The Pew Forum on American Buddhism
A study released Monday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life presents a couple of unanswered questions about Buddhism in America.
The first question is, What is a Buddhist? According to the Associated Press, "It's unclear whether people who called themselves Buddhists did so because they practice yoga or meditation, for instance, or claim affiliation with a Buddhist institution."
This is a question discussed on this blog before. I don't know that affiliation with a Buddhist institution is a requirement for being Buddhist. However, from time to time I've met self-identified Buddhists who didn't know the Four Noble Truths from spinach. Maybe I'm old and stodgy, but I think some parameters defining "Buddhist" wouldn't hurt.
The other question may be the more serious.
When the Pew Survey looked at which groups are most successful in retaining their childhood members, it found the two groups with the lowest retention rates are Jehovah’s Witnesses (37 percent) and Buddhists (50 percent). Only half of all Americans raised Buddhist remain Buddhist as adults. By contrast, Hinduism has the highest retention rate, 84 percent.
The Pew Survey does not break down whether the lower rate of retention is among Asian-Americans with a long family tradition of Buddhism, or among the mostly white converts who are about three-fourths of all American Buddhists.
Clark Strand, a contributing editor to Tricycle: The Buddhist Review, wrote an op ed for the Wall Street Journal last November in which he claimed American Buddhism is dying. Strand charged that Boomer Buddhist converts did not pass their religion on to their children. "Having left the religion of their birth, often with good reason, American converts tend to be wary of anything approaching religious indoctrination, even if that means failing to offer their children the basics of a religious education," Strand wrote.
In my limited experience, many Dharma centers of the 1980s didn't provide for religious education of children while parents were meditating or going to lectures. And Buddhism is not a simple religion to teach to children. How does a child understand the Four Noble Truths? Perhaps raising children who will be inclined to remain Buddhists as adults requires a strong Buddhist community and culture, not just Buddhist parents.
On the other hand, the Pew Survey says that the largest age group of American Buddhists are not Boomers, but Gen-Xers. About 40 percent of American Buddhists are aged 30 to 49. Their children are still living at home. Perhaps there is hope.
Photo Credit: Dharma wheel, © Georgios Kollidas | Dreamstime.com
Comments
As an ordained Buddhist nun, I will speak to what defines a Buddhist. In the strictest sense, a Buddhist is somebody who has taken the 8 Precepts, which consist of the 5 Precepts, but most importantly the 3 Refuges. If a person takes refuge at least once per day, and practices with a sangha (monastic and/or lay people), at least once in a month, then they are considered Buddhist. Anybody can follow the 5 Precepts, but it is the 3 Refuges, in combination with practice with others that makes them Buddhist.
For the past 4 or 5 years, I have considered myself to be a “budding” Buddhist, so perhaps my observations about Buddhism may be of interest.
The first thing about Buddhism which I could not relate to was the casual approach taken by so-called Buddhist leaders. Workshops or meetings were often cancelled because the leader was at a another religious meeting - often at some far off place in the world. If the meetings were not cancelled, the leaders were often replaced by others less qualified to lead.
The second thing that I could not relate to was the increasingly commercial aspects of the religion. In such magazines as Shambhala Sun, for example, I am bombarded with ads and exhortataions to buy, buy, buy. Related to this is the clear implication from whom the ads are addressed to that one cannot be a true Buddhist unless one is a successful capitalist.
The third thing that I could not relate to is the heavy feminist aspects of North American Buddhism. Yes, women also deserve a place in the spiritual life, but have not North American Buddhist women grown past the need to constantly try to prove their worth through Buddhism as women instead of as human beings?
The fourth thing that I could not relate to was the very ritualistic nature of some Buddhist “services”.
It seems to me that there is a real dichotomy between the Buddhist teachings that I admire and respect and the spiritual practices of so-called Buddhists. Unfortunately, then, Buddhism is becoming for me another religion about which I have to say that I love the spiritual side, but hate the ritualistic side
Ernie — Thank you for your comments. My responses –
First, regarding the casual attitude, my experience going way back has been entirely different, but then my experiences have been mostly within monasteries and temples. In 20 years I’ve never known a teacher or monk to casually miss the schedules.
Second, regarding Shambhala Sun, um, how would you expect the publication to exist without advertisements? You can’t publish a magazine like that on revenue from subscriptions and sales alone. If the journal isn’t being subsidized, it has to sell ads. I’m sure the editors would love not to have to bother about ad sales, but thus is our samsaric reality.
