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.
Labeling yourself as a Buddhist is a Western concept?
http://www.livingdharma.org/Living.Dharma.Articles/WhatIsABuddhist-Haneda.html
What Is a Buddhist?
by Dr. Nobuo Haneda
Reprinted by permission of The Maida Center of Buddhism, 2609 Regent Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, (510) 843-8515
All views are perverted views. No view is the right view.
-Prajna-paramita Sutra
Ever since I came to this country from Japan, I have noticed one major difference between American Buddhists and Japanese Buddhists. The difference is that American Buddhists like to identify themselves as Buddhists, saying, "I'm a Buddhist," whereas, in Japan people seldom identify themselves as Buddhists. As a matter of fact, when I lived in Japan I never said to my friends, "I am a Buddhist."
Every time I hear Americans identify themselves as Buddhists, I have a mixed--comfortable and uncomfortable--feeling about it. I have this mixed feeling because I sense in their words both admirable and erroneous elements. Let me discuss these two elements.
First, the admirable element is this: Americans identify themselves as Buddhists because they take Buddhism seriously, whereas, Japanese do not do so because they do not take Buddhism seriously. They regard Buddhism only as part of their traditional culture; they do not regard it as a personal religion. But, for some Americans, Buddhism is a personal religion, an exciting new religion in which they should be personally involved. This is an admirable element I see in American Buddhists.
Now let me discuss what I consider an erroneous element. I feel uncomfortable when I hear people identify themselves as Buddhists because I sense some kind of religious pride or arrogance. The majority of people in this country are Christians. Thus people who take up non-Christian religions have a sense of rivalry with Christianity. Some of them believe that Buddhism is superior to Christianity. In order to assert their superiority they say that they are Buddhists, not Christians. But if people use the word "Buddhist" to feel superior to others, they are doing something unjustified in Buddhism--something totally against Buddhism. Buddhism does not allow us to be attached to any form of label or identity, or to indulge in any form of self-love or self-enhancement.
I am not saying that we should not identify ourselves as "Buddhists." It is all right to do so. But we must have a clear idea as to what we mean by the word. What, then, is "Buddhist?" When we say we are Buddhists, how are we viewing other religions such as Christianity? What is the relationship between Buddhism and other religions? Here I want to discuss these questions.
Since I cannot adequately discuss these questions without referring to my personal background, let me talk about it. In my life, three individuals have exerted considerable spiritual influence on me. I consider them my teachers. Let me start with the first teacher.
When I was a junior high school student, I met a teacher, Mr. Keisuke Itoh. Mr. Itoh had difficult experiences when he was young. During World War II he was a Japanese soldier and was put into a concentration camp in Siberia. He was forced to engage in hard labor there. I heard that many of his friends starved to death. Because of this difficult experience in Siberia, he became a Christian. After he came back to Japan, he became a schoolteacher. Mr. Itoh was so different from other teachers. When he taught in the class, I could tell that he was searching for the meaning of his own life. He often challenged us to reflect upon our lives. He usually looked depressed and gloomy. So, many classmates of mine, young teenagers who loved cheerful teachers, did not like him at all. He was too serious for them. But somehow I was attracted to this teacher. Since I was very young at that time, I do not think I fully understood him. But I was deeply impressed by the serious manner in which he was teaching us. Because he was a Christian, I became interested in Christianity.
Now let me talk about my second teacher, whom I met when I was a high school student. Since I was impressed by Mr. Itoh, a Christian, I started to attend a Christian church when I was in high school. One day, I attended a class for young adults in the church. There were several high school boys and girls. Since I was attending a boy's high school, and the boys were quite rough, I needed to see some girls at least once a week; this was absolutely necessary for my mental health.
When I attended the class, one cute girl asked me, "Mr. Haneda, what kind of novelist do you like best?" This was a tough question, because in those days I was interested only in baseball and fishing. I was not academically inclined at all; I had not read any significant books. But a really cute girl was asking me the question. I had to impress her. I could not say, "I don't read any books." If I had said so, it would have sounded so dumb. So, I seriously thought "What have I read, what have I read?" Then, I remembered that I had read one short story by Leo Tolstoy. So, I told her, "Yeah, I, of course, like Leo Tolstoy. He wrote War and Peace and Anna Karenina." (Although I had never read these novels, I knew he wrote them.) She was very much impressed. So it was okay at that time. But it was not okay after that, because she thought I was a specialist on Tolstoy and started asking me questions about him. So, I had to read Tolstoy. I rushed to a bookstore and bought War and Peace and Anna Karenina, huge books. I really thought that I should have told her that I loved O. Henry or Jack London. They would have been much easier to read. But, I said "Tolstoy," so I had no choice. Initially I forced myself to read Tolstoy. Then, gradually I started to love Tolstoy. So when one year had passed, I was more in love with Tolstoy than with that girl. Although Leo Tolstoy is commonly known as a novelist, he was actually a very religious person. When he was around fifty, after he wrote Anna Karenina, he experienced a so-called religious conversion. Most of his later writings were religious writings. I consider Tolstoy my second teacher. So, when I chose my major in college, I chose Russian. I wanted to be a translator of Tolstoy.
