Is Western Buddhism even possible?
adamcrossley
VeteranUK Veteran
Hello all 
I read this in Heinrich Harrer’s book Return to Tibet (1984), which is his account of a trip to Tibet the previous year and gives an account of the situation there since the Chinese “liberation”. It’s a little pessimistic about us Western Buddhists. Tell me what you think.
More than ever before, people in our hectic age are dreaming of imperturbability, tranquility, and harmony, and are hoping to attain these through mysticism and meditation. But I believe we can only dream of it – we can never achieve that state. It is too deeply rooted to be simply transplanted into Western culture; it is a spring which we must discover for ourselves. One has to be an Asian, to have grown up in that environment, in order to practise yoga genuinely – for us it will always only be a gymnastic exercise without spiritual effect.
Comments
Bull. Sorry, but I disagree.
You might as well say that the only person who can truly make pasta is an Italian, or who can cook sushi has to be Japanese.
No apologies, @federica, he isn’t alive anymore
I think we only need to look around us at some of the westerners who have deeply put the teachings into practice. When the Buddha attained enlightenment he didn't teach at first because he thought no one would get it. But then he saw or was told that some people only have a little dust on their eyes and could be taught. It's probably much the same for the west, there are plenty of people who will only take Buddhism or mindfulness on at a surface level, and that is fine. But there are and will continue to be westerners who deeply take it on board.
Yeah, can’t agree....give us a millennium or two and we’ll be mysticising and meditating with the best of em...
I won’t speak for the rest of the Western World, but for the U.S., at a broader cultural level, I agree with him. As a society, the U.S. doesn’t value personal qualities of “imperturbability, tranquility, and harmony.” Those can’t compete with other values embedded in the culture. However, individuals and subcultures in the U.S., both before and after 1984, do negotiate cultural barriers to meditative development of those qualities and with “spiritual effect.” So, I think, in the U.S., Western Buddhism is possible, but only at an individual and subcultural level. Anything beyond that will be commercialized or politicized.
At present I think I agree with you. Over time though I hope (if I dare use that word) that the example shown by those who do practice might shine forth and provide a previously unknown example of an alternate way of being in the world.
Even if a broad cultural impact isn't made, the west is more and more multicultural so it's impact may be greater in some areas than others.
I look at my more conservative family members and these days among the women things like natural foods, healing remedies and essential oils have entered into their worldview, formerly things relegated to the hippies. So I think, over time, seemingly unlikely change can and does happen.
I'm responding to the header, ""Is Western Buddhism even possible.""
Buddhism to me is the insight realized by Gautama Buddha and the great teachers that followed him, and Buddhists are those who work toward that insight. If we are working toward Buddha's insight we are Buddhists, so it is evident that Buddhism is possible in the West because people are pursuing insight through study, meditation and following teachers.
That insight leads to the qualities you mentioned ie tranquility etc, but even though some groups seem to be more tranquil etc, it doesn't mean they have Buddha's insight or are even pursuing it. They are culturally or even genetically programmed to act in that fashion.
Also, it is not necessarily the tranquil etc people who attain enlightenment, If we read about clearly enlightened persons, we will find some were not tranquil at all but thrashing around in pain looking for an answer which led to their enlightenment.
We all have minds and Buddha's insight was into the true nature of mind, so we are all endowed with what is required for insight.
Finally, one may question whether Buddhism is possible in what are known as traditionally Buddhist countries, since their Buddhism has been polluted by materialism, meaning they use their practices to gain things for themselves. Any time one uses spirituality to attain something it creates a mind clouded by that wanting and therefore unable to see its true unblemished nature.
Western Buddhism is not only possible but here right now. The pain we generate for ourselves in the west with our wanting is actually an excellent spur for Buddhism, so i think we will continue to turn to it. Thank you for the question.
The Buddha Dharma (thus have I heard) is free to a good home mind ....wherever the five clinging aggregates might call home mind
"Different strokes (of the Dharma paddle) for different folks (on the raft)"
(...84,000 different strokes...
)
He is projecting his own weakness on the rest of his home country.
Alas, people are people.
If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change. - Wayne Dyer
I remember hearing about a Tibetan teacher who looked confused when a Westerner student mentioned lack of self esteem ....and the teacher was still somewhat confused when it was explained to him what it meant..
From this teacher's view point, Tibetans never suffered from self esteem issues, it was a foreign concept, something he had never come across before...
