What is Sangha, and what defines a Buddhist

Asiaprod · 17-04-2006 7:22am #1

I thought it might be interesting to select and answer some of the questions that get asked by non Buddhists who are trying to understand exactly what a Buddhist is and stands for, and post the answers here for us all, just in case we find ourselves being asked similar questions. It would be great if others would also take the initiative and also do the same. I learn most of what I learn not from books but from dialogue with others, and especially from all of you whom I have come to know through my involvement with Boards i.e. I think that this exercise could be really helpful to all of us who are searching for answers. I am one of the lucky one who actually lives 24/7 within a very real and functioning Buddhist community and have access to much information which I would love to make available to all. I am going to start the ball rolling with two of the top five questions I have seen ask equally by Buddhist and non-Buddhists alike.

Question 1: What exactly is Sangha (the community) and how can I as a normal person not having the opportunity to become a monk hope to attain enlightenment. Am I missing out because I am not a monk?

Firstly, it would be helpful to define Sangha and where it came from. I have put together a little explanation as to the original meaning for Sangha and how it came to serves as a model for all non monastic members to also attain enlightenment.
The Buddha saw that life's very purpose is attaining happiness. He also saw that while ignorance binds beings in endless frustration and suffering, wisdom would liberate. In order to lead people to wisdom the Buddha established the institution of Sangha or Buddhist monastic community, which functioned on largely democratic lines. Within this fraternity, individuals were equal, whatever their social class or caste origins. The only slight difference in status depended on seniority of ordination. Individual freedom, exemplified by liberation or enlightenment, was the primary focus of the entire community and was achieved by cultivating the mind in meditation. Nevertheless, day to day relations were conducted on the basis of generosity, consideration, and gentleness towards others. By pursuing the homeless life, monks detached themselves from the concerns of property. However, they did not live in total isolation. Their custom of begging for alms only served to strengthen their awareness of their dependence on other people. Within the community decisions were taken by vote and differences were settled by consensus. Thus, the Sangha served as a model for social equality, sharing of resources and democratic process.
This community was supported by the local populace who saw their role as supporting the Sangha who devoted their life to pray and meditation on behalf of the populace. Slowly, the populace began to emulate the lifestyle of these monks in as much as their ordinary day-to-day lives would allow. The reward for the populace in its role of supporting the Sangha was to be born into a better or higher life condition at the next rebirth. However, over time, the monks began to see that this system did not function as the Buddha had wished it to. While it may indeed be leading the monks to wisdom, it was not leading common people to wisdom as they were outside the system. Their role was more in a support capacity. Leading Buddhist, including the Dalai Lama debated this issue and as a result the definition of the word Sangha took on a much broader meaning, Today, Sangha is now understood to encompass the entire community of Buddhist practitioners; it is considered one of the three jewels of Buddhism (along with the Buddha and the Dharma). The Dalai Lama himself has many times insisted that there is no difference between ordinary folk and monks. Both paths lead to enlightenment, both are equally important. One man decides to give his life over to the monastic pursuit, the other decides to propagate. If we all became monks within a couple of generations there would be no people left. Both are equally necessary. We as propagators support the monks in their endeavors and they in turn pass on the benefits of their study back to us, supporting us in our endeavors to seek the truth. Monks do not automatically achieve enlightenment before us common folk. Enlightenment is equally available to all; it just depends on how we choose to live our life.

Question 2: How does one define a Buddhist?

A Buddhist is one who reveres human life as the most precious gift and regards the Buddha's philosophy and teaching as a path to the highest kind of freedom. A Buddhist also recognizes that human beings are entitled to dignity, that all members of the human family have an equal and inalienable right to liberty, not just in terms of political freedom, but also at the fundamental level of freedom from fear and want. Irrespective of whether we are rich or poor, educated or uneducated, belonging to one nation or another, to one religion or another, adhering to this ideology or that, each of us is just a human being like everyone else. Not only do we all desire happiness and seek to avoid suffering, but each of us has an equal right to pursue these goals.

maitri · 17-04-2006 5:02pm

Nice questions!

Couldn't resist the temptation to reflect a little on them... Here are my suggestions right now. NB! They're not meant as contradictions to what you have written, I'm only trying to fill in a bit from what might be another possible angle of viewing the very same matter.

Question 1: What exactly is Sangha (the community) and how can I as a normal person not having the opportunity to become a monk hope to attain enlightenment. Am I missing out because I am not a monk?

