What can a layperson do? How far can a layperson go?

[coreycook950]

Itivuttaka 92

Sanghatikanna Sutta

The Hem of the Robe


This was said by the Lord…

“Bhikkhus, even though a bhikkhu might hold on to the hem of my robe and follow close behind me step by step, if he is covetous for objects of desire, strongly passionate, malevolent, corrupt in thought, unmindful, uncomprehending, unconcentra­ted, of wandering mind and uncontrolled faculties, he is far from me and I am far from him. What is the reason? That bhikkhu does not see Dhamma. Not seeing Dhamma, he does not see me.

“Bhikkhus, even though a bhikkhu might live a hundred leagues away, if he is not covetous for objects of desire, not strongly passionate, not malevolent, uncorrupt in thought, with mindfulness established, clearly comprehending, concentrated, of unified mind and controlled faculties, he is close to me and I am close to him. What is the reason? That bhikkhu sees Dhamma. Seeing Dhamma, he sees me.”

Though closely following behind,
Full of longings and resentment,
See how far away he is—
The desirous one from the desireless,
One unquenched from the quenched,
A greedy one from the one without greed.

But a wise person who by direct knowledge
Has fully understood the Dhamma,
Becomes desireless and tranquil
Like a calm unruffled lake.

See how close he is to him—
A desireless one to the desireless,
One quenched to the quenched,
The greedless one to the one without greed.


http://suttacentral.net/en/iti92

Dear Lucas,

Thank you for posting this sutta excerpt.

I take comfort in knowing that because I practice Dhamma sincerely, the Lord is close to me and I am close to Him.

Sincerely,

Corey

[JohnK]

Can I consider myself 'Buddhist' (as a layperson) if I follow the 5 Precepts, study Buddha's teaching, meditate, try to cultivate Metta and follow the Noble Eightfold Path, even if I didn't take any vows in front of any monk...

This suggests the inverse question. Can one sincerely attempt to follow the precepts, study, meditate, etc. and NOT consider oneself a Buddhist? I've heard of Catholic priests becoming Zen masters -- probably w/o becoming Buddhist -- so there is that angle. Another angle from w/in the teachings: there are the aggregates of clinging, no self to be a Buddhist. Does it matter what one labels oneself? Just practice the Dhamma -- not clinging to Buddhist; not clinging to Not Buddhist; not clinging to Neither Buddhist nor Not Buddhist. Not taking a position here, just viewing from another angle and wondering.

[Maitri]

Can I consider myself 'Buddhist' (as a layperson) if I follow the 5 Precepts, study Buddha's teaching, meditate, try to cultivate Metta and follow the Noble Eightfold Path, even if I didn't take any vows in front of any monk...

This suggests the inverse question. Can one sincerely attempt to follow the precepts, study, meditate, etc. and NOT consider oneself a Buddhist? I've heard of Catholic priests becoming Zen masters -- probably w/o becoming Buddhist -- so there is that angle. Another angle from w/in the teachings: there are the aggregates of clinging, no self to be a Buddhist. Does it matter what one labels oneself? Just practice the Dhamma -- not clinging to Buddhist; not clinging to Not Buddhist; not clinging to Neither Buddhist nor Not Buddhist. Not taking a position here, just viewing from another angle and wondering.

JohnK,

I see this as a pseudo-Mahayana perspective about self and not self that borders on Nihilism. Certainly from the Roman Catholic perspective it matters that a priest wholly believes in the doctrines of the church, so how can they practice a tradition which teaches a message different from the Gospel while being honest in their vocation? As they have a duty to their church and to their parishioners to uphold Catholic doctrine, it seems to be problematic they would uphold another religious tradition. If someone is just meditating on the breath then I can't see a conflict with that- there are contemplative Christian practices which follow this method as well. In fact, Christianity is full of contemplative methods of prayer and meditation. There really is no reason to practice Buddhist meditation if one is a committed Christian.

The majority of us are NOT past using labels to identify ourselves and others; we are still very much bound to them. I don't understand why there is this tendency to adopt the language of a view we don't have and ape its language. Why there is such emphasis to "go beyond labels" when it comes to Buddhism when we use them all the time for other areas of life is just a product of our current religious averse culture. If you work at a place where you handle money, open accounts, cash checks and help customers then you then are a banker. You would find someone a bit foolish if they did all this work everyday for a career and then said, "Oh, I'm not a banker. I don't use labels for my job."

