when is someone a buddhist?

[Hubert]

I have been wondering lately what is the exact definition of being a buddhist? At least a lay follower.

Of course we're just talking semantic, but I would be interested in knowing what is the actual definition.

[Shaolinfist]

Requirements

There are three requirements for being a Buddhist namely;
1. Do good
2. Avoid evil
3. Purify the mind
Therefore there are many Buddhists who do not know that they are a Buddhist or even what Buddhism is!
Another way to put it would be somebody who belives in and practices the Buddhas teaching.
Like me
It depends in which way you use the definition of the word - I think.
Namo Ami Tuo Fo
Phil

[Mike B]

Well this 1, 2, 3 thing is generally used to prove that most of the world are Buddhists plus as a matter of logic there are many people who try to do such three things but would not agree with Buddhism.

Also importantly Buddhism doesn't seek converts (well the vast majority of strands anyway). There are several stories of people coming to have a chat with Gotama he asking what teachings they followed they answering something completely different and he answering "jolly good, carry on".

Plus there are many Buddhisms set in many cultures so the precise definition will differ - however the general formula is the reciting of taking refuge in the Buddha, Dharma (his teachings), Sangha (ordained community of monks).

Interestingly (in contrast to the theisms) this doesn't actually require you to believe anything. On the other hand the informality of it all is reminiscent of the Church of England - how do you decide you are a Christian - well you just decide you are and you don't really even have to turn up at church...

As you say its somewhat semantic - more important is to actually know something of the Buddha's teachings and to try to apply it.

Anyway just in case you fancy signing up and you Pali pronounciation is up to snuff (my spelling isn't) try reciting

Buddham saranam gacchami
Dhammam saranam gacchami
Sangham saranam gacchami

[Repeat whole verse with "Dutiyam pi" (second time) in front of each line]

[Repeat whole verse with "Tatiyam pi" (third time) in front of each line]

...and if when you die you find yourself locked outside the pearly gates surrounded by a load of guys in orange, brown robes ruing having gone through the above formula during their life - don't blame me

Mike

[barrys]

Mike,

Great image . Also reminds me of that saying which has applied to me a few times "Be careful what you wish for ... you might get it".

What is the translation of pali recitation?

By the way, when are we going to get a chance to meet? Are you going to the "London night out" in a couple of Fridays time?

Barry

[Shaolinfist]

Well this 1, 2, 3 thing is generally used to prove that most of the world are Buddhists plus as a matter of logic there are many people who try to do such three things but would not agree with Buddhism.

Though these people may think that they disagree with Buddhism, by practicing those 3 things they are practicing the core teachings of the Buddha. Technically they are practicing Buddhism.
And it is not necessary to take refuge in the 3 jewles to become a Buddhist, because you must practice first and foremost. Though taking refuge is a good practice if it is a vehicle to apply those 3 requirements to your everyday life.
Namo Ami Tuo Fo
Phil

[Mike B]

Though these people may think that they disagree with Buddhism, by practicing those 3 things they are practicing the core teachings of the Buddha. Technically they are practicing Buddhism.

...and at that level of abstraction Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Taoism etc etc.

Its an oft-quoted formula but there is nothing specifically Buddhist about it (its no more solely Buddhist than 'peace and love' is solely Chirstian). I have never met any genuinely religious (any religion) or none-religious person who disagrees with the idea of doing good, avoiding evil and purifying your spirit.

So I don't think its actually true that practicing those three things makes you a 'Buddhist' any more than it makes you a 'Christian' etc etc. As I said the formula varies across Buddhisms and cultures BUT it is a clear rubicon (thus eg a christian might do 1, 2, 3 but may be unlikely to take refuge).

[Pedantry due to Hubert asking for the 'exact definition'...]

Anyway to the extent that you are saying its more important to actually walk the walk than label yourself I agree entirely... there is of course a danger in 'labelling yourself' [as a monk said to me 'you don't attain Nirvana thinking you are a Buddhist'].

Mike

[Shaolinfist]

as a monk said to me 'you don't attain Nirvana thinking you are a Buddhist'

This is exactly my point. The Buddha taught the Dharma (method) for people to acheive enlightenment. He summurised this practice in his own words;
1. Do good
2. Avoid evil
3. Purify the mind
You therefore do not have to call yourself a Buddhist to practice Buddhism, and if you practice Buddhsim then you are therefore technically a Buddhist. Remember that Sakyamuni did not create Buddhism, he discovered it. Just as Jesus, Lao Tzu, Mohammed and all the other enlightened teachers of the world did. That is why...

I have never met any genuinely religious (any religion) or none-religious person who disagrees with the idea of doing good, avoiding evil and purifying your spirit.

I did also state that it depends in which context you mean. More specifically it means anyone who has faith in the Buddha and his teacings and - therefore - practices the Dharma.

Namo Ami Tuo Fo
Phil

[Antonius]

Also importantly Buddhism doesn't seek converts

Key point here. Thanks for making it, Mike.

More specifically it means anyone who has faith in the Buddha and his teacings and - therefore - practices the Dharma.

There are many ways to practice what Buddhists refer to as the Dharma (teachings), including many things that others do not refer to as the Dharma.

[Hubert]

Thanks for the very interesting answers. I knew this was likely to turn into this kind of debate, but I think it's good

I asked this because recently I have been wondering whether or not I was a buddhist (I've been asked!). Strictly speaking, no. Loosely, probably. So we're back on the same debate

[Zen R Ridge]

in addition

In addition to what has been mentioned above, i would add that many Buddhists i have met and their sancts consider "a practising buddhist" to be one who meditates daily.

Also i have noticed that many people from the east always say when you say you are buddhist:"how are you buddhist what do you do?".

I would repeat what has been said, if you follow the teaching sas closely as you can, ie the eight fold path.

Then this should mean you are a buddhist, i also think that one should meditate reguarly as this is a very important part of being a buddhist and attaining enlightenment.

Hope this makes sense...

Metta

Zen

[Mike B]

Hubert - well debate there may be here but fly to Thailand, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Japan and the schoolkids can probably tell you.

I suspected your subtext... in re - I don't think in this case the 'membership' thing is really helpful (as Clinton said "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is..") - the 'teachings' angle that Sifu regularly refers to is more useful (such that eg there is no mutual exclusivity re 'buying in' to some Buddhist teachings, some Taoist teachings, some of Platos teachings etc etc).

The retiring Boden Professor of Sanskrit at Oxford Richard Gombrich appearing in a BBC4 program on the life of the Buddha a couple of years ago expressed his position as "the appeal of Buddhism is that it is self-evidently largely true" on the other hand (despite a lifetime spent studying, living amongst, and writing about it) he says that he is not a Buddhist (as presumably there are some things about it that he does not believe in). Actually sticking to the professorial level one thing I have observed is that those people who "are" Buddhists lose some objectivity (as they always end up trying to square the circle to 'show' the correctness of Buddhism). Interestingly one of the best writers/scholars of Mahayana (Paul Williams) reconverted back to Catholicism

More subtly the word "is" is actually problematic in a Buddhist deconstruction - ie Hubert is an imperfect, suffering, [I would say self-less but I don't want to restart those flame wars again (and to be fair Zen is a bit more Taoist in that respect than mainstream)] ever changing emergent phenomenon dependent on previous conditions. To take such a 'flickering', evanescent phenomenon and to label it "an X" or to say "I am an X" just acts to reinforce the ego, the very grasping that the Buddha pointed out as being the source of all dukkha.

Zen - your meditation criterion would probably rule out a few hundred million Buddhists in Asia...

Mike

[Hubert]

Hubert is an imperfect, suffering, ever changing emergent phenomenon dependent on previous conditions.

err... fair enough
This phenomenom is now out for lunch.

[Zen R Ridge]

really?

Is this true Mike, i find it hard to believe that most asian Buddhists do not meditate on a regular basis, with respect.

I am a memeber of a very large buddhist discussion group and know many buddhists in england personally all of them meditate almost every day, i do not meditate every day but at least twice a week.

M<ind you though i would certainly say that not meditating does not mean you are not buddhist, that is just a view of many of the buddhists i know, or more so they mean "practising buddhist".

Warmest regards

Zen

[Mike B]

Oops - I guess I should have added for the avoidance of doubt so are we all (well at least the non-Buddhas, non-Arhats amongst us [and they don't tend to post that much anyway - certainly not when it comes to US elections ].

Mike

ps talking of imperfect and suffering just to shoot OT this autumn training (cold, wet and dark in the morning, and cold, wet and dark in the evening) is a not entirely conducive to beaming from the heart is it...

pps as per the analysis the set of conditioned responses formerly known as Hubert that came back from lunch is not of course the same one as went out in the first place.

[Mike B]

Zen - we posted at the same time. No need to worry about respecting or disrespecting me man when you think what you think I am afraid I don't have my finger on the stats at present.

Anyway the thing I found amazing was that in certain cultures long periods of time went by when the Sangha never got round to meditating much . To take one example sticking to Theravadans - Sri Lankan Buddhists hold that Nibbana is virtually impossible in one lifetime, whereas Burmese just hold that its very very unlikely (but possible). The difference is that the Burmese Sangha did a better job of keeping their meditation skills finely honed.

Just as an in passing re Right Effort if the (general) Asian fault is not to try hard enough the (general) Western fault is to be too earnest and try too hard - so its not necessarily a good thing having 'lots' of meditation (especially if not balanced by other disciplines). In fact coming back to your name a Zen monk (know to me) who has been full-time at it (Zazen) in a Japanese monastery for over a decade seems to me to be a 'less-Buddhist' person than some of the more laid back Sri Lankan monks I know.

Things don't always work as linearly as one might think... - to leave you with one last irony perhaps the best known western meditation manual is Mindfulness in Plain English by Ven. Gunaratana. In his recent autobiography he described as a boy running away from his monastery due to the constant beatings he was subject to

rgds

Mike