Buddhist
Activism and Chinese Modernity
Hung-yok
Ip
Oregon State University
Department of History
306 Milam Hall
Corvallis, Oregon
U.S.A.
hip@oregonstate.edu
(1)
Abstract
The
history of modern Chinese Buddhism has begun to attract attention
in recent years. Some scholars have done inspiring research as they
unravel the integration of Buddhism into the highly secularized process
of Chinese modernity by drawing on the repository of knowledge
on modern China. While this special issue joins this exciting
endeavor, it also uses Buddhism as a window to reflect on scholarship
on Chinese modernity. Conceptually, this special issue presses scholars
in the field of modern China to rethink the place of tradition in the
course of modernity. Thematically we show the expansionist impulse of
Chinese Buddhism: In addition to envisioning the geographical expansion
of their religion, Chinese Buddhists have endeavored to enhance the
significance of Buddhism in various dimensions of Chinese society in
particular and human life in general.
Once
neglected, the history of modern Chinese Buddhism has begun to
attract attention in recent years. Some scholars have done inspiring
research as, in unraveling the integration of Buddhism in the highly
secularized process of Chinese modernity, they draw on the immense
repository of knowledge on modern China.(2)
While this special
issue joins this exciting endeavor, it also uses Buddhism as a window
to reflect on scholarship on Chinese modernity. Conceptually, this
special issue presses scholars in the field of modern China to rethink
the place of tradition in the course of modernity. Thematically we show
the expansionist impulse of Chinese Buddhism—i.e., Chinese
Buddhists have been committed to making their religion a global one,
and to enhancing the significance of Buddhism in various dimensions of
Chinese society in particular and human life in general. (3)
Why "Buddhist
Activism"?
Our
research efforts are based on a close examination of
Buddhist/Buddhist-inspired historical actors who have left significant
marks on Chinese Buddhism. In other words, we explore those who
work(ed) strenuously for Buddhism—that is, to ensure its
survival in the face of formidable challenges, to pursue the "truth" of
their religion, to apply their tradition to important issues of their
own times, and/or to promote their visions of Buddhism within or beyond
the boundaries of China. In this project their activities are included
in what I would venture to call Buddhist activism. (4)
On
the surface, the concept of "Buddhist activism" seems superfluous.
Scholars have for a while examined the evolution of Humanistic Buddhism
(Humanitarian Buddhism, Buddhism for the Human Realm, Buddhism for this
World, renjian fojiao
人間佛教). More recently, they have begun to discuss the question of
whether Humanistic Buddhism can be considered a localized trend of
Engaged Buddhism. It seems, therefore, that the Buddhist-based
activities we examine here are parts of the Chinese construction of
Humanistic Buddhism, or the global creation of Engaged Buddhism. I
believe, however, that it would be beneficial if we refuse to be
circumscribed by the terms of Humanistic Buddhism and Engaged Buddhism.
To use but to transcend them will, I would argue, help us better
understand the multiple ways in which Chinese Buddhists build (built)
the modern presence of their beloved tradition.
Reflecting on
Humanistic Buddhism
Humanistic
Buddhism originated at the turn of the twentieth century, as
some Chinese Buddhists reshaped their religion because of Christian
missionaries' aggressive proselytization, many modernist intellectuals'
attack on religion, (5)
and their own interest in modern Western secular and religious cultures
and lack of confidence in Confucianism. Although Taixu 太虛 (1890-1947)
might not be the person who invented the term "Humanistic Buddhism," he
has been best-known for promoting it in the Republican period
(1911–1949), (6)
and was readily supported by others like Daxing大醒(1900–1950)
and Fafang 法舫(1904–1951) in the early 1930s.
The
theory of Humanistic Buddhism migrated to Taiwan against the
backdrop of the victory of the Chinese Communist Party (hereafter the
CCP) in 1949. In Taiwan, some eminent mainland monks used the term
Buddhism for Human Life (rensheng
fojiao 人生佛教), which Taixu had
preferred since the late 1930s. In these influential Buddhists'
writings, like Humanistic Buddhism, Buddhism for Human Life also meant
the adaptation of Buddhism to the situation and needs of one's own
time, the application of Buddhism to problems of one's society, and the
promotion of Buddhist education (Bingenheimer, 2007). Undeniably
Yinshun 印順 (1906-2005) played a most crucial role in establishing
Humanistic Buddhism on the island, although the question of how or
whether he differed from Taixu has been debated. (7)
And it is obvious that
in postwar Taiwan, Humanistic Buddhism, with its emphasis on adaptation
to changes, has metamorphosed into many forms—the advocacy of
Buddhist education and scholarship, various efforts to link meditation
to everyday life, charitable services, etc. If well-established
Buddhist organizations, despite their different approaches to social
and political involvement, share the refusal to pose serious challenges
to the status quo, others have intended to challenge the status quo in
the name of Humanistic Buddhism. (8)
I
am reluctant to use the term Humanistic Buddhism, rooted in some
Chinese Buddhists' efforts to remold their religion, as an analytical
category framing this special issue. This reluctance is based on two
seemingly contradictory reasons—its exclusivity and its
inclusivity.
Humanistic
Buddhism is too exclusive and therefore unable to explain
many individuals and groups who have significantly contributed to the
presence of modern and contemporary Chinese Buddhism. While it seems
possible that some Buddhist-informed thinkers whose lives preceded the
emergence of Humanistic Buddhism could be considered the precursors of renjian
fojiao, there have been many
others who cannot be incorporated into its parameters. In China,
influential practitioners who did a great deal for Buddhism always
operated outside of the Humanistic Buddhist circle. (9)
In contemporary
Taiwan, Humanistic Buddhism may not be sufficient if we want to better
understand those practitioners, Humanistic and non-Humanistic Buddhists
alike, who still cling to traditional modes of the religion. Neither
can Humanistic Buddhism do much to deepen our knowledge about the
rising influence of Tibetan Buddhism there. (10)
But
quite ironically, Humanistic Buddhism can also be too inclusive, if
we take into account the numbers of people who are affiliated in
various ways with centers of Humanistic Buddhism, or of those assuming
that they to a certain degree are practitioners of Humanistic Buddhism.
This point is particularly germane to the contemporary religious
landscape of Taiwan. Many of these Humanistic Buddhists neither work
hard nor give away much for Buddhism (Chou, 2007: 240-245). Granted,
research on them, who are in the majority, promises to give important
insights into Humanistic Buddhism as a significant phenomenon, but I
have to confess that my approach to Buddhism here is more elitist,
aimed at locating people and collectives who were/are more committed to
their religion and/or transpersonal agendas than those "rank-and-file"
Humanistic Buddhists.
Reflecting on Engaged
Buddhism
Like
Humanistic Buddhism, Engaged Buddhism is not entirely adequate if
we use it as an analytical category for this special issue. It is
widely known that the term "Engaged Buddhism," coined by Thich Nhat
Hanh in the 1960s, was to a significant extent based on Taixu's theory
of Humanistic Buddhism, (11)
although the details of the story about how the theory itself arrived
in Vietnam still beg to be told. (12)
And it is also known
that in defining the term, Thich Nhat Hanh once said that Buddhism in
itself is Engaged Buddhism.
However,
soon after the invention of the term, many self-identified
Engaged Buddhists and Engaged Buddhism scholars (some of them consider
themselves Engaged Buddhists as well) have assertively defined, or
rather redefined, Engaged Buddhism. As a result, the circle of Engaged
Buddhism includes Buddhists whose work predated the usage of the term.
While until the mid or late 1990s, internationally recognized Engaged
Buddhists, including Thich Nhat Hanh, Sulak Sivaraksa, A. T.
Ariyaratne, Buddhadasa, and the Fourteenth Dalai Lama (Queen and King,
1996; Queen, 2000), were mainly from and/or active in South Asia,
Southeast Asia, and Tibetan communities, in recent years certain
versions of Humanistic Buddhism have gained entry into the parameters
of both Engaged Buddhism and Engaged Buddhism studies (Queen, Prebish,
and Kewon, 2003; King, 2005).
If
Thich Nhat Hanh wanted to create broad, or even infinite, contours
for Engaged Buddhism, Engaged Buddhism has not developed exactly
according to his vision. From the 1960s to the 1990s, Engaged Buddhists
always focused on addressing a fairly specific range of
social/political issues, which sometimes were
interrelated—war, economic oppression, discrimination against
or domination over the disadvantaged, political
authoritarianism/dictatorship, creation of a faith-based and presumably
peaceful society, and advocacy of Buddhist education for the betterment
of humankind. Their work attracted the lion's share of attention in
Engaged Buddhism studies when this field rose steadily in the late
1980s and the 1990s. Recently Engaged Buddhism researchers have
expanded the boundaries of Engaged Buddhism. They think that Engaged
Buddhism includes not only actions intended for shaking up the status
quo but also charity work and social services (Queen, Prebish, and
Kewon, 2003). In Taiwan, in fact, the Buddhist Compassion Relief
Tzu-chi Association identifies clearly its approach to religion as
Socially Engaged Buddhism.
