How western Buddhism has changed in 50 years

[Ensapa]

When Buddhism reached the west, something deviated. The goals and means were different than the original scriptures and needless to say it did puzzle people. Perhaps by seeing this we can understand what went wrong and why is there that there are not many western practitioners with attainments...?

How western Buddhism has changed in 50 years

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?

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.

[paolorossi]

WHO KNOWS?

[Amitabha]

 
Science is the external seeker for solution upon problems arise from secularism on materialism since human existed, whereas Buddhism is the inner seeker to prevent problems from arising and eliminating from its root cause neither the beginning nor ending of humanity, as there is peace and tranquil in its origin. Science without Buddhism is complete disaster, whereas Buddhism without science like Buddha era 3000 years ago, was still exemplifying noble and wise. However, science contributes its worth of grace for mankind in health, entertainment and community togetherness etc 

We have never seen the feature of emptiness, never dealt with emptiness, do not have any experience of emptiness. The world we have been experiencing is totally a world of “Being” or a world of senses. Our elevation of spirit is always separated from emptiness. Our feeling, thought, thinking, comprehension, and every action all are established by the foundation of “Being” or “Bhava”. As a matter of fact we even cannot think of emptiness(Non-being), because all the “think of” always belong to “Being”.

Most of us have two kinds of misunderstandings about emptiness, First kind: we acknowledge that emptiness is “Voidness of absence”, Second kind: we acknowledge that emptiness is “Voidness of annihilation”.

WHAT is “Voidness of absence”? For example, somebody says “Hi, look! That house is empty”, or “That is a empty house”, the meaning of his words, is that nothing is in the house or nobody is living in the house, does not mean the house is not existent. When we say “That bookshelf is empty”, it dose not mean the bookshelf itself is not existent, the only meaning of those words is that nothing is on the bookshelf. This is called “Voidness of absence”. This is not the emptiness of Mahayana’s doctrine.

“Voidness of absence”, is a erroneous and false emptiness, does not mean the emptiness of the thing itself. The religious world and the philosophical history are holding the positive way of looking at the “Voidness of absence” very popularly. In India, the Sankara of Advaita-Vedanta is a good sample of “Vodiness of absence”.

SANKARA believed in that all things in material world are empty, are the illusion of projection of the Brahman that is the “real essence of universe” which is given by ignorance of all beings. The phenomena is empty and false, but the “real essence of universe” (Brahman), which is the propor supporting pillar of phenomena, is real and not empty. Not only is real but also is exit forever. The emptiness which Sankara were talking about is just the illusive world of ordinary people. This is what we called “Voidness of absence”.

“Voidness of absence” means some are empty and some are not empty, from this point of view, the Yogacara and Abhidhama also belong to “Voidness of absence”. Denying that all things are very truth emptiness or emptiness also is empty (Sunyata-Sunyata), is the main idea of “Voidness of absence”. This is a misunderstanding for emptiness.

THE second misunderstand is to treat emptiness like annihilation, it means something exist for a period of time but will be vanished eventually. For example, when we say “That street is empty totally”, means there were many houses along the street, now all have been removed because of building road. The death of human being is also a obvious example.

THE meaning of “Voidness of annihilation” is that something exist in the first place, but vanish later, the emptiness of from being to non-being. This kind of emptiness is easy to understand and can be seen. Most of people treat the emptiness of Buddhist doctrine like this kind of emptiness “Voidness of annihilation”, but this is a terribly mistake.

THE emptiness is definitely not any kind of annihilation. Buddha was asked a question “Are the enlightened sages existent when they die?” (Is there a body or mind enjoying the nirvana?) But Buddha gave no answer determinedly. This prove clearly that nirvana is not annihilated. 

[fruven]

Interesting observations. Methods in Buddhism have been used to heal patients with trauma, and psychological disorder. Meditations are even being used on prisoners. Nevertheless to strip of part of Buddhistic teachings because it is not scientific proven shows that we placed scientific findings as higher, the sense and perception as higher, which doesn't take into consideration of logical thinking and deductions based on the mind. The scientific methods come from the thinking mind. For example it is from the thinking mind which with it own ingenuity created medicines from observations and experiments with plants and materials from this earth. The teachings we learn from Buddha is from a thinking mind as well, in this case an enlightened mind. To label what has been expounded from an enlightened mind just because it cannot be scientific proven or discoverable doesn't mean it is untrue. Humanity in olden times cannot perceive earth as a round sphere doesn't mean it is untrue during that period, it is not observable with direct sight from the surface.

[Benny]

Well that has always been the case between the west and east . The west has always adopted what the east discovered and made it their own "improved or modified " versions. From the Chinese to the Arabs , the western minds have learnt , in physics to medicine.

Lets just hope that they can bring those religions they have adopted to new and greater heights. After all good things are meant to be shared by all and like everything else in samsara nothing stays the same, even religions need to evolve according to the times. We will probably be around to experience it be it good or bad.

[buddhalovely]

I had an ambivalent reaction to this piece. It seems, to me, to underestimate the plurality of Buddhism in the West. If I were to view this uncharitably, it reads a bit like a projection of a longstanding TBC vision for a Western Buddhism onto everybody else, although I doubt this was Vishvapani’s intention. Perhaps this is an inevitable consequence of writing to a short word limit for a newspaper.

Some examples:
“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.”

It undeniable that the relative roles of laypeople and monastics is very different in the West compared to Asian Buddhist cultures, and that there are a good number of very serious lay practitioners. However, I don’t think we should completely write off monasticism as ‘not fitting with modern society’. Some groups in the West are very much centred around their monastic communities: look at the Forest Sangha, for example. Look also at the strong interest in reviving Bhukkhuni ordination in the Theravada and Tibetan traditions, driven in large part by Western nuns, as well as by men who recognise the importance of making monastic training equally available to everyone. Indeed, this may be one area in which Buddhism in the West may influence Buddhism in the East, as the Bhikkhuni issue is a cause that has been taken up strongly by the Dalai Lama. Ordination may not be for everyone, and it takes some time and effort to support communities of monks and nuns, but there is a definite and vital place in the West for monasticism alongside other forms of practice. To view it as irrelevant seems more of a TBC view than a general Western Buddhist view.

“The emerging western Buddhist world is essentially non-denominational”

What I see happening is not a non-denominational Western Buddhism but a multi-denominational one. We have the huge benefit of being able to learn from a variety of living Buddhist traditions and the various groups and organisations practicing these traditions have friendly relations with one another (most of the time). A practitioner of one tradition can find experience of another one enriching. Tibetan Buddhists may go on zen or vipassana retreats and vice versa, and it is true that most Western Buddhists see value the whole Buddhist tradition. However, this is not the same as the more syncretic approach of the TBC. This has its place but isn’t a template for everybody. Many of us, perhaps the majority, prefer to study more deeply in a particular tradition (Zen, Mahasi, Tibetan or whatever), while remaining open to being enriched by the insights of the others. Let’s not force a singular non-demoninational form for the West.