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.
Well each to its own... Every school came out from a Buddha, so they must have Truth in them. And not everyone can follow the same Path, I'm one of them.
I must be reading you wrong because I have tried not to 'compare' various schools or lineages of Buddhism, particularly as my knowledge is so limited. But, when you say that there is "no such thing as Tibetan Buddhism", I have difficulty in reconciling this with Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama's own words:
I usually explain that the Buddhism of Tibet is perhaps the most complete form of Buddhism.
The World of Tibetan Buddhism
We seem to be falling into disagreement where I was hoiping that we could rise above these differences. After all, it has to be admitted that branches of Buddhism such as Zen and Theravada, say, are very different in tone and practice.
When Buddhism was taken to Tibet, a number of external changes to practice were introduced. Perhaps the most visible is in the colour of robes - entirely irrelevant to the matter of the Dharma. So, can you explain why American Vajrayana bhiksus continue to wear clothes which are entirely alien to modern America? Is it not time to ditch all the mediaeval stuff? or is it integral?
It's true that even the Dalai Lama refers to "the Buddhism of Tibet" as Tibetan Buddhism. So? It's still Vajrayana. "Tibetan Buddhism" is just shorthand for "Vajrayana" because most people don't know what Vajrayana is. Vajrayana, after all, came from India, so perhaps we should call it Indian Buddhism. There's also a form of Vajrayana in Japan, so maybe it should just be called Indo-Tibeto-Japanese Buddhism. It is sometimes referred to as Northern Buddhism rather than Tibetan Buddhism. And don't ever refer to Vajrayana Buddhism as Tibetan Buddhism to a Mongolian! They'd be very insulted as they feel it's just as much Mongolian Buddhism as it is Tibetan. There's really no difference between the Buddhism here and that in Tibet. So that's why I call it Vajrayana Buddhism because it doesn't just belong to any one country or people. It belongs to anybody who practices it.
Perhaps it is me who is not understanding you because I haven't been comparing or judging different schools of Buddhism at all, only trying to explain them to people who asked about what the differences are. And as I have said several times, I despise sectarianism. I'll always uphold anybody's right to believe in whatever tradition they feel suits them best. That even applies to the Mormon bastards who are infesting Mongolia at the moment! I'll still defend their right to believe what they want to believe, no matter how repugnant I personally find it.
I don't feel that the robes of the Buddha are "medieval stuff" that should be discarded. Why should they be discarded? Have you even been inside a British courtroom and seen the comic archaic getups the judges and solicitors there wear? How about the uniforms worn by the Swiss Guard in the Vatican? I could go on and on. But the Buddha taught that there was a blessing that came just from seeing the robes. There is a connection made in that person's mind with the Dharma even though they may have never heard the word or the name of the Buddha or anything. Yet this connection will ripen someday into the opportunity to practice and attain liberation. So no, I really don't see the point of discarding all this "medieval stuff". Sure, it'd be a lot more comfortable to go around wearing blue jeans and t-shirts. I'd sure be a lot more comfortable and happier. But understanding the reason I wear the robes makes it all worth it. I might be the only connection somebody has to the Dharma, and isn't that worth a little discomfort? The whole idea of "modern progress" doesn't sit very well with me anyway. What is it we're progressing towards? The extinction of our species due to (take your pick) global warming/nuclear warfare/environmental catastrophe/overpopulation/AIDS or whatever? No thanks. I'll stick with the medieval stuff!
The entire issue of the interpretation of Buddhism in the West is one I have been struggling with for a while, as modern American Zen is my topic for an M.A. thesis. These are huge issues of Western Buddhism. The main ones seem to be the division between layfollowers and monastics (and lack of monastics in the West to teach),
traditional sectarianism as mentioned above,
problems of authority and lineage,
including gender issues of participation and authority for women within Buddhism,
and contamination from other modern philosophies such as;
liberal humanism, (often called tolerance and equality, sometimes going too far in declaring a fourth Yana or vehicle, or creating a Western Buddhist Tradition such as the FWBO which it says is superior to all sects yet incorporates most of them in a mish-mash)
psychology (self-help Buddhism),
science and rationalism (Buddhists without beliefs or affiliations, just an intellectual and philosophical Buddhism),
evolutionism (engaged Buddhists creating an environmental and spiritual Utopia),
political ideologies (environmentalism, international politics)
and Protestantism (dislike for priesthood, ritual and religious authority).
These factors all impact upon our interpretation of Buddhism and it is like everything else I guess, people see what they want to see the majority of the time...
No problem. As a fellow foolish old man, I sometimes place my foot where it doesn't taste so good either. Rather frequently actually! And I'm sure part of the misunderstanding was mine, so no problem. I enjoy your excellent posts and don't want any misunderstandings to arise, so I'm glad we're OK!
