Western vs Eastern Buddhism

[Leftimies]

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.

Well, first of all, it depends what kind of temple you visit. There are huge differences between different branches, and it is not completely untrue to say that there isn't one unitary 'Buddhist religion' out there. I'd argue that the differences between Theravāda, Vajrayāna and Mahāyāna are very much comparable to the differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam. For example, Theravādins, Vajrayānans and Mahāyānans follow different scriptures (Pāli texts of the Theravādins, Mahāyāna sutras of the Mahāyānans and the estoric tantras of the Vajrayānans are not of same historical origin) and hold different views on many things, while agreeing on some common points. So there is no 'unified religion' that could be effectively compared with Christianity vis-à-vis.

Mahāyāna sutras were likely invented around 1st century C.E., (or perhaps a tad earlier) hundreds of years after Buddha's death, by more religious and imaginative elements in the Buddhist monastic community, and are held by many scholars to not be of Buddha's actual teaching, but 'additions' to the doctrine. While the Pāli suttas are likely the 'most authentic', they likewise cannot be fully verified. The Vajrayāna tantras emerged between 5th century and 7th century C.E., which translates to around one thousand years after Buddha's passing. So all these traditions that were founded on those writings are by definition disconnected from the original teaching.

All in all, I'd say that one should perhaps not pass a judgement over what Buddhism is or is not based on the various branches that emerged from its wake. I love the fact that there are so many schools of thought as there are, as it provides the environment for great mutual discourse. And its also good to remember that 'Buddhism' isn't a unitary religion. I guess it wouldn't be a too much of a stretch for one to say that Vajrayāna, Mahāyāna and Theravāda are individual religions of the Buddhist tradition, in same way that Judaism, Christianity and Islam are individual religions of Abrahamic tradition.

But, to summarize this rant up, Buddha himself didn't go to a temple to practice Buddhism. He didn't pray as a Buddhist. He meditated in solitude until he reached what he considered Nibbana. He then established a group to cultivate that state of mind, and ordered them to pass it down along a lineage. In many ways, what you called 'internet buddhism' seems to be getting back at the roots of the Buddhist practice, as it is more separated from rituals and cultural hindrances than some of the more traditional Buddhism. And don't get me wrong, I love the rituals and the cultural hindrances as much as the next guy

Peace.

 

[Lyndon]

I never was claiming that Buddhism is one religion, but rather many, some perhaps not even classifying as religions, perhaps more philosophies.

Where you're wrong is the idea that the Buddha never practiced Buddhism, while alive, the Buddha and his co leaders led the "prayers" which were recited daily, the suttas were all recited and recited so many times till the more gifted had them memorized and could pass them on by chanting them to their novices. The Buddha, at least according to the Pali tradition originated the Prayers or suttas which were chanted at every opportunity, they didn't just sit around meditating under trees all day, same with the monks today, at least in Therevada tradition the prayers are repeated and chanted every day, usually once in the morning and once in the evening

Tibetan monks chant the prayers every day too, I'm sure Mahayana Chinese do also, Zen maybe not.

 

[Leftimies]

I'm not trying to put down Westerners, I'm actually an Easterner technically coming from Australia, but that's still a Westerner country, I'm just pointing out that Buddhism by all accounts is an Asian religion, and a lot of teachers that came from Asia to preach in the West were kicked out of Asia for misconduct, And came to the west for fame and fortune, not enlightenment, the worst example being the drunkard womanizer Chogyam Trungpa. Unfortunately a lot of monks more concerned with making money and womanizing became the source of "wisdom" for many Westerners, so its not hard to imagine some misconceptions about traditional Buddhist teachings could have arisen in the West. Its sort of like if you want to get the real message, get it straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. Buddhism is an Asian Phenomenon, and many variations of Buddhism that are prevalent in the West today are not really typical of Asian philosophy.

This seems to be less of a problem for the Thai Forest tradition, they seem to be quite honourable if not overly strict IMHO.

