Who is a Buddhist?

[Sam Vara]

Who is the authority if not each of us. Who decides your view is right view and another is wrong view.

On the issue of Right View, each of us decides for ourselves. But we do so by referring to an external standard. The term "right" has no meaning apart from that.

This is frankly where we differ and why I am not Buddhist.
An external standard is faith/belief driven and is the basis for religion and basically why there are so many Buddhist variations. Each one differing slightly than the other.
Buddha from my wisdom of experience did not teach religion but rather wisdom.
Of course when one begins they might feel drawn towards one tradition or teacher and this is where the spark or faith base can begin...... but this should quickly become wisdom of experience and all faith will be transformed.
If not then there is a blockage between dhamma and the student. This is where the sutta based religious zealot can be born.

You might well be right regarding faith, religion, and blockages, etc., but my point is not merely about "Right View" in the Buddhist sense as the first path factor. I mean that if we have the concept "right", then we must be referring to some external criterion. When we personally have "authority" to make a decision for ourselves, we are referencing some criterion of rightness which we learned from another.

[Radix]

If I have a toothache I go to someone who has the relevant expertise. If I label some people as Buddhists and others as not Buddhists, then how does that help me exactly? I'm not following.

If you have an existential problem concerning suffering and you can't figure it out for yourself, you go to someone who has or who you hope to have the relevant expertise. Your preferred address for such problems are, presumably, Buddhists, not Zoroastrians or chemists.

Do you want some people banned from the forum, because they spread what you see as "not Buddhism"? That could be OK, but it doesn't require anyone to be labelled this or that. Buddhists of all stripes misunderstand the Dhamma. That's largely what we are here for - to improve our Right View. It only becomes a problem if one pushes one's wrong view aggressively and with claims to authority.

This irony is just too much for me.

[thepea]

On the issue of Right View, each of us decides for ourselves. But we do so by referring to an external standard. The term "right" has no meaning apart from that.

This is frankly where we differ and why I am not Buddhist.
An external standard is faith/belief driven and is the basis for religion and basically why there are so many Buddhist variations. Each one differing slightly than the other.
Buddha from my wisdom of experience did not teach religion but rather wisdom.
Of course when one begins they might feel drawn towards one tradition or teacher and this is where the spark or faith base can begin...... but this should quickly become wisdom of experience and all faith will be transformed.
If not then there is a blockage between dhamma and the student. This is where the sutta based religious zealot can be born.

You might well be right regarding faith, religion, and blockages, etc., but my point is not merely about "Right View" in the Buddhist sense as the first path factor. I mean that if we have the concept "right", then we must be referring to some external criterion. When we personally have "authority" to make a decision for ourselves, we are referencing some criterion of rightness which we learned from another.

This is why paryatti and pattipatti must be taught hand in hand and why it’s near impossible to grasp the teachings without continuity of practice with the teaching being given as one progresses.
Without the wisdom from practice their is no based for knowledge. One ends up religious by default.
With practice and knowledge being given simultaneously there is very little room for faith or religion to creep in.

[Dan74]

If I have a toothache I go to someone who has the relevant expertise. If I label some people as Buddhists and others as not Buddhists, then how does that help me exactly? I'm not following.

If you have an existential problem concerning suffering and you can't figure it out for yourself, you go to someone who has or who you hope to have the relevant expertise. Your preferred address for such problems are, presumably, Buddhists, not Zoroastrians or chemists.

Do people come to Dhamma Wheel looking for a Buddhist master to guide them? How is this relevant? I still don't follow.

Do you want some people banned from the forum, because they spread what you see as "not Buddhism"? That could be OK, but it doesn't require anyone to be labelled this or that. Buddhists of all stripes misunderstand the Dhamma. That's largely what we are here for - to improve our Right View. It only becomes a problem if one pushes one's wrong view aggressively and with claims to authority.

This irony is just too much for me.

