Buddha Dharma in the West

[Pathless]

Buddhism is a way of life that has so recently come to the western world that those of us experiencing it as westerners are digesting and defining the raw materials of other cultures' Buddhist ideals. There is, as of yet, no clear conception of what Western Buddhism may entail. The question, "What is the western expression of Buddha Dharma?" is still largely unanswered.

Historically, Buddhism is a way of life that started in India, then spread to surrounding regions in Asia. When Buddhism spread to these other areas, there were always natives in the area who asorbed the profound, inexpressible, and confounding truths of Buddhism, and then presented these truths in language and concepts that the minds native to their region could more easily comprehend. This happened in China and Tibet, for sure. I don't know much about Buddhism in Thailand or Vietnam, but I'm certain it must have happened there as well; same with Japan and all of the other places where the dharma of the Buddha spread. Each of these cultures then expressed the dharma in a unique way: for example, the direct, simple, no nonsense slap-in-the-face of Zen; and the complex lineages, hierarchies, rituals, and varying practices of the Tibetan schools. Looking just at these two, we can see incredible variety in which the fruits of the Buddha dharma are expressed, but we assume that each tradition expresses the essence of this dharma completely. Otherwise, these traditions would not have survived as such.

Much bickering is done in the west about lineages, transmissions, practices, rituals, gurus, and other such clap-trap, but a scarce amount of enlightened action is actually performed, in my opinion. For example, on this site, very recently, Samabhudi chased off with antagonitic shouts a new brother named bdchita, simply because Sam thought that bdchita's teacher and school of practice were rogues, charlatans, and it seemed even devils. "Don't rock the boat of dharma lineage," Sam lamented, shaking his illusory Vajrayana fist at the newcomer. "Stop holding so tight; just let go!" So the 'Bhudi typed, when really what he was expressing is "You suck! You're an idiot! And I'm attached to being correct!" Such arrogant expressions are, in my opinion, rotten fruit that fall far from the Bodhi tree and stoke the fires of hell. Not only that; they ironically illustrate the amazing ignorance of the speaker, who puffs himself up with hollow learning and false knowledge, only too make an ass of himself by disparaging others.

Now, certainly there is, I think, a place in Buddhism for fierceness, shouting down, and a warrior spirit, but if that is your only trick, you're missing the point. Spitting on meek-spirited Buddhists, throwing so-called dharmic thunderbolts from the top of virtual Himalayas without an ounce of compassion, are not enlightened actions.

Although this post was inspired by Samabhudi's delusional rant about correct lineages and ways to practice, I am not merely posting to lash his ego with a thousand wet noodles. No, I have larger fish to fry here. And those fish are the traditions themselves.

Traditions themselves are by their very nature clinging. They certainly are useful and have their place, but I would venture to say that no one ever experienced a flash of insight by memorizing the last two hundred gurus in the Ancient Lineage of Roaring Pink Lions of the Venerable Vajrabodhiananda. It's the whole finger pointing at the moon syndrome. To my mind, the biggest problem that Buddhism faces in the west is that, because it seems foreign and exotic and seems to hold such promise, a bunch of white boys and girls want to sit around with their eyes half-closed, inundated by clouds of incense, and float blissfully off to Nirvana, thus leaving the real world of suffering and joy behind. Thus, thousands of well-meaning spiritual aspirants trade a real chance for liberation and joy with a handful of plastic trinkets: buddha statues, shiny books about Vajrayana, dharma beads. They may also study under a genuine spiritual mentor, but unless they are able to free their own ego from the concepts of spiritual hierarchy and ascencion/transmission, they will never breathe one breath of real air. And, at least in Zen, the entire aim of spiritual practice is to experience those moments of sudden waking; moments where there is no I or other, where the dandelion fluff that floats on the breeze is the most vital food, where the sun is suddenly your heart, and where you are suddenly no longer yourself, but the wide open and amazed eyes of the universe.

Please don't get bogged down in the fascinating details of Buddhist history, thereby forgetting that nirvana is in the here and now, to be experienced in alert, waking consciousness. Please don't float off to the false bliss of a pseudo-enlightnment; if you do, you will not transcend samsara at all, but only abandon it to burn in its own delusions. Then, samsara, which is your innermost nature, your innermost heart, co-exisiting like a heartbeat with nirvana--then, samsara will call you back, enticing you with the sensualness you thought you had long ago transcended. It will continue to entice you, strangling you with the pain of its hideous love, until you are able to unite it to the bliss of your remotest, deepest, most alluring and tantalizing meditative trance.

