Why is Buddhism so popular in the West?

[patrick457]

I don’t think Buddhism is popular at all, where are the statistics, we don’t hear anything about it in the media, we only hear about how much Islam is spreading and how white women are becoming converts to arabic husbands. I’ve seen a few white women in town wearing headscarves, so I wouldn’t underestimate just how many white people are converting. Tony Blair’s relative became a famous convert, so you’re wrong they are not all descendants of arab muslims .

My issue is that this thread should ask “Why is Islam growing at such a massive rate”, not buddhism, lol. The white elephant in the room is how alarming Muslim presence is, it’s a threat to freedom of speech, and other religions.

Well, I don’t know what’s occurring down there over y’all, but I will say that the media picks up what it wants to pick up.

 

[openmind77]

The subject of Islam is one which has been discussed many times on this forum, as a quick search will tell you. It doesn’t need repeating.

Don’t believe everything you read in the papers either. As I say before in a previous post, something like 3/4 of new Muslims leave the faith after 2 years or less. Muslims in Muslim countries in Africa are leaving Islam in droves, often to convert to Christianity. The more educated Muslims in many countries are also leaving Islam, or becoming less religious., and current population trends will not continue.

Also, I find it odd you assume that white woman in headscarf= convert. Bosnia is Muslim, and yet most people there are white. You could easily be looking at a Bosnian woman, or even an Iranian woman, many of whom are pale-skinned enough to look like a Western woman. More rarely, you could be looking at a white woman whose family have been Muslim for decades, or who was raised in Islam with her parents having converted.

Wikipedia has a page for relative growth rates of religions at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion . This talk about Islam is growing at an alarming rate, is just scare mongering. Even if it were the fastest growing religion, I don’t see why that should alarm anybody.

Buddhism is growing fast in the west (but not in the east or even in absolute numbers) because it is essentially an intellectual’s religion. It is very attractive to highly educated westerners who appreciate its intellectual and psychological approach to the human condition. There is no weird, illogical stuff that is often found in the other religions, this is in spite of Buddhism being quite an ancient religion.

Islam is attractive to people who are less educated or intellectual (at least in the US) - so you often hear of people like Mike Tyson converting to Islam.

Actually I think Sikhism is growing pretty fast in the west too (though that is just a personal feeling).

 

[patrick457]

Wikipedia has a page for relative growth rates of religions at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion . This talk about Islam is growing at an alarming rate, is just scare mongering. Even if it were the fastest growing religion, I don’t see why that should alarm anybody.

Buddhism is growing fast in the west (but not in the east or even in absolute numbers) because it is essentially an intellectual’s religion. It is very attractive to highly educated westerners who appreciate its intellectual and psychological approach to the human condition. There is no weird, illogical stuff that is often found in the other religions, this is in spite of Buddhism being quite an ancient religion.

Islam is attractive to people who are less educated or intellectual (at least in the US) - so you often hear of people like Mike Tyson converting to Islam.

Actually I think Sikhism is growing pretty fast in the west too (though that is just a personal feeling).

Isn’t that kind of a subjective observation right there? If I could just ask, what for you constitutes “weird and illogical”?

 

[504Katrin]

My best friend read something and now is totally fascinated by Buddhism and now wants to go somewhere to Tibet to do a one month retreat in a buddhist monastry…
I told her that she might want to get in touch with one of the buddhist departments here first, preferable one in town, and ask them if she could stay with them for a weekend retreat.

 

[openmind77]

Isn’t that kind of a subjective observation right there? If I could just ask, what for you constitutes “weird and illogical”?

I don’t want to derail this thread by discussing weird stuff in other religions. I just wanted to pointed out that is not much of that in Buddhism - never coming from the Buddha himself.

There is weird stuff in most of the other religions - Hinduism, Islam as well as Christianity. In Christianity it is mainly in the OT. Just google ‘weird stuff in the bible’. If you think the stuff mentioned in the result pages is subjective than that is obviously your own subjective judgment.

 

[manualman]

I think part of the reason for interest in eastern religions in the west these days is the nihilism that has so thoroughly infected western culture and thought in recent decades.

