Western Buddhism Insincere?

[Twilight Hue]

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? - Pārāyana-

How does one go about making such determinations by which a standard is judged? What is better or not?

Change is something not requiring reasoning or perhaps you meant reflection. Change just happens. Im sure you hear people say, " things change" then complain or get enthralled. Then adjust to the new changes until such crops up again disrupting the routine. Hmmm... Time to start over.


If something works that does not follow standard ideology or even direct experience for one individual, should such be discarded on a basis of a discovery that it does not work for another individual who alternately finds something else that works as well?

When one thinks of wholesome direction, its like one taking the stairs and another the escalater and another the elevator. Who loses and gains what?

 

[Pārāyana]

Dear everyone,

I can see if my thoughts could be interpreted as hostile and rude, but, as far as I know, I mainly wanted to discuss how western buddhism evolves, and also try to identify why I don't feel at home in it.

Now I believe that I no longer see that much value in this discussion, at least at the moment.

But just to summarize my hunch, in case it can lead to something good.

There is a tendency to shun and ignore those aspects in the Buddhas message that are to challenging or that are at odds with our present Zeitgeist.

It is just something that I have noted, and I meant no harm in bringing it forth for discussion. I wish everyone success with his/her practice!

 

[crossfire]

Dear everyone,

I can see if my thoughts could be interpreted as hostile and rude, but, as far as I know, I mainly wanted to discuss how western buddhism evolves, and also try to identify why I don't feel at home in it.

Is accusing western Buddhism of being insincere an appropriate way of dealing with your discomfort? Why not just come right out and say you feel uncomfortable? It would lead to a quicker solution.

Now I believe that I no longer see that much value in this discussion, at least at the moment.

But just to summarize my hunch, in case it can lead to something good.

Sure it can. Different perspectives can be quite helpful. Clamming up about it won't bring these different perspectives to light.

There is a tendency to shun and ignore those aspects in the Buddhas message that are to challenging or that are at odds with our present Zeitgeist.

Is there really? Isn't meditation and contemplation a way of "getting used to" an idea or a tendency? It leads to less aversion, at the very least.

It is just something that I have noted, and I meant no harm in bringing it forth for discussion. I wish everyone success with his/her practice!

I wish you success, as well.

 

[Pārāyana]

Is accusing western Buddhism of being insincere an appropriate way of dealing with your discomfort? Why not just come right out and say you feel uncomfortable? It would lead to a quicker solution.

I didn't mean to accuse, hence the question mark in the title. Perhaps I should have expressed myself in a different way, but this is not my native tongue so perhaps it came out as too rude. My apologies if that is the case.

 

[crossfire]

I didn't mean to accuse, hence the question mark in the title. Perhaps I should have expressed myself in a different way, but this is not my native tongue so perhaps it came out as too rude. My apologies if that is the case.

It could also be that the language differences could also make you think I am being hostile. Discussion--or even heated debate--does not mean there is hostility. There is no hostility intended--just a means for uncovering the truth and pinpointing problems.
My apologies if it appeared so.

 

[crossfire]

Thank you, Pārāyana. This has gotten me to thinking about monks and nuns going into the homeless contemplative life. By doing so, they are giving up the material comforts of culture to focus on the dhamma, while interacting with the culture they find themselves within. I've noticed a wide variety of different practices in Buddhism that are culturally tied, while the rules for monks and nuns don't have such a wide variation across the different cultures. Is this a means by which those who practice a spread the dhamma arrive at the essential without mistaking the unessential for the essential? Hmm, something more to contemplate.

 

[Secret Chief]

Parayana, your English is excellent, you have not been rude and I see no hostility in this thread. Carry on!

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Parayana does make a good point. There is a tendency in western Buddhism to get rid of all the things that doesn't accord with science, so some groups have gotten rid of the ideas of rebirth and karma. Some of the changes in western Buddhism are just how it has evolved, but getting rid of these two ideas seems to make the rest not that important.