This is a difficult and complex issue however, and I'm glad to see it being discussed. As I mentioned before, we are in the process of creating a Western Buddhism that won't end up looking much like its Eastern predecessors in the long run. But we have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater as we modify and adjust. The essence of the Buddha's teachings must remain untouched and pure while the outer appearance of the teachings adapts to our Western minds. Remember, we are the first generations of Buddhists in the West, so we are helping to create the karma of Western Buddhism for all future generations of Buddhists in the West. So it is important how we handle this issue, I think. For me, the first rule is tolerance and kindness, and that should be applied equally to our fellow Buddhists who may follow a different Buddhist path than our own as well as our fellow sentient beings who are not (yet) Buddhist. We have to, as Comically Insane points out, move beyond labels and narrow thinking and allow our minds to encompass all viewpoints except those that are harmful and poisonous to the Dharma. As one of my teachers, Ven. Gyaltrul Rinpoche, said, "No one ever became enlightened by pointing fingers at others."
To answer your question, Fee, the Mormons came into Mongolia like flies to you-know-what after the fall of Communism. They have exploited the extreme poverty many find themselves experiencing by flashing large amounts of money to lure people into converting. That often includes free trips to America to study at Mormon universities, like Brigham Young, an offer that is very appealing to a struggling young Mongolian without the financial ability to attend a university here. What they find when they get there, however, is not so pleasant. They experience intolerance and are ostracized by American Mormons. They also attempt to exploit them by throwing them back into Mongolia as missionaries before they have a clue what Mormonism is all about. Many of these poor students end up leaving the Mormon universities and coming back very disillusioned and bitter. Some have even committed suicide, either from a feeling of despondency (most families bitterly oppose such a conversion, so the young people feel like they have betrayed both family and country) or because they feel since they are now Christian, they can go immediately to heaven and see Jesus if they kill themselves! The latter is a case of not understanding the religion at all. The Mormons have built over 250 churches throughout Mongolia, including a fortress-like headquarters in Ulaan Baatar that is truly a scary looking place. They import hundreds of eager young Mormons who go prancing around the countryside in their uniform white shirts, black pants and ties, but they are also not above enticing male Mongolians with pretty young Mormon girls. They are also extremely unethical in their "recruiting" methods, telling the Mormons they'll go to hell if they don't convert, blaming family illnesses on their lack of faith, and other extreme blather that is designed to scare the poor people into converting. Once "converted", the interest of the Mormons falls off. They are chiefly interested in body counts, how many converts they can accumulate, rather than doing anything worthwhile for the Mongolians. They have poured money into some charitable work here, which is good, but the motivation is to put on a friendly face to the Mongolians, again to entice them into becoming converts. The best idea I can give you of how they are is the experience of a nice young Mongolian-Russian man we met who lives in Berlin and speaks no Mongolian as he left Mongolia as a small child. He works free-lance for German Radio (sort of a German version of PBS) giving periodic reports on various aspects of Mongolia after the fall of communism. He was here this time to do a report on the status of religion in Mongolia, including the Buddhist renaissance and the import of foreign religions, including, of course, Mormons. That's how we met him as he interviewed myself and the other monk who is here to get our take on the issue. He said he also attempted to interview the head of the Mormons here in Mongolia, an American, of course, but the guy spent the whole time trying to convert him and refused to answer any questions! That sums up their mentality, just another tired example of "We are right, you are wrong". So anyway, the appearance of the Mormons and others of their ilk, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and other pseudo-Christian or Christian appearing minority religions, has not made Westerners very popular here. Most Mongolians (except maybe for those getting rich off them) resent very much their presence and their aggressive recruiting measures. Mongolians consider themselves a Buddhist nation and most have zero interest in foreign religions coming in to tell them what they should believe. So it's not a pretty picture by any means.
The entire issue of the interpretation of Buddhism in the West is one I have been struggling with for a while, as modern American Zen is my topic for an M.A. thesis. These are huge issues of Western Buddhism. The main ones seem to be the division between layfollowers and monastics (and lack of monastics in the West to teach),
traditional sectarianism as mentioned above,
problems of authority and lineage,
including gender issues of participation and authority for women within Buddhism,
and contamination from other modern philosophies such as;
liberal humanism, (often called tolerance and equality, sometimes going too far in declaring a fourth Yana or vehicle, or creating a Western Buddhist Tradition such as the FWBO which it says is superior to all sects yet incorporates most of them in a mish-mash)
psychology (self-help Buddhism),
science and rationalism (Buddhists without beliefs or affiliations, just an intellectual and philosophical Buddhism),
evolutionism (engaged Buddhists creating an environmental and spiritual Utopia),
political ideologies (environmentalism, international politics)
and Protestantism (dislike for priesthood, ritual and religious authority).
These factors all impact upon our interpretation of Buddhism and it is like everything else I guess, people see what they want to see the majority of the time...
Yeah, I agree, Rebecca. In fact, the lack of participation by lay people is the biggest single problem in Mongolian Buddhism and one which they had better fix very rapidly unless they want to see their country turn into Utah East. In the old, pre-communist days, lay participation was limited to paying monks to do puja for them when someone died or got married or they wanted to start a new business or whatever. The lay people's understanding of Buddhism was very limited, and there was no particular sense of participation other than sending a son off to become a monk or giving offerings to the temple. Their understanding of Buddha was as a god who you treated much as any other god, giving offerings to appease him, making prayers to him to avert difficulties and problems and that sort of thing. Now with the Christians moving in, part of their appeal is the chance for lay people to feel like they are actually participating in their religion. Some Buddhist monasteries here are catching on, offering classes for lay people and the opportunity to actually practice Buddhism as a living path for them. The FPMT has been a leader in this, and others have been following suit, but it's still a small percentage. Most, like Gandan Monastery, the principal monastery in Mongolia, still try to go the old route, but they're also finding out that really doesn't fly so well here anymore except maybe for the old people who still remember the old days.
