How to be a Buddhist

[Gem]

Originally Posted by catsquotl

I can see why in a controlled meditation environment you' impose restrictions on what is practised. Especially as the practise yields the results promissed. That said. A clear definition of the desired result would be helpfull.

And there's the kicker isn't it. The definition of enlightenment is skewed in manny places.

In the tibetan tradition it's changed to living a bodhisattva lifestyle until everyone is enlightened. In pure land it's pushed back in favour of a good rebirth after this life.
In theravada i feel it's explained as an absence/cessation of the 5 hindrances and freedom from suffering.

Am I wrong in thinking like this?

Indeed, the premise of Buddhist ideology is liberation from, or the cessation of, suffering.

I think in Buddhism, we start to go astray when we concern ourselves with this sect or that sect because Dhamma has to be universal.

[Shaunc]

Buddhism of Wisdom and Faith
Key Conditions with respect to the Bodhi Mind
12) The Path of Birth and Death is Full of Danger

There are many gates to the garden of Enlightenment. As long as the practitioner takes the great Bodhi Mind as his correct starting point, whatever Dharma door he chooses, in accordance with his capacities and preferences, will bring results.

If we consider "capacity," Pure Land embraces persons of all levels. Not only ordinary people but also Bodhisattvas (Manjusri, Samantabhadra) and Patriarchs (Asvaghosha, Nagarjuna) have all vowed to be reborn in the Pure Land. If we take "timing" into consideration, we should realize that in this Dharma-Ending Age when sentient beings in general have scattered minds and heavy obstructions, Buddha Recitation is easy to practice and can help the practitioner achieve rebirth in the Pure Land in just one lifetime. However, if we discuss "individual preferences," the Pure Land method alone cannot satisfy everyone; hence the need for many schools and methods.

In general, cultivators endowed with a sharp mind, seeking a direct, simple and clear approach, prefer Zen. Those who are attracted to supernatural power, the mystical and the mysterious prefer the Esoteric School. Those who like reasoning and require a clear, genuine analysis of everything before they can believe and act, prefer the Mind-Only School... Each school has further subdivisions, so that adherents of the same school may have differing practices.

The cultivator who has developed the Bodhi Mind, vowing to save himself and others, may follow any of the schools mentioned earlier. Nevertheless, in this Dharma-Ending Age, he should, at the same time, practice Buddha Recitation seeking rebirth in the Pure Land -- thus ensuring success without retrogression. Why is this so? There are three cardinal points:

In the wasteland of Birth and Death, there are many dangers and obstacles to cultivation. In order to escape the dangerous cycle of Birth and Death and ensure that there is no retreat or loss of the Bodhi Mind, we should seek rebirth in the Pure Land. This is the first cardinal point the practitioner should keep in mind.

The ancients often reminded us:

If we cultivate without striving for liberation, then our cultivation in this life is in fact an enemy during our third rebirth.

This is because in the first lifetime, we endure suffering and bitterness in our practice and therefore, in the next life we enjoy wealth, intelligence and authority. In this second lifetime, it is easy to be deluded by power and wealth, "charming spouses and cute children," and other such worldly pleasures. Having tasted lust and passion, it is easy to become attached, and the deeper the attachments, the closer we are to the dark place of perdition, as we resort to numerous evil deeds to strengthen our power, authority and ambitions. Having generated such causes in our second lifetime, how can we fail to descend upon the three Evil Paths in our third lifetime?

Some would ask: "If we have expended efforts to cultivate and sow good seeds in our previous life, how can we lose all our good roots and wisdom in the second lifetime, to the point of descending upon the Evil Paths in the third lifetime?"

Answer: Although good roots exist, the bad karma accumulated for eons past is not necessarily wiped out. Furthermore, on this earth, good actions are as difficult to perform as climbing a high tree, while bad deeds are as easy to commit as sliding down a slope. As the sages of old have said:

The good deeds performed all of one's life are still not enough; the bad deeds performed in just one day are already too many.

