Do We Really Need a Western Buddhism?

This post was inspired by a post by Arunlikhati over at Dharma Folk and by my comment to that post. Arunlikhati's post was regarding Western Buddhism and this idea by some in the west that western philosophy will somehow make Buddhism "better:" I personally don't think western Buddhists would make Buddhism better but simply different and more applicable to their/my culture. As the various Buddhist traditions around Asia aren't better than another (In my view, though some might think so) but reflect the needs and different aspects of their culture.

The term "Western Buddhist" is rather amorphous in my view. Since there is no native Buddhism in America a Western Buddhism would have to borrow much from an Asian Buddhist tradition but, which tradition? Or do we borrow a little bit from Theravada, Vajrayana, Mahayana and Zen (some place Zen into its own tradition of Buddhism)? Yet if we do that then doesn't it risk becoming the soup with too many ingredients, which cancel each other out leaving a odd and not so fulfilling taste?

And who makes those decisions? Will some council meet like the infamous Councils of Nicea in early Christianity, which some argue caused more harm than good. Or will there still be these different traditions but with the descriptor "Western" in front of it to delineate the tradition being influenced by "western" culture and philosophy. That is the option that I prefer and believe the most likely to emerge from the vague and foggy term, "Western Buddhism." For example, I now often say that I am a Western Zen Buddhist and if further pressed, "...as taught by Thich Nhat Hanh" to show that I am a westerner to describe my particular cultural tradition who practices Zen Buddhism.

I use to believe in a Western Buddhism but now I'm not so interested because of all the variables and questions that I mentioned.

I just think that the "western" part should apply only to the western culture and how it adds and influences whatever school of Asian Buddhism that a westerner follows. In this way we are honoring and maintaining as our foundation (the Asian traditions and heritage) but also paying respect and celebrating our western culture/philosophy as a wonderful addition to our particular traditions.

In the end It doesn't come down to any of this--these labels are mere fingers pointing to the glorious moon. It comes down to the present moment where labels mean nothing. However, it is an issue that needs to be discussed and fine tuned because right now "western Buddhists" are like a man without a country or a ship without a sail adrift in a sea of opposing currents and shifting winds.

PHOTO CREDIT: I couldn't find the photographer who took this but this is the site where I found it.

~Peace to all beings~

Western Influenced Buddhism.

Today’s post is a continuation of this post (click here to read).

I think many would agree with me that words/labels/symbols are limited in their reach but still necessary to navigate this samsara that we find ourselves within. Yet descriptors can sometimes help us understand each other and therefore increase our realization of the Oneness of Consciousness. It is within those parameters that I return to one of my favorite topics, the controversial subject of Western Buddhism.

I am distancing myself from the term Western Buddhism that I’ve been using on this blog because it is too limiting and unwieldy.

I tend to agree with the position that Western Buddhism is not establishing a totally new and unique branch of Buddhism. It could still happen at some point down the road in the evolution of time and space but for right now It is still very debatable and blurry.

At this point the way I would define the term “Western Buddhism” to simply mean that a western Buddhist’s perspective toward the Dharma might be a little different then a traditional Asian Buddhist cultural view. Both are beautiful and to be respected but they differ because of slight cultural differences. It’s like speaking two slightly different languages such as French versus Italian, many of the words are quite similar and sentence structures are somewhat similar as well. Doesn’t make one better or worse but just a different variation of the system of tonal symbols that we use to communicate ideas and concepts that enable us to grow and succeed as a global community.

Another example could be shown via the prism. It is generally known that a prism refracts the light of the sun into the varied colors of the rainbow. Each one is vivid, bright and beautiful. We can see that they each add something slightly different to the stunning and blissful tapestry of color than the rest and we wouldn’t say that red is better than green as they are both equally brilliant.

