Western Buddhism

[Knotty Veneer]

As a -geographical delineation- its what most Westerners are stuck with in terms of Buddhism.

I don't know that it is what most people are stuck with in the West. Maybe outside of the North America and Western Europe you might be right but there are plenty of traditional Buddhist organizations around. I think it's often that people do not appreciate the importance of lineage and a complete path.

BTW, are there many Buddhists in the Orange Order?

[gregkavarnos]

Western Buddhism (as opposed to Buddhism in the West) – it’s all stress reduction and McMindfulness or a platform for unqualified Westerners to get into the guru business. Not worth considering? Right?

I actually (used to) teach stress reduction based on mindfulness meditation. I used it to then "promote" mindfulness meditation classes (as it has been taught to me by various (qualified) lama). I have permission to do so. It's amazing though how many people vanish when they figure out that mindfulness meditation (McMindfulness) can actually (initially) generate tension rather than relieve it. I have found that at the end about 5% (actually more like 2%) stay to practice within a "Buddhist" framework. I have no problem with people coming into contact with meditation techniques outside of a traditional Buddhist environment as long as they are made aware of the source of the techniques. For some people it may actually be the only contact they may have with Dharma practice in their lives. If it sows a seed that will ripen in the future, good!

PS I always make it clear that I am NOT an officially qualified teacher of Dharma (though I am trained in psychology and the social sciences).

[Knotty Veneer]

I actually (used to) teach stress reduction based on mindfulness meditation. I used it to then "promote" mindfulness meditation classes (as it has been taught to me by various (qualified) lama). I have permission to do so. It's amazing though how many people vanish when they figure out that mindfulness meditation (McMindfulness) can actually (initially) generate tension rather than relieve it. I have found that at the end about 5% (actually more like 2%) stay to practice within a "Buddhist" framework. I have no problem with people coming into contact with meditation techniques outside of a traditional Buddhist environment as long as they are made aware of the source of the techniques. For some people it may actually be the only contact they may have with Dharma practice in their lives. If it sows a seed that will ripen in the future, good!

I don't think anyone could seriously argue that there is no benefit in the type of practice you taught. It does have a therapeutic value and it does plant seeds as you say. The only downside I could see is that it could make people think that that is all there is. Buddhism as a therapy. Buddhism as means of solving problems like stress or depression or whatever. Buddhism as simply a set of techniques to allow you to cope better with Samsara rather than transcend it?

[Caz]

Today I met many great practitioners from the west. Buddhism is growing there are already many people who have attained completion stage accomplishments sincere students dedicated to their spiritual teacher and making their works flourish. I have high hopes.

[Knotty Veneer]

Today I met many great practitioners from the west. Buddhism is growing there are already many people who have attained completion stage accomplishments sincere students dedicated to their spiritual teacher and making their works flourish. I have high hopes.

I agree. I've met some really great Western practitioners too. But... it's not what I'm talking about here.

I'm talking about those who are not so dedicated to the original tradition in which they may have studied. I am talking about "Western Buddhism" rather than just Buddhism in the West.

There are many people who teach Buddhism (or something inspired by Buddhism) in the West who kinda think that the original traditions have got it all wrong. That the Buddha's teaching has been polluted by superstition, ritual, unnecessary cultural baggage etc. that make it a. unsuited for someone who grew up in the West and b. untrue to the Buddha's original intent (whatever that was).

The likes of Stephen Batchelor, Sangharakshita, David Brazier and others are involved in trying to re-imagine a "Buddhism for the West" that is devoid of the problems they see in forms that it has taken in the East. It's these ideas I am interested in hearing people's experience/opinion of in this thread.

[maybay]

The likes of Stephen Batchelor, Sangharakshita, David Brazier and others are involved in trying to re-imagine a "Buddhism for the West" that is devoid of the problems they see in forms that it has taken in the East.

You can't solve a problem you don't have. Trying to solve someone else's problem they don't even have is double stupid.

[Indrajala]

The likes of Stephen Batchelor, Sangharakshita, David Brazier and others are involved in trying to re-imagine a "Buddhism for the West" that is devoid of the problems they see in forms that it has taken in the East. It's these ideas I am interested in hearing people's experience/opinion of in this thread.

One issue I see is revisionism rather than reform. The former is often a matter of warping things to suit one's cultural tastes while the latter is simply changing things to adapt to circumstances. This is an important distinction to make. Adapting cultural elements to new lands is essentials, but erasing core Buddhist ideas for a new "Western Buddhism" or "Secular Buddhism" is self-destructive as those core ideas are what give the Buddha's dharma the ability to eradicate suffering. This medicine is the purpose of any Buddhist tradition.

