Buddhist Spirituality and Buddhist Religion

Historically speaking, Buddhism began as a spirituality rather than a religion

    To take the case of Buddhism: The first Buddhists were alienated individuals who felt ordinary life in society was spiritually unsatisfying, and had left city-life and civilization to try to "find themselves" living alone or in small groups in forested areas outside of towns. The historical Buddha was one of these individuals who discovered and fashioned a particular spirituality that appealed to other such individuals. Such individuals were called bhikkus (feminine bhikkunis), a term probably related to the English word "beggar." It was only later that groups of these individuals attracted a following of admirers living a family life in villages, people who wanted to support and associate themselves with Buddhist bhikkus and bhikkunis.  At a later time also most of the wandering groups of monks we hear about in the Pali Canon settled down into monasteries and convents, where they led a highly regulated life according to strict rules.
    These "householder Buddhists" looked up to and respected those following the Buddhist spiritual path. But following this path fully required studying and understanding some rather difficult and abstract concepts, concepts referring to invisible internal feelings rather than external behavior. It also required engaging in prolonged meditation exercises. Householder admirers of Buddhist bhikkus/bhikkunis were not interested in such intense study and meditation.
    This is the origin of a traditional, divided social structure rather unique to Buddhism, although it has some parallels in medieval Christianity.
    On the one side, there were bhikkus/bhikkunis, (the equivalent of medieval Christian monks and nuns), trying to follow the full spiritual path taught by the Buddha, ideally doing this voluntarily out of individual personal interest in this spirituality. In modern terms, this could be called "college-level Buddhism," in that it required a rather high level of literacy and education, and intensive and prolonged study. As in medieval Europe, monasteries were the main centers of learning in many Asian countries in premodern times.
    On the other side, there were large groups of "lay Buddhists," consisting of those who admired Buddhist monks and nuns, gave them material support, and committed themselves to a simple moral code of external behavior supported by the monks and nuns . This simple code was embodied in "five precepts," similar to the Christian "ten commandments": not to steal, not to hurt others, not to engage in sexual misconduct, not to lie or slander others, not to get drunk.
    In traditional times, then, college level Buddhist spirituality was taught and practiced by Buddhist monks and nuns living in established monasteries and convents, while Buddhism also became a social "religion" practiced by mostly uneducated lay Buddhists outside the monasteries.
*****
A note on social institutions associated with traditional Buddhism. 
    Many modern Christians consider it the main function of religion to teach and enforce certain rules of moral decency.  Most modern Christians also think of Christianity as consisting mainly of a single set of rules and teachings, taught in the Bible, ideally known and practiced by all Christians equally.  (They are largely unaware of what life is like inside a Christian monastery or convent, and so are unaware that monks and nuns study writings and Christian spirituality and practice teachings one could not learn by studying the Bible, and unknown to the vast majority of lay Christians.) 
    Because of this, many notice a very striking absence in the teachings of classical Buddhist writings: Where are the rules telling people what is right and wrong?  Does Buddhism teach that, as long as you meditate and develop your own individual spirituality, you can do whatever you want unrestricted by moral rules, and not contributing anything to society?
    Answer:
    (1) Spirituality is not a substitute for morality.  One has to be a morally decent person before being in a condition to begin on the Buddhist path.  Buddhist scriptures (unlike the Bible) are mainly however manuals of spirituality, which differ from rules concerning right and wrong.  (One does not blame a plumbing manual for not teaching electrical wiring.)
    (2) In traditional Buddhist monasteries, monks and nuns were not free to do whatever they wanted, but led a rather rigorous lifestyle and had to follow a large body of fairly strict rules governing all aspects of their lives. 
    (3) Life inside Buddhist monasteries was supposed to be devoted mainly to internal transformation of individual monks and nuns.  But traditional monasteries also performed important social functions outside the monasteries, of teaching and supporting conventional rules of right and wrong in their society, advising those asking for advice, providing important social services like education, health care, care for widows, orphans, and others who had no family to take care of them, etc. -- not unlike the social function of Christian churches elsewhere.  The Sigalovada Sutta from the Pali Canon gives a good example of moral teaching taught to laypeople by Buddhist monks and nuns.
    The fact that Buddhist spirituality is separable from the Buddhist morality connected with Buddhist religion should not be taken to mean that people practicing Buddhist spirituality are free to be immoral.  It does mean that Buddhist spirituality can be combined with any number of different moral codes.  This separability also means that one does not have to "convert to Buddhism" -- i.e. identify oneself with a Buddhist community -- in order to practice Buddhist spirituality.  From the side of Buddhist spirituality, at least, it is possible to remain a Catholic, a Muslim, a Jew, etc. -- following the moral rules of these religions -- and still practice Buddhist spirituality.