This is a good case example for the West, I think. In the US, which is what I'm most familiar with personally, it is absolutely vital to teach to the lay people. There is no tradition of monasticism in the US to speak of, so that's not going to ever be a central piece of the Buddhist puzzle in the US. I think the same is more or less true for other Western societies as well. You need to incorporate the lay people as full and participatory members of the sangha or it'll just die. In fact, I don't see an ordained sangha as even being present in most sanghas. I think in some sanghas and with certain teachers the ordained sangha can establish roots in the West, but not with most sanghas. Just my opinion. It's more important to develop and train Western teachers who can carry on the traditions rather than establish a Western ordained sangha. A Western ordained sangha is important, but in a much more limited sense and only in certain situations. This may sound strange coming from a Western Buddhist monk, but it's the way I feel and what I see going on in American (Western) Buddhism. That may change down the road, I don't know, but I don't think so. Buddhism has to adapt to the Western mind, and we have too many bad associations with religious hierarchy and its abuse for us to ever feel entirely comfortable creating a new one.
The same is true with the participation of women and the other issues you mention. Buddhism needs to adapt to these or it will wither and perish, but at the same time it has to keep the essence of the Buddha's teachings pure and unsullied. Not an easy task by any means, and that's why it's best to follow the direction of those with enlightened view because if we let everybody have at it, we'll end up with a Buddhist version of Protestantism with all kinds of silliness and sectarianism running rampant.
At least that's the way I see it from far-away Ulaan Baatar!
I would have to agree with you that "Western Buddhism" if that is actually a valid title, is an odd beast of it's own.
Your posts about it being a mish-mash of this-and-that seems very true. I think Buddhism is going through the same throws in the West as Christianity did when being forced on other cultures outside of Europe. I'm sure that many, many Christian missionaries didn't incorporate Christianity into a new culture completely and strictly following the precepts of Christianity. We know this is true in just the cultures of England, Ireland and Scotland.
Buddhism, I think on a large degree, isn't something that people are born into in the West. Many Western Buddhist may come to Buddhism after an unhappy relationship with Christianity. So, these people (including myself) are trying to incorporate something new into their lives while battling against years of a previous religious mindset. A lot of people may find a harbor in Buddhism after a painful assocation with Christianity which could lead to a lot of internal turmoil/anger/angst/suffering in trying to come to terms with these two factions.
Plus, I think, a lot of Westerners come to Buddhism without all of the Asian/Eastern culture that Asians/Easterners are just born into.
We haven't grown up believing in various representation of "this buddha" or "that buddha" or multiple dieties, oracles, avatars, etc. that other cultures have had for thousands of years. So, I think it's sometimes hard for Westerns to swallow at times.
Then, your point of how Western Buddhism takes on some kind of odd, homeopathic, "self-help" thing that is becoming more and more popular in the West.
Sectarianism, rules, monastics, and the lay community in the U.S......whew
Many "Dhamma/Dharma teachers" here are not monastics. They are people who either have ordained for a time, been a serious lay follower of a monk, and/or learned from other Dhamma/Dharma teachers. Many meditation retreats and Dhamma talks are given by these meditation teachers who are not ordained. The monastic way of life has never really caught on here. There are monasteries, but they are few and far between. Most of the monks are from Thailand or other Buddhist countries and only have 4 year visas. Many Buddhist practioners rely on these unordained teachers for guidance. Whether they are qualified or not I cannot say. I have visited only a small few. I tend to stay with visiting Thai Wats for meditation and teachings.
It is a double edged sword in my opinion. On the one hand they can learn a lot and become very good, well respected teachers. On the other hand they can really mangle the teachings if they do not full understand the Buddha's intent in certain suttas. The Abhidhamma is one thing that I am not sure everyone can just "get" and then teach. (I also am not even sure if it was really something the Buddha taught himself.) That should be more for monastics to explore and teach in my opinion. I have no problem with lay-followers reading it and asking advice from a qualified monastic, but teaching it--not so sure. I believe lay-teachers should stick more to things that pertain to lay-life. The biggest exception I see is if the person is a scholar and holds degrees in say psychology. Then this deep teaching may be beneficial and useful. That person can apply it to lay-life much more easily than the average run-of-the-mill person.
(As for teaching, I think that Buddhist Ethics are extremely important. The Path of virtue, concentration, and discernment is interlinked. When one of the 3 is missing the Path is incomplete. I believe the ethics should be taught first so that individuals can build a solid foundation before attempting anything else. After they understand the importance of sila then they should be taught proper concentration techniques. That way they will have a much more productive time than without sila as a base. Many teachers do seem to overlook the importance of sila, or do not stress it enough. Capitalism isn't necessarily full of virtue. )
As for Buddhist ethics in regards to the Sangha, I find it in decline in the United States. For example, I know monks who try to keep to the Vinyana, like eating out of their alms bowl, but I have seen temples where the lay followers offer the morning meal on plates. They don't even use their bowls unless it is a 'symbolic' alms round on specific holidays. I was personally a little unnerved by this.
