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 the west
BaileyD
Explorer
This is probably just me, but...
I feel that when westerners become Buddhist, or begin to follow Buddhism, that they try to make themselves seem as asian as possible. It feels like a bunch of white people pretending to be something they are not. I understand that the religion is from asia and the asian aspects are impossible to avoid. When I see western monastaries filled with Americans it looks like they are trying to act as Tibetan or Japanese as possible rather than act Buddhist. Granted, I can't tell you the difference between acting asian and acting Buddhist in this context. This is probably just some underlying prejudice I have to work through on my own, but I needed to share.
I feel that when westerners become Buddhist, or begin to follow Buddhism, that they try to make themselves seem as asian as possible. It feels like a bunch of white people pretending to be something they are not. I understand that the religion is from asia and the asian aspects are impossible to avoid. When I see western monastaries filled with Americans it looks like they are trying to act as Tibetan or Japanese as possible rather than act Buddhist. Granted, I can't tell you the difference between acting asian and acting Buddhist in this context. This is probably just some underlying prejudice I have to work through on my own, but I needed to share.
0
Comments
I'm not entirely sure that I understand what you mean.... and why it would bother you....
If a westerner ordains into a specific tradition, he is obliged to follow the rules for Monks and act accordingly. Therefore, his garb and appearance are in accordance with the rules for monks following that tradition, not on a whim based on a desire to seem asian....
On the other hand, lay people adopt certain mannerisms and garb they feel is fitting or conducive to their calling.
Whilst this may appear superficial and pretentious to you, it's a well-known fact that "clothes maketh the man" and that often, people will adopt certain garb to make them feel more connected to what they are practising.
In a way, it's like a Martial Arts practicant, wearing loose and baggy clothing: Not strictly necessary to actually practice the art, but conducive to that moment.
When people sit to meditate, they occasionally light candles, incense and play soft music.
None of which are necessary in any way whatsoever to their meditation, but it sets the mood.....
Is it this, that you find difficult to focus on as being practical and beneficial, rather than shallow and contrived?
Perhaps we're thinking profound thoughts, or maybe things like, when's lunch?
Or is that just me?
Guess you'll never know - I don't ;-)
The lineage holder in Celtic Buddhism, Ven Seonaidh Perks wears an amalgam:
I really wish I had more time right now, but as it is, I really can't participate in the discussion in any meaningful way.
Nonetheless, I will toss this out here quickly: as Buddhism moves West, it will change. So then, the question becomes which Buddhism will survive?
And I would hazard a guess that this particular, surviving Buddhism does not yet exist. We are in the process of making it now, and it probably won't have anything like a final form for another generation or so.
This is kind of what I was thinking too. Look at Christianity, as it moved to North America it changed, it also changed as it moved east. Buddhism will do the same thing for better or for worse.
I really think this whole thing is just my irrational misconception (is that possible?) but I wanted to talk about it here in case it could help others with similar irrationalities.:smilec:
Not a chance.
What seems to be fundamental [to me, at least] is how Buddhism/Buddhists respond to these two points [and, being too lazy to write anything new, I brilliantly quote myself from an earlier post]:
As Copernican heliocentrism challenged Christian orthodoxy in the late Middle Ages, so is science challenging accepted Buddhist dogma—although people have been a little bit slower to catch on to this development.
How, for example, does one reconcile the doctrine of karma—which has explanatory value—with probability theory—which has predictive value—without going through a hundred mental cartwheels is beyond me. Nonetheless, if the two are not reconciled, it becomes apparent that the doctrine of karma becomes superfluous, which would call for an application of Occam's Razor.
I would suggest that there will likely be cries of outrage at this statement—but they will not come from anyone who has bothered to become acquainted with probability theory. What! How can anyone even suggest that the earth is not round!
A good, brief introduction to probability can be found here:
http://www.amazon.com/Drunkards-Walk-Randomness-Rules-Vintage/dp/0307275175/
I would propose that the Christianity that emerged from the Middle Ages was significantly different from the Christianity that existed before. It changed, and it changed profoundly. But it did not die. And now, as Buddhism [belatedly] confronts similar challenges, it will either respond in an intelligent manner or find itself relegated to a corner of comfy New Age mysticism.
At least, as nearly as I can figure it, them's the choices ...
Keep sitting.
It doesn't hurt.
