Better Buddhisms: A developmental approach

American Buddhist organizations and events rarely run smoothly. We take muddled ineffectuality for granted. Leaders don’t understand how to organize, and participants vigorously resist all systematic processes. Few are on board with principle that “if you say you are going to do something, you should do it.” (And if you are not going to do it, you need to tell someone about it and help clean up the mess.)

Someone said they were going to help set up for an event because they really felt like saying so was the way to preserve harmony and good feelings at the time; but something came up with a friend. And they didn’t feel that being there for the set-up was important. They “forgot” to tell you, because that might have led to bad feelings. It would be uncompassionate and un-Buddhist of you to give them a hard time about it, because helping out as agreed would have caused them suffering.

Unfortunately, transitory cooperative feelings and “being nice” do not get practical work done. This ethos exasperates and actively drives away competent people.

Buddhist classes starting late are a trivial, but telling, manifestation of a deep failing. By implicitly validating an adolescent way of being, contemporary Buddhism impedes personal growth.

Understanding what has gone wrong points to a profound opportunity. Buddhism could be a remarkable resource for supporting growth into full adulthood and beyond.

My analysis here depends on Robert Kegan’s model of the stages of adult development, explained on the last page. Some of it may not make sense unless you’ve read that.

Consensus Buddhism reflects a communal (Kegan stage 3) understanding of ethics, selves, relationships, epistemology, and society. By reinforcing stage 3 attitudes, it may actively obstruct personal growth. Better Buddhisms might instead support the transition from the communal to systematic mode (stage 4). They might also support the further transition to the fluid mode (stage 5).

Asian Buddhism at stages 3 and 4

Before looking at Consensus (American) Buddhism, two points about Asian Buddhism. Traditional Buddhism is communal (stage 3), like all traditional cultures. The Asian Buddhist modernism of the late 1800s (and continuing to the present) moved into systematicity (stage 4).

Traditional Buddhism is (mostly) traditional

There is little systematicity in pre-modern Buddhism. Its structure is mainly associationistic, not logical: think of Sutric Buddhism’s love of categorical lists, and the Tantric five-fold structure of correspondences.

There is a tradition of Buddhist philosophical logic, which at its best did develop coherent systems. This was mainly confined to Madhyamaka, whose logical details have relatively little relevance to most Buddhist practice. Still, the best such work is strikingly “modern,” or systematic—which is why Buddhist modernism has been more successful than Shinto modernism, for instance. I plan to write about this in a future post.

Ethics are a good illustration of the pre-systematic nature of traditional Buddhism. I’ve recently done a detailed analysis of the limitations of Buddhism’s compassion-based, communal ethics. Not only does Buddhist morality lack a systematic framework, it’s missing the raw materials, fundamental concepts, or individual elements, on which you could base a stage 4 ethics. There are no:

sets of principles that determine which actions, states of character or motives are virtuous or vicious, and no articulation of sets of obligations or rights.1

During its 20 year history, the Journal of Buddhist Ethics has published only one article that discusses Kohlberg or Kegan; and that one uses the framework only to argue a particular narrow point, rather than evaluating Buddhist ethics according to the Kohlberg/Kegan criteria overall. Presumably this is because Buddhist ethics comes out looking remarkably juvenile if you do.

That one article suggests that the structure of monasticism is stage 4. I think this was generous. Vinaya does include some attempts at justification, and does have some organizational structure, but they are extremely crude. There was also some amount of systematicity in the practical administration of large feudal-monastic estates. Overall, though, monasticism is a mainly communal, traditional, non-systematic institution.

Asian Buddhist modernism is (mostly) modern

Asian Buddhist modernism—initiated by Mongkut in the 1850s—sought not only to import individual Western ideas, but to remake Buddhism as a rational, modern system. This was not entirely successful, but it made substantial progress (as I’ve discussed in several historical posts).

Recently, I explained how Asian modernists imported systematic Western ethical and political systems. I’ve also explained how, for example, Japanese Zen imported the systematic German Romantic theory of enlightenment, replacing earlier Buddhist theories that made no sense.

Consensus Buddhism is “traditional”

Although Consensus Buddhism was based on extensively-modernized Zen and Theravada, it promptly regressed to stage 3 (the communal mode). The systematic Victorian morality adopted by Asian modernist Buddhism was unacceptable to 1970s young adults. Ironically, stage 3 is the mindset of traditional cultures. In this sense, Consensus Buddhism is “traditional,” not “modern”—despite its nearly complete lack of commonality with traditional Buddhism as found in Asia.

