There seem to be several things that American convert Buddhists have in common among the Zen, Tibetan, and Vipassana groups. They all focus on silent meditation (usually a form of bare awareness practice going by a different brand name depending on lineage), they are mostly lay oriented, they endeavor to have gender equality, many groups have evolved democratic structures and moved away from more autocratic personality cults, they emphasize practice over theory and even in terms of Buddhist doctrines that touch upon metaphysical claims there is a range of views from healthy agnosticism to outright rejection, and there is an attempt to go beyond sectarianism. On that last point, cross-fertilization is rampant. So when it comes to Zen, many lineages in North America mix Rinzai and Soto. Vipassana groups based on Theravadin practices can be found with statues of Kuan Yin or talking about the Heart Sutra as easily as the Metta Sutta or the Mahasattipathana Sutta. Most Tibetan groups seem to have an appreciation for the nonsectarian Rime movement. Even the Buddhist Churches of America (a Jodo Shinshu lineage) has been incorporating meditation here and there (their current bishop was a friend of Shunryu Suzuki).
It seems to me that what is emerging among American Buddhist practice centers is a kind of generic American Buddhism that transcends sectarian or ethnic boundaries but draws upon the Buddha Dharma as a whole, and more and more is looking to the sutras as the root of all these teachings and to silent meditation as the uniting praxis. There are exceptions to this of course, but I am just going on my impressions of what is in the bookstores and what I have seen at different centers around the country that I have been to. So for example:
There are American Zen Centers that now offer courses on the sutras - the Lotus Sutra, the Flower Garland Sutra, the Perfection of Wisdom Sutras and so on. San Francisco Zen Center has such a program, and I have heard or read of other centers that do as well. Some places even offer courses in Abhidharma.
Some American Zen Centers have been exploring the meaning and uses of ritual or what they call "forms" and are coming to have a greater appreciation for the recitation of sutras and dharanis. At least it certainly seems that way to me. I have been told that the Korean Zen Master Seung Sahn even used to lead chanting retreats and not just zazen retreats.
Many American Buddhist groups have also been looking beyond just silent meditation to the Buddhist ethical tradition, the various precepts and teachings about wholesome and unwholesome conduct. This ethical turn is at least partly the outcome of several centers and groups learning the hard way that antinomian approaches to Buddhist practice are a great way to crash and burn one's Sangha and get a lot of people hurt and feeling betrayed.
Now I may be misperceiving things, but my feeling is that at least some Zen Centers are becoming more like generic Buddhist centers than sectarian strongholds. What do I mean by this? I don't mean that I think they are losing touch with their lineages or that they are becoming less Zen. I do mean that I think they are becoming more Buddhist and less sectarian in approach even as they do justice to their specific teachings and heritage. So for instance at Mt. Source Sangha and Hartford Street and other places I have been I have heard lectures on the Lotus Sutra, Flower Garland Sutra, and Yogachara teachings, seen for myself that they recite sutras and dharanis and other dedications and vows common to many schools of East Asian Mahayana Buddhism. There are teachers who are well versed in the precepts, and Abhidharma, and other aspects of the common Buddhist heritage. And I don't hear so much rhetoric re "transmissions outside the sutras" or about how "Zen is beyond good and evil" and a lot of the other antinomian and anti-intellectual and frankly sectarian claims that one found in the early days of Zen in North America (as popularized by D.T. Suzuki and Alan Watts). At the very least I think one can say that the Buddhist element of Zen Buddhism is being reemphasized as American Zen Buddhists explore the greater heritage of Buddhism and its commonality with other schools, and as they feel more comfortable embracing that greater heritage and exploring what they have in common with or what they can learn from other schools - like the Tibetans or the Vipassana traditions. People like Stephen Batchelor (the author of Buddhism Without Beliefs) who trained in both Korean and Tibetan Buddhism, or Sangharakshita who was ordained in Theravada but trained in Tibetan and Ch'an Buddhism, are becoming less rare I think.
On the whole I think all this is a very good thing. This meeting of so many lineages from so many different Asian countries o the neutral meeting ground of North America and Europe and Australia is probably bringing about one of the most significant watershed periods of Buddhist history. It is really exciting to be a part of this. Oh - and I haven't even gone into the contributions of recent discoveries and investigations in neuroscience that has added a whole other dimension to all this - one grounded in the empirical hard sciences of the human brain states and how they may or may not correspond to mind states.
