Black Ships, Blavatsky And The Pizza Effect

[sabaijai]

Review of Stephen Jenkins' "Black Ships, Blavatsky and the Pizza Effect: Critical Self-Consciousness as a Thematic Foundation for Courses in Buddhist Studies." From the Wheel to the Web: Teaching Buddhism in the Western Academy. Eds. Victor Sogen Hori, Richard P. Hayes, and James Mark Shields. London: Curzon, 2000. 71-83.

Many observers have noted that unlike the case of Christianity or Judaism, Buddhist Studies is a Western discipline about an Asian religion. Teachers of Buddhism in North America usually do not share the same cultural background of the people, texts and religious institutions they teach about. They worry that in their teaching they may be unwittingly distorting the subject matter by viewing it through a cultural lens. Even though teachers may be sensitive to the danger of cultural distortion, there is no assurance that students will be so careful and self-conscious. Almost all of the Conference participants addressed this issue in one way or another, but Stephen Jenkins in his paper, "Black Ships, Blavatsky and the Pizza Effect: Critical Self-consciousness as a Thematic Foundation for Courses in Buddhist Studies," dealt with it most explicitly. At his college, Jenkins had the task of preparing students for an international studies program where they would be entering into, and living in, another culture. Some students inevitably begin by treating a foreign culture as just an object and think they are doing little more than studying an exotic world view. To get students past this stage, Jenkins emphasizes the "feedback loop" (the "pizza effect") to show students they are involved in constructing, and then misperceiving, the foreign culture they are studying. Just as it was Americans who made the elaborate pizza and then mistook it for an indigenous Italian product and just as Italians have co-opted the American pizza and now make it for American tourists, so also it was Westerners who created the rational protestant Buddhism of modern Sri Lanka and then mistook it for an indigenous Sri Lankan product, and so also did a Sri Lankan Buddhist spokesman, Dharmapala, sell this protestanized Buddhism back to West when he appeared at the World Parliament of Religions in 1893. There are several other examples in Jenkins' paper. The epistemological lesson he draws is that the study of other cultures provides an opportunity where our own subjectivity as Westerners can dialogue with the subjectivity of the culture under study. This meeting of subjectivity with subjectivity constitutes inter-religious dialogue between cultures and intra-religious dialogue within the mind of a single student or scholar.

source: http://www.teach-buddhism.mcgill.ca/papers.htm

[camerata]

it was Westerners who created the rational protestant Buddhism of modern Sri Lanka and then mistook it for an indigenous Sri Lankan product, and so also did a Sri Lankan Buddhist spokesman, Dharmapala, sell this protestanized Buddhism back to West when he appeared at the World Parliament of Religions in 1893.

Any idea what form this protestant Buddhism took, i.e. was it something like what happened in Thailand around the turn of the century?

[sabaijai]

I've just deleted three posts about pizza. If you want to discuss the origins of pizza, try the Western Food branch or General Topics. There's already a long thread on the topic in one of those branches.

Thanks.

[thaibebop]

I might be wrong, but it seems to me this is an ongoing thing. I see many examples in America where the philosophy of Buddhism is used in all sorts of self-help topics. So, many of these people have little knowledge of Buddhism found in Asia. They just take what they like and what works. While I have no major problem with taking bits and pieces that work of you as an individual, yet when it's marketed out to the public I think such tactics I think it will create problems. Maybe I am not understanding this, but is that kind of what's being talked about here?

[OldSarge]

it was Westerners who created the rational protestant Buddhism of modern Sri Lanka and then mistook it for an indigenous Sri Lankan product, and so also did a Sri Lankan Buddhist spokesman, Dharmapala, sell this protestanized Buddhism back to West when he appeared at the World Parliament of Religions in 1893.

Any idea what form this protestant Buddhism took, i.e. was it something like what happened in Thailand around the turn of the century?

Historically, Buddhism was a "protest" against the Hindu religious dogmas revolving around caste, what Christian theology would call "predestination", and numerous other features and consequences of that body of religions we in the West call "Hindu religion". It was, if I recall correctly, labelled in this way by some Western academic (whose name or university I do not recall) who was consciously analogizing Buddhism to the Protestant religions which arose from Marth Luther's "protests" contained in the 95 Theses. This characterization is entirely the product of Western Academia and is, so far as I know, without foundation in the historical record.

