II!I10W~o Is a Buddhist! Charting theLandscape of Buddhist AmericaJAN NATTIERT ments he Christianity study in of theBuddhism and lmerican Judaism inreligious North have long America tapestry, beenisBuddhism recognized still in its infancy. received as basic While scant eleattention-if indeed any at all-in surveys of religion in North Americapublished before 1980.1 Since then the situation has improved somewhat,2but Buddhism still remains very much a “fringe element” in most accountsof religion in this region. 3Likewise, North America is a relative newcomer to the field of BuddhistStudies. In a discipline shaped primarily, during its fonnative period, bythe analysis of classical texts, Buddhism in North America-or, for thatmatter, in Europe and other non-Asian parts of the world-has seemed toonew, too immature, and often too unorthodox to warrant serious scholarlyattention. Here the turning point came slightly earlier, with North Americabeginning to receive at least a modicum of attention in surveys of Buddhismpublished after the mid-197os.4 Nonetheless even the most generous ofsuch accounts occupy only a few pages, and the observant reader will findthat these treatments of Buddhism in the West are generally more descriptive (that is, less analytical) than the corresponding sections on Buddhismin Asia. There have been, ofcourse, several scholarly or semischolarly booksdealing with various aspects of Buddhism in North America, but it is thetreatment of North American Buddhism in more broadly based works thattells us the most about its standing in the fields of North American Religions and Buddhist Studies, respectively. And here the evidence is unequivocal: Buddhism in this hemisphere is only now, at the very end of thetwentieth century, beginning to be recognized as a legitimate subject ofstudy.This relative neglect can be attributed to a variety of causes, but one of183184 JAN NATTIERthe most significant is certainly the relatively small number of adherents toBuddhism in North America.5 While accurate statistics are difficult to comeby, it is generally accepted that Buddhists in the United States numbersOJ.1l~wncr~etw~~m.e and two million, thu:” comprising well under 1perce~~oX!h~po~ulatiQ.D.6 One could argue, withsom-ejustif1catioIl~- thatsuch a small population deserves only a small proportion of scholarly attention. Yet these numbers do not tell the whole story. First, because anumber of North American Buddhists are prominent figures in the arts,literature, and media, B~l:ldl1ism_l1as~been founded, it is not surprising that like attracts like, and most membersof Buddhist groups in this category are of middle-class background orabove. In addition they are overwhelmingly (though not exclusively) o(European ancestry, and their religious interes~,g.re.sDcused on meditation.”This is, in sum, a Buddhism otthe priVIleged, attracting those who ha~the time, the inclination, and the economic opportunity to devote themselves to strenuous (and sometimes expensive) meditation training. InNorth America Buddhist groups of this type have a variety of sectarianconnections, but most are affiliated with a form of Tibetan Buddhism, Vipassana, or Zen. Because the primary common feature of this group is notits ethnicity or sectarian affiliation but its class background, this type canbe described as Elite Buddhism. 16:E:’Kp0rt” Buddhists, by contrast, have come into contact with Buddhismnot through active seeking on their part, but through “seIling” by a Buddhist missionary. The group that best fits this profile in North America isthe Soka Gakkai, which through active proselytizing in a wide range ofsettings has attracted an ethnically and economically diverse membership.Advertising worldly benefits as well as “spiritual” ones as among the resultsof Buddhist practke, the Soka Gakkai has appealed to groups for whomthe meditative Buddhism of the Elite type has little or no appeal. In everyrespect, therefore-ethnicity, socioeconomic level, style of practice, andbasic concerns-“Export” Buddhism represents a distinct category. Since~90 JAN NATTIERmissionary activity is not only what has brought most Buddhists to thisgroup, but is expected as a part of their ongoing practice as well, this category is aptly labeled Evangelical Buddhism.“Baggage” Buddhism, as the name suggests. is the religion of those whocame to North America as immigrants. but who did not (unlike the missionaries of Evangelical Buddhism) travel for religious reasons. Rather,these are the vast majority ofAsian immigrants who came to ~orth Americain search ofjobs, new opportunities, and a better future for their families.simply bringing their religion along. In a new and often hostile environment, religious centers built by recent immigrants serve a number of functions, not only in transmitting specifically religious ideas and practices butin helping to preserve a sense of cultural identity as well. As a result. Buddhist communities of this type are almost always deliberately mono-ethnicat the outset, though outsiders may eventually be brought in through intermarriage or other means. Because Buddhist associations in this categoryare defined primarily by their ethnicity, I have labeled this group EthnicBuddhism. 