From my opinion the Sangha is the "hidden" community of all beings of "good will”: That is all who strive and search for truth and for opening their hearts and "become what they really are".

Am I missing something because I'm not a nun?

I wouldn't know.
But the Buddha had something to say on the matter, I think:
"My teachings do not require anyone to become homeless or resign the world unless he wants to, but it does require everyone to free himself from the illusion that he is a permanent self and to act with integrity while giving up his craving for pleasure.
And whatever people do, whether in the world or as a recluse, let them put their whole heart into it. Let them be committed and energetic, and if they have to struggle, let them do it without envy or hatred. Let them live not a life of self but a life of truth, and in that way bliss will enter their hearts." (Majjhima Nikaya, from The Pocket Buddha Reader (page 23), edited by Anne Bancroft, Shambhala, Boston)

And more from the same sutra:

"A bliss of a truth-seeking life is attainable for anyone who follows the path of unselfishness. If you cling to wealth, it is better to throw it away than to let it poisen your heart. But if you don't cling to it but use it wisely, then you will be a blessing to people. It's not wealth and power that enslave men but the clinging to wealth and power."

Question 2: How does one define a Buddhist?

One does not!

Buddhism teach that everything and everybody has part in the Buddha Nature, even if they know it or not, so there is really no duality between Buddhists and non-Buddhists.

As Zen Buddhist Shunryu Suzuki said: "If you are not a Buddhist you think that there are "Buddhists" and "non-Buddhists", but if you are a Buddhist you know that all are Buddhists -- even the insects." (Zen Buddhists always love paradoxes, don't they...?

)

But: When people ask, one has to try to give a sensible answer anyway... One has to try to define, I guess... (I am so bad at that... I really hate it. I really don't know what to answer. But I am collecting information...)

And I find your answer absolutely lovely, Asia!

Asiaprod wrote:

A Buddhist is one who reveres human life as the most precious gift and regards the Buddha's philosophy and teaching as a path to the highest kind of freedom. A Buddhist also recognizes that human beings are entitled to dignity, that all members of the human family have an equal and inalienable right to liberty, not just in terms of political freedom, but also at the fundamental level of freedom from fear and want. Irrespective of whether we are rich or poor, educated or uneducated, belonging to one nation or another, to one religion or another, adhering to this ideology or that, each of us is just a human being like everyone else. Not only do we all desire happiness and seek to avoid suffering, but each of us has an equal right to pursue these goals.

Regards,

M.

Asiaprod · 18-04-2006 4:10am

matri wrote:

Couldn't resist the temptation to reflect a little on them... Here are my suggestions right now. NB! They're not meant as contradictions to what you have written, I'm only trying to fill in a bit from what might be another possible angle of viewing the very same matter.

And that approach I really like. The more that is said, the more that we learn. The Buddha told us himself to go further in our quest and not to just stop at his answers. To always seek the new is to grow. I like your answers, interesting food for thought. You raise two points I would like to write on a little.
The first is that I personally disagree with is the underlying concept in some schools (I think predominantly in Zen) that humans can be reborn or rebirth as animals or insects. I see no point in this as I cannot conceive how an insect can possibly achieve enlightenment. How would a spider live a good life and awaken to its Buddhist Nature to rebirth in a next life as a human. I don't see how it could. I have no problem killing Mosquitoes and Flies as they carry germs. If I find a spider I will always catch him and let him go.,

The second is your comment that Buddhism teach that everything and everybody has part in the Buddha Nature, even if they know it or not, so there is really no duality between Buddhists and non-Buddhists.

This is open to all types of interpretation and continues to be debated. While at one level it is correct that all are Buddhists, on another level it is also true to differentiate and say there are Buddhists and non-Buddhists. It is a very complex issue that is way beyond my capabilities to answer perfectly. I touched on it a little in my other post where you and bluewolf were debating Zazen and are we Buddhas now but just not awakened to it. I know the answer lies somewhere within the concept of Buddha Nature, I am tempted to ask what you understand Buddha Nature to mean. Above you say that Buddhism teach that everything and everybody has part in the Buddha Nature. I think what you mean to say is that Buddhism teaches that every sentient being contains within the Buddha Nature. It is awakening to this fact that make one a Buddhist. It can equally be said that although everyone does contains this Buddha nature within, one who does not accept this concept of Buddha Nature would indeed be called a Non-Buddhist. For example, a Muslim contains the Buddha nature within, yet accepts a different doctrine and is therefore called a Muslim. A Muslim is by definition a non-Buddhist. As I see it.

maitri · 18-04-2006 4:27pm

Hi there!

