Calling Yourself Buddhist Isn’t Buddhist
One of the resounding themes in the Buddhist studies and practices I’ve taken on over the last years has focused a lot on labels, concepts, and views. The foundation of everything being emptiness, impermanence, and unsatisfactoriness. In the beginning, emptiness was confusing and cryptic, but as I explored the titles and labels I wore, I realized I had to stop calling myself a Buddhist.Labeling is necessary for communication purposes, but when we identify through them, we limit ourselves, and we attempt to solidify something that doesn’t exist . . . an unchanging, central self.
I wrote about some of my exploration of labels in Everything I Learned About Labels, I Learned from my Dog. And as I dug more deeply into how I use labels in reference to myself, and explored how subtle attempts arise at creating a self with each, I realized one label I had to watch closely was the label Buddhist.
I had to ask myself, When I say I’m Buddhist, what exactly does that mean and is it limiting and creating a persona in any way? The answer may seem simple. To call oneself a Buddhist, means you follow Buddhism. Which, of course, begs the question, What is Buddhism? Exploring this question landed me right in the heart of emptiness, and the futility of concepts and labels, constructs we attempt to solidify and make permanent. And that leads to seeing impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and emptiness.
Buddhism is an group of ideas, controversial, and diverse. It can be argued that Buddhism is a practice, a way of living. Some say it’s a religion, while others disagree. What it is is empty of a solid, unchanging self, thingness. Buddhism does not exist in and of itself, no matter what how you define it. You can practice or preach what you consider Buddhism, but because it lacks an inherent self, a solid, permanent existence, can you really call yourself a Buddhist simply because you follow an idea of it? Can you really be a Buddhist?
As I explored these questions, I realized that to call myself a Buddhist actually went against the teaching that warns against identifying with labels. Additionally, in reality there is no such thing as Buddhist, or Buddhism. Only ideas about it.
Because of that, I do not call myself a Buddhist, though I do practice what I consider to be Buddhist practice, and that is debatable, as the practices are my understanding of what I have been taught. I make no claim to know something I can not know, nor can I claim Buddhism exists in any solidified sense.
I do, however, call myself an Atheist. Atheism, too, is empty, just as much so as Buddhism. And I recognize the reasons I call myself an Atheist. I still have attachments, based on a past in which I defended that view to people who were trying to push religion on me. Additionally, with what is happening in this country now, with the far right trying to make the US a Christian nation, I feel it’s important for non-believers to identify themselves as such, in spite of what I’ve said above.
There is a time for labels, when we need to communicate something important, or near and dear to our hearts. But I felt as I explored and learned about the emptiness of labeling, that Buddhism itself should be my project of exploration, and that was the one label I would need to be careful not to find and identity in, and prevent limiting my open exploration.
After all, the Buddha said that the practice and path is the boat that gets you across the river. Once on the other side, it wouldn’t make sense to carry the boat around. You must put it down. If you are attached to the label Buddhist, how are you going to let go of that identity in the end?
Buddha did not call himself a Buddhist after all.
More Info:
Labels, or Mindful Sinning, a podcast with The Secular Buddhist
June 12th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
The Buddha did indeed teach that we should put the boat down when we get to the other shore, not continue to carry it. Are we on the other shore yet? If we’re still in the middle of the river, we perhaps still need the boat.
Labels aren’t the problem, it’s identifying them as part of your self that is the problem. Labels are still necessary. I say that I say things, do things, am things, even though I know there is no fixed “me”. Communicating with others would be incredibly difficult without using the conventions that represent my being as a discrete character.
How does it help us let go of attachment to labels, to be adamantly against the use of labels? “I don’t identify myself as a Buddhist” is just as much a label as “I am a Buddhist” isn’t it?
As always, the middle is where we find peace — neither clinging to labels nor denying them.
June 12th, 2010 at 8:27 pm
I agree on all your points, Linda. I don’t assert that labeling is wrong, or that calling oneself a Buddhist is wrong. I only hope to challenge folks to examine their use of labels, especially the Buddhist label, we when we do label ourselves, which is often necessary, we do so mindfully, with full understanding of why we are doing it.
June 12th, 2010 at 8:51 pm
“Calling Yourself Buddhist Isn’t Buddhist” is just you being provocative, then? Otherwise it sure sounds like you’re saying that Buddhists aren’t being Buddhists if they call themselves Buddhists. : )