A broken consensus

"Consensus Buddhism" is a "half-book" written by David Chapman and published in several installments at his blog Vividness. The work is a somewhat eclectic criticism of something the author dubs Consensus Buddhism, by which he means the liberal-modernist new agey mainstream "Buddhism" popular in the United States and other Western nations. While the author doesn´t sound *that* politically incorrect or even particularly hateful, he does offer a de facto broadside against this kind of Buddhism (or "Buddhism"). Interestingly, he believes that the Consensus lost its hegemony around 2015. 

Consensus Buddhism, Chapman believes, is a somewhat contradictory blend of Theravada, Zen and Vajrayana, but all three have been substantially revised compared with the traditional versions before becoming part of the synthesis. The Theravada component comes from "Protestant Buddhism", a 19th century modernist form of Buddhism that emerged in Southeast Asia and Sri Lanka under the threatening impact of Western colonialism and Christian missionary activity. While the Protestant Buddhists were Asian, they were nevertheless inspired by Western scholars to modernize Theravada in a way resembling liberal Christian Protestantism (but still in a distinctly Buddhist garb). Of course, this new Buddhism was supposedly a return to the pure and pristine ideas of the Buddha, distorted by millenia of superstition, priestcraft and backwardness. Note the similarity between this approach and the Christian Protestant criticism of Catholicism! Modernist Buddhists emphasized meditation and individual enlightenment, claimed to be scientific and rational, and studied the ancient Buddhist scriptures to divine their "true" meaning. During the 19th century, this was *not* the standard approach to Buddhism in Southeast Asia and Lanka. Exported to the West, this form of Buddhism became even more modernized. While Western Buddhists often practice vipassana ("mindfulness" is based on this), this particular meditation technique seems to contradict the general ethos of Consensus Buddhism, which isn´t about asceticism, renunciation or "non-mind". Maybe this is why Westernerns sometimes snap when trying out vipassana?

The second component is a modernized form of Zen, including the version associated with Japanese teacher D T Suzuki. Chapman doesn´t mention that Suzuki was affiliated with the Theosophical Society, which is surely significant. Suzuki apparently had a "perennialist" view of Zen, seeing it as the spiritual core of all religions. Also, his view of enlightenment had more in common with something Chapman calls "Romantic Idealism" and "Western monism", rather than with traditional Zen notions. In the United States, Suzuki´s approach could easily influence the new agey alt-spirituality scene. The third component was the Dalai Lama´s modernized and de-Tantricized form of Vajrayana. These three "export" versions of Asian Buddhism have been combined with psychoanalysis, New Age approaches, and a general "niceness" or liberal political correctness similar to liberal forms of Protestant Christianity. The end result: Consensus Buddhism. (Funny detail: at one point, Chapman uses Ken Wilber´s expression "the green meme" to describe political correctness.) 

The reason why Consensus Buddhism became hegemonic in the broader United States Buddhist milieu isn´t entirely clear, but some things do stand out. First, it appeals primarily to "Boomers" who are White and relatively privileged. According to the author, it has almost zero appeal to any other demographic. The Consensus Buddhists control (or used to control) the most important American Buddhist magazines and ditto publishing houses. There was a considerable overlap with the New Age milieu. The scandals surrounding Tantric teachers during the 1980´s made it possible for Consensus Buddhism to push out the Tantrikas from the milieu (I assume the Tantric groups recruited from the same White affluent middle-class Boomer demographic). Tibetan Buddhism or Vajrayana is good for exotic window-dressing, but the wilder strands of the tradition must be actively suppressed, since they aren´t "nice". This is ironic, given the fact that Western Buddhists aren´t interested in anti-sexual asceticism, for instance, so you would think they would embrace Tantric orgies with a gusto! The author also points out that some Buddhist traditions are simply ignored by the Consensus, rather than explicitly attacked. This is the case with Sokka Gakkai, a movement Chapman believes recruits mostly from working-class, immigrant and non-White sectors of the US population. They therefore never appear on the Consensus radar screen.

Chapman´s own alternative isn´t really worked out in the "half-book", but he is a supporter of the Nyingma tradition within Vajrayana, and links to a website about Aro gTér, the specific lineage he belongs to. Very often, he comes across as a near-skeptic. Thus, Chapman questions the claim that mystical experiences are self-validating and that they can somehow "prove" a certain religious tradition. Nor is perennialism correct. The idea that your True Self is also the World-Soul and therefore God (Atman is Brahman) only exist in certain Hindu traditions, and therefore cannot be the inner core of all religions. Chapman even claims that we can´t even know what the Buddha really taught, so why even bother with him when seeking enlightenment! (Perhaps this is a "guru trick" from his part. Compare the Tantric saying "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him".) I get the impression that the author´s position might be a radical form of pluralism which claims that all religions are true, despite their fundamental differences, since reality is fundamentally "empty" and therefore ever-changing and creative. Which just happens to be the Vajrayana position... 

Who knows, maybe even Consensus Buddhism could become part of Emptiness? 

I will continue my explorations of this author´s content in the near future.