For the most part, western Buddhism is about good vibes bro and meditating and is, for all intents and purposes, irreligious and more of a general life philosophy (like how waking up at 5 am, jogging, and eating organic isn’t a religion either).
Buddhist buddhism involves demons, hell, and more praying or even chanting than meditating for the general population. Most Buddhists probably don’t meditate at all, actually. Some western Buddhists probably have amulets to ward off demons and make fruit offerings to bodhisattvas, but it’s very uncommon. But it’s the norm in Asia.
Right on, brother. My friend from from Bhutan wants to get into Christianity by reading the Bible like a nerd. I keep reminding her that most Christians where I come from (the Old World, so authentic) mostly only go to church on Sundays and only follow the Ten Commandments to the degree that they don’t kill people.
> Buddhist buddhism involves demons, hell, and more praying or even chanting than meditating for the general population.
You are mentioning Mahayana or later Vajrayana Buddhism.
Buddha never asks you to pray, and he did not teach any concepts of hells or demons.
Please stop appropriating Buddhism. You have no authority.
Just like Christianity practised in the US is not true Christianity, Buddhism practised in East Asia is no truer Buddhism.
And yes, Buddhism and its teachings are watered down in the West. But Western Buddhism, when not watered down, is no less truer than incense burning, praying, hell-believing Eastern Buddhism.
>Just like Christianity practised in the US is not true Christianity, Buddhism practised in East Asia is no truer Buddhism.
That's the "really existing Buddhism" - the kind that matters, and the only kind with roots in a millenia old tradition.
The rest is either spirituallity tourists using it as a lifestyle accessory (the same way they'd adopt pilates or switch to some new age shit), or spirituallity "nerds" getting into an exotic religion (usually in a bizarro version as landed on their shores and according to the spiritual fads of the time it caught on, mid-20th century) to study the scriptures and debate "ways" and versions.
>That's the "really existing Buddhism" - the kind that matters, and the only kind with roots in a millenia old tradition.
First, even if this "pseudo-Buddhism" is a lame imitation by Westerners, the fact that it's an imitation means that it shares the same roots with "proper Buddhism". Second, why is proper Buddhism "the only one that matters"? I would say none of it matters, you would say only one of them matters, and there's probably some people who say both of them matter. By what criterion does one opinion take precedence?
Western Buddhism is based off an aesthetic interpretation of Zen Buddhism.
If Buddhism in East Asia is appropriation and people in East Asia have no authority to talk about it, defending western Buddhism, which is based off the customs of a Japanese interpretation (based off a Chinese branch), is a strange turn to take.
(hell is mentioned within the context of Theravada as well)
There is nothing well-defined as "Western Buddhism". The western buddhism I studied is based on Theraveda, and not Mahayana or Zen.
> If Buddhism in East Asia is appropriation and people in East Asia have no authority
No, they indeed do not. Western Buddhists or someone who learned from them don't tell these people that they are doing Buddhism wrongly, and should change. So, someone like you shouldn’t tell Westerners that their practice is wrong and baseless and East Asian is version is the one true one.
Have you even cracked open the Pali Canon upon which Theravada is based? It is rife with references to devas/demons and heavenly/hellish realms, purportedly spoken by the Buddha himself.
> hell is mentioned within the context of Theravada as well
As far as I'm aware, Theravada is a body of teaching that developed late - around the same time as Mahayana. It's not some kind of "what the Buddha actually taught".
>I certainly have met Buddhism pratictioners in the West that were deep into the way of life and culture.
They are "big in the way of life and culture" the same way they'd be deep in punk rock or effective altruism.
Not as people living in a culture and tradition that is Buddhist - in an environment that nurtered and fosters its practice, and with all that comes from actual living tradition of a religion. It's more like pilates.
They then switch it off and go be whatever they are everyday.
Rather sweeping statements about an awful lot of people you have never met.
It is actually easier to be superficial with spiritual practice when immersed in its culture. Plenty of “spiritual” practitioners are playing social status games, going through motions in a societally rewarded and expected manner, etc…
Perhaps friend you are projecting your own dissatisfactions with finding an all encompassing one true meaning onto others?
Agreed. In fact a true follower of the Buddha would eventually get the point where they wish to try to integrate back into the business world if that’s where they came from. Lots of karma to resolve there lol.
I certainly have met Buddhism pratictioners in the West that were deep into the way of life and culture.