For a set of ideas to be viewed as either a religion or a philosophy
For some time now I've been thinking about whether it is possible to indicate specific criteria to be used in determining if a "coherent set of ideas" is to be classified as a philosophy or a religion. What brought me to this is the case of Buddhism. When you start doing only a little research on this matter, the division in opinion regarding Buddhism is immediately apparent. Even among scholars of philosophy and religion there is no consensus as far as Buddhism's position is concerned. This leads me inevitably to ask about the possibility of distinguishing such criteria and to what extend consensus on their validity is possible.
Comments (52)
We could also count a definite system of worship as a requirement, but that may be considered a part of the revelation in the present. People get in contact with the divinity to achieve enlightenment as opposed to reaching for it through thought alone. (Of course, Buddhism doesn’t speak of a divinity in the strict sense, but it deals with some sort of universal power and that amounts to the same.)
All other distinguishing features of a religion that we may think of, an established canon, a perception of holiness, a priesthood etc. only underscore this point. It is all meant to reveal what is beyond.
Philosophies are hatched by human philosophers alone and make no claim to divine origin of their thoughts. That is not to say that a philosopher can’t refer to divine inspiration and take some of their axioms from religion. Their distinguishing features are still pure thought.
Sometimes a religion can lead into philosophy as in the case the case of Christian church fathers, Muslim Sufis and of course also Buddhist philosophy. It may also go the other way as in Pythagoreanism and Taoism. But the distinction, revelation versus pure thought, still keeps them apart.
Religion, and this absolutely includes Buddhism, has a hierarchical authority structure and is primarily concerned with meaning and social cohesion.
In respect of Buddhism, which I've studied in some depth, there are both religious and philosophical aspects. Where it differs from the Semitic religions is the question of religious authority. That is not to say that the Buddha is not regarded as an authority, as he most definitely is and was. But there's a sense in which the Buddha is like a guide to a way that the aspiring Buddhist has to navigate; rather more a 'see for yourself' than 'do as I say'.
Case in point is an often-quoted scripture called the Kalama Sutta, where the Buddha speaks to a group of villagers who have been puzzled by the conflicting advice of visiting 'contemplatives and sages' who extol their own schools and vilify others. The famous answer he gave was:
This passage is often quoted as a kind of mandate for rejection of religious authority in Buddhism, but it should be noted that it argues for the rejection of the three cardinal 'poisons' according to the Buddha, namely, greed, hatred and delusion. (The text can be found here. )
Quoting PoeticUniverse
That is fideism which is 'the doctrine that all knowledge depends on faith or revelation.' It is observable in some forms of religion, and emphasized in Protestant fundamentalism. But there is also a sense in which very deep questioning is basic to religious life, in that it calls you to question a lot of what is usually taken for granted.
Is it that you don’t believe your own words?
Quoting Wayfarer
A mandate (necessarily authoritative) to accept or reject that authority. Is this not superfluous? What religion exists that anyone is not free to accept or reject it?
It could only be meaningfully non-hierarchical and rejecting of authority if practitioners were able to not merely accept or reject but to freely criticize or revise as they saw fit, such as with philosophy. Naturally, all religions, including Buddhism, are highly resistant to critique or reform.
The mandate to accept or reject is a mandate which limits you to exactly that. You cannot question. Philosophy questions everything.
As far as Buddhism is concerned, their attitude is ‘take it or leave it’. They’re generally not going to try and save you in spite of yourself, like Christians, or kill you for nonbelief, like militant Islam.
I don’t know what this means. I’m not religious but I could say that I value the same kinds of ethics that many religions do.
Plato could certainly be called an authority in philosophy. Significantly, however, no philosopher could exist that is considered THE authority or the ultimate authority.
Anyone is free to accept or reject Platonism, as well as freely question or critique any part of it. There are no heretical Platonists, at least not in anything but a metaphorical sense.
