sign in sign up
<<
Home , Buddhist modernism

David L. McMahan. The Making of Buddhist . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. 299 pp. $29.95, cloth, ISBN 978-0-19-518327-6.

Reviewed by Eyal Aviv

Published on H- (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‐ fgures 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 scientifc Bud‐ tory, and that much of what is understood simply dhism, Buddhist , 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 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 diversifed 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. fnes 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 ” (p. 6). To defne 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 scientifc 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 , ratio‐ the same time, challenged the characteristics of nalism and scientifc , 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‐ entifc 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 , dhism was confgured.[2] McMahan identifes two mythology, and hierarchy. “diferent but overlapping agendas, spurred by McMahan samples diferent 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 ‐ point and major prism is North American Bud‐ pala. The second is the “Victorian crisis of ,” 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 as a most infuential 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 . 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 diferences McMahan identifes 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 difcult 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, , 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 , 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 and ), and en‐ prominent contemporary Buddhists the sine qua abled Zen to become a cultural infuence beyond non of the tradition. As McMahan correctly points the boundaries of Buddhism. McMahan demon‐ out, this world-afrming perspective is rooted strates that a connection between Suzuki and the more in Mahāyāna 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 infuenced 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 signifcance and legacy of “Romantic Bud‐ tion of pratītyasamutpāda as interdependence is dhism,” among new (age) , 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 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 infuential 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 sources dependent co-arising, or interde‐ is in this chapter that we see the convergence of pendence, was one of the causes of sufering 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. “Indeed it is through reversal of this chain of adapt Buddhism to the age of Western dominance interdependent causation--not the identifcation in Asia. This sort of trend, which has been gaining with it--that the Buddha is said to have become momentum in recent years, is exemplifed by awakened” (p. 154). Still, this term came to be un‐

3 H-Net Reviews such things as an invitation to participate in a dhism, but in this chapter the boundaries be‐ Jewish Vipassanā meditation retreat, which I per‐ tween the two terms are much less clear. The ma‐ sonally came across a few years back. McMahan jority of the examples he gives and discusses in sees it as a part of the disassociation of meditation this chapter concern the West. In light of this fact from the “wider ethical, social and cosmological one wonders whether it is possible for democrati‐ context of Buddhism.” McMahan aptly concludes, zation, feminization, or post-traditionalism to take “paradoxically, while meditation is often consid‐ hold in other parts of the Buddhist world. More‐ ered the heart of Buddhism, it is also deemed the over, the tensions that McMahan outlines, such as element most detachable from the tradition itself” those between privatized and socially engaged (p. 185). This disassociation could not have hap‐ Buddhists or detraditionalized and retraditional‐ pened without the processes he repeatedly high‐ ized Buddhism, also makes one wonder whether lights throughout the book (such as privatization, Buddhist modernism is still adequate as a coher‐ deinstitutionalization, and detraditionalization). ent category. In addition, I also hoped to read In chapter 8, McMahan narrows his discus‐ more about the way Buddhism can “challenge, sion of meditation into the so-called critique, augment and ofer alternatives” to the practices and shows how these emerged from a modern West (p. 260). This project deserves seri‐ “world-afrming” modernist . McMahan re‐ ous treatment, as for example in Richard Med‐ lies on a wealth of evidence from Western litera‐ sen’s Democracy’s Dharma (2007). ture to detail how this world-afrming mentality It is clear that McMahan is writing for both is deeply rooted in the Western mind-set. By re‐ scholars and students. In reaching out to both au‐ viewing the romantic notion of epiphany, (intro‐ diences, some sections read too much like a text‐ duced on pages 121-122), he is able to draw atten‐ book whereas others have the sort of details that tion to parallels between observations of every‐ beginning students may fnd overwhelming. How‐ day life and self-refexivity in the writings of Ian ever, overall, McMahan has done an excellent job McEwan as well as in and in James in navigating such a terrain. I can testify that Joyce’s (1922) that have shared character‐ many of my students, especially those with little istics with mindfulness practice. McMahan’s dis‐ background in Buddhism, found the book very cussion of ’s Siddhartha (1922) is useful and illuminating. an important part of this chapter, as the novel The amount of background research and the provided formative ideas to many Westerners re‐ wide range of examples from diferent Buddhist garding Buddhism. McMahan shows again that traditions are impressive. The breadth of writings even a book that firts with Buddhism (the protag‐ from leading Buddhist modernists in the East and onist name is identical to that of the Buddha) is the West, and the philosophical, literary, and theo‐ closer to the spirit of romanticism than it is to In‐ retical background this book provides make it a dian Buddhism. rich source of material that should be a part of In his fnal chapter, McMahan turns his ex‐ the library of any serious scholar of Buddhism in amination toward the future, to the emergence of the modern period, as well as for the delight of what he calls, rather amorphously, “postmodern” the growing body of Buddhist enthusiasts, who Buddhism. It is in this chapter that I found that fnd “Buddhism” interesting (when, in fact, what McMahan’s main analytical notion of “Buddhist they often really enjoy is exactly what McMahan Modernism” is losing its “global” perspective. calls “Buddhist Modernism”). Throughout the book he convincingly shows how Notes Buddhist modernism is not merely Western Bud‐

4 H-Net Reviews

[1]. See Heinz Bechert, Buddhismus, Staat und Geselchaft in den Ländern des Bud‐ dhismus, vol. 1 (Berlin: Alfred Metzner, 1966), vol. 2 (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1967), and vol. 3 (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1973). See also Heinz Bechert, “Buddhist Revival in East and West,” in The World of Buddhism, ed. Heinz Bechert and (London: Thames and Hudson, 1991), 273-285. [2]. See, for example, Allan Wallace, Bud‐ dhism and Science (New York: Columbia Universi‐ ty Press, 2003); David McMahan, “Modernity and the Discourse of Scientifc Buddhism,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 72 (2004): 897-933; and Donald Lopez, Buddhism and Sci‐ ence: A Guide for the Perplexed (Chicago: Univer‐ sity of Chicago Press, 2010). McMahan provides a fuller list on page 90.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at https://networks.h-net.org/h-buddhism

Citation: Eyal Aviv. Review of McMahan, David L. The Making of Buddhist Modernism. H-Buddhism, H- Net Reviews. January, 2011.

URL: https://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=24528

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License.

5