The key thing for Buddhism to survive in a new environment is lineage. There needs to be a narrative which people are materially and emotionally invested into for it to have the longevity necessary to last for generations and hopefully centuries rather than just being a passing intellectual fad. For this to occur there needs to be commonly appreciated stories, institutions and community.

We need not transplant an Asian institution into a western country, but what we do need is a narrative whereby a tradition from Asia is seen as being legitimately transferred and setup in a new land. It comes down to a good story or tale that everyone can emotionally and spiritually appreciate.

Revising "Buddhism" into an armchair-intellectual's toy not only neutralizes the original medicinal quality of the teaching, but cuts away the roots of narrative and spirituality, thereby rendering something fulfilling and satisfying into a passing curiosity in the history of cultural exchanges amongst civilizations.

[Knotty Veneer]

One issue I see is revisionism rather than reform. The former is often a matter of warping things to suit one's cultural tastes while the latter is simply changing things to adapt to circumstances. This is an important distinction to make. Adapting cultural elements to new lands is essentials, but erasing core Buddhist ideas for a new "Western Buddhism" or "Secular Buddhism" is self-destructive as those core ideas are what give the Buddha's dharma the ability to eradicate suffering. This medicine is the purpose of any Buddhist tradition.

Well they do not see what they are doing as erasing core Buddhist ideas - in fact just the reverse. Batchelor has called himself (somewhat impishly I think) a "Buddhist Fundamentalist". He wants to strip Buddhism back to what "the Buddha really taught". Now for him the Buddha was an early adopter of scientific materialism, social activism, gender equality and the like. Two questions come to mind:

Are Batchelor and co actually creating the Dharma to conform with their own views rather than uncovering the "true essence" of the teachings?

Are any of their criticism's of the way in which the Dharma is presented in traditional forms valid?

That said I do think that what Batchelor is left with in his analysis is pretty anodyne and really just "head dharma". Sanghrakshita's approach to me seems to create a specific cultural Western identity for Buddhism - some of his centres have Buddha statues with Caucasian features. He selects aspects from several different traditions to synthesize a system he claims underpins them all. It too seems to be a lot of "head dharma" but I'd be interested in hearing someone with more experience of his ideas.

[gregkavarnos]

I don't know if you want to start another discussion about Stephen Batchelor, it has been done to death almost as much as Diamond Way and Ole Nydahl

Anyway, back to this statement of yours:

...Buddhism as simply a set of techniques to allow you to cope better with Samsara rather than transcend it?

Well, Buddhism is both and more. For example it is also a set of ethical/moral beliefs to ensure social cohesion too. Didn't Dzogsar Khyentse Rinpoche refer to it as a placebo?

When I first set up a meditation group i took a more "traditional" approach and invited qualified lama to give teachings on practices, did the practices with the group, etc... The attrition rate for "membership" was the same as when I used the "stress management" approach.

What does that lead me to conclude? That the individuals that remain and continue to practice are those that have the karmic preponderance to do so. That regardless of how you present the teachings people will take them and use them as they fill fit. Is that wrong though? Is that better than having no contact with the practices at all?

The point, I feel, is to present the practices in an open, honest and understandable manner, to point out the origin of the teachings/practices, to provide the opportunity for individuals to penetrate further into the teachings/practices if they wish to and then you just let people decide for themselves. Dharma has the capacity to speak to peoples hearts regardless of what "level" they may be on if presented honestly and openly. What people do with it from there on is their choice.

[Knotty Veneer]

I don't know if you want to start another discussion about Stephen Batchelor, it has been done to death almost as much as Diamond Way and Ole Nydahl

Actually I don't consider Ole to be a "Western Buddhist". What he sets forth is pretty much standard Tibetan Buddhism - even if it is interpreted idiomatically at times. Similarly for groups like the NKT who claim to have a specially adapted form of the Dharma for Westerners when really it is pretty standard Gelugpa teachings (albeit with a certain slant).

I am not interested in Batchelor per se. He is not heading a unified movement but he is perhaps the most articulate figure among a group who propose the general idea that Buddhism needs to be reformed for the West.

...Buddhism as simply a set of techniques to allow you to cope better with Samsara rather than transcend it?

Well, Buddhism is both and more. For example it is also a set of ethical/moral beliefs to ensure social cohesion too. Didn't Dzogsar Khyentse Rinpoche refer to it as a placebo?

