Tuesday 30 June 2009

The Abominable Offspring of Traditional Buddhism in the West

After pondering the latest few posts here by our own Venerable Brooke Schedneck and Justin, I thought I would perhaps add another hot topic to this conversation; the ability and acceptance of integrating various aspects of conventional forms of Buddhism to form different combinations of study and practice here in the West. From previous posts I have written concerning a Progressive or Western Buddhist tradition, I have found that those who were most strongly opposed to it made the concern that their particular tradition of Buddhism they practiced would somehow be debased and corrupted in order to fit the wants and needs of a different culture. This is both an important and somewhat delicate subject to those new to Buddhist teachings and to long time practitioners as well. Can the different ancient schools of Buddhism have parts of their practice integrated into a newer or more individual convention without destroying, dismissing or detracting from what is already in existence in a traditional sense?

For those who have decided not to choose one particular existing tradition of Buddhism over another to follow, I think the root of the problem they face is found in the simple question, "Is there only one true path?" And if not, can Buddhism is some respects be viewed as somewhat of a philosophical buffet, where one can pick and choose the practices and the teachings that suit their ideological approaches or dispositions the best? I believe the answer to the first question to be an unequivocal no, as it is easy to see that so many great teachers and students have been the product of the vast sea of the great traditions such as Theravada, Zen and Tibetan, just to name a few. Though all these practices have some similarities, by in large, they are greatly shaped by the cultures from which they are rooted. To the second question, of picking and choosing the practices and teachings of each particular existing tradition, I see the answer as both yes and no. Each person is unique, and each path they take and the goals of practice they set and the reasons they are drawn to Buddhism are extremely individualistic. A more tailored approach perhaps will suit one person more than another, and I see nothing inherently wrong with this. However, it is so easy to get on the wrong path, to misinterpret what is meant by the basic Buddhist teachings without some clarification and guidance. I do see Buddhism as having some core concepts, basic fundamentals that extend over all the great traditions, which are intrinsic to exactly what makes Buddhism....well, Buddhism. For instance, I would not call myself a Buddhist if I did not recognize the three 'marks' or teachings of Anatta, Anicca and Dukkha; and I doubt someone would consider themselves a Buddhist if they didn't agree with some of these fundamentals after exploring the concepts and theories themselves.

Also, the differing and varying traditions of meditation and mindfulness can be quite difficult to learn and perfect alone, and the guidance of a good teacher may be necessary to fully realize the potential of such practices. However, many new to the practice may perhaps feel more comfortable with a Vipassana type meditation while others may be drawn to a Tibetan tantric practice while others may find being seated in ZaZen more agreeable. The big question is, are the differing practices of meditation and mindfulness from the varying traditions solely accessible and understandable in the context of the tradition they come from? For example, could I learn a Theravadan insight meditation technique from a Thai monk, but learn the fundamentals of Karma from say a Japanese Zen Master? Could one sit in a group Tibetan chant yet ponder some ancient Zen koans? Do these differences, both subtle and obvious belong unquestionably to the sect they were born from? More importantly, what goals can be attained or realized by the mixing of the different traditions together?

I think given the option, people would prefer the ability to sample and examine all the different variations of traditions that are out there, and that maybe somewhat both of a positive and a negative thing. However, I see the positives to exposure to all the traditions greatly outweigh the negatives, as I tend to view this issue in the light of inclusion rather than exclusion. While, being exposed to many traditions at once could become overwhelming and confusing, I see that it is as a positive thing for one's practice to experience all the different forms and shapes Buddhism comes from as their practice progresses. And what those that strongly disagree with any new Western or Progressive tradition of Buddhism forget or ignore is the basic fact that in every culture where Buddhism has landed, the culture has adapted the practices to fit their existing traditions. This has held true for cultures such as Tibet, Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, etc.etc; why should the West be any different? Will some type of Frankenstein tradition arise in the West, made from bits and pieces of the existing traditions? As I see it right now, I think it is highly unlikely. But if it did, would it be such a terrible thing, just a mutant offspring of traditional Buddhism?