Now let me talk about my third teacher. I was in college in the late sixties. In 1969 I was a senior. One day I went to a bookstore and bought a commentary on Goethe's Faust, a famous German story. The commentator's name was Shuichi Maida. I had never heard of him. When I read the commentary on Faust, I was really impressed, not by the story of Faust but by what the commentator Maida said about Faust. Although I had not known it, the commentator was a Buddhist and was interpreting Faust from a Buddhist standpoint. In the book Maida used many Buddhist terms, such as Amida, Shakyamuni, and Shinran. Up to that time, I had no interest in Buddhism at all. To me Buddhism had been part of our obsolete culture. But the Buddhism that I found in Maida was so fresh, new, and relevant to my life. Then, I went back to the same bookstore and bought other books written by him. I started to study Buddhism at that time. That was the turning point in my life. From that time on, for the last thirty years, I have been studying Buddhism.
Now I have talked about the three teachers, Mr. Itoh, Tolstoy, and Maida. If I describe them with traditional labels, they are quite different. Mr. Itoh was a Christian. Tolstoy was a Russian novelist. Maida was a Buddhist. But in my mind, I cannot differentiate these three people. They form what I am today.
A friend of mine once asked me, "Mr. Haneda, how did you make the switch? How did you switch from Christianity to Buddhism and from Russian literature to Buddhism?" When I was asked this question, I did not know how to answer it because I did not feel that I had ever made a switch from Christianity or Russian literature to Buddhism.
By getting to know Buddhism, I came to have a deeper appreciation of Christianity and Russian literature. For me, I do not see any conflict in studying Christianity and Buddhism, or in studying Russian literature and Buddhism. Actually, studying Christianity or Russian literature is part of my study of Buddhism. For me, studying Buddhism does not mean reading the so-called "Buddhist writings" per se. It means studying all kinds of things, such as Christianity and Russian literature
To me, Buddhism means realizing an all-embracing attitude, nothing else. It means realizing a broad and empty mind that can encompass all. It means realizing a position in which I can learn and appreciate all kinds of things--a position in which I do not assume any relative or antagonistic relationships with them.
I can talk about this with a simple illustration. Suppose there is a basket that contains all kinds of fruits such as an apple, an orange, a peach, a pear, etc. To me, religions that have fixed dogmas or creeds are like fruits in the basket. We can compare these religions just as we can compare the fruits in the basket. But Buddhism is not a fruit in the basket; it is itself the basket that holds all kinds of fruits. Buddhism has no fixed dogma, creed, or doctrine. If Buddhism has it, then it can be compared with another dogma. But Buddhism does not have any dogma or creed that can be compared. We can compare an apple with an orange, or an orange with a peach. But we cannot compare an apple with a basket.
Here some people may disagree with me and say that there are doctrines, ideas and concepts, in Buddhism. Yes, there are certainly ideas and concepts taught in Buddhism. But they are not "fixed" doctrines to be attached or carried around by us. They are cures for sickness, They are something like "Drano" that is used for eliminating a clog in a pipe. When water regains its smooth and natural flow, "Drano" is no longer necessary. Buddhist ideas and concepts are antidotes against the poison of human attachment. Since we are attached to various objects, Buddhist teachers challenge us with ideas such as "impermanence" and "emptiness" and destroy our attachment. These ideas are totally different from the dogmas that many other religions have.
Let me discuss the basic meaning of "Buddhism" or "Buddhist" by refering to a famous parable about five blind men who attempt to define an elephant. The first blind man touches the tail of an elephant and says, "Now I know what the elephant is. It is like a rope." The second blind man touches its leg and declares that it is like a tree. The third, fourth, and fifth blind men respectively touch its body, nose, and ear and declares that it is like a wall, a hose, and a fan. These five blind men are firmly convinced that they are absolutely right in their understanding. So they start to fight among themselves.
