Comments on: Being halfway a Buddhist – what’s a real Buddhist?

By: al puglisi

al puglisi — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 23:58:58 +0000

The again it occurs to me that it has been said if you call yourself a Buddhist, you probably aren’t one, because like everything else, Buddhism is an illusion.

By: al puglisi

al puglisi — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 13:57:59 +0000

Thanks for this post. I have been trying to think of how to describe myself in this regard. Halfway a Buddhist. Buddhism is the discipline that resonates most with my heart. I have not become vegetarian yet but am working on it and getting there. I eat mostly fish and veggies now, as I have health problems that I need to work with carefully, and a totally vegetarian diet may not work with me, I work at the eight-fold path and mindfulness. But neither have I joined a Sangha (there is ONE where I live, a Kadampa community). I see, like me, you are also a theosophist, and there comes a small conflict between theosophy and Buddhism when it comes to atman v. anatman. I usually just refer to myself as a small t theosophist with Buddhist leanings. (I did not renew membership in the American Society.TSA) But halfway Buddhist is good. I think Tagnahoor is right, though, about shedding definitions. I read somewhere that if you call yourself a Buddhist, then you aren’t one, because there is no Buddhism. Steven Batchelor tells us in Buddhism Without Beliefs that you only have to accept three things to call yourself a Buddhist…1. the reality of suffering 2. the reality of impermancence and 3. the reality of anatman. Alan Watts agrees, these were the three things that Buddha taught and the rest was probably added by followers.
Thanks for the post, Katinka.

By: tagnahoor

tagnahoor — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:33:26 +0000

I think to be truly Buddhist, you only have to mindfully shed your definitions.

By: Jack Daw

Jack Daw — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 17:48:32 +0000

To be fair, I did mention your definition of a “true” buddhist in one of my blog posts. My post is not meant to be a criticism as much as an exploration of my own definition but I did use your post as a springboard.

If it comes across as inflammatory or insulting I do apologize and will revise..

Cheers,

Jack

By: Richard Shelmerdine

Richard Shelmerdine — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 19:27:09 +0000

You can still learn from Buddhism without the Buddhist label. I wrote about one of the central tenets of Buddhism recently at my blog. http://richardshelmerdine.com/blog/2009/09/29/acceptance-of-pain-and-transcending-suffering/ if you’d like to check it out.

By: Les O'Riley

Les O'Riley — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 04:33:40 +0000

I really liked your description of your views of how you relate to Buddhism, in comparison to what you perceive Buddhism to be all about.

“A real Buddhist, in my view, and in the traditional Asian view, is someone who has taken refuge. That is, in a solemn ritual they have taken refuge in the Buddha, the Dharma and the Sangha. I have not done that, so I’m not officially a Buddhist.”

You said that so clearly and concisely. I too believe in and try to live the 5 precepts. It’s pretty much a quick-n-easy “How-To” guide on morality. I am a flexitarian vegetarian wanna-be that can’t seem to somehow get away from chicken.

I have always believed in karma. I don’t believe in reincarnation per se, but do believe that energy is never destroyed, that it only changes form.

Anyway, thanks for an opportunity to discuss spirituality without getting stuck on religious differences. In response to your question: Is spirituality a lifestyle or a quest? I would say “both”. Take care ~ Les

drop by, enjoy & comment: http://oriley.wordpress.com