When I first set up a meditation group i took a more "traditional" approach and invited qualified lama to give teachings on practices, did the practices with the group, etc... The attrition rate for "membership" was the same as when I used the "stress management" approach.

What does that lead me to conclude? That the individuals that remain and continue to practice are those that have the karmic preponderance to do so. That regardless of how you present the teachings people will take them and use them as they fill fit. Is that wrong though? Is that better than having no contact with the practices at all?

The point, I feel, is to present the practices in an open, honest and understandable manner, to point out the origin of the teachings/practices, to provide the opportunity for individuals to penetrate further into the teachings/practices if they wish to and then you just let people decide for themselves. Dharma has the capacity to speak to peoples hearts regardless of what "level" they may be on if presented honestly and openly. What people do with it from there on is their choice.

I meant no criticism of what you were teaching and yes karma does have a large part to play in how people are attracted to the Buddha's teaching. My point is that simple meditation is often confused with Buddhism. Your first center was clearly Buddhist. Your second approach seems to have been simply meditation. The latter has its merits but it is not the same as the first. I agree with your last point we need to make it clear which is which. Something that is not always done.

[gregkavarnos]

I meant no criticism of what you were teaching...

I did not get the feeling that you were criticising.

My point is that simple meditation is often confused with Buddhism. Your first center was clearly Buddhist. Your second approach seems to have been simply meditation. The latter has its merits but it is not the same as the first. I agree with your last point we need to make it clear which is which. Something that is not always done.

Well simple Buddhist meditation is an aspect of Buddhism, but by Buddhism do you mean robes, bells, icons etc...? How is what SB teaches Buddhism and not simple meditation?

[Indrajala]

Well they do not see what they are doing as erasing core Buddhist ideas - in fact just the reverse.

In the greater Buddhist world if you presented their ideas to most educated Buddhist monastics and laypeople they would gain little agreement, just pity.

Most of the revisionists have no lineage and as such when they pass away their ideas will fade with them. Their books will outlive them, but it is unlikely that they will be so influential in the greater scope of things.

I see a lot of this revisionism simply as armchair intellectuals with publishers behind them willing to print whatever will sell. I also foresee in the future as peak oil and ecological payback hit hard the ideologies presented by "Secular Buddhists" and the like will provide little comfort or spiritual strength. The self-declared "Secular Buddhists" or "Atheist Buddhists" as they call themselves might find their ideologies suitable to a life of comfort in the first world, but in the coming decades they will soon find out how weak their foundations are.

Are Batchelor and co actually creating the Dharma to conform with their own views rather than uncovering the "true essence" of the teachings?

Most of them seem to be pasting a cherry picked version of Buddhism elements onto a default base of materialist ideology and narrative. If you're born and raised in a 1st world country, chances are you believe in materialism as the default worldview by virtue of it being the state sanctioned view. To deviate from it is not so comforting to many.

[Malcolm]

Most of them seem to be pasting a cherry picked version of Buddhism elements onto a default base of materialist ideology and narrative. If you're born and raised in a 1st world country, chances are you believe in materialism as the default worldview by virtue of it being the state sanctioned view. To deviate from it is not so comforting to many.

The religion of the state is only power. Always has been, always will be. Power reduces everything to mere things to used. That is the real materialism we should worry about.

M

[Caz]

Today I met many great practitioners from the west. Buddhism is growing there are already many people who have attained completion stage accomplishments sincere students dedicated to their spiritual teacher and making their works flourish. I have high hopes.

I agree. I've met some really great Western practitioners too. But... it's not what I'm talking about here.

I'm talking about those who are not so dedicated to the original tradition in which they may have studied. I am talking about "Western Buddhism" rather than just Buddhism in the West.

There are many people who teach Buddhism (or something inspired by Buddhism) in the West who kinda think that the original traditions have got it all wrong. That the Buddha's teaching has been polluted by superstition, ritual, unnecessary cultural baggage etc. that make it a. unsuited for someone who grew up in the West and b. untrue to the Buddha's original intent (whatever that was).

The likes of Stephen Batchelor, Sangharakshita, David Brazier and others are involved in trying to re-imagine a "Buddhism for the West" that is devoid of the problems they see in forms that it has taken in the East. It's these ideas I am interested in hearing people's experience/opinion of in this thread.

I can't speak for other traditions presentations.

[Blue Garuda]

Today I met many great practitioners from the west. Buddhism is growing there are already many people who have attained completion stage accomplishments sincere students dedicated to their spiritual teacher and making their works flourish. I have high hopes.

I agree. I've met some really great Western practitioners too. But... it's not what I'm talking about here.