The Buddha never taught that his teachings were the same as other paths or vice versa. For example in this Sutta the Buddha clearly states that following the teachings of an unenlightened teacher will not result in liberation.

But consider, Cunda, where, the teacher not being supremely enlightened, and the doctrine being badly set forth, badly imparted, ineffectual for guidance, not conducive to peace, not imparted by one supremely enlightened, the disciple abides in that doctrine, practising the lesser corollaries following on the larger doctrine, acquiring correct conduct and, walking according to the precepts, perpetually conforms to that doctrine. To him one might say : Friend, thou hast been unlucky [in thy teacher], and in thy opportunity ; thy teacher is not supremely enlightened ; thy doctrine is badly set forth and the like ; and thou . . . perpetually conformest to that doctrine. By these words, Cunda, teacher and doctrine and disciple are all blameworthy. And he who should say : Verily his reverence mastering the system will carry it to a successful end ! — he thus commending and he who is commended and he who, thus commended, redoubles the energy he puts forth, — all they generate much demerit. And why ? Because their doctrine and discipline have been badly set forth, badly imparted ... by one who is not supremely enlightened. Pasadika Sutta: The Delightful Discourse (DN 29)

At some point the perspectives and ontological stances between Christianity and Buddhism will collide. Christian views on selfhood and the nature of identity conflict with Buddhist perspectives of anatta & paṭiccasamuppāda. How can a person uphold the precepts yet worship a deity that demanded animal sacrifice and ordered his followers to slaughter people in the Old Testament? The Buddha himself laid down how people should approach the Dhamma and clearly informed people that following his teachings leads to liberation this includes taking refuge and following his guidance in daily life.

[JohnK]

Maitre,
Thank you for your detailed post. As a previous question prompted a wondering, I appreciate different folks take on it.

...Certainly from the Roman Catholic perspective it matters that a priest wholly believes in the doctrines of the church, so how can they practice a tradition which teaches a message different from the Gospel while being honest in their vocation? As they have a duty to their church and to their parishioners to uphold Catholic doctrine, it seems to be problematic they would uphold another religious tradition...

I just poked around on the net (to be more specific) to see that Robert Kennedy, a Jesuit priest, received Inka from Roshi Bernie Glassman. I don't know if he considers himself a Buddhist and a Catholic or if he considers himself a Catholic who is deeply engaged in Buddhist practice or what. As this post is in the Discovering Theravada sub-forum, this particular instance from Zen is probably irrelevant -- but whether or not a similar thing happens within any "branch" of Thervada could be relevant/interesting.

Regarding the other "angle" -- someone not affiliated with a religion who practices the Dhamma: I suspect that for some (many?) declaring oneself to be a "Buddhist" would strengthen their practice and progress on the path. For others, (as you suggest, perhaps the institutional-religion-wary), I assume significant progress on the path is still possible w/o such declaration (perhaps such a declaration arises at the right time?).
Thanks again for your post.
Others?

[SarathW]

Zom, I heard in a Dhamma talk , Sutta was quoted but I don't remember which one, that a seven year old boy attained arahant-hood in Buddha's time, and they ordained him after his attainment, and they could not give him full ordination because of his age , ordained him as a Samanera.. I have not checked the validity of this info yet... ring any bell?

There are plenty of reports of householders attaining arahatta. What is not reported is any case of a householder attaining arahatta and then continuing to live as a householder. In post-canonical texts this is said to be impossible: after arahatta a householder either goes forth into the homeless life or passes away.

Bhante
What is this controversy about?

Controverted Point: That a layman may be Arahant

https://suttacentral.net/en/kv4.1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Maitri]

Maitre,
Thank you for your detailed post. As a previous question prompted a wondering, I appreciate different folks take on it.

...Certainly from the Roman Catholic perspective it matters that a priest wholly believes in the doctrines of the church, so how can they practice a tradition which teaches a message different from the Gospel while being honest in their vocation? As they have a duty to their church and to their parishioners to uphold Catholic doctrine, it seems to be problematic they would uphold another religious tradition...

I just poked around on the net (to be more specific) to see that Robert Kennedy, a Jesuit priest, received Inka from Roshi Bernie Glassman. I don't know if he considers himself a Buddhist and a Catholic or if he considers himself a Catholic who is deeply engaged in Buddhist practice or what. As this post is in the Discovering Theravada sub-forum, this particular instance from Zen is probably irrelevant -- but whether or not a similar thing happens within any "branch" of Thervada could be relevant/interesting.

