Buddhism and the New Age
Vishvapani
---o0o---
ON MAY 25TH 1880 Madame Helena Petrova Blavatsky and Colonel Henry
Steel Olcott, took the three refuges and the five precepts from a Buddhist priest in a
temple in Galle, a coastal town in Sri Lanka, before a large crowd of Sinhalese. 'When we
had finished the last of the Silas and offered flowers in the customary way', Olcott wrote
in his diary, 'there was a mighty shout to make one's nerves tingle'.1
He and Blavatsky were the founders of the Theosophical Society, one of
the most influential religious movements of the late 19th Century and in this ceremony
Olcott became the first American and Blavatsky the first European 2 formally to convert to
Buddhism. The twin legacies of Theosophy are the introduction of Buddhism to the West and
the amorphous set of beliefs and practices which have come to be known as 'the New Age'.
Buddhism and the New Age have been associated ever since, converging
spectacularly in the counter-cultural movements of the 1960's. In a recent paper Denise
Cush concludes that 'there is a close, entangled and ambiguous relationship between
British Buddhism and the New Age' which 'can be traced back to a common ancestor in
Theosophy'.3 This entanglement has led to popular identifications of Buddhism as a part of
the same movement as the New Age; the assumption on the part of many 'New Age' people that
Buddhism supports their views; and the subtle influence of New Age attitudes and
assumptions on Buddhists' understanding of their own tradition.
Nonetheless, Buddhism and the New Age are very different. They have
emerged from very different histories, travelling on different historical trajectories and
based on different philosophical assumptions. Cush identifies a changing relationship over
the last two decades between British Buddhist groups and New Age activities from
'closeness to a conscious differentiation, followed by a diversification of approaches'.
The initial closeness derived from the influence of the counter-cultural trends of the
1960s is thrusting both Buddhism and the New Age to prominence. The period of separation
occurred as Buddhists sought, in the 1970s and 1980s to establish their own identity. But
by the 1990s alienation from conventional religion, party politics and the conditions of
consumer-capitalist society have generated renewed interest in both movements throwing
them together once more. With the increased size and confidence of Buddhist movements in
the West, Buddhists are in a position to explore ways of working alongside others and the
last few years have seen a number of Buddhist initiatives in New Age venues. But what are
the issues involved in this renewed encounter?
THE NEW AGE
THE INDEFINABILITY OF THE NEW AGE is at the heart of its nature. Is it
a coherent entity, or simply a catch-all phrase describing essentially separate
developments? There is no definitive set of beliefs or practices which are held in common
by everyone to whom the term may be applied, but something is clearly happening. What are
the distinguishing characteristics of the phenomenon we call New Age? What are the
underlying attitudes and assumptions of which New Age practices are expressions?
Most commentators date the emergence of a distinctive New Age
philosophy from the work of the American Theosophist Alice Bailey (1880-1949) which
blended occultism, spiritualism and apocalyptic vision with the prevailing Zeitgeist. As
Dell deChant comments
'The New Age is the product of mid-20th century America. It becomes
noticeable in the late sixties and ever more pronounced since then as its chief carrier,
the 'baby-boom' generation' continues to experiment with beliefs and ideologies which are,
at best, distinct from those of capitalism, mainline Christianity and participatory
democracy. Its most obvious origin is found in the work of Alice A Bailey'.4
Many New Age activities found in Britain have their origin in the USA
and the UK has, in any case been subject to similar trends. But rather than attempting to
account for the forms the New Age has taken or comparing New Age activities with Buddhist
ones it is more important to discern their respective philosophical bases and underlying
attitudes. A British New Age Creed is offered by William Bloom of St. James Piccadilly,
which gives a starting-point for deducing these.
"All life-all existence-is the manifestation of Spirit, of the
Unknowable, of that supreme consciousness known by many different names in different
cultures.
The purpose and dynamic of all existence is to bring Love, Wisdom,
Enlightenment into full manifestation.
All religions are expressions of this same inner reality.
All life, as we perceive it with the five human senses, or with
scientific instruments, is only the outer veil of an inner, causal reality.
Similarly, human beings are two-fold creatures-with an outer temporary
personality and a multi-dimensional inner being (soul or higher self).
The outer personality is limited and tends towards materialism.
The inner personality is unlimited and tends towards love.
Our spiritual teachers are those souls who are liberated from the need
to incarnate and who express unconditional love, wisdom and Enlightenment. Some of these
beings are well-known and have inspired the world religions. Some are unknown and work
invisibly.
