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.
All qualified Buddhism begins with refuge in the 3 jewels ...
Buddha, Dharma and Sangha help us ... Iz I unqualified Buddhist? Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo
Depends. That phrase means I devote myself to the sacred Dharma of causality. Nichiren Shonin taught all the teachings of The Buddha outside the Lotus Sutra are summarized within the Lotus (Cause ans affect/life and death/etc). So to chant and believe in Daimoku (Nam..) is to practice all The Buddha's Sutras.
The three jewels are there technically; but, they are not taken at all formally in Shoshshu and SGI.
Does taking the Jewels depend on cultural initiation to make one a "real" Buddhist or can one do it without needing to say the words but put it into practice?
Is it based on formality (which SGI doesnt have) or action (which SGI does have)?
You do need to be taking refuge to qualify as a Buddhist usually there would be a refuge prayer of some sort refuge commitments you make with a preceptor if these are not there then it is not Buddhism, anyone can chant a sutra but you do need to make sure that you have qualified refuge before you begin any practice within Buddhism or it will have no effect. Without refuge there is no path.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@caz that is pretty...strict. That's not much different than those who say your marriage isn't real if you didn't get it blessed by God.
Taking refuge is just a formality used by teachers out of tradition and to gauge their students. Someone most certainly can be a practicing Buddhist without having taken refuge. There is no official Start Line to practice Buddhism. I practiced for a long time before I was comfortable taking refuge from my teacher. It is not something he demands or requires, but he is happy to offer to those who do desire it. If you want to follow his curriculum as an official student, yes, you do have to take particular vows at particular times, starting with refuge. But not schools of Buddhism are the same.
3
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
All qualified Buddhism begins with refuge in the 3 jewels ...
Buddha, Dharma and Sangha help us ... Iz I unqualified Buddhist? Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo
Depends. That phrase means I devote myself to the sacred Dharma of causality. Nichiren Shonin taught all the teachings of The Buddha outside the Lotus Sutra are summarized within the Lotus (Cause ans affect/life and death/etc). So to chant and believe in Daimoku (Nam..) is to practice all The Buddha's Sutras.
The three jewels are there technically; but, they are not taken at all formally in Shoshshu and SGI.
Does taking the Jewels depend on cultural initiation to make one a "real" Buddhist or can one do it without needing to say the words but put it into practice?
Is it based on formality (which SGI doesnt have) or action (which SGI does have)?
You do need to be taking refuge to qualify as a Buddhist usually there would be a refuge prayer of some sort refuge commitments you make with a preceptor if these are not there then it is not Buddhism, anyone can chant a sutra but you do need to make sure that you have qualified refuge before you begin any practice within Buddhism or it will have no effect. Without refuge there is no path.
That kinda puts down half the Buddhists schools. The Buddha required monks to take all refuges. Layman have some critical ones but nothing like "your bed should be this hight" and so forth. Cant remember the sutra but it was full of layman precepts.
Is it more important to take the precepts or practice them is the question.
@Carlita Refuge and precepts aren't the same thing. Refuge is just recognition of the 3 Jewels. Precepts are the "rules" or guidelines, like no lying, no stealing, etc. The idea of sleeping or sitting on beds/furniture too high is a precept, nothing to do with refuge.
Often when one takes refuge, they take the 5 precepts. When I did it, the precepts given by my teacher were different from the standard 5 and we only did 4.
I do both every day, refuge and precepts. Sometimes I do more precepts than other days. For me it helps to do it every day after my meditation because it helps set my intention for the day and puts me in a good place to keep them rather than to just have them rambling around in my head. Then I look back on how things went during the day. Neither are a requirement by any means, not in general and not from my teacher. For me, refuge vows were required in order to later take bodhisattva vows though.
1
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@karasti said: @Carlita Refuge and precepts aren't the same thing. Refuge is just recognition of the 3 Jewels. Precepts are the "rules" or guidelines, like no lying, no stealing, etc. The idea of sleeping or sitting on beds/furniture too high is a precept, nothing to do with refuge.
Often when one takes refuge, they take the 5 precepts. When I did it, the precepts given by my teacher were different from the standard 5 and we only did 4.
I do both every day, refuge and precepts. Sometimes I do more precepts than other days. For me it helps to do it every day after my meditation because it helps set my intention for the day and puts me in a good place to keep them rather than to just have them rambling around in my head. Then I look back on how things went during the day. Neither are a requirement by any means, not in general and not from my teacher. For me, refuge vows were required in order to later take bodhisattva vows though.
Aah. I havent taken refuges from a teacher. I will when it gets warmer since we have ti before staying during the silent retreat. Relating to SGI, they dont take the refuges and precepts as in given by teach or said vocally. Its all wraped up in Daimoku (Nam..).
I honestly dont know where to place the organization and even more so my place within it.
I guess it depends on how you see Buddhism:
-if you see it as a religion, rituals are very important indeed;
-if you see it as a philosophy, a way of life, a guide, then your vows will be a personal decision that you make on your own for yourself.
Both ways are equally valuable, I think, and you just choose what is most appropriate for you.
For me, the important thing is the practice. If that’s correct, you’re the only one who can say where you are...
@caz is very devout. I respect that. Without religious Buddhists keeping the faith, much material might be lost or twisted beyond recognition.
