The Murky Water of Buddhist Traditions in the West

If your parents belong to one of the many Christian traditions, it’s likely that you were brought up as an adherent to that tradition — whether you practice or not. With western religions in the west, and indeed eastern religions in the east, because of their very local nature, you adopt the religion, denomination, or variant of your family, friends or the locality.

Western Buddhism is different from this. It’s an eastern religion in the west. There are no local variants. As a practitioner, you don’t adopt the tradition of those around you. It’s extremely rare to have your Buddhist practice passed down to you from your parents; indeed Buddhism in the west is far too young for that to happen with some regularity just yet.

Many established traditions were brought to the west within this very century, and more expand across the globe with each decade. In the west, it’s a veritable pick’n’mix of all sorts of Buddhist traditions. Never before have prospective Buddhist practitioners had the power of choosing from (for example) a Japanese tradition, a Sri Lankan tradition and a Tibetan tradition, simply because there’s appropriate provision within reach. Whilst this added flexibility is welcomed, it does bring with it it’s own set of problems.

The Problem with Traditions

There was a conversation I was party to a few weeks back; a young, prospective Buddhist practitioner asked for advice on where to go to learn more about the practice. There were several participants who at once leapt into the conversation to promote the benefits their own tradition or teacher in the local area of the asker. Unfortunately though, there was an undertone to the conversation that prompted me to write this article:

• “Tradition A is excellent, except it’s offshoot branch Tradition B, that one is terrible.”
• “I study Tradition C and it’s wonderful, except of course for teacher X or Y.”
• “Tradition D is brilliant, except for that thing that happened in the 80s.”
• “Tradition E used to be good, except that since teacher Z took over, it’s alienated most of the core students.”

To the young, prospective Buddhist practitioner, it must have felt like a minefield of traditions to avoid, and as a new practitioner myself, I could sympathise. Selecting the ‘wrong’ tradition to visit can potentially damage your reputation in the wider Western Buddhist communities, or worse, damage you personally as you practice.

The majority of those interested in Buddhism who currently are without a practice sit on a proverbial fence. Any small thing can tip them one way or another. Either they feel welcomed and that serves as a catalyst for further involvement, or they feel awkward and confused and that serves as a catalyst for cessation of their interest in full.

This ‘murky water’ of Western Buddhist traditions is, in this way, hindering the progress of Western Buddhism as a whole.

Controversial Traditions

One of the fastest growing Western Buddhist Traditions is the New Kadampa Tradition (NKT). This tradition itself is marred by a large amount of controversy; a controversy that is often unknown to the newest of their practitioners. A prospective practitioner will join, be welcomed by the leaders of the centre, begin practicing; all before learning about the NKT Survivors, or the protests of the Dalai Lama, or even any such knowledge of the significance of Dorje Shugden.

Another one I’ve mentioned in a previous post, the Triratna Buddhist Community. I visit this tradition myself, and it wasn’t until after 5 or 6 visits that I learned of the tradition’s controversial history.

This is not a problem associated only with these traditions. Zen Buddhism in America is also one that adds to this murky water. Mark Oppenheimer’s Article about Eido Shimano, includes the following rather terrifying quote:

Today, one could reasonably assert that of the 30 or 40 important Zen centers in the country, at least 10 have employed head teachers who have been accused of groping, propositioning, seducing, or otherwise exploiting students.

I’m not suggesting that the good work that these traditions engage in is invalid due to these controversies, but rather, by their history, they present newcomers to the tradition with a series of morally or ethically difficult stumbling blocks. Stumbling blocks like this in such institutions that teach the very lessons that are being disregarded presents a strong turn-off for prospective Buddhist practitioners; especially in the circumstance where the only local centre is a controversial one.

Come and see

So what can we do to encourage on-the-fence prospectives to engage with Buddhism? I think part of this journey is education.

The Triratna Buddhist Community have done a so-far good job of publicising the controversies associated with the tradition in their own words under The Triratna Story, a freely available biography of-sorts of the group. As a result the organisation is informing participants of the story prior to involvement. I would argue that this up-front honesty gives practitioners a greater sense of loyalty towards the community, since it’s being presented to them, warts-and-all.

Being open about controversies is one thing, but not all traditions will take this path — some use the ‘sweep it under the rug’ approach. For these, the solution is a bit different, and is centred around the practitioner, rather than the tradition.

Ehipassiko is a Pali word that is roughly translated to ‘come and see’. The Buddha used this word to discourage blind faith, and apply a questioning mind to anything that we engage in. When we begin practicing with a tradition, we don’t need to simply accept the teachings of this tradition as the only way. Traditions are merely vehicles on our own personal journey, and don’t represent the full breadth of Buddhist teachings.

Being Buddhist is often about being investigative and critical; of our own mental states, but also of the world around us. We can’t live this investigative life and then immediately shut off the investigation when we listen to the teachings of a tradition. What we need to do, as Western Buddhist practitioners, is clean this murky water by putting ehipassiko first, and teaching others to be critical. Admittedly this isn’t a quick fix, it’s a generational one.

Organisations and associations, such as the Secular Buddhist Association and movements such as Pragmatic Buddhism are making waves in Western Buddhism for precisely this reason. Approaching the Dhamma from a secular, pragmatic and investigative standpoint pays off big time in allowing the practitioner to get a real sense of what benefits them and what does not. That doesn’t mean you should favour these organisations over other more established traditions, but there does exist something to take away from the way these organisations practice. For instance, they promote critical thinking and the concepts of ehipassiko at the very heart of their values.

As a new practitioner or an adherent to any of the more established Buddhist traditions, you do not need to simply accept your chosen tradition’s mode of thought; you are free to provide your own interpretation and your own study to enhance your teachings. Clear the murky water, drive your own learnings, and be critical of what’s around you and within you.