Buddhism is a religion associated with a way of life and a culture. It's not something a businessman does on a "weekend retreat" as "mindfulness practice" to get back in the rat race refreshed.
Even in time of Buddha, there were thousands of Buddhists who were practising Buddhist while remaining in a family.
Buddha, once addressing Ananda, told him that there were hundreds of disciples who attained Nirvana while remaining in a family and with a profession.
I find this kind of opposition to Western Buddhist practices absolitely repulsive and baseless.
Yes, I studied Buddhist scriptures extensively, with guides, and really, you don't need to burn insence sticks and bow k times before a statue to be a Buddhist.
>Even in time of Buddha, there were thousands of Buddhists who were practising Buddhist while remaining in a family.
Which is neither here, nor there.
My distinction is not about following Buddhist as "true to the spirit of Buddha" or not. It's not about "studying" or not, either.
It's about Buddhist as a historical phenomenon, a tradition, emergent and adopted by specific cultures in specific ways of life, and being passed on, versus Buddhism as a consumer lifestyle choice, from some people millions of miles away, in a totally different culture and mindset, who adopted it as one of the "free to chose" religious or lifestyle fads available on their spirituality (or worse, wellness) market.
I fully agree with your comment. But what you and pigsty keep repeating is that: "if it is free to choose, and lifestyle based approach adopted by anyone in West", it is wrong.
So do you say that it is impossible to be a buddhist in the west? Maybe, but as a person that has been practicing a single tradition for a decade, made many life decisions based on that as the fundamental center of my life, helped run centers and actually see my work and family life completely integrated with my spiritual practice (and I chose to do so freely), your comment is comical. Anyway, I never strove to be a "buddhist".
> you don't need to burn insence sticks and bow k times before a statue to be a Buddhist.
That's what would be called "devotional practices". I didn't care for all that - pujas, foundation practices, 100,000 prostrations and so on. I wanted to do the insight practices, and gain insight.
What I later learned is that you have to do devotional practices as well as insight practices. A bird can't fly with just one wing. Devotional practices supposedly give you the confidence to deal with awakening insight.
For the most part, western Buddhism is about good vibes bro and meditating and is, for all intents and purposes, irreligious and more of a general life philosophy (like how waking up at 5 am, jogging, and eating organic isn’t a religion either).
Buddhist buddhism involves demons, hell, and more praying or even chanting than meditating for the general population. Most Buddhists probably don’t meditate at all, actually. Some western Buddhists probably have amulets to ward off demons and make fruit offerings to bodhisattvas, but it’s very uncommon. But it’s the norm in Asia.
Right on, brother. My friend from from Bhutan wants to get into Christianity by reading the Bible like a nerd. I keep reminding her that most Christians where I come from (the Old World, so authentic) mostly only go to church on Sundays and only follow the Ten Commandments to the degree that they don’t kill people.
> Buddhist buddhism involves demons, hell, and more praying or even chanting than meditating for the general population.
You are mentioning Mahayana or later Vajrayana Buddhism.
Buddha never asks you to pray, and he did not teach any concepts of hells or demons.
Please stop appropriating Buddhism. You have no authority.
Just like Christianity practised in the US is not true Christianity, Buddhism practised in East Asia is no truer Buddhism.
And yes, Buddhism and its teachings are watered down in the West. But Western Buddhism, when not watered down, is no less truer than incense burning, praying, hell-believing Eastern Buddhism.
>Just like Christianity practised in the US is not true Christianity, Buddhism practised in East Asia is no truer Buddhism.
That's the "really existing Buddhism" - the kind that matters, and the only kind with roots in a millenia old tradition.
The rest is either spirituallity tourists using it as a lifestyle accessory (the same way they'd adopt pilates or switch to some new age shit), or spirituallity "nerds" getting into an exotic religion (usually in a bizarro version as landed on their shores and according to the spiritual fads of the time it caught on, mid-20th century) to study the scriptures and debate "ways" and versions.
>That's the "really existing Buddhism" - the kind that matters, and the only kind with roots in a millenia old tradition.
First, even if this "pseudo-Buddhism" is a lame imitation by Westerners, the fact that it's an imitation means that it shares the same roots with "proper Buddhism". Second, why is proper Buddhism "the only one that matters"? I would say none of it matters, you would say only one of them matters, and there's probably some people who say both of them matter. By what criterion does one opinion take precedence?
Western Buddhism is based off an aesthetic interpretation of Zen Buddhism.
If Buddhism in East Asia is appropriation and people in East Asia have no authority to talk about it, defending western Buddhism, which is based off the customs of a Japanese interpretation (based off a Chinese branch), is a strange turn to take.
(hell is mentioned within the context of Theravada as well)
There is nothing well-defined as "Western Buddhism". The western buddhism I studied is based on Theraveda, and not Mahayana or Zen.
> If Buddhism in East Asia is appropriation and people in East Asia have no authority
No, they indeed do not. Western Buddhists or someone who learned from them don't tell these people that they are doing Buddhism wrongly, and should change. So, someone like you shouldn’t tell Westerners that their practice is wrong and baseless and East Asian is version is the one true one.
