish conformity of belief, uniquely essential for Christians, and by public professions of the faith, to identify heretics or any disconformity within each community.
When we come to Buddhism as Westerners – myself included – we tend to see it through the lens of belief rather than practice. We see it in similar terms to those in which we understand what I would call the ‘Middle Eastern Religions’: Christianity, Islam and Judaism. And then the first question asked is ‘What do Buddhists believe?’ But is this the most appropriate question? I mentioned in an earlier discussion that the Buddhist traditions have been marked more by orthopraxy – doing the same sort of thing – than they have by orthodoxy – thinking the same sort of thing, and this difference has significant implications. Because of this emphasis on practice, throughout the history of the various Buddhist traditions, schisms, when they have occurred have usually been to do more with matters of practice than with matters of belief. What this means is that a sangha, a Buddhist community, is united more by doing than by thinking.
I prefer to see Buddhism not as a religion but as an ethos in the ancient Greek sense – a way of being, a system of practice, a manner of conducting yourself. In fact I think that some of the ancient Greek schools, schools that are generally considered to be ‘philosophical’ such as the Cynics, the Epicureans and the Stoics, seem much closer to the kind of thing that Buddhism appears to be in the Pali texts. In the sense that the Epicureans were philosophers, then my own Buddhism is ‘philosophical’; but not, perhaps, in the sense that Kantians are philosophers!
Having said this, it is not possible to entirely separate practice and propositions that we maintain as true about the world. It is often stated – on good evidence, that the Buddha himself mistrusted metaphysics (even if he sometimes indulged in metaphysics – hey, no-one’s perfect!) and in terms of questions about what is the case, he asked his followers to refer to their own experience. These matters, he said, were of urgent importance. Metaphysical matters were of much less significance. And it is here, in the realm of experience, I find that I am in accord with much of Buddhism: the universality of suffering; the way that we – I! – in trying to flee from suffering only increase it for ourselves and for others; the power of transformation that comes from the cultivation of attentiveness towards ourselves and others. This is all experiential knowing rather than metaphysical speculation.
Along with Jez whose responses to earlier postings have prompted these reflections, I mistrust religion. And I mistrust the dogmas that have grown up within the varieties of Buddhism. Perhaps I should also mistrust the term “Buddhist” as compromised and ultimately restrictive (as no doubt – ultimately – are all labels). There are many who prefer the term “dharma practitioner”, and this can be a good alternative. But I’m going with “Buddhist” for the time being; because it reminds me that all of this palaver started with somebody they called the Buddha, and because a great many of the insights attributed to him about what it is to be human seem to me, from the evidence of my own experience and speaking from nowhere else but here, to be true…
#2 · Karen
10 December 2005
Will,
The distinction between orthodoxy and orthopraxy is very insightful. However, it occurs to me that there is a level of orthodoxy (‘straight’ or correct belief) in Buddhism as well. Consider that even Buddha spoke of (and debated with) “incorrect views.” One might say them to be incorrect beliefs. One such would be, for example, the belief in an eternal existing self (atman), which Buddha of course contrasted with his own view of anatman, non-self. In a sense non-self, as one of three marks of phenomena (the other two being impermanence and suffering), is a belief.
However, Buddha would continue to argue that you can seek out to prove or disprove that belief, by looking yourself (in the course of following the path of sila, samadhi and prajna). Thereby one would then mate orthodoxy (correct view) with orthopraxy (right practice—the eightfold path which I summarized in its threefold form of ethics, meditation and wisdom) to result in experiential knowing (the wisdom part).
One first encounters teachings; one then reflects on them; and then puts them into practice. And with practice comes fruition (or not, as the case maybe).
Buddha avoided metaphysical speculations, though is anatta a metaphysical view? Perhaps more accurately he avoided those that could not be subject to being proven (or disproven) in practice, or which would tend to not produce fruition in terms of allieving suffering and attaining liberation. Birth and death the great matters, as Zen teachers say, so don’t waste time! The house is on fire, NOW, so do we sit conjecturing on its origin or do we get ourselves and loved ones to heck out of the inferno?
Anyway, thankyou again for this interesting site! I appreciate it.
#3 · Mattie
12 October 2006
I was still after reading this page didn’t know what it ment to be Buddhist.
#4 · Will
12 October 2006
Ah well, Mattie, that makes two of us ;-).
Formally speaking, I suppose what makes somebody a buddhist is the recitation of the three refuges. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_refuges
The wikipedia article might throw light on a more traditional answer, so have a look there.
For myself, I’m less interested in these kind of questions, and more in simply how to live my life. “Buddhist” for me is a shorthand as well as a way of acknowledging the tradition from which I draw much of my understanding and practice.
All the best,
Will
#5 · eni
9 July 2010
I see that I am stumbling upon this years late, but I wanted to comment on something you said, about seeing religion “through the lens of belief rather than practice.”
I found this particularly interesting, as a student of both religions and cultural anthropology, because this understanding of religion is a relatively new one, as far as human history is concerned. I was taught that in ancient times, in the Near East, at least- for this was a class on ancient Near Eastern religions- religion was understood as being your practices and your actions, rather than your beliefs. It didn’t matter if you believed that, say Marduk, was actually up there in the heavens making it rain or not. Did you sacrifice to him? Did you pray to him when you needed his assistance? Then you followed his religion. End of story.
It seems as if Buddhism today continues to follow this classification of a belief system. That is not to say that action is all that matters in Buddhism, because obviously you must be mentally committed to it. But still, the two ideas link up in my head now, and I wanted to thank you for putting those pieces together for me :)
#1 · jez
25 November 2005
Surely there is a central belief in Buddhism, despite the schisms etc. You talk of ‘Buddha himself’. Does that not show that there is some sort of an idolatry? Perhaps I am speaking as a Westerner, but that is what we are, isn’t it? I am with you on the ‘suffering’ thing. I am a humanist though, not a Buddhist.
As for the Buddha, Christianity started with a guy called Jesus, who if he existed was no doubt a cool dude with loadsa cool ideas. Whether he was the son of god or even ‘enlightened’, is of no real interest to me though.
That said, I was talking to a friend of mine tonight who lived in Singapore (I have lived in Japan), and we agreed that religion means something very different to Asians than it does to us. Many Japanese, for example will follow both Buddhist and Shintoist rituals while calling themselves aetheists! However, even in Asia, religions are organised with dogmas. Who defines religion: is it the ‘priests’ or is it the citizens of those countries where the religions are dominant?