Then what does it mean to become a "Buddhist' in this context? Here., we must talk about a another sixth, blind man. Then who is the sixth blind man? He is a person who has touched all those five parts of the animal. He is well aware that the elephant has all kinds of parts. He knows that all those five blind men are both right and wrong. He knows that all of them are right, partially right, because they are touching a part of an elephant. But at the same time he knows that all of them are wrong in their view that they have an absolutely correct understanding. The "Buddhist," the sixth blind man, can identify with all those five blind men, but, at the same time, he cannot agree with them when they say that their own respective views are the only truth. Those five blind men have their fixed positions and they cannot help fighting, whereas the sixth blind man has no position with which he can fight with others. A "Buddhist" is a person who can identify with all human assertions in some way or other, but cannot consider any one assertion the absolute truth.
The most important thing in Buddhism is the realization of a humble attitude, a broad and empty mind, or an all-encompassing mind. This all-embracing mind is called "Amida Buddha." In the sutra called the Larger Sukhavativyuha-sutra, we read a story in which Dharmakara becomes a Buddha by the name of Amida Buddha. Dharmakara initially vows that he will become a Buddha and create a land where he will encompass all beings. Then, he takes up practices to become a Buddha. His main practice is visiting and worshipping many Buddhas in the ten directions and studying under them.
The more Buddhas he visits and worships, the humbler he becomes. The humbler he becomes, the more Buddhas he visits and worships. In this way, the number of Buddhas he discovers increases. When he discovers innumerable Buddhas and his whole being becomes worshipping and studying, his Buddhahood is fulfilled. He becomes a Buddha by the name of "Namu Amida Butsu (Bowing Amida Buddha)." Here "Bowing" is part of his name. In this way Amida Buddha symbolizes the spirit of a perfect student. He has realized an ocean-like mind that can study and appreciate innumerable Buddhas in the ten directions.
In one verse in his Jodo Wasan, Shinran Shonin says, "Taking refuge in the Pure Land of Amida Buddha means taking refuge in all Buddhas." His words mean the following. Amida Buddha is all-encompassing spirit itself. When we go to see Amida Buddha in the Pure Land, we just meet the spirit of a perfect student. In his mind we find only innumerable Buddhas whom he is studying and worshipping. We do not find in him any attachment to his own ideas or thoughts. The contents of his mind are "all Buddhas." Thus Amida is a container of all Buddhas. He just encourages us, just like Amida himself, to discover innumerable Buddhas, visit them, and study under them.
I met my I teacher Maida. This does not mean that I have learned a doctrine called "Buddhism from him. I have not received any fixed idea or thought from him. The only thing I learn from Maida is the spirit of a perfect student. He was nothing but a student. His humble spirit of a student has challenged all the ideas, notions, and opinions that I cherish. I have been reduced to an ignorant student. I have gained a position in which I can appreciate all kinds of teachers and teachings. He encourages me to discover "innumerable Buddhas in the ten directions" such as Shakyamuni, Shinran, Shakespeare, Goethe, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gandhi and Schweizer, and study under them.
In summary, there are two ways of defining "Buddhism." One is identifying it with a fruit in the basket. The other is identifying it with the basket itself.
If "Buddhism" is a fruit in the basket--a specific doctrine, such a Buddhism is so narrow and limited; it is not the true Buddhism. If "Buddhism" is a doctrine that can be compared with other doctrines, that is a misunderstanding of what Shakyamuni taught. If "Buddhism" means such a limited thing, I do not want to become a "Buddhist." I do not want to be called a "Buddhist." But if "Buddhism" means the basket itself, if it means the realization of a broad and empty mind, an ocean-like mind, an all-encompassing mind, I want to become a "Buddhist." If "Buddhist" means a person who can worship all kinds of teachers and study under them, I want to be called a "Buddhist."
Don't become a fruit in the basket! Become the basket! Appreciate all kinds of fruits in the basket! Buddhism is appreciating all kinds of teachers and teachings. There are so many wonderful teachers and teachings in the world. Let's forget labels such as Christianity, Islam, etc. Let's forget even the labels such as "Buddhism," 'Zen," or "Shin." Let us study from all. We are, after all, all human beings. We share the same human suffering and the same human aspirations. We do not have to be trapped by superficial labels and identities.
What Is a Buddhist?
by Dr. Nobuo Haneda
Reprinted by permission of The Maida Center of Buddhism, 2609 Regent Street, Berkeley, CA 94704, (510) 843-8515
All views are perverted views. No view is the right view.
