Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Examples: Monday, today, last week, Mar 26, 3/26/04
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?

JoshuaJoshua Veteran
edited October 2010 in Buddhism Basics
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...
«1

Comments

  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    There's no officiator of who is or isn't a Buddhist. If you consider yourself a Buddhist, by all means call yourself one. "Buddhist" is a label that not all practitioners apply to themselves. The expectations are that you have taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha and at least the five precepts. Again, no officiator. Some like to go to a monastery to take the precepts before a bhikkhu, but it's not necessary.
  • JoshuaJoshua Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Does this qualify as a Sangha?

    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?
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    It's just a label. It helps others understand your beliefs, yet others mostly have Buddhism all wrong... so, use it as you will.
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Not until someone shows you the secret handshake. :)
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Damnit not again, we're trying to keep it SECRET, hence the word!
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited October 2010
    DOH! Sorry! :)


    Dopeslap...
  • TreeLuvr87TreeLuvr87 Veteran
    edited October 2010
    valois wrote: »
    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...

    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.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Yeah what he said. I don't call myself a Buddhist either, but if asked I'd at least admit to walking the path. Sometimes we can avoid ever taking up a label before the point comes to lay it down. Of course if you ordain that's another story...
  • JoshuaJoshua Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Yeah that's essentially how I feel, but I do know I've been much more inclined recently to be present as often as possible and I'm constantly philosophizing about the interrelation of all the teachings which means I'm basically Buddhist. I was wondering if it'd be best to just have a change of heart and formally say I'm a Buddhist. Although I have exercised the idea of ordaining, I suppose at that point I will no longer be able to avoid it. ;)
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Whatever you choose, it will be the right choice. :)
  • BonsaiDougBonsaiDoug Simply, on the path. Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Do you know what the difference is between a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist?

    The non-Buddhist thinks there's a difference. ;)
  • ToshTosh Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Do you know what the difference is between a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist?

    The non-Buddhist thinks there's a difference. ;)

    Very good; made me smile anyway.

    Thanks.
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited October 2010
    TreeLuvr87 wrote: »
    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.

    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...
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Do you know what the difference is between a Buddhist and a non-Buddhist?

    The non-Buddhist thinks there's a difference. ;)


    I'm stealing that quote :)
  • JoshuaJoshua Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Yeah, that was pretty amazing actually.

    Count me in on the stealing as well. That pretty much summed up my question succinctly.

    I love these forums.
  • BonsaiDougBonsaiDoug Simply, on the path. Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Mountains wrote: »
    I'm stealing that quote :)
    I "appropriated" it from Gary Gach's The Complete Idiot's Guide to Buddhism.
  • BonsaiDougBonsaiDoug Simply, on the path. Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Although I have considered myself a Buddhist for quite some time now, I honestly
    do feel more committed somehow, now that I have taken the refuge vows.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Great!
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Mountains wrote: »
    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...

    Lots of Buddhists think they are better than George Bush and Dick Cheney or perhaps Hitler. :lol:
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited October 2010
    We have a Buddhist household. This means that the Four Noble Truths are the normal view of things in our family. My wife and I met through meditation. Our old sangha friends have watched our son grow up. So sure, it's ok to be Buddhist, like any other conventional truth. In fact it can be helpful to settle on that so you can forget about it. If you are a Buddhist on the cushion though, you're in big trouble.
  • edited October 2010
    I'm proud to call myself a buddhist. People really don't know much about buddhism, but what they do cries open-mindedness and kindness, two things which I would like to say I am.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    TheJourney wrote: »
    I'm proud to call myself a buddhist. People really don't know much about buddhism, but what they do cries open-mindedness and kindness, two things which I would like to say I am.
    It's extremely weird being a Buddhist where I'm at (Pennsylvania). Around here, if it's not some form of Christianity or Judaism no one knows anything about it... nor do they seem to care to find out. That's always been mind-boggling to me, that people don't study more religions especially since they place such importance on them. Methinks it's mostly a nurture thing; easiest to go with what everyone around you believes. A China-man isn't likely to be raised Jewish and an American isn't likely to be raised Hindu (both possible but not very probable).

    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. :)
  • edited October 2010
    How do I know when to call myself a Buddhist?
    When you stop asking yourself that question. At least that's how I knew, and that question vexed my mind throughout a long time.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    I suppose one benefit of calling yourself a "Buddhist", as opposed to just not saying, is that when other people are aware of your religious affiliation they have certain expectations. Though they may not be aware of much of what Buddhism is about, they would likely recognize that it is a "religion" about compassion and peace/non-violence, and so their expectations of your behavior would be encouragement for you to keep the precepts (most of us do in fact care what others think of us, even if we won't admit it).
  • edited October 2010
    Cloud wrote: »
    I suppose one benefit of calling yourself a "Buddhist", as opposed to just not saying, is that when other people are aware of your religious affiliation they have certain expectations. Though they may not be aware of much of what Buddhism is about, they would likely recognize that it is a "religion" about peace and non-violence, and so their expectations of your behavior would be encouragement for your mind to keep the precepts.
    I think totally the opposite... I think that those expectations most of the time play against my character. What I usually tell the people that know I'm buddhist and do the typical stupid critiques like "oh but you are a buddhist blah blah blah" I tell them: Yes! You are a 100% right. Buddhist NOT BUDDHA
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Sounds like it may depend upon the individual whether it is helpful or not. For you, not helpful. :)
  • edited October 2010
    Hi all Avusos, I tend to think that a "Buddhist" should be someone who has recognizes that life is suffering and the eightfold path in accordance with the middle way is his/her salvation.

