A Squirrel and the Dharma: Pragmatism in Buddhism

by Wayne Ren-Cheng

Pragmatism is not a modern phenomena. It is a multi-layered philosophical concept with Charles Sandford Pierce and William James as its roots, and the growth of the Neo-pragmatist ideas of Richard Rorty as its branch into contemporary thought and action. There is thee realization that pragmatism did not begin with Pierce’s labeling it, that other philosophers and teachers practiced it before it was named. Big names like Socrates, Aristotle and Hume . . . and Siddhartha engaged the pragmatic method. It was a method of thought without a label.

William James, an early American pragmatic philosopher used an anecdote to explain the pragmatic method. Some years before he had been on a camping trip with a group of friends. Returning from a solitary hike in the surrounding woods he found a hot dispute going on among the men gathered around the camp fire. At the center of the argument was a squirrel – a live squirrel clinging to a nearby tree trunk. A human trying to get a glimpse of the squirrel would move around the tree in a clockwise direction. With each step around the squirrel would also move keeping the trunk between it and its pursuer. No matter how fast the man moved, the squirrel moved in the same direction always keeping the trunk between them. The dispute involved this question, “Does the man go round the squirrel or not?”

It was agreed by all that the man does go round the tree. The squirrel is on the tree. Does the man go round the squirrel, or only around the tree? Opinions were equally split. His friends looked to him to break the tie.

James’ response began with, “Which party is right depends on what you practically mean by ‘going round’ the squirrel.” He went on to illustrate. One view is of the man moving north to east to south to west, and then north again as the squirrel circles the tree south to west to north to east, and then south again. In this the man is going around. A view that going around the squirrel means to first be in front of, to the right of, behind, to the left of, and finally in front again means that the man did not go round the animal because as it circles the tree it’s belly is always toward the man. The answer lies in the practical perception of the concept of going around.

This is James’ example of the pragmatic method. The pragmatic method, when applied to Buddhist philosophy and practice is to view each purposed thought through a lens of its probably causal consequences. James’ focus for the pragmatic method was its application to philosophical disputes. He experienced that those disputes became insignificant the moment they were subjected to the simple act of tracing the possible concrete consequences.

Siddhartha engaged the pragmatic method whenever he remained silent regarding metaphysical questions. The realization that any answer would be theoretical meant it would have no practical value in moment-to-moment engagement with the world.

Siddhartha practiced pragmatism. He set aside the habitual reactivities of the Hindu faith and beliefs of his culture. He set aside any metaphysical questions, dogmatic principles, the closed caste system, the concept of absolutes, and the search for how it all began. Instead he turned toward what thoughts and actions could make a positive concrete difference in how human beings engaged themselves and the world around them. He applied the pragmatic method to action, not only to thought.

The pragmatic method arises in the traditional parable of the “The Monks at the River”.

The Monks at the River”

A senior monk and a junior monk were traveling together. At one point, they came to a river with a strong current. As the monks were preparing to cross the river, they saw a very young and beautiful woman also attempting to cross. The young woman asked if they could help her.

The senior monk carried this woman on his shoulder, forded the river and let her down on the other bank. The junior monk was very upset, but said nothing.

They both were walking and senior monk noticed that his junior was suddenly silent and enquired “Is something the matter, you seem very upset?”

The junior monk replied, “As monks, we are not permitted a woman, how could you then carry that woman on your shoulders?”

The senior monk was silent.

They continued on and soon the junior monk said, “But what will you tell the Master?”

The senior monk was silent.

It was against the rules.”

The senior monk said, “I left the woman a long time ago at the bank, however, you seem to be carrying her still.” He engaged the pragmatic method. The senior monk set aside the dogma that declared “no touching women” and I can imagine the sequences of thoughts he processed. ‘The rule says no touching women’ but the Three Pure Precepts tell me to do good. Leaving the woman in fear on the bank of the river, with the possibility she might drown trying to cross on her own would do nothing to alleviate suffering. Assisting her in crossing will have the consequence of alleviating some of her suffering and will become a lesson for the younger monk. Considering the possible karmic consequences I choose to carry her across. I choose an appropriate view of the situation, a view that reveals the probable concrete consequences. I choose practical application of the ‘rule’ rather than a dogmatic one.

