Western cultural adaptations

[Aloka]

It's when people end up with things like "This is the only right way to practice meditation for everyone, everywhere" that we enter the domain of exclusivism and superiorism.

Hi binocular,

Where does this take place ? On the internet, or in Buddhist centres away from the internet ?

And in the process of this, some other people got pushed out of Buddhist groups ...

Sorry, but again I'm not clear what you're talking about.

But hey, by all means, it seems possible enough to turn even Buddhism into the sort of religion where the main thing is to keep said religion going, even if this means misery and death for those who try effort keep it going. In the spirit of revolution, devouring its own children

Huh ?

I guess I am one of the newer generations of people with an interest in Buddhism - part of the generation of people who came into contact with Buddhism via the internet, by first reading the Pali Canon, and not via contact with actual living Buddhist traditions.

Have you ever attended teachings/ practised/ mixed with other people at a Buddhist centre, Temple or Monastery ?

[Aloka]

Not on this forum.

The people who have been silenced disagree.

That seems rather a mysterious statement - who are you speaking on behalf of, binocular ?

[Kare]

I guess I am one of the newer generations of people with an interest in Buddhism - part of the generation of people who came into contact with Buddhism via the internet, by first reading the Pali Canon, and not via contact with actual living Buddhist traditions.

I think starting with the Pali Canon makes for a very different basis of one's interest in Buddhism than starting off what appears to be the usual way, ie. via a particular Buddhist group or teacher.

It's not that I like or dislike the cultural adaptations - it's that they are foreign to me, given my background. It seems impossible to me now to try to fit myself into an existing Buddhist tradition.

And of course, like so many others, you can dismiss people like myself, suggesting that we have no clue, aren't real Buddhists etc.

That's funny - after we have disagreed in several postings in this thread, I suddenly find you very much in agreement with my own views (or myself very much in agreement with your views - depending on the perspective). Maybe our earlier disagreements were based on misunderstandings.

Although I am not one of the newer generations. I am one of the older generations of people who got interested in Buddhism before there were any living Buddhist traditions present in my country. Not via the internet - which was not invented at that time - but via books. And as soon as I discovered the Pali texts, I felt I was coming home. That's why I spent some time and energy studying Pali, which led me to producing several translations from the Pali texts into Norwegian: Dhammapada, Thera- and Therigatha, Digha and Majjhima Nikaya and more (and stubbornly continuing ...). So it seems we have been following more or less parallell courses into the Dhamma.

And like you, I find the existing Buddhist traditions "foreign" - even though I am quite fond of the different Asian styles of Buddhism. What I would prefer, is a Buddhism that is in harmony with Western culture, without losing any of the essential Buddhist qualities.

So you can rest assured that I never will dismiss you or people like you.

[tiltbillings]

That may be how one has adopted and adapted the Dhamma, trying to make it his/her own. Why do you assume that the Dhamma must be a private matter when we have the examples in the Nikayas that point to public teaching and public contention over what is true?

What makes you think this is what I assume?

Because what you write is suggesting that, but quite frankly it is uncertain what your actual point is, given that you are bringing into this discussion stuff no one here is saying.

By "private matter," this is what I mean - http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... ml#private
Essentially, an emphasis on what goes on inside, as opposed to focusing on the outside.

What is "private" gets expressed "on the outside" as one relates to the world. So, what is your point?

Maybe, but there seems to be an assumption in what you are saying is the Dhamma must be understood in a particular way -- that is, not being exclusive, etc.

Since different people have different karma, different applications of the Dhamma will take place in their lives respectively.
As such, what applies or "works" for one person, may not apply or "work" for another.

It's when people end up with "This is the only right way to practice meditation for everyone, everywhere" that we enter the domain of exclusivism and superiorism.

So, your assumption, it seems, is that this is not correct Dhamma. Based upon what?

There are people who in fact say, or at least imply things like "this Dhamma that I/we teach, is the only true Dhamma, ever, for everyone."
And this is not some rarity, it seems fairly common.

And that certainly can be a result in how they tried to make the Dhamma their own.

And in the process of this, some other people got pushed out of Buddhist groups ...

