Buddhism for the West?
Some of the discussion on this site has centered around what tradition or spiritual path is appropriate for Western people in this day and age. Some say one or another form of Christianity. Others favor various pagan spiritualities.
This discussion is not academic or theoretical. In America, we face in a situation in which most people:
1. are not deeply connected to a spiritual tradition, since Christianity was already on the decline by the time of the founding, and the forms of it which the first European settlers brought with them were already non-Traditional in many respects.
2. are not deeply connected to the land itself, and thus not to any autocthonous traditions such as those of the continent’s prior inhabitants.
Thus, Americans seeking a spirituality are in a quandary, or rather, at a cross-roads. We are in Nietzsche’s phase of nihilism, in which the old gods and values have died, but new ones have yet to be born. In some ways, our situation is like that of ancient China during the Warring States period, when different philosophies and worldviews actively competed with one another for dominance. The stakes are real, because the vacuum is real, and nature abhors it.
It seems to me that one such contender for the throne is Buddhism. It has taken root in the West in a remarkably short time, and will likely continue to do so, particularly in its Tibetan and Japanese Zen manifestations.
Buddhism has much to recommend it. It is an authentic tradition that has been well-preserved (particularly the above-mentioned forms.) It has an advanced philosophy and metaphysics which, because of its ‘negative theology,’ appeals to modern skeptical minds and can dialogue and debate with science in a way that Christianity has been unable to. Its greatest strength, in my view, is its emphasis on meditation. Buddhism’s highly developed system of meditation, built around the pillars of samatha and vipassana (shi-ne and lhagtong in Tibetan) is surely one of the greatest spiritual treasures of the world, and one of the best methods available to contemporary people.
However, because of the nature of our age and the particular conditions of our country and our people, there are some problems with the emerging ‘Western Buddhism.’
The problem is not that Western Buddhism will have its own distinct characteristics that will make it unique. This has been the case with all forms of Buddhism in the world, for better and for worse. In the case of Tibet, Buddhism encountered a strong native shamanic tradition (Bonpo) which it was able to merge with, adapting it into a Traditional form. Similarly, Buddhism in Japan assimilated various Shinto deities as bodhisattvas and protectors. Each of these nations had strong traditions that Buddhism was able to grasp onto, like a plant cutting which uses another plant’s roots for its own nourishment and growth.
But in America, and the West in general, we have largely lost touch with the sacred, and we have no strong tradition that Buddhism or any other authentic spirituality might grasp onto. Sure, there is dialogue between Christians and Buddhists, with the former taking up meditation and the latter considering Jesus as a great bodhisattva or enlightened being. But it doesn’t seem to add up to much. If anything, the encounter between Buddhism and science seems more vital and potentially fruitful.
So instead of seeing Buddhism working with an existing, native tradition in a constructive way, we see modern, rootless people desperately grasping at foreign cultures for an identity and a worldview.
This brings us to the problem of Buddhism’s connection with both leftist politics and the ‘new age’ movement. The first generation of Western Buddhists has largely come from the counterculture of the 1960s, and they have brought with them many anti-Traditional values that pose an obstacle to the establishment of authentic dharma in the West. Consequently, most Buddhist groups and organizations are overrun with hippies, activists, would-be artists and other such types who have thoroughly imbibed the decadent and destructive ethos of the modern West.
And so this ethos of nihilism has infected Buddhism, which is presented as the anti-West; as the antithesis of what the West has traditionally stood for. Whereas we have said ‘soul,’ Buddhism says ‘no-soul.’ Whereas we have said ‘God,’ Buddhism says ‘no God.’ Whereas we have said will and strength, Buddhism says pacifism and sensitivity. (Mind you, I’m speaking here of the way Buddhism presents in the modern West, and not of authentic, Traditional Buddhism. The apparent contradictions in doctrine are readily explainable. See, for example, the works of Ananda Coomaraswamy. What I mean to emphasize is why the modern West is attracted to what appears to be its own negation.)
Buddhism has been turned into another string on the lash with which modern Westerners flagellate themselves, along with the revisionist history of the last fifty years which says that America, Western imperialism and white men are the greatest evils the world has ever known. One sees the effects of all this in the defeated, distorted, and at times pathetic characters of Western would-be Buddhists, and one can almost hear the whip cracking as they tell themselves, “There is no God.” Crack! “I don’t exist.” Crack! “My country and people are evil.” Crack! “Others are more valuable.” Crack! It would seem we are the heirs of the Puritans after all.
