Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
"Fake" Buddhists?
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Like 'eh?', only they hold the sound for much longer.
The Buddha was a real person, with the same frailties as us. The same mistakes. Uniquely he developed skilful means to overcome rather than succumb. Initially he spent his time in great but essentially fruitless efforts. We should have compassion for all beings, including all us pre-buddhas.
Namo Amida Butsu
. . . and now back to the sham . . .
People with enough good merits and wholesome roots will probably use this forum as a springboard onto real practice with Monastic teachers and a Sangha. But for arrogant deluded and people with issues this forum just further increases their ego and reinforce their preconeived wrong idea toward reality by feeding off each other's group mentality.
Yall complain about how evil the world is, how bad the captialists are blah blah, well, how is your behaviour not different if not worse? When egoistical intentions to be special and right make make direct slanders toward teachings for the Buddha and Honoured sages?! The moderators are not real practitioners hence does not even control the situation on here.
Most of the views I see on here is not too different to many people who doesn't know Buddhism.
Instead of change the self, you trying to "change the Dharma" to yourself, but the Dharma cannot actually be changed because it's the truth.
@Bunks, the jpg you posted earlier didn't show up for me, and when I click on it it just says it cannot display because of errors. What was it?
Just taking the piss out of myself
@Bunks
What's to know about prayer flags? Any where one buys prayer flags they can find out what the meaning is behind them (and the various kinds of flags) as well as how to hang them horizontally or vertically. I mean, what's the big Buddhist 'mystery' about prayer flags? Pretty straight forward, no?
for "Christmas", I'm giving my eldest daughter a beautiful amethyst wrist mala (her birthstone) and a set of authentic Tibetan prayer flags to hang outside her home. They come with a description of their meaning and instructions for hanging. (Getting myself a set as well)
I put Christmas in quotes because we still celebrate 'the season' -even as Buddhists - because the rest of our large, immediate and extended family, spouses, and friends are pretty much all Christians who celebrate Christmas. Celebrations are great- in any culture!
Using the word "someone" implies that there is a whole, integral entity that can be ascribed various characteristics. Of course, Buddhism teaches that there isn't. We are processes, in constant flux, in turn consisting of many subprocesses.
When we start classifying people into categories (Buddhists, Hindus or what not), we are re-enforcing the delusion that we are these constant, homegeneous selfs. It is that delusion that makes us suffer.
Regarding the original question, I think we are all Buddhists to various degrees, even those who have no idea what Buddhism is. Some aspects of our beings are attuned to The Truth and some not as much. As I see it, the purpose of Buddhist Practice is to bring all the chunks of that boiling, changing thing we call "I" or "self" in touch with that Truth.
Most of the time to me it looks like the Ego has just scored a prettier dress to prance about in. A practise of worth should say that our judgements about real & fake buddhists are more about us than the ones we wag our fingers at.
I don't really care if I follow buddhism exactly by the book or not.
Even just trying makes me a happier and wiser person.
What Jung said was that WESTERNERS who attempt to take on the persona built on the cultural norms of another culture are in danger of becoming inauthentic.
But when he said that Buddhadharma had not entered onto the western mainstream...and in any case Jung was a pioneer who was wrong about quite a lot of things.
Most of us are involved in the cessation of suffering because that seems . . . cozy. When we realise it is a lifetime or more of serious effort, we run to the shelter of easier dharmas. In the next year I will be a Buddha, in order to achieve this I will have to stop stating unrealistic agendas. Meanwhile can we assume that anyone not attempting Buddhahood is fake or just stop the real, unreal arisings . . . :wave:
He said that buddhism is an extremist system of believe, for it denounces all sensetory pleasures.
In my life I have noted that converts to a new religion or way of thinking often go to great pains to mine for the finest ores in the depths of their newfound faiths. They tend to be more zealous than those inheriting those faiths by birth or tradition.
Whether the lay people among them might hold themselves to stricter standards might perhaps be a good research project. (I recently heard a Sanskritist friend of mine refer to pundits (pandits) as "researchers.") But it certainly would be ridiculous, even for a convert, to question the sincerity of someone whose actions neither impinged negatively on any under his charge or on the person who might ponder such a question.
The religious sincerity of another is, firstly, none of my damned business; secondly, impossible to judge fairly (for we all wax over small imperfections we have and sell brighter products to ourselves, if for no other reason than to stay positively focussed), and thirdly, if not most importantly, our eyes should be on the prize, not on any imagined competitors.
I imagine that being a Fake Buddhist myself, I'm not even aware when some of you are talking tongue-in-cheek. But I think I understood one or two of you.
The majority of Western Buddhists maybe. A Buddhist who brakes the 5 precepts especially by drinking is like a Christian who brakes the ten commandments, a Hindu who eats beef, a Jew or a Muslim that its Pork etcs
Many people take along time to move away from worldly enjoyments it is not as easy once you are already down that path to give it up because Buddhism comes along, I not long ago took the Pratimoksha vows/5 Precepts it was a great decision and its helped my practice greatly having a foundation of morale discipline is a good thing to keep firm and receive from a qualified preceptor.
