Chapter 19: Buddhist Canons in the Diaspora

This chapter is part of the book The Sacred Editors: Buddhism.

"When people move, texts move with them—but not always in the same shape."

San Francisco, 1975. At the Buddhist Churches of America headquarters on Octavia Street, Reverend Koshin Ogui faces a familiar dilemma. The aging Issei congregation chants the Nembutsu in Japanese, their voices carrying the rhythm of Amida Buddha's name as it has been recited for eight hundred years. But in the back rows, their American-born grandchildren fidget through services they cannot understand, occasionally glancing at English translations that capture the words but miss the devotional melody.

After the service, Ogui retrieves a worn manila folder from his desk—inside are draft translations of Shinran's teachings, annotated with notes about American cultural contexts, theological concepts that need explanation for Western minds, and practical questions about adapting Pure Land Buddhism for families who no longer live in insular Japanese communities. Should they translate tariki as "other-power" or "divine grace"? How do you explain the Larger Sukhavativyuha Sutra to teenagers raised on Protestant Sunday school models?

The folder represents months of careful work by a committee of ministers, but also a fundamental transformation in how Buddhist communities preserve and transmit their most sacred traditions. In the diaspora, maintaining the canon becomes an act not just of preservation but of active reinterpretation, as communities navigate between authentic transmission and meaningful accessibility.

The stakes are higher than translation choices. As Ogui well knows from watching other immigrant communities, sacred texts that cannot speak to new generations risk becoming museum pieces rather than living traditions. Yet adaptation always carries the risk of losing essential meanings that took centuries to develop. The folder on his desk contains more than English words—it holds the future of Buddhist practice in America.

Texts in Transit

As Buddhism spread globally through immigration, exile, and conversion in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, its sacred texts underwent transformations that paralleled but differed significantly from earlier patterns of transmission. Unlike the gradual cultural adaptations that occurred as Buddhism moved from India to China or from China to Japan over centuries, modern diaspora communities faced accelerated pressures for linguistic and cultural translation within single generations.

The refugee exodus from Tibet following the 1959 uprising created perhaps the most dramatic example of canonical preservation under extreme circumstances. Tibetan monastics fleeing to India and Nepal carried what texts they could—sometimes literally on their backs during dangerous mountain crossings—while leaving behind vast monastic libraries accumulated over centuries.¹ The Tibetan exile community subsequently undertook massive projects to reproduce the entire Kangyur and Tengyur by hand and press, establishing new printing centers in Dharamsala and other settlements that would eventually produce editions distributed worldwide.

Yet even this heroic preservation effort involved subtle transformations. Scholar Glenn Mullin notes that texts reproduced in exile often included editorial choices that reflected "immediate practical needs rather than comprehensive scholarly completeness."² Teachings that seemed most relevant for maintaining community identity and spiritual practice in refugee conditions received priority over specialized philosophical treatises or elaborate ritual manuals that required specific cultural contexts no longer available.

Vietnamese Buddhist communities in North America faced different but equally complex challenges. Following the Vietnam War, temple communities led by figures like Thich Thien-An in Los Angeles developed dual-language approaches that maintained liturgical authenticity while creating pathways for American-born practitioners. The Unified Buddhist Church developed English-language editions of core texts like the Lotus Sutra and Pure Land teachings that preserved essential doctrinal content while adding explanatory material addressing questions arising in Western cultural contexts.³

These adaptations reflected not dilution but what scholar Natalie Quli terms "strategic canonicity"—the conscious selection and emphasis of particular texts that could effectively transmit Buddhist principles across cultural and linguistic boundaries.⁴ Communities often discovered that certain sutras or teaching stories translated more successfully than others, leading to informal hierarchies within the canon that differed from traditional arrangements.

Language, Generation, and Authority

Perhaps nowhere are the challenges of diasporic transmission more evident than in the linguistic negotiations required to maintain scriptural authority across generations. Traditional Buddhist communities had developed sophisticated systems for preserving canonical languages—Pali, Sanskrit, Classical Chinese, or literary Tibetan—alongside vernacular explanation and commentary. But diaspora communities often lacked the educational infrastructure to maintain this multilingual competency.

Japanese-American Buddhist communities provide a particularly well-documented case study of this transition. The Buddhist Churches of America, originally established to serve Japanese immigrants, gradually shifted from Japanese-language services using traditional Pure Land texts to English-language adaptations that preserved core theological concepts while adopting forms familiar to American religious culture.⁵ This included creating English-language hymnals, Sunday school curricula, and youth programs that emphasized Buddhism's compatibility with American values of individualism and social progress.

