[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

[husartrof]

I was wondering if we as Buddhists have a common objective.

Hello Bundokji,

When I first arrived to the Suttas I thought there was a common objective but now, knowing so many different traditions all around the globe seems that some traditions and some practitioners do not see quenching Dukkha as its ultimate goal. Some members here also have expressed this.

Craving for more and more seems to be part of the temper of looking for more spiritual issues far from being content with the "handful of teachings" of Buddha. Human nature? Natural curiosity? Wandering mind? Craving? Attainment of higher levels of understanding? An endless spiritual evolution?

[expabsPapsgag]

For example, personally speaking, I try to simplify my life, follow Buddhist ethical principles in my interactions at work and in society, spend less of my time chasing after material satisfactions, contemplate the truths of annica, anatta and dukkha, cultivate the paramitas, practice loving-kindness, and so on. It would be a mistake to say "because I'm not a monk, I can't really get anywhere in my practice".

Here I agree with you Lazy,

[Sukadrukanga]

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!!

I don't think I am saying that. You are making a few assumptions that I don't think are necessary true. For one thing, I don't agree that "detachments to worldly desires" is necessary on the right path. If it is, Buddha would not reject asceticism. Even if it is true, I see plenty of bhikkhus and bhikkhunis who are more attached to "worldly things" than some laypersons. Just different "worldly things."

Second, a layperson might not have a choice, because he or she might have some unpaid "karmic debts" to people surrounding him/her.

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.

I don't think your status as a layperson or as a bhikkhus matters. And I don't think Buddha said there is only one path. And I am not sure what's "do thing the right way."

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

If you really want rituals, I am sure many school will give you a ritual that you want. But I think I have mentioned this before in another thread.
A teaching is Buddhism if it covers three concepts, anicca, anatta and nibbana. All commonly accepted schools in Buddhism all have these 3 concepts as the core. They differ only in the matters of specific Practices, focuses and implications of these concepts.

If you do your best to understand and experience these 3 concepts, that's really all you need to be on the right Path.
The benefit of being a bhikkhus might be that it gives you more time to think about these 3 concepts. Maybe.

[eocavrWM]

Hello Deshy,

What i meant by ignorance was the (ego) or the illusionary self which is in my opinion the root that causes all our problems.

I thought there is a simple explaination for the existance of ego. The illusionary self is conditioned by two factors:

1- Our genes and our brain structure which is caused by evoultion driven us to feel this sense of (I) to enable us to live in this world and communicate with others.

2- Our eviornment and the society we live in. Society means everyone minus you! Since you were a small baby you have been given a name, have beem given feedbacks about yourself and your actions which shaps your idea about yourself! hence the ego is merely a reflected awarness of yourself, not the real you. If your husband is nice to you or if he buys you a gift you feel great, but if he criticizes you or fight with you then you would feel bad! So you are not aware of yourself, but you are aware how others feel about you.

By the way, this is what psychologists have been telling us during the last century. They call it "nature vs nurture" which implies that both elements combined makes us what we are, its a conditioned state and a deep slavery.

I used to believe in determinism, and what brought me to Buddhism is my desire to be free, and the way to freedom is by breaking out the chain of determinism "the ego" and this can be done through real awareness, not the reflected one.

In my opinion the ego is the main problem. Once we drop our illusions we will become free and we wont be attached to anything anymore.

To sum up, ego is the cause and tanha is the effect. How can you get attached to anything if there is no "you"?

Regards,
Bundokji

[Bondjrno]

A teaching is Buddhism if it covers three concepts, anicca, anatta and nibbana. All commonly accepted schools in Buddhism all have these 3 concepts as the core. They differ only in the matters of specific Practices, focuses and implications of these concepts.

If you do your best to understand and experience these 3 concepts, that's really all you need to be on the right Path.
The benefit of being a bhikkhus might be that it gives you more time to think about these 3 concepts. Maybe.

What are known as The Three Characteristics (or seals) of Buddhism, are in fact anicca, (impermanence) dukkha(dissatisfaction, suffering) and anatta (not self)


http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa6.htm

[fmrcurter]

Hello Lazy Eye,

For example, personally speaking, I try to simplify my life, follow Buddhist ethical principles in my interactions at work and in society, spend less of my time chasing after material satisfactions, contemplate the truths of annica, anatta and dukkha, cultivate the paramitas, practice loving-kindness, and so on. It would be a mistake to say "because I'm not a monk, I can't really get anywhere in my practice". Practicing as a layperson would make us happier/wiser, but wont make us completely free of suffering.