Forgive me if I am not up to date on everything that's going on here, but I don't see the irony. It was just the only sense I could make of what you could possibly be after with this need to label. Over the years, there have been calls for stricter moderation and the point I tried to make was that it was less about views and more about the manner in which they were expressed. Which may be relevant here too.

[Sam Vara]

This is frankly where we differ and why I am not Buddhist.
An external standard is faith/belief driven and is the basis for religion and basically why there are so many Buddhist variations. Each one differing slightly than the other.
Buddha from my wisdom of experience did not teach religion but rather wisdom.
Of course when one begins they might feel drawn towards one tradition or teacher and this is where the spark or faith base can begin...... but this should quickly become wisdom of experience and all faith will be transformed.
If not then there is a blockage between dhamma and the student. This is where the sutta based religious zealot can be born.

You might well be right regarding faith, religion, and blockages, etc., but my point is not merely about "Right View" in the Buddhist sense as the first path factor. I mean that if we have the concept "right", then we must be referring to some external criterion. When we personally have "authority" to make a decision for ourselves, we are referencing some criterion of rightness which we learned from another.

This is why paryatti and pattipatti must be taught hand in hand and why it’s near impossible to grasp the teachings without continuity of practice with the teaching being given as one progresses.
Without the wisdom from practice their is no based for knowledge. One ends up religious by default.
With practice and knowledge being given simultaneously there is very little room for faith or religion to creep in.

I think we might have different understandings of "religion" and "faith", and I can't quite see how your post relates to mine, but I agree with your point about practice and knowledge.

[thepea]

You might well be right regarding faith, religion, and blockages, etc., but my point is not merely about "Right View" in the Buddhist sense as the first path factor. I mean that if we have the concept "right", then we must be referring to some external criterion. When we personally have "authority" to make a decision for ourselves, we are referencing some criterion of rightness which we learned from another.

This is why paryatti and pattipatti must be taught hand in hand and why it’s near impossible to grasp the teachings without continuity of practice with the teaching being given as one progresses.
Without the wisdom from practice their is no based for knowledge. One ends up religious by default.
With practice and knowledge being given simultaneously there is very little room for faith or religion to creep in.

I think we might have different understandings of "religion" and "faith", and I can't quite see how your post relates to mine, but I agree with your point about practice and knowledge.

Religion is faith or belief. It lacks wisdom.
It can point to wisdom but it’s not wisdom.
Suttas point to wisdom but they are not wisdom.
The wisdom practitioner is free from religion.
Right anything is a corner. Four corners make a box or pen. The wisdom practitioner is outside of the box as well as inside the box. It’s paradoxical, but the faith or religious follower is securely in the box.

[Sam Vara]

This is why paryatti and pattipatti must be taught hand in hand and why it’s near impossible to grasp the teachings without continuity of practice with the teaching being given as one progresses.
Without the wisdom from practice their is no based for knowledge. One ends up religious by default.
With practice and knowledge being given simultaneously there is very little room for faith or religion to creep in.

I think we might have different understandings of "religion" and "faith", and I can't quite see how your post relates to mine, but I agree with your point about practice and knowledge.

Religion is faith or belief. It lacks wisdom.
It can point to wisdom but it’s not wisdom.
Suttas point to wisdom but they are not wisdom.
The wisdom practitioner is free from religion.
Right anything is a corner. Four corners make a box or pen. The wisdom practitioner is outside of the box as well as inside the box. It’s paradoxical, but the faith or religious follower is securely in the box.

Thanks for sharing your understanding of what religion is. Once you have axioms, you restrict the way you can think about things. I don't subscribe to those particular axioms, but I wish you all the best with your thinking along these lines.

[thepea]

I think we might have different understandings of "religion" and "faith", and I can't quite see how your post relates to mine, but I agree with your point about practice and knowledge.

