Western vs Eastern Buddhism

[Unveiled Artist]

What is the difference between Eastern Buddhism (India/China/Japanese/Thai/etc) if I got my geo' correct, and Western (Some parts of Europe/American/etc) Buddhism?

When I see people post Western, I feel they target America. However, America is not the only country and continent in the West coast. We are also not the only ones who have "modern" or mystic mix on religion. We're not special.

I cannot say that most Buddhist outside India and even its neighboring countries practice "traditional" Buddhism. I mean, Japanese Buddhism alone is modern compared. Its not just America.

Traditional Buddhism focuses on freedom from suffering. It focuses on relieving that suffering from the Buddha's teachings. Whether we are monks, lay men in zazen, or teens with Buddha statues in our rooms, what makes each persons Buddhist practice false and the other true? We are all Buddhas.

I mean. I read posts about how Western Buddhist tend to be atheists. I also read that Western Buddhism attracts young people because it supposedly lacks the supernatural. It is also claimed to be a philosophy.

All of these generalizations do not represent Buddhism. I mean. I dont claim atheism. Thats just a default. That does not mean I throw away the supernatural and Literal aspects of Buddhism. Like Hinduism, we Do believe we receive blessings from the gods and goddesses as well as, for Meyahana, the Bodhisattvas. It is a learning process. Its not akin to Abrahamic faiths. The definitions are not the same.

This is how I see it and I am born and raised in the West. The only thing Western about my practice is I dont have the culture of any Buddbist sect. Nichiren Buddhism is Japanese and it is very modern (17th century). Our location and practice doesnt nolify that our beliefs are the same as the monk who places incense in front of the Buddba Statue.

Thats like saying Catholics (Easterm Buddhism) is more traditional than protestants (western buddhists). They are Both Christian. (Buddhist).

What is the difference between Eastern Buddhism (India/China/Japanese/Thai/etc) if I got my geo' correct, and Western Buddhism (Some parts of Europe/American/etc) Buddhism?

 

[George-ananda]

What is the difference between Eastern Buddhism (India/China/Japanese/Thai/etc) if I got my geo' correct, and Western Buddhism (Some parts of Europe/American/etc) Buddhism?

I would say 'Western Buddhism' tends to have a more atheist-materialist bent than 'Eastern Buddhism'. 'Western Buddhism' generally turns me off like all things that fall under the 'atheist-materialist' umbrella. 'Eastern Buddhism' I often like and even seems to merge into Advaita.

 

[Leftimies]

What is the difference between Eastern Buddhism (India/China/Japanese/Thai/etc) if I got my geo' correct, and Western (Some parts of Europe/American/etc) Buddhism?

When I see people post Western, I feel they target America. However, America is not the only country and continent in the West coast. We are also not the only ones who have "modern" or mystic mix on religion. We're not special.

I cannot say that most Buddhist outside India and even its neighboring countries practice "traditional" Buddhism. I mean, Japanese Buddhism alone is modern compared. Its not just America.

Traditional Buddhism focuses on freedom from suffering. It focuses on relieving that suffering from the Buddha's teachings. Whether we are monks, lay men in zazen, or teens with Buddha statues in our rooms, what makes each persons Buddhist practice false and the other true? We are all Buddhas.

I mean. I read posts about how Western Buddhist tend to be atheists. I also read that Western Buddhism attracts young people because it supposedly lacks the supernatural. It is also claimed to be a philosophy.

All of these generalizations do not represent Buddhism. I mean. I dont claim atheism. Thats just a default. That does not mean I throw away the supernatural and Literal aspects of Buddhism. Like Hinduism, we Do believe we receive blessings from the gods and goddesses as well as, for Meyahana, the Bodhisattvas. It is a learning process. Its not akin to Abrahamic faiths. The definitions are not the same.

This is how I see it and I am born and raised in the West. The only thing Western about my practice is I dont have the culture of any Buddbist sect. Nichiren Buddhism is Japanese and it is very modern (17th century). Our location and practice doesnt nolify that our beliefs are the same as the monk who places incense in front of the Buddba Statue.

Thats like saying Catholics (Easterm Buddhism) is more traditional than protestants (western buddhists). They are Both Christian. (Buddhist).

