(Article) What defines Western Buddhism?

Cloud

What defines Western Buddhism?

The defining characteristic of the emerging Western Buddhism is a basic pragmatism, rather than an adherence to some philosophical system or sectarian viewpoint. What most characterizes the One Dharma of the West is an allegiance to a very simple question: What works? What works to free the mind from suffering? What works to accomplish the heart of compassion? What works to awaken us from the dream states of our ignorance?

(That's just a synopsis/summary...)

Read the full article HERE. What do you think?

I think "pragmatism" does describe the lean of Buddhism in the West, personally.
Thought this was very interesting.

Vincenzi

honestly,
nothing really defines whatever will come out of "western buddhism"... it is a open, free and fertile land

zenff

We’re in a global community. There’s nothing Eastern or Western about the future; it’s global.

All religions and ideologies are clashing and interacting in this (relatively) new situation in which no religion or ideology is protected by isolation any longer.

Where this will lead?
My guess is that all religions and grand ideologies will die out. The future belongs to science.

Buddhism will die. But I think some of its crucial insights in human nature and psychology will survive. Also I believe in a future for meditation practice.

There’s really only one thing that matters; let’s call it enlightenment or liberation, but don’t ask me what it is.
We must keep it alive. In order to do so we must strip it from all its dogmatic clothing.
I think.

All of this is just talk; the short answer is obvious; I don’t know anything about the future.

Vincenzi

there is a division of West and East... in the minds of most.

also, the ideologies are not entirely compatible.

the noble Dharma is eternal, it may be forgotten... but it will be found again, and again.

JCDavis

Lack of seriousness.

genkaku

Lack of seriousness.

Too facile by half.

Bhogakapala

Vagueness, imprecision, a tendency to gravitate towards what is comfortable and gratifying and to be repelled by what is unpleasant and challenging. The 'pragmatism' mentioned in the article seems to be a polite umbrella term for all of that, to my ears.

Of course, my experience has been rather limited. I have high hopes for finding a 'domestic' expression of Buddhism which is less of a restatement of conventional Western moral norms, philosophical assumptions, etc.

SeaOfTranquility

Interesting little article Cloud. Thank you.

I don't know about Western Buddhism, but it describes my approach.

Perhaps the 8 Fold Path itself would better be described as "What Works" rather than just "Right".

NOTaGangsta

Too attached to intellectual analysis.

Dakini

Too attached to intellectual analysis.

Yes, there is this tendency. But some Buddhist traditions are very intellectual themselves. Tibetan Buddhism is highly intellectual, with its debate tradition, hundreds of books published every year analyzing different aspects of the teachings or practice, and books on commentaries upon the commentaries upon the commentaries on the sutras.

As for the "lack of seriousness" comment, that may be true in some cases, but it depends on which Westerners you're comparing to which Easterners. I came across an interesting comment in Andrew Harveys "A Journey in Ladakh". The abbot of Hemis Monastery says that he's met Westerners in India who take the Dharma much more seriously than most Eastern lay practitioners he's observed, and have a much better understanding of it, as well. It's easy to stereotype both Westerners and Easterners.

Mountains

Does it change if I step foot across the prime meridian or the 180 degree meridian?

And this brings up a question I've had for a long time: If there is such a thing, does the "average" Buddhist in someplace like Thailand or Nepal, somebody who works for a living and has a family, does this person sit and study the dharma for hours on end? Does that make them more "serious" about being a Buddhist? Or is it rather found in the way they live and relate to other beings? And if the "average" Buddhist in someplace like St. Louis or Paris, who works for a living and has a family, if that person doesn't sit around and study the dharma for hours on end, are they any less serious about it than the person from the eastern hemisphere?? Cultures are drastically different in different parts of the world. Don't you think that could account for the differences in the practice of Buddhism??

Dakini

And that raises a REALLY good question: what is practice about? How do we define "practice"? Is it meditation and studying sutras (or other texts)? or is it in how we treat other people and react to life's stresses? All of the above, I think, but my impression is that many Western Buddhists tend to define "practice" as meditation. Or perhaps that's a wrong impression...?

Vincenzi

western buddhism is undefined, and we don't need another school.

ZendoLord84

the western foundation should be:
- the four noble truths
- the three jewels
- the five precepts
- 8 fold noble path

same as in the east. The rest is.....people's interpretations

Vincenzi

what books?

ie: I don't recognize vajrayana texts as BodhiDharma

Dakini

Western Buddhism tends not to turn the Buddha into a deity, it follows more the logic of Buddhist teachings, without getting into "faith" aspects and mythology.

Prometheus

I'd like to think that 'Western Buddhism' will be more 'pragmatist' than 'religious', but in reality I'd say that asking "What is Western Buddhism?" will be like asking "What is Eastern Buddhism?"