I’m neither historian nor philosopher enough to say where it started, but it seems to me that at least for my entire lifetime there has been a serious push to get people to see humans as innately good and that evil results from external pressures and forces rather than from internal flaws. When people buy into that worldview, they naturally need to find an explanation for all the horrors of our history (world wars, genocides, exploitation, slavery, etc…). Ironically, a fair number settle on Christianity as the scapegoat to blame for the ills of western history. Some of these folks become atheists and agnostics, but others decide to go looking for God in other religious traditions.

None of this is necessarily a conscious thought pattern. Like so much of human behavior, we sometimes don’t notice the real motivations we have. If it were conscious then any and all other religions would be similarly discarded due to the behaviors of their adherents in history.

What such folks don’t realize is that Christianity isn’t the problem, but a false worldview of human potential to achieve outright goodness apart from Grace. One of the hallmarks of Catholicism is the insight that humans ARE good, but are also tragically fallen. Thus, we need Grace to be redeemed and sanctified or our tragic flaws will be our undoing.

 

[4Squarebaby]

manualman:

I’m neither historian nor philosopher enough to say where it started, but it seems to me that at least for my entire lifetime there has been a serious push to get people to see humans as innately good and that evil results from external pressures and forces rather than from internal flaws. When people buy into that worldview, they naturally need to find an explanation for all the horrors of our history (world wars, genocides, exploitation, slavery, etc…). Ironically, a fair number settle on Christianity as the scapegoat to blame for the ills of western history. Some of these folks become atheists and agnostics, but others decide to go looking for God in other religious traditions.

I am thinking something similar. Most do not know the history of Southeast Asia thus don’t blame the prevailing religions for unknown problems. Jus as they think they know European history and blame the majority faiths for the problems there.

In the new world you also do not have “the church?” being know for holding the line against LGBT relationships and lifestyles being seen and treated as normal as orthodox Christianity, Islam and Judism do.

Posted from Catholic.com App for Android

 

[patrick457]

I don’t want to derail this thread by discussing weird stuff in other religions. I just wanted to pointed out that is not much of that in Buddhism - never coming from the Buddha himself.

I see. Well, I know I’m gonna open a can of worms here, but where would that put the various schools of Mahayana Buddhism and esoteric Buddhism then?

There is weird stuff in most of the other religions - Hinduism, Islam as well as Christianity. In Christianity it is mainly in the OT. Just google ‘weird stuff in the bible’. If you think the stuff mentioned in the result pages is subjective than that is obviously your own subjective judgment.

Way ahead of ya brutha. I’ve already seen quite some weird stuff in my life - the OT I think is still tame. I know I’m being subjective here myself, but really, it would only surprise people who didn’t expect that to be there.

 

[openmind77]

I see. Well, I know I’m gonna open a can of worms here, but where would that put the various schools of Mahayana Buddhism and esoteric Buddhism then?

Way ahead of ya brutha. I’ve already seen quite some weird stuff in my life - the OT I think is still tame. I know I’m being subjective here myself, but really, it would only surprise people who didn’t expect that to be there.

I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying there is more weird stuff in Mahayana Buddhism and esoteric Buddhism than I realize? Any links to substantiate this claim? I am not really an expert on Buddhism.

(Actually, I never understand why many Christians think the OT is tame - I am sure it is all my fault, so lets not discuss that here)

 

[patrick457]

I am not sure what you mean. Are you saying there is more weird stuff in Mahayana Buddhism and esoteric Buddhism than I realize? Any links to substantiate this claim? I am not really an expert on Buddhism.

Again, it really depends on what you mean by ‘weird’. Do you still mean “stuff that is not directly traceable to the historical Buddha” by it?

There’s this conceit in many Mahāyāna texts that said Mahāyāna sutras are more superior to and have more spiritual benefit than earlier teachings; ergo, those who follow the “Great Vehicle” gain more benefit than those who follow non-Mahāyāna approaches to Dharma. A lot of explanations are made to account for why these texts are late: the Lotus Sutra, for example, claims to be a discourse made by the Buddha toward the end of his life, only it was hidden for centuries in the realm of the nāgas because humanity was not ready for it yet. It was supposed to have reappeared again in the human realm (rather coincidentally!) at the time of the Fourth Buddhist Council during the 1st century, which is within the accepted time range for the historical composition of the text (100 BC-AD 100).