Jenkins' title reveals why the phenomenon he describes exists and what causes it: "...Courses in Buddhist Studies". A similar course in any of the various Christian religions would likewise and from equal necessity (if conducted out of the culture context in which Christianity is embedded) suffer from the same or very similar difficulties in perceiving what the true object of such a course is: the religion or its cultural context. For an authority, if you need one, on this issue, I refer you to Mark Twain's short bit about the study of humor being rather like disection of a frog: the student learns something, but the frog dies. The point being - in case I am being rather too obscure - that the academic study of any subject which arises or arose in the context of a human culture and society necessarily lacks life and consequently lacks verity and completeness when it is studied in the academic manner. Particularly, I would add, in these days when everything under the sun is so highly politicized in the Western parts of the world.

Oh, and I apologize to the moderator or moderators for not mentioning pizza in my post.

Edited May 24, 2006 by OldSarge

[camerata]

It was, if I recall correctly, labelled in this way by some Western academic (whose name or university I do not recall) who was consciously analogizing Buddhism to the Protestant religions which arose from Marth Luther's "protests" contained in the 95 Theses. This characterization is entirely the product of Western Academia and is, so far as I know, without foundation in the historical record.

OK, so the whole thing was a misperception. At first I thought what the article was saying was that Western colonialism actually changed Sri Lankan Buddhism and that subsequently academics believed this changed form to be the original form.

In Thailand it seems that the fear of colonialism resulted in the emphasis on scholarship over meditation and enlightenment in the late 19th and early 20th century.

[OldSarge]

In Thailand it seems that the fear of colonialism resulted in the emphasis on scholarship over meditation and enlightenment in the late 19th and early 20th century.

As much as I dislike having to disagree, I have to say that I don't believe that statement is true either. The emphasis on scholarship over meditation arose historically during the reign of Rama III. His older brother who one would have thought the heir was passed over because the younger brother had been active in the government and army. That older brother became a Buddhist monk for the next 26 years and in the course of that time learned to speak, read and write English, German, French, Dutch, Latin and a couple other language I have forgotten. Oh, Japanese and Chinese. When Rama III passed away, this brother was crowned and took the throne as Rama IV, also known as King Mongut. During the time he was a monk, because of his interest in scholarship and because the Thai Sangha was - to be polite - in a disreputable state, he advocated a reorganization, strengthening and purification of the Sangha in Thailand. When he became King, quite naturally he continued his rectification of what he saw as abuses and improper behavior, with considerable success. It is true that his reforms regarding the literacy of monks and the study of the Triple Baskets as written scriptures was widely regarded in the West as being evidence of the cultured and civilized character of the "Siamese" people and nobility, it wasn't - in my opinion - a fear of colonialism which motivated Rama IV's reforms and emphasis upon the study and scholarship regarding the Buddhist scriptures. Rather it was his piously conceived desire to remedy what he saw while he was a monk as being improper behavior within the Sangha and his ability to effectuate those changes once he ascended to the throne.

Upon Rama V's taking the throne, those trends within the Sangha continued of their own momentum and continuing royal sponsorship of the "new" order of monks that had been initiated by Rama IV, as well as a modernization of the kingdom. That modernization was intentional and the intention was two-fold: to improve the conditions of the people and to fend off Britain and France. The emphasis upon the study of the written Dharma and the attendant scholarship has continued to be encouraged by successive monarchs. So, it is only natural that it would seem that it has supplanted the "meditation and enlightenment" method previous dominant. The "forest meditation" school of Thai Buddhism is alive and well. See, e.g., Forest Dhamma of Phramaha Boowa and The Mode of Practice of Venerable Ajarn Mun. (These are English translations, just in case you begin to think too much of my scholarship.)

[sabaijai]

It was, if I recall correctly, labelled in this way by some Western academic (whose name or university I do not recall) who was consciously analogizing Buddhism to the Protestant religions which arose from Marth Luther's "protests" contained in the 95 Theses. This characterization is entirely the product of Western Academia and is, so far as I know, without foundation in the historical record.

OK, so the whole thing was a misperception. At first I thought what the article was saying was that Western colonialism actually changed Sri Lankan Buddhism and that subsequently academics believed this changed form to be the original form.

In Thailand it seems that the fear of colonialism resulted in the emphasis on scholarship over meditation and enlightenment in the late 19th and early 20th century.

