Is Buddhism religion or a philosophy?

I keep seeing this type of question in a Facebook Buddhism group that I'm not very active in, and since an answer doesn't really fit in a post comment I'll write a longer one-page version with my own opinion.  To skip ahead to the answer:  to me Buddhism isn't a religion or a philosophy, it's something closer to a practical version of psychology.  Some context applies before getting to that part though. 

I tend to agree with a lot of other answers that come up in Buddhism groups, but the form and tone of those vary a lot.  Input written in a form closer to a koan (logic puzzle) seems less practical, to me.

Of course Buddhism is also a religion; I'm part of a Thai Buddhist family now, living in Bangkok, and there are monks and temples around.  I ordained as a Thai Buddhist monk here once for two month, and was married in a Buddhist religious ceremony.  To be clear this post isn't supposed to be about self-promotion; I wrote about those subjects, so I'll mention them here, but this is about explaining my general understanding of Buddhism.  I studied some philosophy and religion in degree programs too, but I'm not positioning myself as some sort of subject expert here; I'm just interested in Buddhism.

right after the ordination ceremony (with more on that experience here)

my son once spent two weeks as a novice monk once too (which I wrote about in my tea blog)

As I'm taking the question the title question is really asking something else, more specific, if Buddhism at its core, or as the Buddha taught and intended it, is one of these things over the others.  Any answer would be speculation; it would involve that given person's ideological preference and personal understanding.

At this point some Buddhists reading this might naturally claim that Buddhism isn't an ideology, it's more a methodology, a reductive sort of approach to human experience, so it's not fair to call interpretation of the ideas an ideology.  That matches up with my take.  That also folds in some bias for how the ideas are arranged, regardless of how categories work out, so one has to be careful with that sort of line of reasoning. 

Maybe it works to "sweep away" the framework of the ideas by setting them aside as they are practiced and have fulfilled their function, but it's not clearly a given.  Maybe Buddhism is really an odd form of experiential process or approach that tidies up lots of surplus of other ideas, framing, preconceptions, and assumptions, but to some extent that could also be part of an ideology, even if someone is sure they experience it as something else.


Let's back up a bit, and cover how I'm using terms and categories. 

Religion is designed to explain things using variations on conventional forms, first causes (what made the universe), after life schemes (where do we go when we die), metaphysical structure (is there a permanent soul or not), and so on.  Morality / ethical codes factor in; that's essentially always a core component.

a Thai wedding ceremony.  there were monks chanting in a different part.

Philosophy is something else; it uses ideas to examine human worldviews and forms of perception, and essentially assumes that reason can sort things out, to some degree.  Even in forms where reason isn't assigned some all-illuminating role it's still reason that's describing the usefulness and limitations of reason, for example in relation to other aspects of experience (about direct experience, tied to causal issues and themes, framing meaning--whatever else it is).  To some extent even a personal philosophy that wants to limit and tear down the role of reason is still going to need to use the concepts--reason itself--towards that end.  Ethics also comes up here, but the groundwork needs to be relatively rational, or at least functional, not based on external authority.


Buddhism isn't these things, at its core.  To be clear this is just my take, and I won't be citing any scripture to support it, or even delving into ever-lower levels of supporting broad points made with finer levels of explanation.  It's a methodology that lets you simplify how you experience reality.  To some extent there may be some best-case, very simple, and relatively direct form of experience, but at least initially it's as well to not tie up too much goal-orientation or mental energy in figuring out what that form might be like (enlightenment).  It's just a set of tools to help simplify things, and that's enough.  Later on forms of experience would probably vary from initial practices and perspective changes.

The 8-fold path should be familiar; without some core concepts like that to work with it would be hard to put together any starting-point opinion about what might be going on.  While one explores those sorts of ideas it's best to keep in mind that even though some teachings are said to be the original words of the Buddha we've inherited those across time.  Swap out the meaning for suffering (or dukkha) just a bit and you might lose a lot of the original point. 

That's not an abstract guess at how variations might go; I think this is a core problem with modern interpretations.  If you swap back in "dis-satisfaction" for suffering per my take that's going to work much, much better.  Dis-satisfaction is unsatisfyingly vague, but that makes it work all the better as a place-holder, since understanding of these sorts of ideas are supposed to be iterative.  It's all not something one would "completely get" on one read.

It's not so simple to explain how it all works, but why not go there, with the clarification that this will be a limited start, not an explanation. 


One sub-theme is about how reality is really structured.  It's just not a model, more a description of ordinary forms of error (how reality is assumed to be, but really isn't, at least related to certain assumptions not being as functional as they seem).  That makes it negative, in the sense of describing what isn't, not necessarily related to what is bad, which again could be a bit unfamiliar.  It's not so bad thinking that you are made up of a permanent, real self; there's just a lot of function to be had in questioning that and setting it aside, at least temporarily and to a limited extent.  Anyway, to switch back to pointing out general themes here I'm talking about the one part that is made up of the ideas about reality, that one branch.

Then there is mindfulness (momentary awareness practice), and meditation (hard to describe what that's all about in a few words), both of which go along with the ideas, and support them.  Obviously these things are experiential.  A moral code works along with the rest; in some way it makes sense and is functional to observe an externally-derived set of guidelines related to not causing others harm, and so on.  While the first part (the last paragraph) made it sound a little like a philosophy, except for the deconstruction angle, these last three subjects fall a lot closer to religion. 

Mindfullness is a bit of a twist in relation to how Christianity is described in teachings and practiced, but to be clear Jesus did emphasize that the religious practice he was talking about dealt a lot with how people act moment to moment.  It wasn't something you would set aside until Sunday morning, as he was framing it, to have the slate wiped clean again by some religious representative then.