For example, people in positions of power and authority whom we meet today have all, to a greater or lesser extent, practiced charity and cultivated blessings and good karma in their previous lives. However, few among them now lean toward the path of virtue, while those who are mired in fame and profit constitute the majority. Let us ask ourselves, how many persons of high academic achievement, power and fame would agree to leave the secular life, opting for a frugal, austere existence directed toward the goal of lofty and pure liberation? Monks and nuns, too, may patiently cultivate when they have not yet reached high positions. However, with power and fame, and many disciples bowing to and serving them, even they may become easy prey to the trappings of the vain world. Nowadays, how many individuals, clergy or laymen, who were practicing vigorously in the past, have gradually grown lax and lazy, abandoning cultivation or leaving the Order entirely, retreating from the Way -- why even mention the next lifetime?

If such is the case in the human realm, how much more difficult it is to cultivate in the celestial realms, where the Five Pleasures are so much more subtle!

We have been talking about those who enjoy blessings. Those lacking in blessings and leading a life of deprivation also find it difficult to cultivate. Even if they are middle class, in this life full of heterodox ways, they may find it difficult to meet true Dharma teachers or to discover the path to liberation. Let us not even mention those treading the three Evil Paths, where cultivation is tens of thousands times more difficult, because they are deluded and suffering both in mind and body.

The cycle of Birth and Death is filled with such dangers and calamities. Thus, if we do not seek rebirth in the Pure Land, it is difficult to ensure non-retrogression of the Bodhi Mind.

Just thought that I'd add this that sort of explains the reasoning behind different schools of buddhism.

Originally Posted by Shaunc

Just thought that I'd add this that sort of explains the reasoning behind different schools of buddhism.

Thank you..
I see the reasoning. I don't agree with it.
But let's not go there any further..



With Love
Eelco

[blossomingtree]

This forum seems to have a very skewed vision of Buddhism. There are Buddhist forums where discussion may be a bit more broadened and realistic:

https://dhammawheel.com/
http://dharmawheel.net/
http://newbuddhist.com/

[sky]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

This forum seems to have a very skewed vision of Buddhism. There are Buddhist forums where discussion may be a bit more broadened and realistic:

https://dhammawheel.com/
http://dharmawheel.net/
http://newbuddhist.com/

Don't believe everything you think....

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by sky123

Don't believe everything you think....

Likewise, dear sky.

[Imzadi]

Sometimes when one's mind begins to fixate on what it imagines being a Buddhist to be, it temporarily forgets that it is already Buddha. :)

[Gem]

The irony of being a Buddhist is the teaching itself points out the problems of identity attachment.

At the basis of the Buddhist teachings is the anatta, the not-self, the absense of any substance. This implies both the fallacy of becoming anything (as there is no substance to become one thing or another), and perhaps it also implies the freedom to be as you like - but if the latter is true, you are now already the one you want to be. When we desire to be otherwise - become a Buddhist or something - we act out of a sense of lack along with a dire need for something fulfilling, but becoming something else can be a strategy to avoid the current actuality lack and need. Then we are propelled in an egotistic sense, motivated by our aversions and desires, being compelled by that, which we perceive as 'our choice'.

In this sense we get not a Buddhist issue, but a human issue, and remove Dhamma from the grasp of Buddhist sects, and give it its proper reverence as the way of nature, as it is, for all human beings.

So this forum is called 'Buddhist', and there are 'experts on Buddhism' who know 'what Buddhism is', and the ones who agree with that and the others that disagree, but actually there is nothing there to be called 'Buddhism' - even by the standards of Buddhism itself - and ya gotta love the irony of that.

It's just long ago Gotama started teaching spiritually, not to Buddhists, as there were no Buddhists. None of his disciples or students became Buddhists as they all died before the artifice 'Buddhism' was organised and constructed.

The more laughable implication of this is being a Buddhist is precisely not being a Buddhist, which is not to say we have to disregard the Buddhist teachings. More like see the unimportance of the fabrication of being or becoming Buddhist. ('Fabrication' is a specific Buddhist term if anyone wants to look it up).

[blossomingtree]

Good old Gem, never lets facts gets in the way of his proclivities

Originally Posted by Gem

The irony of being a Buddhist is the teaching itself points out the problems of identity attachment.

At the basis of the Buddhist teachings is the anatta, the not-self, the absense of any substance. This implies both the fallacy of becoming anything (as there is no substance to become one thing or another), and perhaps it also implies the freedom to be as you like - but if the latter is true, you are now already the one you want to be.

