Bhikkhu Thanissaro The full article.

[PeterB]

http://www.tricycle.com/feature/romancing-buddha?=o,o

Its not long...it might be beneficial to read it in its entirety.
I would draw particular attention to the final paragraph.
Thanks are due to alan, he posted it in another thread and I have pinched it.

[zavk]

Hi Peter

Nice article (he's written something like that before, hasn't he?). Bhikkhu Thanissaro raises some good points about how it is important to be historically reflexive in our approach to the Dhamma. As he suggests, it is important to be aware of the broader cultural and intellectual assumptions that have influenced the development of Buddhism and how these assumptions continue to underly contemporary understandings of the Dhamma. To this extent, he is certainly spot on in identifying the influence of Romanticism, and he has certainly identified some of the key problems of conflating the assumptions of Romanticism with the Dhamma.

While I largely agree with what he is trying to do, I think the kind of critically reflexivity he is calling for should not only be applied to Romanticism but also to the other cultural and intellectual paradigms that have influenced and still continue to influence our understanding of Buddhism. I have mentioned this book several times before: The Making of Buddhist Modernism, by David McMahan. The book presents a good overview of how contemporary Buddhism has been shaped by three overarching cultural and intellectual paradigms of modernity: western monotheism, scientific rationalism, and romantic expressivism.

To put it very simply, it looks at the history of Buddhism from the nineteenth century to illustrate how Buddhism has been reconfigured in relation to these three overarching discursive paradigms. Examining a range of Buddhist figures and movements, the book demonstrates how Buddhism is sometimes aligned with these discursive paradigms and how it is sometimes placed in opposition to them. In short, the Buddhism that we have today has developed out of a continuous interplay with these three paradigms.

Given this to be the case, Bhikkhu Thanissaro is certainly right to draw attention to the influence of Romanticism. But I don't think Buddhism can totally disassociate itself from Romanticism as such--how can it do so when Romanticism forms part of the conceptual scaffolding upon which Dhammic ideas are made relevant and intelligible to a contemporary audience? To be fair, I don't think Bhikkhu Thanissaro is suggesting that Buddhism cuts or seals itself off from Romanticism. It seems to me that he is arguing for greater reflexivity, that we carefully sift through those assumptions that are unhelpful, assumptions which might misrepresent some of the fundamental principles of the Dhamma.

But by the same token, the same could be said about the other two discursive paradigms that equally influence Buddhism. How might we become more critically reflexive about the influence of western monotheism and scientific rationalism? Of particular interest for most of us here, I think, would be Buddhism's relationship with scientific rationalism. To take Bhikkhu Thanissaro critical attitude seriously then, we ought to equally ask:

- How have (western) notions of rationalism and scientificity influenced the way we understand Buddhism?
- What assumptions of scientific rationalism have been projected onto Buddhism?
- Have any assumptions about rationality and scientificity become (to borrow Bhikkhu Thanissaro's words) 'gates' that shut us off from some of the more challenging and radical possibilities of the Dhamma, possibilities which may very well elude or exceed rationality and scientificity?
- How might we begin to sift through these assumptions?

Thanks for sharing the article. Bhikkhu Thanissaro's critical attitude is admirable and is certainly worth emulating. My preference, however, is to take onboard his critical attitude and extend it to other cultural and intellectual paradigms influencing contemporary Buddhism and not just 'Romanticism.' So for instance: Bearing in mind that scientific rationalism is largely a product of the European Enlightenment (a very recent historical development in comparison to the history of the Dhamma), just as Bhikkhu Thanissaro wishes to respect the Dhamma for what it is by interrogating 'Buddhist Romanticism', how might we--to respect the Dhamma for what it is--also interrogate, say, 'Buddhist Rationalism' or 'Scientific Buddhism'?

I do not claim to have the answers, but I do feel that keeping these questions open are vital to my continuing growth in the Dhamma.



(edited for typos)

[mikenz66]

Nice article (he's written something like that before, hasn't he?).

It was presented in a talk here:
http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/16/
Buddhist Romanticism 2002-03-25 44:16


Mike

[PeterB]

Very stimulating zavk. I have no doubt that Romanticism is not the only lens through which westerners ( and moderns in general ) view Buddha Dhamma.. indeed Bhikkhu Thanissaro has addressed several of them..in particular scientific rationalism and the cutural and intellectual heritage of Monotheism. In particlar he ( and others ) have addressed the issiue of a Buddhism that merely defines itself in contrast to Monotheism and so becomes Monotheism with a large minus sign in front of it.

