Why are there so many 'secret' Buddhists?

[Snowmelt]

Out of curiousity, why do many people I meet who I would say are Buddhist not define themselves as such?

I've noticed it particularly online on sites like Facebook. There seems to be a weird trend for people I would consider to be Buddhists to describe their religion as 'a path to happiness' or some other wishy-washy definition.

Perhaps they are uncomfortable being in a minority, which would be the case in any Western country.

Yes, I know I should not be worried about what these other people do... but could it be that their refusal of an outward public religious label shows they are more 'developed' than me on the path?

I don't think so, although one who has achieved Nibbana no longer requires the words of the Dhamma. They are considered a raft that, having crossed the stream, the arahant can safely discard.

Does labeling yourself a Buddhist somehow hold you back?

Not if one keeps in mind the simile of the raft.

[Snowmelt]

I have no idea what I am supposed to do with the term buddhist. What is it supposed to mean?

To me it denotes one who desires to let go utterly of greed, hate, and delusion and attempts to do so by following the Buddha Dhamma. But, since there are so many who call themselves Buddhists but show no inclination to let go of the defilements, perhaps a better term might be "Dhamma Follower".

I don't have any paraphernalia to prove my buddhistness. No statues, no posters, no stickers, no nothing.

I also have little to no interest in such things. I am interested in the words of the Dhamma and in their application.

Why would I want to have to go to the trouble of getting all kinds of useless brickabrak to satisfy someone else's idea of what religion is?

No good reason to do so, as far as I can see.

[Snowmelt]

I practice and study the Dharma, but what would be the purpose of my identifying as a "Buddhist"? I eat and study food too, but that doesn't make me an Eatist.

Good point.

... I'll have smeared a thick concept all over my concept-hungry identity-seeking mind.

Another good point.

[Snowmelt]

I wonder if the issue of calling oneself a 'Buddhist' or not, or calling oneself an 'agnostic'/'aetheist' or not, has something to do with questions of honor, status and prestige. I am referring to the sociological concept of 'symbolic capital'. You can look it up on Wikipedia if you like, but by way of example: In addition to the usual factors determining the outcome of a presidential election (i.e. knowledge, expertise, experience), there is also the factor of symbolic status. For example, in the case of Obama it was around the color of his skin, whilst for McCain it was around his past as a war hero.

In contemporary secular societies where there is much distrust and discomfort towards anything remotely 'religious', to call oneself a 'Buddhist' is to potentially diminish status, honor and prestige. It is to lose symbolic capital. By the same token, to call oneself an 'agnostic' or 'atheist' is to potentially boost status, honor and prestige. It is to gain symbolic capital.

Perhaps this is why some people prefer to call themselves 'vipassana practitioners' or 'Zennists'. For after all, vipassana is widely perceived to be non-religious in nature, whilst Zen (having been popularised by the Beat Generation) has a certain artistic and counter-cultural status in the popular imagination. By the same logic, it should be quite obvious why some people prefer to call themselves 'agnostic' and 'atheist' (For academics, given the role and function of educational institutions, it is easy to see why they think of themselves as more 'objective').

As Buddhism takes root in the West, it seems that people are becoming more willing to call themselves 'Buddhist'. In some situations, calling oneself a 'Buddhist' gives one more prestige and attracts less chance of ridicule than calling oneself a 'Christian'. Buddhism, no doubt, is accruing symbolic capital in the West. This manifests in positive and negative ways. We can see how the Dalai Lama is widely revered, or how Buddhist iconography is exploited for commercial purposes.

I agree with TheDhamma that committing oneself as 'Buddhist' can be a good thing as it can encourage progress on the path. However, as I have been trying to suggest with the concept of 'symbolic capital', 'Buddhism' or 'Buddhist' cannot be separated from wider sociocultural dynamics. The concept of 'symbolic capital' clues us in into the way in which individuals grapple with their sense of self, and especially, their sense of self in relation to others.

So, following pink_trike, I would suggest that if one is committing oneself as 'Buddhist', one has a responsibility to be ever mindful of the processes behind the use of such labels. For insofar as Buddhism is committed to selflessness, is this not what being 'Buddhist' demands of us?

[Snowmelt]

Sometimes the people who ask if you're a Buddhist seem to have misconceptions about what it means to be a Buddhist, so if you just answer "yes" or "no," you're not really answering their question. In that case, it can be tempting to answer, "No." Maybe a better answer would be: "What do you mean by Buddhist?"

Or, perhaps an explanatory answer would be good, such as "I want to become free of greed, hate, and delusion, and I follow the Buddhist path in order to do so".

[Jechbi]

Or, perhaps an explanatory answer would be good, such as "I want to become free of greed, hate, and delusion, and I follow the Buddhist path in order to do so".

That's a great idea!

[nathan]

Ok, label-scorner here. Label me as you see fit.

Here is brief account of my last experience (one of many such 'gems') of what a 'buddhist' is: A 45 year old drunk, pawing through some book by Eckhart Tolle in between screaming at his girlfriend and cracking open beers while he attempts to convert me to 'his' way of seeing things. So, as I said, thanks but no thanks.

Yours,
no-label

[Mawkish1983]

So you would abandon the 'Buddhist' label because of some bad eggs?

What about the 'human' label then?

[nathan]

So you would abandon the 'Buddhist' label because of some bad eggs?

What about the 'human' label then?

