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.
Unfortunately today's shooter was Theravadan Buddhist
I haven't seen any media angle "run with" the information about him being Buddhist. It's included as information about him. Plenty are already off and running with his paranoia and hearing voices (which he apparently sought help for). Also I swear I read in here that he was discharged after illegally firing a weapon. That's not really true. In a timeline, yes. But they found not enough evidence to charge him, and later on he was honorably discharged. I have not seen anything mentioned as far as how long he had been Buddhist. He was already attending the temple when he was befriended by the man who owned the restaurant, who offered Mr. Alexis room and board in exchange for working at the restaurant. He lived with them until July when he abruptly moved in with someone else and by that time had started experiencing problems. Buddhism in this case won't be vilified any more than autism was vilified after Newtown. There are always a few who will try, of course but as far as wide media coverage, I don't think it'll happen.
I think him being a Buddhist is pretty much irrelevant. Rather than run with the idea and make some big thing out of it, I suspect people will realize that this isn't normative behavior for a Buddist and chalk it up to abberation.
On the other hand, I think this mess can and should act as a sobering reminder that we are, after all, still painfully human. Being a Buddhist does not mean we are immune from psychosis. It doesn't me that we, suddenly, become Good People who would never hurt a fly let alone another human.
I don't know if this guy was a Buddhist or not. Going to a temple or center doesn't automatically confer the title of Buddhist. On the other hand if the man took Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, then he was most certainly a Buddhist. The No True Scotsman fallacy that's been bandied about in this thread is quite meaningless. A Buddhist, a REAL Buddist, is just as capable of picking up a gun and killing a bunch of people as anyone else.
I haven't seen any media angle "run with" the information about him being Buddhist. It's included as information about him. Plenty are already off and running with his paranoia and hearing voices (which he apparently sought help for). Also I swear I read in here that he was discharged after illegally firing a weapon. That's not really true. In a timeline, yes. But they found not enough evidence to charge him, and later on he was honorably discharged. I have not seen anything mentioned as far as how long he had been Buddhist. He was already attending the temple when he was befriended by the man who owned the restaurant, who offered Mr. Alexis room and board in exchange for working at the restaurant. He lived with them until July when he abruptly moved in with someone else and by that time had started experiencing problems. Buddhism in this case won't be vilified any more than autism was vilified after Newtown. There are always a few who will try, of course but as far as wide media coverage, I don't think it'll happen.
I haven't seen any media angle "run with" the information about him being Buddhist. It's included as information about him. Plenty are already off and running with his paranoia and hearing voices (which he apparently sought help for). Also I swear I read in here that he was discharged after illegally firing a weapon. That's not really true. In a timeline, yes. But they found not enough evidence to charge him, and later on he was honorably discharged. I have not seen anything mentioned as far as how long he had been Buddhist. He was already attending the temple when he was befriended by the man who owned the restaurant, who offered Mr. Alexis room and board in exchange for working at the restaurant. He lived with them until July when he abruptly moved in with someone else and by that time had started experiencing problems. Buddhism in this case won't be vilified any more than autism was vilified after Newtown. There are always a few who will try, of course but as far as wide media coverage, I don't think it'll happen.
Indeed. I read the same thing. Just because he meditated in a Buddhist temple doesn't make him a Buddhist any more than attending a wedding in a church makes one a Christian.
first precept of the Five Precept who practice Buddhas' Teaching is refrain from killing
I kill things almost daily, ants, cockroaches, stuff like that. I try to release things like spiders or just leave them, does that mean I am not a Buddhist?
There are other precepts, and parts of the Eightold path many people have daily trouble with. Same as many (most) Christians have problems following the 10 commandments 100% of the time. It doesn't make them non-Christian. @dhammachick No, attending church (or temple) doesn't make one Christian. But if they were baptized and confirmed (depending on tradition) then they are Christian, regardless if we approve of their behavior. Perhaps he was Buddhist. Perhaps he simply meditating at a temple. But his act alone does not make him not a Buddhist.
I kill things almost daily, ants, cockroaches, stuff like that. I try to release things like spiders or just leave them, does that mean I am not a Buddhist?
Buddhist, christian etc. are just labels important thing is what we think, speak, and do
refrain from killing is the first precept we can use our own intelligence to decide whether we kill (by thought, speech or deed)
at least we can try to practice five precept as lay people from this moment onward
there is nothing to worry about what we have done in the past
one - we cannot change what we have done in the past two - worrying is itself an unskillful thing
/ class="Quote" rel="vinlyn">Some here have not yet come to the realization that the Bt environment they are in is somewhat unique in the world and not typical of the life that the average world Buddhist lives in. Thea rarefied niche where mostly White American suburbanites read books, listen to podcasts, and chat with other White Americans about a religion (or philosophy) which they have come to -- to a great extent -- due to dissatisfaction with the religion they were raised in. They're typically middle class (or higher), with a decent job, well-educated, and (at least by American/Western standards) sophisticated. Meanwhile, much of the Buddhist world lives in an almost totally non-White environment, were born into their religion and are content with the way they learned to practice it, they and their family scrape by with only adequate (or less) nutrition and housing, have a lousy (or no) full time job that pays poorly, aren't well-educated, and aren't particularly sophisticated. I'm talking about the people who live in the countries in the world where Buddhism is most common -- China (102,000,000), Japan (89,650,000), Thailand (55,480,000), Vietnam (49,690,000), Burma (41,610,000), Sri Lanka (12,540,000), South Korea (10,920,000), Taiwan (9,150,000), Cambodia (9,130,000), India (7,000,000).
And somehow I think that Buddha himself would have been a little less likely to go around telling people they weren't fit to listen to his teachings and try their best to emulate them.
Frankly, some of the attitudes expressed here about whether or not someone can call themselves a Buddhist sound very much like certain Americans before (and after) the Civil War who thought they had the right to decide who was human. For some of you it's the old concept that we have our own little club, and you're not worthy to be a member. quote @vinlyn
I've been thinking about this post all day. So you're saying that we should respect Buddhism as a cultural religion? I'm in a unique position here; I'm not spoiled middle class, my love of Buddhism is not based on cultural tradition.. Look at it from my perspective; I'm an American, never been to a sangha, don't know any Buddhists Irl, the only influence I have are the tripitaka, the Mahayana sutras, and the writings of some Zen patriarchs. I absolutely love Buddhism as I know it from the scripture. It is all that I am, all that I have: it speaks to me, it calls me. iyears of headaches, blood sweat and tears trying to apprehend the meanings of the buddhas words. Sores on my feet from walking the earth hundreds of miles looking up at the sky, looking for understanding. now after years of learning feel like I owe the people who preserved the sutras more than I could possibly give, which is to say nothing of who composed them. I'm not one to tell someone that they are not a buddhist, but does Buddhism probably mean more to me than 90% of cultural buddhists in those countries you mentioned? Yeah, it most probably does. What I'm trying to say is that someone who is drawn to it, who isn't born into it, who studies scripture, who genuinely seeks knowledge... Wouldn't that person be more true to the path than someone who is born into it and couldn't care less? I really don't know how to feel about your post. I understand what you're saying.. a lot of white american well off folks are buddhist just to be trendy, have no right to say anything about the masses of traditional followers. But look at it from my POV, my education about Buddhism is pretty clean, self taught, close to scripture, well thought out and analyzed. I had no idea about all the silly divisions and sects (terrible disappointment for me) For me, buddhism is completely universal, fundamentally beyond cultural influence, imagery and ritual even as it is enhanced by it. This is something that can be scarcely said about any other religion and people from all over are drawn to that...it makes sense to them. It makes sense to me. And being universal and good, peaceful and seeking knowledge by nature, its understandable that people here would say that he wasn't a buddhist.. they hold themselves to the standards of not killing which is the very basis of the practice.
