Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Hey,
are you a Buddhist?
Have an interest in it?
Have a Formal practice and are part of a Tradition?
This poll is a curriosity poll on Buddhism.
Enjoy!
-Sara

I always liked the "core" of Buddhist doctrine, but there was a lot of BS in it that I don't think Buddha intended. IMO a lot of Buddhist are too attached to Buddhism, which is very hypocritical in my opinion. And a lot of the Buddhist literature I've read (especially the Pure Land book "The Teaching's of Buddha" was very depressing and made me feel depressed for wanting to drink a coke and taking medications. To me the essence of Buddhism is non-attachment, followed by compassion for others. Krishnamurti, i think, gets at Buddha's "original" (at least what I see as original) message, and he isn't a Buddhist. I always hated how Buddhists say they don't worship the Buddha, but they keep incredibly expensive statues of him in there churches, and do seem to have a deity-like attachment to him, especially in the Pure Land varities. Another thing, there is a "Buddhist" center here in Utah that offers a spiritual "class" I guess called the "Open Heart, Open Mind" and it costs $50,000 a slot. I really doubt the Buddha would approve of that.

Zen practioner for 30+ years.  If you want to escape BS, that's Zen.

I'm a nonconsentual Buddhist.

It's not my cup of tea

And us English are def into our tea!  8)

Jay

Yes. Dzogchen but interested in all traditions of Buddhism as well as other spiritual practices (Yoga, Taoist, Shamanism) but if I could only have one it would be Dzogchen as it encompasses everything else. If you want to escape BS lol......get to the core of the teachings, whatever tradition, practice and realize them for yourself and there will be no more BS lol.


...But I'm a horrible Buddhist don't get me wrong! I could be much more disciplined right now.

I try to sit daily.

I find the basic concepts to be helpful to me.

My father is a Soto Zen Buddhist, going on 30 years. I'm influenced by the teachings and have a liturgy book, meditation cushion and bell, but I don't practice much, and I don't consider myself a Buddhist.

I've sat zazen with a sangha, and even given a practice talk or two there. Officially I'm still a member of that sangha, though I haven't been sitting/chanting with them regularly for a while now.

My own personal practice is an amalgamation of Soto Zen Buddhism, Christianity, Wicca, and Asatru.

I am part of a sangha. We meet every Tuesday and do a group primordial meditation. I practice TM 2x's a day. After we talk. We were recently joined by an Ayurvedic physician who is fun and smart. We lightly call ourselves a cosmic community. The age ranges from late teens to mid 80's. Presently there are 6-7 in the group.
Like Shades I am an amalgamation. A mix of Zen and Spiritual Humanism.
Zen for me makes the path clearer. Budda was just a man

It's not my cup of english tea!

Quote from: Sammy on August 26, 2009, 02:15:53 AM
I always hated how Buddhists say they don't worship the Buddha, but they keep incredibly expensive statues of him in there churches, and do seem to have a deity-like attachment to him, especially in the Pure Land varities. Another thing, there is a "Buddhist" center here in Utah that offers a spiritual "class" I guess called the "Open Heart, Open Mind" and it costs $50,000 a slot. I really doubt the Buddha would approve of that.

the statues arnt worship, as much as they are for remembering a great teacher; however, it is true that alot(especially "new age" Buddhists) tend to forget/are mislead to believe that this human, who is only a human, is a god of some kind. but again, i think generally it is a tribute to a teacher.

the class sounds like its aimed at new age buddhists, whos hearts may or may not be in the right place, but they dont know the real teachings usually(not always the case), and the runners of this class are prob in it for the money sadly :/

I'm not Buddiest, I am basically Wiccan with a hint of dark paganism in my practices. I have a little interest in Buddaism, I like to read a little about it and watch documentries on it as well. I enjoyed watching a documentry on Budda last year it was pretty interesting. But idk if I could ever practice it though heh.

I've been an ordained Buddhist (though in a non-monastic order) for 14 years now, been trying to practise for 20 years. My experience is that it's really easy to use Buddhism (just like just about anything) in a way that shores up your sense of fixed identity rather than making it more fluid. And that's not the fault of Buddhism, it's just the natural human tendency not to want to change except absolutely on our own terms! I certainly spent many years using it to hide from myself (just as I used being "Jewish", and then "gay" to do the same before that). It's what makes it possible for me to laugh at myself when I see myself desperately looking for a term that describes me (I do like this niizh manidoowag thing at the moment...)

Nowadays, I can let it help me have a more permeable approach to my gender, my sexuality, my sense of self in general. And I can even, on a good day, have a more creative response to the fact that the onset of PTSD last year has meant I can't meditate in the way I've been used to doing for the last 2 decades, and that this doesn't make me a Bad Buddhist™, it just makes me have to be a more flexible one in order to find things I can do, instead of worrying about what I can't do. So it's a Good Thing.