Actually, Buddhism and all Indian religions have their roots in Vedic religion, which in turn has its root in the Proto Indo-European religion. The indian philosophical traditions have a lot in common with Greek philosophical traditions, and one can certainly appreciate the common points between Hinduism, Buddhism and Stoicism, for example. Case in point, the sky god of the Vedic religion, Dyaus Pita, is the Greek Zeus Peter or the Roman Jupiter on a conceptual level. They share the same name as well, as the languages of Greek and Sanskrit are surprisingly intimately related. Pali, the holy language of Theravāda Buddhism, is an Indo-European language, as well.

Buddhism also spread westwards first, if I am not mistaken, to Afghanistan region, Central Asia and to the Greek remnant kingdoms at the Indian border. In that sense, 'Greek Buddhism' actually precedes any form of Chinese, Korean or Japanese Buddhism.

All in all, no, I disagree with the assertion that Buddhism is an all-Asian Phenomenon. The traditions from which it emerged were, at their heart, Indo-European, not Sinitic or Japonic. The Kamma that Buddhism inherited, so to speak, was that of the Indo-Europeans.

 

[Lyndon]

Give me a break, the Buddha and all his followers for several hundred years were Asian, look at a map. Buddhism originated on the border between Nepal and India, Buddhism is an Asian religion, just as Judaism and Christianity started as Middle Eastern religions, where they spread to does not make them FROM those places, Buddhism is FROM Asia hence it is an Asian religion.

 

[crossfire]

Actually, Buddhism and all Indian religions have their roots in Vedic religion, which in turn has its root in the Proto Indo-European religion. The indian philosophical traditions have a lot in common with Greek philosophical traditions, and one can certainly appreciate the common points between Hinduism, Buddhism and Stoicism, for example. Case in point, the sky god of the Vedic religion, Dyaus Pita, is the Greek Zeus Peter or the Roman Jupiter on a conceptual level. They share the same name as well, as the languages of Greek and Sanskrit are surprisingly intimately related. Pali, the holy language of Theravāda Buddhism, is an Indo-European language, as well.

Buddhism also spread westwards first, if I am not mistaken, to Afghanistan region, Central Asia and to the Greek remnant kingdoms at the Indian border. In that sense, 'Greek Buddhism' actually precedes any form of Chinese, Korean or Japanese Buddhism.

All in all, no, I disagree with the assertion that Buddhism is an all-Asian Phenomenon. The traditions from which it emerged were, at their heart, Indo-European, not Sinitic or Japonic. The Kamma that Buddhism inherited, so to speak, was that of the Indo-Europeans.

Ashoka spread Buddhism to the west, even as far as Alexandria, Egypt in the 3rd Century BC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashoka

 

[Lyndon]

Ashoka was a king that unified much of present day India, he didn't personally make it as far as Egypt, he had his hands full taking care of India!!

 

[Leftimies]

Give me a break, the Buddha and all his followers for several hundred years were Asian, look at a map. Buddhism originated on the border between Nepal and India, Buddhism is an Asian religion, just as Judaism and Christianity started as Middle Eastern religions, where they spread to does not make them FROM those places, Buddhism is FROM Asia hence it is an Asian religion.

I suppose this difference in opinion comes from different viewpoints. You look it in the terms of geography, while I look it in terms of culture.
Geographically speaking, of course Buddhism is an 'Asian' religion. But Asia being as diverse as it is - ethnically, culturally and linguistically - the whole definition becomes misleading and useless. While Europe is surprisingly homogenous, Asia is not a homogenous whole. I do not view it very astute to ignore the cultural background of various peoples who inhabit that region and to mash them all into one group - many researchers of culture and origin of various peoples would disagree with you. The Indo-European languages, the cultural background of Indo-Europeans, all of that seems to matter less to you than a few locations on a map. I don't know how I feel about that.

I guess Mendander I and Menander II were Asian Kings, since both were born in Asia, lived in Asia and died in Asia. Despite the fact that they were ethnically Greek, spoke Greek language, were Buddhist by religion and ruled a Greek remnant Kingdom at the border of India? I think we can agree that things aren't as clear-cut as they seem on a map, and you cannot derive a full understanding of a culture just by looking a map.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yeah!! A Zen tradition with 100 times as many scriptures and rules!!

