PDA

View Full Version : Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US



fem_phoenix1109
10 October 2013, 05:48 PM
Namaste,

Recently I went to the bookstore to peruse the title on Hinduism, and I noticed something. There were 4 full shelves of book on Buddhism, and barely half of a shelf with books on Hinduism. This seems the case with any bookstore I go to. Why would this be? I have to believe that there would be vastly more Hindu books out there than Buddhism.

Thank you.

Friend from the West
11 October 2013, 01:03 AM
Hari Om

Namaste

Yes, I see the same thing. My opinion only in no particular order of importance/influence:

1. It is one form of Buddhism that dominates shelves that I observe, Tibeten.

2. Think above is due in part to how Hollywood has embraced the Dali Lama.

3. How some of the forms of Buddhism are popularized here is more palpable to populace.

4. Hindus in general do not proselytize where Buddhism has much more of this in comparison. This dynamic, drives many other things that all lead to popularity and interest.

5. With the above, much more ignorance of Hinduism which impacts interest.

6. For many reasons in culture influenced strongly by Judeo/Christian, Buddhism is not as offensive or frightening ("idoltry" mark on forehead, search for "knowledge", etc.)

7. Lastly is perhaps a reach but... How Hinduism is presented, sometimes even by those who are friendly to her, is not helpful. Hopefully, via studies, Sadhana, visits to Mandir and interactions from there, see difference from what is presented at the superficial.

Those are just quick thoughts and others may have different opinion.

Take good care.

Om NamahShivaya

FFTW

Eastern Mind
11 October 2013, 07:21 AM
Namaste,

Recently I went to the bookstore to peruse the title on Hinduism, and I noticed something. There were 4 full shelves of book on Buddhism, and barely half of a shelf with books on Hinduism. This seems the case with any bookstore I go to. Why would this be? I have to believe that there would be vastly more Hindu books out there than Buddhism.

Thank you.

Vannakkam: I think Buddhism is less of a jump, and doesn't get the same bad rap so much as we do. Buddhism also might seem to have less rules and practices.

Aum Namasivaya

satay
11 October 2013, 09:03 AM
Namaste,
I second what Friend from West said. I have seen the same thing for many years that bookstores have full shelf of books on Buddhism and two or three books on Hinduism, mostly just a copy of Gita by a couple of authors.

I have always thought that Buddhists do a great job at marketing.

Believer
11 October 2013, 10:28 AM
Namaste,

To recap what others have written, it is fear and rules.

Fear - The Xitian right is deathly afraid of this disease called Hinduism, When Deepak Chopra was in the initial stages of becoming popular and would use concepts of Hindu philosophy in his speeches/talks/writings, the evangelicals tried to bring him down by turning his secretary against him. She was paid to bring up a sexual harassment lawsuit against him. Instead of paying her off to go away and be tainted by false allegations, he fought back. Soon enough, she broke down and withdrew her lawsuit, much to the embarrasement of her evangelical handlers.

Rules - Buddhism is lot less stringent in their rules and has a visible authority figure at the top. Hollywood crowd is a non-vegetarian, promiscous lot but they get to sit next to the Dalai Lama in exchange for their support. Common people follow in their footsteps.

All finer things in life require more effort to achieve, the fluff comes easy.

Pranam.

Eastern Mind
11 October 2013, 12:33 PM
Vannakkam Believer: Oh, you mean I can't be a Hindu, eat meat, and be promiscuous at the same time? Darn!;)

Aum Namasivaya

Jeffery D. Long
11 October 2013, 01:42 PM
Namaste!

I second much of what others have said. A lot of it boils down to how the two traditions have been presented in academic scholarship. Remember that many of the early Indologists (especially in the nineteenth century) were Protestant Christians, and others tended toward agnosticism or atheism. Hinduism was depicted by them using many of the same terms that had been used to deride, and tapping into many of the same prejudices that many of them held against, Roman Catholic Christianity. So Hinduism became a religion full of "priestcraft" and "idolatry," and basically a medieval holdover. Buddhism, on the other hand, was depicted as the "Protestant" (or enlightened rationalist) counterpoint of Hinduism's Roman Catholicism: serene, rational, and non-theistic. This false dichotomy continues to be perpetuated in new forms to the present day, so young Americans instinctively associate Hinduism with backwardness (or what Rajiv Malhotra calls "caste, cows, and curry"), while Buddhism is progressive and "cool."

A brief anecdote along these lines: As a professor, I used to teach two separate survey courses: one on Hinduism and one on Buddhism. I consistently found that, due to the prevailing stereotypes that we've been discussing, the interesting, spiritual seeker type students who were eager to engage with the material tended to gravitate to the Buddhism course, while the Hinduism course was more heavily populated by bored kids who were simply fulfilling their college requirement to have a course on a non-western culture. This became so irritating to me that I eventually did away with the two-course model and started teaching a single course called "Dharma Traditions," encompassing both (plus Jainism and Sikhism). My attitude, in short, was, "If you want your sweets (Buddhism) then, darn it, you're going to have to take your medicine (Hinduism)!"

The result, exactly as I predicted, is that students now come away from the course with many of their stereotypes dispelled, realizing that Hinduism is far more profound and philosophical than they had thought, and that Buddhism, while also profound and philosophical, is no less populated with deities and rituals than is Hinduism. I knew the spiritual seekers would be every bit as enthralled by Vedanta and the Gita as they were with Buddhism, and that of course proved to be true. In fact, many prefer Hinduism, in the end, to the degree that belief in a personal God is important to them. For many, I think the question of which path to follow, Hindu or Buddhist, comes down to theism.

Believer
11 October 2013, 04:05 PM
Namaste,


Oh, you mean I can't be a Hindu, eat meat, and be promiscuous at the same time?
Didn't your daddy ever tell you that you can be anything that you want to be?
That includes being a Hindu and a.., a.., a.., a..., and a..., all at the same time. :)


I second much of what others have said. A lot of it boils down to how the two traditions have been presented in academic scholarship. Remember that many of the early Indologists (especially in the nineteenth century) were Protestant Christians, and others tended toward agnosticism or atheism. Hinduism was depicted by them using many of the same terms that had been used to deride, and tapping into many of the same prejudices that many of them held against, Roman Catholic Christianity. So Hinduism became a religion full of "priestcraft" and "idolatry," and basically a medieval holdover. Buddhism, on the other hand, was depicted as the "Protestant" (or enlightened rationalist) counterpoint of Hinduism's Roman Catholicism: serene, rational, and non-theistic. This false dichotomy continues to be perpetuated in new forms to the present day, so young Americans instinctively associate Hinduism with backwardness (or what Rajiv Malhotra calls "caste, cows, and curry"), while Buddhism is progressive and "cool

Thanks Jeff, for providing that perspective. It means a lot coming from someone who deals with the audience in question on a daily basis.