Asiaprod wrote:

The first is that I personally disagree with is the underlying concept in some schools (I think predominantly in Zen) that humans can be reborn or rebirth as animals or insects. I see no point in this as I cannot conceive how an insect can possibly achieve enlightenment. How would a spider live a good life and awaken to its Buddhist Nature to rebirth in a next life as a human. I don't see how it could. I have no problem killing Mosquitoes and Flies as they carry germs. If I find a spider I will always catch him and let him go.

I think maybe the thought is not that there is a point to it (rebirth as animals or insects, I mean) and I think that they agree totally with you that an insect is not in a position to obtain enlightenment. I think what they mean is that certain actions can make you become an insect (as a law of nature and karma), but that karma will burn out eventually, and then you become other things because there are other kinds of karma as well, and if you are lucky you become a human being, and as a human you can achieve enlightenment.

Therefore human life is so precious. But compassion should also be extended to everything that lives, because we are really the same and every creature has ones been a mother to you that was kind to you. Therefore do not kill in vain and not in anger or with cruelty. So say the Tibetans.

Asiaprod wrote:

I know the answer lies somewhere within the concept of Buddha Nature, I am tempted to ask what you understand Buddha Nature to mean.

Hå hå (Norwegian laughter), I don't really think I can say that I understand what the Buddha nature is. But my main idea is that it might be what you get when you strip off all the confusion (as Bluewolf said) - which really means: What we are when we take away all our identifications with things that are changing and impermanent, such as status, personality, our appearance our bodies our ideas and even the sense of an "I". It means not that these natural things "go away", just that we stop identifying with them. What stops is the clinging to impermanent things. We stop seeing these things as something absolute. And that gives us the oportunity to love freely and unconditionally. That's what I hope.

Asiaprod wrote:

Above you say that Buddhism teaches that everything and everybody has part in the Buddha Nature. I think what you mean to say is that Buddhism teaches that every sentient being contains within the Buddha Nature. It is awakening to this fact that make one a Buddhist.
.

As I see it we are all in the process of awakening to this fact. And the more we trust this process the better, maybe. (Another Taoist thought, but very compatible with Buddhism, I think.)

Asiaprod wrote:

It can equally be said that although everyone does contains this Buddha nature within, one who does not accept this concept of Buddha Nature would indeed be called a Non-Buddhist. For example, a Muslim contains the Buddha nature within, yet accepts a different doctrine and is therefore called a Muslim. A Muslim is by definition a non-Buddhist. As I see it.

As I see it, a “good Muslim” (from what I have learned about "the heart of Islam") is really what can be called a bodhisattva. And from a certain reform Muslim point of view you and I at our best are really Muslims.
We use different words, though. The teachings might be different (and some, maybe more helpful than others), but the “heart” might still be the same. We are all in a process of approaching the truth, but it is not something that we “own” ore something confined to one set of ideas.

At some time, I guess, we might also let go of our religious or philosophical identifications... (When they have helped us "get to" that point)

I know, I do not really have the understanding to talk about these things. The Buddha has better words for it:

"Because that kind of person (a bodhisattva) is not caught up in the idea of a self, a person, a living being, or a life span. They are not caught up in the idea of a dharma or the idea of a non-dharma. They are not caught up in the notion that this is a sign and that is not a sign. Why? If you are caught up in the idea of a dharma, you are also caught up in the ideas of a self, a person, a living being, and a life span. If you are caught up in the idea that there is no dharma, you are still caught up in the ideas of a self, a person, a living being, and a life span. That is why we should not get caught up in dharmas or in the idea that dharmas do not exist. This is the hidden meaning when the Tathágata says, 'Bhikshus, you should know that all of the teachings I give to you are a raft. All teachings must be abandoned, not to mention non-teachings."