So I guess there are some quite obvious cultural differences and this may be along the lines of what the quoter was getting at
No, because the teaching of the Buddha is beyond divisions, including divisions of eastern vs western.
Not sure if you're talking about H.H. the Dalai Lama but he's expressed the same surprise.
This bolsters my disagreement with the o/p here though because it seems to me that a lack of self esteem would drive at least a portion of the people towards a process like Buddhism.
The fact that it has pretty much renders the assumption moot.
I think I agree with you on the cultural differences but that is not to say we are wired differently. If we had grown up being taught that we could tap into Buddha Nature which is just sitting within us waiting then self esteem issues would seem illogical also.
Yes... The Dalai Lama sounds right....For the life of me I couldn't remember
I agree @David ...However i'm just looking at the possible angle he was coming from with his statements...I guess cultural conditioning does play a big part, especially for us 'Westerners' born into god-centric societies with different sets of beliefs and values...
But in the long run ( getting to the nuts and bolts of the 'matter'...pun intended
) the five aggregates are the five aggregates... regardless of where they call home...and unsatisfactoriness is unsatisfactoriness and the Dharma is the Dharma..whichever way one chooses to look at it...
I feel it’s true, to an extent. Growing up in an atmosphere of “imperturbability, harmony and tranquility” gives you a different view of humanity, and a different set of reflexes, than someone who grows up in a western playground-slash-jungle.
But I think that while it may be true for the general outlook, the core teachings of the dharma still apply. The concepts stay the same, and learning the dharma is not different, we face many of the same challenges in overcoming negative mind states and building mindfulness.
That said, there is a certain wildness to the energy of a westerner, a certain lack of cultivation, but there are westerners who have overcome that to become excellent meditators. Maybe prolonged exposure to tai chi or yoga will change ones inner nature.
While it's true that eastern culture helps support things like monasteries and renunciates more than western culture, I think everyone has the potential to be a good contemplative. I've known many westerners who are amazing contemplatives, many within the Buddhist tradition. I don't think anyone would accuse Ajahn Sumedho, Ajahn Amaro, Ajahn Pasanno, etc. of not being good Buddhists. They just had the right character and motivation to do well in the practice. And just as many in the west practice well, many in the global east don't and make not-so-good practitioners. Buddhism isn't an identity so much as a practice, and anyone can be good at it if they have the desire and conducive surroundings. There may be more eastern or western trappings to it, but I think the core of contemplativism is essentially the same.
Ken Wilbur has a book on the so-called "5th turning of the wheel" which is what is to become of Western Buddhism. I don't think we will see Eastern Buddhism take over the west, the cultures are just too different. Even if we were to shift to a culture of tranquility would it really look the same as the East? It doesn't seem likely. There have been many suggestions by modern teachers that for Buddhism to take root in the West, it will have to become it's own thing.
Truthfully, I'm not sure I'd want to see that happen in our current culture simply because when you start to create more institutions then you need leaders and then you start running into all the same troubles all religions have. Imperfect humans thinking they are the only ones who know and understand and can control things from the top. Because are so in the thick of that type of thinking in the west, I'd rather keep things as they are, at an individual and sangha level.
We tend to have this western belief that Buddhist countries are utopias, but they have major problems as well, including falling victim to the same issues we have in the west of wanting to preserve things to the point we will defend them to no end. See Myanmar as an example. Or even Thailand which touts itself as a major Buddhist country yet is home to some of the worst child exploitation that happens on the planet. Some of the top Buddhist countries have some awful human rights issues, like Singapore and Malaysia. They really aren't so tranquil despite very high numbers of the population claiming Buddhist as their religion. Just like here with Christianity, people claim it but do not truly practice it. So it is up to us as individuals. More institutionalized religion doesn't seem like a great ideal no matter what the religion is.
Thank you for your responses, everyone. I appreciate your optimism about Western Buddhism. I personally think Buddhism will have to (and has already had to) change a lot in order to make itself comprehensible to Westerners. But I don’t see this as a bad thing, just an example of uppaya, ‘skilful means’, the Buddha’s great virtue in adapting his teachings to different people and cultures.
For example, Tenzin Palmo has said that the West’s great contribution to Buddhism so far has been the struggle for women’s rights. (The right for nuns to be treated equally with monks, for instance.)
