A Western Buddhism is Evolving

Long article - if you have the patience - but very succinct about East-West dichotomy/unity.

http://info-buddhism.com/Buddhism_in_the_West_Jay_Garfield.html

Long article - if you have the patience - but very succinct about East-West dichotomy/unity.

http://info-buddhism.com/Buddhism_in_the_West_Jay_Garfield.html

What's interesting is that he says due to the proliferation of Buddhist traditions in the West, all of them peacefully co-existing side by side, they're learning from each other, and being influenced by each other. I'm not sure that's true, but it's an interesting thought. He says due to this eclecticism in the West, Zen is being influenced by Tibetan Buddhism. But haven't some schools of Zen always had an influence from TB, or esoteric Buddhism? The Zen center in my town has a Japanese-style painting of Green Tara on the wall. Could someone here shed some light on this?

He says that because of the fact that Tibetan monks are using English translations of Tibetan texts in their studies, an interpretation of Tibetan teachings that is "inflected with Western philosophical ideas" is influencing Tibetan Buddhism. Why would a careful translation of a text somehow carry alien philosophical ideas? A translation remains faithful to the original, that's its purpose. It doesn't weave in ideas from the translator's cultural background that I'm aware of.

He says TB is based on the Nalanda tradition, but that's only 1/2 the equation. It's also based on the tantric tradition that Padmasambhava brought from a very different part of India. And Tibet was far from a religious "tabula rasa" when Buddhism was imported. Shamanism and nature spirit worship were very strong, and are still practiced in Tibetan communities today. According to some researchers, Buddhism was mightily resisted by significant segments of the population for hundreds of years in Tibet, due to preference for the indigenous tradition.

Lots of oversimplifications in this article.

Awesome!:) Thanks!

Really nice take on the transmission of the Dharma to other cultures imo. :thumbup:

Thanks for posting this, @IronRabbit! :)

IMO a Western Buddhism would be one that incorporates Western (or "modern") values of democracy, egalitarianism, transparency, and accountability. For all the accusations of "eclecticism" or "shopping" for elements from different traditions, there are an equal number of practitioners, or more, who dedicate themselves to learning a single tradition in depth. From my admittedly limited perspective, the main source of potential culture clash is with teachers based in a medieval tradition trying to address sanghas full of 21st-Century highly educated students steeped in the democratic values. It will be interesting to watch this process of ancient East meets modern West unfold.

But democratic values and egalitarianism don't apply to, say, medical school; in medical school, the lead surgeon is the lead surgeon, and there's no voting ;)

As for translations--a fascinating topic, though I'm admittedly biased--culture and language are so interwoven that it is absolutely impossible to completely separate them. Without question, English carries longstanding cultural information and values of its own, and translating Tibetan texts to English will inevitably affect them, however slightly.

Take for example the concept of "prayer." We here who hear that word immediately assign it certain values which reflect (I think for most of us here, anyway) our cultural experience, which is some kind of Judeo-Christian prayer.

Some Buddhist translators prefer to translate it into English as "make aspirations towards" or "generate the heart [or mind] of" instead of "pray," for that reason. We think of "praying to Medicine Buddha" as simply "asking for Medicine Buddha to help," whereas in many contexts, the meaning for a Tibetan person is "generating the heart [or mind] of Medicine Buddha." Instead of calling to someone "out there" to do something for you, you are trying to generate within yourself the same compassion that Medicine Buddha would.

But the word "prayer," even though in many ways it is an tempting translation to use of various Sanskrit and Tibetan terms, is so loaded with cultural images and preconceptions for us, that it inevitably colors the Tibetan advice with our American cultural tints. The Tibetan teacher may say, "Now I will read the translation of the Medicine Buddha prayer." What he's saying is, "Here's the prayer you use to invoke within yourself the compassionate mind of Medicine Buddha," but what we hear is, "here's how you call out to Medicine Buddha."

I'm not saying there's never an aspect of "calling out to someone," in Buddhism; just that there is also this other aspect which is not simply calling out to something, yet is also called "prayer."

