In one sense, ceremonies marking birth, adulthood, or marriage are seen as purely worldly activities, not relevant to the spiritual pursuit, and so monastics are rarely involved. Having said that, there are often blessings from monks for a new baby, new house or wedding (maybe separate from any civil ceremony), and in some Buddhist groups religious marriage ceremonies do exist, including for same-sex partners, even before civil provision. As this article is being written in July 2020, Thailand looks likely to be the first Buddhist-majority country to legalise ‘same sex unions’.

Funerals are different, as relevant to reflecting on the central concerns of Buddhism with suffering and death. Funerals are conducted by monks or other Buddhist clergy in many Buddhist cultures. In Japan it is something of a Buddhist speciality (‘born Shinto, die Buddhist’). The dead are clothed as if for ordination, and memorial tablets are kept in Buddhist temples.

There are ceremonies for the ordination of novices, and for full ordination as a monk (or nun, where this exists). In some countries, such as Sri Lanka and Tibet, boys can become novice monks as children, and this was a way of gaining an education before state provision of schools, later taking full ordination or returning to lay life. In other countries, for example in Thailand, periods of temporary ordination for men for perhaps a month or so are common as a transition to adulthood, or before getting married.

The majority of adherents of most religions are not so because they have from some (impossible) neutral starting point debated the key ideas intellectually and decided to agree, but because they were born into a particular family and community. Buddhist children will learn about the tradition from their family, and in many Buddhist-majority countries, at school. Even those who ‘convert’ as adults may do so more from personal experience, or encounters with a group of people whose way of life they find attractive, than from philosophical conviction alone. ‘Religion’ is not only about ideas or beliefs, or even values and behaviour, but also a sense of identity.

Identifying as a Buddhist is often expressed, especially in Theravada, by taking the ‘three refuges’ also known as the ‘three jewels’ – repeating ‘I take refuge in the Buddha, I take refuge in the Dharma (Dhamma), I take refuge in the Sangha’ – aligning yourself with a teacher, a teaching accepted as the truth and a community. The term ‘sangha’ or community, which may be used to refer to the whole Buddhist community, is often used just to refer to the monastic community, whose identity is usually marked out by their shaved heads and distinctive robes – not only the different shades of orange found in Sri Lanka and Thailand, but elsewhere dark red, yellow, ochre, black, brown, white or the burgundy and yellow of Tibetan monastics. Novices usually wear white robes. The various categories of not-quite-nuns may also wear white, or burgundy and yellow (like the monks) in Tibetan Buddhism, dark brown in the Thai forest monastery tradition, and in Myanmar they wear pink. There are some Buddhist traditions where the clergy do marry, or where leadership is lay, but even where there is a strict separation of lay and monastic life, the two parts of the community are mutually interdependent, the monastics needing the lay people for food and other material requirements, and the lay community needing the monastics for teaching, spiritual, moral and practical advice and ceremonies.

Although Buddhists may stress the authority of individual experience, there are nevertheless other sources of authority in Buddhism as an institution (or institutions). The historical Buddha, and even more so his teaching, the Dharma/Dhamma, have the authority of his enlightenment experience and his full insight into the truth. This would also apply to in Mahayana to those sutras made known after the earthly life of the historical Buddha.

The sangha, or monastic community, was created not only for the spiritual development of individuals who joined, but also to preserve and transmit the teaching. Thus they have great authority in practice in many Buddhist contexts, particularly male monks. There were early schisms in the sangha and so there were several monastic lineages within the non-Mahayana forms of Buddhism. In some forms of Mahayana Buddhism, such as Tibetan Buddhism, the monastic sangha is very important, in other developments, especially in China and Japan, there can be married rather than monastic clergy and lay leadership. In some Buddhist groups, new forms of leadership have been developed, such as the Dharmachari in the Triratna movement. The New Kadampa Tradition focuses on the books written by its founder. Although the term sangha tends to be restricted to monastics (and often, where the female ordination lines do not exist, male monks), the early texts talk of a fourfold sangha of monks, nuns, laymen and laywomen, so other Buddhists use the term for the whole Buddhist community.

