The “Two Buddhisms” Typology: Convert vs. Heritage Communities
In the sociology of religion, the development of Buddhism in the West is often categorized into two distinct streams. While recent scholarship (such as that by Chen and Cheong) suggests this binary is blurring, it remains the primary framework for understanding the divergence in practice, demographics, and priorities between Convert Buddhists and Immigrant (Heritage) Buddhists.
1. Convert Buddhism (“Modernist Buddhism”)
Primarily composed of white, middle-to-upper-class practitioners who discovered Buddhism as adults.
- Focus: “Meditation-centric.” The practice is often framed as a psychological tool for stress reduction, self-actualization, or philosophical inquiry.
- De-Ritualization: Strongly influenced by Protestant Buddhism, this group tends to strip away “cultural baggage” like chanting, bowing, incense, and spirit hierarchies, viewing them as superstitious.
- Authority: Relies heavily on texts and individual experience rather than monastic hierarchy.
- Setting: Meditation centres, retreats, and secular clinics.
2. Heritage Buddhism (“Ethnic” or “Cradle” Buddhism)
Composed of Asian-American diaspora communities (Chinese, Japanese, Thai, Vietnamese, etc.) who have maintained Buddhism as a multi-generational identity.
- Focus: “Merit-centric.” The practice often revolves around Merit Making (Punya)—supporting the monastic community (Sangha) to generate good karma for oneself and one’s family.
- Community Cohesion: The temple serves not just as a place of silence, but as a community hub for language schools, festivals, and social networking.
- Cosmology: Accepts the broader metaphysical claims of Buddhism (rebirth, pure lands, bardo states) without needing to psychologize them.
The Friction Point: “Real” Buddhism?
A common tension arises when Convert Buddhists dismiss Heritage practices as “cultural accretions” or “superstition,” claiming to practice the “original” teachings of the Buddha. Critics point out that this is a form of orientalism—appropriating the philosophy while rejecting the people and culture that preserved it for 2,500 years. Conversely, Heritage communities sometimes view Converts as “dharma shoppers” who lack commitment to the ethical and communal foundations of the path.
I wonder…
- How does the “Mindfulness Movement” in corporate America represent the ultimate extreme of Convert Buddhism (stripping the “Buddhism” out entirely)?
- Will the next generation (the children of converts and the children of immigrants) merge into a single “American Buddhism,” or will the divide deepen?
- How do practitioners of color who are not Asian-American fit into this binary? (See: Black Buddhist Summit)
- Connection to explore: Scientific Materialism as the filter that forces Convert Buddhism to reject the metaphysical aspects of the Dharma.
References
- Nattier, Jan. (1998). “Who is a Buddhist? Charting the Landscape of Buddhist America.” Faces of Buddhism in America.
- Prebish, Charles S. (1999). Luminous Passage: The Practice and Study of Buddhism in America. University of California Press.
- Cheah, Joseph. (2011). Race and Religion in American Buddhism. Oxford University Press.
- Han, Chenxing. “Be the Refuge: Raising the Voices of Asian American Buddhists”