-Prajna-paramita Sutra
Ever since I came to this country from Japan, I have noticed one major difference between American Buddhists and Japanese Buddhists. The difference is that American Buddhists like to identify themselves as Buddhists, saying, "I'm a Buddhist," whereas, in Japan people seldom identify themselves as Buddhists. As a matter of fact, when I lived in Japan I never said to my friends, "I am a Buddhist."
Every time I hear Americans identify themselves as Buddhists, I have a mixed--comfortable and uncomfortable--feeling about it. I have this mixed feeling because I sense in their words both admirable and erroneous elements. Let me discuss these two elements.
First, the admirable element is this: Americans identify themselves as Buddhists because they take Buddhism seriously, whereas, Japanese do not do so because they do not take Buddhism seriously. They regard Buddhism only as part of their traditional culture; they do not regard it as a personal religion. But, for some Americans, Buddhism is a personal religion, an exciting new religion in which they should be personally involved. This is an admirable element I see in American Buddhists.
Now let me discuss what I consider an erroneous element. I feel uncomfortable when I hear people identify themselves as Buddhists because I sense some kind of religious pride or arrogance. The majority of people in this country are Christians. Thus people who take up non-Christian religions have a sense of rivalry with Christianity. Some of them believe that Buddhism is superior to Christianity. In order to assert their superiority they say that they are Buddhists, not Christians. But if people use the word "Buddhist" to feel superior to others, they are doing something unjustified in Buddhism--something totally against Buddhism. Buddhism does not allow us to be attached to any form of label or identity, or to indulge in any form of self-love or self-enhancement.
I am not saying that we should not identify ourselves as "Buddhists." It is all right to do so. But we must have a clear idea as to what we mean by the word. What, then, is "Buddhist?" When we say we are Buddhists, how are we viewing other religions such as Christianity? What is the relationship between Buddhism and other religions? Here I want to discuss these questions.
Since I cannot adequately discuss these questions without referring to my personal background, let me talk about it. In my life, three individuals have exerted considerable spiritual influence on me. I consider them my teachers. Let me start with the first teacher.
When I was a junior high school student, I met a teacher, Mr. Keisuke Itoh. Mr. Itoh had difficult experiences when he was young. During World War II he was a Japanese soldier and was put into a concentration camp in Siberia. He was forced to engage in hard labor there. I heard that many of his friends starved to death. Because of this difficult experience in Siberia, he became a Christian. After he came back to Japan, he became a schoolteacher. Mr. Itoh was so different from other teachers. When he taught in the class, I could tell that he was searching for the meaning of his own life. He often challenged us to reflect upon our lives. He usually looked depressed and gloomy. So, many classmates of mine, young teenagers who loved cheerful teachers, did not like him at all. He was too serious for them. But somehow I was attracted to this teacher. Since I was very young at that time, I do not think I fully understood him. But I was deeply impressed by the serious manner in which he was teaching us. Because he was a Christian, I became interested in Christianity.
Now let me talk about my second teacher, whom I met when I was a high school student. Since I was impressed by Mr. Itoh, a Christian, I started to attend a Christian church when I was in high school. One day, I attended a class for young adults in the church. There were several high school boys and girls. Since I was attending a boy's high school, and the boys were quite rough, I needed to see some girls at least once a week; this was absolutely necessary for my mental health.
When I attended the class, one cute girl asked me, "Mr. Haneda, what kind of novelist do you like best?" This was a tough question, because in those days I was interested only in baseball and fishing. I was not academically inclined at all; I had not read any significant books. But a really cute girl was asking me the question. I had to impress her. I could not say, "I don't read any books." If I had said so, it would have sounded so dumb. So, I seriously thought "What have I read, what have I read?" Then, I remembered that I had read one short story by Leo Tolstoy. So, I told her, "Yeah, I, of course, like Leo Tolstoy. He wrote War and Peace and Anna Karenina." (Although I had never read these novels, I knew he wrote them.) She was very much impressed. So it was okay at that time. But it was not okay after that, because she thought I was a specialist on Tolstoy and started asking me questions about him. So, I had to read Tolstoy. I rushed to a bookstore and bought War and Peace and Anna Karenina, huge books. I really thought that I should have told her that I loved O. Henry or Jack London. They would have been much easier to read. But, I said "Tolstoy," so I had no choice. Initially I forced myself to read Tolstoy. Then, gradually I started to love Tolstoy. So when one year had passed, I was more in love with Tolstoy than with that girl. Although Leo Tolstoy is commonly known as a novelist, he was actually a very religious person. When he was around fifty, after he wrote Anna Karenina, he experienced a so-called religious conversion. Most of his later writings were religious writings. I consider Tolstoy my second teacher. So, when I chose my major in college, I chose Russian. I wanted to be a translator of Tolstoy.
