have a visible and active presence in the community, particularly with regard to
representation to the various levels of government (Gamble, 1986; McDonnell,
1986; Buddhist Federation of Australia, 1988; Croucher, 1989; Lyall, 1989: 25± 26;
Humphreys & Ward, 1995: 410). Isolated examples of prejudice between Buddhist
groups can be found: Croucher noted in 1988 that many convert Buddhists
ª look down their noses at the non-meditative aspects of ethnic temple religionº
(Croucher, 1989: 105).
However, some scholars have suggested that the achievements of such ecumenical
groups are limited. Bucknell maintains that the bonds forged by
inter-traditional ecumenical bodies are weak in comparison with those that exist
within federations of groups from the same tradition or lineage. Examples of the
latter are the United Vietnamese Buddhist Congregation of Australia and New
Zealand (formerly the Vietnamese Buddhist Federation of Australia, established
in 1979), to which many Vietnamese groups belong; and the FPMT, a Paris-based
international body, which has currently 15 Australian member groups. Bucknell
concludes that ª There seems ¼ little likelihood of any strong move toward
genuine unity among the various types of Buddhist groups in Australiaº
(Bucknell, 1992: 222). Similarly, Humphreys and Ward note of the Australian
situation that ª Because of their faith’s stress on individual spiritual development
and their varied cultural background in Australia, local Buddhists have shown
little support for organisational unityº (Humphreys & Ward, 1995: 410). Bucknell
also cites the individual and private nature of Buddhist practice as a reason
(Bucknell, 1992: 222± 223).
It is apparent that the ecumenical bodies of Australian Buddhism have not
achieved the same successes as some of their overseas counterparts. In 1991, the
European Buddhist Union consisted of 30 members (themselves national ecumenical
organisations) from 11 countries (Baumann, 1995a: 65). There is scarce
mention of cross-lineage and cross-religion borrowing in studies on Buddhism
in Australia; for example, Croucher discusses a possible synthesis between
Theravada and Zen Buddhism (Croucher, 1989: 117). In contrast, such borrowing
is often mentioned as characteristic of American Buddhism.7 Croucher provides
some examples of inter-religious dialogue, such as a colloquium held on Zen by
the Melbourne Quakers in 1973 (Croucher, 1989: 110± 112), and both Croucher
and Bucknell note increasing interest in Buddhist meditation by Christian clergy,
particularly Catholics (Croucher, 1989: 110± 112; Bucknell, 1992: 221).
On the subject of ecumenism, Croucher wrote in 1989:
38 M. Spuler
The history of Buddhism in Australia has in many respects been
bifurcated and oppositional, with Theravadins pitted against Mahayanists,
the vehemently anti-Christian against eclectics, traditionalists
against iconoclasts and, most recently, the 12,000 or so Anglo-Australian
Buddhists against their 70,000 Asian-Australian counterparts. In
the late 1980s sectarian rivalries have probably become less pronounced;
but while some kind of Theravada-Zen synthesis may be
envisaged, for the most part different groups will probably do their best
to maintain separate identities in an atmosphere of respect and interactive
pluralism. (Croucher, 1989: 123)
The continuing increase in the number of groups and lineages represented
indicates that Buddhism in Australia will remain pluralistic. Diversity of lineage
is also characteristic of American and European Buddhism (Schiller, 1994: 74). In
his narrative history of Buddhism in America Fields writes:
Perhaps we cannot yet talk of an American Buddhism in the same way
we might talk about, say, Chinese or Tibetan Buddhism, and yet we can
certainly talk about an American Buddhist lineageÐ one that is woven
of lineages from all over the Buddhist world, as well as from certain
strands that are characteristically American. (Fields, 1992: xiv)
Similarly, Baumann, in his analysis of historical and contemporary developments
of Buddhism in Europe, observes that
Buddhism in Europe is deeply marked by its heterogeneous and
diverse appearance. A multitude of sub-schools, sub-branches and
independent centres, each focusing more or less entirely on the particular
interpretation of the respective teacher, has evolved. It is dif® cult to
imagine that a uni® ed, jointly practised `European Buddhism’ will
emerge in the next century. (Baumann, 1995a: 65)
Comparisons with American and European Buddhism
Studies of American and European Buddhism have identi® ed a number of
characteristics that have not previously been reported in analyses of Australian
Buddhism: emphasis on lay practice, equality for women, application of democratic
principles, emphasis on ethics, secularisation (this includes emphasis on
the rational nature of Buddhism and its congruence with Western science), and