What is a Buddhist?

[Ryumon]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

I think that any self-help system that has a method could be called a philosophy, though at a much shallower level. Other philosophies have methods of thinking, debating, etc.; zen isn't the only one. I find it hard to classify it as a religion. Take Dogen's teachings and get rid of the rituals, temples, etc., and there's no religion that I see.

[disastermouse]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

I think that any self-help system that has a method could be called a philosophy, though at a much shallower level. Other philosophies have methods of thinking, debating, etc.; zen isn't the only one. I find it hard to classify it as a religion. Take Dogen's teachings and get rid of the rituals, temples, etc., and there's no religion that I see.

I know of no other philosophy, at least among current philosophers, that incorporates meditation of any kind - let alone something as radical as shikantaza.

You don't see it as a religion because your definition of 'religion' is narrower in modern Western vernacular than in it's actual etymology suggests. 'Relegare' means to 'bind' or to 'bind back'. It's been suggested that it means to 'bind to the Gods' as used by Homer, but the actual word can mean 'read, read again' or 'to bind back (to truth)'. In this case, 'religion' means much more than doctrine. Certainly our constant revisiting of Buddhist teachings captures a sense of this. But in another sense, scripture in general is not quite as important to a Zen Buddhist as it is to a post-Reformation Christianity.

I think that if it was decisively proven (somehow) that Jesus never existed or that the mythology itself about his life was untrue, it would devastate Christian religions of most types. If someone said that Siddhartha was a fictional character, I don't think most Zen or even generally contemplative Buddhists would do much more than go, 'Huh' before they went back to sitting in meditation. Would any Western Buddhist be shattered if they realized that many of the Mahayana teachings did not, in fact, come from a 'Naga' king, for instance?

Chet

[ghop]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

I think that if it was decisively proven (somehow) that Jesus never existed or that the mythology itself about his life was untrue, it would devastate Christian religions of most types. If someone said that Siddhartha was a fictional character, I don't think most Zen or even generally contemplative Buddhists would do much more than go, 'Huh' before they went back to sitting in meditation. Would any Western Buddhist be shattered if they realized that many of the Mahayana teachings did not, in fact, come from a 'Naga' king, for instance?

This is a narrow view.

Not the middle path.

Regard ALL dharmas as dreams.

I agree Chet. But don't go to a Christian...go to Christ, within yourself. Don't go to a Buddhist, go to Buddha, within yourself. I think people are waking up to a new Reality (the same ol' Reality) and are finding out that if they are going to find "the truth" they are going to find it within themselves. IMHO

gassho
Greg

[Rich]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

What is a Buddhist?

A Buddhist is someone who is trying to attain their true nature without depending on some outside force like god or religion. Sitting meditation / zazen is the practice of trying to do that.

[disastermouse]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

I think that if it was decisively proven (somehow) that Jesus never existed or that the mythology itself about his life was untrue, it would devastate Christian religions of most types. If someone said that Siddhartha was a fictional character, I don't think most Zen or even generally contemplative Buddhists would do much more than go, 'Huh' before they went back to sitting in meditation. Would any Western Buddhist be shattered if they realized that many of the Mahayana teachings did not, in fact, come from a 'Naga' king, for instance?

This is a narrow view.

Not the middle path.

Regard ALL dharmas as dreams.

I agree Chet. But don't go to a Christian...go to Christ, within yourself. Don't go to a Buddhist, go to Buddha, within yourself. I think people are waking up to a new Reality (the same ol' Reality) and are finding out that if they are going to find "the truth" they are going to find it within themselves. IMHO

gassho
Greg

The Zen path, the Buddhist path itself, cannot be rooted only within one's own subjective experience - it must be an intersubjective 'science' of sorts. Think of Dokusan as 'qualified peer review'. Usually when you attend a Zen dokusan, the teacher isn't quizzing you about doctrine, he's there for practical matters related to the 4NT, EFP, and in the case of Treeleaf, Shikantaza - he's there to see and help with how it's working in your own experiment. This system of standards is propagated not specifically by some ethereal unicorn called 'Buddha', but by the hidebound, tiresome, and tradition-obsessed institution of Buddhism and as much as it often bores me to tears - it's necessary to prevent the narcissistic tendency to believe that every cherished idea we have results from a direct line to God/Truth/What-Have-You. It has taken me a while to come around to this, and I may passionately forget this again some time in the future, but I've finally come around to realize that it's true.

