Am I a Buddhist?

[landis]

“When you define yourself, you limit yourself.”
-Thanissaro (although I suspect he borrowed it)

Even though I’ve earnestly and consistently engaged one form of Buddhist practice and study or another since circa ‘98, I’ve never felt compelled to call myself a Buddhist. I’ve little doubt that reading Robert Anton Wilson et al at some of the most impressionable parts of my development predisposed me to be cautious about what Wilson, borrowing a term from Alfred Korzybski’s General Semantics (GS), called “the ‘is’ of identity.” [1] Wilson made much of Korzybski’s, “The map is not the territory” approach to empirical linguistics; he thought that map-sided language mesmerizes us into states of delusion about the way things are according to science. [2] But Wilson took a step further, and applied it to scientific language itself, for instance pointing out that the so-called measurement problem of electrons in the wave function collapse dissolves when we drop “the is of identity” language and replaces the proposition that “electrons are either waves or particles” with the fact that, ”The electron appears as a wave when we measure it in certain ways…, as a particle when we measure it in other ways.” [3] Likewise, when others label me a Buddhist, the locutions are performed as a measurement based on “is of identity” definitionalist assumptions. But not only may my behavior appear Buddhist in some contexts and non-Buddhist in others, but the measuring instruments might function differently or be replaced with a different model (say from Thai Forest to Sri Lankan) or different brand (say from the Theravada to Zen [4]). And even in the context of the EBT, what landis is and what Buddhism is are also impossible to define; like all phenomena, they are in constant flux (anicca). And depending on the conditions of the moment (for instance the condition vedanā), they may be, like electrons, measured in a certain way; yet depending on the condition of another moment, measured in another way (for instance, depending on the condition of phassa). So for me to assent to being called a Buddhist, or to call myself a Buddhist, I’d have to (1) be certain there are permanent, universally agreed upon and indisputable definitions of “landis” and (2) be certain there are permanent, universally agreed upon and indisputable definitions of Buddhism.

Let’s test out what I’ve said so far and ask, WHAT IS A BUDDHIST? Someone who believes in and/or tries to follow the teachings of the Buddha? What are the teachings of the Buddha? Let’s pretend that by some strange miracle just for a moment, for the sake of my thought experiment, that all Buddhists agreed that the EBTs ONLY are the teachings of the Buddha? It would follow, then, that the next question would be what constitutes the EBT? And what if by yet another miracle we all achieved a consensus about that? We’d still have the issues of translational hermeneutics before us. Maybe we could agree to speak Pali fluently and only write or speak of the EBT when using Pali? But at each stop, we’d still find something to disagree over. If we’ve established anything, it’s this pattern. [5] But would any of this get me closer to finding a permanent, universally agreed upon and indisputable definition of Buddhist–one I would feel comfortable being called? What does the “ist” in Buddhist even denote? And if we could actually agree on all that it denotes, would we agree on formal, unified connotation? The Buddha, AFIK, never indicated the creation of what is now Buddhist or Buddhism, and at whatever point the Dhamma became linguistically interchangeable with Buddhism, was it not long, long after the Buddha could have influenced the decision?

Lest I be misunderstood again, please note that my discomfort in calling myself a Buddhist is not done out of disrespect to anyone or anything. To the contrary, it’s out of respect for myself–a la the Thanissaro quote up top–a self respect that has its basis in respect for the Buddha and the teaching, as when he, right before his parinibbāna (and elsewhere) admonished Ananda we live as our own island and refuge, with no other refuge, and with the teaching as our island and refuge, with no other refuge.

Finally, the last reason I don’t want to be called a Buddhist or identified with Buddhism, is because I’ve found that it too often brings up associations with the Dalai Lama, or Thich Nhat Hanh, or, Prithvi forbid!, the modern mindfulness movement. I’d prefer to be thought of as an earnest and consistently engaged follower of the Buddha as found in the EBT. A tall order among the uninstructed, I know, but, I hope, not here.

I suppose most of this devolves to my suspicion that calling myself a Buddhist would be an act of identity-view. Buddhism, like all conditioned phenomena, is not self.

Am I a Buddhist? I hope not. That, as Thanissaro reminds us, would leave me entrapped within the confines of yet another identity. Who needs that?

And while I’m open to suggestions, and am curious to hear them, I feel compelled to warn you that I probably won’t like them.