Pranam.

Friend from the West
11 October 2013, 07:14 PM
Hari Om

Namaste to all,

As an aside, thanks Fem for reminding me once again of the beauty of HDF.

As an other aside, just enjoyed this thread.

Lastly, Dr. Long's closing was true for me. Theravada was strict if you will and offered much to me. Divinity was lacking. Sanatana Dharma, Hindusim offers this Truth. Even as one Jiva who has fetters on too much, wished more books on shelves will follow, but realize with or without, nothing substantively, changes.

Om NamahShivaya

FFTW

fem_phoenix1109
11 October 2013, 07:29 PM
Namaste,

I appreciate all of the responses. I had originally thought it had something to do with gods, and the portrayal that Hinduism worships many gods while Buddhism doesn't. That makes a lot of westerners uncomfortable for some reason. For me it's one of the main things that drew me in. I have delved into Buddhism along my path, and it was the closest I could find for a long time to what I was looking for. But it always felt lacking, like something was missing. When I found Hinduism it became clear that Hinduism offered everything that I was missing in Buddhism.

It's strange, for many years I studied Buddhism, and I never came across Hinduism much in my studies. You'd think the paths would cross, but they didn't for me for a very long time. I have a deep sense of gratitude that I have found it, and I truly believe it is only through Shiva's grace that I have.

Pranam.

IcyCosmic
12 October 2013, 06:44 AM
Any ideas on how to remedy this? I would be interested in following up with libraries around england and setting up a small petition, if anyone has some pertinent thoughts.

fem_phoenix1109
12 October 2013, 07:24 AM
Any ideas on how to remedy this? I would be interested in following up with libraries around england and setting up a small petition, if anyone has some pertinent thoughts.

Namaste Icy Supreme,

I think it would be wonderful if Hinduism was more accessible throughout the world. It's one of those things that means so much to me, and has made such a profound impact on my life, that I would love for everyone to be able to experience what I have. Even so, there is a fine line between that, and marketing and/or proselytizing. I think to actively make an effort to push others to make this info accessible might be misconstrued as such.

On the other hand, maybe books could be donated to the libraries. That way no one is being petitioned to do anything, but information is still being shared in a gracious manner.

Ultimately, I truly believe that those who are meant to tread this path will find it, so there is no need to work to change anything. Perhaps it is even a good thing that things are the way they are. Sure, sometimes I wish I had found this years ago, but perhaps years ago I was not ready.

Eastern Mind
12 October 2013, 07:33 AM
Vannakkam: Upon further reflection, I think there are also some other factors at play.

For one, I believe it is more in the nature of Buddhism to study and read, as part of the path. Many Hindus (at least most the immigrant ones I know) really don't read much, but essentially just go to temple, and practice ethics. So there is little need for books. It's the scholars and the western seekers who read.

We have few retreat centers (if any) compared to Buddhism. Ones like this http://birken.ca/ are common. So being a meditative person, and wishing to practice that aspect, Buddhism provides a great deal more options. On a Hindu retreat, a few years back, we rented a Buddhist center. It was a beautiful place. They have a great eye for peaceful settings.

Another factor may just be numbers. If there are more Buddhists, they will buy more books. Similarly, there may be more books on the topic, introductory books especially.

Personally, I certainly don't see Buddhism as competition, but rather as a sister dharmic path.

Just some more random thoughts.

Aum Namasivaya

jignyAsu
12 October 2013, 08:28 AM
Great points from all the members. In general Buddhists have been more proactive in marketting and also Hindus get more publicity in the negative. The idea of a Buddhist, however, in the western mind is like being ever peaceful, ever meditative, non violent, accepting etc.

For those who have taken up study of Buddhism/Hinduism in academics - does the subject of why Buddhism dissappeared from India brought up? Does Hinduism pop up as a reason?

Jeffery D. Long
12 October 2013, 10:32 AM
For those who have taken up study of Buddhism/Hinduism in academics - does the subject of why Buddhism dissappeared from India brought up? Does Hinduism pop up as a reason?

The main reason is the almost total destruction of Buddhist monasteries, temples, and educational institutions due to the invasions of the medieval period (the same invasions that led to the massive destruction of Hindu and Jain temples across northern India). But it is also noted that Hinduism, particularly in the form of Advaita Vedanta, absorbed a good deal of Buddhist thought and practice (as noted by Shankaracharya's fellow Hindu critics from the bhakti schools of Vedanta–a debate that continues today on HDF). A Hindu renaissance was already underway, starting as early as the Gupta period. The foreign invasions, though, and the destruction of monasteries like Nalanda were the final death blow (though a handful of Buddhists continued to practice in Bengal, and I have met a couple of members of this ancient Indian Buddhist community who live in what is now Bangladesh).

wundermonk
12 October 2013, 11:27 AM
For those who have taken up study of Buddhism/Hinduism in academics - does the subject of why Buddhism dissappeared from India brought up? Does Hinduism pop up as a reason?

Firstly, the schism that exists between Buddhism and Hinduism in academic circles (both now as well as millenia ago) is highly philosophical and has to do within things like the following:

(1)Does a substance exist or is what we perceive mere qualities?

(2)Is an aggregate something more than (over and above) the collection of its parts?

(3)Does a thing have an essence in itself or is essence subjective, a mere conception that is imposed from outside the thing?

(4)Is the world a dream or is it real?

(5)Is cognition self-cognizing or is a second order cognition needed to know that a previous cognition has occurred?

(6)How is truth of a cognition known? Is it internal to cognition or is it external?

and so on and so forth...

Now, one can imagine that the average person on the road could not care less about these philosophical points.

Keep in mind that Hinduism has more culture and tradition going for it since it predates Buddhism. This is apart from intellectual debates that engaged Hindu and Buddhist historically. Buddhism begins and ends with the historical Buddha. Although there may have been enlightened Buddhas prior to the historical Buddha, there is no extant literature about them. So, Buddhism in this sense, is similar to religions like Islam and Christianity, which are more personality based. Contrast that with Hinduism - before Krishna, there was Rama, before whom there was Narasimha, and so on back and back. Hinduism tends to be less driven by a very specific historical personality. Hinduism has more literature and scripture going for it.

