Buddhism in the West

bm

I dislike the background on which the text is displayed; it is distracting. Still, this is a very nice overview of Buddhism and its impact on Western Culture. There is nothing in the selection that JL or some of our other commentator here haven't said a dozen times. There are no contradictions or major discrepancies.

I completely agree that the "Modern Age" is a terribly important period in Buddhist History. We are moving from an academic appreciation of Buddhism to its more practical application as an important religious institution for American and European laymen. The 20th century saw the spread of a romanticized conception of Buddhism that appealed to the avant-garde. We have seen the steady increase in the number of serious American Buddhists over the past 25 years or so. American Buddhist priests now staff a surprising number of Buddhist temples across the land, and the number of laymen who have been reached by those efforts has greatly increased.

However, we haven't yet reached "critical mass" for Buddhism to become a serious contender of the Abrahamic religions in the West. This is at least partially due to the fact that American Buddhism is still copying Asian Buddhist forms. Mahayana was a very adaptable form of Buddhism, and that contributed to acceptance by the Chinese. China was, is and will remain the most important cultural influence on East Asian cultural forms. The Buddhism of India became the the Buddhism of China, and in turn the Japanese adapted Buddhist forms to meld with Japanese Culture. Those transformations from Indian forms and languages took hundreds of years, but once the transformation was complete Buddhism became truly a part of the whole culture milieu. In America, Buddhist priests and lay Buddhists are still at the stage of mimicking Chinese, Japanese, and Tibetan forms of Buddhism. Buddhist priests wear Chinese style robes and make a ritual of chanting Sutras in Japanese. We still mimic East Asian culture as transformed by Buddhism, rather than developing our own cultural reflection of Buddhist Teachings.

What would a truly American Buddhism look like? I'm not sure, but I'm pretty certain that in a few hundred years we won't find American Buddhist temples laid out like those of East Asia, nor are American Buddhist likely to widely adopt the full-lotus sitting posture. Buddhism adapted to our cultural roots may feature a priest wearing clerical garb consisting of trousers and backward white collar over a patched saffron colored vest. That American Buddhist priest might wear an 8-spoked wheel on a chain about his neck, and lead his Sunday congregation in chanting the Great Heart Sutra in an English translation. There might be a sermon in English, or a question and answer exchange between priest and congregation. An American Buddhist service might include a half-hour's sitting meditation on hard wooden benches bought from a bankrupt Baptist church. Children may attend a Buddhist Sunday School where they learn fundamental Buddhist doctrines while cut and pasting simple Buddhist images as Mother's Day presents.

BTW, this description isn't just my vivid imagination. For many years my family was an active part of the Hewitt St. Soto Temple in Los Angeles. We were virtually the only Caucasian members of the church, which was overwhelmingly made up of third and fourth generation Japanese. The main service was every Sunday and the congregation sat in Western-style pews to listen to a sermon while our children attended Sunday-School. After the formal "Western" service, the most devout gathered to sit in a traditional Zendo, perform traditional ritual, sitting and chanting. Often the men would gather in the rectory to discuss Buddhist doctrines with a priest wearing familiar priestly robes. The congregation celebrated a number of public and religious events and were hardly different than Christian congregations of 3rd and 4th generation Japanese. The transition from Japanese Soto Buddhism to an American Soto Buddhism was well underway clear back in the late 1960's. Unfortunately, I haven't witnessed the same evolution amongst western Buddhists whose cultural roots are in Europe.

Whatever forms American Buddhism eventually takes it will be a comfortable cultural transition for American, and it will in turn transform Lay-America's understanding of the nature of Ultimate Reality.

Asherman, I wonder do Indian Buddhists wear robes, sit as a lotus, etc. as Chinese and Japanese Buddhists?

As you said, as Buddhism migrated to Asian countries, it evolved and was integrated into those countries' cultures. I think Buddhism in America is still on new grounds and is still evolving and being accepted. In the future, as Americans are more familiar, they may adapt it to fit their own culture.

However, I believe outward procedures (robes, ways of teaching/learning, etc.) are not so important as the concepts and ideas that Buddhism brings. Because these are individual-based and each individual will internalize them the way he perceives them. Could it be that one can follow the Christian religion and be Buddhist at the same time? I think that it could be possible, as both Christianity and Buddhism teach you to be good and charitable in this life.

Lotus sitting springs from the same roots as Yoga. There aren't many Indian Buddhists; Hinduism has remained the predominate West Indian religion. The largest Buddhist community in India is made up of Ex-patriot Tibetans and those who congregate around them.

I believe that for Buddhism to become a really major religious force in America it must evolve into a form comfortable to heirs of Western Culture. I believe that transition is happening and that there will eventually be an American Buddhist School/Sect that is easily approachable to most Americans. This isn't something that will occur over night, but may take a hundred years to achieve, and the final form that American Buddhism takes may be quite different than anything we suppose. In the end, I trust, American Buddhism will be true to the fundamental Teachings of the Buddha.