I remember my days as an alter boy in my local Catholic Church and a particular conflict I had with the priest one day after mass. I asked him why I had to tell my sins to him in the confessional instead of just talking with God myself. His answer sticks with me to this day; his blunt answer "Well, you can either take it all or leave it, but there is no middle ground in belief." This is why I find Buddhism so beautiful.

(Photo Courtesy of Brian Solis)

27 comments:

  1. The different Buddhist traditions are not as discrete as depicted in this post. The coarse grained distinctions are more often a reflex of political identities. As with the contrived Western vs. traditional comparison (because apparently the opposite of Western is not Eastern), traditional Buddhists are again being jammed into pigeonholes that fail to reflect the facts on the ground.

    ReplyDelete
  2. the question of whether there is value in mixing up different traditions, and if so then how, and if not then why, i think comes down to mindfulness.

    if we are in some way using one practice to avoid another, or simply going in too shallowly to get the point of a practice, then that's a problem. however, we have unprescedented access to a whole series of very wise traditions and teachers now, and it would be a shame to ignore them point blank.

    the same finesse we apply to mindfulness itself can be brought to bear on this. my sangha is fwbo in london, and i listen to gil fronsdal and pema chodron and many other great teachers elsewhere. there is no real contradiction in this, it just makes my practice and my experience richer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Arun, Thank you for your comments, though they in no way reflect any of the questions the post asked. Perhaps you could answer some of the questions asked? I realize you have a deep rooted issues with anyone that calls themselves a Western Buddhist, no matter what their intentions or actions; and on your own blog almost every other post is dedicated to disparaging or insulting Western converts, and I am sadden over this; I do hope you can find some peace soon.


    Elaine - Thanks! I think that's such a cool thing that your sangha is so open. I agree completely, I don't think it should be used to avoid other practices or either viewing a practice in a shallow manner. We do have a unique opportunity to have such wonderful access to all the different traditions. Great thoughts, thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  4. the London Buddhist Centre is rather unusual in being in a position to offer so many of these kind of courses, indeed, so much so, that they are offered rather separately to buddhist practice, and have their own website http://www.breathingspacelondon.org.uk/
    it is very exciting to be in any way connected with a programme which takes the buddha's own commitment to teaching so seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I tend to see the goals of following Buddhism as twofold: first, there is the empirical goal of the reduction or elimination of suffering in this life; second, there is identification or affiliation with a cultural tradition (i.e. less about attaining nirvana and more about "being Tibetan" or what have you). Mixing and matching obviously does not make sense in terms of the second goal. But in terms of the first goal, the standard is whatever is conducive to the goal of the cessation of suffering. Thus, if mixing and matching, or blending traditions, leads in that direction, it makes sense to allow it.

    There is a third goal that occupies a middle ground: the reduction or cessation of suffering in the next life, or in any respect not open to empirical verification in this life. Since those things cannot be verified, they depend on traditional teachings for authority, and thus they depend on cultural traditions. Hence, mixing and matching might pose a problem.

    So, long story short: blending traditions might be most agreeable to those focused on reducing suffering in this current life.

    Thanks for many great posts. I'm an avid reader. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes, what I said has little to do with the questions asked, but rather with the assumptions you made. My issue is about how you define traditional Buddhists. We don't neatly fit into the categories of, say, Theravada and Mahayana, or Zen and vipassana (or even convert and heritage, Eastern and Western!). If you look beyond the more rigid political and institutional boundaries, you'll find that we have mixed and matched often just as much as in being done by self-styled "Western" Buddhists. In this sense, far from being a mutant offspring or bastardization of previous traditions, which themselves are already heterogeneous traditions. As I have heard several monks say, the only traditions that matter are the traditions of the Noble Ones.