How can you be sure that your understanding is close/true to scripture if you've never had a teacher (assuming there) or sangha to help with guidance? Not that one NEEDS either of those things, but I think it's easy to limit our understanding when all we surround ourselves with is ourself.
Anyhow, I don't think just because someone is born into something means they don't take it as seriously as those who choose it purposely. It can be that way. And it cannot. But really, is it up to you to decide that Buddhism is more important to you than to anyone else? Does it matter? Do you feel that because you study so much and chose it on purpose, that you have some right to decide who REALLY is Buddhist, and who is not? Have you been to any or all of the heavily Buddhist countries to be able to speak of their people as if they don't understand the religion they grew up with?
And how do you know all the people here, even those who read the posts and never comment, are universally good, peaceful and seeking knowledge? Just because someone happens to be here, doesn't suddenly make them vastly different from the guy who shot up the Navy yard. How do you know not a single person here isn't a convicted murderer? How do you know none of the military people here haven't killed someone while proclaiming Buddhism? How do you know none of them beat their spouses, cheat on them, lie to their families, and so on? I have no doubt people here have killed, lied, cheated, stolen, and broken all the Eightfold Path statements and precepts. I pretty much have, though I've come a long ways. In the time since I became a Buddhist I have killed animals, I have swore, I have gossiped, I have drank alcohol. I don't think I have misused sex (I'm happily married and have been long before I became Buddhist) and I don't think I have stolen anything. But because you are farther along than I, does that mean you really appreciate Buddhism more than I do? How can you even proclaim to think that about anyone?
How can you be sure that your understanding is close/true to scripture if you've never had a teacher (assuming there) or sangha to help with guidance? Not that one NEEDS either of those things, but I think it's easy to limit our unI'd rstanding when all we surround ourselves with is ourself.
Well I did have teachers, the foremost being the Buddha himself. His teachings were prolific. I wish I had a sangha. I only say that in the sense that what I've , learned I've learned from the source. While it takes time, eventually the effects are staggering.
Anyhow, I don't think just because someone is born into something means they don't take it as seriously as those who choose it purposely. It can be that way. And it cannot. But really, is it up to you to decide that Buddhism is more important to you than to anyone else?
No but lets be honest about it, its doubtful many of them know or care much. All I'm saying is, from my very virginal, sutra influenced knowledge of Buddhism, it was something that was meant to be universal. Just because a person is Tibetan, or Thai doesnt mean they have the faintest clue about anything. Because the knowledge and basis of the path as explained by the scripture is beyond culture, imagery, ritual...though it can be personalized and enhanced with those things. Yea it can be fairly evident how important it is to someone...ask them! Are they going to speak about it the way I did and mean it?
And how do you know all the people here, even those who read the posts and never comment, are universally good, peaceful and seeking knowledge? Just because someone happens to be here, doesn't suddenly make them vastly different from the guy who shot up the Navy yard. How do you know not a single person here isn't a convicted murderer? How do you know none of the military people here haven't killed someone while proclaiming Buddhism? How do you know none of them beat their spouses, cheat on them, lie to their families, and so on? I have no doubt people here have killed, lied, cheated, stolen, and broken all the Eightfold Path statements and precepts. I pretty much have, though I've come a long ways. In the time since I became a Buddhist I have killed animals, I have swore, I have gossiped, I have drank alcohol. I don't think I have misused sex (I'm happily married and have been long before I became Buddhist) and I don't think I have stolen anything. But because you are farther along than I, does that mean you really appreciate Buddhism more than I do? How can you even proclaim to think that about anyone?
I never said anything of the sort, of any of what you're mentioning. And I'd never say that I'm further along...it doesnt work that way. Actually I should have been more concise in the original post... I never really think of myself as 'buddhist', I only reference that term when people speak about what religion they are, so this whole discussion of whether he is or isn't is pointless from the beginning.
Here's what bothers me... People who proclaim to Buddhist, have no appreciation for it, don't care about morality or seeking understanding, never read but a few words of the buddhas painstakingly preserved scriptural leavings, or in the extreme, kill innocent people without remorse like our DC guy, . These are the people that close the doors to people who might be interested in the teaching. Should we call them buddhist? And the gravity of that becomes clear when you're like me, and have gotten so much from them... I can't even begin to quantify what the sutras have done for me. I consider myself beyond lucky to have them..perfectly crafted, subtle, intelligent. Do you see where I'm coming from?
first precept of the Five Precept who practice Buddhas' Teaching is refrain from killing
I kill things almost daily, ants, cockroaches, stuff like that. I try to release things like spiders or just leave them, does that mean I am not a Buddhist?
Exactly.
And to some are using the Precept against killing as a reason to decide someone is not a Buddhist, you can't just take one...ya gotta take all 5.
/ class="Quote" rel="vinlyn">Some here have not yet come to the realization that the Bt environment they are in is somewhat unique in the world and not typical of the life that the average world Buddhist lives in. Thea rarefied niche where mostly White American suburbanites read books, listen to podcasts, and chat with other White Americans about a religion (or philosophy) which they have come to -- to a great extent -- due to dissatisfaction with the religion they were raised in. They're typically middle class (or higher), with a decent job, well-educated, and (at least by American/Western standards) sophisticated. Meanwhile, much of the Buddhist world lives in an almost totally non-White environment, were born into their religion and are content with the way they learned to practice it, they and their family scrape by with only adequate (or less) nutrition and housing, have a lousy (or no) full time job that pays poorly, aren't well-educated, and aren't particularly sophisticated. I'm talking about the people who live in the countries in the world where Buddhism is most common -- China (102,000,000), Japan (89,650,000), Thailand (55,480,000), Vietnam (49,690,000), Burma (41,610,000), Sri Lanka (12,540,000), South Korea (10,920,000), Taiwan (9,150,000), Cambodia (9,130,000), India (7,000,000).
And somehow I think that Buddha himself would have been a little less likely to go around telling people they weren't fit to listen to his teachings and try their best to emulate them.
Frankly, some of the attitudes expressed here about whether or not someone can call themselves a Buddhist sound very much like certain Americans before (and after) the Civil War who thought they had the right to decide who was human. For some of you it's the old concept that we have our own little club, and you're not worthy to be a member.