Monks (and sometimes nuns or not-quite-nuns) can be involved in teaching children and young people in formal and informal educational settings. They may provide advice and counselling to lay people, as well as conducting ceremonies. Within the monastic traditions of Zen, the relationship between teacher and apprentice is crucial, as the truth cannot be put into words but only transmitted mind to mind. In Tibetan Buddhism, both monastic and lay Buddhists may take refuge in a particular lama (guru or teacher) who guides their spiritual progress. Some leading lamas (such as the Dalai Lama) are considered to be tulkus, reincarnations/rebirths of particular identified holy teachers as well as manifestations of a Buddha or bodhisattva.

During the life of the Buddha, local kings and leading citizens became important supporters and sponsored the new community.  In spreading Buddhism throughout India, and beyond, the Emperor Ashoka played an important role and both then and later gaining the support of local leaders was crucial – notable examples being Prince Shotoku in Japan, or the various Mongolian Khans who supported Tibetan Buddhism. There are Buddhist monarchs today in Thailand and Bhutan. In pre-communist Tibet, for several centuries, the Dalai Lamas held both political and religious leadership, and the current Dalai Lama, in exile in India, has considerable influence.

The historical Buddha himself however rejected his alternative career of local ruler/king (or as predicted at his birth, emperor) in favour of a higher calling. In one sense, Buddhist monastics have renounced the world and thus not involved in day to day political matters: ‘kings and politics’ are one of the topics that monastics are advised in the Pali Canon not to waste their time discussing. However, it is near impossible in practice to have nothing to do with politics, as political issues are also ethical ones, and not getting involved is a political act. Throughout Buddhist history, Buddhist monastics have been important advisers to rulers, and the historical Buddha’s advice to his royal friends is recorded in the Pali Canon. At times, he was directly involved in political matters, such as when he intervened to stop a war. Generally the advice is to obey government: ‘I prescribe, monks, that you meet the king’s wishes’ is an oft quoted saying (particularly by kings and those in power); however the Buddha was not afraid to speak truth to power where required, such as pointing out that alleviating poverty would do more to solve crime than harsh punishments.  There have been occasions in Buddhist history where monks have even been involved in political violence as well as peaceful political protests. Lay Buddhists are involved in politics from top government levels (the modern world’s first female prime minister was a Buddhist, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, in 1960) to grass-roots activism. It is possible to interpret Buddhism as supporting either socialist or conservative politics, monarchy or revolution. As happens with other religions, in some Buddhist-majority countries Buddhist identity can become entangled with national identity, in both benign and dangerous ways, the latter seen for example in the Sri Lankan civil war or contemporary Myanmar.

Two examples of Buddhists involved in politics are Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar and the current Dalai Lama. Ambedkar (1891-1956) was born into a Dalit family and suffered caste discrimination. He nevertheless gained an education and became the chair of the committee that drew up the constitution of independent India in 1949. He adopted Buddhism (as he saw it) as a faith that was Indian but unlike Hinduism (as he perceived and experienced it) without caste prejudice, and just before he died, he and 400,000 followers became Buddhists. There are about 7 million Ambedkarite Buddhists today (but 200 million Dalits in total).

The current Dalai Lama fled Tibet in 1959 and set up an alternative government in exile in India. He campaigns for a free Tibet, and has become a highly respected international figure (except by the Chinese government). Though he has expressed understanding for the few Tibetans who have been involved in armed resistance, his own resistance is peaceful and non-violent, for which he was awarded the Nobel Peace prize in 1989.

As noted earlier, there is great diversity within what is labelled ‘Buddhism’, especially as it spread to so many different countries and cultures. Cultural contexts led to the development of different ways of expressing Buddhism, and different customs. It is hard – almost impossible – to disentangle culture and religion, as it this depends on having a fixed idea of ‘religion’ or ‘real Buddhism’ that is open to debate. Nor do separate countries have completely separate cultures, as ‘cultural’ elements were often spread along with the ‘religious’ ones, as missionaries and businesspeople travelled to and fro – thus ‘Indian’ ideas and customs as well as Buddhist ideas spread further east, and other ideas and customs came back. Different approaches to Buddhism were debated, sometimes living happily side by side and sometimes one gaining dominance. Conversely, Buddhists in some more remote areas might have had access to particular texts and teachers and not know that others even existed, evolving their own versions over time.