But
still, despite the broadening of the Engaged Buddhist circle and
redefining of Engaged Buddhism in the discipline, it seems that Engaged
Buddhism is always bound with a couple of characteristics. First,
Engaged Buddhism can be viewed as faith-based activities coordinated by
Buddhist organizations and individuals articulating clearly or even
advancing aggressively their visions, goals, or ideals. And second,
Engaged Buddhists always share the consciousness to reform—to
modernize—their religion in order to develop their agendas
and strategies in response to modern times (Bingenheimer, 2007).
Engaged Buddhism, if used as a concept, may not be comprehensive enough
to cover many of those who work(ed) hard to augment the presence of
Buddhism in modern and contemporary China.
Certainly,
it is by no means fresh news that influential historical
phenomena—whether intellectual/philosophical/ideological
traditions or social movements—evolve into or provide
powerful analytical categories allowing observers to understand
history. However, Buddhism, obviously a major tradition and one
inspiring many movements, is still at an early stage of this evolution.
In addition, the conversion of Engaged Buddhism and Humanistic Buddhism
into analytical concepts is beyond the scope of this special issue,
since the process itself involves discussion and debates that may not
directly contribute to our goal of proving Buddhism's expansion and
expansionism. Therefore, I would like to opt for the concept of
Buddhist activism.
In
this special issue, the concept of Buddhist activism is broader than
that of yundong 運
動 (movement), which is of European origins and the formation of whose
meanings were under Japanese influence (Wagner, 2001: 66-120). The term
yundong
has come to refer mainly to the process in which a collective, an
organization, or an establishment coordinates activities for social,
political, economic, and cultural goals and, for those purposes,
intends to mobilize secretively or publicly as many supporters as
possible. But, of course, some of these movements can be better
organized than others. In this collective research project, in addition
to incorporating into Buddhist activism undertakings that can be
considered yundong,
we also conceptualize as Buddhist activism those socially and
culturally significant efforts to promote, defend, explore, and
reinvent Buddhism which were/are not accompanied by the objective of
recruiting followers, and might/may be launched by individuals
eschewing the usually public role of the social/political activist. (13)
Therefore, applying
the concept of activism, I press readers of this special issue to move
beyond the "conventional wisdom" about, or rather the
connotation tied to, the common usage of the term, that
activists are usually loud or even militant.
The
concept of Buddhist activism includes Buddhists
who belong(ed) to the tradition of Humanistic Buddhism as well as those
who operate(d) outside of it. It also allows us to look into those who
may/might or may not/might not be rightful members of the Engaged
Buddhist tradition. I would, in other words, like to regard
as Buddhist activism undertakings that
are not commonly accepted as parts of Engaged Buddhism in the
contemporary world. I also consider Buddhist activists those who
addressed conditions of modern/contemporary China without issuing a
clarion call for modern reformism. (14)
I hope that the
concept of Buddhist activism can help shed light on the multiple ways
in which Buddhists act(ed) to expand their religious tradition in the
course of modernity.
Whither
Tradition?
Existing scholarship
on Chinese modernity: 1950s–1970s
Needless
to say, the quest for modernity, the context where the story
of Buddhist expansionism has continued to unfold, is an extremely
well-explored topic in Chinese studies. Scholars have worked diligently
to revise interpretations, or dig deep into unexplored dimensions,
of modern Chinese culture. But new things can always be said
about any well-established topics, and much can still be done if we
want to push the boundaries of our knowledge about Chinese modernity.
One of the most crucial issues of Chinese modernity that has invited
much attention is the presence of tradition in the context of the
modern. And I would argue that our exploration of Buddhist expansion
and expansionism can benefit from as well as offer refreshing insight
into the ongoing discussion of this issue.
At
first glance, it seems that China scholars have changed their
position on the issue quite drastically—from assuming the
modern decline of tradition to emphasizing tradition as an integral
part of modernity. And yet a more careful analysis reveals that these
two positions have unfailingly kept each other company not only in the
modern China field in general, but also in many influential scholars'
individual works.
On
the surface, from the 1950s to the early 1970s, scholarship on
modern China had been dominated by what I would like to call a conflict
mode—a research framework characterized by researchers'
tendency to dichotomize China as tradition and the West as modernity.
In influential scholars' works, Chinese tradition was represented as a
cultural or political entity which could not but crumble in the face of
the challenges of the West. For instance, Mary Wright's masterpiece, The
Last Stand of Chinese Conservatism,
which examines the reign of emperor Tongzhi 同治 (1862–1874).
In the book, she focused on the Qing court's Restoration project, aimed
at recovering the Chinese empire which had been devastated by the
Taiping upheaval (1850–1864) and other rebellions. While
admitting the Qing political elite's impressive ability, Wright also
emphasized that the Restoration fell short of these capable officials'
goal of recovering the dynasty, for their Confucian approach to
statesmanship was unable to modernize and strengthen the Chinese state
(Wright, 1957). And in his celebrated trilogy, Confucian
China and Its Modern Fate, J.
R. Levenson examined the destruction of the Confucian empire and the
collapse of the worldview which was both essential for and dependent on
the Confucian state. According to him, the changes of modern China,
especially the victory of the Communist revolution, eventually placed
Confucianism in a museum as a kind of national treasure (Levenson,
1958-1965).
In
addition, pitting a feeble, traditional China against the strong,
modern West, the conflict mode also determined how scholars identified
China's decisive turn from tradition to modernity. For many
researchers, that turn was the May Fourth movement
(1915–1921), which they believed involved the consciously
brutal and even totalistic rejection of old values and thought serving
as the ideological foundation for traditional institutions
and practices. In The
May Fourth Movement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China,
Chow Tse-tsung, who must be credited for establishing the May Fourth as
a significant topic in modern Chinese studies, highlighted the
anti-traditional stance of the process. In his analysis,
anti-traditionalism derived from the Chinese lack of confidence in
their tradition, as they were painfully aware of the fact that as it
was, China seemed too fragile to stand up to the relentless pressure of
imperialist powers (Chow, 1960).
But
despite the prevalent assumption of the downfall of tradition,
scholars still remained intrigued by how tradition played a role in the
Chinese construction of modern culture. For instance, numerous studies
produced at this stage discussed how, while rejecting consciously the
status quo, Communist intellectuals were in fact under the influence of
tradition. A case in point is Maurice Meisner's famous piece, Li
Ta-chao and the Origins of Chinese Marxism.
Studying one of the co-founders of the CCP, Meisner argued that though
attracted to Bolshevism, Li Dazhao 李大釗 (1889-1927) was not entirely a
Marxist determinist: he maintained his own voluntarism, believing in
the historical importance of humans' creative activities. As Meisner
saw it, Li's voluntarism, rooted not only in Emerson's thought but also
in Chinese tradition, was inherited by none other than Mao Zedong 毛澤東
(1893-1976) (Meisner, 1967).
As
a matter of fact, sometimes those known for supporting the conflict
mode could not hold on to it. For instance, in Liang
Ch'i-ch'ao and the Mind of Modern China,
J. R. Levenson expanded on the tension between history, defined as the
individual's emotional commitment to tradition, and value, understood
as the ideas the same individual perceives as true. He analyzed in
detail how, intellectually drawn to modern Western liberal-democratic
ideas, Liang Qichao 梁啓超 (1873-1929) struggled to embrace what he valued
emotionally and to downplay the inferiority of Chinese tradition: he
first sought traditional Chinese equivalents to modern Western thought;
he then founded modern Western ideas not in culture, but in individual
thinkers' "genius"; and finally he accentuated the problems of the
modern West in response to the First World War. Levenson confined
tradition to the emotional realm but still found it impossible to deny
its strong appeal to one of the most important minds of modern China.
In addition, by discussing how Liang reinterpreted Chinese philosophy
so as to ease the psychological imbalance caused by his own
appreciation of the West, Levenson pointed to the remaking of tradition
as the path to modernity (Levenson, 1953).
Existing
scholarship on Chinese modernity: 1970s–present
As
the modern China field sailed into the early and mid-1970s, scholars
invested much more effort in dissecting how tradition helped the
Chinese make the transition to modernity. Criticizing Levenson for
misinterpreting Liang Qichao's appreciation of tradition as wounded
cultural pride, Chang Hao showed how Liang transformed traditional
Confucian statesmanship into new modern images of state and citizenship
(Chang, 1971). He also examined how various traditions such as
Confucianism, Neo-Confucianism, and Buddhism shaped the ways in which
Kang Youwei 康有為 (1858-1927), Tan Sitong 譚嗣同 (1865-1898), Zhang Taiyan
章太炎 (1869-1936), and Liu Shipei 劉師培 (1884-1919),all major thinkers in
the late nineteenth or early twentieth century, constructed their own
visions of change (Chang, 1987). And in Guy Alitto's analysis of Liang
Shuming 梁漱溟 (1893-1988), a prominent defender of tradition drew upon
Confucian values to confront a modern West deemed too individualistic
and materialistic, and endeavored to restructure rural life through the
reinterpretation of Confucian practices (Alitto, 1986). It was also
said that even at their most iconoclastic moments, the Chinese still
remained somewhat traditional: Lin Yusheng argued that May Fourth
radicals' totalistic onslaught on tradition was rooted in a traditional
mode of thinking (Lin, 1979). And those who studied issues pertaining
to the Communist revolution, ranging from socialist radicals' theories
on the revolution to the CCP's localized mobilization campaign,
provided strong evidence revealing the influence of Confucian tradition
on Communist elitism and the CCP's approach to mass mobilization (Chen,
1986; Dirlik, 1989: 82 & 90).
