Post-traditional Buddhism: getting practical


A common request from those travelling around the Buddhist periphery looking for alternatives to traditional Buddhism is for innovators and critics to provide practical solutions and responses to the theoretical critique being made. I myself have been one of those who at various times in the past has asked for something practical to be done with all the theory and it behoves me now to do my part to bridge the gap between theory and practice but also remind listeners and readers that theory is itself the child of pragmatism and always results from action; the action of thought, contemplation, reflection, analysis, questioning, doubting and so on. Theory, therefore, will continue to be a cornerstone of practical, pragmatic approaches to engaging with Buddhism anew and makes up a great deal of the practical side of engaging with Buddhism from a post-traditional perspective.

Emphasising the role of theory is essential as one of the important contributing factors that has allowed Western Buddhism to give rise to its more problematic facets is the general US culture of anti-intellectualism that has accompanied the rise of Ronald Reagan, George Bush, and now Donald Trump: I know I shouldn’t, but I simply couldn’t resist referencing these key figures involved in the dumbing down of American culture. Having been the Empire of the last century, The States has obviously had a very strong influence on Europe and the rest of the world and this includes not only its political and economic exports and political ideology but also in its exportation of cultural forms and styles, so that, although Europe generally does not suffer from the American suspicion of intelligence, nuance, subtlety and sophistication, it has accepted, in the world of Western Buddhism at least, a creeping form of anti-intellectualism, and in the world of the spiritual but not religious, an obsession with first person subjectivity and the cult of feeling. Starting out with the practical business of thinking, therefore, is an essential initial step because, as our more intellectual readers are all too familiar, theory, in the form of ideas and beliefs in particular, underlies, shapes and colours all of the practical stuff that our more down-to-earth brothers and sisters like to front.


11.1 Imperfect Buddha: Buddhism goes post-traditional


This episode starts off our exploration of post-traditional Buddhism, or better, post-traditional approaches to Buddhism. This might just be a major feature of the future of Buddhism in the West, if Buddhism actually manages to survive the rest of the century here as a powerful source for personal and social change. David Chapman may not think so, but who knows? If Buddhism was to benefit from a sufficient degree of cultural innovation, there’s no reason why it shouldn’t find itself once again providing meaningful responses to some of our wider concerns.

After a short preamble and our usual silliness, we get into a serious discussion of the power and appropriateness of post-traditional approaches to Buddhism, even touching on how traditional Buddhists might explore such an approach themselves. Stuart gets in yet another dig at Shambhala…but if you are a good ol’ Shambhalian, do try to avoid taking it all too seriously.

We also include our end of year awards for 2016. A strictly tongue in cheek affair, it will give you the chance to hear all about the big Buddhist winners from last year with categories including; Buddhist scandal of the year, best book, best website and best German.


The imperfect Buddha podcast is sponsored by O’Connell Coaching. If any of the topics in the podcast are personally relevant and/or problematic, or if you wish to explore life after Buddhism and are looking for support and guidance in personal development, an exploration of spiritual practice and transformative practices within a coaching context, follow the link to find out more:


The imperfect Buddha podcast supports up-and-coming musicians in Bristol groups. Hundred Strong and Joseph Malick provides this episode’s music. Do have a listen and if you like what you hear, support the artist at the band camp site:



10.0 Imperfect Buddha Podcast: David Chapman on stages of maturation, Dzogchen & the future of Buddhism


In this episode of the imperfect Buddha podcast, we finally get round to speaking to David Chapman. For those familiar with David’s work, there is so much that could have been discussed as he writes on all manner of fascinating topics ranging from Buddhism to philosophy, psychology to Vajrayana, artificial intelligence and more. Our interests converged on the topic of maturation outside of religious and spiritual discourse with David’s recent exploration of adult development and maturation just the sort of topic that we like to explore here on the podcast.

David has built on the work of Robert Keagan, an important living psychologist, in exploring adult development and maturation through five key stages. David focuses on three of them, aligning the final stage with Buddhism, in particular Dzogchen. An understanding of these stages has important consequences for Buddhists, especially considering the potential conflict between self-development, maturation and concepts such as no self, impermanence and so on.

