Who is a Buddhist?

[SteRo]

Thoughts?

No.

[User13866]

In his “Manual of the Excellent Man” Ledi Sayādaw sets out 10 basic points that make one a Buddhist.

One is called a Buddhist if one has the right view about one’s volitional actions being one’s own real possession that one cannot disown. More specifically, this understanding covers the following ten matters:

1. That giving alms is wholesome kamma.
2. That making offerings is wholesome kamma.
3. That giving even trifling gifts and presents is wholesome kamma.
4. That there are definite and appropriate results from wholesome and unwholesome actions.
5. That there is wholesome kamma in looking after one’s mother, and unwholesome kamma in treating her badly.
6. That there is wholesome kamma in looking after one’s father, and unwholesome kamma in treating him badly.
7. That there is this human world.
8. That there are also other worlds such as the hell realms and the celestial worlds of devas and brahmās.
9. That there are beings born spontaneously.
10. That there are recluses and brahmins in the world with genuine attainments through right practice, who, having realised through direct knowledge the truth regarding this world and the other worlds, make it known to others.

This seems quite fair to me. Thoughts?

This is just a poor paraphrasing of

And what is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions? 'There is what is given, what is offered, what is sacrificed. There are fruits & results of good & bad actions. There is this world & the next world. There is mother & father. There are spontaneously reborn beings; there are contemplatives & brahmans who, faring rightly & practicing rightly, proclaim this world & the next after having directly known & realized it for themselves.' This is the right view with effluents, siding with merit, resulting in acquisitions.

I see SamVara also saw where Ledi was drawing from.

[Joe.c]

So, you agree that merely taking refuge makes you a Buddhist? Why would Ajatasatu go to hell if just taking refuge doesn't make you a Buddhist? It would be like buying a charm from a Mahayana temple.

Well .. It is up to you.

People want to believe anything. If you think taking refuge make you a buddhist, then go ahead. I can't prevent anyone to believe on anything.

For me, refuge means nothing without practice. There are million recite the refuge, but most of them are in lower realms now.

[Radix]

I agree.

In Humpty Dumpty land where a word means whatever one wants it to mean ...

My point is that it's counter-productive to brow-beat people about their religious identification.

Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

A word should mean something if we're using it. Otherwise, why bother with it. And when people use the word "Buddhist", they most likely mean something by it. It just so happens to be taboo to discuss it.

[Spiny Norman]

In Humpty Dumpty land where a word means whatever one wants it to mean ...

My point is that it's counter-productive to brow-beat people about their religious identification.

Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

A word should mean something if we're using it. Otherwise, why bother with it. And when people use the word "Buddhist", they most likely mean something by it. It just so happens to be taboo to discuss it.

It means many things to different people.

[cappuccino]

It means many things to different people.

This sounds like justifying a wrong view

[Sam Vara]

My point is that it's counter-productive to brow-beat people about their religious identification.

Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.

A word should mean something if we're using it. Otherwise, why bother with it. And when people use the word "Buddhist", they most likely mean something by it. It just so happens to be taboo to discuss it.

It means many things to different people.

A agree. And it also depends on context. Under some circumstances it would be acceptable to label the same individual as a Buddhist, under other circumstances, not. For example, I have a friend who is averse to being called a Buddhist because she is aware of the absurdity of constructing a Buddhist "self" based on ideas and principles. In forums and debates she has some sophisticated and forceful arguments about other practitioners not labelling her, as she doesn't think it helpful. Yet she gives talks on Buddhism in local secondary schools, and is quite happy to be described as "the Buddhist lady" when the pupils contrast her with the representatives of other religions who have been invited.

And I have known quite a few Thai people who do little that is recognisably "Buddhist" other than attend the local temple and chat to other Thais, and occasionally make donations. They slope off when meditation or chanting is scheduled, and although they have internalised a sense of respect around monks, you don't often see them listening to Dhamma-talks. On internet forums they might be labelled as "fake Buddhists", but most indigenous Brits would say that they are Buddhist.

Labels like that are not fixed for all time, such that a "real" label can be attached to people, and later commentators can get it right or wrong. Labelling someone is a one-off act, a momentary application of saññā which needs to be repeated in order to maintain an identity.

[Radix]

It means many things to different people.

"You can mean by the word "Buddhism" whatever you want it to mean, as long as it is the same as what I want it to mean."

[Coëmgenu]

"Buddhism" does not refer to a single religion. Like the term "Abrahamic," it refers to a plurality that shares common Buddhist mythology. Just as Judaism, Islam, and Christianity feature characters like "Jacob," "Noah," "Adam," "the One God," "his angels," "Enoch," "David," "Elijah," etc., Buddhist religions feature characters like "the Buddha," "Śāriputra," "Dīpaṃkara," "Kaśyapa," "Ajātaśatru," "Ānanda," "Devadatta," "Māra," etc.

[Radix]

Labels like that are not fixed for all time, such that a "real" label can be attached to people, and later commentators can get it right or wrong. Labelling someone is a one-off act, a momentary application of saññā which needs to be repeated in order to maintain an identity.

Ah yes, the Schrödinger Defense. One is simultaneously a Buddhist and yet not, but we can't know for sure. Buddhism is facing a decline, and it's not, but we can't know for sure. Thailand is a Buddhist country and it's not. We should do something to improve the quality of a Buddhist forum, and we should not. Because we're not sure we're really asleep at the wheel! Yay!

[Sam Vara]

Labels like that are not fixed for all time, such that a "real" label can be attached to people, and later commentators can get it right or wrong. Labelling someone is a one-off act, a momentary application of saññā which needs to be repeated in order to maintain an identity.

Ah yes, the Schrödinger Defense. One is simultaneously a Buddhist and yet not, but we can't know for sure. Buddhism is facing a decline, and it's not, but we can't know for sure. Thailand is a Buddhist country and it's not. We should do something to improve the quality of a Buddhist forum, and we should not. Because we're not sure we're really asleep at the wheel! Yay!

I'm not sure what it has got to do with Schrödinger, but it's certainly possible for one and the same person to be called a Buddhist and not a Buddhist at one and the same time. And for Buddhism to be declining in one person''s eyes, and thriving in another's. And for one person to think Thailand is Buddhist, and for another to think it's not.

That's just how labels work. I can't see any evidence of essentialism in what the Buddha taught which could get me thinking otherwise. Or anything worth stressing about.

[bpallister]

Can you be a bad Buddhist? Because that's how i'd categorize myself.

[Dan74]

Labels must serve a purpose. Ontologically they are pretty meaningless. So, what purpose do you want this label to serve?

[Sam Vara]

Labels must serve a purpose. Ontologically they are pretty meaningless. So, what purpose do you want this label to serve?

[Ceisiwr]

Labels must serve a purpose. Ontologically they are pretty meaningless. So, what purpose do you want this label to serve?

How are they ontologically meaningless?