Western Buddhism Insincere?

[Pārāyana]

I have a personal reflection about Buddhism in the west and I would appreciate any feedback.

In general, when I am faced with people of other creeds, they many times seem much more sincere and serious about their religious lives. When I come into contact with modern buddhism of the west on the other hand, I often experience a tendency to not take anything serious at all.

Among other religious groups, I see, e.g., much more of making effort to comprehend their respective teachings at a deeper level. Among western Buddhists on the other hand I often experience that many shun that seriousness and avoid or "interpret away" any aspects of the teaching that could be controversial to the secularised public opinion. So, according to my own perceptions: the teachings seem to be watered down, and just to be safe - also coated with a lot of sugar - any substance and challenging teachings are traded off for clichés that can be easily digestible by a lot of people, but that doesn't say anything deep or valuable about existence.

Is the Buddhadhamma just used to add some colour and spice to our lives? Much like an item of fashion?

 

[LuisDantas]

Often enough it is. But there is also a positive side to it. Literalism, mistification and lack of daring for wider or inovative interpretations of the Dhamma are avoided to some degree in the Buddhadhamma, and the western outlook makes that slightly easier.

Every religious path has its pitfalls. It just turns out that Western Buddhism's are unusually shaped.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

I agree with Luis. For some in the west, Buddhism is little more than a decoration, or a shying away from the status quo, something to make one feel good. However, a modern, western interpretation of Buddhism oftentimes takes away some of the myth and superstition that crept into Buddhism in Asia over the years, so it's kind of a catch-22.

 

[crossfire]

I have a personal reflection about Buddhism in the west and I would appreciate any feedback.

In general, when I am faced with people of other creeds, they many times seem much more sincere and serious about their religious lives. When I come into contact with modern buddhism of the west on the other hand, I often experience a tendency to not take anything serious at all.

It might be that the people of other creeds with whom you talk about religion just happen to be the ones who take their religion seriously. I live in an area with lots of people from lots of different places, and there are plenty who have the same attitude towards religion that you want to broad-brush western Buddhists with. The percentage of those who are serious about religion seem to be rather constant acrossed the different cultural groups, from what I have observed. Your mileage may vary.

Among other religious groups, I see, e.g., much more of making effort to comprehend their respective teachings at a deeper level.

Again, this might be a biased sample.

Among western Buddhists on the other hand I often experience that many shun that seriousness and avoid or "interpret away" any aspects of the teaching that could be controversial to the secularised public opinion. So, according to my own perceptions: the teachings seem to be watered down, and just to be safe - also coated with a lot of sugar - any substance and challenging teachings are traded off for clichés that can be easily digestible by a lot of people, but that doesn't say anything deep or valuable about existence.

Again, I see this sort of thing acrossed different cultures. It's a human thing, not necessarily a (Western) cultural thing.

Is the Buddhadhamma just used to add some colour and spice to our lives? Much like an item of fashion?

Who knows? It could be any number of reasons. Among the Western converts, it might be due to a lack of Sanghas around that can give collective support to those learning. It can be difficult for some to take things up on your own without a group by which they can measure things against or discuss dhamma with.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Most Buddhists I know personally are very sincere, but there's always that one...

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Who knows? It could be any number of reasons. Among the Western converts, it might be due to a lack of Sanghas around that can give collective support to those learning. It can be difficult for some to take things up on your own without a group by which they can measure things against or discuss dhamma with.

This, to me, is the biggest problem. It's hard to find a center or sangha to practice with, especially in the states. I live over an hour away from the closest center, so it's not really an easy task for me to get to be around other Buddhists. I'd like to see more centers in smaller population areas, but the interests, seemingly, isn't there, although I think more people are interested in Buddhism than what a lot of people realize. At least around here, many would probably be afraid to admit to it, I know I've come under fire for it on more than one occasions, mostly from fundamentalist Christians.

Most Buddhists I know personally are very sincere, but there's always that one...

Sorry, I'll try harder.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Sorry, I'll try harder.