So, again, as we have seen in other threads, this is about you and your being rejected by some folks. Why should you care that some people do not act in a way that you assume they should? They do not get to define who you are and how you see yourself, unless you allow them to.

But hey, by all means, it seems possible enough to turn even Buddhism into the sort of religion where the main thing is to keep said religion going, even if this means misery and death for those who try effort keep it going. In the spirit of revolution, devouring its own children.

Now, this is reading as a personal issue that you are acting out here.

[appicchato]

...everyone else has their specific unique interests invested in pondering this topic.

Seems that way...not a pretty picture...

[tiltbillings]

It's not that I like or dislike the cultural adaptations - it's that they are foreign to me, given my background. It seems impossible to me now to try to fit myself into an existing Buddhist tradition.

That is a problem of your own making.

And of course, like so many others, you can dismiss people like myself, suggesting that we have no clue, aren't real Buddhists etc.

Again, a problem of your making. It is not other people that determine if you are or are not a Buddhist. It is you who determine that.

I guess I am one of the newer generations of people with an interest in Buddhism - part of the generation of people who came into contact with Buddhism via the internet, by first reading the Pali Canon, and not via contact with actual living Buddhist traditions.

I think starting with the Pali Canon makes for a very different basis of one's interest in Buddhism than starting off what appears to be the usual way, ie. via a particular Buddhist group or teacher..

I started out 45 years ago. No groups, no internet. In the early 70's I had to travel from Minnesota to England to meet actual living, breathing, talking Western and Asian Buddhists. In so many of the threads here you involve yourself in, you bring this up this personal business of yours one way or an other, again and again. So the question is: why do you care what other people think in terms of your being a Buddhist or not? You are likely not going to change their behavior, but you are responsible for your own.

[Anagarika]

That's why I spent some time and energy studying Pali, which led me to producing several translations from the Pali texts into Norwegian: Dhammapada, Thera- and Therigatha, Digha and Majjhima Nikaya and more (and stubbornly continuing ...).

Dette er en fantastisk prestasjon! Godt gjort!

[Kare]

That's why I spent some time and energy studying Pali, which led me to producing several translations from the Pali texts into Norwegian: Dhammapada, Thera- and Therigatha, Digha and Majjhima Nikaya and more (and stubbornly continuing ...).

Dette er en fantastisk prestasjon! Godt gjort!

Takker og bukker!

[tiltbillings]

That's why I spent some time and energy studying Pali, which led me to producing several translations from the Pali texts into Norwegian: Dhammapada, Thera- and Therigatha, Digha and Majjhima Nikaya and more (and stubbornly continuing ...).

Dette er en fantastisk prestasjon! Godt gjort!

Takker og bukker!

Úsáid Béarla, le do thoil.

[Kamran]

Not sure if it has been mentioned but Western Romantic influence is described in the below article by Thanissaro Bikhu:

Many Westerners, when new to Buddhism, are struck by the uncanny familiarity of what seem to be its central concepts: interconnectedness, wholeness, ego-transcendence. But what they may not realize is that the concepts sound familiar because they are familiar. To a large extent, they come not from the Buddha's teachings but from the Dharma gate of Western psychology, through which the Buddha's words have been filtered. They draw less from the root sources of the Dharma than from their own hidden roots in Western culture: the thought of the German Romantics.

"The Roots of Buddhist Romanticism"

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... icism.html

[Spiny Norman]

What I would prefer, is a Buddhism that is in harmony with Western culture, without losing any of the essential Buddhist qualities.

In the UK we have groups like Triratna, Samatha Trust, Interbeing and NKT which are specifically tailored for western culture - is that the kind of thing you mean?

It strikes me though that defining what the "essential Buddhist qualities" are might not be straightforward.

[Kare]

What I would prefer, is a Buddhism that is in harmony with Western culture, without losing any of the essential Buddhist qualities.

In the UK we have groups like Triratna, Samatha Trust, Interbeing and NKT which are specifically tailored for western culture - is that the kind of thing you mean?