All life in all its different forms and states, is interconnected
energy-and this includes our deeds, feelings and thoughts. We therefore work with spirit
and these energies in co-creating our reality.
Although held in the dynamic of cosmic love, we are jointly responsible
for the state of ourselves, of our environment and of all life.
During this period of time the evolution of the planet and of humanity
has reached a point when we are undergoing a fundamental spiritual change in our
individual and mass consciousness. This is why we speak of a 'New Age''.5
The Religion of the Self
Bloom's creed is characterised by its emphasis on 'inner reality' as
the source of meaning and value. But in what sense, one might ask, is this reality
'inner'? It must be that it pertains to experience and in this way it overlaps with the
'inner personality'. But experience has been universalised and, with the substitution of a
capital letter, love becomes 'Love' and wisdom, 'Wisdom'. This implies a substratum of
existence which is 'Unknowable' and indescribable, but at the same time is crucial to the
philosophy which follows (which is the cause of the vagueness and indeterminacy of so much
New Age discourse). These are mystical beliefs which are neither rationally elaborated nor
theologically defined, but which may-possibly-be experienced. 'Spiritual' qualities are
separated from the 'outer' world of actions and ethics except where that world is
redefined in spiritual terms: 'All life-all existence-is the manifestation of Spirit, of
the Unknowable, of that supreme consciousness'. In a similar way 'all religions are
expressions of this same inner reality'.
This, then, is the 'religion of the self'. At its heart is a
Rousseau-esque sanctification of 'Inner being' which is outside history, innocent, pure,
but nonetheless authoritative. And there is plainly no question of examining the
assumptions out of which 'inner being' might be constructed. In practice, this results in
a recurrent concern with personal experience. In psychological terms, the New Age speaks
the language of individualism while in philosophical terms it speaks the language of
immanence, at times implying a monistic metaphysic. These characteristics underlie its
remaining features.
Eclecticism
The variety and all-inclusiveness of New-Age activities is perhaps its
most remarkable feature. Organisationally there is deep mistrust of institutions and a
preference for non-hierarchical models of operation. This is informed by a bias against
rational thought or systems of belief and towards intuition and 'holistic paradigms'. But
in practice the extent of New Age eclecticism suggests that the particular activity a New
Ager chooses to participate in is secondary to the question of what they get from it, what
it does for them, how it makes them feel.
New Age as a Market Sector
Another factor influencing the eclecticism of the New Age is its role
within consumer society. Ethnic art and music, traditional medicines, handicrafts and
clothes expand the range of consumer options. Markets exist in ideas (which can be
obtained via books, magazines and seminars) and in experiences (which can be bought
through workshops, therapies and retreats). And market forces will define as 'New Age'
whatever can be sold as such (or alternatively, whatever cannot be sold as anything else).
For the consuming New Ager these phenomena offer the prospect of
perpetual novelty on one's own terms. If you don't like the goods, you find another
supplier. Where there is an acknowledgement that commoditisation means a qualitative
erosion there is a compensatory stress on compression and intensity:
Enlightenment in a weekend workshop
Carrying this a stage further, one branch of the New Age discards
counter-cultural orientations in favour of 'prosperity teachings' (money as energy, life
and empowerment; poverty as self-hatred). As the Sanyassin slogan had it 'Jesus saves,
Moses invests, Bhagwan spends'. This is spiritualised materialism masquerading as
materialised spirituality.
Neo-Paganism-the Decontextualisation of Tradition
New Age-ism is predicated on dissatisfaction with Christianity and an
attempt to find alternative forms of spirituality. It is informed by the revival of
non-Christian spiritual traditions such as Wiccan, Rosicrucianism, alchemy, Egyptian
religion and the Eastern traditions of Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism and Sufism all of which
are cheerfully added to the eclectic mix.
But eclecticism should not be confused with openness. The
self-orientation and spiritual consumerism of the New Age impose their own agenda and its
approach to paganism as natural religion and animism is informed by modern perspectives.
Thus the sense of the sanctity of the natural world augments both ecological concerns and
the view of the self as natural and pure. The pagan notion of the immanence of gods,
powers and spirits coheres with modern (and sometimes quasi-scientific) interest in
psychic phenomena. Ancient mythologies inform psychologically derived 'personal myths' and
the cult of the Goddess provides feminism with a deity. Gaia does all these things for
everyone.