Incoherence, self-contradiction, the absence of any “therefores”—these are characteristic of Consensus Buddhist writing. I have taken Joseph Goldstein’s One Dharma as my prototype Consensus Buddhist book, because it was the most coherent I could find. And yet my discussion of it points out its fundamental failure to make sense. I’ve also pointed out the incoherence of the Consensus critique of secular mindfulness.

I am not suggesting that Goldstein, or any Consensus Buddhist teacher, is personally limited to stage 3 functioning. Rather, what they teach—notably including their “Buddhist ethics”—is stage 3, and the community culture is stage 3. They have gone a long way to “meeting people where they are”—an admirable task. Making Buddhism available to people who have not yet passed stage 3 is a good thing. But Buddhism should also give people a path from where they are, and encourage them along the way.

Consensus Buddhist ethics is incoherent. It is supposedly based on “compassion” (the essence of communal morality) and therefore has no way of resolving ethical conflicts. It is also notionally based on the five precepts, but it posits vast, vague exceptions that render them meaningless. In practice, “obey community taboos and shibboleths” (i.e. mainstream leftish American morality) is the whole of the law.

Social justice is a large part of leftish morality, and therefore of “Buddhist ethics.” Social justice concepts were originally a product of European Enlightenment rationalism. If you can explain why they are correct, in terms of principles and justifications, that’s stage 4. If your understanding of social justice is “we should be nice to everyone and listen to their feelings, because that’s the nice thing to do, and being nice is what’s ethical,” that’s stage 3. Thich Nhat Hanh, who brought social justice into American Buddhism, certainly had a stage 4 (or 5) understanding; but in “meeting people where they are,” he presented it in stage 3 terms, and that’s mostly where Consensus Buddhist ethics remains.

The community considers it taboo to say anything racist. As far as I know, there’s nothing in Sutrayana that condemns racism. Why is it wrong? There are good Western stage 4 and 5 reasons for this, but I’d guess most Consensus Buddhists could not explain them clearly. It’s simply an American leftish taboo—and therefore contrary to “Buddhism.” Put on the spot, a Consensus Buddhist might answer that racism is uncompassionate, but the question would never be asked. To ask “why?” is itself highly taboo. To point out a specifically Buddhist reason to reject racism also violates the taboo. To ask why, or to explain why, are both taboo—because they imply that being taboo is not itself sufficient. That calls into question the whole basis of communal morality: mere consensus. In systematic ethics, by contrast, if something is wrong, it is wrong for a specific reason, and it is good to ask for it if you don’t know.

“We vow to save all sentient beings” is the bodhisattva ideal. There is no credible explanation in Mahayana texts of what it would even mean to save anyone, much less methods for how. It seems to be pure metaphysical hope. The Consensus often reinterprets salvation in practical terms, as “we vow to alleviate the suffering of all sentient beings.” This is a sensible improvement. But it entails unlimited responsibility, which makes organized practical action impossible. If you are responsible to everyone in theory, you cannot be responsible to anyone in practice.

That was the point of the first paragraph of this post. Consensus Buddhists tend to be irresponsible, and their organizations ineffective, due to their stage 3 understanding of relationships as unlimited and unstructured.

Rejecting asymmetrical relationships—”we’re all equal here”—makes the teacher/student relationship conceptually awkward. It would be so much nicer if we could all sit in a circle and share our experience of Buddhism, and affirm each other’s insights non-judgmentally, and so achieve perfect consensus, and thereby ascend to enlightenment together. This totally does not work, so Consensus Buddhism reluctantly accepts that teachers are necessary; but it limits the role as much as possible. That limits teachers’ effectiveness, and eliminates much of the opportunity for learning.

Consensus Buddhists often explicitly reject systematicity as such. They are against “organized religion.” Often there is a deliberate lack thereof; and yet somehow we have to rent a room for the meditation group, and set up the chairs before starting, and collect donations, and deal with tax accountants.

Consensus Buddhism: an obstacle to personal growth?

A culture that consistently confirms stage 3 is helpful for those making the transition into the stage,2 and provides comfortable support for those squarely in it. It is an obstacle for those who are ready to grow toward systematicity, if it fails ever to challenge communal-mode functioning.