Well the different cultures that influence the tableau of Buddhist schools are like these different colors. These diverse cultures have various characteristics that can’t help but slightly influence Buddhism. However, despite these varied cultural aspects, Buddhists across this diverse planet Earth are interconnected and blended together by the strong bonds of the Four Noble Truths and the Eight-Fold Path. The inter-locking connectors of impermanence, inter-being and no self strengthen the bond. And the five precepts act as another bridge between cultures although some cultures might disagree as to the particulars of certain precepts but that is a post for another time.

So It is with all that in mind why I find it more accurate to say that I am a Zen Buddhist with a western influence, rather than using the cumbersome, amorphous, vague moniker of Western Buddhism. Especially since this theory that Western Buddhism is a totally new and unique branch of Buddhism is still very debatable and blurry right now.

Buddhism is Watering the Western Cultures like Rain Waters a Field of Flowers.

The Buddha compares his teaching to the rainfall that descends without discrimination on the earth. That this rain causes some seeds to grow into flowers and some into great trees implies no differentiation in the rain but rather is due to the capacities of the seeds that it nurtures. Thus, the teaching of the Buddha is of a single flavor but benefits beings in a variety of ways according to their capacity.

- Donald S. Lopez, Jr., Buddhism in Practice

There are many that criticize and condemn the new tradition of Buddhism that I align myself with which is most commonly known as Western Buddhism. I'm more on the Zen end of that spectrum. I know that this is a hot button issue for some so I am going to chose my words carefully and I want to emphasize that I don't profess to be a teacher. In my eyes, Western Buddhism is no different than when Chinese Buddhism, or Korean, or Tibetan Buddhism was the newest tradition in the vast Buddhist community. Buddhism always blends and adapts to different cultures when introduced to that new society but I don't believe that makes it any less useful. Tibetans for example have incorporated many aspects of their traditional Bon beliefs when Buddhism arrived from India. Yet not many would say that the proud Tibetan Buddhist tradition isn't an "authentic" (whatever that term means) form of Buddhism.

In Japan, Buddhism merged into the native beliefs related to Shinto and yet not many would say that Japanese Buddhism isn't "real" or an invalid extension of Buddhism.

The native Chinese Taoist beliefs (and overall Chinese culture) have greatly influenced Chinese Buddhism which became integral aspects to the formation of Ch'an/Zen that is so prevalent today.

Part of the uneasiness with Western Buddhism is that it is still taking shape and it's hard to tell how the exact form will be but one thing is for sure, it's here to stay. I realize the western culture that it is mixing with is different than the traditional Asian Buddhist culture but that doesn't make it any less beneficial, nor does it make it inferior. Whether we like it or not, culture influences the tradition that Buddhism develops into when introduced to a different culture than a "mother culture."

Western Buddhism seems to be developing as an umbrella structure from which slightly more western styles of each tradition are appearing. That's the beauty of Buddhism, it is pliable to everyone and each culture depending on where they are in their karmic journey. It is my belief that we should focus more on the things that we have in common then on the things that we see slightly different because of our culture.

All of this isn't to say that Western Buddhists are "better" but my goal by posting this was to show it isn't inferior either. I think the main thing that unites all these forms of Buddhism is taking refuge in the three jewels, the four noble truths and practicing the eight fold path. Again, I realize that this is a controversial subject for many Buddhists of more established, traditional schools but just remember that Mahayana Buddhism for example was seen as quite radical to the older traditions at the time.

I hope that in time, Western Buddhism will become as accepted as Mahayana has.

~Peace to all beings~

The Metamorphasis of Buddhism Strengthens the Global Sangha

Whenever Buddhism has taken root in a new land there has always been a certain variation in the style in which it is observed. The Buddha himself taught differently according to the place, the occasion, the situation of those who were listening to him. So, all of us have the responsibility to take the essence of Buddhism and put it into practice in our own lives.

~ His Holiness the Dalai Lama

James: There is so much discussion over Buddhism in the west. There are many from the East who feel that they have a corner or the "true" Dharma/Buddhism and that "Western Buddhism" is diluting the "True Buddhism." Yet as HDL states above, the Buddha taught differently according to the place (which I'm 99% sure meant the culture as well).

