Now, I beg to ask why hasn’t Sufism been so welcomed in the West when compared to Buddhism. There are a variety of reasons as to why that may be the case. But before we go there, I must say that it might be hard for you to figure out what exactly I’m trying to imply here. Am I asking why people haven’t converted to it or am I questioning why people don’t prefer it as much as Buddhism? I’ll lean towards the latter and all of the other related implications throughout this answer while also touching on the former. So let’s dig in.
Before I begin I’d like to say that I’m not that knowledgeable about Buddhism and have of course taken the liberty to study a bit more for this answer. And in my opinion, there are a couple of things that need to be addressed about the current Western Branch of Buddhism, which I’ve seen some call Buddhist Modernism, Protestant Buddhism, and {an extremely failed attempt to coin the term} Navayana. Although the latter is used for another sect these days. You see at its core, Western Buddhism incorporates the one thing that Buddhism has shown in both China and Japan: flexibility.
I’m not going to be cutting around the edges here. Buddhism is flexible and to an extent malleable. It merged and incorporated itself into both traditional Chinese Daoist and Confucianist as well as the Japanese Shinto traditions quite well. Or so I think. I am not a history person. A lot of people in modern times practice both Shinto and Buddhist rituals and teachings, with many visiting both Shinto Shrines and Buddhist temples/monasteries. There’s also the Shinbutsu-shūgō but I’m done sidetracking myself.
Let’s go a bit back to when Buddhism was heavily opposed by the Christians. Prior to that people from the West had come into contact with Buddhists during the time of Alexander the Great and there are cases when Buddhism was in a sense introduced to the rest of Europe. The story of Barlaam and Josaphat comes to mind. It’s essentially based on the life of Siddhartha Gautama {the historical Buddha} that reached the rest of Europe in the 10th Century first through the Georgian Epic Balavariani, which can be traced back to the Middle East and the Arabic Kitāb Bilawhar wa-Būd̠āsaf (Book of Bilawhar and Budhasaf), and finally to the actual 2–4th Century Mahayana text {that got there through a Manichaeism version}.
The thing is this Christianized variant and later encountered, generated a little thought. The Portuguese you see during their exploration began to think that Buddhism was essentially a form of Christianity and the Divine Revelation that became corrupted. Because to them it shared numerous ideas with the original Revelation such as heaven and hell, virgin birth, and monastic orders. To some, the Buddhists were even in league with the Devil himself. But that aside, many were attracted to it. Considering it to be the rational alternative to Christianity.
For instance, Friedrich Nietzsche called Buddhism “a hundred times more realistic than Christianity” because to him it was atheistic, phenomenalistic, and anti-metaphysical. And although he was also against Buddhism, people like Robert Morrison pointed out similarities between their thinking. In a sense that’s exactly how people in the West see Buddhism if we consider the general populace only. As being atheistic because that’s how it was presented to them. But of course, their own interpretation was involved.
Buddhism’s primary focus has always been on salvation and enlightenment, and despite the plethora of deities that do appear in their teachings, they don’t change that fact, and never do they share the main spotlight. Unlike Christianity, this prompted many to even consider Buddhism to be a “godless religion” because it could be adapted and followed even if you are an atheist. There were books such as “Buddhism without Beliefs” by Stephen Batchelor that aimed solely at that fact. To him Buddha was never about a Creator or Godhead, he wasn’t even a mystic. Here’s the standard description from the site.
In this simple but important volume, Stephen Batchelor reminds us that the Buddha was not a mystic who claimed privileged, esoteric knowledge of the universe, but a man who challenged us to understand the nature of anguish, let go of its origins, and bring into being a way of life that is available to us all. The concepts and practices of Buddhism, says Batchelor, are not something to believe in but something to do — and as he explains clearly and compellingly, it is a practice that we can engage in, regardless of our background or beliefs, as we live every day on the path to spiritual enlightenment.
I took the liberty of highlighting the important bits that help deliver that message. This newer outlook on Buddhism is by many described as being a “fraction of the huge tree that is Buddhism” but it makes up for that by being non-denominational. The adherents and practices {i.e. the converts} normally accept any teaching irrespective of the sect. Many combine traditional Mahayana, Theravada, Zen, Pure Land, Vipassana, and Tibetan Buddhism.