If you sit for an appreciable amount of time, I think you may come to find that the term 'within yourself' is meaningless, not just doctrinally, but experientially. Experiencing the clusterfuck that is the moment-to-moment commentary of the mind, although it is all essentially 'not it', some of it is blatantly erroneous, but not a small amount of it is seductively and subtly attractive to the achievement-oriented ego. It is so seductive, so appealing, that if left to your own devices, it will stick to you like velcro. It's your teacher's job to unstick the velcro, and that successive line of qualified teachers is not found 'within yourself'. If you could see your own blind-spots, the term blind spot would be rather unnecessary. It is the entire tradition that upholds and makes possible this 'intersubjective peer review', and there are dangers to both slavishly holding to tradition (hiding your secret practice of 'achievement) and dangers to thinking you have or can 'personally achieve' truth.

As always, only IMHO,

Chet

[Shokai]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

Very Interesting :roll:
Thanks for sharing that Chet

[Hoyu]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

Chet wrote:
If someone said that Siddhartha was a fictional character, I don't think most Zen or even generally contemplative Buddhists would do much more than go, 'Huh' before they went back to sitting in meditation.

That's how I would handle the news.

Gassho,
John

[ChrisA]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

Gassho, Chet, for a truly useful post! I especially appreciated this articulation of dokusan:

The Zen path, the Buddhist path itself, cannot be rooted only within one's own subjective experience - it must be an intersubjective 'science' of sorts. Think of Dokusan as 'qualified peer review'. Usually when you attend a Zen dokusan, the teacher isn't quizzing you about doctrine, he's there for practical matters related to the 4NT, EFP, and in the case of Treeleaf, Shikantaza - he's there to see and help with how it's working in your own experiment.

Terms such as "intersubjective science" and "qualified peer review" really help me understand what you're getting at here. I can also imagine using the "peer review" comparison to explain this to my (increasingly curious) dad!

[Jundo]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

I like the Jukai idea, and have ordered the book, but probably won't participate in the next one. I'll just continue to hang out in Treeleaf, if that's OK.
Gassho
Adrian

It's ok.

I have often said that, in my feeling, the most vital aspect is to incorporate Wisdom and Compassion into our life through Zazen, learn from the Buddhist Teachings and make them a foundation of our life, and seek as we can to live by the Precepts (i.e. live as we can to avoid harm, and to act in healthful and beneficial ways toward self and other ... 'self and other' not two, by the way).

If one is living in such way, the ceremony of Jukai simply is a party to celebrate such fact. If one is not living in such way, then the ceremony of Jukai is without meaning anyway.

There are aspects to the ceremony that are like any ceremony of commitment. Perhaps it does represent a certain promise and uniting, much like the difference between just "living together" and "heading to the altar". That is for each person to decide in their own heart.

One other thing ... Some folks expressed sentiments like this ...

Take Dogen's teachings and get rid of the rituals, temples, etc., and there's no religion that I see. ...

... A Buddhist is someone who is trying to attain their true nature without depending on some outside force like god or religion. ...

I would say this this expressed a bit of 21st century, modern western bias as to how Buddhism, including Zen Buddhism, has been and is practiced in Japan, China and the rest of Asia now and throughout the centuries.

A visit to almost any Zen Monastery in Japan (now or in Dogen's time), China, Korea or Vietnam ... with the incense smoke, ritual, dogma and doctrine, and heroic superhuman images of saintly Bodhisattvas and Buddhas, would quickly convince about anyone that this is a "church" and a "religion". For some reason, most modern westerners have come to believe that such "square Zen" is somehow a decay of the "real" Zen Buddhism, or a later addition, or not as "religious" as it appears to the eye. However, such is not the case. (I am not speaking only of Amida Buddhists and the like, who believe in a Buddha who is a savior-like figure very much like Jesus, who will take one to his "pie in the sky" heaven on death in return for faith and prayer ... but these same attitudes have been found in Zen Buddhism since the beginning) ...

Bernard Faure, the great Zen Buddhist historian, has a very interesting ... but horribly edited and flawed (I think he wrote it over a weekend) ... little book called "Unmasking Buddhism", writes for example ...