I like Heinrich Harrer a great deal as a writer. He has a wonderful way of describing the people he meets on his travels. He’s very empathetic. But I do think he’s wrong here. Perhaps the Eastern psyche is subtly different from the Western, more “tranquil” or whatever, but you’re right: it can’t be a universal truth.
Hmmmm... does suffering recognize international borders? Pardon my lingo, but I think the question itself is utter bullshit ... another way of wasting time that might otherwise be spent in practice. Practice what? Why suffering, of course.
What is referred to as "Buddhism" changed its stripes as it moved from here to there, but the tiger remains the tiger.
Change Is Inevitable...Suffering Is Optional
Buddhism adapts to different cultural settings and different cultural setting adapts to Buddhism
Example
...And I guess one could say the same about Buddhism in the West being influenced by European culture, philosophy & psychology ...( and visa versa ...mix & match
)
For example ....
Socrates Aristotle, Plato, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Hume...Freud, Jung and so on..(No doubt there are more examples to choose from) ....All shared something in common with Siddhārtha Gautama, all were inner scientists venturing deep into the human psyche and coming up with (not quite the same but) similar findings....
One adapts to change.... or suffers
OP, I wasn't aware of that book. Thank you for posting about it. I'll look it up; it sounds interesting.
Harrer is equating the practice of yoga with Buddhism. There's a lot more to Buddhism than yoga, and how is he defining "yoga", anyway? That's a Hindu term. Zen has meditation, but it's not based on a Hindu tradition. So, is that something else, something non-yoga? If Zen meditation isn't yoga (it comes from Taoism, from what I understand), does that mean his statements don't apply to Zen practitioners? Or does he mean "yoga" more broadly, as a synonym for any kind of meditation?
I'll have to read the book, to understand his perspective better. But in any case, I say, "Piffle!". A Western Buddhism is not only possible, it already exists. Well, for that matter, Harrer should define his view of "Western Buddhism" for the reader, so we know what he's referring to.
Is anyone up for reading Harrer's book with me?
Would Eastern Buddhism even exist without Greco-Buddhism?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
The term 'yogi' is often used by Tibetan monks to describe their practice even though they may only practice Padmasana/vajra position/lotus posture in meditation.
I agree with both of you.
@lobster, that's a very interesting Wikipedia page, thank you for linking it to us. And I think you've raised an interesting point as regards Harrer's use of the term "yoga". He might be referring to the Tibetan Vajrayana. But I think it's more likely he's referring to yoga as it's understood and practised in the West. He's using it as an example of the kind of spiritual practice which he doesn't believe can flourish outside of Asia.
@Dakini, thank you for your comment. It is a very good book, although the bulk of it is travel writing/journalism, or even anthropology, rather than Buddhist scholarship. This was just a passage that piqued my interest, and I wanted to see what the community thought of it.
I'm definitely up for some anthropology on Tibet.
And I want to second Lobster's comment about Greco-Buddhism. I had wanted to post originally, that the Buddha, himself, was a "Westerner", an Aryan, but thought better of it. But Buddhism, especially around NW India, the Tarim Basin, the Buddhist kingdoms in the area of Pakistan, Afghanistan and NW India, was primarily a "Western" phenomenon; it was developed and promulgated by a variety of Indo-European peoples and kings. In China, it became Easternized, and morphed into Zen, which combines the Buddha's teachings with Taoism.
But some of the translators originally responsible for translating Buddhist texts from Sanskrit to Chinese were "Westerners" living in the Tarim Basin oasis towns; in fact, Westerners had founded those towns and kingdoms. Frescoes in the caves at Dunhuang portray Westerners in monks' robes, as well as Easterners.
The Kushan Empire, which did much to strengthen and spread Buddhism throughout the region of Pakistan and Afghanistan, and was, IIRC, responsible for creating the famous Bamiyan sculptures of the Buddha that were destroyed by the Taliban, was the creation of Westerners, including some of those Tarim Basin folks, who were chased out into Afghanistan by Huns from the East. .The early history of Buddhism is to a great extent, a history of Westerners in the East, and their extraordinary leadership in the spiritual/philosophical realm, as well as in the political realm.
Thanks for this @Lobster, very interesting!
I have recently taken up again my practice of Hatha Yoga. It is marvellous.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatha_yoga
It is very much informed by my meditation practice.
I totally agree that most western 'yogis' are advocating little more than calisthenics. Just as Tai Chi is barely/rarely a martial art. I recently wanted to post a youtube of mindful yoga practice. In other words yoga as meditation. Sadly despite much searching, nothing. I am sure it exists, may try again some time ...