Someone on another thread said there's a difference between simply receiving teachings, and accepting the teacher as your personal guru, as in guru yoga. That's a really good observation. So we don't necessarily put the guru or master on a pedestal when we're simply learning the basics of the Dharma. Those who choose to take the plunge and practice guru yoga for an advanced level of experience would choose to accept a non-egalitarian situation.

I don't know how this applies to Zen and Ch'an. I have the impression that Zen students tend to accept that the master dwells in the Absolute realm, and is beyond reproach, traditionally, at least. I wonder if that may change after so much time in the West.

It's foolish to disregard the status of the teacher as a knowledge-holder. I do not consider my Buddhist teacher to be on the same level of knowledge as myself any more than I considered my linguistics professor to be on the same level. If one has so much personal pride that one cannot bear the thought of a teacher knowing more than oneself, it's really impossible to have a fruitful student-teacher relationship.

If one has this hang-up, then by all means one can--and probably should--study on ones own. However, one should never assume that studying painting or yoga or gymnastics or surgery or trekking or Buddhist philosophy on ones own could ever replace the experience of studying it from a master.

I do put the teacher on a pedestal. I feel deeply that they should be on a pedestal. This is simply a pedestal of respect for their knowledge; it is in no way, shape or form a judgement call on the value of either human being.

There are many countless instances in which a painting master or medical instructor or any other teacher leads the student down a path the student has never seen; going down this path will absolutely require some amount of faith in the teacher, taking some steps in the dark. We will inevitably do some things simply because the teacher said so, and without any proof it will turn out right. But this is the very essence of the master-apprentice relationship; otherwise we might as well simply reinvent the wheel, over and over and over, with absolutely no benefit derived from other people's prior experience.

@Sile I didn't get that read from the piece. I've seen it a lot that 'westernizing' Buddhism means thinking one knows better than the teachers, but I'm not sure that's what he was saying.

It sounded to me like he was saying we all have things we can learn from each other for mutual benefit. Not only east to west but east to east with global communication so much easier.

I've heard there are teachers who say they're nobody special, and insist their students not put them on a pedestal. They exude humility, while at the same time they are clearly knowledgeable, thus I have heard. I think there's wisdom in that. Ultimately it comes down to a matter of choice. Whatever works for you. I can see a place for both types.

I think the problem is that as long as the teacher isn't asking you to stretch yourself, to take a scary step, we say, "that teacher is humble." Then when a teacher suggests you take a scary step, it's all to easy to say "that teacher thinks he knows more than me."

By pedestal I don't mean worship blindly or without any sense whatsoever of the teacher's nature; rather, that at some point, the teacher is going to say or do something that implies they know more than we do. If we resent that, it will be hard for us to benefit from their knowledge and experience.

Professors and doctors know more than we do, but do we put them on a pedestal? Plumbers know more than we do about plumbing, but do we put them on a pedestal? Maybe there are relative pedestals. Is respect the same as a pedestal? Now I'm riffing on the pedestal concept, lol!

I yearn to say once again that linguistic definitions are at the bottom of everything, but again with the bias :)

I have to go to work. But I will read the article later.

Of course Buddhism is changing. Modern ideas and Western cultural values will affect it.
I believe the internet will affect it.

Teachers in old times had superior knowledge, probably. Maybe they could read when most students could not. They had a copy of a sutra. Wow! Who could argue with that?
But these days the knowledge is one smart Google search away. And so is the information about all other teachings and about the scientific news. There’s no way the teacher knows more than we do and the teaching model has to change.

@Sile I recognize the language you use about the student/teacher relationship, but I don’t have warm feelings when I hear it. In my mind it's connected with unprofessional psychological games; abuse even. But I’ll try to put this mildly:
Don’t treat the teacher as a superhuman being. It’s asking for trouble. Imho.

There's a great difference between treating the teacher as a superhuman and simply learning from them.

One can't Google ones way to being a master martial artist - one must learn from a teacher. Would you trust your life to a Google surgeon?

