I haven't had the time to read this article carefully (I will do so later), but it's very problematic to "gatekeep" religion or knowledge. If you're learning from eastern masters, if the original intent of the religion was to spread widely to any interested party, if you're being curious and respectful (you can even respectfully criticize, reject, or condemn any culture -- this is what enables rejecting and criticizing fascism even if not in your own nation; and this is what enables us to improve our society with cultural exchange). So on the surface the criticism here isn't valid at all.
Second, no person is obliged to adhere to a standard defined hundreds of years ago (or otherwise). Buddhism, and all cultures, are allowed to evolve according to our better understanding of science, the universe, ourselves, even philosophy, etc.. And also to fit well into people's lives and local culture. Most of the spirit of the Buddha is that of finding the truth and achieving enlightenment -- being too stuck to his every word is contrary to the spirit of his teachings. Secularity (I am a secular Buddhist) wasn't even too well defined in the time of Buddha I think.
If you don't want to learn anything about Buddhism, only the basics of meditation, no one should stop you. I think most teachings are very beautiful and well worthy of study, but that's ultimately up to yourself.
If you want to learn more, I thoroughly recommend masters like Thich Nhat Hanh and reading (perhaps commentated) Buddha's original thoughts (I believe Dhammapada summarizes many of them).
Quite right, and you’ll find that Chen (the author and interviewee) is not really pointing to the aspect of adaptation as being problematic, more so the ends to which Buddhist practice is being repurposed.
A few relevant excerpts:
> The Dalai Lama was instrumental in advancing the secularization of meditation. For him it was in part a political calculation. He wanted to make Buddhism relevant and useful to the West.
> I think all the teachers had some qualms about being forced to leave the ethical aspects of Buddhism out of the workplace. They were not being hired to make the employees more ethical; they were being hired to make them more productive.
> Interestingly enough, I think that companies have been able to command great self-sacrifice from Americans in a way that no other institution can today. I would argue that companies or workplaces have become the new faith communities that are replacing organized religion.
> But there are downsides to this. We start to organize our selves, communities, and spiritualities around capitalism’s goals of efficiency and productivity, ignoring other possible ethics of justice, kinship, and beauty. Ultimately, companies, which are driven by the bottom line, cannot offer us a “solution” for a flourishing life.
When I think of the startup I left, and which took so much of my life, it’s easy to characterize it as a quasi cult.
Second, no person is obliged to adhere to a standard defined hundreds of years ago (or otherwise). Buddhism, and all cultures, are allowed to evolve according to our better understanding of science, the universe, ourselves, even philosophy, etc.. And also to fit well into people's lives and local culture. Most of the spirit of the Buddha is that of finding the truth and achieving enlightenment -- being too stuck to his every word is contrary to the spirit of his teachings. Secularity (I am a secular Buddhist) wasn't even too well defined in the time of Buddha I think.
If you don't want to learn anything about Buddhism, only the basics of meditation, no one should stop you. I think most teachings are very beautiful and well worthy of study, but that's ultimately up to yourself.
If you want to learn more, I thoroughly recommend masters like Thich Nhat Hanh and reading (perhaps commentated) Buddha's original thoughts (I believe Dhammapada summarizes many of them).