What is the difference between Eastern Buddhism (India/China/Japanese/Thai/etc) if I got my geo' correct, and Western Buddhism (Some parts of Europe/American/etc) Buddhism?

You raise a number of valid points, although I recall that traditionally Indian, Sri Lankan, Central Asian and Indo-Greek Buddhist communities were considered 'Western' while Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese schools were considered 'Eastern'. But thats beside the point, I know that you referred to the contemporary situation.

I was contemplating on this myself for the past week. If Buddhist teachings were put into writing 400 years after his death (half a millennia; a startling passage of time, when you consider that for example Ming dynasty lasted for 276 years), how can any of us claim certain orthodoxy? "Buddhism is atheist", "Buddhism is theist" - these assertions are viewpoints that one may very well have as a personal practice, but the core teaching of Buddhism seems to not be about these issues. Instead, Buddhism can - I suspect - reduced to these basic concepts under any circumstance (put here together with the Pali terminology):

(1) the Noble Eightfold Path (Ariyo Aṭṭhaṅgiko Maggo)
(2) the Four Noble Truths (Cattāri Ariyasaccāni)
(3) the Five Aggregates (Khanda)
(4) the Three Marks of Existence (Tilakkhaṇa)
(5) the Dependent Arising (Paṭiccasamuppāda)
(6) the Middle Way (Majjhimāpaṭipadā)
(7) Emptiness (Śūnyatā)
(8) Compassion (Karuṇā)

These are the things that Buddhism ultimately can be reduced to. You can hold these beliefs and ignore all the Sutras and traditions, and I hold that that would still make you a Buddhist. These eight concepts/notions are a recurrent theme through all branches of Buddhism, and their consistency suggests (at least to me) that they have been part of the Buddhist theory ever since Buddha's lifetime. At least this is what I hold. After all, Buddha himself had no tradition - he made it.

I would go as far as to say that people should be able to reject and choose what Sutras they believe based on their on experience/reasoning. This is certainly what I did, and I don't think it makes me any less Buddhist. For example, I adhere to a selection of around 82 Suttas from the Pāli Canon, yet I adhere completely to Japanese Buddhist traditions of the Zen sect in particular, and draw from Japanese Buddhist poetry as a source of inspiration for insight. It makes me neither a Theravādin, a Vajrayānan nor a Mahāyānan, but it still makes me a Buddhist. And of course, I am not superior nor inferior to a person who adheres to Sutras that I reject; we just tread a different path, towards same destination.

What do you think?

 

[Osal]

What is the difference between Eastern Buddhism (India/China/Japanese/Thai/etc) if I got my geo' correct, and Western (Some parts of Europe/American/etc) Buddhism?

When I see people post Western, I feel they target America. However, America is not the only country and continent in the West coast. We are also not the only ones who have "modern" or mystic mix on religion. We're not special.

I cannot say that most Buddhist outside India and even its neighboring countries practice "traditional" Buddhism. I mean, Japanese Buddhism alone is modern compared. Its not just America.

Traditional Buddhism focuses on freedom from suffering. It focuses on relieving that suffering from the Buddha's teachings. Whether we are monks, lay men in zazen, or teens with Buddha statues in our rooms, what makes each persons Buddhist practice false and the other true? We are all Buddhas.

I mean. I read posts about how Western Buddhist tend to be atheists. I also read that Western Buddhism attracts young people because it supposedly lacks the supernatural. It is also claimed to be a philosophy.

All of these generalizations do not represent Buddhism. I mean. I dont claim atheism. Thats just a default. That does not mean I throw away the supernatural and Literal aspects of Buddhism. Like Hinduism, we Do believe we receive blessings from the gods and goddesses as well as, for Meyahana, the Bodhisattvas. It is a learning process. Its not akin to Abrahamic faiths. The definitions are not the same.

This is how I see it and I am born and raised in the West. The only thing Western about my practice is I dont have the culture of any Buddbist sect. Nichiren Buddhism is Japanese and it is very modern (17th century). Our location and practice doesnt nolify that our beliefs are the same as the monk who places incense in front of the Buddba Statue.

Thats like saying Catholics (Easterm Buddhism) is more traditional than protestants (western buddhists). They are Both Christian. (Buddhist).

What is the difference between Eastern Buddhism (India/China/Japanese/Thai/etc) if I got my geo' correct, and Western Buddhism (Some parts of Europe/American/etc) Buddhism?

