[Buddha-l] What makes a Buddhist?

[Curt Steinmetz]

  The credal argument has a serious problem. First of all, the Mother of 
all Creeds is the Nicene one, but that was adopted not to define 
Christianity as opposed to other religions, but in order to be used 
against other Christians! Christianity is not a religion defined by a 
single creed, but one of its defining characteristics is the propensity 
of its adherents to kill one another over credal differences.

As far as who is and who is not a Buddhist goes, my default position is 
that people are free to self-identify as Buddhists and what business is 
that of mine? But Batchelor goes out of his way to attack 99.9% of 
Buddhists and Buddhism and to declare himself against and outside of 
what most Buddhists have always believed and done throughout the history 
of Buddhism. I consider this to be an exceptional case, and one that 
Batchelor himself forces.

Curt

On 9/24/10 2:46 PM, Bob Zeuschner wrote:
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> buddha-l mailing list
> buddha-l at mailman.swcp.com
> http://mailman.swcp.com/mailman/listinfo/buddha-l