European Network for Buddhist-Christian Studies St. Ottilien October 1997 Professor Michael von Bruck Questions and Answers Transcribed by: Paul Trafford NOTES: =20 1. Text entered in square brackets [like this] denotes additions or comments inserted by the transcriber. =20 2. Further, comments with dots and a question mark, e.g. like, [..?..] denote missing words; a question mark by itself [?] denotes uncertainty about preceding text, particularly a name. =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3DStart of Transcript=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D [Eliz Harris + Ramona] Man 1: "I think that this discussion that you mentioned of defining Buddhism [delete next to words?] because it has this special west American political overtones - political correctness and so on =85 But in a way it remembers [reminds?] us as Christians this discussion could be quite interesting [=85?] What is the essence of Christianity? And the discussion about the essence of Christianity was an offspring of the traditions of Christians. Now the situation of the Buddhists in Western countries, the situation is the beginning of ecumenical inner Buddhist dialogue which could never have happened within the Asian Buddhist countries. In Tibet, there couldn=92t have been a question of who defines Buddhism because it was quite clear in the Dalai Lama[?]. The same in Sri Lanka and all the other parts of the Buddhist world countries, but now in the West you have Tibetan Buddhists, Zen Buddhists, Pure Land Buddhists, Theravada Buddhists - you have all together forming something like Buddhist churches in America, Deutsches Buddhism in [=85?], and so on. It is quite natural, I think, that there is inner ecumenical Buddhist discussion about what is Buddhism and [..?..] and then there comes typical overtones that there are some Northern Buddhist experts [..?..] doing their own contributions to this discussion. I think that is also a problem, with a sign of growing Buddhist ecumenism. Man2: "Let me just make [..?..] through [allow someone to speak] Man3: "I would just change it a little bit and put the question: "Who hijacked Buddhism?" Because that is my impression and it is a basic question in a sense of who is dealing with the religion is an abstract discussion by some people who have the means of university facilities: Are they clearly defining it, turning it over the head, because everyday life is the way. If I look at who is living Buddhism, not who is defining Buddhism, then it comes to complete unbalance; to me that kind of debate is sometimes unofficial, dealing in, not completely backroom, but that kind of exported Buddhism, having lost the roots in the stage [process], because, as you [can] say, "their music is playing", the big music of academics institutions is playing. But is that affecting Buddhists who are living Buddhism? I see a discrepancy between what=92s happening: they are coming to engage [with] Buddhism, to real life Buddhism, to some extent, but to me it is a complete academic debate and you can play it in Hawaii and between university institutions, but does it affect the millions of people who consider themselves to be Buddhists living with something that has nothing to do with what=92s going on there, practically nothing? Von Bruck: "Well, yes it does: if you ask "Who lives Buddhism?" What does it mean =91to live Buddhism=92? That would be already an issue, for= me. =20 Those practitioners at the universities for response: they would do their Dharma practice, they would do their prostrations in the morning, they would have a [..?], see monastic life and the Buddhists in the temples, Chinese or Vietnamese, they go [.?..] perhaps once a week,=20 do a little prayer in the morning at their house shrine and then they go once a week to the temple. This group would say "You don=92t practice the Dharma - you just have a kind of superstitious religion, with the Buddha as a prop agent over there. We are trying to follow the dharma." They would say, "You are just Americans, Protestant Americans disguised as Buddhists. We are the Buddhists because we have uninterrupted tradition in Asia. What is the meaning of =91uprooted Buddhism=92? Is Chinese Buddhism uprooted=? When Buddhism came from India to China it was a total cut, you see. Of course, translations [exists], but when you look at the translations - What has the Chinese canon got to do with the Tripitaka and so forth? It is so difficult to translate. The social structures, the monastic code is so different in China from South East Asia. It is a totally different civilisation. Is it genuine Buddhism or not?