Buddhism or 'cultural tradition'?

[Apech]

I watched this nice film the other day:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=APuKa5-WVs4

 

It focusses on a few boys chosen as Tulkus in the 1970's and 80's - they are westerners - the main one being the son of Trungpa.  It follows him as he returns to India and Nepal and also talks to other 'tulkus'.  They all seem to be charming decent chaps and all that but none of them seem to practice or really understand what it means to be a tulku.  One is clearly is quite conflicted about the whole thing.  Most of them did not go through the monastic training - Trungpa prevented his own son from being sent away - but one did spend time in a monastery which he describes as a kind of cess pit full of bullying, child abuse and homosexuality (nothing wrong with that except they are supposed to be celibate). There is an interview with Dzongsar Khyentse the Bhutanese film making lama - who says as far as he is concerned the whole tulku thing was Tibetan cultural and not particularly Buddhist and should be phased out.

 

So it raises a number of questions - like how much of what we are taught as Buddhists in the west is actually Buddhism and how much is some kind cultural hangover from Tibet (or Japan or Thailand etc.)

 

Discuss.

 

(Write your answers on not less than two sides of A4 paper and hand them to the moderator before you leave the classroom - calculators cannot be used and cell phones must be in flight mode.)

[Apech]

Here's the Dzongsar Khyentse bit if you don't want to watch the whole thing:

 

[Michael Sternbach]

So it raises a number of questions - like how much of what we are taught as Buddhists in the west is actually Buddhism and how much is some kind cultural hangover from Tibet (or Japan or Thailand etc.)

 

Discuss.

 

It also raises the question if Buddhism is conceptually bound to a cultural environment at all. Arguably, many Western Buddhists might actually be 'better' ones, because they are Buddhists by choice and genuinely interested in its deeper teachings and practices, rather than inheriting as part of their overall culture.

 

While there is a tendency to think of Western Buddhists (Daoists etc) as somehow less genuine than Eastern ones, we should consider that it has been travelling quite far already long ago; nowadays, there are few Buddhists in India where it was created. Likewise, Christianity is not the prevalent religion in Israel but was spread all over Europe with the Roman Empire as mediator.

 

In Japan, there is definitely a lack of interest in Buddhism among members of the young generation. Maybe historians will one day consider our time to be the stage when Buddhism and other Eastern religions started moving to the West.

 

(Write your answers on not less than two sides of A4 paper and hand them to the moderator before you leave the classroom - calculators cannot be used and cell phones must be in flight mode.)

 

I guess I cheated - my post is rather short, plus I used my computer for writing it.

[rex]

...

Edited January 12, 2016 by rex

[Seeker of Wisdom]

I'm not a big fan of the Tulku system. I don't see why it would even be relevant if someone is the reincarnation of so-and-so. Surely the Buddha would just care about a person's qualities in the present, not who they used to be? And how can someone be said to be the reincarnation of someone's speech or someone's body - what does that even mean?

 

This custom means children are being taken, superstitiously declared the rebirth of someone else, and hot-housed to be Bodhisattvas. When it works out well we get HHDL - someone with natural aptitude and interest trained from a young age - but there's also a high risk of kids being forced into something they don't want and even being abused horribly.

 

Separating culture from the core can be hard. Some stuff is clearly mythology. Some stuff is clearly the monastic community bigging up monasticism. Other things are less obvious. IMHO a major pointer is to work on being a decent person, shamatha and vipassana - and see what actually happens. Be as pragmatic about the thing as possible - run the experiment and see what you get.

[ralis]

Donald Lopez's book is very useful as a critical analysis of Tibetan Buddhism.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Prisoners-Shangri--Tibetan-Buddhism-West/dp/0226493113/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452619582&sr=1-7&keywords=Donald+lopez

[Apech]

It also raises the question if Buddhism is conceptually bound to a cultural environment at all. Arguably, many Western Buddhists might actually be 'better' ones, because they are Buddhists by choice and genuinely interested in its deeper teachings and practices, rather than inheriting as part of their overall culture.

 

While there is a tendency to think of Western Buddhists (Daoists etc) as somehow less genuine than Eastern ones, we should consider that it has been travelling quite far already long ago; nowadays, there are few Buddhists in India where it was created. Likewise, Christianity is not the prevalent religion in Israel but was spread all over Europe with the Roman Empire as mediator.

 

In Japan, there is definitely a lack of interest in Buddhism among members of the young generation. Maybe historians will one day consider our time to be the stage when Buddhism and other Eastern religions started moving to the West.

 

 

I guess I cheated - my post is rather short, plus I used my computer for writing it.

 

8/10 despite points being deducted for using a computer - you raise some valid points.

 

I'm kind of torn between respect for the old ways and realising that many people who are drawn to Buddhism and Daoism rather then being culturally born into it are better practitioners.  Also they have some karmic connection - or so I imagine.

 

I do believe for instance that the forms of etiquette should be changed to western ones - we should treat teachers much as we do aged and respected professors or venerated members of one's family - not so much bowing and white scarves and going through the motions that we don't understand. 

[Apech]

Donald Lopez's book is very useful as a critical analysis of Tibetan Buddhism.

 

http://www.amazon.com/Prisoners-Shangri--Tibetan-Buddhism-West/dp/0226493113/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1452619582&sr=1-7&keywords=Donald+lopez

 

 

Thanks I haven't read that one.

 

I don't know if he makes this point - that our romanticisation of both Tibet and India is part of colonial thinking.  For instance the older western Indologists go on endlessly about 'timeless', 'mystical', India - as if it has no actual history.

[Apech]

I'm not a big fan of the Tulku system. I don't see why it would even be relevant if someone is the reincarnation of so-and-so. Surely the Buddha would just care about a person's qualities in the present, not who they used to be? And how can someone be said to be the reincarnation of someone's speech or someone's body - what does that even mean?

 

This custom means children are being taken, superstitiously declared the rebirth of someone else, and hot-housed to be Bodhisattvas. When it works out well we get HHDL - someone with natural aptitude and interest trained from a young age - but there's also a high risk of kids being forced into something they don't want and even being abused horribly.

 

Separating culture from the core can be hard. Some stuff is clearly mythology. Some stuff is clearly the monastic community bigging up monasticism. Other things are less obvious. IMHO a major pointer is to work on being a decent person, shamatha and vipassana - and see what actually happens. Be as pragmatic about the thing as possible - run the experiment and see what you get.

 

If we subscribe to rebirth then we are all tulkus of someone I suppose - which levels it out a bit.  I can't imagine anything more disturbing for a small boy to be told he is someone else and whisked away from his parents and force fed Buddhist philosophy for fourteen years.

 

I think the young Kalu Rinpoche went through hell because of this - though now he seems to have adjusted.

[ralis]

Thanks I haven't read that one.

 

I don't know if he makes this point - that our romanticisation of both Tibet and India is part of colonial thinking.  For instance the older western Indologists go on endlessly about 'timeless', 'mystical', India - as if it has no actual history.

 

I believe that is correct. Although, it has been years since I read it. Perhaps the romantic ideal began with Yogananda in the USA and Europe? That ideal was in place with seekers and became a projection to Trungpa et al.