If one has strong negative feelings about learning from a teacher, then absolutely, avoid that path yourself; but there's no need to project ones own fears/aversions onto other students who prefer learning from a teacher.

compassionate_warrior said:

Professors and doctors know more than we do, but do we put them on a pedestal? Plumbers know more than we do about plumbing, but do we put them on a pedestal? Maybe there are relative pedestals. Is respect the same as a pedestal? Now I'm riffing on the pedestal concept, lol!

A plumber and a pedestal. That brings a particular image to mind. :D

person said:

A plumber and a pedestal. That brings a particular image to mind. :D

Dude, I totally worship my plumber. I cannot begin to fathom the intricacies of his work, but intricate and effective they are. I doubt he learnt from Google, with all due respect; so many things are best learnt from studying with a master, be it master plumber, violinist, or any other teacher.

Dakini said:

Someone on another thread said there's a difference between simply receiving teachings, and accepting the teacher as your personal guru, as in guru yoga. That's a really good observation.

Sile said:

There's a great difference between treating the teacher as a superhuman and simply learning from them.

This is all I was saying in my post.

Dakini said:

Dakini said:

Someone on another thread said there's a difference between simply receiving teachings, and accepting the teacher as your personal guru, as in guru yoga. That's a really good observation.

Sile said:

There's a great difference between treating the teacher as a superhuman and simply learning from them.

This is all I was saying in my post.

I would say that "accepting the teacher as your personal guru" doesn't necessarily equate to treating them as superhuman, though. If I as a violinist make the decision to study from one master violinist, to take that master as my personal master, it doesn't mean I hold them up higher than they should be held up. It does mean I hold them up, though, in some way. I do absolutely take their advice deeply to heart, and I have in fact made a sort of pact with myself that this is the master I choose.

The problem I see in westerners who are for some reason completely freaked out by the idea of this master-student relationship, is that they think the pact is with the teacher, and therefore somehow, scary. The pact is not with the teacher, the pact is with yourself. It's simply a decision to focus.

One doesn't have to focus, ever. One doesn't have to choose a master teacher and study from them; it's just that one should then also drop or lower the expectation of becoming a master violinist, or a master surgeon. There is no shame in taking a less focused path, but there is also no shame in following a more focused path.

Just saying, one can "simply learn" from a teacher without any pacts, ceremonies, or anything. I don't need a pact in order to focus. I do so naturally when the subject matter is of interest. The sangha situations I've been in have been like college courses--one was a special class on the Santideva's the Boddhisattva Way of Life. Another was a special course on the Lamrim, by a monk someone had brought from India for the purpose. Really very similar to a classroom setting.

Yes--our teachings are akin to classroom teachings as well, although we do sing prayers before and after, which personally, I love.

It really is a matter of personal choice, personal learning style, depth or breadth of experience. Not every path is for everyone; I simply object to people trying to wipe out one path because it's not their personal favorite.

If a path doesn't appeal, simply avoid it. Don't go around drumming up horror stories because it bothers you that the path exists. I totally understand the psychology, and I am no different from anyone else--if something exists that I disagree with, it nags at me. But if a huge part of your spiritual journey is defined by trying to mess with someone else's, something is wrong.

Neo, sooner or later you're going to realize just as I did that there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.

-Morpheus (from The Matrix)

Anyone nowadays can gain knowledge of the Buddhadharma. What a skilled teacher is able to do is guide one along the path in an efficient manner. They can tailor the message and give a particular teaching that will benefit the student the most for that particular time.

person said:

Neo, sooner or later you're going to realize just as I did that there's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path.

-Morpheus (from The Matrix)

Anyone nowadays can gain knowledge of the Buddhadharma. What a skilled teacher is able to do is guide one along the path in an efficient manner. They can tailor the message and give a particular teaching that will benefit the student the most for that particular time.

Very much agree. One of the gifts of the master-student relationship--knowing each other.

A classroom lesson is useful and not to be underestimated; but the benefits of studying one-on-one with any great master are priceless, and all too rare. My girls are learning adequate string technique in their orchestra class, but if they were spending that the equivalent amount of time with a private instructor, would be light years ahead.

Both methods are worthwhile, but there's no question which is deeper.

Sorry--obviously I need to spend time with a typing instructor, because I cannot seem to generate coherent sentences here for the life of me!

