Part
2: Big up Post-Traditional Buddhism
My
new bride on the spiritual path is perhaps best defined as Post-Traditional
Buddhism. A term I picked up from Hokai Sobol,
who is a Buddhist Geeks associate. What a grand title that sounds. Yet, what it
appears to imply in essence is the shedding of deference of authority for the
path to traditional Buddhism, whether it be Zen, Gelugpa, Burmese, or Hokai’s
own traditional roots, Shingon Buddhism. Emerging Western Buddhism that is
post-traditional is in a very early stage of birth. What follows is my own
understanding of this emerging phenomenon. Others will no doubt be wiser on
this topic, but for now too few voices are discussing it in the public sphere,
so, not one to fear for my safety, I’ll dive straight on in and do my best to
paint a rather challenging picture with words.
It
appears that the pregnancy started in earnest in the 1960s, although it seems
to me that the birth has only really begun to take place in this century. Whereas
Western Buddhism defines any form of Buddhism, traditional or otherwise, that
is alive and functioning on western soil, Post-Traditional Buddhism is perhaps
the most radical and accurate description for what is starting to show
tentative signs of flowering in both North America and Europe as a response to
the inadequacies of traditional Buddhism for a contemporary western audience.
Secular Buddhism is one of the more well-known faces of this emerging
phenomenon. Though most often this disconnected movement towards a radical re-engagement
with Buddhism is found in very small pockets of physically disconnected
individuals, couples and groups who are connecting primarily through the
Internet and through informal meetings. Some of them came together at the
Buddhist Geeks conferences in 2012 and 2011, but rumours abound that they were
infiltrated by many traditional Buddhist buddies. In fact a key feature of
Post-Traditional Buddhism is the mixing of old and new. Post-Traditional
Buddhism is built on the work that has come before it.
Interestingly,
many of the shared themes emerging within this movement seem to represent a
push by a new generation of practitioners willing to engage with many of the
issues which are central to the evolution of society as a whole at this time, and
many of which take up the central issues concerning post-modernity. Post-modern
thought seems to me to be central to the rewiring that is occurring in these
informal exchanges and elaborations. The sanctity of ultimate truth, the rules
of engagement handed down through traditional structures, the structures of
power that are seemingly inherent within institutionalised Buddhism are put to
the guillotine by Post-Traditional Buddhists in a symbolic act of reclaiming
the bare bones of knowing and experiencing.
It
seems that the more intellectually leaning members of this movement are concerned
with bringing together not just science and its analysis of meditational
results, but the Western intellectual tradition - from philosophy to
linguistics, to the political sciences and sociology - to bear on the interpretation
and working of Buddhism and its beliefs, core tenets and practices. This in my
opinion is where the tastiest of morsels can be found. Whereas science may
provide secular means for quantifying the value of meditation and its results,
other academic fields challenge and destabilise the ideological ground of
Buddhism, and in particular its traditional methods of delivery. Although
science may convince a whole new generation of businessmen, housewives and
school kids to practice secular mindfulness, those interested in the bigger picture
of personal and collective transformation may benefit greatly from uprooting
Buddhism from its traditional base of power in the hands of Asian teachers and
exploring it under the light of existing and emerging sociological and
philosophical enquiry.