    But please be more considerate when you refer to traditional Buddhists and Buddhism. We make up most of the Buddhist world, and it seems as though we're sitting in your cultural blind spot.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm not sure what it is that you disagree with here, Arun.

    I don't think anyone is denying the common currents running through the variations of so-called 'traditional' Buddhism. I think in fact that most of us would agree that so-called western Buddhism is just one more cultural manifestation of the dharma.

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Elaine - Thanks for the link! I agree, that is an extraordinary place you have there. I have a question, I’m curious if they tend to lean towards one tradition over another, or pretty much open to all the different teachings?

    Brandon- Excellent point, thanks for pointing it out, it is very important not to overlook the importance of the actual cultural aspect, and focus too much towards just liberation from suffering. Great points! And thanks for the kind words.

    Sorry Arun, its just not worth arguing about.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It seems to me that the phrase

    "that in every culture where Buddhism has landed, the culture has adapted the practices to fit their existing traditions."

    would be more accurately written

    that in every culture where Buddhism has landed, the culture has adapted itself to accommodate Buddhism.

    Buddhism has had vast impact on culture (Japanese arts for example)and the central tenets have held throughout the spread of the Dharma wherever it has gone.

    And I am going to jump onto your question:

    "Can the different ancient schools of Buddhism have parts of their practice integrated into a newer or more individual convention without destroying, dismissing or detracting from what is already in existence in a traditional sense?"

    as one that contains several questions and is somewhat leading.

    Buddhism has had far more impact on culture than culture has had on Buddhism. In some cases it has become the center of the culture (Tibet and Thailand for example). So in the traditional sense, since enough time has passed for the culture and Buddhism to integrate taking the core of the Dharma into a new setting will not disrupt tradition.

    The question comes from the notion that the Dharma and it's methodologies are a grab bag that do not have some kind of internal coherence. They are interdependent. So by taking a methodology or certain elements of teachings out and re-contextualizing them without their connections they do lose their Buddhist-ness if you will.

    They become rather shallow exercises much like yoga has in the west, although now many more who study yoga are becoming aware of it's deep philosophy and underpinnings.

    Buddhism has always been individual hence the emphasis on teachers and their methods (upaya) for dealing with individual students. There is no blanket Buddhism when you get down to the nitty-gritty, no one-size fits all.

    In Asian Buddhist temples even worship on the popular level is generally conducted individually or in small groups with similar aims. And in Zen monasteries the practice of dokusan is vitally important. There is very little parallel to this in Abrahamic religions.

    Perhaps that is one of the reasons so many see the overlap in methodology and form (individual) between therapeutic practices and Buddhist practices as being similar.

    The emphasis of culture of origin of teachers and schools is somewhat misleading. It presupposes the primacy of culture over the Dharma. While cultural trapping have been appended to Buddhist practices in Asia the Dharma remains the Dharma. It is like a suit of clothes.

    The problem-the Frankensteining if you will is if the body of the Dharma is being picked to pieces and still called Buddhism. It is like the story of the blind men and the elephant-wherein descriptions of the whole become descriptions of a part.

    The individual pieces may be useful, just as the wheel of a cart may be useful as a table top, but it won't help get you from point A to B.

    From that perspective it entirely destroys tradition and Buddhism as a whole. It becomes something else entirely.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thank you NellaLou for these very interesting viewpoints, comments and lots of good points here to discuss.

    It seems to me that the phrase
    "that in every culture where Buddhism has landed, the culture has adapted the practices to fit their existing traditions."
    would be more accurately written
    that in every culture where Buddhism has landed, the culture has adapted itself to accommodate Buddhism...Buddhism has had far more impact on culture than culture has had on Buddhism. In some cases it has become the center of the culture (Tibet and Thailand for example). So in the traditional sense, since enough time has passed for the culture and Buddhism to integrate taking the core of the Dharma into a new setting will not disrupt tradition.