We cover additional topics such as the present and future of Buddhism in the West, the current state of university campuses in the Anglo-American world, the problem with SJW’s and post-modern theory, nihilism and determinism, practices that may shift people onwards through the last three levels of maturation and more.



The imperfect Buddha podcast is sponsored by O’Connell Coaching. If any of the topics in the podcast are personally relevant and/or problematic, or if you wish to explore life after Buddhism and are looking for support and guidance in personal development, an exploration of spiritual practice and transformative practices within a coaching context, follow the link to find out more:


The imperfect Buddha podcast supports up-and-coming musicians in Bristol groups. Oliver Wilde, a Bristol musician on the Howling Owl label, provides this episode’s music. Do have a listen and if you like what you hear, support the artist at the band camp site:


David’s main site is a treasure trove for the discerning explorer of personal-development, spirituality and intelligent practice. A great act of generosity designed at clearing up much confusion in the realm of spirituality, David communicates clearly and concisely. Highly recommended, Meaningness:

Another of David’s sites, Vividness features an article on the podcast’s main topic:

Arot-ter site managed by David. Lots of good resources here:

Stories and their ubiquity: it just got more complex


Stories and their ubiquity

We live in a world of narratives, of stories, legends, tales and fictions that run very deep and saturate society. Ideologies are stories, social realities are built around narratives and religions are stories too, of course. Some would argue that all human systems of knowledge are stories of one kind or another. If we were to view the world in this way, then it may seem reasonable to retreat to familiar stories, reassert old favourites or embrace a relativistic approach and decide that any old one will do if it makes us happy and fits our personal needs. This may seem attractive at first but not all stories are equal. It would initially seem wiser for us to choose or tell stories that find a healthy balance between closing the gap with what is objectively real and meeting human social needs. They would be stories that provide means for humans to navigate the relationship between what is real, the social realities on offer and the life situations that are ongoing, emergent and changing. Good stories would ideally enable us to refine these relationships and continue to evolve them for the betterment of our species and those we depend on; animate and inanimate. This is one reason that many intellectuals continue to promote the modernist story of progress. In its ideal form, it is concerned with the betterment of our lot, the increase of knowledge and refinement of technology for the advancement of our species. That is a very good story, an admirable story. Like all stories though, it has holes and has created a multitude of historical problems and in one telling has had grave impact on the life situation of millions whilst contributing to the ecological disaster we are facing ahead. Modernity emerged in response to pre-modernity and its stories and their religious genesis and many still cling to those stories too. Postmodernists have their own stories as well and just like previous historical phases, true postmodernists are unable to see their own theories as fictional accounts that are productive of social realities and contentious relationship with what is real; something many of them hold to be non-existent. In fact, one could argue that much of the fragmentation we see in society today is reflective of the postmodern experience of social reality: one in which the unstable nature of socially constructed stories denies the physical, material, biological ground on which they depend. These stories that emerge in these historical phases are deeply, deeply involving.


Identity formation and Buddhism: some issues


Well done, you’ve made it this far. And, in this first cycle, there is only one more post to go, so we are almost done here. I hope you have found something useful to read in this stream of posts. Whether you agree or not with my ramblings is besides the point, I post this stuff because I like to write, to get better at writing and to challenge my own assumptions. Doing so leads me to think further, challenge myself more and then share that with whoever might find it of use. My own ignorance continues to impress me and I think it wonderful that we have access to so much thought and history, and can struggle and strive to understand our shared human lot and at each phase of new understanding, stare into a open abyss with yet another new horizon looming. There are plenty of holes in this writing. When I reread pieces of it I still find typos, errors, badly worded phrases and room for improvement but it is pointless to be a perfectionist in any sort of creative endeavour. You do your best at the time and even though it’s never quite enough you put it out there and it opens the way to the next challenge.

The last piece, to be posted tomorrow, will be on the ubiquitousness of stories and is in part a reflection inspired by Glenn Wallis’ description of Cassirer in the last podcast episode we undertook and in part by my ongoing curiosity regarding the seeming need we have as a species to weave elaborate stories about ourselves in the world.

