Article on "results orient dharma" in the U.S.

http://www.patheos.com/Resources/Additional-Resources/Results-Oriented-Dharma-US-Buddhism-in-the-21st-Century?offset=0&max=1

this is interesting, especially the discussion about the question of authority in relilgious/spiritual practices and her emphasis her group's mission, which is "to make diversity and social justice-centered mindfulness practices available to all, with special emphasis on people of color and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, questioning (LGBTQI), and same-gender loving communities."

"diversity and social justice-centered mindfulness practices" -- I do believe this is the first time I've seen or heard that exact phrase. [/b]

Thank you for sharing this, Mike. That's the first time I've come across that particular phrase as well.

What I gathered from the article is that the author is making an effort to provide, and advocate for, the tailored application of Buddhist practices for populations who are recognizably underserved. If this is what she is talking about, I'm all for it.

We're all free to accept or reject - or rather, take-up or leave-aside - various views and practices of the greater tradition of Buddha Dharma. I like the idea that someone still participate in a community based on the Buddha's teachings, without being expelled due to not fully endorsing a particular point of view. I'm sure a lot of people are grateful for the author's commitment to this kind of work.

For some reason the death of long-time atheist and anti-religion writer/thinker Christopher Hitchens and my subsequent enthusiastic reading and watching everything I could get my hands on that was by him or featured him -- coincided with my own harsh reassessment of my views and inclinations (or lack thereof) towards religion, dogma, paths, practices, attainments, etc.

One thing that keeps popping up for me is first the concept of "fundamentalism" in all religions and how different Buddhism may or may not be in that context.

While I think that all over the world there are religious "cultural Buddhists" (that's a problematic term I think) who are fundamentalists in that they think their type of Buddhism is the correct type and they have faith that the texts they use are the correct and right and accurate teachings of the real Buddha, and

there are Western "converts" whose dharma can seem very fundamental in approach (I've met a lot of these online), however as Jackson just wrote:

We're all free to accept or reject - or rather, take-up or leave-aside - various views and practices of the greater tradition of Buddha Dharma. I like the idea that someone still participate in a community based on the Buddha's teachings, without being expelled due to not fully endorsing a particular point of view.

meaning, to me, that for many many many of us, the "Buddha Dharma" has become this kind of grab bag of spiritual/meditative techniques/rituals/practices that humans really are picking and choosing from and, in a way, sometimes, creating their own "religion."

But what is that? Is is Buddhism as it was practiced for so long before the very recent Western surge of interest? Or, is it something entirely new?

(Also, I can see the same thing happening with people who identify as "christian" but I wonder if it is possible with Islam. My wife Bec is a highly faithful lover/follower of Jesus but she has no interest in going to church, reading the bible, talking about or promoting her faith, etc. Her "practice" is highly personal and original)

I've realized that a lot of my ambivalence and even anger over a lot of these subjects was my own lack of awareness that I was attempting to fit myself into something in which I didn't really belong. The truth I'm lately realizing is that I just want to use the "vipassana" practices for my own purposes and almost anything else that is related to the BuddhaDharma isn't really interesting to me.

(I think this is why I've at times said baffling things on this forum especially because my statements really have shown at times that I hadn't really bought in to "dharma" at all. If I've offended anyone here because of this I apologize)

Also, doesn't it almost seem like many of us (meaning contemporary people who weren't born into Buddhist -families who are into some or all of dharma stuff) just kind of see Buddhism as it is laid before us in all the groups, books, practices, traditions, etc. as an inventory of goodies or things that we can adapt or not depending on our interest/inclination?

I often wonder if this is offensive to those who have been Buddhist of one kind or another all their lives and to whom their own type of Buddhism (theravada, zen, etc.) has always been taken as a complete whole in all it's dogma, rituals, and for whom it is an integral part of their lives in that complete whole.

Does this make sense? For sure there are many converts (such as some American zen priests and monks I've met and for another example some of the Western-born Thai Forest Tradition monks) who have jumped in and taken a whole bite out of a particular school/sect of Buddhism. but, also, a lot of converts really do just see the entirety of the dharma as bits and pieces to take or leave.

This is all fine and I have no axe to grind here, I'm just interested and seeing some things in a new light lately. This is not an argument.

I can see how some of the more traditional Buddhist types might see the a la carte style of Buddhism as undesireable. I'm sure there are lots of a la carte types who see traditional Buddhism as stuffy and rigid, and find it much more practical to take (what they consider to be) the best of all approaches, sythesizing it all into one Super Dharma. It's an interesting topic, I think.

I find that I sympathize with both appraoches; though, in different ways, and for different reasons.

What I like about the more traditional approaches is that they are often coherent and clear. Hundreds, if not thousands, of years of debate, practice, and inquiry have taken place, and it isn't very hard to discover the key points, practices, and goals that line up with the ideals of a more traditional Buddhism.

