Western vs Eastern Buddhism

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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?

"The designation “Buddhism” originates in the West, not the East. In short, it is a construct of the minds of scholars in the West. There is no definitive evidence, for instance, that Tibetans, Indians, Sinhalese, or Chinese referred to or conceived of themselves as Buddhists before they were given this label by Westerners."
Olson, C. (2005). The Different Paths of Buddhism: A Narrative-Historical Introduction. Rutgers University Press.

"What many Americans and Europeans often understand by the term “Buddhism,” however, is actually a modern hybrid tradition with roots in the European Enlightenment no less than the Buddha’s enlightenment, in Romanticism and transcendentalism as much as the Pali canon, and in the clash of Asian cultures and colonial powers as much as in mindfulness and meditation."
McMahan, D. L. (2008). The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford University Press.

"the term ‘Buddhism’ seems to have arisen at around the same time as its sibling ‘Hinduism’, and it is by no means a straightforward task to find a meaningful version of the term (or indeed for the terms ‘religion’ or ‘mysticism’) in Asian languages. This is not, as has often been stated, merely a problem of translation but one of social identity. It is not clear that the Tibetans, the Sinhalese or the Chinese conceived of themselves as ‘Buddhists’ before they were so labelled by Westerners."
King, R. (1999). Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East". Routledge.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

How then does one apply rebirth and reincarnation with Buddhism when in actuality there was never any real birth and death to be had upon realisation ? A bit like seeking one's original face when in actuality where no such defined critera exists, but an insistence persists nonetheless.

Sure, but not all schools are Zen.

 

[psychoslice]

In truth there is no Buddhism, there is just what IS, everything else is nothing more than a story.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...Western converts tend to be a little on the "spacy" side and rather eccentric, having experimented with drugs often extensively,

Blasted hippies!

 

[Lyndon]

Ice Cream addicts!! What do you think of my interview with the Cambodian temple leader, Spiny, interested to hear your opinion.....

 

[Rick O'Shez]

"Just as the great ocean has one taste, the taste of salt, so also this Dhamma and Discipline has one taste, the taste of liberation. This is the sixth wonderful and marvellous quality in this Dhamma and Discipline..."

From the Uposatha Sutta
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/kn/ud/ud.5.05.irel.html

 

[Unveiled Artist]

"The designation “Buddhism” originates in the West, not the East. In short, it is a construct of the minds of scholars in the West. There is no definitive evidence, for instance, that Tibetans, Indians, Sinhalese, or Chinese referred to or conceived of themselves as Buddhists before they were given this label by Westerners."
Olson, C. (2005). The Different Paths of Buddhism: A Narrative-Historical Introduction. Rutgers University Press.

"What many Americans and Europeans often understand by the term “Buddhism,” however, is actually a modern hybrid tradition with roots in the European Enlightenment no less than the Buddha’s enlightenment, in Romanticism and transcendentalism as much as the Pali canon, and in the clash of Asian cultures and colonial powers as much as in mindfulness and meditation."
McMahan, D. L. (2008). The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford University Press.

"the term ‘Buddhism’ seems to have arisen at around the same time as its sibling ‘Hinduism’, and it is by no means a straightforward task to find a meaningful version of the term (or indeed for the terms ‘religion’ or ‘mysticism’) in Asian languages. This is not, as has often been stated, merely a problem of translation but one of social identity. It is not clear that the Tibetans, the Sinhalese or the Chinese conceived of themselves as ‘Buddhists’ before they were so labelled by Westerners."
King, R. (1999). Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East". Routledge.

Thank you.

I know that "westeners" are claimed to mess things up by giving labels to romantazing supposedly "traditional" teachings. If Buddhism is mixed just as Hinduism, I am sure westerners have some good from foreigners eyes in those academic writings.

In person, I only hear that type of separation among Abrahamics. We arent the only people who are bias.

I just dont care for belittling "westerners" for what they do. I am a westener and I dont share views as most likely fifty so odd percentage of lay westeners do. Its like calling all Catholics murderers because their Church killed a lot of people so people today are supposed to mirror the outlook of their Church history. I hope they do not.