Notes:
[1] Words are symbols, argued Korzybski, and not the things they represent, and when we behave non-cognizant of this fact, we incline towards insanity/away from science. I eventually came to see the science/sanity dichotomy as positivist, binary, and reductionist, but that’s another much longer story. Furthermore, where to locate Korzybski’s use of identity in the greater narrative of the use of identity in the history of logic–e.g., the Frege-Russell “Is” Ambiguity Thesis; the use of “being” and “to be” verbs in the history of philosophy; critiques of being in philosophy like Sartre’s or Heidegger’s–is another gargantuan story of which I am not a character. However, I might eventually return to it here or elsewhere when I investigate how the non-applicability of exist/does-not-exist to the Tathāgata relates to Kant’s contention that you can’t predicate existence.

[2] The irony here is that Korzybski commits an “is of identity” error by assuming that science itself is a map. Wilson, AFIR, simply chose to overlook this.

[3] Catching up with Robert Anton Wilson circa 1995? | Arthur Magazine

[4] The same problem exists with the sentences, “landis a jerk,” or “landis is ignorant.” The identifiers change, but the problem remains: “is”.

[5] I once knew an elderly born again Christian woman who would only read the parts of her Bible in red ink! (Some Bibles print the words of Jesus in red only.)

[Dogen]

Hello landis.

@landis

Let’s test out what I’ve said so far and ask, WHAT IS A BUDDHIST?

I’ve been pondering about the same thing.

For the most part, being a Buddhist is entering into a social contract, taking up 5, 8, 10, 227 or however many rules and accepting the responsibility of holding onto those rules.

Except for the tradition of “Seeking refuge with Triple Jewel”, I don’t think there is anything resembling faith or belief in any of the descriptions of being “A follower of Buddha”.

I’m sure there are some Mahayana or Vajrayana schools that would make me eat my words, but anyone can be an upasaka by themselves, seeking refuge & accepting 5 precepts.

“Refuge in triple Jewles” is vague enough that it doesn’t really mean much beyond a statement of association, not a declaration of indisputable faith (for example, contrasting the Moslim utterance of “I solemnly swear that there’s no God but Allah, and that Mohammed is his servant and prophet”.)

My views at times, significantly differ from mainstay interpretations - although even attempting to measure this quality would be an impossibility. I also hold some beliefs that Buddha doesn’t really talk about. I do not attempt mental gymnastics to prove that Buddha might’ve said that thing or not.

I call myself a Buddhist for the same reason Ajahn Brahm calls Buddhism a religion: “For tax purposes!”

I’m openly pragmatic about it, and I believe if everyone on earth observed the precepts voluntarily, it would be a better place. I don’t find that it leads to ethical (or moral, I’m too daft to make a distinction) problems; they don’t cover all cases, but it’s good enough. It would probably be a better world.

As far as I can see, there’s nothing stopping someone saying something like “I’m a buddhist who believes in an eternal soul that survives Nibbāna. The teacher does not mention it in this fashion in these texts, but that is still my view.” Or, a Buddhist who doesn’t believe in Rebirth or Karma. He might be accused of holding wrong views, but I don’t think there’s a scriptural basis for assuming they are not a buddhist.

@landis

Finally, the last reason I don’t want to be called a Buddhist or identified with Buddhism, is because I’ve found that it too often brings up associations with the Dalai Lama, or Thich Nhat Hanh, or, Prithvi forbid!, the modern mindfulness movement. I’d prefer to be thought of as an earnest and consistently engaged follower of the Buddha as found in the EBT. A tall order among the uninstructed, I know, but, I hope, not here.

That’s quite understandable, and I’m likewise vary of such associations. Nor do I think all Buddhist associations or organisations observe the sanctity of precepts beyond lip service. However, I also live in a muslim country.

This reminds me of how Israel’s Law of Return is mostly based on German definition of what a “Jew” is; because at some point during WW2, there were people whom the Germans considered as “Jews” that Israel didn’t think so, it was a political nightmare. Israel had to extend their laws to include all the people Germans considered as Jews.

There are people out there who wouldn’t make the difference between “Follower of Buddha” and “Buddhist”. Quite a few people would actively seek to kill me if they concluded that I was a moslim apostate just because I was born to a moslim mother. So, very pragmatically, I call myself a Buddhist - because I already would like to associate with people who think precepts are an excellent social contract, I respect the scriptures enough to pay attention to them & explore their ideas; I actively work towards making Dhamma more available to promote discussing the ideas within, as guided by the methodology of Kalama Sutta; but I also would like to reap the benefits of such associations.

