Rantings of a "Conservative" Western Buddhist: Part I

The Winter 2008 Issue of Buddhadharma magazine had a short article that I found really striking. It's taken from an interview between Thar Lam magazine and Samuel Berchloz, the founder of Shambhala Publications. The article is called "Buddhist Roadkill":

I think the most pressing issue facing Buddhism in the West is twofold. One part is that there are many Western Buddhist authors who somehow-because of their experience, or being students of Buddhism, or teachers of Buddhism for the last twenty or thirty years-are calling for a change in the way that Buddhism is taught. Their thinking is quite odd in that, based on their little bit of twenty or thirty years, or even if its forty years of being Buddhists, they think they're smarter than the 2,500-year-old tradition that has proven so worthwhile. They were turned on to this tradition when they were young, and now that they're old, because they're dissatisfied for one reason or another, they want to change it and edit it and take out the parts of it they don't like. Yes, sometimes they make intelligent observations, but I think it's extremely premature to make changes in the way Buddhism has been taught just because it's come to the West. It's extremely premature because what's been presented so far is just the tip of the iceberg of the teachings; it's not possible for the full transmission of Buddhism to take place in such a short time.

Another thing that I think is problematic in the West is this idea that Buddhism is an incomplete teaching because it doesn't deal with psychological issues. There are many avowed Buddhists who feel that without psychology, Buddhism doesn't work. That's a ridiculous thing to say, but it's said; there are dozens of books on it. The idea that the post-Freudian era has produced some great achievement is, to my way of looking at things, a joke compared to what Buddhism has done. Yes, there are people who have psychological issues. And no, meditation won't necessarily help their psychological issues. But there are other aspects of Buddhism, including a relationship with a good teacher, that in fact do deal with people's psychological issues. Many modern authors are saying that it's absolutely necessary to go to an analyst or psychoanalyst and have certain things cleared out of your system before you can really practice Buddhism. That's preposterous.

I think those issues are being pressed upon Buddhism for the most part by a generation that at this point may be frustrated. It won't last because this generation, which is my generation, is going into old age. There are new generations, and the only thing that would be really horrible is if the whiners and complainers become the ones that people listen to. There are many fine Buddhist teachers in the West who aren't whiners and complainers. Those are the ones to pay attention to, not the Buddhist roadkill-the ones who feel that Buddhism didn't deliver for them so they want to change it.

I think Berchloz's assessment is dead on, particularly the part about people who have been practicing a few decades thinking they're smarter than a 2,500-year-old tradition. It's a fact that the Buddhadharma will change now that it's reached the West. How it will morph into a new guise is unclear but we can already see some developments that are still in the embryonic phase. I'll name a few:

Engaged Buddhism: Buddhism with a decidedly "save the universe", social activist bent. Bringing back the pscyhodrama of yesteryear in a saffron colored package.
Mish-Mashing: - Dabbling/practicing various Buddhist traditions simultaneously and in some cases, even trying to mix Buddhism with other religions; Judaism and Christianity in particular.
Dharma-Lite: Watered down Buddhist teachings aimed at the general public. Tends to focus on vague/flowery ideas of feeling good.

Despite my smart-ass assessments of the above categories, I'm not entirely critical of these above movements. They all have their merits (I'm certainly "guilty" of them to varying extents) but I'd like to focus in particular on what's come to be known as "Dharma Lite". Because this phrase has taken on slightly negative connotations and because I'd like to make a fair exploration of this phenomenon, I'll use the term "Pop-Dharma" from now on.

When I first began to seriously study and practice the Buddhadharma, I had a VERY negative opinion of the Pop-Dharma crowd. To me they were flowery, indecisive, New-Agey, and suffering from a serious case of "Me-ism". They picked and choose like shoppers in the spiritual bazaar looking for the next good bargin instead of good quality "merchandise". Gradually however, my view of Pop-Dharma changed quite a bit. Maybe after looking deeply into myself (and the some of the "Dharma-Popper" in myself) and also having my heart softened by my practice, I came to see that the existence of Pop-Dharma is not only useful, but actually a necessity, at least at this point in time.

Buddhism has barely been in the West for a century and the fact that it comes to us from cultures very different from our own (Western) one means that Pop-Dharma can act as a useful springboard into serious study and practice. My guess is that this kind of "practice gradient" is how many people may have first gotten involved with the Buddha's teachings. Pop-Dharma can also serve as a venue for people to casually explore the teachings without fear of being caught up the well known malevolenent specter of "organized religion". People should be able to embrace the teachings of their own free will and because they've had a taste of the transformative power of the Dharma. Pop-Dharma makes this possible in an open, casual, and nonthreatening manner. That being said, the fact that Pop-Dharma relies on what many might easily call watered down, Cliffs-Notes, kiddie versions of more serious teachings represents a HUGE problem for establishing genuine Buddhist traditions in the West...