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.
Am I allowed to do this, to keep what is useful and makes sense to me and disregard those aspects that don't resonate with me? Am I not "Buddhist" if I do?
Basically I think of course! Of course you can! It's an open invitation and everyone is more than welcome to join that party. So go for it, and as @Lionduck says above, who cares, things evolve anyway.
But also I think it's important not to limit yourself at any point either i.e. don't be marred by your own experiences EVEN AS Buddhism is a purely experiential learning experience i.e. someone who has travelled the desert and not yet reached the oasis may not believe the oasis, but it doesn't mean it's not there. I don't mean this in any hubbabubba mystical sense, I just mean, don't close yourself off to the great potentialities of the Buddha Dhamma -- if you choose to practice.
In order to be a Buddhist you need to take refuge.
Not necessarily. In some minds, in some traditions, perhaps, but it's not a hard-line pre-requisite.
Nope its the general thing even with Theravada one doesn't enter the path till they take refuge.
Taking refuge is just a formality some may wish to undertake, but it doesn't determine anything. Someone who didn't formally take refuge might be a further on the path than someone who did.
And in the end "Buddhist" is a label. Since there is not really anything to label (no-self), the label "Buddhist" is also very empty of a meaning.
^^ I think it depends on what you mean by "taking refuge".
If you're meaning a ceremony, no it's not required.
But as a concept -- that you go to Buddha when you are in need. That you go to the Sangha when you are in need. That you go to the Dhamma when you are in need.
Let's see, I've lost several cell phones, a couple of books, a pair of roller skates and a brightly colored kesa with tiny Buddhas on it, though the two didn't really go together (or so I've been told), but alas not my sense of humor
I've been thinking about the Buddha's quote of "Believe nothing...unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense,” and realized that I don't believe every aspect of Buddhism. I know people have expressed the idea of not believing in reincarnation, but I would take it a step further and say that I don't know if I believe in enlightenment. I've read that I should weigh every idea against my own personal experience and not accept something just because it's popular or a neat idea, but the more I do that the more I feel I am stripping down Buddhism to a personal philosophy that fits me but is not what is commonly practiced. I believe in the benefits of a spiritual life through the methods of Buddhism, and I believe that the Buddha was a regular human being just like we are, but beyond that it feels a bit metaphysical to me. The rebirth, and Nirvana, the Cosmic Mudra, Chakras and the inner vibrations of the body, all of these seem alien and take a step outside what my mind can understand/wants to accept right now.
Am I allowed to do this, to keep what is useful and makes sense to me and disregard those aspects that don't resonate with me? Am I not "Buddhist" if I do?
According to the Buddha, a lay-follower is one who's gone to the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha for refuge [as guides], and is committed to the practice according to the Dhamma (AN 8.25). So taking refuge basically means taking the Buddha, his teachings (Dhamma), and his community of monks and nuns (Sangha) as guides, and making an internal commitment to put the teachings themselves into practice. In short, being sincere in your practice makes one a Buddhist, and this in and of itself is an internal commitment.
That said, Buddhism is a tool. The ideas and practices taught by the Buddha were taught for the purpose of ending suffering, not simply to be believed (MN 22); and the challenge the Buddha gives us is to put some these things into practice and see what results we get. And when we know for ourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness," then these are the things we can know for sure are worth holding onto for the moment (AN 3.65). That's all we really need to worry about, not what labels we choose to place upon ourselves, or are placed upon us my others.
Leigh Brasington brought up a good point on his website:
Is it all really the words of the Buddha and his close disciples? Well, unless you are willing to believe, for example as found in MN 123, that the newly born baby Buddha-to-be took seven steps to the north and exclaimed in a loud voice "I'm the chief in this world, the most accepted and the most senior. This is my last birth, I will not be born again”, you are going to have to let go of literalism. You will need to use your critical thinking ability to decide what is authentic, what is mythology, and even what was a later creation to serve some sectarian purpose.
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
I don't know, but let's be honest in our examination of such a question: what faith or tradition hasn't added material that wasn't spoken by their founder?
The development of the early Buddhist community is not as black and white as most of us would like to believe. For example, there were people at Nalanda who paid homage only to the three previous Buddhas, where they didn't include Gautama Buddha, yet they managed to survive side by side with those who did pay homage to Gautama.