The aspect of pragmatism that arises in the parable is making practical decisions and taking practical actions in a unique situation. This requires a practitioner to set aside any dogma that declares “there is only one way” and respond to each unique situation in whatever manner will result in positive karmic consequences. To put it simply acting pragmatically is doing what is useful and productive in each moment.

Buddhist philosophy and American Pragmatic philosophy places a high degree of importance on direct experience (experiential verification) rather than on theory, and it focuses is “what we can do right now to make things better”. In the West it is important that prevalent worldviews such as pragmatism be brought to the foreground of Buddhist philosophy so that parallels in approach can be recognized. At the core of the American psyche is the drive to “do what is best”. In Buddhism the same is true. The American psyche readily applies this to the self, “do what is best” . . . for me”. Most Americans, either through family, school or friends, arrive at the worldview that all things they do must benefit themselves in some way . . . even those actions taken to help others. This is why donors get their names in the paper, and gold medals for outstanding non-profit work are given out. In Buddhism this idea of positive self-development is the first steps on the Noble Path, later to become selfless acts performed for the benefit of all beings. This is pragmatism in action and thought.

 

The story of the Buddha, and the teachings that followed his Awakening shows that the Buddha was pragmatist, he used skillful means, whatever practical method a situation called for to present the dharma and guide others on the Middle Path.

The Eightfold Path is an example of the Buddha’s use of pragmatism. The Eightfold Path isn’t a dogmatic blueprint of what we must do in given situations, instead each of the eight are guidelines that we must engage as part of how we are, be mindful of our experiences when doing so, and then use that knowledge to determine if those actions were useful and practically valuable. What works in one situation may not work in a similar situation. Each time this is done a practitioner comes closer and closer to the arising of wisdom. Such is the challenge that a Universe of co-dependent arising presents us with.

 

Whether a Buddhist practitioner looks to View, Intention, Speech, Action, Livelihood, Effort, Mindfulness, Concentration . . . it is the responsibility of the individual to make an honest assessment of the situation and determine the most practical response. We want to take the most useful and productive course that leads to human flourishing. This is skillful pragmatism.

 

Does this mean we always make the right decision? Being human beings, no! And here is where pragmatism in the form of skillful means arises again. We shouldn’t berate ourselves for making the wrong choice . . . there is no sin, gilt or shame involved . . . instead we make another honest assessment of our actions and thoughts and DO BETTER NEXT TIME.

 

The pragmatic method, both in thought or action requires a practitioner to be situational. There is practical value in developing an appropriate view of each situation and taking actions appropriate to the promotion of human flourishing. Whether one is ‘going around a squirrel’ or ‘carrying a woman across a river’ a Buddhist practitioner must always strive to take whatever action will have the most practical value, whatever action leads to the most positive causal consequences.

Advertisements

Buddhism’s Pragmatic Transformation

by Wayne Ren-Cheng

Buddhism in the West has a schizophrenic quality to it. There are a host of voices and streams of images clamoring for attention. It isn’t a stretch to say that through the amazing and sometimes intimidating media choices that a person can access nearly a 100% of the Buddhist traditions worldwide. Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Tibetan, Sri Lankan, Thai and others may have temples nearby or their teachings can be found on-line via websites, You Tube and Twitter. Confusion arises as one tries to listen to all the voices and to process all the images. Along the way decisions need to be made as to whose voice is offering what is perceived as needed, and which image the viewer connects with. Choosing a Buddhist tradition to follow is not easy.

Unlimited and unrestrained access can be a cause of confusion. There are Western practitioners who choose the Theravada path for example, but find themselves chanting the Heart Sutra and engaging in Vajrayana meditation techniques as elements of their individual practice. The effect of this can be a Buddhist practice without a deep level of commitment . . . or it may be leading to an even deeper commitment when effectiveness of practice is the focus and not tradition.

Most in the West begin walking the Noble Path using the strictures of a particular tradition, commonly a tradition that is exotic to Western bodyminds. Time and effort is spent trying to engage practices and ideals that are foreign, ideals that might come into conflict with contemporary Western life. This conflict can be the cause of renewed spiritual searching and the realization that practices arising in other Buddhist traditions are engaged and experienced, at times found to have value in how the practitioner engages the world. Rather than reject them because they are not of the chosen tradition, they become a component of practice.

