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.
A New School of Budhism
comicallyinsane
Veteran
I was thinking tonight while driving at work and I was thinking that people like us are starting a whole new school of Buddhism. A school made of westerners. It is just a thought I had. Tell me what you all think.
0
Comments
Here's an interesting question: would the clergy be married or celibate? Eastern Orthodox clergy have both; those who serve the public are married, those who serve in monasteries are celibate. Would we need monasteries for a Western Buddhist order, or could clergy complete secular studies and get a degree? Lots of questions to consider.
With Kwan Um Zen, the Chogye order of Korean Zen, is already known for a unique focus on the lay population of Buddhists instead of an isolated monastic retreat. They sent Master Seung Sahn to America, intentionally setting out to create a Westernized Zen school. To that effect, the founding Master taught and ordained Zen Masters from his Western students instead of importing Korean monks, and formed new rules and traditions centered around the lay population instead of the monastic life. It has taken many years, as you'd expect. While full time monks are still ordained, he created Bodhisattva Teachers who had families and jobs but still received transmission and the authority to teach in the school.
And, they're open to the new Masters starting their own schools of Zen, saying, "As more Zen Masters appear, their individual styles will emerge. Perhaps some of them will make their own schools. So maybe, slowly, this Korean style will disappear and be replaced by an American style or American styles. But the main line does not change."
Also, he likened the Western spread to when Buddhism spread to China and was transformed by Taoism, and is quoted: "Now it has come to the West, and what is already here? Christianity, Judaism, and so forth. When Zen 'gets married' to one of these traditions, a new style of Buddhism will appear. Perhaps there will be a woman Matriarch and all Dharma transmission will go only from woman to woman. Why not? So everyone, you must create American Buddhism."
I've always wondered, does anyone know of other schools of Buddhism that are trying to transform their customs and ceremonies instead of just putting a temple and practice in place that's exactly like the one in their own country?
Well, I'm an asian and i think our practice of Buddhism really differs largely across many cultures.
I've been to China, they conduct long distance trips over to pray, and some of the practitioners are involved in "worship" as well as "practicing all the teachings of the Buddha". Some recite mantras in chinese, for example.
I know in Japan, the culture of Buddhism just recently turned towards the original Buddhism, because it was extremely diverse just a few decades back. If i'm not wrong they integrate many gods with the concept of Buddhism itself.
In South Korea, while slowly Catholicism is taking a greater role in the younger Westernized population, it just remains a small 20% or so. Buddhism is still dominant around the area of South Korea, next to free-thinking.
Well, some of us have been to Tibet itself, or we pray at temples that are just around the neighborhood, receiving teachings etc. We celebrate/honour Vesak, Hungry Ghost festivals and more as well...
But i wouldn't think that the thought movement differs that much from that of the Western culture, only despite the fact that some thinkers may incorporate Christian ideas within the original teachings
I've never met the woman, but our current Zen Master Soeng Hyang (Barbara Rhodes) has some amazing Dharma talks stored on the Kwan Um website.
Zen Master Soeng Hyang (Barbara Rhodes) is the School Zen Master and Guiding Dharma Teacher of the Kwan Um School of Zen. She received dharma transmission from Zen Master Seung Sahn on October 10, 1992. She was one of Zen Master Seung Sahn's first American students and studied with him since 1972. She was given inka in 1977. A registered nurse since 1969, she works for Hospice Care of Rhode Island. She helped found Providence Zen Center, and lived there for seventeen years, serving in a number of administrative capacities. Zen Master Soeng Hyang has a daughter and lives with her partner, Mary, in Providence
Welcome to Kagyu Thubten Chöling
It is essential that the lineage of the teachings to remain unbroken so that their effictivness remains
Look at the Dharma Path Program section.
Scandal-free (or should I say skandha free? heh) anything in samsara is a pipe dream
At least, that has been the trend so far. The situation with Buddhism in America may prove otherwise. It could be said, quite fairly I think, that America is the heart of indulgence in the world today... and therefore of dukkha as well. Nothing satisfies the American people for long, and the running-in-place lifestyle can wake one up to the discomfort of how futile all of it really is.
The primary influences on the US as far as Buddhism have been Zen and Vajrayana (Tibetan), at least that's my understanding. It may just be that America will be the birthplace of a form of Buddhism that is not married to Christianity/other, but formed out of the existing schools to create something "better", as no doubt American conceit would allow for nothing less than the best. Maybe a Buddhism merged with agnosticism rather than either Christianity or atheism; but distinctly American, with cultural accents that make Americans wary de-emphasized or excluded (hopefully not to remove anything essential; the new Masters would need to know wth they were doing!).
Who knows? I have great hope though.
How sad. True, but sad.
This is why I think people leaving the Catholic church due to the priest scandals is sort of immature. I thought it was about god, not how nice the priest is.
There seem to have been scores and scores of Schools of Buddhism, many lost forever, some pretty new. There is no reason why new ones shouldn't emerge.
I guess the defining characteristics of "New Buddhists" is there is no defining characteristic!:)
Orthodoxies are sooooooo last millenium (and the one before that.... (and that...))
namaste
"That's fine," I tell them. "You'll be qualified to do that when you've shown yourself to be a better playwright than the original one."
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
Agreed.
Nothing is permanent, Buddha told us, everything is constantly changing. Foolish to fight it. It is the basic principle of annica. No change=no growth. No growth=death.
Or perhaps to point our guns against a backwater...