Who or what were they taking refuge in?
Some scholars are of the opinion that they were the remnants of Devadatta's so called "schism" because Faxian also saw a community of disciples near Savathī who were paying homage to the three previous Buddhas, also observing the restrictions on diet --- so much for a short term schism of little consequence.
I don't know, but let's be honest in our examination of such a question: what faith or tradition hasn't added material that wasn't spoken by their founder?
The development of the early Buddhist community is not as black and white as most of us would like to believe. ...
Good for you for speaking up!
But, though I have authentication concerns as well, I have sort of gotten past all that by just asking myself when I read something supposedly said by Buddha -- it isn't quite as important if something was actually said by Buddha, as it is whether or not there is wisdom there.
At the end of the day, take what works for you --- that's my attitude. It's your path, no one can walk it for you, not even a Buddha can walk it for you. The Buddha is recorded as saying to take refuge in the Dharma and only the Dharma. If that's good enough for someone, then fine. If not, then also fine. No one has cornered the market or has a monopoly on enlightenment or awakening.
I have sort of gotten past all that by just asking myself when I read something supposedly said by Buddha -- it isn't quite as important if something was actually said by Buddha, as it is whether or not there is wisdom there.
Leigh Brasington brought up a good point on his website:
Is it all really the words of the Buddha and his close disciples? Well, unless you are willing to believe, for example as found in MN 123, that the newly born baby Buddha-to-be took seven steps to the north and exclaimed in a loud voice "I'm the chief in this world, the most accepted and the most senior. This is my last birth, I will not be born again”, you are going to have to let go of literalism. You will need to use your critical thinking ability to decide what is authentic, what is mythology, and even what was a later creation to serve some sectarian purpose.
I agree it's a good point, and I'm always saying that it doesn't hurt to take the time to study the suttas and think about them critically, looking at the texts from all sides and making an informed decision about what to accept and what to be skeptical of. But at the same time, if we reject everything in the suttas, then there isn't much left to call Buddhism since everything we know of the Buddha and his teachings comes from these various collections. We have to start somewhere.
In order to be a Buddhist you need to take refuge.
Not necessarily. In some minds, in some traditions, perhaps, but it's not a hard-line pre-requisite.
Nope its the general thing even with Theravada one doesn't enter the path till they take refuge.
Taking refuge is just a formality some may wish to undertake, but it doesn't determine anything. Someone who didn't formally take refuge might be a further on the path than someone who did.
And in the end "Buddhist" is a label. Since there is not really anything to label (no-self), the label "Buddhist" is also very empty of a meaning.
Its a formality which determines a label. Taking refuge sincerely and maintaining the associated vows=Buddhist who has entered the path.
Maybe "set aside" would be a better description than "reject"
Same thing. If we set aside everything in the suttas/sutras, then there still isn't much left to call Buddhism since everything we know of the Buddha and his teachings comes from these various collections.
Jason, I don't see where anyone is talking about rejecting or setting aside "everything" (as you put it).
But just accepting "everything" is going down the same path which many people on this site condemn or criticize about Christianity.
And, again, it also depends a lot on whether you see Buddhism as a religion or philosophy. The former would lend itself more to the "you must believe in all of it or you're not a Buddhist", while the latter does not.
Jason, I don't see where anyone is talking about rejecting or setting aside "everything" (as you put it).
But just accepting "everything" is going down the same path which many people on this site condemn or criticize about Christianity.
And, again, it also depends a lot on whether you see Buddhism as a religion or philosophy. The former would lend itself more to the "you must believe in all of it or you're not a Buddhist", while the latter does not.
I was responding to the comment, Don't you mean "according to the suttas"? My point is that we only know of the Buddha and what he taught from these various collections, so saying "The Buddha said..." when quoting a sutta is an entirely reasonable thing to do. Unless, of course, one rejects or sets aside everything in the suttas, which doesn't leave us much to start with.
@Jason: good point about the various collections, but there is a difference between setting something aside and rejecting it, just as there's a difference between saying "I don't know" compared to saying "I don't care".
