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)