Buddhist Churches of America has existed in the United States for over a hundred years as a branch of the Jodo Shinshu sect of Japanese Pure Land Buddhism. I have been attending services at the local BCA temple for three years.
The main practice of Jodo Shinshu Buddhism is recitation of the Nembutsu, the name of Amida Buddha, Namu-Amida-Butsu. I recite the Nembutsu with the Zen understanding of Amida as our Buddha-nature, rather than a literal being from galaxies away, eons before the Big Bang.
The reason why I started attending services there originally is because their Dharma talks are in English and they also try to be as welcoming as possible of non-Japanese people, while maintaining their own heritage.
Having recently returned from Thailand I discovered that there is a Buddhist temple in my area serving the local Thai community. On a whim I made an unannounced visit to the wat. I was immediately greeted by one of the monks who invited me in to talk. What I found was that while the temple mostly is visited by members of the Thai immigrant community, anyone and everyone is welcome.
I have been attending for several weeks now. I attend weekly services as well as meditation lessons. The services are mostly in Thai but there are English translations available as well as transliterations of the chants so I can follow along. A smattering of native-born Americans attend both services and meditation lessons and are eagerly invited to learn about and practice Buddhism. The Thai temple members have been absolutely wonderful and have made me feel at home and at ease.
In every respect I have had a positive experience at the temple even though there is a bit of a language barrier during chanting. The monks are happy to have me attend and the Abbot in particular has taken an interest in my meditation practices. I have been in communication over the phone with an American in another city who knows the Abbot and who has put in a good word for me. Although I am new to the wat, I have already benefited from the instruction I have received.
It’s possible that my experience has been a novel one, but I would like to think that anyone who visits a temple with a sincere and genuine interest in learning about and practicing Buddhism will be warmly welcomed.
I have great love and respect for the immigrant monks in my hometown. However, the Dhamma English they learned is of Rhys-David era. Then once they are in an English speaking country they go from their ethnic speaking temple to their supporters houses in their supporters cars. They don’t get much chance to practice modern English, let alone in a Dhamma context. To expect Dhamma talks like we are used to is a bit much. However most ethnic monastics would be happy to have a one/two- on-one conversation about Dhamma. It gives them a great chance to improve their Dhamma English and you a great chance to understand more Dhamma. In the last few years we’ve seen our local SL monk gain so much confidence in his English that he will happily give a talk to a small group, but not his whole temple! These one on one conversation might even benefit your practice more than just listening to a random sila-Dana-Bhavana talk, as it gives you the opportunity to ask questions and build a relationship.
In the short time I have been attending the wat there have been no formal Dhamma talks in English. However, as the subsequent post by Pasanna mentions, the monks are eager to talk one-on-one about Dhamma teachings. In particular, when I attend meditation lessons the Abbot concludes the session by referencing Dhamma teachings.
Additionally, the wat occasionally hosts retreats with visiting practitioners who give talks in English. In fact, there is an upcoming retreat and I anticipate that there will be discussions both in Thai and in English by some of the attendees.
For a majority of lay people at these Theravada temples in the United States, what are their main practices? Is it sutra chanting and making offerings to monks? I am not particularly interested in learning Vipassana meditation.
One thing I will never get used to, or accept, is the practice of calling monasteries “temples”. To me, that just seems like such a perversion of the Buddha’s teaching. The whole idea of offering “sacrifices” to get better worldly outcomes is something the Buddha inveighed against constantly.
I presume this is a term that Europeans applied when enountering Buddhism. Unfortunately, terms like “temple” and “praying” stuck, so you’ll see information pamphlets produced by umm… monasteries that use those terms. When asked to proofread such documents, I try to recommend other terms…
Not all Buddhist traditions will have monks living at the same place where lay people go to attend services. In Jodo Shinshu Buddhism, for example, priests are traditionally married and have children. This started with the founder of Jodo Shinshu, Shinran, who left the monastic life and married a nun.
In the Sri Lankan Vihara/temple I was associated with the running order went like this:
Namo tassa,
Refuges and precepts
Talk on the benefits of dāna in Singhala
Dāna Buddha puja chanting for lights, flowers, incense, drinks and food.-Pāli
Sharing of merits gatthas in Pāli
Offering food to the monastic sangha
Paritta chanting in Pāli
Dhamma talk
Pirikirith (gifts for sangha)
If kids were present there might be 5 minutes metta meditation at the beginning and the Dhamma would be taught by a native English speaking monastic.
They also have ‘sīl’ days near uposatha. I never attended as they were day long retreats in Singhala. I believe it was as above plus more Dhamma talks and meditation.
If we get too caught up in language, we won’t get very far. Better to just pay attention to what is intended.
For example, many Sri Lankans will understand a clear difference between a temple (pansal) and a monastery (aranya). When they say temple they are certainly not thinking about an ancient Greek temple where sacrifices are made. They are thinking of a place where monks live that is very close to population centres and is focused primarily on the needs of the lay people. A monastery will be thought of as a place farther away from population centres and with more of a balance between the needs of the monks and the lay people.
When Sri Lankans use the word priest, they are just using an English word. Priests were likely much more common/in closer contact than monks in the convert Catholic communities. It’s just a word.
If they really want someone who functions as a priest to be a mediator between them and a certain diety, they would probably go to a devala and get help from a kapumahataya. But they wouldn’t go to a Buddhist temple or monastery. This is part of (Sri Lankan) Theravada Buddhism that hasn’t transferred so much to the United States. (just to return to the topic)
It occurs to me that the original poster in this discussion (Kensho) doesn’t mention where he is from. I live in a small town about a half-hour drive from the small city where I have found a wat serving the Thai immigrant community. However, there is a much larger city about an hour from where I live that has numerous Buddhist groups that attract primarily native-born Americans who started practicing Buddhism as adults. (Most of these groups are housed in buildings but don’t necessarily use the word “wat” or “temple,” preferring instead “center” or “community.”)
If I want to attend Dhamma talks, services, or meditation sessions with English-speaking people with similar backgrounds to mine I could easily make the longer drive to the large city about an hour away. I probably will at some point but right now I am happy with the wat serving the Thai community closer to where I live.
My point is that many large and medium sized cities in Western countries do have Buddhist groups comprised of the resident population. If Kensho lives near a large enough city he may be able to find one.