I suspect “Buddhist ethics” actively hinders the ethical development of Western Buddhists. Most Western adults achieve stage 3 without Buddhist help. It needs no confirmation from religion when it’s preached by every secular TV show. Confirming that compassion is the essence of ethics just tells people what they already believe and want to hear: “you are ethical enough as you are, because you care about others’ suffering, and that’s what matters.” Intelligent adults have at least an uncomfortable suspicion that this is not enough, and that they should get a more sophisticated ethical understanding. Buddhism provides magical transcendental justification (“the ancient Eastern wisdom of the omniscient Buddha!”) for developmental retardation.

More generally, Consensus Buddhism may actively hinder personal growth for many people. Part of the appeal of contemporary monism and Romanticism is their rejection of the inhuman demands of the systematic world—especially the world of work. Buddhism seems to function for many as a refuge from that: a comfortable social club in which we can feel morally superior by agreeing that capitalism is awful. This does nothing to improve, replace, or end the system, nor does it help anyone decrease their friction with it by learning how it works. (These would require stage 4 at minimum.) Communal consensus confirmation does feel good in the short run, but in the longer run it’s an excuse to avoid personal and social growth.

Better Buddhisms can support the transition to systematicity

The sangha should not be a comfortable social club. The job of the sangha is not to provide unconditional emotional support for students as they are, but to challenge their current way of being while supporting their progress on the path.

If someone says they will come early to help set up for the meditation group and they arrive late, we should be surprised, and concerned in case they had a genuine emergency, and ask what happened, and be disappointed if it was “something came up with a friend.” If someone has the potential to move toward stage 4, we should not say “oh, no problem.” That might be “compassionate.” Saying “you know, it was a problem for the rest of us that you weren’t here to help; we had to start late” might make them feel bad. But “no problem” is idiot compassion. It confirms that it is OK for them not to function as an adult.

I have used Shambhala Training as a paradigm of modernized Buddhism. (Although it was officially non-Buddhist. Maybe there’s a lesson in that.) Here I’ll point out some ways in which it trained people specifically in the stage 4 way of being.

“Precision and gentleness” was a Shambhala slogan. That’s a meditation instruction, but also an instruction for one’s overall way of being, and for the organization of society. “Gentleness” is supportive; “precision” is a challenge. “Precision” is not a nice word.

Shambhala sessions ran precisely on time. There was a fixed schedule, and if it said the talk begins at 2:00, it began at 2:00, not 2:03. (This was in striking contrast to the officially Buddhist events produced by the same organization, which invariably began late.) The training had a fixed curriculum with a clear, detailed, systematic logic.

Shambhala had a system of behavioral norms that were formal (invented, not natural), specific (not just general guidelines or vague principles), and rational (not arbitrary; there was a good reason for each). For example, if you showed up late for a session, you’d find the doors were closed. A door keeper would invite you to meditate for ten minutes or so on a cushion outside before letting you in. This is alien to American culture. It may have a Tibetan precedent, but I haven’t encountered one, and I suspect Trungpa Rinpoche invented it. This social practice had several rational functions, which were explicitly pointed out. If you walked in while people were meditating, you would disturb them while you thrashed around getting settled. If you sat outside for a while first, your mind and body would slow, and you would make less of a flap when you did go in. If several people were late, one disruption was better than several, so the door keeper would have everyone wait until the last straggler arrived and calmed down. Some people might be upset at not being allowed in; the door keeper would leave them sitting longer in that case, until they had calmed down. It became obvious that it would be better for everyone if you arrived on time. All this conveyed the message that the Training operated according to a system that made sense, and that everyone needed to play their parts, with attention to precision, in order for it to function well.

Shambhala had a system of asymmetrical roles that were formal (not biologically natural), specific (with defined prerequisites, duties, and limits), and rational (plainly necessary for the Training to function). This was presented with such skill that, somehow, even Berkeley anti-authority radicals rarely balked at it. It probably helped that roles were taken for only a weekend. The person who acted as Director (main teacher) at your Level I might be Staff (serving you breakfast) at Level II. This made it clear that the roles were formal, specific, and rational, not power-grabs by alpha monkeys. On the other hand, it was also clear that people are not equal. To act as Director obviously required not just formal prerequisites, but intrinsic ones—a great depth of meditation experience, social skills, and conceptual knowledge.

Few if any participants found this system cold, unfriendly, inhuman, or alienating. Quite the opposite. I haven’t emphasized the “gentleness” aspect of Shambhala Training, but it was always present and powerful. Shambhala was founded on “a vision of Enlightened Society,” and the structure of the Training manifested that in a way that made it hugely appealing. By showing how good stage 4 functioning can feel, Shambhala Training led people forward on a path to systematicity.