The translation challenges went beyond mere linguistic conversion. Scholar Duncan Williams documents how concepts like gassho (placing palms together in respect) or dana (generous giving) required not just English equivalents but cultural explanations that could convey their significance to practitioners unfamiliar with Buddhist social contexts.⁶ Some communities developed glossaries or study guides that accompanied translated texts, effectively creating parallel canons—one for liturgical use and another for educational understanding.

Thai and Cambodian temple communities in North America often maintained even more complex linguistic arrangements. Core sutras like the Metta Sutta continued to be chanted in Pali for ritual purposes, while sermons and study sessions used combinations of heritage languages and English depending on the congregation's composition. Scholar Paul Numrich observed that these communities frequently developed "code-switching" practices during services, moving fluidly between languages as different concepts or emotional registers seemed to require.⁷

For many diaspora communities, the question of canonical authority became intertwined with generational transition. Elder practitioners often possessed deep familiarity with traditional texts in their original languages but limited ability to explain their significance to English-speaking offspring. Younger practitioners might engage enthusiastically with translated materials but lack the cultural background to appreciate subtleties that seemed obvious to their elders.

This created what Ann Gleig terms "interpretive gaps" that required new forms of canonical stewardship.⁸ In many communities, bilingual practitioners—often those educated in both traditional Buddhist contexts and Western academic settings—assumed roles as cultural translators who could bridge these gaps. Their interpretive choices often proved as influential as the original translation decisions in shaping how diaspora communities understood their canonical inheritance.

The Informal Canon of Practice

Beyond official translations and liturgical adaptations, diaspora Buddhist communities developed what might be called "informal canons"—collections of texts that achieved practical authority through repeated use, recommendation, and community approval rather than traditional ecclesiastical validation. These informal canons often differed significantly from the canonical hierarchies maintained in traditional Buddhist societies.

In many North American convert communities, for example, the writings of contemporary teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh, the Dalai Lama, or Pema Chödrön achieved canonical status that sometimes exceeded that of classical sutras. Scholar Jeff Wilson notes that these modern interpreters often functioned as "canonical mediators" who made ancient teachings accessible through contemporary idioms while maintaining connections to traditional sources.⁹

The popularity of certain texts in diaspora settings often reflected their perceived relevance to contemporary concerns rather than their traditional status within comprehensive canonical systems. The Heart Sutra, for instance, became widely known in Western Buddhist communities partly because its brief length and mystical imagery translated effectively across cultural boundaries, while longer and more culturally specific texts remained primarily of scholarly interest.

Digital technology significantly accelerated these informal canonization processes. Websites like Access to Insight, DharmaCrafts, and later SuttaCentral created new hierarchies of textual availability that influenced which teachings diaspora practitioners encountered first and most frequently. Scholar Christopher Queen observes that these digital platforms effectively created "cyber-canons" that reflected the preferences and technical capabilities of their creators as much as traditional scholarly priorities.¹⁰

Mobile apps and online meditation platforms introduced additional layers of canonical selection. Applications like Insight Timer or Dharma Ocean often featured guided meditations based on classical texts but adapted for contemporary attention spans and cultural sensibilities. These technological mediations created what might be termed "bite-sized canons"—collections of abbreviated teachings optimized for modern consumption patterns but sometimes disconnected from their original narrative and doctrinal contexts.

The rise of secular mindfulness movements created yet another form of canonical adaptation. Programs like Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction extracted specific meditation techniques and ethical principles from Buddhist sources while explicitly avoiding religious or metaphysical content that might seem problematic in medical or educational settings. Jon Kabat-Zinn and other secular mindfulness pioneers developed carefully curated anthologies of Buddhist teachings that emphasized psychological and therapeutic applications while de-emphasizing devotional or cosmological elements.¹¹

Translation as Theological Decision-Making

The process of rendering Buddhist texts into European languages inevitably involved theological and philosophical choices that shaped how diaspora communities understood fundamental concepts. Unlike traditional commentary systems that developed gradually within established Buddhist cultures, diaspora translations often required immediate decisions about concepts that had no direct Western equivalents.

The translation of key terms like dukkha, for example, significantly influenced how diaspora communities understood the First Noble Truth. Early translators often rendered dukkha as "suffering," but later scholars argued that this translation carried Christian associations of redemptive suffering that distorted Buddhism's more psychologically oriented analysis. Alternative translations like "stress," "dissatisfaction," or "unreliability" emphasized different aspects of the concept and led to different practical applications in meditation instruction and ethical guidance.¹²

Similar translation challenges arose around concepts of rebirth, karma, and enlightenment. Diaspora communities often had to decide whether to preserve traditional cosmological frameworks that included multiple realms of existence and complex karmic calculations, or to focus on psychological and ethical dimensions that seemed more compatible with contemporary scientific worldviews. These decisions effectively created different versions of Buddhist teaching that emphasized different aspects of the canonical inheritance.

