If Buddhist philodophy is to be truly “universal” – then the ethnic culture within which the various Buddhist traditions are transmitted cannot be primary – as the difference in culture and language alienates all those not familiar with it. The Buddha’s message is designed to free the entirety of humanity and not just those living within the “Indian” culture the Buddha emerged within. All this is accidental in the sense that humanity has developed many and numerous examples of this differentiation. Concepts such as nationalisn, bias, and exclusion run counter to the Buddha’s message. Yes – the Buddha had to physically manifest within a distinct culture – and frame his insight through the (historical) culture of that manifestation. The manner in which bhikkhus should teach humanity is through the understanding that all examplies of language and culture, regardless of how necessary they may seem, are nevertheless purely “expedient”. The use of language (including translation) must be “precise” and “accurate” so that the Dhamma is correctly transmitted. All language is a “raft” designed to reach the other shore – it serves no other function. If members of the Sangha become “attached” to the prevailing culture from which they emerged – then they are violating the rules contained within the Vinaya Discipline. Congregating around a cultural-bias is one-sided and exclusionary. Narrowing the scope of the Dhamma hinders its enlightening function and distorts its meaning. A bhikkhu is a beggar and not a film star or representative of the culture that gave birth to him. This is not to say that the bhikkhu should reject the culture within which he arose – but at the sametime the bhikkhu should remain “non-attached” to his mind, body, and environment.