The Buddhist attitude of ‘take it or leave it’ leaves no room for questioning, critique, or least of all, reform. This only underscores the essential aspect of its hierarchical authority structure and places it squarely in the category of religion.
Right. Have a look at http://veda.wikidot.com/dharma-and-religion
Nothing I’ve written in this topic contradicts any of that, or rather, conflicts with their definition of religion.
To reiterate, I claim:
1) Buddha is the ultimate authority in Buddhism and Buddhism has a social hierarchy.
2) Buddhism is meaningful.
3) Buddhism is unifying.
If Buddhism didn’t have an ultimate authority or social hierarchy, and it was meaningless and un-unifying, it would not be a religion.
The Southeast Asian country in which I live, is largely Buddhist. My wife is Buddhist. My in-laws are Buddhist. In my opinion, Buddhism is first and foremost a religion. I seriously wonder why people in the West think it is a philosophy? My wife is not philosophical at all. She wouldn't want to follow a "philosophy".
Quoting Congau
Agreed. When the monks come over the noodle soup restaurant in the morning, where I would be having my noodle soup, any Buddhist will give the monk twenty cents or so, and then they will pray together for twenty seconds or so, in ancient Pali language. (Almost) nobody understands what they are praying about and whom they are praying to.
Quoting praxis
There is no hierarchical authority in Buddhism that I know of. If there were, I would be able to see such authority here in this largely Buddhist country. There are certainly monks but there is no organization beyond the practical management of a single temple. These temples do not report to a higher authority. They were built by collecting donations. Some local elders manage the premises.
There are indeed different monastic fraternities, but these loose associations have no governing authority. They do not own the temples. They do not appoint their administrators, and so on.
By the way, Buddhists do not go to the temple like Christians go to church. That is a complete misconception. These temple buildings primarily house the monks. Furthermore, monks are not monks for life. They do that for a few years only; after which they return to civilian life. Occasionally, there are festivals and other festivities at the temple (not inside but in front of). I have been to a few in the past.
Every day the monks visits the population in the morning and pray with people in front of their houses or shops. It is this morning-prayer round of mendicant monks that is the central pillar of Buddhism. The other pillar is the notion of traditional morality and law.
By the way, the vast majority of Buddhists have no clue whatsoever what is written in the ancient Buddhist scriptures (Tipitaka). I have never seen a local translation either. Ordinary believers simply do not read them (and are not encouraged to read them by anybody). Only the older monks do, and always in original language (Pali or Sanskrit).
Sacred texts are not questioned, only interpreted. In philosophy texts/works may hold higher esteem than others, but they are constantly questioned and countered.
As for Buddhism, some buddhists worship gods and some don’t. Just like some people will adhere to islamic or christian ideals yet not necessarily believe in a deity - and they call themselves muslims and christians without clinging to the texts and teachings with furious intent.
They major commonality between them is their intent and interest in human emotions and ethics/aesthetics. A very rich source of investigation, of which science doesn’t have a particularly ‘authoritative’ hold (of course it still dabbles in such areas through research into psychology, complex systems, evolution and neurosciences).
In super-duper simplistic terms I tend to shovel them onto opposing poles - religions ‘believe’ and philosophies ‘doubt’. I also tend to view science and art as opposed too: art at play with the ‘chaotic’ and science at play with the ‘ordered’. On the same poles none of these items are monopoles, they suffuse into each other beyond distinction at certain positions on the spectra.
Categories are useful, but they’re not dogmatic doctrines. Such argumentation falls into epistemic issues though.
Elders > monks > laymen & laywomen? With the Buddha being the ultimate authority, of course.
They have temples, i.e. a particular type of buildings. So, there are obviously people who take care of practicalities surrounding these temples. I am not privy to the nitty-gritty details of the facilities management involved in each one of these buildings, but all of that looks very, very practical.
A monk is mostly a young man who spends a few years in that temple; after which he comes back to civilian life. He may do it again several decades later, when he is quite old already and he feels like investing again some time in monastic life.