More rules and writings
than the existing penal or tax code? That's pretty hardcore. ;0)

Have you read any Ajahn Chah? Thai Forest is really a Zen tradition.

Never hurts to take a meander through. Makes me wonder why people call it Zen?

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Case in point, the sky god of the Vedic religion

Indo-European linguistics isn't much help here, as apart from a general word for "divine/god" and perhaps the association of "sky" and/or "father" with "god" (likewise for "goddess" and both "sky" and "daughter"), there are almost no reconstructed words which are reliable enough (either in that too few daughter languages attest to the usage or in that the semantics of the word render any kind of judgment rather useless).
The PIE root of the Latin deus is known, and has been for a long time: "deus from *deos, *deiwas: Skt. devas, Lith. dievas, OPr. deiws..."
Buck, C. D. (1933). Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. University of Chicago Press.
Buck's classic is still the standard, but its age required a new treatment which, while less comprehensive and arguably deficient in other ways, provides all the necessary updates: Sihler's New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (Oxford University Press, 1995). The etymology of deus is unchanged except that other cognates are added, but in addition the Greek theos is explicitly stated to be distinct and indeed (unlike the Latin deus) unknown:
"θεός 'god', of uncertain etymology..."
Etymologically, deus is related to the Greek Zeus; see e.g., Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture sect. 8.3.3. The highest Indo-European deity, the sky god (Mouton de Gruyter, 1995).

It is hard enough to reconstruct syntax (hence the transition from a general disagreement among experts over whether PIE was an ergative language to the modern disagreement over whether it is an active language, a transition that simply shifted how experts disagreed about the basic syntactical structure, not a resolution). To posit much more than the very basics from the reconstructions behind the limited PIE lexicon is fraught with hazard and easily used to build fantasy under the auspices of scholarship.

Dyaus Pita, is the Greek Zeus Peter or the Roman Jupiter on a conceptual level.

Unless one is interested in the Greek or Roman conception of deities/gods, in which case this isn't true.

They share the same name as well

They don't.

as the languages of Greek and Sanskrit are surprisingly intimately related.

Greek is as related to Sanskrit as it is French and German.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Never hurts to take a meander through. Makes me wonder why people call it Zen?

There has been an awful lot of mingling and cross-pollination down the centuries, to the extent that classifications like Hinayana / Mahayana / Vajyrana are next to meaningless when you look at modern Buddhism.

 

[crossfire]

Indo-European linguistics isn't much help here, as apart from a general word for "divine/god" and perhaps the association of "sky" and/or "father" with "god" (likewise for "goddess" and both "sky" and "daughter"), there are almost no reconstructed words which are reliable enough (either in that too few daughter languages attest to the usage or in that the semantics of the word render any kind of judgment rather useless).
The PIE root of the Latin deus is known, and has been for a long time: "deus from *deos, *deiwas: Skt. devas, Lith. dievas, OPr. deiws..."
Buck, C. D. (1933). Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. University of Chicago Press.
Buck's classic is still the standard, but its age required a new treatment which, while less comprehensive and arguably deficient in other ways, provides all the necessary updates: Sihler's New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (Oxford University Press, 1995). The etymology of deus is unchanged except that other cognates are added, but in addition the Greek theos is explicitly stated to be distinct and indeed (unlike the Latin deus) unknown:
"θεός 'god', of uncertain etymology..."
Etymologically, deus is related to the Greek Zeus; see e.g., Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture sect. 8.3.3. The highest Indo-European deity, the sky god (Mouton de Gruyter, 1995).

It is hard enough to reconstruct syntax (hence the transition from a general disagreement among experts over whether PIE was an ergative language to the modern disagreement over whether it is an active language, a transition that simply shifted how experts disagreed about the basic syntactical structure, not a resolution). To posit much more than the very basics from the reconstructions behind the limited PIE lexicon is fraught with hazard and easily used to build fantasy under the auspices of scholarship.


Unless one is interested in the Greek or Roman conception of deities/gods, in which case this isn't true.