By the way, I am meeting with Stuart this evening in the digi-sphere to discuss the next podcast episode. Updates shall follow. On with it…

Identity formation and Buddhism: some issues

The opposite of subjectification is the process of desubjectification, and in the case of identity, it implies peeling away the layers of social conditioning and social formation that we have gone through. At the heart of the desubjectification process is the need to explore identity formation and its curious relationship with the emptiness, space, or void found within each layer of conditioned being that is encountered. One of Buddhism’s great offerings has been its insight into this vacuousness of selfhood along with its elaboration of an immense array of practices designed to acquaint practitioners with it. This insight is present across a plethora of academic fields too. Much of western philosophy recognises, since David Hume, that there is no core to our being or unifying consciousness such as a soul. Psychologists recognise that we have no internal controller or commander driving the bus, and neuroscience has not found anything resembling a self in the brain either. But what do we make of such insight? How we respond to it is of utmost importance if it is to have any productive value after all. In most cases, the emergence of these views in western society seems to have had little impact on how we conceive of ourselves and even those more inquisitive folks who read books such as The Self Illusion likely take the new information on board and then continue on with their lives as usual. It’s quite understandable, though. Subjectively, we continue to feel pretty consistent and the people around us seem to confirm this. We generally experience ourselves as progressing through time with a reasonable degree of stability and we wake up each day and there’s that face in the mirror again. The self as illusory may be a Buddhist truism but our relationship with subjectivity is not abandoned so easily.


Who are we? Getting to grips with identity


Identity is such a rich and complex topic. Buddhism usually focuses on the self in its teachings and articulates it as an object. It is a perfectly reasonable direction to take but  if we want to challenge our personal experience of being a self, perhaps we ought to examine identity and the process of subjectification, which are far more tangible. We need to be more aware of the social formation process that participates in shaping our identity and our experience of being a self, otherwise, such discussion tends to remain at the level of the theoretical or abstract. Although Buddhism has a wealth of material regarding the nature and lack of self, I would suggest we need look further and wider if we are to understand the complexity of identity formation and our inseparability from it.

Exploring insights from philosophy and psychology and how Buddhism makes or doesn’t make sense in relationship to them whilst suspending bias is an exceptionally fruitful process for thinking afresh about identity if you are up for the task. You do not need to be a philosopher or psychologist to do so and there is a wealth of accessible material these days to get going with. Much of the content in this text comes from my reflection on the relationship between the values and ideals that I have picked up from Buddhism and how they stack up in relationship to other thinkers and theories. It is helpful to view Buddhism and these other views as being on an equal footing, in that they are all concerned with understanding ourselves and the world. It is additionally helpful to view them as theoretical tools; things to work with, to get your hands on and explore, pull apart, question, doubt, reflect on and contemplate. Rather than view them as in opposition somehow, or competing for acceptance, it can be far more interesting to view them as part of a matrix of perspectives, questions and answers, that inter-relate, as they all constitute aspects of our rich, shared, human culture.


Going post-traditional: tentative first steps

technological-mandala-20_76x76x7_cm_frame_web_20141122_1361314338(post-traditional techno mandala)

Going post-traditional

A post traditional approach is best served by intellectual and experiential curiosity coupled with a willingness to examine the assumptions rooted within a given tradition of Buddhism and their maintenance through linguistic and behavioural norms. Because it works best when it suspends Buddhism’s internal value system regarding its own worth and claims, it is not in competition with tradition or seeking to usurp it. Rather, it is an attempt to see and experience ideas and practices afresh, without negotiating through the tradition. This approach represents a change in the internal rules characteristic of identification and a suspension of the norms that govern relationship within the tradition. Some may consider this arrogant or overly-individualistic, but they would be wrong. Certainly, an initial requirement is that an excess of reverence for Buddhism and its lineages be understood as an obstacle to critical engagement. This does not need to give rise to some sense of superiority, however. Upsetting the status quo can lead to such accusations because post- approaches necessarily look beyond tradition, which can appear threatening to those holding those lineages together. As an approach and not a new –ism, traditional Buddhists could, theoretically, perceive it not as a threat but rather as a methodology of sorts for renewing and reviewing their own relationship with Buddhism. They might even find the whole process enlightening.

