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.
No Such Thing As A "Good Buddhist"
Chaz
The Remarkable ChazAnywhere, Everywhere & Nowhere Veteran
We've seen references lately to "Good Buddhist".
There's no such thing.
If there's "good" there must be "bad" and this dualism goes against everything I've been taught about Buddhadharma.
Someone posted that a "good" Buddhist was mindful all the time. That means we're all "bad" Buddhists and that simply isn't so. We're Buddhists. We're not perfect, yet. Our accomplishments (or lack of) don't make us one thing or another.
We're just Buddhists.
1
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I agree. It's sort of the difference between looking at one person's relationship with Buddhism as just one photo blown up on a Vista-Vision-sized movie screen, or looking at a person's relationship with Buddhism as a series of snapshots at particular points of time. The more snapshots you have, the more realistic the person's place along the path.
Saying a particular action by a person is "not very Buddhist" seems okay to me. Saying that person is "not a real Buddhist" does not seem okay to me.
A little bit like the numerous times I had to intervene in parent teacher conferences and a teacher would say, "Your son lied about that homework assignment". The parent would typically begin yelling that, "You're calling my son I liar". And I would step in and say that there's a difference between a person who tells "a" lie, and a person who consistently lies.
It seems like we have to make these distictions. But these distictions simply don't hold up. We see a teacher who has a drinking problem and we are merciless. One of our own has a similar problem and it's limiless compassion. That doesn't make sense
It simply doesn't hold up.
We even apply that to ourselves. We percieve inadequacies and we think "bad". We fraame an ideal aand call it good.
It's perceptions, expectations and prejudice.
Interesting difference though between judge and pre-judge (prejudice).
** We're not perfect, yet.**
Sez who?
everyone has basic sanity somewhere or other within them
Would one refer to the Buddhists in Myanmar, as 'Good' or 'Bad'...?
Genuine question. But I know what I think.....
I would say they are terribly misguided Buddhists, after I "tsk tsk"ed you for lumping all Buddhists in Myanmar together.
(Edited)
Ha ha, that was me. A bad Buddhist.
If someone needs to apply those kinds of labeling ........
They're still Buddhists. They're humans. They will never live, fully, up to our expectations. Rather than condemn, we should be compassionate.
Oh yes, @Chaz, I agree. Every time I hear of the atrocities perpetuated there, my heart weeps and sends compassion.
I believe their ideas to be warped, misguided and totally against the teachings of the Buddha.
But if this is their practice, I can only "pray" they might change their methods....
OK, but what if you had evidence that the pupil in question lied consistently?
We see a teacher who has a drinking problem and we are merciless. One of our own has a similar problem and it's limiless compassion. That doesn't make sense
So we shouldn't expect more from a teacher?
So what would you call a Buddhist who couldn't be bothered with mindfulness?
Then I would have said it. The truth is the truth.
I'm not sure "you" have to call him anything. Why is it "your" concern? But if you must, how about a less than totally skillful Buddhist.
Or somebody who likes the label but can't be bothered to practice?
Beyond the "buddhist" label, we're humans and bound to trip up along the path many times.
Until true insight, hopefully wisdom develops, we can be as good as the limitations of our lens over reality is.
Just looking at the logic of this statement I have to disagree.
It’s not correct to say that if we’re all not perfect, there is no way to make a distinction.
One person can be far more skillful than the other and still both are not perfect.
I suppose we can discuss our practice in terms of “good” and “bad” without taking it too personally.
Making mistakes is part of playing the game.
edit: Making mistakes is part of playing the game, but they are still mistakes.
It is humanly quite understandable for a person to be addicted to alcohol. But I think for a teacher it certainly is a mistake for which he deserves criticism.
I suppose we can discuss our practice in terms of “good” and “bad” without taking it too personally.
Yes, or we can discuss in more general terms what an effective Buddhist practice looks like.
They're still Buddhists.
But this does beg the question "What is a Buddhist?" What if people call themselves Buddhists but behave in a completely "un-Buddhist" way? Is that OK?
Raise the question next time people go on a rant about God/Vegetarian/Vegan/Whatever and see how ok it really is (or isn't)
I would agree. Although, I think one could say that one's effort or intention does make us one thing or another. For example, if a person doesn't even try to keep the precepts and always breaks them, doesn't even try to meditate, doesn't even try to be more kind or compassionate and is always mean and nasty, then I think you could say they are a "bad Buddhist" because they aren't even trying to follow the teachings to begin with.
I would say it depends whether they are trying or not. If they are actually trying to behave in a proper Buddhist way, but end up not doing so, I think that is OK. But if they always behave in a completely un-buddhist way and they aren't even trying to behave differently, I think that person could easily be considered a "bad Buddhist". Heck, the Buddha himself called those people "ignorant fools". I think one can say that a "good Buddhist" is not necessarily someone who can always keep the precepts, etc. but rather someone who at least tries to keep them.
To me, being a Buddhist isn't defined by behavior. If that were true there isn't a single one of who could claim that title.
Ohh no we can't. This thread is supposed to be about our use of terms like "good Buddhist". If you want to discusss effective practice start another thread.