I do not know if it is the monks or the lay followers who are instigating these changes. I want to ask, but at the same time I do not want to be rude and over step my bounds. More and more Vinyana rules are being ignored or forgotten completely. I see monks using money, watching t.v., movies, or bending existing rules to their very limits. The more I try to find stricter adherence to the Vinyana the more I am looking towards Thai forest traditions, and yet they still act the same in many respects. In all honestly I believe that it is both the fault of the lay community as well as the monastics. The monastics could very well teach the people about the Vinyana so that they are better aware of how monastics must live but, the monastics often seem to 'enjoy' these activities (In a lot of temples in the U.S. there is a t.v. stashed somewhere-I know. One temple I went to, after I had gotten to know the monks quite well, was often invited to watch t.v. with them in the head monk's room. While this isn't 'bad' and I find no real harm in it, it is a rule that monks must refrain from actively watching entertainment such as dancing etc.). I also think lay communities should realize the purpose of the monastic life. They see it as tradition. A person is ordained and now they are automatically venerated. They are given money, food, clothes and are set for life. Many monastics seem to be treated more as 'hosts' of the temple than 'monastics'. Many people do not understand that they are supposed to live simply for the purpose of training their minds in line with the Dhamma.
I have been deeply troubled by this myself. I have read the Vinyana, and I have a good idea of how the Buddha wanted his bhikkhus to behave and live. I agree that not all rules are so important, but many of them are. The support that most temples receive here is merely monetary. The rest, well the monks have to do it themselves. They must handle money, make repairs to the temple, tend to the grounds, greet people who visit, go out to homes or restaurants to chant, etc. They have very little time to themselves as well as their own regular practice. I feel very sorry for them at times. The people misuse the resources of the monastic community. That is one thing that makes me want to ordain one day. I really want to help educate people on the true purpose of ordaining. Many people just think monks learn chants because they are endowed with some power, like mystical prayers, and assume they meditate when they leave (conveniently forgetting that after they leave the rest of the hundred people will come to visit). They invite monks to their homes to chant suttas, offer food and money, and that's it. I have escorted monks to lay followers homes and witnessed this firsthand.
I think that people today want to be 'comfortable'. A few harsh words or physical discomfort and people go running home. We're becoming rather pampered and sensitive in this modern age. How many people in the United States can manage living in the harsh conditions of their grandparents or great grandparents without going crazy? I can imaine it now.... "Oh no! No coffee!?! No toilet paper!?! AHHH one meal a day!?!" I truly admire Ajahn Mun. I will be honest and say that I do not think I could live such a simple life in the forest like he did. I don't know how he endured some of the hardships he had to face. That fact alone makes me have faith that the Dhamma was well realized by him in some form. I am afraid that serious meditation master like him, who live strictly by the Vinyana, are vanishing.
When I visit and stay at temples I try to do my best to do what I can for the monks, but it doesn't seem to help. Lay people are getting more and more used to this way of 'practicing'. Everybody just looks at me and says, "Oh how cute, look at him trying to help." They don't realize why I am trying to do what I am doing. I think that people who understand the purpose of the Vinyana more need to help re-educate the lay communities. I think that most people do not even know many of the rules of the Vinyana. They may think that, "Oh, the rules are the monks concern, so we don't have to worry about those..I'm sure they wouldn't do something they weren't supposed to." People forget that monks aren't really allowd to 'ask' for things or tell people what to 'do'. They just must accept the help that they are given. (Almost a paradox eh?)
I do believe, however, that we shouldn't judge a monk by how he/she acts according to the Vinyana or otherwise. (I hope I didn't make it sound like I was.) I never hold these things against anyone unless it is obvious they are not 'monastics' in the true sense of the word (merely people ordaining for ease, or the cultural temporary ordination, or whatever). Many of the most intelligent and well known monastics I have met do not always follow strictly to the Vinyana in all cases. This could be for a variety of reasons. I had a monk kind enough to explain this to me because he knew I was interested. I learned why some rules are not followed (like not having more than the allowed robes since it gets very cold in Michigan and monks would freeze to death without extra clothes), how some rules can be bent but not broken, things allowed that are not well known (like eating something if it 'qualifies' as medicine), etc. It is very hard to understand every rule and follow them to the highest degree in these modern times.
I myself am just worried that too many rules may be getting forgotten, or that lay followers are paying less attention to them. The monks then must continually adapt because they are not taken care of properly by their lay community. This changes the culture even further. Soon lay followers forget altogether the rules of conduct they should observe in maintaining their monastic community. It isn't as serious sounding until you begin to realize in relatively short time, a generation or so, things are forever changed. The current communities children will mimic their parents' conduct, and if this conduct veers away from the Vinyana, then the monks will be forced to adapt even more. If lay communities are not careful they can actually 'pull' the monks away from the Vinyana itself.
