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.
Buddhism in America
mfranzdorf
Veteran
I know there a ton of blogs on Buddhism out there and you all have your favorites. This was interesting though, and written in plain and simple terms. His other articles are good too, but this is called "what Buddhism isn't". Check it out! http://buddhismfordudes.blog.com/what-buddhism-isnt/
0
Comments
I think what the author is describing, to some extent, is the state of American religion. And what we Americans believe in -- even above religion -- is the "I have a mind of my own". And so, at least in our time, we have a tendency to make our religion what we want it to be.
And why not?
I know a Catholic who goes to mass every week without fail and considers herself a rather devout Catholic. Doesn't believe in the Catholic position on birth control. Is against abortion, but doesn't believe it should be illegal. Doesn't believe in the concept of Papal infallibility. Doesn't ever go to confession. And why don't many Catholics believe in the basics of Catholic teaching anymore? Because over the decades, Catholic principles have evolved...and should fundamental principles evolve? Not to mention rules evolving. Like not eating meat on Fridays. It's what my Catholic relatives lived by...and was the rule...except that the rule depending on where in the world you lived. And what about all these priests who abusing boys? So why wouldn't a Catholic say that even the Catholic hierarchy doesn't really know what's right and wrong. So, as an Americans Catholic, I'll decide what's right and wrong for myself. I'll make it my own version of Catholicism.
I've known Protestants who believe in the concept of prayer, but also know it often (perhaps even usually) doesn't work (when their mother died of cancer regardless of prayer, etc.). Who hear one Protestant preacher instilling hell and brimstone, while another one is teaching peace and love. Not to mention that there is one Protestant belief in religion -- which is why we have 8 main American denomination of Protestants, splinter groups within those denominations, and other smaller denominations. In other words, all those expert theologians don't really know what's right and wrong. So, as an American Protestant, I'll decide what's right or wrong for myself. I'll make it my own version of Protestantism.
And we Buddhists are in the same boat. Is it all right to eat meat? No, except many Buddhists and monks do. How does karma work? Well, I've read several versions of that, all of which are at least somewhat different, and then there's the basic argument about whether it is an actual "force" (my word) or something within your own mind. Is there such a thing as rebirth? Are there realms of heaven or hell or are they in your own mind? Are the 5 Precepts rules or guidelines? Heck, we are so united (sarcasm) that we have Theravada, Mahayana, Vajrayana, Zen, Pure Land, and Nichiren...not to mention other subgroups. In other words, the powers that be in Buddhism don't really know the answers either. So, as an American, I'll make my own version of Buddhism.
Odd though, that I got black font on black background!
Also what we already have are Western Masters leading these schools. Even a cultural school like Tibetan Buddhism is starting to acquire its share of Western born Masters. That's important.
So, saying "Hey, people in the West are getting it wrong!" is simply missing the point. So we will have a vegetarian school of Buddhism. So we will have one where it's conducted in Tibetan that people don't understand. How many Catholics can speak latin? What we will have is a huge stew of varying practices. All Buddhist. This is Western Buddhism.
But "secular Buddhism" is uniquely Western.
Sorta like a big family, when you come down to it.
(that is soooo 'American'......)
Very nice, concise and to the heart.
To the OP thanks for the post.
Bluntly put, things you can weigh and measure with a ruler are considered part of the "secular" world, and things that seem impervious to these measuring devices are considered "mystical, religious voodoo," or "outdated medieval superstition," etc.
In other words, the invisible.
The problem with this approach is that one generation's "invisible" becomes the next generation's "visible."
There was a time when bacteria would not have been considered secular. Bacteria, in fact, defined as "invisible, disease-causing beings" were distinctly heretical. Anti-state. Lies. False ideas from Satan. Only later, when we agreed that enough physical devices could show their existence, did bacteria graduate from Satan's trailer park to God's (and eventually from God's to atheists'.)
Roll the years back, and you had the same issue with "poisonous" tomatoes.
Every year, advances in science turn the "mystical" into generally-accepted, scientific fact.
"Secular Buddhism" is problematic as a concept because it excludes Buddhists who have beliefs outside (dubiously-defined) secularism. Right now we generally equate secularism to "non-religious." This is very dangerous and potentially hurtful, because liked forced atheism (my friend was raised as a forced atheist), it teaches that any thoughts "outside the accepted definition" are heretical. In that sense, it is no better than any particular uber-religious religion, judging people harshly for their individual beliefs or personal variations on belief.
It would, I think, be better to follow HHDL's example (see "Ethics for a New Millennium) in speaking of "universal" ethics; you could even say "universal Buddhism," or "ecumenical Buddhism." Both those concepts allow for a very wide range of personal beliefs; whereas "secular Buddhism" excludes, and silently chastises, anyone who believes that today's "invisible" may be tomorrow's "visible."