[celddiskend]

Hello Yuan,

To me, a person is a Buddhist if he/she believes that Buddha was "awaken" and saw the Truth, and he did his best to explain the Truth to us and how he "woke up," and is doing his/her best to follow Buddha's path. I like your definition and i find it quite logical. According to your definition to be a Buddhist is to believe that the Buddha saw the truth and to try our best to follow his path. Consequently, those who CHOOSE not to do thier best to follow his path cant be considered as Buddhists!

Most laypeople choose not to follow the path, this can be due to one of the following reasons:

1- They still have inner doubts in relation to the Buddha and his teachings
2- Their attachments to worldly desires is stronger than their desire to get enlightened

Either way, laypeople cannot be considered as real buddhists according to your definition!!

Please note that i am not trying to be judgemental here, but i am facing the same difficult choice to continue to live as a layperson or to do things the right way. I feel that calling myself a Buddhist while i continue to follow a different path is a form of self-deception.

Because, ultimately, what does it matter to you? This is a good question. If i can have a clear understanding of what does it mean to be a Buddhist, then i will be able to follow the path correctly. However, untill this moment i have not been able to see what do buddhists have in common!!! Things have to be in black and white sometimes and their should be uniformity in some way!

For example, in Islam there are minimum requirements for those who want to become a muslim, they call them the five pillars of Islam and if you dont believe in them, you cannot be considered as a muslim. Is there something similar to this in Buddhism? is there any minimum clear requirments?

Regards,
Bundokji