(From the Diamond Sutra )

Regards,

Maitri

Asiaprod · 19-04-2006 4:37am

maitri wrote:

I think maybe the thought is not that there is a point to it (rebirth as animals or insects, I mean) and I think that they agree totally with you that an insect is not in a position to obtain enlightenment. I think what they mean is that certain actions can make you become an insect (as a law of nature and karma), but that karma will burn out eventually, and then you become other things because there are other kinds of karma as well, and if you are lucky you become a human being, and as a human you can achieve enlightenment.Therefore human life is so precious. But compassion should also be extended to everything that lives, because we are really the same and every creature has ones been a mother to you that was kind to you. Therefore do not kill in vain and not in anger or with cruelty. So say the Tibetans.

This is interesting. The first problem I see here is that Karma does not burn out, it requires positive action. It is not something that will disappear on its own either. It has to be worked off for it to have any meaning. Therefore an insect is not in any position IMO to undo the bad karma created by a human. I do thoroughly agree that compassion should be extended to all living things as long as those living things do not form a threat to oneself. Germs, flies and mosquitoes, all live, but they are threats. It is interesting to note that the Tibetan phrase you quoted does not condemn killing but instead list conditions under which one should not kill. I remember this point arising when I read the book 7 years in Tibet. It was only the monks that where the vegetarians, and the Dalai Lama himself had said that it was ok for the populace to catch and eat fish. Also of interest you mention there are other kinds of karma as well and you could become other things. Can you add a little more on what you mean by this. For example, what kinds of karma? What kind of other things. How do they differ. This I think is very interesting and I would love to hear more on this idea.

We use different words, though. The teachings might be different (and some, maybe more helpful than others), but the “heart” might still be the same. We are all in a process of approaching the truth, but it is not something that we “own” ore something confined to one set of ideas.

I think this dialogue has gone a little of track. My comment on Buddhist non-Buddhist is only used as a label and not any indication of the actions of the person wearing it. It is used purely to differentiate between individuals who by choice follow a Buddhist path from individual following their own chosen path, even if that path appears to be very Buddhist in concept or actions. There is no negativity in my usage of these labels, labels are/can be useful in helping to understand the other viewpoint. I use them in this context. Where I will differ from you is to be a Buddhist you must declare yourself to be a Buddhist, you must take refuge so to speak. Despite how good ones intentions or actions are, you are not a Buddhist till you declare yourself to be a Buddhist. This is part of awakening.

At some time, I guess, we might also let go of our religious or philosophical identifications... (When they have helped us "get to" that point)

I am not sure that will be possible. As long as we live on this earth we will always use identifiers, it is how people interpret the identifier we used which needs to be changed. There is nothing inherently wrong about having an identification.

I know, I do not really have the understanding to talk about these things. The Buddha has better words for it:

You have just as good an understanding as any of us, and a lot more understanding than many others I have met. We are all in this together.:)

maitri · 19-04-2006 12:39pm

Asiaprod wrote:

This is interesting. The first problem I see here is that Karma does not burn out, it requires positive action. It is not something that will disappear on its own either. It has to be worked off for it to have any meaning. Therefore an insect is not in any position IMO to undo the bad karma created by a human. (...) Also of interest you mention there are other kinds of karma as well and you could become other things. Can you add a little more on what you mean by this. For example, what kinds of karma? What kind of other things. How do they differ. This I think is very interesting and I would love to hear more on this idea.

Well, you see, I don't really know about these things. I was just explaining what I have been reading about them. I do not now very much more about it except for what I have already written. Your questions are good, but I cannot answer them. When it comes to how Karma works and what goes on in the life of an insect, I have very little knowledge. I can only speculate. I don't even know about reincarnation. I am open for the thought, but you see as I do not really remember past lives, I cannot say to have any direct experience about it. So it becomes a matter of pure belief, and when it comes to such questions I take an agnostic stand. That only means I am aknowledging the fact that I don't really have knowledge about these things.

Asiaprod wrote:

I think this dialogue has gone a little of track.

I am sorry - I seem to go out of track a lot. I will try not to do it as much in the future.

Asiaprod wrote:

My comment on Buddhist non-Buddhist is only used as a label and not any indication of the actions of the person wearing it. It is used purely to differentiate between individuals who by choice follow a Buddhist path from individual following their own chosen path, even if that path appears to be very Buddhist in concept or actions. There is no negativity in my usage of these labels, labels are/can be useful in helping to understand the other viewpoint. I use them in this context.

Ok. I see your point.

Asiaprod wrote:

Where I will differ from you is to be a Buddhist you must declare yourself to be a Buddhist, you must take refuge so to speak. Despite how good ones intentions or actions are, you are not a Buddhist till you declare yourself to be a Buddhist. This is part of awakening.