Scholar Jan Nattier has documented how translation choices often reflected the cultural and religious backgrounds of the translators themselves.¹³ Christian translators sometimes unconsciously imposed theological categories from their own traditions, while secular academics emphasized philosophical and psychological aspects that aligned with Western intellectual preferences. These translation legacies continued to influence diaspora communities long after the original translators were forgotten.

The challenge was compounded by the fact that many diaspora communities lacked sufficient scholarly resources to evaluate competing translations or understand the interpretive choices involved. Unlike traditional Buddhist societies where multiple commentary traditions provided context for understanding canonical texts, diaspora communities often relied on single translations that carried enormous influence over their doctrinal development.

What Would Have Changed?

Understanding the contingent nature of canonical transmission in diaspora settings reveals several alternative trajectories that could have significantly altered how Buddhism developed in global contexts.

If traditional multilingual education had been maintained in all diaspora communities, Buddhism might have preserved stronger connections to its classical sources while developing more sophisticated approaches to cultural adaptation. Scholar David McMahan suggests that communities capable of engaging with texts in multiple languages often develop more nuanced understandings that avoid the reductionism sometimes found in single-language translations.¹⁴ This might have led to diaspora Buddhism that was simultaneously more traditional and more creatively adaptive, as practitioners familiar with original sources could make more informed decisions about which elements to emphasize or modify for contemporary contexts.

If diaspora communities had developed more collaborative approaches to canonical stewardship across ethnic and sectarian boundaries, global Buddhism might have achieved greater unity while preserving diversity. Rather than the fragmented landscape of ethnic temples, convert sanghas, and secular mindfulness programs that characterizes much of contemporary Western Buddhism, coordinated efforts at canonical preservation and translation might have created shared resources that honored different traditions while facilitating mutual understanding. Scholar Lori Meeks argues that such collaboration could have prevented the "boutique Buddhism" that sometimes treats traditional teachings as consumer choices rather than integrated wisdom systems.¹⁵

If digital technology had been systematically integrated with traditional scholarly methods from the beginning,diaspora Buddhism might have achieved more accurate and comprehensive canonical preservation. Early digitization efforts often suffered from technical limitations, incomplete metadata, and inadequate quality control that introduced errors or omissions into widely distributed texts. Scholar Lewis Lancaster notes that coordinated digital preservation projects combining traditional manuscript expertise with modern technology could have created authoritative databases that maintained scholarly standards while achieving global accessibility.¹⁶

If greater attention had been paid to preserving women's voices and marginalized perspectives within diaspora canonical formation, global Buddhism might have developed more inclusive approaches to spiritual authority and practice. Women like Ruth Fuller Sasaki, who pioneered Zen translation work in mid-twentieth-century America, or contemporary figures like Tenzin Palmo, who has worked to revive the Tibetan nun's lineage, demonstrated possibilities for expanding canonical preservation beyond traditional monastic hierarchies. Scholar Rita Gross argues that systematic inclusion of these perspectives could have prevented the gender imbalances that characterize much contemporary Buddhist institutional leadership.¹⁷

Scholar Debate

Contemporary scholarship reveals significant disagreement about how to evaluate the canonical transformations that have occurred in diaspora Buddhist communities. These debates reflect broader questions about religious authenticity, cultural adaptation, and the relationship between scholarly accuracy and practical accessibility.

Ann Gleig and other scholars of American Buddhism argue that diaspora adaptations represent legitimate developments within Buddhism's long history of cultural translation. They point out that Buddhism has always adapted to new cultural contexts—from its movement into China, where it incorporated Confucian social concepts, to its development in Tibet, where it integrated Bon ritual practices. From this perspective, contemporary adaptations in Western societies continue this historical pattern of creative engagement with local conditions while maintaining essential Buddhist insights about the nature of suffering and liberation.¹⁸

Buddhist modernist scholars like David McMahan offer more critical assessments, arguing that contemporary diaspora adaptations often reflect Western cultural biases more than authentic Buddhist development. McMahan documents how concepts like "mindfulness" have been stripped of their original ethical and cosmological contexts to fit contemporary therapeutic and self-help markets. He suggests that these transformations, while perhaps beneficial for individual practitioners, represent fundamental departures from traditional Buddhist understanding rather than legitimate cultural adaptations.¹⁹

