Theravada is actively growing in the West. What is your take on what the future of that may bring?

[SDC]

If there is any Buddhism in the USA is because of immigration.

It was colonial occupation, more than anything else, that began transferring Buddhism to the west. Then it was the intrigue of the intellectuals in both the UK and USA. Then there was the Parliament of World's Religions conference in 1893 which really set off the boom in the US. There is a ton of history there, and the influence of the immigrant communities came much later.

[Manopubbangama]

If there is any Buddhism in the USA is because of immigration.

It was colonial occupation, more than anything else, that began transferring Buddhism to the west. Then it was the intrigue of the intellectuals in both the UK and USA. Then there was the Parliament of World's Religions conference in 1893 which really set off the boom in the US. There is a ton of history there, and the influence of the immigrant communities came much later.

But wasn't that early clique of Americans that were interested in Buddhism really just Theosophists?

[Circle5]

[...]

I checked statistics and indeed things are not as black an white. Islam appearently has a lower than expected retention rate in some place, especially Iran that you mentioned. Appearently it's nr 2 in USA in terms of retention rates after Hinduism: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chap ... apter2-02/

Still, nobody can deny that western converts to buddhism are way, way more numerous per capita than converts from eastern europe or the muslim world, where there are hardly any at all.

Also note that Romania is not atheist, I don't know where you got that info. Romania is the only non-muslim country to be in top 5 most religious countries in the world. It's by far the most religious country in Europe, and the religion practiced here is a medieval form of christianity.

[Manopubbangama]

[...]

I checked statistics and indeed things are not as black an white. Islam appearently has a lower than expected retention rate in some place, especially Iran that you mentioned. Appearently it's nr 2 in USA in terms of retention rates after Hinduism: http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/chap ... apter2-02/

Still, nobody can deny that western converts to buddhism are way, way more numerous per capita than converts from eastern europe or the muslim world, where there are hardly any at all.

Also note that Romania is not atheist, I don't know where you got that info. Romania is the only non-muslim country to be in top 5 most religious countries in the world. It's by far the most religious country in Europe, and the religion practiced here is a medieval form of christianity.

Really?

So weird, all the Romanian guys and gals I know seem to be very atheist. Thanks for the info.

I had no idea that it was more medieval than Poland.

Poland is highly medieval.

Anyway, this is my opinion - if we were to ever get a "Real" Buddhist movement anywhere it would require importing a huge number of monks from abroad.

The reason I say this is because there are historical precedents such as when Sri Lanka needed to import monks from Burma due to its decline in the sangha.

[SDC]

If there is any Buddhism in the USA is because of immigration.

It was colonial occupation, more than anything else, that began transferring Buddhism to the west. Then it was the intrigue of the intellectuals in both the UK and USA. Then there was the Parliament of World's Religions conference in 1893 which really set off the boom in the US. There is a ton of history there, and the influence of the immigrant communities came much later.

But wasn't that early clique of Americans that were interested in Buddhism really just Theosophists?

From memory, I think the Theosophists in the UK had much to do with Theravada's spread there, but not so much in the US. Though I am sure that much of the early ramblings here came from that crew. Soyen Shaku was a star at that conference and it was eventually Zen that erupted over here. Indeed these people were not citizens of the US, but they did not rise from immigrant communities here - they were already people of high stature back in Japan who came here to teach.

[sentinel]

In the West we see the tendency to accept certain aspects of teachings wholeheartedly (like mindfulness and jhana and their commercialization), ignore or consider some aspects secondary (like Dana, Sila, simplicity, renunciation), and oppose some other aspects (like rebirth, heaven/hell).

Without dana monks would not survive as in most western countries .
Dana is generosity which is the practice of Detachment !
So , perhaps people might want to look at it from different angle .

[gavesako]

A good article by David Brazier:

So now we face a situation where Buddhism in the West has absorbed a mulitude of values and attitudes that have no connection with Buddha, but have their roots in Europen history and North American concerns.

http://eleusis.ning.com/group/buddhism/ ... odernising

[SDC]

A good article by David Brazier:

So now we face a situation where Buddhism in the West has absorbed a mulitude of values and attitudes that have no connection with Buddha, but have their roots in Europen history and North American concerns.

http://eleusis.ning.com/group/buddhism/ ... odernising

An interesting article, Bhante. Thank you.

The author lists his strategy and I found it fascinating that he said:

...not be afraid of ritual, symbolism, poetry, priestly roles and overt religious forms; their replacement by socio-political equivalents is not progress

...which were no doubt, at their inception, all forms of modernism when compared to what had gone on in India - when such rituals and symbolism were not a part of how the Buddha instructed his disciples - according to the suttas. I'm curious why he doesn't see the correlation and why he believes that sort of change is something we should find acceptable now as we look to distinguish aspects of modernism. Why not clear right back to the when the Buddha actually lived?

Then this with regard to "impermanence":

However, it completely misses the point that what Buddha actually taught was that all worldly things are impermanent and impermanent things offer no reliable or permanent spiritual refuge.

...which is absolutely incorrect. The Buddha clearly stated that it was all sankhāra (determinations) that are indeed impermanent. "Worldly things" is not the meaning of sankhāra.

As usual with these intellectuals who write about modernism (who are usually Mahayana practitioners or Mahayana-based scholars), they use modernism of an ancient sort to judge a contemporary condition, instead of pushing that analysis as far back as possible to emphasize any and all forms of modernism. Of course to do that would cripple Mahayana...so it is clear why the cutoff is so conveniently place.