A question for Buddhists.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

I can explain it this way. Imagine John goes to school to learn to be a tennis player. He takes classes on tennis. He reads books about tennis. Studies the history of the game, the rules, the important players who lived throughout history and what they accomplished. He could spend a lifetime watching movies of the pro's playing matches without ever stepping onto a real tennis court and playing.

Lets say John studies for many years then starts actually playing the game. His head will be full of knowledge about how to stand, how to hit a backhand, the proper way to hold the racket and to swing, where to hit the ball, how to serve and on and on. Lots and lots of knowledge and thoughts.

Now imagine this kid Joe who never learned a thing from a book or a class. He watched some people playing and he started hitting the ball against a wall. He went to a court and asked people to play with him. Over time, he becomes a great player. He doesn't think about the game, he becomes one with it. He doesn't think at all, he plays.

Both John and Joe are tennis players but Joe doesn't even know it's called tennis.

I would say one can be a Buddhist and not know it. They do it, they don't conceptualize it. That's what is true if you see religion as a finger pointing at the moon. Some will get to the moon without needing a finger pointing at it and others will use a finger... both realize the moon and may see the purpose and importance of the finger.

That sounds like my 12 yr old daughter who thinks she knows everything already and see's no reason to do math

Show me someone who has reached the moon without help? Not one Buddhist master has achieved Buddhahood without a guru.

What are the practices that you think are dogma? What are the practices that you disagree with?

You think it is just some concept, it is not. Buddhism is about experiencing the teachings, the lessons, the techniques. They build upon each other. Each tradition is for a different type of person and they are all geared to help someone move along as fast as that person is able.

Without guidance one becomes lost and thinks they have arrived. Like the comment about the Buddha being Awake. Do you think that is meant in the same manner that is talked about on this forum? That he could see with his 3rd eye and feel energy? You really think that is all he meant?

Your path is like a lot of peoples on this forum. Talk about energy or emptiness. Many just make up what they think those terms mean without having a true understanding. That is the danger you are putting yourself in.

Ignorance. Ignorance of your true self.

All of the knowledge is there not only to guide you but to help explain what you are experiencing once you get to those stages. Are you familiar with the Jhanas for instance? A teacher helps one achieve and move through the stages. It is not book knowledge but an experience that improves the quality of ones life.

I am not trying to be rude Ryan. I am just not aware of anyone ever becoming a pro without a teacher. Without ever taking any lessons nor am I aware of anyone ever achieving true enlightenment without a guru.

If you were to say this stuff on any true Buddhist forum my response would be considered very mild. I get attacked for just saying I understand the teachings.

I guess my point is, I am a lot like you are saying. I experience a lot of things and it flows right along with the Buddhist teachings. Yet to be respectful to Buddhist I don't call myself a Buddhist because I don't do any of the practices within Buddhism or take refuge ONLY in the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha. If you don't follow a tradition or take refuge you are not a real Buddhist. I like the Tao but I don't do Qi Qong, I believe in Jesus and the teachings of the Gospel of Thomas but I am not a Christian as taught by the church.

I could say I am a Buddhist, a Doaist or a Christian but for those people who truly follow those practices within each of those traditions. It would be insulting because I don't.

[mulyo13]

Originally Posted by CSEe

Dear mulyo13....let me explain my version of Buddhism . Let say if you fall into a river ...and getting out from the water is never an option ...so if you choose to swim against the current or away from the current ... regardless what you do , you will just suffering of fatigue as regardless what you do , you will end up in the sea ....but if you choose to swim with the current towards the sea ... and you swim as fast and as hard as possible ... still you will just suffering of fatigue because there is no sea ... the sea is you . So Buddhism is a natural process of realization not determination of knowledge ... if you believe this meditation is good ... believe is emotion .... you are the believe .....if you choose to meditate .......the will to choose is you .....so in my current mind , the more you believe or you meditate ...the more you will travel into a journey of greater suffering because as your emotion increases ......as your emotion increases you will travel longer journey into your realization and suffering is the nature of this path .......

Have you ever meditate?
If yes, go to no.1
If no, go to no.2

1. Does your meditation lead to suffering? If yes, find a teacher. If you already had a teacher, find another new teacher.

2. Start meditate. Prove it for your self if it's true that meditate will lead to suffering. Of course, find a teacher. And congratulation, you had done what has been taught in the Kalama Sutta.

Good luck.