 

[ratikala]

Quote:
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 sorry to confuse , ....

you had commented on the tendancy to water down and to sugar coat substance and chalnging teachings , .....

for me also many westerners take on only parts of the teachings often sugar coating them and making them more palateable , whilst this is understandable it defeats the issue a little , .....there fore it is fuzzy logic , ...meaning un clear , ... blurred where as true logic should be clear .


biddhist reasoning is very much about realising the true nature of all phenonena , there fore we should be cultivating clarity and the courage to accept reality and work with it .

 

[FashionOfMyLove]

I do find that people often try to change the Dharma to suit themselves rather than change themselves to suit it.

IMO The Buddhadharma should not be used as an accessory belonging to our lives, our lives should belong to the Buddhadharma if you see what I mean.

 

[Musty]

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?

I practice secular Buddhism and will only spend time on a particular aspect of Buddhism if I feel that it has a practical benefit to my practice. I also try not to take anything over seriously because that normally has the unfortunate effect of restricting free discussion and debate. My approach to Buddhism has been stripped off much of the eastern cultural trappings but the core teachings have been retained. This isn't 'watering down' but rather a rejection of that which I have no interest in and which in some cases I feel distracts from the actual practice itself. I've careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water but I don't retain something which I feel is just fluff.

I think that the core of your criticism is one of conservatism vs liberalism. Conservatives tend to believe that unless something is maintained in it's original state that something will be lost and it's effectiveness reduced, whilst liberals are more inclined to follow only what they feel has merit. The same disagreements arise between liberal and conservative adherents of most religions, with liberals typically being those in the west or who have been subject to a degree of westernisation.

 

[crossfire]

Sectarian friction is not new to Buddhism.

The Four Dharma Seals -- The Four Dharma Seals Define Buddhism
From the beginning of the article:

In the 26 centuries since the life of the Buddha, Buddhism has developed into diverse schools and sects. As Buddhism reached into new regions of Asia it often absorbed remnants of older regional religions. Many local "folk Buddhisms" sprang up that adopted the Buddha and the many iconic figures of Buddhist art and literature as gods, without regard to their original meaning.
Sometimes new religions sprang up that were Buddhist in appearance but which retained little of the Buddha's teachings. On the other hand, sometimes new schools of Buddhism arose that approached the teachings in fresh and robust new ways, to the disapproval of traditionalists. Questions arose -- what is it that distinguishes Buddhism as a distinctive religion? When is "Buddhism" actually Buddhism?
Those schools of Buddhism based on the Buddha's teachings accept the Four Seals of Dharma as the distinction between true Buddhism and "sorta looks like Buddhism." Further, a teaching that contradicts any of the Four Seals is not a true Buddhist teaching.
The Four Seals are:

1. All compounded things are impermanent.
2. All stained emotions are painful.
3. All phenomena are empty.
4. Nirvana is peace.

Let's look at them one at a time.
(continued at link)​

 

[Starsurfer93]

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.



Sorry, I'll try harder.

I agree with you completely. Thankfully, I live in New York, which has no shortage of Sanghas. But when I'm in Buffalo attending classes, it is significantly more difficult to find them. The closest one in the area is far from my campus and since I don't have a car, it would take nearly 2 hours to reach the center via public transportation. It's likely even worse for people living in less populated areas, with such centers being far and few between. Couple this with the stress of everyday life, and it's easy to see why Western Buddhists can fall into what appears to be a very passive, "fad" fascination with Buddhism.

However, I don't think this necessarily means that their desire to learn about and become part of the religion is insincere though. It simply shows that sometimes life can get in the way. I don't believe this should be looked down upon. In fact, if anything, these people should be encouraged to keep trying to study and experience the Dharma. If their interest was sincere from the beginning, they will find their way in time. I don't think stereotyping Western Buddhists in the way the OP described is fair. Certainly there are those who would convert simply because it's "not mainstream", but this can probably be said about many religions, including Christianity in some cases and there are probably far fewer of these Buddhists than you would think. If you were not particularly passionate about religion in general, it wouldn't make much sense to try and convert to one outside of the one you were born into. That takes someone particularly obsessed with image.

 

[crossfire]

I started a thread in same-faith debates:

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...uddhists-dhamma-vs-tradition.html#post3313881