=20 These questions have been raised at the time of the 2nd, 3rd , and 4th century. This issue is difficult. Exactly, it is there. What does it mean to practice Buddhism or how can you define? Ramona: [brings in Shenpen?] Shenpen: [asking for clarification] [=85?] "You told us that Soka Gakkai was an offshot from Nichiren Shoshu [..?] Von Bruck: Soka Gakkai International. We have two separations: Soka Gakkai was an offshoot, in 1920=92s especially, from Nichiren Shoshu, which is a traditional school, going back to [..?..] Buddhism, but Soka Gakkai International, which is American based, did not separate, but follows a totally different line from Soka Gakkai in Japan. Shenpen: [acknowledgement] =85 So which ones are unecumenical? Von Bruck: Soka Gakkai [..?..] are the ones in Japan, [..?..] forceful conversion, Shenpen and Kulananda [clarifying situation in GB] In Britain, who are they [..?..] =20 Man: That=92s =91SGI=92 Woman: I see! That=92s why they are interested dialogue. [..?] Von Bruck: =91SGI=92 - Soka Gakkai International. =20 Woman: I have just written a paper about Soka Gakkai in Japan and I should say that all the people I have met in Japan say it is no longer right to discriminate between Soka Gakkai and Soka Gakkai International. They are one now. So there is not this forceful Soka Gakkai and this ecumenical and =91good=92 Soka Gakkai International - they are becoming one. It is still very problematic, and a very delicate matter in Japan, but I do not think it is right to say that they are two separate things. I think it has a lot to do with the disconnection from Nichiren Shoshu, there was a big quarrel between Nichiren Shoshu and Soka Gakkai. From that time, I think, Soka Gakkai has changed a lot also in Japan. Von Bruck: OK Kulananda: I would like to come to this point of contemporary Buddhism, contemporary Buddhist ecumenism that was raised, the idea that traditions nowadays are meeting one another and haven=92t been able to before. Something I=92ve noticed from my experience in this area, is, strangely enough, it is that the Westerners that tend to be ecumenical. So that I anticipated for example in the conversation about the network of Western Buddhist teachings in that should have Ajahn Sumedho practising in the Forest tradition of Thailand, happily meeting with Roshi Verner/Bernard[?] Glassman who is working in Soto Zen tradition in New York City meeting with people like Shenpen practicing in the Tibetan tradition, happily exchanging, talking about what they have in common. [They are] Sometimes finding it very very difficult to carry that dialogue over to their own Asian antecedent[?] teachers and traditions, meeting quite a lot of resistance in that area. =20 So that is another level of complexity which has to be brought in, which is the commonality that is sometimes experienced in Western practitioners of the Dharma, Western teachers of the Dharma, who would seem quite easily, willing and able to enter into dialogue, meeting resistance, firstly in respect to their own antecedent teachers and secondly the fact that the traditions out of which they spring cannot yet be said to be ecumenically engaged to a very high level at the present time. =20 The Dalai Lama himself said in Dharmasala in 1993 that he felt he had better connections with the Pope than with Zen Buddhism. Shenpen: What was it [..?..] Part of their commonality [..?..] is a question of having lived there [..?.. ] lived in all sorts of ways we are sharing. Kulananda: I think another point that needs to be brought in to [..?..] these conversations is that the Western Buddhist Order doesn=92t have an antecedent tradition.=20 Aasulv Lande: [Says thanks for "exciting presentation"] I was wondering about this question of ecumenism. People in America, as you say, are trying to define Buddhism by rules[?] [..?..] [..?..] . But is there also, as we have in the Western world, a growing Buddhist ecumenicity, people who say, "Why don=92t we come together, come to an understanding. Why don=92t we try to develop an ecumenical Buddhism?" Is that type of mentality developing or do we see signs that type of mentality is developing also behind or in the discussions [..?..] in the United States. Von Bruck: Yes, I see it in some aspects in different situations in different contexts, again differently. If you ask about the United States, the forum of the ecumenism is in the universities, not in the Dhamma centres, because, you know, they are in competition with each other - that=92s a factor, isn=92t it? But at the universities and in the engaged Buddhist movement, that is where they meet and where they have a common goal, and have a perspective where they can participate and contribute without giving up in any way their different Dhamma connections. Another situation would be, say, Japan: Japan, of course, is in a very difficult situation because=20 you have so many traditional Buddhist sects [shus] - Shoshus, different Shinshus and the different subdivisions of it and Zen shus and the Nichiren traditions and, of course, you have even=20 Shingon, to some extent, and here and so forth. Then you have many many offshoots of modern religious movements, some with Buddhist backgrounds, some with totally different backgrounds, but now all under attack because of Oshindrikyu[?][..?..] and the new law of the Japanese government. And here in this situation of being pressurized by the government and by whole public opinion against religion and against religious institutions, they are coming together and trying to find