kamma doesn't actually go on.

kamma means action, and it is finished after it is performed.

Nothing actually goes on from one moment to the next; the effects of one moment are felt in the next, and have potential repercussions far into the future.

It is these repercussions that do indeed create a sense of continuity from life to life;

a person who ended their life with a certain nature will be reborn with a similar nature, simply due to the causal nature of reality.

"Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind."

MN 19 (Bodhi, trans)

I've heard this issue described as one of the major philosophical problems for Buddhism.

How does rebirth make sense in the absence of a fixed self?

The problem is akin to the problem of evil for Christians - how does a good God allow bad things to happen.

And as fitting this kind of problem there's been a lot of historic opinion and arguably no definitive answer.

The thoughts and analogies that I have found useful have been One position is that there is rebirth but no-one is reborn.

I fit this satisfying mystical to be honest.

The analogy of the candle.

A new candle is lit from an old one and the flame passes from candle to candle.

We can't say it's the same flame

but then we can't say that the flames in the candles are unrelated.

The contention is that this is an instructive way to think about rebirth.

Another analogy of a pile of coins versus a string of beads.

Reincarnation (with a soul) can be viewed as a string of beads.

There is something (the thread/a soul) that runs through all beads.

A pile of coins is like rebirth (no soul).

There is nothing running in the pile of coins that gives them their location in the pile.

However it is the positions of all the previous coins that gives the uppermost coin it's elevated position.

If none of these work then there is always the Buddha's advice about n ot worrying about such metaphysical mechanics .

Knowing this stuff won't help you get liberated.

I am aware that Tibetan Buddhists will have a far more definite idea about how these things happen.

The perspective of this answer is probably more Theravadan but the book that I've sourced this from is more eclectic and even secular ( Exploring Karma and Rebirth by Nagapriya ).

Looking at it from another angle, what would it mean to be reborn without your nature?

In what sense would the reborn being still be you?

Rebirth without persistence of nature is indistinguishable from no rebirth at all.

Everything is impermanent, even one's nature.

If you look at the span of your life, your year, your month, or even a single day in your life you will see that your nature is in a constant state of change.

Agree with @Christopher Lee on this but with a small addition.

Some strong habits can persist over may lives and even after enlightenment, but in the long run they can also fade away.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Nature doesn't move.

Your thinking is moving.

You cannot think about your nature, you cannot speak about it, because your thinking is a "product" made from the nature by your tendencies which again raise from your habits.

We need to perceive our nature to understand it.

Not to think about it.

It's like to think about meals instead to eat.

Your nature appears when you stop the mess in your head.

Right now!

Enlightenment

Helping others Congratulations! :-)

Question: Imagine a person that is very calm, generous, doesn't like to harm others etc. If this person gets a rebirth in the human realm will he/she develop the same characteristcs?   The point is that Kamma and the last mental state can go on, but according to Anatta I'm not sure about the rest.

Does the "nature" of a person move with her to the next life?

Nothing actually goes on from one moment to the next; the effects of one moment are felt in the next, and have potential repercussions far into the future. Some strong habits can persist over may lives and even after enlightenment, but in the long run they can also fade away.

Karma does not move on, as it is finished as soon as it is done. However, the effects of one moment have an effect on the next. Strong habits can persist over many lives and even after enlightenment. A person who ended a life with a certain nature will be reborn with a similar nature, due to the causal characteristic of reality. Whatever a bhikkhu ponders upon will become the inclination of his mind, with potential repercussions far into the future. However, everything is impermanent, even nature.

Karma does not move on, as it is finished as soon as it is done. However, the effects of one moment have an effect on the next, with future repercussions. Everything is impermanent, even nature.


UPDATE :

These seem to be the first Buddhist texts ever translated into English, published in 1693: THE LIFE OF THEVETAT , Translated from the Balie (i.e. Pāli)

An Explication of the Patimouc, or Text of the Vinac More information can be found in A philological approach to Buddhism by K. R. Norman, p. 4: Simon de La Loubère [...]

in 1687-88 went to Siam as an envoy ofthe king of France (King Louis), and on his return wrote a book about theKingdom of Siam, which was published in France in 1691.

Two years later anEnglish translation was published in England.

La Loubère gave a fascinatingaccount of many aspects of Siam and Siamese culture, and he also included anaccount of the Siamese religion — Buddhism — and the sacred language of theSiamese.

He noted the differences between that language, which he called Balie,and the Siamese language, and noted, correctly, the relationship between theformer and Sanskrit.

He also gave French translations of a few Buddhist texts.