I believe the article is referring to Henry Steele Olcott and his Buddhism revival in Sri Lanka. Excerpt:

"The most Protestant of all early “Protestant Buddhists,” Olcott was a culture broker with one foot planted in traditional Sinhalese Buddhism and the other in liberal American Protestantism. By creatively combining these two sources, along with other influences such as theosophy, academic Orientalism, and metropolitan gentility, he helped to craft a new form of Buddhism that thrives today not only in Sri Lanka but also in the United States."

[camerata]

In Thailand it seems that the fear of colonialism resulted in the emphasis on scholarship over meditation and enlightenment in the late 19th and early 20th century.

As much as I dislike having to disagree, I have to say that I don't believe that statement is true either.

Well, OK, that was rather a casual generalization based on my reading of Kamala Tiyavanich's two excellent books, Forest Recollections and The Buddha in the Jungle a couple of years ago. More specifically, what I remember is the creation of a centralized "state Buddhism" which was undertaken in parallel with the centralization/consolidation of modern Thailand to (as you say) fend off the two colonial powers. The effort to erase superstition and the "mystical" (i.e. enlightenment) aspect of Buddhism was, I recall, due in part to criticism by the Christian missionaries who came to the East with colonialism, but perhaps not directly from a fear of colonialism:

This conviction of Mongkut's [that true religion was a matter of rational doctrine and belief] may have been shaped by Western and Christian influences. Like many Christian missionaries, Mongkut had an intellectual image of religion. He and the Siamese elite of his generation accepted the Christian missionaries' judgment that traditional Buddhism was too superstitious. They sought to prove to Western missionaries that Buddhism was compatible with science and could support intellectual study and learning.

If there had been no colonialism and no Western missionaries, I wonder if this change to Thai Buddhism would ever have occurred?

The "forest meditation" school of Thai Buddhism is alive and well.

Sure, but it's a pretty small school - left with no jungle to wander in - and as Dr Kamala says, "although urban people like having forest monks to venerate, they tend to venerate them as symbols and remain unaffected by the message that the monks hope to convey."

I think Bhuddhadasa also tried to keep alive or bring back the idea of meditation/enlightenment as the main focus of Buddhism but Thais on the whole haven't been that receptive. They seem to like things the way they are. Ironically, all of the real superstitious practices are alive and well in modern Thailand. I couldn't help noticing that our Dear Leader Thaksin just took a 49-day break. How auspicious...

[OldSarge]

I believe the article is referring to Henry Steele Olcott and his Buddhism revival in Sri Lanka. Excerpt:

"The most Protestant of all early “Protestant Buddhists,” Olcott was a culture broker with one foot planted in traditional Sinhalese Buddhism and the other in liberal American Protestantism. By creatively combining these two sources, along with other influences such as theosophy, academic Orientalism, and metropolitan gentility, he helped to craft a new form of Buddhism that thrives today not only in Sri Lanka but also in the United States."

I apologize for not writing more clearly. I did not mean to say or imply that the characterization of Buddhism as a religion of protesters was your imagination or that it had not been so characterized in history, but that it was applied to it by Westerners rather than being a perception of Oriental Hindus or Buddhist. Further, that neither early Buddhists nor their Hindu neighbors considered them to be "protestants" in the sense that Mr. Olcott's writings made Buddhism out to be and that it was Westerners who applied that label or characterization to Buddism, rather than Buddhists of an earlier age.

There may very well be some truth to the characterization and it is entirely possible that modern Asian Buddhists might agree with it. However, unlike Christian Protestantism which was self-consciously a "protest", Buddhism was simply another path to salvation, according the Oriental definitions of salvation, not intentionally a protest or cry for rectification of the religions contemporary with the Buddha's lifetime. And that last was my point, albeit clumsily written.

camerata: While his rationalism may have been a response to exposure to Western thought both in religion and science, Rama IV's life seems to me to have been a demonstration of his personal intellect and rationalism. One does not spend half a lifetime learning six or eight languages and a number of utterly foreign scientific disciplines unless one is a rationalist, at least in part. And the reforms of the Sangha in the Fourth Reign were precisely rationist trimming of some of the worst of the cultural accretions of superstitious practice upon the Dharma, as well as restoring the primacy of the Rules for the Sangha over corrupt practices and customs which had taken hold since the sack of Ayuthaya.

