How can we use the resources in the West, while not being wrapped up in it? Confusion in relation to Western Buddhism; The Case Against Buddhism: A Conversation between Glenn Wallis and Charles Hallisey

The Watercooler
1

I have a few questions I hope people can help me with.

context

(I am a student in mid-wet USA, custom “Buddhist -studies” major, I have to write a project next semester on something Buddhist and Philosophic and I am thinking a lot about Western Buddhism..)

I know there was already a quick post regarding this topic— Glenn Wallis and the ruins of the Buddhist Real — but I wanted to bring it back up as I continue to study in ‘the West’ with the recourses I have.

As I study I don’t want to get mixed up with to much technical jargon like this Harvard Professor shows in this empty ‘high-brow’ book he wrote — I guess my desires show… as I find I want to use the systems I am a part of in order to “succeed” somewhat conventionally…

my question if I can find it coherently is
something related to Western Culture and Buddhist authenticity
which might be a iffy thing to say as I know “authentic” Buddhism is often a colonial observation and misunderstanding (as there is no “one” authentic Buddhism)…

SO:
Can an American form of Buddhism emerge that is neither an imitation of inherited Asian traditions nor a secularized departure from Buddhist liberation, and if so, by what criteria should its legitimacy be judged?

I guess I wonder a lot about how Buddhism in ‘the West’ is following a similar arch as it has during its transitions through cutlures in Asia, in the history of Buddhist , but there are obvious differences… I think Buddhism (and all traditions and religions) have always faced resistance before acceptance..

I’m thinking about doing a academic project exploring how Buddhism has historically transformed as it entered new cultural contexts while still maintaining claims to authenticity, and to use this framework to evaluate contemporary American Buddhism — especially tensions between aesthetics and disciplined practice, philosophy and religion, therapeutic usefulness and soteriological liberation.

its again a bunch of potential gibberish and I want to avoid that…

SO:
How does a person ‘write in a buddhist way’…

If I was to practice Buddhism, given the recourses I have academically, how should I ‘live’ and ‘practice my project’…

if Buddhism in the West can be taken seriously, I think I should write this as a Western Buddhist, meaning I am trying to write this in the way it would not be gibberish?

may you be well happy and peaceful!

2 Likes
2

I think this will all be much more clear in about 300 years.

7 Likes
3

Well, you’ve come to an Early Buddhist forum, so you can maybe guess what we will say! :face_with_hand_over_mouth:

2 Likes
4

I agree !

it will be interesting when they dig up files and call them sutras like found at Nalanda

5

:grin:

I am also showing my bias posting here…
I find some more legitimacy in the Older Vehicle, but I can’t deny wisdom of later texts…
I love reading Shantideva :hugs:

2 Likes
6

“To cover all the Earth in leather
Where could such amounts of hide be found?
Yet with just the heals of these shoes…”

To be less glib, the best “Dhamma compass” is AN 8.53

5 Likes
7

By what criteria is EBT Buddhism or Theravadin Buddhism or Zen Buddhism or Pure Land Buddhism judged for their “authenticity”?

Some (perhaps many) from these forums would judge the “True Dharma” for the most meticulous analysis of the earliest text and deducing “What the Buddha Actually Said” (trademark pending!)

However, is that what the teacher of Kesamutti sutta would’ve preferred? Maybe. The Buddha from Nikayas also seem to care a lot about the way his teaching’s phrasing and meaning was transmitted. There seems to be a tension there, maybe? Or perhaps giving nuance some room, context matters.

When Buddhism spread in Chine and Japan, they freely borrowed templates and ideas from Daoism and local terminology in competition with the said philosophy (and perhaps with Confucianism to an extent). That’s just what happens when “religions” enter a new territory.

I don’t know. Deep waters. Bhante said best:

And a personal favourite sutta:

And I’ll add DHP 20 to it:

Little though they may recite scripture,
if they live in line with the Dharma,
having given up greed, hate, and delusion,
with deep understanding and heart well freed,
not grasping to this life or the next,
they share in the blessings of the ascetic life.

2 Likes
8

I can’t dig up the sutta reference but if the practice encompasses the eightfold path then it’s what leads to liberation.

The problem, across many cultures, is that only some parts of the path are practiced, while other factors are for ‘other people’.

This often occurs in the juxtaposition of dana/sila vs meditation. Whether meditation is the ‘real’ practice and that dana/sila stuff is just cultural extras. Or, alternatively, the monks do the meditation/practice and we do dana (with or without sila).

2 Likes
9

I think one good metric of authenticity is looking to what degree the ‘frontiersmen’ are honest with themselves and others about what they are teaching. In other words, the adaptation process should be transparent and reveal itself willingly under scrutiny; it should not obscure itself or surreptitiously avoid investigation into its history.

When people intentionally obscure their sources and re-package their own ideas for marketing purposes, this is not authentic not because of what their sources are but because they are not honestly presenting the adapted material in good faith. I deliberately mention honesty ‘with themselves’ as well, because that is the essential starting ground for authenticity and honesty with others.