But
it is since the mid-1980s that criticisms of the conflict mode have
mounted most rapidly in the field of modern China. Continuing to deepen
their search for the involvement of tradition in modernity, scholars
now emphasize that the conflict mode does violence to the reality of
modern Chinese history, and choose to expand on the various ways in
which tradition was reinvented.
Some
researchers discuss how reconfigured tradition helped the Chinese
to cope with challenges of the modern world. For instance, in
describing urban Chinese residents' modern experience, in Republican
Beijing: The City and Its Histories,
Madeleine Yue Dong describes how, in the first half of the twentieth
century, ordinary Beijing residents built a system of cultural and
material production, one based heavily on elements of the past. In
addition, experts on modern China also dwell on the fact that the
Chinese always combined traditional elements to create novel effects:
in his analysis of Feng Zikai 豐子愷 (1898-1975), Geremie Barmé
shows how this celebrated artist and Buddhist householder regrouped
poetical and visual components of traditional Chinese literary-artistic
heritage to strive for freshness in his wildly popular cartoon pictures
(manhua 漫
畫) (Barmé, 2002).
To
study reconfigured tradition, many scholars earnestly declare their
determination to uncover visions of modernity that had the misfortune
of being marginalized by modernists equating iconoclasm with modernity.
One influential work is Fin-de-siécle
Splendor: Repressed Modernities of Late Qing Fiction:
by focusing on middle-brow writers, David Der-wei Wang shows the
involvement of traditional elements in the creation of modern Chinese
literature (Wang, 1997). What has followed is a stream of books in
which scholars unearth a panoply of suppressed voices, ranging from
modern but non-iconoclastic writings to cultural defenders' critiques
of the West. (15)
In addition, scholars are now enthralled by the concept of alternative
modernity, which could be based on traditional resources (for instance,
Wang Hui, 2004; also see Huang, 2008).
Undoubtedly,
this new wave of scholarship eloquently argues for Chinese
modernity as a process without (much) rupture—to be exact, it
discloses the interpenetration between tradition and modernity as a key
feature of modern Chinese history. But if earlier works opposing
traditional China to modern Western/Westernized culture always take
into account the involvement of tradition in modern transformation, the
scholarship that has evolved since the late 1980s centers on the
intertwined relationships between the past and the present without
necessarily discrediting the opposition theme. To be sure, quite a few
scholars stridently challenge what they call "binarism," which they
think inaccurately pitches tradition against modernity. But in itself
the concept of reinvented tradition cannot completely rule out the
possibility of conflict: when a tradition is reshaped according to
modern conditions and needs, its reinvented versions may embrace new
goals that do not accord well with the pre-reinvented tradition. (16)
And in the process of
reinvention, some original elements may have been decentered, or even
rejected. More significantly, by documenting how critics of the West
found their voices smothered, or how the poor in Beijing made do with
what they had to fend for their survival, scholars tell a history in
which tradition, reinvented or not, and its supporters were forced to
fight an uphill battle against the challenges of modernity. (17)
And sometimes they
lost out.
Therefore,
while de-emphasizing rupture, current scholarship reveals
specific ways in which rupture may have existed, or did exist. The
ambiguities of existing scholarship press for a more complex approach
to contextualizing tradition in the unfolding of modernity. Those
interested in how tradition has fared amid modernity may need to tackle
frontally the issue of how tradition has navigated between these two
routes— that of becoming organically entangled with
modernity, and that of conflicting with or even facing the possibility
of being overcome by the modern. By examining this "dual-track" history
of tradition in the modern era, we can explore more deeply the issues
of how pre-reinvented tradition has been treated by modern men and
women, and what parts of it have remained significant in shaping
peoples' goals, everyday conducts, and life courses. (18)
We
plan to explore these questions by concentrating on Buddhism.
Buddhism and Chinese
modernity
To
a significant extent, modern Chinese Buddhism as a research field
mirrors the broader trend of scholarship on modern China. Earlier
scholarship on the subject was dominated by the conflict mode, which
does not deny the working of tradition in the formation of modernity.
In the 1960s and 1970s, while expanding on how Chinese Buddhists
revived and revamped their religion, Holmes Welch concluded: "[m]ost of
what occurred was not…a religious revival…." In
fact, according to him, not only did this "Buddhist revival" fail to
make an impact on the majority of the Buddhist laity and of Chinese
monks, but it also contained trends that, if allowed to develop
further, would have led to Buddhism's demise (Welch, 1968: 264; also
see Welch 1967 & 1972, and Wright, 1959). And in his analysis
of late Qing Buddhist thought, Chen Sin-wai analyzed how intellectuals
reinterpreted Buddhism but argued that Buddhism was deemed to be
brushed aside when they achieved the modern goal of securing the
independence of the nation (Chan, 1985: 161-162).
Such
views certainly have been cast in doubt by recent scholarship. By
studying Buddhist figures from monastics to lay Buddhists and by
examining their activities, from reflecting on modern Western culture
to making use of modern elements such as printing technology and
Western music, current works choose to stress Chinese Buddhists'
resilience, reformism, and, most importantly, vitality (Pittam, 2001;
Goldfuss, 1996; Birnbaum, 2003a; Tarocco, 2008). In addition, the
interpretation that Buddhism has declined in the modern age seems
obsolete when we take into account scholarship on Taiwanese Chinese
Buddhism. This pool of research vividly details how this localized
trend of Chinese Buddhism, including Humanistic Buddhism, has thrived
under modern conditions, (19)
including postwar prosperity, the rise of education (especially female
education), and the expansion of the public space based on political
and legal changes (Jones, 1999; Chandler, 2004; Cheng, 2006; Madsen,
2007; DeVido, forthcoming).
But
recent scholarship on Chinese Buddhism does not necessarily render
the conflict model irrelevant. After all, as current works also duly
recognize, conflicts between Buddhism and modern forces were real and
bitter in the turbulent history of modern China. The challenges that
Buddhism had to go through were indeed numerous. Just to name a few:
the state's intention to suppress traditional religions and confiscate
temples (including Buddhist temples), the modernizing political and
intellectual elite's modernist attacks on Buddhism, the threats of
imperialism, and insiders' modernist views of reform (Goosaert, 2006;
Ashina, 2009; Brook, 2009).
Drawing
on scholarship on Chinese modernity in general and modern
Chinese Buddhism in particular, we argue that as an ongoing process,
Chinese Buddhist activism has become an expansive and even expansionist
force that not only intends to shape various dimensions of Chinese life
but also aims at reaching out to foreign lands in hope of making an
impact on humanity as whole. We argue, in addition, that this history
of expansion/expansionism sometimes cannot but bear the marks of
tradition's conflict with modernity.
What
follows then is a quick introduction to articles included in this
special issue. I shall describe how these works analyze the interplay
between Buddhism and a few important themes marking the modern process
unfolding in mainland China and Taiwan. These themes include the
emphasis on the individual's liberation, the commitment to the Chinese
nation, the rise of Communism, the pursuit of women's emancipation, the
pursuit of economic prosperity, transnational traffic at the cultural
and demographic levels, and the presence and prestige of foreign
cultures. (20)
But in doing so, I shall also explain how, by analyzing the interaction
between Buddhism and these themes, these papers press scholars to think
more about the ways in which Buddhism strove to expand amid modernity.
Expansion
and Expansionism of a Tradition in the Modern Age
Late Qing and
Republican China
Observers
have long noted modern Chinese Buddhists' ecumenism, which
could not exist without their confidence in the universal value of
their tradition. This confidence is revealed in Hung-yok Ip's article,
"The Power of Interconnectivity: Tan Sitong's Invention
of Historical Agency in Late Qing China," which
focuses on this major late Qing reformer's masterpiece, Renxue,
written in 1896 and 1897. With his Buddhist eclecticism, Tan, who could
be considered a late nineteenth-century Engaged Buddhist,
explored the concept of non-differentiation to
imagine the creative disposition of human agency. According to him,
this disposition would contribute greatly to agendas that defined
Chinese modernity, including the individual's liberation, national
self-strengthening, and cosmopolitan involvement in the
world. In addition, Tan perceived his
human agency as an omnipotent history-making force,
as he brought together philosophical discussion of the
spiritual path with the belief in the superhuman qualities of the
Buddha and advanced Bodhisattvas. However, he also emphasized
that the efficacy of this powerful human agency was not
determined by itself but by the world it set out to save.