The New Apocalypse
A final strand is the belief that mankind is or may be entering a New
Age-a golden age of spiritual awakening governed by new paradigms of thought. This can be
seen as an outgrowth of Christian apocalypticism shorn of the Christian eschatological
imagery-Armageddon, the return of Jesus and images from the Book of Revelation. In its
place are symbols from (for example) astrology (the Age of Aquarius), biology (the
evolution of the human race), parapsychology (harmonic convergence), occultism (the
influence of the spiritual masters of Theosophy and Scientology who preside over the
world) and science fiction (where the spiritual masters may inhabit UFOs)
. Some of the judgmental qualities of traditional eschatology live on
in the notion that we are faced with a choice between a New Age and ecological or nuclear
catastrophe. For the most part, however, there is a utopian and optimistic sense that the
movement into the next phase of mankind's development is inevitable. In this respect the
New Age is reminiscent of the Marxist and socialist utopias and indeed they have
historical roots in common. However, the New Age has turned against the Marxist philosophy
of revolution and socialist engagement. Alienation from conventional politics has been one
of the principal factors in its development which displaces its idealism into an
inconceivable future to be attained, in Bloom's words, by 'a fundamental spiritual change
in our individual and mass consciousness' rather than through tangible reforms. In the UK
the political movements which have influenced the New Age have mainly been concerned with
protest and opposition-especially CND, Animal Liberation and the environmental pressure
groups.
Philosophical Underpinnings
Christian theology distinguishes between immanence and transcendence as
ways of describing the manner in which God is related to the world. Immanence denotes
God's indwelling and omnipresence in the world while transcendence indicates a God who is
infinitely above and beyond it. As Bloom's concern with 'inner reality' suggests, New Age
discourse tends to be expressed in terms of immanence. 'Self-religion' finds meaning
within; paganism sees the world as ensouled while apocalyptic utopianism envisages a
variation on the theme of heaven on earth.
2. BUDDHISM AND THE NEW AGE
THEOSOPHY AND ITS NEW AGE OFFSPRING have been central influences in the
construction of Western views of Buddhism which Mme. Blavatsky favoured as 'incomparably
higher, more noble, more philosophic and more scientific than any other church or
religion'7. In particular the esoteric interests of the Theosophists underlie the
contemporary attraction of the tantra and Tibetan Lamas-whose true progenitors are perhaps
the Mahatmas who communicated telepathically with Mme. Blavatsky. As AP Sinnet wrote in
true orientalist fashion in Esoteric Buddhism (1883), 'Ceylon concerns itself merely with
morals, Tibet, or rather the adepts of Tibet, with the science of Buddhism' 7. The
Buddhist Society of London was founded in 1924 as a lodge of the Theosophical Society and
Christmas Humphreys, its president, retained a commitment to Mme. Blavatsky's teachings
throughout his life.8 Sangharakshita, too, was decisively influenced by Theosophy through
his reading, at the age of fourteen, of Blavatsky's Isis Unveiled which brought him to a
realisation that 'I was not a Christian-that I never had been and never would be'.
However, enthralled as he was by the book, its effect was 'almost entirely negative' 9 and
it was overwhelmed by his reading of Buddhist texts on which he realised 'that I was a
Buddhist and always had been' 10. This set him on an Eastward trajectory, to encounters
with Buddhism in the land of its origin.
When Sangharakshita and other experienced Buddhist teachers arrived in
the West in the 1960s they had been preceded, and in some respects pre-empted, by the
Theosophically-influenced versions of Buddhism popularised by Humphreys and Alan Watts and
enthusiastically travestied by Lobsang Rampa and the Beats. In these ways, Buddhism
overlapped with the New Age which, in many respects has continued to support its spread.
Buddhist books are sold in New Age bookshops, Buddhist teachers frequently appear in New
Age magazines and meditation has become widely popularised. In return Buddhism has
provided New Age thinkers with a wealth of images, terms, concepts and texts.
The two movements were also connected by their counter-cultural
principles. This association was deeply invigorating for British Buddhism and enabled the
FWBO, for example, to cast off the staid and middle-class character of the previous
generation of British Buddhists and distance itself from the ossification of much Eastern
Buddhism. Buddhism is intrinsically 'alternative' in the West in that it offers an
alternative to Christianity and to the many forms of materialism. For this reason a
kinship exists between Buddhists and the world-views and counter-cultural experiments of
the New Age. But 'identity is the vanishing point of resemblance', as Wallace Stevens
says, and this kinship should not be allowed to obscure the profound differences. In an
atmosphere of eclecticism, minorities can thrive: vegetarians are no longer considered
cranks and neither are Buddhists. But Buddhists should beware of being added to the New
Age soup-vegetarian or not.