Institutional diversity occurs even within one country. From earliest times, Buddhist have disagreed about matters of teaching or practice and formed new groups. Others have had new visions and insights, discovered new texts, come to new interpretations, or sought to cater for a different sector of society and intentionally or otherwise formed new organisations. There are now many different groups and subgroups, with new organisations forming all the time. Contemporary communications however are creating more possibilities for Buddhists from different groups to meet, dialogue and cooperate.

Today Buddhists exist all over the world. In the UK, there are Buddhists with ethnic origins in many different Buddhist-majority (or Buddhist significant minority) countries, and those who have personally or in recent generations converted from other backgrounds. The latter may follow a traditional form of Buddhism or belong to a group that particularly caters for Westerners (or something in between).

Professional

Denise Cush is Emeritus Professor of Religion and Education at Bath Spa University, having retired after 29 years there in 2015. Her roles during this time included leading and teaching Study of Religions and Philosophies and Ethics, teaching within Education Studies, and teacher training for both primary and secondary RE.  Before that she taught Religious Studies (including Buddhism at A level and A/O level) as well as Religious Education for nine years at St. Mary’s RC Sixth-form College in Middlesbrough. She has an MA in Theology from Oxford University, a PGCE in RE with Science as second subject from Westminster College, Oxford, an MA in Religious Studies from the University of Lancaster (where her dissertation focused on Buddhism in Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism in the West, employing historical, textual and ethnographic methods), a PhD in Religious Education from the University of Warwick, and an honorary doctorate from the University of Uppsala. She was a member of the Commission on Religious Education 2017-18, and Deputy Editor of the British Journal of Religious Education from 2011-2018. Publications include Buddhism, a still much-used textbook (Hodder, 1994), the Routledge Encyclopedia of Hinduism (2007), Celebrating Planet Earth, a Pagan/Christian Conversation (Moon, 2015) and many others on Religious Education.

Personal

Denise was brought up within a Roman Catholic family and attended Catholic maintained schools in the North East. She identified as Catholic (of a liberal, post Vatican II, ‘preferential option for the poor’, ‘justice and peace’ tendency) for the first 30 years of her life, including teaching in a Catholic Sixth-form college. Since then she has resisted labels, and identifies as non-binary in relation to the religious/non-religious construct, though has sometimes called herself a ‘positive pluralist’, acknowledging the influence of several religious and non-religious worldviews on her personal worldview. She has never identified as Buddhist although she acknowledges the influence of Buddhist ideas and practices, among others, on her personal worldview. The factors affecting her interpretations of Buddhism are her position as ‘a sympathetic outsider’, visits to Sri Lanka, Japan and Nepal, a partner who spent a month living as a novice in a Thai monastery, friends and colleagues who belong to Theravada and Tibetan traditions, and interactions with many different Buddhist communities in the UK. She first decided to study Buddhism (and Hinduism) at MA level, mainly because of the contrast with the Christianity of her upbringing and Theology degree, and probably also because of the positive image ‘Eastern’ religions had in 1970s alternative youth culture. She has continued to campaign for the inclusion of Buddhism in religious studies curricula (as well as Paganism, Humanism, Jainism, Rastafari and other smaller groups) because of a commitment to whomever and whatever is neglected, marginalised, or different. No doubt however class, gender, whiteness, sexual orientation and personal experience also affect her perspective. The conclusion of her 1994 A level textbook emphasised the partial, provisional and flawed nature of any attempt to summarise a tradition, but also the value of such an attempt if it helps a little in developing knowledge and understanding.

