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.
Do you think a new school of buddhism will develope in the west?
One possibility: A mindfulness-meditation movement stripped of any Buddhist trappings gains popularity. This secular brand will siphon off many potential Buddhists. Therefore, the existing Buddhist organizations will actually become more "traditional" since they have lost their Westernized base to the secular movement.
I can see many of the secular leaders as being licensed counselors and/or PhD's in psychology.
Does anyone know of any private mindfulness-meditation groups that are non-Buddhist (i.e., they don't call themselves "Buddhist")? When I say "private", I mean not attached to a hospital or other large institution.
After posting my last post I began thinking about a Dhamma talk I heard on the topic of "Original Buddhism". I wonder if western society would be up to the task of bringing Buddhism back to what it was during time the Buddha?
Not possible really. Times where less degenerate and they had far fewer material distractions,life was far less comforted then today which made it easier for them to generate renunciation to follow the path fully.
Besides " Original Buddhism " what would it consist of ? Historical references can only take us back so far but in reality we have no clue of what was actually taught by the Buddha we only have later sources some hundreds if not a thousand years later to rely on and a lineage of oral tradition from each lineage so we take in faith what they say as the actual teachings of Buddha we have no definitive proof. The important thing is that whatever set of teachings we follow help us to pacify and control the mind that help us to develop virtues spoken of in such traditions.
Much of what we call Western Buddhism is transplanted - and adopted by a very intelligent psychologically adaptive culture - with a religious outlook shaped by Judeo/Christian ethics. What is lacking in a Western school of Buddhism to date is a guru - a saint - a Padmasambhava - a Bodhidharma who will interpret and establish the teachings in a truly Western fashion. Until then, Western schools will mimic the old schools of the East - and that's okay - better than okay - where would we be without them? They may collapse and reform but the Dharma is here to stay, as in Tibet, Bhutan, Japan, China, Indonesia, Thailand, etc., etc..... So we wait.....
The mention of a guru and psychology together made me think of Marsha Linehan. I don't she will become a guru. But if a guru does appear in the west I think s/he will blow away the traditional view of a "guru." Personally, I hope there is not a single guru that appears. My guess is that an empirically validated/evidence based Buddhism might emerge.
Also, Joseph Goldstein wrote a book called _One Dharma_ that is about the "Emerging Western Buddhism." I'm currently reading it, it's pretty good. (TANGENT: anyone who is interested in a book club discussion should let me know and we'll start one)
Not possible really. Times where less degenerate and they had far fewer material distractions,life was far less comforted then today which made it easier for them to generate renunciation to follow the path fully.
Arguably, greater degeneracy and more distractions in modern life makes Buddhism more attractive.
Besides " Original Buddhism " what would it consist of ?
Probably the Pali cannon, especially Vipassana meditation.
Jeffrey, I wonder if western society would be up to the task of bringing Buddhism back to what it was during time the Buddha?
Western society has already done that. Apparently, the the West has done much to revive and popularize Theravada Buddhism and meditation, in particular.
Not possible really. Times where less degenerate and they had far fewer material distractions,life was far less comforted then today which made it easier for them to generate renunciation to follow the path fully.
Arguably, greater degeneracy and more distractions in modern life makes Buddhism more attractive.
Besides " Original Buddhism " what would it consist of ?
Probably the Pali cannon, especially Vipassana meditation.
Jeffrey, I wonder if western society would be up to the task of bringing Buddhism back to what it was during time the Buddha?
Western society has already done that. Apparently, the the West has done much to revive and popularize Theravada Buddhism and meditation, in particular.
Original Buddhism doesnt exist. All we have are various traditions and lineages of Buddhist teachings traditionally it is taught that there where more turnings of the wheel of Dharma then what the Theravadens believe so this is as much as original as the Dharma in the Pali cannon. The problem being if one gets caught up in the BS of what is authentic and what is not we are potentially disparaging Dharma and such is an action conductive toward ingnorance and suffering.
I think there are, and will be many western schools develop, but that doesn't mean they will be entirely different or hold none of the trappings of Asian Buddhism. I mean Chinese Buddhism kept features of Indian Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism kept features of Chinese Buddhism, etc. Also it seems that most Asian sects have within them a number of sects, I suspect western Buddhism will also...maybe even more so. So I don't think there will be a single 'Western Buddhism" because some people will want a more devotional approach, some will want a more "rational" approach, some will want a more Mystical approach etc. Some will want a sort of authoritarian teacher or Guru, and others will be suspicious of a path with an authoritarian type of Guru or teacher.
