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.
Is sexual orientation an "ego-based notion of self"?
That's funny. No embroidered Buddha but I assume a hand stitched rakusus is okay. No statues in the living room, but one on the alter is good. No bumper stickers but rituals, ceremonies, donations, chanting, meditation, etc etc, is all fine.
Maybe I missed the point. Identifying oneself as a Buddhist is okay, right?
All ego-based identifications are OK, just not very interesting or productive from a Buddhist perspective. Including "I'm a Buddhist." If that identification means striving to follow the 8FP and view all experience in terms of the 4NT, that's productive. But it is the 8FP and and the 4NT which are important there, not "I'm a Buddhist." If "I'm a Buddhist" means making people uncomfortable when they eat meat or going on and on to your friends about how poorly the Chinese are treating the Tibetans, that's counter-productive.
But it is the 8FP and and the 4NT which are important there, not "I'm a Buddhist."
You can't actually separate the practice from the identity. For instance if you don't understand the practice or have wrong views then it is not Buddhism and you are not a Buddhist. A person could have 'wrong view' about rebirth, for example, in which case their practice would be based on wrong views and it could not be said that they were practicing Buddhism, or that they were a Buddhist. They could be a nihilist and practicing nihilism. So if labels or identity were not actually important a practice like Buddhism could be easily corrupted and degraded into something very unlike Buddhism.
Practicing "Buddhism" and being a "Buddhist" is not the important part, though. The important part is to end suffering. Yes, Right View is important to that end, but being a Buddhist is neither necessary nor sufficient for Right View. In the context of this discussion, Right View is a red herring.
You are still a Buddhist, and identifying as one, whether you dress like one, dress your home like one, or cover your car in bumper stickers. There certainly can be a degree of ego/attachment in some of those activities, but that doesn't mean there always is. Only the person doing it knows why. It doesn't mean they are showing it off to the world. Perhaps they are simply reminding themselves.
While I have really enjoyed reading this discussion and I think it was a great question, I do think sometimes we can take things to far. We are all someone. I just seems a bit silly to me to talk about how not to be who we are. Yes, I know not attaching to identity and labels is part of Buddhism, but if we were all 100% at that point, we wouldn't be on the internet bouncing ideas and thoughts off each other.
I'm a female. In some ways I'm quite feminine, in others I'm very much a tom boy. I'm Buddhist. I'm a mother. I'm a wife. Yes, I'm attached to some of those things, but they aren't my entire identity. They are part of who the I that has to live in this world, is. I grew 3 children in my womb and gave birth to them. I'm not going to not call myself a mother because it might mean I'm labeling myself and causing myself to act out my label. Goodness, I hope so, because if I wasn't going to act as a mother my kids would be in trouble. I just think sometimes things go too far. It goes from being a some-day goal, probably lifetimes away, one to ponder and work on in small increments to some ideal that we are all failing to meet because we label ourselves and shame on us for having identities!
I wonder if I can petition the government to remove my identity in their system because I no longer believe in identifying myself as anything, lol.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
For the record, I am pretty sure that Brad Warner does NOT think he is a Buddha. In his first book, I remember he talked a little bit about a satori experience, but that's it.
Honestly, I'm a little confused at times with what his practice is, exactly. I know he's practiced zen for, like, 30 years... Sometimes he refers to himself as a monk and sometimes not, but I think he perhaps USED to be one but doesn't identify as one anymore? He's in the Soto lineage but always says "this doesn't express the views of my lineage, blah blah"
Sometimes I like his bluntness. It was Brad that originally helped me to understand no-self on a very basic level because his writing style is so in your face. He's such an ass about everything, I originally recoiled against his points, but ultimately had to investigate why it bothered me so much... And when I did that... well... you know.
This book is still kind of boring, but it is getting a little better. It's less him just talking about opinions and more about Buddhism now...