For
its theorization on a human agency shaped by a commitment to and/or
deep understanding of
non-differentiation, Renxue
could be considered an integral part of the global formation
of Engaged Buddhism. As such, it deserves attention
from those who are interested in the history of modern Chinese Buddhist
expansionism. But Tan Sitong's story is also one that shows the
confrontation between cultures. For all his professed admiration for
various threads of Chinese tradition, his rejection of some traditional
practices was vehement. His iconoclasm, selective and incomplete as it
may have been, portended the cultural rebelliousness of many Chinese
intellectuals in the early twentieth century.
The
expansion of a tradition requires its supporters' strength. This
point was fully appreciated by those historical actors examined in Yuan
Yuan's article, "Chinese Buddhist Nuns in the Early Twentieth Century:
A Case Study in Wuhan." Working at the intersection between works on
the women's movement in the history of Republican China and the
literature on female Buddhists and Buddhism during this period, Yuan
Yuan dwells on how, in response to the reshaping of gender
relationships in modern China, reformist monastics, especially nuns,
worked for gender equality in their tradition. In late Qing and early
Republican China, women's emancipation was an important part
of Chinese intellectuals' discourse on national self-strengthening.
Though not totally without genuine sympathy for women's plights, male
intellectuals—reformers and revolutionaries
alike—argued for women's rights, education, and public role
so as to transform them into good mothers capable of cultivating good
citizens for the nation. Taixu quickly answered this clarion call for
both women's emancipation and the modernization of the nation. He
founded the Wuchang Buddhist Seminary for Nuns in 1924, which later
became the World Buddhist Institute for Nuns. A couple of other
institutions for Buddhist women were founded as well.
However,
despite the fact that their mentors were always male
authorities, nuns intended to make use of their cultural capital to
create their own agenda of change: they defined their gender identity;
they advanced gender equality inside the Buddhist tradition; and they
constructed an alternative to women's prescribed role as mother of good
citizen. Most interestingly, these nuns contended that their strength,
buttressed by gender equality, would lead to the growth of female
Buddhism, which in turn would help augment the presence of Buddhism in
both China and the rest of the world. By injecting a female perspective
into modern Chinese feminism, and especially by reinterpreting Buddhist
scriptures such as the
Avatamsaka Sutra and
Vimalakirti Sutra in light of
the notion of women's emancipation, they conjured up the vision that
Buddhism's future would to some extent hinge on the defeat of its
perennial patriarchal practices, which could only look "unenlightened"
by both reinvented Buddhist and modern Western standards.
But
if Buddhists in the late Qing and Republican era were able to
imagine Buddhism as an important world religion, it was Taixu who
epitomized modern Chinese Buddhism's ecumenism. His transnational
career is captured in Elise DeVido's article, "The Influence of Master
Taixu on Buddhism in Vietnam." The international success of this
Buddhist modernizer began against the backdrop of Chinese Buddhist
Revival and its Vietnamese equivalent. His theory on renjian
fojiao made quite an impact on
Vietnam. The flow of Chinese materials into Vietnam, Taixu's trips to
that country, and the Chinese Buddhist communities there which helped
coordinate his visits—all this laid the foundation for his
success. Taixu's writings and his journal, Hai
ChaoYin 海潮音 (Sound
of the Tide), guided Vietnamese
Buddhists such as Khanh Hoa, Thien Chieu, and Tri Hai in the building
of the organizational foundation for Buddhist reform through the reform
of sangha education, management, and temple administration. Inspired by
Taixu's nationalism, Vietnamese Buddhist groups undertook their
anti-colonial resistance against the French and pursued gender equality.
More
importantly, Taixu's concept of renjian
fojiao captivated Vietnamese
Buddhists, and they strove to build their own version of Humanistic
Buddhism (nhan gian
phat giao). Because
of his admiration for Taixu, in the 1960s Thich Nhat Hanh went so far
as to say that nhan gian phat
giao was Engaged Buddhism. The
Revival of the 1920s–50s continued to shape the monastics who
played important roles in the making of modern Vietnamese Buddhism in
the 1960s and 1970s. Taixu's theory on renjian
fojiao, transplanted in
Vietnam, helped forge modern Vietnamese Buddhism, which was to be
essential in the religious landscape of the contemporary world.
But
to expand, a tradition must first secure its own
survival—this certainly is true when it comes to modern
Chinese Buddhism. Tanxu's case, discussed in James Carter's "Buddhism,
Resistance, and Collaboration in Manchuria," shows how an illustrious
monk defended Buddhism in difficult situations. In the 1920s and 1930s,
Tanxu 倓虚 (1875-1963) took part in the temple-building projects in the
Westernized cities of Harbin and Qingdao, both located in Manchuria.
The temples that he helped build were deliberately traditional in
physical appearance. As a Buddhist, he wanted to revive Buddhism in the
north. As a Chinese individual, he took part—and did so
willingly—in these projects so as to maintain China's
national-cultural identity in the public space of Europeanized places.
A devout monk and a patriot, he was critical of the highly secularized
nature of modern Japanese Buddhism, and suspicious of the Japanese
empire's covetous eyes on China.
But
the same Tanxu did not take a clear political stand during the
Japanese occupation. During the occupation, he continued to do what had
been doing, lecturing and traveling. On the one hand, he to some extent
collaborated with the Japanese authorities, enjoying Japanese support
for him, but on the other, he maintained his ties with the resistance
and appeared happy to see that patriotic monks who fought against Japan
were not arrested. When the war was over, his activities remained the
same. Later on, in his famous memoirs, Yingchen
huiyilu 影塵回憶錄 (Recollections
of the Material World), Tanxu
represented himself as an apolitical monk. Taking into account Tanxu's
tireless efforts to work for Buddhism, which are well-documented in
others' recollections (Cham Shan Temple, 2008), his self-representation
should at least to some extent be credible. But his life shows how,
like many other Chinese individuals (see, for instance, Fu, 1997, and
Brook, 2007), a prominent monk, when measured by the standards of
nationalism, acted in an ethical gray area.
Mid-twentieth century
to present
For
those interested in how Buddhists struggled to preserve their
tradition at the nexus of tradition and modernity, the experience of
Buddhism in the face of the advent of the Communist regime is a crucial
issue. It is addressed in Xue Yu's article, "Buddhist Contribution to
the Socialist Transformation of Buddhism in China: Activities of Ven.
Juzan 巨贊 1949–1953." Juzan (1908-1984), a student of Taixu,
operated as a politically active monk in a context where monastics and
radical intellectuals sometimes reflected on Buddhism from socialist
perspectives (Zarrow, 1990; Krebs, 1998; Jones, 2000). A man attracted
to socialist radicalism in his early days, Juzan supported the
Communist state in its project of undertaking socialist transformation
of the sangha. As the editor-in-chief of Modern
Buddhist Studies, he helped the
state publicize its policies on Buddhist-related issues and deal with
the discontents of the Buddhist community.
Juzan
legitimated the CCP's leadership and policies in the language of
Buddhism. During land reform, as monastic communities were dismantled,
he told Chinese monks and nuns to give up what they had so as to follow
the Buddhist spirit of renunciation, despite the dangerous implications
of the change for the sangha. Confronted with the inevitable question
of whether Buddhists, especially the clerics, should commit the act of
killing, he invoked the concept of compassionate killing and the image
of Sakyamuni Buddha defeating the troops of Mara to justify the killing
of Americans.
As
clearly shown in Juzan's career, the so-called progressive
Buddhists' reinterpretation of Buddhism allowed the CCP to incorporate
the sangha into the socialist state. This, according to Xue Yu,
predetermined the tragic fate of Buddhism in the Cultural Revolution.
Juzan's involvement in the Buddhist clerics' socialist transformation
reflects the precarious place of a reinvented tradition in the course
of modernity: a Buddhism reconfigured according to the demands of the
Communist government weakened its capacity for self-defense
vis-à-vis a modern state's high-handed approach to change.
Whereas
Buddhism suffered greatly in the mainland from the 1950s
through the mid-1970s, it has enjoyed remarkable growth in Taiwan in
the post-war period. Yinshun, whose theory on renjian
fojiao pivotally defined the
character of contemporary Chinese Taiwanese Buddhism, was far from
socially and politically active. But he was an activist in his own way:
an outstanding monastic scholar, his activism is academic in nature, as
he, aside from analyzing Chinese Buddhism, also sought to recover the
truth about Indian Buddhism (Ng, 2007: 38). His academic activism is
analyzed by Marcus Bingenheimer, who authors "Writing History of
Buddhist Thought in the Twentieth Century: Yinshun
(1906–2005) in the context of Chinese Buddhist
historiography."
