What Is Essential To Being A "Buddhist"?

[Jawnie]

There is no short cut, if you want to be a Buddhist. At minumum, you will need to take refuge with a Buddhist master. After that, it is up to you.

No, you can not "believe what ever you want", you must follow the Buddha's teachings. "Believing whatever one wants" is a perversion of the Buddhist theory that 'all experience is open' - they are not the same. It is not inventing hot water again. It is you, taking your first steps on the path. Others are ahead of you already.

If you want guidance, find a recognized and legitimate Buddhist master and study Buddhist sutras and tantras. If you are in Bangkok, there are masters teaching regularly around town. If you want to find a teacher, you will.

At the most basic level, "Buddhist" just means a follower of the Buddha. To what extent a person follows the Buddha's teachings is up to the individual. There's no official minimum requirement and I doubt anyone would ever ask you to prove you're a Buddhist.

Sorry, but that sounds like i can believe whatever i want.

And of course, i am free to believe whatever i want.

But i am looking for guidance.

I guess i am looking for a shot cut? I do not want to invent hot water again.....

Can you tell me: What do all buddhists have in common?

Next i will be able to decide whether that can apply to me.

Or to search in a different direction.

Please believe i am searching for a direction in my life, i am not being argumentative.

[camerata]

I meant, i do not want to go searching for what could be the fundamentals of buddhism, surely these fundamentals must have been described before,

If i can read them - and if they are written in layman's terms - i can make up my mind about them.

That's not how it works with Buddhism. If you just read about the fundamentals, they may not make sense on an intellectual level or they may seem like too much trouble. You have to try out the practice and see if you get any results.

There are plenty of "Buddhism in a Nutshell" pages on the Internet (often written by monks) but personally I think books written by laymen are easier to understand. I recommend John Snelling's The Buddhist Handbook : A Complete Guide to Buddhist Schools, Teaching, Practice, and History or Gill Farrer-Halls' The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Buddhist Wisdom.

I want to find peace with myself, i think that is difficult but theoretically possible.

OK, that's usually why people get interested in Buddhism. It's possible, but you get out of it as much as you put in. It takes some effort. A basic premise of Buddhism is that we create our own suffering because of our exaggerated sense of self (i.e. ego). We feel that everything bad that happens is somehow aimed specifically at ourselves. We react to this suffering/unsatisfactoriness by trying to change the world around us so that it's the way we want - which is impossible. The Buddha's solution was to change our own mind so that external events in the world don't bother us.

There's a Buddhist story about a queen who went out of her palace one day and found that the stony ground hurt her feet. So she ordered her subjects to cover the land in leather so she could walk in comfort. Then a courtier tactfully suggested it might be easier if she just covered her feet with leather instead. That's the teaching of the Buddha in a nutshell. The 8-fold Path contains the tools we need to change our way of thinking/speaking/behaving. These tools mostly aim at diminishing this exaggerated sense of self and understanding how it arises.

At the lowest level of practice we have generosity - giving alms to monks, giving to beggars, helping out others.

At the next level we have morality, which for the layman means trying to keep the 5 Precepts as much as possible.

At the highest level there is meditation, which we use to discover how our mind works and habitually causes us suffering.

The bottom line is, you have to put in some effort, and if your thoughts/speech/behaviour don't change, you aren't getting results and are doing something wrong. You should literally become a different (better) person - at least that's how I see it.

Maybe also peace with the world - but i doubt that i will ever accept the unjustice in the world, be it international politics or the unjustice done to my next door neighbours.

You can't change the world. The Buddha's solution was to change yourself instead. Perhaps by your example or advice your neighbour's way of thinking will change too. It could have a ripple effect.

And that is exactly my dilemma towards the little i know about buddhism:

Buddhism to me seems to have valuable teachings about inner peace, (detaching one self from materialism) but at the same time buddhism seems to accept all the wrong (social injustice) in the world.

And living in a buddhist country, i see so very few good examples of real (?) buddhism.