You can start by throwing out that ridiculous Budai statue. :slap:

 

[Secret Chief]

Interesting OP. A couple of thoughts. The few Buddhists I have met are 'serious' because they have made an active choice; most people born in the UK are not born to Buddhist parents and it is ostensibly a Christian country. Most people I meet would describe themselves as Christian yet never read the Bible, or pray, or go to church except for events. In what sense are they 'serious'? The only 'serious' ones I know are a JW and a creationist. If serious means evangelising then I can do without it. Some of the world's problems are caused by serious religionists...

 

[LuisDantas]

Some of the world's problems are caused by serious religionists...

There is that.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

You can start by throwing out that ridiculous Budai statue. :slap:

Hey, I like my Budai statue, and it's not going anywhere.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What do you expect. Buddhism to stay the same?

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

What do you expect. Buddhism to stay the same?

I think this is where Buddhism in particular, and eastern religion in general, has an advantage over western, primarily Abrahamic, religions. They're able to adapt and change to the surrounding culture, in order to be valid for whatever age and society it finds itself in. Abrahamic religions are stuck in a specific time and area, with little chance to change.

 

[Twilight Hue]

I think this is where Buddhism in particular, and eastern religion in general, has an advantage over western, primarily Abrahamic, religions. They're able to adapt and change to the surrounding culture, in order to be valid for whatever age and society it finds itself in. Abrahamic religions are stuck in a specific time and area, with little chance to change.

When you observe this, then you see Buddhism's teachings exemplified through the religion itself as it morphs and changes throughout each generation that practices living dharma.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram parayana :namaste

I have a personal reflection about Buddhism in the west and I would appreciate any feedback.

unfortunately any 'ism' addopted from another culture is subject to a little selective pruning when taken up by a naw group of people , lets be honest about this the west has taken up many eastern philosophies and to be fair there are different motivations behind different peoples attitudes towards all religions .

but in the west we seem to excell at collecting things , we are trophy hunters , yes to some it is allmost a fasion trend , not only do we want an interest in our lives we want one that makes us interesting , ... then having addopted this new philosophy we edit it we decide which bits are relevant and which are too much for us to realy take on . everyone likes the idea of loving kindness and compassion , but very few like the sound of the words humility and surrender ? or giving up sex outside of marriage not to mention other small indulgences that we are not ready to give up yet , .....so we bend the rules a bit convince ourselves that we are bringing it into the twenty first century and benifiting a wider proportion of the population by popularising it , ...?

In general, when I am faced with people of other creeds, they many times seem much more sincere and serious about their religious lives. When I come into contact with modern buddhism of the west on the other hand, I often experience a tendency to not take anything serious at all.

yes , I have met some pretty amazing people in my life some pretty devout souls the ones often who realy impress me are the ones who come from traditional backgrounds , born into a the practice and blessed with truely deep insight .

so the question is can you blame the westerner for taking to a new religion when all around us our own traditions are crumbling , and of course there are points which they find hard to take , practices which they find culturaly alien , so they select what they find compatable to their present lifestyle in a way it is natural , but there is a point where by on is imposing too much of oneself , ....

Among other religious groups, I see, e.g., much more of making effort to comprehend their respective teachings at a deeper level. Among western Buddhists on the other hand I often experience that many shun that seriousness and avoid or "interpret away" any aspects of the teaching that could be controversial to the secularised public opinion. So, according to my own perceptions: the teachings seem to be watered down, and just to be safe - also coated with a lot of sugar - any substance and challenging teachings are traded off for clichés that can be easily digestible by a lot of people, but that doesn't say anything deep or valuable about existence.

yes , if you can have such a thing , it is fuzzy logic !

Is the Buddhadhamma just used to add some colour and spice to our lives? Much like an item of fashion?

quite possibly in some cases, ... yes , but on the up side there has to be some positive imprint even on the minds of those who come at it in a overtly westwen way who knows where it will take them in their next lives .

in truth we cant be too judgemental , but we can do our bit to keep true dharma awarenes going :namaste

 

[Twilight Hue]

A lot of issues stem from holding on to a preservationist view of what the dharma should or shouldn't entail. As long as 1 practices from any givin tradition, then said tradition will remain for as long as it's practiced. Nothing is ever actually lost.