At Faithful Fools I have been exploring with the people who come to practice with me how to find the right balance between Nichiren and Buddhism to get a healthy and genuinely North American form of Nichiren Buddhism. To begin with, because Americans come to Buddhism to learn silent sitting forms of meditation I begin with 40 minutes of silent sitting. We sit facing the blank white walls as I find that such "wall gazing" to be the most relaxing and least distracting. But we frame that sitting period with three Odaimoku before and after so as to indicate that we sit in the spirit of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo - we sit as a manifestation of our devotion to the Wonderful Dharma. A discussion period follows that and as per trends in American Buddhism we focus on what Buddhism can teach us as householders/lay practitioners. In these discussions we can range over the entirety of the Buddhist heritage depending on what is specifically applicable and what people bring up. I have been asked about the Flower Garland Sutra teachings, about koans, about gardening as meditation, about visionary experiences and who knows what. At the same time, as a Nichiren Shu trained minister, I do bring in the perspective of the Lotus Sutra and show how the Eight Teachings and Five Periods of the Buddha Dharma (according to the pedagogical scheme of the T'ien-t'ai school that Nichiren utilized) work to bring us to a realization of Buddhahood in our lives here and now as per the teaching of the essential section of the Lotus Sutra. In this way, as householder practitioners coming to the Dharma for the first time we can benefit from the ultimate faith perspective of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo but also benefit from the more specific and pragmatically applicable guidance in the rest of the Buddhist teachings. For the last half hour we do a chanting service (sometimes we recite the Lotus Sutra in Englishm, other times in the more nondiscursive and rhythmic Sino-Japanese). And here Namu Myoho Renge Kyo as the primary practice and culmination of Buddha Dharma is emphasized and put into practice.
It seems that those who have come and continue to come to Faithful Fools like this approach. It seems to be less attractive to those who come expecting a more narrow sectarian approach coupled with a kind of pep-rally self-help magickal affirmation approach. Truly, that is where I was at in my teens and early twenties but it doesn't resonate so much with me anymore, though I still appreciate it on some level. The way I practice now feels more like the way a 40 year old with a job and a family and his act more or less together should approach and practice Buddhism. Maybe that is what the other people I talked about above are up to as well. The Hippy and Beat Buddhists of the past have grown up and figured out that the Dharma needs to be more than just a single OCD like practice coupled with flowery sectarian "promise you the world and instant enlightenment" rhetoric and no real ethics or practical guidelines other than chant or sit and just figure it out yourself. As they grew up they discovered that there was more to Buddha Dharma than that and they began reaching out and utilizing it and cultivating a more nuanced, more practical, less naive, and in general more well rounded and mature approach to Buddhism and life in general.
I guess that is why the Faithful Fools group is developing the way it is. Birds of a feather do flock together, and what seems to be gathering around me both at Faithful Fools and at other Buddhist groups I work with seem to be more thoughtful and considered practitioners in their 40s and older, and I hardly ever run into any younger people looking for a more triumphalist sectarian amoral approach to Buddhism. It is not even that I am consciously trying to exclude or turn away such people or that I am trying to attract the more thoughtful broad minded and kindly people of my own age. But that is what I seem to be gravitating to and attracting. It's a really nice thing actually, and until I began writing this I didn't really stop to appreciate it. But it really is something I should appreciate deeply. As Shakyamuni Buddha said to Shariputra, good friends (kalyanamitra in Sanskrit, zenchishiki in Japanese) are not just half of the holy life, they are the whole of it."
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei
Yes, there does seem to be a kind of generic Mahayan-ism that is percolating. A recent Tricycle blog article by Jeff Wilson has brought more of an awareness (at least to those using the internet to explore Buddhism) that in Asia silent meditation is not "typical" Buddhist practice, even among traditional practitioners of Japanese Zen...
Quote______________________________________________
In Japan, where virtually all Soto Zen practitioners live, Soto Shu emphasizes moral behavior, respect of elders, charity, and chanting in front of the home altar. Meditation is not a central practice and is generally only performed by a minority of the clergy, who are themselves a very small minority of members.
(link: http://www.tricycle.com/blog/jeff_wilson/3723-1.html)
___________________________________________________
I think given the similarity between this description and Nichiren/Japanese Pure Land schools (I don't know enough about Tendai and Shingon but I'm guessing it's the same), there has certainly been a very noticeable East Asian/Japanese form of Buddhism. So definitely the major emphasis on silent contemplation is a good marker for a developing "Western" version of Buddhist practice.