In conclusion, I would urge everyone pursuing Buddhism as a spiritual path, as a vocation, as a hobby, or as whatever, to allow the infinite dharma gates to feed you and fill you. Absorb the truth of nirvana from the polluted springs of samsara; at the same time, cleanse the polluted springs of samsara into the ethereal, crystalline truths of nirvana. Such a practice of perpetual enlightenment is as much a warrior's path as it is a lotus-sitter's path. There is infinite time in which to shout down heretics sowing the seeds of illusion, just as there is infinite space to stretch your bodhichitta in non-violent merit and goodwill. There is time and room for it all; much more time than any Bodhisattva or Buddha knows what to do with.

Metta,
P

[samabudhi]

Much bickering is done in the west about lineages, transmissions, practices, rituals, gurus, and other such clap-trap, but a scarce amount of enlightened action is actually performed,

Things are not always what they seem. Perhaps the bickering is a medium for something deeper and more profound? They say the nature of mind is always there, we just don't recognise it.

You know, people don't pay attention unless there's something going on. A show about people being content and peaceful rarely rivals one about violence and action. So fine, don't renounce this, is it simply a manifestation of your own mind. Clearly those posts struck a nerve with you, but that's fantastic! It's like welling up the mud (kleshas) at the bottom of the stream (mind stream) so that it can be washed away (with awareness). Better to do it now in small doses than all at once at your death.

Your post is a mirror for your mind, not mine. I didn't write the things you say. Instead of seeing things as they are (yathabhutam), you have put words in my mouth.
Take another look at those posts. bdchit wrote a post only interested in one issue, and appendaged it asking for everyone to contact him personally. This is not how someone interested in constructive debate enters a forum, surely?

[Pathless]

Samabudhi, Namaskar

Yes, you have made me eat my own words:

Originally Posted by Pathless

...only too make an ass of himself by disparaging others.

Perhaps I was too harsh in my post and made a bit of an ass of myself, but I'm glad that I got your attention.

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Your post is a mirror for your mind, not mine. I didn't write the things you say. Instead of seeing things as they are (yathabhutam), you have put words in my mouth.

Okay. You're right; you did not say: "You suck! You're an idiot! And I'm attached to being correct!" That was the message I heard behind your words. Perhaps it is simply my subjective reality. Indeed, bdhit seems to have taken something positive from your posts, so it seems that what you say:

Originally Posted by Samabudhi

'Things are not always what they seem. Perhaps the bickering is a medium for something deeper and more profound? They say the nature of mind is always there, we just don't recognise it.

is truth. I would only remind you that your truth is a subjective one, as well. I'm sure you recognize that; yet, statments such as

Originally Posted by Samabudhi

...everyone else thinks otherwise. If all is empty, then why don't you just make it easier for yourself in conventional reality and respect the higher authority. Clinging to self is the only thing stopping you. And if it didn't bother you that much, then you wouldn't be here proselytising.

are simply disrespectful and do not--from my subjective vantage point --reflect that you recognize fully the subjectivity of your own experiences.

Which leads me to a tangential question: how analytically deconstructive can a person be without losing a sense of identity? Or perhaps that is what Buddhists are aiming for--loss of identity? But we all must live in a world that is both subjective and objective, and we all must define ourselves by polarities and dualism. As Buddhists, we can certainly visit a place of empitiness and no-thing-ness, but can we completely live in that place? This is a question that I am posing; anyone is welcome to answer. I'm not sure what my answer is at the moment.

Back to the matter at hand, Samabudhi. You suggest:

Take another look at those posts. bdchit wrote a post only interested in one issue, and appendaged it asking for everyone to contact him personally. This is not how someone interested in constructive debate enters a forum, surely?

Okay, I've taken another look at his original post. It seems harmless enough to me; simply a man ruminating about his personal experience on a spiritual path. He talked very candidly about the illusory nature that he ascribes to his experience. He didn't seem to be proselytising. Those were your words:

Originally Posted by Samabudhi

...everyone else thinks otherwise. If all is empty, then why don't you just make it easier for yourself in conventional reality and respect the higher authority. Clinging to self is the only thing stopping you. And if it didn't bother you that much, then you wouldn't be here proselytising.

