Interestingly, many of the shared themes emerging within this movement seem to represent a push by a new generation of practitioners willing to engage with many of the issues which are central to the evolution of society as a whole at this time, and many of which take up the central issues concerning post-modernity. Post-modern thought seems to me to be central to the rewiring that is occurring in these informal exchanges and elaborations. The sanctity of ultimate truth, the rules of engagement handed down through traditional structures, the structures of power that are seemingly inherent within institutionalised Buddhism are put to the guillotine by Post-Traditional Buddhists in a symbolic act of reclaiming the bare bones of knowing and experiencing.
It seems that the more intellectually leaning members of this movement are concerned with bringing together not just science and its analysis of meditational results, but the Western intellectual tradition – from philosophy to linguistics, to the political sciences and sociology – to bear on the interpretation and working of Buddhism and its beliefs, core tenets and practices. This in my opinion is where the tastiest of morsels can be found. Whereas science may provide secular means for quantifying the value of meditation and its results, other academic fields challenge and destabilise the ideological ground of Buddhism, and in particular its traditional methods of delivery. Although science may convince a whole new generation of businessmen, housewives and school kids to practice secular mindfulness, those interested in the bigger picture of personal and collective transformation may benefit greatly from uprooting Buddhism from its traditional base of power in the hands of Asian teachers and exploring it under the light of existing and emerging sociological and philosophical enquiry.
Post-Traditional Buddhism is a concerted effort to move away from the hegemony of what Dave Chapman describes as Consensus Buddhism. Because of this, many of its features are a direct refusal to kowtow to traditional Buddhist forms and relationships. Post-Traditional Buddhists are not content to swallow whole the doctrinal proclamations of an exotic and powerful figure, whether Asian or otherwise. Post-Traditional Buddhists are independently minded and determined to work through the raw material of Buddhism on new and divergent terms. Post-Traditional Buddhists are usually individualists and are incorporating a relationship with knowledge and technology into their practice that mirrors the shift that has taken place in wider society through the arrival of the Internet. Sources are multiple, open, instantly accessible and dissectible. Post-Traditional Buddhism is not embedded in a foreign culture, or in a foreign language. Post-Traditional Buddhism is not based on lineage and the passing down of power and the ownership of exotic roles such as Tulku, Lama, Rinpoche and Holy One. Post-Traditional Buddhism is not based in a temple or a building which deliberately recreates the symbolic reality of another time and another country. Instead it is likely taking place near a computer screen, on the subway, or in the pub in multiple realities and possibilities. Post-Traditional Buddhism both criticises constructively and destructively. Post-Traditional Buddhism is very often results-orientated, but does not necessarily take traditional Buddhism’s definitions of the goal as accurate or realistic. Post-Traditional Buddhism is increasingly open source: accessed through blog, podcast, webinar and free, downloadable content, some of which may be illegal.
Post-Traditional Buddhism is willing to pull apart traditional teachings and breakdown and defile Buddhism’s core taboos: enlightenment is happening here, cries Mr Folk at enlightenment central in New York. Post-Traditional Buddhism generally respects and appreciates what Buddhism has to offer, but will not blindly follow its rules: a significant power shift is taking place regarding who owns the keys to the Buddha’s legacy. Post-Traditional Buddhism openly engages with other sources of knowledge and uses them to examine Buddhism itself: shifting in and out of Buddhist perspectives enhances rather than distracts – the nonsense idea of purity has been jettisoned. Post-Traditional Buddhism is dynamic and in many ways is a major game changer still bubbling under the surface waiting to pounce. I consider Post-Traditional Buddhism to be the most authentic form of truly Western Buddhism to emerge yet.
Post-Traditional Buddhism is not unified. Its voice has not yet been found, perhaps because it is a movement that so far has no institutional base, no fixed location. Its creativity and experimentation is possible because of its response to existing tradition and the loose and fluid nature of its participants. There are early simmerings of an eventual shift towards organisation among the Secular Buddhists, although they are at the least radical end of the scale and how desirous affiliation with their nametag will be, I don’t know. Ted Meisner, who is instrumental in bringing about the Secular Buddhist vision, seems to represent the mould of a middle class, science geek who is enamoured with the rational. This approach may not appeal to the more radically minded. The rational and scientific are not the only source of reinterpretation of the significance and place of Buddhism in the 21st century as Stephen Schettini, the Naked Monk, has declared. He, along with Ken McLeod, has pointed out that we are irrational beings at heart and that our impulsive and emotional nature must be engaged with as a component of the path and not ignored through ideological snobbery.
For some, if not many, there is still an overt respect for traditional Buddhism that hinders real and radical change through unbridled examination and questioning. Tradition has always feared open dissent and the destabilising effects of challenging the hegemony of a given power base. Buddhism is no different to other religions in this regard, in spite of what many Buddhists may like to believe. The potential of Post-Traditional Buddhism is immense because in part it is the face of a much richer and more complete engagement with Buddhism. It is also uncertain and destabilising. At present it is birthing itself as a sort of virus and its roots are spreading in unseen ways as independent voices and minds act upon Buddhism and are encouraged by the spread of rebel movement within pre-existing Buddhist camps. I would like to see this movement strengthen, not through the establishment of a new convenient consensus, but as a stark and determined engagement amongst Buddhists in the West. Traditional Buddhism does not really need to fear this shift. It can incorporate it as a necessary moment of change, of clarification and an opportunity in which the authenticity of its own values, promises and claims can be tested more thoroughly. Impermanence is real folks. Engage with it, or hide from it, it will still be there. Traditions can no longer isolate themselves from the world outside the dharma centre doors. It’s time to stand up, step outside and take a look around and embrace the great potential of truly dynamic, western forms of Buddhism.