Asian Buddhist laypeople accept all the glitzy stuff in a Buddhist temple, including the ceremonies. A beginner who is a Westerner is sometimes overwhelmed or taken back by all the glitter; who may consider this as a sign that Buddhism has fallen into superstition. By the same token, the Westerner is naturally impressed with his own glitzy materialistic world. He doesn't consider himself to be superstitious, after all, he has put his faith in science. In fact, the Western Buddhist considers himself to be smarter and more well educated unlike his Asian counterpart.
Buddhism is a very old Indian religion. It knows the ropes. It also knows the fine art of bait-and-switch in a really good way (not like a thief). Granting Buddhism time in the West, it will eventually challenge the materialism of the West. Westerners will find themselves practicing mindfulness and sitting on a cushion in meditation. Now think of practicing mindfulness as the bait along with seated meditation. Include, too, the Roshi or Lama who sits on his dais giving out wonderful psychological advice. This is about all the Westerner can handle. They are not ready for the "switch" in the analogy of switching from an SUV to an anti-gravitic starship with warp drive.
Now think of bait-and-switch for Asians who are drawn to Buddhism. They are drawn to Buddhism by the grandeur of a huge statue of the Buddha or the subtle beauty of a Buddhist temple. This is the bait which might include seeing lots of monks and nuns. A few Asian Buddhist are ready for the "switch" who realize that much of Buddhism is bait or the same, skillful means. I am guessing that even fewer Western Buddhist are ready for the "switch" and would rather revise Buddhism (and Zen) so that it only teaches mindfulness and seated meditation!
The sutric history of the bait-and-switch tactic is found in the Lotus Sutra. This synopsis is taken form Robert K.C. Forman's book, The Innate Capacity.
The Burning House (chapter 3)
An old, wise man returns from his travels to his large and crumbling mansion to find that it is on fire and his many sons are trapped inside. He tells them the situation and calls on them to come out, but they do not understand what the statement "the house is on fire" means, and they are absorbed with their playthings. So the father tells them that he has presents outside: goat carts for some, deer carts for others, and bullock carts for the rest. The children then hurry to come out and ask for the carts, but the father does not have them. Instead, he gives each child an enormous and magnificent cart, of a type far beyond any splendor they could have imagined, drawn by white oxen. In modern terms, it is as if the children had expected to receive push-bikes, motor bikes, and automobiles, and each was then presented with a starship. They forget their former expectations and joyfully ride on the marvelous ox carts. The Buddha explains that the father in the story is himself; the house is samsara, which is subject to decay and death and is on fire with the passions; the children are disciples; the promised carts are the various apparent rewards consequent upon following Buddhist teachings and practices; and the ox carts are true liberation.
Unfortunately, not too many want to leave the burning house. It's more like, the house is not burning (secular Buddhist revisionism).
thank you for something that challenges my fixed ideas.
Posted by: Foolishbeing | August 21, 2015 at 09:25 AM
I was weeding my email today and thought I would share this as an "open letter" with you & your readers. I wrote this to my Zen teacher on July 18th:
I was working with Frank today, and we were talking about my general indifference to vegan food. He commented "You are a meat eater, aren't you?"
I said, "True, but I'm not a Buddhist."
He asked "What are you then? Christian? Atheist?"
I said, "No. I don't know. What do you think? I don't believe half of this stuff."
He said "I had more doubts than everyone! I doubted everything the Buddha said! Now I believe everything. I have no doubts." Then he added "Shifu would be surprised to hear me say that.."
And I asked what seemed to be the pertinent question, "You were convinced by realization or by reconditioning?"
And Frank said "By realization."
And I asked, "You are enlightened, then?"
And he said "No, that's not necessary. Do you think all these people volunteering are enlightened?"
Me: "No, of course not. So, what you're saying is that you had other beliefs and you reconditioned your mind and now have different beliefs?"
Frank: "No."
Me: "It's either one or the other. You *do* know that the whole idea behind everything we do here is to awaken, don't you? All the masters said that. If that doesn't happen...you've missed the point of Buddhism."
Frank: "But when we do all these things we are walking the Path. Walking toward enlightenment."
At this point in the conversation something that I had been thinking about for the past week clarified for me: what it means to live in the Dharma-Ending Age. The masters of old practiced like they were escaping from a burning house and their hair was already in flames, and we practice like enlightenment is no big deal...just as long as we keep this big, expensive concern operating and expanding and everybody contented. The masters of old deliberately created occasions of stress, and all we do is to try to reduce it by keeping really busy. Well, I will not go on with this thought....
My beliefs, your beliefs, Frank's beliefs...why should I care about them? My Christian friend "knows" what is true. The Islamics "know" what is true. The Mormons "know" what is true. Etc, etc. And what else is this except being re-conditioned? Testing out a set of beliefs and seeing 1) if it appeals to you aesthetically and 2) whether you can tolerate the cognitive dissonance and 3) whether in the long run you can use them for a lifetime?
Why was I upset when JGS left? Because *he manifested*. I never took a class from him, or even had an extended conversation with him, but every time he spoke to me, there was the Dharma walking around in its reality. It wasn't what he taught or said or did. It was what he was, and is. And, I'm sorry to say this, but everyone else--and I know you monks have advanced. I know you have attained--treats enlightenment like it's no big deal, and that endless "expedient means" and classes are somehow more important.
Posted by: Susan | July 22, 2015 at 12:40 AM
Re: your last sentence. That's why they call our time the "Dharma Ending Age".
Posted by: Susan | July 21, 2015 at 02:35 PM