According
to Bingenheimer, Yinshun modernized the historiographical
practice for Buddhist scholars and, with his influential scholarship on
Indian Buddhism, allowed others to look into the roots of Buddhism in
seeking support for social engagement. In Bingenheimer's analysis, some
of Yinshun's hermeneutic devices were well-established in the tradition
of Chinese Buddhist historical writing, built by Buddhist
scholar-monks, especially Zhipan 志磐 , who lived in the Song dynasty. It
must be noted, however, that Yinshun used selectively traditional
historical methods and Buddhist historical perspective. For instance,
he put aside the influential concept of mofa
末法 (the final days of
the Dharma), which did not go well with his vision of renjian
fojiao, aimed at the betterment
of the world. His selective use of traditional historiographical
elements was coupled with his appreciation of the modern genre of
academic monograph as an exhaustive approach to a chosen topic or
period.
Yinshun's
academic activism drives home the point that the relationship
between tradition and modernity has been complex: while reinvented
historiographical practices contributed to the expansion of Buddhism,
the process of reinvention entailed the abandonment of certain
well-established components of Chinese Buddhist historiographical
tradition—hence the tension between the reinvented and
pre-reinvented forms of tradition.
Charles
Jones's paper illustrates the same tension. Titled
"Modernization and Traditionalism in Buddhist Almsgiving: The Case of
the Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu-chi Association in Taiwan," his
article examines the factors which have led to this mega-sized
organization's success. In Jones' view, in mobilizing its members in
earnestness, Ciji (the Buddhist Compassion Relief Tzu-chi Association)
chooses to valorize compassion but not wisdom, reframing the theory on
six perfections to accentuate the importance of almsgiving. Supported
by its emphasis on compassion, Ciji constructs a narrative of
conversion which helps publicize its image. In Ciji's publications,
prominent is the message that Ciji gives meanings to individuals'
lives: whereas men, under the auspices of Master Zhengyan 証嚴, have
refined themselves by abandoning the rough edge of their masculinity or
turning away from the materialist aspiration for success, women have
evolved from idle consumers to compassionate individuals. By expanding
on the theme of self-improvement, Ciji re-creates affluent,
middle-class individuals as modern Bodhisattvas, directing their
resources and energies to social services.
Aside
from representing itself as an institution able to transform
modern individuals into compassionate beings, Ciji has also been able
to develop a complex approach to charity which agrees with these modern
Bodhisattvas' educational and economic backgrounds. In executing the
principle of compassion, it couples traditional almsgiving with the
modern Western/Christian practice of scientific charity. Ciji members
attend to such issues as case histories, the measurement of outcomes,
and the building of a transparent system to maximize the benefits they
can bestow on those who suffer. By combining the aforementioned
traditional elements and modern practices, Ciji has molded itself into
a Gemeinschaft-type
association, leading its members to build a new identity whose essence
is defined by help extended to those in need.
Ciji's
break from tradition can be detected quite easily. As Master
Zhengyan does not take donations directly from supporters and Ciji
publicizes its intention of receiving donations for the less fortunate,
they forsake the traditional Buddhist practice of planting "the field
of merit" (futian),
giving up the notion that the giver will eventually reap some reward by
sowing the seeds of charity. In addition, Ciji's decision to privilege
compassion is a departure from the traditional Buddhist discourse on
spirituality, which values equally compassion and wisdom.
Many
observers are aware that well-established Buddhist institutions
like Ciji and Foguangshan in Taiwan have been oriented towards the
world. (21)
Entitled "Socially Engaged Buddhist Nuns: Activism in Taiwan and North
America," Venerable Karma Lekshe Tsomo's paper examines Taiwanese nuns'
work in the Chinese diaspora, in addition to depicting their activities
in Taiwan.
In
showing the plurality of Buddhists nuns' activism, Tsomo focuses on
Zhengyan, Chao Hwei 昭慧, and Shig Hiu-wan 曉雲 (1912-2004).
Whereas Zhengyan focuses on medical services, Chao Hwei employs protest
tactics well-established in the West and among Taiwanese activists,
attempting to make changes by staging her social theater. And Shig
Hiu-wan invested her efforts in education, taking advantage of her
education and experience as the first Buddhist nun working in the
system of higher education. At the age of seventy-six, she founded
Huafan University, now one of the leading Buddhist universities in
Taiwan.
But
despite nuns' prominent influence in Taiwan, they have not been as
successful in the Chinese communities in North America. Many Chinese
nuns in the United States work for well-established organizations,
which regularly rotate its members among temples, a policy that hinders
their influence and deprives them of the opportunity to actualize their
potential as spiritual workers. Tsomo considers the policy of rotation
patriarchal, reflecting the traditional, centralized, and authoritarian
nature of the Buddhist organizations that these nuns come from. (22)
In saying so, she
suggests that the traditional-style power structure works against the
goal of international expansion, a modern condition important for
reinvented Buddhism.
In
addition, as Tsomo points out, these nuns lack the cultural capital
that would allow them to actualize their potential in foreign lands. To
be sure, they lead those temples that have been established in the U.S.
and Canada since the 1970s, but as they are not highly proficient in
English, they mainly work in Chinese-speaking communities, and their
involvements are limited to activities serving the needs of Chinese
immigrants. This, too, reveals a kind of dissonant relationship between
tradition and the modern, as the modern goal of ecumenism demands
support that is not available in a strictly Buddhist culture.
Certainly,
major Chinese Taiwanese Buddhist institutions, aimed at
moving beyond national, ethnic, and racial boundaries so as to be truly
global, are not content with serving mainly overseas Chinese
communities. But as scholars are quick to point out, there is always a
tension between religious diaspora and ecumenism (Chandler, 2005:
275-300; Huang, 2005: 185-209). How can Buddhism emerge to be a
globally significant voice? This, in fact, is an important question for
all those Chinese Buddhists, Asian Buddhists, and non-Asian Buddhists
who support the goal of globalizing Buddhism.
To
reflect on this question, this special issue concludes with James
Blumenthal's article, "Toward a Buddhist Theory of Justice," which, on
the surface, does not have much to do with Chinese Buddhism. Blumenthal
tackles the question of how one kind of Buddhist activists, Engaged
Buddhists, can engage more substantively in the dialogue on social
change and ethics on the international stage. In order to do so, as
Blumenthal sees it, they should go back to Buddhist scriptures with
sensitivity to the historicized nature of these sources as well as
contemplate ideas outside of their tradition.
To
illustrate how the latter can be done, the author focuses on the
concept of justice, a term widely invoked but never clearly defined by
internationally influential Asian Buddhist activists. In the article,
he reflects on two theories in the Western philosophical discourse on
justice: John Rawls's "justice as fairness" and the rising model of
restorative justice. Rawls's notion of justice is supported by his
argument that those involved in determining justice must reflect on the
notion from behind the "veil of ignorance"—that is, we must
discard, or rather transcend, our knowledge about our genders, social
states, and other facets as we contemplate issues and situations
important to the goal of constructing a just society. Restorative
justice, as a non-punitive model of justice, is advocated by those
attempting to heal the wounds inflicted by crimes. In addition to
recognizing that Buddhism has much to contribute to Western models of
justice, Blumenthal emphasizes that while Buddhists contemplating
justice do not need to cater to voices foreign to their own tradition,
they should definitely broaden their own intellectual-cultural horizon:
they should prepare themselves for an exploration of knowledge outside
of Buddhism, examine how Buddhist perspectives differ from and echo
non-Buddhist perspectives on justice, and, last but not least,
contemplate how the two can benefit one another. This will, the author
stresses, help Buddhism to evolve into a significant global religion.
On
the one hand, Blumenthal's article theorizes on the value of
Buddhist tradition—i.e., the traditional wisdom of
Buddhism—for the modern goal of Buddhist ecumenism. But on
the other hand, it also argues that it is necessary for Buddhists to
dive into non-Buddhists' traditions in making their voices heard in
cross-religious/cross-cultural dialogues. It is clear, however, that
in-depth cross-cultural fertilization, made important by modern
Buddhist ecumenism, requires cultural capital—knowledge about
Western philosophical tradition, the ability to articulate oneself in
Western languages, etc.—not associated with the Buddhist
tradition.
Conclusion
Getting involved
Invoking
the concept of Buddhist activism, this special issue focuses
on historical actors who play(ed) important roles in expanding their
religion in China and throughout the world. Their endeavors encourage
us to think about significant issues relevant to Buddhism's social and
political participation, whether it is Engaged Buddhism, Humanistic
Buddhism, or beyond.
We
show how Chinese Buddhist activists have helped create the
historical process through which Buddhism has emerged as a significant
force working for the betterment of the modern world. Like Buddhists of
other countries, Chinese Buddhists have worked for nationalism, women's
liberation, and, in general, the concepts of freedom and equality.