out who are we? And what are we? So far, when I was in Japan, in my Zen monasteries, what I heard about in modern groups was, "They are rich ones" and there was jealousy. Even the best Zen monks and Zen roshis were full of jealousy against these million yen holding big modern organisations such as Rissho Kosei Kai and Soka Gakkai. But now being under pressure, there is a kind of ecumenism in this situation. Look at Tibet and here I would elaborate a little bit on Perry=92s [?] remark. Well, it was not so clear who defined Buddhism in the past - it was a matter of power when you see the bitter, very bitter and violent fighting between the Kagyulupas [?] and Gelugpas over history, military fighting. You see that defining Buddhism is something we knew very well from our Christian history as well. And when you see at the present debate, that=92s why I am mentioning it, the trouble the Dalai Lama has with his own Gelugpa groups - the Shubten [?] controversy. Actually this is my present research - the history of Shubten [?] conversion in Tibet going back to the 16th Century. This is exactly the question, Who defines Buddhism, or even within the Gelugpas, who defines "What is Buddhist? What is Pagan? What is Shamanistic?" =85 etc. .. That=92s very very difficult. Of course, in Sri Lanka, the whole history of Sri Lanka, and othersituations as well, I think, you see, that Buddhists only now, or some Buddhists only now, become aware of this situation of the inter-connectedness of power, of economy, and so forth, which we have been aware of for at least a hundred and fifty years, thanks to Karl Marx and others. This social political awareness among Buddhists, especially among the younger generation, changes, I think, Buddhism quite a lot even in Vietnam, Japan and China for that matter, right now. Aasulv: [trying to make a point, following on from Man3] You mentioned this word =91highjacking=92 Buddhism. I wonder is there any American company which tries to buy this? Von: Richard Gere, Hollywood Aasulv: =85 Companies, sponsors and through advertisements, [get] support and so on - various movements, for instance, sports groups are sponsored by companies, and so on and so forth. Is there anyone who comes near to buying Buddhism? Von: No I=92m not aware of it - its individuals. Certainly some very important Hollywood people =85 we are laughing, but for America that=92s what moves history and that=92s where the money comes=20 from - the money goes into universities and that is how Dharma centres are financed. =20 That is very strong, but I have never heard that companies respond to= Buddhism Harris[?]: [bringing in John May] John May: That=92s absolutely fascinating. Whatever is going on in the controversies, something is happening so we need this sort of work. It reminds me of a debate that I have been catching up with recently called postcolonial theory, which seems to have originated in literary criticism in the British colonies and Commonwealth Literature [..?..] where the colonisers stood back and now you have people like Cyracuse Dibac[?] and Edward Said [..?..] as indigenous intellectuals, yet esconced in Western Universities and, therefore, able to play with all these registers, critiquing Westerners for their views or their traditions, but at the same time reflecting on their privileged position vis-a-vie those traditions which those in them don=92t have as a rule etc. So everything is opening up and that=92s great. One of the reasons I think it is great is that=20 here we might at last have the means of breaking down, in my view, that invidious distinction between world religions and primal folk whatever, which you did mention. I came across an article recently (which I=92ll have to follow up) called =91Aboriginal religion =85 =92 (the Australian Religion) regarded as the most primitive religion there is .. =91Aboriginal religion as world religion=92. I found it really fascinating because this man, an anthropologist, had lived among them, Aboriginal people, and he was shown that they are just as meditative, spiritual, transcendent, mystical as any Hindu guru or Zen Master, if you only now how to get it out. There are no books, no philosophies, no abstract concepts - you have to know how to dig them [out], the gold that is there. I really find that marvellous if we could improve [..?..] Von Bruck: Of course, we have this debate on Sri Lanka with [..?..] trying to relate the =91book Buddhism=92 (I don=92t have a better word now) of the real lived Buddhism and the religions, to the Buddha Dhamma in general, there the genuine Buddhism [is taken] as the Buddhism of the monks. It is just that the monks more or less have been in power and been controlling the resources to define their way. But as long as we can go back in the history of Buddhism, at least now we have got the Western perspective with historical critical scholarship, we see from the very beginning, the Buddhism of the laity, of the monks and there would have been no Buddhism of the monks without the Buddhism of the laity, and if you go back to the Vinaya, you see it, it