Kaballah was the rage a while back, so these things come and go. A lot of people who give up traditional Western religion and still need "something" gravitate toward the slightly-easier-to-rationally-swallow Eastern traditions. And Buddhism is by far the most recognizable of those, as well as the most readily available to people (at least in watered down form). So you see lots of people who vaguely agree with the principles without being devout adherents.
Hell, a girl I just started dating is a Christian for census purposes, and doesn't practice but vaguely agrees with Chrstian tradition. And she was telling me the other day how she believes in karma. It's more pervasive than some people think, but I also think that most of the people like that don't literally consider themselves Buddhists. Most, in my experience, realize what they are: casual believers, not strict adherents.
...which is to take nothing away from those who actually do practice Buddhism seriously, who probably get a bad rep in western society because of such trends.
But if someone actually Believes in a certain religion, doesn´t that make them a part of it. Do they have to actually actively participate?
Look at how many christans go to church, then beat thier wifes up, commit adultery, worship false idols like Mary etc. Does this make them "coffee shop christians"
Originally posted by Bicnarok
But if someone actually Believes in a certain religion, doesn´t that make them a part of it. Do they have to actually actively participate?Look at how many christans go to church, then beat thier wifes up, commit adultery, worship false idols like Mary etc. Does this make them "coffee shop christians"
I think he's referring to people who don't even rise to that level. Like people that see a show about Buddhism and then are like "yeah I'm totally Buddhist and shit." without having the slightest concept of what that actually means.
A theist who breaks the tenants of his or her faith will usually rationalize the action or try to make amends for it. A "coffee shop theist" would break those same rules simply because he/she never took the time to learn them before claiming to follow that faith.
the thing with buddhism is, it isnt strongent as other relgions are. there are no single gods and messiahs and rebirths and raptures to beleive in. hell you dont even have to beleive in an afterlife if you dont want to, nor PRACTICE the ideals which are more philosophy than relegion to begin with. there are just less of what you call FUNDAMENTALS of faith. so basically as long as you have some beleif in some sort of karma, beleif that life has suffering and that can seize with seizing of desire and a few other like empathy maybe, you can call yourself a buddhist, or a beleiver in buddhist ideology. or maybe just a non practicing buddhist. people just see buddhism from the perspective of what other relegions are and it doesnt work.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the thing with buddhism is, it isnt strongent as other relgions are. there are no single gods and messiahs and rebirths and raptures to beleive in. hell you dont even have to beleive in an afterlife if you dont want to, nor PRACTICE the ideals which are more philosophy than relegion to begin with. there are just less of what you call FUNDAMENTALS of faith. so basically as long as you have some beleif in some sort of karma, beleif that life has suffering and that can seize with seizing of desire and a few other like empathy maybe, you can call yourself a buddhist, or a beleiver in buddhist ideology. or maybe just a non practicing buddhist. people just see buddhism from the perspective of what other relegions are and it doesnt work.
Many Buddhists would disagree with that assessment, as would I. Its system of rules and practices, while perhaps not as strict as Western religions in demanding fealty, is every bit as complex and intricate as them.
Sym seems closer to the mark, as the "coffee shop" Buddhists Gav is talking about usually can't outline the core precepts of Buddhism beyond, say, reincarnation and karma. And if they can, it is on the edges of their philosophy, and not an intrinsic part of their beliefs.
As always, there isn't "yes" and "no" to the question "Are you a real Buddhist?" Or any religion for that matter. Those that you're speaking of would be closer to a yes than the coffee-shoppers, while practicng Buddhists would be even moreso. It's a spectrum rather than a duality. There are degrees of asherence. So I hesitate to disagree with you because you have a good point, but I think you're looking at it from the wrong perspective.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
the thing with buddhism is, it isnt strongent as other relgions are. there are no single gods and messiahs and rebirths and raptures to beleive in. hell you dont even have to beleive in an afterlife if you dont want to, nor PRACTICE the ideals which are more philosophy than relegion to begin with. there are just less of what you call FUNDAMENTALS of faith. so basically as long as you have some beleif in some sort of karma, beleif that life has suffering and that can seize with seizing of desire and a few other like empathy maybe, you can call yourself a buddhist, or a beleiver in buddhist ideology. or maybe just a non practicing buddhist. people just see buddhism from the perspective of what other relegions are and it doesnt work.
I'm sorry to tell you this, but to say the Buddhism does not have fundamental beliefs because they do not believe in the fundamental beliefs of other religions is a statement derived from ignorance.
It is true that we will not threaten you with eternity in a burning hell, but that does not mean that a person cannot be excommunicated.