    I think this is highly up to individual interpretation, but I think the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle. Even the Buddha taught in a fashion that was agreeable to the Hindu population of the time,even integrating talks about Indra and rebirth, no? I think the relationship is more symbiotic perhaps.

    The question comes from the notion that the Dharma and it's methodologies are a grab bag that do not have some kind of internal coherence. They are interdependent. So by taking a methodology or certain elements of teachings out and re-contextualizing them without their connections they do lose their Buddhist-ness if you will.

    By saying the methodologies of the Dharma are interdependent, are you saying the different sects don't have strong differences in style of practice, teaching and meditation? Perhaps you are maybe discussing just the core teachings, and not the varying practices that are taught. I think we could easily see some major differences between the sects, no? For instance, would you say a Thai Thervada's teaching of say re-incarnation or Karma are the exact same, with no variations, as is taught in a Soto Zen tradition? But, yes I totally agree, there are some 'untouchable' teachings that without would cripple the understanding the Dharma, especially to those who are new to the practice.

    But nevertheless, my aim was primarily on the actual different practices, styles of teachings, meditation and mindfulness. I don't think one could argue that ZaZen is that similar at all to Vispassana, could you? Would you say that a Tibetan Chant ceremony is close to the practice of Zen Koans? My point isn't scooping the teachings in a shallow manner, but to see how the different expressions of the dharma have manifested itself through each tradition.


    They become rather shallow exercises much like yoga has in the west, although now many more who study yoga are becoming aware of it's deep philosophy and underpinnings.

    Again, I agree, there are some core philosophy's that stretch beyond all traditions that are the underpinning of Buddhism.

    Buddhism has always been individual hence the emphasis on teachers and their methods (upaya) for dealing with individual students. There is no blanket Buddhism when you get down to the nitty-gritty, no one-size fits all. In Asian Buddhist temples even worship on the popular level is generally conducted individually or in small groups with similar aims. And in Zen monasteries the practice of dokusan is vitally important.

    But is this true for both the layperson and the monastic in all the different forms of traditional Buddhism? One of the major differences I have come to understand is the definite line between a much deeper understanding of Buddhism for the monks and teachers and a more basic religious style practice for the layperson. Though, here in the US, some traditional sects have embraced the idea that the ordinary layperson in the West want more than just the basics and end up somewhere in between the monastic and the layperson.

    ReplyDelete
  12. The emphasis of culture of origin of teachers and schools is somewhat misleading. It presupposes the primacy of culture over the Dharma. While cultural trapping have been appended to Buddhist practices in Asia the Dharma remains the Dharma. It is like a suit of clothes.

    But again, are you saying that all the major traditional schools of Buddhism are the same when it comes to practice, style and understanding? To use the suit analogy, maybe if I said what if I wanted to wear the Tibetan pants, the Zen shirt, the Theravada jacket and the Pure Land shoes, I think this might be a better understanding of what I am getting at.

    The problem-the Frankensteining if you will is if the body of the Dharma is being picked to pieces and still called Buddhism. It is like the story of the blind men and the elephant-wherein descriptions of the whole become descriptions of a part.

    Again, perhaps I was rather unclear on this; this isn't a question about avoiding the core teachings, but seeing the Dharma from all the differing traditions in existence. It is not a grab bag of the core elements, but a match and fit with styles of teaching, meditation and practice. Maybe, instead of a blind man giving descriptions of a part, perhaps it would be closer to view the elephant from every angle and each perspective. Maybe i want to bow to the Buddha, maybe i don't. Maybe I want to learn a Tibetan mantra or maybe I'd like to understand koans better.

    Excellent discussion NellaLou, I'd love to hear your thoughts some more on this! Thank you!

    ReplyDelete
  13. I am going to append to my previous comment by qualifying one statement.

    Culture is more than a suit of clothes. It is a crucial element in human identity. It ties in with language and even people's world view.

    As I am a white person living primarily in India with Indian people my culture is something that I've confronted (and been confronted with) a great deal.