Would an American Buddhism, say, in the Bible Belt deemphasize samsara?
It seems to me that it would have to.
With Metta,
Todd
Brandon, right next door to you in NM, but I gotta tell ya. I love Texas. Love Fort Worth, Houston, and even Amarillo. My daughter may be looking at work in Austin in about a year, and then Texas may become an option for us.
But I have to say...a Buddhist in Texas...wow..talk about being outnumbered.
I'm jealous. I really am. You New Mexicans really know how to live!
Namaste
Actually, I think you're talking about the Gospels there. Shakespeare's plays were printed in his time, and therefore the textual problems are milder.
But to your point, it would seem that a tradition with more intact textual transmission would need less "revision."
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
OK, I think you miss my point.
There is an immense multi-aspect discontinuity (language, lineage, culture, distance,medium, time...) between now and Buddha's teaching.
There are no such discontinuities between now and Shakespeare's writing.
Hence the anology isn't applicable.
This isn't just "nit picking", IMHO, it is of profound importance, because it shows there can be no claims of any authenticity about the direct teachings of the Buddha.
namaste
Is your heart different or not, comic?
I don't believe it does show that, but even if it did -- would that justify willfully introducing more misinformation into the teaching?
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
I would love to know how it doesn't... How is it you manage to ascertain any given Buddhist teaching is authentic as taught?
I don't follow, what is the missinformation?
namaste
Because it leads to enlightenment.
In my opinion, to set out to create a 'new school of Buddhism' shows up the desire to innovate, and (likely) to present these innovations as Buddhism. I consider true Buddhism to be what the Buddha taught. The fact that there may be uncertainty on some points ought not lead us to say that authenticity as such is a lost cause, and anything goes.
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
That's true, but most scholars agree that the Pali Nikayas are very close to what the Buddha probably taught. Evidence for this varies, but includes the fact that exact same literature can be found in Chinese, Ghandari, Pali and Sanskrit, which is significant because it shows that these teachings were translated into various dialects before the major schisms that eventually occurred.
Regardless of what language the texts were originally spoken in, they were written down and translated into at least these four separate languages; and this is important because it shows that at one time, these were accepted as being actual teachings of the Buddha (minus the Vinaya and Abhidhamma, which is another discussion altogether). There has been a fascinating, yet little know study of this for some time by monastics and scholars alike (e.g., Ajahn Sujato, M. Anesaki, Samuel Beal, Bhiksu Thich Minh Chau, etc.).
Moreover, I'd say that the essence of what the Buddha is recorded as saying in the Pali Canon is fairly consistent throughout. I think this is mainly due to the fact that the Buddha was a superbly gifted teacher, and that, despite evidence of later additions and modifications, much of what he taught seems to have been faithfully passed down by his disciples.
If you analyze other religious texts, such as the Bible or the Mahabharata, for example, there's evidence of layers of authorship (even in places where there is said to be only one author), and you can literally trace the evolution of these texts via changes in style, grammar and content. The core of Pali Canon, however, shows evidence of originating from a single source through its consistency of content. As Prof. Richard Gombrich puts it, "I find (as Buddhists have always found) that the central part of the Canon... presents such originality, intelligence, grandeur and - most relevantly - coherence, that it is hard to see it as a composite works" (Theravada Buddhism, pg. 20).
I'm not completely sure why this is, but I think the methods of preservation may have had something to do with it. At the beginning, this included memorization of suttas by large groups of monks, who would then have periodic councils where they would recite and compare various recitations in order to weed out alterations and distortions. This was later done with written texts, as well.
Why do you think we New Mexicans know how to live? Is it our "land of Manana" attitude? I grew up in NYC until I was 18. That was ..well...a long time ago.Decades. Believe me it took me a lot of time and shock therapy to get used to NM, but now I like it. Like Texas too.
I read a book on Buddha by OSHO today. Is anyone familiar with this person's work? The book jacket called him a "mystic", but there are all kinds of "mystics" running around these days.
This raises a question I had. What defines a "practitioner"? Is anyone a practitioner who puts compassion and loving-kindness into practice? Or does observing the 5 precepts qualify one as a practitioner? Is meditation a component? Or is it not that big a deal? A lama I studied with spoke about being a practitioner as if it were an achievement beyond the average schmoe attending teachings. I've hesitated to call myself a practitioner ever since.
(--I don't know if that works, but I figured I'd launch it and see if it makes it off the ground!)
Buddha bless,
Conrad.
According to the Buddha, a lay-follower (who can also be considered a practitioner) is one who's gone to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha for refuge, and is committed to the practice according to the Dhamma (AN 8.25). In short, being sincere in your practice makes one a practitioner, not any sort of special achievement.
Sure, like all schools of Buddhism, they are "new". There is not a school or scripture extant today that was there in the time of the Buddha, or even for hundreds of years after his death. All Buddhism is new Buddhism, I am not sure how you can find reason to dislike or disbelieve that demonstrable truth.
But we don't know what he taught, we don't even know that he was a singular man - we should be doubtful of all claims and only find clary in that which cannot be doubted, eg the certainty of the noble truths.
You seem to wish for a stamp of authentic approval, "Certified Buddhist Doctrine...." which will inevitably be a "lost cause" because there is no authority about these issues.
No, I don't think that is the claim at all . Is it not that nothing "goes" except that which is "... skillful... blameless... praised by the wise and leads to welfare & to happiness."
namaste