Who here identifies as a "Buddhist?"

..."mixing all traditions into a New Age stew is absolutely harmful to the essence(s) of these traditions..." Exactly, and again, I believe the Mushroom Culture arose out of fear that questioning and challenging would lead to the erosion of a familiar and comfortable way of being.

"Each tradition is a methodology, nothing more..." I don't agree with this statement. I believe that religious traditions are complex, multi-faceted "stews" of views and beliefs distilled from the original teachings of various religions which have been refined and reshaped to fit the beliefs of their followers. Why else would there be so many denominatons in religions like Christianity, Islam, Buddhim, etc., and why do the differing schools of thought bicker (and sometimes go to war) over these "methodologies?

"The same fruit will not grow from different seeds." The fact that enlightenment is available via a wide variety of religions and traditions points me to a different conclusion.

"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." I heartily disagree. I think the heart of the Buddha's message IS to be yourself. and test and question everything. If a teaching makes sense to you, and you can demonstrate to yourself that it works then there is no reason why you shouldn't believe it (I again refer to the Buddha's injunction to know things for yourself). (cont'd)

"He was pretty adamant about other religions being wrong, and that knowledge of dependent origination and anatta is necessary for liberation."
Yes, he often did point out wrong views and holdings that were contrary to his experience, but he never to my knowledge said or implied that we should follow his way to the exclusion of all others. In fact, I don't even think that creating a religion was a part of his agenda. I think he discovered a method for eliminating suffering and that was his message. As with other belief systems, the religion seems to me to have sort of evolved over time.

"If you have the right view than you are a Buddhist, since the essence of Buddhism truly is that view"
Semantics, I suppose, but I would say that if you have right view, then you are following the path that the Buddha discovered and shared - it doesn't necessarily follow that one with right view must also share and agree with all of the other aspects of this complex and highly diversified religion. I agee that traditions carry dogma with them and that their methods are intrinsically tied to their dogma. The Buddha's teachings emphasize personal responsibility for our lives. We shouldn't take everything we hear for the truth, rather we should search for the truth and prove it to ourselves. I don't believe the Buddha held himself out as some divine authority or held out his teachings as divinely inspired. I think his message is that dharma should be utilized as a guide to the end of suffering . By following his "formula" through personal applicaton in our lives, we can come to know the true nature of our existence.

What I've always liked about Buddhism, most forms of it that is, is that it doesn't require you to make choices outside of what you, yourself, consider reasonable as best you define it. It does not ask for faith. It does not ask for proselytizing, it does not ask for belief outside of what you can discover using your senses and your personal judgment. This is very rare and it jives very, very well with my unique way of looking at things like religion. I'm not sure Buddhism really is a religion, certainly not in the same sense that most other religions are considered.

So...

Let's take a quick trip back in time, 2500 years or so, to the 40 year period during which the Buddha was alive, post-awkening, pre-death. There we find this amazing human being teaching what is essentially a path to awakening, no frills, no rituals, asking for nothing but an open ear and some dedicated time and motivation. Openly, honestly, helping other human beings to get past their suffering and awaken in their own right. Was that man a "Buddhist?"

"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."

Hi mikaelz,

In assuming that someone who chooses not to identify with any particular teaching, practice, or school of thought is likely to be Egocentric, you may be committing what Ken Wilber calls the "Pre/Trans Fallacy."

The idea is that all lines of development pass through stages: Archaic, Magic, Mythic (pre-rational), Rational, Post-modern (Post/Trans-rational), Integral, and higher. We may also categorize the Mythic stage as "Egocentric", the Rational stage as "Ethnocentric", and the Post-modern stage as "World-centric."

Here where things start getting relevant... Often times, a Pre-rational individual will hold the same view as a Post-rational individual, but the motivating forces behind each view are in stark contrast to one another. The classic example of this is that of the many individuals who opposed the Vietnam War. One would think that one who opposes a war would be more highly developed in a moral sense than someone who supported the war. Rather, some studies were done at the time, and it turns out that a great majority of the individuals studied were coming from an Egocentric stage of development - one that said, "Nobody tells me what to do!" rather than a more Worldcentric view like, "War harms others, and our interventionist foreign policy is doing more harm than good!" See the difference?

(continued below)

What's even more interesting to me is that a person coming from an Ethnocentric point of view will, 9 times out of 10, see any divergence from their point of view as being pre-rational. My own history with religious groups illustrates this very well. I was very active in the Foursquare Gospel Church from age 12 thru 20. I even went to a fundamentalist (Ethnocentric) Bible college for three years, studying the Bible and training to become a music minister. When I was 20, I decided that I should probably learn about other religions from their own point of view, just to make sure that I wasn't viewing everything through a "Christian" lens. I picked up a book about Buddhism and found the teachings immensely valuable and relevant to many aspects of life. My mind opened, and telling others at the college about this wasn't good for my reputation. I was called a heretic. My friend's girlfriends suggested that they not listen to my crazy-talk. I started to feel so alienated that I left the college after that year and moved back home to Portland. I had a similar falling out with the church I ended up working for, and have since chosen not to identify with any organization that holds their views in such a rigid fashion. For, I have way too much respect for the other religions of the world, and I do incorporate the bits and pieces of those faiths which I find meaningful and helpful to my life.