Even if you do not know much about Buddhism, you will have some existing preconceptions. It is interesting to stop and think what these are and from where they have come. Are they positive or negative or neither? How did they get inside your head and how reliable or representative are the sources of these preconceptions? Contemporary Western perceptions of Buddhism are often positive in a rather romanticised way – Buddha images are found in houses, gardens or spa centres, bought by people who want to suggest peace and serenity. The Dalai Lama is generally held in high esteem, and is something of an international celebrity. Festival-goers sang ‘Happy Birthday’ to him when he visited Glastonbury festival in 2015, close to his 80th. Others are attracted by the idea of Buddhism as a rational religion, or perhaps not a ‘religion’ but a ‘philosophy’, based on personal experience and compatible with modern science.  These are however perceptions, deriving from a variety of sources including earlier scholarship, colonial encounters and even advertising. If your picture of a Buddhist is an oriental man in an orange robe, then this reflects the British history of colonialism and earlier scholarship, as well as patriarchy. Earlier preconceptions were not always as positive, and negative preconceptions can still be found today – Buddhists as worshippers of idols (think of the destruction of the Buddhas of Bamiyan in 2001), or as pessimistic and fatalistic and therefore not doing much to help people practically, or monks and nuns as parasites on the hardworking people. The author suggests above some of the origins of her own initial interest in and experience of Buddhists and Buddhism, which she hopes have been improved by over four decades of studying and meeting Buddhists. Her own initially rather romanticised view of Buddhism was challenged by arriving in Sri Lanka in 1983 on the day when violence broke out between Buddhist-identifying Sinhalese and Hindu-identifying Tamils. It might be useful to stop and reflect on where your own preconceptions come from, and how they might develop.

Students and teachers alike find it difficult remembering all the non-English words used in books and other resources on Buddhism. It is also hard to know how to pronounce them. Some of these terms just have to be used as they are technical terms with no accurate English equivalent. A few, like karma or nirvana have entered into everyday English use over the last half century or so, which helps, or perhaps hinders, if the meaning is not quite the same. The oldest texts are written in two ancient Indian languages, Pali and Sanskrit, which like Latin in Europe are no longer spoken. As well as the Theravada canon (authorised collection of texts), written in Pali, there are Chinese and Tibetan canons, and resources will also use terms from other modern languages such as Japanese, Thai, Korean, Sinhalese, or Vietnamese. English textbooks tend to prioritise the classical Pali or Sanskrit terms, but there is no logic (but probably an interesting history) to which of these has become more familiar in English, for example nirvana is Sanskrit but anatta is Pali. If there are pupils from Buddhist families in the classroom they might be more familiar with terms in their own heritage language or as used in their particular Buddhist community rather than the classical ones used in textbooks. In this essay, where both Sanskrit and Pali terms are given, Sanskrit comes first. As giving both every time can become tedious, sometimes only one is used. Academic texts will use diacritic marks (for example Mahayana would be Mahāyanā) for accuracy, but this essay ignores them for simplicity. However, if trying to look things up in indexes of resources that do use diacritics, it might be useful to know for example that shunyata (emptiness) would be found as śūnyatā. Terms taken from other languages, especially Chinese, can also be rendered differently, for example Kwan yin can be found spelt Gwanyin and in other ways.

One way of answering ‘what is Buddhism?’ would be to say that Buddhism is one of largest and most influential religious traditions in the world, sharing with Christianity and Islam the vision of spreading to the whole of humanity rather than being limited to a particular ethnic or national group. In the nineteenth century it was estimated that Buddhism was a major influence on 40% of the world’s population. Even after the upheavals of the twentieth century, especially the adoption of non-religious Marxist/Maoist ideologies in China and several other countries where Buddhism was previously important, it is claimed by most sources (such as Wikipedia, adherents.com, worldpopulation.com) that there are about 500-535 million adherents, or somewhere between 7-10% of the world’s population. An alternative view is that there could be really more like 1.6 billion or 22%, mainly reliant on counting much larger numbers of Chinese people as Buddhists, and counting people who include some Buddhist practices in their lives (buddhaweekly.com). Perhaps the figure is somewhere between the two, and of course, it depends on who you count as a Buddhist and the methods of collecting the data.

