In the 20th century, lay Buddhists began to play a far more important role in religious processes both in the West and in Asian countries. Attempts to categorize western Buddhists have shown that the standard division into monks and laity does not work anymore. Going beyond Asia and adapting to new socio-political, economic and cultural conditions, Buddhism has transformed and inevitably taken new forms. The approaches and criteria developed over many years of studying Buddhism in Asia do not describe the whole variety of forms of involvement of western followers. And in the countries of Asia, modernization, secularization and globalization resulted in significant transformations of Buddhist communities. The article shows the main approaches to classify modern Buddhists and the theoretical problems faced by scholars. One of them is the fact that the religious affiliation of the researchers themselves can often influence their conclusions about the authenticity of certain Buddhist groups and the assessment of their activities. The most vivid example is the interpretation of activities by followers of Ole Nydahl. Reference to these groups as ‘neo-Buddhist’ provides no insight into their nature. Currently, the problem of lay Buddhists’ classification is best developed on the North American materials. Scholars criticize the normative approach according to which religious identity is something integral and fixed. On the contrary, the identity of modern western Buddhists results from a variety of factors. Formal criteria — refuge taking, visiting of temples, etc. — do not reveal the diversity of followers of Buddhism. Western researchers offer to pay attention to a large group of people who do not formally belong to Buddhism but show interest in it — the latter called ‘sympathizers’. They have been an important part of the history of Buddhism since about the late 19th century. Scholars recognize the valid and important the easiest criterion — Buddhist is the one who says ‘I am a Buddhist’. The main trends in the transformation of Buddhist practice in the West are the lack of a clear borderline between lay people and ‘professional Buddhists’, lack of common authorities, decline of monasticism, egalitarianism, the increase in the role of women, active participation in public life, often emphases on the psychological rather than religious nature of Buddhist practice. Some researchers suggest it can well be identified as a new Buddhism — a qualitatively different phenomenon emerging in the aftermath of adapting Buddhism to postmodern society. Others wonder whether western Buddhism can actually be viewed as a religion. Many scholars criticize the popular concept of the ‘two Buddhisms’ that distinguishes between ethnic Buddhists (immigrants) and converts (‘white Buddhists’). The use of this concept in the long term shall definitely give rise to further problems: How to classify the descendants of immigrants and converts? Alternatively, some scholars suggest traditionalist and modernist Buddhism(-s) be considered. However, this approach does takes no account of the fact not all converts follow modernist Buddhism, and not all immigrants are traditionalists. The problem of Buddhists’ classification is relevant not only in the western context. Examining a number of cases from Mongolia and Buryatia, the article illustrates similar tension can also be traced in those regions, and it is difficult enough to identify clear categories of believers.
更多
原文链接
分享
引用