If it is difficult to define the New Age, it is perhaps no less
difficult to define Buddhism, but unless we can be clear what is distinctive about
Buddhism we will be at the mercy of endless compromises and obscurations. I suggest that
at the heart of the many expressions of the Dharma is a concern with the Truth, the full
realisation of which is conterminous with Enlightenment. This emphasis runs contrary to
the common Western perception of Buddhism as a path of progressively intensifying
spiritual experience. That is to say, Buddhism is seen as a form of mysticism and
mysticism is understood in terms of experience. In an address to a conference of
'scientists and mystics' Sangharakshita was at pains to stress that he identifed himself
with neither party:
'To me as a Buddhist, terms such as 'mystic' and 'mystical' are in fact
quite strange, even alien, not to say repugnant, and in speaking and writing about
Buddhism I prefer to avoid them'11
This does not mean that Buddhism is not concerned with experience, but
it does not see experience-even mystical experience-as an end in itself. When mysticism is
turned into a philosophy it becomes monism-the belief in an underlying unity between all
phenomena within the context of a metaphysical absolute, mysticism being the personal
experience of such an absolute. Buddhism seeks to avoid all such absolutisation and
reification and to understand experience in a broader, non-dualistic context:
'One might say Science represents an extreme of objectivity and reason
whereas Mysticism represents an extreme of subjectivity and emotion... Science seeks to
reduce the subject to the object, Mysticism to absorb the object in the subject. Buddhism,
following here as elsewhere a Middle Way, represents a dissolution of the subject-object
dichotomy in a blissful non-dual Awareness wherein... 'that which is exterior coincides
with that which is interior'.12
In a similar vein, in a lecture on 'Enlightenment as Experience and
Non-Experience' Sangharakshita proposes that we think of the spiritual life not in terms
of experience, but in terms of the metaphors of growth, work and duty.13 The 'Truth' to
which a Buddhist aspires has to be lived, felt and seen and it is likewise the Truth of
his or her experience, but this is not the same as saying that it is experience. This is a
crucial point of divergence from the New Age, as 'the religion of the Self'. For Buddhism
there is no abiding Self or soul which is not subject to change.
The Buddhist concern with Truth is fundamentally at odds with the
eclecticism and relativism of the New Age and Buddhists have to make distinctions between
teachings and traditions which the New Age is happy to mix together. 'Truth' here does not
refer to the various doctrinal expressions of the Dharma which Buddhist tradition does not
consider to be ultimately 'true' in themselves. But such expressions are nonetheless
considered indispensable means to Enlightenment and for this reason Right Understanding is
the starting point of the Eight-fold path. It is therefore incumbent upon Buddhists to
clarify their own views and to distinguish which of the views they encounter are
compatible with the Dharma.
Thus a Buddhist cannot agree that 'all religions are essentially
expressions of the same inner reality'. Sometimes this stance is urged on Buddhists with
the coercive pressure of a theological correctness, but Buddhism does not even regard
itself as 'an expression of reality'. It sees its own teachings and practices as means of
creating conditions which conduce to the perception of reality and Buddhists will judge
other teachings by the same criterion. Where there are differences of belief and practice
Buddhists need to ask (in the ample spirit of friendly dialogue and tolerance) whether
other religions, philosophies and spiritual paths are based, ultimately on one of the two
essential 'wrong views': nihilism and eternalism. For example, in his belief in 'spirit'
and 'the Unknowable' Bloom proposes a metaphysical substratum underlying and uniting all
phenomena. A Buddhist analysis will see this, like Bloom's belief in a 'soul or higher
self', as a form of eternalism-not to say as disguised theism. Alternatively, some
manifestations of the New Age proceed on the assumption that true happiness is possible if
we can but change to this diet, use this ethnic medicine, align these energies using those
crystals, amulets, or charms, or take up a particular form of alternative medicine,
martial art, or therapy. The suggestion that ultimate satisfaction can be found in a
physical training or a particular form of therapy is essentially materialist and a
Buddhist analysis will interpret them as a form of nihilism.
