Spiny Norman wrote:But what if somebody attended a refuge ceremony and formally took refuge, but subsequently didn't do any practice - would you still consider them to be a Buddhist?
I would consider them to be a Buddhist. I think labels and tags are a matter of what one's beliefs are. Perhaps they have enough faith in the Buddha to accept all his teachings as true, but not enough to find the strength to practice, or is too indulgent to practice.
"Practice" is also a tricky word -- as there are many different levels of practices, or different elements within the practice.
SarathW wrote:
The way I understand the only requirement to be a Buddhist is to take refuge in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.
But what if somebody attended a refuge ceremony and formally took refuge, but subsequently didn't do any practice - would you still consider them to be a Buddhist?
What percentage of time spent "in practice" would be required so that someone can say they are a Buddhist?
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
clw_uk wrote:
I would say the not wanting of the eel wriggles Is based on aversion to being wrong because of doctrine, while saying "I don't know if there is rebirth, and it's not relevant to my practice" isn't based on aversion, it's quite neutral.
"I don't know if there is rebirth, and I don't know if it's relevant to my practice" would be neutral. They are actually two separate questions.
"It's not relevant to my practice" is a view, disagreeing with the view that rebirth is relevant to practice.
I guess that then depends on if rebirth-view is necessary to practice?
It's also interesting to open up a discussion on what exactly a "view" (any view) is and what the origin of views are.
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
Nicolas wrote:"Practice" is also a tricky word -- as there are many different levels of practices, or different elements within the practice.
Agreed.
clw_uk wrote:It's also interesting to open up a discussion on what exactly a "view" (any view) is and what the origin of views are.
This is also tricky to put into words. At the very least, I think views are deeply personal, perhaps even subconscious. When we talk about views, we can only talk about the more superficial aspect of them that can be put into words.
And I'm using the word "views" in the sense of views about reality or experience, not views about something mundane or political like whether this cookie is better than that cookie or whether marijuana should be legalized.
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
This is also tricky to put into words. At the very least, I think views are deeply personal, perhaps even subconscious. When we talk about views, we can only talk about the more superficial aspect of them that can be put into words.
It's interesting that you say that, as the Buddha teaches that views come to be when there is "me".
""Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder... when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don't come into being."
“Knowing that this body is just like foam,
understanding it has the nature of a mirage,
cutting off Māra’s flower-tipped arrows,
one should go beyond the King of Death’s sight.”
SarathW wrote:It is not necessary to accept Kamma and Rebirth to be a Buddhist.
The way I understand the only requirement to be a Buddhist is to take refuge in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.
That is :
a) Faith that suffering can be ended. (Buddha or Nibbana)
b) Faith that there is a path to end suffering (Dhamma or Four Noble Truths). It is not required to know the Four Noble Truths.
c) Faith that there are teachers who can guide you to understand Dhamma. (Sangha)
Even if a person has not taken the formal three refuge but practice according t o the teaching, he can be considered a Buddhist.
A dedicated practice means he has the faith in Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha.
What requires to attain Nirvana is not becoming a Buddhist but follow the path.
“As the lamp consumes oil, the path realises Nibbana”
I don't know if its already been mentioned in the thread somewhere, but this is a quote from Ajahn Sumedho (whom I greatly admire as a teacher) in his book "The Sound of Silence," in the chapter "Ideals"
"So is kamma something you have to believe in to be a Buddhist? I've heard Buddhists say that to be a Buddhist you have to believe in the law of kamma and rebirth. But I've never felt that that was ever an expectation.
The thing that attracted me to Buddhism was that you didn't have to believe in anything. You didn't need to take positions".
This is also tricky to put into words. At the very least, I think views are deeply personal, perhaps even subconscious. When we talk about views, we can only talk about the more superficial aspect of them that can be put into words.
It's interesting that you say that, as the Buddha teaches that views come to be when there is "me".
""Concerning the various views that arise in the world, householder... when self-identity view is present, these views come into being; when self-identity view is absent, they don't come into being."
Good find. That gives us something to work with. Assuming Ven. Isidatta is not mistakenly misrepresenting the Dhamma of course. I only bring up this possibility because of the context of the sutta: he's a junior monk who answered a three-times-asked question that even a senior monk couldn't answer. Is a similar statement attributed to the Buddha or a chief disciple in another sutta?
Also, in this sutta "the various views that arise in the world" are defined as the 10 unanswerable questions and the views in the Brajamajala Sutta. So perhaps this sutta is referring to a subset of views and not views as a whole?
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
Namo tassa bhagavato arahato samma sambuddhassa
SarathW wrote:Can we accept Dependent Origination without accepting kamma and rebirth?
Of course you can. The main purpose of DO is to give a contemplative analysis of cognitive pathways, established in ignorance or knowledge, with or without craving; that would lead to either states of dukkha or its cessation.
“I say, beware of all enterprises that require new clothes, and not rather a new wearer of clothes.” – Henry David Thoreau, Walden, 1854
Secure your own mask before assisting others. – NORTHWEST AIRLINES (Pre-Flight Instruction)