There is in actuality no east or west methodology or distinction by which one succeeds or becomes diminished one by another. There are accounts of those who practice dharma for the first time and are immediately enlightened. Not through formalities, but through years of practice without ever knowing tradition whatsoever. How so? By practicing Buddhism without ever realising they were practicing Buddhism. That is until they realise suddenly should they decide to try Buddhism for the "first" time.

Insight usually starts at the buffet table of which "westerners" are so noted for. The rest follows in true fashion.

Buddhadasa a unique Theravada Buddhist monk untraditionally gives prime examples while at the same time traditionally defending a true form of Buddhism tooth and nail and sticking to his guns cowboy. Shootout at high noon. Last man standing. ;0)

 

[crossfire]

A lot of issues stem from holding on to a preservationist view of what the dharma should or shouldn't entail. As long as 1 practices from any givin tradition, then said tradition will remain for as long as it's practiced. Nothing is ever actually lost.

There is in actuality no east or west methodology or distinction by which one succeeds or becomes diminished one by another. There are accounts of those who practice dharma for the first time and are immediately enlightened. Not through formalities, but through years of practice without ever knowing tradition whatsoever. How so? By practicing Buddhism without ever realising they were practicing Buddhism. That is until they realise suddenly should they decide to try Buddhism for the "first" time.

Like how my Sen-Sei taught me Zen without my even knowing? I didn't realize it until years later. Magog and others have been kind enough to teach me the vocabulary when I have described Zen concepts.

 

[crossfire]

I have a personal reflection about Buddhism in the west and I would appreciate any feedback.

In general, when I am faced with people of other creeds, they many times seem much more sincere and serious about their religious lives. When I come into contact with modern buddhism of the west on the other hand, I often experience a tendency to not take anything serious at all.

Among other religious groups, I see, e.g., much more of making effort to comprehend their respective teachings at a deeper level. Among western Buddhists on the other hand I often experience that many shun that seriousness and avoid or "interpret away" any aspects of the teaching that could be controversial to the secularised public opinion. So, according to my own perceptions: the teachings seem to be watered down, and just to be safe - also coated with a lot of sugar - any substance and challenging teachings are traded off for clichés that can be easily digestible by a lot of people, but that doesn't say anything deep or valuable about existence.

Let me turn this argument around: Buddha's first words after his enlightenment:

"There are these two extremes that are not to be indulged in by one who has gone forth. Which two? That which is devoted to sensual pleasure with reference to sensual objects: base, vulgar, common, ignoble, unprofitable; and that which is devoted to self-affliction: painful, ignoble, unprofitable. Avoiding both of these extremes, the middle way realized by the Tathagata — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.
"And what is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding? Precisely this Noble Eightfold Path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. This is the middle way realized by the Tathagata that — producing vision, producing knowledge — leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding.~Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta: Setting the Wheel of Dhamma in Motion​

One might make the argument that tradition for the sake of tradition is an extreme of either sensual pleasure of of self-affliction, depending upon the tradition involved.

Is the Buddhadhamma just used to add some colour and spice to our lives? Much like an item of fashion?

According to the Buddha, the dhamma of the Eightfold path is the middle way that produces vision, produces knowledge, leads to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. To say that adding the Buddhadhamma to ones life for only some color or spice is relegating the Buddhadhamma to the extreme of sensual pleasure to be avoided.

Dhammapada 1:11-12

11. Those who mistake the unessential to be essential and the essential to be unessential, dwelling in wrong thoughts, never arrive at the essential.
12. Those who know the essential to be essential and the unessential to be unessential, dwelling in right thoughts, do arrive at the essential.​

 

[Pārāyana]

Thanks everyone for reading and responding! Just to begin with: I by no means claim that westerners are bad or anything like that. Rather I am trying to identify a tendency within my own religion that often makes me feel alienated. That was why I was bolding "In general" in the second paragraph; but perhaps I should have been more clear about that. My apologies if that offended anyone!
The western world has made enormous contributions in all areas of civilization, art, science, medicine etc. And of course there are a lot of very sincere and fantastic western buddhists. And I do believe that in many regards what we can call "the western mindset" can contribute a lot to buddhism.