Is this unique? Even a cursory study of Buddhist history and philosophy will reveal that pragmatism played a role in how all Buddhist traditions have arisen. Siddhartha began his own spiritual quest from the perspective of a Hindu practitioner, and after leaving home he studied and practiced with a number of religious and spiritual masters in order to learn how those practices interconnected with human existence. Ideals of the Four Ennobling Realities, impermanence and dependent origination arose from existing religious and spiritual values and the insight Siddhartha gained through experience and introspection. After his death there was a schism resulting in two groups taking Siddhartha’s teachings and adding what they experienced as more effective for their practices, with this came the arising of the Theravada and Mahayana platforms. From King Ashoka sending his children to Sri Lanka as Buddhist emissaries, to Buddhism finding its place in other countries and cultures pragmatism lay behind the choices made.

We may love the grass in our pasture but will still stick our head through the fence to nibble other grass. Siddhartha fed on the rich grass of the Hindu beliefs and practices of his culture before he came to experience the grass outside the fence created by the walls, physical, mental and metaphorical that surrounded him. He then experienced the grasses in the pastures of brahmin, ascetics, yogis and Jains. From each of his pastures, as well as the fertile soil of his own bodymind, Siddhartha wove a net of philosophy and practice that he experienced as valuable in the alleviation of suffering, discontent and unsatisfactoriness.

Siddhartha realized the value in elements of the practices and philosophies in the existing religious and spiritual systems incorporating them into his newly arising paradigm. It is known that in Siddhartha’s time he, and his teachings were viewed as heretical and dangerous by other religious leaders and that there is no historical or scriptural evidence that Siddhartha held a reverse view. Siddhartha accepted the commitments of others and was offering a new intent that others could experience and then decide whether to engage his new paradigm. This pragmatic approach accepting the value of the commitments of others can lessen the us vs. them attitude that is endemic today, not only in Buddhism.

A passage in the Heart Sutra speaks eloquently of the pragmatism of Buddhist philosophy, ‘Oh Sariputra, all dharmas are forms of emptiness.’ The capital D Dharma, the teachings of Siddhartha are only potential until their ideals meet the realities of each human existence. The little d dharma is the realities that shape that potential in each human existence. Each, D and d, causally condition the other across the interconnected and interdependent web of possibilities. Too much focus on the capital D of respective traditions weakens the possibilities that can be realized with a broader view of the dharma as it presents itself during each moment of life.

Engaged Dharma is rooted firmly in the soil of the Pragmatic Buddhist teachings of the Venerable Dr. Jim Eubanks (Yong Xiang Shi) who interconnected American Pragmatic philosophy with what he learned from his two major influences, the Venerable Ryugen Fisher (Shen Long Shi) and Professor David Shaner Sensei at Furman University in South Carolina. From Shen Long Shi came the Chan teachings learned from the Venerable Dr. Holmes Welch (Mo Hua Shi) and the Soto Zen practices from Matsuoko Roshi. Professor Shaner Sensei of Furman University offered a deep respect for Japanese cultural and religious practices, along with lessons on pragmatist philosophy. These seeming disparate sources of knowledge and wisdom came together to form the foundation of the Pragmatic Buddhist tradition. It is a ‘tradition’ made up of traditions.

Venerable Dr. Eubanks Sensei often told his students and sangha that they must make a choice of Buddhist traditions and commit fully to the one chosen. He offered that time must be taken to experience those traditions in order to make that choice, but that there was an inherent danger in spending too much time and effort at the “Buddhist buffet”. I have come to the honest realization that Pragmatic Buddhism was, and is causally conditioned by that very buffet. Western Buddhism might come to rely on that very buffet.

Spoonfuls of Chan, Soto Zen, Nikayan Buddhism, Mahayana, and Vajrayana meditation practices make up the plate that is Pragmatic Buddhism. Theravada claimed teachings that arise in the Sigalovada Sutra and the Jataka Tale of Prince Vessantara are added as a result of my own experiential verification of their value in a contemporary Western Buddhist practice. The lessons from these scriptural sources and others do not necessarily arise as intended by the claiming tradition. The setting aside of the perceptions that come with tradition can reveal unrealized lessons. Here, along with pragmatism arises the practice of pluralism as offered by Diane Eck and the Harvard Pluralism Project. Add to that the secular practices of Pragmatic and neo-Pragmatic philosophy, humanism, naturalism and mindfulness meditation for the spiritual meal known as Pragmatic Buddhism.

