"How buddhism has been dominated by the monastic ethos of the east, and needs to be re-conceptualized from the ground up for our own cultures."
Is it our collective challenge to “reinterpret” the dharma, using our own idiom?
"In a sense, yes, but as soon as you set out to reinterpret the teachings, you risk putting a distance between yourself and the dharma. That’s a danger." Stephen Batchelor
"Buddhism is not a property to be held or inherited in exclusivity, Batchelor argues, nor was it ever meant to be a fixed, static set of beliefs. "Buddhism, which teaches impermanence, contingency,dukkha (suffering) and unreliability, is itself also impermanent, selfless or inessential," he suggests. "http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-rotondi/buddhist-backlash-stephen_b_521675.html
The Buddha outlined these teachings in the Kalamas Sutra when a group asked him who they should believe when there were so many teachers around:
To me, although Buddhism has a lot of teachings of the Buddha written in Sutras, it is not a religion based on a canonical book containing injunctions that stand for all time and must be obeyed. There are basic tenets such as the existence of suffering, no self and impermanence, but these seem so obvious as not to need much in the way of proof or faith. Buddhism seems to have changed as it moved to China and Japan already, so it is hardly surprising that it should also change and adapt to Western societies.