It's not for me. I don't think that realization is dependent on adherence to ceremonies or rituals. Or Buddhism.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
The problem with 'religious Buddhists keeping the faith' is that very often they're insular and single-pointedly focused. They don't 'keep the faith'. They 'keep THEIR faith'.
And asserting that something is or is not right, valid and legitimate - based only on what THEY practice - is blinkered.
@federica said:
The problem with 'religious Buddhists keeping the faith' is that very often they're insular and single-pointedly focused. They don't 'keep the faith'. They 'keep THEIR faith'.
And asserting that something is or is not right, valid and legitimate - based only on what THEY practice - is blinkered.
I was thinking about them keeping their lineage alive.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Nothing wrong with that. Utterly and totally commendable, I concur.
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@littlestudent said:
I guess it depends on how you see Buddhism:
-if you see it as a religion, rituals are very important indeed;
-if you see it as a philosophy, a way of life, a guide, then your vows will be a personal decision that you make on your own for yourself.
Both ways are equally valuable, I think, and you just choose what is most appropriate for you.
For me, the important thing is the practice. If that’s correct, you’re the only one who can say where you are...
Most people who 'say the words' are hypocrites because they do not understand the words deeply enough.
So taking confidence in the three jewels is inevitable for those on the Middle Way and increasingly needs no bow legged formality. @federica is right to question peoples mouth and mind movements as initially nothing more than sanctimonious drivel ...
Be a Mensch Buddhist, not a bowl of dogma dharma lama do dah ...
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@littlestudent said:
I guess it depends on how you see Buddhism:
-if you see it as a religion, rituals are very important indeed;
-if you see it as a philosophy, a way of life, a guide, then your vows will be a personal decision that you make on your own for yourself.
Both ways are equally valuable, I think, and you just choose what is most appropriate for you.
For me, the important thing is the practice. If that’s correct, you’re the only one who can say where you are...
Hmm. What if you dont see it as either?
Then what do you see Buddhism as?
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@littlestudent said:
I guess it depends on how you see Buddhism:
-if you see it as a religion, rituals are very important indeed;
-if you see it as a philosophy, a way of life, a guide, then your vows will be a personal decision that you make on your own for yourself.
Both ways are equally valuable, I think, and you just choose what is most appropriate for you.
For me, the important thing is the practice. If that’s correct, you’re the only one who can say where you are...
Hmm. What if you dont see it as either?
Then what do you see Buddhism as?
Life. There isnt a separation between Buddhism and how I interpret reality. It just makes sense. Like the earth going around the sun.
If Buddhism is life itself –which is a great idea! - why would you need to take your vows formally?
Why would you need rituals or/and connect yourself to a single lineage, as you are life and life is in you?
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@littlestudent said:
If Buddhism is life itself –which is a great idea! - why would you need to take your vows formally?
Why would you need rituals or/and connect yourself to a single lineage, as you are life and life is in you?
True. True. I have to really think about this. It would probably do the opposite if I took the vows. Strange, hu?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
@littlestudent said:
If Buddhism is life itself –which is a great idea! - why would you need to take your vows formally?
Why would you need rituals or/and connect yourself to a single lineage, as you are life and life is in you?
Why do we do anything? Look at students. They study, accumulate knowledge, and absorb information which arms them with the intellectual skill to do a specific job.
But in order to prove to others - and themselves - that they are worthy practitioners of whichever skill they wish to adopt, they must sit an examination - a test - to measure their dedication and ability.
The years spent studying count for nothing if they don't have the piece of paper telling them they did.... And then they can walk across the stage to thunderous applause, in their gown and mortar board, and be given a scroll which essentially simply says "Yup!"
Similarly, we seek validation and confirmation, through ceremony and ritual. We are a gregarious animal.
We seek to belong. We yearn to be a part of....
Of course @Carlita wants to Take Refuge in the Triple Gem.
Didn't we all (or at the very least, most of us) in one way or another....?
@littlestudent said:
If Buddhism is life itself –which is a great idea! - why would you need to take your vows formally?
Why would you need rituals or/and connect yourself to a single lineage, as you are life and life is in you?
Why do we do anything? Look at students. They study, accumulate knowledge, and absorb information which arms them with the intellectual skill to do a specific job.
But in order to prove to others - and themselves - that they are worthy practitioners of whichever skill they wish to adopt, they must sit an examination - a test - to measure their dedication and ability.
The years spent studying count for nothing if they don't have the piece of paper telling them they did.... And then they can walk across the stage to thunderous applause, in their gown and mortar board, and be given a scroll which essentially simply says "Yup!"
Similarly, we seek validation and confirmation, through ceremony and ritual. We are a gregarious animal.
We seek to belong. We yearn to be a part of....
Of course @Carlita wants to Take Refuge in the Triple Gem.
Didn't we all (or at the very least, most of us) in one way or another....?
Don’t get me wrong: I have nothing against rituals, and I’m sure for many of us they are really important. However, I don’t think they are an obligation or a condition, such as e.g. exams.
(I’d always check the credentials of a teacher before following his/her teachings, but most of us are never going to become teachers.)
For me the most important thing is to make the personal decision to take refuge and to live accordingly, every day, every moment. That decision can be private. To do the rituals is an option, but never a “must”, even though they are wonderful.
I want to follow the path, every moment of my life, even though I might never do any rituals.
It’s not going to be easy.
Then again, nobody ever said it was easy.
I’m determined though.
I don't feel less of a Buddhist because of this.