To some extent you have to "buy in" to try it out (the practice of Buddhism), and it's not exactly a rapid process.  Different people would connect to the different parts in different ways, through a different order of engagement, with some parts leading to others essentially for all forms of that experience.  It seemed like that might be missing "valid forms" of that experience, didn't it?  I think if a practice of Buddhism helps someone then it is valid, even if they've skipped parts and have some ideas or themes dead wrong.  Those types of gaps are just definitely not going to help with "getting far" with it (not that it's a contest).  I'll cite an example, nothing so direct, but a subject I've kept coming back to considering.

the temple where my son and I ordained at night

A friend of mine rejected alcoholism to lead a life not based around that drug, only to become a stoner, to replace it with marijuana consumption.  I did the same in my 20s; I had drank a lot and then was stoned a lot.  Her mantra is "progress not perfection," which kinds of works in a limited sense.  It's not supposed to be a statement of Buddhist intention or guiding principle (she doesn't see herself as Buddhist, as far as I know, or influenced by the ideas, practicing theme, etc.), it's just something she says.  It's not exactly a core teaching to not get stoned (that specific restriction), but in most forms Buddhism does get around to mentioning that drug use is not ideal.  Drugs and alcohol cut someone off from directly experiencing their reality; it's them + the drug instead.  More or less Buddhism is about getting out of your own way, not letting preconceptions and abstract ways of structuring ideas remain problematic, and to lighten attachments, in some limited form or range of forms.

Is the problem clear in this?  The drug is probably limiting her, in some sense; base reality isn't good enough, and it requires adjustment.  As a former marijuana user I have my own understanding of why that's a problem for this case and drug, but it's as well to keep that vague and general here. 

Everyone who went through long term dependence on drugs or alcohol (as I did), or different forms of those, gets that making even a moderate form of adjustment to reality often isn't a stable solution.  Sure, people base their lives around it, and in some cases that goes well enough.   Drinking alcohol a little every other day for the rest of your life is fine, to a limited degree.  To me it's not ideal, but it's close enough to normal and "not negative" that we can set the difference aside.  The other problem is that she is setting up a distinction between things being better than they were 20 years ago, and still never managing to get close to some optimum, which she's not even heading towards.

What would be the problem with this "perfection?"  It's implied that striving towards some form of ideal life is itself an obstacle to be avoided.  Rigid restrictions, removing freedoms, could be worse than any potential gains from removing dependencies; it's something like that.  I get the sense that it's not supposed to make tons of sense; it's just a personal approach to life theme.  Which is fine.  It doesn't match conventional understandings of Buddhism very well but it's not supposed to.

It probably sounds like I'm saying that someone couldn't get stoned every day and be a "good Buddhist," or that if they did try to pair those two directions they would contradict each other.  To me I guess that's true.  It's really not about weed, or whatever else, being so destructive, or counter-productive, its more about a problem with someone heading in two different directions at the same time.  If you walk North-East you'll never really go towards the North or the East, but head out somewhere in between.  If the idea is to avoid going West that's probably close enough. 

To me Buddhism is really Buddhism to the extent that it helps you and improves your life; back to the claim it's practical psychology, or a form of self-help, if one would rather.  It's not so much about crossing a finish line of "being enlightened."  As you get further the form changes (as I've experienced it), and value increases, but then lots of things are like that.  If you exercise a little you barely get past working out how to not get injured, and don't make a start on flexibility or strength improvements, never mind cardiovascular health, or stress reduction benefits.  If you eat fruits and vegetables 2 or 3 times a week that can help, but the rest of your diet remains a much more significant factor.

Maybe there's a contradiction in that take on drug use and how practicing only a little Buddhism is valid, isn't there?  I'm saying that making consumption of weed a priority in your life would run counter to putting into practice the exploration and application of Buddhism, and then I'm also saying that someone doing a little of both could be ok for them.  Different people would take it all in different ways.  My friend is right that setting a distant and seemingly impossible goal as the main driver may not be as effective as embracing ongoing change.  It's a little different to change just a little and then say "this is where I want to be; enough with the self-improvement" related to Buddhist practice making that more continuous.


If you think Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy, versus what I'm describing it as, then you might be inclined to take it in different ways altogether.  If it's taken as something to be "thought out" then momentary practice could be de-emphasized.  If practice of conventional morality is going to be good enough, along with doing some chanting or whatever else, that might work well pursued part-time.  The starting point matters; how one takes it all.  It's probably as well to be open to shifting those underlying premises over time, just in case.  Obviously I'm seeing the side related to experiencing Buddhism as a formal religion.  To be clear I was only a monk for two months, but I do live in Bangkok now, for the last dozen years, a part of a Buddhist family and Buddhist society.

my daughter (now 6) showed me how to meditate ("tam samadhi") recently; it was cool

All of this probably captures enough of how I see it.  None of it is really supported here, by core text citation, or detailed explanation that could be even a little convincing.  I once pursued Buddhism as religion and philosophy in university studies, obtaining two degrees in the process, and it soured me a little in setting it all up like a research paper project.  That's not a bad approach though; it's a good way to sort through a range of different ideas presented in different ways.  It just doesn't make much sense without a lot of emphasis on personal life-practice and perspective.

You either try it and parts work for you or you might as well be reading Scientology (which actually is kind of interesting; it sounds like it should work, but it probably doesn't).  If you put neither in practice you might as well be binge-watching television show seasons on Netflix, or reading about rock climbing without ever rock climbing, whatever it is.  The ideas can be pleasant in some formulations though, so maybe just leaving it as that, as an un-examined form of poetry, could make for an aesthetic experience.  To me that's not really Buddhism then, but in some much more limited sense it still might be.