[RyanWind]

I lived in a monastery for about 2 years and everyone there would be defined as card carrying members of the path. They did the meditation, the rituals and followed all the strict rules. They all wore the same robes. But wow they were all very different from each other. You had some monks there who were doing it all to be "spiritual." I talked to several and they really didn't want to be there it's just they were convinced being there made them better than the people who weren't there. Then you had more humble people who thought about helping others more than themselves. They would find various ways to serve others by visiting local hospitals or giving bread to the homeless etc. Then you had the ambitious ones who wanted to achieve higher ranks or positions of authority. Then you had some who were contemplative who walked around content and never talked or said anything. Then you had the fundamentalists who liked to tell others what books or teachers were false and which were ok.

That's what's so hard about trying to say who is an "official" Buddhist. Everyone is different and interprets the teachings and applies them in their own way. There are a lot of teachers out there and really it's us who decide which one to follow. So really we are are own teachers since we decide who to follow and who not to. It's our inner voice that guides us not somebody else.

Obviously, whatever Buddha achieved spiritually is a potential in everyone whether they are a Buddhist or not. The potential existed before Buddha was born. If somebody named Strawberry discovered it and became famous it would be called Strawberryism instead of Buddhism. To me, Buddha discovered something and came up with ideas how to get other people there too. It's not really a thing one religion owns.

Some catholic monks meet up with Buddhist monks every year and really I think their point is they recognize they are on the same path just through different traditions. The core of what they are doing is the same.

The goal of religion is to reach our highest potential and so anyone who is on that path can call themselves a Buddhist or a Christian or whatever. That's why these huge organizations were created. To lead others to the light. I am seeking union with my source. a higher state of consciousness and being. If somebody says, well you don't go to mass, you are therefore not a catholic or you don't formally sit in meditation you are not a Buddhist, I would say those paths at their core are not about dogma or belief or rituals, they are about a transformation of consciousness and that is what makes all religions the same and all people in those religions the same.

If I seek the truth I am a Buddhist and a Christian and a Hindu. I have a kinship with anybody in those paths who found the truth and became a better human being through it. Really all these paths are about love and light and oneness. It's the ones into egotism within these paths that should not be called Buddhists or Christians. They are not following the spirit of the founders. If you seek the same consciousness as Buddha and Jesus, you are on the same path as them.

I was an "official" member at one time and so would meet the definition at that time but I found the "official members" were all on their own paths within the teachings. I would rather define Buddhism as a inquiring consciousness that seeks higher states than someone who joins this group or that one and follows rules and rituals.

[WabiSabi]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

I lived in a monastery...

Yes, exactly. And all paths have something to teach. And should you find the truth in all these myriad teachings, it will help you find the truth in all things.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

I lived in a monastery for about 2 years and everyone there would be defined as card carrying members of the path. They did the meditation, the rituals and followed all the strict rules. They all wore the same robes. But wow they were all very different from each other. You had some monks there who were doing it all to be "spiritual." I talked to several and they really didn't want to be there it's just they were convinced being there made them better than the people who weren't there. Then you had more humble people who thought about helping others more than themselves. They would find various ways to serve others by visiting local hospitals or giving bread to the homeless etc. Then you had the ambitious ones who wanted to achieve higher ranks or positions of authority. Then you had some who were contemplative who walked around content and never talked or said anything. Then you had the fundamentalists who liked to tell others what books or teachers were false and which were ok.

That's what's so hard about trying to say who is an "official" Buddhist. Everyone is different and interprets the teachings and applies them in their own way. There are a lot of teachers out there and really it's us who decide which one to follow. So really we are are own teachers since we decide who to follow and who not to. It's our inner voice that guides us not somebody else.

Obviously, whatever Buddha achieved spiritually is a potential in everyone whether they are a Buddhist or not. The potential existed before Buddha was born. If somebody named Strawberry discovered it and became famous it would be called Strawberryism instead of Buddhism. To me, Buddha discovered something and came up with ideas how to get other people there too. It's not really a thing one religion owns.

Some catholic monks meet up with Buddhist monks every year and really I think their point is they recognize they are on the same path just through different traditions. The core of what they are doing is the same.

The goal of religion is to reach our highest potential and so anyone who is on that path can call themselves a Buddhist or a Christian or whatever. That's why these huge organizations were created. To lead others to the light. I am seeking union with my source. a higher state of consciousness and being. If somebody says, well you don't go to mass, you are therefore not a catholic or you don't formally sit in meditation you are not a Buddhist, I would say those paths at their core are not about dogma or belief or rituals, they are about a transformation of consciousness and that is what makes all religions the same and all people in those religions the same.

If I seek the truth I am a Buddhist and a Christian and a Hindu. I have a kinship with anybody in those paths who found the truth and became a better human being through it. Really all these paths are about love and light and oneness. It's the ones into egotism within these paths that should not be called Buddhists or Christians. They are not following the spirit of the founders. If you seek the same consciousness as Buddha and Jesus, you are on the same path as them.