It does not refer to the absence of any substance -
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/...esnotself.html
https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/.../notself2.html

Guessing your misinterpretation is why you think that Gem don't exist: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...&postcount=139

Originally Posted by Gem

It's just long ago Gotama started teaching spiritually, not to Buddhists, as there were no Buddhists. None of his disciples or students became Buddhists as they all died before the artifice 'Buddhism' was organised and constructed.

Soon after this, the Buddha delivered his first sermon in a place named Sarnath, also known as the deer park, near the city of Varanasi. This was a key moment in the Buddhist tradition, traditionally known as the moment when the Buddha “set in motion the wheel of the law”. The Buddha explained the middle way between asceticism and a life of luxury, the four noble truths (suffering, its origin, how to end it, and the eightfold path or the path leading to the extinction of suffering), and the impersonality of all beings.

The Buddha’s first disciples joined him around this time, and the Buddhist monastic community, known as Sangha, was established. Sariputra and Mahamaudgalyayana were the two chief disciples of the Buddha. Mahakasyapa was also an important disciple who became the convener of the First Buddhist Council. From Kapilavastu and Sravasti in the north, to Varanasi, Nalanda and many other areas in the Ganges basin, the Buddha preached his vision for about 45 years. During his career he visited his hometown, met his father, his foster mother and even his son, who joined the Sangha along with other members of the Shakya clan. Upali, another disciple of the Buddha, joined the Sangha around this time: he was a Shakya and regarded as the most competent monk in matters of monastic discipline. Ananda, a cousin of the Buddha, also became a monk; he accompanied the Buddha during the last stage of his life and persuaded him to admit women into the Sangha, thus establishing the Bhikkhuni Sangha, the female Buddhist monastic community.

During his career, some kings and other rulers are described as followers of the Buddha.

https://www.ancient.eu/Siddhartha_Gautama/

Originally Posted by Gem

The more laughable implication of this is being a Buddhist is precisely not being a Buddhist, which is not to say we have to disregard the Buddhist teachings.

What it means is that one is not beholden to or confused by the name/form; it doesn't mean that one disregards the teachings that help liberate one's suffering.

Originally Posted by Gem

More like see the unimportance of the fabrication of being or becoming Buddhist. ('Fabrication' is a specific Buddhist term if anyone wants to look it up).

Nice mental gymnastics right there!

BT

Originally Posted by Gem

The irony of being a Buddhist is the teaching itself points out the problems of identity attachment.

At the basis of the Buddhist teachings is the anatta, the not-self, the absense of any substance.

Well, In my understanding he didn't say let go of identity, just see through it. Don't get attached to it. Which is different than not having an identity.

Also Annata is not the absence of any substance, just the knowledge that what you percieve cannot be self. Why, because if you percieve it and understand, You will see that what you percieve is impermanent(anicca) and that it gives rise to dhukka.

Originally Posted by Gem

It's just long ago Gotama started teaching spiritually,

Buddha did not teach spirituality. There was enough of that going on in those days. He taught the four noble truths and nothing else..

Originally Posted by Gem

None of his disciples or students became Buddhists as they all died before the artifice 'Buddhism' was organised and constructed.

Wrong again, so Ok maybe they didn't call it buddhism, but the Buddha himself did definetly set out the rules for the monastic order. He detailed what they should and should not do, how to act, to meditate and what to recollect when meditating.

Seems he had a pretty good grasp of what a person should do to realize the cessation of suffering, He also described a pretty clear and unambiguous path to get there. Now we can go over all of it and imagine what he meant. But reading the sutta's especially the sattipatana it quickly becomes clear what we should do. How we should go about it and what the results will be...

Only if we imagine what enlightenment is acording to what we want it to be do the teachings falls short, because we expect different results that what he said would be the result of the path.

Originally Posted by Gem

The more laughable implication of this is being a Buddhist is precisely not being a Buddhist, which is not to say we have to disregard the Buddhist teachings.

Nah. Thats just splitting hairs.
A buddhist is someone who follows what the buddha taught.

We can go on an on about additions should be considered part of what he taught.
And I guess that's where the confusion comes from. But taking the words of the Buddha and practice them should be enough...

With Love
Eelco