A linear reductionist approach to theory is one of the curious phenomena I would think you are arguing against. Multiple paradigms can and do apply depending on the context of discourse and investigation, because language activity (be it couched in buddhist phenomenological terms or quantum physics) is NOT the thing described. Beyond that, I fail to see how karma which means "volitional action" is somehow invalidated by the predictive framework of anything currently going by the name of probability theory.
This to my mind is a category error. Each theory applies well within its domain. It is only because of our sickness of seeking First Principles that we see conflict where there is none.
It seems to me that you are exploring the map and not the territory, and eating the menu rather than the meal. What am I missing? Please explain how they conflict.
Curiously I have never heard such criticisms of Dharma from actual physicists, including a theoretical physicist from Russia in our sangha that I have discussed this with. It seems to be largely the armchair empiricists (irony fully intended) that suffer from the Occam's razor burn that you describe.
Now you may say that the cosmology of the abhidharma is invalidated by our modern understanding of the physical universe and I would almost grant that, other than I think that there are multiple ways to skin any given cat, some of which the cat may even be convinced are necessary. If you are gunning for as central a premise in Buddhism as karma however, I suggest you load for bear and present actual arguments rather than launching a few rounds of rhetorical buckshot in the air in the mistaken assumption that you know more about science or the philosophy of science than the esteemed board members.
I will look forward to your detailed argument.
Best regards,
Namgyal
Palzang
This is a subject I have concern for. With no disrespect intended, what draws my mind's attention to the above quote is the notion of 'Buddhism' surviving. This is a similar notion to 'government' representing a 'nation'. We sometimes forget these instituations are merely individuals and often a collection of relatively few individuals.
For use as an example, in Australia the two prominant Theravadin monks that come to my mind are Ajahn Brahm and Ajahn Sugato. Now Ajahn Brahm has done so much to promote the Buddha-Dhamma however often his teachings do not represent those of Ajahn Chah, who he regards as his teacher. Ajahn Brahm has a strong bent towards promoting the doctrine of rebirth plus powers & jhanas where as Ajahn Chah mostly steered serious practitioners away from those subjects.
On You Tube, one can listen to Ajahn Sugato distance himself from the first and most senior disciple of Ajahn Chan, namely, Ajahn Sumedho. Ajahn Sumedho, similary to Ajahn Chan, is not a teacher of rebirth.
My purpose with this post is not to start a sectarian debate but to show how so much of what we regard Buddhism to be depends only on a few individuals.
The survival and scope of Buddhism in the West sometimes depends on a few individuals.
For consideration,
DDhatu
Well, I hate to say this, but you're going to be looking forward for quite some time.
As it is, I have taken on extra duties, so I am carrying a heavy work load at the moment, and I am also in the process of switching jobs, after which I will do a little traveling. As a result, I am limiting my posts to what I can do in only a few minutes' time ... and your question deserves a serious answer, which requires time for reflection and careful thought ... and, for me, time is in short supply at the moment, and will remain so in the near future.
Nonetheless, you have certainly inspired me to concentrate my thinking a bit more on this fascinating topic of how the West will affect Buddhism. And I will write a response. It just won't be any time soon.
In fact, the relationship between probability theory and karma hadn't occurred to me until just a few months ago when I noticed that at least some of the interpretations of the theory of karma don't seem to match up well with probability theory. Suppose, for example, one wins a lottery. Is this due to karmic factors or random chance? [There is an intentionality involved here; one does, after all, need to buy a ticket in order to win in the first place.] Now suppose that walking to work and one is [unintentionally] killed by a piano falling from the 30th floor of a building. Now, which provides a better explanation for these two events, probability theory or the doctrine of karma?
At this point, I am not prepared to argue one way or another, but, as Buddhism meets science, if I don't raise this question, somewhere along the line someone else will.
Probably, anyway.
As for this:
I would suggest that you probably wrote this when you were tired or in haste, or in a little bit of both. I do that as well. In fact, everything I've written in this thread has been written with far less thought than I would have liked.
However, if your remarks are meant to be taken seriously, I would suggest you read this carefully. You began here:
http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/person.html
... and then slid into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_fear
If, in the future, you do not treat me with respect, I will simply not bother to respond you any of your posts. I'm quite sure I won't have any problems finding better things to do with my time.
But, hopefully, we will find that we have merely underestimated each other.
Really, Palzang, that wasn't a terribly deep thought, was it?
Thank you very much for correctly pointing this out to me. As the old saying goes, post in haste, re-post at leisure ... and in this instance my thoughts were clearly not very well expressed.