[T]he fact remains that, for the vast majority of Buddhists in Asia, this notion of Awakening is too often used as a convenient alibi to disguise the fact that the real practice seeks first and foremost to obtain worldly benefits, whether material (such as prosperity) or symbolic (such as prestige). We risk not understanding anything about real-life Buddhism if we underestimate these “human, too human” motivations. (p 36)

Awakening continues to be presented as the mark of “authentic”Buddhism, while the concern for the “worldly benefits” (genze riyakuin Japanese) derived from pious works and the worship of Buddhist deities is dismissed as a less genuine form of Buddhism, the result of a lame compromise with local culture and popular needs. It would be presumptuous, however, for us Westerners to assume that we can easily identify and understand the true teaching ofthe Buddha after centuries of oblivion and deviations, while arguing that the people of Asia, who practiced it for such a long time, never really understood it. This kind of assumption reveals the resilience of the Orientalist ideology among Western adherents of Buddhism (or rather, Neo-Buddhism). Although we no longer disparage Buddhism in the name of an alleged Western cultural superiority, as our forefathers did, our tendency to idealize it and to reduce it to a teaching untainted by worldly concerns and focused exclusively on Awakening remains fundamentally mistaken. (p 38)

Endowed with the thirty-two marks of the buddhas,
Shakyamuni is indeed treated as a kind of god. Mahayana scriptures
such as the Lotus Sutra depict him as an eternal, allknowing,
and transcendent being whose human vulnerability is
simply a pious stratagem. This notion of a supra-worldly Buddha
gave rise to a whole series of metaphysical buddhas such as
Amitabha (the buddha who reigns over the Western Pure Land)
and the five dhyani buddhas who correspond to the five directions
of the mandala (four buddhas at the four cardinal points with
Shakyamuni at the center, later replaced by Vairochana). In esoteric
Buddhism in particular, the cosmic Buddha Vairochana, likened
to the sun, is perceived as the be-all and end-all of all things.
After the buddhas come the bodhisattvas, considered to be either
future buddhas or emanations of the various buddhas. The former
case is represented by Maitreya, the “future Buddha,” who is said
to wait in Tushita heaven until it is time (far away for us but close
for him) to appear in our world, in several million years’ time.
Unlike the Christian Messiah, however, Maitreya will not appear
at the end of the world; instead he will mark the start of the new
golden age after our world has completely renewed itself. (p 62)

The magical aspect of Buddhism has unfortunately been completely
neglected in the West to date, which has focused instead on
its spiritual or doctrinal aspects. “Supranormal powers” (abhijña),
allegedly obtained through asceticism or ritual, are contrasted
with pure spirituality. Even though these powers have never
been the avowed goal of religious observance in Asia, they
particularly appeal to the imagination of followers who count on
the clergy to protect them from all evil and guarantee them happiness
in this world and the next.
By depicting the Buddha as a kind of freethinker rising up
against the prejudices of his time, the Orientalists of the nineteenth
century transformed Buddhism into a kind of “Protestantism”
characterized by its rejection of dogma and ritual. They found in
Buddhism a religion after their own heart whose supposedly
rationalist approach formed an enlightening contrast with
Christianity (in particular ritualistic Catholicism). This same attitude
can be found among the Western Buddhist elite who are
seeking, in good faith, to reform Buddhism and transform it into
a religion which is adapted to the modern world. In doing so,
they are forgetting one thing: Buddhist philosophy, metaphysics,
myth, and ritual form an organic whole; it is impossible to dispense
with one (ritual) without distorting the others. In the living
reality of Buddhism, the philosophical and the religious, the
rational and the magic, go hand in hand. (p 67-68)

The reinterpretation of Buddhism as “spirituality” is particularly
striking in the case of Zen. In Zen and the Birds of Appetite,
the Catholic monk Thomas Merton writes: “To define Zen in
terms of a religious system or structure is in fact to destroy it – or
rather to miss it completely.” He adds that “very serious and
qualified” practitioners of Zen deny that it is a religion, citing as
his authorities Do¯gen – a sect founder who was renowned for his
sectarian polemics – and D. T. Suzuki, a renowned ideologist.
According to Merton: “Buddhism itself … points beyond any
theological or philosophical ‘ism.’ It insists on not being a system
(while at the same time, like other religions, presenting a peculiar
temptation to systematizers).” Merton is correct to stress that
this demand not to be a system is shared by most religious systems:
their very legitimacy is based on this point – making it
somewhat suspect. (p 70)

Gassho, J

[Ryumon]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

A visit to almost any Zen Monastery in Japan (now or in Dogen's time), China, Korea or Vietnam ... with the incense smoke, ritual, dogma and doctrine, and heroic superhuman images of saintly Bodhisattvas and Buddhas, would quickly convince about anyone that this is a "church" and a "religion". For some reason, most modern westerners have come to believe that such "square Zen" is somehow a decay of the "real" Zen Buddhism, or a later addition, or not as "religious" as it appears to the eye. However, such is not the case.

