Post-Canonical Buddhist Political Thought: Explaining the Republican Transformation (D02) (conference draft; please do not quote without permission) Matthew J. Moore Associate Professor Dept. of Political Science Cal Poly State University 1 Grand Avenue San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 805-756-2895
[email protected] 1 Introduction In other recent work I have looked at whether normative political theorizing can be found in the texts of Early or Canonical Buddhism, especially the Nikāya collections and the Vinaya texts governing monastic life, since those texts are viewed as authentic and authoritative by all modern sects of Buddhism.1 In this paper I turn to investigate Buddhist normative political theorizing after the early or Canonical period, which (following Collins2 and Bechert3) I treat as beginning during the life of the Buddha (c. sixth-fifth centuries BCE) and ending in the first century BCE, when the Canonical texts were first written down. At first glance this task is impossibly large, as even by the end of the early period Buddhism had already divided into several sects and had begun to develop substantial regional differences. Over the next 2,000 years Buddhism divided into three main sects: Theravada, Mahāyāna, and Vajrayāna. It also developed into numerous local variants as it mixed with various national cultures and evolved under different historical circumstances. To give just one example, the Sri Lankan national epic, the Mahāvaṃsa, is central to Sinhalese Buddhists’ understanding of what Buddhism says about politics and very influential on other Southeast Asian versions of Buddhism, but has no obvious relevance to Buddhists in Tibet or Japan, who in turn have their own texts and traditions.