But one of the chapters is named: "SAVING ALL BEINGS... FROM MY DICK" And I laughed really hard at that, just to prove how immature I am. But he actually had some pretty valid points. Remember, this book mainly revolves around sex... So he's discussing the Bodhisattva vows and the first one is "Beings are numberless; I vow to save them." In regards to sex and otherwise, he points out that instead of thinking about this in an impossible way (which the vow itself points out), it can be helpful to put "from myself" onto the end of it. "I vow to save them... from myself." Because that's really all anyone can strive to do, to change their own actions. This is an especially true point when you think about sex.
Practicing "Buddhism" and being a "Buddhist" is not the important part, though. The important part is to end suffering. Yes, Right View is important to that end, but being a Buddhist is neither necessary nor sufficient for Right View. In the context of this discussion, Right View is a red herring.
Rather, I suspect you may be unwilling to follow the fishy.
To put my point more bluntly, say some charlatan started a following (think Kumare), claiming to be a Buddhist teacher, for the purpose of exploiting his followers and Buddhism. This person takes advantage of what Buddhism means, and the naive followers, for his own benefit.
You seem to be saying that in a situation like this it is not important to disassociate the charlatan from Buddhism. Is that right? If it is right, is it that you don't care what other people say or do, and you only concern yourself with your own practice?
You can prefer bananas to apples without it being an ego trip. If you define yourself as a banana-eater then it becomes ego-driven. I think this author means that he does not care whether you prefer bananas, apples, sex with men or sex with women, and that people that do care about this are ego-driven.
Comments
While I have really enjoyed reading this discussion and I think it was a great question, I do think sometimes we can take things to far. We are all someone. I just seems a bit silly to me to talk about how not to be who we are. Yes, I know not attaching to identity and labels is part of Buddhism, but if we were all 100% at that point, we wouldn't be on the internet bouncing ideas and thoughts off each other.
I'm a female. In some ways I'm quite feminine, in others I'm very much a tom boy. I'm Buddhist. I'm a mother. I'm a wife. Yes, I'm attached to some of those things, but they aren't my entire identity. They are part of who the I that has to live in this world, is. I grew 3 children in my womb and gave birth to them. I'm not going to not call myself a mother because it might mean I'm labeling myself and causing myself to act out my label. Goodness, I hope so, because if I wasn't going to act as a mother my kids would be in trouble. I just think sometimes things go too far. It goes from being a some-day goal, probably lifetimes away, one to ponder and work on in small increments to some ideal that we are all failing to meet because we label ourselves and shame on us for having identities!
I wonder if I can petition the government to remove my identity in their system because I no longer believe in identifying myself as anything, lol.
Honestly, I'm a little confused at times with what his practice is, exactly. I know he's practiced zen for, like, 30 years... Sometimes he refers to himself as a monk and sometimes not, but I think he perhaps USED to be one but doesn't identify as one anymore? He's in the Soto lineage but always says "this doesn't express the views of my lineage, blah blah"
Sometimes I like his bluntness. It was Brad that originally helped me to understand no-self on a very basic level because his writing style is so in your face. He's such an ass about everything, I originally recoiled against his points, but ultimately had to investigate why it bothered me so much... And when I did that... well... you know.
This book is still kind of boring, but it is getting a little better. It's less him just talking about opinions and more about Buddhism now...
But one of the chapters is named: "SAVING ALL BEINGS... FROM MY DICK"
And I laughed really hard at that, just to prove how immature I am. But he actually had some pretty valid points. Remember, this book mainly revolves around sex... So he's discussing the Bodhisattva vows and the first one is "Beings are numberless; I vow to save them." In regards to sex and otherwise, he points out that instead of thinking about this in an impossible way (which the vow itself points out), it can be helpful to put "from myself" onto the end of it. "I vow to save them... from myself." Because that's really all anyone can strive to do, to change their own actions. This is an especially true point when you think about sex.
So, all in all, it's not a complete wash.
To put my point more bluntly, say some charlatan started a following (think Kumare), claiming to be a Buddhist teacher, for the purpose of exploiting his followers and Buddhism. This person takes advantage of what Buddhism means, and the naive followers, for his own benefit.
You seem to be saying that in a situation like this it is not important to disassociate the charlatan from Buddhism. Is that right? If it is right, is it that you don't care what other people say or do, and you only concern yourself with your own practice?