- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
The trouble with Buddhist communities in the United States is that they are, by and large, structures created by people who were in flight from structure. Many of the early "seeker" types of the 60's and 70's had bad experiences and bad memories of the churches and synagogues of their youth, and set out to avoid the flaws that had driven them away. What they created were typically one of two things: personality cults aligned around a particularly charismatic teacher, or insular clubs of vaguely like-minded people who consciously declined to provide the sort of ritual and structure that creates community.
In both cases, the results have been strongly mono-generational. Few teacher-centered groups have survived the departure of a focal leader, and the more loosely structured groups didn't create any "glue" that would encourage the younger generation to participate. The early creators of these groups were so eager to avoid the mistakes of traditional churches and religious institutions that they didn't see one thing that these groups do very well: create cross-generational social structures that can survive for many years.
The 'Dharma punx' groups strike me as more of the same. Focused intently on the wants of a particular demographic, they don't have much chance of creating enduring communities. As the participants age, the topics of discussion will change to follow them. Their children won't be interested in attending an hour of their aging hipster parents talking about the pressures of work and parenting, any more than current 20-somethings are interested in attending their baby boomer chats about the prospect of retirement.
The 'practice center' model encourages the creation of groups that have more in common with an exercise program than a real community. You go in, you do your sitting, maybe say your piece at a discussion. There isn't any homework. You don't have to bow. You don't have to read suttras or recite prayers and mantras. Despite all the talk about Buddhism being a practice that can be carried into any part of life, I think such a structure encourages a compartmentalization of your life. Buddhism is something you do when you are stressed out. Or on Thursdays, from 7PM to 8 PM. Because you "don't have to do anything", you never have to feel uncomfortable. But by being always comfortable, you are never challenged. Buddhism is being adapted and pruned to fit your life, rather than the other way around. But will someone following such a restricted, circumscribed practice of Buddhism ever really experience the benefits that proponents of Buddhism claim? Will they value it enough to deepen their understanding of it? To pass it on to their children, or to continue their "practice" when they're shorter on time, or feeling more contented with their lot in life? I have a hard time believing that will be the case.
