Considering Buddhism and Hyphenated Religious Identities
At the meditation retreats for foreigners I frequently attend for my research in Thailand, I am often instructed that Buddhism is not a religion but a way of life. Mae Chii Aree of the International Dhamma Hermitage told me that she instructs foreign retreatants in this way because if they think of Buddhism as religion then there is a gap between the participants and their teachers, between the ideas of the participants and the teachings they are receiving. At other retreats I have attended teachers emphasize select teachings that they consider to be ‘universal’ and exclude teachings and practices that seem ‘religious’ as this can turn off the participants from meditation and Buddhism.
These ideas about Buddhism have consequences that can be seen in the new phenomenon of hyphenated religious identities. For the most part, these dual religious identities place Buddhism as the secondary religion, the support for the primary one. People identify as Jewish-Buddhist (Ju-Bus) or Christian-Buddhists, not Buddhist-Christians or Bu-Jus. This makes sense for those who grew up with Abrahamic religions— they keep their original faith but are curious about others. Select Buddhist beliefs and practices are incorporated into one’s life in addition to one’s primary faith. However, there are not many Buddhists in the West who consider themselves primarily Buddhists and then add an Abrahamic religion to support their Buddhist beliefs and practices (an exception to this is James Ishmael Ford who came to Buddhism first and later on adopted Unitarian-Universalism. This is recorded in his blog). This is because of the way Buddhism is perceived as a way of life, a science of the mind, or a philosophy— but not a religion as traditionally conceived. These non-religious terms make it easy to add Buddhist practices as a support for one’s existing religious identity.
Ajahn Jayasaro, British monk in the lineage of Ajahn Chah, in contrast to common thought, affirms that Buddhism is a religion—just a different kind. In many of his dhamma talks he asserts that Buddhism is not a belief-based religion, but an education-based one. By this he means that the Buddhist tradition is more concerned with educating humanity than having Buddhists adhere to a certain set of beliefs. Thus it is not an exclusive tradition that demands certain beliefs and practices. Because of these inclusive features of the tradition, in the modern world parts of Buddhism are increasingly used as a support for these belief-based religions.
A series of recent articles and blog posts about this topic show its contemporary relevance, and the arguments that support bi-religious identities. One of the reasons hybrid religious identities are needed is that faith-based religions are seen as lacking. Buddhist practices, such as meditation, it is argued, can fill in the gaps of faith-based religions.. Shambhala Sunspace blog quotes a relevant Denver Post article:
“According to Father Thomas Keating, a Trappist monk and founder of the Centering Prayer movement, Buddhism’s appeal lies in its ability to fill in the gaps of traditional religions. ‘We sensed that the Eastern religions, with their highly developed spirituality, had something we didn’t have. In the last generation, 10 to 20 years, some didn’t even think there was a Christian spirituality, just rules-do’s and don’ts and dogma they didn’t find spiritually nourishing.’”
Buddhism thus is seen to add an inward-looking dimension to Christian practices and fills this missing piece of spirituality within Christian lifestyles.
Spiritual practices of Buddhism can be added to other faiths because unlike faith-based religions, Buddhism is seen to have no initiation ceremony. This makes the Buddhist identity more fluid and flexible. It is argued that one does not have to accept the whole worldview of the tradition. The Buddhist Channel website includes an article on American Buddhism by Porterjil, who quotes a number of American Buddhists relating to this issue. A Vietnamese-American states that “Buddhism is a way of living, by a way of living I mean that you don’t have to become anything, you could be a Christian practicing Buddhism because it’s just a way of living. That’s it, there’s no title, there’s no name for it.” Because of this fluidity the Buddhist tradition is seen to be less strict. So one can incorporate what one finds useful for daily life.
A similar sentiment about the inclusive nature of Buddhism is expressed on the Bayou Buddhists blog:
“Buddhism doesn’t require you to choose ‘this or that’ . . . Why not just add Buddhism into your religious life? . . . There’s nothing in Buddhism that requires that you accept all of it for it to be beneficial to you. I know several Christians who are Practicing Buddhists, to some degree. If you only practice mindfulness and meditation, your life and the life of everyone around you will improve, even if you accept nothing about Buddhist Practice but those two things.”
In an interview with bi-religious politician, Erik Curren, he emphasizes these benefits of adopting portions of Buddhist practice:
“This is a practice that will… help you come down from your day, help you… center yourself in a place of peace and contemplation, and help you in whatever your faith to look at things that are really important to you… this is a… a practice that I’ve seen many Christians take up with great benefit and in fact, people of all faiths and even of no faith…”
Here again Buddhist practices are divorced from the tradition and placed in a position to aid in the path of a faith-based religion.
These arguments in support of hyphenated religious identities thus depend on certain ideas about Buddhism. It is seen as a non-exclusive religion in which parts can supplement other faiths without conflict. Certain parts of the tradition are seen to have benefits—benefits that faith-based religions are lacking.