I nevertheless see the good Bhikkhu highlighting an important issue here and one that proliferates particularly in the rarified atmosphere of Website Buddhism...Divorced as it is from the rough and tumble of being in a room where people share breath and exchange subtleties of communication impossible through the written medium. Where a Romantic view of humanity and of the aims of Buddha Dhamma can grow unchecked free from the trammels imposed by the vagueries of human nature as found in reality. In the end the Romantic views substitues an idealised and hygienic view forever searching after an idealised future in place of the existential nuts and bolts and actuality of Buddha Dhamma as it is.

[zavk]

...with a large minus sign in front of it.

Hee... a nice turn of phrase. You mind if I borrow it for my own writing/work? (Now I can't help envisioning a huge billboard with a big flashing neon minus sign...)

I understand what you mean. It's like biting into a whole cube of sugar *shudder*. Having said that, I have found much inspiration in Romantic writers like Coleridge and Wordsworth, especially the latter. Haven't read enough of the American Transcendentalists alluded to in the article, but Bhikkhu Thanissaro's very valid criticism aside, I think there is wisdom in their writings--well, the Bhikkhu doesn't really deny it, he's just careful about conflating them with Dhammic ideals. But yes, I must admit that the lyricism and evocativeness of Romanticism are often taken up in a pedestrian way, sliding easily into a mushy-feel-good-sentiment which becomes a kind of band-aid that merely masks the reality of dukkha rather than accept it honestly for what it is.

PS: Thanks Mike for the link.

[PeterB]

I didnt coin the phrase Zavk so please feel free...
I actually read it in an article about Protestantism which described it as having" no positive raison'detre..it is merely Roman Catholicism with a minus sign..."
I too like much Romantic writing I am sucker for Keats and Shelly and Schiller, and I love the Transcendentalists particularly Whitman..but is is all too easy to conflate their world view with that of the Buddha.
Their view and that of their sucessors named in the article, stopped well short of the radical ruthlessness of the Dhamma with its insistence that conditioned phenomena can never lead to a way out of Dukkha.

[christopher:::]

Nice article (he's written something like that before, hasn't he?). Bhikkhu Thanissaro raises some good points about how it is important to be historically reflexive in our approach to the Dhamma. As he suggests, it is important to be aware of the broader cultural and intellectual assumptions that have influenced the development of Buddhism and how these assumptions continue to underly contemporary understandings of the Dhamma. To this extent, he is certainly spot on in identifying the influence of Romanticism, and he has certainly identified some of the key problems of conflating the assumptions of Romanticism with the Dhamma.

While I largely agree with what he is trying to do, I think the kind of critically reflexivity he is calling for should not only be applied to Romanticism but also to the other cultural and intellectual paradigms that have influenced and still continue to influence our understanding of Buddhism. I have mentioned this book several times before: The Making of Buddhist Modernism, by David McMahan. The book presents a good overview of how contemporary Buddhism has been shaped by three overarching cultural and intellectual paradigms of modernity: western monotheism, scientific rationalism, and romantic expressivism.

To put it very simply, it looks at the history of Buddhism from the nineteenth century to illustrate how Buddhism has been reconfigured in relation to these three overarching discursive paradigms. Examining a range of Buddhist figures and movements, the book demonstrates how Buddhism is sometimes aligned with these discursive paradigms and how it is sometimes placed in opposition to them. In short, the Buddhism that we have today has developed out of a continuous interplay with these three paradigms.

Given this to be the case, Bhikkhu Thanissaro is certainly right to draw attention to the influence of Romanticism. But I don't think Buddhism can totally disassociate itself from Romanticism as such--how can it do so when Romanticism forms part of the conceptual scaffolding upon which Dhammic ideas are made relevant and intelligible to a contemporary audience? To be fair, I don't think Bhikkhu Thanissaro is suggesting that Buddhism cuts or seals itself off from Romanticism. It seems to me that he is arguing for greater reflexivity, that we carefully sift through those assumptions that are unhelpful, assumptions which might misrepresent some of the fundamental principles of the Dhamma.

But by the same token, the same could be said about the other two discursive paradigms that equally influence Buddhism. How might we become more critically reflexive about the influence of western monotheism and scientific rationalism? Of particular interest for most of us here, I think, would be Buddhism's relationship with scientific rationalism. To take Bhikkhu Thanissaro critical attitude seriously then, we ought to equally ask:

- How have (western) notions of rationalism and scientificity influenced the way we understand Buddhism?
- What assumptions of scientific rationalism have been projected onto Buddhism?
- Have any assumptions about rationality and scientificity become (to borrow Bhikkhu Thanissaro's words) 'gates' that shut us off from some of the more challenging and radical possibilities of the Dhamma, possibilities which may very well elude or exceed rationality and scientificity?
- How might we begin to sift through these assumptions?