"Just as in the great ocean there is but one taste — the taste of salt, so in this Doctrine and Discipline there is but one taste — the taste of freedom." - The Buddha

Sile said:

If a path doesn't appeal, simply avoid it. Don't go around drumming up horror stories because it bothers you that the path exists. I totally understand the psychology, and I am no different from anyone else--if something exists that I disagree with, it nags at me. But if a huge part of your spiritual journey is defined by trying to mess with someone else's, something is wrong.

What’s that rant about?
I sometimes like to point out that it is important to have realistic ideas about the person of the Teacher and that it’s smart to keep making one’s own decisions.
I’ll keep doing that if you don’t mind.

zenff said:

Sile said:

If a path doesn't appeal, simply avoid it. Don't go around drumming up horror stories because it bothers you that the path exists. I totally understand the psychology, and I am no different from anyone else--if something exists that I disagree with, it nags at me. But if a huge part of your spiritual journey is defined by trying to mess with someone else's, something is wrong.

What’s that rant about?
I sometimes like to point out that it is important to have realistic ideas about the person of the Teacher and that it’s smart to keep making one’s own decisions.
I’ll keep doing that if you don’t mind.

Absolutely agree. I was referring the the unfortunate decision by some who dislike tantra, or who have a deep suspicion of the guru-teacher model, to loudly criticize those things instead of simply choosing their own path.

Sile said:

I was referring the the unfortunate decision by some who dislike tantra, or who have a deep suspicion of the guru-teacher model, to loudly criticize those things instead of simply choosing their own path.

None of what you cite here is going on in this thread. Please don't bring in baggage from conversations you have had outside the forum. It's confusing, and can lead to misunderstandings and unnecessary conflict. Generally speaking, we're not an adversarial bunch.

I think we've reached a level of mutual understanding here. To bring the topic back to the OP, a Westernized Buddhism, I'd say, is increasingly meaning a discipleship that is savvy enough to be discerning regarding masters who present themselves. This is a healthy development.

I liked where the author pointed out the dichotomy between east and west in terms of the development of the teaching. In the east the Dharma is seen as starting out pure from the mouth of the Buddha and over time degenerating. The traditional western view, coming out of the enlightenment, is that knowledge and understanding develop over time. I see both of these views as correct, don't ask me how that's just the way I feel about it.

compassionate_warrior said:

I think we've reached a level of mutual understanding here. To bring the topic back to the OP, a Westernized Buddhism, I'd say, is increasingly meaning a discipleship that is savvy enough to be discerning regarding masters who present themselves. This is a healthy development.

But isn't that implying that no one in the past has been discerning? It's in the original instructions of the Buddha to be discerning about the teacher.

If westerners are increasing their level of discernment regarding teachers, I'd agree it's a wonderful thing, and say it's a sign of the Buddhification of westerners, not the westernization of Buddhism.

No, it isn't implying that that no one in the past has been discerning, that's an extreme statement. However, the experience with Hindu movements in the US comes to mind.

compassionate_warrior said:

None of what you cite here is going on in this thread.

I was referring to your comment that TB being based on the Nalanda tradition is only 1/2 of the equation--that it is also based on the tantric tradition, and that "Shamanism and nature spirit worship were very strong, and are still practiced in Tibetan communities today."

My understanding from this is that there is a feeling Tibetan Buddhism is "contaminated" in some way with tantrism, shamanism, and nature spirit wisdom, and that therefore both Tibetan Buddhism and tantrism itself are in some ways impure.

My point is simply that even if one feels personally that aspects of Tibetan Buddhism and tantra are not appealing, that doesn't mean they aren't valuable for others; even if one finds these aspects personally troubling, one has to be careful in implying that TB and tantrism are somehow "bad." Not everyone is troubled by remnants of nature spirit worship; who's to say those remnants, if they exist, aren't actually a good thing?

There's really no such thing as a "pure" tradition.

Why do you keep confusing me with Dakini? I did not make that statement. I see nothing there that is critical of shamanism or tantra. Again, I ask that you leave your baggage at the door when you post on our forum.

compassionate_warrior said:

Again, I ask that you leave your baggage at the door when you post on our forum.

