Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Western Buddhists
I have met Buddhism first through the western Buddhists /Internet/.
I know this is not the best way as you look first to the interpretations. However, having problem with blind faith, mystical words and metaphors – this was the way for me.
Looking at the heritage of the majority of Western Buddhists, I notice that most of them come from the Theravada tradition. At the same time so many western novices warn me: stay away from this tradition as it is too orthodox.
Any ideas?
I know this is not the best way as you look first to the interpretations. However, having problem with blind faith, mystical words and metaphors – this was the way for me.
Looking at the heritage of the majority of Western Buddhists, I notice that most of them come from the Theravada tradition. At the same time so many western novices warn me: stay away from this tradition as it is too orthodox.
Any ideas?
0
Comments
the Hinayana [Theravada] was not untrue, but was merely a
preparatory doctrine, preached by the Buddha to disciples whose
minds were not yet receptive to the ultimate truth. When he
[the Buddha] had prepared them with the tentative doctrine, he
then revealed to them his final truth. (The Buddhist Tradition,140)"
http://buddhism-history.com/25/history-of-buddhism-in-vietnam.html
http://buddhism-history.com/43/history-and-beliefs-of-buddhism.html
I waited over 15 years before deciding which Tradition suited me best.
And I did look at all of them.
One good website with a lot of information on each is http://www.buddhanet.net, and another that's Theravada-based but very useful for its Pali Canon translations is http://www.accesstoinsight.org. There's no reason to get cornered into one tradition as if one is better than the others. When you finally do choose one, do it because you can relate to it and think it will help you personally.
"In the 3rd Century B.C. during the time of Emperor Asoka, the Third Council was held to discuss the differences of opinion among the bhikkhus of different sects. At this Council the differences were not confined to the Vinaya but were also connected with the Dhamma. At the end of this Council, the President of the Council, Moggaliputta Tissa, compiled a book called the Kathavatthu refuting the heretical, false views and theories held by some sects. The teaching approved and accepted by this Council was known as Theravada. The Abhidhamma Pitaka was included at this Council.
After the Third Council, Asoka's son, Ven. Mahinda, brought the Tripitaka to Sri Lanka, along with the commentaries that were recited at the Third Council. The texts brought to Sri Lanka were preserved until today without losing a page. The texts were written in Pali which was based on the Magadhi language spoken by the Buddha. There was nothing known as Mahayana at that time.
Coming of Mahayana
Between the 1st Century B.C. to the 1st Century A.D., the two terms Mahayana and Hinayana appeared in the Saddharma Pundarika Sutra or the Sutra of the Lotus of the Good Law.
About the 2nd Century A.D. Mahayana became clearly defined. Nagarjuna developed the Mahayana philosophy of Sunyata and proved that everything is Void in a small text called Madhyamika-karika. About the 4th Century, there were Asanga and Vasubandhu who wrote enormous amount of works on Mahayana. After the 1st Century AD., the Mahayanists took a definite stand and only then the terms of Mahayana and Hinayana were introduced.
We must not confuse Hinayana with Theravada because the terms are not synonymous. Theravada Buddhism went to Sri Lanka during the 3rd Century B.C. when there was no Mahayana at all. Hinayana sects developed in India and had an existence independent from the form of Buddhism existing in Sri Lanka. Today there is no Hinayana sect in existence anywhere in the world. Therefore, in 1950 the World Fellowship of Buddhists inaugurated in Colombo unanimously decided that the term Hinayana should be dropped when referring to Buddhism existing today in Sri Lanka, Thailand, Burma, Cambodia, Laos, etc. This is the brief history of Theravada, Mahayana and Hinayana"
excerpt from " Theravada-Mahayana Buddhism" by Ven. Dr. W. Rahula.
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/theramaya.html
I am too old to 'be confused and not intelligent ' enough to make a choices.
However, reading Buddhists Internet, I am overwhelmed with so many ideas and contradictions.
My ego says: you can make sense of it all. At the same time my less confident side say:
You are just a beginner, how can you choose between people who through the centuries have developed the inside and understanding.
Why most of the western Buddhists come from Theravada doctrine ?
I don't know your assertion is true, the mahayana is well rooted in the west.
Look on Ajahn Brahm.
However, those who are not novices follow what accords to their needs.
My only advice is to define your needs. It is a matter of looking within rather than without.
All the best
Spiny
but any other school is ok. theravada is boring, tibetan buddhism
comes with many bells n whistles.
Think of it as going to a university, you choose one course.
doesnt mean because you major in english, you can attend other lectures that you did not enrol in.
choose a school and learn as much as you can about it 1st.
then, explore other schools.
otherwise, its just plain confusing.
Due to poor planning, i have probably managed to add
to the confusion. haha.
I don’t look at any particular school to commit myself.
However, knowledge about different approaches will help me understand Buddhism more.
The one thing which as a westerner I find difficult is navigating through some Eastern concepts.
I read some Buddhism by Eastern mystics many years ago. I put them down because I could not really follow them with my western mind.
Then I listen to Ajahn Brahm and other Western Buddhists. This raised my interest.
Nonetheless, as I said before this is second hand ‘’story’. I would like to go a bit deeper but not get overwhelmed and be put off.
LOL, in our upbringing........ :buck:
Steve Hagen's Buddhism Plain & Simple was how I initially dipped my feet in the water, and then Thich Nhat Hanh's The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching. There's no need to immediately commit to any one lineage-- in fact, some have switched later in life and some even practise within two or more lineages (and sometimes, oddly enough, even different religions!).