Very well, we agree to disagree then.

(Oh, what a pity the Buddha is not here to settle this dispute between us. I am so curious about what he would have to say on the matter. But he is not here, so I guess we just have to think for ourselves then...)

Asiaprod wrote:

I am not sure that will be possible. As long as we live on this earth we will always use identifiers, it is how people interpret the identifier we used which needs to be changed. There is nothing inherently wrong about having an identification.

I think you are very right in saying this. I guess clinging to the identifications and viewing them as something absolute and unchanging is really the problem. As you say: "There is nothing inherently wrong about having an identification." But clinging to it creates a lot of pain.

Asiaprod · 19-04-2006 12:50pm

maitri wrote:

I am sorry - I seem to go out of track a lot. I will try not to do it as much in the future.

Maitri, I am sad cause I feel that you think I am picking holes in what you say. You do not need to say sorry. You should always say exactly what you feel. I get great enjoyment debating with you. Maybe sometimes my words come across a little too strong. If they do, I apologize. I am really quite a nice person. Most of us can only speculate, me too.:)

maitri · 19-04-2006 1:55pm

Asiaprod wrote:

. I am really quite a nice person.

I know you are!

coffee_cake · 24-04-2006 10:43am

Asiaprod wrote:

Where I will differ from you is to be a Buddhist you must declare yourself to be a Buddhist, you must take refuge so to speak. Despite how good ones intentions or actions are, you are not a Buddhist till you declare yourself to be a Buddhist. This is part of awakening.

I wonder if my karma cares what I call myself or what my actions are?
Titles are titles. I'd prefer someone not a buddhist to act compassionately than someone who claimed to be one, and did not. I'm a little surprised you place so much emphasis on it. I'm not saying it's not important, but I was trying to practise for a fair while before I ever called myself one.

Speaking of declaring oneself buddhist, I wonder how many people put that in on the Irish Census...

Asiaprod · 24-04-2006 3:52pm

bluewolf wrote:

I wonder if my karma cares what I call myself or what my actions are? I'm not saying it's not important, but I was trying to practise for a fair while before I ever called myself one.

I cant answer for your karma, only you can.
Are you Irish, yes you declare yourself to be and you back it up with your passport.
Are you a Buddhist, yes you declare yourself to be and you back it up with your actions.
As you said, I was trying to practise for a fair while before I ever called myself one.
But you call yourself one now.
My original statement stands, to be a Buddhist you have to declare yourself to be a Buddhist. You become a Buddhist by taking refuge. This is not my law, it is the way that it is. One is what one declares oneself to be.

Speaking of declaring oneself buddhist, I wonder how many people put that in on the Irish Census...

I wonder too

maitri · 25-04-2006 5:30pm

Asiaprod wrote:

I cant answer for your karma, only you can.
My original statement stands, to be a Buddhist you have to declare yourself to be a Buddhist. You become a Buddhist by taking refuge. This is not my law, it is the way that it is.

Then, according to your definition, I am not a buddhist. (Since I have not really (formally) taken refuge by saying "I take refuge...etc..." and since I say "I might be reckoned a buddhist..." or "I practice buddhist meditation" and not "I am a buddhist")

But are you absolutely sure about that?

Could it be possible that - even though declaring yourself as a buddhist was very important to you, and I am sure because you say so: the right thing to do for you and both a necessary and natural step on the path to enlightenment for you - it might be different for other people, for instance for me? If that's how some of us feel?

Would you concider that a possibility?

Regards,

Maitri

Asiaprod · 26-04-2006 1:41am

maitri wrote:

But are you absolutely sure about that?

Would you concider that a possibility?

Regards,

Maitri

maitri wrote:

Then, according to your definition, I am not a buddhist. (Since I have not really (formally) taken refuge by saying "I take refuge...etc..." and since I say "I might be reckoned a buddhist..." or "I practice buddhist meditation" and not "I am a buddhist")

It is not a question of MY definition. It is a question of YOUR definition that counts. Do you feel you are a Buddhist? Have you told yourself you are a Buddhist. This is the meaning of taking refuge. People seem to get confused and imagine ceremonies, or vows or other such things. Taking refuge is a personal commitment made by oneself to oneself (to the Buddha Nature within). If one wants to make it a temple thing, like I did, it is just a personal preference. It is really really important to understand that this is a personal commitment.