Re overfeminization, again, that might be a local phenomenon. You have to understand that Buddhisn in Asia is heavily patriarchal, and it used to be the case that American dharma centers with Asian teachers were similarly patriarchal. You may be catching some of the backlash to that. It should settle down eventually.
Regarding the rituals — without knowing what tradition you’re working with I can’t comment specifically. Most of my experience is with Zen rituals. But it’s all skillful means. The power in Buddhism is found in giving yourself to it.
Remember, it’s all about realizing the ephemeral nature of ego. As Dogen said, “To carry yourself forward and experience myriad things is delusion. That myriad things come forth and experience themselves is awakening.” In ritual, quiet yourself and let the myriad things experience themselves. It can be very powerful.
If you’re standing apart from it and judging it, it’s not helping you much. But perhaps Buddhism is not the right practice for you.
1. Amercian Buddihsm?
2. The Wheel of life in front of the stars and stripes?
3. I am a buddhist nun, everyone else is fake?
4. Who said to be a 60’s hippy made you a buddhist?
Stan — judgmental, much?
As an un-ordained “budding” Buddist, I will speak regarding the above comments. I appreciate the fact that “buddhism” took the time and made the effort to reply to my previous comments. However the responses seem quite defensive to me.
First, since “buddhism” has never in 20 years known a teacher or monk to casually miss the schedules, the casual missing of schedules obviously must never occur.
Second, apparently, it is equally obvious that the commercialization of Buddhism in North America is justified because Buddhist organizations and publications need to make money. How foolish of me to believe that capitalism and Buddhist practices are somewhat mutually exclusive!
Third, the “overfeminization” of Buddhism in North America is not something that I am prepared to deal with in the hope that it “should settle down eventually”. I thought that one of the basic tenants of Buddhism was to be in the here and now?
Fourth, Buddhist ritual is obviously valid because it is “all skillful means”.
Fifth, your response to Stan seems to me to be itself judgmental
Wow. Okay, I am very interested in reading information on the latest studies on retaining Buddhists and progress in forming the new generation of Buddhists, but “buddhism” here is terribly defensive with the responses. If “buddhism” is Barbara O’Brian, I am a heck of a lot less interested in reading any more of her material. It is precisely this accusatory approach among those schooled in any religion that gives potential converts the heebie-jeebies. Let’s tone this down a bit and address Ernie’s (and anyone else’s) concerns with a bit less judgment and and a lot more loving kindness. And a heck of a lot more respect.
If you’re only interested in students who are willing to swallow doctrine and tradition without questions, perhaps evangelism and teaching is not the right practice for _you_, “buddhism”.
Anyone acting as a public representative of a religion on about.com owes it to the tradition to straighten up their act. They risk giving interested and “budding” Buddhists a very good reason to continue to avoid organized community spiritual life.
Thank you for your time.
Ernie — I should have made it clear that I am the About.com Buddhism Guide, Barbara O’Brien, so it’s sort of my job to respond to comments. Why the comment name field insists on calling me “buddhism” instead of by my name is a mystery to me, but there it is.
Anyway, to respond to your responses –
1. You related your experience, and I related mine. I never said your experience was invalid. My point was that it wasn’t a universal experience in American Buddhism.
2. Buddhist organizations and publications do need to make money. Monks gotta eat. Plumbing needs to get fixed. Etc. If you can think of a way to support the monasteries and temples and dharma centers in an uber-capitalist nation without engaging in some capitalism, let’s hear it.
3. “I thought that one of the basic tenants of Buddhism was to be in the here and now?”
Yes, and the here and how you are dealing with seems to be irritating you. I hadn’t noticed that American Buddhism was all that over-feminized, but I’m taking your word for it that it is where you are.
So, what are your choices? You can either walk away from it, or you can find a way to reconcile yourself to it and accept it as it is. Up to you.
But to expect whatever Buddhism you are encountering to rearrange itself to your liking seems a little unreasonable and is not the point of the here-and-now doctrine.
My first Zen teacher, Daido Roshi, often says “Nobody can make you angry; you make yourself angry.” Why are you making yourself angry? Working with that question is Buddhism. Expecting Buddhism to be what you want it to be is not Buddhism.
4. Buddhist ritual IS skillful means. I had my first kensho experience during a ritual. Not something I expected, I assure you. You have to practice the rituals awhile to appreciate why there are rituals.