17Space does not permit a more extended discussion of this typology here.but it is particularly important to note that apparent sectarian identity oftenmasks radical differences of thought and practice, while great affinities canbe obsenred within each of the above categories even across sectarian andnational-origin lines. Thus while “dharma exchanges” are not at all uncommon between Zen and Tibetan Buddhist groups (whose members seem tohave a great many attitudes and values in common), some Buddhist organizations that would seem to fall within a single category-for example, theSoto Zen Mission in Honolulu and the Diamond Sangha (likewise a Zengroup ofJapanese lineage) in the same city-have virtually no commonfeatures, and indeed many of the members of the two groups seem blissfullyunaware of one another’s existence.In sum, by studying Buddhist groups in North America in terms of thetypes of transmission that have led to their formation, we can identifY patterns that would be impossible to see by other means. l5 These patternsobtain above all, of course, in the initial period of transmission, and thereis much research to be done on the adjustments that take place as eachform of Buddhism evolves over subsequent generations.Culture and Change: A Note on Assimilation“”ben Tricycle editor Helen Tworkov wrote in 1991 that “the spokespeoplefor Buddhism in America have been, almost exclusively, educated membersof the white middle class,” and went on to say of A~ian Americans that “sofar they have not figured prominently in the development of somethingcalled American Buddhism,” her comments evoked a storm of protest, theIq; I‘/I/”LANDSCAPE OF BUDDH 1ST AMERI CAresults of which have not yet abated,19 Asian Americans, some of whoseancestors had arrived in the United States over a century ago and hadplayed key roles in transmitting Buddhist traditions to this hemisphere, felt(quite understandably) that their own forms of Buddhism were beingslighted. “It is apparent,” wrote oneJapanese American reader, “that Tworkov has restricted ‘American Buddhism’ to mean ‘white American Buddhism,’ “20 Tworkov, however, held her ground, contending that her statements were not at all racist (as the reader had alleged), but simply made“an accurate distinction between Buddhism in America and American Buddhism.”21What is striking about this debate is the vast difference in the issues thatthe two sides view as central. For Tworkov’s critics, what matters is thetransmission of Buddhism to North America, a process in which AsianAmericans have clearly played a major role. For Tworkov herself, by contrast, mere transmission is not enough: the product must be repackaged tosuit the domestic market. From one perspective, the basic issue is continuity; from the other, it is change.Given that most religions, including Buddhism, make the official claimto be the carriers of a timeless truth, it might seem odd to require thatAmericans “reinvent the “”beel of Dharma” (as a student of mine once putit) before it can be considered “the real thing.” And yet the historical recordclearly demonstrates that Buddhism has undergone significant cultural adjustment in each region where it has taken root. Should we conclude, then,that such a process of assimilation is required if Buddhism is to survive inany new environment, including that of North America?Here we may take a comparative approach and turn for insight to thecountry whose experience with Buddhism, though vastly different in manyways, most closely resembles that of North America. There are two models,one might say, by which Buddhism has been transmitted from one regionto another: at the government-to-government level, on the one hand, andby the “trickle in” approach on the other. In the former case, as for examplein the transmission of Buddhism from Korea to Japan, Buddhism is conveyed from one country to another by state officials, often for reasonsclosely connected to national security. If the recipient country decides toadopt the new religion, it is then imposed by the government on the population, often with considerable resistance at first. This top-down scenariois not at all uncommon in Buddhist history, and has also taken place in,such countries as Sri Lanka and Tibet.Y1 In~hiw, by contrast, Buddhism was first accepted not by the govern-/1.ment but b~ the aristocracy. Brought to China by an assortment of immiIgrants, foreIgn merchants, and the occasional wandering guru, Buddhismsoon gained a certain cachet as an item of cultural exotica, and much ofthe fascination