But are you absolutely sure about that?

Absolutely, definitely, no doubt about it. I am 100% sure about that. Why? I was where you are now. I faced the same choice. I felt like a Buddhist, I acted like a Buddhist, but I was raised in the catholic faith. I sought out guidance about it and it was explained to me that till I actually accepted that I was a Buddhist, I was only a person with the potential to become a Buddhist, the same as every one else on this planet. We all have the potential to become anything we want to become. When do we become it, when driven by our desire to become, we state that we are. When did I become a Buddhist, when I stated that I was one. Think of it as making a formal commitment to oneself that you now have taken a step on the road to enlightenment by declaring to the only person that really matters that you are now a Buddhist. It is the same for anything one does. We can think about it all we like, study it, expound it to others all we like. We still have to take that step of declaring to ourselves that we are now a Buddhist. The key point is declaiming it to YOURSELF, it is not to others. It is the same principle that applies when you hear the phrase Seek the teacher and he will appear. Buddhism requires commitment and responsibility. They are the two key components. You are committed to this path, and you take responsibility for your life. This is really the essence of Buddhism in a nut shell.

Could it be possible that - even though declaring yourself as a Buddhist was very important to you, and I am sure because you say so: the right thing to do for you and both a necessary and natural step on the path to enlightenment for you - it might be different for other people, for instance for me? If that's how some of us feel?

Firstly, I cannot/will not answer for other people. It was right for me. I believe it is the right thing for others to do. Taking refuge is to acknowledge the teachings of the Buddha, and a sign of respect to the Buddha who is my teacher. You decide what is right for you. It does not change how I feel about you or the enjoyment I get out of knowing you. It is no reflection on your actions or you worth as a person. And this is true for anyone I get to know.

Would you consider that a possibility?

Haha, on Boards i.e. I have learned to consider anything to be a possibility.
Now my turn for the tricky question. Buddhist believe in many guardian influences (not gods), Buddhist are said to be protected and to enjoy good fortune.
If one carries out Buddhist practices (meditation and reading the sutras), but has not a declared oneself to be a Buddhist, does the same protection and benefit apply? Should it apply, and if so, why?
An example could follow the lines of. Well, no, they do not apply. Why, because despite knowing and carrying out these practices one has not fully accepted being a Buddhist. This is in a way disrespectful to these Buddhist influences that work to protect you so why should they apply if one continues to deny that one is a Buddhist.***This is an actual answer I got from someone and it was a tough one***

Regards,

Asiaprod

maitri · 26-04-2006 2:21pm

Hi Asia!
It is always a pleasure to read your answers, even though (or maybe even partly because) we don’t always see the world in totally the same way.

Asiaprod wrote:

Firstly, I cannot/will not answer for other people. It was right for me.

I totally respect that. That’s a very fine way to say it. I repeat that I totally believe you when you say it was the right thing to do for you. I am also so happy that you cannot and will not answer for other people. I love it when people have that viewpoint. (Actually I am a bit fanatical about it…)

Asiaprod wrote:

Now my turn for the tricky question. Buddhist believe in many guardian influences (not gods), Buddhist are said to be protected and to enjoy good fortune.
If one carries out Buddhist practices (meditation and reading the sutras), but has not a declared oneself to be a Buddhist, does the same protection and benefit apply? Should it apply, and if so, why?
An example could follow the lines of. Well, no, they do not apply. Why, because despite knowing and carrying out these practices one has not fully accepted being a Buddhist. This is in a way disrespectful to these Buddhist influences that work to protect you so why should they apply if one continues to deny that one is a Buddhist.***This is an actual answer I got from someone and it was a tough one***

You see, I just don’t believe in this. I find no other way to say it. I don’t believe that what words/concepts I use about myself have any such “magical” influence. (In my life this isn’t true, I think. For you it might be very different, though.) And my prime concern right now is not (to my own amazement) “good fortune” (whatever that means…) though that might be just lovely too

; my prime concern is being true to myself and to my way (wherever it may lead or whatever it might be) – and calling myself this or that or believing in any dogmas (this might not be what you do either, I know that) just don’t seem to be part of my path right now. And I believe – or at least I hope – it never will. This does not mean, however, that I disrespect the Buddhist influences in my life. It does not mean that I disrespect anyone.

So… well… maybe I just am Taoist after all?

