[buchmausar]

This article was in the Guardian UK newspaper yesterday, and I wondered if anyone had any comments.


How western Buddhism has changed in 50 years

by Vishvapani Blomfield
A western Buddhist shares 10 insights into how the religion and its followers have moved on since its arrival in the west

" It's 50 years since Buddhist teachers started arriving in the west in the early 60s and Buddhism crash-landed into the counterculture. So what have we learned about western Buddhism? "


Continued : http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...rned?fb=native


.

[M_Marked]

interesting article

1. It's not all about enlightenment. Many who found Buddhism in the 60s saw nirvana as the ultimate peak experience. A decade later these recovering hippies were painfully finding out that Buddhism is more concerned with reshaping character and behaviour than big, mystical experiences. Younger Buddhists are often more fired by social action than mysticism.

2. It doesn't focus on monks. In most Asian countries Buddhist monks are the real practitioners, focusing on meditation and study while lay people support them. Distinctions between monks and lay people does not fit in with modern society and western monastic orders are relatively scarce. Non-monastic practitioners are often very serious and they power the various Buddhist movements.

3. Tibetan Buddhism has baggage. Tibetan lamas arriving in the 1970s seemed to fulfil our Shangri-La fantasies. But, along with inspiration and wisdom, they also brought sectarian disputes, shamanism, the "reincarnate lama" (tulku) system, tantric practices and deep conservatism. Westerners love Tibetans, but we notice the baggage.

4. The schools are mixing together. Most Asian Buddhist teachers assumed they would establish their existing schools in western countries. Hence we have western Zen, western Theravada etc. But the boundaries are breaking down as western Buddhists, motivated by common needs, explore the whole Buddhist tradition. The emerging western Buddhist world is essentially non-denominational.

5. People take what they need, not what they're given. For all the talk of lineage, transmission and the purity of the teachings, western Buddhism is driven by students' needs as much as teachers' wishes.

6. Mindfulness is where Buddhism and the west meet. Buddhist mindfulness practices are being applied to everything from mental health treatments to eating out, and we're now seeing a "mindfulness boom". These approaches apply core Buddhist insights to modern living, making this the biggest development in western Buddhism since the 1960s. It will probably shape the next 50 years.

7. But it's not the only meeting point. The mindfulness movement is hyped as the "new Buddhism for the west". But, unless you're following the noble onefold path, there's more to Buddhism than mindfulness. Buddhist influence on western culture is strong in the arts, social action, environmentalism, psychotherapy and practitioners' lives.

8. Westerners can meditate and maybe even get enlightened. Numerous Buddhists I know who have been practising for several decades have made the teachings their own. Westerners can definitely do Buddhism, and are its future.

9. But sex doesn't go away. Scandals and anguished life stories show that, even for people who prize celibacy, sex doesn't go away. Is this really a surprise?

10. And we still don't know if western Buddhism is secular or religious. A growing movement (as Julian Baggini has discussed) wishes to strip Buddhism of "superstitious" elements such as karma and rebirth to distil a secular Buddhism that's compatible with science. That raises a big question: does following science mean ditching enlightenment? Is Buddhism an alternative source of authority that challenges the west? Ask me again in 50 years.

[lmHVYs8e]

Much of this seems to ring true. Yet after reading some of the comments, I am a bit taken aback. Many of them are of a rather critical tone. There is even one of the infamous Kalama Sutta misquotes... Nonetheless, I found this article to be of relevance to understanding the changing face of Buddhism in the West.

I wonder what others think: Are these changes of a positive nature, or is Buddhism losing its "authenticity", as is sometimes claimed by traditionalists?

[Buyingtime]

I think in most aspects they are positive. Tibetan Buddhism does have a lot of baggage and a lot of things most westerns won't agree with, but I do think it has done a lot of good in spreading Buddhism to the west and for some such as former Catholics, Tibetan Buddhism is, in many superficial aspects, similar enough to prove a path they feel comfortable with.

As to the 10th point. I don't think science means ditching enlightenment. The core of the Buddha's teachings such as the 4 noble truths and 8-fold path are very logical and don't contradict science at all. The Buddhist nature of no-self actually fits what neruo scientists are learning about the brain.

Even if a lot of people don't completely accept karma and rebirth, if they are following the Buddhist path it won't matter because, if those things do exist they will benefit and even if they don't exist, people will still suffer less.

As to what traditionalists think, no disrespect meant to people who are much more knowledgeable than I, but I do wonder if a similar discussion wasn't taking place in monasteries 2000 years ago when Buddhism moved from India to China, and so on. Buddhism will adapt and I think we will find it hold up against science much better than Abrahamic religions will, at least the core teachings will, some of the elements that have been added over the centuries may get discarded, but the core will remain. The 4 Noble Truths and Noble Eight-fold path will remain.