of the aristocracy eventually centered around the notion of192 JAN NATTIER“emptiness.” Though few took up the monastic life, many enjoyed debatingthe nature of ultimate reality, and there soon developed a subcultureamong the privileged that might best be described as “salon .Buddl~ism.”Though a small ntunber of Chinese were attracted to BuddhIsm pnor tothis time, it was not until all that China stood for as a culture was suddenlycalled into question with the fall of the Han dynasty in 220 C.E. that Buddhism experienced a sudden growth in its membership, attracting a f~llowing that would eventually make it one of the major players on the Chmesereligious scene.The similarities between the first Buddhist communities in China thatare visible to the scholar and what I have described above as Elite Buddhism-including the attraction of Buddhism for members of the socioeconomic elite, the fascination with emptiness and the relative lack of interest in monasticism, and above all the sudden increase in membershipthat came in the wake of America’s own crisis of legitimacy, provoked bythe Vietnam War-are evident, and might offer much fruitful material forcomparison.22 There are, of course, a great many significant differences aswell. But for the purpose at hand one particular issue will be our focus: theprocess of cultural assimilation.It is well known that Buddhism underwent significant changes as it settled into its long tenure in China, a topic to which Kenneth Ch’en devotedan entire book, titled The Chinese Transformation ofBuddhismY The Chinesedid indeed, in a manner of speaking, reinvent the wheel, and succeededin producing a product that has continued to function for nearly two millennia. Yet such adjustments were not all in one direction. The initial phaseof transmission to China clearlv did involve a massive incorporation intothe Buddhist repertoire of indigenous ideas and values (often labeled,though not with complete accuracy, as “Taoism”). This would seem to resemble, at first glance, a parallel to the “Americanization” that Tworkovhas in mind.A look at the second phase of Chinese Buddhism should give us pause,for here we see a move in the opposite direction: realizing that things hadgone too far, Chinese Buddhists from the late fourth century on began toretreat from such extreme accommodation. This second period was characterized, in fact, by an active attempt to remove elements of Chinese influence that now seemed incongruous with Buddhist values, and to introducepreviously overlooked element’> that were now viewed as central to the Buddhist tradition. This involved, among other things. the purging from Buddhist scriptures of vocabulary identified as “Taoist,” and the translation, atlong last-some three or four centuries after Buddhism first arrived inChina!~of the basic texts dealing with monastic rules. 24“What might we see on the North American scene if we were to peerIILANDSCAPE OF BUDDHIST AMERICA i93through the lens of the Chinese experience? First of all, we would note thatBuddhism-in all three of its basic types, though in varying degrees-hasbeen adapting to our landscape since its arrival. Already in the nineteenthcentu~the Elite Buddhists described b’y Thomas tweed (though”fie”doesnQ~e-t.h~t.~~madeSWeepmg”a~c-;;m~~q”d;tiQPsto-such”core-Vict~Ti!ll1 valu~”La,~..Qp.timismand_Ktiljsrn.25 Similar adjustments cailbe seen[n the late twentieth century, as interpretations of Buddhism have beenmodified to fit AmericanpE~erences for egalitarianism, feminism, andeven a positive va.fiiition-of sexuality (an idea it seems certain the Buddhahimself would have found outrageous). In Ethnic Buddhist circles-atleast, in those that have been present in North America for more than onegeneration-one finds comparable forces at work, as for instance in theJapanest:..”~.iDcal:iJ~uddEIst”.churches9fAme:(ka: .whfL~Xr:.ii~§’;~t eleme:D.tS:liaVJ;[Q”und.their way int()”~y~ryihiI1gJI:!:)lprerIlliI1()19GY t9. ~”~chi!ec–ture. 26 (Here we should recall that in making such accommodations AsianAmericans were not simply acting on their own preferences, but in manyinstances were deliberately attempting to present themselves in ways thatmight be acceptable to the Protestant majority.) Interestingly, the smallestdegree of change between the form of Buddhism practiced in the homeland and in North America is observed in Evangelical Buddhism, perhapsbecause the only real representative of this category, the Soka Gakkai, hasbeen su~iect to the tightest control by its missionary-oriented Japaneseheadquarters. In this group, adjustments seem to be taking place only onthe most superficial level, as American songs and images drawn from American history are mobilized to serve quite unaltered religious ends.Despite these noticeable instances of cultural assimilation, however,moves to reverse them are also becoming visible. Japanese American ShinffiiO