1
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I agree that Buddhism is just life, how we live. But it is still a label that differentiates us from others. Ideally in time we drop that label along with others and just BE what/who we are. But if we still feel the need to explain and try to come to understandings with others, the labels are needed and then they set us apart. It would be pretty hard to try to explain to someone else "I am just life" when they ask about your beliefs or practices. I think we practice to get to that point. But most of us aren't there yet beyond a logical understanding of it.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I think the additional factor is that being a Buddhist means something different to every Buddhist. As has been amply demo'd in this thread.....
2
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@karasti said:
I agree that Buddhism is just life, how we live. But it is still a label that differentiates us from others. Ideally in time we drop that label along with others and just BE what/who we are. But if we still feel the need to explain and try to come to understandings with others, the labels are needed and then they set us apart. It would be pretty hard to try to explain to someone else "I am just life" when they ask about your beliefs or practices. I think we practice to get to that point. But most of us aren't there yet beyond a logical understanding of it.
That makes sense. When someone asks about my beliefs and practices, I limit it to gratitude (honoring ancestors/pagan), compassion (buddhism/Dharma), and renouncing attachments (sacrifice. What I value from catholicism).
All of these gratitude, compassion, renouncing attachments are a part of all three faiths so it doesnt help to say I am one thing when humans have a collection of values that make them them.
So I cant say I am one thing because that is not my nature to be restricted in what I believe. Its How I believe, my practice, that dictates what is contradicting what over another. My practice--lifestyle--is what tells people "I am a buddhist (if they dont stereotype me), I am a Catholic (without pushing their bias on me), I am pagan (without trying to define me)
I am just me. What is my religion? I gave up in findin labels. I will explain my practices just dont put me in a box.
@karasti said: @caz that is pretty...strict. That's not much different than those who say your marriage isn't real if you didn't get it blessed by God.
Taking refuge is just a formality used by teachers out of tradition and to gauge their students. Someone most certainly can be a practicing Buddhist without having taken refuge. There is no official Start Line to practice Buddhism. I practiced for a long time before I was comfortable taking refuge from my teacher. It is not something he demands or requires, but he is happy to offer to those who do desire it. If you want to follow his curriculum as an official student, yes, you do have to take particular vows at particular times, starting with refuge. But not schools of Buddhism are the same.
You can take refuge on your own, but refuge is the qualifier of being a Buddhist and engaging in any form of Dharma practice.
All qualified Buddhism begins with refuge in the 3 jewels ...
Buddha, Dharma and Sangha help us ... Iz I unqualified Buddhist? Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo
Depends. That phrase means I devote myself to the sacred Dharma of causality. Nichiren Shonin taught all the teachings of The Buddha outside the Lotus Sutra are summarized within the Lotus (Cause ans affect/life and death/etc). So to chant and believe in Daimoku (Nam..) is to practice all The Buddha's Sutras.
The three jewels are there technically; but, they are not taken at all formally in Shoshshu and SGI.
Does taking the Jewels depend on cultural initiation to make one a "real" Buddhist or can one do it without needing to say the words but put it into practice?
Is it based on formality (which SGI doesnt have) or action (which SGI does have)?
You do need to be taking refuge to qualify as a Buddhist usually there would be a refuge prayer of some sort refuge commitments you make with a preceptor if these are not there then it is not Buddhism, anyone can chant a sutra but you do need to make sure that you have qualified refuge before you begin any practice within Buddhism or it will have no effect. Without refuge there is no path.
That kinda puts down half the Buddhists schools. The Buddha required monks to take all refuges. Layman have some critical ones but nothing like "your bed should be this hight" and so forth. Cant remember the sutra but it was full of layman precepts.
Is it more important to take the precepts or practice them is the question.
Which do you think is more important?
Well if half of Buddhist schools are not taking refuge in the 3 jewels then they don't meet the minimum requirement to be considered Buddhist ? I assume you have an example for said schools ?
@robot said: @caz is very devout. I respect that. Without religious Buddhists keeping the faith, much material might be lost or twisted beyond recognition.
It's not for me. I don't think that realization is dependent on adherence to ceremonies or rituals. Or Buddhism.
It depends on what you consider realization, high levels of concentration are achievable in other no Buddhist traditions but they don't lead to enlightenment much rather to the peak of Samsara.
Without refuge one does not trust Buddha.
Without refuge one does not trust his Dharma or practice it as a path.
Without refuge one does not seek help from the sangha
@littlestudent said:
If Buddhism is life itself –which is a great idea! - why would you need to take your vows formally?
Why would you need rituals or/and connect yourself to a single lineage, as you are life and life is in you?
True. True. I have to really think about this. It would probably do the opposite if I took the vows. Strange, hu?
Buddhism isn't life itself, it seems someone has a fundemental misunderstanding of what it is, Life itself is Samsara the cycle of suffering. Buddhism is the path to freedom from suffering that is very much applicable and mixable with daily life but is very different from the everyday mundane.
What is different between understanding what refuge is and applying it to life and practice, and actually saying the words? a lot of stuff is built into other schools and practices even if it is not separated out. I took refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha long before I said the words because it is simply built into practice. My teacher is a Vajrayana teacher, and, for example, we rarely talk about the eightfold path despite talking a lot about the 4 Noble Truths. The path is built into all we study and practice. I suspect refuge is the same for a lot of people and other schools. Who is keeping track? the point of refuge is for the person to make a commitment. It can be made without particular words being said, in my opinion. My husband and I had very non-traditional wedding vows. It doesn't make us less married than those who use more traditional words. Same general idea, to me.