I've been thinking about this post all day. So you're saying that we should respect Buddhism as a cultural religion? I'm in a unique position here; I'm not spoiled middle class, my love of Buddhism is not based on cultural tradition.. Look at it from my perspective; I'm an American, never been to a sangha, don't know any Buddhists Irl, the only influence I have are the tripitaka, the Mahayana sutras, and the writings of some Zen patriarchs. I absolutely love Buddhism as I know it from the scripture. It is all that I am, all that I have: it speaks to me, it calls me. iyears of headaches, blood sweat and tears trying to apprehend the meanings of the buddhas words. Sores on my feet from walking the earth hundreds of miles looking up at the sky, looking for understanding. now after years of learning feel like I owe the people who preserved the sutras more than I could possibly give, which is to say nothing of who composed them. I'm not one to tell someone that they are not a buddhist, but does Buddhism probably mean more to me than 90% of cultural buddhists in those countries you mentioned? Yeah, it most probably does. What I'm trying to say is that someone who is drawn to it, who isn't born into it, who studies scripture, who genuinely seeks knowledge... Wouldn't that person be more true to the path than someone who is born into it and couldn't care less? I really don't know how to feel about your post. I understand what you're saying.. a lot of white american well off folks are buddhist just to be trendy, have no right to say anything about the masses of traditional followers. But look at it from my POV, my education about Buddhism is pretty clean, self taught, close to scripture, well thought out and analyzed. I had no idea about all the silly divisions and sects (terrible disappointment for me) For me, buddhism is completely universal, fundamentally beyond cultural influence, imagery and ritual even as it is enhanced by it. This is something that can be scarcely said about any other religion and people from all over are drawn to that...it makes sense to them. It makes sense to me. And being universal and good, peaceful and seeking knowledge by nature, its understandable that people here would say that he wasn't a buddhist.. they hold themselves to the standards of not killing which is the very basis of the practice.
Let me simplify what I'm really saying...and you are reading me incorrectly.
It is up to each individual to say whether or not they are a Buddhist. Period.
No one here can say, "Ocean, you are not Buddhist because _______________." Everyone else needs to mind their own path and not try to interpret someone else's path.
Or, if we are going to give ourselves the power to decide on whether someone else is a Buddhist or not, then I have any number of people on this forum that I'll be happy to nominate as not being a Buddhist...or a true Buddhist. But no, it's not up to me to be the JUDGE. It's funny to me how many people on this forum don't believe in judging others...until they do.
Ocean, you are a Buddhist in my eyes because you have decided that you are. Period. End of story. You get to tend your own path.
Do you feel that because you study so much and chose it on purpose, that you havedon'te right to decide who REALLY is Buddhist, and who is not?
Basically I just wanted to say that Vinlyns post was a little hardline. I do understand where he's coming from, theres a lot of white bread buddhists here in the states who are suddenly captain and spokesperson of the entire religion. I get that. But like I said earlier its a slippery slope, because people who are raised into it probably dont have much of a real idea of it. And its funny because here in the west, we tend to assume that someone from these cultures somehow automatically has some innate knowledge about it. THEY DONT. And that's the beauty of it... There's no 'chosen people' karasti, there's no preexisting requirement to benefit from what he/they left us.
I'm a pretty fluid down to earth guy, so I'm not going to go around saying who is or who isn't Buddhist, but if someone wants to say a mass murderer or unapologetic drunken womanizer isn't really a buddhist, I'm not going to crucify them for it. And I hate the stereotype that Buddhism is 'asian' or something like this..or best understood by people who most faithfully go through the motions.
SOME people who are raised into it might not have as much idea of it, like any religion. My husband considers himself Catholic because he feels the need to be something, but he has not practiced in more than a decade. There are Buddhists like that, sure. But do you think I go to my husband and say "Ha! You aren't REALLY a Catholic."? Because I don't. It's not up to me to compare him to TRUE Catholics, or any other Catholics. It's not up to me to compare myself with REAL Buddhists or any other sort of person who calls themselves a Buddhist. Someone from Tibet doesn't have to be Buddhist. But I venture to say that there are many people who are Tibetan and Buddhist who you might proclaim do not know Buddhism like you do, who might in fact know and understand it better than you might hope to. There are people who live in the hills and have no training that understand Buddhism better than most. There are people in fine palaces who do the same. The bottom line is it's not for us to judge them in any way, shape, or form.
A mass murderer, wife abuser, or drunkard can be a Catholic, a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Jew, or anything else they believe they are. If you don't agree, then why does it matter? How does it impact your practice, your behavior in the world whatsoever to realize that this Aaron Alexis considered himself a Buddhist?
I ask because in the instant I read the headlining paragraph that he was a Buddhist and his friends were stunned, I cringed a bit. For a moment, I thought "cripes, now people are going to associate Buddhism with this guy." But a few moments later I realized how I live my life as a Buddhist does not matter one iota compared to how he lived his life as a Buddhist or how the HHDL lives his life as a Buddhist. I, Kim B. am no more or less Buddhist than anyone else simply because Aaron A., a Buddhist, killed a bunch of people. I am myself, no more, no less. Therefore what other people who might share the same labels as I do, do not matter as far as how I use those labels in my own life.
I guess what bothers me is that some feel the need to separate themselves from "bad" Buddhists lest they be compared to them. The "bad" Buddhists among us deserve compassion just as much as the good ones. Do you only spare the "good" bugs? The "good" fish or birds or mammals? So many people say "I'd never do what that man did." but yet as a Buddhist I don't see most of you (including myself) opening your home to the homeless, your kitchen to the hungry. You (generally speaking) claim you'd never be like the man who did wrong, but you are still just as unlike the people who do so great as well. So instead of worrying about putting distance between yourself and the Buddhists who do wrong, maybe it's better to spend that energy decreasing the distance between yourself and those who do amazing good deeds. If you insist you are so far removed from the end of the curve where people like Aaron Alexis sit, then you are as well putting yourself far from the end of those who exemplify Buddhism or humanity as well.
Aaron Alexis, "bad Buddhist," affects my practice not at all. The monks in Myanmar who insist on misbehaving affect my practice not at all. The Westboro Baptists affect my good Christian friends' practice not at all. The Al Queda terrorists affect my Muslim friend not at all. They don't define us any more than we define the religion we are part of.
@dhammachick No, attending church (or temple) doesn't make one Christian. But if they were baptized and confirmed (depending on tradition) then they are Christian, regardless if we approve of their behavior. Perhaps he was Buddhist. Perhaps he simply meditating at a temple. But his act alone does not make him not a Buddhist.
@karasti - I get the point you're trying to make but I disagree with your explanation of baptism and/or confirmation "making" you a Christian.
I am a Jew by birth as my mother is a Jew. So the Jews say no matter what, I'm Jewish. I was baptised and raised Catholic as my father is a Catholic. According to the Catholic Church, my baptism trumps my Jewish roots. The Jews say blood is thicker than water. According to your theory, which one am I?