Of course Western Buddhism is possible.
Buddhism tells us that our search for "imperturbability, tranquility, and harmony," is just as much of a trap as our desire to get away from pain.
It just takes us Westerners longer to get this point is all .. it never fails to amaze me who patient our Tibetan lamas are with us as we struggle to finally understand what Buddhism is saying.
In MN 106 the Buddha describes their development more as a means to an end than as a trap, like catching connecting flights to reach a destination.
Too true. Imagine a Buddhism, we unmaster ... we practice, not practicing and still do ...
It is explored quite well here ...
https://zen1.space/viewtopic.php?f=27&t=292
It is similar in yoga, we relax into potential painful asanas but only through relaxing does the pain go.
There are many wisdom systems in the West, for example teaching through stories or rituals used in Celtic cultures and Freemasonry. These may emerge as influences or perhaps the Jesus prayer/mantra will be translated into Buddhist mantra ...
However a culture is not required. Just a cushion ... and not even that ...
Yet another good reason for engaging in Buddhism...
Great article @federica . Thank you for sharing. Matthieu Ricard is an inspiration.
??
But the Dalai Lama on science sounds almost like he wants to adopt western scientific views into Tibetan Buddhism. Which I think is very sensible. I think it is a very modern view to say that “Buddhist cosmology, which was based on Hindu cosmology, is outdated compared to what is coming out of scientific astronomy”.
It is very much a question, what parts of ancient beliefs like cosmology, devas, gods, dakinis and so on should survive the encounter with modern scientific beliefs.
I think the point is this: Science is not being asked to prove those aspects of Buddhism. Science is asking if anything in science, contradicts anything in Buddhism. There's a difference. Devas, gods, dakinis and so on, are Buddhist theory, and they have nothing to do with current Buddhist parallels with Scientific Theory.
That’s true, but those things are thinking born from a different time. If you were to ask most modern westerners what the meaning was of a voice talking to you out of the air about gifts from the spirits, most would direct you to go visit a psychiatrist. People today are more concerned about jobs or the economy than how many planes are in the cosmos, and when asked about the sky would talk about the planets or our home galaxy, the Milky Way, not about “heaven”.
Some updating of those ancient concepts which only marginally touch on the dharma is probably inevitable, unless we want to condemn Buddhism to containing large tracts of ancient fables which a modern convert would be asked to accept as real.
Religious thinking should realise it needs to move with the times, otherwise it risks being left behind for more attractive modes of being. I think it is no coincidence that the popularity of yoga and mindfulness are at an all-time high, because they leave thinking about the wider cosmos and what inhabits it to science, while still giving people some aspects of spirituality. Scientific materialism is gaining significant ground in many parts of the world.
You do realise that most of the devas, dakinis and Gods are symbolic rather than viewed as actual existent beings, don't you? They're personifications of specific qualities or energies... they're not revered as people, they're revered as embodiments....
The devas, dakinis and gods in Tibetan Buddhism are representations of enlightened mind. When visualized they awaken some aspect of that mind. But the most important quality they have when visualized is that they are empty, empty of thingness, like the mind that is visualizing them. As such, they help the practitioner get in touch with emptiness. As mentioned by @fedrica they also have specific energies that one can experience through visualizing them. Since the deities etc are empty like mind itself they are not separate from it in emptiness, in other words they are not out there while we are in here. If they were out there they would create dualism and not be fit for Buddhist practices.
As for the incursion of science into Buddhist spirituality, as opposed to theistic spirituality, i am not concerned about authentic Buddhism's health at all, as i may be with theism ( actually i'm not concerned about theism's health in the slightest, if science kills it, all the better for humanity in my opinion.) Of course the work on neurotransmitters and sophisticated brain scans are telling us worlds about emotions, mental problems and much more that i'm not up on. Whatever more science finds out about the brain the better, with the proviso that the information will certainly be used to control and kill others. I shudder to think of the neurochemicals that have been developed for warfare already and what they will do to us.
Why i feel comfortable about science and Buddhism is that science studies the brain and Buddhism studies the Mind, and they are not the same. As i have said before, the brain is a receiver and the mind is a transmitter. I know this because that's how it feels. Mind feels like it's everywhere including inside us ( there's really no inside) and it doesn't feel like we or our brains make it, hence the term self existing awareness. By science studying the brain, maybe it will make us better receivers, tweak a chemical and we will all become enlightened, just what Bodhisattvas have been trying to do for all these years.
