Who is a Buddhist?

A discussion on all aspects of Theravāda Buddhism
asahi
Posts: 2732
Joined: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:23 pm

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by asahi »

It seems ontology synonymous with the so called existential , metaphysical , phenomenological , philosophical , supernatural & transcendental . :thinking:
A system of belief that reflects an interpretation of an individual about what constitutes a fact . In other words , abstract theory with no basis in reality .
No bashing No gossiping
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by Dan74 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 1:43 pm
Dan74 wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:38 am 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?
Well, we can just read the discussion above to be pretty convinced that the label "Buddhist" has no hard and fast definition. And even if it did, it would still be a made-up compounded notion, not some thing-in-itself, a Platonic ideal or one of those "existing dhammas". You know me, I am a pragmatist, either it helps us with our practice or...
_/|\_
User avatar
Sam Vara
Site Admin
Posts: 13482
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2011 5:42 pm
Location: Portsmouth, U.K.

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by Sam Vara »

Dan74 wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 4:00 pm
Ceisiwr wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 1:43 pm
Dan74 wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:38 am 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?
Well, we can just read the discussion above to be pretty convinced that the label "Buddhist" has no hard and fast definition. And even if it did, it would still be a made-up compounded notion, not some thing-in-itself, a Platonic ideal or one of those "existing dhammas". You know me, I am a pragmatist, either it helps us with our practice or...
Yes, and I love your point about what purpose we want a label to serve. Often, we could do with being clearer about what we are trying to communicate. And sometimes a label comes straight from a place of bad intentions.
SteRo
Posts: 5950
Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2019 10:27 am
Location: Εὐρώπη Eurṓpē

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by SteRo »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:56 pm 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?
What is "one" that is called ... whatever?
Cleared. αδόξαστος.
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by Bundokji »

Dan74 wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 4:00 pm Well, we can just read the discussion above to be pretty convinced that the label "Buddhist" has no hard and fast definition. And even if it did, it would still be a made-up compounded notion, not some thing-in-itself, a Platonic ideal or one of those "existing dhammas". You know me, I am a pragmatist, either it helps us with our practice or...
Pragmatism draws its meaning from the categorizations enabled by the use of concepts/labels, which constitutes an underlying faith in the existence of true/reliable knowledge. They convey a purifying effect through separating wheat from chaff.

In terms of knowledge for instance, ñāṇadassana is said to be exclusive to the Buddha and his disciples. One could argue that this label or ideal does not reflect an existing dhamma, but a compounded notion that equally depends on those who do not posses it. I fail to see what purpose this denial is supposed to serve? Had the label no existence or ontological significance whatsoever, it would not even serve the purpose of doubt.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
TRobinson465
Posts: 1783
Joined: Thu May 12, 2016 5:29 pm
Location: United States

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by TRobinson465 »

Ceisiwr wrote: Sat Oct 08, 2022 10:56 pm 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?
Those are the 10 right views, but I dont think that makes you a Buddhist, since you can have those beliefs without a Buddha even existing in the world yet. I suppose the qualifier for a Buddhist would be that you believe that "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" AND that the Samana Gotama was not only one of them but that he attained supreme ultimate Buddhahood above and beyond what ordinary ascetics with abhinna powers achieved.

Personally im pretty liberal with what I consider Buddhist, secular Buddhists or anyone who considers the historic Buddha to be thier legitimate teacher count as Buddhists imo. including secular Buddhists, i just think secular Buddhist beliefs are incomplete Buddhism, and sometimes wrong for those who outright deny rebirth, as opposed to simply being agnostic toward it.
"Do not have blind faith, but also no blind criticism" - the 14th Dalai Lama

"The Blessed One has set in motion the unexcelled Wheel of Dhamma that cannot be stopped by brahmins, devas, Maras, Brahmas or anyone in the cosmos." -Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta
User avatar
Dan74
Posts: 4529
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 11:12 pm
Location: Switzerland

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by Dan74 »

Bundokji wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:21 am
Dan74 wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 4:00 pm Well, we can just read the discussion above to be pretty convinced that the label "Buddhist" has no hard and fast definition. And even if it did, it would still be a made-up compounded notion, not some thing-in-itself, a Platonic ideal or one of those "existing dhammas". You know me, I am a pragmatist, either it helps us with our practice or...
Pragmatism draws its meaning from the categorizations enabled by the use of concepts/labels, which constitutes an underlying faith in the existence of true/reliable knowledge. They convey a purifying effect through separating wheat from chaff.