I doubt "ethics" would vary too widely aside from some insisting on vegetarianism and others not, some with a celibate clergy and others not.
I personally do not think Buddhism lends itself well to the sorts of fundamentalism we see in some other religions though, and anyone claiming their Buddhism is the original Buddhism, personally I would be leery of.
For myself, I think there is a great deal of value to be gained from Asian traditions still, and I fear that in the West some may wish to eliminate these things without a thorough understanding of their value, in a quest to be "fashionable" so to speak with current western trends of thought. (ie. atheism, rejection of religious institutions, a heavy emphasis on the idea we can pick and choose our practice guided solely by our own opinions...sometimes uninformed opinions) These things tend to change over time. So my biggest fear is that there will be many Western schools whose interpretation of Buddhism will be as much or more about marketing and placating to a given demographic, as they are in presenting the Dharma. But probably that is ok too. Sometimes something like that can start a person on a good path. I mean probably my becoming a Buddhist started with the Beatles studying meditation with the Maharishi!
However, traditional or modern, formal or casual, Asian or Western, the styles, and practices are the finger pointing to the moon. The moon can be seen no matter which finger points you in the right direction, if you only look.
I havent read anything from Batchelor yet but from what I have heard from others his ideas seem a little contrary to my own beliefs.
I wonder if people who buy into the the things put forth in his book have actually examined or verify the things put forth in his book logically or is it blind acceptance ?
I havent read anything from Batchelor yet but from what I have heard from others his ideas seem a little contrary to my own beliefs.
I wonder if people who buy into the the things put forth in his book have actually examined or verify the things put forth in his book logically or is it blind acceptance ?
Not in my experience. It's more like Batchelor is expressing doubts and raising questions that people have been feeling for some time.
I havent read anything from Batchelor yet but from what I have heard from others his ideas seem a little contrary to my own beliefs.
I wonder if people who buy into the the things put forth in his book have actually examined or verify the things put forth in his book logically or is it blind acceptance ?
Not in my experience. It's more like Batchelor is expressing doubts and raising questions that people have been feeling for some time.
Spiny
When looking at the material presented by Batchelor, I actually have some doubts and questions about it. There are numerous verifiable mistakes in the books when you examine it. I am not sure if other have examined it as well.
I read it for the book club and I found it to make sweeping generalizations, errors, and lack of support for its claims. For example it claimed that established buddhist traditions present meditation as transendental and implied that it those traditions felt it was mystical/magical.
In my experience this is specifically contradicted by such authors as pema chodron who stated in her audio tape, Pure Meditation, that meditation was going deeper into it rather than transending. And that meditation was not to feel better but rather to stay with whatever feelings you are having and become aware.
I also found batchelor to be somewhat hypocritical. He criticized established buddhism for its 'dogma', but he was an evangelical agnostic, telling other people 'what to do and think' with their own personal religious practice. Its one thing to say reasons to be agnostic and another to say all other choices are invalid.
Buddhists don't transcend problems. They cope with problems effectively. The goal isn't to be "above" anything, but to be perfectly attuned to it all. Meet on equal footing with respect, awareness, and with non-attachment.
I read this "Pragmatic Buddhism". It was an article, but I didn't have the time to read it. The title seemed very western though.
I don't think anyone will be able to agree long enough in the west for a "western buddhist" path to emerge. Save maybe for a strong secular humanist/atheist buddhist path as a lot of westerners who come to Buddhism have an acute dislike of religion in any form, especially if they've had a particularly strict religious upbringing and found it abhorrent to their nature (not saying this in a bad way either).
Just my 0.02 of course
In metta, Raven
I think that's kind of weird. I really don't see Buddhism as being really atheistic in the orthodox, western sense. I don't really believe there's a God judges us, but I do believe that wrong action leads to consequences. I think of God (or what might be called God) as more of a composite entity (which we and our ancestors are an intrinsic part of) that communicates to us through synchronistic events than I see it as a man with a beard sitting on a cloud that hurls lightening bolts at us for being bad. Karma still is a bitch though.
