A post in the blog All Considering came up with a quick and easy definition of what a "real" Buddhist is...
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.
Really? A ceremony makes a Buddhist real? While I won't stomp over some one's opinion or their personal definitions of Buddhism, I will make an attempt to better define what a Buddhist is. Although, granted, my definition will be as flimsy as any other definition offered. It is next to impossible to say what being a Buddhist means to such a diverse group of practitioners but I can go deeper into how I define myself as a Buddhist.
The ceremonial aspect of taking refuge in the 3 Jewels is important step in the practice of Buddhism but does not define a Buddhist as real or not. Most Buddhists will take those vows eventually in the evolution of their practice but it is by no means necessary to make it "official" by involving a monk or priest or piece of paper. I made those vows for myself one morning after a horrific event in my life. The bottom of my pail fell out and it was time to refill it. I took the vows and I began daily practice and I am a Buddhist. If I took those same vows in front of a monk or priest they would have meant next to nothing compared to when I was driven through my own experience to make them. Which would make me a "real" Buddhist, I wonder.
This is not to say that the "official" taking of refuge (or the precepts or intense meditative retreats) is without merit. They serve a purpose in deepening one's commitment to their practice and to Buddhism. Also, if one is looking for guidance with their own exploration of Buddhism then it is important to ascertain whether or not a teacher is "authentic". In the end it is really up to the individual how much emphasis they put on the ritualistic or organizational aspects of Buddhist practice. I put great emphasis on the ritualistic but very little on the organizational. This is not a definite - It is just my practice now.
Whether you want to call your self a Buddhist is up to you, the individual, to decide. If you are a practicing Christian or Jew and wish to label yourself as a Buddhist as well - then by all means - Do so. If it helps your practice and understanding of the Dharma then do it. If you don't feel that the label of Buddhist is right for you or if you think that your practice is contrary to the fundamental teachings of the Buddha then do not call yourself one. It means very little to me whether or not you consider yourself a Buddhist. If you are applying the Dharma to your own life in a way that fits your life - Then I couldn't be happier.
Now, I may be mistaken but a "solemn" ritual does not necessarily entail monastic representation for one to take refuge. I take refuge daily in my own practice but I have no specific ceremonial experience to speak of. Do I really need someone to tell me that it isn't "real" unless it is witnessed by a monastic or lay-ordained practitioner? I don't try to pretend to be anything that I am not. I am not lay-ordained or a monastic and I have very little experience in the realm of monastic practice. My practice is mostly home-centered and with a small lay sangha (mostly, two are lay-ordained). This does not make my practice and experience any less relevant compared to someone with more practice in a monastic setting.
My thoughts are simple in this manner - You learn from what resources are available to you at this time in your life. Don't spend your days wishing that you had a larger sangha or a monastery close by. Or a specific school or sect that is nearer to what you think Buddhist practice should be. Use what is available to you now. Your only enemy is a lack of striving.
Its really all just tools. We are trying to build something...why would you worship the specific hammer that you are using when the big picture is the process of building. Zen is my hammer for now but it may be that sometime in the future a new tool is needed...just have to wait and see.
Cheers,[Jack Daw is a non-lay-ordained home practitioner of Buddhism. He has no specific lineage or teacher. Instead he grabs what he can like a crow picking a carcass. He currently practices Zen but that could change as the wind does not blow from the same direction everywhere. He does however think that all beings deserve compassion. He is also fighting a three day flu and feeling quite pissy right now - but this will pass.]
great post, and great photo! yours?
ReplyDeleteExcellent post! Sounds like you could use some morphine dude.
ReplyDeleteThis is lovely. My mother, one of the most devoted Buddhists I know, practices with a lay sangha and generates rituals on her own; I have not seen her eat without giving thanks first in years, and she sits for meditation nightly in front of an alter she has nurtured from a lone Buddha to an entire room dedicated to the cause. Taking refuge is personal, and shouldn't be devalued (or lauded) for being public or private, ritualized or off-the-cuff.