But there is another side to this issue that is not as well-represented in popular websites and blogs. Wendy Cadge and Courtney Bender, in their article on religious hybridity among Catholic nuns [1] describes how these nuns use Buddhist meditation as a tool to aid in their faith. But the most interesting part of this article is the response by Buddhist nuns. They argue that all parts of Buddhism are connected and meditation shouldn’t be used as a tool for alternative religious goals. They find that one cannot uncouple Buddhist teachings from forms of practice—one cannot receive the benefits of meditation without being grounded in the ethical teachings of Buddhism.
These Buddhist nuns present an argument against Buddhism as the second half of a hyphenated religious identity. They argue that Buddhism needs to be primary if the practices are to have an effect. So can or should Buddhism be used as a support to one’s primary faith? Or should Buddhism stand on its own as a single and primary practice? If one was grounded in the tradition of Buddhism would the benefit be greater? Is something lost by using Buddhism to support other religions—by placing it as the second part of a hybrid religious identity?
FOOTNOTES
1. Cadge, Wendy and Bender, Courtney. “Constructing Buddhism(s): Interreligious Dialogue and Religious Hybridity.” Sociology of Religion, vol. 67, no. 3, 229-247.↑
Author Info
Interesting piece that raises some important questions. I suspect each person who finds himself or herself with a hypenated religious identity has a unique story. Many Westerners practice Buddhism in reaction to the Christianity or Judaism in which they were raised, so no hyphen is needed. But some of us encountered and resonated with the Buddha's teachings (as well as Buddhist practice) from within a Western religion for which we had no scorn, or maybe even loved. That was the case for me, coming from Eastern Orthodox Christianity, in which I found truth that I can't deny. At some point Zen practice became, almost inevitably, my path, but I wasn't practicing in reaction to Christianity at all. There were things there I still loved and valued, the ethos of repentance, for example, when practiced properly, and the great symbolic language that changes one's view of the universe in a way almost like the Tibetan Book of the Dead can. I've lately been back in church with much gratitude–there's something of the bodhisattva vow in this–not wanting to leave these people, oriented toward truth, behind. But, interestingly, I find that practice has led me to less identity with any group–even as I embrace them. It's like I'm hyphenated, but the term on either side of the hyphen is vanishing before my eyes. I'm left with just the hyphen….
Excellent article, Brooke Schedneck! While on long term intensive retreats in Burma and Malaysia in the early and mid 1990s, I was surprised to learn that there are "religious Buddhists." Like most westerners who approach Buddhism as a technology of enlightenment, I had assumed that cultural Buddhists would share my non-sectarian, pragmatic view that Buddhism is a set of tools to be mastered on the road to awakening. Instead, I found that many cultural Buddhists (as opposed to converts) do not consider enlightenment to be a realistic goal. For them, Buddhism is the belief system in which they grew up; if the Buddha said it, it must be true. In other words, for many Buddhists, Buddhism is just another religion. While household shrines and daily offerings to devas (divine beings) are common, daily meditation is not. It makes sense to me that the Buddhist nuns you cite (who are presumably cultural Buddhists who grew up with their religion) would feel that Buddhism must be taken as a whole or not at all. When we contrast this with the "hyphenated religious identity" of people who are looking for freedom rather than a set of ideas to believe in or something to worship, we see the difference between exoteric spirituality and esoteric spirituality.
I love the comment "Buddhism is not a belief-based religion, but an education-based one." I don't consider myself hyphenated at all, and would actually prefer to not use the word religion. But if I had to, I surely prefer to be part of one that does not require leaps of faith (or any faith at all) but is firmly grounded in practical experience.
Regarding the quote from Ajahn Jayasaro, you can find his videos where he talks about this topic here:
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=jayas…
This is a big topic and it gets hoary fast.
But traditional Buddhism does at the very least have a number of undeniably religious *elements* that have traditionally been considered an integral part of the whole (karma & rebirth in particular).
I believe we in the West have been done a serious disservice by people who mislead us about this. There is a lot of bait and switch that goes on, and it's not right.
The question of whether meditation divorced from the Buddhist context is helpful is another question altogether.
Greg,
Can you expand on how you think it's a serious disservice? Are you for or against Asian Buddhist teachers leaving out unpalatable teachings when instructing their Western students? Bait and switch: Do you mean that they say Buddhism isn't a religion, but then after a year or so they hit us with all the "religious" bits and say, yeah this is important now?
Thanks!
-Alec
I think it's a bait and switch in the sense that if you investigate far enough you see that the Buddha's ideas about karma and rebirth are integral to the structure of Buddhism and that most people would consider those views "religious."
For the record, I happen to subscribe to those views. And I don't advocate that people be expected to adopt them early on in their path as dogma. But I do think it is only right to acknowledge that they are there without soft-pedaling them.
But whether or not Buddhist views and practices can be divorced from the traditional context and still be helpful is a separate issue, I think. I believe that Jon Kabat-Zinn has done a good job there.
A very interesting article, and in fact related to something I was going to blog about myself. I claim no great expertise on the subject, but two points occurred to me that weren't mentioned.