They don't.

Greek is as related to Sanskrit as it is French and German.

Proto Indo-European culture elements, such as patriarchy, classes/castes (priestly castes, political/warrior castes, craftsmen castes, worker castes, and outcasts) and ritual sacrifice are all elements that Buddha specifically rejected. I think this might be an excellent place to start looking at the differences between Eastern and Western versions of Buddhism.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Proto Indo-European culture elements, such as patriarchy, classes/castes (priestly castes, political/warrior castes, craftsmen castes, worker castes, and outcasts) and ritual sacrifice are all elements that Buddha specifically rejected.

Buddhist thought was rife with misogyny and patriarchy. Or rather, Eastern culture was and to the extent Buddhist thought existed it was too. Also, PIE "culture" didn't really exist. It is about the absolute minimalist reconstruction of past culture possible as
1) We can't even narrow down most timelines
2) Most of the aspects of this would-be culture consist of possible reconstructions of words that differ in meaning
3) We know it isn't any single culture.

I think this might be an excellent place to start looking at the differences between Eastern and Western versions of Buddhism.

I prefer to start where the idea emerges, and that is with Eastern and Western interactions some several centuries ago.

 

[crossfire]

Buddhist thought was rife with misogyny and patriarchy.

Do you have any examples of Buddha teaching misogyny and enforcing patriarchy?

Or rather, Eastern culture was and to the extent Buddhist thought existed it was too.

Where do you draw the line between "East" and "West?" I see India as the area where East meets West. Your mileage may vary.

Also, PIE "culture" didn't really exist. It is about the absolute minimalist reconstruction of past culture possible as

Indeed, however cultural traditions can persist and have been known to persist for millennia. (One example can be found in the millennia-old practice of FGM which began thousands of years ago in the Nile valley and still persists to this day in many different cultures of that geographic region, in spite of efforts to end it.)

1) We can't even narrow down most timelines
2) Most of the aspects of this would-be culture consist of possible reconstructions of words that differ in meaning.

Indeed, but similar practices persist in spite of how the different language groups try to rationalize/explain these practices

3) We know it isn't any single culture.

Indeed, many nations are associated with it.

I prefer to start where the idea emerges, and that is with Eastern and Western interactions some several centuries ago.

I like to look deeper, but sure, the more modern differences are also worthy of investigation, imo.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Do you have any examples of Buddha teaching misogyny and enforcing patriarchy?

I don't have any decent historical evidence that the Buddha existed. I believe he did, but the historical evidence at best stops at this.

Where do you draw the line between "East" and "West?"

It's a cultural "line" that is fuzzy. It serves a purpose, but is of course limited in application. For example, "Western" thought is quite fundamentally Christian, yet also quite fundamentally Greco-Roman (and therefore non-Christian). However, the fact that Christian tradition stole much from Greco-Roman philosophical and intellectual tradition and this serves as the basis of the past several centuries of European/American thought as well as the foundation for the emergence of conceptions such as "religion" in Eastern countries such as China and the notion of "Hinduism" in general make it more than useful.

I see India as the area where East meets West. Your mileage may vary.

I don't see the distinction as geographical, as most areas on the globe are neither.

 

[crossfire]

I don't have any decent historical evidence that the Buddha existed. I believe he did, but the historical evidence at best stops at this.

Do you have any examples of Buddhadharma (teachings attributed to Buddha) enforcing patriarchy or teaching misogyny?

It's a cultural "line" that is fuzzy. It serves a purpose, but is of course limited in application. For example, "Western" thought is quite fundamentally Christian, yet also quite fundamentally Greco-Roman (and therefore non-Christian). However, the fact that Christian tradition stole much from Greco-Roman philosophical and intellectual tradition and this serves as the basis of the past several centuries of European/American thought as well as the foundation for the emergence of conceptions such as "religion" in Eastern countries such as China and the notion of "Hinduism" in general make it more than useful.

Hence, my preference to dig deeper into history.

I don't see the distinction as geographical, as most areas on the globe are neither.

What criteria do you use to make the distinction?