Here is the English edition of Loubère's whole book, which contains the above-mentioned texts: A new historical relation of the kingdom of Siam by Monsieur De La Loubere ...

; done out of French, by A.P. Gen. R.S.S. London: Printed by F.L for Tho.

Horne ...

Francis Saunders ... and Tho.

Bennet ..., 1693.

Some other translations that can be regarded as quite early, include: The History and Doctrine of Budhism :

Popularly Illustrated: with Notices of the Kappooism, Or Demon Worship, and of the Bali, Or Planetary Incantations, of Ceylon by Edward Upham (London, 1829): contains translations of some Jātakas The Catechism of the Shamans (London, 1831) by Charles Fried.

Neumann :

contains translation of portions of a Mahāyāna Vinaya from Chinese Fragment of the Lotus Sutra translated from French by Elizabeth Peabody in 1844

(Wikipedia incorrectly calls that the first English translation of a Buddhist text) None of these publications seem to have made a big impact.

In 1844 the magazine published Peabody's translation of a portion of the Lotus Sutra from French [...].

The publication ceased shortly thereafter in April 1844.

As to the first notable translation, I would give this honorary title to Max Muller's translation of Dhammappada , first published in 1869 , later included in Muller's Sacred Books of the East series published around 1880s .

Beside Dhammapada, the series included important suttas such as Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion, Mahaparinibbana, and others, all of Sutta-Nipata, most of Vinaya, one of the earliest post-canonical texts Milinda-panha, a Chinese version of the Life of Buddha by Asvaghosa, and some of the most important Mahayana texts such as Heart Sutra and Lotus Sutra.

Arguably this was the most notable early publication of Buddhist texts into English.

It depends somewhat on what you mean by a Buddhist text.

The book of “Barlaam and Josephat” is a famous Christian reworking of the life of the Buddha.

It was translated from Latin to Middle English in the 15th century.

Sándor Csoma de Kőrös (Hungarian: Kőrösi Csoma Sándor) was a Hungarian-Szekler orientalist who went to Asia around 1820 looking for the ancestors of Hungarians, but ended up in Tibet instead.

He is well known among Hungarians for his journey and for compiling the first Tibetan-English dictionary and grammar .

He spent considerable time in Tibet studying Tibetan and Buddhist philosophy between 1827-30.

He was declared Boddhisatva in 1933 in Japan.

While I do not know if he translated Buddhist texts into English, it is plausible that he may have, as he immersed himself in Buddhism.

Unfortunately it is unlikely that this will be easy to research on the internet, you may need to go to dusty old libraries to get definitive information

Nevertheless, I thought that this was a good lead which is worth mentioning (since the dates are similar but a bit earlier than in the other answers).

Some of the earliest translations are covered in the Sacred Books of the East ( Dhammapada by Max Müller based on a Latin translation by Viggo Fausböll and Sutta-Nipata by Viggo Fausböll ) series by Max Müller in which some of the books are Buddhist books as per the Theravada tradition .

More notable translation work (in the Theravada tradition ) has been done by Thomas William Rhys Davids who founded the Pali Text Society .

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Question: What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into English? When was it translated and by whom? Was it reasonably available to those interested and did it have much of an impact within academic circles and perhaps to the wider culture?

What was the first Buddhist text to be translated into English?

These seem to be the first Buddhist texts ever translated into English, published in 1693:   THE LIFE OF THEVETAT , Translated from the Balie  (i.e. Pāli). As to the first  notable  translation, this honorary title GOES to  Max Muller's translation of Dhammappada , first published in  1869 , later included in Muller's  Sacred Books of the East  series published around  1880s .

The first Buddhist texts to be translated into English appear to be "The Life of Thevetat", from 1693. Other early translations include "The History and Doctrine of Buddhism", "An Explications of the Patimouc" and "Text of the Vinac". The first notable translation is credited to Max Muller's translation of Dhammappada, first published in  1869, later included in Muller's  Sacred Books of the East  series published around the 1880s, including some important suttas. Other notable translation work (in the  Theravada tradition ) has been done by  Thomas William Rhys Davids,  who founded the  Pali Text Society.


Ostensibly, yes, I can't imagine why it wouldn't be technically possible for the body to trigger an orgasm without any kind of mental attachment.

Of course, it may be that there is some necessary mental trigger involved, but I doubt that is true.

In the vinaya there are several cases that seem to suggest involuntary (physical) sexual arousal involving heat and motion; it seems reasonable to suggest that certain conditions could result in an involuntary ejaculation.

Simpler would be the case where one was intending to bring about an orgasm but then suddenly became mindful, only to find that it was too late

(the point being that any attachment created would be in relation to the prior stimulation, not the orgasm itself).

