shaun
Full Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by shaun on Mar 7, 2013 8:07:47 GMT 1
In my city/country (Australia) there are quite a few different buddhist temples. The vast majority of them cater to particular ethnic groups & language can be a problem for anglo/celtic Australians. The exception to this are the Tibetan & Zen schools. Is there a reason other schools such as theravada & pureland haven't really caught on as much in western culture, or am I wrong & this phenomena is most likely only in my city/country. The reason I'm asking this is that since the old forum closed down I've been doing a bit of investigating & studying & for me, (& I'm not suggesting everyone would find this true for themselves) I seem to be getting led back to pureland, which unfortunately is not particularly well represented in my city & when it is it is usually in vietnamese. I got some books off their temple though which were in english & one of them in particular is great. It's a childrens book designed for buddhist sunday school teachers & is recommended for kids between 8-16. (I don't have the heart to tell them that I've read it more than the kids, so I'm going to keep noble silence.
Good-luck & best wishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Mar 7, 2013 11:48:06 GMT 1
Hard to say, but for me (in the UK) looking for groups I would tend to agree I see more Tibetan and Zen overall, although the big cities seem to have a decent Theravada presence as well. But it does feel like Tibetan and Zen are more high-profile in the culture. This is very subjective though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Mar 7, 2013 21:37:51 GMT 1
Good question. Of course I can only give my own view on this, and I'm known to be opiniated  Many people who come to Buddhism in the West have some knowledge of Christianity or grew up in a Christian family. Quite a few people probably - like myself - are not enthousiastic about the emphasis on blind faith in Christianity, and feel they do not get decent answers from it. So they look for something else to give their lives meaning. I understand that Pure Land Buddhism also emphasizes faith a lot, rather then intensive study or extensive meditation practice, in that sense perhaps too similar to Christianity for many Westerners. Theravada Buddhism is often not very exciting from the outside and therefore for some people perhaps not so much 'on the radar'. Zen emphasizes strict discipline and (in particular Soto Zen) powerful meditation. In combination with Japanese culture, it fascinates people and they want to try it. Tibetan Buddhism is interesting to many for the extensive ritual and not in the least by the person of His Holiness the Dalai Lama. Besides that, the traditions within Tibetan Buddhism all have different emphasis: on tantra (ritual), powerful meditation (including very long retreats) and extensive scholarship. To me that explains the popularity of Tibetan Buddhism; simply many fascinating aspects to it. |
|
shaun
Full Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by shaun on Mar 8, 2013 21:47:16 GMT 1
I suppose that's fairly true but doesn't Tibetan also need a lot of faith, I'm led to believe that tibetan also has quite a big emphasis on the purelands. When I think about it buddhism in general requires a certain amount of blind faith in karma & re-birth. As far as the emphasis on meditation what you wrote is as far as I know only 1/2 true. Japanese pureland has little to no emphasis on meditation, but most of the chinese schools do. The style of meditation is similar to the one used by the Thai forrest monks, the only exception being that in the pureland style the breathing is done quite deeply, filling the diaphragm to capacity & the word being repeated over in the mind is Amitabha rather than buddho. Some of the chinese schools are referred to as Chen/pureland. Chen is the chinese word for zen which as you said very meditation focused. What you wrote about it not requiring a lot of academic/scholarly knowledge I believe to be true.
Good-luck & best-wishes. Shaun.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Mar 9, 2013 16:14:46 GMT 1
Hi Shaun, When I think about it buddhism in general requires a certain amount of blind faith in karma & re-birth.
Well, I think that blind faith is very different from making a motivated choice - even if it is a choice about matters we do not fully know or understand. Karma & rebirth are things that are very hard for us to see, prove or fully understand. Still, we can make a choice about what we think is most realistic. Other people can chose to believe in one life only, but that is quite different from blind faith. For example, let's say you want to buy a new mobile phone. If you then go and watch TV for the first ad to show up on mobile phones and chose that one, I would call that blind faith. But if instead you first try to find some reviews of a few phones on the internet or listen to the experience of your friends and base your choice on these 'independent' reviews, I would not call that blind faith. Of course it does not mean that our choice is the best one in the end! Until I'm fully enlightened, I cannot be 100% sure of anything really.  Blind faith can be quite dangerous; history has proven all too often that when people follow leaders or beliefs blindly, they can be easily completely misled, and quite often with terrifying consequences. Without using our mind and taking responsibility for our own actions, I find it hard to define the difference between humans and animals... In Tibetan Buddhism, Pure Lands are certainly mentioned, but it is also taught that merely reciting a mantra is not likely to get us there. To really become liberated from suffering, we need to develop our minds, and not be a kind of music player just repeating mantras. To be honest, I know little of the Japanese Pure Land tradition, or how they practice exactly. |
|
matt
Senior Member
Posts: 425
|
Post by matt on Mar 11, 2013 17:03:37 GMT 1
I think the best form of Buddhism is the one we practice. So, even though I have next to no knowledge and no first hand experience with Pureland Buddhism, I think if that appeals to you it must be good.