    just my thoughts

    _/|\_
  • MountainsMountains Veteran
    edited October 2010
    seeker242 wrote: »
    Lots of Buddhists think they are better than George Bush and Dick Cheney or perhaps Hitler. :lol:

    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.
  • AvusoAvuso New
    edited October 2010
    You become a buddhist when you know that there is nothing that can be a buddhist.
  • TreeLuvr87TreeLuvr87 Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Mountains wrote: »
    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 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..."
  • JoshuaJoshua Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Perhaps Buddhism could be generalised as a sort of anti-cult while most of the world, in its ignorance, could be said to be part of one cult or another. With this generalisation the one who vows to forsake all of his or her pretentions and ironically these very generalisations could be said to be a true Buddhist, including the sheer title and precepts of Buddhism itself. Of course without generalisations only an arhat could be said to be a Buddhist in this light, maybe this is another perspective into what elucidates the idea that everybody is a Buddhist whether he or she knows it or not.
  • AvusoAvuso New
    edited October 2010
    I think even an arhat cannot become a Buddhist. Because an arhat does not identify himself with a "self".

    So if there is no self what is it that becomes a buddhist?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
  • edited October 2010
    Avuso wrote: »
    I think even an arhat cannot become a Buddhist. Because an arhat does not identify himself with a "self".

    So if there is no self what is it that becomes a buddhist?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatta
    In that case, there are no butchers, bakers, cabinet makers or anything else. What we do when we call ourselves something, say a father, is to identify that concept with a group of characteristics such as our physical appearance, our mind, our habits, ect. None of these are permanent or unchanging, but they have the practical advantage of being ways in which we can identify each other.

    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?
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Avuso wrote: »
    You become a Buddhist when you know that there is nothing that can be a Buddhist.
    Sure there is something that can be a Buddhist, you. You can be a Buddhist, you can be a contortionist, a fiddle player, an arsonist, you can be all kinds of things. You pay taxes, you pay your rent or mortgage. "Anatta" and cutting through self view with insight doesn't mean you don't exist, like Santa, or fairies.

    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.
  • AvusoAvuso New
    edited October 2010
    Off course does my body exists. And yes there are many people who see there self as butchers, bakers, avuso's, tax payers, etc. But is that really what we are? These terms are all concepts and labels that add to the confusion that we trying to see-trough. Why add labels while trying to break them down?

    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.
  • edited October 2010
    Mountains wrote: »
    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.

    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.
  • ToshTosh Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Akaliko wrote: »
    I tend to think that a "Buddhist" should be someone who has recognizes that life is suffering

    It's not all suffering, surely? I've had a pretty good day today! ;)
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Avuso wrote: »
    Off course does my body exists. And yes there are many people who see there self as butchers, bakers, avuso's, tax payers, etc. But is that really what we are? These terms are all concepts and labels that add to the confusion that we trying to see-trough. Why add labels while trying to break them down?

    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.

    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.
  • seeker242seeker242 Zen Florida, USA Veteran
    edited October 2010
    valois wrote: »
    call oneself a Buddhist.

    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." :)
    Richard H wrote: »
    doesn't mean you don't exist, like Santa, or fairies.

    Santa doesn't really exist??? :eek:
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Conversely, many Santas exist. :)
  • BonsaiDougBonsaiDoug Simply, on the path. Veteran
    edited October 2010
    seeker242 wrote: »
    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."
    I like that! I may have to "borrow" it at some point in time. ;)
  • RichardHRichardH Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Cloud wrote: »
    Conversely, many Santa's exist. :)

    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.
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    Hehe yeah I knew that's what was meant, was just acting clever I guess. Life is hard enough to understand without being led to believe in fantasies as a child, only to find out all of that deception was just to make us happy, leaving us wondering later if we're lying to ourselves about everything else just to make ourselves happy...
  • edited October 2010
    Tosh wrote: »
    It's not all suffering, surely? I've had a pretty good day today! ;)

    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.:)
  • edited October 2010
    Akaliko wrote: »
    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.
  • edited October 2010
    TheJourney wrote: »
    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;)
  • JasonJason God Emperor Arrakis Moderator
    edited October 2010
    Akaliko wrote: »
    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.:)

    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&gt; 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.'
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    I agree with that, otherwise dukkha has to be taken dynamically as meaning both change and suffering for mind, and simply change for all other phenomena. The Buddha extolled that his teachings were of suffering and the cessation of suffering, and all aspects of those teachings involve mental processes; suffering of this kind can not arise without ignorance as a base, and ignorance is not an attribute of "all" reality in our understanding.
  • edited October 2010
    Jason wrote: »
    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 Sabbe pi dukkham (All is dukkha).

    The first noble truth states that, in short, the five clinging-aggregate (panca-upadana-khandha) are dukkha (SN 56.11), i.e., it's the clinging in reference to the aggregates that's dukkha, not the aggregates themselves.

    In SN 35.23, the Buddha defines 'the all' (sabbam) 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 SN 35.24, the Buddha defines the all as a phenomenon to be abandoned [via the abandonment of greed/passion (raga) 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
  • CloudCloud Veteran
    edited October 2010
    My half-penny: Generally it's about fundamental desires that are generally not within our control to guarantee ourselves. The keyword is "control", because it's our delusion that we should have this control; that we are special forces acting upon life, rather than nothing special acting in complete symbiosis with everything else. To that, I would say "Seeking to exert control over life leads to suffering."
Sign In or Register to comment.