Answer - I am neither spiritually, (though I identify more with my Jewish roots than my Catholic upbringing). And I kind of get frustrated when I read things like
if they were baptized and confirmed (depending on tradition) then they are Christian, regardless if we approve of their behavior.
To me that is like me saying I'm Buddhist because I took the Refuge Vows at the Sangha even if I never followed the Noble Eightfold Path, never set foot inside a Sangha again or read one line of a sutra.
You are whatever you define yourself as. Aaron Alexis is not less Buddhist because he (in the end) did not follow buddhism like I do. Perhaps he suffered great mental illness and anguish. Who am I to say that I am a better Buddhist than he is just because I try to do better at following the Eightfold Path. If I lie to my husband and steal from my family for 20 years, but never kill anyone and never make the news, am I a better Buddhist than Aaron Alexis? Who is Buddhist is decided only by the person declaring to be so. Same with any other religion. In my statement, I mean that if a person was baptized, confirmed and declares themselves a Christian, who am I to say otherwise?
I took refuge vows. I, as well as my teacher, declared myself a Buddhist. I don't have a temple to set food inside. And I've ready maybe 3 sutras in 3 years. I enjoy them, I just don't understand them that well at this point, so it's a work in progress. So who are you to decide I am NOT a Buddhist because I don't "enter" a Sangha or read Sutras?
For *me* the bottom line is, Aaron Alexis was my brother. Not in Buddhism, not in race, but in humanity. All humans are my brothers and my sisters, and I don't take any sort of pleasure in saying I am a better human than he is because I choose not to kill people. I have done plenty wrong in my life. I'm sure I'll do plenty wrong in the future, even though I am working on improving that. My wrongs just happen to not be national news. I could destroy my children's lives and no one would ever know it. Yet because Aaron Alexis makes the news, we feel we are free to judge him as a human and as a Buddhist. I don't agree with that.
SOME people who are raised into it might not have as much idea of it, like any religion.
Yes some, I never meant to imply all. And no its not really for me to say, but like I said earlier, ask THEM what they feel about it.
But still I wouldn't say he wasn't a buddhist. I just don't blame the people in this thread who say he's not. Why? Because where do we draw the line? If you're just worshipping an empty idol, is that Buddhism? And most importantly, What happens when someone goes to find out what Buddhism is and finds out its just some meaningless chanting and idol worship? That highly refined morality is not an essential pillar of what it is? They'd probably never give it a chance, they would never know everything it has to offer. Buddhism is more than just another dogma for a lot of us... Why try to take that away?
If every one of this forum who has ignored or broken any one of the five basic precepts were eliminated from this forum for not being a real Buddhist, there probably would be no forum.
No one is taking anything away from you, oceancaldera207. Not a single thing. Buddhism will mean whatever people want it to mean in their lives. How I live MY life as a Buddhist will not matter. Neither will how Aaron Alexis lived his life influence their decision to be a Buddhist. People are judging a person they don't know, never know, for the what, almost 30 years he was alive, on a few seconds of really bad actions. We don't know why he made the choices he did. Would it matter if you did? Would it matter if he were tortured by mental demons you cannot even imagine? I have a relative who hears voices and suffers extreme mental distress over it. I guarantee you, you cannot know what it is like without being there. He is a brilliant man. But it would not surprise me to hear one day that he killed people. Right now he is getting the help he needs. Other times, he has not. Who he is when he is not being helped is not who he really is, and it is not for me to judge him as a result. I do not live his life and I cannot possibly understand. So all I can do is try to have compassion for someone who is suffering in a way I cannot even comprehend who has the propensity to exact violence on others. He has in the past, but has not killed anyone. He is certainly capable of it, as we all are when put into certain positions.
We are so quick to say "but as Buddhists we promise not to kill!" well then I invite you to allow someone to kill your children without fighting back. After all, we are judging those who kill, regardless of what reasons they might have that we might not understand.
@dhammachick I'm not missing your point. You are free to define Buddhism in your life however you want. But you don't get to define it for everyone else, or judge them for not upholding what you believe is a Buddhist life.
the quote from..Ghandi? about Christ and Christians can be applied to Buddhist as well. "I like your Buddha. I do not like your Buddhists. Your Buddhists are so unlike your Buddha." If you follow Buddha's stories, he did not limit his love and compassion to those who did not murder. Just as Jesus said to love your neighbor, Buddha said hatred can only cease by love. That means for all, not just those we hand pick.
You can look at it 2 ways people, maybe more depending on how much you want to look. Technically speaking according to tradition you become a Buddhist when you take refuge in the 3 jewels with the ceremony blabla. I personally do not know if this was something that happened in the day of the Buddha or if it is just some tradition that has come into being like how Thais seem to leave food and drinks at shrines not more than 50 metres away from a 7/11 where homeless human beings are begging for money or food. Yet they would rather give it to the inanimate shrine...
Anyway, the other way of looking at it, or the way I see it shall I say, is that we are all Buddhists, even if we conform to a different religion we still have to deal with life and suffering. A lot of what other religions preach can be found to some degree in the dharma, we are all humans, we all suffer, thus to me we are all Buddhist in this sense. Of course this is not a technical sense with a huge fat label added to it.
. But I venture to say that there are many people who are Tibetan and Buddhist who you might proclaim do not know Buddhism like you do, who might in fact know and understand it better than you might hope to.
But I don't really think that way.. what people can gain from it is vast in variety and cant be quantified like that. But yet we can also say that some people clearly don't have any interest or drive, or even basic knowledge.. and some profess to but falsely, and have no refined moral compass.
@dhammachick I'm not missing your point. You are free to define Buddhism in your life however you want. But you don't get to define it for everyone else, or judge them for not upholding what you believe is a Buddhist life.
You are indeed missing my point if you think I'm defining what Buddhism is or isn't for anyone. I obviously struck a chord by my example (which was completely hypothetical as I haven't undergone the Refuge Vows at my sangha, it was the first thing I could think of). The irony is that you defined who is or isn't a Christian in a blanket statement about baptism and confirmation.
You know the indignation that you are feeling now by thinking I am defining Buddhism for "everyone"? (Which I stress again, I wasn't) Well that's the feeling _I_ got by your sweeping generalisation about Christianity. Because I've been baptised and confirmed and I sure as shit ain't Christian.
To me that is like me saying I'm Buddhist because I took the Refuge Vows at the Sangha even if I never followed the Noble Eightfold Path, never set foot inside a Sangha again or read one line of a sutra.
Anyone can follow the 8FP, so does that mean they're a Buddhist? You can read sutra all day long and that won't make you a Buddhist.
How about, he was buddhist in name, but not in practice. I am consistently impressed by people here; no one really degrades or attacks the man or such things.. none of us disagree there.
No one is taking anything away from you, oceancaldera207. Not a single thing. Buddhism will mean whatever people want it to mean in their lives.
Ok... If people come to Buddhism because they say " hey, I've found a religion that is universally moral, doesn't demand mindless worship, doesn't preach exclusivity," only to have someone say no, it's not, it's just like the others. And in the scriptural sense, in the sense that the Buddha spoke, it IS open like that! It IS different in that way.