The other reason as to why I think this works for many — if we turn our focus only to the general populace — is because many consider Buddhism to be a philosophy. I remember reading an answer here from a Westerner that Buddhism may be treated as a religion and it may not. It’s a set of rules and practices, that can work just as well if you take out the whole major chunk of it out. Think about it. Many people practice Zen and other practices related to Buddhism, while not realizing the religious importance it carries. Chiefly because it still carries the same beneficial and relaxing properties regardless of the intention.
For instance, many people daily engage in yoga exercises and think of them as just that. A beneficial exercise that originated in India. Meanwhile, to Hindus, it holds great importance as a religious practice {see this and this too}. The same applies here. To a lot of people Buddhism and its teachings don’t necessarily come off as a religion since they {the general populace} lack the broader material such as Sutras and the sort. An example of this is the unanswerable questions in Buddhism. Do most know of them? No.
That philosophical, rational, and somewhat atheistic approach makes Buddhism settle more in their mind. And I speak of this as a person sitting on his laptop typing this all the while living in Pakistan. I’m just inferring it. So I might be wrong here and there. But to me, I can see atheists approaching it more. With how Buddhist modernism is, they can easily adopt it while not believing in creationism or any theistic idea. Plus, Buddhism’s similarities to Western Philosophy might’ve helped. Who knows?
As I said before, it’s compatible and flexible and can be incorporated without one changing their core values. At least when you consider the Western approach. For instance, here’s what the Dalai Lama {the current 14th one} says on modern issues of abortion and Homosexuality:
Shoshone-Bannock Nation tribal council member Leon Tyler said abortion and homosexuality did not exist before Europeans came to America and asked the Dalai Lama’s position on those.
“On same-sex [issues], I think [for the] believer and non-believer, we have to make a distinction. To a believer, according to one’s own teaching, you should follow. So [in] the Buddhist [tradition], man-to-man, woman-to-woman same sort of sex, that is considered sexual misconduct. So, [it] should [be] avoided [by believing Buddhists].
“Then, according the Christians or Muslims and their own tradition and teaching, they should [not do so]. Then, [among] nonbelievers, sometimes I heard those people, gay people, they face some kind of discrimination. I think that goes a little bit too far. I think nonbelievers, so far, so long as no harm is involved, then I think it’s up to [the] individual. So that’s my view. But I feel closer relations are better. Ha ha ha.
“So then, abortion. Abortion is basically a death, a killing.”
Through his interpreter, he added, “Again, similarly, just as in the case of homosexuality with relation to abortion, one needs to take into account the religious faith of the individuals involved. So, from a religion point of view, particularly the Buddhist context, abortion is an act of killing. It’s very clearly stated in the precepts.”
The Dalai Lama continued.
“Again, in a society, nonbelievers are also there. And now I think in both cases, the societies’ legal question is a different issue. And that there are nonbelievers in the society, so of course on issue of legality, that’s a matter for the particular country or nation.”
Source: SunValley
When I was in Lithuania a few years ago, I visited a nursery and I was told, “All these children are unwanted.” So I think it is better that that situation be stopped right from the beginning — birth control. Of course, abortion, from a Buddhist viewpoint, is an act of killing and is negative, generally speaking. But it depends on the circumstances. If the unborn child will be retarded or if the birth will create serious problems for the parent, these are cases where there can be an exception. I think abortion
should be approved or disapproved according to each circumstance.Source: Canada Tibet Committee
“If someone comes to me and asks whether homosexuality is okay or not, I will ask ‘What is your companion’s opinion?’ If you both agree, then I think I would say, ‘If two males or two females voluntarily agree to have mutual satisfaction without further implication of harming others, then it is okay.’”
Source: OUT Magazine February/March 1994
“A sexual act is deemed proper when the couples use the organs intended for sexual intercourse and nothing else … Homosexuality, whether it is between men or between women, is not improper in itself. What is improper is the use of organs already defined as inappropriate for sexual contact.”
Source: Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Disclosure
He also once said: “…right organ in the right object at the right time…” which some interpret to mean that oral, anal, and manual sex {be it homo or hetero} is not allowed for Buddhists. I’m not in any sort of way inciting hate against the Dalai Lama and neither do I mean to offend anyone. It’s an example of what some Western people who follow Tibetan Buddhism neglect. Rather they take the crux of it which includes meditation and enlightenment practices and just face issues such as these with their own cultural values and thoughts.
