Buddhism Meets Modernity

David L. McMahan. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 299 pp. $29.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-19-518327-6. Reviewed by Eyal Aviv Published on H-Buddhism (January, 2011) Commissioned by Jin Y. Park (American University) In his Making of Buddhist Modernism, David The book is divided into four parts, starting L. McMahan presents a sophisticated narrative with introductory chapters, which introduce the for the emergence of “Buddhist Modernism,” a readers to the scope of Buddhist modernism, its term borrowed from Heinz Bechert.[1] Drawing main contours, most salient dynamics, and major on an impressive set of sources, McMahan skill‐ figures and their historical and cultural back‐ fully convinces his readers that Buddhist mod‐ ground. McMahan then moves to a discussion of ernism is a distinct development in Buddhist his‐ key issues, such as the discourse of scientific Bud‐ tory, and that much of what is understood simply dhism, Buddhist romanticism, and the appropria‐ as Buddhism is in fact a result of developments of tion of the doctrine of interdependence to modern the last two centuries. While Buddhism in the needs. Next he treats the arguably most salient modern period has been in the center of scholarly feature of Buddhist modernism, the meditation attention in the recent decade, McMahan’s book is movement. Finally, McMahan concludes the book praiseworthy and unique in its undertaking to with a discussion on the possible future shape of theorize the feld of Buddhist modernism from a what he calls “postmodern Buddhism.” macro rather than a micro perspective. It is obvi‐ In his introductory chapters (chapters 1 to 3), ous that any attempt to map such a diversified McMahan outlines the makeup of Buddhist mod‐ phenomenon as Buddhist modernism is risky and ernism, its scope, and main players. McMahan de‐ bound to leave some aspects un- or under-treated. fines Buddhist modernism not as “all Buddhism However, not only is McMahan aware of these po‐ that happens to exist in the modern era but, tential pitfalls (e.g., pp. 6, 14, 20-22), but he also rather, forms of Buddhism that have emerged out gives a well-balanced narrative with rich exam‐ of an engagement with the dominant cultural and ples that he weaves into a coherent and approach‐ intellectual forces of modernity” (p. 6). To define able account. these forces, McMahan relies on Charles Taylor’s H-Net Reviews Sources of the Self (1989) in order to fnd “some they are constructed through the interchange be‐ vessels in which the philosophical, religious and tween traditions and the “vessels” of modern dis‐ social facets of [modernity’s] maelstrom can be course, especially those of scientific rationalism contained” (p. 10). These vessels of modernity, on and romantic expressivism. In both cases, McMa‐ which he deliberates with greater details in subse‐ han shows how Buddhists both accepted and, at quent chapters, are Western monotheism, ratio‐ the same time, challenged the characteristics of nalism and scientific naturalism, and romantic modernity and emphasized what sets Buddhism expressivism. The result is “Buddhist mod‐ apart. ernism,” a global Buddhist phenomenon that, Chapter 4 is dedicated to the discourse of sci‐ among others, focuses on meditation, social en‐ entific Buddhism, a timely topic, and one of the gagement, internalization, and emphasis of equal‐ modern frameworks through which modern Bud‐ ity and universality while deemphasizing ritual, dhism was configured.[2] McMahan identifies two mythology, and hierarchy. “different but overlapping agendas, spurred by McMahan samples different Buddhist tradi‐ two crises of legitimacy in disparate cultural con‐ tions from the East and the West in his investiga‐ text” (p. 90). He examines the frst one, colonial‐ tion of Buddhist modernism, but his departure ism, through the career of Anagarika Dharma‐ point and major prism is North American Bud‐ pala. The second is the “Victorian crisis of faith,” dhism. There are several reasons for this choice. examined through the careers of Henry Steel Ol‐ First, “English has become the lingua franca of cott and Paul Carus. McMahan shows how the dis‐ Buddhist Modernism” (p. 21). Second, many of the course of science was used by Dharmapala as a most influential Buddhist teachers are working in rhetorical device against the colonial political and North America. Third, McMahan argues that cultural aspirations and against Christian prosely‐ America serves as a laboratory for adaptations tization in his native Sri Lanka. Olcott’s and and innovations and for a reconception of “Bud‐ Carus’s careers are set as examples, among others, dhism in modern terms” (p. 22). This does not of the universalist trend of modern Euro-Ameri‐ mean that McMahan intends his book to be a can thinkers, who sought an underlying unity to study of American Buddhism, but rather to indi‐ the variety of world religions. These two crises cate that his examination of this global phenome‐ are interlinked as Olcott and Dharmapala cooper‐ non is done “from a particular shore” (p. 22). ated despite their