[nineplay]

I've frequently seen "Buddhism" adopted by westerners from a secular or Judeo/Christian background and treated as though it's some sort of feel-good practice which lets them feel vaguely superior to other religions without any serious changes in beliefs or practices.

I saw a well regarded movie recently where the main characterized Buddhism as "a philosophy rather than a religion" which made it clear that no Asians had been involved in the making of that film. I was with a friend at a Asian market and he looked snottily at some of the Buddha statues and said "Those don't have any relationship with _my_ religion". I wanted to ask if they'd ever been in a Thai restaurant. It's such a dismissal of the way Buddhism has been practiced in cultures for a couple thousand years - but this white American clearly knows better.

[pradn]

Throughout Buddhist history, the contemplative, meditative, "philosophical" Buddhism has always been practiced by a small minority of monks and nuns. Even at the height of Buddhist fervor in the middle of the first millennium, far under 0.5% of the population of, say, China were monastics. (In fact most of those simply had certificates of monkhood that exempted from corvee labor - taxes in the form of labor, and weren't seriously committed to spiritual practice.)

Most Buddhists have been lay followers content to pray at temples to ease their worries and bring good luck, seek the monastics for ceremonies like weddings and funerals, and donate to monasteries to keep their spiritual practices going. The whole of Mahayana Buddhism is far more concerned with the worship of spiritual intercessors called Bodhisattva's, those who have achieved enlightenment but have chosen to stay behind to help devotees. This form of Buddhism constitutes the bulk of religious practice in East and South East Asia. To ignore it in favor of only one strand of Buddhism is like seeing Christianity only through the eyes of Flagellants or Dominican monks or anchorites.

[travisjungroth]

The source of the conflict is that when most people in the US say “Buddhism”, they mean “Buddhism that was exported to the US in the 60s.” which was an odd combination of monastic and secularized. It’s actually a strange combo when you think about it. Most Buddhists are more like Americans on Easter Sunday.

[lhorie]

I'm confused by this comment. Do you mean to say that Buddhists ought to engage in religious flame wars? FWIW, Buddhism is fairly centered on self-improvement, with idolatry being generally seen as respectful reverence, or at worst as lucky charms.

I don't see the problem in taking just the teachings of a belief system while ignoring the idolatry aspect. In fact, some western takes on religion could use less idolatry.

[pmoriarty]

"Buddhism is fairly centered on self-improvement"

That's one aspect central aspect of some types of Buddhism, but compassion is also central in many forms of Buddhism, particularly in the Bodhisattva traditions and teachings of the Mahayana branches of Buddhism, where the goal of self-improvement is sacrificed for the sake of easing the suffering of the rest of humanity.

Community (the Sangha and the lay people and every other sentient being) is also very important to many forms of Buddhism, and many Buddhists are socially active or at least engage in charitable works which are as much about helping others as anything else.

That's not to mention the selflessness and the giving up of attachment to goals like "self-improvement" at higher levels of Buddhist practice that is also emphasized in some forms of Buddhism.

"idolatry being generally seen as respectful reverence, or at worst as lucky charms"

There's lots of idolatry throughout the real practice of Buddhism around the world. Lay Buddhists in particular (on whom monastic Buddhists are so dependent, and without whom monastic Buddhism would would largely cease to exist) often pray to the Buddha for protection, luck, cures and wealth, and worship various gods and spirits. This is all Buddhism to them, and Buddhist monks are not free of such beliefs either.

In Tibetan Buddhism belief in gods and magic is widespread, as it is South East Asian Buddhism. Buddha is effectively treated as a god in Pure Land Buddhism, where he is prayed to for salvation and in hopes of being reborn in what is essentially paradise.

Claims that Buddhism as a whole is secular, atheist, not idolatrous, "scientific", etc, are not credible. Sure, some forms of Buddhism are (particularly the kinds that have been created for Western consumption), but many others aren't.

