Here’s what I believe is a cultural observation:
The buddhism that landed in the West
has mostly been interpreted through a Green or higher lens (occasionally Orange like Sam Harris), so people think Buddhism
is (1) itself green and (2) a coherent concept (rather than a wide and branching set of interrelated and sometimes contradictory religions, lineages, philosophies, cultural beliefs, etc). People say things like Buddhism is a philosophy, not a religion
for example, or buddhism has more transformative practices
or is more mystical.
Often they’re comparing it to Christianity. I think this is mistaken; I think they’re the same, but most of the Christianity
in the West is interpreted through an Amber or lower lens, because that’s what’s most available in our own culture. This would be true of the vast majority of the Buddhism in Thailand and other places where it’s commonplace. Mostly Buddhists in countries where it’s the majority religion (equivalent of Christianity) are worshipping statues or getting a meal and an education, not contemplating Nagarjuna and nonduality. All the critiques people throw at so-called Christianity are actually critiques of lower levels of development, and all of the praise people throw at so-called Buddhism is actually praise of higher levels of development. In other words, unsurprisingly, I’m claiming that all the criticism and praise is projection and not inherently in the religions themselves. This leads me to an almost-prediction: I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing Orange and Green and Teal interpretations of Christianity in Asia and the Middle East, where it’s foreign.
I want to say more about Christianity at higher levels, and I want to say more about why I think this noticing matters, but I’ll save that so I can go ahead and post before 3p central.