Pindapata may be an example. At first monks were to simply wander through a town silently and people would place food in their bowls (not separated but all mixed up), which would be taken to where they were staying, and eaten. Then they were forced to stay more in monasteries as opposed to wandering the country, so lay followers brought food to the temples to place in the monks bowls. Over time and in certain temples in the U.S. people bring food to the monks and place them neatly separated on to plates. (In some cases nobody would come and the monks had to cook for themselves.) No more wandering, no more bowls, and perfectly prepared and separated food all because of the lay followers. As I said before, this doesn't sound 'bad', but after it all adds up.....who knows where it will lead. I suppose that all things are anicca and cannot remain the same forever, but that is no excuse for us to neglect the monastic community out of ignorance.
Without us, the lay community, there will be no Sangha in the future, and with no Sangha the Dhamma is sure to disappear.....how terrible would that be?
*Sigh* Ok, I'm stepping down from the soap-box I borrowed from Michael. Just some thoughts I've been having on the subject.
(P.s. This is from the perspective of the Thai Theravada temples I've visited and their Vinyana. I am not speaking for any other tradition because I do not have any experience with them. If something is out of line, or improper please let me know. Otherwise, this is just my opinion on some of the things I have seen. I believe that Buddhism can, and should be, incorporated into our Western culture, but I also agree with the Venerable Palzang that we must be careful not to throw out the essence of what the Buddha was trying to teach while doing that.)
Comments
I must be reading you wrong because I have tried not to 'compare' various schools or lineages of Buddhism, particularly as my knowledge is so limited. But, when you say that there is "no such thing as Tibetan Buddhism", I have difficulty in reconciling this with Tenzin Gyatso, the 14th Dalai Lama's own words: The World of Tibetan Buddhism
We seem to be falling into disagreement where I was hoiping that we could rise above these differences. After all, it has to be admitted that branches of Buddhism such as Zen and Theravada, say, are very different in tone and practice.
When Buddhism was taken to Tibet, a number of external changes to practice were introduced. Perhaps the most visible is in the colour of robes - entirely irrelevant to the matter of the Dharma. So, can you explain why American Vajrayana bhiksus continue to wear clothes which are entirely alien to modern America? Is it not time to ditch all the mediaeval stuff? or is it integral?
Perhaps it is me who is not understanding you because I haven't been comparing or judging different schools of Buddhism at all, only trying to explain them to people who asked about what the differences are. And as I have said several times, I despise sectarianism. I'll always uphold anybody's right to believe in whatever tradition they feel suits them best. That even applies to the Mormon bastards who are infesting Mongolia at the moment! I'll still defend their right to believe what they want to believe, no matter how repugnant I personally find it.
I don't feel that the robes of the Buddha are "medieval stuff" that should be discarded. Why should they be discarded? Have you even been inside a British courtroom and seen the comic archaic getups the judges and solicitors there wear? How about the uniforms worn by the Swiss Guard in the Vatican? I could go on and on. But the Buddha taught that there was a blessing that came just from seeing the robes. There is a connection made in that person's mind with the Dharma even though they may have never heard the word or the name of the Buddha or anything. Yet this connection will ripen someday into the opportunity to practice and attain liberation. So no, I really don't see the point of discarding all this "medieval stuff". Sure, it'd be a lot more comfortable to go around wearing blue jeans and t-shirts. I'd sure be a lot more comfortable and happier. But understanding the reason I wear the robes makes it all worth it. I might be the only connection somebody has to the Dharma, and isn't that worth a little discomfort? The whole idea of "modern progress" doesn't sit very well with me anyway. What is it we're progressing towards? The extinction of our species due to (take your pick) global warming/nuclear warfare/environmental catastrophe/overpopulation/AIDS or whatever? No thanks. I'll stick with the medieval stuff!
Anyway, amarkhan sain (peace be with you)!
Palzang
I just see this as all a form of labeling. Silly argument if you ask me, and you haven't.
traditional sectarianism as mentioned above,
problems of authority and lineage,
including gender issues of participation and authority for women within Buddhism,
and contamination from other modern philosophies such as;
liberal humanism, (often called tolerance and equality, sometimes going too far in declaring a fourth Yana or vehicle, or creating a Western Buddhist Tradition such as the FWBO which it says is superior to all sects yet incorporates most of them in a mish-mash)
psychology (self-help Buddhism),
science and rationalism (Buddhists without beliefs or affiliations, just an intellectual and philosophical Buddhism),
evolutionism (engaged Buddhists creating an environmental and spiritual Utopia),
political ideologies (environmentalism, international politics)
and Protestantism (dislike for priesthood, ritual and religious authority).
These factors all impact upon our interpretation of Buddhism and it is like everything else I guess, people see what they want to see the majority of the time...
No problem. As a fellow foolish old man, I sometimes place my foot where it doesn't taste so good either. Rather frequently actually! And I'm sure part of the misunderstanding was mine, so no problem. I enjoy your excellent posts and don't want any misunderstandings to arise, so I'm glad we're OK!
This is a difficult and complex issue however, and I'm glad to see it being discussed. As I mentioned before, we are in the process of creating a Western Buddhism that won't end up looking much like its Eastern predecessors in the long run. But we have to be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater as we modify and adjust. The essence of the Buddha's teachings must remain untouched and pure while the outer appearance of the teachings adapts to our Western minds. Remember, we are the first generations of Buddhists in the West, so we are helping to create the karma of Western Buddhism for all future generations of Buddhists in the West. So it is important how we handle this issue, I think. For me, the first rule is tolerance and kindness, and that should be applied equally to our fellow Buddhists who may follow a different Buddhist path than our own as well as our fellow sentient beings who are not (yet) Buddhist. We have to, as Comically Insane points out, move beyond labels and narrow thinking and allow our minds to encompass all viewpoints except those that are harmful and poisonous to the Dharma. As one of my teachers, Ven. Gyaltrul Rinpoche, said, "No one ever became enlightened by pointing fingers at others."