Sometimes, their expositions of how Buddhism could be mobilized to
improve human lives, such as the Republican-era nuns' critiques of
Buddhist patriarchy, foreshadowed many postwar Buddhists' theoretical
construction of Buddhist social/political involvement. In addition, by
pointing out Buddhism's universal significance for the world, by
formulating ideas in which non-Chinese Buddhists may find a congenial
spirit, or by working with and for the Chinese diaspora in Southeast
Asia and North America, Chinese Buddhists like Republican-era nuns,
Taixu, and Taiwanese nuns have joined forces with Buddhist activists of
other countries in adding a transnational component to the vigor of
Buddhist social and political involvement.
One
crucial dimension of transnationalism is cross-cultural
fertilization, an issue essential to those studying modern/contemporary
Buddhism in general and Buddhist activism in particular. In this
respect the East-West connection has commanded much attention from
scholars. This special issue helps expand the current knowledge about
the cultural exchange taking place along the East-West axis, as it
offers insights into how Ciji combines the modern approach to
scientific charity with traditional cultural elements, or how Tan
Sitong's Buddhist eclecticism reveals the plurality of the Eastern end
of the interaction. We additionally draw attention to the
cross-cultural fertilization unfolding within the cultural sphere of
the East: whereas Taixu was instrumental in planting the Vietnamese
roots of Engaged Buddhism, Yinshun borrowed what was from Japan to
pursue his influential scholarship on Buddhism. (23)
How to de-center the
East-West axis is indeed a significant issue for those interested in
exploring the transnational traffic of Buddhist activism. (24)
More
importantly, contributors to this special issue also press for
more attention to the historicized nature of controversies revolving
around Buddhist activists' historical agency. Humanistic Buddhism and
Engaged Buddhism, as two important forms of Buddhist activism, are
fairly contentious issues. While it is clear that Humanistic Buddhism
is received positively by a considerable number of people
(Bingenheimer, 2007), it is equally obvious that important figures of
Humanistic Buddhism are always controversial, criticized by
many—insiders and outsiders alike—for their overly
aggressive attitude, their unrelenting approaches to secularization,
problematic political involvements, ambitions, patriarchal structure,
or disregard for others' personal and familial concerns. As for Engaged
Buddhism, although observers always appear impressed with many Engaged
Buddhists' commitment to justice and social services, Christopher Queen
has long called for critical perspectives on this attention-drawing
phenomenon. And in recent years, scholars have reflected critically on
such issues as whether Engaged Buddhism is Buddhist at all, or whether
Engaged Buddhists' faith-based political actions violate(d)
Western-style humanitarianism or Buddhist principles (see, for
instance, King, 2000, and Deitrick, 2003).
The
cases of Tanxu and Juzan encourage scholars to move beyond
critiques done on moral and/or philosophical grounds so as to reflect
on controversial acts and writings of Buddhist activists. Tanxu's
"failure" to take part in active resistance to the Japanese certainly
has troubled many Chinese individuals. Even his identification of
protecting Buddhism as his most important goal may have been regarded
as problematic by those who presume(d) the paramountcy of focusing on
secular problems. But perhaps his case reveals the axiomatic but
important truth that as historical agents Buddhist activists are always
faced with dilemmas, created by their own contexts, and are therefore
bound to make morally or realistically imperfect choices. As for Juzan,
his complicity with the Communist state certainly looks dubious to
many, regardless of their political positions. Was he motivated by
self-interest? Did he naively invest too much hope in the Communist
state? Did he use complicity as a strategy to protect the sangha? Was
his socialist reinterpretation of Buddhism Buddhist? While innumerable
questions can be raised, from a historical perspective, Juzan's career
shows the malleability of Buddhist activism as a historical product.
How its rhetoric was invoked and what purposes it served were dependent
upon the historical players.
Rethinking
(reinvented) tradition
Modern
Chinese Buddhist activism has been marked by a strong commitment
to and capacity for expansion at both national and international
levels. But behind its will to and acts for expansion, there were
always stories about the tension between tradition (or reinvented
tradition) and modernity to be told.
Such
tension manifested itself as political and cultural contention
between Buddhism and modern forces prevailing on the religion from the
outside: for example, Tanxu found it necessary to create a cultural
space for Buddhism as a "Chinese" religion in Manchuria by countering
European presence in that region. But as many scholars have already
noted, sometimes the contest between tradition and modernity played out
on religion's home turf (Goossaert, 2006: 311). The story of reinvented
Buddhism's expansion always unfolded against the backdrop of
competition between the comparatively tradition-inclined and
modernizing forces inside the Buddhist community: just as Taixu's
reforms, which were to help shape modern Vietnamese Buddhism,
encountered significant opposition from monastics who disliked his
ideas, Buddhist revival in Vietnam, which laid parts of the foundation
for the contemporary phenomenon of Engaged Buddhism, faced many
insiders' pungent disapproval. It must be noted, moreover, that the
victory of those insiders aligned with the modern did not mean the
reinvigoration of Buddhism: as Juzan's career reveals, progressive
monks' reinterpretation of Buddhism stripped the sangha of its ability
to resist the state's political domination.
Studying
Buddhism and modernity, this special issue argues that the old
research mode accenting conflict is still worthy of attention. In
addition, we also use the new research mode stressing reinvention so as
to shed light on Buddhism's presence in the modern age. By studying how
Buddhism has traveled simultaneously the routes of reinvention and of
conflict with tradition, we are able to reflect on how these two routes
crisscrossed.
We
show that sometimes conflicting with tradition was/is—or
could/can be seen as—beneficial to tradition's expansion.
Although coming from various cohorts, Chinese nuns of the Republican
period, Yinshun, and Zhengyan have proved just that. Whereas nuns in
Republican China challenged Buddhist patriarchal culture in order to
increase the number of those who could work for Buddhism, Yinshun
forsook some well-established methods and perspectives in Buddhist
historical writings so as to produce his immensely influential
scholarship. And Zhengyan's tendency to privilege compassion but not
wisdom has led to Ciji's success both at home and abroad.
But
at the same time, this collection of articles also shows how, as a
modern course, the reinvention of tradition may challenge—or
have already challenged—a tradition. We show that many
Chinese Buddhists have, by restructuring their tradition, been
interested in the international expansion of their tradition. We also
argue that cultural capital, especially knowledge of foreign languages
and non-Buddhist cultures, is essential if they want to establish their
influence on the international scene. On the basis of our research and
the ongoing development of Chinese Buddhism, we can certainly raise the
following questions: How does the modern impulse of expansionism shape
the lives of monastics and lay Buddhists who work for Buddhist
institutions expressing a strong commitment to globalizing Buddhism?
How does ecumenism impact those who lack cultural capital useful for
Buddhism's global expansion? And how do "internationalist Buddhists"
weigh such factors as cultural capital for expansion, spiritual
achievement, and domestic social services against one another?
In
addition, we also show how in the process of reinventing Buddhism,
Buddhists and/or Buddhist-inspired thinkers might have introduced ideas
that did not go well with pre-reinvented forms of Buddhism. When Tan
Sitong created a faith-based human agency, which to some extent sang
the harbinger of the rise of Western-style individualism, did his
reformed Buddhism contradict pre-reformed Buddhism? When the Compassion
Relief Tzu-chi Association chooses not to give precedence to wisdom and
to promote its founder's writings rather than Buddhist scriptures, has
this limited its members' exploration of a complex tradition? To be
sure, in the case of Chinese Buddhism, reinvention has ensured survival
and vitality of the tradition. But it also poses potential and real
challenges to (pre-reinvented) tradition itself.
To
conclude, then, it seems fitting that we contend for a
non-dualistic—hence, fairly Buddhist—way to look at
the intertwined routes of conflict and reinvention. They are not
necessarily divorced from one another. As an element of the reinvention
process, conflict may lead to tradition's growth. And reinvention, even
if it contributes to tradition's expansion (in the case Tzu-chi), may
as well subvert tradition (in parts, though maybe not as a whole). To
attend to both conflict and reinvention will enrich our understanding
of how tradition has fared not only in late Qing and Republican China,
but also in the contemporary Chinese-speaking world, where various
trends of tradition, with their reinvented forms, are prepared to
express their voices.
Notes
1.
The
completion of this
project is based on the support of many people. Generous funding from
the Chun Chiu Endowment at the Department of History at Oregon State
University allowed me to organize an international conference on
Buddhist Activism in Greater China in 2008. Paul Farber's wisdom and
moral support were essential for the success of the conference.
Shiao-ling Yu, Hua-yu Li, Xun Jin, and Bryan Tilt were so kind as to
chair conference panels for me. I would also like to thank Mariae
Hunter and Patty Curtis for their help. Elissa Curcio deserves special
thanks for her involvement in the organizational process of the
conference, and in the technical production of the special issue. I am
grateful to all the scholars who granted me the honor of including
their articles here. Among them, Charles Jones, Xue Yu, and Marcus
Bingenheimer shared with me their knowledge about Buddhism and sources.
I feel especially indebted to Elise DeVido, who worked with me from the
onset of the project and helped me to improve this introduction. Ven.