Quoting praxis
For the ordinary Buddhist believer, the Buddha does not even seem to play a particularly large role in the religion. That would require these believers to understand what exactly the monks recite during the morning prayer, which they generally don't. I know because I speak the local language. So, I know that what they are reciting is absolutely not in that local language.
Even most monks are incapable to tell you what exactly they are reciting in Pali language.
To tell you something funny, I can also recite their main prayer, but I do not really understand what it means. When I ask other people who recite it, they do not know either what it means. Transliterated, it goes like this:
Nek mo ta sa
Nek mo ta sa phekevek tau ara hak tau
sama sampot tau sa
I do not know what it means, but I can recite it from memory, simply because I have heard it so often.
I am afraid that this is what they all do. Seriously.
It is most likely an excerpt from the Tipitaka, but I am not even sure about about that. There are more prayers similar to this one, but they are recited less often. So, I may recognize them, but I cannot recite them by myself.
I am not deeply invested in that stuff. I just wanted to know what it was. So, I ended up participating in their things, once in a blue moon, just for the hell of it, but that is all there is to it.
By the way, I have never heard a Buddhist mention the word "Buddha". Ever. It rather seems to be some kind of misguided western idea that Buddhism revolves around a "Buddha". Seriously, it doesn't.
Buddhism is all about reciting prayers in an ancient language that you do not understand yourself. That is main pillar in Buddhism.
The second pillar of Buddhism is to show respect for traditional morality, rules, and social conventions.
Buddhism has been in a continuous state of evolution and reform since its inception. If you read the Buddhist suttas, many are in question-and-answer format.
Quoting alcontali
I think you might be in Thailand. Japanese Pure Land services are very like church services, complete with hymns, which imitate the Christian style, and sermons ('dharma talks') along with sutra recitation (which is regulated to the minutest details in intonation and pronunciation.) Pure Land is the largest overall denomination in China and Japan, and it is generally oriented around temple services and hereditary priesthoods or 'family lineages'. I've attended a few over the years, out of my interest in Buddhism, but I end up asking myself if I was going to attend these services whether I might be better of in a Church where at least I can understand the words.
Quoting I like sushi
I don't think you're mistaken in saying that, but it's very characteristic of modern Western culture to see it in terms of such dichotomies.
Well, next-door to Thailand, in Cambodia. I have never had a look at how the Thai do things, actually. I only have some kind of vague familiarity with the Cambodian take on religion. The thing is, the ordinary believer does not seem to know more than me. I know because I have asked so many people if there was more to what they are doing, and there isn't.
Quoting Wayfarer
That is really not how the Khmer do it. These "services" must be a Japanese thing. There are no "services" here in Cambodia. There is only the morning-prayer round of the mendicant monks. If there were "services", I would have run into one a long time ago already. There really aren't any.
You have to be ‘religious’ to treat a text as irrefutable; but the clearer distinction would be that dogmatism is about unquestioned obedience to some ‘sacred’ work. If someone is reading the bible or the book of the dead as an absolute guide of how to live life they’re dogmatic; usually encumbered with the threat of death or torture in some afterlife. Philosophies can embrace such, but they are not necessarily embraced because of religious beliefs.
The OP asked for possible useful distinctions. I erred away from being pedantic about the underlying ‘meanings’ of religion and/or philosophy. A line has to be drawn somewhere or we wouldn’t be able to speak to each other.
Theravada countries like Thailand are much nearer the original Indian monastic order, in Tibet, China, Japan, and so on, Buddhism went through enormous changes. That's why it's a mistake to talk about 'Buddhism' as if it's a monolithic entity, really its a tremendously diverse set of cultures.
As I said, I don't think you're mistaken, and many would agree, certainly a number of contributors have already said exactly this.
But I'm trying to unpack what's behind that, as I think it's rather characteristic of the way modern culture has come to understand it. I'm interested in the original insights behind religious ideas, before they became ossified into dogmatic form, if you like.