Now let me talk about my third teacher. I was in college in the late sixties. In 1969 I was a senior. One day I went to a bookstore and bought a commentary on Goethe's Faust, a famous German story. The commentator's name was Shuichi Maida. I had never heard of him. When I read the commentary on Faust, I was really impressed, not by the story of Faust but by what the commentator Maida said about Faust. Although I had not known it, the commentator was a Buddhist and was interpreting Faust from a Buddhist standpoint. In the book Maida used many Buddhist terms, such as Amida, Shakyamuni, and Shinran. Up to that time, I had no interest in Buddhism at all. To me Buddhism had been part of our obsolete culture. But the Buddhism that I found in Maida was so fresh, new, and relevant to my life. Then, I went back to the same bookstore and bought other books written by him. I started to study Buddhism at that time. That was the turning point in my life. From that time on, for the last thirty years, I have been studying Buddhism.
Now I have talked about the three teachers, Mr. Itoh, Tolstoy, and Maida. If I describe them with traditional labels, they are quite different. Mr. Itoh was a Christian. Tolstoy was a Russian novelist. Maida was a Buddhist. But in my mind, I cannot differentiate these three people. They form what I am today.
A friend of mine once asked me, "Mr. Haneda, how did you make the switch? How did you switch from Christianity to Buddhism and from Russian literature to Buddhism?" When I was asked this question, I did not know how to answer it because I did not feel that I had ever made a switch from Christianity or Russian literature to Buddhism.
By getting to know Buddhism, I came to have a deeper appreciation of Christianity and Russian literature. For me, I do not see any conflict in studying Christianity and Buddhism, or in studying Russian literature and Buddhism. Actually, studying Christianity or Russian literature is part of my study of Buddhism. For me, studying Buddhism does not mean reading the so-called "Buddhist writings" per se. It means studying all kinds of things, such as Christianity and Russian literature
To me, Buddhism means realizing an all-embracing attitude, nothing else. It means realizing a broad and empty mind that can encompass all. It means realizing a position in which I can learn and appreciate all kinds of things--a position in which I do not assume any relative or antagonistic relationships with them.
I can talk about this with a simple illustration. Suppose there is a basket that contains all kinds of fruits such as an apple, an orange, a peach, a pear, etc. To me, religions that have fixed dogmas or creeds are like fruits in the basket. We can compare these religions just as we can compare the fruits in the basket. But Buddhism is not a fruit in the basket; it is itself the basket that holds all kinds of fruits. Buddhism has no fixed dogma, creed, or doctrine. If Buddhism has it, then it can be compared with another dogma. But Buddhism does not have any dogma or creed that can be compared. We can compare an apple with an orange, or an orange with a peach. But we cannot compare an apple with a basket.
Here some people may disagree with me and say that there are doctrines, ideas and concepts, in Buddhism. Yes, there are certainly ideas and concepts taught in Buddhism. But they are not "fixed" doctrines to be attached or carried around by us. They are cures for sickness, They are something like "Drano" that is used for eliminating a clog in a pipe. When water regains its smooth and natural flow, "Drano" is no longer necessary. Buddhist ideas and concepts are antidotes against the poison of human attachment. Since we are attached to various objects, Buddhist teachers challenge us with ideas such as "impermanence" and "emptiness" and destroy our attachment. These ideas are totally different from the dogmas that many other religions have.
Let me discuss the basic meaning of "Buddhism" or "Buddhist" by refering to a famous parable about five blind men who attempt to define an elephant. The first blind man touches the tail of an elephant and says, "Now I know what the elephant is. It is like a rope." The second blind man touches its leg and declares that it is like a tree. The third, fourth, and fifth blind men respectively touch its body, nose, and ear and declares that it is like a wall, a hose, and a fan. These five blind men are firmly convinced that they are absolutely right in their understanding. So they start to fight among themselves.
Then what does it mean to become a "Buddhist' in this context? Here., we must talk about a another sixth, blind man. Then who is the sixth blind man? He is a person who has touched all those five parts of the animal. He is well aware that the elephant has all kinds of parts. He knows that all those five blind men are both right and wrong. He knows that all of them are right, partially right, because they are touching a part of an elephant. But at the same time he knows that all of them are wrong in their view that they have an absolutely correct understanding. The "Buddhist," the sixth blind man, can identify with all those five blind men, but, at the same time, he cannot agree with them when they say that their own respective views are the only truth. Those five blind men have their fixed positions and they cannot help fighting, whereas the sixth blind man has no position with which he can fight with others. A "Buddhist" is a person who can identify with all human assertions in some way or other, but cannot consider any one assertion the absolute truth.