I've just arrived on this forum for the first time tonight, and I'm heartened to see people not being too caught up in identity wars (I've had so much of that from being bisexual around the "gay community", and in the poly scene, and etc. etc., and even "brand loyalty" amongst Buddhists).

I've been influenced by Buddhism, but I much more agree with Taoism.

The term "buddhist" have many interpretations, it may point to a sect belonging to particular belief which may or may not have to do with buddhism. The question would be more specific if put in this way "do you identify as a practitioner of Buddha's teaching?". The same applied to toaism, where "tao-jia" / taoist's practitioner and "tao-jaiu" /taoist's sect represent totally different thing.

It's being 20 years since I first started exploring buddhism, the search for this teaching was the beginning of wisdom, during those times of immersion in buddhism, such as in practice, writing, translations and reading of ancient texts, I do not have time for other things, e.g. my gender issues. But as I confronted with the gender issues eventually due to the age [of hormonal declined in men), the wisdom I learn served to aid in smoother transition.

I identify as Buddhist, and I like reading about it, but what sect of Buddhist? I am just Buddhist. Not Zen, Theravada, or whatnot; I've never thought of a sect.

Hello dharma friends,

I am a buddhist for more then 30 years. My teachers help and support me with my transition as a transman. I am a member of the Shambhala Community and a student of Ringu Tulku Rinpoche. For the transgender community i set up the International Transgender Buddhist Sangha.

Yours in the dharma,

Yvo

Links

Network
http://transgenderandbuddhism.socialgo.com/ (http://transgenderandbuddhism.socialgo.com/)

Website
http://transgenderbuddhism.blog2blog.nl/ (http://transgenderbuddhism.blog2blog.nl/)

i like it, but don't know much about it

Hi Ribbons, a sect is a religious group that has a historical existence, some of them may not have authentic lineage, but will still called themselves buddhists, I will cite a few example: A group lead by Lu Shen Yen, Nizerian, Tian Tao, etc.

I prefer the term 'school' to 'sect' myself :) - different schools of Buddhism have arisen over the years that emphasise different aspects of Buddhist teaching and practice, but (mostly) still emphasise balance of practice rather than just that one bit of it. A few schools of Buddhism have gone down the unfortunate road of assuming they are the 'one true way', and I think they're the only ones that deserve the term 'sect', since I would consider that a sectarian approach.

You can also (if you want to start a really pointless argument) divide Buddhist schools into those that think 'lineage' is important, and those that don't - so I won't get into that ;).

"School" has been use equally as "sect", but to be more accurate, I like the term sect, as there is really sectarian distinction in various schools / monastic institutes. In order words, a school or schools belong to a particular sect, but a school can hold the lineage of several sects.

The sect that does not have authentic lineage is considered as "heretics" and / or "outsider". Thus the term "sect" is neutral as to good or bad, and "authentic" or "heretic".

No lineage then no buddhism. Authentic lineage is very important, there are different type of authentic lineage, they are of scriptural, oral, and mind.

Quote from: joyce44 on April 07, 2011, 08:34:44 AMNo lineage then no buddhism. Authentic lineage is very important, there are different type of authentic lineage, they are of scriptural, oral, and mind.

Only some schools of Buddhism believe this.

All main stream buddhist organisations support this. Though one is allowed to learn anything with or without lineage, to practice certain teaching required transmission from a teacher with an authentic lineage, a teacher of buddhism cannot act as one without an authentic lineage, or he / she will face huge pressure and resistance from main stream buddhist organisations.

Unfortunately, an official lineage is no indication whatsoever of a person's integrity as a practitioner and teacher - as witness the many, many examples of sexual and financial scandals involving eastern and western teachers with supposedly impeccable lineage. The Buddha exhorted his followers to observe a teacher over a long period, to listen to what they teach and then ascertain whether they in fact live in accord with their own teachings.

Lineage, among schools who think in those terms, is generally taken to mean the lineage of actual teachers - so it's considered important to be able to trace back the lineage of your own teacher through his/her teacher, and on back to the founder of that particular school (or right back to the Buddha) in order to validate their right to teach in that tradition.

Personally, I think it's up to you how much importance you attach to this (it often smells to me like "my dad can beat up your dad"*) - but this is just my angle on it.

*bad analogy, trying again: more like an overdependence on the assumed attainment of a teacher and wanting to be carried along in their spiritual slipstream, which can be a substitute for taking responsibility four one's own practice. And just to be clear, I'm not knocking the value of reverence for a teacher you have personal cause to revere, through time spent around them.

QuoteThe Buddha exhorted his followers to observe a teacher over a long period, to listen to what they teach and then ascertain whether they in fact live in accord with their own teachings.