    Having studied Buddhism in North America academically and practically (Soto Zen) as well as in Taiwan (Pure Land Buddhism) and am now enjoying the friendship of the Tibetan Buddhist Sangha in India I have gained a somewhat broader perspective.

    From a personal viewpoint I can discuss the Dharma as I learned it with anyone here. Theraveda monks often visit the local Tibetan temples and have discussions with monks there. I have had discussions there also. It is not an issue. And that is because the Dharma is understood by all involved regardless of costume or mother tongue. It is the commonality of Dharma teachings and experience and yes objectives (there is a goal in Buddhism even though some schools de-emphasize that) which all Buddhists share.

    So if I speak of cultural trappings it is in this sense.

    But effort has to be made and openness has to be the attitude in order for such dialogues to be fruitful.

    I see you have answered my previous comment as I wrote this. I will address your response in a moment Kyle.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kyle said (in bold):
    Even the Buddha taught in a fashion that was agreeable to the Hindu population of the time,even integrating talks about Indra and rebirth, no? I think the relationship is more symbiotic perhaps.

    Certainly the Buddha was a master of skillful means. The relationship between broader culture and religion is very complicated as we are seeing in the diverse cultures of North America.

    are you saying the different sects don't have strong differences in style of practice, teaching and meditation?

    To my way of thinking there are the inner teachings and the outer manifestations. The outer manifestations would include methods of practice, language, stories used, costumes, ritual. These outer manifestations are doorways to the understanding of the inner teaching and as such differ in "architecture" just as temples differ in architecture but their function remains the same.


    But again, are you saying that all the major traditional schools of Buddhism are the same when it comes to practice, style and understanding?

    As above practice and style may differ but understanding is ultimately the same.


    Would you say that a Tibetan Chant ceremony is close to the practice of Zen Koans?

    In terms of form they are different but both are used to focus the mind.

    But is this true for both the layperson and the monastic in all the different forms of traditional Buddhism?

    In every religion the doctrine is more deeply understood by those who become the religious specialists, that is the priest. Laypeople can study further if they are so inclined and can certainly obtain the benefits of that. Popular religion and institutional religion are at the ends of the spectrum of religious understanding. in any given situation.


    Maybe i want to bow to the Buddha, maybe i don't. Maybe I want to learn a Tibetan mantra or maybe I'd like to understand koans better.

    This is a question of form and function. Rather than focusing on forms one might ask Why? Why bow or not? Why learn a mantra? Why consider koans? What is the intention behind that? If it is simply to indulge in rituals for their own sake then it would be a waste of time to bother with any of it. One might as well recite a telephone book's listings. But if one is truly sincere about trying to understand The Great Matter then door number 1 or door number 3 are simply a matter of personal preference or in some cases availability by which I mean that one will pursue the Dharma wherever one finds it and by whatever means are available.

    ReplyDelete
  15. So you both agree that there are 'outer manifestations' and 'core teachings'. And that the former vary with culture (east and west) while if the latter vary there is a point where it is no longer accurate to call it 'Buddhism'?

    Therefore it's just a matter of where the 'line' is between outermanifestations and core teachings.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Friends of the Western Buddhist Order is by nature a bit reformist, initially, as it was set up specifically to bring buddhism to the west. Sangharakshita,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sangharakshita who founded it, was in india during WW2 and stayed to become a Bhikku. he worked for some time with untouchables in India, started the movement Trailokya Bauddha Mahasangha Sahayaka Gana while there, and then came back to the UK to start the FWBO, and part of the reason that the London Buddhist Centre is able to offer so much is becuase it was the first and so the oldest community here, so very well established. There is a sort of back to basics, first principles kind of starting point, and certain things characterise practice here (eg metta is taught from the start in alternation with mindfuness of breathing) but teachers are free to take inspiration from pretty much anywhere. If it interests you, the mitra studies text we follow is here http://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/study/foundation and there are also lots of talks eleswhere on the site. despite the 'newness' of the FWBO it's not about starting from scratch! We study the Buddha's teachings, we meditate, we have Pujas. Indeed, it is felt that it is important not to dismiss symbols or symbolic objects or rituals, but to honour the way that different means can inspire us.

