Who here identifies as a "Buddhist?"

If you were asked what relglion you were, would you say Buddhist?
Do you have statues, shrines, pictures, or any other Buddhist relgion objects in your house?
Do you belong to a sangha/and or a Buddhist temple?
Do you study Buddhist texts?
Have you taken the precepts as a lay practitioner?
Are you in priest training?

I wonder this about all of us and I especially wonder this about people who have first path and beyond.


(Oh, and are you a "lineage holder" and, if so, do you identify as a Buddhist? )

I usually just say it now. However, if i felt that me saying it would interfere with the other person being interested in vipassana for example I would stress how universal it is and can be practiced within other religions. A muslim, a Christian, a Hindu all practising vipassana would all become better muslims, christians and hindus. no need to call oneself a buddhist to get benefit. in that case I would probably not come out and say I am a buddhist, but rather emphasize being a meditator of vipassna and not having to call myself anything. But if the person has no interest in meditation I just use call myself a buddhist to allow interest and questions to form. But I am aware calling oneself a Buddhist carries a lot of baggage with it. Sometimes I just say I practice the core teachings of Buddha and don't do the prostrations and chantings and they can call me what they like.

I am definitely 1st path and believe myself to be 2nd going on to third.

You got me thinking. Before I got 1st path I would gladly call myself a buddhist. I did the whole buddhist trip. I became a monk for a short time in Burma. I bowed down to statues of buddha and gave sangha dana regularly. I went to India and learnt Pali and chantings. I observed the 5 precepts for years religiously, I still have statues in my apartment. I still like drawing buddhist stuff. But after attaining path I have had no interest arise in following any of those things I used to do. Maybe cos Ive been presented with new things to explore like all the jhanas and fruitions etc.
I went to a monastery recently to give sangha dana to a couple of monks and found the whole experience not as inspiring as I used to. There was lots of chanting and ceremonies and dhamma talks but I found it lacking depth and meaning to some degree. I know it helped me be immersed in all that before but strangely now I just don't have any interest in participating in it arise yet.

I go back and forth on this all the time. I hate to sound flaky, but it really depends on what I'm into on any given day.

I usually find myself drawn to a particular form or tradition of Buddhism as opposed to others, and that's where things get slippery. Sometimes the Theravada teachings make the most sense, and other times the Taoist influenced versions of Mahayana Buddhism make more sense. All in all, it's safe to say that I'm a Buddhist of one form or another. But, I don't go advertising it to anyone. Let's just say it's not listed as my religion on my Facebook page.

I do not participate in a physical sangha, though I do consider the DhO and KFDh to be my online sanghas.

I do have lots of little Buddhist things in my home; multiple Buddha figurines, a Hotei lamp, and lots of Buddhist books.

I have never taken refuge or precepts in any sort of formal ceremony, but I do keep them in mind/at heart.

I am definitely not a lineage holder, though I'm not opposed to it. I probably never will be, unless Kenneth decides to start a lineage. Then maybe I could convince him to give me authority to teach! Ha, ha!

"I am definitely not a lineage holder, though I'm not opposed to it. I probably never will be, unless Kenneth decides to start a lineage. Then maybe I could convince him to give me authority to teach! Ha, ha!"

I imagine he'll be giving students the authority to teach at some point -- why not you?

"If you were asked what relglion you were, would you say Buddhist?
Do you have statues, shrines, pictures, or any other Buddhist relgion objects in your house?
Do you belong to a sangha/and or a Buddhist temple?
Do you study Buddhist texts?
Have you taken the precepts as a lay practitioner?
Are you in priest training?

I wonder this about all of us and I especially wonder this about people who have first path and beyond.


(Oh, and are you a "lineage holder" and, if so, do you identify as a Buddhist? )

"

Religion: no; I'm atheist.
Statues, shrines, pictures... no. Some scriptures though (translations of some of the Sutta Pitaka). Someone gave me a Tibetan prayer flag with Padmasambhava on it, which I keep rolled-up in my office at home.
Sangha/temple: no. I'm in a Judo club, though. Not spiritual at all, but it *is* a community practising asian stuff together twice a week.
Text study: yes, I'm currently in the process of reading through those parts of the Sutta Pitaka I have translations for, cover-to-cover. Did that with the Bible and Koran, before, as well as with some of the ancient greek philosophers (pre-socratics), and some chinese stuff (dao de jing, yi-jing).
Lay Precepts: I learned the pali chants at one point, but never took the precepts formally. But I use them as objects for off-cushion practice - mindfulness and contemplation.
Priest training: no.

Not a stream-winner yet.

Why do you wonder about this, if I may ask?