In summary, Hinduism appears to me to be a "complete" package - it has material for the intellectual philosopher, it has material for the average theist on the road whose conceives of a deity that responds to prayers and so on. It spans the complete spectrum. Hinduism simply and eventually captured the hearts and minds of Indians at some point. So, yes, the Mohammedans came in and did what they are good at doing - which is destroying non-Muslim culture - but Buddhism was possibly on the decline even before Nalanda was sacked and destroyed by Bhaktiyar Khilji.

jignyAsu
12 October 2013, 02:26 PM
Thank you, Jefferey! Thanks wundermonk and welcome back...agree on Hinduism being a complete package and Buddhism already been in decline. I think Swami Vivekananda who toured the entire India also identified internal corruption as a factor of Buddhism's decline.

But the reason I raised the question is because a few Jains/Buddhists in India are recently trying to frame Hindu kings for their decline. Except for a few minor incidents here and there, there is no evidence for a mass destruction as seen in the case of mughals.

I was just afraid that such ideas may have found their ways into the western academia, adding to the unpopularity of Hinduism. But from your responses it looks like that is not the case, thankfully!

Sudas Paijavana
12 October 2013, 02:46 PM
Pranam-s,

The best way to address all of this would be through a discourse-like campaign that would raise awareness about such a situation.

Jeffery D. Long
12 October 2013, 05:31 PM
I was just afraid that such ideas may have found their ways into the western academia, adding to the unpopularity of Hinduism. But from your responses it looks like that is not the case, thankfully!

One does occasionally see "Hindu kings" cited as one of the factors in the decline of Indian Buddhism. But as you correctly note, whatever actual, physical persecution might have occurred against Buddhists and Jains in ancient times was an aberration, and on a far smaller scale than what occurred during the foreign invasions. Most debates among Buddhist, Jain, and what are now called Hindu (Vedic) schools of thought were peaceful: more comparable to what goes on in these forums than to the massacres in the name of religion that are such a huge part of the history of the western world. This is pretty well understood by academic scholars of India.

jignyAsu
12 October 2013, 08:12 PM
One does occasionally see "Hindu kings" cited as one of the factors in the decline of Indian Buddhism.


You mean in western academics? That's bad. We also have documented histories of how Jainas and Bouddhas collaborated with kings and actively plotting against the Hindus. This is seen in both Vaishnava/Shaiva history throughout the India. Also, we have Buddhist/Jain version of Ramayana, mahabharata etc displaying our worshiped ones as lusty and violent. Right from Adi Shankara times we hear how the Buddhists used to spend lifetimes denouncing and bad mouthing Vedas - not just philosophically refuting them. However, the impression of Buddhists in the west is that all of them have always been like Gautama Buddha - ever peaceful, meditative, doing good to even evil.... :-)

Not that I want them to be portrayed in bad light but how come negatives about only Hinduism manage to reach western academics? I guess all this comes back to links to Hollywood etc, sited by members above.

And by saying "academic scholars of India" have well understood it - do you mean Indian scholars or western academic scholars who study Indian history? Do students in west get to read this version?

Jeffery D. Long
12 October 2013, 08:20 PM
You mean in western academics? That's bad. We also have documented histories of how Jainas and Bouddhas collaborated with kings and actively plotting against the Hindus. This is seen in both Vaishnava/Shaiva history throughout the India. Also, we have Buddhist/Jain version of Ramayana, mahabharata etc displaying our worshiped ones as lusty and violent. Right from Adi Shankara times we hear how the Buddhists used to spend lifetimes denouncing and bad mouthing Vedas - not just philosophically refuting them. However, the impression of Buddhists in the west is that all of them have always been like Gautama Buddha - ever peaceful, meditative, doing good to even evil.... :-)

Not that I want them to be portrayed in bad light but how come negatives about only Hinduism manage to reach western academics? I guess all this comes back to links to Hollywood etc, sited by members above.

And by saying "academic scholars of India" have well understood it - do you mean Indian scholars or western academic scholars who study Indian history? Do students in west get to read this version?

Oh, no, the Buddhist and Jain activities against Hindus (and against each other) are also covered. No community is completely innocent. Maybe in the popular imagination, but not in serious scholarship. By "academic scholars of India" I mean people teaching in universities whose field of expertise is India, regardless of whether the individuals in question are "western" or Indian. Ethnicity is not really relevant here. It's a matter of training and having a degree from an accredited institution.

Sudas Paijavana
12 October 2013, 08:42 PM
No community is completely innocent.

Dr. Long,

I agree.

Jaskaran Singh
12 October 2013, 10:51 PM
You mean in western academics? That's bad. We also have documented histories of how Jainas and Bouddhas collaborated with kings and actively plotting against the Hindus.
I wouldn't necessarily say that Jaina and Bauddha kings actively plotted against Hindus; however, there was a certain degree of oppression and/or conflict which occurred among the Hindu and nāstika groups and all three groups occasionally provoked conflict. However, I agree that the crimes of Hindus are often over-exagerrated in comparison to others; for example, most people know about the Hindu king Puṣyamitra Śuṅga's burning of Bauddha sūtrāni, but very few individuals (including Indologists) know about the banning of Hindu yajñāḥ by the Bauddha king Harṣavardhana or the death threats made against Tirunāvukkaracar by the Jaina Pallava king Mahendravarman.
This is seen in both Vaishnava/Shaiva history throughout the India. Also, we have Buddhist/Jain version of Ramayana, mahabharata etc displaying our worshiped ones as lusty and violent.
I don't know about the Rāmāyaṇam, but regarding the Mahābhāratam, in the Jaina version of Śrī Harivaṃśa-purāṇam, Vāsudeva (Śrī Kṛṣṇa) is depicted as being sent to naraka (actually, it may have been talātala, I can't remember) and hence needed to attain mokṣa by taking the advice from (and following the path of) the 22nd Jaina Tīrthaṅkara, Neminātha. The fact that they (the writers of the text) could insult svayam-bhagavān in such a manner exemplifies nothing but īrṣyā, yet the authors of the nonsensical "retelling" of the text nonetheless referred to themselves as arhantāḥ (:rolleyes:). Also, Śāriputra and Ānanda (two of the earliest Bauddha bhikṣu-s) are often portrayed by Indologists as "egalitarian" in comparison to the casteist or "Brāhmaṇical" Hindus, yet they don't mention how the aforementioned bhikṣu-s viewed the Pāśupatāḥ/Rudra-worshippers living north of Magadha before the influx of the Licchavi-s or the establishment of the Malla kingdom (in what is in present-day Nepāl) as subhuman and banned their practices, which can be considered anything but "egalitarian."