Another way of answering this would be to query whether there is even such a thing as ‘Buddh-ism’, whether it is correct to classify it as a religion or religious tradition, and whether it is possible to separate it out from other traditions. Many contemporary scholars consider that the idea of ‘religions’ as clearly defined separate belief systems is a Western notion dating back to the eighteenth or nineteenth century and thus that the idea of something called ‘Buddh-ism’ is an invention of Western scholars. Given that many Buddhist countries were colonised by Western powers, this means that accounts read by Westerners were first written by or for the foreign rulers. However, as the colonised (especially indigenous elites) were not just passive recipients of labels given by others, but joined in the process of definition with their own agenda, it might be better to say that ‘Buddh-ism’ as most people imagine it, and many textbooks describe it, is a product of the colonial encounter. For example, in the UK, there is a tendency to see Theravada Buddhism as the more mainstream because of British involvement with Sri Lanka, and of Buddhism as rational, playing down the more ritual or mystical elements, because of the efforts of Buddhist modernisers in Sri Lanka. Many Buddhists would prefer to talk about the Dharma/Dhamma or truth about the way things are rather than an ‘ism’. Some Theravada Buddhists would distinguish between Buddhamarga ‘the way of the Buddha’ and Buddhasasana, Buddhism as an institution, the latter subject to the problems of the human condition.  A helpful phrase from leading scholar Richard Gombrich (1996:7) is ‘Buddhism is not an inert object, it is a chain of events’ (which fits in well with Buddhist teaching). Having said all this, in this essay, in spite of the issues above, the term ‘Buddhism’ continues to be used but only for convenience. This is quite a Buddhist approach to take.

Whether Buddhism is a religion depends on what you mean by ‘religion’. If ‘religion’ is a Western category as argued above, it is easy to see that the label might not fit an ‘Eastern’ tradition, and if ‘religion’ (as some argue) has negative image, it is easy to see that people might prefer another label. If religion is modelled narrowly on Christianity – centred on belief in God, one sacred text, salvation through faith – then Buddhism doesn’t really fit. Calling Buddhism a philosophy sounds both more rational and more sophisticated, but perhaps ignores much of Buddhism as lived in practice. The historical Buddha himself refused to discuss many ‘philosophical’ questions, stressing the need to get on with practice. In contrast, ‘way of life’ stresses that it is not some theoretical ‘ism’, but a practical, ethical lifestyle (but many – if not all – other traditions can also be found saying that they are ‘not a religion but a way of life’). For some people ‘spirituality’ has a more positive feel than ‘religion’, suggesting a more personal, experiential, meditative awareness than an organised bureaucracy, and there is a common stereotype that ‘Eastern’ traditions are more ‘spiritual’ than ‘Western’ religions, but this is a stereotype, and ignores the institutional, political, and social aspects of the tradition. Some contemporary Buddhists have attempted to strip away the ‘religious trappings’ of Buddhism (such as metaphysical beliefs, myths, deities, rituals, even beliefs in any life after death) and recast it as a practical secular philosophy or way of life that minimises suffering for all (though the division between ‘secular’ and ‘religious’ is also a product of ‘Western’ thought). However, if a wider, vaguer and more flexible view of the label ‘religion’ is taken, without the centrality of God, then Buddhism does seem to have similar concerns to other religious worldviews.
What does it mean to call Buddhism a worldview, whether labelled religious or not (or neither or both)? In the most general sense, ‘worldview’ refers to an overall approach to life. But ‘worldview’, like ‘religion,’ is another term that means different things to different people. It can mean the intellectual or cognitive ideas, teachings and beliefs of a tradition, put together in a systematic way by scholars within the tradition. Buddhism does have these, but they are diverse, and do not form a single ‘ism’, and many Buddhists would not see the teachings (Dharma/Dhamma) as ‘beliefs’ or ‘views’ (in the sense of opinions) but the truth (Dharma/Dhamma) or ‘right view’. It can also mean something much wider, including emotions, experience, ethical and ritual practice, sense of identity, and the Buddhist tradition includes these too. It can mean an ‘institutional’ worldview, so would refer to the official versions of teachings, ethical expectations, approved practices, definitions of membership, or views on contemporary issues put forward by accepted authorities within the tradition.  Buddhism has these too, but they are many and varied, and in any case, individuals and smaller groups identifying with a particular institution do not always accept or live by the whole ‘package’. ‘Worldview’ then can be communal so that instead of talking about one Buddhist worldview, we should talk about worldviews plural for the many different Buddhist groups. Our worldviews are also personal, so we might talk about the worldview of an individual, in which Buddhist ideas, values, practices and identity might form a major or just a contributory part alongside other influences. ‘Worldview’ also can be used in a narrow sense to mean just views about the ‘world’ or cosmos, rather than other aspects of human experience, or to refer to the taken-for-granted assumptions of any particular society – so that some might talk about gods and spirits (both good and evil, such as the tempter Mara) being part of the ‘worldview’ (it might be called a ‘mythological worldview’) at the time of the Buddha, but not generally accepted in contemporary Western society.

