Thomas Tweed’s missive, titled ‘Who is a Buddhist?’, dissects the Buddhist community and separates those who identify with, or simply dabble in, the faith into more appropriate categories. In this piece, Tweed identifies various levels of involvement in Buddhism, classifying its followers in groupings from the faithful to those who simply show passing interest. Most importantly, Tweed separates the sheep from the goats by making it clear to his audience: just because someone participates in Buddhist practices, they should not be automatically identified as Buddhist. In fact, Tweed tells us, there might be a more accurate title for them elsewhere. Initially, Tweed helps his audience understand the definition of a Buddhist ‘sympathizer’;
…show more content…
Tweed employs Emma Layman’s definition, stating that dharma-hoppers are those individuals searching for a ‘magical key to happiness and peace of mind, then dropping out’ (Tweed, 382) in favor of pursuing another religion that might hold more promise. Dharma-hoppers, much more likely to jump from one faith system to another over time, constantly search for happiness that is eluding them. Again, while lukewarm participants openly acknowledge their faith and sympathizers incorporate its elements strategically without affirming their participation, dharma-hoppers try Buddhism on for size and often leave quickly; these participants regularly shift their loyalties to the next belief system in search of fulfillment. An important difference between dharma-hoppers and sympathizers is that dharma-hoppers likely identify as Buddhist at some point and then abandon the faith, where sympathizers will not ever officially identify as Buddhist. (Tweed, …show more content…
In this way, the social status quo is left unchallenged and the sympathizer gets to participate in their activities without the threat of contest from potentially concerned friends of relatives. Were the sympathizer to become even a lukewarm participant, their social structure would likely change and a great deal of personal turmoil might arise as a result of their choice.
Should they choose to become a dharma-hopper instead of a sympathizer, the participant would declare their belief openly, only to abandon it in a hurry. While this might seem preferable to closet participation, the believer is again left with the social stigma attached to not only Buddhism, but to their lack of steadfast commitment to any faith at all. Should society get wind of such a perceived personality flaw, the level of general disapproval would be high. At the end of the day, society prefers a believer that is constant, moderate, and predictable over one that flits from faith to faith without any
Tweed employs Emma Layman’s definition, stating that dharma-hoppers are those individuals searching for a ‘magical key to happiness and peace of mind, then dropping out’ (Tweed, 382) in favor of pursuing another religion that might hold more promise. Dharma-hoppers, much more likely to jump from one faith system to another over time, constantly search for happiness that is eluding them. Again, while lukewarm participants openly acknowledge their faith and sympathizers incorporate its elements strategically without affirming their participation, dharma-hoppers try Buddhism on for size and often leave quickly; these participants regularly shift their loyalties to the next belief system in search of fulfillment. An important difference between dharma-hoppers and sympathizers is that dharma-hoppers likely identify as Buddhist at some point and then abandon the faith, where sympathizers will not ever officially identify as Buddhist. (Tweed, …show more content…
In this way, the social status quo is left unchallenged and the sympathizer gets to participate in their activities without the threat of contest from potentially concerned friends of relatives. Were the sympathizer to become even a lukewarm participant, their social structure would likely change and a great deal of personal turmoil might arise as a result of their choice.
Should they choose to become a dharma-hopper instead of a sympathizer, the participant would declare their belief openly, only to abandon it in a hurry. While this might seem preferable to closet participation, the believer is again left with the social stigma attached to not only Buddhism, but to their lack of steadfast commitment to any faith at all. Should society get wind of such a perceived personality flaw, the level of general disapproval would be high. At the end of the day, society prefers a believer that is constant, moderate, and predictable over one that flits from faith to faith without any