ReplyDeleteChogyam Trungpa writes that "The discipline of taking refuge is something more than a doctrinal or ritual thing: you are being physically infected with commitment to buddhadharma; Buddhism is transmitted into your system" (106, The Heart of the Buddha). I have not taken "formal" vows, but taking refuge (quietly, compassionately, alone) was an important part of my development as a Buddhist. Someday I hope to partake in a more formalized ritual, not to make what is in my heart any more real, but because I would like to engage in a tradition that has spanned thousands of years -- I'd like to be connected to that, too.
You can be sure that, formal though it may be, my refuge-taking will be the furthest thing from "solemn" you've ever seen. Ritualized, yes, but solemn? Not with a heart soaring like that, no sir...
Whoever holds his identification as a Buddhist at arms' length because he has not engaged in ritual is only not a Buddhist because he chooses not to be in his heart.
Hi Jack,
ReplyDeleteI agree entirely with this definition:
"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."
But that doesn't preclude me from also agreeing with you in this post.
The fact is I think you are arguing against a position that doesn't exist. No one is telling you that the solemn ritual MUST be in a temple are they? So long as it is in your heart it really doesn't matter where it takes place.
So, no, if you're committed to the Triple Gem and have taken reguge in your heart (official formal ceremony or otherwise) you are not only half a Buddhist..... but nor do I see anyone saying that you are.
All the very best,
Marcus
PS - this is not to deny, by the way, the power of a formal ritual ceremony. I took mine in the main temple of the Hanmaum lineage in Korea in May of last year and it was one of the most meaningful and beautiful days of my life.
PPS - I'm also suffering the flu so know how you feel! Get well soon mate!
PPS - yes, magnificent photo!
I thought I'd share this story that Zen Master Seung Sahn would tell often at precepts ceremonies. It addresses some of the fundamental issues you discuss.
ReplyDeleteOnce in Korea a man wanted to take the five precepts. But, he liked to drink. "I want to drink!", but then he thought, "If I only drink and take the precepts that means breaking the precepts." So, he got an idea. He invited a friend out to dinner and said, "I'll drink for you!" As the evening proceeded the friend saw that he was drinking a lot, much more than him. "That's not correct," said the friend. "Now you are breaking two precepts: the one against drinking and the one against lying!"
A long time ago my teacher, Zen Master Ko Bong, gave the five precepts to Chung Dong Go Sa Nim. Everything in the ceremony went smoothly until the part where the preceptor recites the precepts. Suddenly the man stood up and said "If I cannot drink, I die!" So, now there was a problem. Immediately Ko Bong Sunim said "Then you take only four precepts." He became the "four precepts layman" and got four precepts enlightenment. Anybody can take four precepts--no problem!
I concur with the initial comments: an excellent post.
ReplyDeleteGet well soon Jack and Marcus! As for definitions, the arguments will go on and on. I say work with the teachings, be diligent, care deeply for others, and let the labels come and go like dew drops on the leaves of trees.
ReplyDeleteHi,
ReplyDeleteThere are in a sense two kinds of Buddhism: Buddhism as a spiritual practice and buddhism as a religion. You're clearly someone who, like many westerners, sees Buddhism mostly as a spiritual practice. That's fine. In fact that's great.
However, because there is only one word for Buddhism - whether west or east, whether ritual or meditative or both, I prefer to stick to a definition that at least takes into account that Buddhism is, for the majority of Buddhists, a religion first, a spiritual path second.
Glad to hear you thought my blogpost worth commenting on :)
@ everybody - Thanks for your comments and insights.
ReplyDelete@ All Considering - I don't mean to regulate ritualized Buddhism to the backburner at all. The funny part is, though, that I do consider Buddhism a religion and what is more, MY religion. It would be must simpler to take into account everyone who practices (spiritual or not) by dropping the need for a definative "real" Buddhist all together. Especially since the definition in the All Considering post places most of us rural practitioners into the "fake" Buddhist realm.
Oh Noes!
Rather I would say that there is no need to define "real" vs. "fake" Buddhism. Buddhism at home is just as real as Buddhism in a temple.
Cheers,