3
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@littlestudent said:
If Buddhism is life itself –which is a great idea! - why would you need to take your vows formally?
Why would you need rituals or/and connect yourself to a single lineage, as you are life and life is in you?
True. True. I have to really think about this. It would probably do the opposite if I took the vows. Strange, hu?
Buddhism isn't life itself, it seems someone has a fundemental misunderstanding of what it is, Life itself is Samsara the cycle of suffering. Buddhism is the path to freedom from suffering that is very much applicable and mixable with daily life but is very different from the everyday mundane.
Do you see the Dharma and your practice separate from yourself or does your practice and belief make up how you view reality?
Just as the sky is blue and my skin is brown, the Dharma is true and it is reality. I do not separate Dharma from reality. Its the "laws of nature." Its life.
Anything beyond that is philosophizing. That is fine to do that with anything complex as the Dharma and of course to study it. If it isnt how you see life, what is Buddhism to you?
1
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
All qualified Buddhism begins with refuge in the 3 jewels ...
Buddha, Dharma and Sangha help us ... Iz I unqualified Buddhist? Nam-Myoho-Renge-Kyo
Depends. That phrase means I devote myself to the sacred Dharma of causality. Nichiren Shonin taught all the teachings of The Buddha outside the Lotus Sutra are summarized within the Lotus (Cause ans affect/life and death/etc). So to chant and believe in Daimoku (Nam..) is to practice all The Buddha's Sutras.
The three jewels are there technically; but, they are not taken at all formally in Shoshshu and SGI.
Does taking the Jewels depend on cultural initiation to make one a "real" Buddhist or can one do it without needing to say the words but put it into practice?
Is it based on formality (which SGI doesnt have) or action (which SGI does have)?
You do need to be taking refuge to qualify as a Buddhist usually there would be a refuge prayer of some sort refuge commitments you make with a preceptor if these are not there then it is not Buddhism, anyone can chant a sutra but you do need to make sure that you have qualified refuge before you begin any practice within Buddhism or it will have no effect. Without refuge there is no path.
That kinda puts down half the Buddhists schools. The Buddha required monks to take all refuges. Layman have some critical ones but nothing like "your bed should be this hight" and so forth. Cant remember the sutra but it was full of layman precepts.
Is it more important to take the precepts or practice them is the question.
Which do you think is more important?
Well if half of Buddhist schools are not taking refuge in the 3 jewels then they don't meet the minimum requirement to be considered Buddhist ? I assume you have an example for said schools ?
Yes. I only practices Zen, Nichiren Shoshu, and SGI. Depending on what Nichiren sect is depending on how they see the refuge.
Shoshu and SGI do not take refuge. They do not take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha verbally nor do they have traditions that take up the three refuges.
The only Nichiren school I read that does is Shu. They have some Theravada teachings with Mehayana Ten Tai outlook. According to Nichiren, Ten Tai doesnt take verbal or traditional reguge.
Zen does. I cant think of other schools that disregard the basic teachings most Buddhist schools have in common.
A Buddhist is a follower of Buddha. Do you follow Buddha? If so, there's a chance you are a Buddhists! But not a Boddhisattva, that requires vows and tons of fun being yanked from ya!
0
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@thenovicemonk41 said:
A Buddhist is a follower of Buddha. Do you follow Buddha? If so, there's a chance you are a Buddhists! But not a Boddhisattva, that requires vows and tons of fun being yanked from ya!
Thats kinda a tricky question. Mahayana teachs we are all Buddhas as our true nature but not yet enlightened. Yet, Theravada says we arent Buddhas until later. Some schools say we are Bodhisattvas working to help others out of suffering before ourselves while other schols say traditionally, the Bodhisattva must first be enlightened before he helps others.
Then you got tradition and customs. Some say you cant be Buddhist without taking formal vows while the sutras say to express wisdom, compassion, and practice meditation is the mark of a Buddha in and of itself. Monks take the formal vows. Layman have more flexibility in taking physical/verbal vows as the vows are in the actions not just the words.
Then the word Buddhist is a loaded word. Are you a Buddhist because you can sit Indian style or one who cant but can follow his breathe until unattachment. Then are you in zazen by not attaching to unattachment or theravada where meditation is the key to future rather than present enlightenment. How do you conduct yourself. Do you consider yourself a Buddhist when you conduct yourself as a Buddha or does it go off and on.
Or is Buddhist a label.
Its good to say in voice: I follow the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.
Then, if it is your life, that is like me siting down to eat and saying "Thank you to the chef. Thank you to the nutrition this food gives me. Thank you for being around my family who shares it with me." Tradition is good. Natures ones faith.
I don't think I could possibly think i am conducting myself as a Buddha because I don't have a clue what it is to live in that nature of awareness all the time. If I get a glimpse of it every so often, that's a miracle in itself. It's always been explained to me that we all have Buddhanature-the nature of that which makes Buddhas, Buddhas. But we have not realized our true nature yet, and we have to do some work to get there. Having Buddhanature isn't the same as being a Buddha. Having bodhisattva attitude is the same. You understand what it is and you aspire to it, so you practice the qualities and as you do so, more of those qualities become part of who you are and carry you along your journey. But it does not mean you are a bodhisattva in the flesh necessarily. You can be a practicing bodhisattva when you are helping a family to rebuild their home. But are you still practicing that bodhisattva-ness when you go home tired and yell at your own family? not so much. An actual bodhisattva would not have those stark contrasts.