Right from Adi Shankara times we hear how the Buddhists used to spend lifetimes denouncing and bad mouthing Vedas - not just philosophically refuting them. However, the impression of Buddhists in the west is that all of them have always been like Gautama Buddha - ever peaceful, meditative, doing good to even evil.... :-)
I may be incorrect, but wasn't the Bauddha-saṅgha relatively more hostile to the pūrva-mīmāṃsā scholars than to the advaitin-s? One example is how they excommunicated and humiliated Kumārila Bhaṭṭa for what they perceived as betrayal.


Not that I want them to be portrayed in bad light but how come negatives about only Hinduism manage to reach western academics? I guess all this comes back to links to Hollywood etc, sited by members above.
And by saying "academic scholars of India" have well understood it - do you mean Indian scholars or western academic scholars who study Indian history? Do students in west get to read this version?
I assume most westerners probably know very little about Ancient Indian history unless they research it themselves; even then, I highly doubt they would actually be passionate enough to care about the social and/or religious interactions which underlie the actions of these rulers. In addition, many students (in both the East and West) are not encouraged to examine primary source documentations, but are instead expected to regurgitate information, which can be problematic insofar that an author of the textbook in question may subconsciously apply his/her own biases when examining the history (even though some scholars are trained to overlook their possible biases).

Jeffery D. Long
12 October 2013, 10:58 PM
I may be incorrect, but wasn't the Bauddha-saṅgha relatively more hostile to the pūrva-mīmāṃsā scholars than to the advaitin-s? One example is how they excommunicated and humiliated Kumārila Bhaṭṭa for what they perceived as betrayal.

They not only excommunicated and humiliated him, but attempted to murder him by throwing him from the top of a high building, an attempt which the great Vedic scholar nevertheless survived.

Sudas Paijavana
12 October 2013, 11:40 PM
Pranam-s,

Doctor Long, do you remember when Ashoka (after converting to Buddhism) not only still continued to eat meat (he basically just lowered the amount of animals that would be slaughtered) but also slaughtered a group (I believe to be called) Ajivikas/Ajavikas/Ajivakas? Isn't that not only the first incident of Buddhist on Hindu violence, but the first attested violence between the two groups? Or, was that a Jaina group?

Jaskaran Singh
13 October 2013, 01:10 AM
They not only excommunicated and humiliated him, but attempted to murder him by throwing him from the top of a high building, an attempt which the great Vedic scholar nevertheless survived.
I've heard that legend before, although I wasn't sure whether it was historical or was rather an analogy meant to illustrate the eternality of the Veda-s. Perhaps it functioned as both.


Ashoka (after converting to Buddhism) not only still continued to eat meat (he basically just lowered the amount of animals that would be slaughtered) but also slaughtered a group (I believe to be called) Ajivikas/Ajavikas/Ajivakas?
There's no requirement for vegetarianism in Buddhism, although slaughtering an entire group of people due to a distasteful depiction of Buddha is extremely adhārmika and goes against Hindu, Jaina, and Bauddha beliefs. In a sense, he was so fanatical in his affiliation with Bauddha Dharma that he went against the teachings of Śākyamuni Buddha regarding mettā/maitrī. Considering the fact he was only a superficial "follower" of Theravāda (a.k.a. Hīnayāna) Buddhism, I think must have ignored the following verse from the Karaṇīyamettāsuttam which talks about how one should treat other beings with the same care that a mother treats her child:

माता यथा नियं पुत्तमायुसा एकपुत्तमनुरक्खे।
एवम्पि सब्बभूतेसु, मानसं भावये अपरिमाणं॥


Isn't that not only the first incident of Buddhist on Hindu violence, but the first attested violence between the two groups? Or, was that a Jaina group?I thought that the Ājīvakā were not only considered nāstika, but also considered to be closely related to the samaṇa/śramaṇa religious movement as the founder, Gosāla, was heavily influenced by Nanda-vaccha, who in turn was influenced by the Jaina Tīrthaṅkara-s. Pāṇini describes them as a heretical school which denied that people could escape their fate and felt that it was pointless to try to do so (in a sense, they were highly deterministic). If they classify as "Hindus" according to you, then what does it mean for a sect to be considered as nāstika?

Sudas Paijavana
13 October 2013, 01:26 AM
Jaskaran Singh,

You highlighted the wrong portion. This can be easily cured by highlighting the portion that you initially should have highlighted instead:


Isn't that not only the first incident of Buddhist on Hindu violence, but the first attested violence between the two groups? Or, was that a Jaina group?

...to which you could have simply answered:

"No, the ones that you are talking about were, in fact, related to the Shramanic traditions, and was an example of Nāstika on Nāstika violence rather than an example of Nāstika on Hindu violence"...

Jus' sayin', Jas... :dunno:

Jeffery D. Long
13 October 2013, 08:38 AM
Jaskaran-ji is correct (and impressively knowledgeable, if I may say so) in essentially everything he has posted here.

I am unsure if the story of the survival of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa is authentic or a later legend, but is certainly a prominent feature of the popular lore on his life.

In terms of Aśoka's persecution of the Ājīvikas, I must confess that I had never heard of this. I have been given to believe that Aśoka's many cruel acts (including the murders of his brothers as rival claimants to the Maurya throne) all preceded his battlefield conversion in Kalinga, and that after that he became a highly dharmic fellow. But this may all be based on biased Buddhist accounts which depict him as the ideal chakravartin.

Interestingly, Aśoka's father, Bindusāra, was an adherent of the Ājīvika philosophy. His grandfather, Chandragupta Maurya, was a convert to Jainism. But all of these people were somewhat pluralistic in their adherences. Chandragupta's Jainism did not prevent him from having a close advisor who was a Brahmin (the famous Kauṭilya, or Chanakya).

The Ājīvikas, as Jaskaran-ji has explained very well, were not Hindus or Jains, but a now-extinct śramaṇa group akin to the Jains and the Buddhists, and their founder was a contemporary and a rival of both the Buddha and Mahāvīra. They were apparently more numerous at one point than either the Jains or the Buddhists. They are depicted as adhering to an extreme doctrine of fatalism (niyati-vāda). But recent research suggests that their doctrine was actually very close to that of the Jainas, the chief difference being that, whereas Jainism teaches that one can both expel the karma currently adhering to one's jīva and prevent the influx of further karma, the Ājīvikas held that one can only prevent the influx of further karma. One must simply wait for one's current karma to ripen, and that will happen whenever it happens (hence the imputation of fatalism). This is the only way to make sense of the fact that they practiced very strict asceticism, like the Jains. Why practice asceticism if it has no bearing on liberation? It would be to prevent the influx of further karmas.

