Definitional Problems: Theravada and Vipassana

Brooke Schedneck, a contributor for Progressive Buddhism and a PhD candidate in Asian Religions at Arizona State University, wrote an article on the definitional differences between Theravada Buddhism and Vipassana practice. Vipassana, known as insight meditation in English, instructs the practitioner to analyze the arising of mental phenomena from a passive or neutral standpoint. Although it exists in both Theravada and Mahayana Buddhism, the form that was imported into America during the 1970's from Southeast Asia originates from the Theravadin tradition. Since its importation, Vipassana has become one of the major forms of American Buddhism, and the most prevalent American form of Theravada practice.

During its growth in America, some Vipassana teachers and centers deemphasized the practice's connection to Buddhism. As one commenter to Schedneck's post stated, he only learned of Vipassana meditation's root in Buddhism after a year of practice. Not only do different Vipassana centers and teachers place different emphasizes on the technique's connection to Theravada, the large numbers of Southeast Asian immigrants since the 1970's brought a large number of Theravada monks to American soil, who teach Vipassana mediation as part of Theravada practice.

Schedneck, along with other scholars of American Buddhism, have written about how the current state of Vipassana practice in America raises problems on how to classify different Buddhist (or in this case, Buddhist inspired) schools. In response to two articles she read, one in Bodhidharma Magzine and one in Tricycle, Schedneck writes:

I assume that for both of these classifications, ‘Vipassana’ refers to meditation centers that are mainly composed of lay converts and lay meditation teachers, and that ‘Theravada’ refers to monasteries consisting of lay Asian immigrants and Asian monks.

Schedneck writes how both authors, one of which includes the noted scholar Charles Prebish, fail to indicate if their definition of Vipassana includes schools with only a tenuous connection with its Buddhist origin. As she notes further in the post, the assumption that the main difference between Theravada and Vipassana is one is "Asian" and one is "American" is currently being questioned by a new generation of scholars.

My own experience leads me to agree with Schedneck. Wat Dhammasala, the Theravada temple near my home town, holds meditation classes every Saturday and Sunday, led by Ajahn Khemasanto, a Caucasian bhikku. The few times I attended the mediation classes at Wat Dhammasala, I saw a mixture of Westerners and Southeast Asians practicing together, under the guidance of a Western monk. The traditional Thai festivals held at the wat also saw a mixture of Southeast Asian and Western participants. When I interviewed Ajahn Khemasanto, he told me that he did not see a substantial difference in the practice of Southeast Asians or Westerners.

However, this example does not answer the question about how to properly deal with and define, meditation centers that down play Vipassana's roots in Theravada practice. Should scholars and students differentiate between centers that acknowledge, or even encourage, their Theravadin roots, and the centers that disassociate from Buddhist practice altogether. Like Hatha Yoga, Vipassana practice can, and has, been used as a secular practicum to help the practitioner relieve mental stress and anxiety. Even centers that have established ties to Buddhism, such as Wat Dhammasala, do not require a practitioner to accept any Buddhist tenants to learn Vipassana.

My thoughts are that the in the complicated landscape of American Buddhism, the only way to define Vipassana is to bifurcate the practice into two categories: Religious Vipassana and Secular Vipassana. Religious Vipassana is taught not only in Buddhist temples, but in meditation centers that not only acknowledge Vipassana's Buddhist roots, but use Buddhist terms and associated beliefs in conjunction to meditation practice. Secular Vipassana would cover those centers who either disassociate themselves from Buddhism, or acknowledge that Vipassana's Buddhist roots, but do not use Buddhist terms or associated practices in conjunction with Vipassana practice.

Two potential problems arise with these categories. First, they are not mutually exclusive. However, it seems that no definable categories could engage the complex relationship between Vipassana and Theravada Buddhism and not create overlapping categories. The categories also only cover the practices and teaching methods of institutions, and not the beliefs or religious affiliations of the practitioners. The focus on institutions over practitioners is necessary due to Vipassana's non-dogmatic nature. While a center could teach Vipassana as a Buddhist means for reaching enlightenment, there is no guarantee that every practitioner accepts either the Buddhist doctrines or eventual end goal. Likewise, a meditation center that makes no mention of Buddhism could have practitioners who not only understand Vipassana's roots in Theravada Buddhism, but accepts Theravadin doctrine, and attend a secular meditation center due to a lack of Theravada temples in the area.

Thoughts on Buddhism in America (Part 2)

I decided to break up my thoughts about the two news programs into two different sections, for length and due to my inherent laziness.

The second video, from KTRK ABC 13, talks about how American Monks may be the future for Buddhism in America. I am not sure if Bante Kassapa is one of the first Anglo-monks (the American monk from the temple near my home town was first ordained in the 70's), though American born monks are a rare occurrence. Most monks in America were born outside the country, and came here to teach Buddhism to westerners and immigrant communities. And while Buddhism has become influential within the United States during the last half century, it has yet to establish an independent sangha comparable with the monastic communities in traditional Buddhist countries.

An argument could be made that an American sangha, independent from oversight by sanghas outside the United States and composed of members drawn mainly from the American populace, will develop in the future. However, I find the idea suspect. Buddhism is not alone in its trouble attracting a significant monastic population. Catholicism, an established and popular religion in America, is also struggling to find Americans to fill offices of monks and priests.