The Buddha wasn't primarily a social reformer (although some people disagree). If you want to try and right all the wrongs in the world you'll never find inner peace. Hopefully we can all contribute to righting a few of the wrongs, though.

Don't be concerned with what other Buddhists do or don't do. That's their business. Criticizing them is just your ego giving itself a boost. Try and find some committed Buddhists to associate with. These are called kalayanamit (noble friends) and the Buddha said they were very important for spiritual growth.

[jdinasia]

Not to be contentious .....

but I would not agree with this statement from a post above.

There is no short cut, if you want to be a Buddhist. At minumum, you will need to take refuge with a Buddhist master. After that, it is up to you.

At minimum , imho, one need only begin.

[lungmi]

kropotkin, on 2011-01-28 18:04:02, said:

Can you tell me: What do all buddhists have in common?

///////////////////////////////////

When a baby is born, a potential Buddha is born.

That is what we (all human beings ) have together.

In our way of life we develop in a different way, Culture, language, etc.

but sometimes by insight (or intuitive Eureka) we see what

we have in common with others (born as little Buddhas) and want to join them.

And we start our experience of life.

[Xangsamhua]

I've read through the posts, or the gist of them, that respond to the OP's questions. They are all well-informed and to the point. I'm not going to try and add anything.

However, if the OP is primarily seeking peace of mind and coming to terms with the world of human frailty and natural disaster, I would not advise him to seek "Buddhism" in any of its many forms. Rather I would suggest he investigate his own life and his approach to it in terms of the four noble truths and consider the methodology covered in the eightfold path.

In doing so, it's not a matter of thinking "I might become a Buddhist, so I'll find out about these principles". He might already be a "Buddhist" without realizing it!

Still, if the OP wants to (i) attain peace of mind and (ii) find out how Buddhists go about that, I suggest he look at something like Matthieu Ricard's Happiness: A Guide to Developing Life's Most Important Skill. (Little, Brown 2006). Following is an abbreviated version of what "Publishers' Weekly" on Amazon says of it:

A Buddhist monk and former cell biologist, Ricard offers his own musings about the nature of happiness and tips on how to attain it .... Happiness, for Ricard, cannot be found in fleeting experiences of pleasure—the joy of a sunny day, the refreshing taste of an ice cream cone, the ecstasy of sex—but only in the depths of an individual's being. Happiness is not self-interested, but rather compassionate, seeking the well-being of others .... For Ricard, happiness is a deep state of well-being and wisdom that flourishes in every moment of life, despite the inevitability of suffering.

Matthieu Ricard has been dubbed by some neuroscientists "the happiest man in the world", so if what he writes hits the spot, the next step might be to find a Buddhist community (sangha) and a teacher. Maybe taking refuge in the Triple Gem could then follow, among friends (kalyanamitra).

Edited January 29, 2011 by Xangsamhua

[lungmi]

Buddhism is too simple that overheated, over instructed, over academics can understand (I include myself).

You can find kalyanamitta without a name, not venerated, no academic degree and they can give you the highest instruction for Buddha Teaching by their doing.

They do their duty by intrinsic understanding and motivation.

[Jawnie]

I'd also suggest asking around and checking the internet for Buddhist masters giving public talks in Bangkok. These happen regularly. By going to them, you'll hear basic teachings since the public talks are geared toward the general public and usually cover the basics. You will also meet lots of other Buddhists and will quickly get to know people in the various networks and centers in Bangkok, Thailand, and beyond. While Thailand obviously has Thai Buddhism, I'd suggest listening to talks given by Tibetan teachers who also come to Bangkok regularly. Tibetan Buddhism is well respected and lots of Thais and foreigners practice it.

To avoid misunderstandings:

Like so many people i am interested in buddhism.

And in many other things.

I am looking for guidance in putting the first steps.

Many others - i am sure - are in the same situation.

To me, the first steps would be: understanding the essentials, explained to me in everyday language.

No need for details, or subtle thoughts, no formal references to writings or revered people.

Only essentials.