Please allow me to use the following example and i hope you dont take it literally: its like a christian or a muslim who practices his/her religion, but does not want to go to heaven and chooses to live in hell forever!! so why should he/she practice in the first place?

As a Buddhist, you know that living as a lay person would definitly lead to our rebirth and who knows what realm we will be reborn into!! If all i want is to be a bit happier or wiser, there are plenty of other philosophies/religions that offer the same!!

On the other hand, most laypeople get married and have childerns which means bringing new people to samsara to suffer while the ultimate goal is to break out of the cycle of rebirth!!!

The other day i was reading the Metta Sutra and i found that the last verse of the sutra was: Unattached to speculations, views and sense desires, the pure hearted one, with clear vision, being freed from all sense desires, will never be reborn in the cycles of suffering so how can you practice Metta and at the same time bring new childerns to suffer with us in this world?

Regards,
Bundokji

[uncoosesoge]

Hello Kaarine,

When I first arrived to the Suttas I thought there was a common objective but now, knowing so many different traditions all around the globe seems that some traditions and some practitioners do not see quenching Dukkha as its ultimate goal. Some members here also have expressed this. This is what make me really confused. The Buddha offered us a "PATH" which should lead us to a certain destination, but even this destination is not agreed upon within Buddhists. It seems like Buddhists agree to disagree!!

I think this is pratly due to the fact that Buddhists tend to be kind and non judegmental, but there must be right and wrong. Saying there is no right or wrong is pure nihilism and self contradictory in my opinion.

Regards,
Bundokji

[KellyLynchIV]

Hello Yuan,

Second, a layperson might not have a choice, because he or she might have some unpaid "karmic debts" to people surrounding him/her I thought Karama is not determinism! Even a layperson have a choice and it can be found in the "present moment"!. In addtion, when you say "unpaid karmic debts" that requires the existance of an ominiscient being to keep a tally which is not the way i understand the law of Karma.

I don't think your status as a layperson or as a bhikkhus matters. And I don't think Buddha said there is only one path. And I am not sure what's "do thing the right way." Well, i thought that the right path was the one mentioned in the fourth nobel truth!! is there any other path mentioned by the Buddha?

If you do your best to understand and experience these 3 concepts, that's really all you need to be on the right Path.
The benefit of being a bhikkhus might be that it gives you more time to think about these 3 concepts. Maybe. What do you personally think about what Lazy eye said in earlier post: The Pali suttas say that a layperson can achieve the first and second stages of enlightenment and when Aloka quoted: The only stage that the Canon depicts as the near-exclusive domain of monks and nuns is arahantship Do you agree/disagree? Do you think Arahanship is achievable by a layperson?

Regards,
Bundokji

[Blacksheepaalredy]

I should clarify here that by "layperson" what I had in mind is someone who is still bound up to some degree with worldly and sensual pleasures. That's why I only mentioned the first two stages of enlightenment.

At the third stage (anagami) one has abandoned tanha. That means celibacy, among other things -- so although one may technically still be a layperson, the lifestyle is more similar to that of a monk's or nun's. I'm not sure what percentage of Buddhist laypeople aspire to achieving this, though I'm sure some among the more dedicated practitioners do set their sights on it. Things that are important when one is young, newly married and raising a family may become less important with time and age. Everything in its season...

As to what is a realistic goal, it still comes back to one's circumstances, commitments and priorities. This is what constitutes "unpaid karmic debt". Due to choices made in the past, one has come to a certain situation now, which presents various challenges. To use again a personal example, it would be difficult for me to go off on a six-month retreat while fulfilling my parental obligations. Who would take my kids to soccer practice or check on their homework? But through studying and practicing the dharma to the best of my ability, I am creating karmic conditions which may be conducive to progress on the path. With patience, the opportunity to go on that retreat will eventually arise.

"Debt" is a metaphor -- it's not that there's some deity that keeps a tally. Most Buddhists believe actions of body, speech and mind create conditions which eventually manifest in some sort of result.

[Anydayhybeall]

What are known as The Three Characteristics (or seals) of Buddhism, are in fact anicca, (impermanence) dukkha(dissatisfaction, suffering) and anatta (not self)
http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa6.htm

Hi Aloka,

In the Chinese understanding, dukkha is not one of the 3 seals of Buddhism. Some tradition puts it as the fourth seal. I think the reason is that anicca itself implies dukkha.

The wiki for Chinese version of 三法印 is different than the English version in this aspect. Chinese version said that these 3 seals came from "Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom" written by Nāgārjuna.