Pluralism in intent and action is revealed throughout the history of Buddhism. In its journey it has had, and continues to have profound effects on cultures and peoples while remaining firm in its commitments. This is done without expecting the long held commitments of others to fall away. Siddhartha energetically encountered the commitments of kings, brahmins, yogis, thieves, common people and Jains. He did not offer a philosophy and practice meant to supplant their commitments, instead to enhance them. While later iterations of Buddhism did transition into dogmatic, bordering on evangelistic traditions, in Pragmatic Buddhism this is not viewed as Siddhartha’s intent. His intent was to make people aware of their interconnection and interdependence on all phenomena, not to create divisions.

In the West Buddhism is encountering the commitments of the religious beliefs and practices of Christianity, Islam and Judaism most prominently, as well as that of a secular community of avowed atheists and agnostics. Buddhism has had encounters such as these for thousands of years across thousands of miles. What it hasn’t encountered in its past is the deep level of individualism found in the West, particularly in America.

What’s in it for me? This is the question a sangha member asked when offered the opportunity to take a class on the precepts to prepare to take those vows. It prompted the response, “Nothing”. Years of study and practice and I now realize the dharma in that answer. Intent is clear in the question, the danger of craving in the reply. There was a lesson in that one word . . . nothing; a lesson for every student and a lesson for every teacher.

The question reveals a cultural disposition of individualism. Asked out loud or silently it shows an intent toward self gratification. That intent will lead to discontent and unsatisfactoriness because lasting gratification can never be attained. There will always be something to grasp at just beyond reach. Feelings of gratification will fall away. It is the impermanent nature of the causal universe.

There are two ‘mantras’ in Engaged Dharma (EDIG) meant to highlight the means necessary to harness the power of the individual. One mantra illustrates an acceptance of individualism in Western Buddhist thought and an awareness that what is individual effort is naturally societal effort. “We are each unique expressions of the universe. We are not unique in the universe.” In human beings there is difference that is causally conditioned by similarity, and similarity causally conditioned by differences.

The other ‘mantra’ is an intentional reminder that whatever action one chooses to make, “What we do matters”. Actions taken for purely individual benefit will have effect beyond the individual, known and unknown. Whatever one does, with or without intent has ripples of effect that go beyond the individual performing the act, this is karma as human physics in action The ideal of ultimate personal transformation meets the reality of the causal process.

Put the two mantras together, “We are each unique expressions of the universe. We are not unique in the universe. What we do matters”. There is acceptance of individuality, awareness that the individual is a part of something larger, and the actions we take have effect on a broad scale. There is the path of arhat seeking individual knowledge and transformation, and the path of the bodhisattva seeking transformative social engagement. It is a pragmatic way of viewing human existence.

Initial steps on the Noble Path are taken by an individual. The reason for those steps is unique to each person yet that reason can be related to by all other human beings. Regardless of whether it is illness, loss, confusion, joy, curiosity or spiritual seeking, there will be others whose journey arose from similar circumstances.

Siddhartha did not ask for blind faith. He offered that the value of his teachings should be verified through experience engaging them as how one interacts with the universe. In this way Siddhartha harnessed the power of the individual to achieve positive transformation and to engage the causal universe in wholesome ways. He accepted the value of the individual, and of their potential for social impact.

Buddhism in the West must also harness the power of the individual. In each person is a reservoir of imagination, skills, gifts, compassion and the Buddha-element. These are reservoirs that can be tapped for the benefit of all. It might begin with the ideal of what’s in it for me. What does Buddhist philosophy and practice offer that will improve my situation? A unique expression will require a unique response dependent on what need is perceived. Gradually like the ocean floor slopes into the depths a practitioner must be guided to the gradual realization that while expression is unique, suffering in some form is not. Awareness of the effects of the practitioners intent and action beyond themselves must be developed and nurtured so the realization that whatever the thought or action there are causal consequences.