Religion is faith or belief. It lacks wisdom.
It can point to wisdom but it’s not wisdom.
Suttas point to wisdom but they are not wisdom.
The wisdom practitioner is free from religion.
Right anything is a corner. Four corners make a box or pen. The wisdom practitioner is outside of the box as well as inside the box. It’s paradoxical, but the faith or religious follower is securely in the box.

Thanks for sharing your understanding of what religion is. Once you have axioms, you restrict the way you can think about things. I don't subscribe to those particular axioms, but I wish you all the best with your thinking along these lines.

Please provide your definition of religion/faith as every definition I find is belief in....
Religion is belief which is faith.
It would be nice to know what buddhists define religion as.

[Sam Vara]

Religion is faith or belief. It lacks wisdom.
It can point to wisdom but it’s not wisdom.
Suttas point to wisdom but they are not wisdom.
The wisdom practitioner is free from religion.
Right anything is a corner. Four corners make a box or pen. The wisdom practitioner is outside of the box as well as inside the box. It’s paradoxical, but the faith or religious follower is securely in the box.

Thanks for sharing your understanding of what religion is. Once you have axioms, you restrict the way you can think about things. I don't subscribe to those particular axioms, but I wish you all the best with your thinking along these lines.

Please provide your definition of religion/faith as every definition I find is belief in....
Religion is belief which is faith.
It would be nice to know what buddhists define religion as.

The question of "what Buddhists define religion as" is not a simple one, nor is it one that I am particularly qualified to answer. There have been protracted and informed debates here on DW and elsewhere on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, so there is a wide range of answers to that. My point is that if you decide to define "religion" as something which lacks wisdom, then that decision will have implications for further thinking about those concepts. Personally, I tend to see Buddhism, Christianity and Islam as examples of religion, because that's how practitioners often define them; and all three have a tradition of talking about wisdom, so to exclude those aspects from discussion would mean that I would be pointlessly at odds with others during discussions.

[thepea]

Thanks for sharing your understanding of what religion is. Once you have axioms, you restrict the way you can think about things. I don't subscribe to those particular axioms, but I wish you all the best with your thinking along these lines.

Please provide your definition of religion/faith as every definition I find is belief in....
Religion is belief which is faith.
It would be nice to know what buddhists define religion as.

The question of "what Buddhists define religion as" is not a simple one, nor is it one that I am particularly qualified to answer. There have been protracted and informed debates here on DW and elsewhere on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, so there is a wide range of answers to that. My point is that if you decide to define "religion" as something which lacks wisdom, then that decision will have implications for further thinking about those concepts. Personally, I tend to see Buddhism, Christianity and Islam as examples of religion, because that's how practitioners often define them; and all three have a tradition of talking about wisdom, so to exclude those aspects from discussion would mean that I would be pointlessly at odds with others during discussions.

It’s not what I define religion as it’s what the dictionary defines religion as. The dictionary defines religion as belief in ....
Belief is faith which is not wisdom(direct experience). This is simply a fact I’m stating. If one does not engage in the correct practical aspect of dhamma then they cannot experience wisdom.
What do you consider Buddhism?
Is it practical or faith based?
You are qualified to answer, your answer has as much value as any other answer.

[Sam Vara]

Please provide your definition of religion/faith as every definition I find is belief in....
Religion is belief which is faith.
It would be nice to know what buddhists define religion as.

The question of "what Buddhists define religion as" is not a simple one, nor is it one that I am particularly qualified to answer. There have been protracted and informed debates here on DW and elsewhere on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, so there is a wide range of answers to that. My point is that if you decide to define "religion" as something which lacks wisdom, then that decision will have implications for further thinking about those concepts. Personally, I tend to see Buddhism, Christianity and Islam as examples of religion, because that's how practitioners often define them; and all three have a tradition of talking about wisdom, so to exclude those aspects from discussion would mean that I would be pointlessly at odds with others during discussions.

It’s not what I define religion as it’s what the dictionary defines religion as. The dictionary defines religion as belief in ....
Belief is faith which is not wisdom(direct experience). This is simply a fact I’m stating. If one does not engage in the correct practical aspect of dhamma then they cannot experience wisdom.

