A panel discussion I moderated in the current issue of Buddhadharma: The Practitioners’ Quarterly (Winter 2
008) has stirred up some controversy, as pointed out in a recent blog entry from Rod Meade Sperry’s Worst Horse site. Rod was a participant in our discussion of the Next Generation of Buddhists in America. We all took some heat for talking only about so-called “convert Buddhists” in the discussion. On his blog, Dharma Folk, arunlikhati let us know how upset he was that we excluded Asians from our discussion.
I take responsibility. And I hope arunlikhati writes us a letter for publication in the magazine, because his post has broadened my viewpoint. We have touched on the issues he’s raised in some depth before. In late 2006, we conducted a panel on diversity, which included an intro by Charles Prebish that discussed in part the hybridization of Buddhism in America–the intermingling of different cultures to the point where the lines will blur into non-distinction. The year before, we held a panel on Buddhism’s ethnic divide that talked about how the ethnic and convert communities could interact more. The fact that we discussed these before doesn’t mean that I couldn’t have framed the discussion in a larger way.
If I had phrased the whole thing in a subtler–yet somewhat blunter–way, I might have asked, “Is White America’s love affair with Buddhism a fad that will die with the Baby Boomer generation?” In addition, it would be a good idea to do a panel exclusively about the experience of young Asian Buddhists in America, whether born into Buddhism or “convert.” I’m sure I speak for the panelists when I say that we all look forward to the day when the only divide worth discussing is between delusion and enlightenment.
Oh, and I thank arunlikhati for calling me “esteemed,” but methinks he was being ironic.
4 Comments
Hello Barry,
I think this is a wonderful post, thank you for sharing with us. :)
Hi, Barry:
With respect, I’d like to say that while I think Arunlikhati and Ven. Hue Hai are quite right to note that there is a divide (or several divides) in American Buddhism, there is also great value in pieces like the one in Buddhadharma. We need to address the lack of interaction, yes, but I think that will involve focused looks at particular communities. This piece is one such look. Neither the panelists nor you struck me as clueless to the fact that there are other kinds of Buddhists in America. Nor did you pretend to represent all Buddhists in America. Though Arunlikhati took as callous your statement that the panel would not discuss Buddhists “who did not inherit [Buddhism] as a part of their ethnic background,” I interpreted this is an acknowledgment on your part of the limitations of the conversation.
For what it’s worth, I think a panel discussion between young Asian-American Buddhists is a fantastic idea–and the best way to address any tensions inspired by the article. These panels could be a great start at helping American Buddhists get to know one another better, I think.
Oh, and you should be esteemed. I’ll have words with anyone who says otherwise. ; )
Rev. Danny Fisher
Rev. Danny Fisher must be thanked for his persistent defense of the panel discussion throughout the blogosphere. I was a bit vexed when I wrote my first post (though I didn’t think so at the time), and so my words were harsher than warranted. In the end, the stream of comments and other blog posts helped me learn more about the situation from many angles.
Barry: I think a panel about young Asian Buddhists would be just fine, but a more inclusive discussion about young Buddhists would be even better. That said, your suggested panel would still be a fine place to start. If I wanted to write a letter, where/how should I submit it? (And how many words?)
Arunlikhati: Just for the record, I want to say that I’ll be a persistent defense for both the panel discussion in question AND for a lot of your views. I think you make some excellent points about problems in American Buddhism. (That your post got so much enthusiastic response is a testament to that.) I would just hate to see the solution come at the cost of focused studies of individual communities. Inclusive discussions would be great things, yes, and we should definitely try harder to make those happen in the media and at centers/temples and elsewhere…but I think we do need to have some conversations at a micro level too. (I see the BUDDHADHARMA piece as a good example of the latter.) That’s my only point. With bows, Danny
2 Trackbacks
[...] Tricycle Blog, the buddha is my dj, the Buddhist Blog, the Worst Horse, Awake in This Life and Shambhala Sun Space. I gained a lot from reading the comments to those posts too. Possibly related posts: [...]
[...] was lots of interesting stuff in that article, and I didn’t talk about any of it. Over on Shambhala Sun Space, Barry Boyce very kindly links to my post and explains: If I had phrased the whole thing in [...]