Cheers,
Florian

If someone asks me what I am, religion-wise, I tell them I am an agnostic. If they really, really want to know more about my religion, then I tell them there's really nothing more to say. If, however, they are curious about meditation because they know I practice it, or about the mind, and if they seem sincere and truly interested I tell them about my practice, but starting only with the simple basics.

I do not tell anyone I'm a Buddhist as I'm not sure I qualify and it's not something folks in my world would ever be able to relate to in a meaningful way.

Sometimes I say I'm Buddhist. I guess I'm like Jackson. It just depends.

Good food. Good medicine. Good help. Good wisdom. Basically when it comes to these, I'll take them from whomever's willing to share.

I do call on Cunde Bodhisattva and Usnisa-Sitatapatre in mantra. As well as Vairocana. Because they pledged to help.

It doesn't look like an organized sangha or community is going to be in the cards for me this time around.

But I find myself increasingly respectful towards some of the functions that a ritual-based community can perform for people.

There are two issues here for me. The first is identity or identifying with 'Buddh-ism', the second is my image that I project to the co-created-reality we share. I try not to identify with any ideology... but sometimes still identify with Buddhism; though that isn't necessarily a bad thing. But i'm conscious of it to some degree...

As for what I share with others.. yes if they ask I'll share with them my spiritual interests.. how I'm very interested in all spiritual traditions but find Buddhism to be the best for me. I'm proud to do that actually because I firmly believe that Buddhism as a philosophy/psychology/way of life or the dreaded word "religion" is the best out there, period. The best for human development and the best for the future of humanity at large. If by mentioning my spiritual interests to someone it allows them to be open to these new ideas and explore them, then that's wonderful. That's why I mention Buddhism to others. I try to not act zealous so I don't do the opposite and push people away; I also have to watch my behavior so as to act like a good model for what I'm trying to represent.

I'm not sure EXACTLY why I'm asking.
Part of it is that while I love Buddhism basically and am very enthusiastic about vipassana, at this time at least I have no interest in any other part of Buddhism and wondered if anyone else here was the same way.
I also have this sort of romantic/poetic/literary vision of there being all over the world people like all of you with families and jobs and no religious trappings who are also enlightened from using Buddhist meditation techniques. And, whose enlightenement touches those around them in mostly subtle ways. People who don't want to be some kind of spiritual big deal or any kind of big deal. Just good, aware, awake people. Everywhere.
I think a lot of you fit that description.

Can there be Vipassana without Buddhism? are the two mutually exclusive? I would say no, but curious what others will say.

"Can there be Vipassana without Buddhism? are the two mutually exclusive? I would say no, but curious what others will say."

Shinzen Young covers this topic in his audio series "The Science of Enlightenment" (amazon - bit.ly/a6dRVD ). He describes some meditation techniques as taught in Christian, Taoist and Jewish traditions, and they are very much like vipassana, just with a different vocabulary. If you haven't listened to the program, I highly recommend that you do. Good stuff.

I haven't. I guess I will have to, sounds interesting. I disagree with his premise though that similar methods from other traditions lead to the same goal. It's interesting to me that someone already enlightened from the Buddhist tradition, using Buddhist methods, says that. Where are the enlightened people who used Jewish of Christian methods?

Here's why i'm so doubtful: Vipassana is Buddhism in action and a conceptual understanding of the 3 characteristics is necessary before undertaking the practice, as I'm sure you know. If these other spiritual traditions have the same conceptual backing then it would work, but they don't. Taoism aside, other religions have an eternal Theist model. where there is an eternal being separate from the soul; how would that work with 'anatta' or impermanence? Even if the soul was a divine spark of God, like Atman/Brahman or the more mystical forms of theist religions, that doesn't work with the 3 characteristics either because of God's eternal, permanent, and Self nature. I don't see how true Vipassana can be practiced by anyone who doesn't have conceptual understanding of Emptiness as the goal in and of itself, not a method to get to God or communion with some eternal permanent self-existing being.

Quite possibly I'm wrong about the mystical traditions that employ 'via negativa' , viewing the Absolute nature of reality to be ineffable and so employ Buddhist-like negation methods to remove conceptual barriers. I really want to learn more about negative theology and how these traditions deconstruct concepts so as to lay a proper foundation for insight.

My main point is that people who do not employ negation and hold on to many beliefs and concepts, like of the Soul and of God and all those dualistic wonders, these people cannot truly practice Vipassana. I don't think that Vipassana can truly be practiced while still being a Theist and that rules out many people.

mikaelz-- here's a hearty second of Jackson's recommendation of 'The Science of Enlightenment'. I have listened to the whole thing a couple of times now and am still blown away at how incisive it is on any number of subjects. He has the rare gift of being able to present the essentials of a number of religious traditions without conflating or creating some bland New Age distortion of things that have their different vocabularies and beliefs-- but common practice principles.