This group was not hunted to death by Aśoka, but continued to exist until the 10th century CE, by which time their numbers had dwindled greatly and they merged with the Digambara Jains of southern India.

Omkara
13 October 2013, 09:10 AM
In terms of Aśoka's persecution of the Ājīvikas, I must confess that I had never heard of this. I have been given to believe that Aśoka's many cruel acts (including the murders of his brothers as rival claimants to the Maurya throne) all preceded his battlefield conversion in Kalinga, and that after that he became a highly dharmic fellow. But this may all be based on biased Buddhist accounts which depict him as the ideal chakravartin.


This story comes from Buddhist accounts actually. There is a tendency among historians to paper over the faults of Ashoka and Akbar.
Akbar's massacre of 30,000 Hindu non-combatants after a battle is likewise ignored.

jignyAsu
13 October 2013, 10:12 AM
Great points from everyone. Learn new things.



I may be incorrect, but wasn't the Bauddha-saṅgha relatively more hostile to the pūrva-mīmāṃsā scholars than to the advaitin-s? One example is how they excommunicated and humiliated Kumārila Bhaṭṭa for what they perceived as betrayal.


Yes, I was just referring to Vedas bashing from their side which used to pain all Hindus in general.

I was only afraid of this...

an author of the textbook in question may subconsciously apply his/her own biases when examining the history (even though some scholars are trained to overlook their possible biases).

But this thing put me at ease ...


Oh, no, the Buddhist and Jain activities against Hindus (and against each other) are also covered. No community is completely innocent. Maybe in the popular imagination, but not in serious scholarship. By "academic scholars of India" I mean people teaching in universities whose field of expertise is India, regardless of whether the individuals in question are "western" or Indian. Ethnicity is not really relevant here. It's a matter of training and having a degree from an accredited institution.

because the academics is not (yet) onesided.

jignyAsu
13 October 2013, 10:28 AM
There's no requirement for vegetarianism in Buddhism


anymore :-), if I may. Because even Buddhist monks eat non-veg and I heard that they justify it by saying that only slaughtering is wrong and not eating what is offered to them. I wonder then what problem Gautama Buddha had with slaughtering in yagnas in the first place, who was extremely careful not even to hurt an ant. He could have let them cook his meat.

So we have so much contrast b/w the Buddha and his followers. Buddha was vegetarian, silent (as not indulging in philosophical debates), meditative. Seeing this drastic difference and with great Hindu Acharyas in 100s walking throughout the land, its an explanation enough for me about the disappearance of Buddhism in India.



although slaughtering an entire group of people due to a distasteful depiction of Buddha is extremely adhārmika and goes against Hindu, Jaina, and Bauddha beliefs.

I would agree. Yet the picture of Buddhist that reaches the Hollywood (to the point of the thread) is being ever peaceful, meditative, nonviolent. While with Hinduism only poverty, superstition etc. manage to reach there.

Agreeing that it is against the tenets of Buddhism, it seems to have spread a lot by political alliance, conversions etc. And also there seems to have been lack of individuals, unlike in the Hinduism, with divine powers to be able to revive it in India.

No doubt our India has been enriched with the existence Hindu/Buddhist and Jaina traditions. I wish that positives of all these reach the west.

Sudas Paijavana
13 October 2013, 12:44 PM
Buddha was vegetarian...

Namaste,

Didn't he die from choking on pig's meat? Something to do with a bone being stuck in his throat?

Jeffery D. Long
13 October 2013, 01:36 PM
Buddhist monks are required to accept anything that they are given to eat, whether vegetarian or non-vegetarian. They are forbidden, though, to ask for any particular type of food, and if they are aware that an animal is to be killed specifically for them, they are required to refuse that and save the life of the animal. If a householder already has meat sitting around, though, and gives it to Buddhist monks, they are to accept it without complaint. The focus is not ahiṃsā in this situation so much as vairāgya with regard to food.

The Buddha was, according to the Pali scriptures, given meat which had gone bad and died of food poisoning. So he did not choke on a bone. The householder who gave it to him was apparently horrified at what he had done, but the Buddha forgave him, pointing out that the body is in any case impermanent.


No doubt our India has been enriched with the existence Hindu/Buddhist and Jaina traditions. I wish that positives of all these reach the west.

I see this as my mission in life! I have studied Buddhism and Jainism at least as much as I have Hindu traditions, though my heart and soul are with Hinduism. A non-theistic tradition, for me, is incomplete, however much beneficial wisdom it may possess.

Jaskaran Singh
13 October 2013, 02:07 PM
...to which you could have simply answered:

"No, the ones that you are talking about were, in fact, related to the Shramanic traditions, and was an example of Nāstika on Nāstika violence rather than an example of Nāstika on Hindu violence"...

Jus' sayin', Jas... :dunno:
I take pleasure in being unnecessarily long-winded in my responses. :p

jignyAsu
13 October 2013, 02:30 PM
Namaste,

Didn't he die from choking on pig's meat? Something to do with a bone being stuck in his throat?

LOL. There is all kinds of stories associated with his last moments. The versions I hear is he ate pig's flesh offered to him (told as a justification for their non veg habits) or he ate something grown on soil trodden by pigs and so forth.

I am just not able to reconcile all this with the problems he had with animal sacrifices in yagna. And moreover the butcher alone seems to accountable for meat eating or army alone for a religion that believes in "turning the other cheek".



I see this as my mission in life! I have studied Buddhism and Jainism at least as much as I have Hindu traditions, though my heart and soul are with Hinduism. A non-theistic tradition, for me, is incomplete, however much beneficial wisdom it may possess.

+1

Sudas Paijavana
13 October 2013, 02:46 PM
I am just not able to reconcile all this with the problems he had with animal sacrifices in yagna. And moreover the butcher alone seems to accountable for meat eating or army alone for a religion that believes in "turning the other cheek".


Namaste,

It never made sense to me either. Double standards, perhaps? It sounds like a Holier Than Thou attitude to me...

At least it's confirmed, thanks to Dr. Long, that Buddha died from food poisoning caused by consuming meat.


