How Western Buddhism Has Changed In 50 Years

[sabaijai]

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

Vishvapani Blomfield guardian.co.uk, Friday 16 March 2012 18.59 GM

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.

[Jawnie]

Thanks for this thought-provoking post, Sabaijai. Being a follower of Tibetan Buddhism, I find the following somewhat, well....wrong, to wit: "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."

In short, I'm not sure why you characterize the tulku system as "baggage"...it is what it is. Buddhism in all its forms espouse multiple lifetimes and reincarnation; the idea of tulkus is a refinement or expansion of that central teaching. Maybe you mean that you don't necessary buy it, but that's a different story.

The "tantric practices" comprise a really huge area of endeavor in Tibetan Buddhism, so you'll need to be more specific. Perhaps you are referring to some of the "sexual" imagery of tantrism and how Westerners have equated sexuality with tantrism? Yes, they've done this, but, frankly, in all my years as a Buddhist, I've never heard a Tibetan lama, Tulku, etc., openly espouse sexual promiscuity or recreational sex as a Dharma path. Nor are there lamas teaching sexual practices to create "bliss" or ecstasy, etc. I was once stunned by a long-time Buddhist with lots of "Buddhist credentials" who cited the Kama Sutra as his justification for his sexual promiscuity. Well, this commonly-known Kama Sutra is not even a sutra, ie, not a teaching of the Buddha, so I was very shocked to hear this. The Buddha did teach a Kama Sutra, but not the one about sexual positions.

Can you say more about this? Beyond that, the tantric practices are skillful means that provide a swifter approach to enlightenment than those found in the Theravada teachings. Many Theravadans think the tantric teaching are not authentic because they don't find them in the sutras. Tibetans claim that there are, in fact, sutras which refer to tantra and, more to the point, Mahayana sutras with tantric teachings. The question of the authenticity of tantrism in Buddhism typically isn't an issue for those who follow Tibetan Buddhism. That is to say, to us, there's no question that they are authentic teachings on the path to enlightenment. It's really a non-issue.

This leads us to the deep conservatism you mention. This is more the reality of Tibetan Buddhism - it is very conservative, hence, all the monks. This is the exact opposite to those who might claim sexuality and/or some type of grand "non-judgmental" mentality comprise the true essence of Buddhist thought and practice. Actually, Buddhism challenges us to make important moral and ethically choices constantly. This is in order to understand and control our mind and emotions.

[rockyysdt]

This leads us to the deep conservatism you mention. This is more the reality of Tibetan Buddhism - it is very conservative, hence, all the monks. This is the exact opposite to those who might claim sexuality and/or some type of grand "non-judgmental" mentality comprise the true essence of Buddhist thought and practice. Actually, Buddhism challenges us to make important moral and ethically choices constantly. This is in order to understand and control our mind and emotions.

Hi Jawnie.

The conservatism I've seen with Theravadan Buddhism (Thailand) includes such things as exclusion of women as Monks (Bikkhunis) and beliefs such as "It's due to ones kharma, but if she devotes her life to practice, perhaps as a nun, she may be only one re birth away from birth as a man and a crack at enlightenment".

I have no knowledge of Tibetan Buddhism.

Does Tibetan Buddhism incorporate cultural conservatism such as bias against women?

Edited March 22, 2012 by rockyysdt

[Xangsamhua]

I'm at work, so I'll read the article at home later, but I reacted to the first line: It's 50 years since Buddhist teachers started arriving in the west.

Is the author unaware of events before the 60s or is he saying that the big wave of eastern teachers started coming in the 60s and 70s. I suspect the latter, but Buddhist teachers from afar were not unknown in the West in the first half of the 20th century. I quote from the Wikipedia article on Christmas Humphreys, who founded The Buddhist Society in London in 1924.

Both at his home and at the lodge, he played host for eminent spiritual authors such as Nicholas Roerich and Dr Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, and for prominent Theosophists like Alice Bailey and far Eastern Buddhist authorities like D.T. Suzuki. Other regular visitors in the 1930s were the Russian singer Vladimir Rosing and the young Alan Watts. The Buddhist Society of London is one of the oldest Buddhist organisations outside Asia.

I guess these visitors didn't have much impact at the time, so perhaps the interesting question is not so much "How has Western Buddhism changed in 50 years?", but why has it taken off in that time when it was largely ignored 50 years earlier?

Edited March 23, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[Xangsamhua]

The article is just one of a series on faith issues by interested individuals, not invited experts it seems to me. Each piece is 500- 600 words long, not long enough to be able to develop much of an argument.