Take westerners out the picture. Say Colonist or Spaniads in this time period or so on. Generalizations are hurtful. Not just in Buddhism but in general.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

People do have the tendency to just make stuff up when faced with something unknown. It can be a hard habit to break.

Yes, uncertainty can be very uncomfortable. But it does seem like not knowing anything is where you have to start.

 

[Lyndon]

The point I was trying to make, judging from my experience with SE Asian refugee Buddhist communities, is with Eastern Buddhism, the devout Buddhists tend to be the conservative traditional types (I'm not meaning politically) and with Western Buddhists the followers tend to be the liberal non traditional types. Quite a distinct difference, but not 100% true.

 

[Sees]

"The designation “Buddhism” originates in the West, not the East. In short, it is a construct of the minds of scholars in the West. There is no definitive evidence, for instance, that Tibetans, Indians, Sinhalese, or Chinese referred to or conceived of themselves as Buddhists before they were given this label by Westerners."
Olson, C. (2005). The Different Paths of Buddhism: A Narrative-Historical Introduction. Rutgers University Press.

"What many Americans and Europeans often understand by the term “Buddhism,” however, is actually a modern hybrid tradition with roots in the European Enlightenment no less than the Buddha’s enlightenment, in Romanticism and transcendentalism as much as the Pali canon, and in the clash of Asian cultures and colonial powers as much as in mindfulness and meditation."
McMahan, D. L. (2008). The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford University Press.

"the term ‘Buddhism’ seems to have arisen at around the same time as its sibling ‘Hinduism’, and it is by no means a straightforward task to find a meaningful version of the term (or indeed for the terms ‘religion’ or ‘mysticism’) in Asian languages. This is not, as has often been stated, merely a problem of translation but one of social identity. It is not clear that the Tibetans, the Sinhalese or the Chinese conceived of themselves as ‘Buddhists’ before they were so labelled by Westerners."
King, R. (1999). Orientalism and Religion: Postcolonial Theory, India and "The Mystic East". Routledge.

I don't know if people will get the wrong idea from that.

Buddhism as a label is young but the idea that it is a certain path, way, tradition (faith, even) which people pledge to or convert to - is very old. It's a big reason it spread the way that it did compared to ancestral/ethnic traditions. Maybe holding the title itself of first universalist, proselytizing religious tradition?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I know that "westeners" are claimed to mess things up by giving labels to romantazing supposedly "traditional" teachings. If Buddhism is mixed just as Hinduism, I am sure westerners have some good from foreigners eyes in those academic writings.

Absolutely. "Western" thought seems to have transmitted the concept of religion (i.e., some system of thought and practice independent in some sense from other socio-cultural aspects of life such that it warrants linguistic representation particularly in the form of a word like "religion"), while many a religious concept (not to mention clinical treatments both mental and physical and more) were borrowed/stolen from Eastern practices over the past few centuries.

And this kind of cultural appropriation and/or borrowing is pretty typical. Christianity emerged as the dominant religion in part because of what it offered as a religion akin to the modern concept, but it could only do this by extensively stealing from Greek philosophy and applying Greco-Roman philosophical concepts to Jewish scripture and conceptions of Jewish practice as well as the Jewish god. Islam relied extensively on a developed form of this hybrid of Greek philosophy and Judaism, as well as the jurisprudence approach to scripture found in modern Rabbinic Judaism. India served as the foundation for much of "traditional" Eastern thought and practice, but cultural values and traditional practices in China and Japan were needed for the realizations of philosophical doctrines and various spiritual practices throughout the centuries. It is only natural that the East-West interaction which was, alas, dominated by colonialism, gave rise to a religious (Western) conceptualization of traditional practices as well as a Western appropriation of Eastern thought. Also, as you note, the East/West distinction is a generalization. We can be much more specific about the directions of influence. See e.g., the attached papers on Japanese Buddhism and the paper on typologies of Buddhism.