5. I don’t tolerate intolerance.
If Buddhism isn’t the religious practice you are looking for, then perhaps you should keep looking. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Take care,
Barbara
Gwen — I’m sorry if you were offended, and I’m trying to be as kind as I can be, but I have to answer honestly. Formal Buddhist practice may not be what Ernie expected or wants, but it is what it is. I’m not going to lie about it.
I don’t think Buddhism is for everybody, and if it isn’t working out for Ernie, then perhaps he’d be happier with another spiritual practice.
Each comment made by Barbara O’Brian (also known as “buddhism”) strengthens in me the belief that Buddhism, like all other religions, has its rigid robots who know everything about their religion’s ritual and nothing about its heart. No wonder “half of the children raised as Buddhists in America leave Buddhism as adults”.
Thank you, Ernie. If you can to explain the heart I am missing, please do so. What would you have me say that would have been more palatable to you?
What’s funny about all this is that I think neither Ernie nor I is personally offended by your information on Buddhist doctrine. I’m a Presbyterian by raising, so this isn’t exactly personal. But, I’ve seen similar problems in the “heart” of my own church and others in my town and across the country. Ernie’s sharing some really good observations that ring true across the boundaries of different religions, and if you heed him, you may begin working to close the rift that this generation is experiencing in regard to religious life. He and I are trying to inform, not accuse you personally. The language can be rough, but in fact, he’s doing a great job of explaining the heart that is missing. Since you’ve asked again, though, let me try and help out.
The Pew Forum study that you presented basically informs us that people are leaving the faiths of their ancestors more and more through this past century and divorcing themselves from community religious life. The reason people are leaving their churches, and their temples, has a lot to do with “heart”. The walk of faith involves a high degree of personal surrender and trust. That’s what it’s all about, as you remind us yourself. We see all around us that walking blind leads to catastrophe and spiritual divorce, so why should we expect converts to close their eyes in the face of history and personal experience? That would be dishonest. We are looking for internal consistency before we can trust a new worldview. We are looking for faithfulness to the essential precepts. If we don’t see it in the flagship representatives of a faith, we will find another source that reflects its truth from all points.
Let’s use Ernie’s example as a gate to understanding. When I read a religious publication, I expect to see either no advertisements (indicating strong financial stewardship from members) or advertisements for services that uphold the values of the religion I am trying to study. It’s all about heart. If I see unrelated ads that show that the membership of the religious group is less concerned with careful stewardship and giving in line with their beliefs, I tend to come to the conclusion that the core of the religious organization lacks heart.
After all, I’m not Buddhist yet.
If you’re lucky, buddhism, Ernie will take yet more of his time to answer your question and explain again why your answers are not “palatable” to him. But I suspect that no amount of his explaining will help the “robot” system of religious exploration that he is commenting on. And blaming his reaction to you on his lack of understanding of Buddhist tenets is just — well, it’s useless. It accomplishes nothing.
Evangelism is relatively new to Buddhism. As I understand it, only recently have representatives from this tradition come over to evangelize here in America. It’s long been a religion that accepts seekers, rather than seeking out converts.
But it’s not just you, though. Most of the organized religions are taking this same hit in the current generation. It’s all part of the continuing process of cultural interrogation that’s making our nation what it is today. I’m sure the many religious communities that survive will do so because they eventually adapt.
Gwen: Thank you for your comment.
One of the reasons we’re talking past each other is that Buddhism as a religion is, unlike Christianity, less a religion of doctrine than a religion of practice (see this for explanation). Although there are doctrines, “believing in” doctrines isn’t the point of Buddhism, so certainly Ernie is free to believe whatever he likes. That’s not what we’re talking about.
There are a few dharma centers cropping up in America that are attempting to mix urban punk culture with Buddhism, which I blogged about here (nonjudgmentally). If that works for you, that’s fine with me. Since Buddhism is a religion of practice, what’s important is upaya, which is a Sanskrit word for “skillful means.” In other words, whatever works.
However, the traditional forms and practices also “work” for many people, and have worked for 25 centuries. There are young people in my Zen sangha who are just fine with the traditional forms. In Zen Buddhism the purpose of the rituals and forms is to focus mind and body to realize enlightenment, which is realization of the illusory nature of the self. This is the entire point of Zen Buddhism, actually. Zen is a methodology, not a belief system. So if Ernie were working with Zen (he doesn’t say, I don’t think), asking the dharma center to change its forms to suit him really is throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
In other sects of Buddhism the rituals and forms are understood differently, but they do have purpose. However, you have to work with them for a while to appreciate how they function and how powerful they can be if you give yourself to them.