The outward forms of Buddhism aren't at all important to the central teachings and doctrines of Buddhism. One can successful practice Buddhism without hardly any reference to any particular School or Sect's forms and rituals. The forms taken, however, by a Buddhist school has great influence on how the Teachings are presented and how well the Teachings are accepted by the population as a whole. One of the most important means by which we can work to reduce the effects and amount of suffering that exist in the world is by making Buddhism available to as many people as possible, and in forms that can be easily understood and practiced by laymen. You have to get people to open their minds before they will reach out and grasp the helping hand. You can't do that very well by asking folks to exchange their entire heritage for something that is foreign to them.

Personally, I doubt that one can be both a Christian and a Buddhist at the same time and equally. The problem is that the two religions spring from far different fundamental views of Ultimate Reality. One posits a finite "real" Universe, overseen by a Deity who occasionally uses a Butcher's Thumb to reward or punish a fundamentally flawed human race. The other is based on an infinite "apparent" universe having no Deity. One is faith-based, and the other demands that we taste the pudding and determine for ourselves how well it tastes. One tends toward zealous proselytizing to "save" souls in spite of themselves, while the other down plays missionary zeal in favor of each individual working out their own problems with suffering before getting too involved in other peoples lives.

Yes, I agree with you, Asherman, that in order for Buddhism to become major in America, it has to evolve and adapt to American culture. That is the way Buddhism has evolved in other Buddhist countries, and I am amazed at its adaptability to all cultures to suit the peoples.

You made me think with what you said about being Christian and Buddhist at the same time. I know some persons have taken up the Christian religion but that is because they were not really "Buddhist", and some Christians letting the Christian religion to become Buddhists, I don't know of any Christian being a Buddhist or a Buddhist being a Christian at the same time.

Although intellectually I understand all your arguments, it is very hard for me to envision why the two cannot go hand in hand on an instinctive basis. We are still the same person no matter which "religion" we follow, aren't we?

In my opinion Asherman's perspective on Buddhism (especially zen buddhism) is spot on. I've been practicing almost continuously since 1961, even made a few visits to the Hewitt St. Center in downtown L.A., where I was impressed by the very Western flavor of its Sunday services. For the last dozen or more years I've participated as a founding member in a small sangha (meditation group) of about 15 members. We meet each Saturday morning at a universalist unitarian church where we meditate for two half-hour rounds and chant the Heart Sutra in english, and then go to one of a number of restaurants where we enjoy each others' company and very rarely discuss zen matters. We have no official teacher, although we enjoyed sesshins (multiple all day meditation sessions) with visiting zen teachers from other states. The group may be characterized as eclectic in its methods of meditation. Many follow the Theravaden method of "mindfulness"; I prefer the soto method of "shikantaza" (just sitting intensely). My point is that our style is very causal and non-authoritarian, as if we had virtually no structure and felt no need for it. Very American if you ask me. Most of the group are old-timers with this practice and, I believe, quite in tune with the spirit of the Buddha's teachings.

Sitting, you say? Sitting is simply a tool for the Buddhist. It is the mindfulness that is important. With Zen, however, the importance of correct sitting grows.

The differences between Buddhism do matter, I believe. While Theravada is the school that Asherman described, Mahayana is the theistic school that is probably the most fitting with Christianity (also putting helping others before improving self), and Zen is the school that emphasizes both physical and mental training, and is probably the most popular with martial arts folks. Also there is quite a difference between sitting intensely and mindfully, as you yourself can probably understand.

Averner,

Welcome to A2K, its always nice to have other serious Buddhists join us in the midst of pagans. JL and I have since the founding of A2K, and I'm sure you'll find the many threads on Buddhism here both interesting and informative. Take a bit of time and get to knows by reading some of those threads. That may help you in making your contributions fresh and able to fill in the holes in our discussions.

Or am I Buddhist? It's true that I do some of things Buddhists do, but to call me a Buddhist would be a stretch....

Thanks for the welcome.

I was reading something the other day which links in with this and also, with Christianity's dominance in the west, any subsequent shifts in the future. It was a very general categorisation of religions/philosophies between "temporal" and "eternal". Temporal religions being those that are concerned with the past or future, reverting back to some golden age or creating a "perfect" society in the future through various means. The eternal on the other hand, more characterised by the eastern religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, brings the focus on an eternal NOW.

If the question is about Buddhism and Christianity going hand in hand, which Christianity are we talking about? It has become so much more than just the teachings Jesus gave. If you think about it, the acceptance of truths like supposed saviours or "god" status for the reward of salvation, these are temporal things. I definitely think you can compare this Christianity with simple but very subtle and powerful ideas (from a Buddhist perspective) like "Love your neighbour as yourself" but the issue is why you might do such a thing. Will you love your neighbour because that is what you are supposed to do to get the reward, will you love your enemy as your neighbour as yourself because if nothing else it means, more love in the world which is no bad thing or will you do this because of that classic dictum I first came across here on A2K, "Thou art That" which means that anything else but that openness which typifies love would just be incredibly backwards and unintuitive? The interconnectedness and non dualism is not then just some intellectual ideal but something lived and breathed.