Regarding the other "angle" -- someone not affiliated with a religion who practices the Dhamma: I suspect that for some (many?) declaring oneself to be a "Buddhist" would strengthen their practice and progress on the path. For others, (as you suggest, perhaps the institutional-religion-wary), I assume significant progress on the path is still possible w/o such declaration (perhaps such a declaration arises at the right time?).
Thanks again for your post.
Others?

Hello John,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

My concerns are on two fronts and are both more about the times we live than the paths themselves. On the first point of identification I find it difficult to take seriously those who "deeply engage in Buddhist practice" but still identify with the Judeo Christian tradition. I feel that the differences are not just cultural or superficial, but are vast in terms of the outlook and basis. The adoption of Buddhist meditation while remaining Christian is something akin to soft colonization in which Buddhism is consumed to improved the person, but not good enough to identify with as it is a "foreign" religion. Sort of "good enough to take on a date, but not good enough to marry" mentality in which Westerners find it hard to separate from their birth tradition, but are wary of committing and investing genuinely to Buddhism by fully engaging in the tradition as converts. I think it also plays into the narrative that other traditions, religions, and cultures are disposable to Judeo-Christians for them to pick apart what they like, but leave the rest. This mentality is honestly just a hold-over from the Victorian era when European scholars began to encounter Buddhism. I've seen this also play into racist narratives about dropping "Asian cultural baggage" from Buddhism. It becomes easy to adopt this stance when the fundamental value of the tradition as a whole is ignored or bypassed.

Given that Christianity has a long and distinguished tradition of it's own contemplative traditions, I'm surprised to read that Christians want to practice Buddhist meditation to improve their relationship to their tradition. That's so bizarre to me. As a Buddhist, I'm not going to read the Old Testament to better understand the Suttas, so why not seek the rich resources in one's own tradition? It's not like Christian meditation and contemplative prayer is a secret or hard to find, especially in the case of Roman Catholics. I can't comment on Zen as it's not in my wheelhouse and outside the scope of this forum.

Regarding associations with a religious group or tradition, I can understand how people are wary in this day age given the scandals and nonsense we find everywhere. This doubly applies for people who have been abused or harmed by their prior affiliations. However, I think that in the U.S. the tendency to not label oneself or participate in community is not a product of insight or conviction, but a result of our contemporary culture. The past-time of many of us (myself included) and our media to sit on the sidelines while mocking and criticizing others and institutions has made it more difficult to engage with organizations and take a chance at committing to community. The tag "I'm spiritual but not religious" isn't a honed spiritual awakening, but a fad saying for a time and place in which people find dedication to a path uncomfortable. Religion isn't supposed to be comfortable but transformative. I see the engagement in Buddhism without supporting or identifying with it as wanting to remain comfortable on a path that aims to eliminate suffering. For relaxation and decompression this is certainly fine, but very quickly one begins to uncover the deeper truths the Buddha taught and that can be frightening when unprepared.

As you said, it's up to every person to decide for him or her self when or if they feel ready for converting to another tradition. Some people may never come to that conclusion and that's the fine. I'm honestly not sure why you put Buddhist in quotes given that this is a Buddhist forum. Yes, to take refuge and follow the Dhamma one would become a Buddhist in the English language. I think there should be a counter to narrative that conversion is "nonspiritual" or the purview of fanatics alone.

[JohnK]

Hello John,

Thank you for your thoughtful response.

My concerns are on two fronts and are both more about the times we live than the paths themselves...

Regarding associations with a religious group or tradition, I can understand how people are wary in this day age given the scandals and nonsense we find everywhere. This doubly applies for people who have been abused or harmed by their prior affiliations. However, I think that in the U.S. the tendency to not label oneself or participate in community is not a product of insight or conviction, but a result of our contemporary culture. The past-time of many of us (myself included) and our media to sit on the sidelines while mocking and criticizing others and institutions has made it more difficult to engage with organizations and take a chance at committing to community...

As you said, it's up to every person to decide for him or her self when or if they feel ready for converting to another tradition. Some people may never come to that conclusion and that's the fine. I'm honestly not sure why you put Buddhist in quotes given that this is a Buddhist forum...