A Jew who eats pork is still a Jew. In fact not all denominations of Judaism place importance on keeping kosher. I used to go to a Reform temple, and it was up to the individual as to what mitzvot they wanted to keep based on what they as individuals felt was important. I can not speak for Christians, Muslims and Hindus, of course. At any rate, there is much more to being Jewish than whether or not one abstains from eating pork or mixing milk and meat. Just as there is much more to being a Buddhist than whether or not one abstains from alcohol.
Making the decision to be Buddhist does not mean that one's slate is automatically wiped clean, and they start out as perfect Buddhists. Guess what. It's a slog. An uphill in the rain type slog sometimes. Buddhism requires a lot from an individual -- it's like rewiring your brain to percieve the world in a completely different way. When I first found Buddhism I didn't last long at all before I decided it wasn't for me, because I wan't a good enough person to possibly follow such a path. Because of my all or nothing attitude, it took another ten years for me to get back here. I finally realized that it's okay to take it one step at a time. I did give up eating meat, but I'm not ready to tackle the 5th precept yet.
I don't drink heavily (never was much of a partier, and the partying I did do was a long time ago), but I do drink socially. Trying to pass up a pint of my favorite beer while trying to explain to confused family and friends that I don't do that anymore isn't something I have in me to do at the moment. I expect at some point I probably will, but like giving up meat, I had to get to the right place internally to go through with it. It's not something that necessarly happens over night. There are a lot of cultural components to eating and drinking -- they are often how people come together, so when you make drastic changes to that, it can also affect loved ones, family gatherings etc. That to me is the difficult thing about making such changes.
The thing about trying to judge who's a 'real' Buddhist or not is that we all aren't at the same place in our journies, we all face our own individual difficulties, and we all move at our own paces. Just because someone is having trouble with a precept doesn't mean that they aren't sincere.
I gave up drinking mostly via compassion and making pranidhanas which are a little different from vows.
But really now -- for example -- there are people on this forum who will rant and rave about rebirth because that's their view -- that Buddhism teaches rebirth.
But then they choose to ignore that Buddhism also teaches that the consumption of intoxicating drinks is unwise. And why? Isn't it true that Buddhist teachings (as in the Precepts) are actually quite specific, while the teaching of things such as rebirth are actually comparatively less specific.
What does it boil down to -- they want to drink.
There are plenty of Jews and Muslims who do eat pork on occasion and they are still good, dedicated people. Same goes for Hindus who may indulge in a hamburger once in a while. I have yet to meet a Christian who actually keeps the 10 commandments.
Likewise, there are plenty of "ethnic" Buddhists who break precepts. We are humans; not machines. We cannot follow the rules 100% of the time, but we can try our best; and that means we will make mistakes. It's all a learning experience.
Breaking the rules is not the end of the world; nor does it make anyone fake within their religion.
Likewise, there are plenty of "ethnic" Buddhists who break precepts. We are humans; not machines. We cannot follow the rules 100% of the time, but we can try our best; and that means we will make mistakes. It's all a learning experience.
Breaking the rules is not the end of the world; nor does it make anyone fake within their religion.
I think we've got two different things going on here.
I agree with your assessment that breaking the rules is not the end of the world. And, I agree that breaking the Precepts does not make one a "fake" Buddhist. I think bringing the word "fake" into the discussion was unwise and inappropriate.
On the other hand, breaking Precepts may bring into question one's level of dedication. But I don't think that one is either dedicated or not dedicated. I was a school principal who was dedicated to my profession. But there were those who were more dedicated, and -- trust me -- those who were far less dedicated. I think dedication in something is a matter of degrees.
For example, becoming a life-long monk is a higher level of dedication than a lay person visiting a temple once in a while.
I agree with your assessment that breaking the rules is not the end of the world. And, I agree that breaking the Precepts does not make one a "fake" Buddhist. I think bringing the word "fake" into the discussion was unwise and inappropriate.
On the other hand, breaking Precepts may bring into question one's level of dedication. But I don't think that one is either dedicated or not dedicated. I was a school principal who was dedicated to my profession. But there were those who were more dedicated, and -- trust me -- those who were far less dedicated. I think dedication in something is a matter of degrees.
For example, becoming a life-long monk is a higher level of dedication than a lay person visiting a temple once in a while.
I see where you are coming from.
Here is how I view it: if you are sincere, but occasionally break precepts, then, to me, you are still sincere. Like I said, it's a learning experience. I don't think people will get it right the first time around.
However, if you say you are a Buddhist, but put no real effort into it, break precepts and still don't put any effort into it, then that would constitute as "fake". Kind of like a person who labels themself as a Buddhist on Facebook, posts a ton of Buddha related postings, but shows no compassion in real life.
Here is how I view it: if you are sincere, but occasionally break precepts, then, to me, you are still sincere. Like I said, it's a learning experience. I don't think people will get it right the first time around.
However, if you say you are a Buddhist, but put no real effort into it, break precepts and still don't put any effort into it, then that would constitute as "fake". Kind of like a person who labels themself as a Buddhist on Facebook, posts a ton of Buddha related postings, but shows no compassion in real life.
Okay, I pretty much agree with you, with the exception of using the word "fake".
And just one caution -- we often fool ourselves about how dedicated we are to something. I am far from the most faithful Buddhist here, but on the other hand, there are very faithful Buddhists here that I think are very wrong about things.