I read a nice quote from something called the "Diamond Sutra" which was talking about the soul and death which made me think about the worry that so many people have about non existence, sometimes Christians, sometimes not but a possible stumbling block for inter-faith exchange etc:



If you take that eternal-temporal example seriously and see the different focus of religions and then think about the very temporally inclined Western mindset I'm not sure what people will make of the (from that perspective) very paradoxical/counter intuitive style found in Buddhism/Hinduism/Taoism etc. I guess all of this is the more theoretical stuff compared with the practical and experiential side to meditation though. Meditation needs a proper sales pitch really!

meditating?
For all its benefits, I found that meditating before intensive mathematical or scientific thought hurts performance.

However, it's good for a rest in-between sessions of intense thought.

Ashers, as usual a great post.
I think the temporal-eternal analytical distinction is useful. The trick is to understand the meaning of "eternal" in this context. I do not see it as an unending forever and forever, of course, because that is really a characteristic of the temporal perspective. But in the Western paradigm that is what eternal means for most people. In the West (I hate to overstate this contrast but it is useful if we take it loosely) we see the present moment analogous to a boat traveling up a river from downstream (past) to upstream (future) whereas in the Eastern paradigm (as I am idealizing it now) the present moment is analogous to a boat on a lake, with no downstream or upstream, only a continuously changing present surface.
The other major contrast you suggest is that in the Western paradigm I, the egoself, am separate from my environment. There is always the subject-object split, as it is reinforced by our grammar. But in the Eastern paradigm the principle, Tat Tvam Asi (that art thou), is the perceived reality. I do not, in that perspective, HAVE experiences. They do not happen to a "me"; I AM experiences; even the feeling of a subject of experiences is actually just another experience.
If I AM my experiences, I am also my neighbor and my enemy. I spontaneously identify with them, without effort. In the West, however, it is very difficult to love someone who is inherently/metaphysically NOT-YOU. You are more inclined to just desire them, to possess them.

I hope I have expanded upon and paraphrased your position accurately.

Yeah I like the river-lake analogy. Living in heaven forever & ever, that ideal, just seems like some theoretical, infinite extension of the future in your analogy, as if it is distinct from the now. Also I think the river, with it's implied source and destination leads us, on occasion, to give them substance by obsessing over them. If only we could go back to that place and re-do something or avoid that future place which we're anxious over etc.

Seeing as this is about Buddhism and it's growth in the west, from what I can see, I've always tended to think a key to Buddhism is the concept of attachment. It pervades so much of every day life but with respect to mainstream Christianity again, that elevation of Christ from man to personal saviour of the world, that distinction between a personal God and the believer, even the importance of scripture in debates over the history of Jesus or interpretations of the bible. It seems nonsensical from that Eastern paradigm you mention. However, if I was looking for possible progression and change in the future, I know some people talk of different levels of religious endeavour from simple adoration to genuine experience of a timeless union with all. With that simple state of mind in place you'd like to think it can all be healthy without getting bogged down too much with specific understandings etc. How that simple state of mind were the most basic of tasks are carried out with a zest for NOW can be encouraged, who knows?

averner, I've found with computer programming problems/puzzles, taking a step back and listening to music often results in solutions instantly jumping to mind or solutions being built up in bits and pieces as I drift between the music and the problem without much effort. I guess working with symbols in maths or physics requires lots of back tracking and time, meditation probably clears the slate of the mind which might set you back or place you in a state of awareness, albeit temporarily, that is above and beyond symbols too. Still, I think it might be interesting if you required a burst if inspiration for other things.

Yes, Ashers, implicit in the river analogy is the notion that upstream and downstream exist independently of the position of the boat in the present. This means that logically one can leave the boat and travel ahead of to the future upstream or back to past downstream, but this does not logically follow from the conditions implicit in the lake analogy. That is to say, the lake analogy seems more "realistic."
The river analogy is consistent with a metaphysical image of a teleological Cosmos. In the lake analogy each moment in Nature is its own fulfillment which I think IS the case. Only in the life of planning and goal-creating humans do we see teleology. The Cosmos has no plans. The best symbol of the Cosmos is the Hindu diety, Shiva, who is constantly moving in the form of a dance going nowhere, moving for its own sake.

Yep, actions for their own sake, who'd have thought it?!?

And here is a statuesque representation of the cosmic dance at CERN, the particle physics research centre, a nice show of unity between religion and science, east and west too...

Thanks for finding that. It's both profoundly true and beautiful.