One of the first posts I wrote here, as I remember, had to do with my discomfort with identifying as a Buddhist. I had no trouble with the Buddhism part; it was the identity part that bothered me. Just to say "I am a [insert object of your choice]" gives me a little twitch of discomfort these days.
But I don't think the "I am a ..." thing is a real problem, unless you are completely oblivious to why it might be a problem. And it's a problem because labeling ourselves as anything just reinforces the "I" illusion. It assumes there is an essence of "me" that can be labeled (see "Sunyata").
There's a long-standing thread in the Buddhism forum labeled "Can you be a "Buddhist and a Socialist?" To me, the red flag in that question is not about Buddhism versus socialism, but about being something. There's a terrible danger in attaching one's identity to an ideology, you know.
When you say "I AM A [socialist, capitalist, liberal, conservative, libertarian, iconoclast, mugwump, whatever] it changes the way you relate to the positions espoused by that school of thought. You develop a loyalty to the label that goes beyond mere agreement with its propositions. Possibly without our realizing it, upon adopting that identity we begin to build filters that change the way we process information in our heads.
Unconsciously, information that does not conform to the ideology will be filtered out, or "tweaked" until it fits. In extreme cases -- and there seem to be a lot of extreme cases these days -- loyalty to the identity can become tribal, and those who haven't joined your tribe are seen as enemies with evil motivations.
As soon as we label ourselves, we build a fence around a territory that might be called "my preferred projected reality." For example, although I don't necessarily disagree with people who label themselves "Buddhist atheists," I think it's unskillful dharma practice to do so. The "atheist" label is unnecessary, for one thing. But I think it also makes it harder to step outside the "scientific materialism" projected reality, which is a shame.
Here's a mindfulness practice: next time you catch yourself saying or thinking, "I am a ...," reflect upon rewording the sentence without "I am." For example, instead of saying "I am an X," say something like "I tend to agree with X," or even "X seems to generate useful ideas." Pay attention to how the two statements feel to you; how they resonate emotionally. The second statement might make you feel a little more open, a little less defined. Work with that.
I am very relieved to read this. About the discomfort with Buddhist identity, that is. Although I’m also uncomfortable with explicitly rejecting that identity.
At this point, Buddhism is what I attempt to do, rather than what I am or attempt to be. Perhaps that will change; my attitude to Buddhism certainly has changed over the past few years. It’s quite possible I’ll grow to identify with the identity more too. I have caught myself thinking of “Buddhists” as “us” from time to time lately. Eek!
I think it may be especially uncomfortable for a dyed-in-the-wool atheist/secularist to be staring a religious identity in the face. Which is also why I think it might be useful. It’s that kind of discomfort.
why not say ” i follow Buddhist path”………..?
Great topic and good points made. Our American culture seems to have this need to define all people and especially their spiritual identification. Have you ever noticed how every one within eaves dropping range will turn and focus on you with that weird look when you do not identify with any particular category? If you are not one of us, what are you?
I guess my way around the issue is to simply say that I practice Zen Buddhism. More informally, I might say that I’m a Zennie.
I like Briank’s comment ….. and I will use it from now on …… I FOLLOW BUDDHIST PATH
C’mon Barbara- you’re from NY, as am I originally.
If “I am a…” isn’t followed by, “and what’s it to ya?” well…:-)
On a more serious note, though…
It’s a problem because labeling ourselves as anything just reinforces the “I” illusion. It assumes there is an essence of “me” that can be labeled (see “Sunyata”).
I’m not sure that’s the case, because the converse of your point – there is something that can be labelled, etc. – is just as valid within the context of sunyata.
But moreover, it’s absurd to try to be semantically precise in embedding the concept of sunyata into everyday speech. The Dalai Lama says “I’m just a simple Buddhist monk.” My teacher says “Call me Sokan.”
It’s not wrong speech in any way to use words as shorthand this way.
Rather there’s something else in play here, I’d suspect.