is there. Elizabeth Harris: [trying to bring in Shenpen Hookham, but =85] Man 1: I just want to respond. Of course you are completely right that we have some inner difficulties, struggles in these discussions but the spectrum is obviously much wider in Western Buddhism. In Catholic tradition there was fighting between Franciscans and Jesuits for centuries, but modern ecumenical consciousness that we have nowadays [..?..] is much stronger. =20 And you have this factor of politics and power and all that and it is a very [..?..]factor [..?..] in life. [..?..] I would like to see the positive chance that these offer. One chance is to see the very trivial answer that there is no substance, like Buddhism. And Buddhists should not be surprised, at least Mahayana Buddhists, because there are no substances [..?..] for Buddhism. But if they seize the chance to comprehend the Buddhist tradition as a living tradition and to understand how the different traditions in a way do belong to each other, and do realize the different potentialities that are implicit in that powerful message, that powerful revelation, then it could really be a chance for the future development of Buddhism, like Christian ecumenism, as I still do believe, as an ecumenical theologian, is a big chance for Christians. It can help to bring the Buddhism out of Buddhism, but it is of course there, in spite of all the denials of Buddhists. Von Bruck: I very much agree with you Rick. I think we could perhaps address the issue under the term, =91It raises the level of Buddhism onto a different level of self consciousness.=92 What it already does, in terms you are describing, is making, for instance, the Vietnamese community in Los Angeles ask themselves, Who we are? Instead of just being this Vietnamese community and stabilising our community life in being Buddhist and going to the temple? Because, after all, we are not an isolated community, we mix in a wider cultural spectrum, and for that we have to have different terms of [..?..] interpretation. Then comes the question that we are Buddhist. In their traditional terms, they are not Buddhist, they are this Vietnamese group who are visiting their temple because this is what stabilises their community. Similarly, there is a typical American historical thing of American religion: there are different confessions: you are not just a Christian in America, that=92s new[?], but you are in this little community, where you come from, where you have your ethnic roots =85 in Scandanavia=20 in Loosemoor, etc =85 , and this is what stabilizes community, but the more American society becomes multicultural and it does, especially now with the Mexicans coming in, who do not and refuse to speak English, and who keep their culture - they are strong enough: we have a second language emerging in America - the more these non-vocal abstract identities become important. Here Buddhism or, for that matter, being a Christian, over against Buddhists or Muslims or Jews or whatever, becomes an issue. This is precisely what=92s happening and I think in a way what=92s happening in America, mutatis mutandi, is happening all over the place. In India, for instance, the Western Buddhist Order is doing missionary work among the Dalits and under[..?..]s. Totally new question now: we are Buddhists, we are not just this caste still with the Hindu, it=92s= different. This is very important for them because it creates a different level of social [..?..] [standing?] Harris: One more question - Wolfgang. Wolfgang: On that note, isn=92t there a big danger of a new fundamentalism in these different groups, when the =91ordinary people=92 get a [..?..] that there is such a discussion and they haven=92t done it on a level [..?..] and in the hierarchy other positions that now they get along without[?] They have some problems to define this and that and that would mean that they could come up with big danger of fundamentalism within these groups. Von Bruck: I don=92t see that among the Buddhists and there could be many reasons. =85 I think the reason is not because the Buddhists are the good guys, but the social groups bearing Buddhism, in America, as it were, the Chinese, the Vietnamese, the Japanese, want to integrate into the mainstream of American society much more than those who embrace Islam, or the Jews for that matter. At least in economic terms, in what schools, universities, and all the cultural life is concerned, they don=92t want to be apart - only where marriage is concerned, though in Hawaii and California and those Western states, you already have a lot of inter-marriage, among the Chinese and Westerners, Chinese and Korean, not so much Japanese, Vietnamese are too young. I think this is the reason why, among these groups, fundamentalism along these Buddhist terms is not to be expected. Harris: We must stop now. =85 Thank you for your energy, for the analysis you have given us, for your vision=85. I=92ll think I=92ll have to learn German very quickly. Ramona: How long do we have to wait for an English edition? =85=20 Von Bruck: They are a bit scared.