That's why I made the remark about Plato. Socrates, as we will all recall, was sentenced to death principally for teaching atheism to the youth of Athens, right? For the authorities there, questioning the Greek cults was atheism. But Socrates himself is in some sense a religious thinker, in that he's plumbing the depths of questions about knowledge, beauty, justice, and so on - which continued with his 'lineage', Plato, Aristotle and beyond. The Greek philosophical tradition, especially in the form of neo-platonism, became quite 'religious' - in a sense. Yes, they were questioning, and they would question everything, actually far more so than your modern urban armchair sceptic. But Plotinus, often called the last great philosopher of antiquity and an inheritor of the Platonic tradition, is known as a mystic and one of the sources of Western philosophical theology.
So, too often, when we reject 'everything religious' on the basis of what we call 'humanism', then we're often rejecting that philosophical heritage along with it - throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak. The originators of humanism were dedicated to these ideas - and they were at odds with the Church, they were not ‘secular’ in the modern sense. That’s what I’m trying to get at.
"The European philosophical tradition is [...] a series of footnotes to Plato", right? I mean, not really, but kinda, yeah? Imagine if, in addition to that philosophical tradition, you also had some people who took Plato as some kind of a holy figure who had solved philosophy and venerated his words and created rituals surrounding him. Now, in that counterfactual universe, where you've got folks like us who read and study Plato along with all the "footnotes" to him and question all of it, but you've also got those people in old Greek temples reciting prayers to the Form of the Good, doing ritual shadow puppet shows to reenact the Allegory of the Cave, and listening to sermons that recite passages from the Republic... in that world, is Platonism a philosophy or a religion?
It can be two things.
Have you ever read the expression 'the divine Plato'? In Christian history, Socrates and Plato were designated as 'Christians before Christ'. Many will argue that this was part of the means by which christianity appropriated Greek philosophy - an early act of 'cultural appropriation', you could argue. But nevertheless, it also shows that at that time, the boundary between philosophy and religion was pretty porous - although I'm not sure about the ritual element. Neoplatonists were more connected with 'theurgy' which is nearer to what we would understand as ritual magic than religion per se.
Quoting I like sushi
Sure - no argument there. Long before religious lore was committed to writing, it was memorised and spoken. The Vedas and the teachings of the Buddha were passed down for centuries (millenia, even) before being written down.
There's a kind of modern myth that Buddhism is a naturalistic or scientific religion. This was especially popular during the early 20th Century, through a movement that came be called 'Protestant Buddhism'. This corresponded to some of the early Buddhist outreach efforts to the West, some of which originated in Ceylon (now Sri Lanka) with a monk by the name of Anagarika Dharmapala who presented at the World Parliament of Religions, Chicago, 1880's. Meanwhile there was also an English translator, T W Rhys Davids, active around the same time, who founded the Pali Text Society, which undertook translations of the Buddhist Pali scriptures into English. He likewise presented Buddhism as a religion compatible with science - indeed it was his idea to translate the Buddhist term 'bodhi' as 'enlightenment', at least in part because it suggested the European enlightenment.
So, early in the 20th century it was popular to say that Buddhism was founded by a human, as distinct from a God, and even that 'the law of karma', as 'the law of action and reaction' was itself like a scientific principle comparable to Newton's laws of motion.
But regrettably, it's not actually true. There are indeed supernatural elements embedded in the Buddha's life story from the beginning. At the time of the enlightenment, he was said to have recalled the exact details of thousands of previous lives, right down to names, relatives names, and occupations. Furthermore, having become enlightened, he was designated 'lokuttara', which literally means 'world-transcending' (and if that's not a synonym for 'supernatural', then I don't know what is.) The Buddha and his mature disciples were always regarded as possessing the supernatural powers ('siddhis') that Indian lore associates with holiness, although he was always extremely reticent about talking of them and strictly forbade the monks from displaying such powers.
The inconvenient truth is that us moderns are generally prejudiced anything that is regarded as supernatural. The reasons for that are complex and mainly historical. But that's enough out of me, I'm hogging the thread.