Remember, the point is to conquer one’s ego and realize the illusory nature of self. This process can be painful and involves being shoved out of one’s comfort zone. This is what Buddhism is. This is what it has been for 25 centuries.
It’s unreasonable for someone to march into an institution and demand that it change to suit him. If he doesn’t like it there, he’s free to keep shopping for something more compatible.
Back to Ernie’s points — the truth is that if publications like the Shambhala Sun (which I believe is nonsectarian and aimed at a broad spectrum of readers; it’s more a popular magazine for Buddhist readers rather than a spiritual tract) didn’t sell ads, then it wouldn’t exist. We all might wish that were otherwise, but it isn’t. Exactly why that’s so hard for you and Ernie to understand is baffling to me.
There are plenty of Buddhist journals and magazines that are published by and subsidized by Buddhist institutions that have no or minimal advertising, but in those you only get the point of view of the one sect and they tend to be boring, frankly.
Regarding the over-feminization of Buddhism, as I said, I don’t see it, but I’ll take his word for it that he’s run into a nest of dharma feminists. Everyone comes into practice with issues. If we didn’t have issues, we wouldn’t need the practice. So everyone brings his or her pain and neuroses and history into the practice, and it can take a lifetime of practice to let that stuff go.
Ernie basically is demanding that everyone in the dharma center be pure and cleansed of all their wounds and agendas except him. If you’re approaching Buddhism with that attitude, you’re just defeating yourself. Ernie should be developing compassion instead of annoyance.
I don’t think Buddhism is a good fit for everyone, and possibly it’s not what Ernie needs now. For more on why I can think of no good reasons anyone should convert to Buddhism, go here.
I am grateful, Gwen, for your thoughtful and heartfelt comments. After reading Barbara O’Brian’s response to you (13.),it is apparent to me that it would be a waste of my time to attempt to communicate further with her. It is unfortunate that, as a Zen Buddhist, she purports to speak for all Buddhists. While I no longer can relate to Zen Buddhism, I still believe there are Buddists for whom heart is as important as doctrine: Jack Kornfield (as expressed, for example, in his book: “A Path with Heart” and Thich Nhat Hanh (as expressed in his many writings) immediately come to my mind. I confess that I have been somewhat naive in having “warm, fuzzy” feeling toward Buddhism in general. I now realize that this has been a mistake.
I wish you well in your spiritual life!
Ernie, FYI, Thich Nhat Hanh is a Zen master, and if you were to be his student you’d be very well practiced in the forms and rituals.
I was using Zen as an example, but Vajrayana, for another example, is all about the rituals. The rituals and forms open the heart of compassion and non-judgmentalism and pull you out of your ego-shell. They’re very effective at that.
I’m sorry I was able to explain Buddhism to either of you, but I wish both you and Gwen well.
Ernie, I’m glad I could help! Reading all your comments really helped me understand what’s happening in American faith on a personal level. It comforted me to know I’m not by myself in my difficulties.
Thank you also for sharing your conclusion. I’ve come to the same one myself in this situation, and as always, social confirmation strengthens my own ability to choose and to follow a given path.
Thank you also, Barbara O’Brian, for providing this forum and discussion, and also for directing my attention to the Pew Forum. Their research is fascinating and helpful, and I’m grateful to you for linking me to their website. This is a very heartfelt and vital topic to explore, and the more information I find, the better equipped I hope to be.
Jack Kornfield rocks!!! I highly recommend his “A Path with Heart”! It’s helped me more than any other book to begin transcending my ego and healing my life. I’ll say that even a little Buddhism offers great peace of mind. I’m sure that practice and ritual would only increase its benefits.
You know, when I expressed my interest and asked a Buddhist if I would be taught how to meditate, I was asked, “Do you want to learn?”
We are already asking because we want to learn. Teach us by example! Answer our questions with the true answers as you do, but answer with the respect you’d show to a fellow traveler. We’re weary, too. And if meditation helps you overcome that weariness, help us non-meditators with extra charity since we’re a little less equipped than you are in that respect.
We are experiencing a different world of faith than our ancestors did, in countless ways. Right now, I believe that the hope of American Buddhism, and of organized communities of faith in general, rests much more on current public practice than on the shoulders of children who have hardly begun their journeys of faith. Those children need leaders who can reach out to them, and who can respond with loving patience and nurture when the children call for their help.
And of course, faith leadership is best done by example.
Anyway, probably best for me to get back to working! I wish all of you well in your practice!
Jack Kornfield lived as a Theravada monk in a very old monastery in Thailand for several years, so he’s very well trained in rituals and forms also. I’m sure he could do a better job than I can of explaining why they’re important.
