Real Life with Ryuei

The sixth kind of Buddhism?

I just realized that I didn't write about a sixth paradigm of Buddhism in my last blog entry. First of all, I am not really sure there are five or six or even how useful it is to divide up periods of Buddhism like this. It's just me thinking out loud about how Buddhism has developed after reading Hans Kung's treatement of Islam, Christianity, and Judaism.

Still, as a practicing Buddhist and the facilitator of a practice group in San Francisco I do have a sense of what Buddhism can be in the modern developed world in the 21st century (or at least until everything breaks down catclysmically and we are all living Beyond the Thunderdome).

First of all, I think Buddhism is not going to be about big temples or megachurches (or megatemples?) or even big practice centers like San Francisco Zen Center. I really think Zen Center was a fluke - a fortuitous convergence of the times, culture, trends, and personalities. I think that era is gone. Even Thich Nhat Hanh's Plum Village in France came out of that era I think. Are there any more big self-sustaining Buddhist practice centers being established anymore now that there aren't a bunch of spiritually adventerous counter-culture types to support them? I don't know of any. Maybe I just don't know about it. Apparently now is the era of putting togther big polygamy cult compounds - not so much Buddhist practice centers. Anyway, from what I see and am experiencing, now is the time for small groups of practitioners getting together in homes, or community centers, or other rented spaces or even liberal churches.

I also think the time of monasticism is over. I think this is a shame actually, and I hope world culture will eventually develop an appreciation for the fruits of monasticism for both the individual and the community at large - even if that monastic vocation is not a permanent one but a matter of extended retreats. Anyway, what I am seeing is intensive householder practice. People who are in between monastics and laypeople as Shunryu Suzuki observed. People who try to live mindfully, and try to set aside time daily to engage in some form of Buddhist practice, and who even try to find times to go on more exteneded retreats (whether one day, three day, week long, month long, or even longer in some rare cases but without permanently leaving job and family).

I also see that those drawn to Buddhism (even those from traditional Buddhist cultures) are more interested in what its really about beyond the myths, rituals, popular piety, and the "health, wealth, love (or lust), and afterlife insurance" angle. They don't want to be scholars, they want practical knowledge that can help them find a deeper meaning in life right here and now. They want something to make them think and to inspire them - not just outlandish myths or dry analysis or wild speculations and dogmatic creeds. And they do look for guides who know the traditional materials but can help sort through them and make sense of them to people in this age and in this culture (by which I mean a primarily middle-class metropolitan culture).

So I say that the new Buddhism will require some new forms of the Middle Way in these areas:

1. A Middle Way between individual practice and big temple Sunday go to meeting practice. This Middle Way is the way of the small group meeting for practice and discussion. In some ways, this is what the historical Buddha probably actually did - gave short Dharma talks to small groups of renunciants and/or householders and then they would practice that teaching through various forms of cultivation (bhavana).

2. A Middle Way between the householder way and the monastic way. This is the way of incorporating Buddhist practice and teaching into a life of job and family with all its demands, challenges, temptations, frustrations, and rewards. This way may seem easier than a life of renunciation but is in fact more challenging and potentially more liberating if that challenge can actually be met. The Vimalakirti Sutra provides a model for this.

3. A Middle Way between an overly simplified or mythic popular piety and the more dry and complex scholarly analysis of the teachings. In this way, those who have plumbed the depths and navigated the expanses of the Buddha Dharma find ways to share the practical bottom line in order to inspire and guide actual practice in daily life. These teachings are imparted in talks and small group discussions, and all are invited to investigate the teachings themselves to the best of their ability and level of interest. The teacher then becomes a facilitator who empowers others to learn and apply knowledge on their own rather than a dispenser of dogmas and authoritarian instruction. In my experience with three Buddhist New Religions and the two traditional schools of Buddhism I have seen various different ways of doing this:

1. The discussion meeting could be a time for infomercial style testimonials followed by an indoctrination using only materials sanctioned by that group.

2. The discussion meeting could be more like a group therapy session wherein problems in daily life are used for reflection on how the Buddhist teachings can speak to and be applied to the situation.

3. The discussion can be centered on a teacher who gives a Dharma talk and may or may not provide time for other people to respond and ask questions (though usually this is done).

4. The discussion meeting can be a time for different people to have turns to do their own research on the topic and present their findings and reflections and to in turn elicit further discussion wherein everyone gets a chance to respond, ask questions and comment.

I wouldn't necessarily link any particular group with any one of those different formats. I have also seen that the various groups I have observed or have been a part of will use different formats depending on circumstances. At Faithful Fools I tend to use the 3rd format with time for discussion more often than not, but not always. At the San Jose Temple the talks after the services follow the 3rd format but with no questions or response (usually), but our study groups follow the 4th. Only one group I know of uses the first format, and that is not even universal in that group. Another group I know uses the second format, but I have seen other groups use that approach from time to time as well. What is common to all four is that they are each attempts to boil down and share Buddhist teachings in a relevant and practical way.

With that, I'll continue thinking more about this in another blog...

Namu Myoho Renge Kyo,
Ryuei

Posted by Ryuei at April 21, 2008 04:44 PM