One of the problems with the Western notion of religion (or worldview) is the idea that they are separate and distinct, whereas in the ‘Dharmic’ religions with origins in India, the boundaries between traditions are (or perhaps were, in the light of relatively recent attempts at ‘fundamentalist’ purity) much less defined than in Western thought. This is illustrated by the story of the Nepali who answered ‘yes’ when asked they were Hindu or Buddhist. This is not just because as Buddhism spread it did not insist that people gave up their previous beliefs and customs, so that local deities still feature in practices, but that elements that have later been separated out as ‘Hindu’ are present from the beginning – such as the deities Brahma and Indra who are said to have persuaded the Buddha to teach. There are many aspects of Buddhism that could be said to be part of a ‘shared Indian worldview’ and can also be found in what have become labelled as ‘Hinduism’, ‘Jainism’ or ‘Sikhism’ – traditional cosmologies, the idea of samsara or many lives, ideas of karma (results of actions), the problem of delusion and the aim of liberation. The historical figure who has become known as ‘the Buddha’ lived at a particular time and place, and scholars have pointed out a shared heritage of what later became viewed as separate ‘religions’ in what has been labelled ‘shramana culture’, the ferment of ideas, values and practices of groups and individuals who renounced both everyday life and the institutional religion of the time and sought spiritual liberation, generally through ascetic practices.

The easiest answer to the question of who is a Buddhist is anyone who identifies as such. We might however query this statement if the beliefs, values and behaviour of the person bore no resemblance to anything associated with the term Buddhist or if they had no connections with any Buddhist community. As with any such identification, being a Buddhist can mean many different things. For many it means having been born into a Buddhist family with roots in a majority-Buddhist country, so is linked with ethnic and cultural identity. For others, with different family backgrounds, it might have been a choice in adulthood, and less about ethnicity and culture and more about personal experience, values and beliefs.

Although there are now Buddhists worldwide, Buddhist-majority countries today include Thailand, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Cambodia, Laos, Bhutan, and Mongolia. Other countries with substantial Buddhist populations are China, South Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Taiwan, and Nepal. Japan is an interesting case. Though many claim to be secular or non-religious, Buddhism has been, and still is, very influential in Japan. Different sources use different ways of counting who is a Buddhist, and as many people combine elements that might be labelled Buddhist or Shinto or secular in their personal worldview and practice, figures vary between 36% and 67% or even higher if counting all those who include at least something recognisably Buddhist in their lives. This listing of countries soon becomes political. Tibet is a Buddhist-majority country, but claimed as part of China. It is interesting to see which lists include Tibet separately and which do not, and to wonder why, and also (in different ways) Taiwan or Hong Kong. In the past, and especially prior to the expansion of Islam, India, Indonesia and many of the Central Asian ‘silk road’ centres (now in countries such as Afghanistan or Uzbekistan) also had substantial Buddhist populations. Whether the 20% of some lists or the much larger estimates of others, the largest number of Buddhists in the world live in China, whether in the minority areas of Theravada or Tibetan-style Buddhist practice, or within the majority Han population. Roughly three-quarters of all Buddhists in the world follow Mahayana traditions, which is important to remember given the UK tendency to view Theravada as the mainstream.