Mumon — something I wrote in the first draft of this that doesn’t seem to have made it into the final — something to the effect that if you are aware of the problem, it’s not a problem. If you understand you are using words as shorthand, and that conventional speech only describes conventional reality, then it’s not a problem. However, we do tend to attach to our labels, and then it is a problem.
Barbara-
I agree. Usually what we attach I think is an un-verbalized feeling of “what will others think?”
P.S. I’m impressed if you’re writing drafts.
“But I don’t think the “I am a …” thing is a real problem, unless you are completely oblivious to why it might be a problem.”
Totally agree, & it reminds me of Thich Nhat Hanh saying something similar, to the effect of: “once you’ve realized self to be empty/transparent, it’s not a problem to talk about yourself.”
For me what seems to work in terms of speaking of my connection to Buddha Dharma, is taking the Three Jewels (Buddha, Dharma & Sangha) as being a reliable refuge — which I’ve come to trust as supporting a journey in the general direction of reality.
What feels useful also is the notion of a vehicle — as in the three yanas. So like a car or bicycle or airplane, we use the Hinayana or Mahayana or Vajrayana teachings as a vehicle, as a skillful means to traverse from pointA to pointB (on an “internal” terrain of course) — but never do we imagine that our car or bicycle or airplane is, essentially, who we are.
“The person looking for “me” (a fixed identity) is also the same person looking for (a vapory word) “God.” This split search can only be folded into one in the process of working on something—whether it is writing, digging, planting, painting, teaching—with a wholeheartedness that qualifies as complete attention.”
Slightly off-topic, but thought others might enjoy this essay — Buddhist Like School & I Don’t — which is rooted in the author’s experience of a Catholic/Buddhist interfaith dialogue & meditation retreat, led by the Dalai Lama — and explores issues around language & identity in the context of spiritual practice.
Barbara,
That is a very helpful insight and practice. Thank you.
Especially your useful paraphrase of Thich Nhat Hanh ~once you’ve realized self to be empty/transparent, it’s not a problem to talk about yourself.~
With that in mind, I find it interesting that our formal American English grammar capitalizes “I” but not “me”
So as a sort of mindfulness bell to remind me daily of the shunyata teachings (of which i still have much to learn), i have taken to using mostly lower-case “i” — which to most readers may look like just an innocent typo — so no big deal for them.
And as you suggest, there are usually other ways to express a thought without using the first-person personal pronoun (or other self-identifier), which gives one an opportunity to formulate that expression less self-canteredly, while also enjoying the challenge of trying to avoid phrasing that would seem awkward or unclear to the reader/listener.
be well
OOOPs,
that TNH paraphrase i cited was from Mila not Barbara
gs
Early in practice i was quite proud to say ‘I was practicing Buddhism”…
I believed in ‘freedom of religion’ (this was America). I was an executive in a large corporation … In a meeting with corporate heads i let it be known that I actually went on retreat to a Zen Monastary. NOT a good thing to do. The good old Texas boys took note. It took them awhile but they moved me along .. and I’ve learned to bite my tongue more often. When first training I wanted everyone to know what things i was discovering. Later I learned it may be better to be careful what and with whom you share because who knows where it may go… and there is responsibility (karma) to be aware of. And that is not even thinking about how we each simply catagorize ourelves .. i’ve said ‘i’m a born again buddhist’ ive said ‘i practice buddhism’ … i practice… the infinite and the finite manifesting … just another sense organ of the eternal manifesting for a time …
” I’m a buddhist ”
we must not say ” I follow the buddhist path ” or ” I’m a zennie ”
because you follow your own path,
everyone of us,
your path is not my path
and my path is not yours
what you really do is more of value than what you say
BUT
if you want to say anything about it
let it be : i’m a person who follows a path pointed out by buddhist dharma”
that is called “a buddhist”
let’s sit by that
Gassho
Jiki — show me the self that follows a path.
Look in the mirror and see it for yourself
Jiki — you’ve missed it.
No problem