I would hope to use conventiona of the world without assuming something else. Being a buddhist is not an identity for me; it’s just a shorthand for the kind of actions I’m pursuing and the kind of socio-political associations I’m engaging with.

There may come a time when I tire of such associations, or I might be ex-communicated somehow (?). All things come to an end, so that’s quite fine.

@landis

I feel compelled to warn you that I probably won’t like them.

As it may be.

Metta

[mikenz66]

Thanks, Landis, for explaining your position.

@landis

Let’s test out what I’ve said so far and ask, WHAT IS A BUDDHIST? Someone who believes in and/or tries to follow the teachings of the Buddha?

That seems to me to a quite reasonable definition. Of course, it can be qualified by the flavour of Buddhism (which texts one takes as authoritative) and the commitment to the practice, as you say here:

@landis

I’d prefer to be thought of as an earnest and consistently engaged follower of the Buddha as found in the EBT. A tall order among the uninstructed, I know, but, I hope, not here.

[thistle]

Hi landis,

here’s my take on it:

You go to great lengths to explain as to why you don’t want to identify as a Buddhist. This is all fine and there are many valid points in your train of thoughts.
I think the central question is, though, why this holds such an importance to you and why you ask for feedback on this esp. if you phrase it this way:

@landis

Am I a Buddhist? I hope not. That, as Thanissaro reminds us, would leave me entrapped within the confines of yet another identity. Who needs that?

By circulating around the question of what a Buddhist is or what being a Buddhist entails (even from an ex negativo) is still circulating around it. Put differently, there’s a lot of „I“ in the „I am not xyz“. You address the aspect that all Buddhist schools have different takes on what Buddhism means.
The one point, though, where all Buddhist schools agree upon is absent in your post: to reduce/eliminate suffering.
What it all boils down to if we leave aside all rationalizations/erudite theorising (which I also frequently do and which can be fun!) is that we are all very vulnerable beings thrown into this massive spinning and swirling and stirring of what we call life and that we all suffer and we’re looking for ways to deal with that.

So if you don’t want to call yourself a Buddhist, there are many other ways to look at this. My best friend calls me a “part-time Buddhist” in a friendly-teasing manner and that’s fine with me.

And last but not least, I’m pretty sure Ven. Thanissaro would say that he’s a Buddhist

[Ceisiwr]

@landis

“When you define yourself, you limit yourself.”

All language imposes a limitation, but we need it.

[Sasha_A]

The problem with being somebody is not the words. Because any words, whether they are words of affirmation of yourself as somebody or words of denial of that affirmation, to yourself they are your words about yourself. ‘I am a Buddhist’ or ‘I am not a Buddhist’ - to yourself it is still you saying it about yourself, and these words are yours; ‘you are a Buddhist’ or ‘you are not a Buddhist’ - you hear these words as you and as being said about you.

Or as Ven. Nanavira said in Sakkaya:

If avijjā were simply a matter of verbal misunderstanding, a maggot would be an arahat.

As long as there is ignorance, there is no choice whether to act as someone or not, whatever words you would use, but only after arriving at the right view, after becoming at least sotopanna, there would be no underlying confusion about the meaning of the words still you would say about yourself or the words others would say about you as a person.

[balamaung]

Sammà-Sambodhi: ‘Perfect Enlightenment’, Universal Buddhahood, is the state attained by a Universal Buddha (sammà-sambuddha), i.e. one by whom the liberating law (dhamma) which had become lost to the world, has again been discovered, realized and clearly proclaimed to the world.
“Now, someone, in things never heard before, understands by himself the truth, and he therein attains omniscience, and gains mastery in the powers. Such a one is called a Universal Buddha, or Enlightened One” (Pug. 29).
The doctrine characteristic of all the Buddhas, and each time rediscovered by them and fully explained to the world, consists in the 4 Truths (sacca, q.v.) of suffering, its origin, its extinction and the way to its extinction (s. magga). (Buddhist Dictionary by Ven. Nyantiloka)
Buddha never created Buddhist or Buddhism. . He rediscovered the Four Noble Truths (Universal Truth) - Suffering, Cause of Suffering, Cessation of Suffering and Way of come out of Suffering. He practiced himself and came out of all the sufferings. With love and compassion he showed the path to others. Buddha show the Universal Path > The path should be - pragmatic and logical, it should give benefit and it should not harm to other beings. Anybody can call themselves whatever it is irreverent for the real understanding and way to practice for liberation. To understand and practice properly the saddha faith , confidence and devotion is the most essential important part. However it should not be blind faith or blind devotion. Someone practice accordingly and find the way of cessation of suffering is the most important.