[lhorie]

> Buddha is effectively treated as a god in Pure Land Buddhism, where he is prayed to for salvation and in hopes of being reborn in what is essentially paradise.

I knew of Buddha being prayed to (mostly for luck) and of prayer for salvation separately, but not both simultaneously, that's interesting. I was personally exposed to prayer rituals for deceased family members, but my understanding is that the prayers aren't directed at Buddha per se, it's more seen as the act of praying itself helping to open a path to everlasting peace or something like that. IMHO, this is several degrees removed from the original teachings though, similar to how there are multiple abrahamic denominations with various degrees of "quirks".

I'm also aware of some historical conflicts branched off of some of these "interpretations", hence why I tend to look for historical common ground between buddhism flavors.

[nineplay]

I think it is pure ignorance to call Buddhism a "philosophy rather than a religion" and sneer at idols. You might as well sneer at a display where a round, black-and-white ball is called a 'football'. It shows a complete lack of knowledge about any form of Buddhism practiced anywhere outside of your little world view

[lhorie]

So, for a bit of perspective, as a child, I was mostly exposed to the ritualistic aspects of buddhism, which is probably the closest experience to what a westerner thinks of when thinking of "religion". Do I think that people prioritizing mindfulness to de-stress and calling it Buddhism are kinda missing the point, sure. Do I get offended that they aren't aware of the existence of things like buddhist prayers, for example? No, not really. Honestly, assuming that "bastardizing" buddhism would offend people like me seems like needless SJW-ness for its own sake, especially considering Buddhism has already been bastardized to the wazoo throughout history. </two-cents>

[nineplay]

Can I rid myself of the "SJW" label if I say that I'm not offended, I just think they are idiots?

[lhorie]

I didn't mean to call you one, sorry if it came out that way. Personally, I just tend to see this the same way I see grammar nazis (in the context of language being a malleable construct over time)

[hangonhn]

"Do you mean to say that Buddhists ought to engage in religious flame wars?"

We have engaged in far worse than flame wars. Buddhists have fought in actual wars at various points of history and done other not so great things. For example, D.T. Suzuki is known for his writing on Zen Buddhism but he was also something of a right-wing nationalist.

I think GP is advocating that we approach Buddhism in its whole form rather than just the bits and pieces we are most comfortable with.

[rendall]

Buddhists are currently engaging in the genocide of the Rohingya in Myanmar. No philosophy is beyond being subverted to evil, and ascribing to a particular philosophy will not protect you from doing evil.

[bobthechef]

I don't understand the mention of "Judeo/Christian background"[0] or the invocation of race where religion is concerned (cultural is downstream of religion, anyway), but in any case, it is true, based on what I have read, that "American Buddhism" as practiced in the United States is sort of a consumerist ethos dressed up in Buddhist garb. The case is similar where Hinduism is concerned. The phrase "I am God" coming from the mouth of a traditional Hindu means something different than it does coming from an American who has immersed himself in a kind of Hindu-coated consumerism. The latter is sort of a pantheistic claim, at least theologically, while the latter is likely the expression of consumerist egoism.

[0] Btw, I would suggest using "Christian" or "Jewish or Christian" instead of "Judeo-Christian". There are important incompatibilities between post-Christian Talmudic Judaism and Christianity (itself fractured) that cannot be glossed over with a hyphen.

[nineplay]

Thank you for pointing that out, it is an unfortunate shorthand and I should stay away from it. I tend to use it as a hand-wavy way to say "fair-skinned Americans who probably celebrated Christmas or Hanukkah growing up" but I'll stop.

[hef19898]

Buddhism always had a lifestyle aspect to it in the West. We have benn in Ladakh once, for the monastery festival season. There we also witnessed a procession around one the holy mountains. The monastery festivals were quite touristic, especially the ones in famous locales. This procession was a purely local thing, besides my parents and myself there was another tourist couple. The people there measured, above 3,500 meter over sea level, heat and dust the distance of the route in their body length for a full day. That quashed any illusions I might have had about Buddhism being an "easy" religion.