^im not talking about complexity and intricacy. buddhism has it naturally while christianity etc laks it severely so people have to force and make it. i am simply talking about precepts. buddhism isnt the kinf of relegion which id imagine wud be quick to try and label sum1 a beleiver or non beleiver or hypocrite. its philosophy more than relegious dogma. are you aware of hinduism? scripturally atleast there are pursuits in life which are both high and low{i.e. the pursuit of sexual happines, the pursuit of materialistic satisfaction and the highest would be the pursuit of your own atma and spiritual enlightenment} but none are considered not WORTHY of being chased after. chasing after material happiness is one of the worthy pursuits in life according to hinduism. it isnt as high for your ownself but there is nuthing WRONG with it. so basically, you dont have to be falling the higher spiritual ones to be called a hindu{atleast according to some scriptures}, all you have to do is ACKNOWLEDGE the higher ones to be called a hindu. i think buddhism is similar.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^im not talking about complexity and intricacy. buddhism has it naturally while christianity etc laks it severely so people have to force and make it. i am simply talking about precepts. buddhism isnt the kinf of relegion which id imagine wud be quick to try and label sum1 a beleiver or non beleiver or hypocrite. its philosophy more than relegious dogma. are you aware of hinduism? scripturally atleast there are pursuits in life which are both high and low{i.e. the pursuit of sexual happines, the pursuit of materialistic satisfaction and the highest would be the pursuit of your own atma and spiritual enlightenment} but none are considered not WORTHY of being chased after. chasing after material happiness is one of the worthy pursuits in life according to hinduism. it isnt as high for your ownself but there is nuthing WRONG with it. so basically, you dont have to be falling the higher spiritual ones to be called a hindu{atleast according to some scriptures}, all you have to do is ACKNOWLEDGE the higher ones to be called a hindu. i think buddhism is similar.
Just like Christianity, there are two types of Buddhists: those who are part of a temple or lay organization and those who are not but call them selves a Buddhist (Christians who are a part of a church and those who are not as an example).
A Coffee Shop Buddhist is what I call a person who, for what ever reason, calls them selves a Buddhist, but is not a member of a temple or lay organization.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
I'm sorry...but could you elaborate on that?
how many times in the bible do you see romantic wonder and abstract descriptions of space/time/soul/conciousness/love etc. the ones that do come have to do with commandment, histroy lesson, rightousness based in goodness, self depricity, or thankfulness at god for so and so{and those who dont perform it are wicked} and his praise and different types of black and white. its either historical lessons which are supposed to condition you{as opposed to make you wonder and take journeys of self realisation} into beleiving sumthing, daily practices on what to do and what not to so{not giving explanations for WHY they are the way they are}, how to put yourself down by beleiving that you nor any1 else is worthy of being saved by god or jesus but were saved anyway so you shud be eternally grateful and to hate those that do no believe what you beleive despite certain places mentioning awesome love etc. its like the divine world works a lot like a monarchy or tyrrany on earth, {being just as bland} except the word DIVINE is added aftrer everything{without its implied meaning being present}. most eastern relegions, for better or for worse are not like this.
There is been KMC members whom I would consider coffee shop buddhists. Then there are KMC members who I spoken in the past and do practice buddhism.
I consider myself a "Catholic coffee-shop" person. I like theology but can't really prescribe myself to be a devoted catholic person. I would be lying to myself if I tried to be a more devoted catholic.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
how many times in the bible do you see romantic wonder and abstract descriptions of space/time/soul/conciousness/love etc. the ones that do come have to do with commandment, histroy lesson, rightousness based in goodness, self depricity, or thankfulness at god for so and so{and those who dont perform it are wicked} and his praise and different types of black and white. its either historical lessons which are supposed to condition you{as opposed to make you wonder and take journeys of self realisation} into beleiving sumthing, daily practices on what to do and what not to so{not giving explanations for WHY they are the way they are}, how to put yourself down by beleiving that you nor any1 else is worthy of being saved by god or jesus but were saved anyway so you shud be eternally grateful and to hate those that do no believe what you beleive despite certain places mentioning awesome love etc. its like the divine world works a lot like a monarchy or tyrrany on earth, {being just as bland} except the word DIVINE is added aftrer everything{without its implied meaning being present}. most eastern relegions, for better or for worse are not like this.
You dislike the Theology behind the romantic wonder and abstract descriptions of space/time/soul/conciousness/love etc?
Re: Coffee Shop Religion
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Is Buddhism becomming a "coffee shop" religion? In the sense that almost everyone these days seems to want to be Buddhist but doesn't want to actually commit themselves to the religion?
I would say so.
A few years ago I had a Viet employee [who was raised Buddhist] and he told me that a Coffee Shop Buddhist is a white person who feels like they need a bit of direction in their life, bump into a Buddhism Intro at Barnes & Noble, read it, and then decide to call themsleves Buddhist. Now I've met a few White-American Buddhists, and I hate to say it, but that description is right on the money.
Re: Re: Coffee Shop Religion
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I would say so.A few years ago I had a Viet employee [who was raised Buddhist] and he told me that a Coffee Shop Buddhist is a white person who feels like they need a bit of direction in their life, bump into a Buddhism Intro at Barnes & Noble, read it, and then decide to call themsleves Buddhist. Now I've met a few White-American Buddhists, and I hate to say it, but that description is right on the money.
You say it like it's such an insult. I'd agree with your assessment as a sociological phenomenon, just not as a value judgment, as your tone seems to imply.
Re: Re: Coffee Shop Religion
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
I would say so.A few years ago I had a Viet employee [who was raised Buddhist] and he told me that a Coffee Shop Buddhist is a white person who feels like they need a bit of direction in their life, bump into a Buddhism Intro at Barnes & Noble, read it, and then decide to call themsleves Buddhist. Now I've met a few White-American Buddhists, and I hate to say it, but that description is right on the money.
So, all White-Americans who are Buddhists are Coffee Shop Buddhist? That sounds bigoted to me.