2
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@karasti said:
I don't think I could possibly think i am conducting myself as a Buddha because I don't have a clue what it is to live in that nature of awareness all the time. If I get a glimpse of it every so often, that's a miracle in itself. It's always been explained to me that we all have Buddhanature-the nature of that which makes Buddhas, Buddhas. But we have not realized our true nature yet, and we have to do some work to get there. Having Buddhanature isn't the same as being a Buddha. Having bodhisattva attitude is the same. You understand what it is and you aspire to it, so you practice the qualities and as you do so, more of those qualities become part of who you are and carry you along your journey. But it does not mean you are a bodhisattva in the flesh necessarily. You can be a practicing bodhisattva when you are helping a family to rebuild their home. But are you still practicing that bodhisattva-ness when you go home tired and yell at your own family? not so much. An actual bodhisattva would not have those stark contrasts.
I think its more you are acting "as" a Buddha rather than claiming to be a Buddha. Basically, the love and compassion and unattachments are characteristics of being a Buddha but one cant claim he is one until he reaches full elimenation of rebirth.
I mean you can call yourself A Buddha since we all have the capacity to live the life of The Buddha. We cant call ourselves The Buddha because we havent reached enligtenment.
I don't think one can be a Buddhist unless one is born, raised and trained in a Buddhist culture. I don't think we are any more than Buddhist students or adherents in Western culture. There is an inherent materialism in Western culture that instigates the desire to "possess" Buddhism, not to mention the layers of Judeo-Christian and Pagan societal influences that tweak a Buddhist mindset. I have said, "I am a Buddhist" and felt instantly false and phony, but that's just me. I don't say that anymore. I don't even say I'm "irreligous". I just don't know. I hope that's okay.> @Daozen said:
Options!
You say "I am a Buddhist" and believe it
You say "I am a Buddhist" and don't believe it
You say "I am not a Buddhist" and believe it
You say "I am not a Buddhist" and don't believe it
CarlitaBastian please! Save us!United StatesVeteran
@IronRabbit said:
I don't think one can be a Buddhist unless one is born, raised and trained in a Buddhist culture. I don't think we are any more than Buddhist students or adherents in Western culture. There is an inherent materialism in Western culture that instigates the desire to "possess" Buddhism, not to mention the layers of Judeo-Christian and Pagan societal influences that tweak a Buddhist mindset. I have said, "I am a Buddhist" and felt instantly false and phony, but that's just me. I don't say that anymore. I don't even say I'm "irreligous". I just don't know. I hope that's okay.> @Daozen said:
Options!
You say "I am a Buddhist" and believe it
You say "I am a Buddhist" and don't believe it
You say "I am not a Buddhist" and believe it
You say "I am not a Buddhist" and don't believe it
Thats pretty much my mindset. I cant be separate from the Dharma from how I see reality "and" I know, like Bodhisattvas, there are some teaching that makes one a Buddhist as my saying yes to my teacher that makes me a student. That doesnt mean I cant learn something myself. We do it all the time: meditation, sutra study, etc. To realize enlightenment or to live it one doesnt need go label themselves a Buddhist.
Would you say that title is reserved for those who formally take the three jewels and precepts or does it go beyond that?
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Formally yes.
Informally? Yes.
What matters is what we feel for ourselves, not what is made evident to others.
Do you think that materialism isn't part of Asia? It most certainly is, and it's increasing every time. Buddhism in the west isn't the same, no doubt, because religion always carries cultural trappings with it. But that's like telling people in Central and South America that they aren't really Catholics because they aren't European.
As we go through practice, we find ourselves dropping labels. That is good. But it happens as it happens, not because we force it. Its' pretty hard to discuss topics and work through things in practice by saying "I don't believe in anything, and I am not anything." Labels cause problems, for sure. But we need them to a degree to communicate as well. Even TNH who is, IMO, one of the people still alive who lives the Dharma and even seems to be part of it himself, calls himself a Buddhist still.
So, if calling oneself a Buddhist is somehow "needed", then okay. Please remember our labels, just as our selves are transient, thereby at some point irrelevant to Dharma. If it feels good to say one is a Buddhist, it is probably a good idea to contrast, compare and evaluate that validity against an emptiness of identity that is a key teaching of Buddhism. The Dalai Lama teaches that westerners should practice the religion in which they were raised and trained and add Buddhism to it as best they can. He also says Buddhism is not for everyone. There can be no dissension over either Thich Nhat Hanh or Tenzin Gyatso calling themselves Buddhists as living embodiments. I just can't call myself one.
I think HHDL's suggestion is often taken out of context. I was forced into Christianity for many years despite knowing it wasn't for me. And I wasn't allowed to (or supported in, at least) explore anything else. It's not like I was abandoning it for Buddhism out of excitement. I was probably 7 or 8 when I knew Christianity wasn't for me. But I was 35ish before I picked up Buddhism finally.