I think what is most important is finding what expression of Buddhism works for you and helps you grow. Certain plants and flowers require certain kinds of soil to flourish. FWIW, I am not committed to any particular school, though I lean mostly toward Soto Zen. But I find reading Theravada teachers like Ajahn Chah or Tibetan teachers like Pema Chodron very helpful. I may do shikantaza, but I also find tonglen (in the Tibetan tradition) very helpful for myself.
"The teachings at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end are the same in expression but different in meaning." ~ The Lotus Sutra
Or, to steal from a totally different religious tradition, Thomas Aquinas: "Whatever is received is received according to the mode of the receiver."
However, your quote:
"The teachings at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end are the same in expression but different in meaning." ~ The Lotus Sutra
It has helped me enormously to verbalize certain doubts. So the solution must be near. :cool:
Thanks
PS With my western way of thinking I would prefer for a quote to say:
"The teachings at the beginning, in the middle, and at the end are the same meaning but different in expression ‘’
But this is why I propbly go wrong.
I'd really recommend Steve Hagen's book as a basic intro to Buddhism-- It cleared up a lot of things for me, anyway!
Why most of the western Buddhists come from Theravada doctrine ?'
bcos the 1st european to study buddhism was in sri lanka.
it was back in the days when it was a british colony.
ceylon is theravada buddhist.
Apart from the "anything goes" Zennies, we must be very careful to avoid stating there are Westerners "Westernising" Buddhism.
Most of the original Western Buddhists learned their Buddhism in Asia. They all learned from Asian teacehers. This includes the "non-rebirth" Westerners.
Generally, the differences in Buddhist schools has its roots in Asia.
For example, sites such as this are perfect examples showing how many Westerners wish to embrace beliefs about rebirth, reincarnation, etc.
This is not something "Western" or "Eastern". It is individual disposition.
Regards
The 4 Noble Truths and the 8 Fold Path when applied to our daily lives is the way.
Choosing one tradition over another tradition just limits us. Probably better to devote our efforts to waking up rather than contrasting the differences of various schools. I try to keep an open mind and apply what works best for me now.
In metta,
Raven (an Eastern Aussie LOL)
neither.
its upside down. or bottoms up , depending on your
blood alcohol level.
luv the song down under by men at work.
We all have created those borders.
Unfortunately, as consequences we have created our own superficial ideas to:
Racism,
Culture,
Religion,
Politics,
Philosophy,
Morality,
etc
Those terms divide us with the huge consequences.
Thank you.
Could you elaborate?
Esp about: ''employ what is probably the most accessible meditation tradition''
If yes, thanks for giving me the direction to pursue it further.
We humans follow trends... especially in the celebrity obsessed west. The Dalai Lama has been very high profile and is extremely likeable. The list of celebrities endorsing doesn't hurt either. I'm not saying there isn't a great deal of value to Tibetan, I am just saying that I think the celebrity status of HHDL gets a lot of people interested in the beginning.
Theravada I think is sold as a more "rational" Buddhism and since most westerners looking into Buddhism have probably already rejected Christianity, many are not looking for a mystical or faith based religion so I would have thought Zen or Theravada would definitely be the most popular in the West. Again, I think with a charismatic high profile leader, they could be.
For myself, I started very interested in Soto Zen, and also Thich Nhat Hanh, but there happened to be a Jodo Shinshu Temple (Japanese Pure Land) in my town so I went there a few times. The genuine kindness of the people there, along with a couple really good books on Shinran, lead me to feel it really didn't matter which school, and I am actually extremely glad I found Shin.
Actually to add to the "it doesn't matter which school" argument, one of the regular attendees of my Shin Temple recently received his transmission to be a Roshi in the Rinzai Zen tradition. The funny thing is there is a Rinzai Temple closer to where he lives, but he prefers our Shin Temple. However he is looking to start his own Temple in accordance with his Zen teachers wishes.
However I digress.....yet again.
Buddha did not preach.
He has given us a huge freedom to development our consciousness and search for for ''ultimate''
This is as far as it goes.
For me Buddha is a great philosopher and at the same time full of the great wisdom about a human psychology.
Should we stop on this? Should we follow his teaching exactly?
In my opinion we should take into the account that his teaching is over 2000 years old.
And then we should follow his teaching:
''I never see what has been done; I only see what remains to be done. ''
For example, psychologists/counselors will teach Theravada meditation to patients but will never tell them where these techniques came from. So these patients are practicing a major aspect of Theravada Buddhism and not even realizing it. This secrecy is common because the teachers don't want to alienate anyone (like Christian or atheists) by telling them that it comes from a religious tradition. Also, they want to avoid the trouble that would be caused by being accused of promoting religion.
The same goes for some books on meditation. I remember reading one of the "Idiots guides" or "Dummies guides" to mindfulness meditation: There was one page given to the Buddha. That was it.
I think it would be a good thing to teach Theravada meditation to high school students, but almost certainly it would have to be cleansed of any reference to the Buddha, Buddhism, Karma, reincarnation, etc.
The great thing about Theravada is that this can be easily done without tampering with the core message. I don't think most the other traditions would escape as unscathed.
I think that Theravada Buddhism is more accessible to mainstream Westerners partly because it has very little dogma. And what dogma there is is (in my opinion) not essential or very open to interpretation.
On the other hand, the Theravada teachings are clear enough to give plenty of guidance to a lay audience. By comparison, Zen/Chan meditation will too often leave a beginning meditator feeling lost. That style takes a lot of discipline... perhaps too much for a Western audience.
I recommend Theravada as a starting point for newbie Westerners. It is pretty straight-forward, low on the dogma, is foundational to the other branches, and is beginner friendly.