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.
AM I A BUDDHIST??? OR JUST A ATHEIST
i have studied Buddhism and i really like the teachings but one part i am troubled by rebirth or recantation i do not believe in this do you have to or can i just believe and try for enlightenment? so what do i fall under? ? ? i do not want to cheapen Buddhism by calling myself one if i not so any help would be great
thank you james d:usflag:
thank you james d:usflag:
0
Comments
Welcome.
A label is merely a conceptual distinction, and it holds no real validity on its own. In essence, it does not matter what you choose to call yourself. What matters most, according to the Buddha's teachings at least, is what you do. As long as your intentional actions do not cause harm to yourself or to others, you can call yourself an "atheist", "Buddhist", or "Gilptord the cave troll" and it does not really matter.
This reminds me of a quote attributed to Chandrakirti, an abbot of Nalanda University and disciple of Nagarjuna who lived around the 7th century AD, that I pick up from a Dhamma talk by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. He allegedly said in one of his works, "Words are not policemen on the prowl. We are not subject to their independent authority. They take their meaning from the intention of the person speaking."
My advice is that if there are certain teachings that you find helpful or inspiring, then by all means put those teachings into practice. If there are certain concepts that you find too hard to swallow, there is no demand for you to believe them. Many of the Buddha's disciples, if we are to believe the accounts, achieved awakening without ever experiencing memories of past lives, or acquiring supranormal powers, etc.
Sincerely,
Jason
First off, let me say that you don't need to worry about what to call yourself. It doesn't really matter what label you use. If you're wondering what to say if someone asks you what religion you follow you can say you're studying and practicing Buddhism and just leave it at that.
As for rebirth, this is a core teaching of Buddhism. But if you're uncomfortable with the teaching or feel that you just don't believe in rebirth, the best thing to do would be to put it to one side for now and come back to it later.
The important thing is to continue studying and practicing on a regular basis so you can learn more and more as you go along. Buddhism is too big to swallow whole and you will have to take it a few bites at a time to allow yourself to digest all the teachings and methods of practice. If you're persistent and if your wish to end your suffering is sincere you'll progress down the path at a pace that is natural for you. It's not something you can rush. As you study you will undoubtedly find certain points of the teachings that you don't understand right away and it's only when you come back to them at a later date that understanding starts to dawn. So give yourself time to really get to know what the Buddha taught. If you do so I can guarantee you will find it worthwhile.
Sincerely,
Brigid
P.S. This forum is a wonderful source of information and support and you can learn a lot here. I definitely did. If you'd like, there's a Members Introduction thread where you can tell us a little more about yourself and you can learn more about the various members here.
If you are not already familiar with them, the teachings of Ajahn Buddhadasa might appeal to you. They generally address the practical nature of the Buddha's teachings while stripping from them much of the cultural and superstitious beliefs that have developed around them over the centuries. I would suggest browsing through his Handbook for Mankind, and if that interests you, there are a number of other books that you can read online, as well as a few that can be purchased at most major bookstores.
Jason
P.S. Sorry Brigid.
Palzang
May I add some thoughts to the wise answers you have already got?
When the Buddha taught or, as it is called, Turned the Wheel of Dharma, he was doing so within a cultural context where rebirth was taken for granted, just as, for example, the notion of an individual soul has been 'obvious' for so many centuries in the West. In a world-view which rests more and more on empirical scientific 'proofs', neither of these concepts has (?yet) been proven. They both rely on authority, belief and anecdote.
As is often said here, in his teaching to the Kalamas the Buddha urged that we take nothing, not even his teachings, as true until we have tested and proved them for ourselves. Such testing may be a long, slow process or come very quickly, but test we must.
As I understand Buddhist thought, belief in rebirth is not absolutely central to our Taking Refuge. What is far more important is our acceptance of what are called the Dharma Seals. These three-plus-one aspects characterise all Buddhist teaching:
Dukkha which is translated as suffering, unsatisfactoriness or stress and is taught in the First Noble Truth;
Anicca (Sanskrit anitya), translated as impermanence;
Anatta (Sanskrit anatman), translated as impersonality or non-self.
To these some add Nibbana (Sanskrit Nirvana).
These three-plus-one give us quite enough to test and experience!
The first and last teachings of the historical Buddha were his formulation of the Four Noble Truths, which treat directly of the first of the Dharma Seals. As Jason often reminds us, the Buddha kept repeating that all he was teaching was stress and the liberation from stress. When we have proved to ourselves that our life is marked by stress, that we are authors of so much of our own stress, that there is a way out of stress and that the way is to be found in the Noble Eightfold Path, we can, I believe, add the label "Buddhist" to ourselves if it helps.
I hope you stick around. This is a good place and much there is much to learn from the members here - I should know, I learn something new virtually every day.