I find that contemporary, take-it-or-leave-it dharma can be flaky, unfocused, confused, and often deluded, in terms of knowing what one is really going for, and what practices are likely to bring it about. But, for those who do have a clear understanding of a path and goal, as well as the types of skills needed to realize both, the a la carte approach may actually be more pragmatic.

I guess a key issue in this topic is the dynamics of span and depth. Usually when there is great span, there's little depth. Conversely, reduced span often correlates to greater depth. For example, if I only take on 2-3 practices, and just focus on those, chances are I'll develop them more deeply than if I were to practice 10-15 techniques - whether together, or sequentially. Having more options, therefore, isn't always a good thing. It can lead to too much span and not enough depth, if one is unwilling to choose a narrow range of skills from the greater pool and develop them to mastery.

So, I like that we have options. And, they really are good options! There are gazillions of skillful means. But, we can't be rock stars at all of them. This isn't just the case with Practice, but also with View and Result (or Goal). To many views, and one can't act consistently. Too many goals, and one is unlikely to realize any of them.

I don't want to be a Buddhist cliche and merely advocate a Middle Way, but maybe balance really is what's at stake, here. Regardless of whether your Dharma is traditional or pluralistic, it had better be coherent and narrow enough to actually practice.

Word to the infinite power

Palabra a la potencia infinita

Exactamente

Nossa senhora...

Could there be something in the nature of Buddhism itself or, in the way converts/a la carte Buddhists see the religion that makes it more pliable, more accessible to the a la carte approach than maybe other religions?

Possibilities:

Buddhism in most of its manifestations is NOT theistic. Western converts who feel restrained by their own theistic core religions might be attracted by this, by a certain freedom this might bring?

The central myth of the religion, of Buddha being an actual human being who went out into the world and did practices he choose in order to find out for himself what was true and good and that led to awakening is, possibly, identical to what the a la carte practitioners are really doing. Sort of like, if he could do it, so can I?

I wonder if there isn't a pretty a la carte approach to Christianity too, it's just harder to notice because it's so familiar as a cultural background? For example, there are tons of "Christmas & Easter" Christians, and I know a lot of people who think it's really important kids go to Sunday School when they are young, but themselves only go to church for weddings or funerals. I have an aunt who spends an hour a day in private Bible study, but tosses back a martini with her friends before heading to church on Sunday; I know families that are super devout and barely have anything they do that isn't tied to religious practice. Besides the really wide variety of ways people interpret Christian teaching (emphasizing charitable work, or emphasizing social rules, or emphasizing faith, etc.) I'm not sure if it's equivalent or not, just pondering whether we might be blind to it out of familiarity.

I think Buddhism lends itself well to adaptation due, at least in part, to its emphasis of dependent co-arising and emptiness. Religion is form, and forms co-arise depedently; and thus, the path is empty of inherent existence. This is why you hear talk of skillful means in all of the Buddhist traditions. The fact that one practice can be fabricated implies that many practices can be fabricated. Of course, that doesn't mean that practices don't vary in usefulness, whether in general or even from person to person.

In other words, a religion where the only aboslute truth claim is ontological relativism is bound to manifest in myriad ways; and, it's those who follow the teachings are probably, usually, more OK with this way of viewing and doing things than others. Or rather, perhaps those who already appreciate such ways of thinking and being are those who are attracted to Buddhism.

Ona.

I think that is right and I see a lot of that too, and I've done a lot of that myself.
However what you are describing sounds more like what cultural householder Buddhists are like in Asia and other places, you know?
There are Buddhists in Japan, Southeast Asia, Burma (I forget what it is called now), etc. who identify as Buddhist and will dip in and out of religious activity and ritual but who aren't devout, who don't meditate, who may never even really connect to the core teachings. Just like with "cultural Christians" here, there is a wide range of this with cultural Buddhists.

The a la carte approach that I think I'm talking about (though maybe I've wrongly adapted that term from Jackson) are non-cultural Buddhists who are using Buddhism for it's specific tools for spiritual practices/awakening. They aren't necessarily doing it for religious reasons, they have spiritual goals that they are using the Buddhist tools (that they choose ) to achieve.

So the analogy for Christians might be a non-Cultural Christian using the worship of Mary as a spiritual practice, or counting the rosary, or maybe even centering prayer? Or, even, a cultural Christian doing these same or other Christian practices just for spiritual purposes without really identifying with any particular church or specific dogma (i've dipped in and out of this myself while trying to practice centering prayer while deep down knowing I was not theistic and having no real personal stake in myself as a "Christian.").

Edit:
Ona, what time does your aunt go to Church on Sundays? I'm used to services starting at nine or ten n the morning.

@Mike - I see the distinction, yeah, between cultural etc. You maybe see more of the a la carte approach in Catholic countries, where there are a lot of "practices" (rituals) which people can pick and choose from. I do that, myself (I am currently having a rosary and John the Baptist phase) (and I'm actually pretty agnostic).

