Western Buddhism and existentialist games
By Mark Vernon on Thursday, April 30 2009, 07:34 - Religion - Permalink

Martin Palmer, the scholar of Eastern religions, summed up the problem of Western Buddhism in this interview, prompted by the Buddhist film festival coming up in London. He had three charges against the way Buddhism is being appropriated in the West.
1. It's deeply partial, a pic'n'mix religion. This is a Western projection based upon 'the religion we don't want, which is Judeo-Christian, and the religion we would love to have, which isn't quite religion - which doesn't have too many gods, and doesn't have too many rules, and the rules it does have, like the Tibetan ban on homosexuality, are conveniently forgotten.'
2. It focuses on the individual path, whereas most Buddhists do not pursue an individual path but rather swim in a Buddhist culture. Apart from the question of whether Buddhism was ever designed to be pursued in an individualistic way, the problem here is that 'it is playing Western existentialist games which derive primarily out of the protestant tradition of the Christian world.'
3. There is now also the phenomenon of reverse colonialization, in which Western Buddhists go to countries with indigenous Buddhist cultures and tell the locals how to do it - that they mustn't eat meat, say, or that their monks should not be married, or they must strip away 'religious accretions', such as making offerings to deities. Palmer continues: 'What worries me about the invasion of Western Buddhism is that it is importing Western angst rather than necessarily being humble enough to listen to... the Buddhism of that country.'










Comments
' "Religions are able to convince us that they are unchanging, yet they survive and spread precisely because they are constantly adapting." ' ..... Martin Palmer .
I'm glad to see that western seekers after wisdom are PICKING what they discern as truth and rejecting what they deem as false or superfluous and MIXING this with the truths from their lives and the lives of other cultures . This is the way of living religions throughout the millennia. To maintain and even flourish the tree of humankinds search for religious truth lest it wither in the barren dryness of dogmatism and orthodoxy without being fertilised by new insights and contemplations .
I heartily agree that Buddhism has to adapt like anything torn from its roots if it is to flourish as a living religion in the west .
Regards..
The thing is, Buddhism HAS adapted and changed many times before. It's a syncretic religion, as is Hindusim; as for that matter is Christianity. Adapting where they go.
Palmer's criticisms have some merit, but his attitude rather reminds me of some purists I knew in academia who were more correct in all things than the natives they learned those things from. It's been noted as an issue that recurs in anthropology and ethnomusicology, among Western scholars: they get it more perfect than even the natives care about.
There are deep and substantial differences between different versions of Buddhism which can't be glossed over. Chinese-Japanese Zen is not at all like Theravada Buddhism in Thailand, for example. Tibetan Tantric Buddhism is rather different than other versions of Buddhism, too. I recognize his point, but would he prefer no Westerners ever studied Buddhism? What is the true corrective for this situation?