Modernizing lay Buddhism
    In modern times, many countries in Asia have seen the growth of a large educated middle class.  Educated individuals in Asia tend to look on traditional lay "religion" in the same way that educated Westerners look on the seemingly "superstitious" beliefs and practices of medieval Christianity.  Having now attained an educational level equal or superior to that of monks and nuns, they are no longer willing to accord monks and nuns the prestige that they had in premodern times. Many such people look on traditional religion as a relic of the past. On the other hand, some have become interested in college-level spirituality previously taught to monks and nuns, and adapting it to the lives of those living an ordinary family life. Some monks and nuns have responded to this interest by actively trying to adapt traditional teachings for people not living a traditional monastic lifestyle. They have founded meditation centers where laypeople can come to learn meditation techniques traditionally practiced only by monks and nuns. Thus there has grown up what might be called "modernizing lay spirituality," an interpretation of traditional spirituality traditionally taught to  monks and nuns, but now adapted to ordinary life outside of monasteries and convents.
    Modernizing lay Buddhism is not a very strong movement in Asia. It is important in the present context because this is the spirituality that is being taught by Asian teachers who have traveled to the US and Europe to teach Asian spirituality there. Thus the majority of Westerners who have studied Buddhism and learned Buddhist meditation are basically practicing a kind of modernized lay Buddhism. 
    This is sometimes a source of misunderstanding, in that it gives Westerners the impression that Buddhism as practiced by the masses of people in Asia is a highly spiritual and rational religion that contrasts strongly with the traditional institutionalized Christianity they are aware of. (Most Western Christians are unaware that there is also such a thing a college-level Christian theology and spirituality, studied and practiced by Christian monks and nuns in the Middle Ages, but unknown to the majority of Christian churchgoers.)
    The Buddhism unit of this course consists in an academic study of Buddhist spirituality, along the general lines followed by modernizing lay Buddhism. It focuses on excerpts from traditional Buddhist writings, which were part of the curriculum of study for Buddhist monks and nuns in traditional Asia. These writings themselves are already more rational than traditional lay-Buddhist "religion," and the academic study of Buddhism this course will focus even more narrowly on those aspects of Buddhist spirituality that can be rationally explained and supported.
    For example, there are two aspects of even college-level traditional Hindu and Buddhist beliefs that I think cannot be rationally supported.
    The first consists in beliefs about what happens after death. For example, almost all Hindus and Buddhists believe in reincarnation. But, like most beliefs about what happens after death, it is difficult to support rationally. And belief in reincarnation is in no way central or essential to Hindu and Buddhist spirituality (some early Buddhist texts actively discourage monks and nuns from caring about their fate after death, although Buddhism encouraged such concern among laypeople, as a way of supporting social morality.  Prominent Buddhist teachers outside of Asia such as Shunryu Suzuki, seldom mention reincarnation.)
    The second aspect of Hindu and Buddhist belief that I think cannot be rationally supported is the traditional claim that their religion is the only true spiritual path. This was a claim made by almost all religions and philosophies until very recently. I think this claim cannot be rationally supported. I think what can be supported is that Hindu and Buddhist spirituality is one way of achieving a kind of transcendence, one way of raising the level of one’s life above what it would be if one only conformed to normal social standards and achieved "success" in terms of material prosperity and social status.
Within these limits, I will be trying to present here an interpretation of modernized lay spirituality that can be rationally supported. The fact that this is based on a modernized version of college-level understandings of these religions, and the fact that it restricts itself to what can be rationally supported, will make what is presented here very different from what most Westerners associate with "religion." I hope what is said above will dispel the common impression that this kind of interpretation gives an accurate picture of the religion practiced by the masses of people in Asia.