As practice, a post-traditional approach incorporates a number of guiding principles, some of which connect back to Hokai’s points on the ages of civilisation and address issues of praxis. Hokai spoke of institutional change but he also addressed a number of practical points in a course he undertook for Buddhist Geeks called The Three Pathways of Awakening back in 2011. There are elements of pragmatism and a concern with ethics in that discussion of post-traditional approaches to Buddhism. In it he lays out three shifts that he considers indicative of a move from traditional to post-traditional, which are summarised as follows;

  • The first shift involves a person gaining a much fuller understanding of the teachings, practices and techniques they are working with. This would involve that person being able to explain the practices they are involved with in their own words rather than borrowing descriptions from the tradition. We saw an attempt at this above.
  • The second shift involves responsibility. Hokai makes explicit the need for individuals to be accountable and responsible for their own willingness to commit to a practice and relationship with a teacher and to be aware that it is one’s individual choice to do so. You make the choice to do it or not.
  • The third shift concerns integrity and the relationship between a person’s spiritual and non-spiritual lives that he defines in terms of a “decreasing gap” but added to this is an understanding that spiritual or meditative experience, realisation and awakening has very little meaning if it is not “fully interpreted…fully acknowledged and fully integrated into (one’s) life experience.” This in itself demands we additionally question what such concepts are pointing to in the first place, especially in terms of shared human possibilities outside of tradition.

The final point that needs mentioning from Hokai’s talk sees a post-traditional approach as integrating a great deal of awareness about the limitations of tradition, whether ideological or identity-based, and the role and challenges of modernity and post-modernity. In addressing Buddhist practitioners, this opens up the critique and evaluation of Buddhism a great deal and asks that practitioners be aware of wider concerns that go beyond Buddhism to our role as members of societies that are struggling with profound issues of identity and purpose. Such principles may appear as common sense to the more critical follower of Buddhism, yet part of the problem of the elaboration of the Buddhist identity in the West is that it too often refuses such shifts and if some semblance of the shift does take place it is too fully in line with an additional call that Hokai makes: “the core principles of the Buddhist path (are to be) reasserted effectively and compellingly.” This is where my approach to articulating post-traditional Buddhism finds necessary companionship with non-Buddhism. This companionship, however, is an ethical and pragmatic one and thus encapsulates the three shifts that Hokai lays out above. For, in many ways, the insights of non-Buddhism provide additional means for achieving such shifts. Where it stops is at the final call that Hokai makes. This is where post-traditional Buddhism as a project perhaps finds its calling. For if Buddhism is to provide an effective additional means for working on Western identity formation, the Western ‘ego’ or the Western self, it must continue to evolve and be willing to challenge its own history, present and future potential. This is a delicate process and requires some daring because many have a stake in asserting their views on what is possible and how it should or shouldn’t be done. There are a whole range of voices that can shut down budding curiosity. Knowledgeable voices can be so strong as to dampen enthusiasm. Authoritative voices can drown out your own initial attempts. Tradition can be overwhelming and suck you back into its fold. Critiques can be so determined in enforcing their own conclusions as to stifle the right of others to figure things out as they go. Dealing with these voices is a practice too but how is it done? Take each voice as a benevolent teacher that is fallible and immersed in a story. Find the right distance from which to hear what is being spoken and what is being said. Question it. Be open to it. Don’t let it destroy your own curiosity and questions. This is a productive starting point.

Dalai Lama , privat , Laufband , Archive No. 6220-02  Prayers and training | Residence | Dharamsala | Himachal Pradesh | India | 15 August 2004  DRAFT CAPTION - NEEDS APPROVAL FOR REPRODUCTION ! His Holiness working out after  an oral transmition of Arya Asanga by Rezong Rinpoche. Bookpage 230. ? 2005 Manuel Bauer / Agentur Focus