Thanks for sharing the article. Bhikkhu Thanissaro's critical attitude is admirable and is certainly worth emulating. My preference, however, is to take onboard his critical attitude and extend it to other cultural and intellectual paradigms influencing contemporary Buddhism and not just 'Romanticism.' So for instance: Bearing in mind that scientific rationalism is largely a product of the European Enlightenment (a very recent historical development in comparison to the history of the Dhamma), just as Bhikkhu Thanissaro wishes to respect the Dhamma for what it is by interrogating 'Buddhist Romanticism', how might we--to respect the Dhamma for what it is--also interrogate, say, 'Buddhist Rationalism' or 'Scientific Buddhism'?

Wow. Excellent points, zavk.

I wonder if there's really anything that can be done though, except to explore this and be aware about it. Just look at the various forms of Buddhism in Asian countries. Most have adapted to the traditional ancestor worship practices of cultures. There's a lot of ritual, prayer, not much meditation. I'm often surprised here in Japan how few Japanese have ever heard of the Dhammapada or know anything of the suttas and what exactly Buddha taught- beyond the 4NT and 8F Path. Something like Pureland with its emphasis on an afterlife, how does that correspond to the teaching of anatta?

Large numbers of Westerners attracted to Buddhism have been attracted to "Romanticised" Buddhism for the reasons you mentioned, myself included...

I don't think Buddhism can totally disassociate itself from Romanticism as such--how can it do so when Romanticism forms part of the conceptual scaffolding upon which Dhammic ideas are made relevant and intelligible to a contemporary audience?

When you consider the interdependence of Nature, feel that you belong to the Universe, cultivate the brahmaviharas in your social relationships, what need is there to seek a teacher beyond your books and mountain hikes? When you know that by praying to Buddha you'll be going to the Pure Land after death, how different is that from being saved by Jesus?

The Pure Land

The Pure Land is described in the Longer Sukhāvatīvyūha Sūtra as a land of beauty that surpasses all other realms. More importantly for the Pure Land practitioner, once one has been "born" into this land (birth occurs painlessly through lotus flowers), one will never again be reborn. In the Pure Land one will be personally instructed by Amitābha Buddha and numerous bodhisattvas until one reaches full and complete enlightenment. In effect, being born into the Pure Land is akin to escaping saṃsāra, thereby achieving enlightenment.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_Land_Buddhism

Not saying either of these views are "correct" or correspond to what Buddha actually taught, but the mutation and morphing of religions into multiple forms serving varied audiences and cultures seems to be what always happens.

When they have become hopelessly diluted though, even misleading and unhelpful, that is important to consider.

[PeterB]

Nice article (he's written something like that before, hasn't he?).

It was presented in a talk here:
http://www.audiodharma.org/teacher/16/
Buddhist Romanticism 2002-03-25 44:16


Mike

I have not heard that before...strongly recommeded.

To summarise part of what he says in the talk ...western Buddhists under the influence of Romanticism can tend to see Dhamma as to do with feelings..of Peak Experiences which are then integrated into everyday life. In order to become " better" people. Whereas what the Buddha was actually teaching undermines the very concept of the entity who has peak experiences...that he saw such experiences as more stuff to be let go of.

[christopher:::]

I wonder if perhaps it's a shortcut taken to something similar to piti (rapture)... A kind of joy that accompanies a sense of deep peace, nothing left to seek, the sense of egoic self falls away yet awareness feels a part of all that is.... "this is it"... While i cannot say i've experienced this kind of meditative joy i have had peak experiences of this type while walking in Nature or contemplating science.

Western Buddhists who focus on the beauty and interdependence of the world may be drawn by this. Though definitely, if it is saught too strongly or grasped to there will be suffering. Like everything such experiences must be let go of. In recent years i've had many less peak experiences, in part because i no longer saught the experience. The last one about a year ago while sitting in the planetarium in NY watching a science show on the history of the Universe, lol.

My own 2 cents is this will continue to be a draw. Listen to teachers like Thich Nhat Hanh, Genpo "Big Mind" Roshi, Llama Surya Das- in fact most of the Mahayana "best sellers" - they constantly sprinkle such references into their presentations of the Dharma.

