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 without culture
Which buddhist tradition is more adaptable to western culture? I mean a buddhist tradition without, or at least less, asian culture.
0
Comments
There's another author called Sam Harris, who I think too is a "Buddhist Atheist". He had an interesting article in the Shambhala Sun called 'Killing the Buddha'.
http://www.shambhalasun.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2903&Itemid=0
Alot of "Buddhist Atheists" tend to strip off the culture. If anything it seems many Western Buddhists go a bit overboard and culture worship some.
Zen Buddhism as practiced in Japan seems pretty Western compatable. But that's if they're properly practicing, which is debatable.
Not all aspects of these foreign cultures are desirable or even moral from a Buddhist standpoint. Tibet had a caste system and slavery, and I've heard of cases (and observed) where something similar gets re-created in sanghas or in the workplace where Tibetans are employed.
But we have to be very careful about throwing out thing that belong in the teaching of the Buddha's Eightfold Path. An in complete practice does not help anyone either. One example is Stephen Batchlor's recommending people to ignore one of the three division of the Eightfold path , which is Sila ( morality, virtue, right speech, right livelihood, etc..) and Vinaya. That turns the Eightfold Path of the Buddha into an incomplete Sixfold or Fivefold Path of some sort.
Also , he recommended that people throw out the Buddha's teaching on cause and effect ( kamma) as well as rebirth. This is an important aspect of the teaching as well. One of the rule for monastic is no sex, and yet he think that we should ignore that. Also the triple gem can be turned into a double gem of some sort, where by the sangha gem ( monastic sangha ) established by the Buddha should be eliminated. We don't know if this person is even enlightened ( which is highly unlikely) or a new Buddha. It is best to go back to the original teaching of the Buddha and practice according rather than someone who wanted to set up his own path regardless of what the Buddha himself taught. It is fine if a certain person wanted to give a teaching on enlightenment according to the path he discovered, but it is no longer the path of the Buddha. However, it is said that the next Buddha is Maitreya instead of Batchelor. So I would wait until then to follow the path of a new Buddha. For now, the teaching of Shakyamuni Buddha would do.
Thanks for an interesting discussion! Maybe it's time to start another thread on Batchelor--he's been coming up lately on a number of threads.
All religions have problems when transplanted. For example, does it make any sense to Asians when Western Christian missionaries offer them bread as part of Christian worship and tell them that it's the staff of life when Asians know very well that rice is their basic food?
It's all about conveyance. Does a particular way of teaching convey the Buddha's message? Does it help you stop identifying with things that are not you? Does it lead to the end of duhkha?
I've never encountered any form of religion, Bachelor's Buddhism included, that wasn't deeply embedded in a culture. A teaching won't make any sense to you without cultural referents. It won't seem true unless it agrees with the tacit assumptions that you have as a result of socialization.
There's a story about a Japanese monk who was walking along a road in the moonlight. He stopped to rest and lean against a stone wall, and fell over when the wall he was leaning against turned out to be a shadow in the moonlight.
If you find that a "culture free" Buddhism is more congenial, don't hesitate to practice it. Eventually you're going to find that it is just another moon shadow. Start with patience, practice, and courage, and add whatever else you think you need until you realize you don't need it anymore.
where do you recollect 'spirit world' in Tibetan buddhism? It may be pointing to an experience of consciousness, a subjective reality, rather than an objective material reality. Buddhism is not scientific materialism so there is no dichotomy.
I feel a tulku is a belief in what a being represents. A similarity. An appearance. Beings are ultimately empty of any charicterists, as the true reality. Potential. Karma is appearance rather than ultimate nature in TB.
Those were my ideas not a text or teacher. What you say sounds reasonable, but it might be politics. You don't see too many tulkus who aren't leaders of something.
By way of example, look at Bachelor. His goal is to strip away the unessential teachings that have accrued to Buddhism and leave only the core, necessary teachings. What he's actually doing is exchanging beliefs and assumptions associated with other cultures for beliefs and assumptions associated with western post-Enlightenment culture. I don't object to him doing that, but other people may find his post-Enlightenment beliefs and assumptions unnecessary, and feel that his beliefs contribute nothing to their understanding of Buddhism.
Julia - it sounds to me that, at least at this stage of your experience with Buddhism, you should simply continue to study texts by accessible authors (i personally recommend Thich Nhat Hanh's "The Heart of the Buddha's Teaching as a wonderful book to start, simply because it is both a good overview of the basic teachings written by a man who truly lives and breathes the ideals he discusses). You can also start your own meditation practice. Then, if and when you feel like it, you may contact a local group and see where that leads you.
Enjoy your journey
Namaste
When I do meetup searches online I find A LOT more groups based around traditional Buddhism rather than MBSR or other meditation practices.
I disagree. MBSR is Buddhism in disguise, which is kinda sad, but I guess necessary in some settings.
His teachings is one of the simplest.
I've tried to get you to describe how you present the concepts of compassion and skillful means, and rather than respond, you've insisted that they are stand alone. So going by your own statements, you've presented them in a stand alone manner without context and without explanation. The concepts of compassion and skillful means, reasonably similar concepts, are found in atheism, Eastern Orthodox Christianity, and Islam, along with many other religions and cultures you haven't mentioned. So by presenting the two concepts in a stand alone manner, without any context that would tie them into Buddhism, you've avoiding presenting them with anything that they weren't already acculturated to understand and accept. And the things you did present them with, compassion and skillful means, are concepts for which they already have a rich set of cultural referents.
You've "tried to get [me] to describe how [I] present the concepts of compassion and skillful means..."? I wasn't aware of that. Usually when someone wants something of someone else, they make a simple request. I'm not a mind-reader, RenGalskap, nor am I trying to be difficult. I think the Four Noble Truths, the Eightfold Path, and other teachings, such as the "Middle Way" (avoidance of extremes) are inspired strokes of genius, and part of that genius is that they're accessible to anyone from any culture. Everyone can understand compassion, it's not an Asian concept. "Life is suffering, we can end the suffering, here is the way" has nothing to do with Asian culture, it's a pan-human concept, as are so many of the Buddha's teachings. This is to be appreciated, the Buddha's brilliant mind. There are other concepts, such as rebirth (which according to some, he didn't teach anyway) that are more culture-bound. But all human beings can relate to suffering/dissatisfaction/stress (I also never encountered the word "dukkha" until I joined this forum), and want a way to avoid it. I honestly don't see the difficulty here. Remember, I'm only talking about very basic teachings, not the more sophisticated ones, like: emptiness, no-self.
Of course, ultimately, the personal experience of Buddhism should transcend culture, and yet, we must enter this experience through cultural doors. So choose your culture and go for it!
And here is that question, yet again.