[Buddha-l] What makes a Buddhist?

[Bob Zeuschner]

I am not sure I would agree with the assumptions behind Curt's remarks.

For many Western religions, there is a creed which one is expected to 
accept. If one rejects the creed, then one is not a member.
As far as I know, there is no creed for Buddhism.
There is no Buddhist central authority which declares who belongs and 
who doesn't.

Can a Roman Catholic criticize church practice? Sure. It happens all the 
time.
Is that "attacking Christianity"? It depends on one's perspective. From 
my perspective, it is healthy to have a critical attitude toward 
tradition and authority. I wish more people were critical about 
religious claims.

I have no problem whatsoever with Batchelor calling himself a Buddhist 
and simultaneously rejecting all supernatural claims within Buddhism.
I have no problem with people calling themselves Buddhists who believe 
in a gods, SunBuddhas, sambhogakaya and dharmakaya Buddhas, karma, etc.
If you want to pray to Maitreya, go ahead.

I hope there's room for non-theistic Buddhists within Buddhism.
Many of my own Buddhist heroes seem to have rejected the same sorts of 
things that Batchelor rejects (I'm thinking of the Linjilu/Lin-chi lu.
Bob


On 9/24/2010 10:35 AM, Curt Steinmetz wrote:
>    On 9/24/10 1:27 PM, Rahula wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I don't think Stephen Batchelor ever converted out of Buddhism, and I believed he still considered himself a Buddhist, though some, perhaps many Buddhists disagree with his views and/or thought of him as a Buddhist "apostate". He still conduct Buddhist retreats.
>>
>> Best wishes,
>> Rahula
>>
>
> Obviously there is nothing to prevent Batchelor from claiming to be a
> Buddhist while simultaneously attacking Buddhism. But there is also
> nothing that requires others to uncritically accept Batchelor's
> nonsensical claim to be a Buddhist just on his say-so.
>
> Buddhism either means something or it means nothing. If it means
> something then there must be things that it does not mean, and
> Batchelor's New Dispensation is an obvious candidate for one of the
> things that Buddhism is not. Batchelor himself tacitly accepts this by
> his repeated insistence that his vision of "Buddhism" has nothing
> whatsoever to do with what he considers to be the idiotic superstitions
> of 99% of all the people who call themselves Buddhists (including those
> teachers who taught Batchelor what little he actually knows about Buddhism).
>
> Curt
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l
>