Even a highly respected IMS teacher such as Joseph Goldstein will share quotes from Transcentalists or an Advaita sage. It's not that he focuses on this romantic view but he does bring it in from time to time. Perhaps to maintain the interest (and motivation) of his audiences?

With a competent teacher, can this be viewed as skillful means?

[bazzaman]

.

[Ben]

Hi Ed,

I do feel that keeping these questions open are vital to my continuing growth in the Dhamma.

Yes, me too.

Thanks Peter for sharing.

[ground]

I think that there is no "dhamma as such" that is not influenced by its specific regional cultural environment. Actually integrating some of the cultural aspects of the environment the dhamma is "newly entering" is a characteristic of dissemination of "the dhamma". Only the integration of ideas/concepts that are in contradiction to "right view" is problematic.
Personally I find some of the achievements of "European enlightenment" very helpful and completely compliant with the buddhist path. But that does not mean that these achievements become dominant, it just means that they are helpful in dealing with Buddhism and integrating the buddhist path and Western cultural environment which produced a significant part of my personality and is still shaping it.

Kind regards

[PeterB]

Hi Ed,

I do feel that keeping these questions open are vital to my continuing growth in the Dhamma.

Yes, me too.

Thanks Peter for sharing.

It was actually Alan, Ben...I just pinched it.

metta

P.

[PeterB]

I think that there is no "dhamma as such" that is not influenced by its specific regional cultural environment. Actually integrating some of the cultural aspects of the environment the dhamma is "newly entering" is a characteristic of dissemination of "the dhamma". Only the integration of ideas/concepts that are in contradiction to "right view" is problematic.
Personally I find some of the achievements of "European enlightenment" very helpful and completely compliant with the buddhist path. But that does not mean that these achievements become dominant, it just means that they are helpful in dealing with Buddhism and integrating the buddhist path and Western cultural environment which produced a significant part of my personality and is still shaping it.

Kind regards

I think it is undoubtedly true that the Dhamma will be influenced by cutural issues . However some of that culture will be a natural fit and some wont. I think what the good Bhikkhu is saying is that Romanticism is a bad fit with the Theravada. It is imo a better fit with the Mahayana.
To the degree that you could make a case that the Mahayana is Romantic and the Theravada Classical.

[zavk]

I'm often surprised here in Japan how few Japanese have ever heard of the Dhammapada or know anything of the suttas and what exactly Buddha taught- beyond the 4NT and 8F Path.

Oh, I'm reminded of this book, Presenting Japanese Buddhism to the West: Orientalism, Occidentalism, and the Columbian Exposition. I think you might like it christoher. It is written by an Australian Buddhist historian who is especially interested in Japanese culture, having spent many years living there. You live in Japan, right? The book is a very interesting read. It presents an insightful look at how Japanese Buddhism was reconfigured from the mid-nineteenth to early twentieth centuries in response to western modernity and also criticisms by western scholars who, based on certain assumptions, took the view that Japanese or 'Eastern Buddhism' was somehow degenerate (well, the view still persists today, doesn't it?). Along with the book I mentioned in the previous post, this book addresses some of the points I've raised earlier and has really helped me to develop greater historical reflexivity towards this thing we call 'Buddhism'. I think it will be especially relevant to you, christopher. I highly recommend it!

Speaking of the book, there's this bit where she discusses T.W. Rhys Davids, whose work strongly influenced the rationalistic and humanistic interpretation of the Dhamma, and of course modern Theravada. It relates to what I've suggested previously and also connects with some of the other posts here. Erm... I think it's better if I post again later. Let me first have my dinner and 'chillax' for a bit. I've been working on the computer all day. It's probably also better that I break up my posts because, as you can clearly see, I have a tendency to long rambling posts--which I have to admit can be hard on the eyes.

[PeterB]

I wait with bated breath Zavk to see you explain the mechanism by which " modern" Theravada was the work of one particular early Pali scholar.


Always touching to see in the middle of discussions about an essay by a Theravadin Bhikkhu students of the Mahayana will find a way to reach out to each other even when that involves conclusions that would not be supported by the author of that which is under discussion... ....bless.

[christopher:::]

Hi everyone.

Yes, Ed, this looks fascinating. I'll add it to my order list of books for our University library..!!

http://blogs.dickinson.edu/buddhistethi ... review.pdf

Though I think with the larger Japanese Buddhist faiths that were "born" many centuries ago such as Jodo Shinshu & Pure Land there is a reliance on prayers and mantras (as a way of gaining enlightenment) that still continues on to this day. Jodo Shinshu in particular is considered an "easy path" where (much like getting saved by believing in Jesus) a believer is saved by belief and faith moreso then actions and practice.