Did every disciple during the Buddha life time hear every word he spoke? Possibly Ananda, but doubtful anyone else. Also, as a rule of thumb, it's an accepted notion that the Buddha only taught what needed to be heard at that time.
With that said, the proof is in the pudding --- I don't see many arahants roaming around, even with those various collections avaialable to them
Of course, this doesn't mean that such collections aren't a good place to start.
And, again, it also depends a lot on whether you see Buddhism as a religion or philosophy. The former would lend itself more to the "you must believe in all of it or you're not a Buddhist", while the latter does not.
And for some people, it's nothing more than a way of life, something that's second nature to them. It's funny, but I seriously wonder what would happen if we encountered a Buddha, whether we would reject him (or her) simply because they're not what we expected.
PS: The reason I included "or her" is probably obvious --- it just shows how much bias can creep into an institutioinalized religion, even Buddhism.
And, again, it also depends a lot on whether you see Buddhism as a religion or philosophy. The former would lend itself more to the "you must believe in all of it or you're not a Buddhist", while the latter does not.
And for some people, it's nothing more than a way of life.
Very good point.
I always remember what was said to me once by a monk in Thailand, and what was essentially the same as what I read in the very first Thai book I ever picked up about Buddhism (unfortunately, I no longer have the book or can cite it...it was over 25 years ago)...but it went something like this:
As you read this book, accept what you can and set the other portions apart. Later, as you learn more you may be able to come back to what you set aside and take a new look and find you can now accept it.
It's actually a reoccuring theme in the preface of many different books, indeed sagely advice, and if a person still can't accepted it, set it aside again, the "repeat as directed" maxim
AS YOU....accept what you can and set the other portions apart. Later, as you learn more you may be able to come back to what you set aside and take a new look and find you can now accept it.
That's how I approached my practice way back when and it has worked wonders
If we truely are fluid, can the being that reads one thing, ever be the same being that reads it again? A sense of identity is just our attempt at denying this truth.
Course my wife just says its another Buddhist covering for a poor memory.
I agree it's a good point, and I'm always saying that it doesn't hurt to take the time to study the suttas and think about them critically, looking at the texts from all sides and making an informed decision about what to accept and what to be skeptical of. But at the same time, if we reject everything in the suttas, then there isn't much left to call Buddhism since everything we know of the Buddha and his teachings comes from these various collections. We have to start somewhere.
I agree. I also think it's very useful to refer to the "source material" rather than just reading contempary interpretations by so and so ex-monk. Personally I find it helpful to keep an open mind when reading the suttas and don't see the need to reject the bits I'm currently uncomfortable with.
"Now I am frail, Ananda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ananda, is held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tathagata is kept going only with supports. It is, Ananda, only when the Tathagata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the signless concentration of mind, that his body is more comfortable.
"Therefore, Ananda, be islands unto yourselves, refuges unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as your island, the Dhamma as your refuge, seeking no other refuge.
"And how, Ananda, is a bhikkhu an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; with the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge?
"When he dwells contemplating the body in the body, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world; when he dwells contemplating feelings in feelings, the mind in the mind, and mental objects in mental objects, earnestly, clearly comprehending, and mindfully, after having overcome desire and sorrow in regard to the world, then, truly, he is an island unto himself, a refuge unto himself, seeking no external refuge; having the Dhamma as his island, the Dhamma as his refuge, seeking no other refuge.
"Those bhikkhus of mine, Ananda, who now or after I am gone, abide as an island unto themselves, as a refuge unto themselves, seeking no other refuge; having the Dhamma as their island and refuge, seeking no other refuge: it is they who will become the highest, if they have the desire to learn."
I remember a blessing that I heard that reminded me of this.
To do something by ourselves, without copying others, is to become an example to the world and the merit of doing such a thing becomes the source of all wisdom.
Ironically this was within a large monastery where all the monks appeared to be cloned from one teacher. I think anyone following this blessing had already left.
Comments
Now for my opinion too man!!!
Basically I think of course! Of course you can! It's an open invitation and everyone is more than welcome to join that party. So go for it, and as @Lionduck says above, who cares, things evolve anyway.
