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.
What is Buddhism and what makes a buddhist?
ShiftPlusOne
Veteran
Hello, I am have been browsing the forum for a short while and have just signed up. I've been listening to Dharma talks and have found a lot of wisdom in them. I've also been doing a bit of mindfulness meditation for about 20 minutes per day and have found that it's helping me notice my bad habits which reduce once I am mindful of them. So I have gained some benefit from Buddhism, but don't know if that would necessarily make me a Buddhist.
In one of the topics I read that Buddhism without rebirth isn't Buddhism, but existentialism. I can see indirect rebirth in a sense that atoms of my body have been part of another body and will be part of something else one day. However, the idea that my actions will affect a rebirth in some way or that there are multiple planes of existence or any of the ideas which cannot be observed don't sit well with me. At the same time some Dharma talks speak of Nirvana and Hell as a state of mind rather than actual places which I can see clearly.
As for Buddhism itself, it seems to cover so many aspects of life it seems a little hard to pinpoint what it is. It deals with the mind, with ethics, with enlightenment, with the path and so on... Then there are so many branches and schools which can be quite conflicting in their approaches and teachings.
So these are some thoughts which have brought up the question of what separates a buddhist from an athiest who reads and listens to Buddhist material? I suppose at the end of the day a person can put themselves in any category they want and it's quite arbitrary, but I can't help but wonder what you guys think.
In one of the topics I read that Buddhism without rebirth isn't Buddhism, but existentialism. I can see indirect rebirth in a sense that atoms of my body have been part of another body and will be part of something else one day. However, the idea that my actions will affect a rebirth in some way or that there are multiple planes of existence or any of the ideas which cannot be observed don't sit well with me. At the same time some Dharma talks speak of Nirvana and Hell as a state of mind rather than actual places which I can see clearly.
As for Buddhism itself, it seems to cover so many aspects of life it seems a little hard to pinpoint what it is. It deals with the mind, with ethics, with enlightenment, with the path and so on... Then there are so many branches and schools which can be quite conflicting in their approaches and teachings.
So these are some thoughts which have brought up the question of what separates a buddhist from an athiest who reads and listens to Buddhist material? I suppose at the end of the day a person can put themselves in any category they want and it's quite arbitrary, but I can't help but wonder what you guys think.
0
Comments
(I"ll join you - I'm still investigating everything, myself)
Read, absorb, learn.
What you understand and sits well with you, take in.
What you understand and does not sit well with you, lay aside for the moment.
What you do not understand and cannot tell how it would sit with you, also lay aside for the moment.
It will come.
it took me 20 years to really finally 'get it'.
But I still do the above.
Thanks Frederica - I started running about trying to define labels in my head again, and that was a calming reply. Clumsy habit, really :tonguec:
Although, that made me recall an answer I read somewhere when a person was asked "what makes you a Buddhist": When you see a raindrop, and know it as a raindrop.
Or something like that, anyway...
Maybe a Buddhist is someone who takes the 5 precepts.
Maybe a Buddhist is someone who tries to keep the 5 precepts.
Maybe a Buddhist is someone who keeps the 5 precepts.
Maybe a Buddhist is someone who tries to be mindful of their thoughts, speech and actions.
Maybe a Buddhist is someone who sits under a Bodhi Tree and meditates for 7 days and 7 nights until they reach enlightenment.
I wasn't trying to trivialise your question. Feel free to ask any questions you like.
The point I was trying to make was that becoming a Buddhist is a gradual thing. I don't think I can remember a specific event where I decided "okay, I'm a Buddhist now". It was more of a sequence of events, one thing leading to another resulting in deeper understanding and confidence in Dhamma. And from time to time I take a step backwards too.
It is normal for people who are new to Dhamma to have a lot of questions, some people "get it" fairly quickly, but most of us take a while. Feel free to ask away!
Thank you for your questions.
Wonderful questions!
Buddhism? From GuyC's answer you can see that Buddhism is a collection of actions, internal and external.
But the really interesting question is "What is a Buddhist?" If you trawl through the back catalogue of this site, youy will come to see that people here sometimes find it easier to say who is not a Buddhist than to define the boundaries of belonging.
Reminds me of the trouble Christians have, too.
Hi,
Personally, I dont necessarily think one has to believe the literal teaching on rebirth to be considered a Buddhist. I think the most important thing to do is to minimise suffering for yourself and others in this life, the one you are currently living. In doing so, you will not only make the most of the life you are leading, but indirectly cultivate good karma such that if literal rebirth does occur, you are in good stead. If rebirth doesnt occur, then you still enjoyed your life and enriched the lives of others. Please see the book I mentioned to you in another thread for a slightly more comprehensive, although still very brief discussion of this. Death and Rebirth is quite a hot topic from what I gather, I am new to Buddhism as a whole so my opinion of this is limited.