Anyhow, the quote in context was from a large gathering of people from around the world at an ethics speech he gave. He wasn't talking to Buddhists. He was talking to people of all sorts of faiths who are practicing their existing faiths, telling them they don't need to convert to Buddhism, they can accomplish the same thing in their current faith. It was in no way a "if you feel a call to Buddhism, don't bother, stick with what you were raised with even if it was 50 years ago" suggestion. It was just a recommendation to those who were already practicing another faith. He was simply encouraging people who identified as Christians, Muslims, and otherwise to embrace those similar parts of their faiths and not to think that they needed to convert to Buddhism to practice them. Just because some guy on reddit listened to something and misinterpreted it doesn't mean he was right.
Comments
You do need to be taking refuge to qualify as a Buddhist usually there would be a refuge prayer of some sort refuge commitments you make with a preceptor if these are not there then it is not Buddhism, anyone can chant a sutra but you do need to make sure that you have qualified refuge before you begin any practice within Buddhism or it will have no effect. Without refuge there is no path.
^^Utter tosh.^^
@caz that is pretty...strict. That's not much different than those who say your marriage isn't real if you didn't get it blessed by God.
Taking refuge is just a formality used by teachers out of tradition and to gauge their students. Someone most certainly can be a practicing Buddhist without having taken refuge. There is no official Start Line to practice Buddhism. I practiced for a long time before I was comfortable taking refuge from my teacher. It is not something he demands or requires, but he is happy to offer to those who do desire it. If you want to follow his curriculum as an official student, yes, you do have to take particular vows at particular times, starting with refuge. But not schools of Buddhism are the same.
That kinda puts down half the Buddhists schools. The Buddha required monks to take all refuges. Layman have some critical ones but nothing like "your bed should be this hight" and so forth. Cant remember the sutra but it was full of layman precepts.
Is it more important to take the precepts or practice them is the question.
Which do you think is more important?
@Carlita Refuge and precepts aren't the same thing. Refuge is just recognition of the 3 Jewels. Precepts are the "rules" or guidelines, like no lying, no stealing, etc. The idea of sleeping or sitting on beds/furniture too high is a precept, nothing to do with refuge.
Often when one takes refuge, they take the 5 precepts. When I did it, the precepts given by my teacher were different from the standard 5 and we only did 4.
I do both every day, refuge and precepts. Sometimes I do more precepts than other days. For me it helps to do it every day after my meditation because it helps set my intention for the day and puts me in a good place to keep them rather than to just have them rambling around in my head. Then I look back on how things went during the day. Neither are a requirement by any means, not in general and not from my teacher. For me, refuge vows were required in order to later take bodhisattva vows though.
Aah. I havent taken refuges from a teacher. I will when it gets warmer since we have ti before staying during the silent retreat. Relating to SGI, they dont take the refuges and precepts as in given by teach or said vocally. Its all wraped up in Daimoku (Nam..).
I honestly dont know where to place the organization and even more so my place within it.
I guess it depends on how you see Buddhism:
-if you see it as a religion, rituals are very important indeed;
-if you see it as a philosophy, a way of life, a guide, then your vows will be a personal decision that you make on your own for yourself.
Both ways are equally valuable, I think, and you just choose what is most appropriate for you.
For me, the important thing is the practice. If that’s correct, you’re the only one who can say where you are...
@caz is very devout. I respect that. Without religious Buddhists keeping the faith, much material might be lost or twisted beyond recognition.
It's not for me. I don't think that realization is dependent on adherence to ceremonies or rituals. Or Buddhism.
The problem with 'religious Buddhists keeping the faith' is that very often they're insular and single-pointedly focused. They don't 'keep the faith'. They 'keep THEIR faith'.
And asserting that something is or is not right, valid and legitimate - based only on what THEY practice - is blinkered.
True
I was thinking about them keeping their lineage alive.
Nothing wrong with that. Utterly and totally commendable, I concur.
Hmm. What if you dont see it as either?
Most people who 'say the words' are hypocrites because they do not understand the words deeply enough.
So taking confidence in the three jewels is inevitable for those on the Middle Way and increasingly needs no bow legged formality. @federica is right to question peoples mouth and mind movements as initially nothing more than sanctimonious drivel ...
Be a Mensch Buddhist, not a bowl of dogma dharma lama do dah ...
Then what do you see Buddhism as?
Life. There isnt a separation between Buddhism and how I interpret reality. It just makes sense. Like the earth going around the sun.
All the above.
If Buddhism is life itself –which is a great idea! - why would you need to take your vows formally?
Why would you need rituals or/and connect yourself to a single lineage, as you are life and life is in you?
True. True. I have to really think about this. It would probably do the opposite if I took the vows. Strange, hu?
Why do we do anything? Look at students. They study, accumulate knowledge, and absorb information which arms them with the intellectual skill to do a specific job.
But in order to prove to others - and themselves - that they are worthy practitioners of whichever skill they wish to adopt, they must sit an examination - a test - to measure their dedication and ability.
The years spent studying count for nothing if they don't have the piece of paper telling them they did.... And then they can walk across the stage to thunderous applause, in their gown and mortar board, and be given a scroll which essentially simply says "Yup!"
Similarly, we seek validation and confirmation, through ceremony and ritual. We are a gregarious animal.
We seek to belong. We yearn to be a part of....
Of course @Carlita wants to Take Refuge in the Triple Gem.
Didn't we all (or at the very least, most of us) in one way or another....?
Don’t get me wrong: I have nothing against rituals, and I’m sure for many of us they are really important. However, I don’t think they are an obligation or a condition, such as e.g. exams.