It's a hard question to answer. One of the things that makes it hard, is that it'ss near impossible to find what is truly "western Buddhism". Most Buddhists in the west practice Buddhism that has been imported from more "traditional" regions by people who have very little experience in the west. So we end up flirting with traditional Buddhist practice even if we aren't fully immersed in it.

I also think that Buddhism in the west is influeneced by Abrahamic traditions, especially among former Christians. This is evident in a not-so-sublte striving for some sort of orthodoxy among widely divergent Buddhist schools. This evidence is most common on the internet, where we have a wild-west, rugged individual, anything goes and it-better-be-free attitude, but still yearning for an orthodoxy that isn't really possible with all the varying influences present.

 

[BSM1]

I just finished reading AwakeningThe Buddha Within by Lama Surya Das. (Lama Das was a student in the seventies who came from a Jewish family from New York. He went looking for answers in Nepal and the rest, as they say, is history.) He, like the Dalai Lama, tend to make the point that Buddhism conforms to the culture and not vice versa. This, I believe, is why Western Buddhism seems to be different than the original. Also, I don't see this as a bad thing.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

He, like the Dalai Lama tend to make the point that Buddhism confirms to the culture and not vice versa. This, I believe, is why Western Buddhism seems to be different than the original. Also, I don't see this as a bad thing.

Yes, historically Buddhism has adapted to many cultures, and you could say that it is currently in the process of adapting to western culture. Buddhism has always been diverse and pluralistic, so it's very difficult to generalise.

 

[BSM1]

Yes, historically Buddhism has adapted to many cultures, and you could say that it is currently in the process of adapting to western culture. Buddhism has always been diverse and pluralistic, so it's very difficult to generalise.

Also, the sangha notwithstanding, Buddhism is a very personal and self introspective endeavor. That really makes it hard to pigeon hole.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

America is not the only country and continent in the West coast.

Lmao.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Most Buddhists in the west practice Buddhism that has been imported from more "traditional" regions by people who have very little experience in the west.

In the UK there are a number of schools which have been specifically tailored to a western audience, eg Triratna, Samatha Trust, NKT, Interbeing, possibly Rigpa.
Other schools like Zen lend themselves more readily to western minds.

In my part of the world Triratna ( formerly Friends of Western Buddhist Order ) are by far the largest Buddhist group.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Lmao.

Do you have something constructive to add?

America is not the only modern Buddhism.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Do you have something constructive to add?

America is not the only modern Buddhism.

I wasn't even commenting about Buddhism. I think you meant "Western world" or Western hemisphere", not "West coast".

 

[Twilight Hue]

There's really no difference between all the east west malarkey. People are all the same no matter where on the globe one is located, and that includes religions as well. Everyone gripes and complains, smiles and scowl, believe and disbelieve and all that other stuff.

 

[Lyndon]

You raise a number of valid points, although I recall that traditionally Indian, Sri Lankan, Central Asian and Indo-Greek Buddhist communities were considered 'Western' while Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese schools were considered 'Eastern'. But thats beside the point, I know that you referred to the contemporary situation.

I was contemplating on this myself for the past week. If Buddhist teachings were put into writing 400 years after his death (half a millennia; a startling passage of time, when you consider that for example Ming dynasty lasted for 276 years), how can any of us claim certain orthodoxy? "Buddhism is atheist", "Buddhism is theist" - these assertions are viewpoints that one may very well have as a personal practice, but the core teaching of Buddhism seems to not be about these issues. Instead, Buddhism can - I suspect - reduced to these basic concepts under any circumstance (put here together with the Pali terminology):

(1) the Noble Eightfold Path (Ariyo Aṭṭhaṅgiko Maggo)
(2) the Four Noble Truths (Cattāri Ariyasaccāni)
(3) the Five Aggregates (Khanda)
(4) the Three Marks of Existence (Tilakkhaṇa)
(5) the Dependent Arising (Paṭiccasamuppāda)
(6) the Middle Way (Majjhimāpaṭipadā)
(7) Emptiness (Śūnyatā)
(8) Compassion (Karuṇā)

These are the things that Buddhism ultimately can be reduced to. You can hold these beliefs and ignore all the Sutras and traditions, and I hold that that would still make you a Buddhist. These eight concepts/notions are a recurrent theme through all branches of Buddhism, and their consistency suggests (at least to me) that they have been part of the Buddhist theory ever since Buddha's lifetime. At least this is what I hold. After all, Buddha himself had no tradition - he made it.