Yifa, Ven. Zhiru, Alexander Mayer, and Esther-Maria Guggenmos all made
important contributions to the conference. Finally, I would express my
deep gratitude to Cristina Rocha and Martin Baumann, who kindly provide
us the platform to publish this special issue. I would also like to
thank Alana MacMillan and Patricia Campbell, copy-editors at
the Journal of Global Buddhism.
As a latecomer to Buddhist studies, I feel overwhelmed by everyone's
warm welcome.
2.
In this special issue,
China means the Chinese-speaking world, including mainland China,
Taiwan, Hong Kong, Macao, and also the Chinese diaspora. Chinese
modernity here refers to the development (from the late
nineteenth century to the present) of social, political, cultural, and
economic features departing from what the Chinese were used to before
the second half of the nineteenth century. In this special issue, the
concept of Chinese modernity is used to cover both the modern
period/modern China (late nineteenth – mid-twentieth century)
and the contemporary period/contemporary China. Humanities scholars
always agree that modernity is a nebulous concept. But it seems that as
long as researchers are interested in the question of how societies
blessed with rich traditions have changed since the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, modernity seems an important concept. As for the
features identified as themes marking Chinese modern, see the
subsection entitled "Buddhism and Chinese modernity."
3.
In this introduction,
I do not conceive expansionism merely as a numerical category, despite
the tremendous influence of Buddhist organizations in present-day
Taiwan, where 22% of the population identify themselves as Buddhists,
and the rising presence of Buddhism in mainland China. I would like to
emphasize, instead, that even when Buddhism seemed to be in decline in
numerical terms (e.g., the decreasing number of temples converted to
nonreligious purposes; see Pittman, 2001: 48), there were still Chinese
Buddhists who were committed to expansionism.
4.
I define strenuousness
as Buddhist-informed historical players' (individuals' or
organizations') serious commitment to their religion and/or their
Buddhist-related transpersonal agendas. This commitment should be
serious to the extent that it is essential for these Buddhist agents'
being. But, of course, commitment and one's sense of being are always
in flux. Contributors to the special issue attempt to capture how
Buddhist agents work at those moments when they are more serious about
their missions.
5.
For the definition of
being modernist that I use here, please see Charles Jones's article in
this special issue. My article on Tan Sitong also reflects on the term
in the context of Engaged Buddhism. It must be noted that in this
introduction, "modernist" always refers to a fairly conscious set of
intellectual and psychological traits, which allowed individuals to set
the modern apart from the traditional, or to elevate the modern above
tradition. Therefore, "modernist" in this introduction is a little
different from the concept of modernism as used in other studies. For
instance, in his 2008 book, The
Making of Buddhist Modernism,
David McMahan's use of the term includes both the experience of
modernization and the tendency to judge/critique tradition from a
modern viewpoint (McMahan, 2008).
6.
It is suspected that renjian
fojiao may have first been used
in the late nineteenth century. See Marcus Bingenheimer, 2007: 141-61.
In addition, it should also be pointed out that others also had
committed themselves to the reform of the sangha and the concept of
modernizing Buddhism before Taixu did. However, Taixu should be
regarded as the one who proposed most rigorously the idea of
modernizing Buddhism. And he did so comprehensively, arguing for the
restructuring of the sangha, the systematization of Buddhist education,
modern charity works, and the importance of using modern-day technology
for the promotion of Buddhism.
7.
Marcus
Bingenheimer, for instance, argues that Yinshun is not so
different from Taixu (Bingenheimer, 2007). But other scholars think
otherwise. See Jiang Cantang, 2001: 67-97.
8.
One of the most powerful examples is Chao Hwei (Zhaohui) 昭慧.
9.
Famous monks like
Xuyun 虚雲 (??-1959) and Laiguo 來果 (1881-1953), for instance, did not
work hard to promote Humanistic Buddhism. It should be noted that in
the Republican period, there was a revival of Tibetan Buddhism in
China, initiated by intellectuals who wanted national and spirituality
for Tibet and China. See Tuttle, 2005.
10
.
Observers
note that the trend of modernizing Buddhism has not
eradicated traditional texts, prayers, and iconography from Buddhists'
lives. See Jones, 2003a. Also see Bingenheimer, 2007.
11.
While Taixu was a
major influence on Thich Nhat Hanh's Engaged Buddhism, others shaped
his thought as well. Gandhi and Bhave were also crucial in the
formation of Nhat Hanh's thought. According to Elise DeVido, who is
working on a manuscript on modern Vietnamese Buddhism, it is quite
likely that the concept of being "engaged" came from Sartre and Camus,
whose existentialism was all the rage in Buddhist journals in South
Vietnam.
12.
See
Elise DeVido's
article in this special issue.
13.
This
explains why this
project includes an article on Yinshun.
14.
A keen
pursuit of scholarship, which marked Yinshun's
career, is not a major feature of Engaged Buddhism. And this
special issue also includes a piece on Tanxu. Scholars note
that seemingly traditional monks adjusted to modern conditions to some
extent (Birnbaum, 2003b: 113) . While l agree with this observation, I
would also like to argue that Buddhist clerics varied widely concerning
how much they wanted to accommodate modern conditions.
15
.
Regarding works that echo Wang's, see Gimpel, 2001, and Huters, 2008.
16.
Since I recognize that
tradition in the pre-modern period was also historically/continuously
reconfigured (see note 18), pre-reinvented tradition does not mean a
tradition that has never been reinvented. It means the form(s) of a
tradition before its modern reinvention.
17.
One
of the more recent
examples showing this complex position on tradition and modernity is
Joan Judge's new book. In its conclusion, she draws attention to how
turn-of-the-twentieth-century feminist writers appear ambivalent about
the Chinese past: on the one hand, they reject that past as feudal; but
on the other, they do not want to lose touch with what they consider
"feudal history" and recognize its power. See Judge, 2008.
18.
The nature of a
tradition is always hotly debated by both insiders and outsiders. I
basically agree with many scholars' view that the core of a tradition
is historically conditioned and therefore continuously reconstructed
and unstable. But as far as Buddhism is concerned, it is obvious that
there were/are theories and goals which were always, if not
consistently, identified as more central than others in their
histories. In this sense, a modernized Buddhism human agency supporting
desires, or one designed not to privilege wisdom, may be viewed as a
radical departure from Buddhist tradition (see this paper for details).
19.
The concept of
localized Buddhism is inspired by Charles Jones (see Jones, 1999). It
is important to note that the development of Taiwanese Chinese Buddhism
has been conditioned by Taiwan's unique history, including its colonial
period. For instance, Jones discusses effects of Japanese rule on
religion, including Buddhism (see Jones, 2003b). As for Humanistic
Buddhism, it can be argued that Japanese influence in the colonial
period may have helped lay the foundation for it; for details, see
Jiang Cantang, 2003: 51–118. But it is also obvious that the
dominant form of Taiwanese Chinese Buddhism, Humanistic Buddhism, was
fundamentally shaped by monks from mainland China (see Bingenheimer,
2007). In addition, recent scholarship also notes that Chinese
Taiwanese Buddhism, including Humanistic Buddhism, continues many
cultural and organizational trends of mainland Buddhism (Kuo, 2008:
16-21).
20.
Certainly,
the
affluence of postwar Taiwan, based on a successful capitalist economy,
is a well-noted development. In the field of modern China, in response
to the Communist state's post-1976 changes and under the influence of
post-modernism emphasizing the plurality of history, scholars have in
recent years shown a deep interest in examining capitalist ventures and
consumerism in the Republican period. For a recent example, see Yeh,
2007.
21
.
It can be said that to some extent, contemporary ecumenism of this
small island was rooted in what happened decades go: despite the
mid-century political turbulence of their country, Chinese Buddhists
kept alive the goal of globalizing their religion. For both religious
and political reasons, the Buddhist Association of Republic of China
(BAROC) began to get involved in international Buddhist organizations
in the 1950s. There are quite a few studies that analyze Taiwan-based
Buddhist organizations' globalization efforts. See Chandler, 2005, and
Huang, 2009.
22.
Recent scholarship
also notes that traditional authoritarianism still marks Buddhist
organizations in Taiwan (see Kuo, 16–21).
23.
Japan's influence on
modern Chinese Buddhist activism should not be a new topic among those
who know modern Chinese history and modern Chinese Buddhism well; for
example, see Goldfuss, 1996. Please also refer to note 2
of DeVido's article in this special issue.
24.
Certainly, it is a
gross exaggeration if we say that Engaged Buddhism scholars only focus
on the East-West axis. After all, interaction between well-known
Buddhist activists such as the 14th Dalai Lama, Sulak Sivaraksa, and
Thich Nhat Hanh is well-noted. But attention paid to it cannot match
that to topics of Buddhist-Christian dialogue.
Cited
Sources
Alitto,
Guy, 1986. The Last Confucian: Liang Shu-ming and the Chinese
Dilemma of Modernity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.
