@Jikishin Good points, and I would insist that the relationship isn’t just an adaptive taking of shape, but a dynamic mutual reconfiguring of vessel *and* of Dharma, as it happened every time Dharma entered a new civilization (e.g. Chinese). I would argue that organizational reform is key, along with new learning environments. The real challenge isn’t to update and catch up with social and cultural change, but to be at the cutting edge.

Since Dharma takes the shape-of-the-vessel, the form(s) of culture it appears in, the saturations enjoyed by multigenerational ethnic Buddhisms are already giving way to new norms of instability, out of which opportunities for coherency in the social, cultural dimensions of practice will either be recognized and used, or… the ol’ prophecy of Decline gets to be self-fulfilling.

I imagine sangha in a phase, such as in the body’s circulatory system, wherein diversity and differentiation rule, like blood reaching extremities and capillaries (reflecting on how ‘together’ it used to be?) not knowing what’s going to happen. Meanwhile the marrow makes blood as usual. So even if we see generations ‘lost’ in skin, ‘exiled’ in limb, I anticipate that the heart/home will also be found in the loose ties of global transience, and that ‘loose’ won’t mean shallow, but provide for depth in ways largely unknown now.

I don’t have much to offer in the way of a vision of what’s to come, but I do think one of the most defining aspects of Western Buddhism that will shape it’s evolution over the next 50 years is the fact that this kind of meta-analysis is happening at all. To truly contemplate one’s personal practice and desire for awakening within the larger context of history, culture and global politics–that feels new. Or at least, much more far-reaching than it has before.

I agree that this analysis needs to include more self-reflection within Western Buddhism itself, all the way down to the small group level. There seems to be a kind of rigorous inquiry that take place on the cushion (e.g., “What do I know and not know about who I am?”) and even applied historically (“What do I believe and not believe of the Buddha’s teachings?”), but doesn’t get applied nearly as much at the active community level (“How is this sangha evolving and how is it stuck? How is my relationship to my community evolving and how is it stuck?”). Including study on the history of western Buddhism in practice circles is a killer idea.

One thing I know is that communities tend to evolve not in anticipation of demand, but in response to it. What do we as practitioners want out of Western Buddhism that we are not finding? Whatever that is, we will have to help create it ourselves.