I would go as far as to say that people should be able to reject and choose what Sutras they believe based on their on experience/reasoning. This is certainly what I did, and I don't think it makes me any less Buddhist. For example, I adhere to a selection of around 82 Suttas from the Pāli Canon, yet I adhere completely to Japanese Buddhist traditions of the Zen sect in particular, and draw from Japanese Buddhist poetry as a source of inspiration for insight. It makes me neither a Theravādin, a Vajrayānan nor a Mahāyānan, but it still makes me a Buddhist. And of course, I am not superior nor inferior to a person who adheres to Sutras that I reject; we just tread a different path, towards same destination.

What do you think?

You sound like Western secular Buddhist, at least that's the kind of stuff I hear them saying, an Eastern Buddhist would put belief in Reincarnation and Karma pretty high on that list.

 

[Leftimies]

You sound like Western secular Buddhist, at least that's the kind of stuff I hear them saying, an Eastern Buddhist would put belief in Reincarnation and Karma pretty high on that list.

*EDIT*

Ah, and I forgot the important part of the reply and wrote a bunch of nonsense originally.

So.

Reincarnation/Samsara is part of the Four Noble Truths, while Dependent Arising more or less is the basis of Kamma. So yes, they did make it to the list of mine

 

[ratikala]

namaste Carlita

What is the difference between Eastern Buddhism (India/China/Japanese/Thai/etc) if I got my geo' correct, and Western (Some parts of Europe/American/etc) Buddhism?

at one time Buddhism extended far beyond the Asian boundaries that we now associate with it , in earlier days it spread over Afganisatan towards europe and had great phylosopical influence on Greek thinking , in the 17th century it had spread from Tibet through Mongolia into the Turkic borderlands of Russia , and although the comunities and temples were disbanded and destroyed in the cultural revolution Russia still has a 2000.000 (or so) strong population , many of the temples and monestaries having been re established and are again flourishing , ...

When I see people post Western, I feel they target America. However, America is not the only country and continent in the West coast. We are also not the only ones who have "modern" or mystic mix on religion. We're not special.

prehaps just because this is an American site ? but however , there are what I would more happily call Neo Buddhists all over the Ammericas , Australia , New Zealand , Europe , GB , ...etc , ....as these consist of westernised cultures we can happily include all under the heading of Western Buddhism , ....(rather than indiginous Buddhism)

To me the largest difference is that these westernised cultures are on the whole grossly materialistic societies , ..Buddhism in its native enviroment naturaly fosters a much less materialistic lifestyle and its adepts have grown up under very different cultural conditioning . Japan and China are very different in that they had strong beleif systemsand organised societies that were not so dissimilar to those of Buddhist countries therefore prehaps it could be said that the influence of Buddhism was more easily assimilated into their cultures .
when Buddhism comes out into the westernised cultures it is often only taken up in the begining in a some what partial manner , you will often hear westerners keen to refer to it as a phylosophy rather than a religion , where as to the indiginous Buddhist it is a way of life , so many westerners come to Buddhism after rejecting Christianity , in which case there is often an element of dislaste for religion in general , this tends to incline many to looking on Buddhism as atheistic , which in many respects is a Christian concept , that one is either Theist or Atheist , ..where as in indiginous Buddhist comunities beleif in gods and deities and non concern with beleif in divinity rub sholders quite happily without causing concern . in the west it has to be black and white , you are either one or the other .

I cannot say that most Buddhist outside India and even its neighboring countries practice "traditional" Buddhism. I mean, Japanese Buddhism alone is modern compared. Its not just America.

personaly I would agree as every time Buddhism is assimilated into another culture it will inevitably take on a little of that countrys traditions and beleifs and will aquire its own distinct personality , ..however that dosent stop it from being Buddhism if the end goal remains the same .

