What makes one a Buddhist?

[ratikala]

Namaskaram Ji

If you check the links on the Four Seals provided, you will see they are from Mahayana sources. Theravada customarily uses the first three seals, and refers to them as the 3 marks of existence. However, I haven't noticed any indication that Theravada has any problem with the 4th Seal. Being Mahayana myself, I can't really fully speak for Theravada, however.

please I think you have missunderstood what I had said , .....

I was simply saying that before the ''divisions between Mahayana and Thravada'' ....I was not so much assumung that this text belonged to or was given by any one tradition , ...I was simply refering to the fact that the original turning of the wheel of Law was the Four knoble truths and the discourse on the eightfold path contained within , ...it is also said by some traditions that all other discourses given by the Buddha after this date were further explanations on the same principles given at different times and to peoples of different scope , ....

Thus we may all rejoice in the Dear Park Teachings on the Four Noble Truths and the elucidation of the Eightfold Path as this discourse contains everything that we need to know , they are complete and prefect , .... if we reflect upon these teachings we willl surely be satisfied as everything is contained here , .....

Saddly it is a common human trait to over complicate even over interlectualise things , the goal of Buddhism surely is to pare away these layers of un nececary complications through meditation and nonatchment , ....

, ....surely it is the action and intention that matters more than beleif in three or four seals , ... many lay practitioners are undecided as to their beleifs , this perhaps is the entire point of the question , ....what makes one a Buddhist ?

is it beleif or is it practice ?..... I think Buddha explaind this very sucinctly , he said do not accept simply on the strength of his or any others say so , he said test it , meditate on it , refine it , purify it , ... and this as he instructs we do via the repeared practice of the eightfold path , if we do this all will eventualy become clear in our own minds .

 

[paarsurrey]

Buddhism is a living doctrine. It can't really be distinguished from what Buddhists believe.

Buddha got the Light (Revelation), the Buddhism people are not enlightened to that extent. If they could not secure/preserve/understand the Light of Buddha, they could be mislead to darkness. There is no guarantee from Buddha. Please
It could beome dead from the living. Right? Please
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

Buddha got the Light (Revelation),

Actually, "Revelation" is a word that should be avoided here, exactly because it encourages the mistake you seem to be asking us to commit: the assumption of a divine will guiding the Tathagata.

Buddhism is not a revealed religion, and that is very much a good thing.

the Buddhism people are not enlightened to that extent.

How would you - or anyone - even know whether such is the case?

From previous statements from Bahais in other threads I learned that they use a religious model that relies on the assumption that there are periodical "revelations" (for lack of a better word) from a very few particularly enlightened (again, for lack of a better word) towards the masses. I am not sure whether they believe that only one such person can be alive at any given time, but there are some indications that they are few enough for that to happen.

I reject that model and its implications entirely. Lock, stock and barrel. And the reason why I do so is likely to be the very same reason why they (and you) want to convince us of its usefulness: because it imposes unreasonable, unskilled assumptions and limitations on the religious effort.

Most of those are directly derived from the arbitrary and very much undesirable premise that religion is a gift from a creator God to the wider masses of people by way of some form of exalted prophet which ordinary people can only hope to learn enough from, but never to fully understand. Or to put that in other words: the premise is that Abrahamic-styled religion is the one true form of religion.

That, quite simply, is not good enough a premise for me to consider. It is too arbitrary, carries way too much unnecessary baggage, and encourages far too many defects of religious practice.

Ironically enough for this current situation, I consider it a clear example of the worst, most harmful form of idolatry.

If they could not secure/preserve/understand the Light of Buddha, they could be mislead to darkness. There is no guarantee from Buddha. Please
It could beome dead from the living. Right? Please
Regards

See, that is just what I was warning you against in the paragraphs above. What you just said is an arbitrary and destructive believe that distracts people from true religious doctrine.

 

[paarsurrey]

Actually, "Revelation" is a word that should be avoided here, exactly because it encourages the mistake you seem to be asking us to commit: the assumption of a divine will guiding the Tathagata.

Buddhism is not a revealed religion, and that is very much a good thing.


How would you - or anyone - even know whether such is the case?

From previous statements from Bahais in other threads I learned that they use a religious model that relies on the assumption that there are periodical "revelations" (for lack of a better word) from a very few particularly enlightened (again, for lack of a better word) towards the masses. I am not sure whether they believe that only one such person can be alive at any given time, but there are some indications that they are few enough for that to happen.

I reject that model and its implications entirely. Lock, stock and barrel. And the reason why I do so is likely to be the very same reason why they (and you) want to convince us of its usefulness: because it imposes unreasonable, unskilled assumptions and limitations on the religious effort.

Most of those are directly derived from the arbitrary and very much undesirable premise that religion is a gift from a creator God to the wider masses of people by way of some form of exalted prophet which ordinary people can only hope to learn enough from, but never to fully understand. Or to put that in other words: the premise is that Abrahamic-styled religion is the one true form of religion.

That, quite simply, is not good enough a premise for me to consider. It is too arbitrary, carries way too much unnecessary baggage, and encourages far too many defects of religious practice.