Every religious path has its pitfalls. It just turns out that Western Buddhism's are unusually shaped.

I find that very well said.

a modern, western interpretation of Buddhism oftentimes takes away some of the myth and superstition that crept into Buddhism in Asia over the years, so it's kind of a catch-22.

In some ways I do agree. There are absolutely two sides of this coin! But what are those myths more exactly? When it comes to monastics engaging in astrology and divination (Which the Buddha was against [DN 1]), I wholeheartedly agree that the "western" perspective is very valuable, but I also think that some times we go to far in this way and start to remove authentic parts of the teachings with that same motivation. E.g. Re-birth, different planes of existence and psychic powers for example.

The few Buddhists I have met are 'serious' because they have made an active choice; most people born in the UK are not born to Buddhist parents and it is ostensibly a Christian country. Most people I meet would describe themselves as Christian yet never read the Bible, or pray, or go to church except for events. In what sense are they 'serious'? The only 'serious' ones I know are a JW and a creationist. If serious means evangelising then I can do without it.

Some of the world's problems are caused by serious religionists...

Absolutely, just being born into a religion and paying lip-service is not what I
was looking for.

But I would like to make one point regarding our modern almost mythological idea of the evil religions. It is indeed true that all religious organizations has corrupted, self-serving and also well-meaning deluded people within their ranks, (as do all other organizations.) And obviously many times suffering has been created due to this. But religious institutions have also been a very strong force for goodness in the world.

Also, another activity that has caused a lot of damage is politics. But, (just like religion,) it has also caused a lot of good and wholesome things. By 'serious' I was rather meaning something like carefully investigating what a religious teacher, (in this particular case The Buddha,) was actually teaching and trying to understand that, even those aspects that one find controversial and challenging.

What do you expect. Buddhism to stay the same?

Nope. But aren't there any standards by which we can judge if change is for the better or not? To illustrate: If the routines for running a hospital are changed in a direction that is not beneficial in any way, should everyone just accept it with the reasoning "Everything changes." Wouldn't it rather be better to examine things carefully and try to make things go in a wholesome direction?

Among other religious groups, I see, e.g., much more of making effort to comprehend their respective teachings at a deeper level. Among western Buddhists on the other hand I often experience that many shun that seriousness and avoid or "interpret away" any aspects of the teaching that could be controversial to the secularised public opinion. So, according to my own perceptions: the teachings seem to be watered down, and just to be safe - also coated with a lot of sugar - any substance and challenging teachings are traded off for clichés that can be easily digestible by a lot of people, but that doesn't say anything deep or valuable about existence.

yes , if you can have such a thing , it is fuzzy logic !

I don't quite understand exactly what you mean. Could you perhaps kindly clarify a little?


I am afraid that I don't have the time to write more now, but I will answer on more of your reflections asap.

My best regards to everyone who takes the time to read and comment!

Mettā!

 

[crossfire]

In some ways I do agree. There are absolutely two sides of this coin! But what are those myths more exactly? When it comes to monastics engaging in astrology and divination (Which the Buddha was against [DN 1]), I wholeheartedly agree that the "western" perspective is very valuable, but I also think that some times we go to far in this way and start to remove authentic parts of the teachings with that same motivation. E.g. Re-birth, different planes of existence and psychic powers for example.

Regarding the development of mind and the planes of existence, if the Western Buddhists who are doubtful in this and wish to take refuge in the four solaces of the Kalama Sutta while they continue in their practice, why not? As they continue in their practice and their mind develops, they will see for themselves, no?

 

[Secret Chief]

Perhaps it is worth reminding ouselves that the dhamma is a gradual path, that we walk at the pace we are able.


'Just as the ocean has a gradual shelf, a gradual slope, a gradual inclination, with a sudden drop-off only after a long stretch, in the same way this Doctrine and Discipline (dhamma-vinaya) has a gradual training, a gradual performance, a gradual progression, with a penetration to gnosis only after a long stretch.' Udana 5.5