BTW there is here in East Asia Pure Land Buddhism, based on the doctrine that faith in the buddha Amitābha and the repetition of his name (nianfo, nembutsu) allows one to obtain birth in Amitābha’s western pure land, where one can achieve enlightenment without being distracted by the sufferings of this world. A Japanese Pure Land sect, Jodo Shinshu, even goes on to say that rebirth in the Pure Land is assured the moment one puts faith in Amitabha; nembutsu is simply the expression of one’s gratitude. The founder of Jodo Shinshu, Shinran (1173-1263), believed in the paradoxical maxim 悪人正機 (akunin shōki), in other words evildoers and sinners are exactly the ones in need of salvation by Amitabha, and to give a public example of this idea he violated taboos by taking a wife, which explains why Japanese Buddhist clergy today (even those who are not affiliated with Jodo Shinshu) could marry.

For Shinran, attaining enlightenment solely through one’s own efforts (自力 jiriki ‘self-power’) is highly difficult, if not impossible. The higher path one must take - and the authentic form of Buddhism for him - is to have faith in the power of Amitabha’s compassion made manifest in his vows (the ‘other-power’ or tariki, 他力). This would of course pit the ideas of Jodo Shinshu against Chan/Zen Buddhism, which emphasizes the attainment of enlightenment and the personal expression of direct insight in the Buddhist teachings and thus and favors direct understanding through zazen (meditation) and interaction with an accomplished teacher.

Another contemporary of Shinran, Nichiren (1222-1282), preached a more radical form of Buddhism. Japanese schools of Buddhism at the time looked at their highly turbulent times and wondered whether humanity had reached the age of Mappō or the “Latter Day” of the Dharma. (Mahayana has this concept of dividing the time after the Buddha’s death into three periods: the last of these, mofa (Mandarin) or mappō (Japanese), is the age when the Dharma declines and is forgotten - think something like the Hindu Kaliyuga). Nichiren shared this belief with other Buddhists of his day: however, what set him apart from all the others is his belief that the original teachings of Buddhism have become corrupted - which is to blame for all the disasters and strife. Denouncing all the other schools of Buddhism current in his day for teaching what he saw as inferior and corrupted doctrines, he instead upheld the Lotus Sutra as the highest and ultimate teaching of Buddhism, containing the Buddha’s authentic teachings, and preached that devotion and practice based on this sutra (embodied in the Nichiren mantra Nam(u) Myōhō-renge-kyō and its visual manifestation, the Gohonzon) was the only means of salvation for this age.

 

[patrick457]

As for esoteric (Vajrayana) Buddhism, I think that it might prove a shock to people who might think that Buddhism is simply this pure and simple philosophy with no fancy ‘smells-and-bells’ rituals or anything. Esoteric Buddhism is based on the Mahayana idea of upāya or “skillful (expedient) means” that fit the situation in order to gain enlightenment, as well as the general Buddhist idea of distinguishing between two levels of truth. In this case, performance of tantras, mudras and esoteric rituals (including homas) and the chanting of sutras, mantras and dharanis are all seen as “expedient means” to achieve the ultimate goal.

Now I’m sure I wasn’t really answering your question. Forgive me my ramblings.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

Its really only the imagery and the idea of what budhism represents that is mildy popular in the west I think. Same sort of thing exists in Japan in that they have a seeming fascination with Christian iconography and representations.

 

[Darryl_B]

Good question. My best guess is that buddhism gives people this peaceful feeling when people think of let’s say the buddha or some other enlightnement guru/master. The thing with buddhism is this, that it allows the individual to find his or her own understanding of what reality is. Of course reality can ONLY be one, however, the way to interpret that one reality is quite vast. And buddhism leaves a lot of space for personal thoughts in which every person can construct his own path to enlightment. This is mainly, according to my understanding, why buddhism has such a large appeal in the west, partly because there is no precise instruction as to what each individual has to believe. The only thing really that binds most buddhists (regardless of the form or denomination) is the large emphasis on the eight noble truths (which instruct how to lead a moral life, based on the Buddha’s philosophical reflections). But apart from that, there is no clear dogmatic definition of what buddhists have to specifically believe or not believe. For instance, some buddhists (like the theravada, which are mainstream) choose to lead a less god devoted life, and more of an atheistic type of lifestyle. Other forms of buddhism, like the Japanese Zen for example, tend to form certain devotional chants to elevated deities (enlightment masters) which they believe can assist them in gaining enlightment. And there are plenty other forms as well. So getting back to the question, the reason why buddhism is so popular, is because it leaves the individual to ponder about the universe, and for example you can choose whether to believe in creator or not (a lot of buddhists don’t believe in God though, but in some rare cases they do). I personally see no problem with there being a creator of the universe, but many buddhists might for example disagree with me (I am not a buddhist though, just interested in it).

