Vivian Nguyen

11 October 2019
Thomas Newhall
Project #2

Applying Definitions of Religion to Buddhism: Geertz and Durkheim

Both Clifford Geertz and Emile Durkheim provide generalizing definitions of religion;

however, they differ in the various qualifications and reasoning behind those aspects.

Specifically, Geertz’s definition depends on the symbols and its mechanisms of influence

while Durkheim focuses on the function of sacred beliefs and practices within a society

(Durkheim 1965, 47; Geertz 1966,4) . As a religion, Buddhism fulfills many of Geertz’s

requirements in its generalized practice, but its modern evolution has made it less

consistent with Durkheim’s definition.

Geertz’s definition outlines a religion as a “system of symbols” that meet four main

criteria: creates persisting motivations, explains otherwise incomprehensible principles of

existence, emphasizes factuality and lastly seems realistic to those who practice it (Geertz

1966, 4). These principles mostly apply to Buddhism. As depicted by its current various

traditions worldwide stemming from its beginnings in India, Buddhism most certainly has

cultivated pervasive influences on vast populations. Besides just this scope of practice,

Buddhism establishes itself as a path to the inherent problem of suffering. Clearly this is a

prominent motivator, and it is also reinforced by other Buddhist beliefs such as the

emphasis on a karmic momentum that accumulates infinitely into alternate realities of

death and rebirth (Bodiford 2019.10.10). Furthermore, this is just one of the many

teachings of the Buddha that has become a “conception of a general order of existence,” as

defined by Geertz (1966, 4). For example, this cyclical arising in the six courses of rebirth

provides explanation for the significance of the human realm and what lies beyond

(Bodiford 2019.10.10). Following the remainder of Geertz’s definition which stresses the

construction of factuality that enables the religion to seem realistic, this can be seen in the
 Page 2

characterization of the Buddha, or the Tathāgata, “one who comes and goes in accordance

with the profoundest way of things” (Gethin 1998, 27). In other words, he is seen as

superior through his ability to teach the utmost truth and remains as the hope to acquire

awakening (Gethin 1998, 34). As a result, this construction of the Buddha’s superiority

contributes to the aura of factuality, and his role as the sole facilitator to awakening

justifies its realistic application in a practitioner’s life. All in all, many aspects of

Buddhism reinforce the mechanisms that Geertz considers essential to define a religion.

However, as a definition of religion, there are some aspects that cannot be fully

generalized to Buddhism. To exemplify, Geertz focuses on the religion “clothing” the

beliefs in “an aura of factuality” to seem realistic and practical to those who practice it

(1966, 4). By doing so he fails to recognize the persistence of religion beyond just the

scope of just making the religion palatable to an individual. Buddhism has a communal

aspect to it, as shown in the “unbroken lineage… of teachers and pupils” of oral recitation

to continue the Buddhist tradition (Gethin 1998, 37). Here is where Durkheim’s definition

is more relevant.

Although Durkheim’s emphasis that religion is a “unified system of beliefs” under

just “one single moral community,” cannot be applied to Buddhism because of the

existence of various Buddhist traditions now, he does capture the underlying foundations

of Buddhism (Durkheim 1965, 47). If one were to only consider Buddhism in its original

development, Durkheim’s model would have been accurate in describing the sacred person

in this case. The Buddha is “beyond such categories of being human and divine,” and as

the religion is mainly based on his teachings, it correlates with some of Durkheim’s

definition relating to the sacred, just not quite the forbidden (Gethin 1998, 37). Lastly,
 Page 3

Durkheim stresses the function of religion in a society by uniting those who practice into a

community, which correlates with the events after the Buddha’s death. His 500 arhats held

the first Buddhist council in order to transcribe his discourses, leading to the development

of the canon covering relevant discourse and discipline (Bodiford 2019.10.03). These

teachings fulfill Durkheim’s factor of beliefs and principles that unite these religious

communities through adherence. However, the existing different worldviews does counter

the accuracy of Durkheim’s conclusions when considering modern Buddhism.

In both cases, these definitions of religion cover significant aspects of Buddhism,

but they highlight different features that would better be combined for a more

comprehensive definition. Geertz focuses on the framework of religious thought and its

realistic manifestation, meanwhile Durkheim characterizes the specific beliefs, practices,

and overall community that comprises a religion. As a result, looking at both definitions

provides a more holistic understanding of the various factors that characterize Buddhism as

the religion that it is today.

 Page 4

Works Cited

Bodiford, William M. 2018.02.15. Classroom Lecture. Asian m60w, “Introduction to

Buddhism.” University of California, Los Angeles.

Durkheim, Émile. 1965 (1912). The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life (originally:

Les formes élémentaires de la vie religieuse, le système totémique en Australie,

Paris: Felix Alcan, 1912), translated by Joseph W. Swain. New York: The Free

Press.

Geertz, Clifford. 1966. “Religion as a Cultural System.” In Anthropological Approaches to

the Study of Religion, edited by Michael Banton, pp. 1–46. New York: Praeger.

Gethin, Rupert. 1998. The Foundations of Buddhism. New York: Oxford University Press.