[forexsoft]

I think the changes are positive. I myself would like to see it stripped of the superstitions. I think it shouldn't really be thought of as a religion. People of no faith and of all faiths can practice the teachings. But people get turned off because they think of it as a religion.

[enlinnyGoob]

I think the changes are positive. I myself would like to see it stripped of the superstitions. I think it shouldn't really be thought of as a religion. People of no faith and of all faiths can practice the teachings. But people get turned off because they think of it as a religion.

I agree with you, but I think some people need some kind of superstitious or faith to help them along the path, even if that help is merely of a psychological nature. For instance, what of Pure Land, isn't praying to a Buddha to be reborn in his Pure Land by merit of faith a very religious concept?

[RussellPG]

Lots of generalisations but otherwise some moments of acute observation... in the pursuit of a non baggage like 'Buddhism' and faulting existing structures and upholding itself, another glorious myth is born... 'Western Buddhism', 'Secular Buddhism'...

Reducing of the wisdom and realisation that the Buddha taught on... in exchange for what?
A proud and loud conceptual human yadayada, then giving it a royal seal with 'science' (the most abused word

these days after four letter ones) as its 'pope and papal edicts', 'this is what TRUE Buddhism iz', what turns out to be mere symtomatic reaction of 'projections' on others...

recreating the very dukkha that the Four Noble Truths and Noble Eightfold Path has sought to free us from...
Another 50 years? I don't forsee anything different, just the same old ignorance rehashed and repackaged..

[propolo]

Lots of generalisations but otherwise some moments of acute observation...

The same could be said of your post, could it not? No one is exempt from this, neither Western nor non-Western.

[orbidewa]

I agree with you, but I think some people need some kind of superstitious or faith to help them along the path, even if that help is merely of a psychological nature. For instance, what of Pure Land, isn't praying to a Buddha to be reborn in his Pure Land by merit of faith a very religious concept?

The teaching is really to be 'mindful' of Buddha, not praying. It is really no different than other 'mindfulness' meditation used in other traditions, the only difference is what you are been mindful of. The Texts specify that a practitioner needs to have 'one-point-concentration' of Buddha for 7 days, (i.e. no other distracting thought and probably not even getting up to use the restroom or to eat.) in order to be reborn Pure Land.

[DouseAuthott]

The teaching is really to be 'mindful' of Buddha, not praying. It is really no different than other 'mindfulness' meditation used in other traditions, the only difference is what you are been mindful of. The Texts specify that a practitioner needs to have 'one-point-concentration' of Buddha for 7 days, (i.e. no other distracting thought and probably not even getting up to use the restroom or to eat.) in order to be reborn Pure Land.

Thank you for the info. I'll admit my knowledge of Pure Land comes mostly from Wikipedia so it isn't indepth. I really need to learn more about it, thanks again.

[JasminBerkova]

I think in most aspects they are positive. Tibetan Buddhism does have a lot of baggage and a lot of things most westerns won't agree with, but I do think it has done a lot of good in spreading Buddhism to the west and for some such as former Catholics, Tibetan Buddhism is, in many superficial aspects, similar enough to prove a path they feel comfortable with.

Hi white_wolf,

This section of your comment caught my eye - how, or perhaps more accurately - in what ways, you possibly suggest it may be in superficial aspects, do you see Catholicism and Tibetan Buddhism are similar?

[lookanddiscover]

how, or perhaps more accurately - in what ways, you possibly suggest it may be in superficial aspects, do you see Catholicism and Tibetan Buddhism are similar?

I think perhaps this could be another topic in Comparative Religion and Ethics maybe with the title 'Are there similarities between Catholicism and Tibetan Buddhism ?". Thanks.

Returning again to the topic of this thread : " How western Buddhism has changed in 50 years" - I noticed that another article was mentioned at the link, and it was "Can a religion survive being stripped of its superstitions?" -so I'm going to start an additional topic with that title.

[psbiuigw]

Why Western Buddhism has changed ?

I like to repeat this story because the underlying message is very very clear.

Ritual Cat - (this story appears many times in the Internet)

When the spiritual teacher and his disciples began their evening meditation,
the cat who lived in the monastery made such noise that it distracted them.
So the teacher ordered that the cat be tied up during the evening practice.

Years later, when the teacher died, the cat continued to be tied up during the meditation session.
And when the cat eventually died, another cat was brought to the monastery and tied up.

Centuries later, learned descendants of the spiritual teacher wrote scholarly treatises about the
religious significance of tying up a cat for meditation practice.

[amotoustict]

Yes, interesting article...

Buddhism has been subject to change since traditions started to appear. Not new, not surprising. Each tradition has very particular understandings, even novel understanding (novelty by combination). Traditions are the adaptation to cultural settings... seems that this are real adaptations because allow some sort of sincere practice always from the cultural setting. It fulfills needs that pertain to each culture doing good in most cases.