(continued below)

After hearing my story - after hearing about how my mind expanded to the point where it no longer fit within the confines of the Foursquare church - does it sound to you like I left because I had somehow reverted to a selfish, Egocentric, "my way or the highway" point of view? I hope not. But that's how I am viewed by my former friends and acquaintances, who to this day write me Facebook messages that ask why I "fell away." When you make the leap from Ethnocentric to Worldcentric, especially when it comes to religion/spirituality, anyone you know who isn't growing with you will think that you have fallen behind. Interesting, isn't it?

~Jackson

P.S. I should add that not everyone from my past has been cut out of my life. There are a few people who remained in the church, but whose minds were open enough to maintain a friendship with someone whose views were different from their own. I didn't intentionally lose any friends. But my honesty in regards to my views was too much for some people to handle, and they just simply stopped talking to me, as if I had be expelled from the church into the hands of Satan himself. I feel that the emotional wounds I suffered from that time of my life have healed, but there is definitely some scarring.

"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."

A wise teacher once said, "Be a Buddha, not a Buddhist."

"Hi mikaelz,

In assuming that someone who chooses not to identify with any particular teaching, practice, or school of thought is likely to be Egocentric, you may be committing what Ken Wilber calls the "Pre/Trans Fallacy."
"

I'm familiar with Wilber, from what I remember the pre/trans fallacy has to do with enlightenment not being a pre-rational state (such as whats typically thought of in Taoism as the Original Face before you were born, babies are enlightened but then corrupted/conditioned) and this is basically a Buddhist inspired view since Buddhism differs from Taoism in its integration of rationality; the need for conceptual understanding.

Wilber does hold a very Hindu view though, in his history he was that Adi guy for a long time... so he subscribes to the 'many paths - one mountain' scheme, and that effects his ideologies. He applies world-centric values to spiritual paths, but this is just a belief. I too had that belief for a while.. I loved it, it's great. It makes you feel good.. yea! Enlightenment is universal! I would love that to be true. But after digesting what Buddha taught and reading the poems/stories/writings of enlightened masters and comparing to other enlightened masters of other traditions I noticed a disparity; they are not talking about the same thing. Enlightenment is not a one shot deal, there are varying degrees. And going by what you said about post-rational this is the very reason why enlightenment differs depending on the seeds planted. Those that believe in a universal enlightenment that doesn't depend on proper fruit believe that enlightenment exists as a non-conceptual realization so really all methods work; all you have to do is 'get out of your mind', and the rest works itself out. The Buddha taught explicitly against this and hence the importance of understanding emptiness, anatta, dependent origination, etc.

These are not just dogmatic beliefs, they are methods.. and they are not 'just' methods that work the same as other methods, but rather they are methods of negation, methods of killing conceptual frameworks. Buddha was not rational, he was post-rational. He recognized that the rational faculties are important to utilize and are actually necessary to do so -- to overcome themselves. The conceptual seeds that limit true enlightenment do not just exist in the conscious mind, but also the subconscious, the unconscious, and keep going. There are many layers. Not recognizing this will make you believe enlightenment is universal, thinking that the problem is just the conscious, just the physical, and that there is an immortal soul or something already existing which you 'connect to' by going beyond yourself, and that's all that's needed. That's not the case, not according to what the Buddha taught nor the many enlightened masters in the various lineages. Not all traditions aim to kill concepts in all levels of mind.

I don't believe that I'm being ethno-centric, I think i'm being pragmatic.
It's very politically correct to believe all paths lead to the same goal, but I think things are much more complex than that. There are many degrees of enlightenment, many degrees of unfolding. I have no doubt we'll all get there eventually, to the highest summit, but not all earthly paths will get you there in this lifetime.

For anyone interested in beautiful writings, this blog is amazing.. This specific article I think is relevant to what I'm discussing; it shows varying grades or levels of enlightening experience marked by an explorer who started out Taoist then Hindu then Buddhist. He discusses how his view of enlightenment changed with each tradition, and how it got deeper once he understood emptiness.

awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/...s-of-experience.html

""The same fruit will not grow from different seeds." The fact that enlightenment is available via a wide variety of religions and traditions points me to a different conclusion."

This is your belief What exactly is 'enlightenment', what does it mean to you, what does it mean to the religions and traditions you mention? Maybe that's a good direction to go in.

Since there is really no way to compare any two human beings' realization outside of language and concepts, why does this matter? Isn't it better to choose a practice and "just do it?" Of course, that's another blind alley the Buddha seemed to really get: know what matters and what doesn't, what has an answer that truly matters and what doesn't, and focus on those things that will actually affect your life by limiting your suffering. The other stuff is a waste of time if you want to awaken.