Buddhism beyond the systematic mode

The most-developed Buddhist curricula available in the West present detailed, systematic paths. These function as totalizing ideologies; they claim to present The Ultimate Truth About Life, The Universe, And Everything. As such, they are stage 4 systems, in part at least. The structures they provide can be valuable for dedicated Buddhist students with the desire and ability to go deeper than the Consensus can take them. However, like all systems, they cannot deliver on their promises of ultimacy. After some years, their limitations, rigidities, and internal contradictions become apparent to those who may be ready to move beyond stage 4.

Recognizing that no system can be perfectly solid, discrete, eternal, continuous, and fully-defined is what pushes you out of that stage. This is closely related to the Vajrayana presentation of emptiness, and its critique of eternalism, which it defines as the denial of emptiness. That critique, and the meditation practices that lead to direct experience of emptiness, may function as powerful challenges to systematicity.

Understanding the impossibility of perfect systematicity may propel you into nihilism—and the emptiness orientation of Sutrayana is arguably nihilistic. Vajrayana defines nihilism as “clinging to emptiness,” or the denial of form: the meaningfulness of manifest reality. Many intelligent Westerners get stuck at this point—stage 4.5 in Kegan’s framework. The leading edge of our culture realizes that, more than anything, we need a path beyond nihilism; but candidates are scarce.

I find resonances between Kegan’s stage 5 and some versions of Vajrayana, particularly Dzogchen. These may be only superficial, coincidental resemblances; I’m unsure. However, regardless of whether traditional Vajrayana was stage 5-like, the analogy suggests ways future Vajrayanas might operate at stage 5.

Vajrayana contains an extensive critique of nihilism. It offers a positive alternative to both eternalism and nihilism: ways of working with vivid empty form. That is groundless functioning, like a movie playing without a projector. Meditation methods such as yidam and rtsa rlung give direct experience of sourceless vividness, which for many people may be more useful than conceptual explanations. Here one finds the inseparability of bliss, emptiness, and clarity. That may be a powerful support during the 4 to 5 transition, which is often horrifying and depressing. Perhaps it can allow some people to skip the nihilism of stage 4.5 altogether. As in fluidity, these meditation methods reveal one’s self as nebulous but not without characteristics; and neither separate from, nor unified with, one’s body, other people, and the world at large.

Dzogchen relativizes all nine yanas as ideologies that can be used as tools, not truths. Dzogchen reconstructs each as a complete, relatively coherent system, with defined principles and functions and specific relationships to each other. (Whereas, presented in their own terms, they are pre-rational conglomerations that claim Absolute Truth but make only associationistic sense.) Thus, as in fluidity, Dzogchen is meta to multiple systems, which it relates to each other and deploys as appropriate. Like fluidity, Dzogchen both honors rationality as a tool and recognizes its limitations. It is comfortable with ambiguity, paradox, and apparent contradiction. The Dzogchen teacher conjures with yanas, fluidly switching among them, playfully animating them as vivid empty forms to bring about specific conceptual and non-conceptual understandings in students.


  1. Jay Garfield, “Buddhist Ethics.” 
  2. Teaching Consensus Buddhism in prisons is probably a very good thing, for this reason. 
Advertisements

Author: David Chapman

Author of the book Meaningness and several Buddhist sites.

14 thoughts on “Better Buddhisms: A developmental approach”

  1. Thanks for this masterful and fascinating series. I find some similarities between Kegan’s stage 5 and Chan (especially the Hongzhou school), but, like you with Vajrayana, I’m unsure of how legitimate the resemblances really are. Either way, I’ll be following your forthcoming posts with extreme interest, particularly in regards to the possibility of thinking about the ways in which one might effectively parallel propositions for “future Vajrayanas” with future Chan.

  2. ‘Few are on board with principle that “if you say you are going to do something, you should do it.” (And if you are not going to do it, you need to tell someone about it and help clean up the mess.)’

    I’m consistently amazed at how few adults in our society can follow through and keep their word. I think that if you can’t even do that, whatever kind of meditation you are doing isn’t working very well. It doesn’t take any particular religion, and should only require a minimal level of mindfulness, to see how our words impact others, and to realize that it’s quite selfish to offer to do something and then not follow through.

  3. You wrote: “Buddhism seems to function for many as a refuge from that: a comfortable social club in which we can feel morally superior by agreeing that capitalism is awful. This does nothing to improve, replace, or end the system, nor does it help anyone decrease their friction with it by learning how it works.”

    Isn’t this precisely what Karl Marx had in mind in his famous critique of religion?

    “Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

    The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.”

