Thoughts on the Kalama Sutta inspired by a recent discussion on the H-Buddhism listserv.
At the risk of being permanently labeled “that guy who does nothing but bitch about what’s wrong with everyone else’s approach to Buddhism but rarely advances his own cogent ideas or practical solutions,” allow me to explain what I think multiyana would mean and how it could be put into practice and why I think it’s important or worth talking about in some sort of general way.
I have several concerns with the meditation-centric rhetoric of contemporary Buddhism in America. But itâ€™s not the â€œmeditationâ€ part of the meditation-centric rhetoric that bothers me. Itâ€™s the â€œrhetoricâ€ part.
The backstory to this long rant.
Despite the fact that something have changed and will continue to change, some things haven’t changed a bit. And I know damn well that there are still fights to be fought, battles to be won. Or, to use less militant rhetoric, there are things we need to teach one another, lessons to be learned, hearts to be opened, minds to be changed.
The estimable Arunlikhati over at Dharma Folk has recently created an Asian Meter to track the instances of Asian voices in the mainstream Buddhist press. (Props all around, by the way.) His post has generated a few comments that are, well, let’s just say interesting. But they prompted me to finally get around to write a post about diversity in Buddhist communities and practice, what that means or what it would look like (to me anyway), why it’s important, and how the mainstream Buddhist press sometimes fails and sometimes does an okay job in this regard.