I used to get a great deal more exercised on the 'God' issue myself than I do now; lately I just try to understand what someone whose best word for these things is 'God' MEANS when using that word. Same with 'religion'-- if we're talking about practice, and the motivation to practice, that's more meaningful to me.

@mikaelz - not quite contemporary, but have a look at the writings of St. Teresa of Avila for a Christian interpretation of enlightenment. Or Meister Eckhart, for that matter. The latter in particular reads almost exactly like a Dhamma talk, but he goes on and on about God. The thing is, I think, not to confuse the map with the territory, or the pointing finger for the pointing itself.

As for "True Self" doctrines and anatta: in Christianity, for example the entire passion of Christ stuff is about this, imo, "not my will but thine be done", dying and rising from the dead, and so on. Anicca in Jewish and Christian terms: have a look at the first few sentences of the book of Ecclesiastes. The word translated as "vain/vanity" is usually interpreted in the sense of "temporary".

This stuff does not belong to any one group or set of concepts or bag of words; it's experienced by human beings. All the teachings are expressions of that experience. Some are more useful, systematic, detailed, agreeable in symbolism, accessible, with more good teachers around - but in the end, it's happening only where the practitioner pays attention to events, without imposing any preferences or spinning off into fantasies about these preferences - even preferences about self-perception, regardless whether one prefers no-self or true-self.

Cheers,
Florian

"
"

Yes, I would say I am a Buddhist.

Yes, I have a small Amitabha statue on my desk, a Jizo Bosatsu statue on my bookshelf, and a butsudan with a meditating Buddha.

I practice with a Rinzai Zen group... usually only five of us all together, including the facilitator (who is scheduled to be ordained a novice monk at the end of this month in the lineage of Joshu Sasaki Roshi).

I read Buddhist texts including ancient (Pali Canon), Zen (Lankavatara, Lotus, various texts by ancient Zen teachers), and modern texts (mostly Zen, like by John Daido Loori, Uchiyama Roshi, etc.).

No, I have not taken the precepts formally.

No, I am not a priest in training.

No, I am not a lineage holder.

I have a funny story about how I became a Buddhist.

I didn't want to become a Buddhist. I felt that by slapping on a label, I would be somehow limiting myself. I saw Buddhism about practice, not joining something. I didn't want to be attached to the Buddha, or Buddhism, or anything.

Then it became apparent that I was actually becoming quite attached to being a non-Buddhist. Hui Neng said it was wrong to be attached to form, and even more wrong to be attached to emptiness. And Cosmos decided to play small tricks on me, like having my wife acquire a giant cement Buddha on her own. It seemed that perhaps I should become a Buddhist. But in order to do that, I would need to take the precepts.

By a monk. That I respected.

Yes, I set high limits for my becoming a Buddhist. If such an opportunity arises, I would certainly become a Buddhist. However, I would not seek out such an opportunity.

Last year, I went to a retreat at the Bhavana society. I was very impressed at the skill of the teacher, Bhante Rahula, a monk. So here I had a monk. Who I respected. But alas, alas, there would be no time for precepts.

Until, of course, the last day, when he offered all of us the precepts. I took them smiling and joyfully.

So yes, I am a Buddhist.

"Then it became apparent that I was actually becoming quite attached to being a non-Buddhist."-msj123

Brilliant.

No, I identify myself as one who practices some Buddhist meditation techniques, and who agrees with most of the Buddhist philosophy and thoughts I've read. But I've learned enough about myself in 56 years to know that I am not one to be hemmed in by doctrine or formal religious trappings... I have a mind of my own and prefer to pick and choose from all of the traditions/religions that I learn about to piece together what works best for me.

I fully subscribe to the Buddha's imperitive to, "Work out your own salvation, do not depend on others."

@msj123 - nice! I like how your story clearly shows the resisting forces and openings guiding the flow, and how you moved with it. That's really cool. That's how I arrived at my spot in the spiritual/religious spectrum, too.

Cheers,
Florian

"No, I identify myself as one who practices some Buddhist meditation techniques, and who agrees with most of the Buddhist philosophy and thoughts I've read. But I've learned enough about myself in 56 years to know that I am not one to be hemmed in by doctrine or formal religious trappings... I have a mind of my own and prefer to pick and choose from all of the traditions/religions that I learn about to piece together what works best for me.