Thats more of a response to the almost total ignorance of the Dhamma that I find in probably 95 percent of all the people I've met face to face in the day to day world who are keen to tell me about how they are 'buddhist now' and everything is sorted out. There are a few people I know personally who study and practice well for sure but not many of those I have met outside of retreats or monasteries and so on and those who do are not particularly vocal about their thoughts or opinions either. Most people would have no idea that the Dhamma was very important to them.

I just find it easier to abandon the self being involved in labels, all of them. Then there's no issues about beings this or beings that.

[Mawkish1983]

I understand what you're saying... but I myself take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha. As such I am a Buddhist by most definitions I have seen. I'm not ashamed of the title 'Buddhist'. If I encounter someone else who also labels themselves Buddhist and who engages me in conversation about Buddhism, I say I'm an Upasaka. If they're 'fashion Buddhists' it usually becomes clear.

Another thought: if I met someone from a country where people generally hates folk from the UK (or the West in general) and they asked where I was from I wouldn't lie. By definition I'm British, I was born in Britian and I live in Britian. My parents are British etc. I label myself 'British' because conventionally I am! I'm not attached to being British, but I wouldn't lie about being British just because of the perceived behaviour of other British people.

By definition, I'm British. By definition, I'm Buddhist. I'm also a Scientist, a Man, a Husband, a Homeowner, a Scorpio (the list goes on and on).

I don't wish to antagonise here, my apologies if any insult is caused; that's not my intention... but maybe if more Dhamma-students / Triplegem refugees / vipassana Practitioners / whatever labelled themselves Buddhist, that 95% of 'fashion Buddhist' statistic would shrink?

On a personal note, the Dhamma saved my marriage. Whilst I know 'pride' is rooted in ego, I'm quite early on along the Buddhist path. At this time I can say honestly that I feel PROUD to have discovered Buddhism and PROUD to call myself Buddhist.

Maybe that means you who avoid the 'Buddhist' label have dispelled that pride and ARE further along the Buddhist path than I. In which case, well done . This is 'where I'm at'.

[Individual]

So you would abandon the 'Buddhist' label because of some bad eggs?

What about the 'human' label then?

Yes, don't be human. Be a Buddha.

[Ceisiwr]

if more Dhamma-students / Triplegem refugees / vipassana Practitioners / whatever labelled themselves

I think this is a good point here, in conventional reality you always have to label so if they dont say they are buddhist thats fine, they just choose a different label but if they are practicing the eightfold path then they are following the Buddhadhamma the same as your are, they just prefer a different label for whatever reason

[jcsuperstar]

no offense to anyone here, but most people i meet who are "buddhist" but dont want the label, are of the type that all have sorts of non buddhists ideas they want want to keep and pass off as buddhist, and by not "attaching to a label" the allow themselves to do so.

theyll also put the words of rumi, or krishnamurti etc as just as important as anything the buddha said, and while they may have said some cool things here and there, i dont put much stock into their opinions outside of their own traditions so what rumi said is about as important to me as the words of george bush when it comes to making a point when talking about the dhamma.

[DNS]

Here is brief account of my last experience (one of many such 'gems') of what a 'buddhist' is: A 45 year old drunk, pawing through some book by Eckhart Tolle in between screaming at his girlfriend and cracking open beers while he attempts to convert me to 'his' way of seeing things. So, as I said, thanks but no thanks.
Yours,
no-label

Hi nathan (another label ),

"Buddhist" doesn't mean "Buddha" or Arahant or even Sotapanna. Buddhists are aiming for noble levels (or at least some are), but while not there yet, still carry around the raft.

But with that said, I'm not saying someone 'must' or 'should' call themselves 'Buddhist' but it works for me so far.

[nathan]

I'm neither ashamed nor proud of the label buddhist, that seems silly to me. It is a widely applied label, it can have utility or suitability or not in a given context. Same with nathan, the label has utility or not. I employ the word liberally when it is beneficial to use it. I'm simply pointing out that the label can be used and misused in many ways. There is always the potential misuse of the banner of buddhism by people ignorant about dhamma or its use as a political tool for polorizing a society and in other ways. From those who must always identify with everything related to the term in given contexts there will be buddhists who don't want to be identified with something said or done that they consider ignorance in the name of buddhism or they want to be particularly identified with something of merit in the name of buddhism. This is how we end up with 'big issues in buddhism' from not dealing with them as ordinary small issues in individual people. I'm not within the umbrella of buddhism out of a preeminent interest in it's social state of affairs. If the label is being applied to me in a suitable context I am willing to accept it, if it is in an unsuitable context I am not, that's all. If the term buddhism has to be applied to all kinds of stuff that isn't much related to dhamma then all of the contexts where there have to be references to this kind of buddhist and that kind of buddhist creates a kind of sectarianism on a false basis when it is a basis unrelated to important dhamma. Vegetarian buddhists vs. omnivorous buddhists. If we were to have to identify with buddhism as some kind of umbrella label covering everything done in the name of buddhism I doubt anyone would want to be identified with all of it. So it is a limited and provisional term that I would rather hold at arms length over all. With something like follower or practitioner of Buddhadhamma or refuge taker, precept keeper or upasaka or lay disciple or wherever specific commitments to various principles are more clearly implied in a terminology I am more willing to accept the label fully as identifying an important commonality between my inclinations and those of others I would consider truly like minded.