About the issue of striping Buddhism from superstitious believes, the experience I have had from the very direct practice from Gotama's teachings is that of not finding any kind of data that can lead to superstitious believes or metaphysical speculations even when others -individuals or traditions- have found them or try to find them.

[smokeberly]

Hi Aloka-D

The article was interesting to me for a different reason, the authour is from the FWBO or whatever else they call themselves these days, this is significant because the ten comments are the FWBO's philosophy, it seems quite reasonable on the face of it, however what it expounds for me is justification for the kind of spiritual tourism the FWBO seem to enjoy.

If you take away the traditions and the checks and balances that the traditions offer, you end up with a few charismatic people who cut and pace bits from various traditions and sell that to susceptible people as the 'Western Way' worked out by an elite few who are able to guide them by dint of an ordination and pali / sanskrit name given exclusively after they have have been accepted into the club by the other elite members.

By peddling the seemingly reasonable 10 commandments they free themselves from any criteria the traditions use for seeing if a person has actually understood Buddha dhamma and is able to manifest the fruits of the path and guide others, this is I believe reinforced by ensuring they keep all teaching exclusively to their own ordained members, not anyone from any of the other traditions

I personally hope that this article does not represent the next fifty years of Buddhism in the west, I think there is a healthy growth of understanding of Buddhism in the west lead by people who understand the Dhamma from a western point of view, who are embedded in the traditions such as the Thai Forest Tradition and the Mahasi Sayadaw Burmese traditions who are able to teach Buddhism to the west from a solid base rooted in the Pali Cannon

Not another Charasmatic westerner inventing another sect on a pick and mix basis, creating another Pure Land type of Buddhism, still on reflection perhaps you get what you ask for?

[JJoon077]

Personally, i am glad to see 2000 years of cultural lacquer and mysticism stripped off of the beautiful dharma of the Buddha Shakyamuni. I would gladly listen to the teachings in plain English, without the Sanskrit, the Tibetan and other foreign terms. I would love to have Emptiness put in plain English, and the other concepts so often "debated" by dialecticions.

The clearest example of this i can bring to mind is the teaching on compassion: to treat all with equal regard, not holding some with affection, some with despite, and others with ignorance. In this case, that word Ignorance is derived from the root "to ignore", apparently translated by someone who did not understand the terms nor the concepts, and is still prevalent to this day~!

It was only through meditational insight that one saw the disparity; the true meaning is best expressed in English by the word: Indifference. What a world of difference that one word makes to the whole lesson. So it is with so many other words, handed down like heirlooms, their meaning lost, their beauty besmearched by so many grasping hands. Let the Westernization of the Teachings of the Rightly Self Awakened One proceed~!

[AnimeThat]

This article was in the Guardian UK newspaper yesterday, and I wondered if anyone had any comments.


How western Buddhism has changed in 50 years

by Vishvapani Blomfield
[I]A western Buddhist shares 10 insights into how the religion and its followers have moved on since its arrival in the west

" It's 50 years since Buddhist teachers started arriving in the west in the early 60s..."

50 years? Oh my. I hope that's a typo, and that by "60s" they mean the "1860s", because Buddhism has been practiced in the West for a lot longer than just 50 years.

The first Buddhist temple in the United States, for instance, was built by Chinese immigrants in San Francisco in the year 1853. The Buddhist Churches of America were present since around 1900, and if we count the Kingdom of Hawai'i as part of the US, then they go back to the 1880s.

The term "Western Buddhism" unfortunately tends to ignore the long history and contributions of Asian immigrants, and implies that Westerners of Asian heritage aren't really part of "the West", even if they have roots that go back over a century.

[Adimondin]

The term "Western Buddhism" unfortunately tends to ignore the long history and contributions of Asian immigrants, and implies that Westerners of Asian heritage aren't really part of "the West", even if they have roots that go back over a century.

Actually "Western Buddhism" probably could be said to have started with the followers of Alexander the Great. The 1960's is probably when the popularity we see today started.

[Rememavotscam]

Hi Goofaholix,

Actually "Western Buddhism" probably could be said to have started with the followers of Alexander the Great. The 1960's is probably when the popularity we see today started.

By "popularity" do you mean popularity among White people? Because as I mentioned, there have been Asian American Buddhists in the West since the mid 1800s.

My point was that the definition of "Western Buddhism" employed in this article implies that Asian Americans aren't really "American" or "Western", and that this is an extension of the frequent exclusion and marginalization of Westerners of Asian heritage in the media.

Granted the Guardian is a British newspaper, so I don't necessarily expect them to reflect the history of Buddhism in America, but I see this kind of truncated definition applied in American Buddhist publications like Tricycle and Shambala Sun all the time.

[beriarele]

By "popularity" do you mean popularity among White people?

Not specifically, I mean people who were not born into a Buddhist family or culture but chose to be Buddhist because it made sense to them.