    the secular courses benefit from buddhist practices and knowledge regarding meditation and mindfulness, and the space has mainly cushions and mats, but the courses are presented quite separately. unlike, for instance the drop -in meditation classes, which are held in the shrine room, and, at which, for instance, there are posters for and mentions of buddhist classes, retreats, and events.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I was just about to comment about that exact same observation Justin. NellaLou, I believe we, or at least I agree with the conclusions here. Of course, what constitutes a Buddhist and what doesn't is another matter, but one I am happy to avoid. Thank you for the discussion NellaLou; btw I love your blog Enlightenment Ward!

    Elaine - Thanks so much again for the excellent links. I have heard some about FWBO, but honestly I know very little about them. During my lunch today, I want to read up on them a lot more.

    Thanks again!

    ReplyDelete
  18. if you look at wikipedia you will find that we are accused of being a cult etc... as you know, it is anyone's right to write and edit wikipedia, and there are some aggrieved individuals in the world.
    the link to http://www.freebuddhistaudio.com/
    gives quite a bit of information and the official fwbo site is here http://fwbo.org/ - a search for fwbo will also show you this link http://www.fwbo-files.com/ which someone has put a lot of effort into to discredit the order.
    that aside, because it was set up in india then the uk before reaching europe and the usa and other places it doesn't have a high profile in the usa, but there are some centres. there is a complete set of links here http://people.fwbo.org/

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Justin and Kyle
    Yes. Where the line is. But who is to say?

    One thing that I have been seeing more often is people confusing mindfulness meditation with Buddhism. Someone wrote on a blog What is the difference? There is a big difference and I hope mindfulness meditation teachers are delineating that if they are not giving precepts or any of the Buddhist doctrine.

    I have heard this in yoga also. People saying because they do yoga and their class encompasses some form of meditation that they are therefore Buddhist. These are all different things. Hopefully teachers would educate themselves a little better and make the differences clear.

    ReplyDelete
  20. There is a big difference and I hope mindfulness meditation teachers are delineating that if they are not giving precepts or any of the Buddhist doctrine.

    I don't think mindfulness meditation is Buddhism, for the reasons you mention. But the real question is - does it matter? Do the differences make a difference? And how? And do we have evidence for such assertions?

    And it seems to me that Soto Zen has far more (important factors) in common with mindfulness meditation than it does with Pure Land Buddhism.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Where the line is. But who is to say?

    Great question, and one that deserves its own discussion.

    I have heard this in yoga also. People saying because they do yoga and their class encompasses some form of meditation that they are therefore Buddhist. These are all different things. Hopefully teachers would educate themselves a little better and make the differences clear.

    I agree with you here, and I think you know we don't mean taking Yoga is the sole expression of being a Buddhist. I think we all here realize the depth and breath that a Buddhist philosophy encompasses.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh Justin of course it matters!

    One would have quite a bit of difficulty making a religion out of therapy(or science or pop culture). Although it seems to be a bit of a trend to make the attempt.

    And it matters to millions of Buddhist people around the world. It matters to their feelings, their future, their identities, their faith, their families, cultures and lives. It is a little dismissive to say it doesn't matter.

    That is where the whole ideology/doctrine thing comes in. It matters because people guide their lives by adhering or believing in or having faith in religious tenets. To say that these are somehow irrelevant if the means is similar to something else negates a whole lot of what is held as sacred to some degree.

    Sacredness goes right to the center of who people that profess religion are as they operate on a day to day basis. To attempt to secularize or dismiss that is...well..a little arrogant and heartless. It goes to the very human and most vulnerable part of a person.

