Another reason I don't like being identified as Buddhist is because that describes a separation between the self and that most personal descriptive, whatever religion we affiliate with. It reminds me of that ironic scene in The Simpsons when Lisa is running around town proclaiming, "I'm a Buddhist!", a most "un-Buddhist" thing to be doing.
I've always wondered if the writers knew enough about Buddhism to consciously put in that irony. I wouldn't put it past them, when their humor takes the high road, the references can be pretty obscure (lantanides and actinides, anyone? (from when Homer goes back to college)).
I react against the "Buddhist" label because for some stupid reason in my mind that automatically registers the possibility of "non-Buddhist". And when applied to my core identity, there is no "non-Buddhist", and working backwards that means no "Buddhist" either. Opposites, duality, you can't have one without the other. The existence of one automatically creates the other.
My core identity just is. I can't not be this core identity, I can't ever lose "faith", I can't ever not be developing from this core identity, I can't ever convert to it or renounce it. If you take the beliefs associated with this core identity and call it "Christianity" or "Islam", then I'm either Christian or Muslim.
But no, our reference systems and language place most of what I say into the Buddhist category, so that's what I am, but that reference is not for me, it's for you, and you couldn't care less what I am or what I'm ranting about, so wtf?
What does it mean anyway when someone says, "oh, that person is very religious"? Is it that they follow certain laws or precepts, certain proscribed behavior? How they behave towards other human beings? How much they study their canon and pray or chant? Is it internal or external and which is more important? Is outside perception important – that people see you "being religious", going to church, mosque, synagogue?
The questions go on and the answers differ according to religion. Ultimately I find the inquiry meaningless and tedious. What happens to being religious when Christianity is associated with persecution and colonization and Islam is associated with terrorism?
Buddhism isn't infallible either if you start buying into the Bush double-speak of bringing peace through war. It's a big world, there are undoubtedly pro-Bush Buddhists who buy into that. Better to renounce the whole concept of religion altogether. Focus on the self and the community, but once religion creates an "other" that's where the problems start.