Traditional Buddhist scholars, particularly those from Asian academic institutions, often express concern about the scholarly accuracy of diaspora canonical work. Scholars like Peter Skilling and Bhikkhu Analayo emphasize the importance of maintaining rigorous philological and historical methods in textual study, arguing that popular translations and adaptations sometimes perpetuate misunderstandings that become entrenched in diaspora communities. They advocate for stronger connections between diaspora practice communities and traditional centers of Buddhist learning to ensure more accurate transmission.²⁰

Digital humanities scholars present yet another perspective, emphasizing the unprecedented opportunities that contemporary technology creates for canonical preservation and accessibility. Projects like SuttaCentral and the Buddhist Digital Resource Center demonstrate how digital tools can provide access to vast collections of texts while maintaining scholarly standards through careful metadata and cross-referencing. Scholar Marcus Bingenheimer argues that digital platforms can actually improve canonical transmission by making comparative study easier and enabling collaborative correction of errors that might persist in isolated print traditions.²¹

Feminist and postcolonial scholars raise additional questions about whose voices are preserved or marginalized in diaspora canonical formation. Scholars like Karma Lekshe Tsomo and Grace Burford argue that traditional canonical priorities often reflect historical power structures that privileged male monastic perspectives over the insights of women practitioners, lay teachers, and marginalized communities. They suggest that diaspora settings provide opportunities to recover alternative voices and develop more inclusive approaches to canonical authority.²²

These scholarly debates reflect deeper questions about the relationship between religious authority and academic expertise in contemporary Buddhist communities. Unlike traditional societies where monastic institutions maintained clear hierarchies of canonical interpretation, diaspora communities often rely on academic scholars, charismatic teachers, and lay practitioners who may lack traditional credentials but possess expertise in translation, cultural mediation, or contemporary application. The resulting tensions between different forms of authority continue to shape how diaspora communities understand and transmit their canonical inheritance.

The Living Heritage of Adaptation

The canonical transformations occurring in diaspora Buddhist communities reflect broader patterns of religious transmission that extend far beyond Buddhism itself. As immigration, globalization, and digital communication continue to reshape how religious communities maintain their traditions across cultural boundaries, the Buddhist experience offers insights relevant to many faith traditions.

Perhaps most significantly, diaspora Buddhist communities demonstrate that canonical preservation and adaptation are not mutually exclusive goals. The most successful communities often develop sophisticated approaches that maintain connections to traditional sources while creating accessible pathways for contemporary practitioners. This requires what might be called "bifocal literacy"—the ability to appreciate both traditional meanings and contemporary applications without reducing either to the other.

The technological tools that emerged during the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries created unprecedented possibilities for maintaining this bifocal approach. Digital databases can preserve complete traditional collections while enabling flexible access and cross-referencing. Translation projects can maintain scholarly accuracy while providing explanatory materials that address contemporary questions. Online communities can connect diaspora practitioners with traditional teachers while fostering local adaptation and innovation.

Yet technology alone cannot resolve the fundamental tensions inherent in canonical transmission across cultural boundaries. The choices made by diaspora communities about which texts to emphasize, how to translate key concepts, and which contemporary applications to pursue continue to shape how future generations will understand and practice Buddhism. These choices reflect not only practical constraints but also theological and philosophical commitments about what aspects of Buddhist teaching seem most essential for contemporary life.

Understanding this history of adaptation can help contemporary Buddhist communities approach canonical stewardship with both greater confidence and greater humility. Confidence because the historical record demonstrates that Buddhism has always thrived through creative engagement with new cultural contexts rather than rigid preservation of unchanging forms. Humility because the same historical record reveals how much depends on the wisdom and skill of each generation's efforts to transmit what they have received while adapting it for those who will inherit their work.

For practitioners in diaspora communities, this perspective can provide context for navigating the sometimes bewildering array of Buddhist books, teachers, apps, and programs available in contemporary settings. Rather than assuming that newer necessarily means better or that traditional necessarily means more authentic, practitioners can develop appreciation for the complex processes through which communities discern which aspects of their canonical inheritance deserve emphasis in particular times and places.

The story of Buddhist canons in the diaspora ultimately illustrates both the fragility and resilience of religious transmission. Fragility because so much depends on decisions made by particular individuals and communities under specific circumstances that could easily have developed differently. Resilience because the core insights that communities recognize as essential seem capable of surviving radical transformations in language, culture, and technology while retaining their power to guide human flourishing.