I think your analysis of the possible consequences of the institutional critique that began in the 60's on current personal commitment to institutions is very interesting and plausible. It is interesting to think of in my own life, for example, beginning to get involved with some institutions largely based on the need for income, doing my job, but also maintaining something of an "outsider" perspective. Later, becoming less of an outsider, but affiliating with smaller, local institutions where the work feels very personal and pragmatic.

In any case, I think I helped to get this thread way off topic following up a previous detour. I do see that a new thread has just started discussing when along the path one takes precepts/refuges; I'll have to keep an eye on that.

Oh, the quotation marks: I think I was using quotes as one would use them to indicate dialog; the context was declaring oneself Buddhist. I don't think there was anything more to it than that.
Be well, and thanks for your perspective.

[thepea]

My concerns are on two fronts and are both more about the times we live than the paths themselves. On the first point of identification I find it difficult to take seriously those who "deeply engage in Buddhist practice" but still identify with the Judeo Christian tradition.

Do you find it equally difficult to take seriously those who engage in "Buddhist practice" but still identify as Buddhists?

At a certain level of self realization religious identity of any kind will fall away. I'm certain there are many Christians who have reached this place but still attend church. The words and their respective meaning should, the same as Buddhas words are to be understood at the depth to which one engages practice. There are many "Buddhists" who simply understand the Dhamma at a very gross level as there are Christians doing the same.

The adoption of Buddhist meditation while remaining Christian is something akin to soft colonization in which Buddhism is consumed to improved the person, but not good enough to identify with as it is a "foreign" religion. Sort of "good enough to take on a date, but not good enough to marry" mentality in which Westerners find it hard to separate from their birth tradition, but are wary of committing and investing genuinely to Buddhism by fully engaging in the tradition as converts.

I came to the Dhamma as a non-religious person and have remained a non-religious person, why would practicing the 8-fold path change your religious outlook?

Given that Christianity has a long and distinguished tradition of it's own contemplative traditions, I'm surprised to read that Christians want to practice Buddhist meditation to improve their relationship to their tradition.

A Buddhist, a Christian, a Muslim, etc... will gain a deeper understanding of their religion as they practice sila, Samadhi and panna. I would not say the practice is Buddhist, which Buddhist practice would you be referring to?

As a Buddhist, I'm not going to read the Old Testament to better understand the Suttas,

At a depth of understanding you may find many similarities in the suttas, and the bible.

The tag "I'm spiritual but not religious" isn't a honed spiritual awakening, but a fad saying for a time and place in which people find dedication to a path uncomfortable.

Are you suggesting the 8-fold path is not a spiritual path?

Religion isn't supposed to be comfortable but transformative. I see the engagement in Buddhism without supporting or identifying with it as wanting to remain comfortable on a path that aims to eliminate suffering. For relaxation and decompression this is certainly fine, but very quickly one begins to uncover the deeper truths the Buddha taught and that can be frightening when unprepared.

What deeper truths?

As you said, it's up to every person to decide for him or her self when or if they feel ready for converting to another tradition. Some people may never come to that conclusion and that's the fine. I'm honestly not sure why you put Buddhist in quotes given that this is a Buddhist forum. Yes, to take refuge and follow the Dhamma one would become a Buddhist in the English language. I think there should be a counter to narrative that conversion is "nonspiritual" or the purview of fanatics alone.

I am taught that no conversion from one organised religion to another is necessary, to practice the 8-fold noble path. You mention that it is up to every individual to decide if they feel ready to convert and then in another breath you claim this is automatic as one begins down this path???

[Maitri]

Do you find it equally difficult to take seriously those who engage in "Buddhist practice" but still identify as Buddhists?

No. I answered that in my previous post. Taking refuge and having faith in Three Jewels is an integral factor of awakening in Buddhism, to liberation in fact.

I came to the Dhamma as a non-religious person and have remained a non-religious person, why would practicing the 8-fold path change your religious outlook?

As did I.

The Noble Eightfold's entire purpose is to change one's religious outlook- it's a religious teaching. It presents an answer to the suffering of this life and future lives. That's a religious question. Buddhism teaches metaphysical answers to resolve the conflicts of the human condition.

Additionally, the Buddha first taught the Noble Eightfold Path to five ascetics searching for liberation with one instantly attaining liberation from re-birth. At the end they become his students and the Gods in the heavens celebrate the teaching of the Dhamma. How is that not a religious text? How can the Eight Fold Path come from a religious text, tradition yet be non-religious? That's truly cognitive dissonance.

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Buddhist, a Christian, a Muslim, etc... will gain a deeper understanding of their religion as they practice sila, Samadhi and panna.