Have you even cracked open the Pali Canon upon which Theravada is based? It is rife with references to devas/demons and heavenly/hellish realms, purportedly spoken by the Buddha himself.
> hell is mentioned within the context of Theravada as well
As far as I'm aware, Theravada is a body of teaching that developed late - around the same time as Mahayana. It's not some kind of "what the Buddha actually taught".
>I certainly have met Buddhism pratictioners in the West that were deep into the way of life and culture.
They are "big in the way of life and culture" the same way they'd be deep in punk rock or effective altruism.
Not as people living in a culture and tradition that is Buddhist - in an environment that nurtered and fosters its practice, and with all that comes from actual living tradition of a religion. It's more like pilates.
They then switch it off and go be whatever they are everyday.
Rather sweeping statements about an awful lot of people you have never met.
It is actually easier to be superficial with spiritual practice when immersed in its culture. Plenty of “spiritual” practitioners are playing social status games, going through motions in a societally rewarded and expected manner, etc…
Perhaps friend you are projecting your own dissatisfactions with finding an all encompassing one true meaning onto others?
Agreed. In fact a true follower of the Buddha would eventually get the point where they wish to try to integrate back into the business world if that’s where they came from. Lots of karma to resolve there lol.
For sure. Most people would agree that doing something as a fitness regiment is not a religion.
But you say that there is “no Buddhism” in the West. Clearly there are people who practice Buddhism in the West, whether that be “Western Buddhism” or something else. So one can only surmise that your argument is the following:
Only Asians can be Buddhist.
Well, that’s quite essentialist and othering towards Asians. But what other conclusion could there be? Because if you dialogue with such a person, they will continually raise the bar for being “Buddhist”, starting with pure merit and dedication (like: refrains from killing their parents; is nice to people; follows the N8XP) and then devolving into pseudo-anthropology like how Sri Lankans have different lifestyles compared to a Dutch person, or how Thai people might believe (I don’t know?) in jungle/forest spirits.
Eventually you realize that the only way a born-in-the-West person could become a Buddhist, according to this completely wrongheaded interpretation of “lived experience”, is to do the following:
1. Be drafted into the Vietnam War
2. Get amnesia caused by a shrapnel stuck in your skull
3. Get lost in the Vietnamese jungle
4. Eventually find a village and become adopted
5. Learn the local language somehow
6. Become a Buddhist by being immersed in the “way of life and culture”
>Well, that’s quite essentialist and othering towards Asians.
It's rather seeing a religious tradition in its historical context, and recognizing its environment.
It's "western buddhism" that is both orientalism (exoticizing the other) and a form of cultural appropriation and cheapining an original thing.
Note that I don't say that that they are "better Buddhists" or "closer to what Buddha meant" etc, as those are irrelevant. They are authentic even if they are bad at it or indifferent to it.
>Eventually you realize that the only way a born-in-the-West person could become a Buddhist, according to this completely wrongheaded interpretation of “lived experience”, is to do the following
Even the Thai businessman (and the whole country) has been quite removed from the culture that made Buddhism have a meaning there (as opposed to an empty shell).
Though, even so, he'd still be far closer to it than someone in San Francisco who adopted it as a consumer lifestyle good...
I'm not sure where your experience is from, but Buddhism is an integral part of Thai life and culture and I've seen this play out on a pragmatic level in many ways.
My distinction is not about doing it well either or going to reach the "real" nirvana or whatever.
I'm seeing it in the anthropological sense, as a particular historical artifact. It's truth is in doing it because you were steeped in a Buddhist tradition/environment, as opposed as doing it as consumer lifestyle choice/hobby.
If your parents tried it as a lifestyle choice, and you yourself grow up with people bowing to statues of Lord Buddha and chanting the Heart Sutra and performing dana rituals for your school grades, then where is the inauthenticity?
It all flows together, reforming excessively strict early Hinduism, meditation in the forest, take these lessons and judge for yourself how they help, going to China with the Dhamma, going back to China for meditation lessons, bringing the practice of just sitting to the US when so few in Japan meditate, every where you look one sees traditions and insights flowing together in this great common effort to heal the suffering around and within us.
I meditate because life become impossible without it. Always now, always here, the authentic past is another category our mind creates and places into the wholeness. One cannot be an authentic first monk in California, but one can sit still with attention and silence and focus. One can be rude to other Buddhists or respectful to them.
As meditation makes it easier to see what is on its own apart from what I expected, the effects will vary depending on what one isn’t seeing clearly. So caution is warranted. Normally retraumatizing oneself isn’t helpful or skillful, but change will happen whether we fear it or long for it. Just make sure to sleep when tired and eat when hungry and pay attention within and without and it will work out.
Buddhism is a religion associated with a way of life and a culture. It's not something a businessman does on a "weekend retreat" as "mindfulness practice" to get back in the rat race refreshed.