I am humbled, Barbara. I will probably keep reading Mr. Kornfield then, since both you and Ernie can recommend him. It sounds like he is very trustworthy. What other authors do you recommend? Can a person learn to meditate by following instruction from a book, or do we need to have a teacher before we can progress? (I had “Meditation for Dummies” recommended by someone, and it seemed pretty good to me.)
Barbara, as an American Buddhist woman you have probably dealt with any sexism that might be present in traditional Buddhist doctrine. Do you think that there is/was sexism in traditional Buddhism that can still stand in the way of women who are seeking to begin study? It sounds like there was enough there at one time that some potential male converts in many Buddhist communities are still experiencing the backlash. As a woman from a Christian background, this kind of trouble sounds very familiar.
In traditional Buddhist writings, are women always considered a lower level of reincarnation than men, or are there also ancient traditional teachings that can be used to support the idea that men and women suffer equal barriers to achieving enlightment?
Wait a sec — due to Buddhist emphasis on practice over doctrine, are you saying that Buddhist teachings and practice are uniquely subject to individual scrutiny and experience that women have already been fully excepted into American Buddhist life??
Is it like Christianity in that different American communities allow women differing levels of leadership?
By the way, the reason I have trouble with the whole materialistic “advertising to publish” thing is because I’ve seen good examples of religious publications that _were_ able to avoid that pitfall. Probably due to the generosity and wealth of their supporters.
Putting the publication’s funding responsibility into the hands of the believers is a good way to ensure that the truths you share will not appear tarnished by other interests. If for reasons of tradition or practice you cannot muster adequate financial help from your communities and you must use commercial tactics to spread your message, taking care to only accept advertisements from businesses whose ethics and spending are in line with Buddhist principles is a minimum. Maybe that is already being done in many cases, but the “buy this awesome wind chime” advertising in pop spirituality publications turns many people off. With good reason.
I wonder if it’s possible that Buddhists are left more dependent on commercial advertising precisely because of their selfless giving in other areas…I know that’s not the case for most Christian communities I know of, but as you’ve pointed out, I am coming from a very different tradition.
Oops, there I go again, opening my mouth before I’ve really taken in your meaning.
I’m not as interested in being entertained as in learning, so if I try to learn generically about a faith through their pop publications, it’s pretty rough going. Maybe you can recommend one of the better publications that has more information and less advertising in it.
If every serious Buddhist publication is too sectarian or jargoned to be understood by lay people, then that’s a problem. By the same token, those pop spirituality rags, while they’re fun for some, tend to make any religion look bad.
That’s why I don’t subscribe to any of the most popular Christian magazines. Too many ads for angel figurines and bumper magnets, you know? Anyway, yeah. I’ll try hard not to stereotype all Buddhists based on their fluffiest mags. Seems like our two faith communities have a lot more in common than I expected!
Gwen — if you like, we could move this to the Forum. You might get better answers from somebody else there.
I’ve seen good examples of religious publications that _were_ able to avoid that pitfall. Probably due to the generosity and wealth of their supporters.
Yes, there are a great many Buddhist publications that are entirely or partly subsidized by institutions and publish with little or no advertising. And then there are a couple — Shambhala Sun is one, Tricycle another — that are more nonsectarian and aim for a broader audience, and I happen to like those because they publish articles by Buddhists of many sects. They provide a diverse point of view. I’ve learned a lot from them about the teachings of other schools of Buddhism. For Zen teachings, I like the Mountain Record, published by Zen Mountain Monastery of Mt. Tremper, NY. It has a little classified section in the back but doesn’t run display ads with the articles.
I wonder if it’s possible that Buddhists are left more dependent on commercial advertising precisely because of their selfless giving in other areas
False premise, I think. As I said, there are a great many Buddhist publications that are subsidized by institutions. They tend to be very small of circulation and written by monks of uneven talent, but they do exist.
IMO it was unfair of Ernie to pick on Shanbhala Sun as representative of all Buddhist publishing. It’s just that Shambhala and Tricycle get the circulation because they are read by a wide spectrum of American Buddhists of many schools. And I think they run really good, thought-provoking articles, for the most part. They aren’t “fluffy.”
If every serious Buddhist publication is too sectarian or jargoned to be understood by lay people, then that’s a problem.
I’d say many of them would be hard to understand by Buddhists of other sects. There is a huge difference in the way, say, Pure Land Buddhists discuss their religion and the way Zen Buddhists discuss their religion. Even if we’re speaking English we’re talking in a different language, so to speak.