I know I already quoted that. I have a few more words of yours that I would like to quote. I hope you don't mind if I make a bit of a context-cut collage out of them; my illusory self feels that your illusory self might find them helpful :

Originally Posted by Samabudhi

Your post is a mirror for your mind, not mine.

And so here is a mirror of your mind:

Originally Posted by Samabudhi

You know, people don't pay attention unless there's something going on. A show about people being content and peaceful rarely rivals one about violence and action...that's fantastic! It's like welling up the mud (kleshas) at the bottom of the stream (mind stream) so that it can be washed away (with awareness).

As an outsider looking in, I see you. I see your need for conflict, for violence, and for drama. I saw this clearly in your argumentative reply to a peaceful man's thoughts, his telling of his own experience, and his simple reminder that there is no "self."

Don't worry, though; as you say,

Things are not always what they seem. Perhaps the bickering is a medium for something deeper and more profound? They say the nature of mind is always there, we just don't recognise it.

Similarly, perhaps my bickering response to you--perhaps the fact that you managed to 'strike a nerve' with me--is something that you should take heed of. Don't let the violence you have stirred up pass you over again by pointing to others and taking the high ground. As you have pointed out, those kleshas just might hit you harder later on.

[samabudhi]

Namo Pathless

Which leads me to a tangential question: how analytically deconstructive can a person be without losing a sense of identity? Or perhaps that is what Buddhists are aiming for--loss of identity?

I think, rather, Buddhists aim at being unattached to their identity. Loss and gain are like birth and death - dualisms. There's no refuge in loss, as sooner or later it will give way to gain.

I think also people have different approaches to posting on forums. I've said some really stupid things on forums and felt like it was undoable. But there is such a large quantity of posts constantly flowing over the net, people really shouldn't bother too much about saying stupid things (unless you plan on running for president or something.) One day, there'll be a flood and all the data on the server will be lost - the only thing remaining will be the result of the karma we generated through our intentions.

As Buddhists, we can certainly visit a place of empitiness and no-thing-ness, but can we completely live in that place? This is a question that I am posing; anyone is welcome to answer. I'm not sure what my answer is at the moment.

The union of emptiness and bliss, or samsara and nirvana for example. We can meditate and reach one-pointed omniscience, but when we step out of our meditation it all goes to pot, we get angry/jealous etc. So they speak of the union of method and wisdom. What to do?

[Pathless]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

The union of emptiness and bliss, or samsara and nirvana for example. We can meditate and reach one-pointed omniscience, but when we step out of our meditation it all goes to pot, we get angry/jealous etc. So they speak of the union of method and wisdom. What to do? [emphasis by pathless]

Exactly. The bliss of meditation is transient--although not entirely. A pleasant meditation that allows us to see clearly past the dualisms and polarities of 'reality' also empowers us to work with vigor, calmness, and non-attachment in the world. This, too, is a form of meditation, and selfless service creates powerful ripple effects that can create profound and lasting changes towards enlightenment.

Originally Posted by samabudhi

I've said some really stupid things in the past on forums and felt like it was undoable. But there is such a large quantity of posts constantly flowing over the net, people really shouldn't bother too much about saying stupid things (unless you plan on running for president or something.) One day, there'll be a flood and all the data on the server will be lost - the only thing remaining will be the result of the karma we generated through our intentions.[Again, emphasis by pathless]

I agree with part of what you said, but not with your idea that we should not be concerned about saying stupid (or harmful) things. Our actions and words are not ours to hold. But they do have power that stems from their intent. The power of actions and words is not only their ability to create so-called karma for us as individuals; our actions and words also affect everyone that they come into contact with. That is why I feel it is important be mindful of the intent of our words and actions. Words spoken in frustration, anger, ignorance, or arrogance can create far-reaching negative effects (which is why your posts struck a nerve with me in the first place ). The same can be said for actions. Similarly, words and actions that are skillful, measured, calm, and charged with an intention of love and respect for other beings can create an amazing and powerful flow of good energy. Please remember that words and actions have incredible power. If we are responsible about our words and actions, charging them with intentions of understanding, harmony, love, joy, and all of that good stuff, I believe that we will quickly find ourselves walking in awe and grattitude along the path of enlightenment. It doesn't take much more than this kind of right effort.