The most important thing in Buddhism is the realization of a humble attitude, a broad and empty mind, or an all-encompassing mind. This all-embracing mind is called "Amida Buddha." In the sutra called the Larger Sukhavativyuha-sutra, we read a story in which Dharmakara becomes a Buddha by the name of Amida Buddha. Dharmakara initially vows that he will become a Buddha and create a land where he will encompass all beings. Then, he takes up practices to become a Buddha. His main practice is visiting and worshipping many Buddhas in the ten directions and studying under them.
The more Buddhas he visits and worships, the humbler he becomes. The humbler he becomes, the more Buddhas he visits and worships. In this way, the number of Buddhas he discovers increases. When he discovers innumerable Buddhas and his whole being becomes worshipping and studying, his Buddhahood is fulfilled. He becomes a Buddha by the name of "Namu Amida Butsu (Bowing Amida Buddha)." Here "Bowing" is part of his name. In this way Amida Buddha symbolizes the spirit of a perfect student. He has realized an ocean-like mind that can study and appreciate innumerable Buddhas in the ten directions.
In one verse in his Jodo Wasan, Shinran Shonin says, "Taking refuge in the Pure Land of Amida Buddha means taking refuge in all Buddhas." His words mean the following. Amida Buddha is all-encompassing spirit itself. When we go to see Amida Buddha in the Pure Land, we just meet the spirit of a perfect student. In his mind we find only innumerable Buddhas whom he is studying and worshipping. We do not find in him any attachment to his own ideas or thoughts. The contents of his mind are "all Buddhas." Thus Amida is a container of all Buddhas. He just encourages us, just like Amida himself, to discover innumerable Buddhas, visit them, and study under them.
I met my I teacher Maida. This does not mean that I have learned a doctrine called "Buddhism from him. I have not received any fixed idea or thought from him. The only thing I learn from Maida is the spirit of a perfect student. He was nothing but a student. His humble spirit of a student has challenged all the ideas, notions, and opinions that I cherish. I have been reduced to an ignorant student. I have gained a position in which I can appreciate all kinds of teachers and teachings. He encourages me to discover "innumerable Buddhas in the ten directions" such as Shakyamuni, Shinran, Shakespeare, Goethe, Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, Gandhi and Schweizer, and study under them.
In summary, there are two ways of defining "Buddhism." One is identifying it with a fruit in the basket. The other is identifying it with the basket itself.
If "Buddhism" is a fruit in the basket--a specific doctrine, such a Buddhism is so narrow and limited; it is not the true Buddhism. If "Buddhism" is a doctrine that can be compared with other doctrines, that is a misunderstanding of what Shakyamuni taught. If "Buddhism" means such a limited thing, I do not want to become a "Buddhist." I do not want to be called a "Buddhist." But if "Buddhism" means the basket itself, if it means the realization of a broad and empty mind, an ocean-like mind, an all-encompassing mind, I want to become a "Buddhist." If "Buddhist" means a person who can worship all kinds of teachers and study under them, I want to be called a "Buddhist."
Don't become a fruit in the basket! Become the basket! Appreciate all kinds of fruits in the basket! Buddhism is appreciating all kinds of teachers and teachings. There are so many wonderful teachers and teachings in the world. Let's forget labels such as Christianity, Islam, etc. Let's forget even the labels such as "Buddhism," 'Zen," or "Shin." Let us study from all. We are, after all, all human beings. We share the same human suffering and the same human aspirations. We do not have to be trapped by superficial labels and identities.
0
Comments
I love about the humble attitide writeup and impressed with your sound understanding about "Amida Buddha". Very much I was overwhelmed by with what you have presented.
Visited to Japan in the past and yes I could not sense the vibrancy of Buddhism there, especially among the young.
I very much agree with you. But I think, many Buddhist communities in the world have not come to this realisation (intermitted or advanced level). My guess that you are into Pure Land? Well me 2.
Awesome!
cheers,
We as westerners learn Buddhist teachings because we want to be different. The fact is, we do not know any better. Now if this makes you uncomfortable please remember that one day when we learn the true teachings and can understand them then we will see the teachings like you do. We have spent our lives with a certain line of thinking and it is going to take us longer to get rifd of that then if we were raised with it. This is why we need people like you to help guide us on this path.