Firstly, although your post is chiefly concerned with the West, it would appear that in the East, primarily China (certainly in the past, perhaps less so today) 'hyphenated religious identity' is a matter of commonality; certainly Daoism, Buddhism, and Confucianism have been combined in any two or all three parts, and there seems to be a great deal more harmony between these traditions than between Buddhism and Abrahamic religions.
Secondly, the merit of Buddhist-derived meditation when secularised is often called into question. I would draw attention to the pioneering work of Kabat-Zinn, et al.: here are mindfulness teachings, taken from the Buddhist tradition, and applied to the great benefit of many suffering high levels of stress, chronic pain, depression, and so on — yet no religious element is involved.
While I believe that Buddhist practice is certainly enriched by the rest of the vast corpus of teachings, I feel that the practice alone can be very beneficial. Although I'm likely to name myself as a Buddhist when the question of belief arises, I find it quite liberating that the practice -works- regardless of whether you believe in the Buddha or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. To paraphrase the Dalai Lama paraphrasing the Buddha, try the teachings out; if you find they work, adopt them, if not, discard them.
Thanks everyone for the interesting comments. I will be working more with this issue in the future with my research and dissertation. Certainly Buddhism has always combined and adapted with each culture and other religions it came into contact with. But this idea of incorporating Buddhism into a hyphenated religious identity is something new to the modern world.
Really interesting post.
I have a friend who calls herself "Buddeo-Christian" (pretty funny, eh?). This article made me think of her, and how regardless of how she is encouraged by her Christian or Buddhist communities, she made that choice for herself. In fact, both communities don't like how she identifies herself.
The Christians say that she is following a "false prophet", and the Buddhists say she is following "wrong-views".
She shrugs it off, saying, "Well, ultimately my spiritual life is my responsibility, right?"
I agree totally. The zero-sum game of religious identity is silly. There are more fundamental aspects of being human that suggest pluralism is the best explanation. And those happen to be the true ground of spiritual practice.
I think this is a very interesting article examining the relevance of hyphenated religions. I always found this practice a bit suspect, and possibly denigrating to Buddhism, the religion always appearing as second on the hyphenated list. You explained the issue more for me and this article provided some interesting insider opinions on the practice. Cheers!
Things are evolving. Currently we have, especially in the west, supporting institutions other than religion, mainly science, and potential for diversity due to relatively free atmosphere and the ideology of freedom. We also have ways to "canonize" other than dogma (again, science), and the Internet to support long tail (minorities) in everything.
No suprise then that the mental techniques originally developed in a religious context have escaped into wild, and they mutate and are adapted to the western way of life and ideology.
I'm sure that one can simplify and peel a techniques until only a core is left that may be otherwise impressive and great, but is suboptimal for happiness unless augmented with philosophy or general guidance for life. But there are various use cases. As an instituionalized therapy, we need something that is belief-neutral and objective, but on the personal level we are free to augment the techniques with philosophy or even beliefs. Both are needed.
(Now that was the viewpoint of a buddhist atheist.
)
Interesting article! Ken Wilber's take on this subject is that Buddhism, as it is practice in the West at least, is largely concerned with awakening to reality in the first person ("I"), and that Judeo-Christian religions are all about surrendering the first person to the second person ("you") in the form of God or Christ consciousness. Traditional, cultural Buddhism is full of second-person spirituality in the form of devotion to Buddha or to Rinpoches, devas, dakinis and so forth. But because it came to the West at a time when people sorely needed some kind of first-person approach to awakening (and were also fed-up with dogmatic, magic/mythic approaches to second-person spirituality), modernist westerners for the most part have ditched the second-person aspects of the tradition. However, if you take Buddhism or even non-dual awakening far enough, surrender always seems to come up as the thing that, ultimately, is of the greatest importance. So it is there in Buddhism, too. It's just that the conceived, second-person entities–well, it's understood that the concept is not the thing and can stand in the way of the actual experience. The second person also is emphasized in Buddhist teachings on working with others, the Bodhisattva vow and so forth.
I teach meditation at our local Sangha, and always tell the students that while I am a Buddhist, the techniques of mediation are a benefit to anyone, regardless of faith. Recently I was discussing practice and belief at length with a friend who considers herself both Buddhist and Christian. We were talking about the central dogma in Christianity of salvation being through Jesus, and the world being true, solid, and created by an actual God. These tenants are rather in contrast to the idea of emptiness, the dual nature, and enlightenment let alone the idea of the Bardo and rebirth vs heaven. She told me she feels no conflict as she doesn't expect life or faith to be easy or make sense all the time. She has belief in the idea of a creator god, but feels that escape samsara, you must "do the work yourself through meditation, good works and virtuous actions." Neither of us were engaging in this discussion with the intent to change the mind/belief of the other, it was just a friendly talk, not a debate. I found her ideas interesting in a "cut and paste" style. As Buddhism is relatively new to the west I'm going to guess that often people will take some time to understand the deeper aspects of it.
Buddhism does have an initiation ceremoney which is called taking refuge (sarana gamana).