But does Zen need these things? Dogen was acting in a context, a cultural situation, that included such things.

The Buddha didn't need a church or monasteries.

Christ didn't need a church. That only came later. He was a rebel from the organized religion of his time.

Emerson gave up on the church, because he realized it was a hindrance.

[Jundo]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

A visit to almost any Zen Monastery in Japan (now or in Dogen's time), China, Korea or Vietnam ... with the incense smoke, ritual, dogma and doctrine, and heroic superhuman images of saintly Bodhisattvas and Buddhas, would quickly convince about anyone that this is a "church" and a "religion". For some reason, most modern westerners have come to believe that such "square Zen" is somehow a decay of the "real" Zen Buddhism, or a later addition, or not as "religious" as it appears to the eye. However, such is not the case.

But does Zen need these things? Dogen was acting in a context, a cultural situation, that included such things.

Hi Kirk,

No, I do not think Zen "needs these things" and, yes, Dogen and others were men and women of their times. I mean, I am a fella who recently wrote an essay that started ...

I have a confession to make: I don't believe in Buddha.

It may be shocking for a Buddhist priest to say so, as shocking as hearing a Catholic priest say he "doesn't believe in Jesus". But it's true nonetheless. I am a Buddhist priest who thinks "Buddha" is largely bunk and baloney. **

viewtopic.php?f=17&t=3673

**(although please note, as some folks missed in overlooking the points I was making, that essay also ended with the words ... The Buddhist Path is Real, Liberation is Real, Buddha is Real )

However, in making such changes in the west, perhaps we need to be very honest and say that we are really making a "new Zen", very different from the ways it was practiced traditionally in China, Japan and Korea, in Dogen's time or later. What many westerners think of as "Zen" or "returning to the heart of Zen" is a modern western fantasy, and unlike anything before.

In doing away with things that have been part of the tradition for hundreds of years, thousands of years, we must realize that ... in many ways ... we are making a completely NEW tradition that is nothing like "Zen" as traditionally practiced.

Also, we have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water. I wrote about that in something called "Turning Japanese". so I will post it here again.

This practice is not limited to any place or time ... we drop all thought of place and time. It certainly is not Indian, Chinese, Japanese, French or American. But, of course, we live in place and time, so as Buddhism traveled over the centuries from India to China, Japan, Korea and other places, it naturally became very Indian/Chinese/Japanese/Korean etc.

But what of the cultural trappings?

Must we bow, ring bells, chant (in Japanese, no less), wear traditional robes, have Buddha Statues, burn incense? ... All that stuff besides Zazen. Are they necessary to our Practice?


No, not at all!


We don't need anything other than Zazen, any of those trappings. In fact, they are no big deal, of no importance, when we drop all viewpoints in sitting Zazen.

On the other hand, we have to do something, to greet each other somehow, read some words, dress some way. Why not do such things? As I often say, for example, we have to do something with our hands when practicing walking Zazen ... why not hold them in Shashu (I mean, better than sticking 'em in your pockets)?

viewtopic.php?p=24626#p24626

As well, there are parts of our practice which we do BECAUSE we resist (for example, when visiting a temple for Retreat, I usually put my heart fully into ceremonies and arcane rituals BECAUSE I resist and think some of it silly or old fashioned). Ask yourself where that kind of resistance is to be found (here's a clue, and it is right behind your own eyes).

What is more, there is method to the madness, and many (not all) customs have centuries of time tested benefits ... embody subtle perspectives ... that support and nurture Zazen Practice at the core. Many parts of our Practice, though "exotic", are worth keeping, even if they strike someone as strange at first. Bowing, statues, rigid decorum in the Zen Hall and, yes, weird talks about Koans and arcane ceremonies all fit in that category. They may seem like unnecessary "Japanese" or "Esoteric" elements at first, until you understand the role they serve. I have given talks on all these things recently, for example ...

Bowing ...

http://www.treeleaf.org/sit-a-long/arch ... owing.html

Many aspects of tradition can be seen in new ways when the barriers of the mind are knocked down. Thus, for example, the Kesa, the Buddha's Robes ... though just cloth ... can be seen to cover and enfold the whole universe, laughter, cries of pain, old age, becoming and fading away ... life ...