I would say that a Buddhist gains deeper insight into the teachings of their own tradition. I'm not of the mind to state that the experiences of my religious tradition are equalivant to the experiences of other religions. Personally, I find that to be rather shallow. How can I say what a Jew feels when they read the Torah or when a Hindu visits the Ganges. It's not a one size fits all for religious experiences. I don't buy into perennial philosophy, which is what you maintain here.

I would not say the practice is Buddhist, which Buddhist practice would you be referring to?

Avihiṃsā is a good example. Certain traditions sacrifice animals for religious reasons, including Islam (to use one you just mentioned above). Buddhism condemns animal sacrifice and states that it is not a valid method to gain awakening. So I would not say that a religion which teaches animal sacrifice leads to liberation; this is absoluetely contrary to the principles of the Supreme Buddha's teachings.Practicing avihiṃsā comes naturally as a result from following sila, metta and so forth. It's a transformation of the mind.

At a depth of understanding you may find many similarities in the suttas, and the bible.

The bible has some nice words of wisdom in some books. It is also full of horrorific episodes of genocide and slaughter. I fail to see how the Suttas and Deuteronomy 13 can be reconciled.

Are you suggesting the 8-fold path is not a spiritual path?

Nope. It's a religious path. "Spiritual" is very vague these days.

What deeper truths?

The ones taught by the Buddha himself. You are going to die. Everyone you love is going to die. Everything you work for will fade away. How do we handle this? How do we live with these truths? How do we die? The Buddha teaches that we are inheriting this from a pervious life and it will follow us to another life. Personally, I find the struggle with this to be what the Buddha said- it is Noble. It's also very difficult to resolve. It's far more Noble than learning of ethereal concepts of emptiness and clear mind states etc...

"There are these five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained. Which five?

"'I am subject to aging, have not gone beyond aging.' This is the first fact that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.

"'I am subject to illness, have not gone beyond illness.' ...

"'I am subject to death, have not gone beyond death.' ...

"'I will grow different, separate from all that is dear and appealing to me.' ...

"'I am the owner of my actions,[1] heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir.' ...

"These are the five facts that one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

I am taught that no conversion from one organised religion to another is necessary, to practice the 8-fold noble path.

Ok. I've been taught the opposite.

You mention that it is up to every individual to decide if they feel ready to convert and then in another breath you claim this is automatic as one begins down this path???

Nowhere did I say that conversion is automatic. It appears you misread my post.

Lastly, this post has strayed far from OP's topic. I'll let the mods decide if they want to make a new thread.

[Maitri]

Hello John,

I think your analysis of the possible consequences of the institutional critique that began in the 60's on current personal commitment to institutions is very interesting and plausible. It is interesting to think of in my own life, for example, beginning to get involved with some institutions largely based on the need for income, doing my job, but also maintaining something of an "outsider" perspective. Later, becoming less of an outsider, but affiliating with smaller, local institutions where the work feels very personal and pragmatic.

Yes, I think it's hard to step outside and see that we are held to tends which are hard to detect. We are in another trend at the moment which is very vague and nebulous spawned, I think, by the crash of mainline Christianity. It's like the Hindenberg and everyone is re-calibrating. The breakdown of communities and identities is starting to be felt deeply which is why I think social media is such a force for younger people.

I agree with you about the 60's- a lot of influence came from that era which still permeates American Buddhism, particularly it's leftist orientation and aesthetic preferences.

Oh, the quotation marks: I think I was using quotes as one would use them to indicate dialog; the context was declaring oneself Buddhist. I don't think there was anything more to it than that.

Thanks for the explanation. I took them to be more in the "air quotes" irony vein, which is not what you intended! Thanks!

[thepea]

No. I answered that in my previous post. Taking refuge and having faith in Three Jewels is an integral factor of awakening in Buddhism, to liberation in fact.

But why couldn't someone practice the laws of nature(dhamma) take refuge and find this beneficial to their possibly deeper understanding of their own religion. It doesn't really matter if you take refuge in Buddha or Christ, etc...

The Noble Eightfold's entire purpose is to change one's religious outlook- it's a religious teaching. It presents an answer to the suffering of this life and future lives. That's a religious question. Buddhism teaches metaphysical answers to resolve the conflicts of the human condition.