  4. For example, if you showed up late for a session, you’d find the doors were closed. A door keeper would invite you to meditate for ten minutes or so on a cushion outside before letting you in. This is alien to American culture. It may have a Tibetan precedent, but I haven’t encountered one, and I suspect Trungpa Rinpoche invented it.

    He may have taken it from Japanese Zen, where it’s traditional. We do the same thing at my zendo, except (1) you have to wait until the whole sitting session is done, usually about half an hour (2) there is no doorkeeper, you are expected to be enough of a grown-up to police yourself. (Actually, I suspect they had never needed to use that rule until I started going there as a teenager!)

    I’ve also seen the practice at larger Quaker Meetings, where the main purpose is “one disruption is better than several” as you say.

  5. ‘Western Buddhist organizations and events rarely run smoothly…. Few are on board with principle that “if you say you are going to do something, you should do it.”’

    I assume you really mean “Consensus” rather than “Western” here, yeah? My teacher sees this as a specifically American quirk, based on his travels there.

  6. Though I have not much experience with Consensus Buddhism groups, this blog post explain so well why many small voluntary groups are absolutely horrible to work with sometimes – when you need to get the job done and would need to trust that others do their share.

  7. Thank you all for interesting comments! (Most seem to need no response from me.)

    He may have taken it from Japanese Zen, where it’s traditional.

    Ah, that’s very interesting, and very plausible! Chögyam Trungpa took many of the forms of Shambhala Training from Soto Zen, via his close friend S.T. Suzuki.

    I assume you really mean “Consensus” rather than “Western” here, yeah? My teacher sees this as a specifically American quirk, based on his travels there.

    Yes, I’ve fixed the text. Interesting observation.

  8. “However, like all systems, they cannot deliver on their promises of ultimacy. After some years, their limitations, rigidities, and internal contradictions become apparent to those who may be ready to move beyond stage 4.”

    There is a real challenge in creating a culture that allows for Stage 3, inspires Stage 4, and is informed by Stage 5. Although IMS gets a bad rap at times, I do think they actually do that fairly well. If people want to go deep, there are opportunities to do all of that there. It provides a fairly decent place for practicing for people who want true retreat conditions (multi-day and 1.5 month/3 month retreats with guidance at IMS or self-retreats at Forest Refuge). There is no way anyone can do longer retreats, full-day, defined schedule retreats without being Stage 4. And to pull it all off the staff/teachers at IMS need to be at Stage 5.

    The reason IMS exists at all and continues to expand is because it financially taps and provides for a huge body of Stage 3 donors/meditators. If people want to dabble, they can and IMS is happy to provide the experience and accept the income. They are happy to accept money willed to them as well. The buildings look great these days and seem fairly opulent to me.

    The one thing that IMS does not do is give a sense of what is possible, that there are stages of insight or stages of adult development. They obviously have made the calculation: do I alienate many to provide for the few? The truth of it is they have found a balance that doesn’t need to alienate the many and still — if you are lucky to have the right teacher, the right intuition, or the right external guidance — provide a venue for the few to do their practice.

    IMS is also interesting because it has the structure of a 16-hour a day Sen/Theravada retreat setting, but doesn’t enforce the schedule. As a result, students that are Stage 3 or Stage 5 can tolerate the place. Stage 3 and Stage 5 are going to scoff at rigidly structured practice for different reasons. For Stage 3 it’s a level of discipline that won’t put upon themselves. For Stage 5, they know the futility of regimentation for developing a real human Strict schedules and rituals are fine at times, but they can quickly become stifling or just a distraction. (Some of my critical questions about Aro come from this orientation, what’s the point of the regiment and pagentry?) What Stage 5 needs is space, time, and a method to practice, with check ins with an awakened (Stage 6? 7?) teacher.

    Speaking of awakening… More and more, it seems kind of odd to frame this discussion around Stage 3, 4, and 5. Looking at Kegan on Wiki… Stage 5, the highest stage, seems fairly mundane and doesn’t seem to have the more advanced Stages that Cook-Grueter has in her map. Stage 5 seems like a fairly low bar to leap over and doesn’t really seem to characterize the domain of meditation such as initial insights into emptiness, dependent arising, the tautologies of the 6 realms, and the union of form and emptiness.

    Are you actually saying that Vajrayana is supposed to be a system for establishing post-modern thinking? I suppose it’s possible, but that’s sort of like saying a corvette is a device for drying parsley. Sure it might work for that, but…

  9. There is a real challenge in creating a culture that allows for Stage 3, inspires Stage 4, and is informed by Stage 5.