Buddhism in the West is unfortunately tied to Western ‘Asia-philia’ and the general idealization and romanticization of every culture other than its own, which is the flip-side of its endemic self-hatred. This self-hatred that Westerners bring to the dharma is a perverting and distorting influence. A person who hates himself and feels worthless will not properly understand the teachings on selflessness, and will instead likely fall further into despair because of them. Similarly, the Mahayana teachings on placing others before oneself and valuing their interests above one’s own becomes a ‘spiritual’ justification for the cultural and political suicide of the West.
If Buddhism is to truly take root here, it will have to outgrow this nihilistic liberalism which is currently intertwined with it. We can only hope that there are enough people dedicated to keeping its essence alive, and that future generations will not have to tell the story of yet another great tradition that modernity extinguished.
Copyright © 2009, 2010 Gornahoor Press
Whether or not the Buddhism that has arisen in the West is the right type does not matter so much that it has come. Guenon’s obvious position on the arrival is that it is most definitely a good thing. In Crisis of the Modern World, he pointed out that the arrival of Eastern wisdom makes possible the rediscovery of Tradition and is in no way an “existential threat” like some critics believed.
While the goals of Buddhism have been perverted, a lot of the techniques have been well-preserved and can possibly be modified to capture its positive content again. It will take action to make this happen.
Comment by VisionsOfGlory14 — 2010-07-21 @ 22:56
A very accurate assessment of the mindset of American “Buddhists” especially. For a brief time I attended a Zen Buddhist sangha in the Los Angeles area, and the majority of them were white far leftist artsy types with a huge grudge against western civilization and a massive dose of self-loathing. They see Buddhism as some sort of antidote to Western and Christian “sexism”, “racism”, “homophobia”, etc.
But I wonder if it’s true that Buddhism’s metaphysics is advanced? Isn’t it precisely because the Buddha refused to expound a metaphysics because he felt it would be mere opinion and not lead to liberation that led, and still leads today, to misinterpretations and misunderstandings? At least that is the opinion of the individual at attan.com
Comment by Robman — 2010-07-22 @ 14:42
Robman,
Quite correct. The Buddha’s silence, considered something along the lines of an extreme form of negative theology, on the exact experience of the Absolute Reality (notice how the Buddha never denies there is an absolute reality in the pali canon, quite the opposite, he affirms it) and his highly misunderstood words “This is not my Self” has led to so many distortions among almost all western Buddhists, and even a significant amount of eastern ones.
You would think it wouldn’t be that hard for supposed intelligent people to discern the difference between the idea of “that is not the Self(Atman)” and “there is no Self” and be able to find in their copies of the Sutta Pitaka that the Buddha clearly states that there is an unconditioned dimension (absolute reality) that has no beginning or end. And the ancient Nagarjuna, the most famous Buddhist philosopher after Siddharta himself, has also been heavily misinterpreted with his idea of emptiness (it is not “nothingness”, and it was not meant as an ontological statement, but more of an empirical one). But as Coomaramswamy and Evola pointed out in their writings, there is a largely deliberate misunderstanding of the Buddha’s words that has been going on for not only years, but centuries.
Comment by Matt — 2010-07-22 @ 17:43
Please do recommend the best texts of/about/on Bhuddism.
E.g. what is a good book containing the most originary sayings? What is a good book containing the most useful descriptions of practices?
The Doctrine of Awakening need hardly be mentioned.
Comment by Chin Sao — 2010-07-23 @ 11:41
Chin Sao,
Off the top of my head, the renowned Japanese scholar Hajime Nakamura’s writings are definitely worthwhile, along with Ananda Coomaraswamy. And you may not agree, but Evola’s Doctrine of Awakening is worth mentioning.
Comment by Matt — 2010-07-23 @ 12:47
Chin Sao,
I don’t subscribe to the view that the oldest texts necessarily represent the most faithful or true version of the Buddha’s teachings. However, some of the people who do subscribe to this view have produced excellent works. Scholars disagree as to whether the Pali canon is the oldest collection, or whether some Chinese collections are. And just because an existing tradition uses older texts doesn’t mean it’s more authentic. South Asian Theravada uses the Pali Canon exclusively, but in my opinion, some of the Tibetan schools are more authentically Traditional.