I'm talking about those who are not so dedicated to the original tradition in which they may have studied. I am talking about "Western Buddhism" rather than just Buddhism in the West.

There are many people who teach Buddhism (or something inspired by Buddhism) in the West who kinda think that the original traditions have got it all wrong. That the Buddha's teaching has been polluted by superstition, ritual, unnecessary cultural baggage etc. that make it a. unsuited for someone who grew up in the West and b. untrue to the Buddha's original intent (whatever that was).

The likes of Stephen Batchelor, Sangharakshita, David Brazier and others are involved in trying to re-imagine a "Buddhism for the West" that is devoid of the problems they see in forms that it has taken in the East. It's these ideas I am interested in hearing people's experience/opinion of in this thread.

I can't speak for other traditions presentations.

This forum is probably not the best place to discuss or 'speak for' your own tradition's practices.

[Stephie]

Western Buddhism will probably take a couple of generations to really find its place (or not as may be the case). What Western Buddhism will look like and how authentic it will be, is actually up to us right here and now.

If Western practitioners can receive teachings from authentic teachers, from a living lineage. If we can study AND practice a range of teachings....meditation, crucially Madhyamaka, crucially the lojong and compassion teachings, crucially the Ngondro, moving through the yanas to Ati Yoga, if we can receive all of these teachings - not just from books but from living lineage masters, then if we can actually start to practice them - do some retreat, integrate them, digest them - we will then have the flame of the lineage inside us and will be able to act in a way appropriate to our time, place and culture, while staying true to the essence of the dharma.

I think of people like Elizabeth Mattis-Namgyel and Pema Chodron, both Western women who received all of the teachings from living masters, practiced them and have a gift of communicating the essence of the teachings in a way relevant to the Western audience. Terrific examples - and we need many more.

IMHO right now we are the generation whose responsibility it is to receive all the teachings from the " living Tibetan masters" to digest those teachings, to work ethically, compassionately and supportively with others one the path - and nurture the development of lay sanghas.

There will come a time when "Western" masters will need to manifest - and where as Western students we will hopefully have the experience, and dharma education to be discerning and eventually take those people as teachers.....

The way I see it, the more real instruction, study and practice and work with sanghas we do now - the easier the transition will be.

As for those teachers who seem to think Buddhism is about picking and choosing whatever suits their agenda - they will always exist - but if there enough of us who have a deeper knowledge and experience of the teachings and are kind hearted people - these teachers will hopefully be balanced with others who carry on a lineage.

[Lobsang Damchoi]

As Knotty Veneer wrote:
"Well they do not see what they are doing as erasing core Buddhist ideas - in fact just the reverse. Batchelor has called himself (somewhat impishly I think) a "Buddhist Fundamentalist". He wants to strip Buddhism back to what "the Buddha really taught". Now for him the Buddha was an early adopter of scientific materialism, social activism, gender equality and the like. Two questions come to mind: Are Batchelor and co actually creating the Dharma to conform with their own views rather than uncovering the "true essence" of the teachings? Are any of their criticism's of the way in which the Dharma is presented in traditional forms valid?

That said I do think that what Batchelor is left with in his analysis is pretty anodyne and really just "head dharma". Sanghrakshita's approach to me seems to create a specific cultural Western identity for Buddhism - some of his centres have Buddha statues with Caucasian features. He selects aspects from several different traditions to synthesize a system he claims underpins them all. It too seems to be a lot of "head dharma" but I'd be interested in hearing someone with more experience of his ideas."

Dear Knotty Veneer,

I have little experience with the teachers you mention (Batchelor, et al.) but I am concerned about a few things. First what are your specific concerns or issues? Perhaps it is better to hone in on these, w/o naming names. In some traditions it is considered very bad karma to speak negatively about teachers, regardless of context or the validity of the criticism.

You mention "statues with Caucasian features." I'm no art expert, but the practice of putting Caucasian features on representations of Buddhas and Bodhisattvas is very old, and it started, I believe, on the outskirts of ancient India. For example:

http://www.nortonsimon.org/collections/ ... 975.04.1.S

Even some mainstream Tibetan lamas, including the Dalai Lama, acknowledge the need to adjust traditional practices for the West. The Dalai Lama even allows the meditator to visualize Christian images (Jesus, Mary) in some cases.