Teachers are human, too. They pull their pants on one leg at a time just like the rest of us. If you feel free to "criticize" a teacher for a drinking problem, then you better get over to that thread that Jeff started about his drinking and unload.
Drinking "problems" are seldom "volitional". Noone sets out to be an alchoholic or become one on purpose.
In the line of what @seeker242 said it could make a difference whether the teacher is fighting his addiction or not.
If he sees the addiction as not a problem, I think it is a problem.
We can go around saying we are not perfect but could that just be an excuse?
Every one of us has something unique to show the rest of us even if it is an example of immoral behavior.
In fact, nobody could do a better job at being any one of us than the one of us in question.
I am a perfect example of what I do/am. If I was not a perfect example of my perspective, why bother taking responsibility for my actions which could only be imperfect?
Can we not be perfect works in progress?
We are not perfect because we get sick and die but I don't see anything else that lasts, so... Perhaps it is our understanding of what it is to be perfect could use examining.
So, does the lack of action with a problem make them bad?
Good thing too, would hate to have to behave like a decent person, let alone make any effort that interfered with bad habits or attachments . . . wait a minute think I went badly wrong somewhere . . .
Why I could just move my jaw up and down, be a hypocrite, take drugs, screw with people's minds, in fact . . . if it is good for me - it is good! Yeh Baby, that's some crazy wisdom right there . . . Now that is what I call good dharma . . . or maybe not so good.
. . . and now back to the non-such fantastical 'free to do anything' dharma . . .
As well as our understanding good or bad.
I think in that sentence you actually uncover the real question here.
We can discuss our practice, but should we be publicly discussing and evaluating the practice of others?
Why does it matter to "us"?
What the bad Muslims are doing does make it more difficult for the good Muslims to practice their religion in some areas.
That's the only reason I can think of about why it matters.
That's the only reason I can think of about why it matters.
You're right. That type of situation is a good example of when it would matter.
And I guess if someone were out there promoting their "type" of practice or methodology.
Beyond that, I tend to think it's usually not really our business.
Good & Bad is a sliding scale where the distension in describing it occurs not in it's extremes that we probably all agree upon but in the greyer areas between that are really diluted mixtures of both.
People have their various strengths and weaknesses; their own unique set of circumstances. No-one is all singing and dancing. So I can view in terms of a non-linear hierarchy; not all at odds with one another as in a competitive environment and not only valued or respected in terms of utility.
Leaving the judgement process out of the picture, I see the wider dynamics that come into play through community, co-operation and co-existence, interactions which are generally more constructive. This potentially throws a whole different light on the being and their place in the world than it would in a traditional pecking order or linear hierarchy.
It was touched on lightly already but I think there is an important difference between evaluating our own practice and evaluating another's.
It is helpful for one's practice to understand where one is on the path. If someone doesn't really know what an effective practice is then they will have a hard time progressing.
It isn't helpful to learn about the Dharma so one can roam forums looking for flaws in another's understanding or behavior. Plus, its really hard to know what is going on in another's head to truly evaluate intention.
Oh yes I can. One way of describing a "good" Buddhist is somebody who practices effectively - so it's a relevant question.
Why does it matter to "us"?
It's what's we're discussing in the thread.
To me, being a Buddhist isn't defined by behaviour.
How else can we talk about being a Buddhist if not behaviour?
But Buddhism teachings are at least partly about the eradication of craving - so a Buddhist teacher with a drink problem or other addiction is talking the talk but not walking the walk, particularly if they're not making serious efforts to sort the problem out. Why should I take such a person seriously?
It makes them unconvincing.
By "rant" I assume you mean expressing a disbelief in God or supporting a vegetarian diet? I'm puzzled that you would think such views are completely un-Buddhist.
What we're supposed to be discussing the validity of assertions of good/bad.
By refuge.
I see his point, @Chaz; Being Buddhist isn't simply 'taking Refuge'. It's 'walking the Talk' and The Buddha's first Sermon gave us the path, which pretty well gives us a chart, a guideline on how we should behave...
While a person's opinion of 'Good' and 'Bad' is entirely subjective ("Who knows what is 'good'...? Who knows what is 'bad'...?") we can, I think, at least observe the behaviour of someone who purports to BE Buddhist, and consider whether their actions - or behaviour - is a standard we could set ours by.
Because isn't that what we aspire to do?
Be "Buddha-Like"...?
Isn't part of being a Buddhist, doing likewise? behaving in a similar fashion?
The bench-mark, I would then suggest, is the Buddha himself.
Perhaps, if we sit upon a choice of deciding whether we consider someone to be a 'Good' Buddhist or a 'Bad' one, we might perhaps imagine what the Buddha would do, and how near, or far, that person is to what the buddha taught.
Maybe 'Good' and 'Bad' are not the assessments.
maybe 'Near' or 'Far' might be more accurate.
So if I do more meditation than another Buddhist can I say that 'they are not walking the walk'?
(particularly if they are doing no walking meditation, nyuk nyuk)
Jeffrey, sit down and eat your beans.
is that a non-sequitar or can you explain?