What Is "Authentic" Buddhism?
At The Guardian, Naseem Khan writes that western Buddhism sometimes is not viewed as "authentic." She asks if this is true, and if so, how important is "authenticity"?
I regret that Ms. Khan doesn't define "authentic, which can mean -- trustworthy or factual; matching the features of an original (as in "authentic reproduction"); not an imitation; true to an original spirit. But let's go on.
Western Buddhism has a reputation for being frivolous. This is not entirely undeserved. Westerners often approach Buddhism as some kind of enrichment activity, to be engaged on a superficial level and abandoned when it gets boring. It's also the case that there still are too few genuinely skillful (and authentic) teachers to go around. However, it's also true there are many sincere and devoted followers of dharma in the West.
Ms. Khan quotes the Vipassana teacher Joseph Goldstein, who says a grounding in one tradition is vital before "opening out" to change, if change is warranted, and I think that's exactly right. Ms. Khan, who is writing from Britain, also notes the cultural attitude that orange robes and chanting are fine in Asia but not considered "authentic" in the West.
"Western Buddhism is trying to find a way through these territorial imperatives and to establish its philosophy as a general good," she writes. "Universality rather than authenticity is a better aim." I'm not sure what she means, but I don't think I agree.
Buddhism is a religion of practice, not just "philosophy as a general good." When you get past the surface, the forms take on greater importance. In most traditions the chants, rituals and robes are not ornaments but have real and vital functions. It takes grounding in one tradition to appreciate that, I guess.
Comments
Fascinating, I wonder where that writer got the idea that robes and chanting aren’t considered authentic here in the West? Must not have done her homework.
Lise
The question can be turned on its head–is an Eastern person from a Buddhist country who only observes now and then for nostalgic reasons an authentic Buddhist? I agree with the point Barbara often makes, that one must study a specific Buddhist tradition and practice seriously. Nevertheless, Western Buddhists by and large come to Buddhism out of conviction rather than cultural habit, and often face great difficulties in reaching a sangha and a teacher. It think that, in such circumstances, honest intention goes a long way in determining authenticity. Part of that intention is the refusal to view meditation as merely a path to greater mental health, but rather a long and difficult dharma path toward compassion and true awakening.
Robes and rituals, while appealing to those who are curious or have no deep interest to see what the Buddha saw under the Bodhi-tree, are not the authentic part of Buddhism. Uncovering and perfecting our latent Buddha-nature is.
Western exoticism of Buddhism is a major obstacle to authenticity in Buddhism. The exoticism reinforce the ego constructs of western buddhists. The issues of western racism and cultural appropriation (imperialism) need to be addressed and deprogrammed before anyone can authentically practice buddhism. This is not trivial. Most westerners (especially the white people of the socio-economic class that seem to show the most interest in buddhism) do not view themselves as racists and therefore do not see any problem in their cultural appropriations.
Incidentally, I define “authentic” as “for its own sake” and “inauthentic” as “as a means to another goal”.
Greg — I’m not sure what you mean by “cultural appropriation” in this context. Can you provide examples?
I would also like to see Greg expand his thoughts some. If unacknowledged racism and imperialist attitudes are standing in the way of some (all?) Westerners fully appreciating and taking advantage of the dharma, that would be a serious problem. I don’t see it as a problem for serious students, as David says; for the frivolous, entertainment-minded types, of course, there are many problems standing in their way. But that’s equally true in the cases of Christianity, Judaism, atheism, or what-have-you. I don’t think it matters much whether its an “Eastern” or “Western” spiritual tradition we’re talking about.
By the way, it needs to be always kept in mind that Sanskrit, Pali, and other languages originally associated with the Buddha’s teaching were Indo-European languages closely related to Greek, Latin, etc., and his culture was really quite “Western.” When the teachings migrated eastward, the “Easterners” had plenty of trouble understanding them at first. The main reason we think of Buddhism as “Oriental” is that 16th-17th century Western explorers first encountered it in countries like China and Japan. In itself, the dharma is just human–not “Eastern” or “Western,” I would say.
To start with, there are many Buddhisms, many claiming to be the real thing. And while Buddhism reputedly boils down to understanding and living the four truths even that is not the same for everybody.
Personally, I really don’t care if you approach Buddhism “authentically” or not. The practice and study of Buddhism itself has a way of helping you toward that attitude. The Buddha said, “At the start I pledged to make all beings equal to myself, with no difference between us.”, and I take him at his word.
Joe — I hear you. If you are sincere, the “authenticity” will take care of itself. (bowing)