So the belief in a universal enlightenment depends stems from believing that the goal is non-conceptual experience, and that this non-conceptual reality already exists. It's there, all you have to do is use the plethora of methods in all religions to skyrocket away from the physical, away from the mental, away from the energetic, away from the formless, away and away and eventually you'll get there.

What is unique to the Buddhist tradition is that they say that this non-conceptual state is not pure, inherently, because lingering conceptual structures in the deepest strata of mind still exist, and they effect the view of this experience. Without properly viewing the experience, by deconstructing thought constructs, the insight is tarnished.

If you do not understand anatta, no-self, for example, then when you reach the state of non-dual awareness you 'reify' this awareness (you identify, you make it real, you give it essence) and this is a tarnished view of the actual experience. This is why Advaita differs from Buddhism in view and realization. View and realization are interdependently linked. View effects realization, but the actual experience is the same, but since not all aspects of mind properly view the experience, harmonize, the realization is different.

The degrees of enlightenment are not about gaining anything, or having a different experience but just refining the view more and more to clearly see the experience as it is.

What does it mean for a view to be tarnished?

What determines the standard for deciding "tarnished-ness"? Why is this standard demonstrably the "right" one?

How can one ever know that one's current conception of "untarnished view" is not in fact "tarnished"?

"
"

Hi Brian, I don't believe I have all the answers.. but I can try to answer you.

"What does it mean for a view to be tarnished?"

Obstructions, like clouds blocking the sun, prevent clearly seeing the true nature of mind/existence. It's not as simple as clouds/no clouds, but rather less and less clouds, sometimes very subtle remains may exist preventing wisdom from shining.

"What determines the standard for deciding "tarnished-ness"?

The true nature of mind is completely beyond concepts, that is the standard.

"Why is this standard demonstrably the "right" one?"

'Right' means useful, practical, pragmatic. One standard is only more 'right' than another based on its effectiveness in clearly expressing, and bringing one into, the true nature of reality.

"How can one ever know that one's current conception of "untarnished view" is not in fact "tarnished"?"

That is the problem I believe with Thusness, the practitioner who's "stages of experience" I linked above, thought he was done for a while but then he happened upon teachings that further deepened his insights. If you just trust yourself then you might not know, but if you trust enlightened masters to guide you then you are in safe hands.

Ah, I just realized you asked about 'conception' not view of experience. In terms of strictly conceptualizing I believe you can know by basing your conceptions onto the standard, the non conceptual nature, how far can your conception take you before you run into trouble? Emptiness is a method whereby you don't reify experience/awareness by identifying/attaching to an essence

I don't identify as a Buddhist. I used to identify as a Christian but I'm not sure if that is really accurate anymore.
I think there is a little buddha in our backyard somewhere that my x-wife left behind. But that is it.
For about two years I "belonged" to the San Francisco Zen Center in the sense that I paid them a little bit every month and got the newsletter in the mail. For a longer period of time I participated in daily sittings and one-day retreats off and on at the City Center, Green Gulch Farm and also Berkeely Zen Center. Never had a teacher and never took the precepts. That place is so big and insitutionalized it was very hard to connect.
I don't read buddhist texts, I don't think I even know the names of any.
I'm just looking for a way to be more intimate with life and my true nature and to suffer as little as possible.
All this could change. I think if my living and work situation was different and I was near a temple or sangha that I liked I could become more involved.

I learnt vipassana a few years ago in the Goenka tradition, where there is a definite reluctance to accept the "Buddhist" label. I was a die-hard sceptic at the time, and if the technique was more overtly "Buddhist" I would have probably never been open to trying it out. I have never yet described myself as a Buddhist, but it is a useful category if it facilitates wider conversations with others whose aims, interests and values share a 'family resemblance'. It is only since reluctantly accepting the term that I have been motivated to come out of isolation and find anything resembling a "sangha" (including this website and DhO), for whose guidance I am profoundly grateful.

A question of skillful means I guess?

This question has renewed interest for me-- last night I went to a bookstore talk by a youngish couple who'd spent some years being translators, students, and teachers at the behest of Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso Rinpoche. The book they were promoting was more wide-ranging than most: it ranged from 'analytical meditation' through the yoga of song and 'aspirational prayers.' The gamut of Tibetan Buddhism, in other words. But they were not suggesting that the practices were only for TB-ists, or any other affiliation of Buddhists, or even people who practiced any other sort of religion: they were for human beings. Afterwards, the sponsors of the event told that a group of 'Dharma friends' was forming locally to practice meditation and invite speakers-- it was to be equally nondenominational. I was charmed, and I realized that the phase of my life and practice where I'd tried to organize my own confusion and uncertainty by wanting that sort of identity-- was over. It had served a purpose, but now I'm at large in the world, a free-range human being. There have been various sorts of 'identity', doubtless now-unimagined ones are on up the pike ('corpse' among them!); but they are truly inessential. Maybe that's why there's that Zen descriptor of an accomplished practitioner as 'a true man of no rank.'

"Free-range human being."

Nice.