This is one requirement, not an exception in addition to having a lineage. To teach in the first place, the teacher need a valid lineage in order to be recognised and accepted. Nothing wrong with this, as it is not impossible to obtain a lineage by following after an authentic teacher oneself. A buddhist teacher is person of great public responsibility in the spiritual field, much as a doctors in the medical field, and engineers in the technical field, all of them required an authentic "lineage" and certification, and differ only in names. Just as a certified doctor and engineer can be liable for criminal negligence, and not free from legal prosecution, a certified buddhist teacher's conduct is monitor by both students and all main stream buddhist organisations, if sexual / power abuse is discovered, their lineage teachers will also be notified, and his / her entitlement as a leader of the particular sect will be replace by someone else.

A teacher without a lineage can only support himself, he is the only authority, when it come to sexual / power abuse, this form of teacher is even more dangerous as he can't be replace, and all followers are brain-washed (the reason they will be attracted to such a teacher in the first place), rather than independent bodies capable of monitoring each other.

QuoteDoes this refer to reincarnation where lineage may play a role through passing down wisdom or simply school of thought?

Reincarnation of tulkus are based on lineage which has a tradition of dealing with this way of teaching, without which it will not be recognised. A certain teachings are based on physical lineage that has passed down uninterruptedly through words of mouth, and due to the nature of the teaching, where empirical experience are essential (much like practical hand on experience required on engineering / medical field), direct face to face transmission is required. Also there are teaching with ritualistic requirement, such as initiation / empowerment, these cannot be contain in form of scriptural transmission alone, direct contact with the teacher is essential to be introduce to the mandala / symbolic teaching.

As for scriptural transmission, such as exist in asian's mahayana and theravada buddhism, here we seems to be relying on chinese tripitakas and / or pali cannon for any authority on buddhism, without depended on a human teacher, but still the vow of refuge and monkhood has to be transmitted by a teacher who has received the same directly from another teacher, there cannot be a break in a transmission that link back to Buddha himself. Also the teaching we based from the chinese tripitaka and pali cannon is considered a lineage of buddha's scriptural transmission.

Thus its all about the existence of lineage [in various forms], without which we won't even know the name "buddha" or "dharma".

I'm not saying lineage has no significance - I just think that who a teacher's teacher was is in the end less important than the teacher's ability to embody and communicate the Buddha's teachings. I agree that "cult of personality" can be a problem at one end of the scale, but at the other I see a lot of people over-obsessed with their teacher's "qualifications", which is just another way of following blindly. We have to take personal responsibility as practitioners to be honest with ourselves about what we are looking for in our teacher.

QuoteI just think that who a teacher's teacher was is in the end less important than the teacher's ability to embody and communicate the Buddha's teachings

"Over-obsessed" if you like to put it, to anything dharma / teacher related, is a fine attitude [as far as indifference to dharma or buddhism is compared], since over-obsessed with "the teacher's ability to embody and communicate the Buddha's teachings" is equally essential as with "the teacher's qualifications".

Placing emphasis equally to both is critical to choosing a teacher, else you are biased to one consideration to the exclusion of the other equally important consideration when one is still deciding between the right teacher/s.

*You cannot sensibly exclude any good qualities or considerations of a student or a teacher of dharma.

Sure I'm a buddhist.  What exactly that means varies with each school.  I have publicly taken buddhist vows but that really doesn't mean much to me.  What matters to me is that day in and day out I try to be mindful my correct situation.  This is not so easy to explain, but realizing one's correct relation to the world is key.  Realizing the correct relation of one's self-identity to one's thoughts and sensations is also key.

Some groups put great emphasis on lineage, and while this may be important, it is most worthwhile to listen with an opened mind.  When you do this, you can appreciate both points-of-view.  You can see why lineage is important, but you can also understand why one should not get caught up in sectarian conflicts.

My first real introduction to Buddhism came through the book "Buddhism Plain and Simple" by Steve Hagen.  I have read it several times and purchased and given away three copies.  I need one to keep in the house!  The book is more about the philosophies of Buddha rather than becoming a Buddhist.  I found it akin to reading Eckhart Tolle or Wayne Dyer kind of books.  Kind of a "how to find inner peace" sort of thing.  It helped me through the toughest times of my transition.

Today I find myself a supporter of Buddhism and also Taoism, though I would not be considered a practitioner of either.  I wish I was raised in a family that believed more in Eastern philosophies like Buddhism rather than being raised Catholic.  I see the latter as crushing the soul while the former is freeing the soul.

I appreciate the philosophies and teachings of various religions including Buddhism and Taoism, But I am a free spirit and do not identify completely nor label myself with any particular religion

I identify with Buddhism, and use meditation as much as possible. But I also love to look at other aspects, like Taoism - and tend to merge what I find useful from other like religions. I tend not to even consider it a religion, more as a way of being. I know the church has helped many people, but I personally don't agree with many doctrines within it.
Some years ago, NB bought me a book called 'Essential spirituality', which I found fascinating. It shows that within the main world religions, there are many overlapping aspects of the spirituality side. I like to think that's how I live. Not weighed down by a particular aspect, but accepting many aspects.