    In some ways it reminds me of art. How do we prove what art is and what it's value is? A totally subjective thing that can sometimes make for a consensus but certainly not always.

    Maybe in some views that is illogical. Maybe we should just stick to the demonstrable facts. Maybe we should just do away with all this subjective nonsense and restrict our activities to that which can be observed, measured and counted.

    Computers can make paintings to please based on an individual's brain scans. Poetry will follow strict rules and themes. Creativity will be abolished. And religious belief consigned to the dustbin as unsupportable. Rules of interaction will take its place based on the best interests of the species. Delusions of Buddhahood will be treated. Bodhisattva leanings will be monitored.

    Ok I got carried away there. (There may be a speculative fiction story in that!)

    Such a mechanistic materialistic world might be attractive to some people but I wouldn't want to live there.

    The beauty of religious belief or faith (or even art) is it's ability to go beyond the individual. It lies in the expression of something very deep and profound within the human being.

    It speaks to the human yearning to be connected and a part of the big ALL. It speaks to the loneliness of the individual and our apparent separation from each other and everything else. It is the core of human existence to reach beyond and attempt at the very least connection of some kind.

    A lot of times that gets distorted (hence the need for therapies and the like)but part of religion's purpose is to broadly address that yearning.

    ReplyDelete
  23. NellaLou - I don't think anyone is dismissing the importance of culture, faith and religion to the millions of people who find comfort, hope, and peace in it. I think your response is very moving and well written, but perhaps we could think of people, all people, both east and west, traditional and secular as having the great human issue of Dukkha. People in the West suffer loneliness and depression just as anywhere else in the world.

    Maybe, there is a difference of how all the different cultures work out these hard problems of human life. Like a finger pointing to the moon, some may use a stick or a pen or perhaps just stare.

    I think the big difference is the idea of faith and religion, these labels tend to extract a various explosion of feelings to people in the West, most who come from the Abrahamic religions. I think this is why many yearn for a tradition that, while holds the same deep teachings of liberation and peace, just wish to practice it in a way that is more comfortable for them. This in no way dismisses or subtracts from the millions upon millions of other wonderful, culturally rich peoples around the world.

    Thanks, and I have to admit, your writing is beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
  24. One would have quite a bit of difficulty making a religion out of therapy(or science or pop culture). Although it seems to be a bit of a trend to make the attempt.

    So making something into a religion is always an inherently good thing?

    And it matters to millions of Buddhist people around the world. It matters to their feelings, their future, their identities, their faith, their families, cultures and lives. It is a little dismissive to say it doesn't matter.

    Well obviously I'm not suggesting taking away people's sacred beliefs. People practicing mindfulness meditation often find a sort of personal spirituality there. The question I'm asking is whether the differences make a difference to people's suffering, personal growth etc (and of course I mean 'in this life' since what happens in the afterlife (if any) is untestable).

    ReplyDelete
  25. Justin said:

    So making something into a religion is always an inherently good thing?

    I said it was difficult to make a religion. I did not put any good/bad label on it. I did not say religion is always a "good thing".

    Justin also said:

    People practicing mindfulness meditation often find a sort of personal spirituality there. The question I'm asking is whether the differences make a difference to people's suffering, personal growth etc (and of course I mean 'in this life' since what happens in the afterlife (if any) is untestable).

    I made no mention of afterlife or reincarnation or anything of that nature. I am also talking about 'in this life'.

    You seem to be taking a point about what you "think" I am saying or meaning rather than what I actually wrote. I wrote what I mean directly. Mixing in afterlife and good/bad, better/worse things are irrelevant to anything I have said here. You are interposing those on my words. You are arguing with what you imagine I mean.

    And as for the question "whether the differences make a difference to people's suffering, personal growth etc". Yes it makes a difference. It is a distinction between conventional and absolute.

    Nagarjuna and others have commented on this extensively.