So, are spiritual entities like devas and dakinis real (i.e. living beings existing in some other plane of reality) or symbolic?
In the Zen Studies Podcast, Domyo Burk says:
My feeling towards them is more along the symbolic line. What’s yours?
@Tsultrim, matie, that last post of yours was awesome.
That has been my experience as well. That the deities are taught as being aspect of our own minds but are generally regarded by the people who grow up in those cultures as being actual beings.
I was told in university Tibetan Studies class, that they're all symbolic.
Deva is a class of birth that can occur when appropriate conditions manifest.
Is it "real"? Is your human birth real? If a human birth can be considered unreal, I would say so too can a deva birth.
Wherever Buddhism came and stayed, it married the local ways and produced a unique offspring. Think Tibetan, Zen or Pure Land- all quite unlike the original Buddhism of India, at least in appearance.
And also in the West, I think it will need to mix with some compatible aspects of Western tradition to continue foreward. Asian Buddhism in its original form probably has no living chance here. We are not going to embrace cultural components of Tibet, Japan or Sri Lanka in any large numbers, we have our own rich cultural tradition.
I think numerous good teachers are engaged in such synthesis of Buddhist thought and practices on one hand and Western psychology and philosophy on the other. Who knows how that will turn out...but as of today there is plenty of wisdom and inspiration coming from that work. I think that is more than good enough.
@federica spot on, imagination is a very important part of scientific speculation @Kerome - some of the most creative people I have met in life were scientists and embodiments of theory can be very imaginative, as in the naming of sub-atomic particles - in fact modern physics would be impossible without such constructs. I see gods and goddesses in the same light, constructs to aid our understanding.
The 'tiger riders' all have different stripes. As ever, we have different potentials, cults, cultural transplants, mash-ups, experts, beginners, ascetics, carcass munchers and so on ...
The cushion sitters East and West are the same ... all different ....
I’m not saying that imagination doesn’t have a role to play, merely that to a modern scientific mind the deities and dakinis of ancient Asian Buddhism seem very foreign. I’m not sure whether replacing them with more western iconography - angels perhaps - might be better or worse.
But then I’ve yet to come across an instance where a deity has aided my understanding, construct or not. These things do have to have a purpose beyond the artistic, and if they don’t transmit a clear meaning that is rather in doubt.
I lived in India and Pakistan for a number of years so it isn't foreign to me at all. Maybe that makes a big difference in mindset. As for a purpose beyond the artistic that IS my purpose!
So it doesn't work for you? Big deal.
Have you any idea how much such constructs work for other people? I think you may find yourself outnumbered.
So you don't subscribe? Fine.
Your contrary opinions aren't going to change those of others who find comfort, solace, inspiration and guidance in such Mind-sets....
I honestly think it is a very healthy thing to enjoy and find serenity in such issues, however imaginary you denounce them to be.
One year I had to hire a new head custodian for our school. When I walked around the building the probable choice for the job pointed out so many things that had been overlooked for a while. A lot of things got fixed or at least improved. But there were things about the job where knowing a little history eluded the new hire. He stepped on toes, got stuck trying to change things that didn't need changing. The only thing was true for sure was that the new hire was not exactly like the old hire.
As Buddhism spreads to the West, I think the same kinds of tendencies occur. It's good to take a fresh look at some ideas. A Westerner, for example, may not be as willing to accept the unholy mix of culture plus Buddhism, where locals get so wrapped up in local traditions that they miss the Buddhist part of things (spirit houses, animism, etc.). But there is also history that new folks may not be aware of.
Buddhism always evolves. As does the rest of life.
Evolution, nor Revolution. Peoples' biggest problem is both accepting Change, and understanding that with people and environments, situations and agendas, things will not stay as they are.
That is certainly true. I think that Buddhism has adapted to each of the countries of the East as it travelled the region, that you see Vajrayana in Tibet, Mahayana in China, Zen in Japan, and Theravada in Thailand. In each case it has probably taken some of the existing atmosphere on board, becoming uniquely flavoured to each country.
It would be unusual if it didn’t do so in the West, although it might take some time to find a form that does find favour over here — who knows, perhaps a hundred years or more. But then there is a trend towards globalisation which is going on at the same time.