As for books, from a Traditionalist perspective, there is Ananda Coomaraswamy’s numerous writings, such Buddha and the Gospel of Buddhism, Hinduism and Buddhism, and others. George Grimm’s The Doctrine of the Buddha is a good introductory text for scholars and philosophers, though perhaps a bit too long-winded for the layman.
In spite of their mis-appropriation by hippies, some Asian teachers of the 60s and 70s produced excellent works. Cutting Through Spiritual Materialism by Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche should be required reading for anyone interested in spiritual teachings. His other works are excellent as well, and contain good, basic meditation instructions. Part of the problem with beginning meditation is that people inevitably expect great and wondrous things to happen, and sometimes delude themselves into believing that they are happening. This expectation is something that has to be let go of and ‘cut through.’ Trungpa Rinpoche’s earthy language and penetrating insight is a good antidote to this.
Daring Steps Toward Fearlessness by Ringu Tulku is a good overview of the Buddhist path according to the Kagyu and Nyimgma schools of Tibetan Buddhism.
The above is only my opinion, but I hope it is of some help to you.
Comment by Will — 2010-07-23 @ 13:07
Robman and Matt,
I think I was wrong to use the phrase “advanced metaphysics,” which may carry connotations that I did not intend. What I meant to refer to is Buddhism’s elaborate philosophical tradition which, as you pointed out, refuses to reify or codify the Absolute – refuses to mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon itself. Because this inevitably involves talking AROUND the subject, the discourse has approached it from all sorts of different angles throughout the centuries, with different sects accusing others of heresy. (The debate between the Shentong and Rangtong schools is very interesting.)
It seems to me that studying different views – both within the Buddhist tradition and outside of it – is very beneficial, as it affords one a kind of multi-dimensional perspective and potentially fosters an understanding beyond mere words or logical systems. It’s one thing to say, “The Absolute is ineffable and beyond words,” but unless this is an actual experience, “ineffable and beyond words” is merely another set of words; another conceptual scheme, though a more subtle one.
Comment by Will — 2010-07-23 @ 13:22
Will,
I very much agree with that. The limitations of language is a prime example of why the traditions have used symbols and images as a better approximation.
Comment by Matt — 2010-07-23 @ 13:42
It is said that one of the marks of an authentic dharma teacher is that they do not propound a view which falls into any of the ‘four extremes,’ which are: existence; non-existence; both existence and non-existence; neither existence nor non-existence.
I think that’s a good example of how the discourse points at what is beyond words and logic, since linguistically and logically, it seems that something HAS to be one of the above. When the mind contemplates it, there is a kind of short circuit that happens.
Incidentally, I think the Platonic notion of aporia is based on this same principle. That’s why so many of Plato’s dialogues end without actually defining what they were inquiring into.
And thanks for the Nakamura recommendation. I’d not heard of him before, but I looked him up and I’m anxious to read some of his work.
Comment by Will — 2010-07-23 @ 14:39
I think Buddhism cannot be divorced from the traditions it grew out of. I have noticed that the new age Buddhists have a particular dislike towards Brahminism or HInduism and try to keep emphasizing how different Buddhism is from the older traditions, even though the more one studies Buddhism the more one realizes one cannot understand it without understanding what preceded it.
I myself prefer the company of an authentic Christian to many new age Western Buddhists I come across…
I think the forms of Buddhims one sees are petrified traditions: once Buddhist monks used to be the smartest men of their times, keeping up with all forms of knowledge of their time. And now? They are more interested in transcendental meditation and have not kept up with knowledge of the times…
Comment by kadambari — 2010-07-23 @ 21:44
Rhys Davids who I am currently reading is excellent in her understanding of the earliest Buddhist doctrines–I have almost finished reading Shakya it’s very good….Look forward to reading her other books!
Comment by kadambari — 2010-07-25 @ 07:33
As an aside check this out. Nalanda is being restored. Located in Bihar, currently the poorest and most backward State–India’s “heart of darkness”– it is hard to imagine that Bihar was once the center of Buddhism, and housed one of the world’s first universities which drew students from all over Asia…It was torched down by Afghan Turks and was so large and was said to have burned for several months… (I believe the library of Alexandria had a similar fate?). Although reviving a university entails just more than the construction involved, this is an interesting project…
Scholars revive ancient Indian university: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2dbc69a6-9f2b-11df-8732-00144feabdc0,dwp_uuid=a6dfcf08-9c79-11da-8762-0000779e2340.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nalanda
Comment by kadambari — 2010-08-04 @ 12:22