Either way, it is important to clarify that intentionally bringing about an orgasm for the purpose of pleasure invariably leads to the cultivation of attachment.

Incidentally, IIRC, this is one of the issues that led to a split in the sangha, though I can't remember which one.

One group thought that the fact that arahants can still experience orgasms meant that they were still not free from defilements; the other claimed that the orgasms were just physical processes with no mental counterpart.

I have experienced ejaculation without it feeling "pleasant".

When ejaculation does not feel pleasant, it feels more like semi-painful spasms.

There is no attachment to this experience.

It is not that ejaculation has changed, or even that the experience changed.

It is my perspective that has changed.

If you look at pleasant sensation very very very carefully, then you will see it as is -- and it will loose it's luster.

The same with pain, if you look at it really close, you will see it as information .

No pain, just information.

As Buddha taught, we must learn to see pleasant in non-pleasant and non-pleasant in pleasant.

When we can arbitrarily control our evaluation of sensory experience, then we are free from it.

Does the Buddhist breathe?Does

the Buddhist drink

water?Does the Buddhist eat food?Does the Buddhist exercise?

If all of these needs can be met without attachment, why should sex be any different?

Sex can be entirely to meet one's biological urges, the way we eat and drink and exercise.

I'm not saying it is easy to do so, but it seems to me that clearly the possibility exists.

No.

All healthy humans are biologically addicted to dopamine.

"The brain includes several distinct dopamine systems, one of which plays a major role in reward-motivated behavior.

Most types of reward increase the level of dopamine in the brain, and a variety of addictive drugs increase dopamine neuronal activity."

Dopamine is the hormone that makes you feel good.

If you can orgasm without it feeling good then, yes.

You can never feel anything good without attachment.

Humans are hardwired to like dope just as they do sugar and for the same reason; need.

The need to procreate the species and the need to consume calories.

To experience an orgasm you need some form of active arousal.

If arousal is involved you are attached and goes against the precept.

If it is from other causes like bed wetting then it may be OK as long as you don't fantasise.

If there is fantasy then again there is attachment.

Main thing to remember is sensation is involuntary sometimes but seeking sensations is not without attachments, and seeking sensations can be very subtle.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Here is the thing about Sexual activities....

We do not admire it like the western culture,But the eight fold path is not a hammer on your marriage life.

You can still have sex but with her only.

And if you are single there is a set of guidelines established din Buddhism in finding the correct type for sex (Please refer a good source about Five precepts).

You can very well feel anything without getting attached to it, How do i know it?

well arahants still felt the heat,coldness,soft touch of clothes,the comfort of a breezing wind,the beauty of a jungle.

But still they had no disturbance from it

they even admired the beauty of nature.

But in the examples you are presenting in your question

we can't agree that it can be felt without the addiction to it.

Basically the main reason for sex is the attachment that you have for it.

Sex is not a huge deal for a beginner but alcohol is an addiction with no virtual benefit,it is that simple and under n o circumstances can be justified as something a Buddhist would do.

You can have some help from meditation to fight the urge to drink and some therapy or rehab would also help.that is something you will have to fight on your own.

Remember what Lord Buddha said This is an individual's fight against himself,in it he will need good friends,Knowledge of dharma and courage.

But he must fight alone.

Well we are here to help so start with one day without alcohol and let's see what happens from there.

According to Alagaddupama Sutta , it isn't possible: For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible.

The commentary makes it more precise: According to the Commentary, "indulge in sensual pleasures" here means indulging in sexual intercourse; the Sub-commentary adds that other acts expressing sexual desire — such as hugging and petting — should be included under this phrase as well.

Question: I used orgasm as an example because it is usually the strongest sensation one can feel due to everything involved and all the chemistry released in the body.  Also, I would say that sexual activity and drinking are probably the two biggest challenges one has to overcome when following the 8 precepts for weeks or months.  So, can one feel it without attachments?!

Is it possible to experience powerful sensations, such as orgasm, without getting attached to it?

Ostensibly, there is no reason why it wouldn't be technically possible for the body to trigger an orgasm without any kind of mental attachment. In the vinaya there are several cases that seem to suggest involuntary (physical) sexual arousal involving heat and motion; it seems reasonable to suggest that certain conditions could result in an involuntary ejaculation.   However, aAccording to  Alagaddupama Sutta , it isn't possible:   For a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking: That isn't possible.