Think if you decided to become more western and you had to change you way of thinking to a western way of thinking. It doesn't always make sense, does it? Tha is what we are going through. I myself find attachment to be the hardest thing to understand and to shed from my ways. It is easy to understand the materialistic part of it. It's the loved ones part of it that is so hard to understand.
I thank you for your help. I will be more mindful the next time I tell someone I am Buddhist. Of course sometimes I have to tell them because it is th eonly way they understand where I am coming from.
For a start (beginners), I think it is ok to put labels as a Buddhist. We learned from mistakes and seldom do we learn from success. As I relect on the mistakes that I made (being young and arrogant and .... ), I realized that I can advance a little better. As when we see a bigger picture with much clarity, we will then better appreciate more. eg ONENESS.
cheers,
Comic,
I have friends from the East that have just as much difficulty with attachment as you do. In this sense I do not think that cultural background has too much to do with walking the path.
The huge abundance of International Christians is an indiction that religion is not exclusive to any culture.
Having said this, concepts such as Emptiness vs. Nothingness can be difficult for Westerners to get their heads around. The same can be said for the path of no-gaining, seeing practice as Enlightenment, is equally difficult for Western cultures to find the value in.
Karate, for example, had no formal coloured belt structure until Westerners started to learn and needed some basis to gauge their development in.
How can we then, as Westerners (or western minded easterners) follow the path.
Simple! :wavey: goodbye to your preconceptions and embrace the prajna of meditation and practice.
Such was Shakyamuni's way. Such can be your way.
You bring up some good points. As for me I do not label myself as a buddhist, But I have been labeled as a zenist, buddhist, and religious freak from other people, to which i usually don't even reply. But tend to just let go. It doesn't matter what they label me as. I know who I am and what i believe, feel and think. I am who I am.
As for Tolstoy, I have not read any of his works. I do read alot and have my favorites. Maybe the next time I am in a book store Ilook at some of his and the others you mentioned works.
MoonLgt - Tolstoy is loooong and has big tricky names. I f you can read it and get around the names in 'Anna Karenin' you will be a champion in my book. I have tried so many times...
I don't think tolstoy would be anymore difficult than Socrates. I have a copy of his Divine Comedy. And a couple of others he wrote.
But you have diffenately peaked my interest.
Do you mean Dante's Divine Comedy? A work so seminal and fundamental to Western Christianity that it is almost totally ignored by modern preachers!
Yes. Sorry about that, I had not gotten that book out in a long time had to go check. And your right alot of todays preachers do ignore it, any more it is hard to find even at a library. Here in the U.S. there are alot of things that are ignored or worst yet being banned. Because someone sees to much in the story ( i.e. the childrens versions of Snow White, Cinderella, Etc).
As for Tolstoy, I will be heading for the book store today after work to check it out. Simon do you have anything you would recommend?
Thank you for your wonderful post. It was very interesting and thought provoking.
I was reading a book recently by Steven Batchelor who was saying very much the same thing. That we are not the product of a simple mixing of DNA by our parents. We are the result of the DNA mixing and all of the events and processes we have experienced in our entire life.
I tihnk your story states pretty much the same thing.
As for why I'm doing whatever it is I'm doing with Buddhism is to try to come to terms with lack of faith in Christianity and trying to find an answer that, so far, I have not been able to completely embrace. I find this possibility in Buddhism very refreshing and like a new outlook on life, how I interact with life and everything around me.
I don't think I've said at this point, "I'm Buddhist" because I don't really feel comfortable saying that. I don't even know if I am!
I mean - I'm doing this for me. Is going around telling people I'm Buddhist going to cause me to gain enlightenment much faster?
I'll have to see how I handle it when I'm asked directly.
Michael
P.S. How was it when you were in Japan and decided to become a Christian? Was that "making some sort of statement" when you did it? Did it cause people to look at you differently? Was it just accepted?
I love War and Peace. Knocks LoTR into a cocked hat as an epic!
If you are getting into Russian literature. I would highly recommend Dostoyevski's Crime and Punishment which is a superb evocation of guilt.
ATM I am re-reading Hesse's Glass Bead Game. It is so wonderful that, although I have read it many times, I still find it mysterious and magical.
(OFF TOPIC)
Eye awlweighs reed yur posts in anne Austrawlian akcent.
:thumbsup:
ps - no offence intended.
my own take on this is my response to most people " I am not a Buddhist. I practice Zen Buddhism. Attachment to labels will keep me spinning in samsara for eons!"
^gassho^
The Buddha wasn't a "Buddhist". His early disciples also were not "Buddhists". The were followers of the Dhamma Vinyana. "Buddhist" today is merely another label or convention. Our practice is much more than a mere convention. It cannot be defined by just a simple word such as "Buddhist". For convenience I suppose "Buddhist"can be used to help other people understand our ways of life, but we do not have to label ourselves as one necessarily.