Similarly problematic is the belief that all religions are simply
differing forms of 'spirituality'. Such an approach will see the Buddhist tradition as one
resource among others from which an individual can draw. But why should one chose Buddhist
spirituality rather than Christian, feminist or 'earth' spirituality when they are all
just different kinds of experience and are all equally true/false/useful? If we simply
take what we want from Buddhism we are in danger of ignoring the aspects which are
uncomfortable and challenging-in other words, those parts of the tradition which will
force one to change.
For this reason it is important that Buddhism is presented in a way
which makes it clear that it cannot be incorporated into a life which is otherwise
unchanged or subsumed innocuously into a New Age mix. Like the New Age, Dzogchen, Tantra
and Zen tend to use the language of immanence: the doctrine of Buddha nature, the idea
that we are already Enlightened-and the approaches to practice which follow from this-are
all examples. In a cultural context which asserts subjective experience above universal
values and where consumption is a primary mode of being such teachings are open to
misinterpretation. An alternative approach-using the language of transcendence-asserts
that we are not presently Enlightened (and, in fact that we are primordially deluded),
that we need to change ourselves if we are to become Enlightened and that Buddhism is a
path from delusion to Enlightenment, from Samsara to Nirvana. Some approaches will work
and others will not, but one cannot say, with the New Age, that all approaches are equally
valid.Buddhists cannot agree that they are helping to prepare for the Golden Dawn and the
Age of Aquarius. A Buddhist approach to politics and society has to rest on pratiitya
samutpaada, the principle that 'all things arise in dependence upon conditions'. Speaking
of the FWBO Subhuti writes in Buddhism for Today
'there are... no millennial illusions. No golden age is at hand. The
modern world is too complex and too pluralistic to be transformed in that way'. 14
However, Buddhists can work for meaningful change. As at any other time
in history it is possible to create conditions which are more conducive to human
well-being and allow the possibility of spiritual development. But this development takes
place individually, not en masse in the manner of a totalitarian state or imperial
expansion. As Subhuti says, 'empires deny individuality and breed their own expansion'.
There is a Buddhist saying that 'Samsara is endless' and any belief that a utopian
full-stop can be placed at the end of history will strike Buddhists as naïve escapism,
speaking more of the fin de millennium fear of social collapse than of spiritual
aspiration.
In spite of this the theosophical heritage lives on among contemporary
Western Buddhists in the continuing idealisations of Tibet and Tibetan Buddhism, which
Donald Lopez dubs 'new age orientalism'. He has in mind the fantasy version of Tibet:
'exalted as a surrogate self endowed with all that the West lacks. It
is Tibet that will regenerate the West by showing us, prophetically, what it can be by
showing us what it has been. It is Tibet that can save the West, cynical and materialist,
from itself. Tibet is seen as a cure for the ever-dissolving West, restoring its
spirit'.15
This Tibet is shrouded in snows and mystery in equal measure, secreted
behind the Himalayas in the most inaccessible region of the world: the last abode (now
cruelly displaced in its turn by the Chinese shadow of Western materialism) of legendary
beasts, magical powers and perennial wisdom. To the extent that Western followers of
Tibetan Buddhism perceive it in this way they merge into New Age appropriations of that
tradition. The Dalai Lama, the Bardo Thödol and, to a lesser extent, the idea of tantric
initiation all figure prominently in New Age mythologizing.
As an articulation of fantasy compensations for psychic inadequacy the
New Age movement is not a cure so much as a symptom. Over fifty years ago W.H. Auden
prophesied a New Age apocalypse in a long work called 'For The Time Being'. Herod is
contemplating the impending massacre of the innocents. He does not want to issue the order
because, as he says 'I am a liberal. I want everyone to be happy'. But civilisation is
already crumbling:
'I have tried everything. I have prohibited the sale of crystals and
ouija boards; the courts are empowered to sentence alchemists to hard labour in the mines;
it is a statutory offence to turn tables or feel bumps'.
What he fears is a future where:
''Reason will be replaced by Revelation.... Knowledge will degenerate
into a riot of subjective visions-feelings in the solar plexus induced by
under-nourishment, angelic images generated by fevers or drugs. Whole cosmogonies will be
created out of some forgotten personal resentment, complete epics written in private
languages, the daubs of school-children ranked above the greatest masterpieces....