So that i can decide whether or not to continue my search in this direction.

Thanks for the effort.

[fabianfred]

Welcome to the forum Jawnie...you write well and your first post in this thread is excellent.

I sometimes say to my students that the real heart of the dhamma is quite simple.... but it takes some time to go through the complexity to reach the simplicity.

Naturally when we start out as Buddhists we are interested in reading and studying all kinds of stuff and it takes a while to see what are the real essentials and discard the superfluous.

[christiaan]

Part of the difficulting in explaining Buddhism is that often it is undertaken from the point of view that Buddhism is simple; there is an assumption for many people that Buddhism is simple. It is not - and the informed responses here give an indication that it is not simple. For example, you want to walk to the store and buy a news paper, and so this is what you do, you simply walk to the store, buy the paper, and return home. Simple, right?

Not so fast. Actually, an immense amount occurred prior to your trip to the store but you didn't notice or think about it. First, you had to have a place to live. In order for that to happen, you have a job. In order for you to have a job, you went to school, etc. So, before you even get out the door to buy the paper, an immense amount of activity has occurred that you don't notice or think about. The example continues. Let's say you live on the fifth floor of your building. Well, where did that building come from? There was an immense amount of activity prior to your arrival in your apartment: someone earned the money, bought the land, planned and constructed the building, etc., before you even got there. Then there's the walk to the store which includes the street. A city had to plan and build those streets; the cars were invented, manufactured, sold, driven... And the store itself, a 7-11 perhaps. 7-11 is an US corporation started decades ago. So much went into getting that 7-11 up the street from your flat in order for you to buy your newspaper.

Taken together, the totality of your experience just buying a newspaper is quite staggering, but you didn't notice or think about it.

It is the same way with your mind, according to Buddhism. We want everything to be simple and everyone believes the mind is simple. But, it is not, this is why there are over 1,000 books, sutras, which are the direct teachings of the Buddha. If you've ever spent time looking through the sutras, you'll see they are quite detailed, covering a vast amount of topics, much of it very unfamiliar knowledge. The Buddha taught so much and we know so little about it. Buddha explained everything, completely. The sutras contain all the answers to all of life's problems and mysteries but they are so different from what we want or believe that they go unnoticed. Here is where all the terminology is comming from: suffering, enlightenment, karma, noble path, right livelihood, etc. Because, once you begin to study Buddhism, it is no longer the simple undertaking you assumed it to be.

This is where meditation comes in, and this is why 'simplicity", "calm", "peacefulness", "relaxation" become a central part of the discussion. In order for us to recognize that our experience is quite complicated and is the real cause of our problems, it is necessary to slow the mind down and observe experience and see how it does this. Meditation, breathing, yoga, relaxation are intended to slow the mind down so that we can understand our experience. Again, like the walk to the store, we missed so much of what was really happening. It's the same with our experience - because we are so busy with every day life: making money, having fun, judging, liking, hating, etc., that we don't know about our minds.

Once we can see how we cause our own problems, then we apply the Buddhist teaching which will make our experience be a source of happiness, not problems. This is exactly why there is "right effort, right thought", etc. The word "right" means "correct", the type of thought or effort that will lead to happiness. To answer "who says what is right?", the answer is: the Buddha says what is right, or wrong. This is why we call ourselves Buddhists, because we follow his teachings. It is not open-ended and takes a certain amount of dedication and faith.

So, one must be in the day-to-day experience to understand it. But, one must also detach from it, watching the experience at the same time. It's a dicotomy that one must learn to live with and even encourage. It's called "mind training" and mediation, breathing, visualization, yogas are all mind training.

Finally, the most important aspects of Buddhist experience can't be explained. Or, they can only be explained in ways that don't make rational sense. "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form. Emptiness is no other than form, form is not other than emptiness" for starters but certainly there are many, many more such teachings which can only be understood through examining experience and the mind through meditation, introspective techniques, and mind training, all of which are essential to Buddhism. They usually require a Buddhist master's explanation and guidance to be most effective.