I take pleasure in being unnecessarily long-winded in my responses. :p

Namaste,

:D

Jetavan
13 October 2013, 05:24 PM
Buddhist monks are required to accept anything that they are given to eat, whether vegetarian or non-vegetarian. They are forbidden, though, to ask for any particular type of food, and if they are aware that an animal is to be killed specifically for them, they are required to refuse that and save the life of the animal. If a householder already has meat sitting around, though, and gives it to Buddhist monks, they are to accept it without complaint. The focus is not ahiṃsā in this situation so much as vairāgya with regard to food.

I believe at least some Chan monks do inform householders that eating meat (from the almsbowl) would violate the precept against killing.

Jetavan
13 October 2013, 05:29 PM
I am just not able to reconcile all this with the problems he had with animal sacrifices in yagna. And moreover the butcher alone seems to accountable for meat eating or army alone for a religion that believes in "turning the other cheek".
The Buddha may have been trying to thread a 'middle path' between an asceticism that tries to eliminate every conceivable form of killing (as found in ascetic Jainism) and a sacrificial culture in which paśuyajna was deemed necessary for relationship with the devas.

Jeffery D. Long
13 October 2013, 05:59 PM
I believe at least some Chan monks do inform householders that eating meat (from the almsbowl) would violate the precept against killing.

That is true, but it is a much later development. Early in the Common Era, some Mahayana Buddhists in China (quite a few, in fact) began to practice vegetarianism very seriously as a natural outgrowth of the ahiṃsā precept. (Even today, there is a vegetarian option at many Chinese restaurants in the US called "Buddha's Delight.") The Chan tradition is from this period and reflects this movement toward vegetarianism. In the Pali Vinaya, though, the emphasis is on vairāgya: eating any food that one is given without regard for flavor, content, etc.

sunyata07
16 October 2013, 01:27 AM
Namaste,

If I could award you any more rep points, I would Jeffery. You were able to word my thoughts on this exactly. I wonder if much of the reason why Buddhism as the alternative non-Christian religion is so prevalent in the west is because it is driven by the media. In this modern celebrity-obsessed culture, where the slightest mental ripple can be shared worldwide via the likes of Twitter and other social networking sites, people are able to track intimately what their favourite stars are currently trending in religious practice and belief. Buddhism - amongst other New Ageist type faiths - seems to be the dominant player. I myself have known a host of people and acquaintances who have expressed their "interest" in Buddhism, having visited the likes of Thailand and Cambodia, and yet it seems less like spiritual thirst that motivates them to explore the path than it is simply the "go to" religion for people who want something other than what Christianity had to offer. Many of these people who now tentatively call themselves Buddhist are some of the biggest meat eaters I know! In fact, aside from the burden of having to claim belief in a god, all other behaviour before (drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, etc.) seems pretty much intact. Is it safe to say it was not merely introspection on the humane treatment of living things that drove them to seek another path? Dharmically, not much is changed for them. I hope this does not sound too harsh, but it seemed almost like a change made for fashion rather than true spiritual evolution.

A couple of years ago when I was first exploring other religious paths, I found myself drifting in and out of Buddhism and Hinduism, unsure which I felt closer to. Initially, it was Buddhism I was pulled towards. Partially it was because I had more exposure to Buddhism, but the basic premise was something I was already familiar with. Hinduism just seemed much too vast (a path with millions of gods?!) to know even where to begin, and so perhaps might seem initially intimidating to someone who has already struggled to understand just one (albeit, a very contradictory one). It also seemed so much harder to get even basic information about Sanatana Dharma as opposed to books on Buddhism which is far more prolific and accessible in libraries and bookshops.

Om namah Shivaya

Jaskaran Singh
16 October 2013, 11:09 PM
They not only excommunicated and humiliated him, but attempted to murder him by throwing him from the top of a high building, an attempt which the great Vedic scholar nevertheless survived.
Apparently, the legend of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa being thrown off a building in Nālandā seems to also have been used/depicted in a scene in the 1983 movie about Ādi Śaṅkarācārya:
www.youtube.com/embed/e9Iw8uu8HHs

Jeffery D. Long
17 October 2013, 05:40 AM
Apparently, the legend of Kumārila Bhaṭṭa being thrown off a building in Nālandā seems to also have been used/depicted in a scene in the 1983 movie about Ādi Śaṅkarācārya:
www.youtube.com/embed/e9Iw8uu8HHs

Yes. I love that movie! :)

Araloka
27 November 2013, 10:35 PM
Hinduism simply isn't popular as Buddhism for a few reasons:

1) Hindus themselves usually discourage people to take up Hinduism and encourage them to remain in another faith
2) Perceptions of Indian culture (caste system, child marriage, sati - etc, and it doesn't help that folks like Srila Prabhupada explicitly espoused such things)
3) Attitudes you get from Hindus when you get over these things and actually go to temple (India is better than everywhere else kind of stuff...")
4) Use of idols*



*I know there is contention about this term, "God really lives in the murtis they are not idols" but the fact is, every civilization including the ones that came up with the word 'idol' thought exactly the same things and did the same things with them as Hindus do: Feed them, bathe them, clothe them, believe God resides in them, take them out on carts (rath yatra).. there is absolutely no difference.

Believer
29 November 2013, 12:08 AM
Namaste Araloka,

Thanks for your perspective. It sure helped me to think about the need for an attitude adjustment for us as a group.


"God really lives in the murtis they are not idols" but the fact is, every civilization including the ones that came up with the word 'idol' thought exactly the same things and did the same things with them as Hindus do: Feed them, bathe them, clothe them, believe God resides in them, take them out on carts (rath yatra).. there is absolutely no difference.
It appears that other civilizations outgrew the concept of God living in the murtis, but Hindu gods do really live in the murtis and we never got tired of believing that. :)

Pranam.

isavasya
29 November 2013, 01:21 AM
Namaste

I have spent a lot of time on a religious board with lots of western people. I see that it is not core Buddhist philosophy that attracts westerners but rather the 'atheistic' aspects of Buddhism. Lots of people in West dreadfully hate 'God' and those philosophies that deny God are seen as attractive and natural ally by liberals.

I have seen Christian missionaries and media have damaged hinduism's reputation to some extent by associating Hindsuim by discriminatory caste system. However, one thing I have noticed is that Upanishads are quite a good hit with westerners. To be honest, now I really don't care about proving Hinduism in the most bright light to anyone and also our own religion asks us not to show much missionary zeal. Still I believe that as a follower of Sanatan Dharma, we need to defend our religion from prejudices.

