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.
How do I know when to call myself a Buddhist?
I've been intrigued by Buddhism for about a year, and slowly as my stubbornness subsided I began to admit that I enjoyed following the dharma which was difficult because I've always been a staunch Agnostic and such but now I'm more or less infatuated by Buddhism. However, I'm still a newbie and I've never been to and probably won't for awhile have visited a Sangha. I'm not how sure the degree to which the Triple Gem is binding to call oneself a Buddhist. Contrary as it may be, I wouldn't want another Buddhist sneering at me in his or her mind when one finds out that I'm allegedly a Buddhist...
0
Comments
I'm also of the understand that a truly advanced practitioner never considers him or herself a Buddhist. I see that as being difficult and unnecessary though, or perhaps it's true but one states he or she is out of convention? Any truth to this?
Dopeslap...
Unfortunately, there are some Buddhists out there (like people in every group) who, no matter how dedicated to Buddhism you seem to be, will think themselves a "better" Buddhist. Call yourself whatever you want, and do not worry about if anyone else thinks it's "right" or "wrong," because your mind creates your reality - not theirs. When you need someone else to understand you, you give them power over your present moment.
I take refuge and practice meditation but don't call myself a Buddhist because I don't want labels to be important in my daily life. But just because I don't label myself doesn't mean that I and others haven't seen amazing changes and much more freedom in my being.
The non-Buddhist thinks there's a difference.
Very good; made me smile anyway.
Thanks.
Have these good people never heard of the concept of "ego" I wonder? How is it possible, if you've done even the most cursory scanning of the dharma and Buddhist precepts, to consider yourself better or worse than anybody? Amazing...
I'm stealing that quote
Count me in on the stealing as well. That pretty much summed up my question succinctly.
I love these forums.
do feel more committed somehow, now that I have taken the refuge vows.
Lots of Buddhists think they are better than George Bush and Dick Cheney or perhaps Hitler.
And the Gov't is striving so diligently to keep religion [meaning Christianity, the status quo] out of school, when really wouldn't it be a better idea to make sure there is grounded education on all religions, presented without preference or bias? The current course of action just means parents will continue to teach what they believe without any regard for other options and by the time the child finds out they had a choice, they're really too ingrained with their parents' beliefs... even to the point that it's part of their identity.
Guess this is one of my anger issues I have to work out. Just get frustrated sometimes thinking how silly it is that the major reason for the expansion/spread of religion has nothing to do with its validity, but very much with the fact that it's passed down to the young (too young) as if it were the only and proven way. Hmm maybe because my parents tried to force-feed me Christianity and I didn't see sense in it and so didn't bite.
When you stop asking yourself that question. At least that's how I knew, and that question vexed my mind throughout a long time.
just my thoughts
_/|\_
I don't consider myself "better" than anybody. I may be smarter, or maybe a little more awake than any of the three you mentioned (smarter by a long shot in at least one case), but I'm no better or worse.
I'm basing this solely on the pretentious nature of some of the posts I've seen in these forums. All the, "You're not a TRUE Buddhist if..."
So if there is no self what is it that becomes a buddhist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
Now if you object to that think about the fact that if you have no self, how can you be Avuso? Or for that matter, how can you be one who posts here?
You exist.
There is another post here saying ..... hasn't anyone heard of "ego"?.... as if we are supposed to not have a personality, and just walk around like a "selfless" transparency.
Being attached to being a Buddhist so that you are bugging people with your Buddhism is another story, but just acknowledging that by every conventional measure you're a Buddhist is pretty sane. Denying it when there are other identities you surely acknowledge indicates something else going on.
Some people think that they can identify someone by giving labels. "How well he's a friendly bald guy so hey must be a buddhist monk!" Well maybe he is. Or maybe he's a cult leader. Only actions can identify the true nature of a person.
Not that I necessarily disagree, but why provoke people? Your political views are yours, and people should respect that, and you shouldn't look down on others for having different views, expecting the same respect in return.x
As for the nature of reality. In being real it's not real. In being a self we aren't self. Thus is the nature of emptiness.
It's not all suffering, surely? I've had a pretty good day today!
I see where you are coming from. My view is that, given the emptiness of emptiness, the only identity we have is conventional. There is no transcendent one to grasp. So while it is unskillful to cling to convention, it is also off the mark to negate it, or not honour it.
I think you can call yourself a Buddhist when you think about the Dharma and say to yourself "This is what I've been looking for! I've found the meaning of life."
Santa doesn't really exist??? :eek:
Ah. With apologies..... just to clarify. There is no Santa who runs a permanent workshop settlement and reindeer training facility at the north pole, who despite having a chronic weight issue manages to slip down millions of chimneys during one fevered night of work.
Life is suffering.;)
This moment you may feel good, next moment it can turn bad. Good and bad and Good and bad and Good and bad and Good and bad.... it just goes on and on and on......
On a psychological level, we just tune ourselves to a "see it as it is" mentality to lessen our sufferings.
On a spiritual level, we meditate to seek out our true self "anatta" to cease all these rebirths hence stopping all these sufferings.:)
In truth there is no suffering. There also is no self. This doesn't mean that there is "not suffering," or that there is "not self," the truth is indescribable in words. All things are empty. Even suffering. Even the self that you believe exists.
Yes, the No self doesnt mean non existence. Its like a detachment from the citta:)
How true is this, guess we have to find out and experience it ourselves;)
I disagree with this idea (or at least the general phrasing of it). I'm not sure if this applies to you, but in my experience, the idea that 'life is suffering' is often a misunderstanding of the Pali phrase <i>Sabbe pi dukkham</i> (All is dukkha).
The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate (<i>panca-upadana-khandha</i>) are <i>dukkha</i> (<a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn56/sn56.011.than.html">SN 56.11</a>), i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the <a href="http://leavesinthehand.blogspot.com/2010/10/five-aggregates.html">aggregates</a> that's dukkha, not the aggregates themselves.
In <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.023.than.html">SN 35.23</a>, the Buddha defines 'the all' (<i>sabbam</i>) as the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavours, body and tactile sensations and intellect and ideas. According to the commentaries, dukkha is defined as 'that which is hard to bear.'
Moreover, in <a href="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn35/sn35.024.than.html">SN 35.24</a>, the Buddha defines the all as a phenomenon to be abandoned [via the abandonment of greed/passion (<i>raga</i>) in regard to the six sense media]. Without the presence of greed/passion in regard to the six sense-media, they're no longer 'difficult to bear,' and this is a far cry from the blanket statement 'life is suffering.'
Ok i get you, so the appropriate phrase to use should be "clinging to life is suffering"?:p