If you click on the link to the three bullet points on the Wiki link, you will see that they lead to anicca, anatta and nirvana.

[Stetbrate]

I thought Karama is not determinism! Even a layperson have a choice and it can be found in the "present moment"!. In addtion, when you say "unpaid karmic debts" that requires the existance of an ominiscient being to keep a tally which is not the way i understand the law of Karma.

Karma is not determinism, but debt still needs to be paid.

It's like you borrow money from the bank. Karma said that you must paid back what you borrow to the bank. It is up to you on how you want to pay them back, or choose not to pay them back and suffer the consequences (which in a way, is still repaying the debt, just in a different form.). You have a choice.

There is no need for an omniscient being to keep track of karmic debts. The people you owed the karmic debt will keep track of it well enough. Just like the bank keeps track of the debt you owed and will do everything to recover, even after you die, banks will still try to come after your remaining assets or from your heirs.

Well, i thought that the right path was the one mentioned in the fourth nobel truth!! is there any other path mentioned by the Buddha?

Does the fourth path say that you must become a bhikkhus ? A Path is not the same as "The Path." Also, I don't know if you are familiar with a Zen saying, (paraphrased and summarized) "Don't mistaken the finger that points to the moon for the moon itself."

Do you agree/disagree? Do you think Arahanship is achievable by a layperson?

I try not to speculate on things that I do not personally understand. Plus, I am so far away from arahantship, it doesn't do me any good to speculate on it.

Let me illustrate my attitude toward this point: think of arahantship as a Bachelor degree from college. If I am still in the kindergarten, what is the use for me to speculate on what I need to do in college in order to get a Bachelor degree? I should think about graduating from the kindergarten first.

[Michmant]

On the other hand, most laypeople get married and have childerns which means bringing new people to samsara to suffer while the ultimate goal is to break out of the cycle of rebirth!!!

Hi Bundokji,

Buddhism taught that only human being can become Buddha. So bringing human beings to this samsara as you call it is to give these human beings a chance to become Buddha.

[illerlytoindy]

Let me illustrate my attitude toward this point: think of arahantship as a Bachelor degree from college. If I am still in the kindergarten, what is the use for me to speculate on what I need to do in college in order to get a Bachelor degree? I should think about graduating from the kindergarten first.

Exactly. Well said.

[Garry Richardson]

Hi Aloka,

In the Chinese understanding, dukkha is not one of the 3 seals of Buddhism. Some tradition puts it as the fourth seal. I think the reason is that anicca itself implies dukkha.

The wiki for Chinese version of 三法印 is different than the English version in this aspect. Chinese version said that these 3 seals came from "Great Treatise on the Perfection of Wisdom" written by Nāgārjuna.

If you click on the link to the three bullet points on the Wiki link, you will see that they lead to anicca, anatta and nirvana.

Hi Yuan

Your above link was in Chinese which I don't understand.

Unfortunately I'm not really a Nagarjuna fan. I was once involved with Vajrayana for many years but now I prefer to read the suttas in the Pali Canon .

Kind regards,

Aloka

[Efonukmp]

Hi Aloka,

according to Wiki, it's original source was Sajyuktāgama, no. 80 and 262. Sorry I can't be more helpful since I am not all that familiar with the Pali Canon.

But I think the original wordings are:

Sabbe saṅkhārā aniccā (諸行無常), sabbe dhammā anattā (諸法無我). I cannot find the one about Nirvana. I seem to have seen all 4 of them together either on this or another forum at one time.

Hi Yuan
Unfortunately I'm not really a Nagarjuna fan. I was once involved with Vajrayana for many years but now I prefer to read the suttas in the Pali Canon .
Aloka

That's cool. I am not all that familiar with Vajrayana and how they relate to Nagarjuna. But at a rough glance, I don't see how Vajrayana has anything to do with Mūlamadhyamakakārikā.

Sorry that I can't be more helpful.

[CaseyFan]

But at a rough glance, I don't see how Vajrayana has anything to do with Mūlamadhyamakakārikā

Hi Yuan,

There's quite a lot of emphasis on Nagarjuna in some schools of Vajrayana (though not in the preliminary/foundation teachings) and I first started reading Mūlamadhyamakakārikā when I was still practising with the Tibetan Buddhist tradition.

Here's an example of a lama who is said to be something of an expert on Nagarjuna and Madhyamika. There's his commentary on Nagarjuna's 'In Praise of the Dharmadhatu' in the magazine.

http://www.shenpen-osel.org/issue7.pdf


Anyway, sorry, I'm taking the thread away from the original topic !