Opinions and beliefs vary in this matter. There are several cases in the Vinaya that suggest sexual arousal. Some people believe that an orgasm can be experienced without feeling pleasure or having any mental attachment. On the other hand, Alagaddupama Sutta says it is not possible for a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking. If arousal is involved, there is attachment and that goes against the precept.

According to  Alagaddupama Sutta , it is not possible for a person to indulge in sensual pleasures without sensual passion, without sensual perception, without sensual thinking. If arousal is involved, there is attachment and that goes against the precept, and one of the main reasons for sex is the attachment that people have for it.


Causes of False Speech

The root causes of false speech are greed, hatred and delusion.

Greed is the root cause when false speech is used to obtain material gain or status for oneself or someone dear to oneself.

Hatred is the root cause when false speech is used to cause loss and bring harm and suffering to others.

Delusion is the root cause when it is used neither for one's gain nor to cause loss and harm to others, but for the sake of enjoyment such as lying for the sake of a joke, exaggeration to spice up a story, or flattery to please others, etc.

Lying to get a job falls under the 1st category.

So yes, it does break the fourth precept.

If you have intention to deceive, you know what you are going to say is false and then say it then it is lying.

In a job interview you might be asked questions you are not very sure about.

Making an intelligent guess in those instances in fine.

Not attempting may look negative or as a lack of confidence.

Also interviewer will not expect you to know everything but an attempt will be appreciated.

Much like in an exam.

Lying about your experience may not be fine.

Also spin doctering / white lies with a intention to deceive is not fine.

Otherwise putting a positive spin is fine.

Facing an interview is an art in itself which you can master without breaking your ethics and morality.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

In addition to the excellent answers already given, it's important to also keep in mind the effect of one's actions on oneself.

So even if the lie you told had no ill effect on the interviewer or company for which you were applying for a job; (say for example, they didn't hire you anyway), you still know you stated something untrue and that stays with you.

We work to keep our sila good (by following the 5 precepts) because of the good it does for our own minds.

Lying occurs when four elements are present.

a.

The speaker must not be mistaken about what he or she wants to say.b.

The speaker must have the intention to deceive.c.

The lie must be consciously pronounced.d.

The hearer must be deceived.

Associated with lying are all attempts to twist the truth by deceptive means and the concealment of the facts in order to cheat people.

source: Treasury of Precious Qualities , commentary by Kangyur Rinpoche

I listened to a talk by Ajahn Punnadhammo some days ago.

In here he talks about why the Buddha had put a great emphasiz on right speech .

Ajahn Punnadhammo says that by using the speech faculty we can directly input dhammas into other beings mind-stream.

So by misusing the speech faculty (by lying for example) we can directly input delusion into other beings mind-stream.

That is a heavy kammic thing to do since delusion is what binds us in Samsara.

When he said that i really understood the depth of the 4th precept.

is there ever a time to not look and think carefully about an actual situation? suppose one were the sole provider for a large family and lost their job.

one looks and looks and finally an opportunity arises.

and the person can actually do the job.

and do it well.

but!

a degree is mandatory.

the person lacks that.

what to do?

see if they can be hired by demonstrating ability might be on choice.

if jobs are.scarce and the family has begun to starve tho?

me, I would accept that some negative karma would be incurred.

I would accept some delay on reaching enlightenment.

I would lie.

if hired, I would get the degree quietly, over time.

there is no absolute thing to do.

it depends on the situation. to save the lives of others, especially others who are children or otherwise dependant on you, I don't see how I could make any choice that ignored that (but again, a situation could arise in which I acted differently).

to me it seems the essence of Buddhism is awareness.

generalizing or adhering to preconcieved ideas of what to do and not do seems a bit robotic and not a way to further the habit of actually percieving.

it also gives no room to listen to ones inner voice, intuition or whatever you want to call it, which I've always understood to be also perception just not always at the level.of conscious intent.

Question: Since lying is not really directed at a person, can it still be harmful? I have had multiple jobs before when the companies I worked for had no issues lying to me(on a organizational level)   I can see how lying(when done successfully) can make myself believe I am something I am not and hence inflate my ego but what if this is not the case and the lying is only done with a sense of wanting to get a position and work hard and achieve something?

Is lying at a job interview breaking a precept?

We work to keep our sila good (by following the 5 precepts) because of the good it does for our own minds.  So even if the lie you told had no ill effect on the interviewer or company for which you were applying for a job; (say for example, they didn't hire you anyway), you still know you stated something untrue and that stays with you. Moreover, if you have intention to deceive, you know what you are going to say is false and then say it then it is lying.