I did not intend to stir up a sectarian controversy, nor did intend to make a distinction between individuals and institutions. But, after re-reading my original post, it's easy to see how my language could be interpreted that way. In fact, as Buddhism encounters science, it think that it would be somewhat unrealistic not to expect some changes to occur.
Now, in this encounter Buddhism might not fair altogether that badly. A friend of mine has recently recommended this book, which I haven't read yet myself, but I will make it a high-priority item:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465045677/
Modern psychology appears to be coming to the conclusion that the “self,” is, indeed, an artificial construct—and, in this particular case, what had been Buddhist dogma is now becoming accepted science. In other instances, however, Buddhist dogma might not fare as well. But if the dogma is valid, why should anyone fear placing it under scrutiny? In fact, I would think that Buddhists would welcome the opportunity to to validated by as much rigorous testing as science can throw at it. Buddhism should emerge all the stronger, shouldn't it? And if the dogma is valid in the first place, what's there to worry about?
My basic guideline in this encounter is to be open-minded, but skeptical. If one is too open-minded, one becomes liable to believe anything; and, conversely, if one is too skeptical one will end up believing nothing. Nonetheless, it seems to me that a certain amount of both is necessary if anything meaningful is to be built from this dialog in the years to come. And it is very difficult to build anything if we are busy shouting at each other.
I take it as a given that Buddhism will ultimately change the West. But, by the same token, the West will change Buddhism as well—and why not? It's pretty hard for any Mahayanist to say that Buddhism hasn't changed. And I would suggest that it will be all for the better.
And at this point, I will return to semi-hibernation ... I have a lot of work to do at the moment, and my vacation seems a loooooooooong way away right now.......
May all your upheavals and busy-ness pass quickly so that you can enjoy the coming of Spring with focused and delighted attention.
For myself, I shall miss your contributions if you leave us too long.
I find it most interesting that these discussions about the Buddhism/science encounter arise in mkore than one thread and that "it is very difficult to build anything if we are busy shouting at each other." It is vital that we avoid the hole into which some 'fundamentalist' Christians and Ultra-Darwinists seem to have fallen. (They remind me of the sort of blazing rows that would erupt at the dinner table both at home and at Oxford: sound and fury....)
I couldn't possibly agree more, Ragyaba.
Peace:)
As for the flavour of the Buddhism, all of our Sensei's are trained in Japan and hesitant to deviate too far. So in my Temple I am very much an ethnic minority and without question ebing around so many people of Japanese descent I have picked up some characteristics...mostly very good ones I think....and I'm pretty darned good with chopsticks now!!
The Jodo Shinshu Buddhist Temples of Canada is nearing something of a crisis stage as the membership is literally beginning to die off. The children and grand children of current members have not kept the tradition, and as a result in my local Temple we are down to 59 members (we were over 100 member 10 years ago) and of those, all but maybe ten or so, are 70 or older. I suspect my local temple is typical of the situation in most of the JS temples across Canada.
Often within the JSBTC we talk about creating a North American Buddhism, recognising that as Buddhism enters a country, it tends to meld with the existing culture and take on a new flavour.
My personal feeling is that for Buddhism to ever become "mainstream" in North America, it will probably be a derivative of Zen or Theravada. I think this for a few reasons.
Increasingly fewer people are likely to be impressed with mythology or things supernatural. As a music teacher I know that many of my students are "atheists" and it isn't just the cool teenage rebel atheism. They are not being raised by religious parents, and live in a world of technology, science, and massive access to information.
Thus I think many people look at Buddhism as a "rational" religion often not really aware of the mythology in for example, Pure Land and Tibetan traditions. Certainly Jodo Shinshu looks too much like Christianity to those unfamiliar with it, and most people in North America who are interested in Buddhism have likely already rejected Christianity and are looking for something very different.
I think something along a similar line to Thich Nhat Hanh's teaching approach will emerge as "North American Buddhism"
It will be reasonably easy to practice for busy lifestyles yet produce quick but meaningful results. I think the emphasis will be on finding peace in the present moment more than struggling for Nirvana. I do not think it will be at all an austere path, except maybe for occasional seshins.
It will be very short on mythology and the esoteric, and big on being socially engaged.
I think the Heart Sutra will have a big impact because it is quite deep and profound in a very short, poetic and manageable package. I think the Metta Sutta will also be popular.
However to be honest I think the teaching will tend to be more from teachers like TNH rather than directly from the Sutras themselves.
Just my ruminations of course. Feel free to point out where I am wrong!