On the other hand again, it is okay to abandon or reject many practices. However, KNOW very well what you are rejecting before you reject it. For example, I wrote this to someone awhile back about which of the "Japanese trappings" are worth keeping and which can be discarded. I wrote him:

Absorb what is useful and discard the rest. For example, I think Oryoki [formal meal ritual] is a great practice, and worth keeping.. Same for bowing.

Some things I keep out of respect for TRADITION [the robes, the ways of doing some ceremonies]. It is important to keep ties to where we come from. Some things also have a special symbolic meaning if you look into them, so worth keeping [for example, a Rakusu]

But other stuff, no need to keep: For example, I usually avoid to chant in Japanese or Chinese [except once in awhile, out of respect for tradition]. Tatami mats and Paper screens have nothing to do with Zen practice particularly [but I happen to live in an old Japanese building, so ... well, tatami and paper screens!} Some things I think are just dumb (except symbolically), like the Kyosaku stick. Incense is great, until it was recently shown to cause cancer. Many beliefs of Buddhism are rather superstitious things that were picked up here and there. I abandon many of those.

The outer wrap of Zen Buddhism is changing greatly as it moves West. The greater emphasis on lay practice over monastics, the greater democracy in what was a feudal institution (arising in societies where the teacher's word was law ... oh, those were the days! :wink: ), giving the boot to a lot of magico-supersticio hocus-pocus bunkum, the equal place of women ... heck, the use of the internet to bring teachings that were once the preserve of an elite few into everyone's living room.Those are good and great changes to the outer wrapping (you can read about them in books like this one (author interview here: http://atheism.about.com/library/books/ ... anChat.htm ). The coreless core, however, remains unchanged.

Do not throw out the baby with the bath water. Many completely "Japanese" practices which seem silly at first are worth keeping. ...

... other things, like some of the arcane incense, bell & drum filled rituals, take them or leave them.

Gassho (an Asian custom), Jundo (a Dharma name)

[Ekai]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

I heard another teacher once say, "Why be a Buddhist when you can be a Buddha?" I believe we are all Buddhas by nature, even if one does not consider them a Buddhist.

To me, being a Buddha is being awake. You are awake to your true innate nature and live a virtuous life grounded with wisdom and compassion. Just being who you are in this moment with an understanding that everything in life is ever-changing and impermanent. The awakened mind realizes there is suffering and the root cause of suffering is clinging. We learn to let go of this clinging to be liberated from suffering by following the Eightfold Path. We can't stop the suffering but we can choose on how we relate to it.

We also understand that we are all interconnected in this world and our own self is not the center of the universe. When we let go of our ego and selfish ways and treat others with lovingkindness, compassion, empathy and wisdom, that is being a Buddhist or Buddha. Let go of our judgements, concepts and habitual patterns to see the Buddha nature in all of us.

Jodi

[Jundo]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

I heard another teacher once say, "Why be a Buddhist when you can be a Buddha?" I believe we are all Buddhas by nature, even if one does not consider them a Buddhist.

To me, being a Buddha is being awake. You are awake to your true innate nature and live a virtuous life grounded with wisdom and compassion. Just being who you are in this moment with an understanding that everything in life is ever-changing and impermanent. The awakened mind realizes there is suffering and the root cause of suffering is clinging. We learn to let go of this clinging to be liberated from suffering by following the Eightfold Path. We can't stop the suffering but we can choose on how we relate to it.

We also understand that we are all interconnected in this world and our own self is not the center of the universe. When we let go of our ego and selfish ways and treat others with lovingkindness, compassion, empathy and wisdom, that is being a Buddhist or Buddha. Let go of our judgements, concepts and habitual patterns to see the Buddha nature in all of us.

Jodi

Ah, so nicely nicely put. Thank you, Jodi.

Gassho, J

[disastermouse]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

On the other hand, we have to do something, to greet each other somehow, read some words, dress some way. Why not do such things? As I often say, for example, we have to do something with our hands when practicing walking Zazen ... why not hold them in Shashu (I mean, better than sticking 'em in your pockets)?

True enough - you can make a fetish out of this or you can completely ignore it - but I think hewing to either simple-mindedly may be a mistake. My idealization of rebellion has diminished to a remarkable degree. Others may have to occasionally come the other way.

To those who want to throw the whole out, I once got great advice - try it because you resist it.

Chet

[ChrisA]

Re: What is a Buddhist?

I once got great advice - try it because you resist it.

Yes! Your resistance begs the question of attachment: what is this thing you're resisting and why? Do it to learn.

Gassho, Jundo and Chet.