It is not acceptable for a person to intend to deceive. However, facing an interview and presenting oneself in the best possible light is acceptable. If someone tells a lie with no ill effects, that person still knows that he said something untrue, which stays with him. We follow the precepts to keep our sila good and because of the good it does for our minds. However, it may depend on the situation.  Some people may find it acceptable to lie to protect children or people who are otherwise dependent on them.

It depends on the situation.  Some people may find it acceptable to lie to protect children or people who are otherwise dependent on them.


Dr. Ian Stevenson did research on rebirth, and most of his subjects were children.

As I remember he said during the first 5-6 years of a child's life some of them would remember how they died.

Most of them who remembered their previous life have had some sudden tragic death.

Hence, these incidents seem to be deeply carved in their minds, but this memory would slowly fade away as they grew old.

Most of these incidents were reported from families having Hindu or Buddhist backgrounds because their parents believed in rebirth and believed their child was saying the truth.

In some cases, when the researchers traced the child's past routes based on their stories, they had actually found that the person had existed.

Also in some cases it turned out that the parents have been lying to gain some popularity from local media.

But I think this research is not so popular among other scientists, claiming it has no clear evidence that backs his theories.

Upon his death I think his student continues this work.

Here's link to their work.

(Edited the previous reference according to Ven.

Yuttadhammo's comment)

First and foremost account is the Jataka stories .

These are generally the account of Buddha himself.

Also there are some records of his disciples.

In modern times a famous person who did research in this area is Edgar Cayce .

Also there has been Parapsychology research in this area.

Keep in mind if it is a monk who has developed Abhijñā , they do not openly say they have such powers.

(I know and seen some monks with these abilities who I have been very close to, but they will not come out to the open and show this so if I way so and so has it there is not way to ascertain my claim.)

As a final note, what I can say is Ehipassiko.

Come and see for yourself.

Develop the 4 Jhanas and see for yourself.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Stevenson has published a summary of his work at the end of his life, see Medical Hypotheses (2000) 54(4), 652–659

I add the summary of his paper:

Several disorders or abnormalities observed in medicine and psychology are not explicable (or not fullyexplicable) by genetics and environmental influences, either alone or together.

These include phobias and philiasobserved in early infancy, unusual play in childhood, homosexuality, gender identity disorder, a child’s idea of havingparents other than its own, differences in temperament manifested soon after birth, unusual birthmarks and theircorrespondence with wounds on a deceased person, unusual birth defects, and differences (physical and behavioral)between monozygotic twins.

The hypothesis of previous lives can contribute to the further understanding of thesephenomena.

Well, I am buddhist.

I am from Sri Lanka.

I told my story of past life when I was 2yrs old.

I have seen many others who have told.

The famous claim of Bridey Murphy 1923 - 1995 to have previously lived in 19th century

Ireland is in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridey_Murphy which has references to variously sceptical reports and evidence.

The book "Have you Lived Before this Life" by L. Ron Hubbard (1968) reports uncritically on 43 cases of remembered previous lives.

It expressly contains no evaluation of the truth or falsity of the data, and each investigation was done as an "auditing" session or scientology confessional, where the investigator prompts the subject to recall usually painful, lurid episodes.

Hubbard himself reported an expedition to verify his own claimed past life memory in "A Test of Whole Track Recall" (1968) republished in 1972 as "Mission Into Time" http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Mission_Into_Time .

These books may not be in print now but Knud Eriksen, a Dane who is not an uncritical scientologist, has investigated http://www.solitarytrees.net/racism/pastlife.htm

the claimed past lives of Hubbard - there are several!

- and "finds no good reason to doubt" them.

Buddhists must continue to have doubts about Ron Hubbard's claim in "Hymn of Asia" to have been Buddha (Siddharta Gautama).

Question: Although the vast majority of people will not remember past lives, are there reliable accounts of people who have? Specifically are there accounts of Buddhists who have remembered past lives and whose experience can be (even partially) verified in some independent way? Or do people with past life memories generally come from other religions and traditions such as Hinduism?  I appreciate that reliable is a very ambiguous term. If possible could people perhaps note the quality of the evidence when answering. Is it anecdotal, statistical significant etc...?

Are there reliable accounts of Buddhists who have remembered past lives?

S2: The book "Have you Lived Before this Life" by L. Ron Hubbard (1968) reports uncritically on 43 cases of remembered previous lives. Hubbard himself reported an expedition to verify his own claimed past life memory in "A Test of Whole Track Recall" (1968) republished in 1972 as "Mission Into Time" http://scientology.wikia.com/wiki/Mission_Into_Time. In addition, there is the famous claim of Bridey Murphy 1923 - 1995 to have previously lived in 19th century.