To me the word religion suggests a belief or faith based outlook, I see this as something that is not integral in the practice of sila, Samadhi, and panna. Perhaps you are using the word differently, I agree that the outcome of the noble 8-fold path is to eradicate suffering.

Additionally, the Buddha first taught the Noble Eightfold Path to five ascetics searching for liberation with one instantly attaining liberation from re-birth. At the end they become his students and the Gods in the heavens celebrate the teaching of the Dhamma. How is that not a religious text? How can the Eight Fold Path come from a religious text, tradition yet be non-religious? That's truly cognitive dissonance.

The Gods in the heavens celebrating to me does not indicate a religios outlook but a spiritual outlook.

I would say that a Buddhist gains deeper insight into the teachings of their own tradition. I'm not of the mind to state that the experiences of my religious tradition are equalivant to the experiences of other religions. Personally, I find that to be rather shallow. How can I say what a Jew feels when they read the Torah or when a Hindu visits the Ganges. It's not a one size fits all for religious experiences. I don't buy into perennial philosophy, which is what you maintain here.

To me we each have been wound up in different and unique ways, the unbinding process is a universal teaching applicable to one and all, regardless of religious backgrounds.

Avihiṃsā is a good example. Certain traditions sacrifice animals for religious reasons, including Islam (to use one you just mentioned above). Buddhism condemns animal sacrifice and states that it is not a valid method to gain awakening. So I would not say that a religion which teaches animal sacrifice leads to liberation; this is absoluetely contrary to the principles of the Supreme Buddha's teachings.Practicing avihiṃsā comes naturally as a result from following sila, metta and so forth. It's a transformation of the mind.

I will agree that there is some ritualistic behaviours in all religions but I cannot excuse Buddhism from this. I agree that the rituals are much less harmful in Buddhism when compared to other religions but I find rituals to be confusing and a distraction to the practical aspects of the path.

Nope. It's a religious path. "Spiritual" is very vague these days.

Gotta disagree with you here, for me it is a spiritual practice. Liberating all the beings in the universe from suffering.

Ok. I've been taught the opposite.

What have you been taught?

Nowhere did I say that conversion is automatic. It appears you misread my post.

Sorry, it sounded like you were suggesting that practicing the 8-fold path is grounds for conversion.

Note to moderation, this thread does not seem to be updating last poster.

[Maitri]

But why couldn't someone practice the laws of nature(dhamma) take refuge and find this beneficial to their possibly deeper understanding of their own religion. It doesn't really matter if you take refuge in Buddha or Christ, etc...

To me the word religion suggests a belief or faith based outlook, I see this as something that is not integral in the practice of sila, Samadhi, and panna. Perhaps you are using the word differently, I agree that the outcome of the noble 8-fold path is to eradicate suffering.

First of all, you are playing with terms here, and the Dhamma is not "a law of nature". It's religious doctrine. Not a hard science nor just a philosophy of morality and ethics. I notice that you don't like the term religious either and insist that everything is "spiritual" as if that removes the taint of belief and metaphysical doctrines from the tradition. In fact, the very definition of spiritual is:

adjective
1.
of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
"I'm responsible for his spiritual welfare"
synonyms: nonmaterial, incorporeal, intangible; More
2.
of or relating to religion or religious belief.

Both the terms and concepts of religion and spiritual deal with metaphysics and non-observable claims. It's not like if you call something spiritual it stops being part of a religion or a religious text! The texts, teachings, and practice came down through the age to us because they were preserved in a religious tradition.

Sila, samadhi, and panna are important, but they are not the sole goal of the teachings nor do exist without the support of the other teachings in the texts. Panna particularly is the wisdom of understanding the insights of the Dhamma, not a catch all for a nebulous "knowledge" across many spiritual traditions.

I get that those teachings on faith or metaphysics may make you uncomfortable and I can respect that- that's your path and journey. No one is forced to believe in anything here. However, to insist that faith in and taking refuge in the Three Jewels is not a central part of the Buddhist tradition is just flat out wrong. The Buddhist religion has been unequivocal on the position of the Buddha compared to other teachers stating that he is: "unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed". I've cited several suttas to support my position, but you've simply said that you don't agree and have provided no scriptural evidence to the contrary.

What have you been taught?

That refuge in the Three Jewels is the entry to Nibanna , to perfect peace. That the the Dhamma is "good in the begining, good in the middle, and good in the end." That refuge is the entry point for all other accomplishments on the path; without confidence and faith in the Three Jewels we are making up things up as we go along because we have nothing to ground ourselves as we turn to walk on the path. Taking refuge in the Three Jewels connects us with our past and with the future of our practice. As a final point,I will quote from the suttas what the Buddha himself says that saddhā is necessary for Stream Entry:

"And which are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is endowed?