Palzang
Palzang-la,
I have noticed that those of us who persist in seeing historico-cultural context as explaining belief systems are not the most popular commentators and I can understand why. It is often seen that such explanations imply that the beliefs are somehow untrue. This is not the case but, as with your comments about the proofs of rebirth, this is a very big topic and may be well outwith present scope.
We are entirely in agreement that both the Buddha and, in my reading of the Christian scriptures, Jesus require that we test (Christian: "taste") for ourselves. We do not take anything "on faith", although, once we have tested and found something to be true, we may "have faith".
The point here, in this particular thread, is surely whether a belief in rebirth is necessary to being a Buddhist.
Palzang
So we are agreed that it is our opinion that belief in rebirth is not a necessary requirement for a Buddhist.
"On life's journey faith is nourishment,
virtuous deeds are a shelter, wisdom is
the light by day and right mindfulness
is the protection by night. If one lives
a pure life, nothing can destroy him".
And there was an article I read a while back, again no source, (sorry, I'm bad), that talked about how there is an element of faith in Buddhism but that its importance shouldn't be overstated or understated, or something like that. Please excuse my sloppy argument. I don't do a lot of studying about faith in Buddhism, I just figure the faith part came when I started practicing and began to see the truth of the Buddha's teachings for myself. Not the deep ones like not-self and emptiness, of course, but the simpler beginner ones. When I started to see for myself that the Buddha's simpler teachings were true I began to have faith that the rest of what he taught would be true as well. Since I haven't experienced the deeper truths for myself yet, it's my faith in the Buddha and in his experience and understanding of ultimate truth that keeps me practicing. You know what I mean?
I can certainly see how blind faith would have no place in Buddhism but I do see an element of faith arising once a person starts to experience the truth of some of the basic teachings for themselves. Am I not getting something or am I misunderstanding your meaning?
What you're talking about, Boo, is more what I would call "vajra pride", i.e. a non-ego based type of pride or confidence that you develop in the teachings when you begin to understand their core essence and accept that hey, the Buddha actually knew what he was talking about.
Palzang
Perhaps this second notion of having faith after testing rather than taking something "on faith" is what you mean by "vajra pride", Palzang. In this state, we can confront doubt because we have tested for ourselves.
Of course, like a watch that we have reliable and so we now have faith in, it would vain without good works (LOL).
Palzang
In the Pali Canon, the word saddha can be translated as "confidence", "conviction", or "faith". More specifically, it is a type of confidence, conviction, or faith that is rooted in understanding as well as what we would conventionally refer to as faith in the West (i.e. confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing). To give an example, for one to truly take refuge in the Buddha, one has to take his awakening on faith until they too have achieved the goal of the holy life. Until then, they have no way of verifying the experience of awakening until they have experienced it for themselves. Therefore, while saddha by itself is not a sufficient condition for arriving at the highest fruits of the Dhamma, there are elements of faith that are important to the practice.
As the Venerable Thanissaro writes in his essay Faith in Awakening, "The Buddha never placed unconditional demands on anyone's faith... We read his famous instructions to the Kalamas, in which he advises testing things for oneself, and we see it as an invitation to believe, or not, whatever we like. Some people go so far as to say that faith has no place in the Buddhist tradition, that the proper Buddhist attitude is one of skepticism. But even though the Buddha recommends tolerance and a healthy skepticism toward matters of faith, he also makes a conditional request about faith: If you sincerely want to put an end to suffering — that's the condition — you should take certain things on faith, as working hypotheses, and then test them through following his path of practice."
Sincerely,
Jason
Palzang
The full article can be found here
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/stream.html
It is a pretty comprehensive article on this state and the path up to it, if you are interested.
Beyond that, I will side with the others and say that belief in the more metaphysical aspects of the Buddha's teachings is not very necessary at this point. My belief in such things, for example, is tentative. However, as my contemplation of Buddhist teachings along with awareness of how my mind works grows, I find such teachings increasingly viable. At the very least, I would say that we should have a decent confidence that the buddha did, in fact, teach a literal, life-to-life form of rebirth which was based on his own experiences in deep meditation. How much stock you actually put in the validity of this teaching is really going be dependent on a number of factors & at the beginning stages you really aren't going to have much to go on other than your current dispositions.
I would also like to mention that there is healthy skepticism and there is unhealthy skepticism. The former is an open, seeking state of mind & the latter is a closed, rigid one. Basically, one is alive, one is dead. And the former is encouraged in buddhism as the Buddha didn't not just want a bunch of faithful believer types. He wanted the actual realization of teachings and liberation from suffering for all sentient beings. Maybe if faith were all you needed, that's all he would have encouraged, but this is simply not the case.
