How to be a Buddhist in Five simple steps

Supertramp

comments like this remind me of what scum there are that call themselves buddhists, same as with christians, ive practised buddhism for 20 yrs, written two books on religion from the buddhas perspective, lived at temples for about 2 years, been a temple boy and monk in the theravada tradition, ( a temporary monkhood not a lifetime commitment like mahayana tradition) and i come to this forum to educate and inform beginners about the basics of buddhism, I poor my heart out about the precepts in the first post, and all you unenlightened people can do is bitch about you want to eat meat, and the precepts aren't important, acoording to any monk ive talked to the buddha and the holiest monks were/are vegetarians, end of story, dont change the facts to fit your stupid desires, im sorry but when someone calls me an ahole for what i have posted here, i bite im a tiger

John, he said "opinions are like assholes" not "you're an asshole".
From someone who practised buddhism for 20 years I would expect more respect if people do not accept your opinion. I think this just shows that, while you say this forum is run by non believers, you aswell still have a way to go.
That being said, eventhough I'm not a buddhist and don't call myself one, even the opening post is filled with interpretation of the precepts. Just as with all religions the "rules" will be subject of interpretation. If you take them literally you must live in a monestary and seclude yourself from the real world, so people who have genuine intention to become a good buddhist start interpretating them to fit the modern world. Obviously interpretation will be subject to a heated discussion because everybody interpretates it as "Which precepts can I follow to the letter? Let's not touch those. Which precepts are a bit hard in my experience? I'll just interpretate them differently."
I guess what I'm saying is that it's not because they interpretate the precepts differently they aren't good natured and don't have right intention, but to say if they are buddhists? Who cares.

formermonkJohn

next to the 4 noble truths, the 5 precepts are perhaps the most important thing to study in buddhism especially for the beginner, every religion had its rules or 10 commandments and these were the buddhas, very similar to jesuss 6 in the gospels, to make fun of, deny, not follow, or repudiate the 5 precepts is to repudiate the buddha and everything he stood for, you can call me a ahole, and in a way i am and proud of it, to me some of the real aholes in this world are people who go around spreading lies and misinformation about jesus, and the buddha, my "god" whos given me 10yrs of happiness with virtually no suffering, the idea that buddhists are all love, never get angry, and kissxss to aholes is just not true in my case,(wasnt meaning you supertramp)

federica

The five precepts are neither rules, nor commandments. They are encouraging guidelines.

To say that "to make fun of, deny, not follow or repudiate the 5 precepts is to repudiate the Buddha and everything he stood for" is an exaggeration, to say the least.
It's all a question of choice. You have made yours, and have constructed a medley of different opinions which to be honest, sound a little confused.
God has nothing whatsoever to do with Buddhism, so your mixing and matching is misleading and erroneous.
by all means continue to mix and match if you want, but this is a Buddhist forum, so really constructive analysis of this specific question is probably best conducted by use of Buddhist argument.
Let's not make this personal.

Supertramp

Which would you call a real Buddhist of the following? Someone who recognises the precepts as they are and finds it impossible to follow them eventhough they try, or someone who interpretates the precepts to be able to follow them completely? Both with good intention. Or are neither buddhists?
Obviously I've never known Buddha nor do I know enough about him to say how he would react, but would he really say "you are not a Buddhist because you don't follow my exact words"? I imagine he would hold strong rules for the monks following his path, but for the common householder? Of course he'd advocate following them, but maybe he'd just have an issue with the term "Buddhist".
And again, nobody is calling you an asshole.

edit:
I ran across the following when catching up with some reading:

There are some who dispute
corrupted at heart,
and those who dispute
their hearts set on truth,
but a sage doesn't enter
a dispute that's arisen,
which is why he is
nowhere constrained.

Now, how would one
led on by desire,
entrenched in his likes,
forming his own conclusions,
overcome his own views?
He'd dispute in line
with the way that he knows.

Whoever boasts to others, unasked,
of his practices, precepts,
is, say the skilled,
ignoble by nature —
he who speaks of himself
of his own accord.

But a monk at peace,
fully unbound in himself,
who doesn't boast of his precepts
— "That's how I am" —
he, say the skilled,
is noble by nature —
he with no vanity
with regard to the world.

One whose doctrines aren't clean —
fabricated, formed, given preference
when he sees it to his own advantage —
relies on a peace
dependent
on what can be shaken.

Because entrenchments[1] in views
aren't easily overcome
when considering what's grasped
among doctrines,
that's why
a person embraces or rejects a doctrine —
in light of these very
entrenchments.

Now, one who is cleansed[2]
has no preconceived view
about states of becoming
or not-
anywhere in the world.
Having abandoned conceit[3] & illusion,
by what means would he go?[4]
He isn't involved.

For one who's involved
gets into disputes
over doctrines,
but how — in connection with what — [5]
would you argue
with one uninvolved?
He has nothing
embraced or rejected,[6]
has sloughed off every view
right here — every one.

From the Dutthatthaka Sutta (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/snp/snp.4.03.than.html)

I found it very suiteable for this thread.

CPaul

John, I don't care if you've practiced for 20 years or 20 minutes. Just like dogmatically adhering to the precepts won't make you any more enlightened than following none of them, years and years of practice won't necessarily make you more enlightened then a few minutes. don't confuse the finger for the moon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetter_(Buddhism)#Lists_of_fetters

After enough practice, and for some people thats a year, and for some people it's a lifetime, you stop worrying about this stuff. or in buddhist terms, you "abandon ritualistic attachment." before you start mouthing off on everyone else, you should check yourself.