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?
This piece appeared in The Guardian (Saturday 17 March 2012). These thoughts were prompted by Lewis Richmond’s Huffington Post blogs on this topic. I hope to expand on some of these points over the next few weeks.
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.
These are good points for consideration, given that Buddhism will take about 200 to 300 years to have its full impact in the causal field of the West.
In general outline, Buddhism first came to the West by the written sutras during the 100 years of the 19th century and second hand through such movements as the Transcendentalists and the Theosophists. Then in the 50 years of the first half of the 20th century the seeds were sown by individuals coming from other countries and establishing Buddhist practice in various contexts. Then in the second 50 years of the 20th century the Westerners ourselves began the transplanting process in earnest, now arriving at a rest stop on the way to be able to look back a little to how we have come to here.
For many of these points I find myself thinking “Yes, but…”
Vishvapani Blomfield wrote: 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 behavior than big, mystical experiences. Younger Buddhists are often more fired by social action than mysticism.
“It’s not all about enlightenment.” is sort of a truism in the sense that Buddha lived and taught and realized the Buddha Dharma for 35 or 40 odd years after his enlightenment. So manifesting the Dharma is in a way transcending enlightenment by not being lost in nirvana as extinction. The conceptions of enlightenment and nirvana have certainly gone through refinement as they must for our understanding of true Buddha Dharma. But I would also assert that in the most literal way that the solar system “is all about the Sun” as the planets, asteroids, etc., all revolve about the Sun, that Buddha Dharma is all about enlightenment. Without enlightenment there is no awareness of what nirvana means beyond the conceptualization of the word and there is no Buddha Dharma system making its revolutions, i.e, no turning of the wheel of Dharma. Enlightenment is still the hub of the wheel of Dharma.
Vishvapani Blomfield wrote: 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.
This is true as the pendulum swings. But this is not new. The birth of the Mahayana had this pendulum swing as an important factor. I’m not saying as some have that the Mahayana was created by lay practitioners, but that the Mahayana was in a large or important part developed in order to respond to the needs of lay practitioners. The point is that all four legs of the mahasangha (male and female monastics and laypeople) are necessary and that a too rigid segregation or separation of duties and practice is not healthy to the manifestation of the Dharma.
Vishvapani Blomfield wrote: 3. Tibetan Buddhism has baggage. Tibetan lamas arriving in the 1970s seemed to fulfill 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.
I think we can mostly agree that there is no need to focus exclusively on Tibetan Buddhism for the issue of the negative connotations of “baggage.” Theravada, Pure Land, and Zen, among others all have their cultural baggage that must be evaluated in the context of Western culture and vice versa. As for the tulku system of recognition of reincarnated masters, I have argued since the 1970’s that it is mostly a culturally infused “abuse of karma.”
Vishvapani Blomfield wrote: 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.
This is how I have come to personally advocate the context of Zen practice within the historicity of the One Vehicle (Ekayana) movement of Buddhism which has existed as an unofficial or non-institutional movement embodying synthetic Buddha Dharma from the first stirring of the creation of the Mahayana. My vision of the blending leads in the direction of realizing the One Vehicle of Buddha Dharma and that zen is the essence of all “schools” of Buddhism no matter what their outward forms may be. That is, the zen of Zen is the same zen of Nembutsu and the same zen of Samatha-Vipassana.
Vishvapani Blomfield wrote: 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.
This is the recognition of human enlightenment expressed in the words of the Buddha not long before he passed to parinirvana
ATTA DIPA
VIHARATHA
ATTA SARANA
ANANNA SARANA
DHAMMA DIPA
DHAMMA SARANA
ANANNA SARANA
Know!
You are the Light itself.
Rely on yourself.
Do not rely on others.
The Dharma is the Light
Rely on the Dharma
Do not rely on anything
Other than the Dharma.
With this as basis, sectarianism is seen as a distraction. The phrase “the Dharma is the Light, Rely on the Dharma” is one of the “mottos” or recognition points of the One Vehicle.
Vishvapani Blomfield wrote: 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.
Ah, here we get to the sticking point of definitions compared to meanings. The definition of mindfulness becomes a point of contention as Brad Warner’s post “Thich Naht Hahn is Wrong” shows his difficulty swallowing the definition of mindfulness that he perceives as the common one. In one sense I agree with Warner that “mindfulness” is being misapplied in so many ways. The question here is whether mindfulness will be so diluted that it is no longer a meaningful word for what is intended to convey vis-à-vis Buddha Dharma. When mindfulness is used to mean the true Buddha Dharma of the One Mind as taught by Zen masters, then it does not lose its meaning. But the word mindfulness, like the word Zen (e.g., Zen cereal, Zen deodorant, Zen tea, Zen Restaurants), is entering into Western consumer culture as just another product to be hawked in the marketplace of capitalism. Overall I do not see this as a good or beneficial development but as one that is not within anyone’s control and will be another characteristic of the pendulum swings of acculturation of Buddha Dharma.
Vishvapani Blomfield wrote: 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.
