Dhamma Or Ethnic Buddhism

[Ensapa]

Hmm. interesting piece on again, the 'purity' of Dharma, but it does give an interesting perspective.

Dhamma Or Ethnic Buddhism
by Ven, S. Dhammika, http://sdhammika.blogspot.com/2013/06/dhamma-or-ethnic-buddhism.html?m=1, June 22, 2013
Singapore -- Buddhism is my religion and has been for nearly 43 years. I consider the Buddha to have been the greatest mind in human history. I believe that the Dhamma is the closest humanity has come to ethical and spiritual perfection.

I have been teaching Dhamma for about 25 years and  I have never got tired of it, and I still discover aspects of  it that I had not noticed before. As an outgrowth of all this I have also developed a deep interest in Buddhist societies and cultures and have been fortunate enough to visit nearly every region where Buddhism prevails. During my travels I have generally found Buddhists to be open, gentle, generous and kindly folk.

But I am not blind. As samsaric beings Buddhists have their defilements just as people of other faiths do. They are capable of being stupid and greedy, prejudiced and uncaring, provoked and provoking, self-centred and inflexible, tradition-bound and superstitious.

They practice their religion as often as they fail to practice it – just as people of other faiths do. Despite this there has long been the illusion in the west that Buddhists, unique amongst humanity, practice their religion with complete fidelity - that because the Buddha taught gentleness, understanding and love, Buddhists follow these teachings unfailingly.

Well, it looks like those with such  illusions might be about to be disillusioned. It started some years ago with news reports of Sri Lankan monks being involved in racist politics and ethnic violence.


 The Dorje Shugden and the Karmapa rumpus had little impact on public opinion because of the obscure issues involved, although they shocked and perhaps disillusioned some western Tibetan Buddhists.
Then the riots in Tibet gave a rather un-Shangri La picture of the troubles in that country.

Now it’s the ethnic riots in Burma. I quite understand that thoughtful people are deeply disturbed by these happenings.

I am too. But there is an added dimension to the reports about these as opposed to troubles beyond the Buddhist world. And it is this. Commentators and observers continually express their surprised to discover that Buddhists, monks included, can be provoked to violence, that they have chauvinistic feelings, that they are capable prejudices, and that they can resort to violence.

On the one hand this disillusioning worries me. Why? Because it tends to happen that when an illusion gives way to reality there is often a strong reaction in the other direction. When the deluded finally see the real situation they do not blame themselves for being unrealistic, they blame that which they were previously deluded about.

I suspect that Buddhists, and by implication Buddhism, previously held  so unrealistically high is  gradually going to be put down far lower than it should be.

On the other hand I am not  entirely unhappy that a more realistic view of Buddhists and Buddhist lands is beginning to emerge. Why? Because I have long seen the danger, not to say the foolishness, in the  “ethnic” approach to Dhamma.

When a western monk in the west asks to be addressed as Ajahn or Gelong, Sayadaw, Roshi or Sensei rather than their English equivalent he is identifying himself, not just as a Buddhist, but with a particular ethnic expression of Buddhism.

When they chant in the Tibetan or the Burmese or the Chinese way the same impression can be created.  When you tie yourself to a particular culture or country you involve yourself in people’s minds with that culture or country. And when that country or culture looks bad people see Buddhism as bad.

Dhamma is universal, it transcends culture and ethnicity. The practice of the Dhamma is not the special preserve of any particular ethnic group.

Let us practice the Buddha’s teaching, not Thai Buddhism, not Tibetan Buddhism, not Burmese Buddhism or any other culturally-specific expression of the Dhamma. Let us practice the Dhamma with a minimum of cultural trappings.

[RedLantern]

Ethnic identity should no longer bother those who call themselves Buddhist.Generally speaking,I feel that  involvement in the political conflicts is not part of the Path.
This world cannot exist without conflicts. By changing ourselves we can shake off independence on this world.Only peaceful and without a hint of hatred.
What is important is the teaching of Buddhism and Buddhism practice.I am sure they are not fully  identical.

[yontenjamyang]

The Dharma, the teachings that was taught by the Buddha was meant to address the minds of many many types of beings. That is why we say that the Buddha taught 84000 teachings; each for a type of disposition. We suspect that these 84000 teachings are not exclusively unique but rather each may offer a small variance from another.  Holistically, of course there are diversities as well. These diversities on the surface may seem totally different and are mainly over time manifested in the ethnic and cultural based versions of Buddhism. Hence, in reality, the Buddhism of today consist of many schools that are ethnic based in the broad sense of the word.

I see nothing wrong with this. Perhaps we can say that it is our karma that has brought us to this diversity. This diversity in itself is neutral and it depends on the practitioner and the perceiver if anything is wrong. We should not be attached to any form of ethnic Buddhism but at the same time we should not be averse to it as well.

It is only practical that given that each of us are born into the earth as an ethnic based being with its culture, that the most convenient form of Buddhism is from its own ethnic version. At least one can meet and practice Buddhism. But of someone from another ethnic background were to practice another form of Buddhism, different from one's own, than it is one's choice and affinity.

