Western cultural adaptations

[Kare]

The Buddha taught the Dhamma in order to help people. So how can the teachings be of help for you and for me?

Maybe that's not the right question. It seems like a characteristically Western question.

Western = wrong
Eastern = right

Is this how your dictionary looks?

Instead of staring blindly at the Eastern/Western dichotomy, take a closer look at what the Buddha did and said. He lived his life as a teacher, motivated by compassion. He wanted his teachings to be of help. So how can asking how the teachings can be of help, be the "wrong question"?

But it is no simple task. It may be difficult to decide if a certain point of practice or doctrine belongs to the core Dhamma or if it is the result of some Asian adaption. Therefore it is good to discuss what is the core, what is Asian adaptions, and what kind of adaptions we should make. Some of the adaptions we already have done may be good, others less so. But the principle stands. Western people have exactly the same right to adapt the Dhamma to their own lives as people in Asian cultures have been doing for thousand(s) of years. We need to study the Dhamma carefully to try to find the real core. And we should learn from the different adaptions made in the living traditions. Then we may be able to see how the core Dhamma can be fit into our own culture so that it becomes a living and transforming force in our lives. We can, and should, discuss and criticize this or that specific adaption. But this criticism should not turn into a criticism of the idea of process itself of making adaptions. "Pure and unadapted Buddhism" is a fiction that belongs in a museum.

The question is whether an adaptation can still deliver the originally promised result, namely, the complete cessation of suffering.

An adaptation certainly can help people in ways they wish to be helped, in ways they think they should be helped. But whether such help then results in the complete cessation of suffering is another matter.

You are missing the point. A close study of the history of Buddhism reveals that all the living traditions are adaptions. There is no unadapted Buddhism to be found. Therefore the question is not 'adaption or no adaption?'. It is: Do you want to step into an illfitting adaption made for others, or do you want an adaption that is tailored for your own size?

[Ben]

Hi Kare,
Thanks for your response. What I was attempting was to explore what practice is or what it looks like given that Buddhism has been utterly transformed by its contact with the west and western ideas since the 19th century. Even the nikayas and ancient commentarial literature are interpreted and framed through the cultural and psychological milieu of the translator.
Something else to consider, and it is something that I have mentioned elsewhere, is that what we define as practice, in this time and (virtual) space is very different to what was practiced in traditional Buddhist cultures prior to European colonisation.
For me, personally, these are important discussions, important questions.
With metta,
Ben.

[seeker242]

Thoughts? Additional ones? Disagree?

Aversion to any kind of concept of faith. Mostly coming from people who have bad experiences with other faith based religions growing up, etc. This could rightly be called "baggage" IMO as faith, the Buddhist kind, is quite beneficial!

[Kare]

Hi Kare,
Thanks for your response. What I was attempting was to explore what practice is or what it looks like given that Buddhism has been utterly transformed by its contact with the west and western ideas since the 19th century. Even the nikayas and ancient commentarial literature are interpreted and framed through the cultural and psychological milieu of the translator.
Something else to consider, and it is something that I have mentioned elsewhere, is that what we define as practice, in this time and (virtual) space is very different to what was practiced in traditional Buddhist cultures prior to European colonisation.
For me, personally, these are important discussions, important questions.
With metta,
Ben.

I agree. These are important discussions, important questions. Would you like to suggest some answers, or some way for finding the answers?

[Ben]

Hi Kare,
I don't feel qualified to offer any answers or ways to arrive at answers.
For me, it's a matter of continuing with my own practice, as I have been practicing, continue in my study and reflexive self examination.
With metta,
Ben.

[Mr Man]

Thanks for your response. What I was attempting was to explore what practice is or what it looks like given that Buddhism has been utterly transformed by its contact with the west and western ideas since the 19th century.

Hi Ben, Does this apply to the Thai forest tradition and also some of the other Thai folk/esoteric traditions + the non Theravada traditions? Perhaps it is relevant that although Thailand was certainly influenced by European ideas, it was never colonized. possibly the same goes for Tibet.

[Anagarika]

Hi Kare,
Thanks for your response. What I was attempting was to explore what practice is or what it looks like given that Buddhism has been utterly transformed by its contact with the west and western ideas since the 19th century. Even the nikayas and ancient commentarial literature are interpreted and framed through the cultural and psychological milieu of the translator.
Something else to consider, and it is something that I have mentioned elsewhere, is that what we define as practice, in this time and (virtual) space is very different to what was practiced in traditional Buddhist cultures prior to European colonisation.
For me, personally, these are important discussions, important questions.
With metta,
Ben.