I suppose we got the silly notion because it’s called Buddhism and not, say, Tom, Dick, or Harryism.
So has every other religion.
Quoting Wayfarer
Indeed, and the Buddha supplies all the answers.
In this case it sounds like it’s functioning like a religion.
Your point is unclear.
That’s easy to say, but what does it mean exactly?
So case in point, Buddhism can be a religion to some people, but a philosophy to others. Not because some people interpret "the" practice of Buddhism to be a philosophy and others interpret it to be a religion, but because some people practice it religiously and other people practice it philosophically.
Even anthropologists cannot agree on what a religion is, but dependency on ritual and a belief in the supernatural suffices. Buddhism, at least now, has rituals such as mantras, meditation and prayer wheels.
It wasn’t clear if you meant that one individual could do both simultaneously. It appears that you don’t.
We all have rituals. It’s also common to have explanations for things that can’t be scientifically proven.
1. In respect of Buddhism (and Indic as opposed to Semitic religions generally) - they see themselves in terms of 'dharma', as mentioned above. Dharma is one of those many Indian terms for which there isn't a direct English equivalent but it contains elements which are both religious and philosophical. Dharma could be translated as duty, law or principle; it is both the underlying principle of the Universe (somewhat similar to the ancient Greek 'logos'), and also the individual's duty, path or way of life in recognition of that principle.
Another point about Buddhism, is that its model is one of 'imparting an understanding' rather than 'laying down the law'. The first element in the Buddhist eightfold path is 'samma ditthi' meaning 'right view' or 'right understanding'. That is subtly different to the Christian 'orthodoxy' which means 'right belief' or 'right worship'. This is because it contains a cognitive element, i.e. the aspirant needs to arrive at a correct understanding, not simply recite articles of faith and believe in them (although in practice there are many convergences). But Buddhism has, for example, the concept of 'dharma gates' meaning that the Buddha teaches differently to different kinds of beings depending on their aptitude - and I don't think there's anything similar in Christian teaching.
So, Western religions formed around very different principles, especially in respect of authority. This is one of the reasons that the comparison between Christianity and Buddhism is so difficult. It means that the answer to the question 'is Buddhism as religion?' can only be 'in some ways, yes, in other ways, no' - because the understanding of what 'religion' means is itself different.
2. As we all know, the Christian Church takes the saying 'no-one comes to the Father but by Me' (John 14:16) as an indication of the exclusiveness of the Christian revelation i.e. that Jesus Christ is the only avenue to salvation, and the Incarnation a one-time event that could only ever be repeated as the literal 'second coming'.
But, for our purposes, suffice to note that in Christianity itself, there has always been a tension between the Greek philosophy which was incorporated into theology, and the 'messianic' authority of the Bible. This is even found in the Bible itself, in such sayings as 'foolishness to the Greeks' and 'what has Athens to do with Jerusalem?'
Quite a bit, it turns out. Many of the early Greek-speaking philosophical theologians sought to harmonise Platonist (including Aristotelian) principles with the revealed 'Word of God'; this is the source of the idea of the virtuous pagan, and 'Christians before Christ' (along with the basics of Christian philosophical theology). This synthesis gave rise to Christian Platonism, which can accommodate religion, science and philosophy without seeing them as contradicting each other, and which was preserved to some degree in Aquinas.
But Luther condemned Aquinas as 'doing the devil's work'. And Platonism was gradually eliminated or suppressed from Christianity over the course of the late medieval and early modern periods. This is why, I think, there became such an emphasis on fideism, 'salvation by faith alone' and unquestioning submission to authority.
Deep historical questions, of course, but that's the general thrust.
And when I say 'must' I am of course declaring a principle of my own philosophy, that one aim to be unbiased. And the discerning inquirer will have noticed that there is a radical circularity here, and I will admit that it is unsettling, but also declare it as a widespread feature of philosophy.
