Buddhism in Australia Traditions in Change

24 David

Bubna-Lr‘licandWintrm

Higginr

totalizingassumptions

of

postmoderntheory.

In

what

follows,then.

we

present

Australian

developments

in

insight(vipassana)

meditation

practice

as

specific

illustrationsof

global

trendsratherthanas

components

ofanational

exception-

alism.Morethan

ever

today,

littlesensecan

bemadeofBuddhismin

any

one

country

without

referencetothis

global

context,

Theauthors

arebothveterandharma

practitioners

andhave

gleaned

thelocal

historicalcontent

presented

inthis

articlefi‘omtheirownactive

engagement

in

(oflen

intermingling)

Zen,

Theravadinand

insightgroups

ontheAustralianeastern

seaboardoverthe

lasttwodecades.Thefirst

namedauthor

recentlycompleted

a

doctoral

dissenationontherelationbetween

experiential

outcomesof

long-tenn

Zenand

insight

meditation

practice

among

seniorteachersofthe

discipline

in

variouswestern

countries,

ontheone

hand,

and.ontheother.thefoundational

assumptions

about

the selfin economic

theory.

The second authorfulfilled

teaching

and

administrativerolesin

(amongothers)

WatBuddhaDhammaandthe

Buddhist

Library

and

MeditationCentrein

Sydney

(which

featureas

prominent

examples

inthe

following)

and isamemberofthe

Insight

Teachets‘Circleof

Australia.Theevents

describedinthis

chapter

aredrawn

fromdiscussionswith

key

actors.firsthandand

participant

observationsof

significantmeetings

anda

continualflowofinlemal

writtenandverbal

communicationswithinthe

organiz-

ationsconcerned.

Background:

modern

and

global

Buddhist

developments

intheWest

In

onesense.thereis

nothingspecial

about

adapting

Buddhismtoanew

cultural

environment

,

in”“

case.

the

west.itisa

process

thathasoccurred

many

times

before.forinstance.inChinafrom

thefirst

century

CE:

Faureeven

argues

that

this

example

isstill

unfolding(1993).

Anotable

(albeit

not

unprecedented)

feature

ofthe

western

adaptation,however,

is

therelative

eclipse

ofmonasticismandthe

emphasis

on

laypractice

in

lay

settings.

Monasticismhas

historicallyunderpinned

anddominated

Buddhistsurvivaland

development

in

mostothertimesand

places

and

lay

dharma

practice

has

typically

functionedasamere

adjunct

ofmonastic

practice.

Many

ofthe

generation

ofteacherswho

brought

seriousdharma

practice

to

thewestfromtheW

onwards

(including

RobenAitken.Christina

Feldman~

Joseph

Goldstcin.

Jack

Kornfield,

Sharon

Salzberg

and

ChristopherTitmuss)

hadreceivedintensive

monastic

training

in

Asia.

Despite

the

acknowledged

legacy

ot‘monastieinstitutionsin

Asia.

theseteachersreturnedto

thewestand

insight(or

vipassana)

teachersin

particular

taught

dharma

practice

in

ways

that

madeno

necessary

referencestothemonasticworldatall.

Instead.

they

established

pioneering(and

these

days,internationallypivotal)lay

institutions

for

intensivemeditation

practice,

aboveallGaiaHouseintheUnited

Kingdom

and the

insight

Meditation

Society

and

Spirit

RockintheUnitedStates

This

development

diffused

throughout

otherwestern

countries,

notleastthe

English»

speaking

ones

,

a matterwewillreturnto

when

considering

the

Australian

example,

*

Emergence

afreculurinsightpractice

25

Atfirsttheabandonment

ofmonastic

integuments

excited littlecomment.

Withsome

exceptions

in

Burma,

monasteriesinAsianeither

taughtlaity

thefiner

points

ofmeditationnoroffered

themintensiveresidentialmeditationretreats.If

laypeople

inthewest

sought

these

boons,

thena

degree

ofinstitutional

creativity

was

self-evidentlyrequired

to

provide

them.

That

creativity

was

successful,

butit

oftentooktimeforthe

all-important

ethical

implications

inherentininstitutional

choiceto

crystallize.

when

they

did so.the

ensuing

tensions

highlighted

the

way

inwhichwesternformsof

association,

above

allthemodelofthe

voluntary

association,

restedonthecorewesternmoralvaluesof

equality,

inclusivenessand

collectiveself-rule.

Inthis

embryonic

decadeofthe

19705,

thewestwas

coming

undertheinfluence

ofsecond-wave

feminism,

the

peace

movement,

variousother

demoelatic

protest

movements andthebroader

counterculture,

all ofwhich

sought

tocultivatethe

valuesin

question.

Buddhismassuch

enjoyed

a ‘radical‘

reputation

inthe

west,

thankstosuchinfluencesastheBeatPoetsand

popularwritings

aboutBuddhism.

such

asthoseofAlanWatts,Thus

many

westernBuddhists took

for

granted

an

elective

affinity

7

the institutional

hallmarks oftraditional Buddhism

notwith»

standing

,

betweenthe

dharma,

onthe

one

hand,

andthe

egalitarian,

universalist

zeitgeist

ofthe

1970s,

ontheother.Inseveral

western

countries,

Buddhist

intentional

communities

sprangup

andmeldeddharmie

principles

withcountercultural

ideals.

In

hindsight,

the

irony

of

imputing

radicalism to

religious

or traditional

Buddhism is clear. As with

any

other

large-scale

institutionalized

religion.

Buddhistmonastieisminitshomelandswas

stronglyaligned

with

sociopolitical

elitesand

adapted

totheir

hegemonic

values.

Buddhistmonasticinstitutions

were

socially

and

politically

embedded:

theyperformed

social-integrative

and

regime-

legitimizing

firnctions,

Many

westerndharma

practitioners

onlygradually

came

to

realizethattheseinstitutions

presented

atableau

ol'resilient

hierarchy

authori-

tarianism,

patriarchy.dogmatism,

ritualism,

social

conservatismand

superstition.

But

bybracketing

these

featuresof

inheritedinstitutional

formsasmere

culturally

biased

interpretations

ofthe

dharma,

western

practitioners

tendedtomvralrze

the

moral

significance

ofsuchformsofassociation.

.

_

Acouple

offactorsfedthisnaiveté.

First,

theAsian

de-emphasis

ofintenstve

lay

practice

encouraged

an

assumption

inthe

westthatother

valueswould

‘ofcourse

assert

themselvesonce

laypeople

accounted

fora

majority

ofserious

practitioners,

Second.a

significant

group

ofwesterners

wereawareof

Buddhism‘s

historical

relianceonmonastic

institutionsand

atfirstsaw

thatreliance

asinevitablein

the

west

aswell.

Third,

monasticinstitutions

that

had

developed

in

relationship

with

laycommunities

had,

necessarily,

learned

that

survival

depends

on

deflecting

conflictwith

them.Theresultwasinstitutional

practices

that honed

theartof

sending

conciliatorysignals

while

resisting

substantive

changc-

_.

Fourth,

monastic

Buddhism

itselfatfirst

appeared

adaptable

when

quasi-monastic

dharmic

movements

emerged

and

established

themselves

internationally.

Themost

notable

ofthese

hybrids

wasthe

(interdenominational)

Friendsofthe

Western

Buddhist

Order,

foundedinBritain

in 1968‘

Thismovement

sought

to

partially

replicatefull-blownmonasticism,

maintaining

a

range

ofmonastic

organizational