Traditional Buddhism focuses on freedom from suffering. It focuses on relieving that suffering from the Buddha's teachings. Whether we are monks, lay men in zazen, or teens with Buddha statues in our rooms, what makes each persons Buddhist practice false and the other true? We are all Buddhas.

yes one could say that traditionaly Buddhism focuses on liberation from suffering , but there is also another way of looking at it in that in Buddhism one is also striving for ''the realisation of the true nature of all phenomena'', the focus on the freedom from suffering is only one aspect as suffering arrises from ignorance of our own true nature , ...but as you say it dosent realy matter which level a practitioner is on as all are progressing along their own path in their own time , this is the nature of the quest , ...so no it dosent matter , it is not so much a question of true or false , this is a western mistake , a 'my buddhism' is better than 'your buddhism' problem , ...this in itself is a form of attatchment and in many respects a dangerous place to be , ...the long and the short of it is that if any one school of Buddhism (as any one person understands it) is helping that person to develop into a better , calmer , more focused and less attatched person then it is serving its purpous , ....it is only when no fruitfull purpous is served that it ceases to be valid .
again as you say we all hold the same potential for Buddhahood , we are not yet fully realised , but we have that seed of Buddha nature , Buddhism as a practice should awaken that inherent nature , to become all knowing as a Buddha .

I mean. I read posts about how Western Buddhist tend to be atheists. I also read that Western Buddhism attracts young people because it supposedly lacks the supernatural. It is also claimed to be a philosophy.

in some respects this is wrong , westerners may think that Buddhism is free from the supernatural , this is not nececarily true but deppends very much on what one imputes upon supernatural ??? ...and as for it being a philosophy rather than a religion ? this again is what the western mind is wanting to see , if one understands the word religion it simply means strict adherance , to do religiously , ...repeatedly , thoroughly , ...assidiously , without deviation , ...it is just that the western mind often associates the word religion with faith and Christianity .

All of these generalizations do not represent Buddhism. I mean. I dont claim atheism. Thats just a default. That does not mean I throw away the supernatural and Literal aspects of Buddhism. Like Hinduism, we Do believe we receive blessings from the gods and goddesses as well as, for Meyahana, the Bodhisattvas. It is a learning process. Its not akin to Abrahamic faiths. The definitions are not the same.

yes some of us do (beleive in blessings) without them how would we ever progress , but it dosent have to be seen in the same way that Abrahamics nececarily understand the blessings of an almighty God , personaly I find it more subtle than that (and I am sure many Christians do too), ...but within Buddhism it does vary a lot , some traditions do not focus on this aspect , but it would be foolish for any one to say that their form of Buddhism was the authoritive and true practice , ...and that any others wasnon original therefore incorrect .

This is how I see it and I am born and raised in the West. The only thing Western about my practice is I dont have the culture of any Buddbist sect. Nichiren Buddhism is Japanese and it is very modern (17th century). Our location and practice doesnt nolify that our beliefs are the same as the monk who places incense in front of the Buddha Statue.

Thats like saying Catholics (Easterm Buddhism) is more traditional than protestants (western buddhists). They are Both Christian. (Buddhist).

To me this rings true , ....every one is at a different stage even within a Buddhist culture , tradition only governs some of the ways the practice is applied or how the teachings are delivered .

What is the difference between Eastern Buddhism (India/China/Japanese/Thai/etc) if I got my geo' correct, and Western Buddhism (Some parts of Europe/American/etc) Buddhism?

To me the greatest difference comes when Buddhism is learnt as a philosophy , rather than applied as a practice , ..by applying it as a practice the adherent works hard to purify the mind and the consciousness therefore detaching one self from any false sence of self and attatchment to worldly life (the cause of all suffering), ...learning Buddhism as a philosophy brings forth a little too much of the western pride in his her own ability to assimilate Knowledge and can be the cause of many of the arguments as to who's Buddhism is traditional therefre superior to who's , ....

as far as I am concerned any true Buddhist should simply rejoice in what ever is of benifit to another , regardless of which tradition it comes down from , or whether one beleives in divinity or not , realy that is not of major importance .

 

[Twilight Hue]

You sound like Western secular Buddhist, at least that's the kind of stuff I hear them saying, an Eastern Buddhist would put belief in Reincarnation and Karma pretty high on that list.

Just out of curiosity, Just what are the supposed non secular Buddhist schools in question here ?

I don't see how any strictly Buddhist practice can be effective while entertaining any type of metaphysical or theistic baggage as being somehow substantial without demonstrating any kind of application that can be made with the four noble truths and eightfold path.