I don’t know if that answers your question…

When the Dalai Lama came to my western civilization country to speak to the people, I personally worked on site at the venue, and the concensus was by the employees who had to deal with the patrons was that they were the worst and most difficult they had had to deal with at the venue in terms of demanding. I think the western civilization is more interested in the “me” and “self” that buddhism teaches than anything else. I don’t think I have ever seen a western culture Buddhist book that doesn’t have chapters titled “self-somthing”.

Also they are interested in the kharma. “You have been horrible to me and something bad happened to you, kharma”. I think that is where Christianity is different, I don’t want bad things to happen to people who hurt me, I pray for them, but sometimes it isnt easy.

 

[MindNight]

When the Dalai Lama came to my western civilization country to speak to the people, I personally worked on site at the venue, and the concensus was by the employees who had to deal with the patrons was that they were the worst and most difficult they had had to deal with at the venue in terms of demanding. I think the western civilization is more interested in the “me” and “self” that buddhism teaches than anything else. I don’t think I have ever seen a western culture Buddhist book that doesn’t have chapters titled “self-somthing”.

Also they are interested in the kharma. “You have been horrible to me and something bad happened to you, kharma”. I think that is where Christianity is different, I don’t want bad things to happen to people who hurt me, I pray for them, but sometimes it isnt easy.

I think the problem with people today is that they confuse the new-age movement with buddhism (in its original form). Theravada Buddhism (closest form to the original version) is VERY different from the type of “Zen new-age movement feel-good” type of buddhism. You see, new-age focuses too much on immediately satisfying your wants (fame, money, sex, etc…), which is what the theravada buddhists are against.
And what the theravadas ultimately teach is to limit your wants and instead fill your self with love and compassion (wisdom also) in order to be of service to others, and NOT to be served (like the new-age teaches).
So if the buddha (Siddharta Guatama) was alive today, he would frown upon many of the new-age practices like (with your mind) attracting money, fame,sex for pleasure, condoms, oral-sex, tarot cards, and even astrology. All those things are against what he taught when he was alive.

The real teaching of buddhism is this: Show selfless love and compassion towards your neighbour, not because you will get a reward, but because it is the right thing to do. So, treat others like you would treat yourself, deny your earthly personality and unecessary wants, and instead fill yourself with infinite love to help the poor, needy, and the unfortunate. And each act you commit must be done out of pure love alone.

 

[IAmAKaur]

Its really only the imagery and the idea of what budhism represents that is mildy popular in the west I think. Same sort of thing exists in Japan in that they have a seeming fascination with Christian iconography and representations.

I dn’t know given that London has just seen its first big Buddhist temple open and even within my own local area, there are at least 3 temples, a Buddhist social centre and at least one monastery that I can find out about.

 

[IAmAKaur]

My best friend read something and now is totally fascinated by Buddhism and now wants to go somewhere to Tibet to do a one month retreat in a buddhist monastry…
I told her that she might want to get in touch with one of the buddhist departments here first, preferable one in town, and ask them if she could stay with them for a weekend retreat.

As a rule Buddhist monasteries, like Catholic and Anglican ones, will not just take on anyone on a long-term basis. Normally it’s practice to stay overnight, then for 3-5 days before arranging longer visits. Some may differ on this rule but from what I can tell the general idea remains.

Plus I’d be very surprised if someone could really cope in a Tibetan monastery without prior preparation. Aside from the language and cultural differences, it’s a very hard life and not something you can just jump into.