Anyway, james, hope to see you around more and hope we have answered your question to your satisfaction.
metta
_/\_
http://www.newbuddhist.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2391
metta
_/\_
But for me it is more a matter of attitude and practice. I find, when I am with patients, that we often talk about things from a "Buddhist" perspective, although the patient would not recognize it as such.
Of couse, I am tied to two Christian communities, one of which (the Quakers) would have no qualms about my Buddhist leanings, but the other (Presbyterians) might be less understanding. And I often have "Christian" prayers with patients, because that is there spiritual tradition.
The Zen community up here has done nothing but encourage me in both my Zen practice AND my Christian ministry.
Question: Do you have to take the Three Vows to be considered a Buddhist?
I was always taught that you become a Buddhist by taking refuge.
That is my understanding as well. It is generally accepted among the all the buddhist schools I am aware of that, until you take refuge in the triple gem, you are not really considered a buddhist.
However, this does not preclude any individual from practicing or studying any of the teachings to his/her heart's content. And it is possible to have more advanced individuals who don't consider themselves buddhists than those who have taken full refuge vows. I would also say, as others have, that it is not all that important what you lable yourself anyway. This is all for your own benefit.
metta
_/\_
Palzang
Palzang
:tonguec:
I consider myself Buddhist and atheist. I don't believe in any deities, but I do value and seek guidance from the basic teachings of Buddha, at least as far as I interpret them (and EVERYONE "interprets") and I do seek personal enlightment (i.e. to be a Buddha). I seek a deeper understanding and I seek inner peace. I do believe in metaphor, so I don't take everything at face value. For me, rebirth is the idea that who I am today is not who I was yesterday or who I am tomorrow or what I am after death, but there is a link between past, present and future. Rebirth is change and continuity. I believe that is consistent with Buddhism. I know that Buddha believed in some things that I don't. That doesn't bother me. I don't see him as an infallible demi-god. I see him as an extraordinary man and very wise teacher, one of possibly many. I can learn from his journey, but his journey is not mine. I have to make my own journey.
I hope that helps.
Hi all,
I beleive that the Buddha said-listen to what I have found, see what YOU think, if you agree, can test it, like it, then great.
If you have a diference of opinion to me, it does not mean you are un-buddhist, just flawed:hair: -no really it means that we have both interpreted things the way we as individuals understand them.
both buddhists-just different.
after read that this helped people starting down the path....
so here i go:om:
Palzang
"Instead of having a deep understanding of the teaching, we need a strong confidence in our teaching, which says that originally we have buddha nature. Our practice is based on this faith."
if this notion of "faith" suggests a belief without experience, and i suppose it does (particularly from a soto perspective), doesn't it mimic religious methodology? if so, i am wondering why i don't have a problem with such faith in the context of my buddhist practice as i have had when confronting western (and other) religious thought.
thoughts from my new friends?
If you've read the thread(s) on 'faith', you will see that it is quite a touchy subject. Many people here feel very upset about the notion based on their early experience of the sort of Christian teaching that they received. There is a constant quoting of the Buddha's words to the Kalamas about testing everything we are told.
Personally, I maintain that faith is a necessary foundation, if only faith in a method, just as, for example, a scientist has faith in scientific method. Of course, this is somewhat different from the sort of faith to which the fundamentalist Christian refers which appears to be unquestioning acceptance of external authority.
stuart hamilton
www.danabowl.com
The 'primary' definition is not primary in any sense other than this particular dictionary puts it first. It may, indeed, have become the principal definition in the local variant of the English languages used in the USA but it is not the primary meaning in other variants. Indeed, I would challenge whether this is entirely true in North America either where the notions of 'faithful' and 'unfaithful' still appear to be used about relationships. The Latin root indicates trust. In order to arrive at the 'primary' definition in Webster one would need to add the adjective 'blind' as a modifier.
Palzang
That is precisely it, Palzang-la. Without this level of faith, we learn nothing because we do not do the work set for us.
"Faith (shraddha), in Buddhism, does not mean accepting a theory that we have not personally verified. The Buddha encouraged us to see for ourselves. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels is not blind faith; it is the fruit of our practice."
Semantics and sects aside, I can only practice. It is from here I try to understand and live in this moment. Perhaps, through my own experience, I've answer my own question.
Hope everyone is having a wonderful day... sa
if you feel comfortable with the label buddhist then by all means use it......if you do not...discard it...the content of your character and the nature of your beliefs will be evidenced by the ways you move through life...how you treat people and their needs....if you are willing and able to actively engage in actions that generate little or no suffering. I like the term buddhist because it evokes an immediate image and opinion from most people....and that springboards often into open dialog about the dharma...and it moves on....again....
"buddism today is best thought of as an ethical psychological philosophy or nontheistic spiritual practice, needing neither dogma nor belief to be practiced and accomplished."
thoughts from my friends?