There is anecdotal evidence of people telling stories of past lives at 2 years of age and the famous claim of Bridey Murphy 1923 - 1995 to have previously lived in 19th century. The book "Have you Lived Before this Life" by L. Ron Hubbard (1968) reports uncritically on 43 cases of remembered previous lives. Hubbard himself reported an expedition to verify his own claimed past life memory in "A Test of Whole Track Recall" (1968) republished in 1972 as "Mission Into Time".

Anecdotal evidence of people telling stories of past lives at 2 years of age and the famous claim of Bridey Murphy 1923 - 1995 to have previously lived in 19th century.


Buddhism has the idea of the three jewels : Buddha, Dharma, Sangha.

You said "I believe in Buddha and his philosophy" so that's two of them, i.e. Buddha, and Dharma.

There are parts e.g. in the Dhammapada which suggest it's better to be alone than with a fool:

If for company you cannot find a wise and prudent friend who leads a good life, then, like a king who leaves behind a conquered kingdom, or like a lone elephant in the elephant forest, you should go your way alone.

But Buddhism might also support (or encourage or recommend) friendship .

For example, the Upaddha Sutta says, I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was living among the Sakyans.

Now there is a Sakyan town named Sakkara.

There Ven.

Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side.

As he was sitting there, Ven.

Ananda said to the Blessed One, "This is half of the holy life, lord: admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie.

"[1] "Don't say that, Ananda.

Don't say that.

Admirable friendship, admirable companionship, admirable camaraderie is actually the whole of the holy life.

When a monk has admirable people as friends, companions, & comrades, he can be expected to develop & pursue the noble eightfold path.

And how does etc.

Note: As AN 8.54 points out, this means not only associating with good people, but also learning from them and emulating their good qualities.

As a zen buddhist in Florida of the United States, taking refuge in the three jewels is the ceremony in which one will often consider themselves becoming buddhist.

Taking on the precepts can be seen as the threshold one makes to become a Buddhist.

Afterwards one often gets a "Dharma name" and formally calls themselves a Buddhist Practitioner.

Of course this is all merely ceremonial but the point of taking on a title is very tied to ceremonies.

I graduated college with a ceremony.

I grew another year with a ceremony.

I became a man with a ceremony.

Ceromonies help define ourselves to ourselves and to others.

However in my personal experience one becomes a Buddhist when they join a sangha.

It is in a sangha where I feel the practice really comes alive in my life.

I doubt you'll find a good answer as to whether Buddhism is a religion or a way of life, simply because there's a ton of stuff that's called Buddhism and not everyone agrees as to what constitutes a religion anyway.

Many Buddhists consider taking the vows to be the thing that makes you a Buddhist, so if you want to make it "official", you can take the vows at your friendly neighborhood Buddhist Temple.

Outside of that, I imagine you can call yourself a Buddhist if you believe in the Buddha and his message.

Do keep in mind that Buddhism is just a label; it's really about how you live.

You need not identify yourself as a Buddhist to live a Buddhist life and many people who identify as Buddhists do not live a Buddhist life.

Can I call myself Buddhist?

I'm going to quote parts of my answer on this question :

There isn't one

agreed upon definition about when you are truely a Buddhist.

Some people say you are a Buddhist if you consider yourself to be one, others say you need at least several years training from an acknowledged Buddhist teacher and/or have ' taken refuge ' (which is a formal or informal ceremony which marks your decision to become a Buddhist).

Personally I like the view of Dzongsar Jamyang Khyentse Rinpoche who has written a book on the topic called " What Makes You Not a Buddhist ":

It’s whether you agree with the four fundamental discoveries the Buddha made under the Bodhi tree, and if you do

, you can call yourself a Buddhist ( ref ).

So yes, you can call yourself a Buddhist.

Whether other Buddhists agree with you may depend on the tradition they follow.

Is Buddhism a religion?

Most Buddhists

I know regard Buddhism as a lifestyle rather than a religion.

However, most non-Buddhists see it as a religion, probably because it shares many aspects commonly found in a religion.

BTW, you may find that the answers on this question 'Is Buddhism a religion or a philosophy?'

give more insight in this matter.

You can call yourself a Buddhist.

Other people can call you a Buddhist.

But it is only words.

Buddha is real, Buddhism is only idea.

Some respectful people can say that Buddhism is a religion, but again it is only words and ideas.

If you want to go this way, go without unnecessary words.

You can call yourself a Buddhist if you give fair trial to the Buddhist teaching.

You should have some faith the the Buddha, the Community and the Teaching unless you will not try the Dhamma.