later fallout due to differences McMahan identifies three characteristics that in motives and approaches. separate traditional Buddhism and Buddhist mod‐ In chapter 5, McMahan presents an excellent ernism: De-traditionalization (a shift from the ex‐ study of the close ties between Buddhist mod‐ ternal transcendent to the internal self), de‐ ernism and romanticism. It is difficult for the mythologization (a term borrowed from Bechert), reader to get a clear sense of the complexity of the and psychologization. McMahan shows that the romantic movement from this chapter. Neverthe‐ dialogue between tradition and modernity is al‐ less, McMahan’s attention to such themes as the ways multidimensional and the adaptation to role of art, creativity, the spiritual meaning of “na‐ modernity is done through a complex process of ture,” and spontaneity demonstrates how Bud‐ “decontextualization and recontextualization,” in dhism and romantic ideas were linked. This link‐ which Buddhist traditions are conceived through age was epitomized during the 50s, 60s, and 70s new “networks of meaning, value and power” (p. counterculture movement in Europe and America 62). Chapters 4 to 6 elaborate on key themes in the and their selective adoption of Buddhism. These emergence of Buddhist modernism and the way “hybridic” characteristics (a term he borrows 2 H-Net Reviews from Homi Bhabha [p. 20]) were synthesized into derstood today as an underlying connection be‐ such products as Americanized Zen, especially by tween all sentient beings in a web of dependent D. T. Suzuki (other Buddhists he explores are relationships. This connection became for many Sangharakshita and Anagarika Govinda), and en‐ prominent contemporary Buddhists the sine qua abled Zen to become a cultural influence beyond non of the tradition. As McMahan correctly points the boundaries of Buddhism. McMahan demon‐ out, this world-affirming perspective is rooted strates that a connection between Suzuki and the more in Mahāyāna Buddhist texts and such romantic movement is very plausible, but I was thinkers as Nagārjuna and among Huáyán hoping to see more evidence that his ideas were philosophers. Indeed, it was in the Huáyán school indeed influenced by and did not merely echo the that pratītyasamutpāda “has become the stan‐ works of the romantics. After all, the role of na‐ dard symbol for interdependence in its contempo‐ ture, spontaneity, and the spiritual meaning of art rary sense” (p. 158). This is precisely why a little have been a part of the East Asian cultural her‐ more extensive treatment of Húayán would have itage as well. Still, this “hybrid” of Zen spiritual‐ helped to see the evolution of the concept from ism and romanticism had a clear and everlasting the suttas stage to its contemporary usage. impact on Western culture and Buddhist mod‐ McMahan also mentions the slippery slope of ernism. Finally, McMahan dwells on the contem‐ concluding that Buddhist modernist’s interpreta‐ porary significance and legacy of “Romantic Bud‐ tion of pratītyasamutpāda as interdependence is dhism,” among new (age) spiritualities, environ‐ “inauthentic” and wrong. To do this is to lead to mentalists (e.g., Gary Snyder, a beat generation an interpretation of Buddhist texts and tradition writer and a follower of Suzuki and Zen), and as having “a static, essentialized meaning” (p. popular entertainment. The Buddhist-romantic 179). He advises historians of religion to remem‐ hybrid continues to inspire a generation of con‐ ber that texts and traditions are never static enti‐ temporary artists (a list of which can be found on ties but rather are always part of a dynamic page 144). process that adapts itself to the social, cultural, re‐ In chapter 6, we see how romantic and ratio‐ ligious, and political needs of a particular time nalist strands within Buddhism contributed to a and place. While McMahan presents this argu‐ particular development in the influential doctrine ment in the context of interdependence, it is clear of “interdependence” (Skt pratītyasamutpāda and that this advice extends to the rest of the book as Palipaticcasamuppāda). McMahan shows that in well. what he calls an “age of inter” the Buddhist con‐ In chapters 7 and 8, McMahan dwells on the cept of interdependence is timely and alluring. meditation movement. In the seventh chapter, McMahan is right to point out that the Buddhist McMahan provides the cultural and philosophical concept of pratītyasamutpāda is better translated context behind this “subjective turn” (a term he as “Dependent Co-arising” and that even within borrows from Taylor) and applies other, previous‐ the Buddhist tradition this term came to be under‐ ly discussed, theoretical concepts to describe one stood in complex and varied ways. Moreover, in of Buddhism’s most salient features in the West. It the Pali sources dependent co-arising, or interde‐ is in this chapter that we see the convergence of pendence, was one of the causes of suffering and Western romantic and rationalist views alongside not the solution at the end of the path of realiza‐ Asian teachers’ hybrid usage of meditation to tion.

Load more