(and before someone says anything.. yes I know this post is over a month old)
If a Japanese girl listens to Brittney Spears, does that make her "trying to be white"? I simply see it as a Japanese girl listening to music. Where that music came from is a non-issue. Perhaps some may be enamored with "white" or "west" culture culture, but perhaps others simply like the music.
If an American individual goes to an asian-themed temple, possesses asian-themed statuary, and so on... to me, this is simply an American who goes to Temple, and has statuary.
Your perception alone is what places these things as "white" or "asian". Labels.. categories.. life is full of them but they only exist to aid our own mind's necessity to quickly classify the world around us. It's not unusual but, I don't find it all that useful either. Categories tend to generate stereotypes which then become points used in negativity and hatred...
When it comes to categories, I try to avoid placing human beings in them. I'll leave categories for filing away my paperwork
Whilst I quite agree with you about "categories", Rain, I think we do need to consider context. The situation that Shutoku describes is a familiar one in many immigrant communities as the generations following the first become increasingly assimilated. Some groups react by closing ranks and clinging on to old ways, like the Amish or some Hassidim amongst others. Others, like some Afro-Caribbean groups in the UK, final a middle way and experience renewal for a time.
I agree, too, that having a few Tibetan Buddhist ornaments does not a Tibetan Buddhist make.
Reviewed by
Tsering Shakya
Fellow in Tibetan Studies
School of Oriental and African Studies
ts35@soas.ac.uk
In the first episode of the American situation comedy "Dharma and Greg," one of the characters asks the protagonist why she was named "Dharma." She responds by saying that "my parents wanted me to be a Tibetan." Apparently, the next best thing to being Tibetan is having a Tibetan-sounding name. This seems to illustrate the general American infatuation with all things Tibetan. Donald Lopez recounts a long list of references to Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism that have filtered into western popular culture. Today, the Dalai Lama's smiling countenance appears in advertisements selling Apple computers, and Tibetan monasteries form an alluring backdrop for perfume ads in glossy magazines. In the last few years we have seen a Hollywood onslaught on Tibet. Donald S. Lopez's Prisoner of Shangri-La, Tibetan Buddhism and the West is a history of this phenomenon.
Modes of representation of the "other" have become a pressing academic subject since the publication of Edward Said's seminal work Orientalism (1978), which address the fundamental way in which European culture has treated and represented the Orient politically, sociologically, militarily, ideologically, and imaginatively during the post-Enlightenment period. While many of these studies tend to concentrate on areas with which the West has had a direct colonial encounter such as India, Africa, and the Middle East, Tibet has remained outside the scrutiny of post-colonialist discourse. There is a faint assumption that Tibet is immune from orientalist discourse, perhaps because Tibet was never annexed by a western power. However, it is erroneous to postulate that territorial conquest alone defines western imperialism. In fact, because it lay just above the "jewel in the crown," British India, it was inescapable that Tibet would loom large in the British political and cultural imagination.
Donald S. Lopez's treatment of the subject is a welcome departure from the usual approach to Buddhism in western academic studies. Here, the focus of study is not on Tibet but on the West and its romantic fascination with Tibetan Buddhism. Lopez writes that the point is not to posit a more "real" Tibetan Buddhism against the one constructed by the orientalist, but to draw attention to how images of Tibet, and particularly Tibetan Buddhism, are constructed in western culture (p. 13).
The book shows clearly how western attitudes to Tibetan religion vacillate between revulsion and attraction. The very act of naming the religion betrays the constructor's mental conditioning. The early western travelers, who were mainly missionary and colonial adventurers with a purpose, were repelled by what they saw as demonic faith, but at the same time the piety of the Tibetans appealed to them as conducive to receptivity to the Christian faith.
Lopez's first chapter is entitled "The Name." Whether in the natural sciences or in phenomenal experience, naming becomes a means of understanding, of making the unfamiliar comprehensible. Lopez shows that earlier writers misleadingly borrowed the Tibetan term "lama" and appended "-ism." Protestant chauvinism chose that term to signify "the corrupt priestscraft," as Catholicism was viewed by European protestants and Anglicans (p. 17). In the process of classifying, indigenous view is discounted as either unscientific or irrelevant. Today, the term "lamaism" has been more or less discarded in the academic field; nevertheless, it still creeps into popular literature and there is a residual trace in western perception that the religion of Tibet is a debased form of the original Buddhism. Today, this debate has openly resurfaced among Chinese sociologists and academics and it has incensed the Tibetans.