Another is the dropping of much of the overt supernaturalism as literal in favor of seeing much of the imagery of the sutras and "non-canonical" stories as symbolic. This is good but it also has some potential pitfalls I have pondered on occasion. There is a difference between being in direct contradiction to well-established established scientific principles or empirically testable conclusions and being partially or totally unverified by them. Hence the value of ahistorical truth(s), conveyed via parables, songs, or art, are never completely demonstrable by the aforementioned criteria or readily translated into a complete, accurate, and easily conveyed format using formulae and logical statements. That is where the challenge of "modernizing" sacred traditions/religions come into play, especially when in many ways the value of such ahistorical truth has for so long been demoted to second-class status because of its association with religious fanaticism and scriptural literalism.
Which is to say, it's all well and good to see the imagery in the sutras as symbol(s) or metaphor, but that there must be something(s) real on which such stories are and to which they point if they are to be meaningful. For example, one might say that the Pure Land is real (though not in a literal view of a place far away with jeweled trees), and that it is this world (all "worlds" are a part of the hear and now and this world is one aspect of all possible worlds), but not this world (in the sense that what most people perceive as "this world" is an incomplete delusion). I perceive the same kind of difficulty in explaining many Nichiren teaching as well - in particular the relationship between the Odaimoku, the Dharma, and the practitioner as each relates to the other and to what the practice really is/is doing/is about.
Ah, well, that was a tad longer than I had intended.
Be well :)
Posted by: tinythinker at January 19, 2007 09:18 PM"Triumphalist Sectarian amoral approach to Buddhism"- now that is a mouthful! Lost you on what it meant.
I'm not sure what generic Buddhism is...I've been blogging in an Yahoo group called Blackbuddhists- Buddhists of Color from a diversity of Buddhist and non Buddhist tradition dialoguing about race and Buudhism. Absolutely fascinating stuff that rarely ever gets explored in the maintstream Buddhist Journals like Shambala or Tricycle (except on a very superficial level about once a year).
Also despite all thoughts to the contrary there are still many Asians from a variety of countries practicing Buddhism.
If "Generic American Buddhism" means creating a form that is palatable to the White middle and upper class, I know that amalgam is happening. I see that expressed in many forms in Northern California.
But the America that I come from is increasingly Latino, Asian and Black. Sadly, I think the "Generic Buddhism trend" is mirroring much of the religious community in the US--Sunday remains the most segregated day of the week in our country.
Posted by: Mimi at January 19, 2007 09:58 PMAn additional note to some of what Tinythinker was mentioning: A comment was overheard at a Church of Religious Science class; to the effect that one of the practitioners there was a little envious of Buddhists, as we have in our canon of Bodhisattvas and historical figures a ready-made set of concrete examples on how to live one's life and be in the world. He felt that was quite missing from some of the New Thought/New Age type systems - they have no Bodhisattva Never-Despising or Hearer of the Cries of the World as examples and guides to one's own personal behavior and attitudes.
I try to remember that when thinking about trimming all of the symbology and flowery rhetoric down to a bare-bones philosophy; there is value in those things that we may not always see from our own individual perspectives.
Namaste, Engyo Mike Barrett
Posted by: Engyo Mike Barrett at January 20, 2007 05:30 AMSomething Mimi said...
Quote______________________________________________
If "Generic American Buddhism" means creating a form that is palatable to the White middle and upper class, I know that amalgam is happening. I see that expressed in many forms in Northern California.
But the America that I come from is increasingly Latino, Asian and Black. Sadly, I think the "Generic Buddhism trend" is mirroring much of the religious community in the US--Sunday remains the most segregated day of the week in our country.
___________________________________________________
I personally don't think that the general trends mentioned so far are only appealing to just middle/upper class white people - but I do believe that there *are* trends forming that are catered around people with more free time and money, such as seeing Buddhism primarily as a de-stressing/mental health treatment in which expensive retreats and paraphernalia are integral components, or viewing Buddhism as a rigorous mental discipline/hobby for those with enormous reserves of free time and an advanced education. I think that the reason such attitudes have developed/are being reinforced is simply because of how Buddhism became popularized in the West. But more importantly is the issue of what to do about the situation. In effect, Buddhism in the West has an image problem.
I thought an article that appeared a few years ago in Tricycle magazine by Clark Strand, called "Born in the USA", might generate some much-needed dialog, but I haven't seen much after-effect. Strand noted that SGI, a frequently controversial group promoting an always controversial version of Nichiren Buddhism (no offense to any SGI people), has had the most success in realizing cultural diversity in its non-Asian members. You are far more likely to find people who may identify themselves as black, latino, or virtually any other racial or ethnic label in one of their services than in a typical American Zendo or Insight center.