From Wikipedia:

Shinran advocates reliance on tariki, or other power (他力)—the power of Amida Buddha's made manifest in Amida Buddha's Primal Vow—in order to attain liberation. Shin Buddhism can therefore be understood as a "practiceless practice," for there are no specific acts to be performed such as there are in the "Path of Sages" (the other Buddhist schools of the time that advocated 'jiriki' ('self-power'). In Shinran's own words, Shin Buddhism is considered the "Easy Path" because one is not compelled to perform many difficult, and often esoteric, practices in order to attain higher and higher mental states.

Apologies to Peter and others who might view this as "off topic".... but it does fit in i think with this larger question Bikkhu Thanissaro raised about how cultures transform, dilute or otherwise re-state the Dhamma....

[PeterB]

I would suggest btw Zavk that you start a new thread...it would be off topic for this one in my opinion , which is specific to Bhikkhu Thanissaro's essay on the Romantic Movement and its influence.

[zavk]

I wait with bated breath Zavk to see you explain the mechanism by which " modern" Theravada was the work of one particular early Pali schoar.


Always touching to see in the middle of discussions about an essay by a Theravadin Bhikkhu students of the Mahayana will find a way to reach out to each other even when that involves conclusions that would not be supported by the author of that which is under discussion... ....bless.

Ah... By 'modern Theravada' I'm referring to the ways in which the Buddhism found in Sri Lanka and Southeast Asia has been interpreted since the modern period, i.e. from around the mid-nineteenth century onwards. And by citing Rhys Davids as someone who has 'strongly influenced' modern Theravada, I am of course not implying that he singlehandedly shaped Theravada. How can any one person do that? Someone like Descartes for instance is commonly described as the 'Father of Modern Philosophy' but this does not in any way mean that he singlehandedly shaped modern philosophy.

As for Rhys Davids, he is widely considered by Buddhist historians and scholars (and many of these are committed Buddhists too and not 'mere academics') to be a key figure. The esteemed scholar Richard Gombrich, for instance, has described Rhys Davids as the 'great orientalist [who] did more than anyone else ro introduce [Buddhism] to the English-speaking public, influencing even English-speaking Sinhalese Buddhists,' and thus 'serious students of Buddhism will never allow [his] name to die.' (From his review of the book The Genesis of an Orientalist: Thomas William Rhys Davids and Buddhism in Sri Lanka, p. 121-22).

Even if we ignore such accolades, Rhys Davids can be reasonably considered a highly influential figure insofar as much of the interpretations of Buddhism from the late-twentieth century onwards engaged with his work, regardless of whether they were supportive or critical of it. It is in this sense that I'm citing him as a key figure--not unlike how people consider Descartes the 'Father of Modern Philosophy' because much of philosophy that came after him responded to his work. Also, Rhys Davids can be considered a key figure insofar as he set the groundwork for the large-scale translation of the Pali canon into English, without which knowledge about Buddhism would not be as readily accessible as it had been.

So no, I would not say that modern Theravada is the work of one Rhys Davids, but I do consider him a key pioneering figure because it is not unreasonable, given the historical facts, to say so.

As for your second part of your post, I'm not quite sure to make of it, to be honest. I was suggesting a book to christopher because I think it would address his curiosity. I'm not quite sure how what I intended to be a friendly gesture (in faceless online environment such as this no less) has to do with 'Mahayana students' finding a way to make conclusions that are irrelevant to what Bhikkhu Thanissaro said. I did, however, mention that the book contains material that is of relevance to what I wrote previously--and I am assuming that what I've written is of relevance--but I have not yet had the chance to share that. So I don't know how you got the impression that it is irrelevant when it hasn't even been written. Perhaps, the mention of 'Eastern Buddhism' and what early Western scholars thought of it gave you the impression that I was somehow attempting to insert a Mahayana agenda into the discussion. But as I've said, I was trying to be friendly to christopher, pointing out something which I thought might interest him. Or maybe I am just reading too much into it; maybe I'm just too presumptuous to think that you are referring to me.

christopher: Oh, I didn't know that the JBE had reviewed the book. Thanks.

[PeterB]

http://www.tricycle.com/feature/romancing-buddha?=o,o

Its not long...it might be beneficial to read it in its entirety.
I would draw particular attention to the final paragraph.
Thanks are due to alan, he posted it in another thread and I have pinched it.

This is the O P.