That's what I mean by 'why take that away'.
And how about Buddhism as kind of a place to go for people who have a mutual respect for morality, life, consciousness, self knowledge? Would that really be so wrong?? Would that really be so far from what the Buddha meant by "sangha" ?? Does anybody out there hear me??
Buddham saranam gacchāmi I go for refuge in the Buddha. Dhammam saranam gacchāmi I go for refuge in the Dharma. Sangham saranam gacchāmi I go for refuge in the Sangha
How can you be sure that your understanding is close/true to scripture if you've never had a teacher (tjiming there) or sangha to help with guidance? Not that one NEEDS either of those things, but I think it's easy to limit our understanding when all we surround ourselves with is ourself.
Off topic not part of the argument, I can be reasonably sure, because after years of difficulty with the sutras, I finally came to a point where employing certain points in concentration causes me several different kinds of intense pleasure and well being. Streamlined, pain and clutter free thought. Sensing the perceived world as a uniform field of pleasurable sensation and texture. The perception of vast space and time. Sensations of light and powerful feeling. This is all at will, and only depends on my ability to concentrate and not be stupidly distracted. (And in this way I'm very stubbornly stupid) And that's not saying everything really. Suffice it to say one day the two dimensional 'philosophy' becomes a three dimensional ecstasy. For me the sutras are a powerful medicine that is begging to heal you, to tune you, to comfort you... if you take them, hold them and allow them to work. I remember the flash I used to feel in the beginning... It was so fleeting, but it was real. Now years later I can swim in what I used to grasp at and chase...and I've barely scratched the surface. Have you felt that fleeting feeling? Know that it need not always be so fleeting.
I'm glad to read all the threads. Instead of hatred and anger I see some frustration, and I think that's how we should be reacting.
Can we agree a Buddhist is anyone who practices Buddhism? Labels like all forms are empty. For all of half a lifetime trying to practice the Dharma, there will be moments in my day when I'm not being a Buddhist. When I lose my temper. When I let my desires control my actions in spite of knowing better. I can keep each and every Precept all day and not be a Buddhist. I can break one in the name of compassion and be a Buddha.
So the question "Was he a Buddhist?" really doesn't have an answer. "Was he practicing Buddhism?" probably can be debated, instead. I don't know to what extent, if any, his sick mind was capable of doing that. Whatever he was doing, he obviously failed.
This is a silly and pointless thread. The actions of one disaffected person does not represent a religion followed by millions of people. Surely that's obvious.
This is a silly and pointless thread. The actions of one disaffected person does not represent a religion followed by millions of people. Surely that's obvious.
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But how many people in the West think all Muslims are violent bombers who hate America's freedoms? How many even here think Christians are intolerant crusaders who think all non-believers are evil?
I don't see what his religion has to do with anything. Seems completely irrelevant if you ask me. And therefore not unfortunate that he was buddhist or called himself that. It doesn't actually matter!
You'd think so, wouldn't you? But how many people in the West think all Muslims are violent bombers who hate America's freedoms? How many even here think Christians are intolerant crusaders who think all non-believers are evil?
Good point, although to be fair some Muslim leaders do issue fatwas, eg the case of Salman Rushdie in 1989, calling on Muslims to carry out violence for religious reasons.By contrast Buddhist leaders only ever promote non-violence.
Can we agree a Buddhist is anyone who practices Buddhism? Labels like all forms are empty. For all of half a lifetime trying to practice the Dharma, there will be moments in my day when I'm not being a Buddhist. When I lose my temper. When I let my desires control my actions in spite of knowing better. I can keep each and every Precept all day and not be a Buddhist. I can break one in the name of compassion and be a Buddha.
THIS.
I don't think we should get to hung up on the label "Buddhist" -- because of the very nature of impermanence, nobody can be identified by a label in any definitive sense. It may be helpful as a social descriptor-- but in the context of Buddhist practice, where the rubber meets the road, labels are just labels. In reality, no one has any one fixed essence. Causes and conditions change. The big question is, are we paying attention to those changes, or do we mindlessly allow them to sweep us off to who knows what craving?
That's why mindfulness is one of the first necessary steps in Buddhism in order to pay attention to what one is thinking, saying and doing in THIS particular moment. Definitions don't bring liberation (in fact, they often do the precise opposite)-- but working on practice does.
@dhammachick I'm sorry if what I said offended you. I hadn't clearly said what I intended to and I clarified that I meant people who considered themselves Christian and had been baptized, confirmed or whatever other ritual brings them into Christianity just like Refuge bring people into Buddhism. I, too, have been baptized and confirmed, and am not Christian. But I also did not make that choice, and I never identified as Christian. In my original statement that is what I meant to include (in thought I did but not in my writing, clearly). I identify as Buddhist for many reasons. But my reasons may not apply to anyone else. If Aaron Alexis identified as Buddhist, it is not for me to claim he was not. That is my only point in this. In *my* opinion we shouldn't even be judging him on whether he was a Buddhist, or whether he was a good or bad Buddhist. There is no comparing us to him, nor should there be.
Also, don't assume I feel anything in particular just because of words I use. I rarely get emotionally caught up in any sense in discussions online. I didn't feel any sense of indignation, or anything else. I'm simply stating what I think.
Are you trying to tell me there are 2 hollywood banana schools? The one I was referring to is very similar to Vajrayana, except their hats are made of bananas and they dont believe in reincarnation.
This bothers me to no end @psychiatric com. Lets focus on a marginally occurring event, (worsening of symptoms in meditation) and ignore the substantially less marginally occurring event of psychiatric medicine causing suicides or living zombies.
It seems to me that vinlyn pointed out a beautiful jewel that is perhaps being overlooked. Buddhism is a label used more widely than just those who rigorously follow the teachings of the Buddha. Much like in western culture there are people who goto church and pray and kneel, then walk out and do not think of Christ until the following weekend. They still identify as christian, and why would we bother contesting that?
All we do when we try to define the lines of these labels is play a cosmic shell game where we are the loser. It reinforces the mind's grasping at self. Not calling others Buddhist or unbuddhist has nothing to do with them, it has to do with us and our own unbinding, our own freedom. Let it go, baggage, unneeded... conceals the truth, doesn't perform a useful function for us.
and this precisely why i don't label myself as a buddhist.... because saying that you belong to a group doesn't change anything about yourself. its all about the practice. the practice and the effort are what defines you. i only feel comfortable labeling myself as "a human being". buddhism didnt invet kindness or compassion or mindfulness. buddhism simply is a tool which may or may not lead to a path where your choices are compsssionate, kind, or mindful. buddhism isnt a magic cure or an answer. its just another question. what you do with the question is up to you. shooters are human beings. and thats all any of us are. we're just humans. calling yourself a buddhist wont change your issues.... practicing and honesty might change your issues, but like everything in this world, nothing is garaunteed. not even your safety from others practicing the "buddhist" path.
first precept of the Five Precept who practice Buddhas' Teaching is refrain from killing
I kill things almost daily, ants, cockroaches, stuff like that. I try to release things like spiders or just leave them, does that mean I am not a Buddhist?