Possibly due to its Protestant roots, American religion emphasizes lay participation within religious communities. Clergy speak with greater authority on matters of faith and doctrine, but that authority does not carry the same weight as in countries that traditionally have a well-defined religious hierarchy. The egalitarianism characterized by American religion leads religious traditions to play down, or outright eradicate, the differences in spiritual merit/insight between lay practitioners and the clergy. The clergy, then, becomes less of a locus for spiritual power and more of an expert in religion; a person who is well versed but not essential more spiritual than his community.

For Buddhism, the egalitarian relationship is translated into offices, such as meditation teachers, who are more advanced in meditation techniques, but lead lives similar to that of the rest of their community. They have homes, pay taxes, get married, have kids, and go to a movie on a Friday night. Therefore, to establish an American sangha with its own independent monastic system has to overcome the challenges of countering the trend within American religion to laicize religious traditions.

I have yet to see anything in American Buddhism to suggest it can meet the challenge.

Thoughts on Buddhism in America (Part 1)

Due to a hectic move into a new apartment, my first update is later than I would have liked. I'm hope apologizing for never updating does not become a mantra of mine. Also, I've noticed that this post is heavy on the claims and light on the reference. Without access to a well-stocked library, I can't give citations in my posts.

During the last week, I've searched Youtube for videos about Buddhism in America, and have repeatedly run across two news segments documenting the growth of Buddhism in the "heartland" of America. The first broadcast aired on NBC Nightly News in October 2007:



The second video comes from KTRK ABC Houston, and its topic focuses on an American Monk, and the hope that Buddhist Monasticism will take root in America.


Watching the videos, I noticed that, except for Bhante Kassapa, the converts were either young between 18-25 or well into middle age. When I researched American Buddhism last summer for my never completed honor's project, I ran across similar observations from scholars. The two age groups most represented in Buddhist convert communities do not share the same relationship as in other religious communities; that is, the younger members are not the children of the older members.

The lack of familial ties between the older and younger members creates two problems within the convert community: retention and cross-generational growth. While many converts to Buddhism fall within the 14-25 year old age demographic, they also leave Buddhism in high numbers. Without the familial ties found in other religious communities, members who become dissatisfied with the religious practice have an easier time leaving the community, due to a lack of pressure from their family to stay with a longstanding tradition.

Similarly, converts not religiously educating their children hamer Buddhism's growth in America. A surprising number of American converts come from either Jewish or Catholic families; two religions with entrenched traditions of religious education aimed at young children. In the first half of last century, both catechism and Yeshiva schools instilled a sense of religious identity within their pupils, but consequently offered an incomplete picture of the world's religious landscapes, and often warned their pupils against adopting other traditions as part of their religious practice.

When converts from those traditions had children of their own, they were reluctant to raise their children as Buddhists, fearing that a narrowed religious education would stifle their child's spiritual path. I've read essays in publications like Blue Jean Buddha and Tricycle by people my age (18 to 25) who were raised by Buddhist parents. The attitude of the Buddhists parents was that if the child had an interest in Buddhism, then they were welcome to develop their practice with their parents. But if the child was interested in other religions, it was acceptable for them to develop their non-Buddhist practice as well.

Presently, baby-boomers, who were the first generation to have significant numbers convert to Buddhism and now make up a significant portion of Buddhist converts, are growing older. There has been talk in both Buddhist and academic circles that Buddhism could wan in the coming decades. Without structures to retain younger converts and programs to introduce Buddhism to the children of present converts, Buddhism place in American religion remains uncertain.

Post-Immigration Buddhism

From the Washington Post:

SEATTLE— They immigrated to America seeking new lives. Instead they re-discovered their old religion.

Grandmothers Junko Nakano and Aiko Fujii were new brides in those early years after World War II. Etsu Shimbo lived with family and studied in Seattle. All were in their early 20s and, for the most part, lived secular lives when they came to this country.

In Japan, where the three women grew up, Buddhism was “entwined in every day life,” explained Shimbo, a retired accountant whose religious training didn’t really begin until after she had children. “We didn’t have structure like we do here.”

Their families were required to belong to a Buddhist temple. For weddings, Nakano said, they would go to the Shinto shrine. For funerals, to the Buddhist temple.

But it was only in America that they discovered Buddhist teachings.

Maybe it was loneliness or searching for a meaning and identity that drove them back to their old religious roots. But immigrating to America somehow sparked in them a need to go deeper into their Buddhist beliefs.

I also wonder if the reason their religious faith expanded is the lack of societal pressure in America for an immigrant to belong to their traditional faith. Whereas in Japan each form of Buddhism would demand certain prescribed believes integrated in culture, America offers them a more personal forum of Buddhism.

Update in Myanmar

From the Washington Post, an update on Myanmar since the Military Junta started their campagn against the protesting monks.

I find it quite surprising the level of violence the government used against the monks in such a heavily Buddhist country. The most interesting (and disturbing) quote in the article was said by a five year old boy:

I don’t want to become a soldier. If I have to kill a monk, the worst thing will happen to me in my next life.