[Buddha-l] Bourgeois Buddhism

[Jackhat1 at aol.com]

In a message dated 9/28/2011 11:40:09 A.M. Central Daylight Time,  
dingirfecho at gmail.com writes:
 
Dear Richard, I´m not sure that Jack is claiming that being a  scholar
is a detriment; rather, I think that he´s talking  about
self-definition in a contained group. A close-knit group,  calling
themselves buddhists will not be very swayed. I think that his line  of
thinking was on the "true Buddhism" line, which neither you not me  are
very keen on. But of course, scholarly knowledge (both Buddhism  and
the social sciences) only enriches our perspective, I think.

On  a more popular level...I fear Erik is right. Definition is 
market-driven  now.
====
I would add that some people, mostly academics,  define Buddhism as a 
collection of facts, dates and dogma. Many  practitioners such as myself define 
the Buddha's teachings as a collection of  techniques to reduce dukkha. This 
creates a large gap between the two groups.  I believe Western Buddhism is 
largely but not exclusively in this latter camp.  Looked at this way there is 
no exclusiveness claimed. For instance, I practice  vipassana meditation 
which is Thera and Mahamudra which is  Tibetan.
 
Jack