? Most of what we're discussing here is referenced in the OP's posted article, case in point our earlier issue of focusing vs. flitting, and the additional fact that either of these two can be taken to extremes:

"I agree that the downside—the negative side of richness—is a difficulty in choice, and it can lead to a distraction of flitting from one thing to another and that’s one extreme. Another extreme is to say: »I’ll only take this insight and shut everything else out.« But another is to choose a practice—choose an approach that makes sense—but to draw insight and illumination from other places, and that can be a very, very useful thing. I don’t think that that needs to be a cause for too much anxiety."

The first response to the OP implied that Tibetan Buddhism incorporated imagery from nature, i.e. non-Buddhist elements. So my continuing that topic is, I don't think, baggage.

What is a non-Buddhist element? If you introduce contemplative meditation, say, to a new group of students, and ask them to focus visually on a simple object--say an iPod (!)--does the Buddhist teaching of contemplative meditation become un-Buddhist in some way simply because the object of meditation is something from the new culture that didn't exist in Buddhism's culture of origin?

If you take an entire nature worship ritual and literally change Buddhism drastically to fit it into the nature ritual, I would definitely consider that an alteration of Buddhism (though even that would depend on the nature ritual conflicting in some way with Buddhist tenets).

But if cultural objects or deities, which already exist in the new culture and are familiar to the new students, are used simply as tools for Buddhist meditations or exercises, is that contamination or degeneration of Buddhism?

I think one really has to take it on a case by case basis, and see whether any local imagery or objects or rituality violate the logic and tenets of Buddhism, before deciding whether those things are radically changing Buddhism.

Why so negative on TB's diversity of roots? "contamination", "not appealing". I couldn't disagree more. You didn't get that from my posts, Sile. I think the shamanic elements in the tradition are precious survivals of the pre-Buddhist past. We're lucky to have them. In fact, I'm reading a book comparing Bon to Siberian shamanism. The intent of the last part of my post was to say that the author had a very narrow view of Tibetan Buddhism. It's much more rich and diverse than he lets on in his writing. I think he does the tradition a disservice. He also does Tibetan history and Bon an injustice by claiming Tibet was a blank slate from a religious standpoint when Buddhism came along. Some things about the article struck me as odd, especially coming from a scholar of Tibetan Buddhism. Maybe it's the author who has a bias against elements in the tradition that aren't strictly Buddhist. hmm...

I definitely don't feel the negativity of TB's alleged association with shamanism, but in previous post you said "Buddhist disapprove mightily of shamanism." So I'm confused as to whether you feel shamanism is precious, or disapprove mightily, lol!

I said nothing of the kind. Please read more carefully.

Dakini said:

I said nothing of the kind. Please read more carefully.

"Dakini April 2011

It was probably prohibited because Buddhists disapprove mightily of shamanism. For a view of traditional shamanic traditions, see the film by Mystic Fire Video, "Oracles of Ladakh"."

http://newbuddhist.com/discussion/10276/bon

Wow, @Sile... how many threads did you have to go through to find that little snippet, just to prove a point? :wow:


Feel better now? :D

compassionate_warrior said:

To bring the topic back to the OP, a Westernized Buddhism, I'd say, is increasingly meaning a discipleship that is savvy enough to be discerning regarding masters who present themselves. This is a healthy development.

I agree. People are more discerning and less willing to indulge in slavish devotion to one guru.

Spiny

Western culture, but then when they see respects in which Buddhist practice or Buddhist ideas themselves develop or evolve or transform in interaction with Western culture, they become afraid and they say: »Oh my gosh! It’s no longer authentic! It’s no longer pure! It’s no longer real Buddhism! Something happened to it!« and that is a reaction that I really want you to put aside because that has been happening to Buddhism from the moment the Buddha gained awakening at Bodhgaya.

Yes, that is true! However, when western Buddhists says something like "Well, you really don't need to follow the precepts" or actively encourages breaking them, etc, I think that kind of response is not inappropriate. When the 8 Fold path becomes the 6 Fold path, is that something to be put aside?