So in American Buddhism, for example, there have been various cases of adaptation. Some forms of American Zen are quite influenced by American cultural trends. I sense that often this blending and adaptation is done in a way where it is more or less clear what they are doing and why, even if not 100% conscious and planned. On the other hand, someone who obscurely distorts teachings and uses the word Zen or Buddhism for other more self-interested motives is not participating in a genuine, large-scale adaptation of Buddhism. Unfortunately it is not seldom that we encounter scenarios like to the latter as well.

A large community naturally lends itself towards this transparency because of the scale and motive behind the adaptation: a community is not centered around the motives of a small minority or individual. The shared quest for an appropriately integrated form of Buddhism leads a culture to gradually, openly form a healthy harmony with the source materials they receive. Look at any traditional Buddhist absorption process: whether it’s Confucianism or integrating local deities into Buddhist pantheons and schemes, it’s clear what the motive is, how it’s done, etc. It’s natural and transparent. This is very different from someone choosing the Buddhism section so they’ll sell more books.

3 Likes
10

I get the latter, but why exactly is “an imitation of inherited Asian traditions” a problem again?

4 Likes
11

I’m assuming that collonialism might have something to do with complicating the matters? :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like
12

Also: I think any genuine adaptation of Buddhism must involve rebirth, karma, enlightenment and nirvana. This has never faltered historically. There might be Buddhist-inspired humanism and what have you, but without these I’m yet to be convinced we can properly call it Buddhism.

3 Likes
13

The EBT-oriented tendency that is commonly seen on the internet is certainly something new. I’m not sure whether it’s specifically American. As far as I know, no traditional Buddhist school has approached Buddhism in that way (including the Sautrāntika).

14

I have not much to say here except to recommend “How the Swans Came to the Lake” by Rick Fields for an excellent introduction to your topic.

1 Like
15

Can we expand on that a bit? I don’t want to presume I know what you’re talking about.

16

I think about how Buddhism has always become intwined with-in the culture it is a part of.

So I believe that what I am interested in with my question is not really saying anything like "asian imitation is “bad”’ — but I am trying to just prompt an idea of what the Western Buddhist tradition is, and if it is based upon ‘imitation’ then it seems confused (?) —

I think that Western Buddhism could be legitimately intertwined within the Western culture, but also there is a lot of stress in that adoption, as the values in the west kinda bump — but thats every culture and humans in general

some of this might not be said as best as I wished.

thanks for thinking with me in this thread

1 Like
17

Are you sure that ‘Asian Buddhism’ is a thing? The difference between cultural practices in Thai Buddhism, Sri Lankan Buddhism and Vietnamese Buddhism is significant. Let alone bringing in the three schools. There are also noticeable differences between how I perceive Buddhism in North America, the UK and Australia.

4 Likes
18

Precisely. This is exactly the kind of reification Buddhism is supposed to protect us from (at least, that’s my understanding).

Including ancient South Asian culture, no? So I don’t see how we could possibly embrace any sort of Buddhism that didn’t have “Asian culture” ready made and built into it.

The advent of Buddhism irreversibly transformed Chinese society, language, and thought–a country which had, by that time, already enjoyed 2,000 years of literate, highly stratified, cosmopolitan culture–such that Chinese people to this day do, say, and think things because ancient Indians did, said, and thought so. At the same time, though, they too thoroughly sinicized Buddhism and made it unequivocally Chinese.

I don’t know of any children who form themselves into autonomous human beings without first going through a rather extended period of total and complete immersive imitation of their parents.

4 Likes
19

It’s clear that any absorption and digestion of Buddhism into a foreign environment involves a two-way exchange: the Buddhicization of the new (sub)culture, and the cultural framing of Buddhist culture, as @knotty36 nicely pointed out with the example of Chinese Buddhism.

Already Pali & Sanskrit words like “karma,” “samsara,” “nirvana/nibbana,” “metta,” “brahmaviharas,” “jhana,” “samadhi,” “Dharma/dhamma” have become quite normal in English discussions, both of Buddhism and by Buddhist/Buddhish people. Even more specialized words and phrases are heard often enough in Buddhist discussions. Bowing, statues, altars, sitting on the floor, customs relating to monastics, greeting with anjali, and so on are also very common and often expected, sometimes even beyond the boundaries of a Buddhist temple or monastery.

One interesting example of adaptation is the widespread use and expectation of meditation cushions. This more Japanese custom, due to American/European/Australian exposure, seems to be spreading in popularity even back to Asia and has taken on a life of its own innovation as well.

As I suggested before, this adaptation process is on the scale of a people or community. Speaking as a monastic in Western countries, I’d say that Buddhism in these places is already very Westernized and the Western customs very Buddhicized and that this has happened in an essentially automatic negotiation process that locates what a people is comfortable or not with. It might be more of a dream than reality that Western Buddhism is yet to find its own voice: I think it may well have already begun that journey.

4 Likes
20

thank you this is all very helpful!