Reincarnation and rebirth certainly isn't Buddhism. That's for sure.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

namaste Carlita



at one time Buddhism extended far beyond the Asian boundaries that we now associate with it , in earlier days it spread over Afganisatan towards europe and had great phylosopical influence on Greek thinking , in the 17th century it had spread from Tibet through Mongolia into the Turkic borderlands of Russia , and although the comunities and temples were disbanded and destroyed in the cultural revolution Russia still has a 2000.000 (or so) strong population , many of the temples and monestaries having been re established and are again flourishing , ...



prehaps just because this is an American site ? but however , there are what I would more happily call Neo Buddhists all over the Ammericas , Australia , New Zealand , Europe , GB , ...etc , ....as these consist of westernised cultures we can happily include all under the heading of Western Buddhism , ....(rather than indiginous Buddhism)

To me the largest difference is that these westernised cultures are on the whole grossly materialistic societies , ..Buddhism in its native enviroment naturaly fosters a much less materialistic lifestyle and its adepts have grown up under very different cultural conditioning . Japan and China are very different in that they had strong beleif systemsand organised societies that were not so dissimilar to those of Buddhist countries therefore prehaps it could be said that the influence of Buddhism was more easily assimilated into their cultures .
when Buddhism comes out into the westernised cultures it is often only taken up in the begining in a some what partial manner , you will often hear westerners keen to refer to it as a phylosophy rather than a religion , where as to the indiginous Buddhist it is a way of life , so many westerners come to Buddhism after rejecting Christianity , in which case there is often an element of dislaste for religion in general , this tends to incline many to looking on Buddhism as atheistic , which in many respects is a Christian concept , that one is either Theist or Atheist , ..where as in indiginous Buddhist comunities beleif in gods and deities and non concern with beleif in divinity rub sholders quite happily without causing concern . in the west it has to be black and white , you are either one or the other .




personaly I would agree as every time Buddhism is assimilated into another culture it will inevitably take on a little of that countrys traditions and beleifs and will aquire its own distinct personality , ..however that dosent stop it from being Buddhism if the end goal remains the same .



yes one could say that traditionaly Buddhism focuses on liberation from suffering , but there is also another way of looking at it in that in Buddhism one is also striving for ''the realisation of the true nature of all phenomena'', the focus on the freedom from suffering is only one aspect as suffering arrises from ignorance of our own true nature , ...but as you say it dosent realy matter which level a practitioner is on as all are progressing along their own path in their own time , this is the nature of the quest , ...so no it dosent matter , it is not so much a question of true or false , this is a western mistake , a 'my buddhism' is better than 'your buddhism' problem , ...this in itself is a form of attatchment and in many respects a dangerous place to be , ...the long and the short of it is that if any one school of Buddhism (as any one person understands it) is helping that person to develop into a better , calmer , more focused and less attatched person then it is serving its purpous , ....it is only when no fruitfull purpous is served that it ceases to be valid .
again as you say we all hold the same potential for Buddhahood , we are not yet fully realised , but we have that seed of Buddha nature , Buddhism as a practice should awaken that inherent nature , to become all knowing as a Buddha .



in some respects this is wrong , westerners may think that Buddhism is free from the supernatural , this is not nececarily true but deppends very much on what one imputes upon supernatural ??? ...and as for it being a philosophy rather than a religion ? this again is what the western mind is wanting to see , if one understands the word religion it simply means strict adherance , to do religiously , ...repeatedly , thoroughly , ...assidiously , without deviation , ...it is just that the western mind often associates the word religion with faith and Christianity .



yes some of us do (beleive in blessings) without them how would we ever progress , but it dosent have to be seen in the same way that Abrahamics nececarily understand the blessings of an almighty God , personaly I find it more subtle than that (and I am sure many Christians do too), ...but within Buddhism it does vary a lot , some traditions do not focus on this aspect , but it would be foolish for any one to say that their form of Buddhism was the authoritive and true practice , ...and that any others wasnon original therefore incorrect .

I loved reading your post. I wish I could reply to it all. As a "westerner" I do get insulted online as to how the term is used negatively. It is the same with neo- in neopagan compared to "traditional" pagan and so forth. Internet pet peeve.

In person, however, I actually do not experience this confrontation. Most people who are deeply rooted in their faith are very humble and patient.