I thought it was OK. At least it makes the point that Western Buddhism as it matures is an increasingly acculturated form, and the boundaries between schools, largely coeval with national boundaries in the East, are not of major concern to Western Buddhists, though people are attached to the traditions that have nurtured them. Theravada is a somewhat alien tradition to an American Zen practitioner, as Japanese-derived Zen is rather odd to a Thai Theravadin. But the common core of precepts and teachings is found across the traditions and Westerners are perhaps better able to discern the dhammic wood behind the trees of traditional culture than those born and raised within those cultures.

The author, however, speaks in rather broad terms about "western Buddhism/Buddhists". Does he know much about all the strands to be found in British, European, North American, Australasian and South African Buddhism, or is he generalizing from limited experience? Is it true that "Westerners love Tibetans, but we notice the baggage" or is it he and his friends that do so? Is Buddhist influence generally strong in the arts (ballet? sculpture? drama? which arts and how strong?)? Are younger Buddhists often fired by social action rather than mysticism? Where? What does he mean by mysticism? Is he saying meditation is mysticism?

And he speaks of "enlightenment" as a goal to be sought, rather like the perfect body or the perfect performance of Rachmaninoff's 2nd - essentially a future attainment, whereas if I can detect any trend in Western Buddhism it's that enlightenment is seens as what we have now, but which is obscured by illusion and delusion (in turn breeding attachment, greed and hostility). It's really a matter of removing the veils. Perhaps this leads on to increasing Western skepticism or disinterest in future births and their karmic determinants. Karma is seen pretty much as action and consequence, an every-moment operation. But, perhaps I generalize too much, too.

Certainly, as he suggests, Western people will take what they need from Buddhism. Apart from some cultural alienation from, despite some admiration for the source traditions that have been introduced to the West, I think it's fair to say that the West is increasingly disenchanted with packaged religious systems, regardless of where they're from. So adaptation and enculturation will mark the Buddhisms of the West, and these processes will extend to the individual, such that a group of Western Buddhists meeting for a retreat or course may well have a widely varied and markedly individualized range of beliefs and practices based on the common core.

Finally, he asks the perennial question of whether Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy. Is Western Buddhism going to be secular or religious? I suggest that these are increasingly trivial questions. It's up to the individual Buddhist whether he or she wishes to retain a strong faith element in his/her belief and practice. If he or she is a layperson it doesn't matter to anyone else what proportion of faith there is to scientific method in his or her worldview. And the political and social conclusions one may reach as a Buddhist can be very varied indeed. I couldn't see a big bloc vote of "Buddhists for Romney" or "Buddhists for Obama" though the educational and social backgrounds and milieus of American Buddhists may well place them more in one camp than the other. Maybe Buddhism in the West could be described as "seculigious". The Buddhist does not define secular issues based on doctrine and scripture so much as from the 5 precepts, and they can be interpreted and applied in different ways to secular matters.

I suppose the previous paragraph prompts the question of whether one who does not subscribe to the literal veracity of the Pali record or traditional beliefs about karma and rebirth should in all honesty describe himself as a Buddhist. I could swing either way on this. It seems presumptuous to me to discard some core teachings but still wish to apply the name and what it implies to oneself. There’s a sort of identity theft implicit in that. However, if you find the community of Buddhists one with which you want to identify for whatever reason, despite misgivings about teachings that were, after all, culturally embedded and de rigueur 3000 years ago, then it might be reasonable to say you're a Buddhist – perhaps ‘Buddhist fellow-traveler’ might be more apt.

Edited March 24, 2012 by Xangsamhua

[sabaijai]

Thanks for this thought-provoking post, Sabaijai. Being a follower of Tibetan Buddhism, I find the following somewhat, well....wrong, to wit: "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."

In short, I'm not sure why you characterize the tulku system as "baggage"...it is what it is. Buddhism in all its forms espouse multiple lifetimes and reincarnation; the idea of tulkus is a refinement or expansion of that central teaching. Maybe you mean that you don't necessary buy it, but that's a different story.

The "tantric practices" comprise a really huge area of endeavor in Tibetan Buddhism, so you'll need to be more specific. Perhaps you are referring to some of the "sexual" imagery of tantrism and how Westerners have equated sexuality with tantrism? Yes, they've done this, but, frankly, in all my years as a Buddhist, I've never heard a Tibetan lama, Tulku, etc., openly espouse sexual promiscuity or recreational sex as a Dharma path. Nor are there lamas teaching sexual practices to create "bliss" or ecstasy, etc. I was once stunned by a long-time Buddhist with lots of "Buddhist credentials" who cited the Kama Sutra as his justification for his sexual promiscuity. Well, this commonly-known Kama Sutra is not even a sutra, ie, not a teaching of the Buddha, so I was very shocked to hear this. The Buddha did teach a Kama Sutra, but not the one about sexual positions.

Can you say more about this?

[truncated[

Jawnie, I didn't write the article, and the ideas contained therein do not necessarily represent my opinions.