So looking around, there is a tradition, or several traditions, with a canon of works, and a practice of study contemplation and dialogue. There are buildings that house schools and libraries, there are teachers and students. And there are factions, 'isms, and sects, great and small, that have disputes and conflicts and more or less contempt for each other.
Do we members of this forum all agree what is this 'philosophy' that we discuss together? It seems to me that we do not, and that philosophy is almost as varied and conflicted as religion, and indeed that it cannot be entirely distinguished from that religion that it opposes (in this thread at least). As a matter of fact, philosophy is a tradition, with a practice that develops from principles, and principles developed from practice. It is an institution, a way of life, a discipline ... much like any religion; and some factions of philosophy have a somewhat religious devotion to denying any resemblance to a religion. As if this could ever be anything other than an article of faith and dogma.
There’s no difference because in both the Eastern and Western traditions the subjects of ‘understanding’ cannot be understood. No one can explain how rebirth works, for example. There are countless questions that you could ask about it that no one could answer. It must be taken on faith, and only a religious authority can say what needs to be believed. It’s excusable that they don’t know because they’re just the middleman, not God, Buddha, or whatever.
The God Punishers, I think they’re called.
The degree to which "a coherent set of ideas" is dogmatic - appeals to Mystery (Ignorance) / Authority / Tradition / Popularity / Emotion - is the degree to which I'd classify it as belonging to [s]religious[/s][magical] discourse, or "a religion". Likewise, the degree to which "a coherent set of ideas" is aporetic - consists in rational grounds for doubt, and therefore, reflective inquiry - is the degree to which it belongs to philosophical discourse, or "a philosophy".
(Both dogmatic & aporetic: whichever frames, or sets priorities, is primary, or the defining characteristic of the "set of ideas" at issue.
Neither dogmatic nor aporetic: such "a set of ideas" are, it seems, merely customs, conventions, norms, etc.)
[quote=Daniel C]What brought me to this is the case of Buddhism.[/quote]
To my mind, Buddhism (theravada? mah?y?na? vajray?na?) is more religious than philosophical, that is, its doctrines are more dogmatic than aporetic in practice.
That said I do think both nihilism and religious views can be a useful, and necessary, path for most people along their journey through life. They do offer something that tips towards humility even if it is often construed as something other than ‘humility’. It’s certainly a complex area and that is obvious enough in how people rage and war about these very ideas and likely will for centuries to come.
What is religion? What is philosophy?
Religion, if I may say so, concerns itself with morality which itself is based on the suffering-happiness dichotomy. It maybe that not all religions have these as a central theme but the big-wigs among religions seem united in both moral prescriptions, the alleviation of suffering and creating/perpetuating happiness.
Philosophy, it seems to me, is about rational analysis of all things under the sun, religion included.
If there's anything remotely close to religion in philosophy then it's ethics and if there's any philosophy in religions then it consists of argumentation, attempts at rationality, to support their doctrines/dogmas.
As you can see religion is quite narrow in scope - confining itself to morals and suffering/happiness. However, what is relevant for philosophy is religion's need to monopolize truth which is, quite obviously, a major roadblock for philosophy or anything else for that matter.
As for Buddhism, in my humble opinion, it too focuses on morality and it's conjoined twin suffering/happiness. However, in contrast to other religions, it identifies what could be called real causes for suffering and what is most applauadable about it is that it specifically singles out IGNORANCE as the most deplorable vice.
Quoting TheMadFool
A religion [s]justifies[/s][rationalizes] - exegetes, preaches, proselytizes - its fundamental sine qua non claims (i.e. doctrines, rites) primarily via appeals to ignorance, etc, thereby reinforcing incorrigibility in its adherents. Re: dogmatics, mysteries ...
A philosophy, however, Critiques (our) Ignorance Of (our) Ignorance preliminarily via corrigibly avoiding formal fallacies in reasoning & informal fallacies in discursive engagement (i.e. dialectic, lecture, writing). Re: aporetics, problematiques ...