Re: my aunt's church - it might have been a holiday, as that's when I tend to visit her. It was mid afternoon.

ETA: I am very tired, so I should stop blathering and go to bed. I'll say something more coherent tomorrow. I like this topic.

"I don't actually see Buddhism as a religion (though it is one) as much as a method, or series of methods. This is unlike other religions that are at their core based on belief (at least as I perceive them). Buddhism is unique in that it is based on process. You don't really have to believe anything to call yourself a Buddhist, which is why we usually put the word 'practitioner' after the Buddhist part when referring to those who claim the title Buddhist." -Chris



I think I agree with some of this, but not all.



I agree that there are many religions that are based primarily on beliefs that cannot be tested in the here and now. Adherence to these beliefs is one's duty, and the behaviors centered on those beliefs are based on service to a deity of some kind (of course, this isn't true of all non-Buddhist religions). Buddhism, on the whole, is much different than this.



At the same time, in my opinion, undertaking a Buddhist practice in any sort of meaningful way requires a certain amount of trust, or faith, that the teachings - when practiced - will lead to the desired results. Awakening cannot be verified by direct experience until it happens, and one will only work toward awakening if they believe it could be a real possibility, or at least that the path doesn't lead to something harmful. Whether we trust in the oral or written traditions, or even in an individual or group claiming the benefits of such practice, we must, to some degree, have faith in the process.



However, the same could be said about undergoing a medical procedure. One must believe that the doctor is capable, and that the potential for beneficial results are high enough to take the risk. Faith makes an appearance here, as well.



So, I guess I'm saying that while one doesn't have to profess dogmatic belief in the tenents of Buddhism to be a Buddhist or to practice dharma, I don't think it's true that you don't really have to believe anything.



But, of course, I'm picking things apart like I always do, often to the detriment of the original point. :-/

I think to be a "Buddhist" in the convert/practitioner sense, one usually believes in the idea that awakening/liberation, etc. is possible and a real thing and that it could happen by using the methods taught by the Buddha and then perpetuated up to the present by various existing schools and teachers.

Thanks for the verification, Chris. Yes, I think that's true. While there is a certain amount of faith that goes into the decision to take-up the path, it's really a lot like taking-up a hypothesis to be tested. And that's the cool part - it CAN be tested.

I can see how some of the more traditional Buddhist types might see the a la carte style of Buddhism as undesireable. I'm sure there are lots of a la carte types who see traditional Buddhism as stuffy and rigid, and find it much more practical to take (what they consider to be) the best of all approaches, sythesizing it all into one Super Dharma. It's an interesting topic, I think.I find that I sympathize with both appraoches; though, in different ways, and for different reasons.What I like about the more traditional approaches is that they are often coherent and clear. Hundreds, if not thousands, of years of debate, practice, and inquiry have taken place, and it isn't very hard to discover the key points, practices, and goals that line up with the ideals of a more traditional Buddhism.I find that contemporary, take-it-or-leave-it dharma can be flaky, unfocused, confused, and often deluded, in terms of knowing what one is really going for, and what practices are likely to bring it about. But, for those who do have a clear understanding of a path and goal, as well as the types of skills needed to realize both, the a la carte approach may actually be more pragmatic.I guess a key issue in this topic is the dynamics of span and depth. Usually when there is great span, there's little depth. Conversely, reduced span often correlates to greater depth. For example, if I only take on 2-3 practices, and just focus on those, chances are I'll develop them more deeply than if I were to practice 10-15 techniques - whether together, or sequentially. Having more options, therefore, isn't always a good thing. It can lead to too much span and not enough depth, if one is unwilling to choose a narrow range of skills from the greater pool and develop them to mastery.So, I like that we have options. And, they really are good options! There are gazillions of skillful means. But, we can't be rock stars at all of them. This isn't just the case with Practice, but also with View and Result (or Goal). To many views, and one can't act consistently. Too many goals, and one is unlikely to realize any of them.I don't want to be a Buddhist cliche and merely advocate a Middle Way, but maybe balance really is what's at stake, here. Regardless of whether your Dharma is traditional or pluralistic, it had better be coherent and narrow enough to actually practice.

-awouldbehipster

You know I really think this shows the skills you are developing in your therapist-training. You took a sort of confused, fragmented communication by me (like a client) and then repeated it back in a coherent, more complete way with some conclusions that made me feel heard, understood, and less confused (like a therapist).
Nice.
I'm not saying you were practicing therapy, just that possibly you were using some of your skills to address my thoughts.

Thank you, that's nice to hear! I sure hope the skills I'm learning are showing, otherwise I'm wasting a lot of money on grad school!!!

Thank you, that's nice to hear! I sure hope the skills I'm learning are showing, otherwise I'm wasting a lot of money on grad school!!! [image]

-awouldbehipster

I have no doubt you'll do great.