In a culture where individual choice is experienced as a human right the host of voices and streams of images available has value. Westerners, and particularly Americans need to develop the ability to sift through the choices so that productive and effective philosophies and practices can be discovered and engaged in. Western Buddhism must harness the power of the individual to enact positive social transformation. There is value in a commitment to a particular Buddhist tradition as long as one maintains an open-heart and open-mind. Not all the philosophies and practices of any one tradition may be effective for a contemporary Western practitioner, while all traditions have philosophies and practices that can be effective. Awareness of them requires that labels and judgements be set aside so that experience, not perception is how commitments develop. There are voices in the West that proclaim the value of a religiously oriented Buddhism and voices that proclaim the value of a secular approach. Perhaps if those voices went silent for a moment the realization that the Western Buddhist model that arises will be a pragmatic combination of those two ideals, and more. In Engaged Dharma, a Pragmatic Buddhist practice there is already that silence.

Buddhism and a Secular Path – Part V

by Wayne Ren-Cheng

Secular Buddhist groups are arising in the West, most notably in America. Overall mission statements for these groups vary with one constant; they walk the Middle Path without any religious or spiritual context. Groups like the Secular Buddhist Association and many individuals practice the dharma without any affiliation with a traditional Buddhist lineage or school. These practitioners look to the wide variety of Buddhist writings, podcasts and You Tube videos, along with in-person sessions with other avowed secular Buddhists for information and instruction. They view dogmatic beliefs, unquestioning devotion, and religious ritual as having no value, though many still find value in the facilities and training offered by traditional Buddhist groups.

In his book ‘After Buddhism’, Stephen Batchelor offers Ten Theses of Secular Dharma. He prefaces the list with “In 2005 I started to formulate a series of theses to define the kind of secular Buddhist space in which I found myself then and continue to find myself today – the kind of space I have been writing about in this book. I offer a revised version of them here.”

We’ll continue now with the seventh theses: The community of practitioners is formed of autonomous persons who mutually support each other in the cultivation of their paths. In this network of like-minded individuals, members respect the equality of all members while honoring the specific knowledge and expertise each person brings.

The first sentence is the definition of a sangha (community), religious or secular. All members are equal and their knowledge and expertise honored while accepting the role of the teacher as mentor and monitor. A danger here is that a strictly secular view of equality may lead to everyone trying to be the teacher. In non-denominational Buddhist groups, like the Engaged Dharma (EDIG) sangha at the Buddha Center in the virtual world of Second Life (SL), the desire for some members to make truth claims about their chosen tradition arises. It is the responsibility of the individual on the teacher’s cushion to guide members away from what they think they know, to learning and accepting the value of lessons and ideals from other traditions.

The eighth theses: A practitioner is committed to an ethics of care, founded on empathy, compassion, and love for all creatures who have evolved on this earth.

This is the proper attitude whether from a religious or secular view. (Note: I guess Mr. Batchelor doesn’t believe in life on other planets 🙂 )

The ninth theses: Practitioners seek to understand and diminish the structural violence of societies and institutions as well as the roots of violence that are present in themselves.

This is proper thought and action whether from a religious or secular view.

Bathelor’s theses seven through nine are pragmatic ways of being whether a practitioner views their path as secular or religiously oriented. These views are instrumental in the forming of ethical ideals that lead to taking morally appropriate actions in a given situation.

It is theses ten where the religious and the secular find the broadest divide: A practitioner of the dharma aspires to nurture a culture of awakening that finds its inspiration in Buddhist and non-Buddhist, religious and secular sources alike.

Mr. Batchelor is swiping a broad brush over “religion” based Buddhist practices. He is inferring that Buddhist practitioners who commit to a traditional path hesitate to look outside those teachings and texts to strengthen their practice. Admittedly there are instances where this is true. There are those who choose the Mahayana path and vehemently will defend that path while denigrating the path chosen by others. There does arise the statement that, ‘this Buddhism is the True Buddhism’. This statement is a direct view into the immature practice of the speaker. This is not a new development in Buddhism, it has been happening since the Buddha’s death.

The practice of Buddhism now, in the West is encountering a culture and social system new to its experience. It has found itself in a society that favors individualism in its most selfish form over awareness of societal impact, and a society that favors consumerism over altruism. What is needed to counter these aspects of Western society is a pragmatic path that accepts that the ‘walls’ between traditions will have to be pulled down. The Buddhism that will eventually arise will have components of all the Buddhist traditions, humanism, naturalism, pluralism and science. It will be a Pragmatic Buddhism.