Early western writers perceived nothing but corruption and superstition verging on demonology in Tibetan religion. It was impossible for them to believe that the West could learn from Tibet. However, by the beginning of this century a complete shift in western attitudes had occurred. Lopez traces the history of publication of the misleadingly-titled Tibetan Book of the Dead, which he terms "the book." It is true that more than any other Tibetan text, Bar do thos grol has exercised a particular fascination in the West, and attracted many westerners to Tibetan Buddhism. The first English translation was published in 1927 and the reprint of 1935 carried a commentary from none other than the occidental deity Carl Jung. This no doubt made the text legitimate and sanctified it.
Tibet was mytisfied by travelers and visionaries like Alexandra David-Neel and Lobsang Rampa, alias Cyril Hoskin, who seized upon one particular aspect of Tibetan religion and made it representative of the whole. Thus every Tibetan is a lama and a guardian of deep spiritual knowledge. Lobsang Rampa's books became very popular. His authority was derived from his alien name and his readers believed that they were hearing the real voice of Tibetan Buddhism. His claim to authority alarmed a group of western scholars who, Lopez tells us, hired a private detective to expose the impostor (p. 110).
Even before "the book," others had turned Tibet into a repository of wisdom and enlightenment. It was the spiritual center for a host of fringe religious groups that emerged in the West, notably the theosophical movement led by Madame Blavatsky, whose wisdom was communicated to her by means of telepathy by a Tibetan mystic in the Himalayas. Later still, "the book" became required reading for a new generation, and new translations appeared with new meanings posited. A recent rendering by Sogyal Rinpoche has sold in the hundreds of thousands in many languages.
While Lopez presents a compelling story, it was never explained clearly why this shift in western perception occurred. What was it about Tibetan Buddhism that appealed to the western mind? Is it the "otherness" and the "exotic" which snared so many into the prison of their construction? Or is it through "otherness" that the West finds itself anew? These are the larger sociological questions which need to be addressed if we are to understand the romance of Shangri-la. There is no attempt to trace the milieu in which Tibet, in particular, was mythologized and embraced. Is it the decline of western humanism, dissatisfaction with modernity, and lost certainty which gave Tibetan Buddhism a special place in the western mind?
There was a parallel development in the academic study of Buddhism, which has accorded Tibetan Buddhism new respectability and posited it as one of the universal religions of the world. The field has brought its own problems. There is a friction between the world of the practitioner and the academic world, both seeking authenticity. For the practitioner, the Buddhist centers dotted over America and Europe are the seat of authentic Buddhism, while the academics are treated with suspicion. The academics see the converts as a disaffected generation lacking in rigorous academic scrutiny.
One of the solutions provided by Lopez's own teacher, Jeffery Hopkins, is to attempt to recreate traditional monastic curriculum and teaching methods within the confines of occidental academia (pp. 165-167). Today, Tibetan Buddhism provides comfort to the New Age philosophy embracing ecology and spiritualism, while at another level, it has become a religion of practice, busily converting disused churches and old manor houses into Buddhist centers inhabited by Tibetan lamas. The Dalai Lama's teachings are attended by thousands in cities across Europe and America. Practitioners are catered to by a minor industry that has grown up around them, selling Tibetan items from charm boxes to meditation cushions and ritual implements. The publication of Tibetan Buddhist books has uprooted small forests and consequently killed thousands of insects. One hopes that the merit accumulated by the faithful practitioners will alleviate their combined negative merits. With Buddhism as an object of study, sacred texts are dissected by men in white coats and put under the microscope of western rationalist exegesis.
Lopez notes that the early phase of the infatuation was initiated by travelers and mystics who revealed the "hidden knowledge" of Tibet, but this changed with the flight of the Dalai Lama, along with hundreds of lamas who quickly found a fertile soil in which to plant their roots (pp. 185-186). Tibetan lamas appeared in western universities and centers. Now, hundreds sit at their feet to hear their authentic voice. The Tibetans were quick to realize that their religion could be exported and repackaged to suit the eager western audience. Lopez implies that Tibetan Buddhism was made palatable by de-emphasizing the esoteric elements and highlighting the humanistic, rational and universal themes (pp. 185, 200). Tibetan Buddhism was a friendly raindrop in the spiritually parched landscape of the western world. This made Tibetan Buddhism fashionable and provided a ready-made solution to the complexity of modern life.
Lopez charts the development of this interest, which he sees as an imprisonment, where the students and their gurus are both "the inmates and the guards." It is the totality of the prison system which provides a new world and meaning; moreover, the prison regime is pitted against the outside world.