I also think this is quite informative , allthough I also am a little confused , since according to a certain standard this contibution could be tooo long, it comes near 3 times the originall cited text. but to me that is no problem, in contrary I love a substantial dialogue.

I think it is interesting to read the part where is written: then we apply the Buddhist teachings - and other lines of the same substance. I would say learning to know Buddhism and then applying the teachings one has learned out of the 2000 year old texts makes a person essentially become a "Buddhist". It is the same with regard to Islam or Christianity. It is maybe even the same as described in the contribution above, with regard to the building, there is an immense activity before the building is there, there is also an immense activity in the human mind before learning to know and choosing to become a "Buddhist". I would say Karma is essential in being a Buddhist.

[lungmi]

How I became Buddhist. I was about 5 years old. My oldest remembering of my childhood. I came too late for the evening dinner. My grandfather dispraised me and showing to the sky with a big cloud with the face of God how he is represented

in the Christian iconography told me> God see you when you do bad, everywhere! The inner emotions still stay in my mind, but I dared to contradict my loved grandfather: No, grandfather, this is not God, this is a cloud. ---- My start for Buddhism.

To see what is what, that is the question. To be or not to be.

[khaowong1]

At the most basic level, "Buddhist" just means a follower of the Buddha. To what extent a person follows the Buddha's teachings is up to the individual. There's no official minimum requirement and I doubt anyone would ever ask you to prove you're a Buddhist.

Very, Very good answer... You've hit it right on the nail head. Everyone should read this again..

[Brucenkhamen]

At the most basic level, "Buddhist" just means a follower of the Buddha. To what extent a person follows the Buddha's teachings is up to the individual. There's no official minimum requirement and I doubt anyone would ever ask you to prove you're a Buddhist.

Very, Very good answer... You've hit it right on the nail head. Everyone should read this again..

While it's true this is how it is these days it does seem a very wishy washy definition of Buddhism, I don't think the Buddha would have bothered teaching for 40 years if his teaching was based on wishy washiness.

[Xangsamhua]

At the most basic level, "Buddhist" just means a follower of the Buddha. To what extent a person follows the Buddha's teachings is up to the individual. There's no official minimum requirement and I doubt anyone would ever ask you to prove you're a Buddhist.

Very, Very good answer... You've hit it right on the nail head. Everyone should read this again..

While it's true this is how it is these days it does seem a very wishy washy definition of Buddhism, I don't think the Buddha would have bothered teaching for 40 years if his teaching was based on wishy washiness.

Well, it's not a definition of "Buddhism", but it may be a valid operational definition of a "Buddhist". Operational definitions in religion are often contested, though, by those who refer to core teachings of the founder or of the acknowledged teaching authorities. Hence, for example, one finds Muslim leaders who say that Islamist extremists are not really Muslims. It's not hard to think of other examples, even in "Buddhist" Thailand.

The Buddha taught that there is no "self" and that there is no permanent substratum or "being" underpinning phenomena. These teachings were/are highly counter-intuitive and counter-cultural - hardly wishy-washy. Dealing with the implications and questions and issues arising from these teachings would easily keep one focused and busy for 40+ years.

[rockyysdt]

At the most basic level, "Buddhist" just means a follower of the Buddha. To what extent a person follows the Buddha's teachings is up to the individual. There's no official minimum requirement and I doubt anyone would ever ask you to prove you're a Buddhist.

Very, Very good answer... You've hit it right on the nail head. Everyone should read this again..

While it's true this is how it is these days it does seem a very wishy washy definition of Buddhism, I don't think the Buddha would have bothered teaching for 40 years if his teaching was based on wishy washiness.

Well, it's not a definition of "Buddhism", but it may be a valid operational definition of a "Buddhist". Operational definitions in religion are often contested, though, by those who refer to core teachings of the founder or of the acknowledged teaching authorities. Hence, for example, one finds Muslim leaders who say that Islamist extremists are not really Muslims. It's not hard to think of other examples, even in "Buddhist" Thailand.