This is the important point of being able to distinguish what is “Buddhist influence” as distinguished from Japanese, Korean, Chinese, Burmese, Sri Lankan, Tibetan, etc. cultural influences that are the wrappings or robes of the Buddha Dharma coming to the West. Most of what I see as the advertised “mindfulness movement” is not a “new Buddhism for the West” but a pseudo-Buddhism growing in the materialistic cultural contexts of the West like a genetically modified “Franken-Buddhism.” The future of Buddhism in the West will be in the acculturation of the Buddha Dharma without losing the essence of zen (a.k.a, just mind, or one-mindedness) and becoming just weak sauce on the one hand or becoming transformed into Franken-Buddhism on the other.
Vishvapani Blomfield wrote: 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.
All humans regardless of East or West, North or South, can definitely manifest and realize Buddha Dharma. Humans everywhere are the basis for a future of Buddha Dharma. We won’t be able to say that Buddha Dharma has acculturated and been transplanted in the West until we get beyond the Western-centric view that the West is special.
Vishvapani Blomfield wrote: 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?
Now here is the most important aspect of the acculturation of Buddhism to the West that puts the question of our human nature directly “on the table” of how our human nature including the sexual nature is to be realized in the context of our Buddha nature. The critical point is that the West has its own dark secrets and abysmal ambiguities when dealing with sexuality and the recognition that Eastern gurus, mindfulness masters, and Zen masters are not immune from these issues is not something to be ashamed of, but to incorporate into the hot and cold reality of the acculturation process.
Vishvapani Blomfield wrote: 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.
We do know that Western Buddhism won’t be acculturated until there are enough Western born teachers who are clear that Buddhism is not to be defined by the terms secular or religious, in other words, that Buddha Dharma is free from such terminology and is not fixated in being one or the other, neither, or both.
Thomas Jefferson also wished to strip Christianity of its “superstitious” elements and therefore created the Jefferson Bible as an expression of the Western Enlightenment and Age of Reason. The obvious problem is that this is mostly a materialistic endeavor by the nature of its context and not really an endeavor of the awareness of enlightenment. In the manner that Carl Jung noted from within the context of Western culture that the demythologizing of human awareness and active imagination is really just throwing out the baby with the bathwater, the West needs to re-imagine its own religious impulses as part of the same process of the acculturation of Buddha Dharma. For example, those people who think that karma and reincarnation are merely unscientific “superstition” are actually just reacting to the abuse of karma, not the true Buddha Dharma view of karma. That is, viewing reincarnation or rebirth as the rebirth of a personality is not the karma of Buddha Dharma, yet the commonly held conception of the tulku phenomena warps true karma awareness into such a perversion of karma warranting the label of “superstition.” At one time, Christianity too had karma and reincarnation as part of its worldview before the Albigensian Crusade wiped it out.
By the context of its aims, assumptions, and presumptions, science will never be able to deal fully with Buddha Dharma, yet as long as each is based on personal empirical observations there is nothing inherently incompatible between Buddha Dharma and science. It is just that science limits the field of its empiricism to the realm of externalized and objectified environment while Buddha Dharma does not assume the unassailability of the objective-subjective polarity.
It was ‘special’ to me to practice Buddhism for a while in Zendo. I can let go and let things be what they are, letting life happen. However, that ‘sepcial’ thing about ‘the West’ is a prophecy, coming from not just Middle Eastern writings, but ancient Gaelic as well. Until we in ‘the West’ come to terms with our own ancestry, and religions practice we have lost, we will hang onto this falseness of America. I have just as much connections with the natural world through my Druid ancestry, that I also experience in Native peoples, as well as Zen practice. Perhaps we will have Gaelic chants in a Zendo setting someday.
Basically who are you when not thinking? Any tugohht is witnessed in your consciousness. Anything that has ever happened has happened in your consciousness, or you would not be able to talk about it. The problem is when we create an identity based on tugohhts of the past, and use up all our energy defending and feeding that. Throw all that away for a second, be completely NOW, and who are you? This isnt to say the mind is bad, but to base your identity on it is. Stay as awareness.
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.
Hi Sam,
Your points are well taken. Actually, I am a little ambivalent about this piece myself as it is so compressed due to the constraints of the original context in The Guardian.
I don’t think that the TBC model per se is the future of western Buddhism, but I do think that, as I wrote: ‘It’s not all about monks’. I hope the various monastic sanghas do establish itself, but I would add that the basic dynamic of the western Buddhist world is distinctive because non-monastic practitioners can be so serious and are so influential: think of the Insight Meditation movement, for example.
As for the non-denominational character I cite, I also recognise the multi-denominational character of the western Buddhist world right now. However, a process of communication and mixing is at work that is also unprecedented. The TBC is one version of this, but the broader pattern is what Joseph Goldstein describes in his book, ‘One Dharma: the Emerging Western Buddhism’. Many very experienced practitioners are finding inspiration beyond the tradition they first trained in, and the Dharma they teach then has multiple influences. That’s particularly pronounced in the US. Arguably, this is what happened in Sangharakshita’s case a generation earlier, which is why Triratna Buddhism, in my opinion, follows the contours I am describing in western Buddhism more generally.