Maybe I should not drag other peoples opinions into this, but since I cannot resist the temptation:

“Neither in this world nor beyond this world is there any Buddha or any Dharma. Even if such things existed, they would only be works and writings for the guidance of little children, expedient remedies for illnesses, and displays of names and phrases. Moreover, names and phrases are not of themselves names and phrases; it is you, who right now radiantly and vividly perceive, know, and clearly illumine [everything] -- you it is who affix all names and phrases." (Discourse XXI)
Lin-chi (He is a Zen Buddhist)

And:
“ Buddha, Dharma, and all the profound Buddhist scriptures themselves -- all are but more display of names and phrases. Their concepts are not particularly important at all. What is really important is simply the One who considers them. It is no less than the true man searching outside himself, for himself. The very searcher that which is sought.”
(Scott Mandelker, Ph.D)

Both quotes are taken from:
http://www.dharmaweb.org/index.php/Lin-chi_and_the_True_Man_without_Rank_-_Scott_Mandelker,_Ph.D

At least we might conclude from my arguing with you, that according to Sutta Nipata, I am not a sage:

Sutta nipata

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.

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,
has sloughed off every view
right here — every one.

Asiaprod · 27-04-2006 6:53am

maitri wrote:

Hi Asia!
It is always a pleasure to read your answers, even though (or maybe even partly because) we don’t always see the world in totally the same way.

Thats the attitude I like to see. Shoot them down, but compliment them as they fall in flames Haha.

You see, I just don’t believe in this. I find no other way to say it. I don’t believe that what words/concepts I use about myself have any such “magical” influence. (In my life this isn’t true, I think.

And I have no problem with this, we all must follow our own path.

“Neither in this world nor beyond this world is there any Buddha or any Dharma. Even if such things existed, they would only be works and writings for the guidance of little children, expedient remedies for illnesses, and displays of names and phrases. Moreover, names and phrases are not of themselves names and phrases; it is you, who right now radiantly and vividly perceive, know, and clearly illumine [everything] -- you it is who affix all names and phrases." (Discourse XXI)
Lin-chi (He is a Zen Buddhist)

Well, to be honest, after reading the first sentence “Neither in this world nor beyond this world is there any Buddha or any Dharma.“ Lin-chi would not have a place a place on my bookshelf in the near future.
But then I re-read it and realised that the rest of the quote interestingly enough stated just I have been trying to say “Moreover, names and phrases are not of themselves names and phrases; it is you, who right now radiantly and vividly perceive, know, and clearly illumine [everything] -- you it is who affix all names and phrases."
Indeed YES and so I declare myself to be a Buddhist, I seek refuge blah, blah blah .

I am afraid that Mr.Scott Mandelker, Ph.D does not do a thing for me.

Hahah This topic just will not go away will it. Shall we hold a poll to see what others believe?

maitri · 27-04-2006 12:05pm

Asiaprod wrote:

But then I re-read it and realised that the rest of the quote interestingly enough stated just I have been trying to say “Moreover, names and phrases are not of themselves names and phrases; it is you, who right now radiantly and vividly perceive, know, and clearly illumine [everything] -- you it is who affix all names and phrases."
Indeed YES and so I declare myself to be a Buddhist, I seek refuge blah, blah blah .

Yes, I thought you would appreciate that part of it!

Asiaprod wrote:

Shall we hold a poll to see what others believe?

May I vote, too? I'll vote as a true agnostic - and... possibly... as a true buddhist, too...

:cool: Maitri

Asiaprod · 27-04-2006 12:11pm

maitri wrote:

May I vote, too? I'll vote as a true agnostic - and... possibly... as a true buddhist, too...

:cool: Maitri

Its open to all, I hope more people vote:)

god's toy · 10-05-2006 12:19am

bluewolf wrote:

Speaking of declaring oneself buddhist, I wonder how many people put that in on the Irish Census...

We did! me and wife to be (Friday 19th May)

Often think of things like that and just how many Jedi knights we have in Ireland?

Loved this thread btw, even if i did go a little off topic.

With Metta

Asiaprod · 10-05-2006 1:29am

god's toy wrote:

We did! me and wife to be (Friday 19th May)Loved this thread btw, even if i did go a little off topic.
With Metta

Well done:)

What is Sangha, and what defines a Buddhist

To be recognized as a commited Buddhist one must take refuge 3 votes

Comments