I don't recall anybody here certainly advocating breaking the precepts, but i together with others have always put the onus of self-discipline onto the shoulders of those questioning to what level the precepts should be enforced.
And the day the 8 become 6, I'm going back to Catholicism...
where have you heard that?

nowhere, right?
Lets' not go to extremes....

federica said:

I don't recall anybody here certainly advocating breaking the precepts, but i together with others have always put the onus of self-discipline onto the shoulders of those questioning to what level the precepts should be enforced.
And the day the 8 become 6, I'm going back to Catholicism...
where have you heard that?

nowhere, right?
Lets' not go to extremes....

I have heard that from some people who consider themselves to be Western Buddhists. Most prominently with people who believe that the "psychedelic experience" can be a shortcut to enlightenment. The extreme is exactly what I was referring to. :)

do you perchance know what they might have been smoking.....? ;)

I get you.
no, i don't take people like that too seriously myself, either.....

federica said:

Wow, @Sile... how many threads did you have to go through to find that little snippet, just to prove a point? :wow:


Feel better now? :D

I wasn't seeking any particular outcome; just getting mixed signals about shamanism. It comes up a lot in discussions of "western" Buddhism (I hadn't heard the term used in conjunction w/Buddhism until entering these western Buddhism discussions, for example). I don't personally have a problem with any influences on Buddhism, shamanistic, western or otherwise, as long as they don't seem to be going against the tenets in anyway. I know where I stand on it, but it's hard to figure out where others stand on it in the current thread, unless I've missed a clarifying point somewhere, which is entirely possible.

Maybe it would be simpler to just ask the question this way: if there are aspects of shamanism (and what is that exactly) in Tibetan Buddhism, is it a good or bad thing?

People bring it up so often, usually (to my ear) in a sort of frightened, averse or denigrating way; but if we examine what we think are shamanistic influences, are they making Tibetan Buddhism somehow worse than, say, Zen? If not, is it something we should keep worrying about? Or is it simply that, in striving for a western Buddhism, we (understandably) prefer imagery closer to our own cultural references and want to ditch some of the eastern imagery? What is it about these Bon or shamanistic aspects we find most worrisome?

My suggestion would be that Bon, shamanism, pre-Buddhist Tibetan cultural aspects to TB, are just a natural flavoring, and if we mold Buddhism into some western shape, it will take on western flavoring. Therefore, there's really no need to fear or denigrate the Tibetan cultural aspects of TB, since we are inclined to make the same sorts of changes ourselves.

I keep coming back to the feeling that there's sort of an urge to "wipe out" Tibetan influences in existing sanghas, whereas I feel it would be healthier to establish new sanghas and shape them however you like. That's the overall thing that is troubling me in the western Buddhism discussions--a feeling that the Buddhism I prefer is under attack. It is hard to establish a sangha, so I do understand that it's tempting to try to "reform" existing sanghas.

Sile said:

federica said:

Wow, @Sile... how many threads did you have to go through to find that little snippet, just to prove a point? :wow:


Feel better now? :D

I wasn't seeking any particular outcome; just getting mixed signals about shamanism.

Getting mixed signals? You really had to dig back through nearly a year of old threads to find what you perceive to be a mixed signal. I don't see anyone denigrating Tibetan culture on this thread.

Sile said:

federica said:

Wow, @Sile... how many threads did you have to go through to find that little snippet, just to prove a point? :wow:

Feel better now? :D

I wasn't seeking any particular outcome; just getting mixed signals about shamanism....

Doesn't answer my question.
You have to understand it's come over as confrontational.

So, how did you know exactly what to look for and where?

Actually that thread comes up in a Google search of pre-Bon, Buddhist, and shamanism--NewBuddhist is famous ;)

http://www.google.com/search?q=shamanism+buddhists#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q="pre-bon"+buddhists+shamanism&pbx=1&oq="pre-bon"+buddhists+shamanism&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=23843l26796l1l27224l2l2l0l0l0l0l266l484l2-2l2l0&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.,cf.osb&fp=a26899f1ff3a0aa2&biw=1479&bih=859