I am sure they work for some people. From what I have seen of those groups, however, I think I would prefer a more secular solution. But that is my personal preference. Others surely have other preferences.

It strikes me though that defining what the "essential Buddhist qualities" are might not be straightforward.

You are quite right. That might easily be the subject of a new thread.

[Anagarika]

Isn't part of the answer what Ven. Thanissaro is getting at? "they come not from the Buddha's teachings but from the Dharma gate of Western psychology"

My sense is that we have at our disposal the core Dhamma. Much has been discussed on DW as to what constitutes "core Dhamma," but some of the good scholarship suggests that the core teachings of the Buddha are found in the Pali Sutta and Vinaya. Having said that, to what extent do we allow the core teachings to be "adapted" or "westernized" before they no longer constitute the Dhamma? To use the analogy of the Dhamma as medicine, at what point does the recipe for the medicine get changed before it is no longer medicine, and just a more pleasant tasting placebo? To propose another analogy, let's say we have Einstein's formula for general relativity. Let's then say that we agree that this this formula is the recipe for what Einstein calculates as his theory of relativity. Then we suggest that his formula be adapted, and recalculated, to fit with cultural norms or societal mores. Can we then say we have a theory of relativity that works?

My sense is that we have to be very careful accepting cultural adaptations, and we must examine each adaptation and measure it against the Canon. My view is that it's not the Dhamma that needs to conform to western culture, but that western culture really needs to pay attention to what the Buddha actually taught, like it or not, and conform its conduct to that formula. Otherwise, we can call it Zen, or yoga, or psychology, or 'secular Buddhism," but we can't really honestly call it Buddhadhamma.

[tiltbillings]

Isn't part of the answer what Ven. Thanissaro is getting at? "they come not from the Buddha's teachings but from the Dharma gate of Western psychology"

My sense is that we have at our disposal the core Dhamma. Much has been discussed on DW as to what constitutes "core Dhamma," but some of the good scholarship suggests that the core teachings of the Buddha are found in the Pali Sutta and Vinaya. Having said that, to what extent do we allow the core teachings to be "adapted" or "westernized" before they no longer constitute the Dhamma? To use the analogy of the Dhamma as medicine, at what point does the recipe for the medicine get changed before it is no longer medicine, and just a more pleasant tasting placebo? To propose another analogy, let's say we have Einstein's formula for general relativity. Let's then say that we agree that this this formula is the recipe for what Einstein calculates as his theory of relativity. Then we suggest that his formula be adapted, and recalculated, to fit with cultural norms or societal mores. Can we then say we have a theory of relativity that works?

My sense is that we have to be very careful accepting cultural adaptations, and we must examine each adaptation and measure it against the Canon. My view is that it's not the Dhamma that needs to conform to western culture, but that western culture really needs to pay attention to what the Buddha actually taught, like it or not, and conform its conduct to that formula. Otherwise, we can call it Zen, or yoga, or psychology, or 'secular Buddhism," but we can't really honestly call it Buddhadhamma.

Who determines what is core Dhamma, based upon what criteria? And assuming that that could be objectively determined, who then determines that Zen or Madhyamaka do not meet that definition?

[SDC]

My sense is that we have at our disposal the core Dhamma.

My sense is that we have the blueprint to find dhamma. We have the seed. The texts are close. As close as they can be, but the rest is up to us. We need to take what we learn and develop our practice. This will inevitably lead to deeper understanding, away from a common understanding, away from SOME of the concepts in the texts, and away from SOME interpretations. Just like a seed becomes a tree.

However, I feel it is our tendency as westerners not to stray from that written word. We are taught that the knowledge in books is absolute and complete. That is what we like to see. We like to have it written down and spelled out for us. In that way it is more “reliable”. If it is published and it has solid references we feel the writer has done his due diligence and we can trust it to a certain extent.

In turn this can cause us to reject certain ideas and experiences based on their difference from the words. We may even find ourselves defending those words and try to keep everything in line with those words. If we go the full-on scholarly route we find our entire practice based on knowing the written word, but we have not been able to properly apply it and develop it.

Just a thought.

Didn’t read every page and apologize if any of this is repetitive.