To answer your question, Fee, the Mormons came into Mongolia like flies to you-know-what after the fall of Communism. They have exploited the extreme poverty many find themselves experiencing by flashing large amounts of money to lure people into converting. That often includes free trips to America to study at Mormon universities, like Brigham Young, an offer that is very appealing to a struggling young Mongolian without the financial ability to attend a university here. What they find when they get there, however, is not so pleasant. They experience intolerance and are ostracized by American Mormons. They also attempt to exploit them by throwing them back into Mongolia as missionaries before they have a clue what Mormonism is all about. Many of these poor students end up leaving the Mormon universities and coming back very disillusioned and bitter. Some have even committed suicide, either from a feeling of despondency (most families bitterly oppose such a conversion, so the young people feel like they have betrayed both family and country) or because they feel since they are now Christian, they can go immediately to heaven and see Jesus if they kill themselves! The latter is a case of not understanding the religion at all. The Mormons have built over 250 churches throughout Mongolia, including a fortress-like headquarters in Ulaan Baatar that is truly a scary looking place. They import hundreds of eager young Mormons who go prancing around the countryside in their uniform white shirts, black pants and ties, but they are also not above enticing male Mongolians with pretty young Mormon girls. They are also extremely unethical in their "recruiting" methods, telling the Mormons they'll go to hell if they don't convert, blaming family illnesses on their lack of faith, and other extreme blather that is designed to scare the poor people into converting. Once "converted", the interest of the Mormons falls off. They are chiefly interested in body counts, how many converts they can accumulate, rather than doing anything worthwhile for the Mongolians. They have poured money into some charitable work here, which is good, but the motivation is to put on a friendly face to the Mongolians, again to entice them into becoming converts. The best idea I can give you of how they are is the experience of a nice young Mongolian-Russian man we met who lives in Berlin and speaks no Mongolian as he left Mongolia as a small child. He works free-lance for German Radio (sort of a German version of PBS) giving periodic reports on various aspects of Mongolia after the fall of communism. He was here this time to do a report on the status of religion in Mongolia, including the Buddhist renaissance and the import of foreign religions, including, of course, Mormons. That's how we met him as he interviewed myself and the other monk who is here to get our take on the issue. He said he also attempted to interview the head of the Mormons here in Mongolia, an American, of course, but the guy spent the whole time trying to convert him and refused to answer any questions! That sums up their mentality, just another tired example of "We are right, you are wrong". So anyway, the appearance of the Mormons and others of their ilk, such as Jehovah's Witnesses and other pseudo-Christian or Christian appearing minority religions, has not made Westerners very popular here. Most Mongolians (except maybe for those getting rich off them) resent very much their presence and their aggressive recruiting measures. Mongolians consider themselves a Buddhist nation and most have zero interest in foreign religions coming in to tell them what they should believe. So it's not a pretty picture by any means.
Palzang
Yeah, I agree, Rebecca. In fact, the lack of participation by lay people is the biggest single problem in Mongolian Buddhism and one which they had better fix very rapidly unless they want to see their country turn into Utah East. In the old, pre-communist days, lay participation was limited to paying monks to do puja for them when someone died or got married or they wanted to start a new business or whatever. The lay people's understanding of Buddhism was very limited, and there was no particular sense of participation other than sending a son off to become a monk or giving offerings to the temple. Their understanding of Buddha was as a god who you treated much as any other god, giving offerings to appease him, making prayers to him to avert difficulties and problems and that sort of thing. Now with the Christians moving in, part of their appeal is the chance for lay people to feel like they are actually participating in their religion. Some Buddhist monasteries here are catching on, offering classes for lay people and the opportunity to actually practice Buddhism as a living path for them. The FPMT has been a leader in this, and others have been following suit, but it's still a small percentage. Most, like Gandan Monastery, the principal monastery in Mongolia, still try to go the old route, but they're also finding out that really doesn't fly so well here anymore except maybe for the old people who still remember the old days.
This is a good case example for the West, I think. In the US, which is what I'm most familiar with personally, it is absolutely vital to teach to the lay people. There is no tradition of monasticism in the US to speak of, so that's not going to ever be a central piece of the Buddhist puzzle in the US. I think the same is more or less true for other Western societies as well. You need to incorporate the lay people as full and participatory members of the sangha or it'll just die. In fact, I don't see an ordained sangha as even being present in most sanghas. I think in some sanghas and with certain teachers the ordained sangha can establish roots in the West, but not with most sanghas. Just my opinion. It's more important to develop and train Western teachers who can carry on the traditions rather than establish a Western ordained sangha. A Western ordained sangha is important, but in a much more limited sense and only in certain situations. This may sound strange coming from a Western Buddhist monk, but it's the way I feel and what I see going on in American (Western) Buddhism. That may change down the road, I don't know, but I don't think so. Buddhism has to adapt to the Western mind, and we have too many bad associations with religious hierarchy and its abuse for us to ever feel entirely comfortable creating a new one.