Wikipedia has a page for relative growth rates of religions at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_to_be_the_fastest-growing_religion . This talk about Islam is growing at an alarming rate, is just scare mongering. Even if it were the fastest growing religion, I don’t see why that should alarm anybody.

Buddhism is growing fast in the west (but not in the east or even in absolute numbers) because it is essentially an intellectual’s religion. It is very attractive to highly educated westerners who appreciate its intellectual and psychological approach to the human condition. There is no weird, illogical stuff that is often found in the other religions, this is in spite of Buddhism being quite an ancient religion.

Sometimes I’ve felt that too many people who are attracted to Buddhism are the sort who want some sort of spirituality but find the concepts of having to follow rules, of having to make life changes/sacrifices. of actually having to do some quite hard things ‘too much’ or ‘old-fashioned’. It seems that modern culture has bred attitudes like this, especially where religion is concerned, and people seem to want God to fit into their pre-suppositions rather than moulding themselves to God.

Islam is attractive to people who are less educated or intellectual (at least in the US) - so you often hear of people like Mike Tyson converting to Islam.

I’d also say that part of the reason Islam has done so well to attract converts is in part due to the fact that so much time, effort and money is put into dawah (Islamic outreach), prticularly more recently with the internet and also the fact that printed media can easily be done by anyone with a computer.

Actually I think Sikhism is growing pretty fast in the west too (though that is just a personal feeling).

Indeed, Sikhism gained something of a publicity boost when Alexandra Aitken, daughter of Johnathan Aitken (former Politician and MP), became a Sikh herself. Sikhism does face the challenge of being a non-prosletyzing religion (although Sikhs will happily educate anyone who wishes to learn), and so may not be on many people’s radar religion-wise. Hopefully things like religious education and also people’s own religious searching, as well as people being good examples of Sikhi, will attract people to this beautiful faith.

 

[Darryl_B]

I think the problem with people today is that they confuse the new-age movement with buddhism (in its original form). Theravada Buddhism (closest form to the original version) is VERY different from the type of “Zen new-age movement feel-good” type of buddhism. You see, new-age focuses too much on immediately satisfying your wants (fame, money, sex, etc…), which is what the theravada buddhists are against.
And what the theravadas ultimately teach is to limit your wants and instead fill your self with love and compassion (wisdom also) in order to be of service to others, and NOT to be served (like the new-age teaches).
So if the buddha (Siddharta Guatama) was alive today, he would frown upon many of the new-age practices like (with your mind) attracting money, fame,sex for pleasure, condoms, oral-sex, tarot cards, and even astrology. All those things are against what he taught when he was alive.

The real teaching of buddhism is this: Show selfless love and compassion towards your neighbour, not because you will get a reward, but because it is the right thing to do. So, treat others like you would treat yourself, deny your earthly personality and unecessary wants, and instead fill yourself with infinite love to help the poor, needy, and the unfortunate. And each act you commit must be done out of pure love alone.

So have you read a book that has “self” in its title?

 

[rossum]

So, why is it Buddhism has become such a phenomena in the West? What is attracting so many people at a time when more traditional forms of religion seem to be getting older in terms of average congregational age and smaller in terms of attendance size?

Buddhism has had a long and varied development in the East. That has produced a very large range of possible practices to select from. Some Eastern versions have arrived in the West pretty much intact, usually as a result of immigration. Those versions tend to be confined to specific immigrant communities in the West. In the general population what has arrived in a mixture of different parts of different versions that someone, often a Westerner, thought would do well in the West. That has produced an immense, and confusing, range of options to select from. That choice allows people to build their own version of Buddhism. They are at liberty to stick close to one tradition or to pick different elements from different traditions and meld them together.

This approach is allowed within Buddhism. It is not an Orthodoxy (right belief) but an Orthopraxy (right action). Belief is important, but only in so far as it guides our actions. Belief alone does nothing. We can select which practices work for us. People are different and what works for one person may not work for another.

Meditation works. Much of the Western Christian tradition has lost its skills in meditation. Hence people who encounter meditation for the first time can be very impressed. Both Hinduism and Buddhism gain from this effect. The wider menu of possibilities offered by Buddhism give it the edge. The history of Buddhism has given it more experience in spreading itself into new cultures, unlike Hinduism which has remained within a single culture for the most part.