There might be a few difficulties arising from relying on dictionary definitions, i.e.

1) There are lots of different dictionaries, and they typically give several different definitions of a complex term like "religion". Not all of those involve the term "belief".

2) "Belief" is not universally defined as "faith".

3) "Faith" is not defined so as to preclude "wisdom".

4) "Wisdom" is not defined as "direct experience".

5) In Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, "Sotapanna" is defined as someone who cannot break "sila", and "sila" is always and unambiguously defined so as to include not killing...which does rather contradict a point you have spent many happy hours trying to defend....

[thepea]

The question of "what Buddhists define religion as" is not a simple one, nor is it one that I am particularly qualified to answer. There have been protracted and informed debates here on DW and elsewhere on whether Buddhism is a religion or not, so there is a wide range of answers to that. My point is that if you decide to define "religion" as something which lacks wisdom, then that decision will have implications for further thinking about those concepts. Personally, I tend to see Buddhism, Christianity and Islam as examples of religion, because that's how practitioners often define them; and all three have a tradition of talking about wisdom, so to exclude those aspects from discussion would mean that I would be pointlessly at odds with others during discussions.

It’s not what I define religion as it’s what the dictionary defines religion as. The dictionary defines religion as belief in ....
Belief is faith which is not wisdom(direct experience). This is simply a fact I’m stating. If one does not engage in the correct practical aspect of dhamma then they cannot experience wisdom.

There might be a few difficulties arising from relying on dictionary definitions, i.e.

1) There are lots of different dictionaries, and they typically give several different definitions of a complex term like "religion". Not all of those involve the term "belief".

2) "Belief" is not universally defined as "faith".

3) "Faith" is not defined so as to preclude "wisdom".

4) "Wisdom" is not defined as "direct experience".

5) In Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, "Sotapanna" is defined as someone who cannot break "sila", and "sila" is always and unambiguously defined so as to include not killing...which does rather contradict a point you have spent many happy hours trying to defend....

Stop deflecting Sam.
I am well aware of my own attainments and through this wisdom of experience I can safely navigate the propaganda published by others or the definitions and language fraud used over the years to manipulate dhamma groups.
But... if we are to discuss “who is Buddhist?” and Buddhism is accepted as a religion of some sort then we need to define religion. I having looked into the standard definitions when using the term religion consider this to be belief or faith based.
The belief or faith being the spark which one is drawn towards initially. This spark through practice(experience based wisdom) should become ones base of wisdom. The belief which can be lofty and airy and others can dislodge you or upset you with their disbelief or contrary opinions transforms into granite like unshakeable wisdom which is liberative. There is no religion among the ariya.

[Sam Vara]

It’s not what I define religion as it’s what the dictionary defines religion as. The dictionary defines religion as belief in ....
Belief is faith which is not wisdom(direct experience). This is simply a fact I’m stating. If one does not engage in the correct practical aspect of dhamma then they cannot experience wisdom.

There might be a few difficulties arising from relying on dictionary definitions, i.e.

1) There are lots of different dictionaries, and they typically give several different definitions of a complex term like "religion". Not all of those involve the term "belief".

2) "Belief" is not universally defined as "faith".

3) "Faith" is not defined so as to preclude "wisdom".

4) "Wisdom" is not defined as "direct experience".

5) In Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, "Sotapanna" is defined as someone who cannot break "sila", and "sila" is always and unambiguously defined so as to include not killing...which does rather contradict a point you have spent many happy hours trying to defend....

Stop deflecting Sam.
I am well aware of my own attainments and through this wisdom of experience I can safely navigate the propaganda published by others or the definitions and language fraud used over the years to manipulate dhamma groups.
But... if we are to discuss “who is Buddhist?” and Buddhism is accepted as a religion of some sort then we need to define religion. I having looked into the standard definitions when using the term religion consider this to be belief or faith based.
The belief or faith being the spark which one is drawn towards initially. This spark through practice(experience based wisdom) should become ones base of wisdom. The belief which can be lofty and airy and others can dislodge you or upset you with their disbelief or contrary opinions transforms into granite like unshakeable wisdom which is liberative. There is no religion among the ariya.

