[Buddha-l] Bourgeous Buddhism: 'Buddhist' Identity

[andy]

Mahinda Deegalle wrote

> This discussion on the 'Buddhist' identity is an interesting one. But it is
> also frustrating.
> 
Yes!  This is the essence of the questions, if those who believe in sunyata 
can admit of essence! 
> 
> 'Buddhist' identity itself is just another label; a useful label to creat
> narrow boxes. However, it is worth enquiring whether there is any space
> within what we identify as 'Buddhism' for holding exclusive views.
> 
> 
My comparison with the Council of Nicea in Christianity was clumsily 
attempting to point out this difference.  I don't think that there is any 
definitive basis for exclusive views.  However. .  .

> In addition, do we have rights to exclude one person or a group and deny
> their existence labelling them as non-Buddhists or not 'real-Buddhists'?

Denying that anyone is  Buddhist does not deny their existence, does it?  This 
makes me wonder what is actually achieved by the claim to be Buddhist. 

> Does anybody have monopoly over 'Buddhist' identity? Is it not the case
> that Buddhism and the Buddha allow anyone to practice the Buddha's
> teaching in various degrees according their capacities and enthusiasm? Is
> not it the openness one of the key characteristics of being Buddhist?
> 
Again, most assuredly yes!  But the question is whether some are not just 
practicing the Buddha's teaching accordiing to their ability, but are actually 
contrary to the Buddha's teaching.  Can such be called being Buddhist?  This 
is a difficult question, and maybe the most important part is how Buddhists 
address it. 
> 
> Is not the whole point of Buddhism is being open and enabling anyone to
> enter the practice of it? Who has rights to pass judgments on other's
> practice?

I see a hard spot between two of the Eight-fold Path:  Right views, and Right 
speech.  On the one hand, incorrect views of the Buddha's teachings should not 
be held, and it is probably a good idea to disburse our fellow human beings of 
such views.  On the other, right speech mandates that we do not do so in a 
manner that causes more suffering for others. Thus it really is not a matter of 
who has the right to pass judgment, but what kind of judgment will conduce to 
the well being of all sentient beings. 
> 
> Should we be fanatical about our own practice against some others? Is it a
> Buddhist thing to do?
> 
> Thanks
> Mahinda Deegalle
> 

Thank you for this reminder, Mahinda. And I agree that being fanatical is not 
a Buddhist thing to do. 

But unfortunately, I have recently read a translation of Asanga's 
Bodhisattvabhumi chapter on ethics, part of which reads:

>Accordingly, the bodhisattva rebukes sentient beings who are taking the wrong 
>path, who are doing wrong, with words harsh and severe, by which means to 
>move them from an unwholesome to a wholesome situation. Although there is 
>harsh speech on the part of the bodhisattva there is no fault, but a spread 
>of much merit.  (Mark Tatz, trans.)

This is of course part of the Mahayana tradition  under the guise of the 
bodhisattva, and the doctrine of _upaya_,  but I would have to ask, is this 
rebuking not also part of the Buddhist tradition? 

Apologies to all who thought this topic had died a well deserved death. 

>
James Andy Stroble,
University of Hawaii