Ironically (and perhaps redundantly mentioned to those reading this who know more than I on this topic), there were figures in Japanese Buddhism such as Dogen (Soto Zen), Nichiren (Nichiren), and Shinran (Shin) who had also recognized a trend (though for different reasons) of Buddhism becoming too complicated, expensive, and out of practical reach for all but the wealthy and well-educated. These and other figures attempted to reintroduce (not reinvent) the Dharma in ways that were more meaningful and accessible to everyone in their society.
I really don't think that other forms of Nichiren Buddhism, or Shin Buddhism, or other forms intended to be part of a more equitable societal reform in their time, have *less* to offer to either "non-white" or "non-upper class" people than SGI (I also don't think other Buddhist schools and traditions in general have less to offer either). And what is more, such groups (take Nichiren Shu or the Shin-based Buddhist Churches of America as examples) have been composed primarily "ethnic" or "immigrant" Buddhists and their descendants. These groups are looking to expand and attract more so-called "convert" Buddhists. Then there is the often neglected and under-served "market" of people who are not necessarily in the mostly white, frequently highly educated, and often Jewish segment of society that has found Buddhism the most appealing so far. But these Buddhist organizations will need some kind of major marketing campaign (sorry, it's the most apt description I could come up with - and I don't necessarily mean a corporate campaign, it could be grass-roots too) to fix their image problem.
Posted by: tinythinker at January 20, 2007 07:29 AMYou want to turn Buddha or Nichiren into Jesus, but -America will not drink your KOOL-AID.
Buddhism does not exist, there is no Buddhism, it only exists in your mind, and you have made and twisted your ego-ism into a another gross ugly Religion.
Bruce
Posted by: Bruce Maltz at January 21, 2007 07:21 PM
Having "lived" in the SGI for 18 years and being an African American, I can vouch for the somewhat better acceptance of diversity in the organization. However many of the societal problems in the US play themselves out in the "org".
Having been around many kinds of Buddhists and New Agers in California for the last 20 years, I find the SGI the most welcoming for this person of color. I have trouble with hanging out with folks with "way too much free time on their hands"
I am a pragmatist- I have to live my philosophy and apply it daily in my life as a mother,neighbor and professional. I chose to spend my days challenging to myself to make a difference rather than consume myself with critiques of what others should and should not believe.
As for delusion and illusion about what religion is and isn't, I find rantings about egoism and what does and doesn't exist a prime example of someone with "way too much free time on their hands." There is a saying from my people about "talkin' loud and saying nothin'."
'Nuff said.
Posted by: Mimi at January 21, 2007 09:40 PMWow. Your contempt for other points of view is really quite breathtaking. So am I to gather then that because I chant, I must be amoral, a sectarian triumphalist and terminally adolescent to boot? The carping about adherence to precepts, specifically the anxiety that without an OCD-like--and righteous--focus on following rules must necessarily lead to one nihilism, seems to me to be about something else. I'm not faulting the precepts per se. I'm talking about rectitude and clinging, it seems like cart before the horse. When I've done this, practice dies instantly, replaced by a description of it, a simulacrum.
Posted by: Poi at January 24, 2007 07:01 AM"So am I to gather then that because I chant, I must be amoral, a sectarian triumphalist and terminally adolescent to boot?"
Well if I meant that then I would have to include myself as well since chanting is my own primary practice. There are however, reductionist approaches to chanting and approaches that are more mature and well-rounded. If pointing that out is "breathtakingly arrogant" then so be it.
As for the precepts - I am not advocating that people need to take formal precepts. Precepts are guidelines, and they can be used in an oppresive self-righteous way, or they can be used to encourage mindfulness and consideration of the law of cause and effect. But in and of themselves precepts and ethics will not bring you enlightenment. They will probably keep you out of trouble, as long as you don't use them to increase egotism. Basically, approached correct, precepts are concrete guidelines or descriptions of how a good hearted and awakened person acts. But without awakening and a good heart you are right - it becomes a simlacrum, a dead practice.
What I do try to point out to people is that when we are living in the spirit of Namu Myoho Renge Kyo then the law of cause and effects becomes clear to us. It becomes a deep and natural way of life to make good causes and avoid bad ones - regardless of whether or not we have taken formal precepts. In this approach to practice - precepts become like checking points or case studies of how selfless compassion looks in the world.
Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei