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.
Is Asian Buddhism much different to Western?
Is Asian Buddhism much different to Western?
0
Comments
There isn't one "Asian Buddhism", any more than one "Western Buddhism" because there is not a single Asian or Western cultural identity. It is true that Buddhism is still perceived by many in the West as yet another import, which, to a great extent, it still is. Full acculturation such as has happened with Christianity is unlikely for the moment. The Christian churches 'westernised' by fully adopting indigenous languages (Latin, Greek, Koine, etc.). Buddhism will westernise when it has a settled English/French/German/etc. vocabulary rather than the current mish-mash of Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan, Chinese, etc.
Of course, this may never happen. Judaism has maintained a separate identity by retaining Hebrew.
You'd have to do some Googling to get specifics.
So in Asia, the average person (if not a monk) knows little about Buddhism apart from more cultural teachings whereas in the West, the average Buddhist is more learned.
That said, the more cultural or superstitious aspects of Buddhism are growing in the West as Buddhism finds a broader audience.
When I first learned Buddhism, most Western students were interested in meditation. The first Asian teachers that came to the West, like Lama Yeshe, Chogram Trumpa, Ajahn Chah, Shunryu Suzuki, etc, generally taught meditation and about the mind.
Today, thanks to very strong evangelical efforts of many Asian and Western teachers, many Western students appear interested in reincarnation.
Kind regards
DD
...and rebirth. That is basically the only thing most Buddhist monks in my country talk about in Dhamma talks. It has gone upto the level that the monks preach doing good deeds in a better way so that it will gather more good karma . So everyone is trying to optimize the karmic ramification they believe they receive in order to gain better prospects in the future lives :crazy:
But then again these are generalizations
But I don't believe all Western Buddhists are the same sect or Asian.
Some of them insist that Buddhism is not a religion.
Some, not all.
And if you call your self a Buddhist you are afraid to seek by your self.
There are less seekers in Asia, much less than in western countries. Well seeking for happiness is present all over our world.
Just like how it evolves when it reaches China (where pure land, chan etc. pops up)
Maybe it will turn into some version of Buddhism as it sets roots in the West.
I think pure land west is just the direction of Mandala.
I don't think is directional West.
Padmasambhava has already predicted that when human use cars and aeroplanes, Buddhism will reach the West. That prediction was made over 1000 years ago
There is not one asian, who do not like to go west haha and not one western, who likes to go more western and end up in the so called east :-)
Go west never die and grow, but Dhamma-understanding
Sometimes I feel like we could be in a sort of pure land where there was some reason that people couldn't be open about it. We need to help them, idk whether it's to help them realize or give them the opportunity to show they realize, though.
Beware, the good will disappear!
bcuz what i'm experiencing is no different than what you would expect out of a pure land, assuming you lived properly in that land...amirite lol
Asia is too big/diverse a continent to be classified under one category - ie "Asian" Buddhism.
Cheers.
In the province of British Columbia, Canada, where i live, I did a sort of informal survey of Buddhist Temples.
First off, Tibetan temples are the majority with roughly 36 temples in BC
Second are Pure Land traditions with around 16 temples
Then Theravada, then Zen, then various others like Nichiren or non-sectarian ones.
For the most part, if you were to visit a Tibetan, or Zen, or Theravadin temple here, you may or may not find an Asian teacher, and possibly even a few monks or nuns of Asian descent, but according to the larger and smaller and contemplation sutras, most of the followers will be non-asian and keen on the practice.
If you walk into a Pure Land temple, you will find the vast majority of members are Asian. Many may not know a great deal about Buddhist philosophy beyond Pure Land.
I have also heard it said that in Asia, something like 70-80% of Buddhist practitioners are practicing Pure Land (obviously only in area of Asia with Mahayana Buddhism). The reason for this is obvious. It is easy for lay people to practice. It doesn't require a great deal of meditation or study. Just reciting Amida's name is enough.
A big reason is that many Pure Land Temples were not established in order to spread Buddhism to new cultures, so much as to provide Asian immigrants with a place to practice their religion.
Jodo Shinshu Temples have been in North america for over 100 years, and I do believe they were the first Buddhist temples established in North America, but today they remain largely Japanese with the few non-Japanese being spouses of Japanese Americans. Today many don't necessarily speak Japanese, but carry on the tradition as a part of their ethnic and familial heritage.
Additionally for Shin being a Japanese tradition, there was a strong desire to integrate with Western Christian practices in an effort to help dissipate the racism during and following the second world war. As a result most temples hold services on Sunday morning, where families dressed in their sunday best make their way to "Church" (the national organisation is the "Buddhist Churches of America"...Canada only changed to "Temples" within the last few years) where services consist of singing hymns of faith, and listen to "sermons" from the "Reverend". Now to be honest some of this is simply because the Shin liturgy really does resemble that of Protestant Christianity, even in Japan, but for sure some of it was an attempt to integrate Buddhism into 1950's America.
In an odd twist of fate, that very integrating now makes Shin Buddhism less attractive to Westerners because Pure Land on the outside looks so similar to Christianity and most westerners who are interested in Buddhism will have already rejected Christianity on some level. They want a very different religious experience than "going to church".
Another feature which others have touched on, is that people who are born and raised in a tradition often are not necessarily enthusiastic practitioners. On the other hand people who convert to Buddhism will tend to be much more involved.
This is true of any tradition I think.
For example I was raised sort of vaguely protestant Christian with no church attendance. I converted to Buddhism, and I am a lay leader, pianist and secretary at my Shin Temple. My sister converted to Roman Catholicism and is secretary, teaches catechism, and often chairs services at her church.
I do think that as Buddhism grows in the west there is a stronger and stronger tendency to gloss over the more fantastic and mythological aspects, to create a science/rational thought friendly version. Partly I think because in the west Buddhism tends to attract people with an intellectual bent, more so than those with a more faith inspired motivation. (another reason why it is unlikely Pure Land will ever become a popular form for non Asians in the west.)
In this respect I find it a bit surprising that Tibetan is currently more popular than Zen or Theravada, but honestly I think part of this is simply due to the popularity of the Dalai Lama. So much so that at this point I think for many Americans Tibetan Buddhism IS Buddhism.
So while I cannot say if it is different in Asia, I do strongly feel there is a divide between Pure Land being predominantly Asian, and all the other Traditions being more non-Asian in membership, within North America.
Edit:
I also wanted to add...the idea of the Pure Land being in the west I believe is an allusion to the sun setting in the west, and this symbolizing death. The idea which is presented in the Sutras is that we can be born in the Pure Land after we die. The Pure Land is also within us as shown in the Contemplation Sutra, but according to the Larger Sutra, the Amida Sutra, and the Contemplation Sutra ultimately our attaining of enlightenment takes place in the Pure Land after this life ends.
I know that some teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh teach that the Pure Land is within and here and now. Thich Nhat Hanh does not seem to take into account the idea of "other power" but I suspect this is in part because total reliance on other power is unique to Shin, which is not the Vietnamese tradition TNH was trained in.
Most Shin Buddhists feel that while the Pure Land Sutras are not entirely to be taken literally, That Amida Buddha (awakened infinite light and life) is a symbol of Absolute reality, and the Pure Land (Sukhavati = "utmost bliss") is a metaphor for Nirvana, they do feel Amida is calling us through Nembutsu, and is a power outside our egos, and that we will not experience Nirvana until after this life.
It's something like accepting amitabbha and wish to be born in pure land before you die.. and your soul is "saved" from going into the 6 realms of rebirth. Similair to easy way of believing a savour.
But it's not "wrong". It's just like hopping from human realm station to the pure land station to continue the practice. Serious practitional might want to attain Buddhahood right in this human realm station. So it's same goal but different strategy.
I don't think it's any problem with pure land. At least they know how to make people interested in Buddhism with their own unique way. They have nice taste in arts, which I like it very much.
Using analogy...
when Chinese food reaches the West, they create stuff like chop suay and fortune cookie to suit the Westerners. You don't hear dishes like chop suey in Beijing.
it's not surprising to find Westernized chop suey version of Buddhism to suit Westerners. It's just natural way for things to evolve.
The popularity of Tibetan Buddhism in Canada may arise from your government's great generosity towards Tibetan refugees. Once again, Canada has give the world an example of compassionate action. When I hear USians taking the p*ss out of their neighbours, I remember the kindness, courtesy and general niceness as against to arrogance just across the Rainbow Bridge.
a bit off topic.
Also that earlier post I made about the differences between east and west was pretty cynical.
Truth is, who can really say what the real differences are?
This sums it up for me:
"The Buddha himself gained Awakening in a forest, gave his first sermon in a forest, and passed away in a forest. The qualities of mind he needed in order to survive physically and mentally as he went, unarmed, into the wilds, were key to his discovery of the Dhamma. They included resilience, resolve, and alertness; self-honesty and circumspection; steadfastness in the face of loneliness; courage and ingenuity in the face of external dangers; compassion and respect for the other inhabitants of the forest. These qualities formed the "home culture" of the Dhamma." (from site linked by Jason)