While the former has to do with one s personal relation and commitment to the Buddhist heritage, the latter is an artificial construct employed to establish positions of authority and power, particularly in relation to other Buddhists. Not only is this contrary to Madhyamaka thought, as I understand it, but it is another strategy for gaining the power of authority. Whoever states the essence of Buddhism implicitly claims the authority of knowing what that essence is. With the preceding comments, it should be clear that the following discussion does not claim to be based on the author s professed possession of a more pure, authentic or true form of Buddhism. The following analysis is, however, based on the author s firm belief that there are real and important differences between the teachings and practices of the Buddhist lineages and the dominating religious culture of the United States.
Exoticism is a well-recognized motive in American religious history.
As empty signifiers they can mean whatever one wants. What one believes the best to be will be based upon one s own assumptions about religion. When the various forms of Buddhism entered the United States, they hardly encountered a religious tabula rasa. The religious culture of the United States was rich and varied, and much more complex than the simplistic division into Protestant, Catholic and Jew. When speaking of a religious culture, we are of course speaking not about a consistent philosophy.