The Buddha taught that there is no "self" and that there is no permanent substratum or "being" underpinning phenomena. These teachings were/are highly counter-intuitive and counter-cultural - hardly wishy-washy. Dealing with the implications and questions and issues arising from these teachings would easily keep one focused and busy for 40+ years.

And I suspect, this is the reason why only a few reach the pinnacle of their path.

Having said that, it can be a fine line between dedication towards dharma and fanaticism, given what's required to succeed.

Edited January 31, 2011 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

Well, it's not a definition of "Buddhism", but it may be a valid operational definition of a "Buddhist". Operational definitions in religion are often contested, though, by those who refer to core teachings of the founder or of the acknowledged teaching authorities. Hence, for example, one finds Muslim leaders who say that Islamist extremists are not really Muslims. It's not hard to think of other examples, even in "Buddhist" Thailand.

The Buddha taught that there is no "self" and that there is no permanent substratum or "being" underpinning phenomena. These teachings were/are highly counter-intuitive and counter-cultural - hardly wishy-washy. Dealing with the implications and questions and issues arising from these teachings would easily keep one focused and busy for 40+ years.

And I suspect, this is the reason why only a few reach the pinnacle of their path.

Having said that, it can be a fine line between dedication towards dharma and fanaticism, given what's required to succeed.

I like Churchill's definition of a fanatic: "One who can't change his mind and won't change the topic".

That doesn't sound to me like a dharma practitioner.

[christiaan]

At the most basic level, "Buddhist" just means a follower of the Buddha. To what extent a person follows the Buddha's teachings is up to the individual. There's no official minimum requirement and I doubt anyone would ever ask you to prove you're a Buddhist.

Very, Very good answer... You've hit it right on the nail head. Everyone should read this again..

While it's true this is how it is these days it does seem a very wishy washy definition of Buddhism, I don't think the Buddha would have bothered teaching for 40 years if his teaching was based on wishy washiness.

Well, it's not a definition of "Buddhism", but it may be a valid operational definition of a "Buddhist". Operational definitions in religion are often contested, though, by those who refer to core teachings of the founder or of the acknowledged teaching authorities. Hence, for example, one finds Muslim leaders who say that Islamist extremists are not really Muslims. It's not hard to think of other examples, even in "Buddhist" Thailand.

The Buddha taught that there is no "self" and that there is no permanent substratum or "being" underpinning phenomena. These teachings were/are highly counter-intuitive and counter-cultural - hardly wishy-washy. Dealing with the implications and questions and issues arising from these teachings would easily keep one focused and busy for 40+ years.

These teachings were/are highly counter-intuitive and counter-cultural ???

[rockyysdt]

I like Churchill's definition of a fanatic: "One who can't change his mind and won't change the topic".

That doesn't sound to me like a dharma practitioner.

Yes.

It's a very delicate gossamer type of thing.

Grasping mindfulness with automatic non attachment.

[inmysights]

Being a mensch would be a very good start.

[organic]

Personally I believe that the two fundamental tenets of Buddhism are Rebirth and Karma, both of which are related and intertwined so that one cannot really believe one and not the other.

^ this. I'd also add the belief that the only real way to deal with the sufferings of birth and death is by enlightenment to the true nature of one's life.

[lungmi]

Being a mensch would be a very good start.

Right, when a mensch is born a Buddha is born.

But: The mensch is most time the most inhumain of all animals.

--------------------------------

Quote: These teachings were/are highly counter-intuitive and counter-cultural - hardly wishy-washy.

Not for everyone. We have a lot of examples in the Pali-Canon and even today where the Understanding came and comes by intrinsic intuition when a good trigger was the stimulus.

[Brucenkhamen]

Well, it's not a definition of "Buddhism", but it may be a valid operational definition of a "Buddhist". Operational definitions in religion are often contested, though, by those who refer to core teachings of the founder or of the acknowledged teaching authorities.

Yes, I should have said definition of a Buddhist not Buddhism.