(I’d always check the credentials of a teacher before following his/her teachings, but most of us are never going to become teachers.)
For me the most important thing is to make the personal decision to take refuge and to live accordingly, every day, every moment. That decision can be private. To do the rituals is an option, but never a “must”, even though they are wonderful.
I want to follow the path, every moment of my life, even though I might never do any rituals.
It’s not going to be easy.
Then again, nobody ever said it was easy.
I’m determined though.
I don't feel less of a Buddhist because of this.
I'll go with that.
I agree that Buddhism is just life, how we live. But it is still a label that differentiates us from others. Ideally in time we drop that label along with others and just BE what/who we are. But if we still feel the need to explain and try to come to understandings with others, the labels are needed and then they set us apart. It would be pretty hard to try to explain to someone else "I am just life" when they ask about your beliefs or practices. I think we practice to get to that point. But most of us aren't there yet beyond a logical understanding of it.
I think the additional factor is that being a Buddhist means something different to every Buddhist. As has been amply demo'd in this thread.....
That makes sense. When someone asks about my beliefs and practices, I limit it to gratitude (honoring ancestors/pagan), compassion (buddhism/Dharma), and renouncing attachments (sacrifice. What I value from catholicism).
All of these gratitude, compassion, renouncing attachments are a part of all three faiths so it doesnt help to say I am one thing when humans have a collection of values that make them them.
So I cant say I am one thing because that is not my nature to be restricted in what I believe. Its How I believe, my practice, that dictates what is contradicting what over another. My practice--lifestyle--is what tells people "I am a buddhist (if they dont stereotype me), I am a Catholic (without pushing their bias on me), I am pagan (without trying to define me)
I am just me. What is my religion? I gave up in findin labels. I will explain my practices just dont put me in a box.
You can take refuge on your own, but refuge is the qualifier of being a Buddhist and engaging in any form of Dharma practice.
Well if half of Buddhist schools are not taking refuge in the 3 jewels then they don't meet the minimum requirement to be considered Buddhist ? I assume you have an example for said schools ?
It depends on what you consider realization, high levels of concentration are achievable in other no Buddhist traditions but they don't lead to enlightenment much rather to the peak of Samsara.
Without refuge one does not trust Buddha.
Without refuge one does not trust his Dharma or practice it as a path.
Without refuge one does not seek help from the sangha
Refuge is critical, it is the very beginning.
Buddhism isn't life itself, it seems someone has a fundemental misunderstanding of what it is, Life itself is Samsara the cycle of suffering. Buddhism is the path to freedom from suffering that is very much applicable and mixable with daily life but is very different from the everyday mundane.
What is different between understanding what refuge is and applying it to life and practice, and actually saying the words? a lot of stuff is built into other schools and practices even if it is not separated out. I took refuge in Buddha, Dharma and Sangha long before I said the words because it is simply built into practice. My teacher is a Vajrayana teacher, and, for example, we rarely talk about the eightfold path despite talking a lot about the 4 Noble Truths. The path is built into all we study and practice. I suspect refuge is the same for a lot of people and other schools. Who is keeping track? the point of refuge is for the person to make a commitment. It can be made without particular words being said, in my opinion. My husband and I had very non-traditional wedding vows. It doesn't make us less married than those who use more traditional words. Same general idea, to me.
Do you see the Dharma and your practice separate from yourself or does your practice and belief make up how you view reality?
Just as the sky is blue and my skin is brown, the Dharma is true and it is reality. I do not separate Dharma from reality. Its the "laws of nature." Its life.
Anything beyond that is philosophizing. That is fine to do that with anything complex as the Dharma and of course to study it. If it isnt how you see life, what is Buddhism to you?
Yes. I only practices Zen, Nichiren Shoshu, and SGI. Depending on what Nichiren sect is depending on how they see the refuge.
Shoshu and SGI do not take refuge. They do not take refuge in the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha verbally nor do they have traditions that take up the three refuges.
The only Nichiren school I read that does is Shu. They have some Theravada teachings with Mehayana Ten Tai outlook. According to Nichiren, Ten Tai doesnt take verbal or traditional reguge.
Zen does. I cant think of other schools that disregard the basic teachings most Buddhist schools have in common.
A Buddhist is a follower of Buddha. Do you follow Buddha? If so, there's a chance you are a Buddhists! But not a Boddhisattva, that requires vows and tons of fun being yanked from ya!
Thats kinda a tricky question. Mahayana teachs we are all Buddhas as our true nature but not yet enlightened. Yet, Theravada says we arent Buddhas until later. Some schools say we are Bodhisattvas working to help others out of suffering before ourselves while other schols say traditionally, the Bodhisattva must first be enlightened before he helps others.
Then you got tradition and customs. Some say you cant be Buddhist without taking formal vows while the sutras say to express wisdom, compassion, and practice meditation is the mark of a Buddha in and of itself. Monks take the formal vows. Layman have more flexibility in taking physical/verbal vows as the vows are in the actions not just the words.
Then the word Buddhist is a loaded word. Are you a Buddhist because you can sit Indian style or one who cant but can follow his breathe until unattachment. Then are you in zazen by not attaching to unattachment or theravada where meditation is the key to future rather than present enlightenment. How do you conduct yourself. Do you consider yourself a Buddhist when you conduct yourself as a Buddha or does it go off and on.
Or is Buddhist a label.
Its good to say in voice: I follow the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha.
