Buddhism: A Spiritual Philosophy?

After reading parts of a book over the Christmas period, "Destroying Emotions: A Dialogue with the Dalai Lama", and my initial knowledge of Buddhism, I have become increasingly curious about Buddhism.

I decide to do some research. Knowing that some call it a religion, others a "spiritual philosophy, I was interested into looking into the basic teachings and I can see where, arguably there is Buddhism as a spiritual philosophy, and Buddhism as a religion.

SoYouWanna's convert to Buddhism article deals with the basics and the crux of the Buddist ideal - I will refer it to as an ideal for now and return to the question of spiritual philosophy/religion later.

There are, it argues, and this corresponds to Wikipedia's various articles on Buddhism - I will discuss a few Buddhist concepts later - many different factions of Buddhism, just like in Christianity or Judaism or Islam, and the same for the "Eastern Religions" of Hinduism, Sikhism, etc. There is no central thesis, no bible, but there are guidelines. Also Buddhism does not, it asserts, deal with the question of a God of Classical Theism. So by right, it is possible to be a Buddhist and believe in a God. From this perspective I would call it "religious Buddhism".

Buddhism as a 'spiritual philosophy' is based on 5 precepts, and a 8-fold path, in order to eliminate bad thoughts, and promote the good. Here we find the classic thing when we think of as Buddhism - meditation. As a bit of education, I quote from SYW the 8-fold path and 5 precepts below. The 5 precepts should be thought of as guidelines, they are rules but given that Buddhism has no strict doctrine, despite many religious texts, they are guidlines in the aim of being mindful at all times in order to acheive enlightment. The 8-fold path, is the path we should follow.

5 Precepts:

1. Don't kill - man or beast
2. Don't steal
3. Don't lie
4. Don't cheat on your loved one
5. Don't take drugs or drink booze

I would personally agree with all on the basis of acheiving mindfulness at all times, and at first glance it might appear that being a strict vegetarian or vegan is the way of a Buddhist. However, given the main aim of Buddhist ideals is to acheive enlightenment, I would not say that the killing of animals for food violates this objective.

Second, I would have to reexamine the 5th precept. As a guide of course, it is always a good idea not to drink excessively or take drugs. The 'Don't drink and drive' policy is the obvious one we can think of here. However some Buddhist of the spiritual kind might argue that some drugs and alcohol, taking recreationally is fine and can be used to acheive mindfulness. My father even calls real ale "brainfood", for one. The importance of the 5th precept must not be ignored, it is common sense not to drink too much that we lose control of our way of thinking, but in moderate amounts, recreational drugs and drinking can acheive happiness inone sense. It only becomes a violation when the 5th precept, I would argue, violates any of the other 4. I'm not a Buddhist scholar, but for me this is acceptable from a philosophical point of view.

The 8-fold path:

The whole reason for becoming Buddhist is to achieve happiness and become "enlightened." In order to do this, you must follow the Eightfold Path. Once you have accomplished all eight steps, you are officially enlightened:

1. Right Knowledge: Strive to comprehend the first three Noble Truths. This might seem a bit circular, but language is a tricky thing, and the Great Seer wanted to make sure you had all your bases covered. The Noble Truths perhaps aren't as straightforward as they may seem at first. So you must strive to fully comprehend them.
   
   
2. Right Thinking: Consciously dedicate yourself to a life in harmony with the Noble Truths elucidated by the Buddha.
   
   
3. Right Speech: No gossiping, lying, backbiting, and harsh language. If you don't have anything valuable to say, keep your big yapper shut. Always good advice.
   
   
4. Right Conduct: For lay Buddhists (meaning Buddhists who aren't monks), Right Conduct means following the Five Precepts (see below). If you're a monk, there are some more rules for conduct, but don't worry about them until you're ready to become a monk.
   
   
5. Right Livelihood: Go peacefully into the world and do no harm. So choose a profession that's harmless to living things, and refrain from killing people.
   
   
6. Right Effort: Conquer the flow of negative thoughts, replacing them with good thoughts.
   
   
7. Right Mindfulness: Achieve an intense awareness of your body, emotions, and mental states. Quiet the noises in your head and dwell in the present.
   
   
8. Right Concentration: Learn about (and practice) various kinds of meditation, an important booster rocket on the launch pad to enlightenment.

None of these, I think are unreasonable and I think everyone could learn something from these from a philosophical point of view.