Idealism will be replaced by Materialism. Life after death will be an eternal dinner-party
where all the guests are only 20 years old... Divine honours will be paid to silver
teapots, shallow depressions in the earth, names on maps, domestic pets. The New
Aristocracy will consist exclusively of hermits, bums and permanent invalids'.16
This is the icy hell of subjectivity whose inmates, relativizing truth,
can speak only to themselves or of themselves to each other. Is it a portrait of the New
Age? So elusive a phenomenon can never be adequately defined, but the characterisation I
have suggested implies an ideology of underlying assumptions-the religion of the self,
eclecticism and social fantasy-whose influence extends far beyond the many-tentacled reach
of its institutions and organisations. Buddhism, too, contains underlying assumptions and
has a distinctive approach which derives from them. These distinctions must be insisted
upon however useful Buddhism and the New Age may be to each other and however much certain
formulations of Buddhism may conceal the differences. This is not to say that the people
one meets in New Age contexts are necessarily definable in its terms: the New Age is where
people start looking when they want an alternative to conventional society. There may well
be ways in which the two can live together. Buddhists might see the New Age as a kind of
contemporary ethnic religion which can co-exist with Western Buddhism as tribal and
national traditions co-exist with Eastern Buddhism. But Buddhists must retain a sense of
the universality of their own tradition and of the extent to which it surpasses the New
Age frameworks which will seek to define it. One has only to think of the absorption of
Indian Buddhism by Hinduism to see how such a relationship can break down. Denise Cush
suggests that the New Age, needing to be grounded in a tradition, 'could root itself in a
Western form of non-sectarian or Mahayana Buddhism'.17 One sees something of the sort
already taking place in the USA. However, Buddhists will insist that what passes as
Buddhism is true to its name.
Finally the New Age is not paganism. It is a modern (or even a
post-modern) phenomenon; it is a symptom of rootlessness, not a restoration of roots. The
New Age seeks to consume traditions such as Buddhism as resources for personal experience.
In these respects it embodies a reductio ad absurdum of contemporary liberalism in the
realm of religious belief and practice. A New Age Buddhism would be a reductio ad absurdum
of Buddhist tradition; it would be a Buddhism constructed from Western fantasies of the
East and post-Christian yearnings for salvation. As Stephen Batchelor comments:
'Today the fear of invasion is more one of psychological and social
breakdown than of external invasion. instead of Theosophy, there is now the New Age,
another resurgent Gnostic/Romantic fantasy that claims Buddhism as its own, just as Mani
did in the Third century and Mme. Blavatsky in the 19th. But the Dharma will remain
unheard as long as its voice is drowned out by the clamour of these irrational and
eclectic yearnings'.18
Buddhism in the West is growing out of old traditions, but it should
not simply consume those traditions according to modern agendas and discard them as
worthless husks. Western Buddhists are attempting to create a new tradition - a tradition
of Western Buddhism within which individuals can develop beyond subjective experience, can
grow through activity and engagement and finally come not just to follow the Truth, but to
embody it.
Notes
How the Swans Came to the Lake R. Fields, London 1986, p.97
The Awakening of the West, S. Batchelor, London, 1994 p. 269.
British Buddhism and the New Age, D. Cush, unpublished paper.
Taproots of the New: New Thought and the New Age, D. deChant, in The
Quest, Vol 4 No.4 1991, Wheatton, Illinois, p72.
The New Age in Cultural Context', P. Heelas, in Religion Vol 23 No 2
April 1993, p104. Heelas also develops the idea that the New Age is 'the religion of the
self'.
S. Batchelor, loc cit.
R. Fields, p98.
S. Batchelor, p 316
Learning to Walk, Sangharakshita, Glasgow, 1990 p91
Ibid. p118.
The Priceless Jewel, Sangharakshita, Windhorse Publications, Glasgow
1993 p142. Delivered as an address to The Wrekin Trust conference on Reality,
Consciousness and Order in 1983.
Ibid p144.
The Taste of Freedom, Sangharakshita, Windhorse Publications, Glasgow,
1990 p87ff.
Buddhism For Today, Subhuti, Glasgow 1988 p174.
New Age Orientalism: the Case of Tibet', Lopez, in Tricycle; III, 3;
1994 p 43
For the Time Being', Auden W.H., in Collected Longer Poems, London
1968, pp187-9.
D. Cush, op. cit.
S. Batchelor, p 271.
---o0o---
Source: www.buddhistmtoday.com
Update: 01-12-2001