Comments
Padmasambhava is considered the second buddha by many Tibetan practitioners.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Padmasambhava
One possibility: A mindfulness-meditation movement stripped of any Buddhist trappings gains popularity. This secular brand will siphon off many potential Buddhists. Therefore, the existing Buddhist organizations will actually become more "traditional" since they have lost their Westernized base to the secular movement.
I can see many of the secular leaders as being licensed counselors and/or PhD's in psychology.
Does anyone know of any private mindfulness-meditation groups that are non-Buddhist (i.e., they don't call themselves "Buddhist")? When I say "private", I mean not attached to a hospital or other large institution.
Besides " Original Buddhism " what would it consist of ? Historical references can only take us back so far but in reality we have no clue of what was actually taught by the Buddha we only have later sources some hundreds if not a thousand years later to rely on and a lineage of oral tradition from each lineage so we take in faith what they say as the actual teachings of Buddha we have no definitive proof. The important thing is that whatever set of teachings we follow help us to pacify and control the mind that help us to develop virtues spoken of in such traditions.
Also, Joseph Goldstein wrote a book called _One Dharma_ that is about the "Emerging Western Buddhism." I'm currently reading it, it's pretty good. (TANGENT: anyone who is interested in a book club discussion should let me know and we'll start one)
Spiny
Western society has already done that. Apparently, the the West has done much to revive and popularize Theravada Buddhism and meditation, in particular.
http://www.audiodharma.org/talks/audio_player/2006.html
Pali cannon original ? Gee its not really looking that way these days. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandhāran_Buddhist_Texts
Original Buddhism doesnt exist. All we have are various traditions and lineages of Buddhist teachings traditionally it is taught that there where more turnings of the wheel of Dharma then what the Theravadens believe so this is as much as original as the Dharma in the Pali cannon.
The problem being if one gets caught up in the BS of what is authentic and what is not we are potentially disparaging Dharma and such is an action conductive toward ingnorance and suffering.
I mean Chinese Buddhism kept features of Indian Buddhism, Japanese Buddhism kept features of Chinese Buddhism, etc.
Also it seems that most Asian sects have within them a number of sects, I suspect western Buddhism will also...maybe even more so. So I don't think there will be a single 'Western Buddhism" because some people will want a more devotional approach, some will want a more "rational" approach, some will want a more Mystical approach etc.
Some will want a sort of authoritarian teacher or Guru, and others will be suspicious of a path with an authoritarian type of Guru or teacher.
I doubt "ethics" would vary too widely aside from some insisting on vegetarianism and others not, some with a celibate clergy and others not.
I personally do not think Buddhism lends itself well to the sorts of fundamentalism we see in some other religions though, and anyone claiming their Buddhism is the original Buddhism, personally I would be leery of.
For myself, I think there is a great deal of value to be gained from Asian traditions still, and I fear that in the West some may wish to eliminate these things without a thorough understanding of their value, in a quest to be "fashionable" so to speak with current western trends of thought. (ie. atheism, rejection of religious institutions, a heavy emphasis on the idea we can pick and choose our practice guided solely by our own opinions...sometimes uninformed opinions) These things tend to change over time. So my biggest fear is that there will be many Western schools whose interpretation of Buddhism will be as much or more about marketing and placating to a given demographic, as they are in presenting the Dharma. But probably that is ok too. Sometimes something like that can start a person on a good path. I mean probably my becoming a Buddhist started with the Beatles studying meditation with the Maharishi!
However, traditional or modern, formal or casual, Asian or Western, the styles, and practices are the finger pointing to the moon. The moon can be seen no matter which finger points you in the right direction, if you only look.
Spiny
Spiny
Theravada: Pali Canon
Mahayana: Zen
Vajratana: some concepts and tummo
When looking at the material presented by Batchelor, I actually have some doubts and questions about it. There are numerous verifiable mistakes in the books when you examine it. I am not sure if other have examined it as well.
In my experience this is specifically contradicted by such authors as pema chodron who stated in her audio tape, Pure Meditation, that meditation was going deeper into it rather than transending. And that meditation was not to feel better but rather to stay with whatever feelings you are having and become aware.
I also found batchelor to be somewhat hypocritical. He criticized established buddhism for its 'dogma', but he was an evangelical agnostic, telling other people 'what to do and think' with their own personal religious practice. Its one thing to say reasons to be agnostic and another to say all other choices are invalid.
I read this "Pragmatic Buddhism". It was an article, but I didn't have the time to read it. The title seemed very western though.