[Bundokji]

I think the question is more likely to arise amongst converts than those who are born as Buddhists. For someone who is born to a Buddhist family or in a Buddhist country, the institutions are already laid out in a way where the teachings has the function of strengthening social coherence and appreciation of the family. The monastic order allows for social sympathy and support towards those who seek an escape.

For the convert, things are more complicated as the trigger of such identity is strongly associated with personal choice. In such context, encountering the teachings is perceived as being ready to learn the ways of the mind, or true universality of which the world of the senses is a mere representation. This naturally creates an aversion towards the Buddhist identity because it is still a mere reflection of the original/the universal that the disciple is meant to attain through gradual training. Such aversion to identity must be the symptoms of awakening from the dream of existence, where those who are exposed to the higher teachings are akin to the students in Palto’s academy, carefully chosen as having plenty of gold and silver in their composition, and where the family is hired by the state (or the mind) to prepare them for the true initiation. The meeting of the family and the monastery is akin to the meeting of the noble lie and the noble truths - where the former is only a mean.

[Dhabba]

• Buddhism (as in all the Buddhas in the past and future) share the same concepts as found in many other religions.

The Buddha Vipassī taught them step by step, with a talk on giving, ethical conduct, and heaven.
(Intended for the lay people found in any religion)

He explained the drawbacks of sensual pleasures,
so sordid and corrupt, and the benefit of renunciation.
(Intended for ordained/advanced meditators in any religion)

• But the following is what makes buddhism different and totally unique compared to other religions:

And when he knew that their minds were ready, pliable, rid of hindrances, elated, and confident he explained the special teaching of the Buddhas:

suffering, its origin, its cessation, and the path.
‘Everything that has a beginning has an end.’ - DN 14

[Dharma]

I don’t think there is anything about being Buddhist in the Suttas.

…Maybe you are a Wise Disciple?

[Mkoll]

@landis

Finally, the last reason I don’t want to be called a Buddhist or identified with Buddhism, is because I’ve found that it too often brings up associations with the Dalai Lama, or Thich Nhat Hanh, or, Prithvi forbid!, the modern mindfulness movement. I’d prefer to be thought of as an earnest and consistently engaged follower of the Buddha as found in the EBT. A tall order among the uninstructed, I know, but, I hope, not here.

I suppose most of this devolves to my suspicion that calling myself a Buddhist would be an act of identity-view. Buddhism, like all conditioned phenomena, is not self.

Am I a Buddhist? I hope not. That, as Thanissaro reminds us, would leave me entrapped within the confines of yet another identity. Who needs that?

Isn’t calling oneself “an earnest and consistently engaged follower of the Buddha as found in the EBT” also an act of identity-view?

[landis]

Hi! @Dogen, @mikenz66, @thistle, @Ceisiwr, @Sasha_A, @balamaung, @Bundokji, @Dhabba, @Dharma, @Mkoll

Sorry it took so long to get back. I’ve been trying to learn Pali while suffering from several chronic illnesses, and it’s left me with little time for anything else Dhamma (except for meditation).

Wow! Every response is incredible and kind and much appreciated. I was nervous this would turn in to another bad Buddhist forum experience, but y’all have disabused me of that concern. Thank you! I’ve started jotting done some initial thoughts and Prithvi and Galaxy willing will have responses soon. I want to return y’all’s thoughtfulness and kindness, and my symptoms often have other plans for me, but I am working on it. Thanks again. It means a lot to me.
best,
landis

[Adutiya]

@Mkoll

Isn’t calling oneself “an earnest and consistently engaged follower of the Buddha as found in the EBT” also an act of identity-view?

I get what you’re saying. For practical purposes, I call myself an American but I most certainly am not associated with the views, beliefs, thoughts, speech, actions or lifestyle of most Americans!

[Dharma]

How far into Empty Infinite Nothingness must you go until you reach an end?
Maybe the end is somewhere other than the Void?
Not that Realization of Emptiness does not lead to Right View…
…but becoming completely in line with Right View,
What does it take to fully get to the Other Shore?
And Awaken the Mind of your Full Buddha-Nature?