An animal life isn't as precious as a human life so you could still do that and be a Buddhist but not kill other himan's and be one imo.
"I am a __________" is a comfortable fiction. It conveniently separates "us" from "them." You don't even have to work for it-- just cling to an identity:
An affiliation is not an experience. It is, in fact, a surrogate for experience. Identity is the articulation of this surrogacy. Where the faith in God is wanting, there is still religious identity. Where the bed is cold and empty, there is still sexual identity. Where the words of the fathers are forgotten, there is still ethnic identity. The thinner the identity, the louder.
@TheEccentric animal life is not less precious than human life. Buddha doesn't even teach that. Human birth is referred to as precious because of it's rarity, not as a comparison between humans and animals. If that were the case the precept would be to refrain from killing people. Not refrain from killing.
To be officially called a buddhist, one must at least take refuge in the three jewels. Of course, anybody on the street can call themselves a buddhist, there is no law of enforcement for that.
To be officially called a buddhist, one must at least take refuge in the three jewels. Of course, anybody on the street can call themselves a buddhist, there is no law of enforcement for that.
Ideally, yeah, but out here in the real world, it's a different story.
Many sanghas support the notion that to call oneself a Buddhist, you must take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. This usually means a ceremony where vows are taken. In some Sanghas there are vows for taking up the 5 Precepts and without said vows, the precepts are non-binding.
In my experience, I was given a document with my Dharma name (Osel Choden) on it and the date and the Preceptor's chop. So I'm "official". :clap:
You can still call yourself whatever you want. If you want to call yourself a Buddhist, that's fine by me, but don't be so naive to think that everyone will or even should be so flexible.
When in Thailand I asked about a ceremony. A monk said that it was not necessary. One can take refuge in Buddha, in the Sangha, and in the Dhamma by oneself in meditation. I did it frequently. Of course, if one wants to act Catholic, one can do all the ceremonies.
Comments
I think him being a Buddhist is pretty much irrelevant. Rather than run with the idea and make some big thing out of it, I suspect people will realize that this isn't normative behavior for a Buddist and chalk it up to abberation.
On the other hand, I think this mess can and should act as a sobering reminder that we are, after all, still painfully human. Being a Buddhist does not mean we are immune from psychosis. It doesn't me that we, suddenly, become Good People who would never hurt a fly let alone another human.
I don't know if this guy was a Buddhist or not. Going to a temple or center doesn't automatically confer the title of Buddhist. On the other hand if the man took Refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha, then he was most certainly a Buddhist. The No True Scotsman fallacy that's been bandied about in this thread is quite meaningless. A Buddhist, a REAL Buddist, is just as capable of picking up a gun and killing a bunch of people as anyone else.
And we should remember that.
From what I have heard , he was deeply troubled.
refrain from killing
@dhammachick No, attending church (or temple) doesn't make one Christian. But if they were baptized and confirmed (depending on tradition) then they are Christian, regardless if we approve of their behavior. Perhaps he was Buddhist. Perhaps he simply meditating at a temple. But his act alone does not make him not a Buddhist.
important thing is what we think, speak, and do
refrain from killing is the first precept
we can use our own intelligence to decide whether we kill (by thought, speech or deed)
at least we can try to practice five precept as lay people from this moment onward
there is nothing to worry about what we have done in the past
one - we cannot change what we have done in the past
two - worrying is itself an unskillful thing
And somehow I think that Buddha himself would have been a little less likely to go around telling people they weren't fit to listen to his teachings and try their best to emulate them.
Frankly, some of the attitudes expressed here about whether or not someone can call themselves a Buddhist sound very much like certain Americans before (and after) the Civil War who thought they had the right to decide who was human. For some of you it's the old concept that we have our own little club, and you're not worthy to be a member.
quote @vinlyn
I've been thinking about this post all day.
So you're saying that we should respect Buddhism as a cultural religion? I'm in a unique position here; I'm not spoiled middle class, my love of Buddhism is not based on cultural tradition..
Look at it from my perspective; I'm an American, never been to a sangha, don't know any Buddhists Irl, the only influence I have are the tripitaka, the Mahayana sutras, and the writings of some Zen patriarchs. I absolutely love Buddhism as I know it from the scripture. It is all that I am, all that I have: it speaks to me, it calls me.
iyears of headaches, blood sweat and tears trying to apprehend the meanings of the buddhas words. Sores on my feet from walking the earth hundreds of miles looking up at the sky, looking for understanding.
now after years of learning feel like I owe the people who preserved the sutras more than I could possibly give, which is to say nothing of who composed them.
I'm not one to tell someone that they are not a buddhist, but does Buddhism probably mean more to me than 90% of cultural buddhists in those countries you mentioned? Yeah, it most probably does.
What I'm trying to say is that someone who is drawn to it, who isn't born into it, who studies scripture, who genuinely seeks knowledge... Wouldn't that person be more true to the path than someone who is born into it and couldn't care less?
I really don't know how to feel about your post. I understand what you're saying.. a lot of white american well off folks are buddhist just to be trendy, have no right to say anything about the masses of traditional followers.
But look at it from my POV, my education about Buddhism is pretty clean, self taught, close to scripture, well thought out and analyzed. I had no idea about all the silly divisions and sects (terrible disappointment for me) For me, buddhism is completely universal, fundamentally beyond cultural influence, imagery and ritual even as it is enhanced by it. This is something that can be scarcely said about any other religion and people from all over are drawn to that...it makes sense to them. It makes sense to me.
And being universal and good, peaceful and seeking knowledge by nature, its understandable that people here would say that he wasn't a buddhist.. they hold themselves to the standards of not killing which is the very basis of the practice.
Anyhow, I don't think just because someone is born into something means they don't take it as seriously as those who choose it purposely. It can be that way. And it cannot. But really, is it up to you to decide that Buddhism is more important to you than to anyone else? Does it matter? Do you feel that because you study so much and chose it on purpose, that you have some right to decide who REALLY is Buddhist, and who is not? Have you been to any or all of the heavily Buddhist countries to be able to speak of their people as if they don't understand the religion they grew up with?
And how do you know all the people here, even those who read the posts and never comment, are universally good, peaceful and seeking knowledge? Just because someone happens to be here, doesn't suddenly make them vastly different from the guy who shot up the Navy yard. How do you know not a single person here isn't a convicted murderer? How do you know none of the military people here haven't killed someone while proclaiming Buddhism? How do you know none of them beat their spouses, cheat on them, lie to their families, and so on? I have no doubt people here have killed, lied, cheated, stolen, and broken all the Eightfold Path statements and precepts. I pretty much have, though I've come a long ways. In the time since I became a Buddhist I have killed animals, I have swore, I have gossiped, I have drank alcohol. I don't think I have misused sex (I'm happily married and have been long before I became Buddhist) and I don't think I have stolen anything. But because you are farther along than I, does that mean you really appreciate Buddhism more than I do? How can you even proclaim to think that about anyone?