By the same token, those pop spirituality rags, while they’re fun for some, tend to make any religion look bad.
I don’t think the “pop” mags make Buddhism look bad. As I said, they really aren’t that fluffy or insipid. They publish good stuff that people might not see otherwise. I wouldn’t often get to read stuff by, say, Tibetan teachers or Theravada teachers (like Jack Kornfield) without them.
What other authors do you recommend?
I love Pema Chodron, but she may be a little advanced. I think Thich Nhat Hanh has a real gift for explaining difficult Buddhist teachings in a clear, simple way.
Can a person learn to meditate by following instruction from a book, or do we need to have a teacher before we can progress?
If you can find a teacher, by all means work with a teacher. You’ll understand why after you’ve worked with a teacher. Note that there are several very diverse disciplines that get called “meditation.” I recommend Vipassana, which is a Theravada practice, or Zazen, which is Zen.
Barbara, as an American Buddhist woman you have probably dealt with any sexism that might be present in traditional Buddhist doctrine.
There’s not that much sexism in the doctrines, that I’ve found. There’s some, but surprisingly little, considering. However, most Asian countries are highly patriarchal, so in practice Buddhist institutions in Asia tend to be highly patriarchal.
When non-Asian westerners took up Buddhism in large numbers after World War II, for the most part the first round of teachers were Asian-born, and they brought their patriarchal ideas with them. Some years ago there were some dharma centers that had a rep for sexism.
That’s much diminished now, in my experience. In fact, the younger generation of American Zen teachers is probably split close to 50-50 between men and women. My teacher and leader of my sangha is a woman, and her teacher was a woman, and a majority of the students in my sangha are women, so it’s a very matriarchal place. We even recognize the female ancestors in our liturgy, which sure ain’t traditional. Other dharma centers might not be quite so “enlightened,” however.
In traditional Buddhist writings, are women always considered a lower level of reincarnation than men, or are there also ancient traditional teachings that can be used to support the idea that men and women suffer equal barriers to achieving enlightment?
For the most part Buddhism doesn’t teach reincarnation as you might understand the word — a common misunderstanding. If you want a longer explanation, post a question on the forum. Also see the Four Noble Truths and the section on Karma and Rebirth.
I’m not sure about Theravada, but according to Mahayana Buddhism, it is not possible for there to be “lower” or “higher” rebirths. Gender is irrelevent.
Update: OK, I misspoke a bit. Some rebirths are more or less desirable, certainly, but you have to understand who it is that is reborn. We are not reborn as distinctive individuals. The wheel of samsara makes no distinctions about gender.
Wait a sec — due to Buddhist emphasis on practice over doctrine, are you saying that Buddhist teachings and practice are uniquely subject to individual scrutiny and experience
There’s a huge diversity in the various sects, but for the most part Buddhist teachings must be subjected to individual scrutiny and experience. That’s the whole point of Buddhism. Doctrines and teachings are just the starting point. Merely “believing in” the teachings is not Buddhism.
However, that doesn’t mean everyone gets to do his or her own thing. That’s where the practice disciplines come in. Most sects require some kind of daily discipline, usually meditation or chanting, or both. Practiced sincerely, open the heart to compassion and the mind to understanding. Deeply focused rituals can also be very powerful means for opening oneself up.
that women have already been fully excepted into American Buddhist life??
Depends on the sect, but for the most part I’d say yes.
Is it like Christianity in that different American communities allow women differing levels of leadership?
I suspect that if you check out the Buddhist temples in Asian-American communities they’re probably still pretty patriarchal, and I’m not sure what goes on with the Tibetans. But there are no doctrinal barriers to women being fully ordained priests that I’m aware of. Certainly there are a whole lot of American women who are fully ordained Buddhist priests now.
To address the Pew results themselves rather than bicker over what constitutes “authentic” Buddhism: One of the most flagrant and disturbing problems with the Pew study is that only Spanish and English were offered–thus significantly skewing the results and overrepresenting English-speaking (mostly White elite) Buddhists. There are so many post-1965 Buddhist immigrants in this country who speak neither English nor Spanish as their first language, and furthermore may be extremely leery of completing government surveys about religion. Thus the entire survey results are extremely suspect, whether we are talking about “average” American Buddhists’ religion retention, income, age, etc. I recommend a much more skeptical approach to this survey when talking about “American Buddhism” as a whole–unless we’re content to call a large swath of Asian Americans “not really American Buddhists.”