[Buddha-l] Re: Magic

[Richard Hayes]

On Wednesday 20 June 2007 09:38, Brad Clough wrote:

> While we're on the subject of magic and miracles and people's resistance to
> their presence in Buddhist traditions, I would like to hear about
> influential pieces of scholarship that present Buddhsim as wholly
> rationalist and thus completelty against assertions of the existence of
> supernormal phenomena. 

I think you may have to go all the way back to the 19th century for that. 
Thomas Tweed chronicles several authors in the 1880s who pushed the line that 
Buddhism is rationalistic and anti-superstition; perhaps not coincidentally, 
some Protestants were pushing exactly the same line about "true" 
Christianity. The basic argument was that X is not a religion, because 
religions are full of superstition and X is not. (Let X be whatever the 
author happens to like.) Sydney E. Ahlstrom relates several traditions who 
made such arguments in the 19th century; see his exhaustive (and sometimes 
exhausting) tome <cite>A Religious History of the American People</cite>. In 
Europe, the conservative Calvinist theologian Karl Barth famously made just 
such a case for Protestant Christianity. Catholicism (and, of course, 
Hinduism and Buddhism) is superstition, said Barth; Protestant Christianity 
is simply the truth.

Entirely by coincidence, I just got back from the 2007 seminar in Buddhism at 
Bodhi Manda Zen Center in Jémez Springs, New Mexico (now part of the USA). 
Joshu Sasaki-roshi gave eleven talks (or perhaps one talk eleven times) of 
which a heavily emphasized theme was that Buddhism, and especially Mahayana, 
is most decidedly NOT a religion. Religions are dualistic. Buddhism is truth. 
And the truth is that dualism is false, for truth is one. Joshu-roshi is 100 
years old, and I'm inclined to think some of his perceptions of academic 
trends are about 80 years out of date.
 
> I'm writing a piece that is trying to argue that 
> scholarship has not paid enough attention to supernatural concerns in
> Buddhism because it has been seen as wholly rationalist, and would greatly
> appreciate any feedback.

My impression is that the majority of scholars of Buddhism since Edward Conze 
have dismissed the claim that Buddhism is rationalistic and contrary to 
supernaturalism. Offhand, I can't think of any scholar who downplays the 
supernatural. Perhaps Buddhadasa P. Kirthisinghe and David Kalupahana placed 
a bit too much stress on the empiricist and positivist aspects of Buddhism, 
but I think they are remarkable for being out of step with the majority of 
scholars. 

You might also take a look for some articles by Michel Mohr. He was at the 
aforementioned seminar on Buddhism this year and gave a fascinating talk on 
the extensive influence of Japanese Unitarians in the 1880s and 1890s. It 
turns out that Unitarian missionaries won over several prominent Japanese 
intellectuals during the Meiji period, some of whom became Unitarians 
outright but many of whom remained Buddhists, both Jodo Shinshu and Zenshu. 
Three of the Japanese Buddhists who attended the 1893 World Parliament of 
Religions were big fans of Unitarianism, one of the most famous being D.T. 
Suzuki. Suzuki and Paul Carus famously translated the Daodejing, wherein Dao 
was translated Reason and De was rendered Power, and some of Suzuki's 
presentations on Buddhism play up the reasonable and play down the 
supernatural. But that was some seventy years ago, and it is my impression 
that few scholars of Buddhism since the end of the Second World War have 
followed Suzuki's lead. Indeed, I think the notion of the academic who 
eschews supernatural elements in Buddhism has become a favorite straw man 
among our mentors and peers.

Perhaps I am wrong about this. (I am wrong about most things.) I'll be 
interested to see what you come up with in your investigations.

-- 
Richard Hayes
Department of Philosophy
University of New Mexico