While it may be a valid operational definition of a Buddhist to most people I think most people genuinely trying to follow the Buddhas path would prefer a definition that incorporates some of the values and practises they hold dear.

The Buddha taught that there is no "self" and that there is no permanent substratum or "being" underpinning phenomena. These teachings were/are highly counter-intuitive and counter-cultural - hardly wishy-washy. Dealing with the implications and questions and issues arising from these teachings would easily keep one focused and busy for 40+ years.

Yes it is counterinuitive to anyone who bases their perceptions of the world on our conceptual frameworks, and it takes more than a dose of wishy-washyness to start a paradigm shift away from that, but once that shift is made I think it becomes more and more intuitive.

[christiaan]

Being a mensch would be a very good start.

Right, when a mensch is born a Buddha is born.

But: The mensch is most time the most inhumain of all animals.

--------------------------------

Quote: These teachings were/are highly counter-intuitive and counter-cultural - hardly wishy-washy.

Not for everyone. We have a lot of examples in the Pali-Canon and even today where the Understanding came and comes by intrinsic intuition when a good trigger was the stimulus.

When a mensch is born a Buddha is born? There have been 6 Buddha by now, there will be 6 more to come, the next one in about 2500 years. (?)

[christiaan]

Well, it's not a definition of "Buddhism", but it may be a valid operational definition of a "Buddhist". Operational definitions in religion are often contested, though, by those who refer to core teachings of the founder or of the acknowledged teaching authorities.

Yes, I should have said definition of a Buddhist not Buddhism.

While it may be a valid operational definition of a Buddhist to most people I think most people genuinely trying to follow the Buddhas path would prefer a definition that incorporates some of the values and practises they hold dear.

The Buddha taught that there is no "self" and that there is no permanent substratum or "being" underpinning phenomena. These teachings were/are highly counter-intuitive and counter-cultural - hardly wishy-washy. Dealing with the implications and questions and issues arising from these teachings would easily keep one focused and busy for 40+ years.

Yes it is counterinuitive to anyone who bases their perceptions of the world on our conceptual frameworks, and it takes more than a dose of wishy-washyness to start a paradigm shift away from that, but once that shift is made I think it becomes more and more intuitive.

Did I read well : These Teachings (of Buddha) were/are highly counter-intuitive and counter- cultural? So I understood well these teachings (being highly counterintuitive?) were based on the insight of Buddha and not on anyones who bases their perception of the world on our conceptual frameworks ?

[AYJAYDEE]

in fact you are being arguementative.and there are no shortcuts. the buddha instructed his followers to attain insight for themselves, not take other's word for it.

At the most basic level, "Buddhist" just means a follower of the Buddha. To what extent a person follows the Buddha's teachings is up to the individual. There's no official minimum requirement and I doubt anyone would ever ask you to prove you're a Buddhist.

Sorry, but that sounds like i can believe whatever i want.

And of course, i am free to believe whatever i want.

But i am looking for guidance.

I guess i am looking for a shot cut? I do not want to invent hot water again.....

Can you tell me: What do all buddhists have in common?

Next i will be able to decide whether that can apply to me.

Or to search in a different direction.

Please believe i am searching for a direction in my life, i am not being argumentative.

[camerata]

There have been 6 Buddha by now, there will be 6 more to come, the next one in about 2500 years. (?)

What's your reference for this 6 buddhas to come? The Pali Canon gives two different numbers for the known buddhas of the past, the upper number being 28, and only mentions one, Maitreya, to come in the future.

[christiaan]

There have been 6 Buddha by now, there will be 6 more to come, the next one in about 2500 years. (?)

What's your reference for this 6 buddhas to come? The Pali Canon gives two different numbers for the known buddhas of the past, the upper number being 28, and only mentions one, Maitreya, to come in the future.

I would not like to go of topic too much. It is not so relevant for the cited text here. So lets just stay with the Maitreya Buddha to come in about 2500 years.