I'm not deflecting. If you want to use dictionary definitions, then you need to be aware of the consequences. Either we trust a community-based view on how words are correctly used, or we don't.

If we trust one person's view of the special authority it gives them to pronounce on such matters, then one could claim that their own knowledge surpasses yours, and the ariyas are in fact all very religious.

[thepea]

There might be a few difficulties arising from relying on dictionary definitions, i.e.

1) There are lots of different dictionaries, and they typically give several different definitions of a complex term like "religion". Not all of those involve the term "belief".

2) "Belief" is not universally defined as "faith".

3) "Faith" is not defined so as to preclude "wisdom".

4) "Wisdom" is not defined as "direct experience".

5) In Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary, "Sotapanna" is defined as someone who cannot break "sila", and "sila" is always and unambiguously defined so as to include not killing...which does rather contradict a point you have spent many happy hours trying to defend....

Stop deflecting Sam.
I am well aware of my own attainments and through this wisdom of experience I can safely navigate the propaganda published by others or the definitions and language fraud used over the years to manipulate dhamma groups.
But... if we are to discuss “who is Buddhist?” and Buddhism is accepted as a religion of some sort then we need to define religion. I having looked into the standard definitions when using the term religion consider this to be belief or faith based.
The belief or faith being the spark which one is drawn towards initially. This spark through practice(experience based wisdom) should become ones base of wisdom. The belief which can be lofty and airy and others can dislodge you or upset you with their disbelief or contrary opinions transforms into granite like unshakeable wisdom which is liberative. There is no religion among the ariya.

I'm not deflecting. If you want to use dictionary definitions, then you need to be aware of the consequences. Either we trust a community-based view on how words are correctly used, or we don't.

If we trust one person's view of the special authority it gives them to pronounce on such matters, then one could claim that their own knowledge surpasses yours, and the ariyas are in fact all very religious.

What is the “community” definition? Is this like what is a woman territory? Where it’s politically incorrect to answer?

[Sam Vara]

Stop deflecting Sam.
I am well aware of my own attainments and through this wisdom of experience I can safely navigate the propaganda published by others or the definitions and language fraud used over the years to manipulate dhamma groups.
But... if we are to discuss “who is Buddhist?” and Buddhism is accepted as a religion of some sort then we need to define religion. I having looked into the standard definitions when using the term religion consider this to be belief or faith based.
The belief or faith being the spark which one is drawn towards initially. This spark through practice(experience based wisdom) should become ones base of wisdom. The belief which can be lofty and airy and others can dislodge you or upset you with their disbelief or contrary opinions transforms into granite like unshakeable wisdom which is liberative. There is no religion among the ariya.

I'm not deflecting. If you want to use dictionary definitions, then you need to be aware of the consequences. Either we trust a community-based view on how words are correctly used, or we don't.

If we trust one person's view of the special authority it gives them to pronounce on such matters, then one could claim that their own knowledge surpasses yours, and the ariyas are in fact all very religious.

What is the “community” definition? Is this like what is a woman territory? Where it’s politically incorrect to answer?

In this context, the term "community" means those who use the word, and thereby constitute its meaning. In the case of "religion", it's those who use the word in everyday language. In the case of "sotapanna", it's Nyanaponika, Bhikkhu Bodhi, Goenka, Ajahns Thanissaro, Sujato, Sumedho, Sucitto, and Punnadhammo, among others, Richard Gombrich, and everyone on Dhamma Wheel who took issue with you. Plus, I dare say, a whole lot more.

Of course, one can always insist that all the others are wrong, and you alone are right. But if you do, you can hardly insist that a dictionary definition is authoritative.