Taking the 8-fold path and the 5 precepts into account and following them would lead us to become enlightened and therefore we would becoming a Buddhist in its spiritual philosophical form.

As various Wikipedia articles will show and as SYW points out, there are various strains, concepts and beleifs that fall within Buddhism that one might not strictly call philosophical, but rather religious. This includes (among others), the ideas of rebirth, and as I have already pointed out, the neutral stance on the idea of a creator. It could be taken either way from a philosophical point of view.

Though the philosophy of Buddhism from its spiritual perspective is something I largely agree with, the argument has to be made that Christianity or Judaism could be seen as a philosophical, spiritual teaching rather than a religion. Religions attest to a certain way of living, a doctrine tyhat we ascribe to in order to acheive some utlimate goal or good. Buddhism becomes this when Buddhist texts and teachings regarding the issues of rebirth are taken. It is a rather religious beleif, the more philosophical (and perhaps, realistic) may want to stand more rather neutral on the issue: In the end, the basic philosophy and teachings given here are to live a good life, something all religions do.

I can therefore only see that simple subscription to one religion, philosophical or given doctrine's moral values are spiritual, not religious. Religion is about worship, the Spiritual about fulfilment. Of course, these two can intersect and perhaps to be religious you cannot have a spiritual dimension. However you can merely ascribe to spiritual ideals and not be religious, if religion is thought to deal with primarily worship, before all other doctrine on how to live. The 10 Commandments is a classic example here to demonstrate this point - the first being: 'I am the Lord your God and no other God may be worshipped before me'

It is possible therefore, to be a spiritual Judeo-Christian, or a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or Jew or Christian, taking in the basic philosophical teachings as a guidline rather than a law of life that we live or die by. This is what chiefly characterises the religious - if we do not follow the teachings of Jesus, God in the bible as explained to us by the Pope in the Roman Catholic religion (if we cannot think, understand or have any direct view in the Bible we can read from - such as the use of IVF, use of contraceptives regarding AIDs, etc) - we are either destined for Heaven or Hell. From the spiritual side, accepting morals given by a doctrine as guidlines as a way of life and being open to the question of a supreme deity is not religion. This is where the two differ and it is entirely possibly to be a spiritual Buddhist and exercising restrain with regards to the 5th precept to acheive Enlightenment; or a religious Buddhist through accepting given teachings such as the samsara (rebirth).

So then, for those of us that may not subscribe to any religion I propose the following: Not Agnosticism, but Spiritual Philosophy. If we ascribe to any agree to more than one code of conduct (say the 10 Commandments in Christianity and others from other religions, or indeed perhaps even philosophical views, political-philosophical views or that of a "civil religion" (if we choose to accept this - think Robert Bellah's argument that America is a civil religion, or the idea of fanatics and supporters of a sports team that that sport is a religion and the stadium is the 'place of worship'), then we are spiritual philosophers. If we strictly adhere to a religion and that religious teaching, then we are of that religion - be it Christianity, Judaism, etc. Finally, no strong convictions on religion or philosophical views, if we do not concern ourselves with either because we feel it is not important; is Agnosticism.

From my own personal viewpoint I cannot argue and agree more with what I have said about my take on Buddhist philosophy. It would of course be a bit weird if I didn't agree with myself! From the 5 precepts and the 8-fold way of life, they are good guidelines for a way of life. Furthermore, the fundamentals of the religious teachings of which I was brought up in (Christianity), I do not reject, nor take too seriously. The aim is to live a good life, or in philosophical terms, Kantian summum bonum; living life for a higher good. For that, I beleive, whether there is a God or not I cannot say, and I would not argue that any religion is inherently wrong though I find some views suspect as I did with the 5th precept. In my view, if there is a supreme being, a creator, then if I have lived a good life (of which many philosophical texts are influential and good, including justice as fairness, Kantianism, Buddhist philosophy, Judeo-Christian 10 Commandments), I will be judged on the value and the basis of that. If God were to make worship to him is paramount to access to heaven, it seems reasonable to suggest that we would all be born with this knowledge of Him. God-worship is not the most important, though it can be a good tool for some in order to live a good life. For me, the synthesis of theological teachings, philosophy and life experience I feel will lead me to live a good life and be judged on the basis of that conviction. For that I call myself not a religious person, a Catholic, or any more an agnostic (of which I have labelled myself), but a spiritual philosopher.