I am asked this question almost as much as I am asked about a Buddhist view or belief regarding death and life. This writing will certainly not put the issue to rest, I am not even sure it is possible for anyone to completely answer it. I would like to, however, offer some points I feel are important regarding the practice and application of Buddhism to our lives.
If we look at a set of definitions for each term, religion and philosophy we can see a distinct difference between the two. Merriam-Webster defines philosophy as all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology; a pursuit of wisdom; a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means; a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity. Religion is defined as the service and worship of God or the supernatural; commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance; a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.
The big difference I see here is that one is primarily oriented to an intellectual endeavor in philosophy and in religion one is oriented to practice or manifestation of activity. This is not to say that a person does not live a life based upon a philosophy but that is the acting out of a core set of beliefs which is different from the mere formulation of the belief system. In the definition of philosophy it says exclusive of precepts and practical arts. It further excludes such activities as medicine, law, and theology. In other words while one may have a philosophical view on how to practice law the actual practical application of lawyer-ing is not philosophy. The same with medicine.
It is my belief that while religion has at its core a set of philosophical beliefs it is religion that defines the practice or the application of the philosophy and further it is religion that codifies the practices. As the definition states ‘service or worship, commitment or devotion. Those are activities not just merely thinking but the carrying out of thought.
I am not convinced that Buddhism was intended to be merely an intellectual pursuit. It is not just about formulating a specific belief but was intended to foster a way to act upon the beliefs at its core. While much of early Buddhism comes to us in recorded form much later than the teachings I think we can still look at how Buddhism was related especially Mahayana Buddhism and see from the earliest time that there was a strong spiritual aspect or devotional inclination to Buddhist teaching.
I do not believe it is really possible to say that the Lotus Sutra is merely a philosophical endeavor and I do not believe Nichiren viewed as something to rationalize in the way we sometimes have a tendency as moderns to do.
Throughout the Lotus Sutra we see the language of devotion, and devotion is not the language of philosophy. In Chapter II the Buddha talks about erecting stupas, adorning those stupas, carving and drawing images of the Buddha, offering flowers, incense and so forth, singing joyfully in praise. In Chapter III the Buddha says “all living beings should extol it they should make offerings to it, and bow to it.” These are clearly devotional activities, the realm of religion. Yes there is a philosophy underlying this but the Buddha speaks over and over about devotional activities and practice, all the purview of religion. In Chapter X the Buddha changes from the devotion of erecting stupas filled with relics to erecting stupas with the sutra, again clearly these are devotional practices. The number of examples of devotional practices is large and occur throughout the entire Lotus Sutra.
Nichiren himself spent more time encouraging people to chant the Odaimoku, or sacred title of the Lotus Sutra than he did on merely philosophical discourse. And even when he wrote the major doctrinal foundation pieces he always referred to the practice of the Lotus Sutra. Religion exists in the realm of practice not in merely philosophical rumination.
I find it hard to make a case for the argument that Buddhism is more philosophy than religion. To do so I believe is to try to some how make Buddhism something that it was not intended to be. It tries to deny the devotional aspects and make it devoid of personal expression. To merely debate philosophy or to dwell solely on the philosophy of Buddhism does not make a person a Buddhist. To study even deeply Buddhism does not make a person a Buddhist. What makes a person a Buddhist is the actual engagement of practice, of application, of living according to Buddhist teachings.