To avoid all evil,
to cultivate good,
and to cleanse one’s mind -
this is the teaching of the Buddhas.

– Dhammapada 14:5

Pretty much everyone accepts the first two. The third, which refers to meditation, is new to most Western people. When they try it for the first time, and see for themselves that it works, they often want to investigate further.

$0.02

rossum

 

[openmind77]

Again, it really depends on what you mean by ‘weird’. Do you still mean “stuff that is not directly traceable to the historical Buddha” by it?

There’s this conceit in many Mahāyāna texts that said Mahāyāna sutras are more superior to and have more spiritual benefit than earlier teachings; ergo, those who follow the “Great Vehicle” gain more benefit than those who follow non-Mahāyāna approaches to Dharma. A lot of explanations are made to account for why these texts are late: the Lotus Sutra, for example, claims to be a discourse made by the Buddha toward the end of his life, only it was hidden for centuries in the realm of the nāgas because humanity was not ready for it yet. It was supposed to have reappeared again in the human realm (rather coincidentally!) at the time of the Fourth Buddhist Council during the 1st century, which is within the accepted time range for the historical composition of the text (100 BC-AD 100).

BTW there is here in East Asia Pure Land Buddhism, based on the doctrine that faith in the buddha Amitābha and the repetition of his name (nianfo, nembutsu) allows one to obtain birth in Amitābha’s western pure land, where one can achieve enlightenment without being distracted by the sufferings of this world. A Japanese Pure Land sect, Jodo Shinshu, even goes on to say that rebirth in the Pure Land is assured the moment one puts faith in Amitabha; nembutsu is simply the expression of one’s gratitude. The founder of Jodo Shinshu, Shinran (1173-1263), believed in the paradoxical maxim 悪人正機 (akunin shōki), in other words evildoers and sinners are exactly the ones in need of salvation by Amitabha, and to give a public example of this idea he violated taboos by taking a wife, which explains why Japanese Buddhist clergy today (even those who are not affiliated with Jodo Shinshu) could marry.

For Shinran, attaining enlightenment solely through one’s own efforts (自力 jiriki ‘self-power’) is highly difficult, if not impossible. The higher path one must take - and the authentic form of Buddhism for him - is to have faith in the power of Amitabha’s compassion made manifest in his vows (the ‘other-power’ or tariki, 他力). This would of course pit the ideas of Jodo Shinshu against Chan/Zen Buddhism, which emphasizes the attainment of enlightenment and the personal expression of direct insight in the Buddhist teachings and thus and favors direct understanding through zazen (meditation) and interaction with an accomplished teacher.

Another contemporary of Shinran, Nichiren (1222-1282), preached a more radical form of Buddhism. Japanese schools of Buddhism at the time looked at their highly turbulent times and wondered whether humanity had reached the age of Mappō or the “Latter Day” of the Dharma. (Mahayana has this concept of dividing the time after the Buddha’s death into three periods: the last of these, mofa (Mandarin) or mappō (Japanese), is the age when the Dharma declines and is forgotten - think something like the Hindu Kaliyuga). Nichiren shared this belief with other Buddhists of his day: however, what set him apart from all the others is his belief that the original teachings of Buddhism have become corrupted - which is to blame for all the disasters and strife. Denouncing all the other schools of Buddhism current in his day for teaching what he saw as inferior and corrupted doctrines, he instead upheld the Lotus Sutra as the highest and ultimate teaching of Buddhism, containing the Buddha’s authentic teachings, and preached that devotion and practice based on this sutra (embodied in the Nichiren mantra Nam(u) Myōhō-renge-kyō and its visual manifestation, the Gohonzon) was the only means of salvation for this age.

These are just theological differences. Everyone thinks their own beliefs are superior. Nothing weird here.

But if some text talks about a woman not allowed to grab genitals during a fight - now that’s weird. And then there is horrific, cruel stuff that we should not even discuss (this is all in the OT).

Buddhist texts are relatively clean in this sense.

 

[MindNight]

So have you read a book that has “self” in its title?

what is your point? I’m not sure exactly which book you’re referring to? What do you mean? I’m sorry, just extremely puzzled here what you are specifically talking about…