Metta,
P

[samabudhi]

about our words and actions, charging them with intentions of

Perfect intentions comes before perfect speech.

If a lioness swats her cub into line, it is because her intention is foremost, and her actions (effort/speech) comes afterward. From a narrow perspective the lioness is not acting in the best interests of the cub, but from the wider view, which we can't always see, her actions are justified.

I'm not asserting that my actions/speech is justified or not, just that I have faith in my intentions, which are hopefully based on a perfect view.
Mmmmm... Hopefully. Good to read a lot and get lots of opinions.

Appreciatively.

[Asanga]

It has been my experience that many in the west who seem interested in Buddhism believe that it will meet certain psychological needs they have. I am not sure this attitude will work because there is so much more to Buddhism. This is especially true of those who do a lot of Zen sitting.

I thank you so much for this discussion. I hope it bears good fruit that we might all realize our Buddha Nature.

Blessings

Asanga

[Pathless]

Greetings, Asanga.

When you have time, could you elaborate more on the following statements?

Originally Posted by Asanga

It has been my experience that many in the west who seem interested in Buddhism believe that it will meet certain psychological needs they have. I am not sure this attitude will work because there is so much more to Buddhism. This is especially true of those who do a lot of Zen sitting.

Are you suggesting that approaching Buddhism as an avenue of self improvement misses the point? I ask because it seems such a stong motivating factor for people--or maybe I am simply speaking from my own experience. Also, if you would care to discuss more about ways of practice that are not simply sitting meditation, I think that would be helpful.

Appreciatively ,
P

[Zenda71]

Hello.

I recently found this article and have been passing it along to all interested in Buddhism in the West. I think it's helpful.

Metta,
Z

http://www.siddharthasintent.org/Pubs/West.htm

[Asanga]

Are you suggesting that approaching Buddhism as an avenue of self improvement misses the point?

We can find self-help ideas in Buddhism. This is certainly true. But that Buddhism's end is self-improvement (or the same, self-help) rather than liberation from samsara is hard to prove.

Take for instance "aikido". Some forms of Buddhist meditation will help the student develop better skills. No doubt. But we cannot say the end of Buddhism is aikido.

In popular Buddhism, the kind addressed in magazines like Shambhala and Tricycle, the emphasis it seems to me is on self-help (or what you call self-improvement). A primary example of aspects of Zen Buddhism being used for self-help can been seen in Charlotte Joke Beck's book, Everyday Zen. Western Lamas are going in this direction as well.

At some time in the near future, I believe there will eventually grow a divide between self-help oriented Buddhists and those who see Buddhism as a means of mind liberation from the travails of samsara.

I offer this as food for thought.

Blessings,

Asanga

[Devadatta]

Some interesting conversation going on here. Thank you.

On the self-help/liberation question, I don't know that the divide is fundamentally any different than it's ever been; from the Pali Canon on, as you know, Buddhism has always been about two tracks, and the goal of liberation has been only for the minority.

Perhaps the concern here is more the changed relationship between the popular forms aimed at the laity, and the more "serious" forms of monks & nuns, and the fact that in the modern West the laity figures more prominently than in Asian traditions and may be unduly influencing the tradition as a whole. But again, to my knowledge, the vast majority of Buddhists in all cultures have focussed on goals short of liberation.

On the other hand, one of the characteristics of lay Buddhists in the West that I'm aware of is not they're only interested in therapy, but on the contrary that they expect enlightenment here, now, and without retiring to a monastery. This to me is the more significant challenge to tradition as posed by the laity.

And then what may look like mere therapy to some eyes may not be so in fact. For example, I don't think the book "Everyday Zen" here cited can necessarily be reduced to mere self-help. Admittedly, it's difficult to distinguish "everyday mind" from plain old every day mind. But that's the whole trick of Buddhism, isn't it?

In the Pali Canon, we see monks continually realizing liberation through the mere insight "all compounded things are subject to dissolution". Clearly liberation was not magically evoked through these words, nor was there a precise moment in the course of mindfulness training, development of concentrations, or any other pleasant abiding when these monks were cleaned up just enough to "get it". That would be a conditioned liberation or nibbana, and tradition clearly maintains that liberation is unconditioned.