Also the people their were just sincerely nice. I didn't want to bother them, keep a distance during their break. 20 minutes later I had lunch with them.

[potatoman22]

Why villainize the "white American", portraying them as "knowing better"? Yes, the mischaracterization of Buddhism is disrespectful, but it comes from ignorance, not malice.

[nineplay]

It is ignorance that borders on arrogance. They must know that Buddhism is over two thousand years old. They must know that it is central to many cultures all over the world. Yet they somehow are confident that their way is the 'right' way.

[medstrom]

Ah, the amorphous "they". Like the amorphous "many". I'm not sure there's all that many that do this.

[mcguire]

"I was with a friend at a Asian market and he looked snottily at some of the Buddha statues and said "Those don't have any relationship with _my_ religion"."

[potatoman22]

Perhaps you should approach this issue with more compassion.

[copio]

How can you pick and choose without on some level being aware of what you are excluding?

[pmoriarty]

"I saw a well regarded movie recently where the main characterized Buddhism as "a philosophy rather than a religion" which made it clear that no Asians had been involved in the making of that film."

Asians are as capable as anyone else at secularizing Buddhism (or of doing anything else, really).

Take the example of D T Suzuki[1] himself -- the man who is arguably more responsible than anyone else for bringing Buddhism to the West.

"In the mid-20th century, Japanese lay scholar D. T. Suzuki was instrumental in creating a Zen which would be acceptable to Westerners, a project undertaken to position post WWII Japan as a modern, powerful nation and its culture as refined and superior in the face of Western hegemony. Suzuki sought to remove Zen from its historical and cultural context and make it accessible and applicable to everyone. This extraction cut its ties to monks and monasteries, the precepts, sangha life, rituals and teachings, and set up instead the individual internal experience of awakening as the only reliable "truth." Positioning Zen as based on the truth of personal experience protected it from rejection as superstition or as a creation of a bewildered community. At the same time, it could not be replaced by science or rationalism because the awakening experience was said to be subjective and ineffable. It was beyond all the limitations of organized sects, cultural manifestations, or political exigencies. As Robert Sharf explains,"

"The notion of "pure Zen"--a pan-cultural religious experience unsullied by institutional, social, and historical contingencies--would be attractive precisely because it held out the possibility of an alternative to the godless and indifferent anomic universe bequeathed by the Western Enlightenment, yet demanded neither blind faith nor institutional allegiance. This reconstructed Zen offered an intellectually reputable escape from the epistemological anxiety of historicism and pluralism."[2]

"Several scholars have identified Suzuki as a Buddhist modernist... Buddhist modernist traditions often consist of a deliberate de-emphasis of the ritual and metaphysical elements of the religion, as these elements are seen as incommensurate with the discourses of modernity. Buddhist modernist traditions have also been characterized as being "detraditionalized," often being presented in a way that occludes their historical construction. Instead, Buddhist modernists often employ an essentialized description of their tradition, where key tenets are described as universal and sui generis. It was this form of Zen that has been popularized in the West... In his discussion of humanity and nature, Suzuki takes Zen literature out of its social, ritual, and ethical contexts and reframes it in terms of a language of metaphysics derived from German Romantic idealism, English romanticism, and American transcendentalism."[1]

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_T_Suzuki

[2] - https://ancientwayjournal.wordpress.com/2016/05/15/origins-o...

[nineplay]

I don't have any problem with practicing a seculars form of Buddhism. I have a problem with somehow believing that it is the only way to practice Buddhism. Suzuki removed it from its historical and cultural context, but he wouldn't have acted as though the historical and cultural context didn't exist.

[dorchadas]

> I have a problem with somehow believing that it is the only way to practice Buddhism.

Or, worse, that it's more authentic than any types of Buddhism practiced in areas that have traditional Buddhism. I saw/see this attitude a lot. It just reeks of arrogance and ignorance.