    Yes indeed!

    Some of my critical questions about Aro come from this orientation, what’s the point of the regiment and pagentry?

    There’s not much regimentation in the Aro gTér at all.

    Re pageantry, I tried to answer that for you in a previous comment. I’m sorry that seems to have been unhelpful. In short, ritual is a method. It has no ultimate meaning (nothing has ultimate meaning) but it’s a useful tool for accomplishing particular outcomes. Which outcomes, and how that works, is a huge topic. That earlier comment touched on one small aspect.

    Coming from an IMS perspective, Vajrayana’s intended outcomes would be unfamiliar, and perhaps incomprehensible at first, so it would take a lot of background set-up to explain more generally. I may do that at some point. Even after extensive explanation, you might find the outcomes uninteresting. Different Buddhisms have different goals, and serve different sorts of people. Vajrayana seeks different effects than the IMS does.

    I’ve discussed Cook-Greuter’s model in a previous comment. Kegan, and other researchers, have found empirically that very few people ever make it even to stage 5, so there’s not enough data to say anything about further stages with scientific confidence. Speculations are interesting, and some are plausible, but we don’t actually know.

    Stage 5 … doesn’t really seem to characterize the domain of meditation such as initial insights into emptiness, dependent arising, the tautologies of the 6 realms, and the union of form and emptiness.

    Well, it wasn’t supposed to! I do think that it has some resonance with Dzogchen’s understanding of form and emptiness, as I suggested at the end of this post. I expect to say more about that in future posts.

    Are you actually saying that Vajrayana is supposed to be a system for establishing post-modern thinking?

    Obviously that was not its intention in pre-modern times. I think it can (and should) be used that way in the future. Not that it should be used only for that, but that can (and should) be one function.

    (Here I’m using “post-modern thinking” to mean “Kegan stage 5” not “bullshit academic word salad,” which is the popular understanding.)

  10. I think I hear patience and restrain in your replies, which I appreciate. I’m realizing that my interest in buddhism is less to inform Stage 3,4, and 5 and more to inform what is beyond — and that’s why I was curious if your original framing could get there. But I share your frustration with what exists as examples of Stage 5 in modern culture (including some advanced “education” consisting of teach how to make academic word salad or finding the right p-value for the wrong questions, which is really kind of a demented stage 4 approach to appearing stage 5) (and including buddhism that results in regression or unneeded repression rather than full appreciation of the freedom and play available in this life), so I appreciate the critiques. Looking forward to the remaining series. I’ll probably remain silent (a sigh of relief is heard :) ) but if I do comment, I’ll keep tightly to the to the domain of what is being presented. Apologies and again thanks!

  11. “Buddhist classes starting late are a trivial, but telling, manifestation of a deep failing. By implicitly validating an adolescent way of being, contemporary Buddhism impedes personal growth.”

    Yeah but they’ve given up the Anglo Saxon outlook. In other parts of the world it’s perfectly grown up to be disorganised, late, manana.
    No ?

  12. Im curious this blog and posts by Javaraya? and others about reforming Buddhism by rejecting parts you don’t like or start from scratch etc. What is the point? Personally reading all this I don’t understand why not just go with the western philosophies such as epicurianism and strive for the state of ataraxia and include some tools from buddhism to help reach. It seems to fullfill all your needs(secular, inline with science, no sky gods, no traditional humbug etc) without the pointless endeavor of rejecting most of Buddhism to create a new Buddhism.

  13. Andreas, for me it doesn’t seem that Mr. Chapman is trying to make such a Franksteinish Buddhist golem as you point out (Consensus Buddhism has already done it).

    I may be wrong (probably, at many points I am), because I’m not him, but from what I’m understanding on his writings, he’s rejecting what is not useful from Sutric Buddhism (such as Medieval ethics) and Consensus Buddhism and is pointing that Tantric Buddhism could be a source for a new model of living which is more vivid, yet open, not attached to the failing views of mere materialism, rubbish monism, fanatic eternalism and, most important, depressive nihilism (which seems to dominate the common view today, in its “light” display of hedonistic consumerism).

    Of course we can apply Cynicism, Epicurianism, Stoicism and other more practical Western philosophies, but many things Vajrayana and Dzogchen present are not there, or at least no so clearly. For example, the Four Extremes or, especially, methods such as rTsa rLung, Dream Yôga and Trulkhor, which may help a lot. Not to mention the Tantric outline of not denying the world of form, but also not getting attached to it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s