Zen tradition, too, is pretty clear in showing that "getting it" is quite independent of every state, however exalted. On the other hand, I think it also says that practice will help your chances, and that "getting it" will naturally lead you to more practice.

This leads into my take on this other question of the dichotomy between some "no-thingness" state and the everyday world. First of all, I don't think the dichotomy is meaningful in the conceptual way it's being posed. On the conceptual level, there is no difference between "no-thingness" and "many-thingness" - these are just labels for different states of abiding. Even in the Pali Canon it's crystal clear that the Buddha's nibbana was quite independent of all meditative states, even the ground zero of cessation-of-perception-and-feeling.

So for me the conflict here is not between some imagined state of enlightenment and the evil state of samsara, but simply the contrast between adjacent states, neither of which (properly speaking) having anything to do with enlightenment.

So in that sense the problem may be less that of getting enlightenment into one's daily life but in getting enlightenment the hell out of one's daily practice.

On the other hand, I may be misleading. After all, my name is Devadatta.

[samabudhi]

On the self-help/liberation question, I don't know that the divide is fundamentally any different than it's ever been; from the Pali Canon on, as you know, Buddhism has always been about two tracks, and the goal of liberation has been only for the minority.

Perhaps the concern here is more the changed relationship between the popular forms aimed at the laity, and the more "serious" forms of monks & nuns, and the fact that in the modern West the laity figures more prominently than in Asian traditions and may be unduly influencing the tradition as a whole. But again, to my knowledge, the vast majority of Buddhists in all cultures have focussed on goals short of liberation.

In Tibet however, the top of the food chain if you will, is not necessary someone who has taken monastic vows. Lamas could be married and have children living as normal people would, they could be monks and nuns, or they could even be anchorites, living in solitude.

But there are still two different tracks. One involves slogging away for years, maybe lifetimes, and the other, known as the short path is for those of us with capes who wear our underpants on the outside. People who chose the perilous short path often...well...they come short.
If the immediate goal is not liberation, then it's at least accumulation of merit. One could see this accumulation of merit as a preliminary, as you could see the self-help train of thought. But they always emphasise how preliminaries are the actual path. If someone isn't prepared for the short path they are better off preparing for it in their next lives, like Buddha did in his previous incarnations. Personally I don't see any conflict here - the west has a lot of catching up to do.

This leads into my take on this other question of the dichotomy between some "no-thingness" state and the everyday world. First of all, I don't think the dichotomy is meaningful in the conceptual way it's being posed. On the conceptual level, there is no difference between "no-thingness" and "many-thingness" - these are just labels for different states of abiding. Even in the Pali Canon it's crystal clear that the Buddha's nibbana was quite independent of all meditative states, even the ground zero of cessation-of-perception-and-feeling.

So for me the conflict here is not between some imagined state of enlightenment and the evil state of samsara, but simply the contrast between adjacent states, neither of which (properly speaking) having anything to do with enlightenment.

So in that sense the problem may be less that of getting enlightenment into one's daily life but in getting enlightenment the hell out of one's daily practice.

Or merging the path with the goal? I wouldn't give up on enlightenment nor forsake the worldly life. Renunciation, as I understand it in the Buddhist sense of the word, is not abandonment, though it might appear so.

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by samabudhi

In Tibet however, the top of the food chain if you will, is not necessary someone who has taken monastic vows. Lamas could be married and have children living as normal people would, they could be monks and nuns, or they could even be anchorites, living in solitude.

But there are still two different tracks. One involves slogging away for years, maybe lifetimes, and the other, known as the short path is for those of us with capes who wear our underpants on the outside. People who chose the perilous short path often...well...they come short.
If the immediate goal is not liberation, then it's at least accumulation of merit. One could see this accumulation of merit as a preliminary, as you could see the self-help train of thought. But they always emphasise how preliminaries are the actual path. If someone isn't prepared for the short path they are better off preparing for it in their next lives, like Buddha did in his previous incarnations. Personally I don't see any conflict here - the west has a lot of catching up to do..

In Ch'an/Zen too, as you know, there was much traffic about slow versus quick. Interesting how many ways there are to slice the dichotomy, while remaining essentially false however you slice it.