 

[Lyndon]

I think if you actually attended a traditional Buddhist temple and followed and participated in the practices and teachings you would see that it is just as much a religion and quite similar to Christianity. Internet Buddhism may be less of a religion but going to a temple and following the path taught is very much a religion, at least by my definition.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

I think if you actually attended a traditional Buddhist temple and followed and participated in the practices and teachings you would see that it is just as much a religion and quite similar to Christianity.

I have done this, and do think so. I don't think this is true of pre-Colonialist Buddhism. I also know that the concept of "religion" doesn't apply to most religions, which was why e.g., "atheist" in Greece and pre-Christian Rome included Christians, orthodoxy was basically non-existent, and there weren't really words for "religion" in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Sanskrit, Hittite, etc.

Internet Buddhism may be less of a religion but going to a temple and following the path taught is very much a religion, at least by my definition.

I agree. However, modern Buddhism exists as it does because of a number of cultural interactions, especially (insofar as it considered a self-consciously religious identity) East-West.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

I think if you actually attended a traditional Buddhist temple...

What do you mean by "traditional temple"? The closest thing I've experienced in the UK is at a Thai Forest monastery. Most of the other UK Buddhist groups don't have "temples", they have centres or hire rooms.

 

[Lyndon]

By Traditional Eastern Buddhist I mean a temple run by Asians for Asians, you may not have many in the UK, we have a lot of refugees from SE Asia in Southern California, and a lot of temples were everything is in their language and serves as their little bit of "home" so to speak, where things run just as they did back in their country. We also have Western Buddhist Temples, often converted apartments, where Asian or American monks teach mostly Westerners in English, these tend to be less traditional in terms of preserving Asian practices and philosophy. Traditional Asian Buddhist temples serve as community centres, providing free meals to the needy, allowing homeless or poor to sleep at the temple etc, much as it is in Asia. Western Temples are also likely to charge fees for services and initiation, Asian temples in my experience only rely on donations, and the people are quite generous, one funny practice, the monks will recommend lottery numbers to play, and when the member wins big they may give 1/2 or 1/3 of their winnings to the temple, so the monks "have to be good"!!

Thai Forest tradition is not really a traditional Buddhist organization at all, but a newly formed offshoot of Buddhism, sort of like Seventh Day Adventists or Jehovah'a Witnesses are to mainstream Christianity, in that Forest monks are not like the mainstream temples and more conservative, for instance very strict on not handling money, very strict on vinaya, mainstream temples not so much, but more emphasis on the basics like precepts, rather than the more obscure rules.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

...Forest monks are not like the mainstream temples and more conservative, for instance very strict on not handling money, very strict on vinaya, mainstream temples not so much.

So one minute you're saying that Thai Forest is a "cult", the next minute you're saying they are too conservative and strict?

This might be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Forest_Tradition

 

[Rick O'Shez]

So it isn't anything?

Nothing and everything. One of the cool things about Buddhism is that it defies classification. and when you think you understand what it is you immediately realise you don't.

PS I'm sounding like a Zennie now.

 

[Lyndon]

So one minute you're saying that Thai Forest is a "cult", the next minute you're saying they are too conservative and strict?

This might be of interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_Forest_Tradition

No I wouldn't call them a cult, neither would I call Jehovah's Witnesses a cult, what both movements have in common is they looked at the religion around them and asked what's wrong with it, and the answer they came up wit is it isn't strict enough, and they don't interpret the scriptures literally enough, or something like that, refugee temples are a little more layed back than the Forest monks seem to be. For instance I was never exposed to the no self teaching at refugee temples, the precepts were very big, the noble truths, everyone talked about reincarnation, no one mentioned rebirth, things like that. Forest Monks seem to be very intellectual, refugee monks seem to be very down earth and down to basics with Buddhism, you understand Forest tradition was started by monks that thought the city traditional monasteries were corrupt and too liberal.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think if you actually attended a traditional Buddhist temple and followed and participated in the practices and teachings you would see that it is just as much a religion and quite similar to Christianity. Internet Buddhism may be less of a religion but going to a temple and following the path taught is very much a religion, at least by my definition.

Exactly. Completely different experience.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I just dont care for putting down westerners as a whole bothersome. I see this in online religion. I dont see this often in person. Its still there nonetheless