I do not think Mike denies the Buddha nor is he ungrateful. Perhaps you just misunderstood where he was coming from?
I agree.
Michael
You are wonderful.
A confident image will have a higher influencing power.
cheers,
I love that look. Except I see more surprise than judgement. It's like, "So y'all really do exist!"
Actually Comic, you make great sense with this statement.
I honestly don't think that I'd have a problem going to Hell at peace with myself. I don't think Hell is a place where people burn forever - but then, what do I know. If that is the case, and there is a western concept of a God, he sure is sadistic.
And as for going to heaven - I guess I really can't come to grips with that either. Live forever? Or become a God? I know that's what some people believe in that believe in a "bride of Christ" that part of the "reward" system is that you actually become just like God - a "god".
And then you.... .... .... listen to a lot of harp music?
Michael
I think I might try that! Usually I just say "Will I still go to hell if I don't believe in hell???" I don't know, I just have a very hard time believeing that if there is a God, that he would actually send people to hell if they lived their lives as wonderful people, whether they were Christian or not. Who wants to believe in a vengeful God like that? Not me!
I can't count the number of times I have been lectured on the fact that if I don't believe I'm going to Hell. The last time I heard this I just simply replied, Good at east i know where I'm going. How about you? The person who was doing the lecturing ( and yes it was a relative) Was so Stunned he shut -up and left me alone.. LOL
Dear Pilgrim,
We certainly have a misunderstanding here. I am in no way denying the Buddha as my teacher. Labeling myself as "this or that” is attachment to allow the ego to ride with. The way I look at it is this. Buddhism is a truth. It is not a truth dependent on the existence of the Buddha. It is a truth that existed long before he did. He found a way to point to it and for that I am grateful to be his student. But if scientists/historians today proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Shakyamuni/Gautama/Buddha never existed would any of these truths be diminished? Even in the smallest way? Buddha means awakened one. We are all of Buddha nature. Uncovering this is the path to peace. As the Zen saying goes "Do not mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon"
^gassho^
Buddha Nature... The way we were at Birth... as Prana correctly points out.
Christ himself said: 'Suffer the little Children to come unto me, for such is the kingdom of Heaven....' He meant exactly that. In order to get back to God-Nature, people would have to shed all the crap they'd accumulated, and go back to the purity and innocence of a child.
Strip everything away, and we're all like that. Whether we're Buddhist, Christian, Jewish, Moslem, Hindu or Sikh.
"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the Truth."
Strip away all the crap, all the illusion, all the temporary obstruction and impermanent ignorance, and what ya got......?
Are you going to shatter our illusions Ophelia....?
And your point is???
JUST KIDDING! I was just kidding! Honest!
-bf
Because it seems to me that, like in our past, that it was okay for white people to kill black people. Even though they thought it was "right" or "good" in their minds - didn't make it so.
I know the example is extreme - but I think it's plays along with what Buddha taught opposed to what Zen Buddhism may have incorporated into the thought process.
I think the end of the Kalama Sutra sums it up quite nicely.
-bf
p.s. sorry if i missed the point of your post or didn't get the wisdom you were imparting to me, ophelia!
The Christian said that if i didn't believe in Jesus and God and start practising Christianity (and only Christianity) i'd burn forever in Hell.
The Muslim said that if i didn't believe in Muhammed and Allah and start practising Islam (and only Islam) i'd burn forever in Hell.
(Apparently they reserve the lowest level of hell for non-believers and betrayers of the faith)
With my simple mind i was able to deduce that one MUST be wrong but by no means MUST one be right.
i like that scene in South Park where they all get to Hell:
Christian: erm... I don't think i'm supposed to be here, i'm a devout Catholic - I should be in Heaven
Demon: er, sorry Catholicism is the wrong answer.
Muslim: well what about me? I'm a devout Muslim - I should be in Heaven
Demon: sorry, Islam's the wrong answer too.
After a few more denominations have a go they ask: Well, what is the right answer.
The demon looks at his piece of paper: The correct answer is Mormon. If you wanted to go to Heaven you should have ticked the box Mormon when you got to the pearl gates.
Something along those lines anyway.
Nice to see you back!
Wow. this kinda states my viewpoint clearly...Thank you prana....kinda funny too.
I'm visiting this forum again. All great replies guys, even two years later!
P.S That's just an article I found somewhere on the web. I'm just a messenger!