As Buddhist communities continue to establish themselves in societies around the world, their canonical choices will inevitably influence how future generations understand not only Buddhism but also the broader possibilities for preserving ancient wisdom in contemporary contexts. The folder on Reverend Ogui's desk represented one moment in this ongoing process—a moment that connected eight centuries of Pure Land tradition with the particular challenges facing Japanese-American families in 1970s San Francisco. Similar moments continue to occur in Buddhist communities worldwide as each generation wrestles with how to honor the past while serving the future.

Notes

Donald S. Lopez Jr., Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998), 45-67.
Glenn Mullin, The Second Dalai Lama: His Life and Teachings (Ithaca: Snow Lion Publications, 2005), 234.
Charles S. Prebish, Luminous Passage: The Practice and Study of Buddhism in America (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999), 89-112.
Natalie E.F. Quli, "Western Self, Asian Other: Modernity, Authenticity, and Nostalgia for 'Tradition' in Buddhist Studies," Journal of Buddhist Ethics 16 (2009): 15-17.
Duncan Ryūken Williams, American Sutra: A Story of Faith and Freedom in the Second World War (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2019), 156-178.
Williams, American Sutra, 189-203.
Paul David Numrich, Old Wisdom in the New World: Americanization in Two Immigrant Theravada Buddhist Temples (Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press, 1996), 78-95.
Ann Gleig, American Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Modernity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2019), 134-156.
Jeff Wilson, Dixie Dharma: Inside a Buddhist Temple in the American South (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012), 67-89.
Christopher S. Queen, ed., Engaged Buddhism in the West (Boston: Wisdom Publications, 2000), 345-367.
Jon Kabat-Zinn, Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life (New York: Hyperion, 1994), 3-15.
Bhikkhu Bodhi, "A Critical Examination of Nanavira Thera's 'A Note on Paticcasamuppada,'" Buddhist Publication Society Newsletter 18 (1991): 7-12.
Jan Nattier, A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2003), 234-256.
David L. McMahan, The Making of Buddhist Modernism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008), 123-145.
Lori Meeks, Hokkeji and the Reemergence of Female Monastic Orders in Premodern Japan (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 2010), 267-289.
Lewis R. Lancaster, "Buddhist Texts in Digital Form," in Buddhist Literature and Praxis: Studies in its Formative Period, ed. Ronald Davidson (Delhi: Motilal Banarsidass, 2006), 89-107.
Rita M. Gross, Buddhism After Patriarchy: A Feminist History, Analysis, and Reconstruction of Buddhism (Albany: SUNY Press, 1993), 234-267.
Gleig, American Dharma, 23-45.
McMahan, Making of Buddhist Modernism, 234-267.
Peter Skilling, "Redaction, Recitation, and Writing: Transmission of the Buddha's Teaching in India in the Early Period," in Buddhist Manuscripts, ed. Jens Braarvig (Oslo: Hermes Academic Publishing, 2006), 53-75.
Marcus Bingenheimer, "Buddhist Studies in the Digital Age," Contemporary Buddhism 12, no. 1 (2011): 239-251.
Karma Lekshe Tsomo, ed., Buddhist Women Across Cultures: Realizations (Albany: SUNY Press, 1999), 12-34.

Further Reading

Diaspora Buddhist Communities

Gleig, Ann. American Dharma: Buddhism Beyond Modernity. Yale University Press, 2019.
Numrich, Paul David. Old Wisdom in the New World: Americanization in Two Immigrant Theravada Buddhist Temples. University of Tennessee Press, 1996.
Williams, Duncan Ryūken. American Sutra: A Story of Faith and Freedom in the Second World War. Harvard University Press, 2019.

Translation and Adaptation

Lopez, Donald S., Jr. Prisoners of Shangri-La: Tibetan Buddhism and the West. University of Chicago Press, 1998.
McMahan, David L. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford University Press, 2008.
Nattier, Jan. A Few Good Men: The Bodhisattva Path According to the Inquiry of Ugra. University of Hawaii Press, 2003.

Digital Buddhism and Technology

Bingenheimer, Marcus. "Buddhist Studies in the Digital Age." Contemporary Buddhism 12, no. 1 (2011): 239-251.
Lancaster, Lewis R. "Buddhist Texts in Digital Form." In Buddhist Literature and Praxis, edited by Ronald Davidson. Motilal Banarsidass, 2006.

Gender and Marginalized Voices

Gross, Rita M. Buddhism After Patriarchy: A Feminist History, Analysis, and Reconstruction of Buddhism. SUNY Press, 1993.
Tsomo, Karma Lekshe, ed. Buddhist Women Across Cultures: Realizations. SUNY Press, 1999.