Encyclopedia of Buddhism Volume One A -L Robert E. Buswell

M ODERNITY AND B UDDHISM
tiation has involved less a movement away from religion
than the coming into being of two separate domains,
the religious and the secular.
Concepts of modernity and causality
The concept of modernity has been used in a Buddhist
context, mainly when studying reform movements of
the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The concept of
modernity has not been used, however, when studying
the emergence of the movement or the characteristics
of the dharma. The main reason for this has to
do with the assumption that although the time of
modernity’s birth may be uncertain, its place of birth,
the West, is certain. Against this view it is worth considering
whether instead of thinking in terms of one
modernity, one should think in terms of multiple
modernities. Thinking in terms of multiple modernities
forces us to consider the differences between a
modernity that combines heightened reflexivity and
technological development, as in the West since at least
the seventeenth century, and a modernity understood
mainly in cultural terms. This means that even as we
seek to identify the constitutive elements of modernity,
we must keep in mind that those characteristics are not
found all at once. For example, in the world in which
Buddhism appeared there was no technological equivalent
to the Buddha’s concern with causality. On the
other hand, as we shall see below, one can establish a
correlation between the Buddhist analysis of reality in
terms of dharmas and the use of coins in northern India
in the sixth century B.C.E.
Causality is present at the beginning of Buddhism,
when, according to the Mahatanhasankhaya-sutta of
the Majjhimanikaya, the Buddha teaches: “When this
exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that
arises.” Causality is similarly present as the principle
that underlies the relation among the FOUR NOBLE
TRUTHS: DUH KHA (SUFFERING), the cause of suffering,
the cessation of suffering, and the PATH that leads to
that cessation. The counterpart of a causal chain whose
components can be identified is a conception of the
world based on the principle of correlation, a conception
in which various aspects of reality resonate with
each other, allowing those who can manipulate such
correlations to claim special rights and powers for
themselves. The Buddha rejected such an organic understanding
of society, which was exemplified by the
brahmins’ claims to have been born from the mouth
of the primordial being, Purusa. According to the
Assalayana-sutta of the Majjhimanikaya, the Buddha
ridiculed those claims, pointing out that brahmin
women give birth just like everybody else. This issue is
related to the contrast between the Buddhist and the
traditional Indian understanding of language. While
the former regards the connection between words and
reality as arbitrary, so that words are understood as labels,
the latter, being a “sonic” view of reality, regards
the connection between words and reality as involving
an intrinsic connection between the very sound of
words and the things named by them.
It is this assumption of a nonarbitrary connection
between words and things that underlies the belief in
the efficacy of RITUAL and of practices generally labeled
as magic. It is worth noticing in this regard the Buddha’s
refusal to be considered a magician in the sense
of being a mayavin, a possessor of maya (understood
in this context as “fraud” or “deceit”)—this, despite
the fact that he was believed to possess supernatural or
magic powers (rddhi) and was known as daśabala (endowed
with ten powers). The Buddhist rejection of the
ritual powers claimed by brahmins and by priests in
general is still present today, for, at least in theory, Buddhist
monks are not supposed to have sacramental
powers analogous to those that depend on a person’s
birth or those that Catholic priests claim to have obtained
through ordination. The distance established
between monks and sacramental powers is further
demonstrated by the fact that the return of monks to
lay status is common, especially in Southeast Asia. It
is true that throughout the Buddhist world, including
Sri Lanka and southeast Asia, monks engage in ritual
practices, such as the paritta ceremony, the selling of
AMULETS AND TALISMANS, and the preparation of astrological
charts, love philters, and the like. But it is
also true that when seeking to return to a scripturallybased
religion, Buddhist reform movements have been
able to find canonical support for the rejection of what
reformers considered superstitious practices.
Subjectivity and intentionality
The condemnation or at least mistrust of ritual practices,
especially of the wasteful expenditures associated
with them, has been central to attempts at modernization.
Equally important have been efforts to move
religious practices away from the material world and
toward a spiritual realm, a realm that has frequently
been equated with the domain of morality. All these
processes are ultimately linked to an emphasis on subjectivity,
will, and intentionality. We encounter all of
them in Buddhism, long before they became the preoccupation
of medieval Christians. We find an early
example when the Buddha advises Sigalaka to engage
E NCYCLOPEDIA OF B UDDHISM
545