This kind-a goes off of my past post, but I wanted to know if anyone has any ideas like this or has heard of anyone doing this type of thing already. After posting yesterday I was thinking more about how this could be thought, and I came up with a thought experiment, pitch, idea , whatever…
What if,
instead of having the term “Buddhism” be used by all people as an idea which emphasizes something of “permanent” claims through the ideas found in any label; in this case Buddhism is obviously thought of as in the same way as any “religious” affiliative group term for a person who believes in a set of strict (maybe) religious ideologies.
I am thinking that it would be best and most helpful if instead Buddhism could be used as a active word to describe a temporary act or belief, or pattern of behavior, in which a person “acted in a Buddhist way”
“That was Buddhist of you”
This sounds silly, but I believe is more descriptive and actually represents the Buddhist philosophy very well… as doing something Buddhist is what all Buddhists do… that is until they eventually are not Buddhist, and thus cross the shore?
.34.3“Those who cross a deluge or stream Aṇṇavaṁ cannot mean “sea” here, since it is to be crossed with a bridge.1.34.4have built a bridge and left the marshes behind.1.34.5While some people are still tying a raft,1.34.6intelligent people have crossed over.”
I’m not sure why this merited a different thread, but still.
And why would this be a novel idea in Buddhism?
It is called a practice for a reason - Buddhism is what a Buddhist does. I think you’ll find that many people will find this idea that one “isn’t a Buddhist” but “practices Buddhism”, quite widely…
And of course, we can still say “I am a Buddhist”, since, that’s a useful shorthand to describe what one does, anyway.
“Buddhism is not a collection of views. It is a practice to help us eliminate wrong views.” Thich Nhat Hanh
“The question has often been asked: Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy? It does not matter what you call it. Buddhism remains what it is whatever label you may put on it. The label is immaterial. Even the label ‘Buddhism’ which we give to the Teaching of the Buddha is of little importance. The name one gives it is inessential. In the same way, Truth needs no label… Sectarian labels are a barrier to the independent understanding of Truth, and they produce harmful prejudices in men’s minds.” Ven. Walpola Rahula
And of course, from the suttas themselves:
“Not by birth is one an outcaste; not by birth is one a brahmin. By deed one becomes an outcaste, by deed one becomes a brahmin.” SNP 1.7
Replace “brahmin” with “buddhist”, and there you have it. What makes one a buddhist is the deeds, already in the suttas.
If a Buddhist and a Jew/Christian/Atheist/Muslim did the same large act of generosity; the difference would entirely be their view, intention and impact on their mind, rather than their action?
Yes, indeed this is an old trope in the Western study of Buddhism.
Western scholars have long denied Buddhism’s status as “a religion” primarily as a means to justify denying Buddhists their legal rights. To this day, Germany (for example) still denies Buddhist organizations “religious” tax benefits because Christian lawyers argue that Buddhism is a “lifestyle” and not a “proper religion.”
If you’re getting a degree in Buddhist Studies (let alone in Western Buddhism!) and want to write descriptively (let alone prescriptively!) about the tradition, please learn the colonial history of Buddhism’s encounter with the West first. This is really essential context for your subsequent studies of Buddhist Modernism etc.
everything each person has added to this thread has been truly so helpful, I am so glad I am able to throw ideas out and not have an echo-chamber in my head getting all confused
A Buddhist is one who has taken the 3 refuges, and it’s not compatible for one who believes in God or Jesus or Allah, or nothing after death for everyone automatically, or many other kinds of wrong view to say that they have taken refuge in the dhamma when their refuge is elsewhere.
Better not dilute what being a Buddhist means, quality more than quantity. Better a single diamond than 1000 false gems.
Oh, even religions like Judaism or Islam that are officially recognized as “religions” in Germany don’t receive any tax benefits. These are exclusively reserved for the Catholic and Protestant Christian confessions due to a very old law that nobody dares to touch. This law still grants the Christian confessions some more privileges that are really out of place nowadays, but well, we still have it.
EDIT: I have to correct myself: There are some more religious communities that would theoretically have the right to receive church taxes, but don’t make use of it.
We could make the Buddha say something he didn’t, and that would be dandy, except for that he didn’t say that. The Buddha consistently presents views throughout the various canons that Buddhists are expected to adopt or should adopt as part of their practice, or at least views that the Buddha presents as right view.