Ironically enough for this current situation, I consider it a clear example of the worst, most harmful form of idolatry.



See, that is just what I was warning you against in the paragraphs above. What you just said is an arbitrary and destructive believe that distracts people from true religious doctrine.

that distracts people from true religious doctrine

And how would one paraphrase that colored in magenta, please?

One is free to believe whatever denomination of Buddhism one likes to, I have no objection, please, and I don't have to oppose them, necessarily. I hold that the present Buddhism denominations do not represent Buddha, he never named any of them, expressly to my knowledge. And I have a right to defend Buddha as to believe in him is a part of my belief, as to believe in Krishna is part of my belief, or as to believe in Zoroaster is a part of my belief, and or as to believe in Moses is a part of by belief, or as to believe in Socrates is a part of my belief, or as to believe in Jesus is a part of my belief.
Rather It falls under one of the core beliefs (described as total five/six ) of my religion.
Am I not entitled to believe the voice of my conscience with reasonable arguments and rationality? Please
Regards

 

[wicketkeeper]

I've been a 'simple' Buddhist for 44 years, but I also have added bits and pieces from Sufism and Christianity.
Of course there are people who are Buddhists who would make me look like an amateur Buddhist , starting with the Dalai Lama !
I like to dabble in matters folk often refer to as spiritually themed subjects.

 

[LuisDantas]

that distracts people from true religious doctrine

And how would one paraphrase that colored in magenta, please?

I think the word you mean to use is not quite "paraphrase". Perhaps "implement" or "elaborate" would be closer to what you mean to ask. I will assume so in this reply.

One is free to believe whatever denomination of Buddhism one likes to,

And one is free to go beyond belief and improve on the doctrine, or at least its current form and implementation, as well.

As did Shiran Shonin, Bodhidharma and Atisha, to mention three well-known names in no particular order.

As do countless unnamed people every single day, often without even realizing it.

That is a key and very necessary part of any living religion, Buddhism definitely included.

Religion is not supposed to be about mere belief. It is a living discipline that we write with our goals and deeds every single day.

I have no objection, please, and I don't have to oppose them, necessarily. I hold that the present Buddhism denominations do not represent Buddha, he never named any of them, expressly to my knowledge.

And that is very much a good thing.

I figure that if the Tathagata was somehow alive in the current times he would feel no particular need to restrict himself to the past, either. He was a wise man. He understood the need to value the lessons that can be learned from others.

And I have a right to defend Buddha as to believe in him is a part of my belief, as to believe in Krishna is part of my belief, or as to believe in Zoroaster is a part of my belief, and or as to believe in Moses is a part of by belief, or as to believe in Socrates is a part of my belief, or as to believe in Jesus is a part of my belief.

You have such a right indeed, as have the Bahais.

Likewise, other people such as myself have the right and arguably the duty to point out that you are misrepresenting and abusing the memory and teachings of the Tathagata - and for that matter, those of Krishna as well.

Revealed religion is, frankly, a limited and inferior form of religion, one that far too often degenerates into becoming a parody of itself with no true religious significance.

I will not support any efforts at promoting it as necessary, and I will definitely not agree with those such as you who want to promote it as the one true form of religion.

Simple as that.

Rather It falls under one of the core beliefs (described as total five/six ) of my religion.

You Ahmadiyyas really remind me of the Bahai Faith sometimes, although the Bahais are slightly less Islam-centric.

So much good intent. It is a real shame that so much of your effort is saddled with Abrahamic views and goals.

Am I not entitled to believe the voice of my conscience with reasonable arguments and rationality? Please
Regards

Fair question. Far as I know, you are entitled to believe whatever you want, until and unless you find circunstances that make it necessary to revise your beliefs.

 

[Ubon]

I take comfort in the Buddha’s invitation to examine for myself whether the dharma teachings make sense.

I have the opportunity to walk my own path with the guidance of Buddha and on that way form my own view as all are walking the path but looking at different things as we move.

My path will be different then other Buddhists as we are not sharing the same eyes as we walk the path, however with Buddhas teaching we at least know which way to turn so we dont stray off the path on our journey.

We seek to end suffering in ourselves and better ourselves in everyway to end the cycle of life if rebirth does in fact exist.

Whatever lord lay beyond, living a clean moral life should be more satisfying then what religious garments you adorn yourself with or what alter you kneel before.

Buddhism is about finding yourself and polishing yourself, it is not about the worship of Gods, a God with supreme intelligence would surely accept a clean moral Buddhist.

 

[paarsurrey]

I take comfort in the Buddha’s invitation to examine for myself whether the dharma teachings make sense.

I have the opportunity to walk my own path with the guidance of Buddha and on that way form my own view as all are walking the path but looking at different things as we move.

"My path will be different then other Buddhists as we are not sharing the same eyes as we walk the path, however with Buddhas teaching we at least know which way to turn so we dont stray off the path on our journey."

We seek to end suffering in ourselves and better ourselves in everyway to end the cycle of life if rebirth does in fact exist.

Whatever lord lay beyond, living a clean moral life should be more satisfying then what religious garments you adorn yourself with or what alter you kneel before.