I was an "official" member at one time and so would meet the definition at that time but I found the "official members" were all on their own paths within the teachings. I would rather define Buddhism as a inquiring consciousness that seeks higher states than someone who joins this group or that one and follows rules and rituals.

I don't disagree with that. We are all different and we would all experience an event in a different way. We all have the ability to be a Buddha or a Christ.

All I am saying is with respect to those traditions it is wrong to call oneself a Buddhist if you don't do any of the practices or follow any of the traditions.

Hell if you don't even know what they are, is it right to call yourself a Buddhist when you don't even know what that means?

That is all I am saying.

[mulyo13]

Originally Posted by WabiSabi

Buddhism has no static definition. Siddhartha did not create Buddhism, his followers did. Siddhartha founded a place to teach truth, not religion. He considered himself a physician, not a philosopher or holy man. And he did not teach esoteric tradition, only how to end suffering. All of the esoteric traditions currently found in Buddhism were introduced after the fact, after the death of Siddhartha himself. That is not to say that those esoteric traditions are not used for a purpose, but that they add unnecessary complication to what was otherwise simple and pure.

"To be a Buddhist one is to take refuge only in the Buddha, Dharma and the Sangha. That is the accepted meaning of being a Buddhist."

This implies a sort of closed-mindedness that as far as I am concerned, Siddhartha condemned.

That is not to say that you should not take refuge in the Three Jewels, as Siddhartha's path was/is indeed a path to enlightenment, to true understanding. But rather that you should not cling to such notions of 'the only way'. Divinity is BIG, way bigger than any single school of thought. If you constantly attach yourself to labels, you are limiting yourself in your ability to understand interconnected truth.

You might want read Maha parinibbana sutra.

[RyanWind]

So a follower of Buddha is not a Buddhist unless they also follow the religion. I guess that is what you are saying. We need a name for someone that follows Buddha but does not formally join the Buddhist religion. I pick "buddha."

Dictionary:
noun Bud·dha \ˈbü-də, ˈbu̇-\
Definition of Buddha

1
: a person who has attained Buddhahood or enlightenment

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

So a follower of Buddha is not a Buddhist unless they also follow the religion. I guess that is what you are saying. We need a name for someone that follows Buddha but does not formally join the Buddhist religion. I pick "buddha."

Dictionary:
noun Bud·dha \ˈbü-də, ˈbu̇-\
Definition of Buddha

1
: a person who has attained Buddhahood or enlightenment

What does enlightenment mean to you?

What part of Buddhism is a religion and what isn't?

What is it that you follow and what is it that you think doesn't need to be?

[RyanWind]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

What does enlightenment mean to you?

What part of Buddhism is a religion and what isn't?

What is it that you follow and what is it that you think doesn't need to be?

Humans simplify things to absurd levels. Scientists say humans can only think about 4 things at a time. That's a pretty substantial limit. Enlightenment is one of those words that overly simplifies things.

The definition:
1
: the act or means of enlightening : the state of being enlightened
2
capitalized : a philosophic movement of the 18th century marked by a rejection of traditional social, religious, and political ideas and an emphasis on rationalism —used with the
3
Buddhism : a final blessed state marked by the absence of desire or suffering

So the word enlightenment is kinda useless. I guess the Buddhist definition is kind of saying it's where you are at the final spiritual goal. A final state. That's pretty arrogant considering humans are so low down the totem pole as far as spiritual development. Look at all the violence on this earth. In fact, hypnotists have found there are no souls higher than blue on earth. In other words, once you are higher than blue you don't come near earth again. At least in a physical form. So humans don't reach any kind of "final state." Maybe the Buddhist definition is saying you've reached the highest state possible while in a human body. Maybe that's it. But clearly there are higher states possible.

Mindfulness is a good concept to describe what Buddhists or anybody should be doing.

Wikiepedia :The practice of mindfulness involves being aware moment-to-moment, of one’s subjective conscious experience from a first-person perspective.

The definition doesn't explain much.

It's basically waking up to reality. Humans walk around asleep. Mindfulness are those times you, though energy and awareness, transcend normal consciousness. Normal consciousness is habitual, memory based, reactionary thought/emotion/action. One book called it "roof brain chatter." The "talking" in your head. What's often missed in self examination is the "self" looking at the chatter is also chatter. Thus teachers like Krishnamurti who say to observe the observer. But all of this is the path towards becoming a high blue soul... Becoming selfless, empathetic, compassionate etc. and experiencing life from a higher state of consciousness.

Religions are full of people trying to become more spiritual, some who started the religions or contributed dogma and teachings/books to them about the path up and out. One of the main paths is to see what is not spiritual about yourself, recognize those things then discard them. One gets to the positive by purging themselves of the negative.

