Buddhism for the living

Credit: Bernard Gagnon

“Modern Buddhism without Modernity? Zhaijiao (`Vegetarian Sects´) and the Hidden Genealogy of `Humanistic Buddhism´ in Late Imperial China” is a short but interesting article by Nikolas Broy, published in a 2016 issue of the International Journal for the Study of Chan Buddhism and Human Civilization. Gotta love that name! I admit that I know very little about the subject-matter, but some opinionating is nevertheless in order…

Apparently, Humanistic Buddhism is the name given to modernist Buddhism in China. More specifically, we´re talking about reform currents in Buddhism associated with the Kuomintang (KMT) and their project of modern nation-building. Humanistic Buddhism is usually associated with Venerable Taixu and his disciples, such as Xingyun and Yinshun. These brought Taixu´s form of Buddhist modernism to Taiwan, and from there spread it internationally. Often called “Buddhism in the human realm” and sometimes “Buddhism for the living” (as opposed to the traditional function of Buddhist monks as organizers of rituals for the benefit of the deceased), this movement emphasizes this-worldly social reform, altruism, joyfulness, and spiritual transformation through “interior” means rather than “magic” or ritual. Interestingly, they reject “ghosts and gods”, strongly emphasizing that the Buddha and the Bodhisattvas were human. 

Humanistic Buddhism claims that this was the original message of the Buddha himself. There are obvious parallels between Humanistic Buddhism in China and Taiwan and other forms of Buddhist modernism in Siam, Japan or Ceylon. The somewhat awkward phrase “Protestant Buddhism” has often been applied to modernist reform Buddhism on Ceylon. Naturally, historians take the position that Buddhist modernism, which emerged during the 19^th century, is the result of Western (and indeed modern) influence.

Broy has a different perspective. He believes that movements strikingly similar to Humanistic Buddhism existed already during the 16^th century and were introduced to Taiwan during the 18^th century. Thus, “modern” Buddhism is a native feature of the Chinese intellectual landscape. The movements in question are sometimes called Vegetarian Sects. The one Broy concentrates on is called Longhuapai or the Dragon Flower Sect. Apparently, there is some contention concerning whether or not these sects are properly Buddhist at all, but that seems to be a typical scholarly concern of little bearing on their actual historical role. The author dubs them examples of “popular non-monastic Buddhism”. On modern Taiwan, the Vegetarian Sects are apparently referred to as “popular lay Buddhism” (as opposed to a more orthodox form of lay Buddhism). The teachings of the Dragon Flower Sect were first introduced by a certain Patriarch Luo during the early 16^th century. Two other important leaders of the sect were named Ying and Yao, both believed to be reincarnations of Luo.

Judging by Broy´s description, Luo and his “reincarnations” were radically iconoclastic. They rejected essentially all rituals, sacrifices, chants and cult statues. Burning of paper money? Forget it! Instead, spirituality was interiorized. Only through the mind can we reach “the three numinous mountains”, presumably a symbol for enlightenment. Interestingly, the Dragon Flower Sect also rejected belief in “ghosts and gods”. Some factions even opposed ancestor worship. The alternative to rituals was to live according to a strictly ethical code of conduct, and hence “think of the Buddha” all the time, every day. Supporters of the sect abstained from alcohol, tobacco, drugs, gambling and illicit sexual relationships. Graveness and wholeheartedness were considered virtues. 

Social engagement in the world was another important virtue. Adherents of the sect built bridges, repaired roads, provided food and shelter for the poor, and conducted proper burials of crime victims who lacked relatives. Apparently, the sect still carries out philanthropic activities in Taiwan today. It´s interesting to note that a 1932 book published in Taiwan calls the teachings of the Vegetarian Sects “Buddhism for the living people”, which sounds almost like Venerable Taixu´s “Buddhism for the living”. Indeed, Taixu himself visited several Dragon Flower temples in Taiwan in 1917.

Other similarities between the old sect and the new Humanistic Buddhism include the idea that Buddhism has degenerated from its original pure and pristine form. Indeed, Luo and his disciples seem to have been even more radical, entirely rejecting the sangha and calling themselves “the true sangha with hair” (as opposed to the bald-headed monks and nuns). All members of the sect were supposed to provide for themselves by pursuing a profession, rather than rely on alms. Luo is supposed to have rediscovered the true teachings of the Buddha and Chan (Zen) Buddhism, claiming an ideological connection to the controversial Chan patriarch Huineng. The author never explains this further, but according to all-knowing Wikipedia Huineng was a poor and illiterate vagrant barbarian who received the dharma through mind-transfer from the previous patriarch! That does sound pretty heterodox or “Protestant”, if you ask me…

Broy´s point, of course, is that modern Buddhism isn´t simply the result of Western colonial influence on stagnant Asiatic cultures, but that something similar existed already before colonization. But is this really true? And if so, how is it true? Haven´t there always been iconoclastic, interiorizing and “individualist” religious reform movements? In the same way, haven´t there always been movements emphasizing ethics and philanthropy rather than ritual and magic? And all these movements claim to simply “go back” to the original message of their respective religion. There were proto-Protestants centuries before the Protestant Reformation. There are also weird similarities between the Reformation and developments in East Asia. In Japan, Pure Land Buddhism (which is very “Protestant”) was associated with peasant rebels during the Late Middle Ages! Compare how popular rebellions in Europe were associated with proto-Protestants or Protestants. What I question is whether this can be seen as some kind of proto-modernization or crypto-modernization. 

A more likely scenario is that modernization really did come from the outside and heavily impacted Buddhism, and that certain heterodox groups from an earlier period took advantage of the situation. Indeed, something similar probably happened even in Europe. The Reformation and modernization were “elite” projects, but radical popular movements could use them for their own ends (compare Thomas Müntzer during the Great Peasants´ War). But without the “elite” input, modernization probably wouldn´t have happened at all, neither in Europe nor in Asia, the peasants being contented with simply killing the landlords...

With that reflection, I end this review.