I fully subscribe to the Buddha's imperitive to, "Work out your own salvation, do not depend on others.""

Just some thoughts, nothing personal

Isn't it possible that this sort of thinking isn't necessarily more evolved but rather just the Western (American) mindset of rugged individualism, the "do it my way" way. Isn't it possible that picking and choosing can be dangerous? I ask: Who is picking and choosing? How can the ego, which is the problem, rightly pick and choose? How can it be trusted to make such decisions? It's like asking a jailer for help out of the jail. There will definitely be ulterior motives.

I think its not only dangerous to take that rugged individualistic attitude toward the path but also because mixing all traditions into a New Age stew is absolutely harmful to the essence(s) of these traditions. Each tradition is a methodology, nothing more, and each methodology has a goal. Not every goal is the same, because fruit depends on the seed planted. The same fruit will not grow from different seeds. Mixing methods will produce harmful results because different seeds are planted.

Also I'd like to not that the quote by Buddha is taken out of context. He never meant go around from religion to religion picking what you like and don't like. He was pretty adamant about other religions being wrong, and that knowledge of dependent origination and anatta is necessary for liberation.

I think as a westerner its quite difficult to escape this need for rugged individuality. Maybe it isn't necessarily a bad thing... we do have access to many methods which might be very useful for our purposes. Personally I've explored many religions, and still do .. though my focus is mainly Buddhism I also dig Taoism and their energy practices (attending a Spontaneous Qi Gong seminar in a week) and am open to some Hindu practices too.

What I think is key to succeeding in this approach is having the right view. In Dzogchen I was taught about this importance; once you have the view (emptiness), the goal (Rigpa), and compassion.. then the means are up to you. Though there are many methods in Dzogchen, if they don't work you are free to explore other methods, but (and here's the key) the goal must always be in place.

I said earlier that different traditions sometimes have different goals. I stand by this.. I don't think Advaita leads to the same realization as Dzogchen simply because Advaita lacks understanding of the empty nature of non-dual awareness, they reify this awareness by giving it Self-nature. But that doesn't mean their methods aren't valid. I think Advaita methods can take you very far, but to cross the threshold requires non-reification, a deconstruction. If you have the right view than you are a Buddhist, since the essence of Buddhism truly is that view; other traditions carry dogma with them, their methods are intrinsically tied to their dogma. If you have the view then the methods can be used without the dogma and all seeds planted will give proper fruit

just some opinion.. I'm not an authority and am by no means realized.

"If you were asked what relglion you were, would you say Buddhist?"
Today I would say "none". I identified as Buddhist for nearly 25 years , including the 15 during which I didn't practice. Notions of religion are unessasary and just get in the way.

"Do you have statues, shrines, pictures, or any other Buddhist relgion objects in your house?" I have a shrine room that is slowly drifting back to being the unassigned extra room. It contains statues, thangkas and various other trappings & baubles. There are quieter places in the house to sit.

"Do you belong to a sangha/and or a Buddhist temple?" Not any more. I stopped going and renewing my membership.

"Do you study Buddhist texts?" Yes, all the time.

"Have you taken the precepts as a lay practitioner?" Yes , the ones against killing, fibbing and stealing. They specified human life, lieing about spiritual attainments and taking things of value, ir I remeber correctly.

"Are you in priest training?" No.

Isn't it possible that this sort of thinking isn't necessarily more evolved but rather just the Western (American) mindset of rugged individualism, the "do it my way" way. Isn't it possible that picking and choosing can be dangerous?

Of course it is possible and actually, it is likely that one will make mistakes and ineffective choices from time-to-time along the Path. Is it dangerous? It could be - especially if one chooses to blindly follow along without critically assessing and testing the validity of our beliefs and practices along the way.

How can the ego, which is the problem, rightly pick and choose? Right - and just what egos have hammered together the philosophies and doctrines of the world's religions? Are we to assume someone else's views are more correct than our own simply because they've been codified in a religious system that has been around for a long time? In my view, this is exactly what the Buddha challenged us to do when he said, 'Do not go by what is handed down, nor by the authority of your traditional teachings. When you know of yourselves, '˜These teachings are good or not good,' only then accept or reject them.' That's a pretty strong endorsement for "rugged individual ism" in my view.

...There will definitely be ulterior motives... I agree wholeheartedly with that comment. In fact I believe that ulterior motives are responsible for the creation and maintenance of the Mushroom Culture that endures today - not just in Buddhism, but in all of the religions which I've looked into. I'm am sure there are some noble, well-intentioned reasons behind all that, but I also believe that self-promotion and preservation plays into it as well. (cont'd)