In terms of knowledge for instance, ñāṇadassana is said to be exclusive to the Buddha and his disciples. One could argue that this label or ideal does not reflect an existing dhamma, but a compounded notion that equally depends on those who do not posses it. I fail to see what purpose this denial is supposed to serve? Had the label no existence or ontological significance whatsoever, it would not even serve the purpose of doubt.
To put it very coarsely, you're saying that if it is didn't exist, it would not be meaningful, right? Of course if there is nothing whatsoever, there would be no meaning in any description either.

I'm not asserting that nothing exists, just that the label Buddhist is not well-defined, as can be evidenced by many possible definitions. I don't think it follows that the label must exist for it to be useful. Provisional and ultimate. Does there exist "a Buddhist"? I am not really interested in discussing that. My point was simply to say that in this discussion, the purpose of labelling someone as "a Buddhist" or "not a Buddhist" should be discussed, IMO.
_/|\_
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Dan74 wrote: Sat Oct 22, 2022 6:29 am
Bundokji wrote: Wed Oct 19, 2022 4:21 am
Dan74 wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 4:00 pm Well, we can just read the discussion above to be pretty convinced that the label "Buddhist" has no hard and fast definition. And even if it did, it would still be a made-up compounded notion, not some thing-in-itself, a Platonic ideal or one of those "existing dhammas". You know me, I am a pragmatist, either it helps us with our practice or...
Pragmatism draws its meaning from the categorizations enabled by the use of concepts/labels, which constitutes an underlying faith in the existence of true/reliable knowledge. They convey a purifying effect through separating wheat from chaff.

In terms of knowledge for instance, ñāṇadassana is said to be exclusive to the Buddha and his disciples. One could argue that this label or ideal does not reflect an existing dhamma, but a compounded notion that equally depends on those who do not posses it. I fail to see what purpose this denial is supposed to serve? Had the label no existence or ontological significance whatsoever, it would not even serve the purpose of doubt.
To put it very coarsely, you're saying that if it is didn't exist, it would not be meaningful, right? Of course if there is nothing whatsoever, there would be no meaning in any description either.

I'm not asserting that nothing exists, just that the label Buddhist is not well-defined, as can be evidenced by many possible definitions. I don't think it follows that the label must exist for it to be useful. Provisional and ultimate. Does there exist "a Buddhist"? I am not really interested in discussing that. My point was simply to say that in this discussion, the purpose of labelling someone as "a Buddhist" or "not a Buddhist" should be discussed, IMO.
Indeed. It seems at times that the labelling process is an attempt to exclude people who don't confirm to some arbritary standard. The standard is set by self-appointed "defenders of the faith", suddenly appearing like the Monty Python Spanish Inquisition.... "Our chief weapons are: a fanatical devotion to Buddhagosa..." :tongue:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Bundokji
Posts: 6494
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2014 11:57 pm

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by Bundokji »

Dan74 wrote: Sat Oct 22, 2022 6:29 am To put it very coarsely, you're saying that if it is didn't exist, it would not be meaningful, right? Of course if there is nothing whatsoever, there would be no meaning in any description either.

I'm not asserting that nothing exists, just that the label Buddhist is not well-defined, as can be evidenced by many possible definitions. I don't think it follows that the label must exist for it to be useful. Provisional and ultimate. Does there exist "a Buddhist"? I am not really interested in discussing that. My point was simply to say that in this discussion, the purpose of labelling someone as "a Buddhist" or "not a Buddhist" should be discussed, IMO.
I do not think we are in disagreement, but maybe we are approaching ontology and pragmatism from two different vantage points. Pragmatism or utility seems to be a double edged sword. It is often said that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but the shortest does not always translate into the right destination or the best path. Pragmatism can provide a good basis for naive realism, where ontological questions are assumed rather than investigated, and where investigating such questions appears to be a waste of time.