 

[Leftimies]

Indo-European linguistics isn't much help here, as apart from a general word for "divine/god" and perhaps the association of "sky" and/or "father" with "god" (likewise for "goddess" and both "sky" and "daughter"), there are almost no reconstructed words which are reliable enough (either in that too few daughter languages attest to the usage or in that the semantics of the word render any kind of judgment rather useless).
The PIE root of the Latin deus is known, and has been for a long time: "deus from *deos, *deiwas: Skt. devas, Lith. dievas, OPr. deiws..."
Buck, C. D. (1933). Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin. University of Chicago Press.
Buck's classic is still the standard, but its age required a new treatment which, while less comprehensive and arguably deficient in other ways, provides all the necessary updates: Sihler's New Comparative Grammar of Greek and Latin (Oxford University Press, 1995). The etymology of deus is unchanged except that other cognates are added, but in addition the Greek theos is explicitly stated to be distinct and indeed (unlike the Latin deus) unknown:
"θεός 'god', of uncertain etymology..."
Etymologically, deus is related to the Greek Zeus; see e.g., Gamkrelidze & Ivanov's Indo-European and the Indo-Europeans: A Reconstruction of a Proto-Language and a Proto-Culture sect. 8.3.3. The highest Indo-European deity, the sky god (Mouton de Gruyter, 1995).

It is hard enough to reconstruct syntax (hence the transition from a general disagreement among experts over whether PIE was an ergative language to the modern disagreement over whether it is an active language, a transition that simply shifted how experts disagreed about the basic syntactical structure, not a resolution). To posit much more than the very basics from the reconstructions behind the limited PIE lexicon is fraught with hazard and easily used to build fantasy under the auspices of scholarship.


Unless one is interested in the Greek or Roman conception of deities/gods, in which case this isn't true.


They don't.

Greek is as related to Sanskrit as it is French and German.

My assertions were likely too rough around the edges and straightforward. But there remain many other common points. The notions of Mount Olympus and Mount Meru are likewise similar in meaning and might have a common conceptual ancestor in Proto Indo-European religion that came to evolve into these later, localized ideas.

Greece and India were likewise cultures of philosophy, where individual schools of thought arose to debate the origin points of the universe and the implications on ethics. Both are notable for being the only ones, as far as I am aware, from the pre-modern world to independently develop schools of logic. None of this says anything either way, really, but it suggests that there existed certain elements in both cultures that allowed for certain kinds of intellectual developments. They may (or may not) very well be rooted in a mutual religious tradition that put emphasis on reasoning. Stoicism evolved independently of Indian influence, but regardless manifests intellectual attitudes very similar to a number of Dharmic traditions. Of course, there is always room for a coincidence, but I don't see a reason to assume that it is.

 

[Marcion]

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.

I only know something about the Triratna Buddhist Community, formerly called the Buddhist Western Order.
Its founder Dennis Lingham started this western movement without the approval of the rest of the organisation in India and moved back to England.
He abolished most of the common social rules that control the behaviour of real buddhist monks creating a new type of order of pseudo-monks and pseudo-nuns.
He was much influenced by the liberal ideas about sexual relationships in the sixtees, slept with young (even straight) bikkhus and promoted homosexuality as a means to "deconditioning" people with heterosexual orientation and creating "friendship bonds" to his organisation.
He mixes all types of Buddhist practices trying to go beyond cultural and sectarian divides.

I know much less about the New Kadampa Movement which is more traditional (Tibetan origins) but also quite modernised and surprisingly similar in some ways to my own Tantra-Yoga meditation movement (which isn't Buddhist) at least philosophically.

 

[Dawnofhope]

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.

We’ve had the discussion previously how Japanese Buddhism (albeit often interwoven with Shinto) is very theistic. My wife’s mother is from Japan so we’ve visited several times. Yet talking to online Buddhist Westerners it seems atheistic to the point of antitheism. Visiting the Tibetan Buddhist Centre in my hometown feels as if a foreign culture has been planted amidst Western culture. The Buddhism and Tibetan cultural elements are hard to separate and it hasn’t properly established itself.