I’ve given a lot of thought to our emerging Buddhisms of the West.
As I count them there are various sorts of traditionalists ranging from Western Buddhists of East and South Asian descent who were raised in the West within various cultural enclaves including, near as I can tell, every Buddhist nationality, to traditionalist converts, often Vinaya monastics, although by no means all.
What precisely is traditional is of course a bit on the slippery side. Mostly, however, these Buddhists are marked by a very conservative approach to the great matters of authority, ascribing a range of views about the person of the Buddha that tend toward omniscience, and giving about the same veneration to the texts attributed to him. Their ways tend to follow from this point.
Of course conservatives often disagree on what to conserve. For instance, the Lotus Sutra, which has conservative and literalist adherents, has its very canonicity challenged by conservatives of the Theravada tradition. Actually most in the Theravada tradition would similarly challenge the Perfection of Wisdom cycle, the Pure Land Sutras and the Avatamsaka Sutra, to begin a list…
But that’s someone else’s issue..
Frankly, I’m not terribly concerned with the sectarian debates of the Theravada/Mahayana divide. Rather I’m more concerned with the emerging liberal Buddhisms, mostly found in the West, mostly among the convert community. (By no means exclusively. As an example, there is some very exciting work going on within the Buddhist Churches of America, a mix of Buddhists of Japanese descent and converts following one of the Pure Land schools.)
The first areas of challenge for many within the Western Buddhist mahasangha turned at the heart of the soterological project. Is Buddhist salvation simply concerned with ending the cycles of birth and death in a literal sense? For many in the West the answer has been no. And, so, the first areas of challenge have turned on the doctrines of karma and rebirth and how they best can be engaged. The most prominent exploration of these issues was articulated in Stephen Batchelor’s famous (for some notorious) broadside Buddhism Without Beliefs. A lively debate has followed with various people staking various positions.
Other issues of concern to the convert and more “liberal” Buddhist community have turned on the relative status of monastic and lay practice and with that the place of women and sexual minorities within the practice of the Buddhadharma. In general the liberal perspective has been to flatten the relative merit of being ordained or lay and holding up the possibilities of awakening for everyone in this lifetime.
And, awakening itself has become an area of concern. Is it a noun? Something attained once and forever? Or, is it a verb, something we participate within as an action?
To just barely begin to outline the concerns of the emerging Western and liberal Buddhisms.
My actual concern for this brief reflection is what method can we bring to these investigations? I think this is really important. We’ve started off with great energy, and often great heart. But, as we go forward are we simply to be informed by our intuitions and tastes? This would be a dangerous path, I think. Indeed its hard not to think of the blind men wandering out into the wilderness…
To win our way to something of actual use, we need to reflect a little and, I believe, to embrace ways, methods that are more likely than not to get us where we want to go.
And I have some thoughts on this matter.
When I was in seminary for complicated reasons I found myself frequently in the company of Anglicans. I’ve come to hold them dear and have found much wisdom within their ranks. And, I think there’s a particular sense of method that they hold which I believe can be a valuable guide for us within the Western and liberal Buddhist mahasangha as we seek to find our way.
Within Anglicanism there’s something called the three-legged stool. It’s the particular style they bring to the investigation of their own tradition. It’s attributed to a sixteenth century Anglican theologian Richard Hooker and represents the flowering of the theological controversies in the English church best known as the “Elizabethan Settlement.” Hooker and others held up three aspects of their way, also interestingly, a “middle way,” of scripture, tradition, and reason.
I would simply take this and let the rest of their argument go, leaving it to the Christians to find their value in that system.
For us, I suggest these three things: scripture and tradition and reason as dynamic, each informing the other, each correcting the other.
Scripture for Buddhists is pretty dynamic. I am interested in what we can figure out was said by the Buddha; those teachings contained within the nikayas and the vinaya codes. But for me the Perfection of Wisdom and the Avatamsaka Sutra and other texts are even more important. Definitely scripture for me. Although I doubt any of them should be made into “bibles,” words whose truths are considered authorative based upon their supposed authorship, and which cannot be challenged by anyone who wishes to retain the designation “Buddhist.” But, while not such unassailable documents for me, for most of us who would use the word liberal, still, we should know something of them. We should be respectful. Deeply respectful. And we should be careful should we feel the necessity to depart from their guidance.
And tradition counts. Very much. For me, in many ways the collected stories and sayings of the Chan masters and their descendents particularly in Japan, but also in Korea, carry much weight. The whole style of the Soto way has value, and parts should only be dropped for considered reasons. For me the traditions of the Zen way, both historical and mythical have been the route into the wisdom of the heartmind. It has informed my specific practices and points the way to my own healing and what I see to be the healing of the world.
But, and I really want to hold this up: reason also needs to be there, here.
I include two understandings of reason. One is the straight ahead process of logical reflection. The way of Occam’s sharp, sharp razor. If there is a claim that something has some measure of objective reality about it, well, it follows rules that can be tested. And should be. Test all things and hold only that which is found to be good…
But, there’s another reason within the Buddha way. And that is the achievement of nondual insight. And this is terribly important. Both for us to find it for ourselves and to apply it.
We need to leap beyond self and other if we hope to find the healing balm of this great way.
And, then within our lived lives, within our considerations of what to do and how to be, we take all three: scripture, tradition and reason.
And we let one challenge the other.
We let an alchemy of the heart to begin.
And we embark on a way that will bring our Western and liberal Buddhisms forward as genuine medicine for an ailing world.
Thoughts on a Wednesday morning…
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In