To an extent that’s how it is. This malleable approach allows them to easily adopt it, to somewhat do the same thing with some changes fitting their own mindset. I know for a fact that there are a lot of men and women who follow the same practices, techniques, and rituals that traditional Buddhists do to achieve enlightenment, but they end up not doing it for that. They do it for the peace, self-control, and “Zen” it offers them.
And this is again the same thing that I constantly repeat. Buddhism has been so easily adopted in the Western mind due to the way it functions. Appealing to the masses as something that can be accepted as just a practice. No offense to the actual practitioners who devote their whole life to the same ideal and sake other Buddhists do. I just needed to say it for the sake of the answer and of course, semi-clarification of my standpoint. I do hope that I got that across.
Now onwards to Sufism. I believe you know of the largest and biggest issue: Islam and the West. Although Islam has often been referred to as a Western Religion alongside both Judaism and Christianity — — similar to Hinduism, Buddhism, and the rest being Eastern Religions — — it hasn’t been smooth sailing in the West for it. Sufism is a part of Islam, not a separate religion or thing much as Kabbalah is still an integral part of Judaism. And throughout the ages, there have been great conflicts with Islam from the West. Hence, the modern false label of terrorist and barbarians {to the many innocents}.
Think of the Crusades and whatnot. Due to people like Osama and ISIS the lot of us have been labeled as villains of the modern times. The thing is mistakes were made on both ends, but I’m not here to talk about it. A lot of you may also know the rules and regulations of being a Muslim. Most of which may not align with the beliefs of many. For instance, Sufis and even Walis are not exempt from judgment and the Qur’anic laws. The obligation of Salat and the rest still apply. There are even minor things that need to be considered too. In Islam alcohol, pork, interest {the financial one}, and so many more integral parts of many a Western culture are haram in Islam.
Hell, Russia too refused to accept Islam {Primary Chronicle, year 6494 (986)} due to the whole “alcohol is haram thing”. Alcohol is almost always haram and to my knowledge, there’s actually only one Sufi sect; the Bektashi that considers it to be permissible. Although I don’t exactly believe some of their actions to be truly in line with the teachings of Islam. Case in point:
The Bektashi Order — named after Haji Bektash Veli, a thirteenth-century imam from what is today Iran — was consolidated in the fifteenth century in the Ottoman Empire, spreading through its territories, including Albania. After the empire’s collapse, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the new secular president of Turkey, shut down the country’s Su orders, in 1925. The Bektashi shifted base to Tirana, the capital of Albania. Trouble followed them there: in 1967, Albania’s communist government banned all religions, creating the world’s first atheist state. It was only after 1990 that the Bektashi Order was once again allowed to worship openly in the country. Its clerics reopened the Bektashi World Centre at Tirana, in 1992, and started the modern Tomorr pilgrimage three years later.
The order has absorbed Shia, Sufi, Christian, animist, and ancient Turkic elements, and has few behavioral prohibitions or prescriptions. Many members of the Bektashi I spoke to said that they were representatives of a “European Islam.” “We drink wine; we don’t separate men and women; we don’t even pray!” Arben Sulejmani, the order’s head of foreign affairs, who had invited me to accompany his family to Tomorr, told me. I asked him whether the Bektashi were Shia. No, he said, but they revere the 12 Shia imams, love the prophet Muhammad’s son-in-law, Ali, and mourn his death at the ninth-century Battle of Karbala. Sulejmani told me that the Bektashi fast during the month of Muharram, eating only vegan food and drinking only plum juice. They do not maintain mosques but have shrines and modest tekkes — dervish lodges. Despite their devotion to Ali, they also speak of a “holy trinity” of Allah, Muhammad, and Ali. The vast majority of Albanian Bektashi do not pray and consider the Tomorr pilgrimage primarily a fun social event.