For example, if someone asks you what is the time, all you have to do is to look at your watch and provide an answer. Imagine that someone asks you what is time, then you seem to be landed with a serious philosophical question, that while it still assumes the existence of time, it does not take it as a given. The pragmatism in dismissing ontological questions is easier to see than addressing them. I would argue that most spiritual paths, including Buddhism, focus on the limitations of the worldly and triggers a paradigm shift on how to view pragmatism. Samsara is often presented along these lines where living heedlessly appears plausible and doable only through not paying attention to the other side, and where investigating the ultimate (or lack of) appears to be a waste of time only from a worldly point of view, and the right thing to do from a spiritual point of view. The way monastics live appears to be a case in point where most worldly activities are suspended in favor of dedication to attain insight.

In the world, pragmatism is inseparable from correspondence and coherence. An outright denial of ontology seems to be the least pragmatic thing to do. This is what i was trying to point out in my reply to you. Acknowledging the ambiguity of the ontological connotations of "who is a Buddhist" is key to a non-dogmatic approach to this investigation in my opinion.
And the Blessed One addressed the bhikkhus, saying: "Behold now, bhikkhus, I exhort you: All compounded things are subject to vanish. Strive with earnestness!"

This was the last word of the Tathagata.
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by Radix »

Dan74 wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 8:38 am Labels must serve a purpose. Ontologically they are pretty meaningless. So, what purpose do you want this label to serve?
The same purpose as when you have a toothache and you want to have it fixed, you go to the dentist and not to a shoe store: you believe that a word means something, and that this meaning is relevant.

If you didn't believe that words have meanings, you'd have shut your mouth long ago and died of hunger, because you'd be paralyzed by your inability to distinguish a rock from bread.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by Radix »

Sam Vara wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 5:03 pm
Dan74 wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 4:00 pm Well, we can just read the discussion above to be pretty convinced that the label "Buddhist" has no hard and fast definition. And even if it did, it would still be a made-up compounded notion, not some thing-in-itself, a Platonic ideal or one of those "existing dhammas". You know me, I am a pragmatist, either it helps us with our practice or...
Yes, and I love your point about what purpose we want a label to serve. Often, we could do with being clearer about what we are trying to communicate. And sometimes a label comes straight from a place of bad intentions.
And yet the two of you have no problem calling people and things all kinds of labels, and not only that, you believe that those aren't "just your opinions", but The Truth that the labeled person must take to heart and submit to, or else you just have further justification to label them as bad, evil, wrong, deranged, fake, etc. etc. etc.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by Radix »

Coëmgenu wrote: Mon Oct 17, 2022 6:58 pm "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.
Indeed. The similiarities between secular Budhism and traditional Buddhism are superficial at best, only nominal.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Radix wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:00 am
The similiarities between secular Budhism and traditional Buddhism are superficial at best, only nominal.
I don't think that's true, but even if it was, Secular Buddhism is here to stay.
So what are you going to do? Write to the Dalai Lama and ask for them to be excommunicated? :tongue:
Buddha save me from new-agers!
User avatar
Radix
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2022 8:42 pm

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by Radix »

Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:50 amI don't think that's true, but even if it was, Secular Buddhism is here to stay.
So what are you going to do? Write to the Dalai Lama and ask for them to be excommunicated? :tongue:
This isn't funny.

Just like Christianity and Buddhism cannot harmoniously coexist in one place, or the way Theravada and Mahayana cannot harmoniously coexist in one place, so secularism and traditionalism cannot harmoniously coexist in one place.
The tried and tested solution has always been divorce, separation.
Western Buddhism is the perfect ideological supplement to rabid consumerist capitalism.
Glenn Wallis
Spiny Norman
Posts: 10172
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:32 am
Location: Andromeda looks nice

Re: Who is a Buddhist?

Post by Spiny Norman »

Radix wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 7:03 am
Spiny Norman wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:50 amI don't think that's true, but even if it was, Secular Buddhism is here to stay.
So what are you going to do? Write to the Dalai Lama and ask for them to be excommunicated? :tongue:
This isn't funny.

Just like Christianity and Buddhism cannot harmoniously coexist in one place, or the way Theravada and Mahayana cannot harmoniously coexist in one place, so secularism and traditionalism cannot harmoniously coexist in one place.
The tried and tested solution has always been divorce, separation.
I don't think we have any actual secular Buddhists here.
Buddha save me from new-agers!
Post Reply