Sahasranama
29 November 2013, 05:24 AM
Namaste

I have spent a lot of time on a religious board with lots of western people. I see that it is not core Buddhist philosophy that attracts westerners but rather the 'atheistic' aspects of Buddhism. Lots of people in West dreadfully hate 'God' and those philosophies that deny God are seen as attractive and natural ally by liberals.


There are only few westerners who are really attracted to Buddhism itself as a doctrine, most people are interested in Buddhism for the mind calming and psychological effect practices like meditation have. Buddhism is romanticised and associated with peaceful scenery like lotus flowers, meditating statues, Zen stones, bamboo, lakes and incense. People also falsely believe that Buddhism is free of any dogma.

Sahasranama
29 November 2013, 05:33 AM
Recently I went to the bookstore to peruse the title on Hinduism, and I noticed something. There were 4 full shelves of book on Buddhism, and barely half of a shelf with books on Hinduism. This seems the case with any bookstore I go to. Why would this be? I have to believe that there would be vastly more Hindu books out there than Buddhism.



There are indeed a lot of books on Hinduism, but you should not go to book stores or public libraries to find them, unless the place is specialised in importing books from India. In the Hinduism section you will most likely find nothing better than material written by imbeciles.

ShivaFan
07 December 2013, 09:40 PM
Namaste

The original post asked the question, "Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US?" in terms of books specifically when browsing a book store for example, verse books on Hinduism.

I think I can answer that question. But this answer is specific to California.

Firstly, I do not think this is entirely true, just generally true.

There is a reason you will see more Buddhist books than Hindu (but I will get more to the specifics on that in a minute), and the reason for that is the Chinese arrived in rather good numbers into California in the 1800's AD. Soon after that, the Japanese came, then Koreans, then in the next Century in the 1970's came the Vietnamese.

With each wave, they brought their branch of Buddhism into California. While some hated it, there were some who were amazed and fascinated.

I grew up in San Francisco when a child. I know the streets of Chinatown very well, the alleys with the Tong houses, what was once also called "Jos (incense) houses" (later called Buddhist temples). I have a rather historical and valuable Chinese-English Buddhist book of very early date which was given to my father. Buddhism in California via the Chinese has a much longer presence in California than Hinduism. The Chinese version is very much Mahayana version, with deities, temples, Gods and such, and really does not reflect Indian Buddhism at all.

When the Japanese came, which also has a large population in California, and in particular SF and San Jose (Silicon Valley), Japanese Buddhist temples and literature also came. The Japanese havena stronger interest in Indian Buddhism than the Chinese. There is Zen also.

The Koreans brought a much more "meditational" and rather "Hinayana" like Buddhism, very strick, to California in the 1950's.

In the 1970's, the Vietnamese came in large numbers into the South Bay. Cambodians and some Laoations came soon after, with the Cambodians mixing with the Chinese in Oakland CA. This Buddhism is very temple oriented, more literature came as well.

However Cambodian Buddhism was very Hindu in nature.

Thais started coming in large numbers in the 1980's. They set up a lot of vegetarian restaurants, but kept their Buddhism to themselves, unlike the Chinese and Japanese who were openly seeking the attention of "white" Californians. But these same "whites" were going to Thai restaurants, seeing the pictures of the Thai King Rama, and statues of Thai Buddha. They would ask questions.

Simply put, Buddhism has had now over 150 years presence in Calufornia. By the time the Tibetans started to arrive in the 1970s their monks and teachers were highly welcomed. The Dalai Lama was practically considered "a local hero" in some ways.

But Hinduism also started to have an impact in San Francisco. Largely because of Prabhupad. Indians from India started coming in numbers in the 1970's. But the Chinese and Japanese had almost a 100 year "head start".

As far as books in book stores, yes there are more Buddhist books than Hindu. But that is relative. Let me explain.

In the 1970s and 80s there were three book stores in the SD Bay Area which had huge collections of Hindu books and scriptures. Most of these books came from India, Hindu publishers, you could get books then at low prices which today are worth a lot of money and sell for high prices.

But in those days, book stores were more local, not big chain book dealers.

The big chain book dealers started wiping out these smaller, sometimes family owned, book stores in the 1980's. This rapidly accelerated in the 1990's. Another phenomenon in the 1990's was the demand for books on computer software, programming, using PCs, using MS Office and so on. These books were not cheap.

Also, there came "audio books" on tape cassettes and cd. This brought in a new "religious" twist called "self help". These audio books were not expensive like computer books.

The Buddhists jumped on this.

Some "new age" like Hindus later went that direction by the late 1990s, but those Buddhists and those with Buddhist genre were "way ahead of the game".

So the other day I went in a big chain book store. Yes, more "Buddhist" books than Hindu, probably 3 to 1.

But these were more self help type stuff and Zen and the like than Buddhist.

I predict everything is going to change again. Change is one thing that is a given. As farnas Buddhist books verse Hindu, it all depends on which of the two are welcoming or not welcoming. The Indian population is growing in America now everyday, approximating the Chinese in the 1800s and early 1900s. "Western" Hindus are also growing, more and more with each day. There will be a Hindu President of the United States within the next 50 to 75 years probably.

Buddhism was here first. That is why. My own Mother, she pretty much was (is) a Buddhist (Indian Buddhism) even though she is of Swedish ethnicity. Yes Buddhism is a "big deal" here. But just wait. Time will tell.

Om Namah Sivaya

realdemigod
07 December 2013, 11:24 PM
Reason it's very simple way of life you don't have to get into religious ways but still can benefit of Buddhism while Hinduism is quite complex and needs a master or a learned one to understand how to incorporate it in your life and Hinduism is more about rituals anyway

fem_phoenix1109
08 December 2013, 08:21 PM
Thank you everyone for your insight and taking the time to answer my question.

There is a new age bookstore here in Columbus that I have found which has a wonderful selection of incense. Recently I was perusing their other items and noticed that they may be an exception - Hinduism seemed more prominent in their literature, as well as other items, they had many tapestries, statues, decorations and other items, all with a Hindu theme.

Believer
14 December 2013, 03:57 AM
Namaste,

Hinduism is quite complex and needs a master or a learned one to understand how to incorporate it in your life and Hinduism is more about rituals anyway
What does all this mean?
An average Hindu with no master can/does not live like a Hindu because he has no one to tell him how to incorporate Hinduism in his life?
And it is all about rituals?