I only say that in the sense that what I've , learned I've learned from the source. While it takes time, eventually the effects are staggering. No but lets be honest about it, its doubtful many of them know or care much. All I'm saying is, from my very virginal, sutra influenced knowledge of Buddhism, it was something that was meant to be universal. Just because a person is Tibetan, or Thai doesnt mean they have the faintest clue about anything. Because the knowledge and basis of the path as explained by the scripture is beyond culture, imagery, ritual...though it can be personalized and enhanced with those things.
Yea it can be fairly evident how important it is to someone...ask them! Are they going to speak about it the way I did and mean it? I never said anything of the sort, of any of what you're mentioning. And I'd never say that I'm further along...it doesnt work that way.
Actually I should have been more concise in the original post... I never really think of myself as 'buddhist', I only reference that term when people speak about what religion they are, so this whole discussion of whether he is or isn't is pointless from the beginning.
Here's what bothers me... People who proclaim to Buddhist, have no appreciation for it, don't care about morality or seeking understanding, never read but a few words of the buddhas painstakingly preserved scriptural leavings, or in the extreme, kill innocent people without remorse like our DC guy, . These are the people that close the doors to people who might be interested in the teaching. Should we call them buddhist? And the gravity of that becomes clear when you're like me, and have gotten so much from them... I can't even begin to quantify what the sutras have done for me. I consider myself beyond lucky to have them..perfectly crafted, subtle, intelligent. Do you see where I'm coming from?
And to some are using the Precept against killing as a reason to decide someone is not a Buddhist, you can't just take one...ya gotta take all 5.
I've been thinking about this post all day.
So you're saying that we should respect Buddhism as a cultural religion? I'm in a unique position here; I'm not spoiled middle class, my love of Buddhism is not based on cultural tradition..
Look at it from my perspective; I'm an American, never been to a sangha, don't know any Buddhists Irl, the only influence I have are the tripitaka, the Mahayana sutras, and the writings of some Zen patriarchs. I absolutely love Buddhism as I know it from the scripture. It is all that I am, all that I have: it speaks to me, it calls me.
iyears of headaches, blood sweat and tears trying to apprehend the meanings of the buddhas words. Sores on my feet from walking the earth hundreds of miles looking up at the sky, looking for understanding.
now after years of learning feel like I owe the people who preserved the sutras more than I could possibly give, which is to say nothing of who composed them.
I'm not one to tell someone that they are not a buddhist, but does Buddhism probably mean more to me than 90% of cultural buddhists in those countries you mentioned? Yeah, it most probably does.
What I'm trying to say is that someone who is drawn to it, who isn't born into it, who studies scripture, who genuinely seeks knowledge... Wouldn't that person be more true to the path than someone who is born into it and couldn't care less?
I really don't know how to feel about your post. I understand what you're saying.. a lot of white american well off folks are buddhist just to be trendy, have no right to say anything about the masses of traditional followers.
But look at it from my POV, my education about Buddhism is pretty clean, self taught, close to scripture, well thought out and analyzed. I had no idea about all the silly divisions and sects (terrible disappointment for me) For me, buddhism is completely universal, fundamentally beyond cultural influence, imagery and ritual even as it is enhanced by it. This is something that can be scarcely said about any other religion and people from all over are drawn to that...it makes sense to them. It makes sense to me.
And being universal and good, peaceful and seeking knowledge by nature, its understandable that people here would say that he wasn't a buddhist.. they hold themselves to the standards of not killing which is the very basis of the practice.
Let me simplify what I'm really saying...and you are reading me incorrectly.
It is up to each individual to say whether or not they are a Buddhist. Period.
No one here can say, "Ocean, you are not Buddhist because _______________." Everyone else needs to mind their own path and not try to interpret someone else's path.
Or, if we are going to give ourselves the power to decide on whether someone else is a Buddhist or not, then I have any number of people on this forum that I'll be happy to nominate as not being a Buddhist...or a true Buddhist. But no, it's not up to me to be the JUDGE. It's funny to me how many people on this forum don't believe in judging others...until they do.
Ocean, you are a Buddhist in my eyes because you have decided that you are. Period. End of story. You get to tend your own path.
But like I said earlier its a slippery slope, because people who are raised into it probably dont have much of a real idea of it. And its funny because here in the west, we tend to assume that someone from these cultures somehow automatically has some innate knowledge about it. THEY DONT.
And that's the beauty of it... There's no 'chosen people' karasti, there's no preexisting requirement to benefit from what he/they left us.
I'm a pretty fluid down to earth guy, so I'm not going to go around saying who is or who isn't Buddhist, but if someone wants to say a mass murderer or unapologetic drunken womanizer isn't really a buddhist, I'm not going to crucify them for it. And I hate the stereotype that Buddhism is 'asian' or something like this..or best understood by people who most faithfully go through the motions.
A mass murderer, wife abuser, or drunkard can be a Catholic, a Baptist, a Buddhist, a Muslim, a Jew, or anything else they believe they are. If you don't agree, then why does it matter? How does it impact your practice, your behavior in the world whatsoever to realize that this Aaron Alexis considered himself a Buddhist?
I ask because in the instant I read the headlining paragraph that he was a Buddhist and his friends were stunned, I cringed a bit. For a moment, I thought "cripes, now people are going to associate Buddhism with this guy." But a few moments later I realized how I live my life as a Buddhist does not matter one iota compared to how he lived his life as a Buddhist or how the HHDL lives his life as a Buddhist. I, Kim B. am no more or less Buddhist than anyone else simply because Aaron A., a Buddhist, killed a bunch of people. I am myself, no more, no less. Therefore what other people who might share the same labels as I do, do not matter as far as how I use those labels in my own life.
Aaron Alexis, "bad Buddhist," affects my practice not at all. The monks in Myanmar who insist on misbehaving affect my practice not at all. The Westboro Baptists affect my good Christian friends' practice not at all. The Al Queda terrorists affect my Muslim friend not at all. They don't define us any more than we define the religion we are part of.
I am a Jew by birth as my mother is a Jew. So the Jews say no matter what, I'm Jewish. I was baptised and raised Catholic as my father is a Catholic. According to the Catholic Church, my baptism trumps my Jewish roots. The Jews say blood is thicker than water. According to your theory, which one am I?
Answer - I am neither spiritually, (though I identify more with my Jewish roots than my Catholic upbringing). And I kind of get frustrated when I read things like To me that is like me saying I'm Buddhist because I took the Refuge Vows at the Sangha even if I never followed the Noble Eightfold Path, never set foot inside a Sangha again or read one line of a sutra.
I took refuge vows. I, as well as my teacher, declared myself a Buddhist. I don't have a temple to set food inside. And I've ready maybe 3 sutras in 3 years. I enjoy them, I just don't understand them that well at this point, so it's a work in progress. So who are you to decide I am NOT a Buddhist because I don't "enter" a Sangha or read Sutras?