The fact is that there many different styles of Buddhism in Asia which has been the cradle of Buddhism. Under the greater umbrella we have the main traditions: Mahayana, Theravada and Vajrayana--all slightly different but sharing the core keystones of the Dharma taught by the Buddha. Then breaking it down further there are differences between Theravada (for example) in Thailand and in Burma (Malaysia).

I think of what Jack Kornfield said in the recent issue of the Buddhadharma magazine.

He spoke of studying Theravada under the Venerable Ajahn Chah and learning so much from him and that "forest style" of Theravada found in Thailand . Then he speaks of studying Theravada in Burma (Malaysia) under the Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw and studying the Dharma from a totally different point of view but still as valuable as the teachings of Ajahn Chah. Both teachers neither changing the core teachings of the Buddha beyond recognition but providing a different angle of the great, multi-faceted diamond that is the Dharma.

It's ironic that (according to Kornfield) monks in Burma will say, "In Burma we have always been the carriers of the true way" even though the ascendancy of Theravada Buddhism began only a few hundred years ago.

James: I have to giggle when I hear such dualistic thinking when Burmese Theravada Buddhism is a realtive child compared to some other traditions!! I guess it's kind of the like the egotisitcal thinking that the immigrants who have been here for a couple generations are more American then those who've only been here for a few dozen decades.

Kornfield goes on:

So, infact, the history of the Theravada, and the history of Buddhism in generally, is actually a weaving of a number of different strands.

James: And that I believe is what is happening within the growing "Western Buddhism."

Sadly not all great teachers feel this way. Eido Roshi states in that same Buddhadharma issue that, I am well aware that a few people reject the traditional ways, but still some people love them, and these people are the ones who have real devotion toward Buddhadharma. That is all I have to say.

James: I hope that Roshi is refering to the main tenets of Buddhism such as the four noble truths and the eightfold path, etc. rather then the cultural attachments of a particular tradition or school from a certain country.

Stephen Batchelor had a more inclusive viewpoint on the matter:

But there is an important distinction between being rooted in a tradition and being stuck in a tradition. To be rooted in a tradition like Buddhism is absolutely necessary, but it's also possible to become attached to certain doctrines, to certain ways of doing things, that do not allow you to grow. They become another form of attachment. From rootedness, we need to be able to respond anew to what the world presents us.

James: Editor Jeff Wilson of the magazine Tricyle: The Buddhist Review provides another interesting example of the diversity within Buddhism and in this particular example the place of meditation within the different styles of Zen:

In America, many people are interested in meditation and that is one reason that Zen teachers discuss it. Asian teachers who like to have Western students talk a lot about zazen to them. When they teach in Japanese, most do not emphasize zazen unless it is in a monastic situation.

In Japan, where virtually all Soto Zen practitioners live, Soto Shu emphasizes moral behavior, respect of elders, charity, and chanting in front of the home altar. Meditation is not a central practice and is generally only performed by a minority of the clergy, who are themselves a very small minority of members.

Yes, it doesn't look like the Theravada in Thailand or maybe Burma and yes, the Zen maybe not exactly look like that found in Japan or Korea but that does not mean that the Theravada, Zen or Tibetan Buddhism blended into American culture are not actual "Buddhism."

Insiting on one way of practicing the Dharma is a type of "spiritual materialism" to use a term from the Venerable Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche. Placing more importance on the form rather then the essence which stunts the growth of the Dharma.

As long as the main tenets stay the same then Buddhism is generally Buddhism. We may look different, meditate a bit different, chant in a different accent, etc. but we are all usually practicing the same Dharma.

I find the different blends and flavors of Buddhism to be beautiful and a testament to the strength of the Dharma. The Buddha had the foresite to see into the future and realize that the religion he had started would need to adapt given the nature of subtle differences between people.

~Peace to all beings~