many Western “Buddists” are not clearly religious (they’re more Buddhist philosophy enjoyers and meditation dabblers)
I am a bit like this. I meditate 60+ minutes per day, talk to a teacher regularly, participate casually in a number of online “sanghas”, and follow the Eightfold Path and the Five Precepts as rough guidelines. But as I have described on Reddit here, I do not consider myself as “being a Buddhist” but merely has “having/doing a Buddhist-inspired practice”.
Could I ask you to please say a bit more about why I might want to “be a Buddhist”?
In many ways I’d say you’re already a Buddhist. There’s no strict qualifications to apply the Buddhist label. This is good in that it’s about what you do, and if you do Buddhist practice, I’d say that makes you a Buddhist. But it’s bad in that it creates a murky line where it’s easy to claim one is a Buddhist despite weak practice.
There’s is some line past which one is clearly a Buddhist, though. When I received the precepts and a dharma name, it became hard to say that I wasn’t! But as I say I don’t think this is in any way the minimum bar one must cross to use the label. If I had to take a stab at a minimum bar, I’d say anyone who takes refuge in the three treasures, believes the four noble truths, and follows the eight fold path is clearly a Buddhist.
It also sounds like you have strong practice! Stronger than most, and stronger than many who call themselves Buddhists.
What I will say is that I think you would benefit from participation in an in-person sangha because you are a human, humans are naturally gregarious if not made avoidant as a defensive strategy, and we have greater well-being when part of tight-nit communities. If you feel resistance to doing that (I get the sense that you do), that’s something to investigate, and a great way to investigate it is to join a sangha and commit to being part of it for long enough, say a year, that you’ll have time to figure out if it’s really for you. You might want to do a little sangha shopping to find one that feels right, but if none feel right just pick one and run the experiment. You can always stop going after a year if it’s really not for you.
I’d say anyone who takes refuge in the three treasures, believes the four noble truths, and follows the eight fold path is clearly a Buddhist.
I am not sure I believe in the four noble truths. I believe that the dharma and eightfold path can reduce suffering, certainly. I am not completely convinced that the end of suffering is possible.
Nor do I particularly take refuge in the three treasures. I think the dharma, as preserved in the sutras, is valuable, but probably flawed and incomplete. I also suspect that the Buddha is largely legendary. (I am sure that he lived, but I suspect that his accomplishments have been exaggerated.)
I have seldom read the original sutras. I find more value in modern interpretations such as Culadasa’s The Mind Illuminated, in conjunction with other (non-Buddhist-inspired) self-improvement literature.
What I will say is that I think you would benefit from participation in an in-person sangha because you are a human, humans are naturally gregarious if not made avoidant as a defensive strategy, and we have greater well-being when part of tight-nit communities. If you feel resistance to doing that (I get the sense that you do), that’s something to investigate
I feel resistance partly because I am wary of the time commitment (I struggle to find the time to meditate already), and because I am skeptical about whether I will be able to find a good group. But you have a point. I have now posted and asked about it in some Facebook groups for meditators and Buddhists in Denmark. Let us see.
Nor do I particularly take refuge in the three treasures. I think the dharma, as preserved in the sutras, is valuable, but probably flawed and incomplete. I also suspect that the Buddha is largely legendary. (I am sure that he lived, but I suspect that his accomplishments have been exaggerated.)
For what it’s worth, the Buddha is often understood to be not a man who lived 2500 years ago but awakening itself. Similarly, the dharma is not only what’s in the sutras, but the truth of life as it is (“dharma” is a word that means “truth” but also “phenomena”, which tell you a lot about Buddhist philosophy). And the sangha is not just the group you meet with, but everyone and everything that supports each other’s lives.
Thanks. I apologize for sounding negative and contrarian, but “the truth of life as it is” does not sound like much of a refuge. Could I ask you to please elaborate on that?
Of course. No need to apologize, this is a totally reasonable question!
My way of thinking about this is a very Zen understanding of the refuges, which means it’s a very Mahayana understanding of them. Which means that “the Buddha” is interpreted to include the literal Buddha, but also to mean “awakening” or “bodhi”, of which the Buddha is a manifestation. And since we also understand all beings to already be awake (this is a complex claim about non-duality that cannot be fully expressed in words), it means taking refuge in the Buddha is taking refuge in the world exactly as it is, which also means taking refuge in the life that allows us to know the world.