Yeah, the reason I said my question was moot was because it applies to everything. "What makes an engineer/artist/atheist/<insert any classification here>?" are all reasonable questions, but they don't accomplish anything helpful.
Rob3rt, that's pretty much how I see it too.
I don't know if that's correct or not; I'm not a Buddhist; just someone with a growing interest in Buddhism.
Always remeber that Buddhism is a later construct, a religion and culture based around Dharma. There were no "Buddhists" in the time of the Buddha.
Even if you come up with the most hard-core rebirthless Buddhism its still not existentialism. Some differences of the top of my head:
I would say Existentialism is closer to the kind of Nihilism that the Buddha provided the path "around".
Think hard on this! Bend your brain inside out with it. See the many apparent contradictory views in the texts and commentaries on it. And then some day you will see how it doenst really have anything to do with Dharma, either way.
It nets in huge swathes of human experience and culture and science and philosophy but this is to simply answer the problem of suffering.
I think people often make the mistake that Dharma is only about suffering, it isnt at all. But its only practical aim is the reduction of suffering in the world.
Gosh aint there just. And dont forget that all of these scools came from just one of the early schools which in itself was one of about thirty that survives the first couple of hundred years after the Buddhas death.
My core advise on this is to simply understand the Four Noble Truths and then see which school, if any, coheres best with that understanding:)
Namaste
Well, when two people are in love with each other, sometimes they like to hold hands, and kiss, and....
Oh, that's not what you meant, was it?
Indeed. Existentialism tells us that it is up to us to find purpose and meaning in a random and chaotic universe. This presupposes that we are separate from this random and chaotic universe. Existentialism says the universe is not a happy and meaningful place therefore we each have to find our own meaning and happiness.
Contrary to this the Buddha taught that we are not separate from all that is. It's our perception that we are that causes us to suffer and search for meaning and happiness in places they do not exist. We have to stop seeking to end our suffering by finding meaning 'out there' and embrace the mystery that is the everything of which we are a part. That's what the path helps us do. It doesn't lead to the ceasing of dukkha by pointing us to another religion or set of beliefs. It leads to the end of dukkha by teaching us how to see our reality as it really is rather than how our day dreams mislead us into thinking it is.
A woman leaves for work in the morning, 20 minutes into her car journey she asks herself if she left the iron on. This niggles at her for a further 10 minutes until she eventually decides to turn around. On the 30 minute drive back she is imagining all sorts of horrible things, the curtains on fire, her pet fish boiling in their tank, the fire department blasting out her windows with high powered jets of water. By the time she pulls into her driveway the worry is verging on panic. She opens the door to discover that she had turned the iron off and had been worrying about nothing. Then she looks at her watch and realises she will be late for work, and all the way to work she is imagining what her boss will say to her and is running through all the excuses she could use.
In this deliberately basic example you can see the birth, growth, aging and death of one suffering-filled mindstate followed by the immediate birth of another. This idea, of a mind that constantly refreshes and renews itself in different forms and in varying levels of suffering is accepted in Buddhism as one form of rebirth. To many people it makes sense for this stream of consciousness to pass from one body to another. I'm not one of them, but I don't think it diminishes my understanding of the more important concept of mental rebirth.
Buddha set out to find the key to ridding the living human being of suffering, since suffering pervades all aspects of our lives is it surprising that the answer involves every aspect of human experience?
Yes, I fully agree.
This I remain unsure of though. I'm still kind thinking that there was no Mystery for the Buddha; that when you see things as they are those seductive mysteries become seen as illusions, just like ego and eternity.
namaste
Well, perhaps we will both find out one day
I tend to view awakening or enlightenment as pertaining to mastery over our own minds/perceptions while not conferring any 'supernatural' abilities such as omniscience. I am aware that some traditions believe the Buddha was omniscient, but I tend to view that as the inevitable add ons to the teaching as the dharma went from culture to culture and 'competed' with prevailing belief systems. I can certainly believe that the more awakened one becomes the more they may develop abilities that seem extraordinary, but that's as far as I myself can believe at this point.
this is the logical position. Just because it's logical doesn't mean it's right, necessarily, but it's the logical position. As for me i'm still unsure.
Conventionally, however I feel Buddhist practice is the study and faith in the dharma