Recent unsavory developments in Tibetan Buddhism -- the Karmapa controversy, the issue of the Panchen Lama, and Shugden affairs -- have once again brought the esoteric and mystical elements to the foreground. Now, the converts are so thoroughly immersed in the belief system that they are prepared to engage in street battles. Lopez's book is not about Tibetan Buddhism, and readers who are seeking a guide to spiritual development will be disappointed. However, those interested in western popular culture and imagination will find this book highly readable and sometimes even humorous.
I think this is a very insightful post. As Buddhism spreads in the West, it will be simplified, and non-specialized. The dynamic parts of Buddhism....Keeping oneself free from inner dialogue, living in harmony with nature, treating all people as one's brothers and sisters, and a basic end to superstitious beliefs. At first there will be small groups of people grouping together, and often people in ones' own family....a lot like Thich Nhat Hanh's group in France. The esoteric will give way to exoteric, and i am really looking foward to that day. I know it is going to take a long time, but hey, all things great are worth waiting for.
I've noticed this recently when I've been setting up a home altar. Instead of choosing items that really helps me with my own practice, I start putting items that I know "should" be on it. Even though I really don't even know why they are there. And if I know why I still can't really connect to them in my heart.
For me this is almost a daily struggle. What is buddhism really for me, and what do I just adopt from another culture because it's the way it "should" be.
This is the same generous impulse that leads us to learn to like our lover's taste in music or decor.
The answer is to start being Buddhist and stop trying to be a Buddhist.
Oh and by the way, some VERY respected Zen masters have said the same thing: Thich Nhat Hanh and Shunryu Suzuki to name but two.
Namaste
I've personally never had this problem, quite the opposite sometimes.:o
I guess it raises questions about how we discover the essence of Dharma, going beneath it's cultural expressions and trappings. The way I've done it is to be involved in a number of different traditions over a period of time, but there are pros and cons to that.
P
Oh, it's not just you. I am a Westerner following Tibetan Buddhist, attending a dharma centre for over 10 years that is mainly comprised of Westerners. Some of them quite enjoy "seeming asian". Whereas I sort of think that if it had been my karma to BE asian, I would have been born into an asian family.
At any rate, the practice of Buddhism has changed me tremendously ... and that's what really counts. So I keep on going.
I really don't have a clue what u just wrote here....
You have been meaningfull to me...
I tend to agree with you.
In addition: The basics (4 noble truths, 8-fold path, etc. etc.) are allready here. This is what buddhism is about, and has been about for the last several thousand of years. I doubt this will change much.
Furthermore, buddhism will never be totally western, because of the contacts between monystaries, sangha's etc. Also at a intercontinental level (airplanes, internet, telephone etc.). But in my view, buddhism isn't 'indian' either or 'japanese' or watever. Buddhism is more than country's and names and borders, and less.
Last, I agree with the statement that western buddhism is in the making. Just for a few decades, so it'll take a couple of decades more untill it has some proper roots in our western society. Times are changing fast, world orders are crumbling, new ones are rising. I think we live in exciting times, and I don't have a clue were it will end.
Thank you, I thought I was the only one who was confused!
The work of people like Christmas Humphreys and Dr. Suzuki resulted in a shift in this almost entirely metaphysical approach and 'Western Buddhism' began to acquire a more post-Enlightenment, secular complexion.
Looking at the story of the spread of Buddhism across the far east of Asia, it seems as though there is a pattern. In each cultural context, the Buddhism message attached itself to a pre-existing body of belief and myth, working, like a virus, from within and, by and large, co-existing with local beliefs. Over the centuries, both Buddhism and local belief structure are altered by the encounter. Whilst the basic elements of the Noble Truths, dependent origination, etc. seem to exist within each context, the ways in which they are understood and applied may vary widely.
This relationship between the teachings of Buddhism and fictions (myths, legends, rituals, etc.) was, to my mind, recognised and 'canonised' by the Dalai Lama when the Truth of Light award was given to Tintin - not Herge but thye fictional character.
It is worth reflecting that, for many people, it is through stories that they encountered Buddhism: Lost Horizon, Tintin au Tibet, The Third Eye, Little Buddha are a few, across the past century, all of which achieved international success and all of which are fictional.
As we are currently going through a relatively recent controversy over the relationship between imagination and reason, it is not entirely surprising that Buddhism shows its face in the West through both lenses.
Invariably, most of them wanted to act all-American, often for a year or two, before eventually coming back to center and being a balance between being an Asian kid and an American kid.
Perhaps that tendency in people is what you're referring to.