Post-Traditional
Buddhism is a concerted effort to move away from the hegemony of what Dave
Chapman describes as Consensus
Buddhism. Because of this, many of its features are a direct refusal to
kowtow to traditional Buddhist forms and relationships. Post-Traditional
Buddhists are not content to swallow whole the doctrinal proclamations of an
exotic and powerful figure, whether Asian or otherwise. Post-Traditional
Buddhists are independently minded and determined to work through the raw
material of Buddhism on new and divergent terms. Post-Traditional Buddhists are
usually individualists and are incorporating a relationship with knowledge and
technology into their practice that mirrors the shift that has taken place in
wider society through the arrival of the Internet. Sources are multiple, open,
instantly accessible and dissectible. Post-Traditional Buddhism is not embedded
in a foreign culture, or in a foreign language. Post-Traditional Buddhism is
not based on lineage and the passing down of power and the ownership of exotic roles
such as Tulku, Lama, Rinpoche and Holy One. Post-Traditional Buddhism is not
based in a temple or a building which deliberately recreates the symbolic
reality of another time and another country. Instead it is likely taking place
near a computer screen, on the subway, or in the pub in multiple realities and
possibilities. Post-Traditional Buddhism both criticises constructively and
destructively. Post-Traditional Buddhism is very often results-orientated, but
does not necessarily take traditional Buddhism’s definitions of the goal as
accurate or realistic. Post-Traditional Buddhism is increasingly open source:
accessed through blog, podcast, webinar and free, downloadable content, some of
which may be illegal.
Post-Traditional
Buddhism is willing to pull apart traditional teachings and breakdown and
defile Buddhism’s core taboos: enlightenment is happening here, cries Mr Folk
at enlightenment central in New York. Post-Traditional Buddhism generally
respects and appreciates what Buddhism has to offer, but will not blindly
follow its rules: a significant power shift is taking place regarding who owns
the keys to the Buddha’s legacy. Post-Traditional Buddhism openly engages with
other sources of knowledge and uses them to examine Buddhism itself: shifting
in and out of Buddhist perspectives enhances rather than distracts – the
nonsense idea of purity has been jettisoned. Post-Traditional Buddhism is
dynamic and in many ways is a major game changer still bubbling under the
surface waiting to pounce. I consider Post-Traditional Buddhism to be the most
authentic form of truly Western Buddhism to emerge yet.
Post-Traditional
Buddhism is not unified. Its voice has not yet been found, perhaps because it
is a movement that so far has no institutional base, no fixed location. Its
creativity and experimentation is possible because of its response to existing
tradition and the loose and fluid nature of its participants. There are early
simmerings of an eventual shift towards organisation among the Secular
Buddhists, although they are at the least radical end of the scale and how
desirous affiliation with their nametag will be, I don’t know. Ted Meisner, who
is instrumental in bringing about the Secular
Buddhist vision, seems to represent the mould of a middle class, science
geek who is enamoured with the rational. This approach may not appeal to the more
radically minded. The rational and scientific are not the only source of
reinterpretation of the significance and place of Buddhism in the 21st century
as Stephen Schettini, the Naked Monk,
has declared. He, along with Ken McLeod,
has pointed out that we are irrational beings at heart and that our impulsive
and emotional nature must be engaged with as a component of the path and not
ignored through ideological snobbery.
For
some, if not many, there is still an overt respect for traditional Buddhism
that hinders real and radical change through unbridled examination and
questioning. Tradition has always feared open dissent and the destabilising
effects of challenging the hegemony of a given power base. Buddhism is no
different to other religions in this regard, in spite of what many Buddhists
may like to believe. The potential of Post-Traditional Buddhism is immense
because in part it is the face of a much richer and more complete engagement
with Buddhism. It is also uncertain and destabilising. At present it is
birthing itself as a sort of virus and its roots are spreading in unseen ways
as independent voices and minds act upon Buddhism and are encouraged by the spread
of rebel movement within pre-existing Buddhist camps. I would like to see this
movement strengthen, not through the establishment of a new convenient
consensus, but as a stark and determined engagement amongst Buddhists in the West.
Traditional Buddhism does not really need to fear this shift. It can
incorporate it as a necessary moment of change, of clarification and an
opportunity in which the authenticity of its own values, promises and claims
can be tested more thoroughly. Impermanence is real folks. Engage with it, or
hide from it, it will still be there. Traditions can no longer isolate
themselves from the world outside the dharma centre doors. It’s time to stand up, step outside and take
a look around and embrace the great potential of truly dynamic, western forms
of Buddhism.
Elephant Journal Article
Elephant Journal Article
No comments:
Post a Comment