moralobjectivity.net/TwB

In some ways it is difficult for us to completely distinguish between teachings that are alien because of their distance in the past, and teachings that are alien because of the cultural gap between the West and India, Tibet,

Japan

or wherever the teachings come from originally. Very often it is difficult to completely separate the two elements, and they are intermingled. Broadly, teachings with culture-shock are ones that might not go down too badly in that country today, but go down badly in the West – but obviously places like Japan and

India

are now subject to so much Western influence that the point is a matter of speculation.

There are two examples of culture-shock I’m going to specifically mention: those of magic and those of faith.

Buddhist teachings involving magic are rife. For example, the stories of the mahasiddhas, originally Indian but transmitted via Tibetan Buddhism, are full of magical events, as are the biographies of the great Tibetan gurus such as Marpa and Padmasambhava. Even the normally more staid Pali Canon mentions miracles performed by the Buddha, and has him sheltered from the rain by a snake’s hood. The attainment of the fourth dhyana is said to be accompanied by the development of magical (or paranormal) powers such as telekinesis and clairvoyance.

Many of these magical events have a symbolic significance which diffuses Western disbelief, and gives what would otherwise be just a wacky story a real meaning. Some Western teachers are good at pointing out such symbolic significance[1], but it does need pointing out. All too often such stories are just told, even on public occasions with audiences of varying levels of experience. Buddhists who are used to handling symbolism may not be aware quite how literal-minded most people are, and how difficult they often find it to make symbolic interpretations, especially in a culturally alien mythology, without a lot of support.

My other example concerns stories about excessive faith. These may go down a lot better, at least with some audiences, in

India

, where there is a strong tradition of devotion to gurus, than in the West. Nevertheless, I have often heard such stories just told by Buddhists on public occasions, as if it were obvious that they reflected a way of behaving that everyone should want to follow. One such example from the Pali Canon (Sutta Nipata) is of Pingiya[2], who sings the praises of the Buddha and maintains faith in him, despite living at a great distance from the Buddha, and hardly ever seeing him. Is this kind of faith really appropriate? Does he really know what it is that he is holding in mind so much, and can he really understand the Buddha’s teachings with so little instruction? Might it not be better for him to follow someone else near at hand (given that he is living prior to widespread communication at a distance) who could actually provide personal teaching and support? These questions, which might well be there in the background for Westerners, are almost never asked when this story is discussed.

[1] A good example of this is found in the guide to the symbology of the life of the Buddha found in Sangharakshita A Guide to the Buddhist Path, Windhorse (1990)

[2] Sutta Nipata Ch.5, verses 1131-1149