Being Buddhist
At the Washington Post's On Faith site, Dustin Eaton writes a lovely essay about not being a Buddhist. "I am not a Buddhist," he says. "I've never told anyone that I am a Buddhist and have in fact denied the title on more than one occasion." Yet he studies Buddhism and meditates daily.
Eaton, a Ph.D. candidate studying South Asian religion and culture at the University of Iowa, writes that "being a Buddhist means more than just saying you are one. It means placing yourself within the structure of a particular school, a particular lineage and a particular teacher. It means changing your life, not just changing your mind." Since he lives far away from a teacher or sangha, he isn't comfortable calling himself "a Buddhist."
I avoid calling myself a Buddhist, also, although for different reasons. The primary reason is not making "I am a Buddhist" just another ego attachment. I have enough layers of self-identity to chip through without building another one. When I do say "I am a Buddhist" -- because to say otherwise would be a lie -- I do a little purification ritual in my heart.
However, there's also a danger in wading too far into negation. The Madhyamika teachings of early Mahayana said that although phenomena -- including people -- are void of self-essence, it is incorrect to say that things and beings exist or don’t exist. As I understand it, form and appearance create the world of myriad things, but the myriad things have identity only in relation to each other. Thus, there is neither reality not not-reality; only relativity.
So, perhaps I shouldn't be so squeamish about saying "I am a Buddhist." I don't think Dustin Eaton should be, either.
Photo Credit: Grigory Kubatyan / Dreamstime Stock Photos
Comments
Thanks for this thought. I agree about the layers of identity one has to navigate in life already. In my experience, saying “I’m a Buddhist” simply claimed a reality for all that I have felt and thought about life, that was always more important to me than my “Christian” upbringing.
I put quotes around “Christian” to try to distinguish between the socio-political identity and the actual teachings ….
Cheers
I appreciate the sentiment about not getting hung up on “identifying” oneself as a “Buddhist”. However, to be a lay disciple of buddha and in the community of Buddhists one doesn’t need all the rigamaroll that is claimed. One merely needs to take refuge in the Three Treasures. If one says “I take refuge in Buddha, I take Refuge in Dharma, I take refuge in Sangha (Buddhist community)” and means it in one’s heart-mind, then one is a Buddhist. It is that straightforward.
Isn’t this a matter of Right Intention? If I say I’m a Buddhist to inform others and help them understand my spiritual path, that’s a good thing. It provides information, and it promotes the Dharma. But if I say I’m a Buddhist to impress people or puff myself up, then I’m just feeding my ego.
I’ve enjoyed what Dzongsar Khyentse Rinpoche ~ in his book “What Makes You Not A Buddhist” ~ has offered on this subject. What he proposes is that what makes one a Buddhist practitioner is some kind of alignment with the Four Seals; and that the goal of walking the path offered by Shakyamuni Buddha is not to “become a Buddhist,” but rather to become liberated. Here’s a link to a video of Rinpoche discussing this & more:
Dzongsar Khyentse: “Beyond Boundaries & Time”
ere in China, people don’t say, “Are you a Buddhist?” They say, “Do you believe in Buddha?”
Pure Land Buddhism is strong here, so for most, Buddhism is about belief–that’s another problem. But I have taken to saying, “I’m not a Buddhist, but I’m trying to follow the Buddha’s teaching.”
Though I’m married, I live in a temple most of the time, teaching Buddhism in English to monks. I think it’s safe to say that most who see me perceive me as “a Buddhist.” Yet, in the strictest Chinese terms, I’m not, because I have never taken refuge with a master.
Labeling is a problem, but a strange sort of clarity seems to settle when I say, “I’m trying to follow the Buddha’s teaching”…
Thanks for this post. The line that’ll stay with me is “As I understand it, form and appearance create the world of myriad things, but the myriad things have identity only in relation to each other. Thus, there is neither reality not not-reality; only relativity.”
I’ve spent years meditating and studying and then losing the gist from over-thinking things and that sentence really sums up no-self and impermanence and the five khandhas perfectly.
I will print it out and keep it handy.