Buddhism is not a religion in the sense that a religion accepts a higher power.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

You can call yourself a Buddhist if you like, but that is just a name, much like your own.

Does changing your name change who you are?

Don't worry so much about what you should call yourself, just focus on studying and practicing Buddhism.

If you are not into the academic of philosophy studies, I don't think this is an important question you need answer to.

But if you need to classify what Buddhism is for now,just take Buddhism as a way to help you understand yourself and the world around you.

Question: There are differences of opinion on the question of whether or not Buddhism should be considered a religion. Many sources commonly refer to Buddhism as a religion.  If yes then in which region? Can I call myself Buddhist? If I believe in Buddha and his philosophy?  But it is still confusing! Need precise answer if possible!

Can I call myself Buddhist? Is Buddhism a religion?

Some people believe you can consider yourself a Buddhist just by deciding to, others that you need many years of practice. Buddhism is not a religion as others that simply believe in a higher power, it is a practice. Therefore, if you practice, you are a Buddhist.

Many Buddhists consider taking the vows and taking refuge to be the thing that makes you a Buddhist. Others believe it is when they join a sangha. You can call yourself a Buddhist if you believe in Buddha and his message. Buddhism is often described as a religion, but not in the same way as religions that accept a higher power.

Yes, you can call yourself a Buddhist if you believe in Buddha and his message.


I think I remember a story told of the Dalai Lama walking through a crowd, and meeting someone in the crowd who had some mentally illness.

According to the story, the Dalai Lama took that man's hand in his own and held it for a while, and the man (who had been unhappy) relaxed.

The story was told as an example of His Holiness's compassion (and communication).

I suppose there are several different types of language barrier:

Doesn't understand written language ("illiterate") Doesn't understand spoken language ("deaf") Understands one natural language but not another (e.g. understands english but not chinese)

Doesn't understand technical vocabuary (for example Pali words such as dukkha ) Sensory barriers (e.g. different people are in different rooms) Learning disability (e.g. someone didn't learn to communicate when they are an infant child, etc.)

Mental barriers (e.g. someone is drunk, drugged, mentally ill, etc.)

Language is a "system of communication".

It might be like "a bridge over a river" or "two people holding hands".

There might be a limit to what or how much can be communicated, but language can be as much "bridge" as it is "barrier".

On the other hand, the part of one's mind which communicates using language can (I guess) be mistaken as the 'self' or 'ego'.

Language is a sensory (conditioned) phenomenon.

Some meditative practices (e.g. "guarding senses" etc.) may be intended to reduce one's dependence on communication.

As for literacy in general-- you have to remember that the Buddha didn't write anything down.

I'm not sure that he was literate.

There weren't books, instead people did incredible feats of memorization.

Or did you mean you personally?

So far this community is full of people who really want to help you people with their question.

If you just keep throwing words at people, some will stick.

Usually if it is an interesting question, people will edit your question to clean up the English.

In the old Pali texts, the speaker often uses many words with similar meanings in a row, as if they are trying to make sure that if you don't understand one word, you'll understand one of the next near synonyms.

If you keep throwing words at us, we will eventually get the point and in turn, we will keep throwing words at you until we reach an answer.

(This isn't true on all StackExchange sites, on some sites, like StackOverflow, questions get closed if they aren't coherent and reasonable.)

Language is a means of communication.

When it comes to the Dhamma the role of language is the elaborate the techniques and provide guidance.

The realisation should be at the experiential level.

buddhism.stackexchange.com/users/295/Suminda Sirinath S. Dharmasena

Language or the word, is a barrier in a sense that it can not present the totality of an experience.

Language is linear and fixed.

Experiences are fluid.

It is not like taking a photograph or making a duplicate.

When one uses language or words to describe an experience what happens is the experience itself is transformed.

Language is a way to solidify the vague feelings and sensations and thoughts as a means to organise reality ( or our impressions of reality).Though language, like thinking has its uses, it is also a way for the ego to solidify experiences which are impermanent.

First we think then we churn our thoughts using words then before we know it we've built a solid wall of concepts around us imprisoning ourselves from the world of sensing or experiencing or just being.

This is why its said that Language shows and hides their meaning at the same time.

So like everything else in life language should be used skillfully and not as a substitute for reality.

I was looking through the answers for the most famous Buddhist story about an illiterate person...

the 6th patriarch, Huineng.

He was illiterate yet

(he could not read or write) but due to great past merit and cultivation, when he heard a Buddhist sermon he Awakened.

Afterwards he just worked in the monastery and the head, the 5th patriarch, did not know of his Awakening for a long time until he did a poetry contest to find the most Awakened student.

