Even as a Quaker, I have attended Buddhist "services" and read plenty of books on the subject, from both ends of the spectrum. One of the troubling aspects of those who have gone the traditional route seems to be a fixation with the trappings -- the robe, shaved head and Japanese name. They seem more concerned with becoming "Eastern" than enlightened. What I get from scripture is that the Buddha's purpose was to teach people how to live their lives, not proper bowing technique.

There is a truer purpose to any religion than the evolved rituals in which they all are encased. I doubt if the Buddha would feel any more at home among the distractions of a Buddhist temple or monastery than Christ would in a cathedral. The Buddha knew that the true home of any belief is in the human heart.

-- Ronald M. Horvath

OK, every religion has its trivial fringe -- the Mahayana path of commercialism. But what's trivial about the art of happiness? Here's a snappy little quote from Albert Einstein:

"Everything that the human race has done and thought is concerned with the satisfaction of deeply felt needs and the assuagement of pain. One has to keep this constantly in mind if one wishes to understand spiritual movements and their development. Feeling and longing are the motive force behind all human endeavor and human creation, in however exalted a guise the latter may present themselves." (From the essay "Cosmic Religious Feeling.")

To imply that religious practice should be above these concerns is to exercise an airy virtuecracy. Buddhism's virtue is that it has its feet on the ground.

-- George Beinhorn

Is the author really a professor of religion? He seems entirely confused by what "Zen" and "Buddhism" are all about. First off, he never distinguishes between the two Dogen, one of the great Japanese Zen masters who says, "Anybody who would regard Zen as a school of Buddhism is the devil." Secondly, both demand not to be any "religious" system or any "system" at all. (Of course, this has been ignored by legions of followers.) Thirdly, and most telling, the author states that Buddhism is about renunciation. Buddhism is about nothing of the kind! It is about denial of the self, not self-denial.

-- Tom Galczynski

It was interesting to read the article on the co-opting of Buddhism by New Age marketing types (or by those looking to sell the teachings and avoid having to get that day job).

I've been a student and practitioner of Tibetan Buddhist teachings since the early '70s. My first contact was indeed through books, but it became very obvious, once I had actually started to practice, that to enter fully one needed a relationship with a teacher.

My complaint with the article is that it only showcased two extremes -- the New Agers on one side and the monastics on the other. There is a very sizable contingent of Buddhists who actively practice traditional forms -- as taught by traditional teachers -- while maintaining a nonmonastic lifestyle. They are not mentioned in the article. This is not "read a book and pretend you're enlightened" by any means. Many people have done a lot of intensive meditation practice. Purely in terms of hours, they spend significantly more time on religious practice than the vast majority of Christians. They take the practices they have been taught very seriously, and they take lineage -- the teacher/student/teacher/student continuum -- very seriously.

And quite a few of them are pissed off at an "American Buddhism" born of New Age clichés and book-selling hucksterism.

-- Michael Sullivan

"Old school" Buddhists should be thankful; just imagine if all the white boomers with guilty consciences abandoned their so-called Native American religions -- with attendant holy men, shamans, gift shops and medicine wheels -- to become Buddhists!

-- Chris La Tray

To be sure, "painless" Buddhism is a bit of a contradiction. But the author expects too much from us. Every Catholic is not a priest; every American Buddhist need not be a monk. But, having said that, every Buddhist should incorporate practice in daily life -- by practicing "right livelihood" and (at least moderate) temperance and sacrifice.

-- Tom Barta

I was all prepared to get really upset by Stephen Prothero's article about the current state of American Buddhism. But I really can't be all that upset because he was correct about so much.

I am a daily-practicing Zen Buddhist who bows, chants, meditates, cleans the temple and is taught by a priest who wears robes and has a shaved head. There are lots of places where Buddhism is practiced in America that are the real deal, as Prothero notes.

Basically what my husband and I have noticed is that Buddhism when watered down offers a comforting message to people going through a midlife crisis. We haven't figured out why this is so, but damn if most of the people we see lapping it up aren't over 40. (We're in our mid-20s by the way.)

However, I think that when pressed most of those people would not call themselves Buddhists. They might say they have incorporated elements of Buddhism into their philosophy or that they are of another faith but find some parts of Buddhism useful. But, and it's just a guess, I think most of them would be reluctant to announce to friends that they are Buddhist and equally hesitant to formally take refuge and make the formal commitment to Buddha, dharma and sangha that marks practicing Buddhists all around the world.

But when I find myself getting worked up to heights of pomposity, I remind myself that there are plenty of devoted practicing Buddhists of all ethnicities in America to tide us over until this fad peters out. If some elements of my faith offer a soothing balm to those who are hurting, I can't be too upset.

-- Cressida Lennox Magaro

Maya Angelou reads from "The Heart of a Woman"