For *me* the bottom line is, Aaron Alexis was my brother. Not in Buddhism, not in race, but in humanity. All humans are my brothers and my sisters, and I don't take any sort of pleasure in saying I am a better human than he is because I choose not to kill people. I have done plenty wrong in my life. I'm sure I'll do plenty wrong in the future, even though I am working on improving that. My wrongs just happen to not be national news. I could destroy my children's lives and no one would ever know it. Yet because Aaron Alexis makes the news, we feel we are free to judge him as a human and as a Buddhist. I don't agree with that.
But still I wouldn't say he wasn't a buddhist.
I just don't blame the people in this thread who say he's not. Why? Because where do we draw the line? If you're just worshipping an empty idol, is that Buddhism? And most importantly, What happens when someone goes to find out what Buddhism is and finds out its just some meaningless chanting and idol worship? That highly refined morality is not an essential pillar of what it is? They'd probably never give it a chance, they would never know everything it has to offer.
Buddhism is more than just another dogma for a lot of us... Why try to take that away?
:om:
We are so quick to say "but as Buddhists we promise not to kill!" well then I invite you to allow someone to kill your children without fighting back. After all, we are judging those who kill, regardless of what reasons they might have that we might not understand.
@dhammachick I'm not missing your point. You are free to define Buddhism in your life however you want. But you don't get to define it for everyone else, or judge them for not upholding what you believe is a Buddhist life.
the quote from..Ghandi? about Christ and Christians can be applied to Buddhist as well. "I like your Buddha. I do not like your Buddhists. Your Buddhists are so unlike your Buddha." If you follow Buddha's stories, he did not limit his love and compassion to those who did not murder. Just as Jesus said to love your neighbor, Buddha said hatred can only cease by love. That means for all, not just those we hand pick.
Anyway, the other way of looking at it, or the way I see it shall I say, is that we are all Buddhists, even if we conform to a different religion we still have to deal with life and suffering. A lot of what other religions preach can be found to some degree in the dharma, we are all humans, we all suffer, thus to me we are all Buddhist in this sense. Of course this is not a technical sense with a huge fat label added to it.
Not keeping the precepts? In this context? Meaningless.
You know the indignation that you are feeling now by thinking I am defining Buddhism for "everyone"? (Which I stress again, I wasn't) Well that's the feeling _I_ got by your sweeping generalisation about Christianity. Because I've been baptised and confirmed and I sure as shit ain't Christian.
Refuge is what defines a Buddhist.
I am consistently impressed by people here; no one really degrades or attacks the man or such things.. none of us disagree there. Ok... If people come to Buddhism because they say " hey, I've found a religion that is universally moral, doesn't demand mindless worship, doesn't preach exclusivity," only to have someone say no, it's not, it's just like the others.
And in the scriptural sense, in the sense that the Buddha spoke, it IS open like that! It IS different in that way.
That's what I mean by 'why take that away'.
And how about Buddhism as kind of a place to go for people who have a mutual respect for morality, life, consciousness, self knowledge? Would that really be so wrong?? Would that really be so far from what the Buddha meant by "sangha" ??
Does anybody out there hear me??
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/3_refuges_in_Buddhism
Buddham saranam gacchāmi
I go for refuge in the Buddha.
Dhammam saranam gacchāmi
I go for refuge in the Dharma.
Sangham saranam gacchāmi
I go for refuge in the Sangha
I can be reasonably sure, because after years of difficulty with the sutras, I finally came to a point where employing certain points in concentration causes me several different kinds of intense pleasure and well being. Streamlined, pain and clutter free thought. Sensing the perceived world as a uniform field of pleasurable sensation and texture. The perception of vast space and time. Sensations of light and powerful feeling. This is all at will, and only depends on my ability to concentrate and not be stupidly distracted. (And in this way I'm very stubbornly stupid)
And that's not saying everything really. Suffice it to say one day the two dimensional 'philosophy' becomes a three dimensional ecstasy.
For me the sutras are a powerful medicine that is begging to heal you, to tune you, to comfort you... if you take them, hold them and allow them to work. I remember the flash I used to feel in the beginning... It was so fleeting, but it was real. Now years later I can swim in what I used to grasp at and chase...and I've barely scratched the surface. Have you felt that fleeting feeling? Know that it need not always be so fleeting.
Ah c'mon people, lets be friends ay, buddy ol pal, chumming it up in chumsville is the place to be :cool:
Can we agree a Buddhist is anyone who practices Buddhism? Labels like all forms are empty. For all of half a lifetime trying to practice the Dharma, there will be moments in my day when I'm not being a Buddhist. When I lose my temper. When I let my desires control my actions in spite of knowing better. I can keep each and every Precept all day and not be a Buddhist. I can break one in the name of compassion and be a Buddha.
So the question "Was he a Buddhist?" really doesn't have an answer. "Was he practicing Buddhism?" probably can be debated, instead. I don't know to what extent, if any, his sick mind was capable of doing that. Whatever he was doing, he obviously failed.
I don't think we should get to hung up on the label "Buddhist" -- because of the very nature of impermanence, nobody can be identified by a label in any definitive sense. It may be helpful as a social descriptor-- but in the context of Buddhist practice, where the rubber meets the road, labels are just labels. In reality, no one has any one fixed essence. Causes and conditions change. The big question is, are we paying attention to those changes, or do we mindlessly allow them to sweep us off to who knows what craving?
That's why mindfulness is one of the first necessary steps in Buddhism in order to pay attention to what one is thinking, saying and doing in THIS particular moment. Definitions don't bring liberation (in fact, they often do the precise opposite)-- but working on practice does.
http://healthland.time.com/2013/09/17/aaron-alexis-and-the-dark-side-of-meditation/
Also, don't assume I feel anything in particular just because of words I use. I rarely get emotionally caught up in any sense in discussions online. I didn't feel any sense of indignation, or anything else. I'm simply stating what I think.
It seems to me that vinlyn pointed out a beautiful jewel that is perhaps being overlooked. Buddhism is a label used more widely than just those who rigorously follow the teachings of the Buddha. Much like in western culture there are people who goto church and pray and kneel, then walk out and do not think of Christ until the following weekend. They still identify as christian, and why would we bother contesting that?
All we do when we try to define the lines of these labels is play a cosmic shell game where we are the loser. It reinforces the mind's grasping at self. Not calling others Buddhist or unbuddhist has nothing to do with them, it has to do with us and our own unbinding, our own freedom. Let it go, baggage, unneeded... conceals the truth, doesn't perform a useful function for us.
With warmth,
Matt
Many sanghas support the notion that to call oneself a Buddhist, you must take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. This usually means a ceremony where vows are taken. In some Sanghas there are vows for taking up the 5 Precepts and without said vows, the precepts are non-binding.
In my experience, I was given a document with my Dharma name (Osel Choden) on it and the date and the Preceptor's chop. So I'm "official". :clap:
You can still call yourself whatever you want. If you want to call yourself a Buddhist, that's fine by me, but don't be so naive to think that everyone will or even should be so flexible.