The same is true with the participation of women and the other issues you mention. Buddhism needs to adapt to these or it will wither and perish, but at the same time it has to keep the essence of the Buddha's teachings pure and unsullied. Not an easy task by any means, and that's why it's best to follow the direction of those with enlightened view because if we let everybody have at it, we'll end up with a Buddhist version of Protestantism with all kinds of silliness and sectarianism running rampant.
At least that's the way I see it from far-away Ulaan Baatar!
Palzang
I would have to agree with you that "Western Buddhism" if that is actually a valid title, is an odd beast of it's own.
Your posts about it being a mish-mash of this-and-that seems very true. I think Buddhism is going through the same throws in the West as Christianity did when being forced on other cultures outside of Europe. I'm sure that many, many Christian missionaries didn't incorporate Christianity into a new culture completely and strictly following the precepts of Christianity. We know this is true in just the cultures of England, Ireland and Scotland.
Buddhism, I think on a large degree, isn't something that people are born into in the West. Many Western Buddhist may come to Buddhism after an unhappy relationship with Christianity. So, these people (including myself) are trying to incorporate something new into their lives while battling against years of a previous religious mindset. A lot of people may find a harbor in Buddhism after a painful assocation with Christianity which could lead to a lot of internal turmoil/anger/angst/suffering in trying to come to terms with these two factions.
Plus, I think, a lot of Westerners come to Buddhism without all of the Asian/Eastern culture that Asians/Easterners are just born into.
We haven't grown up believing in various representation of "this buddha" or "that buddha" or multiple dieties, oracles, avatars, etc. that other cultures have had for thousands of years. So, I think it's sometimes hard for Westerns to swallow at times.
Then, your point of how Western Buddhism takes on some kind of odd, homeopathic, "self-help" thing that is becoming more and more popular in the West.
Very good post - very thought provoking.
-bf
Thanks for the grins!
Palzang
Glad to be of service. :cheer:
Many "Dhamma/Dharma teachers" here are not monastics. They are people who either have ordained for a time, been a serious lay follower of a monk, and/or learned from other Dhamma/Dharma teachers. Many meditation retreats and Dhamma talks are given by these meditation teachers who are not ordained. The monastic way of life has never really caught on here. There are monasteries, but they are few and far between. Most of the monks are from Thailand or other Buddhist countries and only have 4 year visas. Many Buddhist practioners rely on these unordained teachers for guidance. Whether they are qualified or not I cannot say. I have visited only a small few. I tend to stay with visiting Thai Wats for meditation and teachings.
It is a double edged sword in my opinion. On the one hand they can learn a lot and become very good, well respected teachers. On the other hand they can really mangle the teachings if they do not full understand the Buddha's intent in certain suttas. The Abhidhamma is one thing that I am not sure everyone can just "get" and then teach. (I also am not even sure if it was really something the Buddha taught himself.) That should be more for monastics to explore and teach in my opinion. I have no problem with lay-followers reading it and asking advice from a qualified monastic, but teaching it--not so sure. I believe lay-teachers should stick more to things that pertain to lay-life. The biggest exception I see is if the person is a scholar and holds degrees in say psychology. Then this deep teaching may be beneficial and useful. That person can apply it to lay-life much more easily than the average run-of-the-mill person.
(As for teaching, I think that Buddhist Ethics are extremely important. The Path of virtue, concentration, and discernment is interlinked. When one of the 3 is missing the Path is incomplete. I believe the ethics should be taught first so that individuals can build a solid foundation before attempting anything else. After they understand the importance of sila then they should be taught proper concentration techniques. That way they will have a much more productive time than without sila as a base. Many teachers do seem to overlook the importance of sila, or do not stress it enough. Capitalism isn't necessarily full of virtue.
As for Buddhist ethics in regards to the Sangha, I find it in decline in the United States. For example, I know monks who try to keep to the Vinyana, like eating out of their alms bowl, but I have seen temples where the lay followers offer the morning meal on plates. They don't even use their bowls unless it is a 'symbolic' alms round on specific holidays. I was personally a little unnerved by this.
I do not know if it is the monks or the lay followers who are instigating these changes. I want to ask, but at the same time I do not want to be rude and over step my bounds. More and more Vinyana rules are being ignored or forgotten completely. I see monks using money, watching t.v., movies, or bending existing rules to their very limits. The more I try to find stricter adherence to the Vinyana the more I am looking towards Thai forest traditions, and yet they still act the same in many respects. In all honestly I believe that it is both the fault of the lay community as well as the monastics. The monastics could very well teach the people about the Vinyana so that they are better aware of how monastics must live but, the monastics often seem to 'enjoy' these activities (In a lot of temples in the U.S. there is a t.v. stashed somewhere-I know. One temple I went to, after I had gotten to know the monks quite well, was often invited to watch t.v. with them in the head monk's room. While this isn't 'bad' and I find no real harm in it, it is a rule that monks must refrain from actively watching entertainment such as dancing etc.). I also think lay communities should realize the purpose of the monastic life. They see it as tradition. A person is ordained and now they are automatically venerated. They are given money, food, clothes and are set for life. Many monastics seem to be treated more as 'hosts' of the temple than 'monastics'. Many people do not understand that they are supposed to live simply for the purpose of training their minds in line with the Dhamma.