Originally Posted by samabudhi

Or merging the path with the goal? I wouldn't give up on enlightenment nor forsake the worldly life. Renunciation, as I understand it in the Buddhist sense of the word, is not abandonment, though it might appear so.

This is my take as well. To me maybe the most important (if still false) dichotomy is between those who feel that liberation literally entails disappearance from the world, and those who see it (at the risk of being misunderstood) as disappearance into the world. Early Buddhism, if we are to take the Pali Canon as its reasonable representation, was pretty clearly dominated by a literal fervour to escape the world, and for some perhaps it didn't matter where they were escaping to, samsara was that awful a prospect. (As others have pointed out, this is parallel to early Christians who expected the rapture at any moment, and fervently yearned for it.)

At the same time other, less literal readings of the early canon are possible, and were later fairly explicitly expressed in the Mahayana. And I guess it's also been shown that on another level we're really only talking about different stages of practice, that perhaps we need the motivation of fear of samsara to begin serious practice at all.

But to me it seems clear that liberation is more a "turning in the mind", as the Lankavatara says, than some literal disappearance into the inconceivable. So I'm always a little perplexed by the persistence of the old literal track, and by Buddhists who fervently desire to "disappear".

[Asanga]

Perhaps the concern here is more the changed relationship between the popular forms aimed at the laity, and the more "serious" forms of monks & nuns, and the fact that in the modern West the laity figures more prominently than in Asian traditions and may be unduly influencing the tradition as a whole. But again, to my knowledge, the vast majority of Buddhists in all cultures have focussed on goals short of liberation.

I think you have summed up my concerns accurately. As we both know, boiling it all down, the Buddha taught essentially two groups, viz., prthagjana (the worldly) and arya-sravaka (the transcenders), the latter of which made up the trisarana sangha. The first group revolves in samsara trying to win merit, the second gets out of samsara.

What has happened over the years has been a gradual blurring between prthagjana and arya-sravaka. Some monks claim the monk sangha is the same as the trisarana sangha made up of arya-sravaka (which, of course, is not true), while lay-persons seem to disregard the critical distinction between prthagjana and arya-savaka. At any rate, it gets confusing and can lead to some fierce debates.

Maybe my heart of heart concern was that western laity might find someway to dump the whole prthagjana and arya-sravaka distinction.

Anyway, your thoughts have been great. I look forward to more of your analysis.

Blessings,

Asanga

[Devadatta]

Originally Posted by Asanga

Maybe my heart of heart concern was that western laity might find someway to dump the whole prthagjana and arya-sravaka distinction.

I guess on one level it’s simply an institutional problem. Every tradition needs, specialists, a sort of professional class to preserve it and to do the heavy lifting, similar to the committed leaders of any community.

At the same time, there’s a tension between the simple institutional role of specialists, and the idea that only specialists have access to the real truth. In the Pali Canon the emphasis is preponderantly on the near necessity of the renunciant life to reach liberation, though a liberated lay person is not ruled out altogether (or so I understand). And early in the development of the Mahayana, the accomplished, liberated layperson was given full expression in sutras like the Lion’s Roar of Queen Srimala, and the Vimalakirti.

That tension is never going to go away, but if I had an ideal it would be one where the specialists are accorded full respect for their work, their more purified actions & and their greater scholarship, but that the essential truth, Vimalakirti’s smile, would be considered the property of no one.

But I think I need to return to your original therapy/liberation dichotomy because there’s an aspect I missed the first time around. (Obviously, I should have reflected more before responding.) And that’s the fact that Buddhism of all major traditions may be the most susceptible to devolving into the mere therapy you’re talking about. From the point of view of basic practice, its simplicity, its lack of metaphysics, it’s easy to see the Buddha as the original psychotherapist, the first self-help guru, and thus very liable to assimilation to our age of psychobabble & self-help.

So you may be right that there may be a parting of the ways. But I hope you’re wrong, because in that case what is likely to happen is a retreat by many into the mere forms of the root Asian traditions. So instead of true transmission – which is the vital translation of the essential core into a novel setting – we’ll have mere psychology on the one hand, and empty forms on the other. To me that’s the most pressing danger of the concern you’re raising.

with metta