But also I think it's important not to limit yourself at any point either i.e. don't be marred by your own experiences EVEN AS Buddhism is a purely experiential learning experience i.e. someone who has travelled the desert and not yet reached the oasis may not believe the oasis, but it doesn't mean it's not there. I don't mean this in any hubbabubba mystical sense, I just mean, don't close yourself off to the great potentialities of the Buddha Dhamma -- if you choose to practice.
WW,
Abu
And in the end "Buddhist" is a label. Since there is not really anything to label (no-self), the label "Buddhist" is also very empty of a meaning.
If you're meaning a ceremony, no it's not required.
But as a concept -- that you go to Buddha when you are in need. That you go to the Sangha when you are in need. That you go to the Dhamma when you are in need.
That said, Buddhism is a tool. The ideas and practices taught by the Buddha were taught for the purpose of ending suffering, not simply to be believed (MN 22); and the challenge the Buddha gives us is to put some these things into practice and see what results we get. And when we know for ourselves that, "These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness," then these are the things we can know for sure are worth holding onto for the moment (AN 3.65). That's all we really need to worry about, not what labels we choose to place upon ourselves, or are placed upon us my others.
Leigh Brasington brought up a good point on his website:
Is it all really the words of the Buddha and his close disciples? Well, unless you are willing to believe, for example as found in MN 123, that the newly born baby Buddha-to-be took seven steps to the north and exclaimed in a loud voice "I'm the chief in this world, the most accepted and the most senior. This is my last birth, I will not be born again”, you are going to have to let go of literalism. You will need to use your critical thinking ability to decide what is authentic, what is mythology, and even what was a later creation to serve some sectarian purpose.
The development of the early Buddhist community is not as black and white as most of us would like to believe. For example, there were people at Nalanda who paid homage only to the three previous Buddhas, where they didn't include Gautama Buddha, yet they managed to survive side by side with those who did pay homage to Gautama.
Who or what were they taking refuge in?
Some scholars are of the opinion that they were the remnants of Devadatta's so called "schism" because Faxian also saw a community of disciples near Savathī who were paying homage to the three previous Buddhas, also observing the restrictions on diet --- so much for a short term schism of little consequence.
But, though I have authentication concerns as well, I have sort of gotten past all that by just asking myself when I read something supposedly said by Buddha -- it isn't quite as important if something was actually said by Buddha, as it is whether or not there is wisdom there.
But just accepting "everything" is going down the same path which many people on this site condemn or criticize about Christianity.
And, again, it also depends a lot on whether you see Buddhism as a religion or philosophy. The former would lend itself more to the "you must believe in all of it or you're not a Buddhist", while the latter does not.
Did every disciple during the Buddha life time hear every word he spoke? Possibly Ananda, but doubtful anyone else. Also, as a rule of thumb, it's an accepted notion that the Buddha only taught what needed to be heard at that time.
With that said, the proof is in the pudding --- I don't see many arahants roaming around, even with those various collections avaialable to them
Of course, this doesn't mean that such collections aren't a good place to start.
PS: The reason I included "or her" is probably obvious --- it just shows how much bias can creep into an institutioinalized religion, even Buddhism.
I always remember what was said to me once by a monk in Thailand, and what was essentially the same as what I read in the very first Thai book I ever picked up about Buddhism (unfortunately, I no longer have the book or can cite it...it was over 25 years ago)...but it went something like this:
As you read this book, accept what you can and set the other portions apart. Later, as you learn more you may be able to come back to what you set aside and take a new look and find you can now accept it.
Course my wife just says its another Buddhist covering for a poor memory.
Personally I find it helpful to keep an open mind when reading the suttas and don't see the need to reject the bits I'm currently uncomfortable with.
- medative super powers
- non-human radio active contemination..
:P
why this question?
( I ask cuz every time I see it, my brain keeps pointing to John Donne's "No man is an island...")
To do something by ourselves, without copying others, is to become an example to the world and the merit of doing such a thing becomes the source of all wisdom.
Ironically this was within a large monastery where all the monks appeared to be cloned from one teacher. I think anyone following this blessing had already left.
Have virtues, or practice the first five precepts.
Practice meditation, or purify the mind of greed, hatred and delusions.
Discern, or believe in what you experience for yourself as opposed to believing what is said or written.