Now of course maybe you don’t find the Zen or Mahayana framing useful, in which case this won’t sound like a reasonable understanding of that refuge. Some traditions take the refuge quite literally and revere the Buddha as an interventionist deity, and others have other understandings of this refuge that I’m not very familiar with. But of course totally understandable if none of them connect and you don’t want to do it!
I am a bit like this. I meditate 60+ minutes per day, talk to a teacher regularly, participate casually in a number of online “sanghas”, and follow the Eightfold Path and the Five Precepts as rough guidelines. But as I have described on Reddit here, I do not consider myself as “being a Buddhist” but merely has “having/doing a Buddhist-inspired practice”.
Could I ask you to please say a bit more about why I might want to “be a Buddhist”?
In many ways I’d say you’re already a Buddhist. There’s no strict qualifications to apply the Buddhist label. This is good in that it’s about what you do, and if you do Buddhist practice, I’d say that makes you a Buddhist. But it’s bad in that it creates a murky line where it’s easy to claim one is a Buddhist despite weak practice.
There’s is some line past which one is clearly a Buddhist, though. When I received the precepts and a dharma name, it became hard to say that I wasn’t! But as I say I don’t think this is in any way the minimum bar one must cross to use the label. If I had to take a stab at a minimum bar, I’d say anyone who takes refuge in the three treasures, believes the four noble truths, and follows the eight fold path is clearly a Buddhist.
It also sounds like you have strong practice! Stronger than most, and stronger than many who call themselves Buddhists.
What I will say is that I think you would benefit from participation in an in-person sangha because you are a human, humans are naturally gregarious if not made avoidant as a defensive strategy, and we have greater well-being when part of tight-nit communities. If you feel resistance to doing that (I get the sense that you do), that’s something to investigate, and a great way to investigate it is to join a sangha and commit to being part of it for long enough, say a year, that you’ll have time to figure out if it’s really for you. You might want to do a little sangha shopping to find one that feels right, but if none feel right just pick one and run the experiment. You can always stop going after a year if it’s really not for you.
I am not sure I believe in the four noble truths. I believe that the dharma and eightfold path can reduce suffering, certainly. I am not completely convinced that the end of suffering is possible.
Nor do I particularly take refuge in the three treasures. I think the dharma, as preserved in the sutras, is valuable, but probably flawed and incomplete. I also suspect that the Buddha is largely legendary. (I am sure that he lived, but I suspect that his accomplishments have been exaggerated.)
I have seldom read the original sutras. I find more value in modern interpretations such as Culadasa’s The Mind Illuminated, in conjunction with other (non-Buddhist-inspired) self-improvement literature.
I feel resistance partly because I am wary of the time commitment (I struggle to find the time to meditate already), and because I am skeptical about whether I will be able to find a good group. But you have a point. I have now posted and asked about it in some Facebook groups for meditators and Buddhists in Denmark. Let us see.
For what it’s worth, the Buddha is often understood to be not a man who lived 2500 years ago but awakening itself. Similarly, the dharma is not only what’s in the sutras, but the truth of life as it is (“dharma” is a word that means “truth” but also “phenomena”, which tell you a lot about Buddhist philosophy). And the sangha is not just the group you meet with, but everyone and everything that supports each other’s lives.
Thanks. I apologize for sounding negative and contrarian, but “the truth of life as it is” does not sound like much of a refuge. Could I ask you to please elaborate on that?
Of course. No need to apologize, this is a totally reasonable question!
My way of thinking about this is a very Zen understanding of the refuges, which means it’s a very Mahayana understanding of them. Which means that “the Buddha” is interpreted to include the literal Buddha, but also to mean “awakening” or “bodhi”, of which the Buddha is a manifestation. And since we also understand all beings to already be awake (this is a complex claim about non-duality that cannot be fully expressed in words), it means taking refuge in the Buddha is taking refuge in the world exactly as it is, which also means taking refuge in the life that allows us to know the world.
Now of course maybe you don’t find the Zen or Mahayana framing useful, in which case this won’t sound like a reasonable understanding of that refuge. Some traditions take the refuge quite literally and revere the Buddha as an interventionist deity, and others have other understandings of this refuge that I’m not very familiar with. But of course totally understandable if none of them connect and you don’t want to do it!