On the other hand, what we practice is usually pretty simple. I have read and listened to a number of teachings and received some empowerments, but I always focus on one or two types of meditation. I am sure the deep philosophical discussions a few of us enjoy can be intimidating and off putting to a lot of people, but that only reflects our interests and analysis and does not mean that any form of Buddhist practice needs to be complicated.
The Dalai Lama recently said there is no need for complicated philosophy, the heart and brain are the temple, the philosophy is kindness.
I am really impressed with the Vietnamese Buddhists I know. I think they often acquire an effortless grace that is very attractive, but the language barrier is a problem.
Also the philosophy itself is often not so complicated as it is deep and profound. It requires a new way of thinking, and I think the kinds of observations you have posted about life on your little homestead is very much what that philosophy (of interdependence) is about Shaun.
Western Individualism does not enhance most people's happiness in the long run, but interdependence does eventually. It is not a hard philosophy to understand, but it takes time to work its way into our thinking.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Mar 31, 2013 6:07:29 GMT 1
I think this is a good thread. It's funny because many times I see discussion of differences between Theraveda, Mahayana, Zen, Tibetan and Pureland, etc. while in reality they are so similiar and almost identical. The differences are so minor and frivolous that it shouldn't even be an issue at all whatsoever. I think most people in the West feel this way towards Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and pretty much all of Eastern religion. They all have the same basic tenets with just a few extensive variations which are mostly semantic. I would hate to see Buddhism become fragmented, denominational and competitive over meaningless diatribe. That is what happened to Christianity over the centuries which caused much bloodshed. Buddhism is inherently very flexible and free-flowing. It is difficult to pinpoint exactly what it is. It is beyond mere explanation or description in petty words. It is akin to the mind of "God" which would be inherently unknowable. Or the presence of the Universe which encompasses everything. It is almost laughable to dispute "dogma" of Buddhism because the Buddha was never dogmatic in the first place.
|
|
shaun
Full Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by shaun on Apr 3, 2013 5:49:07 GMT 1
Hi Brian, I read your post & agree with most of it in some ways, however we all live different lifestyles & that is what I believe is the reason for 84000 doors to enlightenment. Zen practitioners spend large amounts of time each day meditating & I just don't have this time to spare, Tibetan buddhism requires a lot of study & reading, while I do make it a point to read a bit each day about buddhism in all honesty I was never much of a student & would be hard pressed to win a debate against anyone over anything.
My practise is fairly simple, I read a bit, meditate a bit & do a fair bit of chanting during the day at work, as I work on my own most of the time.
As far as day to day living goes, I follow the 5 precepts as best I can, I remind myself daily of the 4 noble truths & the noble 8fold path. I dedicate my merits when making dana & try my best not to harm others. In this respect you're right, simple buddhism like this could easily follow any, or at least most schools without a problem. However once you pick a school & try to fit in with the sangha it's probably best if they're similar to you. Westerners that follow buddhism quite a lot of the time are either academics or new-age hippy types, I know that this is not always the case but a lot of the time it is.
What I need is a simple buddhism, one that doesn't have to be questioned at every turn.
The only change I'd like to see with western buddhism (please bear in mind I'm referring to my city) is more emphasis on charity, there are many deserving people & causes out there, I know that it may be their karma but also by helping to change their karma/situation we may also improve on ours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on Apr 4, 2013 14:10:57 GMT 1
Very true Brian. I also agree on the dana you mention.
However, one very important thing in Buddhism is that in order to really change the world for the better, we need to know what to do best. We simply don't know what is best without some study and practice at least.
So of course, helping others is extremely important - even for our own karma to make progress on the spiritual path - but it is important to realize that giving someone food today doesn't keep the hunger away tomorrow. Even good work within samsara is at best like trying to mob a floor dry while the tap is still open. It doesn't say we shouldn't mob the floor, but closing the tap (of delusions) is probably a lot more effective.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brian on Apr 7, 2013 22:39:09 GMT 1
shaun wrote What I need is a simple buddhism, one that doesn't have to be questioned at every turn. I think that's where I'm at too. It seems like I asked so many difficult questions and always came to agreement with the Dharma. My faith and confidence in the Buddha's teachings are pretty solid, so it's sort of pointless for me to complicate and over-analyze it. The most important thing is to remain mindful and aware of the buddhadharma under every condition and situation. Peace and Happiness for all under the sun. May we be fearless and strong in our liberation from suffering. |
|
togen
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by togen on May 27, 2013 1:57:07 GMT 1
I think the answer to the original question is simply that those two schools made a special effort to reach out to the West, and the other schools really have not. They tend to be culturally and racially focused when they come West. And do not make a great effort to reach out to the community except those who were born into their school.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rudy on May 27, 2013 17:34:07 GMT 1
Good point Togen / Mitch and welcome back! |
|
tamara
Senior Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by tamara on May 28, 2013 3:15:28 GMT 1
Hello Mitch, is it you ...., welcome again Which 2 schools are you referring to ? Tamara |
|
tamara
Senior Member
Posts: 178
|
Post by tamara on May 28, 2013 3:37:09 GMT 1
Eh, got it, Tibetan and Zen...
T.
|
|