[Clarity]

@Mkoll

calling oneself “an earnest and consistently engaged follower of the Buddha as found in the EBT” also an act of identity-view?

Well I am not too sure about your conclusion but I found these verses below from the Buddha in Pāsarāsisutta MN26, Bodhirājakumārasutta MN85, many sentences with “I am” there. The Buddha surely did not have any difficulty in declaring “I am the Buddha”.

‘I am the champion, the knower of all,
unsullied in the midst of all things.
I’ve given up all, freed in the ending of craving.
Since I know for myself, whose follower should I be?

I have no tutor.
There is no-one like me.
In the world with its gods,
I have no rival.

For in this world, I am the perfected one;
I am the supreme Teacher.
I alone am fully awakened,
cooled, quenched.

I am going to the city of Kāsi
to roll forth the Wheel of Dhamma.
In this world that is so blind,
I’ll beat the drum of freedom from death!’

‘The victors are those who, like me,
have reached the ending of defilements.
I have conquered bad qualities, Upaka—
that’s why I’m a victor.’

[AnapanaMichael]

@Clarity

Well I am not too sure about your conclusion but I found these verses below from the Buddha in Pāsarāsisutta MN26, Bodhirājakumārasutta MN85, many sentences with “I am” there. The Buddha surely did not have any difficulty in declaring “I am the Buddha”.

Of course, the Buddha did.

The reflexive use of “I” or “me” to refer to oneself and the use of “I” or “me” to refer to the compound body+mind are not the “I” or “me” that the Buddha instructed his disciples to avoid. They should not be conflated with the “I” and “me” of a substantial, enduring ego that lies at the root of delusion, the “I, me, mine” that he was talking about. This is often misunderstood, and represents the deepest and most challenging of the three characteristics to fully grasp.

“If a bhikkhu is an arahant,
Consummate, with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
He might still say, ‘I speak,’
And he might say, ‘They speak to me.’
Skilful, knowing the world’s parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions.”
(SN 1.25)

Naturally, we (and the Buddha) would still use “I” or “me” in conversation; it serves a function in effective language.

[Mkoll]

The point I was trying to make with my rhetorical question was not a grammatical one, as AnapanaMichael’s post showed nicely. Rather, it was an invitation to explore the concept of conceiving about one’s identity.

I don’t know about y’all, but I can’t help but conceive about myself. The question is how to do it skillfully. All the monastics who I believe are enlightened or at least much farther along the Path than myself identify as Buddhists, as evidenced through their talks and writings. For that reason and through my own practice and study, I think it can be used skillfully, or at least without making it a problem.

And I guess that’s my question at the end of the day: Why make it a problem? Why not try to use it skillfully?

[Nik]

I struggled with this same dilemma for a while until I found a resolution.

I realized that Buddhism is about practicing the Noble Eightfold Path and not believing or identifying myself with something.

So each day when I practice Sila (5 or 8 precepts), Samadhi (meditation), and Panna (read, listen to, learn the Dhamma) I am a Buddhist.

With other people, I just don’t discuss this subject if they are not part of a Sangha or just really genuinely curious.

[landis]

Hi again @Dogen, @mikenz66, @thistle, @Ceisiwr, @Sasha_A, @balamaung, @Bundokji, @Dhabba, @Dharma, @Mkoll:

I really was going to address every single reply, but for reasons previously stated and for the following, I have not.

I incidentally came across two items recently that I thought might be better to bring to your attention before I get to the individual replies–or maybe even instead of doing that. (If you still stand by your initial responses after reviewing these, let me and I know and I’ll go ahead and reply.)

1. Here’s a Dhamma talk Ajahn Amaro gave at Ajahn Sumedho’s 90th birthday celebration called “Are We Buddhist? Or What Are We?” Perhaps it says better than anything else I can think of saying? The relevant bit starts at timestamp 16:25. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOBhuHSRGrY

2. Then I noticed this on the Topics board, and having read it am currently re-examining the uses of “identity” in the suttas, and until I come to terms with the discussion there, I don’t quite know how to word my responses here. On sakkāya, identity, and substantial reality - #119 by landis

Is that fair for now?

best,
~l

[landis]

@Nik, @AnapanaMichael, @Adutiya, @Clarity, please see my reply, #19. System wouldn’t let me reply to more than 10 at at a time.