What is it about being online that brings out the "worst" in people? In person, if I heard the same thing, I'd wonder if anyone knows what the word religion means.

Anyway. I really want to say more productive things. For now, I'm just human.

Thank you.'

Nam.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I would say 'Western Buddhism' tends to have a more atheist-materialist bent than 'Eastern Buddhism'. 'Western Buddhism' generally turns me off like all things that fall under the 'atheist-materialist' umbrella. 'Eastern Buddhism' I often like and even seems to merge into Advaita.

I can see that mostly online. In person, all the Buddhists I've met where completely opposite of materialists and I don't know if any (think of a few) ever heard the word atheist before. If I did not have the internet, I wouldn't have got that impression of Buddhism.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You raise a number of valid points, although I recall that traditionally Indian, Sri Lankan, Central Asian and Indo-Greek Buddhist communities were considered 'Western' while Chinese, Korean, Vietnamese and Japanese schools were considered 'Eastern'. But thats beside the point, I know that you referred to the contemporary situation.

I was contemplating on this myself for the past week. If Buddhist teachings were put into writing 400 years after his death (half a millennia; a startling passage of time, when you consider that for example Ming dynasty lasted for 276 years), how can any of us claim certain orthodoxy? "Buddhism is atheist", "Buddhism is theist" - these assertions are viewpoints that one may very well have as a personal practice, but the core teaching of Buddhism seems to not be about these issues. Instead, Buddhism can - I suspect - reduced to these basic concepts under any circumstance (put here together with the Pali terminology):

(1) the Noble Eightfold Path (Ariyo Aṭṭhaṅgiko Maggo)
(2) the Four Noble Truths (Cattāri Ariyasaccāni)
(3) the Five Aggregates (Khanda)
(4) the Three Marks of Existence (Tilakkhaṇa)
(5) the Dependent Arising (Paṭiccasamuppāda)
(6) the Middle Way (Majjhimāpaṭipadā)
(7) Emptiness (Śūnyatā)
(8) Compassion (Karuṇā)

These are the things that Buddhism ultimately can be reduced to. You can hold these beliefs and ignore all the Sutras and traditions, and I hold that that would still make you a Buddhist. These eight concepts/notions are a recurrent theme through all branches of Buddhism, and their consistency suggests (at least to me) that they have been part of the Buddhist theory ever since Buddha's lifetime. At least this is what I hold. After all, Buddha himself had no tradition - he made it.

I would go as far as to say that people should be able to reject and choose what Sutras they believe based on their on experience/reasoning. This is certainly what I did, and I don't think it makes me any less Buddhist. For example, I adhere to a selection of around 82 Suttas from the Pāli Canon, yet I adhere completely to Japanese Buddhist traditions of the Zen sect in particular, and draw from Japanese Buddhist poetry as a source of inspiration for insight. It makes me neither a Theravādin, a Vajrayānan nor a Mahāyānan, but it still makes me a Buddhist. And of course, I am not superior nor inferior to a person who adheres to Sutras that I reject; we just tread a different path, towards same destination.

What do you think?

You have good points too. I am not familar with all those, sadly. The Noble Truths and Eight Fold Paths I am. The Lotus Sutra summarizes a lot of what you listed (after looking them up); and, you are right, as a whole, they sum up the Buddhist beliefs. It does feel off saying "these are the Buddha's teachings and these are not." What I honestly believe is the Buddha's teachings were not complex. It is the Indian cosmology, culture, and the native cultures and religions of other countries that makes it complex.

I like the appoach or worldview of other countries, though. Not just with the materalistic part, because I don't share those views I just was raised in it, but the "religion is not separate from living." We shouldn't make religion to be a part of our lives but it gradually becomes our lives.

I think that is what some Westerners miss or overlook. The definition of religion. That, and placing Buddhism as a philosophy with atheistic views doesn't help the matter.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

There's really no difference between all the east west malarkey. People are all the same no matter where on the globe one is located, and that includes religions as well. Everyone gripes and complains, smiles and scowl, believe and disbelieve and all that other stuff.

It's more mindset than where one lives. It's just we use places to "place mark" who we are talking about without generalizing. Here is some information about western and eastern world views (I actually don't like the terms)

This is a better way to describe the two worldviews: it: https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues/2012-spring/individualism-collectivism/