Ashina,
Yoshiko, 2009. "Positioning Religion in Modernity: State and
Buddhism in China." Pp. 43-74 in Yoshiko Ashiwa and David Wank (eds.), Making
Religion; Making the State.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Barmé,
Geremie, 2002. An
Artistic Exile: A Life of Feng Zikai 1898–1975. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Bingenheimer,
Marcus, 2007. "Some Remarks on the Usage of Renjian
Fojiao and the Contribution of Venerable Yinshu to Chinese Buddhist
Modernism." Pp. 141-61 in Mutsu Hsu, Jinhua Chen, and Lori Meeks
(eds.), Development and
Practice of Humanitarian Buddhism: Interdisciplinary Perspectives.
Hua-lien, Taiwan: Tzuchi University Press, 2007.
Birnbaum,
Raul, 2003a. "Buddhist China at the Century's Turn," in
The China Quarterly Special Issues New Series
3: 122-44.
_____
2003b. "Master Hongyi Looks Back: A
Modern Man Becomes a Monk in Twentieth-century China." Pp. 75-142 in
Steven Heine and Charles Prebish (eds.), Buddhism
in the Modern World: Adaptation of an Ancient Tradition.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Brook,
Timothy, 2007. Collaboration:
Japanese Agents and Local Elites in Wartime China. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
_____
2009. "The Politics of Religion: Late-Imperial Origins of the
Regulatory State." Pp. 22-42 in Yoshiko Ashino and David Wang (eds.),
Making Religion; Making the State.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Cham
Shan Temple 2008. Haiyin
yifeng 海印遺風(Remembering
Venerable Tanxu). Toronto: Cham Shan Temple.
Chan
Sin-Wai, 1985. Buddhism
in Late Qing Political Thought.
Hong Kong: The Chinese University of Hong Kong Press.
Chandler,
Stuart, 2004.
Establishing a Pure Land on Earth: The Foguang Buddhist Perspective on
Modernization and Globalization. Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i Press.
Chang
Hao, 1971. Liang
Ch'i-ch'ao and Intellectual Transition in China 1890–1907.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
_____
1987. Chinese
Intellectuals in Crisis: Search for Order and Meaning
1890–1911. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Chen
Yung-Fa, 1986. Making
Revolution: The Communist Movement in Eastern and Central China.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Cheng
Wei-Yi. 2006. Buddhists
Nuns in Taiwan and Sri Lanka: A Critique of the Feminist Perspective.
London: Routledge.
Chou
Kai-Ti, 2007. Contemporary
Religious Movements in Taiwan: Rhetorics of Persuasion. Lewiston:
The Edwin Mellen Press.
Chow
Tse-Tsung, 1960. The May
Fourth Movement: Intellectual Revolution in Modern China.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Deitrick,
James, 2003. "Engaged Buddhist Ethics: Mistaking the Boat for
the Shore." Pp. 252-69 in Christopher Queen, Charles Prebish, and
Demian Kewon (eds.), Action
Dharma. London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Devido,
Elise (forthcoming) Taiwan's
Buddhist Nun s. Albany, NY:
SUNY Press.
Dirlik,
Arif, 1989. The
Origins of Chinese Communism.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dong,
Madeleine Yue, 2003. Republican
Beijing: The City and Its Histories. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Fu
Po Shek, 2007. Passivity,
Resistance, and Collaboration: Intellectual Choices in Occupied
Shanghai 1937–1945. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Gimpel,
Denise, 2001.
Lost Voices of Modernity: A Chinese Popular Fiction Magazine in
Context. Honolulu: University
of Hawai'i Press.
Goldfuss,
Gabriele, 1996. "Binding Sutras to Modernity: The Life and
Times of Chinese Layman Yang Wenhui 1837–1911," in Studies
in Central and East Asian Religions
9: 54-74.
Goossaert,
Vincent, 2006. "The Beginning of the End for
Chinese Religion?" in The
Journal of Asian Studies 65.2:
307-36.
Huang,
Julia, 2005. "The Compassion Relief Diaspora." Pp. 185-209 in
Linda Learman (ed.), Buddhist
Missionaries in the Era of Globalization.
Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
_____
2009. Charisma
and Compassion: Cheng Yen and the Buddhist Tzu Chi Movement.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Huang,
Philip, 2008. "In Search of a Chinese Modernity: Wang Hui's The
Rise of Modern Chinese Thought," in Modern
China 34.3: 396-404.
Huters,
Ted, 2008. "Culture, Capital and the Temptations of the
Imagined Market: The Case of the Commercial Press." Pp. [page numbers
missing] in Kai-wing Chow, Tze-ki Hon, Hung-yok Ip, and Don C. Price
(eds.), Beyond the May Fourth
Paradigm: In Search of Chinese Modernity. Lanham:
Lexington Press, 2008.
Jiang
Cantang, 2001. Dangdai
Taiwan renjian fojiao sixiangjia
(Buddhist thinkers in contemporary Taiwan). Taipei: Xin wenfeng chuban
gongsi.
_____
2003. Taiwan
jindai fojiao de biange yu fansi (Modern
Buddhism in Taiwan). Taipei: Dongda tushu gongsi.
Jones,
Charles, 1999. Buddhism
in Taiwan: Religion and the State 1660–1990. Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i Press.
_____
2000. "Buddhism and Marxism in
Taiwan: Lin Qiuwu's Religious Socialism and Its Legacies in Modern
Times," Global Buddhism
website,http://www.globalbuddhism.org/toc.html (accessed March 23,
2008).
_____
2003a. "Buddha One: A
One-Day Buddha-Recitation-Retreat in Contemporary Taiwan." Pp. 264-80
in Richard Payne and Kenneth Tanaka (eds.), Approaching
the Land of Bliss: Religious Praxis in the Cult of Amitabha.
Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
_____
2003b. "Religion in Taiwan at the End
of the Japanese Colonial Period." Pp. 10-36 in Philip Clart and Charles
Jones (eds.), Religion in
Modern Taiwan: Transformation and Innovation in a Changing Society.
Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press.
Judge,
Jones, 2008. The
Precious Raft of History: The Past, the West, and the Woman Question in
China. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
King,
Sally, 2000. "They who burned themselves for Peace: Quaker and
Buddhist Self-immolators during the Vietnam War," in Buddhist-Christian
Studies 20: 127-49.
_____
2005. Being
Benevolence: The Social Ethics of Engaged Buddhism. Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i Press.
Krebs,
Edward, 1998. Shifu:
Soul of Chinese Anarchism. Lanham,
MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Kuo
Cheng-Tian, 2008. Religion
and Democracy in Taiwan. Albany,
NY: State University of New York Press.
Lai,
Whalen, 1992. "Chinese Buddhism and Christian Charity: A
Comparative History," in Buddhist-Christian
Studies 12: 5-33.
Levenson,
J. R., 1953. Liang
Ch'i-ch'ao and the Mind of Modern China.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
_____
1958-65. Confucian
China and Its Modern Fate, vols.
1-3. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Lin
Yu-Sheng, 1979. The Crisis of
Chinese Consciousness: Radical Anti-traditionalism in the May Fourth
Era. Madison: University of
Wisconsin Press.
Madsen,
Richard, 2007. Democracy's
Dharma: Religious Renaissance and Political Development in Taiwan. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
McMahan,
David, 2008. The
Making of Buddhist Modernism.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Meisner,
Maurice, 1967. Li
Ta-chao and the Origins of Chinese Marxism. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Ng,
William Yau-Nang, 2007. "Yin Shun's Interpretations of the Pure
Land," in Journal of Chinese
Philosophy 34, 1: 25-47.
Pittman,
Don, 2001. Toward a
Modern Chinese Buddhism: Taixu's Reform. Honolulu:
University of Hawai'i Press.
Queen,
Christopher & King, Sally, editors, 1996. Engaged
Buddhism: Buddhist Liberation Movements in Asia.
Albany: State University of New York Press.
Queen,
Christopher, editor, 2000. Engaged
Buddhism in the West. Boston:
Wisdom Publications.
Queen,
Christopher; Prebish, Charles; Keown, Damien, editors, 2003. Action
Dharma: New Studies in Engaged Buddhism.
London: RoutledgeCurzon.
Tarocco,
Francesca,
2008. The Cultural Practices
of Modern Chinese Buddhism: Attuning the Dharma. London:
Routledge.
Tuttle,
Gary, 2005. Tibetan
Buddhism in the Making of Modern China.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Wagner,
Rudolf, 2001. "The Canonization of May Fourth." Pp. 66-120 in
Milena Doleželová-Velingerová and Oldřich
Král (eds.), The
Appropriation of Cultural Capital: China's May Fourth Project.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wang,
David Der-Wei, 2007. Fin-de-Siècle
Splendor:
Repressed Modernities of Late Qing Fiction, 1849–1911.
Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Wang
Hui, 2004. Xiandai
Zhongguo sixiang de xingqi (The
rise of modern Chinese thought), vols. 3-4. Beijing: Sanlian shudian.