I agree. These are important discussions, important questions. Would you like to suggest some answers, or some way for finding the answers?

I feel fortunate that we have the Bhante Gavesakos, the Ven. Thanissaros, the Bhikkhu Bodhis, and many others that offer this instruction as to what the culture, the experience, and practice should look like. We have scholars like Dr. Gombrich and others that can investigate through a relatively unbiased lens what ancient and orthodox practice looked like, and sounded like. I'm not smart or skilled enough to undertake these investigations, so I depend on the quality and compassion of these teachers showing the rest of us the way. As Ven. Thanissaro suggests, we take these teachings and then apply them to our own lives. He notes that like Michael Jordan, we study and practice, we dedicate, and improvise where necessary to apply these practices to our own experience to determine what works best. One example of this might be meditation/jhana, and how with solid instruction, we then incorporate these teachings into our own experience, and mold them into a practice that brings about release from the fetters. We can then compare the scholarship, the investigations, and the results of practice to what is being offered in the western marketplace, and determine for ourselves what is authentic and useful, and what might be an adaptation or cultural fetter that leads to an aberration.

[Ben]

Hi Mr Man,
As I understand it, the Thai Forest Tradition is the result of a revivalist movement that began in the first half of the 20th Century but echoes prior revivalist movements.
All forms of Buddhismł appear to have been altered as a result of its contact with the west.
If I get a little more time tomorrow, I'll attempt to provide a bit more detail.
With metta,
Ben

[Coyote]

Don't know if anyone has mentioned it yet, but I have heard Ven. Thanissaro talk about how westerners struggle with guilt much more than asians. Something to do with guilt vs. shame cultures.
More about guilt vs shame here:
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/auth ... tions.html

[tiltbillings]

I feel fortunate that we have the Bhante Gavesakos, the Ven. Thanissaros, the Bhikkhu Bodhis, and many others that offer this instruction as to what the culture, the experience, and practice should look like. We have scholars like Dr. Gombrich and others that can investigate through a relatively unbiased lens what ancient and orthodox practice looked like, and sounded like. I'm not smart or skilled enough to undertake these investigations, so I depend on the quality and compassion of these teachers showing the rest of us the way.

And Venerables Anayalo and Nanananda and Joseph Goldstein among others who clearly fit this bill: As Ven. Thanissaro suggests, we take these teachings and then apply them to our own lives. He notes that like Michael Jordan, we study and practice, we dedicate, and improvise where necessary to apply these practices to our own experience to determine what works best. One example of this might be meditation/jhana, and how with solid instruction, we then incorporate these teachings into our own experience, and mold them into a practice that brings about release from the fetters. We can then compare the scholarship, the investigations, and the results of practice to what is being offered in the western marketplace, and determine for ourselves what is authentic and useful, and what might be an adaptation or cultural fetter that leads to an aberration.

For all our efforts to get to the heart of the Buddha's Dhamma, we are going to adapt it.

[binocular]

Western = wrong
Eastern = right

Is this how your dictionary looks?

Nope, and it's telling you suspect that.

Born and raised as s a white European, I do experience Buddhism as a distinctly foreign religion, and myself foreign to it. And while I can intellectually understand that this is just my particular conditioning, it is also not something I can just gloss over.
My having an interest in Buddhism doesn't seem to trump that conditioning, though.

I may be many things, but I am not an Asian supremacist. My dislike of certain Western ideas and practices is independent of and predates my interest in Buddhism.

Instead of staring blindly at the Eastern/Western dichotomy, take a closer look at what the Buddha did and said.

I don't know what the Buddha did and said, I wasn't there. I can only speculate and take things on faith. Which for me is a huge part of the problem.

He lived his life as a teacher, motivated by compassion. He wanted his teachings to be of help.

Even if we go with that, we can probably only say that he wanted his teachings to be of help in regard to a particular purpose.

Surely the Buddha wasn't interested in helping slaughterers develop more effective slaughtering techniques (even though slaughterers may be interested in getting help with that), nor was he interested in helping people develop better means for armed warfare (even though people interested in warfare may be interested in getting help with that).