One of the unfortunate aspects of Western scholarship is the (nearly always unconscious) belief that many things of importance which occured in non-Western cultures after contact with the West were caused by the influence of Western thought, culture or religion. In some cases, there is evidence to support this belief; in many there is not. That belief colors most if not all of the writings of academics and learned amateurs from the 19th and 20th Centuries and is that explanation of the changes is usually the first theory advanced in academic writings to explain them. That the contact influenced all the other cultures is undeniable; that it was the primary cause seems to me to be unlikely in all instances. In this case, I believe the balance of the historical evidence is that Rama IV was an exceptional man who caused exceptional changes in his nation, intentionally for the purposes of protecting it from foreign dominance and occupation, as well as improving the lot of his people. In addition, Thailand in the Fourth Reign was undergoing a transition from a more fragmented feudal state into a centralised one and the changes in the kingdom enhanced the roayl authority. That process continued, as a matter of deliberate policy, in the Fifth Reign as well. So, my claim is that it was motivated largely by a pious man's desire to purify his religion, to protect his people, and to improve his own position within the political system of the kingdom. Not primarily in response to Western influences, although very likely in response to a perceived threat of conquest by Western nations.

As incredible as it may seem to us, as Westerners, the words of the traditional Sukothai coronation ceremony which are still a part of the modern Thai coronation - "To rule in righteousness for the good of the Siamese people" - was taken quite literally by Thailand's kings, the present Reign included.

Edited May 25, 2006 by OldSarge

[sabaijai]

There may very well be some truth to the characterization and it is entirely possible that modern Asian Buddhists might agree with it.

Sri Lankans do, as they quite commonly refer to modern-day Sinhalese Buddhism as its 'protestant' form..

However, unlike Christian Protestantism which was self-consciously a "protest", Buddhism was simply another path to salvation, according the Oriental definitions of salvation, not intentionally a protest or cry for rectification of the religions contemporary with the Buddha's lifetime. And that last was my point, albeit clumsily written.

In the book reviewed above (not my review by the way, I merely pasted it in the post), the protestant Buddhism referred to is not the original Buddhist thought that appeared in India but rather the Olcott-precipitated 'modernised' Buddhism of late 19th-century Sri Lanka.

I spent six weeks in Sri Lanka late last year and my impression was that most Sri Lankans today believe their form of 'protestant Buddhism' (their own term) to be closer to original Buddhism than any other modern school. In other words their form of Buddhism is, from their perspective, a protest against other forms of Buddhism (rather than a protest against Brahmanism).

All of this is a separate discussion from the subject matter contained in the article ""Black Ships, Blavatsky and the Pizza Effect," which describes and analyses the importation of Western ideas about Buddhism by Asian cultures. The term 'protestant' is usually only applied to Sri Lankan Buddhism, and the concept behind it (if not the term itself) appears to have been imported from the West.

Tha's not to say that many Asians haven't long held the belief that Buddhism was a kind of rebellion, heresy, etc. My Buddhist Studies professor at university - himself a practicing Jain with a high regard for Buddhism - taught his students that Buddhism was orignally a 'heresy' against Brahmanism. Not the same as Protestantism vs Catholicism, as OldSarge points out.

Back to Sri Lanka, the Sinhalese never passed up an opportunity to point out to me out that Buddhism was a rebellion against Brahmanism. So it's not merely a Western concept.

[bankei]

There are a series of excellent articles by Gregory Schopen on "protestant presumptions in the study of Buddhism."

One of which is “Archaeology and Protestant Presuppositions in the. Study of Indian Buddhism,” History of Religions 31/1 (August 1991).

From memory, he argues that there is ample evidence to suggest that monks were involved in various practices which have been considered degenarations of Buddhism, since very early in the history of Buddhism. Furthermore, this evidence has been ignored by most scholars, and sometimes even suppressed. So Buddhism hasn't degenarated over the years. It was like this from the begining, or very close to the beginning.

eg.

- It is assumed that monks only started using money recently. However, various archaeological evidence suggests otherwise. this eivdence includes finding evidence of a coin forging operation in a monastery.

- Monks holding property, owning slaves, being concerned with inheritance of property etc

- Belief in ghosts etc by monks was widespread from an early period.

- Monks, and Nuns, donating stupas, being concered with merit etc date from the early centuries BC, possibly as early as the 3rd century BC.

Schopen now has 3 books out which are a collection of his various articles over the years - fascinating stuff.

Regards

Bankei