We should have our morning cup of coffee before we start pounding away at the keyboard to make a post! :)

Pranam.

isavasya
14 December 2013, 06:29 AM
Reason it's very simple way of life you don't have to get into religious ways but still can benefit of Buddhism while Hinduism is quite complex and needs a master or a learned one to understand how to incorporate it in your life and Hinduism is more about rituals anyway

Dear Realdemigod,

I totally disagree with you. Hinduism is vast in sense that it incorporates many philosophies in it. But Hinduism is simplest religion in that a follower of Hinduism can chose any one of those philosophies. Buddhism is after all religion with a defined philosophy, so whatever you do, you cannot go against Buddha's teachings. That means Buddhism is a limited religion. It not just rejects God but also soul.

Hinduism is the simplest religion ever. For Example , I am a Hindu but never visit any temple or do ritual/puja of any kind. My mother is Hindu and does a lot of puja and worships God a lot. Hinduism has in it for everyone. For monists, monotheists, yogis, materialists, spiritualists, ritualists, non-ritualists etc etc. But Buddhism is not for everyone. And yes I come from Gaya , which is a holy place for Buddhists and Hindus alike. Those Buddhists do a hell lot of rituals from what I have seen. For a Hindu, just the chant of Namah Shivaya is enough (but not necessary), but if one wants anything else, a lot more things are available :)

Ramakrishna
14 December 2013, 12:44 PM
Namaste,


Reason it's very simple way of life you don't have to get into religious ways but still can benefit of Buddhism while Hinduism is quite complex and needs a master or a learned one to understand how to incorporate it in your life and Hinduism is more about rituals anyway

I think this type of thinking stems from the romanticization of Buddhism that Sahasranama alludes to. The portrayal of Hinduism as overly ritualistic, superstitious, orthodoxic, etc. while Buddhism is simpler, more accessible and practical to the everyman.

While spending time on forums like this, it is easy to forget that most Hindus don't spend much time engaging in deep philosophical debates, but rather live lives of simple devotion. The only "ritual" that most Hindus are concerned with is a simple puja. Hinduism can indeed be very philosophically complex, and that is part of its beauty, as it is the conglomeration of the deepest truths of our reality passed down from our forefathers. But what makes it even more beautiful is the sheer practicality of it. The entire foundation of Hinduism is built on simple devotion to the Gods and living our everyday lives in accordance with dharmic principles.

Buddhism is portrayed in the west as more practical, accessible, less ritualistic and whatnot, but the reality is that it is just as diverse as Hinduism, and there is a lot more to Buddhism than just the Dalai Lama and a few Zen masters. Some schools of Buddhism are pretty much just philosophical atheism with a sole focus on meditation, which is what many westerners are infatuated with. Many other sects of Buddhism are just as "ritualistic" and "superstitious" as Hinduism is portrayed to be. Of course, karma and reincarnation are core principles of Buddhism, which many infatuated westerners would object to.

Jai Sri Ram

isavasya
01 April 2014, 11:47 PM
Reason it's very simple way of life you don't have to get into religious ways but still can benefit of Buddhism while Hinduism is quite complex and needs a master or a learned one to understand how to incorporate it in your life and Hinduism is more about rituals anywayNamaste,

I was in Buddhist Kingdom of Bhutan for a week recently and what I saw was exactly opposite of what you say. There were tons of rituals that Buddhists practiced. In the morning they would take some prayer beads and go on turning the prayer wheel a certain number of times. They would also do some prayers in certain exercise like positions. The biggest misconception is that there is no God in Buddhism. They have developed many Gods and Devtas and even stolen few of our devtas. Like Tara devi is also worshiped in Buddhism. I saw lots of alcohol inside Buddhist monasteries and chocolates as people's offering for devtas of the temples. In short, the religion is full of ritual and it's just a misconception in the west that it is not.

markandeya 108 dasa
04 April 2014, 02:57 AM
Eastern Mind


Vannakkam: Upon further reflection, I think there are also some other factors at play.

We have few retreat centers (if any) compared to Buddhism. Ones like this http://birken.ca/ are common. So being a meditative person, and wishing to practice that aspect, Buddhism provides a great deal more options. On a Hindu retreat, a few years back, we rented a Buddhist center. It was a beautiful place. They have a great eye for peaceful settings.

Aum Namasivaya

Dandavats Eastern Mind,

This is a very important point and observation. Vedic/Hindu practices need more residential places for concentrated retreats. From my own studies there is almost nothing in Buddhism that is not included within our own sacred texts.

I am a practicing Vaishnava, but i have done many Buddhist retreats and in silent meditations i have just done my own practices, and i found a profound benefit from this.

Sometimes temples are to noisy, to much going on and its easy to get distracted. This is fine for a day to day practice, but sometimes there is a need to go deeper into the philosophy and practice.

In Veda and Vedanata and the associated Indian thoughts, such as yoga, ayurveda and philosophy there is so much depth to attract all types of people who are interested in aspects of spiritual life.

This has been something that i think is really missing in the west, that we dont have enough retreat centers. I think the members here have covered everything in detail, so i cant add to much new to what is already said. But i was a manager at a retreat center for 5 months in Devon http://gaiahouse.co.uk/

Its not only a wonderful place that welcomes a diverse non denominational background of teachers, it also is a viable business, and most importantly it helps people to find some peace and some inspiration on the journey.

I have put this idea forward to many of my fellow devotees before, but it just gets talked down, as not part of our process.

In England there are many wealthy Indians who could support this type of project, but the temple authorities do not see this project worth the time to market or even consider. :(

Friend from the West
05 April 2014, 05:49 PM
Hari Om

Namaste

Think much has been offered here but trying to think of a couple more not mentioned directly, and try not to be redundant. If already mentioned, apologize:

Certain not everyone who practices falls into this, but think cause in part is materialism. How Buddhism may be seen in this country is not with distinctions of the different vehicles contained within, and seen primarily as secular, as has been stated and then very much like a self help book/method. Breathe in/breath out, do what you will.

As has been stated here already, there is a commitment if you will with SD. One can not pretend. One can be Buddhist if wants and a good chance, no one knows. May carry on as if nothing changes. SD is a blood in/blood out or in for a penny in for a pound commitment. Just from OP, look how she has committed. Came to SD from different culture, and committed, willingly and beautifully.

Think some of the PR Hinduism has gotten from a few famous "gurus" over last has not helped.

As a young person at the time, living in one of smallest, poorest parts of U.S., was able to easily find several Monasteries to stay, without invention of smart phone or www. Think lack of prominence creates the same status.

On some days such as this one, think grace of the Supreme, graces how graces. This is how it should be. Perhaps, we are the fortune ones, and more will follow when the time comes.

All in all, just my two cents.

Thank you.

Om Namah ShivaYa

FFTW