IMHO, there's no substitute for reading the Pali suttas. They contain, by common consent of all major dharma traditions, what He taught, or at least part of what He taught. There's no excuse not to -- they are available online in excellent translations. For example, here and elsewhere:

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/

And for the Mahayana scriptures, this new Web site:

http://84000.co/

There is also the fact that the historical Buddha clearly authorized translating the dharma into other, vernacular languages. This was in opposition to some of his monastic followers. When one puts this type of material into another language, you are putting it into a different cultural/social milieu, which, of itself, is a kind of alteration or adaptation.

[Frank]

Western Buddhism (as opposed to Buddhism in the West) – it’s all stress reduction and McMindfulness or a platform for unqualified Westerners to get into the guru business. Not worth considering? Right?

i would say it's all about the scriptures! taking any "version" of buddhism, be it western, eastern, etc., to be the one and only buddhism and ignoring everything else is a bad idea. go to the source and work your way back from there. read the most ancient stuff you can, get acquanted with it, and then you will be able to tell who is full of it and who is making sense. everyone takes the ancient stuff and puts there own spin on it and then tells you that's buddhism, some of them are pretty dead on and it's just a slightly different flavor of buddhism. buddhism with a hint of lime. then there's the ones that put buddhism on their own ideas and it's totally different. a big huge key lime pie with a little dot of a buddhist cherry on top.

read the oldest first: agamas/nikayas and their commentaries if you want some clarification. [none of these in utter completeness unless you have all kinds of free time and money, just get to know them enough to feel comfortable with them and to know what their core ideas and teachings are.] if you are only practicing old style buddhism you can stop here.

if you want to learn mahayana then read the mahayana scriptures and their commentaries. if you want to know just mahayana you can stop here.

if you want to learn vajrayana then read the vajrayana scriptures and their commentaries.

after you do that and you know what the core ideas and teachings are, you can listen to any teacher (or read a book by any teacher, ancient or modern) you please and you will know within five minutes if you feel that they are speaking the dharma that you know of from the source material or if it's there own "mcbuddhism".

i think the lack of necessary scholarship is where even the possibility of "western buddhism" comes from. people are willfully ignorant of the original teachings and will listen to anyone calling themselves a "guru" or a "master" and will then go on to proclaim they know everything about buddhism, never stopping to find out if they are proclaiming mostly key lime pie or mostly buddhism. in ancient times people were largely illiterate and the scriptures were not sold everywhere in book stores or available at your local library for free or free on the internet, and so they had to put their faith in whatever teacher would have them. now there is no excuse. we can find most of the scriptures on line for free! heck, many temples give out scriptures in print form for free as well (i'm sure this has been done in ancient times to varying degrees and some temples had libraries but, as i said, literacy rates were never very high). if people did their homework instead of letting others think for them there would be much less room for "mcgurus" and "mcmasters".

many people think the scriptures are vague, mystical sounding texts that require an interpreter to understand but most of them are pretty simple and straightforward. many of them are clear cut instruction manuals. in fact, many teachers simply quote or paraphrase things from scriptures when they teach. and/or expand upon ideas from the scriptures to create their own flavor of teaching. they usually (and always should) have their roots in the source material, as, without the texts i listed above, there would never have been buddhism to begin with. when we forget the scriptures, we invite diluting of the teachings and everything gets changed and changed and changed until it's something completely different. eventually there would be no similarities between the original teachings and some kind of "new buddhism". hopefully this will not happen any time soon, considering how available the scriptures are.

[maybay]

I have a question. Do you think that when Chogyam Trungpa titled his book 'Spiritual Materialism', he was being sarcastic?

[greentreee]

Western Buddhism (as opposed to Buddhism in the West) – it’s all stress reduction and McMindfulness or a platform for unqualified Westerners to get into the guru business. Not worth considering? Right?

well, when you say "west" i'll assume you mean the America's post colonialism. at least from your statement. if you're referring to "the West" as both europe and the americas, then that's a broader statement, since it was europe that colonized the americas. So there are differences regarding background etc.

you are bringing up points of "advertising" in which , what ever school it may be, are advocating to be the results of whatever it may be they offer.

it would be quite interesting to see advertising headlines to state "how to burn less gas!", "how to keep your weight down!" or "how to understand your concussions and how to live with them!" I only kid in a way...

but in reality, we live in a society that is structured as it is, and how we get exposure to the many buddhist traditions AND this is actually quite amazing!

why do i say that? well, many native north american's have had a long struggle just to keep their own traditional languages intact, but sadly not all of the original 500 Nations can say the same.

as the cycle of life continues, it's always fascinating for me know and reflect where these native americans (north, central and south) came from.

that's all i have to say about the situation regarding "western buddhism".


breath well.
greentreee