So how can asking how the teachings can be of help, be the "wrong question"?

Because it is at least incomplete. Like I said above - help in regard to a particular purpose.

I suppose we can say that the Buddha was interested in helping people realize the complete cessation of suffering, but that he was disinterested in helping them in some other areas of life.

You are missing the point. A close study of the history of Buddhism reveals that all the living traditions are adaptions. There is no unadapted Buddhism to be found. Therefore the question is not 'adaption or no adaption?'. It is: Do you want to step into an illfitting adaption made for others, or do you want an adaption that is tailored for your own size?

Thank you, I can make an adaptation that fits my own size. And while this may give me a good ego-boost and a sense of "self-realization" - who knows whether it leads to a complete cessation of suffering or not.

I'm just not that much of an individualist, I guess, to value my own creation above some ideal of pure unadapted Buddhism. I don't know if that pure unadapted Buddhism exists, but it is important to me to think that on principle, it does exist, and is what is worth striving for.

[binocular]

And Venerables Anayalo and Nanananda and Joseph Goldstein among others who clearly fit this bill: As Ven. Thanissaro suggests, we take these teachings and then apply them to our own lives. He notes that like Michael Jordan, we study and practice, we dedicate, and improvise where necessary to apply these practices to our own experience to determine what works best. One example of this might be meditation/jhana, and how with solid instruction, we then incorporate these teachings into our own experience, and mold them into a practice that brings about release from the fetters. We can then compare the scholarship, the investigations, and the results of practice to what is being offered in the western marketplace, and determine for ourselves what is authentic and useful, and what might be an adaptation or cultural fetter that leads to an aberration.

For all our efforts to get to the heart of the Buddha's Dhamma, we are going to adapt it.

"Making the Dhamma your own" and adapting the Dhamma are two different things, though.

It is paramount to make the Dhamma one's own as per the above essay.

An adaptation, especially a cultural adaptation, is an attempt to rewrite it and reconceptualize it altogether, and then declare it to be "the only true Dhamma, ever, for everyone."

[tiltbillings]

And Venerables Anayalo and Nanananda and Joseph Goldstein among others who clearly fit this bill: As Ven. Thanissaro suggests, we take these teachings and then apply them to our own lives. He notes that like Michael Jordan, we study and practice, we dedicate, and improvise where necessary to apply these practices to our own experience to determine what works best. One example of this might be meditation/jhana, and how with solid instruction, we then incorporate these teachings into our own experience, and mold them into a practice that brings about release from the fetters. We can then compare the scholarship, the investigations, and the results of practice to what is being offered in the western marketplace, and determine for ourselves what is authentic and useful, and what might be an adaptation or cultural fetter that leads to an aberration.

For all our efforts to get to the heart of the Buddha's Dhamma, we are going to adapt it.

"Making the Dhamma your own" and adapting the Dhamma are two different things, though.

It is paramount to make the Dhamma one's own as per the above essay.

An adaptation, especially a cultural adaptation, is an attempt to rewrite it and reconceptualize it altogether, and then declare it to be "the only true Dhamma, ever, for everyone."

Well, in making the Dhamma our own, we adopt it and adapt, which is an ongoing process dependent upon our intellectual understanding and insight arising from practice. As for "reconceptualizing," we are always reconceptualing. My understanding of the Dhamma now is radically different from what is was 45 years ago when I started down this path. As for 'then declare it to be "the only true Dhamma, ever, for everyone",' it seems that those who declare such are those fail to look the gift horse in mouth.

[binocular]

My understanding of the Dhamma now is radically different from what is was 45 years ago when I started down this path.

Of course. And as long as you don't go out and claim that your understanding of the Dhamma is the only right one, ever, for everyone, there is no problem.

It's when people assume themselves to be authorities on "what the Buddha really meant" (which is what cultural adaptations tend to do) that we end up in the murky waters of sectarianism and all the suffering it brings with it.

[tiltbillings]

It's when people assume themselves to be authorities on "what the Buddha really meant" (which is what cultural adaptations tend to do) that we end up in the murky waters of sectarianism and all the suffering it brings with it.

Why would a "cultural adaptation" lead to an assumption knowing "what the Buddha really meant?" Was Ajahn Chah a sectarian? This sentence of yours makes no sense.