    One can certainly be relieved of a certain amount of suffering, experience a great deal of personal growth and have a happy and contented life without ever contemplating the nature of the reality of that existence. There is rarely questioning of what underlies that condition.

    However when one does question that reality, that truth, when Bodicitta or the urge towards enlightenment arises within one there remains a discomfort with even happiness and health. It is something beyond the conventional definitions.

    There is no generalization to be made here. Most people don't give two hoots about "enlightenment". But some people do. And it is a path beyond the conventional one.

    I will refer you to the distinctions between conventional and ultimate in this great discussion of interpretation of Nagarjuna's work on the conventional and ultimate in relation to truth in the paper by Jay Garfield available here:
    http://www.smith.edu/philosophy/documents/AuthorityAbouttheDeceptivefinal.pdf

    and in the Wikipedia article on Bodhicitta and the distinction of the relative and absolute forms of that as well here:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bodhicitta

    The turning points of the matter seems to be the arising of Bodhicitta or not. And the distinction between relative (conventional) and absolute viewpoints.

    I am not in any way dismissing the conventional viewpoint. It's all we have to work with here and now. But whether it is viewed as a means or an end is another difference that can be noted. If one's goal is to have a reasonably happy life within that conventional framework it is certainly not something I would discourage. But if one has an impetus towards absolute understanding from within the framework of Buddhist religion/philosophy then that is something else.

    I don't know how I can make it more clear. I am trying as you seem to be making an effort also to get at something here.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I said it was difficult to make a religion. I did not put any good/bad label on it. I did not say religion is always a "good thing".

    I see. Well yes, adding 'ideological' elements can do wonders for allowing something to spread. Religions are good at that.

    Mixing in afterlife and good/bad, better/worse things are irrelevant to anything I have said here. You are interposing those on my words. You are arguing with what you imagine I mean.

    I wasn't arguing with you when I made that point. It was a point of clarification.

    And as for the question "whether the differences make a difference to people's suffering, personal growth etc". Yes it makes a difference. It is a distinction between conventional and absolute.

    I'm quite familiar with Nagarjuna and with the Two Truths doctine. However, I fail to see what bearing this doctrine has here.

    One can certainly be relieved of a certain amount of suffering, experience a great deal of personal growth and have a happy and contented life without ever contemplating the nature of the reality of that existence. There is rarely questioning of what underlies that condition.

    Many forms of Buddhism include deep existential investigation which can lead to profound insights into emptiness, whereas the insights of mindfulness therapy are at a more 'psychological' level. Yes - I agree with you there - and this is an important difference. It's worth noting however that not all forms of Buddhism include such investigation to any depth.

    However when one does question that reality, that truth, when Bodicitta or the urge towards enlightenment arises within one there remains a discomfort with even happiness and health. It is something beyond the conventional definitions.

    I don't really follow "It is something beyond the conventional definitions." Everything is ultimately beyond the conventional definitions. Also a discomfort with happiness and health is not my experience, even though I have practiced for a while and have some insight into emptiness. Nor have I heard this about other people. Eveything just is as it is. Any discomfort that arises is just a passing reaction. I am content with things just as they are - perhaps health and happiness especially.

    And it is a path beyond the conventional one.

    You realise of course that the distinction between the 'conventional' ordinary path and the 'ultimate' path of emptiness is a conventional distinction?

    The turning points of the matter seems to be the arising of Bodhicitta or not.

    I am not in any way dismissing the conventional viewpoint. It's all we have to work with here and now. But whether it is viewed as a means or an end is another difference that can be noted. If one's goal is to have a reasonably happy life within that conventional framework it is certainly not something I would discourage. But if one has an impetus towards absolute understanding from within the framework of Buddhist religion/philosophy then that is something else.

    It has been taught to me that awakening is an endless unfolding not an arriving at a final 'absolute' truth.

    Thanks for the interesting discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Thank you Kyle and Justin. I appreciate the opportunity to toss this "medicine ball" around with you.

    ReplyDelete