Like if you notice what makes you moody, or negative, or argumentative, and then let that part of you go... you automatically become more spiritual. Trying to become spiritual though some positive method usually just adds to ego since you are in an idea and not looking at yourself as you are.

Instead of saying how to become "enlightened" it's better to say "how do I find peace within and without?" How do I become a vessel for light and love? You do that by letting go of those parts of yourself that are not at peace.

Language is horrible for explaining spirituality. Phrases like "you do that" or "you let go" can easily be used by the "roof brain chatter" or thought/ego to continue being asleep lost in the conceptual mind world. So that's where the world is. The planet is full of philosophies and religions and spiritual concepts and people on this path or that one yet the world is still a mess of violence. Something is not getting through or working.

The message is to get out of ego, and the ego reads that and says "Ok I Will! " See what the brain does there? Thought creates a self that pretends to not be thought. "I will get out of ego! I will meditate and do Buddhist practices and be spiritual!" But there is no revolution in that persons consciousness. They don't become different, they act different. And the slightest little thing will launch them into anger or violence etc.

The practice is to be fully present and to be aware of the noise in your head and just be... don't feed the negative energy by focusing your attention on it. Be in the current moment fully aware of all that is within and without and recognize what you are in that.

[CSEe]

Originally Posted by mulyo13

Have you ever meditate?
If yes, go to no.1
If no, go to no.2

1. Does your meditation lead to suffering? If yes, find a teacher. If you already had a teacher, find another new teacher.

2. Start meditate. Prove it for your self if it's true that meditate will lead to suffering. Of course, find a teacher. And congratulation, you had done what has been taught in the Kalama Sutta.

Good luck.

Dear mulyo13 ..sorry in advance if you read your own writing ...perhaps you will realize that you have created a kind of belief on meditation ...perhaps you are so in depth of the experience you have during meditation and with such experiences you accept meditation is something right and something you will continue to do .......but I guess you still do not understand me ...I never said meditation is wrong or bad ...I am just explaining it to my self that if one created emotion of something ...or something have caused increased of emotion ...one will travel further into realizing the emotion itself and suffering is the nature of this path . let me explain further :- in my current mind , I am not the body ......I am desire , I am greed , I am love , I am fear , I am confident , I am will , I am worry , I am ego etc .... I short I am emotion ....so I exist and will continue to exist as long as I am still emotion ... I will exist as long as I am desire to exist ...I will always exist as long as I am the will to exist .......so as one awaken to Buddhism , he realize he is not who he is but realized he is the emotion .......he realized he is the mind ... and as he awaken to the mind , he will no longer holding on to the mind .....as he travel into this path , all his emotion like fear / desire / love/greed / worry etc will gradually and naturally decreased ......the mind will becoming lesser .......he no longer holding the burden carrying emotion as he is constantly in a process " forgetting ' his emotion ........and travel further into a condition almost freedom of mind and further into a state without any condition ... the original state before existence .... in my current mind , this original state of nothingness is described by Mr Siddharta as Buddha . so there is a constant natural process that pulling me back into the original state before my existence ......and this natural process is never my choice ... this process is Buddhism . In non-living like rock / table / pen / dust .. this process is define by human knowledge as rot / decay / rusting / wear / tear etc ..... for human , this natural process that pulling back into the original state of nothingness is a process of realization ........so Buddhism is a natural process of realization .....let me explain further by this example :- If you pour a spoon of sand into a glass of water .....and you stir the water ... the harder you stir the water , the faster sand will moves with the moving water .....but regardless how hard you stir the water , there is a natural and constant process that the sand , the water , the hand is trying to settle down .... and as you stop stirring the water , sand will sink into the bottom and there will be a clear separation .........so in my current mind of Buddhism , the glass / the sand / the spoon / the water is all condition ... the action of stirring is thinking ... the will to stir is emotion and is you ......the natural process of settling down is Buddhism ......so the more you have emotion .. the more you have desire ...is same as the harder you stir the water ...if you have desire to meditate.....or during meditation ... you have indeed created more emotion , more confident , more beliefs , more need , more knowledge , more experience , more faith of meditation ... as such you become larger ... your emotion increases ... as your emotion increases .. you will travel longer journey into your own realization ........you will need to travel longer journey for realizing your emotion ......and suffering is the nature of this path......so in short , you can swim against the current or you can choose to swim with the current ... but regardless what is your choices , you will just suffering of fatigue as you will never find the sea .....because the sea is you ... you need to realize it or and you will eventually realize it ... you always have a choice for your path .....but regardless what your path is , you will be at sea ... because you are the sea ... that is my current mind of Buddhism.