I see nothing wrong.

[rossoneri]

Religion in a first place shouldn't differ by ethnic or race. We might practice differently but what is important are the value and the teachings of the Buddha which we called the Dharma. We can have different method but it is coming from the same source of lineage. Buddhism is manifested in this way so much so different ethnic or people will attracted to different style or method, just like dressing or sense of music.

[dondrup]

Since two thousand five hundred years ago Dharma had travelled from India to the East and in recent decades, the West and all around the World.  Every country with its unique people and culture had mixed their local cultures or traditions with Dharma to make it more acceptable and applicable for its own people.

The New Kadampa Tradition is an example where its founder Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso had filtered out the cultural aspects of Tibetan Buddhism to make it more suitable for Westerners to practise.  The essense of Dharma is not lost in this way.  Furthermore, Venerable Geshe Kelsang Gyatso had compassionately made Dharma more accessible and universal by publishing the teachings of Tsongkhapa and Dorje Shugden in English with translation into major languages of the World.

Shravasti Dhammika is right about the universality and purity of Dharma.  Its outer form is differentiated by culture and ethnicity but its inner form – the emptiness of Dharma - is one nature, the same everywhere.

[diablo1974]

Buddhism as its ups and downs through different era/places/cultures and it still stood strong. Whether if people practises Buddhism out of ethical reasons or born to be a Buddhist, for whatever reasons, Buddhism has a teaching ready for any level/group of aspiring Buddhists irregardless of their society status. In general, people are getting more and more self centred and habituated in its own beliefs more than Dharma even if they are learning the Dharma. We need to build up our awareness with the Dharma and rid of the habituations that has been following us eversince a very long time.

[vajrastorm]

Would we say that the danger of "ethnic" Buddhism is that when a certain ethnic group creates a very bad reputation and impression for  Buddhism of their ethnic group , we who practice that particular "ethnic" Buddhism become tarred by the 'same brush'? I find myself disagreeing with this view.

To me, terms like Burmese Buddhism, Thai Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism and Chinese Buddhism, are just different labels. Even the term "Buddhism" is a label given to Buddhism because the founder was Buddha. When we practice Buddhism and follow a Spiritual Guide closely, we are bound to adopt the cultural and ethnic aspects, of where he comes from, in our practice . This is especially so when we have a lineage of practice handed down to us, through our Spiritual Guide, that ensures continuity of teachings without  a break(from Buddha Shakyamuni Himself) and authenticity.

Nonetheless, when we reach the shores of enlightenment, as Buddha says, we will discard all the outer props and even the boat that has taken us to these shores.

[Rinchen]

To me there should not be any differentiation for your ethnic race then judge you and force you to follow what your ethnic follows. By having it like that, not only does it affects the citizens of a country, but it would also reflect badly about how the country and religion takes actions for this issue.

All of us have the freedom to choose what we want to practice, there should be no one regulating us on who to pray to and who not to pray to. It is just ridiculous.

We should not link ethnic together with religion, it will only confuse those that are new to Buddhism, especially with the ban around.

[Ensapa]

I think there is a trend these days where certain Buddhists pursue a more 'pure' form of Buddhism that is devoid of any rituals or any form of cultural influence and they want it that way and say that that is the purest form of Buddhism. I personally think that this article refers to that but when we do the whole pure Buddhism thing, arent we just trying to force the Buddha's teachings into our own culture and beliefs as opposed to learning and accepting and practicing what the Buddha has taught?

[DS Star]

Dhamma Or Ethnic Buddhism by Ven, S. Dhammika :

"Dhamma is universal, it transcends culture and ethnicity. The practice of the Dhamma is not the special preserve of any particular ethnic group.

Let us practice the Buddha’s teaching, not Thai Buddhism, not Tibetan Buddhism, not Burmese Buddhism or any other culturally-specific expression of the Dhamma. Let us practice the Dhamma with a minimum of cultural trappings."

Exactly, this is what it should be for all, the so-called 'Buddhists'. Why should there be any differences? Dharma is Dharma but then, there are different versions, and unfortunately, the versions are different based on different traditions or ethnicity....

For example, the issue on vegetarianism, there are different versions of it. Some argued Buddha mentioned it in certain sutra while the other argued Buddha never really mentioned it.

In cases like these, it is up to individual Buddhist to decide based on their own judgement. For me, although there is no concrete evident that Buddha actually set any rules about not eating meat, we should check it against the other teachings that are related to it.

For this issue, I personally believe that Buddha did promote non-meat meals since the 1st Precept of the Lay people vows (the 5 Precepts) is "to abstain from taking lives", so it is logical that we should not be eating meat since in olden days you need to do your own slaughtering if you are preparing meat for your family.

In conclusion, for us to practice Dharma without any strings attach to ethnicity is rather difficult though not impossible. When we are open to all and not fixed to one tradition, the path may be too confusing too...