The cited text is: When a mensch is born a Buddha is born? (This is in fact out of topic already)

People write things (new concepts?)and I just like to understand.

Does this text mean : every time a good person is born a Buddha is born? or: only when a Buddha is born (in about 2500 years) a mensch - being a very good person- is born?

And so the answer to the question of the O.P is: become a mensch

[camerata]

There have been 6 Buddha by now, there will be 6 more to come, the next one in about 2500 years. (?)

What's your reference for this 6 buddhas to come? The Pali Canon gives two different numbers for the known buddhas of the past, the upper number being 28, and only mentions one, Maitreya, to come in the future.

I would not like to go of topic too much. It is not so relevant for the cited text here. So lets just stay with the Maitreya Buddha to come in about 2500 years.

Don't worry, the moderators decide when things are too far off-topic. Now, what's your reference for "6 buddhas to come"? You've mentioned this before and I don't want those new to Buddhism to be confused.

Equating a mensch - a decent, upright, mature, and responsible person - with a buddha is misleading. It's not a Theravada idea, and the Mahayana proposition is that every human being is a potential buddha rather than just certain humans with certain qualities. For sure, becoming a mensch would be a good start for a serious Buddhist. One would achieve this by following the Eightfold Path.

[christiaan]

There have been 6 Buddha by now, there will be 6 more to come, the next one in about 2500 years. (?)

What's your reference for this 6 buddhas to come? The Pali Canon gives two different numbers for the known buddhas of the past, the upper number being 28, and only mentions one, Maitreya, to come in the future.

I would not like to go of topic too much. It is not so relevant for the cited text here. So lets just stay with the Maitreya Buddha to come in about 2500 years.

Don't worry, the moderators decide when things are too far off-topic. Now, what's your reference for "6 buddhas to come"? You've mentioned this before and I don't want those new to Buddhism to be confused.

Equating a mensch - a decent, upright, mature, and responsible person - with a buddha is misleading. It's not a Theravada idea, and the Mahayana proposition is that every human being is a potential buddha rather than just certain humans with certain qualities. For sure, becoming a mensch would be a good start for a serious Buddhist. One would achieve this by following the Eightfold Path.

Thanks for the invitation. However I do 'worry' not because it is only the moderators responsibillty and I have to try to do my best to stay with the topic.

Out of your answer it is clear to me it probbably is no correct point of view to tell when a mensch is born a Buddha is born, as according to my observations. Thank you.

.

[lungmi]

There have been 6 Buddha by now, there will be 6 more to come, the next one in about 2500 years. (?)

What's your reference for this 6 buddhas to come? The Pali Canon gives two different numbers for the known buddhas of the past, the upper number being 28, and only mentions one, Maitreya, to come in the future.

I would not like to go of topic too much. It is not so relevant for the cited text here. So lets just stay with the Maitreya Buddha to come in about 2500 years.

Don't worry, the moderators decide when things are too far off-topic. Now, what's your reference for "6 buddhas to come"? You've mentioned this before and I don't want those new to Buddhism to be confused.

Equating a mensch - a decent, upright, mature, and responsible person - with a buddha is misleading. It's not a Theravada idea, and the Mahayana proposition is that every human being is a potential buddha rather than just certain humans with certain qualities. For sure, becoming a mensch would be a good start for a serious Buddhist. One would achieve this by following the Eightfold Path.

Sorry, I forgot the special connotations of "mensch" .

I correct: When a human beeing is born, he or she has the indigenous potential for awakening (to become a Buddha).

[christiaan]

Equating a mensch - a decent, upright, mature, and responsible person - with a buddha is misleading. It's not a Theravada idea, and the Mahayana proposition is that every human being is a potential buddha rather than just certain humans with certain qualities. For sure, becoming a mensch would be a good start for a serious Buddhist. One would achieve this by following the Eightfold Path.

Sorry, I forgot the special connotations of "mensch" .

I correct: When a human beeing is born, he or she has the indigenous potential for awakening (to become a Buddha).

Christiaan:

Thank you for correction.