Huineng was born into the Lu family in 638 A.D. in Xinzhou (present-day Xinxing County) in Guangdong province.

His father died when he was young and his family was poor.

As a consequence, Huineng had no opportunity to learn to read or write and is said to have remained illiterate his entire life. from Wikipedia I reccommend reading the full story from The Diamond Sutra Explained by Master Huai-Chin Nan.

Question: If I am an illitrate of all (this worldly languages) and I am aware of all the unanswered doubts, then how come i'll explain you 'what I have asked or answered ? There are so many bars in putting questions or placing answers people. Ahh.. Nt easy admin.

is language a barrier?

Language is a means of communication. Language or the word, is a barrier in a sense that it can not present the totality of an experience.  Language is a way to solidify the vague feelings and sensations and thoughts as a means to organise reality ( or our impressions of reality).Though language, like thinking has its uses, it is also a way for the ego to solidify  experiences which are  impermanent.

Language can be as much "bridge" as it is "barrier".  When it comes to the Dhamma the role of language is the elaborate the techniques and provide guidance. Language may be considered to be a barrier in a sense that it can not present the totality of an experience. It is a way to solidify the vague feelings and sensations and thoughts as a means to organise reality ( or our impressions of reality).Though language, like thinking has its uses, it is also a way for the ego to solidify  experiences which are  impermanent.

Language is a barrier in a sense that it can not present the totality of an experience. It is a way to  solidify the vague feelings and sensations and thoughts as a means to organise reality ( or our impressions of reality).Though language, like thinking has its uses, it is also a way for the ego to solidify  experiences which are  impermanent.


As @ChrisW linked above, there are many representations of the Buddha in his emaciated state, such as and .

From the book Buddhist Art and Architecture by Robert E. Fisher, a brief mention of this style of portraying the Buddha is found on page 47

when discussing contrast between Roman and Indian styles of portraying the Buddha in art in the Gandhara region where Alexander the Great had just ended his campaign.

The Roman love of portraiture and dramatic realism appeared in the form of images of the emaciated Buddha, a favorite subject of the region but one seldom found in Indian art.

So while the Romans liked this style, it certainly wasn't as popular then (or now)

as depictions of the Buddha while not in an emaciated state.

As mentioned, the Buddha taught the middle way, so neither his period of luxury nor his period of austerity seem as important or as inspiring as the period of his enlightenment, most popularly depicted with the Buddha looking healthy and serene.

Because it is not the middle way.

Representing the Buddha as emaciated is likely to lead others to fast like the Buddha, thereby repeating his follies.

The representation of the Buddha is not primarily a representation of the human or of history alone, but of the realized wisdom of a Buddha.

Because people often wish to deny that starvation and illness exist.

Even Buddhists find these facts challenging

The fat, bald, laughing"buddha" is a chinese monk named Ho Tai (or Mi Lo Fa) .

Beautiful answer by Robin111.

But I believe the question is why isn't Buddha represented as

emaciated?Specifically why do people have the fat Laughing Buddha statue everywhere especially at the front of business buildings ?

Mainly this is because it represents wealth, commerce, and overspending, something businesses like .

Most when asked say "it's luck.

" These people feel it attracts abundance .

Other reasons this trend has remained so is because: the Buddha did not attain Awakening until he "fattened up" a little, taking the milk curds from the woman, and taking care of his physical form the obesity/fat belly represents happiness and physical health [ironic because I feel much happier on successful fasts than I do overeating!].

Remember that happiness (a result of the 2nd training) is a foundation for Awakening (the 3rd training).

obesity is representative of wealth in earlier times (actually all times, except this past century)

which in reference to Buddha perhaps represents spiritual wealth.

Question: Surely The Buddha appeared quite emaciated when he realized full enlightenment. Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art?

Why is an emaciated Buddha rarely represented in art?

The Buddha taught the middle way, so neither his period of luxury nor his period of austerity seem as important or as inspiring as the period of his enlightenment, most popularly depicted with the Buddha looking healthy and serene.  Representing the Buddha as emaciated is likely to lead others to fast like the Buddha, thereby repeating his follies.

Buddha has often been portrayed in his emaciated state in art. The Roman love of portraiture and dramatic realism appeared in the form of images of the emaciated Buddha, a favourite subject of the region but one seldom found in Indian art. The Buddha taught the middle way, so neither his period of luxury nor his period of austerity seem as important or as inspiring as the period of his enlightenment, most popularly depicted with the Buddha looking healthy and serene. It is also thought that representing the Buddha as emaciated is likely to lead others to fast like the Buddha, thereby repeating his follies.