Source: Wine and Divine
But to them their path, I still do consider them to be Muslims. A lot of other times you just have blatant ignorance as the cause. Not only concerning Sufism but the traditional orthodox Islam. It’s a running gag that many Christians don’t even know of both Jesus {Hazrat Isa عَلَیهِالسَّلام} and the Virgin Mary {Hazrat Maryam عَلَیهِالسَّلام} have been mentioned in the Qur’an a great number of times. At times the blatant hate spread by many Ex-Muslims may be the root cause. Concerning whom there’s also the infamous unawareness of many of Islam’s teachings. If you’re a Muslim you might know of the fact that many Ex-Muslims are thought to not even know of the two most popular Surahs of the Qur’an {Surah Al-Fatiha and Surah Al-Ikhlaas} and believe that Wudu or ablution has any rakats. Hence this infamous meme which has multiple renditions:
And to an extent this holds true. Now, there are three essential issues concerning Sufism’s spread in Western mental health as I put it; hate, theism, and ignorance. Buddhism as I explained is treated by many as being atheistic and hence does not conflict with most theists or atheists even if they were to adopt some teachings and practices. Whereas Sufism is theistic and by a great deal. Even the whirling dervishes of the Mevlevi Order that’ve become infamous in the West, still recite the takbir, Allahu Akbar-! {الله أكبر} of which many people don’t have a positive view.
And it’s impossible to even work with that whirling if you aren’t a theist or specifically a monotheist because that simple act of whirling is a form of sema/sama. This samāʿ {سَمَاع} is somewhat of a mystical journey where a person in his desire to seek the Perfect One سُبْحَانَهُ وَتَعَالَىٰ he pursues the truth, and grows through love. Through his growth, he begins to understand the fact that ego is destruction and is not required and as such abandons it. Through this act of abandonment, he finds the truth while simultaneously arriving at the Perfect. Afterward, the seeker returns home having matured and realizing that the goal of life is love. Love without discrimination, love that leads only to the service of the whole of creation and the eternal dhikr.
All of this loses its most important symbolism if you were to apply to it an atheistic lens. Same goes for the teachings of many famous Sufis the likes of Rumi and Ibn ‘Arabi. Rumi’s teachings have become increasingly popular in the West after his works were beginning to be translated but without a belief in God or Allah Ta’ala, most of them don’t work out. The crux of universal love still does but the unionist approach of his can’t be replicated without it. Because the concept of Love by itself in Sufism requires a belief in a Creator expressed by a trinity of sorts.
“Another affirmation of the realization of the Essence and Being is expressed by the concept of Love, Lover, and Beloved. Love is the Divine Essence and Lover is a stand-in for humans. Beloved is God. Too long for this relationship to be made through, an ideal appears. The Lover sees himself in the Beloved and the Beloved sees Himself in the Lover. This central theme is understood simply as God wanting to see Himself in humans. As Fakhiruddin ‘Iraqi one said:
“Beloved, I sought you here and there, asked for news of you from all I met; then saw you through myself and found we were identical. Now I blush to think I ever searched for signs of you.”
Source: The Divine Flashes {Lama’at}
Once this realization is reached by the Lover the idea of Love remains. All else is dismissed. And the true goal is reached. What is Real and the dimension of that Reality is made to come to knowledge.” That’s what I wrote last time while discussing it.
Another factor might be because of the places Sufism primarily took hold in. Many infamous Western Sufis the likes of Ibn ‘Arabi and Ibn Sab’iin were born in Al-Andalus or Andalusia; the then-Muslim Spain. And I wager you know what happened in the coming times when the Muslims were exiled from Spain.
Other Sufis strongholds were Persia and the Ottoman Turkish territories. People like Rumi fell in the former category while many later Sufis fell in the latter. The Indian subcontinent too was a proper place for a bunch of Sufis as well. Also, contrary to popular beliefs although Iqbal did identify as a Sufi and follower of Rumi’s teachings his ideals didn’t contrast much with Rumi’s thoughts of universal love, given by Iqbal’s fervent dislike of Western culture — something that Rumi would not have done so {due to his thoughts}.
Returning from the backtracking, although these places allowed for better interaction and acceptance for the Sufis it also sort of led to some complications. Persia is nowadays heavily associated with terrorism and violence, the Ottoman Empire chose the wrong side in the war, India is a bit harsh on Muslims, and Spain ended up exiling the Sufis living there. Buddhism is at its core considered to be non-delusional and a great deal of its goals align with those of Modern Western philosophy. Meanwhile, Sufism’s intricate belief in the Divine is a tad bit hard for a lot of scientists and atheists to wrap their heads around. It being falsely considered as violent and terroristic offers more hesitation in that matter.
I hope this helped. I took liberty when it came to writing. Nonetheless, hopefully, you enjoyed it. Have a nice day!