Buddhism is about finding yourself and polishing yourself, it is not about the worship of Gods, a God with supreme intelligence would surely accept a clean moral Buddhist.

"My path will be different then other Buddhists as we are not sharing the same eyes as we walk the path, however with Buddhas teaching we at least know which way to turn so we dont stray off the path on our journey."

I am not with Buddhism, but I am one with/at Buddha. Please
Regards

 

[LuisDantas]

"My path will be different then other Buddhists as we are not sharing the same eyes as we walk the path, however with Buddhas teaching we at least know which way to turn so we dont stray off the path on our journey."

I am not with Buddhism, but I am one with Buddha. Please
Regards

Far as I can tell, you are missing the point.

 

[Kirran]

"My path will be different then other Buddhists as we are not sharing the same eyes as we walk the path, however with Buddhas teaching we at least know which way to turn so we dont stray off the path on our journey."

I am not with Buddhism, but I am one with Buddha. Please
Regards

You're one with the Buddha?

Ah, recognising nondualism at last!

 

[paarsurrey]

paarsurrey said: ↑
"My path will be different then other Buddhists as we are not sharing the same eyes as we walk the path, however with Buddhas teaching we at least know which way to turn so we dont stray off the path on our journey."
I am not with Buddhism, but I am one with/at Buddha. Please
Regards

You're one with the Buddha?
Ah, recognising nondualism at last!

"nondualism"
I was not acquainted with the term "nondualism", I have checked it now.
I have used it in the sense "to agree with someone about something", just to clarify, please.

Regards

 

[Kirran]

"nondualism"
I was not acquainted with the term "nondualism", I have checked it now.
I have used it in the sense "to agree with someone about something", just to clarify, please.

Regards

Well that's totally different to what Hazrat Inayat Khan meant! He was referring to the unity of existence and the universality of God.

 

[DrTCH]

What makes one a Buddhist?

Only if one follows the correct teachings of Buddha not that the Buddhism people or Buddhists believe. Please

Anybody, please
Regards

What makes one a Buddhist?

Only if one follows the correct teachings of Buddha not that the Buddhism people or Buddhists believe. Please

Anybody, please
Regards

There appears to be a range of opinion...or viewpoint...about this question, but...(IMO):

The Eight-fold Path
The principle of "Ahimsa."
Dedication to saving all "sentient beings."
Considering all things inherently sacred (and somewhat dreamlike (not substantial, as such)).

Considerable attention placed on transmutation of evil or difficult incidents and experiences (as well as neurotic or obsessive mental content) by certain practices, such as medication and chanting.

Pursuit of Nirvana/"enlightenment."

(NAMASTE!!!)

 

[paarsurrey]

There appears to be a range of opinion...or viewpoint...about this question, but...(IMO):

The Eight-fold Path
The principle of "Ahimsa."
Dedication to saving all "sentient beings."
Considering all things inherently sacred (and somewhat dreamlike (not substantial, as such)).

Considerable attention placed on transmutation of evil or difficult incidents and experiences (as well as neurotic or obsessive mental content) by certain practices, such as medication and chanting.

Pursuit of Nirvana/"enlightenment."

(NAMASTE!!!)

Did Buddha mention that all the above are core beliefs of a follower of him, if one does not believe any one of them he does not remain his follower? Please
Regards

 

[Ubon]

Did Buddha mention that all the above are core beliefs of a follower of him, if one does not believe any one of them he does not remain his follower? Please
Regards

Buddha said if certain things he says dont make sense disregard them, you find your own parth, he is a guide or teacher

 

[psychoslice]

In truth there is no such thing as a Buddha, its only a label, a label that points to our true Self, or true connection with the Cosmos, the Source of Consciousness, all concepts no matter how wonderful they sound are just that, a concept, an idea.

 

[ajay0]

Buddha, imho, emphasized mindfulness the most in his teachings.

Even in his last words before death was thus, "Impermanent are all created things; Strive on with awareness."

The abstinence from vices and practice of virtues are also a way to attain this state of mindfulness, as every virtue practiced and vice abstained from makes the mind more meditative and mindful, imho.

So I would say that the practice of mindfulness is what makes a true buddhist both in letter and spirit , imo.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why don't you check things yourself in Wikipedia or elsewhere?

 

[LuisDantas]

"Tathagata"

Does by "Tathagata" one means Buddha in person? Please
Did Buddha use this attributive name before he received "Light" or after it.
Regards

Tathagata is indeed a word favored by the Theravada school to address the historic Buddha.

That is sometimes useful, because by some perspectives literally everyone is Buddha.

 

[LuisDantas]

Did Buddha use this attributive name (Tathagatha) before he received "Light" or after it?

Did Buddha use this attributive name before he received "Light" or after it? Please
Regards

You know what, @paarsurrey?

I will try to stop giving you answers that I have no reason to expect you to even attempt to understand.

Tell me a bit on why you are asking that question, whether there is any difference, and what that receiving of light would be by your understanding.

Give me some reason to expect you to be capable of understanding any answers given.