I have been deeply troubled by this myself. I have read the Vinyana, and I have a good idea of how the Buddha wanted his bhikkhus to behave and live. I agree that not all rules are so important, but many of them are. The support that most temples receive here is merely monetary. The rest, well the monks have to do it themselves. They must handle money, make repairs to the temple, tend to the grounds, greet people who visit, go out to homes or restaurants to chant, etc. They have very little time to themselves as well as their own regular practice. I feel very sorry for them at times. The people misuse the resources of the monastic community. That is one thing that makes me want to ordain one day. I really want to help educate people on the true purpose of ordaining. Many people just think monks learn chants because they are endowed with some power, like mystical prayers, and assume they meditate when they leave (conveniently forgetting that after they leave the rest of the hundred people will come to visit). They invite monks to their homes to chant suttas, offer food and money, and that's it. I have escorted monks to lay followers homes and witnessed this firsthand.
I think that people today want to be 'comfortable'. A few harsh words or physical discomfort and people go running home. We're becoming rather pampered and sensitive in this modern age. How many people in the United States can manage living in the harsh conditions of their grandparents or great grandparents without going crazy? I can imaine it now.... "Oh no! No coffee!?! No toilet paper!?! AHHH one meal a day!?!" I truly admire Ajahn Mun. I will be honest and say that I do not think I could live such a simple life in the forest like he did. I don't know how he endured some of the hardships he had to face. That fact alone makes me have faith that the Dhamma was well realized by him in some form. I am afraid that serious meditation master like him, who live strictly by the Vinyana, are vanishing.
When I visit and stay at temples I try to do my best to do what I can for the monks, but it doesn't seem to help. Lay people are getting more and more used to this way of 'practicing'. Everybody just looks at me and says, "Oh how cute, look at him trying to help." They don't realize why I am trying to do what I am doing. I think that people who understand the purpose of the Vinyana more need to help re-educate the lay communities. I think that most people do not even know many of the rules of the Vinyana. They may think that, "Oh, the rules are the monks concern, so we don't have to worry about those..I'm sure they wouldn't do something they weren't supposed to." People forget that monks aren't really allowd to 'ask' for things or tell people what to 'do'. They just must accept the help that they are given. (Almost a paradox eh?)
I do believe, however, that we shouldn't judge a monk by how he/she acts according to the Vinyana or otherwise. (I hope I didn't make it sound like I was.) I never hold these things against anyone unless it is obvious they are not 'monastics' in the true sense of the word (merely people ordaining for ease, or the cultural temporary ordination, or whatever). Many of the most intelligent and well known monastics I have met do not always follow strictly to the Vinyana in all cases. This could be for a variety of reasons. I had a monk kind enough to explain this to me because he knew I was interested. I learned why some rules are not followed (like not having more than the allowed robes since it gets very cold in Michigan and monks would freeze to death without extra clothes), how some rules can be bent but not broken, things allowed that are not well known (like eating something if it 'qualifies' as medicine), etc. It is very hard to understand every rule and follow them to the highest degree in these modern times.
I myself am just worried that too many rules may be getting forgotten, or that lay followers are paying less attention to them. The monks then must continually adapt because they are not taken care of properly by their lay community. This changes the culture even further. Soon lay followers forget altogether the rules of conduct they should observe in maintaining their monastic community. It isn't as serious sounding until you begin to realize in relatively short time, a generation or so, things are forever changed. The current communities children will mimic their parents' conduct, and if this conduct veers away from the Vinyana, then the monks will be forced to adapt even more. If lay communities are not careful they can actually 'pull' the monks away from the Vinyana itself.
Pindapata may be an example. At first monks were to simply wander through a town silently and people would place food in their bowls (not separated but all mixed up), which would be taken to where they were staying, and eaten. Then they were forced to stay more in monasteries as opposed to wandering the country, so lay followers brought food to the temples to place in the monks bowls. Over time and in certain temples in the U.S. people bring food to the monks and place them neatly separated on to plates. (In some cases nobody would come and the monks had to cook for themselves.) No more wandering, no more bowls, and perfectly prepared and separated food all because of the lay followers. As I said before, this doesn't sound 'bad', but after it all adds up.....who knows where it will lead. I suppose that all things are anicca and cannot remain the same forever, but that is no excuse for us to neglect the monastic community out of ignorance.
Without us, the lay community, there will be no Sangha in the future, and with no Sangha the Dhamma is sure to disappear.....how terrible would that be?
*Sigh* Ok, I'm stepping down from the soap-box I borrowed from Michael.
(P.s. This is from the perspective of the Thai Theravada temples I've visited and their Vinyana. I am not speaking for any other tradition because I do not have any experience with them. If something is out of line, or improper please let me know. Otherwise, this is just my opinion on some of the things I have seen. I believe that Buddhism can, and should be, incorporated into our Western culture, but I also agree with the Venerable Palzang that we must be careful not to throw out the essence of what the Buddha was trying to teach while doing that.)