Indeed. There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding on the word “appropriate” , “to make it your own.” Basically the more academic wording of “you made this? I made this.” meme.

As long as you don’t pretend you created Buddhism or are an infallible authority of Buddhism it’s not appropriation.

Personally I find the word not really appropriate with what we are trying to convey which I assume would be something along the lines of “disrespectful usage of other peoples cultures or practices.”

There is no inappropriate way to use clothes you own, unless you're using it to strangle someone. The people who get upset about people wearing things from "their" culture are always deracinated diaspora with no real connection to the culture. People who are healthily embedded in a culture don't get upset about foreigners "misusing" their cultural bric-a-brac, they have real lives to attend to. And if you're getting upset at a party goer wearing a grass skirt then you're in need of psychiatric help.

Tell that to the Americans who remove photos of Pacific Island people wearing their traditional clothing despite genitalia being covered.

Tell that to every human on HN and see if they start wearing their nighties and undergarments, and bikinis to their silicon valley workplaces.

It's not a free-for-all, so don't pretend that cultural norms don't exist.

Jeez, this "I'll take what I want and fuck ya'll" American culture is sickening.

What an inane comparison. Jobs are voluntary, and you're free to quit over the dress code.

And there's no way to decide what's "permitted" use of a piece of apparel anyways. Cultural significance changes within cultures, and individuals within it are not uniformly sensitive to informal use. What would you do to iconoclasts? They're culturally appropriating too. Are they allowed to introduce lighthearted use?

The "cultural appropriation" idea is the worst form of ultra-conservative hand wringing dressed up in progressive language. No actual harm is done by "misusing" clothes. This is just an excuse made up by moral busy bodies to go on yet another obnoxious crusade.

> And there's no way to decide what's "permitted" use of a piece of apparel anyways.

This is where the problem is. You misunderstand what I'm saying. Nobody is stopping you from wearing whatever you want.

When people call out cultural appropriation, they aren't trying to ban something; merely point out a faux pas.

Yes that is the motte to this bailey. Of course the actual consequences can range from being fired to being expelled to being publicly defamed as a racist. You still haven't given a way to decide what is or isn't a faux pas. I'll give the answer since you won't: it's whoever complains the loudest. In practice what is and isn't allowed is totally arbitrary. The only people who ever argue for that are power tripping moral crusaders.

As a reminder, all of this is about a pretend problem that produces no damage and has no victims.

I also find it funny. I wonder if that’s why bodhidharma spent so long in the cave, to stop all those Han Chinese appropriating his mind bending techniques of not being a dickhead and sitting quietly observing life ;)

If someone said that to me (also a Buddhist) I would probably burst out laughing :)

Your coworker needs to read the Suttas. Shakyamuni explains again and again and again that the teachings are for everyone.

Yes, this Chen person is so so wrong.

She says that meditation is for some monastic elites, but that is far from the truth. Who even chose to publish her book?

Buddha himself said to Ananda that several thousand of his household desciples attained Nirvana. Not only did these "laymen" did meditation, they even attained Nirvana.

> She says that meditation is for some monastic elites

She did not quite say that. She said that it was only practiced by monastic elites up until the early 20th century:

"Meditation was not at all a mainstream lay practice in Buddhism. It only became popular in the early twentieth century, when Buddhist reformers such as the Burmese monk Mahasi Sayadaw, founder of modern Vipassana meditation, promoted it as a lay Buddhist practice. Mindfulness, as it was practiced for most of its history in Asia, was a very elite practice reserved only for advanced monastics."

> She said that it was only practiced by monastic elites up until the early 20th century:

Very wrong, too.

In Buddha's time itself, there were laypeople doing meditation.

I am wondering who even published her book?

> You do not need to be of a skin color, creed, gender or class to take refuge in the Buddha's teachings. The dharma is for all.

Agreed on all points! The Buddha's teachings are foundational to my world view, and I too am "from the West."

I do want to push back a little bit though (gently). Your coworker's critique is not necessarily wrong (even if they were making it from a place of ignorance). When I was a practicing Zen Buddhist, I saw a lot of teachers appropriating the dharma to sell their own teachings. Buddhist teachers consulting on the side to corporations (selling the teachings is inappropriate in Buddhism), starting companies to sell services, etc. The teachings were so far removed from the original ideas that they are incomprehensible. Vague spiritual statements, go with your gut morality, confusing dialog, going through the motions (rituals) was all that mattered. How could it be any other way? The West's values are counter to the teachings in just about everyway possible. It could not possibly be transmitted to the West without this kind of modification.

Cultural appropriation has happened with every culture Buddhism has encountered from it's origins in North India, through China and Southeast Asia, Korea and Japan, and now the West. We all have changed it somewhat and now claim what we have is more original than the original.

However, none of these adaptations can compare with the basic insight of the original teachings in my opinion.

I wouldn't get offended. They just don't understand what cultural appropriation is by the sound of things. Their problem, not yours.

Unfortunately this sort of thinking spreads and it will eventually become everyone's problem unless we address it head on.

>Their problem, not yours.

Until your get a call from HR, the twitter mobs decides to target you, or when that "woke" person gets promoted and starts dictating policies in the office.

Yikes, how did you respond to this? Was it an off-hand comment or a serious accusation on their part (were they legitimately offended)?

Is this co-worker a peer, a superior, or are you their superior?