Then, if it is your life, that is like me siting down to eat and saying "Thank you to the chef. Thank you to the nutrition this food gives me. Thank you for being around my family who shares it with me." Tradition is good. Natures ones faith.
Is it needed to be a Buddha?
I don't think I could possibly think i am conducting myself as a Buddha because I don't have a clue what it is to live in that nature of awareness all the time. If I get a glimpse of it every so often, that's a miracle in itself. It's always been explained to me that we all have Buddhanature-the nature of that which makes Buddhas, Buddhas. But we have not realized our true nature yet, and we have to do some work to get there. Having Buddhanature isn't the same as being a Buddha. Having bodhisattva attitude is the same. You understand what it is and you aspire to it, so you practice the qualities and as you do so, more of those qualities become part of who you are and carry you along your journey. But it does not mean you are a bodhisattva in the flesh necessarily. You can be a practicing bodhisattva when you are helping a family to rebuild their home. But are you still practicing that bodhisattva-ness when you go home tired and yell at your own family? not so much. An actual bodhisattva would not have those stark contrasts.
I think its more you are acting "as" a Buddha rather than claiming to be a Buddha. Basically, the love and compassion and unattachments are characteristics of being a Buddha but one cant claim he is one until he reaches full elimenation of rebirth.
I mean you can call yourself A Buddha since we all have the capacity to live the life of The Buddha. We cant call ourselves The Buddha because we havent reached enligtenment.
Play on words.
I don't think one can be a Buddhist unless one is born, raised and trained in a Buddhist culture. I don't think we are any more than Buddhist students or adherents in Western culture. There is an inherent materialism in Western culture that instigates the desire to "possess" Buddhism, not to mention the layers of Judeo-Christian and Pagan societal influences that tweak a Buddhist mindset. I have said, "I am a Buddhist" and felt instantly false and phony, but that's just me. I don't say that anymore. I don't even say I'm "irreligous". I just don't know. I hope that's okay.> @Daozen said:
You say tomato......I say, great post @Daozen
Thats pretty much my mindset. I cant be separate from the Dharma from how I see reality "and" I know, like Bodhisattvas, there are some teaching that makes one a Buddhist as my saying yes to my teacher that makes me a student. That doesnt mean I cant learn something myself. We do it all the time: meditation, sutra study, etc. To realize enlightenment or to live it one doesnt need go label themselves a Buddhist.
Would you say that title is reserved for those who formally take the three jewels and precepts or does it go beyond that?
Formally yes.
Informally? Yes.
What matters is what we feel for ourselves, not what is made evident to others.
Do you think that materialism isn't part of Asia? It most certainly is, and it's increasing every time. Buddhism in the west isn't the same, no doubt, because religion always carries cultural trappings with it. But that's like telling people in Central and South America that they aren't really Catholics because they aren't European.
As we go through practice, we find ourselves dropping labels. That is good. But it happens as it happens, not because we force it. Its' pretty hard to discuss topics and work through things in practice by saying "I don't believe in anything, and I am not anything." Labels cause problems, for sure. But we need them to a degree to communicate as well. Even TNH who is, IMO, one of the people still alive who lives the Dharma and even seems to be part of it himself, calls himself a Buddhist still.
So, if calling oneself a Buddhist is somehow "needed", then okay. Please remember our labels, just as our selves are transient, thereby at some point irrelevant to Dharma. If it feels good to say one is a Buddhist, it is probably a good idea to contrast, compare and evaluate that validity against an emptiness of identity that is a key teaching of Buddhism. The Dalai Lama teaches that westerners should practice the religion in which they were raised and trained and add Buddhism to it as best they can. He also says Buddhism is not for everyone. There can be no dissension over either Thich Nhat Hanh or Tenzin Gyatso calling themselves Buddhists as living embodiments. I just can't call myself one.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Buddhism/comments/22dhjr/do_you_feel_the_dalai_lama_has_a_valid_point_when/
I disagree with the Dalai Lama.
If you are given a pair of shoes, when you're six, the same pair of shoes won't fit when you're 16....
And if you have a new pair of shoes given to you, and they pinch, smart, feel uncomfortable and don't fit well - why keep wearing them?
@federica, you never forget that pinch or those blisters when you are trying on new shoes, though do you? Shoes and religion. Brilliant.
I think HHDL's suggestion is often taken out of context. I was forced into Christianity for many years despite knowing it wasn't for me. And I wasn't allowed to (or supported in, at least) explore anything else. It's not like I was abandoning it for Buddhism out of excitement. I was probably 7 or 8 when I knew Christianity wasn't for me. But I was 35ish before I picked up Buddhism finally.
Anyhow, the quote in context was from a large gathering of people from around the world at an ethics speech he gave. He wasn't talking to Buddhists. He was talking to people of all sorts of faiths who are practicing their existing faiths, telling them they don't need to convert to Buddhism, they can accomplish the same thing in their current faith. It was in no way a "if you feel a call to Buddhism, don't bother, stick with what you were raised with even if it was 50 years ago" suggestion. It was just a recommendation to those who were already practicing another faith. He was simply encouraging people who identified as Christians, Muslims, and otherwise to embrace those similar parts of their faiths and not to think that they needed to convert to Buddhism to practice them. Just because some guy on reddit listened to something and misinterpreted it doesn't mean he was right.
Names and titles are just boxes. I don't think mindfulness, compassion or enlightenment need a box.