[Buddha-l] Spread of Buddhism

[Franz Metcalf]

Michel et al.,

Michel Clasquin wondered,

> (Anybody know what happened to Walters?)

Jon Walters is a tenured professor of religion at Whitman College, an 
elite liberal arts college in Walla Walla Washington (such a pleasure 
even to type that name). He's doing alright, I'd say (despite his evil 
karma for setting your dissertation back so much). I knew Jon a bit (he 
was a few years ahead of me at the University of Chicago) and he's one 
smart cookie. A canvasser for California Peace Action came by my home, 
recently, to snag some money for lost causes and we got to talking. 
Walters was her advisor at Whitman and she says he's just the best 
teacher and the nicest guy (again, sorry Michel).

But let me make up with you by commenting on your (and Jon's, oops) 
idea that efforts toward the spread of Buddhism were just not the same 
as missionizing efforts in the Christian context (at least until the 
rise of "Protestant Buddhism" and its parallels in Japan). You wrote,

> Now [lack of doctrinal congruence] did not stop Buddhism from moving 
> into other areas with very different traditions of their own, but 
> patronage, either royal (eg Tibet, Japan) or by a prosperous trading 
> class (China) had a lot to do with that. No patronage, no spread of 
> Buddhism.

This seems right to me and it set me thinking: who are the patrons of 
Buddhism here in "the West" (wherever that is)? I don't know about 
South Africa, but in the United States the patrons of Buddhism are 
mostly not the economic elite (who have functioned as patrons in past 
ages), but the cultural elite. That is, Buddhism, and in particular, 
individual Buddhists have been lionized, feted, and supported by masses 
of doting, over-educated, sincere, and often naively idealistic 
followers (myself included). But where these folks tend to have less 
economic capital than prior patrons, they have equal or greater 
cultural capital. Thus Buddhism gets astoundingly good press in 
America; is appropriated to an absurd amount in the media (e.g., in 
advertising); is absorbed into the arts and therapies at the highest 
levels; and enjoys a kind of cultural prestige no other religion even 
approximates. While I think the side-effects of this are generally 
excellent for America (which needs them), I wonder how good this is for 
Buddhism itself--especially as the forms of Buddhism with high exposure 
and prestige tend to be "convert" Buddhisms and not "ethnic" Buddhisms.

Still, would I prefer the opposite situation? No.

Best,

Franz Metcalf