"There is the case where the disciple of the noble ones is endowed with verified confidence in the Awakened One: 'Indeed, the Blessed One is worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in knowledge & conduct, well-gone, an expert with regard to the world, unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed.'

"He is endowed with verified confidence in the Dhamma: 'The Dhamma is well-expounded by the Blessed One, to be seen here & now, timeless, inviting verification, pertinent, to be realized by the wise for themselves.'

"He is endowed with verified confidence in the Sangha: 'The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples who have practiced well... who have practiced straight-forwardly... who have practiced methodically... who have practiced masterfully — in other words, the four pairs, the eight individuals [1] — they are the Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples: worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, the incomparable field of merit for the world.'

"He is endowed with virtues that are appealing to the noble ones: untorn, unbroken, unspotted, unsplattered, liberating, praised by the wise, untarnished, leading to concentration.

"These are the four factors of stream-entry with which he is endowed.
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html

and for a bit of levity to conclude my part in this discussion

phpBB .

[thepea]

First of all, you are playing with terms here, and the Dhamma is not "a law of nature".

I don't see how I'm playing with terms, and I'm taught the Dhamma is a universal teaching of the laws of nature.

It's religious doctrine.

The essence of Dhamma is not about belief/faith in a particular set of scriptures, this attitude seems to fall short. It's a practical approach where one can observe suffering, see the causes of suffering and how the mind influences body and how body influences mind. One can also see the changing nature of suffering and learn through direct experience to put an end to creation of new suffering. This practice the way I've come to understand it, does not involve belief at all.

Not a hard science nor just a philosophy of morality and ethics.

Who suggested this?

I notice that you don't like the term religious either and insist that everything is "spiritual" as if that removes the taint of belief and metaphysical doctrines from the tradition. In fact, the very definition of spiritual is:

adjective
1.
of, relating to, or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
"I'm responsible for his spiritual welfare"
synonyms: nonmaterial, incorporeal, intangible; More
2.
of or relating to religion or religious belief.

Its not that I don't like the term religious, but religious to me insinuates a belief/faith based practice. To me it is a very spiritual practice. Lets say we are the sum total of our mental formations, every mental formation is a past life, as we are in a state of continuous change. We think we are this solidified structure but this is simply an illusion. The truth is we are changing trillions of times in the blink of an eye. To be witness to this process of rebirth and put an end to the creation of new selves, and then to witness the old selves coming to the surface and refining in nature is a deeply spiritual practice, and does not require one ounce of belief or faith to practice.

Both the terms and concepts of religion and spiritual deal with metaphysics and non-observable claims.

Why do you assume this is un-observeable, granted to observe this with absolute clarity requires a crystal clear deeply penetrative mind, but it is not an impossibility.

Sila, samadhi, and panna are important, but they are not the sole goal of the teachings nor do exist without the support of the other teachings in the texts. Panna particularly is the wisdom of understanding the insights of the Dhamma, not a catch all for a nebulous "knowledge" across many spiritual traditions.

Sila, Samadhi and panna make up the entirety of the eight-fold noble path, are you suggesting a nine-fold or ten-fold path?

I get that those teachings on faith or metaphysics may make you uncomfortable and I can respect that- that's your path and journey. No one is forced to believe in anything here. However, to insist that faith in and taking refuge in the Three Jewels is not a central part of the Buddhist tradition is just flat out wrong. The Buddhist religion has been unequivocal on the position of the Buddha compared to other teachers stating that he is: "unexcelled as a trainer for those people fit to be tamed, the Teacher of divine & human beings, awakened, blessed". I've cited several suttas to support my position, but you've simply said that you don't agree and have provided no scriptural evidence to the contrary.

Sayagi U bha Khin used to allow Christians to take refuge in the qualities of Christ opposed to Buddha, when beginning this path. Apparently its ok to substitute one jewel for another at the apparent level, and when one understands at a deeper level this taking of refuge can take on a more personal sacred meaning, and the verbal aspect of this may fall away.

[DC2R]

You can follow the eight precepts (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dham ... asila.html) to further the sila (virtue) aspect of the Noble Eightfold Path (which includes right speech, action, and livelihood).