In analyzing any tradition of Buddhism, it is important to
be mindful of the difference between traditionalist and modernist presentations
of Buddhism (see David McMahan’s excellent
book on the subject for a more detailed overview).
Modernist presentations tend to demythologize the historical
Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama, as well as the traditional cosmology that
(according to all three Asian-language canons) he taught. Instead, they present the Buddha as “merely
human” rather than a “teacher of
gods and humans” who possessed various supernormal powers such as the ability
to fly while seated in the lotus posture and the ability to walk on water,
and they interpret the
traditional cosmology consisting of multiple realms where a sentient entity can
be reborn in each new lifetime nonliterally.
Modernists also tend to present Buddhism as fully in accord
with modern science, and as empirical in its own right. They (by giving modernizing interpretations
to texts such as the Kalama
Sutta) present it as highly individualistic, as something to be accepted or
rejected based on whether or not one’s experiences confirm its teachings. They deemphasize the importance of
monasticism and the monastic community while trying to appeal more to laypeople
living busy modern lives. They emphasize
meditation and philosophy or doctrine, and they present Buddhism as the
tradition most consistent with secular humanist values.
In true Protestant fashion (some scholars of Buddhism,
notably Richard
Gombrich, even refer to Buddhist Modernism, or at least the most popular
segment of it, as “Protestant Buddhism”), Buddhist Modernists almost take it
for granted that Buddhist texts, especially the sermons of the Buddha, have the
final say on matters of practice and doctrine (despite frequently distorting
these texts for the sake of their modernist agenda; then again, traditionalists
have also tended to do the same for their agenda).
On the other hand, traditionalist Buddhists tend to
emphasize the importance of the monastic tradition of Buddhism, including the
observance by monks of the traditional rules of monastic conduct, the vinaya.
If the Pali Canon is to be trusted, Siddhartha Gautama believed
that renouncing the everyday life of a householder or other layperson was
absolutely essential in order to have a chance at becoming liberated from the
cycle of rebirth in this lifetime.
As a corollary, most traditionalist Buddhists hold that the best that
laypeople can hope for in their next lifetime is a more favorable rebirth,
which they can gain by engaging in meritorious conduct, such as ritualistic
acts of devotion towards stupas or pagodas and statues of the Buddha,
chanting mantras, and above all, providing the means of sustenance to
monks.
In general, traditionalists believe that the Saha
world-system with its multiple netherworlds or hells or places of great
suffering, the realm of the hungry ghosts at or just beneath the surface of the
earth, the realms of animals and humans on the earth’s surface, the realm of
the demigods just above the earth, the heavens of the realm of desire well
above the earth, the heavens of form far above the earth, and the formless
realms beyond, literally exists. One is
reborn again and again in these realms as long as one continues to generate new
seeds of rebirth by acting in the world based on one’s desires and
attachments. While there is no permanent
self, since all the components of what is conventionally called the self are
themselves always changing from moment to moment and lifetime to lifetime,
rebirth still occurs for all who are caught up in the endless cycle of death and
rebirth, or samsara.
All of this happens quite literally according to traditionalists,
and the graphic depictions of torment in the hells, as well as the graphic
depictions of the pleasures of the heavens, refer to post-mortem states that
literally exist. As for the Buddha,
traditionalists do not regard him as a mere human in any tradition, including
Theravada and Chan/Zen. He is the
“World-Honored One,” the “Thus-Come One,” the “Teacher of Gods and Humans,”
with the ability to perform many wondrous and miraculous deeds. To call him merely human in a traditionalist
Buddhist context would be quite ludicrous, even though that is how most
Modernists see him. He is not a god, but
is rather greater than any god.
Many Western Buddhists, and even Westerners generally,
believe that Buddhist Modernism is the “real” Buddhism, and that the more
mythological aspects of the tradition are meant to be interpreted nonliterally,
or even that they are not part of Buddhism at all, but represent pre-Buddhist
cultural baggage from societies where Buddhism later became established.
In reality, the predominant narrative of Buddhist Modernism
was developed jointly by a handful of (mostly lay) Asian Buddhists and Western
Orientalists and Theosophists in the late nineteenth and early twentieth
centuries, and represents a definitive break with all earlier interpretations
of Buddhism. This narrative has been the
primary (and in most cases the only) narrative about Buddhism that Westerners
have heard, and it is through this lens that most Westerners, especially
Western Buddhists, have interpreted the whole tradition.
I do not wish to condemn this narrative or say that it is
“wrong,” especially since I strongly prefer Buddhist Modernism to nearly all
forms of Buddhist Traditionalism, even if Buddhist Modernism distorts the
historical teachings and practices of Buddhism to a greater degree than Buddhist
Traditionalism. I merely wish to point
out that it is a recent innovation, and generally does not agree with many of
the literal words that the Buddha allegedly spoke.
It is, again, true that traditionalist forms of Buddhism
have also distorted the Buddha’s literal words, but it has generally been to a
lesser degree. Moreover, these forms
tend not to be as concerned with strict adherence to the original words as
Modernist forms, though of course they have been at least somewhat concerned
with it.
Buddhist Modernism has been the primary lens through which
most forms of Buddhism have been interpreted in the West, as well as in lay
scholarly and intellectual circles in many Asian Buddhist countries. It has been particularly significant in
interpretations of Theravada, Chan/Zen (which, owing to D.T. Suzuki’s
influence, is often not even regarded as a form of Buddhism in Western
countries), and Tibetan Buddhism in the West.
Many of the individuals who first or most famously presented
the teachings of these traditions to Western audiences (particularly Henry
Steel Olcott and Anagarika Dharmapala in the case of the Theravada, Soen Shaku
and D.T. Suzuki in the case of Zen, and the Fourteenth Dalai Lama and his
Western supporters in the case of Tibetan Buddhism) intentionally cut out or
interpreted nonliterally the less “rational” aspects of their respective forms
of Buddhism (which all of them have certainly had historically) to make them
more appealing to Westerners reared on the scientific method and Enlightenment
values like reason, freedom, and equality.
In the end, one could even make the argument that the novel
presentation of Buddhism provided by modernists is in fact quite traditional,
since one of the central emphases of the Buddha’s teachings in the Pali Canon
and many Mahayana texts is the importance of adapting one’s teachings to the
needs and abilities of one’s audience.
Traditionalists would likely counter that modernists bend the tradition
far more than the Buddha himself would have allowed. However, that is a debate for another time.