Buddhism and a Secular Path – Part 4

by Wayne Ren-Cheng

The fifth of the Ten Theses that Stephen Batchelor offers in his book, “After Buddhism” speaks to the dynamism of the dharma, a dharma that can effectively respond to any contingency. In Batchelor’s experience when the dharma is viewed as being stifled by religious dogmatism and metaphysical expectations its value is lessened. The dharma is dynamic because, like all phenomena it is impermanent and subject to causal conditioning. This is the reality of the dharma.

Batchelor’s fifth theses is: The dharma serves the needs of people at specific times and places. Each form the dharma assumes is a transient human creation, contingent upon the historical, cultural, social, and economic conditions that generated it.

In Batchelor’s secular vision for Buddhism the dharma is a phenomena a practitioner can access in order to respond appropriately to situations in a given moment, in a given location. When one sees a homeless person with a handwritten sign saying, ‘I am hungry’, they can allow the arising of generosity with the knowledge that such acts are wholesome and beneficial to all. Generosity arose because of need. A rude driver cuts in front of a practitioner nearly causing a crash. Anger begins to arise as visions of chasing down that driver and . . .. Anger falls away as the dharma of serenity and balance arises. Serenity arose because of need. The dharma serves the practitioner.

In 2600 years of Buddhism the dharma has assumed many forms. At the start it was a fresh paradigm built upon a foundation of Hinduism and the knowledge and wisdom developed by Siddhartha as he traveled and studied throughout the Indian continent. After the Buddha’s death four different councils were held to write down the words of the Buddha and to make changes those that then guided the sangha thought necessary. From them came the schism that brought about the Mahayana and Theravada schools, changes to the Vinaya Pitaka (Monastic Rules), and the Buddhist canon. From there and then the form of the dharma underwent transformation when King Ashoka sent his son and daughter to Sri Lanka to teach the dharma. Early Buddhist mendicants traveled the Silk Road to China bringing the dharma to the Chinese people, people whose religion was centered on the Tao and Confucious. When Buddhism found its way to Tibet it was conditioned by animistic Bon practices as well as the unique environment, both physical and sociological there. In Japan the Shinto rituals meant to connect the present with Japan’s past had their effect on the dharma. Now, in the West the dharma will take another form, or multiple forms.

Each form the dharma assumes is a transient human creation, contingent upon the historical, cultural, social, and economic conditions that generated it. Mahayana, Theravada, Vajrayana, Abhidharma, Pure Land, Nichiren, and all other forms have arisen as a result of those contingencies.

What forms the dharma takes in the West will be causally conditioned by factors unique to this time and place. Note that I say forms. In the West there isn’t only one dominant religion or belief system to be encountered, there are many that will have their effect on the dharma. The dharma will also be causally conditioned by such influences as the cultural differences between East and West, the history of other influences such as Mormonism and Mindfulness Meditation practices, economic and education disparities, and a broad range of social groups and ideals. These known factors and many as of yet unknown factors will have their cause and effect on practice of the dharma in the West.

There is a tendency with some Western Buddhists to believe that if Buddhism isn’t practiced in the same way it was in Tibet, China, Japan or where ever it is not true Buddhism. This shows a fundamental lack of information about the journey and transformations that have already had contingent effects on this 2600 year old philosophy.

The sixth theses is: The practitioner honors the dharma teachings that have been passed down through different traditions while seeking to enact them creatively in ways appropriate to the world as it is now. This is an acceptance of the dharmas of pluralism and pragmatism.

A mature practitioner does not disparage the rituals and dharma teachings of other traditions, Buddhist or otherwise as long as they are on a path devoted to the elevation of the human spirit, human flourishing. Batchelor offers that a secular practitioner is one that not only honors other traditions; they also actively engage particular practices in order to determine their value in a Buddhist practice in the West, in this era. This is both pluralistic and pragmatic.

The dharma I experience is causally conditioned by the Mahayana based lessons of my teacher and his teacher, and the open-mindedness and open-heartedness they expected from anyone on the Pragmatic Buddhist path. It is equally contingent on the Sigalovada Sutra, a Theravada text. In the Sigalovada Sutra I found practices that have improved my relationships with others, practices not found in any Mahayana texts. I experientially verified that teachings from “outside” my tradition have positive transformative effects equal to many of the practices learned from my teacher.

This theses teases about what Western Buddhism may grown to be. It may take the best, or at least the practices proven most individually and socially effective for this time and culture. From that a unique form of Western Buddhism may arise.